The Communication Column.

(We invite all men in the University to submit communications on subjects of timely interest, but assume no responsibility for sentiments expressed under this head.)

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

The CRIMSON has perhaps wisely waited until after the Senior election to avow fair-mindedness regarding its communication column. This promise on the part of the CRIMSON is interesting, but not convincing. It seems rather a misleading defence of its past actions than a sincere expression of regret, as the conditions actually warrant.

This editorial states that "if the files of this year's CRIMSON are gone over, it will be seen that many communications on both sides of questions have been published." Not many on both sides of the Advocate question! Not many on both sides of the Freshman question!

It says further that the individual opinions held by members of the CRIMSON Board will never prevent one holding contrary views from presenting his case to the College. We wish to test that statement. In order to do so we hereby assert that the personal opinions of one particular member of the CRIMSON Board were the obvious cause for the suppression of each of three communications from graduates.

This editorial further states that the CRIMSON's sole reason for refusing to print the answer to its attack on the Freshmen was that the writer of that answer protested in "an insulting note" against their failure to print it!

We challenge the CRIMSON to print at this late date either of the two communications from graduates regarding the Advocate, which we know that it has suppressed; or the answer to its recent attack on the Freshmen; or, beter, all three, to prove its statement that the communications which were not published "were either anonymous, or written in a childishly flippant and comic-supplement style." The undergraduate body should know fully whether or not such letters are "signed and more than persiflage." And the undergraduate body is entitled to know the truth about the Advocate affair, even after the long and almost successful effort of one editor of the CRIMSON to keep it dark.

The CRIMSON is hardly to be accounted sincere in its avowals of open-mindedness so long as it allows its editorials to attempt to take the heart out of an honest attack upon it by Mr. M. A. DeWolfe Howe. T. M. HODGENS, JR.   ROYALL H. SNOW.   S. B. GOODSTONE.   W. F. DAVIDSON.