Again, our attitude of deception toward the Filipino has made South America suspicious, and jeopardized our interests there. And, lastly, is it reasonable to sacrifice human life on the altar of problematic commercial gain?

As regards ability to govern themselves, the Filipinos have the requisites of success. They have education: "The Filipinos," according to Rev. Joseph MacQuaid, "are better educated than the rural population of Europe," and they are ambitious for more education. "A thirst for knowledge is everywhere manifest" are the words of Sargent and Wilcox, American officers who made a tour of Luzon.

They have had experience in government: "The insurgent government alone," says Sargent, "stood between order and anarchy," and Commodore Ford adds: "Under the Spanish government, the Filipinos were the bookkeepers, the assessors, and managed the entire machinery of government." Gen. Otis, in his report, bears similar testimony. From Iloilo, Gen. Miller wrote to his superior: "The Filipinos have taken possession of the custom houses and the post-offices. The longer they remain in possession, collecting customs, running the post offices, the more they will be confirmed in the idea they can do it. I propose an immediate attack," and that attack occurred. Is the destruction of stable governments a panacea for anarchy ?

In fine, President McKinley's last message assures us that the Filipinos are "a race quick to learn and profit by learning," and that "he

would be rash who would place any limit to the culture within their reach."

To recapitulate: Every consideration of constitutional justice, international rectitude, honor, commercial and political expediency demand that we should promise self-government to a people clearly capable of exercising this inalienable right.

In the rebuttal, Harvard changed the order of speakers, Mr. Letchworth coming first and Mr. Friedman last. The rebuttal was begun by the negative, J. A. Sullivan being the first speaker for Holy Cross. He said: As has been fully shown by the negative, the United States has no constitutional power to acquire territory with the intention of holding it as a colony. Our action in the Cherokee instance does not prove the contrary. What we did then was done in selfdefence, and the only possible solution of the difficulty with which we were then confronted was to subjugate that savage people and make them wards of the nation. It was a case of our government or no government.

E. H. Letchworth of the affirmative said: The constitutionality of our holding the Philippines has been shown to be intact, despite the statements of the negative speakers. speakers. We grant liberty to the Filipinos, liberty such as they are capable of using. We give them liberty with protection. We propose to educate the natives and gradually prepare them for self government. Is not this better and more humane than to cut them off and leave them to struggle along in chaotic disorder and revolt?

A. P. Conniff, in defence of the negative argument, said: An affirmative speaker has declared that no tropical country has ever been capable of self government. Mexico is in practically the same latitude as the Philippines, and yet it enjoys a fair government. Cuba has been considered inferior to the Philippines in climatic conditions. Edmund Burke once said: It is a serious thing to draw up an indictment against a whole nation; but the gentlemen from Cambridge have indicted the whole tropical belt, or nearly one-half the earth. The affirmative speakers deny that we promised the Filipinos independence, but there can be no doubt whatever that they fully expected it. The United States is bound in honor to grant it to them.

For the affirmative E. E. Smith said: The revious speaker has likened Mexico to the hilippines. The reason why Mexico enjoys a

od government is because she is in touch with the United States. Her form of government is influenced by conditions existing in this country. President Diaz is a continual office holder and Mexico is as much a monarchy as it is a republic. The negative speakers have referred to the enormous cost of keeping the Philippines. Under temporary retention will not this expense be felt? The negative speakers argue that the Filipinos are getting too much of a good thing, and we say, on the contrary, that you cannot give them too much good government.

P. F. Doyle was the last speaker for Holy Cross. After summarizing the negative argument he said: The first and second speakers for

the affirmative have not followed closely the affirmative arguments. Statements conflict. The languages of the various tribes, if we may believe Prof. Blumentritt, are in reality simply dialects of the same language, and all the natives can without much difficulty understand one another. We have heard much of the great Eastern trade. Filipinos can provide for that cheaper than we can. We maintain that the affirmative speakers have not shown how we can compete with a nation that pays ten cents per day in wages. The previous speaker says that the expense will be as great under temporary retention as under permanent retention. He might as well say that ten cents per day for a week is the same as ten cents per day for a lifetime. Our injustice to the Filipinos will recoil upon ourselves. For nations as well as for individuals "the wages of sin is death."

He

The last speaker was A. Friedman. said: It has never been shown that a tropical country is capable of self government. None of the affirmative speakers show how the Filipinos will defend themselves. As to expense, Canada solves that difficulty. At first she was an expense, but gradually became self-supporting, and in the Transvaal war furnished the mother country with money and men. Permanent retention is the best thing for the Filipinos.

The judges retired to the ante-room, and while they were out Dr. G. Stanley Hall entertained the audience with some of his humorous college experiences. He contrasted our present system of education with that in vogue in his

college days, and gave the preference to the former as securing better results, and being a more true development of the mind.

Judge Forbes, chairman of the board of judges, in rendering decision said: We have been pleased with the careful research and originality of the arguments and the manner of delivery of both teams. Two members of the committee agreed that as to matter the representatives of the two institutions are equal. As to manner and delivery the committee decides that Holy Cross College representatives excelled. Therefore we render a verdict in favor of Holy Cross College.

The announcement was greeted with great applause, and the members of both teams shook hands and cheered each other.

The following extract will throw some light on the decision rendered by the judges: "The Intercollegiate Debating Association is agreed that in determining argumentative ability the judges should take into consideration thorough knowledge of the subject, logical sequence, skill in selecting and presenting evidence and power in rebuttal; and that in considering the form of the speakers as distinguished from their arguments they should regard bearing, quality of voice, correct pronunciation, clear enunciation, ease and appropriateness of gesture, and directness, variety and emphasis in delivery. Without attempting to assign exact valuation to these various elements, the association is agreed that as between the two matter is more important than form; and that should one team excel in