Mr. Editor:- The report of the citi zen'8 league in your last issue saya, "It h grently to be regretted that our citizeni generally take so little interest in the affairs of the league, seeming to regard it as an organization with some sinister political purpose." If this is true perhaps some other sentences in the report throw ltght on the reason of such ''regard.'1 Referring to spring elections the report says "various members of the (executive) eomniittee in their individual capacity, thought it aclvisable to cali a meeting to eansider the expediency of preparing a citizen's ticket" (the italics are ours). While this is believed to be true it will be remenibered that ,the "cali" - to the surprise of maiiy tvho had adviscd it - when it appeared'was for a meeting to nomínate a citiun's ticket! offering no opportuiiity"to consider the expediency.'' That this intent, of the cali- which kept many frons commltting themselves to It - was not carried out at that meeting, was in no wise due to the projectors, hut to greater sagacity and wisdom of citizens present The capture of the meetings by politicians- the enlarged comprehension of the term "citizen," acquired by objectors to the rights of free speech - the ludicrous phase, such as the challenged citizen presiding and the curious methods finally adoptfd to select a citizen's ticket; and in the lnnguage of the report, "the wellknown result" (?) of it all,are too fresh to need recouutin;; in detail here; but they furnish significant refiections for tueoretical politicians and believers in tlie superiority of divided forces and third party moveinents. These and the peculiar methods of detective work resortcd to by members of the league may be reasons why citizens gencrally take so little interest in the affairs of the league. Though all will agree that the "Leajrue1' was intended ai'd should be as the report says, it "is by its very nature a non-partisan body liaving nothing to do with politics."