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.

Opening Speech for the Negative.

In opening for the negative, E. H. Hart emphasized at the outset the fact that the question under discussion was essentially a local one, and that it must be settled in the light of the actual situation in New York City. The speaker called attention to the fact that the proposition of the affirmative was without precedent in the whole history of the world, in view of the fact that no city ever thought of buying up an entire transportation system, to the owners of which it had granted perpetual franchises. Glasgow took over her lines when the franchises expired. In Chicago most of the franchises have expired and the rest will expire very soon.

Mr. Hart then demanded of the affirmative that some urgent and overwhelming necessity for the change be shown in view of the enormity of the problem. He then outlined the purpose of the negative as being three-fold--to show that municipal ownership is unnecessary, must inevitably be unprofitable, and will be positively injurious to the city. Municipal ownership is unnecessary since what it claims to do can be better accomplished in another way. We admit that there are some evils in the street railway system in New York, but we maintain that those which can be removed at all can be quickly and permanently abolished by strict regulation.

The speaker then took up the matter of poor service. He pointed out that the principal cry was against the overcrowding. He showed that much of this evil is due to the peculiar physical formation of the island which makes overcrowding inevitable. Furthermore reports of the New York State Railroad Commission show that cars are run as frequently as is practicable--a typical instance being the corner of Broadway and 23rd street, where cars pass at the rate of one every six seconds, while vehicles cross the tracks at the rate of 32 a minute. The speaker asked the affirmative to show how municipal ownership could improve a situation like this. He said that there is only one possible remedy, namely, relieving surface congestion by building new subways. Here again the expensive method of municipal ownership is unnecessary.

The speaker then took up the subject of over-capitalization. He showed that the fact of over-capitalization was very easily exaggerated and that much of the cry against watered stock is really against capital represented by the losses which the companies have incurred in experiments and improvements. From there the speaker went on to show that even though some over-capitalization did exist, municipal ownership was not the remedy. He showed that in Massachusetts over-capitalization was prevented by statute and he argued that the same thing could be done in New York.

In conclusion the speaker established the fact that the effective remedy for the evils existing in New York was not municipal ownership but regulation. He showed that statutes already exist which give the necessary powers for regulation, and he called attention to the fact that there have been concrete examples of successful regulation even in New York City.

Second Speech for the Affirmative.

G. W. Hinckley, continuing the debate for the affirmative, said: We have already seen that street railways are public utilities, and as such should be regulated for the public good. This would be brought about by municipal ownership, which would result not only in better and more efficient service, as shown by our first speaker, but would also be a distinct economic advantage to New York City.

The present system of street railways is grossly overcapitalized. The stock quotations and selling ability of the shares of these companies indicate enormous profits to the roads and dividends from 5 to 10 per cent. The roads themselves in endeavoring to conceal the tremendous profits have deliberately falsified their accounts. By this means they have increased the apparent charges and made the dividends seem normal.

New York can purchase these roads at a reasonable price on well settled constitutional and legal principles which have received their exposition in a long line of cases, that of the Long Island Water Supply Co. vs. Brooklyn, being a typical one. Here it was held in clear and explicit terms, that the basis of value of a public service company, when taken for a public use, was not the stocks and bonds, nor the great profits, nor the cost of construction and equipment as reckoned by the company, but was the value of the property as a going concern. This means, according to Judge Gaynor, that these roads could be bought for one-third or one-fourth of their present capitalization, a sum not exceeding $200,000,000, for all the roads in New York City. Acquired on such a basis as this and with present annual profits of nearly $25,000,000, it is clear that whether New York should choose to lease or operate the street railway lines ownership would be a distinct economic advantage.

But finally, we believe in municipal ownership because it offers the only wise solution of the rapid transit problem of the future. In a word the interests of the public are directly opposed to the ownership of a public utility by a private corporation and can never be satisfied short of municipal ownership.

Second Speech for the Negative.

J. N. Pierce, the second speaker on the negative, maintained that municipal ownership would be unprofitable, first because the city would have to buy the present system, with its perpetual franchises, at market value, which is $509,000,000; and secondly because the city would have to allow for depreciation out of the earnings of the system. He pointed out the fact that the present owners do not do this, but pay for depreciation by selling stocks and bonds, a policy which the city could not pursue without continually increasing its debts.

The speaker used a chart to show that the city would have to pay out annually for interest, sinking fund, and depreciation over $42,000,000. But as the net earnings of the roads are only $22,000,000 the city would have to face a net loss of $20,000,000 each year.

The speaker went on to say that this loss would really be much larger because of New York's poor financial management and would be an effective barrier against lowering fares, developing new lines, or giving more adequate service.

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.

1894--At Cambridge. Harvard.

1894--At New Haven. Harvard.

1895--At Cambridge. Harvard.

1896--At New Haven. Yale.

1897--At Cambridge. Yale.

1897--At New Haven. Yale.

1899--At Cambridge. Harvard.

1900--At New Haven. Harvard.

1901--At Cambridge. Harvard.

1902--At New Haven. Harvard.

1903--At Cambridge. Harvard.

1904--At New Haven. Yale.

1905--At Cambridge. Harvard.

1906--At New Haven. Harvard