UNIVERSITY COURIER
Entered at Lawrence Post Office as Second Class Matter.
VOL. I.
LAWRENCE, KANSAS, MARCH 6, 1883.
No.13
University Courier.
A SEMI-MONTHLY PUBLICATION DEVOTED TO THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE STUDENTS
THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS
BOARD OF EDITORS.
EDITORIAL...C. C. DART.
TOPICS...J. D. McLAREN.
LITERARY...E. A. BROWN, ANNA MURPHY.
SCIENTIFIC...L. L. DYCHE.
NORMAL...G. E. ROSE.
EXCHANGE...ALBERT RIFFLE.
LOCAL...GLEN MILLER, MARY GILLMORE.
PERSONAL...CLARA GILLHAM.
MISCELLANY...W. S. WHIRLOW, ELLA V. KEIST.
BUSINESS MANAGERS. EDMOND BUTLER, B. K. BRUCE.
Subscription, One Dollar per Year, in Advance.
EDITORIAL.
MANY individuals have an erroneous idea in regard to the action of our Faculty with reference to the coming of Robert G. Ingersoll in June next. In the Lawrence Gazette of the 22nd we find an article by one "S. C. R." who attacks a Courier editorial of the 6th, and also tries, in quite a lengthy article, to prove a point that has never been denied by the Faculty nor any one connected with the government of the University, namely: the right of allowing Mr. Ingersoll to speak before the students at a State institution. No one here at the college has questioned his right, neither has the Faculty acted in a manner that would indicate that they considered themselves the final court of decision in regard to the matter. The only action of the Faculty, as such, known in regard to the question, was in answer to a request sent them from the joint committee of the literary societies. The committee asked the Faculty, point blank, whether they would refuse Mr. Ingersoll or not, the use of the chapel hall provided he saw fit to accept the invitation. The Faculty answered no. If these facts were known to Mr. "S. C. R.," certainly he would not have spent so much of his time in trying to prove a point, the reverse of which had never been advocated. Again, "S. C. R." says, "The masses want to hear Mr. Ingersoll, the Faculty do not." Certainly, if he had been a little more conversant with the matter in question he would not have made such an assertion. A few of the Professors have been anxious from the very first for him to come, and even those who thought it unwise for him to address the students at this time, said, "as far as I am personally concerned, I would like to hear Mr.
Ingersoll speak, at the same time, however, I do not think it will be for the good of this institution to have him deliver the annual address June next." So it will be seen that the Faculty, as such, has taken no action against Mr. Ingersoll's coming, and also that those who opposed him, did so with a well-grounded belief that his appearance here would injure our institution. Have not these latter ones the right to call in question the action of the committee. Have they not as individuals, the right to say what they think in regard to the matter? Would Mr. "S. C. R." deny them either of these privileges? If not, for what can he blame our Faculty, either as a unit or as individuals?
The recent action of the House with reference to the University appropriations, reveals the fact that our State educational institutions are not upon as sound a basis as they might and ought to be. Our State University is fast becoming the leading institution among all those of the West, that offer the advantages of a collegiate training. It is now in a very prosperous condition but its future for two years, at least, depends upon the action of our legislators. A move by them in one direction will almost destroy our college, if in another it will continue prosperous. As it is now, political soreheads, office seekers and rival institutions can combine their forces and cripple an institution that is doing good work for our commonwealth. Snoddy's logic, Myers' bombast and Ryan's profound wisdom will be hurled at our University so long as its financial support is dependent upon legislative action. If we wish to make it a University of the very first rank, there must be a permanency of financial support, so that we will be enabled to procure the very best talent for every department of our institution. No matter how large the salary, but few experienced professors will leave permanent wages for a grand increase that may be entirely cut off inside of two years, at the convening of the next Legislative. This fight over appropriations can be done away with and our University placed upon a permanent basis. The difficulty can be best remedied by a provision in our State constitution. When such a change is made we may look for continued prosperity.
It might be well for friends of the University to inform themselves in regard to its needs and the nature of its work. They will be called upon at different times to refute false charges made against it. If this is necessary for individuals in the common walks of life, how much more necessary is it for those who intend to fight against ignorant and prejudiced opposition to our College, in legislative halls. If a few of our representatives had been posted, the appropriations for the improvement of our University might have been easily