New-York tribune., 1899-03-12
"IIE STOLE Ny PLAY.p
THE CONSTANT CHARGE AGAINST ru,
SUCCESSFUL DRAMATIST.
HE USUALLY TOOK MS PLOT .e)M THE y,,,
AHD HONEST But rNiyrNY Work
OF ANOTHfR

iQi process. Il l4' fDIrlttI ass 'ffi Ls " r4-
sons who have meyer written successful p,l,,
are 70 be believed. robody Ah) is 0apab.4
writing 4 good play ever has useful orgi-.
idea for one. The fundamental IDEAS OF Al
successful plays are lifted 80 Use no nor,
severe word from rejected Or unsucce.r'
plays That this should happen in given ca.,
is. Of course possible. fOr The fundamental il.l
" a pay may b" excellent. and the writing
i play IN that idea may be- - hopeessy bal
as TO ruin the whole work But il SEES
strange that 80 many Of the best dramas shout
be nero transcripts Of works which have neg'
seen the glare Of the foou'shts. or at ms
only 4 fash Of 1t.
Whenever 4 play makes a great suos..
somebody who was never before suspected
any connection with the drama discovers that
It's main Incidents we're taken from play whch
he wrote some time ago and sent 20 a manage
who kept it long enough 10 copy the best pan
Of it, no doubt. and then contumeiOusly p
turned it. Or. possibly. the play was acte
somewhere for a night Or two, and then az Up
wicked persons in the world who were m,ni'
- be play pirates came and at Il thrpiS
and stored it up in their memories.
The latest case in point is that Of Samue J
Gross. Of Chicago. who once wrote a play cLa
The Merchant Of Corngille" and who al
"Cyrano de Berserac" was taken from Il 3
was acted in London he says few years az
and he also sent it 10 several persons. noia5I
to Richard Mansfield. who has been playa!
''Cyrano de Bergerac" this season. and to A
Palmer Mr. Mansield's manager. The unusul
feature Of the present case is that the peSoa
who makes the charge Of plagiarism Is H41
Of wealth. Usually such a charge is o'OuS"
by some entirely obscure person. The fesSs
OF this difference is that the pres nj case ~
become an international affair. with cH
mission appointed To take testimony IN Franc,
while the usual case ends in the newspaper
Office to which the aggrieyed author writes 81
hystcrioal note. or in the lower coqrts Nhe's i
dies A natural ds lth.
no implication Is here intended that "
Gross is either right or wrong IN his clA
His assertion that Mr Mansfield and W.
Palmer had had the manuscript would vega
for moro than it does. If IL were not r'h'M'
bclei that "Cyrano" WIS written by
Rostand expressly for the use Of " CoqieA
in Paris. and that. rs far rs ,he public has e'''
been Informed. Mr. Mansfield had no .nten""'
Dl plio INK II 1T blt hlitli Ut t'A t''N'
nous success there Moreover the PlrislS
are 4 thoroughly sefsuilcient tribe IN matte"
of art They do not usually 90 - Eng An'
Or To America for their models. Iney oeis"
that artistic achievement means fa's'~
achievement. and that artistic judgment means
Partisan judgment. and nothing e-s'. Inc -"
that a play like secret service hdu De'"
largely successful in Ncw-York and Lcni''
moved the ParisanS. when 10 was acea
fore them. to no other sentiment thah one
gentle pity f0r the Amer ans ana INC 10
lishmen who had liked it
Mr. Gross may be right and Just such '""s'
may have happened before. as has been n'n'I
but the most Of the complaints oil 'ae N~'
which have been received from time 70 uNN
have appeared C. be mere hysteria ."
years ago somebody tried % restrain by f''
process Miss Fanny Davenport from p'e''.'
ing Sardou's cleopatra on me stage, ~"
ground that he had copyrighted INV
"CleoLatra." The fact that cleopatra "@
historical parsonage. about whom the
formed observer would suppose that a'v'-
who chose had 4 right to make a play a"1
name it after her. did not weigh WIN u"
son. Neither did the fact that pay :.
Antony and Cleopatra" had been known
some time. This person had copyngh'e'
title cleopatra" and he was not going " ''
anybody else using the name for play =.
Now. the law OF copyright differs frOm
law Of patents in this respect: II you W
patent an invention an effort is made w.
whether any previous patent covers the -
invention. and whether or not for any "a
b,,t u - fLsy-7~ L
the form of copyrighting anything you ~.
and when you charge somebody with M
ment It IS for the Court TO decide Whe'N"
not the thing was susceptible OF va4u W.
right. In this case, II the memory OF 'De -
ent writer IS not at fault, the Couf' 4
that a single word already in use oou''
be copyrighted; combination OF "otos .
made-up word could be copyrighted uu4 =,