Von. VIEL tee
THE CRISIS IN DEBAME,
The Union is Nearly Dead, but Con-
ditions are all Favorable.
It is unnecessary to go into the story
of debate at Yale in the latter part of
this century. For twenty-five years it
was ina state of, at least; sus-
pended animation. Vartous suspicions
of life have been entertained by hope-
ful physicians from time to time, and
there has generally been someone to
deny a permit for burial.-
But of course the real life all went.
Occasional efforts at resurection
were either not properly directed, or
else reckoned without the facts. All
the clubs formed for the revival of de-
bate, up to the organization of the -
present Yale Union, failed — utterly.
The present Yale Union is now deca-
dent. All the favoring influences of
encouragement have been thrown about
it; all extraneous aids have been se-
cured; but, although it has been a
central agency by which means for the
development of good debaters have
been employed successfullv at Yale, and
the taint of constant defeat in debate has
been removed, and; although other
minor clubs have come up and grown
into strong life during this period of
the reeovery of Yale, the Union itself
is almost dead. The changed situation
is one of the most peculiar conditions
which contemporary Yale history fur-
nishes.
The first indication was the general
enthusiasm aroused. for intercollegiate
debates and the great importance which
was immediately attached to them. A
little effort too, in this line has now
won for Yale three consecutive debates,
a most gratifying result. Each inter-
collegiate debate is now approached
with intense interest and a victory is
pvieied with illumination and bon-
res, |
THE WINDY CLUB.
But better still, the enthusiasm of vic-
tory has reacted favorably upon the
general practice of debating. In the
Senior class has appeared a new or-
ganizations popularly known as_ the
“Windy Club.” Its membership ‘of
eleven is composed of men thoroughly
interested in debating. Its sole purpose
is personal improvement in speaking.
Regular weekly debates are held and
each speaker is subjected to severe
criticism. During the year and a half.
of its existence, there has been no dimi-
nution of interest, and the very evident
improvement in each man testifies to
the success of the society.
The Junior class, also, has its “Junior
Wigwam” with a membership of from
thirty to forty men. Its object is, in
general, the same as the Senior club,
although it attempts to give a more
social character to its meetings and
the work of each term is closed by a
banquet. From this club came the two
undergraduate speakers in the last de-
bate with Princeton. The success of
the club can be inferred from the fact
that it has been so largely copied in
the Sophomore class.
Two new clubs similar in numbers
and purpose have recently been founded.
They are known as the “Sophomore
Wigwam” and the “Sophomore Wrang-
lers.’ In other words, four new and
flourishing debating clubs have been
started in the past year and a hall.
Debating has been placed on a very
much better footing and now attracts
more and abler men than for years
past.
NEW. HAVEN, CONN., WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1899.
PRESENT SITUATION DANGEROUS.
There is a danger, however, in the
present situation. The new clubs are
not self-perpetuating. They come and
go at the inclination of a few leaders.
They partake more and more of a hot-
house character and give no assurance
of permanency. Nevertheless their
advent was hailed with enthusiasm by
the College because it was generally
supposed that they would act merely
as feeders to that central and permanent
organization, the Union. Quite the
contrary has really taken place. In-
stead of adding men and interest they
have taken both away. The Union has
declined more rapidly than before. Its
debates are now perfunctory affairs not
worth the little time spent upon them.
The efforts of the officers have elicited
no response and it has reached the
point that men of incoming classes shun
any connection with the Union.
CONCLUSIONS.
Such has been the course of events
in the past few years. Certain conclu-
sions are almost self-evident. First;
debating has revived and the tide has
been turned in Yale’s favor in intercol-
legiate debates. So far as can be judged
from this fact, the desperate lament
over Yale’s intellectual decline may well
cease.
Second, the decline of the Union at
the very time of this renewed interest
proves that its methods are inadequate.
Third, debating is now in a critical
position.
CO-OPERATION.
In order to perpetuate the present
enthusiasm, the various clubs must be
made to cooperate under some general
management. This the Union, as the
central organization, could readily ac-
complish. A radical change in the
Union itself is necessary. It could
give up entirely its weekly debates and
consist merely of officers chosen from
the various clubs. To these officers
power could be given to direct more
or less closely the work of the various
clubs, to arrange interclass debates, to
establish from year to year new clubs
as needed, in a word to unify the debat-
ing interests and make them permanent.
