The Nashville globe. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1906-193?, 1909-04-23
snecinl to the NashpiHe GloDe:

SDecidl to the NdShUjHe Globe:
On the night of the 10th inst. the
third intercollegiate debate between
Fisk and Atlanta Universities was
held in the Ware Memorial Chapel OF
Atlanta University. The Chapel was
beautifully decorated on one side with
old gold and blue and on the other
side crimson and gray, the colors OF
the respective institutions.
AS is always the case, when Fisk
and Atlanta meet in the forum. the
spacious chapel was comfortably filled
with loyal supporters of each lnstltu-
tion. But this audience, composed
mainly of Atlanta supporters, was by
no means partial to one side, for
hearty applause was, given both sldes
whenever it was deserved.
About S:15 p. m. Rev. e. R. Carter,
D. D., with an intense prayer opened
the meeting and announced the sub
ject for discussion as embodied IN
the following resolution:
'Resolved, That local option is pre-
ferable to statewide prohibition as
means of dealing with intemperance."
Fisk with her team composed OF
w. L. Dawson, S. M. Kendrick and
B. A. Green, alternate, upheld the af-
firmation; while Atlanta, with her
team composed of w. r. Banks, l..
P. M. White and A. ]. Williams, alter
nate, upheld the negative.
The first affirmative speaker in a
deliberate and logical manner dis
cussed the evils of intemperance, and
gave his Interpretation of the ques-
tion. He insisted upon the impor-
tance of the question, saying that in
temperance is real and calls for imme-
diate remedy, for it is steadily gain
ing headway among the people, and
the longer we wait to begin action
the harder the task will be to deal
with it. He then showed that there
are three ways of getting statewide
prohibition law passed and that at
the present time statewide law could
not reasonably be expected by any OF
these methods in the majority Of the
states: thus the impracticability of
statewide prohibition.
The first negative speaker, in the
opinion of your correspondent, use
lessly. spent much of his time in dis
cussing the evils of intemperance,
which the first Affirmative speaker had
emphasized at the start. However,
after interpreting the question again,
the first negative proceeded to pro-
duce a mass of statistics to show the
superior results of statewide porhibi-
tion over local option. He also made
a lengthy comparison between Maine,
a statewide prohibition state, and
Massachusetts, local option state.
These figures seemed almost conclu-
sively to frame his point-that the
statewide prohibition produces better
results than local option.
The second affirmative again empha
sized that the question was practical
and called for immediate action. He
Immediately attacked the comparison |
of the negative on the ground that
a comparison can only be made be-
tween two states which are alike in
their essential makeup. He very
skillfully overthrew his opponents ar
gument by showing that the negatives
comparison was faulty in this respect
He then took up his main argument
that local option works better in prac-
tioe and is more rational in its prin-
ciple than statewide prohibition.
The second negative discussed the
question from the political, economic,
sociological and moral standpoints.
The moral side of local option was bit
terly assailed, and no doubt went a
long way in influencing one Of the