Last Friday night saw the Debating Club discussing its second debate for the year on the motion: "That the Marshall Plan is dertimental to European self-determination." After some 22 speakers had said their pieces, the motion was put, being carried by 30 votes to 22. Judge: Miss Catherine Ford.

Detailed reports are as follows:—

Mr. L. Samuj opening for the affirmative, maintained that Marshall Aid was not a grant but a loan. Quoting from the American's Committee's report on European recovery, he showed that the object of U.S. aid was not simply economic, but strategic, as it sought to combat the spread of Communism and Russian expansion. Self-determination, Mr. Samuj declared, was impossible with the economic ties which were contained in the Marshall Plan. He saw an alternative in America handing over her surplus money to the Economic Committee of the United Nations for fair and just distribution.

Mr. B. Lyons, for the negative, sought to show the link between U.S. over-production and European under-production, which would be balanced by the Marshall Plan. He outlined the main points of the plan which were. (1) To increase producer goods for Europe; (2) maintain stable European economy; (3) break down tariffs; (4) supply dollar assistance. "All nations were invited to participate." he said, "but why weren't Poland and Czechoslovakia at Paris?"

"Their wives wouldn't let them go!"—(Audience.)

He constantly reiterated the point that the plan was not forced on Europe.

In seconding the motion. Mr. C. Bollinger stated that the plan was good in theory but not in practice. "When a country goes boots and all into another's back yard . . ." ("Shoe them out"—audience.) He traced the financial implications behind the plan, which he declared was ruled by vested interests. Culminating his address with this magnificent piece of rhetoric, "Shall the people of Europe sell their souls to the Mephistopheles of Wall Street for the doubtful pleasure of chewing gum?"

Replying for the negative. Mr. M. O'Brien tabulated carefully the entailments of the plan, which he declared guaranteed European self-determination and which would reinstate the participating countries as nations. It was the only alternative offered, instead of the strict economic and political code of Communism. This menace would be laid by the Marshall Plan.

From the Floor

The discussion that followed was interesting and amusing.

Mr. W. McLeod translated fluently some passages from Swedish papers.

Mr. Curtin quoted Mr. Marshall and M. Molotov (just to liven up proceedings). However, he wasn't sure of the difference between the Communist Camp, the Democratic Camp ("and Mein Kampf"—audience).

Mr. J. Milburn presumably speaking for the negative, gave a fluent speech on war hysteria.

Mr. Barclay was a little mixed; for though he changed sides, he avowed he hadn't changed his mind.

Mr. Toomey wasn't sure what he was talking about—at least so he told the audience. However he did seem muddled over whether the plan was a loan or grant, grant or loan, vice versa or so on.

Mr. Dowrick who, after being interrupted by Mr. Curtin inquiring how long he was in Russia—exploded violently with—"I was a damn sight longer in the Middle East than you, you little nincompoop!" He later explained, "Little things try me."

Mr. Dowling spoke on the Italian elections and atheism. (We couldn't see the connection.)

Other speakers for the affirmative were: Miss Casey, Messrs A. McLeod, R. Smith, C. Pottinger, Melling, and Williams. For the negative, Messrs. McIntyre, Cook, K. O'Connor. B. O'Connor, Toomey, Moore.

The Judge, Miss ford, placed the speakers as follows: 1st equal, B. O'Connor and Milburn; 3rd C. Pottinger; 4th, B. Lyons.

Next subject: That private schools should be abolished.