Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-12-10
Annual Debate With Univer-
sity Of Virginia.
NATIONAL RIFLES'HALL
LOSING TEAM CoMPLIMENTEp by
REPRESENTATIVE GAINES.
Contest in Which George Washington
University Carries Of the
Honors.

o University OF virginia last night in tha
fourth annuel debate between these two IN
s.i'uliohs ny demonstrating TO three disin-
terested judges that The United States
government should exercise control over
the formation and operation of all corpora
tiens engaged In Interstate commerce" yir
g1nia fought valiantly on the negative side
OF this question and her three renresa,t,.
tives were warmly congratulated by Rep
resentative John Wesley Gaines of Ten
nessee, who acted as chairman.
The debate was held in the National
Rifles Hal, on G street northwest near 9TH
street and the large auditorium was well
iiiied with the relatives and friends of the
speakers and students from both uniyer-
sites George Washington was represented
pg Messrs; Alvin l. Newmyer of the Dis
trict OF Columbia, law CO. Marcus II Rurn-
slime. also of the District of Columbia law
DO ana Edward p. Gates of Kansas. aca-
oemic US. Mr.. Leonard Shelton law OS
served as alternate. but was not called upon
TO assist in the argument Virginia was
represented by Messrs. Clifford c. Fairies of
Florida. law OF; A. Herbert Foreman or
virginia. law on, and Lee Bidgood of Vfr-
gina, graduate. Ffrgfnia's alternate was
Mr.. T. r. Gay. The judges of the contest
were William Draper Lewis dean of the
law school of the University OF Pennsyl-
xania: Maurice Francis Egan. professor OF
English at the Catholic University of Amer
lea, and Ernest Ludlow Bogart of Prince
ton University. Messrs. I.eonIe Bone or
George Washington University and b. A.
Meginnfs of Virginia acted timekeepers.
College Enthusiasm.
The evening was enlivened with the usual
portion Of college enthusiasm. The colors
of the two rival universities hung from
many vantage points, and the students from
George Washington were continually "giv-
ing them the AK" An orchestra was pres
ent and furnished appropriate music dur
Ing the evening. President Needham of the
local university was present on the plat
form, having as his guests several proIni-
nent educators. In introducing the first
speaker Representative Gaines declared thai
nothing could be more fitting than an ars7I-
ment between Virginia. the home Of Jeffer-
son, and George Washington. who persis-
tentiy opposed jefferson in all matters OF
vital public administration.
NO doubt, said Mr.. Gaines these
young statesmen will settle once and for
all this question that has been troubling us
Older folks SO many years"
This put the audience IN good humor.
ana Mr. Newmyer, the first speaker for
George Washington. was introduced under
excellent auspices.
MI. Newmyer's Argument.
MI Newmyer did not start IN by claiming
that federal control of corporations engaged
In interstate commerce could prove a pana-
cea for all existing Ills. and he admitted
that such a course would not bring about
a commercial millennium-at least, not
within the next generation or So but he did
claim that evils exist that demand q rem
edy; that the present system of state CON-
troll is inadequate and unsatisfactory and
that federal control is the only practical
and effective remedy left MIR. Newmyer
addressed himself to the first two of these
propositions.
Opens for Virginia
Mr.. FAIRIES opened the argument for Viz
ginia and the negative. He frankly ad-
mitted that there are existing evils in the
system OF incorporation. but he told the
gentlemen from George Washington uniyer-
sity that these evils had been grossly ex-
aggerated and that federal control was not
the proper remedy.
Second for Affirmative.
Mr. Burnstine, us the second speaker
for the affirmative. avowed that Mr..
fa1res mad permitted his imagination to
run away with him. This created a laugh
from the George Washington rooters (if
the local students may be so termed). He
then addressed himself to proving the
practicability and effectiveness of federal
control, and In doing SO he severely cross
examined MT FAIRIES. who had preceded
an example Of federal control that had
become established. and he referred to
similar laws now in force in Germany,
Australia and the English colonies. In
concluding he brought in the recent in
surance scandals as a sample of state
control and the rottenness of the existing
system.
Employs Smile.
Mr.. Foreman, for the negative asserted
that the proposition of the affirmative
was similar to the case of the farmer
who killed his entire flock of sheep I'm
order to get rid Of two or three black
ones. He said that some corporations
need contrel-and that some do not He
differentiated between the individual
VINO carried on interstate traffic and the
corporation so engaged and said that the
affirmative proposed TO control the latter
while the former could go ahead unmo-
Tested This, he said, was manifestly uH-
FAIR. He showed many complications OF
what he declared would be dual control
that of the state and the federal govern
ment
Had Gone Astray.
Mr.. Gates, for the affirmative declared
that the negative had gone astray.
I'VE are not debating everything In the
world" said he: I'VE are combining our
self to one question. Our friends on the
other side have wandered thousand miles
away from 1t. We are not advocating a
the federal government should control
measles, but we do say 1t should control all
corporations engaged In interstate com
merce. Chief Justice Fuller is authority
for the definition of control in this
gard He said it means regulation and not
restriction.
Federal control would protect the public"
In concluding Mr.. Gates advocated publicity
In connection with federal control as an eff
ficient remedy for the many evils enumer-
ated.
The Closing Speech.
Mr.. Bidgood closed for Virginia by COM
ing out with new plan. He did not stick
closely TO the question at issue, but put up
another remedy-improved state control.
He said that common carriers had been
controlled by the federal government for
years with poor success. He said further
that trusts could not be- controlled by the
federal government.
In rebnttal each speaker was given five
minutes. but Notwithstanding the hard
fight put up by Virginia. the three judges
decided in favor of the affirmative and