At the outset, the CRIMSON wishes to state that it is heartily in favor of a Student Council, provided it be an efficient one. We object to the new plan, however, because we do not believe that it provides for an effective body.

Owing to the unfortunate career of the old Council, the average undergraduate does not place any great confidence in such organizations. This renders it especially needful for a new Council to start with the full approbation and support of the entire student body. The new plan, owing to several obvious defects in its constitution and, also, to the fact that there is no provision for adequate ratification, will not have the confidence of the students.

The crux of the whole matter lies in the powers of the new Council. These are not specific, definite, or real. We realize that the mere ratification of a new Council with plenary powers would not actually put it in possession of these powers. For, with one or two exceptions, the students have not the authority to grant such powers. These must be obtained from the Faculty. Our point is that unless the Faculty can be persuaded to grant real authority to the new Council, we had better have no such body at all. For another merely advisory Council must result in a failure as complete as that of the old body.

Our attack on the scheme for a new Student Council has been criticized as purely destructive. It is certainly destructive as regards the present scheme. If this plan fails of ratification, however, then the ground will be cleared and constructive action may begin. It is our idea that the proper way to obtain an effective Council is as follows: Have a small body of men elected, either at large or by classes, to draw up a constitution. In view of the present discussion, there would be much material at hand to work on. This new constitution should embody real powers, but no more than the committee deems essential to render the body effective. If the Faculty refuses to grant these powers or equivalent ones, then the whole matter must be dropped. In adopting such a plan, however, the committee is taking no unnecessary chances. For if the Faculty is not willing to give us an effective body, then, certainly, nothing can be gained from repeating the experiment of another useless Council. In case the Faculty sees fit to confer the necessary authority on the new body, the constitution should be submitted to the undergraduates for ratification. When ratified, the members of the Council will be elected.

By adopting some such course, there would be a Student Council of real worth and one that would possess the hearty approval of the undergraduates. If, on the other hand, the present scheme is ratified we will be in possession of a Council with a hastily constructed and faulty constitution. A constitution which precludes the possibility of the new Council becoming a real and effective force in the undergraduate world.

The first communication printed this morning deserves comment. To begin with, it states that the old Council is "not yet officially dead." If failing to perpetuate itself within its constitutional limits, and this it certainly failed to do, does not constitute its official demise, what can? The majority of even those in favor of the new plan recognize that the old Council is now defunct. Next, how can the defunct Council, or supposing for the moment that it still exists, how can its very nominating committee sit down and proceed entirely to revamp its constitution when provision for legally carrying out such amending is otherwise provided for in the constitution itself? Art. B. (2) of the old constitution reads: "This constitution may be amended by a two-thirds vote of the entire Council after three weeks' notice of such change has been given the undergraduates." There cannot be a shadow of a doubt that whichever way we look at it this remodelling is illegal. We have already stated that we consider the proposed altered make-up of the Council excellent, but that is no reason why the new constitution should be hastily and illegally adopted, imperfections and all. The answer to the fourth paragraph of the communication is that the members of the old nominating committee have long outlived their rights as such, whereas the ex-officiis members provided for in the constitution submitted, if it were accepted, would be the most logical body through which to make the necessary nominations. And next we are arraigned upon a quibble for inconsistency, a charge to which we are exposed by the very inconsistency of the new instrument itself, for while it proposes in its preamble to accomplish certain ends by "direct jurisdiction over individual students," no such powers are mentioned in the "Powers of the Council," nor are they granted in fact.

Since the writer of the communication descends almost to personalities, we wish to refer him to an editorial in the CRIMSON of February 28, 1878, which denoted our policy then, as now, and which said that editorials represent the opinion of the entire Board and that "there is no such thing as the author of an editorial in the CRIMSON." We do not doubt the sincerity of the committee in question, and our reason for stating that the list of nominees which it submitted was not the most representative possible was, first, because we believed this to be the case, and, second, because we wished to show the necessity of a provision for nomination by petition in the constitution The concluding statement to the effect that, provided the Council be formed, "the power will not be lacking" is, in view of the powers specifically granted by the new constitution and in view of past experience, too indefinite and unsupported a statement to warrant a reply.