Yale.

The following is taken from a letter in the Evening Post, and is a reply to an earlier communication on the same subject.

"It is unfortunate that so many seem unable to discuss Yale affairs without indulging in ungenerous allusions to Harvard. Your correspondent 'Anti-Revolutionist' errs if he supposes that criticisms upon Yale can be answered successfully by slurs upon the university at Cambridge. This question why 'the critics who have so much to say of the Yale corporation do not open their fire on the government at Harvard,' is easily answered. The critics are graduates of Yale, members of the body which elects some of its governors. They hold no such position toward Harvard, and might justly be accused of impertinence if they undertook to meddle with the internal affairs of the sister university. Moreover, Harvard has already what the most of these critics seek for Yale, an adequate representation of the alumni in the governing board. 'Anti-Revolutionist' fails to mention the fact that 'the little close corporation of seven men' at Harvard is responsible to, and that all of its orders and by-laws are alterable by the Board of Overseers, and that the overseers are chosen by the alumni. It may be merely a coincidence, but it is a striking one, that the 'long period of lethargy' at Harvard, to which your correspondent alludes, closed at about the time when the State of Massachusetts granted to the graduates the right to elect the overseers.

There are few, if any, Yale men who ask that Yale become a slavish imitator of Harvard. It is an open secret, however, that all the faculties at New Haven are not harmonious bodies, and it is well known that discontent is widespread among the alumni. This is not the place to discuss at length the causes of this want of harmony and of this discontent, but many believe that prominent among them is the lack of any central power to direct the course and guard the interests, not of this or of that department, but of the university in all its departments. What is needed is organization. Chaos may be full of energies, but those energies are pretty sure to be ill-directed and ineffectual. That so great an institution should be ruled by an active energetic central board would seem to be a self-evident proposition. The point we would make against the corporation as now constituted is not that it contains too many ministers, or that not enough denominations are represented in it, but that it is inefficient; that it fails both to perform the duties developing upon it by law and to provide any substitutes to perform them.

It is often said that 'the faculty' governs Yale. This cannot be the so-called university faculty, embracing all the professors, for that faculty never meets, and exists only in name. Which, then, of the six faculties is it that enjoys this prerogative, and what position does it hold toward the other five? Or is it true that the interests of the university as a whole are entirely neglected?

If the corporation which legally possesses the governing power is to be continued, should its constitution not be so changed that the duties imposed upon it shall be performed? If, on the other hand, it is advisable that the affairs of the institution be administered by the faculties or by a board representing them, shall not laws be passed which will confer the necessary powers and make the governing body, whatever it may be, responsible for their exercise? These questions are surely worthy of sober, serious consideration.

What is needed is that an administration be provided for the university which shall be efficient and progressive, and it is to be hoped that the present discussion will evolve some plan which will achieve the most desirable result.

In conclusion it may be said that a little better temper on the part of the supporters of the present regime would not be injurious, but very helpful to the best interests of the university. Those who wish to remove stumbling-blocks from Yale's path will not be daunted by the hard names that may be applied to them - not even by that most opprobrious of epithets, 'doctrinaires.'"