Show TILE Tl THEATRE AXI AXI TILE THE TiE PUrI PUBLIC IC Indianapolis News News Last week the Appellate division of oC the New York j Supreme court decided th the Inana man man- man manager 5 a ager er of a theatre had the right to ex exclude cx- cx clude elude any anyone one from his playhouse the tho court apparently holding that the S matter mater was entirely within the managers manager's managers manager's managers manager's man man- agers ager's discretion that that discretIon that is that If I the reason was satisfactory to him that was enough enouch The case cas was that of 3 5 James Jamos S. S Metcalfe the dramatic critic of Life Lie who had hae offended the theatre people b by tho the severity so of his Metcalfe swore out warrants against 4 S thirty six sl mana managers cn charging them with wih having ent entered Into a conspiracy y to keep him him out of public theatres and to deprive him of a chance to mal make o oD S a D living at tho the only trade trado he ho knows knows S t There Thero seems ems to have havo been a n particular particularS statute on which the critic to some somo 1 extent rolled that relied that that 1 In I. One ne forbidding an any ono one to deprive another of or tho the 1 chance to make mako a living But Bul the S fundamental question wan waa whether a aS S theatre Is a public place to which an any I o P OI not objectionable to other othel at attendant at- at must bo ho admitted The he court hol holds B that It i 1 Is 18 not such luch a place but that tho the owner or manager has ha a arl rl ht to admit admi or exclude whom hom he ho hoS S pl pleases 5 It I It i said sId Id that that court followed fol fol- fol- fol lowed recent d decision very sery r closely n it of ot tho the Court of Appeals In which It Il Itis itis l is hold that a theatre is ii a n. place which tho tilo proprietor mD may open or close coe as ashe ho he pleases and ane to which ho lie can ad adS admit admit nd- nd S mit whomsoever ho 10 chooses This latter lat tat ter C case O that tha of oC Col tel vs Hayman laman Involved tho question of ot the rl right ht or of theatre managers mannge to refute refuse retus to accept tickets bought on tho lie sidewalk and It I was vas d decided that thal a n condition to that effect printed on the back of oC a ticket was waa not against public policy S Tho The question recently Tt o M-o e In Pennsylvania Penn sylvania In the case ce of C Hor Homey vs Nixon Nion in which It I was held that a aright aright aright right o of action for for for Cor failure to provide the tIme seat leat called cle to for I b by a theatre ticket did cle not exist the tho court taking the ground that the that the owner of or ofa ora a a Is 18 under easier no Implied obligation obliga tion ton to servo 10 the public and anc that f. f the only fly remedy Is for Cor forS S breach of oC contract These Theo decisions 5 will wI be bo be ore SQ blow to those thoe who look on the theatre OH as n a 0 great public institution sustaining a vital vial relation to tho the life UCo of t the people Even the theatre mon men thom thoms themselves will wi we think unit that their bu business will wi lose dignity dig dig- S If J if Indeed It over had any from any from L thes rulings Th The relation which th tho I co courts rt seem scent sem to think Is I. the true true one is 18 In effect that hint of oC host and guest It I Is 11 tru true you ou r pay to for I your our ticket ticket ticket- for or your 01 entertainment entertainment but but after all al you are only present at the show how b by virtue of ot the toleration of your our host host He lie Ic must pass on your our tons We c doubt whether the thc decision will 1 have any serious effect on criticism and for tor two reasons In the first frt place there Is Js very cry little dramatic criticism criticism crit- crit cism that amounts to anything I nl and andin in the second place there thore are art comparatively com corn few row performances that are arc important enough to 10 merit serious criticism We Ve have ha all al of at us in our opinion given m to the theatre an Importance Im Im- irn- irn which It does not deserve Now that w we find that the business Is purely a private ono one it ma may be that we shall Ihal learn In iii time to treat it I as a such Columns have haw been written on ho tho theory that the theatre was an Institution in which the thc public had a legitimate Interest Interest Now we learn that it Is no rio such thing for the managers ma may choose their public ma may exclude from it I such portions of at the public as a the they please ma may Indeed exclude the whole public Yet there Is place for tor criticism of or a certain sort For Forthe Forthe Forthe the newspapers owe a dut duty to tho the public pub pub- lie lic lc even en If It the theatres do not It I is or ought to be their business to tell tel tho the people honest honestly about the pia plays that are offered so that the they may know whether or not the they are worth spending mone money on As s a result resul of or these decisions we fear that this dut duty will wi be even less les coura courageously performed per per- performed formed ormed than In the past for the critic will iii wi always fear that he may be he excluded cx- cx ex ex- eluded chided anti and ant so may not be able ble to tell tel the thc people anything Yet Yel it Is to be said mid that Mr Metcalfe j I might have havo told the truth as he ho wI saw w It I and have told It I In such a wa way as asto asto asto to give Ie his renders readers reader all al the Information they needed without subjecting himself himself him him- self to the penalty Imposed on him For excellent as ns his work worl was it i did have a n bitter and almost personal note that could coul casl easily have been spared There was also too much made mado of tho the fact that the managers of ot the tIme theatrical trust are arc Je Jews Honest critics will wH find a way to tell tel the truth about the plays and we wo doubt douht whether the managers themselves will vIli wi care 4 to pursue their advantage an any further Thc They have won a n victory but it Is only at the cost of having having their bl business declared a n mere mero private affair affair af nf- af- af fair with wih which the public publIc publIc-as as as the public public has has has no special concern It I must be admitted that many of thorn them have haye for fOI years ear acted on that theory |