The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1896-05-02
YALE DEBATERS WON.
Annual Oratorical Contest Between Anne
rica's Two Leading Colleges.

rIca'6 Two Leading Colleges.
New Haven, Conn.,, May 1.-The an
nual YaleHarvard debate was held to-
night In College street hall, at Yale, and
was won by Yale. The debate was close,
the points Of Harvard, upon which fell
the burden of proof, being sharply and
directly combatted by Yale. 1t was not
an oratorical display, but an instance Of
argumentatiye horn locking, where
every inch of ground was stubbornly
contested, and was by far ON the highest
standard, of any debate ever held by
the two universities. The hall was crowd
ed and the speakers of both sides were
heartily and impartially applauded.
Prof. Edward ]. Phelps of the Yale
Law School, ex-minister to Great Britain,
presided. The subject of the debate was !:
g Resolved, that permanent court of
arbitration should be established between
the United States and Great Britain.
Harvard opened the debate, championing
the affirmative. The Harvard speakers
were Frank r. Steward of Montana,
Adolphe M. Sayre of Washington, d. c.,
and w. B. Parker of Nebraska. Yale's
debaters were Roger Sherman Baldwin
of New York, Walter H. Clark of Hart
ford, Conn. land Arson p. Stokes of New
York. The Judges were Elihu Root of
New York, Walter H. Page of Boston,
editor Of tho Atlantic Monthly, and AL
bert Shaw, editor of the Review of Re-
views. f. P. Steward opened the de-
bate for Harvard in a guarded and con-
sentative speech. He spoke in excellent
form and was the most persuasive Of the
%,,fr hui IN, oil
said 'What are the advantages of per-
manent court of Arbitration?
First, we should have the machinery
ready. Second, a larger number of cases
will be referred to ar bitration earlier.
This means notsonly lessenlng of the IL
rltation and friction between the two
countries, but also a saving Of the ma
terial loss now produced by the mere ap-
prehension of hostilities. %
The second Harvard speaker, A. M
Sayre, went on to show what constitutes
an International court. He said: what
would therefore be permanent court of
arbitration? Simply a court of analogous
to the familiar temporary bodies-analo-
gous in all respects, except in it's dura-
ton and jurisdiction.
"We should be especially SOLICITORS for
this court because OF our intimate rela-
tions with England arising from our
great commercial connections and from
the propinquity of our possessions. The
construction OF treaties seems, therefore q
proper matter for the court, the settle
ment of boundary disputes. and the fish
cries.
"But how will you constitute this
court? AS to it's exact composition, that
is matter Of detail. We stand here for
the principle of q permanent court. Its
composition is easy If the principle of
it's existence is once admitted. The
fox - -. 81.
arbitration. They must therefore be in
favor of such permanent court of ar
pitration. Otherwise, they stand convict
ed of refusing to accept the logical result
of their own position"
The third Harvard speaker, W. r.
Parker, reinforced the point that the
strength of the court was its limitation.
a Our project is eminently practical. 1t
offers three positive and lasting advan-
tages. The permanent court would have
the machinery for settling disputes ready
in advance. The second advantage is
like the first-ib is the advantage OF the
very existence of the court.
"a third advantage is that court
like this could not fail to have great
al law"
Roger Baldwin opened for Yale, and
said, by way Of summary: "All former
plans for an international court have
been rejected as impracticable by practical
statesmen. None of our recent wars
could have been settled by arbitration
permanent court would be mere
figure head, capable Of doing no posi-
tive good, perhaps able to effect much
positive mischief"
Mr.. Clark stated that the absolute i'm
Partially OF the present system of special
arbitration had never been equalled. He
calculated the results probable from the
usage of the permanent court of the
principles Of International law which
would govern decision from it, and the
difficulties incident TO the enforcement
of its decisions. Mr.. Clark claimed it
was at a disadvantage, and compared
with the system now in vogue, would
actually harm the cause of arbitration
itself.
Mr.. Stokes" Diplomacy is perfectly
natural way for settling disputes, as OPP
posed to the method of a permanent court,
which between sovereign nations, is an
artificial anomoly. Diplomacy acts when