Dear Sir:--In the sermon which you preached yesterday, the title, as given in the newspapers, is "_The White Slaves of Boston Sweaters_." Under the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States there can be no such thing as "_slave_" in this country. Under the decision of Judge Parsons there has not been a slave in Massachusetts since the adoption of the Constitution. I therefore venture to ask you some questions. 1. How do you justify the term "_white slave_" when applied to the persons whose condition you describe? 2. "Climb three flights to an attic suite of two rooms, and there one would find a mother and five children" doubtless in very bad condition; the mother trying to support them; the tenement doubtless very bad. Suppose we condemn the tenement,--pull it down,--then these people would have _no_ roof over their heads. Is _no_ roof better than _some kind_ of a roof? Suppose we refuse to trust her to make pants? Is _no_ work better than _some_ work? 3. The mother earns her living, or part of it, by making "pants." Pants made in this way are sold at a very low price at retail, after being subjected to the cost of distribution in the customary way. There is great competition in this business. That competition leads every employer to pay the highest wages that can be recovered from the sale of the pants, also allowing the sweater's charge. If the cost of making is advanced on this class of pants, they cannot be sold at all; then there would be no sweater, and the woman would get no work. Is _no_ work better than _some_ work? 4. The sweater deals as a middleman with the manufacturer and the worker. If he did not deal with this kind of work, it would cost the manufacturer more to reach the worker than it does now; no sweater would be employed if he did not earn what he makes; then the manufacturer, or clothier, could pay _less_ for making the pants, because he now pays _all that the trade will bear_. If it cost him more to reach the worker, he _must_ pay less. Suppose we abolish the sweater, or middleman, then he would not distribute the work, and there would be _no_ work. Is that better than _some_ work? 5. Suppose this woman had not come here with her children and had stayed, perhaps, in Italy or in Russia, instead of coming here. Is _some_ work _here_ better than _no_ work in _Italy_? 6. If the mother cannot support the children,--being now in this country without having been sent back,--she is entitled to go with her children to the almshouse, where suitable shelter, clean rooms, and good food would be provided. Is it better for her to _try to support her children_ under existing conditions _than to go to the almshouse_?