(Ed. Note--The Crimson does not necessarily endorse opinions expressed in printed communications. No attention will be paid to anonymous letters and only under special conditions, at the request of the writer, will names be with-held.)

To the Editor of the CRIMSON:

Yesterday's CRIMSON carried an editorial entitled "Dark Day" and concerning the "drab record" of this year's Debating Council. The facts and interpretations in the article seem sufficiently erronious to warrant a correction.

The H.Y.P debates were omitted this year for two reasons. In the first place the triangle was not included, as in former years, on the League schedule, but Brown and Wesleyan were substituted instead. In the second place, the Chairman of the Princeton Speaker's Union, who had charge of the arrangements for this year (not Harvard), informed us that he had written Yale and that they were "not interested" in holding the debate, presumably because it was not included on the League schedule and would have meant extra preparation and expense. Moreover he said that the debate could not be held at Princeton before vacation because of conflicting engagements and that hence "it would be better to omit the meeting this year."

The next contention of the CRIMSON seems to spring from a difference of opinion concerning the purpose of a debate. The writer of the editorial evidently considers debating to be a game, in which victory is the raison d' etre. The members of the Debating Council hold a different, and I believe more mature view. They believe that the content of the debate, and not the decision, is of prime importance, and that debating finds its justification in the opportunity which it offers the college man to express his own, individual opinion on questions of public interest.

The third criticism concerns the $100 deficit. "After scores of debates," the editorial states, "some with paying audiences of five hundred, the Council faces a ledger with one hundred dollars on the wrong side." The Council began the year with $20 in the treasury. It engaged in nine home debates. Money was lost on six of these. Two just payed for themselves. On one--that with Boston College--$79.00 was cleared. This year's financial experience was typical, and not unusual, as the editorial would lead one to believe. By its very nature debating is not a profitable motivity. Harvard is one of the few colleges in the country which does not afford debating a subsidy of from $250 to $5000 annually. It is one of the few colleges which expect debating to pay, and one of the many in which it does not pay.

The writer continued his financial discussion by stating that "The vote of the Council to establish a graduate advisory committee--would indicate a self-confession of the Council's inability successfully to run its own affairs." I cannot perceive the logic in such a conclusion. Does the presence of a similar graduate committee on the Lampoon and the Advocate and the Dramatic Club and the CRIMSON carry a like significance? The Debating Council chose to elect a graduate committee because such a committee is found affiliated with every stable and lasting undergraduate organization in Cambridge, and also because it will be of immeasurable aid in carrying out the project of an alumni endowment fund which was voted upon at the last meeting.

I have already mentioned that the Harvard Council does not approve of decision debating, and it would seem that this alone is sufficient reason for dropping out of the League, in as much as the very existence of this association implies that judging and decisions are of major importance. On top of this, however, appears the financial problem. It costs approximately $75 to send a team to Philadelphia. The League schedule provides for three trips away from Cambridge and the entertainment of three visiting teams in Cambridge. The League chooses the questions. These debates have not proved popular in Cambridge, and have attracted smaller crowds than the "free-lance" debates. Hence the Council cannot possibly afford to continue them unless it received a special grant from the College to defray the extra expense.... J. Mack Swigert, '30.   Ex-President, Harvard   Debating Council.