quite the tyro she had supposed me to be; we were soon good friends, and
have always remained so.”
ROSE COGHLAN AND “THE MOONLIGHT MARRIAGE.”
Rose Coghlan began her season at the Baldwin as _Lady Gay Spanker_, in
“London Assurance,” with Nina Varian,--who, also, then made her first
appearance in San Francisco,--as _Grace Harkaway_, O’Neill as _Dazzle_,
and Morrison as _Charles Courtly_. During the four weeks that followed
Miss Coghlan was also seen in “The School for Scandal,” “A Sheep in
Wolf’s Clothing” and “A Scrap of Paper” (a double bill), a revival of
“The Danicheffs,” and “Seraphine; or, The Mother’s Secret.” On June 30
occurred the “first production of the powerful romantic play in five
tableaux, by D. Belasco and James A. Herne,” entitled “The Marriage by
Moonlight”: the performance on the opening night was given for the
benefit of Company B, First Infantry, N. G. C. This play was specially
prepared for Miss Coghlan: it was based on Watts Phillips’ “Camilla’s
Husband,”--which was originally acted at the Royal Olympic Theatre,
London, November 10, 1862. The Belasco and Herne alteration of it was
thus cast at the Baldwin:
_Lorraine_ James O’Neill.
_Felix_ Forrest M. Robinson.
_Harold_ Lewis Morrison.
_Lord Pippin_ John N. Long.
_Peeping Tom_ James A. Herne.
_Clarisse_ Rose Coghlan.
_Hazel_ Katherine Corcoran.
_Lady Challoner_ Kate Denin.
_Lady Aurelia_ Blanche Thorne.
_Elise_ Mollie Revel.
On June 16 Lester Wallack, acting _Hugh Chalcotte_, in “Ours,” began, at
the California Theatre, his only engagement in San Francisco. Miss
Coghlan (who was to appear as a member of his theatrical company during
the season of 1879-1880) apprised him of the merits of “The Marriage by
Moonlight” (or “The Moonlight Marriage,” as, finally, it was
denominated), and, after witnessing a performance of that play, Wallack
expressed a desire to purchase it for representation at his New York
theatre, with Miss Coghlan in the central character. Herne, however, had
conceived a tentative plan of making this play the vehicle for a
co-starring venture, in the East, by his wife and himself, and Wallack’s
proposal was declined. Herne entertained an overweening, if natural,
estimate of his wife’s histrionic abilities. Belasco, in his “Story,”
referring to Augustin Daly’s well-known play of “Divorce,” gives this
sketch of their early acquaintance:
“The manuscript arrived, but we had no one to play the woman’s
part, when a young girl came into the theatre and asked to see Mr.
Herne. Her name was Katherine Corcoran. When she was ushered in we
saw at a glance that we had found the heroine of ’Divorce.’ It
required a _petite_ woman, full of fascination, charm, intensity,
and with the power to weep. Of course, we did not know her
capacities, but she seemed full of promise. She was engaged at
once. When the time came for rehearsals she went quietly through
them,--an alien not particularly welcome to the company. ’Who is
she?’ they all asked, and the leading man came to Herne and myself,
and laid before us the numerous complaints he was receiving. As it
was very obvious that Herne was in love with her, and so likely to
be prejudiced, Maguire turned to me. ’She is going to make a
sensation,’ I said; ’I’ll stake my life on it.’ And she did,
becoming one of the big elements in our support and quite winning
the players. It was not long before she and Herne were married....
No one ever owed more to a woman than he to little ’K. C.’”
This recollection must refer not to the first San Francisco production
of “Divorce” (as Belasco says it does) but to a revival of that play.
Miss Corcoran was a pupil of Miss Julia Melville as late as 1877; she
gained her first experience as an actress in a stock company at
Portland, Oregon, and she joined the company at the Baldwin Theatre,
about September-October, 1877. She was married to Herne in April, 1878.
The first presentment of “Divorce” in San Francisco occurred at
Maguire’s New Theatre, August 31, 1874. The purpose of attempting to
make Miss Corcoran a star in Miss Coghlan’s part in “The Moonlight
Marriage” and the consequent rejection of Wallack’s offer were
injudicious in themselves and certainly disadvantageous to Belasco: had
that offer been accepted, he might have been established in New York
much sooner than he was.--The manuscript of “The Moonlight Marriage” was
ultimately consumed in a fire which destroyed the Herne home, called
Herne Oaks, at Southampton, Long Island, New York, December 11, 1909.
