(3 of 3)

Sir: . . Don't you think you should have listed a few specific examples of U.S. appeasement [of Communism]? Off hand, I can't think of any; I doubt if the Russians can either.

The decision to fight in Korea, the creation of SHAPE and our plans for a Japanese peace treaty are mighty strange manifestations of appeasement . . . WILLIAM ATTWOOD Paris, France

Rebuke to Duke

Sir: Having been a sometime resident of Eton and Windsor, and having come to own an affection for the legend and tradition which abound on both the Eton and Windsor sides of the Thames . . . I resent, sir, the present Duke of Wellington's contention that his forebear did not remark that "the battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton" [TIME, Aug. 27].

In these times of paucity of respect for the past, let us not tamper with the grassy slopes that extend out toward the crass commercialism of Slough . . . If the first Duke of Wellington did not say this in so many words, then one of his post-cedents should have. HARRY HESS New York City

Sir: If the seventh Duke of Wellington denies the validity of the Eton-Waterloo epigrammatic statement attributed to his famous ancestor and is willing to spend his money to prove his point, what might he not be willing to do in the case of the story which is quoted from the Irish Digest?

The Duke of Wellington, when he was very old and incredibly distinguished, was telling how once, at mess in the Peninsula, his servant had opened a bottle of port, and inside found a rat.

"It must have been a very large bottle," remarked a subaltern.

The Duke fixed him with his eye. "It was a damned small bottle."

"Oh," said the subaltern, abashed, "then no doubt it was a very small rat."

"It was a damned large rat," said the Duke. And there the matter has rested ever since. —Gilbert Murray, Stoic, Christian and Humanist D. E. STANTON Memphis, Tcnn.

Chimp's I.Q.

Sir: TIME Aug. 27 says, "After testing 220 white and Negro babies on such items as crawling, babbling, standing and grabbing, Psychologist A. R. Gilliland of Northwestern University poked another hole into an old superstition. Mean I.Q. of the white babies: 103; of the Negroes: 105.6."

The clear implication here is that the Negro babies were, if anything, slightly brighter than the white . . . Use of the term "I.Q." with babies is of doubtful validity at best and may often be misleading, while "I.Q.s" obtained from baby tests have almost no predictive value for later measures of intelligence taken when the child can read and write. Negroes, in general, mature more rapidly than whites, so that Negro babies can be expected to perform better than whites in the activities your article describes.

In fact, in crawling, grabbing and the like, a baby chimpanzee would do better than either racial group . . . HENRY E. GARRETT Department of Psychology Columbia University New York City