James' material on pre-Keynesian champions of compensatory fiscal policy is interesting and useful, but he errs, I believe, in introducing it as contradicting Roger's point. No need to make of this a quarrel. Roger wrote that "before the GT ... fiscal intervention was ... regarded as ... dangerous, ... ." For some to have regarded it as dangerous, there must have been others championing it, so in a way James' evidence reinforces Roger's statement. It is probably true, though, that the anti-commie emphasis grew when FDR adopted the policy. Few worried that Harding, Coolidge, or Hoover might be harboring reds. Presidents Cleveland and McKinley, I believe, also defended military spending to help combat depression. It must be an error, however, to cite Mints as being pre-Currie if, as Roger wrote, Mints was Currie's student. As to whether "too much is made" of Currie's role, I suppose the implied subject of the passive construction is Roger, and I've a feeling he will not let that pass. I will be an interested spectator, and hope to learn a lot from both parties. Mason Gaffney