MAIL

(Ed. Note-The Crimson does not necessarily endorse opinions expressed in printed communications. No attention will be paid to anonymous letters and only under special conditions, at the request of the writer, will names be withheld. Only letters under 400 words can be printed because of space limitations.)

To the Editor of the Crimson:

I believe in neutrality, i.e., in not entering the war. I believe most Americans feel the same way. I think they are agreed on their determination to keep out. The means of keeping out is the problem. And it would appear that the organizing committee of the American Independence League would do better to take a stand on the means than on an end already desired by most people.

Would it not be wiser for the nation's students to announce their sentiment on the embargo question? The League states that "when crises arise that clearly threaten our national independence by forcing us into the European conflict, we want to allow the members of the League to vote on a definite stand." Has not the crisis arisen? Is not the embargo issue proclaimed to be the "guarantee of neutrality," the "opening wedge to war?" Let the committee take a stand on this crisis, on the means of maintaining neutrality. Those who honestly seek neutrality will be more likely to express themselves then, either by joining the organizations which will inevitably arise to oppose the League's stand. All will be united in their desire for neutrality, and all will be making concrete contributions to neutrality by revealing their sentiment on how neutrality can be maintained. E. Bernard Fleischaker '42