The Boston Advertiser of yesterday contains a communication, which, coming from a Harvard graduate, strikes us as very curious. This communication seems to take objection to Mr. Garrison's method of ascertaining the views of the candidates for the board of overseers in the subject of voluntary prayers. The writer "hopes that it is not to be the custom to exact pledges from candidates for the office of overseers to Harvard College, or to make them state in advance how they will vote on subjects, petty or great, which they ought to be free to consider after election." In reply to this, we can only state that we hope that it is to be the custom to endeavor to gain some knowledge of the views of the men selected to represent the alumni, on the most important question of college discipline which can come before the governing body of the university. To assume that it is improper to question candidates on their views about important questions seems to us decidedly ingenuous. Such ideas carried into the manipulations of any government, whether of a state or college, would be totally out of place. The case of the government of a college does not seem to us to differ essentially from that of state government. According to the ideas advanced by the writer to the Advertiser, and the Rev. Henry W. Foote, whose remarks that writer endorses, it would be highly improper to ask Mr. Randall and Mr. Carlisle their views on the important question of the tariff when the selection of one or the other to a most important office in the government depends upon the answer. The custom that has hitherto prevailed in the selection of overseers, and the custom that would probably have prevailed for years to come, had not Mr. Garrison stepped in, if adopted in our national politics would have been merely to cast a blind vote for the more popular of the two gentlemen who were candidates for the speakership, trusting to the good sense and honesty of the successful candidate to solve the important question after the election. But, fortunately for our government, this is not the way it is administered.

Harvard College and most other colleges, have been run in years past on too ideal a plan; practical methods are what are needed now. The overseers must be chosen who represent the sentiment of the alumni on the important questions that are to be handled by those overseers, and we think that the question of voluntary prayers is an important one. The state of affairs at present is in direct opposition to the tendencies of the time, and especially contrary to the spirit that regulates Harvard, and should be done away with. Any man who has not given this important question thought is not a fit man for overseer, and should decline to be a candidate. We do not doubt the good intentions of these undecided gentlemen, but demand that our overseers should be chosen from the men who have kept up with the times and who understand the condition of affairs at this university at present. We think that the selection of overseers at the election in June should be made largely with a view to changing a "scandalous regulation" in this college, and the sentiments of every candidate on this question should be made known. Therefore we do not consider the Rev. Henry W. Foote's remarks "very much to the point," and cannot agree with the writer to the Advertiser in his desire to retain old customs.