COLUMBIA LIBRARIES OFFSITE AVERY FINE ARTS RESTRICTED AR01 498690 COLUMBIA SPECTATOR •g a genuine " Reform." For veirs the Class-days at Columbia were very weakly supported, and sank into insignificance and ridi- 1 cuW when compared with similar exercises at Harvard or 1 Yale. The fact is, Columbia has not the room for an Editorial Page of the First Spectator Spectator's Fifty Years The Story of the Columbia Spectator From Its Founding in 1877 to the Present Time By THE 1927 MANAQINQ BOARD Privately Printed For Spectator Editors m3j The 1927 Managing Board is deeply in- debted to Dr. Robert Arrowsmith '82 and Samuel Elmer Murray '28 for their valuable aid in the preparation of this book. Bracon Press. Inc. - 1927 - New York City FOREWORD It was my good fortune to enroll as a Freshman in Columbia College when the Columbia Spectator was completing its first year of life. It certainly was a vigorous infant. It united in exceptional measure literary cleverness with artistic skill. The men as- sociated with its conduct were among the cleverest then in college. William Bard McVickar of the Class of 1880, whose pencil was clever in high degree, con- tributed to the Spectator of those early years with steady frequency. The more sober and conventional Acta Columbiana looked upon its new rival at first askance, then with amusement, and finally with a desire to join forces. This desire was, as the record shows, shortly fulfilled. The various undergraduate journals have not been improved by the changes of the years. They have steadily imitated ordinary journalistic methods and aims, and have thereby largely lost those character- istics of charm and unique readiness to reflect under- graduate opinion and achievement in letters and the fine arts which at one time were more characteristic of them. Similarly, the old literary or debating so- cieties have become mere names. The American Whig and Cliosophic Societies of Princeton, the two literary societies established in the 18th century at the Uni- versity of North Carolina, and our own Philolexian and Peithologian Societies, organized in the very early years of the 19th century, have all lost the prominence in undergraduate life which they once enjoyed, and in some cases have become mere names. These changes are but one form of its vengeance. Tastes and ambitions alter with the years, and the modes of expressing them alter likewise to keep pace. A complete history of undergraduate literary activ- ity and adventure at Columbia would show a many- sided series of happenings extending over a half cen- tury. Through it all the history of Spectator runs like a thread binding the rest together and holding the story to a unity of impression and effect. The Spectator has always attracted to its manage- ment students chosen from the ablest and most com- petent of the undergraduate company of their day. It has performed a useful and an interesting service. We must all hope that this first half century is but one of the series which will lead in due time to a real millennium of the Spectator. NICHOLAS MURRAY BUTLER. March 7, 1927. President's Room, Columbia University. SPECTATOR'S FIFTY YEARS SPECTATOR'S FIFTY YEARS HERE can be nothing novel in a history of the X growth of an American institution. It is so usual for what is enormous in 1927 to have been insignifi- cant less than a century ago, that to note this fact in connection with college journalism is both uninterest- ing and unnecessary. And to emphasize this develop- ment is to miss the point. Nevertheless, undergraduate newspapers and mag- azines are decidedly valuable as an indication of the character of American colleges, and of the interests of the men who attend them. If, in themselves, they are frequently to be discounted as immature, and if they seem to show a complete lack of progress and can only point to a mechanical development, they are still important as a barometer of the student attitude. It seems desirable, then, to consider them in this light, and to subordinate any consideration of their physical growth. For Columbia's publications remain, and will always remain, of a single age though they grow monstrous in bulk. That moment of late ado- lescence and early manhood, that inconsistent mixture of a real intellectual interest and a boyish enthusiasm in red flares, is theirs. They are rarely older than twenty-two or three or younger than eighteen. We shall find Spectator criticizing the curriculum of the college, urging a fuller intellectual life in one breath, and beseeching the undergraduate to immerse himself in a "pep-fest" in the next. For the college editor there will seem to be no inconsistency in furthering the work of the Black Avengers and in denouncing the lecture system. He considers the shape of the Varsity C of equal importance with the method of examination. This is the philosophy which the story of Spec- tator's fifty years has to tell. If you are unsympa- thetic, you will call it a warping of relative values. If you have a complete memory of college days, you will realize the whimsicality of the situation. If you are in college you will probably denounce the idiocy of these editors when they are "rah-rah" and their in- competency when they are intellectual. But this philosophy is our book and we shall pass over the mechanical back-ground as rapidly as possible. 1 o THE tale of their physical growth, at Columbia and elsewhere, will be brief, then, and subordi- nate. The earliest paper of which we have record is the Dartmouth Gazette, founded in 1800, and includ- ing Daniel Webster among its contributors. Its suc- cessor, The Dartmouth, is the oldest of existing col- lege journals. It was established in 1839. At the time of Spectator's origin in 1877 there were about a hundred magazine-newspapers of the type of Acta Columbiana in existence and about twenty-five which were strictly newspapers. Almost all of these had risen from the general growth of activities during the decade from 1865 to 1875. The Yale News was the first to establish itself as a daily paper. This was in 1878. Today there are thirty-seven colleges which publish daily journals. Some of these have Associated Press or United Press service. The Minnesota Daily, with a circulation of ten thousand, may be compared to any small city's leading paper. The older Eastern papers generally restrict themselves to college news. From the point of view of circulation, the Brown Daily Herald is the smallest, with seven hundred readers. Spectator has a circulation of two thousand five hun- dred, and this may be considered as an average among the intercollegiate dailies. It was natural that the first publications at Colum- bia should spring from the two literary societies, Phil- olexian and Peithologian. For these were the only two extra-curricular activities during the early eigh- teen hundreds which were actually organized. Philo- lexian had been founded in 1802, Peithologian four years later, and by 1815 the two included a good majority of the College on their rolls. As literary societies, the practice of writing became a part of their activity. So the first indication which we have of student publications is a sheet of closely written foolscap — The Philolexian, especially intended to be read before a meeting of that society. It died at birth and there were none of the additional articles which were to re- invigorate the society. The Philolexian's single ap- pearance is dated February 26, 1815. Late in the Fall of the next semester, though, other hands seized the idea. In December, The Philolexian Observer made its debut. It was anonymously edited and appeared at more or less regular intervals with about twelve issues during some four months. It, too, was simply a hand-written manuscript, read before the society, and intended "to promote the interests of the Philolexian Society." The editor carefully avoided the temptation of ex- panding his single manuscript into a magazine. He seems to have had no conception of an undergraduate publication as such, but feared, in the enlargement of his field, the production of a work necessarily inferior to the great national magazines which were existent. A Studentibus Studentibusque was not of his day and generation. The college student of the time feared that his efforts would be compared with the best. Peithologian was less hesitant and the first of Col- umbia's magazines was published two years later. Academic Recreations carried contributions of all col- lege undergraduates, and we find the editors gently refusing to accept work by those not connected with the College. "Our essays are not confined to any par- ticular branch of science, but include the whole of polite literature. . . .If we can- not instruct, we will endeavor at least to amuse. We will strive to keep on the flowery path, nor deviate into the thorny and rugged road. We will enter upon the vernal fields and blooming meadows of classical literature, and draw, from the sources of nature and of art, profit and delight." Academic Recreations fulfills its promise, inten- tional and implied. Unfortunately, it ended with the college year in July, 1815. For the next half-century there is no publication which can be considered as a forerunner of Spectator. The Catalogue appeared during this time and passed from the hands of the college janitor to the students to the Faculty. Columbian was founded in 1864 and has continued. An intercollegiate affair, The Univer- sity Quarterly, had an associate board at Columbia, and carried twelve articles by men from the College during its two years of existence. This seems to have been the climax of undergrad- uate publications which were granted full privileges and full criticism in the world at large. In 1868 Cap and Gown, Spectator's lineal predecessor, was estab- lished on strictly undergraduate lines. It carried a wonderful miscellany of news, editorials, essays and fiction, correspondence and intercollegiate notes. But, taken as a whole, it seems rather immature. It soon turned its attention to a consideration of "The New System" in college administration, which would radi- cally change the method of marking, cutting and dis- cipline then in force. A compromise plan was finally approved by the Faculty. It is significant that this question of the college organization is one of the first to be considered by Columbia