IN regard to the recent action of the Directors of Memorial Hall, we do not stand in the belligerent attitude the usually cautious and circumspect Advocate has, in its last issue, seen fit to assume. Waiving the question of constitutionality, the compromise which the Board has effected seems, on the whole, eminently satisfactory both to the early and to the late risers. The men who, during this most busy time of the year, wish to have breakfast after half past eight, are few compared with those who have so far appeared at the Hall before Chapel exercises. To be sure, the post-Chapel is much inferior to the pre-Chapel breakfast; but, if this sacrifice on the part of a few who prefer to work at night and sleep in the morning is productive of a great convenience to a much larger body who prefer daylight, we believe no one will be so unjust as to complain.

But the real grievance is, that the Directors, without consulting the wishes of the Association, but feeling strongly in favor of the change which they ultimately made, took upon themselves power to say that the student shall come at quarter past seven if he wish a good breakfast, and that he must come before half past eight if he wish any breakfast at all. This seems to us to be a proceeding which, though in this case productive of good, is legally unjustifiable. We understand that they have power, not to make laws, but only to carry out the wishes of the Association; and a question so important as this ought to have been decided by ballot. The assertion that the majority were not competent to vote, as some allege, is rank nonsense: every man's opinion is sound when the stomach is concerned. We say, then, that the compromise in itself is a satisfactory one; but that the action of the Directors, in not consulting the wishes of the body they are supposed to represent, is establishing a dangerous and illegal precedent.