(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. Only letters under 400 words can be printed because of space limitations.)

To the Editor

The Harvard Crimson

Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dear Sir:

Those of us charged with the administration of the Ames Competition note with displeasure the story appearing on page one of today's issue of the Crimson, captioned "Reed Faces Poser, to Judge or Not to Judge Ames Competition." The impression created by this article is wholly inaccurate and the five questions, imagined by the writer to be puzzling to Mr. Reed, are neither raised by the rules of the Ames Competition nor judicial etiquette.

Considering these five questions in order of importance, we find them meaningless when examined in light of fact.

1. "Can a prospective Supreme Court Justice afford to risk his chances of confirmation by gratuitously committing himself on some of the knottiest points in Labor Law, Torts, Equity, Constitutional Law and Federal Jurisdiction cooked up by the Ames Competition cookers in a long while?"

The rules of the Ames Competition expressly provide that decisions shall NOT be made upon the merits of the case (the law) but upon the manner in which counsel have presented their respective side of the argument. The judges are to consider only the structure of the briefs, the treatment of authorities, the skill shown in answering questions asked by the court, and the mastery of the technique of oral advocacy displayed by rival counsel, in arriving at their conclusion. Mr. Reed would not be embarrassed at having to make a decision of this nature and in no way would his chances of confirmation be jeopardized.

2. "Is it discreet for a Supreme Court Justice to lay down outside his court the law on some of the most difficult problems of the day?"

and

3. "Is it wise for a Supreme Court Justice to tie his hands when he is not forced do so?"

These two questions are seen to be groundless, for the future Justice will not be called on to "lay down the law" or "tie his hands" with respect to the issues involved.

4. "Furthermore, if Reed does not participate, he will face possible embarrassment from a failure of confirmation."

This statement is dependent on the merits of 1, 2, and 3 and falls with them.

5. "Is it etiquette for a Supreme Court Justice, even if he is only a prospective one, to sit on the same Bench with lesser Judges?"

This question may best be answered by pointing out that there are ten Judicial Circuits in the United States, each presided over by a Justice of the Supreme Court (one doing double duty). The Justices have the right to sit as members of lower federal courts and, indeed, until the abolition of the federal circuit courts, it was their duty. It is the pressure of business, the limitation of time, and not a canon of judicial etiquette which makes it unusual that a Supreme Court Justice sits on a case with members of a lower federal court.

We are confident that the Crimson will take the steps necessary to correct the false impression created by today's story. Sincerely yours,   James P. Kranz, Jr., Chairman,   Board of Student Advisers.