LIBRARY UNIVERSITY Of CALIFORNIA i SAN OIG6O TN GENEVIEVE WARD FROM ORIGINAL MATERIAL DERIVED FROM HER FAMILY AND FRIENDS BY ZADEL BARNES GUSTAFSON WITH PORTRAIT BOSTON JAMES R. OSGOOD AND COMPANY 1882 COPYRIGHT, 1881, Bv JAMES R. OSGOOD AND COMPANY. All rifkts rettrvtd. /rtnklfn $rr*s: JtASD, AVKRV, AND COMPANY, BOSTON. GENEVIEVE. (A SONG.) HAIL to thee, and farewell, Beautiful Genevieve ! Oh, kind for thee be wind and wave, Thou daughter of the Free and Brave ! Godspeed of English heart and hand Goes with thee to thy native land. Farewell, Beautiful Genevieve! Hail to thee, and farewell ! Speeding so fast away. Let not Columbia, eager now To bind her laurels on thy brow, Make thee forget that English hearts First crowned and throned thee Queen of Arts And Hearts, Beautiful Genevieve ! All hail, and welcome home ! Over dividing seas Returning, when the snows are past, Queen Flower with flowers and spring at last. Not more victorious than true, Artist and woman crowned in you ! Welcome, Beautiful Genevieve ! Words by Mrs. Z. B. GUSTAFSON. The music, by the favorite English balladist Miss ELIZABETH PHILP, is given on the following pages. GENEYIEYE. Words by ZADEL B. GUSTAFSON. Music by E. PHILP. n Recitative. J/l /I 1 ftf** f ' - *-f rf- j-*- \.-\) 1 / 1 CS J i. Hail to 3. Hail to thee, and fare thee, and fare well, well! (qy?.L <%- k:^^ ^ " 1 ft ^ & ^- J 2 *'^ rT *? ^ ^ 1 ^*' ^ "? " A 1 1 * moderato. y, . K K , /Lv r i J j A ** __* fT W W ^ n- e - st a - -4- vieve! Oh, way. Let kind for thee be not Co - lum - bia, I-/ ~Ol 1 i n j F r U 1 1 g^ ' GENEVIEVE A SONG. wind and wave, Thou daugh-ter of the Free and Brave! God- ea - ger now To bind her lau - rels on thy brow, Make speed of Eng - lish heart and hand Goes with thee to thy thee for - get that Eng-lish hearts First crowned and throned thee na - tive land, Goes with thee to thy na - live land. Fare- Queen of Arts, First crowned and throned thee Queen of Arts, and VI CENEVIEVE A SONG. rail. D.C. XL n s~.i \ IT n j - 1 y , . SEE - 00* j J * r j -J- well, fare - well, Beau - ti - ful Gen - e - view! 3. All Hearts, and Hearts, Beau - ti - ful Gen e - vicvc! 1C i /5-c-T ^ -- ~ ' ^9) ^ ~ '> 2, & Gt - Ss i_J <^j ^ r %* 2 (l^T j Sf <* i i:ld GENEVIEVE WARD. 195 have seen his delight when he found his fears groundless. In every situation you came out beautifully, and the sense of art which made you keep back your powers till the situations came made them of the more value. . . . The only fault to me is, that there is too little of you. Ever affectionately, (MME.) G. COLMACHE. THE GARDEN MANSION, QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, ST. JAMES PARK. DEAR Miss WARD, I write to tell you what cordial pleas- ure and admiration your performance elicited from Mrs. Fanny Kemble and myself. I thought it quite admirable, so measured, so free from exaggeration, so profoundly touching. In short, I desired nothing altered as regards yourself. . . . But the last act is terribly too long, and the repetitions of the fiend's story. For a permanent success you must cut, cut, cut ! Ever with true regard, yours HAMILTON AIDE". DEAR Miss WARD, I thought your acting last night the perfection of sweetness, but I do fear the piece is disappointing : the action is not close enough, and it's too long. This is only my humble opinion, but that which was pretty generally ex- pressed last night around me (in the pit) was* very similar. I never met an artist who deserved success so much as you do. Faithfully yours, F. CHARLES. " Annie Mie [wrote Mrs. Clarke, wife of the equerry of the Prince of Wales] is certainly the most beautifully expressed idyl I have ever seen on the English stage, delicate in its treat- ment, and dainty in all its details. It is an enchanting series of pictures, and its tenderness and simplicity ought to come like a new and refreshing draught to the jaded appetite of Lon- don playgoers. You achieve every thing by your inimitable acting as the loving mother, obedient daughter, and outraged and forsaken woman. 196 GENE VI EVE WARD. And these letters also : DEAR GINEVRA, I have had my mind full of the play and your acting ever since. I am enraged with the critics who have done it so little justice I It is full of the most varied interest and charm, and all so softly harmonized in the end, leaving a final impression of pleasure and content. It has a far finer moral and mental power than " Forget Me Not," and there are many fine subtle effects in your acting not lost on me. All your movements and expressions are true to the character. There is nothing of the regal Lucrezia or the audacious Ste- phanie ; but the simple peasant grace, a grace that seems all of feeling, not of art. ... It is a powerful study, a poem and picture in one ; and I am amazed that the public have not taken to it warmly. Good wishes, best wishes, dear, beautiful, bril- liant Ginevra, from your affectionate friend, "SPERANZA" (LADY WILDE). KEATS HOUSE, CHELSEA. DEAR Miss WARD, I must see the last night of " Annie Mie 1 " Might I ask for the same box mamma and I had ? or, if that is taken, any box will do. I should like to be there to show how much I appreciate your noble acting, and how much I admire a play the critics have so misunderstood. Your sincere friend and admirer, OSCAR WILDE. " Annie Mie " was played for the last time on the night of Dec. 10 ; and the day after Miss Ward sailed for America, and on her arrival immediately issued this notice in the leading journals of the United States : TO MANAGERS, ACTORS, AND THE PUBLIC. I have crossed the ocean at this inclement season to protect my purchased right of exclusive production of "Forget Me Not," against the deliberate piracy of Lester Wallack and GENEVIEVE WARD. 197 Theodore Moss. I am preparing papers for an injunction against them, and shall push my legal redress with vigor. Meanwhile I beg to say that neither *Mr. Wallack nor Mr. Moss has any right to " Forget Me Not ; " and, further, I will enjoin every manager and actor in the country who attempts to play my piece. I have this day concluded to play the piece in all the large cities, beginning in the city of New York, at an early date, under the management of Col. William E. Sinn. GENEVIEVE WARD. DEC. 27, 1880. Messrs. Wallack and Moss received tidings of Miss Ward's departure from England, and made haste to present " Forget Me Not " at Wallack's Theatre, re- moving a successful play in order to accomplish this feat. Her suit for an injunction was pressed with skill and vigor, and won ; ' and she immediately made a tour with " Forget Me Not," of the chief cities of the Union and the Provinces, beginning with the city of Boston. In "The New York Tribune" for Feb. 18, 1881, there appeared a critical review of her acting, which, aside from the moral deduction drawn, is a master- piece of dramatic criticism, as finished as the perform- ance it describes ; and as it expresses so admirably the sum of intelligent opinion on both sides of the water, on this consummate performance, it is given entire : BOSTON, Feb. 16. Miss Genevieve Ward lately ended her engagement, of one week, at the Globe Theatre. It was a brilliantly successful engagement, and might advantageously have lasted much longer. Miss Ward acted Stephanie in "Forget Me Not," 1 The whole story is exceedingly well told in Miss Ward's concise and masterly affidavit, for which I refer the reader to the appendix. GENEVIEVE WARD. the ]>lay that was the subject of her recent law-suit agai; Wallack. She first appeared here on the yth inst., giving her first performance of Stephanie in this country; and she was welcomed by a numerous and brilliant audience. The attend- ance on the second night was still larger, and each night through- out the week the theatre was crowded. Even the tempest of the 1 2th inst. [the rain fell here in torrents that day] could not keep an eager multitude away from the theatre. Neither at the matinee nor again in the evening was it possible to obtain a seat in the house after the curtain had risen. The success c>f Miss Ward is beyond question; and it is of a most excep- tional character. After seeing her performance of Stephanie, no one can feel surprised at the intrepid and determined energy with which she contested Mr. Wallack's infringement upon her right of property in the play of "Forget Me Not." To her the opportunities provided by the character arc special, peculiar, unique, and of absolutely vital import. No dramatic artist was ever better fitted by a part than Miss Ward is fitted by Stepha- nie ; and no other actress on the stage of to-day could act it as well as she does. Those who saw " Forget Me Not " at Wai- lack's Theatre would scarcely know it for the same piece, on seeing Miss Ward as its heroine. The skill and the charm of Miss Rose Coghlan are not, indeed, forgotten, and of course they are not undervalued; but, as Cardinal Wolsey remarks, " there's more in't than fair visage." Miss Coghlan's perform- ance of Stephanie was charming for its piquancy and for its volatile, sensuous, mischievous vitality. Miss Ward's perform- ance is brilliant with intellectual character, beautiful with refinement, nervous and steel-like with indomitable purpose, fearfully intense with passion, painfully true to an afflicting ideal of reality, and at last splendidly tragic. And it is a shin- ing example of ductile and various art. Such a work easily takes its rank among the great achievements of the contempo- rary stage. It is not meant, in thus defining the nature of Miss Ward's success, to intimate that Miss Ward is destitute in actual life of those qualities fair, lovable, and sweet of which Stephanie GENE VI EVE WARD.. 199 is destitute in the play. It is simply meant that Miss Ward possesses in copious abundance certain peculiar qualities of power and beauty, upon which mainly the part of Stephanie is reared. The points of assimilation between the actress and the part consist in an imperial force of character, intellectual brilliancy, audacity of mind, iron will, perfect elegance of man- ners, a profound self-knowledge, and unerring intuitions as to the relations of motive and conduct in that vast net-work of circumstance which is the social fabric. Stephanie possesses all these attributes ; and all these Miss Ward supplies, with the luxuriant adequacy and grace of nature. But Stephanie superadds to these a bitter, mocking cynicism, thinly veiled by artificial suavity, and logically irradiant from natural hardness of heart, coupled with an insensibility to gentleness that has been engendered by a cruel