VOU. to6.45NO; Oo: NEW
HAVEN, CONN., WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 1900.
Copyright, 1900,
by Yale Alumni Weekly.
Price 10 Cents.
~ PRINCETON WON DEBATE.
Yale Excelled in Soundness of Argu-«
ment—Princeton’s Better Form,
The seventh Yale-Princeton debate
took place in Alexander Hall at Prince-
ton, Tuesday evening, May 8. The re-
sult was a victory for Princeton, the
judges reaching their conclusion without
long deliberation.
In spite of their failure to win the
decision, the Yale debaters deserve great
credit for the work they did. Princeton
won because her tactics were better
adapted to make that general impression
which must figure in the decision of all
debating contests. In form the two
teams were well balanced, Princeton
perhaps having a- slight
As for matter, in those points which
Yale has always and will continue to
consider of the most importance, that
is in soundness of argument, definite-
ness and consistency in maintaining her
position, and ability to answer the argu-
ments of her opponents, Yale was to
a marked degree superior. Princeton,
with the weaker side of the question,
adopted tactics somewhat new in inter-
collegiate debating. Instead of main-
taining a definite line of attack, she
shifted rapidly from one position to
another, evaded instead of meeting
arguments, and endeavored to obscure
the real issue and to leave the impres-
sion that there was something wrong
with the affirmative case, if not in one
point, then in another. Considering the
inherent weakness of the negative side,
this was an effective course. Yale was
able to meet all her opponent’s argu-
ments, but failed to meet, to the satis-
faction of the judges, the evasions and
assertions of Princeton. A _ brief re-
view of the course of the debate will
make clear the contrast in the two
methods.
The question was: “Resolved, That
the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty should be
ratified in the form in which it was
originally submitted to the Senate (it
being understood that any change in
the terms of the treaty or any action by
the Senate affecting the treaty is not
germane to the question at issue).”
YALE’S POSITION.
On the affirmative, Yale’s first speaker
was Charles W. Merriam, 1901 T.S. In
the most finished speech of the even-
ing, both in form and matter, he traced -
the history of the canal project and out-
lined Yale’s position. His positive
argument was, that, under the Clayton-
Bulwer treaty with England, it is im-
possible for the United States to build
a canal and that the Hay-Pauncefote
treaty removed these obstacles. But the
new treaty also provided for the neu-
tralization of the canal. This he advo-
cated because it was the best way to
secure to the United States, in time
of war, the strategic and commercial
advantages of a canal, while to fortify
it would not only be useless, but would
make it a point of strategic weakness.
Neutralization, he said, was in har-
mony with the demands of other nations,
our historic policy, and our present posi-
tion as a peace power. He then pointed
out that the canal was an international
affair and must not be considered from
an exclusively national standpoint.
PRINCETON’S ANSWER.
In the opening speech for Princeton,
Joseph H. Hill, 1900, began at once the
negative tactics. Mr. Merriam, in argu-
superiority. .
ing the desire of other nations for neu-
tralization, had instanced the treaties
of other nations made with Nicaragua
for the neutralization of any canal
through that State, and said that if we
chose that route these treaties would
have to be dealt with, and if we chose
any other we should encounter the same
demands on the part of other nations.
Mr. Hill at the start took issue with
Yale on a point of fact. Yale, he said,
had represented these treaties as an in-
surpassable barrier to a canal, whereas,
by their terms, they could be revoked by
Nicaragua on twelve months’ notice.
Thus he gave the impression that Yale
had made a mistake: whereas the point
he brought out was in no degree incon-
sistent with or an answer to the argu-
ment of the affirmative. Yale, perhaps,
made a mistake in trusting to the audi-
ence to see this evasion for themselves.
Mr. Hill went on to state the negative’s
position to be, that the treaty under de-
bate was not the most satisfactory solu-
tion possible of the canal problem. In
the first place, because Congress would
never build a canal under its provisions,
inasmuch as we were not given the
right to defend the canal in time of
war. This was the bulk of his argu-
ment and he went at some length into
the expressions of national sentiment
which would lead to this conclusion.
