The idea that a fence would be undemocratic as preventing some men from seeing the game who can not afford the price of admission, is laughable. We suppose the faculty consider it a much more democratic spirit which will prompt a man to look over a fence at a game of ball whose expenses are entirely paid by some one else. It seems like a scheme to compel the wealthy and generous students of the college to pay for the poor student's amusement. I am not sure that I can appreciate the democratic spirit which will permit a man to take his amusement at another's expense.
The fear of professionalism has certainly reduced the faculty to a pitiable position. It may seem professional to try to make a nine self-supporting instead of a burden upon the pockets of men who already have enough demands for subscriptions to answer, but it is a sort of professionalism we can not help approving.
The "most unkindest cut" of all is to tell us that the faculty oppose a fence because they believe the students oppose it. To do a thing distasteful to us and then excuse it by claiming that we wish it, is a little too much. Student nature can bear no more. This idea overpowers us so that we are unable to touch upon the other argument - the "aesthetic" argument as the HERALD calls it.