experience of human selfishness. This, with a certain mystical touch of the animal freedom, whether in joy or wrath, which goes with a being having neither soul nor conscience, the actress has to supply and does sup- ply by her art. As interpreted by Miss Ward, the character is reared, not upon a basis of unchastity, but upon a basis of intellectual perversion. This Stephanie has followed at first with self-contempt, afterward with sullen indifference, finally with the bold and brilliant hardihood of reckless defiance a life of crime. She is audacious, unscrupulous, cruel ; a con- summate tactician ; almost sexless in fact, yet a siren in knowl- edge and capacity to use the arts of her sex ; capable of any wickedness to accomplish an end, yet trivial enough to have no _ greater end in view than the re-investiture of herself with social recognition ; cold as snow ; implacable as the grave ; remorse- less ; wicked ; but, beneath all this depravity, capable at least of self-pity, capable of momentary regret, capable of a little bit of human tenderness, aware of the glory of the innocence she has lost, and thus not altogether beyond the pale of compas- sion. And she is, in externals, in every thing visible and audible, the very ideal of grace and melody. In the presence of an admirable work of art, the observer, of course, wishes that it were entirely worthy of being per- 2OO GENEVIEVE WARD. formed, and that it were entirely clear and sound as to its applicability in a moral sense, or even in an intellectual sense to human life. Art does not go very far, when it stops short merely at the revelation of the felicitous powers of the artist; and it is not altogether right, when it tends to beguile sympathy for an unworthy object, and perplex a spectator's perceptions as to good and evil. Miss Ward's performance of Stephanie, brilliant though it be, does not redeem the character from its bleak exile from human sympathy. The actress, to be sure, has managed, by a scheme of treatment which is exclusively her own, to make Stephanie, for two or three moments, piteous and forlorn ; and her expression of this evanescent anguish occurring in the appeal to Sir Horace Welby, her friendly foe, in the great scene of the second act is wonderfully subtle. That appeal, as Miss Ward makes it, is begun in artifice, is allowed to become profoundly sincere, is stunned and startled into a recoil of resentment by a harsh rebuff, and subsides through hysterical levity into frigid and brittle sarcasm and gay defiance. For a while, accordingly, the feelings of the observer are deeply moved. Yet this does not make the character of Stephanie any the less detestable. The blight remains upon it, and always must remain, that it repels the interest of the heart. The added blight likewise rests upon it (though this is of far less consequence to the spectator), that it is burdened with moral sophistry. Vicious conduct in a woman, according to Stephanie's logic, is no way more culpable or disastrous than vicious conduct in a man; the woman, equally with the man, should have a social license to sow the juvenile wild oats, and effect the middle-aged reformation ; and it is only because there are gay young men who indulge in profligacy, that women some- times become adventurers and moral monsters. All this is launched forth in speeches of singular terseness, eloquence, and vigor; but it is hardly necessary to point out that all this is specious and mischievous perversion of the truth however admirably in character from Stephanie's lips. Every observer who has looked carefully upon the world is aware that the con- sequences of wrong-doing by a woman are vastly more perm- GENE VI EVE WARD. 2OI cious than those of wrong-doing by a man ; that society could not exist in decency, if to its already inconvenient coterie of reformed rakes it were to add a legion of reformed wantons ; and that it is innate wickedness and evil propensity that make such women as Stephanie, and not the mere existence of the wild young men who are willing to become their comrades, and generally end by being their dupes and victims. It is natural, however, that this adventurer who has kept a gambling-hell, and ruined many a man, soul and body, and now wishes to re- instate herself in a virtuous social position should thus strive to palliate her past proceedings. Self-justification is one of the first laws of life. Even lago, who never deceives himself, yet announces one adequate motive for his fearful crimes. Even Bulwer's Margrave that prodigy of evil and great type of infernal, joyous, animal depravity can yet paint himself in the light of harmless loveliness and innocent gayety. It is but a little while since " Forget Me Not " was seen in New York, and readers and playgoers are familiar with its story. It is a thin story ; but, in the handling, it has been made to yield some excellent dramatic pictures, some splendid mo- ments of intellectual combat, and some affecting contrasts of character. The dialogue, particularly in the second act, is as strong and as brilliant as polished steel. Here, in this combat of words, Miss Ward's acting is marvellous for trenchant skill and fascinating variety. The easy, good-natured, bantering air with which the strife begins, the liquid purity of the tones, the delicate glow of the arch satire, the icy glitter of the thought and purpose beneath the words, the transition into pathos and back again into gay indifference and deadly hostility, the sud- den and terrible mood of menace, when at length the crisis has passed and the evil ge.iiiis has won its temporary victory, all these were in perfect taste and consummate harmony. Seeing this brilliant, supple, relentless, formidable figure, and hearing this incisive, bell-like voice, the spectator is repelled and at- tracted at the same instant, and thoroughly bewildered with the sense of a power and beauty as hateful as they are glorious. Not since Ristori acted Lucrezia Borgia in this country has our 202 GENEVIEVE WARD, stage exhibited such an image of imperial will, made radiant with beauty and electric with flashes of passion. The leopard and the serpent are fatal, terrible, and loathsome ; yet they scarcely have a peer among nature's supreme symbols of power and of grace. Into the last scene of " Forget Me Not," where, at length, Stephanie is crushed by physical fear, through beholding, unseen by him, the man who would kill her as one kills a malignant and dangerous reptile, Miss Ward has introduced certain illustrative " business " not provided by the piece, but such as greatly enhances its final effect. The backward rush from the door, on seeing the Corsican avenger on the stair- case, with the incident yell of terror, is the invention of the actress ; and from this moment to the final exit she is the very incarnation thrilling and even agonizing of abject fear. The situation is one of the strongest that dramatic ingenuity has invented; and Miss Ward invests it with a coloring of truth that is pathetic and awful. Wherever this piece of acting is seen, accordingly, the lovers of true art will have an enjoyment such as is seldom vouchsafed upon the stage. An eminent London physician, whose writings are much admired for their deep thought, powerful logic and humanity, wrote to Mrs. Ward the following pleas- ant letter : LONDON, March 10, 1881. DEAR MRS. WARD, I have to thank you much for letting me see the criticism on Genevieve Ward and " Forget Me Not," in " The New York Tribune." It is indeed a remarkable article ; and if " Forget Me Not " were published it might preface it as Schlegel and Coleridge combined preface Shake- speare. There is spiritual clairvoyance in its perception of Miss Ward's intellectual personation, and a now rare knowledge of the rights of good and evil, in both the personation and the drama itself. It is seldom that one meets in criticism with CENEVIEVE WARD. 203 such a satisfactory wholesome wholeness. To you it must give the gratification of something like a final certificate of your gifted Genevieve's powers. And I am grateful to the writer for also, in his ardent admiration, being so far master of his reason as to be able to declare that human good is the last attainment of the drama in both its parts. Your old doctor, GARTH WILKINSON. Miss Ward appeared in New York in March ; and a friend wrote to her : " The sure prospect of the triumphant settlement of the Moss-Wallack suit in your favor gives me unfeigned pleasure, since you are unquestionably in the right, morally and legally. . . . Stephanie, as you create her, is a pathetic, thrilling lesson and example in social ethics ; and so, strikes deep into the sympathies, and teaches moral and social wisdom in a new and original manner." " It is very easy to see," wrote Mrs. Anne L. Botta, " how much the play owes to you, and what it would be in inferior hands." Mrs. George Vandenhoff wrote : " I thank you with' my whole soul ! Your wonderful Ste- phanie will remain engraven on my memory while I have a memory. You turned for me a chapter in the history of a woman's heart which I had never read before. Was it an in- spiration that named the play ' Forget Me Not ' ? Surely to all and every woman who shall see you in that character, you will remain a never-to-be-forgotten revelation! It was not acting: it was living, being, doing, suffering, and agonizing 1 She was bad wicked lost 1 But your genius so elevated and re- deemed her, that my feeling about her is one of regret, of sor- row that the chance she so longed for and prayed for was denied to her. . . . The mingled pathos and scorn with which 204 GENEVIEVE WARD. you appealed to this man I the wonderful recovery of your bravado and insolent nonchalance, the grandeur of your defiant and just accusations, and then at last your abject fear it makes me shudder even now ! I have always admired you as woman and artist, but in this new creation you rise above my feeble praise." DEAR Miss WARD, I am compelled by sheer admiration of your wondrous creative power to say that " Forget Me Not " took us all by storm. The play is not well constructed, but you have made it full of points, creating a character at once true and striking ; and I am more than ever your friend and admirer, R. SHELTON MACKENZIE. And this from the clever editor of " Harper's Bazar : " MARCH 26, 1881. DEAR Miss WARD, I think you will like to hear what was said of you last night by Mr. Salvador de Mendoza, consul-gen- eral of Brazil, whom we met with his wife on our way home, after leaving you. He declared that he