men for Senior Societies never reaches thirty, rarely indeed exceeds twenty, at most; so that the proposition that Senior Society influence destroys class reunions is a reductio ad ab surdum.

In short, this bill of particulars against the societies is far more remarkable for what it omits than what it contains, no charges being made against the general morality, scholarship, and good behavior of members of either society for any one year or any series of years. Never have these reform movements at Yale been headed by men who were not candidates for the societies up to the very hour of election! At every other college where secret societies exist quite a fair average of the most desirable men in every class prefer not to join any society though urged to do so. At Yale, public sentiment is overwhelmingly in favor of the societies—almost never does a man refuse the elections of both Senior societies. A reform movement called into being by personal chagrin and jealousy may deceive outsiders; but is not calculated to receive, and does not deserve, the respect of the students themselves invited to join the societies, who are the only parties really able to mar their prosperity or change their management.

"They that are in will grin!

They that are out will pout!"

is too obviously the gist, in a nut-shell, of this whole loudsounding controversy.

For it must not be imagined from the prominence given some of the charges, for their more perfect refutation, that the burden of proof for their continued existence rests with the societies. The facts in the case necessitate the reverse opinion. Both Senior societies are chartered institutions, with expensive buildings, costing, approximately, fifty thousand dollars each, paying taxes, and entitled to the protection of the municipal and State authorities. It is doubtful if the faculty and corpo ration themselves could abolish them without legal proof that they had abused the privileges which had been guaranteed to them. Should such a trial occur doubtless many of the most distinguished members of the University who for years had been consistent society members would use their utmost endeavors to defend the societies. At present, therefore, this

whole question of "abolishing" the societies is rather more of an ethical than of a practical character.

The advantages of the societies could not probably be fully appreciated by any except their members. Nevertheless certain of their apparent ends are very obvious and praiseworthy. They gather together representative men of every class and imbue them with a strong affection and respect for one another and the college. They set a goal of ambition for right living, and fine character and solid attainments before every young man entering the institution. They are extremely useful as introducers of men of congenial tastes in college and afterwards. They promote hospitality to Yale men traveling in all parts of the country. They serve the college in a way which nothing else could serve it, by handing down its traditions by word of mouth and by sacredly preserving many of its relics, which, trifles in themselves, though rich in historical significance, would otherwise be consigned to dishonored dust and decay. In proportion to its size the society element has probably contributed more than any other to the financial prosperity of the college. The largest literary prize in the University has been established and sustained by one of the Senior societies, thus proving a 'desire to do unselfishly all in its power to increase the prosperity of the college. Some rich non-society men have said they might give more to Yale if there were no societies. They might and they might not, if these conditions were altered. Yale College without societies would not be Yale College as they had known it. It might be better or it might be worse-there may be doubt which— but certainly it would not be the same college.

That the societies unless held to strict account by public opinion are tempted occasionally to abuse their privileges is true enough. Their "etiquette," for instance, which prevents them from discussing society matters with outsiders, thus being directly opposed to wire-pulling, is a commendable thing itself. When it is perverted into rudeness to strangers, or swaggering with under-classmen it is puerile and snobbish. As Chesterfield has said, with his usual acuteness, "A proper secrecy is the only mystery of able men; mystery is the only secrecy of weak and cunning ones."

Measuring one college generation with another it is evident

that unnecessary display is on the decline. Patience must be exercised while any such modifications, if necessary, come naturally; otherwise they would, like Cadmean teeth, soon be springing up again, in new and perhaps more objectionable forms. It should not be forgotten that if the Senior societies have hitherto erred from too much ceremony, going to the other extreme would cause them to be in danger of degenerating into mere clubs. Let those who will, strive to prove that even the best of student clubs, such as those at Harvard, compare in influence, in dignity, in usefulness, in interest of members, with the Yale Senior societies. Appearances are all against the former. A thousand temptations and dangers beset the elaborate student club, from which the society is free. The one system seems to us wholly in accord with good gov ernment, good feeling, and good work at college, and the other almost as directly opposed to all three. In the club the student is apt to waste his time and money, and is of course absolutely his own master. In the best societies he is so identified with other men that for their own reputation they cannot afford to let him go the "primrose way" without serious and friendly remonstrance. A choice between the one or the other systems would appear to be the only alternatives now open to the largest colleges.