undergraduates. The next movement in the direction of Spectator came in the Fall of 1873. Cap and Gown found itself unable to continue with a subscription list of college men alone and overtures were made to secure the sup- port of the School of Mines. Additional editors were chosen from this department and Acta Columbiana blossomed forth. Acta was simply an extension of Cap and Gown. It was as much of a magazine as it was a newspaper and seems to have filled satisfactor- ily the need for such publications. For it is during this period that Columbia's extra- curricular activities discover their foundations. Ath- letics, and, in particular, intercollegiate athletics were getting under way. In 1867 a baseball association had been formed in the College and games were played with New York University, City College, Yale and Princeton. Track had its beginnings two years later. The crew was among the first four to finish in the in- itial intercollegiate regatta in 1873. And a year later Columbia won the same event at Saratoga. In 1876 an elaborate boat-house was erected on the Harlem River. With all this athletic activity, the literary societies were weakening. It may be supposed that the energy which had previously been expended in them was turned to the improvement of Acta Columbiana. For better or for worse, Columbia men were rapidly or- ganizing their interests into more definite paths. Athletics were firmly implanted with the victory of the crew at Henley, England, in 1878. The Barnard Literary Society, founded in 1877, resulted in re- newed interest in Philolexian and Peithologian, but all three confined themselves more strictly to debat- ing than had been done in the past. It was in this atmosphere of sudden growth and of a general enlargement of organized activity that Spec- tator originated. Acta Columbiana, under John B. Pine '77 and Francis S. Bangs '78 was well-enough liked and, indeed, a considerable improvement over the past. It was issued only once each month, how- ever, and when dissension arose in the board in the Spring of 1877, the possibility of a bi-weekly journal was seen. Frederick W. Holls '78 broke definitely with the new editors of Acta and found a number of prominent undergraduates ready to join him in the new project. There may have been an element of fraternity feel- ing in the separation, for the rivalry ran high at the time in regard to the Goodwood Cup, an annual award to the most popular man in the Junior Class. But it seems probable that the affair was for the most part due simply to a dissatisfaction with the selection of the new editor for the coming year. The first hint of the new publication appeared in a letter published in the Acta Columbiana. This sug- gested that "For some time past, the desire has been expressed by students and friends of Columbia for a college paper which should appear oftener than once a month and which should be more a 'news' paper than was possible in a monthly magazine." The letter went on to tell of a meeting at which Spectator had been founded and Holls elected editor. Holls had hitherto been business manager of the Acta. J. Fischer '78 was to be managing editor of the new publication. The board included J. W. Spalding '78, exchange editor; C. H. Crowe '78, H. G. Paine '79, news editors; William B. Parsons '79, sporting edit- or; S. B. Pond '79, secretary, and W. F. Morgan '80, treasurer. The note was rather suggestively signed X. Y. Z. In its prospectus, this new Spectator board again emphasized its intention of producing a newspaper which would not clash with Acta Columbiana, which, it seemed to take for granted, was ready to become a literary magazine. It was natural that the editor of Acta and his associates should hold even more strongly to the old tradition in the face of this attempted usurp- ation of one of the publication's functions. Their first move in the face of the new competition was to change Acta, first, from a monthly to a three-weekly affair, and then, several years later, it was issued every two weeks. Spectator's first editorial explained the aim of the paper in terms which do not definitely distinguish its function from that of Acta Columbiana. "The Spectator seeks to be nothing more than an interesting and instructive Univer- sity paper, more 'newsy' and lighter in tone than the periodicals which have hitherto flourished so well at Columbia, and devot- ing more space and attention than those to the School of Mines, the Law School and the general college world." In announcing their primary interest in the news of the College, the early editors of Spectator prob- ably had the best of intentions and indeed, for the first few issues they held to their purpose. But the news had always comprised an important portion of Acta's editions. Those editors backed down not at all. For its part, Spectator soon broadened its field and the two publications carried substantially the same matter. The immediate effect of Spectator was mainly to- wards influencing the other paper. Under the lead- ership of Harry Thurston Peck '81, Nicholas Murray Butler '82, and John Kendrick Bangs '83, Acta lived the most vigorous years of its life and outdid, possibly, any similar period in a Columbia publication. The tone of the paper was literary as much as jour- nalistic, but the whole was a pertinent comment on the College of the time. During Spectator's first year the University and collegiate characteristics of the paper, idealized in the initial issue, were carefully expanded. A column en- titled "About College" contained facetious and timely remarks on Campus happenings. "Music and Drama", which is now paralleled by "Overtones" and "Suburbs of Columbia," took up those topics in a critical fash- ion. "Shavings", the father of the present-day "Off- Sketch of First Spectator Office, Found in Philolexian Record of 1881 Hour", was the humorous column. Since the early days other columns have been introduced. "Stroller" occupies the "Off-Hour" column once a week nowa- days, and deals with many things. It sometimes offers satirical remarks on College fetishes and as often strikes a sentimental note. It frequently notices books and other matters of artistic interest. "Sport in Short" became an early addition to the growing col- lection of special columns, and its immediate descend- ant, "Sidelines", now appears once a week. The first issue of Spectator contained intercollegiate notes and these were an important portion of the paper for many years. Today a column entitled "Others Say", made up of editorial comments from other papers, ap- pears at irregular intervals. In its early years, Spectator contained short stories and bits of poetry contributed by the students, such as the "Philosophy of Flunks", "The Delights of Trout Fishing" and serial stories like "Only a Vassar Girl — A Tale of Moonshine, Mystery and Misery," or "Wilbur of Williams." These special departments flourished to such an extent that additional features embracing other schools in the University were started. The tendency to become more of a magazine than a newspaper, that we have already noted, was apparent by the abundance of student literary effort. Small line cuts illustrated the special articles and full page cartoons on subjects as often irrelevant as timely were introduced in 1879. But perhaps this move- ment was offset in part by the publication of supple- ments and extras recording the results of football games and the entries for track meets. As years went on Spectator continued to grow in healthy fashion. From eight pages at the start, we find a twenty-eight page publication five years later. More frequent full page cartoons and the adoption in 1881 of the diagonal blue and white cover tended to liven up the pages and give the magazine a more mod- ern dress. The College was now whole-heartedly be- hind the periodical, and Acta Columbiana, in 1885, was forced to combine with its eight-year-old off- spring. Spectator has now been a daily newspaper for some twenty-five of its fifty years. It had naturally tended towards this end from the very beginning. We have seen that the chief reason for its establishment was the possible value of a bi-weekly sheet. It continued on this basis for exactly twenty years. In 1897 it - B-.ii x s, A Local Sir John Tenniel, 1878 suffered somewhat of a slump and was made a weekly in an attempt to put it on its feet again. But it con- tinued to fail in its function. Two years later, under the editorship of A. A. Fowler '99, a complete reorganization was affected. The character of the publication as a newspaper was more definitely determined than it had been in the past. There was talk of making Spectator a daily, but the board contented itself in this regard with issu- ing the paper twice a week. This group also prepared the scheme of publication so that it might be ready for the next step when that should be possible. The time came in the Fall of 1902 and the daily system was created. It is now customary to have Saturday issues only during the football season. Throughout the rest of the school year Spectator appears five times each week. The make-up of the first issues must be remembered as being distinctly different from that of the Spec- tator of today, just as that of an old city newspaper of fifty years ago differed in appearance from that which it presents in the era of modern journalism. In the first place, newspapers were much more like magazines and so we find Spectator a sixteen-page pamphlet about eight by twelve inches, two columns wide. The headlines of the current newspaper were then unknown and the stories were separated by bold face single line titles of one or two words blocked off by black Lines. This typographical layout adequately reflected the dignified style of the early issues. Later this style was abandoned in favor of a small five-column news-sheet. At the present time Spectator appears generally in a four-page issue, with six col- umns to the page. Spectator's attitude toward its fellow publications in the College has been generally a critical one. From the Eighties up to a decade ago Columbian was con- tinually criticized for its many late appearances. Dur- ing Jester's leaner years that magazine has been un- mercifully flayed. The attitudes taken by Spectator's editorials may be characterized as fair in their general tenor but as tending either completely