The Billboard 1901-10-12: Vol 13 Iss 41 (1901-10-12)

6 THE BILLBOARD THE BILLBOARD. Published Weekly at 420 Elm Street, Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S A. Address all communications for the editorial or business departments to THE BILLBOARD PUBLISHING CO, Subscription, $4.00 a year ; 6 mos., $2.00; 3 mos., $1.00, in advance. ADVERTISING RATES: Advertisements will be published at the uniform rate of ten cents per agate line; no discount for time or space. Copy for advertisements must reach us before noon on Saturday previous to week ofissue. Our terms are cash. The Biliboard ts so'din London at Low's E-xchange, 51 (haring Cross, and at American Advertising Newspaper Agency, Trafa/gar Bui/dings, Northumberiand Ave.,W.C. In Parts.at Brentano s,37 Ave. del’ Opera. The trade supplied by the American News Co.and tts branches. Remittance should be made by post-office or express money order, orregist red lett: vr addressed and made payable to the Billboard Pub. Co. The editor can not undertake to return unsolicited manuscript; correspondents should keepcopy. When itis necessaryto wire us the instructions and copy for advertisements, great saving inthe matter of telegraph tolls may be had by recourse to tne Dona/dson Cipher Code. Entered as Second-Class Matter at Post Ofice at Cincinnati, Ohto. Saturday, October 12.1901. A JOKE IN LAW. Evidently the freaks in Buffalo are not confined to the Midway at the exposition. According to a decision rendered recently by the Supreme Court of New York the judiciary of that state is not free from freaks of the worst possible character, namely, legal freaks. One of these recently assumed his most austere dignity and tnen proceded to relieve his cranial cavity vf a great weight that lay dormant there— a decision, or, as lawyers call it, an ‘‘opinion,”’ which must prove a good joke to common-sense lawyers who know and understand the difference between special and general legislation. butfalo has an ordinance, passed by its Common Council, restricting the height of “bill boards” to seven feet. The Gunning System, ot Chicago, had erected some ornamental signs—-not bill boards—which were more than seven feet high, and the fire deparument of Buffalo threatened to chop them down. The Gunning System prayed for an injuuction, reciting that their signs were not bill boards within the meaning of the law and that the Common Council of Buffalo never had conferred upon it the power to pass any such ordinance. A special session of the Supreme Court was called to hear the application, and the “opinion” arrived at is rich, from a legal standpoint. The court denied the application for injunction, holding that the Gunning System's signs were bill boards within the meaning of the law and that they were an eye-sore, a menace and a nuisance to property owners in the vicinity where they were erected. The court further held that the owner of the property upon which such signs were erected bad no right to use his own property for a legitimate purpose except subject to the pleasure and dictates of surrounding property owners. In other words, a man owning and paying taxes upon a piece of unimproved real estate must consult his neighbor as to the kind of improvement he shall make _ thereon. Wouldn't that jar you? Accordingly, if Mr. Jones owns a cutstone mansion on his lot, and Mr. Smith wishes to erect a frame cottage on his lot adjoining, Mr. Smith must consult Mr. Jones’ wishes in the matter, and unless Jones consents to the erection of the cottage it may be condemned and destroyed as a nuisance. How is that for law in the land of the free and the home of the brave? The court, in its opinion, further says: “Ordinances of this character are upheld upon that great principle of law that every person yields a portion of his right to absolute dominion and use of his property in recognition of and in obedience to the right of others, so that others may also enjoy their property without unreasonable hurt or hindrance. This rule is essential for the mutual protection and benefit of every member of society.” Let us cite a hypothetical case. Jones and Smith have adjoining residences, the fronts of both houses being flush with the property line, as