In our recent editorial concerning Yale News editorial policies, we imputed to them a half-baked radicalism which, in the light of their answer appearing in yesterday's Crimson, seems to have been unjust. They claim to love business much more than we do, and are merely seeking to prevent their beloved from committing suicide.

No-one denies the necessity of laws restraining the practices prevalent during the recent boom among a conspicuous few unscrupulous tycoons. Nor is there any doubt that the government must exert its power in preventing the recurrent disasters of depression. The question is not action or no action, but action good or bad.

Hoover began with his restrictive Chamber of Commerce Codes; Roosevelt continued with his National Recovery Administration. Hoover began with his restrictive high tariffs; Roosevelt continued with his absurd Agricultural Administration. Both Presidents, if they had deliberately set out to intensify the depression, to impoverish the country, to keep people out of work, and to give free rein to all the formerly illegal, antisocial, restrictive, monopolistic practices, could not have designed more effective programs to secure this effect.

When Farleyism, Tugwellism, Huey-Longism, Radicalism, and plain lying Insincerity are added to the list of Rooseveltian activities, it is hard to understand how the New Deal can still keep the wool over the eyes of our still esteemed contemporary.