YALE WINS.

NEW HAVEN, CONN., Dec. 3, 1897.- Yale won her third victory in ten years over Harvard in debate this evening through the superiority of her representatives in rebuttal.

The debate was held in College Street Hall, which was crowded with a representative audience, including many alumni of both universities, with many statesmen of national reputation.

Hon. Chauncey M. Depew, Yale '56, presided, and in a short opening address expressed the hope that the intercollegiate debates might restore oratory to its old proud position in the legislative halls of the nation. He introduced the speakers of the evening. Each debater took 12 minutes in opening and five minutes in rebuttal.

Yale' s strong attack on Harvard 's argument was her denial that the possession of the Hawaiian Islands would strengthen this country from a strategic point, but that the possession of the islands would weaken her and cause her a vest item of expense in defending them.

After the debate the judges, Hon. W. B. Hornblower, and Hon. J. J. McCook of New York, and Professor U. B. Murray of Columbia, were in session but 15 minutes when they returned with their decision.

It was shortly after 8 o 'clock when W. Morse 1900, opened the debate for Harvard. He declared that "the United States should annex the Hawaiian Islands because it is for the best interests of both nations, is the consumation of the policy of the United States toward Hawaii for the past 60 years, is necessary to the successful carrying out of our naval and commercial policy, is the only guarantee to the perpetuation of American civilization and American supremacy in the islands, and is at once the simplified and easiest, the most farsighted and statesmanlike, and the only final solution of the Hawaiian problem." The strategic position of the islands, the growing importance of the Pacific, and the change in the condition of the abutting countries must not be disregarded. The commercial and naval advantages can be secured only by annexation. It would give stability of government to Hawaii and the consequent industrial expansion would increase trade with the United States. A base of supplies is needed to make our navy efficient in the Pacific. For this purpose, Midway Island, 1200 miles west of Honolulu, was annexed in 1867, but owing to poor harbor facilities was abandoned. The right of the United States to maintain a coaling station in Pearl Harbor is coexistent only with the treaty which may be abrogated by either party on twelve months'notice.

The possession of Pearl Harbor by the United States would prevent any other people ever holding it as a base of supplies.

Herbert Atchinson Jump '99, T. S. spoke first on the negative for Yale as follows:

The annexation of Hawaii would involve serious political difficulties. 100,000 of her population of 106,000 are so unsuited to our political system that the annexationists have been unwilling to refer the matter to a plebiscite.

They are undesirable material for American citizenship on account of their heriditary instincts and general character. Almost half are Buddhists and the illiteracy is very high, notwithstanding their boasted educational system. We shall expect political responsibility of the Mongolians to whom we will deny political rights. The natives show their poor self-governing qualities in the ease with which foreigners have ruled them since the revolution of '93.

We shall be compelled to find a place in our political system for this anomalous population. She will, doubtless, apply for statehood which can hardly be refused on account of her size and population; yet 3,000 Americans and 61,000 foreigners will form a poor state to elect two senators and a representative. Neither can she remain a territory, for we have no place for a petrified territory, a dependent colony.

Class conflicts, race problems, bribery, ring rule and the un-American immigrant sufficiently strain our political system without the annexation of a transoceanic appendage.

J. A. H. Keith was the second Harvard speaker. His position was that the loss of the influence of the United States in Hawaii and the accession of some foreign power are imminent, because Hawaiian government is insecure, and because other governments have designs on the islands. He began by showing the impossibility of independent sovereignity in Hawaii. The islands must form an alliance. If not with the United States or England, Japan is ready to push her interests.

Japan demands free immigration for her subjects under the treaty of 1871, and silent invasion is what is to be feared. With this influx of Japanese labor and capital will come Japanese control of the Hawaiian government.

If now the United States refuses annexation, there is every reason to believe that Japan would encourage the emigration of her subjects to Hawaii, demand the rights of citizenship for them, and when her interests should predominate in the islands, protect those interests by extending her sovereignty over the islands. The United States is to decide the destiny of Hawaii. Failure to annex means that England will get the islands, or that they will go to Japan.

John Kirkland Clark, speaking second for the negative, dwelt at length upon the strategic value of Hawaii. He said that possession of Hawaii would not shield the Pacific coast, since Vancouver, the South Sea Islands, China and Japan would become bases of poerations against us, and we would be forced to protect our seaboard and Hawaii in addition, involving an enormous expense for additional land defences and an increased navy. The natural defensibility of our Pacific coast makes this expense unnecessary. Our past experience shows the alternative, annexation without for-tification, to be preferred. Annexation would be merely following our unwise foreign policy.

(Continued on fifth page.)