The Corvallis times. (Corvallis, Or.) 1888-1909, 1904-03-19
AGAINST PRIMARY NOMINATIONS:
Decision in College Debate-Amicitians
sesis won-The Arrume1it.

society boys proved to the salts! ]!
faction of the judges that the pro-
posed primary nominating law
ought not to be adopted in Oregon.
The question was. Resolved that
the proposed primary nominating
law should be rejected. In sum
ming up their arguments. the
boys laid down these propositions:
Ist.-it's success in other states
has been extremely doubtful.
2nd. 1T increases factional strife
thereby weakening parties.
3rd.-It costs too much and this
cost is unfairly distributed
4th.-Portland would be too pow
efful in state politics
5th.-Be.ter candidates will not
be secured.
oth.-The wealthy man has a
great advantage.
7th.-The winning nominee may
represent but small minority.
8th.-The Office holder is no
longer directly responsible to a
party.
oth.-Corruption in office would
therefore be greater.
1oth.-Insteado of weakening boss
ism it would give hin, greater and
more dangerous power.
The debate was between the
| Amicitians and Philadelphian liter
ary societies. The subject. on both
sides was handled in a manner
highly creditable to the speakers.
to the society they represented,
and the institution in which they
are students. Each speaker had
fifteen minutes of time. and the
leader of each team had FIVE min
utes for closing. The Amicitia
team was. Horace BIodie, leader.
David Hirstel and A. S. Wells, all
Portland boys The Philadelphian
speakers were, H. G. Darby, lead
er. Elmer Rawson and Clarence
Beaver. Darby and Beaver are
Marion county boys. and Rawson
halls from the vicinity of Vancouv-
er. The judges were, Prof. Shaw.
Prof. Berchtold and Prof. Shelton.
The decision was by unanimous
vote of the judges.
The winners laid considerable
stress on the proposition that a
boss would have equal if not great
er power under the proposed Law
than is possible under the conven'
, ton system The boss and hi:
friends are. they contended, organ
, lied, aud at any time can concens
trate their whole strength on, ano
nominate given candidate. Their
opportunity to do this will be en-
, hanced, because with numerou.
+ candidates the opposition will have
; its strength divided, and the bosse.
candidate be nominated, and tha
perhaps by a minority. The boy!
5 read extracts from newspapers pub
. lished where the law had been triet
e to prove their contention. Th
+ negative disputed the contention
: however. and insisted that tn
: adoption of the system would elm
!, mate boss rule.
r The affirmative also contende'
f that the system had not been sue
cessful in other states, and that it
q tendency was to eliminate poo
+ men as candidates for Office. L
1 order to succeed in their candidac
. they urged that candidates had t
: begin their campaign far ahead .
+ nominating time. and had to us
y money in order to get voters to tn
: polls, and that this fact CAV
+ wealthier men an advantage a
= candidates. The negative urge
% that its Indifferent success in othe
s states was because the law ther
is defective, while the propose
Oregon law is perfect.
The affirmative held up the adde
expenses of the system as fats
objection toit. If the proposed law
Of better it must be enough better tha
le the present system to make up fc
ID the added cost, they said. fit prom
ses to be just as good but no bette
than the present system, then th
added expense condemns it. If
is not as good as the preser
system then every considerable
s. as well as the item of great
re increased expense calls loue
Of ly for its rejection. Then they pr
a ceeded to show that the expense fl
n. merely nominating candidates woul
m be fully as mich as the cost of a
election, or, in other words, tn:
if the law should be adopted thee
of electing county and state Officer
would be simply doubled. To th
argument, the negative made +