The New York Herald

THE TRIPLE GLOBE THEATRE OF BOSTON

The Boston Advertiser gives the following explanation of the recent sock and buskin explosion at the Globe theatre:-

The first remark natural after reading Mr. Fechter's letter, and after the universal regret which it occasions is expressed, is an inquiry, "why did Mr. Fechter resign?" The letter, long as it is, does not explain. The extraordinary note of Mr. Canninau, an builder, can have had nothing to do with setting the question of the management of the Globe theatre. The answer is simple. Mr. Fechter resigned, with the friendly feelings which he expresses and entertains for Mr. Cheney, because he could no longer manage the theatre, his action not being sustained by its owner. The discharge of Mrs. Chanfrau and Mr. Wallack, for substantially similar reasons in both cases-the refusal of a leading part assigned either of them-was acquiesced in by Mr. Cheney. Yet the salary of both artists were still paid from the treasury of the theatre, enabling them to maintain, if they chose, that they still belonged to the company in defiance of the manager. It was impossible, under such circumstances, for Mr. Fechter to remain in a position thus made merely nominal; and his withdrawal is the result.

Into the merits of the minor controversies involved we have no disposition to enter. The ways of actors, their prejudices and punctilios, must ever remain a mystery to the outside world. It is clear that in Mr. Wallack's written contract with Mr. Selwyn there was no proviso for refusing parts; but it is understood that Mr. Wallack's claim as to his rights in such cases rested with private, perhaps verbal, agreements or understandings with Mr. Cheney, of which Mr. Fechter knew nothing-with which he could have nothing to do. No one either in the profession or in the public having acquaintance with the drama will dispute that the part in "Ruy Blas" assigned to Mr. Wallack is a leading one, and so that Mr. Fechter was entirely justified in casting it as he did; but whether a more conciliatory manner on both sides would not have avoided any serious difficulty it is impossible to say. Whether, also, from a business point of view, Mr. Fechter's management has been on the whole, extravagant or economical, prudent or unthrifty, far-sighted or injudicious, are points upon which we cannot touch. All these details are matters of technicality or argument, the discussion of which is neither interesting nor profitable.

The event is a subject of as keen regret to Mr. Fechter as it can be to the public which loses him. He has felt at home in Boston, has enjoyed the quick and hearty appreciation his audiences have manifested, has formed far-reaching and elaborate plans for the future for the development here of the art to which his life is devoted, which are now shattered. To Mr. Cheney, also, the method in which has come release from the complications which have lately surrounded him, must be cause for keen disappointment, when the high expectations with which the season was begun are remembered. The year thus far has not shown a record of pecuniary loss, as many people supposed. The receipts indeed, have been greater than the theatre has ever before known; but, with the increased expenses, the profits have not been large. The future is full of uncertainty. It is yet too early to speak of the probabilities as to the remainder of the broken season, after the four weeks of Mr. Fechter's further stay have expired. It may be imagined that the favorite actor and actress, whose loss from the supporting force has been so felt, will return to take their places at the head of the company, and undoubtedly such attractive entertainments will be presented as to insure the continuance of the popular favor.