The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-02-02
In FAVOR OF Beers
SO ENDED COLLEGIATE DEBATE OF
TRANsvAAL DIFFICULTY
AT HAMLINE
JUDGES WERE UNANIMOUS
Referees Chosen From the Faculty,
and Headed by the President,
Pass Upon the Merits of VigOr-
ously Wnged Controversy as to
whether Englnnd's Policy Is One
of Unwarranted Aggression.

OusIy Waged Controversy as to
Whether EngIand's Policy Is One
of Unwarranted Aggression.
Six young men Wed with each other at
Hamline university last evening for ora
torical honors. The subject of the debate
was Resolved, That Englands Attitude
Towards the Transvaal is an Instance of
Unwarranted Aggression
The speakers were selected by the
Philomathean and Phi Alpha college So
cieties, and the decision of the judges In
favor of the former for their defense
of the affirmative side of the question met
with demonstrative approval of a large
audience that assembled in the college
chapel.
President George H. Bridgman presided
and announced the speakers The judges
We're: Judge O. B. Lewis Prof. R. Wat
son Cooper and Prof. George s. Innis,
who were unanimous in their decision for
the affirmative.
r r. McKaig was the first speaker for
the affirmative. He said in part: Twenty
years ago the South African republic was
of such little note that Premier Glad
stone said that it was unworthy of
place under the British flag. Twice since
has this little republic won the I'M
disguised admiration OF the whole world,
having captured the Jameson raiders and
forced the British lion to recognize its In
dependence, a government of the people,
by the people and not for the English
people.
r oil
and moral right; If she is really seeking
! the promotion of civilization over the
| entire world, ard IL she is not seeking
| the requirement of rich territory; II
| she is not trying to force her nag over
! liberty-loving people, and if she has not
! prosecuted the Beers in the past, she
! should give better evidence than that
| shown by her past career in South Al
| RIGA.
Why do Englishmen today say this
discovered in 1868. England in 1871 de-
mea from stole be Boers glsa robbsrS Of
| the diamond fields in 1871 has been char
acterized by James Anthony Freude,
! the English historian, as perhaps the
most discreditable incident in British CO.
| lonial history.
| Why did England annex the Transvaal
in 1877? Some one has said that England
had the interests of the Beers at heart,
and so took them in her arms as moth
er does her child which is threatened by
some unseen imaginary danger. 1t has
been said that great eat tribes OF savage IS
blot the Beers out Of existence, some
thing which they had tried In vain to
do for fifty years. But, according to Mr.
| Stathen, the English author of "Oom
Paul's People, in the month of January,
1871 these great tribes under their chief.
Sekukuni, sued for peace from the Beers,
1000 head of cattle. Four months later,
after the danger was all over, England
stepped In and annexed the Transvaal,
saving It, of course, from being ear blotted
that this great chief sent to the English
was: Save me, oh, save me from the
Boers.''
Some one has also said that slavery
existed in the Transvaal, but in the fifth
article Of the constitution of the South
African republic slavery is absolutely
ames Pe saHs nngs s
high-handed act, and England had
no more legal right to annex the Trans
yaal than she had to unnex the neigh
Gray says that in 1877 there was not one
genuine Boer holding office In the Trans
wall, and that England therefore was
Mr.. Chamberlain, in 1899, says that be
cause every Office in the Transvaal is
| filled with Beers. we will therefore seize
the TranSyaal."
The whole world denounces the under
handed methods of England, and claim
the Beers had a perfect right to shoot
the whole Jameson gang, but out Of
| the British government. You know what
! became of them If the Beers are be-
hind the times, and such magnanimity
| belonged to the seventeenth century, then
| such underhanded plotting on the part
! of England's government belongs to the
| dark ages. Some one has said that the
modern morals and civilization. By what
Boerss By England FEE England u Who l ems
than one hundred years ago instituted
England. who less than fifty years ago
! forced that foul drug, opium, on the
| Chinese people? England, who less than
the richest diamond mines that the world
| has ever seen, and who in SO let loose
that crowd of ruffians under DR.. jane
son against a foreign friendly power?
England, with her long black list of Irish
misrule against her? No! Surely not. If
| modern civilization is of such type, the
Beers are far above 1t.
| have proved:
England's, policy has been one of I'M
! warranted aggression in her quest for
| diamonds and gold.
The annexation of 1877 was highland
ed, illegal act, as great as if she had
seized the territory of Portugal
The treaty of independence of 1884 is
| the only one that determines the exist
Ing relations between the two nations
South African republic aud England.
The law of 1884 made the franchise a
/ question Of internal AFFAIRS, and shows
| that England is unwarranted legally and
morally in demanding franchise of a
| foreign state
Since the law of every nation declares
that man must first renounce allie
glance to his old country before obtaining
| citizenship in the new, in consequence
1 therefore, England violated the recognize
ed law of nations in asking franchise for
/ her citizens who will not renounce lie
glance TO the British crown.
William A. Rice opened the negative
side of the question He contended that
the Beers had for years been training in
the art Of military usage with the ex-
press purpose of going to war with Eng