Contact
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- rest of the tour
Watty Wallack's tour continued along the North Coast to the eastern end of the island, and back to Kingston. The tour seems to have been very successful, apart from a small glitch caused by snide references in the Guardian newspaper. It's not clear why that paper took such a hostile attitude towards Wallack; perhaps there was indeed some business issue involved.
[I need to try to access the Guardian archive, which does not seem to be available online.]
Daily Gleaner, July 23, 1867
MR. WATTY WALLACK
To the Editor of the Gleaner.
I notice in the Guardian newspaper some very rude and uncalled for remarks towards an utter stranger, "Mr. Wallack". Had the person who penn'd these lines any feeling of common sense and decency, he would have reflected before he put forward to the public such unwarrantable language of one who in his short sojourn in Montego Bay and this place, has won the respect and good opinion of all both privately and publicly. The benefit spoken of was not solicited by Mr. Wallack; and the gentlemen Amateurs of Montego Bay, were only happy and delighted that this offer was accepted. What Mr. Wallack might have done in his tour, I am not able to say; but I am quite certain no stricture emanating from the Guardian could have any effect upon the public. Mr. Wallaok appeared last evening here, and gave to a large and delighted audience a few hours' social amusement by his versatile talent, so much so, that some of our Town-folk have persuaded Mr. Wallack to give another representation on the 25th, when he will be ensured a bumper house in spite of the Guardian's, splenetic attempts to injure a deserving Gentleman. On behalf of the Trelawny Amateurs, of which body I am a member I say they would feel extreme gratification did Mr. Wallack's time permit of his receiving at their hands the same kindness as that offered at Montego Bay; however, we trust we will meet Mr. Wallack once again, and carry out our desire.You will, I hope, excuse the length of this but justice (which the "Guardian" seems sadly in want of) has caused this trespass upon your kindness. I think that a morbid feeling of jealousy, arising from business matters between parties, should save, at any rate, a stranger, from an attempt at injury and insult, for as proof that nothing else can cause the Guardian's spite, I may refer to the fact that in every Colony where Mr. Wallack has performed, including Jamaica, he received the unqualified praise of every newspaper except the Guardian; and even this paper at first lavished praise upon his representations.
Yours truly,
A TRELAWNY AMATEUR
Falmouth, July 17, 1867
[The Jamaica Daily Guardian, Kingston. (Founded 1860.)]
top
Daily Gleaner, July 29, 1867
DOES WALLACK DESERVE IT?
To the Editor' of the Gleaner.
DEAR SIR, - I have just seen in the Guardian of the 25th, an assertion, which I am compelled to notice since it is a gross and most unjustifiable falsification of facts and a malicious attempt to do me injury.
The Editor of the Guardian asserts, that "the exact number of persons who were present upon the first occasion of Mr. Wallack's appearance in Montego Bay, was FIVE, upon the second, he had the large number of SEVEN; or a total of TWELVE for two nights, and, that, after prodigious puffings and lengthy advertisements."
Now Sir, I cannot allow this to pass without the flatest contradiction. That it is a most gratuitous and unfounded statement, there are many highly respectable parties capable of proving. So far from there having been only five persons present at my entertainment in Montego Bay, there were over 120, and at my second entertainment, there were over 60 persons. This being the case, how can the Editor of the Guardian so far forget himself - so far hazard his reputation as a gentleman, as to indulge in such deliberate and degrading falsehoods? Who but the basest of his kind, and one bent upon the perpetration of the vilest of acts, could have obtruded upon the public such gross misrepresentations, and given them as being facts quoted "UPON AUTHORITY"? Surely the Editor of the Guardian is utterly dead to all sense of dignity and honor, that he has lost all appreciation of the distinction between truth and falsehood. And this being apparent, will it not become plain to all reasonable persons that the efforts made, solely by the Guardian to detract from the merit of my performances, are equally malicious? To verify the truth of the numbers
of visitors to my performances, I appeal to my kind patrons at Montego Bay.
I am, Dear Sir,
Yours obliged,
W. H. WALLACK,
July 26, 1867.
[☞ We have now upon our table abundant proofs of the correctness of Mr. Wallack's statement above, and it would appear from them that the account does not even include free entrances, but is made up actually from admissions paid for. After this, we think it needless to condescend to notice The Guardian any further,
- ED. GLEANER.]
top
  |
Daily Gleaner, August 8, 1867
WATTY WALLACK AT PORT MARIA.
To the Editor of the Gleaner.
Port Maria, St. Mary.
August 6, 1867.
Dear Mr. Editor, - We Port Marians, you may be sure, were highly delighted with the performances of the celebrated artist, Watty Wallack, who gave, his entertainment at the Court House, on the 3rd inst. Let the Jamaica Guardian say what it will, wherever Mr. Wallack goes he will receive his well-merited applause. We are only sorry Mr. W.'s engagements prevented his remaining any longer amongst us, and compelled his departure for Annotto Bay this morning.
Yours, Mr. Editor,
"CLARINDA."
one aspect of the tour was tidied up later -
though it seems there was some problem getting the 'trap' sold!
