Articles on the Barney Williams Olympic Theatre Controversy

Reproduces card from Barney Williams as given in the New York Times citation of 09/09/68.

“The columns of the Times being open to all who have a plea to present, room is accorded the following”

            ‘card from barney williams.

‘I am constrained to notice some remarks made about me by Judge Barnand in a recent opinion.

‘A controversy has been for some time existing between a Receiver appointed by the Court, (Mr. John A. Duff,) and the widow of J. A. Trimble and others interested, in regard to the Olympic Theatre. At the Receiver’s request, the Judge permitted him to lease it to Mr. James E. Hayes, the present occupant, and Mr. Duff’s son-in-law, for three years, at $15,000 per annum rent, although responsible offers had been made to give much more—one by myself, to pay as much as $25,000 and take a lease for five years. As the effect of the learned Judge’s action is to lessen the income of a widow and orphans, the whole or greater part of $10,000 per year or $50,000 for the term, it naturally occurred to his mind that he should suggest some reason for his conduct. Therefore, he said in his opinion: ‘Mr. Barney Williams swore for the defendant that $15,000 would be a fair rental, and afterward came forward for the plantiff [sic] and offered $21,000 if he himself could have the lease; of course, under such a state of affidavit-making, I must not consider his statements as evidence for either party—either his affidavit or his offer was insincere. [No end quotation marks.]

‘The facts are these: Mr. Duff asked me to make an affidavit, stating how much I would give as rent for the theatre, without scenery, properties, wardrobe, fixtures, &c. I complied with his request, and named $15,000. A few days afterward I was called on to compete for the theatre by a gentleman representing himself as having power in the matter, who gave me a list of fixtures, &c., which he said the lease would guarantee should remain as they were during the new term. The increase in my valuation was founded on the difference between a furnished and an unfurnished theatre. It required the ingenuity of a puzzled lawyer, sorely struggling for reason, to discover any want of ‘sincerity’ in either my affidavit or my statement. The sincerity of my offer could easily have been tested by the Judge, if he really intended that he property should be let to the highest bidder. He well knows that I was abundantly responsible, and would have given any security required.

‘The learned Judge tires to excuse the lease to Mr. Hayes because he had expended $12,000 for permanent improvements, and for scenery and decorations about $9,000. It is quite evident that the Judge is not posted in theatrical matters, or he would have known that the improvements and scenery were actually necessary, and their expenditures, as he might easily have ascertained, assisted in realizing a profit of about one hundred thousand dollars during the past season. The property at the end of the lease was the landlord’s, and if the permanent improvements increased the value of the rental, that was what all parties expected.

‘It strikes me that as the Receiver’s duty was to get the highest rent he could, and as the theatre was open for competition, I have a perfect right to bid, and if the estate could get from me $10,000 more yearly than from Mr. Hayes, the Court, as guardian of the estate, should have been highly gratified; but not being entirely familiar with the details of law business, as now conducted in the Courts, perhaps my notions on the subject are too old-fashioned for this progressive era.

‘I dislike being compelled thus to address the public, but am unwilling to lose any part of the favor they have so long shown me. I have stated above the true facts, and all the facts, and know that they cannot be gainsaid now or hereafter.

            ‘The Public’s faithful servant, Barney Williams.’