To the Editor of the CRIMSON:

It seems to me that in the wording of the questionnaire for the prohibition vote to be taken Monday the drys are at a distinct disadvantage. The proposals of the wets are given the suggestive publicity of specific questions. The proposals of the drys, such as the substitution of imprisonment for fine as penalty for violation, trial without the encumbrance of a jury, increase in the number of enforcement officials, and the like, are not directly mentioned. The CRIMSON article of May third states that those who vote in the affirmative on the third question will do so with the understanding that the amendment will be enforced. Nevertheless, it is very doubtful to my mind whether the majority of the voters, or rather the average voter, will so interpret the question. In thinking of "the Prohibition Amendment as it stands," most people include the present status of the enforcement of the Amendment. Now, it seems apparent that no one, wet or dry, wants that status continued. The wets advocate certain changes. The drys propose others. Although these latter are of an admittedly different nature from the former, yet they are the reply of the drys to the efforts of the wets. Justice would evidently dictate that they also be accorded the enormous advantages of specific referred in a separate question.

If you should agree with me in this matter, Mr. Field, and if it is too late to effect any change on the ballot, I hope you will at least give more publicity to the explanation of the third question as it was printed in yesterday's CRIMSON C. Hayden Whitney, Jr. '27.