New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-11-25
CANNOT STOP ''PARSIFAL. "
Mr.. CONRIED WINS CASE.
There Is No Right of Appeal, Says
JUDGE L.acombe's OpiniOn.

Court, yesterday handed down opinion where
in he refused to grant the injunction asked for
by Frau Costms Wagner and Siegfried Wagner,
heirs OF Richard Wagner the composer, re-
st-aining Heinrich Conried from producing
"ParsifaL"
In addition to the many legal points presented
by Gilbert Ray Halves. representing Frau wag-
and her son. in support of his contention that
Mr.. Conrieds producttol in New-Yorlz would be
Illegal, the lawyer appealed TO the court to
preserve the sacred atmosphere with which the
widow and son surrounded the composition and
prevent its production on any stage other than
that at Bayreutk. The composer himself, the
lawyer argued. declined all offers for e license
to produce "Parsifal," made by many managers
Of Europe. many of them representing royal and
court theatres
A ]. Dittenhoefer. representing Mr. Conreid. in
his argument in opposition TO granting the re-
straining order asked for. declared that great
many of the sentimental declarations made by
Mr.. Halves were not founded on fact, and estab-
lished the fact by afidavits that the composer
himself had parted with at least the publica
ton rights of the play for consideration Of
1000 German marks TO the firm Of B Schotts
Sons. Mayence. That later 15.OOD marks had
been paid by the representatives. of Herr Wag-
ner to b Schott's Sons for the concert rights.
which fact proved conclusively. Mr. Often
hoefer argued that the family of the composer
themselves considered the publishers owned and
controlled all the rights of 'ParsifaL"
The decision of JuCve Lacombe insures the
production of "ParsifaI." scheduled by -Ir. Con
ried for December "a at the Metropolitan Opera
House Under the federal practice, Mr.. Halves.
representing Frau Wagner and her son, has no
right TO appeal, and his only recourse now is
to wait until the final trial. which must take
its regular place on the calendar Of the United
States Circuit Court. There he can present
other and DIAL testimony. and il he can con-
vince the court that his clients rights have
been imposed on OF injured the injunction
prayed for will be granted
After describing the contract between Wagner
and B. Schotts Sons for the exclusive publica-
ton in all countries of Partial for 1900
marks. Judge Lacombe adds
It is unnecessary to inquire what were Richard
Wagners intentions on entering into this contract
and it must be assumed that the parties who thus
express themselves in written contracts intend
B Schott's Sons merely the agents of Richard
TO the world. reserving to him the power 10 regu-
late the time. place. manner and extent Of such
ferred to them the exclusive right of publication
for all countries and all that such publication i'm
to theatres and it is understood that under the law
of Germany a publication Of The entire work
rights reserved secures such rights 20 the COM
his death.
WOULD NOT HAVE LOST. ACTING RIGHT.
If. therefore, OF the day he gave 70 B. schott's
Sons the exclusive right Of publication coupled
work in Germany with a like reservation. he
would not have lost the acting right in that
whole work accompanied BY such reservations
n some country Ionel t',i IN SInl @y' r. 20 %
tract gave B. schott's Sons the right to publish
Of What Wagner undertcoE 10 reserve and such
publication when made under this contrast, Is to
by Wagner himself with IKE notice Of reservation
sibly before there had been any publication. even
in Germany. Of the entire work. this ortSfnal
a contract between his heirs, and the firm Of B.
9c2ofT % ia Il Tectes that by the rst con-
tract Herr Richard Wagner has formally re-
signed in TaT2r q Of P Pse fI 81 %
heirs reIinauish 5000 marks OF the consideration
named in the first contract AID the parties agree
That this right the acting act Igh, as to con
ance of the work as an oratory cora torio only
tdTed a1 4a Rebprd WagnT hs on the Other
hand the right OF disposing or the work for the
arm of B. schotts Sons. by this. however the pos
s seiyg frsnents Gnpubed as vet in common
with fragments already published. prelude, then
96d fTdag sPe H must not Be S ed
This quotation has been given at iength in the
because il is centended that this second contract has
therein {Rg 5S eo Gs s 70 1t is thougR t the
language last above quoted conveys no such mean
ing in seems clearly 70 be concerned solely
with the performance at concerts, Ie9vlng 70 ..
ments but reconveying TO the heirs the right or
performance of the whole work. either complete or
t5 an G5a t more Gg or @ @ pFeserves the s
n1etricaI form and spirit OF the work. There is
Nothing in the record which qualities in any way the
right of publication sold and transferred 70 3.
sor CONCERNED WITH GERMAN PUBL
CATION.
With B Schott.s Sons publication of "Parsifal''
in GERMANY we are not concerned 1902 the firm
printed in iuodecimo edition in three volumes and
G; Schrner. by whom they were offered for sale
10 whomever would buy. and several copies were
actually sold. The act OF publication Of this edi-
ton is beyond dispute there was not merely a dis
individuals for a special purpose the case
in Press Publishing Company agt. Monroe 75 2 r
1876; they were offered that the public without
discrimination OF persons had opportunity OF
ENJOYING them Upon the title page Of each COPY
OF this duodecirnO edition thus sold appears the
following notice This copy must not be used for
law Of this country that. II the publication Is CON-
plete such notice is Ineffective to the very
right which such publication dedicates the public
The complainant contends that the smaller edi-
the entire orchestra partitur' score Of the
''rnusi al dramatic work The testimony. however
is overwhelming 10 the contrary. In the duOdecimo
there has been mechanical cOndenSat ior. The three
volumes contain the score OF Parsifal' completely
ana fully. In view Of such publication neither the
composer nor his heirs can insist that performance
II is further conteuded that by r ason OF certsl
transactions in which Conried and GOldmark. Al
alleged partner. participated he should e esto2pe
the case facts dispute. and II should not