“A quaint manifestation of editorial ethics crops out in the April issue of _The Little Review_. It is in connection with a vers libre contest, this being the issue in which the awards are made. There was a regularly constituted board of judges—three people sufficiently competent and sufficiently well known in their field; but the editor has chosen to indulge in some disclosures as to the lack of unanimity amongst her aides and even in some pointed animadversions on their tastes and preferences. Of the first choice of one of them, she says: What is there in the ‘subtle depth of thought’? Almost every kind of person in the world has had this thought. And what is there in the ‘treatment to make it poetry?’ And the poem itself follows. Of the two chosen for prizes by another judge, she observes: ‘These two poems are pretty awful’—and she prints them, with the authors’ names, as before. The third judge plumped for a pair of others—‘provided Richard Aldington wrote them; otherwise not.... If he wrote them they are authentic as well as lovely; but if he did not, so flagrant an imitation ought not to be encouraged.’ A perfectly sound position to take. Here again the poems follow—and they are under a name not Aldington’s. Query: has the judge, whose name is given too, exactly made a friend? Then comes, of course, a succession of poems approved by the editor but ignored by her helpers.... If such a system spreads, the embarrassments and even perils of judgeship will grow. Hereafter few may care to serve as judges, except under stipulations designed to afford some protection. And as for the poor poets themselves, such treatment should act to keep them out of ‘contests’ altogether.” [Here is the old _Dial_ showing them all up. So there is an American editorial association just like the American Medical Association with all its criminology of professional ethics! We thought that the idea of that verse libre contest (it wasn’t our idea) was to stimulate interest in and more understanding of free verse, not to offer an operation for judges nor a fee for poets. Taking it simply as a free verse contest, the editor thought the only concern was with free verse. Since when has Art to do with ethics or with taste? If the poets and judges in the contest were as impersonal, direct, and sincere in their attitude toward poetry as the editor, the fussy anxiety of _The Dial_ over their plight is needless. But of course if to serve poetry is to serve yourself there isn’t much point to a contest except the money. On the other hand, if a contest is to be run on the “tastes and preferences” or sensitiveness of the judges then it is clear that the neatest poem chosen by the touchiest judge should win, provided the poet who wrote it was also easily offended and needed the money badly. “And as for the _poor_ poets” there should be _something_ to keep them out of contests—and also out of any other literary activity.—_jh._] You Do Us Too Much Honor