S. R. Wrightington '97 opened the debate for Harvard. After outlining the question, he showed that we have our existing gold standard as the result of a national evolution from the more bulky mediums. Bimetallists propose to go back to a money that has been discarded in this natural evolution. They would have us abandon a natural and automatic currency for one that depends on legislation.

Now how can two commodities whose costs of production constantly change be kept at a fixed ratio? The very treaty formed to maintain a ratio might be broken by war. Can our opponents stand sponsors for the peace of Europe? Such a danger as this, when at best the advantages of bimetallism are problematical, make it clear that our present evils must be very great to justify such a leap in the dark. But that no such evils exist is proved by the immense economic prosperity of the past thirty years and what business troubles there are have been in no way due to the currency.

There are in fact no evils which require a revolution in our standard of value. On the contrary our financial system has worked badly only when there has been talk of changing it. Wrightington spoke in a clear, convincing manner, and was very coherent in his argument.

C. S. MacFarland, Div., the first Yale speaker, claimed at the outset that Harvard had misinterpreted the question; that the real issue was for them to prove that the United States should adopt definitively the gold standard, and should once for all put themselves beyond the possibility of a change. He then went on to claim that this simply meant a continuance of all the unrest and disaster of the last twenty-five years.

There have been two great, undeniable evils under the gold standard-the destruction of the par of exchange between gold and silver-using countries and the fall of prices.

He made his bes: point by quoting Professor Taussig to prove that bimetallism could be put into successful operation. "Of the two objections to bimetallism proposed by Professor Taussing," he said, 'the one is removed by the wording of the question, the other by actual facts." MacFarland spoke convincingly. His form was good, but a little too quiet.

G. H. Dorr '97, the second Harvard speaker, caused a laugh in rebutting MacFarland's point about the destruction of the international par of exchange. "He says it is so, but he brings forward no facts to prove it; we have his word no facts to prove it; we have his word for it, but that is all." If it is true it matters very little to us for our exports to silverusing countries amount to but a handful. In regard to the second claim, that falling prices are a result of the gold standard, he denied that they are an evil at all. He then devoted the rest of his speech to a careful analysis showing that this, the fundamental claim of the bimetallists is without foundation. Fall in prices has resulted merely from an immense but healthy growth in production. The debtor has not suffered, because there has been a constant rise in wages and money incomes. What would be the gain of bimetallism? None. Production would merely become feverish and speculative, and wages would only fall under a period of rising prices.

Dorr's speech was extremely logical and took well with the audience.

The second Yale speaker, Charles Upson Clark, began by denying that the negative were urging higher prices; they merely wished steadier prices. The question was not of the relative merits of bimetallism and gold monometallism, but was solely as to whether the United States should at once and definitively adopt the single gold standard. This action, he maintained, would not restore but would destroy confidence, because it would be a surprise and would maintain the ills at present existing. The policy of the country for twenty years has been steadily tending toward international bimetallism. To change this policy would cause an entire overturn in politics and finance, inevitably leading to the total shattering of confidence.

Clark made his points well, but was rather deliberate.

The third speaker for Harvard was Fletcher Dobyns '98. He began by a concise and clear analysis of the question at issue, saying that the only question was as to the relative merits of the gold and the bimetallic standards. Any ratio which the negative could offer would fail. If the ratio adopted were 16 to 1, this would be an attempt to double the value of silver by government fiat. Whatever the ratio, business men would prefer gold to silver, because the former is certainly stable. Business domands certainty as to the future. How could it be shown that some political troubles would not entirely shatter that league, and bring about the worst commercial crisis ever knownn Another fatal objection to the league is that we are the great silver-producing nation of the world. Europe would have gold, the stable metal, but we should have one the maintenance of whose value depended on the faith kept by the other nations. By its interesting illustrations and several humerous hits of Dobyns' speech did much to enliven the debate which had become rather slow and ponderous.

The last speaker for Yale was Charles Heitler Studinski. He argued in a clear and convincing manner and his speech was frequently interrupted by applause. His chief point rested on the political disquietment which would follow the adoption of a monometallic policy by this country. The Republican party elected their president and maintained the principles of sound money last fall with the votes of those who disbelieve in gold monometallism and favor a bimetallic league. If then the Republicans should repudiate their platform they would at once arouse the flames of sectional and class jealousy. As a result the country at the next election would fall into the hands of the free silverites,- exactly what it was most desired to prevent-and we should have then free silver at a ratio of 16 to 1.

The speeches in rebuttal ended the debate. The Harvard speakers maintained as their chief point that their opponents were begging the question in ponents were begging the question in that they did not confine themselves to the question at issue nor did they show any possible way by which bimetallism could be put in force. It was Yale's position that the Harvard speakers if they maintained that gold monometallism was a product of evolution were in the wrong. That if they declared that what is virtually a gold standard here in the United States has been beneficial, they were mistaken. And that to definitively adopt a single gold standard would be to bring about the evils of silver monometallism. The rebuttals were full of snap and vigor and were by far the most interesting parts of the evening. During the speeches the different methods of presentations of the two sets of men was noticeable. While the contrast was not marked it was nevertheless noticeable that the Harvard speakers and Clark of Yale, spoke calmly and with force. The other two Yale speakers seemed to approach ranting at times.

G. H. Dorr '97 opened the rebuttal for Harvard. His speech was a summary of the affirmative position. He said in part: We affirm that the United States should adopt the gold standard. This is our definite position and to it we would narrow the question. Bimetallism would cause a break in the par of exchange and would upset prices. It would not prevent the fall of prices. Prices fall because the proportional increase in production is greater than the increase of money. Under a double standard, money will increase proportionally as under a single standard. At best bimettalism would result in prices remaining the same or in falling prices.

C. H. Studenski replied for Yale. His position was an attempt to show that the discussion was proceeding illogically, and that the gold standard could not be satisfactorily used. He was convincing, although somewhat vehement.

The discussion of a future policy is absurd. We can tell nothing about a scheme to be adopted later. Our question is of the present. Harvard has made this entirely a theoretical question. It is, on the contrary, practical and concrete. It should be settled at once upon conditions which exist. The question of bimetallism is no longer an open one. The evolution toward monometallism has not been natural. All the nations today are putting up with the evils of monometallism because they have given

(Continued on sixth page.)