THE MEANING OF WORDS.
Franklin A. Lord, 1900 L.S., Yale's
second speaker, met the preceding
speaker’s argument by pointing out that
Congress had already passed a bill for
canal construction, which had _ been
amended so as to be in accord with the
Hay-Pauncefote provisions for neutrali-
zation. Princeton, later, argued that
this was not true, inasmuch as the
Hepburn bill allowed the Secretary of
War to protect the canal as he saw
fit and that the word protect had been
put in instead of defend, or fortify, as
more diplomatic. To this, Yale an-
swered that Congress did not consider
in its action the effect of words on for-
eign nations and that the provision for
protection was not contrary to the
treaty, which allowed us to police the
canal; that this provision was sub-
stituted for the original: provision in
the bill for fortification so as to make
it possible for the canal to be neutral-
ized. Princeton’s only response to this
was that two-thirds of the men who
voted against the Hepburn bill were in
favor of neutralization. Then, as if this
proved it, she went on to the end
calmly reasserting that Congress would
never do the thing which Yale had
shown the House had already done.
YALES ARGUMENTS.
After meeting the only attack Prince-
ton had as yet made on the treaty, Mr.
Lord went on to show that an enemy
would not dare to use the canal in time
of war, so there was no danger in hav-
ing it neutralized. To fortify it would
then be a useless expense. On the other
hand, the one thing needed was to
make sure that the canal should always
be open to our ships and commerce in
time of war. There are only two ways
of defending it—fortification and neu-
tralization. Fortifications could not pre-
vent an enemy from blocking it. Neu-
tralization was the only way to keep
it open. The only method of securing
the canal from attack was embodied in
the Hay-Pauncefote treaty.
Robert S. Steen, 1901, for the nega-
tive, dodged this argument by say-
ing that Princeton was not arguing for
fortification. Then, assuming the affir-
mative's arguments for neutrality,
[Continued on page 326.]
qualified for the event.
HARVARD WON GAMES.
The Result Not Unexpected at the
Last, but the Margin a Surprise.
Harvard defeated Yale on. the track
at Soldier’s Field, Cambridge,
Saturday afternoon, in the first contest
for the new cup offered by graduates
of the two Universities. Out of the
thirteen events, Harvard secured 7 first
places, 844 second places, and 10%
thirds; Yale, 6 firsts, 414 seconds and
10% thirds. Harvard’s total score on
the basis of 5 points for first, 2 for sec-
ond and 1 for third was 62%4; Yale’s
AIA. .
Yale’s defeat was not a surprise to
those who were thoroughly familiar with
the two teams, as they entered the meet,
but it was not expected that Harvard |
would win by so large a margin. A
conservative estimate two weeks ago
pointed to a Yale victory, but the fail-
ure of a number of veterans—Fincke,
Blount, Dupee, Gleason, Luce, Thomas
and Brennan—who had been held back
by sickness, sprains and conditions, to
round into form at the expected time,
lessened the chances materially, and the
final calculations showed that Yale’s
athletes would have to secure almost all
the doubtful points to win the meet.
First places in the two most uncer-
tain events were divided, Richards of
Yale winning the hundred yards dash,
and Boal of Harvard the hammer-
throw. Smith’s defeat in the half-mile
run was the greatest surprise of the
day, though not discreditable, as he had
been forced hard in the mile earlier in
the afternoon. This, combined with the
disappointing work of Yale’s second
strings, clinched Harvard’s victory.
The day would have been an ideal
one for a track meet had it not been for
the wind blowing down the stretch, but
this objection was obviated by reversing
the direction of the course for the
sprints and hurdles. The program af-
forded an afternoon of excellent sport,
as all the races were closely contested
and a number of creditable marks re-
corded.
HUNDRED AND TWENTY YARDS HURDLE.
The trial heats in the 120-yards hur-
dles, the first event contested, brought
Yale a disappointment. Fincke, Yale,
and Hallowell and Abercrombie, Har-
vard, went to the mark in the first heat.
