Variety (June 1919)

■-J. &J ■M Ti" ' ''.'■. '.',■ ■..■;.' '••.' W ';/■■:■■■ VAKVETY 11 FEDERAL INVESTIGATION Continuation from last wwk of flm vorbatta teitirwoiry in the oro e oad'inf of tfco Fooorol Trad* Gowedsslon in Che nutter of tk» vaudeville farotfj- Vila bearing was wnin*!, pursuant to notion, before Examiner Charles I. Moore, laq. Appearanow m heretofore noted. The r*rjort below it of the proceedings, FRIDAY, MAY 16 (Continued) JAMES WILLIAM FITZPATRI0K (DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED.) Q. Yes. A. ( Rending) "The business manager further agrees, from time to time, and as be deems best, to advertise and exploit the act, to procure and advertise reports of success of said act, and to otherwise popularize the same." My Impression is that tbat was not In the contract that I was asked to sign. I think tbat paragraph 5 was. My impression was that the Hart contract was a very brief document, which put the 'whole thing In a nut shell. I do not remember tbat there were those Isolated clauses at all. Q. But notwithstanding that you signed no such contracts, 10 per cent was deducted weekly from your salary? , A. Tes. I never made any complaint about Its being done, because there was no use In doing so. It was a condition whleb bad to be submitted to. Q. Whajt was the significance of this statement: "They have closed their eyes to the blackmailing of agents of acta, agents who are In their own employ and with whom they are partners." What did that mean? Mr. Goodman: I object to the witness. making any state- ments In tbat connection, or In answer to tbat question, unless they are statements of fact which he personally is conversant with. . Mr. Walsh: I am asking why he put this In bere. Examiner Moore: I think It Is proper for him to answer as to why be ,put it In there if it was published In the article. Mr. Goodman : I do not !■'■" Examiner Moore: The objection was overruled. The Witness: It was a matter of common knowledge at tbe time. If I bad more time to go back and recall, and get back Into the situation where I was before, I have no doubt that I would be able, or might be able, to give specific In- stances In many of these questions that you ask me which, at the present time, I am unable to give, because, as I say, a great many of tbe details connected with both tbe organi- zation and the vaudeville conditions at tbe time when this was written, have gone. Tbe general facts, of course, that were common In the business I do recall. By Mr. Walsh: Q. Tbe next la this: "They have canceled acts before, dur- ing and at any time which pleased them." What was the reason for Inserting that? Mr. Goodman: I make the same objection to tbat ques- tion. The Witness: I think I can testify from my own knowledge tbat tbat was done. I am quite sure I can. By Mr. Walsh: > Q. .What do you mean by that? A. For Instance, an act would be canceled after the Monday performance, because of a variety of reasons—the act was not satisfactory, or there was trouble in the theatre, or a multitude of reasons. I could testify tbat It was done, be- cause, when I was an employe of Mr. Poll's In Waterbury, there was an act on the bill called Flnley & Burke, and there was a fight after tbe show about—I do not remember the details now, but there was some sort of a scuffle back-stage, and Mr. Flnley was eliminated from the bill. I did not eliminate htm, because I had no such power; but he was eliminated from the bill. , Mr. Goodman: What employe were you of his then? The Witness: I was a press agent, and I banked the money, and I tried to settle disagreements; but I could not hire anybody or fire anybody. Mr. Goodman: Who was manager at that time? The Witness: There was no real manager. Mr. Gnndmtin: Were you acting as manager? The Witness: John 8plaln was a sort of traveling manager. As you understand, the managerial capacity and powers I was not. By Mr. Walsh: Q. The next Is: "They have made Baltimore and New York Into one week." What was your claim as to that? A. Baltimore was a six-day town; that is, Sunday per- formances could not be given. Acts which played Baltimore bad to play New York to secure their salary. They had certain theatres In New York where the people who controlled the Baltimore theatres had Sunday concerts, and acts which played, Baltimore for six days would have deductions made in tbelr salary on Saturday night, and In order to secure the week's salary for which they had contracted they were obliged to come to New York and play a Sunday performance, which was, naturally, gratuitous." Q. The next Is: "They have turned Schenectady and New York Into one week." What was the claim there? A, T think that was the same situation. In order to play a week In Schenectady, or finish your week in Schenectady, you bad to play a 8unday performance In New York. I think that is similar to the Baltimore situation. Q. Who