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.’’