could not understand why the Americans made such a fuss about Sara Bernhardt, when they had so much greater an artist among them in their own countrywoman, Miss Ward. The Mendozas had stopped to talk with Madame Gerster, who expressed herself delighted with your powerful impersonation ; and they say she is not easily pleased. These things were so pleasant for me to hear, coin- ciding so fully with my own opinion, that I feel like telling you of them, though I doubt not they are only echoes of what you hear continually. I was charmed, indeed, with such a subtle and lofty conception of such a complex character as Stephanie ; and your countrywomen may well be proud of your success. Affectionately your friend, MARY L. BOOTH. In June of this present year, 1881, Miss Ward re- GENE VI EVE WARD. 2O5 turned to London, and devoted herself to her friends, and to her beloved occupation of modelling, at which, as well as in painting, she is very skilful. In his article on the Dramatic Fine-Art Gallery, Mr. Forbes Robertson said, " Here also is a vigorously treated miniature bust of the late Col. Ward, executed from memory by Miss Genevieve Ward, the greatest of our living tragic actresses. She has been blessed with a wonderful diversity of gifts, a linguist, a musician, an actress in the very highest sense of the term, and, if we may judge by the bust before us and by the pictures she has sent to the exhibition, it is manifest she would have been supreme in these walks also had she turned her attention to them. Her ' Sheep, after Verboeckhoven ' (34) would make even an expert hesitate to say that they were not from the pencil of the Flemish master himself. Whence this lady inherited her gift of the pencil, is made abundantly manifest by the exquisite miniature (112) which her mother painted of her when a child. Sir Wil- liam Ross himself might have stippled this portrait." "Who taught you to model? " I asked her one day this summer, as she sat working with light and sure touch on the bust of her friend Col. Sanford. "No one taught me," she replied: "it 'growed' like Topsy ; but I ask the best critics to sit in judg- ment on my work." But acting, painting, modelling, and talking all tongues, do not complete the list of Miss Ward's accomplishments. She can write. M. Regnier says that her letters would make a second edition of " Madame de Se"vigne ; " and her " Cotelettes a la Pojarsky," published in "The Theatre" for March, 1 88 1, is a perfect literary ragotit of Russian gastro- nomic novelties. 206 GENEVIEVE WARD. Her personal friends are the noblest and cleverest men and women of the time ; and I have read and heard abundant and glowing testimony to her personal qualities from those of her own profession, not a jeal- ous note of discord anywhere. Madame Colmache, critic of "The Court Journal," and author of "The Life of Talleyrand," is one of the most venerable of her friends, a lady who looks like an empress in her own right, needing no crown but her own soft white tresses, and no jewels but the lustre of her serene and loving eyes. Another of her friends, Miss Elizabeth Philp, the eminent balladist, who wrote the music of " Gene- vieve," which appears early in this volume, and is also the original of the " English Amazon" figuring in Mr. Sala's brilliant book on the late American Rebellion, is an English lady' of most charming character, whose acquaintance is a never-failing source of delight to all who meet her. Annie Thomas describes her : " A distinguished ornament of the musical world, and one of the most perfect hostesses in society, who has risen to a high place among our female composers, and has made her mark by her own unassisted efforts. Thoroughly impregnated with the real artist spirit, she has set herself resolutely to conquer every difficulty that arises in the artist's path, in the most honorable and legitimate manner. Clever, painstaking, persevering, and sensitive to an extraordinary degree, she is her own most severe critic ; while her prompt recognition of talent and thoroughness in others, and her hearty appreciation of whatever is worthy in her compeers, render her opinion of their achievements as valu- able as it is sought after." The critic of an authoritative London journal says, GENEVIEVE WARD. 2O? "Her music is always melodious, intelligent, and unforced. She selects a poem with taste, and interprets it with respect. A poem in her hands remains a poem, and does not become a mere peg on which to hang a melody. This is true art, and real feeling, and is a quality as invaluable to the balladist as it is unfortunately rare. From the long list of a hundred songs which she has composed, it is difficult to select a few for special mention, when all or nearly all of them are of exceptional merit. For pathos, ' Airlie Beacon,' ' Marguerite's Letter,' the grand 4 Story of a Year,' and ' Younger Years,' may be fairly quoted ; in passionate feeling ' The Poacher's Widow ' stands unrivalled among modern English ballads ; and ' Lillie's Good-Night ' finds an echo in the heart of every mother who hears it. In addition to her great musical gifts, Miss Philp is a profound thinker, a careful reader, and a brilliant conversationalist. She has the art, so rare among women, of telling a story well, and of coming up to her point in a way that compels her most obtuse auditor to see it. Her house in London is the popular head-centre where musical, dramatic, literary, and artistic people (most of them celebrities) delight in meeting on those well-known Thursday afternoons which she commenced some twenty years ago, and has kept going with signal success ever since." Which is all perfectly true; for I have heard her sing some of her own delightful songs, one particu- larly fine in interpretation of Mr. Lowell's " Moon- light deep and tender," and I have eaten " chick- ing " at her house, and found it " ospitally " ! As I draw this sketch to a close, the great tragedi- enne is sailing toward her native land, wearing near her heart the one amulet that never leaves her when she enters into her ideal life of art, the silver lock of the great Siddons linked with the dark tress severed by Ristori from her own classic temples for a token of love, companionship, and God-speed to the gifted 208 GENEVIEVF. WARD. American woman she so nobly and generously loves. With her go the clever artists, and firm personal friends, who will share with her in the labor and honors of the dramatic representations which many of my readers will be enjoying when these leaves are fresh from the press ; and with her goes also the warm good-will of hosts of friends, and the blessing of the invalid brother and venerable mother who remain behind waiting, with how much love and faith and justified pride, to catch the echoes of the new plaudit from across the sea. A beautiful light is thrown on the private character of Miss Ward, in a little incident made known to me since her departure for America. A dear friend asked Mrs. Ward how soon they could hope to hear from her daughter. " I have had a letter from her every day since she sailed ! " was the reply. Miss Ward had written beforehand letters for each day of her journey, marked them all " per Sea-Gull express," and left them with a friend in Liverpool, to be posted to her mother daily, according to their dates. In these letters Miss Ward's imaginary de- scriptions of the daily occurrences at sea, not omitting to mention the latitude and longitude they were in, and the progress made, were delightful for originality and humor ; and the whole act was one of the most graceful filial tenderness. APPENDIX. Superior Court 0! tfjc Citg of ISTefa fforfe. GENEVIEVE WARD, Plaintiff', against THEODORE MOSS AND LESTER WALLACK, Defendants. CITY AND COUNTY OF NEW YORK, ss.: GENEVIEVE WARD, being duly sworn, says : I am the plaintiff. I was born in the city of New York, and am a citizen of the United States of America. I am an actress, and am dependent upon the practice of my pro- fession for a livelihood. My attention was first drawn to the play of " Forget-Me-Not " by one of the authors thereof, Mr. Herman Merivale. Messrs. Merivale and Grove were the authors of the said play. Mr. Merivale requested me to read it, and I did so. I was greatly impressed with the dramatic power of the play upon my reading thereof ; and I thought I saw that the principal character, Stephanie, Marquise de Mohrivart, was ex- actly suited to my professional capacities. Not willing to trust to my own judgment, I submitted the play to my good friend Bram Stoker, then and now the acting man- 209 210 GENE VI EVE WARD. ager of Henry Irving, Esq., at the Lyceum Theatre, Lon- don. Mr. Stoker confirmed my impression of the play, and of my adaptability for the principal part thereof. I was in August, 1879, and am still, known in London as an American actress. Mr. Stoker advised me to secure the play. I accordingly sent for Mr. Merivale; and he came to the Lyceum Theatre, Aug. 12, 1879, and we talked over the terms of the purchase of the play. I was informed by him that he had never sold the play to anybody, and that he and Mr. Grove were the authors thereof, and that they only had one hundred copies of the play printed ; that they had never published the play, nor sold, nor authorized to be sold, any copies thereof, and that said play had been printed exclusively for private circulation. I told said Merivale that I was about arranging for an American tour, and that I desired to get a good play for the United States. It was dis- tinctly understood by all parties that I was buying the piece for representation at any place on the inhabitable globe. We especially spoke of the United States ; and Mr. Merivale never, prior to the signing of the contract hereinafter mentioned, by word or action, led me to infer that aught else was contemplated. Mr. Merivale wanted some limitation as to the number of times that I should play the piece within a given time. I told him I did not think it necessary, as I intended to produce the play in London, in the Provinces, and in the United States, and that I had no doubt that I should pay him the whole of the consideration money within one year from the date of the production of the piece in London. There were present at the time of this conversation, besides .Mr. Merivale and myself, my brother Albert Lee Ward, and Mr. Stoker. Nothing, it seems to me, could have been better understood than that I was negotiating for the GENEVIEVE WARD. 211 purchase of the right of the exclusive production of the play everywhere, and that