A Constitutional Radical

(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 Editors of the CRIMSON:

Few idle theorists can hope for such a graceful subject of theorizing as Mr. Gleason has proven in last Friday's CRIMSON, Answering Mr. Fleming's article on labels, he appropriately steps forward, crowns his opponent with a sort of gigantic preserve-jar label "radical," and thereby pickles him for life, shelving him where no unwitting undergraduate lover of the constitution can be in danger of his phizzing over again.

Mr. Gleason speaks as "we conservatives who still cling to the principles of the constitution." The insinuation is perfect. Radicals do not uphold the constitution. Note that Mr. Gleason does not say it openly; he says it by innuendo, if Mr. Gleason is one of that kind of thinkers who class all radicals as revolutionary, and, therefore, below contempt, "radical outbursts" being something to discredit and suppress as dangerous to our constitution, he is one of those gentlemen who sit on the safety valve of social unrest and compress the steam of "radicalism" into real revolution. A consideration of problems, not a contemptuous labelling of all bubbling of the cauldron as "radical outbursts," is perhaps what we most need.

The point seems to be that Mr. Gleason does not believe that one who is radical respects the constitution. I think I can speak for a few "radicals" who do. HAROLD M. FLEMING '20.