Whitewash

To the Editor of the CRIMSON:

"Professor Holmes supports Hoover as candidate with the most integrity"; when I read the above in this morning's CRIMSON, Professor Holmes' stock dropped pretty low in my estimation. However I was happy to find that his statement contained no such obnoxious comparison or weighing of the candidates' honesty. Certainly he has been much maligned by the writer of the caption.

There is mention of integrity in the statement and this I consider pretty trite as to me it seems an elementary assumption that in this stage of American, progress, personal Integrity is a part of the concept "presidential candidate". Would anybody with professional training venture to impugn the honesty of either Mr. Smith or Mr. Thomas?

Mr. Holmes' statement, "The Republican party showed dangerous signs of corruption during the early years of President Harding's administration", is indefensibly pianissimo. I believe very few Republicans will tone down the oil; and veteran bureau scandals to "dangerous signs".

One of the most compelling negative reasons (i.e. against Hoover) I have for voting for Mr. Smith is that I don't like the former's crowd, as somebody has put it. I can't help contrasting "I owe my nomination to no man or group of men," which I believe to be absolute truth, with Senator Norris' statement that at the Kansas City convention it was Vare who at the Psychological moment put Hoover across--which I also believe to be absolute truth. James F. Concagh 3L