The thirteenth annual Harvard-Yale debate in Sanders Theatre last night resulted in a well-earned victory for the University team. The question for debate was as follows:

"The following facts being presupposed:

1. The existence of money claims by a European government against a South American State:

2. Such claims submitted by consent of both parties to the Hague Tribunal for arbitration:

3. An award by said Tribunal in favor of the European government:

4. The time and amount of payment fixed by the award:

5. Default of payment according to terms of the award:

6. A system of absolute free trade existing in the debtor state:

Resolved. That the United States should permit the European government to seize and hold permanently territory of the debtor state not exceeding in value the amount of the award."

Harvard selected the question and Yale chose to defend the negative. The University team was composed of F. B. Wagner 1L., I. Grossman 2L. and R. LuV. Lyman '03, who gave their opening speeches in the order named. In rebuttal the order was Lyman, Wagner and Grossman. For Yale R. H. Ewell '03 spoke first, A. Fox '03, second and C. D. Lockwood 3L., third. In the rebuttal the order was Fox, Lockwood and Ewell. The main speeches were twelve minutes in length and the rebuttal five. The judges were President Pritchett of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Provost C. C. Harrison of the University of Pennsylvania and Dr. Arthur L. Brown of Providence, U. S. district judge of Rhode Island. Mr. Bliss Perry, editor of the Atlantic Monthly, was the presiding officer.

The debate, as a whole, was of a high standard. There was no suggestion of the quibbling which frequently mars such contests.

The decision of the judges was quickly and unanimously rendered in favor of Harvard. However, the Yale men were strong speakers and presented an effective case. The University team won largely because their case was based on the consideration of the interests of the whole civilized world, while their opponents considered only the interests of the United States. Harvard's contention was that under the conditions presupposed in the question the European power had an unquestionable right to seize territory of the debtor state to the amount of the award. The denial of that right by the United States would be contrary to the interests of South America, the United States and the rest of the civilized world.

The Harvard speakers presented their case with greater clearness and better emphasis than did the Yale men, and argued upon more vital points. The Yale team laid much stress on rather visionary difficulties. Harvard's central claim of absolute justice on the part of the European power they scarcely attempted to meet.

In delivery the two teams were very evenly matched, although the advantage rested with the University speakers. Wagner spoke with fluency and finish, but too little action; Ewell, for Yale, was especially direct and convincing, but sometimes made a climax in delivery when there was none in thought; Fox was rather unnatural in his style of speaking; Lockwood made up in earnestness what he lacked in variety; Lyman spoke straight to his audience and was effective, though slightly lacking in breath; Grossman, combining ease with vigor and variety, was probably the best speaker of the evening.

The Main Speeches.