JUNIORS WON DEBATE

Last night the Juniors won the class debating championship by the unanimous decision of the judges, defeating the Sophomores in the Pasteur Medal Debate. The Pasteur Medal was unanimously awarded to A. Davis '07, who excelled both in his strong presentation and his grasp of the issues under discussion.

The subject for debate was "Resolved, That the French Government should adopt a scheme granting pensions to superannuated workmen." The Juniors supported the affirmative, and the Sophomores the negative side of the question. E. B. Stern, A. Davis and I. L. Sharfman represented the Junior class; the Sophomore team consisted of G. I. Lewis, J. S. Davis and B. M. Nussbaum. W. M. Shohl 1L. presided.

The Junior team developed a strong logical case, and presented it in a straight-forward manner. The Sophomores' arguments, although they met the affirmative case, were not so well connected, and their evidence was less convincing.

E. B. Stern opened the debate for the affirmative with a clear, well-constructed speech. The conditions in France, he said, are such that workingmen cannot provide for their old age. For the past 50 years the government has tried to remedy these conditions by a plan of workingmen's insurance, but it has failed. Relief can be had by adopting a scheme to provide pensions for superannuated workmen.

G. I. Lewis opened the argument for the negative. The plan proposed by the affirmative, he said, is wrong and unjustifiable, in that it compels three classes of society to contribute to the support of one and compels workingmen to pay to the government part of their earnings to be refunded when officials see fit to do so. This places too much power, which is liable to be abused, in the hands of officials, and tends to discourage self-initiative on the part of workingmen.

A. Davis, in continuing the affirmative case, showed that the debate was not one of abstract principles but of actual conditions, which were in need of a remedy. The remedy, which the affirmative propose would not only better the conditions in France, but would be a practical and an economical policy for the nation to pursue.

This argument was met by J. S. Davis, when he continued the negative discussion. He showed that the plan would be almost impossible for the French government, because of the large debt and the heavy per capita tax.

I. L. Sharfman closed the affirmative debate. Conditions, he said, demand the adoption of a scheme for granting pensions to superannuated workmen. This will reduce pauperism, facilitate the cooperation of labor and capital, and make the benefits of old age pensions universal.

B. M. Nussbaum, in closing the debate for the negative, successfully argued that these benefits would not necessarily follow the adoption of such a plan. He then proceeded to show that the present system of voluntary insurance had not proved a failure and should be given a further trial.