TO THE EDITORS OF THE CRIMSON:-

IN the last Advocate but one appeared a letter of mine signed "'83," in which I gave voice to a widespread dissatisfaction with the election of the captain of the Freshman crew. I am not a rowing man, but I wrote the letter because I was interested in the success of the crew, and was disgusted with the election. I think no one will misunderstand a natural shrinking from publicity and my signing myself "'83." Yet Mr. Crawford, in his letter to the last Crimson, chose to assume that I was actuated by some mean motive in the matter, and was trying to throw the responsibility on the whole class.

Mr. Crawford makes one true statement, that is, that Mr. Hammond was elected by a majority of the votes cast. I agree with him. Mr. Hammond was elected by a majority, but two of the votes cast were illegal. Mr. Crawford says that but one vote was challenged, but the truth is that two were challenged, whose names could be furnished if it were necessary. Mr. Crawford thinks that I referred to him. He is mistaken. He must surely know the two I did refer to. When Mr. Crawford says that one of those challenged was an excellent oar, he proves that his opinion is not "worth contradiction." For a man to say that a Freshman of a month's standing could be an excellent oar, as we understand rowing here, is absurd.

He further says that the letter put Mr. Hammond in an uncomfortable position. This is not true. The letter only informed Mr. Hammond, as well as the class, that he was elected unfairly, and gave him an opportunity to do what his feelings must have prompted him to, that is, to resign and hold a fresh election, The only pity is that he has delayed this step so long.

"'83."