Corvallis gazette. [volume] (Corvallis, Benton County, Or.) 1900-1909, 1906-03-27
JEfFERsoNlANs WIN.
Spirited College Debate on the
Monroe Doctrine.

In one of the most spirited and
stubbornly contested debates eve,
heard in the college chapel, the
cam representing the Jeffer-
oman society defeated the three
peakers of the Pbiladelphians in
be third debate of the series for
he Catch cup. Great interest
was manifested throughout the
contest. The efforts put forth by
each representative team showed
much study and careful prepar-
alton.
The question discussed was,
"Resolved, That the Monroe Doc
trine as it is at present construc-
ted should be abandoned by the
u. S. Government. The Phila-
delphians upheld the affirmative
and were represented by L. B.
Ruesel, N. H. Gunderson and E
P. Rawson. The Jeffs in sup
porting the negative, were repres-
ented by J. G. Shredder, H.
Wilkins and R. R. Selleck.
Mr.. Russell opened the discuss
DIN with we'll delivered address
in supporting the affirmative
side. He suggested a few things
that thew would advocate and in
a logical manner established
their conception of the
question by reviewing the his
tory of the Monroe Doctrine,
its former Interpretation and its
meaning as construed at the
present time, augmented by
numerous carollaries.
7. G. Shredder delivered the
first speech on the neg.t side.
From the opening, after relating
on habitual comical story, the
speaker began to rebut the af-
ffrmative's argument and by
we'll directed policy built the
foundation upon which the
negative proposed to stand. He
showed clearly the point of d.
vesgeuce between the sides and
and closed leaving the impression
that the 6rst speakers version of
the question was by no means
the strongest.
Mr.. Gunderson supported the
policy outlined by his colleague,
but in SO doing was unable to
turn the tide of argument in
favor of the affirmative.
H. Wilkins in a short rebutta
showed the fallacy of the argu-
ment advocated by the affirma,
tive and in a forceful manner
presented an array of facts that
placed the negative far in the
lead. He showed some of the
things the Monroe Doctrine had
done, and what it must do in the
future. Although it was his
first appearance, this speaker
delivered probably the strongest
argumentative speech of the
evening.
The last speaker on the affirm
ative, E. P. Rawson, began by
refuting some of his opponents
speech, after which he brought
out the climax of their argument.
BY supporting the two speeches
of his colleagues and advancing
much new material, he made an
eloquent effort to save the day.
He was followed by R. R.
Selleck who closed the main
argument for the negative. The
speaker showed elaborate prepar-
alton: In short time he had
shown gross inconsistencies in
his opponents argument. He
backed his objections with au-
thority and after clearing the
field of any established policy the
affirmative could claim, he
opened an argument which
clenched the strong speeches of
his colleagues. While probably |
tinged a trifle too much with |
sarcasm, Mr.. Selleck's speecht |
was unquestionably the strongest
of the evening, if not the most
able ever given in the chapel.
Shredder and Rawson took
FIVE minutes for rebuttal.
The decision was unanimously
in favor OF the negative. Judges,
Prot. Holmes, Prof. Nichols and
T. T. Vincent.