shown on the official plats of the city. Both have unobstructed views up and down the street from their second and third-story windows, but Jones desires a bay window in his bed-room. If constructed, this bay window will shut off Smith's view of the street. Are we to imply from the court’s opinion that Jones must yield his right to ‘the absolute dominion and use of his property’’ to accomodate his neighbor and, failing to do so, that his bay window may be pronounced a nulsance and may be destroyed? The bay window in such a case would certainly be an “unreasonable hurt’ and “‘hindrance’’ to Smith, but does the court mean to say that Jones must “yield the dominion and use of the right to his property so that’’ Jones “‘may enjoy his property without the unreasonable hurt or hindrance?’ If that be good law why not goa step farther and say that Green may not erect a five-story building on his lot, because Brown, who occuples a two-story building next door, objects? Green's five-story building would certainly shut out the light and air (which bill boards do not) from Brown’s house, and, under the New York court’s decision, is not Green bound to “yield a portion of his right ' to absolute dominion and use of his property in recognition and obedience to the right of’ Brown, so that he may enjoy his rpoperty without ‘‘unreasonable hurt or hindrance?’ Regarding the rights of a property owner to lease his ground for the purpose of erecting bill boards thereon the court says: “It is not taking private property for public use, but a salutary restraint on the noxious use of the private property by the owner.”’ And what may it please the court to regard as ‘“‘noxious.’”’ Would not the bay window or the five-story house aforesaid prove noxious to the complainant, or would not a stable erected on a lot adjoining a private residence be ‘ta noxious use of private property’’—and yet, who shall say that any man may not erect a stable or a sausage factory on his own lot? And if forbidding a man taking private property for public use,’’not to use his own property as he pleases is ‘not taking private property for public use,”’ what is it? After delivering itself of a lot of rot concerning the danger of fire from bill boards the court deals out the choice morsel of idiocy: ‘They (bill boards) have become, in some instances, a refuge behind which idle and disorderly persons are wont to congregate, who haye there resorted to unclean and filthy practices, to the great annoyance of the inhabitants living in the immediate vicinity of these structures. Their constant tendency is to create unclean and unsanitary conditions.” In this the court leaves itself open in failing to designate the quality, whether moral or physical uncleanliness is meant, but, in either case, what could have been more unclean or unsanitary, morally or physically, than the free Midway at the Buffalo Exposition? Some of the things done there would have brought the blush of shame to the cheek of the most degraded ‘*bug-house dancer’’ that ever disgraced her sex in a water-front dive. Talking about unclean and unsanitary conditions; great Jerusalem, what ever was worse than the free Midway or Buffalo’s and New York's present water fronts! And how about New York’s East Side, where the ‘‘stoopers’’ ply their trade on Second and First avenues? Is it unelean and unsanitary, in the opinion of New York’s Supreme Court, to tolerate the open plying of an unlawful, not to say degrading, means of livelihood by children in short dresses, in New York’s East Side? Do the wharf rats and thieves on East and Hudson rivers and on Buffa lo’s lake front contribute to the ‘‘unclean and unsanitary conditions’? which exist there? No doubt some “can rushing’ is concealed from the eyes of the public by the friendly shdaows of bill boards, but did the “learned” judge, who complains of that fact, ever stop to consider that the same thing is done where bill boards have never been seen and where the disgusting conduct of drunken crowds have not even the kindly offices of the bil! boards to screen them from the public eye? This part of the eourt’s opinion would be ridiculous if it were not to be remembered that judges find ey | excuses for the things