(Ed. Note--The Crimson does not necessarily endorse opinions expressed in printed communications. No attention will be pad 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:

The Crimson in an editorial Monday morning accused the Student Council of bad faith in deciding to hold a referendum on the question of Freshman elections. According to the Crimson, "If elections were to be abolished by the decision rendered today; it would be mechanically impossible for the morrow's voting to be constitutionally discontinued. This is the extent to which the Student Council is confident of a confirmation for its stand." At this writing, Monday afternoon, I do not know how the referendum is going to turn, out. I do know that if the Nays have it, the Council tonight will constitutionally amend the by-laws so as to abolish the elections. By-laws may be amended, added, or deleted by a two-thirds majority vote of the Council. There is no mechanical or constitutional obstacle; the Crimson's accusation is absolutely untrue.

The Council would have preferred to hold the referendum farther in advance of the date scheduled for the elections; unfortunately the petition bringing to our attention the dissatisfaction of some fifty-four members of '42 with the system was not presented until last Thursday. As it is, the Crimson is right in suggesting that the presentation of the question to the class has been onesided. The publicity in the Crimson has been almost wholly adverse to the retention of the elections. I should have thought that the timing of the referendum favored the opponents of the elections. But the Crimson say, "Byrits timing and by its management, it is calculated to stampede Freshmen into approval of the old system." Does the reference to "its management" mean that the Crimson thinks the Council will stuff the ballot box?

The Council was forced to choose between ignoring the petition and holding the election on the one hand, and having the referendum on the other. The Council was aware of the disadvantages of having a referendum on such short notice. The disadvantage of holding the elections in the face of a widespread--perhaps a majority, for all we knew--oppositions, the Council decided was more serious. On the wisdom of this decision there can be honest disagreement. I do not think its sincerity can honestly be questioned.

Knowing the feeling of the Crimson on the elections questions, I thought that it would welcome a referendum, to settle the problem according to the wishes of the class itself. Now, I am tempted to wonder whether the Crimson's opposition to the referendum was not due to a fear--how wellfounded I don't know--that too few Freshmen really agree with the Crimson. James Tobin '39,   Member of the Student Council.