HARVARD UNION DEBATE.

The Union was called to order at 7.40 by Pres. Saunders. The question was,"Resolved, that less than the whole number of a jury should be competent to render a verdict in all cases." Mr. Boyden, '86, opened the debate for the affirmative. He argued that the present system of juries allows that while the better part of the population is exonerated, the majority are not of exceptional intellect. It is very difficult in criminal cases to impanel a jury who are wholly unpredjudiced, while in civil cases a higher order of men are required than we get at present. He cited the cause of the late Cincinnati riot as an argument in favor of abolishing the present system of trial by jury. Mr. Fraser, '86. opened for the negative and read a very pointed paper. Mr. Fraser desired that the criminal laws and practice should be reformed but called for consideration upon what would be gained by the proposed change. Mr. E. J. Smith, '85, told several very laughable stories illus trating the absurdity of the current system of jury trial.

The low pettifogging lawyer of today has his strongest friend and aid in the weak juryman whom he can wheadle into returning any verdict he may desire. The speaker declaimed against the prevalent custom of forcing a verdict by compelling the jury tostay out until a verdict is reached. Mr. McInnes, L. S., closed the negative. The speaker did not believe in trial by jury and thought that a jury is a body that is very easily influenced. "Better a new jury than a wrong verdict." We do not at present need the jury, but we should keep it to protect us in the future. We ought not to remodel a system so often used and proved through fear of the results which might arive from the obstinate action of one dissenting juryman.

A ballot on the arguments of the principal disputants was, affirmative, 21; negative, 36. The question was then thrown open to the house and the following gentlemen spoke from the floor: Mr. Carrier, '85, Mr. C. T. Libby, '86, Mr. Merriam, '86, Mr. Davis, '84. Mr. Fraser closed for the negative and Mr. Smith, '85, for the affirmative. The ballot on the merits of the question resulted, affirmative, 16; negative, 2 . The on the argament as a whole, affirmative,15; negative,7.

It was decided that the next meeting of the Union should be a presidential convention for the nomination of candidates of president this will be the last meeting of the year.