Skip to main content

Full text of "INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATES VOL-XIV YEAR OF BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING"

See other formats


TMTs  Volume  is  for 
REEZKENCE  USE  ONLY 


*'    '      '  •  *    a 

Intercollegike; 

(Volume  XIV)      '''?v' 

THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 


YALE-— OXFORD  —  PRINCETON  —  UNIVERSITY  OF  WISCONSIN 
—UNIVERSITY  OF  MICHIGAN  —  UNIVERSITY  OF  SOUTHERN 
CALIFORNIA  —  UNIVERSITY  OF  GEORGIA  —  UNIVERSITY  OF 
ARIZONA  — NEW  YORK  UNIVERSITY  —  MARQUETTE  UNIVER 
SITY  —  BELOXT  —  WOOSTKR  —  BUCKNELL  —  COLGATE  — 
OCCIDENTAL  —  FRESNO  STATE  TEACHERS  COLLEGE  —  DELTA 
SIGMA  RUO 


EGBERT  RAY  NICHOLS 
Professor  of  English  langmge  and  Literature 

University  of  Redtands,  California 


T 


NOBLE  AND  NOBLE,  Publishers 
76  FIFTH  AVBNUB  NEW  YORK  CITY 


Copyright,  1933 
By  NOBLE  AND  NOBLE 


PRINTED  M 


EDITOR'S  FOREWORD 

THE  title  of  this  little  dissertation  might  be  "De 
bating  under  the  Depression,"  or  perhaps  it  should 
be,  "Debating  Surmounting  the  Depression/'  for,  after 
all,  that  is  what  it  seems  to  be  doing.  The  testing  point 

is,  of  course,  the  debate  trip.  If  the  colleges  have  no 
money  for  debate,  there  can  be  no  trips,  and,  as  is 

generally  known,  all  of  the  colleges  have  been  forced 
to  retrench  during  the  past  two  years.  It  is  a  good 

testimony  to  the  value  placed  upon  debating  that  the 
colleges  have  not  sacrificed  it  in  these  difficult  times. 
There  has  been?  during  the  past  season  a  surprisingly 
large  number  of  debate  trips  on  a  commensurate  scale 
with  those  of  the  prosperous  days  before  1929,  Lack 
of  money  did  not  prevent  or  gainsay  them,  and  these 
trips  were  in  addition  to  the  regular  debate  schedule 
maintained  with  neighboring  colleges. 

Perhaps  one  of  the  interesting  episodes  arising  out 
of  the  lack  of  funds  for  came  when  the  Weber 

College  team  from  Ogden,  Utah,  scheduled  a  trip  to 
Southern  California  on  they  called  "official  hitch 
hiking."  The  tracking  interviewed 
and  for  the  debate  team  to 
travel  to  its  on  freight  tracks. 
The  trip  to  Los  was  made  on  an 
Los  side  trips 

ii 


vi  EDITOR'S  FOREWORD 

ing.  Those  who  have  entered  the  tournaments  are 
enthusiastic  for  this  new  form  of  debating,  and  the 
possibility  of  getting  so  many  debates  concentrated  in 
one  place  has  encouraged  trips  in  spite  of  the  depres 
sion. 

When  the  first  big  tournaments  were  introduced  by 
Pi  Kappa  Delta  the  conservative  debate  world  held  its 
breath  and  said,  "Impossible."  However,  the  move 
ment  succeeded.  The  more  aggressive  colleges  sent 
teams,  liked  their  experience,  and  the  tournament  was 
ushered  in  to  stay.  Now,  all  sorts  and  types  of  tourna 
ments  are  being  conducted.  First,  there  is  the  Practice 
Tournament.  This  type  is  held  early  in  the  debate  sea 
son  before  any  of  the  colleges  have  solidified  their  de 
bate  cases.  In  fact,  the  tournaments  following  one 
upon  another  during  the  season  have  encouraged  teams 
to  keep  their  cases  in  a  growing  and  developing  state 
until  the  very  end  of  the  season.  Tournaments  of  this 
type  originated  at  Southwestern  College,  Wmfield, 
Kansas,  where  an  annual  meet  is  held  in  December 
when  the  teams  are  beginning  to  study  the  seasons 
debate  question  seriously.  They  learn  much  from  one 
another,  and  as  the  season  progresses  are  ready  for 
other  debates  and  tournaments  with  re-constructed 
arguments  and  cases.  This  idea  has  spread  over  the 
country  and  several  colleges  are  holding  annual  Prac 
tice  Meets. 

-  Second,  there  is  the  Novices  Tournament  Only 
inexperienced  debaters  who  have  never  competed  In 
league  and  conference  contests  are  eligible  to  part. 
The  prime  motive  of  this  tournament  is  to  train  and 


EDITOR'S  FOREWORD  vii 

develop  new  debaters.    It  was  first  used  by  the  Los 

Angeles  Junior  College  during  the  last  debate  season. 

Third,  The  League  or  Conference  Tournaments. 

These  meets  are  designed  to  take  the  place  of  the  old 
schedule  of  debates  maintained  by  colleges  associated 
together.  Holding  a  tournament  to  decide  the  League 
winner  Is  more  economic  in  time  and  money  and  is 
growing  in  popularity.  The  meeting  promotes  good 
fellowship  and  sportsmanship. 

Fourth!,  there  is  the  Mixed  Tournament,  In  this 
type  Junior  colleges,  and  four  year  colleges  send  both 
men's  and  women's  teams  to  compete  in  the  same  meet. 
The  usual  thing  is  to  separate  the  two  types  of  colleges 
and  to  allow  no  mixed  competition, 

Fifth,  Regional  Invitational  Tournaments.    These 

meets,  open  to  all  comers,  usually  divided  into  classes 

of  competition^  are  held  toward  the  end  of  the  debate 

as  a  sort  of  climax  or  goal  to  work  toward* 

and  arguments  are  pointed  toward  such  meets 

unless  there  is  a  National          in  the  offing  in  which, 

they  are  a  part  of  the,  program  of  preparation. 
Sixth  and  final!  the  National  Convention  Tourna 
ments*   These  meets  are  held  annually  by  some  organ 
isations  and  biennially  by  others— the  high  school  and 
junior  favoring  the  annual  tournament  and  the 

the  biennial  meeting.    As  many  as  a  hundred 
have  met  in  one  division  of  these  National  Con- 
notably  that  held  by  Pi  Kappa  Delta* 
The  tournament  may  use  any  type  of  de- 

Plan,  University  Plan,  Non-decision 
or  or         you  will   In  several  instances  the 


viii  EDITOR'S  FOREWORD 

first  part  of  the  tournament  has  been  non-decision  fol 
lowed  by  a  decision  meet.  Various  plans  of  rounds  and 
eliminations  have  been  tried.  Usually  the  coaches  do 
the  judging  assisted  by  persons  available  where  the 
tournament  is  held.  The  adaptability  of  the  tourna 
ment  plan  has  been  demonstrated.  It  serves  a  small 
group  and  a  large  group  of  teams  equally  welt 

The  tournament  has  taken  the  emphasis  off  of  win 
ning  to  a  very  great  extent  and  has  placed  the  stress 
on  training  received  by  competition  and  on  good  sports 
manship.  These  large  meetings  generate  considerable 
enthusiasm,  extend  acquaintanceship,  and  teach  the 
debaters  very  rapidly  many  things  they  could  not  ob 
tain  from  their  coaches.  The  economy  of  the  move 
ment  enables  the  coaches  to  enter  a  much  larger  squad 
on  the  same  amount  of  money,  an  amount  spent  a  few 
years  ago  on  a  single  intensively  trained  varsity  team* 
It  has  become  the  practice  of  many  colleges  and  junior 
colleges  to  enter  as  many  teams  as  the  rules  permit, 
and  to  beg  for  a  chance  for  more  debaters  to  attend* 
This,  in  itself,  takes  the  emphasis  off  of  winning.  The 
whole  squad  goes  now,  debates  and  learns  what  it  ca% 
while  in  the  past  only  the  champion  gladiators  of  the 
platform  were  allowed  to  travel  or  to  compete  with 
rival  colleges.  This  extension  of  the  benefits  of  debate 
training  to  more  students  at  no  additional  cost  is  an 
other  of  the  explanations  why  the  tournament  is  popu 
lar  and  is  here  to  stay.  For  these  many  reasons  the 
educational  value  of  the  tournament  is  now  unques 
tioned. 
The  depression  has,  of  course,  hastened  the  aban- 


EDITOR'S  FOREWORD  ix 

donment  of  that  older  aid  to  the  debate  trip — the 
guarantee.  Now,  as  a  rule,  no  cash  guarantees  are 
given;  only  twenty- four  hours  entertainment  is  offered, 
the  entertaining  school  defraying  the  other  expenses  of 
the  debate.  It  was  felt  that  the  contract  involving 
guarantees  amounted  to  paying  one's  own  expenses 
anyway,  when  a  return  debate  was  agreed  upon  for  the 
succeeding  season  on  the  same  terms.  The  only  ad 
vantage  was  that  the  traveling  team  had  the  use  of 
the  money  when  it  was  needed.  This  slight  advantage 
was  given  up  on  the  thought  that  each  college  should 
pay  the  expenses  of  its  own  traveling  teams.  The 
frequency  and  the  generality  of  the  long  trip  made  the 
interstate  debate  or  the  inter-sectional  debate  so  com 
mon  that  no  college  would  pay  any  longer  for  the 
privilege  of  entertaining  a  team  from  a  distance*  The 
novelty  of  receiving  the  far  travelers  wore  off?  and  the 
demand  centered  on  obtaining  the  most  debates  for  the 
money*  More  training  could  be  gained  for  more  people 
on  the  same  expenditure  with  less  cost  per  debate.  The 
depression  was  not  entirely  responsible  for  this  atti 
tude*  Debate  managers  were  forced  to  economize. 
At  best  their  account  was  only  grudgingly  tol 

erated  on  the  balance  of  the  Associated  Students, 
and  graduate  and  the  demands  for  larger 

athletic  programs  the  debaters  to  get  the  most 

out  of  the  allotment  them.    The  influence  of 

Scotch  blood  in  student  was  evident  before  the 

and  restriction  of  funds  since  the 
an  growing  tendency. 

It  to  be  this  economy  attitude 


x  EDITOR'S  FOREWORD 

is  going  to  have  on  the  international  debate.  It  has 
not  destroyed  the  debate  schedule  or  the  debate  trip, 
so  perhaps  it  will  not  greatly  affect  the  international 
debate  schedules. 

The  depression  has  had  a  marked  effect  also  on  the 
subjects  under  discussion.    A  few  years  ago  debate 
subjects   became   scarce — that   is — good   ones.    The 
process  of  collecting  debates  for  a  book  such  as  this 
forced  one  to  take  note  of  that  fact.    In  addition  the 
custom  of  naming  a  single  subject  for  almost  the  entire 
country  by  such  large  organizations  as  the  Pi  Kappa 
Delta  Forensic  Honor  Society  and  the  National  Foren 
sic  League  of  the  high  schools  reduced  the  available 
debates  considerably.    The  depression  has  brought  in 
a  considerable  number  of  new  subjects,  some  of  which 
will  be  found  in  this  volume,  and  has  re-popularized 
many  old  subjects  such  as  Socialism,  and  Government 
Ownership.   Among  the  new  subjects  are  Limitation  of 
Wealth  (by  income  and  inheritance  taxes),  Controlled 
Inflation  of  Currency,  Control  of  Industry,  Unemploy 
ment  Insurance,  Reduction  of  Wages,  Capitalism,  Con 
trol  of  Banks,  Domestic  Allotment  Plan   of  Farm 
Relief,  Dictatorship,  and  Methods  of  Taxation.    Most 
of  these  discussions  bear  a  direct  relationship  to  depres 
sion  problems,  and  are  bora  of  hard  times. 

The  survey  of  the  debate  season  taken  last  fall 
(1932)  indicated  that  approximately  fifty  subjects 
would  be  discussed  among  the  American  colleges.  This 
was  a  larger  number  of  different  subjects  than  had  been 
used  during  the  immediate  preceding  years.  It  Is  true, 
of  course,  that  more  different  subjects  are  used  in  years 


EDITOR'S  FOREWORD  xi 

when  the  large  conventions  of  the  National  Forensic 
Societies  are  not  held.  On  years  when  the  National 
Conventions  meet  the  colleges  concentrate  more  on  the 
main  or  National  subject  chosen.  When  there  are  no 
National  Conventions  in  the  debate  season,  the  local 
conferences  break  away  from  the  National  choice  of 
subject  more  freely.  The  many  interesting  subjects 
arising  because  of  depression  conditions  added  to  the 
tendency  to  break  away  from  the  National  Subject  this 
year. 

The  leading  subjects  debated  the  past  season  have 
been  Taxation  of  Invisible  or  Intangible  Property  by 
the  High  Schools?  and  Cancellation  of  War  Debts  by 
the  Colleges  and  Junior  Colleges.  Control  of  the 
Banks,  the  Mid-West  subject,  was  perhaps  ne%t  in 
popularity  with  the  colleges.  Some  of  the  Universities 
in  the  Middle  West  debated  the  Taxation  question. 
The  Ohio  colleges  discussed  Limitation  of  Wealth 
through  Inheritance  and  Income  Taxes.  A  Third 
Party  Movement  was  debated  in  Illinois  and  Occupa 
tional  Representation  in  Legislatures  and  in  Congress 
was  used  in  Michigan,  Also  State  Police  Force  was 
discussed  in  Michigan.  The  other  subjects  had  only 
scattering  adherentSj  and  were  used  as  additional  or 
supplementary  subjects  to  the  main  one— Cancellation 
of  War  Debts  which  was  almost  universally  discussed. 

Next  year  the  conventions  of  the  National  Forensic 
honor  are  due  again*  The  National  subjects 

are  either  chosen  or  by  preliminary  vote.  The 

National  Forensic  or  the  National  High  School 

question  Is  concerned  with  Radio  Broadcasting  for  next 


xii  EDITOR'S  FOREWORD 

season.  Pi  Kappa  Delta  and  Phi  Rho  Pi  will  probably 
discuss  Control  of  the  Banking  System.  At  least  this 
subject  has  won  in  the  spring  vote,  with  Currency  In** 
flation  in  second  place. 

Since  the  depression  has  not  stopped  the  debate  trip, 
the  sectional  tournaments,  nor  dulled  debate  enthusi 
asm,  the  prospect  for  next  year's  conventions  is  good. 
In  1932  all  agreed  that  the  conventions  would  be  poorly 
attended  but  that  did  not  prove  to  be  the  case*    This 
past  season  the  National  High  School  and  Junior  Col 
lege  organizations  held   successful   conventions  and 
tournaments.    It  is  likely  that  the  conventions  sched 
uled  for  next  year  will  be  largely  attended,  and  much 
more  successful  than  the  times  warrant.    The  virility 
of  debating  must  be  quite  a  shock  to  the  howling  Cas- 
sandras  who  have  been  heralding  its  death  for  lo  these 
many  years!    Much  has  been  written  concerning  de 
bate  that  has  not  been  abreast  of  the  times.    The 
debating  activity  has  just  marched  off  and  left  some 
unobserving  people  marooned  with  an  outlook  ten 
years  out  of  date.    One  of  the  marked  things  about 
college  debating  since  it  began  in  the  early  nineties  at 
Harvard  and  Yale  has  been  its  constant  change,  growth^ 
and  development.   Each  decade  it  presents  an  entirely 
new  face.    Some  persons  have  mistaken,  change  for 
decay,  transition  for  demise,  and  new  forms  for  the 
final  abandonment  of  the  entire  activity,  but  the  true 
story  is  one  of  progress  and  improvement,  and  the 
future  is  full  of  hope— hope  guaranteed  by 
realization  and  vigor* 

B0BIBT  RAY  NICHOLS 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

FOREWORD iii 

REVENUES  FROM  INTANGIBLE  PROPERTY   (Western 

Conference  Debate)    .........       3 

University  of  Wisconsin  vs.  University  of  Michigan. 
Bibliography 

SOCIALISM  (An  International  Debate)    .    *    .    .    .      77 
Yale  University— Oxford  University  (England) 
Bibliography 

CANCELLATION  OP  WAR  DEBTS  (Pacific  Coast  Pi 
Kappa  Delta  Province  Tournament  Champion* 
ship) 121 

Fresno  State  College  vs.  University  of  Southern 
California 

Bibliography 

WAE  DEBTS    ..............    167 

Delta  Sigma  Rho  Public  Discussion 

AMERICAN  LEGION  SHOULD  BE  CONDEMNED    *    .    ,    203 
Princeton  University  vs«  University  of  Georgia 
Bibliography 

GOVERNMENT  CONTROL  OF  THE  BANKING  SYSTEM    ,    25 1 
Beloit  College  vs*  Marquctte  University 
Bibliography 

LIMITATION  OF  WRAITH  *    * .    32 S 

of  Wooster  Affirnmttve  and  Negative 
Bibliography 

Potter  w  .......    369 

Bucknei!  University  Affirmative  and  Negative 
Bibliography 


XIV  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

A  PRESIDENTIAL  DICTATORSHIP 419 

Colgate  University  vs.  New  York  University 
Bibliography 

RADIO  BROADCASTING 467 

Occidental  College  vs.  University  of  Arizona 
Bibliography 

APPENDIX  I 507 

List  of  Subjects  covered  in  Intercollegiate  De 
bates,  Volumes  I-XIV 

APPENDIX  II  .    „ 517 

List  of  Colleges  represented  in  Intercollegiate  De 
bates,  Volumes  I-XIV 

INDEX 521 


REVENUES  FROM  INTANGIBLE 
PROPERTY 

Western  Conference  Debate 


REVENUES  FROM  INTANGIBLE 
PROPERTY 

UNIVERSITY  OF  WISCONSIN  AFFIRMATIVE 
VS.  UNIVERSITY  OF  MICHIGAN  NEGATIVE 

The  Western  Conference  Debates,  held  in  December,  were  upon  a 
question  much  discussed  throughout  both  Colleges  and  High  Schools 
in  the  1932-33  Debating  Season.  The  question  was  stated:  Resolved, 
that  at  least  one  half  of  all  state  und  local  revenues  should  be  derived 
from  sources  other  than  tangible  property, 

The  speakers  for  the  Affirmative  in  this  debate  were  David  August, 
0.  Glenn  Stahl  and  Harry  L.  Cole  of  the  University  of  Wisconsin. 
Negative  speakers  were  James  Moore,  Victor  Rabinowitt  and  Nathan 
Levy  of  the  University  of  Michigan.  Dean  G.  C,  Sellery  of  the 
University  of  Wisconsin  presided  at  the  debate  and  introduced  the 
speakers. 

Professor  Reiford  Mitchell,  of  Lawrence  College,  acted  as  Critic 
Judge  and  gave  his  decision  to  the  University  of  Wisconsin  Affirm 
ative  Team. 

These  were  contributed  by  Professor  H*  L«  Ewbank, 

Coach  of  Debate  at  the  University  of  Wisconsin. 

Introduction,  Dean  G.  C.  Sellery 

It  gives  me  very  pleasure  as  a  member  of  the 
faculty  of  the  University  of  Wisconsin  to  play  the 
honorary  rdle  of  presiding  officer.  It  gives  me  also 
great  as  a  Professor  of  Medieval  History  to 

see  still  strong.    Debating  under  the 

medieval  of  was  the  most  character 

istic  activity,  the  pedagogical  device,  of 

medieval  A  his  degree  by 

I 


4      THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

debating,  by  arguing,  by  demonstrating  a  thesis.  Un 
fortunately,  debating  no  longer  occupies  the  central 
curricular  position  it  had  in  the  medieval  ages,  al 
though  it  still  survives  in  connection  with  the  doctor's 
degree,  when  the  candidate  has  to  defend  his  thesis 
before  the  presiding  judges  or  professors. 

That  the  debate  was  very  important  in  the  medieval 
ages  I  think  I  can  illustrate  rather  neatly  by  referring 
to  a  circular  sent  out  by  the  University  of  Toulouse  in 
1229,  a  trifle  over  700  years  ago.  The  University  of 
Toulouse  had  been  recently  founded  in  the  old  Al- 
bigensian  territory.  Its  sponsors  were  very  anxious  to 
secure  a  good  attendance,  so  they  sent  a  circular  out 
among  the  European  Universities  advertising  the  ad 
vantages  at  Toulouse.  After  explaining  that  the  wine 
was  very  good  there,  that  the  rents  were  low,  that  the 
girls  were  pretty,  they  said,  "Moreover  disputations 
are  held  at  Toulouse  twice  as  frequently  as  they  are 
held  at  the  University  of  Paris."  That  was  supposed 
to  demonstrate  to  every  one,  that  if  he  was  an  up  and 
coming  student  he  should  come  to  the  University  of 
Toulouse. 

I  have  been  asked,  before  calling  upon  the  first 
speaker  to  make  two  announcements  to  the  audience. 
First,  that  the  coaches  and  members  of  the  debating 
squads  of  the  nearby  high  schools  are  invited  to  attend 
a  meeting  of  these  debaters  and  other  interested 
persons  in  Tripp  Commons  in  the  Memorial  Union 
Building  immediately  after  the  conclusion  of  this  con 
test.  The  judge  and  a  number  of  the  varsity 
will  discuss  the  details  of  the  question* 


REVENUES   FROM  INTANGIBLE  PROPERTY  5 

The  second  notice  relates  to  the  ballots  which  are 
appended  to  the  program.  There  are  two  types-  Don't 
be  worried  if  you  haven't  both;  you  are  supposed  to 
have  only  one.  On  one  of  these  ballots  you  are  re 
quested  to  mark  your  decision  as  to  the  successful 
team.  Those  who  receive  the  second  type  are  asked 
to  decide  and  record  their  judgment  as  to  the  relative 
success  of  the  debaters,  to  rank  the  six  debaters  in 
the  order  of  their  merit. 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen,  I  have  the  honor  to  call  upon 
Mr.  David  August  to  open  for  the  Affirmative, 

First  Affirmative,  David  August 
University  of  Wisconsin 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  Today  marks  exactly  one 
month  since  you  went  to  the  polls  in  the  presiden 
tial  election,  and  in  that  campaign  no  issue  was  so 

widely  discussed  as  the  question  of  taxation.  We  have 
been  particularly  anxious  to  have  the  privilege  of  dis 
cussing  the  subject  with  the  Gentlemen  from  Michigan. 

It  has  been  well  said  that  the  power  to  tax  is  the  power 

to  destroy.  Obviously  no  nation  deliberately  uses  tax- 
ation  as  a  method  of  destruction,  but  rather  as  an 

instrument  to  encourage  industry  and  initiative  among 
its  people.  In  working  out  a  satisfactory  tax  system, 
we  face  the  difficult  problem  of  finding  the  fairest  and 
most  enlightened  of  meeting  the  cost  of  govern- 

menty  a  plan  which  will  not  overburden  those  least  able 
to  pay.    It  is  this  consideration  which  moves  us  to 
that  at         one-half  of  all  state  and  local  rev- 


6      THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

enues  should  be  derived  from  sources  other  than  tan 
gible  property. 

At  present,  state  and  local  governments  are  making 
a  futile  attempt  to  raise  three-fourths  of  all  their  rev 
enue  from  a  single  source,  namely  tangible  property; 
whereas  they  collect  only  one-fourth  from  sources 
other  than  tangible  property,  including  income  taxes, 
inheritance  taxes,  motor  vehicle  and  gasoline  taxes, 
and  the  like.  What  we  are  proposing  here  tonight  is 
that  we  should  redistribute  the  tax  burden  and  so  pro 
portion  it  as  to  lighten  the  heavy  load  which  now  rests 
upon  the  owners  of  tangible  property  and  thus  raise 
a  proportionate  share  from  other  sources.  At  present, 
by  consulting  expenditures  on  state  and  local  budgets, 
we  find  that  public  welfare  and  public  education  costs 
fifty-eight  per  cent  of  the  total  revenue  collected.  The 
construction  and  maintenance  of  public  highways 
represents  twenty-four  per  cent,  and  protection  only 
eighteen  per  cent. 

Our  proposal  is  that  we  should  raise  the  fifty-eight 
per  cent  needed  for  state  and  local  education  and  wel 
fare  by  means  of  a  state  income  tax.   We  also  propose 
to  maintain  our  highways,  twenty-four  per  cent,  by 
means  of  a  motor  vehicle  and  gasoline  tax.    Thus  we 
would  rely  on  real  estate  for  the  eighteen  pet 
needed  for  protection.    Now,  this  is  a  rather 
plicated  proposal;  so  that  we  may         perfectly 
on  this,  I  will  furnish  the  opposition  with  a  copy  of 
this  plan.    We  urge  this  ^apportionment,  first  of  all 
because  the  present  situation  is  intolerable; 
because  the  proposed  shift  is  perfectly  feasible;  and 


REVENUES   FROM  INTANGIBLE  PROPERTY  7 

third,  because  It  will  produce  a  more  equitable  situ 
ation  than  at  the  present  time;  a  situation  which  is 
overburdening  the  farmers  and  the  home  owners  and 
the  business  men. 

At  one  time  in  our  nation's  history  tangible  property 
was  the  only  form  of  taxable  wealth,  but  the  latest 
report  from  the  Minnesota  Tax  Commission  gives  this 
statement:  "The  rapid  growth  of  intangible  wealth  in 
recent  years  in  the  form  of  stocks,  bonds  and  other 
credits,  affords  new  opportunities  for  the  investment  of 
the  salaried  group  who  contribute  but  little  to  the  ex 
penses  of  the  government  under  which  they  live  and 
prosper,"  Now,  this  failure  to  extend  the  tax  base  to 
meet  new  social  and  economic  conditions  has  resulted 
in  a  long  list  of  flagrant  inequities,  a  list  so  long  we  are 
forced  to  bring  in  a  general  indictment  of  the  property 
tax*  In  one  case  here  we  have  four  Wisconsin,  fanners 
who  barely  made  ends  meet  m  1930.  This  is  a  Wis 
consin  example  but  it  applies  to  the  precise  situations 
in  Michigan,  in  Minnesota,  and  other  states  of  the 
union.  On  the  other  hand  we  have  twenty-five  Wis 
consin  residents  who  sat  at  home  and  did  nothing  but 
clip  coupons*  The  farmers  were  taxed  twelve  hundred 
dollar8,™the  combined  bill  of  those  four  farmers;  but 
what  did  the  twenty-five  Wisconsin  coupon  clippers 
who  clipped  three  million  dollars  worth  of  coupons 
pay?  They  paid  forty-one  less  than  the  com 

bined  tax  bill  of  the  four  farmers.  Situations  of  this 
nature  compel  us  to  say  that  there  is  an  unjust  and 
unequal  burden  upon  the  farmer  and  home 

owner. 


8      THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

Here  again  we  have  the  situation  of  a  Green  County 
farmer  who  made  little  or  no  net  income  from  the 
farm  in  the  year  1930  but  was  taxed  two  hundred 
seventy  dollars.  Then  we  have  the  case  of  a  Wisconsin 
newspaper  man  who  in  the  year  1930  received  a  half 
million  dollars  in  dividends.  What  did  he  pay?  He 
paid  not  one  cent  toward  the  cost  of  state  and  local 
government  on  those  stock  dividends.  Is  it  fair  to  tax 
a  farmer  who  toils  on  his  land  two  hundred  seventy 
dollars,  so  that  we  can  exempt  a  man  with  a  half  mil 
lion  dollars  of  dividends?  This  is  precisely  the  reason 
why  economic  authorities  condemn  the  property  tax 
as  being  unjust  and  intolerable.  To  point  out  the  in 
tolerable  conditions  imposed  by  a  property  tax  I  need 
merely  point  southward  to  the  city  of  Chicago.  In  this 
municipality  they  have  been  unable  to  pay  school 
teachers  for  the  past  two  years,  and  yet  the  city  does 
not  hesitate  to  sue  the  teachers  on  delinquent  property 
.  taxes.  No  wonder  President  Hutchins  of  the  Uni 
versity  of  Chicago  called  the  property  tax  "prepos 
terous  and  unjust." 

The  Michigan  Committee  for  Inquiry  Into  Taxation 
gives  a  very  interesting  piece  of  evidence  on  tax  de 
linquency.  They  say,  "Tax  delinquency  is  not  tax 
delinquency,  but  represents  an  levy  of 

beyond  the  ability  of  the  people  to  pay."  Let  us  look 
at  the  tax  delinquent  situation  In  Detroit,  Michigan- 
The  City  of  Detroit  is  twenty-seven  per  cent  delin 
quent  in  its  property  taxes.  Buffalo  is  thirty-two  p*r 
cent  delinquent,  and  In  rural  districts  the  rate 
from  thirty  per  cent  to  sixty  per  cent.  Only  recently 


REVENUES  FHOM   INTANGIBLE   PROPERTY  9 

the  State  of  Mississippi  took  over  twenty-five  per  cent 
of  all  its  farm  lands  for  delinquent  property  taxes. 
This  is  the  work  of  property  tax  that  is  being  upheld 
by  the  Negative  this  evening. 

There  is  good  reason  for  this:  the  whole  theory  be 
hind  the  property  tax  is  erroneous.  All  economists  lay 
down  two  fundamental  doctrines  which  should  be  ap 
plied  to  systems  of  taxation.  These  are,  first,  that 
citizens  should  be  assessed  according  to  their  respec 
tive  abilities  to  pay;  second,  citizens  should  be  assessed 
according  to  the  amount  of  benefit  they  receive  from 
the  government. 

But  let  us  see  what  the  National  Industrial  Con 
ference  Board  said  in  its  latest  study  of  the  relation 
between  the  rate  of  the  property  tax  levy  and  these 
two  fundamental  doctrines.  They  say,  "Usually  there 
can  be  found  no  such  direct  relationship  between  the 
performance  of  the  governmental  functions  and  the 
market  values  of  property,  and  it  is  only  to  the  extent 
that  such  direct  relationships  do  exist,  that  the  prop 
erty  tax  satisfies  the  benefit  principle  of  taxation." 
Secondly,  "As  regards  the  ability  principle,  the  de 
ficiencies  of  the  property  tax  are  more  evident  and 
more  serious*  In  the  final  analysis  there  can  be  only 
one  source  of  tax  payments,  namely,  income,  and  the 
usual  meaning  of  the  ability  principle  of  taxation  Is 
that  with  some  minor  exceptions  taxes  should  be  ap 
portioned  according  to  the  income  received  by  differ 
ent  taxpayers/* 

This  is  from  the  most  authoritative  source  on  this 
subjectf  the  report  of  the  National  Industrial 


10     THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

Conference  Board.  When  President  Hoover  addressed 
the  twenty-fifth  annual  conference  of  the  National  Tax 
Association  last  October,  he  said,  "Along  with  the 
necessity  for  drastic  tax  reduction,  the  most  pressing 
fiscal  problem  of  the  day  is  to  adjust  the  state  and 
local  taxes  to  modern  conditions  so  as  to  relieve  the 
burden  which  now  presses  so  inequitably  upon  the 
farmer  and  small  home  owner/7  and  this  is  what  we  are 
trying  to  do  with  our  proposal,  to  reapportion  the  tax 
burden  so  as  to  get  a  greater  and  greater  proportion  of 
taxes  from  intangible  property. 

You  all  want  your  tax  burden  to  be  as  light  as  pos 
sible.  Naturally  tax  reduction  is  imperative.  It  is  a 
thing  which  must  come.  At  the  last  election  you  went 
to  the  polls  and  voted  for  that  party  that  promised 
a  twenty-five  per  cent  cut  in  taxes.  If  every  time  we 
have  a  cut  in  taxes  we  apply  that  to  the  property  tax, 
we  achieve  a  double  purpose.  We  relieve  the  owners 
of  tangible  property  from  an  unfair  burden,  and  auto 
matically  approach  the  goal  of  raising  a  fair  amount 
which  should  be  levied  from  sources  other  than  tan 
gible  property. 

Before  this  debate  continues  much  further  you  will 
want  to  know  precisely  how  the  opposition  stands  on 
certain  fundamental  Issues*  We  should  like  to  ask, 
first  of  all,  do  our  opponents  favor  tax  reduction^  aacl 
if  so,  what  taxes  do  they  propose  to  cut?  Second,  do 
they  accept  the  principles  of  ability  to  pay  and 
fits  received?  If  so,  do  they  maintain  that  the  owner 
ship  of  tangible  property  is  a  fair  and  accurate 


REVENUES  FROM  INTANGIBLE  PROPERTY     11 

of  either  a  person's  ability  to  pay  or  the  benefits  re 
ceived  from  the  government?  If  they  do  not  accept 
these  fundamental  principles,  how  do  they  answer  the 
unanimous  testimony  of  economic  authorities  which 
substantiates  these  two  fundamental  doctrines,  and 
last,  do  our  opponents  favor  a  state  income  tax? 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen,  we  have  come  here  tonight 
to  discuss  one  of  the  most  pressing  problems  of  the 
day.  We  have  come  here  not  to  cry  our  eyes  out  and 
tell  you  of  the  sufferings  of  the  poor  farmers  and  home 
owners,  but  the  fact  remains,  that  they  are  now  bear 
ing  an  unfair  and  intolerable  burden  which  is  demand 
ing  more  than  they  can  possibly  produce.  We  have 
come  here  tonight  to  ask  you  to  put  into  the  back 
ground  a  system  which  has  been  found  to  be  deficient 
in  every  respect.  We  come  here  to  condemn  a  system 
which  was  tried  in  all  European  countries  and  entirely 
discarded.  Now,  we  ask  you  to  put  the  present  system 
into  the  discard  and  to  take  the  proposition  which  we 
are  presenting  tonight^  which  would  place  a  fair  and 
equitable  amount  of  taxes  upon  those  people  who  are 
best  able  to  pay. 


First  Negative,  James  Moore 
University  of  Michigan 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  First  permit  me  to  ex 
press  the  gratification  of  both  Coach  McBurney  and 
the  team  of  the  University  of  Michigan  on  being  able 
to  come  up  here  this  evening  to  debate  the  University 
of  Wisconsin.  We  have  had  the  most  wonderful  treat-* 


12     THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

ment  and  we  hope  we  will  see  our  opponents  down  in 
Ann  Arbor  in  the  near  future.  ^ 

In  so  far  as  the  efforts  of  the  Affirmative  this  eve-   J 
ning  are  directed  toward  modernizing  or  perfecting  the  C^ 
status  quo,  in  so  far  as  their  tax  suggestions  are  made,  ^ 
I  think  they  had  an  idea  of  curing  administrative  dif 
ficulties,  or  revising  existing  systems,  of  classifying 
property  according  to  type;  in  short,  of  bringing  more  ^ 
order  into  the  entire  state  and  local  government.  So  far 
the  Negative  is  willing  and  even  anxious  to  go.    If  the 
Gentlemen  of  the  Affirmative  are  interested  in  clearing  P 
out  the  graft,  the  extravagance  and  the  waste  that  is  so 
much  an  apparent  part  of  the  difficulties  of  state  and- 
local  government,  here  too  they  will  find  willing 
acquiescence  on  the  part  of  the  Negative.    Efforts 
along  these  lines  will  do  much  to  decrease  the  diffi 
culties  complained  of  by  the  preceding  speaker,  but,  (*, 
not  only  has  he  failed  to  take  proper  cognizance  of  y 
these  matters,  but  he  has,  in  his  zealous  efforts  to  por-    * 
tray  a  picture  of  present  conditions^  overstated  their 
importance.  Of  the  fourteen  billion  dollars  tax  burden 
raised  in  this  country  every  year,  thirty  per  cent  is 
raised  by  the  federal  government,  and  the  federal  gov- , 
ernment  raises  all  of  its  taxes  from  intangible  property. '' 
This  is  a  significant  fact.    It  is  so  significant  that  any  «, 
tax  suggestion  or  any  tax  analysis  which  fails  to  take  *  * 
it  into  consideration  is  not  only  incomplete,  but  most  m 
misleading.    The  suggestions  which  I  point  out  might 
goy  together  with  this  fact,  to  put  the  picture  in  a 
brighter  light  and  undoubtedly  in  a  more 
manner. 


REVENUES  FROM  INTANGIBLE  PROPERTY     13 

"9    The  Gentlemen  of  the  Affirmative  have  given  us 

t4  certain  questions  asking  whether  we  wish  to  lighten  the 

(Ntax  burden,  whether  we  favor  tax  reduction,  what  taxes 

|0we  wish  to  have  reduced,  whether  we  accept  ability  to 

<J\pay  and  the  benefit  theory.    The  Negative  wishes  to 

fvmake  perfectly  clear  its  stand  on  the  use  and  adoption 

...of  taxes  designed  to  broaden  the  tax  base.    The  Neg- 

^4  ative  admits  the  tax  base  can  be  broadened  in  some 

^  states  and  in  some  manner,  but  that  any  system  or  any 

tax  suggestion  made  with  that  idea  in  mind  must  be 

^ffioroughly  tested  in  the  light  of  local  conditions,  pos 

sible  future  needs,  and  strong  scientific  tax  principles. 

^We  of  the  Negative  admit  there  are  many  scientific 

tax  principles;    fiscal  adequacy,  equity,   simplicity, 

diversity,  and  many  others.    But  obviously  the  proper 

order  to  take  them  up  is  fiscal  adequacy  first  and  equity 


q;  for  it  is  merely  theorizing  to  talk  about  equity 

•  if  a  tax  does  not  meet  the  primary  object  of  every  tax, 


;o  raise  sufficient  money  to  run  the  government.    It  is 

on  this  line  that  we  will  draw  issue  this  evening. 

For  we  feel  that  the  Affirmative  tax  suggestion  as 
presented  to  you  does  not  meet  the  first  real  test  of 
any  tax,  fiscal  adequacy.  We  are  not  alone  in  our 
nion.  Professor  Lutz,  noted  Professor  of  Princeton, 
who  wrote  his  book  on  public  finance,  says  on  page 
l65;  "This  requirement  (fiscal  adequacy)  is  of  such 
supreme  importance  from  the  practical  viewpoint  of 
Cr  the  treasury  that  it  should  be  placed  first.  To  be  sure 
mere  fiscal  adequacy  or  productivity  is  not  enough.  A 
tax  system  to  be  thoroughly  sound  and  enduring  must 
be  something  than  productive  of  sufficient  rev- 


14    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

enue  to  meet  the  needs  of  the  state.  But  there  is  little 
practical  advantage  in  considering  any  other  qualifi 
cations  either  of  a  specific  tax  or  the  tax  system  as  a 
whole,  unless  it  will  produce  revenue.  Many  beautiful 
schemes  have  been  formulated  on  paper  for  the  satis 
faction  of  the  states7  financial  needs,  and  some  of  these 
have  attained  to  quite  dizzy  heights  of  idealism  in  the 
theoretical  justice  and  equity  of  their  provisions  for 
the  distribution  of  the  burden  of  taxation,  But  some 
of  these  schemes  have  never  had  a  chance  from  the  out 
set  for  the  simple  reason  that  they  have  clearly  been 
incapable  of  producing  a  sufficient  revenue." 

We  feel  that  the  Affirmative  tax  suggestion  in  the 
first  place  can  not  provide  sufficient  revenue.  In  the 
second  place  it  can  not  provide  a  satisfactory  method  of 
distribution  of  the  revenue,  and  in  the  third  place  it 
can  not  provide  for  a  certain  and  reliable  revenue. 

In  support  of  the  first  contention  1  am  going  to  dis 
cuss  a  group  of  states  geographically  situated  around 
the  United  States,  all  of  them  with  a  different  propor 
tion  of  intangible  wealth,  all  of  them  drawing  wealth 
from  different  sources,  all  of  them  with  different  local 
problems;  but  they  have  one  thing  in  common  and 
that  is  they  make  use  of  all  the  tax  suggestions  which 
the  Gentlemen  of  the  Affirmative  have  advocated  this 
evening.  The  first  state  I  will  discuss  is  New  York, 
the  greatest  industrial  state  in  the  Union,  aocl  the 
with  the  greatest  pile  up  of  intangible  wealth  in  the 
Union  or  in  the  civilized  world.  Of  New  Y0rkfs  com 
bined  state  and  local  revenue,  seventy  per  Is 
derived  from  a  tax  on  tangible  property;  twenty  per 


REVENUES   FROM  INTANGIBLE  PROPERTY  15 

cent  from  intangibles,  and  nine  per  cent  from  licenses 
and  permits.  Applying  the  Affirmative's  tax  sugges 
tion  this  evening,  which  says  they  are  only  going  to 
raise  eighteen  per  cent  of  the  taxes,  combined  state  and 
local  taxes  from  tangible  property,  we  will  deduct  from 
the  seventy  per  cent  which  is  now  raised  in  the  city  of 
New  York  the  eighteen  per  cent,  which  means  a  shift 
of  fifty-two  per  cent  over  to  the  intangible  column. 
The  Affirmative,  by  their  various  tax  systems,  are  go 
ing  to  raise  seventy-two  per  cent  of  their  income  in 
New  York  from  intangible  sources.  New  York  today 
has  all  the  taxes  you  can  think  of,  but  the  Affirmative 
hopes  to  raise  over  four  times  as  much  by  taxation  of 
intangibles  as  has  been  done  heretofore.  This  would 
mean,  among  other  things,  a  sixteen  cents  a  gallon  tax 
on  gasoline. 

1  bring  up  the  State  of  New  York  for  one  other 
reason.  In  1930,  according  to  the  Federal  Income 
Statistics,  we  find  New  York  paid  thirty-four  per  cent 
of  all  money  which  the  Federal  Government  raised  on 
income  tax  in  the  United  States.  This  income  is  in 
easily  available  form;  it  is  in  stocks;  it  is  in  mortgages; 
it  is  in  banks;  and  you  can  get  at  it  to  tax.  Contrast 
this,  however,  with  the  State  of  North  Dakota,  which  is 
ninety-five  per  cent  rural.  Ninety-five  per  cent  of  their 
income  is  derived  from  tangible  property;  ninety-five 
per  cent  of  their  wealth  is  in  tangible  property;  and, 
in  1929^  eighty- four  per  cent  of  their  taxes,  combined 
state  and  local,  came  from  tangible  property*  three 
and  thirty-six  hundredths  from  intangibles,  and  twelve 
and  fifty-two  hundredths  from  licenses  and  permits* 


16     THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

Here  we  have  a  different  local  situation.  They  don't 
have  any  high  incomes  in  North  Dakota.  By  Federal 
Statistics  we  find  they  paid  two  hundredths  of  one  pej 
cent  of  the  Federal  taxes  in  1930,  one  seventeen  hun-. 
dredth  as  much  as  New  York.  According  to  the 
National  Industrial  Conference  Board,  the  per  capita 
current  income  of  the  farmers  in  North  Dakota  is 
lower  than  that  of  the  New  York  farmers,  A  sub 
stantial  portion  of  the  farmer's  income  is  received  in 
most  cases  in  items  consumed  by  the  farmer's  family 
and  therefore  never  reported  as  taxable  income.  Re 
member  in  New  York  they  could  get  their  taxes  because 
they  could  find  the  sources  of  intangible  wealth^  but 
in  the  agricultural  states  you  can  not  do  that  because 
the  wealth  is  represented  in  bags  of  potatoes,  bushels 
of  wheat,  and  shocks  of  com.  The  farmer  may  use  it 
in  his  family  or  to  feed  his  stock.  At  any  rate  it  isn't 
available  for  taxing  under  the  Affirmative  plan. 

Let  us  apply  their  plan  to  North  Dakota.  To  sub 
tract  eighteen  per  cent  from  the  present  seventy  per 
cent  means  a  shift  of  fifty-two  per  cent  over  to  the 
intangible  column.  Sixty-nine  per  cent  is  the  total  now 
to  be  raised  on  the  intangibles^  nineteen  times  as  much 
as  is  raised  today.  They  have  a  three  per  cent  corpo 
ration  tax  in  North  Dakota,  Under  their  tax  it  will 
mean  a  fifty-seven  per  cent  corporation  tax.  It  will 
mean  a  fifty-seven  cent  tax  on  gasoline.  And  remem 
ber  the  farmers  are  going  to  evade  it  as  much  as  they 
can.  Here  is  a  local  condition  which  the  Affirmative1* 
arbitrary  plan  can  not  meet. 
Going  down  to  the  State  of  Mississippi  we  find  an- 


EEVENUES   FROM   INTANGIBLE  PROPERTY  17 

other  condition.  Mississippi  is  seventy-five  per  cent 
rural;  seventy-three  per  cent  of  their  income  comes 
from  tangible  property;  five  per  cent  from  intangibles, 
and  twenty  per  cent  from  licenses  and  permits.  They 
contributed  seven  hundredths  of  one  per  cent  to  the 
Federal  income  tax.  According  to  Governor  Connor, 
"We  have  a  local  condition  of  few  large  incomes  and 
no  great  industry.  In  order  to  get  the  Negroes,  who 
constitute  fifty-two  per  cent  of  our  population  to  con 
tribute  anything  we  have  had  to  adopt  a  general  busi 
ness  tax." 

This  is  another  local  condition.  Applying  the  Af 
firmative's  plan  in  the  State  of  Mississippi,  we  find 
they  would  have  to  raise  all  taxes  by  from  eight  to 
twelve  times  their  present  amount.  If  they  add  on  the 
taxes  they  contemplate,  it  would  mean  a  twenty-four 
per  cent  sales  tax,  and  a  seventy-two  cent  tax  on 
gasoline,  where  they  now  pay  six  cents.  That  is  an 
other  local  condition.  Who  bears  the  burden  there? 
The  colored  people  can?t  The  poor  white  man  must. 

I  can  take  you  out  to  the  State  of  Utah.  The  same 
condition  is  true  out  there,  Who  will  bear  the  burden 
there?  The  miners,  because  the  farmers  can  evade 
the  income  tax.  The  miner  can't  evade  and  he  only 
works  one  hundred  days  a  year.  Obviously  the  Affirm 
ative's  plan  could  not  work  in  the  state  of  Utah. 

North  Carolina  is  another  example.  North  Carolina, 
by  means  of  their  income  tax,  supplies  thirty  per  cent 
of  their  school  fund.  If  they  were  going  to  supply  the 
entire  school  fund  they  would  have  to  their  in 

come  tax  three  hundred  per  cent.  To  adopt  the  entire 


18     THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

Affirmative  plan,  they  would  have  to  raise  the  tax  rates 
on  intangibles  twelve  hundred  per  cent.  So  we  con 
clude  from  a  survey  of  our  states  around  the  Union 
that  the  Affirmative  plan  can  not  work  because  it  can 
not  get  sufficient  revenue;  because  these  intangibles 
can  not  be  taxed  in  such  a  manner  as  to  assure  collec 
tion  of  the  tax. 

We  of  the  Negative  in  presenting  our  analysis  have 
propounded  a  question  for  the  Affirmative.  We  wish 
the  Gentlemen  would  explain  to  us  what  substantial 
reasons  they  can  give  for  setting  fifty  per  cent  as  the 
maximum  amount  to  be  derived  from  tangible  property 
in  each  of  the  forty-eight  states?  Why  must  a  state 
like  North  Dakota  be  allowed  no  opportunity  to  obtain 
no  more  than  fifty  per  cent  from  tangible  property^ 
why  not  sixty  per  cent,  or  seventy  per  cent?  Why  do 
they  have  any  maximum  of  any  per  cent?  We  wish  the 
next  Affirmative  speaker  to  answer  this  question :  what 
substantial  reasons  can  the  Affirmative  give  for  setting 
fifty  per  cent  of  revenue  as  the  maximum  to  be  derived 
from  tangible  property  in  each  of  the  forty-eight 
states? 

Second  Affirmative*  O.  Glenn  Stall! 

University  of  Wisconsin 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  The  preceding 
has  just  propounded  the  question^  "What  substantial 
reasons  do  we  present  for  setting  fifty  per  cent  as  the 
maximum  revenue  to  be  derived  from  prop 

erty  in  each  of  the  forty-eight  states?"  That  is  like 
asking  us  why  we  are  debating  the  Affirmative  of 


REVENUES  FROM  INTANGIBLE  PROPERTY     19 

this  question.  In  the  course  of  my  speech  it  is  my 
purpose  to  point  out  just  exactly  what  the  opposition 
seems  to  want.  They  want  to  know  how  our  plan  is 
going  to  work;  is  it  going  to  be  practical?  First  of 
all,  you  notice  they  went  over  every  state  they  could 
possibly  find  that  they  thought  might  be  a  good  illus 
tration  of  where  our  plan  would  not  work,  and  among 
these  was  North  Dakota.  They  forgot  to  pick  out 
another  agricultural  state,  North  Carolina.  North 
Carolina  is  an  agricultural  state  as  much  as  North 
Dakota,  as  much  as  the  rest  of  these  are,  and  yet  it 
has  been  able  within  the  last  year  to  get  forty-eight 
per  cent  of  its  state  and  local  revenue  from  sources 
other  than  tangible  property.  It  happens  that  North 
Dakota  has  three  times  the  per  capita  wealth  of  North 
Carolina  and  four  times  the  per  capita  income  of  North 
Carolina,  according  to  the  World  Almanac, 

The  Gentleman  of  the  Opposition  very  casually 
mentioned  our  questions  but  he  did  not  answer  them, 
He  did  not  say  whether  or  not  they  actually  agreed 
with  these  fundamental  principles  of  ability  to  pay  or 
benefits  received*  He  said  nothing  about  how  the  pres 
ent  property  tax  is  bearing  too  heavily  on  property 
owners,  and  leading  to  tax  delinquency  and  the  ex 
emption  of  many  forms  of  taxable  ability. 

Our  program,  already  explained  to  you  by  my  col 
league,  calls  for  a  little  more  amplification.  We  are 
approaching  this  from  the  standpoint  of  where  the 
state  and  local  costs  go,  what  they  are  being  expended 
for.  First  of  all,  we  found  that  the  governmental 
services  going  to  people  In  general;  education,  public 


20     THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

welfare,  publicly  owned  utilities  and  the  like,  repre 
sent  fifty-eight  per  cent  of  state  and  local  costs.  High 
ways  represent  twenty-four  per  cent  of  the  state  and 
local  costs,  while  general  government  and  personal 
protection  to  property  represent  only  eighteen  per  cent. 
On  the  basis  of  this  we  have  arranged  our  program, 
and  that  my  opponents  may  be  perfectly  clear  as  to 
what  this  program  is,  I  present  them  with  the  copy 
which  my  colleague  promised. 

The  first  item  is  to  retain  the  real  estate  tax,  as  my 
colleague  pointed  out,  to  the  extent  of  eighteen  per 
cent,  to  cover  the  last  group  of  costs.  The  second  item 
is  motor  vehicle  taxes,  gasoline  and  auto  licenses,  to 
cover  the  cost  of  highways.  Highways  represent 
twenty-four  per  cent  of  state  and  local  costs.  The 
third  item  is  to  cover  those  wider  costs  of  government, 
education  and  public  welfare,  fifty-eight  per  cent,  with 
a  direct  tax  on  the  people.  The  authors  of  the  Model 
Plan  of  the  National  Tax  Association,  the  greatest  body 
of  experts  on  taxes  in  this  country,  speak  of  the  per 
sonal  income  tax  in  this  regard  as  a  direct  tax  on  the 
people:  "It  is  better  fitted  than  any  other  to  carry  out 
the  principle  that  every  person  having  taxable  ability 
shall  make  a  reasonable  contribution  to  the  govern 
ment"  The  business  and  personal  income  tax,  sup 
plemented  by  the  inheritance  tax,  is  our  of 
supporting  those  general  costs  of  government  which  go 
to  people  In  general  It  would  mean,  then,  that  in  the 
average  state  at  least  eighty-two  per  cent  of  the  rev 
enue  would  be  derived  from  sources  other  than 


REVENUES  FROM  INTANGIBLE  PROPERTY     21 

property.  Of  course,  within  each  state  this  could  be 
varied  to  fit  particular  conditions. 

But  what  about  the  productivity,  what  about  the 
sufficiency  of  the  revenues  of  which  the  Gentleman  of 
the  Opposition  speaks?  Motor  vehicle  taxes  at  the 
present  time  are  already  supporting  highway  systems 
in  several  states.  North  Carolina,  for  example,  with  a 
six  cent  gasoline  tax,  is  supporting  every  highway  in 
the  state;  county,  state  and  local  The  gas  tax  has 
particularly  shown  itself  to  be  an  easy  and  cheaply 
administered  source  of  revenue.  The  gas  tax  through 
out  the  United  States  costs  for  administration  only 
three  tenths  of  one  per  cent  of  its  total  yield.  The 
State  of  Virginia  is  getting  twenty-one  and  one-half 
per  cent  of  its  revenue  from  motor  vehicle  taxes;  South 
Carolina  is  getting  twenty-five  and  one-half  per  cent 
of  its  state  and  local  revenue  from  motor  vehicle  taxes. 
Obviously,  gas  and  auto  licenses  are  perfectly  adequate 
to  be  applied  in  any  state  to  cover  their  entire  highway 
program.  In  this  respect  our  program  has  shown  itself 
capable  of  raising  sufficient  revenue  in  any  state  in  the 
union,  whether  agricultural  or  industrial 

The  income  tax  requires  a  little  more  explanation. 
The  Gentleman  of  the  Opposition  who  has  just  spoken 
has  confused  you  by  seeming  to  think  that  when  we 
take  the  burden  off  property,  we  can't  get  the  income 
in  any  other  way.  May  I  remind  you  that  in  the  long 
run,  no  matter  what  kind  of  tax  is  assessed,  the  tax 
has  to  be  paid  out  of  income.  The  North  Carolina  Tax 
Commission  says,  "In  the  ultimate  analysis  it  is  in 
come  which  circumscribes  the  limits  of  taxation  and 


22     THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

determines  tax  paying  capacity."   Richard  T.  Ely,  the 
famous  economist  whose  textbook  Is  used  in  all  parts 
of  the  country,  says,  "Nearly  all  taxes  must  be  paid 
out  of  income.    The  specific  tax  employed  is  merely  a 
device  for  distributing  the  tax."    Why,  then,  should 
we  employ  a  poor  method  of  distribution?    Why  meas* 
ure  the  capacity  of  a  person  to  pay  according  to  the 
so-called  "market  value"  of  a  piece  of  property  he 
happens  to  own?    If  there  is  any  income  from  that 
property  the  income  tax  will  gef  it;  if  there  is  no  in 
come,  the  income  tax  will  get  the  revenue  where  Income 
is  being  derived.    If  there  is  any  income  in  the  com 
munity  at  all  the  income  tax  can  get  it,  since  practically 
all  taxes  have  to  be  paid  out  of  Income.    The  income 
tax  can  get  at  the  Income  as  well  as,  if  not  better  than, 
any  other  tax, 

Our  proposal,  then,  would  Involve  the  extension  of 
the  income  tax  base  further  than  It  is  now  being  used  in 
the  several  states.  It  would  mean  two  things:  lower 
ing  the  exemption  from  income  tax,  and  bringing  In 
other  forms  of  income  not  now  used*  If  we  lower  the 
exemption  in  accordance  with  the  Model  Plan  of  the 
National  Tax  Association,  we  will  have  this  extension, 
The  Model  Plan  brings  exemption  down  to  six  hundred 
dollars  for  a  single  man,  twelve  hundred  dollars  for 
the  head  of  a  family,  or  two  hundred  dollars  for  each 
dependent.  There  are  only  one  or  two  in  the 

entire  union  which  have  even  approached  ex 

emptions.    It  would  widen  the  base  to  a  sufficient 
extent  so  we  could  get  revenue.    Many 
dividends  from  domestic  corporations,  and  yet  divi- 


REVENUES  FROM  INTANGIBLE  PROPERTY     23 

dends  and  Interest  throughout  the  United  States  repre 
sented  twenty-four  per  cent  of  the  total  taxable 
personal  incomes  in  1928,  the  latest  year  for  which  the 
figures  were  available.  Incomes  from  copyrights  and 
patents  have  been  made  taxable  by  a  decision  of  the 
Supreme  Court,  and  this  could  be  included  as  a  form 
of  income,  and,  may  I  remind  you,  the  Model  Plan 
says:  "The  personal  income  tax  shall  be  levied  in 
respect  of  the  citizen's  entire  income  from  all  sources.77 

Again  to  summarize  our  program,  it  means  we  will 
support  those  actual  protection  and  general  govern 
ment  costs,  eighteen  per  cent  of  the  state  and  local 
revenue  throughout  the  country,  with  a  real  estate  tax; 
secondly,  to  cover  support  of  highways,  twenty-four 
per  cent  of  state  and  local  revenue,  with  gasoline  and 
auto  license  taxes;  and  third,  to  cover  expenditures 
going  to  the  people  in  general,  like  education,  social 
welfare,  sanitation,  fifty-eight  per  cent  of  the  state  and 
local  costs,  chiefly  with  business  and  personal  income 
taxes  supplemented  by  the  inheritance  tax*  As  I  al 
ready  pointed  out,  the  program  which  we  are  uphold 
ing  is  not  only  practicable  from  the  standpoint  of  what 
it  could  do.  It  is  already  being  done.  I  have  men 
tioned  that  the  State  of  North  Carolina  is  getting  forty- 
eight  per  cent  of  all  state  and  local  revenue  from 
sources  other  than  tangible  property. 

Governor  Gardner  in  1931  pointed  out;  aAn  impor 
tant  consideration  is  the  fact  that  the  greatest  relief  is 
given  where  relief  is  needed,— that  is  to  agricultural 
lands/'  North  Carolina,  a  predominantly  agricultural 
state,  is  not  the  only  example.  There  are  other  states. 


24     THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

South  Carolina  has  gone  to  the  extent  of  getting  forty- 
five  per  cent  of  state  and  local  revenue  from  sources 
other  than  tangible  property,  and  it  is  even  more  of  an 
agricultural  state.  That  was  true  in  1930,  and  yet  at 
the  end  of  December  1931  South  Carolina  had  a  cash 
balance  on  hand  of  six  million  five  hundred  thousand 
dollars.  This  plan  is  certainly  bringing  in  the  revenue 
in  South  Carolina. 

Here  is  the  State  of  Virginia.  At  the  end  of  1931 
it  was  getting  fifty-two  and  one-half  per  cent  of  its 
state  and  local  revenue  from  sources  other  than  tan 
gible  property,  and  finally  we  come  to  the  State  of  Del 
aware,  which  in  1930  already  was  getting  seventy- two 
per  cent  of  its  state  and  local  revenue  from  these 
sources  other  than  tangible  property.  It  is  clear  then, 
that  our  program  not  only  by  all  indications  would  be 
practicable* — It  is  already  being  put  into  actual  oper 
ation  and  is  producing  the  sufficient  revenue  of  which 
the  Gentleman  of  the  Opposition  has  spoken* 

The  State  of  Wisconsin  raises  only  thirty  per  cent  of 
its  state  and  local  taxes  from  sources  other  than  tan 
gible  property.  The  State  of  Michigan  gets  not  quite 
twenty  per  cent  from  those  sources.  The  new  program 
might  well  be  extended  here  as  elsewhere. 

Now,  in  view  of  the  fact,  as  my  colleague  has  pointed 
out,  that  the,  present  system  has  resulted  in  an  Intol 
erable  burden  on  property  owners;  has  resulted  la  this 
tax  delinquency,  which  the  opposition  has  so  far  not 
mentioned;  and  has  resulted  also  in  the  of 

many  forms  of  taxable  ability:  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
this  program  is  already  practicable  and  put  into 


REVENUES  FROM:  INTANGIBLE  PROPERTY        25 

atlon  In  several  states  of  the  union,  it  is  only  right  to 
assume  that  it  is  time  for  recognition  of  the  soundness 
of  the  program  we  are  advocating,  as  well  as  the  justice 
of  that  program, — of  the  practicability  of  that  pro 
gram,  the  feasibility  of  getting  at  least  fifty  per  cent, — 
if  not  as  much  as  eighty-two  per  cent,  although  we  are 
willing  to  go  that  far, — at  least  fifty  per  cent  of  all  state 
and  local  revenues  from  sources  other  than  tangible 
property. 


