Our recent article showing how the college graduates largely favor the Republican party has stirred up some of our Democratie cotemporaries who are seeking to find a cause for this, to them unpleasant fact. Among them is the Adrián Press which replies as follows : It is only a small portion of our youtli who get a cliance to attend college. They are not financially able. Ten to one, those young " Hts" all are sons of republican oflice holders, who have managed trom good fat salaries, and other ineans, to give tneir boys a chance to stand for a civil service reform examination. That's about why those vealey young "lits," not yet old enough to cast a ballot, are republicans. They are so because " pa " is, and because they have never seen any but republicans holding government offices. We entirely agree with our Adrián apologist for the democracy in the idea that the majority of the young lits are Republicans ," because ' pa ' is." This is very generally true that the son is usually of the same política! belief as the tather, except, in many cases we are cognizant of where the father was a Democrat of the Old School and the next generation found they could not nfflliftte with the New School, so changed to the Republican party. So this turn in the discussion carries us back to the paternal politics and, coupled with that, the paternal wealth. The Press also utters the postúlate that only a small portion of our youth are financially able to attend college. Now as the large majority of college men are Republicans it goes without saying that their futhers, who sent them there, have been more anxious to give their boys a chance. Then, the fact of their having been moro able to afford them the opportunity is proof that they have been inore enterprising, more frugal, more saving than their Democratie neighbors whose boys are running the Btreets or learning a trade which cannot bring them the returns a profession would.had their fathers been able to have given them a complete education for one. We presume this oarrying of the argument to its legitímate conclusión is more than the Press intended to have appear, but nevertheless it is the effect of logie, which always developes truth no matter where it strikes, nor what it eflects. Moreover, we are lead on to another point arising from the disproportion of Republieau and Democratie boys in college. A powerful agent for effecting the difference is the general Democratie policy of hostility to the higher education. This is manifested in the numerous and repeated attacks of Democratie journals on our universities and colleges. The shrewd leaders of the Bourbon party, understanding that their great strongholds are the slums of the large cities, where there is little or no education, well know that their boys will be unfitted to associate with and lead these degraded inmates of the saloons, if they are given a taste of what is higher in literature, science and art. The cultivation of the latter b reeds a distate for the former. The antagonism is realized, and many of the sons of those Democrats who are able to have a collegiate education are thus deprived of it, so that thoy may be sure to remain in the party and lead its minions. Incidentally, we mightnotice as a straw the contempt the "Press "man has for scholars and scholarship evinced in hls sneer at the " vealy lits," " who are Republicans because 'pa' is." These flings have the Democratie ear-marks. Now as to the point ihat " those young lits," as heis pleasedto cali them evideutly in contempt,- are "all sons of Republican olfice holders." For the U. of M,. one of the great representative universities of the country, we can directly prove that this is not so from the statiBtics. As it happens the historian of each graduating class collects numerous data from each raember, among the questions asked is the profession of the father. From last year's history we get the following result : 23 farming, 16 law, 8 ministry, 7 medicine, 14 mercantile business, 4 manufacturing, 2 mining, and 1 each at teaching, engineering, carpentering, insurance, lumbering and ship-owning. The historian of last year, Mr. W. B. Cady, who has given the matter considerable attention and research says this proportion holdsgood for each year, This is unfortunate for our Adrián friend's bald opinión, but it is a solid, incontrovertible fact, and it cannot be dodgt'd. So much for a squirm. We are amused at the confession of fear expressed in the above quotation that the sons of Republicans will stand a better chance for a civil service reform examination, but will pass with noting it, and perhaps reserve it for another text.