CAMBRIDGE, MASS., Dec. 21, 1895.

To the Editors of the Crimson:

In reference to the communication in your issue this morning from Professor Ames and others, I submit respectfully that it does not represent the undivided opinion of the student body on the attitude of the United States in the present Venezuelan question.

The question has been one of diplomatic importance for some years and was the subject of earnest consideration by the administration in 1888 when letters passed between Secretary of State Bayard and Minister Phelps on the matter of British encroachment on Venezuelan territory; and Secretary Bayard wrote then "If indeed it appear there is no fixed limit to the British boundary claim, our good disposition to aid in a settlement might not only be defeated, but be obliged to give place to a feeling of grave concern." I think this shows President Cleveland's present action is not hasty, and I think the standing and recognized judgment of his counsellors is such as to preclude the possibility of its being fairly termed ill-advised.

I quote one of the leading American statesmen and lawyers in a speech delivered some months ago on this very subject: "Let it be equally well known and understood that any attempt of a non-American nation to sieze a foot of American soil will be treated as a declaration of war against the United States. Such is the Monroe Doctrine."

Is not this what England has done? And does not his duty to the American people and their traditions and interests demand such action as the president has taken? And is not any failure to support the president in this action unpatriotic, un-American and so at variance with every Harvard tradition?

I am convinced I voice a sentiment quite as prevalent at Harvard, and quite as justly so, as that in the letter I referred to in opening.

JOHN D. BLACK.