River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1901-06-06

amount" have been reached3 Evil
IDENTIFY the experts" disagreed.
"Under this test our Hudson girl
was a clear winner" Yea, verify,
but this test is based upon the as
sumptions that "experts" agree upon
"well established rules Of ex-
cellence," and that experts 50 agree
ing also agree as to the merits of
the two speakers, when facts are
against both assumptions. Doctors
of Defamation, "experts" differ
more radically as to "rules of excel
lence" than do Doctors of Medicine,
and the specific experts here en-
ployed differed radically in this
specific case. We do not wish to be
understood as berating the decision.
Good and competent judges made
it. We wish only to call attention
to the fact that there was no unanim-
ity Of opinion among the "experts. "
They differed. Might not the "mas-
ses" differ also'
This for the first contest, and then
came the second, and to explain the
reversal Of the first decision, our
friends, with sublime impudence as
serted that cit will be easily admit
ted that the Judges secured for the
contest here (Hudson) were the bet
ter qualified to Judge the merits of
the contestants and their work" and
"in the first place the judges were
teachers of elocution in St. Paul and
Minneapolis, while in the second
they were principals of rural high
schools with no special training in
defamation. At the first contest,
"all the judges were from abroad,
holding high positions in the educa-
rional world" while in the second
'they were not up to the standard of
those who ofliciated at the first"
Sic! 1t had been better had you
studied the qualifications of the
judges and their judgments before
making these assertions. You had
saved yourselves appearing ridicu-
lous in the face of the facts. In the
first place, as has been said above,
two of the judges were "experts,"
"tcachers OF elocution, Prof. McDer-
mott and Miss Sanford, and as be-
tween the two speakers under con-
sideration the first placed the Hud-
son speaker first, the second placed
the River Falls speaker first. There
fore, in comparing judges these two
may well be left out of consideration.
Who were the other iudges' At
Hudson, Rev. Gray, prominent
Congregational minister of St. Paul,
an orator of recognized ability.
At River Falls, Rev. Mitchell, a
prominent Methodist clergyman of
Minneapolis, an orator of recognized
ability. Is the Congregationalist
better or worse than the Methodist?
Is the one from Minneapolis better
or worse than the one from St.
Paul' Both arc from abroad which
is the 'expert" The first gave the
honors to Hudson speaker, the sec
ond gave them to the River Falls
speaker: Who has the advantage
now: Come Mr.. Hudson obiector,
what comfort do you get out of the
comparison to this point? Then at
Hudson there was Prin. Grear, of
the Minneapolis Central High, at
River Falls there was Prin. Ozias,
of Minneapolis South Side High.
Does the change from Central to
South Side constitute "rural" high
SCHOOL, Does the more central
location confer the honors of EEK
pertism2" Is one from ''abroad" and
the other domestic? How did these
two decide? Neither of them gave
first place in the contest to either of
these two speakers, but Prin. Grear
gave the Hudson speaker the higher
rank, Prin. Ozias gave higher rank
to speaker from River Falls. How
now, brethrcn2 What of the judg-