Daily Arizona silver belt., 1909-02-20
THE IMMORTALITY or THE STAGE

InE lmmOhAIITx Of THE 5IAd6 There is much bother and to-do in New York just now over the question of immortality on the stage. It has gone so far that there is talk once more of the need of censor of plays It is said. for instance, that there are five immoral plays now running in New York, though Daniel Frohman limits the number to three. It is curious to note the attitude of those prominent in the atricals in regard to this matter. The New York American has asked for and published the opinions of certain of the leading theatrical lights on the subject.
 MT. Erlanger congratulates himself that the firm of Klaw & Erlanger is not an offender against public morals in this respect. Marc Klaw, Mir. Erlan- gers partner, thinks there are enough laws on the statute books to prohibit immoral plays, and can see no use for a censor. MT. Charles Frohman also does not desire censor, believing that the existing laws are sufficient. Lee shu- bert, without cracking smile, says he would gladly give his best assistance to wipe from the stage all indecent plays and thinks the public should be sufficient censor. Daniel rrohman thinks that the establishment of cen sorship would relieve managers of responsibility. But the champion of ab- surdity in the argument against the proposed censorship comes from the New York Morning Telegraph, which says:
 ''The reformers have begun, as
 usual, at the wrong end of the prop
 osition. They attack the imitation
 when they should so out to reform
 the real thing. Gre might as well
 find fault with tho looking glass
 for that 1t does not make us seem
 so handsome as We think We are
 as to rail against the stage because
 1t depicts conditions which We
 might wish did not exist"
 There can be no doubt in the mind of anyone who has followed theatrical mat ters and theatrical progress for the past three years that something is needed, stronger than the public conscience to check the riot of hbid.nousness that characterises the stage of today. It is obvious that in the first place some dis tinction must be made between the dra- ma proper and the mere "show."
 The plays of many worthy and cap able dramatists deal with unpleasant themes; some of the characters are i'm moral and do immoral things, and yet the tendency of the drama is in many cases uplifting and the trend is toward morality. Those who believe that the stage has really vital work to do in the social scheme of things will see that such plays worthily presented, may, in spite of their unpleasantness, work largely for the ultimate good. 1t will not do to condemn them simply because they introduce immoral characters. Of such sort has been the drama ever since 1t came into being as child of the church.
 But there can be no possible question as to the immortality, the inutility, or the need of regulation of these vande- vile shows which are variously labeled in this country as extravaganza, review, musical comedy. or what not. There is no pretense about entertainments of this sort. Their first, last and only function is to amuse; is to purvey froth and glitter, tinkling music, and ancient humor--a riot of color, babel of sound; and when these fail sufficiently to ex cite there has been added thereto dis robing acts and obscene situations that have gone so far that even blase New York, with its jaded sensual appetite, is becoming shocked.
 If we have, indeed, reached the point of shocking New York there needs no further argument as to the imperative necessity of getting some sort of cen sorshiip for the stage-lest worse befall. WOULD YOU BE BLESSED WITH A
 PAsEDA TREE7