We invite all members of the University to contribute to this column, but we are not responsible for the sentiments expressed.

To the Editors of the Crimson:

The communication criticising the Harvard Union which appeared in Thursday's CRIMSON is in many respects just. The present method of electing members is a poor one, but it may as well be said that it has arisen unconstitutionally. The constitution requires a secret ballot on every name proposed and a four-fifths vote to elect. As a member of the Union I thank '94" for calling attention to this provision and promise him that hereafter it will be enforced. The other practice which "94" deplores is the practice of squabbling over motions instead of speaking. This practice really is deplorable, but it can be remedied by a simple amendment to the by laws. It seems to me that if the critics of the Union would join it and help to pass such an amendment, they could by so doing and by voting against any undesirable names that might be proposed, make the Union all that they could make a new society. In fact the members of the Union are likely to do this themselves before long. The account of the arrangements for the Yale debate and the editorial approval of them in Friday's "CRIMSON" rather tend to destroy the effect which the second "94" man tries to make. The Harvard Union alone has kept alive the interest in speaking in the University, the Harvard Union has arranged the Yale debates which have given such a stimulus to the interest in speaking; the Harvard Union offers to the undergraduates their only opportunities to speak (outside of English VI), the Harvard Union has the recognition and encouragement of the faculty, some of whom are the constant advisors of its officers. What more could a new society do? And if a new society could do no more, what need is there of one?

I say this not because I believe that the Union would suffer from competition, but because I believe it is better for the interest of public speaking to have one society which shall contain all the best speakers in the university than for the speakers, who really have a common interest to be divided against themselves. In other words, there is a certain amount of speaking talent here; one society containing it all must be stronger than either of two societies each of which could contain only a fraction of that talent. Furthermore between two societies there would be likely to spring up ill-feeling and disputes which would make the university weary of all speakers. I firmly believe that it would be a case where a house divided against itself could not stand.

A MEMBER.