to ridicule or whole-heartedly to praise the work done by other pub- lications. An interesting part of the newspaper's work during 1914 and 1915 was the various bureaus. Cut-rate tickets were sold to the undergraduates. And a regu- lar Travel Bureau was instituted which arranged spec- ial tours for the students to the various other colleges for the important athletic contests. This bureau con- ducted a tour to Bermuda for the Christmas holidays, (during which a mid-ocean number of Spectator was published), and another to Old Point Comfort for Easter. A special car was chartered for a trip to the Panama Pacific Exposition in 1915 and during the following summer there were two tours arranged, one to the Thousand Islands and one to Alaska. This, then, is the story of Spectator's technical de- velopment throughout its fifty years. It has been at times a University paper from every conceivable angle, at other times, a college journal, and at the present time it is almost entirely concerned with the undergraduate department of the huge institution it serves. CONTRIBUTOR to "The Bookman" once said, xY "At New Haven, it is a common and true saying that the Yale News Chairman 'runs the college'." While no such extravagant claims are made for the editor of Spectator, it nevertheless remains a fact that he holds one of the most influential posts in College and has much to do with "running the College." When he crystallizes that indefinite something which is vaguely spoken of as student opinion, he has prepared the way. He, and perhaps many of his successors, then need only be obnoxiously insistent in order to effect the change that is being proposed. And the glory of it is that Spectator is considered the sole reason for the reform, whereas, as a matter of fact, it is merely the instrument. However, when the editor finds that his views are at variance with those prevalent on the Campus, his task is very much more difficult. He may, by virtue of his advantageous position, present sufficiently strong arguments to win the student body to his side, thus formulating, instead of reflecting, student opinion. But, much more likely, he may simply be successful in starting a controversy, thereby indirectly crystal- lizing the opposing ideas and adding strength to his adversaries' cause. The majority of the changes resulting from Spec- tator editorials must be classified in the first group. The editors have assumed the roles of stewards and catered to Campus whims, using their columns as the medium for expression of student opinion. In a few cases, however, Spectator, in presenting ideals that emanate solely from its editorials, has been successful in attaining them. More often, student feeling has been too strong to change, and the existing order has continued. o be used because of the very nature of the management of the paper), that different editors have, from time to time, made startling "discoveries" that had already IT is rather amusing to note, in beginning a review of the leading editorial policies, (the plural must been "discovered" by many of their predecessors. We can dispose of the more important of these perennial editorial topics in a few words. Soon after the paper was founded the matter of attendance at class, and a substitution of some system giving the student greater freedom, occupied the attenion of the editors. Claims were made that the requirement that all absences be explained made "liars" out of the many students. Now, fifty years later, we are still haranguing on the subject. One short year after Spectator was first published, the editor was apologizing to his readers for the amount of space devoted to athletics, excusing him- self on the ground that this phase of undergraduate activity was injudiciously the most important part of college life. Comments of this nature appear at regu- lar intervals up to 1926, when the most vehement at- tack on the subject appeared. The "Cast Your Vote" edit is still running, though of a venerable age. "What Is Happening to Columbia Traditions?" is another fascinating topic which is discussed at regular inter- vals. More and better vociferation at athletic con- tests has been an annual request since the dim, dark ages of the nineteenth century. At frequent intervals throughout Spectator's fifty years the editors have ad- monished those professors who keep their classes after the closing hour. Attacks on library service, dormi- tory conveniences, or better, inconveniences, and red tape in administration, cannot be overlooked. "Attend your class meeting," (or your mass meet- ing), "Don't forget your studies, you are useless if you are ineligible," (and after each athletic season) . . . "Why the delay in awarding letters?" (and be- fore each gubernatorial and presidential election). . . "Why is there always this mess about the voting priv- ileges of resident students? Let's clear up the situa- tion once and for all." All of these topics have be- come almost annual features in the editorial columns. With these indubitable signs of commendable per- sistency before us, then, as significant of the whole tenor of the undergraduate editorial mind, we can pass on to a consideration of Spectator's various at- titudes. The fifty years of Spectator have seen the develop- ment of perhaps the outstanding characteristic of modern American colleges. As athletics and, then, other extra-curricular activities, became more and more prominent in undergraduate life there arose a conception of college spirit, difficult to explain except in terms of extremes. If you accept it whole-heartedly you will call it complete subordination of one's per- sonal interests to the interests of the college, loyalty to tlu- group, sincere and unselfish patriotism. If you dislike college spirit you will find ready logic to sug- gest that it is a selfish desire to be the member of a prominent group, a weakling's satisfaction in the in- direct glory he receives from the deeds of his fellows, at best, a complete misapprehension of the function of extra-curricular activities. "Support the team" is not the least common plea of Spectator editors. "Support Spectator" is sometimes to be found. "It is the duty of every freshman to be at today's football practice to cheer the team." "The lack of candidates for football, (crew, track or Varsity Show) is a deplorable reflection on the College." Suf- ficient has been quoted to show the outward indica- tions of the idea. That it is the most popular conception of the rela- tion of the undergraduate to his college is evident throughout Spectator's pages. It seems to have had its beginnings in the time of Cap and Gown, and grew during the early years of Acta Columbiana. In its special issue celebrating the College's one hundred and fiftieth anniversary, the 1904 managing board con- siders "Campus Literature" entirely under the head- ing of "Student Journalism as a Factor in the Growth of 'College Spirit'." Its point is that "The past cen- tury of student journalistic literary endeavor at Co- lumbia has accomplished one thing at any rate in the life of the students, namely a welding together of them into one body." o THAT ever present Columbia editorial cry for new buildings started with the first issue of Spectator and many subsequent editorials contain references to the desire for additional room and the completion of buildings then in the process of construction. One of these, which was the first to be opened after the found- ing of the paper, was Anthon Hall. There followed in the columns the traditional congratulations and proph- ecies of the miracles which the new structure would bring to pass in the future of Columbia College. While the first mention of the consideration of a new and larger site was made in an 1891 issue of Spectator, the need of room for expansion was prev- iously reflected in the columns of the paper through the growing amount of criticism of the 49th Street lo- cation. The year 1891, then, may really be said to mark the beginning of the end of the stay of Columbia Col- lege at this site, for it was during the course of this college year that steps were taken to secure a new and more adequate home for the future University which was just beginning to grow. Coming as a Christmas present for Columbia stu- dents of that time was the announcement made in De- cember of that year that an option had been taken on the eighteen acre Bloomingdale property on Morning- side Heights, which now constitutes the heart of the present Campus. This step was the result of the plan- nings of some fifteen years. The option taken was closed the following April, thus determining the site of the future Columbia. One fault with this deal, and one which has been frequently brought up in Spectator editorials, is the fact that more of the surrounding property was not bought at the same time. A few of the trustees saw this future necessity but the feeling was not prevalent enough and the financial backing was not on hand then to secure the greater part of Morningside Heights as a location which Columbia could never outgrow. A lengthy letter written by Professor Thomas Fiske was published in Spectator during this historic year, a statement which aptly summed up the ques- tions uppermost in the minds of all Columbia men of that time and the underlying ideas of which served as stimulation for editorial controversy for the next ten years. Two distinct types of university were noted, the metropolitan and the rural. The writer then expressed the opinion that Columbia, situated "in the greatest city of the continent .... should never abandon her rightful inheritance, and strive to dispossess imagined rivals from a position inaccessible to her. Columbia will belong, always, as today, to the class of metro- politan universities. She can never afford to devote to dining halls and dormitories funds available for other purposes." The need for a gymnasium and practice-field on the site of the future Campus was emphasized. "These are quite as necessary as in the case of the country college." Then, the writer asks how such a plot of ground might be obtained, (this, it must be noted, was shortly before the securing of the option on the Bloom- ingdale property.) The city should be persuaded to set aside park property, Professor Fiske said, and Columbia in return should make arrangements to take in the students