The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1906-05-19
Series Between This State and
Idaho at End, With Utahns
the VictOrs.
IDAHO BOYS, HOWEVER,
PUT Up STRONG FIGHT
Judges, at Close of Contest, Two
to One for the Local
Debaters.

After a vigorously contested debate
held at the Salt Lake theater lost even
ing Utah was awarded the decision over
Idaho by vote of two to one. Inc
crowd showed It's approval Of the decls-
ion by applauding vigorously after lts
reading Although the decision was
merited and well earned, the fact re-
mains that the Idohoans only went down
to defeat after a most tenacious struggle.
The deboters from the Gem State had
their subject we'll In hand, and during
tne evening delivered telnng arguments
In o torcetu manner.
Utah in at Close.
But to tho credit of the Utahns. 1t re-
MAINS that at the close OF the contest
their plan stood out In slightly ooiueI
and stronger relief than dld that OF ene
ldahoans. Victory In last evenings con
test wins the series Tor Utah, giving uel
two out OF three victories.
Perhaps never has an intercollegiate
debate held In this city closed as ara
matlcally as last evening Mr.. Hcd3er
was making his final rebuttal Tor me
Utahns. Inc constitutionallty OF tne
plan proposed By the Affirmative. IL was
agreed before hand should not enter into
the discussion The Idahoans, however, In
their speeches alleged that Utahs plan
would deprive capitalists OF the right OF
contract and deny them the tree use OF
their property. Mr.. Heoger promptly
ruled these arguments out declaring that
tho capitalists would be protected under
thc constitution.
Mr. Price Objects.
Mr.. Price instantly arose and stated his
objection to this declaration, declaring
that Idaho had not mentioned the word
constitutionality Mr.. Hedgcr retorled
that he would leave IL to the Judges as
TO whether they had not interrGd US
much And then resuming quickly he
added
Honorable judges, We wish to protest
against the Use OF these charts lnasm9ci,
as the Idaho debaters have not read what
they contain or placed them SO that we
could read them.
Mr., Price Instantly jumped to his feet,
secured recognition and Insisted mat
Utah should have stated her objection
earlier In the evening How could we
object! demanded MT Hedger, when
We did not know that the eentlemen en-
were going to make an improper use OF
the charts?' With this the incident
closed
The queetion debated follows: Re
solved. That laws should be passed COM
pelling a business undertaking whlch Sc
cures control OF an industry to sell It's
products at reasonable prices and With
out discrimination" 1t being agreed, hrst'
that the discussion shall be confined to
the one remedy proposed by the al
firmative, second, that the constltutlona
ity of the plan proposed shall not enter
III Utah had the affirmative. Harold
Stephens. of the University OF Utah, was
the first speaker. In a clear, SIMPLE put
straightforward fashion. he defined the
question and made plain tho contention
OF the affirmative. He demonstrated by
numerous and %ell-selected illustrations
that there are today serious and wide
spread monopolistic evils which demand
correction.
Monopolies Referred To.
The Crystal Salt company. the STANDARD
OIL company and the coal trusts were
cited as being examples OF monopolistic
concerns which have charged and do
charge unreasonable and eNtortlonate
prices. These evils he said could not
eral law or State law. since such laws
are not regulating, but restrictive and
prohibltye Other evils OF monopolies.
such as the destroying OF independent In
dustries and the concentration OF great
fortunes, were emphatlcally pointed out.
Mr.. stephens was splendid address.
Charles A Montanoon was the next
speaker and openeu the debate for Idaho.
things but an unconscious allusion to
the Nazareth News" brought forth the
greatest round OF laughter from the audi
ence, In opposition to the plan of the
are not needed: second. that the remedy
proposed is impracticable, third, that tho
laws II passed Will entail greater evils
than now exist
Mr.. Montandon contended that monop-
olies do not charge unreasonable prices
and that even if thev wanted to they
would be prevented, from fear OF bring
ing new competitors into the field or of
having some other commodity substituted
for theirs when the price became too
high. He contended that the afllrma-
tive's plan was, so unreasonable and IL
logical that 1t had never until now had
any supporters, great or small
George Hedger followed for Utah with
the address OF the evening. He drove