(The Crimson invites all men in the University to submit signed communications or timely interest. 'It assumes no responsibility, however, for sentiments expressed under this head and reserves the right to exclude any whose publication would be palpably inappropriate.)

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

Your editorial of March 31 on "Less Talk and More Ships" is excellent but for one point: there runs all through it the implication that we should have a merchant marine. Last year I waded through that excellent book by Professor Taussig, "Principles of Economics", and, among other things, I learned there that a country may pay for the goods it imports in money, goods or services. It follows, of course, that the exporting nation must therefore receive payment in the form of money, goods or services.

At the present time, Europe is scarcely able to pay for her imports in gold. Nor are her industries in proper condition to produce sufficient goods to make complete payment. There remains, then, only services as a means of meeting her obligations.

One very important kind of service is that of carrying goods from the exporting to the importing country. If we insist on carrying our own goods ourselves, we thereby cut down, by just so much. Europe's ability to pay. What she cannot pay for, she will not buy. So every dollar that we pay American ships for freight charges results in a dollar less of exports for our manufacturers. What the ship owners gain, the business firms lose.

Especially in these times of slack work, still further to cut down the demand for our manufactured products by creating a big merchant service will disorganize our industries to a dangerous degree. In any case, no matter what the conditions of trade, or with what countries, our exports can always be increased by letting our creditors carry the goods for us. Therefore, why a merchant marine? WM. R. BREWATER '22.