Vou IX. No. 34 NEW
HAVEN, CONN., WEDNESDAY, MAY 23, 1900.
Copyright, 1900,
‘by Yale Alumni Weekly.
PRICE | 10 CENTS.
SOPHOMORE SOCIETIES,
A Suggestion from the Faculty About
New Members—The Situation.
On Saturday of last week, May 19,
the petition of the members of the
Senior Class of Yale College, not mem-
bers of Sophomore societies, praying
the Faculty for the abolition of these
societies, which had been withdrawn,
pending the work of the Conference
Committee, was returned to the Faculty.
This was in accordance with the vote
of the petitioners when they authorized
their Committee to confer with the
Committee of the Sophomore societies
and at the same time to withdraw tem-
porarily the petition. Besides this pe-
tition, a special one to the same end
was presented, signed by about a score
of Yale graduates, studying in Johns
Hopkins University. On Monday of this
week, another petition to the same end, .
signed by approximately one hundred
members ofthe Class of Ninety-Nine,
also praying for the abolition of the
Sophomore societies, was presented.
After a long session, in which the
liveliest interest in the Society problem
was shown, the Faculty, at a special
meeting at noon, Monday, May 21,
passed the following:
“Voted, That the interests of the Uni-
versity demand that the taking in of
new members by the Sophomore socie-
ties be postponed until further notice.”
MEANING OF THE VOTE.
This vote of the Faculty shows two
points in the attitude of that body.
First, the Faculty seems determined
that the societies shall not pass to a
new set of men the responsibility for
the settlement of problems brought
directly before the present members
several months ago, and concerning
which the conference of the commit- |
tees during the last three months has
prevented any solution of the matter by
the Faculty.
Second, the vote of the Faculty ex-
presses the very strong desire of that
body that the societies themselves set-
tle this matter and not force the Faculty
to pass over the line of non-interference
in such matters, traditional in Yale
government.
EVENTS LEADING TO THIS ACTION.
The attitude of the societies towards
the Conference Committee report was
intimated in a general way in the last
issue of the WEEKLY. The matter has
become so distinctly one of public con-
cern and the facts have been so freely
circulated that it is possible and proper
to restate them with more definiteness
now. The Sophomore Society of Eta
Phi adopted the Conference Committee
report immediately on its presentation.
The Society of He Boule, after a very
careful consideration, voted the report
down by a largemajority. The ground
taken was, that the pyramidal system,
called for by the report, (which as the
WEEKLY’S readers will remember, pro-
posed to transpose the fraternities and
the societies at present in Sophomore
year and slightly increase the latter
in size) could not accomplish the end
sought for, namely, the recognition of
those men who came to College un-
known and who did not develop their
strength early in their course. It was
held that the failure to make a frater-
nity in Sophomore year would cut off
even the present chance of later recogni-
tion. The members of the Society went
into the matter with the utmost thor-
oughness and conscientiousness and
voted as they did, only. because they
considered that the course suggested
by the Committee was not the best
one for Yale. It is proper to record
this fact with some definiteness, because
many papers hereabouts have been
filled with a great many lies of a
grossly abusive nature. The sentiment
was freely expressed by the members
of this Society, in coming to this con-
clusion, that they would rather go out
of existence than to submit to such a
change in their organization, which
would materially weaken it and which,
in their opinion, would do Yale more
harm than good.
The Society of Kappa Psi, the young-
est of the three Sophomore Societies,
tabled the matter, but it is known that
the sentiment there has been as strong
as in He Boule against the proposed
change.
REASONS FOR SOCIETIES ATTITUDE.
The action above recorded was
chronicled in the last WEEKLY, as a dis-
appointing surprise to the Yale public.
This was rather a mild way to put it.
Very conservative men held that the
overthrow of the report was an act
which in any other relation in life would
generally be regarded as bad _ faith.
To apply this view to the present situa-
tion, however, is to overlook certain
points, to which people who have kept
their heads and who appreciate the high
character of the men who are in these
societies have given proper weight.
These societies had begun themselves
to try to change the present order be- |
fore the present agitation broke out..
