HARVARD WINS OVER OXFORD IN LEAGUE OF NATIONS DEBATE AT SYMPHONY HALL

Before an audience of almost 3,000 people the University debating team defeated Oxford last night in Symphony Hall by a vote of 1614 to 1000 on the part of those present. The Harvard team, composed of R. S. Fanning '23, R. S. Bowers '24, and P. R. Harmel '23, supported the negative side of the question, Resolved: that the United States should join immediately the League of Nations.

The presiding officer at the debate was Samuel W. McCall, ex-Governor of Massachusetts, the official tellers being Vice Consul A. M. Harlow, Great Britain, for Oxford and Dean Greenough for the University.

Oxford Team Loses Third Speaker

The Englishmen were handicapped by the loss of K. M. Lindsay, Worcester College, who was taken seriously ill yesterday afternoon. The other members of the Oxford team, Edward Marjoribanks, Christ Church, and M. C. Hollis, Balliol College, were given extra time to make up for their colleague's absence.

The Oxford debaters were keener and more subtle than their American opponents, using the University men's arguments to their own advantage and bringing the house down again and again with laughter at their brilliant jibes. The Harvard speakers, though scarcely eloquent, displayed excellent logic and reasoning powers, and covered their ground more thoroughly than the English debaters.

Fanning Opens the Debate

Fanning opened the debate by outlining the issue which was under discussion. He said that the problem primarily deals with Europe because Europe not only controls the League, but is the League. The Europe of today, he maintained, is exactly the Europe of 1914, in the grip of a regime of materialistic secret diplomacy. His main point was that in justice to herself America must, for the present, remain out of the League; first because the Covenant of the League has been violated through the trafficking in mandated territory; and second, because the balance of power is still alive and in control, made worse for America by secret coalitions of nations. Finally, he pointed out that the nations of Europe, far from achieving peace, had actually sanctioned wars and that only the peoples of Europe could change this through Democratic control of foreign affairs. "Until they do so America can not become embroiled with them."

Marjoribanks Urges U. S. To Join

Following Fanning as the second speaker Edward Marjoribanks, captain of the English team, opened the case for the affirmative. He began by calling attention to the anomaly which permits a private and civil law with compulsory justice, but which leaves international law wholly without it. He then passed on to consider the League of Nations from three standpoints; the political, the economic, and the moral. He declared that another war would sweep away European civilization and must be prevented at all cost. He maintained that the seeds of another European conflict are even now germinating, and that the only hope of peace and a settlement of the turmoil lay in a coordination of nations in a determined effort to prevent war.

Passing on to the economic nature of the problem he showed that all nations have common interests of commerce and industry requiring a common control; that Europe, devastated by war, and tied up by the recent political and social upheavals must have help if she is to regain her economic stability. This help must come from America, now the strongest and richest nation in the world.

The League as a Moral Issue

Considering the League as a moral issue, he pointed out that all the world's great thinkers throughout the ages have formulated plans for universal concord among the races and nations of the earth. The League of Nations is the embodiment of all these ancient and modern theories. It is admittedly imperfect, but it is the best plan known. He urged that America enter the League and remedy any faults that it may have. The nations of Europe stand ready to make any changes that America demands.

In closing, he pointed out that there is no such thing as absolute liberty. The individual and the nation are bound by their duties to each other. He spoke of the Constitution of the United States as a pattern for the League of Nations, and urged that America with her wealth of possibilities do her share in settling the problems of the world.

Bowers Says Treaty Is Trouble

Bowers was the second speaker for the University. His speech was based upon a refutation of the argument that America should join the League in order to help Europe. The effectiveness of America's entry, he said, would be negatived by European diplomacy and intrigue, and the U. S. could not reach the root of European troubles, the Treaty of Versailles for the League itself is unable to alter the provisions of the Treaty. Not only is the League unable to change the Treaty which is the source of Europe's troubles, but the League is the very instrument used by the powers to carry out that Treaty. Consequently the entry of the United States would only help the League to perpetuate the ills of Europe.

Hollis Closes Affirmative Side

M. C. Hollis followed Bowers and closed the affirmative side of the debate. He concerned himself chiefly with the objections which Americans raise against the League of Nations. He maintained that people in the United States admit the idealism of the League but object to it for certain practical considerations. These objections he endeavored to sweep away.

The statement that America would be controlled by the vote of the British Empire is false and absurd. The objection to Article X is not insuperable, for the European nations are willing to strike it out of the Articles of the League. America cannot maintain that she is not interested in the actions and policies of the other nations of the world. The Monroe Doctrine and America's participation in the world war make any such statement absurd. She cannot object because the League is linked up with the Treaty of Versailles because Article XIX provides for the alteration of existing treaties.

League Big Enough on Own Merits

He pointed out that the League of Nations is, at all events, big enough to be considered purely on its own merits and quite aside from personal feelings or national politics. The arguments in favor of it are universal. He closed by declaring that President Harding sees the necessity of international organization. Why not see that organization in the League of Nations? Why does not America embrace the League and by her influence and prestige correct its mistakes and make up its deficiencies, laying aside her own feelings for the sake of world betterment?

Harmel Last Speaker of Evening

Harmel, the last speaker of the evening, treated the question from the standpoint of the United States. He stated that America can not afford to abandon its traditional policies and its sovereign rights by entering the League, and that the conditions in Europe today do not merit the sacrifice. He maintained that America can serve the world far more effectively outside of the League than if she were in it. To bear out this point he added that the United States can point to a remarkable series of achievements towards the promotion of international peace since the inception of the League. The League had previously admitted utter failure in dealing with the same problems which America successfully solved. "Disassociated from the cauldron of Europe's political affairs", he concluded, "the United States can lead into a new and brighter era of international relations.