Really it must after all have been very wicked, for how can we reasonably doubt the strenuous testimony of so many immaculate public journals any longer? Here is how the American lectures us : "The college boys who behaved so rudely in various cities - especially Boston and Rochester - at the lectures of Mr. Oscar Wilde, were probably somewhat astonished to find themselves severely lectured for their conduct, in the newspapers. When they carried out practically what they had been reading in their daily journals [Rochester has no daily, so that must be aimed directly at Harvard], they doubtless had the expectation that it would be taken as a very sensible and entirely proper method of expressing their critical opinion of the aesthetic side of art." Identifying Mr. Wilde and the "aesthetic side of art" is good. This whole discussion is, we fear, becoming somewhat tiresome; but then we must ask the American in what single instance college boys were incited by their daily journals to any such a heinous piece of business as we were guilty of here. At the risk of self-repetition, we should like to quote again, for the American's benefit, Mr. Wilde's own comment upon the affair : "If you mean those scholars at Boston (laughing heartily), that was a bit of school-boy fun, not meant in any sort of malice." After all this, why should so fair a paper as the American persist in judging us so harshly, when even our own Crimson, ardent admirer and exponent of Mr. Wilde as it is, sees nothing to condemn in the frolic?