Second  Negative,  Victor  Rabinowitz 
University  of  Michigan 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  There  seems  to  be  a  num 
ber  of  questions  flying  back  and  forth  here.  I  would 
like  first  to  repeat  our  question  which  the  Gentlemen 
of  the  Opposition  stated  by  saying  or  suggesting— I 

will  read  the  question  again  first:  "What  substantial 

reasons  can  the  Affirmative  give  for  setting  fifty  per 
cent  of  revenue  as  the  maximum  to  be  derived  from 

tangible  property  in  each  of  the  forty-eight  states?" 

The  Gentlemen  answered  the  question  by  saying  they 
were  debating  the  Affirmative,  What  reason  is  that 
for  believing  fifty  per  cent  of  revenue  can  be  raised 
from  tangible  property?  Is  it  merely  because  they 
have  to  do  this?  because  they  were  assigned  to  the 
Affirmative  side  of  this  proposition? 

Their  questions,— there  are  quite  a  number  of  them 
and  we  didn't  get  all  of  them,— but  they  can  be  all 
answered  finally  as  my  colleague  answered  them,  by 
saying  that  all  of  those  questions  depend  on  local  con- 


26     THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

ditions,  depend  on  conditions  In  the  state.  A  blanket 
answer  can  not  be  given  to  any  of  those  questions.  We 
favor  a  state  income  tax  where  a  state  income  tax,  in 
view  of  local  conditions,  is  desirable.  In  New  York 
state,  for  instance,  a  state  income  tax  is  desirable.  It 
has  been  working  to  some  extent  for  some  time.  It 
has  not  been  working  nearly  to  the  extent  the  Gentle 
men  of  the  Opposition  advocate,  but  it  has  been  work 
ing  there  for  some  time.  In  the  State  of  Wisconsin  you 
have  your  income  tax.  In  the  State  of  North  Dakota 
we  believe  any  substantial  increase  in  their  present  in 
come  tax  would  be  highly  inadvisable.  They  have  also 
spent  quite  a  bit  of  time  on  North  Carolina.  North 
Carolina  is  getting  forty-eight  per  cent  of  their  income 
from  tangible  property.  Well,  in  the  first  place  that  is 
North  Carolina's  plan  for  the  next  year.  They  have 
not  collected  that  yet.  In  the  second  place  I  might 
point  out  the  state  debt  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina 
has  increased  from  ten  million  to  one  hundred  seventy 
million  in  the  last  ten  years,  so  perhaps  North  Carolina 
has  not  an  ideal  tax  system  at  the  present  time, 

They  quoted  a  number  of  other  states,  1  believe 
some  of  these  states  were  raising  seventy*two  per  cent 
from  sources  other  than  tangible  property.  If  the 
Gentlemen  of  the  Opposition  will  either  add  their  fig 
ures  over  again,  or  give  a  bit  more  detail  we  will  dis 
cuss  it,  but  the  figures  we  have  down  do  not  anywhere 
approach  that.  Finally,  the  Gentlemen,  of  the  Affirm 
ative  have  cheerfully  assumed  all  the  way  through  that 
an  income  tax  and  an  ability-to-pay  tax  was 
ymous.  They  have  made  no  attempt  to  an  in- 


REVENUES  FROM  INTANGIBLE  PROPERTY     27 

come  tax  is  a  tax  on  ability  to  pay.  It  is  quite  obvious 
a  man  with  an  income  of  two  thousand  dollars  living 
in  the  city  of  Madison  has  less  ability  to  pay  than  a 
man  with  an  income  of  two  thousand  dollars  living  in 
a  rural  community  where  the  cost  of  living  is  much 
lower.  That  is  one  of  the  many  problems. 

This  problem  of  shifting  taxes  is  another  problem 
that  must  be  considered  in  deciding  that  an  income 
tax  and  tax  on  ability  to  pay  are  synonymous.  The 
Gentlemen  of  the  Opposition  should  spend  a  bit  of  time 
in  proving  this  assumption. 

Our  first  speaker  pointed  out  that  the  Affirmative  tax 
suggestion  can  not  provide  a  sufficient  amount  of 
money  in  all  forty-eight  states.  He  showed  how  high 
the  income  tax  would  have  to  be  increased  in  the  States 
of  North  Carolina  and  North  Dakota.  They  want  to 
raise  fifty-eight  per  cent  of  their  taxation  from  an  in 
come  tax.  At  the  present  time  North  Carolina  raises 
one  per  cent  of  its  taxes  from  an  income  tax.  They 
suggested  a  minimum  exemption  of  six  hundred 
dollars.  That  means,  if  the  income  tax  was  increased 
in  North  Carolina  fifty-eight  times,  as  it  would  have  to 
be  at  the  least,  they  would  have  a  rate  of  fifty-eight 
per  cent  on  an  income  of  six  hundred  dollars.  We  be 
lieve  that  a  tax  as  high  as  that  in  an  agricultural  com 
munity  where  taxes  are  easily  evaded  can  not  possibly 
be  collected.  There  is  no  way  of  checking  how  much 
a  farmer  uses  every  year.  There  is  no  way  of  check 
ing  what  a  farmer's  income  is,  and  throughout  the 
entire  middle  west  everywhere  from  the  Mississippi 
River  to  the  Rocky  Mountains  those  are  all  agricultural 


28     THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

states  where  your  incomes  are  farm  incomes  and  they 
can  not  be  checked.  Attempting  to  place  such  an  ex 
orbitant  tax  on  farm  incomes  will  result  in  evasion.  I 
will  proceed  to  prove  that  the  Affirmative  tax  sugges 
tion  can  not  provide  a  satisfactory  method  of  dis 
position  of  whatever  revenue  they  do  collect, 

It  is  quite  obvious  a  tax  must  not  only  collect  enough 
money,  but  must  collect  money  in  a  form  that  it  can 
easily  be  used.    Mere  collection  of  money  is  not  suf 
ficient.    At  the  present  time  the  states  collect  on  an 
average  of  thirty  per  cent  of  the  total  state  and  local 
government.     Under  the  Affirmative  proposal   they 
would  collect  on  the  average,  eighty-four  per  cent  of 
the  state  and  local  revenue.   That  means  the  states  will 
be  collecting  fifty-four  per  cent  more  than  they  are 
collecting  at  the  present  time.    Now,  one  of  two  things 
must  happen  to  that  fifty-four  per  cent.    Either  the 
money  must  be  redistributed  to  the  localities  so  that 
they  can  use  it,  or  it  is  used  by  the  state,  resulting  in  an 
increased  centralization  of  state  and  local  functions, 
We  would  like  to  point  out  that  this  problem  has 
risen  in  two  or  three  states  at  the  present  time  where 
an  attempt  is  made  to  redistribute  funds*    We  would 
like  to  point  out  no  state  has  solved  that  problem  at 
the  present  time,  and  no  state  attempts  to  redistribute 
more  than  ten  per  cent  of  the  state  and  local  revenue. 
The  Gentlemen  of  the  Opposition  are  increasing  that 
ten  per  cent  to  eighty-four  per  cent.    The  problem  has 
not  been  solved  at  the  present  time.    New  York  and 
Wisconsin  both  have  the  problem  and  both  tax  com 
missions  complain  that  the  problem  has  not  been 


REVENUES   FROM   INTANGIBLE  PROPERTY  29 

solved.  The  Gentlemen  of  the  Opposition  in  propos 
ing  this  tremendous  increase  must  propose  some  satis 
factory  method  of  solution.  There  are  two  possibilities 
here.  Either  the  state  will  redistribute  this  eighty-four 
per  cent  to  the  local  units,  or  the  state  will  use  the 
additional  fifty-four  per  cent  itself.  I  will  discuss  both 
of  those  possibilities  briefly. 

If  the  state  redistributes  this  additional  fifty-four 
per  cent  to  the  localities,  some  method  of  redistribution 
must  be  devised.  There  are  three  methods  of  redis 
tribution  in  common  practice  today:  redistribution 
according  to  the  amount  received,  redistribution  ac 
cording  to  the  population  of  the  community,  and  redis 
tribution  according  to  the  need  of  the  community.  We 
believe  that  none  of  these  methods  has  proved  satis 
factory.  In  the  first  place,  redistribution  according  to 
the  amount  received  from  the  locality — it  is  impossible 
to  set  a  rate  that  will  provide  both  rural  and  urban 
units  with  enough  money.  If  your  rate  is  large  enough 
to  supply  the  rural  unit  with  enough  money  from  the 
income  tax,  it  will  be  so  large  you  will  have  a  tremen 
dous  surplus  in  the  cities;  on  the  other  hand,  if  the  rate 
is  small  enough  to  get  the  cities  what  they  need,  the 
rural  units  will  have  nothing.  As  regards  the  income 
tax,  the  State  of  Wisconsin  has  found  this  method 
results  in  unsolved  administrative  difficulties,  since  it 
is  impossible  to  tell  where  any  large  corporation  or  in 
dividual  his  income  In  what  locality,  for  instance, 
a  railroad  or  public  utility  get  its  income.  Fi 
nally,  it  will  afford  no  relief  to  the  rural  areas  because 
most  of  these  will  come  from  the  cities*  and,  as 


30     THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

the  Gentlemen  of  the  Opposition  have  pointed  out,  the 
difficulties  and  alleged  evils  are  greatest  in  the  rural 
areas. 

Secondly,  since  population  bears  no  constant  relation 
to  the  need  of  the  community  or  amount  received, 
redistribution  according  to  the  population  is  wholly 
irrational.  Finally,  redistribution  according  to  need 
would  seem  at  first  sight  to  be  the  most  likely;  each 
community  to  get  what  it  needed.  There  are,  however, 
some  very  fundamental  difficulties.  It  involves  en 
tirely  too  great  an  amount  of  discretion  on  the  part  of 
the  distributing  official,  whether  that  be  the  governor, 
the  budget  commission,  tax  commission,  or  legislature. 
Whoever  they  may  be,  some  person  or  group  of  persons 
must  decide  on  the  needs  of  each  community.  Grant 
ing  the  most  favorable  conditions  possible— assuming 
that  these  men  are  honest  and  capable  and  sincere,  it 
is  impossible  for  a  rural  legislator  or  rural  adminis 
trator  to  estimate  the  needs  of  an  urban  community. 
He  can  not  do  it.  His  point  of  view  is  different.  Like 
wise  an  urban  administrator  can  not  say  what  a  local 
unit  needs.  He  doesn't  know  what  the  needs  of  a  rural 
unit  are.  And  when  we  realize  that  in  some  the 

administrators  are  not  always  perfectly  sincere  and  not 
always  perfectly  capable,  and  in  some  not  honest, 
this  difficulty  increases  a  thousand  fold. 

The  second  difficulty  is  that  the  communities  get 
money  they  don't  raise  and  donjt  get  money  they 
That  has  been  found  to  be  true  in  communities 
large  communities  raising  a  great  deal  of  money  get 
very  little,  while  poorer  communities  contributing  little 


REVENUES  FROM  INTANGIBLE  PROPERTY     31 

get  a  great  deal  back.  And  finally  the  increasing  rural- 
urban  conflict  in  the  legislature,  a  problem  very  great 
in  all  states  at  the  present  time,  a  problem  that  will  be 
increased  many  times  by  the  Affirmative's  proposition. 

The  other  possibility  is  that  the  state  take  on  some 
of  the  local  governmental  functions.  We  believe  that 
the  Gentlemen  of  the  Opposition  have  not  advocated 
this  and  we  are  not  going  into  it  in  great  detail  until 
they  do  so,  but  it  results  in  increased  centralization,  a 
dogged  backing  away  from  the  present  principle  of 
home  rule  which  has  been  growing  so  rapidly  in  the 
United  States  for  the  last  fifty  or  sixty  years. 

It  results  in  all  the  evils  of  increased  centralization, 
the  evils  of  log  rolling  in  the  legislature,  deciding  what 
the  salary  of  the  dog  catcher  or  school  teacher  shall 
be.  All  of  these  difficulties  will  be  increased  many 
times  by  a  revision  of  our  present  policy,  a  backing 
away  from  home  rule.  This  problem,  even  where  the 
state  distributes  so  small  an  amount  as  ten  per  cent, 
has  not  been  satisfactorily  solved  in  any  state  in  the 
United  States  today.  The  Gentlemen  of  the  Oppo 
sition  are  proposing  to  return  not  ten  per  cent,  but 
fifty-four  per  cent,  The  problem  will  obviously  be 
greatly  increased.  What  is  your  solution? 

Third  Affirmative,  Harry  L.  Cole 

University  of  Wisconsin 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  The  first  Negative 
speaker  began  by  saying  there  were  certain  improve 
ments  needed  in  tax  administration,  and  they  would 


32     THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

not  object  to  certain  improvements  which  would  go  a 
long  way  to  correct  the  injustices  of  the  present  sit 
uation,  and  then  he  proceeded  to  object  to  the  chief 
improvements  which  have  been  made  in  the  last  two 
years  and  are  being  made  now  in  the  tax  system.  In 
the  States  of  North  Carolina,  Virginia  and  Delaware 
they  have  already  worked  out  these  problems  of  ad 
ministration  which  the  Gentlemen  of  the  Opposition 
are  telling  you  can  not  be  worked  out.  Moreover,  in 
European  countries,  where  they  take  a  much  larger 
proportion  of  the  people's  income  in  taxes,  they  have 
for  years  successfully  taken  that  large  share  through 
the  process  of  taxation  of  intangibles  and  not  through 
the  use  of  the  property  tax. 

The  whole  argument  of  the  Negative  so  far  in  this 
debate, — their  whole  objection  to  our  program  of  rais 
ing  eighteen  per  cent  of  the  taxes  needed  for  local 
revenue  from  real  estate  taxes,  our  proposal  to  raise 
twenty-four  per  cent  for  highways  from  a  motor  ve 
hicle  and  gas  tax,  and  the  fifty-eight  per  cent  for 
general  welfare  and  educational  activities  from  income 
and  inheritance  taxes,— their  whole  objection  has  been 
a  matter  of  administrative  impracticability ,  and  our 
answer  to  this  is  that  it  can  be  done  because  it  is  being 
done.  It  is  being  done  in  Delaware,  Virginia,  and 
North  Carolina.  But  the  Gentlemen  say  it  isn't  being 
done  in  North  Carolina.  Your  statistics  are  not  right 
on  that.  Our  authority  for  our  statistics  on  the  per 
centage  of  revenue  raised  or  derived  from  tangible 
property  in  these  states  is  the  work  on  am! 
State  Tax  Systems  by  the  Tax  Research  Foundation 


REVENUES  FROM  INTANGIBLE  PROPERTY     33 

published  by  the  Commerce  Clearing  House  of  Chicago 
in  January,  1932.  All  of  these  statistics  for  all  the 
states  may  be  found  in  this  document. 

However,  that  is  not  the  only  source  of  this  infor 
mation  which  is  generally  known  throughout  the  whole 
world  of  people  who  are  at  all  informed  on  this  tax 
question.  For  instance,  in  the  Saturday  Evening  Post, 
Governor  Gardner  of  North  Carolina  discusses  in  some 
detail  tax  reforms  and  centralization  and  lifting  the 
burden  from  tangible  property  in  North  Carolina. 
Governor  Gardner  discussed  in  some  detail  what  they 
accomplished  in  1931.  In  1931  they  raised  forty-eight 
per  cent  of  their  total  state  and  local  revenue  from 
sources  other  than  tangible  property,  and  since  that 
time  they  have  increased  their  gas  tax  and  they  have 
reduced  their  property  taxes  so  there  is  no  doubt  at  all 
but  that  today  North  Carolina  has  taken  its  place 
with  Delaware  and  Virginia  and  is  already  raising  more 
than  half  of  its  state  and  local  revenue  from  sources 
other  than  tangible  property.  And  this  centralization, 
this  reform  in  taxation  procedure  which  the  first 
speaker  said  they  were  going  to  agree  to,  and  the 
second  speaker  objected  to,  this  reform  in  North 
Carolina  has  resulted  in  a  total  tax  reduction  and  total 
saving  to  the  people  of  seven  million  dollars  and  has 
resulted  in  a  reduction  in  the  levy  on  real  estate  of 
twelve  million  dollars. 

We  asked  the  Gentlemen  some  questions  and  they 
said  they  must  interpret  them  in  the  light  of  local 
conditions,  and  that  they  couldn't  make  a  blanket 
answer.  We  are  perfectly  willing  that  they  interpret 


34    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

them  in  the  light  of  local  conditions.    We  don't  require 
a  blanket  answer.    We  would  be  glad  to  have  them 
answer  each  one  separately,  and  they  are  of  matters 
where  the  Negative  stand  on  fundamental  issues  which 
should  be  considered.    First,  we  ask,  do  they  favor 
tax  reduction?    They  have  not  told  us.    We  asked 
them,  do  they  accept  ability  to  pay  as  the  test  of  a 
just  tax  system — and  they  have  not  answered.    And 
we  say,  do  they  favor  a  state  income  tax?    The  Com 
mission  appointed  in  Michigan  to  investigate  the  status 
of  taxation  in  that  state  recommended  a  state  income 
tax.   The  people  in  the  State  of  Michigan  a  month  ago 
today  voted  for  a  limit  of  one  and  one-half  per  cent  on 
their  property  levy,  and  with  that  limitation  the  com 
munities  of  Michigan  are  going  to  be  faced  with  very  - 
drastic  reduction  of  revenue,  and  their  schools  are  go 
ing  to  be  closed,  as  they  are  in  Indiana  with  a  similar 
limitation  in  effect,  and  if  the  Gentlemen  don't  adopt 
this  which  their  State  Commission  recommends  they 
are  going  to  be  in  pretty  hard  financial  straits—Just  as 
they  are  this  winter  but  not  so  badly  as  they  will  be 
next. 

They  have  asked  us  a  question— Why  do  we  favor  a 
fifty  per  cent  limit,  why  do  we  believe  that  more  than 
half  of  all  state  and  local  revenues  should  be  derived 
from  sources  other  than  tangible  property?  We 
this  because  the  present  burden  on  tangible  property 
is  intolerably  unjust  and  can  not  be  in 

theory  or  by  the  way  it  works  out  IE  practice*   We  be- 
lieve  it  should  be  more  than  fifty  per  cent 
such  a  plan  is  feasible  and  practical  as 


REVENUES  FROM  INTANGIBLE  PROPERTY     35 

it  is  already  working,  and  we  believe  this  should  be 
done  because  we  will  have  a  more  equitable  tax  system 
when  it  is  done. 

I  will  now  consider  the  comparative  equity  or  justice 
of  the  tax  apportionment  defended  by  the  Negative 
and  the  tax  apportionment  which  we  advocate.  Pro 
fessor  F.  G.  Crawford  of  Syracuse  says,  "Relief  from 
the  burden  on  realty  is  imperative.  All  tax  commis 
sions  without  exception  agree  to  this  statement."  Now, 
this  lopsided  apportionment  stands  indicted  by  the 
grand  jury  of  the  world  economists  and  tax  experts  on 
four  counts:  First,  injustice  in  share  of  income  taken; 
second,  injustice  to  the  farmer;  third,  injustice  of  tax 
delinquency;  and  fourth,  injustice  to  home  owners. 
Let  us  consider  the  evidence  upon  these  four  indict 
ments  and  see  what  way  our  program  would  eliminate 
these  injustices. 

Indictment  Number  One:  Injustice  in  the  share  of  in 
come  taken*  You  recall  the  instance  of  the  four  Wis 
consin  farmers  with  practically  no  net  income  who 
were  taxed  more  than  twenty-five  coupon  clippers. 
That  is  an  example  of  the  inequity  in  the  share  of 
income  taken  when  you  compare  those  who  derive  their 
incomes  from  intangible  property  as  compared  with 
those  who  derive  their  incomes  from  tangible  property. 
Professor  Jens  Peter  Jensen,  Professor  of  Economics 
at  Syracuse  University,  says:  "The  property  tax  often 
requires  contributions  where  there  is  no  income  but 
fails  to  reach  a  great  deal  of  income  capable  of  paying 
taxes/' 

The  National  Industrial  Conference  Board  in  its 


36     THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

impartial  study  of  the  State  and  Local  Taxation 
System,  page  6,  says,  "Studies  of  taxation  invariably 
indicate  that  property  taxes  take  widely  varying  pro 
portions  of  the  income  from  different  types  of  prop 
erty."  In  1931  the  percentage  of  the  rent  taken  in 
taxes  varied  from  nineteen  to  ninety  per  cent,  a  vari 
ation  of  sixty-one  per  cent,  and  in  the  State  of  North 
Carolina,  before  the  reform  which  we  advocate  was 
put  into  effect,  in  one  county,  the  percentage  of  the 
rent  taken  was  five  per  cent.  In  another  county^  two 
hundred  seventy-seven  per  cent,  a  variation  of  two 
hundred  seventy-two  per  cent  in  the  percentage  of  rent 
was  taken  in  taxes.  Is  an  injustice  like  that  going  to 
be  remedied  by  the  reformed  administration  such  as 
the  first  Speaker  of  the  Opposition  suggested? 

We  submit  there  is  no  correction  for  such  injustice 
as  this  without  a  fundamental  reapportionment  of  the 
whole  burden  such  as  we  advocate, 

Indictment  Number  Two:  The  injustice  to  the 
farmer.  President  Hoover  said,  "The  farm  relief  most 
needed  is  tax  relief."  The  farmer  with  one-tenth  of  the 
national  income  pays  one-fifth  of  the  national  taxes. 
In  the  middle  west  there  have  been  mortgage  fore 
closures  by  hundreds  of  thousands  of  dollars,  robbing 
farm  families  of  their  homes  and  livelihood,  and  send- 
ing  them  to  join  the  ranks  of  our  cities*  unemployed, 
feeding  on  charity  in  the  cities, 

Henry  I  Harriman,  president  of  the  United 
Chamber  of  Commerce,  to  the  American 

Farm  Bureau  Federation  in  Chicago,  day  yes 

terday,  said  taxes  take  more  than  the  net 

income  in  many  fertile  areas  today.    Sixty  per  cent  of 


REVENUES   FROM   INTANGIBLE  PROPERTY  37 

agricultural  land  has  been  forfeited  In  one  state.  In 
1914,  agricultural  taxes  took  one-third  of  the  value  of 
the  total  wheat  crop.  In  1931  they  took  twice  the 
value  of  the  total  wheat  crop.  Will  an  injustice  like 
that  be  corrected  by  a  technical  administration  in  the 
reform  of  the  property  tax?  The  reform  we  advocate 
would  lift  half  the  burden  from  the  backs  of  the 
farmer. 

Indictment  Number  Three:  Tax  delinquency.  Tax 
delinquency  is  simply  a  result  of  demanding  taxes  from 
people  who  are  unable  to  pay  them.  When  we  redis 
tribute  the  major  part  of  the  burden  according  to  the 
people's  ability  to  pay  each  year  by  their  income,  we 
will  have  done  away  with  that. 

Indictment  Number  Four:  Injustice  to  property 
holders  and  home  owners.  According  to  the  committee 
on  taxation  of  President  Hoover's  Conference  on  Home 
Building  and  Home  Ownership,  the  overburdening 
tax  on  real  estate  discourages  and  materially  restricts 
home  ownership, 

Now,  by  readjusting  the  major  portion  of  the  tax 
burden  on  the  basis  of  ability  to  pay  as  indicated  by 
income,  we  do  away  with  a  great  portion  of  these  in 
justices,  and  we  take  a  great  burden  from  the  farmer's 
back. 

We  do  away  with  tax  delinquency  and  protect  the 
home  owners,  thus  facing  the  four  injustices  which 
tax  experts  have  condemned,  the  overburdening  of  the 
property  tax,  injustice  of  share  of  income  taken,  injus 
tice  to  the  farmer,  and  injustice  of  tax  delinquency, 
and  Injustice  to  the  home  owner, 

In  conclusion  I  will  *  again  state  the  fundamental 


38     THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

propositions  of  the  Affirmative  case.  They  are  these: 
First,  the  heavy  tax  burden  on  tangible  property  is 
unjust,  both  in  theory  and  practice.  It  is  not  justified 
by  the  benefit  theory  or  the  ability-to-pay  principle  of 
taxation.  It  is  condemned  by  our  leading  tax  author 
ities  and  in  practice  it  puts  an  intolerable  burden  upon 
certain  incomes,  and  during  a  period  of  economic  stress 
there  are  a  large  number  of  tax  delinquencies,  and  a 
serious  curtailment  of  government  service  when  it  is 
most  desperately  needed.  Second,  the  plan  is  adequate 
and  practicable  as  proven  by  the  fact  that  in  Europe 
larger  proportions  are  taken  by  income  tax,  and  by  the 
fact  that  in  America  during  the  past  two  years  nearly 
every  state  has  come  to  derive  an  increased  share  of 
its  revenue  from  income  tax.  Third,  the  apportion 
ment  of  the  tax  burden  we  advocate  is  more  equitable 
than  the  apportionment  defended  by  our  opponents  as 
evidenced  by  the  fact  that  we  would  reapportion  the 
tax  burden  according  to  the  income  of  the  citizens  by 
their  ability  to  pay,  as  indicated  by  their  income.  For 
these  reasons  we  advocate  at  least  a  fifty  per  cent  limit 
in  an  effort  to  get  at  a  more  just  tax  system. 


Third  Negative,,  Nathan  Levy 
University  of  Michigan 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  It  would  offhand 

that  the  questions  are  running  around  here  without  any 
owners,  without  any  backers,  without  any 

Both  sides  are  trying  to  give  the          that  the  other 
side  has  not  answered  the  questions.    Do  to 


REVENUES  FROM  INTANGIBLE  PROPERTY     39 

reduce  the  taxes?  Is  there  anybody  who  would  say, 
"Increase  them  right  away.  Let's  step  this  trouble  up 
about  one  hundred  per  cent."  I  wish  to  point  out,  as 
did  my  colleague  the  first  speaker,  as  far  as  the  Oppo 
sition  wish  to  do  away  with  waste  and  extravagance 
they  will  find  us  hand  in  hand  with  them.  They  say, 
do  you  recognize  the  ability  to  pay?  We  have  been 
demonstrating  first  of  all  you  have  got  to  place  a  good 
share  of  the  burden  upon  those  able  to  pay.  There 
fore,  I  would  conclude  from  that  we  are  in  some 
measure  backing  up  the  benefit  theory. 

If  the  Gentlemen  of  the  Opposition  remember,  my 
colleague  said,  that  we  advocate  a  state  income  tax, 
which  by  the  way  they  have  not  proved  is  an  ability- 
to-pay  tax,  in  a  state  if  it  can  use  it  and  to  that  degree 
in  which  it  seems  wise  to  use  it. 

So  much  for  these  questions.  And  will  the  Gentle 
men  please  tell  us  what  substantial  reasons — I  don't 
want  them  to  say  the  reasons  are  equity  and  adequacy, 
those  are  words— we  would  like  to  know  the  reasons 
they  have  for  advocating  fifty  per  cent  as  the  maximum 
of  dependence  to  be  placed  on  intangible  property  as  a 
source  of  revenue  in  each  of  the  forty-eight  states. 
Well,  the  Gentlemen  of  the  Opposition  in  the  first 
speech  told  you  about  how  troubled  the  times  were, 
and  how  heavy  the  tax  burden  is  on  certain  people, 
We  thought  after  they  had  finished  that  talk  of  that 
matter  we  would  be  through  with  that  part,  but  no,  the 
third  speech  also  was  devoted  to  telling  you  about  the 
injustices  of  these  various  things.  Two  speeches  have 
now  been  devoted  in  full,  and  the  other  speaker  got 


40     THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

in  a  good  many  mentions  of  the  injustices  of  this  tax 
burden. 

We  have  been  trying  to  talk  to  you  about  fiscal 
adequacy.  When  they  can  show  you  they  collected  in 
1932  a  gas  tax  in  the  State  of  Utah  on  this  eighty-two 
per  cent  basis — that  may  vary  from  state  to  state,  but 
they  didn't  tell  us  because  they  don't  know,  but  ap 
proximately  eighty-two  per  cent  in  Utah  for  1932  on 
each  and  every  gallon  of  gasoline  sold  in  that  state— 
they  will  say  we  can't  do  that,  we  will  have  just  a  little 
tax  on  gasoline.  If  they  do  they  will  put  it  on  some 
other  tax  that  will  approach  fifty  per  cent,  or  sixty  per 
cent,  or  seventy  per  cent  on  income.  It  has  to  be 
gotten  from  some  place. 

They  have  quoted  the  National  Industrial  Confer 
ence  Board  so  much  perhaps  it  would  not  be  a  bad  idea 
for  us  to  do  that.  The  National  Industrial  Conference 
Board  published  that  book  on  that  table.  That  book 
concerns  doing  away  with  a  burden  of  four  million 
dollars  additional  revenue  in  Missouri.  That  whole 
book  is  a  fight.  The  experts  are  weighing  the  pos 
sibilities,  the  probabilities,  the  practicalities,  and  the 
injustice  of  making  out  of  increase  of  income  tax 
enough  to  collect  four  million  dollars  more,  which  is 
about  eight  per  cent  of  the  total  state  and  local  revenue 
in  the  State  of  Missouri.  They  don't  say  you  can  do  it* 
They  say,  no,  you  can't,  just  by  increasing  Income  tax. 
Evasion  in  Missouri  is  too  great  and  too  easy,  so  we 
will  try  in  part,  little  by  little,  and  find  out  if  we  can, 
If  we  can  and  we  find  it  is  fair,  perhaps  we  will  in 
crease  it.  But  "equity"  has  been  before  you  so 


REVENUES  FROM  INTANGIBLE  PROPERTY     41 

much  you  probably  think  by  this  time  that  the  Neg 
ative  has  no  care — we  don't  care  about  how  fair,  how 
just,  how  equitable  a  tax  system  is,  and  that  the  farmer 
who  pays  two  hundred  seventy-seven  per  cent  of  his 
income  from  land  in  taxes  gets  no  sympathy  from  us. 

We  told  you  first  of  all  the  Gentlemen  overstated 
their  case.  They  didn't  tell  you  about  the  Federal  tax 
burden  of  four  billion  dollars  a  year.  If  I  only  had  a 
portion  of  it,  I  would  be  willing  to  pay  taxes  on  it  any 
time.  The  Gentlemen  of  the  Opposition  have  now  set 
up  their  scheme  and  they  are  committed  to  this  much, 
at  least  fifty  per  cent,  but  their  scheme  says  eighty- 
two  per  cent.  They  have  got  to  prove  that  is  fair  and 
just.  They  have  said  ability  to  pay  is  a  good  basis. 
The  benefit  theory  is  a  good  basis.  We  are  going  to 
consider  just  a  few  taxes  that  amount  to  eighteen  per 
cent  or  less  on  ability  to  pay,  on  motor  vehicle  taxes 
and  gas  taxes.  In  other  words,  they  have  reduced  the 
problems  of  taxes  by  a  snap  of  the  fingers.  The 
ability-to-pay  tax  is  a  simple  thing.  All  you  do 
is  tax  incomes— taxes  on  all  kinds  of  income— but 
how  tax  them;  how  make  any  allowance  for  differ 
ence  in  purchasing  power?  They  talk  about  the  dif 
ficulty  we  are  having  at  the  present  time  about  the 
farmer  whose  wheat  is  not  worth  anything.  Do  they 
forget  in  the  income  tax  you  are  not  paying  this  year's 
money,  you  are  paying  last  year's  tax  this  year,  and  if 
you  haven't  got  any  income  this  year  and  last  year 
you  had  a  good  one,  where  are  you  going  to  get  the 
money  to  pay  that*  You  have  got  to  borrow. 

The  point  is  this.    You  can  demonstrate  cases  of 


42     THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

hardship  tinder  peculiar  and  stressing  circumstances  in 
any  tax  system  for  the  simple  reason  that  perfection  is 
not  as  easy  to  obtain  as  the  Gentlemen  would  have  you 
believe.  You  simply  can't  wiggle  waggle  your  hands  at 
two  theories  and  say,  "We  will  prove  it,"  and  I  am  go 
ing  to  prove  that  to  you  in  the  state  most  favorable  to 
the  Gentlemen  of  the  Opposition,  the  State  of  New 
York.  If  their  proposition  of  fifty  per  cent  or  more  on 
intangible  property  is  not  just  in  the  state  of  New  York 
where  the  greatest  pile  up  of  intangibles  known  in  the 
history  of  the  human  being  is  to  be  found,  then  it  ian?t 
equitable,  fair  or  just  anywhere  in  the  country,  in  any 
single  state  in  this  Union,  And  so  we  turn  to  the  re 
port  of  the  New  York  State  Commission  for  the  revision 
of  the  tax  laws  published  in  1932.  May  I  point  out 
that  on  this  Commission  was  the  man  recognized  as  the 
greatest  authority  in  the  United  States,  Professor 
Seligman  of  Columbia,  Commissioner  Haig,  the  gentle 
man  who  draws  up  most  of  these  reports,  and  other 
men  of  equal  caliber  in  the  State  of  New  York,  Before 
I  go  into  this  report  I  want  to  quote  this  Model  Plan 
of  state  taxation  they  have  referred  to  so  much*  I 
wish  to  point  out  this  Model  Plan  is  based  on  three 
kinds  of  taxes,  tangible  property  tax?  personal  net  in 
come  tax,  and  business  tax, 

The  experts  did  not  attempt  to  set  any  percentage 
of  dependence  which  should  be  placed  on  those 
in  all  states  because  they  recognized  the  divergence  of 
local  conditions.     However,  our  Friends  have 
putting  specific  percentages  on  each  one  of  those 
I  quoted  from  the  report  of  this  Tax  Commission  In 


REVENUES  FROM  INTANGIBLE  PROPERTY     43 

New  York  to  demonstrate  exactly  how  the  Gentlemen 
of  the  Opposition  approached  this  question  in  discuss 
ing  the  proposition  of  inequity  and  injustice,  and  to 
give  you  the  idea  the  experts  have  with  respect  to  that 
approach.  "If  it  can  be  shown  that  the  owners  of  real 
estate  pay  heavier  taxes  than  owners  of  other  property, 
is  this  to  be  considered  a  demonstration  that  the 
burden  on  real  estate  is  disproportionate?"  The  Com 
mission  goes  on,  "The  answer  to  this  question  seems  to 
be  definitely  'no.7  An  affirmative  answer  to  this  ques 
tion  seems  to  assume  that  the  equitable  tax  system  is 
one  which  imposes  a  levy  at  a  uniform  rate  on  all 
classes  of  property.  It  ignores  the  shifting  of  taxes, 
which  may  distort  completely  the  initial  appearance  of 
equity.  It  denies  the  validity  of  benefit  as  a  test  for 
certain  forms  of  taxes.  It  does  not  take  into  account 
the  possible  funding  or  capitalization  of  taxes.  It 
leaves  no  place  for  the  introduction  of  progression.  An 
indictment  based  on  any  one  of  these  points  would  be 
sufficient  to  discredit  the  use  of  this  test  of  dispropor 
tion.'7 

The  single  norm  of  property  or  income  is  not  the 
only  norm  for  approximate  ability  to  pay.  A  com 
bination  of  several  norms  is  superior  to  the  use  of  any 
single  norm. 

So  when  this  Tax  Commission  set  to  work  out  what 
would  be  equitable  distribution  in  the  State  of  New 
York,  they  came  to  this  conclusion.  The  majority  felt 
that  real  property  in  the  State  of  New  York,  tangible 
property,  should  bear  a  burden  of  fifty-three  and  two 
tenths  per  cent  in  order  to  have  an  equitable  distribu- 


44    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

tion  of  a  tax  in  that  state.  The  minority  in  that  state 
felt  real  estate  should  pay  fifty-five  and  six  tenths  per 

cent — fifty-three  and  two  tenths  per  cent  the  majority, 
— fifty-five  and  six  tenths  per  cent  the  minority ,~ 
among  whom  was  Professor  Seligman  of  Columbia. 
Professor  Seligman  goes  on  further  to  say  if  any  real 
appreciation  were  had  of  the  shifting  of  taxes  in  that 
state  the  percentage  of  the  dependence  of  the  tax  on 
real  estate  would  be  greater  than  that.  That  is  the 
situation  in  the  State  of  New  York,  the  state  most 
favorable  to  the  Opposition. 

I  am  not  arguing  about  fifty-three  and  two  tenths 
per  cent  or  fifty-five  and  six  tenths  per  cent.  My  point 
is  that  if  the  percentage  is  in  favor  of  taxes  on  tangible 
property  in  the  State  of  New  York,  the  percentage  in 
creases  and  increases  in  other  states  of  the  Union.  If 
the  Gentlemen  can  not  show  its  equity  in  that  state, 
they  can  not  show  its  equity  in  any  one  of  the  forty* 
eight  states.  If  we  admit  this  five  per  cent  is  not  the 
thing  we  are  basing  our  case  on,  we  do  not  admit  any 
thing  at  all,  because  in  the  other  forty-seven  states, 
the  pile  up  of  intangibles  is  not  nearly  as  great  as 
in  the  State  of  New  York, 

I  did  not  get  around  to  my  constructive  speech,  but 
since  you  all  read  the  Saturday  Evening  Post  you  know 
how  far  behind  the  Federal  Government  Is  in  their  tax 
collection,  placing  their  full  dependence  upon  the 
sources  which  the  Gentlemen  of  the  Opposition  advo 
cate. 


REVENUES   FROM   INTANGIBLE   PROPERTY  45 

First  Negative  Rebuttal,  James  Moore 
University  of  Michigan 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  The  debate  has  developed 
along  very  interesting  lines  this  evening.  We  attempted 
in  our  first  speech  to  lay  out  what  we  thought  was  the 
cardinal  principle  for  any  system  of  taxation,  fiscal 
adequacy.  The  Affirmative  have  failed  to  meet  us  on 
any  portion  of  it,  but  have  been  talking  about  equity 
or  ability  or  anything  else  but  fiscal  adequacy.  My 
colleague,  the  second  speaker,  brought  before  you  for 
your  attention,  a  very  vital  portion  of  the  tax  situation 
facing  the  states  today,  involving  the  disposition  of 
all  revenue  collected.  The  Gentlemen  of  the  Affirm 
ative  passed  it  off  as  a  mere  detail.  Yes,  it  was  a  mere 
detaill  It  is  a  mere  detail  which  involves  an  expend 
iture  of  fifty-four  per  cent  of  all  tax  money.  It  is  a 
mere  detail  but  it  has  not  been  solved  by  a  single  state 
in  the  Union  today.  We  do  wish  the  Gentlemen  would 
get  a  little  further  down  into  the  details  of  the  matter 
because  it  is  a  vital  fact  that  must  be  answered, 

Now,  the  Gentlemen  have  been  talking  about  two 
things.  On  one  side  they  have  told  you  about  income 
tax.  They  have  not  yet  shown  income  tax  to  be  cor 
related  with  ability  to  pay,  and  on  the  other  hand  they 
have  been  advocating  a  very  heavy  gas  tax,  or  a  gas 
tax  which  amounts  to  fifty-eight  per  cent  of  the  state 
revenue.  They  say  we  pick  out  just  a  few  states  where 
it  might  seem  bad.  If  you  will  recall  my  words,  these 
states  are  representative  of  different  geographical 
groups  throughout  the  United  States.  I  took  them 


46     THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

because  they  were  states  favorable  to  the  Affirmative. 
They  are  representative  states  from  each  group.  The 
State  of  New  York  by  their  plan  will  put  in  a  tax  of 
forty-four  cents  a  gallon  on  gasoline.  They  now  have 
a  tax  of  seventeen  dollars  upon  motor  vehicles.  Under 
the  Affirmative  plan  it  would  be  sixty  dollars  per  motor 
vehicle.  Is  this  an  ability-to-pay  tax  or  is  this  equity? 
The  State  of  North  Dakota  would  pay  fifty-seven  cents 
gas  tax.  They  would  charge  you  one  hundred  ninety 
dollars  a  year  to  run  a  motor  vehicle  in  the  State  of 
North  Dakota.  In  Illinois  it  would  cost  two  hundred 
fifty-eight  dollars  a  year.  In  Utah  it  would  cost  two 
hundred  dollars  a  year,  in  Mississippi  one  hundred 
fifty  dollars  a  year,  and  in  Oregon  one  hundred  fifty- 
two  dollars  a  year, 

Now,  the  Gentlemen  also  told  you  they  were  going 
to  raise  a  given  proportion  of  the  income  by  income 
taxes,  and  apply  this  to  education.  Just  think  of  it. 
Education  is  the  one  thing  that  we  "can't  fool  with  m 
any  state  and  local  government-  It  is  the  one  thing 
you  must  safeguard;  it  is  the  one  thing  for  which  you 
must  guarantee  money,  so  that  the  children  can  be 
educated,  so  that  schools  can  go  along.  The  Gentle 
men,  are  going  to  put  education  at  the  mercy  of  a  tax 
in  North  Dakota  which  will  be  fifty-eight  per  cent  OB 
an  income  of  six  hundred  dollars,  ant!  they  expect  to 
raise  the  money  that  way  to  run  the  school  system. 
Not  only  the  State  of  North  Dakota*  but  I  can  give  you 
twenty  states  which  are  In  situations,  where 

the  twenty  states  together  only  contributed  per 

cent  into  the  total  Federal  income  in  the          1930. 


REVENUES   FROM   INTANGIBLE  PROPERTY  47 

Therefore  we  know  that  in  those  twenty  states  they  do 
not  have  large  incomes.  The  Gentlemen  have  set  their 
own  arbitrary  mark  as  to  the  exemption  of  the  income 
— six  hundred  dollars.  In  the  State  of  North  Dakota 
it  would  be  taxed  fifty-eight  per  cent,  a  correspondingly 
heavy  tax  in  the  others,  and  they  expect  to  gain  the 
money  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  door  is  open  for 
evasion.  They  are  going  to  use  taxes  that  the  Federal 
Government  regards  as  extremely  problematical,  and 
put  the  education  system  at  the  mercy  of  it. 

They  say  some  of  our  system  would  not  work.  They 
were  mere  details  too,  and  yet  Governor  Connor  of  the 
State  of  Missouri  in  the  Saturday  Evening  Post  of 
July  27  says  that  at  a  single  legislative  session,  with 
out  disturbing  any  governmental  function  or  legislative 
function,  we  cut  our  budget  and  reduced  our  expenses 
thirty-three  and  one-third  per  cent.  Now,  I  think 
there  is  probably  a  pretty  big  point  in  sitting  down 
and  paying  attention  to  correcting  a  little  bit  of  the 
waste  and  graft  and  extravagance  rampant  in  most 
state  and  local  governments.  We  do  wish  the  Gentle 
men  would  give  us  an  answer  to  our  first  question, 
would  pay  a  little  more  attention  to  my  colleague,  the 
second  speaker,  regarding  the  distribution  of  the  rev 
enue, 

First  Affirmative  Rebuttal,  David  August 
University  of  Wisconsin 

LADIES  AND   GENTLEMEN:    Our   opponents  have 

asked  the  question  why,  with  a  slight  change  and  re 
adjustment  can  we  not  maintain  a  sufficiently  good  tax 


48     THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

system  to  remedy  the  present  evils  without  going  over 
to  the  plan  presented  by  our  side  of  raising  at  least 
one-half  of  all  state  and  local  revenues  from  sources 
other  than  tangible  property.  Would  a  slight  change 

improve  the  situation  of  four  Wisconsin  farmers  who 
have  to  pay  forty-one  cents  more  than  the  combined 
tax  bill  of  twenty-five  coupon  clippers  who  sit  at  home 
and  clip  three  million  dollars  of  coupons?  Would  a 
slight  change  remedy  that  situation? 

They  have  accused  us  of  overstating  the  case,  of 
making  an  emotional  appeal.  Ladies  and  Gentlemen, 
I  have  understated  the  case.  If  1  could  only  tell  you  of 
the  suffering  that  goes  on  in  our  country,  not  merely  be 
cause  of  an  inadequate  tax  system,  but  also  because  of 
the  vicious  circle  of  tax  delinquency!  If  you  will  be 
so  kind  as  to  remember  as  far  back  as  my  first  speech, 
I  want  to  point  out  again  the  fact  of  tax  delinquency, 
which  the  Gentlemen  have  failed  to  answer,  which  is 
twenty-seven  per  cent  In  Detroit,  thirty-two  per  cent 
in  Buffalo,  and  in  rural  districts  from  thirty  per  cent  to 
sixty  per  cent.  And  they  come  to  us  and  say  the  mam 
issue  in  this  debate  is  fiscal  adequacy— how  are  you  go 
ing  to  raise  sufficient  revenue?  We  answer  by  saying 
this,  "You  are  not  raising  sufficient  revenue  at  the 
present  time,  and  we  have  proposed  to  you  a  system 
which  will  work  out  as  is  shown  by  the  state  of  Dela 
ware,  which  is  now  raising  seventy-two  per  cent  of  Its 
revenue  from  sources  other  than  tangible  property; 
Virginia,  fifty-two  per  cent;  North  Carolina,  forty- 
eight  per  cent;  and  South  Carolina,  forty-five  per 
cent." 


REVENUES  FROM  INTANGIBLE  PROPERTY     49 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen,  the  third  speaker  came  be 
fore  you  and  said  we  are  coming  before  you  and  (snap 
ping  fingers)  just  like  that  settling  all  the  questions. 
No,  not  just  like  that!  (snapping  fingers).  We  have 
taken  a  thorough  and  careful  analysis  of  this  situation, 
and  have  shown  you  first  of  all  that  the  present  situa 
tion  is  intolerable,  that  tax  delinquency  is  eating  a  hole 
out  of  the  revenue  which  the  Gentlemen  of  the  Op 
position  want  to  get  from  the  property  tax,  a  system 
which  has  been  discarded  by  every  single  European 
nation.  Then  we  went  on  to  show  the  feasibility  of  our 
plan;  the  states  in  which  it  is  working,  and  proved  it  is 
producing  a  more  equitable  situation. 

What  are  the  objections  which  the  Gentlemen  raise 
to  our  fundamental  proposition?  They  say  that  in 
come  taxes  can  be  shifted.  Let  us  see  what  the  Min 
nesota  State  Tax  Commission  says  about  this  after 
a  thorough  analysis  and  study.  The  Commission  says: 

"Can  an  income  tax  be  shifted?  While  some  hold  to  the 
view  that  such  taxes  cast  a  burden  on  the  consuming  public, 
most  students  of  taxation  hold  to  the  theory  that  the  burden 

of  a  general  income  tax  ordinarily  rests  upon  the  taxpayer 
upon  whom  the  tax  was  first  imposed.  Only  in  very  rare 

cases  can  the  burden  of  an  income  tax  be  shifted  to  others. 
This  conclusion  is  quite  generally  concurred  in  by  tax  ad 
ministrators  in  states  having  effective  income  tax  laws." 
(Minnesota  Tax  Commission— 1930.  Page  137.) 

This  conclusion  is  quite  generally  concurred  in  by  tax 
administrators  in  states  having  effective  income  tax 
laws/ 


50     THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen,  I  can  not  help  stressing  the 
fact  of  the  vicious  circle  of  tax  delinquency.  If  you 
have  tax  delinquency  such  as  Detroit  and  Buffalo 
you  necessarily  impose  a  heavier  share  upon  the  people 
who  must  pay  the  taxes,  and  the  higher  the  taxes  the 
more  tax  delinquency  and  the  bigger  the  hole  you  put 
in  the  revenue.  Gentlemen,  I  will  say  again,  we  have 
not  come  here  tonight  to  overstate  the  case  or  to  make 
an  emotional  appeal  to  you,  to  say,  "This  Is  a  wonder 
ful  tax,  a  good  tax,  and  you  should  take  it."  No, 
Gentlemen,  we  are  not  coming  with  a  Utopia*  We  are 
not  saying  we  are  going  to  cast  aside  all  evils,  but  I 
will  say  this,  and  this  is  not  an  overstatement:  if  we 
can  present  a  system  which  will  through  the  progress 
of  the  years  bring  us  a  little  further  toward  our  goal; 
come  a  little  closer  to  fundamental  doctrines  and 
principles,  and  bring  about  a  more  equitable  situation 
of  the  burden,  I  feel  that  we  can  rightfully  ask  you  to 
vote  "Yes"  on  the  motion  before  the  house. 


Second  Negative  Rebuttal*  Victor  Rabinowitg 

University  of  Michigan 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  I  would  like  to  say  one 
or  two  things  about  these  coupon  clippers  in  Wisconsin 
who  are  sitting  at  home  clipping  coupons  and  are  not 
paying  any  money  to  the  upkeep  of  the  government. 
They  cut,  according  to  the  first  speaker,  a  total  of  three 
million  dollars  and  didn't  pay  a  cent  for  it.  Those 
twenty-four  coupon  clippers  paid  hundred  thirty- 
one  thousand  four  hundred  sixty  dollars  to  the 


REVENUES   FROM   INTANGIBLE   PROPERTY  51 

Government  In  federal  income  tax  alone;  a  total  of, 
well  a  bit  over  twenty-five  per  cent  of  their  total  in 
come  went  to  the  Federal  Government.  The  Gentle 
men  of  the  Opposition  have  said  they  don't  pay 
anything  at  all  to  the  state  government,  we  are  going 
to  plaster  another  twenty-five  per  cent  on  them.  Well, 
then,  you  are  taking  entirely  too  much  from  these  poor 
coupon  clippers  and  perhaps  next  year  the  Opposition 
will  come  up  here  and  say,  why,  the  farmers  in  Wis 
consin  are  paying  so  much  money  on  their  property, 
and  the  poor  coupon  clippers  are  paying  fifty  per  cent 
of  their  income  in  income  tax,  let  us  reduce  the  income 
tax,  we  are  putting  too  much  on  intangibles. 

The  Gentlemen  have  completely  failed  to  take  into 
consideration  the  federal  situation.  They  have  as 
sumed  all  the  way  through  that  the  only  taxes  we  pay 
are  to  the  state  and  local  governments  yet  the  Federal 
Government  levied  not  a  cent  on  taxable  property,  and 
these  coupon  clippers  pay  now  twenty-five  per  cent  of 
their  income  to  the  Federal  Government.  Do  the 
Gentlemen  of  the  Opposition  favor  increasing  this 
burden  to  a  considerable  extent  in  Wisconsin?  Obvi 
ously,  your  tax  burden  on  the  intangible  property 
would  then  be  too  heavy. 

I  would  like  you  to  note  that  the  National  Indus 
trial  Conference  Board  pointed  out  that  a  tax  as  high 
as  thirty  per  cent  on  an  income  to  three  hundred  thou 
sand  dollars  is  too  high  because  it  results  in  evasion; 
yet  the  Gentlemen  of  the  Opposition  are  going  to  levy 
a  fifty-eight  per  cent  tax  on  an  income  of  six  hundred 
dollars  in  North  Dakota,  and  make  it  pay  the  expenses 


52     THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

of  education  in  that  state.  If  thirty  per  cent  on  three 
hundred  thousand  dollars  leads  to  evasion,  what  about 
fifty-eight  per  cent  on  six  hundred  dollars  in  an  agri 
cultural  state? 

The  Gentlemen  of  the  Opposition  have  said  a  great 
deal  about  fiscal  adequacy.  They  have  spoken  about 
the  tremendous  delinquency  in  the  State  of  Michigan. 
Arthur  W.  Bromage,  who  is  a  present  member  of  the 
Michigan  State  Tax  Commission  discusses  the  problem 
of  tax  delinquency.  Does  he  say  the  amount  of  tax  de 
linquency  in  Michigan  is  due  to  too  heavy  a  tax?  No. 
He  says  it  is  due  to  waste  and  extravagance  in  county 
government.  That  is  the  reason  for  the  tremendous 
tax  delinquency  in  the  State  of  Michigan. 

Whereas  in  the  beginning  the  Gentlemen  of  the  Op 
position  were  moving  with  tremendous  strides  toward 
this  Utopian  plan,  they  are  now  beginning  to  weaken 
in  their  claims.  My  colleague  pointed  to  the  State  of 
New  York,  certainly  a  state  most  favorable  to  the 
Gentlemen  of  the  Opposition;  certainly  the  state  with 
the  greatest  amount  of  taxable  intangible  wealth,  and 
showed  that  there  the  Tax  Commission,  composed  of 
the  best  talent  available  finds  that  at  the  most,  fifty- 
five  per  cent,  or  at  the  least  fifty-three  per  cent  should 
be  raised  from  tangible  property.  That  leaves  only 
forty-seven  per  cent  from  intangibles,  and  not  eighty- 
four  or  eighty-five  per  cent  as  the  Gentlemen  of  the  Op 
position  have  advocated  this  evening.  That  Is  the 
equitable  situation  in  the  State  of  New  York* 

What  about  the  State  of  North  Dakota?  What 
about  all  of  those  between  the  Mississippi  Elver 


REVENUES  FROM  INTANGIBLE  PROPERTY     53 

and  the  west  coast;  all  of  the  southern  cotton  and 
agricultural  states? 

In  addition  the  Gentlemen  have  continued  to  ignore 
completely  those  "little  details"  of  the  distribution  of 
several  hundred  millions  of  dollars  a  year;  several 
billions  of  dollars  a  year  it  would  amount  to, — redis 
tributing  that  to  the  local  units  or  using  by  the  state 
governments  themselves.  They  have  one  more  speech 
in  which  to  do  that.  It  isn't  a  mere  detail  It  is  a 
problem  that  no  state  in  the  Union  has  satisfactorily 
solved  when  those  states  are  redistributing  only  ten 
per  cent  to  the  local  governments.  The  Gentlemen  of 
the  Opposition  would  have  them  redistribute  fifty-four 
per  cent. 

Second  Affirmative  Rebuttal,  (X  Glenn  Stahl 
University  of  Wisconsin 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN  :  The  speaker  has  claimed 
we  paid  no  attention  to  their  statement  as  to  how  we 
stand  on  the  distribution  argument;  how  we  will  dis 
tribute  the  amount  of  revenue  we  derive.  As  a  matter 

of  fact  it  is  not  necessary  for  us  to  present  an  exact 
program  of  distribution  for  every  state,  but  we  cer 
tainly  do  favor  any  method  of  state  centralization  of 

tax  administration  or  state  centralization  of  locally- 
shared  taxes;  and  when  they  keep  on  contending  it 
isn't  being  done  successfully,  how  do  they  answer  the 
fact  that  North  Carolina  is  supporting  all  highways 
with  a  motor  vehicle  and  gas  tax,  and  all  schools  with 
a  state  income  and  state  inheritance  tax?  How  do  the 


54    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

Gentlemen  meet  this?    Virginia  is  doing  it  even  more 

than  North  Carolina,  and  Delaware  even  more  than 
Virginia.  In  our  own  State  of  Wisconsin  they  redis 
tribute  income  taxes  in  this  way:  ten  per  cent  to  the 
counties,  fifty  per  cent  back  to  the  community  it  comes 
from,  and  the  other  forty  per  cent  goes  to  the  state. 
The  state  redistributes  that  forty  per  cent  according  to 
need,  and  the  system  seems  to  be  working  very  nicely. 

The  speaker  quoted  one  man's  opinion  on  this  tax 
delinquency  argument.  They  have  avoided  it  all  dur 
ing  the  debate  and  finally  quote  one  man  who  says  that 
tax  delinquency  is  due  to  graft  and  extravagance.  The 
inability  of  a  person  to  pay  taxes  because  he  has  got 
property  and  no  income— here's  what  the  State  Com 
mission  of  Michigan  on  Tax  Inquiry  says:  "Tax  delin 
quency  is  not  tax  delinquency,  but  represents  an  excels 
levy  of  taxes  beyond  the  ability  of  the  people,  to  pay!9 
That  is  exactly  the  situation  In  the  city  of  Detroit  with 
twenty-seven  per  cent  of  Its  property  tax  delinquent  at 
the  present  time, 

He  says  twenty-five  coupon  clippers  getting  over 
three  millions  of  dollars  paid  seven  hundred  thirty-one 
thousand  dollars  to  the  Federal  Government  and  the 
poor  coupon  clippers  should  not  be  taxed  any  more, 
Do  we  favor  increasing  the  tax?  You  bet  we  do.  If 
those  twenty-five  coupon  clippers  pay  only  that  to  the 
Federal  Government  they  still  have  two  million  three 
hundred  thousand  left,  and  still  the  Gentlemen  claim 
they  should  not  be  taxed,  In  face  of  the  fact  that  four 
farmers,  on  the  other  handt  are 


REVENUES  FROM  INTANGIBLE  PROPERTY     55 

hundred  dollars,  when  they  have  practically  no  income 
at  all  and  can  barely  scrape  enough  together  to  pay 
these  taxes. 

They  claim  the  Federal  Government  is  pre-empting 
all  these  sources  of  revenue.  Richard  T.  Ely  answers 
this,  and  I  will  read  the  direct  statement: 

"We  see  no  reason  why  the  states  should  renounce  the 
income  tax  and  use  substitutes  which  are  manifestly  inferior, 
merely  because  the  Federal  Government  is  employing  the 
same  tax.  Nearly  all  taxes  must  be  paid  out  of  income. 
The  specific  tax  employed  is  merely  a  device  for  distribut 
ing  the  tax.  Why,  then,  should  the  state  employ  a  poor 
method  of  distribution,  such  as  that  embodied  in  the  per 
sonal  property  tax,  when  it  might  employ  a  tax  which  with 
substantial  accuracy  lays  the  burden  in  accordance  with 
ability  to  pay?" 

The  Gentlemen  refer  to  the  Model  Plan  of  the 

National  Tax  Association  as  not  being  in  favor  of  our 
program.  They  admit  it  presents  three  main  types: 
first,  real  estate,  second,  personal  property;  third,  busi 
ness  income.  This  quotation  is  from  the  Model  Plan. 
It  says:  "Under  a  system  by  which  the  same  amount  of 
revenue  is  collected  from  separate  taxes  levied  upon 
income,  property,  and  business,  it  is  clear  that  such 
inevitable  inequalities  as  arise  in  the  working  of  any 
one  tax  may  be  ,  .  .  offset  or  mitigated  by  inequalities 
arising  under  the  others."  Clearly,  the  Model  Plan 
contemplated  getting  approximately  the  same  revenue 
from  each  of  these  three  forms  of  revenue,  and  since 
business  income  and  personal  income  are  two-thirds 


56     THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

of  the  program,  then  it  favors  getting  at  least  two- 
thirds  from  sources  other  than  tangible  property, 

The  Gentlemen  of  the  Opposition  have  misconstrued 
our  case  by  trying  to  claim  that  you  would  have  to 
multiply  gas  and  income  tax  so  much  in  order  to  get 
the  revenue,  but  have  they  taken  into  consideration  the 
lowering  of  exemption  and  inclusion  of  other  forms? 
They  take  the  income  tax  as  it  is  now  being  applied 
under  the  present  exemption  and  multiply  that  by  so 
much  to  reach  the  proportions  we  are  advocating, 
They  don't  consider  the  extension  of  the  income  tax 
base  so  that  it  would  cover  more  people  and  tax  accord 
ing  to  a  personal  income.  In  the  State  of  New  York 
they  claim  it  can't  be  done  and  yet  the  income  tax  in 
that  state  is  only  one  and  one-half  per  cent  on  the  first 
ten  thousand  dollars  above  a  four  thousand  dollar  ex 
emption  and  finally  gets  up  to  four  and  one-half  per 
cent  on  incomes  above  forty  thousand  dollars.  What 
an  income  taxi  They  could  lower  that  and  include 
other  forms  of  income  and  get  the  revenue, 


Third  Negative  Rebuttal*  Nathan  , 

University  of  Michigan 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  The  preceding  speaker 
says  we  are  wrong.  All  you  have  to  do  is  extern!  in 
come.  In  Mississippi  they  are  down  to  seven  hundred 
fifty  dollar  incomes,  in  North  Dakota  they  are  down 
to  one  thousand  dollars.  Extend  the  and  go 
to  fifty  dollar  incomes,  or  ten  dollar  incomes,  I  don't 
care  where  you  go  on  the  income.  You  can't  go  up 


REVENUES  FROM  INTANGIBLE  PROPERTY     57 

because  there  are  not  very  many  higher.  Even  if  you 
took  the  coupon  clippers  of  North  Dakota  for  every 
thing  they  got,  you  would  not  have  enough  to  run  even 
a  small  share  of  the  government.  You  can  run  a  tax  as 
low  as  you  want.  You  have  still  got  to  get  a  tremen 
dous  portion  of  that,  and  that  money  happens  to  be  in 
a  form  that  is  easily  hidden,  and  every  single  addition 
of  dependence  upon  that  type  of  income  adds  an  in 
centive  to  evasion,  with  an  income  that  is  easy  to  use 
and  evade  the  tax. 

