EDITORS DAILY CRIMSON. - In last Wednesday's issue appeared an article purporting to be a refutation of your admirable remarks on the Anglomaniac tendencies of American colleges. The positions assumed by the author of the reply are such as to merit an indignant protest from any patriotic student of Harvard.

The defender of Anglomania is pleased to adopt a tone of injured liberality in condemning the "narrowing down of our models," and further continues, - "I cannot see that I am less patriotic because finding that the dress of Englishmen is more becoming or their speech more musical than our own, I try to copy after them in these respects." The italics are mine.

Of the argument for dress, more hereafter. That concerning the "speech" appears to our provincial judgment both a novel and unwarranted assumption. True, we are not a nation of jeunes premiers, but there have been musical voices in our land and history. The voices of Hancock, Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Grant, proclaiming the sovereignty of simple manhood had a sweetness and musical cadence which still makes melody upon our People's lips. The tones of these men are the models after which our accents are framed, and their music, I take it, needs not the tawdry finery of affectation.

But the reviewer continues; - "It is not strange that our University men, students of history, should be quick to accept whatever foreign ways seem better than our own." But do they? Does the writer insinuate that an English House of Commons is better than an American House of Representatives? If he does, is he the "patriotic" student he claims to be?

The tendencies the CRIMSON reprobated were the adoption of ways not simply un-American, but highly ridiculous as well. The assumption of an "haw-haw" accent even when the impostor was English, was keenly satirized by Lord Lytton in his novel "Night and Morning."

To pretend to be what one is not is dishonest as well as ill-bred. Does the defender of Anglomania think social dishonesty "betters" Americans. I am generous enough to believe he does not. When we see Anglomaniacs imitating the splendid intellectual life of Gladstone, the magnificent commonsense of Bright, the brilliant shrewdness of Beaconsfield, the CRIMSON, I take it, will not rebuke the tendency. For obvious reasons, however, it will be too much to expect from Anglomaniacs.

In fine, the custom is not only silly; it is unwise. I venture the assertion, based upon some knowledge of what I am talking about, that the most ardent imitators (who are always at a respectful distance) of English Society manners, are the ones sure to be most hopelessly left on application for entree to social life in England. In England the flattery of imitation is left to serving people; when it spreads to other classes, it becomes the subserviency of fools. Such is the tacit English verdict at all events.

Now I, too, will put in a disclaimer. I am no Anglophobiac in this matter. English ways and manners are right and proper among English men. They are part of the English system and dove-tail in with existing institutions. I only protest against their importation here where they are foreign to the climate, distasteful to the inhabitants, and ridiculous in the propagators.

R. B. M.