Jazz and Extrav,

For all the fairness that is obvious in Mr Latham Stubbs's letter to the Editor in the last issue of Salient, I must admit it is mainly fairness to himself. I am referring solely to the paragraph relating to the Jazz Society. I am sorry to say he has presented a rosy picture that has little relation to the facts. He states that "Extrav. committee went out of its way to make (the room) available for the Jazz Club on Sunday afternoons, and at no time did Extrav. interfere with their activities as a result." Apart from the faulty argument inherent to that last sentence, this was not quite what happened. Extrav. kindly granted us use of the room while they had tea—almost an hour's playing time. We even tried it once.

However, I might add that Extrav. was not "riding roughshod over the interests of other students," as they might have done in other cases; they were merely keeping a tight hold on what was theirs anyway.

The real culprit was the blind feeble-mindedness of Executive. In return to our request for alternative facilities, namely a piano and a room to play it in, they replied: "They do not see their way clear to make a special grant (for a piano) in view of the overall student activities" and "The facilities required will be available again in early May," that is, when Extrav. opened at the Opera House. In other words Executive, that has the interests of affiliated societies so dear to its heart, said, "We can't be bothered doing anything, wait until the facilities you want are re-available." It is significant that Mr Hercus was the only dissenter.

I take the trouble to mention this to be helpful to the present, and incoming, Executive, and also to put the Extrav. controversy in its proper light. After all, Extrav., like the Jazz Society, has to rehearse for their show, too.

—R. T. Murphy, President Jazz Society.