(The Crimson invites all men in the University to submit signed communications of timely interest. It assumes no responsibility, however, for sentiments expressed under this head and reserves the right to exclude any whose publication would be palpably in appropriate.)

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

As an ex-Rhodes Scholar I wish to protest gently against some of the suggestions of the editorial entitled "Rhodes Scholars Old and New." That "hitherto American Rhodes Scholars were not a great success at Oxford" and that the "Yankee" at Oxford has not been truly representative of the best that America can produce, are two assumptions which I doubt if you are entitled to make, however little I may be in a position gracefully to repute them. If you are under the impression that recent writings in the Atlantic Monthly give you authority, a less cursory reading of those articles will answer you.

But I am anxious to correct one misstatement about which there can be no difference of opinion. Both heretofore and now the number of Rhodes men at Oxford at one time has been normally two from each state; the scholarships are for three years, and one man is appointed from each state two years out of every three. And there has been no new ruling to prevent the appointment of unworthy candidates; such a ruling always existed. The Rhodes Trust, it seems to me, has not shown any such lack of confidence in former methods or former scholars as you suggest. Would it be discourteous to point out that they have all evidence and that you have, so far as you show, none? E. P. CHASK 1G.