Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The Hesperian / (Lincoln, Neb.) 1885-1899 | View Entire Issue (April 7, 1899)
The Final Debates
On nccount of tho oxceodingly stormy woathor, the attend -''anco
at the final dobates was much smaller than tho debaters
desorved. However, those present felt more than compensated
for thostrong work in argumentation done by tho students.
Mr. Edgorton presided. Tho question was: "Resolved,
That combinations of railroads to determine rates are undesir
able and should be prohibited by law."
W. H, O'Connell said that tho prosperity of society de
pended very largely upon tho transportation question. Rail
roadj have a business twelve times as largo as the postal sys
tem. Mr. O'Connell was somewhat unnatural in the opening
bit as he proceeded gained in naturalness and force, leaving
an excellent impression.
0. M. Barr, on the negative, agreed with his opponent in
regard to the importance of the question. He maintained that
the trouble with the railroads was the discriminations. Ho
read from a number of authorities to sustain his position.
Both Mr. Hawxby and Mr. O'Connell, the next speakers,
had charts by means of which they illustrated their talk. Mr.
Hawxby began very deliberately but became very earnet later
on. If anything, he spoke too rapidly. He made an excel
E. C. Craft urged that political bias should not influence one
in tho discussion of this question. His quietness was in marked
contrast to tho style of his opponent who immediately preceded
him. He argued that the benefit of combination was shown
by the fact that dealers at large centres got better rates-than
dealers at points where there is only one road. The condi
tions in England are not comparable to the conditions in A
merica. If you do not allow combination, you will have con
solidation. G. .D. Talbot desired to get on common ground. J Low can
railroads injure a man? By taking more money than they deserve?
More absoluiely, or more relatively? Either is r.obbery. Mr.
Talbot was not at his best. As tho University's representative
in the State Oratorical Contest, ho evidently had not given
as careful attention to preparation as usual.
E. J. Motis made sport of his opponents. If rates are now
ruinous, how will they be bettered by combination? If rail
roads are in such bad condition, why not cut down the number
of passes and reduce official salaries? He was opposed to tho
surrender of the rights of tho people to tho railroads.
Claude Wilson closed for the negative. He spoke of four
diffierent kinds of contracts for railroad combination. His
contention was that pools are to tho interest of both the rail
roads and the people. The trouble now is in the weakness of
Mr. O'Connell, in a five minutes speech in rebuttal, devoted
himself to a strong restatement of tho points in favor of tho
;,Ssffirmatfvo. His delivery was full of vim and his arguments
vere driven home vigorously.
Sampson was tho first speaker. He said that both sides .desiro
uniformity. Tho only difference lies in tho moans of procuring
it. Ho said tho affirmative advocated a commission to regu
W. F. McNaughton contended that rural traffic is not
affected by pools. Trade of towns is sacrificed to cities. He
dwelt on the fact that the Interstate Commerce Commission
have two laws to inforco: 1. Against unreasonably high
rates. 2. For uniformity of rates.
F. A. Nims claimed that local rateB are unreasonably high
and that there is unjust discrimination in all branches of in
dustry. He cied tho case of railroads discriminating in favor
of Boston and Baltimore against New York. Ho said pools
bring about an artificial system of i;atos.
P. B. Weaver said that roads discriminate in favor of large
shippers. As a result of this, tho roads discriminate against
tho people. He cited the case of Standard Oil Co. vs. Rice
to show this discrimination.
Miss Bertha Stnll made a good point when she showed that
the negative had only cited instances in which great trunk lines
were in competition with water-routes. She thought that com
petition would bring the greatest good to the greatest number.
She claimed that pools are an incentive to bad service on the
part of the roads. Weak roads are kept up by tho pools for
the amount of local traffic they contributed to tho assocsation.
G. P. Griffith thought that the financial interests were
enough incentive to keep the stock up. He said that the
government had granted emiuent domain to railroads and in
return had exacted the right of governmental control. He
thought the English cleaning house Bystem would be a good
pool systems. Railroad are the only industry that is prohibited
A. Bollenback said that pools are the cause of the evils of
discrimination and hence could not be advocated as a remedy.
Pools do not extend to local traffic. There is discrimination
between persons, localities and commodates. Ho thought
than competition establishes the only just rate.
H. D. Landis gave more statistics than any other of tho contestants-
A touched up all departments. He spoke earnestly
R. Sampson closed the debate in a short, logical and well
delivered talk. Tho following are tho marks of tho judges:
o fl? g -
2 P s -3 t B
Tho same question was debated to 'a larger audience. R.
8. Bollenbach . .
14, Landis ,
15, Sampson. . . .
8 12 14
14 18 3
3 2 4 4 0
4 8 0 8 2
5 0 6 5 5
8 7 8 0 1
7 8 8 7 8
0.9 7 11 7
9 5 0 9 9
11 12 11 2 15
10 10 12 12 11
15 11 10 10 12
12 18 15 18 14
12 15 14 14 13
I 14 14 13 15 I 15
Powered by Open ONI