They had looked upon the conference
with the committee from the petitioners
as merely a means to enable them to get
at some plan of reform which would
meet the situation. The report of the
Conference Committee was_ treated
exactly as the report of their own com-
mittee would have been treated, if it
had been equally unsatisfactory. They
did not appreciate the difference be-
tween the two, growing out of the pub-
lic nature of this problem and the re-
sponsibility upon the societies, first, and
the Faculty next, if the societies failed
to meet the situation by definite action
and not by further mere negation.
THE PUBLIC VIEW OF THE MATTER.
The Faculty, graduates and students
of Yale, outside of those directly in-
terested, have considered the present
agitation as the culmination of a long
period of growing dissatisfaction, and
have said that now was the time to meet
and settle the question. All desired
that the Faculty should not act, so long
as it appeared that the societies would
act. The appointment of the Confer-
ence Committee and its long sessions,
extending over approximately three
months, have been considered as a
guarantee of willingness on both sides
to agree with one another if they could.
During all this time, plan after plan
has been proposed on both sides, and it
has been supposed that with the nature
of those different plans the societies
which had sent their committees into
the conference were familiar. As a
matter of fact, it is said that the socie-
ties were not acquainted with the dif-
ferent propositions, owing to a rule in
the Conference Committee that their
deliberation should be kept absolutely
secret until some decision was reached.
This, of course, has proved a most un-
fortunate rule and has left the disagree-
ing societies in a false position.
For, as the different propositions
came from one side or the other, they
were all modified, always on the argu-
ment from one side or the other, that
the proposition must be thus and so
changed if it were to pass the respective
bodies represented. This, of course,
leaking out from time to time, in-
creased the confidence of the public,
that when the Conference really agreed
the end would be at hand.
ATTITUDE OF THE PETITIONERS.
The petitioners accepted the report |
of their Committee, not because they
thought it ideal, as no one did, but be-
cause they were told it was the best
thing that:could be secured. Since it
accomplished one main object of the
whole agitation, namely, taking out the
smaller society from the early part of
the course, it was considered much
more worth accepting than rejecting.
The societies, on the other hand,
which disapproved the act, looked at it
simply as one of a number of possible
ways to work out their own particular
responsibility for changing the social
system, and said that it was: not best
and therefore they would not have it.
What they failed to realize was the
necessity of at once putting forward
something better, for which it was sup-
posed that these long months of con-
sideration had prepared them. That
they did not do so, has seemed to many
who have given them full credit for
their motives, to illustrate the fact that
their secrecy and their exclusion as
members of their society from the rest
of the student body make it impossi-
ble for them to appreciate public senti-
ment.
The action of the Faculty above -re-
ferred to is taken with the idea evidently
of giving them still another chance to
bring forward such a reform as they
think will meet the requirements of the
situation. It is thought that the addi-
tional time will be used very industri-
ously by the members of these socie-
ties to find this better ways or else that
the consideration which they will now
give to the situation will enable them to
see that the Conference report is the
best way out. .
At the Faculty meeting the point was
raised ‘whether, in consideration of the
fact that it had accepted the report,
Eta Phi ought not to be allowed to
take in their new members this month.
The final vote of the Faculty shows the
opinion that the matter would be left
in better condition for future treat-
ment if all the societies deferred their
elections.
The vote of the Faculty is purposely
framed as a suggestion.
Dr. Gallaudet to Leave Yale.
It was announced last week that Dr.
Edson F. Gallaudet, Yale ’93, would
leave his position of Instructor in
Physics in the College at the close of
the present academic year, to take a
position in the Engineering Department
of William Cramp & Sons’ Ship and
Engine Building Company in Phila-
delphia. Dr. Gallaudet has been teach-
ing physics at Yale for the last three
years, and since Mr. Robert J. Cook
went abroad has been Coach of the Yale
Crew. He was stroke of his Freshman
Eight and of the winning Yale Crews
of 1892 and 1893.
~<t»
>. 1G
The Yale Crew.
The Yale Crew will go to New Lon-
don June 7. The Crew rowed four
miles on time last Thursday in about.