of City College. However, before the next issue of Spectator was out the plans for moving to Morningside Heights were announced by President Low. It was conceded that five years would see Columbia on the Morningside Campus and so the interim was devoted to sounding out student opinion as to what should be the status of the College in the new loca- tion. One of the most insistent of the problems was that expressed above, the question as to whether Col- umbia was to become a dormitory college or not. Dean Henry F. Osborn and T. Ludlow Christie '92 strongly urged the need of dormitories at the new college and really started Spectator on the campaign. Additional letters and several editorials on this sub- ject appeared during the Winter of 1892-93. The following is the tone of the appeals : "It is only by agitating this question that any movement toward an actual dormitory system can be obtained. Without an excep- tion, every professor and student inter- viewed by us has been unreservedly and un- conditionally in favor of this radical step at Columbia. The ties of interest and loyalty can only be centered by such a move, and without interest and loyalty the college is placed on a par with the office or counting- house." No immediate action being obtained, another cam- paign was started in 1894. Again the agitation brought no results and the matter was editorially dropped until early in 1897, when the proximity of the removal to the new site evidently brought alarm, since the question of dormitory policy had not yet been decided. Late in 1898, Spectator published and supported some apparently unofficial plans for a very luxurious dormitory on the Campus which would have private baths for each room. Evidently the over- elaborateness of the proposal caused its death. Presi- dent Low had reported previously that it was neces- sary to have dormitories and that they should be built on the Green, which would ultimately become the center of student life. In the Fall of 1899, the official plans for the first dormitory were released. This was to be located on Amsterdam Avenue below 116th Street. However, work was delayed and the original plans were altered somewhat during the next few years. Finally, six years later, Spectator chronicled the opening of Hart- ley and Livingston Halls, the "most complete resi- dence halls of any university in the country." Spec- tator could now drop the subject for, "The completion of Hartley and Living- ston Halls marks the realization of one of the fondest hopes of Columbia and the be- ginning of a new epoch in the history of the University; for today, for the first time in its long existence, does Columbia offer to its students the advantages of a resident univer- sity." Now that Columbia had moved from its so-called temporary quarters at 49th Street, which had been its home for forty years, the period of expansion be- gan for the University. The graduate schools gradually submerged the Col- lege, and the College began to complain. Spectator reflected this feeling of discontent, and in 1897 began to plead for a recitation hall which would serve as a home for the undergraduate department. Numerous editorials resulted in the turning over of East Hall to the College. But East Hall was rather small for a growing organization, and the undergraduate division had to spread beyond its walls. The College became dissatisfied once more. Beginning in 1903 Spectator at frequent intervals reminded the trustees of the need for an adequate College Hall. When classes began in that year and it was learned that contracts for the new Chapel and the School of Journalism had been let, the editor commended the University for its pro- gress, but said "we still have no College Hall" and urged speedy action on that project. That Columbia College was suffering through lack of a suitable building was the frequently expressed opinion of Spectator throughout the Spring of the following year. The necessary scattering of college men in various buildings resulted in a break-down in spirit and unity, declared Spectator. However, it was not until the following Fall that the real campaign began. On October 28, 1904, when Spectator issued an elaborate number commemorating the Sesqui-cen- tennial anniversary of the founding of King's College, in its editorial columns it declared: "It must be incredible to the Alumni of the Sixties, Seventies, and Eighties who come across the continent to attend these ex- ercises that there is no hall for that school to which the University owes its growth." Without the College, the University would be an imperfect institution, it goes on to say. An adequate home is essential, and then in capitals, "COLUMBIA MUST, THEREFORE, HAVE A COLLEGE HALL." This last sentence proved to be the Carth- ago delenda est of Spectator for the next five months. During this period Spectator either quoted figures on the College's growth, pointed to the remarkable ad- vances made in other divisions of the University, or merely repeated its observations on the inadequacy of East Hall, and then ended with its now familiar sen- tence. The first hint of success in its campaign came after the April meeting of the Board of Trustees when President Butler announced that the ground had been tested on the site for the new hall, but that it was "impossible to make a definite statement. . . .," how- ever, . . . we shall all be bitterly disappointed if we are not able to begin work upon College Hall be- fore Commencement Day." Finally, on May 2, 1905, one of the numerous new eras in Columbia's history began, according to the editorial of that date, for black headlines all over the front page announced that an anonymous donor had given $500,000 to erect a home for the College. This was to be called Ham- ilton Hall and would be placed on the College Quad- rangle, next to Hartley and Livingston Halls, then in the process of completion. In February, 1907, when Hamilton Hall was opened for class work, Spectator published a Hamil- ton Hall number and said editorially that the pres- ence of the new building would result in the unifica- tion of the undergraduates and the growth of college spirit. As extra-curricular activities grew in importance, office space for the various undergraduate enterprises became necessary. The University recognized this fact and assigned small places here and there to the activities. However, soon after the removal of the University to the present location, the growing need for a Student's Hall received attention intermittently in the editorial columns. At first Spectator suggested that the brick building on the Southwest corner of the main property, then occupied by the superintendent of the College and later by the Faculty Club until it was finally torn down to make way for the School of Business, be turned over to the activities. This plan was finally given up at the suggestion of President Low when he felt that if the activities obtained this inadequate building, it would be much longer before they could have anything better. The temporary solution was the donation of West Hall to the activities and the book store. This build- ing which was immediately next to Earl Hall on the north, served as the home of student organizations until 190G. Then, in April, Spectator noted that old East Hall, then used for the College recitations, would be va- cated when Hamilton Hall was completed. Since South Hall has been turned over to the Faculty, why not give East Hall to the undergraduate activities, was Spectator's question. A few days later an editor- ial objected strenuously to the announcement that the hall would be turned over to the School of Philosophy. However, the authorities did finally relent and turned most of the hall over to the activities. No further need for a Students Hall was felt very keenly until March, 1920, when the cudgels were again taken up in its behalf. Interest lagged, how- ever, and we find only sporadic references to it for the next two years. Then there appeared an editorial on the first page pleading for a Students Hall and asking for the reservation of South Field for the Col- lege. Spectator pointed out that South Field itself had been acquired through the agitation in the paper in 1900 and says further that it wants "A Students Hall with a grill room, a sort of College hangout, but no Commons fre- quented by our present fellow-classmates from the lower East Side. ... A suitable suite for the Athletic Offices. A less dis- agreeable home for the publications. . .pos- sibly a University press in the basement. A Reception Hall where one may bring a prep school man with pride and say 'This is Col- umbia College. . . . , We need to be rid of intruders: trespassers, women students, graduate students, extension students — Keep out; this is Columbia College!" Little more was heard from the editors about the Hall until in May, 1924, a front page editorial en- titled "Students Hall — A Mirage?" appeared and aroused the Campus again to a sense of its importance : "We can show visitors to our College where we study and where we sleep; but what of the question about where we eat, where we congregate, and where we conduct our activities? At that point Columbia men grow embarrassed and silent. On being pressed they have to admit that the sole din- ing hall of the University is the bizarre and unattractive Commons; that crowded, creak- ing East Hall is the only roof for our under- graduate activities; and that there is no place set aside for us to talk together and to meet socially." The editorial ended with . . and Spectator echoing undergraduate opinion, calls for the building of Students Hall at once." It was reprinted in full two weeks later "in response to numerous requests." In December of the same year the plans for Stu- dents Hall were announced, but Spectator seized upon the fact that no definite date had been set for its erection and said in part: ". . . .although it is pleasant to find that the authorities have begun drawing up plans for the structure, Spectator feels that the stu- dent body is entitled to far more than blue- prints. The Campus should have the actual Students Hall, and that immediately .... . . . .Other members of the Morningside community, — past or present — join this daily in a driving anxiety that such a build- ing be forthcoming at once; the Alumni News only last week editorialized