(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:

The CRIMSON's latest editorial on beer does not do much to clarify the situation, either. You say: "Why this (the 21-year age limit) was never extended to a beverage admittedly non-intoxicating must remain ever locked in the Broasts of the Massachusetts Legislature." The point is that since the coming of Repeal, 3.2 beer has c to exist. The beer contemplated by the present legislation is full strength beer running up to 12 per cent, and it is admittedly intoxicating.

You may feel that this alters your conclusions, but in any case I am calling it to your attention, as a blunder of this sort weakens your case considerably.

Also, aren't you asking for paternalism in suggesting that University Hall do your lobbying for you? After all, the student body under 21 is the interested bloc. Why not suggest that they do a little lobbying for themselves, either through the CRIMSON or the Student Council? When Massachusetts legislators are involved it takes more than "a little encouragement" to accomplish the desired result.

(Name withheld by request.)

(The CRIMSON's suggestion is that if the Massachusetts Legislature is unwilling to legalize sales of all liquor to persons over 18, it at least legalize sales of non-intoxicating beer to minors. Many good pre-Prohibition beers were under 3.2 per cent. As to the suggestions for lobbying, the CRIMSON will be glad to forward all communications on the subject to members of the Legislature.--Ed.)