B. C. WINS DEBATE BY UNANIMOUS VOTE

Close to a thousand people, including many members of the Massachusetts Legislature, assembled in Symphony Hall last night to listen to the Harvard and Boston College debaters argue the merits of capital punishment, and to applaud vigorously when the unanimous decision of the three judges awarded the victory to the Bostonians. At times the contest degenerated into almost parliamentary caviling, but on many occasions it rose to brilliant heights of clear presentation and quick rebuttal which kept the audience breathless.

Crimson Argues Negative

The burden of proof lay on the Crimson men, who were opposing the death penalty in Massachusetts; and so the Boston College team, composed of L. P. O'Keefe '29, H. M. Leen '29, and E. A. Hogan '30, was content with the maintenance of a satisfactory defensive case.

Faced with the necessity of establishing sufficient reasons for the abolishing of capital punishment, Harvard concentrated on the plea that the severe penalty does not justify itself by preventing homicide. J. H. Swigert '30, introducing his case, made a strong historical appeal which branded the death penalty a survival of the primeval instinct of revenge and accordingly reprehensible. It is "inhuman and cruel," was his premise; and it "closes the door of justice in case of possible error."

Bove Strikes Keynote

The speech of P. J. W. Bove '29 was the nucleus of the Crimson's case. Bove produced statistics to prove that the death penalty does not prevent crime, but may actually stimulate it. Brooks Otis '29, after an effective rebuttal of his opponents' use of emotional appeals, went on to popularize and stress the arguments presented first by Bove.

Against this, Boston College built up a splendid defense and clearly overwhelmed Harvard on several vital issues, more than enough to convince the judges and audience of their superiority.