PRINCETON WINS DEBATE.

Princeton defeated Harvard in Sanders Theatre last night in the eight annual debate between the universities for the first time in the series. While excelling in form of presentation, Harvard failed in the end to present a well knit constructive case. In intelligent definition of the real issue, analysis of the whole question and construction of a consistent case the Princeton speakers were clearly superior to their opponents. Harvard's only pretence of an alternative course to strict enforcement was a defense of Mayor Low's administration on the ground of general expediency. An especial merit of Princeton's argument at the outset was a sharp interpretation of the question as one of principle and not of expediency--that a law is a law and is put upon the statute to be enforced--that consequently the main issue was Mayor Low's subjective attitude and not the objective results. Further than this it was established that there was an antecedent presumption in favor of the law and in favor of its strict enforcement; that good results would follow enforcement while connivance would be attended with evil results, and finally that the plan of the negative -- judicial enforcement--by merely preserving the present state of affairs and offering no remedy, led nowhere. Harvard's contentions in answer were based on the objective results of strict enforcement despite the fact that the affirmative had defined the question as involving Mayor Low's subjective attitude toward the law. It was maintained that the law cannot be repealed; that strict enforcement was contrary to Mayor Low's promises and if attempted would result in a return to Tammany rule; and, finally, that actual conditions in New York life were of such a nature that judicial enforcement was justifiable theoretically, morally and practically.

The rebuttal on both sides was generally clean cut and intelligent, though there were individual instances on both teams of an inclination to miscalculate time and attempt to cover too many points. Princeton secured considerable profitable emphasis by frequent pointed summaries--a respect in which the Harvard team was inferior to those of former years.

The question was, "Resolved, That Mayor Low should strictly enforce the excise laws in New York City." The Harvard team was composed of T. H. Reed 1L., I. Grossman '02 and J. K. Clark 3L. Princeton was represented by A. J. Barron '02, R. A. Blair P.G. and R. W. Anthony '02. The judges were Chief Justice E. E. Baldwin of the Connecticut Supreme Court, Professor Patten of the University of Pennsylvania; and Chief Justice J. H. Stiness of Rhode Island. The Hon. J. J. Myers '69 presided.

THE MAIN SPEECHES.

Barron opened the debate for the affirmative. He began by defining the question and said that there was no middle ground possible for either side, but that the question resolved itself into an issue of the enforcement or non-enforcement of law. He then showed that there exists an antecedent presumption in favor of the enforcement of all law and that the faithfulness or laxity of the Mayor in his duty in regard to the enforcement of law must be determined by his attitude toward the law and not by the absolute degree of enforcement attainable. He then quoted the city charter to show the duty of the Mayor and his subordinates and established the fact that his duty with regard to the enforcement of law was mandatory and that his position with regard to acts of the state legislature was one of subordination. He then showed that the position of Mayor Low was unique because of its individual responsibility and that the responsibility for the enforcement of all laws devolved upon him alone, since he has the power of removal of the heads of all the various departments of the city government. He also brought out the fact that the Mayor had been challenged to enforce the excise law by a large body of citizens and that his duty with regard to it was all the more imperative on that account. He closed his speech with a quotation from one of the early speeches of President Lincoln on the necessity of the strict enforcement of all laws which stand unrepealed on the statute books.

Reed opened for Harvard. The negative argument, he said, was grouped under three distinct heads. First, that the present law is unenforceable strictly; second, that it is practically irrepealable; and third, that the attempt to enforce it would fasten evils of the greatest magnitude upon New York City. Of these three points, Reed considered the first two from the point of view of existing conditions in New York. It is impossible to prevent the extensive violation of this law by any ordinary means or to enforce it as one of the general body of laws. Both parties to every illegal liquor transaction are anxious to conceal it. There is no party injured to report the matter to the police and there is upon them the great burden of unearthing the violation as well as of arresting the violator. There is no active public sentiment behind the law demanding its enforcement and according to District Attorney Jerome, there are 250,000 people ready to violate the law. Yet again the instrument of enforcement, the police, is corrupt and accustomed to receive money in return for protection. Still further there are 13,000 saloons and only 2,500 policemen on duty at one time. Mr. Low in his letter to Dr. Parkhurst shows how the illegal sale goes on outside of saloons when an attempt is made to close them. "Arrangements are soon made by which liquor can be had in rooms adjacent to the saloons and the illegal sale goes on as smoothly as before the pressure began." The Committee of Fifteen, chosen at a mass meeting in the Chamber of Commerce over a year ago to investigate moral conditions in New York, says on page 165 of its recently published report that "the popular detestation of this law precludes all possibility of enforcement." The citizens' Excise Commission through a sub-committee which comprised such men as Willis L. Ogden, Felix Adler and Dr. Lyman Abbott, adopted as its first and most important resolution "that the present liquor tax is unenforceable."

