The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1913-08-23
He Brands Metropolitan as Com.
binatiOn in Unreasonable
Restraint Of Trade.
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.
Answer Relates Inside History
Of Grand Opera Produc-
ton in New York.

opera In English this fall was served or
the plaintiffs attorneys yesterday after
noon Ave minutes before the time for serv-
ing the answer had expired. 1t Is drawn
by ex-United States Attorney Henry A.
Wise and alleges that the Metropolitan
Opera Company is an unlawful combina'
tlon in restraint Of trade and commerce
Mr. Hammerstein also alleges that the
plaintiffs wicked and unlawful acts to
drive him out Of the opera producing busi-
ness made him mental and physical
wreck In 1910. when he sold out to the
Metropolitan and agreed not to produce
opera here for ten years. and that he was
not responsible for his acts when ne signed
the agreement to keep out Of opera.
He says further that his son Arthur.
as his attorney In fact. signed the agree
ment that he was to quit opera when
the defendant understood that he was to
have an interest In the merger Of the
Manhattan and Metropolitan Opera COM
panies. He says his love for his som
prevented him from repudiatins the lat
ters acts.
First Charge Of Music Truat.
Mr.. Hammerstein's answer. which makes
the first use OF the Sherman antitrust
law In defending a suit over the produc-
ton OF grand opera, covers seventy eight
typewriter pages. The answer OF his
son Arthur. which Is similar. was also
served yesterday by the latter's counsel
Stanchheld & Levy, on the Metropolitan's 3
lawyers. Wise Il Seligsberg.
Mr.. Hammersteins answer denies all
the allegations of the Metropoiitsn's COM
plant except that ne admits that prior to
1910 he had acquired skill. experience
and knowledge In the production OF grand
opera and he also admits that the
operagoing public is but a small part Of
the general public. He admits that Ed
ward T. stotesbury Of Philadelphia paid
3l.200.000 for the Philadelphia Opera
House. but says he received all the
money and denies that his son Arthur
got anything.
Hammerstein denies that his public
statement Of his intention to give grand
opera in English was made in bad faith.
and denies that the City Club conceived
"A plan Of giving opera In English before
he did. He alleges that ''the announcemen mt
- made by the City Club was part and
parcel Of an unlawful plan and purpose
Of this plaintiff and divers other persons
to monopolize the business of giving
grand opera in New York.
Insterstate Commerce In Music.
For his defence Mr.. Hammerstein al.
leges that the plaintiff is business cor
poration with &l50.OO0 capital stock. in.
corporatcd for the purpose OF doing any
business with respect to the giving OF
opera or dramatic concerts and entertain
ments.
For the purpose Of laying a ground
work for his allegations that the Metropoli-
tan Is a combination In restraint Of trade
and commerce, he alleges that II has
maintained an opera house Of great value
on Broadway for ten years. with valuable
scenery and costumes. Its agents have
been sent abroad to make contracts with
singers, who have been brought to this
country from Europe and have been sent
from one State to another and to Canada,
the entire expense being betrayed by the
He alleges that many Of these contracts
are made In foreign countries and large
sums are advanced and sent abroad on
hem. The plaintiff also contracts with
modistes. milliners and hatters for cos
tunes. which are shipped here. and for
furniture and scenery. The plaintiff also
imports operate and musical scores and
ibrettos.
In further laying the basis for his anti
rust law defence Mr.. Hammerstein says
that the Metropolitan makes contracts
with owners OF opera houses In the larger
,ities Of the East. West and South. ships
tickets to these cities by express. and re-
,eives telegraphic and mail orders for
ickets.
Accordingly the defendant contends that
he Metropolitan lis and has been for
many years engaged In business trade
md commerce among the several States
If the United States and with foreign
nations"
Plea for Modern Composers.
Continuing with his answer Mr. Ham
nerstein says that In 1906 and prior
hereto the plaintiff had a Substantial
of the business of producing
Irand opera In the cities named. free
rom competition. 1t produced principally
certain German and Italian operas land
made no effort to stage and produce a
arge number Of modern operas and
'peras comique OF great artistic merit
which were OF worldwide popularity"
He says the Metropolitans scenery and |
ostumes were of inferior quality. its
epertoire Extremely limited" and "the
musical renditions Of these operas were |
Inferior, to say the least"
Hammerstein alleges that the cost to |
he Metropolitan OF producing such |
peras In 1906 was far less than the |
evenus derived and for that year the
laintiff conducted Its business at large
nancial profit and paying substantial
lvidends to the holders OF it's stock,
'hie at the same time Its patrons were
eing furnished with an inferior quality
grand opera performances for which
he plaintiff was exacting from the opera
ding public prices far In excess Of the
alue OF such performances"
The defendant AYERS that because Of
ncse facts there was a general demand
the United States for n
reater variety and higher quality OF
|