After a careful consideration of the statements of both sides, however, we are still of the opinion that the directors acted wisely.
In the first place an examination of the facts does not show that, as the writers of the communication claim, the action was hasty. We are told that every effort had previously been made to prevent disturbances by other means than what has been resorted to. Indeed, within two years, in addition to repeated warnings, the very means suggested in the next point taken up by the communication, - that of expelling members, - has been tried. But this has not proved a remedy. It is, moreover, an undesirable measure to adopt, since the disturbances have not been in the nature of "insults" from a few men, but have been rather in the nature of boisterous action very generally participated in. To single out one man and expel him has not proved successful in restoring good order, and is, moreover, a great injustice to the one man who receives punishment for the whole.
At first thought the action may appear a bit arbitrary, but we believe it has since the founding of the association been the custom to leave all matters requiring immediate action to the discretion of the directors and precedent is not lacking to justify their present position. The disturbances have almost invariably occurred on Thursdays, and it is to be expected that by removing the chief temptation, the misconduct will stop. If it does not, we suppose the directors will have to close the gallery altogether. We cannot see that the measure is "an insult to the well-behaved members of the association" any more, indeed, than than the placing of proctors in the dormitories is an insult to the well-behaved men who live in them. If the action creates a strong enough sentiment against ungentlemanly conduct to frown it down in the future, it will at least have accomplished its purpose.