In denying any official connection between the University and the Harvard Economic Society, the Harvard authorities once more lay themselves open to the accusation of not being wholly frank with the public. Legal though the separation may be, many business men believed the bulletins to be official. Harvard professors still act as the officers of the society. By failing to force the Society to discontinue the use of the name of Harvard, the authorities allowed it, and so might have been interpreted to sanction it. In all these ways the connection between the University and the private business organization were were popularly conceived.

On the other hand the University was legally independent. It cannot be considered responsible for the actions of its professors. It was known, probably widely, that there was no connection between the private enterprise and the official Economics Department. Furthermore, other private ventures, though not of so academic a nature, use and capitalize on the name of Harvard. Consequently the University cannot be expected to defend its right to the sole use of the name. Intelligent subscribers to the bulletins would probably be aware of many of these things.

Here is a question for enthusiastic people, prone to ethical speculation. What is more fundamental is that the attacker takes a grossly exaggerated position in regard to the importance of these bulletins in the market collapse and industrial depression. This can be left to the economists.