HARVARD VICTORIOUS.

The fifth annual debate between Harvard and Yale was held in Sanders Theatre last evening. The sale of seats in the week past had been a prophecy of the crowded house which greeted Col. Higginson when, as presiding officer of the evening, he gave the opening address.

Col. Higginson was warmly welcomed. He said that in contradiction to the popular theory in regard to athletics, it seemed as if they had tended rather to produce than to banish competitions of other kinds. Competition, he thought, was always the method in which the activities of man were accustomed to express themselves. He noted humorously the difference in the character of the competitions of chivalry and those of modern days. Brutality had been more and more eliminated from contests, and he felt that no passage of arms could be more gentle than such as the audience had assembled to witness. All of the debaters of the evening were heartily applauded by the audience both at the beginning and end of their speeches, and every well-made point was sure to be accorded an appreciative reception.

MR. PEDDIE'S SPEECH.John Wayland Peddie was the first speaker for Yale. He said that history is replete with illustrations of the value of independent action in politics; but unfortunately nowadays men are losing their independence, and society its interest in their individuality. The tendency of the time is heedlessness to man as man: it loves to think of him as part of a party, and so he loses himself in a party politics. He could not lose himself in a worse place. It would be an appalling sight if all our party politicians for the past ten years could be gathered into one mass. We could then witness the roughest, the toughest, the most corrupt heap of humanity that mortal man has ever seen. Politics everywhere is moaning beneath such men, to whom government is a thing of the past, and equity of the right sort unknown. Blindly fighting for party rights, they forget their country's welfare. We cannot look to our party for political purity, for from the highest to the lowest politician there are stains of corruption and taints of pollution. There is no form of vice which is not by them well represented; till the term politician has come to mean rogue, and this because the politician is the mere tool of his party; he loses his independence of action and becomes stamped Democrat or Republican, as the case may be. And where may we find the cure for these evils? It lies in the great mass of men who vote, and it will be found when each man stands for what he thinks is right, and is independent in his political action.

MR. PRESCOTT'S SPEECH.Henry Lee Prescott was the first speaker for Harvard. He said that no contention was made that corruption did not exist in parties, but the question was how much it was the duty of each man to free the party from corruption.

Parties have an undeniable function. History tells us that there are usually two main parties, opposed in principles. Men are economical or generous, hopeful or despondent. In politics the contrast is as strong. Party principles are innate in men; and choosing the one or the other, men decide political issues as they arise. In America these two widely divided parties have always existed; and at present are called Democratic and Republican. They are so radically different that a thinking man cannot stand neutral. There are times in politics when party lines grow indistinct, but these are only temporary.

It is at times like these that the independent idea arises, and men not knowing clearly where they belong, stay out and try to hold the balance between parties; but such men ignore the fact that achievement is possible only by compromise and union. What parties need now is not principles, but men, the best, the wisest men of the country. In the face of this need the answer of the independent comes like hollow mockery. Well might parties say to such men: "We asked for bread and ye gave us a stone."

MR. COX'S SPEECH.William Henry Cox was the second speaker for Yale. He said that, while political parties were a necessity as an agency to unite action, allegiance to them might readily become blind and therefore disastrous to the country. In becoming a willing follower of certain political leaders, the American citizen loses his individuality and tends to transfer the power from the people to the politicians. Such action is narrowminded and bigoted, and tends to overthrow the fundamental principles of American government. From party allegiance has arisen political corruption, and this is the deadliest enemy of political life. Bribery, ballot-box stealing, and election riots are evidence of what comes in consequence of such allegiance. It is simply because of party organization that the balance of power is often given to the ignorant foreign class who are quite ready to follow the party which pays most for their votes. Under such conditions popular government is a farce.

Independent action means that a man shall exercise his own judgment as to candidates and principles. Thus only can he aid his country's progress, and of the great influence which he may then exert, the success of independent action in the abolition question is sufflcient proof.

MR. APSEY'S SPEECH.Albert Stokes Apsey was the second speaker for Harvard. The discussion of the affirmative, he said, was unsatisfactory, in that no fixed definitions were given. An "independent" is not the man who occasionally refuses to vote for his party's candidates, but he who permanently stands outside of parties and decides at each election to which party he shall give support.

