To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

It has been the practice in the past for the liberal element in the Democratic Party to take the Republicans to task for aiding or even merely putting up with so-called "McCarthyism"--an admittedly loose term which usually means irresponsible allegations of Comunist Party affiliation or sentiment by political candidates in the context of a campaign for public office.

Such tactics are currently being used by Mr. Frank Kelly, Democratic candidate for Attorney General, against Edward Brooke, the Republican candidate. The sum and substance of the charge is that while Brooke was with the NAACP he opposed anti-subversive legislation. This was ten years ago. The legislation involved was of doubtful constitutionality at best, as it turned over to the Attorney General awesome power to label "subversives" and prosecute them without much regard for due process.

Mr. Kelly's tactics have been roundly condemned in the press. However, the so-called liberal element of the Democratic Party has been notable by its silence. This is especially true with respect to two avowed liberals on the same ticket with Mr. Kelly--Mr. Edward M. Kennedy and Endicott Peabody. Their reluctance to disassociate themselves from these charges will cause many voters to regard their reaction as tacit approval. If this is the case, then it would appear that the opposition voiced in the past against such tactics was aimed more at reducing its effectiveness as used against Democrats than at any moral wrong in using such tactics.

The plain fact is that both Peabody and Kennedy are sacrificing their scruples and Ed Brooke's reputation in a quest for votes. Even if Brooke wins, which seems most likely, his reputation has been smeared and Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Peabody, who are in a position to correct much of this wrong, will have contributed by their silence. Executive Committee, Harvard Law and Graduate Schools Republican Club. (A review of last night's HRO concert will appear in Monday' paper--Ed.)