THE REPORT OF THE TREASURER

The report of the treasurer to the Board of Overseers, made public yesterday, is little more than a gesture. In the incomplete form in which it was given out it is entirely unconvincing and lacks many important details which Harvard undergraduates and graduates have a right to know. In the main, only meaningless aggregate figures are listed, figures which do not begin to explain the complex financial system of the University.

Bad this small report been merely accidental it would have been excusable. But it is the result of an effort to minimize the amount of information given out by the treasurer. Two years ago the entire treasurer's report was still being printed, as usual, in the volume which contained the President's and all the deans' reports. Last year this was dropped, the treasurer's report was printed in separate from for the officers of the University only and a small release was issued. This year the amount of information given out was even less than last year. It is, in reality, nothing more than "the operating expenses of Harvard University were $13,466,991.42. . . and these expenses were met."

Certainly the University authorities are correct when they maintain that not everybody has a right to know all concerning Harvard finances. Very few could understand the entire system. But undergraduates should be able to learn more about their University's finances. The House Plan has exacted an additional expense and is a live issue among them. Why, for instance, should they not know the total expenses and income of the seven new dining halls in which they are eating? How is the money which the large room rents bring in distributed? These two questions concern the undergraduate most because they are close to him but there are many others to which he deserves an answer. The report, for instance, mentions nothing of the cost of all the building which was completed last year; it does not distinguish between administration expenses and the money spent for research, two widely different items. Moreover, a different set of figures was given last year, making comparison impossible.

There is no reason to believe that the University's finances are not handled honestly and there are few who would doubt that thy are not allocated properly. Moreover, it is easy to understand why the liquid funds should not be listed individually. But there are some items, of vital interest to both the undergraduates who attend the University and to the graduates who contribute to it, which should not be omitted as in this year's report. Certain issues are being evaded; a poor precedent is being set. The validity of the right cannot be doubted, but the manner in which it is beclouded will breed skeptics.