The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-11-01

he is glad OF it. being no coxcomb. An
other thing than his change OF aspect In
this new play is his shift from bold virtue
10 sly crime. We had him last in "a Cen
tleman of France as a foe and punisher
Of lawless %rufians. He met four of them
as they came at him up a stairway, thrust
his trusty sword into every one and sent
them tumbling headlong down. To see this
champion of the good go over TO the bad,
and fight with his wits only against detec-
ton as a burglar, is a sight TO stare at in
amazement. However, the previously ir-
reproachable character Of Mr.. Bellew as a
reckless hero for the right tends TO sub
stantiate the assertion that he has not be-
come a sordid craftsman, but is impelled
TO crime by a kind of kleptomania, or, at
least, by an entirely mental, even aesthetic,
form of wickedness. He desires to be a
malefactor able TO battle Sherlock Holmes.
and his endeavor TO do that does not seem
so reprehensible when we consider how
much the pride of that detective fellow has
needed a tumble. From that viewpoint We
are rather pleased to see him thrown down
by a burglar for burglary's own sake. Mr..
Bellew is the right actor to lift Raffies
above the trade of robbery to a plane Of a
connoisseur in theft. A very exact and COM
plete artist is Mr.. Bellew.
Eugene w. Presbrey, who wrote Raj
fes's exploits from several of L. w. Hor-
nung's stories Of 1.-THE Amateur Cracks
man. and put them in a play, says that
Hornung and A. Conan Doyle, being cous-
ins, naturally talked about their creations
of Rafies and Sherlock Holmes, and one
| day at dinner they hit on the idea Of pit
ting the two characters against each other
in a play. The project dubbed from the
glasses which they emptied, and it broke
and vanished with the wine. Mr.. Presbrey
has not told why DIR. Doyle wouldn't go
into the scheme. L get the explanation
| from William Gillette, dramatizer and por-
trayer of Holmes. Which of the charac-
| tiers, Rafies or Holmes, should be con-
quered and which victorious? Neither Of
the authors would let his man be beaten in
the encounter Of wits. 1t stood that way
when DR.. Doyle and Mr. Gillette conferred
about the projected drama. But MI. Hor-
nung's expert adviser. Mr.. Presbrey, said
that the next best thief-catcher to be over
matched by Rafles was the chap who had
exposed the man of fine reputation and
foul character in ''Jim, the Penman." So
| Captain TNt0WOOo Is hIOuShb lllO
the new play, to be defeated by Raffles's
escape from custody in the end, and the
actor is the same E.. NJ. Holland who i'm
personated him years ago.
Thus we are reminded of a piece which
is still cited by rebuffed and resentful
authors as proof that managers do not
know good things when they see them in
manuscripts. Sir Charles Young tried long
and in vain to sell his fiction in London,
and at length demonstrated its value in a
single afternoon performance at his own
expense. After that he was able to choose
a purchaser from among the managers
who had rejected it. Albert NJ. Palmer,
whose stock company was then a New York
institution, obtained it for this country.
Mr.. Presbrey was his stage director, and
il is no wonder that he thought Of Captain
Redwood as a substitute for Sherlock
Holmes. What does Sir Charles Young
say? Nothing. He has been dead these
dozen years. FRANKLIN l.