EDITORS DAILY CRIMSON. - The Executive Committee of the Harvard Union would like to reply to certain strictures made by your correspondent and by the Advocate, in regard to the work of the society. They do not consider it necessary to argue the case. The record speaks for itself. Here it is: First, let us look at the criticism on the wording of the questions submitted for debate: Now, associated with the chairman of the committee are four of the most experienced men in college, who carefully select and thoughtfully word the resolutions. When decided on, the questions are published in the CRIMSON, so that the members may choose with greater deliberation. This is one improvement at least on the "old regime." It is also a notable fact that no complaint has ever been made on the floor of the Union, - the proper place for such expression. Moreover, on only one occasion did a member of the Union propose a fourth question, which, though excellent, the Union rejected, - an evidence certainly of the society's satisfaction with those provided by the committee.

Second, the committee do not propose questions because its individual members may believe in them, but because they are stirring topics of the hour.

Third, we have reason to believe that the questions have met with general approval, one proof of which is that a prominent professor of the Episcopal Theological School has assured members of the committee that the Union subjects are always selected in the debating club of that institution.

Fourth, the statistics show that far from degenerating, the Union has had the most successful year in its history. This is evidenced by a larger attendance than ever before, by its financial prosperity, by the fact that the Union has this year distributed shingles, and thought it well to restrict its membership.

Fifth, the character of the debates has been considerably high. Far from "stuttering incoherence," as the Advocate charges, the meetings have been graced by the principal disputations of some of the foremost men in the University, as the CRIMSON files will show.

Sixth, the disputants have been appointed purely on their merits and for their interest in the Union. The names of the principal speakers will bear out this assertion. The Advocate says to get an appointment, it is only necessary "to be constant in attendance, in volubility and in activity." Now certainly this is not an argument against the committee. It would certainly be very bad policy for the management to appoint men who have been irregular in attendance, who have seldom spoken, and make a merit of inactivity.

THE CHAIRMAN FOR THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.