After four performances of “The Moonlight Marriage” had been given at
the Baldwin it was suspended, in order to permit J. C. Williamson and
his wife, “Maggie” Moore, to fulfil an engagement there,--which they
did, presenting “Struck Oil” and “The Chinese Question” July 4 and
(afternoon as well as night) 5. The Belasco and Herne drama was restored
to the stage July 6 and ran till the 12th. On Sunday night, the 13th, a
performance was given at the Baldwin, “for the benefit of Belasco and
Herne,”--both “The Moonlight Marriage” and “Rip Van Winkle” being
compressed into the entertainment.
“L’ASSOMMOIR” AND A DOUBLE-BARRELLED BENEFIT.
The state of theatrical affairs in San Francisco had been for a
considerable time prior to midsummer, 1879, steadily declining, and
conditions at the Baldwin had become equivocal and perplexing. E. J.
Baldwin was actively at variance with Maguire, whose formal lease of the
theatre had expired on the preceding July 1, and the house was being
conducted, in “a hand to mouth” way, under some dubious arrangement of
expediency between Maguire and Charles L. Gardner. Heavy debts had been
contracted and credit had been exhausted. “That ’benefit,’” Belasco has
declared to me, “was urgently needed! Maguire was, among other things,
an inveterate gambler and would often stake every dollar the treasury
contained. Then, if luck went against him, he’d come and tell us
salaries could not be paid, because he had lost! The salaries _were_
paid,--out of ’Lucky’ Baldwin’s pocket. But he had grown tired of
backing a losing game and, besides, he and Maguire had had some special
row,--I don’t now remember what it was about,--and Baldwin had withdrawn
his support. Expenses were very high: Miss Coghlan’s engagement had ’run
on’ and her $500 a week was a heavy drag: Herne and I had an interest,
and we simply had to have some ready money to keep us going,--so I
suggested a double-barrelled ’benefit’ as a way of getting it.”
A particular reason for solicitude when this Belasco-Herne “benefit” was
projected was urgent desire to insure Rose Coghlan’s appearance--which
had been advertised--as _Gervaise_, in a play called “L’Assommoir.”
Émile Zola’s noxious novel of that name was published, in Paris, in
1878, and a stage synopsis of it, made by W. Bushnach and---- Gastineau,
was produced, January 18, 1879, at the Théâtre Ambigu-Comique. It is
interesting to note that Augustin Daly, who chanced to be in the French
capital soon afterward, witnessed a performance of it and, in a letter
written to his brother, the late Joseph Francis Daly, under date of
January 30, described it in these words:
“‘L’Assommoir’ is a disgusting piece,--one prolonged sigh, from
first to last, over the miseries of the poor, with a dialogue
culled from the lowest slang and tritest claptrap. It gave me no
points that I could use, and the only novelty in it was in the
_lavoir_ scene, where two washwomen (the heroine and her rival)
throw pails of warm water (actually) over each other and stand
dripping before the audience.”
Notwithstanding his correctly adverse opinion of “L’Assommoir” Daly was
induced, in deference to the wish of his father-in-law, John Duff, to
buy the American copyright of the work (for which he paid £200,
furnished by Duff), and to make a version of it, considerably
denaturized,--in five acts, containing twelve tableaux,--which he
produced at the Olympic Theatre, New York, April 30, 1879. It was a
complete failure. (The only memorable incident associated with that
production is that in it, as _Big Clémence_, Ada Rehan, the supreme
comedy actress of her day, made her first appearance under the
management of Daly.) On June 2 an adaptation of the French play, made by
Charles Reade, was brought out at the Princess’ Theatre, London,--which,
because of the extraordinarily effective acting in it of Charles Warner
(1847-1909), as _Coupeau_, achieved immediate and, unhappily, enduring
success. Maguire, reading in a newspaper dispatch of that London
success, undeterred by Daly’s New York failure (perhaps stimulated by
it), had at once asked Belasco to make a play on the subject for the
Baldwin Theatre. This, as soon as “The Moonlight Marriage” was launched,
Belasco had done,--basing his drama on an English translation of Zola’s
book and completing his work within one week. All concerned were hopeful
that this new drama of violent sensation would please the popular taste
and serve to set the Baldwin once more in the path of prosperity. It was
presented at that theatre July 15, 1879, and it was sufficiently
successful to gain and hold public interest for two weeks,--a result due
in part to the excellent acting with which it was illustrated, in part
to the dexterity of Belasco’s exacting stage management. A single
comparative incident is significantly suggestive: in Daly’s New York
production the fall of _Coupeau_ from a ladder was, palpably, made by
substituting a dummy figure for the actor who played the part: in
Belasco’s San Francisco presentment the fall of _Coupeau_ was so
skilfully managed that, on the opening night, it was for several moments
supposed by the audience that an actual accident had occurred. This was
the cast:
_Coupeau_ James O’Neill.
