[N. E. Associated Press.]

NEW HAVEN, CONN., May 1. - The second Yale Princeton debate took place tonight in the Hyperion. The decision of the judges was in favor of Princeton. The debate was attended by a good-sized and enthusiastic audience. The presiding officer of the evening was Judge Henry E. Howland of New York. After a brief introduction Judge Howland announced the question as "Resolved, that the income tax law of 1894 was, under the circumstances, justifiable," and declared that the addresses would be confined to the ethical, not the constitutional side, Princeton taking the affirmative and Yale the negative.

W. F. Burns of Illinois, opened the affirmative for Princeton. He stated that the advocates of the tax did not claim that it was a perfect law, but that its fundamental idea was correct. He took up the conditions in 1894 and said that they fully justified the passage of the law. The people had seen that extravagance must be curtailed and that undue distribution of wealth must be corrected. This tax will deal harshly with the mercenary men of the world, but it is based on the broad principle of "equality of sacrifice for all." Before this time want, not wealth, was being daily burdened. This is the determination of the people to bring about equality of taxation, though not by communistic nor socialistic means.

Harold E. Buttrick of Brooklyn, N. Y., the first speaker for Yale, said: "The income tax law of 1894 was an unnecessary revenue measure. We do not oppose an ideal tax, but the income tax law was passed to meet a deficit which should have been met by economy. It was sectional, too; an attack on the east by the west and the south. The income tax law of 1894 was vicious as a practical measure and violates every principle upon which a genuine income tax is based. The law was an attack of socialists and populists upon capital. It is the old story of debt confiscation and debt erasure."

R. W. McElroy of Kentucky was the second Princeton speaker. He said: "The claim of my opponent that the tax is socialistic is untrue. Because we claim that the millionaire should be obliged to support the government to a larger degree than the laborer, we do not support a socialistic theory. The most civilized countries of the world have adopted the income tax and unite in declaring it the most important feature of their revenue system. All bills contain some evils, but all bills do not rest upon such a firm basis as ours. This limit of $4,000 is a natural one between the over-taxed middle classes and the under-taxed rich classes. This tax has solved the problem of two wars for England, has relieved Germany and Italy from a slough of debt and aided our own country from a heavy burden just after the civil war."

H. Frank Rall, of Des Moines, Iowa, was the second Yale speaker. He said: "The friends of the income tax law base their defence largely upon the financial need. Their argument rests upon two false assumptions: that the measure met this need, and that it was the best way of meeting it. The need was an immediate one, but no revenues could come from this tax for ten months, and the amount even then would be uncertain. A better source of aid was open - the internal revenue taxes. Here was a source of revenue, three times that estimated for this law. easily and economically collected, without popular friction or disturbance to trade. Why did Congress neglect it? Because popular clamor dinned its claims in one ear, while Congress turned the other to the gentle suggestions of the beer combine. The law is unjustifiable because of its radical defects. The special deductions allowed open wide the doors of evasion, and this and the high rate of exemption will largely destroy its value as a revenue measure."

R. H. Hirschfield, of Ohio, the third Princeton speaker, said: "This claim of socialistic tendencies for the income tax has been brought against every measure of reform which has been passed. It was brought against the new factory laws; it was brought against compulsory education and against improvement laws for the working classes. The claim that this tax is sectional is one that might be brought against the internal revenue measures which my opponents advocate on beer and whisky."

Clarence E. Clough, of Wilmot Flats, N. H., was the third speaker for Yale. He said: "The tax is an encroachment of national government upon the states. Twenty of our states have already taxes on inheritance, incomes or corporations. If you put an additional tax of two per cent on this same property, and this is what the income tax does, there will follow injustice and evasion and the state law must be repealed. The income tax law contains three points of unjust discrimination. First, savings banks. It exempts six hundred and taxes three hundred. One class divides its profits-in a particular way and is exempt. Second, between insurance companies. Of two insurance companies, one is a regular stock company and is taxed two per cent on net income; the other, a mutual company, goes free-Third, between kinds of income. This bill exempts general incomes of four thousand dollars, while corporations are taxed two per cent on net incomes without exemption. All corporate stock is widely distributed among persons whose income is less than $4,000. Thus a man with an income of $4,000 derived from partnership is exempt, while a man with the same income derived from a corporation is taxed. The spirit of the bill is confiscation. The spirit behind it is hatred of capital.

Each of the above speakers occupied twelve minutes. Messrs. Rall and Buttrick, for Yale, and Messrs. McElroy and Burns were allowed six minutes rebuttal. The judges, Rev. Lyman Abbott, of New York, Laurence Hutton and Professor Cummings, of Harvard, retired, and were out nearly half an hour. During their-absence Judge Howland made a witty speech, declining to talk upon the income tax, the subject under discussion, as it "touched him up" too deeply. Dr. Abbott, for the judges, then declared that the decision was not unanimous, but that it gave the victory to Princeton. There was some applause at the announcement, as the verdict, while fully deserved by the Princeton representatives, was a keen disappointment at Yale.