The Oskaloosa herald., 1908-03-26
Penn WINS FROM
SIMPSON COLLEGE
DEBATE WAKES WARM BUT THE
JUDGES ARE UNANIMOUS.
THE VICTORY is CELEBRATED.
College Spirit Breaks Loose When
Decision is Announced - Ban
quet FolloWs--Penn Girls
Lost at lndianola.

this year between Penn and simpson
colleges was won Friday evening by
the Penn boys, with unanimous de
cision of the judges.
The question, Resolved, That the
present distribution of power be-
tween the state and federal govern
ments is not adapted to modern con-
ditions and calls for REIMBURSEMENT in
the direction of Capitalization" is
one of universal interest and is also
the question that Bryan and Beyer-
idge once contested on.
The program proper opened with
Invocation by Rev. Purdy, followed
by an instrumental duet played by
the Misses Conover. Supt. Else, act
ing as chairman, then announced the
question and caled the first speaker
on the affirmative side.
Mr.. Hershey responded for the Wis
itors, and after interpretating the
question turned for a short time to
| the early history of our government,
country were met by our constitu-
| ton, but how they have since changed
thereby giving rise to the question of
| the debate. His line of argument was
| to show how every thing of the pres.
ent day has advanced toward central.
| ization, as for example the railroads,
| telegraph systems and labor organi-
cations.
The first speaker on the negative,
| Herbert Watson, after refuting his
opponents points IN nearly every re.
| spect, turned to the theme of the
question and showed it was purely
constitutional. He also showed how
| the principal of Capitalization was an
old line of government, having devel-
oped from the Teutonic nations down
to the present time. He denied that
| many of the points mentioned by his
| opponent as being examples of cen.
tralization were fitting illustrations
| for the question. he showed how all
powers, except those belonging to the
| constitution proper, were under the
jurisdiction of the various states. So
| the question of the evening was pure
| ly constitutional one and the point
| for decision was, shall the constitu.
ton be stretched or amended" Three
lStimes has 1t been amended and this is
a direct step toward GENERALIZATION
Mr.. Watson closed his points by say
| ing the constitution needs more fed
| eral activity and not more power, and
| that what legislation one state may
need will not suit another state under
different circumstances. Forty-siX
states are better than one"
Mr.. Wootin took the second aftir-
native stand and refuted many of the
negative points, though not in a
heavy and convincing manner. He
held largely for states rights, but al
so showed that they we're unable to
control many of the important ques-
tons of the day, therefore it was the
immediate place for the federal courts
to act upon this matter Several OF
the national evils were enumerated
and briefly explained and then he
showed now the states had in many
instances failed to accomplish what
seemed completely under their jurls-
diction.
Mr.. Perisho next took up the mega
tive and kindly informed his oppo.
nents that they were not trying to
interpret the constitution, but would
leave that to the supreme court. This
was one of the strong points OF refu-
tation. He next showed how the fed
eral court would do no better than
the states giving the example of lie
way in which the constitution has re-
served complete control of the Dis.
trict of Columbia, and yet there are
many of the same questions and prob
lens unsolved in this territory that
there are in the remaining portion OF
the U. S. He also showed how the
government has failed in its jurisdic
ton over the Indian territories.
In all, his arguments were right to
the point.
The last man on the affirmative
was Mr.. Craven, an elegant speaker
and he completed their side by trying
to show that the question for the even.
ing was concerning national and not
local problems. ne told how the cor
porations had been created by the
states and now they had outgrown
their creator and held the controlling
power He also showed how a corpo-
ration is injurious not so much to it's
own state as it is to its neighboring
states. Therefore they must be con
troled by power capable of control.
ing all. lie said the present law tried
to enforce through theory that which
1t was unable to enforce through prac-
tice. In summary he said, since the
states are unable to control these then
they must be handled by the federal
courts, and since the federal courts
have taken the power which the
states once had, then we are pro-
crossing toward Capitalization.
Mr., Purdy brought out the last
points for the negative and strongly
refuted his opponents arguments, He
made 1t very emphatic that centraliza-
ton means increased power of the
present constitution. He showed how
our dual form of government Ia the
sole salvation of our nation and that
this will ever be our hope for the