Marshal Election

The petition circulated in the dining halls yesterday represents the culmination of one of the most unfortunate incidents to occur at Harvard during the past four years. After reading it and considering its implications, one can only conclude that whatever the intent of its framers, it unfairly damages the reputation of a single individual--Marc Leland.

The petition points out that the Student Council should not run the Class Marshal elections since it usually has one of its members as a candidate, in this case, Leland. This is probably a cogent criticism, but the fact remains that the Student Council has been running this election for many years, and there can be no good reason for choosing 1958-59 as the year to have a new election under a hastily instituted new procedure.

The same is true of the second objection, that no neutral observers were allowed to watch the balloting. Rightly or wrongly, this is a standard Election Committee procedure. Like the unwillingness to publicize election totals, it stems from a reluctance to embarass unsuccessful candidates.

The third contention, that one candidate's name was badly mispelled, is also true, but the candidate in question did not object seriously to this error when a new election was offered by the Council.

The fourth point is the most significant one made, for it is true that some 100 seniors did not vote because Final Club dinners coincided with the Class Marshal balloting; but this again is a complaint that could and should have been made before the election and not after.

These four criticisms point up an inadequacy in the present election system which undoubtedly should undergo study and revision; but they certainly do not represent grounds for a new election.

The closing sentence of the petition which asks "in the best interests of the class" that a new election be held "to clear up the present atmosphere of unrest," presents an absurdly naive solution to the four points which precede it. The petition, against the implications of which there is no possible defense, has already created a very considerable degree of unrest, for it obviously implies that there was dishonesty involved in the ballot-counting on December 11, and further, that this dishonesty was responsible for Leland's victory.

The four objections, however, do not constitute grounds for another vote unless there is proof that the conditions outlined resulted in dishonest actions. Since no significant evidence has ben brought forward concerning illegality--straw votes and ballot box rumors cannot be considered conclusive--there is no possible reason for a new election.