_Lantier_ Lewis Morrison.
_Mes Bottes_ C. B. Bishop.
_Bibi-La-Grillade_ James A. Herne.
_Bec-Sali_ John N. Long.
_Pere Bazonge_ John W. Jennings.
_Goujet_ Forrest Robinson.
_Gervaise_ Rose Coghlan.
_Big Virginie_ Lillian Andrews.
_Mme. Boche_ Jean Clara Walters.
_Mme. Lorieleaux_ Mollie Revel.
_Nana_ Katherine Corcoran.
_Clémence_ Blanche Thorn.
A HOT WATER REHEARSAL.
Talking with me about this play, Belasco remarked: “We had a lively time
getting that piece licked into shape and produced. The cast was,
practically, an ’all star’ one (far finer, I know, than I could get
together to-day), several of the members having been specially engaged,
and it took a good deal of diplomacy to keep things tranquil and
everybody contented. I remember I had an even more disagreeable passage
with Lillian Andrews (who had been brought in to play _Big Virginie_)
than that at my first meeting with Miss Coghlan. The Washhouse Scene was
a hard one--you couldn’t fool with it; the only way to make it go was to
_do_ it!--and at the dress rehearsal Miss Andrews refused point-blank to
go through it as it was to be done at night. Both she and Miss Coghlan
were under dressed with close-fitting rubber suits to keep them dry;
but, even so, it was no fun to be drenched with hot soapy water, and I
was sorry for them. But, of course, the scene had to be properly and
fully rehearsed, and the upshot was I had to tell Miss Andrews she must
do her business as directed or leave the company. And, after a grand
row, we had the scene as it was to be at night. She and Coghlan and
everybody concerned were in such tempers by the time I finished reading
the riot act that everything was marvellously realistic; I doubt whether
it was ever quite so well done at a public performance!”
Belasco’s “L’Assommoir” ran until July 30, when Miss Coghlan ended her
season in San Francisco. On the 31st Steele Mackaye’s “Won at Last” was
first performed at the Baldwin; and, on August 11, came little Lotta, in
“Musette,” “La Cigale,” and other plays, her engagement extending to
September 6.
THE PLAY OF “CHUMS.”
While thus employed at the Baldwin Theatre,--that is, at some time
between May and August, 1879,--Belasco was asked by James O’Neill to
write a play for his use and that of Lewis Morrison (1844-1906), his
intimate friend, and he had begun the adaptation of an old drama, which
he purposed to entitle “Chums.” His original intention was that this
should be produced with O’Neill and Morrison in the chief parts (those
actors being desirous of leaving the Baldwin Theatre stock company and
establishing themselves, under a joint business management, as
co-stars); but he had made no contract nor even mentioned his project,
and when, later, his adapted play, then incomplete, by chance became
[Illustration:
Photograph by Taber, San Francisco.
Courtesy Mrs. Morrison.
LEWIS MORRISON
Photograph by Sarony.
Belasco’s Collection.
JAMES O’NEILL
About 1880]
known to Mr. and Mrs. Herne, with whom he was closely associated, he
acceded to a proposal which they made to form a partnership with them
for its production. Herne, who had first appeared in California in 1868,
was then well established in popular favor; moreover,--notwithstanding
that most of the actual labor of stage management devolved on
Belasco,--authoritative control of the Baldwin stage and, to a great
extent, selection of the plays to be represented at that theatre were
vested in Herne. His coöperation, therefore, was desirable, if, indeed,
it was not essential; he became a co-worker with Belasco, and between
them the play was finished. During the engagement of Lotta Herne
arranged for a tour of Pacific Slope towns by O’Neill and Morrison,
leading the Baldwin Dramatic Company, beginning at Sacramento, Sunday,
September 7, in a repertory which comprised “Diplomacy,” “A Woman of the
People,” “Pink Dominos,” “Won at Last,” “L’Assommoir,” and “Within an
Inch of His Life,” thus leaving the way clear for rehearsal and
production of “Chums.” Belasco and the Hernes were expectant of great
success for this play. Handsome scenery had been painted for it, and
ample provision had been made for the display of those accessories which
please the public taste for what is known as “realism.” The prospect
seemed bright. The first performance occurred on September 9, 1879, at
the Baldwin Theatre, Katharine Corcoran (Mrs. Herne) taking a benefit.