said authors were to sell me such exclusive right of production everywhere, and cer- tainly most especially for the United States, as I had positively stated I was especially desirous of getting a successful play for America. At that interview the terms vere fully settled ; and it was verbally agreed that I was to have the exclusive right to produce the play for a period of five years, for the sum of three pounds for ever)' time it was produced by me in London, and two pounds for every occasion during said period in which the play was produced by me elsewhere. As soon, how- ever, as I had paid the sum of three hundred pounds, I was then to have the exclusive right of production of said play anywhere during said five years without further payment. I was also to have a right to a further period of five years upon the same terms, providing I gave three months written notice of such being my wish. The terms being agreed upon, I arranged with Mr. Merivale that he should come to the theatre, and read the play to my company. He came on the thirteenth day of August, 1879, and read the play to the members of the. company. All were delighted with it. I at once assigned the different characters, and put the piece in rehearsal. Mr. Merivale gave me three printed copies of the play. He said he could not give me any more, as he had none. Upon the title-page of the play were the words, " Printed for private circulation." I was advised then, and am now, that an author had, and has, a right to print a limited number of copies of his play for his own and friends' use, without thereby dedicating it to the pub- lic. I agreed to make the large payment of three hundred pounds for the piece in that belief, and the authors took my money in the like belief. I found my original im- 212 GENE VI EVE WARD. pression of the play intensified by the rehearsal thereof. It had been agreed between Mr. Merivale and myself, that I should have my solicitor prepare a written agree- ment embodying the above understanding between the authors and myself. I desired my said brother to so instruct Mr. Coe, whose affidavit is hereunto annexed. Mr. Coe prepared the agreement; but what with rehears- ing, and one thing and another, I could not get the authors together to sign it until about five o'clock P.M. of the twenty-first day of August, 1879. They then went very carefully over the contract so prepared by Mr. Coe, in the presence of my brother and Mr. Stoker. The authors made many suggestions, and desired a very material amendment thereof. I had agreed to purchase, and they had agreed to sell to me, the exclusive right, without restriction, to produce the play anywhere. This, I am advised, would have given me the right to sell to others the said right of production. The authors de- sired to change this so as to limit my right of sale, and compel the performance by myself. As the piece was to be played that night, I consented to that important altera- tion from our understanding. The contract was then signed by the authors in the presence of my brother and the said Stoker. Hereunto annexed, marked "Exhibit A," is a copy of the contract as finally concluded and signed between us. I have never heard of the authors disputing this contract. I have understood that they now affect to interpret it differently from its plain mean- ing, and from the usual import attached to the language employed in the contract. Indeed, the authors have, since the execution of the contract, fully satisfied and confirmed the same in all its features by bringing an action thereon in a court of England, before Lord Cole- ridge. His lordship, Sept. 29, 1880, denied the authors' GENEVIEVE WARD. motion, with costs. Hereunto annexed, marked " Ex- hibit B," is a report of the case as it appeared in "The Daily Telegraph," a newspaper printed in the city of London, Eng., on the thirtieth day of September, 1880. The play, from the night of its first production, on the said twenty-first day of August, 1879, was a great suc- cess. The papers, with one accord, spoke very highly of it; and the London managers all believed in its being destined to a long and prosperous career. Prior to its first production, Mr. Merivale had induced me to permit a sister-in-law of his to appear in the part of Rose de Brissac. Notwithstanding I had a lady of my company well suited to play the part, I yielded to his request, the more so as I desired to remain upon good terms with Mr. Merivale. Unhappily the young lady proved herself inadequate to play the part. I called Mr. Merivale's particular attention to the shortcoming; and he begged me to retain her, and that he would coach her so as to play the part acceptably. She showing no improvement, for managerial reasons I was compelled to substitute a daughter of Grace Greenwood in her place. By this necessary act, I incurred the malignant hatred of Mr. Merivale. So bitter was his resentment that he pub- lished cruel lies of me, and sent defamatory circulars wherever he thought he could do me harm. He has publicly threatened I should never play the piece in America. Regarding him as an unaccountable being, after advising with my friends, I have taken no notice of him, but have clone all in my power to make his play a success. I trust I do not offend good taste when I add that the unhappy man, Mr. Merivale, was for several years in an asylum of restraint, where he had been placed by his own mother for an assault upon her. This is a fact of open, common notoriety in England ; and I refer to it 214 GENEVIEVE WARD. principally because the defendant Moss claims to have had a verbal arrangement with .Mr. Merivale about the play. At that time I verily believe he was in an insane- asylum. The instantaneous success of the play, and the difference above mentioned with Mr. Merivale, led the authors to refuse to receive the first payment of compen- sation due under the contract. They continued to refuse for several weeks. They sought to have me break the said contract ; but I was careful to fully keep its terms, and I made all necessary tender of the amounts legally due thereunder. I finally, and on the eighth day of April, 1880, paid to and the said authors received from me the full balance of the said three hundred pounds mentioned in the said contract ; and I now allege I am the sole owner of the right to produce said play for my exclusive performance for the period of five years from the twenty-first day of August, 1879, without further payment. I solemnly aver, that, at no time during the negotiations between the authors and myself, did I ever hear the said authors say, suggest, or intimate that they had, at any time prior thereto, made any sale of said play to any person whomsoever, either in Europe or America. I never heard the names of Lester Wallack or Theodore Moss mentioned by said authors, or either of them. I remember saying to Mr. Merivale, prior to signing of the contract, that I should produce the play in France. He said it was a good idea, and that he would translate it for me. Before the signing of the contract, I only had casual conversations with Mr. Grove. Mr. Merivale rep- resented him with full -powers. Afterwards, and when the play had run about eight days, Mr. Grove called upon me at my residence in St. John's Wood, London, and, after referring to the unhappy difference that had arisen GENEVIEVE WARD. 215 between Mr. Merivale and myself touching the want of capacity of the sister-in-law of said Merivale to fill the aforesaid part of Rose de Brissac, stated to me that the executed agreement was all on my side ; but that he had submitted it to his solicitor, Mr. Martineau, and that the said Martineau had stated that the contract was perfect and valid. But that he, Grove, hoped I would change it to the one that he had prepared. He then handed me the paper hereunto annexed, marked " Exhibit C." We discussed its terms. He said it was not fair; that I might go to America, and stay there a year, and that it would injure the piece greatly not to have it per- formed meanwhile in England. He therefore proposed the alteration contained in subdivision three of said Exhibit C. I talked freely to him of playing the piece in the United States. He never even hinted that I had no right to do so. Indeed, the judge, hearing this motion, will find that in exact words, in subdivision four of said Exhibit C, he includes the United States. This, I think, quite disposes of the asserted claim of Mr. Moss, that the authors had already verbally sold to him the right to produce the play in the United States. Mr. Grove urged upon me that I ought to make these pro- posed changes, as the play was very successful. I in- formed him that I had made the play a success ; that they had tried for years to sell the play to managers, both in England and America, and that no one of them could be induced to undertake its production. He did not deny this statement, but insisted that I ought to change the terms. I told him we had already agreed upon our terms ; but that, if I found the play was a great suc- cess in the United States, I would send him a further check as a matter of good feeling. He still urged me to sign Exhibit C. Finally he threatened me, that, unless I 2l6 GENE VI EVE WARD. signed, they would write a novel upon the play, that somebody would dramatize it, and thus I would be injured without my being able to prove that they did it. I told him, in conclusion, "that I should consult my solicitor, and, if I found that they had a knife at my throat, I would sign it; otherwise, not." He then handed Exhibit C to my brother, and left. Mr. Grove, after said interview on the fifteenth day of September, 1879, sent to me a letter in his own handwriting, which is hereunto annexed, marked " Exhibit D." He simply claims therein that I have no right to produce a translation of the play. I have never modified the agreement, and it remains as it was executed. After the contract had been signed between the authors and myself, two engrossed copies thereof were made, and sent to the authors for execution, which they never executed, but proposed in lieu thereof the said Exhibit C. I first heard in January, 1880, from Mr. Bird, my attorney herein, of the claim of Mr. Moss to produce the play in the United States. I tried to learn from the authors whether or not they had sold the right to the United States prior to selling it to me. I could not learn that they had. Mr. Grove indignantly denied, on the 3 ist of January, 1880, to my brother, as mentioned in his affidavit hereunto annexed, that he had made