It  isn't  so  simple.  Just  saying,  "Broaden  the  tax 
base,"  does  not  increase  returns  by  ten  per  cent,  or 
twenty  per  cent,  or  thirty  per  cent,  or  even  with  the 
Gentlemen's  two  or  three  hundred  per  cent  increase  on 
the  returns  of  some  of  those  taxes.  You  can't  get  that 
much  of  an  increase  merely  by  saying  "broaden  the 
base."  As  to  the  Model  Plan — because  it  names  three 
types  of  taxes  to  be  used,  the  Gentlemen  assumed  the 
planners  were  going  to  place  one-third  equal  depend 
ence  on  each.  You  can't  find  the  state,  and  this  has 
been  pointed  out  by  many  authorities,  where  they  are 
agreed  as  to  what  percentage  dependence  shall  be 
placed  upon  each  one  of  those  taxes  because  they 
frankly  admit  they  don't  know  and  couldn't  figure  it 
out  until  they  had  local  situations  in  mind  and  knew 
first  what  would  be  equitable  and  correct  in  meeting 
tax  principles  of  simplicity  and  diversity.  In  Wis 
consin,  after  nineteen  years  of  thus  distributing  income 
taxes,  the  Wisconsin  Tax  Commission  is  advocating  a 
change. 

The  Gentlemen  of  the  Opposition  say,  "Sure,  you  can 


58    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

pass  it  back,"  but  they  are  doing  It  in  ways  that  they 
are  not  satisfied  with.  They  are  doing  it  with  ten  per 
cent  of  state  and  local  taxes,  and  the  Gentlemen  of  the 

Opposition  want  to  increase  that  to  handle  a  distribu 
tion  of  state  and  local  taxes  of  about  five  billions  of 

dollars  a  year  in  the  United  States,  and  they  have  not 
demonstrated  to  you  any  means— we  don't  want  just  a 
general  means,  we  want  to  know  a  general  method  that 

can  be  used  that  will  be  satisfactory,  and  they  have 
not  brought  one  out. 

Now,  the  Gentlemen  of  the  Opposition  have  talked 
about  this  delinquency.  This  man  we  quoted  happens 
to  be  a  member  of  the  State  Tax  Commission  who  was 
put  on  the  Commission  for  the  purpose  of  getting  his 
particular  information  in  that  particular  line,  because 
he  happens  to  be  the  outstanding  authority  on  state 
and  local  taxes  in  the  United  States,  and  has  made 
special  studies  of  counties  of  the  State  of  Michigan. 
That  is  the  conclusion  he  reaches,  that  the  waste  and 
extravagance  we  spoke  of  in  our  first  speech  is  the 
thing  that  causes  delinquency.  They  quote  the  Mich 
igan  Tax  Report,  "Tax  delinquency  h  not  tax  de 
linquency.  It  represents  an  excess  of  taxation  over 
ability  to  pay/7  That  does  not  mean  what  they  think 
it  means.  It  represents  an  over  what  the  county 

should  get  and  not  an  on  any  particular  source 

—too  much  money,  not  too  much  with  respect  to  those 
particular  sources.  Counties  in  the  State  of  Michigan 
waste  money  "high,  wide  and  handsome,"  because  of 
their  particular  organization.  And  so  far  the  Gentle 
men  have  not  attempted  to  up  and  the 


REVENUES  FROM   INTANGIBLE  PROPERTY  59 

findings  of  the  New  York  State  Tax  Commission,  a 
Commission  which  has  studied  the  problem  more  care 
fully  than  any  group  of  men  has  ever  studied  it. 
That  happens  to  be  the  state  most  favorable  to  the 
Gentlemen  of  the  Opposition.  The  conclusion  there  of 
the  tax  authorities,  giving  attention  to  the  ability  to 
pay  and  benefit  theory,  is  that  a  tax  in  New  York  to  be 
equitable  must  have  at  least  fifty-three  and  two-tenths 
per  cent  of  the  total  revenue's  dependence  placed  on  a 
tax  on  tangible  property.  That,  as  we  have  said,  is  in 
the  state  most  favorable  to  the  Gentlemen  of  the  Op 
position.  The  equity  about  which  they  complain  so 
bitterly  would  be  more  and  more  apparent  in  each  of 
the  other  states  of  the  Union  as  they  applied  this 
proposition  of  theirs  to  new  states, 

Third  Affirmative  Rebuttal,  Harry  L.  Cole 
University  of  Wisconsin 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  The  preceding  speaker 
has  closed  with  a  reference  to  the  special  report  of  the 

New  York  Commission  on  Tax  Revision.  That  report 
is  very  important  because  it  represents  the  findings  of 
a  body  of  experts  who  were  called  together  specifically 

to  study  this  question,  and  it  should  be  given  great 

weight  in  deciding  this  matter.    The  Gentlemen  who 

just  preceded  me  said  that  the  Tax  Commission  did  not 
presume  to  set  definite  percentages  upon  this  sort  of 
tax  or  upon  that  sort  of  tax,  but  proposed  it  should  be 
adjusted  to  local  communities.  As  I  said  before,  we 
are  in  favor  of  adjustments  to  local  conditions,  and 


60     THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

agree  with  the  Gentlemen  of  the  Negative  and  the 
New  York  Tax  Commission  that  the  percentages  will 
need  to  be  adjusted  to  the  differences  in  different  com 
munities.  But  we  do  not  agree  with  them  that  if  you 

keep  the  large  part  of  the  burden  on  tangible  property 
the  situation  will  be  met.  We  contend  you  must  have 
a  large  part  of  the  burden  distributed  according  to 
ability  to  pay  if  you  are  going  to  have  a  more  equitable 
tax  system. 

Now,  the  New  York  Commission,  as  they  have  in 
dicated,  advocates  various  substantial  increases  in  the 
revenue  derived  from  intangibles  and  advocates  these 
increases  shall  be  applied  to  reduce  levies  on  property. 
We  are  also  in  accord  with  the  New  York  Tax  Com 
mission  in  that  respect.  They  unanimously  report  in 
favor  of  increased  revenue  to  the  amount  of  one  hun 
dred  twenty-seven  million  dollars  in  a  normal  year  in 
order  that  the  taxes  on  property  should  be  lightened, 
but  a  majority  of  the  committee  said  to  lighten  it  one 
hundred  twenty-seven  millions  was  not  enough.  To 
quote  the  exact  words  of  the  Commission,  whose  report 
I  hold  in  my  hand.  Part  1,  page  48: 

"The  majority  submits  that,  whether  one  takes  property 
values  or  income  as  the  test  of  fairness  in  the  distribution  of 
the  tax  burden,  the  portion  of  the  aggregate1  tax  burden 
which  falls  upon  real  estate  Is  so  that  the  inequity  will 
not  be  eliminated  by  the  adoption  of  the  revenue  proposals 
listed  in  Class  A.J) 

The  revenue  proposals  listed  in  Class  A  are  to 

property  taxes  one  hundred  twenty-seven  million  dol- 


REVENUES  FROM  INTANGIBLE  PROPERTY     61 

lars  by  an  increase  chiefly  in  income  taxes,  and  these 
income  taxes  are  not  anything  like  the  rates  they 
think  would  be  necessary  to  raise  revenue  from  in 
tangibles  :  one  per  cent  up  to  five  thousand  dollars,  and 
a  rate  of  two  per  cent  on  incomes  up  to  ten  thousand 
dollars.  These  are  the  terrific  rates  which  they  are  so 
afraid  of  on  the  incomes!  We  have  not  begun  to 
scratch  the  surface  of  the  possibilities  of  raising  rev 
enue  from  income  tax  in  this  country. 

The  Gentlemen  made  the  statement  that  there  isn't 
sufficient  revenue  in  the  State  of  North  Dakota  to  pay 
the  income  tax.  According  to  the  United  States  Gov 
ernment  return,  total  revenue  in  the  State  of  North 
Dakota  was  over  one  hundred  forty  million  dollars  in 
1930.  The  expenses  of  the  government  were  some 
thing  like  thirty  million  dollars,  and  yet  they  tell  you 
there  isn't  sufficient  income  to  pay  their  government 
costs-  That  is  an  absurdity.  In  any  state  the  total 
expenses  of  government  have  to  be  a  small  percentage 
of  the  income  of  the  people.  Our  fundamental  conten 
tion  is  that  we  can  readjust  the  major  part  of  the  tax 
burden  and  apportion  it  upon  people  in  proportion  to 
their  incomes.  And  when  you  do  that  you  will  be 
getting  at  the  ability  to  pay,  you  will  be  putting  your 
tax  system  on  a  foundation  of  justice,  and  you  will  be 
curing  these  inequities  whose  existence  the  Gentlemen 
have  not  denied  but  which  they  have  proposed  noth 
ing  to  correct.  In  conclusion,  if  we  are  to  accomplish 
anything  constructive  in  the  way  of  improving  our  tax 
system,  and  doing  away  with  the  inequities  which  the 
Gentlemen  have  not  denied,  we  must  work  out  a  pro- 


62     THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

gram  in  every  state  as  It  is  already  worked  out  for 
Delaware,  Virginia,  and  North  Carolina,  and  thereby 
raise  more  than  half  of  the  state  and  local  revenues 
from  sources  other  than  tangible  property. 


Decision,  Professor  Rexford  Mitchell 
Critic  Judge 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  Debaters  are  often  told 
that  they  should  regard  the  judge  as  one  of  the  au 
dience,  and  judges  are  frequently  admonished  to  re 
member  that  they  are  one  of  that  group.  I  am  going  to 
assume,  therefore,  this  evening  that  you  are  willing 
to  accept  me  as  one  of  the  group,  and  since  I  am  the 
only  member  of  the  audience  who  has  a  chance  to  talk, 
I  am  going  to  presume  to  speak  for  you  in  saying  to 
these  men  from  Michigan  and  these  men  from  Wis 
consin  that  we  have  enjoyed  this  splendid  discussion 
of  this  timely  question,  I  think  you  will  all  agree  that 
it  has  been  an  interesting  and  profitable  evening, 

I  think  you  understand  what  1  am  asked  to  do.  1 
am  not  asked,  fortunately,  to  decide  who  is  right,  and 
I  am  not  asked  to  decide  the  tax  problem.  We  are 
going  to  let  the  Democratic  Governors  and  Legislators 
which  the  State  of  Michigan  and  State  of  Wisconsin 
have  elected  so  recently  deal  with  that  matter,  I  am 
simply  asked  to  tell  you  which  of  the  two  teams  1 
think  has  done  the  better  debating,  and  I  sura  that- 
after  listening  to  the  debate  you  don't  envy  me  that 
task  because  it  is  a  rather  difficult  one,  1  think. 

Those  of  you  who  are  In  educational  are 


'  REVENUES  FROM  INTANGIBLE  PROPERTY     63 

familiar  with  the  phenomena  known  as  questionnaires. 
Some  of  you  have  been  deluged  with  them  from  time 
to  time.  In  order  to  be  up-to-date  and  in  step  with 
the  times,  I  have  devised  a  questionnaire  for  use  in 
analyzing  this  debate  and  in  explaining  the  basis  for 
my  decision.  But  unlike  most  perpetrators  of  ques 
tionnaires,  I  am  going  to  make  myself  the  victim  of  the 
'device  and  try  to  answer  the  questions.  I  think  as  the 
process  proceeds  you  will  discern  what  my  decision  is, 
and  the  basis  for  it.  May  I  say  further  in  disparage 
ment  of  this  questionnaire  that  in  it  I  have  separated 
factors  that  I  know  are  inseparable. 

The  first  question  is  this:  Which  team  showed 
throughout  the  debate  greater  skill  in  analysis?  My 
answer  is  that  there  was  no  perceptible  difference. 

Second:  Which  team  showed  a  more  complete  knowl 
edge  of  the  question?  Again  I  will  have  to  say  that 
to  the  best  of  my  judgment  there  wasn't  much  dif 
ference. 

The  third  question  is:  Which  team  showed  superior 
skill  in  using  argument  backed  up  by  evidence  in  build 
ing  up  a  logical  case?  There  I  am  going  to  fool  you  by 
having  an  opinion  as  to  difference,  I  say  the  Affirm 
ative  had  a  slight  edge  in  that  respect.  I  felt  that 
they  had  a  little  more  closely  knit  case  and  that  it  was 
a  little  easier  to  follow  them  all  the  way  through  their 
argument. 

The  fourth  question:  Which  team  was  superior  in 
refutation  and  rebuttal?  My  answer  is  that  1  think 
the  Affirmative  had  a  slight  edge* 

I  listed  the  questions  that  it  seemed  to  me  had  de- 


64     THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

veloped  out  of  the  clash  of  argument  as  a  result  of  the 
constructive  speeches,  the  matters  I  felt  each  side  must 
deal  with,  and  I  felt  that  the  Affirmative  followed  the 
ball,  so  to  speak,  that  is,  kept  their  eye  on  the  main 
issues,  just  a  little  bit  better  than  the  Negative  did. 

Fifth:  Which  team  was  superior  in  rhetorical  organ 
ization?  I  think  the  Affirmative  had  the  edge. 

Which  team  was  superior  in  delivery?  I  say  the 
Negative  was. 

Which  team  was  superior  in  persuasiveness?  I  say 
the  Negative  was. 

Where  did  the  weight  of  evidence  seem  to  rest  at  the 
close  of  the  debate?  1  felt  it  was  with  the  Affirmative. 

The  last  question:  Which  team  on  the  whole  did  the 
more  effective  debating?  My  answer  is  the  Affirmative, 
and  thus  ends  the  questionnaire. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY;  REVENUES  FROM  INTANGIBLE 
PROPERTY 

BOOKS 

Adams,  H.  C.~~ Science  of  Finance,    1898.    Holt. 

Betters,  Paul  V.«— State  Centralisation  in  North  Carolina*  1932, 
Brookings  Institute,  Washington,  D,  C. 

Brown,  Harry  G.—The  Economics  0}  Taxation.    1924,    Holt. 

Brown,  Harry  G.— -The  Economic,  ffasis  of  Tax  Reform.  1<M2,  Lu 
cas  Brothers,  Columbia,  Mo. 

Buchler,  Alfred  Df-^Generul  *VW«  Taxation*  Th«  Ilu»Ines»  Bourse, 
80  West  40th  Street,  New  York,  $5,00. 

Bullock,  Charles  J. —Selected  in  Finance*  1924. 

Ginn  and  Company, 

Comstock,  Alzada  P.—  in  The  Mate.  iWO,  Long 

mans.  $2.00* 

Dalton,  Hugh— Principles  of  Public,  Finance.    1923.    Knopf, 


REVENUES  FROM  INTANGIBLE  PROPERTY     65 

Hunter,  Merlin  H. — Outlines  of  Public  Finance.  1926.  Harper  & 
Brothers. 

Hutchinson,  Ruth  G. — State-Administered  Locally -Shared  Taxes. 
1931.  Columbia  University  Press. 

Jensen,  Jens  P. — Problems  of  Public  Finance.    1924.    Crowell. 

Jensen,  Jens  P. — Property  Taxation  in  the  United  States.  1931.  Uni 
versity  of  Chicago  Press. 

Leland,  Simeon  E. — The  Classified  Property  Tax  in  the  United  States. 
1928.  Houghton  Mifflin. 

Loman,  Harry  J. — Taxation.    1927.    D.  Appleton  &  Company. 

Lutz,  Harley  L. — Public  Finance.    1924.    D.  Appleton  &  Company. 

Lutz,  Harley  L. — The  Georgia  System  of  Revenue,  Its  Problems  and 
Remedies,  1930. 

Mellon,  Andrew  W.— Taxation:  The  People's  Business.  1924.  Mac- 
millan. 

Peck,  Harvey  W. — Taxation  and  Welfare.    1925.    Macmillan. 

Plehn,  Carl  C. — Introduction  to  Public  Finance.    1926.    Macmillan. 

Mill,  John  S. — Principles  of  Political  Economy.  1900.  Colonial 
Press,  New  York, 

Robinson,  M.  E. — Public  Finance.  1922.  Harcourt,  Brace  &  Com 
pany. 

Schalkenback,  Robert-— 5% nificant  Paragraphs  from  Henry  George's 
Progress  and  Poverty.  1928.  Doubleday,  Doran  &  Company. 

Seligman,  Edwin  R.  A.—Stiidles  in  Public  Finance,  1925.  Mac 
millan, 

Seligman,  Edwin  R.  &,— Essays  in  Taxation.    1025.    Macmillan, 

Seligman,  Edwin  R.  A.— The  Shifting  and  Incidence  of  Taxation, 
1927,  Columbia  University  Press. 

Seligman,  Edwin  R.  A.— Double  Taxation  and  International  Fiscal 
Cooperation.  1928.  Macmillan. 

Shoup,  Carl  S,-— The  Saks  Tax  in  France.  1930,  Columbia  Univer 
sity  Press. 

Shultz,  William  ]. —American  Public  Finance  and  Taxation.  1931. 
Prentice-Hall.  $100, 

Silverman,  Herbert  A,.— Taxation:  Its  Incidence  and  Effects.  1931. 
Macmillan.  $3.00. 

Simpson,  Herbert  C.— Tax  Racket  and  Tax  Reform  in  Chicago. 
1930.  Institute  for  Economic  Research,  Chicago.  $2,50. 

Smith,  Adam—Tto  Wealth  of  Nations.  1776,  Everyman's  Edition 
or  Harvard  Classics, 


66     THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

Stamp,  Sir  Josiah— Wealth  and  Taxable  Capacity.  1922.  P.  S.  King 
&  Son,  Ltd.,  London. 

Stauffer,  William  H.— Taxation  in  Virginia.  1931.  The  Century 
Company. 

Taussig,  F.  W. — Principles  of  Economics.    1920.    Macmillan. 

Young,  Arthur  N. — The  Single  Tax  Movement  in  the  United  States, 
1916.  Princeton  University  Press. 

Cost  of  Government  in  the  United  States.  1929-1930.  National  In 
dustrial  Conference  Board,  New  York.  $3.00. 

Current  Tax  Problems  in  New  York  State,  193  L  National  In 
dustrial  Conference  Board,  New  York. 

Sales  Taxes:  General,  Selective  and  Retail,  National  Industrial 
Conference  Board,  New  York.  $2.00. 

The  Shifting  and  Effects  of  the  Federal  Corporation  Income  Tax* 
Vol.  2.  1930.  National  Industrial  Conference  Board,  New 
York. 

State  Income  Taxes.  Vol.  L  1930.  National  Industrial  Conference 
Board,  New  York. 

State  Income  Taxes.  VoL  2.  1930.  National  Industrial  Conference 
Board,  New  York. 

State  and  Local  Taxation  of  Business  Corporations,  IO.U.  National 
Industrial  Conference  Board,  New  York. 

State  and  Local  Taxation  of  Property,  1930,  National  Industrial 
Conference  Board,  New  York. 


BULLETINS,  REPORTS, 

Tax  Research  Foundation— -Federal  and  Mat?  Tax  Systems,    Third 

Edition,  January  1,  1932.    Commerce  Clearing  House,  205  Went 

Monroe,  Chicago,    $0.00. 
Graves,  Mark— -Making  One  Government  Gruw  Where  Two,  or  « 

Dozen,  Grew  Before.     United  States  Chamber  of  Commerce, 

Washington,  I).  C 
Studies  in  Taxation.   December  1928*    Extension  Bulletin,  University 

of  North  Carolina. 
Taylor,  Harry  A.— Jtetowinj  the  Burden  tm  /toil  Pwpfrty.    New 

Jersey  Association  of  Real  Estate  Boards, 
Garoett,  Hurt  P.— -New  Sources  ci/  State  and  Local  1932. 

Editorial  Research  Reports,  Wanhlngton,  I),  C 


REVENUES   FROM   INTANGIBLE  PROPERTY  67 

Groves,  Harold  M. — Speech  on  Taxation.  1932,  Wisconsin  Tax 
Commission,  Madison. 

Englund,  Eric — Tax  Relief,  Reform,  Revision,  Reduction.  1931. 
United  States  Department  of  Agriculture,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Current,  Conflicting  Views  on  Property,  Income,  Sales  Taxation. 
1932.  National  Research  Bureau,  238  East  Erie  Street,  Chicago. 
$2.25. 

Blakey,  Roy  G. — State  Income  Taxation.  1930.  Publication  No.  31. 
League  of  Minnesota  Municipalities,  Minneapolis. 

What  Leading  Retailers  and  Newspapers  Have  to  Say  Concerning 
the  Proposed  New  York  State  Sales  Tax.  National  Retail  Dry 
Goods  Association,  225  West  34th,  New  York. 

Cooper,  Walter  G.— The  Sales  Tax.  1931.  National  Retail  Dry 
Goods  Association,  225  West  34th,  New  York. 

Sheridan,  George  V. — Growth  of  Sales  Taxing  in  the  United  States. 
1931.  National  Retail  Dry  Goods  Association,  225  West  34th, 
New  York, 

Luxury  Taxation  and  its  Place  in  a  System  of  Public  Revenues. 
1931.  Special  Report  of  the  State  Tax  Commission,  Albany, 
New  York. 

Crawford,  F.  G. — The  Administration  of  the  Gasoline  Tax  in  the 
United  States*  1932.  Municipal  Administration  Service,  309  E. 
34th,  New  York. 

An  Address  Delivered  by  Paul  E.  Hadlick.  1932.  American  Pe 
troleum  Institute,  250  Park  Avenue,  New  York. 

Walker,  John  E.— Hig hway  Tax  Costs.  National  Automobile  Cham 
ber  of  Commerce,  366  Madison  Avenue,  New  York. 

Facts  and  Figures  of  the  Automobile  Industry.  1932.  National 
Automobile  Chamber  of  Commerce,  New  York. 

Fact  Analysis  of  Oklahoma  Gasoline  Tax,  1932.  Oklahoma  State 
Chamber  of  Commerce,  Oklahoma  City.  (And  Supplement) 

Hadlick,  Paul  E.— - The  Gasoline  Sales  Tax.  American  Petroleum  In 
stitute,  250  Park  Avenue,  New  York. 

Schon,  Pierre— Motor-Vehicle  Legislation  and  Taxation.  National 
Automobile  Chamber  of  Commerce,  New  York, 

Owsley,  Roy  BL— - Our  Cities  and  the  Gasoline  Tax.  1930.  "University 
of  Kentucky,  Lexington. 

Special  Taxation  for  Motor  Vehicles.  1931.  Motor  Vehicle  Con 
ference  Committee,  366  Madison  Avenue,  New  York. 

Martin,,  James  W,,  and  Stephens©®,  C.  M.— Taxation  of  Private  and 


68     THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

Common-Carrier  Motor  Vehicles  by  Municipalities.  1931. 
Municipal  Administration  Service,  309  East  34th  Street,  New 
York. 

Final  Report  of  California  Tax  Commission,  1929.  State  of  Cali 
fornia. 

Jensen,  Jens  P. — Survey  of  Colorado  Tax  System.  1930,  Denver 
Chamber  of  Commerce,  Denver,  Colorado. 

Klemmedson,  G.  S. — Taxation  and  Public  School  Finance  in  Colorado. 

1931.  Colorado  Agricultural  College. 

Report  of  Indiana  Tax  Survey  Committee  to  Seventy-Seventh  Gen 
eral  Assembly,  January  IS,  1931. 

Brindley,  John  E.,  and  Zorbaugh,  Grace  S.  Ms—The  Tax  System  of 
Iowa.  1930,  Iowa  State  College  of  Agriculture  and  Mechanic 
Arts. 

Report  of  Joint  Legislative  Committee  on  Taxation  and  State  Board 
of  Assessment  and  Review.  1930.  State  of  Iowa. 

Report  of  Kansas  Tax  Code  Commission.    1929,    Topeka,  Kansas, 

Leland,  Simeon  K—The  Taxation  of  Intangibles  in  Kentucky.  1929. 
University  of  Kentucky. 

Leland,  Simeon  E, — Observations  Upon  the  Minnesota  Tax  System, 

1932.  Minneapolis, 

Reports  of  the  Commission  to  Investigate  County  and  Municipal 
Taxation  and  Expenditures.  Legislature  of  New  Jersey. 

Seligman,  Edwin  R.  A.— Tfca  Fiscal  Situation  in  New  Jersey,  Tren 
ton  Times  Newspapers. 

Message  of  Governor  Franklin  D*  Roosevelt  to  Legislature.  January 
6,  1932.  Legislative  Document  No,  3*  Albany,  New  York, 

New  York  State  Commission'  for  the,  Revision  of  the  Tax  Laws, 
Report  submitted  February  IS,  1932, 

Melton,  Judge  Harve  L*— -4  Treatise  on  Oklahoma  ad  V($l&re,m  Tax 
and  Oklahoma  Conditions,  Oklahoma  Chamber  of  Commerce, 

Reconstruction  of  Virginia's  Tax  Sy$tfm*  Virginia  State  Chamber 
of  Commerce* 

Haas,  Judge  T.  N.— -Virginia  Taxation,  Xts  Defects  and  tke  Rf.mfdy* 
1931.  Harrisonburg,  Virginia. 

Blakey,  Roy  G.— Report  on  Taxation  in  Wfst  Vbffafa.  W3t,  Uni 
versity  of  Minnesota. 

Groves,  Harold  M.— Ability  to  Pay  and  ike  Tax  System  In  Dane 
County,  Wisconsin.  University  of  Wisconsin, 


REVENUES  FROM  INTANGIBLE  PROPERTY     69 

Groves,  Harold  M. — The  Wisconsin  Income  Tax.  1929.  Minnesota 
Municipalities,  Minneapolis. 

Blough,  J.  Roy — The  Wisconsin  System  of  Taxation.  Wisconsin  Tax 
Commission,  Madison, 

Blough,  J.  Roy — The  Geographical  Problem  in  Wisconsin  Taxation, 
1930.  Wisconsin  Tax  Commission. 

Groves,  Harold  M. — Memorandum  on  the  Migration  of  Industry 
from  Wisconsin  to  Escape  Taxation.  Wisconsin  Tax  Commis 
sion. 

Leffler,  George  L. — Wisconsin  Industry  and  the  Wisconsin  Tax 
System.  1930.  University  of  Wisconsin. 

Survey  of  Bank  Taxation  in  the  United  States.  1931.  American 
Bankers  Association,  Kansas  City,  Missouri. 

Jackson,  "Donald—Land  Tax  Delinquency  a  Growing  Problem, 
United  States  Department  of  Agriculture. 

Englund,  Eric — Burden  of  Farm  Taxation.  1930.  United  States  De 
partment  of  Agriculture. 

Englund,  Eric — Recent  Trends  in  Farm  Taxes,  1930.  United  States 
Department  of  Agriculture. 

Englund,  Eric — Why  Farm  Taxes  Are  Heavy  and  What  Should  Be 
Done  About  Farm  Taxes.  Department  of  Agriculture,  Wash 
ington,  D.  C. 

Allin,  Bushrod  W. — Possible  Farm  Tax  Reduction  Through  Changes 
in  Local  Government.  1931.  United  States  Department  of 
Agriculture. 

Olcott,  Margaret  Tts—Tascation  and  the  Farmer,  A  Selected  and  An 
notated  Bibliography.  1928.  United  States  Department  of  Ag 
riculture. 

Coombs,  Whitney— Taxation  of  Farm  Property,  1930.  United 
States  Department  of  Agriculture. 

Rosa,  Charles  D. — The  Farmer  in  Wisconsin's  System  of  Taxation. 
1927.  Wisconsin  Tax  Commission,  Madison, 

Undeveloped  Sources  of  Municipal  Revenue— 1932.  Municipal  Ad 
ministration  Service,  New  York. 

Rightor,  C.  E. — Comparative  Tax  Rates  of  200  Cities,  1931. 
Governmental  Research  Municipal  Administration  Service. 

Bird,  Frederick  Is—Th*  Prmnt  Financial  Status  of  135  Cities  in  the 
United  States  and  Canada,  1931.  Municipal  Administration 
Service,  New  York 


70    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

A  Ten-Jeer  Pl&n  For  Public  Improvement  in  Kansas  City.  Civic 
Improvement  Committee,  City  Hall,  Kansas  City, 

Williams,  Percy  R.— -Pittsburgh's  Graded  Tax  in  Full  Operation. 
1925.  National  Municipal  Review. 

Collins,  Clem  W.— Taxes  and  the  Taxpayer.  1931.  Denver  City  and 
County  Council 

Final  Report  of  Committee  on  Taxation  and  Public  Expenditures. 
1932.  Philadelphia  Chamber  of  Commerce. 

Stutz,  John  G.— • Probable  Effects  Upon  Cities  by  Recommendations 
of  Kansas  Tax  Code  Commission.  League  of  Kansas  Munic 
ipalities,  Lawrence,  Kansas. 

Can  General  Property  Taxation  Be  Reduced?  April  1931.  Massa 
chusetts  Institute  of  Technology. 

Local  Fiscal  Problems.    1929.    United  States  Chamber  of  Commerce, 

Assessments.    1930.    United  States  Chamber  of  Commerce. 

Taxation  Activities.    1931.    United  States  Chamber  of  Commerce, 


PERIODICALS 

American  Bankers  Association  Journal— -26  No.  l:97-8ff.    Progress 

Toward  the  Goal  of  Fair  Taxation. 

American  City.-— 45  No.  3:107.  Britain  To  Tax  Land  Vdtms*  Sep 
tember  1931,  46  No.  1:100-2,  Delinquent  Real  Estate  Taxe^ 
Prevention  and  Collection.  January  1932. 

American  Economic  Review.—- 21:672-81,  A  Mediaeval  Tax  Problem. 
December  1931. 

American  Political  Science  Review.— -25:996-1003,  State  Centralisa 
tion  in  North  Carotin**  November  1931.  25:1004-7.  State 
Supervision  of  Local  Fiscal  Officers  to  Virginia.  November  1931. 

Annals  of  American  Academy.—- 153:238-45.  Probkms  of  Taxation 
in  Tennessee,  January  1931.  129:9-15.  Ways  and  Means 
Toward  Equitable  Adjustments  of  State  and  Federal  Taxes. 
January  1927, 

Atkntic  Monthly.— 127:849-854.  Adventures  In  Taxati<m~-Tke 
Saks  Tax.  June  1921. 

Bulletin,  Milwaukee  Association  of  Commerce.-—!  1  No,  17*  MII- 
waukee*$  Increasing  TBX  Trends.  November  24,  I93t. 

Bulletin,  National  Retail  Dry  Goods  Association,— An  of 

Present  Siate  Sales  Tax  Laws.  1030.  Jtetott  Tm- 

ing  An  Active  te«e  m  Om-Hdf  a/  the  September  1931. 


REVENUES  FROM  INTANGIBLE  PROPERTY     71 

Bulletin,  National  Tax  Association. — 16  No.  5:137-8.  Excise  and 
Income  Taxes  in  Oregon,  February  1931.  15  No.  9:258-262. 
The  General  Sales  Tax  As  a  State  Revenue.  June  1930.  16 
No.  4:105-114.  How  Business  Corporations  Should  Be  Taxed. 
January  1931.  16  No.  9:269-275.  How  Existing  Methods  of 
Income  Taxation  May  Be  Improved.  June  1931.  16  No. 
6:165-7.  Measuring  the  Intangible  Tax  Base.  March  1931. 
17  No.  1:9-15.  The  Mechanics  of  a  Tax  Reduction  Study; 
Points  to  be  Considered  by  Chambers  of  Commerce.  October 
1931.  16  No.  1:8-9.  More  Research  and  Analysis  Needed. 
October  1930.  15  No.  4:109-117.  North  Carolina  Tax  Prob 
lems.  January  1930.  15  No.  9:255-8.  Ohio's  Opportunity  in 
Taxation.  June  1930.  15  No.  6:162-6.  The  Reorganization 
and  Consolidation  of  Local  Units  and  Functions  of  Government 
and  the  Resulting  Effect  on  Taxes.  March  1930.  16  No.  1:14-18. 
Sales  Tax  in  France— Simplicity?  October  1930.  14  No,  4:106- 
110,  Some  Queer  Provisions  of  Former  Tax  Statutes.  January 
1929.  17  No.  4:96-101.  Status  and  Certain  Tests  of  Uniformity  in 
Allocating  Corporate  Income.  January  1932.  15  No.  6:166-178. 
A  Survey  of  the  Remedies  that  are  Possible  Under  the  Classi 
fication  Amendment  in  Ohio,  March  1930,  17  No.  1:15-20. 
The  Taxation  of  Business  Enterprises.  October  1931.  16  No. 
8:231-2.  Taxation  of  Financial  Institutions  in  Kansas,  May 
1931.  16  No.  7:213-7.  Taxation—The  Position  of  the  Banks. 
April  193L  16  No.  9:275-7.  The  Tax  Burden  upon  Industry 
in  New  York.  June  1931.  15  No.  7:200-3.  Tax  Problems  and 
a  Tax  Program  for  Real  Estate,  April  1930.  12  No.  6:181-4. 
Ten  Years  of  the  State  Income  Tax.  March  1927.  14  No.  2:45-8. 
The  Trend  in  State  Revenues.  November  1928,  16  No.  2:37-9. 
What  Part  of  our  Wealth  is  Real  Estate?  November  1930. 
17  No.  3:78-81.  Why  Increased  Taxes  are  Unavoidable,  De 
cember  1931. 

Business  Week.-— Illinois  Taxes  Incomes  to  Relieve  Property-Holders. 
February  24,  1932.  Mandatory  Control  of  att  Taxes  in  North 
Caroling,  Successful.  July  15,  1931.  Mississippi  Shows  How  to 
Apply  a  Sales  Tax,  May  18,  1932.  Tax  Reduction  in  Ohio 
Attracts  Manufacturers.  August  19,  1931. 

Christian  Science  Monitor.— Hooker  Seeks  SM®  and  CMc  Aid  to 
Salt  Mounting  TWK  Tide,  April  2S»  1932,  Tax  Reforms  In- 


72     THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

augurated    by    Oklahoma.     May    7,    1931.      Tax    on   Incomes 
Thought  Best.    February  14,  1931. 

Citizens'  Bureau,  Milwaukee.—- Comparative  Tax  Burden  on  $1,000,000 
Manufacturing  Corporation.  May  30,  1931. 

Congressional  Record.— Vol.  66,  Part  5:5510,  Duplication  of  Taxes, 
March  4,  1925.  Vol.  66,  Part  2:1189.  Income  Taxes  and  the 
Price  Level  January  3,  1925. 

Current  History.— 34:448-50.  Land  Taxation  in  Great  Britain. 
June  1931.  33:244-6.  A  New  Source  of  State  Revenue.  No 
vember  1930. 

Forbes  Magazine.— How  Racketeers  Steal  Millions  in  Bootlegging  of 
Gasoline.  December  15,  1931. 

Forum. — Pittsburgh  Has  a  Plan,    April  1928. 

Gas  Tax  News.— Gasoline  Tax  Payments  Soar  and  Make  New 
Record— I  No.  7,  1932.  American  Petroleum  Institute,  New 
York. 

Harlows  Weekly.— 38  No.  10:4-6.  Humphrey  Briefs  New  Tax 
Theory.  September  5,  193 L  Taxation  In  Oklahoma.  Septem 
ber  26,  1931. 

Illinois  Journal  of  Commerce. — Reorganisation  oj  Local  Govern 
ment.  November  1931. 

Journal  of  Political  Economy,— The  General  Property  Tax  and  the 
Farmer.  January  1930, 

Manufacturers  News.— We  Save  at  Washington  and  Waste  in  the 
States,  November  1926. 

Manufacturers  Record.— -Gas  Tax  Diversion  and  Evasion.  January 
7,  1932, 

Nation.-— 134:484-6.    Toward  a  New  Tax  Program.    April  27,  1932. 

National  Municipal  Review.— -20  No.  9:518-522.  Brain  Muddle  in 
Chicago.  September  1931.  20  No.  10:584-8.  County- 
Municipal  Segregation  Plan  Proposed  for  New  Jersey,  October 
1931.  21  No.  2:101-6.  Has  the  Indiana  Plan  Been  a  Success? 
February  1932.  20  No.  6:328-334,  North  Carolina's  New  Plan 
for  Controlling  Local  Fiscal  Ajalrs.  June  1<WI,  20  No,  <^:S27- 
530.  State  Centralization  in  North  Carolina,  September  1031. 
20  No.  9:523-7.  Tax  Investigations  in  Twenty  »$tx  States. 
September  1931.  20  No.  3:136-8.  Tux  Reforms  in  Tennessee. 
March  1931. 

National    Petroleum    News,— 24    No,    26:16. 

Broker  Accmed  in  Gasoline  Tax  Evasion  COM,    June  29,  1932, 


REVENUES   FROM   INTANGIBLE  PROPERTY  73 

24  No.  17.  Tax  Evasion  is  Menace  to  Government.  April  27, 
1932.  24  No.  26:13-4.  Taxoline,  a  Fitting  Name.  June  29, 
1932. 

Nation's  Business.— 19  No.  2:29.  Chicago  Teaches  a  Tax  Lesson. 
February  1931.  19  No.  10:31-3.  How  North  Carolina  Cut  Its 
Cost.  October  1931.  20  No.  2:46-50.  It's  the  Poor  Who  Pay 
a  Sales  Tax.  February  1932.  19  No.  7:46.  Taxes  Threaten 
Retail  Growth.  July  1931.  20  No.  6:33.  Ten  Governors  Dis 
cuss  Taxes.  June  1932.  19  No.  5:31.  Throwing  Light  on  the 
Sales  Tax.  May  1931.  20  No.  5:25-7.  Your  Part  in  Tax  Re 
duction.  May  1932. 

New  York  Times.— -Use  Here  of  British  Tax  Plan.  May  1,  1932. 
Excessive  Cost  of  Local  Government.  July  7,  1931.  Mississippi 
Giving  Sales  Tax  a  Trial  May  8,  1932.  State  Legislatures  Con 
sider  Income  Tax.  March  22,  1931. 

Nineteenth  Century. — 109:637-47.  The  Taxation  of  Land  Values. 
June  1931, 

North  American  Review.— 232:33-42.  The  Landowner's  Lot.  July 
1931. 

North  Carolina  Law  Review.  9:108-10.  Tax  Reform  in  North 
Carolina.  December  1930. 

Oklahoma  Municipal  Review.-— 6  No.  6:128-130.  Reducing  Govern 
mental  Costs.  June  1932. 

Oregon  Voter.— Are  Intangibles  Property?  April  18,  1931.  In 
tangibles  Tax.  March  28,  1931.  Only  50%  of  Tax  Paid  by 
Realty.  April  18,  1931. 

Public  Dollar.— -Public  Expenditures.    June- July  1931. 

Public  Management.— 14  No.  1:11-2.  Taxes  and  Assessments. 
January  1932. 

Review  of  Reviews.— 82:57-8.  A  Battle  over  Taxes  in  Illinois. 
November  1930.  84:86.  Canada's  Sales  Tax.  October  1931. 
82:120-2.  How  West  Virginia  Found  New  Revenue.  October 
1930.  85:25.  A  Manufacturers'  Tax  for  the  States,  April 
1932.  83:86-7.  A  Postscript  in  the  Sales  Tax.  January  1931. 
84:67-8.  Taxation  in  Hard  Times.  August  1931. 

Saturday  Evening  Post.— -204  No.  23.  One  State  Cleans  Home. 
January  2,  1932. 

Tax  Digest^- 455**sme»*  Procedure.  April  1931.  Control  of  Public 
Expenditures  August  1931,  8  No,  6:  193-6.  Effect  of  Taxa 
tion  on  Real  Estate.  June  1930,  10  No.  3: 76-9.  Public  Finance 


74    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

and  Taxation.  March  1932.  The  Sales  Tax.  February  1931. 
Special  Assessment  Dangers.  July  1930.  State  and  Local  Tax 
System  of  California.  10  No.  6:195-9.  June  1932.  What  is  a 
Good  Budget?  November  1931. 

Tax  Magazine. — Basic  Principles  Which  Should  Guide  in  Tax  Legis 
lation.  January  1931.  The  Gross  Sales  Tax  in  Kentucky. 
March-April  1932.  The  Taxation  of  Intangible  Property.  April 
1931.  10  No.  6:211-5.  The  Turnover  or  Sales  Tax  in  Prance. 
June  1932.  Unlimited  Earnings  and  Tax  Evasion.  November 
1931.  10  No.  6:216-222.  Why  Pay  Property  Taxes?  June 
1932. 

United  States  Daily.— The  Income  Tax  in  South  Carolina,  July  9, 
1930.  Tax  Reduction  is  Advocated  on  Realty  in  Iowa.  De 
cember  11,  1931.  Tax  Reductions  are  Foreseen  in  Farm  Prop 
erty.  December  29,  1931.  7  No.  72:8.  Tax-Relief  for  Farmer 
by  Levy  on  Intangible  Property.  May  26,  1932. 

Utah  Taxpayer. — Organized  Effort — Its  Accomplishment  in  Tax 
Control.  October  1931. 

Woman's  Journal. — The  High  Cost  of  Inheriting,    September  1928. 

World's  Work.— 6Q:30~t    Hands  Off  Our  Tax  Laws.    March  1931. 


SOCIALISM 

An  International  Debate 

Between  Oxford  (England)  and  Yale 
Universities 


SOCIALISM 
OXFORD  UNIVERSITY  VS.  YALE  UNIVERSITY 

The  Yale-Oxford  Debate  was  held  at  Yale's  Sterling  Law  Audi 
torium.  The  subject  was  stated,  Resolved:  That  Socialism  offers  no 
remedy  for  the  present  economic  disorder. 

Oxford  University  was  represented  by  A.  J.  Irvine  and  G.  M.  Wil 
son  and  Yale  by  F.  Vinton  Lindley  and  Eugene  V.  Rostow.  In  the 
debate,  both  Affirmative  and  Negative  sides  included  one  Oxford  and 
one  Yale  debater.  The  Presiding  Officer  was  Franklin  Ferriss,  2d., 
who  introduced  the  speakers. 

These  speeches  were  collected  and  contributed  through  the  courtesy 
of  Professor  J.  C.  Adams  of  Yale  University. 

Introduction,  Franklin  Ferriss,  2<L, 
Chairman 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  I  am  tremendously 
pleased  to  see  the  Yale  Sterling  Law  Auditorium  full 
to  its  capacity.  I  think  it  is  the  first  time  in  four  years 

at  Yale  that  I  have  witnessed  such  an  event.  I  cer 
tainly  agree  with  you  all,  and  if  I  were  to  come  to  only 
one  debate  in  the  four  years  at  Yale,  I  think  it  would 
be  this  one.  We  are  very  much  honored  to  have  the 
Oxford  men  with  us  this  evening  and  I  extend  a  cordial 
welcome  to  them.  I  cannot  lean  to  one  side  or  the 
other.  The  Oxford  team  feel  they  must  say  what  they 
honestly  feel,  and  consequently  they  are  splitting  with 
the  Yale  team  and  one  Oxford  man  and  one  Yale  man 

77 


78     THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

will  take  the  Affirmative  while  the  other  two  men  will 
take  the  Negative  side. 

Each  man,  I  understand,  will  speak  about  twenty 
minutes,  and  there  ought  to  be  no  rebuttals.  However, 
the  men  are  willing  to  answer  any  questions  anyone  is 
willing  to  propose,  and  I  will  recognize  people  in  the 
audience  for  that  purpose. 

Mr.  Rostow  and  Mr,  Wilson  will  uphold  the  Nega 
tive,  and  Mr.  Lindley  and  Mr.  Irvine  will  uphold  the 
Affirmative.  The  subject  is,  Resolved:  That  Socialism 
offers  no  remedy  for  the  present  economic  disorder. 


First  Affirmative,  P.  Vinton  Lindley 
Yale  University 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  I  predict  tragedy.  We 
are  rushing  toward  chaos.  We  are  rushing  toward 
destruction.  I  predict  tragedy. 

It  is  not  the  tragedy  of  economic  collapse.  It  is  the 
tragedy  that  for  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  de 
bating,  and  in  the  history  of  the  world  two  debating 
teams  may  come  to  complete  and  entire  agreement.  I 
am  going  to  be,  if  I  may,  quite  personal  through  this 
debate.  Socialism  is  a  fairly  hopeless  subject  to  dis 
cuss  in  the  abstract*  Gene  Rostow,  who  Bits  there,  and 
myself,  for  four  years  In  college  have  eaten  many  meals 
together  and  have  discussed  this  question  so  constantly 
that  we  have?  alas,  arrived  disgustingly  enough  at  com 
plete  agreement^  informally  if  not  before  you;  and 
after  discussion  the  same  thing  was  practically  true 
this  evening  with  the  Englishmen  at  dinner.  When 


SOCIALISM  79 

more  or  less  intelligent  people  get  together  and  discuss 
subjects  of  this  kind,  it  is  apt  to  end  in  agreement. 

We  have  with  us  tonight  two  gentlemen  from  a  na 
tion  of  globe-trotters,  from  the  far-flung  British  Em 
pire.  We  are  delighted  that  they  have  been  "flung" 
across  the  Atlantic  Ocean  to  us  I 

The  extent  of  our  agreement,  I  think,  is  disgusting. 
That  is  the  only  word  we  can  use.  We  are  all  agreed 
that  there  is  present  economic  disorder.  If  I  may  read 
from  a  magazine,  whose  editor  sits  on  my  right,  I  think 
I  can  give  you  as  good  a  summary  as  any  there  is  of  the 
situation:  "With  surprising  community  of  judgment/' 
he  says,  "the  economists  see  America  clearly  in  her 
dual  position.  As  a  business  unit,  first,  whose  internal 
arrangements  for  production  and  distribution  as  they 
exist  are  wasteful,  self-destructive,  incapable  of  sus 
tained  operation  at  an  efficient  level;  as  an  inter 
national  unit  in  the  second  place,  turned  creditor,  and 
seeking  nevertheless  to  maintain  the  tariff  apparatus, 
which  if  unrevised  must  ultimately  do  away  with 
American  foreign  trade.  The  world's  monetary  struc 
ture  will  fall,  and  in  the  phrase  of  Keyne's,  'destroy 
America  with  the  curse  of  Midas.'  " 

I  have  not  debated  this  subject  as  many  times  as 
these  Englishmen  but  I  have  done  so  four  times  and  it 
seems  a  little  senseless  to  go  into  a  long  list  of  common 
place  arguments  against  Socialism,  because  we  all  have 
complete  knowledge  of  them.  On  both  sides  we  agree 
that  in  America  there  is  over-production  and  under 
consumption,  that  the  existence  of  business  cycles  Is 


80     THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

unfortunate,  that  tariffs  should  be  gradually  scaled 
down  and  that  there  is  a  great  deal  of  unemployment. 

The  whole  thing  is  pretty  successfully  summed  up  in 
an  article  in  the  November  New  Outlook,  the  only  good 
article  on  "Technocracy"  which  I  have  read.  "The 
rate  of  replacement  of  men  by  machines  exceeds  the 
rate  of  expansion  of  industry.  You  hear  a  good  many 
plans  these  days  for  bringing  about  industrial  recovery. 
Some  so-called  'leaders'  are  talking  about  developing 
new  industries  without  realizing  Technology  provides 
absorption  in  that  line.  Some  are  still  speaking  glibly 
about  developing  foreign  markets,  without  knowing 
what  they  are  talking  about.  To  those  who  are  pre 
senting  these  plans,  'Technocracy/  a  group  of  engineers 
which  has  been  studying  production  and  consumption 
for  the  last  ten  years,  offers  a  few  fundamental  ques 
tions:  *Can  we  re-employ  ever  again  under  a  price 
system  all  those  of  employment  age  to  get  production 
capacity?7  'Is  recovery  just  around  the  corner  with 
one  to  two  years?  supply  of  wheat,  corn,  copper,  rubber, 
and  other  commodities  in  our  warehouses?' >? 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  proper  indictment  against 
capitalist  civilization  has  been  made  by  "Technocracy," 
this  group  of  engineers*  It  is  very  curious  they  should 
go  out  of  their  way  to  state  that  they  do  not  think  that 
Socialism  is  a  remedy  for  these  disorders.  We  are, 
nevertheless,  I  think,  agreed  once  more  on  the  general 
remedies  for  economic  disorder.  We  all  want  more 
centralized  control  We  differ  merely  in  degree—as  to 
how  much  we  want.  We  all  want  more  planning;  we 
all  want  more  of  a  of  social  responsibility;  we 


SOCIALISM  81 

all  want  the  rest  of  that  which  the  intelligent  Socialists 
mildly  espouse. 

There  is  one  final  tragedy  in  this  tragic  sequence  I 
have  been  talking  about;  a  tragic  question  that  must 
have  been  in  the  minds  of  all  of  you  as  you  came  here 
tonight:  "What  is  Socialism?"  To  fancify  an  Ameri 
can  expression,  I  might  Anglicize  it  by  saying:  "I'll  be 
jolly  well  damned  if  I  know!" 

I  have  been  studying  for  four  years  in  Fabian  Clubs, 
Liberal  Clubs,  in  courses  in  Economics  and  Govern 
ment  and  History  and  all  the  rest  of  it,  and  there  is  no 
agreement  of  any  kind  at  all,  as  you  all  well  know. 
Nevertheless,  one  has  to  get  at  some  sort  of  definition 
of  Socialism.  The  general  description  which  is  given 
in  one  of  the  "bibles"  of  the  Yale  Economics  courses 
by  Messrs.  Fairchild,  Furness  and  Buck  is:  "Socialism 
is  a  complex  and  many-sided  movement."  It  neverthe 
less  goes  on  to  give  some  sort  of  definition  in  typical 
economic  lingo.  "Socialism  is  a  program  of  reform 
which  deprives  private  ownership  of  the  means  of  pro 
duction  and  competitive  control  of  industry,  and  pro 
poses  a  type  of  system  in  which  productive  capital  will 
be  owned  collectively  and  economic  activity  will  be 
controlled  by  authority." 

Well,  that  is  the  typical  school-boy  Websterian 
definition.  It  is  the  definition  I  happen  to  know  per 
sonally.  Mr.  Rostow  does  not  agree  with  it.  He  thinks 
it  is  out-moded,  old-fashioned.  But,  in  order  to  arrive 
at  some  conception  of  what  anything  is,  of  any  defini 
tion,  of  any  kind,  I  think  we  have  to  take  two  points 
of  view:  First,  the  regular,  Websterian  type  in  italics, 


82     THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

and  then  a  general  conception,  and  finally  a  cross  be 
tween  the  two. 

I  should  say  the  general  conception  of  Socialism  in 
America  was  one  of  unbounded  revolution  and  complete 
Communism.  How  are  we  going  to  find  a  mean  be 
tween  these  two?  The  only  possible  answer  is,  grant 
ing  all  these  meanings,  that  Socialism  is  a  sort  of  point 
of  view.  It  is  a  state  of  mind.  It  is  a  personal  philos 
ophy,  which  includes  all  time  and  all  existence.  That 
is  why  this  has  been  described,  perhaps  wrongly,  in 
the  papers,  as  a  debate.  It  is  really  an  expression  of 
personal  philosophy  on  the  part  of  individuals. 

I  do  not  think  it  is  a  fair  debating  trick  to  attempt 
to  foresee  what  your  opponent  is  going  to  say,  and  in 
that  respect  I  have  an  unfair  advantage  over  Mr.  Ros- 
tow,  but  he  has  an  unfair  advantage  in  speaking  after 
me  and  in  my  not  being  able  to  rebut  I  Mr.  Rostow 
will  give  you  an  excellent  economic  plan,  I  think  I 
can  say  with  surety  beforehand  that  we  shall  agree 
with  practically  everything  in  that  plan.  I  have  read 
his  economic  plans  before,  and  have  been  in  hearty 
agreement  with  every  single  one  of  them,  There  is  a 
type  of  general  unfairness  which  comes  out  most 
clearly  in  arguments  about  religion.  Somebody  comes 
to  you  and  says,  uAre  you  religious?''  and  you  say, 
"NoJ>;  and  they  say,  "Do  you  believe  in  God?",  and 
you  say,  "No";  and  they  say,  "Well——,"  after  a  long 
period  of  argument^  u— -surely  you  believe  that  there  is 
a  certain  amount  of  good  In  every  one*  don't  you?", 
and  you  say,  "Yes,  I  suppose  there  isn;  and  then 
say,  "Ah I  you  are  religious!" 


SOCIALISM  83 

I  think  when  you  use  a  term,  you  have  to  use  it  in 
practically  its  extreme  sense.  I  think  when  you  speak 
of  religion,  you  have  to  use  it  as  meaning  a  belief  in  a 
God  of  some  kind  and  a  belief  in  some  sort  of  church 
worship.  It  isn't  fair  to  jump  around  in  the  argument, 
change  your  position  all  the  time,  the  way  people  who 
argue  for  religion  in  that  fashion  do.  And  that,  it 
seems  to  me,  is  exactly  what  most  modern,  intelligent 
Socialists  are  doing.  And  here  we  come  upon  a  mild 
beginning  disagreement.  I  arn  not  going  to  indict  So 
cialism  in  detail,  because  I  think  the  arguments  have 
been  rehearsed  too  many  times;  because  I  think  there 
is  too  general  an  agreement  on  what  should  be  done  to 
remedy  economic  difficulties. 

My  main  disagreement  would  be  that  it  is  simply  a 
mistake  to  call  this  Socialism.  It  is  a  gigantic  mistake, 
because  most  people  in  America,  as  I  pointed  out,  do 
not  understand  what  Socialism  means.  This,  too,  is  all 
part  of  the  old  debating  paraphernalia.  Why  not  have 
enlightened  Capitalism  instead  of  Socialism?  Why  not 
carry  out  mild  reforms?  Our  opponents  do  not  want 
the  extreme  of  government  ownership.  We  all  want 
certain  small  fundamental  improvements.  Why  not 
simply  make  them  and  not  label  them  "Socialism,"  and 
then  not  drive  people  away  from  those  changes  by 
calling  them  Socialism? 

A  second,  tiny  point  of  disagreement  would  be  that 
our  opponents  exaggerate  the  present  evils.  There  is 
no  point  in  carrying  out  this  line  of  argument  to  great 
detail.  The  Englishmen  have  observed  that  while  there 
is  a  great  deal  of  talk  about  depression  over  here,  the 


84  THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF   COLLEGE   DEBATING 

depression  itself  does  not  seem  so  terribly  severe.  The 
difference  between  us,  then,  appears  to  be  a  question  of 
a  difference  in  approach. 

I  like  to  approach  these  questions — and  from  what 
I  learned  of  my  partner,  he  does  too— from  a  human 
rather  than  an  economic  point  of  view.  In  the  last 
analysis  all  this  originates  in  humanity,  in  the  mind; 
it  does  not  originate  the  other  way  around.  Mr.  Ros- 
tow  is  scientific,  if  you  like,  and  I  am  psychological. 
He  would  vote  for  Norman  Thomas  more  hastily  than 
I  would.  I  think  Norman  Thomas  was  unquestionably 
the  most  intelligent  of  the  three  candidates.  Also,  un 
questionably,  he  is  an  idealist.  We  have  seen  a  good 
deal  of  him  at  Yale,  in  connection  with  the  Liberal 
Club  and  other  activities.  I  think  he  and  Remold 
Niebuhr,  second  in  command,  have  been  conducting  a 
sort  of  progressive  abandonment  of  idealist  thinking. 
First  they  were  pacifists,  and  saw  that  was  a  pretty 
untenable  position,  and  then  they  came,  through  vari 
ous  religious  feelings,  finally  to  Socialism,  and  now  they 
are  beginning  to  compromise  more  and  more  on 
Socialism. 

I  shall  be  accused,  I  am  afraid,  of  being  superficial, 
dilettante,  emotional  If  anything  rests  upon  emo 
tionality,  I  think  it  is  Socialistic  feeling.  While  Mr. 
Niebuhr  was  talking  about  unemployment  here,  to  see 
what  effect  it  would  have  on  him,  I  asked  from  the 
audience  whether  it  wouldn't  be  better  to  have  the  un 
employed  die  and  reduce  the  surplus  population— an 
old  phrase  from  Dickens  which  has  been  used  a  good 
many  times.  I  don't  believe  that!  but  It  had  its  effect. 


SOCIALISM  85 

He  hit  the  ceiling.  Pure  emotion.  Lost  his  temper 
completely. 

I  do  not  think  our  point  of  view  is  any  more  emo 
tional  than  the  Socialist's,  Both  sides  agree  Marxian 
Socialism  is  old-fashioned,  and  is  not  the  solution. 
Both  sides  agree  in  general  on  the  steps  to  be  taken. 
Why  on  earth,  then,  call  it  Socialism?  It  is  simply  a 
psychological  mistake. 

I  have  brought  out  the  arguments  myself  many  times 
in  this  place  against  classical  Socialism.  I  think  it 
would  be  better  to  bring  them  out  in  somebody  else's 
words  for  once.  You  will  forgive  me  for  reading  so 
much — it  is  a  school-boy  trick  that  I  have  never  done 
before — but  I  think  in  the  last  year  of  debating  at  Yale 
one  may  be  happy  to  find  out  the  things  one  has  been 
saying  for  four  years  have  been  expressed  far  better 
by  somebody  else. 

This  is  an  entire  chapter;  it  is  not  a  long  chapter, 
however,  and  I  feel  able  to  read  it  to  you  because  al 
though  you  might  have  read  it  at  home,  I  do  not  think 
many  of  you  would.  It  is  from  a  book  by  a  Yale  Pro 
fessor,  a  great  figure  around  here,  William  Graham 
Sumner.  The  Socialists  in  this  body  here  tonight  are 
squirming  in  their  seats  because  "he  is  old-fashioned." 
It  is  true;  he  is  old-fashioned;  he  did  not  live  among 
present  economic  problems.  Nevertheless,  his  remarks 
on  the  subject  are  so  trenchant  that  they  strike  at  the 
root  of  classical  Socialism,  (Mr.  Lindley  here  quoted 
Chapter  1  of  Professor  Sumner's  book  What  Social 
Classes  Owe  to  Each  Other.) 

The  psychological  approach  of  which  Sumner  speaks 


86     THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

is  so  obvious  it  might  be  well  illustrated  by  a  little  in 
cident  which  occurred  tonight.  We  went  down  to  meet 
the  English  debaters  and  did  not  have  enough  money 
to  pay  the  taxi  so  we  borrowed  and  said,  "Oh,  the  De 
bating  Society  will  pay."  The  State  will  pay;  the  State 
will  do  everything!  It  is  an  utter  impossibility. 

