The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1899-12-16
give IN DOM PAUL
College DebaterS at Cambridge
Say You are Wrong in the
Fight
Harvard VS..
PRINCETON
Former Won on Merits. Leaving
Out Real Status of
Question

Cambridge, Dec. 15.-Once again Har
record with Princeton university, by
defeating that university in Sanders
theatre tonight. Her debaters haC
what was generally considered the hard
er side of the question, and accordingly
Harvard is wild with delight over the
signal triumph of her team The de-
cision was based upon the merits of the
speaking and on the force of the ar
guments, leaving out entirely the mer-
its of the question.
The question was, Resolved, that
Englands claims in the present contro-
versy with the South African republic
are justifiable." Harvard in the affirm
alive; Princeton in the negative.
Each speaker was allowed u minutes
for his first speech and five minutes
in rebuttal The judges were Judge
Simeon Baldwin of the Connecticut SUI
preme court Of errors; Judge Andrew
P. Wisewell of the Maine supreme
court and Prof. Charles H. Hull of Cor
nell university. The decision was I'M
questioned, and was greeted with wild
applause. The Harvard case was we'll
planned and well presented, develop
ing very good rebuttal work.
Mayer, the alternate who took Kirt-
lands place at the last minute, proved
unexpectedly strong. The Princeton
speakers had the elements of a great
argument, but were weak in rebuttal
The Harvard team greatly eXcelled in
stage presence and in manner of deliv-
cry. Hon. Samuel J. Elder was the
presiding officer
The first speaker of the evening was
E. Mayer, 1900, of the Harvard team
supporting the affirmative. He said
in part:
1.-The question we are to discuss is
political, not sentimental 1t is an
acknowledged fact that the Transvaal
is the weaker state, but weakness has
never argued righteousness. Is the
Briton or the Boer right? To decide
1t we must dismiss our sentiments and
fall back upon our judgments
Mayer then gave some Of the leading
facts in the history and development oil
the present controversy. We'll known
as these facts are by this time, his
clear and concise statement aided ma
terially to an intelligent understanding
of the present situation and of the
question. He then continued by stat
ing the three claims of the affirmative
England in this controversy claims
first, that the condition of affairs in
South Africa is intolerable, and de-
mands remedy. Secondly, that as a
nation, she had a right to secure the
remedy. Thirdly, that the best rem
edy is reasonable franchise, granting
to the Uitlanders respectable minor
ity in the government.
Let us call your attention to the
first Of these-that the condition OF
affairs in the South African republic
demanded a remedy. 1 have already
suggested what that condition is-nC
representation, inequality before the
law, the passage of unjust laws, griev-
Gus economic burdens, and the inse-
curity of life and property. Let us
examine those. grievances little in de
tail. He then dilated upon the trouble!
of the Uitlanders in the South African
republic, showing their grievances tt
be widespread and deep-rooted.
Such is the condition Of affairs il
the Transvaal Such are the outrage.
which the Uitlanders rSust endure. 1,
it to be wondered at that England
should demand redress? Is it to b.
deplored that she should ask an equit
able treatment of her citizens? She de
mands for the Uitlander justice. ySh,
does not demand that he be given con
troll of the government, or even al
equal share in its administration"
Alfred s. Weston, 80, in opening tn,
debate for Princeton on the negativ
side. said in part:
'England's claims upon the Soutl
African republic may be narrowed
down to one, viz, suzereignty. On thi
all her other claims are based, ant
upon it hinged the questions of peac,
or war. The fact that suzereignty
stipulated in the 1881 convention, wa.
withdrawn in that of 1884, is shown no
only by the wording of the latter, bu
by Englands treatment of the Trans
vaal and by the statements of thu
trainers of the 1884 convention. Brit
ish statesmen not only then but since
have often expressed the view tina
suzereignty was withdrawn. Even Mr.
Chamberlain himself declared in 1879
that such was his opinion, in strikin.
contrast to his present position
"Englands disposal of the Jameson
case was a conviction under the for
eign enlistments act, showing the DO
sition of the English bench on the ques
ton of the relations between the tw,
countries. The Transvaal has show
herself ready to make sweeping conces
sions and reforms, provided this on
claim be dropped, but all such propo
sitions England has refused, replyin,
only by the threat of an ultimatum
England might easily have avoidet
further trouble by dropping the asser
tion of this absurd claim-a CLAIM
which she has pressed to the point o
war. The justification of this w
leave to our opponents"
Harvdrd's second speaker was r. c
Bruce, 1902. He began by restating tn