Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1903-03-21
COBURN WINS
The Annual DebateWith Hebron
at WaterviIIe.
Should President Be Empowered to
Protect Life and Property
Without Application of State, in Case
of Continued Violence?

= ne annual CODurn- HEBRON uepdte
was held in the Baptist church on Elm
street. Friday evening, the large build
rivalry between these two schools in
Debating and their annual contests on
the platform always arouses a great
deal of interest. The decision was
given to Coburn.
The question selected for the debate,
this year. was. Resolved, That when
ever in the event of continued domestic
violence lives and property are not ade-
Guately protected by the state it is for
the public good that the President
should have the power to afford pro-
lection without the application of the
state for federal aid"
Hebron had the affirmative and was
represented by Clement Plummer Wes-
colt, Nelson Irving MoXer and Roscoe
Henderson Hopper. The negative fell
to .'oburn and this school was repre-
scented by Arthur Eugene WinsloW.
Lewis Walker Dunn and Ray Edward
Estes.
The general regulations governing
judges shall base their decision upon
the cXccilance of the argument and de-
livery. giving greater weight to the
former bur allowing the latter to count
in the decision, in case the arguments
are equally balanced. or in case the de-
livery Of one side be manifestly superior
to that of the other
President White Of Colby presided
and the judges We're President George
=. Fellows. PHI. D.. of the University Of
Maine, Rev. Charles H. Spau!ding, D..
D.. of Boston. and Professor Julian d.
Taylor. IL. D.. of Colby. Music was
furnished by the Colby orchestra.
The speakers held the closest attention
of their audience all through and received
generous and hearty applause from time
to time as the tide turned one way or the
other 1t was a hard-fouGht contest al
right. both sides coming out with honor
ana the communication of all VINO heard
the debate. The arguments showed much
hard and careful work and the delivery
was excellent. It was d case of Greek
meet Greek" and one where there was
praise for the vanquishcd as we'll as the
victorious.
first speaker in the affirmative. He stated
the question and said that the question
springs from the 18th section of the 4th ar
ticle of the Constitution and involves tho
relation of the federal government to the
several states which has been Il topic
OF serious discussion since the Constitu-
tion was framed. He pointed out that as
the law now exists the President cannot
press violence. no matter how extensive
it might be, unless the state invited him
And that the proposed change was that
the President should have power to inter
ferc in extreme cases of domestic violence
when in his judgment the case demands
the exercise OF such authority. He cX-
planned that 1t was through fear of n
monarchial form of government and the
jealousy of state rights that this claus
limiting the authority of the President
found its way into the Constitution He
contended that this principle is an alb
SurditY as it makes the authority of the
supreme executive of the nation DEEPEN
dent upon the will of the governor of 2
state. and that although il may have been
| Il wise policy to adopt this measure wher
the Constitution was framed, vet it is no,
wise to retain it. The United States is a
nation. not an aggregation of states. and
hence the President should be supreme in
authority under the Constitution. ana that
his authority cannot be limited without
detriment to the harmony, proSperity<and
honor of our natiCn.
Mr. Winslow, the first speaker for
the negative. maintained that the vestins
of any additional power in the President
is unnecessary. The Constitution pro
VideS tor protection against domestic
violence, first. by the state and secondly.
by the United States upon application Of
the Legislature or executive of the state.
No case is likely to arise in which this
protection will not be adequate The his
tory Of strides shows that the protection
afforded by the state has been both
prompt and efficient. nor have the states
refused to ask for federal aid when neces-
sary except in one case-thc Chicago riots
Of 1891. Then the President sent troops
into Illinois to quell the violence ana he
had the legal right TO do so. first to pro-
tect federal property. second to prevent
obstruction in She carrying of mails. third
to prevent interference with interstate
commerce. fourth to enforce DEGREES and
mandates Of the federal courts. The
power to afford protection when any OF
these national interests are involved is
already the right and duty of the Presi-
dent for the Constitution by Art. II. Sec.
3. states: HE shall take care that the
laws be faithfully executed. This power
| to protect national interests is affirmed
| by constitutional lawyers confirmed by
Supreme Court decision and expressly
stated in Art. 529S of the Revised Statutes
| OF Urited States Now the relations be-
tween the different states are so complex
| that no case of domestic violence of any
| Importance can occur in any state With
out affecting national interests Thus
making it possible for the President to in
| terfere, He then has the power to protect
against all probable cases of domestic VIC
| lencs.
MIR. Mixer. the second speaker on the
affirmative. said in brief
We believe that even If the article in
| our Constitution which prevents the Pres
| ident from exercising his full authority in
cases of continued domestic violence was
wise under the conditions which existed
| at the time the Constitution was adopted
| it is now. In face of the changed condi-
tons an absurditY. and therefore We
claim that the article itself should be sub
| iect to a change in order to meet condi-
lions that do exist. The conditions which
produced this compromise Were two in
number. One was the fear OF a mona,-
| chy Since we prior to the adoption OF
| the Constitution had lived under despotc
rule 1t was feared that unless care was
taken in respect to the authority vested
| i'm the President he might be able to gai1
the control and thus make a monarchy OF
the government Now this fear has van
| ished from the minds of the American peo-
pie Therefore we claim that the check
which It produced should also vanish. The
second reason for this restraint upon the
Presidents power was the jealousy OF
state rights Because the several states
during and prior TO the Revolution had
been practically independent states. they
naturally feared that should they vest the