EDITORS DAILY CRIMSON: Like your correspondent of Thursday, I, too, did not hear Prof. Laughlin's lecture on "Political Economy and Christianity." I have, however, logical head enough to see his own inconsistencies rather than the so-called ones of Prof. Laughlin.

The writer seems utterly unable to perceive what is not put directly before his eyes. That a general can contain a particular truth does not seem to have yet entered his head. "Abstinence in the economic sense is never thought of by Christ." And why? "Because it is plain that self sacrifice was considered admirable only in relation to a particular ideal, viz.: "Love of God and one's neighbor." Is then economic abstinence contrary to the love of your neighbor? Does the love of your neighbor preclude the love of yourself? If so, for what have Butler and Hartley and Mill lived? Again, "Saving is not a virtue at all in the Bible." No, and we did not know that, in the sense in which it is not advocated in the Bible, political economy endorsed it either. For either the correspondent must translate his "saving" by "miserliness" or else convict himself of ignorance. But his most absurd remark of all is: "Christ himself was not prudent." Let me recommend to the writer Mr. Mill's masterly answer to the charge of "Expediency" brought against his "Utilitarianism." Is far-sightedness any the less sight than near-sightedness? If you mean by "prudence" near-sightedness, then we do not claim for it the meaning of far-sightedness, nor indeed do we desire to have anything to do with it. But I am convinced that not even political economy is content to accept prudence of this sort as an attribute. Again, to cap the climax, "There are no two characters more unlike than the heroic man and the prudent man." Do you hear this, students of political economy? You are not Christians. There are no germs of heroism in your souls. Do you hear this, earnest Christians? Political economy is to you a thing to be shunned; your conduct is guided by no reason, and you are in every way imprudent men. And yet, oh, wonder, of wonders, "each may be good, and adds, perhaps, to the sum of happiness." While "the ideals to be derived from Christianity are completely inconsistent with those which political economy emphasizes," yet we "can only adjust ourselves to these inconsistencies to the best of our ability." The writer has dug for himself a deeper chasm than that which exists "between science and religion, which nobody has yet succeeded in bridging" - oh! - and in trying to leap it, has brought up in the depths between the two sides, from which he can climb up neither. Christianity itself recognizes the impossibility of any such bridge as he undertakes to construct: "Ye cannot serve two masters."

F.