upon the situation. Spectator reiterates: a Students Hall is Columbia's greatest need. . . ." A series of statements by prominent Campus men was published, beginning with a letter from the football captain and including the leaders in other activities, Alumni and many of the Faculty. Another front page editorial under the caption: "Build — but Build Now" followed soon after and the next day it was announced that the erection of John Jay Hall would only be a matter of time and a short time, too. "Thus, within the near future, the College will possess for the first time since its found- ing in 1754, all the components of an under- graduate center: class rooms, dormitories, an athletic field, and finally, dining rooms, lounges and activity quarters. In contem- plation of this delightful situation, Specta- tor pauses for words — it is splendid." Mention must be made in reviewing the part that Spectator has had in the erection of buildings at Columbia, that a long line of editors has urged in vain the completion of University Hall. After refer- ring frequently to the uncompleted building in the earlier years as the "Campus eyesore," a brief cam- paign came in 1909, when Spectator persistently re- minded the University of the necessity for the hall. One naive suggestion made the following year is worthy of note. Spectator urged all students to drop hints to wealthy friends and then send these names to President Butler so that he might follow up the leads with appeals for funds. The most intensive "Complete University Hall" drive began in September, 1914. It was aided for a while by the destruction of the hall by fire, and it was pointed out in Spectator that as long as the building had to be rebuilt, it might as well be done in its en- tirety. The movement was frustrated, however, and the hall was rebuilt for temporary accommodation only. It has since been among the most fruitful sources of agitation in the editorial menage. It is hard to tell when a student editor will be prompted to start a movement for new structures, or what it will be that prompts him. Suffice it to say, when he sees the need, or apparent need for additional buildings, he will gather his data and insistently throw it before the authorities until he is certain that he has done his part. ROBABLY one of the most drastic actions ever A. taken by a University in connection with its ath- letic program occurred in the Fall of 1905, when Columbia abolished football. In the early days of the gridiron sport, Spectator had varied in its attitude. At times the game was accorded every praise, but sev- eral seasons came along in which lack of interest and insufficient material resulted in losing teams. During these barren years the paper suggested its abolition. From 1881 until 1897 the sport had to be discontinued because of the lack of a playing field. However, in the late Nineties and up to 1905 the teams were highly successful and the game took on new life. Rumors that all was not well were prevalent in the late Fall of 1905. Spectator secured an interview with Francis S. Bangs, chairman of the University Com- mittee on Athletics and, speaking unofficially, he de- clared that "football under existing rules and pre- vailing practices is brutal and abominable. ... I I would stop it. . . ." President Butler agreed with these sentiments. Speaking editorially. Spectator said that the undergraduates and the faculty were opposed to abolition of the game but "every sane person must realize that radical changes are necessary to eliminate the faults which are now only too apparent." Coming as a complete surprise to the College, the University Committee on Student Organizations an- nounced the next day, through the medium of large black headlines in Spectator, that the Football Asso- ciation was to be disbanded at the end of the year and passed resolutions urging that the University Council prohibit the game at Columbia. Spectator expressed its astonishment at the action and declared that the University should have recommended changes to the Rules Committee, "but to absolutely abolish the game is not necessary and uncalled for. The solution of the football problem lies in constructive and not destructive action." A mass meeting should be called "and while we do not expect that such a meeting would have any more effect than appeals of the stu- dents usually meet with at Columbia, it would be valu- able in helping crystallize student sentiment on the subject." During the next few weeks a series of mass meet- ings were held and Spectator's columns were flooded with communications from students and alumni con- demning the "hasty action" of the Council. Its edi- torials, in the meanwhile, vehemently attacked the pol- icy adopted by the authorities. As a result of the agi- tation a student petition was presented the Faculty, calling for reconsideration of the whole affair, a re- quest which was praised as "wise and judicious." When the proper officials refused this, Spectator urged another football meeting for further student action. This was held and more resolutions of a similar nature were presented to the Council. Finally, on December 21, Spectator's famous fu- neral number was issued in which it was announced that final action by the Council had definitely abol- ished the game. Heavy black borders and thick inter- columnar lines gave the paper a strangely sombre ap- pearance. Thus, "the most crushing blow ever dealt undergraduates" was taken. Spectator went on to say that "it is evident from the resolutions that other sports will in turn be attacked in the apparent desire to build up a German or English institution on Ameri- can soil." Black borders featured the make-up of the paper again the next day. The following Fall saw a renewal of the discussion in the editorial columns. From November far into January streamers such as "FOOTBALL MUST BE RESTORED AT COLUMBIA" were run at the top of the front page. When, in 1907, the Committee on Student Organizations gave Student Board the power to conduct interclass football contests, Spectator ex- pressed the opinion that the committee was shifting the responsibility in a "cowardly" way. After Stu- dent Board authorized it, a game between the Sophs and the Frosh occasioned the turning over of half the front page to the report and pictures of the game. Another season of agitation saw no results. In 1910 Spectator partly changed it attitude to- wards the situation. While continuing in its plea for restoration of intercollegiate football, it spoke of in- terclass football as a "stumbling block to our Varsity teams" and urged concentration on the more import- ant sports. After several years without intramural competition, Spectator once again turned about face and in 1914 was instrumental in staging a game be- tween the upperclassmen and the representatives of the lower classes. Two rallies were held during the year and three hundred students pledged themselves to report for practice if the game was restored. Dur- ing the winter there was a whole series of editorials on the subject with pictures on the front page of past games. Success was finally achieved on April 21, 1915, when football was restored by the University Council. Spectator, a paper noted for its conservative make-up, blazed forth with a double-deck streamer across its front page. The game was to be on trial for five years, however, and as long as the numerous restric- tions imposed on it lasted, it was impossible for it to become the huge spectacle it had been when it was abolished. Nevertheless, something had been gained, and Spec- tator jubilantly and rather dramatically declared that "the restoration marks the beginning of a new era in Columbia life." The last chapter in this struggle was written when all restrictions were removed in the Fall of 1919 and Columbia once more took her place as a contestant for the mythical football championship. Probably the greatest of all the campaigns waged by Spectator in its fifty years have been related to athletics. The one which was started late in the Nine- ties and continued to recent years to obtain for Columbia an athletic field of suitable size had as its first objective the acquisition of South Field, then when this was done, turned its efforts to the erection of an immense River Stadium on land reclaimed from the Hudson River, from 116th to 120th Street, and finally resulted in the purchasing and equipping of Baker Field. Editorials of the following type gained for Spec- tator its first desire soon after the University had moved to the Heights: "If Columbia does not acquire this land it will surely be used for dwellings of one kind or another, and perhaps for business pur- poses. The University will have to have it some day, even if the buildings on it have to be bought and then pulled down to make room for college buildings. The sooner these facts are realized by Columbia men the bet- ter. In short, as we have previously re- marked, we want South Field." Later, in the issue of January 30, 1906, Spectator records that the President had appointed a committee to investigate the possibility of securing for the col- lege another field, in response to many editorials that had appeared in Spectator during the preceding few years. The committee reported favorably on March 5th, and a half-page sketch of the new River Stadium was published. The stadium was to be erected on land filled in for a short distance from the shore of the river, and was to have two athletic fields as well as the stadium and welcoming pier. Spectator lauded the announcement as the culmination of the work of many student editors and declared it to be a perfect arrangement, as it would give the College one of the largest stadiums in the country, seating 60,000, and would practically be on the Campus. Before the month was out a civic organization had proposed to set aside the tract of land along the river on which the field would be located, and to make it a public park. The suggestion was received with some acclaim but nothing was ever done about it. On April 24th of the same year the official act was passed by the New York State legislature, authorizing Columbia University to build the stadium on land re- covered from the river. Two years later, the sanction of the city had been received, and with all legislative bars down, Spectator lent support to the plan