BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT. 



To the Editor of "The Fern Bulletin :" 



Your comments on Fern Society matters in the Oc- 

 tober number seem to me so misleading that I am 

 disposed to present a somewhat differing view. 



The conflicting statements made during the last 

 election were such as to arouse my curiosity, and I 

 made it my business to look into the situation some- 

 what carefully. With all due regard for those who 

 differ with me, I am neither willing myself to believe, 

 or to have it implied without protest, that there are 

 those in our society who are unscrupulously combin- 

 ing or designing to capture its offices, or its funds, or 

 to act contrary to the wishes of a majority of the mem- 

 bers so far as those wishes have been ascertained. Nor 

 do I believe that the present officers were elected 

 through unjustifiable procedure and disregard of the 

 Constitution. 



No one is likely to question the wisdom of having 

 a nominating board. It is a common practice, it fa- 

 cilitates business and is particularly desirable in a So- 

 ciety holding no business meetings. It is also a com- 

 mon and commendable practice to provide for inde- 

 pendent nominations, and our Constitution dearly 

 does so. Article VII, Section 2 reads : "The Advisory 

 Council shall nominate two candidates for each office. 

 This shall not prevent members from nominating or 

 voting for any eligible member not regularly nomin- 

 ated." Nothing could be more specific. Again in 

 Section- 5 we read: "In cases where more than two 

 candidates are nominated for the same office and none 

 receive a majority vote, the Council shall elect one of 

 the two candidates having the largest number of 

 votes." Inasmuch as the Advisory Council has no au- 



26 