The result was a bitter disappointment. The receipts were extremely
small (“I remember,” writes Belasco, “that, one night, they were only
$17.50!”), and after a disheartening run of two weeks “Chums” was
withdrawn,--being succeeded by O’Neill and Morrison, in a revival of
“Won at Last.” This was the San Francisco cast of “Chums”:
_Terry Dennison_} The Chums { James A. Herne.
_Ruby Darrell_ } { W. H. Haverstraw.
_Uncle Davy_ J. W. Jennings.
_Owen Garroway_ Charles B. Bishop.
_Mr. Ellingham_ A. D. Bradley.
_Foreman of the Mill_ H. Thompson.
_Clerk of the Mill_ Mr. Pierce.
_Mr. Parker_ E. Ambrose.
_Tom_ J. W. Thompson.
_Sleuth_ L. Paul.
_Chrystal_ Katherine Corcoran.
_Aunt Betsy_ Annie A. Adams.
_Little Chrystal_ Maude Adams.
_The Baby_ Herself.
By this decisive failure Herne was much discouraged. Not so either
Belasco or Mrs. Herne, and on a suggestion made by the latter it was
determined to take the play on a tour into the East. “I took a benefit
at the Baldwin,” Belasco told me, “and it _was_ a benefit! Everybody
volunteered; Maguire [the manager of the Baldwin] gave us the use of the
theatre; the actors gave their services; the orchestra gave theirs; the
newspapers gave the ’ads.’ All that came in was clear gain, and I got a
little more than $3,000. That was our working capital.”
FROM SAN FRANCISCO TO CHICAGO.
With money thus raised on Belasco’s behalf, and with a play projected by
him, the business alliance was arranged,--the Hernes to have one-half
interest and Belasco the other. A company was engaged and the expedition
was undertaken,--the design being to act “Chums” in various cities on
the way to the Atlantic Seaboard, with hope of securing an opening in
New York and making a fortune. Ill luck, however, attended it. “Chums”
was played in Salt Lake City and other places, but everywhere in vain.
At last, the scenery having been seized for debt, the company was
disbanded and the partners, almost penniless, made their way to Chicago.
The chief managers in that city then were James Horace McVicker
(1822-1896) and Richard Martin Hooley (1822-1893). Both were besought
to produce “Chums” and both declined. “We were in a dreadful way,” said
Belasco, in telling me this story; “we had gone to the old Sherman House
and taken the smallest, cheapest rooms we could get, and Alvin Hurlbert,
the proprietor, had let our bills run. But at last they had run so long
we had to make an explanation,--and I did the explaining. It wasn’t an
easy thing to do,--though I’d done it before, in the early, wild days in
the West. But Hurlbert was very kind: ’I believe in you, my boy,’ he
said, ’and it’s all right,’--so we had a little more time to hustle in.
And we _hustled_! By chance Herne and I went into a kind of beer-garden,
called the Coliseum, kept by John Hamlin. There was a stage, and “Fred”
Wren, in “On Time,” was giving impersonations of German character,--sort
of imitation of J. K. Emmet in ’Fritz.’ The ’business’ was bad; there
weren’t thirty people in the house when Herne and I chanced in. I
immediately proposed to Hamlin that we bring out ’Chums,’ which we had
renamed ’Hearts of Oak.’ He agreed to let us have the theatre, but
Hamlin had no money to invest, so we had to get a production and
assemble a company, all without a cent of capital! However, we got
credit in one place or another, and did it,--a production costing
thousands, on credit, and without a dollar of our own in it! We had a
big success, although Hamlin’s Coliseum wasn’t much of a place.”
“HEARTS OF OAK.”
“Hearts of Oak” (“Chums”) is based on a melodrama called “The Mariner’s
Compass,” by an English dramatist, Henry Leslie (1829-1881), which was
first produced at Astley’s Theatre, London, in 1865, under the
management of that wonderfully enterprising person Edward Tyrrell Smith
(1804-1877), and was first acted in America, at the New Bowery Theatre,
New York, May 22, that year,--with Edward Eddy as _Silas Engleheart_,
the prototype of _Terry Dennison_, and Mrs. W. G. Jones as _Hetty
Arnold_, the prototype of _Chrystal_. It was announced in Chicago as
“Herne’s and Belasco’s American Play, in Five Acts and Six Tableaux,”
and it was first produced there on November 17, 1879, at Hamlin’s
Theatre,--I find no authority for calling it the Coliseum, but my
records of Chicago theatres in that period are meagre,--with this
cast,--Mrs. Herne (Katherine Corcoran) then making her first appearance
in that city:
_Terry Dennison_ James A. Herne.
