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

new evidence was being introduced
in the last rebultal speech, which
evidence was not properly admis-
sible. The finding of the Board is,
apparently, that the point of order
was not permitted to be stated, was.
not passed upon, aud that this was
such material .irregularity a. TO
upset the decision of the judges.
The only evidence before the Board
in support of such finding was the
oral statement of the North High
principal.
Section I, Article 8, constitution,
is as follows: "New matter, except
when strictly in rebuttal, shall not
be introduced in the last nsbuttal
speech of the affirmative"
Section 8, Article 8, reade thua:
"Speakers shall not be interrupted
by their opponents except when
the negative is attempting to pro.
tect it's rights in accordance with
the preceding section"
Under these rules, which the pre-.
siding officer knew, and his know
ledge ia not questioned, no point
of order could be raised except this
one. If speaker rose to state q
point of order it could be but the
nno mint that ,oov, axy:do.nco --A
strictly in rebuttal, was being in.
troduced. The mere act of arising
to object would raise in the mind
of the presiding officer the question
"is new evidence, not strictly in re-
buttal, being introduced?'' The
chairman could at once rule upon
the objection. The chairman was
not asked by the Board as to what
he actually did, at least such evi-
dence was not presented at the hear
ing. The chairman has made writ
ten statement that he did listen to
the objection of the debater rising
to point of order, and thereupon
ruled that this was left to the judges
to decide, which was the exact pro.
cedure he had been instructed, by
the principal of the North Side
High, to follow, and which agreed
with his own judgment under the
rules. Thus, this objection of the
protestants falls.
Further: AT previous debate,
this same North Side High speaker
raised this same objection at this
same particular point in the debate:
irrespective of what evidence wa.
being used in rebnttai-the evident
purpose Of the objection being to
disconcert aud break down the one
in the midst of his rebuetsA apeeca,;
and also for the purpose of raising
some technical xroand upon which
to appeal if possible. In Law an at
torney wins on the merits if he can.
and as he proceeds he is careful to
raise some objections which may
be used as basis for appeal. The
appeal will delay the enforcement
of the decision for some time, will
embarrass the winner, and may 70.
suit in overturning the decision, 80
that there is little or nothing to
lose by appeal and everything to
gain. The principal of the North
Side High team was admitted to the
bar of Minnesota after completing
the law course at the State Univers-
ity. Was not the point of order
raised for the mere purpose of ap.
peal? Even 80, the point was heard
and passed upon, according to the
statement of the chairman, and the
objection falls. 1t may be that the
chairman heard the point Of order
without actually stopping the re.
buttal speech. This would be possi-
BILE. 1t was not necessary that the
point of order be stated::to the audi
ence. If the point was heard and
passed upon, this should satisfy the
objector; he would: have no cause
for complaint. Objections might
OC AdlSCO HoAl a oOACA kAtoCo III rap
id succession, thereby breaking up
the speaker entirely, and the objec-
tions be without grounds. Surely
the only purpose of allowing objec.
tions to be stated at all is to ALLOW
them to be brought to the attention
of the chairman and be passed up
on. The chairman says he listened
to the point of order and ruled there.
on, and that the objection was with.
out foundation. Is not that suffi.
cient?
1t seems the Board has held sub.
sequent meeting, probably at the
request of the protestants, without
notice to the Virginia team), and at
this second meeting attempted, in
the exercise of their mistaken au-
thority, to postpone the final con-
test; to direct that the semi. final be
again debated, and that different
judges be chosen, and that the two
teams have the same sides as before.
Further: Article Section z pro.
vides, in effect, that "inter-disfrict
or semi-6naI contests" shall he
held. Section 5 says that q date Of
an "inter-district" contest shall be
changed only upon the consent of
all contestants. This is the only
=