The fortnightly meeting of the Harvard Union was held in Sever 11 last evening and was largely attended. After the reading and accepting of the minutes of the previous meeting the election of new members was in order and M. A. Bartlett '93, was elected to membership. Of the three questions proposed for debate at the next meeting the following was adopted: Resolved, That Harvard Athletics be confined to New England. Mr. Hutchinson as a member of the executive committee then brought forward the following amendment of an indefinite character to article X of the constitution, to the effect that the executive committee have charge of all matters that may come before the Union. MOtion was then made that proceedings be instituted for a temporary arrangement of some sort by which joint debates might be held with some of the smaller colleges to be followed later by a permanent agreement with Yale. Question referred to committee.

The motion that the existing committee be discontinued was lost. The regular debate of the evening was then taken up on the question, Resolved, That Speaker Reed's action in the House is to be approved. The debate was opened for the affirmative by Hall. He began by stating that all partisan feeling should be laid aside at the out-set. He then briefiy reviewed the facts in the matter, stating what Speakers Reed's rulings were and what the circumstances were that had enabled him to avail himself of them. He then cited instances to show that the speaker of the house was justified in the plan of procedure that he had adopted.

L. McK. Garrison, L. S., then took the floor, opening the debate for the negative. He declared that Speaker Reed had acted rightly in following the promptings of his principles, but that the reasons for the belief in the justice of the principles were defective. He said that a criticism ought not to be directed against the speaker of the house but against the influences that control his actions and that allow of the exercise of such arbitrary power.

W. C. Green, D. S., then closed the debate for the affirmative. He said that it seemed to him perfectly in accordance with justice that the majority should rule, and mentioned the case of Poland as an example of allowing the minority the opportunity of effectually opposing the majority.

B. A. Gould, '91, denied that there have been precedents of sufficient importance and dignity for the senate of the United States to take recognition of for it is not a body that can abide by decision of an inferior court. He showed that Speaker Reed had misconstrued the rules and perrogatives of the house and that the rights of the minority should be taken into consideration at all times.

The vote on the debate was as follows: Merits of question: affirmative 54, negative 49; merits of principal disputants: affirmative 58, negative 57; debate as a whole: affirmative 21, negative 15. Number of men present, 154.