During the past few weeks a heated controversy has been going on in the "Letters to the Editor" column of the New York Times, concerning the truthful teaching of History--particularly that of the American Revolution. Charles Cran Miller, of fame unknown to "Who's Who", began the skirmish by attacking elementary text-books on the ground that they destroy patriotism. These books present the American position as partly right and partly wrong. According to Mr. Miller, we ought to regard the American leaders as saints and the English ministry and king as demons. The next week the author of one of the text-books attacked answered Mr. Miller in a sensible, restrained way. Truth, he said, must be placed above all things, whether or not empty tradition and false patriotism suffer.

Plenty of people who should know better are blinded to the need for historical accuracy by tradition and upbringing. A late issue of the Times brings a letter from a high-schol teacher who was considered an arch-heretic to American ideals because he "dared" to teach history as it really was.

As an important educational problem, this question cannot fail to interest us. Is it a pleasant outlook when pretty falsehoods--just because they are pretty--must be fed to minds not yet trained to sift out truth? The impressions received in childhood are difficult to eradicate; truth, when it does force its way through a barrier of early prejudice brings with it all the attendant dangers of disillusionment. Furthermore, an enduring faith in one's country is founded not on ignorance of its shortcomings but on an appreciation of the counterbalancing merits. The sconer this is recognized in our elementary history classes, the sooner will our "spoon-fed" patriotism give way to one of reason.