The Oregon Daily Emerai* I» published Monday through Friday during the coUe«e year, except examination and holiday period*, with issue* on Homecoming Saturday, Dads Day Saturday. March 10 and Junior Weekend Saturday by the Associated Students of the Uni versity of Oregon. Entered as second class matter at the post office, Eugene, Oregon. Sub scription rates: $5 per school year, $2 per term. Opinions expressed on the editorial page are those of the writer and do not pretend to represent the opinions of the ASUO or of the University. Initialed editorials are written by the associate editors. Unsigned editorials are written by the editor. PrMt. United Press. Member. Associated Collegiate Pres*. Here's What it Costs Business rate telephones provide the most economical type of service for dormitory, fraternity, sorority and cooperative students. That’s one good reason why we are advocating a return, if possible, to the business phones in Greek organizations and cooperatives and installation of the same in dormitories. (1 he latter formerly were handled through the University campus switchboard as extensions under the 5-1511 number.) How can we say the flat rate business phones are less ex pensive than the old campus switchboard or proposed intra campus exchange phones? J. O. Lindstrom helped us out here. He has comparative cost figures on the three systems prepared for Alpha hall, as an average example. (The particular hall has 46 residents.) 1. Intra-campus exchange. If this system were used, the intra-campus phone would cost $5.50 per month. 1 o this would have to be added the $10 (approximately) per month guarantee on a pay phone for calls off-campus and incoming calls. '1 his makes a total of $15.50 per month, or 34 cents per month per student in Alpha. And the student would be dropping dimes in for off-campus calls. Per phone cost is even higher for Greek organizations and cooperatives than for most dorms because cost increases pro portionately with the distance from the central switchboard— which would be located in Johnson hall. The phones would be $5.50 for all dorms—except \ et s num ber one, where cost would be $6.75. The same charge would applv to Alpha Chi Omega and houses in that area. Others, as Alpha Delta Pi, Delta Tau Delta. Alpha Phi, Beta I heta Pi and houses a comparable distance from Johnson hall would have to pay $8 per month. Remember . . . this is in addition to the $10 pay phone guarantee. 2. University switchboard. (This is the system formerly used for dorms when Greek houses and co-ops had flat rate phones.) The University would have to charge each dorm $16.85 for the extension. That would come to 37 cents per student per month in Alpha. And, a pay phone would be necessary for long distance calls, as these could not be permitted through the campus switchboard. 3. Business rate phones. Charge for one is $11.50. 1 his would be 25 cents per student per month in Alpha. And a business phone would take care of on-campus, off-campus and long dis tance calls. So here again are the figures: Intra-campus exchange, $15.50; campus switchboard, $16.85; business rate, $11.50. Any more questions? Heap Bad Weekend There's something about Monday mornings. '1 hey give you a fresh outlook on life. Or maybe it’s Friday afternoons. We’ve never seen such a cantankerous, fault-finding, “obnoxious” (we use the term loosely) group of people as the ones around the campus last Friday. Whether it was phone troubles, honor system, political acro batics, yellow journalism, freedom of the press, or just plain war hysteria, everybody was unpleasant. And right after re ligious week, too. We got rebuffed 11 times in 2 hours. We’d speak to a person and they’d glare at us. Or if they did speak it was a perfunctory “Hi” to our face, and a “drop dead” to our back. We sat down in the SU to drink coffee and everybody in the vicinity got up and moved away. Twice. It just seemed that everyone wanted to go on the warpath. So we went home. After spending the weekend brooding about this present crisis in our campus life, we got so upset we decided to go on the warpath, too. So we glared at the first person we met Monday morning. She smiled sweetly and called us by our first name. We ignored the next person we met and he stopped us and began'making pleasant, non-obnoxious conversation. We turned our back on a noted can pus critic, and he jokingly wanted to know how we were. As if he couldn’t tell. Well_We gave up. We’ve checked our tomahawk in the Emerald filing cabinent for future reference. We’re off the warpath—until Thursday or Friday, at least. By that time the air should be full of whining shrapnel again. It’s just Friday’s nature—B. C.. .. m rn rn u a at- mamamtamm a»» • - Letters to the Editor Law School Letter Emerald Editor: Once again the power of the press to convince the objective mincf has been vindicated. Your magnificent answer to our letter of Jan. 21 has moved us to tear ful conviction. Now. Madame Edi tor, may we have our activity points for filling space in the Emerald? You say that you do not assign activity points, but. in the same issue (Jan. 241. ac cording to a half-page advertise ment on page four, work on the Emerald qualifies us for the points. By the way, what are these points good for ? How many of them are needed to get, a date with a Kappa (see below 1? There are, however, a few mat ters whieh we would like to raise in order that the fair name of the Law School will remain unde filed. It was noted in your an swer that most of us do not live under the present pay-phone sys tem. This, as you no doubt real ized. was a point which modesty forbade us to raise. But we accept the natural conclusion that we are the only group on campus qualified to express an unbiased opinion on the subject. Nor do we question Mr. A1 Karr’s status as a person well informed as to the telephone situation. We leave the matter of bias to you. Would you, we won der, ask Harry Truman or Robert Taft to write an objective opinion on American politics? Both are well-informed on the subject. As to your defense of the use of front page editorials and car toons, "proven members' of your trade (e.g. N. Y. Times, Ore gonian, etc.) do not countenance such usage. We should like to apologize for one of our number, Mr. .loe French, who seems to have signed letters on both sides of the issue. When questioned as to this odd ity. Mr. French replied, “I just can’t say no.” We note that the latest protest letters, from the Kappas, urges the Telephone