STRAIGHT--OR CURLY?

The choice presented to Harvard voters by the Massachusetts gubernatorial race should be obvious from the fact that Mr. Curley is a veteran political buccaneer and Mr. Saltonstall is not. Election of the latter will mean not so much a victory for reaction as one for clean government, and in view of the Tammany, Hague, and other primitive organizations it is worth arguing that clean rule must precede progressive rule. In this campaign, victory in which lies with the independent voters, integrity--not progressivism--is the issue. Although perhaps not enough independent of State Street, Mr. Saltonstall is honest and sound.

In their frantic attempts to bait the independent vote, which amounts to 600,000, both candidates have sung loud the song of progressivism. Mr. Curley boasts the support of the A.F. of L. and other state labor groups and accuses his opponent of an anti-labor record as state representative from 1923 to 1928. Mr. Saltonstall defends himself by pointing to the bulk of progressive legislation enacted from 1928 to 1936, when he was Speaker of the House, and by claiming that the labor legislation he opposed previously was either unsound or beneficial to some favored bloc. These facts serve to make neither progressive, for as Governor, Boss Curley was busy improving the spoils system--awarding jobs to his followers, paying huge salaries, wrecking the civil service--and sucking money out of Boston for himself and his friends by subtle political machinations. And as Speaker, Mr. Saltonstall was prevented by custom from voting on any legislative measure.

To attract the independents with a "liberal" proposal, the Republicans have seemingly embraced the Townsend Plan. Actually, they favor only a hearing in Congress, believing that the President will in the end blackball it. For labor's sake Mr. Saltonstall desires to eliminate the red tape in the employees' compensation law and to clean up the fly-by-night employment agencies. In addition, he hopes to remove the bad spots from the civil service and to provide reasonable old-age compensation. These intentions do not paint an administrator vibrant with reform zeal, but they do show one who will refrain from reckless promises and more reckless practices.

No intelligent voter can possibly give backing to a politician like Mr. Curley, who falsely represents the have-not's, who in his past administrations has succeeded only in demoralizing both state government and the state Democratic party. On the other side is a man, who, besides being honest, has won acclaim right here at Harvard as an active and liberal Overseer, which, to say the least, is a rare phenomenon. Consequently, this Republican son of Harvard deserves the votes of the University community.