In this connection, we are sorry to see that a little item that we published some time ago in perfect good faith, concerning Mr. Robinson, the trainer, should have created such excitement at Yale, and brought again into prominent notice that familiar feature of Yale character - complete inability to act in a gentlemanly manner under any circumstances, great or small. As the Crimson remarked in a recent issue, it seemed for a while as if there had crawled into the hearts of Yale men, despite the most strenuous opposition, a desire to assume, at least, the semblance of respectability and even courtesy, but we have been toying with a delusion and a snare. The item in question stated that Mr. Robinson had received overtures from Yale men to accept the position of gymnasium trainer at the institution that is gaining such an enviable reputation for itself through the Dennis Kearney tone of its journalistic representatives. We published the announcement on good authority, and still persist that Mr. Robinson was approached and was offered liberal inducements to resign his position here, which, for apparent reasons, he declined to do. But supposing for an instant that we had been mistaken, we doubt very much whether there was anything in our article that could justify the contemptible and childish expressions of the News, which says among other equally courteous things: "For half a column it praises his loyalty to Harvard, and smiled complacently at the discomfiture of Yale. It did, indeed, make a beautiful story to circulate through the country by the media of exchanges. To Mr. Robinson we extend our sympathies, at the same time, however, urging him to remain both where he is so sadly needed and where he can doubtless command a good salary, if their college press is able to help him out." For real imbecility of language and sentiment we must commend this last sentence to students of English literature, while all readers will recognize the beauty of the motives that urge men to speak so politely of a gentleman who, for good and apparent reasons, declined to enter their service.
There is evidently some misconception at Yale as to the manner of conduct here; for the Record, writing relative to the recent action of '82 in regard to '85 admittance to the tree, says: "Yet, supposing it to hold in full force, how is it to be carried out? Will the university appoint a vigilance committee to apprehend any stray freshmen who may be found craning their necks among the crowd about the forbidden tree? or will this be the duty of the president ex officio? or will the chivalrous spirit of Harvard smother the sense of injustice in them, and keep the freshmen at a respectful distance." Fortunately there is a different idea of the fit and beautiful prevalent at Harvard than at some places where, perhaps, vigilance committees have been found a valuable and essential factor in the dispositions of the social economy, or, when in default of a vigilance committee, the easier method has been employed of charging all faults upon their unfortunate guests.