EDITORS DAILY CRIMSON:- Being present at the Harvard Union debate the other evening, I was struck by the amount of desultory speaking which occurred when the debate was made general. Several men wandered away from the subject, and there was an immense amount of long-winded repetition, which prolonged the meeting beyond reasonable limits, and made it so dull that the room was nearly empty at the close. At the same time several good points were made by members on the floor on both sides, of which no notice was afterwards taken, either pro or con. By this a very indefinite character was given to the latter half of the discussion.

Now, it seems as if the whole affair might be much improved, at any rate made briefer and more pointed, if the debating on the floor were confined to a limited number of speakers on each side. if such were the case, men who have nothing to say might feel a little hesitation in weakening their own side by using up limited time. And again, each side might present a much more forcible argument if the closers of the debate were to devote themselves to summing up the main points brought forward and to answering the objections from the floor instead of branching off to a new treatment of the matter.

And might it not also be well to decide just what part of the question is to be argued? There seemed to be considerable doubt on this matter at the last meeting.

AN OBSERVER.