Los Angeles herald., 1909-02-27
BROADHURST ASKS
PROOF OF MINISTER
Playwright, in Reply to DR.. Locke's
I Invitation to Visit Church,
Says, "See My
Play"

The plot thickens in the controversy
regarding the theater, opened last Sun
day by DR.. Charles Edward Locke Of
the First Methodist church in his dec
laration that the theater is a ''pestifer-
GUS contagion which we should be rid
of as we would of obseenity, arson or
smallpox" DR.. Locke's attack elicit
ed letter from the we'll known play
wright, George Broadhurst, now in Los
Angeles, in which Mr.. Broadhurst de-
manded proofs of the utter depravity
charged against the theater. DR.. Locke,
in letter to a local newspaper, invited
the playwright to visit his church Sun
day evening, promising him some inter-
esting revelations regarding the moral
turpitude of the modern play.
Mr.. Broadhurst, in a letter to The
Herald, promises to attend Dr. Locke's
Sunday evening service if the doctor
will, in return, attend the opening of
Mr.. Broadhurst's new play, 1.-The Dol
lar Mark" at the Belasco theater next
Monday night. The letter is as fol-
lows:
LOS ANGELES, Feb. Is, 1909.
Editor of The Herald.
1t was with mingled feelings of
pleasure and surprise that 1 read DR..
Locke's letter, published Wednesday,
and which have just now seen for the
III ol lIIiiS-plGdSu LIldI d ndQ
written so Sanely and mildly about the
stage, and surprise that this sanity and
mildness came from the pen of the
same gentleman, who only three days
previously had attacked the theater
from his pulpit with so much venom
and viciousness. What has become of
such phrases as "obscenity, arson and
smallpox" "a pestiferous contagion, -
"despoiler f our boys" and places a
premium on RIGHTEOUSNESS and muir
der?"
How delightfully."- absent are all such
rabid remarks. 1t seems almost in
credible the spirit of man could have
been so thoroughly chastened in so
short a time.
Instead of the phrases quoted above,
l find, ''It is not my purpose to say an
unjust, an untrue or even a sensational
thing against the theater" Giving Dr.
Locke full credit for stating his purpose
honestly, the whole affair overwhelms
me with amaZement, for if he does not
consider the quoted phrases as sensa-
t1onal / am utterly at a loss to COM
prehend what would justify his idea
as to what sensationalism really is.
Had an actor said such things about
the church would DR.. Locke have con-
sldered them sensational then, I Won
der?
What must be the thought Of a man
who says in these enlightened days:
The harmless play, if there is such a
thing? 1t is in these words that DR.
Locke pays his respects to Shakespeare,
Schiller, Goethe, Moliere, Sardou, Ib-
sen, Rostand, Suderman and the nu-
Elerous other men of brilliant intellect
who have used the drama as the means
of giving the world the highest and
best they had to offer 1.-THE harmless
play, if there is such a thing" Was
ever so much ignorance, bigotry preju-
dice, narrow-mindedness, Intolerance
and uncharitableneSs encompassed in so
few little words, and from whom would
such words be expected except from a
theologian?
L appreciate at it's full value DR..
Locke's kind invitation to attend his
church Sunday evening. 1 shall be very
pleased to accept the invitation if DR..
Locke, not to be outdone in courtesy,
soclabllity and openmindedness will
agree to be at the opening Of my next
play in this city one week from Mon
day night.
In my open letter to DR.. Locke I took
specific charges Of his, challenged them
specifically and called on him for the
proofs. The reverend gentleman in his
reply ignored my challenges, but said
he would answer them from the pulpit
Sunday evening. I should have thought
he would have preferred the infinitely
greater arena of the press, but I pre-
sumo that he has his own reasons for
not doing so.
In his answer to my challenges I
shall expect DR.. Locke to furnish what
ask for-prOofs. shall expect him to
prove that the theater is the main
cause of divorce in this country. !
shall expect him to prove that the
theater jeers at the church and the
home; [ shall expect him to prove spe-
cltcally the other charges 1 have made,
and l warn him, now, that 1 shall not
accept as proof his word or the word
Of any authority he quotes, unless the
authority quoted proves the statements
made.
So far as I am concerned, it will be
useless for him to quote Richard Wat
son Glider, William Winter, / Charles
Burnham, or any one else, unless the
man quoted proves what he says. In
other words, shall expect proofs, not
assertions.
In his concluding paragraph DR..
Locke says he has arguments which I
cannot refute." While complimenting
him upon his complacency I desire to
call his attention once again to the fact
that l am not looking for arguments. +
am looking for facts; I have made spe-
cific charges and I expect specific
proofs. GEORGE BROADHURST.