Communications

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

With either absolute ignorance or absolute disregard for the facts of the case, the CRIMSON published an editorial charging the 1921 Nominating Committee with gross neglect of its duties, and demanding its resignation. Of the six points brought forth one is almost correct--the committee did not supervise the counting of ballots. After instructing the chairman of the Counting Committee how the votes should be counted, the Nominating Committee left the counting of the votes wholly to the Juniors as has been the case in past years. It is true that the committee did not appoint the poll watchers or order the ballots. This was due to a misunderstanding and not to neglect. The misunderstanding, however, was straightened out in plenty of time and the committee would have done all these things had the class officers not previously attended to them.

The voting list was supposed to be "not even approximately correct." However, I have not heard of a single man who was entitled to vote and was not allowed to or of a man who was allowed to vote when he was not entitled to do so. The balloting was very carefully watched and the committee can account for every one of the 305 votes east. The whole election, except for the counting of ballots; which was left to the Juniors, went off more smoothly than most previous Senior elections. EDWARD L. PIERSON JR. '21.

December 12, 1920.

(Ed.: The CRIMSON believes that the election was marred by the inefficiency of the Nominating Committee; in this regard it does not retract from the stand taken in the editorial referred to by Mr. Pierson. At the time the facts at hand seemed to warrant the specific charges mentioned against the Committee; further investigations has shown some of them to be founded only in part. The CRIMSON has confidence in the ability of the Committee to manage the coming election without a hitch; it believes that the Committee will fully justify itself in the eyes of the University.)