22 minutes, which was considered fairly
good considering the lack of distance
trials this Spring. |
JUNIOR ELECTIONS.
Names of Those of 1902 Taken by
the Fraternities.
The Junior Fraternities announced
their elections on the night of Tues-
day of this week, May 22, with the
usual calcium light formalities and
robed processions and songs. The list
of those receiving elections follow:
PS! -UPSILON.
Courtlandt Dixon Barnes, New York
City; Dixon Boardman, New York
City; Newton Case Brainard, Hartford,
Conn.; Graham Brush, New York City;
Julian Winsor Burdick, Albany, N. Y.;
James Rogers .Deering, New York
City; Alton Farrel, Ansonia, Conn.;
Alfred Ludlow Fergusen, Stamford,
Conn.; Robert Hale Ives Goddard, Jr.,
Providence, R. I.; Henry William
Hamlias GanandaiguaseN, 5.3; enry
Stewart Hooker, Washington, D. C.;
Herman Warren Knox, New York
City; ‘George Lear, 2d, Doylestown,
Pa.; Benjamin Robbins Curtis Low,
Brooklyn, N. Y¥.; George Walter Lin-
denberg, Columbus, O.; Arthur Cros-
by. Ludington, New York City; Nor-
man Howell Mason, Chicago, IIl.;
Payson McLane Merrill, -_New York
City; Henry Pendleton Rogers, Jr.,
New York City; Frank Huestis Sin-
cerbeaux, Moravia, N. Y.; Edwin Al-
len Stebbins, Rochester, N. Y.; Henry
Budington Stoddard, Bridgeport, Conn.;
Samuel Harold Stone, Syracuse, N. Y.;
Joseph Rockwell Swan, Jr., Utica, N.
Y.; — Reginald . Claypool Vanderbilt,
New York City.
DELTA KAPPA -EPSILON.
Ellis Adams, Summit, New Jersey;
John de Koven Alsop, Middletown,
Conn.; Charles Harold Collins, Brook-
lyn, - New: York; «-Charles:< Cyprian
strong Cushing, Dobbs’ Ferry, N: -Y?;
John Raymond Hall, Dansville, N. Y.;
John Babinger Hart, Cincinnati, Ohio;
Charles Sterns Hopkins, Bangor, Me.;
Walter Martin Krementz, Newark, N.
J.; Harry Langden Laws, Cincinnati,
Ohio; George Gould Lincoln, Wash-
ington, D. C.; George Woodward
Noyes, Cincinnati, Ohio; Laurance
Blanchard Rand, Lawrence, New York;
Dorrance Reynolds, Wilkes-Barre, Pa.;
Walter Farley Roberts, Utica, New
York; Bronson Case Rumsey, 3d,
Buffalo, New York; Henry Stoddard
Sherman, Cleveland, Ohio; Edward
Levi Skinner, Westfield, New York;
Keith Spalding, New York City; Wil-
liam Romer Teller, Kingston, New
York; Mason ‘Trowbridge, Chicago,
Ill.; Thomas Nugent Troxell, West
Pittston, Pa.; Henry Frank Wells,
New York City; Homer Augustus
Wessel, Jr., Cincinnati, Ohio; Percy
Gardiner White, Gardiner, Me.; Bart-
lett Golden Yung, Hartford, Conn.
ALPHA DELTA: PHY,
Gardner Abbott, Cleveland, O.; Lau-—
rance Baldwin Beckwith, Toledo, O.;
John Booth Burrall, Waterbury, Conn.;
George Boone Carpenter, Chicago,
Ill.; Simeon Baldwin Chittenden,
Brooklyn, N. Y.; William Edwards
Day, Indianapolis, Ind.; Frank Manson
Eastman, Boise, Idaho; Edward Eas-
ton, Jr., Albany, N. Y.; Edward Lyttle-
ton Fox, New York; John Stephen
Garvan, Hartford, Conn.: James Lester
Goodwin, Hartford, Conn.; Charles
Gould, Albany, New York; Raymond
Gano Guernsey, Poughkeepsie, New
York; Floyd Welman Jefferson, Louis-
