Life — September 6, 1906 — page 8: what you’re looking at

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

{OM the artistic standpoint, the Chickering Piano occupies the proudest po- sition of all pianos in the world. @, BECAUSE of its artistic merit it super- seded all others years before any of the American pianos now manufactured were established. @. BECAUSE it's the only American piano of its time now living, and BECAUSE it stands to-day the recognized representative of the highest development in artistic and scientific piano-building. 1, Its position was not gained and is not maintained by purchased influence. Est. 1823. Catalogue upon request CHICKERING & SONS, 796 Tremont St., Fenway Station, BOSTON ' The Collver Tours ROUND THE WORLD are away-from-the-umal, Route includes Siam, Java, Burma, Egypt, North and South India, Ceylon, Manila, China’ (including Yangtse River, Hankow and Pekin), Manchuria, Korea, Japan end Hono- lulu. Send'for details and enthasiastic letters from mem- bbers of our past season's tours. THE COLLVER TOURS COMPANY have the only Tourist Offices in JAPAN ‘Woite for details of Tour K, explaining our original idea in tavel for that fascinating land Personal Escort for Independent Travellers JAPAN—70 Days, $600. South American Tour February Sth 368 Boylston Street, Boston, Mass. A bright day, a well filled hamper, and @ generous supply of EVANS’ ALE are all that’s required for a good time and a jolly picnic Evans’ Ale is the ideal beverage for an outing. Any dealer Anywhere will supply you. Sees the Absurdity ‘This legal idea that theaters are absolutely private property was doubtless sound enough in the earlier days of dramatic representation, when the question was first so decided in this country. But since that time the theater has become charged with a public use, Like the hotel and the restaurant, it is thrown open by its proprietors to all comers who comply with terms which are prescribed equally for all, and an agreement to serve is thereby implied. To allow managers to exclude, by way of personal di: tion, any of the public to which they thus open their doors is to exempt theaters alone from the responsi- bilities attaching to most if not all other businesses, which are charged by their proprictors with a public use. In the Metcalfe case there is still another con- sideration. Inasmuch as several managers con- spired to exclude Mr. Metcalfe from all the theaters. nted, a question of conspiracy as well as invol In an English case, ided that any spectator heater may freely express disapproval by hissing, and, consequently, that the whole audience may do so; but that a conspiracy to hiss for the pur- pose of personal injury would not be tolerated. ing that precedent to Mr. Metcalfe, it might ¢ said that even if the theaters could lawiully exclude him at will, cach for reasons of its own, they could not conspire to exclude him pursuant to a general purpose to injure him. But, the broad ground of criticism of the New York decision is its treatment of a place of business, so notably of a public character as the theater, as if it were a purely private and personal place like the front yard of a cottage. —Chicago Public. The Natural Result On the strength of the decision a manager who did not like the opinions of certain dramatic critics might have them excluded from their theaters at any time, so that the public would read nothing that was not favorable to their productions.—Editor and Publisher. Hard on the Public According to the decision there must be specifi law in New York to cover such a point. For i stance, New York has an “equal rights” law, which makes it a penalty for a hotel man, restau- rant keeper, saloonist or the conductor of any busi- ness house to refuse the patronage of negroes because of their color. It seems that there is no such equal rights law in regard to critics attending theaters. How the case would result the critic a negro is a topic which would furnish food for interesting speculation. ‘This decision, however, applies only to the of New York. In other States decisions have been made on both sides. In some the theater is held to be a licensed house of public entertainment to which no person of good character and the price can be denied admission. In others the New York view of the subject is taken. So New York furnishes no precedent. rom the public standpoint, it is unfortunate that critics can be debarred from New York theate' because their writings don’t please the managers. It will be harder than ever now to find the truth about the productions in the public prints, for it is plain tnat the truth-teller will soon come under the ban.—Wheeling (WW. Va.) News. How About the Shuberts and Belasco ? A theater is not, declares the court, a public house and the proprietor of a theater has the right to refuse admission to anybody whose presence is offensive or undesirable. That Mr. Metcalfe has chosen to make himself cbjectionable to all managers who happen to be Jews is a notorious fact.—American Hebrew. “roe Abe SDATED wry: propri comicbooks.com