There has been one objection strongly urged against the erection of a new dining-hall which seems, at first sight, to be well made. It is concerned with the price of board in the new hall. The price, it is said, must inevitably vary from that of Memorial, and this would eventually cause unpleasant discriminations between students boarding in the expensive hall and those in the less expensive. If the first of these statements was correct probably the second would be true; but the first is not correct. The expenses necessary to the new hall over and above those at Memorial are only about one thousand dollars a year. Even supposing that at the start there were but three hundred boarders in the hall, the increase in price to each one would on this score amount to less than ten cents a week. This difficulty is only a fancied one.

Finally, in reference to any move that may be made in the matter, we express our profound conviction that any action, to be satisfactory in the long run, must be cooperative. If either the students in power or the Corporation insist upon looking at the matter only from their own point of view, the whole question might as well be given up in despair. The Corporation have strength in their position; they can hardly be expected to erect a second hall, if, that done, the problem of a third hall will at once take the place of the old problem. The students have strength in their position. The Corporation would not be right in persistently pursuing a do-nothing policy. If students should adopt a permanent arrangement at Memorial, the Corporation owe it to them, in that case, to make clear that such arrangement is urged in order to make feasible a second hall and not simply for its own sake, leaving the second hall still only a remote possibility. The Corporation ought explicitly to state to the directors of Memorial that, if a satisfactory permanent method can be found, and if requisite funds can be made available, a second hall will be built at once. If either side declines to do its share, we believe that the other side would be justified in refusing to do its own. It must be cooperation, or else better no action at all.