The Nebraskan
Voi. I.
Lincoln, Nebraska, December, 1892.
No. 3.
The Nebraskan.
A Monthly Paper, Ismed at tfee University ef Nebraska,
SUBSCRIPTION, ONE YEAR, $1.00.
Entered as second-class mail matter.
RAiiPH R Johnson. Managing Editor
Gborgb Putnak Associate Editor
II. G.Whitmore. ......... .....Business Manager
The Representatire College Paper.
biiortal
We wish to comment on some of the prop
ositions advanced by the Chancellor, in his
column in this issue, upon the Annual. We
want it'understood that what we have to say
in connection with this article and the
Annual, we say not in a spirit of "smartness"
to those in authority, nor from any motive
beneath that of enthusiastic interest in what
we believe best for our University and her
students.
We have talked with the business man
agers of 'o's Annual, who probably know
as much about the inside and outside work
ings of the Annual machine as any two
students in school, and so we feel competent
to discuss the matter.
First, as to expense. It is an absolutely
mistaken idea thaJ "defeat ( financially)
would have certainly come, but for the assist
ance of the Regents and some pretty heavy
personal subscriptions.1' The large amount
very generously paid by the Regents for
their advertisment merely took the place of
vyhat otherwise could and would have been
dbtained from down-town merchants, and
therefore was in no way an addition to the
total assets of the managers. There were
ithree "heavy personal subscriptions" among
(the. officers, Regents and Faculty out
side of" these some twenty-five students
subscribed for as many copies each as did
members of the Faculty.
Again, it costs a' luge sum of money to
carry such an enterprise through to success ;
and the greater part of this must come from
our students." Last year this was true, but
it ought not to be and need not be. We
venture to say, and we know whereof we
speak, that a book 100 per cent better than
the last could be published for just tvro-thirds
of what the last one cost and that over half
the expense could be met by advertisements.
We agree entirely with what the Chancel
lor says about the democratic character of
this institution and about what we ought and
ought not to ask of students. We fail to see,
however, how anyone, having admitted the
value in experience, in pleasure, and as an
advertisement, of the last Annual, and admit
ting as all do, that immense improvements can
be madein attractiveness and usefulness of the
next volume, we fail to see the consistencv
in practically condemning its publication
on the ground of illegitimate expense
without the wholesale condemnation of every
thing that contributes to the pleasure and
benefit of the students, or to the glory and
reputation of the University outside of class
work. We do not believe a man can con
sistently urge the attendance of a majority of
the students at some five or six foot-ball and
base ball games in the course of a year,
where the expense of attending each one is
from 50 cents to $2 for a majority of the
students, amounting to some $5 or $6 a year,
and then turn about and advised that an
Annual, costing less than $1.50 per capita,
be not published on account of the moral
wrong to self-supporting students. Is it
morally right to subscribe for a college pa
per at $1, and morally wrong to. subscribe