One of the chairmen of this year's Combined Charities Drive has proposed entrusting the drive to an independent, self-perpetuating organization. In the light of less-than-inspiring appeals previous to this year's success, such an establishment might have some merit, but the potential drawbacks to the plan outweigh the advantages.

According to its advocate, Peter Solomon, the proposed charities committee would be free from Student Council control and have an executive board representing various student activities. It is argued that an independent directorate would be less prone to baleful political pressure in choosing charities for which to solicit. Solomon feels that students would regard such a set-up as more representative than the present one.

These are doubtful contentions. A charities drive must, to some degree, be operated on a hierarchial basis and the Council already offers this. Its members serve as a cadre which can organize solicitors in each House. A central co-chairmanship of two students with the willingness to work and the knack of running a financial campaign may be more effective than a committee of well-meaning activities representatives who would run such a charities drive as a strictly secondary interest. Successful collection requires more than men of good will; it demands a coordinated administration. This year's Drive chairmen are to be congratulated for a campaign which not only raised a record total, but also restored needed respect for the Combined Charities drive itself.

Bolstering the representative character of the Combined Charities Drive can, perhaps best be accomplished within the new Student Council. The new Council is now elected from House constituencies; it is a body more accessible to the average student, who probably knows his representative. The members appointed by the Masters also will strengthen the Council's ties in each of the Houses. Removing the charities appeal from Council auspices will not make the drive more representative, but rob it of an institutional framework already existing.

The question of political influence is more serious. Many students objected to the Band's share of the charity pie. To combat any massive lobbying from College organization the Council should restrict gifts within the University to PBH. But a flat removal of all charity choices beyond "political" influence is an unwise move. The Combined Charities Drive is a Harvard charities appeal and students should have the opportunity to advocate that legitimate charities of special interest be included. The new Student Council organization provides channels for this sort of request through the House representatives. Until either the new Council or the present system proves incompetent there are sound reasons for retaining them.