Dear Mr. Horsley ...

When the time came to write my editorial I thought that I had chosen my subject I was going to write on the duties of Exec. members as they appeared to one outside the charmed circle. I never thought for a minute that the President of the Students' Association was going to write to "Salient" and provide me with a letter that must (willy nilly) be the subject of my editorial. The letter—you see it opposite—gave me much food for thought, both on my own deficiences and on those of the Executive. My first inclination was to agree with Mr. Horsley on most of what he wrote, but then I paused and wondered whether or not my intentionally provocative editorial in the last issue had achieved its purpose. It had indeed stimulated the persons criticised into making a response, but there were no letters from others saying how right I was when I called the Executive "uninspired to the point of incompetence." Being a trifle more practical than Mr. Horsley would admit, I thought that it would be best to postpone my editorial again slating the Exec. and defend myself against the frenetic onslaughts of Mr. Horsley.

I am "immature"—yes, that I admit it is a psychological and physiological fact that I cannot alter. However, I cannot understand why the Executive, knowing my immaturity and the likelihood of my writing "immature outbursts," appointed me to my present position. Therefore I will give the Executive a chance to remedy their defective judgment—I resign the editorship of "Salient" as from Monday the 9th. And obviously since my position, to which Mr. Horsley helped appoint me, "is being abused," and since I am prejudiced against law students—according to Mr. Horsley, I am not a fit person to be editor of "Salient." My immaturity, my abuse of my position, and my prejudice are sufficient grounds, it may be felt, for my dismissal. Of course, if I were to be dismissed the Executive would have to prove my prejudice, etc., so I have given it the chance to do things the easy way.

A few remarks on Mr. Horsley's letter. I am not prejudiced against law students and I consider it impertinent of anyone to accuse me of prejudice when I point out the failings of any group in the College. The editor of "Salient" must at all times be impartial and unprejudiced. I think Mr. Horsley was acting unethically when he brought in the question of the proposed literary issue of "Salient"—this question as it is still before the Finance Committee for consideration should not have been mentioned in this context. The question of whether idealism and enthusiasm have a place on the Executive I leave open. This is a personal opinion and I would be pleased to hear from others on this point.

However, I will never stand by and see idealism and enthusiasm in student affairs knocked on the head and trampled underfoot by a non-progressive Exec.

T. H. Hill.