BY THE HORNS

Walter Lippmann, in an article entitled, "The Great Wickersham Mystery," in the April number of Vanity Fair, has written an exceptionally keen analysis of the prohibition problem. Basing his argument on the internal evidence provided by the Wickersham Report, Mr. Lippmann accuses the present administration of pursuing the policy of nullification under cover of dry legislation.

Evidence supplied by the Report itself, Mr. Lippmann shows. proved that the Commission's most important conclusion was reversed after it had been agreed upon by the majority, and he also pointed out that the Commission issued a summary, previous to the publication of the text, which misrepresented the actual findings of the committee. Presidential interference, it is implied, was responsible for the abandonment of its first stand in opposition to continuing constitutional prohibition as it now exists and the consequent substitution of a directly contrary conclusion. Lippmann interprets this as proof that the administration is adhering to the policy of nullification, where the drys have their jaw and the wets have, their liquor.

At one time it seemed possible that the prohibition problem would solve itself if it were administered in this fashion, but it has become obvious that liquor control of some kind is necessary. Nullification, however, can never solve the problem, because by definition, it eliminates the possibility of any regulation of the liquor traffic. Constitutional amendment, as Walter Lippmann points out, under pressure exerted by the wet states must be the eventual answer to the dilemma. When the wet party has recognized that their ultimate goal must be liquor control rather than total repeal, then they will be joined by the less orthodox drys and sufficient organized political pressure can be brought to bear to force the administration into positive action.