Evening star., 1901-06-01
DEBATE FOR PRIZES
Future Attitude of United States To-
ward Cuba Discussed.
COLUMBIAN LAW STUDENTS COMPETE
Decision Given the Negative by
Unanimous Vote of Judges.
TIL l. PRIZE w I n n Z r S

The future attitude of the United States
regarding Cuba was settled last night by
the Debating Society of the schools of law
OF Columbian University. The contest for
forensic honors spirited throughout.
University Hall, corner of 18th and II
streets, was crowded with appreciative lis
teners and six young men-three on a side
-swayed the convictions of their auditors
alternately from one side of the question
to the other. 1t vas the annual prize de-
bate and the best speakers of the school
were doing their best for the year.
The negative side of the controversy was
declared by the three learned judges to
have been presented best. The debaters
discussed this question:
Resolved That when the United States
shall have established stable government
Of. for and by the Cuban people she
should withdraw uncondtionaly her con-
troll over the island"
]. Whitford Riddle of Pennsylvania was
awarded first prize for best speaking and
reasoning, while the second prize went to
Ben lie Roy Rich of Idaho.
The speakers rCStrum was made into 4
VI ritable bower of blossoms, ferns and
palms. Hanging directly over the presid-
ing officers chair was a huge floral mono
gram of the university. While the audi
ence was assembling several piano solos
were rendered by Prof. Ferdinand Eibner.
Before George S Pines the first speaker.
had squared himself for the onslaught, all
the seats in both the hall and gallery had
been taken. The audience represented the
university and its friends 1t was enthusiasts
tic from the outset. and when the three
gentlemen who We're to pass upon the mer-
its of the contest took their seats in the
center of the hail. they We're greeted with
round of applause. The Judges were
Professor Chas. W. Needham, dean of the
schools of law and diplomacy; Mr.. Myron
VI. Parker and DR.. Edward NJ. Gallaudet,
all of this city.
The debaters were also enthusiastically
welcomed. They were: George s. Pines.
Illinois: Thomas Percy Guyton, Mississippi;
Ben lie Roy Rich. Idaho. for the affirma-
tive. and Joseph w. Cox, Virginia; J. Whit
fyrd Riddle. Pennsylvania; Luther NJ. Wal
ter. Kentucky, for the negative.
Opening of the Debate.
Walter A. Mcneil of Tennessee president
Of the society. presided. He Immediately
introduced Mr.. Pines, who began the de-
bate by anticipating what would be ad-
Vunced by his opponents. He said: Of
course We will eliminate from the question
first the right of the Cubans to be free,
and second their ability to govern them
selves. These things are both conceded and
pre not covered by the question:
The Teller resolution. declaring that
Cuba of right was and ought to be free
and independent" was quoted and the Su-
preme Court decision in the Neely case.
tnat Cuba was foreign territory. was
CITED To show that Cuba was in reality an
hdependent nation. That being the case,
the speaker declared with earnestness the
United States should at once Withdraw un-
ADDITIONALLY and absolutely
Mr. Pines had sympathetic voice. His
delivery was somewhat ministerial, but mis-
IDEAS were clearly and concisely expressed.
Joseph w. Cox of Virginia, the first
speaker for the negative. declared that the
question was a most simple and practical
one: that the United States was pledged to
establish d stable government in Cuba be-
fore il should withdraw. Aside from
this, Cuba was more closely related to us
than any foreign country. Its strategic
position. guarding the Gulf of Mexico,
made It's domestic and foreign policies most
Important to us. Its sanitary conditions
were also source of grave concern TO the
United States. Mr.. Cox vas a most earnest
speaker. He had his subject well in hand,
and what he said evidently made an I'M
preston. The debatcrS occupied either
side of the stage, each had table and copi-
ous notes were taken by the opponents
during the speeches.
Mississippi furnished the next affirmative
speaker. Thomas Percy Guyton. He began
with smile and a somewhat cynical
statement to the effect that his opponent,
VINO had just spoken, had overlooked the
real question and had gone off on COM
merciaI tangent. based on the assumption
that Cuba was naturally part of the
lnlted States; that we needed her to pro-
trct the commerce of the Gulf of Mexico
and Of the Mississippi river. This he con-
d-mned. The war with Spain was moral
war and not commercial one, he de-
Clared, and If there We're now commercial
questions to be considered there was moth
ing to prevent treaty relations being en-
tered into. the same as We did with other
nations He concluded by saying that if
the Monroe doctrine is not broad enough to
apply 10 Cuba. that doctrine should be ex-
paud-d by the President as the Mckinley
doctrine.
The Prize Winners.
J. Whitford Riddle of Pennsylvania, for
the negative. who was awarded the first
prize. denied the advancement of any COM
mercial argument by his side. He then took
UP the Monroe doctrine. and. contrary to
the prediction of Mr.. Guyton. he declared
that the negative held that the Monroe
doctrine did apply 10 Cuba, and that that
doctrine meant inter- eHtion on the part OF
the United States TIE first point of the
affirmative. he said, was hat stable gov
rrnment meant an absolutely sovereign
government This ne opposed; stable
government could be established and
limited control maintained by the United
States at the same time. This control was
an absolute necessity. especially from
health standpoint. 'nder an absolute SOW
er-iguty Mr.. Riddle pointed out that Cuba
might become indebted to and be seized by
Il foreisn power. mucn 10 the detriment OF
th- United States. Mr.. Riddle a very
easy ard forceful speaker, and carried mis-
audience with him.
Ben lie Roy Rich Of Idaho. for the af-
firmative, who was awarded second prize,
began his address by relating anecdote
of the schoolmaSter who was asked the
definition of a lawyer. and replied. "A law
Yer is man who saves your estate from
your enemies. but keeps it for himself
This he applied by asking if that was what
Congress was doing VIXEN il soleUnly en-
acted that Cuba is and Of right out TO be
free and independent" DO those who
think at aldo even the gentlemen of the
u"gttiye-beleve his to be the case? he
inquired. amid laughter at the expense OF
tn- negative. Growing eloquent, he declared
splemUIy that the prayers Of this nation
had gone up for the success Of our arms
during the war with Spain. when SOL
emn promise had been made that We would
make Cuba free. 1t was blasphemy for the
nation now to disregard that promise when
tndt prayer had been answered, and refuse
that independence and refuse that freedom.
Mr Rich concluded amid hearty applause.
Luther NJ. Walter of Kentucky, for the
negative. called attention TO the fact. as
h.. stated. that the arguments of the mega
tive had all been moral ones. He then
turned his attention to the Monroe doc
trfne This doctrine. he believed. should be
the true pilot of our course. We should
carry out our pledge but should do 1t In a
WAY that would secure permanent liberty q