OBVIOUS CONCLUSIONS

To cursory observation the latest CRIMSON prohibition poll may mean practically nothing. Yet like most attempts of kindred nature throughout the country this does actually evidence a certain slow movement from the intolerance of emotional morality to the tolerance of intellectual sanity.

For at Harvard this is not the first vote of its kind and thus it is possible to compare it with the one of two years ago. And such comparison shows very distinctly that there has grown at Harvard a dislike for the status quo and a desire for moderation. Thus the CRIMSON has in a measure refuted one of the main contentions made by Professor Fisher of Yale who saw in the vote conducted by the Yale News the expression of people unacquainted with the state of things in the past. While there are few of the undergraduates here who have known the Harvard of yesterday there is at least consistency in their stand and even more, for they have turned further from a belief in the status quo.

The faculty has, however, a saner appreciation of the question from a Harvard viewpoint since they have, for the most part, been members of the community for some time That they too see in moderation the best policy rather establishes the fact that those who are longest possessed of Harvard atmosphere find in the present state of things little to be commended.

Nor is the consistency of the law school in remaining antagonistic to the prohibition law without its own interest, for these are men of more than undergraduate age and experience, endowed with a training in the theory of law which would make them at variance with inadequate and superficial policy.

This poll like all others is after all a mere compilation of figures. And there are still those who will always protest that figures lie. But surely they, at least in this case, graph emphatically the persistent flow of distaste among sane and thinking people which is now moving about the halls of legislation and the courts of justice.