The Fallacy of Faith

(Ed. Note--The Crimson does not necessarily endorse opinions expressed in printed communications. No attention will be paid to anonymous letters but under special conditions, at the request of the writer, names will be with-held.)

To the Editor of the CRIMSON:

I wonder if you really mean to imply that the belief in the efficacy of public opinion as an aid to law enforcement is the same as relying "upon the efficacy of a species of faith healing". That seems to be your meaning in your editorial "In Vino Controversiae".

You quote me correctly as saying: "If we can convince the great majority of the people that it (prohibition) is worth enforcing, we need not worry about the possibility of enforcing it". That is what you characterize as belief in the efficacy of a species of faith healing. Continuing, you say: "And it seems to many observers that nothing short of such an act of faith can work the miracle of effective national prohibition."

If that is reliance upon an act of faith, then every one who says that only an overwhelming public opinion in support of a law can insure its enforcement is guilty of saying that a law can only be enforced by an act of faith.

Another misstatement is in the first paragraph of your editorial. You say that they (President Lowell and I) are agreed that drinking and the sale of liquor have gone on practically undiminished: I do not agree to any such statement. It can scarcely be inferred from President Lowell's statement that "Prohibition has no doubt done good. It has abolished the saloon; it has diminished the absence from the factory of workmen through drink, the waste of their wages on liquor, and the consequent suffering of their families." How could these things be if the drinking of liquor has gone on practically undiminished? Respectfully,   Professor T. N. Carver