ACTORS AND “ACTORS ” UNION.

Otago Witness, Issue 3019, 24 January 1912, Page 67

ACTORS AND “ACTORS ” UNION.

A meeting of theatrical managers waa held in Sydney the other day at the offices of Messrs J. C. Williamson (Lid.), called for the purpose of discussing the projected union of actors. Mr Hugh J. Ward was in the chair, and others present were Messrs Geo. Tallis, Clyde Meynell, Win. Anderson, Allan Hamilton, Reynolds Denniston, Geo. Marlow, Geo. Willoughby, J. C. Lcete, and 1 Joe St. Clair. It appears that the manager's had been approached by representative actors, who took strong exception to the intimidating terms of a circular mailed to them by the persons organising the union, whom it was claimed were not bona fide actor®. A paragraph in this circular read as follows: — The union has received promises of verypowerful support, and will protect its members; but thee© artists who refrain from joining until the battle is over will have no right to complain at finding the union hostile to them. This was viewed by many actors as an unoalled-for threat, and coming from without the profession was regarded as a. gratuitous insult which they deeply resented. The communication had been addressed both to Australian and imported artists, with a request for 2s 6d, the amount of the entrance fee to the proposed union. A rather humourless fact associated l with the demand, so far as it concerned the imported artists, was that the first object of the union, as set out in the circular, is to stop the importation of artists from abroad. The managers werb asked bv members of their companies to protect them, as far as lay in their power, from being furthered harassed by letter or importuned in the streets for the half-crown subscription. It was urged that the {personnel of the executive of the organisation was not flattering to the profession, and that the profession did not desire to bo associated in the public mind with them, either collectively or individually. The matter was discussed at length at the meeting, which decided to take a stand on behalf of the theatrical profession and in the interests of the public. It was pointed out that when it was all summed tin, it was the public that decided whether an aspirant for a stage career was acceptable or not as an actor or actress. So far as could be ascertained from the names of those moving for an Actors’ Union, the public had given them all a very emphatic negative. Tl-e managers, therefore, had on the first law of natfire. that of selfpreservation, no alternative but to pass this negative on. But with a perversity, scarcely human, a number of persons still persisted in calling themselves actors. Apparently thev took the double negative—the public a and the managers’—as an affirmative. The conference affirmed the sympathy of managers with practical unionism. All brandies of stage industry that could be so organised had been met without opposition. and ah reasonable demands had been conceded. _ There was, however, no_ desire m the profession for a- union, and from the feeling of actors there certainly was marked distaste for anything of the kind under such auspices as that of the present movement. A leading local firm was instructed inquire into and contest the registration.