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

To the Editor of the CRIMSON:

It is hard to disagree with a great many of the statements in Mr. Nittle's communication printed in last Saturday's CRIMSON. One statement in particular, however, irked me because of its falsification of the context of my communication printed in last Friday's CRIMSON. He states: ". . . attempt to apply this sacred idea of eternal Truth in defense of bankers and such . . ." Was not the whole point in my letter that the New Deal is in part an attempt to give Big Business an even greater opportunity to dominate the country?

In an interview with Professor Chamberlin printed in last Saturday's CRIMSON, he is reported as saying: "Looking backward, it seems no loss than a nightmare that business should have been handed a blank check, as it was under General Johnson, to 'govern itself' with no thought for the consequences. . . Much of the power which largo industrialists have secured for themselves with government sanction will never be retaken from them." It is this in the New Deal that I object to; it is this objection which any honest person should object to. It is the taxing of the bread and meat of the poor that I object to; it is the encouragement given by the Federal Government to the states and local governments to increase expenditure that I object to, because it is the worker who; in the end, must pay. Much of this legislation to relieve debtors is for the sake of Big Business which is up to its neck in debt. The widows and orphans and laborers and small businessmen and professional men aren't yet in debt. They still have some savings in the BANKS, and it is these savings which are being used to attempt to get Big Business out of debt.

When Mr. Nittle states that "The most that we can hope for from any government is a compromise with Truth," I agree with him. My point is simply that that government is best which compromises least with Truth. If Mr. Nittle thinks that the New Deal is the best compromise let him support it, I don't, and I shall not support it. But Mr. Nittle should confine his criticism of my communication to statements made therelu. This he did not do. V. H. Kramer '35.