Vou. IX. No. 27... NEW HAVEN, CONN., WEDNESDAY, APRIL 4, 1900.
Copyright, 1990,
by Yale Alumni Weekly.
PRICE 10 Cents. -
HARVARD WON DEBATE.
Yale Excelled in Subject Matter, but
was Inferior in Form.
The annual debate between Yale and
Harvard, held in College Street Hall,
Friday evening, March 30, went to Har-
vard after one of the most interesting
contests in the history of debating be-
tween the two colleges. The question
chosen was one of the hour: “Resolved,
That Puerto Rico be included within
the customs boundaries of the United
States,” of which Harvard had the popu-
lar affirmative side.
were: Elias Mayer, 1900, of Chicago;
Harry A. Yeomans, 1900, of Chicago,
and Wilbur Morse, 1900, of Philadelphia.
Yale was represented by Mason Trow-
bridge, 1902, of Chicago; Ashley D.
Leavitt, 1900, of Melrose, Mass., and
Ferdinand Q. Blanchard, Amherst, 98,
a Senior in the Theolgical School,
whose home is in West Newton, Mass.
The judges were: Chief Justice Parker
or: Albany, “N--"Y-< Prot, George W.
Pepper of the University of Pennsyl-
vania and Prof. F. F. Goodnow of Co-
lumbia University. ;
Harvard’s speakers had a decided ad-
vantage with the affirmative side of
question, having only to follow the lines
of argument already presented by the
advocates of inclusion in Congress.
Yale, on the other hand, with less to
base convincing arguments upon, had
covered all points she could possibly
use, with great thoroughness and pre-
sented them, in.the main, well. In re-
buttals, which played an important and
unusual part through the whole debate,
Yale was very strong, with one excep-
tion.
Considered in general, the debate
showed, on Yale’s part, a slight superior-
ity in subject matter, and in force and
closeness of reasoning; on Harvard’s
part, a considerable superiority in gen-
eral form, not merely in oratory but in
effective presentation. of points. Yale
lacked in power to show the bearing of
her points, her position not being clearly
outlined at.the beginning. This made
her speeches seem invertebrate and scat-
tering and it was not until the first
rebuttal that she made her position clear
and the relevancy of her arguments ap-
parent, thus throwing back over her
speeches a light which should have
shone through them from the start.
Considered individually, Mr. Trow-
bridge showed himself to be a debater of
great force, especially in rebuttal. He
made the mistake, however, in his first
speech of failing to outline clearly, the
position of the negative. Mr. Leavitt
spoke clearly and in good form. He
was justified in giving his consitutional
argument, but should have sacrificed a
part of it to show its relevancy, which
Harvard did not admit. Mr. Blanchard,
although showing a great deal of adapt-
ibility, failed to take advantage of Har-
vard’s superficial standpoint when all
her speakers had avoided, entirely, the
constitutional aspect of the case. Either
he or Mr. Leavitt should have met more
effectively Harvard’s points on moral
obligation and Americanizing the island.
These faults, however, were due largely
to a failure in the training of the team,
owing to a lack of strong opposing
teams in preliminary debate. It left the
attack weak, a vital defect in the train-
ing for negative arguments.
MR. MAYERS OPENING SPEECH.
Every seat in the Hall was taken,
when, at a few minutes past 8 o'clock,
President Hadley, the presiding officer,
introduced the first speaker of the even-
Harvard’s speakers.
ing, Mr. Mayer. of Harvard. At the
outset, Mr. Mayer showed the position
Harvard meant to take—that of moral
responsibility, coupled with humanitar-
ianism. He eloquently pictured the
horrors of the hurricane last year in the
island of Puerto Rico and the present
condition of the natives, whose crops,
buildings and small manufactories had
been swept away. ‘Any policy,” said he,
“which the United States adopts for the
island must carry these three things:
Immediate economic relief by supplying
cheap food, cheap,clothing and employ-
ment; assurance 6f steady employment
and permanent industrial development,
and finally, the discharge of our moral
obligations.” He argued that the plan
of inclusion would give immediate relief
because, the United States, the natural
market for this people, could furnish the
articles they needed, food, wearing ap-
parel, and building and manufacturing
materials more cheaply than any country
in the world; that the markets of the
United States, if opened to the articles
grown and manufactured in Puerto Rico,
would give a tremendous impetus to the
industries in the island, and more than
make up the loss of the Spanish and
Cuban markets caused by American ac-
quisition. The stability, he said, caused
by inclusion would bring about a great
rush of American capital for the de-
velopment and exploitation of the place.
