To the Editor of the Bulletin:

The four-square stand taken in your last week's letter box on the CRIMSON's editorial "effusion" on the Army game prompts me to a word of explanation and correction. All four writers, three of whom approach the subject intelligently, are men less in touch with present day undergraduate thought, and especially that of the CRIMSON, than might be hoped for opponents of an undergraduate view.

It is therefore only fair to reveal the fact that the CRIMSON's "Blue Monday" editorial does not state a new opinion on the subject of Army eligibility. If memory serves me right, this is the third, possibly the fourth, successive year in which the CRIMSON has reiterated its stand against playing the Army, or signing new contracts as long as West Point officials continue to defy the highest college eligibility code of the East.

Of course the CRIMSON was tactless; it took a snarling tone as does any often-threatened dog; it impressed into service arguments which are, to say the lest, doubtful. Nevertheless, it was politically wise for the CRIMSON to speak in the year Harvard won just as loudly as it has spoken in years when the Army has colored the Stadium with a pale pink. It would have been hypocritical to do otherwise.

Three points of the CRIMSON's editorial stand of this and previous years, the correspondents were, I think, quite right in opposing. The first two, that the Army and Harvard have no interests in common, and that Army-Harvard games are not popular, found a straight division of the house, with the CRIMSON voting "Aye", the graduates "Nay". But both stands on these questions are un-provable, and the questions themselves really extraneous. The third point is the CRIMSON's sneering tone, which is, of course, insupportable.

But the CRIMSON's primary argument, based on at least three years of tradition, is logical, reasonable, and high-minded. It is decidedly inconsistent for Harvard to make an exception in the case of the Army to eligibility standards which Harvard uses itself and demands from other opponents, by the simple expedient of not playing those who do not live up to such standards. It is the constant thought in the minds of undergraduate editors that Harvard would be more courageous and high-principled in practice if it were to take the same stand as the Navy on the three-year eligibility rule. To refuse to play Army, to refuse to accept contracts, to take up the defiance which Army officials have thrown to a corporate code of Eastern football--these things the CRIMSON is substantially sound in stating again and again.

I myself am close enough to undergraduate days to understand this attitude. And I am more tolerant than older graduates of the CRIMSON's high disregard of what fifty-year old alumni think or say about Harvard's football policy in the year 1931. Eugene L. Belisle, '31 New York City.   Alumini Bulletin