(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:

Like Stephen Leacock's cavalier, the Crimson has mounted its war horse and is rapidly riding off in three directions. Until Friday's issue, the editorial policy was one of consistent, rational non-intervention, free from partisan politics. In sharp contrast with this policy, the Crimson now repudiates the entire Democratic Party by maintaining that "the first essential is to get rid of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Cordell Hull, and the entire present administration." And at the same time, it grasps a sputtering torch for Senator Robert A. Taft.

Mr. Taft, "a man of demonstrated ability and extraordinary political courage, has ranged the guns of his oratory on the side of a calm, intelligent, logical analysis of the world situation." The only ability he has demonstrated is that of a Senatorial stooge, a Republican wheelhorse devoid of any legislative originality. His extraordinary political courage has enabled him to confess his inadequacy to improve the conditions which he attacks. Belching sedative tablets from his guns of oratory, Senator Taft in his last two speeches, the only ones in which he has "dealt" with foreign policy, has betrayed woeful incompetence to frame the simplest of arguments. Even with a brilliant record at Yale, his logic had not yet reached the "pigs is pigs" stage.

If the Crimson is seriously determined to support such a man, and if its editorial policy has indeed disintegrated, then some further explanation is in order.

W.M. Cannon '42.

Ed note: The Crimson did not give blanket support to the candidacy of Robert A. Taft, or condemn in any way the social aims of the New Deal. The statement that the New Deal must be scrapped because of the dangers of its foreign policy was not intended, though the implication was mistakenly made. The purpose of the editorial was to express the hope that issues of foreign policy will be clearly drawn in the coming campaign.

Ed note: The Crimson has received many letters dealing with the European war, several of which are printed below. We invite further communications, and ask that they be kept to a reasonable length.