(Ed. Note--The Crimson does not necessarily endorse opinions expressed in printed communications. No attention will be paid to anonymous letters but under special conditions, at the request of the writer, names will be withheld.)

To the Editor of the CRIMSON:

In your editorial in the CRIMSON yesterday entitled "Sounding Brass" you make vague and indefinite attacks on those doing what they can to remedy, or at last to palliate, the conditions in our slums. Far from giving any constructive criticism as to how this may be done, although you big-heartedly admit that the "Prevention of crime and delinquency..is the surest way of creating social stability" and that "the intelligent have shown a wordy, but not ineffective interest in these matters", you offer no adverse criticism except general mudslinging. Picking on a statement of one who is attempting to help and really serve his fellow men, in which he states that such service is not only of value judged by the service rendered, but also by what the individual himself gets out of it, you call all such service "hypocrisy and business charlatanism"! What could be further from hypocrisy when he deliberately states that he does profit by it himself and what more unjust than to infer that he does such service only for this reason? Business charlatanism is the only approach to valuable criticism in the whole article. But who does not know that there are poor men in every field, and yet, on the other hand, who does not know that there is about as little opportunity for individual "charlatanism" in this field as in any other.

Social Service has been getting about as good a crowd of undergraduates for the last fifty or more years as it would be easy to find. It is work that naturally appeals to the best type of student, for the crying necessity and the results of such work are easily seen by any who will take the trouble to get out of their own rut of life. J. D. Hubbard '29.