any such sale, not wishing to run any risk ; and on the fifth day of February, 1880, my brother, at my request, wrote to Mr. Grove, requesting an answer in writing as to whether the authors had sold the play for the United States to Mr. Moss, and received in reply from the solicit- ors of said Grove an answer hereunto annexed, marked " Exhibit D, No. 2," wherein Mr. Grove indignantly spurned the imputation of an earlier sale than the one to me. I then requested my attorney, Mr. Bird, to call upon Mr. Moss, and have him show him his alleged contract CENEVIEVE WARD. 21 7 with the authors. Mr. Bird did so, and informed me that it was without date, but that Mr. Moss had stated to him that he would swear that he had had it in his posses- sion for two years. I then directed Mr. Bird, as I was under contract with Col. Sinn, of the Brooklyn Park Theatre, to come to America and produce " Forget-Me- Not," to call upon Mr. Moss, and see what compromise could be made with him. None was made with him. I was, however, involved in such doubt, distrusting the authors, and believing the statement made to my attorney by said Moss to be true, and being threatened by Mr. Moss with injunction proceedings if I came to America to play " Forge t-Me-Not," that I had to abandon my en- gagement at heavy loss to myself and Col. Sinn. I advised in London with Mr. Judah P. Benjamin ; and he counselled me to have an action brought in America against Moss, and compel him to show his contract, so that, if it should appear that the allegation of the defend- ant Moss was true, and that he really had a contract prior in date to mine, and taking precedence of mine, I could bring on action against the authors in England, where I then was, for damages, and I would be spared the further damage of coming to the United States, and asserting a right which I did not have. I directed my attorney, Mr. Bird, to bring this action, and examine Mr. Moss herein. Mr. Moss was examined, and then produced his alleged contract, a copy of which is hereunto annexed, marked " Exhibit E." This contract was not acknowledged until the tenth day of March, 1880. It is only an assignment of the authors' right, title, and interest in and for the said play in said United States. Mr. Moss has sworn in this case that he received the contract, Exhibit E, after the tenth day of March, 1880, although I understand he had told Mr. Bird that he had had possession of it for two 21 8 GENEVIEVE WARD. yr.irs. When Mr. Merivale was accused of double-deal ing with regard to this alleged contract with Mr. Moss, he published in a London paper, called "The Era," a letter over his signature, which is hereunto annexed, marked " Exhibit F." I was advised by my attorney that the defendant Moss would claim that " Forget-Me-Not" had been published and sold by the authors, both before and since my purchase as aforesaid. This greatly as- tonished me, and prepared me for the present contract. I have caused diligent search to be made at all places in London where the said play would be exposed for sale if the same had been published, and could not find that such had been or was the case. I know, when I purchased the right of production aforesaid, I applied to the authors for additional copies of the play, and Mr. Merivale informed me that he had none. I asked him if he did not know where I could find some, and he answered no. I further asked him if he thought the printer might not have some copies. He said he did not know, so I called upon him ; but he informed me that only one hundred private copies had been printed, and that he had none on hand. I am quite sure that I should have heard of the fact if the play had been published and sold in London and the British Isles. I am also convinced that the copies referred to by Mr. Moss, if they are in existence, have either been printed since my purchase, or else refer to the limited edition printed as aforesaid but not published. Had the play been published and sold at the time of my purchase of it-- thus making it public property^ in this country, I certainly would not have paid the large sum of three hundred pounds for it. It would, under such circumstances, have been dishonest in the authors to have taken my money, as they knew I was buying a play for America. I was advised, that, by the law of GENEVIEVE WARD. 2TQ England, the play must first be produced there, and that it had to be entered under the act generally known there as the Copyright Act of the 5th and 6th of Victoria, chap. 45, enacted July I, 1842, which, amongst other things, provides, "In case of any dramatic piece or musical composition in manuscript, it shall be sufficient for the person having the sole liberty of representing or per- forming, or causing to be represented or performed, the same, to register only the title thereof, the name and place of abode of the author or composer thereof, the name and place of abode of the proprietor thereof, and the time and place of its first representation or perform- ance." I therefore caused the said requirements to be duly observed, so as to protect my right of property in said play in England, and also to prevent any dedication thereof to the public under British laws. This was done on or about the twenty-first day of August, 1879. The play has never been published under the Copyright Act, or in any way, either by the authors or myself. It was not necessary to publish it in order to obtain the protection thereof. The reference to the authors as owners of the copyright of a play called " Forget-Me-Not," in the con- tract, had sole regard to my contemplated act aforesaid, and was inserted by my lawyer in said contract, as a matter of description only, at my request. The word "copyright"' in the agreement was not intended, nor does it refer to a published play of " Forget-Me-Not." I should never have purchased the right of production of said play if it had been a published play. Nothing is better understood in the theatrical profession than that an author may pre- serve the manuscript character of his play by having a number of copies thereof printed for private use. It saves vast trouble, and is of great utility in the distribution and learning of parts. I know that authors and managers, 220 GENEVIEVE WARD. both in Europe and America, have printed what are known as manuscript copies of an original play. Upon information and belief, I state that such is sometimes the custom and habit of both the defendants herein at their theatre, known as " Wallack's," in this city. If this play has been published, and publicly sold, as I am informed the defendant Moss, in his extremity, now claims, I then charge and aver that it has been done since I purchased my right thereto, and in pursuance of a fraudulent con- spiracy between the said authors and the said defendant Moss. I deny that it has been done. I have no doubt that said Moss may have had a copy of said play in his possession at or about the time stated in his examina- tion hereunto annexed, marked "Exhibit G." In fact, I have been informed by Mr. George Loveday of London, that, several years ago, Mr. John Clayton, a friend of Mr. Merivale's, requested him to open negotiations with Wallack's Theatre concerning the play of "Forget-Me- Not." Merivale was then not mentally capable of busi- ness. That, in pursuance of said request, the said Love- day sent to said Moss a copy of said printed manuscript play; that said Moss afterwards returned same to said Loveday, and subsequently thereto Loveday returned the same to said Moss, at his (Moss's) request. The said Loveday informed me that the said Moss thereafter de- clined to make any contract concerning the said play, and that the negotiation came to nought. I was advised that the defendant Moss claimed to have acquired some rights through the said Mr. John Clayton. I therefore requested my brother to ask him concerning same. The result of the investigation was, that said Mr. Clayton sent to him the letter hereunto annexed, marked " Ex- hibit H," which is in his, said Clayton's, handwriting. I have thus shown to the court that not only the authors, GENEVIEVE WARD. 221 but that all the parties represented by said Moss to have been in any way connected with the alleged verbal sale to him, repudiate the same; the authors claiming that to have sold it to me when they had previously sold it to Mr. Moss, would not only have been dishonorable, but that, as a matter of fact, no contract with Moss was made until they sold whatever right, title, and interest to the play they then had, "if any there was," to him in March, 1880. This is fully shown by Exhibit E, being without date, and having been acknowledged as late as March 10, 1880. The acts and doings of said Moss are in keeping with this last stated fact. He never advertised that he owned the right to " Forget-Me-Not" in the United States until March 28, 1880, and then in "The World" newspaper of this city, just after the receipt of Exhibit E; and subsequently issued a circular to a like effect under the date of April 9, 1880. I desire to call the careful attention of the court to Exhibit E, wherein Mr. Moss claims to have purchased his right from Merivale only. This was in January, 1880. No doubt the fraud was perfected after that date and contract, Exhibit E given, without date, to bolster it up. It is incredible, if he had the right to the play at the time he claims, that he should have slumbered so long on his rights, and should have permitted the play to have been produced in California without any attempt on his part to stop it. As soon as I was notified in London that my rights were being invaded in America, I caused due and public notice of my owner- ship of said play to be given through the public news- papers. I also, as early as January, 1880, caused to be sent a notice thereof to every theatre in America that would be able to produce the play. One of said notices was sent to Wallack's Theatre, with the result stated in the affidavit of my attorney, John H. Bird. 222 GENEV1EVE U'.