Image provided by the Yale Club & Scholarship Foundation of Hartford, Inc.
About Yale Alumni Magazine | View Entire Issue (May 17, 1899)
292 TATE AT.TIMNL WEEKLY: HARVARD WINS DEBATE, The Cambridge Team was the Best Yet Produced There—Comparisons,. CAMBRIDGE, Mass., May 13th.—After suffering defeat at the hands of Yale in three successive annual debates, Harvard has at length regained her as- cendancy by winning a well-contested and interesting encounter in Sanders Theatre last evening. It was the con- cluding debate of the year, each univer- sity having previously bested Princeton, and the keenness of the competition attracted an enthusiastic audience which was not slow to encourage the speakers by appreciative recognition of telling points scored by either side. A number of Yale graduates and other friends of her disputants were in attendance, but not so many as at her last debate in Cambridge two years ago. The hearty reception accorded the visitors by all the spectators, however, served. to put them at their ease, and was a pleasing indication of the growing feel- ing of friendliness for Yale among the undergraduates here at Cambridge. Col. Thomas Wentworth Higginson presided and introduced the speakers. The judges were Professor Bliss Perry of Princeton, Professor Henry B. Gardner of Brown, and Justice William Rumsey of New York. THE QUESTION FOR DEBATE. The question, “Resolved, That the present method ‘of electing United States Senators is preferable to a method of election by popular vote,” | had been so framed that the supposed advantage of the negative growing out of the burden which is always upon the affirmative of establishing the proposi- tion, was more than offset by the fact that the affirmative in the present in- stance was contending for an established system while the negative was cham- pioning an experiment. Harvard’s representatives in support of the existing system, in the order in -which they spoke, were Raynal Caw- thorne Bolling, 1900, of Philadelphia; John Alexander Hull Keith, ‘90, of Walshville, I11., and Raymond Tasker Parke, 1 L., of Lynn, Mass., who was last month awarded the Coolidge prize of $100 for the best argument in the final contest to select the Harvard team. In the rebuttal speeches the order was changed, Bolling closing the argument for Harvard. Yale’s contention for a popular election was successively main- tained by Edward Baldwin Boise, ’99, of Grand Rapids, Mich.; John Kirkland Clark, ’99, of New York City, and Franklin Atkins Lord, 2 L., of Moor- head, Minn. In rebuttals the last two speakers changed places. ISSUE CLOSELY DRAWN. The lines upon which the argument was conducted were closely drawn, the Yale speakers in particular confining their efforts to a narrow field. During the evening, the difference in the methods which the opposing teams were pursuing became increasingly apparent. The Harvard speakers de- veloped a well-rounded and comprehen- sive argument in support of the affirma- tive, each sttcceeding speaker clinching the main points in his predecessor’s theme and going on to extend it logi- cally along new lines. The points mainly relied upon in support of the present system were the value and safety of a qualitative differ- ence in the constitutencies of the upper and lower branches of legislative bodies, as evidenced by all the European governments as well as by our own; the splendid personnel of the Senate during the century and more of its history and the efficient working of its machinery; the importance of election by the legis- latures in insuring long terms of service and resultant valuable experience in office, comparative statistics of ‘the briefer terms of Governors and Con- gressmen being presented in support of this contention; freedom of Senators under the present system from catering to popular or party demands, shifting policies and sectionalism, and the con- sequent continuity of policy; value of impression that the indirect system of election as affording expression to the sober second thought of the people; the necessity of calling a constitutional convention to secure an amendment to the Consti- tution providing for election of Senators by popular vote, such an amendment having three times failed in Congress, and the danger of resorting.to such an expedient for the first time, and, in conclusion, the tendency at the present time to carry popular elections too far. POPULAR VOTE FOR SENATORS. The Yale disputants admitted at the outset the conservative character and high personnel of the Senate, but attributed it to other causes and claimed that it would be maintained under a system of election by popular vote. The continuity of policy which has always characterized the Senate they attributed wholly to the long term of service, and cited Speaker Reed and governors in many states as instances of oft-repeated re-election of strong men by the people. The inability of bosses like Croker, Platt and Quay to secure office by popular vote was noticed. But the main efforts of the negative were directed to showing the disastrous con- sequences of the present