To the Editors of the Crimson:

After the third reading of "Graduates" communication in yesterday's CRIMSON, one concludes, I think, that the gentleman has the proper spirit, and that he has the courage of his convictions-whatever they are. One also finds himself wondering what connection there is between the first and last halves of the first paragraph. The paragraph runs: "Tradition says there shall be nominating speeches in the elections for Class Day officers, and it is high time that a precedent be established abolishing printed slates or any other machinery designed to prevent open contests and free choice." Well and good. But what has this last to do with nominating speeches, or is any connection intended? Does "Graduate" wish to strike here his dominant note of reform, and in the seductive "nominating speeches" to offer Ninety-seven a panacea for all the ills besetting Class Day elections? If this has been his motive he has succeeded but poorly, and we fear he must have been a dull scholar in his undergraduate days, or else he neglected the good English courses shamefully. [See Rhetoric: "Clearness."]

Whatever the motive here intended, after "Graduate" has had his say Ninety-seven is no better off as to the question how she shall best choose her Class Day officers, than she was before. The present system has its evils,- no one will deny that, and it also has its distinct advantages. There is a golden opportunity right here for "Graduate" to devise some better scheme than the existing one, and render thereby a distinct service to Harvard, not to mention the gain for himself in immortality.

Despite all tendencies to the contrary one is forced to admit that in previous years a surprising harmony has existed in classes on the matter of choosing Class Day officers. The men selected have been worthy, and the fact that they have belonged to societies has no bearing, since all men of distinction and true worth in a class are recognized socially. Here then the question of facility enters, and as Class Day elections approach, the societies submit to us men, in their opinion, best fitted for the various places. The class may accept this list by the vote of its majority, or it may reject it, and "Graduates" reference to "intimidation" is as fictitious as it is positively foolish. To recapitulate, then, the strongest argument for the present system is that the one proposed offers no improvement. Ninety-seven would gladly welcome a change for the better, but up to and including "Graduate's" article, none has been proposed.

NON-SOCIETY SENIOR.