The Yale - Harvard Debate held in Sanders Theatre last night attracted a very large audience and was spirited and interesting throughout. Besides the presiding officers and the speakers, graduates as far back as '47, together with several members of the Faculty and the President and other representatives of the Yale Union, occupied seats on the platform.

President Eliot presided over the debate and the judges were Pres. E. B. Andrews, of Brown University, Prof. E. R. A. Seligman of Columbia College and Hon. W. E. Barrett, Speaker of the Massachusetts House. The subject of the debate was "Resolved: - That the power of railroad corporations should be further limited by national legislation," and the disputants, for Yale, E. R. Lamson '93, F. E. Donnelly '93, H. S. Cummings L. S.; for Harvard, Carl Vrooman Sp., E. H. Warren '95, A. P. Stone '93. President Eliot spoke briefly of the inability of public men to speak forcibly and of the need of just such public contests as these debates for bringing out this ability. Speakers generally address audiences which are on their side from the beginning and thus lose the great benefit of meeting an opponent face to face, which is after all the great thing to be desired. American audiences need to be trained, too. They are placed, in these debates, in the unique position of being obliged to listen to both sides and it is an excellent thing for them.

After the Debate the Harvard Union gave an informal supper to the speakers at Young's Hotel. President Wm. I. Begg of the Yale Union and President F. W. Dallinger of the Harvard Union were present together with Ex-Presidents J. L. Dodge, J. F. Morton, and R. C. Surbridge. Of the Harvard speakers only A. P. Stone was present.

MR. LAMSON'S ARGUMENT.Mr. Lamson, first upholder of the affirmative, began by stating that railroads are the strongest corporate powers in the world and have control of many legislatures. There is no denying that they have also brought great evils. The problem of today is how to control them. That legislative control is legal, is acknowledged by the Supreme Court, that it is needed is proved by history, for no individual can cope with these corporations, no single state can control interstate traffic. The most dangerous abuses of the present are unjust discriminations against products, localities, and individuals particularly secret rates. Railroad discriminations nursed into power the Standard Oil Company. The Inter-State Commerce Law aimed to check these-evils, but did not claim to obviate all difficulties, and it is commonly acknowledged that legislation is necessary to enforce this law, in order that certain abuses may be overcome, that embarrassments caused by recent technical decisions of the courts may be removed, and that the state and inter-state laws may be harmonized. There are dozens of examples of the occurrence of all these difficulties. Finally Senator Cullan and Judge Veazy an agreed perfectly that national legislation on this subject is absolutely required.

MR. VROOMAN'S ARGUMENT.Railroad competition brings on a war of rates, in which the weaker roads are forced to submit. The victorious road, now commanding the entire traffic, immediately raises its rates and thus taxes the public for the expenses of the war. These sudden rises and falls are very confusing to shippers, who would almost all prefer high but steady rates.

More important than this is the fact that railroads, in their eager competition. secretly give low rates to firms shipping large quantities of goods. Such firms are thus enabled to undersell their less favored rivals, whose destruction then becomes a matter of time. This, as well as the favoritism shown to large towns, is a direct result of excessive competition.

Some years ago, Congress, influenced by the public indignation, passed an Act providing for a committee to do away with these abuses, which were clearly pointed out. This committee, with the authority of the government behind it, said with unqualified and absolute prohibition, "Thou shalt not." But in railroad matters "prohibition does not prohibit." The provisions of the Act and of its later amendments were all ingeniously evaded by shippers.

And what can we expect so long as we confine ourselves merely to prohibiting abuses and leave the cause of them untouched? We have seen that the cause of the fluctuation of rates and of the favoritism shown to large towns was excessive competition. True statesmanship would strike at the root of the matter and destroy this competition.

MR. DONNELLY'S ARGUMENT.Mr. F. E. Donnelly, the second speaker for Yale, argued that the railway as well as the public would be benefited by further restriction, and that this fresh limitation of favor is demanded not only by the public and by legislators, but even by the railways.

The public must be benefited by a check on the express companies, the offspring of the railway, which enjoy all privileges of common carriers, with none of their restrictions. Their present system is a burden. The enormous loss of life could also be brought to the minimum by legislation compelling the adoption of the automatic coupler, proper danger signals, and other new and necessary improvements. Two thirds of our railways are trying to secure this legislation. That the Inter-State Commerce Act is not adequate for many important questions is the declaration of the commerce commission. That further national legislation would be beneficial to the railways and is wanted by them, is shown by the fact that they acknowledge that the legislation thus far has brought about an increase in earnings, an increase in traffic and a general improvement. Mr. Depew and Mr. Ingalls, both prominent railway presidents, express the sentiments of most men of authority in railroad business in acknowledging that the public and the railway need legislation that shall obtain complete control over these vast corporations, these vast concentrations of capital.

MR. WARREN ARGUMENT.To understand the origin of railroad abuses, one must appreciate the full extent of competition. Investors cannot withdraw their money, they must make the road a success. Hence competition has become a life and death struggle, and the roads have resorted to underhand means. But the railroads themselves, for their own salvation, introduced a system of pooling which, by giving each road an assurance of just so much traffic, removed the necessity for reductions, and the evils consequent upon these reductions.