290
EDITORIAL.
LONG LIVE THE COURIER!
Every since the Courier started there has been a clamour from certain quarters for a consolidation of it and the Review. Such, we feel positive, is not,and will not be the desire of the Courier company.The reasons for starting this magazine are tenfold stronger for its continuance. The nonfraternity men in the University number over three-fourths the whole number of students. Yet up to the time of the Courier they had scarcely any representation in the Review. The Courier constitution forced an equal division of stock, editors, everything, among frats and barbs. The barbs immediately bought all the shares allotted to them, while a few belonging to the societies remain unsold.
We have not words to express our contempt for two things sometimes witnessed in our college. One is the spirit that refuses to recognize a man when a barb., but toadies to him as soon as he wears a society pin. The other is the cant of "putting the best man in the best place," which fraternities employ when they appropriate all the college honors. For instance, witness the following from the late Kansas Review: "It is not the giving of somebody a position because by some accident he belongs to some society, or does not belong to one, that gives a paper the true stamp of excellence, or the principle that should be followed in selecting an editorial board, but individual worth." As the Review has just nine fraternity men and not one non-fraternity man on its staff, the inference is that the outsiders are devoid of worth—perhaps are fools or idiots. We protest against such a spirit. We appreciate fully the high benefits of fraternities, but we also recognize merit outside our own secret circles. All frats were once barbs. The only fair treatment of "outsiders" is to guarantee them
an equal representation of everything with the frats.
But this is not all. It is said that one paper will be better than two. This is a mistake. Competition in the life of papers as well as trade. The Courier and Review are either better than one paper ever was. But for this rivalry who would have thought of presenting the subscribers photos of the new professors, the chemical building or the three chancellors?
Again it is urged that one paper would pay better dividends. Granted; but the object of the students is not to make money from the college journals. Both papers are more than making expenses and giving each stock-holder a free subscription.
There is a necessity for two papers; one like the Review, a monthly, to give literary productions; another like the Courier, a semi-monthly, to keep up fresh and spicy local reading. Besides, two papers give more than twice as much practice in writing, which is no inconsiderable thing. Two papers, whether the Courier or Review, or otherwise, there must always be in the University. Both magazines have received the warmest praise of regents, faculty, students and the press; and both should continue. While under a present pressure one paper might give a tolerable showing to all sides, things would soon pass into their former state.
With the editors of the Review personally we have no controversy. They number among the best students, and our warmest friends. We, however, enter a protest against any scheme for consolidation as deleterious to both papers, to the University and above all, to that portion of students who have the deepest interest in the Courier, the non-fraternity element. Let the Review live! Let the Courier live!