PROGRESSIVES TURN TABLES AT DEBATE

The Progressive Club of the Debating Union received five more votes than the Conservative Club last evening in Harvard Hall after sustaining the affirmative side of the question whether the United States should or should not enter the World Court. Each of the Clubs has now won two of the four debates held this year. Mr. E. R. Gay '19, Assistant Dean of the College, presided at the meeting, and, after stating the rules of order which should be observed, recognized F. A. O. Schwarz '24 of the Progressive Wing who proposed that the Debating Union should support the entrance of the United States into the following four reservations suggested by Secretary of State Charles Evans Hughes Hon. '10: (1) the Court shall have no compulsory jurisdiction over the United States; (2) the United States shall have an equal share in the selection of judges; (3) the United States shall pay its share in the maintenance cost of the Court; and (4) no amendment shall be made to the powers or constitution of the Court without the consent of the United States.

Have Four Main Contentions

The Progressives rested their case on the following four contentions: first, that because of war and economic chaos such a court is necessary; secondly, that the United States desired such a step; thirdly, that the World Court has successfully functioned on four occasions; and finally, that the Court because of its unchanging personnel can develop a strong international tradition of court decisions. The Conservatives argued that this Court is merely the Hague Tribunal over again; that two conflicting courts would exist; that the Court has no compulsory jurisdiction over the United States; and that such an act by this country would constitute merely an entrance to the League of Nations by the back door.

Wilson Opens Debate

P. E. Wilson '23 opened the argument for the Progressives. He pointed out that such a court is necessary for this country in order to diminish opportunities for future wars, which injure neutrals as well as belligerents. J. U. Harris '24 next took the floor for the Conservatives. "Such an idea is commendable, but it is merely the Hague Tribunal over again", he remarked in opening, and pointed out that the election of judges would be unfair, and, also, that such a court might settle questions of law but not questions of policy.

F. S. Pollak '23 continued the argument for the Progressives by refuting the Conservative belief that this court is merely the Hague Tribunal over again. He showed that the World-Court because of its unchanging board of judges, in contrast to the changeable board of the Hague Tribunal, could develop a series of court rulings, which would constitute a saving, virile international law.

A. B. Davis '24 of the Conservatives completed the formal discussion by showing that the functioning of the court as regards the United States would be frustrated by the fact that the Court has no compulsory jurisdiction over the United States. Entrance into this World Court would ultimately draw us into the League of Nations by a back door, he said.

About 20 men spoke during the 10 minutes of informal discussion which followed the main speeches.