New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1919-08-24
BY Haywood Broun

;ssue is recognition Of the Actors
rouity. Undoubtedly, the managers
feel that the existence of strong,
-scognized actors association such as
the EQUITY would be detrimental to
their interests, and, believing that, they
have an undoubted right to fight. But
when they appeal for public sympathy
and support the grounds of their op~
nosition must be broader than business
interest. They must convince the pub
lie that the estate of the theatre and
the quality of its productions would
he lowered by the existence of the
Equity.
On this point, it seems to us, no
manager has as yet spoken convinc-
ingly. Mr.. Belasco has said that it is
artistically essential that each man
ager should deal with each actor in
dyidually as in the past, but he has
not left US entirely clear as to why
he thinks this arrangement essential.
II must be remembered that "John
Ferguson" one of the most artistic
productions Of the season, was made
by cooperative company in which
each member of the cast belongs to the
Equity and work. under an Equity
contract. Personally, we think that
some of the managers confuse the po-
siton Of the actor in his business re-
ations and in his work. These may be
entirely distinct For instance, we are
quite willing to agree that no man
ager could produce a play adequately
if he were constantly beset by the cast
coming to him in Body and saying:
I'VE think this scene ought to be
played in this way rather than as you
have told US to do it." But we cannot
see that the artistic standards of the
theatre are necessarily impaired if the
actors are privileged to come to the
managers in a body to say: eve want
extra pay for any matnees which ex-
tend the playing time to more than
eight performances a week"
In other words. it is not necessary
for an actor to be bad business man
in order to be good artist. Certainly.
the actor is in disadvantageous bust
ness position as long as he must bar
gain individually. This is so generally
recognized that the right of collective
bargaining has been won in almost
every other industry in the United
States. Of course. objection may be
made that professions may not be
dnionized as trades are. One may saw
that lawyers and ministers and COLLEGE
professors are not organized. That is
true, but il does not seem to US to
rebound to the saeacity of the law
yeIs' the ministers and the college
professors whose working conditions
are on the average very much worse
than those of printers and other
skilled workngmen who have prohted
by organizations Mary Macarthur, the
English labor leader, recently pointed
out IN an address that the janitors of
English schools drew higher pay than
English schoolteachers. You may use
This If YOU choose as an argument
against the un.onization Of janitors.
but we prefer TO interpret it as an
argument for the organization of
tea hers.
We see no middle ground between
the ISSUES drawn in the actors strike.
and we ere absolutely at d loss to un.
derstand just what function the or
ganizauou proposed by L. II. Sothern
and now fostered by Louis Mann would
fulfil. If it were an organization
which committed itself against ever
adopting the strike as weapon, we do
not see how us denlands-or requests
would be betterZcould have anv
weight. 1t would seem TO US to be
purely social organization. Nor do
We understand the position of the
actors who have withdrawn from the
equity. 1t would have beer logical
enough for any one to nave refused to
belong IN the drst place, but that does
not explain his withdrawal at the pres
ent tme. Otis Skinner, for instance.
when asked his personal reasons for
lesigniug, said:
My personal one is that the associa-
non has assumed q dictatorship. AS a
member Of its body should be obliged
to submit to It's Dictates 1t would deny
me freedom of action and liberty of
choice, things which | refuse to de-
liver to any one as long as ! have
power 10 struggle for their retention"
This is, of course, logical position
II Nh. skinner had never belonged to
the Equity, bat any man who joins an
organization must necessarily sacrifice
something OF his freedom Of choice
indeed, Mr.. SINNERS freedom Of ac-
ton and liberty OF choice are compro-
missed by the very fact of his being q
citizen of the United States, which may
conscrlpt his wealth in taxes and his
life In selective service act. 1t is
true, of course, that Mr.. Skinner and
other actors of prominence do not need
1he Equity. A nuinbe of the actors who
are striking would not be benefited per-
cept'biy if the managers should recog-
nize the Equity. because their services
are unique and much in demand, and
they are powerful enough to look after
their interests withou. help from their
or.,. ~