To the Editors of the Crimson:

As one of the proponents of world government, I should like to take exception to your editorial of September 23, entitled "The Third Alternative." The "fury of the Soviet reply to the proposals made by Secretary Marshall" did not seem to be the "crack of doom" to world federalists. Vishinsky's reply, and indeed the whole history of the UN, have been the unhappy fulfillment of our prediction that the UN, as presently constituted, could never succeed. We are still convinced that the world must choose between world federal government and world destruction.

Through its various economic and social agencies, the UN can do much to lay the foundations for a world community. But when the member nations still retain the power to enter into armed conflict, advancements can mean little. World government must not follow these functional developments, but precede them. The UN can study, debate, recommend; it cannot legislate, inspect, enforce....

Secretary Marshall's proposal for a special committee to study the limitation of the veto, we feel, offers world federalists-and delegations of the UN who intended to introduce the question the opportunity to point out that other mere limitation of the veto is not sufficient and that other amendments are needed those that will give the UN powers of government. Vishinsky's reply is discouraging in that it indicates, perhaps, Russian reaction to a proposal for world government. But if we are to have a showdown, let the issue be squarely presented. Let us form a world government with Russia, if possible; without her, if necessary. Such a partial world government would be open at all times to any nation which wished to join it. Such a government would be one Russia could join, but could not overcome.... Virginia Lastayo Riorden,   2 Gray Gardens East.