they should not do. However, the last paragraph in the court’s opinion, like the last bite of_the stolen mince pie, is richest and best. Here it is: “THAT THE PLAINTIFF’S BUSINESS IS LAWFUL CAN NOT BE QUESTIONED, AND THAT THESE STRUCTURES MIGHT PROPERLY BE MAINTAINED IN SOME LOCALITIES MAY BE CONCEPED, BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW PRESENT LOCALITIES AND SURROUNDINGS AND UNDER EXISTING CONDITIONS. COURTS HAVE FREQUENTLY INTERPOSED AND _DECLARED STRUCTURES AND CONDITIONS NUISANCES BECAUSE OF Ri ag LOCATION AND SURROUNDINGS.” There is an opinion that will furnish food for mirth to lawyers throughout the world, unless special legislation be good law in New York. It is not so in any other states in the union, and there is scarcely an attorney in the United States of any consequence who has not had a law or two declared unconstitutional because its provisions were not of a general nature. Evidenty in the opinion of the Supreme Court of New York “sauce for the goose is’’ not “sauce for the gander,” nor is the law of New York intended to protect and punisn all alike. If we are to take this decision seriously we must believe that upon the location of a bill board depends whether or not it shall be declared a nuisance. In other words, a bill board might be ‘‘a thing of beauty and a joy forever’? on Ninth or Third avenue in New York, while on Riverside drive or Fifth avenue the same board might be a nuisance. What rot! And all this admitting that the plaintiff's business is a lawful one. We should like to read the precedents upon which the New York Supreme Court bases its assertion that ‘‘courts have frequently interposed and declared structures and conditions nuisances because of their jocation and surroundings.’’ With due respect to the knowledge of the law possessed by the members of New York's Supreme Court “The Billboard” asserts that no other court ever did or ever could render such a rediculous opinion. The relation of special legislation to good, sound law must be known even to the members of the Supreme Court of New York notwithstanding their rediculous opinion and shameful effort to escape responsibility for such a precedent by trying to cite similar opinions, which do not obtain. ‘“‘The Billboard” does not know and does not care what influence was bronght to bear upon the judges of the Supreme Court to render such an absurd and unjust opinion, but that it Is unprecedented, unjust un-American and unlawful will be admitted by the cheapest Police Court :—--— shyster as well as the members of the Supreme Bench of the United States, where Gunning, as the head of a corporation organized under the laws of Illinois, should go for fair and impartial review of his application for an injunction. SELF-MADE MAN. Victor D. Levitt, of the Bostock-Ferari Company, is a Sample of What Brains Can Do. (See First Page.) If there is a man in the street fair business who is more popular, genial, courteous and admired more than Victor D. Levitt, whose pictures graces the first page of this issue of “The Billboard,’ be is not known to the writer. Manly, yet gentle; resolute, but kind; jolly, yet conservative, and a hustler, every inch of him, ‘‘Vic’’ Levitt is one of the kings of street fair promoters. The craft would be better off with more “Vie” Levitts, for none know him but to admire him, and he probably has not an enemy in the world. Mr. Levitt was born in London, England, in 1866, but came to America when young. For the last fteen years he has been in the amusement business in this country, supplying attractions and privileges for the different State and county fairs throughout the United States. About four years ago he met Mr. Frank Bostock in Columbus, O., and made him a proposition to bill a lot of attractions, to be known as the Frank C. Bostock Carnival Company. Mr. Bostock accepted the offer, he controlling two-thirds of the stock, Mr. Adolph Seeman and Mr. Levitt controlling the other third. They had a very successful season and went into winter quarters in Baltimore, and have been very successful ever since. Their show now stands without a parallel to-day in this line. Last winter Mr. Frank C. Bostock, the brothers Ferari, Mr. Adolph Seeman and Mr. Levitt