Both Columbia University and New York University opened with addresses which discussed social control or social order from two points of view. Professor SMITH, in welcoming the students at Columbia, spoke of the need of a large sphere of freedom for the individual. The occasional harm which may result from giving him unhampered liberty to follow his bent is "the price which society must pay for "genius, for character and progress." Dean MARSHALL S. BROWN at New York University on the other hand, put the emphasis on obedience to the lawfully expressed will of the majority.

After all, the two were not inconsistent. Professor SMITH, with his vigorous advocacy of freedom for the individual would doubtless be urgent in counseling respect for the law that is. What he deplores, as do all who hold precious liberty of initiative, struggle and achievement, is the existence of such laws as restrain the individual without giving commensurate social value. Before legislation in social control is enacted it should be inquired whether moral instruction may not in the long run be more effective in achieving the end sought without peril to character. Moreover, practical achievement must be taken into the reckoning, as well as the incidental effect upon other social and individual interests of the effort to promote one particular interest. When law is employed not as a means of doing justice but as an agency for social control, it must be demonstrated that the good to society is advanced by the restraints upon the individual.

Dean BROWN, for his part, would probably join Professor SMITH in this view, while placing stress on compliance with the duly enacted laws even at one's discomfort or personal loss. Question the expediency or wisdom of the Eighteenth Amendment and the Volstead act and do what you can to bring about their modification or repeal if you believe them to be unnecessary or injurious, but obey them both. Democracy cannot endure without habitual obedience. That is axiomatic. On the other hand, it cannot progress to its highest state through standardization, extrinsic suppression or legislative restraints. It can have that hope only through the self-disciplined virtues of its individual citizens. New York Times