The daily morning journal and courier., 1894-10-29
MIR. ISAAC HARTENsTEIS.

Mir. Isaac Hartenstein has raised q question of deep interest to all who con. cern themselves with what the Register calls "the progress of the people to the development of the nation." We do not mean the question whether he should or should not be sent to jail by the City court. which could not send him there if he were malicious and obstinate enough to take an appeal. That ques- ton has already been decided in the af- nrmative by the Register and may | therefore be considered settled. The question he has raised Is of much wider importance than that and cannot be so easily and exclusively disposed of.Mr. Hartenstein has, we hear. charged that Yale university, represented by Profes- | sor Dexter, Is directly responsible for tho fact that he has been a gambler of such duration and impressiveness as to be historic He was once, as may be remembered by some of the old in habitants of the city, engaged in trade on the cainpus-that Is. he bought what the students had to sell at his own price. Now, while passing through the valley of humiliation and loss, he asserts that Professor Dexter by driving him out of his former peaceful and profitable occu- patton. drove him into the exciting and profitable work which he has since been doing, with few temporary inter- ruptions.
 How far are Professor Dexter and those for whom he acted In this matter responsible' MT. Hartenstein lays @ heavy load upon them. His reasoning is that he was obliged to live, that Profess sor Dexter made it impossible for him to live by trade. and that therefore he took to gambling as means of living. This reasoning is lucid and will appear sound to some. including MT. Harten- stein. We suppose that Professor Dexter could reply to 1t if he chose in a way that would show that every question has at least two sides. He might say as Dr. Johnson did to the rumseller who told him in defending his business that he was obliged to live. "I don't see the least necessity of that" replied the uncompromising doctor. Professor Dex- ter might also call attention to the fact that MT. Hartenstein seems to have missed a link in the chain of logical reasoning by assuming that 1t was ne cessary for him to become a gambler | in order to live. He might also ask if | it is not probable that MT. Hartenstein was gambler by nature and if his ex- perience in trade on the campus did not tend to encourage in him full reli- ance upon the gamblers chief axiom, which is, "A sucker is born every min- ute." And he might further ask if it is not probable that MT. Hartenstein, had he been allowed to continue in trade on the campus, would have eventually been both trader and a gambler and thus made the most of himself and his opportunities.
 Having done our part in indicating that there are at least two sides to the very interesting and important ques- tion raised by MT. Hartenstein we will not attempt to decide it. It ought to be decided, however. Why would it not make good subject for the next Yale Harvard debate? Yale might win in such a debate, for she could use in it both her reason and her experience. If Yale should not win and if it should | be decided that she is really responsi- ble for MT. Hartenstein he would be still more historic than he now is, and would have neat little revenge. We suppose that he has already made Yale pay pretty well for driving him out of trade but it would be a needed balm to his wounded feelings if Harvard could prove in open, formal and distinguished debate that Yale is really responsible fol him. v.,,