We invite all members of the University to contribute to this column, but we are not responsible for the sentiments expressed. Every communication must be accompanied by the name of the writer.

CAMBRIDGE, MASS., Jan. 15, 1901. To the Editors of the Harvard Crimson:

We had decided not to answer the CRIMSON'S editorial of December 22, because we know how the school-boy lispings in its editorial columns have been regarded by the University at large, but as our indifference was mistaken for submission to a censorship, and our silence for a confession of guilt, we feel compelled to put our case before the University.

So long as the CRIMSON announces lectures for a day previous to the date set for delivery, and so long as it prints for facts such rumors as that Mr. Lehmann has assumed charge of a newspaper in London, when the London newspapers themselves are in doubt on the point, it is clearly in an inconsistent position in railing at the Harvard correspondents of Boston newspapers for making mistakes and reporting rumors. But inconsistency, inaccuracy and unreliability in the CRIMSON have long been taken for granted.

Heretofore, however, the CRIMSON has been given credit at least for trying to be fair. But when it printed a personal attack in its last issue before the Christmas recess, at a time which made an answer to it impossible for two weeks, only one inference can be drawn. Further than this, editors of the CRIMSON knew when this editorial was printed, that in a question of discipline in the baseball nine last spring, the correspondents in concert supported the captain of the team; they knew that for three years the correspondents have refrained from describing in detail any play used by the football eleven; they knew that for the help given to the captain of last fall's 'Varsity eleven, himself a CRIMSON editor, the correspondents received the expression of his sincere gratitude; they knew that the correspondents suppressed a "story" of a Harvard undergraduate who was caught spying on the Yale eleven at New Haven: and we say that editors, who, with these faces before them, could make the assertion that the correspondents consulted their purse before the interests of the University, must have had their own ends to serve in so representing the case.

The act which was put forward as betraying the interests of the University was a statement concerning the class elections. This was to the effect that a certain man would run practically on an independent ticket for marshalship. Just what the secret committees of the secret societies had done in the preparation of their "slate" few outsiders had any means of finding out, but it was report so common that even editors of the CRIMSON must have heard of it, that there was much opposition to the nomination of the man in question, and that he was run independently. That a clique, which all but controlled affairs tried to defeat him there is no doubt, but it appears now that "for the peace of the family" the man in question was bracketed for a marshalship by the societies. No correspondent at the time know all the facts, although from the attitude taken by the CRIMSON, it did know them, and although it was under contract to give news to the correspondents, it said nothing. The correspondents, knowing the rumors and some of the facts, reported the case to the best of their knowledge. It afterwards transpired that a technical mistake was involuntarily made which was corrected the following day. It may have hurt the chances of election of one man; if very likely resulted in a disappointment to the little clique of one secret society, (whose organ the CRIMSON seems to be) but how this can be constructed as injuring the University and considering purse-strings in tead of the interests of the University, and be made the reason for crying "shame," the CRIMSON does not explain. The man referred to was honored by the senior class, not with an election to the place he was so graciously bracketed for by the little clique, which result would have been a sufficient disappointment to them, but he was elected to a higher place, which apparently infuriated them. Their feelings were expressed by the CRIMSON editorials which charged that those who had been considered responsible for the little clique's disappointment had betrayed the University for the sake of private gain. Such things have happened before. This is not the first time that a small clique has supposed that an injury to it was an injury to the whole University, nor is it the first time that an attempt has been made to bound the University by the four partition walls of an editorial sanctum.

Today we shall withdraw from all association with the CRIMSON. In the future, while the CRIMSON continues to prattle in its narrow conceited way to the few amused undergraduates who listen to its editorials, we shall try, with our previous fairness and impartiality, to give the undergraduates, the thousands of graduates, who never have a thought of the little college paper, and to the readers of Boston newspapers, the facts about life and events at Harvard University. We shall always give the captains and managers of teams, as well as those directing the other University activities and interests, every assistance within our power. In our work, on account of its nature, there may be unintentional mistakes because it must often be hasty to be timely, but we shall continue to make every effort to be accurate and shall always be eager to rectify any errors which may unwittingly be made. We have always thought first of the University, and her service will always be our first duty, but as we read her motto it is still "Veraas," not "Conformity to the opinions of the HARVARD CRIMSONS." HARVARD CORRESPONDENTS OF BOSTON NEWSPAPERS.