The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1892-10-06

because they rest on ideas radically
different and irreconcilable. The idea
underlying the public school system is
that the stateshould have charge of the
education of the young; that of the
parochial system is practically that the
church should be the guide. Those two
ideas cannot be made to work together
JOINT DEBATES.
The challenged issued by the Democratic
State committee of Massachusetts, to Mr..
Halle, the Republican candidate for
governor, to engage in joint debate with
the Hon. w. E. Russell, the Democratic
candidate, was piece of bluff. The con
ditions were such as to make joint de-
bate between the two men out of the
question. Gov. Russell is professional
stump speaker of long and varied expert
ence while Mr.. Haileis talents run in an
entirely different direction. Joint de-
bates can be of no use unless the con-
testants are about equally matched SO far
as ability and experience in public speak
ing are concerned. There are many
| tonguey men, of really narrow ability
who by reason of their gift could put
to fight in joint debate men far ADLER
and much better fitted to discharge the
duties of the Office to which they may be
nominated and cover them with confusion.
All that a joint debate under such cir
cumstances would accomplish would be
to show that one man was a ready speak
Ell and the other one not 1t could have
no bearing upon the relative merits of
the two men for public office of purely
executive character or the principles or
policies of which they were the represen-
tatives
But even when the contestants are
fairly matched as regards oratorical
power it is open to grave doubts if the
joint debate is of much real value in
calculating principles or instructing the
| public. The circumstances and condi-
tons surrounding the joint debate, as
ordinarily carried on, are not favorable
for the calculation of truth. The audi
ence at o, joint debate is not like a jury
sitting with minds unprecedented in ad-
vance and weighing impartially facts
and arguments presented to them.
Neither is it calm and dispassionate. On
the contrary it is composed of people
whose minds are made up beforehand,
and who really attend to ''back up" the
respective champions of their views. In
truth the joint debate is really contest,
not between rival policies or principles
but between the mental acuteness, readi-
ness in repartee and tongueyness of two
men, The points which the audience
pays the most attention to are not those
which bear upon the principles and
policies at issue but those bear
ing upon the comparative smart
ness of the debaters. A joint debate
may sometimes affect the opin-
ion of the audience as to this point, but
1T very rarely, if ever, changes anyone's
opinion as to the comparative merit Of
the principles or policies of which the de-
baters are the champions. Indeed, these
| principles and policies are generally lost
sight of and the attention. is concentrate
ed upon the abilities of the two debat-
/ ers. The contest becomes one between
men, and not between principles, and
! should one of them be knocked out" to
use the phrase of the prize ring, which in
many respects is analogous to the joint
debate, his defeat is certain to be attri-
| hurad to his own weaLnass and not to
the weakness of the cause he advocates.
Joint debates are undoubtedly frequent
| ly very interesting, and that is their chief
merit. To interest the people in the
questions at issue they may be valuable,
but as tending to show the superiority of
one policy over another, they are value
less under such conditions as usually
surround them.
|