Such an attitude may be noble from a sentimental point of view, but is it practical from the standpoint of results? The opposing side had agreed that it was independent action when the American patriots revolted from England, but it had been overlooked that it was by party organization alone that the patriots were enabled to carry out their purpose. Washington assembled an army, he did not tell every man to take his musket and fight independently. If the independents would descend from the heights of sentiment and enter vigorously into the life of some party, their work would be of much more merit.

Mr. Apsey cited the civil war as an example of his meaning. Into this war men entered, banding themselves into different armies. They did not always agree with their leaders as to methods and means, but believing in the main principle they fought with their whole soul, and there came out from the struggle great and noble men and a new nation. So it is with parties. Out from the struggle between them emerge the grandest national characters and the greatest national reforms.

MR. CLARK'S SPEECH.Walter Haven Clark spoke last for Yale. He referred the audience to the lexicon definition of independent and allegiance and presented the resolution in its new form: "That political action in accordance with one's own will, judgment or conscience is preferable to unswerving allegiance to party." With the resolution thus in shape he proposed to strike at the root of the matter and consider what is a man's chief duty to civil society. Without doubt it is to establish and maintain a civil government that shall promote the chief ends of civil society, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. From this point of view we may readily divide the voters of a state into three classes: First, the conscientious citizens, or men of "independent action"; second, the men who support their parties through good or evil, or "party allegiance" men; and third, the men who sell their votes. The last need no consideration. The second class comprises the men who continue at all times in unswerving adherence to their party, and whose support renders abuse of political privilege possible. How different is the role of the men of independent action! They may assert their independence without relinquishing their political beliefs, as proved by the Democratic lawyers of New York who refused to support Judge Maynard; and by their very independence they compel parties to take up worthy issues in the hope of gaining or retaining such voters.

MR. HAYES'SPEECH.The third speaker for Harvard was Alfred Samuel Hayes. He questioned the adequacy of Mr. Clark's definitions. Party allegiance, said he, was simply the fidelity which a man gives to an organization composed of men who hold like opinion with him. It is perfectly true that men who still continue firm partisans, may occasionally act against the temporary leaders of their party, but it is after all for the sake of the party.

Parties are the best means which are offered for accomplishing anything in the political world. Lodge and Quincy are examples of men of high aspirations and great power who found that, outside of parties, they were without means of giving forcible expression to their political beliefs.

It is beyond question that men of little intelligence and no conscientiousness drift into parties, and that many men of high character are known as indepenpents, but the question to be discussed is not whether partisans or independents are as a rule better men, but whether, given the man, he can find a better use for his energy in connection with a party or independent of it.

MR. PEDDIE'S SECOND SPEECH.To close the debate, a five minute speech was allowed to one man on each side. Mr. Peddie spoke for Yale. He said that, eloquence to one side, the whole question resolved itself into one of motive and did not touch the necessity of party existence. Harvard claimed that men should act because led by party feeling. Yale claimed that men should act because led by reason and conscience.

MR. HAYES'S SECOND SPEECH.Harvard's five minutes for rebuttal were taken up by Mr. Hayes. He agreed with Yale that the whole question was one of motive, but maintained that while it is not right to follow a party blindly, it is equally wrong to follow the dictates of conscience outside of party. The proper course for a man is to belong to a party, and to make the party to which he belongs conform to his principles.

THE DECISION.The judges, Professor Edmund J. James, of the University of Pennsylvania, Hon. Carl Schurz, and Gen. Francis A. Walker, president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, consulted for about five minutes and then Professor James announced the decision. He said that the excellence of the speaking on both sides had rendered the task of the judges a peculiarly difficult one, but that they had finally agreed that if a marking were to be made on a scale of 100, Yale deserved 99 and Harvard 100.

DINNER AT THE COLONIAL CLUB.After the debate there was an informal dinner at the Colonial Club. It was attended by Col. Higginson, Professor James, Gen. Walker, Professors Taussig, Briggs, and Cummings, Mr. J. J. Hayes, the six speakers, Mr. H. Leete, President of the Yale Union, F. C. McLaughlin '93, H. C. Lakin '94, A. P. Stone L. S., E. H. Warren '95, all of whom are former speakers in debates with Yale, F. C. Thwaits, L. S., as president of the Wendell Phillips Club; C. Vrooman, Sp., president of the New Harvard Union, H.

Continued on second page.