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 purpose of this communication is to show that at least some of those officially interested protest against the policy of regulating the number of men in Memorial according to the kitchen capacity.

The writer believes that Memorial should not be permanently like a restaurant for hurried business men, but a dining hall whose tables should be as nearly as possible like home tables. There is one objection to the proposed plan which should not be lost sight of by either students or corporation. It is that where large quantities of one kind of food,- fowl is the best known example-have to be prepared, the work of preparation is done in such a hurry and so mechanically that the food is likely to be unpalatable. The present steward, who has done so much to improve Memorial board, has not been able to overcome completely this difficulty even with only eleven hundred men in the hall. And there is one more objection to a permanent arrangement putting the membership far beyond the seating capacity. Take for example the plan of having a club of twenty men to each twelve or fourteen seat table which would only bring the membership up to about eleven hundred and fifty. The majority of men come to breakfast just before nine, to lunch, at one; nearly all tables would be full at those hours, for at present many club tables are full. That all men would be treated alike is the best thing to be said for the new scheme.

A DIRECTOR.