'One great difficulty with which the trustees have had to contend is how to steer a course between the Syndicate and the Shuberts. The Syndicate refuses to book in a house open to other agencies, and the Shuberts can offer few but musical shows. In fact, neither side seems prepared to supply enough attractions. So altogether this matter seems at present almost hopeless of solution as long as the prevailing dearth of plays and actors and surfeit of theaters make it well-nigh impossible for one-night stands to fare well. In practice both sides to the controversy have been tried and found wanting.' This Northampton fact of the possession of a town theater tells us at once that the measure of financial support of a civic theater involved in the ownership of a theater building is the least vital and efficient step toward the end in view. It is an effort that looks out for the mere shell. It puts the town in the position of a benevolent landlord toward a real estate investment that happens to fall in the artistic class. And such a class of investment requires further equipment to cope with the equipment of less benevolent foreign landlords holding similar property. Unless civic responsibility develops beyond this comparatively helpless position, no such improvement of the situation as may lead to dramatic growth may result from this foundation. At the same time, even this meager measure of civic control of the dramatic situation has bettered Northampton's chances in the matter of drama. It has shielded the town from utter helplessness against dramatic deterioration through receiving whatever outside commercial managements may choose to offer. It has enabled the town to choose for itself to some degree and most notably to gain access to a higher class of independent dramatic entertainment than would otherwise be open to it. But even in the act of thus looking out for the mere shell of a civic theater, the difficulties incident to a partial reform of the dramatic situation appear. They are the difficulties incident both to the current dramatic commercial monopoly, and to _not_ doing more than own a building. The next step toward surmounting these difficulties would be to give the shell a substantial kernel. It is natural enough that in an age as much disposed as ours is to give the dominant place to financial support that the most obvious and superficially practical thing to do was done first. It is natural enough, too, in the working-out process, that its superficialness becomes evident. Pittsfield comes next both in date and significance of its step toward financial support for the community of a theater. To Mr. Edward Boltwood, a member of the executive committee responsible for this step on behalf of the town, I am indebted for the following account for which I asked of its initiation: