OREGON EMERALD Published each Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday of the college year, by the Associated Students of the University of Oregon. Entered at the postoffice at Eugene as second class matter. Subscription rates, per ye^.r, fl.OO. Single copies, 5c.___ STAFF EDITOR-IN-CHIEF...MAX H. SOMMER Assistant Editors. .Walluce Eakln, Leslie O. Tooao Copy Editors.Ed Harwood, DeWItt Gilbert, dytle Hal! Special Writers. .Grace Edglngton, Frances Shoemaker, Charles Dundore, Walter Administration , ..Roberta KllUm Assistant .A Fes Assistants .James Sheehy, Lee BOstwlck Features ..Adrienne fcPPlnS.v Echo 2*!" Dramatics .*.Martha oeer Society [Beatrice‘Locke, Luclle Watson, Catherine Twomey — - .Louise Allen 5«u7«t“ I:::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::**** «»*•«■ Reporters. .Kenneth Moores, jean Bell, Robert McNary, Percy Boatman, Cora lie Snell, Luclle Messner, Joe Skelton, Helen Brenton.________ BUSINESS MANAGER.■""“I'”. FLOYD C. WESTERF.ELD Circulation. . Wily *■**“"■ Collections . Estley Farley Manager’s aid Editor’s Phone—841, __ The Political Boomerang. NEVER IN the history of Oregon politics have we seen such a rotten stack-up. Political lies, political poppy-cock, political pigging, political calumny, political scandal—and so on and on ad infinitum. There is one word, and that not in the King’s holiday English which describes the situation with a smack of precision, and that is plain, old, Anglo-saxon, “rotten”! When groups congregate around library steps, whisper in classes, and plot privately and publically, printable English no longer suffices. The campus teems with libellous stuff: So-and-so is double crossing This-and-That, and this fraternity is in a frame-up with that fraternity to squelch yonder fraternity. Such-an-such a sorority pulled So-and-So out of the political pot to give What’s-her-Name a chance at the bacon. And this Non-fraternity bunch pulled a raw one by trying to get Such-and-Such a crew to withdraw So-and-So in order to give What’s-his-Name a corner on the Pork barrel, at the same time assuring Such-and-Such that their other candidate would draw as strong as the proverbial Limberger. It’s rotten, but the worst part of it is that it’s not true in the majority of cases. The worst one pulled yet was that which accredited one of the professors with openly recommending that Some-one-Else was a better man than So-and-So, and that the Chump that nominated So-and-So did it only for notoriety and agreed with the aforesaid professor. On the face of it, this talk is poppy-cock; but it is circulating as gospel truth and those who started it did so for political purposes. This stuff is being talked all over the campus for the purpose of drawing votes. It does not originate with tlie candidates as a rule, but with those who are behind the candidates. With this sort of pre election campaigning, the Student Body is not assured of selecting its officers on merit. But the chances are fifty-fifty that the candidate whose backers resort to such twaddle will loose out in the finals for the very reason that such devices are retrogressive in the end and come back with the force of a boomerang hurled by the official Aus tralian ballot. Think It Over. THE SO-CALLED sophomore amendment, defeated at the last election, by the skin of its teeth, is again before the electorate of the Student Body politic. We do not intend to circulate any pre-digested “Food for Thought,” seasoned up with sensational spices, and dish ed out at the last moment. We do not believe in such slap-dash meth ods of serving intellectual food. On the other hand what we do be lieve in is frank and free discussion before election. We submit the following reasons of why the amendment should not pass, and if you agree with us vote it down. Tf, on the other hand, you think that our reasoning is shallow, vote for the amend ment. What we crave is an intellectual vote on the matter without making an emotional appeal. Our grounds for rejecting the amendment are as follows: 1. It involves changing the broad principle of University rep resentation to a narrow partisan class representation. 2. All University students have a voice in the council not only by representation, but in virtue of the right of any student or students to present projects in person or writing. 3. The addition of another member to the council will des troy its efficiency, as it is now too large for quality representation. 4. Another member would increase the tendency to shirk coun cil responsibility, such as attendance at meetings, etc. 5. The upperclassmen are truly representatives of all classes, not merely of the classes from which they come. 6. The Council should be made up of persons experienced in the government of the student body. 7. The issue was not presented bv underclassmen. 8. Sophomore representation would be of little value to the underclassmen, even though the member had a vote. 9. It will delay the establishment of self-government in the ttudent body. The mooted amendment was at first put forward w ith the gen eral contention that the Council should be increased in membership. The Emerald opposed this principle, saying that efficiency demanded a smaller body instead of a larger one. After the last election one of the leading advocates for the amendment came forward saying that live membership of the council should be reduced, but that the ex officio members should be eliminated. Again we object for the re moval of ex-officio members would render the Council out of touch with campus affairs. The Council, in’such a status, would become a sort of pink-tea debating society without a vestige of power. Such a move would defeat the aims of the founders of the Student Coun cil, who did so with the avowed purpose of making self-government possible within a few years. In order to safe-guard the council from the evils