On the other hand, if it does not wish
to give up its organization, it could
limit its membership to the best men
of the various clubs and have monthly
debates on subjects of real interest.
This would place membership on a sort
of competitive basis and make it pro-
portionally more valuable. In any case,
it should have a definite oversight of
all college debating.
Last of all, debating has failed in the
past simply because it was left alone.
If the University wants to let debating
die, neglect is the proper treatment.
If, however, there is a desire to foster
and encourage one of the best lines of
intellectual activity, then the whole
graduate and undergraduate body should
give debating their immediate and
hearty support.
DEBATER.
GSES OE Sa ee
Football Officers Elected.
The following officers of the Univer-
sity Football Association for the Col-
lege year 1800-1900 were elected on
Friday evening, January 27: President,
Percy Avery Rockefeller, 1900, New
York City; Vice-President, Charles
Tarbell Dudley, 19008., Washington,
D. C.; Secretary, George Peters Chit-
tenden, 1901, New York City; Assist-
ant Manager, Robert Burns Hixon,
1901, La Crosse, Wis.
‘Price Ten Cents.
MORE ROOM AT THE PROM.
And More of the Best Things of a
Promenade.
Of the Junior Promenade of 1899, that
is, of 1900's Prom, which came to an
end at 4 A. M. Wednesday, January 25,
two entries should be made in the
record of Promenades. One is:
more room than for many Januaries.
The second entry should read: more
joy than in any January—and also
February, in which month the feasts
of older days were held.
The first entry is supported by statis-
tics; the second entry is a great deal
better supported, to wit, by the Class
of Ninteen Hundred.
More room was accomplished by
having more people outside the Ar-
mory. The difference, as estimated at
about midnight, which was the edge of
the evening, was that thirty-three and
a third per cent. of the usual crowd
inside were this year outside. This
figure is probably high enough and
probably not much too high. The
people who were outside were those
who generally came from outside of
New Haven and also those who gener-
ally came from New Haven. The lat-
ter were especially infrequent in the
Armory. .
This making of more room in the
Armory was in the first place a good
stroke, according to those who were
most in and of the Promenade. It did
not appear to them at all in the light
of a problem or a difficulty.
THE REAL POINT.
But this was not the reason why the
Prom. is carefully rated, by those judges
who knew most about ‘it, as the best
of all Proms. There was more chance
on the floor; dancing was easier; but
dancing may be very easy in this sense
and still be an arduous endeavor. The
judgment on which rests the second
fact, hereinbefore recorded, concerned
itself, in its finding of facts and in its
conclusions, with much more essential
qualities of dancing, or walking, or talk-
ing, or sitting, or eating supper, or
coming or going home.
Just more room, and so dancing
easier and the Promenade better! This
is a flippant and a superficial judgment
of which the WerEEKLY’s records take
no great notice. But those real quali-
ties which make dancing something
more than easy, so circumstanced the
late Promenade, as to have guaranteed
its success, had the floor been like the
seashore, and the dancers like the sands
thereof in- multitude. And what are
driving rainstorms and shortages when
these things are so.
As to details, the decorations of pink
and white were laid on the bare walls
and barn roof with such consummate
art, as to suffuse the whole ball-room
as with the light of a soft sunset or a
radiant complexion. Perhaps this was
too well done, and veteran and hard-
ened critics—Senior and Juniors—said
that the most beautiful part of the
Promenade was not appreciated on the
floor and in quantity; but they averred
it was very much appreciated.
These facts are easy of observation
and record. When it comes to any-
thing like the quality of the supper, the
WEEKLY refuses to commit itself. Good
men and true said that it promptly and
pleasingly sustained and refreshed the
tired dancers. Other good men and
true said that the Commanding General
of the Army has not made any reflec-
tions on the Quartermaster’s Depart-
‘everywhere and
“ler, and
ment, whose language would meet the
requirements of a just judgment on the
supper. The great traditions of Yale
seem to be maintained.
The shortage used to exist every-
where except in the Committee’s treas-
ury about this time. This year it exists
in the Committee’s
treasury. The difference between the
Committee’s treasurv and other people’s
treasuries is that the former’s difficulty
will be remedied by direct assessment of
$3 on all box holders, which will leave
a deficit of only about $100 for this
group of men. Other deficits probably
average higher.