If  Socialism  is  not  the  remedy,  what  is?  I  think  the 
remedy  is  "man"  or  "men/7  not  systems.  A  man  like 
Sumner;  put  him  into  a  position  of  power,  and  then  let 
him  do  all  the  theorizing  he  wants  to  and  make  all  the 
practical  applications  he  would  like  to  make.  The 
solution  is  "man"  and  not  systems.  A  man  like  Sum 
ner,  or  possibly,  or  preferably,  a  coalition  government 
of  these  four  gentlemen  here  tonight! 

First  Negative,  Eugene  V.  Rostow 
Yale  University 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  As  you  noticed^  Mr,  Lind- 
ley  and  I  came  into  this  debate  agreed  to  insult  each 
other.  I,  for  one,  propose  to  avail  myself  of  the  op 
portunity.  He  has  presented  to  you  an  elaborate,  a 
charming,  a  plausible,  but  unfortunately  an  entirely 
irrelevant  anthology  of  rosy  theory.  His  speech  is 
persuasive,  his  art  laudable,  his  wit  soothing—but  his 
doctrine  is  shot  through  with  a  series  of  loose  and  mis 
leading  platitudes  which  refuse  to  be  classified  into 
order  or  coherence,  „  .  „  I  wish  1  had  brought  a  book 
along  with  which  to  confound  Mr.  Lindley  1 

There  is  a  little  volume,  also  by  a  distinguished 
Professor,  Mr,  Becker  of  Cornell,  President  of  the 


SOCIALISM  87 

American  Historical  Association.  In  twenty  pages  he 
describes  his  concept  of  climates  of  opinion,  and  speaks 
of  men  being  conditioned  in  certain  lines — conditioned 
by  the  circumstances  of  their  lives  to  refuse  certain 
terms,  certain  words,  certain  ideas.  Mr.  Lindley  has 
been  conditioned  to  reject  the  word  "Socialism."  He 
finds  it  peculiarly,  irresistibly  abhorrent.  Mr.  Wilson 
and  I  do  not  find  "Socialism"  a  peculiarly  abhorrent 
word.  And  if  that  is  to  be  the  distinction  on  which  this 
debate  rests,  we  might  as  well  call  it  off  now.  Mr. 
Lindley  has  been  conditioned  by  Sumner  and  I  by 
more  contemporary  Socialists,  and  we  disagree. 

We  are  all  accustomed,  both  from  Socialists  and 
their  enemies,  to  this  pleasant  and  pointless  specula 
tion  about  justice,  ideals,  and  mankind;  general  state 
ments  about  honesty,  workmen,  and  historical  princi 
ples;  sweeping  generalizations  about  man,  God,  and 
society.  The  very  word  "Socialism"  seems  a  license 
for  the  inexplicit  and  the  inexact.  Beating  the  bosom 
and  proclaiming  the  glory  of  the  word  is  thrilling  drama 
for  both  sides.  The  advocates  of  Socialism  and  their 
opponents  are  both  often  romantic,  and  given  over 
much  to  the  vague  and  the  emotional. 

Socialism  is,  of  course,  a  crusade,  and  a  class  move 
ment.  It  is  a  religion,  and  a  philosophy  of  history  and 
a  doctrine  of  social  organization.  It  can  make  an 
appeal  to  ethics,  morality,  political  principles,  concepts 
of  the  virtuous,  the  true,  and  the  good.  Socialism  is 
distorted  by  the  frequency  and  the  poverty  of  the  popu 
lar  appeals  directed  in  its  favor  and  in  opposition  to 
its  poMcy.  But  if  the  emphasis  on  economic  determin- 


88     THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

ism  which  is  constant  in  the  Socialist  literature  means 
anything,  it  implies  that  the  central  point  of  all  discus 
sions  of  Socialism  should  be  the  economic  program,  the 
practical  plan  for  immediate  procedure  which  distin 
guishes  the  Socialist  movement  here  and  in  England. 

Let  us  then,  in  this  discussion  of  Socialism  and  Capi 
talism,  confine  ourselves  as  exactly  as  possible  to  the 
evidence  of  experience,  to  what  is  in  the  world,  not  to 
what  once  was,  what  might  have  been,  or  what  should 
be,  ideally,  some  day.  The  exciting  generalizations  to 
which  Socialists  and  non-Socialists  are  addicted  are 
useful  in  debate,  in  the  pulpit,  and  in  politics,  but  they 
cannot  be  confirmed  in  experience  and  they  are  of  little 
use  in  defining  specific  economic  ends, 

I  am  not  going  to  attempt  a  brilliant  emotional  plea 
in  the  interests  of  a  Socialist  program  for  two  excellent 
reasons:  in  the  first  place,  I  do  not  like  to  preach;  in 
the  second,  you  do  not  enjoy  being  preached  to*  In 
stead  I  shall  limit  this  speech  to  the  relationship  of  the 
Socialist  policy  to  the  industrial  mess  in  which  a  non- 
Socialist  world  finds  itself,  to  the  concrete  economics 
that  make  Socialism  into  a  pertinent,  a  realistic,  and  a 
practicable  program  for  sane  resolution  of  the  chaos 
which  lies  everywhere  around  us. 

Accepting  this  limitation,  one  perceives  that  the  sim 
ple,  obvious  definitions  of  Socialism  and  Capitalism 
correspond  to  nothing  in  the  realm  of  experience. 
Neither  the  touching  vision  of  Capitalism  that  the 
speaker  from  the  conservative  bench  evoked,  nor  his 
red  beast  Socialism  bears  substantial  reference  to  the 
facts  of  a  contemporary  world*  Classic  Capitalism 


SOCIALISM  89 

ceased  to  exist  long  before  tariffs  and  Reconstruction 
Finance  Corporations,  trusts  and  holding  companies 
and  Federal  restrictions  denied  significance  to  the  Capi 
talist  boasts  of  rugged  individualism  and  untrammeled 
economic  initiative.  The  Socialism  of  easy  formulae, 
of  nationalization,  and  bureaucracy,  and  equal  income, 
and  single-tax  dissolves  like  so  much  fog  when  brought 
into  contact  with  the  actualities  of  a  complicated  eco 
nomic  system. 

Confronting  that  system,  one  is  impressed  by  two 
things:  its  contradictory  formlessness  and  its  collapse 
as  an  effective  instrument  for  providing  goods,  services, 
and  support  to  the  society. 

It  is  formless  because  it  gives  promise  of  being 
mechanized  and  efficient  in  its  aspects  as  producer,  but 
continues  to  be  chaotic  and  disruptive  as  a  means  of 
distribution.  It  shows  every  sign  of  skill  in  the  organ 
ization  of  individual  business  units,  but  has  failed  dis 
mally  to  integrate  and  coordinate  them  upon  a  basis  of 
stabilized  growth.  It  has  failed  because  there  does  not 
exist  a  background  of  security  in  which  the  technical 
developments  of  the  engineers  can  work  themselves 
out.  It  has  failed  to  provide  the  balances  of  intelligent 
planning  without  which  technical  advances  are  a  social 
menace,  not  a  social  aid. 

Let  us  approach  the  problem  of  stabilization  in  a 
pragmatic  manner.  Let  us  consider  in  a  practical  way 
just  what  is  required  by  the  economy  as  it  exists.  In 
vestigate  the  measures  which  are  consistent  with  the 
actual  need  of  the  industrial  order.  Attempt  to  satisfy 
the  requirements  of  a  permanent,  a  stabilized,  eco- 


90  THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

nomic  efficiency.    To  fulfill  these  concrete  needs  must 
be  the  primary  obligation  of  any  social  program. 

Any  organism  depending  upon  exact  demands  re 
quires  systematic  provision  of  those  demands;  social 
systems  as  well  as  vertical  trusts.  Contemporary  so 
ciety  consists  essentially  of  large  corporate  units,  which 
are  advancing  rapidly  towards  an  all-inclusive  balance 
of  interlocking  parts.  They  are  based  upon  a  variety 
of  engineering  developments,  and  are  approaching  a 
condition  of  technological  equilibrium.  Any  society  in 
1932  must  use  factories  and  machines  and  corporate 
financing;  must  organize  itself  Into  moderately  large 
units,  deal  with  the  problems  of  an  essentially  stable 
market. 

The  world  in  1932  is  a  static  world  with  a  reasonably 
static  population  and  a  highly  developed  economic  sys 
tem  whose  interdependence  demands  a  stable  market. 
Heaven  knows  that  the  limits  of  production  have  not 
been  approached.  Natural  resources  remain  to  be 
exploited,  inventions  to  be  applied,  the  standard  of  life 
raised  enormously  in  a  hundred  ways*  But,  In  the 
nature  of  the  productive  system,  that  essential  ex 
ploitation  of  resources  cannot  be  free  and  unlimited  in 
the  tradition  of  the  frontier,  and  the  Jay  Goulds, 
Fiskes,  and  Morgans  to  whom  the  dynamic  growing 
frontier  society  gave  full  license.  The  cut-throat  com 
petition  of  the  great  days  of  an  expanding  Capitalism 
led  to  an  efficient  development  of  the  procedures  of 
production,  but  failed  to  provide  for  adequate  dis 
tribution  of  profits,  goods,  and  consumer  purchasing 
power.  To  simplify  the  issue,  than— the  of 


SOCIALISM  91 

machines,  factories,  and  trusts  demands  one  basic 
condition  for  efficient  operation:  a  wide,  a  permanent, 
and  a  prosperous  consumer  market.  The  equipment 
of  Capitalism  is  already  geared  for  production  on  a 
scale  enormously  higher  than  any  yet  known.  There 
are  inventions  so  revolutionary  that  their  proprietors 
do  not  dare  use  them.  There  are  means  of  eliminating 
the  wastes  of  Capitalism  and  obvious  steps  towards 
rationalization  of  industry  in  coal,  steel,  wood-pulp, 
power  and  textiles  here;  and  in  coal,  chemicals,  and 
textiles  in  England.  There  are  hundreds  of  minor 
steps  which  may  be  taken  to  eliminate  minor  sources 
of  inefficiency.  They  are  all  corollary  to  the  basic 
problem  of  revising  our  medieval  and  haphazard  meth 
ods  of  distribution. 

If  one  is  to  proceed  with  the  development  of  natural 
resources,  of  industrial  techniques,  of  national  wealth, 
there  must  be  an  adequate  and  a  permanently  prosper 
ous  market  for  consumer  goods.  The  problem  of  pro 
duction  cannot  be  solved  if  the  problem  of  distribution 
is  not  solved  with  it,  and  all  other  phases  of  the  econo 
mists5  disputes — their  jargon  of  capital  goods  and  sav 
ings  and  cycles  and  all  the  rest  of  it — are  to  be  grouped 
naturally  around  the  basic  equation  of  production  and 
distribution. 

To  create  and  to  guarantee  a  wide,  a  permanently 
increasing  market  for  consumer  goods  is  possible  only 
if  labor  is  given  a  higher  proportionate  return  for  its 
services,  in  the  form  of  high  real  wages.  It  is  possible 
only  if  that  market  is  protected  exactly  as  the  industrial 
structure  on  which  it  depends  and  which,  also  in  its 


92     THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

turn  depends  on  it,  is  protected.  There  must  be 
parallel  and  integrated  control  of  both  classes  of  eco 
nomic  phenomena — the  productive  and  the  distributive. 
Industry  must  set  about  the  basic  problems  of  supply 
ing  existing  markets  and  exploiting  its  natural  and 
technological  resources  with  the  secure  background  of 
a  stabilized  market  for  its  goods. 

It  follows  from  this  primary  condition  in  the  eco 
nomic  world,  this  practical,  empirical  necessity  for 
planning  and  coordination,  that  secondary  steps  in  the 
shape  of  reforms  in  the  speculative  credit  structure,  in 
the  procedures  of  farming,  of  industrial  management, 
of  rigid  controls  in  a  dozen  relationships  are  impera 
tive.  They  follow  logically  from  the  basic  industrial 
necessity  for  balanced  highly  developed  techniques  of 
production  with  a  prosperous  and  a  permanently  pros 
perous  consumer  market, 

To  achieve  this  equation  of  production  and  consump 
tion,  predicated  by  the  nature  of  a  machine  economy, 
there  must  be  added  to  the  existing  forms  of  society  a 
mechanism  of  planning.  The  existing  forms  must  be 
modified  and  realigned  to  fit  into  a  more  sensible  and 
more  efficient  series  of  trusts,  but  that  realignment  will 
lose  its  only  opportunity  for  permanence  if  the  crea 
tion  of  policy  is  not  given  over  increasingly  to  trained 
men.  Lippmannls  phrase  Is  "planning  through  disin 
terested  minds."  It  is  a  good  phrase.  The  control  of 
a  highly  mechanized  industrial  balance  cannot  be  left 
to  chance  or  to  automatic  law  or  to  .necessarily  acquisi 
tive  business  men.  The  fate  of  the  worker  and  his 
adequate  payment  stand  too  basically  at  the  foundation 


SOCIALISM  93 

of  all  Industrial  progress  to  permit  chance  control  for 
industry.  The  running  of  industry,  all  extraneous  is 
sues  being  neglected,  is  essentially  an  affair  of  experts. 
"Big  questions  of  policy  must  indeed  be  decided  in 
behalf  of  society  as  a  whole,  in  the  light  of  relevant 
expert  advice,"  but  actual  administration  is  the  expert's 
problem.  It  is  essential  to  endow  a  group  of  experts 
with  wide  discretionary  authority  and  to  confine  their 
functions  to  determination  of  directions  and  the  exer 
cise  of  general  controls.  The  negative  contribution  of 
Socialism  as  such  to  policy  is  the  guarantee  of  con 
sistent  general  interest  in  the  planning  authority. 

Tributary  to  this  planning  authority  are  the  eco 
nomic  units,  the  trusts,  in  various  forms,  of  various 
sizes,  depending  upon  the  industry  and  its  conditions. 
In  a  practical  analysis  of  business  conditions  then,  two 
things  are  necessary:  the  creation  of  a  planning  au 
thority,  the  center  of  disinterested  technical  control; 
the  second,  a  recognition  of  the  variety  of  forms  which 
changes  within  this  general  unifying  control  of  the 
economy  will  permit.  There  must  be  latitude  in  ex 
periment,  in  procedure,  in  organization.  Essential  con 
formity  to  the  rationale  of  planning,  to  the  end  of 
efficient  stabilized  industry,  is  the  only  constant.  No 
single  formula  of  public  ownership  can  suffice.  The 
basic  fact  is  the  equilibrium  of  planning  which  must 
underly  the  Socialist  society. 

If  these  are  the  conditions  of  efficient  operation  for 
any  society  that  intends  to  use  the  mechanical  tools 
which  we  inherit,  what  is  their  relationship  to  those 
curiously  misleading  words  about  which  we  have  agreed 


94     THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

to  debate.    What  is  Socialism  in  relation  to  this  out 
line  of  "economic  next-steps"? 

Socialism  is  certainly  not  an  easy  concept  of  national 
ism,  or  of  little  clerks  and  their  government  civil  serv 
ices,  extended  indefinitely  into  a  gray  and  bureaucratic 
mist  of  unrelieved  dullness.  Socialism  accepts  the 
necessity  of  dealing  with  issues  of  organization  in  a 
realistic,  even  an  opportunistic  manner.  It  recognises 
the  trends  toward  collectivism  which  have  revolution 
ized  the  Capitalistic  world.  It  proposes  to  utilize  and 
adapt  its  industrial  development  into  a  coherent  struc 
ture  of  regularized  growth.  It  proposes  that  the 
mechanism  of  control,  the  planning  body,  the  center  of 
an  articulated  economic  structure,  be  in  reality  a  dis 
interested  and  scientific  group.  This  is  in  truth  a 
Socialist  nucleus;  it  is  enough.  Problems  of  national 
ization,  confiscation,  private  ownership  itself,  become 
relatively  insignificant.  Granted  stringent  control  and 
realistic  manipulation  of  the  economy  by  trained  men, 
Socialism— a  stable  social  order  in  which  economic 
security  based  on  recognition  for  labor- -is  defined— 
Socialism  is  the  closest  public  approximation  of  this 
trend  in  economic  life  and,  even  for  liberals  who  agree 
with  some  points,,  is  the  inevitable  title  for  this  policy. 
It  is  not  Communism  because  it  predicates  the  use  of 
existing  forms,  It  is  not  Capitalism  because  it,  is  set 
clearly  against  unrestrained  private  exploitation  of 
wealth.  Socialism  is  the  policy  for  realists  who  breathe 
in  the  same  collectivist  climate  of  opinion.  Socialism 
is  planning:  Socialism  is  the  only  permanent  program 
for  prosperity*  Socialism,  1  should  even  go  so  far  as 


SOCIALISM  95 

to  say,  is  the  program  for  those  recalcitrant  and  ra 
tionalizing  liberals,  Mr.  Lindley  and  Mr.  Irvine. 


Second  Affirmative,  A.  J.  Irvine 
Oxford  University 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  Let  me  first  of  all  express 
to  you  the  great  pleasure  which  we  of  Oxford  Uni 
versity  feel  in  being  able  to  come  here  and  debate  this 
question  with  Yale.  Mr.  Wilson  and  I  are  trying  to 
get  inside  that  exciting  entity  called  "The  American 
Mind."  The  addresses  of  Mr.  Lindley  and  Mr.  Ros- 
tow  enlarge  that  field  somewhat.  I  became,  as  I  lis 
tened  to  them,  more  excited  than  ever  about  the  future 
of  the  human  race.  Mr.  Wilson  and  I  are  foreigners, 
of  course.  Coming  from  England,  which  you  will  see 
on  the  map  behind  me  at  the  top  left-hand  corner,  our 
only  hope  is  that  you  will  be  able  to  understand  the 
language  we  speak. 

When  I  arrived  in  New  York  City  they  took  me  up 
to  what  I  think  was  the  thirtieth  floor  of  my  hotel,  and 
I  was  overcome  by  grave  apprehension  of  what  I  saw. 
I  returned  to  the  ground  and  went  into  a  restaurant  on 
Lexington  Avenue.  Because  I  was  lonely,  I  entered 
into  conversation  with  a  girl  who  was  serving  me.  I 
said  to  her,  "You  know,  I  have  just  arrived  in  America 
today;  I  have  just  come  to  your  country/7  and  she 
looked  at  me  with  astonishment,  and  said,  "Well,  I 
must  say  you  speak  English  extraordinarily  well." 
That  was  the  kind  of  encouragement  I  wanted. 

Now  we  have  gathered  here  to  discuss  Socialism,  and 


96     THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

of  course  the  chief  difficulty  about  Socialism  is  to 
know  what  it  really  means.  I  have  listened  to  Mr. 
Rostow's  lecture,  and  still — I  don't  want  to  be  guilty 
of  any  discourtesy — still,  to  be  honest,  I  do  not  quite 
know  what  he  means  by  Socialism.  As  we  are  dealing 
with  realities,  we  had  better  first  of  all  try  to  agree 
about  that.  Quite  clearly,  it  is  not  the  Christian  So 
cialism  which  excited  England  and  America  eighty 
years  ago.  The  doctrines  of  Kingsley  and  Morris  and 
even  of  Ruskin  have  undergone  a  sad  eclipse.  No  one, 
I  feel,  pays  them  attention— not  even  sufficient  atten 
tion. 

The  fact  we  have  got  to  face  in  dealing  with  Social 
ism  is  surely  that  Karl  Marx  has  won  the  day.  For 
intelligent  electors  in  the  United  States  or  in  Great 
Britain  in  discussing  Socialism  there  is  only  one  final 
doctrine  to  be  dealt  with,  and  it  is  Marxism,  Marxism 
has  won  the  day?  if  you  are  dealing  with  realities,  and 
there  is  about  as  much  resemblance  between  Ruskin 
and  Karl  Marx  as  there  is  between—say,  Cambridge 
and  the  stockyards  in  Chicago,  Marxism  is  the  enemy 
to  which  my  colleague  and  1  are  opposed.  It  means, 
as  I  say,  the  virtual  annulment  of  private  property  or 
private  enterprise. 

Now  on  the  table  which  the  Affirmative  is  using, 
along  with  other  learned  books,  there  is  a  book  entitled 
Elementary  Economics.  To  that  book  I  have  had  re 
course  and  it  is  on  that  basis  that  I  make  my  plea. 
For  I  have  listened  to  all  the  criticisms  of  private  enter 
prise,  and  the  Capitalist  society,  and  1  have  listened  to 
endless  harrowing  accounts  of  the  depression,  and  1 


SOCIALISM  97 

have  never  yet  been  able  to  discover  any  defect  pointed 
out  which  was  inherent  in  a  system  of  private  enter 
prise. 

It  is  suggested  on  the  one  hand  that  there  is  no  cen 
tralized  organization  in  the  present  system;  that  there 
is  no  control;  that  too  great  free  play  is  given  to  eco 
nomic  forces  without  proper  regard  being  given  for  the 
consumer  and  producer  and  the  wage  earner.  In  other 
words,  the  claim  is  made  by  the  Socialists,  that  they 
alone  support  what  they  call  "planning"  and  they  re 
peat  the  word  in  their  sleep — "planning,"  "planning," 
"planning!" 

Well,  there  is  nothing  whatsoever  in  a  policy  of  eco 
nomic  planning  which  is  incompatible  with  a  system  of 
private  enterprise.  Nothing  whatsoever.  You  have  in 
England  already,  I  think,  the  germ  of  a  central  eco 
nomic  advisory  council  which  will  be  able  to  influence 
government — observe,  growing  up  within  a  Capitalist 
system  of  economics — an  advisory  council  consisting  of 
experts  in  their  own  field  who  have  time  to  spend  in 
making  inquiry  and  investigation,  and  who,  having 
done  so,  can  convey  their  conclusions  to  the  Executive 
and  the  Executive  can  act  upon  them.  And  if  that 
isn't  economic  planning,  I  don't  know  what  isl  And 
you  observe  there  an  example  of  centralized  planning 
growing  up  in  what  is  admittedly  a  system  of  private 
enterprise. 

All  this  endless  talk  about  planning  is  not  relevant 
so  far  as  I  can  discover,  to  Socialism,  at  all  There  is 
nothing  incompatible  in  planning  within  a  system  of 
private  enterprise. 


98     THE  YEAR  BOOK.  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

Again,  they  stand  up  with  all  their  talk  about  depres 
sion  and  point  out  the  ghastly  inequality  of  wealth. 
Well,  we  of  the  Affirmative  recognize  that  is  true.  But 

that  is  not  an  evil  inherent  in  a  system  of  private  enter 
prise.  In  most  countries,  in  Europe  and  in  America,, 
taxation  of  inheritance  and  taxation  of  large  incomes 
has  already  reached  the  point  where  the  problems  of 
inequality  are  being  met. 

You  have  witnessed  in  England  before  the  War  an 
extension  of  social  legislation  in  the  way  of  insurance 
and  education  at  a  time  when  the  profits  of  industry 
and  agriculture  were  already  actually  on  the  decline. 
I  do  not  say  Capitalists  are  actually  on  the  decline.  I 
do  not  say  Capitalists  are  always  altruistic.  But  falling 
profits  have  in  this  instance  coincided  with  extensive 
social  reforms.  You  had  the  two  together;  that's  why 
it  is  so  absurd  for  the  other  side  to  say  that  the  phi 
lanthropy  of  the  Capitalists  is  traceable  only  to  the 
profits  they  are  making* 

Let  me  point  out  in  this  connection  that  wages  in 
these  countries  where  private  enterprise  has  held  sway 
have  always  been  high  or  low  ia  proportion  to  the  cal 
culated  efficiency  of  the  worker.  And  though  we  would 
all  like  to  see  a  general  rise  in  wagesf  we  must  admit  the 
rectitude  of  a  system  which  does  at  any  rate  pay  wages 
in  proportion  to  efficiency  so  far  as  that  can  be  calcu- 
lated.  I  can  see  nothing  about  inequality  of  wealth 
which  is  relevant  only  to  Socialism. 

They  talk  about  international  cooperation,  Aad  the 
best  anyone  can  do  is  to  consider  their  own  history. 
International  cooperation  indeed!  In  1914  the  British 


SOCIALISM  99 

Labor  Party,  that  gloomy  body,  abandoned  its  leader, 
Mr.  Ramsay  MacDonald,  because  he  was  opposed  to 
the  War.  Mr.  MacDonald  was  driven  into  exile  by 
these  novel  idealists  who  talk  about  technicological 
equilibrium — was  that  it? — driven  out  of  the  party  by 
the  British  Socialists. 

In  France,  Jaures,  one  of  the  greatest  Socialists  who 
ever  lived,  and  who  a  Socialist  I  was  talking  with 
recently  thought  was  a  medieval  artist  from  the  Abbey 
of  Chuny-Jaur6s,  at  the  time  he  was  assassinated  in 
Paris,  was  well  aware  that  he  was  deserted  by  the 
French  Labor  Party  and  French  Socialists. 

And  in  Germany,  almost  at  the  same  time,  the  Ger 
man  Socialists  were  with  surprising  harmony — a  har 
mony  that  has  not  always  been  so  evident  in  other 
regards,  passing  the  War  Estimates.  Well,  that  is  the 
record  of  that  Socialist  Party! 

I  can  see  no  hope  there,  frankly,  of  greater  inter 
national  cooperation,  and  I  do  complain  about  the  per 
sistent  categories  of  the  evils  in  the  present  system 
which  are  made  to  pass  as  arguments  for  Socialism. 
They  are  no  more  arguments  for  Socialism  than  they 
are  for  polygamy.  The  evils  are  there,  we  admit.  Our 
claim  is  that  they  are  not  inherent  in  a  system  of  pri 
vate  enterprise. 

And,  of  course,  perhaps  I  need  hardly  in  such  an 
august  assembly  as  this  put  forward  a  humble  but 
fundamental  defense  of  private  enterprise.  It  is  that 
it  gives  full  play  to  the  initiative  and  the  drive  and  am 
bition  of  the  individual.  It  gives  full  play  to  these 
forces  which  in  a  hundred  years,  in  spite  of  many 


100    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

errors  and  mistakes,  have  accomplished  the  miracle 
of  the  present  industrial  organization  of  Europe  and 
America. 

If  a  laborer  says  to  himself,  "I  desire  to  become  a 
leader  of  industry;  I  desire  to  influence  my  generation 
and  plan  out  a  new  plant  and  develop  new  economic 
ideas'7 — if  he  says  that  as  an  individual,  I  do  not  see 
that  it  is  due  for  him  to  face  all  the  arsenals  of  Hell. 
I  do  not  say  that.  1  say  he  is  displaying  once  again 
the  great  motive  power  which  has  created  our  present 
industrial  system  in  a  surprisingly  short  number  of 
years;  a  system,  which  with  all  its  defects  is  a  standing 
monument  to  indicate  wh^t  the  human  estate  and  hu 
man  mind  can  do.  And  whether  public  committees 
could  have  accomplished  the  same  thing,  1  greatly 
doubt,  I  do  not  like  public  committees.  JEsthetically 
they  are  unattractive.  Deplorably  so.  And  intellec 
tually  they  have  not  the  worth  of  the  normal  individual 
saying  what  he  thinks. 

Consider  the  crises  which  have  faced  Great  Britain 
since  the  War,  and  1  do  not  believe  in  any  one  crisis  a 
public  committee  could  have  dealt  with  the  situation 
better  and  wiser  than  the  private  bankers  and  indus 
trialists  did. 

In  1925  when  we  went  back  to  the  gold  standard  and 
embarked  upon  a  policy  of  deflation,  which  has  been 
since  proved  to  be  a  mistake,  I  da  not  think  a  public 
committee  would  have  done  any  better  or  any  wiser, 
For  this  reason,  to  take  a  concrete  example;  At  the 
time  we  were  a  huge  creditor  country,  to  whom  was 
owed  vast  amounts  of  money  in  pounds  sterling,  and  to 


SOCIALISM  101 

devaluate  at  that  time  appeared  on  the  face  of  it,  tak 
ing  the  short  view,  the  height  of  folly.  Any  kind  of 
popularly  controlled  body,  if  it  is  really  popularly  con 
trolled,  is  forced  to  take  the  short  view;  it  cannot  take 
the  long  view.  It  is  always  a  temptation  to  adopt  the 
course  which  in  the  public  mind  brings  immediate  ap 
parent  benefits,  even  if  with  the  passage  of  years  it  is 
a  policy  which  proves  disastrous.  The  body  which  has 
any  element  of  popular  control  cannot  be  expected  to 
take  the  long  view  when  questions  arise  in  economic 
organization  or  fiscal  policy. 

My  friend,  Mr.  Wilson,  whom  I  know  well — almost 
as  well  as  Mr.  Lindley  knows  Mr.  Rostow,  and  Mr. 
Rostow  knows  Mr.  Lindley — will  probably  mention  to 
you — he  always  does — the  subject  of  Russia,  for  he 
has  been  in  Russia.  Then,  indeed,  one  is  apparently 
well  equipped  to  face  the  judgment  of  all  eternity. 
And  it  so  happens,  and  I  am  proud  of  it,  that  I  also 
have  been  in  Russia.  Well,  what  did  I  discover  there? 
I  tried  ever  so  hard  to  be  an  impartial  observer.  I  ran 
away  from  guides  who  were  trying  to  show  me  the  right 
things.  I  tried  to  discover  what  it  was  really  like,  and 
I  discovered  a  community  of  delightful  but  subservient 
people,  about  as  remote  in  every  characteristic  from  the 
American  or  Englishman  as  it  is  possible  to  imagine. 
Subservient,  I  say,  and  accustomed  to  control.  And, 
of  course,  no  liberty.  The  right  to  strike  does  not 
exist  in  Russia,  and  it  does  seem  to  me,  especially  in 
relation  to  Russia,  that  Socialism  if  it  ever  should  be 
introduced  into  this  country  or  England,  would  mean 
simply  the  annihilation  of  the  political  liberties  which 


102    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

we  have  spent  so  long  a  time  in  trying  to  win.    I  know 

in  England,  dock  laborers  in  Plymouth,  where  there  is 
a  measure  of  State  Control,  have  less  freedom  of  direct 
action  than  any  other  workers  in  the  State,  and  I  can 
not  understand  how  any  transition  can  be  made  from 
the  present  state  of  society  to  a  Socialistic  state  with 
out  such  a  measure  of  confiscation,  such  a  measure  of 
penalization  of  thrift  and  savings,  as  would  constitute 
the  annihilation  of  liberty.  I  cannot  see  how  transition 
can  be  made  without  the  reasonable  rights  of  property 
being  destroyed. 

And  it  is  all  very  well  to  talk  about  theory  and  point 
to  Russia  and  say  "I  have  been  there/*  But  we  have, 
after  all,  on  this  globe  examples  of  Socialism,  not  in 
theory  but  in  fact.  Mention  Socialism  and  Socialistic 
control  to  any  self-respecting  Australian  and  see  what 
he  will  say! 

You  can,  if  you  will,  look  at  England.  England 
made  the  error  of  returning  to  power  a  Labor  Govern 
ment.  It  ran  away;  just  ran  away.  Its  leaders  de 
serted  it,  or  it  deserted  its  leaders—it  doesn't  matter 
very  much—it  broke  up,  and  Great  Britain  was  forced 
off  the  gold  standard  and  the  Socialist  party  received 
such  a  blow  as  it  will  not  very  readily  recover  from, 
and  rightly  so.  For  during  these  two  years  the  Social 
ist  party  sent  to  the  British  House  of  Commons  com 
placent  men,  the  prodigious  extent  of  whose  paunches 
was  only  equalled  by  the  diminutive  area  of  their 
minds,  I  do  not  wish  to  be  merely  flippant  upon  this 
thing,  because  it  so  happens  it  is  a  matter  on  which  my 
optimistic  colleague  feels  keenly,  but  it  is  the 


SOCIALISM:  103 

opinion  of  myself  and  other  men  that  the  Labor  Party 
was  sending  to  the  House  of  Commons  men  who,  when 
they  had  a  great  chance,  failed  to  take  it.  They  did 
not  truly  and  effectively  represent  the  working  class, 
and  the  rise  of  the  Labor  Party  coincided  with  the 
cessation  of  social  legislation.  They  divided  on  the 
smallest  partisan  matters.  They  had  a  great  majority 
in  the  House  of  Commons  willing  to  put  through  an 
Act  which  would  nationalize  the  mining  royalties,  and 
transfer  them  to  the  State.  It  was  a  distinctly  Social 
istic  measure  and  there  was  a  majority  of  people,  Lib 
erals  and  Socialists,  in  the  House  to  put  it  through. 
The  Government  failed  to  act.  The  Liberals  urged 
them  to  deal  with  those  matters,  and  the  Government 
did  nothing.  It  is  such  a  pitiful  record  that  I  cannot 
be  blamed  for  being  a  little  skeptical  about  Socialistic 
idealism  and  Socialistic  methods. 

And  then,  finally,  because  Socialism — if  we  are  go 
ing  to  discuss  realities  at  all — is  so  inevitably  con 
nected  with  Marxism  that  we  must  realize  it  is  a 
materialistic  movement.  In  Europe  that  is  undoubt 
edly  so,  A  materialistic  movement — a  skeptical  move 
ment — and  it  is  just  that  kind  of  movement  which  is 
least  wanted  at  the  present  time.  What  are  the  char 
acteristics  of  our  present  age?  It  is  a  big  question, 
but  we  can  agree  upon  it.  There  is  an  absence  of  any 
sense  of  loyalty  and  authority,  and  what  is  needed  is 
just  the  opposite  of  what  Socialism  promises.  What  is 
needed,  after  all,  fundamentally,  is  surely  the  spiritual- 
ization  and  intellectualization  of  the  machine.  What  is 
wanted  is  some  kind  of  authority,  some  kind  of  central 


104    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

belief  which  can  inspire  men  to  diligence  and  labor. 
Surely  we  all  agree  that  what  is  wanted  now  by  each 
one  of  us  and  by  all  is  leadership.  And  if  we  want 
leadership  there  is  only  one  direction  in  which  we  can 
look — we  must  get  a  man.  If  we  want  leadership,  we 
must  get  a  man — an  individual  given  full  scope  to 
exercise  his  gifts.  Socialism  will  not  give  it  to  us. 


Second  Negative,  G.  M.  Wilson 
Oxford  University 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMAN:  I  should  like  to  begin  by 
agreeing  with  my  friend,  Mr.  Irvine,  in  saying  how 

glad  we  are  to  be  here  this  evening.  Owing  to  the  fact 
that  I  am  descended  from  one  of  the  Pilgrim  Fathers 
who  had  the  misfortune  to  oversleep  and  miss  the  May- 
flower,  I  feel  considerably  more  at  home  in  this  coun 
try  than  Mr,  Irvine  apparently  has  done.  In  fact,  I 
have  actually  been  taken  for  an  American. 

There  seems  to  be  a  most  unfortunate  tendency  in 
this  debate  for  the  various  sides  to  try  to  agree  with 
each  other.  The  Affirmative  seems  to  be  going  out  of 
its  way  to  agree  with  what  we  are  saying.  Personally, 
after  the  speech  which  the  first  speaker  delivered,  in 
which  he  pointed  out  how  much  we  agreed  in  what  we 
were  saying,  I  feel  doubtful  about  the  validity  of  our 
case.  It  is  one  of  those  where  we  have  to  be 

delivered  from  our  friends,  and  1  think  part  of  the 
difficulty  arises  from  the  fact  that  Mr,  Lindley  appears 
to  have  spent  his  time  studying  Socialism  In  Liberal 
Clubs,  of  all  places,  instead  of  in  Socialist  Societies. 


SOCIALISM  105 

If  he  insists  on  going  to  Liberal  Clubs  in  order  to  study 
Socialism,  it  would  be  doubtful  what  Socialism  is.  And 
I  have  something  of  a  grudge  against  the  way  Mr. 
Irvine  tried  to  treat  this  debate.  He  says  that  what 
he  is  discussing  tonight  is  Karl  Marx,  and  that  what 
all  intelligent  electors  in  this  country  and  Great  Britain 
mean  by  Socialism  is  the  theory  of  Karl  Marx.  Now 
I  presume  even  a  man  who  cannot  pronounce  Tech 
nocracy  may  still  be  intelligent,  and  I  also  assume  that 
the  audience  here  is  at  any  rate  moderately  intelligent, 
and  therefore  I  suggest  that  they  have  already  found 
themselves  as  disgusted  as  I  have  when  Mr.  Irvine 
tries  to  disprove  the  Socialist  theories  of  Karl  Marx  by 
reference  to  Labor  Parties  in  Great  Britain  and  Aus 
tralia.  They  are  two  things  that  cannot  be  connected. 

Take  one  example  of  it.  He  talked  about  inter 
nationalism,  and  the  attitude  of  the  Socialist  parties  in 
Europe  in  the  beginning  of  the  War,  and  said  they  all 
agreed  with  the  policy  of  their  countries.  I  wonder 
whether  or  not  he  is  aware  of  the  fact  that  the  Third 
International  was  formed  during  the  days  of  the  War 
by  the  followers  of  Karl  Marx  in  order  to  expound 
their  doctrines  against  war?  The  Marxists  in  Europe 
were  the  only  organized  international  body  in  Europe 
at  that  time  who  opposed  the  War,  yet  Mr.  Irvine  says 
that  Marxism  has  no  international  ideals  whatsoever. 

Take  again  the  question  of  Socialistic  legislation  by 
the  Liberal  Party  in  the  pre-war  days,  and  the  fact  that 
such  legislation  has  declined  in  England  since  the  rise 
of  the  Labor  Party.  Mr.  Irvine  omitted  to  mention  the 
fact  that  we  have  today  to  pay  two-fifths  of  the  annual 


106    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

budget  revenue  In  paying  off  the  internal  debt  incurred 

during  the  Capitalist  war. 

Another  curious  fact  is  that  the  Liberal  Government 
which  was  in  power  in  1910  relied  for  its  support  on 
the  votes  of  sixty  Labor  members  of  the  House  of 
Commons,  and  the  votes  of  sixty  Irishmen,  and  in  order 
to  retain  the  votes  of  these  Labor  members  they  had 
to  adopt  the  Socialistic  legislation  policy  which  was 
advocated  and  supported  by  the  Socialist  members. 
I  am  perfectly  willing  to  grant  that  Mr.  Lloyd  George 
wanted  that  put  through  but  it  was  put  through  In  spite 
of  the  official  leaders  of  the  Liberal  Party  who  did  not 
want  it.  There  you  have  an  example  of  the  fact  that  it 
was  due  to  the  Socialist  party  that  sound  legislation 
came  about. 

Another  great  difficulty  of  Mr,  Irvine  is  that  he 
agrees  with  practically  all  of  the  Socialist  contentions 
—practically  all  of  their  economic  policy  in  relation  to 
the  present  depression,  which,  by  the  way,  was  not 
mentioned  by  the  first  speaker  although  It  happens  to 
come  into  the  motion.  And  he  said  none  of  these  things 
were  really  incompatible  with  Capitalism,  He  took  as 
an  example  the  Economic  Advisory  Council  in  England 
and  he  actually  was  able,  through  some  physical  feat 
or  other>  to  mention  that  Economic  Advisory  Council 
without  a  glimmer  of  a  smile*  In  England  when  it  in 
mentioned,  it  raises  hoots  of  mirthful  laughter,  purely 
from  the  fact  that  It  is  a  body  of  whose  opinions  no 
body  any  notice  whatsoever  and  which  every 
body  ignores  completely  at  the  present  time. 

What  are  we  to  think  of  this  entire  Advisory  Body 


SOCIALISM  107 

without  any  powers  of  any  sort  as  the  instrument  which 
will  put  through  Socialism  against  the  claims  of  thou 
sands  of  angry,  petulant  shareholders? 

Mr.  Irvine  failed  to  find  any  inherent  difficulty  with 
the  Capitalist  system.  The  real  reason  why  such  a 
system  is  a  ghastly  failure,  and  in  fact  positively  inde 
cent,  is  because  it  contains  such  a  contradiction  that 
no  reasonable  person  could  possibly  accept  it.  You 
have  the  curious  fact  that  industry  is  controlled  by 
shareholders  whose  interest  is  to  draw  profits  from  it. 
You  have  on  the  other  side,  the  workers  in  industry, 
and  the  cost  of  their  labor — and  the  cost  of  labor  of  the 
workers  in  industry  is  regarded  by  the  shareholders 
simply  and  purely  as  one  of  the  costs  of  production, 
just  like  raw  material  or  machinery  or  anything  of 
that  sort.  Therefore,  you  have  the  constant  tendency 
to  reduce  wages  in  order  to  reduce  costs  of  production 
in  order  that  profits  may  be  increased.  And  so  long  as 
you  have  industry  organized  not  in  the  interests  of  the 
workers  or  consumers  but  in  the  interests  of  the  share 
holders,  you  have  a  contradiction  which  you  cannot  get 
rid  of. 

Mr.  Irvine  suggested  that  wealth  is  becoming  more 
and  more  equalized.  I  had  the  good  fortune  the  other 
day  to  see  the  following  figures  published  by  Paul 
Blanchard  in  July  of  this  year:  In  1930,  the  wage  loss 
in  the  United  States  was  ten  billions  of  dollars.  Dur 
ing  the  same  year,  dividends  in  the  United  States  in 
creased  by  nine  hundred  million  dollars.  Mr.  Irvine 
says  that  wealth  is  gradually  being  equalized  1  Here 
you  have  a  plain,  an  obvious  case — a  plain  example  of 


108    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

what  I  said  a  moment  ago.  Total  wages  are  steadily 
decreasing;  the  technical  efficiency  of  industry  is  just 
as  steadily  increasing?  and  therefore  productive  ca 
pacity  is  ever  growing  faster.  And  you  have  ten  billion 
dollars  fewer  with  which  to  buy  these  goods.  The 
shareholders'  desire  for  profits  acts  like  a  boomerang 
which  destroys  first  the  workers  and  finally  the  share 
holders.  So  long  as  Capital  employs  Labor  as  it  does 
at  present  in  the  interests  of  Capital,  that  is  bound  to 
happen.  The  alternative  is  for  Labor  to  employ  Capi 
tal  in  the  interests  of  Labor.  That  is  Socialism. 

I  wish  they  would  explain  just  how  it  all  works  out. 
I  cannot  see  anything  very  dependable  coming  from  a 
situation  like  the  present  and  that  is  simply  for  the 
reason  that  capital  has  the  largest  importance  at  the 
present  moment  and  aims  in  the  first  place  at  scarcity 
of  goods  and  in  the  second  place  at  cheapness  of  labor. 
Scarcity  of  goods  and  cheapness  of  labor— these  are 
the  Gods  which  Capitalism  worships  and  it  is  for  that 
reason  that  Capitalism  has  broken  down  at  the  present 
time^  and  is  bound  to  break  down  in  a  similar  way  in 
the  future, 

Now  neither  of  "the  speakers  on  the  other  side  seems 
to  be  able  to  get  a  very  clear  impression  of  just  what 
Socialism  is.  If  they  had  conducted  their  studies  In 
the  proper  quarters,  they  would  have  realized  that  this 
idea  of  schematic  planning  is  the  central  point  so  far 
as  the  economic  system  of  Socialism  Is  concerned.  In 
England,  at  any  rate,  that  means  that  we  want  to  have 
under  democratic  ownership  and  control  what  we  con 
sider  to  be  the  three  essential  services  of  the  country; 


SOCIALISM  109 

First,  the  banks;  second,  the  land;  and  third,  power 
and  transportation.  And  we  want  to  do  that  because  we 
must  convert  these  services,  and  especially  the  banks, 
from  the  range  of  a  narrow  financial  group  into  re 
sponsible  instruments  of  national  policy. 

Let  me  take  as  an  example  of  the  narrow  interests  of 
a  small  financial  group,  the  same  example  Mr.  Irvine 
just  mentioned  as  proving  his  case  against  Socialism. 
When  England  returned  to  the  gold  standard  eight 
years  ago,  the  people  who  advised  the  government  to 
return  to  it  were  the  bankers  in  London.  The  only 
people  who  have  gained  financially  in  England  through 
that  return  to  the  gold  standard  have  been  the  bankers 
of  the  City  of  London;  and  there  you  have  a  plain  and 
obvious  case  that  so  long  as  the  Government  takes  its 
instructions  from  the  bankers,  the  bankers  are  going 
to  profit  to  the  detriment  of  the  rest  of  the  community. 

And  I  suggest,  if  you  have  a  community  representa 
tive  of  industry  and  consumers  and  workers,  that  would 
not  have  been  able  to  occur  because  the  interests  of  the 
other  sections  of  the  community  would  have  been  taken 
into  account. 

The  objects  of  the  planned  economy  haveJbeen  al 
ready  stated  by  the  first  speaker  on  this  side.  The 
most  important  of  them  to  my  mind  is  that  production 
and  consumption  may  in  some  way  be  coordinated. 

I  came  across  a  very  delightful  little  item  in  the 
financial  column  of  a  London  paper  before  I  left  Eng 
land.  It  sums  up  the  matter  admirably.  It  was  this: 
"The  position  of  tea  and  petroleum  is  satisfactory,  be 
cause  there  has  been  an  appreciable  shrinkage  of  sup- 


110    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

plies."  There  has  been  an  appreciable  shrinkage  of 
supplies  in  tea  and  petroleum,  so  everything  is  going  on 
finel  What  sort  of  a  system  is  that  which  we  have  got, 
when  the  less  we  have  of  these  things — rubber,  steel, 

wheat,  cotton,  tea  and  so  on — the  better  everything  is? 
And  that  at  a  time  when  millions  of  people  are  starving 
because  they  cannot  get  hold  of  these  things  1  It  is 
just  as  well  to  consider  that  in  relation  to  what  I  said  a 
few  moments  ago,  about  one  of  the  Gods  of  Capitalism 
being  scarcity  of  goods.  The  less  and  less  there  are 
of  these  things,  the  more  and  more  certain  private 
people  make  from  their  sale, 

Let  us  take  the  other  side,  and  suppose  these  things 
were  democratically  owned  and  controlled  Who, 
exactly,  would  lose  when  there  is  lots  and  lots  of  tea 
and  petroleum,  if  the  whole  community  owned  that 
stuff?  It  seems  to  me  perfectly  plain  and  obvious  that 
under  democratic  control  the  more  we  have  of  these 
things,  the  more  the  community  would  gain,  and  that 
is  a  condition  we  have  not  got  at  the  present  time. 
Therefore,  increase  in  production  of  any  sort  whatso 
ever  is  a  gain  to  a  socialized  community,  while  at  the 
moment  It  stands  as  a  dead  loss. 

In  the  second  place  we  hope  to  be  able,  and  in  fact 
we  shall  be  able,  to  cure  unemployment  by  this  coordi 
nated  system  of  economic  planning,  because  treating 
labor  as  a  cost  of  production,  it  is  only  natural  to  get 
rid  of  it  at  the  first  possible  opportunity  and  increase 
the  hours  of  labor. 

It  is  estimated  that  the  steel  mills  in  Germany  and 
the  United  States  of  America  have  a  capacity  far 


SOCIALISM  111 

greater  than  is  likely  to  be  wanted  by  the  whole  world 
in  the  immediate  future.  Yet,  what  do  we  see?  Com 
petition  of  the  most  drastic  sort,  to  increase  hours  of 
labor  and  cut  wages.  At  the  present  time  these  mills 
are  producing  more  than  they  know  what  to  do  with. 
Surely,  the  obvious  thing  to  do  under  the  circum 
stances,  is  to  cut  down  the  laborer's  hours  and  produce 
less.  And,  at  the  time  when  it  all  belongs  to  the  whole 
community,  nobody  will  lose  by  that  course  being 
taken. 

Technical  improvements  or  rationalization  benefit  at 
the  moment  mainly  the  shareholders,  and  cause  wide 
spread  unemployment.  Socialism,  by  eliminating  the 
shareholders,  will  make  it  possible  for  the  full  benefits 
of  rationalization  to  be  passed  on  to  the  consumer  in 
the  form  of  lower  prices  and  to  the  worker  in  the  form 
of  shorter  hours.  It  is  the  worker  who  should  benefit 
from  rationalization,  not  the  owner. 

In  the  third  place,  take  this  question  of  speculation 
which  is  largely  responsible  for  what  is  happening  in 
America  at  the  present  moment.  Last  year  there  was 
published  in  England  the  findings  of  the  MacMillan 
Commission  on  Finance  and  Industry;  published  by  a 
set  of  men  who  by  no  stretch  of  the  imagination  could 
be  deemed  to  be  Socialists,  and  they  find  that  in  the 
average  year  in  England,  fifty  per  cent  of  money  in 
vested  on  the  Stock  Market  was  lost  in  the  space  of 
two  years.  Here  you  have  a  fine  structure,  which  has 
a  few  cracks  in  it  which  could  be  repaired,  losing  fifty 
per  cent  of  the  investors'  money  every  year  I  By  this 
planned  economy  we  should  be  able  to  get  the  investors' 


112    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

money,  at  a  fixed  rate  of  interest,  and  put  it  into  those 
industries  where  it  is  needed,  and  not  necessarily  those 
which  happen  to  give  the  highest  rates  of  return. 

Mr.  Irvine  announced  that  I  was  going  to  speak 
about  Russia — and  then,  after  his  own  delightful  way, 
he  proceeded  to  speak  about  it  himself.  Since  he  has 
spoken  about  it,  I  shall  speak  about  it  also,  and  I  would 
point  out  to  him,  and  to  you,  that  I  am  not  going  to 
discuss  Communism,  but  the  pure  Socialism  which  is 
characteristic  of  her  economic  system.  It  is  just  as 
well  to  keep  those  two  departments  strictly  apart,  be 
cause  the  Socialism  of  her  economic  system  can  be 
completely  isolated  from  the  depression  and  terror 
which  Mr.  Irvine  seemed  to  experience  when  he  was 
there.  He  said  they  were  living  under  a  system,  which 
completely  denied  them  any  sort  of  liberty,  Tt  is  true 
that  that  explanation  is  often  given  of  the  fact  that 
there  is  no  unemployment  in  Russia  at  the  present  time 
and  that  there  is  actually  a  shortage  of  labor.  But  the 
actual  fact  of  the  matter  is  that  one  of  the  greatest 
difficulties  the  Russian  Government  has  to  face  at  the 
present  time  is  the  constant  shift  of  labor  from  one 
industry  to  another.  They  explain  that  on  the  basis 
of  slave  labor.  How  do  they  explain  the  fact  that  the 
Russian  Government  itself  cannot  check  this  drifting 
of  labor  from  one  part  of  the  country  to  another? 
There  is  an  actual  shortage  of  labor. 

The  second  fact  is  that  during  the  last  three  years 
when  production  slewed  up  in  every  other  place?  it  has 
gone  on  increasing  in  Soviet  Russia. 

In  the  third  place,  the  standard  of  living  has 


SOCIALISM  113 

increasing  during  the  last  three  years,  although  now, 
due  to  difficulties  with  agriculture,  it  may  fail  to  main 
tain  that  standard  during  the  coming  winter;  but  that 
is  recognized  as  more  or  less  temporary. 

There  you  have  these  three  facts  in  a  Socialist  system 
— the  one  system  in  the  world  built  under  the  Marxian 
system  which  Mr.  Irvine  deplores.  No  unemployment, 
increased  production,  and  up  to  the  present  time  at  any 
rate,  an  increase  in  the  standard  of  living.  And  in 
addition  to  those  you  have  the  fact  that  Russia — again 
the  one  Marxian  State  in  the  world — is  the  one  State 
in  the  world  which  has  proposed  total  disarmament  on 
condition  that  other  countries  will  do  the  same.  Where 
does  this  cry  of  the  "materialism"  of  Marxianism, 
about  its  being  blatantly  materialistic  and  not  having 
internationalism,  come  in  with  Russia? 

And  again,  Mr.  Irvine  talks  about  private  enterprise; 
about  initiative;  about  drive;  and  says  they  are  notori 
ously  absent  from  any  sort  of  Socialism.  Now,  whether 
you  agree  with  Russia  or  whether  you  do  not,  I  do  not 
think  there  are  any  people  in  this  audience  who  will 
deny  that  whatever  Russia  lacks,  she  does  not  lack 
enterprise,  initiative,  and  drive.  And  if  the  workers 
in  that  country  have  not  got  the  liberty  to  strike,  which 
they  have  in  the  other  countries,  they  also  lack  the 
incentive  to  strike,  in  that  they  are  producing  for  the 
benefit  of  themselves  and  not  for  the  benefit  of  others. 

If  Mr.  Irvine  wants  another  example  of  how  Social 
ism  works  out  in  practice,  I  would  refer  to  a  city  out  in 
Kansas,  which  is  getting  its  gas  and  electricity  under 
a  municipally  owned  proposition,  at  just  one-half  the 


114    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

price  it  would  cost  for  a  private  company  to  supply  it 
and,  in  addition,  there  are  no  taxes  in  that  city  because 
they  are  being  paid  out  of  the  receipts  of  the  gas  and 
electricity.  Presumably,  that  is  managed  by  some  in 
significant  clerk  who  has  somebody  above  him,  and  yet 
he  seems  to  be  able  to  perform  the  amazing  feat  of 
producing  electricity  and  gas  at  just  one-half  the  price 
charged  by  these  enterprising  individuals  Mr.  Irvine 
likes  so  much. 

Then  again,  I  might  refer  to  the  city  of  Milwaukee 
which  I  gather  is  the  one  socially  controlled  city  in  this 
country,  and  which  is  about  the  only  city  in  the  coun 
try  which  is  in  moderately  healthy  condition  finan 
cially. 

Mr.  Llndley  referred  to  the  fact  that  what  really 
matters  in  this  connection  is  man  and  not  systems,  and 
I  should  be  almost  inclined  to  agree  with  him,  but  what 
I  do  maintain,  very  strongly  indeed  is  this—That  in 
order  that  those  men  may  function  properly  and  effi 
ciently  they  want  a  system  which  helps  and  not  a  sys 
tem  which  hinders  them.  At  the  present  moment  you 
have  a  system  which  gives  encouragement  to  every  sort 
of  greed  and  rapacity  they  can  properly  put  across. 
If  Al  Capone  of  Chicago  retired  from  business  early 
enough  and  gave  enough  money  to  founding  libraries 
and  educational  institutions,  and  so  on,  he  would  be 
come  as  honored  and  respected  a  member  of  this  com 
munity  as  John  D.  Rockefeller  or  Andrew  Carnegie, 

That  is  my  complaint  the  system  we  have  at 

the  present  time.  So  long  as  these  men  can  get  away 
with  the  accumulation  of  their  wealth*  they  are  honored 


SOCIALISM  115 

and  respected  members  of  their  community,  and  they 
are  encouraged  by  the  system.  I  admit,  as  in  the  case 
of  some  doctors,  teachers,  clergy  and  so  on,  there  are 
people  who  can  get  away  from  the  damning  effects  of 
the  system  under  which  they  live  and  I  am  perfectly 
willing  to  admit  that  under  a  Socialist  system  which 
essentially  encourages  the  virtues  of  a  public  and  com 
munity  service  as  against  those  of  private  interests — I 
admit  that  under  such  a  system  you  will  get  cases  like 
Andrew  Carnegie  and  John  D.  Rockefeller.  I  admit 
there  will  be  people  more  influenced,  in  its  early  years 
at  any  rate,  by  greed  than  by  public  service,  but  even 
so  you  have  a  system  which  encourages  the  social  vir 
tues  that  there  may  be  in  a  man  instead  of  the  purely 
selfish  and  individualistic  virtues.  Therefore,  I  support 
Socialism,  not  only  on  the  ground  it  is  the  only  system 
that  will  properly  work,  but  on  the  same  ground  as  Mr. 
Lindley— it  gives  humanity  a  far  better  chance  than 
under  the  system  we  have  at  the  present  time. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY:  SOCIALISM 

BOOKS 
Berenberg,  D.  P.— -Socialist  Fundamentals.    Rand  Book  Store.     $1 

bds.  50c. 
Bibby,  ] .—Capitalism,  Socialism  and  Unemployment.  1929.  J.  Bibby 

and  Sons,  Ltd.,  King  Edward  St.,  Liverpool,  Eng.    pa.  6d. 
Brooks,  J.  G.— Labor's  Challenge  to  the  Social  Order.    1920.    Mac- 

millan. 
Cole,  G.  D.  H.— Economic  tracts  for  the  times.    1932.    Macmillan, 

N.  Y.  and  London.    $4.    (12s,  6d.) 

Cross,  L.  B.— Essentials  of  Socialism.    1912.    Macmillan.    $1,25 
Ely,  Richard  T, .—Socialism  and  Social  Rejorm.    Crowell.    $2,50. 
Eucken,  R.  C.— Socialism.    1922.    Scribner.   $2.75. 


116         THE  YEAR   BOOK   OF   COLLEGE  DEBATING 

Hamlin,  S. — Private  Ownership  or  Socialism.    1925.    Dorrance.    $2. 

Hillquist,  Morris. — Present  Day  Socialism.  Rand  Bk.  Store.  N.  Y. 
1920.  25c. 

Hillquist  and  Ryan. — Socialism,  Promise  or  Menace.  1914.  Macmil- 
lan.  $2. 

Hobson,  John  A. — From  Capitalism  to  Socialism.  1932.  Hogarth. 
pa.  ls.6d. 

Hook,  S. — Towards  the  Understanding  of  Karl  Marx.  1933,  Day. 
$2.50. 

Laidler,  H.  W. — Social  Planning  and  a  Socialist  Program.  103 2.  Fal 
con  Press,  Inc.,  1451  Broadway,  N.  Y.  $2. 

LeRossignol,  J.  E.—Wkat  is  Socialism?    1021.    Crowell    $2. 

Paine,  W.  W. — Menace  of  Socialism  and  Mow  to  Meet  It.  1932. 
Jarrold's.  1  shilling. 

Richards,  R.— Socialism.    1931,    Pitman,    75c. 

Roper,  W.  C. — Problems  of  Pricing  in  a  Socialist  State.  1031.  Har 
vard  Univ.  Press.  $1.25. 

Seligman,  E.  R.  A.,  Brockway,  Ncaring.— Debate :  Resolved,  that 
Capitalism  Offers  More  to  the  Workers  of  the  World  Than 
Socialism  or  Communism.  1030.  Rand  BL  Store,  N,  Y.  SOc. 

Shaw,  G.  B.—- Essays  in  Fabian  Socialism.  1932.  Constable.  (Stand 
ard  ed.)  6s, 

Spargo,  John  and  Arner,  G.  B.~~Ekments  of  Socialism.  1Q12.  Mac» 
millan.  $2,10. 

Thomas,  Norman  M.<~~ As  /  See,  It.    1932,    Macmillan.    $2. 

< -Socialist  Cure  for  a  Sick  Society,    1932,    Day,    pa»    2Sc 

< America's  Way  Out;  A  Program  for  Democracy.  W3L  Mac- 

millan,  N.  Y.  $2.50.  London,  10s.  6d. 

Where  Sockty  Stands  To-day,    1943.    Rich.    3s.  6d. 

Withers,  H,— C«e  for  C&pii®U$m.    1920,    Dutton,    $2.50, 

PAMPHLETS 

Berenberg,  D.  P.— -Sodatim.    W18.    Rand  Bk,  Store,    pa.  lOc. 
Chicago  Daily  News.-— Ramsay  MticDonald  Socialism,    fm,  lOc.     15 

N,  Wells  St.,  Chicago,  III 
Fabian  Society.    London.    Some  of  Propaganda, 

Cole.    1932.    pa.    2d 
Kansford,  C.—PaUacies  of  Soctalam*   Houghton  Publtohing  Co,  IP32. 

pa.  Is, 


SOCIALISM  117 

League  for  Industrial  Democracy.  New  York.  Blanchard,  P. — 
Technocracy  and  Socialism.  1933.  pa.  5c.  Laidler,  H.  W. — 
Incentives  Under  Capitalism  and  Socialism.  1933.  pa.  I5c. 
Laidler,  H.  W. — New  Capitalism  and  the  Socialist.  1931.  pa. 
lOc.  Laidler,  H.  W. — Socialism  of  Our  Times. 

