(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 of the Crimson:

In the interest of a clearer understanding of the Wagner Labor Act, I wish to correct an error in your account of my radio speech, reported in the Crimson, Thursday last.

This is the statement that I objected to allowing interest groups to be represented in the National Labor Relations Board because it "would swing the balance of power too far in favor of the employer." My objection to the proposed reconstruction of the Board along interest group lines is based upon the character of the functions which the Board performs. The Board is a quasi-judicial agency and is expected to enforce certain definite prohibitions. The conventional interest group composition of labor boards works well, if at all, only when the functions of the Board so organized are mediatory in character. The representation of interest groups in the present Board would force it to live in an atmosphere of compromise and adaptation. As a practical effect, each member would bargain and haggle with the others as to the meaning of the Act. This would sacrifice a consistent and systematic interpretation of principles without the gain of any corresponding advantage, and would tend to forfeit the support which the courts so far have extended to the Board. Earl G. Latham.