(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:
Thank you very much for your editorial in answer to my inquiry. However, as you branded me intolerant and said that I cannot see the elephant because of his tasks, I trust that a rebuttal will not be out of order.
Your editorial made one comment which cannot be denied nor defended. "Selective quotation" is unethical, unjust, and thoroughly reprehensible.
Your other comments are, however, based upon the same intolerance and lack of perspective of which you accuse me. I can find no evidence to support your contention that Hearst's policies are provincial, irresponsible, or a perversion of democratic principles. Nor can I find assurance that we are "cursed with an antiquated economic system," and headed for faseiqui. On the contrary there are many fine minds in this country who hold, with Hearst, that high tariffs, naval supremacy, and freedom from foreign entanglements will assist the salvation of this country. You confuse, I am afraid, intolerance with freedom of belief. Tolerance requires analysis of both sides before a stand is taken. It is inability to understand the other side, even though one might not agree with it, that ends in rallies and petitions.
I believe Mr. Hearst is doing a good job. He is waking people up to the fact that the answer to world political chaos brought on by the failure of governments to agree is not more agreements. He is educating people to the dangers of industrial invasion and toward the point of view that we can help solve world problems by solving domestic problems first. He is alive to the thesis that the best way to reduce arms and navies is by the projection of armed forces second to none. He is a constructive, not a destructive force toward a better democracy. Paul Donham '36.