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 situation of the Co-operative affair seems to be about as follows. At the annual November meeting attended by about 35, one of the Faculty directors moved that the President get $800 per year and the Secretary $10.00 per meeting. Another Faculty member moved that a plan for reorganization and incorporation be drawn. He was afterwards appointed to draw the plan which is the one now under discussion. The majority directors then printed the plan, and their argument in favor, at the expense of the Society but refused the same privilege to the minority. In their report, after pointing out that thirty men might, by combining, control the annual meeting, they naively remark "It is not inconceivable that such a revolution should be accomplished by persons who would think more of their own interests than of the interests of the Society."

Some searching criticism has followed when still another director arises in Wednesday's CRIMSON and says in effect: "Hold, hold. These whom you criticise are members of the Faculty endorsed by the President and Fellows. How could you get a more perfect set of men or a better plan?" Now it is submitted that because the Corporation considers a man fit to instruct in Engineering or even to be in the English department it does not thereby recommend him as an expert in seismology or for president of the steel trust or even as an average acute business man. And then, in Thursday's CRIMSON, another director, the President, in defense of his failure to allow a minority report says the motion voted by the Society does not allow for such a procedure. In view of the fact that the motion was made by a director and voted in a meeting composed largely of friends of the directors, his explanation is merely ingenuous.

Another director in urging support of the plan says that promises have been made to employes of the Society. It's true that the waiters of Memorial and the clerks of the Co-operative sometimes act as though they were the real rulers of the University, but that's no sign that we will support directors who allow that condition to arise. Finally, he urges that a corporation should be formed because the Society often buys "for cash and on thirty days" and therefore large bills are frequently due. Perhaps he is not aware that out in the real business world "cash" includes payment within thirty or even sixty days. In fact all the directors seem to be under the impression that an organization cannot transact business unless it is under exact legal liability at every point. They forget, or do not know, that modern business is done on credit and not on legal liabilities. A student under age is trusted for luxuries by tradesmen not because he can be sued, but because his honor will cause him to pay. And so the Co-operative can get credit not because its legal liability is fixed on certain persons, but because it has always paid its bills.

Perhaps the present loose partnership is offensive to a legal mind, but perfection is seldom found on earth, even in a University Faculty, much less in a more business organization. One of the defects alleged against the present system by the majority directors is the difficulty of signing leases, yet they forget to mention the number of leases they deal in daily. If they mean a lease of a larger building, which they have already decided against, I can refer them to a reputable real estate broker of Cambridge who told me today that he would be willing to sign a lease with the present Society for any length of time. Further, the present Society can surely buy goods either for cash or on credit, for all modern business is largely done on credit and not on legal liabilities, as the directors would have us think. The majority directors hint at some future indefinite difficulties for the Society. Among them may perhaps be classed a fight which Cambridge dealers will make. In fact one of them says that they will welcome a corporation run by five Harvard professors for it can be run out of business within two years. He further expressed some surprise that the College should so directly engage in competitive business as to allow the formation of a corporation whose stockholders must always be members of the Faculty. The fight between the College and town is already sufficiently bitter without adding this weapon to the town.

Aside from any plan of re-organization it may be questioned why officers of any undergraduate society should get salaries or professional fees. A lesson might be drawn from the overthrow of the late directorate of Memorial because it voted a $50.00 position to one of its members. The Presidents of Memorial and of Randall and the Chairman of the Athletic Committee get no salary, yet to the lay mind their work is quite as exacting as the Presidency of the Co-operative. T. H. WHITNEY.