-IA'/>. This was the first time I ever heard of the asserted claim of said Moss. My ri; hts, since said notification, have been respected by all managers !n America, except- ing the defendant. No one in the British dominions has dared to attempt to invade them. When I was convinced that the claim of said Moss as to his having a contract with the owners prior in date to mine was spurious, I then directed, as before stated, that the action brought against him should be prosecuted, and to seek, with other relief, an injunction restraining him from performing the play in the United States. The action was begun by the service of summons on Aug. 5, 1880. The said defend- ant Moss has been examined under an order of the chief judge of this court, and a copy of his examination is here- unto annexed, marked '* Exhibit G." I never believed that the defendants, Moss and Wallack, would, in the face of the facts, actually produce the said play of " Forget- Me -Not," until I received a letter from my attorney, of the date of Nov. 26, 1880, stating that the defendants' attorney had told him that as soon as the run of "The Gov'nor"was over, the said play would be produced at Wallack's Theatre. My attorney had previously urged upon me the importance of my being here at the trial of the case ; and, as I believed I was about to be foully wronged, I hastened to America with such hasty affidavits as I could collect, to vindicate, in person, my rights in a court of justice. Unfortunately, notice of my departure was cabled to the American newspapers; and, to the astonishment of the theatrical world, "The Gov'nor" was withdrawn in the midst, "as the defendants claimed," of its prosperous career, and " I-'orget- Me-Not" substituted. I avei that this \\;i> done so as to produce the play before I could arrive and apply for an injunction. WARD. My attorney informs me that the play was produced in violation of a verbal understanding between counsel to the effect that after it was determined to produce the play sufficient time would be allowed him to send to Europe, and get necessary affidavits. He also tells me that he granted the adjournments of the defendants' examination from time to time, upon that understanding. That ex- amination was only concluded on the 6th inst. I now learn that the defendants' counsel repudiates any such arrangement, and claims that my attorney is wholly mis- taken. Be that as it may, when I arrived here on Wednesday, the 22d inst., I found that the defendants had produced said play of " Forget-Me-Not " at their theatre, on Saturday evening, Dec. 18, 1880. It is my firm belief, and I aver the same to be the truth, that said play was produced on that date, so as to prevent my get- ting an injunction in time to stop it, as the said defend- ants well knew I was en route to this country with that purpose in view. Since my arrival here I have devoted all the time that my ill health would permit, in giving my said attorney the facts to prepare the necessary papers herein. I have not delayed a moment that could have been saved. I aver that Lester Wallack is the manager, and Theodore Moss is the treasurer, of the theatre known as " Wallack's " in this city, and upon information and belief that both share as partners in the net profits there- of. That both are now producing, in violation of my exclusive right of production everywhere of said play, said play at said Wallack's Theatre in the city of New York. That I have never directly or indirectly consented thereto. That the said Wallack claims to produce the said play under a verbal license from his co-defendant and partner Moss, as appears by said examination of said Moss, hereunto annexed. That the said Wallack well 224 GENEVIEVE knows my rights and claims in the premises, and that the same are prior to any pretended claim of his co-defend- ant. That the whole has been done by the said defend- ants, each and both of them, in pursuance of a conspiracy between said defendants and the authors of said play to rob me of my exclusive, right to produce the play in these United States. That the said Moss further threatens, and says he is now in negotiation with other managers, to sell to them licenses to produce said play throughout the United States. That the said Wallack is a party to the said scheme, and is, and will be, interested in the profits thereof. That the right to the exclusive produc- tion upon the stage of said play is of great value to me. I verily believe that during the time I am entitled to it under my contract it will be, if I am protected in my rights, worth upward of the sum of one hundred thousand dollars. That I created the part of Stephanie, and have played it nearly three hundred times in the kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. That I have acquired by hard work, and the expenditure of a vast deal of money, exceeding the sum of five thousand dollars, great artistic notoriety in the part of Stephanie, and have made the play of " Forget-Me-Not " one of the pecuniary successes of the age. That hereunto annexed, marked " Exhibit J," are transcripts from the leading London papers concern- ing my production of said play, and my representation of the leading character thereof. That, without vanity, I verily believe the success of said play depends upon my creation of the part of Stephanie. That, if said play is permitted to be played, my right of property therein will be greatly injured, and the said play will become valueless to me. That no amount of damages that the defendants are able to pay would repay me for the time and money I have spent in introducing this often-rejected play to GENEVIEVR WARD. 22$ the public. That the said play is announced for nightly performance at said Wallack's Theatre, and that, as deponent is informed and believes, the said defendants are now arranging a company to play said piece in all the principal cities of the United States ; that the production of said play at said Wallack's Theatre, its continued per- formance thereat, and the threats to license others to produce the same, in violation of my rights respecting the subject of the action, and tending to render the judg- ment to be recovered herein ineffectual, have all occurred during the pendency of this action ; that final judgment has not been rendered herein; that I never intended that the said play of "Forget-Me-Not" should be published in America, and I do not now so intend. In fact, I do not claim the right to copyright said play, as I am not the author thereof, and I have never had any authority or permission from said authors to copyright said play ; that my object in depositing the title-page of said play was to secure the title to said play, and the manuscript thereof. I never deposited with the librarian of Congress any of the printed books of said play. I was subsequently ad- vised that the play, being the composition of foreign authors, could not be the subject of a valid copyright, and that publication was a condition precedent to obtaining the same ; and, further, that I must rely upon my common law rights, which would afford me adequate protection. That the production of said play at said Wallack's Theatre has already done me great pecuniary injury, and if continued during the pendency of this action the in- jury will be irreparable. GENEVIEVE WARD. Sworn to before me, this thirty-first day of December, iSSo. MILES F. POWERS, Notary Public, Kings County Certificate filed in New-York County. 226 GENEVIEVE WARD. Superior Court of the Ci'tg of Neto }orfc. GENEVIEVE WARD against THEODORE Moss. I, FREDERICK CHARLES of the city of London, Eng- land, being duly sworn, say and declare, that I have in- quired at Stationers' Hall, in the city of London, where all plays or publications are recorded (if published or printed), if the play " Forget-Me-Not," by Herman C. Merivale and F. C. Grove, had been recorded or regis- tered as printed and published for public circulation or sale, and found that it has not been done. I have also inquired at the several printing-offices where plays are printed and published, if said play had been printed or published for public sale, and found it had not been. I certify that to my certain knowledge, Miss Genevieve Ward has expended much time, money, and assiduous labor, in making the play " Forget-Me-Not " a success, and that it is due to her personal energy and acting such success is chiefly due. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand, this tenth day of December, A.D. 1880. FREDERICK CHARLES. Sworn by Frederick Charles, at the Consulate-General of the United States of America, No. 53 Old Broad Street, in the city of London, this the tenth day of December, 1880, before me, T. NUNN, Vice and Deputy Consul-General and ex-officio a Notary Public of the United States at London, and a Com- [L.S.] missioncr to administer oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature, in England. GENEVIEVE WARD. Superior (Court of tfje Citg of Nefn GENEVIEVE WARD against THEODORE Moss. I, BRAM STOKER of the city of London, England, do solemnly swear and declare, that, at the time of making the arrangement for the purchase by Miss G. Ward from Herman Charles Merivale and Florence Crawford Grove of the play of " Forget-Me-Not," no mention was made to me or to my knowledge that the piece or any of the rights thereto had been in any way previously disposed of; and I was all along convinced that Miss Genevieve Ward was purchasing from Messrs. H. C. Merivale and F. C. Grove the sole and entire rights of the play for the time and under the conditions specified in the agreement. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this tenth day of December, 1880. BRAM STOKER. Sworn by Bram Stoker, at the Consulate-General of the United States of America, No. 53 Old Broad Street, in the city of London, this the tenth day of December, 1880, before me, T. NUNN, Vice and Deputy Consul-General and ex-officio a Notary Public of the United States at London, and a Com- [L. S.] missioner to administer oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature in England. [EXHIBIT A.] Memorandum of agreement made the twenty-first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-nine, between Herman Charles Merivale of Barton Lodge, Kingston-on- Thames, and Florence Crawford Grove of 4. Bolton Row, Piccadilly (hereinafter called '" the authors") of the one part, and Genevieve Ward, of No. 10 Cavendish Road, Saint John's Wood (hereinafter called " the purchaser") of the other part, whereby it is agreed as follows : 228 CENEVIEVE WARD. 1. The authors who are the owners of the copyright of a play called " Forget-Me-Not," hereby agree that the purchaser shall have the sole right to produce for her own performance the said play for performance for a period of five years from the date hereof. The pur- chaser agrees to pay for such right the sum of three pounds for every occasion during the aforesaid period on which the said play shall be produced by her in London, and two pounds for every occasion during the aforesaid period in which the play shall be produced by her else- where. 