system, not upon the Senate, but upon the electoral bodies. The repeated deadlocks in senatorial elections in recent years with consequent loss of representation in the Senate were shown, and the crying evil ‘of hasty and bad legislation rushed through the legislatures to make up for lost time. The greater facility in brib- ing small bodies of men was empha- sized. The right of a citizen to cast a separate vote for a representative in the Senate was strenuously advocated, and the evil of combining state and national issues in electing state legislators was illustrated in the case of Minnesota last year, where needed reform in state poli- tics was lost because the people, al- though electing a reform governor by 20,000 plurality, were induced, on the plea of upholding the administration, to send back Republicans to the legis- lature to re-elect Senator Davis of the Peace Commission. In this confusion of issues, state and national, the nega- tive claimed, lay the greatest bane of the existing system. THE TEAMS COMPARED. Harvard’s conspicuous advantage over Yale.was in her manner of pre- sentation. It seemed to be the general verdict after debate was concluded that Yale had met the strongest team that Harvard has yet produced. The Yale debaters were not noticeably inferior to others that have represented the Univer- sity in recent years, but Harvard has raised the standard of intercollegiate debating a little higher than before. Close as was the outcome, and how close it was is evidenced by the fact that the judges were forty minutes in reach- ing a decision, yet the decision of the judges was unanimous, and I found no difference of opinions among either Yale or Harvard sympathisers in the audience. The Harvard speakers showed greater readiness in advancing their own case and in meeting the argu- ments of the negative. The clearness with which they analyzed and restated the arguments of the negative and then directed their attack to meet these points or draw off attention where the negative was too strong for them, was refreshing to anyone familiar with the early efforts of the two. universities at intercollegiate debating. Keith and Parke, in particular, showed exceptional facility and resource. Both spoke very rapidly and with frequent gesture, but they never “slopped over,’ nor indulged In any pyrotechnics. In the case of Keith, previous experience in public speaking, and longer training, he being soine six or seven years older than the Yale debaters, gave him a decided advantage. YALE LACKED AGGRESSIVENESS. The Yale team was consistently strong and followed the traditional Yale lines in debate. .It unfolded its position slowly, and never allowed its main con- tention to be obscured. But, in com- Parison with the opposing team it lacked spontaneity and aggressiveness. _ A certain slowness in address gave the the material had not been worked up so as to enable it to be used to the best advantage at short notice. Aside from this hesitation in delivery, there was no distinct advan- tage with the Harvard team, and this was less apparent in the Jast half of the debate. Lord, in his opening argu- ment, and both Clark. and Lord in rebuttal, spoke well. The main criticism heard of Yale’s position was the ques- tionable wisdom of admitting the good personnel of the Senate at the present time and confining the negative to the deleterious effect upon the state legislatures. When, in _ public Opinion and in the press, the Senate is being constantly criticized of late years as degenerate, dominated by trusts and the money power, et cetera, it was generally remarked that the negative should have waived this without appar- ent reason. One of the Harvard graduates who assisted in preparing the Harvard team said, in commenting on the debate, “I was surprised that Yale’s debaters should have admitted the present Senate to be satisfactory. It seemed to me they were waiving one strong point in their favor. It certainly simplified the task of the affirmative. The visitors - however, in dwelling as they did upon - the effects of the confusion of state and national issues in the individual states, hit upon that. phase of the question in which we were the least prepared. I was surprised that our men did as well as they did under the circumstances. Mr. Lord’s illustration of the bad effects of the present system in Minnesota was also very fortunate for the negative. Our men thad looked up the contests in many of the states where they thought they might get hit, particularly Illinois and Virginia, but that reform movement in Minnesota had escaped them entirely. — They worked very hard in preparation and I think they proved the strongest ‘team we have yet ‘had.” THE BANQUET. Aiter the debate a dinner was tendered the visiting debaters and the judges at the Colonial Club in Cam-_— bridge. About forty covers were laid and Hon. Wm. A. Bancroft presided. Among the speakers were Mr. Anson Phelps Stokes on behalf of Yale, Prof. Baker for Harvard, Prof. Perry for Princeton, and Prof. Gardner for Brown. Other speakers were Judge Rumsey of New York and Mr. Stone of