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:

In your issue of Saturday you published a statement of the new plan for running Memorial Hall which is to be put to the vote of the members of the association today. The statement hardly presented the question fairly. The new plan was shown in a most favorable aspect, while the evident objections to it, and the reasons in favor of the plan offered by the Corporation were entirely avoided, or only slightingly touched.

It is absolutely essential that everybody understand fairly both sides of the question before voting upon it. The object of this communication is to present the other side of the question.

The resolution of the directors proposes a plan by which there will be nearly 1 1-3 men to a seat at the club tables and just 2 at the general. The plan of the Corporation proposes to make every table a club table with 1 1-2 men to each seat.

The directors resent the idea of having 1 1-2 men at each seat. They declare that seven extra men at a table would destroy all social life, and would make the service almost intolerable. Yet these same men favor a plan which is to put two men to a seat at all the general tables, and say that this would make it very comfortable for the men at those tables. Is not this the greatest inconsistency? Are the general table men a different class of students from the club table men? Do they pay less for their privileges? The plan of the Corporation would increase rather than diminish the social life of the hall, for it would give this social life to all the men; to men who would never have it under the directors' plan.

There are few Harvard men who have not twenty friends whom they would like to see and talk to every day. When more sit at a table one can see more, and consequently some whom he would seldom have a chance to hunt up and talk with.

This would be an addition to the club life and a great compensating gain to the general tables in that their number would be reduced, and every man could go to his own table, without the unnecessary delay of procuring a check and also finding the table where he expected to meet his friends entirely occupied by strangers.

As to the chances of being advanced to a club table, at present 1 man in 3 gets to a club table in four years. Under the resolution it is true 144 men are added at the start, but how will it be in the future? Only about 1 man in 2 will get to the clubs, whereas if the other scheme is adopted, there will be an end to this computation of chances. Every man will be at a club table. When one man will reach a club table in four years there is no good reason why the other must remain 4 years at a general table and put up with the inconveniences which are more than the simple one of "crowdedness."

Every man who realizes the immense growth of the University must see that a new hall is an imperative necessity. How shall we get a new hall? By dodging the only scheme which has equality and justice as its foundation? No! And especially so, as authorized members of the Corporation have declared that they will never build a new hall while the system of general tables exists in Memorial. On the other hand they have said that if the plan of 1 1-2 men to a seat proved successful it would be a great inducement to the Corporation to build a new hall.

Let every man in the hall vote not for himself alone, but for the greatest good to the whole number. Let this be legislation for the future. Let it not be said of us that in our selfishness we adopted a scheme which was manifestly inequitable, and discouraged the Corporation