Life — September 6, 1906 — page 4: what you’re looking at

Machine-transcribed from the original scan — historical spelling and the odd misread are preserved.

Emperor William of Germany M. the King of Italy .M. the King of Spaia) |. R.H. the Princess Lactina |. R.H. the Prince d’Udine |. R. H, the Duke of Orleans |. H. the Prince Hasswn | H, the Maharajah of Pendjab PATRONIZED BY HM. Queen Marguerite of Italy H.R. H. the Prince of Wales H. M. the Queen of Portugal H.R. H. the Countof Turia H. H. the Duke of Parma 1H. H. the Maharaj H. H. the Maharajah of Mysore The President of Switzerland of Gwabee I. H. the Maharaish of Holker HH. the Dube of Aca ‘The President of the Swiss Republic tHE HOL-TAN ©o. BROADWAY AND 5éth STREET. NEW YORK SOLE AMERICAN AGENTS Agencies: HARRY FOSDICK CO., Boston Livensed Importers Under Selden Patents H. ALLEN DALLEY, Philadelphia, Pa. 1s magalficent porta lithographed in Beeadenton heaey Bretel Board, to 14, ‘Sent postyaid to any $ ae C A Men,’ MAGAZINE, * "SSS" CRRISTMAS @ GIFTS @ To insure delive of Design Plate ad Prints, orders for Book PLATES must be placed not Jater than Sept.15t8 6.B.BIRD. 27 School St: Boston. CONCERNING A RECENT DECISION ROM a vast number of comments on the recent curious opinion delivered by the Appellate Division in the matter of Lire’s critic gainst the Theatrical Trust, the following an selected as showing Cifferent views the de called forth: Unbiased Telegraphic Service The hand of the press agent is very apparent ig the somewhat flamboyant special dispatch from New York announcing that James S. Metcalfe, the theatrical critic of Lire, “lost his fight against the Theater Managers + when the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court decided that the managers committed no crime in excluding Metcalfe from their theaters,” and more especialy in this unwarrantable and asinine editorial comment included in the dispatch The decision is a com- plete triumph for the managers, with corresponding defeat for critics like Met who believe them. selves entitled to go to any lengths in their condem- nation of productions that displease them, whether their animus arises from personal prejudice against the producer or a dislike for the playwright or actor: Of course, Mr. Metcalfe has not lost his fight and will not have lost it until the Court of Appeals has confirmed the decision of the Appellate Division, which the Court of Appeals, so far as the Democrat and Chronicle can sce, isn't in the least likely to do. So much of it as holds that, for this reason, managers are entitled to conspire together to injure en in his business and reputation, the Deno. erat and Chronicle holds to be ridiculously bad law, and shall continue to do so until it is advised to the contrary by the Court of Appeals. The editorial comment included in the special dispateh is utterly silly and maliciously false. Tb decision is not a “complete triumph for the mana gers” for rea: Iready stated. The case isn’t owt yet. Nor isit “a corresponding defeat for critics like Metcalfe, who believe themselves entitled to go to any lengths in their condemnation of productic: that displease them, whether their animus arises from personal prejudice against the producer or a dislike for the playwright or actor.” In the first place, neither Mr. Metcalfe nor any other criticev d anything of the sort, and, had any s { existed among criti ere is nothing in this ion of the Appellate Di y decision has nothing whatever to do with the rights of critics. No critic has and no critic ever thought he had a right to “roast” a production because of anything but its own badness, but every critic has a right to say in the plainest and most emphatic English at his command just how good or just how worthless and bad he hone: thinks a productioa to be, without the slightest regard to the feelings or the business interests of any one concerned. Thatis what he is for. That will be his right and his duty, so long as dramatic criticism continues to exist, and all the managers and all the courts there are can’t alter the situation. Managers scem to forget the real gist of this con troversy, which is the fact that the newspapers can get along without dramatic criticism a good deal better than the managers can. Morcover, the news- papers thoroughly appreciate this fact, even if the managers don't.—Rochester Democrat and Chronide ‘ The Real Reason The Theatrical Trust has at last gained a victory and it is safe to say that the public will miss many delightful criticisms from the pen of Jam Met- calf: next season. Nevertheless, the fact that be is kept out will give the public a fair idea of what kind show is going ong The trust still desires bis s, although they fear his censures, —Troy Mr. M the by more ef the otf ‘or those og pu alse of teen eli comicbooks.com