1930 The Saloon in the Home

Should a spirit of levity peep, now and then, from the draw– ings of our illustrator, we can only say that this is so because he is like that. We regret it but our respect for the inviolability of artistic integrity makes it impossible for us to do anything about it. I am aware that every book which proclaims itself "a non– partisan presentation of facts from which the reader may, etc., etc.," turns out to be a form of special pleading. I have just skimmed through two books of this sort, one by Senator Millard E. Tydings, the other by Professor Irving Fisher. Both are com– plimentary copies which I tardily acknowledge. Thank you, Senator; thank you, Professor. The tabulations in each, the graphs, the columns of statistics from hospitals, police courts, savings banks, insurance companies and insane asylums, are amazingly alike. But the authors arrive at diametrically opposed conclusions. Similarly the figures of the Literary Digest poll are used to comfort or confound either party. It is sad but true that the so-called scientific examination of facts still leaves us up the creek without a paddle. The more emotional appeals of public speakers and writers are equally confusing. One must choose between Bishop Cannon and Nicholas Murray Butler. If we agree with Mrs. Boole we must assume that Dwight Morrow has something wrong with his head. This is embarrassing. If we turn to the press it is only to be disturbed by the statement of the Right Reverend Ernest G. Richardson* that "8% of the newspapers are all right on the subject (prohibi– tion) but that all the rest are absolutely rotten." It is dismaying t;o think that 92%. of ou: newspapers should have rotted on us like that. Can it be that the Bishop is more reverend than right'? A study of the curbing legislation of other nations means much, little, or nothing, depenaing on how you feel about it. * N. Y. Times, July 17, 1929. [ vi ]