AFTER THE BATTLE

An interpretation of the returns of the Prohibition referendum yesterday shows clearly enough that the wets and half-wets of the University have met the enemy and he is theirs. The bone drys were somewhat stronger than the repealing wets but the supporters of light wines and beers swept the field; and that in spite of the fact that the questions on the ballot were so framed as to favor mechanically the dry contingent. In short in every University body except the Graduate Schools exclusive of the Law and Medical, the moderates outvoted the extremists of either wing.

The remarkable heaviness of the vote is a satisfactory testimonial to the fact that Harvard is not so indifferent to public issues in general as some would make out. For the question of Prohibition is no more particular to the University than to the country at large. Moreover the fact that the moderationists won the day is a fair proof that prejudice played little part, that extremists on both sides curbed personal desires for what they considered the most reasonable solution, and therefore that reason divorced from prejudice is in favor of modification of the Volstead Act to allow light wines and beers.

It does not, however, follow in the least that Harvard has voiced the opinion of the country at large. In the first place in the country at large reason is not so likely to rule. And even were it to rule, the country would probably remain bone dry. It is the inhabitants of the vast desert regions who, together with the bootlegger, keep the present Prohibition law unchanged. But if reason did rule throughout the country as at Harvard; most drunkenness, economics loss, fatalities, and bootleggers would be shown the door.