Life — August 25, 1927 — page 21: what you’re looking at

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

Fraud! Fraud! ANDING on the threshold of the new season (next week's issue will contain the first authenticated re- views of the dramatic year 19 , together with a complete new set of agraph dividers designed and executed by Mr. Herb Roth. We had got pretty sick of the old ones and guess you had, too)—standing on the threshold of the new season let us look around us and take stock of the moral and wsthetic values involved. Or, at any rate, let us look around. We hope that this doesn’t turn out to be another review and summary of the past season. We've donc that once already. agp BU before we get into the serious side of our essay, we must announce with considerable chagrin that, in a recent poll taken among the theatrical stars now playing in town as to who of the metropolitan critics was the most “discriminating” and “stimulating,” this depart- ment ran second, by two votes, to Alexander \V ott of the New York World, This is ve: it y humiliating. We should have preferred, if we couldn't actually win the gold-headed walking-stick, to come in last in a contest won by Mr. Woollcott. The fact that there are only two votes’ difference between him and this department is rather terrifying. Furthermore, he will be insuffer- able with a gold-headed walking-stick. THE more we think about this thing, the more excited we get. Mr. Woollcott claims to have been out of town during the voting. We have every reason to believe that he was right here on the spot, with a gang of plug-uglies, not only canvassing for votes but actually intimidating voters. We are informed that Mr. Wooll- cott was seen in the Lambs Club, disguised as with his sleeves bulging with money, weaving i among the members and whispering threats in the ears of those who were men enough to resist his gold. We are prepared to go on the stand and prove that this so- called gold-headed cane cast Mr. Alexander Woollcott between $17,000 and $20,000. ALTHOUGH the poll was carried on under the uspices of a thoroughly reputable organization— the Grand Street Follies—there is no lack of eviden to support our contention of actual fraud. Mr. Albert Carroll, the protean star of the Grand Street has told us that the ballot boxes were not always under strict surveil, —that the watchers at the polls some- times went out ta lunch, leaving the boxes with their Follies, precious freight more or less unguarded. We have affi- davits from three disinterested citizens stating that they saw suspicious-lévking ba d by the New Work World for its waterfront work, the stage door of the Little Theatre on three successive days at lunch-time. We have already filed our petition for a recount, and if this is denied, we shall take the matter to the Supreme Court. Justices Holmes and Brandeis are both Harvard STANDING on the threshold of a new season let us ‘~ look around and take stock. Just one word more about this poll. It isn’t that we wanted the gold-headed cane. We wouldn't have used it if we had won it. It is simply that we hate to see the American people hoodwinked As a matter of fact, we are rather glad that we didn’t win, It would have placed us under a certain obligation to those conse sees, of the type em atering men. actors and actresses who voted for us, and un sly we might have been led to swerve ever so slightly from the almost cold-blooded integrity of our traditional position. nt. We are going to look up and sce who the stars were who voted for Woolleott—we have it—and when next they open in New Now we are a free a 1 way of fi York we sl" allow no con siderations of humanity to enter in r judgment. We shall be fair — scrupulously fair —but when we are through with them, they will know that they have been in a poll, the shortsighted syeophants! WE didn’t see all of the revue put on at the Selwyn Theatre under the name of “The Manhatters,” but what we did see struck us as being exceptionally good Before giving a detailed report, however, we 1 that we ought to see it No pseudo-amat revue brought up from Grove Street could have been as good We were probably in the as we thought this one was. mood to be pleased at anything. Which leaves us just 4 few more lines in which to close our side of this unpleasant case in re the gold headed walking-stick We have given considerabl thonght to the words “discriminating” and “stimulating, and have decided to let the whole matter drop. We con gratulate Mr. Woollcott on his victory and assure him that we will do everything in our power to make his possession of the walking-stick a happy one, ‘Stimulat ing” indeed! “Discriminating” pah! Robert Benchley. comicbooks.com