THE QUESTION AT ISSUE.

"OSSIP," in the Crimson of December 7, wrote an attack on "self-styled" independence. In an answer to this article we suggested that " Ossip's " independent man was only a straw man, or in case he did exist, that he was a very foolish and ill-mannered creature. We defended real independence, which we said consisted "in fearlessly acting in accordance with the dictates of a manly conscience with absolute disregard to popular opinion," and " in fearlessly speaking whenever there is a principle at issue." In illustration of the second principle we said that when Hollis Holworthy " talked like a Harvard man " about getting drunk, his hearers ought, instead of smiling approval, to " intimate " their disapprobation.

To this "Ossip," adapting our illustration, replies : Hollis Holworthy " avows his intention" of getting drunk. We, "whose opinion is not asked," " intimate delicately but intelligibly that he is gabbling like a gosling." [" Ossip" here implies that we advocate the blurting out of this truthful criticism. He seems not to have noticed that we said "intimate."] We do not, continues "Ossip," hereby " rescue" H. H. from "ruin." We admit that we only expect him to reflect upon the sally of wit; and our "only motive in speaking must be the assertion of our own principles of morality, and our oracular opinion." "Ossip" cannot see "what good or harm it does H. H., but the harm it does [us] in establishing [our] reputation as a meddlesome character is manifest."

To "Ossip's" reply that we do H. H. neither harm nor good we can, in general, assent. But he implies, by saying that the expression of our disapproval establishes our reputation as a meddlesome character, (1) that H. H.'s language is none of our business, and (2) that the expression of our disapproval effects no good at all. The truth of the first implication evidently depends on the truth of the second, namely, that nothing is improved by our expression of disapproval. This is the point to which we object; this is the point against which we propose to argue.

At present, where for various reasons most persons in some circles in college are so careful never to express disapprobation at anything which may be said, the predominant moral tone of such circles is either puerile or disgraceful according as the students are viewed as boys or men. Now if, for example, when any one talks ridiculously about getting drunk, or shamefully about buying fraudulent examination-papers, the hearers were to let it be understood that they considered such talk as the former silly, and the latter disgraceful, they would ultimately prevent much of the indecent talk now so familiar. We cannot expect to put an end to vicious practices themselves by keeping the fact prominently in view that they are held unworthy of gentlemen, because some persons in college do not feel that this is much of an objection. But we can at least make men prefer to keep their misdoings secret rather than have the effrontery to boast of them publicly. This is a much more wholesome tone, and one that will do something toward stopping the evils themselves. To parade one's own vicious acts shows either a very childish or else a very debauched frame of mind. It is, then, the duty of those who would have the prevailing moral tone not maudlin but manly to express themselves in a gentlemanly but clear manner against the indecencies with which students are now so familiar. The present foolish tone of morals in some college circles is due, not, as some newspapers claim, to the non-religious character of the University, but largely to the silence of students on such questions as we have been discussing, - a silence due in some cases to a love of ease and a hatred of all friction of intercourse, and in others to the fear of blackballs in the coveted election to some society.

"Ossip" says, in his first article, that the independent man blurts out his opinions "in the face of established and recognized principles," and in his second, that we, being an example of that kind of independent man, are blurting out our opinions when we disapprove of H. H.'s foolish talk about drunkenness. Does he mean that he considers foolish talking about drunkenness in accord with " an established and recognized principle" ? If not, what does he mean ?

It is easy to understand that persons who are careful never to express disapprobation at foolish or vicious acts or speeches should imagine that it cannot be done in a gentlemanly way. They assume that it is necessary to "blurt out" abusive censure, forgetting that censure is often clearly expressed simply by silence. Their argument seems to be that in any case they would give offence, and no gentleman should give offence, - a principle the folly of which is exceeded only by its harmfulness. For, when principle is at stake, as in buying fraudulent examination-papers or talking ridiculously about getting drunk, unless we are to allow such breaches of decency to pass unnoticed, we have to give offence. The characteristic of the gentleman is to give no offence in matters about which morality has little or no concern. But against flippant talk about dishonorable and vicious acts it is his duty to express himself. Outside of college such statements are mere truisms, but in some quarters in college they seem to be regarded as new and impossible.

Many of us are familiar with attempts in private conversation to justify reluctance to express disapprobation at indecencies however great, but such attempts in print are rare. That there should be at college a live and healthy public opinion cannot be doubted, at least until those who defend non-expression of disapproval show good reasons for so doing.

"Ossip" thinks that our sketch of true independence shows that we are an example of the kind of independence he opposes. This we fully understand; but we beg to decline to meet him on his own ground of personalities. He says, further, that we twisted his words from their meaning and misconceived his aim. This we endeavored to avoid, and we believe, as regards the general spirit of his remarks, with success. Those errors which we may have committed were generally due to the obscurity of his meaning. None of them vitiated our defence of true independence. For example, our error in quoting "Ossip" as calling not merely his imaginary independent man but every one who believes in complete independence "a disappointed aspirant for popularity," did not affect our subsequent arguments, which were not directed to prove the falsehood of our misquotation, but to defend independence and its necessary accompaniment, - the clear expression, when proper, of disapprobation. Next, he says that he merely stated where we said he argued a certain proposition. Any reader will see that our " argue " meant no more than " state." This is trivial fault-finding. Further he says that our inference that part of his aim was to show that there was little toadyism in college was, as he thinks, intentionally wrong. We are glad that such was not his aim, and willingly withdraw our inference. The secret of how to refute our main proposition lies neither in personalities of the stump-speech sort, nor in a noise about trivial errors.

But if Ossip has such fine feelings about exactitude, he should himself have been more exact. We did not (though he so asserts) "admit" that our only expectation in censuring H. H. was to make him " reflect upon the sally of wit," and we have shown (contrary to "Ossip's" statement) that we have good reason to express disapprobation. Again he says that because we do not "look upon popular men as manly " we do not admit that "the popularity which the independent man professes to scorn is the esteem, the respect, and the friendship of manly men." The reason he assigns is deceptive. If he means that we look upon no popular men as manly he makes a groundless and false assertion ; if he means that we hold that a number of popular men are not manly, he is right. We hold to the common view that those popular men who, when occasion calls, express themselves against vicious talk or acts are manly, and that those whose popularity is due to a careful avoidance of expressing disapprobation at such talk and acts are not manly. The independent man would be a fool if he felt no respect for the esteem of the former, or contempt for that of the latter. Ossip, finally, is wrong when he says that we "merely" say "popularity is the result of insincerity." Our words were : "Popularity may result legitimately from truthfulness, or illegitimately from insincerity." But let us not among these subordinate blunders forget the vital question.

G. E.