(We invite all men in the University to submit communications on subjects of timely interest, but assume no responsibility for sentiments expressed under this head.)

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:-

Concerning the crew situation which you have brought before undergraduate attention, I should like to say that I feel there has been much misunderstanding both on the part of the undergraduates in general and on the part of Captain Morgan and those supporting the supremacy of the captain. The absolute control of the coach does not necessarily mean either the subordination of the captain or a lessening of his influence, nor does it mean the institution of a system of coaching whereby the head coach is to rule, as a despot, roughshod over rowing traditions or over undergraduate ideas. To those who expect or await the establishment of such a dictator to govern Harvard rowing I express an opinion that they are doomed to disappointment. There has never been encouraged in any sport that sort of control; and I hope there never will be a time when the undergraduate is to work under a system which requires of him only a mechanical performance.

On the other hand, to the adherents of the "captain supreme" idea, I can do no more than point out a few facts. In years when Harvard crews have been coached by forceful, intelligent and level-headed gentlemen, Harvard captains, many of them of the so-called great ones, have not hesitated to yield the selection

of the men and the coaching of the crew to the older, more mature and experienced eye of the instructor. One has but to name men like Bancroft, Storrow, Lehman and Mr. Herrick in his coaching of the Henley crew to bear out this statement. Captains of crews coached by these men did not lose any of the credit, nor the opportunity to influence, mould and lead their crews. Unfortunately men of that stamp have not always been available and with the recourse to professional coaches it has often become necessary for the captain to shoulder responsibilities which improperly burden him and in some cases have greatly diminished his value as an oarsman. The captain-elect is until the night of the race with Yale simply an oarsman, without experience in judging men or styles of rowing or of any particular executive ability. That his election should qualify him three months later not only to assume the responsibility of the University rowing, coaching and selection of men but also the burden of directing fall rowing, dormitory rowing, class rowing, and the responsibility of running two boat houses is preposterous. Some of them have tried to do it all and have failed at New London. Others have confined themselves to the University crews, have succeeded at New London, but have failed to keep rowing interests in general alive and increasing. The policies of no two consecutive captains have been the same. The extent of control has depended very largely on the individual captain. Consequently rowing interests have fluctuated in years almost unbelievably.

The Freshman dormitories have brought an increased rowing fraternity, requiring added boating, and coaching facilities. It is impossible and unreasonable to expect the captain to stand responsible for the whole situation any more than it is possible to expect the University football captain personally to supervise Freshman, second, and class team football.

The Athletic Association has in the last few years, with the aid of the crew managers, taken much of the routine labor from the captain's hands. There has got to come a time when a situation similar to the football organization exists. There has got to be a responsible head, some one of experience and executive ability who cannot only teach the University rowing, but to whom ultimately every decision of importance should be taken. Percy Haughton has filled that place splendidly in one sport. As head coach he has directed a continuous policy for Freshman football and second-team football. He has been able to outline the work and control the progress of those teams as a part of his University system. Often this has allowed men of in experience to act most ably as coaches where without the supervision of a responsible head the same men would have groped in the dark. Autocrat as he is supposed to be, it is significant that the selection of his men has invariably been the majority, if not the unanimous, selection of his coaches and the captain. Questions of policy and of selection are always matters openly discussed at coaches' meetings and seldom if ever has any undergraduate dared to suggest favoritism, club politics, or other reason than merit for a man's selection. Yet under this system the captain has not become subordinated. The football captain leaves his mark on his team as undeniably as ever and his service to the team has increased many fold with his release from other responsibilities. Instead of its being a maxim that no