We invite all members of the University to contribute to this column, but we are not responsible for the sentiments expressed.

To the Editors of the Crimson:

Since the publication of Dr. Bowditch's letter in the CRIMSON, there has been a growing feeling of regret among the members of the freshman class that anything should have happened on the night after the victory over Yale to annoy or mortify any one. While Dr. Bowditch seems to have had just cause for complaint, he appears to have overlooked the fact that a large part of the disturbance was caused by men not connected with Harvard at all. Nevertheless, since so much blame has fallen on the freshmen as a result of the unfortunate occurrence, would it not be a good plan for '98, as a class, to express its true feeling with regard to the affair?

FRESHMAN.To the Editors of the Crimson:

I wish to say that, as a member of the H. D. A., I am in entire accord with the communication published in yesterday morning's CRIMSON, in regard to the action of the Directors of the H. D. A. I have frequently taken friends into the gallery during the past few years after Chapel, and I have never noticed any ungentlemanly or boisterous conduct, - I mean boisterous conduct that was offensive.

I notice that the CRIMSON in commenting editorially upon this communication takes a stand opposed to the views there expressed. In this editorial it is said, "that every effort has previously been made to prevent disturbances by other means than what has been resorted to." I think this is a misstatement. What has been done this year? What warning has been given? Last year to be sure a vote was passed by the directors that, "members of the Association found guilty of ungentlemanly conduct towards visitors in the gallery be subject to suspension from the Association." In this it seems the Directors did no more than their duty. It would have been well for them to have taken a similar action this year, for it must be remembered that even if there was any large number that acted in a boisterous manner last year, it does not follow that they were the same ones who acted boisterously this year, and consequently these present malefactors may never have been warned.

The CRIMSON also says that the disturbances have been "boisterous action very generally participated in." Conduct may be boisterous and still proper. We should remember that we are neither old gray-beards or a body of college professors, that it is untrue to our natures as young gentlemen - boys if you please - to sit perfectly straight and rigid, perfectly composed and dignified when visitors are present in the gallery. If we sat in our places like frozen mummies we should be as Doroty Lundt expressed in the Transcript last April: "Harvard boys? Not a bit of it! Young gentlemen from Dr. Blimber's own academy, taking an evening out, in charge of Miss Cornelia Blimber - thats what they were, and that all they were." But as I have said, I have never seen in Memorial boisterous conduct that was ungentlemanly.

It seems to me that it is as the communication puts it, "an insult to the well-behaved members of the Association." The analogy the CRIMSON draws in regard to proctors in dormitories I consider far fetched and inapplicable. The presence of the proctors in the dormitories is a matter clearly established by custom. On the other hand, the closing of the gallery is a distinct abolishment of a custom already established.

NINETY-SIX.