To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

The generous CRIMSON, with its profession of patriotism, has said recently of the Harvard Union for American Neutrality in an editorial entitled "Worse Than Slackers": "Suddenly a new group in opposition to Harvard prepared has arisen. It is called the Harvard Union for American Neutrality, a high-sounding idealistic name which successfully clothes the real spirit of this unfortunate movement."

Previously, this Union had published a platform which declared, among other things, that:

"War is not the inevitable sequel of the severance of diplomatic relations."

"Participation by America in the general European conflict would be a misfortune to humanity."

"Democracy demands a general referendum before a declaration of war."

Nowhere in the seven declarations of the platform is there a single word to indicate any opposition by its signers to the Reserve Officers' Training Corps or to preparedness; but from some fad or fancy the CRIMSON has construed the document into an expression of hostility and has turned loose its mighty wrath. The reason for this, I believe, can be made out from a consideration of the way in which the CRIMSON has come to be our heroic defender of the national honor.

On February 6, three days after diplomatic relations between the United States and Germany had been severed, the CRIMSON says: "Preparation does not-predicate war. On the contrary it looks clearly, with no false prejudice, at the future." And on February 7: "We are not primarily preparing for war tomorrow; we are not preparing for war against Germany. We are preparing for war when war shall come, from whatsoever source, from those nations which seem our dearest friends, or from those which we ignore." This simple, sensible program would suit even the most pronounced pacifist. No good American wants our nation unprepared.

Between the 7th and 13th the CRIMSON experienced a change of heart and gained fast in wisdom and prophecy. On the latter date it says: "It would be well if we could put off till tomorrow what seems obnoxious today. But war will not be put off. . . . We are now so near war that the sinking of one American ship, the wanton destruction of American lives, would draw us inevitably into the maelstrom." Since that date the second American ship has been sunk and other American lives destroyed but we are not yet at war. The cocksureness of the CRIMSON has not even pulled us in.

After a sleepless night the CRIMSON began to see red, and on the morning of February 14 it threw a fit: "Only 600 men in Harvard University have thus far aroused themselves from their comfortable state of lethargy. . . . Will it take the very rumble of the enemy's guns to convince them? . . . Ordinary peace-time excuses are no longer excuses" Shades of Patrick Henry! Here is the CRIMSON transformed from a modest advocate of universal preparedness for social efficiency into a war conjurer. These words are wonderfully like the cries of other people in 1914: The enemy is coming! We are being attacked! Our national security is endangered! etc. etc.

Now enters the Harvard Union for American Neutrality with its great hope. Will the CRIMSON countenance such weak-kneed pusillanimity? No indeed! The CRIMSON has declared war, and war it shall be! "We are in complete ac- cord with the belief that all international questions ought to be decided through diplomatic channels and by reference to arbitration courts and boards of inquiry. But the actual situation has passed beyond the control of such remedies." (February 16).

How admirably does Mr. Cecil H. Smith sum up the situation when, in speaking for the Union, he says: "What we stand for, above all, is a democratic and enlightened method of deciding whether war or peace is our duty. What we are fighting against are the Prussian methods and spirit which do at least seem to threaten Harvard's ideas of freedom and reason!"

The fact is that the CRIMSON is not doing its own thinking; it is merely reflecting manufactured opinion that already has millions of the sons of men destroying one another. It is overcome by the "tinsel and braggadocio" of marching armies and booming navies. Here is a fine illustration of how an idea, half thought out, may take one off his feet when experience and reason do not give him sufficient footing. The Union may be "idealistic"; it is at least thoughtful and deserves to have an intelligent interpretation put upon its conduct. After attacking the Union the valiant CRIMSON brushes the mud from its skirts and says, with the air of a martyr: "Those in the van of any new movement must withstand constant attacks from groups of individuals who are compelled to join the camp of the opposition because of their inherent desire to appear individual, obstinate, or wise, on account of their aloofness."

Between making war and resisting imaginary attacks the CRIMSON leads a busy life. But the CRIMSON might leave those matters to the diplomats and concern itself with the promotion of frank and intelligent discussion among its readers of the issues upon which we may have to fight. If we must fight let us at least know why we fight and what our gains will be.  R. MCCANTS ANDREWS 2L.