W. M. Shohl, closed the main argument of the negative. Intercollegiate football is, he said, a great developer of character, in that it encourages and fosters in a man an intense loyalty to an ideal, his college. He works hard every day for a period of two months. He is working for his ideal, the honor of his college and in that struggle he forgets himself and his selfish interests. What would be a better developer of character than this? We are all acquainted with the man, who with selfish interest in his own affairs works on and cares for nothing, his college included, except his pencil and ruler, and books. Such men are well trained intellectually, but they possess but two dimensions. They have not learned how to tackle the world in the football spirit and fight for the honor of their ideal. Football, then, draws a man out of himself more completely than any other college activity, it absorbs him in a glorious ambition, and moulds him into a man of character.

The Rebuttal Speeches.

A. Fox made the first rebuttal speech for the negative. Our opponents, he said, have brought out three distinct detriments; the physical harm, the loss of time, which should rather be given to studies, and the bad moral effect. On the other side of the scale the negative has shown that intercollegiate football creates a wholesome atmosphere, makes individual efficiency, and moulds character. Princeton has held up the strain and danger of injury, but we have punctured this theory by statistics and opinions of authorities. We have called to attention that the danger of football is a danger of bumps and bruises. Against the argument that football makes for foul play, we have held up virility. I know personally that foul tactics are scorned at Harvard and Yale. Must we give up a great game because a few "muckers" show their bad characters? Football stands for loyalty to a college and an ideal.

In opening the rebuttal for the affirmative P. McClanahan said: Does this game really teach men to do things? Some things, yes; but not those things for which a university should stand. Football does cause loyalty to an ideal, but not the proper ideal. Our opponents say the danger is a question of bumps and bruises. It makes a difference where these bruises come. This whole matter hinges on the question: Why does a man come to college after all? Surely not to play football, and spend time in the hospital. Our opponents say that football is a player's whole-heared work. It is, he sacrifices his studies to it.

W. M. Shohl made the second speech for the negative. Football is a dangerous game our opponents say, but we have answered this argument and cited evidence. The statistics of our opponents are not real statistics; they have given us a one-sided argument. Lists of injuries are not statistics. Our opponents tell us of the dangers, the time taken up, and the moral evils. We have brought out evidence to the contrary. We ask for examples of foul play and they state but one from many opportunities. We have shown that football builds character and efficiency. It is not the leather ball, but what it stands for, as we may say it is not the American flag, but what it represents.

T. S. Clark was the next speaker for the affirmative. The comparison between the football and the flag is apt, he said. Many have died for both. Our opponents say that we have cited but one instance of foul play in the recent Harvard-Yale game. This is true, only one instance can be sighted, the rest were hidden. The recent resolution of the Rules Committee in Philadelphia has shown that even authorities on the subject admit the existence of brutality. It is worded "to eliminate the chances of rough play, and to lessen brutality." If the negative can support the arguments which they have brought forward they are supporting football in the face of overwhelming evils. The negative say that football players learn to do and succeed. They do learn to succeed at all costs, and by methods far from divine.

G. J. Hirsch was the last speaker for the negative. The gentlemen from Princeton, he said, have brought forward three distinct objections. They have exaggerated the prevalence of injuries, but have not stated their permanency. Many of their facts are unsupported by sufficient evidence. Football takes time that should be given to work, they say, but they only say it, they have not proved it. On the statement that opportunities for foul play do exist, we agree. Opportunities are ample, but the only way to overcome temptations is to meet them face to face. Our opponents say that the tendency is too strong to play to win at all costs. Take for example the recent contest between Princeton and Yale. Both teams were anxious to win, but a cleaner contest has never been played on a college football field. Having met and refuted all the arguments of our opponents, I wish to restate the three main contentions of the negative. Football creates a clean and wholesome spirit around which the student body can rally. In the second place it creates individual efficiency. At out final point, that football moulds character, our opponents have chosen to sneer, but they cannot present sound arguments which can meet this statement.

K. M. McEwen made the last speech of the debate. We have been told, he said, that football is a benefit because it improves men by submitting them to temptation. This is a remarkable argument. Our opponents have laid great stress on character, but in the definition of this term they have been very indefinite. Character has improved as rapidly throughout the United States as in the college world alone. We are discussing the game of football not the men in the stands. We affirm that no other contest, as a contest, has so many evils as football. Our opponents talk about bumps and oruises. Ask some old football men. They will tell you how they have been completely exhausted by their undergraduate "efforts to win," and how as a result their constitutions are weakened. The men who play football today must choose football without training, with its chances of injury and possible death, or training and constitutional weakness for the rest of their days. This training requires all except five hours out of the twenty-four. Is this a benefit