(The Crimson invites all men in the University to submit signed communications of 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 Editor of the CRIMSON:

Your stirring editorial of March 15, "To Break a Strike", pleased me; and, if I were you, Mr. Editor, I shouldn't mind at all what Mr. Wormser said but should go ahead and send marked copies of the CRIMSON to all my friends. I was delighted to learn from your comment that, after all, the strike has been used as "a protest against unfair exploitation of the laboring man". But that was "originally", was it not? Alas, yes.

Great as was my pleasure upon reading this masterpiece of modern American journalism, there are one or two points I should like to suggest. But first, may I ask a question? Didn't it rankle just a little to have to slip in those two words--which of course, are inaccurate--"grossly" and "unfair"?

Now, the points I beg leave to mention. I fear you are a bit too confident in your belief about the availability of the aeroplane. Theoretically union men are not supposed to carry pistols or blackjacks; such instruments are for the protection of--er--the public, and are reserved to Allan Pinkerton's brave boys. If things had worked according to schedule the time poor old Louis had the disagreement with his subjects, the Jacquerie would not have had arms. And I suppose the first Paleolithic genius who slung a rook with a twisted grass rope had no idea that the gentleman in the adjoining cave would get wise to the trick. No; we should not delude ourselves. We must grow accustomed to the military plagiarism of the "insurgents"; they have no sense of honor--never having attended Harvard--and we must prepare ourselves to accept with calm dignity the news of bombs dropped from the sky on railroad roundhouses, coal operators' homes, and--gracious--perhaps the White House!

Another suggestion I should like to make concerns the reason why laboring men show such adaptability to new methods of striking; of course, this is but a suggestion. The greatest reason is perhaps, the number of bright lads in the country who, as wee tots of seventeen, astonish their parents by anticipating English A; then breeze through college, dashing off keen editorials in which they use such big words as "Syndicalism", "exploitation", and "Johannesburg"; and finally fare forth in the world to enlighten the public through the editorial columns of your "New York Timeses", your "Chicago Tribunes", and your "Boston Transcripts". (This last is, I confess, modeled after your clever, but somewhat misguided--no offense--allusion of some time ago to "your Hylans, your Thompsons, and your Curleys". Forgive me; I find so many matters of style to follow in your columns). But, as I was saying, laboring men--especially those naughty unionists--have such poor literary taste and such distorted economic principles that they have a fond hope that, perhaps, college teaches men to do their part in straightening out (what the unionists consider) a rather tangled economic system; and when they find that the college chappies can only suggest improved ways of striking, they--why, they take the hint.

Yours for the mastery of the air, hot and otherwise. HERBERT JONES '25