Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1858-04-08
THE COLLEGE.

The rece~t rebellion in the South Carolina Col
lege has been the subject of much writing; but
no suggestions have appeared worthy Of serious
consideration, except those embodied in the ar
ticle of the Charleston Mercury. White we can
not acquit the Faculty of oil blamein this matter,
and while we would pass the ~severest censure
upon the unworthy conduct of the rebellious stu
dents, We must believe, with the Mercury, that
both are "more sinued against than SHINING"
and that the true secret of these outbreaks is to
be found in the thoroughly defective organization
of the system of discipline. We publish the ar
ticle entire, and commend it to the serious atten-
ton Of those whose duty it is to provide a remedy:
ave think it is to be found in the imperfection
of the College laps, which are put into the hands
Of the students to guide them in their conduct
They are such as to encourage mischief, by afford
ing O safe screen To those who choose to engage
in it. In fact, the President and Faculty nre ut
the mercy of the Stude"ts, according to the strict
letter of the law. To reach the offenders or per-
form their official duties, they are forced to violate
the letter of the law, to which the students are
disposed and ever will hi them. They are, we
iii ii6hS Ia NNi'S ~ - ~ "S
Just what we have now.
The only hope of making the College what it
should be, is to alter the law so as to confer more
power on the Faculty, and to put the students al.
ways legally and unquestionahly in their power
for the exercise of their discretion, accountable
only to the Trustees and public opinion for an
abuse of the trust. The Trustees should have no
thing to do with the administration of the law and
management of the students, combining them
selves exclusively to their legitimate province of
making suitable laws and appointing or removing
the officers in charge. The ~judicious exercise of
these powers, without fear or favor, would be
quite sufficient, leaving to the better informed
Faculty the power of administering the Law in
each particular case.
The present case fully bears out what we state.
A few of the students tar the benches of all the
recitation rooms and the chapel, because they
want a holiday on Thanksgiving, and the Faculty
declined giving it. That they may not profit by
this act, the Professors summon them t o their par
lors in the campus, to recite. According to the
laws, the students are required to attend three re.
citations a day sat the respective lecture rooms"
not at private parlors of Professors, and they re-
fuse to 20, standing on the letter of the law.
So the Professors are baked. Nor, according
to the letter of the law, can the Faculty inquire
into the tarring business; for the law specifies, rs
open to Interrogalory, when not personally detect
ed in the act OF near by when it is done, only those
'obscnt from prayers" None we're detected, of
course, and as there was no prayers, and no roll of
rhe present and absent. there can be no inyestiga-
ton. The students object to answer, rs the ques'
tim is a breach of privilege, leading to q danger
aus prestige hereafter. So the Faculty is again
baked, and must choose between suspending these
young men, although obeying tie strict letter ofhe
iaw, or they must surrender and become the sp"rt
and laughing stock of the campus. We think
they acted wisely and well in minimizing their au
,hority, at any rate, and have no doubt public
opinion will sustain Judge Longstreet. But the
necessity for r~esorting to these extreme and ques-
tionabIe measures so often in the College, argues
something radically wrong in the law. We invite
the earnest attention of the Trustees to our crude
suggestions"