NOTWITHSTANDING the report of the Committee of the Overseers in favor of the eligibility of Dr. Bellows, the Board have decided that Dr. Bellows is not a member of that body, because he is not a citizen of Massachusetts. The reasons for the decision seem to be largely based upon the fact that a similar committee, six years ago, decided that ex-President Hill of Portland was not eligible to the Board. In the first place, the cases are not parallel. Dr. Hill forfeited his seat by removing from the State. It might well be a question, in such a case, whether an Overseer could hold his seat without being re-elected as a citizen of the State to which he had removed. But that is no reason why a non-resident candidate chosen by electors from different States should not be eligible. In the second place, if the cases had been similar, there are many reasons why the precedent set by the action of six years ago should be disregarded. A committee of eminent lawyers decided against the election then, and a committee of equally eminent lawyers decide in favor of it now. There must be good reasons for violating a precedent when lawyers think it advisable to do so. And the reason in this case is that it is desirable to have the interests of the many graduates who are not residents of Massachusetts represented in so important a body as the Board of Overseers. It is undesirable to take a step which shall in any way tend to diminish the number of students at Harvard, to impair the interest which graduates feel in the University, or to increase the all too prevalent suspicion that the authorities of the University desire to maintain a close corporation. If the statutes of the Board of Overseers cannot be interpreted, like those of other colleges, to admit members who are not resident in the State, the liberal progress of the University demands a change in the statutes. In Dr. Bellows the College loses one of its most valuable advisers.