NEW HAVEN, CONN., March 30.--Harvard won the sixteenth annual debate with Yale in Woolsey Hall this evening by the unanimous decision of the judges. This is the twelfth of the sixteen annual debates that have been held with Yale that has been won by Harvard.

The question for debate was: "Resolved, That it would be for the best interest of New York City to own its street railway system; the term street railway system being taken to mean elevated, surface, and subway lines." Harvard supported the affirmative from choice, and Yale the negative.

A. H. Elder '07, G. W. Hinckley 3L., and A. P. Matthew 1L. represented the University, and spoke in the order named. The Yale team consisted of E. H. Hart '07, J. N. Pierce 3D., and H. D. Smith 1D., who also spoke in the order named. Each man was allowed twelve minutes for a main speech, and five minutes for rebuttal.

The judges were Hon. Melville E. Stone, of New York City, general manager of the Associated Press; Rev. Robert Stuart MacArthur, D.D., LL.D., of New York City; and Rev. James Monroe Buckley, D.D. LL.D., of Morristown, N. J., editor of the Christian Advocate. Col. Norris G. Osborn, of New Haven, Conn., editor of the New Haven Register, acted as chairman.

After the debate, the Yale Debating Association gave a dinner in the President's Room, Woolsey Hall, to the coaches and members of the two teams and the judges.

Woolsey Hall contained the largest audience that has ever attended an intercollegiate debate in New Haven. The debate was very close, although the University team gained the unanimous decision by its superior skill in debating, which was shown by the manner in which the men presented their strong case and answered the objections the negative offered to it.

The argument of the Harvard team was that the street railway system of New York City, upon which the people are very dependent, is in the hands of a great corporation, which, while making enormous profits, is rendering very inefficient and inadequate service. A remedy is demanded and is needed. Competition can furnish no relief because there is no chance for competition. Regulation has been tried for the past 15 years and has invariably failed. Municipal ownership is the only remaining alternative, and the experience of European municipalities and our own political wisdom argue for it. It will bring about cheaper and better service for the people, because the system will be operated for the public interest. It will be profitable to the city, because the street railway system is a paying investment. It will improve the city government by removing the chief cause of political corruption and by placing the city authorities in a better position to solve its social problems.

The Main Speeches.

A. H. Elder opened the debate. We are to discuss, he said, the transportation problem of the second largest city of the world. The question is of vast importance not only because of the great size of New York City, but because of its peculiar physical character, which makes transportation a daily necessity for the majority of its population. In view of the importance of transportation, the service should be adequate, convenient, and modern. When we examine the existing conditions, however, we find that the service is very unsatisfactory.

According to the Street Railway Commission's report for 1904, 33 per cent. of the surface cars on Manhattan Island are horse cars. The service is not only antiquated, but it is absolutely unsanitary. In many cases, the cars are dirty, poorly lighted and heated, and greatly over-crowded. This is the essence of scores of complaints from associations of citizens representing all sections of New York City, which appear in the Street Railway Commission's reports year after year, but yet the condition has been little improved. Elder then cited several other evidences of popular dissatisfaction.

These bad conditions of the service, he continued, are not due to lack of funds, for the street railway companies are paying dividends of over 24 per cent. on their actual investment.

Elder then interpreted the question. By ownership is meant absolute ownership; but if the city should own the street railways, it could operate them itself or lease them. In either case, the affirmative will try to prove municipal ownership desirable. The question is one of practical benefit, not of legal possibility. Legal difficulties such as the debt limit, can easily be adjusted if public ownership appears beneficial.

We are now ready to face the situation. Existing conditions demand a remedy. Shall it be further attempts at regulation or municipal ownership? Three years ago, District-Attorney Jerome pledged himself to secure from these companies more efficient service, and although he was clothed with all the police powers of the city, he could accomplish almost nothing. All attempts at regulation have failed. The reason is manifest. Most of the franchises, owned by the street railway companies, are almost unconditional and practically perpetual. The only legal means by which the city can secure adequate control is to buy back the franchises. This means municipal ownership.

Experience and reason prove conclusively that municipal ownership would be beneficial. During the past 15 years, while we have been experiencing the futility of regulation, 51 British and 30 German cities have undertaken municipal ownership of street railways. In the great majority of cases the service has been made more efficient and more convenient. Municipal ownership is not new to New York, for the city has already successfully undertaken ownership of the subway roads.

It is only reasonable that municipal ownership should be beneficial. Political wisdom argues for it. Transportation is a public utility, and it is a fundamental principle of political economy that public utilities should be administered for the public benefit.