The Globe. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1874.

Globe, Volume II, Issue 106, 2 October 1874, Page 2

The Globe. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1874.

The unsatisfactory state of the relations between the managers of theatres and other places of amusement and the journalist, whose duty it becomes to record his impressions of the per formance, has ere now engaged attention in other parts of the colonies, and is just at present receiving practical illustration amongst us. Owing to some unfavorable comments upon a

song, to which we shall refer presently, the management, as they have a perfect right to do if they think proper, have withdrawn the complimentary admission so far as regards a portion of the press of this city. However ill-advised this step may be, no one will question for a moment the right of the management to take this course nor are wo going to touch upon this part of the question at all, because it is perfectly absurd to suppose that the admission fee charged is of any consideration to newspaper proprietors who spend thrice or four times the amount to obtain a paragraph of news of some ten or twelve lines. That is not issue as it seems to us. What really is involved is a principle far beyond money value. It seems to be the fashion with some managers to suppose that because a journalist receives from them the courtesy of a free admission, he is, therefore, bound only to say what is pleasing to them—that, in fact, he must be considered as having been bought at the sum of 3s per night to use the columns of the paper he is connected with in the interests of the management by recommending the entertainment, irrespective of its merits. This is really what it amounts to in the present instance, because though it is true that the song itself—that is the words—is perfectly free from indecency, the gestures by which it is accompanied are in the highest degree indecent and so palpable that no one of ordinary intelligence could for one moment mistake their meaning. Now looking to this fact and also that this very song —innocent as the words are —was sung by an actor in Melbourne, and received universal condemnation alike from the press and the public, we cannot see how any journalist with the least spark of respect for himself or his profession could have allowed such a performance to pass unremarked. So much for the casus belli. The management have made an appeal to the public alike by publishing the words of the song in question —shorn, of course, of its indecent accompaniments —and by a speech from the stage, the sentiments of which, if rumour speaks truly, are to be credited to a member of the journalistic profession. This of course is perfectly legitimate, but it has the disadvantage of being an ex parte statement, only one side being put before the public, and of course motives not of the purest kind attributed to that portion of the _ press which has deemed it a duty in the interests of the public to protest against what cannot be spoken of in milder terms than a disgraceful exhibition. With what may be called the vituperative portion of the speech made last night we have nothing to do, but a statement was made which is in such direct contradiction to the truth, that it requires prompt and emphatic denial. It was there stated that the whole cause of unfavorable comments upon the company arose from personal ill-will for some cause or other. Were it not that this absurd statement appears to have received credence to some extent, we should not have thought it necessary to refer to it. Ilow 'vcr, we may at oneo deny this in ioto, and further than this, point to the fact that every credit has been given when it has been deserved bv the company. In the course pursued by the portion of the press of this province which has provoked this controversy, they will, wo feel sure, have the approval of all whose goodwill is worth having, and with this knowledge, any vilification or attributing of motives will fall harmless.