The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-05-04
PEACE A~DHERENTS LOST
NOTRE DAME AND UNIVERSITY OF
INDIANAPOLIS DEBATE.
The yictors Won ON the Argument
Force Behind All Co.
ernmeut.

The first annual debate between the Uni
versity OF indianapolis and the University
of Notre Dame was last evening won by the
University of Notre Dame. by a vote OF 2
to ].
The peace congress at The Hague will be
Ruthless. according TO last evenings action,
as the negative side of the question. Re
solved. That. under existing conditions. the
abolition by all civilized nations. of their
armies and navies other than those required
for domestic police. is feasible" The UNI
versity of Notre Dame took the negative.
and recent arguments from Gatlings and
other guns were in their favor and some
what Handicapped the University OF Indian
apolis. whose representatives were COM
PEELED to make their voices heard above the
noise of exploding shots and shells.
The victors were Sherman Steele. law. Of
Columbus, o.; Matthew A. Schumacher,
theological, of South Bend, and Harry p.
Berry, law, OF Sioux City, Ia. The Univer-
sity of indianapolis debaters were Robert
w. Hobbs and Orville Z. Mehring, of But
Ter College, Indianapolis, and Frederick Van
Mugs, law, of Anderson. Each speaker was
allowed fifteen minutes and the closing
speeches were made by Mr.. Steele, for the
University of Notre Dame. and Nh. Hobbs,
for the University of indianapolis. They
were given seven minutes each. The judges
were Judge Francis T. Baker, of Goshen;
Prof. Charles A. Tuttle, of Wabash College,
Charlottesville. and Prof. Charles w. Hold
gin, of Earlham College. Richmond.
Butler College and the Law School were
particularly we'll represented, for the Uni
versity of indianapolis, but there were not
over a dozen present from the University of
Nntrn nana Tho uQnpr1l attendance WAS
fair only. DR.. Jenkins, president or the Uni
versity of Indianapolis, presided, and the
two sides or the question Were presented
alternately.
The debate was opened by the affirmative,
and in the first speech 1t was contended
that universal disarmament and peace is de-
sirable, but the first speaker for the negative
held that this was not the proposition stat
ed. The desirability was not in question,
but the feasibility of IL. The University OF
indianapolis next commended that feasibility
did not necessarily mean that which would
be done, but IT might mean that which could
be done. 1t did not imply the certainty OF
being done. but the possibility OF doing II.
To this Notre Dame replied that such an
argument was doging the question, because
disarmament could not be done without the
volition Of the nation taking such action,
and this would involve the will TO do II.
The last point of the University OF Indian
apolis was that disputes between nations
could be adjusted and settled by arbitration,
but Notre Dame replied that behind al
ffoSroee, to enforc ces il is ineffectiTe. By reason
of the weakness and strength OF nations
as to population and the number affected
by a question, and like considerations, q
| court of arbitration could not be formed.
Assuming it could be formed, there would
be no force to carry out it's conclusions and
DEGREES. Again, assuming that there would
be such a force, there would be certain
| questions and principles that no nation
would consent to submit TO arbitration, as
for instance, the United States would no;
| consent 10 submit the principle of the Mon.
roe doctrine TO arbitration. These points
were summed up by the last speakers or
each side.
After the debate Butler College gave q
reception TO the visitors in the rooms OF
i the college Y. NJ. C. A.