Disparages "Temperance" Argument

The Editors of the CRIMSON:

In contrast to the recent outbursts of the public-spirited reformers, it is well to consider Mr. Littlefield's dispassionate correspondence in Tuesday's CRIMSON. There is a fair-minded statement of facts, Probably just in comparison with the heart-felt and horrible statements of the embryonic Prohibitionists, which are based obviously on exaggerated personal theory.

In weighing the pros. against the cons. as concerns beer at class "smokers," it is well to keep one point in mind: the amount of beer absorbed by the individual at a class smoker has so negligible an alcohol content that it is safe to say a man does not risk a constitutional breakdown as a result. Furthermore, an equal amount of so-called soft drinks, romping in all its effervescence through the channels of ones internal mechanism, has an effect more disastrous to the private welfare than that instigated by the four per cent. of alcohol in beer. A cup of coffee every morning is far more injurious to the system than two bottles of beer a month. Why have we overlooked an anti-coffee campaign?

Accordingly, though there is a fair amount of justice in a plea for no beer, based on personal opinion, it seems rather absurd to argue the point on the basis of a wrecked constitution. HAMPDEN HALL '16.