WE learn that certain members of the Harvard Union are agitating again the plan of turning the Union from a debating into a legislative body. It will be remembered by those who attended the early meetings of the Union last year, that this scheme was proposed and, after some discussion, was voted down. The arguments against this innovation seem to us as valid now as they were then, and, moreover, the experience of nearly a year has shown that the present system is successful. It is hard to see the advantages of a college legislature, in which imaginary bills, committees on imaginary business, and all the intricate measures of a legislature, are imitated. Indeed, we do not believe that the members of the Union would long maintain their interest in such proceedings. The opportunity offered to persons fond of quibbling and obstructing would be too great to be passed over by them, and time and temper would be wasted by those who insist on the fine points of Cushing's "Manual." A glance at the working of even such well-ordered legislatures as the United States Congress or the British Parliament will show how much that is disagreeable can be carried on in them, even under strictly constitutional rules. The Harvard Union was organized to give a chance for Debate to those who are interested in subjects of political and contemporary importance, and it has thus far fulfilled its object successfully. We therefore see no reason why thus early in its existence, with a brilliant future already assured it, the Harvard Union should lose its present character, and exchange its present success for an experiment that is almost sure to bring failure.