Unfortunately, due to an inexcusable error of exposition on my part, one of my thoughts was quite understandably misinterpreted in my letters in August (page 70). I refer to the last sentence in the second paragraph, in which I wrote: “But if the court were to presume to instruct the public—ex cathedra, as it were—then it would indeed be foolishly taken in by its false infallibility.” I meant that the court should not delude itself as to its mission or function; not, as the sentence was subsequently edited to demonstrate, that the public would be misled under such circumstances.
Interestingly, both statements are certainly true, in that the infectious assumption of false infallibility would doubtlessly spread from the court to the public in general, because of the former's authority.
