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.’
<td»
e
Annual Meeting of ©. B. K.
At the business meeting of the Phi
Society held Wednesday
evening, March 10, in Phelps Hall, the
following graduate officers were elected:
President, Professor Tracv Peck: Vice-
President, Prof. A. M. Wheler: Corre-
snonding Secretary, Hon. Simeon E5.
Baldwin; treasurer, Mr. J. Sumner
Smith.
Members of the junior class who re-
ceived a junior appointment of either a
Philosophical or High Oration were
given a formal election to the society.
Article II., section II., of the consti-
tution was amended so that beginning
with the class of 1900 a stand of 3.40
will be required for election on one
year’s work and a stand of 3:30 for
election on four year’s work. The rule
in operation at present requires a stand
of 3.30 for one year or 3.15 for two
years for election to the society.
a
World Removed From
Reading Room.
On Sunday, March 14, a second copy
of the New York Sun was substituted
for the copy of the New York World,
which has hitherto been kept in the
University Reading Room.
N. W,
sold for a less price.
you nor to ourselves.
us fair price.
Standard of the World, .
Fair Treatment
If Columbia Bicycles were not worth $100 they would be
We cannot afford to be unfair to
We give you fair value—you give
(olumbia Bicycles
HARTFORD BICYCLES, second only to Columbias, $75, S60, $50, S45.
Strong, handsome, serviceable, and at prices within reach of everyone.
to all alike,
"100
Greatest bicycle factories in the world.
Handsomest bicycle cat
POPE MFG. CO., Hartford, Conn.
every city and town.
alogue ever issued free from Columbia dealers or by
mail for one 2-cent stamp.
Branch house or dealer in almost
