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

On Harvard in Politics.To the Editors of the Crimson:

If the Harvard Advocate is to represent the sentiment and the highest thought of the student body of this University, an earnest criticism of what appears in its columns may not be out of place. I believe that the leader in the Advocate of October 20 should not be allowed to pass without a word of protest.

In a curiously incomprehensible mass of words, ranging from the over-studied "electioneering of exciting issues" to the vulgar "chips on both their shoulders," the writer attempts to mock that lofty spirit which has created the Harvard Sound Money Campaign Club. I am not a member of any of the political parties of this country, and circumstances have placed me beyond the reach of prejudices which might influence judgment in this question. I am but a devoted member of the University.

In a single sentence the writer calls us "unpolitical Harvard men," characterizes as "foolish performances inside the College yard" the enthusiastic political meetings of yound men just entering into the highest privilege of citizenship, and says that we have "no issues at all" ! This is so marked by that affected disdain of seriousness of purpose with which the young amateur who dabbles in the decadent literature of our day flatters himself that he is intellectually superior, that I can hardly bring myself to seriously consider it. Does the writer stamp as "foolish" the meetings which the men have carried through to give voice to their convictions (as men striving for culture and learning) at this critical moment in the country's history, because they were carried through with the natural enthusiasm of youth, or because it is foolish for such men to express their opinions? Why are we "supposedly unpolitical Harvard men"? Does the Advocate claim that centres of learning such as this University should not exert influence in public life? Does not the writer know the effect which universities have had in the development of European history, every one from Oxford to Salamanca? Does he not know that popular government is sinking under such corruption as is exhibited in the municipalities of this country because universities, and what they stand for, do not exert the influence they should?

How strange it is to read in any publication of this University that a "nonpartisan" attitude is "impractical," that "it has a good deal of weakness, and tendency to procrastinating all but the easiest decisions," (whatever this last may mean). And again, how strange to read that Harvard men, and "even less than the graduates of other colleges," "have been of very little use to our country in politics." And yet James Russell Lowell is still remembered, and we are still in mourning for William E. Russell. and only a little while ago Theodore Roosevelt was the most talked-of man in the country.

What the writer can mean by that phrase "with no issues at all," I cannot understand. It needs explanation, and so do many other expressions, such as "unsatisfied by the general practice of inheritance." Indeed we might require an explanation of the spirit and the sentiments expressed in the entire editorial.

AN UNDERGRADUATE.