FAVORITES AND TOADIES.

EDITORS HARVARD HERALD: The article in the last Advocate with the above title has been effective in exciting considerable feeling, and in calling forth several indignant rejoinders. In particular, the president of our chief musical society has disclaimed the existence of favoritism towards candidates for membership, and the Crimson, in its last issue, has devoted two editorials to an energetic refutal of the assertions contained in the article in question. The author of the article is charged especially with indefinite accusations which he does not substantiate. This alleged fault of his can hardly be deemed a fair criticism, for it was not in the province of the writer publicly to descend to personalities. That he has grounds for his complaints will certainly be admitted by many fair-minded men who are familiar with the history of college affairs during the past few years. It is to the credit of these college organizations, as the Crimson curiously enough admits, that they are what they profess to be, in spite of favoritism and toadyism, though some of them are only so more or less imperfectly. Instances are demanded; they have supplied themselves, and cannot be wiped out by vehement editorials or indignant denials.

The Crimson, in its second editorial, after having disposed of the author's accusations off-hand, continues, rather awkwardly: "It is almost as much to say that college men are fools, to say that they do not elect men into the Glee Club for ability to sing, or into editorship for inability to write." Now, unfortunately, all college men are not distinguished for wisdom, and some are, perhaps, fools, hence it is not surprising that mistakes do sometimes occur, as they have already occurred. We do not wish to assert that men who cannot sing are chosen members of the Glee Club, but we may venture to say, since the Crimson has referred to this society, that men who can sing have sometimes failed to be chosen members. Then, coming to the question of editorships, it is a notorious fact that the editorial boards of our college papers too often include men who seem to have been elected for their "ton" and social position only. "Ornamental editors" are by no means an anomaly, and we doubt, if the facts, in this instance, at least, can ever be successfully disproved, even by the editors of the Crimson.

X., '82.