THE HESPERIAN
Olaud S. Wilson for Nebraska made keen and pointed re
futations by argument, and authorities to all the important
propositions of his opponent. He reviewed briefly just what
his colleagues had proven and showed that competition as it is
now restricted giveB reasonably satisfactory results, and again
challenged the negative to show cause for action. But admit
ting they have cause for action, he proved that their plan was
not practicable nor feasible, but had proven itself a failure.
Granting for sake of argument that these combinations are a
success, then their evil influences overcome all possible ad
vantages of combination, for it would enable a few railway
managers to dominate our whole commercial system and sub
ject the people to grasping monopolies.
Mr. T. M. Brady for Kansas didn't try to dodge pooling,
but seemed to defend all forms of combinations as helpful in
reducing prices and affording a better service. The English
and European system of legalised pooling combinations he
cited as being a glowing success. All the past difficulties of
combinations he declared would be removed by legalizing
combinations. The inevitable trend of all business is toward
combinations.
F. G. Hawxby closed for Nebraska in rebuttal. He made
it plain that the affirmative were not opposed to pooling com
binations alone, but to all other combinations. The incon
sistencies of the negative were pointed out, and every question
asked was answered by argument backed up by statistics and
official reports. He showed that the negative had failed to
show cause for action; had not proven their system bettor than
the present one; and had not demonstrated its feasibility.
While affirmative has proved that the present system has given
satisfaction; that rates are new lower and more uniform than
they wore during the period of the pool's greatest success.
We have further shown that serious evils have always attended
such combinations, and the people as well as the successful
roads do not want them. Finally, such combinations are an
admitted failure at homo and abroad.
O. J. Lane closed for Kansas, by summing up their own
arguments. Ho declared that small shippers needed protec
tion which could only bo secured by combinations to fix uni
form rates. Ho read several pages from Judge Oooloy to
show that pooling is desirable and practicable.
The Kansas men wore earnest, careful dobators. Mr. Lane's
expressions reflected careful thought, and his argument showed
logical analysis. Franklin Baker was the most eloquent and
graceful speaker of the throo and showed considerable origin
ality and ability in his refutation. Mr. Brady made a good
appearance on the roBtrum and presented clearly his lino of
argument.
In opening for Nebraska, Hawxby talked slower than usual
and outlined the question clearly, loading naturally to that
phase of the argument which ho developed. Tho position
which ho took for tho affirmative was well sustained.
0. P. Graft spoke calmly but with such conviction and
power that ho soon had the audience as well as the judges
with him. The chapel was still and every one attentive whijie
he Bpoke. . yf
Claude Wilson made no mistakes but branded the inconsi
tencies of his opponents' argument without mercy. His speech
was argumentative throughout, and his style was attractive and
winning. Ho loft no weak places to be punctured.
Missouri-Nebraska Debates.
The second annual debating contest with the Missouri State
University resulted in a victory for Missouri by a vote of tvo
to one. Tho debate was held in tho High School auditorium
on the evening of May 12 and was attended by a small crowd.
Nebraska was represented by Bertha B. Stull, G. D. Talbot
and F. A. Nims;. Missouri by W. S. Johnson, F. 0. Oloary
and W. 0. Barnhardt. The judges wore Ool. W. J. Bryan of
Lincoln, Congressman Cochrane of St. Joseph, and Dean
Green of the Kansas Law School at Lawrence. 'Nebraska
lost tho debate because of a lack of team work. Tho method
of presentation of tho Nebraska speakers far outranked that of
their opponents but this did not win for them the decision on
argumont. Careful and consistent thought will generally win,
but one negligent and thoughtless speaker may ruin the entire
chance of his side.
4
Q
Colorado-Nebraska Debate.
Colorado College again ontortained our boys this year,
treated them royally and took over them tho decision of tho
debate which was held April 28. Nebraska was represented
by P. B. Weaver, A. Bollenbach and W. F. McNaughton in
this contest. They affirmed the question that the United
States should annex the Phillipinos. The judges wore all
Colorado, men and were imbued with anti-expansion idoasW -which
our debaters wore unable to overcome. Tho reprosonta- W-&
tives of Colorado College were more advanced students and
have attended Cornell and Columbia but aro now living in
Colorado to benefit their health.
Delian-Doane Debate.
Tho second debate of the year, held Saturday evening, May
13th, was between the Dolian Boys Debating Club and tho
Alpha Omegas of Doano in tho Congregational church in
Crete. The question was: "Resolved, That United States
Senators should be elected by direct vote of tho people." H.
A.. Butler, J. G. Bennett and R. G. Orosman represented
Doano in tho affirmative; William Morrow, H. J. Theobald
and G. P. Griffith upheld tho negative on tho part of the
Dolian boys. The debate was a warm one with much enthu
siasm on both sides. Tho visiting delegation say they wore
treated right.
"Cambridge Water."
Iratf Citizen (angrily) Whon I turned on my faucet to
draw a glass of water, a live frog issued forth. A live frog, 'm
sir.
Superintendent of Water Works (calmly) Well, what
did you expect, brook trout? Harvard Lampoon. '
BWrTP1
lilMWMqiiqlMPM