_Ruby Darrell_ Harry Mainhall.
_Uncle Davy_ William H. Crompton.
_Mr. Ellingham_ David Belasco.
_Owen Garroway_ Frank K. Pierce.
_Foreman of the Mill_ William A. Lavalle.
_Clerk of the Mill_ William Lawrence.
_Will Barton_ Lillie Hamilton.
_Chrystal_ Katherine Corcoran.
_Aunt Betsy_ Rose Watson.
_Little Chrystal_ Alice Hamilton.
_Tawdrey_ Dollie Hamilton.
_Mr. Parker_ J. A. Andrews.
_Tom_ J. Sherman.
_Sleuth_ T. Gossman.
_The Baby_ Herself
After its production at Hamlin’s Theatre,--designated by Belasco as “a
big success,”--“Hearts of Oak” was taken on a tour, but was presently
brought back to Chicago, and on March 15, 1880, it was presented at
Hooley’s Theatre, where it was again received with public favor. In the
meantime the fact that it was in a considerable degree a variant of an
English play of earlier date had been perceived and made known, and
Hamlin, offended and resentful because Herne and Belasco, returning to
Chicago, had chosen to appear at Hooley’s instead of coming back to him,
announced a revival of the earlier play,--Leslie’s “The Mariner’s
Compass,”--with the title of “Hearts of Oak.” A suit at law followed,
the ultimate decision being that “The Mariner’s Compass,” unprotected by
American copyright, was free to any person in the United States who
might choose to use it, irrespective of its author’s moral rights, but
that the title of “Hearts of Oak” was owned by Herne and Belasco, in
association with their play, and could not lawfully be associated with
another. The inimical purpose of Hamlin was thus, in a measure,
defeated, but Belasco’s troubles did not stop there. Herne evinced much
displeasure on learning that Belasco’s play, on which he had co-labored,
was not strictly original. An alleged ground of Herne’s displeasure was
the lawsuit. “Why didn’t you tell me about “The Mariner’s Compass’?” he
said, reproaching Belasco: “_now_ I’ve a damned lawsuit on my hands!”
“Well,” Belasco rejoined, “I don’t see why I should have told you
anything about the old play; and, anyway, I don’t see what you have to
complain about. You ought to be mighty glad you’ve got a half-interest
in something worth a lawsuit to protect,--and you haven’t got the suit
on _your_ hands any more than I have on _mine_!” The actual ground of
Herne’s dissatisfaction, judging by his subsequent treatment of Belasco,
probably was his realization that, if he had, in the first place, been
made acquainted with “The Mariner’s Compass,” he could himself have
adapted that play to his own use without forming a partnership with
anybody.
FIRST VENTURE IN NEW YORK.
The success gained in Chicago and other cities relieved the
Belasco-Herne triumvirate from immediate pecuniary embarrassment, and
notwithstanding the existence of a latent and growing antagonism the
path to fortune seemed to have opened for them. From Chicago, after two
weeks at Hooley’s Theatre, those managers carried their play to New
York, an opening having been obtained through the agency of Brooks &
Dickson (Joseph Brooks [1849-1916] and James B---- Dickson, now [1917]
business manager for Robert B. Mantell), and “Hearts of Oak” was
presented, for the first time in the metropolis, March 29, 1880, at the
New Fifth Avenue Theatre, then opened under the management of Edward E.
Rice and Jacob Nunnemacher. This was the cast:
_Terry Dennison_ James A. Herne.
_Ruby Darrell_ Harry Mainhall.
_Uncle Davy_ William H. Crompton.
_Mr. Ellingham_ J. W. Dean.
_Owen Garroway_ H. M. Brown.
_Foreman of the Mill_ J. S. Andrews.
_Clerk of the Mill_ William Lawrence.
_Will Barton_ Lillie Hamilton.
_Chrystal_ Katherine Corcoran.
_Aunt Betsy_ Henrietta Bert Osborne.
_Little Chrystal_ Alice Hamilton.
_Tawdrey_ Dollie Hamilton.
_Mr. Parker_ Mr. Harvey.
_Tom_ J. Sherman.
_Sleuth_ T. Gossman.
_The Baby_ Herself.
JAMES ALFRED HERNE.