File:Thomas Butler Gunn Diaries- Volume 9, page 136 (newspaper clipping), April 1858.jpg

Transcription:

ROW AT THE ACADEMY OF MUSIC.

———

ARREST OF EDITORS—THE PARTIES HELD TO BAIL.

Last evening a disturbance accurred at the Academy of Music, growing out of the attempt of Mr. [Bernard] Ullman, the lessee and manager of the Academy of Music, to exclude Mr. John Darcie, the musical and theatrical reporter of Porter's Spirit of the Times, from the entertainments given at the Academy. Mr. Darcie was formerly connected with Mr. Ullman in business relations, having for some seasons furnished the librettos of the operas sold within the building. Owing, however, to some disagreement, the relation were not kept up, and as Mr. Ullman gave orders to have Mr. Darcie excluded from the house some time since, it is reasonable to suppose that the feelings of Mr. Ullman toward Mr. Darcie (who has been for several months connected with Porter's Spirit) was not of the most friendly character. Mr. Darcie's exclusion caused George Wilkes, the editor of Porter's Spirit, to address the following communications to Mr. Ullman:

OFFICE PORTER’S SPIRIT OF THE TIMES,}

NEW-YORK, April 15, 1858.}

B. ULLMAN, esq.—Sir: Your letter of yesterday, repeating your determination to exclude Mr. John Darcie, the Musical and Dramatic Reporter of Porter's Spirit, from the public performances at the Academy, even though he purchase his ticket, has reached me, and I have carefully read what you say injustification of that act.

My answer is that I send Mr. Darcie to the Academy, and other places of public entertainment, not as John Darcie, but as the representative of the paper I conduct; and I claim that so long as he bears himself lawfully and decorously while in attendance at such places, his personal characteristics are merged in his representative position.

Were editors to submit to any other rule, and make managers the umpire of the private standing of their employees, they would be continually subject to theatrical dictation, and might at any moment have their employees turned upon their hands, and their paper left deficient of a report. This was the case with us in your arbitrary and invidious exclusion of Mr. Darcie.

We sent him to the Academy as our reporter, with directions, in accordance with our rule, to pay for his ticket; and you, knowing him to be our reporter, directed him to be excluded, and did not deem it worth the while to acquaint us with your rescript. It is for this wrong and indignity we seek redress, and we expect to get it by law.

I see nothing in the charges you make against Mr. Darcie, that may not easily be explained away, and it matters little whether or no, he was the original Touchstone of The London Era, since I find him to be a better writer than the person who has charge of that department, in the indicated London Journal.

Moreover, my personal observation of Mr. Darcie has been entirely in his favor. I have always found him to be a quiet, well-mannered, self-respecting gentleman; and, notwithstanding what you say of his character I have yet to hear the first person speak ill of him.

I am free to say, however, that if any evidence be furnished me, that he has acted corruptly while in my employ, or violated the decorum due to any respectable place of public entertainment he will at once be dismissed from all connection with The Spirit. More than this, I have not to say, except that I desire to assure you, that I am not actuated in the steps I am taking, by any personal animosity to you, but simply by a desire to vindicate the rights of the paper I conduct, and to establish the principle that editors have the same privilege of admission, for pay, to licensed places of public entertainment as all other members. . . .