The morning journal-courier., 1908-05-08
VAN DYKE REPLIES TO DEBATE SLURS Princeton Judge in Recent Con. test Here Characterizes Criticisms as Laugh
 able.
VICTORY WAS FAIRLY WON
As Honorable to Win n Debate on Re. buttal as to Win at Baseball in
 the Last Half of the Ninth.

Dr. Henry Van Dyke of Princeton, yesterday answered the recent crtl- ll cism of the decision in the Yale- 4 Harvard debate His reply, appear ins in the New York Evening Post. is as follows:
 A letter in regard to the Yale-Har- yard debate Is printed in your paper os May 5, over the signature of "H c. I.' If the writer had merely ex- |l pressed his opinion that the Yale team t 1debated better than the Harvard team. 's he would have been entirely within '4 4his rights, and his judgment would ,F'have carried weight corresponding to our estimate of his intelligence and | t'impartality.
 'M But instead of favoring us with ssuch an unsolicited but entirely prop Her expression of his personal iudg- ,Hment, he has seen At to accuse the 4Harvard team of unfairness, the rNjudges of partiality, and the intercol- SFlegiate debating system of tendency sFto develop slick lawyers" These are s4grave moral accusations; and the ssswriter makes them over his initials, in < 4the form of insinuations, without q 2oroof, and in a manner whirn calls For denial and rebuke.
 1 III. c. l." practically asserts d) II hat the judges were chosen from in- 1F;titutions which are directly interest 4fd in perpetuating the stupid sssump- \ ion that the university at New Ha- I Ten is strong only in the exercises of 1 brawn:" CD that the rules of debate j 'put a premium on trick tactics; and l3) that the Harvard team disre- x barded the finer ethics of public dis Fl lussion." None of these assertions is Iiupported by the facts, and to publish N Them in the form of innunendo Is to lffend against good manners and fair May.
 G.) The committee of judges were II hosen, under the rules, by both par M kes to the debate, and were absolutely M fithout bias, either in regard to the M nerits of the question,or in regard to H he teams who debated 1t. The judges /Hhay have been ignorant or incompe. N Ihnt, according to the standard of Fl
 L.," but they were not prejudiced hey came from Princeton and Browf
 Universities and Dartmouth college
 md the assertion that these institu.
 ons are partial to Harvard as agains
 ale, or directly interested in main 4hining the superiority of Yale in wha r 8:i. C. L." picturesquely but vaguely lAlls exercises of brawn," will seen A ughable to every college man IT
 Emerica.
 (2) The rules of intercollegiate de
 ste have been framed by mutua
 sreement, with the purpose of giving
 bth sides an equal chance. Havint Zen adopted they ought to be ob Rrved. 1t seems to be d physical ne
 ssty that somebody should speal
 st and somebody should speak last
 is no more unfair that debat'
 ould be won on rebuttal, than tha baseball game should be won in tn, St half of the ninth inning, whel
 e other side has no opportunity |,
 ake any more runs.
 (3D As q matter of fact, botl v les in the Harvard Yale debate act
 with admirable candor and fair
 ss. There was no twisting of state
 ants, no tjckery. No new argu
 mt was sprung at the close of tn :. bate, but the preceding argument d replies were summed up wit
 ecision and force. Any intelligen
 q reasonable father might hay
 en proud to have a son on either o
 ose debating teams
 have heard a good many debates
 I have never heard one that wa - tter, closer, or more fairly won. Tn
 slges were unanimous in their de e- Eaon, which was reached, in accord ,e with the printed instructions, b
 oallot taken before consultation. l
 decision tho presiding ofaner.