The Preacher, the Actress, and the Seattle Theatre Feud

PLAYS AND PLAYERS.

The Potter-Bellew Engagement an Artistic Success.

DR. WALLACE'S LAST OUTBURST.

The dramatic event of last week was the four-night engagement at the Seattle Theater, which for artistic success was equal in brilliancy to the effort of any two stars seen at this theater this season. Financially also, in the hard times, the engagement was a success, the audiences Saturday and Tuesday night being not only large but exceedingly fashionable; and had the management not made the mistake of putting on 'Camilla,' an old stock play worn threadbare, for Wednesday, or of repeating 'In Society' Thursday evening, the attendance those two nights would have been as large as on the first night. This mistake of the Potter-Bellew management is one that too many managers make in coming to Seattle for the first time. They forget that the theater-goers of this city are well educated to plays and players, and, owing to their cosmopolitan character, are better judges and critics than in many larger cities. They know all the old plays and are eager for new ones. Mrs. Potter had other more attractive plays in her repertoire, among them a new historical piece founded on the life and death of Charlotte Corday. This would have insured a full house and undoubtedly given satisfaction.

Of Mrs. Potter's talent as an actress there can be no doubt. She is a great actress, though her style is one that has to be understood before it is fully appreciated. She lacks the power of attraction on first sight, and possesses a peculiar mannerism that leaves an unfavorable impression until after one or two acts, when she warms up to the force of her character and comes into closer sympathy with her audience. As an emotional actress Mrs. Potter will never be a success; her style is more of the classical order, and in forcible dramatic declamation she should score a marked success. Her Claire was an illustration of this. It lacked the pathos and sympathy with which Clara Morris imbued the part. Her best part was Francine in 'Society,' the character being that of an eccentric woman who teaches her husband a lesson by assuming a part, cold and cynical, which just about fitted Mrs. Potter's temperament.

Mr. Kyrle Bellew made a most favorable impression in every part in which he appeared, his polished manners, ease and grace captivating all alike. His stature lacks about two inches in height to insure his stage presence, but what he lacks in height he makes up in voice and fire, the first being wonderfully sympathetic and the second handsome, with a strong resemblance to Edwin Booth when in repose.

The dramatic reporter of the Post-Intelligencer called on Mrs. Potter and Mr. Bellew between the acts the first night of their engagement to interview them on the sensational attack made by Dr. Wallace in Portland on both themselves and their plays. Mr. Bellew spoke for Mrs. Potter and positively refused to be quoted on the subject pending their engagement, but now that the engagement is over, the remarks may be published. He said:

'This preacher has seen fit to make an attack on players he never saw and on people he knows nothing of. He did it for the purpose of drawing people to his church, and he succeeded. He expected we would fall into his trap and respond in kind, and keep up a controversy that would keep his church full for some time to come, but it is our wish to treat the fellow with the utter contempt that silence alone can give. His attack is that of a blackguard, and we will treat it as such. His statement that Mrs. Potter and I were present at his harangue is in keeping with the rest of his false allegations. Does it stand to reason that sane persons with any degree of self-respect would deliberately attend a church where they had been openly advertised for an attack? Neither Mrs. Potter nor I was at the church that night, and no one knows it better than that fellow. Two of our people were there, Miss Hudspeth and Mr. Nichols, but neither of them heard him point them out as they went out, so that there is another contradiction of that self-styled preacher's many-sided statements. The poor fellow wants notoriety; he is seeking it at any cost, and he is getting, I think, a little too much of it for his own peace of mind, if I may judge from the many condemnations of his course published throughout the Sound papers.'

The fact that Mrs. Potter and Mr. Bellew were not in the church that evening, and that Dr. Wallace does not know them by sight, has been attested by so many proofs that there is no room to doubt the veracity of Mrs. Potter and Mr. Bellew, and every reason to believe that Dr. Wallace was suffering that night from a severe attack of optical illusion.

This Doctor of Divinity Wallace, of the First Congregational Church of Portland, was in this city last week, and Wednesday evening gave the writer of this article an interview lasting over half an hour, in which he reviewed in detail the alleged Potter-Bellew incident in his church, giving a synopsis of his attack on both them and their plays. When he came to the part where the two persons arose to leave church, the reporter pointedly inquired:

'You are sure it was Mrs. Potter and Mr. Bellew?'

'Oh, yes; I knew them. I had seen them come in.'

'Had you ever seen them before that?'

'Yes; I had seen them in the East long before that.'

Dr. Wallace did not hesitate to give the fullest details and to answer all questions put, though when first approached he offered a faint protest against talking. This interview, through lack of space, was not published until Saturday morning.

But Sunday evening the reverend doctor made another virulent attack on Mrs. Potter and Mr. Bellew, called the editor of the Post-Intelligencer 'no gentleman,' and misstated facts as to the interview which appeared in the Post-Intelligencer. Some of his words were:

'If the stage cannot be discussed from the pulpit it has no right to exist. Such an argument is only an admission that there is no conscience on the stage. I have never misrepresented the stage in my life, and I want to say that no man in the world regards the stage higher than I do. But the stage must give to the pulpit. The people whom I referred to are of such a character that you would not tolerate them in your homes. They have no right to be on the stage, nor have their plays.'