The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-12-24


me and at the other theaters Long experience
has demonstrated beyond doubt that it is better
for all concerned that good performances sL ould
be commented and bad performances con-
demned. In support of this assertion that the
Times has misrepresented this matter, desire
to make the following explicit, definite state
ments:
L No person connected with the Grand Or
era-house ever asked to write a criticism Of a
performance for the Times; no such person ever
did write one and consequently the Times never
had an opportunity to refuse, as it says it has
done, to print criticism written by an attache
of the theater.
2 No person connected with the Grand Op-
era-house ever attempted to dictate to the Times
what should or should not be written about per-
formances at the theater.
All have ever asked is fair and impartial crit
icisms, which l certainly had right to receive
cannot imagine more foolish and unbusipess-
like policy than to attempt to control the opln-
ions of the city papers theatrical matters, and
the reputable and honest papers of the city will
testify tothe fact that have made such effort
The business of the Grand's advertising man is
to advertise attractions before they appear leav-
ing the work of criticising the performances to
the gentlemen of the press, whose business it is
Every preliminary announcement of attractions
made by the theater are given directly to the
amusement men themselves and they can either
print them or refuse to, as they see fit.
The Illness unfavorable comments on the
theater are due to the fact that I refuse to give
them any advertising, except small amount,
which an old contract compels me to pay for,
and because took up their passes, and for doing
these things, l had the following reasons:
l. The paper continually and maliciously
misrepresented attractions at the Grand, and l
did not care to continue business relations with
paper that would not accord me fair treatment.
2 l was not willing to be furthor imposed
upon by the Times in the matter of free passes,
as it demanded more passes than all the other
papers III the city combined for every attraction
that appeared at the theater.
g. And most important of all, because the
Times secured my advertising patronage by q
gross Misrepresentation of its circulation. and in
connection with this / desire to make the follow
ing statement of facts: When the contract was
made they represented and insisted that the
Times had larger circulation in the city than
any paper except the News; that its total daily
circulation was 1000. of which $500 was in In
dianapolis. l went to the trouble to find out
whether or not this was true, and ascertained
that it very gross eXaggeration; in fact,
that its city circulation was not half that much,
which am prepared to prove.
Last week each day the Timess carriers de-
livered l678 copies Of the paper THOR names,
follows:
North side of the city, the dividing line being
Market street
Oscar Wright, North Pennsylvania and Della
ware Streets 134 papers.
Charles Bray, Massachusetts, and College ave-
nues I18.
William Mason, Meridian Illinois and Tennes-
see streets, It's.
Charles Brown, Mississippi street and West,
1873.
Walter Helm. between East Market and Mich
igan streets, l06.
William Covert, between West Market and
Michigan streets, 96,
South side
John Hignbotham, South MERRIAM street, to
Kentucky avenue, 118.
Gus Billings, Virginia avenue, 1873.
Harry DeWolf Fletcher avenue, 7S.
James Goode, East Washing street. 121
- Wilson, West Washington street. 128
James Sulgroye Kentucky avenue and West,
78
Total city circulation by carriers, 1,679.
In addition to this the Times delivers each day
and takes back what are not sold, 20 paper at
tine Bates House, Is at the Denison, 10 at the
Occidental, from IL to Is at the Grand and En-
glish Hotels, or at the very highest estimate 100
papers at the news stands. The street circula-
ton does not exceed so, making it's total circula-
ton in the city 1928. instead of T. 500 which they
guarantee the basis for their advertising con-
tracts. These figures are exactly correct, and
can be substaniiated; and with this limited cir
culation in view showing the worthlessness of
the Times as an advertising medium, I did not
care to spend money with it.
Another thing: found out that the Times dis
eliminated with its advertising patrons that is,
it had no regular fixed prices, but charged what
ever it could get; in numerous cases giving ad
vertisers big display and a local write up"
free of charge if they would agree to take the
regular space in the daily. paid them very
high price for space, for that paper; and they
exacted it because they probably thought they
could compel place of amusement to pay it,
while other business men got almost any rates
they felt like paying. Some got it as low as
eight cents square, and others, who did not
know how the paper was conducted were
mulcted into paying forty Or fifty cents a square
for space no more valuable. And it is on such
business principles as these that the Times is
managed!
Now for their alleged "criticisms" Early in
the season l attributed their uniform, unfair
character to the evident lack of Judgment abb
ity and experience of their amusement man.
Afterward, however, it became apparent that
they did not intend to do my theater justice, and
in proof of this more instances can be cited than
the limits of this article will admit. One or two
will answer. An exceedingly unjust and bitter
criticism of John T. Raymond appeared in that
paper, and their amusement man, who had pre-
viously expressed very strong admiration for
Mr. Raymonds ability as q comedian, excused
himself for the notice, by saying that he had
written it by Instructions" presumably of
some person higher in authority than himself,
who had personal spite at MIR. Raymond.
Another and more ludcrous and exasperat-
ing instance the following: The Times
denounced as weak, incapable and incompetent
the Robson & Crane company, which was
generally acknowledged by eminent critics and
the press and profession to be undoubtedly the
best legitimate company ever organized, and
Colonel Holloway, in alluding to this matter
said that he had seen the Comedy of Errors
played so much better that he was disguised
with the present company When asked by
whom he had seen it played better, he made the
astounding statement why, 1 saw Modjeska
play it three times" and he insisted that this
was true And it is such men as these who set
their opinions up as infalible. and ask theater-
goers to abide by them.
l can prove by files of their own paper that the
very same attractions which they have ruthlessly
condemned since took their passes and adver-
Using away, were extravagantly praised before
that time, and this is NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. of
their claim that their criticisms are flair and
impartial, with no reference to advertising col
uplns." etc. Again, their statement that they
refuse passes to the other city theaters is not
true. Those people pass the Times people, but
thnrr 49, IL.