HARVARD COLLEGE has long been reproached, perhaps unjustly, with its narrowness on religious questions; but its bigotry in political questions has never as yet been discussed. Perhaps there has never been a time when a broad knowledge of political and economic subjects was more necessary than the present, and yet in the all-absorbing question of free trade or protection for the United States, the instruction given most certainly not only inclines favorably to one side, but does not even give a fair statement of the other. The question is by no means settled, and it would certainly be but just to state fairly the arguments on both sides, and then leave the hearer to judge for himself. It was remarked some time since, that instruction in theology should not exclusively deal with the tenets of a certain sect, but should be broad enough to leave the choice of faith to be made after a just statement of the various principles which are the rallying points of the different sects of Christendom. The same thing is most eminently true of political economy. Most men, on entering College, have given little or no attention to any economic subject. They get at Harvard a strong bias towards free trade for America, and leave College without the knowledge of a single argument on the other side of a question, perhaps the most important of the present day. Cases are not wanting where men thus carefully trained, have, from a little undirected research, become earnest converts to the doctrines of protection, not, of course, as a lasting principle, but as a matter of present expediency. Let us pay, if possible, a little more attention to this important subject, and whenever the question is alluded to in lectures or recitations, let us have a fair-statement of the claims of both parties. We make this appeal not because we wish the Crimson to be regarded as a protectionist sheet, - such matters are, of course, out of the range of a College journal, - but from a spirit of fairness and justice to all parties, and the desire that Harvard should not be regarded, as it is at present, as a mere training school for free trade.