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:

The Union has just completed its third year of official existence--a disappointing one to those who hoped with Major Higginson that it would "stand a temple consecrated to the spirit of large patriotism and true democracy." His and our high ideals have not been accomplished. No one is to blame; we are-all to blame. No particular person or committee can be censured above others. The fault has been general and it is the fault of unbusinesslike methods--almost lack of interest.

The House Committee, the chief governing power of the Union, last year elected a chairman who was to be absent for the greater part of his term; on his departure a successor was appointed, not elected; at the meetings of the committee some members almost made it a business to stay away, or if present took no active part in the affairs they were elected to transact. The Membership Committee this year was lax in performing the small amount of business its duties called for: five men not members of the Union were nominated for officers; the list of nominees was representative of a particular class of men and not of the University; the number of men required by the Constitution was not nominated; all the undergraduate nominations were made by three men instead of by the five who should have attended.

The faults alone are here mentioned. The Committees have accomplished much that is good and it is only fair to say that their work has been more successful than that of any of the previous committees. The faults are not great, but they are typical of that unbusiness-like, drifting, lackadaisical policy which, in the absence of other evidence, may be assumed to be partly responsible for the Union's failure to fulfill all its possibilities during the past three years.

There is no call for a radical departure. But there is reason--and strong reason, too--for greater care than ever in choosing the men who are to accept the trust of caring for an institution which should be regarded as Harvard's most valued possession--a veritable "House of Fellowship." Among the nominees there are men who will work for the Union. They are naturally difficult to distinguish. But every member of the Union can today well afford to weigh them in the balance of his own mind and after the dictates of his own conscience cast his vote for the men who will make the Union what it ought to be--an honor to the University and to its donor. Let personal considerations nowhere arise; let us all remember the words of its donor when he gave his gift in generous trust into our hands: "May it be used only for the general good, and may private ends never be sought here." 1905.