What has gone wrong with "Smad" for the last eight or nine issues? It seems to have deteriorated in many ways since the first few issues, and now fails lamentably to reflect the dally social and political life of V.U.C.

Firstly, I should like to point out that in your comments on the new Executive you have been grossly unfair to the vice-president, Mr. Simpson. In your interviews with candidates in the issue of June 16, you set forth all the offices, past or present, held by the candidates for that position—except Mr. Simpson. You omitted to stare that he was president of the Law Faculty Club, had been a member of the Dramatic Club committee, for two years a member of the Weir House committee (one as secretary). Football Club committee, Cricket Club committee, Haeremai Club Committee, and last, but not least, was then secretary of the Students' Association—and a very good secretary, too. Then when the election was over, you printed an editorial on the successful candidates from which one could only draw the implication, in regard to the vice-presidency, that the best man had not got in. This was surely in very bad taste, and although it was undoubtedly a very great pity that the new Executive will not have the benefit of Mr. Budge's invaluable experience, yet nevertheless, your remarks would tend to give the impression to people who only knew .Mr. Simpson from his stage performances that he was an irresponsible playboy, and not worthy of the honour of his election. This was definitely an injustice.

So much for that. Now for some more general points. "Smad" to my knowledge has always been due to come out on Wednesday at 5 p.m. In 1935 this happened always—even in spite of a printers' strike at one stage. Last year it happened nearly always, and this year, about twice. The last issue actually came out on Friday about 6 p.m.! Two days and one hour late! Surely this could be avoided. If the printer is behindhand, tune him up a bit. If the reporters send in their notes late, could not the Editor suggest, tactfully or otherwise, that they speed them up? There is, I believe, a suggestion that "Smad" should come out on Thursday at 5 p.m. If this will ensure that it invariably comes out on Thursdays at 5 p.m., the change would seem desirable, but if it keeps on coming one day late as usual, then the advantage will be lost.

A further point is that at only a few of the meetings held at V.U.C. is a recognised reporter present. Two recent examples were the Law Faculty Club annual general meeting and the first meeting of the new Executive, which last was surely important enough to warrant the presence of a reporter. There should be a reporter to report every Varsity function or club meeting and the Editor should be armed with a complete list of club functions.

Finally, I would like to suggest that after the last of this year's isses, a committee of inquiry (or a Royal Commission if necessary) be set up to inquire into the running and general working of "Smad" with a view to suggesting improvements, if any, for consideration by the Executive.

The result should be a rejuvenated "Smad" next year. Nevertheless, buck up, "Smad," for your last three issues, and regain a bit of your tarnished reputation.

My letter was written in the hope of maintaining confidence in the new Executive after the critical editorial with which you welcomed their election. Its whole tone was surely commendatory and I am at a loss to understand how you claim my concurrence in your assertion that the students made a mistake. Let me repeat my views: the new Executive arc young (and therefore keen), they have initiative and energy; they are able, and little less experienced than any other Executive; they will prove themselves worthy.

Last year's Treasurer would have given the Association the benefit of his excellent services, but he will agree that he was defeated by a worthy opponent who had proved his invigorating ability in many fields, and had unmistakably won the confidence of the active student body.

I regret that a letter of mine, written in defence of a new Executive who obviously could say nothing for themselves, should be received as a reflection on their worth. I hope I make myself clear, because I do not propose to continue a controversy which can only be embarrassing and damaging to those it affects.

In spite of the undeserved compliments I have received in your columns I feel it "my unpleasant duty" to cross pens with you on this question of the new Executive.

Since the recent University Elections you have criticised the students for electing a young Executive and failing to give service and experience its due reward. It is unlikely that the student body is at all impressed with what you have to say, but it must be somewhat galling to the members of the Executive, who, of course, cannot reply in their own defence. In your last issue a letter from our ex-President appeared, deprecating the comments in your editorial. Now you have the audacity to claim that Mr. Wild agrees with your assertion that the student electorate made a mistake in not electing the ex-Treasurer. Apparently you base this claim on one sentence, which standing alone might be construed in the way you suggest, but when taken with its context can only mean that it is unfortunate that the Executive is not to have the benefit of Mr. Budge's experience. Surely you cannot think that any responsible person, whatever he thought, would write a letter to you stating that one candidates should be elected in place of another. It would seem that the wording of this one sentence is really the result of Mr. Wild's attempt to pay tribute to Mr. Budge's undoubted efficiency as a Treasurer, while disagreeing with the unfortunate implications in your editorial column.

Most people will have agreed with the tenor of Mr. Wild's letter, but I may say, that, had I written a reply to your first post-election editorial, it would have been in much stronger terms, for your assertion that a man deserves to be elected Vice-President because he has been a successful Treasurer, seems to me to be the most untenable proposition that you have yet placed before us.