Harvard Union Debate last Evening.

Owing to a reception given to the freshman class, and the senior class meeting, only about sixty men were present at the Harvard Union debate last evening. After the report of the secretary, the following question was chosen for the next meeting:

Resolved, That the incoming president should retain efficient democratic officials.

A vote was then taken on the merits of the question which was to be debated, Resolved, That the president of the United States should be elected directly by a majority vote of the people. It resulted in a vote of 16 for the affirmative and 27 for the negative.

The following men were then elected members of the Union: F. E. Lord and Thornton Woodbury for '89 and C. P. R. Bates, '92. Next in order was the regulard bate which was opened by E. H. Savary, L. S.

He divided his arguments into three parts: First, History of the existing system from its foundation in 1787. Second, Arguments against the existing system. Third, Arguments which are in favor of the existing system stated and answered.

Under the first head, he described the working of the present system, laying especial stress on the power vested in State legislatures to determine the manner of election of presidential electors in their several states. Under the second head he claimed that under the present system the president might be and has been elected by the minority of voters. Another point made under this heading was that according to the present system many voters were virtually disfranchised in states returning a large majority in either direction. Under the third head, the argument that the present system would destroy state individuality was claimed by the affirmative as a point in favor of the proposed change.

The debate was then opened for the negative by W. D. Clark, '89. He said in brief: The present institution has stood the test of time, and is still sustained by the reason which led to its formation. It does a great deal to obviate the danger of ties and of contested elections. The power of small states depends entirely upon the continuance of the present system, for under the system now being discussed, New York city would have more power than the four smallest states in the Union. Also under a change of system there would be a much greater chance for bribery corruption and intimidation.

The debate for the affirmative was continued by J. P. Nields, '89. He said he intended to point out existing evils and show how they could be remedied. He also dwelt at length upon the evil of giving the state legislatures so much power as well as upon minority elections. He said that the proposed system gave every voter a sense of his responsibility, and destroyed the chance of a dark horse.

E. J. Rich L. S. continued for the nagative. He said the tendency was towards there being two parties of about equal power, and a small third party holding the balance of power. At the eve of an election this third party would have an enormous importance and would cause far increased bribery and corruption.

Mr. Rich offered two minutes of his time to any one who would suggest a plan for deciding contested elections held according to new system.

Mr. Savary rose and said that had nothing to do with the question being discussed.

Mr. Rich then closed his argument by proposing a system of election, wherein the country should be divided into electoral districts and each elector chosen separately, to vote separately, not by states as at present. The proposal of this system he claimed to be a very strong argument for the negative,

A vote on the merits of the principal disputants was then taken with the following result: affirmative 13, negative 34.

At this point the debate was thrown open to the house, from which the following men spoke: From the Law School-W. Anstin, M. B. May, F. H. Krebs, H. E. Oxnard; from '89-C. Warren, F. S. Griffing, T. Woodbury; from '90-J. L. Adler and R. F. Herrick; from '91-J. L. Dodge, S. C. Brackett, R. B. Hale, G. B. Woomer; from '92-C. R. Cummings, C. Macy and G. B. Schulte sp.

The debate for the negative was closed by Mr. Clark, and Mr. Savary for the affirmative.