Moreover, the excise law is practically irrepealable. In the state legislature, which alone has the power to annul the law, New York City has only one-third of the representatives and according to Mr. John G. Agar, in Municipal Affairs for December, "upstate sentiment is unanimously opposed to the legalization of the Sunday saloon." Theodore Roosevelt was put at the head of those forces which could repeal this law, and failed because his enforcement took effect only on the people of New York City and made the law obnoxious. As Dr. Abbott said a few weeks ago, the old truism of enforcing a bad law to secure its repeal does not apply when the law is enforced upon one community and enacted by another.

Blair, the second speaker for the affirmative, further developed the affirmative position and said that they stood for the enforcement of the excise law as one of the general body of laws and that Mayor Low's duty of enforcing this law was mandatory, unless he had received by statute some especial discretionary power with regard to it. He then quoted from a speech of Daniel Webster in 1832, showing that an executive officer has no more license to construe the laws which he is to enforce than a private citizen whose only duty is to obey them, and further developed the specific evils which would result from a non-enforcement of this particular law. In establishing this position, he showed that non-enforcement of the excise law would result in breeding disrespect for law in general among the citizens. He then brought out the fact that lax enforcement of law lies at the root of the great evil of black-mail and that when the law says one thing and the policy of the administration another, the patrolman on his beat may collect blood money to his heart's content. For when an executive assumes discretionary powers with regard to the enforcement of law, this discretion must in the last analysis be exercised by the police force. He brought out the fact that we must choose a strict enforcement of the law with an honest police force or a lax enforcement of the law with its attendant corruption and black-mail, and that when you give a mayor discretion as to whether he shall enforce the law or not, he practically becomes a despot. Moreover, a lax enforcement of the law deprives it of its fundamental element of certainty because no man knows what the law will be from day to day. He concluded his speech by showing that respect for law can only be caused by its strict enforcement which is not only essential to the conduct of government, but of vital importance to the individual citizen as well.

Grossman, in the second negative speech, contended that the strict enforcement of the excise law and the closing of the saloons brought about violations of the law in a co-ordinate form which are just as illegal and even more pernicious in their nature than those which it is attempted to suppress. But, on the other hand, Mayor Low's policy of judicious enforcement, recognizing that the law is not enforceable strictly, is made necessary by forces actually at work in New York life. The first of them is the increased temptation to blackmail which strict enforcement would hold out to the police. According to the Committee of Fifteen, "Sunday trade is exceedingly important since the retention of regular custom on other days depends frequently upon it." The privilege of keeping open on Sunday being then so vitally important and valuable, it is apparent that the more stringent the orders from headquarters to close the saloons, the greater the motive the saloon keeper has to pay blackmail. This is further shown by the experience of Mr. Roosevelt. In the Municipal Affairs for last December, Mr. Jerome said: "I am satisfied by careful investigation that the only result of our joint effort was that during Roosevelt's administration the liquor dealers paid for selling on Sunday $10 a month instead of $5. When the reform administration of Mayor Strong went out of office the tariff went back to the old schedule." And Mr. Low in his letter to Dr. Parkhurst says, "the pressure of strict enforcement causes the fires of blackmail to burn as with a forced draught and only doubles the inducements for blackmail." The second moral evil which would accompany an attempt at strict enforcement, is the increase in those places where liquor can be legally sold on Sunday, the Raines Law hotels. "The Liquor Problem," a work prepared under the direction of President Eliot, James C. Carter and Mr. Low, states that when Roosevelt started to close the saloons in May, 1895, there were about 300 hotels in what then constituted New York City. When Roosevelt left office two years later, those 300 hotels had increased to 2400. The reports of the Committee of Fifteen also point out that closing the saloons is sure to increase the Raines Law hotels, since they "act as a safety valve for the irrepressible demand for Sunday liquor." On the other hand, as a result of four years of practically open saloons after Roosevelt left office, the number of Raines Law hotels decreased by 1700. It is evident, then, both from experience and the testimony of most competent authorities that the more leniently you enforce the law against saloons the smaller grows the number of Raines Law hotels, and the more stringently you enforce it, the greater their number.

