To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

In one of the recently published references to the Mod. Fac. these words occur: "Several of its members, as a result of their acts, might be punished by the College and put in prison by the civil authorities. In consideration of a promise to relieve them of these penalties the undergraduate members of the Med. Fac. have contracted to bring the existence of the society to a close." No description of the proposed agreement could be further from the truth than this last sentence; but it represents a popular misconception that accounts for most of the criticism that has been aroused. It is true that the College authorities will "stand aside" and "let the law take its course" but those who suppose that the action of the law is dependent upon whether its arms are held up by the College authorities or not, are very much mistaken. The law can be expected to take care of itself, and it is only fair to all concerned that the responsibility for the final action on the criminal case should be taken by the appropriate authority, namely the court.

The disposition of the criminal side of the case, therefore, does not and cannot enter into the arrangement. As a criminal act the breaking into Phillips Brooks House is beyond the province of the Faculty. It remains, then, to be dealt with as an infraction of College discipline. With that, the College authorities exclusively have to do, and they must decide what is to the best permanent interest of College discipline, without any regard to the irrelevant newspaper talk which not only assumes that the offender is to be let off by the court, but would make the College responsible for the immunity they so confidently predict. '96.