paid tbe fares back In to New York? A. The actors always pay their fares. Q. The next claim Is: "They have cut out the system of paying actors' fares west of Chicago and at tho same time cut tbe salaries of acts playing tbat\terrltoty." Wbab> was the situation with respect to that? A. Tbe Orphcum Circuit at one time paid tbe salary and furnished the tickets— Q. That Is, the railroad transportation? A. Railroad transportation. That practice was stopped, and acts wore cut on the Orpheum Circuit Q. What was the object of. cutting tbat practice? A. The object of cutting that practice was the object of securing the elusive dollar, which is the underlying motive in all these vaudeville transactions^—to get a dollar wherever it i/i by any 'means possible. Q. How about the Jumps In the Orpheum Circuit west of Chicago, In distance, as compared with tbe East? A. Thero is no comparison. They are overnight Jumps, and in some places you cannot play consecutively, but there is open time between one engagement and the other. Q. Has the system of paying the actors' faros from town to town been changed any since? A. I think since it was abolished In the first place it has never been restored. I do not know that. 0. Here is the next statement: "They have made it practically impossible for actors to produce new material or Invest money in new acts." What are the facts In reference to that, or your claim, In reference to tbat? Mr. Goodman: We object to the question, because it calls for an answer that must Involve generalities and is, I think, Improper. Examiner Moore: You ask why he made this claim, Mr. Walsh? Mr. Walsh: I asked him why he made this claim; what Is the situation that made him make this claim In the grievances of the Actors' Association or Union; what are the facts or conditions in the industry which prompted him to make this claim. It is along the line of all tbe questions that I have been asking. Mr. Goodman: I object It Is not tbe proper way to prove tbe facts tbat are sought to be elicited. Examiner Moore: It is a conclusion, more or less, but you may answer. Tbe Witness: I think the policy of protracted tryouta, the sending of an act from place to place, from different theatres, on the plea that someone would come and look at It, and having this thing kept up for three or four or five times, at different three-day engagements— By Mr. Walsh: Q. At the usual salary? Q. Oh, no; never at the usual salary; either expense money, or enough to recompense or pay the act for what was involved in the three-days' engagement; frequently not enough to repay them. I tblnk also the habit of not considering the merit of an act, but how much It cost: I think the first question that was uppermost In the minds of the men who were buying material was not wbat kind of an act It was, but how much money you wanted for it, Tbat has been my own personal experience, when I talked about new material, myself. Almost tbe first question asked was not what kind of an act it was, but bow much money do you want for it This process of playing men in these tryout theatres, again and again and again, securing thereby a week's entertainment for less than what they would have been obliged to pay for acts which had been tried out and were found successful, was commonly known In the variety business as tbe "water- cure," which was administered to actors to reduce them to such a stage of discouragement and financial— Mr. Goodman: Just a moment. I move to strike out the witness' answer, which is'simply an opinion and a statement of what Is in his own mind as to the "water-cure" and the reason and purposes of it, and not a statement of facts, at all. » Mr. Walsh: That is a statement of facts, and a pure state- ment of facts. It was known as the "water-cure." and be is stating tbe general condition. Mr. Hodgdon has already testified in reference to these try-outs, and this man is the president of the Actors' Union, and he is testifying as to the conditions of the Industry tbat existed. He is the best pos- sible authority to speak upon the question from the actor's standpoint. Examiner Moore: The objection is noted. Go ahead and answer, Mr. Fltzpatrlck. The Witness: In addition to that, tbe actor always has had the conviction that the attitude— Examiner Moore: You speaking from your own point of view, now? The Witness: I am speaking from my own observation and from Information which I have derived in discussion and consultation with hundreds of actors that I met during my career as an actor and during my incumbency as an officer of -tbe organization. Examiner Moore: You are stating the actual conditions that existed? The Witness: Yes. Examiner Moore: Proceed, . The Witness: It was the universal belief of actors that the policy of managers was to reduce them as low as possible, as far as their finances were concerned, so that they could get the act for little or