com pany to remember that it is better to give than to receive; we trust that the Kappas will keep this in mind. Finally, we should like to pay a heart-felt tribute to the per suasive power of the Emerald. The greatest triumph was. of course, the unseemly spectacle of a mob of students marching on the dormitories and setting fires in the streets, indeed a great compliment to the Emerald's abil ity to mold the student "mind " It is fortunate, though, that the Eu gene Police Department did not see fit to do its plain duty. (Signed:) Kenneth Poole, John Sabin, Lester Pederson, R. V. Cook, Rob ert Kerr, Joe French, Edward O’Reilly, Francis Einklater, David Lentz, John (.arson, Tom Brand, Tom Mosgrove, Corinne Gunder son, Robert Purkett, Donald Bach, Roger Rose, Robert Daniel son, Roger Doolittle, Bill Death erage, Kelly Farris, Henry Bower, Bill Love, P. W. Hill, Don McCoy, Joe Richard, L. M. Johnson, Jack Sollis. About These Lawyers Emerald Editor: Let me congratulate you on the able manner in which you shot down the twenty seven law stu dents. I believe, however, that you overlooked their motive in writing that masterpiece of il logic. It wou'd seem obvious that these twenty seven are seeking lo show that they are capable of the same type of nonsense put cut by the telephone co. In short, dear editor, it would seem that these budding shysters are seek ing employment with P.T. & T. However this does not mean that I totally disagree with the occupants of Fenton Hall; in fact, I agree that ten cents is a cheap price—in my opinion far too cheap. During my weary years as a graduate student on this campus, one fact has come to my atten tion time and time again—under graduates talk too much .. , The women overcome their smaller numbers by talking eight times as much as the men, and the men yak fifty minute* out of every free hour. 1 think It conservative to esti mate that If just one-third of the excess verbage put out by the coeds alone, could be converted to some form of useful energy and sold to Industry, the University could pay off the mortage on ( arson Hull, buy some comfort able chairs for the Library, and pay our athletes a living wage. The benefit to the University, the tired tail-bones of a few students, and the Alumni association seems obvious. Here truly, Is a problem worthy of a master scientist. If Betty Coed of the Sigma Pul Nothings had to pay one buck every time she called Grad Under at the Tappa Kegga Beer house, she might study a little bit more instead; in desperation or sheer boredom he might study a little, and even avoid being pinned (stuck is a better term). The saving of wear and tear on Grad’s endoctrine system is a matter of no mean consequence, and the knowledge which he might well gain by this economic isolation Is a pearl not to be? cast lightly aside. And so you sec, dear Editor, that while the logic of the law yers may not have been without flaw, their main assertion was, and Is, quite valid, and I think worthy of youi support. I trust that the Grad Unders and the Grad Uppers will give their consideration to these words of wisdom from a ear-weary (irad Student Bob Henry Correction, Please Emerald Editor: After discussing with several freshmen women the story print ed in last Friday's Emerald con cerning the freshman election te port to the ASUO senate by Merv Hampton, I find that the story was very much misleading and also unfair to the individuals involved. The tone of the article includ ing the headline gave the im pression that the senate con cluded there had been partiality and political intervention during the campaign. The line "the sen ate took no action against fresh men connected with the reported incidents" seems to me to infer that the senate might have taken action. Actually the consensus within the senate was never put to a formal vote and certainly no senate agreement with the charge of "unfair tactics” was made. The "unfair tactics” charge was that only of Merv Hampton not even the election committee as a whole. Furthermore, any election would have to come as a contestation of the election by one of the freshman voters. The ruling that "no person or group of persons except those tiding In an official ASUO capac ity may use ASUO materials" was less the result of the "un fair tactics" charge than to make sure the ASUO office could not be turned into a campus paper and-pencil dispatching office. Hill Carey stated that previously some campus living organizations had paid for stenciling service and supplies from his office as was the case involving Bob Glass. Some senate members felt that the new ruling was needed In order to keep a firmer hand on the ASUO budget and to elimi nate the need for a bookkeeper to keep account of ASUO supplies! Particularly unnoylng to me wax the sub-head ‘'Glass Con fessed.” The only thing lie might have confessed to was that he campaigned. He certainly did not confess to “unfair tactics” and the paragraph following the sub head does not bear the sub-head out at all. Similarly the quote “I plead political naivety" made by Hill Carey was the conclusion to a much longer address to the senate and the w hole Idea of Ids statement is lost with that single quote anti no explanation, fur thermore the s-ntenee “Carey, who declared that there is a bond of fraternity whlt-h goes deeper than many other emotions, de clared that he would have gl\en the tamr type of aid lie ga\e to (■lass to other students if they hud come to him” Is so confusing that It is hardly understandable cven for someone who attended the entire Senate discussion. In conclusion I'd like to say that I’m sorry so many people misinterpreted the senate's ac tions Thursday night. May 1 re peat the senate did not make any ruling concerning the "unfair tactics" charge as presented by Mc-rv Hampton; the senate did not confirm the charge. Two of the three individuals involved in the charge were present and they did NOT confess to “unfair tac tics." May I say that it seems to me the consensus in the senate was adequately expressed by one of the faculty members when he said that the whole issue was being weighted too heavily for what had actually been done. Helen .laekstm Sena t e- Mem bor-ut -I -arge the Mvujue... 10 YEARS AGO Jan. 28, 1042—According to word received from the presi dent's office, there are no KOTC requirements for students wish ing to apply for officer’s training in the Marine Corps. - TV Why Not? “Don’t worry—th’ coach knows wot he’s doln! Height may pro\o * to be a disadvantage.’’