that the undertaking be completed in time for the Hudson- Fulton Centennial Celebration planned for the next year. The stadium was to have a water gate-way of nations in this new proposal. Reactionary tendencies set in, however, and we next find the editor advocating, in December, 1908, the construction of a stadium on South Field, as it was believed that the River Stadium would be too expen- sive. A year passed and another reversal in policy comes, with the paper again supporting the original project. In 1912 a new plan was proposed by which the Robert Fulton Memorial Association, the City of New York and the University were to cooperate in building the stadium. The editorials enthuse over this newest scheme. From 1912 until 1916 little is said about the sub- ject, but in 1916 a victorious football team fired student interest and agitation for the stadium again began, only to die away with the growing importance of the World War and consequent chaotic conditions. The editorial boards changed frequently as the mem- bers resigned to enlist. Small wonder it is, then, that interest in the River Stadium was dormant, if not entirely dead. In the Fall of 1920 a vigorous campaign was insti- tuted with editorials appearing on the front page. The Alumni News joined in heartily, reprinting the editorials and giving every assistance to Spectator in its campaign. Feeling ran high, and after two weeks, committees on the legal and engineering aspects of the project were appointed. The reports of these committees were discouraging, for the legal committee found that under the charter, Columbia would have no prior claim to the use of the field, and the city might at any time decide to welcome a visiting potentate at the same time that a football classic was scheduled. But the crushing blow was dealt when the engineering committee reported that the cost of the stadium had risen from a paltry $1,000,000, the estimate at the time the charter was granted in 1906, to over $5,000,000. After a careful investigation of all available facts, the committee unanimously decided that the Dyckman tract was the one which was the next best choice, an option on it was taken and the property now known as Baker Field finally secured. Besides the football stadium, the new project was to include a baseball diamond, seats for 7,000, a track with ampitheatre for 10,000, 20 tennis courts and a huge Club House. Twenty years ago student managers were in charge of the various athletic teams. The non-athletic activi- ties were responsible only to themselves. When, in 1909, Student Board formulated plans for a general Athletic Association, Spectator began a drive for mem- bership and necessary funds. When it was finally established in the Fall of that year, this event, too, was hailed as a turning point in Columbia history. But the non-athletic activities felt that they too needed something of the sort. King's Crown had been organized in 1902 as a society "to bring together all students of Columbia College in a bond of friendly union with the purpose that there may be realized that homogeneity and cooperation that is necessary to the student body." However, in 1912 it had become prac- tically extinct. Spectator urged that it be entirely re- organized so as to have complete charge of all non- athletic activities. After considerable discussion and numerous editorials seeking to arouse interest and gain members, the revised organization was born in October, 1913. Beginning in 1921, Spectator carried editorials from year to year at infrequent periods on the desir- ability of standardizing the Varsity letter. These con- tinued until in 1927, Student Board considered the question and proposed several changes in the type of letter, which would abolish the round "C" and estab- lish merely two different sized block letters, one for the major sports and another for the others. This was subsequently passed by the proper committee. Football, thriving wonderfully since the restrictions were removed in 1920, soon recovered the place it had occupied in 1905. "Beat Cornell" campaigns, run by Student Board and Spectator, were held almost an- nually, but without the desired result until the long- hoped-for victory came in 1927, after it had been decided not to hold the campaign. In 1925 we find Spectator in sympathy with the Haverford News, which had protested against games between unevenly matched teams on the grounds that the smaller col- lege had to sacrifice its team in order to let the stronger teams have a little practice before their real contests. These sentiments were echoed in the Fall of 1926 when a series of editorials took up the whole question from the standpoint of ideal sportsmanship. Spectator expressed the opinion that if only teams of equal calibre did meet, this ideal would be attained but a necessary let-down in intensity of playing would result. This, however, was not thought to be unde- sirable. Spectator, then, may be seen to have changed its views on various questions in the field of athletics from time to time. Very often, these varied attitudes have resulted from changes in college sentiment, sometimes in abrupt transition ; such movements gain- ing little impetus before stopped by the inauguration of new editors. But that is to be expected in an un- dergraduate newspaper. S WE have noted, Spectator from the outset took l \ upon itself the task of becoming the organ of Student opinion. Therefore, in anticipation of the o campaign that President Barnard was to start two years later for co-education at Columbia, we find the paper derisively commenting on the whole project: "Swearing and smoking would have to go to the School of Mines, and we should all have to be 'dear Georges' and 'dear Rich- ard Augustuses/ in the 'sweet bye and bye'. Dancing would have to be forbidden, and in short, our whole college would be over- turned from its very foundation. All this would be fun for us, but trouble for others, we mean the tutors and young professors, they, the bashful ones, who would lose their positions if co-education came to Columbia. For them we make this appeal to the trustees of this, our blessed temporary home, that never while we live may the female sex darken our doors or plunge the professors into troublesome forgetfulness." However, a "Collegiate Course for Women" was established in connection with the University, but separate from the College, several years later. Then, in 1889, a new department was added to the Univer- sity with the establishment of Barnard College, named in honor of President Barnard, who had died earlier in the year, before he could see his original idea carried out even in this modified form. And Spectator, of course, hailed the foundation of the new institution as another of the innumerable turning points in Columbia history. The interest of student editors in the educational system in which they find themselves continues to be important. Thus we find that in 1909 a plea was made for a program of studies with fewer electives. Two years of required work and then optional courses in a previously elected field of study for the remainder of the time is the plan advocated. Again in 1926 we find Spectator requesting a change. That the average student is too immature to know what he needs and wants and that he is likely to stray from the "straight and narrow," finishing college with the realization that his time has been wasted, was the content of the more recent editorials. The officials, said Spectator, should not allow such a thing to happen, it is within their power to arrange the program in such a way that mere exposure to education will penetrate the student mind and do him good. As we speak of Spectator saying this and that, we must remember that because changing editors have had contradictory ideas, Spectator can also say that and this. Thus we see editors in the interval between 1909 and 192G disagreeing with the policies adopted in these two years, complaining that the great num- ber of required courses gave the student too little lib- trtv in making up his program. As we look at the College of today we wonder how the student can complete his academic requirements and still support and carry on the numerous extra- curricular activities. That same problem resulted in 1911 in one of the most strenuous campaigns ever concocted in Spectator's editorial columns. Feeling that work in these outside activities was decidedly beneficial to the student, Spectator invented an ingen- ious plan whereby leaders in important activities would be given college credit for extra-curricular work. After months devoted to winning over the Campus to its stand. Spectator succeeded in convinc- ing fifty-three members of the College Forum that its plan was in part worthwhile. However, only editors and debaters would be included in the select group. An equal number opposed the idea, so the fate of the plan rested with President Butler, the chairman of the meeting. He sided with Spectator. With the endorsement of the Forum and of the President the plan went to the Committee on Instruc- tion for final action. It was voted down on the grounds that faculty supervision of student activities would impair them, but Spectator arrived at different conclusions. Faculty supervision, it was claimed, would result in straightforward discussion of the stu- dent enterprises, which is preferable to rumored and whispered criticism. However, Spectator finally ac- quiesced and "College Credit for College Work" ceased to grace the foot of each editorial column. A short-lived campaign for the abolition of final examinations in some courses and the exemption from all finals of students who had maintained an aver- age grade of B was started in February, 1923. Stu- dent Board became very much interested in the pro- posal and called meetings of all the classes, at which it was decided by almost unanimous votes that the undergraduates should petition the Faculty for the de- sired change. At a meeting of the Committee on In- struction held later in the year the question was dis- cussed and a verdict was returned in favor of the pre- vailing system. Spectator can claim the distinction of effecting a re- form in the curriculum by the publication of a single edit. For, in the Fall of 1925, Spectator pointed out that there was no chemistry course which a person de- siring a liberal education