Facts.

On Thursday night thirty people heard the question of private enterprise thrashed out by thirteen speakers.

The affirmative considered mainly the waste due to competition under private enterprise. They also held such a system of greed unchristian since national prosperity meant the prosperity of the majority of the nation's people, private enterprise, with its accompanying accumulation or wealth in the hands of a few was opposed to national prosperity.

The negative pointed out that competition is the life of trade brought out the good in man, and was the only means of ensuring national prosperity. Both sides wrangled over such irrelevances as socialism state control and even the efficiency of the civil service.

The judge, Miss M. Shortfall advised speakers to stand up straight, and avoid slang. They should be more convincing, and would not be so by being half-apologetic. If he has not a ready retort to an interjection the speaker should ignore it. Notes should be left behind. Too many speakers had learnt their speeches off by heart.

Voting on the motion was: For 17. Against 10.

—P.A.O.

Impressions.

An interesting, immature, and highly entertaining conversation between four youngsters assisted by irrelevant exclamations from a few onlookers, constituted the New Speakers Debate held last Thursday.

"Salient" was delighted at the ridiculous points of order, the earnestness of some of the speakers, and the benign face of the chairman. We went out singing to ourselves.

—We search for tight
With [unclear: Phrases]
And bad philosophy."

In a debate on the merits and demerits of private enterprise, Russia was mentioned only once. And that in an interjection.

The gulf that separated the debate from the regular Gym, debates seemed bottomless. To think of one and then the other was like passing from Hell to Helicon.

There must be something in a University education if it can bridge that gulf.

—R.L.M.

•