To the Editor of the Crimson:

Yesterday Mr. Apted was hanged, drawn, and fired editorially by the Crimson. It is unlikely that the college authorities will treat seriously the recommendation of the writer that Mr. Apted be dismissed. But a large number of students feel that the editorial grossly misrepresents Mr. Apted, and shows that the author has never had dealings with him.

The Crimson, as the guardian of student liberties, regards Mr. Apted with suspicion, as it would regard anyone in his position. For years he has been ridiculed as a pseudo Sherlock Holmes, an ineffective detective, a kill-joy at student riots. The average student has never met Mr. Apted, and forms his opinions of him from such accounts as the editorial in yesterday's issue of the Crimson. It is only the occasional student who has cause to deal with Mr. Apted. He is surprised to find the sergeant sympathetic, understanding, and anxious to do everything in his power to make things easier for the student involved.

The Yard Police is an organization intricate, smooth-running, and effective considering the immense field which it covers. The intense loyalty of Mr. Apted's subordinates is proof of his qualities as a leader.

The burnt effigy of Mr. Apted in yesterday's Crimson criticized his handling of the Dunster House janitor case. Had Mr. Apted placed the case in the hands of the Cambridge Police immediately, the students implicated and perhaps others would have spent several days in jail, and met with a great deal more inconvenience than they actually did.

The parting shot of the Crimson's broadside at Mr. Apted is suicidal. It suggests that Mr. Apted's successor, in the event that the Crimson editorial should stir authorities to choose a new head of College Police, should sit on the Administrative Board with Dean Hanford, instead of working as an intermediary between the Dean and students, as he now does.

On untold occasions Mr. Apted has given students in difficulty sound advice and cooperative help before their cases reached higher authorities. Often he has managed to make quiet disposition of a case so that it never reached University Hall and disciplinary action. Lastly, it is impossible to overlook the observation that even the innocent and now deified Mr. George was perhaps so intoxicated that Mr. Apted could not be blamed for believing him capable of the outrage to the janitor.

"Colonel", "Break-it-up", "Hawk-eye" -- all these are familiar epithets applied to Mr. Apted in the Crimson. When the students steal a bell clapper, Mr. Apted is discredited before he starts work on the case. If he apprehends the practical jokers, he is cursed roundly in undergraduate editorials. If he fails to detect the men implicated he is sneered at and reviled.

In conclusion we feel that the editorial in Monday's Crimson by no means represented the entirety of undergraduate opinion, and that in all fairness to Mr. Apted the infamous barrage against his administration should cease. Stephen A. Bixby '36   Charles B. Carroll '36   Emile C. Dubiel '37   Robert S. Playfair '36   Ralph S. Odegard '36