In an article running to a column and a half, the Svenska Tribunen--and also, of course, the little Fosterlandet--try to disprove the statements which we made a couple of weeks ago in an article entitled: "Is the House of God Fireproof?"

Both of our contemporaries have reprinted our article in full, and they then go on to say that "even a glance at the article quoted will convince at least ninety-nine out of a hundred that the writer of the article in question has permitted his imagination to override his reason, and has tried by oratorical skill to cover up his lack of relevant facts." And then, with "a glance," the Svenska Tribunen and the Fosterlandet review all the churches in the city and find that "most of the churches are built in open spaces, and only rarely is a church hemmed in between other buildings, in which case the danger of fire is increased."

The statement is about half true. But if one makes a study of the situation--instead of merely taking in at a glance the churches which are placed in open spaces--one will find that most of these exposed buildings are constructed of wood which, through years of exposure to the air and the sun, has become dry as tinder. If such a church were to catch fire, it would not take much longer than five minutes for the fire to transform the building into a heap of smoldering rubbish. And the congregation? Well, the members would, of course, have found their way out through the "wide main entrance," with which, according to the two papers referred to, most of the churches are supplied.

We repeat what we stated a couple of weeks ago: "Most of the churches in the city are worse firetraps than the theaters." The majority of the theaters in the city are "fireproof." The Auditorium, the Studebaker, the Illinois, the Garrick, the Bush Temple, the Masonic Theater, etc. are safe only if they are supplied with steel screens. This cannot be said of the churches, whether they are built in open spaces or, as is frequently the case, are squeezed in between other buildings.

Yet our contemporaries assert that "from whichever vantage point the matter is considered, it must be acknowledged that the danger from fire in our churches is, with but few exceptions, very insignificant in comparison with the terrible risk of fire in the theaters."

We cannot admit this to be true. Neither do unsentimental statistics bear this out. Statistics tell us that during the seventeen years prior to 1901, 4,930 churches in this country became a prey to flames.

The Tribunen-Fosterlandet insinuates that we but rarely visit the churches and that, as a consequence, we are not really aware of the way in which the windows are placed. To this we will merely reply that we visit the churches as often as our brothers of the Tribunen-Fosterlandet visit the dance halls; consequently, we are as well acquainted with the interior of churches as our opponents are with the interior of dance halls.

We do not quite understand why the churches are not scheduled to be closed 4along with the theaters, since it cannot be denied that the former have also violated the building ordinance. To guard against a denial of this in some subsequent number of the Tribunen - Fosterlandet we quote here what the Fosterlandet states about this matter in the very issue of the paper in which our qualifications for judging the matter are questioned. Says the Fosterlandet:

"The spirit of disrespect for the law is, unfortunately, not confined to the theaters alone; it has become a power in our whole social fabric; it even has attained considerable proportions within the Christian churches here in Chicago. Sad to say, even in the matter of obedience to the building ordinances adopted for the city, many Christian temples are sinning as much as the theaters."