The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1905-02-18
.REBUITAL WON
FOR EAST HIGH
BRILLIANT AND CONCISE WORK
OF DEBATING TEAM.
Humboldt Team of St. Paul Had a
Slight Advantage in the Straight
Argument, but Lost Thru the Alert
ness of the Mill City Debaters-
Points Of the Argument. s-s94.*

BY virtue of a brilliant and concise
argument in rebuttal the East Side
High school defeated the Humboldt
High school of St. Paul in the the semi
finals of the state debating contest at
the East High auditorium last even
ing. The East Side represented the
fifth congressional district and Hum
boldt High, the fourth district.
The victory Of the Minneapolis team
was due chiefly to the effective attacks
made upon the arguments advanced by
their opponents. The speeches in re-
buttal showed that every member of
the team was thoroly familiar with the
subject. The delivery evinced conf
dence and careful preparation.
The st. Paul speakers fully held their
own in the running. debate and had
to the question. They had a we'll
planned line Of argument and the three
speeches fitted into each other admir-
ably. In the rebuttal, however, they
lacked the readiness which was charac-
teristic of the Minneapolis speakers and
were unable to keep their points from
being torn to pieces by their oppon-
ents.
The question under debate thru the
series of state contests is: Resolved,
That the policy of reducing further i'm
migration to the United States to min
imum, is practicable and should be
adopted. Granted that this shall not
apply to our insular possessions.
Granted that minimum shall embrace
such relatives and friends of our citi-
zens and such other persons as are en-
titled to enter out Of considerations Of
humanity.'
East high maintained the affirmative
and was represented by William Mer-
rill, Zenas Potter and Victor Wetherby.
St. Paul had the negative and was rep
resented by Harold Knopp, Belle Blu
menfeld and William Knopp. G. w.
G.. Hyde, Judge David Simpson and
Professor F. L. McVey acted as judges
of the contest. Professor McVey pre-
sided.
Merrill Opened Debate.
William Merrill, for the East Side,
opened the debate with a strong and
we'll -prepared address. He pointed out
the evils already effected by the prac-
tically unrestricted system of immigra-
ton and made a strong plea for total
restriction. American labor, he held,
is being crowded out by the uneducated
men of Europe, who know nothing Of
good economic or moral conditions and
who are glad to work in sweat shops
at mere pittance, as even that is a
great elevation from their condition in
their own country. "There was a
time,'' be continued, 1when America
needed Che foreigner to develop her
resources, but that time is past and
there are enough able-bodied Americans
to carry on the work. Our doors have
| been open since the American Revolu-
ton, and it is time that the native
| born are given some preference in de-
| veloping America IS resources.
! Zenas Potter was the second speaker
for the affirmative and dealt with the
| question from the moral standpoint. He
showed by government statistics that
one-seventh Of our population is foreign
born and that this seventh commits
one-third Of the murders and other
crimes, and comprises one-third of that
class of persons who, in any way, fall
below the standard. "Nearly SO pei
! cent Of residents Of the slums in al
cities are Foreigners said he, "anC
as they do not care to break away from
| the acquaintance formed in the mother
country, they will stick to the cities
| and remain a moral menace to society
They are satisfied with the sums These
people are not needed or wanted to de
| velop America.
The Impractical Side.
Victor Wetherby showed the imprac
tical side Of discriminating immi
grant law. He pointed out that if rel
atives or friends Of citizens were al
lowed to come, it would be an easy mat
ter for all to get vouchers declarin.
that they were relatives Of some natur
allied person, and thus evade the law
emo halfway measure will suffice,