New  York  Labor  News. — Peterson,  A. — Proletarian  Democracy  vs. 
Dictatorship.  1932.  pa.  I5c. 

Socialist  Party,  The.  Morris  Hillquist — Socialism  Summed  Up.  SOc. 
Benson,  A.  L. — Truth  About  Socialism,  pa.  25c. 

MAGAZINES 

American  Economic  Review. — 19:1,  March  1929.  F.  M.  Taylor. 
Guidance  of  Production  in  a  Socialist  State. 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy. — 149:12,  May  1930.  H.  W.  Laid 
ler.  New  Capitalism  and  the  Socialist.  162:6,  July  1932.  P. 
Blanchard.  Socialistic  and  Capitalistic  Planning. 

Canadian  Forum. — 12:405,  August  1932.  J.  F.  White.  Planned  Pro 
duction.  13:92,  December  1932.  H.  Martyn.  Marxism.  13:130, 
January  1933.  L.  Warshaw.  Reply  to  Martyn  on  Marxism. 

Christian  Century. — 48:1202,  September  20,  1931.  R.  Niebuhr.  Crisis 
in  British  Socialism.  49:1271,  October  19,  1932.  P.  Blanchard. 
Socialism  a  Moral  Solution.  Discussion  in  49:1350,  1476,  No 
vember  2,  30,  1932,  50:456,  April  5,  1933.  L.  Jones.  What  did 
Marx  Really  Mean? 

Commonweal. — 17:123,  November  30,  1932.  G.  Hirschfield.  Ameri 
can  Socialism.  17:272,  January  4,  1933.  S.  Bigman.  A  Reply 
to  American  Socialism. 

Current  History.— -35:34,  October  1931.  R.  Delson.  Attack  on  So 
cialism.  37:141,  November  1932,  G.  D.  H.  Cole.  Webbs: 
Prophets  of  a  New  Order.  37:691,  March  1933.  H.  Laski, 
Marxism  After  Fifty  Years. 

Fortnightly  Review,— 131:148,  299,  February,  March  1929.  R.  M. 
Banks.  Shifting  Sands  of  Socialism.  132:160,  August  1929.  R. 
Chance.  Socialism  Looks  Ahead.  139:311,  March  1933.  J.  Hal- 
lett.  Karl  Marx,  Fifty  Years  After. 

Journal  of  Political  Economy.— 39:713,  December  1931.  E.  M.  Win- 
slow.,  Marxian,  Liberal  and  Sociological  Theories  of  Imperialism. 
Bibliography. 

Living  Age. — 338:525,  July  1,  1930.  How  About  Socialism:  a  Franco- 


118    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

British  Debate.  341:388,  January,  1932.  J.  Goebbets.  What 
Hitler  Witt  Do. 

Nation.— 135:82,  July  27,  1932.    A,  Templar.    /  Teach  Socialism. 

National  Republic.— 18:12,  February  1931.  Failure  of  Socialism, 
18:28,  March  1931.  W.  S.  Steele.  Aim  of  Four  Movements: 
Analysis  of  Announced  Objectives  of  Socialism,  Communism,  In 
ternationalism  and  Pacifism.  19:12,  September  1931,  Anti-Na 
tionalism  and  State  Socialism, 

New  Republic.— 62:64,  March  S,  1930*  J.  Dewey.  Capitalism  or 
Public  Socialism.  66:236,  April  15,  1931.  Q.  Howe.  Capitalism 
or  Socialism.  67:22,  May  20,  1931.  R.  M,  Lovctt.  Review  of 
America's  Way  Out  by  Norman  Thomas.  68:4,  August  19,  1931. 
Socialists  as  Conservatives.  70:227,  April  13,  1932,  J.  M. 
Keynes.  Dilemma  of  Modern  Socialism.  72:226,  October  12, 
1932.  E.  Wilson.  Marxist  History. 

19th  Century  and  After.— 108:148,  318,  August-September*  S.  L. 
Murray,  Socialism.  112:327,  September,  1932.  A.  L.  Rowse. 
Socialism  and  Mr.  Keynes. 

North  American  Review.— 234:292,  October  1932,  0,  D.  Tolischua. 
Choice  for  America. 

Quarterly.— 254:370,  April  1930.    A,  ShadwelL    New  Sodattm. 

Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics,-— 45:640,  August  193 L  K.  S.  Mason, 
St.  Simonism  and  the  Rationalization  of  Industry . 

Review  of  Reviews.— -83:78,  April  1931.  E.  Vandervelde.  Future,  of 
Socialism.  * 

Scribner's  Magazine,— 93: 151,  March  1933.  M.  Nomad.  Karl  Marx, 
the  Myth  and  the  Mm. 

World  To-morrow.-— 13:66,  February  1Q30.  J.  E,  Edgcrton,  Argu* 
ments  Against  Socialism*  13:70,  February  1930*  N.  Thomas. 
Sodatim  Upheld.  13:140,  March  1930.  J,  F,  Younger,  Chris 
tian  Capitalism:  a  Reply  to  /.  K.  JRdgerion.  14:72,  Match  l<m. 
N.  Thomas.  Socialism,  the  Way  Out  for  America,  15:258,  Sep 
tember  14,  1932.  Kirby  Page.  Socialism  m,  Communism.  IS: 
443,  November  9,  1932,  A.  F.  Hrockway.  Brithk  Pacifism  and 
the  Social  Revolution.  16:104,  February  1,  1933.  Socwlixm'* 
Four  Year  Plan,  16:255,  March  IS,  1933,  P.  II,  Douglas.  Karl 
Marx,  Ike  Prophet.  16:323,  April  S,  19JJ3.  Kirby  PogtJ.  •frVvfo/- 
fj*  Program  for  Deliverance,  16:349,  April  12,  1933,  G,  A,  Coc, 
Motives  for  &  Niw  Order,  16:371,  April  10,  1033,  J,  Mt  Murry, 
What  Is  &  for 


CANCELLATION  OF  WAR  DEBTS 

Pacific  Coast  Pi  Kappa  Delta  Province 
Tournament  Championship 


CANCELLATION  OF  WAR  DEBTS 

FRESNO    STATE    TEACHERS    COLLEGE    AF 
FIRMATIVE  VS.  UNIVERSITY  OF  SOUTHERN 
CALIFORNIA  NEGATIVE 

The  Pacific  Coast  Province  of  Pi  Kappa  Delta  held  its  second 
annual  Invitational  Tournament  at  the  College  of  the  Pacific,  Stock 
ton,  California,  March  23-24-25,  1933,  All  colleges  west  of  the 
Rocky  Mountains  were  invited  to  send  debate  teams  and  orators  by 
the  four  Pi  Kappa  Delta  Colleges  in  California  which  sponsored  the 
meet.  About  twenty-five  colleges  and  several  Junior  Colleges  sent 
teams.  Contests  for  men  and  women  were  separate  and  the  Junior 
College  debaters  met  Freshmen  debaters  from  the  four  year  colleges 
in  a  separate  tournament. 

In  Women's  Debate  two  Pi  Kappa  Delta  colleges  reached  the 
finals,  College  of  the  Pacific  and  College  of  Puget  Sound,  the  latter 
taking  first  honors.  California  Christian  College  won  first  in 
Oratory. 

In  the  Junior  College  Meet,  Glendale  Junior  College  defeated 
Weber  College/  of  Ogden,  Utah,  in  the  finals. 

In  Men's  Varsity,  Fresno  State  College  won  both  the  Oratory  and 
Debate,  with  the  University  of  Southern  California  competing  in  the 
finals  in  Debate. 

The  Cancellation  of  War  Debts  was  the  Pi  Kappa  Delta  National 
subject  for  the  debate  season  of  1932-33  and  was  widely  debated. 
The  Question  was  stated,  Resolved:  That  the  United  States  should 
agree  to  the  Cancellation  of  the  inter-attied  war  debts. 

The  speeches  in  this  debate  were  written  out  by  the  four  contest 
ants  after  the  final  contest,  and  submitted  to  the  Editor  of  Intercol 
legiate  Debates  in  behalf  of  the  debaters  by  the  coaches  of  the  two 
colleges,  Professor  J.  Fred  McGrew  of  Fresno  and  Professor  Alan 
Nichols  of  University  of  Southern  California. 

121 


122    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

First  Affirmative,  Spurgeon  Avakian 

Fresno  State  Teachers  College 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN  :  We  are  here  this  morning 
to  discuss  the  inter-allied  war  debts  that  came  into 
existence  as  a  result  of  loans  made  to  our  allies  during 
and  immediately  following  the  World  War.  These 
loans  were  made  in  the  form  of  credits  totaling  eleven 
billions  of  dollars  placed  at  the  disposal  of  the  borrow 
ing  nations  in  the  Federal  Reserve  Banks  in  this  coun 
try.  These  credits  were  used  in  buying  food  and  war 
supplies  from  American  producers. 

Soon  after  the  war,  the  United  States  concluded 
funding  agreements  with  each  of  the  debtor  nations, 
with  the  total  amount— principal  and  interest— to  be 
repaid  to  the  United  States  aggregating  twenty-two 
billions  of  dollars. '  Up  to  the  present  time,  about  two 
billions  of  this  amount  have  been  paid,  leaving  some 
twenty  billions  still  to  be  paid;  and  there  remain  ap 
proximately  fifty-five  years  in  which  payment  shall 
be  made,  which  means  that  the  average  payment  will 
exceed  three  hundred  and  fifty  millions  of  dollars 
annually. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  these  loans  were  made  In 
good  faith  and  that  they  constitute  just  and  legal 
debts;  so  we  of  the  Affirmative,  realizing  that  our  time 
is  limited,  and  wishing  to  deal  with  more  important 
matters,  are  admitting  at  the  outset  that  the  debtor 
nations  are  morally  obligated  to  pay  the  United  State% 
If  the  United  States  to  be  paid.  Furthermore,  we 
are  going  to  waive— without  admitting,  of  course— the 


CANCELLATION   OF   WAR  DEBTS  123 

matter  of  whether  or  not  the  debtor  nations  are  able  to 
gather  up  enough  wealth  of  one  kind  or  another  to 
make  payment.  Rather  than  spend  our  time  on  that 
matter,  we  are  going  to  devote  our  attention  to  what 
we  believe  is  a  far  more  vital  question.  To  our  way  of 
thinking,  the  fundamental  Issue  in  this  debate — the 
answer  to  the  war  debt  question — is  found  in  the  effect 
cancellation  will  have  upon  the  United  States;  and  it 
is  our  purpose  to  show  you  that  the  United  States  will 
be  economically  benefited  by  cancelling  the  war  debts. 

We  realize,  of  course,  that  it  seems  strange  that  we 
should  be  telling  you  that  payment  will  harm  the  credi 
tor  nation;  possibly  an  Illustration  will  clarify  the 
problem.  If  you  pay  your  groceryman  five  dollars  that 
you  owe  him,  the  transfer  of  the  five  dollars  from  your 
pocket  to  his  does  not  affect  the  total  currency  and 
credit  and  wealth  of  the  nation;  the  labor  and  industry 
of  the  country  are  not  affected  by  this  purely  domestic 
transaction.  But  when  a  payment  on  the  war  debts  is 
made,  there  is  a  transfer  across  international  borders; 
and  the  currency  and  credit  and  wealth,  not  only  of  the 
two  nations,  but  of  the  whole  world,  is  affected;  and 
there  is  a  reaction  upon  industry  and  labor.  These 
war  debt  payments  involve  economic  complications — 
and  it  is  with  these  complications  that  we  shall  deal 
this  morning. 

Economists  are  in  accord  that  there  are  but  three 
basic  methods  by  which  international  payments  can  be 
made.  These  are  loans,  gold,  and  goods  and  services. 
Payment  by  loans  means  that  the  debtor  borrows  from 
some  other  source  to  pay  the  creditor;  but  obviously 


124    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

this  borrowing  from  one  party  to  pay  another  is  nothing 
more  than  a  postponement  of  the  actual  payment  to 
some  later  date,  so  let  us  pass  on  to  the  other  two 
methods, 

As  I  have  told  you?  the  debts  still  owed  the  United 
States  approximate  twenty  billions  of  dollars.  On  the 
other  hand,  there  is  only  about  eleven  billions  of  dollars 
worth  of  gold  in  the  world;  and  over  four  billion  of  this 
amount  is  already  in  the  United  States,  Thus,  if  the 
debtor  nations  used  up  all  the  gold  outside  of  the 
United  States,  they  would  be  able  to  pay  us  only  a  por 
tion  of  the  debt,  which  means  that  the  bulk  of  the  pay 
ment  can  be  made  only  through  a  transfer  of  goods 
and  services.  But  my  colleague,  Mr.  Wiens3  will  show 
you  that  if  we  withdraw  any  appreciable  amount  of 
gold  from  the  rest  of  the  world  in  collecting  the  debts, 
the  United  States  will  be  injured,  since  a  nation  can 
enjoy  the  maximum  benefits  of  being  on  the  gold  stand 
ard  only  if  the  gold  supply  m  evenly  distributed 
throughout  the  important  commercial  nations  of  the 
world-  Mr.  Wiens  will  develop  this  point  later  on. 

And  now,  in  order  to  understand  how  payment  in 
goods  and  services  will  affect  the  United  States,  let  us 
see  how  international  trade  h  carried  on* 

When  an  American  exporter  sends  one  hundred  dol 
lars  worth  of  goods  to  some  foreign  country—Hay  Eng 
land—he  creates  in  that  country  one  hundred  dollars 
worth  of  credit  owned  by  himself.  Conversely,  when  an 
English  exporter  sends  one  hundred  dollars  worth  of 
goods  to  the  United  States,  there  h  created  in  the 
United  States  one  hundred  dollars  worth  of  credit 


CANCELLATION   OF   WAR  DEBTS  125 

owned  by  the  English  exporter.  The  two  exporters  are 
paid  by  what  amounts  to  a  trading  of  the  credits  which 
each  owns  in  the  other's  country:  the  American  ex 
changes  the  credits  which -he  owns  in  England  for  the 
credits  which  the  Englishman  owns  in  the  United 
States.  The  total  amount  of  credit  created  abroad, 
and  owned  by  Americans,  is  determined  by  the  amount 
of  goods  and  services  which  we  sell  to  our  foreign  cus 
tomers.  The  total  amount  of  credit  created  in  the 
United  States,  and  owned  by  foreign  exporters,  is  de 
termined  by  the  amount  of  goods  and  services  which 
we  buy,  or  import,  from  foreign  producers.  If  we 
export  more  than  we  import,  then  we  create  a  surplus 
of  credits,  owned  by  our  exporters,  in  foreign  countries. 
In  such  a  case,  if  the  owners  of  these  surplus  credits 
are  to  be  paid,  the  foreign  customers  who  have  bought 
this  export  surplus  must  either  send  gold  to  the  Ameri 
can  exporter  or  pay  him  by  borrowing  from  some  other 
source. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  we  import  more  than  we  export, 
then  the  surplus  of  credits  is  in  this  country,  owned  by 
foreign  exporters.  Here  again,  the  balance  is  settled 
either  in  gold  or  in  loans.  While  the  balance  fluctuates 
from  year  to  year,  these  variations  are  self-correcting 
and  self-adjusting,  so  that  over  a  long  period  of  years 
— and  over  the  period  of  fifty-five  years  in  which  pay 
ment  is  to  be  made  to  the  United  States — we  will  export 
approximately  as  much  as  we  import,  we  will  sell  about 
as  much  as  we  buy,  and  there  will  exist  an  even  balance 
of  trade — under  the  normal  channels  of  trade. 

But  if  any  payment  is  to  be  made  by  this  method, 


126    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

then  It  will  be  necessary  for  us  to  continually  Import 

more  than  we  export  for  the  next  fifty-five  years;  for 
the  payment  can  be  made  only  If  there  Is  created  In  the 
United  States,  and  owned  by -foreign  exporters,  a  sur 
plus  amount  of  credit  over  and  above  the  amount  of 
credit  created  abroad  by  our  exporters.  When  there  Is 
a  surplus  of  credits  here—in  other  words,  when  we 
import  more  than  we  export— then  the  debtor  nations 
can  buy  up  these  surplus  credits  with  their  own  cur 
rency  from  the  foreign  exporters  who  own  these  credits 
in  the  United  States,  and  then  transfer  the  title  of  these 
credits  to  the  United  States  government,  which  will 
now  have  received  payment  through  credits  created  by 
an  Import  surplus  of  goods  and  services.  But  remem 
ber,  the  payment  can  be  made  only  If  we  Import  more 
than  we  export— and  therein  lies  the  detriment  to 
American  labor  and  Industry. 

If  we  collect  the  debts,  it  will  mean  that  every  year, 
for  the  next  half  a  century,  we  will  have  to  accept  an 
import  surplus,  or  unfavorable  balance  of  trade,  aver 
aging  three  hundred  and  fifty  millions  of  dollars  and 
totaling  twenty  billions  of  dollars.  If  we  collect  the 
debts,  it  will  mean  that  we  will  have  to  divert  an  aver 
age  of  three  hundred  and  fifty  million  dollars  of  our 
annual  purchasing  power  from  buying  the  products  of 
our  own  labor  to  buying  the  products  of  foreign  labor 
industry.  Collection  of  the  debts  means  that 
American  industry  will  have  to  sacrifice  thm*  hundred 
and  fifty  millions  of  dollars  of  track*  to  industry. 

Now  understand,  we  do  not  object  to  buying  the 
of  foreign  industry;  but  we  do  object  to  buying 


CANCELLATION   OF   WAR  DEBTS  127 

more  from  them  than  we  sell  to  them;  for  if  we  do 
collect  the  debts  in  this  way,  then  we  will  throw  out  of 
work  the  number  of  American  laborers  necessary  to 
produce  three  hundred  and  fifty  millions  of  dollars 
worth  of  goods  every  year.  And  if  we  throw  more  men 
out  of  work,  then  we  decrease  their  purchasing  power, 
which  will  further  decrease  employment  and  drag  us 
down  deeper  into  the  rut  of  industrial  stagnation. 

But  to  offset  this  drawback  of  collection,  the  Gentle 
men  of  the  Negative,  if  they  run  true  to  form,  will  tell 
you  that  Cancellation  will  raise  taxes  in  this  country. 
Of  course,  if  we  cancel,  then  it  will  be  necessary  for  the 
United  States  treasury  to  collect  a  slightly  larger 
amount  of  revenue  each  year.  However,  this  does  not 
mean  that  the  rate  of  taxation  will  be  raised. 

The  prosperity  of  the  United  States  treasury  is  de 
pendent  directly  on  the  prosperity  of  the  nation's  busi 
ness.  When  business  is  healthy,  there  is  a  large  amount 
of  taxable  property  and  taxable  income,  and  the  rev 
enue  of  the  treasury  is  correspondingly  large.  When 
business  is  depressed,  there  is  less  property  and  less 
income  to  tax,  and  the  Treasury  Department  goes  into 
the  red.  In  other  words,  if  Cancellation  will  stimulate 
business,  the  government  will  automatically  collect 
more  money — without  raising  the  rate  of  taxation — 
because  there  will  be  a  greater  amount  of  taxable  prop 
erty  and  taxable  incomes. 

We  of  the  Affirmative  have  shown  you  thus  far  that 
if  the  United  States  collects  the  war  debts,  American 
industry  and  American  labor  will  be  damaged  for  the 
next  fifty-five  years.  We  have  shown  you  that  if  we 


128         THE   YEAR  BOOK   OF   COLLEGE   DEBATING 

collect  the  debts  in  goods — -and  all  but  a  small  portion 
cannot  possibly  be  collected  in  any  other  way — we  will 
throw  our  own  men  out  of  work.  On  that  basis,  we 
believe  that  the  United  States  should  cancel  the  inter 
allied  war  debts. 


First  Negative,  F.  Clinton  Jones 
University  of  Southern  California 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  At  the  very  outset,  we 
wish  to  make  it  clear  that  the  question  debated  this 
morning  is  one  of  complete  and  outright  Cancellation. 
The  Affirmative  in  this  contest  is  obliged  to  offer  proof 
that  the  inter-allied  war  debts  should  be  completely 
cancelled,  and  unconditionally  cancelled  as  well.  No 
other  stand,  such  as  Cancellation  with  reservations, 
can  be*  taken  by  the  opposition  in  this  debate  if  they 
wish  to  be  successful  in  establishing  their  case. 

Also,  we  would  like  to  clear  up  the  question  of  moral 
obligation  in  this  argument.  The  Gentleman  who  just 
concluded  his  constructive  speech  told  us  that  the 
Affirmative  admits  that  the  debtor  nations  are  morally 
obligated  to  make  payment  to  the  United  States,  but 
that  this  is  not:  essential  or  relevant  to  the  discussion 
this  morning.  Now  let  me  point  out  that  any  argument 
which  tends  to  prove  that  the  war  debts  should  be  can 
celled  is  a  valid  argument  in  this  debate,  and  also,  that 
any  argument  which  tends  to  show  that  these  debts 
should  not  be  cancelled  is  a  valid  argument  in  this  con 
test  as  well  Now  the  Gentleman  has  admitted  that 
the  debtor  countries  are  morally  obliged  to  pay  us  the 


CANCELLATION   OF   WAR  DEBTS  129 

debts.  We  say,  furthermore,  that  the  United  States  is 
morally  justified  in  demanding  payment  of  these  obliga 
tions,  and  that  therefore  they  should  not  be  cancelled. 

Now  in  order  to  understand  the  moral  aspects  of  the 
problem,  it  is  necessary  to  review  briefly  the  historical 
setting  of  these  debts.  During  the  decades  prior  to 
the  outbreak  of  the  war,  economic  rivalries  and  racial 
hatreds  had  been  mounting  throughout  Europe.  Ger 
many,  with  a  constantly  expanding  colonial  empire  and 
merchant  marine,  and  a  battle  fleet  second  only  to  that 
of  Great  Britain,  was  challenging  England's  supremacy 
in  the  world  market.  France  was  brooding  over  1870 
and  Alsace-Lorraine.  Russia,  thwarted  in  her  war 
with  Japan,  sought  an  outlet  to  the  open  sea  around 
Constantinople,  and  came  into  collision  with  ancient 
interests  of  England  and  Austria  as  well  as  the  more 
recent  German  undertaking  in  the  Bagdad  railway. 
Italy  was  in  alliance  with  the  central  powers,  but  not 
whole-heartedly,  because  Austria  held  the  city  of 
Fiume  and  other  concessions  which  Italy  wanted.  This 
was  the  situation,  a  veritable  powderhouse,  when  the 
assassination  of  Archduke  Ferdinand  of  Austria 
touched  it  off  in  1914.  In  the  language  of  H.  G.  Wells: 
"All  the  great  states  of  Europe  before  1914  were  suffer 
ing  from  the  common  disease  of  Imperialism,  of  aggres 
sive  nationalism,  and  drifting  toward  war." 

And  so  the  struggle  for  economic  conquest  began. 
But  at  the  end  of  two  and  a  half  years  it  seemed  that 
the  best  the  Allies  could  hope  for  would  be  a  draw. 
Throughout  this  period  the  German  armies  had  main 
tained  positions  within  fifty  miles  of  Paris.  Russia 


130    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

had  been  rolled  back  at  the  battle  of  Tannenberg  and 
the  revolution  in  the  March  of  1917,  had  eliminated 
her  from  the  contest.  The  unrestricted  submarine 

campaign  of  Germany  during  February,  1917,  alone 
had  sunk  one  hundred  thirty-four  ships,  and  the  Allies 
for  the  first  time  faced  the  prospect  of  starvation.  It 
was  in  this  emergency  that  the  United  States  entered 
the  war,  and  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  we  furnished 
the  additional  force  necessary  to  insure  the  ultimate 
victory  of  the  allied  cause.  Germany  could  never  have 
been  so  completely  crushed  had  it  not  been  for  the 
men,  money,  and  supplies  which  we  poured  into  the 
conflict.  For  proof  of  this  we  have  the  statement  of 
none  other  than  Marshal  Foch,  Commander-in-chief  of 
all  the  allied  armies  who,  after  the  close  of  the  war, 
stated:  "The  American  people  can  feel  justifiably 
proud  for  having  brought  to  bear  such  powerful  aid  at 
the  decisive  moment  of  the  war,  and  to  have  made  vic 
tory  possible  by  going  straight  into  the  conflict  without 
hesitation  and  in  accomplishing  an  end  absolutely  with 
out  parallel*"  So  we  stepped  in  and  pulled  the  allied 
chestnuts  out  of  the  fire;  and  now  let  us  see  just  how 
many  chestnuts  there  turned  out  to  be. 

We  fought  the  war  on  the  basis  of  no  annexations 
and  no  indemnities,  future  disarmament,  and  a  war  to 
end  war.  President  Wilson  went  to  Versailles  with 
these  objectives  Jn  mind'— -and  what  happened?  Ger 
many  was  absolutely  stripped  of  her  colonial  posses 
sions,  her  shipping  interests,  and  portions  of  her 
European  territory*  Great  Britain  received  an  aggre 
gate  of  over  a  million  thirty-five 


CANCELLATION  OF   WAR  DEBTS  131 

million  inhabitants.  France  got  a  total  territory  of 
over  four  hundred  thousand  square  miles  and  ten  mil 
lion  inhabitants.  Italy  received  substantial  territories 
in  Southeastern  Europe.  It  is  clear  that  these  huge 
gains  through  the  Treaty  of  Versailles  far  surpass  the 
amount  of  the  war  debts. 

So  we  must  remember  that  when  the  United  States 
entered  the  struggle,  about  the  best  the  allied  cause 
could  expect  was  a  peace  without  victory.  It  was 
through  our  assistance  that  England,  France,  and  Italy 
were  able  to  so  prostrate  the  Central  Powers  as  to  strip 
them  completely  of  their  territories  and  possessions. 
And  yet  these  debtor  nations  are  today  asking  that  we 
cancel  the  loans.  Why  in  reality,  instead  of  cancelling 
the  debts,  they  should  pay  us  a  bonus  for  helping  them 
out. 

Second,  the  United  States  is  morally  justified  in 
demanding  payment  because  these  debts  can  in  no  way 
be  considered  as  contributions  to  a  common  cause. 
France  spent  two  hundred  eighty-nine  millions  to  pay 
off  loans  made  privately  before  we  entered  the  war — 
why  shouldn't  they  pay  back  this  amount?  She  spent 
one  hundred  eighty  millions  for  public  works — why 
shouldn't  this  be  repaid?  She  used  two  hundred  mil 
lions  to  purchase  food  after  peace  was  declared  and 
an  additional  twelve  millions  for  French  agriculture — 
why  shouldn't  these  amounts  be  paid  back?  England 
spent  three  hundred  twenty-five  millions  to  pay  a  grain 
debt  in  Canada,  two  hundred  sixty-one  millions  to  sup 
port  silver  currency  in  India,  and  three  hundred 
fifty-three  more  millions  to  redeem  pawned  British 


132         THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF    COLLEGE   DEBATING 

securities.  If  England  could  devote  our  loans  to  such 
purposes,  why  shouldn't  she  pay  them  back?  And 

England  and  France  together  spend  two  billion  six 
hundred  eighty-three  million  dollars — one-fourth  of 
the  total  borrowings — to  support  on  the  world  market 
at  high,  artificial  prices,  the  value  of  the  franc  and  the 
pound  sterling;  why  shouldn't  this  huge  amount  be 
repaid  to  us? 

And  now  let  us  see  what  the  United  States  was  doing 
during  this  time.  We  paid  cash  to  Great  Britain  for 
transporting  our  troops  to  France,  If  we  paid  her  cash 
for  such  services,  why  shouldn't  she  pay  us  back  the 
money  she  borrowed?  We  paid  cash  for  British  wool, 
jute,  tin,  and  other  materials  used  for  war  purposes- 
We  paid  for  the  privilege  of  landing  our  troops  in 
French  harbors.  We  recompensed  France  for  the  dam 
age  done  in  building  military  roads  and  railroads.  We 
paid  customs  duties  upon  our  war  supplies  carried  into 
France.  In  al!?  we  paid  our  allies  over  four  billions  of 
dollars  in  cash  for  goods  and  services  utilized  in  the 
war.  If  we  did  all  this,  why  shouldn't  they  repay  us 
the  dollars  which  they  borrowed? 

Third,  we  are  morally  obligated  to  the  American  citi 
zens  to  demand  payment,  so  that  they  will  not  be  sad 
dled  with  an  unfair  burden  of  twenty  billions  of  dollars. 
Now  the  total  amount  of  the  war  debt  installments 
which  remain  to  be  paid  under  the  funding  agreements, 
approximates  twenty  billions.  If  they  are  paid*  It 
means  that  we  have  the  twenty  billions  of  dollars  in  the 
United  States;  if  they  are  cancelled,  the  twenty  bil 
lions  will  stay  in  Europe,  It  Is  obvious  that  the  Ameri- 


CANCELLATION   OF   WAR  DEBTS  133 

can  taxpayer  will  have  to  make  up  the  loss  if  these 
debts  are  cancelled.  But  the  evil  effects  of  Cancella 
tion  do  not  stop  there.  If  the  American  people  must 
assume  an  additional  tax  burden  of  twenty  billions,  it 
means  that  they  will  have  just  that  much  less  purchas 
ing  power  with  which  to  buy  the  products  of  American 
industry,  and  hence  our  industries  will  continue  to 
suffer  unfairly.  Furthermore,  relieve  a  burden  of 
twenty  billions  from  the  debtor  nations,  and  their  in 
dustries  will  have  that  much  less  taxation  to  meet. 
This  will  lower  their  production  costs  and  permit  them 
to  outsell  our  industries  in  the  world  market,  and  often 
in  the  American  market  itself.  Hence  an  additional 
depression  will  be  unfairly  forced  upon  American  in 
dustry  and  the  American  people. 

In  summarizing  the  Negative  case  thus  far,  then,  we 
see  that  in  1914  the  nations  of  Europe  entered  upon  a 
war  of  economic  imperialism.  We  see  that  in  1917 
their  situation  was  desperate,  and  it  was  only  the  as 
sistance  of  the  United  States  which  enabled  them  to 
crush  completely  the  Central  Powers.  We  see  that,  as 
a  result,  the  debtor  nations  stripped  Germany  of  spoils 
valued  far  in  excess  of  the  war  debts.;  and  that,  instead 
of  demanding  Cancellation,  they  should  pay  us  a  bonus 
for  helping  them  out.  We  see  that  large  portions  of 
the  loans  were  spent  for  purely  domestic  purposes  hav 
ing  no  relation  to  the  conflict;  and  that  while  the  United 
States  was  thus  loaning  them  money,  she  was  paying 
cash  to  France  and  England  for  all  supplies  and  serv 
ices.  And  finally,  we  see  that  if  the  debts  are  cancelled, 
the  American  people  and  the  American  industries  will 


134    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

be  saddled  with  an  unfair  burden  of  some  twenty  bil 
lion  dollars.  Based  upon  this  evidence,  we  assert  that 
the  United  States  is  morally  justified  in  demanding 
payment,  because  we  enabled  the  Allies  to  win  the  war 
and  reap  the  spoils  therefrom,  because  these  debts  can 
in  no  way  be  considered  as  contributions  to  a  common 
cause,  and  because  we  are  morally  obligated  to  the 
American  people  to  demand  payment  of  the  debts. 


Second  Affirmative,  Henry  W.  Wiens 
Fresno  State  Teachers  College 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  Although  my  colleague, 
Mr.  Avakian,  admitted  at  the  outset  of  his  speech  that 
there  is  a  just  and  legal  obligation  and  also  waived  the 
question  of  whether  Europe  is  able  to  pay,  the  Gentle 
man  who  just  left  the  platform  spent  his  whole  time  or 
most  of  it  upon  this  irrelevant  subject-  He  said  that 
America  is  morally  justified  in  demanding  payment. 
Again  we  admit  that  but  at  the  same  time  rule  it  out  as 
irrelevant.  We  are  not  interested  in  whether  Europe 
can  or  is  morally  obligated  to  pay,  for  certainly  even 
the  Gentlemen  of  the  Negative  would  not  maintain 
that  we  in  the  United  States  were  morally  obligated  to 
accept  payment  if  that  hurt  us. 

Let  me  illustrate  what  1  mean.  Suppose  Mr. 
Avakian  is  indebted  to  me  and  he  is  supposed  to  pay  in 
goods— tomatoes,  let  us  say.  But  1  wait  a  while  and 
find  out  these  tomatoes  are  slightly  and  conse 

quently  would  do  me  no  good.  In  fact,  they 

might  have  a  strong  odor*  it  would  not  be  to  my  best 


CANCELLATION   OF   WAR  DEBTS  135 

interest  if  Mr.  Avakian  dumped  them  into  my  back 
yard.  Now  certainly,  Mr.  Avakian  would  be  morally 
obligated  to  pay  me  those  tomatoes — that  would  be  a 
just  and  legal  obligation.  And  of  course  I  would  be 
morally  justified  in  demanding  such  payment,  but  if  I 
did,  you  would  call  me  a  fool. 

Mr.  Jones  also  tells  us  that  the  American  taxpayer 
will  have  to  bear  this  burden  if  the  debts  are  cancelled. 
But  my  colleague  already  showed  that  if  prosperity 
were  restored  to  any  appreciable  degree,  this  problem 
would  care  for  itself  since  the  amount  of  revenue  col 
lected  by  the  government  depends  directly  upon  the 
prosperity  of  the  people.  When  the  people  are  pros 
perous  and  there  is  much  taxable  property  the  govern 
ment  receives  much  more  revenue  than  when  the  peo 
ple  are  in  a  depression,  even  though  the  same  tax-rate 
is  used.  Let  me  further  illustrate  this.  In  two  years 
of  this  depression  the  annual  income  of  our  government 
fell  off  by  over  two  and  one-half  billions  of  dollars, 
which  is  about  seven  times  the  size  of  the  annual  pay 
ments  of  the  war  debts.  In  other  words,  if  we  can  show 
that  prosperity  will  be  restored  by  only  one-seventh  of 
what  it  has  fallen  off  since  1928,  then  we  will  have 
shown  that  there  need  be  no  additional  burden  upon 
the  taxpayer.  Any  increase  in  business  above  that  will 
definitely  lighten  and  not  increase  the  burden  of  the 
so-called  "over  burdened  American  taxpayer." 

In  fact,  Mr,  Jones  has  really  admitted  that  if  there 
is  a  return  to  normal  business  conditions,  then  there 
would  not  be  any  additional  tax  burden.  So  the  crux 
of  this  debate  is:  will  Cancellation  bring  back  pros- 


136    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

perity?    Perhaps  we  should  rather  say,  can  there  be 
any  return  to  prosperity  without  Cancellation? 

Now  my  colleague  already  pointed  out  how  the  pay 
ment  of  these  debts  would  necessitate  an  unfavorable 
balance  of  trade  for  the  United  States  for  the  next 
fifty-five  years  and  how  this  constituted  an  impediment 
in  the  way  of  business  recovery,  I  will  show  how  Can 
cellation  will  remove  some  other  obstacles  on  the  road 
to  recovery. 

It  is  generally  admitted  today  that  there  can  be  no 
resumption  of  normal  business  activities  unless  there 
is  an  improvement  in  our  international  trade.  Such  is 
the  opinion  of  President  Roosevelt  and  ex-President 
Hoover  and  of  our  leading  economists.  About  ten  per 
cent  of  all  our  business  is  clone  during  normal  times  for 
the  world  market  and  this  constitutes  the  difference 
between  prosperity  and  depression. 

One  of  the  chief  impediments  to  international  trade 
is  the  instability  of  foreign  currencies,  largely  caused 
by  the  payment  of  these  debts.  During  the  past  couple 
of  years  forty-five  nations  have  left  the  gold  standard 
and  when  a  currency  no  longer  has  gold  backing  it 
inevitably  fluctuates  in  value  in  relation  to  other  cur 
rencies.  For  instance,  the  British  Found  Sterling  was 
at  par  worth  $4-86  but  it  lias  depreciated  to  approxi 
mately  $3,30,  However,  It  does  not  stay  there  but  is 
continually  changing— one  week  it  up  three  or 

four  cents,  the  next  it  drops  five  cents  in  value.  This 
Is  disastrous  to  international  trade.  An  American  ex 
porting  goods—wheat,  let  us  say—never  knows  what 
he  will  get  for  it  and  the  buyer  doesn't  know  what  he 


CANCELLATION  OF   WAR  DEBTS  137 

will  have  to  pay.  It's  like  buying  cloth  and  measuring 
it  with  a  rubber  yard  stick.  Confidence  in  international 
trade  has  been  shaken  to  such  a  degree  that  business 
has  been  seriously  throttled.  It  is  especially  important 
to  the  American  farmer  since  the  majority  of  his  prod 
ucts  are  exported  in  terms  of  the  fluctuating  Pound 
Sterling.  It  is  ruinous  to  all  international  trade. 

Do  not  misunderstand  me,  however.  I  do  not  say 
the  payment  of  the  war  debts  caused  all  these  countries 
to  go  off  the  gold  standard.  The  World  War  and  the 
chaos  resulting  from  it  really  did  the  damage  and 
brought  about  the  maldistribution  of  gold.  But  once 
the  economic  and  financial  strength  of  the  world  has 
been  weakened,  the  burden  of  the  war  debts  is  suffi 
cient  to  keep  these  currencies  down.  It  is  like  a  man 
who  has  been  knocked  out  in  a  prize  fight  and  then  a 
burden  is  thrown  upon  him.  He  was  not  and  probably 
could  not  have  been  crushed  to  the  ground  by  the  bur 
den,  but  once  he  has  been  knocked  down  and  weakened, 
he  is  unable  to  rise  as  long  as  the  burden  remains  upon 
him. 

Both  payment  in  gold  and  goods  tend  to  cause  the 
currencies  of  the  foreign  countries  to  depreciate  in 
value.  If  payment  is  to  be  made  in  gold,  then  it  means 
that  we  will  drain  the  gold  from  Europe  as  we  have 
done  in  the  past  and  a  return  to  the  gold  standard  is 
impossible.  However,  this  also  affects  other  nations 
not  indebted  to  us.  These  European  creditors  of  ours 
draw  their  gold  supply  from  Oriental  and  South  Ameri 
can  countries.  In  turn  our  government  drains  it  to 
America,  causing  permanent  maldistribution  of  the 


138    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

gold  supply.  As  a  result  of  this  process  the  United 
States  already  holds  about  four  and  one-half  billions 
of  the  ©leven  billion  dollars  worth  of  gold  bullion  in  the 
word. 

Let  me  also  illustrate  how  payment  in  goods  tends  to 
depreciate  these  currencies.  You  will  remember  that 
originally  Great  Britain  had  planned  to  make  her  De 
cember  15th  payment  to  us  by  a  triangular  method  of 
trade  with  Brazil,  namely,  by  buying  up  her  coffee 
credits  in  the  United  States  amounting  to  ninety-five 
million  dollars.  But  this  necessitated  the  offering  of 
British  Pound  Sterling  upon  the  American  money  ex 
change  market— in  other  words,  buying  American  dol 
lar  exchanges  with  Pounds  Sterling.  When  this  policy 
was  announced  early  in  November,  the  Pound  stood  at 
$3.47.  The  mere  prospect  of  having  so  many  Pounds 
offered  upon  the  money  market  made  an  immediate 
decline  in  their  value.  The  Pound  dropped  to  $3.30, 
to  $3.20  and  down  until  on  November  27th,  fully  a  half 
month  before  the  payment  would  be  made,  it  fell  to  the 
lowest  point  in  its  history,  namely,  $3.14#.  Seeing 
this,  the  English  government  decided  upon  temporarily 
saving  the  situation  by  sending  us  gold  from,  her  al 
ready  almost  depleted  supply. 

Many  Americans  say,  "Well,  that's  too  bad,  but 
why  should  we  be  interested?"  The  answer  in  appar 
ent*  Because  of  their  depreciated  currencies  the  cost 
of  production  in  these  countries  has  gone  clown  and 
they  can  undersell  us.  For  instance,  1  was  recently 
near  the  Canadian  boundary.  They  told  me  there,  that 
if  an  American  went  the  border  and  threw  an 


CANCELLATION   OF   WAR  DEBTS  139 

American  dollar  on  a  Canadian  counter,  he  got  ap 
proximately  $1.15  worth  of  goods,  because  the  Cana 
dian  dollar  has  depreciated  about  fifteen  per  cent.  It 
is  quite  apparent  then  that  our  customers  will  buy 
from  these  other  countries  where  they  can  get  more  for 
their  money.  The  Canadian  dollar  has  depreciated 
only  fifteen  per  cent  but  the  British  Pound  has  gone 
down  about  thirty  per  cent  and  the  Japanese  Yen  fifty- 
five  per  cent.  These  countries  can  and  do  undersell  us. 

Here  is  an  example.  From  1931  to  1932,  the  year 
when  these  countries  suspended  the  gold  standard,  the 
exports  of  American  wheat  fell  off  by  one-third,  a  loss 
amounting  to  fifty  million  bushels  of  wheat  exports. 
While  this  wheat  was  molding  in  American  warehouses, 
Canadian  exporters,  due  to  depreciated  costs  of  produc 
tion,  increased  their  wheat  exports  by  one-third  or 
about  fifty  million  bushels.  In  other  words,  Canada 
simply  took  away  our  foreign  wheat  markets  and 
brought  unprecedented  hardship  to  our  wheat  farmer. 
Now  remember  the  same  thing  applies  to  cotton,  lum 
ber,  canned  fruits,  raisins  and  other  products.  We  say, 
cancel  these  debts,  remove  this  obstacle  and  permit  the 
American  farmer  to  sell  his  produce. 

Not  only  are  the  depreciated  currencies  ruining  our 
foreign  market,  but  they  are  demoralizing  our  domestic 
industries  as  well.  They  lower  the  cost  of  production 
abroad  to  such  an  extent  that  the  foreign  producers  can 
jump  over  our  tariff  barriers  and  undersell  us  in  our 
own  markets.  The  Japanese,  for  instance,  through  their 
depreciated  currency,  can  sell  electric  light  bulbs  at 
three  dollars  and  twelve  cents  per  hundred  on  the 


140    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

American  market  while  the  General  Electric  Company 
cannot  produce  them,  for  less  than  three  dollars  and 

seventy-two  cents.  In  other  words,  the  Japanese  can 
produce  them,  ship  them  to  the  United  States,  pay  the 
tariff  duties,  make  a  good  profit  and  still  sell  them  for 

fifty  cents  per  hundred  cheaper  than  the  American 
manufacturer  can  even  produce  them.  The  Literary 
Digest  makes  an  estimate— a  thing  which  it  seldom 

hazards  doing,  but  when  it  does  it  is  usually  right— that 
through  this  method  of  underselling  us,  a  million  men 

have  been  put  out  of  employment  in  the  United  States. 

Let  me  remind  you  of  one  thing:  these  nations  are 
not  wilfully  off  the  gold  standard  but  have  largely  been 
kept  off  through  these  unnatural  war  obligations.  Re 
cently  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the  Bank  of  England 
had  a  meeting  and  they  voted  almost  unanimously  that 
England  should  return  to  the  gold  standard  whenever 
such  a  course  is  possible.  We  read  in  the  January 
news-letter  of  the  National  City  Bank  bulletin,  "All  of 
the  countries  whose  currencies  arc  depreciated  and 
fluctuating  „  *  .  are  anxious  for  some  constructive  ac 
tion  to  stabilize  the  exchanges,  but  there  is  no  denying 
the  fact  that  the  war  debt  payments  are  everywhere 
regarded  as  a  menace  to  all  efforts  of  this  kind."  We 
find,  therefore,  all  evidence  indicating  that  these  na 
tions  will  return  to  their  stabilized  currencies  if  we 
will  only  make  that  possible  through  the  Cancellation 
of  the  war  debts. 

To  review,  the  collection  of  these  debts  is  placing 
three  big  obstacles  on  the  road  to  recovery;  (1)  the 
United  States  must  have  annually  an  unfavorable  bal- 


CANCELLATION   OF   WAR  DEBTS  141 

ance  of  trade  of  three  hundred  fifty  million  dollars  for 
the  next  fifty-five  years;  (2)  the  fluctuations  in  foreign 
currencies  throttle  all  international  business;  and  (3) 
the  depreciated  foreign  currencies  are  demoralizing 
both  our  foreign  and  domestic  markets.  We  submit 
that  if  these  impediments  are  removed,  business  will 
resume  its  normal  activity.  We,  therefore,  ask  you  to 
favor  the  proposition  that  the  United  States  should 
agree  to  the  Cancellation  of  the  inter-allied  war  debts. 


Second  Negative,  James  K.  Jacobs 
University  of  Southern  California 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  Now  the  entire  Affirma 
tive  case  has  been  presented,  and  we  find  that  the  Gen 
tlemen  are  interested  entirely  in  the  economics  of  the 
question.  In  fact,  Mr.  Wiens  has  told  us,  to  quote  his 
exact  words:  "We  are  interested  primarily  in  the 
United  States,  and  in  whether  or  not  it  would  hurt  us 
to  receive  payment."  Then  the  Gentlemen  went  on 
and  attempted  to  show  us  that  we  would  be  harmed  by 
payment;  they  told  us  that  there  are  only  three  ways 
of  paying  these  debts. 

In  the  first  place,  they  told  us  that  they  could  pay  if 
they  received  more  loans  from  the  United  States,  but 
they  said  that  this  method  was,  of  course,  undesirable. 
In  the  second  place,  they  told  us  that  the  nations  could 
not  pay  us  in  gold,  because  there  wasn't  enough  gold 
in  the  world,  and  because  gold  payment  would  further 
depreciate  Europe's  currencies,  and  so  this  method  of 
payment  was  invalid.  In  the  third  place,  they  declared 


142    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

that  the  only  other  method  of  payment  was  in  goods, 
and  that  we  would  have  to  Import  more  than  we  export, 

and  that  this  certainly  would  be  undesirable.  In  short 
they  asserted  that  the  only  three  methods  of  payment 
were  loans,  gold,  and  goods,  and  then  they  proceeded 
to  tell  us  how  none  of  these  methods  would  work. 

Well  now,  payment  in  loans  certainly  is  undesirable. 
The  Gentlemen  are  perfectly  right  and  we  most  heartily 

agree  with  them.  Secondly,  there  isn't  enough  gold  in 
the  world  to  pay  the  entire  debt,  so  the  Gentlemen  are 

right  again,  and  we  agree  with  them.  In  the  third 
place,  payment  in  goods  certainly  would  be  harmful 
to  the  United  States.  The  Gentlemen  are  right  again, 
and  here  again  we  agree  with  them.  But  these  are  not 
the  only  methods  of  payment.  Ladies  and  Gentlemen. 
What  our  opponents  have  done  is  simply  this:  Mr. 
Avakian  has  come  out  upon  the  platform  and  given  us 
three  methods  of  payment,  and  then  he  proceeded  to 
tell  us  how  each  method  was  invalid;  in  other  words, 
what  he  really  did  was  to  builcl  up  a  Negative  case, 
and  then  turn  around  and  tear  it  down.  In  short,  Mr. 
Avakian  built  up  a  straw  man  for  himself,  and  then 
proceeded  to  knock  it  clown.  He  might  just  as  logically 
have  argued  that  there  were  only  two  methods  of  pay 
ment:  canary  birds  and  goldfish;  and  that  they  couldn't 
pay  in  canary  birds  because  they  couldn't  fly  across  the 
ocean,  and  they  couldn't  pay  In  goldfish  because  they 
couldn't  swim  that  far.  And  so  Mr,  Jones  and  I  have 
enjoyed  refereeing  the  debate  between  Mr.  Avakian 
and  himself*  and  now  we  would  to  have  him  debate 
us  for  a  change* 


CANCELLATION   OF   WAR  DEBTS  143 

Now  then,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  debtor  nations  can 
pay  us  without  any  of  the  evils  which  Mr.  Avakian 
has  suggested.  Now  the  Gentleman  has  given  you  as 
proof  of  his  statement  that  the  nations  can't  pay,  the 
fact  that  we  have  a  favorable  balance  of  trade.  Well 
now,  of  course  we  have  a  favorable  balance  of  trade, 
but  that  is  not  the  point.  The  Gentlemen  are  only  tell 
ing  you  half  of  the  story  by  talking  about  the  balance 
of  trade,  for  the  ability  of  a  debtor  nation  to  pay  is  not 
alone  dependent  upon  the  balance  of  trade  as  the  Af 
firmative  would  have  you  believe.  Now  we  should  like 
to  tell  you  the  whole  story. 

The  ability  of  a  debtor  nation  to  pay  is  dependent 
upon  the  balance  of  payments  of  that  debtor,  as  is  the 
ability  of  a  creditor  nation  to  receive.  Now  the  balance 
of  payments  is  composed  of  all  the  financial  trans 
actions  between  the  nations  and  the  United  States.  In 
other  words,  it  includes  such  items  as  commodities, 
tourist  expenditures,  immigrant  remittances,  move 
ments  of  capital,  and  so  on.  Now  in  order  for  a  debtor 
nation  to  pay,  she  must  have  a  favorable  balance  of 
international  payments,  while  a  creditor  nation  must 
have  an  unfavorable  balance.  With  these  facts  in 
mind,  let  us  examine  the  United  States'  Balance  of 
Payments  for  the  past  several  years.  We  have  here 
Bulletin  803  of  the  United  States  Department  of  Com 
merce  for  1931,  giving  the  balance  of  international  pay 
ments  for  the  past  ten  years.  Turning  to  page  77,  we 
find  that  in  1931  we  had  an  unfavorable  balance  of 
one  hundred  twenty-four  millions,  in  1930  an  unfavor 
able  balance  of  three  hundred  twenty-three  millions, 


144    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

1929  unfavorable  one  hundred  seventeen  millions,  1928 
unfavorable  three  hundred  twenty  millions,  and  so  on 
back  through  the  years.  Now  let  us  look  at  the  other 
side  of  the  picture,  the  debtor  nations. 

On  page  583  of  the  World  Almanac  of  1933  we  find 
that  in  1930  Great  Britain,  one  of  our  two  major 
debtors,  had  a  favorable  balance  of  payments  amount 
ing  to  twenty-eight  million  pounds;  in  1929  a  favorable 
balance  of  one  hundred  three  million  pounds,  and  so 
forth  on  back  through  the  years,  while  Moody's  Index 
of  Investments  states  that  the  other  debtors,  France, 
Belgium,  and  Italy,  have  all  had  a  favorable  balance 
of  payments  for  the  past  several  years.  So  we  find 
that  in  the  first  place,  the  United  States  has  an  un 
favorable  balance  of  payments,  and  the  debtor  nations 
have  a  favorable  balance.  In  short,  all  of  the  condi 
tions  needed  to  pay  these  debts  exist  at  the  present 
time,  and  the  nations  can  pay  without  the  harm  which 
the  Affirmative  has  suggested.  For  example,  the  debts 
may  be  paid  in  this  manner. 

At  the  present  time,  the  United  States  buys  certain 
goods  from  Europe,  and  invests  a  certain  amount  In 
factories  in  Europe.  In  order  to  pay  for  these  goods 
and  factories  now?  we  must  secure  dollar  credits  in 
Europe;  briefly,  we  must  transfer  dollar  credits  from 
the  United  States  to  Europe.  But  if  the  nations  pay 
us,  we  already  have  the  credits  in  Europe  to  pay  for 
these  factories  and  goods  which  we  already  arc  buying 
regardless  of  the  debt  situation,  HO  all  we  have  to  do  is 
simply  use  our  credits  which  are  already  over  there 
instead  of  transferring  more  dollar  credits  from  the 


CANCELLATION   OF   WAR  DEBTS  145 

United  States  to  Europe.  In  other  words,  we  can  be 
paid  without  loans,  without  gold,  and  without  import 
ing  any  more  foreign  goods  than  we  are  now  receiving; 
that  is,  we  can  receive  payments  without  any  of  the 
evils  suggested  by  the  Affirmative. 

Now  there  is  another  perfectly  good  method  of  pay 
ment  which  also  was  overlooked  by  Mr.  Avakian  and 
Mr.  Wiens  in  building  their  Negative  case.  This  is  the 
proposal  of  ex-President  Hoover,  President  Roosevelt, 
and  ex-Secretary  of  the  Treasury  Ogden  Mills,  a  pro 
posal  sometimes  known  as  the  Hoover-Mills  Plan.  Un 
der  this  plan,  foreign  currencies  would  be  deposited  in 
foreign  banks  to  the  credit  of  the  United  States  to  be 
used  by  American  tourists,  investors,  merchants,  and 
so  on.  For  example,  if  Mr.  Avakian  were  going  to 
travel  in  England,  instead  of  taking  over  American 
money,  having  it  transferred,  and  spending  it,  he  would 
buy  notes  from  our  government  which  would  entitle 
him  to  use  an  equal  amount  of  our  credit  which  is  al 
ready  in  Europe.  So  you  see,  we  have  given  you  defi 
nite  statistics  and  facts  showing  you  exactly  how  these 
debts  can  be  paid  without  any  subsequent  evils. 

But  even  if  Mr.  Jones  and  I  had  come  out  and  ad 
mitted  that  the  nations  couldn't  pay;  even  if  we  hadn't 
mentioned  the  Gentlemen's  objections  to  payment,  the 
Affirmative  case  would  still  fall  for  the  following  rea 
sons.  You  will  recall  that  the  Affirmative  admitted 
that  we  are  debating  complete  and  outright  Cancella 
tion.  In  other  words,  the  opposition  must  prove  that 
all  of  the  debts  should  be  cancelled  in  the  near  future. 
So  if  we  can  show  you  that  any  of  this  debt  can  be  paid, 


146    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

the  Affirmative  case,  since  it  must  support  complete 
Cancellation,  will  be  invalid.  Well  now,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  Europe  has  already  offered  to  make  a  two  billion 
dollar  cash  payment,  thus  settling  for  a  dime  on  the 
dollar.  She  has  admitted  she  can  pay,  she  can  transfer, 
she  will  pay,  and  we  can  receive.  Now  if  Mr.  Jones 
and  I  hadn't  even  given  you  any  method  of  paying  the 
whole  debt  as  we  did;  even  if  we  hadn't  touched  upon 
the  point,  the  Affirmative  case  in  supporting  complete 
Cancellation  would  still  be  invalid  until  they  proved 
very  definitely  why  we  should  not  receive  the  cash 
payment  of  two  billion  dollars  that  has  been  offered 
and  that  can  admittedly  be  paid  without  harm.  Until 
the  Affirmative  proves  just  exactly  why  we  should  not 
accept  the  two  billion  dollars  in  the  face  of  a  huge 
treasury  deficit,  their  case  for  complete  Cancellation 
will  not  be  substantiated,  and  we  await  evidence  that 
the  two  billions  should  be  refused. 

Furthermore,  even  if  we  hadn't  given  any  method  of 
payment  and  had  also  neglected  the  cash  payment,  the 
debts  should  not  be  cancelled  just  as  long  as  there  is  a 
chance  that  the  nations  might  be  able  to  pay  some  day 
and  that  we  might  be  able  to  receive,  „  .  .  Just  that 
long  we  should  not  cancel  the  debts.  In  other  words, 
if  we  had  admitted  that  the  debts  could  not  possibly 
be  paid  today,  the  debts  still  should  not  be  cancelled, 
because  we  have  no  way  of  telling  that  at  future 
date  conditions  would  not  be  favorable  to  payment. 
For  instance,  we  may  have  a  war  with  Japan  sometime 
and  need  materials  from  Europe;  conditions  may  be 
such  that  we  will  need  gold  services;  or,  far  more 


CANCELLATION  OF   WAR  DEBTS  147 

probable,  trade  balances  may  be  reversed.  At  least 
we  must  all  admit  the  possibility,  and  just  as  long  as 
this  possibility  remains,  we  should  not  cancel  the  debts 
for  we  are  just  throwing  away  twenty  billions  of  dollars. 

Instead,  we  could  have  an  indefinite  moratorium  on 
all  principal  and  interest  until  such  time  as  they  could 
pay.  In  this  way  we  would  at  least  have  a  good  chance 
of  repayment,  and  in  the  meantime  satisfy  the  Affirma 
tive  by  giving  them  all  the  so-called  benefits  they  have 
claimed  for  Cancellation,  and  by  removing  the  asserted 
evils  of  collection.  So,  even  if  we  disregarded  the 
definite  methods  of  payment  we  have  given  you,  and 
the  two  billion  dollar  cash  payment,  the  Affirmative  has 
still  not  proved  its  case  until  it  shows  exactly  how 
Cancellation  is  preferable  to  this  indefinite  moratorium. 
We  await  the  Affirmative's  proof  on  this  point. 

In  conclusion  we  have  shown  you  that  the  United 
States  has  an  unfavorable  balance  of  payments  and 
the  debtors  have  a  favorable  balance,  thus  allowing 
payment  without  any  of  the  Affirmative's  asserted  evils 
which  they  brought  out  in  answer  to  their  own  model 
of  what  the  well  made  Negative  case  should  be.  We 
have  shown  how  we  could  be  paid  under  the  Hoover- 
Mills  proposal.  We  have  shown  that  the  Affirmative 
has  not  substantiated  its  case  until  it  proves  exactly 
why  we  should  not  accept  the  two  billions  of  cash  pay 
ment  already  offered.  And  finally  we  have  demon 
strated  that  until  the  Gentlemen  prove  why  Cancella 
tion  is  preferable  to  an  Indefinite  moratorium,  they 
have  not  fully  upheld  the  Affirmative  burden  of  com 
plete  and  outright  Cancellation, 


148    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

First  Negative  Rebuttal,  F.  Clinton  Jones 
University  of  Southern  California 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN;  Now  let  us  take  up  the 
arguments  presented  by  Mr.  Avakian  and  Mr.  Wiens, 
and  see  just  where  and  how  they  have  been  met  by  the 
Negative  case,  or  how  they  fall  invalid  when  analyzed. 

Mr.  Avakian  in  his  constructive  argument,  took  up 
in  detail  three  methods  by  which  the  debts  might  be 
paid,  and  showed  you  how  each  of  these  three  was  un 
desirable  or  impracticable.  And  then  Mr.  Jacobs,  my 
colleague,  in  answering  his  speech,  showed  you  that 
we  need  not  accept  loans,  gold,  or  goods  as  the  only 
methods  of  payment.  As  he  told  you,  of  course  to 
continue  the  policy  of  loaning  Europe  money  with 
which  to  pay  is  a  foolish  and  undesirable  plan;  of 
course  there  is  not  enough  gold  In  the  world  with  which 
to  pay;  and  of  course  payment  in  goods  would  flood 
our  markets  with  cheap  foreign  products,  and  bring 
further  disaster  to  American  industry* 

But  then  my  colleague  went  on  to  show  you  that 
there  are  other  ways  by  which  the  debts  may  be  paid 
without  these  detriments  suggested  by  the  Affirmative. 
He  presented  you  with  the  figures  of  the  United  States 
Department  of  Commerce,  showing  that  the  United 
States  has  had  an  unfavorable  balance  of  international 
payments  for  the  past  ten  years,  that  is,  she  yearly 
owes  Europe  more  then  Europe  owes  her,  and  that 
therefore,  the  debtor  nations  already  have  the  credits 
with  which  to  make  the  debt  installments.  Then  he 
offered  the  Hoover-Mills  proposal  for  payment! 


