NEW THEATRE BY-LAW

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 13922, 22 December 1910, Page 8

NEW THEATRE BY-LAW

PASSED BY THE CITY

COUXCII

NO EARLY DOORS

L.ist night at the special meeting ot the City Council additions were ,pro--0.-ed in the e\i.-*ting by-i a ;•.■_. relating i„ th'-ntrt;, and place-.-, oi amusement, !,<.- a ppipo-t'u new by-la ".v. II ie y.i'.:tior.s \\i-i'-- a.-, follow:—'•Tlk* marking of i;n.'ii h it v, itii it- distinguishing i.um-i.i.-r and gro'.iiiing of ,m-at.s under letters v; the alphabet or oth-n'. :.-e, .shall be 'I-.;;,- in >-i':-li manner ae'l according t-' t.Viii'ii. A pi'tu showing the _.nmpui ' au*i numbering- ot ti>** .-'-its a- herei.• i-rovcied shall by t-win'jitcd and ■! .nVai.'o--! so crhihitod at each ot tl;e eM.-a.-ce door.-, of >-\:ry .-u'J: ieuMmg. The j.-.u'nag**-- «.l i:uy theatrical eliter-tJii-.u-.-nt- concert, <": ■ orlu-r ,;,.-norm-K.-i'-e .-.hail. i*. hen reo.iii.-r-d ;n v. riling hv I lie C'.i'.ix.ii. arrange !'••.'■ the '-ah* •:■ -.oim piace or p;-i. c., appioved of by the t.'o'iU'.l ci ti-kef-i <>i juinu-.-ioii to .v eh t'iitert.'i:iiui«-!.t. concert, or per-ier.---.anc.-* lor the ~;,;k ;■ el .-.I lea.-t <:,'!::. 'our., uio'e the commencement In the .see*!'.'', rfferting to t!.- is-ue-e; on..- tiehet jer each seat, the jolloWing addition •■■a-- propo-d :--'Such ti' ; -.et shaii ' utille tii.* holder oi 'it to ce-upy the s,eat referred to in it. or to i,.c,'ii" the same '.uth'.nt o.c;p\ilig '*-•

in.ii- the time when such peiiormance ii! m which it is issued <<>■■>■ •rf-nces until it i.s ended.To th'« action .'/n.vi'iifi-.: that every j .11,-011 .-.."UJivinti u'.v:K *l>ouJd exhibit hi-, ticket ou demand to ti:** inspector, I- mm- proposed to ;idd the following:— -Kvtv person iKciipying :• neat in sm-h building during any public meeting, performance, or entertainment or .-ijiTtu-.-.-'nient. and not Uiu<£ himself the holder of the ticket so issued for .such ,-e;it, shall vacate and give up .such .-c.-it whenever called upon to do .so by the holder of the ticket issued m rc--oe<'t of such .veat."

' [he following new sections are pro-.-■o-ed to be adfh-d to the existing bylaws :— .

No person shall occupy in any building, during any public meeting, perloi maiice. i-iitcrtainmeut or amusement,

;uy seat in respect of which a ticket ha* already been issued, other than the M-at indicated by the ticket of which

Mieii jH.-r.-on is the holdt-r. Any per.-iort committing a breach oi :>m- provision of this by-law shall be. liable to the penalty provided by .seo;:on 'M\t ot "The .Municipal Corporations Act !:X>3."

The Mayor moved the adoption of tliH proposed additions and new -sections.

Cr. Cooper seconded the motion

Cr. Dougall said he intended to oppose the motion. He thought they were doing wrong in attempting to regulate admission to theatres in this way. Theythemselves had found that the by-law with respect to numbering tho seats and conhning the public to the seats numbered" on their tickets was a failure. The public simply refused to obey the by-law. The proposed amendment of grouping tho seats and proprietors being compelled to exhibit a plan of seating for selection was no better than the by-law. The management of their theatres arid concert halls was excellent, and the theatre and concert hall proprietors were entitled to great praise' for the way in which they managed them. The Council now proposed to inflict a hardship on theatre proprietors calling upon them to dinunism the earning powers of tho buildings considerably. All tho Council had to do. be contended, was to provide for the safety of the public in tho case of panic, etc. They were bound to protect thoso who frequented tin* cheaper parts of the- house, and if tiwy carried this by-law they would find that the price to thy chea'tier parts of 'tho theatre would be raised. This was what ho was endeavouring to prevent by opposing the proposed "'by-law. Ho contended that the statement that the failure of the former by-law was due to the way in which it was carried out was incorrect. That implied an imputation on the staff of tho Council which he asserted was not sustained -by fact. .

Cr. Morris agreed with Cr. Dougall. He thought that'all the Council should do was to provide for tho safety of tho public and leave tho theatrical managers to carry on their own business.

The Mayor said that he denied that the former by-law was a failure or that the public refused to obey it. The reason the by-law was brought in was that unseemly scenes took place outside the theatre on the occasion of any (special attraction. The by-law was only tried once, and the theatre, proprietors tried their best not to carry it out, besides which some of their inspector were not in ' favour of tho- by-law. Unseemly scrambles till took place, and people stood outside the theatre from, half-past five o'clock till eight in drizzling rain. This ' was what the present by-law sought to obviate.

The Mayor then read letters from various theatre proprietors in New York, showing that tho system now proposed was in work in America successfully, and that in some of them the whole of the seats in the houses were -reserved voluntarily by the management. This, lie contended was suffiVicnt to show that the .system proposed In the amended by-law now before, tho Council was in force elsewhere, and that the former by-law worked satisfactorily at one of their organ recitals, and tho numbering was also used by tho Musical Union, also .satisfactorily. Ho Had letters also from tho, principal theatres in ixm'tbu, stating that the .system was in force there. Cr. Dougall said the minimum price for seats reserved in- those theatres was 2» Gd.

Cr. Cooper spoke in favour of the proposed by-law. The Theatre Royal gallery accommodation, he said, was a disgrace, and he thought the Council should protect those who could not afford to nay the higher rates. There was nothing to prevent the seats throughout the house being reserved as the dress circle seats were now, and the plans for the shilling seats could be at the Theatre. Cr. Taylor said that tho By-law Committee had visited the gallery of the Theatre Royal and had come to the conclusion that to sub-divide the w>ats would be to make it a deathtrap. Cr, Horsley supported the by-law, and stated "that his experience in America supported what hud been stated in the letters referred to by the Mayor.

Cr. fhacker also supported the amending by-law, and spoke strongly against the ''early door" extortion which he characterised as a tax on the wage-earner. This would be done away with by the selling of reserved scats in all parts. If the by-law wiped out the iniquity of early door extortion it would'be a good thing for the wage-earners.

The by-law as proposed was then carried on a division by 9 to 5.