Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The Hesperian / (Lincoln, Neb.) 1885-1899 | View Entire Issue (May 6, 1898)
THE : HESPERIAN 9 discussion, lie. carefully outlined the argu ment of the affirmative. Mr. Chcadlc urged that the highest type of government is tlu one which best reflects the popular will. The ICnglish allows the majority to rulo at all times. Here, our constitution defeats (he popular will and delays progress. Mr. Cheadle spoke in a calm conversational tone. Mr. E. Warner followed on the negative for Nebraska. Jle urged that to defend their po sition it was incumbent upon the affirmative to show not merely that the cabin f sj'stein is superior the congressional system a general principle of government, not merely that it is better for England than the congressional sys tem for America but that the English system would be better for the United States. By defining democracy and comparing the two systems Mr. Warner showed that the English system is not more democratic. The ministry and a majority of commons are legally irre sponsible and omnipotent. The commons are elected on one issue. After that menr.su re- is disposed of, there may be seven years of mis rule and oppression. The people are allowed to express themsehes only when the commons and the ministry disagree, the people may never get to vote on an important issue. Mr. Warner clearly showed the necessity and the expediency of committees. He urged there was uniformity of action under the committee system. Mr. Warner spoke forcibly and flu ently except during the last two or three min utes when he was inclined to hesitate. Mr. V. A Layton followed for Kansas. Mr. Layton discussed the evils of the com mittee system, the overgrown power of the speaker, the lack of a unity of action under the congressional system and the inability in this country to locate responsibility. Mr. Layton failed to attempt to answer any of Mr. Warner's argument coniining himself to his set speech. Mr. Layton has a pleasing, force ful delivery. E. B. Perry next spoke for Nebraska. He first disposed of Mr. Lay ton's propositions one by one. Jle urged that the English sys tem causes instnbility,for it puts the power of government in the hands of transitory nomi nees of the Commons. Tenure of office is in England indefinite and ephemeral; there is no continuity in policy; a few can block legis lation. The English system is not only sub ject to abrupt and unexpected changes but causes a dangerous concentration of power. Parliament is all powerful; it can deny the people their most sacred rights and the only remedy is in revolution. Parliament means the House of Commons; the Commons means the Cabinet. This is "unity of action" but wo want uniformity of action. Hero our elections occur at stated times, we elect men to serve a definite time of office, we put con stitutional checks upon the peoples' represen tatives. As a result we have continuity in legislation and efficiency in administration. Mr. Pearl Decker next spoke on the affirm ative. After an evasive reply to one of Mr. Perry's questions ho commenced reciting his 'piece. ' Mr. Decker has a striking personality, a musical voice, and an unlimited amount of magnetism. Ho simply charmed the audience and apparently the judges. However his ar gument was confined to a story about "Molly, the Cook, and Mrs. G." and sarcastic state ments such as "In this country we measure the usefulness of our executive, not by his efficiency but by calendar months." Mr. C. E. Matson spoke third on the nega tive. To the preceding gentleman's statement that it took forty years to settle the slavery question under our form of government. Mi. Matson replied that wo had solved the ques tion and that England had not solved the Home Rule question. Mr. Matson urged that to adopt the English system means to do away with our constitution, this is dangerous to in dividual liberty. Ho then carefully compared the two countries, the vast expanse of terri tory, the lack of homo geneity. He showed that conditions were different in the two countries demanding different forms of govern ment. He urged that legislation should not be the result of passion and impulse, but only the sound judgment of the people, after due deliberation, should become law. He doniod the statement of his predecessor that wo liad no statesmen in this country. He named some. Mr. Decker made a dramatic closing for the Kansans, again charming the audience, and it may be said to his credit also that he came very nearly- arguing the question in his second speech. Mr. Warner closed the discussion muking the speech of the evening at least from any just argumentative standpoint, if riot from a declamatory standpoint. The judges were Jacob Sims, .1. C. Hisey and Victor E. Bender, all of Council Bluffs. The total agregato by sides was 799 points for Kansas and 088 for Nebraska or a stand ing of 88 per cent for Kansas and 70 per cent for Nebraska. After the decision of the judges was announced many of the audience filed upon the platform to congratulate the victors and condole the vanquished.