CANCELLATION  OF  WAR  DEBTS  149 

whereby  foreign  currencies  could  be  deposited  in  for 
eign  banks  to  the  credit  of  the  United  States,  and  could 
be  drawn  upon  by  American  tourists,  or  used  to  satisfy 
business  transactions  in  the  debtor  nations,  thus  form 
ing  another  means  by  which  the  war  debt  obligations 
could  be  met.  Following  that,  Mr.  Jacobs  pointed  out 
that  the  debtor  nations  had  already  offered  to  make  a 
lump  sum  payment  of  two  billion  dollars  to  the  United 
States,  and  that  we  certainly  should  not  cancel  the 
debts  when  they  had  made  such  an  offer,  which  shows 
that  they  must  be  able  to  pay.  Thus  we  see  that  there 
are  several  ways  that  may  be  used  in  paying  the  war 
debts,  and  therefore  the  arguments  of  Mr.  Avakian 
fail  to  establish  his  point  that  the  transfer  problem  can 
not  be  solved. 

Mr.  Wiens  then  came  upon  the  platform  and  pro 
ceeded  to  answer  my  constructive  argument  by  declar 
ing  that  the  main  consideration  in  this  contest  is  that 
of  economic  laws,  and  that  my  argument  proving  we 
are  morally  justified  in  demanding  payment  is  not  a 
valid  or  relevant  point  in  this  debate.  Now  if  the 
judges  will  examine  their  ballots  they  will  find  a  sen 
tence  in  the  instructions  reading:  "It  is  the  duty  of  the 
two  teams  in  the  debate  to  meet  each  other's  argu 
ments,  and  they  have  performed  their  duties  when  they 
have  done  so."  Now  we  of  the  Negative  brought  forth 
the  argument  that  the  United  States  is  morally  justified 
in  demanding  payment  of  the  war  debts.  This  is  an 
argument  against  Cancellation,  and  it  is  the  duty  of 
the  Affirmative  to  meet  this  argument,  according  to 
the  judge's  instructions.  But  the  Gentlemen  of  the 


ISO    THE  YEAH  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

Opposition  have  failed  to  do  so,  and  therefore  our  first 
issue  still  stands.  Of  course  we  have  to  meet  the  Af 
firmative  points,  but  that  is  no  reason  why  we  cannot 

bring  up  Negative  arguments  as  well. 

To  continue  In  meeting  the  Affirmative's  arguments, 
now,  we  find  that  Mr.  Wiens  painted  for  us  a  picture 
of  a  world  of  unstable  and  depreciated  currencies.  He 
told  us  that  due  to  instability  of  foreign  currencies,  con 
fidence  was  being  lost;  that  American  tariff  walls  were 
being  evaded  through  depreciated  currencies;  that  pay 
ments  in  gold  were  aiding  instability.  He  said,  "If  we 
can  remove  the  impediments  of  unstable  currencies,  de 
preciated  currencies,  we  can  revive  our  world  trade. 
The  war  debts  act  as  a  burden;  remove  them,  and 
world  trade  will  increase/3  Now  this  whole  argument 
is  based  on  the  false  assumption  that  the  war  debts 
constitute  some  huge  colossus  which  is  completely  dis 
rupting  world  trade.  In  1929  world  trade  aggregated 
sixty-eight  billions;  in  1930,  some  fifty-five  billions;  in 
1931,  thirty-nine  billions,  The  foreign  trade  of  the 
United  States  in  1930  amounted  to  four  billions.  Now 
the  annual  war  debt  installments  amount  to  only  about 
two  hundred  fifty  millions.  Thus  the  Gentlemen  tell 
us  that  the  war  debts,  not  even  a  drop  in  the  bucket  in 
comparison  with  our  foreign  trade,  or  world  trade,  if 
cancelled,  will  bring  back  a  great  increase  In  world 
trade.  Obviously,  the  war  debts  are  too  small  a  part 
of  that  trade  to  make  any  material  difference,  and 
therefore,  the  second  Affirmative  argument  is  found  in 
valid  upon  examination*  We  have  taken  up  the  argu» 


CANCELLATION   OE   WAR  DEBTS  151 

ments  of  the  Affirmative,  one  by  one,  and  shown  you 
that  they  are  unsound  in  this  debate. 


First  Affirmative  Rebuttal,  Henry  W.  Wiens 
Fresno  State  Teachers  College 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  The  Gentlemen  of  the 
Negative  tell  us  that  these  war  debts  constitute  but  a 
very  small  part  of  all  our  international  trade  and  thus 
could  not  affect  our  international  commerce  to  any 
appreciable  degree.  If  they  are  really  so  small,  we  are 
surprised  that  the  Negative  is  so  vehemently  opposed 
to  cancelling  them.  However,  we  will  admit  that  rela 
tively  they  are  pretty  small,  but  even  at  that  they  do 
have  a  vital  effect  upon  our  international  and  domestic 
trade.  Most  of  you  have  read  lumberjack  stories. 
While  logs  were  floated  down  a  river,  they  would  occa 
sionally  jam.  It  was  often  found  that  the  whole  jam 
was  caused  by  two  or  three  insignificant  logs  in  key 
positions  which  got  stuck.  When  they  were  removed 
the  whole  mass  would  float  down  the  river  again.  An 
other  illustration.  You  remember  the  Battle  of  Ther 
mopylae  in  which  a  handful  of  Spartans  held  back  a 
whole  army.  Why?  Because  they  were  in  a  narrow 
pass — a  key  position*  Even  so  the  war  debts  consti 
tute  but  a  small  item  of  the  total  international  trade, 
but  they  are  obstacles  in  key  positions  on  the  road  to 
recovery.  If  you  remove  these  obstacles  you  make 
possible  a  return  to  normal  business  activity. 

Now  it  seems  that  the  Gentlemen  of  the  Negative 
have  taken  it  upon  themselves  to  instruct  the  judges 


152    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

how  to  vote  In  this  contest.  We,  however,  have  no 
instructions  for  the  judges — we  believe  they  have 
enough  intelligence  of  their  own  to  take  care  of  that. 

Furthermore,  the  Gentlemen  from  Southern  Cali 
fornia  told  us  we  have  set  up  three  straw  men  and  then 
proceeded  to  knock  them  down.  In  other  words,  they 
assert  there  are  other  methods  of  payment  besides 
loans,  gold?  and  goods  and  services,  but  let  us  examine 
these  methods  of  payment  and  see  how  they  would 
affect  the  United  States. 

Their  first  method  is  through  the  crossing  off  of  sur 
plus  credits  which  these  nations  have  with  us.  They 
told  you  that  figures  on  Page  77  of  Bulletin.  808  issued 
by  the  Department  of  Commerce  show  that  the  United 
States  has  had  an  unfavorable  balance  of  trade  with 
these  debtors  ever  since  192L  We  wish  to  direct  your 
attention  to  the  fact  that  considering  all  visible  and  in 
visible  items  of  trade,  the  United  States  actually  had  a 
favorable  balance  of  trade  in  all  these  years,  Moulton 
and  Pasvolski  in  their  book  on  the  war  debts  say  that 
in  eight  years  of  this  period  we  had  a  favorable  balance 
amounting  to  four  billion  dollars.  It  was  only  through 
the  tremendously  large  private  loans  made  by  Ameri 
cans  to  these  nations  which  make  those  figures  which 
they  quoted  appear  as  If  we  had  an  unfavorable  bal 
ance  of  trade.  And  so?  if  our  debtors  paid  us  through 
this  method,  namely,  by  crossing  off  surplus  credits, 
they  would  actually  be  paying  by  making  further  loans 
from  us,  which  would,  of  course,  be  harmful. 

Now  let  us  consider  their  second  proposal,  the 
Hoover-Mills  method.  Through  this  means,  although 


CANCELLATION   OF   WAR  DEBTS  153 

the  Negative  has  not  fully  explained  it,  these  nations 
would  create  credits  in  their  countries  for  our  use  at 
some  future  time.  That's  rather  indefinite.  But  even 
this  must  be  paid  in  gold,  goods  or  services.  Now  if 
this  money  is  kept  in  their  countries  for  some  future 
use,  they  must  either  pay  interest  upon  the  debt  or 
compound  the  interest.  If  they  pay  interest,  it  must 
be  paid  in  gold,  goods  or  services.  And  if  they  com 
pound  it — well,  I  guess  you  all  know  that  compound 
interest  will  kill  anything  in  time.  Perhaps  you  have 
heard  of  the  fact  that  if  a  penny  had  been  deposited  at 
four  per  cent  interest  at  the  birth  of  Christ,  the  com 
pound  interest  would  today  amount  to  a  lump  of  gold 
several  times  the  size  of  this  world.  So,  the  Hoover- 
Mills  method  of  payment  means  that  the  principal  plus 
interest  must  be  paid  in  gold,  goods  or  services. 

Finally,  they  tell  us  that  if  all  other  methods  fail, 
then  we  should  not  cancel  because  we  might  need  the 
money  or  goods  in  some  future  emergency  such  as  a 
war  with  Japan  or  a  disaster.  It  seems  the  Negative 
is  going  to  be  sitting  around  waiting  for  a  national 
disaster.  Remember,  however,  that  if  our  debtors  kept 
this  money  the  same  problem  of  how  to  pay  the  interest 
or  compound  it  would  arise  as  it  would  under  the 
Hoover-Mills  method  of  payment  and  this  would  defeat 
their  whole  plan.  It  would  inevitably  lead  to  the  pay 
ment  of  gold,  goods  or  services.  Furthermore,  by  using 
such  an  argument  they  have  virtually  admitted  that 
their  other  methods  would  not  work  and  that  they  are 
suggesting  this  as  a  means  of  last  resort. 

Since  there  is  no  method  of  payment  which  would 


154    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

not  be  harmful  to  the  United  States  and  since  Cancella 
tion  would  remove  some  of  the  obstacles  in  the  way  of 
recovery,  we  ask  you  to  agree  with  us  that  the  United 
States  should  cancel  these  debts. 


Second  Negative  Rebuttal,  James  1C  Jacobs 

University  of  Southern  California 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN;  Mr.  Jones  and  I  have 
taken  the  major  contentions  of  the  Affirmative  in  this 
debate  and  have  shown  you  that  they  cannot  be  con 
sidered  valid  arguments  in  favor  of  Cancellation,  Now 
let  us  consider  the  Negative's  case  in  the  light  of  the 
attacks  which  the  Gentlemen  have  made  upon  it. 

In  the  first  place,  you  will  remember  that  Mr.  Jones' 
first  point  was  that  these  debtor  nations  are  morally 
obligated  to  pay  us*  Then  Mr.  Avakian  came  upon  the 
scene  and  said,  to  quote  him  exactly:  "We  wish  to 
admit  that  they  are  morally  and  legally  obligated  to 
pay;  whether  they  are  or  not  h  entirely  irrelevant  in 
this  debate."  Well,  Mr.  Jones  already  has  told  you 
that  just  because  the  Affirmative  does  not  wish  to  dis 
cuss  the  moral  issue  is  no  logical  reason  why  it  is  not  a 
valid  point  in  opposition  to  Cancellation.  Obviously, 
any  argument  tending  to  show  that  the  debts  should  not 
be  cancelled  is  a  perfectly  sound  point  until  the  Gentle 
men  of  the  Affirmative  answer  it,  and  Mr.  Wiens  and 
Mr,  Avakian  cannot  refute  it  simply  by  telling  us  that 
they  aren't  interested  and  that  they  admit  It,  Const*** 
quently,  this  point  still  stands  unrelated  in  favor  of 
the  Negative. 


CANCELLATION  OF  WAR  DEBTS  155 

In  the  second  place,  Mr.  Jones  showed  you  that 
Cancellation  would  transfer  a  burden  of  twenty  billions 
of  dollars  to  the  American  taxpayer.  In  answer  to  this 
point,  the  first  Gentleman  said:  "Of  course  we  will  lose 
twenty  billion  dollars,  but  if  Cancellation  will  remove 
the  impediments  of  trade  recovery,  there  need  be  no 
increase  in  taxes."  //  Cancellation  will  remove  the 
impediments  of  trade  recovery!  You  see,  Ladies  and 
Gentlemen,  the  Affirmative  answer  to  this  point  is 
based  entirely  on  the  word  "if"  Now  when  we  cancel, 
we  lose  the  twenty  billions,  as  Mr.  Jones  has  told  you. 
There  is  no  "if"  about  this.  But  how  do  we  know  that 
foreign  trade  will  increase  suddenly  if  we  cancel  the 
debts?  Of  this  we  have  no  assurance,  and  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  all  of  the  evidence  tends  to  prove  that  the  re 
sult  will  be  the  very  opposite.  For  this  we  have  the 
very  best  of  precedents.  In  1932,  the  year  following 
the  Hoover  moratorium,  which  virtually  amounted  to  a 
one  year  Cancellation,  our  foreign  trade,  instead  of 
increasing  as  the  Affirmative  contend  it  would,  actually 
decreased  three  hundred  twenty-five  million  dollars. 
Europe,  instead  of  using  the  money  we  had  released  to 
purchase  our  goods,  immediately  rushed  over  to  Russia, 
the  cut-rate  store  of  Europe,  and  used  our  money  to 
buy  Russian  goods. 

Now  we  know  we  are  going  to  lose  twenty  billions  if 
we  cancel;  the  Affirmative  has  admitted  this.  Since 
we  know  we  will  lose  this  amount,  we  must  likewise 
know  that  we  will  gain  the  amount  back  in  increased 
trade  profits  if  the  Gentlemen's  claim  of  a  benefit  is  to 
be  valid.  And  so,  the  fact  remains,  admitted  by  the 


1S6    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

Affirmative,  that  Cancellation  will  impose  a  twenty 
billion  dollar  burden  on  the  American  taxpayer. 

In  the  third  place,  I  showed  you  that  the  debtor 
nations  have  a  favorable  balance  of  payments  and  that 
the  United  States  has  an  unfavorable  one,  so  that  the 
nations  already  have  at  their  disposal  the  credits  with 
which  to  pay  us,  so  that  we  could  receive  without  any 
harm.  The  Gentlemen  have  answered  this  point  by 
saying  that  we  have  "told  them  something  vague  about 
the  balance  of  payments,"  and  that  Moulton  and  Pas- 
volsky  say  that  we  have  a  favorable  balance  of  trade. 
Well  of  course  we  have  a  favorable  balance  of  trade; 
the  Gentlemen  are  only  considering  one-half  of  the  story 
and  are  leaving  out  the  invisible  items  such  as  tourist 
expenditures,  immigrant  remittances,  interest  pay 
ments,  etc.  When  we  Include  these  Items,  we  have  an 
unfavorable  balance  of  payments,  and  this  is  what  we 
must  consider,  not  merely  one  item,  trade.  So  we  see 
that  this  fact  that  the  debtors  can  pay  has  not  been 
touched  and  hence  still  stands  In  this  debate. 

Then  1  showed  you  another  feasible  means  of  pay 
ment,  namely  the  Hoover-Mills  proposal  The  gentle 
men  have  totally  ignored  the  point,  and  so  this  method 
also  stands  untouched  by  the  Affirmative  speakers. 

In  the  fifth  place,  you  will  recall  that  I  pointed  out 
that  the  European  nations  already  have  agreed  to  settle 
by  paying  us  two  billion  dollars  in  cash,  and  that  In 
order  to  establish  complete  Cancellation,  the  Affirma 
tive  would  have  to  show  why  we  should  not  receive 
this  payment.  Mr.  Wicns  answered  tlih  fact  by  in 
forming  us  that  our  arguments  were  becoming  weaker, 


CANCELLATION  OF   WAR  DEBTS  157 

but  while  he  was  telling  us  that  this  was  a  weak  point, 
he  overlooked  refuting  it;  in  fact,  he  failed  to  say  any 
thing  else  about  it.  So  this  payment  of  two  billion 
dollars  still  stands  valid  in  this  debate,  a  challenge  to 
the  Affirmative  to  prove  why  we  shouldn't  accept  it. 

Finally,  we  pointed  out  that  even  if  we  hadn't  given 
any  feasible  methods  of  payment,  just  as  long  as  there 
is  ever  a  chance  of  payment,  we  should  have  an  in 
definite  moratorium  in  lieu  of  Cancellation.  All  Mr. 
Wiens  said  about  this  point  was  that  we  would  "have 
to  prove  that  we  will  have  prosperity  some  day."  Well 
now,  obviously,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen,  if  the  speakers 
on  the  other  side  insist  that  Cancellation  is  preferable 
to  this  indefinite  moratorium,  it  is  their  duty  to  show 
that  we  will  never  have  prosperity,  not  that  we  will 
have  it.  Besides,  we  pointed  out  emergencies  in  which 
we  could  be  paid,  such  as  wars,  floods,  or  changed 
balances  of  trade,  depleted  gold  reserves,  etc.  So  the 
Gentlemen  have  not  yet  proved  wherein  Cancellation  is 
preferable  to  the  indefinite  moratorium,  and  the  Af 
firmative  must  show  us  exactly  wherein  Cancellation  is 
preferable  to  the  indefinite  moratorium. 

So  we  find  that  the  moral  argument  has  been  ad 
mitted;  we  find  that  the  Gentlemen's  only  answer  to 
the  twenty  billion  dollar  burden,  which  they  admitted, 
was  based  upon  an  "if";  we  find  that  the  two  methods 
of  payment  which  we  have  advanced  have  not  been 
answered;  the  Gentlementhave  not  yet  told  us  why  we 
should  not  receive  the  two  billion  dollars  which  already 
has  been  offered,  and  please  remember  that  they  must 
show  this  in  meeting  the  burden  of  complete  Cancella- 


158    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

tion.  Finally,  they  have  not  shown  wherein  Cancella 
tion  is  preferable  to  an  indefinite  moratorium,  a 
proposal  which  also  stands  as  a  challenge  to  Mr.  Ava- 
Man.  So  we  have  taken  the  Affirmative  case  point  by 
point,  and  the  Negative  case  has  been  reset  point  by 
point;  and  these  now  stand  as  a  challenge  to  Mr. 
Avakian  to  answer  them. 


Second  Affirmative  Rebuttal,  Spurgeon  Avakian 
Fresno  State  Teachers  College 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  If  you  will  not  be  bored 
by  further  reference  to  Department  of  Commerce 
Bulletin  No.  803  ?  I  would  like  to  correct  the  statements 
made  by  the  Gentleman  who  just  left  the  floor.  The 

figures  to  which  he  has  referred  on  page  77  making 
a  balance  of  international  payments  against  the  United 

States  deal  with  loans  and  investments;  and  we  do  not 
see  why  he  has  mentioned  them,  since  he  has  admitted 
his  opposition  to  payment  through  loans. 

However^  on  Page  76,  which  IB  just  opposite  Page 
773  are  given  the  balances  of  trade  for  the  United 
States  for  every  year  since  1922*  The  table  shows  a 
favorable  balance  of  trade  for  each  of  the  years  from 
1922  to  1931,  The  totals  given  represent  all  of  the 
visible  and  invisible  items  which  enter  into  the  balance 
of  trade;  and,  if  the  Gentlemen  will  follow  me  in  their 
copy  of  the  bulletin,  1  will  read  to  you  the  amount  of 
the  favorable  balance  for  each  year  in  order,  starting 
with  1922:  557  million,  208  million,  802  million,  S13 
million,  20S  million,  588  million,  658  million,  277  mil- 


CANCELLATION   OF   WAR  DEBTS  159 

lion,  713  million,  2 57  million.  Now  how  can  the  Gen 
tlemen  conclude  from  this  bulletin  that  the  United 
States  has  had  an  unfavorable  balance  of  trade  during 
any  of  these  years  or  an  unfavorable  balance  of  inter 
national  payments  when  that  is  accomplished  only  by 
including  our  loans  to  Europe? 

You  will  remember  that  Mr.  Jacobs  told  you  that 
"of  course,  payment  through  loans  will  hurt  us,"  and 
"of  course,  payment  through  gold  will  hurt  us,"  and 
"of  course,  payment  through  goods  will  hurt  us."  He 
then  proposed  the  Hoover-Mills  plan,  with  which  I 
shall  deal  in  just  a  moment. 

Since  he  has  so  emphatically  made  all  these  state 
ments,  then  all  that  remains  for  us  to  show  is  that  the 
debts  can  be  paid  only  in  these  three  ways  which  he 
has  admitted  are  injurious  to  the  United  States.  All 
of  the  economists  in  the  world — with  the  possible  ex 
ception  of  the  Gentlemen  of  the  Negative — are  agreed 
that,  basically,  there  are  but  three  methods  of  payment. 
These  are,  as  we  have  said,  loans,  gold,  and  goods  and 
services. 

Now  let  us  consider  the  Hoover-Mills  plan  and  see 
just  where  it  leads  us.  This  plan  would  allow  the 
debtor  nations  to  pay  us  by  establishing  credits  in  their 
own  countries  and  placing  these  credits  at  the  disposal 
of  the  United  States  Government.  As  Mr.  Wiens  has 
.pointed  out  already,  if  we  are  to  collect  interest  on 
these  debts,  we  can  do  so  only  by  shipping  either  gold 
or  goods  into  this  country — but  the  Gentlemen  have 
admitted  that  payment  in  either  gold  or  goods  will  be 
harmful  to  the  United  States. 


160    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

Furthermore,  if  we  are  to  use  these  credits,  the  only 
thing  we  can  do  with  them  is  to  use  them  in  buying 
goods  in  the  foreign  countries— but  this  is  payment  in 
goods,  a  thing  which  the  Gentlemen  have  admitted  to 

be  detrimental  to  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Jacobs  has  suggested  that  the  United  States 
government  sell  these  credits  to  American  tourists  who 
travel  abroad.  Let  us  see  what  this  would  mean-  At 

the  present  time,  the  expenditures  which  our  tourists 

make  abroad  are  recorded  on  the  balance  sheet  of 
international  trade  as  an  invisible  import  into  the 

United  States.    Remember  that  over  a  long  period  of 

years,  our  exports  and  imports  have  to  balance  each 
other.  If  our  tourists  use  these  credits,  then  they  will 

no  longer  meet  their  expenses  by  buying  up  inter 
national  exchange;  which  is  just  another  way  of  say 
ing  that  tourist  expenditures  will  no  longer  be  recorded 
as  one  of  our  invisible  imports.  In  other  words,  this 

plan  would  extract  one  of  the  items  from  the  Import 
side  of  our  trade  balance* 

But  when  we  decrease  the  import  side  of  the  ledger 
by  pulling  out  one  of  the  items,  then  one  of  two  things 
must  happen;  either  we  must  increase  our  imports 
among  the  other  import  items,  or  we  must  decrease  our 
exports,  so  that  the  trade  balance  will  be  even  again. 
If  we  decrease  our  exports^  then  we  injure  our  own 
industry  by  curtailing  trade;  if  we  Increase  our  Im 
ports  along  other  llne%  then  we  have  received  payment 
in  goods.  No  matter  whether  you  decrease  exports  or 
increase  imports,  the  payment  h  through  an 

Import  surplus  of  goods—a  thing  which  we 


CANCELLATION  OF  WAR  DEBTS  161 

and  the  Gentlemen  have  admitted,  to  be  detrimental  to 
the  United  States. 

Thus  we  see  that  the  Hoover-Mills  plan  reduces  itself 
to  nothing  more  than  a  payment  in  goods.  And  since 
the  Gentlemen  of  the  Negative  have  so  definitely  and 
emphatically  agreed  that  payment  in  goods  will  harm 
us,  we  submit  that  the  United  States  should  cancel  the 
debts. 

Now  we  have  disposed  of  all  the  Negative  arguments 
advanced  in  this  debate  with  the  exception  of  the  point 
made  by  Mr.  Jones  that  these  nations  are  morally 
obligated  to  pay  the  United  States.  Mr.  Jones  saw  fit 
to  spend  seven  minutes  in  proving  this,  despite  the  fact 
that  we  had  admitted  the  point  before  the  debate  was 
two  minutes  old.  Obviously,  even  though  we  may  be 
morally  justified  in  demanding  payment,  we  should  not 
collect  the  debts  if  we  can  gain  more  by  cancelling 
them. 

Thus,  we  of  the  Affirmative,  having  shown  you  that 
collection  will  injure  our  own  industry  and  labor,  and 
having  pointed  out  that  Cancellation  will  remove  one 
of  the  important  barriers  impeding  the  stabilization  of 
world  currencies  and  the  revival  of  world  trade,  believe, 
not  because  we  are  philanthropists,  not  because  we 
wish  to  bestow  charity  upon  Europe,  but  because  en 
lightened  self-interest  demands  it,  and  because  the 
United  States  will  gain  by  it,  that  the  war  debts  should 
be  cancelled. 


162         THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF   COLLEGE  DEBATING 

BIBLIOGRAPHY:   CANCELLATION  OF  WAR  DEBTS 

BOOKS 

Chew,  Oswald.—  The  Stroke  of  the  Moment,    1928.    Lippincott.    $3, 
Dexter,  P.  and  Sedgwick,  J.  R.—  War  Debts,    Macmillan.    $1.50 
Gerould,  J.  T.  and  Turnbull,  L.  S.     (Comp.)  .—Selected  Articles  on 

Interallied  Debts  and  Revision  of  the  Debt  Settlements,    1928. 

H.  W.Wilson.   $2.40. 
Johnson,  J.  E.  (Comp.).—  Cancellation  of  the  Allied  Debt.    1922.    H. 

W.  Wilson.    (Reference  Shelf.)    pa.    7Sc. 
Kuczynskl,  R.  "R.,—  American  Loans  to  Germany.     1027.    Breakings 

Institute.    $3, 
League  of  Nations.-—  Statistical  Ytar  Book.    1931-32.    Geneva.    1032. 

World  Peace  Foundation.    $3. 
Lloyd  George,  David.—  -The  Truth  About  Reparations  and  War  Debts. 

Doubleday.    $1.50. 
Moulton,  H.  G.  and  Pasvolsky,  L.—  War  Debts  and  World  Prosperity* 

1932.    Brookings  Institute.    Century  Co, 
Nichols,  R.  R,  (Editor)  ^Intercollt^mtf  Debates.    Vol.   13.     Noble 

and  Noble,  N.  Y.    1932.    (Oxford  Harvard  Debate,) 
Phelps,  E,  M.—Un*w.rsity  Dtbatts  Annual.    IW^O.    H.  W.  Wilson, 

N.  Y.    (Debate  on  Foreign  Debts  and  the  Tariff,  p.  II,) 
Phillips,  A^&c&nomlc  Aspects  0}  Reparations  and  Interallied  Debts. 

1930.    Stechert    pa*    $1,HO. 
Taylor,  Horace.—  Good  md  the  W&r  Debts*    10.12.    Colum 

bia  University  Press,    pa,    25c 
World's  Almanac,    1932.    1933, 
U,  S.  Dept,  of  Commerce,     Tratlr  tnforwattion  Kuiktin  No,  803, 

Supt  of  Documents,  Washington,  D.  C.    (Gov't  Printing  Office.) 

pa.    lOc. 


AK 
Catholic  World,—  -135:620,  1*131    Rthfin  of  iMumnnt  Confer* 


Christian  Century  .-~4Q:80Qt  July  20,  19^2.    WiU  Cooperate* 

49:1057,  August  Al^  !«W2.    Friers  and  JMftt 

Commonwealth.—  16:261,  July  ftt  IQ.W,  MM  Is  HI     lo:*^, 

16;,IWt  July  27,  1032.     Ifar  11$  «  Ntw  I6:.*6l, 

10,  1932, 


CANCELLATION   OF   WAR  DEBTS  163 

Contemporary  Review.— 141:791,  June  1932.    United  States  and  the 

Real  Problem.    142:1113,  July  1932.    Chain  of  Debts. 
Foreign  Affairs.— 10:529,  July  1932.    Great  Depression.    10:688,  July 

1932.    American  Interests  at  Lausanne.     11:146,  October  1932. 

Balance  Sheet  of  the  War  Debts. 

Fortnightly  Review.— 138:137,  August  1932.     Turn  of  the  Tide. 
Literary  Digest.— 114:5,  July  2,  1932,    114:3,  July  23,  1932.    114:7, 

July  30,  1932. 

Living  Age.— 343:186,  October  1932.    Tory  to  Yank. 
Nation.— 135:68,  July  27,  1932.     President  Warns  Europe.     135:48, 

July  20,  1932.    Settlement  of  Lausanne. 
National  Republic. — 20:12,  June  1932.    Cancellation  or  Chaos.  20:10, 

August  1932. 
New  Republic.— 71:247,  July  20,  1932.  End  of  Reparations.    71:273, 

July  27,  1932.    Franco-British  Accord. 
North  American  Review. — 234:327,  October  1932.    Can  Europe  Pay 

Us? 
Review  of  Reviews. — 86:21,  August  1932.    Lausanne  and  Debts  to 

America. 
Saturday  Evening  Post.— 204: 23ff.,  June  25,   1932,     What  Europe 

Wants.    205:20,  July  16,  1932.    The  Way  Back.    205:20,  August 

6,  1932.    Repudiation  or  Disarmament.    205:22,  August  13,  1932. 

Whose  Capacity  to  Pay?  205:20,  September  10,  1932.  No  Blanket 

Settlement. 
World  Tomorrow.— 15:222,  August  1932.     Is  It  Now  Our  Move? 

15:273,  September  21,  1932.    As  Brailsford  Sees  It. 
Yale  Review. — 22:78,  September  1932.    American  Stake  in  the  War 

Debts. 


WAR  DEBTS 

Delta  Sigma  Rho  Public  Discussion 
Contest 


WAR  DEBTS 

THE  DELTA   SIGMA   RHO  PUBLIC 
DISCUSSION  CONTEST 

The  public  discussion  contest  is  an  interesting  combination  of  the 
debate  and  the  contest  in  extemporaneous  speaking.  It  differs  from 
the  usual  extemporaneous  speaking  contest  in  that  all  of  the  speakers 
discuss  the  same  topic.  Since  the  topic  is  known  for  some  weeks  in 
advance,  there  is  opportunity  for  study  of  the  problem  and  a  more 
careful  preparation  of  the  speeches.  The  fact  that  all  speaking  is  on 
the  same  topic  also  makes  possible  some  testing  of  the  speaker's 
ability  to  adapt  his  arguments  to  those  made  by  the  preceding 
speakers. 

This  contest  differs  from  the  debate  in  that,  instead  of  taking  the 
Affirmative  or  the  Negative  of  a  motion,  each  speaker  is  free  to  take 
any  position  in  which  he  believes.  Thus,  a  discussion  team  of  three 
speakers  may  have  representatives  of  as  many  differing  points  of  view. 

The  originators  of  this  contest  are  not  attempting  to  supplant  the 
debate.  Rather,  they  are  attempting  to  reproduce  the  mass-meeting 
stage  in  the  development  of  public  opinion  before  sides  have  been 
taken  and  definite  measures  have  been  proposed.  The  debate  stage 
naturally  comes  later  when  the  group  is  trying  to  decide  upon  some 
course  of  action.  Then  it  is  necessary  to  frame  a  definite  proposal, 
present  Its  merits  and  demerits,  and  have  it  adopted  or  rejected  by 
the  group. 

The  following  contest  rules  may  be  of  interest.  Teams  consist  of 
three  speakers.  Each  speaker  has  seven  minutes  in  which  to  state 
his  position  and  argue  for  its  adoption  and  three  minutes  which  he 
may  use  to  refute  some  opposing  argument  or  to  restate  Ms  position. 
The  speaking  order  for  the  first  speeches  is  decided  by  lot  just  before 
the  discussion  begins.  The  three-minute  speeches  may  be  made  when 
ever  the  speaker  wishes  and  can  get  the  floor.  The  chairman  at 
tempts  to  focus  the  attention  of  the  audience  on  the  problem  itself. 

167 


168    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

At  the  conclusion  of  the  hour  members  of  the  audience  often  join  in 
an  informal  discussion. 

The  judges  for  the  contest  are  asked  to  rate  the  speakers  from 
first  to  sixth  on  the  basis  of  their  general  effectiveness.  If  it  is  de 
sired  to  eliminate  teams,  rather  than  individuals,  the  team  having  the 
low  point  score  remains  in  the  competition.  In  the  Delta  Sigma  Rho 
tournament,  the  speakers  receiving  first,  second,  and  third  places  in 
each  discussion  are  retained  and  constitute  a  team  for  the  next  round 
of  speeches.  The  six  speakers  who  appear  in  the  contest  here  re 
ported,  were  chosen  as  the  finalists  in  a  tournament  in  which  there 
were  thirty  entries. 

The  judges'  decision  gave  first  place  to  Mr.  Wirtz  of  Bcloit;  second 
to  Mr.  Kluss  of  the  University  of  Iowa  and  third  to  Mr.  Hanson  of 
Carleton  College, 


First  Speaker,  Mr.  Hanson 
Carleton  College 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  We  may  safely  assume,  I 
believe,  that  any  audience  which  has  shown  sufficient 
interest  to  come  knows  quite  well  the  fundamental 
facts;  but  just  to  renew  our  minds  briefly  let  us  con 
sider  the  origin  of  this  problem.  While  the  United 
States  was  in  the  war  we  sent  to  Europe  about  ten 
billion  dollars  in  food,  ammunition,  and  clothing,  and 
in  return  the  warring  nations  gave  us  a  promissory 
note  to  repay  at  five  per  cent  Interest.  Payments  were 
made  very  satisfactorily  until  we  came  to  the  present 
world  wide  depression.  Now  payments  are  so  difficult 
that  European  Governments  have  called  for  recon 
sideration  of  the  entire  problem.  We  do  not  believe 
cancellation  of  the  war  debts  will  bring  back  prosperity  s 
as  the  chairman  has  suggested  it  might,  But  I  believe 
that,  regardless  of  whether  "Europe  is  in  prosperity  or 


WAR  DEBTS  169 

depression,  or  regardless  of  the  condition,  the  United 
States  is  bound  to  lose  more  money  by  collection  of  the 
war  debts  than  she  gains  by  the  face  value  of  payments* 
Allow  me  to  illustrate  in  the  fashion  of  Mr.  J£sop. 

On  the  island  of  Borneo  is  a  tropical  stream,  on  one 
side  of  which  is  a  wooded  area  in  which  live  the  orang 
outangs,  the  wisest  of  all  the  animal  kingdom.  On  the 
other  side  of  the  stream  are  rolling  hills  in  which  live 
the  rhinoceroses,  and  in  the  stream  which  flows  down 
the  center  we  have  the  hippopotami.  Now,  at  one  time 
the  rhinoceroses  declared  war  on  "the  hippopotami  be 
cause  one  of  their  princesses  had  been  killed.  The 
rhinoceroses  began  running  short  of  ammunition  and 
clothing  and  went  over  to  the  orang-outangs  and  said, 
"Won't  you  send  us  over  some  supplies,"  and  the 
orang-outangs  gladly  consented  upon  this  one  condi 
tion,  that  all  loans  be  repaid  in  cocoanuts,  their  medium 
of  exchange.  The  war  was  soon  over  and  the  rhinoc 
eroses  began  to  look  around  for  cocoanuts.  To  their 
embarrassment  they  discovered  that  all  the  cocoanuts 
on  their  side  had  been  destroyed  by  the  war,  and  the 
remainder  were  in  the  land  of  the  orang-outangs.  So 
they  organized  foraging  parties  to  go  across  the  river 
and  take  cocoanuts  and  use  them  in  payment  of  their 
debts.  Unfortunately,  the  orang-outangs,  being  the 
wisest  animals  on  earth,  built  a  high  stone  wall  to  pro 
tect  those  cocoanuts.  Can  you  imagine  a  more  ago 
nizing  situation  than  being  forced  to  pay  ten  thousand 
cocoanuts  to  the  other  side  when  virtually  all  the  cocoa- 
nuts  are  over  there  already,  protected  by  a  high  stone 
Wall?  Fortunately,  the  orang-outangs,  realizing  those 


170    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

cocoanuts  could  not  be  paid,  and  valuing  the  friendship 
of  the  rhinoceroses,  cancelled  the  war  debts. 

The  United  States  today  is  a  tribe  of  orang-outangs 
troubled  with  the  collection  of  ten  billion  cocoanuts. 
We  went  to  the  debtor  countries  to  state  specifically 
that  all  debts  must  be  repaid  in  gold,  which  is  our 
medium  of  exchange.  Each  of  our  European  debtor 
nations,  except  France,  finding  it  did  not  have  the  gold 
with  which  to  meet  the  payments,  organized  a  policy 
of  foreign  trade.  But  the  United  States,  not  lacking  in 
the  cleverness  of  the  orang-outangs,  has  built  a  high 
tariff  wall  to  protect  our  gold,  so  we  have  placed  Eu 
rope  in  the  impossible  position  of  having  to  pay  ten 
billion  dollars  in  gold  to  the  United  States,  while  prac 
tically  all  the  gold  is  over  here  already  and  can  not  be 
got  without  doing  economic  harm  to  the  United  States. 

Great  Britain  is  our  largest  debtor  nation.  She  is 
off  the  gold  standard  and  yet  is  required  to  pay  the 
United  States  one  hundred  million  dollars  in  gold  every 
six  months  for  sixty-two  years.  To  get  that  gold  Great 
Britain  has  adopted  two  abnormal  policies.  First,  she 
has  tried  to  create  a  favorable  balance  of  trade  with  the 
United  States  by  refusing  to  buy  American  products 
and  forcing  us  to  buy  British  products.  In  1920  Great 
Britain  was  buying  one-fifth  of  our  surplus,  today  she 
buys  less  than  one-tenth.  Thus,  in  attempting  to  get 
the  gold  Great  Britain  is  depriving  us  of  our  foreign 
markets.  The  foreign  producer  has  cut  his  prices  and 
is  selling  through  the  Smoot-Hawley  tariff  bill.  This 
is  throwing  American  men  out  of  employment. 

Nor  is  Great  Britain's  influence  upon  foreign  trade 


WAR  DEBTS  171 

the  only  injury  to  the  United  States,  We  find  when 
she  could  not  get  enough  gold,  she  started  selling  her 
silver  reserves  to  the  French  Government.  Thus  by 
selling  and  by  flooding  the  silver  market  Great  Britain 
was  forcing  down  foreign  prices  on  wheat  and  cotton, 
to  mention  two  American  products.  The  American 
farmer  has  to  cut  his  prices  in  order  to  meet  foreign 
competition,  and  the  United  States  suffers  again. 

We  have  only  to  look  at  a  recent  issue  of  the  Busi 
ness  Week  which  estimated  the  United  States  is  losing 
one  dollar  for  every  ten  cents  collected.  You  throw  up 
your  hands  and  say,  "That  is  obviously  exaggerated," 
but  we  find  upon  consulting  statements  of  such  econo 
mists  as  T.  E.  Gregory  of  Cambridge,  Norman  Angell 
of  London,  and  H.  G.  Hjalmar  Schacht  of  Berlin,  these 
losses  are  three  or  four  times  the  size  of  the  payments 
on  the  war  debts.  Mark  Twain  affords  an  illustration 
of  the  utter  folly  of  demanding  the  impossible  by  tell 
ing  the  story  of  two  darky  boys  who  tied  a  donkey's 
tail  to  a  fence  post  and  then  held  a  carrot  out  to  see  the 
donkey  wince  when  he  pulled  his  tail  With  all  due 
respect  to  the  United  States  and  the  ordinary  horse 
senge  of  the  American  people,  it  seems  to  me  we  have 
tied  our  tail  to  a  fence  post  and  are  jumping  impa 
tiently  at  a  twenty  billion  dollar  carrot  in  Europe. 
And  I  should  say  not  a  single  carrot  of  it  is  24-karat 
material. 

In  conclusion,  Shylock  demonstrated  that  you  can 
not  take  a  pound  of  flesh  without  taking  some  of  the 
life  blood  along  with  it.  Our  experience  with  the  war 
debts  has  shown  we  cannot  take  gold  from  Europe 


172    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OP  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

without  sacrificing  some  of  the  life  blood  correlated 
with  throwing  men  out  of  employment,  depriving  us  of 
our  foreign  markets,  and  lowering  the  prices  of  our 
products.  The  logical  step  is  to  follow  the  example  of 
the  orang-outangs  and  cancel  the  war  debts. 


Second  Speaker,  Mr.  Elmer 
Northwestern  University 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  With  a  certain  brusque- 
ness  and  with  an  old  Roman  contempt  for  the  super 
fluous,  I  am  coming  right  to  the  subject  matter  at 
hand  and  say  I  am  a  cancellationist,  and  if  you  like, 
upward  and  onward  forever  cancellationistl 

When  a  person  of  ordinary  intelligence  comes  face 
to  face  with  the  problem  of  war  debts  he  find  a  con 
fusing  scene.  In  the  first  place  he  find  facts  which 
are  complicated  in  themselves.  In  many  cases  they 
are  contradictory.  He  find  these  facts  of  such  com 
plex  nature  that  their  implications  are  not  often  obvious 
and  they  do  not  float  lightly  on  life  like  ducks  on  a 
pond.  He  finds  there  has  been  shot  through  the  whole 
scheme  of  war  debts,  sordid  motives  and  purposes 
which  are  obviously  not  for  the  common  good.  What 
does  he  do?  I  would  recommend  to  him,  if  I  saw  him 
in  that  ordeal,  that  it  would  be  the  best  thing  for  him 
to  step  boldly  onto  the  scene,  plant  his  legs  widely 
apart  and  ask,  What  can  you  tell  me  that  is  not  dis 
agreed  upon  by  competent  authorities?  In  other 
words,  what  debated  subject  is  concerned  with  the  war 
debts  that  is*not  debatable? 


WAR  DEBTS  173 

And  if  he  asked  that  question  seriously  I  think  there 
is  one  answer  that  must  be  given  first  of  all,  because  it 
has  behind  it  the  weight  of  all  authorities  who  have 
studied  the  problem.  That  answer  is:  If  these  debts 
are  paid  they  must  be  paid  in  the  form  either  of  goods 
or  of  services,  and  mostly  in  the  former.  That  then  is 
given  to  him  as  something  not  disputable.  After  he 
has  the  fact  he  wants  to  go  and  ask  certain  questions 
which  bump  into  him  and  demand  answering.  Among 
those  questions  are,  Can  they  be  paid?  Can  the  war 
debts  be  paid?  Should  they  be  paid?  If  they  can  and 
should  be  paid,  what  would  be  the  effect  if  they  were 
paid?  I  propose  to  consider  a  possible  answer  that 
might  be  given  to  him  to  show  what  would  happen  if 
these  war  debts  could  be  paid  and  to  try  to  show  that 
it  would  be  detrimental  to  the  creditor  nation  to  receive 
them. 

In  adopting  my  suggestion  I  say  with  unashamed 
simplicity  it  is  a  nai've  attitude,  the  attitude  of  the  old 
proverb,  "Join  the  naivians  and  see  the  world."  The 
only  way  you  can  get  anywhere  is,  as  I  said  before,  to 
have  your  feet  planted  solidly  on  the  ground  and  con 
sider  the  problems  which  are  not  disputable.  We  find 
in  examining  world  trade  much  complex  material. 

When  I  first  tried  to  find  out  how  world  trade  acted 
in  order  to  find  out  whether  or  not  it  would  be  detri 
mental  for  the  creditor  nation  to  receive  these  goods,  I 
sat  down  and  read  volumes  and  excerpts  from  volumes, 
and  made  very  little  progress.  Then  I  went  to  a  gen 
tleman  who  was  formerly  foreign  representative  of  the 
American  Express.  He  is  a  real  kind  of  gentleman,  a 


174    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

fine  old  fellow  that  smokes  a  pipe  and  sits  in  a  chair 
and  does  everything  an  old  man  does  when  he  grows 
old  gracefully.  I  said  to  him,  "Can  you  tell  me  how 
foreign  trade  works?"  "Well/7  he  said,  "I  don't  know 
what  they  teach  you  over  at  school,  and  I  don't  know 
what  the  textbooks  say,  but  I  can  tell  you  how  it  actu 
ally  works."  He  used  this  example:  "Here  is  a  single 
English  exporter  who  wants  to  ship  goods  to  the  United 
States.  How  does  he  do  it?  He  receives  orders  and 
ships  goods  over  here.  We'll  assume  that  he  ships 
one  thousand  dollars  worth  of  goods.  That  one  thou 
sand  dollars  is  deposited  to  his  account  in  a  New  York 
bank.  He,  in  turn,  can  sell  this  credit  to  an  English 
importer  who  wants  to  buy  goods  from  us.  Now,  if  an 
Englishman  wants  to  buy  one  thousand  dollars  of  cot 
ton  or  wheat  he  does  so  by  buying  credits  in  the  New 
York  bank  and  applying  them  on  the  purchase  of 
cotton  or  wheat.  You  can  readily  see  that  trade  moves 
in  healthy  circulation,  which  finds  an  affinity  in  the 
whirling  wheels  of  every  factory  on  both  sides  of  the 
big  pond.  That  is  how  it  works  without  the  artificial 
atmosphere  or  the  artificial  injecting  of  the  war  debts 
into  the  whole  scheme  of  world  trade. 

"When  you  get  war  debts,  here  is  the  situation.  This 
English  exporter  ships  over  one  thousand  dollars  worth 
of  goods  and  he  gets  credit  in  the  New  York  bank. 
What  does  he  do  with  his  credit?  Instead  of  selling  to 
an  English  importer  who  would  buy  goods  from  us,  he 
sells  his  credit  to  the  English  Government  to  apply  on 
war  debts." 

I  must  confess  a  light  dawned  upon  me.    The  whole 


WAR  DEBTS  175 

thing  seemed  absurdly  simple  for  so  much  speculation, 
and  I  saw  therein  an  explanation  to  my  questions.  It 
answers  among  other  things  the  problem  of  whether  or 
not  we  should  cut  down  war  debts  and  collect  as  much 
as  we  can,  because  it  is  a  simple  fact  even  if  you  do  cut 
them  down,  every  dollar  you  collect  which  is  used  to 
pay  off  the  war  debt  is  not  a  dollar  which  can  be  used 
to  buy  goods  from  us.  Here  is  another  thing  that  may 
not  be  minimized  in  importance:  our  export  trade  may 
not  be  considered  an  insignificant  factor  of  the  world 
trade  picture.  If  you  were  to  ask  me  today  what,  in 
my  opinion,  constitutes  the  greatest  single  phenomenon 
of  the  industrial  depression,  I  would  be  bold  enough 
to  say  those  unprecedented  means  of  production  and 
equally  unprecedented  limited  means  of  consumption. 
There  is  only  one  solution — I  am  again  being  naive — 
to  get  rid  of  over-production.  How  are  we  going  to 
do  that?  By  demanding  that  we  use  every  dollar  which 
an  Englishman  gives  in  return  for  goods  he  buys  from 
us?  It  will  never  happen  that  way,  obviously.  What 
we  have  to  do  is  to  sell  our  goods  for  the  dollar  he 
wants  to  pay.  Now  we  are  producing  in  this  country 
eight  hundred  million  bushels  of  wheat  every  year. 
Domestic  consumption  is  six  hundred  million.  We  have 
two  hundred  million  bushels  of  wheat  that  we  must 
get  rid  of  or  glut  the  market.  The  only  way  we  can 
do  that  is  to  remember  the  truth  of  that  statement 
which  I  wish  could  be  emblazoned  across  the  sky  so 
that  every  politician  could  see  it,  and  that  is :  A  dollar 
used  for  payment  of  war  debts  is  not  a  dollar  that  can 
be  used  to  buy  goods  from  us. 


176    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

Third  Speaker,  Mr.  Vogel 
University  of  North  Dakota 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  The  gentlemen  have  set 
forth  their  proposition  for  the  cancellation  of  war  notes 
in  a  very  business-like  manner.  In  doing  that  it  has 
seemed  to  me  very  unlike  the  European  nations.  There 
has  been  a  lot  of  agitation  for  the  cancellation  of  the 
war  debts  during  the  last  three  or  four  years.  Most  of 
this  has  come  from  Europe.  It  has  always  seemed  to 
me  that  the  European  nations  in  asking  for  the  can 
cellation  of  the  war  debts,  have  gone  at  this  business  in 
the  wrong  way.  They  have  said  to  the  Americans, 
"Well,  the  debts  were  not  owed  after  all.  We  fought 
your  battles  for  you.  The  war  was  fought  in  common 
cause,"  and  American  taxpayers  and  American  citizens 
remember  that  during  the  war  fifty  thousand  American 
lives  were  lost  over  there.  They  remember  that  forty- 
two  billion  dollars  of  American  money  was  spent  dur 
ing  that  war.  But  Europe  goes  on  and  says,  "You 
loaned  us  the  money,  but  the  money  was  spent  in  your 
country  and  you  got  profits  from  that  money."  The 
American  people  remember  that  during  the  war  six 
billion  dollars  of  American  money  was  spent  in  Euro 
pean  nations  and  European  nations  asked  exorbitant 
prices  for  their  products.  European  nations  go  further 
and  say,  "You  are  bound  to  cancel  the  war  debts  be 
cause  of  the  Hoover  Moratorium."  But  the  American 
people  remember  that  when  the  Hoover  Moratorium 
was  declared,  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  in  sanc 
tioning  that  moratorium,  specifically  told  the  European 


WAR  DEBTS  177 

nations  that  the  United  States  would  not  agree  to  out 
right  cancellation  of  the  war  debts. 

The  European  nations  have  set  forth  these  argu 
ments,  arguments  which  today  appear  illogical,  argu 
ments  which  the  American  people  have  answered. 
These  arguments  have  created  lots  of  animosity  and 
hatred  toward  Europe;  and  Europe  in  turn  has  hated 
America.  I  sometimes  wish  the  European  nations 
might  have  been  like  the  first  two  Speakers  tonight  and 
set  forth  the  proposition  in  a  business-like  manner  that 
should  appeal  to  the  taxpayers,  and  say,  "It  is  better 
business  to  cancel  war  debts;  it  is  good  economics  to 
cancel  war  debts."  It  is  the  thing  to  do,  and  to  under 
stand  that  we  must  remember  that  something  of  great 
economic  importance  happened  in  1914  and  up  to  1920. 

Between  1914  and  1920  the  United  States  was 
changed  from  a  debtor  nation  to  a  creditor  nation. 
During  those  six  years  the  United  States  was  changed 
from  a  nation  which  had  been  paying  out  five  hundred 
million  dollars  every  year  to  a  nation  which  was  to 
receive  twenty-two  billion  dollars  in  the  form  of  war 
notes.  And  not  only  that.  At  the  same  time,  America 
was  maintaining  a  favorable  balance  of  trade.  Imagine 
that  economically!  Here  were  these  nations  shipping 
gold  to  the  United  States  in  payment  for  the  war  debts. 
On  the  other  hand  here  were  these  nations  shipping 
gold  to  the  United  States  to  make  up  the  unfavorable 
balance  of  trade  in  favor  of  the  United  States.  Obvi 
ously  such  a  situation  cannot  go  on  economically.  The 
European  nations  have  tried  to  pay,  they  have  paid  in 
part,  but  they  cannot  go  on  doing  that  indefinitely. 


178    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

Just  as  soon  as  the  American  taxpayer,  just  as  soon  as 
the  American  people  realize  that  America  cannot  be  a 
creditor  nation  and  at  the  same  time  have  a  favorable 
balance  of  trade,  just  that  soon  the  American  people 
will  say,  we  are  willing  to  cancel  the  war  debts.  There 
fore  these  alternatives  are  up  to  the  American  people. 
Either  we  are  to  become  a  creditor  nation  and  have  an 
unfavorable  balance  of  trade  or  we  are  to  become  a 
debtor  nation  and  have  a  favorable  balance  of  trade. 
That  is  the  proposition  up  before  the  American  people 
today.  For  my  part  I  say  it  is  far  better  economically, 
it  is  far  better  from  a  business  standpoint  for  the 
American  people  to  cancel  those  war  notes,  to  give 
those  war  notes  back  to  Europe  and  maintain  the 
favorable  balance  of  trade  by  keeping  American  manu 
facturing  men  working  in  this  country,  by  keeping 
American  laboring  men  working  in  this  country,  and  by 
selling  our  goods  to  Europe.  Under  the  situation  to 
day  we  find  America  is  trying  to  sell  to  Europe  and 
Europe  will  not  buy. 

The  first  speaker  told  you  that  England,  as  far  as 
buying  products  from  the  United  States  is  concerned, 
finds  that  its  buying  power  has  dropped  off  from  one- 
fifth  to  one-tenth.  France  last  week  erected  more 
tariff  barriers  against  the  United  States. 

We  are  finding  out  it  is  a  pretty  hard  proposition  to 
sell  to  someone  who  owes  you  money.  If  you  don't 
believe  that,  try  it  yourself.  Go  down  the  street  and 
meet  a  man  who  owes  you  five  dollars  and  try  to  sell 
him  something  and  increase  that  debt.  It  is  a  lot  easier 
to  go  to  a  man  to  whom  you  owe  money  and  sell  him 


WAR  DEBTS  179 

something  and  thereby  have  something  cut  away  from 
the  debt  you  owe  him.  And  so  I  say,  in  consideration 
of  these  economic  facts,  the  American  people  should 
cancel  the  war  notes;  the  American  people  should  take 
the  view  that  they  should  maintain  a  favorable  balance 
of  trade  and  at  the  same  time  be  a  debtor  nation. 


Fourth  Speaker,  Mr.  Bury 
University  of  Wyoming 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  In  opening  my  part  in 
this  question  of  war  debts  I  want  to  say  how  very  glad 
I  am  that  we  are  discussing  this  question  and  not  de 
bating  it.  If  this  had  been  a  debate  it  would  probably 
have  been  stated,  "Resolved;  that  America  should  can 
cel  the  war  debts."  Now,  as  a  theoretical  proposition  it 
may  be  all  very  well  that  we  should  cancel  the  war 
debts.  But,  when  something  must  be  done  between 
now  and  June  15,  and  that  something  can't  be  done  as 
a  practical  matter,  it  makes  very  little  difference 
whether  we  should  do  it  or  not.  In  this  discussion  I 
am  going  to  consider  American  public  opinion  and 
American  politics  as  facts.  In  a  debate  we  would  not 
be  allowed  to  do  that.  They  would  tell  us  we  were 
discussing  this  question  in  order  to  form  public  opinion, 
but  I  believe  that  public  opinion  and  politics  do  have  to 
be  considered  just  as  much  facts  as,  for  example,  the 
capacity  of  Germany  to  pay.  Recently  in  my  college 
work  I  circulated  a  questionnaire  and  one  of  the  ques 
tions  was,  Do  you  believe  that  war  debts  should  be 
cancelled?  The  answer  was  decidedly,  No.  American 


180    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

public  opinion  is  set  against  the  cancellation  of  war 
debts. 

The  present  war  debt  set-up  then  is  very  briefly  this. 
Germany  can't  pay.  Various  economists'  studies  prove 
that  quite  conclusively.  The  preceding  speakers  have 
elaborated  on  that  contention.  Germany  can't  pay. 
The  Allies  won't  pay  unless  Germany  pays,  and 
America  won't  cancel.  Public  opinion  in  the  United 
States  being  what  it  is  and  American  politics  being 
what  it  is,  America  can't  cancel  the  war  debts.  Politics 
and  public  opinion  being  what  they  are,  America  is  just 
as  powerless  to  cancel  war  debts  as  is  an  unarmed 
individual  or  an  armless  individual  to  throw  a  stone. 

There  are  two  alternatives.  We  can  repudiate  the 
war  debts  or  we  can  extend  them.  We  can  extend  the 
debts  until  such  time  as  Germany  can  pay,  or  we  can 
extend  the  debts  until  such  time  as  American  public 
opinion  would  shift.  There  is  that  possibility,  until 
such  time  as  we  can  cancel.  After  all,  today,  the  time 
of  depression,  is  a  very  poor  time  to  judge  the  capacity 
of  Germany  to  pay.  We  know  in  1824,  over  one  hun 
dred  years  ago,  Mexico  borrowed  six  million  pounds 
from  Great  Britain.  In  those  days  six  million  pounds 
was  a  lot  of  money  and  meant  a  great  deal  more  than 
it  does  now.  For  forty  years  Mexico  paid  scarcely  a 
dime  upon  those  English  bonds.  They  were  adjusted 
and  refunded  and  extended  until  finally,  in  1864,  forty 
years  after  the  debt  was  contracted,  Mexico  paid  her 
bonds.  As  a  result  of  that  experience  English  investors 
are  still  hoping  that  the  confederate  bonds  contracted 
and  defaulted  around  the  time  of  the  Civil  War  may 


WAR  DEBTS  181 

yet  be  paid,  and  according  to  a  recent  writer,  if  condi 
tions  in  the  southern  states  should  pick  up  in  the  next 
half  century,  English  investors  may  yet  see  their  hopes 
realized.  Mexico  could  not  pay  for  forty  years.  She 
was  a  new  country  just  getting  set  up.  She  had  a  small 
population.  Like  Germany  in  recent  years,  she  had  a 
war,  a  war  with  the  United  States  in  which  one-half  of 
her  richest  territory,  California  included,  was  torn 
away  from  her.  She  couldn't  pay  her  war  debts  then. 
She  was  as  helpless  to  pay  them  as  Germany  is  today. 
But  other  things  happened  in  that  forty  years.  The 
Civil  War  took  place  in  the  United  States.  It  smiled 
on  Mexico.  Mexico  profited  by  the  Civil  War  in  the 
United  States  just  as  America  profited  by  the  World 
War,  and  finally  she  was  enabled  to  pay  her  debts. 

If  we  are  ever  to  have  a  world  in  which  nations  har 
monize,  contracts  must  be  made  just  as  binding  and 
inviolable  as  contracts  between  you  and  me  in  private 
life.  In  private  life  if  an  individual  defaults  for  a  short 
time  in  his  contracts,  we  allow  him  to  take  a  bank 
ruptcy.  His  debts  are  cancelled  and  he  is  given  a  new 
start  in  life.  However,  a  nation  can  scarcely  be  com 
pared  to  a  man.  A  nation  goes  on  for  hundreds  of 
years.  Its  affairs  fluctuate  and  vary.  There  may  be 
a  condition  of  prosperity,  a  condition  of  depression. 

Today  is  a  very  poor  time  in  which  to  judge  the  ca 
pacity  of  Germany  to  pay.  In  1914  we  were  a  nation 
with  an  unfavorable  trade  balance.  We  could  not  fore 
see  the  World  War.  We  could  not  foresee  that  we 
would  have  a  favorable  trade  balance  with  all  the  gold 
in  the  United  States,  that  there  would  be  no  possibility 


182    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

of  Germany  and  the  Allies  paying  their  debts.  Just  a 
few  years  ago  we  could  not  see  the  present  depression. 
We  refund  Germany's  debts  on  the  basis  of  inflated 
prices  and  a  depression  comes  along  and  turns  the 
tables  on  our  refunding  work.  It  is  hard  to  say  just 
what  economic  international  factors  may  happen  within 
a  few  years  to  change  the  capacity  of  the  Allies  and 
Germany  to  pay.  Debts  should  be  extended  until  such 
time  as  debts  can  be  paid,  or  until  such  time  as  Ameri 
can  public  opinion  can  shift  to  the  point  where  debts 
can  be  cancelled.  That  is,  as  I  see  it,  the  only  solution 
— extension. 

Refutation,  Mr.  Elmer 
Northwestern  University 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  The  gentleman  who  has 
just  spoken  to  you  raised  a  very  interesting  point  that 
I  think  should  be  dealt  with  and  considered  whether  or 
not  it  was  a  sound  condition.  I  believe  it  is  within  the 
province  of  a  discussion  of  this  kind  to  say  it  is  a  factor 
whether  or  not  the  debtor  nations  will  pay.  Now,  ordi 
narily  in  a  debate  or  discussing  a  proposition  of  this 
kind  we  say  that  does  not  matter,  we  are  arguing 
whether  or  not  they  should  pay.  But  in  any  communi 
cation  between  the  governments  or  in  the  councils 
which  the  President  holds,  that  is  a  problem:  whether 
or  not  the  debtor  nations  will  pay. 

