YALE ALUMNI WHEKLY CALLED ‘‘ CHARACTERISTIC.” Under the head of “Corbettized Yale’”’ Col. N. G. Osborn ’80, says in the New Haven Register: “We are not at all suitably impressed with the protest which has gone up from the Yale press —in the course of which the harsh word “treason” is used to identify the char- acter of the act—over the gift of a Yale flag to Gentleman Jim Corbett, who is next week to try intellectual as well as physical conclusions with Bob Fitzsim- mons, another citizen of distinguished renown. Instead of being a serious break, it seems to us the most amusing of all the irresponsible things yet done in the student world, and we suspect that the seriousness is confined to the Yale press and Corbett. * * * “Its members, impressed with the valor and greatness of their patron saint, agreed, in that spirit of deviltry which adds such a charm to student character, to write him a letter. This one sentence exposes the spirit in which the correspondence was concocted: “Byer since your first visit to New Haven last Fall and your first appear- ance on our football field, the college at large has felt the deepest interest and hope for your triumph.” If that isn’t richness, where is richness to be found? The man who can not see through this, the clear fields back of it, doesn’t know anything of the de- light of eating watermelons from the vines. “But, we may be asked, is it not a hoofless proceeding? Will not Yale suf- fer in public opinion, if a Yale flag adorns Corbett’s corner at the ring- side? The first question, of course, re- quires an affirmative answer. It was hoofless, but the students are hoofless. When the philosopher comes along with the necessary instruments and success- fully analyzes the genus student and lets in light upon his mental operations, a most diverting and entertaining study will be taken away from man- kind. * * * The Corbett correspond- is simply a manifestation—hoof- ence tat: oF. less, yes; but characteristic. * Yale has flourished in spite of years and generations of student hoofless- ness, and is now in no danger what- ever from a collapse brought about by the intimate association of some very mischievous and loveable boys, and the champion of the prize ring. The Fac- ulty knows this and so do we.” THE OPTIMISTIC SIDE. “The Bright Side of a Disgraceful Episode,” according to the Hartford Courant, is as follows: ‘‘Yale men evervwhere are indignant that there should be in the undergraduate body at New Haven thirteen young fellows capable of sending public greetings, in Yale’s name, to a prize fighter, and ask- ing him to hang a Yale flag. (sent with the greetings) in his ‘ corner of the ring on the day of the fight. The pro- fessional pugilist thus honored not long ago spat in the face of a pinioned fellow ‘pug’ in a_ Philadelphia bar-room. Seven of his thirteen undergraduate ad- mirers hail from New York City. “The graduates of the University will be glad to hear that the student body in New Haven is as indignant as they are ; that Corbett’s correspondents have been coerced by college opinion into a partial retraction of their letter; that they have been unable to suppress a stinging com- ment on their folly in the college daily, and that the Dean of the academic faculty has had an official interview with them. This interview should have early and gratifying disciplinary se- quels.” ATHLETICS AND PUGILISM. The Philadelphia Press, in an edi- torial on the distinction between ath- letics and pugilism, says: ‘‘One of the objections brought against the pursuit of athletics in college, and especially against foot ball, is that it may fa- miliarize students with roughness and coarseness and neutralize that cultured refinement which it is one of the ob- jects of a college course to impart. The Yale letter to Corbett would strengthen the belief that college athletics have that tendency but its prompt and em- phatic repudiation will correct the im- pression.”’ >> a3, < “RETRACTION * UNSATISFACTORY The Statement the Most Disappointing Thing of All. To the Editor of the Yale Alumni Weekly, Sir: LT find in this morning’s paper a state- ment which, if intended as a disavowal and apology for the signers’ previous letter to James J. Corbett, ought not to be accepted as sufficient. The statement’s preamble is: “Ap- preciating that a wrong MAY HAVE BEEN DONE to Yale University by the OUTCOME OF OUR ACT in send- ing a Yale flag to James J. Corbett, we make the following statement.” That is not the language of a repentant sinner, but rather of an argumentative diplomat, who is not convinced that he has done anything requiring an apol- ogy, and who looks upon the publicity given to his act, and the misconstruc- tion of his words, rather than the act itself and the words, as the hypothet- ical wrong for which he finds him- self constrained to make some sort of reparation. The first paragraph of the statement proper is: ‘‘We had nw authority to commit the College or any member of the College other than ourselves, nor did we intend to do so. No one of us had considered for a moment the infer- ence which it now appears has been drawn from the misconstruction of the letter.”?’ In view of this preamble, they probably refer to the second paragraph of this letter in which the flag is men- tioned, and in this view of it their statement disavows any authority to commit the College in respect to the gift of the flag. Perhaps such a dis- avowal was needed, but what was more needed, so far as disavowals are concerned, and what is nowhere to be found in their statement, is a disa- vowal of these words in their letter: “The College at large has felt the deep- est interest and hope for your tri- umph,” and whether the words pur- ported to be written by authority or not is beside the question. . THE ONLY APOLOGY. In the last paragraph, which con- tains all that there is of apology, re- gret is expressed that they have “thus” unwittingly cast any slur upon the University, and they promise to do all they can to undo what harm “we (they) may have done.” Apology is thus grudgingly made for the slur cast by them upon the University ‘“‘un- wittingly,’’ in that others have miscon- strued their personal gift of a Yale flag to Corbett as a gift on behalf of the University. I think that, on reading their letter, we all thought ourselves in the pres- ence of one of those phenomena not unknown in college experience, a fool- ish, thoughtless act, perhaps intended as a joke, and that with returning sanity the perpetrators would disavow it fully and apologize; unless, indeed, the letter should prove to be a for- gery. We were ready to accept the apology, draw the mantle of kindly charity over the episode, so far as might be, and make the best we could of a disgraceful piece of business. But in view of the “statement” now published it is evident that these young men still need to be enlightened as to the offense they have committed against Yale, leaving out of consideration every other aspect of their action. They, writing as “fof the Junior class of Yale University,’’ stated in a letter to Corbett, a prize-fighter, that the College at large had felt the deepest interest in and hope for his triumph in a prize fight. Does the College at large acquiesce in that statement as true, or does it repudiate it as false? The News has said that the statement is not true. If not true, the making of it was a gross offense, an insult to “the College at large.’’ If the signers of the letter have offered this insult thought- lessly, and wish to make reparation, a frank disavowal and an apology are in order, and neither disavowal nor apol- ogy has been made with respect to it. MISCONSTRUCTION NOT POSSIBLE. They sent with the letter a Yale flag, requesting Corbett to hang it in his training quarters, and in his corner at the ringside. The principles underly- ing the proper use and treatment of the symbol of the dear old College have probably never been formulated, but there is such a thing as an insult to Yale, an offense against every Yale man in and by the improper use and treatment of the College flag, is there not? Does not the University at large and the great body of its graduates feel that what these young men have done constitutes a gross offense, and that, too, without the slightest regard to any alleged misconstruction of their intentions, but looking at it simply as their personal act as individual Yale men? The Yale Weekly has _ said that from a decent standpoint of col- lege loyalty, it was an act of treason. Tf those who have perpetrated it wish to make reparation, they will not only disavow the intention which has been imputed to them by misconstruction of their letter, but also express their re- pentance and offer their apology in plain English for the act itself, aside from any inference based on miscon- struction,—an apology without mental reservations. THIS HAS NOT BEEN RETRACTED. They joined in the expression of views about prize-fighting and good wishes for Corbett, which they were doubtless free to hold as individuals, and which their letter was intended