The New York herald., 1921-06-17
BATES TEAM LOSES
DEBATE AT OXFORD
Support of Non-Interference
Policy in European Affairs
Gets 80 to 253 Vote.

Special Gable TO THE NEW York HERALD.
Copyright, 1921, bv TIE NEW YORK HERALD
New York Herald Bureau.
London. June 10.
The debating system or the OXFORD
University technically defeated Ameri
can eloqunce tonight. when two
thirds majority voted against the ques-
tion argued by the team representing
Bates College OF Lewiston, Me. 1t was
all cut and dried before the speaking be-
gan that the question Resolved. that
this house shall approve the American
affairs" should be voted against, and
the ballots were 253 negative and %
affirmative.
But, it was made plain beforehand by
the president of the Oxford debating so.
ciety and by Prof. j. L. Baird. coach
for the Bates team. that the question
would not be decided cn the force of the
arguments. as is the American custom
but rather according to the personal
opinions regarding the issue of the in
dividual members of the union
In defamation, force of arguments
anu iO6lt tue f,lHtItthh5 SCOlSd dHu
they were vigorously cheered, and as
debaters the American college students
clearly showed UP Oxford's old timers
But as a matter of fact 1t wasn't a
debate at all, but merely discussion
of the respective international views
with the English feeling that the issue
was completely aside from the per-
formance OF the two teams.
The Oxford students explained that
the chief reason for inviting the Amari-
can team whose reputation attracted
attention here. was TO interchange ideas
and methods of debating. Although the
American dehaters, Edward A. Morris
OF Baltimore. Charles M. Starbird. DAN
vile. Me-. and Robert b. Watts of Port
land. Me-. captain, were undergrad
yates oxford was represented by j..
Beverly-Nicols. N. Az Beechman and
s. G. Howard all comparatively men OF
years who came down to their alma
mater because they are recognized as
the university's best debatsrs
The American youths propounded ar
euments which with their eloquence ini-
pressed their hosts greatly. 1t was APP
parent that the crowd recognized that
as Gebc;ers the American stud5nts were
clearly superior. Watts in particular
stirred them with his oratory and drove
punt dIleT point nome.
The Americans shaped their argu-
ment along the lines of the League of
Nations opponents In Congress, insist
ing that since the days of Washington
America had trade and friendship with
all nations, interference from none and
freedoms from the entangling alliances
OF Europe. They said Intervention meant
interference with force in the internal
affairs of other nations to an end which
could not be foreseen. Continuance of
this policy. they said. meant for Amer
lea broad internationalism.
They insisted that IL England were
threatened by a European entente
America would certainly come to her
aid II In her opinion the cause was just,
and that no thoughtful American would
tolerate for a moment q policy which
had not for its basis close friendship
between England and America.
America has the warmest sympathy
for the principle of the League of Ma
tions. the Bates debaters said but she
holds that the most effective way of
promoting those principles was not by
way of Intervention in European affairs.
They argued that America had neither
repudated her responsibilities in Eu-
rope nor broken faith with the Allies.
The Oxford debaters said there was
doubt If America had any policy at all
when the American Ambassador said
that he would have nothing to do with
the league. but would sit on the Silesian
affair. They said that while America
wanted cooperation without a written
agreement written agreement was nec-
essary. saying: I'VE must not be bound
by understanding. but must be glued to-
gether In every sense
oxford followed strictly the British
argument to get America into the
League of Nations and for a hard and
fast alliance. They insisted that the
war had produced three great men
Woodrow Wilson. Lloyd George and
Lenine. Mr., Wilson, they said. discov.
cred the right principle but failed to
apply it, Lenine discovered the wrong
principle and applied It with vigor, while
Mr.. Lloyd George discovered no prin-
ciple at all and applied 1t still more
vigorously.
The debate brought out some amusing
incidents. When the Americans insisted
that an understanding of the common
interests of America, Canada and Aus
tralia was enough to bind the peoples
of those lands. an Englishman In the
audience remarked loudly: "Very Amer
lean very sound"
When the oxford debaters said will
the oxford twang: I'VE have one com
mon language" an intensely interested
American. straining his ears at the real
of the hall shouted:
ssCnaAffnn nfautfnv,