Mr. Mayer’s arguments followed closely
the familiar ones of the congressional
inclusionists. .
Mr. Trowbridge, in opening for Yale
said that bringing Puerto Rico within
the customs boundaries, while it would
accomplish certain good ends, meant
the infliction, on the inhabitants, of tariff
laws which were entirely unsuited to
their needs and which would raise one-
third more revenue than was necessary
for the government of the island, prin-
cipally from the pockets of the poorer
classes. In support of his contention he
showed that the Dingley tariff imposed
‘on rice, the great staple of food for the
poorer classes and one-fourteenth of all
imports, two cents per pound, which
was an increase of rates, paid under
Spain, of 100 per cent. Cotton, wood
and fish, also prime necessities, would
come to the islanders at a very “ugh
high rate and would mean an unbear-
able burden. :
In closing his arguments, which had
been sound and lucid throughout, Mr.
Trowbridge stated that the proposition
of the negative was to let Congress make
a tariff adapted to the peculiar needs
and conditions of Puerto Rico, later on,
letting the Puerto Ricans’ themselves
have a hand in the framing of such a
tariff, giving them the privilege of buy-
ing from outside nations what they need
the most cheaply, and offering the mar-
kets of the United States for the three
great products of the island, sugar, cof-
fee and rum.
When Mr. Yeomans, Harvard’s second
speaker arose, he took exception to Mr.
Trowbridge’s statement that the Dingley
tariff would throw a heavy burden on
the poor people in the matter of. rice,
because he claimed, and offered author-
ity for it, that rice of an inferior quality,
known as broken rice, was eaten by the
natives and on that there was but one-
quarter of a.cent per pound, a reduction
of 75 per cent. of what they had been
paying. He stated, moreover, that
broken rice was a drug on the Louisiana
market, which seemed to clinch a telling
point for his side. In his portion of the
presentation of Harvard’s argument, Mr.
Yeomans laid great stress on the per-
manency of policy gained by inclusion,
without .which the island could never
become Americanized or. developed by
American money. The speech was one
of the best ever heard on such occa-
sions, being clear in exposition and de-
livered with a fluency and elegance very
unustial in intercollegiate debating.
Mr. Leavitt showed the influence of
Mr. Symth’s coaching to take advantage
of weak points in an opponent’s armor,
when he, on rising to deliver Yale’s
second speech, quoted from Commis-
sioner Carroll to show that the Puerto
Ricans did use rice on which a duty
of two cents a pound was laid. He went
rather deeply, and as it happened, un-
necessarily into the constitutional side
of the case, to show that Congress was
not limited by constitutional provisions
for uniformity of duties and that it
could, according to precedent, legislate
for the island in its present political
status. His argument was well rounded,
exhaustive and delivered with fine force
though rather too tapidly.
Mr. Morse closed Harvard’s side of
the set speeches in an able, finished
speech, which summed up the arguments
of his colleagues and added a forceful
appeal for the redemption of the promise
of General Miles to the Puerto Ricans,
that “they should enjoy the same privi-
leges and immunities as the people of
the United States.” He waived entirely
the constitutional question, thus weakén-
ing his case.
Mr. Blanchard closed for Yale, argu-
ing the right of Congress to deal with
the island as its needs demanded. His
introduction of the question of precedent
for the Philippines should the boundaries
be extended to Puerto Rico, was the
least convincing of the arguments used
by the negative because it was weakly
put.
INTERESTING ARGUMENTS IN REBUTTAL.
The six set speeches had occupied about
an hour and a quarter, and rebuttals be-
gan at half past nine, each speaker be-
ing allowed a limit of five minutes.
