HARVARD AFFIRMATIVE WINS

Princeton, N. J., May 8, 1914.--The Harvard 1917 affirmative team defeated the Princeton Freshmen in the debate here tonight by a unanimous decision.

W. H. Johnston, Jr., First Negative.

The present undesirable feature in immigration cannot be attributed to illiteracy. Since illiteracy is not the cause of bad conditions, this test would be no remedy. The majority of illiterate immigrants have not had the chance to learn, and so this test is neither one of intelligence or of ability to work. Illiterate men as a class are not all undesirable for other reasons. Statistics show that they are neither morally, mentally or physically below the average.

J. H. Spitz '17, First Affirmative.

Immigration to the United States should be further restricted, because our present immigration is undesirable and is coming here in too great numbers; over 1,000,000 per year. An illiteracy test, by cutting down the numbers of this present undesirable immigration 300,000 immigrants every year, 1,000 immigrants every day,--immigrants who go to the most congested parts of the large cities of practically all but seven states, where they are cut off from American influences--will alleviate our problem of assimilation.

J. H. Frost, Second Negative.

There is no harm in mere numbers, for the number of immigrants in the United States is not excessive, nor is the volume of our immigration directly responsible for any evils of our social and industrial conditions; and consequently the limitation of numbers by the literacy test would not solve our social, economic and industrial problems. Our re- sources and industries, moreover, need more labor to develop them. Any decided restriction of immigration would greatly increase our cost of living and raise both federal and local taxes.

A. G. Paine '17, Second Affirmative.

Immigratien has unduly aggravated our social, political and economic problem. The recent immigrant shows a marked tendency to congregate in the slums of our cities. Out of this congestion there has arisen a disproportionate amount of crime, vice and insanity among the foreign born. In the economic field the immigrant has lowered the standard of living, retarded the rise in vages, and added to the problem of the unemployed. The illiteracy test will materially better these conditions by excluding a large proportion of the unskilled laborers from Southern and Eastern--Europe.

R. W. Stoeltzing, Third Negative.

Education is a desirable, but not a necessary qualification for citizenship in this country. Partial assimilation of the immigrant is obvious, but complete assimilation is unnecessary. A literacy requirement would lower the standard of living, rather than raise it, through its effect upon wages. Unemployment cannot be attributed to immigration, nor is the birth-rate affected by it. And the American standard of living depends upon the relation of wages to the cost of living which will not be raised by this literacy requirement.

D. A. Kriesfeld '17, Third Affirmative.

We advocate the literacy test because it will not only cut down numbers of an undesirable immigration, but will also bar out the undesirable immigrants. Facts and statistics show that the illiterate foreigner, regardless of nationality or origin, contributes more to crime, insanity, pauperism, and slums than his due proportion. The illiterate immigrant also shows a tendency to remain illiterate and hence cannot be easily assimilated. It is because he is a menace and drag to the country that advocates a test against him, which is merely a protection for the American citizen and the immigrant who is here already.

The Rebuttals at Princeton.

The affirmative declared that the large number of unemployed in this country proves that there is no need for immigrants. The literacy test would not only keep out a large number, but also a class of undesirables, thus benefiting the country as a whole. Finally, the immigrant does not go where he is most needed and therefore concentrates our national problems.

In rebutting, the negative pointed out that there was a demand for labor and that illiteracy was not a test of working ability. Illiteracy does not necessarily mean undesirable, and there is absolutely no ground for the test as a means to employment. R. W. Stoelzing, of Princeton, was taken ill and was unable to deliver his rebuttal