The United Nations charter should not he revised when the issue comes before the U.N. next October, Ernest A. Gross, former American U.N. representative, asserted last night at the Law School Forum in Sanders Theatre.

In a debate centering on whether revision was a "Pandora's box or panacea," Norman Cousins, president of the United World Federalists and editor of Saturday Review, clashed with Gross, by urging a change.

A former Senator from North Carolina, Frank P. Graham was the middle-man in viewpoint, suggesting only review of the charter.

Since the United States chief consideration should be its own national interests and security, a political revision would be meaningless, said Gross. It would "only dramatize the frustrations" of smaller countries, without solving their more basic economic problems.

One but Not Whole

Instead of viewing revision as it might affect U.S. interests, Cousins attacked the concept of a "fully sovereign state." "There is a natural conflict between national interests and human interests," he warned.

"Since the Industrial Revolution has made the world one without making it whole, even greater hazards would result from not holding charter revision."

Graham compromised by agreeing both with Gross, that to "accentuate differences would be unwise" and with Cousins, that all people have a "desire for survival on this planet."

In a review of the possibilities, Gross stated that three types of revision were possible. He did not think advisable either a "punctuation conference," making only technical amendments to the charter, or a "show-down conference," attempting to "kick the Russians out." More probable, he though, is a "propaganda or educational conference."