2. So soon, however, as a sum of three hundred pounds shall have been paid by the purchaser to the authors, under the first clause of this agreement, she shall from that time have the sole right, until the expiration of the said term of five years, to produce for her own per- formance the play at any place, without making any pay- ment to the authors. 3. Upon the expiration of the said term of five years, the purchaser shall (provided within three months from that time she intimates in writing to the authors ad- dressed, and sent by post to their last known places of abode, of her wish to do so) have the sole right to pro- duce for her own performance the said play for a further period of five years upon precisely similar terms as re- gards payment to the authors as those mentioned in this agreement; the meaning and intention of the parties hereto being that the purchaser shall in fact have a right to renew this agreement for a second or further period of five years. 4. Nothing in this agreement contained shall affect the right of the authors to use the story for other than dra- matic purposes. HERMAN C. MERIVALE. F. C. GROVE, GENEVIEVE WARD (Per A. L. W.). GENEVIEVE WARD. 22Q [EXHIBIT B.] "THE DAILY TELEGRAPH," LONDON, SEPT. 30, 1880. BEFORE LORD COLERIDGE MERIVALE v. WARD. This was a motion for an injunction to restrain the defendant from performing or allowing to be performed the play of " Forget-Me-Not," with the omission of one of the characters. It appeared that the plaintiffs, Messrs. Merivale and Grove, are the proprietors of the play, and the defendant, Miss Genevieve Ward, had purchased from them the sole right of representation for five years from 1879. Mr. Woodroffe appeared for the defendant, and ob- jected that the matter was not vacation business. His lordship said the motion was for an injunction to restrain a performance now going on, and, in his opinion, was properly vacation business. Mr. Woodroffe contended that the character omitted was not an important one, and that the plaintiffs had sustained no damage whatever. The learned counsel handed up a copy of the play in which the part in question was. struck out in pencil by the plaintiff Merivale himself. A letter was also pro- duced, in .which Mr. Merivale said the play was much too lengthy, and was improved by the omission of the char- acter " Rose." Mr. Ford said that Mr. Grove, the joint author of the play, did not agree with this view. Lord Coleridge observed that Mr. Grove had made no affidavit in the case. Mr. Ford said this was owing to his ab- sence on the Continent, and asked that the motion might be adjourned. His lordship refused to adjourn the motion, and, in delivering judgment, said that before the plaintiffs could be entitled to the injunction asked for they must show, 230 GENE VI EVE WARD. first, that there had been a breach of the agreement ; secondly, that they were suffering serious damage by such breach : thirdly, that the damage would be irrepara- ble if the court did not grant the injunction. Upon none of these points had the plaintiffs succeeded, and it was therefore his duty to refuse the motion with costs. [EXHIBIT C] Memorandum of agreement made the twenty-first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-nine, between Herman Charles Merivale, of Barton Lodge, Kingston-on-Thames, and Florence Crawford Grove, of 4 Bolton Road, Piccadilly, London (hereinafter called "the authors ") of the one part, and Genevieve Ward, of JVb. 10 Cavendish Road, Saint John's Wood (hereinafter called " the purchaser") of the other part, whereby it is agreed as follows : 1. The authors, who are the owners of the copyright of a play called " Forget-Me-Not," hereby agree that the purchaser shall have the sole right to produce, for her own performance, the said play, in English, as written by them, for a period of three years from the 2ist August, 1879. The purchaser agrees to pay for such right the sum of three (3) pounds sterling for every occasion dur- ing the aforesaid period in which the play shall be pro- duced by her in London, and two (2) pounds sterling for every occasion during the aforesaid period in which the play shall be produced by her elsewhere. 2. So soon, however, as a sum of three (3) hundred pounds sterling shall have been paid by the purchaser to the authors, under the first clause of this agreement, she shall, from that time, have the sole right, until the expi- ration of the said term of three years, to produce for her own performance the play, at any place, without making any payment to the authors. GENEVIEVE WARD. 23! 3. In the event of the purchaser ceasing to perform on the stage in England for a period of three consecutive months during the said term of three years, the authors are to have the right to license any one else to produce and perform the play, at any royalty they think fit to take ; but accounting and paying to the purchaser one-half of whatever royalty they do so take. 4. During the said period of three years the authors shall have the right to license translations of the play into a foreign language, for performance in any country except Great Britain and Ireland and the United States. 5. During the said period of three years the authors shall not use the story for any purpose whatsoever. In witness, the hands of the parties, the day and year first above written. [EXHIBIT D, No. i.] 4 BOLTON Row, MAY FAIR, W., Sept. 13, 1879. DEAR MADAME, In order to prevent any possible misunderstanding, I write to say that I do not at all admit that you have the right to produce a translation of " For- get-Me-Not." I regret having to trouble you, but I think it best to have no doubt on this point. I am faithfully yours, F. C. GROVE. [EXHIBIT D, No. 2.] 36 THEOBALD'S ROAD, GRAY'S INN, W.C., 7th February, 1880. SIR, We are requested by Mr. Crawford Grove to acknowledge the receipt of your letter to him of the 5th. He is much surprised that a question which imputed dishonorable conduct to himself and Mr. Merivale should be repeated ; and, having regard to the way in which they 232 GENEVIEVE WARD. have been treated, he is not inclined to assist you in asserting an alleged right, the evidence of which he does not admit. We remain your obedient servants, WALKER, MARTINEAU, & CO. A. LEE WARD, ESQ. [EXHIBIT E.] We, Florence Crawford Grove, of 4 Bolton Row, May- fair, London, and Herman Charles Merivale, of Barton Lodge, Kingston-on-Thames, England, do, in considera- tion of the sum of one dollar, hereby transfer, assign, set over, and convey to Theodore Moss, of Wallack's Theatre, New York, all our right, title, and interest in arTd for our play of " Forge t-Me-Not," in and through- out the United States of America, and we do hereby authorize him to take any and all steps necessary for the defence of the said right, title, and interest. FLORENCE CRAWFORD GROVE. [L. s.] HERMAN CHARLES MERIVALE. [L. s.] Signed, sealed, and delivered in presence of T. W. VRIGON, Consulate General U.S.A., London. H. H. NERDMAN, Consulate General of the United States of America for Great Britain and Ireland, at London. On the tenth day of March, 1880, before me, Joshua Nunn, Vice and Deputy Consul General and Notary Public ex- officio of the United States of America, residing at Lon- don, England, personally appeared Florence Crawford Grove and Herman Charles Merivale, to me known to be the persons of that name severally described in, and who have executed, the foregoing assignment or instrument, GENE VI EVE WARD. 233 and then and there acknowledged the same to be their free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein contained ; in testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official notarial seal, at Lon- don aforesaid, the day and year above written. [L. s.] J. NUNN, Vice and Deputy Consul General, U. S. A., London. [EXHIBIT F.] THE ERA," LONDON, OCT. 3, 1880. " FORGET-ME-NOT." To the Editor of the Era. SIR, There is a paragraph in your American news with reference to this play which I am obliged to notice. It throws doubt upon the "good faith" of Mr. Grove and myself, states that our contract contains a cla*use sell- ing the play for " Great Britain and elsewhere," and that " unquestionably Mr. Moss's contract with us was made prior to the other " as your correspondent " hears " a year or more. Imputations upon our good faith do not much trouble men of Mr. Grove's character and mine ; but we are not good at what is known and admired in the modern dramatic world as " smartness," and it will probably be some time before we have thoroughly sifted and exposed a very discreditable affair, which, having begun with it, we now intend to do. There is no clause about " Great Britain and else- where ; " and, if there had been, it would have exposed its own futility, as, being British authors, we had no rights outside our own country to give. The contract described us as " owners of the copyright," and let the play for so much a night in London, and so much 234 GENEV1EVE WARD. elsewhere, a word which does not mean the moon. " Owners of the copyright " limits the operation of the contract to places where we possessed it, the Islands and possibly the Colonies, about which last I don't know. As for an " American right," people do not usually give, or intend to give, what they haven't got. We might just as well have let Buckingham Palace. The difficulty of all English authors is to secure a right in America. If it could be done by the very simple process of omit- ting allusions to America in the agreement, that diffi- culty would be strikingly simplified. I do not under- stand how such a claim can be seriously put forward ; but no doubt the American courts will know how to deal with it. As to our agreement with Mr. Moss, we might, I pre- sume, have made it when we liked, on principle of doing what we please with our own. As a matter of fact, and in spite of your correspondent's " unquestionable " infor- mation, we made the assignment to Mr. Moss in the only legal way we found practicable, six months or more after the first contract, for no consideration in money whatever, and in simple self-defence against the extraordinary tricks then being practised on us and our play, both in England and America. While I am upon the subject, I may as well 'allude to this morning's decision in the matter of the injunction for which we applied to prevent the mutilation of the play. I was myself in Leicester, and came up too late, under the impression the case was to come on in the afternoon. I therefore had