AN IMPORTANT TEST

Since the Student Council faces a live and controversial problem for the first time in several years, in the Senior Marshal election and recount, any action which it may adopt tonight will shape its effectiveness as an influential student organization. If it should fall to adopt a decisive course, student government at Harvard may suffer a telling blew. To phrase the question simply, inaction will destroy its prestige while a courageous course will demonstrate that it is fulfilling its normal function.

No one also should make the decision since an undergraduate problem should be settled by the undergraduate judiciary, even if its members are figures in the case under discussion. To prove that elections can be run honestly and efficiently at Harvard and that failure is not glossed over is the logical job of the council. Any effort to take the easiest way out by declaring the recount official and letting it pass without further comment, can only reflect on the body's utility and prestige.

While the Council possesses several equally good methods of attack any successful procedure needs to determine the facts concerning the election and recount, Concerning the election, Playfair and Gibbs have not yet explained the absence of officials at polling places at specified times, the absence of a place for signature on the ballots, the unorthodox ballot boxes, and the unusual expense involved in their arrangements. Concerning the recount, no adequate explanation has yet been offered of the reasons for the recount, the failure to notify or obtain authorization from the Council, and the final unfortunate release of the results to the Transcript without any consultation.

When these facts are ascertained, the Council will have sufficient information on which to base a decision. If the results clearly show reasonable grounds for doubt as to the validity of the election, another election would probably be a logical necessity. Not even the fact that the first results were regarded as official and were computed by appointed members of the Council, should prevent such a solution if new evidence is brought to light. If the premises on which a fact is based prove to be false, it is difficult to see how this fact can be used as a basis for future action.

The solution has only begun when the routine check-up on the recount has been completed. Whatever the Council's interpretation of the facts may be, it should prove the present, unsavory rumors either false or true so that effective remedies can be taken in this instance and in future elections.