The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1903-01-31
DECIDED BOTH WAYS.
Minneapolis High School Debaters
Discuss Direct Elections for
l. United States Senators.
Central Wins With the Affirmative
and East Siders Triumph
g. With Negative.

Minneapolis was the scene Of two hard
fought forensic battles last evening, the
contestants being teams in the state high
school debating league. The question was
the same In each case--the popular cleo
tion of United States senators-and the
fortunes of war and of debate were ex-
emplified by the fact that the question
was decided both ways. In, other words
the Central high school debaters success
fully demonstrated against the North Side
speakers that the elections should be by
popular vote while the East Siders, with
the opposite side of the question against
the South high team. convinced the judges
that tho present system was better.
The Central-North Side debate was held
in the assembly room of the latter school.
which was packed by a demonstrativc
gathering Of students and friends. The
Central speakers, arguing for the consti-
tutional change We're unanimously
awarded the victory by the judges, Dean
w. $. Pattee, w. p. Roberts and Judge
c. B. Elliot.
Clarence Harter, Guy Gardiner and Wal
ter Badger. while Alice Flaherty, Paul
Barnes and Chester Pratt represented the
north town institution aud defended the
existing form Of government
Each one of the youthful imitators Of
the great Demosthenes performed we'll his
task each showed that much time and
effort had been spent upon the work of
preparation and many Of the arguments
brought forward were very clever of con-
ception and were very forcibly presented.
The affirmative and winning side was at
times hard pressed the the wide
awake opponents and the honors were at
all times divided pretty evenly between
the contestants.
The position taken by the affirmative
was that the present system of eecting
senators was right and proper at the
time of it's conception, but that 100 years
OF American progress made great changes
and that now the American people are
able to elect their senators without the
intervention of state legislatures. The
corruption of the present system was
cited as a reason for change and. such
instances as the power Of Senators Clark.
Quay, Platt, Payne and others was dWelt
upon a length. They also compared the
upper house of congress to the house of
lords in England and spoke Of it as 1.-The
last vestige. Of English tyranny" Clar-
ence Harter of this team seemed to make
the most favorable impression and not
only stated his points directly and forci-
bly, but possessed a most pleasing and
effective delivery.
For the negative, the North Side de-
baters maintained the unpopular side of
the question with determination and abil-
ity.. They were repeatedly forced to fall
back on the fOrefathers, who. In their
wisdom, framed the constitution as it
now stands, but nevertheless brought
forth many interesting arguments. They
produced a letter from Senator w. A.
Clark of Montana, in which he stated that
he was in favor Of the popular election.
Miss Flaherty gave exceptionally clear
and forceful argument and enthusi-
astiCally applauded. The other members
Of the team did well, but could not win
an uphill game. w ,.... ........s:
The East Side Debate 20
The East Side team met the South Side
team at the East Side high school audi
torium before a large audience. Pro-
lessor r. E. McDermott of the state uni
versity, president of the state high school
debating league, presided The judges
were James Gray, A. H. Bright and DR..
w. e. Leonard. BY two votes against
one the victory given to Miss Laura
G. Campbell, Stanley Houck and Louis
i. Schwartz of the East Side. who MAIN
supported by Carl Huntington, Reuben
Edquist and Arthur Anderson of the
South Side. --.- - 80, -.
The majority of the debaters were sc
excellent that the present state legisla-
ture can evidently boast of very few
speakers more prepossessing and con-
vincing. The pupils set forth admirably
the standard arguments for and against
the proposed change. Scarcely any state
nents of fact We're made that might be
questioned. Sophistry and appeal tc
prejudice were much less prominent thar
in those campaign speeches which the
children's elders will applaud so vigor-
oously. The only arguments notably
omitted were such as are based upon the
history Of representative government