In its final number, the 1941-42 Guardian Board again has wisely chosen the policy of printing articles dealing both with the immediate issues of the war and with the larger problems confronting the nation during and after the period of actual hostilities. If continued, this policy will give the publication a wider appeal than it could acquire by concentrating exclusively on one of the two aspects of the nation's current history.

For interest and significance, the articles by Dana Reed '43 and E. J. Riches, an official of the International Labor Office, take the honors. Reed writes interestingly and with authority of Technocracy, the depression-time craze which has recently emerged with new trappings, both ornamental and ideological. Mr. Riches contributes a survey of the I.L.O. packed with factual information and providing an element of cheer for the future of international cooperation. Both of these essays smack of serious study, and neither of them indulges in roseate or gloomy speculation.

Most controversial selection of the issue is "Ceylon: Key to Victory," by R. W. Komer '42. Had it been printed two months ago, this article might well have rated as one of the best in Guardian history, but the Battles of Midway and the Coral Sea have robbed it of most of its significance. The author's thesis, that Japan will strike next at India, is answered by implication in another part of the issue, Dr. Reischauer's short note entitled "Japanese Strategy." Recent developments have indicated that Dr. Reischauer is closer to the truth, but Komer's logistic reasoning remains one of the most incisive articles in any Guardian of the past year.

The two remaining studies must be classed on the Guardian's list of also-rans. "The Work Camp: Forerunner to Collectivism," by M. S. Friedman '43 and N. Lauriat '43, is a competent description of a growing institution, but it fails completely to prove its thesis. An even greater disappointment is Julian Richardson's article on the club system. Not only does he completely misunderstand or ignore the shortcomings of the system, but he likewise fails to utilize many of the strongest arguments in its favor. About an important local problem of which much could be said either pro or con, Richardson naively fails to say anything at all.

In sum, this Guardian rings the changes from some of the best articles of the year to some of the poorest. It is better than mediocre, but is by no means outstanding.