South Bend news-times. (South Bend, Ind.) 1913-1938, 1922-03-24
NOTRE DAME WINS
SPIRITED DEBATE
FROM COLBY TEAM
Strong Eastern Colleges Mega
tive Team Loses Close De
bate on CLOSED Shop.


has been making across the country,
winning by 2-1 decision last night
on the proposition. Resolved, that
the principle Of the closed shop IS
Unstable" II was the first defeat
that the Colby team has received on
lts cross-cOuntry trip.
The debate was bitterly fought
throughout. the teams clashng al
the very beginning. u seemed as
though the two cases had been built
70 oppose each other directly. and
at the end Of the main speeches, IL
was evident that the teams we're
even. Notre Dame. however, was
clearly ahead in the rebuttals which
followed The affirmative struck
hard AZ every point I'm COlby's case,
and then held up their own brief
lu an effective manner. II was large
u.s. because the Notre Dame men stuck
20 their own guns. and set all OBJ
iebtions 20 the negative against the
accumulated strength OF their own
case that they were granted the de-
clsion. The judges were Prof Wal
ter Ioggerquist OF Northwestern
university. Prof. ". D. Frazier OF
Indiana university, and Prof. A
schwalrn Of Manchester.
Have Strong Team
The Colby team was easily the
best opposing trio heard at Notre
Dame since the revival OF debating
there. CLYDE Russell a senior and
the first negative man TO speak. de-
Uvered his speech In calm, but
very effective manner. Leonard
MAYO. also a senior followed. NIayo's
speech contained a wealth OF de-
structfve material and the affirmative
worked hard 90 overcome ii. George
Wolstenholmc. the concluding speak
err on the negative side. was the most
Interesting speaker of the three. lie
possessed powerful Oratorical
voice and used it with telling effect
against the affirmative. In the re-
btutaIs he attempted to summarize
the progress of the debate, and end
ed bv stating the case of the mega
tive I'm a sentence. THE closed shop
Is undesirable. since il is detriment-
al 10 the welfare Of the three classes
most intimately concerned with It's
pIove and the general public.
Notre Dame opened the debate.
The first Affirmative speaker clearly
and effectively showed that unionism
itself was jusjihable, and that the
closed shop was equally justifable
as the best means OF preserving or
canized labor He declared the great
outstanding fact % the industrial
world to be that organized labor IS
fehting for it's very exist ence. with
its back 90 the wall and used this
as a groundwork upon which to
build the argument for the justih-
ability of the closed shop The first
negative speaker replied with the
statement that the closed shop could
not be justified unless il could be
proved that its principle is not det-
rimental 10 the emplOye, the em-
pIoyer and the general public. The
second affirmative speaker promptly
took up this phrasing, and attempt
cd TO show that in operation, the
closed shops works no social IN
Justice either to the employer, the
cmpIoye or the general public He
also showed that enumerattng the
abuses Of labor IN general bore no
revelancv to the question, unless IL
were indlsputably proved that these
abusese were inherent in the closed
shop as a cause. and lnseparaole
from It in its operation.
Colbvs repIy was ineffective, and
the affirmative directly bounced
upon At. again insisting that the evils
attributed 70 labor must be shown to
he inherent IN the closed shop as "a
cause. before the argument could
have any bearing upon the ques-
tion
sum up Arguments.
The third affirmative speaker
summed UP the arguments of the af-
frmative and then applied them TO
conditions in typical industries, de-
claring that hostile employers were
able 10 crush unionism unless 1t
were backed by the closed shop.
The third negative speaker attacked
this argument by showing that or
raniz-d labor has progressed in
spite Of hostility. The affirmative
came back by showing that hostile
emp'oyers were actually crushing
11rionism where it was unsupported
bv the closed shop. and second, by
Insisting that the basic idea of their
argument was that under open shop
conditions. unions exist only az the
win Of the employer, and that he
Is powerful enough to crush them
whenever he wished TO do SO. The
anIrmative had the better of this
clash
Tho third negative speaker de-
veloped point concerning the riEht
~ the uou-uuiouist l8bOrer 10 work,
and The riEht of the employer 10
hire whom he wishes. This point
became an interesting issue IN the
reb,1ttals The affirmative showed
fbat fhe right OF either party was
not an unconditional right. and fur
Their that since the non-union man
expects 20 reap the benefits for
which ORGANIZED labor has battled,
Inc is not harmed by being asked
fo ioin the union when he wishes
10 work alongside a union man.
They illustrated this with analogies,
saving that no man can enjoy the
benefits OF a fraternal organization
without Joining that organization.
one point then remained in the neg
alive case-restriction OF output
The Affirmative first insisted that
restriction OF output must be defin-
itely connected with the closed shoU
rs a cause before it could bear rela-
rancy 10 the question, and then
showed. first. that q slight restric-
ton on output can be justified ir
order 10 prevent speeding up praC-
tices on the part OF the employer.
and second. that restriction Of out
uut IS not peculiar 20 the closed
shop. being pracuced in non-union
-.-r. I'D ...n LH amnLnNars gen