nothing, and they would be obliged to accept It, by virtue of the conditions. That is, I believe, today tbe universal opinion that exists among actors In regard to the attitude of vaudeville managers. In fact, I have heard It said that Mr. Albee's attitude was that you have to keep them poor so that you can make them do what you want. By Mr. Goodman: Q. Do I understand you to say that Mr. Albee said tbat to you? A. No; I did not say that. Q. That is tbe view of the actor? A. I said I heard that commonly In the business. Q. That Is, from actors? A. Yes. Q. That Is to say, that indicates their condition of mind, does It not? A. That indicates their Judgment of conditions. Q. Yes: their Judgment of how Mr. Albee feels toward them? A. Perhaps he said it to somebody, to some of - them; I don't know. By Mr. Walsh: Q. In these' try-but theatres, where the actors perform at reduced salaries. Is there a reduction of the price to the public for admission? A. I do not tblnk so. I know there is no reduction of the commission. Q. What do you mean by this next claim: "They have driven every reputable, large producer out of . business." What do you mean by "producer"? A. A man who creates vaudeville material, and submits it for engagements—men like Lnsky and Rolfe. Tbey are the two names which come most quickly to my mind now, because I remember, when I was in the business, tbe name of Lnsky and Rolfe was almost universal on big time bills. Q. What was tbe character of tbelr productions? A. Big feature acts of the musical comedy type. I remem- ber an act called tbe Piano Fiends, which was a great success. I played on the bill with It at the Colonial Theatre, when tbat was a flrst-class theatre, and there were, I think, six pianos on the stage, and twelve people playing them, and a director In the pit, the orchestra pit; and there were songs and concerted numbers; and the act was a veritable sensation. I refer to acts of tbat type. Q. Wbat do you mean by saying, "When the Colonial was a flrst-class theatre"? A. When Mr. Williams had it—Mr. Percy Williams. Q. Who has It now? A. I believe It Is owned by a combination of tbe managers who are connected with the U. B. 0.—Mr. Albee and Mr. Shea, and Mr. Moore; I believe it Is a stock company; I don't know. Q. Where is it located? A. It Is located on Broadway, between 63d and 64th streets. Q. Does It play big time now? A. It plays acts which play other big time theatres, but at a reduced salary. Q. Is the orchestra the same? A. I could not tell you about that. Q. What is your claim with reference to those acts having gone out of the Industry? A. I am trying to answer the best way without bringing out objections from everybody. I think one of the reasons Is the same which applies- to the smaller producer, for Instance, a man like myself, who wanted to produce a new act—the money Involved; that tbe managers were willing to pay a certain amount, but were unwilling to pay enough to Justify the necessary expenditure of a lot of money la a new production, Q, Of course, there is a limit to the amount of money that could be expended In a theatre generally tor a production of that kind? A, Well, a man can sink a good deal of money into a vaudeville act, especially if it is a big act I think, at that time, there was an Idea of forcing the individual producers,, tbe large producers, into some sort of a situation whereby they would be merely employes of the booking office. Q. Did men connected with the booking office engage in the production of acts to any extent? A. I cannot tell you about that Q. What are known as "office acts"? » A. Do you mean wbat I believe an office act is? Q. Yes. : A. I believe an office act la an act which does not pay any commission, because it pays its commission In tbe form of ■ information, as stool pigeons to the booking office— Mr. Goodman: I move to strike that out, Mr.' Examiner. On tbat question of "office acts" may I ask a question, in view of the witness' answer? , Mr. Walsh: Tea By Mr. Goodman: Q. Is it not a fact that an office act means an act that ia booked direct .in the office, without tbe Introduction of a personal representative or agent? 1 A. That Is one of the meanings, but I do not think it is the real meaning, from my knowledge of the charaoter of office acta. By Mr. Walsh: Q. Is it not understood that office acts are acted and owned by men connected with tbe booking office? A. There is that impression. I do not know that, personally. I do know, however, that the reputation of a great many of these acts is that they are channels of Information for the office. ' . ' . . Q. Your next statement, here, is: • "They have eliminated full salary weeks in New York." What was the situation in reference to that? A. When I was in the business, tbe Albambra was full week, the Colonial was full week, the Orpheum was full week and the Bush wick was full week. Q. How about