D. HAAR WON PASTEUR MEDAL

The annual debate for the Pasteur Medal took place last evening, between two teams chosen from the undergraduate body at large. The subject for discussion was "Resolved, That the French Government was justified in passing the Separation Act." The debate was decided in favor of the negative team, and the Pasteur Medal was awarded to D. Haar 1Sp. of that team by unanimous decision of the judges. Haar's delivery was without doubt the best controlled and at the same time the most forcible of the evening, though in logical exposition and statement he was closely rivalled by P. L. Butler '08, and by A. C. Lurie '09, whose humorous rebuttal was one of the features of the evening.

The judges were Professor C. H. C. Wright '91, representing the French Department; Professor H. B. Huntington '97, of the English Department; and S. Curtis '05, instructor in English.

Summary of the Arguments.

G. I. Lewis '08 opened the debate for the affirmative by describing the history of Napoleon's concordat with the Pope from its adoption to the present day. Almost from the beginning it was realized that a fracture was the inevitable result of such a system; while the steady growth of the functions of the State, and the decline of the temporal power of the Church made the existing relations between the two absolutely incompatible. A. C. Lurie '09 continued the argument, showing how the Separation Act of 1905, planned to meet the necessity made clear in the first speech, was entirely just to the Church. Further, the State not only had the right of supreme sovereignty to break a contract when its continuance militated against the best interests of the government, but also had obtained a perfect legal right to break the contract, from the Pope's violation of it. Nor was the Church wronged by the taking over of Church property by the State, since the property has really always belonged to the State P. L. Butler '08 closed the debate for the affirmative by showing that the Separation Act was not only fair to the Church, but also distinctly met the need outlined in the first speech. Henceforth the State would interfere with the Church only in temporal matters, and allow it absolute freedom in spiritual concerns.

C. H. Raymond '10 was the first to reply for the negative side. He said the Separation Act was unjustifiable because it suddenly and arbitrarily violated a solemn agreement made between Napoleon I and the Pope, without any reference to the present head of the Roman Church. The violation was not based upon any great popular demand, or on any pressing necessity caused by the interference of the Church with the functions of the State. The Separation Act was the result of more political scheming and Anti-Christian agitation. A. Horvitz '10 continued the argument to the effect that the specific provisions of the Act worked injustice to both Church and State. It was unjust to the Church because it abrogated salaries that had been granted the clergy as compensation for lands yielded to the State, without returning those lands; and because its provisions failed to take any cognizance of the hierarchical nature of the Church, and imposed restrictions which limited the growth, influence and freedom of the Church. D. Harr 1Sp., the last speaker for the negative, dealt with the injustice of the Act to the State itself; for all its evils, it did not accomplish the very end for which it was passed. It neither separated the Church from the State, nor did it grant that freedom of religious worship which it purported to give; for by the provisions of the measure, the State retained a wide control over the work of the Church, in its organization, function, and influence. Moreover, by the Association Law of 1901 the French Government already had the power at hand to remedy any evils the Church brought on the State.

The Rebuttal Speeches.

Horvitz made the first rebuttal for the negative, and laid great stress on the fact that the salaries of the clergy before the Act had not been a burden on the State. Raymond, making the second rebuttal, stated that the Church was now entirely controlled by the so-called religious associations, and that its condition was one of complete helplessness. The force of Haar's final rebuttal for the side was marred by a tendency to invective. He pointed out quite clearly, however, that the attitude of political however, that the attitude of political hostility adopted by the Church towards the government was one of self-defence, and stated that its educational and political power had already been broken by the Acts of 1896 and 1901.

Lewis, for the affirmative, claimed that the financial burden to the State had been a real one, and that the law had been provoked by unendurable evils, of which the educational was the worst. Lurie's rebuttal which followed, was humorous, and was aimed at proving the cases chosen by his opponents to be sporadic. Butler, closing the debate for the affirmative, said the question was to be looked at from a broad point of view, without taking into consideration mere technicalities. Thus, the so-called Organic Articles of Concordat, though never signed by the Pope, had been in force for 104 years and constituted a status quo