Dear Sir,—Mr. Taylor in his letter in this issue enunciates two guiding principles for Executive members. The first is that duty to the Association should be foremost in their minds; and secondly, petty and personal differences should not be allowed to disrupt the Association's activities. However, I fail to appreciate how Mr. Taylor's reasoning leads him to the conclusion that f fail to measure up to these standards and merely stand on my pride.

If Mr. Taylor will peruse the Executive's minutes of July 16, 1945, and March 31, 1946, he will note two Resolutions of the Executive in respect of the F. A. de la Mare letter in which Mr. Cohen was detailed by the Executive to publish the letter and give our defence. Did not Mr. Cohen owe a "duty" to the Association, which through its elected Executive resolved that the letter be published, to put into effect the Executive's decision? Does not the Executive as the controller of the Association's policy and protector of student interests, individually and collectively, feel in duty bound to speak the truth at all times? Is it not the duty of the Executive members to follow the directions of the Executive and not to substitute what that member thinks best?

Mr. Tayor alleges that I stood on my pride when I chose to put this motion of no-confidence at a time when the Executive has its hands full. Everyone will realise that this election would not be taking place had Mr. Cohen accepted the majority decision and resigned. Did not Mr. Cohen stand on his pride, Mr. Taylor?

No, no, Mr. Taylor, your red herrings will not blind students to the real issues behind our resignations; we are still at our posts, Tournament, the Extravaganza and the usual routine are unaffected by the consequences of Mr. Cohen failing to resign.