The bitter controversy over removing Cambridge's city manager has turned the Council into a curious cross between a political horror show and an endless teach-in on city government. Most of the recent meetings have been filled by the marathon testimony of suspended city manager John J. Curry '19, who has explained -- detail by detail -- how he ran Cambridge for nearly 14 years. But the long hearings have been punctuated by almost daily verbal battles between the four councillors supporting Curry and the majority that wants to replace him with Josph A. DeGuglielmo '29.

The debate, though touching on Curry's tenure in office, has just as often shifted to the intricacies of back-room political maneuvering. The controversy has become so bitter that at one point or another nearly every phone call, every meeting between two or more councillors seems to have been mentioned.

Assigning blame for this confused state of affairs is like scolding two small boys for fighting over something that belongs to neither of them. Both sides share the guilt. The way that the five councillors chose to oust Curry established a bad precedent and was indiscreet. The city managership ought not to be a job which is actively sought after by one candidate or another. If there are councillors who are dissatisfied with the present manager, they ought to confront him and ask for changes. If this strategy fails, then they ought to look for someone else.

In this instance, the process worked in reverse. DeGuglielmo sought out the five councillors; Curry was not approachd and informed of the five's dissatisfaction. After working tirelessly (no one disagrees on that) since 1952, he was bluntly told that his services were no longer needed and that if he didn't want to resign politely, there were five votes to push him out. Curry felt rightly that he deserved better treatment and, with the backing of four-time mayor Edward A. Crane '35 who had worked closely with the manager, he decided to fight.

The resulting political struggle has been one of the most divisive in recent Cambridge history. The Curry supporters seem to have done everything possible to widen the split in the Council. They have constantly harried the new mayor, Daniel J. Hayes Jr. Though Hayes' inexperience with the gavel has resulted in some parliamentary mistakes, much of the needling he has received has been unnecessary and pointless. The Curry supporters have delibrately prolonged the debate and unearthed details of political maneuvering that have been, for the most part, irrelevant and embarrassing to all the councillors.

The latest series of charges--attributing criminal infractions of the City charter to three anti-Curry councillors--seem especially unnecessary. Of the three applications for criminal complaints filed so far, only one was brought directly by Curry, but all seem to have been inspired by the suspended manager or his supporters. The charges raise questions about the legality of the daily workings of the entire City government. For example, councillor Bernard Goldberg is accused of trying to influence Curry illegally by urging the selection of his father as city solicitor. Goldberg admitted that he spoke to Curry about his father. But it is not unusual for councillors to discuss city affairs with the manager. Despite charter provisions to the contrary, jobs often come up in these discussions. If Curry thinks this is such a glaring infraction, why didn't he report it much earlier? Similar questions arise with the other two complaints.

A compromise to end this bitter feuding is still a remote possibility. But it can only be achieved by intervention from outside the Council. If some prominent and respected public figure--perhaps Congressman Thomas P. O'Neill (D-Camb.)--met with both sides, a suitable agreement along the following lines might be worked out:

The applications for criminal complaints would be dropped. Curry would continue in office until next fall while a committee, chaired by the mediator, searched for a new manager. DeGuglielmo would be given a place on the committee along with two members of the five-man majority and one member of the minority. The rest of the committee--three or four men--would be respected professionals chosen for their knowledge of urban problems.

Realistically, the prospects for such a compromise are dim. It appears unlikely that a public figure of sufficient stature will be willing to intervene in such an acrimonious dispute. In the absence of some sort of intervention, the controversy will continue. It may be that only the next municipal election in 1967 can can really resolve the conflict.