Emphatic

Dear Sir,—I wish to make some comment on your last editorial (Salient Vol. 2, No. 4) which in my opinion contained nothing but "terminological inexactitudes." Firstly I would like to know exactly to whom you were referring when you said "The ignorant who constituted a large part of those who thundered yes "at the meeting." It would seem that you used the term "ignorant" indiscriminately to designate any people opposed to your philosophy, the supporters of the old executive being, of course, the only "bastion of reason" in the Varsity. Secondly, I disagree emphatically when you say that the opposition was prevented from voicing its opinions. By a motion passed at the beginning of the meeting, the executive members were given precedence of speech over others. They Made no Attempt Whatsoever to Defend Their Actions.

In my opinion ample time was given for discussion. Let me remind you in this connection, that the motion of closure was moved with the chairman's consent (Mr. Dowrick).

Finally, concerning the "in toto" ticket, it must be remembered that this ticket contained merely a caretaker executive, to be in office for about a month in order to arrange for elections. It would have beep pointless to vote for each member individually for such a short period.

In summing up, I would say that your editorial was to say the least, most misleading.—E.N.C.