Hammer stein's? A. Hammersteln's was full week, and the Fifth Avenue was full week, and I think the Greenpolnt was a full week, although 1 will not be positive about that. I know tbat tbe Colonial, the Albambra, the Orpheum, Hammersteln's and the Fifth Avenue were full weeks, because I played them and got my salary, and I played them subsequently, and bad to cut, sir. Q. Wbat was the disadvantage In having them split? A. How do you mean spilt? Q. What do you mean by a full week? A. A full salary week, I mean. I mean that you got your set salary, whlcb was paid, for appearance In the big time theatres. For Instance, your salary was fixed, we will say, for the Orpheum Theatre at $.100, and It was Axed at $300 for Buffalo, Toronto, Detroit,' Rochester and tbat type and class; and then, when you played, a bouse like Mr. Poll's houses, if you were lucky, you were stuck $50, and you got $250. That was known as a cut week. Q. Why were these cuts made? A. Because actors have to have work, and the man who has the place' for him to play takes advantage of tbat man and cuts them. I believe, to be altogether fair, that there are certain theatres In America which cannot afford to pay the same salary as other theatres; but It has been my experience that in 08 per cent of tbe cases it is a case of having— Q. Who was running these theatres when they paid these full salaries in New York? A. Percy Williams. Q. And Mr. Hammersteln? A.- And Mr. Hammersteln, yes. Q. When were the cut salaries put into vogue or fashion? A. I cannot recall exactly. Q. Who were the owners when they were put into operation? A. The present owners. Q. Were you playing in vaudeville when salaries were cut all over the country? A. I was, yes, Q. When was that? A. That I think, was the first year of the war; I tblnk 1914. Q. What were tbe circumstances and the situation with reference to tbe cutting of salaries? A. Well, it bad been known, I believe, that the threat had been made, or tbe publication had been made each year, that salaries were to be cut, and, if I rcall the newspaper comment at the time, that It was Mr. Murdock's ambition to cut salaries; that that was bis particular obsession. Tbe war came along and offered the proper setting to put this operation Into effect. Mr. Goodman: If this is as much as this witness knows about it, I move that bis answer be stricken out By Mr. Walsh: Q. When were the salaries cut? i ■ Mr. Goodman: I object to tbe question, except in so far as this witness.can testify to the cutting of his salary. Mr. Walsh: He knows tbe general situation. Tbe Witness: My salary was cut, I think, In the season of 1014. I bad about 18 weeks booked at a certain figure, and tbe Friday before I was to open In Lowell, I was notified by my partner tbat $50 a week had been taken off each of those contracts. I tblnk I am quite competent to testify. Mr. Goodman: You are as to that. Tbe Witness: And also as to the conditions in the theatre whore I played, under tbe alleged reason that business was bad. I never saw better business in any of them. So I think I am quite competent to testify. Mr. Walsh: Ho is as competent to testify to that as a farmer Is to testify as to the price of wheat. He 1b competent to testtfy as to the salaries that prevailed In the vaudeville Industry. By Mr. Walsh,: Q. Were there any negotiations entered into with you in reference to the cutting of your salaries? A. None. My partner, who happened to be In "Now York, came back and said: "$50 has been knocked.off our salary." I said, "I will not take It" He said, "We have either got to take it or leave It. We have no voice in the matter at all." I had to work, and I took it Q. Did you have signed contracts at that time? A. No; I never had signed contracts until the end of the season; until the season was over, and then, when Mr, Hart wbb cleaning up his office, I happened to be in, and I would b6 shown a bunch of contracts' that would fill a bushel basket, and askod to take them out of tbe way, because tbey were gathering dust. I never signed any contracts, as a rule. Q. You understood that Mr. Hart signed up a contract for you with the booking office?' A. Yes. I never asked for a contract, unless I was espe- cially suspicious of the man for whom I was going to play. Q. You had, at this time, when your salary was cut, still 18 weeks booked? A. Yes. The samo situation existed as always existed about our contracts. We never saw them. We were told, "You play so and so, and so and so, and bo and so," and we never ■ asked for a contract, and never saw them until the season was over. , Q. At tbo time of tbe cutting of the salaries, what was the situation In reference to the patronage of theatres? A. I think In a few isolated cases there was a temporary depression, b ut in at lea st the great majori ty of the theatres ','«' -,. v i I l^,.' ... ?aaa rt»»»H*»«* -'■V. '.'4-, - : -;.;-'■:'"'V