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.
