University Missourian. [volume] (Columbia, Mo.) 1908-1916, 1914-12-04

the editor and business manage
shall receive $500 or s400 or nott
ing. These will be pointed OF
at the end of this article.
But what is the attitude of tn
Savitar management in regard
the specific points mentioned b
Senior?
ID The accounting committee
acting with the Savitar manage
ment, has no right to fix salaries.
This may or may not be true
The essential point is that some re
sponsible body, other than the Saw
itar management, should fix tn,
salaries, and that the salaries fixet
should be made known to the stu
dent body. In the absence of re
sponsible student supervision, the
Savitar management acted with the
accounting committee in regard tc
this matter, in order that the stu.
dents might know the facts, and
know that they know the facts.
(2) The Savitar management did
not act with the accounting COM
mittee in fixing their salaries, but
arbitrarily set the figures them
selves.
This is rather unwarranted
misstatement of fact, in view of the
article (the facts of which any one
can verify published in the Novem-
her 81 issue of the Missourian.
(3) The management has used
the name of the accounting COM
mittee to sanction a student graft.
Certainly the committee in ques-
tion would be the first to publicly
repudiate the unsanctioned use of
its name, and last to authorize what
the writer has rather severely
termed student graft" Moreover,
l. void be an interesting question
in psychology to show how the Saw
itar management lope tc further
their "e' afting" by making it pub
lie. There is no coercion in the
matter.
(4 The students themselves
should determine what their Saw
itar editor and business manager
ought to receive for their work"
The vote is unanimous. But have
the students manifested any desire
or inclination, above all, any capac-
ity, for exercising their prerogative
in this matter?
(5) The student council should
fix salaries for the Savitar.
Perhaps a better plan would be
for the student council to take I'D
the matter of securing a more sat
isfactory organization of the man
agement of the Savitar.
(6) The amount paid to editor
and business manager respectively
should not exceed 20 cents an hour.
1t is not essential that they
should be paid anything, providing
this fact is known before election. |
The main fact is that whereas here |
'ofore salaries have presumably |
been far in excess of $500, and the |
did not know it, they are
low guaranteed not to exceed $500.
ind the students do know it. The |
.ditor and business manager do not |
'eceive $500. The students are sim
'ly guaranteed that amount. Wheth-
n it is desirable to put such a pre-
mum on economy, or not, may in
Iced be very valid question. But
generally, perhaps, will
lot be willing to agree with Senior
n his bold assertion that the policy
If the Savitar in this matter, sane
ioned as it is by responsible fac
llty men whose sole purpose is to
'rotect student interests, "is det-
fmental to the University and
'old-up on the student body"
The really important questions
1gsested by this criticism, with re-
pect to the Savitar, are as follows:
Q) Are the students of this
University capable of cooperating
Or the purpose of putting out a
ear book, without the necessity of
iculty Intervention?
(2) Do we wish to cooperate?
90 What are the necessary ,
Ieans and methods of such coop
ration, and how can they be real
ed?
Space is not here available for
'nsidering these three questions.