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
th<i efficiency of the Council—and the passage of the amendment
would mean all of this and more—we earnestly advocate voting
aghinst the amendment.
Above all think the question over, and vote according to the
dictates of judgment. Don’t be misled by a gob of red ink smeared
alii over white paper, which is posted to arouse an| emotional response
instead of an enlightened, rational response. If the electorate votes
on1 this amendment from the view of what is best for the University
and not from the standpoint of class consideration the count will un
doubtedly show an overwhelming defeat of the measure.
COMMUNICATIONS
i
SOPHOMORE REPRESENTATION.
“Inhere baa been more loose thinking on
the question of sophomore representa
tion in the student Council than on any
other question that has been before the j
student body this year. Let us clarify
our* sky, and having found the real is
sue] discuss it. j
T*he question of representation, a mat
ter 'of fundamental right, is the only one
that has been raised by the supporters
of the measure. If the sophomores are
represented in the council, then our
friehds of opposite minds have lost their
only reason for supporting the proposi
tion. In our election the sophomores
wlll| vote for the members of the council
just the same as the juniors and seniors.
Can we say then that the members so
elected do not reprsent the underclass
men! whose votes helped to elect them? In
general, our student body officers are
elected by the entire student body and
are !the representative of that body, and
not of any class or organization to which
they may belong. The council works in
the 'interest of and is representative of
the associate^ students, which includes
all classes: freshmen, sophomore, junior
and1 senior; underclassmen and upper
classmen alike.
Nince we have seen that the sopho
mores are represented in the student
council, we are free to discuss the real
issup that this proposed amendment
raises, shall we lower the qualifications
for membership on the council? We
have seen that this is not a question of
fundamental right, but a practical prob
lem.; Before changing our present or
ganization we should know whether or
not the new one will be any better. Is
therje anything wrong with the council
which the presence of a sophomore could
fix? Is there anything inherent in a
sophomore that would raise the sagacity,
efficiency, and prestige of the council?
Thelcouncil is a forum where ideas are
erysjtalized, and where projects of legis
lation are formulated to be acted upon
by ^he student body. It is a signi
ficant fact that not one of the recom
mendations of the council have failed to
pass^ If the council does not reflect
the will of the student body, how could
It hyld such a record. Would anyone
be fpolish enough to contend that the
addition of a sophomore to the organiza
tion iin question would better enable it
to reflect the will of the student body?
With these facts before us what reason j
have, we for placing an underclassman
on the Council?
The sophomores are now represented
on the student council, and hence can
not claim it us a matter of fundamental
right, that one of their number be allowed
to sit in the council. We have not
been I able to find where the presence of
an underclassman could aid the council
in its legislative duties. These two
things being true, the proposition before
you is of no value, without merit, and
most | certainly should he rejected.
CLOYI) O. DAWSON.
To the Editor:
The student body is being asked a
second time, tomorrow, to vote whether
or not there shall be a sophomore on the
student council next year and hereafter
at Oregon.
The vote last time was 206 in favor of
the proposed amendment and 108 against.
Althoiugh >he 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