To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

Contrary to the implication of your news story, the Harvard Young Republicans Club's Vietnam policy report was not "thrown out" on the basis of content. It was sent back to committee because a number of members of the club thought that it was either not long enough or not sufficiently well documented. In the course of the debate, most of the speakers for recommittal made it clear that they supported the content of the report.

The support of the club for the conclusions reached in the report was made clear in the early part of the evening, when several attempts to amend the report were defeated. One such motion which would have had the club oppose bombing North Vietnam, received only one vote.

Your reporter errs in saying that the report was "written by David D. Friedman '65 and Danny J. Boggs '65;" this mistake is certainly excusable, since it was made by a number of the speakers during the debate. In fact, the contents of the report were the consensus of the Vietnam policy Committee. The text was written by me and amended and then approved by the full committee. The report falled of unanimous approval by one vote, and there were no minority reports.

The report did not, as you assert, say that the U.S. has the right and the duty to intervene in Vietnam. It said that the U.S. "would have the right, if not the obligation, to support the rights of the minority" if the Viet Cong attempted to impose a totalitarian government. While this may have been poor phrasing, it cannot possibly be interpreted, except by the CRIMSON, as stating that we have a duty to intervene.

I have no reason to believe that the many errors in your story were due to bias, and not merely to superficial and careless reporting. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, as soon as I find out which accusation you prefer. David D. Friedman '65