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

The CRIMSON has also received communications from E. M. Howell Unc. and W. F. Starr Unc., both former students at the University of Washington, expressing in general the views set forth below by Judge Stone.

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:--

There is nothing more unprofitable than to criticise a letter sent to the public press. However, the letter from Mr. Paul McK. Palmer which recently appeared in your columns seems to demand an answer on account of its character. I would not take the trouble to point out its many obvious errors were it not for two things:

First, it practically charges the debating authorities of Harvard with not giving our visitors from the University of Washington a square deal, and second it makes a most discourteous attack upon three prominent citizens of the community who did both Universities the honor of acting as judges at the recent debate. Mr. Palmer makes the deliberate charge that Governor McCall, Judge De Courcy of our Supreme Judicial Court and Dean Albers of Boston University Law School are "unfair" and "unfitted" for the task which they assumed. The only evidence he adduces to prove this remarkable assertion is the fact that they did not agree with him and he believes that they did not agree with the audience.

It may be true, as the judges themselves said, that the debate was close and the decision difficult. While I am biased, it is perhaps fair for me to point out that I am not without experience in judging debates and have on more than one occasion recognized the superiority of Harvard's opponents. In this debate, however, while I should not have thought of questioning an adverse decision, I felt that the Harvard men were entitled to the verdict, and unless I am greatly mistaken a large majority of those present would agree with me.

This I admit is quite beside the point. The real question is whether Mr. Palmer has any right to apply the words "unfit" and "unfair" to the judges who were selected. Surely their prominence in the community would not lead us to suspect that he is right. All three of the gentlemen in question are well known, and would seem to command the respect and confidence of their fellow citizens. Their disqualifications for such a position seem to have occurred only to Mr. Palmer. His first specification is that they are all New Englanders. This is not quite true literally as Dean Albers is a native of Illinois. It is true, however, that their inerests are essentially here in New England. If this argument of Mr. Palmer's has any logic it must be that he believes that because they are New Englanders they will be in sympathy wih New England ideas, that Harvard represents New England ideas and that these gentlemen were so imbued with their New England provincialism and their admiration for Harvard that they decided the debate according to their prejudices and not according to the arguments presented. He asks why we could not have had judges from Chicago or New York. From long experience in obtaining judges I can answer that it is difficult to get men in the immediate vicinity to give their time to this rather unwelcome task. To suppose that three competent judges could be brought to Boston from Chicago for the purpose of deciding the Harvard-Washington debate shows, to put it mildly, ignorance of the subject. It also shows ignorance to assume that Harvard alone selects the judges. Such is not the case.

But a more complete exposure of the futility of Mr. Palmer's assumption is apparent when we know the facts. Two of the three judges are not so impreg- nated with New England provincialism as their critic imagines. They actually had the temerity to believe, as a matter of principle, in our opponent's case. Many other New Englanders doubtless do the same. The third judge did not commit himself one way or the other, but it seems to be a fact that at least a majority of the board were prejudiced in favor of our visitor's side of the subject. They were not alumni of Harvard. It would seem, therefore, that when Mr. Palmer assumes that the judges "are completely in accord with the Institution and ideas which the Harvard team stood for and are completely in discord with the principles that the team from the West brings with them," he is not even correct in his premise, which renders his rather violent conclusion that therefore they were unfit and would act unfairly, distasteful to believers in fair play.

All this emphasizes the error, to put it mildly, which Mr. Palmer has committed. Apparently stung by a defeat of the institution of which he was once a member he has not hesitated to publicly accuse guests of the University of unblemished reputation of being grossly negligent and unfair, and sets up his puerile dissatisfaction as the measure by which to judge a decision rendered by men whose business it is to make continually unbiased decisions in far weightier matters than were here involved. Unfortunately Mr. Palmer's letter has not been confined to University circles where perhaps it would be laughed at and understood. It has been copied in the public press, in one instance under the caption "Unfair to Washington." Governor McCall, Judge De Courey and Dean Albers have had too much experience probably to give the matter more than a passing thought but the fact remains that a student in the University publicly has made an atrocious attack upon them, and in so doing has grossly viloated every principle of courtesy.

Mr. Palmer says "We Westerners are not poor losers." His letter, however, is the letter of a poor loser. I am glad to say that I saw nothing in the attitude of the men from the University of Washington, in their brief visit here, that leads me to believe that they are in sympathy with it. They took their defeat manfully, and even if they did not win in their entire stay very admirably represented the University that sent them forth. Mr. Palmer himself should be taught some of the first principles of sportsmanship. Every University has its traditions. An experience of over a quarter of a century with Harvard undergraduates leads me to believe that they insist on courtesy.