Astute is the word for President Conant's letter to Alf Landon. We hope that "futile" will not also be applied.

For the first time since the spring of 1937, when the abortive Supreme Court Reorganization plan was being debated, the President of Harvard has expressed his views on a national issue. And he has expressed them in unequivocal words: "I am personally strongly in favor of a modification of the law so as to permit the sale of implements of war to France and England."

But the interesting point of the letter is not this view, it is the manner in which it is expressed. Mr. Conant does not argue the case for repeal. Once his opinion is stated, he drops the issue completely. What follows is an astute bit of mancuvering calculated to put Mr. Landon--and, of course, the embargo bloc as a whole--neatly on the spot. His words show a masterful knowledge of American political machinations.

In this neutrality debate, the anti-repealers have the strategic edge. Made-to-order is the dramatic slogan: "Repeal means war." It fits nicely into newspaper headlines; it has an overwhelming, if irrational, appeal; it is difficult to answer. The supporters of repeal must resort to logic, to reason, to fact in their argument; and such an approach is never so effective in the political arena. Moreover, the fundamental argument for repeal, that a shortening of the war's duration and an increase in the Allies' chances of victory maximize America's chances of staying at peace--this argument cannot be stated by anyone in authority. To change a nation's legislation for the express purpose of aiding one belligerent as against the other is to commit an unneutral act under international law; this the United States dare not do. So she must keep her purposes to herself.

All this President Conant foresaw, last week, when he wrote the letter. He knew that the fight would be one with no quarter asked or given. He knew that those who felt as he did would be at a disadvantage. And so he has made an attempt to introduce into the fight a few rules of fair play. He has appealed to the opposition not to present the issue as one of immediate war or peace. He has done the same thing President Roosevelt did at the outset of his message to Congress when he attributed high motives to his opponents and asked them for reciprocation.

Astute, yes. But will it be effective? Some hint as to the possible reaction can be gained from Alf Landon's reply. It is brief, non-committal, obvious. It shows plainly Mr. Landon's embarrassment. But it contains no hint of a willingness to cooperate. One fears that, Mr. Conant notwithstanding, the debate will go on--bitterly, irrationally, without inhibitions. The only hope of thinking persons is that eventually reason will prevail on a national scale, and that the decision thus made will be reflected in Congress over the adroitly dramatized objections of an irresponsible and misguided minority.