December 4, 1936.

Mr. Ben Irwin

Repertory Department

New Theatre League

55 West 45th Street

New York, N. Y.

Dear Ben Irwin:–

The information which Mr. Brett Warren has given you proves to me that the doubts which I have had in his reliability, are entirely justified.

In the course of my negotiations with Mr. Warren these doubts have increased from day to day. As much as I learned to value the other members of the Peoples Repertory Theatre as devoted and serious people, so unreliable Mr. Warren seemed.

When you sent Mr. Warren to me, there was the question, as you state quite correctly, of a production of “Draw the Fires” under the auspices of the New Theatre League. Unfortunately I did not hear from you after that. You knew how very much I wanted my entire works to be represented by the New Theatre League together with Mr. Barrett H. Clark of the Dramatists Guild, for semi-professional and non-professional theatres. I told you distinctly that such a representation must be laid down in an agreement. I should like to emphasize once more, that the fact that such an agreement is not in existence is not my fault and that I am still waiting for the same.

Concerning Mr. Warren of the Theatre Collective, several days after you had sent Mr. Warren to me, he advised me that he had abandoned the plan to produce the play for the New Theatre League, that he had found another backer, namely the Labor Stage. I was at first under the impression that the Labor Stage would back the production financially. I met Mr. Schaefer at a meeting, in which several leaders of the Committee also participated. The financial question was raised. Mr. Warren said that it would take $ 2000,00 to produce the play and I was still under the impression that this money was being furnished by the Trade Unions.

Then I was asked to speak at a function which took place under the auspices of Mr. Schaefer. On this occasion the Theatre Collective, now called Peoples Repertory Theatre, made known its plans and advised that the production “Draw the Fires” would be one of the Repertory Theatre, which was being run by him as a professional theatre. Upon questions put by me to Mr. Warren privately, he told me that this undertaking was not a semi-professional one, but a real professional theatre. The play was to be given on two Sundays for the Labor Stage, which would then find the support of local branches of the Trade Unions for further productions and finally if the play proved a success, they would find backers for a Broadway production. I told Mr. Warren that I thought this announcement regarding the production rather peculiar, since no contract had been made and that nothing could be done until such a contract had been made. Mr. Warren agreed that this should be done and promised to take the necessary steps.

I became rather doubtful when on the following day, the 29th of November, I saw a small notice in the “New York American” only, which spoke of the production of “Draw the Fires” by the Peoples Repertory Theatre. The other papers carried no such notice and I considered it a distinct disadvantage for the Peoples Repertory Theatre and for the author as well that only Hearst’s New York American carried the notice and none of the leading New York newspapers. Mr. Warren, when asked, told me that was through no fault of his, that only the Labor Stage was to blame; that the announcement would appear in all the papers within a few days.

Again I waited. I believed that in the meantime the organisational work had made progress and that the material questions of the production had been settled. I also believed that Mr. Schaefer had negotiated with the Peoples Repertory Theatre to the end that the production of “Draw the Fires” would be handled efficiently.

On December 1st, a meeting took place in my apartment, which the leading members of the Peoples Repertory Theatre attended, including Mr. Warren. In the course of our discussion it was disclosed that a dinner which Mr. Schaefer was to give in my honor on January 21st was really being given for the purpose of raising money for the production. I said immediately that it would be impossible for me to speak at such a dinner when money was being raised for the production of a play of mine, a play which would be produced three days later. In answer to my question, how under these circumstances it would be possible to have rehearsals, how workmen and actors were to be paid, I was told that payment of the bills would be deferred until the money collected at the dinner could be used for those purposes.

In my opinion that is an impossible situation, a situation which is not worthy of me as a dramatist, nor is it in the interest of the entire left theatre movement. I called Mr. Warren’s attention to the following points:

A production of “Draw the Fires” could be of value to our entire theatre movement only if it was efficiently done and if every guarantee for an efficient production prevailed. A flop of a commercial theatre would be considered a flop of a play, whereas a poor production of a play within our theatre movement must harm the entire movement. I made it clear to Mr. Warren that the individual is responsible for the entirety.

Furthermore I called his attention to the fact that for personal reasons, it seemed to me advisable to proceed carefully. I told Mr. Warren that I was negotiating regarding the production of two other plays in theatres in New York for the coming winter. A poor production of “Draw the Fires” might jeopardize these other two productions. I told him I would rather not have any production than an inefficient, and as it seemed to me one carelessly begun. I again and again emphasized that the first prerequisite of a theatre group is that they understand their business thoroughly. Unfortunately I used the word “business”, which in German has a double meaning, namely financial business and handicraft. Naturally in using the word I had handicraft in mind only, inasmuch as I did not expect any financial advantages from this production.

