Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1926-12-11
C! HIGH DEBATERS WIN OVER HAII0WEII
But LOSE IN WATERvILLE ARGUMENT
ON RETENTION OF DIRECT PRIMARY LAW

argued last evening by these teams,
VIII be again used in the finals.
The vote in this city was two to one
In favor of the Cony affirmative, the
judges being Miss Marion Brainerd
assistant State librarian; Prof. N. C..
Merrill, Waterville Junior High, and
M. f. mckinley of Gardiner. The Cony
affirmative consisted of Estelle EN-
cry. Doris McAllister and Lionel Lem
ieux. with Doris Groves as alternate,
"hlie the Hallowell negative team was
composed of Francis Wingate, Walter
Hamilton, Leonard Stephenson and
Arthur Carbino as alternate. Ten min
utes were allowed for the main speech
eS and hve minutes for rebuttal. Su-
p Pc, of Schools Fred w. Bur-
TIL presided at the debate.
The judges in their ballots placed
the best speaker with the affirmative
team although they did not specify
which member it was. The honor I'M
doubtedly rests between Lionel LEM
1eux and the petite sophomore Doris
McAllister, who made a very favor
able impression by her fine delivery
on the main speech, which seemed the
more unusual because of her diminu-
tive size. Lemieux, however, showed
up the better in his rebuttal. Stephen
son was the better man on the main
speech for Hallowell, but in rebuttal
his teammate, Hamilton, seemed some
what stronger.
The affirmative team in its argument
declared that the primary and democ-
racy were almost the same, that they
both were founded upon the principle
of government of the people. They adj
mitted that the direct primary in its
practical application is not perfect, but
claimed that in theory it is, and that
1t is constantly being made better and
better as defects are noted and rem
edied. They pointed out that it has
been in use for over 60 years, having
originated first in Pennsylvania, and
that while there have been occasions
where gross attractions of the law
have been evident, that in the majority
of cases candidates conduct them
selves well within the letter of the
law.
They argued that the law is ca1cu-
lated to and does in effect overcome
'bossism" and the control of the ma
jority of the votes by large business
interests. 1t gives the voter a chance
to look into the character of the can
didate and to learn for what he stands;
it gives them an opportunity to ex-
press their wishes through their can
didate and it gives to all a chance to
be a candidate for office without be-
ing under the thumb of a boss or a
machine.
The negative argued that the law.
while perhaps all right in theory, has
fallen down badly in practice; that 1t
does not do away with professional
politicians; that it doesn't do away
with corruption (and here they cited
the recent trouble in Pennsylvania and
Illinois), and claimed that it does not
give the people chance to find out
| the views or the character and reputa-
| ton of the candidate; that a candidate
must be rich to be successful; that in
| many places the people are confused
| by the long tickets, and that by rea-
son of the fact that candidate who
receives the greatest number of votes
| in a primary election becomes the par
| ty candidate in any primary where
| there is more than two candidates
| really makes the choice of the minor
| ity the candidate for the Office
| They-further setforth~ that the ma
! chimes may easily control the primary
vote by reason of the apathy of the
| people to vote in primary elections
and that the will of the minority is
really the deciding factor.