St. Johns review. (Saint Johns, Or.) 1904-current, 1908-05-01
Communicated.

i<uitoi NSNleW uin tUOTOuRUly
disgusted with the continual trim.
ming Of your paper in the discus
sion Of public questions. like to
see a man map out a course, and
then stick to II. Only FIVE or six
weeks ago you had an editorial in
opposition to the enormous appro-
priation Of $I2S, 600 year to the
state university. Shortly afterward
you made trip to the south, aud
on your return came out with a
flaming article in its favor. 1,
doesn't require the vision Of a seer
to know what the argument was
that turned you around so suddenly.
II Is the most potent argument in
the world, and you are not the first
person to yield to its power since
he agitation on this subject began.
In your last issue you publish long,
dreary article calculated to mislead
and deceive the taxpayers Of St.
John, but greatly mistake the tenn
per Of our people II your effort to
force this proposition does not meet
with disaster aud defeat.
The article In question puts forth
a pitiable plea based on the poverty
Of the institution. One would think
that II the conditions were as bad
as represented the institution could
not afford to pay somewhere about
81 500 for q base hall coach. And
even II the condition Of the univer-
sity is "deplorable, and class rooms
and laboratories are 'overcrowded,
where was the sense Of asking for
a continuing" appropriation for
these things , They surely do not
need to be repaired every year.
Other institutions, not even the
agricultural college, much more |
useful institution, because more
practical-do not demand "continu-
ing appropriations.
When one looks around aud sees
the number of poor children in the
districts who get but a few
months tuition every year. and that
Of very poor kind, because they
are unable to employ competent
teachers, and who are too often un-
able to buy books aud proper cloth
ing to fit them for school, and then
Ihink that their poor parents have
10 contribute of their scant means
% educate rich mems sons, fitting
hem to become lawyers, doctors
md professional men generally,
here can be only one conclusion
and that is that the uni
'ersity rather retards than advances
he cause of education.
Your remarks ON what you call I
equal suffrage" are equally insult :
ny to the voters OF Oregon. You
i've as reason why men oppose i
he suffrage to women "the linger- /
ng sentiments Of semibarbarism" I
{ the past. That is an insult to :
he men of Oregon who have re- y
defeated the measure. 1t a
an insult to the intelligence of
Massachusetts,, OF New York, of $
early every state in the union =
here the question has come before b
he people. I am inclined to think b
nat there is as much intelligence a q
mong the manhood of Oregon and % .
Washington as there is among the b
Iormons of Utah and Idaho. OF
link the people of the United l..
tates are as free from 'semibar- ~
arism" as are the people of Fin m
nd. The men Of Oregon do not
ish to see their state turned into a p'
sar garden like an election day in ''
like the suffragists' exhi- be
ton in London aud New York. l.
'e have too high an opinion of our tn
ives and mothers than to impose a
them duties and responsibilities
hich they do not wish to assume.
You speak of "equal suffrage" Pr
hat is not what the suffrage fanat-
Of Oregon demand. They ask
T the same rights as men, but are
willing to perform the same du-
s as men. They are not demand
the right to work statute labor,
pay poll tax, to sit on juries, to of
eside over courts Of law. All, an
/! They want to vote and hold Ca Ca
ice, but they do not want to do Jol
rough work that men are called
to perform and which they do
thrust upon women. They do Pm
wish to see their sweet-faced