THOSE IN THE BOXES.
Following is a list of those who were
present in the boxes:
Box 1—J. B. Adams, ’99; M. C. Har-
vey, 00; <A. G; Vanderbilt,.’90;. B.. B:
Moore, ‘00; G7 A. Kernan,.’90; . W.
D. Kountze, 709; N. Williams, ’96; H.
L. O’Fallon, ’99; W. F. Whitehouse,
99; F. M. Davies, ’90.
Box 2—Mr. and Mrs. A. L. Spitzer,
Toledo, O.; . Miss Luette Spitzer,
Toledo; Miss Anna Reynolds, Toledo;
C8. Spitzer, oo, 3 Yaosy. "oo.
_ Box 3—Mrs. J. P. Kimball, New
York City; Mrs. Smith, New York;
Miss G. Grinnell, New Haven; Miss
Richards, New York; B.:T. Doudge,
ro0r?* J. ©. “Kimball,” root.
Box 4—Mrs. Butler, Detroit, Mich.;
Mrs. Allen, Hartford, Conn.; Miss Ely,
Cleveland, O.; Miss Butler, Detroit;
Miss Allen, Hartford; H. S. Curtiss,
1901; W. B. Allen, 1901; L. K. Butler,
IQOT.
Box 5—Mrs. Parmelee, Miss Par-
melee, Miss J. Parmelee, all of New
Haven; Miss Land, New York; Miss
C. Land, New York; H. F. Parmelee,
“OA Gx ie eickox, 9035 >. Ht.
Townshend, ’97; E. S. Parmelee, ’99.
Box 6—Dean and Mrs. Wright; Miss
Wright; Miss Merritt; A. K. Merritt,
’°93; Henry B. Wright, ’98, all of New
Haven.
Box 7—Mrs. DeForest and Mrs. J.
N. Hall, New Haven; the Misses Whit-
telsey and Miss Hall, New Haven;
Miss Hope Smith, Providence; Miss
Dunn, Boston; C. S. DeForest, New
Haven; J. T. Whittelsey, ’675., New
Haven; S. D. Ames, ’99.
Box 8—Mrs. Quackenbush, New
York; Mrs. Stone, Mohawk, N. Y.;
Mrs. Barnum, New Haven; Miss Mar-
guerite Quackenbush and Miss Grace
Quackenbush, New York; Miss Mar-
jorie Stone, Mohawk, ss) Mass
Barnum, New Haven; Miss Wagstaff,
New York; L. T. Stone, ’9958.;
S. Quackenbush, ’99 S.
Box 9—Mr. and Mrs. H. B. Sargent,
Mr. and Mrs. Arthur Lord, Mrs. But-
Mrs. Stoughton, all of New
Haven; Miss Holland, Philadelphia;
the Misses Butler and Miss Sargent,
New Haven.
Box 1o—Mrs. F. B. Dexter, New
Haven; Miss Elting, New York; Miss
Fackler, New York; Miss Miller,
Houston, Tex.; Miss Strong, Setauket,
L. IL; J. W. Miller, 1900; E. B Fack-
ler, I900.
Boxes II, 12, 13 unsold.
Box 14—Mrs. Mittendorf, New York;
Miss DuBois, Hudson, Y.; Miss
Ensign, Simsbury, Conn.; Miss Stod-
dard, New Haven; S. Stoddard, "99;
G. S. Mittendorf, ’99.
Box 15—Mrs. E. G. Stoddard, New
Haven; Miss Stoddard, New Haven;
Miss Rebecca Darlington, Pittsburg,
Pa.; Miss Hay, Washington; Miss
Alice Hay, Washington; L. E. Stod-
dard, ’99; E. F. Hinkle, °99; F.
Butterworth, ’95; A. S. Hay, ‘98.
Box 16—Mrs. C. T. Barney, Miss E.
Terry, Miss A. E. Potter, all of New
York; Miss H. Whitney, Boston; J.
W. Barney, 1900; J. W. Cross, 1900;
F. C. Havemeyer, 1900.
Box 17—Mrs. Manny, Larchmont,
N. Y.; Mrs. Adams, Orange, N. J.;
Miss Samson, Boston; Miss Adams,
