(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 inappropriate.)

--

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

Prompted by your editorial of Tuesday, May 27th, I venture to express a prevalent opinion with regard to the CRIMSON'S attitude toward the proposed "Harvard Daily." The instinct of self-defense must, of course, have prompted the CRIMSON to reply to the severe but true attack of the Harvard Magazine, but neither instinct nor reason can excuse the weakness and evasiveness of that reply. Literary pouting and stamping of the feet not only are no defense, but argue for the truth of the opposide view. The fact that the CRIMSON enjoys a monopoly as a college newspaper is no defense of its editorial policy--as weak and spineless a policy as we may ever hope to see. Also, the grandiose statement that, in 316 editorials, three out of four expressed "decided and unqualified opinions," does not affect the vacillation and vacuity of the other twenty-five percent. I should like, for instance, fair play and frank speech on the words "a six-column paper would need as much support from the banks of Boston as the Magazine now receives from a certain type of 'instructor.'" In short, if the CRIMSON keeps on digging its own pit as rapidly as it has in such editorials as this reply, sooner of later the fall is bound to come. ALAN H. CLILLTON '20.