Yale-Harvard Debate.

The Yale - Harvard Debate held in Sanders Theatre last night attracted a very large audience and was spirited and interesting throughout. Besides the presiding officers and the speakers, graduates as far back as '47, together with several members of the Faculty and the President and other representatives of the Yale Union, occupied seats on the platform.

President Eliot presided over the debate and the judges were Pres. E. B. Andrews, of Brown University, Prof. E. R. A. Seligman of Columbia College and Hon. W. E. Barrett, Speaker of the Massachusetts House. The subject of the debate was "Resolved: - That the power of railroad corporations should be further limited by national legislation," and the disputants, for Yale, E. R. Lamson '93, F. E. Donnelly '93, H. S. Cummings L. S.; for Harvard, Carl Vrooman Sp., E. H. Warren '95, A. P. Stone '93. President Eliot spoke briefly of the inability of public men to speak forcibly and of the need of just such public contests as these debates for bringing out this ability. Speakers generally address audiences which are on their side from the beginning and thus lose the great benefit of meeting an opponent face to face, which is after all the great thing to be desired. American audiences need to be trained, too. They are placed, in these debates, in the unique position of being obliged to listen to both sides and it is an excellent thing for them.

After the Debate the Harvard Union gave an informal supper to the speakers at Young's Hotel. President Wm. I. Begg of the Yale Union and President F. W. Dallinger of the Harvard Union were present together with Ex-Presidents J. L. Dodge, J. F. Morton, and R. C. Surbridge. Of the Harvard speakers only A. P. Stone was present.

MR. LAMSON'S ARGUMENT.Mr. Lamson, first upholder of the affirmative, began by stating that railroads are the strongest corporate powers in the world and have control of many legislatures. There is no denying that they have also brought great evils. The problem of today is how to control them. That legislative control is legal, is acknowledged by the Supreme Court, that it is needed is proved by history, for no individual can cope with these corporations, no single state can control interstate traffic. The most dangerous abuses of the present are unjust discriminations against products, localities, and individuals particularly secret rates. Railroad discriminations nursed into power the Standard Oil Company. The Inter-State Commerce Law aimed to check these-evils, but did not claim to obviate all difficulties, and it is commonly acknowledged that legislation is necessary to enforce this law, in order that certain abuses may be overcome, that embarrassments caused by recent technical decisions of the courts may be removed, and that the state and inter-state laws may be harmonized. There are dozens of examples of the occurrence of all these difficulties. Finally Senator Cullan and Judge Veazy an agreed perfectly that national legislation on this subject is absolutely required.

MR. VROOMAN'S ARGUMENT.Railroad competition brings on a war of rates, in which the weaker roads are forced to submit. The victorious road, now commanding the entire traffic, immediately raises its rates and thus taxes the public for the expenses of the war. These sudden rises and falls are very confusing to shippers, who would almost all prefer high but steady rates.

More important than this is the fact that railroads, in their eager competition. secretly give low rates to firms shipping large quantities of goods. Such firms are thus enabled to undersell their less favored rivals, whose destruction then becomes a matter of time. This, as well as the favoritism shown to large towns, is a direct result of excessive competition.

Some years ago, Congress, influenced by the public indignation, passed an Act providing for a committee to do away with these abuses, which were clearly pointed out. This committee, with the authority of the government behind it, said with unqualified and absolute prohibition, "Thou shalt not." But in railroad matters "prohibition does not prohibit." The provisions of the Act and of its later amendments were all ingeniously evaded by shippers.

And what can we expect so long as we confine ourselves merely to prohibiting abuses and leave the cause of them untouched? We have seen that the cause of the fluctuation of rates and of the favoritism shown to large towns was excessive competition. True statesmanship would strike at the root of the matter and destroy this competition.

MR. DONNELLY'S ARGUMENT.Mr. F. E. Donnelly, the second speaker for Yale, argued that the railway as well as the public would be benefited by further restriction, and that this fresh limitation of favor is demanded not only by the public and by legislators, but even by the railways.

