The Harvard Freshmen won the fourth annual triangular debate last night, the negative team defeating Yale here, while the affirmative won from Princeton at Princeton. Yale took second place, defeating the Princeton affirmative team in New Haven. All three debates were won by a unanimous decision.

The debate between the Freshman negative and Princeton affirmative teams in the New Lecture Hall resulted in a unanimous decision in favor of Harvard. The negative excelled both in the strength of their arguments and in the manner of presentation. In addition, with the exception of W. S. McKay, the Yale freshmen were weak in the rebuttal, failing to refute the statistics and arguments of their opponents in any degree.

H. H. Scheler '17, First Negative.

The character, quality and type of the immigrant today are as good as those of any immigrants who have come to America. There is now a distinct need for the immigrant just as there has always been, and therefore we do not need an literacy test to cut down numbers. Further, we have better-means of assimilating the immigrant today than ever before and such a test is not needed to solve our assimilation problem.

R. C. Bridgman, First Affirmative.

The issue is clear. Allow the illiterate, with his low wage, his low standard of living, his tendency to congest in the alums, to enter unrestricted;--gorge the labor market, force hundreds of thousands out of work, prevent any permanent betterment in the laborer's status, further pauperism, lawlessness, revolution, curse the nation with ignorance, widen the chasm between wealth and poverty,--or, restrict! Allow this nation to face its own problems, protect its rights and liberties, establish justice from the laborer up, solve the problems for the true democracy, for ourselves and all nations, not the least for those nations whose immigration we find it is now our duty to restrict.

L. S. Levy '17, Second Negative.

The immigrant who comes to our shores today does not contribute to our political, economic and social problems sufficiently to demand total restriction. Of the immigrants already on our shores, it is the immigrant of the old type, the type that came in greatest numbers 50 years ago, who contributes most to our problems. Since these races have a relatively low rate of illiteracy, the illiteracy test once effected, would not affect them much and hence our problem would in noways be lightened.

M. S. Waldman, Second Affirmative.

The political and social evils of immigration call for further restriction. The literacy test is the most logical means of securing this restriction because it is in aceord with the principles on which our past legislation has been founded, namely, the exclusion of the undesirables; it has immense popularity, being favored by practically all opponents of restriction; it is definite, practicable, easily applied and unavoidable. It requires an amount of preparation, which tends to make the immigrant appreciate his privileges in being permitted to enter, and his duty toward the country. It restricts immigration in the most logical way--by barring the least desirable portion of the less useful races.

A. R. Ginsburgh '17, Third Negative.

We of the negative have insisted that a further restriction of immigration is unnecessary. We have based our contentions on the fact that we have at the present time adequate laws to keep out the undesirable, but if a further restriction were necessary the proper means would not be an untried scheme such as the illiteracy test, but a more rigid enforcement of the existing laws. We object to the illiteracy test in that it fails in its very purpose of cutting down numbers, that it is uncertain in application, and cumbersome and expensive. We further object to the illiteracy test in that it discriminates against certain classes and is therefore class legislation.

W. S. McKay, Third Affirmative.

The Illiterate immigrant is undesirable and should be barred for three great reasons.

First we cannot assimilate him. Assimilation is based on likeness of standpoint and knowledge of a language. Since the 35.6 per cent of the immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe is illiterate, illiteracy is the reason for poor assimilation.

Secondly, owing to his low standard of living he congests the slum districts of our large cities and is responsible for evils there.

Thirdly, he has criminal tendencies. Comparison of the illiteracy of foreign born population and the illiteracy of foreign born criminals shows a decided tendency of the illiterate toward crime.

A literacy test would mean a yearly exclusion of some 350,000 immigrants. This exclusion is justified because, after barring criminal and pauper, it amounts to criminal negligence to admit immigrants of the same rank and intelligence as those which produce these evils.

Rebuttals.

In rebuttal, the negative repeated the statement often made during the debate, "Where immigration is most, unemployment is least." The literacy test, also, is obviously unfair in that it would bar 300,000 people when only 3,000 should be barred. There is absolutely no connection between the criminal and illiterate elements. Finally, figures and experience show that the southern foreigner can be assimilated, and that he can be educated in our schools so that he is not a drag on the community, which was claimed by the affirmative.

The affirmative maintained that the illiterate foreigner aggravated the social, economic and political problems of our country. The literacy test would go far to cure this, and would not bar out classes, as the negative claimed, but would affect the individual alone. Because of ignorance the immigrant goes to the slum, but leaves it as soon as he becomes more educated. By the literacy test, this would be done away with; wages would be increased; crime would be lessened, and politics improved