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:

Now that the Intercollegiate Debating Union is organized, it is important that Harvard prepare to defend her laurels and to win new ones. We have excellent material for this purpose; the question is, how to get the best results from it.

Let us analyze our position: We have two debating societies, the Harvard Union, reorganized last year for the purpose of maintaining a high standard of debating; and the Wendell Phillips Club, organized to afford practice and social intercourse to its members, who need have only ordinary ability for speaking. The latter club has, however, a large proportion of the very best speakers in the University, who approved of its policy and sided with it. Owing to unfortunate circumstances, an antagonism exists between the two clubs, although the individual members are on terms of cordiality. This division of interests, and especially this antagonism,- which results not only in lack of cooperation, but in opposition,- While perhaps stimulating to each club, can only weaken seriously the debating element of the University as a whole.

It is evident, then, that our condition is extremely crude and unsatisfactory; that some change must be made in order to harmonize and centralize our forces. With this important end in view, I have to propose the following plan: That the one of the existing clubs which maintains the highest standard of debating be recognized as the chief debating body of the University, and accept its position without arrogance; that the other acknowledge itself subordinate to the first; that the first take in immediately all the members of the latter who are up to its standard; that other subordinate debating clubs be organized in the different departments and circles of the University. Let all these clubs unite in a Harvard Debating Association, with that one of the present clubs which may be selected, as the head. Let the ablest members of these subordinate clubs be eligible to the highest body,- or better, that membership in a subordinate club be a prerequisite for eligibility to the highest.

In this way a greater interest in debating would be aroused throughout the University; men would take a more active interest in the branches of study discussed in the clubs of the departments and schools; subjects of debate would be sufficiently varied to suit all; membership in the highest club would be esteemed a mark of distinction; and especially would we have a strong, concentrated system, able to cope in intellectuality and oratory with any college debating association in the world.

I respectfully suggest that the Union and the Wendell Phillips Club give attention to this matter and appoint committees to formulate preliminary plans for some beneficial change; and I submit my plan to the student body at large, which has, unquestionably, a voice in this matter.

ROTHWELL SHERIFF.