The daily morning journal and courier., 1895-01-19
YALE MEN WERE DEFEATED
HARV41RD INCREASES HER LIST OF
 VICTORIES IN DEBATE.
It Was Not Through the Signal Ability of Any One Man, But Because All Three Worked Together With Such SmoOthness Debates of Yale Men,

She won the seventh debate With Yale
 this evening with ease The debate
 gives satisfaction to Harvard men,
 The debate was won by the Harvard
 representatives, not through the signal
 ability of any one speaker, but because
 all three worked together and each did
 his part well. The Yale men were not,
 as whole, up to the standard set in
 previous debates, although Walter H.
 Clark gave the best speech of the even-
 ing, It was a mistake for Yale not to
 have given him the rebuttal.
 At ten minutes past eight when ex-
 Governor Long and the speakers
 stepped upon the platform they were
 greeted by an audience that filled every 1 seat and crowded the aisle at the rear
 of the theater.
 Governor Long opened the exercises
 in simple and happy speech and then introduced the first speaker for liar
 yard.
 T. L. Ross L. S., made an excellent
 opening speech, cleared the ground
 quickly, made his point and spoke | throughout with an engaging ease and | smoothness.
 The second speaker was E. M. Long,
 L. S., of Yale. He did not equal Ross He showed less grasp of the subject
 and a tendency to talk on points which would appeal to the audience, rather
 than to the judges. He was somewhat stiff and hesitating in his delivery but ! had a quiet sarcasm that told for his
 side.
 E. M Long of Richmond, Va, the | first speaker for Yale, said: We do not
 claim that the labor organizations are | necessarily an evil, but on the contrary
 we regard them as social organizations of great benefit 10 their members. It is only when labor organizations try to ! regulate wages and to deal with em-
 ployers through representatives that
 the evil begins
 MT. Long next claimed that combina-
 tions on the part of employers do not l oppress workingmen, but have been productive of an increase In the sum total of their wages. The workingmen
 of the United States seem continually l impressed with the idea that they are down-trodden, and it is this impression NAtN'S long as it remains prevalent owners of capital will be unwilling to lay out
 their money in industrial enterprises Capital as well as labor has rights La Dor organizations, on the one hand, de- mand the privilege of dictating the wages their members shall receive, and on the other, they demand the right to dictate to employers what men shall be employed Non-union men are thus eliminated from their calculations. La Dor is unable to fix the price of wages, because that prices is regulated by the law of supply and demand Employers are in no way responsible for the abun- dance of labor, and it is extreme folly b demand or expect them to pay more for labor than the cheapest price at which it is offered.
 MT Long emphasized the fact that the demands of labor are in many cases arbitrary and unjust, because labor or ganizations look at industrial conditions from only one standpoint, In closing, he called attention to the fact that of the twefRy million of wage-earners in the United States less than one-fifth are members of labor organizations. Shall, then, employers allow minority to dictate to them rules by which the majority shall be governed?
 w. H. Clark '96, the second Yale man, made the best speech of the evening He knew his subject well; he made some subtle criticisms of the Harvard men, and had that impressiveness which comes from apparent thorough belief in his side of the question. Ha had little rhetoric, but much argument.
 Walter H. Clark of Hartford, the sec- ond Yale speaker, declared at the out l set that because Yale had the negative | it should not be assumed that the Yale | representatives were hostile to the best l interests of the laboring classes. After few general remarks on the Harvard speakers treatment of the subject he | launched out upon his main theme, the | necessity of the introduction of an tr- responsible third party as representa- tive of the employees to arbitrate. MT. | Clark cited numerous instances occur ing in Connecticut where the cause of | true labor suffered because of an un- worthy type of representative allowed or attempting to arbitrate
 He then took up the negative from the standpoint of the employer. For the to deal with this third party is to put himself in the power of a man who can compel him to work injury through breaking contracts. Mr. Clark laid stress upon the point that accord ing to the resolution the benefit must be mutual. and cited from concrete in- stances that the experience of employers was quite the opposite. In treating the subject from the standpoint of the em- Dloye he called attention to the fact that their purpose was to protect wages. He mentioned their inelasticity in re- gard to supply and products and eff eiency of labor, and pointed out that collective contracts destroy motives for individual efficiency. And that men whose ability would raise them to the ranks of capitalists are thus held down.
 In conclusion he pointed out that the -otal amount of profits is so small that 10 philanthropic distribution of them would afford any appreciable relief, hat indeed individual emulation is the 3afest method to advance the interests # labor and society at large, and labor must be free and unhampered to take l ldvantage of this. The next speaker was R. c. Ringwatt 95 for Harvard. He was a little 11n- |