‘The first two ran evenly, until the
seventh flight was reached, when Fincke
tripped and losing his stride completely,
staggered through the next - hurdle.
Hallowell, running easily, finished in
16% seconds and Abercrombie took ad-
vantage of Fincke’s mishap and, mak-
ing up the two or three yards which
had separated him from the leading
pair, came home an easy second. Fincke
had been on the track but a week, owing
to conditions, and Hallowell had been
conceded the event, though the Yale
man had been counted on for second
or third. Thomas, the Yale Freshman,
finished a close second to Willis, Har-
vard, in the second heat, with several
yards to spare over Webb, Harvard, and
Hallowell ran
beautifully in the finals, finishing in 1544
seconds, which equals the Dual record.
Thomas and Willis fought hard for sec-
ond place, Thomas having a slight ad-
vantage at the tape, but Willis was dis-
qualified for running around a hurdle,
and Abercrombie was placed third.
dest
HUNDRED YARDS DASH.
Richards and Gleason, Yale, and
Haigh, Harris and Sprague, Harvard,
went to the mark in the first heat of
the 100-yards dash. Harvard worked
a clever trick in this event, as the last
two men took but a few strides each
and while Richards and Gleason were
striving to come in within the qualifying
three, Haigh loafed over the distance,
assured of his position. Richards ran
in 10%, a yard. and a” halt ahead of
Gleason. The other preliminary heats
brought out a pretty race between But-
ler of Harvard and Blount of Yale,
which was won by the former, in the
same time that Richards had made. “A
battle royal was in store when the quali-
fied men came out for the finals. Haigh
and Butler were away first, but at 7o
yards Richards caught Haigh, who was
leading and Blount was close after But-
ler. Richards and Haigh were abso-
lutely together as they approached the
finish, but the Yale man, with a magni-
ficent effort, threw himself at the line
and won by a fraction of an inch. He
caught his foot in one of the lines used
to mark the lane, after finishing and
fell heavily, but escaped with a badly
skinned arm. Butler, less than a foot
behind the winner, secured third place
by a marrow margin over Blount.
Richards’ time was a fast 10% seconds,
equalling the Yale-Harvard record. He
has been on the track team for the past
two years, but not until about two weeks
ago did he give evidence of the sprint-
ing powers which won the race. Blount
has been nursing a lame leg all Spring,
and the necessary irregularity of his
training has prevented him from attain-
ing his old form.
MILE RUN.
Williams of Harvard led his college
mates, Knowles, Clark and Swan in a
vain effort to run the Yale competitors,
Smith, Speer and Weston, off their feet
during the first two laps of the mile.
The Yale men, however, remained in a
bunch some fifteen yards to the rear,
until the fourth lap, when Speer caught
up with the last Harvard runner. He
only held his place for a short time, for
Smith and Weston passed him on the
back stretch and then raced in turn each
of the exhausted Harvard men. Some
150 yards from home, Smith sprinted by
Knowles, who, ran second until the mid-
dle of the stretch, when Weston headed
him and finished in second place, Smith
winning in 4 minutes 3634 seconds.
Smith was to have been saved for the
half this year, but it was doubtless a
wise move to start him in the mile, as
it is questionable whether Weston, who
is a Freshman, could have beaten out
Knowles without a veteran to guide
him in this paced race.
QUARTER-MILE RU N,
The quarter-mile run, the next event,
proved to be one of the most exciting
races of the day. Clerk, Harvard,
closely followed. by Dean, also Harvard,
started off at a terrific pace and af #he
end of the first turn had left Boardman,
Yale, who led the other starters, some
yards to the rear. Clerk maintained his
speed down the back stretch and at half
distance, where Boardman passed Dean,
had some eight yards on the Yale run-
ner. Boardman, who had been saving
himself, evidently began to fear Clerk
at this point and started in pursuit of
him, cutting down the lead to about
four yards as they reached the turn.
This interval had been reduced by half
as the men swung into the stretch, and
Boardman passed Clerk after covering
