Third Speech for the Affirmative.

A. P. Matthew, in closing the main argument of the affirmative, summarized the advantages that would come to New York City through municipal ownership. He first considered the effect it would have on the politics of the city. The franchise-holding corporations are responsible for by far the greater part of the corruption in New York City, he said: The street railway companies, because of their primacy in power and wealth, have been the chief agents of evil. They have secured their franchises by bribery; they have swindled the city out of millions of dollars in taxes; they have purchased legislation almost openly. Even the courts have been in their hire and control. These facts are to be found in official reports, and it is only reasonable to conclude that the actual extent of wrong-doing, if it could be known, would present an appalling record.

The cause for this corruption is the juxtaposition of the public-service corporations and the departments of government. Here we have the incentive and the opportunity for corruption.

Regulation is not an effective remedy because it does not remove the cause. Municipal ownership strikes at the very root of the evil. If New York owns the street railway system and leases it to private companies, the incentive to corruption will be weakened because a lease is not as valuable as a franchise, and the operating company will be less powerful. If the city assumes the burden of operation then the opportunity for this kind of corruption will be entirely eliminated. The possibility of petty graft within the department itself can be avoided by adopting civil service rules, such as the White Civil Service Act.

Under municipal ownership the city will be in a better position to solve the social problems due to over-crowding. Special service can be inaugurated to induce the population to leave the congested districts. The whole scheme of municipal ownership contemplates a closer co-operation between the departments of government, and all the classes which make up the city's life.

In closing, Matthew summarized the affirmative case. The people of New York, he said, are at the mercy of a gigantic monopoly, which conducts the street railways not for the public benefit, but for private profit. The service is utterly inadequate, and unnecessarily so. The companies are deriving an extortionate profit, and they constitute a prolific source of political corruption. We can expect no relief from competition because there is no chance for competition. Regulation has invariably proved an inadequate remedy. Municipal ownership will mean a better and a cheaper service for the people because the system will be operated in the public interest. It will mean a paying investment to the city because the street railways are tremendously profitable. It will diminish political corruption by removing the chief cause of corruption, and the city will be in a better position to solve its social problems.

Third Speech for the Negative.

In closing the debate for the negative, H. D. Smith dwelt upon the actual detriment to service which would result from the policy of municipal ownership. He showed that in the street railway business success is impossible unless the management has continuity and efficiency, and he pointed out the fact that in New York City with its frequent upheavals and constant political uncertainty, these qualities could not be preserved. He cited the failure of the Staten Island Ferries, recently taken over by the city, as an example of the inability of city officials to cope with undertakings of this nature.

The speaker then dwelt at some length upon the injury to the moral welfare of the city which would result from the policy of municipal ownership. Graft and corruption have prevailed in New York City politics almost without interruption ever since the earliest recollection of the oldest inhabitants.

He asked if it would be expected that under municipal ownership there would be a complete change in human nature and an absolute revolution in the manner of conducting the city's affairs. If such a change is possible it ought to come before municipal ownership is adopted and the most valuable transportation system in the world has been turned over to the spoilsman and the grafter.

The speaker went on to show that the whole trend of contract letting in New York City has been honeycombed with graft and bribery. Tammany is opposed to municipal ownership as a party issue, knowing that it will never be popular, since the graft in it is so obvious.

Harvard--Yale Debating Results.

Following is a record of the debates between Harvard and Yale together with the decision in each case:

1893--At Cambridge. Harvard.

1893--At New Haven. Harvard.