Everyone present at the meeting in my apartment, when these remarks were made, seemed to understand my attitude, excepting Mr. Warren who in a pronouncedly insulting manner remarked ironically, if I had business in mind to such an extent, he would not want to endanger my financial future in any way, possibly he would even be endangering, so he remarked ironically, the production of some other play by “for example” Max Gordon.

In spite of this disagreeable episode, I was determined, because I had learned to esteem the other members of the organisation, to support the group. Of course I wanted guarantees that a really efficient production would be accomplished.

In the course of the meeting in question Mr. Warren told me that he had asked you for a contract, that you had kept him waiting a considerable period and that it was not possible to get a contract from you. It was not up to me to repulse Mr. Warren’s attacks against you. I only gave voice to my astonishment that he had negotiated with you at all, since the production was a professional one and I again asked Mr. Warren if this was not correct. He answered in the affirmative and he emphasized that the entire production came under Equity conditions. I then emphasized that you were to represent my works only in semi-professional and non-professional productions. For professional productions the only representative I have (until I find an Agent) is Mr. Barrett H. Clark of the Dramatists Guild. I was promised that the Peoples Repertory Theatre would take the necessary steps to obtain the fundamental contract from Mr. Barrett H. Clark for this production.

Next day I telephoned Mr. Schaefer. I had met with so much irresponsibility that I wanted to have recourse to a responsible person for this production. And this responsible man seemed to be Mr. Schaefer.

I spoke to him on December 2nd and asked him to sign the contract. From what I was told during this conversation it seemed that Mr. Warren evidently had not informed Mr. Schaefer correctly. To make a long story short, the situation was the following:

I had every reason to believe that Mr. Schaefer had chosen the group which Mr. Warren represented; Mr. Schaefer, on the other hand, was under the impression that I had chosen Mr. Warren for the production and that he thought it was my wish that Warren organize the show. Mr. Schaefer explained that his central interest was a fitting production of “Draw the Fires” as a basis for an organized Trade Union Theatre.

In the course of December 2nd I heard again from Mr. Schaefer, who said he had advised Mr. Warren that the Peoples Repertory Theatre would definitely have to close a contract because he did not feel able to promote the proposed production without it. He was told plainly by the Peoples Repertory Theatre that they could not raise the $ 100,00 necessary to make a contract.

Mr. Schaefer was utterly astonished at this state of affairs and since the answers which he received in response to his queries about where they intended to get the money to make payments for the work after the first week’s rehearsals, were such that Mr. Schaefer was obliged to say that the preparations for the production could not continue along these lines. He was and is of the opinion that without a secure basis, the preparations for the show are impossible. He told them to find this basis and then come to him again.

In the meantime I had made certain investigations with a view to ascertaining who Mr. Warren and his group really are. I now admit freely that it was an error on my part not to have done so before, but since you had sent Mr. Warren to me and since I was under the impression that Labor Stage was behind the entire project, I thought this sufficient guarantee for the integrity of the group.

Your letter gives me further confirmation. Now Mr. Warren suddenly declared that it is a semi-professional production, a thing he denied in the presence of three witnesses whom I am willing to name.

If he tells you I went over the heads of the theatre in approaching Mr. Schaefer “not only endangered the production of the play but endangered the whole relationship of this theatre to the trade union movement, which is of more importance than one immediate production”, I must say that is the limit. I believe you owe yourself an explanation for jumping at such a conclusion or accepting it from Mr. Warren on the face of what you ought to know about my labors for the past eighteen years. The least you might have done was to have asked me for the facts.

I must reject the above insinuation most decidedly. I suggest that you contact Mr. Schaefer who will be able to tell you how erroneously you have been informed by Mr. Warren.

I regret very much the necessity of writing a letter such as this; I also regret exceedingly that I have become involved in a situation which is an unworthy one for all of us. I do not need to prove my motives to Mr. Warren and that financial advantage for me plays no part when there is the question of the production of my plays in a worker’s theatre. My life and my works have furnished that proof.

But beyond that I am of the opinion that good will and right conviction are elements which need not be discussed, they are to be taken for granted; what is essential is efficiency and theatrical power. A play produced with the best intentions but inefficiently done harms not only the author in question but also all other authors and theatres who work along the same lines.

I would appreciate it if you would bring the contents of this letter to the knowledge of all responsible persons in the movement. Far from having anything to hide, I should like to have these facts broadcast throughout the movement as an example and a warning against such slipshod mismanagement of vital responsibilities. Copies of this letter are being sent to the Editor of the New Masses and to the Editor of New Theatre. May I request that you submit this letter to a responsible member of the Theatre Collective (Peoples Repertory Theatre) for discussion and wholesome self-criticism within its own ranks.

Sincerely,