It is unfortunate that Adjutant-General Pearson should seize the present moment for what sounds like ill-advised and unsound criticism of the splendid work for military preparedness now under way at Harvard. His disavowal of intent to find fault will scarcely remedy the favorable opinion that many persons will be inclined to form. In belittling the intensified training of officers at Harvard, Adjutant-General Pearson is taking a position directly opposed to that of the leading military authorities of the United States. The Harvard course has the approval and support of the War Department. The program of training as mapped out by Captain Constant Cordier, Professor of Military Science and Tactics, and commandant of the training corps, is are of the most comprehensive and useful training plans that has been accepted at any large non-land-grant university in the United States. There is ample authority for the statement that six months of such work as is now being done will create there a considerable body of college men capable of serving as reserve officers in the event of war. Captain Cordier has admitted that he would prefer to have a year of intensive training, but since, in the present emergency, we are hardly likely to have so much time at our disposal, as much work as possible must be done in six months. The criticism that this training is only incidental to the education of the students is hardly a sound one. Is not the entire training received in the National Guard "incidental"? Boston Transcript.