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.

To the Editors of the Crimson:

The caution with which the Union Committee is proceeding in the matter of annual dues is most praiseworthy the method by which they are working, if reports are accurate, seems open to question. In most undertakings one begins by estimating his probable receipts, and then decides from that what he can spend. The committee have quite reversed this process. First they have hit upon the amount which they think it desirable for the Union to spend, and then have tried to bring the income to that figure regardless of other matters. Their idea is that expense should determine income, not that income should determine expense. In other words, these kindly Procrusteans propose to build a bedstead of ample size, and then to secure a fit by stretching out their prospective lodgers. If the lodgers were all to be tall men, this idea might be very good, but it is scant wisdom where accomodations are professedly designed for all, and when at least half of the public are certain to be woefully "short."

Now, it is the essential purpose of the Harvard Union to afford a social opportunity within the reach of all Harvard men. This has been the authorized statement from the very start, and if it means anything less than this, a vast amount of beautiful talk has been worse than wasted. And if this is the fundamental object, this consideration should govern the annual dues, rather than any notion of what might be desirable in other respects. Economy is an absolute necessity in any general college enterprise. The self-supporting student who carries his own burden can bear only a light weight in addition. The dependent student, who casts the whole matter on paternal charity, can not make this an excuse for favoring a load he himself could not carry.

Viewed from this standpoint, a yearly fee of $10.00 is unjustifiably large. Houston Hall is said to be the best example of this sort of a club in this country. The annual dues there are $2.50. Possibly circumstances may be enough different with us to warrant a charge of $5.00, but this seems to me the extreme limit: and a lower charge is highly desirable.

It may be said that this will cramp the suitable administration of the Union. The answer is that the Union is intended to serve all Harvard men, and that doing one's duty in a plain manner, -- even frugally if necessary--is better than the splendid doing of something else. That is clear as to individuals; to the uninitiated it seems equally true of a social club.

There is an old story of a South Sea missionary who spent some weeks building an elaborate sun-dial for his flock. When it was done the natives were charmed with the new machine. For three days they did nothing but admire it and talk about the new era it had inaugurated in the life of the island. The fourth day they appointed a committee to care for the treasure. And thereupon the committee, after much consultation and three adjourned sessions, proceeded to surround it on all sides with a wall and a roof a foot thick. Since then the sundial has been preserved most admirably. As to its practical use, however, it has been much like a purely democratic club with a ten dollar annual membership fee. 3L.