(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 inapprepriate.)

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

The undersigned gladly accept the "Indignant Challenge" which appeared in the Friday CRIMSON. We can hardly believe that the gentlemen were even present at the meeting they denounce. Had they been, they must have noted that Mr. Humphries, while inclined to find considerable good in the Soviet regime in Russia, in no sense advocated Bolshevism, but confined himself to an instructive narrative of what he actually saw during eleven months in Russia. During these months Mr. Humphries was successively employed by the United States Committee of Public Information, the Red Cross and the Young Men's Christian Association. Mr. Humphries has had exceptional opportunities for observing conditions in Central Russia and Siberia, having been present at the signing of the Brest-Litovsk treaty, at the disbanding of the famous Constituent Assembly, and at two of the All-Russian Congresses of Soviets, as well as on other important political occasions.

However, the superficial denunciations contained in the letter are less astounding when one reads further that the present government of Russia is a "Government with which the United States is internally and externally at war." Here is a worse error, which law students especially should not make. The United States has never declared war on Russia. If a de facto war or blockade exists it is clearly unconstitutional and illegal. It should be the object of every patriotic citizen to secure the enforcement of the law.

Even more than the charges against the meeting do we resent the implication that the University authorities only sanctioned the meeting because they were ignorant of its character. This seems a direct insinuation that the Harvard administration is unwilling to let both sides of a difficult question be studied here. But Harvard is fortunate in not being administered by Prussian autocrats.

The letter ends with an exhortation to the sponsors of the meeting to come forth and declare their belief that "Social and economic theories now in practice in Russia are in any sense applicable to the traditions, institutions and aims of this country." We are sorry to disappoint, but none of us can make such a statement. We vary in our opinions from those who believe the work the Soviets are doing in Russia is at least an improvement over the age-long terrorism of the Czar to those who condemn it. None of us maintain that the program and methods of Lenine and Trotzky are "Applicable to the traditions, institutions and aims of this country." Some of us do fear lest the suppression in America of free speech and check of the revolutionary growth of industrial democracy, if continued, may lead to the same pitiful misery, violence and destruction as has accompanied the Russian Revolution.

When we arranged the Humphries meeting we were actuated by two motives: 1, the desire of every loyal Harvard man to enrich the intellectual opportunities of the College; 2, the desire to stimulate here at Harvard an unpartizan study of conditions in Russia.

We hope this meeting may be the first of a series of meetings to be addressed by men who have actually been in Russia--both pro and anti-Soviet. For as students we want the facts.  ROBERT WORMSER '22  JOHN ROTHSCHILD, Occ.  JOSEPH TURKEL '21  HAROLD M. FLEMING '20  ARTHUR FISHIER 3L