Rabenold opened the debate for Harvard. He contended that the discussion turned upon the history of what trade-unionism has done. First and foremost it has given the working man the power to say something in determining the condition of employment. In the conditions of modern industry, it is readily seen that-the working man, standing alone, counts for little, if anything, as a bargainer. The working man has but one thing to sell, and that is his labor. Capital controls the machinery, without which that labor can bring no results. The working man is thus at a complete disadvantage. Organization has given to the individual the power which, standing alone, he could not have. Here is the absolute necessity, and at the same time the complete justification of organization.

Now--Rabenold continued--the affirmative contend that in doing this, trade-unionism has made mistakes, and that certain evils have resulted. It is agreed that many mistakes have been committed and that many evils have-resulted, but the affirmative must do more than point to incidental evils in order to show a general tendency of trade-unionism detrimental to the best interests of the country. They have said that strikes have occurred in trade unions, but they have not shown that the best interests of the country would have been subseryed if there had been no strikes at all. They must show, and show conclusively, that the best interests of the country would have been furthered if there had been no unionism. Taking into consideration the ignorance of the working classes, many of whom are foreigners, taking into consideration the frailties of human nature, the inequalities of modern society, the complex and centralized conditions of modern industry, the negative claims that the history of trade-unionism in the past twenty years has been advantageous to the working man and creditable to such labor leaders as John Mitchell and P. M. Arthur, who have given the chief years of their lives to the uplift of the laboring man, and, with him, the general material and moral condition of the whole people.

Rebutting the points of Burton, the first affirmative speaker, Rabenold said that the discussion must concern not special but general tendencies. The affirmative has shown simply that the working man has tried to assert himself; this self-assertion is a defense against encroaching capitalism, and is in the best interests of the whole community.

R. S. Binkerd continued the debate for Yale, arguing that the trade unions have persistently violated the rights of the non-union man. Among these rights are (1) the right of personal security, and (2) the right to work. Mr. George Curtiss, Justice Brewer and President Eliot testify that there has been a general tendency to invade these rights, and the thousands of injunctions protecting nonunion men from interference, the great mass of legal decisions of the past twenty years, affirming the right to work, and the fact that nearly every state has specific laws against violence and intimidation is proof that this tendency toward the violation of the rights of non-union workingmen has constantly expressed itself. This tendency need not always express itself in violence, but may do so in peaceful policies, as in the closed shop. Most American courts have held the "Closed Shop" illegal, yet there has been a growing movement toward it, culminating in the Miller case (1903) at Washington, and the resolution of the recently adjourned meeting of the American Federation of Labor, denouncing the "Open Shop," whether under private or government ownership. This arbitrariness of the unions toward the non-union man expresses itself also in violating the rights of personal freedom, by trying to make membership in labor organizations compulsory.

The speaker continued his argument by stating that this dictatorial stand of the unions means an attempt to build up a state within a state: to establish an irresponsible government in the avowed interest of a small percentage of a single class (for organized labor constituents but fifteen per cent, of all the labor of our country). This general tendency, therefore, is detrimental to the best interests of labor and of the whole country.

Referring to the speech of Rabenold. Binkerd said that the affirmative position does not deny the necessity for organization of labor, but denies the benefit of such organization as has existed for the last twenty years. This existent kind or organization has placed its own interests paramount to those of the general community.

Weldy, the second speaker on the negative, denied that trade-unionism has shown the general tendency alleged by the previous speaker. The non-union man is the small minority in the unionized trades, and has been injured in times of strike only. This injury to the minority has been necessary for the welfare of the greater majority, but even such injury has been transient and intermittent. Trade unionism strives to secure for the working man his natural rights; to deny these by peaceable evolution--the method employed by unionism--would mean their attainment by violent revolution. The working man loves to be happy and a good citizen; trade unionism has made the mass of working men more happy. There is the same principle in trade unionism as in democracy--the free consent of the governed.

The history of trade-unionism concerns, he said, what trade-unionism has done. The one central and established fact is that by organization and by that method alone, the working man has been placed in a position from which he can specify in some measure what his wages, the length of his working day and the general conditions of his employment shall be. That the best interests of the entire country have been subserved thereby can not be denied.

For the affirmative contention to be proven valid, it must be shown that unionism in accomplishing its results used means evil in their nature and evil in their results. And this Weldy claimed, is the assertion of the affirmative.

The arguments of the affirmative were then considered. It was argued that trade-unionism, far from promoting socialism, has been the one practical and effective argument against it. Both socialism and unionism spring from the inherent desire of the working man to better his condition. As trade-unionism has satisfied this desire by bringing about a steady improvement in this direction, the use of revolutionary measures has been foregone.

The discussion of the non-union man's condition makes clear that in practical American life today there exists a working class with class interests. Solidarity of this class is requisite to promote its interests. Hence it has been true that the non-union man has at times lost a personal and temporary advantage, that the larger and permanent interests of the class embracing union and non-union men alike might be promoted. The arguments of the affirmative relative to restriction and number of apprentices were considered and the results of such restriction were claimed to be unimportant in their actual effects. Where resorted to they have been justified in practically all instances.

Finally, the contention of the affirmative that trade-unionism has decreased the individuality of the working man was combated. Modern conditions of employment have in many instances tended to this result. But trade-unionism has in fact gained for all working men a larger and more real freedom, truer self ownership than they could possibly have had without organization. Examples of conditions before and after the recent coal strike were cited. With increased means and leisure the working man has become a better man and a better citizen. In his elevation the entire country has been benefited.

C. L. Beede made the third and last main speech for Yale. He dealt with that spirit of unionism which disregards the rights of the general public. It is, he said, a fundamental principle that individuals or institutions shall always be governed in pursuit of their own ends by a strict observance of public rights. Trade-unionism has continually shown a tendency to repudiate this principle. It is essential that the public, as a third party, shall never be made unreasonably to suffer for a grievance between two other parties. Yet unions, for the past twenty years, in the zealous pursuit of their own ends, have forced the evil consequences of their embroglios, upon the entire public, interfering with business and threatening the general security of the public.

Time after time has the boycott and the strike been persistently prosecuted, resulting in enforced idleness to thousands and in the absolute cessation of business. They have ignored the courts; have shown hostility to the government itself; they place their own interest above those of the whole country, and would make allegiance to the unions paramount to any other duty which men may owe to any organization--social, religious, political.

Unions would strive to dominate the entire industrial world, to put a monopoly price on union labor, to limit production, and to dictate to employers. All this bodes no good to labor, rather constitutes a profound menace to American labor and American industry.