Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1906-05-19
VICTORY FOR UTAH
IN DEBATE SERIES
Third Contest With University Of
Idaho Decided in Favor Of
Local Speakers.
GOOD SHOWING BY VISITORS.
They Win Favor with One Judge, and
Put up Close Contest for First
IIonors--Dcclsion Chccrcd.

The spectators entered very much
into the spirit Of the contest for de-
batting honors at the Salt Lake Theater
las night. Tho boys from the unlver-
sity of Utah were victorious, but II
was by narrow margin, and The con-
test put up by Idaho was such that 1t
won their representatives many friends,
and host at admirers. One OF the
judges, Col. Il. A. Wall, voted for Ida
no, while Rev T.. l. Goshen and Judge
o. w. Powers voted for Utah.
The crowd was fair, and composed
mostly Of students of the University
witty salies from the various speak
ers kept the audience In happy mood,
and prevented II from firing during
the details Of augmentation. Each
speaker WAS allowed 20 minutes to
make his talk and then George He'd
ger of the University Of Utah was al
lowed five minutes In rebuttal.
PROF PAUL PRESIDED.
President j. H. Paul Of tho l.. y. 9.
university presided. and VIII Ray and
Percy Goddard acted as time Keepers.
The question was announced as RE-
solved That laws should be passed
compelling a business underta king
which secures control of an industry to
CELL It's products at reasonable prices
and without discrimination" 1t being
agreed. first that the discussion shall
be confined to the one remedy proposed
by the affirmative; second, that the
constltutlonality of the plan proposed
shall not enter into the question:
UTAH AFFIRMATIVE.
Utah defended the affirmative, and
Idaho centered its batteries on the
negative side of the question Harold
stephens for Utah opening the long line
of argument He pitched into the trusts
at the outset, and In remarkably de-
liberate and logical speech pointed out
the need for some curb upon the power
OF monopolies to run prices to point
where the consumer finds II hard TO
live. and all out of proportion to the
cost OF production. Corporations. he
pointed out, tend too freely to forget
their regard for government. and the
necessity for them to conform TO laws.
He closed by tracing the history of the
trusts in their efforts to shut down
competition, run up the price on com
unfriendly to them. He mentioned tina
case OF the Upland Crystal Salt com
pany and the STANDARD OIL company as
enterprises too powerful IN their fields
To be successfully combatted by small
er corporations.
MoNTANDo's ARGUMENT.
Charles NJ. Montandon Of Idaho. who
spoke next took the ground that more
| laws would only mean more evasion of
| laws. and that the real manner to fight
| the trusts was TO fight them with econ
| Omio principles, through substitution
of goods for those on which the price
Is raised, The inability to control the
trusts by laws, ne said. was due to the
inability of the law makers to find a
base to storm. Once crushed. trust
could break into innumerable smalle.
concerns, each allied TO the other Sc
cretly.
George Hedger followed for Utah,
speaking to the subject from a point at
which Mr. stephtns left off. He dean ID
monopoly as one seller whether It
was an individual, a corporation, or n
combination ~ combinations. This
| could become the base of attack, his
| opponents were looking for and q com
mission on regulation could tend to shut
off the hold OF large monopolies, and
| thus distribute profits among a great
number OF people.
CONCLUDING SPEECH.
Victor T.. Price followed for Idaho
| concluding the arguments of the neg
alive. He held that relief lay not II
the statute books, but In the natura
and economic laws.
| 81 10 a.