"Suping," currying favor with society men, allowing society men to "run in" their candidates for office simply because they are society men, are of course highly contemptible proceedings. They will be tolerated a single day only in so far as the tone of the institution grows lax or unmanly. The societies may influence but they cannot make the spirit of the University. Speaking for one of the Senior societies, we may say candidly that even a vague suspicion of cringing on the part of a candidate would be borne with far less patience than laxity in almost any other particular.

From time to time, unhappily, doubts of a graver character prevail in some quarters. Men who do not belong to either Senior society, who are not hostilely inclined toward them on general grounds, fear that society influence pervades the faculty and corporation, influencing the bestowal of prizes, appointment to tutorships, etc. If such cases can be authenticated they are danger signals of the downfall of the one society, or

both, which would seek to perpetuate or tolerate such gross injustice. The college has seen dark days, but the blot of injustice has never so far fouled its escutcheon. The body of the alumni will be slow to believe such a charge; woe to the reputations of the offenders if it is proved against them. The standard of their society will be trailed in the dust. The name “neutral” is no badge of disgrace; it stands for the great body of the alumni. Because they can be less easily organized than society men, because they are as a rule less acquainted with one another, is no reason why they should be deprived of one jot or tittle of their rights either in the classroom or in the management of the University. It is not too much to demand that the faculty and the corporation fulfill the letter and the spirit of Jefferson's plea for "equal and exact justice to all men "-of whatever society or non-society persuasion. In the natural order of events society questions will never intrude themselves into the meetings of these bodies, directly or indirectly. The truest society men should not hesitate to cooperate with neutrals toward the attainment of this end in the future. If extra painstaking will dispel any unpleasant impressions which exist on this score at present the effort is worth the cost. Properly conducted, we believe that, for the reasons we have given, the society system is of positive benefit both to its members and to the college. We cannot but look forward to the next epoch with especial interest. Whether the system can retain all of its usefulness now that the bottom has been knocked out of it, so to speak, by the abolition of the Freshman and Sophomore societies; whether there may not be and ought not to be more Junior societies, so as to cut down the membership of the present ones, now that the classes are so large; whether the new Senior society, begun so auspiciously, is not in itself the best antidote for quieting all the discontent against the old societies are problems which time alone can solve. Expansion and improvement rather than abolition seem to be the real order of the day. The sincere hope of every loyal son of Yale, whether a society man or not, will be that the dawning era shall prove one of good feeling not less remarkable in its narrow sphere, than that publicly associated with the name of James Monroe.

ARTICLE VII.-THE CHARTER OF CONNECTICUT AND THE CHARTER OF YALE COLLEGE.

IN our Article, published in the New Englander in May, 1882, respecting The Charter of Yale College, the import and reach of its changes we did not think it necessary to consider, and do not now think it necessary very fully to discuss, whether the colony under its charter had the right in 1701 to pass the act, entitled "An act for Liberty to erect a Collegiate School," or the right in 1745 to pass the act entitled "An act for the more full and complete establishment of Yale College in New Haven, and for enlarging the powers and privileges thereof." But it may be proper to say something on the subject to complete our view.

If the legislature of the colony had the right under its charter in 1745 to found or establish a college and to incorporate it, it obviously had the same right under the same charter in 1701. If it had not this right at either period, it appears to follow, that the college had no valid charter prior to the American Revolution and perhaps still later.

We are not ready to accept this conclusion nor do we think that the jurists of the State of Connecticut or of the country are likely to accept it. The charter of the college has been held to be valid from the beginning, whatever fears may have been felt at first of interference or question, if the rights of the colonists were too ambitiously put forward. It has been recog nized by repeated acts of legislation, both before and since our revolution, until at last, when in 1818, the charter of Charles II. was superseded by a State Constitution, it was confirmed and perpetuated by that instrument. The officers of the crown never interfered with the charter of the college by proceedings against it. This is presumptive evidence, that they saw no sufficient reason for interference. We shall not argue the case for the crown in their behalf. We have received no retainer for that purpose and at this late period can hardly expect any, and we certainly shall not volunteer. Rector Clap, who some