PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY, May 2.-- Princeton, upholding the affirmative, won by a unanimous decision over the Harvard debating team, at Princeton. The best speech for Harvard was made by J. Tutun '20, while Hendrickson and Stevens of Princeton were judged superior in rebuttal.

The Main Speeches.

In opening the affirmative argument for the University, Slater Washburn '20 maintained that though he held no case for the liquor traffic, there are four distinct objections to the 18th Amendment in that it is too radical and sudden a change, encourages attempts to violate the law, discriminates in favor of the wealthy, and weakens the Constitution. The second speaker for the University Rudolf Protas Berle '19 argued that the operation of the amendment would lead to conflicts between the states and the national government, and that there is no popular sentiment to insure is enforcement. Jacob Joseph Tutun '20 closed the case for the University by contending that the Amendment is a violation of the rights of the individual would lead to undue centralization and an autocratic police force.

Maintaining that the Amendment should not be repealed. Lewis Miller Stevens '20, the first Princeton speaker argued that the affirmative must show net only that the measure is unwise but why is should not be given at least a trail especially, since every other form of prohibition has proved a failure. William Henry Hendrickson, Jr., '20, contended that national prohibition met the difficulties of state prohibition which are: smuggling across state boundaries, the political influence of the liquor traffic, and difficulty of states to stamp out an industry which extends beyond their territory. Concluding the Princeton case. Randolph Clothier Sailer '19 argued that the 13th and 18th Amendments were analogous, and since both had been the result of less-inclusive plans, why repeat one without the other?