EDITORS HARVARD HERALD: That aspect of Harvard's position in the matter of compulsory church and chapel attendance, which is most illogical and undeniably absurd, it seems to me, has hardly been called into view by the recent discussions in the Nation and other papers. Why is it that the principle of compulsory attendance is made to apply in some cases while in others it is altogether evaded? Why are those who live in or near Boston and who reside at home excused from attendance at church and in most cases from chapel, while those who come from more distant quarters, whatever may be the expressed wishes of themselves and their parents in the matter, are compelled to attend chapel and church without exception? Is there a double principle, conveniently elastic, which is made to fit the two cases, and is there a fundamental distinction between students dwelling on the college grounds and those living at home? Does the college undertake the religious training of one class and not the other? What inconsistency is this! If Harvard's degree is supposed to connote a definite amount of religious training, represented mathematically by about two hundred and thirty doses of chapel and thirty of church, is it not an imposition upon the public to permit a considerable number to take her degree without any of this training received from the college itself and in many cases with none received at home - in hardly any case with any of a compulsory character received at home? Why are not the wishes of parents regarded in the matter of forced religious training? If the college answers that its principle involves this training from all, why are some excepted from the application of the principle? Because these so excepted receive religious training at home? But in a large majority of cases they do not. Statistics collected by the college itself show this to be a fact. Do not the regulations show a huge partiality in this respect? To be consistent should not the college insist that compulsory religious exercises be carried on in the homes of those who, while in college, live at home? Or, perhaps, more strictly, should it not forbid any to enter college but those coming from homes where such observances are enforced? I fear that my interrogatives have run away with me, but I am greatly puzzled as to what answers can be made to my questions.

IMPARTIALITY.