OKLAHOMA AND HARVARD DEBATE ON CHAIN STORES

Engaging in a no-decision contest, the Harvard debating team met the University of Oklahoma speakers in a discussion of the chain store question last night in the large lecture room of Fogg Art Museum.

The University argued on the affirmative side of the question, "Resolved: That the chain stores are detrimental to the best interests of the American people." The two Harvard students who urged this point of view were G.F. Oest '33 and R.M. Alt '32. The negative side of the question was presented by George Copeland and Hicks Epton, both law students in the University of Oklahoma. Professor N.C. Maynard of Tufts College made the opening speech and was presiding officer during the debate.

"Dangerous Monopoly"

The Harvard team based their argument on the two broad contentions, that the chain store system constitutes a dangerous monopoly, and that the social effect of the system is harmful to the employees, the cities, and the nation.

The bad aspects of the chain store monopolies were considered both from the outer effects and from the inner workings. The harmful social effects were emphasized strongly by the University speakers, who claimed that this system was perpetuated by practices both unfair and distinctly injurious to the American people.

As a result of the inherent differences between the two sides of the question, the negative piled up a mass of data, while the affirmative concentrated on broad statements, and cited individual experiences.