might take, one which would not give him the subject in too technical a form. The next college catalogue made announcement of just such a course. o THROUGHOUT the years of its existence, Spec- tator has concerned itself with not only these more important building, athletic and educational problems, but has from time to time proposed miscellaneous changes in the existing order of things. One of these was the founding of an Intercollegiate Press Association. The presentation of this idea in May, 1879, aroused direct favorable comments and recommendations from twenty college papers. If Spectator did nothing further, it at least put this idea, which has since been very successfully carried out, into the minds of other college publications for the first time. It was evidently a quaint old custom to signify the end and beginning of all classes at the 49th Street school in the early years by the janitor's blowing a whistle on the center grounds. The following is taken from an editorial in 1879: "This is a great nuisance for which, in this time of collegiate progress and improvement, some substitution should be made. The whis- tle is noisy, unmusical, and ought to be abol- ished. Besides all this, there is an old law, which positively forbids the blowing of any whistle on the college grounds ; this should be taken in hand by the faculty, and the jan- itor should be severely punished for the non- observance of a statute. In advocating a change, we would suggest the advisability of substituting in the whistle's stead an electric annunciator. We would call the attention of the trustees and faculty to this suggestion, and earnestly hope that this last relic of bar- barism may be forever banished from the classic halls of Columbia." Just what the immediate results of this plea were is hard to ascertain, but at least the evil has been eliminated today. Perhaps Columbia College is selfish. One is apt to get that impression after reading the columns of its papers. The editorials, while often commenting on University affairs in general, deal, as is evident thus far, more specifically with college problems. This attitude of "College first" can be clearly seen in Spectator's protest against the action of the Board of Trustees in 1902, of making recipients of fellowships and scholarships subject to duty as proctors in ex- aminations. The newspaper said that scholarships would be considered somewhat in the light of punish- ments rather than awards for merit if this were done. However, when the officials explained later that there were forty-eight graduate students holding University fellowships, thus making the chances of calling upon a college man for this task very remote, Spectator de- clared that this was a satisfactory arrangement. The fact that the proctoring would only be done by stu- dents at Law School or Freshman examinations also cooled Spectator's temper. In the earlier years of the twentieth century, be- fore the installation of the Students Activity Fee, which, incidentally, was secured through the efforts of Spectator in the last decade, Spectator depended for its existence on individual subscriptions. The import- ance of this subscription list strikes one as amusing in the present day light of things. In 1904 Spectator said: "We wish the men who told the editors of Spectator that they were not subscribers when presented with bills would call at the office and see their subscription blanks . . . Last year nearly one-fifth of our subscribers were thus afflicted with loss of memory. This year, we are glad to say, the mental capacity of our readers shows a great increase." Editorial notes of this sort were frequent. One won- ders how successful the following plan was: "A copy of Spectator will be left in the mail boxes of all members of the Faculty and teaching staff every morning until notice to discontinue is received. We shall assume that every instructor who does not send us such a notice considers himself a sub- scriber." This appeared in eleven successive issues, but it is hard to believe that the Faculty caught the spirit of the thing. Just as the nature of the College course has been a primary concern of Spectator throughout the years, so too, has the paper interested itself in the fraternity situation. Back in the Seventies, it will be remem- bered, fraternity friction was partly responsible for the foundation of the newspaper. Down through the years there are references to the worth and practi- cality of fraternities, but these are only sporadic, and it is not until recent years that any real interest is shown in the topic — and then it confined itself to a discussion of rushing agreements. Fourteen years ago amendments to the Interfrat- ernity Agreement were suggested which would have established practically the same system as is in vogue at the present time, but no action was taken by the Council. The first real campaign in connection with frater- nities was instituted in the Spring of 1922, when it was thought advisable to regulate rushing because of the chaotic condition of affairs at that time. However, it was not until March of the following year that Spec- tator had a chance to comment editorially on the adop- tion of an agreement: "The step will not only be a credit to the Columbia fraternities but it will constitute a real benefit to the College by aiding in the proper development of the various chapters and in the more uniformly fortunate plac- ing of new men." The step referred to consisted in postponing the date at which a Freshman could be pledged. The Fall of 1924 saw the most important drive for revisions in the Interfraternity Agreement. After running an editorial on the front page captioned "How Long, Oh Lord?" the editor takes up the dis- advantages both to the Freshmen and the fraternities under the existing pact. It makes for hoodwinking, he says, and allows deception on both sides by the more adroit. Other prominently displayed editorials brought the discussion to a head and the completely reorganized agreement was adopted. And then Spec- tator feels that "Columbia must employ its every talent towards guaranteeing the worthy utilization of the document which has been introduced after so many years of endeavor." That troublesome period of American journalism, between the start of the World War and the entrance of America into the conflict had its effect on Spectator. The paper clearly reflects the changing viewpoints during the war. Soon after the war had started in 1914, a strong anti-militaristic editorial came out, and the editors were inclined toward the peace-at- any-price attitude. A representative to cover Euro- pe an developments on Henry Ford's famous Peace Ship was selected and he wrote a series of articles of a highly sarcastic tone when he returned. The tide of sentiment had turned, however, by the time the next editorial was written on the subject, in Marc h, 1918, and entitled, "IF WAR COMES." The University was evidently looking forward to partici- pation in the conflict, for militaristic editorials appear- ing in those chaotic days commended the decision of President Butler that degrees would be given as of April 2, without further examinations, to Seniors who desired to enlist. In November, the Students Army Training Corps Spectator was issued, appearing but twice a week and published by the officers in charge of the Columbia contingent. This lasted until February, 1919. Soon after the war days were over, the proposed residence rule, which would compel all Freshman and Sophomores to live at the University, became a potent source of discussion. This rule is no longer enforced. However, when in October, 1919, it first came up, Spectator asked: "Why is it desirable? To build up in Co- lumbia a large body of undergraduates who are interested primarily in the College, re- side in it, and form a College community sim- ilar to those in smaller colleges. . . Colum- bia. . . .is located in a city where it has to compete with attractions of all kinds. Over a third of the College is non-resident. . . ." The feeling abated with the realization that Colum- bia could not enforce a rule of that sort without rais- ing a serious housing problem. Many of Spectator's present-day contemporaries have been energetic in their efforts to abolish com- pulsory chapel. Long before Spectator saw the light of day Columbia had given the student the privilege of optional attendance. But in 1904, when the new chapel was completed, Spectator came out in favor of compulsory attendance at chapel services, not for religious purposes, however, but simply to bring the College together and increase college spirit. Appar- ently the suggestion was popular only with this one editor, for further mention of the scheme is not made. The landscape gardener at Morningside Heights, or rather, the lack of one, has caused many Spectator editors to set up the cry for the addition of a man of this capacity to the staff of the Department of Build- ings and Grounds. Most of the pleas have been writ- ten with the end in view of making a "Campus Beau- tiful" out of the "Asphalt Campus." One that ap- peared in January, 1925, pointed out the desolateness of Columbia's home: " 'Only God can make a tree,' said Joyce Kilmer, Columbia's greatest poet. . . .This remark was evidently fetched from the vasty deep of experience common to all Columbia men. Through four years at College the idea of a tree burgeoned in the soul of a poet as he walked up and down and to and fro upon the College asphalt in search of an actual tree. The persistence of the ideal tree in his thoughts argues the vigor of his imagination .... it is true that only God can make a tree and that any attempt to do likewise would be extremely irregular, but the De- partment of Buildings and Grounds need not be discouraged. It can at least transplant one." College editors have always complained about the custom of metropolitan dailies of distorting or plac- ing undue emphasis on news of the universities and bitterness has often characterized editorial comment. Columbia la no exception. An editor in the Eighties called The Times to task for its statement that Col- umbia had no college spirit because the New York police were not afraid to break up class rushes. Spec- tator asks if "we need be rowdies and thugs to prove that we love our Alma Mater." Early in the present century