Phoenix tribune., 1921-02-05
DEBATE Held At
c. NJ. f. Church
WAS Interesting

1T was a shame to take the money"
said Major Jones and Clarence Lind
sey, when on last Friday evening the
judges rendered their decision in
favor of the negative. 1t came about
iRathe following manner: w. ]. Jones,
manager of the Palace Tailoring Co.
and A. R. Smith, managing editor of
the Phoenix Tribune, were arrayed
against Clarence Lindsey and Major
Jones in a debate, Smith and Jones
presenting the affirmative, and Lind
sey and Major Jones upholding the
negative. The subject for debate
was: Resolved That Opportunities
for the Colored People in Arizona are
Better Than in Any Other State in the
Union"
Major Jones and Clarence Lindsey
selected the state of Mississippi and
proved to the satisfaction of the
judges, Prof. p. Landry, Attorney
William E. Watkins and Richard D.
Simpson, that Mississippi offered bet
ter opportunities to the colored
people than Arizona. w ]. Jones and
A. R. Smith tried their best to show
that the opportunities for the colored
people in Arizona are far superior to
those offered by Mississippi or any
other state, but to no avail.
In rendering their decision, the
judges claimed that not a single point
was made by the affirmative, Smith
and Jones, TO support their contention
that the opportunities for the colored
people in Arizona were better than in
any other state in the Union. While
presenting the negative side of the
debate, Lindsey and Jones were
roundiy applauded and won the de-
olson Of the audience as well as that
of the judges
The debate was held at the c. NJ. E.
church, Seventh street and Jefferson,
and the edifice was filled to overflow
ing with people who came to hear the
arguments. Preceding the main
event. short program was rendered,
to the delight of all Mrs. J. F.
Hudspeth gave a humorous recital,
telling of the qualities of the de-
baters, and she received loud ap-
plause Mr. J. D. Carter brought
down the house with one of his
famous orations Mr. Chas Fish,
Mrs. Clarence Hamilton and others
rendered selections that were highly
entertaining and all received much ap-
plause
For the benefit of those who failed
to attend, and to let them know what
they missed we publish herewith the
losing argument presented by A. R.
Smith of the affirmative, and which
the judges. Attorney William E. Wat
kins, Prof P. Landry and Richard d.
Simpson decided was of no import
ance whatever in supporting the claim
that opportunities for the colored
people in Arizona are better than in
any other state in the Union. The
article follows
Honorable Judges, Ladies and Gen
tlemen: Before / begin my argument
in support of the affirmative side of
this debate, permit me to relate a
little story which will show you, as
nothing else can, the insecure founda-
tion upon which our opponents are at
tempting to build their structure.
The story is told of an old lawyer
whose son was about to enter upon
the practice of law and so came to
his father for advice The old man
counseled his son thus: "My son,
when the law is against you, impress
upon the jury the Importance of doing
justice without regard to law. When
justice is against you, sound it into
the ears of the jury that the law must
be oEeyed without regard to Justice
But father broke in the boy,
what shall / do when both law and
justice are against me?'
"'Oh, my son, was the reply, in
that case, just talk around it,
so, honorable judges, in this case,
both law and justice are against our
opponents and they are trying to talk
around the subject.
"We, the affirmative, claim that op-
portunities for the colored people in
Arizona are better than in any other
state in the Union.
First: Because of Arizona's won
derful climate Arizona's climate.
aside from being an aid to people who
are afflicted with tuberculosis and
other diseases, gives those in good
health an opportunity to work 31S
days in the year and secure top wages