The public must be benefited by a check on the express companies, the offspring of the railway, which enjoy all privileges of common carriers, with none of their restrictions. Their present system is a burden. The enormous loss of life could also be brought to the minimum by legislation compelling the adoption of the automatic coupler, proper danger signals, and other new and necessary improvements. Two thirds of our railways are trying to secure this legislation. That the Inter-State Commerce Act is not adequate for many important questions is the declaration of the commerce commission. That further national legislation would be beneficial to the railways and is wanted by them, is shown by the fact that they acknowledge that the legislation thus far has brought about an increase in earnings, an increase in traffic and a general improvement. Mr. Depew and Mr. Ingalls, both prominent railway presidents, express the sentiments of most men of authority in railroad business in acknowledging that the public and the railway need legislation that shall obtain complete control over these vast corporations, these vast concentrations of capital.

MR. WARREN ARGUMENT.To understand the origin of railroad abuses, one must appreciate the full extent of competition. Investors cannot withdraw their money, they must make the road a success. Hence competition has become a life and death struggle, and the roads have resorted to underhand means. But the railroads themselves, for their own salvation, introduced a system of pooling which, by giving each road an assurance of just so much traffic, removed the necessity for reductions, and the evils consequent upon these reductions.

This system, however, was prohibited by the Inter-state Commerce Act. The framers of this act showed no conception of the relation of railroad practices. They forbade reductions and then proceeded to forbid also the pooling system, which was the only thing that had shown itself capable of putting a stop to those reductions. They left the cause, and forbade the effect. The truce between railroads was broken, and they were forced again into secret war. The law that declared that all firms shall be treated alike really intensified the inequality. Since reductions are illegal, they must be secret, and thus are sown the seeds of great monopolies much more dangerous than the railroads at the worst.

Desperate competition brings about uncertainty in rates, and that saps all confidence out of business.

The evils attendant on the prohibition of pools are so marked that the thoughtful men of our country are unanimous for a repeal. Before our opponents can plead for an extension of control, they must prove the beneficence of the present control.

MR. CUMMING'S ARGUMENT.H S. Cummings, the last speaker from Yale, began by emphasizing the fact that granting a system of pools to be the true solution of the railroad problem, such a system necessitates further limitation by national legislation. Therefore in declaring the system to be the true solution Harvard had given the debate to Yale. In the hope for speedy economic relief from railroad injury through the Interstate Commerce Commission, the people have been disappointed. The railroads have refused to abide by the decisions of the commission in cases of complaints brought before them for settlement; the complainant has carried the case into the courts, has produced new evidence, and at a great expense of time and money has had the case tried with the possibility of failure in the end. Recent decisions of the courts have made it almost impossible to inforce the act, and unless its defects are remedied, it is doomed. The people have looked to this act as their great hope and will not witness its destruction without a protest. A refusal now to correct or at least to endeavor to remedy the existing wrongs so keenly felt, will carry us far towards the socialistic extreme. The common law and the statutes of the several states have failed to preserve to the people their rights against the railway corporations. The Interstate Commerce Act has been found inadequate at important points. Strengthening and stringent amendments are now demanded not only by the people but by the wiser railroad managers themselves.

MR. STONE'S ARGUMENT.We are not here to discuss the minute details of railroad legislation, but its general tendency. Instead of further legislation providing for the enforcement of existing laws make the present laws consistent. Modify them so that they will receive the support of public opinion, and may be enforced by the ordinary machines of government.

The question tonight is not one of government ownership, that is outside the present discussion. Government ownership is a thing of future, the and it would be unwise for the government to burden itself at present with a debt of seven billions. But by far the strongest reason for conservative action lies in the imagination of the interests involved. The interests of the railroads are too magnificent for summary treatment. We have already gone too far in radical legislation, and the industrial enterprises of the nation demand with no uncertain voice a policy of retrenchment and repeal.

The welfare of the railroads of this country is interwoven with the welfare of the nation itself. They are directly involved in every branch of our national life. It to by their means that time and space have sunk into comparative insignificance.

Deprive this country of its railroads and you deprive it of its glories. Its civilization is gone, its prosperity is no more, and all its hopes of future greatness become but the impracticable dreams of a forgotten age. The railroads are the heartstrings of the nation. Their strong controlling influence binds together with bonds of literal steel all the diversified interests of a great people. They are therefore to be guarded with that same true patriotic devotion that we extend to all American institutions, and in such cases conservatism is the only patriotic policy.

As the contestants spoke, the judges awarded each of them a certain per cent, first on the form of the address and then on its substance. The results, as announced by the Hon. Wm. E. Barrett after a consultation of some fifteen minutes, were as follows:

Yale Harvard

On form 713 775

On substance 690 710

Total 1403 1485

The decision, therefore, was in the favor of Harvard.