At the trials in the debate for the Pasteur medal, which were held Monday evening on the subject "Resolved: That France is justified in her present policy of collecting reparations from Germany", six men were chosen to compete in the final debate to be held on February 19.

The following men who were selected will be expected to speak for ten minutes on either side of the same question at the finals: Morton Arnold '25, J. C. Hoover, '23, M. P. Lichauco '23, E. A. Smith '25, S. L. Tait '23, and R. A. Zinn '24.

The announcement of the decision of the judges was postponed until yesterday evening to allow time to determine the question of the eligibility of graduate students in the Pasteur debate. It was finally decided that graduates students are ineligible to compete.

The main arguments in favor of France's present policy were briefly: Germany to the present time has made no honest effort to pay the reparations justly demanded, and has pursued a policy of passive resistance; that in 1871, following the Franco-Prussian War, France was forced to pay the entire amount of the indemnity demanded; finally, France is in urgent need of money and material to enable her to reconstruct what Germany has destroyed, and that by pursuing her policy of the occupation of the Ruhr Valley, France will either secure in material the equivalent of the reparations, or she will force Germany to square her accounts.

In the presentation of the negative case two chief arguments were emphasized; first, that Germany at the present time is unable to pay, but given a moratorium payment will be possible in the future, and second, although Germany is in no way free guilt, payment should not be forced in view of the economic consequences of such a policy.