Mr. Trowbridge, for Yale, returning to
the rice question, showed by the report
of Commissioner Carroll, that if it were
true that “broken rice was a drug on
the Louisiana markets,’ the growers
there had no one to blame but them-
selves, because “not a pound had been
shipped to Puerto Rico in the year the
report was made.” The point was
heartily applauded. Mr. Morse, too, be-
came involved in the rice question, but
his argument that the broken rice was.
not shipped across the Gulf because it
was a wiser method to feed it to stock,
did not carry conviction with it and
raised a little laugh in. different parts
of the Hall.
In his rebuttal, Mr. Leavitt reiterated
the danger of forcing a tariff on a
people citing the instances in South
Carolina and Western Pennsylvania,
both of which threatened disruptions of
the government and had to be abated.
He let his case rest by putting it on
the high moral plane of the best thing
for the Puerto Ricans and not the best
thing for the American capitalist. Mr.
Yeomans disposed of the excess revenue
difficulty by saying the money might
be turned into the building of roads
and school-houses and in the education
and general improvement of the lower
classes. His rebuttal, as well as _ his
first speech, was a model of fluency,
soundness and grace.
Mr. Blanchard’s closing five minutes
for Yale added nothing to the weight of
what had gone before the negative, con-
tenting himself with summing up and
advancing the plea that legislation
would give the people of the island what
they wanted without the disadvantages
of the system proposed by the affirma-
tive. A policy to cure the suffering,
give permanence and stability were the
points for inclusion emphasized by Mr.
Mayer, the last Harvard speaker. He
said it would: be-utterly impossible to
legislate fairly for Puerto Rico as long
as the people of thé island had no voice
in that legislation, and closed the debate
with an appeal for adherence to the in-
clusion precedents followed for more
than a hundred. years of the nation’s
history. ee | 3
The decision of the judges, twenty-
three minutes afterwards. that Harvard
had won, was not unexpected, although
there was the hope expressed by some,
that the excellent subject-matter and
thorough knowledge of the unpopular
side. of the question might throw the
decision to Yale. During the period of
waiting President Hadley, who said that
“it was the unfortunate duty of a pre-
siding officer to keep the audience
amused while the judges were at work,”
told a number of good stories and at
the close, becoming serious, he compli-
mented the debaters for their work in
rebuttal, which he said was unrivalled
in the history of intercolegiate debating
between Yale and Harvard.
The interest taken in the debating this
year is largely due to the good work in
the Yale Union, which has had the most
successful year in its history. The at-
tendance has averaged over sixty at each
meeting, and the debates held were more
carefully worked up than ever before.
The Wale Post Office.
The post office at the University,
which will be established for the mail
of the Yale Campus and the occupants
of the University buildings in the im-
mediate vicinity of the Campus,: will be
opened next September in temporary
quarters which have not yet been set-
tled. The architects of Fayerweather
have already arranged for a large room
at the south end of that hall,—that is,
on Elm Street, which will have an en-
trance on either side of the building and
give ample facilities for the handling of
the mail. The office, according to pres-
ent arrangements, will have no carrier
attached to it. It will, however, have
a box for each room of the Campus -
buildings and those immediately ad-
joining the Campus. The official mail
of the University will also go through
this office. There will be, of course, the
usual stamp, money-order and registered
letter facilities. It has not been decided
by the postal authorities who will have
charge of the office. It is estimated
that the mail to go through such an
office will run from two to three thou-
sand letters a day. This is based on the
experience of the New Haven Post
Office.
y we =
in Se alin att
Personal Mention.
Mr. Morris F. Tyler, Treasurer of
the University will leave on Thursday of
this week for a trip through the West,
on business. in connection with the
Treasurer’s office. His principal work
will be to look over property in different
parts of the country in which the Uni-
versity is interested. This trip has no
connection with the Bi-centennial funds.
Prof. A. Guyot Cameron, who was =
assistant professor in French in the
Sheffield Scientific School, and left there
in 1897 to accept a professorship at
Princeton, has just been made by the
trustees of that University, Academic
Professor of French. At the same time,
the French Academic elective is opened
to Scientific students of Princeton, so a
University French course is established
with Professor Cameron at the head.
Henry A. Rowland, Yale ’95 Hon.,
Professor of Physics at Johns Hopkins
University, was elected a corresponding
member of the Prussian Academy of
Sciences at the bi-centenary meeting held
March 19, at Berlin, Germany.
