In closing the speaker said: "We remind you that we make no attack upon the principle of labor organization, we grant its possibility for good, but we say that to attain this good, unions must not assume to manage the employers' business; they must forego coercion, and in building themselves up, must not forget that those who differ with them have rights guaranteed them under our free government. But the fact that this is a nation bent on the betterment of the laboring class, that trade-unionism has been agitated and reagitated, and yet has failed to receive the support of eighty-five per cent of the American wage-earners, is strong proof of our contention,--namely, that trade-unionism for the past twenty years has pursued unwise methods, has violated rights fundamental to our whole social structure, has fostered a spirit of selfish tyranny, has sought to dominate the industrial world, and has placed its own interests before those of the whole country."

Morton, in concluding the debate, said that the preceding speaker had not spoken as to what trade-unionism has actually done. He has not considered actions, but only avowals; and has not attempted to show that trade-unionism, as it has existed, has been unnecessary. The negative maintains that in spite of mistakes there has been a general beneficial tendency. The very strikes have resulted in growth of the joint-agreement.

The best interests of the United States are, he said, the creation of a spirit of mutual precaution, the establishment of a true province of labor, and a true province of capital. This end it has been the general tendency of trade unionism to sub-serve--by creating trade agreements, and by calling the attention of the public to the significance of the problem. The history of trade unionism cannot be discussed upon any narrower ground than this. If the negative have shown that despite the evils which have attended the history of trade unionism, unionism has shown a tendency to advance the idea of common and universal brotherhood of man then it is proven that the history of trade unionism has evidenced a general tendency beneficial to the best interests of the country.

THE REBUTTAL SPEECHES.

Weldy began the rebuttal for Harvard. The negative he said, contends, that trade unionism has introduced democratic principles into the control of industry. The laborer should rightfully have a measure of self-government in the disposition of his labor and to the mass of laborers unionism is giving this. The special evils to which the affirmative points are intermittent and transitory and show no general unfavorable tendency. Trade unionism has always stood for arbitration and conciliation--The affirmative blames it for non-incorporation: it should be remembered that unionism is a comparatively recent movement and time must be expected to elapse before it develops to the point of excellence one would wish. The movement has, however, done enough already to be accounted good in its results; it has introduced democracy and self-government for the laboring man into industrial affairs.

Burton, the first speaker for Yale in rebuttal, said that the trade unions are willing to arbitrate only on questions that from their nature the employer cannot arbitrate-such as contests for absurdly high wages. They refuse to agree to any decision that does not suit them, and through their refusal to incorporate, they are legally irresponsible. The negative, the speaker claimed, falls to disprove the argument of the affirmative that unionism sets its own interests above those of the community. This, as any number of instances of riot and unjustifiable violence show, has been the tendency of unionism for the past twenty years.

Morton, the second speaker of Harvard in the rebuttal, stated that the labor unions have been willing to arbitrate reasonably; all the best evidence of the authorities show the growth of conciliatory methods. The affirmative has quoted special instances of disregard of the rights of the community; but by these special instances of mistakes the attention of the public has been the more directed to the great question. The negative has shown that trade-unionism has been has shown that trade-unionism has been a great necessity; and that its evils have not been comparable with the evils of other great movements of history making for the progress of civilization and the best interests of a people.

Binkerd, in rebuttal, said that although the negative have dwelt on the past of trade unionism the question is not one that calls for balancing past good results with past evil results. The discussion concerns a general tendency. Moreover, much of the good claimed by the negative came prior to the last twenty years. Furthermore all the industrial progress of those twenty years has not been due to trade unionism. The aims of unionism have been essentially selfish in disregarding the rights of the majority; and this is evidenced by strikes, boycotts and their attitude towards the courts. The affirmative claims that the methods of trade unionism in general could have been different; and as an example of better methods quotes the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers which has not followed the practices of any of the other unions.

Rabenold, the last speaker for Harvard, argued that the general tendency of trade unionism has been not a furthering of selfish interests, but the establishment of harmony between labor and capital. The evils of trade unionism have been incidental. The good it has done has been far reaching: if has introduced democracy into industry and brought about industrial peace.

Beede, in rebuttal, pointed out that the affirmative had confined itself to the history of unionism, dewelling more upon it than the negative and addressing concert evidence of evil where the negative had merely asserted good. The negative, he said, has been two optimistic in regard to general progress. The affirmative has shown by concrete arguments a general tendency of disregard for the rights of the community