Anthony was the third speaker for the affirmative. He first established the fact that the strict enforcement of the excise law can do much to aid the respect for and observance of all laws, and in doing so established the fact that Mayor Low has sufficient power to enforce the excise law and that Mr. Roosevelt, when police commissioner, succeeded in accomplishing a more difficult task and proved this statement by quotations from Mr. Roosevelt himself, Mr. Riis and by citing the resolution passed by the Liquor Dealers' Association at that time. He then cited some of the beneficial results which the Raines Law has brought about, such as reducing the number of saloons in New York City and as far as possible destroying the influences of the saloon as a political factor in the city. He then said that even admitting that conditions in New York City were as bad as the negative had painted, that the policy of the affirmative offered the only constructive program sound in principle and permanent in character, which would bring about a modification of the present law and a settlement of the saloon question in the City. He pointed out that we must not consider the present law as immutable or repeal impossible, for if the evils of the law were clearly demonstrated by a strict enforcement, a union of Buffalo, Rochester and New York City would be able to pass any measure through the legislature and cited the recent instance in New York when a strict enforcement of the law forbidding standing room admissions in theatres resulted in a repeal within three weeks. He concluded the case for the affirmative by showing that if the negative really had the best interests of the people of the east side at heart, they must advocate a strict enforcement of this law not only to secure a settlement of the saloon problem itself but to bring about an amelioration of the conditions existing there.

After referring briefly to the arguments of the last speaker, Clark closed the constructive case for the negative by defending the policy of judicial enforcement on practical, moral and theoretical grounds. An attempt to enforce this law would be certain to result in the return of Tammany to power at the end of next year. The reason for this is evident when we consider that unless there is a union of all anti-Tammany forces, Tammany is sure to elect its ticket--even last fall a few thousand votes turned the other way would have changed the result. Besides, Mr. Low, by his letter of acceptance and his campaign speeches, has pledged himself to follow a course of judicious enforcement, and the departure from it would be a breaking of his pledge which would deserve a defeat for the reform party in 1903. The Low administration is making steady progress in every direction. Business men are enthusiastic in its support. The press is unanimous in commending the present government, and all elements of the reform movement continue to support it. As a matter of public welfare, the issue is plain. A Tammany government means corruption in every department, the looting of the city treasury, neglect of public health, and the increase of crime aided by the police. The present administration stands for honesty, preservation of the public health, protection for the morals of the people, and the suppression of crime of all kinds. The course proposed by the affirmative is not right theoretically because it does not secure the result aimed at the enforcement of the law; the moral considerations as to the evils of unenforced laws do not support the affirmative policy, for the same reason--because it would not secure the enforcement of this law; they are strong arguments, but they are to be directed to the legislature, to secure a repeal of the unenforceable provisions, rather than against Mr. Low's present policy. On the other hand, judicious enforcement is theoretically right because it secures the best observance of this and of the general body of laws and secures peace and quiet in New York on Sunday, instead of promoting back-room selling and increasing Raines Law hotels, with their unspeakable demoralizing influences.

THE REBUTTAL SPEECHES.

