The Harvard Union Debate Last Evening.

Not more than fifty men were present at the Union meeting last evening. This is a surprisingly small number, as the question debated is one that is stirring our nation at present, and therefore should be of great interest to us all. The question before the meeting read thus: "Resolved, that the causes for divorce should be made uniform throughout the United States by constitutional amendment."

Mr. R. B. Hale, '91, who opened the debate for the affirmative, gave an account of the divorce laws as they exist at present in our country, and showed the evils which are constantly caused by them. Each state, said the speaker, has its own divorce law, which is as different from that of the other states as the North Pole is from the South. A man or woman who cannot obtain a divorce in one state has only to remove to some other state where the laws will suit the case in hand. Many attempts have been made to prevent this, but they are unsuccessful in lessening the evil, as the laws are constantly distorted in order to be made applicable to almost any case. Where there are so many laws, there must be one which is superior to all the others, and it is our duty to find that one and to live under it.

Mr. G. P. Furber, L. S., followed for the negative. Our government rules in two forms-by national sovereignty and by state sovereignty-which means that the government cannot undertake to assume as national questions all the affairs of life, but that the states must do their share in examining them. Again there is a practical difficulty which confronts us when we try to add the divorce law to our national constitution: this, that a three-fourths vote of the states is required to pass an amendment, and, since there are so many laws, it would be hard to obtain a satisfactory vote on any one of them.

Mr. E. C. Shoemaker, '89, then spoke for the affirmative. The question before us is one of extreme dignity, said the speaker, and should not be considered merely in the light of state law; but it is a question of the disunion of families, and therefore should be regarded of the highest import to the rulers of our country. Like the tariff, it is bound to become a national question in spite of our efforts to the contrary. The speaker then went on to show the impracticability of several methods of changing the law, and finally ended by discussing the advantages of constitutional amendment.

Mr. H. E. Oxnard spoke next for the negative. When we make a law a part of our national constitution it becomes solidified there, and is not easily ejected. This question of divorce is one of the experimented sciences, and the safest place for its laws at present is in the state government, which is more easily changed. There is an advantage in state divorce laws, which is that each state sees, and avoids the errors of other state laws, and in this way, aids in obtaining perfectness.

Vote on merits of question: Affirmative, 41; negative, 10. Vote on principal disputants: Affirmative, 25, negative, 22. Vote on debate as a whole: affirmative, 20; negative, 23.

The following officers were elected: C. W. Thayer, '89, president; D. C. Torrey, '90, vice-president; R. B. Hale, '91, secretary and treasurer.