The meeting of the Harvard Union held in Sever 11 last night to choose representatives for the joint debate with Yale, was very well attended and a large number of men spoke on both sides of the question. The question read as follows: "Resolved, "That Immigration to the United States should be Unrestricted."

The debate was interesting and at times very amusing. Rather strong assertions were made without the least hesitation and the different views sometimes bordered on the ludicrous, as when, for instance, the flow of immigration was likened to both that of a muddy river and of a golden stream. There were however some very good efforts made, though it was noticeable that none of the men who represented Harvard in the last debate took part in last evening's contest. There seemed to be on both affirmative and negative sides a misunderstanding of the real meaning of the question. The tendency, with few exceptions, was to argue either for complete freedom of immigration or total prohibition of it, the idea of the restrictive part of the subject being overlooked entirely.

The arguments for the affirmative side may be summed up about as follows: Immigration is innate in man, and no country has a right to shut its ports to those honestly wishing new homes. Here we have vast extent of lands ready to receive all who care to come. Our resources are practically unlimited and we must have labor to increase and develop them. Now the class of immigrants coming to this country represent a set of honest, industrious men. A great majority being skilled laborers. They are valuable as bringing material as well as economic wealth to this country. They easily amalgamate and grow in sympathy with our laws and institutions. Anarchism and pauperism are the exceptions which can be dealt with by law. Corruption in politics, so unjustly traced to the immigrants, is instigated by natural-born Americans and by political bosses. Moreover restriction of immigration is in-inconsistent with our idea of liberty and democracy and by prohibiting, because of the few bad cases we do a great injustice to the by far greater part of worthy, well-seeking people who in this country seok refuge from oppression and freedom in political and religious thought and action. If they are our superiors we must welcome them; if they are our equals we have no reason of depriving them of the advantage we now enjoy; if they are our inferiors we have nothing to fear from them.

Opposed to these arguments the speakers on the negative side of the question said that the need of immigration, once urgent, had passed. The character of the people is growing worse, the greater part of them now coming from Southern Europe. The increase of population is certainly gratifying to our vanity or national pride but numbers do not constitute strength and our welfare would be much greater if we aimed rather at quality than quantity. Moreover the country is over-crowded with laborers, many of whom would be glad to work but who do not find any demand for their labor. Thus by poverty they are brought to degradation. They refuse to go West, but remain couped up in cities and the so-called "sweating system" is a result. Protection claims to protect the American laborer and yet she allows our ports to be open to cheap and pauper labor. These foreigners do not understand our ways of government. They cannot distinguish between unrestricted freedom and liberty, thus anarchism and the numerous cliques and secret societies, with all their evils, arise. Law is the expression of public sentiment and if we put the control of elections into the hands of the immigrant our law will not represent the sentiment of the more educated classes and from this untold harm may result.

The following men spoke on the affirmative side: J. S. Brown '92, E. H. Warren '95, F. W. Dallinger '93, C. T. R. Bates '92, J. W. Howerth '93, E. E. Proser Gr., H. A. Poor '95, P. L. Horne '92, J. W. Young L. S., J. V. Owen, L. S., S. Wolff '93, M. A. Bartlett '93, A. F. Crosby '94, I. Blanstein Sp., A. Lathom '92, J. B. Cockrell '95, H. A. Bull '95.

On the negative side: C. Vrooman Sp., F. C. Thwaite '95, E. G. Walker '92, G. S. Painter, Gr., A. K. Stearns '95, J. M. Perkins '92, E. S. Townsend '93, C. B. Gleason '94, G. F. Ordway '95, F. H. Conger Sp. L.

The judges, Prof. Briggs, Prof. Taussig and Dr. Curry could not agree on any three men but sent in as their choice four names. J. S. Brown '92, F. W. Dallinger '93, F. A. Gilmore Dv., E. H. Warren '95. By a vote of the Union, Warren, Dallinger and Brown were elected from these four.