The CRIMSON'S editorial "Tag-Day Every Day" which took a stand against indiscriminate campaigns for divers charities, directed against the proverbially wealthy, but actually indigent student, has drawn a torrent of protest from those who do not understand its real purpose. It was simply an expression of the impatience that many men feel at being accosted and canvassed for all sorts of charitable projects just because they are college men.

That the ordinary college man is far less able to contribute even to charities in which he is directly interested, than the average working man is a fact so well known that it hardly needs to be demonstrated. Just to prove it, if you doubt it, ask the first ten men you meet in the Yard how much ready money they have with them, available for charity or anything else. Their answer will indicate why they resent indiscriminate personal appeals for aid.

The CRIMSON was hitting at no sect, creed or color when it protested against such personal campaigns. The writer of the editorial hadn't the faintest idea whether the most recent "flower Day" was for a Jewish society, or a Turkish or Swedish one. He simply knew that it was a private campaign, unauthorized by the University, and with an aim not generally known in the University. The CRIMSON is sorry if any one saw in the editorial an imputation that the "flower day" Monday was an attempt to get money under false pretenses. Nothing of the sort was intended.

It was suggested that fraudulent collectors might be encouraged to practice their wiles on students, by the success of unauthorized collections of all sorts. For example, last week a youth was canvassing the Senior dormitories to raise money to pay what he called his "intuition fee." Such bogus enterprises are bound to follow so many intrinsically legitimate, but unauthorized appeals for aid.

The CRIMSON is sorry to have been so misinterpreted. In all fairness, it reiterates that a principle, and not any particular organization or sect was the object of its editorial.