Letters.

--I write to correct the false impression created by your Sept. 16 ararticle "Bowles's Luck" by Joel Mowbray. Mr. Mowbray suggests that I made a political decision not to sue Erskine Bowles in connection with losses to our state pension fund from improper investments by Forstmann Little.

The facts clearly establish that the defendants were chosen based on their individual involvement, as they must be. The core of our lawsuit is the allegation that Forstmann, acting by its general partners, invested Connecticut's pension-fund monies in a manner contrary to its assurances to the state, and then restructured certain aspects of the investments to destroy the value of state investments. Our lawsuit names as defendants all living Forstmann general partners whose names appeared either on the original offering statements or who were named in the statement filed with the SEC to document the challenged restructuring. Mr. Bowles's name did not appear in either connection, nor did that of at least one other general partner, Joshua Lewis.

Since then, we have learned of additional information that does provide an appropriate legal basis for suit against Mr. Bowles and Mr. Lewis. I have filed suit against them and will continue to pursue the matter vigorously. I have never met or spoken to Mr. Bowles, nor have I been contacted by him or by anyone acting on his behalf, as far as I know.

Richard Blumenthal, Conn. Atty. Genl.

Hartford, Conn.

--Joel Mowbray replies: As Mr. Blumenthal knows, defendants are named fofor their actions, not for signing on to certain documents. Erskine Bowles was clearly involved in investing "Connecticut's pension- fund monies in a manner contrary to [original] assurances to the state"-he was even on the board of directors of one of the two companies at the heart of the lawsuit. Mr. Blumenthal has acknowledged as much by naming Bowles-after the NR story came out-without adding any new substantive evidence in the refiling. The only "additional information" Mr. Blumenthal has come across is that voters don't like the look of a fellow Democrat mysteriously being spared.

checking it twice

As former judges and current co-chairs of The Constitution Project's bipartisan Death Penalty Initiative, we write regarding Ramesh Ponnuru's Sept. 16 piece, "Bad List."

We take seriously the concept that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty or acquitted at trial, or until the prosecution has dropped the charges. The legal standard has never been, nor should it be, "probably guilty," which Mr. Ponnuru uses in challenging the number of innocent individuals exonerated from Death Row. Though he says mere "technicalities" spared some, these technicalities are really the Bill of Rights that we all hold dear.

It does not matter whether Americans are supporters or opponents of the death penalty or whether we can agree on the exact number exonerated. Mr. Ponnuru recognizes that wrongful capital convictions are caused by "gross misconduct by prosecutors and police, or overreliance on the testimony of jailhouse snitches." They are also the result of incompetent defense lawyers. The bipartisan Innocence Protection Act now pending in Congress is a good start on reform and should be passed.

The Hons. Charles F. Baird & Gerald Kogan

Washington, D.C.

-- Re the word "niggardly" (The Week, Sept. 30): Ironically, it was RoRobert Mugabe, dictator of Zimbabwe, who made the PC crowd look silly. Invited to address the New York City Council, Mugabe said that he had to terrorize, murder, and expel white farmers because "they employ our people and pay them niggardly wages."

George E. Rubin

New York, N.Y.

--Mahalia Jackson prayed to be relieved of niggardliness: "O LoLord/Blot out my niggardy!" She wasn't asking God to smite racists or to make her white but to make her a more dutiful servant of the Lord. The young would be better served if they were taught the language of their country by one of its foremost artists.

Richard de Mille 

Santa Barbara, Calif.