By a unanimous decision of the judges, Princeton was awarded the ninth annual debate with Harvard, held in Alexander Hall, Princeton, last night. Harvard had the negative of the question: "Resolved, That whenever in the event of continued domestic violence, lives and property are not adequately protected by a State, it is for the public good that the President should have the power to afford protection without the application of the State for Federal aid." The Harvard and Princeton teams were made up respectively of A. A. Ballantine '04, W. Catchings 2L. and J. Daniels '04, and T. R. Good '04, G. S. Hornblower '04 and A. P. Scott '04. Judge Charles Andrews, of Syracuse, Albert Shaw, editor of the Review of Reviews, and Rt. Rev. John Scarborough, Bishop of New Jersey, were the judges.

As in the debate of last year, Harvard excelled in form but failed, once they had the ascendency in argument, to keep their opponents on the defensive. Though establishing a well knit case and abiding by it consistently, the Harvard speakers in general showed a lack of elasticity in adapting their arguments to Princeton's unexpected contention that the question itself in the phrase "continued domestic violence," pre-supposed the occurrence of violence beyond control of the State, and left the question merely one of whether or not the President should be the agent vested with the necessary controlling power. Neither team showed more than very ordinary ability in weaving extemporaneous rebuttal into the set speeches. A persuasive appeal for a clear distinction of the exact issues between control by the President over infractions of State laws and National laws involved in the question ran through all the Harvard speeches. Princeton's contention, used with most telling effect, was a constant insistance that there were many instances of domestic violence when the States had refused to ask for Federal aid. It followed from, this that the President must be vested with the right to intervene when he thinks it necessary. And in conclusion, Princeton contended that the economic conditions of the country, by which violence in one State affected other States, demand interference by the national executive.

T. R. Good, the first speaker for Princeton, opened the debate. The principal contingency upon which this debate hinges, he said, is the case where the lives and property of citizens are in danger and federal aid is not sought although state aid is inadequate. The Chicago riot of 1894 is an illustration of such an emergency. A state of continued violence existed and the governor of Illinois would not apply for federal assistance. If Governor Altgeld in 1894 refused to call in federal aid when lives and property were being outraged to a degree quite beyond the control of the State authorities, it is probable that in future industrial crises other governors may sacrifice the safety of the people with as little justification.

The Chicago strike at least justifies the principle that where the state cannot or will not afford adequate protection federal protection is for the public good. The question assumes the existence of a case where the state has failed to protect lives and property and yet does not request federal aid. The speaker claimed that the affirmative had shown that such cases have arisen and may arise in the future, and would further show that in such cases federal aid is necessary for the general welfare. Modern conditions, he said, have so bound the parts of our county together that domestic violence in one part is seriously felt throughout.

The speaker concluded by briefly out-lining the safeguard to the public peace which the greater power of the President would mean, the preventative effect which this power would have, and the necessity of such power for unusual crises.

Ballantine opened the debate for Harvard. We of the negative, he said, stand for the protection of life and property as strongly as do the affirmative. But we contend that the means for suppressing violence are already adequate, and that the new power which the affirmative propose to grant to the President would be both unnecessary and undesirable. As the law now stands the President has absolute power to put down all violence which infringes national law, and the States have power to suppress violence infringing State law alone, not only by calling out State troops, but by calling upon the President for Federal troops. The affirmative propose a great change, involving a constitutional amendment and giving the President vastly increased power. They advocate the passage of a constitutional amendment giving to the President the power to interfere at his own discretion against the will of State authorities, when State laws only are infringed and when in many cases State interests only are affected. They have shown no justification for the granting of this tremendous power. We of the negative oppose the adoption of such amendment, not merely because it is unnecessary, but because it would mean a fundamental departure from the structure and theory of our government. Our government is indeed national, yet it is federal. Its success, must rest upon the preservation of the function and authority of the States. It is this very principle which the affirmative would violate by their plan. For in the field of protecting life and property the States have always been absolute. The suppression of continued violence as of sporadic violence has always been essentially a function of the States. The affirmative propose to allow the central government to encroach upon the States in this, their principal field of action. They propose to confuse State and federal authority by granting the President power to overrule the State authorities in enforcing State laws. They would begin the destruction of the pivotal balance in our federal system.

A. P. Scott, the second affirmative speaker, denied that the proposed power would be radical in principle. The principle that behind the state stands the union guaranteeing its stability is, he said, as old as the constitution. Moreover, the aim of the constitution is domestic tranquility. Therefore when continued domestic violence exists and a State re- fuses to ask for aid, the very end of the constitution is subverted.

Since the possible existence of such a situation is granted, he contended that probability of its arising need not be proved. But in addition industrial conditions show a reasonable probability that such conditions as need summary action will arise. If therefore there is not sufficient power in the hands of the President to deal with the situation, protection has not been adequately provided. The absence of request for federal aid may come in any crises either from political considerations, State pride, or actual sympathy with lawlessness.

The possession of power of intervention by the President would mean the restoration of law and order and would always result for the public welfare. It is therefore, he concluded, both necessary and desirable that the President should have the power to deal directly with cases of domestic violence.

