The Virginia enterprise. [volume] (Virginia, St. Louis County, Minn.) 1893-19??, 1908-04-17

OoSCs duN arc tEkuidtlOue 10 Oc cu
forced in the discretion and judg
ment of the officials heretofore
chosen for that purpose. No pro
vision is made for questioning such
discretion at any other time OF
place. The Judges are required to
decide on the merits of the debate
and not on the merits of the ques-
ton. In many courts and judicial
bodies the members hold a consul
tation before announcing the decis-
ion. Our rules prohibit such con-
spltation, and none was had. The
chairman is to act upon points of
order; he is there for that purpose;
is impartial to all; knows what is
taking place and exercises his dis
erection in accordance with the rules.
He acts as umpire at an athletic
contest. All contestants must &C.
cept his ruling and go on with the
debate, and if injured by ruling
made by an impartial and high.
minded official, they must be more
careful in selecting officials next
time. In almost every athletic con
test that takes place there is some
dissatisfaction with ruling OF the
umpire or referee, but would any.
one think of overturning the result
of the game on that account? Some
years ago it would happen that a
team would refuse to continue the
game, or would have fistic com.
bat, but those things have been pro.
vid ed against and are not now COM
mon.
Suppose. for the sake of argu-
ment, that the Board did have
power to act in a case of this kind.
We must then consider the merits
of the objections.
FINDING No.. 1. Did not the los
ing team. the protestants here,
waive any objection as to the loca-
ton of charts, by not making objec.
tion at the proper time? Such is
the practice before most tribunals
in this couutry. If the objection
ia this case was not waived, then
we must consider the question of
fact as to whether or not the charts
could be read from the platform.
At the hearing, it was stated, by
the representative of aprotestants,
as we'll as by another, that the Min
neapolis debaters, or one of them,
did copy from the opponents charts
while sitting on the platform. The
winning team offered to take the
whole Board to the North s High
and let them seesstor themselves
whether or not the charts could be
read from the platform, and from
the seats of the losing team, by
merely turning their chairs little.
The Virginia team had a chart
taken to the North High on the day
of this hearing and hung in the
positions which the four charts oc-
cupied at the debate, and four
witnesses assert that they could
easily read the chart in the different
positions, from the platform. These
witnesses were in waiting outside
the door at the time of the hearing,
ready to be called and testify. The
Board did not think wise to call
them in. None of the Board at the
hearing had been at the debate;
some of them had not heard of the
matter until that afternoon; others
at the hearing said they had heard
all about the matter. Evidently
they had been interviewed by the
protestants and their friends, who
are many, some members of the
board itself being recent graduates
of the protesting school. Virginia
had not said anything to the Board
and had not filed any written ans
wer. The Board, probably without
thinking, had heard ex parte state
ments, unsupported, made by North
High sympathizers, and allowed its
decision to be made thereon. AT
the hearing, the evidence submitted
by protestants as to the inability to
read the charts from the platform,
was the oral statement of their rep
resentatiye. The judges. the pre-.
siding officer, the officials who
were on the ground and were i'm
partial and knew the actual condi.
tion of the debate, were not called
to the hearing to give any state.
ment. The presiding officer lives
not one block from the University
campus. He has given a written
statement that, in his opinion, the
North Side High team could see
the charts from the platform, that
the rules forbade debaters going
down among the audience. The
judges could have been interviewed
by telephone if they could not have
personally been preseht.
This being 80, the objection as tc
the location of charts falls again
first, it was waived; second, if not
waived, it falls on it's merits from
the evidence, the charts could be
and were seen from the platform
third, there is no dispute between
members of the league, and there
fore there. is nothing to be decided
by any Board, under the rules
fourth, the decision of the Judge,