EDITORS DAILY CRIMSON:- In your issue of Thursday was a communication commenting upon the desultory character of the speeches from the floor in Harvard Union debates. The criticism made was well taken, but it must be remembered that the debate from the floor is largely for the benefits of new comers. It is inevitable that there should be more or less of "exercising voices for the benefit of nobody" in the first few meetings, as some men have never tried to speak before, and to them exercising of voice is of considerable importance. The Union invites anybody to speak from the floor who wishes, and cannot discriminate, hence it would not be advisable to try to limit the number of speakers. It seems to me the proper remedy is more freedom in debate, not less.

The debate from the floor should be as much as possible like the informal discussions in committee of the whole of our legislatures. When a man wanders off from the subject or makes an inaccurate statement, any other member should feel free to interrupt him (with his permission, of course) and bring him to the point. A few wellput interruptions always add interest to a debate, and serve to make the speakers more at their ease.

E. P., '88.