built the Milwaukee Zoo, which was very successful. This year has been the biggest season that their combined shows have ever had, Mr. Levitt doing the promoting and also acting as business manager of the outfit. Mr. Levitt belongs to New York Lodge No. 1, B. P. O. Elks, Odd Fellows, Kuights of Pythias, and is a thirty-second degree Mason, belonging to New, to Shakespeare Blue Lodge No. 750, and Manhattan Consistory, Scottish Rite, No. 64. Mr. Levitt is a fair example of what a hustler can do, for, having nothing but his brains, energy and determination as capital, he is now counted a wealthy man. Among his other accomplishments, he is a chef of rare taste and ability, and as a story teller he is without a peer. He is never so happy as when entertaining a crowd of friends at table and no one has ever yet rated him any other than a “royal good fellow.” WAR DECLARED. Cincinnati Is To Have a New Vaudeville House Next Season.—A Significant Meeting. Colonel “Jim” Fennessy, of Heuck’'s, the Lyceum and People’s Theaters, returned to Cincinnati last Friday night,and since his return all kinds of stories as to what is to happen in the Cincinnati theatrical field have been floating about. It was given out when he went to New York that Colonel Fennessy’s object in visiting the Metropolis was to secure talent for a continuous burlesque stock company for the People’s Theater in order to spike the guns of Colonel Bob Fulgora, who gave it out that he intended to put a continuous burlesque stock company in the old Vine Street Opera House. Be that as it may, Colonel Fennessy, so far as can be learned, did not book any new people in New York, nor is he apt to do so as long as the Vine Street Opera House situation remains as it is. Col. Fulgora had advertised his opening for Sept. 28, then a day later, and here it is the middle of October and not a broom or brush has touched the Vine Street Opera House, nor is Col. Fulgora in the city. The men who are in charge of the dark theater say they do not know where he is, nor do they know when, if ever, the theater will open. The only information that can be obtained of or concerning Col. Fulgora is that he ts “iil in St. Louis, but whether the trouble is due to a weak stomach or heart is not in evidence. Anythow, not a single move has been made by Fulgora to even clean the Vine Street Opera House, and people who are in position to know say that Col. Fulgora’s opening was never anything more than a bluff. These same people say that Col. Fennessy will “pass the buck’’ up to Fulgora and wait for him to make the first move, and that, when he does, the fur will fly. On the other hand, it is said that Fulgora is willing enough to open but that he finds it impossible to deliver the goods. This story is given color from the fact that Manager Kelly, of the Chicago Orpheon, was in Cincinnati last week, at Invitation of Col. Fulgora, to look over the ground. Mr. Kelly thought the proposition a good one, since he was offered a guarantee to open the Vine Street, until he learned how the lease of the house is Involved. He also learned that any attempt on his part to interfere with the present situation of affairs in Cincinnat! would be resented by the entire Empire Circuit of theaters, which plays his attractions. Then Mr. Kelly concluded to ‘‘go ‘way back and sit down,” which he did on the next train that left Cincinnati for Chicago, telling Fulgora that he wanted none of the game. However, Fulgora’s friends say that he will open the house (like Kelly will) some time this month. Although it would require a month's time and an army of men and scrub-women to put it in anything like a habitable conditicn. Meanwhile the fight for possession of the Vine Street has taken in a new phase. It now develops that Eddie Brannagan, of The Palms Concert Hall, is after the house. ‘The Palms has been singularly successful under the management of Brannagan and Gus Worms, aud their present quarters are said to be too siuall for their needs. Last Saturday Mr. Brannagan called upon Peter Rudolph Neff, who owns the property, and tried to negotiate a lease, but Mr. Neff, it is understood, wishes to know “where he is at"’ with regard to John Avery's lease, before he gives