"Sic"

Dear "Salient,"—It is most regrettable that, while making such an excellent beginning, "Salient" should [unclear: stoop] to publish an article in such utterly bad taste as that displayed in the report of its interview with Count von Luckner.

Had the Count volunteered to speak at the College or thrust himself upon "Salient" or its reporter, a personal attack on him or on his views might have been defensible; but for "Salient" to seek an interview, and, upon its being grunted purely as an act of grace, to turn round and pour insult and derision upon its host is an act of gross discourtesy.

In the circumstances of the case, the caption "Comic opera (sic) Count Talks." the description of the Count as "gesticulating wildly, using terrific emphasis, and spitting frightfully," and the quoting of the Countess's words. "You are ze—ze (sic) gentleman (sic) to see ze Count." were sufficiently uncalled for; but the conclusion of the article, which describes Count von Luckner as a sailor "who had read Lowell Thomas's book about himself so much that he had begun to believe in it" is an utterly unjustifiable and reprehensible insult which calls for an apology. While it is true that manners are at a discount at the present day, it is to be hoped that students have a sufficient regard for elementary courtesy to resent the appearance of an article such as the one in question in the Organ of Student Opinion.

R. E. Jack.

(This letter has been abridged.)

Sportsmanship?

Dear "Salient."—"The British reputation for sportsmanship." whatever its own value may be, will certainly suffer if it has many supporters as hot-headed and illogical as your correspondent, U.G.H. Actually. I do not know why he dragged sportsmanship into the matter of the reported interview with Count von Luckner at all, unless he is one of those semi-articulate persons who use the loose term sportsmanship to cover any moral code which suits their Immediate purpose, which they wish to appear altruistic.

Your correspondent defines the essence of sportsmanship as respect for an antagonist. This depends not on sportsmanship but on the antagonist. For the essence of respect is that it should be entertained for something true and something as it is. Does U.G.H. respect a fine man, who happens to be an antagonist, because it is "the sporting thing to do"? But respect that accepts without attempting to criticise, either favourably or adversely, is no better than puerile hero-worship. Is it sacrilege to mention that Caesar has a wart on his nose, and is Caesar any the less a great man because his physical qualities are considered as well as his mental and military, achievements?

If U.G.H. thinks that the article in question purported to be an analysis, sober or drunk, of Count von Luckner's political theories, he is mistaken. It was what it set out to be—a truthful account, without the omissions which would in the eyes of U.G.H. make it "snorting."

If a foreign visitor can be insulted by the mere publication of a true description of himself, he should not be "distinguished." And If we are told that he spits and is untidy with his boots, well, did not Caesar have a wart on his nose?

All this being so. I would like to know why your correspondent U.G.H. presumes to rebuke an impartial observer for telling the truth, which U.G.H. labels "an unpleasant incident." and to anathematise him [unclear: or] his "politically one-sided mind.' "his immature political principles." "his vindictive childishness and appallingly bad taste"—figments of what must be a very unpleasant imagination?—J.E. (This letter has been abridged)

Desecration

Dear "Salient,"—With reference to the article, "Le Batiment en Danger." appearing in the last issue of "Salient" we wish to express our intense disapproval of the flippant treatment of so serious a subject as the inadequacy of the gymnasium.

Surely students are weary of constant reminders of the disgraceful conduct in the cemetery—desecration is never amusing.

Year after year appeals are launched for the Building Fund. Now, more than ever before, is it necessary that funds be raised quickly: but that an organ of student opinion should combine an appeal with ribald remarks on a subject which has already antagonised a large section of the community It lowering to the dignity of the College and most certainly will not provoke a response from the students or outsiders.—Yours, etc.

—J.E.O. E.A.W. P.F.S.

Counted Out!

These gentlemen state that I am childish, unintelligent, insulting, immature, vindictive, politically onesided, no gentleman, and I possess appallingly bad taste.

And also I pour personal abuse on a gentleman whose views I disagree with, which, of course, Messrs. Ugh. Jack and White would never do.

Now, I admire Mr. Jack and Mr. white very much, and ever since I read Lowell Thomas's romance—pardon me, Mr. Jack, his truthful biography—I have greatly admired Count von Luckner. But though a less conscientious reporter might have glossed over the Count's faults—his childishness and conceit—honesty compelled me to state accurately what the Count said and what happened at the interview.

Mr. Jack's "sic's" are no doubt amusing in an arid, legal way, but as his second "sic" implies that I am a liar, and his third states definitely that I am not a gentleman. I shall refrain from comment.

Mr. Ugh would welcome a world ruled by England and Germany; but he should remember that the Count himself described graphically the plight of the millions of poor German subjects under foreign rule.

Mr. Jack objects to my description of the Count's manner of speech; as "The Dominion" referred to his gesticulations and emphasis, presumably he objects to the spitting.

Quite right, Mr. Jack—so did I!

—R.L.M.

Conservative

Dear "Salient,"—Mr. Gordon's querulous note, which appeared in your last issue, seems to me to provide a most interesting psychological study—the workings of the "conservative" mind.

Mr. Gordon, in as many words, complains that "Salient" is rabidly socialistic in tone and apparently expects the staff to enter upon a campaign to wake up the sleeping conservatives of the College. It is typical of conservatives such as Mr. Gordon to leave the hard work to others and then to complain that they have not been given a chance. Mr. Gordon and his like have left it to the "rabidly socialistic" students to launch the paper, and keep It supplied with readable matter, and, in view of the frequent appeals which you have made to all students, the non-representation of conservative opinion in your columns has been due to lack of initiative on the conservative students' part rather than to lack of opportunity.

Your action in having the report of the Spanish film-cum-lecture function written by an ultra-conservative is proof enough of your earnest desire to make your paper a true organ of student opinion. But should the editorial staff have to go round the College begging representatives of various shades of opinion to contribute to your paper to give it balance? If Mr. Gordon and his co-conservatives have any real opinions it is up to them to put them in readable form for publication, instead of criticising those who have so successfully launched the paper, because their views (expressed) do not happen to coincide with those of Mr. Gordon's clique (unexpressed). Yours faithfully.

R.C.E.S.

Tripe?

Dear "Salient,"—The spectacle of a flat-footed and costive little Sancho Punca tilting at windmills with such deliberate flatulance may have been diverting for some—to me it was painful and a little tedious.

Like "Mein Kampf" re-written by Edward Gibbon.

Dr. Sutch's lecture was a concise and closely-reasoned presentation of a case. That comment upon it did not make a single attempt to face squarely the issues raised, but took the form of an Elaborate Allegory in which bogeys hid behind Capital Letters and inch-thick verbosity is bad enough.

But not for our Commentator. Nothing but a bout of cheap jesting at the fate of the Asturian miners and of the stricken women and children of Spain will satiate his scholarly mind.

Such an attitude is inexcusable but not inexplicable.

Perhaps Ezra Pound was right, after all when he said: "Gravity is a carriage of the body to conceal the defects of the mind."

—The Mule.