Music Trade Review
Issue: 1905 Vol. 40 N. 6 - Page 40
Music Trade Review -- © mbsi.org, arcade-museum.com -- digitized with support from namm.org
40
THE MUSIC TRADE REVIEW
EXECUTIVE
OFFICES
COLUMBIA PHONOGRAPH
COMPANY
SOLE SALES AGENT FOR THE
AMERICAN GRAPHOPHONE COMPANY
TO T H E PUBLIC:
NEW YORK, February ist, T905.
One of our competitors lias endeavored through advertisements in newspapers, magazines and otherwise to
create the impression that it had received an award at the St. Louis Exposition higher than that given to the exhibit of this
Company. In addition it has recently distributed to the trade, generally, a letter stating that our claim to having received a Grand
Prize in Musical Instrument (iroup is "incorrect," and in support thereof attached an alleged fac-simile letter purporting to
have been signed by twelve members of the jury which
made the award at the Exposition. This last letter, a
most extraordinary document, filled with untruths and
to which many of the signatures were obtained through
misrepresentations, makes it appear that "the Grand
Prize" in (iroup 21 had been awarded to our compet-
itor; that the signers composed the jury which "gave"
the awards (whereas they were members of the inferior
jury having power only to make recommendations, and
Saint Louis, Mo., January 28, 1905.
there were two juries above them) ; and that the Grand
Prize had been awarded to said competitor's machine,
Dear Sir:-
"because of marked superiority as a musical instrument
over
all sound-producing machines shown."
Regpecting the awards to exhibitors at the Louisiana
Naturally the reader of the "group-jury" le"tter
Purchase Exposition, I have to adviae you that under the rules
would suppose that the signatures of the so-called "best
and regulations all awards to he given have to be fully and
judges of musical instruments in the world" was a
finally determined by the Bnperior Jury and it ie the only
certification that they had examined, listened to and
critically compared the various instruments in compe-
authority empowered to make awards. The group Juries had no
tition before signing it.
power to make awards and were merely charged with the duty of
It is unnecessary for us to criticise the inferior
making recommendations.
group jury in question. Nor do we now discuss the
means whereby the signatures were procured. At this
Under the rules the deliberations of all juries were
point it is only necessary to say that at least five of the
strictly private and no publication of their proceedings or
twelve group jurors who certify to having given our
conclusions waa authorized. The rules do not permit the juries,
competitor's machine the highest award, "because of
nor any aembers of juries acting as individuals, to give out
marked superiority as a musical instrument over all
the results of their findings for publication. The notifica-
other sound-producing machines shown,"
tions to exhibitora and the formal public announcement of the
awards are Bade solely by the President of the Superior Jury
at ita direction.
Yours truly,
President.
Mr. Paul H. Cromelin,
Vioe-Freeident, Columbia Phonograph Company,
90 West Broadway, New York C i t y .
a.
did not take part in the examination of
Talking Machines, were not present when we
made our demonstration, nor did they ever
hear our machines and records in competi-
tion ; and that the chairman of this inferior
group jury, which would attempt to bestow a
grand prize upon our competitor's machine
"as a musical instrument over all others,"
excused himself " a s he had to attend a con=
cert," just as our best machine and records
were about to be played.
We have written evidence in our possession which
proves that some of the signatures were procured
through misrepresentations and have conclusive evi-
dence also, that the alleged fac-simile TS NOT A FAC-SIMILE AT ALL.
Prior to any examination by this jury, we had occasion to make formal protest against their passing upon our Exhibits, and
requested that (as was done at the Paris Exposition), a disinterested jury, properly qualified to pass upon sound recording and
sound-reproducing machines, be designated to make the competitive examination.
It is obvious that fitness for deciding on the
merits of such machines, requires something more than a knowledge of organs, banjos, violins and pianos. It may have had
something to do with the subsequent course of this inferior group jury that our protest WAS REFERRED TO THEM. That our
stand was well taken is evidenced by the action of the SUPERIOR JURY, the only authority empowered to make awards, in giving
us the H I G H E S T HONORS FOR TALKING MACHINES A T T H E EXPOSITION.
Promptly on learning of the award of a Grand Prize to a competitor we protested against the same to the National Commis-
sion on the ground of irregularities in connection with the original recommendation to them. This protest awaits determination.
The subsequent action of some members of the inferior group jury, in lending the use of their names on a document which
violates the rules of the Exposition (see letter of President Francis), and in disregard of the responsibility which they assumed
when entering upon their official duties, is quite in line with their original recommendation. By thus being willing to pose before
the public as the jury by whom the awards were actually made, pretending to the responsibilities which were lodged with the
SUPERIOR JURY alone, they have furnished the completest vindication of our protest and demand for a PROPERLY QUALI-
FIED DISINTERESTED JURY.
For further particulars we refer to the files of the Court wherein our case has been fully presented.
