(Continued from first page.)

up silver. They lack the advantages of bimetallism.

This league, if founded, they say, might possibly be broken by war. To adjust definitely the single gold standard will be followed by overwhelming financial difficulties. Is this preferable to a league which might by chance be broken?

The second Harvard speaker was S. R. Wrightington. He reaffirmed his statement in his opening speech that the single gold standard was the product of evolution. Is it possible, he asked, that all the nations have stumbled in this one direction by chance. And our opponents assume the possibility of a league. They assume that we may be asked to join it. There can be no guarantee for its permanence it formed. Nations would enter or withdraw as they pleased. Is this the sort of an agreement we wish to enter? In it we should coin silver and lose gold. Then when the league dissolved we should be left in absolute vagueness. It has always been our policy to keep out of entangling alliances and we should still do so.

Yale's second speaker was C. S. Mac Farland. He reaffirmed the position of the negative and put the question as they understood it. Macfarland then stated that gold monometallism was in force and that we should not adopt evils that we are now stumbling under. What we should wish is a standard that will not change. The speaker also refuted what he claimed to be a fallacy of the affirmative in saying that wages had risen, by affirming that although wages had risen there was no work to be had.

Fletcher Dobyns continued the speeches in the most forceful and the best received speech of the evening. He said: This is the most uninteresting debate I have ever attended. The gentlemen from New haven received from us a definite question. We at Harvard have understood that the question is, should we have monometallism? The negative has not shown that any other system would work. They have almost failed to even touch the question. If any advantages are to come from what these gentlemen say, it is more money. That might apply to conditions years ago, but not now. Now, credit is the chief instrument of effective exchanges, dependent only upon a definite standard.

The last speaker, who closed the debate, was C. U. Clark of Yale. He endeavored to show that the question was not of adopting some time in the future but at the present: The gentleman has said that the world has been prosperous, but solely on account of the single gold standard there has been great distress. The affirmative have not conducted their debate practically but theoretically. The United States can adopt the gold standard in but two ways. Both of these would bring trouble. The single gold standard is very bad. It has been the cause of all the evils since 1873. If we should adopt it, how should we ever execute it, and what would be the result? This result would be an overthrow in politics at the next election and the silverites would be in power. Then there would be the free and unlimited coinage of silver.

After the decision was rendered the debaters, judges and invited guests had a supper at the Colonial Club.