We publish today a criticism of an article on "College Expenses" which appeared in the last number of the Monthly. The writer of that article took the position that the opinions of the outside world in regard to extravagance at Harvard are erroneous and he endeavored to support his case by a table of statistics which he claims to have collected very carefully. Our contributor who supports substantially the views of Professor Palmer on this subject, asserts that Mr. Leighton, the writer of the article above mentioned, has not only not proved his conclusions, but has in fact proved just the contrary. We believe this assertion to be a true one. If we are to admit with Mr. Leighton that only one-tenth of the men in each class at Harvard spend not more than $800, then we hold that the criticisms of newspapers and of the outside world generally are completely justified. We believe, however, that the writer of the criticism in our columns has satisfactory grounds for his impeachment of the figures given in the Monthly. It seems evident that not $650 but $500 should be taken as the minimum of expenses. The figures given by Mr. Leighton are too large, because they include some expenses which a really economical man would never incur, while the estimates of others are inconsistently large. For similar reasons, the totals in the medium grades are not low enough. It is rather surprising to find the term "modest" attached to a grade in which the estimated expense is $1,225. It appears to us that for the vast majority of college men, the 'modest" limit is much below this. Taking the discussion as it now stands, we fail to see that the statements in Professor Palmer's speech can be set aside or mistaken. The data from which Professor Palmer drew his conclusions were obtained more systematically than those given in the Monthly. If they may be questioned, it is only in regard to the higher grades. We admit that some men would be reluctant to acknowledge extravagant sums paid for mere luxuries; but we think that few men, after having resolved to answer such questions as Professor Palmer made, would deliberately send in an untruthful statement of expenses. However, we do not feel satisfied with the evidence thus presented; there is room for the further investigation of this subject. After all it is a controversy between what is and what can be spent, on the one side, and, on the other, what must be and what ought to be spent. It is only of importance to find the answer to the latter question and upon this answer the allowances given by careful parents should be based. Professor Palmer has helped very much in the solution of the problem; and we recommend his statement to all who have an interest in the reputation of Harvard. In conclusion, we fully agree with a writer who has said that when the limit of legitimate expenditure has been shown, the impulse to economy must come from the homes of the student and not from the college authorities. In the great freedom of college life which exists to-day, the authorities cannot be called upon to occupy the place of ethical teachers, while few would advocate such a step backward as the imposition of restraint would necessitate.