"INTOLERANCE"

Until the Columbia Spectator printed its editorial entitled "More Anti-Saloon Intolerance" the barrage of explosive criticism which President Butler of Columbia rather unexpectedly drew upon himself by his remarks against prohibition elicited no response from undergraduates: In part, the Spectator's defense of Dr. Butler is doubtless the expression of unthinking loyalty and perhaps even more of a desire to disprove the press statements that Columbia is a soothing hot bed of controversy." Yet its sane observation that "a law on the statute books is not so sacrosanct that one is forhidden to comment upon it or call attention to its shortcomings" contrasts pleasantly with the bitter personal arguments of Dr. Butler's attackers and defenders.

Prohibition now is no more an issue decided and dead than in the heyday of the fight for its adoption. The grave problem of its enforcement has rather tended to indicate that one very important aspect of the question was over-looked in the discussion which preceded the passing of the Eighteenth Amendment. If any question of its desirability remains, common sense calls for a calm and lucid debate. The example which Dr. Butler has set--obviously in defiance of his own best interests--of breaking a restraining silence to utter his honest convictions is one that deserves the respect of even those who disagree with him.

A necessary step toward enforcement of prohibition is the consolidation of public opinion in its favor; but as long as there is any question of its merits in the public mind it will be well nigh impossible, as the past few years have clearly illustrated, to obtain this unity. It would seem that a wise policy calls for further expressions like that of Dr. Butler in order that a consensus of opinion may be reached. If the arguments for prohibition were strong enough to persuade a people to adopt it, they ought to be strong enough to persuade a nation to enforce it. But the prerequisite for convincing argument is an open forum. On the other hand, if the reasoning of Dr. Butler and his colleagues in-conviction can not be met, it is time to consider the adoption of a new policy.