LATE DINNERS.

THE proposition to change the dinner-hour to the latter part of the day will soon be brought before the College for censure or approval; the changes which this plan involves are of great importance, and careful consideration must be given to the subject, that we may not thoughtlessly make a decision that will afterwards be regretted. Arguments for one side of the question have already appeared in the Advocate, and the advantages of late dinners presented at their best. To take up the arguments for the other side, it is to be noticed, first, that although athletic sports are important, and certainly to be encouraged, yet the boating and ball interests are not the only ones to be consulted in this matter, though this seems to have been tacitly assumed.

In objection to the present hour of dining, it is urged that "it is conducive to neither health, comfort, nor convenience." The first clause of this statement - that the present dinner-hour is not conducive to health - we positively deny. It is, we believe, a fact, and supported by all writers on hygiene, that the healthiest time for the heartiest meal of the day is near noon, not later, at least, than three o'clock. It has been said, however, that this advantage of the present hour of dinner is modified by the necessity of recitation and study immediately preceding and following dinner. This may be so; the great tension of the mind attendant on severe mental labor should be relaxed before eating; but that there is sufficient tension during recitation to produce injury, if dinner immediately succeed, we cannot believe. To recite a lesson already learned requires little exertion, may even tend, by gradual relaxation after a morning's work, to put the mind in a desirable condition; and though study directly after eating must be injurious, yet the necessity for studying at that hour is not apparent, and so few recitations occur at three o'clock that they may be left out of the question.

The second part of the statement - that the present hour for dinner is not conducive to convenience - is so much a matter of personal opinion that it cannot be argued.

In regard to exercise. Two consecutive hours a day for exercise are certainly to be desired, but if dinner were at six through the winter months alone, there would be but one hour for the purpose, and were dinner at five there would be none at all. The latter, then, presents no advantage; does the change to six o'clock present any? To answer this question fairly, it must be kept in mind that not the interests of the boating and bail-clubs alone are to be consulted, and that the recreation, for perhaps it is nothing more, of the still greater number, can come at almost any time. It can hardly be denied that few, if any, cannot, under the present system, obtain at least an hour for whatever they may choose to employ it.

It is also asserted that, by the proposed plan, "two hours, from 4 till 6, are utilized, whereas, by the present system, no one feels like doing anything which resembles work, bodily or mental, from 2 to 4." Will not the boot fit the other leg? If the hours from 2 to 4 are at present wasted, by the proposed plan the hours from 6 to 8 will be lost. Supposing that three hours' work is to be done in the evening, this will be finished, not at 9 or 9.30, but at 11. In regard to the injuriousness of late study we will say nothing; but those who do not approve of it would be forced into it by late dinners, and the larger portion of the hard students, those who intend to do the heavier part of their work in the evening, would find themselves in no fit condition to accomplish much.

To those who board at Memorial Hall, still another consideration presents itself. By late dinners the gas expenses, already sufficiently large, will be increased, as the waiters and other employes will be engaged in clearing up till a very late hour. Nor is this all. Men will not be satisfied, after being without food for five hours, and running to and from recitations during this time, with nothing but bread and butter and a cup of tea at noon, but it will be necessary to place before them a large quantity of meat not required now at tea, because the interval between meals is so short. This will considerably increase the expenses, and for this increase there is no margin left in the price of board, which already exceeds four dollars. Retrenchment must be made somewhere, and it will inevitably be made in the fare.

Is the quality of the food at the Hall so good that it can be allowed to deteriorate? We leave it to the members of the association to answer.