An Individual Democracy.

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

I write in reference to the editorial in the CRIMSON of Thursday, March 15.

I am glad to say that I coincide with the editor's refutation of Mr. Norton's statements. I am also a "son of the young and growing West" and came to Cambridge from Leland Stanford only last month, thoroughly informed of Harvard's aristocratic and even "snobbish" ideas. I was made to realize the fallacy of my information in a very short time.

I believe there is not less of real democracy at Harvard than at Stanford. It would be almost impossible for Harvard to demonstrate its democracy as Stanford does. Stanford is a small community in itself. It is located about a mile and a half from Palo Alto, the nearest town, and all fraternities and clubs are on the "Campus" and within ten minutes walk of most of the university buildings. At Harvard the students are scattered over a large city. The village lends itself to the democracy and familiarity that are quite impossible in the metropolis. On the other hand the institution across the way (for which I have a warm spot in my heart) demonstrates democracy after the big, free-and-easy manner of the West, and it is but natural that the democracy of Harvard be governed by the nervous and restrained East. I was indeed pleasantly surprised to find Harvard just as democratic in its way as the institution out West, and with due regard for Mr. Norton's opinions I believe he judged Harvard too quickly.

Mr. Norton's other remarks are somewhat inaccurate, but I'm sure he meant no injury. Stanford is unique in its beauty and when one has lived on the "Farm" he finds it difficult not to place Stanford on a higher level than other institutions as regards dormitories and school equipment. The dormitories of Harvard are somewhat older than those of Stanford and perhaps their environment is not so beautiful, for nature lends a helping hand in making the buildings and surroundings at Stanford beautiful as they are.

I must admit that we are prone to joke about the so-called "affectation" of the New Englander's speech, but I believe our remarks are made only in fun, and Mr. Norton does not mean to criticize. We realize that our speech is somewhat flat and our voices possibly raucous at times, and we hope that your possible irritation will give way to your good sense so that you may retaliate with a little good natured fun.

Although I have been here but a few weeks I have been made to feel quite at home and I'm sure Mr. Norton would have written a different story for the Illustrated had he been able to remain here a longer time than was possible last spring. W. W. LLOYD uC.