Mr.  Bury,  in  elaborating  that  point,  said  that  public 
opinion  in  the  United  States  is  definitely  against  the 
cancellation  of  war  debts.  How  did  he  prove  that? 
He  quoted  to  us.  He  said,  "We  have  conducted  a  re- 


WAR  DEBTS  183 

search  among  the  housewives  of  America  and  they  have 
been,"  I  think  he  said,  "overwhelmingly  in  favor  of 
collecting  the  war  debts."  Now,  it  seems  to  me  that  if 
any  group  of  housewives  could  get  any  unanimity  on  a 
question  of  this  sort,  that  if  the  allied  housewives  of 
America  would  ever  move  in  a  solid  block  behind  some 
gesture  involving  international  trade,  I  would  be  in 
clined  to  decide  that  they  were  wrong.  Because,  after 
all,  they  bring  to  this  problem — and  I  have  tried  in  my 
first  speech  to  show  you  some  of  the  complexities  that 
arise  out  of  it — they  strike  boldly  and  bring  to  it  their 
experience  with  the  milk  man  in  bickerings  over  the 
amount  of  cream  that  is  consumed.  In  other  words, 
they  have  taken  the  dangerous  attitude  towards  the 
whole  affair  of  the  man  who  says,  "I  loaned  you  ten 
dollars  last  week,  now,  hang  you,  pay  it."  But  we  can 
show  you  the  situation  is  not  analogous  at  all.  The  real 
solution  is,  "I  loaned  you  ten  dollars  last  week,  and  it  is 
going  to  hurt  me  a  lot  to  receive  that  ten  dollars,  I 
don't  want  it."  That  would  be  a  closer  analogy,  if 
there  were  ever  any  such  thing. 

His  premise,  of  course,  is  valid.  That  should  be 
considered  but  not  in  the  light  he  means.  I  noticed 
especially  his  point.  I  think  that  the  whole  thing 
centers  down  to  approximately  this,  that  the  war  debts 
should  be  extended  until  such  time  as  public  opinion 
will  finally  assent  to  cancellation,  But  is  that  the  solu 
tion?  If  you  had  a  nation  of  people  who  were  des 
perately  united  against  an  action  which  you  firmly 
believed  was  the  right  thing,  is  the  correct  policy  for 
you  to  sit  back  and  calmly  wait  until  they  are  edu- 


184    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

cated?  There  has  not  been  a  book  written  on  de 
mocracy  In  the  last  one  hundred  fifty  years  that  has 
not  ended  with  that  theory.  Or  should  you  try  to  con 
vince  them  that  they  are  wrong  and  that  it  would  be 
actually  to  their  detriment  to  receive  these  war  debts? 
It  has  been  the  experience  of  political  questions  that 
the  minority  is  almost  always  wrong,  but,  at  the  same 
time,  that  any  progress  is  made  by  the  enlightened 
few.  Therefore,  the  solution  is  not  to  collect  the  debts 
— I  mean  reduce  them  and  collect  them  when  public 
opinion  is  molded — but  to  convince  the  men  enough  to 
swing  over  to  our  side  and  see  the  thing  carried  through 
because  it  would  be  desirable  to  cancel  the  debts. 


Fifth  Speaker,  Mr.  Wirtz 
Beloit  College 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  We  have  heard  some  com 
ments  on  the  matter  of  questionnaires.  If  the  keynote 
of  this  discussion  is  informality,  I  would  like  to  ask 
how  many  of  this  audience  are  in  favor  of  cancellation. 
I  am  going  to  ask  all  those  opposed  to  cancellation  to 
raise  their  hands.  I  compliment  you  on  your  bravery. 
Now,  I  want  to  see  the  hands  of  those  in  favor  of 
cancellation.  I  want  to  compliment  you  on  agreeing 
with  me.  That  is  my  position.  I  compliment  you  on 
your  intelligence.  But,  presuming  on  my  intelligence, 
I  am  going  to  address  my  remarks  to  you  goats  on  the 
opposite  side  of  the  fence  from  my  sheep  pasture.  I 
would  like  to  sell  my  idea  to  you. 

I  am  trying  to  diagnose  your  trouble  as  one  of  two 


WAR  DEBTS  185 

things,  either  a  bad  case  of  misunderstanding  peri 
tonitis,  or  of  "ununderstanding"  hallucinations.  Those 
are  heavy  terms.  Let  us  cut  out  the  last,  either  mis 
understanding  of  the  situation  or  "ununderstanding" 
of  it.  Briefly,  I  mean  this.  I  am  afraid  if  it  is  mis 
understanding,  you  have  been  called  Shylocks  until  you 
are  becoming  so  impregnated  with  anti-European  atti 
tude  that  you  have  lost  your  perspective.  They  have 
been  telling  you,  you  do  not  have  to  cancel.  You 
fought  in  the  European  war;  you  know  these  debts 
should  be  paid.  And  the  Republicans  have  built  up 
that  anti-continental  attitude  until  your  sense  of  judg 
ment  is  distorted.  That  is  what  I  would  call  misunder 
standing,  but  I  do  not  believe  that  is  the  principle  that 
may  cause  the  flush  in  your  face.  I  am  afraid  it  is 
"ununderstanding."  You  do>  not  understand  the  situa 
tion.  The  second  speaker,  I  think  it  was,  told  you 
that  these  debts  cannot  be  paid;  that  the  European 
nations  cannot  pay  them.  I  did  not  understand  that  at 
all  until  I  started  to  investigate,  and  I  doubt  if  you 
realize  the  fact  that  European  nations  are  not  in  posi 
tion  to  pay.  I  think  a  good  deal  harder  to  understand 
is  the  fact  that  the  United  States  is  not  in  position  to 
accept  payment.  That  seems  absolutely  foolish.  I 
am  sure  it  is  not  although  I  know  every  magazine  I 
pick  up  tells  me  that  is  the  very  situation.  It  is  a  para 
doxical  situation  when  the  housewives  are  opposed  to 
cancellation,  and  all  magazines  are  in  favor  of  it,  and 
all  senators  are  opposed  to  cancellation,  and  the  Presi 
dent  will  not  even  consider  the  proposition! 
You  cannot  realize  that  the  economic  welfare  of  the 


186    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

world  is  so  interdependent  between  the  nations  today 
that  our  business  cannot  prosper  until  England  and 
France  prosper.  I  cannot  fathom  it,  myself.  My  point 
is  this — the  question  is  so  complex  that  the  man  in  the 
street  cannot  understand  it  and  neither  can  the  Con 
gressmen. 

I  have  one  little  proposition  I  would  like  to  throw 
out  to  you  to  see  what  the  rest  of  you  think  about  it. 
You  have  read  of  this  plan  of  Mr.  Levinson,  Chicago 
business  man  whom  you  might  know  as  the  originator 
of  the  Kellogg-Briand  pact.  His  plan  briefly  is  this: 
to  correlate  the  cancellation  of  these  debts  and  reduc 
tion  of  international  armaments.  I  cannot  go  into  that 
in  detail  but  the  proposition  is  this.  We  say  to  France, 
"You  owe  us  two  hundred  million  dollars  this  year. 
We  will  cancel  that,  cross  it  off  and  reduce  our  arma 
ments  two  hundred  million  dollars  if  you  in  turn  will 
reduce  your  armaments  two  hundred  million  dollars." 
The  result  is  a  saving  to  France  of  two  hundred  million 
dollars  in  debts  and  a  reduction  of  two  hundred  million 
dollars  in  armaments.  The  saving  to  us  is  two  hundred 
million  dollars  we  will  not  have  to  spend  on  armaments, 
so  our  position  remains  the  same  and  France  benefits. 
It  sounds  like  snake  oil  and  I  am  afraid  it  is  Utopian.  I 
think  it  will  not  work  out,  but  theoretically  it  is  a  good 
plan. 

I  think  the  United  States  should  be  ashamed  of  itself 
for  taking  no  position  of  leadership  in  this  matter.  I 
think  all  we  need  to  start  the  disarmament  ball  rolling 
is  some  kind  of  a  lever  and  we  have  that  lever  in  our 
hands  if  we  will  use  it.  We  can  solve  the  international 


WAR  DEBTS  187 

economic  situation  and  at  the  same  time  take  a  for- 
waid  step  in  the  matter  of  international  cooperation 
and  peace. 

Now,  I  present  to  you  that  President  Roosevelt's 
biggest  problem  is  debunking  and  disinfecting  Ameri 
can  public  opinion.  If  we  will  extend  our  perspectives 
beyond  the  limits  of  our  own  noses,  we  may  get  some 
where.  If  we  stop  consulting  our  emotions  and  our 
rights  and  turn  to  our  interests  and  see  where  they  lie, 
we  may  find  a  solution  to  this  whole  situation. 


Sixth  Speaker,  Mr.  Kluss 
University  of  Iowa 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  It  seems  we  are  involved 
in  a  discussion  of  a  subject,  which,  with  all  of  its  rami 
fications,  is  something  far  beyond  the  comprehension  of 
the  average  individual.  I  am  sure  I  do  not  understand 
it,  and  a  good  many  of  these  men  who  profess  intelli 
gence  on  the  question  do  not  understand  it  as  thor 
oughly  as  they  seem.  It  seems  to  me  these  people  who 
are  saying  war  debts  should  be  cancelled  because  they 
cannot  be  paid  should  have  some  thesis  by  which  they 
prove  that  assertion. 

I  have  tried  to  study  the  subject  a  little  and  it  seems 
there  is  a  definite,  logical  way  that  the  reason  Europe 
cannot  pay  can  be  explained  so  that  everyone  can 
understand  it.  Before  we  go  into  this  very  intricate 
explanation,  let  u$  consider  this  fact.  We  do  not  want 
to  deal  with  the  ideals  of  the  situation.  We  want  to 
deal  with  the  realities.  There  are  people  who  say  if 


188    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

Europe  should  cut  down  her  armaments  she  could  pay 
the  United  States,  or  If  Europe  should  make  certain 
budgetary  reductions  she  could  pay  the  United  States. 
Instead  of  dealing  with  the  things  that  should  be  done, 
or  with  whether  or  not  they  should  be  done,  I  feel  it 
would  be  better  if  we  temporarily  would  project  our 
selves  into  the  realm  of  reality;  take  the  facts  as  we 
see  them;  discuss  them  in  simple  terms  that  everybody 
can  understand;  and  then  draw  our  own  conclusions. 
Now,  it  would  be  absurd  for  anybody  to  stand  before 
an  audience  and  assert  that  Europe  with  her  vast  re 
sources,  with  her  energetic  people,  her  manufacturing 
industries,  could  not  pay  a  sum  approximating  ten  bil 
lion  dollars  a  year.  If  Europe  were  to  pay  the  entire 
debt  tomorrow  it  might  cause  considerable  distress,  but 
we  cannot  argue  that  Europe  does  not  have  the  ability 
to  pay  that.  I  am  going  to  use  a  very  unfortunate 
term  which  I  feel  may  be  disputed  by  some  of  you  when 
I  say  Europe  does  not  have  the  capacity  to  pay  that. 
What  do  I  mean  by  capacity  as  distinguished  from 
ability?  Let  us  project  ourselves  into  another  Utopian 
realm  and  assume  that  each  of  us  has  a  ten  dollar  bill 
in  his  pocket,  and  each  a  debt  of  ten  dollars  to  be  paid. 
Certainly  no  one  can  dispute  our  ability  to  pay  that 
debt  because  here  is  a  ten  dollar  bill  and  there  is  a  like 
amount  we  owe,  so  we  have  the  ability  to  pay.  Now, 
assume  we  have  to  live  for  the  next  two  weeks— board, 
room,  clothing  and  other  expenses  are  going  to  cost  us 
approximately  ten  dollars.  Now,  what  is  our  capacity 
to  pay  that  debt?  The  sheer  necessities  of  life  cannot 
be  purchased  and  still  render  us  able  to  pay  a  cent 


WAR  DEBTS  189 

toward  the  debt  we  owe.  That  is  what  I  mean  by  the 
capacity  of  anybody,  whether  It  be  an  individual,  a  na 
tion,  or  a  corporation,  to  pay  a  debt.  It  depends  upon 
the  excess  of  your  income  over  your  outgo. 

Now,  in  dealing  with  that  capacity  there  are  two 
means  by  which  the  debt  might  be  paid.  The  United 
States  says,  "We  will  accept  payment  only  in  gold," 
and  economists  warn  that  we  will  pay  in  goods  and 
services  eventually.  Everything  will  reduce  to  that. 
Let  us  consider  gold.  Again  we  come  back  to  eco 
nomics.  What  is  gold  anyway?  We  have  heard  it 
called  the«life  blood  of  a  nation;  we  have  heard  it  called 
cocoanuts  and  various  other  things  during  this  discus 
sion.  But,  in  reality,  it  is  just  a  material  thing  in  which 
people  have  an  unlimited  amount  of  confidence.  What 
part  does  this  gold  play  in  a  nation's  entire  monetary 
and  financial  system?  I  think  the  best  illustration  of 
the  nation's  financial  system  is  an  inverted  pyramid. 
Let  us  assume  this  pyramid  is  turned  upside  down  and 
at  the  peak  on  which  the  pyramid  is  resting  is  a  gold 
reserve.  Following  up  as  the  pyramid  expands  is  cur 
rency,  and  beyond  that  is  credit,  the  checks  we  use, 
and  so  on.  It  seems  everybody  abhors  the  word  "in 
flation."  We  call  it  reflation.  We  do  anything  so  that 
the  people  will  not  feel  we  are  inflating  currency,  and 
certainly  Europe  has  an  innate  abhorrence  of  the  term. 
But  what  is  inflation?  It  is  issuing  more  currency  on 
this  little  piece  of  gold  until  your  inverted  pyramid 
becomes  top  heavy  and  begins  to  wobble  and  eventually 
crashes  on  one  side.  The  point  is  this.  If  Europe  pays 
in  gold,  she  is  going  to  subtract  from  that  base  upon 


190    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

which  the  pyramid  is  resting.  So  what  is  the  difference 
whether  Europe  issues  more  currency  or  whether  she 
subtracts  from  that  pyramid  as  to  whether  or  not  it  is 
going  to  be  top  heavy  and  crash?  That  is  the  predica 
ment  of  Europe.  All  I  can  say  is  this,  economists  and 
men  acquainted  with  the  subject  assert  that  Europe  has 
expanded  credit  facilities  far  beyond  the  ability  of  the 
gold  reserve.  France  has  developed  enormous  credit 
facilities  throughout  Europe,  and  subtracting  from  that 
is  going  to  imperil  the  value  of  that  credit,  so  Europe 
feels  she  has  not  the  capacity  to  pay  in  gold. 

Now,  the  other  medium,  goods  and  services.  Europe 
has  seen  during  the  past  ten  years  what  has  happened 
to  Germany.  Let  us  again  go  back  to  the  old  ten  dollar 
analogy,  We  have  ten  dollars  in  our  pocket.  Let  us 
assume  each  year  for  the  last  ten  years  we  had  sub 
tracted  one  dollar  and  given  it  to  another  individual 
for  nothing  in  exchange.  Eventually  our  resources 
would  be  exhausted,  if  we  had  no  more  than  those  ten 
dollars.  That  is  what  happened  to  Germany.  The 
other  nations  have  seen  what  happened  when  she  began 
pouring  her  resources,  coal  and  chemicals  into  allied 
nations.  It  resulted  in  complete  exhaustion  and  eco 
nomic  collapse  for  the  German  nation,  so  the  Germans 
will  not  pay  in  services  because  they  realize  they  can 
not.  Now,  realizing  the  fact  that  they  have  not  the 
capacity,  they  tell  the  rest  of  the  world,  especially  the 
United  States,  "We  will  not  pay."  The  United  States 
says,  "I  am  going  to  collect."  France  defaulted  and  we 
did  not  collect. 

These  people  who  advocate  anti-cancellation  have 


WAR  DEBTS  191 

not  as  yet  given  us  any  concrete  way  by  which  the  war 
debts  can  be  paid.  So  I  contend  that  unless  they  can 
give  us  some  definite  medium  by  which  they  can  be 
paid  that  we  should  cancel  the  war  debts. 


Refutation,  Mr.  Bury 
University  of  Wyoming 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  I  find  myself  in  the  very 
delicate  position  of  defending  the  American  housewife, 
and  on  top  of  that  I  am  going  to  bring  relativity  into 
the  matter!  Let  us  consider  this  matter  of  public 
opinion.  The  Gentleman,  who  objected  to  my  conten 
tion  that  public  opinion  and  politics  should  be  con 
sidered  as  just  as  much  of  a  fact  as  Germany's  capacity 
to  pay,  argued  that  we  should  be  trying  to  form  public 
opinion  here,  but,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen,  this  war 
debts  question  is  something  which  must  be  settled  be 
fore  June  IS.  We  cannot  change  public  opinion  in 
America.  It  might  be  desirable.  True,  housewives 
probably  do  not  know  what  they  are  talking  about,  but 
that  fact  of  what  the  housewife  thinks  exists  and  our 
Congress  is  not  going  to  cancel  war  debts  so  long  as 
the  American  public,  the  American  housewife  if  you 
like,  says,  No. 

Now,  this  matter  of  relativity.  The  other  speakers 
in  this  discussion  take  this  war  debts  question  at  the 
present  time.  They  look  at  it  in  sort  of  a  cross  section. 
They  say,  Germany  can't  pay  now.  All  right,  let's 
cancel.  What  would  happen  if  I  was  your  debtor,  in 
bed,  on  crutches,  broke?  I  could  not  pay  my  debts. 


192    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

Would  you  cancel  them  or  would  you  wait  until  my 
legs  or  limbs  or  lungs  or  whatever  it  was  that  was 
wrong  mended  themselves  and  I  could  meet  my  obliga 
tions?  I  believe  you  would  do  the  latter.  I  mentioned 
Mexico.  They  contracted  their  debts  in  1824.  They 
were  extended  and  adjusted  and  defaulted  and  one 
thing  and  another  until  1864,  forty  years  later,  when 
the  debts  were  paid. 

These  international  problems  are  something  which 
cannot  be  considered  as  a  cross  section,  they  must  be 
considered  in  relativity.  Bring  the  time  element  in. 
We  cannot  tell  what  is  going  to  happen  in  the  world  in 
the  next  few  years.  There  may  be  a  war  between 
Russia  and  Japan.  Then  Germany  would  profit  as 
Mexico  profited  by  the  Civil  War,  and  America  by  the 
World  War.  Germany  could  pay  her  debts  in  that 
condition. 

Refutation,  Mr.  Hanson 
Carleton  College 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  We  started  out  this  dis 
cussion  this  afternoon  with  considerable  monkey  busi 
ness,  but  we  would  like  to  get  down  to  the  plain  facts 
of  the  case.  It  is  unfortunate,  as  the  preceding  speaker 
has  said,  that  only  one  out  of  the  six  of  us  defends 
even  a  partial  payment  or  an  eventual  payment  of  war 
debts,  so  the  only  thing  for  the  rest  of  us  to  do  is  to 
contrast  ourselves  with  him  and  I  am  sure  you  will 
pardon  me  for  making  reference  to  his  statement. 

He  says  we  are  only  considering  a  cross  section  of 
the  present  area  when  we  say  we  want  war  debts  can- 


WAR  DEBTS  193 

celled,  that  we  must  consider  a  longer  period  of  his 
tory,  consider  possible  changes  in  the  economic  situa 
tion.  We  know  as  far  back  as  the  Phoenicians  the  law 
of  supply  and  demand  and  many  other  economic  laws 
were  in  effect.  Obviously,  if  the  laws  of  supply  and 
demand  are  in  permanent  effect  and  according  to  the 
laws  of  supply  and  demand  or  any  other  law  we  are 
going  to  lose  more  by  collecting  than  we  can  gain  by 
the  face  value  of  the  payments,  we  would  not  try  to 
collect  any  of  them  for  we  lose  money. 

What  I  should  like  to  do  is  consider  an  historical 
prospectus  of  this  problem.  I  should  like  to  take  as 
an  example  Germany  in  1871.  You  remember  Ger 
many  tried  to  collect  one  billion  dollars  indemnity  from 
France  in  that  year.  Of  course,  indemnity  is  not  con 
tracted  in  the  same  way  as  war  debts,  but  nevertheless 
we  have  two  parallel  countries  trying  to  collect  from 
another  country  a  large  sura  of  money  in  time  of  peace 
to  pay  for  expense  in  time  of  war.  During  1880  and 
1890  and  thereabouts  war  authorities  were  saying, 
"Germany  has  proven  to  the  world  that  you  can  have  a 
war  and  make  a  profit  because  they  collected  one  bil 
lion  dollars  after  fighting  six  weeks.3'  But  the  facts 
were  not  brought  out  until  1910,  when  Sir  Norman 
Angell,  eminent  British  economist,  published  a  book 
called  The  Great  Illusion  and  showed  that  for  every 
dollar  Germany  collected  on  her  indemnity  she  lost  two 
dollars  in  foreign  trade  and  had  to  spend  a  third  dollar 
on  her  army — a  three  dollar  loss  for  every  dollar 
gained.  It  sounds  like  the  balance  of  the  farm  board 
today  and  we  certainly  would  not  want  the  interna- 


194    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

tional  finances  of  the  United  States  in  the  same  cate 
gory  with  the  farm  board  financial  status. 

Now,  since  I  am  nearing  the  end  of  my  time  I  should 
like  to  reiterate — since  we  cannot  hope  for  a  payment 
without  losing  more  money  than  we  can  gain  by  the 
face  value,  the  logical  step  is  to  cancel  the  war  debts. 


Refutation,  Mr.  Vogel 
University  of  North  Dakota 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  The  speaker  who  advo 
cated  suspension  of  payment  took  into  consideration 
the  attitude  of  the  American  people  and  the  opinion  of 
the  American  housewife.  I  wonder  in  advocating  his 
plan  for  suspension  of  payment  if  he  did  not  also  take 
into  consideration  the  opinion  of  the  European  nations. 
I  believe  in  this  discussion  thus  far  we  are  assuming  as 
the  third  gentleman  pointed  out,  that  the  European 
nations  are  willing  to  pay  for  the  war  debt.  I  believe 
the  contrary  is  true. 

We  know  last  December  IS,  many  of  these  nations 
defaulted  in  payment  and  so  when  we  talk  about  war 
debts  I  think  we  are  assuming  those  war  debts  are  of 
real  value  as  far  as  the  American  people  are  concerned. 
I  can  say  in  the  past  they  have  not  been  of  value  be 
cause  no  gold  has  been  transferred  to  the  United  States, 
I  was  very  much  interested  in  a  proposition  set  forth 
by  one  of  the  gentlemen  in  the  discussion  who  advo 
cated  another  method  of  payment,  whereby  the  Euro 
pean  nations  were  to  pay  for  the  war  notes  by  an 
agreement  to  disarm,  such  an  agreement  to  be  consid- 


WAR  DEBTS  195 

eration  for  the  giving  up  of  the  war  notes.  I  think  it  is 
a  fine  idea.  I  think  it  is  an  ideal  way  to  deal  with  the 
war  debts,  for  not  only  would  it  be  a  forward  step  to 
peace,  not  only  lift  the  burden  of  taxation  from  the 
backs  of  the  American  people  and  European  people,  but 
at  the  same  time  take  the  money  spent  in  armaments 
and  release  it  for  domestic  and  foreign  trade.  It  is  a 
fine  idea  but  I  believe  it  is  just  a  bit  Utopian.  I  do  not 
believe  it  is  going  to  work.  We  look  at  Europe  today 
and  find  France  watching  Germany  like  a  hawk;  we  find 
the  threat  of  the  Hohenzollerns  coming  back;  we  find 
Mussolini  in  Italy,  and  in  the  far  east  we  see  Japan 
carrying  on  a  warless  war  in  China.  In  the  light  of 
these  circumstances  with  these  European  nations,  and 
Japan  armed,  and  Japan  not  owing  the  United  States  a 
cent,  we  have  no  reason  to  believe  Japan  would  come 
under  the  plan.  If  they  did  not,  probably  the  rest  of 
the  nations  would  not.  I  say  much  as  the  idea  is  right, 
much  as  it  would  solve  economic  difficulties  connected 
with  the  war  debts,  it  is  not  practical. 


Refutation,  Mr,  Wirtz 
Beloit  College 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  I  have  been  interested  in 
these  requests  that  we  consider  these  matters  from  a 
political  standpoint.  I  think  we  have  to  and  I  would 
like  to  pursue  that  political  line  a  little  more  deeply. 
Where  does  the  start  of  all  this  political  sentiment 
against  cancellation  begin?  I  propose  it  started  in  the 
election  of  1921  when  the  Republicans  swept  into 


196    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

power  on  a  platform  whose  plank  was  stirring  up  a 
sentiment  against  cooperation  with  European  nations. 
Wilson  was  defeated  upon  that.  The  Republicans 
played  upon  the  emotions  of  the  American  people  to 
develop  that  pathetic  anti-continental  attitude  and 
since  then  the  Republicans  have  felt  obligated  to  defend 
those  principles  upon  which  they  were  swept  into 
power.  You  cannot  possibly  get  Congress  today  to  go 
on  record  as  being  in  favor  of  cancellation.  They  are 
afraid  to  do  it  because  the  principles  of  their  party 
make  it  impossible.  That  is  the  reason  the  United 
States  has  failed  to  take  a  position  in  world  peace. 
They  conjured  up  these  goblins  and  were  forced  to  deal 
with  them. 

I  propose  to  you  this  ridiculous  situation.  Some 
body  is  going  to  jump  on  me  hand  and  foot  but  I  am  in 
favor  of  default  right  now  for  the  reason  that  I  think 
it  is  the  only  possible  solution  of  this  problem.  Con 
gress  is  not  going  to  change  its  mind,  and  you  are  not 
going  to  be  able  to  educate  the  housewives  and  you  are 
not  going  to  be  able  to  get  Europe  to  pay.  If  they 
default,  Congress  will  be  forced  to  take  a  new  position 
and  until  they  default  they  cannot  possibly  take  a  new 
position.  You  are  going  to  tell  me  a  default  will  gen 
erate  a  lot  of  hatred,  but  we  might  as  well  make  up 
our  minds  to  accept  that  hatred.  We  have  stepped  in 
quicksand  and  cannot  get  out  of  it.  The  sooner  they 
actually  default  the  sooner  this  matter  comes  to  a  head, 
and  the  sooner  we  will  be  able  to  find  some  solution. 
When  we  stop  discussing  this  problem  in  terms  of 


WAR  DEBTS  197 

"should"  and  "could"  and  "would"  and  start  discussing 
it  in  terms  of  actual  "won't,"  we  will  find  a  solution. 


Refutation,  Mr.  Kluss 
University  of  Iowa 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  One  time  this  afternoon 
some  of  us  were  referred  to  as  goats.  Now,  I  don't 
think  that  was  meant  in  a  derogatory  sense,  just  in  a 
discriminatory  way  to  distinguish  us  who  favored  anti- 
cancellation.  I  raised  my  hand  with  the  cancellation-* 
ists  but  at  the  same  time  I  was  going  to  place  myself 
in  the  position  of  the  goat.  I  have  the  greatest  respect 
for  these  people  who  feel  war  debts  should  be  paid. 
They  are  typically  Americans  and  justly  so.  I  am 
going  to  try  to  answer  questions  that  came  into  my 
mind  as  one  of  those  who  thought  war  debts  should  not 
be  cancelled.  I  stood  up  here  and  said  Europe  cannot 
pay  and  we  cannot  collect  and  as  one  who  favored  pay 
ment  I  said,  doesn't  it  seem  absurd  we  should  cancel 
because  they  cannot  pay?  As  individuals  we  can  go 
into  court  and  secure  redress  if  an  individual  does  not 
pay  a  debt. 

My  only  reply  to  that  would  be  this:  Those  nations 
have  said  they  will  not  pay  because  they  cannot.  That 
is  the  reason  they  won't.  How  are  you  going  about 
collecting?  You  insist  upon  payment.  No  economist, 
no  authority  in  the  world  has  given  you  any  method 
of  payment.  How  are  you  going  to  do  it?  Probably 
they  will  make  no  reply.  I  sat  there  for  one  minute 
wondering  what  the  reply  might  be.  You  could  take 


198    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

the  army  and  navy  to  Europe  and  demand  payment 
No,  you  say,  the  losses  would  be  too  severe,  and  too 
great  That  is  the  way  I  feel  about  it  Then  you  might 
come  back  with  this.  I  am  an  American  taxpayer.  If 
Europe  does  not  pay  I  will  have  to,  and  you  must  give 
me  some  remedy.  The  only  way  I  can  see  is,  if  I  can 
show  you  any  way  you  might  possibly  benefit,  probably 
you  will  accept  my  argument.  This  is  the  way  I  would 
go  about  it. 

Today  everyone   wants  money — the   currency  of 
America — in  banks.    It  is  a  theory  that  money  in  a 
bank  will  result  in  ten  times  that  much  credit.    During 
the  last  several  years  we  have  lost  three  billion  dollars 
in  banks  and  at  the  same  time  our  National  income  has 
decreased  thirty  billion  dollars.    Assume  that  Europe 
would  leave  two  hundred  fifty  million  in  gold  in  that 
country  every  year.    Two  hundred  fifty  million  multi 
plied  by  ten  would  mean  two  billion  five  hundred  mil 
lion  in  actual  credit.    Credit  means  that  the  purchasing 
power  of  the  people  of  Europe  would  be  increased  to 
two  billion  five  hundred  million  dollars.     Again  we 
revert  to  authorities  and  say  for  the  last  ten  years 
America  has  secured  forty  per  cent  of  Europe's  pur 
chasing  power.    That  seems  tremendous  but  the  sta 
tistical  abstracts  in  the  Statesman's  Year  Book  support 
that.    Assume  we  secured  forty  per  cent  of  Europe's 
income,  one  billion  of  American  commodities  being 
purchased,  it  would  put  men  back  to  work,  start  the 
wheels  of  industry  turning,  and  bring  back  the  thirty 
billion  dollars  lost  in  the  last  few  years.    It  seems  to 


WAR  DEBTS  199 

me  America  would  profit  regardless,  if  we  did  lose  that 
two  hundred  fifty  million  dollars. 


Closing  Remarks,  Chairman 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  I  think  all  of  you  will 
agree  if  a  speech  is  boiled  down  it  isn't  nearly  so  dry. 
I  am  going  to  boil  my  speech  down.  I  think  confession, 
as  most  psychologists  admit,  is  good  for  the  soul,  but 
possibly  bad  for  one's  standing  in  the  community.  I 
am  going  to  make  a  little  confession.  I  feel,  for  myself 
and  practically  every  person  here  in  this  assembly,  we 
must  admit  there  has  been  a  lot  of  fruitful  discussion  of 
this  topic  here  today.  There  have  been  at  least  sug 
gestions  of  many  sound  and  scientific  plans  and  poli 
cies  which  might  be  worked  out  for  the  successful  re 
adjustment  of  this  debt  problem.  We  cannot  hope  for 
too  much  in  an  hour's  time  but  I  believe  what  has  been 
accomplished  has  been  very  notable. 

I  think  most  of  us  will  agree  with  the  Editor  of  the 
Columbus  Democrat  who  recently,  referring  to  the 
propaganda  that  had  been  circulated  on  both  sides  of 
a  question,  said  something  like  this,  speaking  editorially 
of  this  problem  of  war  debts.  "It  has  recently  come  to 
the  notice  of  the  editor  of  this  paper  that  one  of  the 
fastidious  newly-weds  of  this  town  kneads  bread  with 
her  gloves  on.  This  incident  may  seem  somewhat 
peculiar  but  there  are  others  equally  strange.  For 
example,  the  Editor  of  this  paper  needs  bread  with  his 
gloves  on,  he  needs  bread  with  his  pants  on,  and  he 
needs  bread  with  his  hat  on,  but  unless  some  of  the 


200    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

subscribers  to  this  paper  pay  me  up,  he  is  going  to  need 
bread  without  a  dog-gone  thing  on,  and  Wisconsin  is  no 
Garden  of  Eden  in  the  winter  time." 

I  am  sure  every  one  will  say  Wisconsin  is  no  Garden 
of  Eden  in  the  summer  to  say  nothing  of  the  winter  and 
judging  by  the  expression  of  you  folks  from  Wyoming 
and  Pittsburgh  I  am  sure  you  will  agree  with  the  Editor 
of  the  Columbus  Democrat  who  made  those  remarks 
that  this  particular  piece  of  humor  is  in  no  way  per 
tinent  in  so  far  as  European  debts  are  concerned.  He 
says,  however,  that  most  of  the  senatorial  objections 
and  most  of  the  discussions  and  editorials  have  been 
equally  impertinent  and  it  is  for  that  reason  it  is  neces 
sary  for  the  people  of  America  who  are  informed  upon 
this  particular  problem  to  get  together  in  just  such 
discussions  as  this  and  try  to  arrive  at  a  sane  and  scien 
tific  understanding  of  the  issue  involved. 


THE  AMERICAN  LEGION  SHOULD 
BE  CONDEMNED 

A  Discussion  of  the  Bonus 


THE  AMERICAN  LEGION  SHOULD 

BE  CONDEMNED 

PRINCETON  UNIVERSITY  AFFIRMATIVE  VS. 
UNIVERSITY  OF  GEORGIA   NEGATIVE 

The  presence  in  the  United  States  of  such  a  large  body  of  voting 
citizens  united  for  a  common  political  purpose,  whether  or  not  that 
is  the  ostensible  purpose  stated  in  their  constitution,  has  aroused  con 
siderable  comment  and  much  unfavorable  opinion,  especially  since 
the  agitation  for  the  Bonus  payment  began,  and  the  Bonus  Expedi 
tionary  Force  marched  on  Washington  and  encamped  within  the  city 
limits  of  the  National  Capital  until  forcibly  ejected. 

The  debate  on  this  subject  presented  here  is  one  between  Princeton 
and  the  University  of  Georgia  held  in  the  historic  Whig  Hall  on  the 
Princeton  Campus,  and  is  one  of  the  debates  held  by  Georgia  while 
on  a  debate  trip  which  included  in  addition  to  Princeton  University 
the  following:  Columbia  University,  New  York  University,  Swarth- 
more  College,  and  the  University  of  North  Carolina. 

The  Question  was  stated,  Resolved:  That  the  American  Legion 
should  be  condemned.  Princeton  upheld  the  < Affirmative  and  Georgia 
the  Negative.  The  decision  went  to  the  Affirmative.  Mr.  W.  J. 
Montgomery,  debate  manager  at  Princeton,  presided. 

The  speeches  were  assembled  by  Professor  George  G,  Connelly, 
Director  of  Debate  at  the  University  of  Georgia,  and  contributed  by 
him  to  this  Volume, 


First  Affirmative,  Noel  Hemmendinger 
Princeton  University 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  There  are  two  American 
Legions.  One  is  what  it  purports  to  be?  what  it  might 
be?  and  what,  if  it  has  any  right  of  existence  at  all,  it 

203 


204    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

ought  to  be.    The  other  is  what  it  is.    Let  us  first 
sider  the  ideal  American  Legion. 

The  ideal  American  Legion  is  a  spontaneous  organ 
ization  of  overseas  veterans,  banded  together  for  the 
purpose  of  preserving  the  comradeship  and  ideals  of 
the  American  Forces  in  the  World  War.  Nothing  I 
can  say  is  half  so  expressive  as  the  preamble  to  the 
Legion  Constitution,  which  despite  a  tendency  to 
rhetorical  catch-phrases  of  indefinite  meaning,  is  none 
the  less  an  admirable  declaration:  "For  God  and  coun 
try  we  associate  ourselves  together  for  the  following 
purposes:  to  uphold  and  defend  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  of  America;  to  maintain  law  and 
order;  to  foster  and  perpetuate  a  one  hundred  per  cent 
Americanism;  to  preserve  the  memories  and  incidents 
of  our  association  in  the  great  war;  to  inculcate  a  sense 
of  individual  obligation  to  the  community,  state,  and 
nation;  to  combat  the  autocracy  of  both  the  classes  and 
the  masses;  to  make  right  the  master  of  might;  to 
promote  peace  and  good  will  on  earth;  to  safeguard 
and  transmit  to  posterity  the  principles  of  justice, 
freedom  and  democracy;  to  consecrate  and  sanctify 
our  comradeship  by  our  devotion  to  mutual  helpful 
ness."  The  addition  to  this  of  part  of  Article  II  of  the 
constitution  makes  the  picture  complete:  "The  Ameri 
can  Legion  shall  be  absolutely  non-political,  and  shall 
not  be  used  for  the  dissemination  of  partisan  principles 
nor  for  the  promotion  of  the  candidacy  of  any  persons 
seeking  public  office  or  preferment."  An  organization 
faithful  to  this  spirit  and  these  principles  would  deserve 
our  hearty  approval. 


AMERICAN  LEGION  SHOULD  BE   CONDEMNED     205 

Unfortunately  that  organization  does  not  exist.  For 
the  real  American  Legion,  about  one-third  of  whose 
members,  according  to  General  Butler,  saw  shell  fire, 
is  a  million  dollar  chartered  corporation,  with  a  large 
efficient  permanent  business  organization,  its  emblem 
division,  its  film  division,  and  its  publishing  corpora 
tion,  and  with  branches  in  every  section  of  the  country. 
The  real  American  Legion  is  far  from  spontaneous. 
It  was  fathered  by  prominent  men,  with  contributions 
of  money  by  various  corporations,  all  of  whom  were 
concerned  about  the  possible  radicalism  of  returned 
soldiers  and  desired  to  lead  them  in  paths  of  conserva 
tism.  Having  such  a  huge  overhead  in  its  permanent 
organization,  the  real  Legion  is  dependent  on  large 
membership  and  is  continually  exerting  its  efforts  in 
that  direction.  A  bond  salesman  could  learn  from  an 
American  Legion  organizer.  The  real  American  Le 
gion  represents,  with  its  million  members,  between  a 
fourth  and  a  fifth  of  our  veterans  of  the  World  War. 

There  are  three  activities  that  the  man  on  the  street 
associates  with  the  American  Legion.  They  are,  in  the 
order  in  which  he  would  probably  think  of  them:  raid 
ing  the  treasury,  holding  conventions,  and  red-baiting. 
Red-baiting,  the  means  which  the  Legion  has  adopted 
for  "safe-guarding  and  transmitting  to  posterity  the 
principles  of  justice,  freedom  and  democracy,"  is  one 
of  the  things  I  want  to  talk  about.  Of  how  the  legion 
naires  "maintain  law  and  order"  at  their  conventions 
little  needs  be  said.  The  treasury  raids,  which  the 
man  in  the  street  is  not  mistaken  in  considering  their 
outstanding  activity,  will  be  described  by  my  colleague. 


206    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

With  whatever  energy  survives  its  annual  convention 
and  bonus  grab,  the  American  Legion  is  accustomed 
to  act  as  the  self-appointed  guardian  of  Americanism. 
Of  course,  being  a  patriotic  organization,  the  Legion 
has  a  prior  right  to  the  definition  of  Americanism  over 
ministers  and  college  professors,  and  other  igno 
ramuses,  who,  since  they  probably  never  fought  for 
their  country,  have  no  way  of  knowing  what  their  coun 
try  stands  for. 

The  Legion  creed  is  not  based  on  the  principles  of 
Americanism;  Americanism  is  that  which  agrees  with 
the  Legion's  creed.  I  don't  mean  by  the  Legion  creed 
that  fine-sounding  statement  I  read  a  while  ago.  That's 
just  the  preamble  to  their  constitution.  No,  the  Legion 
creed,  were  it  in  black  and  white,  would  go  something 
like  this:  "Anyone  who  believes  in  disarmament,  who 
believes  that  any  American  institutions  could  be 
changed  for  the  better,  or  is  associated  with  people 
who  believe  these  things,  is  a  Red  or  a  Pink  and  takes 
his  orders  from  Moscow."  That  sounds  like  exaggera 
tion.  Let's  have  some  details.  Organizations  branded 
as  dangerous  by  the  Legion  are:  the  Foreign  Policy 
Association,  the  National  Council  for  the  Prevention 
of  War,  the  Woman's  International  League  for  Peace 
and  Freedom— to  say  nothing  of  the  American  Civil 
Liberties  Union  and  the  Federal  Council  of  Churches. 
Subversive  persons  are  Carrie  Chapman  Catt,  James 
Harvey  Robinson,  John  Dewey,  Stephen  S.  Wise  and 
John  Haynes  Holmes,  to  single  out  a  few.  Here's  how 
Legionnaires  practice  their  convictions.  Frederick  J. 
Libby,  a  gentle-spoken  Quaker  who  heads  the  National 


AMERICAN  LEGION   SHOULD   BE   CONDEMNED    207 

Council  for  the  Prevention  of  War,  once  a  Congrega 
tional  minister,  and  a  Red  Cross  worker  during  the 
war,  has  been  prevented  by  the  Legion  from  speaking 
in  many  cities,  by  a  campaign  of  lies  and  defamations. 
Mrs.  Lucia  Ames  Mead,  a  gray-haired  worker  for 
peace,  especially  through  the  agency  of  a  league  of  na 
tions,  scheduled  a  speaking  tour  through  the  South. 
The  Legion  forced  cancellation  of  three  of  her  engage 
ments.  Sherwood  Eddy,  a  nationally  known  Y.M.C.A. 
worker,  has  often  been  prevented  from  speaking  by  the 
Legion.  The  attempt  by  the  Los  Angeles  Legion  to 
prevent  the  visit  of  that  vicious  pacifist  Albert  Einstein, 
aroused  much  amusement.  A  Legion  speaker  said  he 
didn't  think  much  of  the  theory  of  relativity,  but  he  did 
know  that  Einstein  was  a  propagandist  against  the 
best  interests  of  the  country. 

Rampant  Legionnaire  patriotism  has  not  stopped 
short  of  our  schools.  After  many  attempts,  often  suc 
cessful,  to  get  schools  to  discard  such  inadequate  texts 
as  those  by  David  Muzzey,  Albert  Bushnell  Hart  and 
William  West,  the  Legion  decided  to  write  its  own  text 
book.  School  children  who  read  it  have  no  doubt  a 
glorious  conception  of  the  country  they  live  in.  The 
only  question  is  whether  they  can  recognize  it!  With 
a  fine  insight  into  fundamentals,  twelve  pages  are  de 
voted  to  the  Mexican  War,  one  to  American  literature 
and  one  to  Economic  History. 

It  wouldn't  matter  much  if  members  of  the  Legion 
were  content  with  making  fools  of  themselves.  A  little 
comedy  does  no  harm.  But  we  do  think  it  is  a  pretty 
bad  state  of  affairs  when  an  organization  that  sup- 


208    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

posedly  represents  America's  war  veterans,  can  wage  a 
continual  and  rather  effective  campaign  against  some 
of  the  nation's  finest  leaders.  The  Legion  has  not 
always  used  peaceful  methods,  either,  in  its  curtailment 
of  constitutional  guarantees.  In  Wilkes-Barre  an 
armed  group  of  Legionnaires  forcibly  broke  up  a  meet 
ing  where  Lenin's  memory  was  being  honored.  At 
Centralia,  Washington,  parading  Legionnaires  were 
fired  upon,  rioting  and  bloodshed  ensued,  and  several 
labor  leaders  were  railroaded  to  jail  by  a  court  ad 
mittedly  packed  by  Legionnaires. 

Every  beneficent  action  that  the  Legion  has  ever 
performed  is  not  sufficient  to  offset  the  acts  of  criminal 
intolerance  I  have  mentioned,  and  yet  they  are  a  small 
part  of  its  activities.  You  have  seen  how  it  upholds 
and  defends  the  Constitution,  and  safeguards  the  prin 
ciples  of  justice,  freedom,  and  democracy  in  domestic 
affairs.  Now  let  us  see  how  the  Legion  promotes  peace 
and  good  will  on  earth. 

The  American  Legion  promotes  peace  and  good  will 
by  a  campaign  of  war-preparedness  that  is  sometimes 
frankly  pro-war,  and  by  an  anti-foreign  policy  which 
threatens  international  friendship.  The  Legion,  it  is 
true,  no  longer  prevents  concerts  by  Fritz  Kreisler  or 
bans  German  opera,  but  it  still  conducts  a  campaign 
for  the  expulsion  of  aliens  which  makes  Secretary  of 
Labor  Doak  appear  a  liberal.  I  do  not  know  whether 
the  Legion  still  insists  that  every  alien  in  this  country 
who  did  not  fight  in  the  war  should  be  deported,  but  in 
1923  it  demanded  that  all  immigration  should  be  pro 
hibited,  and  it  is  still  an  advocate  of  drastic  curtail- 


AMERICAN   LEGION   SHOULD  BE   CONDEMNED    209 

ment  of  immigration.  The  Legion's  attitude  lias 
aroused  much  resentment  abroad,  and  if,  early  in  the 
last  decade,  the  Legion  had  had  to  fight  another  war 
against  Japan,  it  would  have  been  largely  the  result  of 
its  own  efforts. 

We  do  not  doubt  that  members  of  the  Legion  are 
sincere  in  their  desire  that  this  country  should  be  pre 
eminent  in  military  strength,  and,  being  more  tolerant 
than  the  Legion,  we  acknowledge  their  right  to  an 
opinion  on  the  subject.  But  we  do  insist  that  that 
opinion  is  not  worth  two  cents,  and  that  the  Legion's 
attempt  to  force  it  on  the  country  is  inimical  to  the 
country's  welfare.  The  Legion  not  only  is  not  espe 
cially  qualified  to  determine  our  policy  in  respect  to 
war,  but  is  emotionally  unfit  to  judge  on  the  subject. 
The  counsels  on  war  of  men  who  had  hate  and  fear 
drilled  into  them,  who  became  inured  to  bloodshed  and 
murder,  who  were  taught  to  consider  war  inevitable  and 
even  desirable,  should  be  shunned  rather  than  sought. 
In  view  of  which,  and  of  the  large  number  of  worthy 
ex-service  men  who  hold  aloof  from  the  Legion,  we  be 
lieve  no  more  confidence  can  be  reposed  in  the  Legion's 
opinion  on  war  than  in  the  paranoiac's  on  the  subject 
of  his  delusion. 

This  is  the  organization  which  maintains  at  Wash 
ington  the  most  efficient  lobby,  probably,  that  that 
haven  of  lobbyists  knows — a  lobby  whose  head  esti 
mates  he  has  written  between  fifteen  hundred  and  two 
thousand  bills,  originating  in  the  Legion,  no  small  num 
ber  of  which  have  been  passed  by  Congress.  Of  course, 
the  Legion  is  a  non-political  organization,  and  so  all 


210    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

these  bills  are  introduced  for  non-partisan  and  patriotic 
motives.  They  are  chiefly  of  two  kinds.  The  most 
important  one  of  those  two  kinds  will  be  discussed  by 
my  colleague.  The  other  relates  to  national  defense 
and  preparedness.  Disregarding  the  many  drives  of 
the  Legion  lobby  which  have  failed,  I  shall  mention 
just  a  few  of  its  accomplishments  in  the  field  of  legisla 
tion.  The  Legion  has  fathered  a  plan  for  universal 
draft  in  wartime  by  which  there  would  be  immediately 
delivered  to  the  government  not  only  man  power  for 
fighting,  but  all  the  Capital  and  Labor  of  the  nation. 
That  bill  was  passed,  minus  the  Capital  and  Labor 
provision.  The  Legion  has  prevented  a  cut  in  the 
number  of  reserve  officers,  and  a  decrease  in  the  appro 
priation  for  rifle  matches.  When  Congress  declined  to 
increase  the  appropriations  for  Citizens'  Military 
Training  Camps,  the  Legion,  by  a  campaign  of  propa 
ganda,  procured  so  many  applications  that  Congress 
was  forced  to  act.  The  Legion  has  consistently  op 
posed  every  attempt  to  abolish  the  Reserve  Officers 
Training  Corps,  or  make  it  optional  where  it  is  com 
pulsory.  The  Legion  has  been  a  continual  big  navy 
advocate,  and  has  deplored  with  huge  lament  every 
disarmament  move  or  suspension  of  naval  construction. 
A  bill  designed  to  outlaw  poison  gas,  in  accord  with 
our  treaty  obligations,  was  killed  by  the  Legion.  It 
did  not  bother  the  Legion  that  their  lobbyists  who 
blocked  that  bill  also  received  a  salary  from  the  chemi 
cal  manufacturers'  lobby.  Theodore  Burton's  resolu 
tion  to  prohibit  the  exportation  of  munitions  or  imple- 


AMERICAN   LEGION   SHOULD  BE   CONDEMNED    211 

ments  of  war  was  likewise  killed,  on  the  ground  that 
our  arms  manufacturers  had  to  keep  their  hand  in. 

To  those  of  us  who  believe  that  the  path  to  peace 
lies  along  the  road  of  increased  international  under 
standing,  making  possible  armament  reduction,  these 
activities  are  most  highly  reprehensible.  To  those  who 
believe  that  preparedness  prevents  war,  despite  the 
lesson  of  history  that  preparedness  for  war  and  the 
martial  spirit  invariably  cause  war,  they  may  be  praise 
worthy.  In  any  case,  whatever  our  convictions,  no 
intelligent  person  can  fail  to  condemn  a  powerful  or 
ganization  of  a  million  voters,  which  uses  every  method 
known  to  paid  persuaders,  and  holds  a  club  over  the 
head  of  every  Congressman  to  defeat  him  if  he  does 
not  vote  its  way,  in  order  to  force  through  Congress 
measures  which  it  happens  to  favor.  No  matter  for 
what  purpose  such  an  organization  acted,  it  would  be  a 
dangerous  threat  to  the  integrity  of  our  democratic 
institutions.  In  this  case  it  is  a  far  more  serious  threat 
because  it  is  acting  for  purposes  which  millions  of  re 
sponsible  people  believe  contrary  to  the  national  wel 
fare. 

Gentlemen,  the  American  Legion  should  be  con^ 
demned  because  it  has  been  false  to  its  ideals — because 
it  has  declared  itself  a  non-political  organization,  and 
for  its  ends  has  done  everything  possible  in  a  political 
way  except  to  ally  itself  with  a  political  party.  It 
should  be  condemned  because  it  has  sworn  to  uphold 
the  Constitution  and  has  trampled  it  underfoot.  It 
should  be  condemned  because  it  has  sworn  to  maintain 
law  and  order  and  has  indulged  in  drunken  riots.  It 


212    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

should  be  condemned  because  it  has  sworn  to  foster  a 
one  hundred  per  cent  Americanism  and  has  fostered  a 
narrow-minded  chauvinism.  It  should  be  condemned 
because  it  has  sworn  to  combat  the  autocracy  of  the 
classes  and  is  itself  a  glaring  example  of  class  domina 
tion,  compelling  class  legislation.  It  should  be  con 
demned  because  it  has  sworn  to  make  right  the  master 
of  might,  and  has  acted  with  strong-arm  methods  in 
utter  defiance  of  law.  It  should  be  condemned  because 
it  has  sworn  to  promote  peace  and  good  will,  and  has 
promoted  a  bigoted  nationalism  provocative  of  inter 
national  hatred.  The  American  Legion  should  be  con 
demned  because  it  has  sworn  to  safeguard  the  princi 
ples  of  justice,  freedom,  and  democracy  and  has  done 
more  to  undermine  them  than  any  organized  body  in 
the  history  of  the  American  nation. 

First  Negative,  M.  S.  Hodgson 
University  of  Georgia 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  We  feel  that  there  is  so 
much  that  public  discussion  has  left  in  the  background, 
that  we  shall  attempt  to  show  you  the  constructive  side 
of  the  Legion,  its  good  works  which  are  quietly  and 
unobtrusively  done. 

I  shall  read  the  Preamble  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
American  Legion,  "For  God  and  Country,  we  associate 
ourselves  together  for  the  following  purposes: 

"To  uphold  and  defend  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  of  America,  to  maintain  law  and  order; 
to  foster  and  perpetuate  a  one  hundred  per  cent 


AMERICAN  LEGION   SHOULD  BE   CONDEMNED     213 

Americanism;  to  preserve  the  memories  and  incidents 
of  our  association  in  the  Great  War;  to  inculcate  a 
sense  of  individual  obligation  to  the  community,  state, 
and  nation;  to  combat  the  autocracy  of  both  the  classes 
and  the  masses;  to  make  right  the  master  of  might;  to 
promote  peace  and  good  will  on  earth;  to  safeguard 
and  transmit  to  posterity  the  principles  of  justice,  free 
dom,  and  democracy;  to  consecrate  and  sanctify  our 
comradeship  by  our  devotion  to  mutual  helpfulness." 

I  shall  also  quote  two  excerpts  from  the  Second  Arti 
cle  of  the  Constitution:  "The  American  Legion  is  a 
civilian  organization"  and  "The  American  Legion  shall 
be  absolutely  non-political  and  shall  not  be  used  for 
the  dissemination  of  partisan  principles  nor  for  the 
promotion  of  the  candidacy  of  any  person  seeking  pub- 
lice  office  or  preferment." 

Now,  111  take  the  most  important  parts  of  this  pre 
amble  which  points  out  the  purposes  and  aims  of  the 
organization  and  attempt  to  show  you  that  the  Legion 
has  lived  up  to  its  ideals  and  has  been  of  great  benefit 
to  this  country. 

"To  maintain  law  and  order."  In  a  vast  number  of 
cases,  in  times  of  trouble  and  disaster,  the  American 
Legion  has  organized  for  the  purpose  of  keeping  law 
and  order  until  the  proper  authorities  had  arrived. 
When  such  times  arrive,  a  call  is  sounded  and  the 
Legionnaires  gather,  ready  to  meet  any  crisis. 

You  people  in  New  Jersey  cannot  appreciate  the 
necessity  for  some  organized  force  working  for  law 
and  order  in  certain  emergencies.  In  small  communi 
ties  we  do  not  have  the  necessary  protection  that  can  be 


214    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

called  forth.  For  instance,  In  floods  and  other  catas 
trophes,  the  Legion  is  a  God-send  to  the  small  unorgan 
ized  community,  and  fills  a  real  need. 

"To  foster  and  perpetuate  a  one  hundred  per  cent 
Americanism."  Their  campaign  of  propaganda  to 
combat  Socialism  and  Communism  through  the  public 
schools  has  been  criticized  as  snooping  interference  and 
as  Un-American.  However,  it  is  in  accord  with  the 
general  principles  laid  down  by  our  Government  to 
promote  Americanism  in  educating  the  coming  genera 
tion  as  regards  democracy.  There  is  no  use  denying 
that  the  Communists  and  Socialists  have  their  propa 
ganda;  yet  for  some  strange  reason  the  so-called  Lib 
erals  put  up  a  great  cry  as  soon  as  one  of  our  patriotic 
organizations  sees  fit  to  teach  Americanism.  Their 
fight  to  combat  the  spread  of  Communistic  and  Social 
istic  propaganda  in  the  public  schools,  is  part  of  their 
desire  to  have  a  government  in  which  neither  the  masses 
nor  the  classes  will  have  control.  They  want  a  govern 
ment  in  which  both  the  lower  and  upper  classes  have  a 
hand.  This  desire  comes  under  that  part  of  their  pur 
pose,  "To  combat  the  autocracy  of  both  the  classes  and 
the  masses." 

Then  the  education  of  immigrants  who  come  to  this 
country  forms  an  important  phase  of  their  Americanism 
work.  They  also  advocated  legislation  for  the  quicker 
naturalization  and  citizenship  for  those  immigrants 
who  fought  in  the  war,  attributing  their  patriotism  as 
shown  by  their  fighting  for  our  country. 

"To  promote  peace  and  good  will  on  earth  and  to 
make  right  the  master  of  might."  I  should  like  to  dis- 


AMERICAN  LEGION  SHOULD  BE   CONDEMNED    215 

cuss  this  purpose  under  three  headings.  First,  their 
plan  of  Home  defense.  The  men  composing  the  Legion 
have  all  been  through  this  last  Great  War,  and  they, 
more  than  any  other  group  of  men,  are  desirous  of 
peace.  Their  conception  is  that  peace  is  maintained 
by  the  upkeep  of  an  adequate  Home  Defense.  There 
is  nothing  in  the  record  which  justifies  the  much  talked 
of  criticism  of  the  Legion  that  they  are  a  group  of  war 
lords.  What  they  seek  is  simply  an  adequate  national 
defense.  This  is  nothing  new  or  radical.  Every  active 
and  well-informed  organization  is  advocating  the  same 
preparedness  program  as  a  guarantee  of  world  peace. 
And  you  people  here  in  the  East  should  be  particularly 
interested  and  quick  to  agree  with  the  Legion,  since 
you  would  be  the  first  and  greatest  sufferers  in  case  of 
foreign  invasion.  They  do  not  mean  that  every  nation 
should  go  armed  to  the  teeth,  but  merely  that  we  should 
have  forces  that  can  be  mobilized  and  be  made  ready 
for  action  in  a  short  length  of  time.  Every  nation 
would  then  have  a  healthy  respect  for  every  other  na 
tion  and  would  be  rather  hesitant  about  trying  to  over 
come  it  by  war. 

Second,  the  plan  the  Legion  presented  to  the  War 
Policies  Commission.  Under  this  proposed  plan,  uni 
versal  conscription  would  be  practiced,  with  no  im 
munities  allowed.  Every  man,  woman,  and  child  would 
be  subject  to  draft,  to  do  whatever  he  was  needed  for. 
Every  corporation,  in  fact,  all  industry,  all  transporta 
tion  facilities  would  be  conscripted  for  the  common 
cause.  Under  a  plan  of  this  kind,  no  one  would  be  safe 
in  thinking  he  could  escape  being  drafted,  and  no  one 


216    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

could  possibly  make  any  financial  gain  from  the  war. 
With  personal  freedom  and  the  making  of  profit  abso 
lutely  removed  from  the  realm  of  possibility,  the  desire 
for  war  would  be  minimized  to  the  lowest  degree.  This 
very  program  calling  for  the  conscription  of  private 
wealth  and  industry  for  the  public  good  proves  that 
the  Legion  is  not  dogmatically  opposed  to  Socialism  as 
its  critics  would  have  us  believe.  It  is  broad  enough 
to  take  one  of  its  principles  and  use  it  when  the  ulti 
mate  end  is  world  peace. 

Third,  the  relation  of  the  Legion  with  Fidac,  which 
is  an  organization  of  the  veterans  of  every  nation  which 
participated  in  the  wan  By  their  association  with  this 
organization,  by  the  erection  abroad  of  monuments  to 
celebrate  our  deeds  and  theirs,  by  sending  yearly 
groups  of  Legionnaires  to  visit  these  countries,  the  Le 
gion  is  helping  tremendously  in  creating  a  universal 
attitude  of  peace.  By  a  recent  act  of  the  Legion,  the 
relations  we  have  with  this  international  group  are 
being  spread  among  the  school  children  of  the  country, 
thus  instilling  in  them  the  idea  of  world  peace.  The 
very  existence  of  this  organization,  founded  for  the 
purposes  of  maintaining  peace,  is  another  indication 
that  the  Legion  is  not  the  belligerent  group  of  war  lords 
that  their  critics  have  made  them  out  to  be. 

