(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 withheld. Only letters under 400 words can be printed because of space limitations.)

To the Editor of the Crimson:

"If you can't answer your opponent, question his motives." Such is the axiom which the Crimson has adopted in its attack on the Committee for Electoral Reform entitled "Pals at the Polls."

If the Crimson wishes to make the issue one of the honesty of the members of this committee, we are not adverse to meeting it on that basis. We have, however, been careful to keep our discussion on a plane of intelligence.

In answer to the implication that we may be conspiring to elect some friends, it may be said that the committee is supporting no one for office.

In its struggle to find a straw of support for its position, the Crimson was forced to admit that there was excellent basis for opposition to the nominating system and to the methods used in proposing the Senior Class constitution.

But it added that there are three reasons which give weight to the belief that the committee is merely "an angry and jealous minority." The first is that the proposed convention would result in a riot. (Is this wishful thinking on the Crimson's part?) The committee believes that Harvard Seniors can control themselves. In addition it is suggested that the convention will result in politics. We suspect that what the Crimson fears is that the discussion will arouse the latent interest of students to know what is going on. The convention would provide, in the words of the Student Council, "training in the democratic process." What we fail to see is why this is a proof that we are "an angry and jealous minority."

The second reason why the Committee is "angry and jealous" is that the idea of protesting election by minority vote is "an example of sore head thinkings." The Crimson adds, "An election cannot be repeated any more than a horserace." (Sic !). It should be sufficient to point out that run-off elections are the rule, not the exception.

The committee is thirdly "jealous" because it states that the petition process discriminates against those nominated by it. We see no reason to go into a long argument about this. Various members of the Council, including the president, have admitted its truth... Douglas Straton ,38   W. A. Kirstein '38

Ed. Note:The Crimson did not intend any personal reflection in the editorial "Pals at the Polls"; it merely wondered about the validity of a Committee which as yet has done little more than cant and storm. Still in the same mood the Crimson wonders what success has been made with the petition which the Committee for Electoral Reform has so often mentioned.)