To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

Having heard so much lately the use of the word "soviet," I decided to look it up and find out its meaning. I was rather surprised to find that it meant nothing more than "committee," and I wondered why it had never been applied to our Congressional manner of doing business. Another translation of the word, making it mean "conference," made me wonder why, since they use the word so freely, the Boston "Transcript" and the New York "Times" do not speak of our present Industrial Soviet at Washington. Perhaps the word is reserved for those conferences or councils which are un-American. But would we call the Industrial Conference un-American? or an importation from Russia? Why have all the opposition papers been so opaque as not to see how well they could hit the Conference by calling by the anathema anathematum--"Soviet"?

It is time that college men quit the use of terms which are coined for a popular purpose, and which only befog any possible intelligent consideration of issues. Let us discuss industrial representation in government instead of "soviet" government and cease this business of giving a dog a bad name and hanging him for it. As they used to ask, "Do you believe in man's divine nature or his descent from monkeys?" So now they ask, "Do you believe in American or Soviet government?" It should be the distinction of college men above non-college men, as trained thinkers, that they rise above such labelling.

One word more. They used to call that class of men, found in all countries, who spend their lives in the pursuit of this thing, "Truth", by one name--"intellectuals". Of this group, Professor Carver and Mr. Laski are both examples; both carn their living by thinking and the orizing. But one accuses the other indirectly of being "a Parlor Bolshevist." That kills him. Put a label on him and he is, dead as old Polomius.

When a man fights, he should fight with two fists, not with bad names. HAROLD M. FLEMING '20.