The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-03-10
MISS MARLowE's LIBEL SUIT.
what We Might Expect If She should
Win Her Case.

Brooklyn Standard Union.
Julia Marlowe's suit for damages against
the Indianapolis Journal to recover damages
alleged to have been entailed By adverse
criticism of her theatrical company will be
a legal test of the traditional right of news
papers 10 review the merits of a public
performance on the stage. Unwrtten law
has given the dramatic critic liberty of
opinion in these matters that has seldom
been disputed and as far as we know. has
never been controversial in the courts. In
New York state kindred question was
raised short time ago when an auditor in
a theater, who had been elected for hiss
ing was awarded a verdict in suit he
brought against the manager. The Judge
declared that the acceptance of the auditors
admission fee guaranteed him the privilege
of either approving or disappearing of what
he saw. As applause is not an abuse of
the proprieties and usages of a theater. it
was held that kissing is equally allowable
This is the judicial decree of a New York
State court, but whether it will be reflected
in the trial in Indiana is quite another
thing.
In Miss Marlowe's case it will probably
be shown that the critic was the recipient
of free ticket. and perhaps it may be
maintained acceptance of this courtesy inn
posed on him an obligation to gloss over
tHS ldultS VI the performance as ne saw
them. In the old days the managers en-
tertained this notion of the relations of the
press and the playhouse. and there was an
epoch In our history when so illogical an
arrangement was encouraged.
1t is we'll understood to-day that there is
no class or public characters who chafe
more than actors under the fall of the chas-
tening rod. While they pretend to invite
criticism, there is Unborn conceit in the
average actor which is defiant of the best
adjusted Judgment when it runs counter to
professional efforts. off
cheney which was pointed out in Miss Mar
loves performance in Indianapolis is the
most common encountered by audiences and
critics. The ability of artistic like Miss
Marlowe may legitimately be the occasion
of differing opinion, but the mediocrity or
stupidity OF the company frequently accom-
panying a star seldom admits of doubt
Rank imposition on the good nature of the
ater-going people is often practiced on the
strength or famous name at the head of
the plays cast. Miss MarloWe assumes to
cay that If she is finished in her work she
fulflls every promise made at the box Of
flee, and that to characterize any feature
of performance in which she appears a
for which she has right TO demand legal
redress. Were her contention to be upheld
dramatic criticism would degenerate to
either discreet silence fabby puffery
their managers who waived the restrictions
of the law would be seriously considered
The public would be afraid to spend their
money going to the theater, not knowing
of play or after its presentation what
real value there might be in the reviews.
To be entitled to honest consideration the
posters announcing a performance would
have TO carry waiver of legal immunity
from criticism. We would read that Miss
Ean9 "a be It invites CRITICISM ire
will not sue the newspapers on the bill
boards as guarantees of good faith.