The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1897-05-21
WAYLAND PRIZE DEBATE
YALE Law SCHOOL MEN STRUGGLE
HARD FOR TICTORY.

Baldwin, Merwin and BARTLETT Win the
Three Prizes-An the Speaking of High
Order-Ex- Governor walters Words of
Praise-summary of the Speeches of the
Competition.
Yale Law school debaters met in the
College street hall last evening and con-
tested for the Wayland prizes for excel
lence in debate.
The contestants were ten in number,
and the arguments presented by each
were of high degree of excellence and
were roundly compllmented by Hon.
Thomas Waller the spokesman for the
judges.
The question which was the center Of
all the forensic fire was: Resolved,
That congress ought to pass a national
bankrupt law, with provisions for cum
pulsory as well as voluntary proceed
ings."
After long absence the judges con-
sisting of Hon. Thomas NJ. Waller Of
New London, Hon. S. e. MerWin OF
New Haven and Hon S. 0. Prentice of
Hartford announced the following as
the prize winners: First, Roger Sher-
man Baldwin; second, Henry Warner
Merwin; third, Herbert Clarence Bart
lett The Wayland prizes are $50, $50
and $40, respectively, and are open to
competition for members of the Kent
club who are seniors.
The order of speaking and the side
| 4! I Nv lot
| day afternoon, so the debate was IN
| large part impromptu.
| Governor Waller said in announcing
the winners that If an appeal could be
taken from the decision of the judges
| it might be taken in this instance. The
! judges were in much the same position
as the confirmed topper who was asked
to judge Of the quality of whiskey, and
who said that in the first place no kind of
whiskey was bad, all kinds were good,
though each kind had its own peculiar
merits So it was with the debaters-
all were good none bad.
Roger S. Baldwin, the winner of the
first prize. thus adds another to the
| long list of laurels won by him in the
forensic field. He was one of the de-
baters in the first debate won by Yale
over Harvard last year.
The debate was an exceedingly close
one, and it is doubtful If different sets
of Judges would have arrived at similar
conclusions. The speakers were intro
duced by Vice President Pleasant Of
the Yale Kent club.
The first man to take the field was
Edgar Charles Snyder, who labored
somewhat under the difficulty of hav-
ing to fire his shots at the question
rather than at any visible opponents.
He sustained the affirmative of the
question in an able manner. He proved
to his audience that beyond doubt
such law as the one proposed was
within the power of congress to pass,
and that it was demanded by wisdom
and reason. He showed that, although
the United States had had three ma
tional bankrupt laws, their failure had
been due to circumstances peculiar to
the times and not to any inherent
weakness in the principle.
Marshall FELTON, Hatcher spoke first
for the negative He entered straight
into the heart of the question at once,
with force of argument and ease Of
manner. He urged that such law as
the one proposed would be neither just
nor equitable Some states were debtor
and some creditor, and no one law
would do Justice to all He pointed out
the fact that the first speaker had
drawn the wrong conclusion from the
failure of the three bankruptcy laws
which had failed because they were
wrong In principle.
j, w. Thompson for the affirmative
discussed the question from the two
points Of view as to whether congress
should pass a bankruptcy law at all
and if so it should provide for both
voluntary and involuntary assign
ments.
He supported his demand for such a
bill by citing a number of eminent men
who had favored such law as the
one proposed. Justice demanded that
provision be made for both voluntary
and involuntary assignments.
Mr.. Thompson spoke well and forci-
bly, with considerable of the oratorical
style.
Nehemiah Candee was one of the
most argumentative speakers Of the
evening. Taking the points made by
the affirmative he denied their potency
with strong reasons and a readiness at
offhand debate which compared most
favorably with any of the speakers of
the evening.
He showed that England did not have
national bankruptcy law, as asserted
by the affirmative, but that England
Scotland, and Ireland all had separate
laws.
Rihard C. Stall for the affirmative
spoke earnestly spoke earnestly. He
based his claims on the a priori kind OF
| n rcr1lr,1ernts He showed how q M tia1, q