THE HARVARD UNION.

EDITORS DAILY CRIMSON. - I was not a little surprised, though not at all displeased, at the almost brutal attack the Advocate makes in its issue of yesterday on the venerable Harvard Union. To tell the truth, the Advocate's savage strictures seem to me to be the more unfeeling, because they are undoubtedly true; where the fault lies, and how it is to be remedied, is the awkward question which must be soon decided. There is an abuse, quite as had as the rest, which the writer of the editorial in question did not point out, and that is the extravagant and ridiculous language in which the questions for debate are couched. The debates themselves show that the participants are very careful to avoid arguing the question directly as put; for instance, does anyone believe that "The preservation of Constitutional Government demands the immediate repeal of the Hoar Presidential Succession Bill?" Certainly not, - not even the gentleman who framed it. Will any one argue that Mr. Cleveland has "grossly transcended" his authorities, or that Home Rule is "indispensable" to England? Certainly not. The fact that the question itself is absurd, often makes the debate absurd; this, the carelessness with which disputants are chosen, and the indiscriminate way in which applause is meted out, and the reasons for the silliness which now characterizes Union debates.

AN OLD MEMBER.