To the Editors of the CRIMSON.

The wisdom of the editorial writers of the CRIMSON again reveals itself--this time in an editorial on "The Worcester Fire."

It is a disgrace to this great University, that has turned out so many men of great vision as well as keen intellect, that our paper should be guilty of fanning the flames of hysteria by jumping to the conclusion that the fire at Worcester was the deliberate plot of Reds simply because "it is the suspicion of many officials" that "it was of incendiary origin." Suppose it was of incendiary origin, have we any right to conclude that "the finger of guilt seems to point to Bolshevism?"

The CRIMSON thinks that if there is reason to believe that revolutionary proganda caused it (which is very doubtful) that it is "time for a renewed and thorough going attempt to suppress this increasing danger." By what methods? Shall we follow Palmer's tactics again? Shall we have some more wholesale raids? Shall we "hang first and try afterwards" as Judge Anderson pointed out in the Collyer case was the result of some of the work of operatives of the Department of Justice? Is this the kind of "renewed suppression" the CRIMSON is advocating?

There is another point seriously open to doubt. I refer to the statement: "for in spite of government efforts, plots and bomb outrages have not diminished since the war." What are the facts on which this is based, or is it only some more speculation and inference?

If the editors can give any valid reasons for these sweeping generalizations and for its conclusion which is not based on facts but rather on influence and guess work, I should like to know what they are. NORMAN E. HINES UNC.

(In the editorial referred to, the CRIMSON was careful' to state that "until definite proof is offered, it were folly to assume that any special group is at fault." The grand jury investigation has given further proof of incendiarism. An inquiry into the situation at Worcester gives the reason for believing the "radical element" responsible.

The metal trade is one of the main industries in Worcester, and in it the employers are especially strongly organized; they are so strong in fact that they have just about driven the moulders' union out of business. The men of such a union might easily seek retaliation by desperate means for what seemed to them equally great injustice at the hands of their employers.

In implying that the CRIMSON is in favor of tolerating a hang first and try afterwards "policy", the correspondent has read into the CRIMSON editorial a meaning which a careful scrutiny does not reveal. "A renewed and thorough-going attempt to suppress the increasing danger" does not necessarily mean "Palmer" methods. A reasonable amount of restraint, tact, and justice in handling the present labor situation is a far better preventive of more "red plots" than methods of unbridled force.--Ed.)