Daniels was the second speaker for the negative. To justify the radical and far-reaching departure they are proposing, the affirmative, he said, must show an overwhelming necessity. The negative contend that they cannot show such a necessity because the existing means of suppressing domestic violence have proved fully adequate to the situation. There are at present three methods of suppressing domestic violence: first, the State may suppress the violence with its own forces; secondly, the State, if unable alone to restore order, may call upon the federal government for assistance; thirdly, when the violence immediately threatens the sovereignty of the national government by obstructing federal laws, the President may intervene at once. In these ways, in the event of domestic violence, adequate protection has always been afforded to life and property. Adequate protection was afforded in the case of the violence in Chicago in 1894 by the President's intervention to remove the obstruction to federal laws. Adequate protection was afforded in the occurrence of domestic violence in West Virginia and Maryland in 1887, at the Couer d'Alene mines in Idaho in 1892, and again in 1899, by the calling in of federal assistance by the State. And in by far the largest number of cases adequate protection was afforded by the State alone; in the case of the violence in Ohio, New York and Pennsylvania in 1887; in Cincinnati in 1884; in Seattle in 1885; at Homestead, Penn., in 1892; at Virdin and Pana, Illinois, in 1898; and in the recent coal strike;--in all these cases adequate protection was afforded by the State alone. In short, whenever domestic violence has occurred, adequate protection has been afforded to life and property by one or other of the existing methods. The negative maintain, therefore, that the means at hand are fully adequate to the situation and that the affirmative propose an unnecessary measure.

The main contention of Hornblower, the third speaker for Princeton, was that the power of national interference can be vested in no one but the President. He showed that the federal courts are judicial, whereas the proposed power requires executive force. Nor can the power, he said, be given to Congress, for that is a deliberative body and cannot act quickly. None of the objections to the granting of this power to the President are valid. Though it is said that the power could be abused it must be remembered that the possibility of abuse and probability of abuse are two different things. Every power which has been granted the President since the constitution has met with this same objection. Yet every power given him has proved to be for the public good. The affirmative, he concluded, had shown, firstly, that unless the President has this power or is given it, there will not be sufficient guarantee for the protection of the people from continued domestic violence; secondly, that there should be some guarantee for the suppression of disorder in every emergency. The supremacy of law and order is fundamental to the integrity of our national life. It is the duty of intelligent men following the dictates of prudence to provide an adequate authority to deal with every emergency which can be reasonably anticipated.

Catchings closed the main debate for Harvard. He said that to make a radical change in our government when unnecessary is bad enough, but to make that change when it means serious practical evils is far worse. These are two of the specific evils of the change advocated by the affirmative; one man power would be created; and in a most critical period presidents and governors would be brought into conflict. Great confusion would result. The protection of life and property and the discretionary power of a military officer create in time of peace a martial law justifiable only as a last resort in time of war. But of more significance is the fact that interference by the central government, firstly, vitally weakens the salient feature of American government--the local control of local matters; and, secondly, it undermines one essential of every good government-- control in particular matters by those people who posses most information about them. A national feeling prompting interference is based on indirect information, not on direct knowledge--local interests arise from direct knowledge. The people of a section know the facts when an act of violence is committed by an individual and not by a body against whom states as such could not move. They know when that individual criminal is arrested and brought to justice; on the other hand, the people of the country hear of an act of violence; they may not know that the perpetrator is at once arrested, and in their ignorance of exact conditions are apt to favor action uncalled for by the particular situation. The complex local conditions of every section raise an insuperable objection to federal interference in local affairs. As long as the United States interfered during the Reconstruction Period in the South it was impossible to rebuild the South.

For the national government to interfere also undermines the political development of the people. We have developed political intelligence further than any other people. In the South reconstruction from without was an utter failure--from within it was a success. Hence the negative opposes the position of the affirmative because national interference in state affairs is unnecessary, radical and objectionable.

In the first rebuttal speech for Harvard, Daniels contended that the affirmative went too far in assuming that the proposed remedy would meet cases that have never yet arisen. Conditions which demanded federal intervention without application from State authorities have not arisen in the past, and there is no reason to expect they will. The solution for any case that may arise will come through the present system; no such radical change as is proposed is needed.

Scott, for Princeton, followed Daniels in rebuttal, and said that it was for the public good that the President should have the proposed power, both in the case of violation of national laws and violation of State laws, when the State cannot deal with such violation. It then is necessary to choose between federal protection and no protection.

Catchings in the second rebuttal speech for Harvard, again declared the question inferred that where no national law is violated the President ought not to have the proposed power. The laws that have to do with our local needs ought to be in the hands of men who best know those needs. The affirmative to prove their case must, he said, prove that local self government is a failure. To grant the proposed discretionary power to the President means the establishment of a centralized government.

Hornblower, answering Catchings in rebuttal, said that the affirmative did not assert that the States could not protect themselves. If the power of the States is found now to be adequate, the proposed power to be given the President is not necessary. But many instances have been cited to prove that it is not adequate. Domestic violence is not a matter of State concern. Our economic conditions make it inevitable that trouble in one State affects the nation.

Ballantine closed the Harvard rebuttal with the argument that in all the instances cited by the affirmative the States have asked for aid. The affirmative had failed, he said, to show that States were unable of themselves to suppress riot and violence, which is a fundamental of their case. It makes a great difference whether the President is to have power to enforce State laws or national laws. With the first he should not be allowed to interfere; over the second his control already is adequate.

The debate was closed by the rebuttal speech of Blair, who maintained that by the reading of the question a state of anarchy is assumed. In that case the other arm of the government, the national, must of necessity be employed to establish peace. For all lawlessness which breaks out there should exist a power to put it down; when State control is inadequate the only resource in to power vested in the President