Morning journal and courier., 1893-01-19

must take the form of 'case' or 'contro. versy' between adverse psrties before the | court is empowered to act. As the act stands, though no vital point has been touched yet this single decision psralyLes the single arm of the law which had been thrust between the people and the orimi nality of unjust fsvoritisn. Unless Its defects are remedied 1t is doomed. This law was builded in great patience and by the light of great hope. The people will not witness its destruction without a pro- test. Long time have they suffered and been silent. They have seen the name of public highway become a bitter sarcasm, they have seen monopoly spring up to grow fat upon railroad favoritism' Embittered and disappointed. they will cast aside their sturdy burgeois creed and turning their faces toward the prophets of new faith, entrust their fortunes into the hands of men whose radicalism is deep. rooted and dangerous. This stands ss constant menace to the perpetuity of our institutions. And 1t will ever stand as such until congress devises laws to secure to the people their every right and compel the railways of the nation to become trulv the public highwsys'
 We speak as little for sgrarisn greed A, for corporate selfshness. We feel that the national pathway lies between these two evils, that railway management Is a trust between us as sacred as the administra- ton of justice itself; that there is a neces- sity for settled commercial relations under sn act which satisfied the growing needs of the nation, which ensures simple fair dealings and inspires the humblest citizen with the belief that what Is law for him is law for all.
 Arthur P. Stone closed the evenings speaking. His argument was preceded by rsbuttal In which he endesvored to show that all the Yale speakers had proved was that further "legislstion" was needed, while the question read restrictive legis- lstion"
 ARGUMENT or A. P. STONE
 We are not here to discuss the minute details of railroad legislation, but its gen ersl tendency. Small matters, such as uniform systems of csr-coupling and heat ing, while they are of importance, can best be accomplished by the railroads them selves or can be left to state regulation.
 The opponent has claimed that the true way to limit the railroads power is to en. act legislation providing for the enforce ment of the existing laws. The very fact that the ordinary machinery of govern ment Is not sufficient to enforce these laws shows that the laws are not practicable The true way to enforce these laws is to modify them SO that they will receive the support of public opinion. Repeal those sections of the law which directly conflict with one another, and you will have laws upon the statute books which the railroads are not forced to break and which the ordinary machinery of government can enforce.
 We have heard good deal about gov ernment ownership of rsilrosds We do not mean to place ourselves in opposition to this at some future time, but We do maintain that they cannot be discussed to any length here tonight. In the first place government ownership of railroads Is something which is in the distance. By purchasing the railroads now the govern ment must assume debt equal to their valuation, as debt of seven billions of dollars. The debt of the United States would then be three billions larger than that of any country in the world, or three times as big as the debt we were burdened with at the close of the civil war. State ownership of railroads in this country has been tried by various states and has not proved success. But aftsr all, government ownership Is not the question for discussion. It is outside the present question and no one expected 1t to be dis Surseo to AlBut, dDu IL IS OulS oy d most peculiar interpretation of the subje that it can be brought in at ell.
 But by far the strongest reason for con servative action Hes in the imagination of the interests involved. The interests of the railroads are too magnificent for sum- mary treatment. We have already gone too far in radical legislstion, and the in dustrial enterprises of the nation demand with no uncertain voics a policy of re trenchment and repeal.
 It is 8 mistake to suppose that the rail roads have no special claims upon the ns- ticnsl government. The welfare of the Railroads ot this country is interwoven with the welfare of the nation itself. They arc directly involved in every branch of our national life. It is by their means that time and space are sunk into comparative insignifcsnoe, and the will of the people flows with an irresistible force to the bounds of the national federation.
 Deprive this country of it's railroads and you deprive 1t of Its glories. Its civilixa- tion is gone, its prosperity Is no more, and sll Its hopes of future greatness become but the imprscticable dreams of 8 forgot ten age. Tine railroads are the hssrtstrings of the nation. Their strong oentralizing influence binds together with bonds of lit eral stesl all the diversified interests of great people. They are the prime motors of American civilization, and from being merely the creation of the hands and the brain they have become endesred to the hearts of the American people.
 They are to be guarded with that same true patriotic devotion that we extend to all American institutions, and in such cases conservatism Is the only patriotic policy
 Only upon sound considerations and well established principles then can our rail road laws be changed. When we have gone too far we must not hesitate to retrench. When the way is clear we must advance slowly, waiting to see the full effect of one step before taking another.
 Conservatism is the only policy when the affairs of such mighty institution are in question. Conservatism Is the only principle of that legislation by which the national progress Is influenced. Conservs- tisn is the only wstchword when you are standing guard of the possible destiny of civilization.
 The judges, Professor E. R. Seligmau of Columbia, President E B. Andrews of Brown, and Hon. William E Barrett, speaker of the house of representatives, retired and after deliberstion of a quar- ter of an hour MT. Barrett, as spokesman, announced that the decision was in favor of Harvard, arrived at on the individual per centsgs plan, though both sides re- fected great credi. on both uniSersities, the total number of points being, Harvard 1,4s5, Yale ,403.
 After the debate sn informal banquet was held at Young's hotel, at which the visiting Yale men were entertained by their