of being merely a conclave of clashing classes, which would interfere with the welfare of student government and introduce class higgling and haggling, the founders provided for free, broad representation removed from class-consciousness and petty affilia tions. This they did by providing for University representation— m^nd you, not class representation—and further'provided that such representation should be accorded to upperclassman in lieu of longer experience. Representatives were designated as upperclassmen on the sarne principle that a senator or representative njiust be of a certain age to guarantee a certain amount of experienc. i Some think that this matter is trivial. We 'disagree with them because the question is not so much one of sophopiore representation as i that of changing the entire basis of representation from one of brbad University loyalty to one of narrow class, partisanship. In stead of endangering the chances of future self-government; instead of introducing class politics into the Council, and linstead of lowering thhe great majority of the stu dent |Vote was in favor of granting the representation, it lost because the con stitutlion stipulates that amendments shall I carry by a two-thirds vote. The student body was in favor of it by nearly two to one; the student council was against it 10 to 3. and yet one of the most 'strongly harped upon arguments of those opposing the measure is that the student council represents the whole stu dent body as it is. This is a matter where right coincides 1 with expediency and efficiency. Where is the logic to a ^system of student gov ernment whereby (two-thirds of the stu dent body have no| voice in a student body organ which is supposed to represent the sentiment of the, whole student body? There are 560 underclassmen in the University of Oregon student body; there are 250 upperclassmen. The 250 upper classmen are represented on the council —supposedly an organization represent ing all of the students, by thirteen mem bers; the 560 are represented by none. There has no^: been a single real argument advanced against sophomore representation. This bunk abount tra dition and qualifications for honorary societies applies well to green caps and senior benches, bU|t not to personal rights in a democratic, public institution. True, democracy does Remand efficiency, but there is no better] way to introduce effi ciency than by th;e fusion of ideas that would result from an underclass repre sentative. The council is not too large in numbers, merely tbo largely composed of “mature figureheads.” When we get | out petitions to the faculty for reinstatement of basketball, we say “We want basketball—that’s reason enough for you to reinstate it.” The underclassmen want representation, it is fair and just and coincides with good student government, why not give it to them? Why not give them a chance? The addition of the sophomore member would give underclassmen representa tion and would still not take away the right to lead in ^university affairs and policies from the upperclassmen. It would create a greater interest in stu dent body affairs throughout the under classes. Only fools refuse to change their minds. Let us consider this proposition upon its merits, net crown our lofty and dignified positions is seniors and juniors. If you think a sophomore representative on the student council Would in any way clog the wheels of that organ of student opinion, of if you think it the right thing to do, vote down the amendment. But, if the proposition seems to be based upon sound principles, and stands a chance, at least, of improving the stu dent body, whose best interests we all have at heart, lets| vote for sophomore represenation. HARRY L. KUCK. I Commonwealth Gathering Planned Larger Scale Next Fall Says Prof. F.| G. Young. on The Commonwealth congress will be held in October according to Professor F. G. Young, of. the department of Economics and Sociology. It was at first planned to hold it sometime in May, as in previous years, but because the congress this year is to be larger than formerly and conducted unde.r somewhat different conditions it was thought advisable to1 hold it later so mo|-e preparations could be made. i Professor Young plans to take the matter up with prominent men of the state, people who hjave no axes to grind, and determine justi what topics are to be taken dp and w-ho the speakers will be. The program iJt also to be discussed with some of the s;ate commissions and some of the speakers will probably be members of the net t state legislature. The idea of the gress is to work in Commonwealth eon the interests of the people of the state, at large in getting bills that will be a benefit to the people before the state legislature. Strikingly Original Are the new Seperate Skirts New Wash Skirts The full flare lines make them so deservedly popular and different. In wash skirts we show gabardine, honey comb cloth, repp, piqua, lin on, etc. In worsted skirts we show checks, gabardines, serges, etc. A variety of yoke—pocket—and girdle effects. Beautiful materials —faultlessly tailored and all sizes. Wash skirts..$1-50 to $4.50 Worsted skirts..$5 to $12.50 Taffeta skirts ..$8.50 to $12.50 LARGE’S CLOAK & SUIT HOUSE 865 Willamette Street Phone 525 “The Store That Sells Wooltex” COLLEGE ICE CREAM PHONE 343 iisin® \’£[i The Oregana The Student Shop For Oregon Students Try our candies Our ice cream is Perfect Use Lane County Butter Fresh and Sanitary Always ask your grocer for the Lane County Creamery Brands 48 Park St. Fisher Laundry PHONE 65 TheVarsity Barber Shop Antiseptic Don’t be afraid to get your work done here. You can’t get any infectious disease, as we keep all our tools in a steril izer when not in use. Students we solicit your patronage John McGuire Proprietor For the past six years at Marx Barber Shop. Hull Building 11th and Alder