New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1871-04-18
y1yAGERS md CRiTTCS.

Mr.. Edwin Booth, or his agent, ha"c IhiS-
take the other day for which he ~ now
undoubtedly sorry. Two persons connected
with small weekly paper that has acquired
some notOIiciy by elaborate and persistent
attacks upon Mr.. Booth and bis actihs'
were refused admission to his thea
ter, although they bought or offered TO Ouy'
tickets. This not only gave fictitious co'Sc-
nucnce TO the obnoxious criticisms, and con-
viewed the impression Gan erroneous one, we
are couyinccD that Mr. Booth was unwilling
TO submit 10 free examination OF ms pfoies-
sicnol merits. but it was clear violation OF
the law. 1t may be true, "a the manager
saws, that it was not crit cism Dut per-
sonal abuse which moved his resent
mcnt; it may be true that his agent
REGARDED one Of the excluded Journalists ~
unfit company for the patrons Of reputable
thratcr; nevertheless, all persons have an equal
fiaht 10 enter place of public amusement on
having thc price, and to stay there as long as
tney behave themselves properly. Their pri-
vate character is none OF the managers pusl-
ness. THIS principle has been settled again ana
again by the courts and every manager VINO mas
attcmpled TO ignore it has been worstcd.
There are critics who disgrace their calling,
PARASITES of art who poison and delorn the
profession to which they cling, base creatures
who arc the curse of journalism even more
tLan they are the curse of the studio and
the stage; and knowing how an honest man
loatbcs the sight of such creatures we can
sympathizc with the agGrievcd actor who slams
the door in their face and refuses their dirty
dollar. Whether Mr. Booth has been wounded
E i rl,afu nd
but legitimate criticism, we shall not stop to
INQUIRE, because it is not to the purpose. The
rule is plain he can keep nobody out of his
theater who pays for ticket and preserves an
outward dccorum.
We suspect that the forgotfulness Of this
rule into which managers are now and then
betrayed, is owing in a great degree to the
peculiar relations which have always existed
between the stage and the press, and against
which We lave many time reconstructed 1t
is generally taken for granted that the critic
is entitled to certain "cOuresics" which are
not extended TO the general public. lie is to
be admitted free to all performances. lie Is
to have the choicest seats He is privileged
TO ask admission for his friends. Nay, in
provincial towns, and to some extent i'll New
York also, almost the whole staff of a news
paper, from the editor down TO the Office
boy, shares in the privileges of the press"
What wonder is it that there should grow up
in the mind of the manager a vague impress
sion that the press owes him privileges in re-
tum7 What wonder that the critic who lashes
the actor, or the play, or the policy of the
thcater, should be regarded as an outlaw, who
has broken sort OF compact, and stung the
hand that fed him, and done all manner of
infamous and ungrateful deeds, and who is to
be shut out of decent society accordingly
We shall rejoice to see the time, which i'll the
progress of journalism must soon come, when
the leading papers of NewYork will agree to
accept no favOrs from the theaters, and
bestow no favors either. In that new era
Of common sense the critic and the editor
will buy their tickets as they want them. They
will see no managers or agents face; and they
nouncemcnts of any performance, or to criticiSe
what is not worth criticism, or to be sparing
in their censure or cxravagant in their praise.
We shall be relieved then from such shameful
exhibitions as we have repeatedly witnessed
of latc-brazen incompetency pulled without
stint by critics of real dscernment and ability;
and merit of the very highest character
scourged by the same hands for the reason,
openly avowed, that the press had not re-
ccivcd "the usual courteses." Until this state
of things is reformed, we must expect scandals.
Until the leading newspapers agree in the
enforcement of new and sOunder rule in
their dealings with theatcrs, journalism will
be infested, as it is now, by scribblers with
out conscience, who degrade criticism to q
trade, and make puilery means of livelihood.
The real honest critics of New-York can be
counted on ones fingers Editors know pretty
well who they are and if tho absurd and
dcmoralizing privileges of the press" were
swept away, the public would soon know where
to look for them too