To the Editor of the Crimson:

I wish to take exception to the statement appearing in this morning's Crimson which read: "The Law School is one of the hardest hit of the graduate schools because the nature of the preparation which it gives does not train men for winning wars."

Also may I point out to the Crimson the part which Harvard and other lawyers are taking in the preparation of contracts, legislation, and regulations which are the very framework within which our war effort operates. Men able to see through to the essence of confusing regulations and complicated legal problems are sought eagerly both for corporative practice and for vital jobs within the war machine itself. A few of these jobs are: 1) Judge-Advocate branches of the Army and Navy which enforce and maintain military discipline. 2) Army and Navy supply branches to negotiate contracts and interpret regulations. 3 F.B.I. investigators for whom legal training is essential. 4) Deputy United States Marshals who enforce Federal rules and decrees of Federal courts 5) Legal advisors to interpret orders and legislation governing all war production. 6) Administrators, assistants, and investigators in nearly every agency and department of government.

The fact that draft deferrment is not given law students thus is by no means proof that a supply of law-trained men will not become increasingly essential to win the war. Certainly we must realize the need during war, as well as peace, for men able to think in terms of Anglo-American law and representative government. . . . . the very systems which we are fighting to preserve. David R. Roberts '42, ll.