out another one. It would not be surprising, however, if Brannagan and Worm succeed in making a deal with Avery for the purchase of his unexpired lease: and if they do, where does Fulgora come in’ Brannagan and Worm are both good managers as well as experienced men in concert hall affairs, and if they secure possession of the Vine Street Opera House property they will make the “Rhine’ look like old times. Brannagan does not deny that he is after the property, but he refuses to discuss his conversation with Mr. Neff. Mr. Fennessy, when seen, got in the John T. Brush stakes, when the latter talks baseball. Lennessy was voluble as a soubrette during his first interview, but when he got done talking all that he had said was this: “Yes, I was in New York; business is good there. I saw Pat Reilly. He has the greatest show he ever put together. I'm glad to get home.”’ When av effort was made to draw him out on Fulgora and the Vine Street proposition Fennessy looked blank as though he had never heard the name. Notwithstanding his reticence, ‘‘The Billboard” is in position to state, unqualifiedly, that the Fulgora-Fennessy fight for possession of the burlesque field in Cincinnati ts only a skirmish and that the battle that will follow will be a disastrous one for somebody. While Fennessy refuses absolutely to talk, the story that Fulgora is being backed by one of Feuuessy’s enemies in the theatrical business will not down. Even names have been mentioned and denials have been made. In this connection, the following telegram from Pittsburg is Interesting, if not signticant: Pittsburg, Pa., Oct. 7. A meeting of the directors of the Empire Circuit has been called for Nov. 14, at Pittsburg, at which some action will be taken toward carrying the burlesque war for supremacy in Cincinnati into the enemy’s camp. At this meeting steps will be taken to import high-priced vaudeville acts from Europe next season; these acts to be sandwiched in the regular burlesque combinations which play the Empire Circuit, and all managers playing the Empire Circuit next season will be made to sign contracts, agreeing to allow the imported acts to occupy a certain place on the programs. Not only that, but one theater in Cincinnati which has never heretofore been given up to vaudeville will, next season, be a strictly high-class vaudeville house, and it may even go as far as the establishment of another vaudeville circuit, to rival the present Orpheon-Anderson-Kohl & Castle Circuit. There are certainly great doings ahead for theatrical affairs in Cincinnati. SAREDINERONADERED SBCA = Letter Box = Sa K OX TKERER EV UNV RTREXERYICG GENTLEMEN'S LIST. Aimee Dramatic Co. Lemos Bros.’ Circus. Anderson, J. R. la Rose, Geo., Mgr. Automobile. La Thoma, Harry. Bechett, H. B. Lorenzo, Lion King. Beach & Bowers, Lynch, the Great. (Minstrels). Liles, Chas. Bremer, Mitchell. Meyers, Arthur. Brockway, Frank. Moore, Tom. Bartmess, Less. McGinley, W. T. Burne, A. H. McComb, Kid. Brannan, Edd. MeCloud, Wm. Davenport, W. G. Mardos, The. Dawson, Sam W. Manager Jiving Elks. Dryden, Chas. R. Metzger, Max A. Davis, C. T. Musselman, Ammon. Dale, Harry P. Maxwell, W. J. Deal, Neuman. Moriarty, David. Donnelly, Wm. J. Murry, ohn J. Douglas, Prof. John L. Myers, i. 1. Sider & Olson's Cir’s. Nichols Lew. Exemplar Sign Works Norris & Rowe Show. Emmerson, Harry. O'Brien, David. Fagan, J. P. Oatiman, Capt. 8. J. Farquhar, Harry. Palmer, John Fay. Great Oriental CarnivRice, M. FB. Company. Ruseo & Holland's Godsey, M. B. Uncle Tom's Cabin. Greene, James F. Rowe, H. 8., Esq. Gautier, the Great. Ritchie, Edward. Hope, Billie. Sipe, Geo. Henry, Hi. Stuart, C. R. Hoffman, Hugh. Taylor, VParson. Husk, G. Wilkes. Thompson, Dana. Harted, H. R. Van Normans, The. Handley, W. W. Wallace, Capt. Hi. Jahn, A. Waller, Phil. G. Jubilee Carnival. Walters, Jule. Jones, Frank F. Watts, Geo. A. King, C. C. White, Frank M. Kadel, Al. Wescott, M. B. Kelley, L. C. Wallace, B. E., Mer. Kelly, Patrick B. Woods, West. Lowery Students. White Clouds InLeavitt & Seaman. dian Village. Lingl, Geo. Zimmerman, Chris. Laird, E. C. LADIES’ LIST. Bartell, Mrs. H.W. Proapetto, Madame. (nee Lettle Collins) Stickney, Mrs. Robt. Hillard, Blanche. Zardna, Madame. HOD del