no opportunity of explaining what I must now reserve for a later period. That the "letter" produced, without any statement of the cir- cumstances which followed, makes the matter, in my opinion, infinitely worse with reference especially to Mr. GENEVIEVE WARD. 235 Grove. But for all further action I shall wait till Mr. Grove's return from the Continent, where he is at pres- ent travelling. You will now have published " both sides of the question " in a preliminary form, and will, I hope, refrain from further discussion till the whole matter has been the subject of inquiry. Meanwhile, it is as well that authors and actors, from their different points of view, should be thoroughly aware that an original English play is now being acted in London with the omission of a character in the mature and deliberate judgment of both the authors essential, after an express prohibition addressed to the responsible manager of the Prince of Wales, three weeks before its production, and by him deliberately disregarded. Faithfully yours, (Signed) HERMAN MERIVALE. SEPT. 29, 1880. [EXHIBIT G.] Nrfn |30rfe Superior Court. GENEVIEVE WARD against THEODORE Moss. Examination of Theodore Moss, in pursuance of an order made herein by Mr. Justice Sedgwick, on the fifth day of August, 1880. I reside in the city of New York, and have resided here for forty years past; have been engaged in the theatrical business for a number of years ; have been, and am now, engaged as a manager ; I know the play of " Forget-Me-Not ; " I know that Merivale and Grove are the authors of the play ; Mr. Merivale's first name is Herman Charles, and Mr. Grove's full name is Florence Crawford ; I do not know them personally. 236 GENEVIEVE WARD. Q. Do you claim an interest in the play of " Forget- Me-Not"? Objected to, and answered subject to objection. A. I do claim the entire and exclusive right and own- ership of the play in the United States of America, to do just as I please with it. Q. When did you acquire that right ? Objected to, and reserved. A. Verbally in 1878. When I was notified by Col. Sinn that Miss Ward claimed some rights in the play, I notified Mr. Sinn that I owned the play ; and I then sent to the authors for a written contract, which I received, and a copy of which has been furnished to plaintiff's attorney. Q. Does your title to the play in question arise by a purchase thereof? Objected to, and answered subject to objection. A. It does. Q. From whom did you purchase- it? Objected to, and answered as above. A. From the authors above named. Q. Was such purchase evidenced by any memorandum in writing? Objected to, and answered as above. A. The purchase was both verbal and written. Q. Have you now got possession of the written part of that agreement ? Objected to, and answered subject to objection. A. It is in the hands of my counsel, Mr. Dittenhoefer. Q. Will you produce it on this examination, and show it to me, as counsel to Miss Ward, and submit it for my examination ? Objected to, and answered subject to objection. A. I will not, unless ordered to by the Court. GENE VI EVE WARD. 237 Q. When did you receive this written paper? Objected to, and question reserved. A. I must have received it after the tenth day of March, 1880. I have no present recollection. Q. Have you made any arrangement or contract for the production of the play of " Forget-Me-Not " ? A. I have made no arrangement, but have had some negotiations for its production ; but have made no licenses nor granted any permissions for its production. Q. Do you intend to produce the play ? Question objected to, and answered subject to ob- jection. A. I do. Q. Have you got a copy of the play in your pos- session ? Objected to, and answered as above. A. I have a copy, received from the authors them- selves. Q. Is the copy in your possession in print, or manu- script ? Objected to, and question reserved. A. It is in print. Q. When did you receive the copy of the play that you have in your possession ? Objected to, and question reserved. A. The first copy that I had was in 1876, and that was in print. Q. Did the copy in your possession and the memo- randum in your possession come to you at the same time, or at different times? and, if at different times, which came first ? Objected to, and question reserved. A. At different times, and a copy of the play came first. 238 CENEVIEVE WARD. Q. Were your negotiations for the purchase conducted by correspondence with the authors, or conducted through the medium of a third person ? Objected to, and question reserved. A. I received the play first through my agent, Mr. Floyd: the negotiations were partly conducted by him and partly by myself. Q. Have you in your possession any letters from the authors, or either of them, upon the subject of the pur- chase, or of acquiring your title to this play ? Objected to, and answered as above. A. I have a number of them. Q. Who are those letters from ? Objected to, and question reserved. A. From Mr. Merivale. Q. About when are those letters dated, and about when were they received? Objected to, and declines to answer. Q. At the time you purchased the play of " Forget-Me- Not," or the right to produce it in America, or whatever proprietary interest you may have therein, were you informed by any person that the plaintiff, Genevieve Ward, had an interest in the play ? Objected to, and answered subject to objection. A. When I first received the play, Miss Ward had never heard of it, as I am informed ; since that I have been informed by the authors that she never had any rights in the United States. Q. When the authors so informed you, did he or they inform you what rights Miss Ward had? Objected to, and reserved. A. No. Q. When you were informed by the authors that the plaintiff had no rights in the United States, was it before, or after, your purchase ? GENE VIE VE WARD. 239 Objected to, and reserved. A. It was after. Q. Was the information you speak of respecting Miss Ward's want of right in the United States conveyed to you in writing? Objected to, and answered as above. A. It was. Q. Will you produce that letter, and allow me, as counsel for Miss Ward, to examine it? Objected to, and answered as above. A. I will not, unless ordered by the Court. Q. Why will you not produce it ? A. Because I am advised by the counsel that is not proper. Adjourned by consent to Aug. 31, 1880, at 12 M. Adjourned by consent to Sept. 7, 1880, at 12 M. JOHN H. BIRD, Plaintiff's Attorney. I sold the right to produce the play to Mr. Wallack for the city of New York. I did that before my examination in this cause ; but I did not think, when I was inquired of respecting transfers, that you meant to refer to Wallack's Theatre. The license to Wallack is verbal, and made ever since I have had the play. Q. What consideration, if any, did you pay for the assignment of the play to you ? A. An agreement to pay royalties. The agreement as to royalties was by correspondence. I don't remember the date. I don't know when the play will be produced at Wallack's. Cross-examined. I first got a printed copy in Decem- ber, 1876, or January, 1877. I returned the play to the authors. In 1878 we telegraphed or wrote to send the 240 CENEVIEVE \VARD. play back, as we had a chance to produce the play. In December, 1878, got a printed copy of the play back. About the time I received the written contract, I got three o.r four copies from the authors. THEODORE MOSS. Sworn to before me this sixth day of December, 1880. A. A. CAULDWELL, Notary Public, New-York Co. [EXHIBIT H.] VAUDEVILLE THEATRE, Feb. 7, 1880. MY DEAR MR. WARD, I am in the middle of re- hearsal, so please excuse my writing in great haste with such material as I can find. I have seen your letter to Mr. Grove, in which you used the word " sold " in regard to " Forget-Me-Not." I never asserted in any way the play had been sold to me. What I informed you was, that, by Mr. Merivale's desire, I some years ago caused the right to be registered in America in my name and that of an American citizen, to produce a propriety right for the authors. It appears Mr. Grove was never told of this : he now knows this fact. la haste, Yours truly, JNO, CJ-AYTON GENEVIEVE WARD. 241 [EXHIBIT I.] WALLACK'S. MR. LESTER WALLACK Proprietor and Manager. MEMORANDUM. With the compliments of Mr. Theodore Moss, Treasurer. NEW YORK, Jan. 14, 1880. JOHN H. BIRD, ESQ. Dear Sir, I am in receipt of a circular from you rela- tive to the play of " Forget-Me-Not ; " and I would notify you in return, that, whatever rights your client may pos- sess in the piece for Great Britain, she has none for America. For your further information, I would state that I acquired the only legitimate right to " Forget-Me- Not" for this country direct from Mr. Herman Merivale, as I shall be prepared to show when occasion demands. Yours sincerely, THEO. MOSS. [EXHIBIT J.] MISS GENEVIEVE WARD. " FORGET-ME-NOT." PRINCE OF WALES'S THEATRE, LONDON. A success upon which Miss Genevieve Ward and play- goers are equally to be congratulated. The acting of Miss Ward is beyond question fine : her manner is excel- lent. Through all her banter and her fencing with her opponent, which is expressed with admirable point and vivacity, she never permits one to lose sight of the terri- ble earnestness of her purpose, and her resolve to push 242 CENEVIEVE WARD. the weapon chance has put into her hands home to the very hilt. The first dawn, too, of that sheer physical fear to which she is eventually to succumb, and her efforts to suppress it, are very finely marked. The 'Times. Miss Genevieve Ward's Stephanie, Marquise de Moh- rivart, gambler, adventuress, false friend, and pitiless enemy, may fairly take rank among the most powerful impersonations the modern stage has seen. Although Stephanie is shown chiefly as a woman of invincible determination, working out her own plans with an utter disregard of the feelings of those in her power, and doing all this under cover of an imperturbably sarcastic and polished manner, the character is an extremely diffi- cult one to play. The woman, wicked as she is, and relentless as she glories in appearing, is not wholly lost to softer emotions. She has her brief flashes of tender- ness, and her equally transient sensations of shame, to express. While at war with all the world of respecta- bility, she has to make her abject appeal to be allowed a place in that world ; and these alternations of feeling are presented by Miss Genevieve Ward with a power and truthfulness we have very rarely seen approached. Her appeal to Sir Horace Welby when, wishing