The Robesonian. [volume] (Lumberton, N.C.) 1870-current, 1918-04-01
BOTH LUMBERTON
TEAMS LOST
Goldsbor0 Won Debate Both Here and
At GoldsDOro-Girl on GOldsbOrO
Team Impressed the Audience.

Team Impressed the Audience.
The debating teams of the Colds
boro high school won out over the
teams representing the Lumberton
high school in the Statewide triangu-
lar preliminary contest both here and
at Goldsboro Friday evening.
Lumberton's negative team-Miss
Carolyn Shooter and Mr.. CASTOR Bru-
ton-debated against Goldsboro's af-
firmative at Goldsboro, while the at
firmative team-Messrs Redden Britt
and Harry Russell-debated against
Goldsboros negative team, composed
of Miss Blanche Henley and Mr.. Paul
Sadler.
The query was, Resolved, That
Congress should enact a law provid
ing for compulsory arbitration Of all
industrial disputes" The Judges here
were Messrs. T. A. Mcneil, Jr., J.
Dixon Mclean and Rev. j. M. Elem
ing. Their decision was unanimous
in favor of the Goldsboro debaters.
However, the judges said it was diff
ficult to decide which side was ell
titled to declare the winners in the
contest All the speakers produces
strong and convincing argument. Al
ter the contest was over many were
heard to remark, "Miss Henley beat
them all"
The debate took place in the high
school auditorium and quite crowd
heard it. The speakers were heartily
applauded.
Mr.. Robert Proctor, president of tr.
local debating society, presided, and
Mr. Robert Mcintyre acted as secre-
tary.
The first speaker on the affirma-E
tive was Mr.. Redden Britt. Mr.. Britt
argued that in Norway, Canada and
other countries where such law has
been put into force it has worked Won
ders in the way of eliminating strikes.
He also contended that public sentl-
ment and the existing evils of today
demand such law. He declared that
strikes not only affect labor and cap
ital, but the general public, and told
of how the threatened railroad strike
of 1917 came so near tieing up triffic
and hindering the nations war pro-
gram. In closing his argument tire
speaker asked eff one man is not al
lowed to block traffic, why should q
body of men be allowed to block it. ="
Mr.. Sadler was The first to speak
in favor of the negative. He argued
that all the nations Of the world are
looking upon the United States and
declared that if such a law as the
affirmative proposed was passed it
would cause the nation to lose its in
Thence. He also declared that the
law would be un-democratic and would
deprive working men of their just
rights. Such law would take away
the rights of industrial freedom. DEM
ocracy teaches that every man can at
tend to his own affairs better than
ANYBODY can look after them for him.
The speaker argued that such law
would not prevent strikes and said
that in countries where such a law
had been passed strikes are not a
thing of the past, but in many places
are more numerous than before the :
law was passed In closing his ar
yument the speaker declared that it
would be impossible to jail all the
of strikers when a big
strike occurs. Y
Mr.. Russell next spoke in defense
of the affirmative. In his argument
he declared that compulsory arbltra-
ton is sound in theory, right IN prln-
l.. n
Ting industrial disputes. This law IS
IF the same principal as The draft
act. Those who are drafted and sent
to the training camps are not con- [
sidered slaves. Men are forced to S
Ohey the laws of the courts and why s
could they not be forced to obey the
laws of the arbitration courts? the
speaker asked. The arbitration law is
only one to fit industrial disputes. In 9
our superior courts man must abide
by the decision of jury, and the same S
thing would apply in the arbitration G
courts. AS to whether or not such /
law would be constitutional, the Unit
cd State Supreme court has already
said that Congress has right to en-
art such law. The speaker declar- \
ed that such a law would promote
more friendly relation between en- $
shower and employee. Then such S
law would guarantee the public con- {
tinuous service and ward off proba-
BILE calamity that might result from s
a strike. ~
In closing the speaker declared that
in no country where such a law nad
heen PASSED had it ever been repealed
Miss Henley spoke last an defense !
of the negative. She argued Inat {
compulsory arDlCraLlOn law Ao:ho |
cial sanction and also in principal
The public is not ready to receive
such a law. Men do not like to be
driven. In our country voluntary ar
hitration has proven very effective IN
case of strikes. To pass such Ia"
would result in creating distrust pc
tween labor and capitol: In our coun-
trv men demand freedom OF action.
The speaker argued that If such
law was passed, the courts to decloe
The issues at stake would be lnfluenc
ed by corporations and the laborlng
man would not get fair show.
Each speaker was allowed a 5-mln-
utes' rejoinder., - +o,,o
When the judges had retired to take
the vote Miss Miriam Welnsteln reE-
dered vocal selection. Miss Carrie
Mae Hedgepeth presided at the piano.
The Goldsboro speakers were &C
companied by Prof d,9 O. " A sahpolk'
Misses Mary Lewis Sasser, Ruth VII
kins. Sarah Giddings and Harry Sas-
SER. The made the trip in an auto.
e.. +Lo Jobato the sneakers were