(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:

As a member of the Harvard Union for American Neutrality I have frequently been asked what stand the Union takes on armed neutrality. Our position is that "armed neutrality is a far more effective means of maintaining American rights than war." This is not an endorsement of armed neutrality as opposed to all other possible policies; neither is it a repudiation of our principles as previously stated. It is an endeavor to bring our platform up to date.

Armed neutrality certainly has its drawbacks and dangers; notably that of leading us perilously near to the brink of war. However, even though we go as far as arming our ships and convoying them, sinking submarines on sight: even though Germany declares war, we should on no account declare war on our part. It is the rights of neutrals to traverse the high seas in time of war that we wish to establish. If we stop at armed neutrality the issue is always clear. The warfare which might ensue would be of a purely defensive sort, and at the same time of the kind most effective against the submarines--which are the only part of Germany we have cause to fight. We should not be in any way committing ourselves to the purposes of the Allies, such as expelling the Turk from Europe, and winning back Alsace-Lorraine for France or the Trentino for Italy, or forcing huge indemnities from Germany, and so on.

Much as some of us may be in sympathy with these aims, they are not our purposes. If we wish to accomplish anything, we must keep the issue absolutely clear at all times, and not allow it to become beclouded by entangling alliances or by the hatred attendant upon warfare. HALLOWELL DAVIS '18.