Amid Boston Overdose Crisis, a Pair of Harvard Students Are Bringing Narcan to the Red Line


At First Cambridge City Council Election Forum, Candidates Clash Over Building Emissions


Harvard’s Updated Sustainability Plan Garners Optimistic Responses from Student Climate Activists


‘Sunroof’ Singer Nicky Youre Lights Up Harvard Yard at Crimson Jam


‘The Architect of the Whole Plan’: Harvard Law Graduate Ken Chesebro’s Path to Jan. 6




NEW HAVEN, CONN., March 19, 1920.--Yale, upholding the negative, won a unanimous decision over the Harvard affirmative debating team at New Haven. The Harvard team displayed ecellent debating ability but Yale's rebuttal won for them the victory.

The Affirmative Speeches

The following points were brought out forcibly by members of the Harvard team supporting the affirmative:

C. W. Phelps '22, First Affirmative

The present conditions of discontent in the working class together with the facts quoted from the Department of Justice and other similar govermental sources prove conclusively that several radical parties are actively sengaged in conspiracies for the overthrow of the United States government by force. The propaganda disseminated by these radicals had already resulted in numerous cases of loss of life and destructionof property. This has been acomplished bythe inciting of discontented workers, sixteen per cent, of whom are aliens. The present laws are inadequate to prevent the spreach of propaganda; therefore, a Federal law should be enacted to meet the impraative need.

W. S. Holbrook, Jr., '21, Second Affirmative.

Present legislation, both national and state, is inadequate to meet the need which the first affirmative speaker has pointed out. According to Attroney-General Palmer not a sdingle national law meets this need, while the state laws, in adequate as they are, exist only in 28 out of 48 states. On the other hand, the affirmative proposes a federal law to meet a tederal need. What we propse is not a nwe idea since the idea of the limitation of free speech is recognized by present national and stte laws Hamilton and Madison advocated such measures as we propose while both England and France have similar provisions Finally, experience, as shown by prohibition and railroad regulation points out federal laws as the only means of meeting a situation which affects the whole country.

J. J. Tutun '20 Third Affirmative

The negative has made the issue free speech. In actual practice free speech is limited according to circumstances for the public welfare, safety, and morals John Stuart Mill declared that opinior must be limited when it may lead to a mischievous act. That is the only restriction we would place on free speech. Our country is in a peculiar condition on account of its heterogeneous population. Foreigners, illiterates, and negroes form a large percentage of our population and it is our duty to protect these classes against the radical agitator preaching force and violence. More than that, we must protoect the American people against this vicious propaganda which will cause them to commit acts of violence, which the agitator is too cowardly to commit. This danger to the American people must be eliminated

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.