Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The Hesperian / (Lincoln, Neb.) 1885-1899 | View Entire Issue (May 15, 1896)
THE HESPERIAN 9 Our contemporary remarks editorially: ult is conceded by every fair-minded observer that tho Kansas debaters had a more com manding, polished and graceful stage bear ing than our boys. Their ease upon the stage, their self-possession, gesticulation and iluency in language were quite noticablo, showing tho caro and skill of a trained and ready debater." The "fair-mindod observer" caunot, injus tice to our boys, admit anything of the kind. We readily admit that Mr. McCall was en titled to first place, but it is laughable to cull his monotonous tick-tock delivery, ''pol ished and graceful." Our Ajax undoubtedly prancod around tho stage more than was necessary, but it was the prancing of a war horse in battle. In "self-possession," etc., Nowbranch and Quaintanco certainly com pared favorably with McMurray and Guyor. Quaintanco's bearing was entirely natural; it was dignified, quiet and commanding. Nowbranch, perhaps, pays too littlo atten tion to rhetorical and elocutionary frills and trimmings, but wo noticed that ho held tho attention and commanded tho respect of tho audience as well as any of his opponents. In force, eloquence, fluoncy and especially in commanding personality, our men were clearly superior to their adversaries. McOall's speech had evidently boon very carefully thought out. He stated the ques tion fairly and defined its terms to suit his side. His speech was admirable as an open ing Btatoment. It covered tho whole ground and touched upon all tho arguments of the affirmative. In clearness, in logical arrange ment and especially in compactness it was undoubtedly the speech of tho evening. Kansas stock had risen several points when he closed. Weaver's opening speech was not so strong as might reasonably have been oxpectsd of him. Mr. Weaver is strong in answering "points;" but ho skips too rapidly from ono point to another and seems incapable of mustering his points into solid ranks. Ho presents each, argument clearly and forcibly but be fails to unite his arguments into a logical system. Ho covers tho whole ground but ho does it in a hop-akip-and-jump fash ion. His speech was disconnected, incoher ent, "choppy." If printed it would have made a largo number of short, disconnected paragraphs of about four lines each. But his confidence, his command of words and his strong personality were more than enough to compensate for this fault. Yet Nebraska stock was on the decline before ho got through. Mr. McMurray proved to be a bright, en tertaining talker. The strong points of his argument were that the Referendum would check the prevailing tendency toward cen tralization and would prove a valuable edu cational factor. Most of his time was given to answering "points" and to making fun of Ajax. During the last three minutes, when he reached his own argument, he showed what ho might have done had he not thrown away his chance. As it was, his speech was pleasant but weak. Kansas stock went down. Nowbranch 's strong point is logic. He spoke for government by tho people through the best representatives of tho people. In this he undoubtedly struck tho key-note of the question. Tho issue really was gov ernment directly by tho people against gov ernment by tho representatives of tho peo ple. In confining his attontion to this point Mr. Newbranch proved himself a clear thinker and a shrewd debater. The ques tion could not bo exhausted in a fifteen min ute speech. Mr. Newbranch wisely selected the point at issue and concentrated his ener gies upon it. Ho assumed tho offensive and produced a strong argument for the expert theory of government. Nebraska stock went up with a jump. Guyer had his outline made and stuck to it. Ho is a speaker of considerable force and made a good impression. But he missed his chance by not locking horns with New branch on tho critical point at issue. Ehe burden of proof was on tho affirmative and that side could not hope to win so long as Mr. Newbranch's argument on tho.theoreti- 4 m 91 1