Now that the flurry over the inconsistencies of the Wickersham commission report has quelled it is not wholly impossible to grasp a moment for discussion of the prohibition question itself. Little enlightenment could be found in the decision of Wickersham and his ten committeemen with the exception of emphasis on the possibilities of outward disagreement of persons who attempt to solve the problem.

College drinkers care little what happens to the Eighteenth Amendment. They drink--amendment or no amendment but with repeal of the prohibition act a college education would cost them less. On the other hand, the gents of the underworld focus their attention on the activities of the lawmakers. Their jobs depend upon a continuance of the present lawlessness of liquor sale.

Crime, in its bloody ugliness, would not drop from sight if underworld liquor traffic were ceased. Hundreds of "gat" toters would be without employment and without subsistence. Would that not be more of a temptation to commit crime than a mere "bump off" order from a whisky mogul? The underworld was not created by prohibition, but it has become enormously rich from its major industry.

But crime problems cannot call a halt to thoughts and suggestions toward prohibition repeal or revision. Educationally or economically the underworld can be conquered--victory being only a matter of 10 or more years.

Prohibition as it is, is far from successful--we need to tell no one that--even the Wickersham commission was fully aware. Intensified enforcement will gain no better results. The Eighteenth Amendment is inelastic--it cannot be adjusted to the demands of the present American populace--mainly because they are unaware of what they want.

A plan, suggested by Henry W. Anderson, granting the power to regulate to Congress is the most valuable, most plausible, and intelligent result of the recent liquor and crime investigation. --Oregon Emerald.