Harvard, ’92, who had been in charge of the coaching of the team. Many members of the Harvard debating teams in previous contests were also present. J. WESTON ALLEN. y be, dei atte Saturday’s Dual Meet. [Editorial in Yale Daily News.] It is hard to be obliged to chronicle two defeats in ‘as many days. Yet that is perhaps one of the inevitables in the long run in intercollegiate contests. A defeat is oftentimes productive of more real good than a victory. It breeds a spirit of determination and resolve that could spring from no other source, and we trust sincerely that our recent reverses are both of that kind. Har- vard’s victory on Saturday was not so unexpected as to make the result a keen disappointment. We knew that the meet would be close; we hoped at every event that something would hap- pen to upset all calculations and turn the balance in Yale’s favor. Our men worked splendidly ‘and did at: times phenomenal work. Yet there was a general feeling all through the afternoon that the strength of our opponents in the field events at the last would prove insuperable. We do not mean to decry the ability of our team. On the con- trary, to turn out such a formidable - combination from the material on hand at the beginning of the season was a colossal task, and remarkably well per- formed. By another year Yale should be invincible. There remains this sea- son the intercollegiate meet, in which our men can be relied upon to do well; and next year, owing to the generosity of four gentlemen, the two universities start a fresh record in competition for a new cup. | : Congratulations are due the mem- bers of Harvard’s team for the victory which secured for them the hard-won trophy. Saturday’s meet will be long remembered, despite the unfavorable conditions, as one of the most interest- ing and sportsmanlike events of the year. | - Professor Richardson; CHOICE OF ELECTIVES, Number of Men Taking Each Course in Each Class. The list of electives for next year has just appeared and is printed below. It shows also the number of Juniors and Seniors who will take each course: PSYCHOLOGY, ETHICS, PHILOSOPHY. The Principles of Evolution, Profes- sor Williams; 193 Seniors. , History of Modern Philosophy, Pro- fessor Duncan; 30 Seniors. Philosophical Anthropology, Profes- sor Sneath; 80 Seniors. Outlines of General Philosophy, Dr. Green; 16 Seniors. Popular Discussions in Philosophy, Professor Duncan; 6 Seniors. Philosophy and Literature, Professor Sneath; 16 Seniors; 8 Juniors. Psychology (Physiological and Ex- perimental), Dr. Scripture; 9 Seniors; 24 Juniors. Psychology (Elementary Laboratory Course), Dr. Scripture; 3 Seniors; 4 Juniors. Ancient Philosonohy, Dr. Stearns; I Junior. History and Theory of Education, Dr. Green; 3 Seniors. Psychology of Expression (Gesture, Speech and Music), Dr. Scripture; 2 Seniors; 3 Juniors. POLITICAL SCIENCE AND LAW. Economics, Professors Hadley and Schwab; 13 Seniors; 240 Juniors. Statistics, Dr. Bailey; 6 Seniors; 30 Juniors, Finance, Professor Schwab; 82 Seniors. United States Industrial History, Professors Schwab and Hadley; 123 Seniors. Debates on Public Questions, Dr. Raynolds; 49 Seniors. History of Economic Thought, Pro- fessor Hadley; 4 Seniors. The Regulation of Trade and Indus- try, Professor Hadley; 3 Seniors. United’ States Financial History, Professor Schwab; 25 Seniors. The Science of Society, Professor Sumner; 201 Seniors. The Science of Society, Professor Sumner; -7 Seniors. Jurisprudence and Law, Mr. Gager and Professor E. J. Phelps; 174 Seniors. HISTORY. Medieval History, Dr. Frank Strong; 2 seniors: 136. Juniors. History of Europe from the Reforma- tion to the French Revolution, Assistant 22: SODIOTS > 57 Juniors. History of Europe since 1789, Profes- sor Wheeler; 215 Seniors. . English Political History, Professor Richardson; 6 Seniors; 1 Junior. English Constitutional History, Pro- fessor Richardson; 68 Seniors; I3 Juniors. Ancient Oriental Nations from the earliest times, Mr. F. W. Williams: I Senior; 14 Juniors. Medieval Asia and Mohammedan Conquest, Mr. F. W. Williams; 2 Seniors; 7 Juniors. Modern Asiatic History, Mr. F. W. Williams;. 15 Seniors; 21 Juniors. American History (Constitutional), Professor C. H. Smith; 57 Seniors. American History (Colonial), Profes- sor Bourne; 23 Seniors; 15 Juniors. American History (National), Pro- fessor Bourne; 6 Seniors; 141 Juniors. MODERN EUROPEAN LANGUAGES AND LITERATURE. Second Year French, Mr. Taylor; 3 Seniors; 23 Juniors.’ Practice in writing and sveaking French, Professor Luquiens; 8 Seniors; 3 Juniors, Systematic Readings in the French Writers of the XI Xth Century, Profes- sor Luquiens; 28 Seniors; 41 Juniors. French Literature of the XIXth Cen- tury, Professor Luquiens; 3 Seniors; 4 Juniors. French Literature of the XVIIIth Century, Professor Luquiens; 1 Senior. Spanish (elementray course), Profes- sor Lang; 13 Seniors; 23 Juniors. ‘Spanish Fiction of the XVIth and XVIIth Centuries, Professor Lang: 2 Seniors. Italian (elementary course), Mr. Hol- brook; 1 Senior; 8 Juniors. Dante’s Life and Works, i Professor Lang; 2 Seniors; 1 Junior.