Grossman, who delivered the first rebuttal speech for Harvard, said that while it has been contended that Mr. Roosevelt strictly enforced the excise law when he was police commissioner, yet the Committee of Fifteen, Dr. Lyman Abbott, Col. Partridge, Mr. Jerome, and many other such authorities say that this law cannot be strictly enforced. This they would hardly have said if Mr. Roosevelt had strictly enforced the law, and the fact is that Mr. Roosevelt did not strictly enforce the law, -- all he did was to close the saloons, and as has been shown, there is a wide difference between the closing of the saloons and the prevention of the offences at which the law is aimed. The case of the affirmative rests upon the contention that the law must be enforced, simply because it is law. But we believe that the object of law is to secure certain effects, not the observance of certain forms, and the desired effects will be better secured by the judicious enforcement of the law than by strict enforcement, as was strikingly shown by the Society for the Prevention of Crime in Buffalo.

Barron, who made the first rebuttal for Princeton said that Mayor Low had sworn to be vigilant and active in the detection and punishment of every violation of every law, and hence that he had no choice but to strictly enforce this particular law. The question of Mayor Low's ability to enforce the law does not enter into this discussion; we must simply decide what should be Mayor Low's subjective attitude toward this law. If he connives at a simple violation of the law he is breaking his oath. Our government is a government of laws, not of men.

The second rebuttal speech for Harvard was delivered by Reed. He said that the affirmative held that however disastrous the effects of enforcing this law would be, the executive should nevertheless blindly enforce it, in order to increase respect for law. But it hardly seems that the enforcement of a law which produces disastrous results would increase respect for law. The fact is that it has been shown impossible to enforce this law. If the people of New York could be brought to respect and obey the law the case would be entirely different, but now if you try to enforce this law and utterly fail, you will accomplish nothing. It is said that if we allow the Mayor to exercise discretion we shall have despotism; but we are willing to trust to the good sense of the American people to choose mayors who are capable of using discretion. With frequent elections there can be no despotism. Mayor Low is using discretion, and he is using it to save the people of New York from great evils. He has before him a law which is unenforceable, unrepealable and bad, and his only course in regard to it is to use his discretion to promote the welfare of the people instead of observing abstract theories.

The next rebuttal speech for Princeton was given by Blair. He said that it has been contended that we have confidence in the people to elect mayors capable of using discretion in the enforcement of the law. We must remember however, that it is not the mayor, but the patrolmen who will actually use the discretion in regard to the saloons. Further more, if you say that the mayor has discretion, what will be the limits of that discretion? Shall he allow one saloon, or all saloons to be open on Sunday? Shall he exercise discretion in regard to this law and not in regard to others? Non-enforcement means blackmail, because it means the exercise of discretion by patrolmen, and it means the disregard of law which breeds lynching and anarchy. Strict enforcement means the setting of a true example of respect for law, and making the people better citizens.

The last rebuttal for Harvard was delivered by Clark. He said that while it has been contended that under any system other than strict enforcement there will be a great deal of black-mail, yet there was no black-mail in Brooklyn during Mayor Low's administration, when a discretionary policy was pursued in regard to the excise law. It has been furthermore shown that the only effect of Mr. Roosevelt's so-called strict enforcement of the law was to raise the price of black-mail for keeping open saloons on Sunday from $5 to $10. We have an executive to secure results, not to observe forms, and the policy of strict enforcement does not secure the desired results; it does not prevent vice. The course of Mayor Low is right because he secures the results most beneficial to the community. If Mayor Low strictly enforces the law, it means that Tammany will come in at the next election, for before election Mayor Low repeatedly pledged himself to enforce this law judiciously. If he breaks his pledge and deserts his platform, as Dr. Abbott says, he will fail to be re-elected. If there is to be a decent government in New York working for the interest of the people instead of for the interest of the politicians, Mayor Low must enforce this law judiciously.

Anthony closed the debate as third affirmative in rebuttal. He showed that lax enforcement of the law would not necessarily insure Mayor Low's return to office next year. The great principle of the reform administration is reform and nothing else will satisfy those who elected Mayor Low. But even if defeated Mayor Low should not commit blackmail by promising to connive at the law in return for votes. The principle advanced by the negative is one of local anarchy. The statute says that the Mayor shall enforce the law and the people have declared themselves in favor of enforcement. There is therefore but one course open to the executive and that is vigilant enforcement. If Mayor Low by vigilance enforces the law in but one instance, he should exert himself to that end