While a special tutor's committee is considering the problem of Inter-House eating, it is well that there should be a thorough review of the present situation and an expression of undergraduate opinion on this old and much debated subject. The system now in operation is designed to prevent all save a minimum of Inter-House dining, to force men, as far as possible, to confine their eating of his guest's meal; the guest, especially if he has contracted to pay for twenty one meals a week in his own House, receives no financial recompense for his lost meal. From any point of view, the undergraduate is the loser, Lehman Hall the winner.

The present situation has led to a just demand for a change, for a liberalization of the system. And having considered the request, Lehman Hall has responded that there are many objections to be overcome. An unlimited freedom, where a man could sign for his own meals in any House and have the slip counted in his own quota, presents, it claims, many obstacles. The amount of book-keeping, already great, would be enormously increased, and require expensive additional clerks. Convenient or peculiarly attractive Houses would soon become eating centers, and would be overcrowded; under such conditions, bound to be unstable and irregular, it would be impossible to estimate with accuracy the number of meals to be served at any House at any time. Moreover, if men are permitted to eat wherever they wish, with no limitations, the whole unitary purpose of the House Plan, centered especially in the dining room, is nullified; Houses will become mere dormitories, dining halls mere restaurants, sure to be overcrowded on the evenings of special House dinners.

These objections have an aura of seriousness that cannot be denied or dismissed with a gesture. But in each case it will be observed that they obtain only when inter-House eating is allowed restriction. So far, Lehman Hall is demonstrably correct, as was patent in the fatuous and unauthorized" experiment during the week of October 3. With a view to all considerations, however, there seem to be two possible solutions, either of which might be used alone, or which might easily be put in force together.

The first plan is to allow the host to sign for his guest's meal on a slip exactly like his own; thus the slip would be counted in the host's quota, at no additional cost. The scheme seems to answer the objections. There need obviously be no added book-keeping; and while there would be more inter-House dining, the restriction of the host's signature ought to prevent any concentrated rush from House to House, with its consequent disruption of meal-planning and degeneracy of House Unity. Such a system seems to be sufficiently liberal to satisfy undergraduates and at the same time has enough practical limitations to meet the demands of the administration.

The second plan, considerably more liberal, would allow the guest to pay for his own meal. In cases where this is desired, a special slip would be provided; in one blank space the guest would fill in the name of his House; in another place the host would affix his countersign. The difficulties of book-keeping should not be measurably increased, for these special slips could be separated, sent to the House where the guest resides, added to his own slips, and then counted in with his quota. The countersign of the host would be required and would insure practically the same desirable restriction as in the first proposal.

Under ordinary circumstances the above plans seem adequate, but for House dinners, greater restriction should be imposed. The difficulties are obvious. It seems, however, that by maintaining the present system of special charges on such occasions, all the major objections would be met, and the present limited but valuable freedom retained intact.

There are two final considerations which should be mentioned. A numerical restriction of the number of meal's each week that a man might eat in other Houses has been suggested. Such a system would be a strict, perhaps in the long run an unavoidable limitation, but it seems wiser to try the above proposals as they stand; if they fail to provide sufficient limitation there will then have been experience upon which to base any necessary restriction. Finally, there appears no logical reason why hosts to Freshman should not be able to include their guest's meal in their quota.

The problem of inter-House dining is obviously completed, but a reasonable solution appears possible along the lines indicated above. There is, assuredly, no desperate need for a change, but a long passive agitation has demonstrated student opinion in the matter. The demands of House members are just; there can be small excuse for any prolonged failure to reach a satisfactory adjustment.