PAUL H. CROMELIN, Vice-President,
And Director of Exhibit Louisiana Purchase Exposition.
40
THE MUSIC TRADE REVIEW
EXECUTIVE
OFFICES
COLUMBIA PHONOGRAPH
COMPANY
SOLE SALES AGENT FOR THE
AMERICAN GRAPHOPHONE COMPANY
TO T H E PUBLIC:
NEW YORK, February ist, T905.
One of our competitors lias endeavored through advertisements in newspapers, magazines and otherwise to
create the impression that it had received an award at the St. Louis Exposition higher than that given to the exhibit of this
Company. In addition it has recently distributed to the trade, generally, a letter stating that our claim to having received a Grand
Prize in Musical Instrument (iroup is "incorrect," and in support thereof attached an alleged fac-simile letter purporting to
have been signed by twelve members of the jury which
made the award at the Exposition. This last letter, a
most extraordinary document, filled with untruths and
to which many of the signatures were obtained through
misrepresentations, makes it appear that "the Grand
Prize" in (iroup 21 had been awarded to our compet-
itor; that the signers composed the jury which "gave"
the awards (whereas they were members of the inferior
jury having power only to make recommendations, and
Saint Louis, Mo., January 28, 1905.
there were two juries above them) ; and that the Grand
Prize had been awarded to said competitor's machine,
Dear Sir:-
"because of marked superiority as a musical instrument
over
all sound-producing machines shown."
Regpecting the awards to exhibitors at the Louisiana
Naturally the reader of the "group-jury" le"tter
Purchase Exposition, I have to adviae you that under the rules
would suppose that the signatures of the so-called "best
and regulations all awards to he given have to be fully and
judges of musical instruments in the world" was a
finally determined by the Bnperior Jury and it ie the only
certification that they had examined, listened to and
critically compared the various instruments in compe-
authority empowered to make awards. The group Juries had no
tition before signing it.
power to make awards and were merely charged with the duty of
It is unnecessary for us to criticise the inferior
making recommendations.
group jury in question. Nor do we now discuss the
means whereby the signatures were procured. At this
Under the rules the deliberations of all juries were
point it is only necessary to say that at least five of the
strictly private and no publication of their proceedings or
twelve group jurors who certify to having given our
conclusions waa authorized. The rules do not permit the juries,
competitor's machine the highest award, "because of
nor any aembers of juries acting as individuals, to give out
marked superiority as a musical instrument over all
the results of their findings for publication. The notifica-
other sound-producing machines shown,"
tions to exhibitora and the formal public announcement of the
awards are Bade solely by the President of the Superior Jury
at ita direction.
Yours truly,
President.
Mr. Paul H. Cromelin,
Vioe-Freeident, Columbia Phonograph Company,
90 West Broadway, New York C i t y .
a.
did not take part in the examination of
Talking Machines, were not present when we
made our demonstration, nor did they ever
hear our machines and records in competi-
tion ; and that the chairman of this inferior
group jury, which would attempt to bestow a
grand prize upon our competitor's machine
"as a musical instrument over all others,"
excused himself " a s he had to attend a con=
cert," just as our best machine and records
were about to be played.
We have written evidence in our possession which
proves that some of the signatures were procured
through misrepresentations and have conclusive evi-
dence also, that the alleged fac-simile TS NOT A FAC-SIMILE AT ALL.
Prior to any examination by this jury, we had occasion to make formal protest against their passing upon our Exhibits, and
requested that (as was done at the Paris Exposition), a disinterested jury, properly qualified to pass upon sound recording and
sound-reproducing machines, be designated to make the competitive examination.
It is obvious that fitness for deciding on the
merits of such machines, requires something more than a knowledge of organs, banjos, violins and pianos. It may have had
something to do with the subsequent course of this inferior group jury that our protest WAS REFERRED TO THEM. That our
stand was well taken is evidenced by the action of the SUPERIOR JURY, the only authority empowered to make awards, in giving
us the H I G H E S T HONORS FOR TALKING MACHINES A T T H E EXPOSITION.
Promptly on learning of the award of a Grand Prize to a competitor we protested against the same to the National Commis-
sion on the ground of irregularities in connection with the original recommendation to them. This protest awaits determination.
The subsequent action of some members of the inferior group jury, in lending the use of their names on a document which
violates the rules of the Exposition (see letter of President Francis), and in disregard of the responsibility which they assumed
when entering upon their official duties, is quite in line with their original recommendation. By thus being willing to pose before
the public as the jury by whom the awards were actually made, pretending to the responsibilities which were lodged with the
SUPERIOR JURY alone, they have furnished the completest vindication of our protest and demand for a PROPERLY QUALI-
FIED DISINTERESTED JURY.
For further particulars we refer to the files of the Court wherein our case has been fully presented.
PAUL H. CROMELIN, Vice-President,
And Director of Exhibit Louisiana Purchase Exposition.
Future scanning projects are planned by the International Arcade Museum Library (IAML).