Spectator suggests that this embellishment of news be prevented by the establishment of some of- ficial bureau of the University which would handle the publicity matters for the public press. Again in later years this topic was discussed. Finally the Depart- ment of Public Information was installed, (but Spec- tator still finds fault with the methods of the metro- politan press in making sensational news out of harm- less little happenings.) Spectator has traditions which are sacred; editor- ials which have been living for no one is quite sure how long but which reappear year in and year out, whether your managing board be Guelf or Ghibelline. To omit the oldest of these from this book would be, — well, here it is: THE MIDNIGHT HOUR Midnight sessions are among the most enjoyable experiences in college life. No class room discussion can possibly take the place of the friendly, rambling, soul revealing sort of argument that most of us carry in our memories as the choicest part of our under- graduate days. Count not that time lost, which is stolen from studies and dull, profitable education to drag discussion through interminable windings while the room is filled with the atmosphere of philosophy and tobacco smoke, and the hands of the alarm clock, which is to ring at seven, slowly move around to four o'clock in the morning. That is the time when friendship is tested and tem- pered, when tolerance and fair-mindedness are taxed to the limit, when Utopian schemes are advanced to reform religion, college politics, or the social system. That is the time when generous or impracticable im- pulses have full sway, when man meets man without the deceiving mask of manner and custom, on a basis of complete acceptance and equality. That is the time when a man forgets that he has always consid- ered it immodest to expose his own feelings and be- liefs, and when he speaks the thoughts that are in his mind with full assurance of understanding. That is the time when friends are made whom we mean to keep through life. Finally, the conversation lags and dulls, and the host shows by nods and yawns that he is sleepy, and he opens the door to say "Good night," with a lack of politeness that at any other time would arouse resent- ment. One then takes his feet off the furniture and dumps the ashes from his pipe on the floor, depart- ing to leave the cool night wind to blow away the tobacco smoke, and the host to snatch a few hours' sleep before daylight. The midnight hour is the supposed mythical edu- cation one gets from heart-to-heart contact with his fellows. It is the course in human psychology that is not based on scientific laws nor book theorems; it is the period of broadening one's mind, intellect, and most of all, sympathy. If there is one thing in a col- lege education that the commuter misses it is that learning acquired from midnight hours of discussion, confiding, and confession. It is that hour of life with one's associates that should make the parent and the students themselves realize what they are losing by living at home away from the atmosphere and con- tact of the human-feeling of the College. RECORD OF MANAGING BOARDS 1877-1878 FREDERICK W. HOLLS '78, Editor-in-Chief J. FISCHER '78, Managing Editor CHARLES H. CROWE '78, Managing Editor 1878- 79 HENRY G. PAINE '79, Managing Editor WILLIAM F. MORGAN '80, Business Editor 1879- 80 WILLIAM S. SLOAN '81, Managing Editor WILLIAM H. TAYLOR '80, Business Editor 1880- 81 REGINALD H. SAYRE '81, Managing Editor CHARLES A. MORAN '81, Business Manager F. BENEDICT HERZOG '81, Art Editor 1881- 82 HERBERT L. SATTERLEE '83, Managing Editor JOHN E. de RUYTER '83, Business Manager A. L. MANTERRE '83, Business Manager 1882- 83 WILLIAM S. SLOAN '82, Managing Editor C. A. REED '84, Business Manager 1883- 84 CHARLES H. MAPES '85, Managing Editor GRANT SQUIRES '85, Business Manager 1884- 85 GRANT SQUIRES '85, Managing Editor EDWARD J. MILHAU '85, Financial Manager GUY RICHARDS '85, Business Manager ED. LIDDON PATTERSON '86, Assistant Managing Editor 1885- 86 LINCOLN CROMWELL '86, Managing Editor GUY RICHARDS '87, Business Manager BENSON S. SLOAN '88, Financial Manager 1886- 87 ROBERT C. SANDE '87, Managing Editor PERCY F. HALL '88, Managing Editor CLARENCE H. YOUNG '87, Business Manager JAMES ROBB '89, Business Manager 1887-88 GEORGE F. LITTLE '88, Managing Editor SAMUEL W. ANDREWS, Jr. '90, Business Manager WILLIAM J. WARBURTON '88, Business Manager WILLIAM SHILLABER, Jr. '89, Managing Editor HERBERT MAPES '90, Art Department 1888- 89 LEONARD W. ELY '89, Managing Editor H. A. GILDERSLEEVE, Jr. '90, Business Manager 1889- 90 FRANK W. CRANE '90, Managing Editor CORTLANDT F. BISHOP '91, Business Manager 1890- 91 VICTOR MAPES '91, Managing Editor CORTLANDT F. BISHOP '91, Business Manager 1891- 92 WILLIAM B. DONNELL '93, Managing Editor GEORGE W. GIDDINGS '92, Business Manager 1892- 93 ARCHIBALD DOUGLAS '94, Managing Editor NORMAN G. JOHNSON '93, Business Manager HERBERT T. WADE '93. Assistant Editor 1893- 94 FREDERICK H. SILL '94, Managing Editor JOSEPH P. GRACE '94, Business Manager 1894- 95 GUY W. CARRYL '95, Managing Editor D. W. ARMSTRONG, Jr. '96, Managing Editor WALTER C. SHOUP '96, Business Manager CLARENCE R. FREEMAN '93, Assisant Editor 1895- 96 ROBERT G. McCREA '96. Managing Editor GEORGE R. BEACH '97L, Business Manager ARMITAGE BRADLEY '96, Assistant Managing Editor 1896- 97 A. WILLIAM PUTNAM '97, Managing Editor SEYMOUR FULLER '97, Business Manager 1897- 98 JOSEPH L. FEARING '97, Editor-in-Chief MORTIMER W. BYERS '98L, Editor-in-Chief HENRY G. HERSHFIELD '98, Business Manager STEPHEN HIGGINSON, Jr. '98, Managing Editor EDWIN T. IGLEHART '98, Managing Editor 1898- 99 ARTHUR A. FOWLER '99. Editor-in-Chief W. M. L. FISKE, Jr. '00, Editor-in-Chief JAMES A. EDWARDS '00, Business Manager W. H. MAXWELL, Jr. '00, Business Manager 1899- 00 HENRY H. BURDICK '00, Editor-in-Chief H. KELLOCK '00. Editor-in-Chief W. ROBERT QUINN '00, Business Manager 1900- 01 JULIAN C. HARRISON '01. Editor-in-Chief M. HARTLEY DODGE '08, Business Manager 1901- 02 ALLEN B. A. BRADLEY '02. Editor-in-Chief J. G. HOPKINS '02. Editor-in-Chief GEORGE C. ATKINS '02, Business Manager 1902- 03 C. L. HENDRICKSON '08. Editor-in-Chief R. C. GAIGE '08, Editor-in-Chief GEORGE H. BUTLER, Jr. '08, Editor-in-Chief 1903- 04 DONALD C. BRACE '04. Editor-in-Chief ALFRED HARCOURT '04. Editor-in-Chief W. S. CARPENTER '04. Business Manager 1904- 05 WILLIAM F. J. PIEL '05. Editor-in-Chief FREDERICK L. COOPER '05, Editor-in-Chit f WILLIAM B. DEV r OE '06, Business Manager 1905- 08 EDWIN T. MAYNARD '06, Editor-in-Chief WILLIAM R. PORTER '06, Editor-in-Chief FRANK D. FACKENTHAL '06. Business Manager ROBERT M. RICHTER '06, Business Manager 1906- 07 HORACE T. APLINGTON '07, Editor-in-Chief HENRY E. CHAPIN '07, Editor-in-Chief JOHN W. BRODIX '07, Business Manager 1907- 08 FOSTER WARE '08, Editor-in-Chief WALTER G. BRANDLEY '08, Editor-in-Chief ANTHONY ZINK '09, Business Manager 1908- 09 V. K. WELLINGTON KOO '09, Editor-in-Chief JOHN W. MELVILLE '09, Editor-in-Chief HICKMAN PRICE '09, Business Manager 1909- 10 ROBERT S. ERSKINE '10, Editor-in-Chief ROYCE PADDOCK '10. Editor-in-Chief CLARENCE SCHMELZEL '10, Business Manager 1910- 11 ERNEST S. ROCHE '11, Editor-in-Chief WINFRED H. ZIEGLER '11, Business Manager 1911- 12 FREDERICK CULM AN '12, Editor-in-Chief EDWARD S. SWAZEY '12, Editor-in-Chief RAYMOND E. BROCK '12, Business Manager 1912- 13 JOHN A. FITZ RANDOLPH '13, Editor-in-Chief FRANKLIN ROBINSON '12, Business Manager GLENN B. COYKENDALL '18, Business Manager 1913- 14 JOHN K. LASHER, Ja. '14, Editor-in-Chief ADELBERT F. SMITHERS '14, Editor-in-Chief ALVIN L. GRAHAM '14, Business Manager 1914- 15 LESTER C. DANIELSON '15, Editor-in-Chief FRANKLIN G. DUNHAM '13, Editor-in-Chief ARTHUR M. EAST '15, Business Manager ARTHUR T. RABB, Jr. '15, Managing Editor 1915- 16 JAMES W. ALLISON, Jr. '16, Editor-in-Chief MORRIS P. SCHAFFER '17L, Business Manager W. GUERNSEY FREY '16, Managing Editor 1916- 17 HERBERT A. SCHWARZ '17, Editor-in-Chief JAMES R. HARRISON '17, Editor-in-Chief HOWARD W. PALMER '17, Editor-in-Chief ROBERT A. REESE, 18L, Business Manager CHARLES G. PROFFITT '17, Advertising Manager 1917- 18 THOMAS G. SCHAEDLE '18, Editor-in-Chief ROBERT L. LOISEAUX '18, Editor-in-Chief E. STORY HALLOCK '18, Editor-in-Chief HORACE H. NAHM '19S, Business Manager FRANCIS W. ROGERS '19, Managing Editor 1918- 19 ROBERT M. VOGEL '19, Editor-in-Chief WALLACE J. MILLER '19, Editor-in-Chief HAROLD J. CONE '19, Business Manager WALTER A. FUNCKE '19, Business Manager CARL F. KAYAN '19, Circulation Manager HERBERT M. ROGERS '19, Associate Editor 1919- 20 FREDERIC P. BENEDICT '20, Editor-in-Chief JACK LITT '20, Business Manager ARTHUR D. SCHWARZ '20, Managing Editor EARLE M. SIMONSON '20, Associate Managing Editor 1920- 21 NICHOLAS M. McKNIGHT '21, Editor-in-Chief WILLIAM H. MATTHEWS '21, Business Manager GEORGE B. BIGGS '21, Managing Editor J. HOWARD CARLSON '21, Advertising Manager DAVID Z. ANDREWS '21, Assistant Managing Editor 1921- 22 WARREN M. SQUIRES '22, Editor-in-Chief WILFRED L. BLANCHET '22, Business Manager RALPH A. FREED '22, Managing Editor HOLBERT W. KECK '22, Advertising Manager IRVING E. FERRIS, Jr. '22, Assistant Managing Editor E. JOHN LONG '22, Assistant Managing Editor 1922- 23 FLOYD W. TAYLOR '28, Editor-in-Chief HOWARD R. MEYER '23, Business Manager H. LINCOLN ROTHSCHILD '23, Managing Editor W. J. FARRELL '23, Assistant Managing Editor 1923- 24 ALFRED D. WALLING '23, Editor-in-Chief ERWIN D. TUTHILL '24, Business Manager THEODORE M. BERNSTEIN '24, Managing Editor MITCHELL A. HOROWITZ '24, Advertising Manager CHARLES D. BENNETT '24, Assistant Managing Editor EDWARD T. MCCAFFREY '24, Assistant Managing Editor 1924- 25 RICHMOND B. WILLIAMS '25, Editor-in-Chief GEORGE E. HUMBERT '25, Business Manager FERDINAND KUHN, Jr. '25, Managing Editor SAMUEL R. FELLER '25, Advertising Manager WILLIAM Y. TINDALL '25, Assistant Managing Editor 1925- 26 HUGH J. KELLY '26, Editor-in-Chief SAMUEL W. LAMBETH '26, Business Manager CHARLES H. MUELLER '26, Managing Editor EDWARD M. BRATTER '26, Advertising Manager ROBERT B. CAPRON '26, Assistant Managing Editor 1926- 27 CLIFFORD E. NOBES '27, Editor-in-Chief WILLIAM E. PETERSEN '27, Business Manager GEORGE T. SCRIBA '27, Managing Editor DEWITT E. UNTERMEYER '27, Advertising Manager PHILLIP B. THURSTON '27, Assistant Managing Editor