We invite all men in the University to submit communications on subjects of timely interest. The CRIMSON is not, however, responsible for the sentiments expressed in such communications as may be printed.

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

Your editorial in this morning's CRIMSON comes as a most unexpected and unjustifiable attack on the class of 1907. You state that "the history of the class from the beginning, viewed from its negative or indifferent position on most questions which have intimately concerned it or the University, would incline the hasty observer toward the first mentioned reason (that the class is wilfully failing to take its fair part in the University's life and activities). This is strong language, and language that should either be substantiated or retracted. You convey the impression that the past history of the class is irrevocably wrapped in a dark cloud of failure and disgrace. "Mediocrity" and "failure" were the words the CRIMSON used last year, I believe. In point of fact, however, a few straggling rays of light appear to have penetrated the cloud. 1907, it would seem, need not be ashamed of her athletic record for the past year. Football, hockey and basketball victories over Yale, a baseball series with the Yale freshmen resulting in a tie, and a defeat at their hands in one of the closest boat races that has ever been rowed on the Thames, scarcely authorize the CRIMSON to speak of the "backwardness of the class in athletics." In addition to having men on the University football, baseball and track teams, 1907 won the interclass baseball championship. No Freshman class has succeeded in doing this since 1903's Freshman year. This letter is not written with the object of extolling the merits of 1907, but merely to show the groundlessness with which certain of the statements in the CRIMSON are made.

The charge that the class is indifferent on "questions which have intimately concerned it or the University," is false and ridiculous. The stand taken on the question of the "Bloody Monday" rush is in itself a sufficient proof that the class is alive to the best interests of the University.

That the editorial in question was written with the laudable intention of inducing men to take an active part in the affairs of the University, is apparent. The unfavorable impression of the class, however, which it will undoubtedly tend to create in the minds of outsiders will be very strong, and as a member of the class of 1907 I wish to protest against the editorial. J. REYNOLDS, Jr.