to set forth as personal. But such a joint statement of such personal views could not be made without giving offense to Yale and Yale men, because the action itself was sure to be misconstrued un- less the letter contained an express and emphatic disclaimer of its representa- tive character, and, if misconstrued in this respect, was in effect a gross and outrageous libel on the University. This aspect of the matter is one which they doubtless took no thought of. The other aspects of it involve so much more glaring departures from the kind of conduct expected of Yale gentlemen, that this one sinks into insignificance by comparison. Finally, here are thirteen Yale Jun- iors who joined in the expression of certain personal views. They have not disavowed these views; they have not stated that their action in this spect of it was a thoughtless performance. Therefore, their letter stands as the avowed expression of the personal. views of thirteen Juniors, some of whom, we are told, have been leaders in college life, and men of repute and importance in the college community. Yale’s leaders, the men whom the Col- lege has delighted to honor in the past, have not been men of that type. - Lucius C. Ryce, ’86. —_———_$e@—___“__ Yale’s Debt to the Register. To the Editor of the Yale Alumni Weekly, Sir: We are under an enormous debt of gratitude to the New Haven Register for assuring us that the University is liable to survive an act of unconscion- able folly, which involved a very seri- ous principle. Tt has removed the nerv- ous strain under which all friends of the Uniersity were wearing out their vital forces, in worried days and sleep- less nights. : Tt is further a most happy discovery that the editorial mind of the Register and the governing spirit of the Yale Faculty are, according to the statement of the former, in perfect accord. Such a concert of the powers assures the peace of New Haven county and the tranquility of the educational world. For 364 days out of the year the edi- torial policy of the Register is refresh- ing, stimulating, encouraging and often even inspiring. We have lived long enough to meet with the three hundred and sixty-fifth day several times before last Friday and we are not. at all worried, or troubled. On charter reform; “taxation, ‘‘ex-President~ Cteve- land, the ethics of the lobby, the Presi- dent’s private secretary and a whole lot of other things, the New Haven Register is still a fountain of truth. If it occasionally outdoes, in its own ob- servations, all the ‘‘hoofless,” ‘‘charm- ing,’’ irresponsibility,” that it sees in student life, what of it? There are some things that will never be taken with too much seriousness. A REGISTER READER. In the College Pulpit. The following preachers will oc- ecupy the College pulpit during the winter term: March 21—President M. W. Stryker, of Hamilton College. March 28—Rev. Henry A. Stimson, of New York City. April 4.—Rev. William K. Hall, D. D., Pastor First Presbyterian Church, Newburgh, N. Y. ‘ April 11.—Rev. C. R. Lamson, D. D., Hartford, Conn. ~ Beta Kapvna Even if you are very particular, we are not troubled. We like it. Our particular aim is to suit par- ticular people. EXEMPLI GRATIA: We have Six Hundred pieces,—all different patterns,—for Colored Shirts. You can have your pick now, but they are being gobbled up. Samples? Yes: we'll mail you scores of them, with pleasure. Don’t you want something nice in Rugby ties? Drop in on, or drop a line to: CHASE & CO., New Haven House Building. April 25.—Rev. Richard S. Storrs, D. D., Pastor of the Church of the Pil- grims, Brooklyn, N. Y. May 2.—Rev. Charles Cuthbert Hall, D. D., Pastor of the First Presbyteri- an Church, Brooklyn. a OH Regarding the EFampson Will. Rumors have been widely spread to the effect that the will of the late Mr. Lampson will be contested by certain of his surviving relatives. No definite information is as yet obtainable on this matter, and it is certain that no action has yet been taken. A New York lawyer, when asked his opinion regarding the possibility of making the will, wrote thus to the Weekly: “T have heard rumors of a contest of Mr. Lampson’s will, but my in- quiries have resulted in learnig nothing that would seem to be a fair or even speculative ground of contest. It would seem, so far as I can inform myself, to be at best a mere speculation of law- vers who will probably trust chiefly to forcing a compromise by which they mav possibly get fees. I feel very sure that there is absolutely no good ground of any sort for a contest.’