EDITORS DAILY CRIMSON: For some time the impression has been gaining ground both in and out of college that the financial concerns of our various athletic associations, and especially of the boat club, are not and have not been managed with sufficient economy and care. The general opinion seems to be not that the management is needlessly or wilfully extravagant, but that the want of economy arises from the careless way in which expenses are incurred and accounts kept. The manager and captain are almost omnipotent in financial arrangements, and the mass of contributors have no opportunity whatever of passing judgment on the measures taken. At the end of the year accounts are audited by a committee and found to be all right. If the expenses have seemed too large to any contributor or he system wrong, all he can do is to refuse to contribute the next year. Thus if the club has run into debt the only redress for those who support it is to run it still further into debt, by refusing to contribute. The ineffectiveness of this method of redress is therefore apparent at once, and there seems to be no other method which can be employed. The contributors are at the mercy of the manager and captain. The latter is not chosen with reference to his business ability, and ought not to be. The former is chosen for a variety of reasons, but chiefly because he is a popular or influential man. Often it is a matter of favoritism.

The contribution in yesterday's CRIMSON was very welcome to the college because it attempted to explain away "apparent carelessness." Let us see if it did so. The item of $181 was for a shell broken "August or September," 1886, and belonging to the class of '88. Why a shell should be moved during August or September, and where it was moved to, and who broke it, do not appear in the explanation. Is this "apparent" or real carelessness.

The item of $161 was paid back to a committee which thought last spring that it had enough money to pay for running the launch, but found last autumn, after the launch-running season was over, that it didn't have enough money after all. Is this "apparent" or real carelessness?

The item of $50 was an item two or three years old, of which only one person knew the existence. This item was not on the books. Is this "apparent" or real carelessness?

The item of $80 was due to a flaw in the contract with a railway company. In a case where one party to a contract is ignorant of the provisions of the contract is ignorant of the provisions of the contract, would the average man say that the ignorant party is careful or careless? If careless, is the carelessness real or only "apparent"?

Finally, if the boat club last year was reported to have a surplus of $160 and was really $575 in debt, and if $472 of this unreported debt can be traced to the items just enumerated, is this carelessness "apparent" or real?

The blame for this sort of carelessness, whether it be "apparent" or not, can not be laid at the door of any individual. The miserable system, or lack of system, under which the financial arrangements of our athletic organizations are conducted, is the real cause of the whole trouble.

F.