The Harvard and Princeton debate teams fought to a bitter tie yesterday on the controversial issue of repeal of the Mann Act. The Mann Act forbids interstate commerce in white slaves.
Princeton, upholding the affirmative, based its argument on constitutional and sociological grounds. Albet A. Snyder cited Justice Marshall's noted verdict in Gibbons vs. Ogden: "Commerce is more than traffic, it represents all varieties of trade and intercourse.'
The Mann Act, Snyder declared, "is incompatible with a true system of free enterprise, we must put the Mann back into the act," he concluded.
Bi-Weekly Mixers Urged
"Princeton has selfish motives for wishing repeal of this act," Charles E. Lister '60 charged. He suggested that Princeton's geographic isolation results in a desire among Tiger undergraduates for increased interstate commerce. A series of bi-weekly mixers for Princeton men with New Jersey girls schools might ease their problem, Lister continued.
Also "A social village in the heart of the Princeton campus, a kind of Harvard Square without bookstores, is what these gentlemen sorely lack," he said.
Pointing out that undergraduates come to Princeton "seeking status" Joel Davidow rejected the bi-weekly mixer plan. He produced a counter proposal, "one based on the great American principle of self-restraint." An education committee, composed of Norman Vincent Peale, Bishop Fulton J. Sheen and Elizabeth Taylor should tour the nation pleading for voluntarism at all levels, he said.