TO THE EDITORS OF THE CRIMSON:-

A CLAIM of mine, duly filed in the current month of February for a deduction on account of ten days' absence, was disallowed by the Auditor, on the ground that no complete week as recognized by the Dining Association had been included therein. The rule of the Association on which the Auditor's action was based, seemed manifestly so opposed to common sense, that I petitioned the Directors to be exempted from its provisions. At their meeting on Wednesday the Directors acknowledged the unfairness of the rule by rescinding it. Other petitions for deduction for the same reason as mine came before them, however. They voted to allow deductions covering the last recess, but none earlier; and, as a consequence, quite a number of claims - mine among them - were denied. It seems to me that this discrimination of the Directors between claims based on exactly the same grounds is more unfair, if possible, than the rule itself. If it is right that exemption from an unjust rule should be made in one case, why should it not be made in all cases?

SENIOR.[The writer of this letter has made a mistake in the use of the word "current." If he will turn to Worcester's Dictionary he will find that "current" means "now actually passing," and consequently it is incorrect when writing in April to speak of the "current month of February." His petition to the Directors reads as follows: "A claim of mine, made in the current month, for deduction on account of absence from February 14 to February 24, is disallowed, etc." The Directors naturally supposed that he had not handed in his petition until April, and so very properly refused to grant his request. If he will make the fact evident that he made his application in February, we have no doubt that he will be granted his allowance. - EDS.]