The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1899-04-06
HARVARD MEN VICTORIOUS
RESULT OF THE DEBATE WITH
PRINCETON LAST NIGHT.

Harvard spoke Against n Formal Al
| Iiance With Great Britain While
! Princeton Argued for One-E1tracts
of Some of the Argum nts Large
! Audience Listened to the Debate.
Princeton, N. j., April 5.-Alexander
hall was crowded tonight, the occasion
being the Princeton Harvard debate on
! the subject of an Anglo-American alli-
ance. Princeton had the affirmative and
Harvard the negative side of the follow
/ ing question: Resolved, That a For
NAL Alliance Between the United States
! and Great Britain for the Protection
and Advancement of Their Common In
/ terests is Advisable" President Patton
presided and after preliminary remarks
introduced James H. Northrup, who
opened the debate for Princeton. He
spoke in part as follows;
"A new world situation presents itself.
The last habitable and productive lands
Of the earth are being divided now in
Asia and Africa. In this division the
dominant aim is commercial. Whether
or not trade follows the flag the OBJ
ject is the trade. Commercial questions
are the great questions of the day. In
the commercial struggle two colonial
policies have gradually grown into
n,, = H., hnr
| the nations of Continental Europe have
considered new markets great spoil,
monopolized the trade for their own
temporary benefit to the ruination Of the
colonies. On the other hand, England
has championed the open door, France
in Madagascar, Germany in her islands
and African colonies, Russia in closing
her new Chinese port are examples of
the former. England's ports all over
the world free to all nations on terms
equal with herself are striking examples
of her policy of open door But to-
ward which nation do our interests lead
us? We touch Great Britain for thous-
ands of miles on the north, we have
treaty relations with her at the 18TH
mus, she helped us establish the Monroe
]
in maintaining it, both nations have
treaty rights in China, both desire the
open door in Asia and Africa. Be-
sides the close ties of blood, language
government and religion we are bound
to Great Britain by bonds of material
interest, such as exist between the Unit
ed States and no other nation. In view
of the changed conditions, our new
place among the powers, our need of
greater markets, the peril of what we
have owing to the policy of other ma
tions, and finally In ?iew Of the fact
that England favors the open door,, 1t
is surely nothing presumptuous or ex-
travagant to suggest the formation of
an alliance with England, our natural
friend"
Stephen D. Rosenthal was the first
speaker in the negative for Harvard.
He discussed the question. stating at the
outset that the burden of the proof rest
ed with the affirmative. After taking
up in order the arguments advanced by
the first speaker, Mr., Rosenthal con-
tinued: IF the alliance is to be on
commercial basis it will arouse political
opposition If 1t is on race basis, 1t
will arouse racial opposition. just what
would this mean to the United States?
In spite of the fact that England Is cor
daily hated by all Europe, we proclaim
ourselves willing to abandon our policy
of friendship towards all nations and
exclusive alliances with none, and join
her Then would we have to accept
our share of the hate that Is now Eng
lands; while our plans would be OPP
posed, baked and thwarted simply be-
cause they were proposed by an alli-
ance. suspected of trying to advance
schemes Of world wide ambition
Alfred s. Weston, the second speaker
In the affirmative, showed that hereto
fore England had been fighting single
handed for an open door policy, but had
lost ground; that an alliance with the
United States would bring about access
to China on equal terms to all powers
and would be of mutual advantage to
these two nations.
The second speaker of the Harvard
team was Henry r. Wolff, '99. He
drew his arguments largely from his
tory. He said among other things: AN
alliance with Great Britain would not
only arouse the hostility of the princl-
pal powers Of Europe and bring upon
the United States the burden of a COM
petitive armament; but 1t would be the
means of destroying the sympathy and
friendship which now exists between
the nations 1t is almost an historical
truisrn that alliances lead to hostilities
between the allied powers England
has made five important alliances and
In each instance friction has resulted.
In IT'S the United States made an al
lance with Frarce. 1t was made under
the most favorable conditions; yet it
broke down and left the two countries
in strained relations. While a striking
example at the present day is the dual
alliance between France and Russia.
But there are special reasons why an
alliance between England and the
United States would lead to friction.
The foreign political and commercial
policies of the two countries are so
widely apart that it. would be iInpossi-
BILE to work them together in consistent
lines Matters which would interest
England most would seem trivial to
the United States, and the refusal of
either natl to fully cooperate with it's
ally would lead to discord, or ever open
rupture"
Nathaniel S. Reeves, the last speak !
er in the affirmative, defined the full !
meaning of alliance and the explanation
of treaties. He endeavored to prove