The Harvard debating team was last evening defeated by Yale in Woolsey Hall, New Haven, before the largest audience which ever witnessed a debate at Yale.

The question for debate was as follows:

"Resolved, That the history of trade unionism for the past twenty years shows a general tendency detrimental to the best interests of the country." Yale supported the affirmative and Harvard the negative.

The judges were President W. H. P. Faunce, D.D., of Brown University, Mr. J. G. Milburn, of Buffalo, and General F. V. Greene. President A. T. Hadley of Yale was the presiding officer.

The members of both teams showed great power in adapting themselves to the trend of the argument, and in suiting their own argument closely to that of their opponents. Yale's essential proposition was that though organization of labor has been necessary, and has as a matter of fact resulted in some good, yet on the whole it has tended to put its own interests paramount to those of the employer, the non-union man, and the public at large. Harvard answered this by arguing that the good which trade-unionism has aimed at could not have been accomplished without some encroachment on the liberty of the employer. The betterment of the laboring man's condition which has been to a large degree attained, could not have been attained without trade-unionism. Still more beneficial has been the establishment of greater harmony between capital and labor, a superlative good in the industrial world.

Harvard failed to meet at once the fundamental argument of the affirmative, though by the close of the debate they met it as fully as it could be met. On the other hand, Yale put forward its essential contention at once and held consistently to it throughout the debate.

The judges were out about fifteen minutes. In rendering the decision, General F. V. Greene said that the judges were unanimous in the belief that Yale excelled both in the matter of form and in having argued more effectively and consistently.

THE MAIN SPEECHES.

M. L. Burton opened the debate. It is necessary, first of all, he said, to define clearly the word "tendency." The affirmative advances this definition: a tendency is that which tends to cause, whether it does or does not proceed to an effect. Hence, it is unnecessary to prove that trade unionism would necessarily lead to more evil than good in the future. The probable tendency to evil is all that need be established.

The best interests of our country are peculiarly dependent on the people. We make and enforce our laws. Hence we must be law-abiding. When a body of men loses its respect for law, it endangers the stability of society. Disregard for law, however, is but one of the many manifestations of the underlying spirit of trade unionism--a spirit which seeks to create caste, to create clique interests, to assert the superior importance of trade unions, and to set their interests above the interests of all other parties.

This spirit has also manifested itself by a constant disregard of the fundamental legal rights of freedom of contracts and of personal security. Any supposed good accomplished by trade unionism cannot for a moment outweigh the evils resulting from the subversion of these basal rights.

The affirmative case rests, the speaker said, on an attempt to prove that trade unionism has invaded the rights (1) of the employer, (2) of the non-union men, (3) of the general public. These three points the three speakers would endeavor to prove.

The rights of the employer were then considered in detail. It was claimed that his right to employ whom he chooses had been denied by the trade unions. In proof of this, statistics for the last twenty years were given, and reference made to the thousands of cases where employers have been compelled to surrender to employees.

It was argued further that the right of the employer to buy his material where he might please has been disregarded by the unions, as has also his right to possess his property in safety and to use it in a legitimate way. Reference was made to the Homestead strike, and to the Pullman strike as evidence of the violation of this right.

In conclusion it was shown that the chief significance of this argument is not so much the evidence of disregard for the interests of individuals as the evidence of the existence within our country of an organization which manifests a spirit which seeks to make its rights paramount to the rights of all other parties. Any organization manifesting such a spirit cannot show a tendency other than detrimental to the best interests of our country.

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.

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