The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1864-12-28

thought ofin Minnesota and fbe Indian Terri
tory. Now she win not accept Of engage
ments unless half the house and weekly
benefit Is given her. Mr. Ecce Homo, who,
not 80 many years ago, used TO be n first tcas5
call-boy, with an occasional turn at the
prompier's book, will hear of nothing less than
two hundred dollars n night, down. Ifmana-
gers refuse, the remedy is simple. A lightly
dropped reference to engagements in the West
is alone necessary. Out West aud down East
are the grand resorts Tor artists who daspi5e a
northumberland twenty i've dolars-l-night
engagement here. II is no uncommon thing
for a popular actor or actress TO make a thou
sand dollars per week, and so make it on the
strength Of a reputation which no flr5tca5s
artist would desire to achieve.
II the success of other theatres is to BE-
judged OF by those Of Philadelphia, The receipts
of arrangements must be muniGcent, indeed
And the theatres deserve to be well supported
If no other class enjoys itself more than actors
scarcely any other works harder One can
not help being struck, however, with the ex-
cCssive dispropOrton between the salaries
paid TO stock performers, who arc constantly
employed in the study of new parts, and the
terms which are insisted upon by seli-su1cient
stars, who, like players with luck always on
their side, pocket all the profit, whilst the
managers pocket all the loss.
The managers will doubtless say that they
are the victims of circumstances that they
ind that such star nlls The house, whilst the
united eGOr of fair stock company fail to
do so; and that If they do not acccde to the
eNorbitant demands of the stars plenty Of
western managers are to be found who will
Part Of this reasoning may be true. But, with
respect to the argument about the unsatisfac-
toriness of stock companies, it may be urged
that we have not always had a good stock
| company with US, from which to jud e.
/ Those that we have had, have always filed
the houses well, and must have been of
pecuuiary benefit to the management.
4 There is no reason why star performers
should give less and get more than people in
other professions. They make thousands
/ where people with infinitely more brains make
! hundreds; they are surleted with applause
| and beset vito sycorbantic adulaton, nick
, named criticism; and if they do not fare sump-
/ tuously every day. it is only because they are
not all the year round in sumptuous city,
| like Philadelphia. For this Elysian Fields
existence they give us a round Of plays, vary
! ing from three to one dozen; they amuse us
for two or three hours in the evening; they
are afflicted with a succession Of late severe
illnesses; and they are occasionally kind
enough to allow themselves to be induced to
make a few hundred dollars by the repetition
of a popular play, "in compliance with the
pressing demands OF the public"
The ease with which stars make their
money has helped to degenerate the star sys-
| TEN. Actors who are greatly respected as
members of a stock company, subject them
selves to deserved ridicule when they attempt
the roles of legitimate stars. Leading men
strike out as eminent tragedians and walking
ladies hang around the borders, with now and
then incursions into the metropolis as cand-
dates for the moral-emohonal laurel, or the
bays of the Legitimate. We can afford to dis
pense with wearisome stars for the sake OF
really talented stock companies. Two or three
artists we could mention fully deserve all the
fame and money they ask for. The rest de-
serve it in the sense that they can get it
because managers consent to give il.