The criticisms of past years in regard to the situations of Sever Hall and the Fogg Art Museum have of late been recalled by the discontent aroused by the site chosen for Brooks House. There are two methods of preventing such feelings in the future. The first, that proposed by the Board of Overseers in their resolution, is that "A complete scheme for the future development of the college property be formulated and adhered to in future work as closely as the progress of events makes possible"; the second, that urged in our editorial of last week, is that "Harvard men keep more in touch with the plans of the day and be in a position to complain before the eleventh hour." It seems that the first would practically insure the second, for if some definite plan were recognized whenever it became necessary to depart from it in the slightest, special attention would be called.

In regard to the second resolution of the Board of Overseers, that "Greater harmony and excellence in the design of College buildings would be obtained if all artistic questions where University property is concerned were submitted to a standing advisory committee composed partly of several competent professional men and partly of members of the Governing Boards of the University," it can but be plain to every one that even if "artistic questions can rarely be separated from questions of cost, of utility, and of express or implied obligation to benefactors," they might often be made to conform to each of these specifications.