To the Editors of the Crimson:

My respect for the Crimson grows with each issue. I think it was particularly astute of you to point out that among all the attacks by the let's-get-Wallace crowd, the one thing they are not attacking is Mr. Wallace's central thesis.

For example, The Attorney General's carefully worded remark did not touch Mr. Wallace's central thesis. Mr. Clark said, "One who tells the people of Europe that the United States is committed to a ruthless imperialism--and war with the Sovet Union --tells a lie." Under the guise of diplomatic avoidance of mentioning names, Mr. Clark is guilty of innuende, at a time when Mr. Clark himself calls for "clear thinking." It is true that the United States is not yet committed to a ruthless imperialism. The Truman-Vandenberg Doctrine is not yet passed. It is the very aim of Mr. Wallace to prevent our foreign policy's sanctioning such imperialism.

Again, the Christian Science Moniter, while agreeing with the broad outlines of what Mr. Wallace says, can only muster the feeble argument that Mr. Wallace is "making it harder" to put over the liberals' protest. With even Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. (The Naton, April 5) declaring that "one must prefer" James Burnham's clearly faseist program, I, for one, rejoice that the liberal protest is in the hands of one with the sincerity and courage of Mr. Wallace. Durham M. Miller.