production of Torrence's _Simon the Cyrenian_ illustrates excellently the desired result. It is, however, Stuart Walker's privilege to adapt the new ideas, and to make such use of the old, as seems best to him. One is sometimes inclined to miss, nevertheless, the simplicity of his earlier work, especially when it is compared with the splendor, not always well used or well advised, of his later productions. His company has always read beautifully, and its reading is now better than ever. The only adverse criticism, if adverse criticism there be at all, lies against the Stage Director himself. I am especially glad to be able to say this, for the producer whose work is too good, too smooth, is surely stumbling to a fall. The very fact that there is definite room for improvement in the _Portmanteau_ presentations, leads one to feel, knowing the record of the company, that these improvements will be made. To return for a moment to an earlier phase of our discussion, it may be both interesting and profitable to note the fact that while the _Abbey_, the _Manchester_, and the _New Theaters_ were all aided by material subsidies, the _Portmanteau_ has stood on its own legs, albeit they wabbled a trifle on occasion, from the very start. A little, but only a little, money has been borrowed, and there has been just one gift, that of $5000. This last was accepted for the reason that it would enable the Theater to mount sets and costume plays in a rather better fashion than heretofore. While it was not absolutely essential to the continued existence of the _Portmanteau_ it made presently possible productions which otherwise would have been postponed indefinitely; in British army slang it would be called "bukshee," meaning extra, like the thirteenth cake in the dozen. The record of the _Portmanteau_ is its own, and that of its many friends who have been generous in contributing that rarest of all gifts, sympathetic understanding.