Burns Scores Eighteenth Amendment as Responsible for Lawlessness--Opposes "Experiments" in the Constitution

If the CRIMSON in making its survey of Harvard sentiment on prohibition puts the same questions on its ballot as the Literary Digest editors are making use of in their poll, it should cover the matter pretty thoroughly," J. J. Burns, assistant professor in the Harvard Law School told a CRIMSON reporter yesterday. It will be rendering a valuable service, and will find. I think, that many men who are "dry" in their personal habits are opposed, to the present law.

"In my mind there is a picture of America, anxious to maintain abroad its reputation for high moral tone, at the same time sneaking around the corner to have a cocktall. I feel as do many that the Eighteenth Amendment should be repealed as the root of the whole trouble. It is called a 'noble experiment', but a constitution should contain broad statements of general policy, not experiments.

"To prohibition I largely ascribe the general apathy toward law which is so much to be deplored. Personally I'm not sold on the idea that liquor in itself is evil, since it is stated that only two percent of those who consume it abuse it. I believe the law goes against the philosophy of things when it attempts to tell a man what his personal habits shall be. Let reform in that line come voluntarily on the part of the individual as a result of education.

"I agree entirely with the CRIMSON in wanting state control of drinking. The government is too bureaucratic in its attempt to lay down the law on such a mooted question to both Walla Walla, Washington, and Belmont, Massachusetts. Under the old Webber-Kenyon act, which regulated interstate traffic in liquor, the cause of temperance was prospering."