an education would be less liable to destroy or
mar public property than any other class of
persons, but such is not always the case as an
inspection of many of our college buildings
will show. We are comparatively free from
this evil here, but there are a few in our midst
who belong to the property destroying class.
The college has been artistically repaired and
the halls are especially inviting; probably no
similar institution in the State can boast of
such beauty. May we not all of us create a
public sentiment in favor of preserving this
beauty in our midst, that would defy our
thoughtless students to indulge in any actions
in the buildings, halls, and class-rooms which
would mar them.
TT is questionable whether the present athlete
system at many of our colleges is product
ive of the greatest good to the greatest num
ber. Our objections to the present system arc
as follows :
(I.) More importance is placed upon inter
collegiate sports than local athletics.
(2.) The already developed or natural athlete
is still more highly developed, while the unde
veloped student is discouraged.
(3.) The ambition of many of our smaller
colleges to win renown in intercollegiate sports,
causes a decline in local sports.
(4.) The money expended in intercollegiate
sports would produce a better result if ex
pended on local athletics.
The intercollegiate game depends upon local
athletics to a great extent. If the interest in
local athletics is small the intercollegiate games
are not well sustained. Thus we see that the
local athletics of an institution should not be
subordinate to intercollegiate sports.
• The best athletic material of an institution is
selected and put in training to the exclusion of
students whom exercise would benefit. This
arises from the immediate need of athletes to
play intercollegiate games. It is a waste of
THE FREE LANCE.
time to develop the untrained student, so long
as naturally fitted athletes can be secured.
Thus the students at large are discouraged.
Very often small colleges neglect all home
sports in general in their eagerness to get a
base-ball or foot-ball team in the intercollegiate
field. The standard of athletics of many of
our institutions cannot be judged by the inter
collegiate game, as all the interest in athletics
may be placed in these games. Most colleges
spend from three hundred to several thousand
dollars on intercollegiate sports, while their
athletic grounds, if they have any, are not
worth mentioning. If this money were ex
pended in building up home athletics, the stu
dents in general would be benefitted instead of
but a few. We do not wish to disparage inter
collegiate games, but we would rather build up
an interest in home athletics than make them
subordinate to intercollegiate games. We
would build up home sports, so that an inter
collegiate gam,e would be of greater importance.
We believe every institution should have an
athletic ground before venturing out into the
intercollegiate field. It is a deplorable fact
that we cannot boast of this condition. We
are trying to make a showing in intercollegiate
games while we are without both an athletic
ground and a gymnasium. For this state of
affairs both the students and the college au
thorities are to be blamed. The students do
not manifest the desire for an athletic ground,
and naturally the conservative college authori
ties are not going to force the issue. Next
spring begins the base-ball season, and we
would like to sec our team play several games
with teams from other institutions, but we
would rather first sec a good athletic ground
and every person encouraged to take part in
athletic sports. Until the standard of our home
athlete is raised we cannot expect much froni
intercollegiate games. By a change, as suggest
ed; in our present system of athletics, money
expended would make a showing, and the body
of students in general would be benefited.