The  last  point  I  want  to  discuss  with  you  is  their 
Welfare  Work.  The  Legion  has  an  Endowment  Fund 
of  practically  five  million  dollars.  This  fund  was  raised 
by  subscription  in  the  Legion  for  the  purpose  of  use  in 
welfare  work.  The  interest  from  this  fund  amounts 
to  a  little  over  two  hundred  thousand  dollars  a  year 


AMERICAN  LEGION   SHOULD  BE   CONDEMNED     217 

and  is  divided  equally  between  their  National  Rehabili 
tation  Work  and  their  Child  Welfare  Work. 

The  National  Rehabilitation  Committee  sits  in 
Washington.  It  has  probably  carried  on  one  of  the 
most  important  services  of  the  Legion  these  past  few 
years.  Veterans  who  feel  that  they 'have  received  an 
injustice  in  the  matter  of  compensations  and  pensions, 
bring  their  pleas  and  complaints  to  this  committee 
which  has  a  tremendous  staff  to  handle  such  matters. 
Money  recoveries  to  the  extent  of  seven  million  five 
hundred  thousand  dollars  were  made  during  the  past 
year,  which  figure  exceeds  that  of  the  preceding  year 
by  about  one  million  dollars.  Then,  too,  the  cases  of 
disabled  and  needy  veterans  who  either  have  not 
needed  help  before  or  who  just  were  not  able  to  get  it 
before,  are  brought  to  the  attention  of  this  committee 
and  given  prompt  service.  This  Rehabilitation  Work 
acts  as  a  go-between  for  the  veterans  and  their  just 
dues. 

The  Child  Welfare  program  also  comes  under  this 
Endowment  Fund.  The  object  of  this  Child  Welfare 
work  is  that  of  training  good  citizens.  To  do  this,  they 
strive  to  keep  the  family  ties  intact,  to  help  fathers  and 
mothers  in  their  work  of  raising  children,  and  to  afford 
them  the  pleasure  of  securing  and  enjoying  the  normal 
necessities  of  life.  This  work  is  carried  on  separately 
in  each  state,  which  in  turn  is  in  one  of  five  districts, 
which  report  to  the  National  Welfare  office.  These 
state  agents  investigate  worthy  cases  in  order  to  de 
termine  who  shall  receive  aid  from  the  Endowment 
Fund.  This  organization  is  a  member  of  the  Child 


218    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

Welfare  League  of  America  and  cooperates  with  them 
in  every  possible  way. 

The  care  of  the  widows  and  orphans  of  the  veterans 
is  a  part  of  the  creation  of  individual  obligation  to  the 
community.  During  the  first  six  months  of  1932, 
forty-three  thousand  dollars  was  spent  in  caring  for 
orphans  of  veterans.  This  was  done  through  the  Na 
tional  Organization  and  there  is  no  way  of  estimating 
how  much  was  spent  through  the  local  posts  individ 
ually. 

Then  through  their  Unemployment  Commission, 
much  valuable  work  has  been  done  in  securing  and 
creating  jobs  for  the  unemployed.  During  the  Fall 
and  Winter  of  1930  and  the  year  1931,  over  two  hun 
dred  thousand  people  were  employed  through  the  ef 
forts  of  the  Legion.  Thousands  of  others  were  helped 
through  the  individual  efforts  of  the  Legionnaires.  If 
every  one  of  us  could  apply  ourselves  with  the  same 
interest  and  enthusiasm,  how  much  sooner  would  this 
present  economic  situation  grow  brighter  and  easier  to 
bear? 

Now  this  review  of  how  the  Legion  has  lived  up  to 
its  principles  as  expressed  in  its  constitution  may  seem 
a  bit  prosaic  to  my  Opponents.  The  recitation  of  its 
constructive  program  may  seem  a  bit  elementary.  But 
we  feel  it  is  a  worthwhile  program  well-executed  by  the 
Legion,  and  far  more  important  for  discussion  purposes 
than  a  squabble  over  the  bonus  question. 


AMERICAN  LEGION   SHOULD   BE   CONDEMNED    219 

Second  Affirmative,  Arthur  Northwood,  Jr. 
Princeton  University 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  The  American  Legion  is 
to  be  condemned  for  its  hypocrisy,  its  conventions,  its 
bigoted  conservatism,  and  its  militaristic  attitude* 
These  facts  my  colleague  has  already  clearly  shown  to 
you.  I  wish  to  prove  that  the  American  Legion  de 
serves  our  condemnation  because  of  its  stand  on  the 
bonus,  and  allied  issues. 

The  American  soldier  was  not  badly  treated  in  com 
parison  with  the  soldiers  of  other  countries  or  with  the 
men  back  home.  He  received  thirty  dollars  a  month 
salary.  The  French  infantryman  received  one  dollar 
and  fifty  cents.  The  American  got  food,  clothing,  and 
shelter  worth  two  dollars  a  day,  giving  him  a  real  wage 
of  ninety  dollars  a  month,  whereas  the  average  worker 
here  received  only  eighty-nine  dollars  a  month.  The 
soldier's  physical,  mental,  and  moral  needs  were  taken 
care  of  as  well  as  conditions  would  permit.  So  we  ask, 
"Why  is  the  Legion  raising  a  row  about  the  debt  this 
country  owes  the  veterans?" 

It  must  be  admitted  that  the  pension  tradition  has 
always  been  strong  in  this  country,  but  just  because  an 
unholy  tradition  is  strong,  it  does  not  mean  that  we 
should  not  fight  back  with  every  ounce  of  energy  that 
we  have,  and  that  we  shouldn't  condemn  every  organ 
ization  that  is  trying  to  have  these  scandals  recur. 

In  1917  Congress  did  everything  in  its  power  to  take 
care  of  the  soldiers,  and  to  prevent  a  recurrence  of  the 
scandals.  It  inaugurated  a  War  Risk  Insurance  Plan, 


220    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

which  made  it  possible  for  all  the  soldiers  to  insure 
their  lives  for  ten  thousand  dollars  on  a  very  liberal 
basis,  so  liberal  in  fact  that  this  plan  alone  has  already 
cost  the  government  nine  hundred  twenty-four  million 
dollars.  Provisions  of  this  act  said  that  the  government 
would  see  that  adequate  care  was  taken  of  the  families 
of  veterans.  It  did  so,  at  a  cost  so  far  of  two  hundred 
ninety-eight  million  dollars. 

When  the  soldiers  returned  from  France  they  were 
each  given  sixty  dollars,  and  if  they  had  been  hurt, 
generous  care  was  provided  for  them  in  the  form  of 
pensions,  hospitals,  and  vocational  training.  This 
treatment  of  the  soldiers  was  bountiful  enough,  and 
most  of  the  army  thought  so  at  the  time.  Then,  the 
American  Legion  was  formed,  with  avowedly  patriotic, 
non-political,  unselfish  aims.  But  if  its  attitude  ever 
was  that  way,  it  soon  changed,  for  its  members  almost 
immediately  started  a  policy  of  grabbing  what  they 
could  get.  As  early  as  1920  their  speaker,  Manuel, 
boasted  that  in  one  year  they  had  "extracted"  from 
Congress — extracted,  the  word  is  theirs,  not  mine — I 
use  it  to  show  their  attitude;  in  one  year  they  had 
extracted  from  Congress  more  than  had  the  Civil  War 
Veterans  in  thirty  years. 

I  have  shown  thus  far  that  the  American  soldier  was 
treated  generously.  By  a  quotation  we  have  seen  that 
the  attitude  of  the  American  Legion  practically  from 
the  start,  was  to  grab  all  it  could  get.  To  aid  in  the 
grabbing,  the  Legion  built  up  one  of  the  most  powerful 
lobbies  in  existence.  In  the  next  few  minutes  I  would 
like  to  show  you  what  this  lobby  has  accomplished  in 


AMERICAN   LEGION    SHOULD  BE   CONDEMNED     221 

six  different  fields;  in  other  words,  I  will  give  you  the 
various  accomplishments  of  the  Legion,  and  the  various 
counts  upon  which  it  is  to  be  condemned. 

Soon  after  its  inception,  the  Legion  started  a  drive 
which  culminated  in  1924  in  the  passage  of  the  Ad 
justed  Service  Compensation  Act,  a  pension  in  disguise. 
This  act  was  passed  over  the  President's  veto,  who  said 
at  the  time,  "We  must  either  stop  this  bill,  or  reverse 
our  theory  of  patriotism."  His  words  have  proved 
true,  but  we  did  not  stop  the  bill.  This  bill  states  that 
the  government  owes  each  veteran  a  dollar  or  a  dollar 
and  a  quarter  a  day  more  for  his  services  than  he  has 
already  received;  takes  the  figure  which  these  calcula 
tions  give,  adds  to  it  interest  on  the  basis  of  a  twenty- 
year  endowment  plan,  and  gives  the  veteran  a  certifi 
cate  with  the  final  figure  on  it  which  certificate  the 
government  promises  to  redeem  in  1945.  Its  efforts  to 
get  this  bill  passed  to  give  the  veterans  an  undeserved 
pension  constitute  Count  One  against  the  Legion.  Its 
recent  demand  that  these  certificates  should  be  immedi 
ately  redeemed  fortheir  face  value,  giving  each  veteran 
forty-five  cents  on  the  dollar,  unaccrued  interest,  is 
Count  Two. 

With  the  passage  of  this  bill  in  1924  as  a  starter  the 
Legion  has  gone  from  glory  unto  glory.  It  has  been 
so  successful  in  its  efforts  that  it  is  no  longer  a  question 
of  what  the  country  will  do  with  the  veterans,  but  what 
the  veterans  will  do  with  the  country! 

Having  seen  why  the  veterans  are  to  be  condemned 
for  their  stand  in  the  realm  of  the  pensions  themselves, 


222    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

let  us  turn  to  another  field,  the  one  known  as  the  "medi 
cal  racket." 

The  government  assumed  responsibility  for,  and  took 
care  of  veterans  who  got  sick  after  the  war,  when  it 
could  be  presumed  that  the  sickness  was  caused  by  war 
service.  But  this  presumption  was  stretched  so  far  that 
in  1924,  Congress  threw  open  the  government  hospitals 
to  any  veteran  who  was  sick  for  any  cause  whatsoever, 
except  wilful  misconduct.  The  attitude  of  the  Legion 
on  this  bill  is  somewhat  questionable,  but  at  least  it  did 
not  oppose  its  passage.  Last  year  more  than  half  of 
the  admissions  to  veterans'  hospitals  were  for  causes 
absolutely  unrelated  to  the  war.  The  veteran  is  given 
his  traveling  expenses,  and  two  dollars  and  sixty-five 
cents  a  day  while  he  is  in  the  hospital.  For  these  pro 
visions,  the  American  Legion  is  responsible.  To  show 
how  far  veterans  are  taking  advantage  of  the  govern 
ment  for  free  treatment,  it  need  only  be  stated  that 
while  our  war  casualties  were  one-eighth  those  of  Great 
Britain,  we  have  three  times  as  many  men  under  treat 
ment  as  she  has.  Yet  the  Legion  is  clamoring  for  more 
free  service,  more  hospitals!  It  is  now  supporting  a 
bill  in  Congress  for  the  outlay  of  twelve  million  dollars 
for  these.  General  Hines,  head  of  the  Veterans  Bu 
reau,  has  said  that  this  hospitalization  service  alone 
will  eventually  cost  the  government  one  hundred  forty 
million  dollars  a  year.  Do  you  wonder  that  this  is 
called  a  racket?  The  Legion's  present  aim  is  to  have 
the  clause  removed  from  the  statute  books  which  keeps 
veterans  from  our  hospitals  who  are  suffering  on  ac 
count  of  wilful  misconduct,  I  suppose  so  that  a  larger 


AMERICAN  LEGION  SHOtJLB  BE  CONDEMNED    223 

percentage  of  its  law-abiding  members  will  be  able  to 
use  the  hospital  facilities. 

Now,  let  us  turn  to  a  third  field  in  which  the  Legion 
has  been  active — getting  big  pensions  for  Retired 
Emergency  Officers.  The  Legion  fought  for  eight  years 
to  have  this  undemocratic,  unjust,  bill  passed,  fought 
against  the  opposition  of  such  organizations  as  the 
Veterans  of  Foreign  Wars  and  the  Private  Soldiers' 
Legion.  The  bill  provided  that  an  Emergency  Army 
officer,  whose  service  might  consist  of  ten  months  at  a 
desk  at  Washington,  should  receive  seventy-five  per 
cent  of  his  salary  upon  retirement,  if  he  could  show 
thirty  per  cent  disability  which  it  might  be  presumed 
had  been  caused  by  the  war.  Under  this  law,  a  certain 
man  who  enlisted  thirteen  days  before  the  Armistice, 
and  who  went  back  to  civil  life  in  1922  with  no  wound, 
injury,  or  disease,  is  now  drawing  one  hundred  eighty- 
seven  dollars  and  fifty  cents  a  month  as  a  retirement 
fee,  at  the  same  time  that  he  receives  nine  thousand 
dollars  a  year  as  a  counsel  for  the  Veterans  Administra 
tion.  Under  this  act  the  government  is  now  paying 
eleven  million  dollars  a  year. 

I  have  not  the  time  to  go  into  the  disability  allow 
ances,  which  the  Legion  put  through  Congress  in  1930, 
which  permit  a  man  whose  sole  service  to  his  country 
was  spending  five  weeks  at  government  expense  in 
Camp  Dix  to  draw  twelve  dollars  a  month  from  the 
government  because  he  has  a  cold  in  his  head. 

The  American  Legion  has  been  equally  successful  in 
its  efforts  to  get  its  members  into  government  jobs. 
Whereas,  the  passing  grade  in  the  Civil  Service  Exam- 


224    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

ination  is  seventy  per  cent  for  the  ordinary  citizen,  for 
the  veteran  it  is  sixty  per  cent.  And  once  a  veteran  has 
passed,  he  must  be  given  preferment  over  all  the  others. 
There  is  an  instance  recorded  of  where  one  hundred 
and  forty-four  people  were  taking  examinations  for 
three  posts.  Everyone  passed,  some  with  marks  in  the 
high  nineties,  except  three  veterans  who  were  in  the 
sixties,  a  flunking  grade  for  ordinary  people.  But 
veterans  are  not  ordinary  people,  and  so  these  three 
also  passed  and  it  was  they  who  received  the  jobs.  The 
disastrous  effects  of  this  arrangement  upon  our  Civil 
Service  is  apparent.  The  American  Legion  claims,  and 
must  be  given,  the  responsibility  for  this. 

We  have  now  finished  condemning  the  Legion  on 
specific  counts.  They  are:  first,  pushing  through  the 
Adjusted  Service  Compensation;  second,  demanding 
full  payment  now  of  something  that  does  not  come  due 
till  1945;  third,  forcing  the  building  of  government 
hospitals,  and  trying  to  have  the  laws  so  liberalized 
that  the  government  would  become  the  greatest  treater 
of  venereal  diseases  in  the  world;  fourth,  forcing  the 
government  to  give  to  Emergency  Officers  fees  far  out 
of  proportion  to  their  services;  fifth,  making  it  possible 
for  soldiers  to  secure  disability  allowances  for  peace 
time  injuries;  sixth,  disrupting  our  Civil  Service  Sys 
tem.  For  all  of  these  activities,  the  Legion  is  to  be 
condemned. 

Now,  I  should  like  to  have  you  investigate  with  me 
the  present  condition  of  the  Legion.  If  its  members 
are  poor,  if  they  have  been  unable  to  fit  themselves 
back  into  civil  life,  perhaps  there  is  some  excuse  for 


AMERICAN   LEGION   SHOULD  BE    CONDEMNED     225 

the  policy  of  grab.  But  are  they  poor?  I  will  go  to 
their  own  magazine,  The  American  Legion  Monthly, 
for  my  answer.  It  records  that  the  salary  of  the  aver 
age  Legionnaire  is  three  thousand  four  hundred  twelve 
dollars  a  year.  We  all  know  that  the  average  citizen 
makes  less  than  one  thousand  dollars.  Now  if  these 
are  facts,  and  they  are,  what  is  the  excuse  for  the  Le 
gion's  policy  of  taxing  the  latter  group  to  aid  the 
former?  There  is  none.  It  is  bald-faced  robbery.  It 
can't  even  be  excused  as  a  reward  for  patriotism,  for 
less  than  half  of  the  veterans  ever  fought  for  their 
country.  Yet  at  a  time  when  every  penny  counts,  this 
class  is  taking  twenty-five  per  cent  of  the  government 
income,  nine  hundred  twenty-eight  million  dollars. 
Does  not  the  organization  which  is  responsible  for  this 
travesty  on  justice  deserve  our  condemnation? 

Let  us  compare  our  policy  toward  our  veterans  with 
that  of  other  nations.  We  find  that  we  have  been 
extremely  liberal.  France,  who  had  eleven  times  as 
many  casualties  as  we  had,  is  paying  benefits  to  one 
hundred  and  fifty  thousand  fewer  men.  Other  nations 
give  pensions  only  to  those  who  did  some  real  fighting. 
The  United  States  gives  pensions  to  those  who  received 
free  board  in  our  army  camps,  and  ran  no  risk,  other 
than  falling  off  trolley  cars  and  contracting  social  dis 
eases. 

Great  Britain  pays  five  hundred  twenty  dollars  a 
year  for  disability.  The  United  States  pays  up  to 
two  thousand  four  hundred  dollars. 

Foreign  countries  had  thirty-four  million  men  under 
arms,  a  good  many  of  whom  fought  for  the  duration 


226    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

of  the  war,  four  and  a  quarter  years.  The  United 
States  had  five  million  men  mobilized,  half  of  whom 
never  fought  at  all,  and  the  other  half  did  not  fight 
more  than  six  months.  Yet  the  United  States  paid  in 
the  past  year  in  pensions,  fifty  million  dollars  more 
than  all  the  other  countries  put  together.  In  view  of 
these  figures,  can  anyone  doubt  that  the  policy  of  the 
United  States  has  been  so  liberal  to  the  veterans  that 
it  has  absolutely  disregarded  the  rights  of  the  other 
citizens  of  this  country? 

Now,  let  us  see  how  these  Legion-made  laws  work 
out  in  practice.  Are  they  fair  or  just?  First,  we  must 
consider  the  ex-soldier,  who,  in  a  fit  of  drunkenness, 
falls  down  and  breaks  his  leg.  He  may  obtain  care  at 
government  expense,  and  then  get  a  pension  of  twelve 
to  forty  dollars  a  month,  even  though  his  service  con 
sisted  of  three  months  of  fresh  air  at  Camp  Upton. 

If  he  has  a  pain  in  his  stomach,  he  can  go  to  the 
nearest  veteran's  hospital  at  government  expense,  draw 
his  pension  and  an  extra  allowance  of  two  dollars  and 
sixty-five  cents  a  day  while  undergoing  observation, 
and  then,  discharged  as  cured,  collect  from  the  gov 
ernment  for  his  fare  home. 

A  widow  who  lost  her  only  son  and  support  on  the 
battlefield  gets  twenty  dollars  a  month.  The  man 
whose  sole  service  to  his  country  was  to  catch  mumps 
at  Camp  Spartanburg  gets  twenty-five  dollars. 

Among  those  who  are  receiving  anywhere  up  to  one 
hundred  fifty  dollars  a  month  as  full  retirement,  be 
cause  they  have  a  thirty  per  cent  disability,  are  pro 
fessional  athletes,  police  captains  in  New  York  City, 


AMERICAN   LEGION   SHOULD  BE   CONDEMNED    227 

and  business  men  with  a  regular  salary  of  four  thou 
sand  to  ten  thousand  dollars  a  year. 

A  retired  Emergency  Captain  can  get  one  hundred 
fifty  dollars  a  month.  A  dead  Emergency  Captain's 
widow  who  has  to  support  a  child  gets  forty  dollars. 
You  see,  the  Legion  is  so  busy  grabbing  for  the  un 
deserving  living,  that  it  has  forgotten  the  deserving 
dead. 

I  have  tried  to  show  you  that  our  soldiers  were  gen 
erously  treated  during  the  war,  that  the  Legion  from 
the  very  first  had  the  policy  of  grab,  that  this  policy 
worked  out  unfairly  in  six  specific  fields,  that  our  coun 
try  in  comparison  with  other  countries  has  been  more 
than  lavish  with  its  veterans,  that  the  present  condi 
tion  of  the  veterans  does  not  warrant  their  receiving 
such  a  share  of  the  national  income  as  they  are  getting, 
and,  finally,  that  the  laws  which  they  have  enacted  are 
manifestly  unjust. 

I  close  with  a  word  to  the  future.  Under  the  existing 
laws  the  veterans  will  soon  be  costing  the  country  three 
billion  dollars  a  year.  Yet  the  Legion  is  clamoring  for 
more.  Is  it  not  the  duty  of  every  citizen  to  oppose  this 
organized  minority?  Should  not  every  honest  man 
fight  it  with  all  his  energy  and  condemn  it  with  all  his 
force? 

Second  Negative,  Aaron  Hardy  Ulm 
University  of  Georgia 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  If  you  are  going  to  con 
demn  the  American  Legion  on  the  grounds  offered  by 
the  Gentlemen  of  the  Opposition,  you  could  never  deny 


228    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

being  violent  iconoclasts.  They  have  eloquently  de 
manded  that  we  condemn  the  Legion  for  what  any 
large  organization  may  always  be  criticized,  and  in 
doing  so,  they  have  unconsciously  demanded  that 
nearly  every  institution  which  we  possess  be  likewise 
condemned.  Now,  I  do  not  think  that  we  are  going  to 
remodel  the  entire  system  of  life  in  this  world,  not 
tonight  at  least,  and  yet  to  abolish  the  American  Legion 
on  the  charges  supported  by  the  Gentlemen  of  Prince 
ton  would  entail  quite  similar  procedure. 

Let  us  start  where  every  reasonable  discussion  should 
start,  at  the  beginning,  and  ask  the  question:  Was  there 
really  any  need  for  such  an  organization  as  the  Ameri 
can  Legion?  Possibly  such  a  need  is  not  recognized  by 
many  of  my  audience  tonight,  but  it  was  recognized 
and  emphasized  by  the  leaders  of  the  army  in  France 
and  the  administration  of  that  day,  headed  by  no  other 
than  your  own  Woodrow  Wilson.  In  fact,  the  original 
idea  of  this  association  of  veterans  was  proposed  and 
developed  by  these  men,  for  they,  having  history  to 
convince  them,  readily  realized  that  returning  soldiers 
are  much  less  dangerous  when  they  are  organized  in 
patriotic  groups.  They  had  the  records  of  Hannibal, 
of  Caesar,  of  Cromwell,  to  urge  them  in  this  decision. 

But  in  late  wars  it  has  been  customary  for  veterans 
to  form  themselves  into  some  kind  of  political  party, 
and  until  the  American  Legion  was  formed,  not  one  of 
these  groups  has  much  considered  the  welfare  of  the 
country.  Nearly  in  our  own  time  we  have  the  disgust 
ing  spectacle  of  the  Grand  Army  of  the  Republic, 
which  fifty  years  ago  was  practically  running  the  entire 


AMERICAN  LEGION  SHOULD  BE    CONDEMNED    229 

government.  Four  men  went  to  the  White  House 
elected  by  the  G.A.R.,  and  more  than  half  of  the  Na 
tional  Legislature  owed  their  seats  to  the  support  of 
these  ex-soldiers.  Why  in  Washington  in  those  days, 
the  citizens  spoke  of  the  Capitol  as  the  old  soldiers' 
home.  There  you  have  an  example  of  the  power  which 
these  men  in  the  Legion  might  exercise  if  they  were  not 
restricted  by  the  principles  of  their  organization.  You 
accuse  them  of  selfishness.  Here  I  offer  you  the  possi 
bility  of  what  they  might  do  if  they  did  not  have  a 
purer  interest  in  this  nation  than  the  opposition  has 
described. 

Furthermore,  the  Legion,  unlike  the  G.A.R.,  has 
never  purposely  tried  to  make  raids  on  the  Treasury 
under  the  claim  of  patriotism.  The  entire  subject  of 
the  bonus  originated  in  the  platforms  of  campaigning 
congressmen.  These  demagogues  encouraged  the  vet 
erans  to  ask  for  the  payment  of  their  compensation 
certificates,  and,  finally,  such  men  as  Congressman 
Patman  of  Texas  urged  them  to  march  on  the  Capital. 
Thousands  of  veterans  swarmed  to  Washington  when 
the  House  passed  the  bonus  this  summer.  The  Legion 
realized  that  this  was  a  false  hope  and  tried  to  discour 
age  these  men.  What  happened  when  they  arrived  in 
the  city  at  the  behest  of  their  congressmen?  They 
were  in  the  midst  of  exercising  their  constitutional 
right  of  assembly  and  petition,  and  possibly  that  of 
pursuing  happiness  when  they  were  driven  from  the 
city  by  the  regular  army  at  the  command  of  President 
Hoover.  Only  when  their  comrades  had  been  outraged 
in  this  fashion  did  the  Legion  enter  the  picture.  Every 


230    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

past  convention  of  the  Legion  had  defeated  motion  for 
payment  of  the  bonus,  and  only  after  they  were  in 
censed  against  the  administration  by  the  brutal  action 
at  Washington,  did  the  Legion  declare  for  immediate 
payment. 

They  tell  us  the  Legion  is  begging  and  is  trying  to 
force  the  American  people  to  pay  for  what  has  been 
described  as  their  patriotism.  That  is  false.  The  Le 
gion  is  simply  asking  that  the  soldiers  who  were  in  the 
late  army  be  paid  for  what  they  lost  while  defending 
this  nation.  World  War  veterans  have  actually  re 
ceived  less  than  any  of  the  veterans  of  American  wars. 
The  opposition  may  quote  large  figures  in  dollars,  but 
no  mention  is  made  of  the  enormous  tracts  of  land 
which  were  given  to  Revolutionary,  Mexican,  and  Civil 
War  veterans.  Why,  I  have  an  ancestor,  of  whom  I 
am  justly  proud,  who  fought  in  the  war  against  Eng 
land  and  was  given  as  a  reward  six  hundred  acres  of 
land  in  the  state  of  Georgia.  You  might  not  think  so, 
but  it  was  worth  something. 

Everyone  in  this  country  during  the  last  war  could 
ask  for  and  get  just  about  any  salary  he  desired,  while 
the  men  in  the  army  were  being  paid  one  dollar  per 
day,  of  which  they  actually  got  one  half.  Why  is  it, 
then,  that  these  people  who  have  had  their  share  of  the 
profits,  refuse  the  ex-soldiers  a  bit  of  money  which 
would  increase  their  wages  to  about  two  dollars  a  day 
for  the  time  they  spent  in  service? 

Thus  you  are  not  paying  a  man  because  he  risked 
his  life,  and  if  you  were  it  would  be  rather  cheap  pay 
ment,  but  you  are  compensating  him  for  the  loss  he 


AMERICAN  LEGION  SHOULD  BE   CONDEMNED    231 

sustained  while  making  the  world  safe  for  democracy, 
and  to  you  smug  Americans  that  must  be  a  valuable 
service. 

Possibly  you  may  say  that  the  Legion  is  making  an 
exorbitant  demand  when  they  know  that  the  United 
States  is  nearly  bankrupt.  How  strange  it  is,  then, 
that  the  Reconstruction  Finance  Corporation  can  easily 
distribute  millions  of  dollars  to  defunct  railroads  and 
shaky  banks  all  over  the  country.  Speculator  Dawes 
can  get  ninety  million  dollars  for  his  bank  a  few  days 
after  he  resigns  as  president  of  the  Reconstruction 
Finance  Corporation,  but  veteran  John  Smith  can't 
get  the  few  hundred  dollars  which  the  government  ac 
tually  owes  to  him  for  services  rendered. 

Then  there  is  the  argument  that  the  government  has 
been  very  generous  to  the  veterans  by  lending  them 
half  the  value  of  their  certificates.  To  you  it  might 
seem  to  be  a  gallant  concession,  but  in  practice  it  was 
an  excellent  business  transaction,  and  on  it  the  govern 
ment  profited  to  the  extent  of  twenty  million  dollars. 
And,  furthermore,  the  interest  is  so  arranged,  that  by 
the  time  the  payment  of  the  balance  is  due,  the  balance 
will  hardly  exist.  That  is,  if  the  certificates  are  per 
mitted  to  run  their  agreed  time  the  government  will 
practically  escape  ever  paying  them. 

Probably  the  chief  objection  to  the  Legion  is  the 
mistaken  idea  that  it  is  opposed  to  liberalism.  Now, 
from  my  own  investigations  I  can  assure  you  that  the 
Legion  as  a  unit  has  no  enmity  for  Socialists  or  even 
Communists  as  political  groups,  but  it  does  fight 
against,  and  for  this  it  deserves  commendation,  the 


232    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

subversive  tendencies  of  these  parties.  And  how  could 
you  condemn  them  for  this  action.  Why,  according  to 
all  election  predictions  the  citizens  of  this  nation  are 
almost  thoroughly  opposed  to  any  radical  change  in  the 
government.  Most  of  the  audience  tonight  feel  exactly 
the  same  way.  Now,  isn't  patriotism  the  support  of 
your  nation's  accepted  customs  and  government? 
Consequently,  are  you  going  to  denounce  the  Legion 
for  patriotism? 

Gentlemen,  you  have  heard  a  great  deal  about  how 
dangerous  this  large  organization  of  young  men  is; 
that  it  is  a  menace  with  its  great  potential  strength. 
Now  this  may  be  good  propaganda  to  frighten  tax 
payers  with,  but  it  is  readily  discounted  by  a  few  facts. 
Whatever  power  has  been  thrust  into  the  hands  of  the 
Legion  by  congressmen,  greedy  for  the  Legion  vote, 
has  been  most  conservatively  used. 

Has  this  so-called  powerful  lobby  of  the  Legion  in 
Washington  been  pictured  to  you  in  its  true  circum 
stances?  Lobbies  in  Washington  cover  two  complete 
pages  in  the  'phone  book;  nearly  every  organization  of 
any  importance  at  all  maintains  one  there,  for  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  it  is  the  only  way  minority  groups  can 
be  represented  under  our  system  of  legislation.  Now, 
if  the  Navy  League,  The  Manufacturers  Association, 
The  American  Federation  of  Labor,  and  hundreds  of 
others  are  to  have  this  privilege,  shall  we  refuse  it  to 
the  Legion?  Don't  condemn  the  Legion  for  this,  con 
demn  the  nation. 

I  am  afraid  that  the  opposition  has  made  the  com 
mon  mistake  of  accusing  the  Legion  of  many  things 


AMERICAN  LEGION  SHOULD  BE   CONDEMNED    233 

which  are  really  faults  of  veterans  in  general,  not  the 
American  Legion.  Of  course,  it  is  a  convenient  thing 
for  critics  to  point  to  the  Legion  as  a  target  for  abuse 
of  all  veteran  activities  which  Eave  not  met  with  their 
approval.  There  may  be  graft  in  pensions,  rehabilita 
tion,  and  bonus  payments,  but  none  of  this  has  been 
sought  for,  or  encouraged  by  the  Legion.  Why  the 
fact  is,  Gentlemen,  that  the  Legion  maintains  in  Wash 
ington  an  investigating  bureau  simply  for  the  purpose 
of  preventing  fraud,  and  to  see  to  it  that  none  but  the 
deserving  get  aid  from  the  government. 

I  do  not  propose  tonight  to  white-wash  the  American 
Legion,  nor  do  I  think  such  action  is  at  all  neces 
sary.  The  truth  is  that  the  Legion  is  a  decent  group  of 
typical  American  young  men,  and  if  you  are  going  to 
condemn  them,  you  must  at  the  same  time  condemn  the 
entire  population  of  America,  which  is  a  large  order. 
There  is  only  one  way  to  judge  the  Legion,  and  that  is 
by  contrasting  it  with  veteran  organizations  of  other 
wars.  When  it  is  put  to  that  test,  I  think  it  shall  always 
receive  a  favorable  verdict. 

You  all  told  them  back  in  1918  that  they  were  the 
flower  of  the  nation.  Have  they  so  sunk  beneath  you 
in  fourteen  years  that  you  are  to  rise  up  now  in  an 
holier  than  thou  manner  and  condemn  them? 


First  Negative  Rebuttal,  Morton  Hodgson,  Jr. 
University  of  Georgia 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  The  first  speaker  for  the 
Affirmative  has  probably  overcome  you  with  a  maze 


234    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

of  inconsistencies  and  dogmatic  assertions;  his  flow  of 
oratory  was  superb;  but  his  facts  I  must  point  out  to 
you  as  being  of  little  value  in  proving  that  the  American 
Legion  as  an  organization  should  be  condemned  as 
having  been  more  of  a  bad  influence  than  a  good. 

He  admits  that  the  Legion  and  its  purposes  are  good 
but  tries  to  show  you  that  the  real  Legion  is  a  sinister, 
underhand  organization  composed  of  blackguards  and 
thieves,  just  after  which  I  spent  fifteen  minutes  of  your 
valuable  time  showing  how  the  Legion  in  every  par 
ticular  has  actually,  concretely,  and  fully  lived  up  to 
its  many  fine  ain^s.  He  has  thrown  his  opinions  out  as 
the  final  word  to  be  had  on  these  rather  important 
questions  of  the  day,  supporting  these  opinions  of  his 
by  facts  of  wrong-doing  in  isolated  cases,  quite  possi 
ble  to  be  found  among  so  many  men. 

The  Legion  is  blamed  for  drunken  behavior  at  con 
ventions,  for  brow-beating  gray-headed  old  ladies 
working  for  promotion  of  peace,  for  preventing  old 
men  with  different  views  from  speaking  publicly,  for 
advocating  wars  with  anyone  and  everyone,  for  making 
the  United  States  an  almshouse  for  all  its  pauper  citi 
zens,  and  for  being  an  all-round  bad-boy  organization. 
Most  of  these  charges  are  self -evidently  childish;  the 
others  are  easily  answered.  The  Legion  gets  credit  for 
much  that  it  is  not  responsible  for  as  an  organization; 
for  instance,  the  Legion  was  blamed  for  the  Bonus 
Expeditionary  Force  march  on  Washington.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  there  were  only  a  few  Legionnaires  in 
the  group.  The  Legion  voted  against  the  bonus  in 
every  national  convention  until  after  the  outrageous 


AMERICAN  LEGION   SHOULD  BE   CONDEMNED     235 

treatment  accorded  the  few  Legionnaires  in  Washing 
ton  infuriated  most  of  its  members.  The  Legion  gets 
the  blame  for  any  action  of  veterans  when  according 
to  my  Opponent's  figures  the  chances  are  five  to  one  it 
is  not  a  Legionnaire. 

In  every  large  organization  there  is  bound  to  be  a 
certain  low  element.  This  low  element  with  many  other 
veterans  and  spongers  is  responsible  for  the  bad  repu 
tation  given  to  Legion  conventions. 

If  the  Legion  is  so  all  powerful,  why  doesn't  it  carry 
into  effect  some  of  its  terrible  intolerances?  In  spite 
of  one  feeble  protest  against  Einstein,  I  notice  that  he 
came  into  the  country  and  was  welcomed  most  heartily. 
Why  isn't  every  school  made  to  use  Legion  books  and 
have  its  children  taught  about  the  terrible  Reds?  I 
have  attended  rather  representative  grammar  schools 
and  high  schools,  and  I  do  not  recall  a  single  instance 
of  having  been  taught  anti-socialism. 

My  Opponent  says  in  one  place  that  not  one-third  of 
the  Legionnaires  saw  action  and  then  again  wants  to 
know  how  this  great  body  of  men  inured  to  bloodshed 
and  murder  are  competent  to  judge  of  peace?  If  these 
seven  hundred  thousand  men  in  the  Legion  did  not 
fight,  I  ask  you  how  should  they  be  acquainted  with 
the  horrors  of  war?  And  should  not  the  opinions  of 
this  large  number  of  middle-aged  men  who  saw  the 
other  war  through,  backed  by  some  of  our  country's 
ablest  statement  and  finest  brains,  be  accorded  more 
attention  and  respect  than  those  of  my  Opponent? 

The  plan  of  universal  conscription  which  he  so 
heartily  condemned  as  being  advocated  by  the  Legion, 


236    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

in  the  opinion  of  quite  a  number  of  learned  men,  would 
be  the  cause  for  the  abolition  of  all  war  if  adopted  by 
every  nation  in  the  world.  As  I  have  tried  before  to 
show  you,  no  one  is  going  to  have  the  slightest  desire  for 
war  if  he  knows  that  he  will  be  drafted  for  some  hard 
service,  no  matter  what  his  age  or  station  in  life.  The 
forwarding  of  this  plan  is  in  reality  one  of  the  finest 
services  rendered  by  the  Legion.  When  the  evidence 
is  weighed,  for  or  against  the  Legion,  we  find  the  bal 
ance  tipping  in  favor  of  the  Legion.  Of  course,  it  is  not 
perfect  in  many  respects  and  we  are  not  attempting  to 
prove  it  is  so,  but  the  Negative  does  contend  that  in 
view  of  the  fact  that  all  the  good  works  of  the  Legion 
outweigh  its  bad  effects,  the  Legion  should  not  be  con 
demned  as  a  bad  influence  on  the  United  States  as  a 
nation. 


First  Affirmative  Rebuttal,  Noel  Hemmendinger 
Princeton  University 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  The  picture  of  the  Ameri 
can  Legion  which  the  Gentleman  of  the  Negative  who 
spoke  first  has  painted  is  a  very  pleasant  one.  He  has 
taken  at  face  value  the  purposes  of  the  Legion  as  ex 
pressed  in  the  preamble  to  its  constitution,  and  has 
portrayed  an  organization  prepared  to  maintain  law 
and  order  in  times  of  emergencies  and  to  combat  sub 
versive  radicalism;  an  organization  supporting  ade 
quate  national  defense  and  encouraging  the  idea  of 
world  peace;  an  organization  aiding  its  members 
through  rehabilitation  and  welfare  work.  The  only 


AMERICAN   LEGION   SHOULD   BE   CONDEMNED    237 

trouble  with,  this  organization  presented  in  such  a 
favorable  light  is  that  it  does  not  exist.  As  I  showed 
in  my  previous  speech,  there  is  a  wide  gap  between  the 
ideal  and  the  real  American  Legion.  Some  of  the 
activities,  which  have  been  so  eloquently  described  are 
performed  by  the  Legion,  but  they  are  either  social 
functions  of  value  only  to  the  Legion,  or  they  are  acts 
with  an  ulterior  motive  contrary  to  the  interests  of  the 
American  people. 

You  will  note  that  the  Gentlemen  of  the  Negative 
gave  few  or  no  specific  examples  of  public  services  per 
formed  by  the  Legion.  They  spoke  in  the  same  agree 
able  generalities  used  in  the  preamble  to  the  Legion 
constitution,  and  they  were  grievously  misled  by  them. 
The  Legion  is  not  to  be  judged  by  fine-sounding 
declarations  of  purpose;  it  is  to  be  judged  by  its  acts, 
and  we  have  already  told  you  how  in  reality  it  has  vio 
lated  both  in  letter  and  in  spirit  its  most  fundamental 
principles.  We  ask  you  to  consider  not  what  the 
American  Legion  says  it  is,  which  is  the  Legion  de 
scribed  by  the  Negative,  but  what  the  Legion  really  is. 
You  cannot  then  fail  to  condemn  it,  for  the  American 
Legion  is  condemned  by  its  own  acts. 

Let  us  consider  the  examples  of  public  service  ad 
vanced  by  the  Negative  in  behalf  of  the  Legion.  They 
have  said  that  the  Legion  maintains  law  and  order,  and 
is  a  valuable  reserve  in  such  disasters  as  flood  and  fire. 
Perhaps  so,  and  yet  the  Legion  does  no  more  in  this 
regard  than  should  be  expected  of  all  public-spirited 
citizens  whether  affiliated  with  any  organization  or  not. 
It  remains  to  be  shown  that  particular  credit  should 


238    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

be  given  the  Legion  on  this  score,  but  there  is  much  on 
this  score  to  its  discredit.  As  we  have  shown,  the  Le 
gion  has  frequently  indulged,  as  an  organization,  in 
drunken  rioting  and  criminal  violence.  When  the  bal 
ance  sheet  is  added  up,  the  Legion  has  done  more  to 
destroy  law  and  order  than  to  maintain  it. 

The  Negative  has  lauded  the  Legion  for  its  patriotic 
propaganda  against  radicalism.  They  gave  us  no  spe 
cific  examples,  whereas  we  have  cited  cases,  and  can 
cite  many  more,  in  which  the  Legion  has  acted  with 
vicious  intolerance  and  has  denied  by  both  violent  and 
underhand  means  the  right  of  free  speech  to  some  of 
our  country's  finest  leaders.  The  Legion  has  con 
demned  itself  by  elevating  its  own  bigoted  views  to  the 
rank  of  sacred  dogma. 

The  Negative  has  praised  the  Legion,  in  the  same 
breath,  for  its  policy  of  war  preparedness  and  for  its 
work  for  world  peace,  entirely  ignoring  the  fact  that 
such  a  policy  of  preparedness  as  advocated  by  the 
Legion  has  never,  in  the  history  of  the  world,  led  to 
anything  but  war.  The  fact  is  that  these  ex-soldiers 
are  militarists  with  no  breadth  of  vision,  who  use  the 
political  strength  of  their  numbers  to  force  on  the  na 
tion  a  militarism  which  now  costs  dearly  in  money  and 
may  in  the  future  cost  dearly  in  lives.  The  Legion's 
peace  activities  can  be  discovered  only  under  a  micro 
scope;  like  its  other  noble  purposes  they  consist  only  in 
words  and  conflict  with  the  actual  deeds  of  the  Legion. 

The  first  speaker  of  the  Negative  discussed  the  work 
of  the  Legion's  Rehabilitation  Committee  with  much 
naivet6.  Veterans  who  think  they  have  been  unjustly 


AMERICAN  LEGION   SHOULD  BE  CONDEMNED    239 

treated  in  the  matter  of  compensation,  he  said,  come  to 
this  committee,  which  made  recoveries  in  the  past  year 
to  the  extent  of  seven  million  five  hundred  thousand 
dollars.  Precisely  what  we  complain  of!  The  Federal 
Government  has  the  proper  channels  for  the  adjustment 
of  veterans'  claims.  The  American  Legion  has  set  up  a 
powerful  political  organization  which  loots  the  Ameri 
can  Treasury  of  many  millions  a  year,  and  the  Nega 
tive  say  it  should  be  commended  for  it! 

You  see,  Gentlemen,  that  the  activities  of  the  Le 
gion  suggested  as  being  praiseworthy  are  actually  either 
negligible  or  reprehensible,  while  on  the  other  hand  the 
American  Legion,  by  its  violence,  its  intolerance,  its 
militarism,  and  its  greed  has  forfeited  the  confidence  of 
all  thoughtful  Americans, 


Second  Negative  Rebuttal,  A.  H.  Ulm 
University  of  Georgia 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  If  what  has  been  said  by 
these  Princeton  speakers  is  as  truthful  as  it  is  vehe 
ment,  I  must  confess  that  to  defend  the  American  Le 
gion  would  be  a  foolish  way  to  waste  time,  I  am  afraid, 
though,  that  their  remarks  have  been  tempered  more 
with  the  rashness  of  crusading  reformers  than  with  the 
discretion  of  just  investigators.  I  trust  that  I  shall  be 
able  to  convince  you  of  the  frequent  inaccuracy  and 
also  the  not  infrequent  fallacy  of  their  many  pleas  for 
condemnation  of  the  Legion, 

Throughout  their  argument,  despite  repeated  denial, 
the  mistake  of  confusing  the  actions  of  veterans  in  gen- 


240    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

eral  with  those  of  the  organized  American  Legion  has 
composed  the  large  part  of  their  case  against  the  party 
on  trial.  Furthermore,  they  have  been  more  or  less 
inclined  to  attribute  the  sins  of  the  government  to  the- 
Legion.  We  must,  you  know,  most  carefully  distin 
guish  between  the  abuses  for  which  the  Legion  is  re 
sponsible  and  the  abuses  for  which  the  government  in 
Washington  is  responsible.  Only  by  law  can  public 
monies  be  dispensed,  and  if  they  are  dispensed  waste- 
fully,  which  I  do  not  altogether  admit  in  the  case  of 
war  veterans,  then  the  responsibility  for  such  misuse 
devolves  upon  the  legislators,  and  through  them,  upon 
their  supporters,  the  people. 

Now  if  these  two  Gentlemen  of  Princeton  will  con 
demn  the  latter  for  their  consummate  bigotry  and  self 
ishness,  why  then  I  shall  be  most  glad  to  join  them  in 
concerted  denunciation.  But  when  they  lay  the  blame 
for  this  waste  on  the  door-step  of  the  Legion,  I  am 
afraid  I  shall  be  forced  to  seek  more  honest  company. 

The  second  speaker  has  remarked  on  the  fashion  in 
which  returning  soldiers  were  so  generously  cared  for  in 
the  form  of  pensions,  hospitals,  and  vocational  train 
ing.  In  that  one  statement  is  contained  the  essence  of 
the  entire  veteran  question.  To  a  man  who  goes  to 
war,  and  doubly  so  to  a  man  who  is  forced  to  go  to 
war,  the  citizens  of  the  nation  owe  a  debt  which  is 
enormous,  and  so  what  curious  reason  might  they  have 
for  expecting  the  cost  of  veterans  to  be  low? 

The  kind  Gentleman  who  spoke  last  for  Princeton 
has  concisely  indicted  the  Legion  on  two  bonus  counts. 
First  their  success  in  getting  the  bill  passed,  and  second 


AMERICAN  LEGION  SHOULD  BE  CONDEMNED    241 

their  demand  for  immediate  payment  of  these  certifi 
cates.  I  think  it  has  been  economically  proved  that 
the  incidental  sum,  which  these  notes  represent,  is 
justly  owing  to  all  men  who  were  in  the  army  as  com 
pensation  for  their  actual  time.  As  to  the  second 
charge,  I  can  think  of  no  better  way  to  practically 
inflate  the  currency  than  by  paying  these  notes  im 
mediately.  If  farmers,  bankers,  and  crooked  city 
corporations  are  getting  their  share  of  the  pork-barrel, 
why  deny  this  truly  deserving  group  their  well-earned 
portion? 

Constantly  the  Opposition  has  drawn  our  attention 
to  isolated  examples  of  rather  startling  conditions 
which  have  developed  as  a  result  of  the  actions  of  the 
Legion.  Do  these  Gentlemen  expect  all  veteran  legisla 
tion  to  be  infallible?  Simply  because  abuses  have 
occurred  in  scattered  instances,  there  exists  no  justifica 
tion  for  condemning  the  entire  principle  or  the  entire 
result.  Possibly  a  few  indolent  plutocrats  are  drawing 
government  pensions,  but  what  reason  have  we  for 
saying  that  that  unfortunate  result  was, the  seeking  of 
the  Legion.  I  say  it  most  positively  is  notl 

The  Legion  has  been  denounced  tonight  on  the 
amazing  charge  that  it  has  persistently  striven  for  in 
creased  hospital  facilities  and  more  liberal  treatment  of 
veterans.  Of  course  this  is  expensive  but  will  anyone 
for  a  moment  declare  that  any  expenditure  by  a  gov 
ernment  in  the  cause  of  the  health  of  any  of  its  subjects 
is  a  bad  practice?  If,  as  the  second  speaker  has  men 
tioned,  the  United  States  government  is  to  become  the 


242    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

"world's  greatest  treater  of  venereal  diseases,"  may 
we  not  boast  with  pride  that  we  have  taken  a  great 
forward  step  in  the  path  of  progress?  And  if  the 
Legion  is  responsible  for  this  therapeutic  expansion, 
does  not  that  indebt  us  all  to  this  altruistic  organiza 
tion,  which  seeks  the  suppression  of  one  of  life's  great 
est  horrors? 

Some  rather  startling  facts  have  been  thrown  at  you 
concerning  the  great  wealth  of  the  average  Legionnaire. 
I  happened  to  be  in  Washington  during  the  disastrous 
bonus  conflict  last  summer,  and  what  I  saw  of  veterans 
would  never  lead  me  to  the  conclusions  of  the  Opposi 
tion.  I  saw  men  living  in  hovels  not  fit  for  my  dog, 
and  eating  food  which  I  am  definitely  certain  I  would 
never  risk  on  myself,  let  along  my  dog. 

Gentlemen,  thank  you  for  the  kind  reception  you 
have  afforded  myself  and  my  colleague  tonight,  and  in 
closing,  let  me  ask  you  to  accept  these  facts  openly  and 
calmly,  and  not  to  permit  yourselves  to  be  carried 
away  by  the  anger  and  impetuosity  which  seems  to  be 
in  the  air  tonight. 

Second  Affirmative  Rebuttal,  Arthur  Northwood,  Jr. 
Princeton  University 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  The  Negative  has  praised 
the  Legion  because  it  is,  they  say,  trying  to  build  up  an 
adequate  national  defense,  and  to  prepare  the  country 
for  war.  We  do  not  necessarily  condemn  them  for 
this.  What  we  do  condemn  them  for  is  their  blocking 
of  every  constructive  effort  for  world  peace.  They  do 


AMERICAN  LEGION   SHOULD  BE   CONDEMNED     243 

not  even  give  those  whose  views  differ  from  their  own  a 
chance  to  speak  on  the  subject. 

The  Negative  has  said  that  the  government  has 
treated  the  veterans  in  a  niggardly  fashion.  Allow  me 
to  repeat  to  you  some  figures  that  I  gave  in  my  original 
speech.  All  the  other  countries  engaged  in  the  war 
had  thirty-four  million  men  fighting,  some  of  them  for 
the  whole  time,  four  and  a  quarter  years.  The  United 
States  had  only  five  million  men  under  arms,  half  of 
whom  never  fought  at  all,  and  the  other  half  for  not 
more  than  six  months.  Yet  the  United  States  is  paying 
in  pensions  fifty  million  dollars  more  than  all  the  other 
countries  put  together.  Is  not  our  policy  more  than 
generous? 

I  feel  that  our  Opponents  are  'doing  a  grave  injustice 
to  the  memory  of  Woodrow  Wilson  when  they  say  that 
he  was  one  who  oppressed  liberalism.  Wilson  delighted 
to  be  called  an  enlightened  liberal.  Particularly  is  their 
assertion  untrue  in  the  light  of  the  fact  that  John 
Haynes  Holmes,  one  of  those  whom  the  Legion  opposes, 
spoke  in  the  Princeton  Chapel  last  Sunday. 

Our  Opponents  have  said  that  the  government  was 
doing  nothing  for  the  soldiers  in  setting  up  the  War 
Risk  Insurance  Plan,  for  insurance  is  a  regular  busi 
ness.  That's  just  the  point.  This  insurance  was  not; 
its  terms  were  so  liberal  that  the  government  has  al 
ready  lost  nine  hundred  twenty-four  million  dollars 
in  it. 

Our  Opponents  have  sought  to  excuse  the  Legion  on 
the  grounds  that  abuses  have  occurred  before,  and  that 
they  are  occurring  now  in  other  fields.  I  fail  to  see 


244    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

their  reasoning  here.  Merely  because  an  evil  has  been, 
and  is,  prevalent,  there  exists  no  reason  why  we  should 
condone  it.  On  the  contrary,  the  more  widespread  an 
abuse  is,  the  more  is  it  the  duty  of  every  citizen  to  rise 
up  and  condemn  that  abuse.  But  our  Opponents  have 
gone  farther.  Admitting  that  the  pension  scandals 
connected  with  the  history  of  the  G.A.R.  have  been 
terrible,  they  have  asserted  that  the  Legion  is  lily-white 
in  comparison.  I  doubt  that,  for  the  G.A.R. ,  in  its 
whole  history,  succeeded  in  getting  only  seven  billion 
dollars,  while  the  American  Legion  has  already  filched 
five  billions  from  the  government.  Is  there  any  course 
left  to  us  but  to  condemn  this  organization? 

One  of  our  Opponents  asserted  that  what  I  said  ap 
plied  to  veterans  in  general,  rather  than  to  the  Legion. 
I  resent  that,  for  most  of  my  remarks  were  directed 
explicitly  against  the  Legion.  With  your  permission, 
I  shall  read  a  summary  of  my  speech  to  prove  this.  I 
said  that  we  should  condemn  the  American  Legion  be 
cause  it  had  pushed  through  the  Adjusted  Service 
Compensation  Act;  because  it  demands  the  full  pay 
ment  now  of  something  that  does  not  fall  due  until 
1945;  because  it  has  forced  the  building  of  govern 
ment  hospitals,  and  has  tried  to  have  the  laws  so  modi 
fied  that  the  United  States  shall  become  the  greatest 
treater  of  venereal  diseases  in  the  world;  because  it  is 
responsible  for  the  government  giving  Emergency  Offi 
cers  retirement  fees  far  out  of  proportion  to  their  serv 
ices;  because  it  has  secured  for  veterans  disability 
allowances  for  peace-time  injuries;  and  finally,  because 
it  has  disrupted  our  Civil  Service  system.  For  all  of 


AMERICAN  LEGION   SHOULD  BE  CONDEMNED     245 

these  things  the  American  Legion  is  responsible,  and  it 
has  very  often  secured  these  things  against  the  opposi 
tion  of  other  veterans.  I  am  convinced  that  it  is  the 
American  Legion  that  is  to  be  condemned. 

Furthermore,  if  there  were  any  doubt  on  the  matter, 
the  Legion  lobby  would  soon  dispel  it,  for  it  claims 
credit  for  all  of  this  legislation.  It  is  proud  of  what  it 
has  done.  It  boasts  that  it  is  the  most  powerful  lobby 
in  Washington.  And  I  don't  see  how  it  can  be  excused 
merely  because  other  lobbies  exist.  Our  Opponent, 
when  he  mentioned  the  Anti-Saloon  League  Lobby, 
condemned  it.  Let  him  in  like  manner  condemn  the 
Legion  Lobby.  And  then  let  him  condemn  the  Legion, 
which  is  responsible  for  this  lobby. 

Our  Opponents  have  said  that  after  all,  the  Legion 
is  not  very  important  in  our  national  life.  President 
Hooker  thought  it  was  so  important  that  he  made  a 
special  trip  to  Detroit  just  to  speak  to  it. 

It  has  been  asserted  that  veterans  received  nothing 
in  this  recent  loan  on  their  Adjusted  Service  Certifi 
cates.  Well,  if  they  did  not  deserve  it  in  the  first  place, 
I  do  not  see  that  they  have  any  complaint  coming. 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen,  we  have  shown  the  American 
Legion  to  be  both  chauvinistic  and  unpatriotic,  we  have 
shown  it  to  be  bigoted  and  selfish.  I  think  that  you 
will  agree  with  us  that  it  is  to  be  condemned. 


246        THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

BIBLIOGRAPHY:   AMERICAN,  LEGION   SHOULD   BE 
CONDEMNED 

BOOKS 

Minton,  R.  Brulingame. — Peace  Veterans.    1932. 

Moody,  H.  G.—Meet  the  King.  Winwick  Co.,  240  W.  40th  St., 
N.  Y.  C.  1931. 

White,  W.  C.  and  Walters,  W.  W.—The  Whole  Story  of  the  Bonus 
Army.  Day.  1933. 

Hapgood,  Norman. — Professional  Patriots.  Boni  and  Liveright.   1927. 

American  Legion  National  Headquarters,  Indianapolis,  Indiana.  Will 
furnish  the  following  material:  The  American  Legion,  Its  Ideals, 
Accomplishments,  and  Purposes.  May  1931.  Same.  October 
1932.  The  National  Constitution  and  By-Laws  of  the  American 
Legion.  Proceedings  of  Conventions.  Pamphlets  on  Educational 
and  Welfare  Activities.  Speakers'  Information  Service.  A  Plan 
to  Perpetuate  Peace.  Americanism  Handbook, 

MAGAZINES  AND  PERIODICALS 

American  City. — 25:505,  December  1921.  American  Legion  Serves 
the  Community.  32:160-61,  February  1925.  Civic  Activities  of 
American  Legion  Posts. 

American  Legion  Monthly. — July  1927.  Rupert  Hughes.  Letter  to 
the  American  Legion  Monthly.  19:414,  April  1930.  Free  Speech 
in  Khaki. 

American  Mercury.— 13:169,  February  1928.  O.  L.  Warr.  The 
Heroes  Union. 

Christian  Century.— 47:1418,  November  19,  1930.  Hankins.  Ameri 
can  Legion  Conventions.  48:1234-60,  October  7,  1931.  Hutchin- 
son.  Drunk  with  Sight  of  Power.  49:1159-61,  September  28, 
1932.  Legion  Raid.  49:1212,  October  5,  1932.  H.  N.  Dukes. 
Why  Blame  the  Legion?  50:380,  March  22,  1933.  Final  Test 
for  the  Legion. 

CoUier's  Weekly.— 89:10-11,  June  11,  1932.  Davenport.  But  the 
Dead  Don't  Vote. 

Congressional  Digest. — 11:266,  November  1932.  Stevens.  Legislative 
Aims  of  the  American  Legion. 

Forum. — 85:257-65.  May  1931.  Duffield.  American  Legion  in  Poli 
tics,  86:29-32,  July  1931.  H.  Fish.  In  Defense  of  the  Legion. 


AMERICAN   LEGION   SHOULD  BE   CONDEMNED     247 

Independent. — November  12,  1927.    V.  S.  Yarros.    Making  Patriotism 

Hum  in  Darkest  Chicago. 
Literary   Digest. — 95:5-7,   October   1,   1927.     Legion's    Conscription 

Program. 
Nation.— 113:703-4,  December  14,  1921.    H.  R.  Warren.    American 

Legion:  A  Defense.     124:414,  April  20,  1927.    Free  Speech  and 

the  Legion.     131:469-71,  October  29,   1930.     Gordon.     Legion 

Takes  Boston.    132:170,  February  8,  1931.    Bonus  Raid.    136: 

287-9,    March    15,    1932,     Angell.     American    Legion    Versus 

America. 
National  Congress  of  Social  Workers.— 1926:151-4.     J.  W.  Garby. 

American  Legion's  Program  for  Child  Welfare. 
Nature. — 12:374,  December  1928.    Legion  Shrine:  Wild  Game  Refuge 

m  Wisconsin. 
New  Outlook.— 161:7,  October  1932.    A.  Roosevelt.    Enemy  Within 

the  Gate. 
New  Republic. — 66:30,  February  25,  1931.    Mercenaries  of  Patriotism. 

68:221-2,  October  14,  1931.    Lesson  of  the  Legion. 
Outlook   (See  also  New  Outlook).— 138:364-5,  November  5,   1924. 

J.  A.  Drain.    American  Legion  in  Years  to  Come.     144:401-2, 

November  24,  1926.    H.  P.  Savage.    American  Legion's  Program 

for  1926-7.    157:323,  March  4,  1931.    Bonus  Record. 
Playground. — 221:22-3.    April  1928.    Cooperating  with  the  American 

Legion. 
Scribner's    Magazine.— 90:174-81,   August    1931.     Duffield.     Legion 

Prepares  for  War. 
Survey. — 62:254-5,  May  15,  1929.    R.  D.  Moot.    American  Legion  as 

City  Planner. 
World  To-morrow.— 15:292,  September  28,  1932.    Give  Us  This  Day 

Our  Bonus. 


GOVERNMENT  CONTROL  OF  THE 
BANKING  SYSTEM 

A  Mid-West  Conference  Debate 


GOVERNMENT  CONTROL  OF  THE 

BANKING  SYSTEM 

BELOIT  COLLEGE  AFFIRMATIVE  VS. 
MARQUETTE  UNIVERSITY  NEGATIVE 

The  Mid-West  Conference  Colleges  chose  Federal  Regulation  of 
Banks  for  their  subject  during  the  1932-33  debating  season,  and  thus 
without  prophecy  and  foreknowledge,  gave  their  member  colleges  a 
most  unusual  experience — debating  a  public  question  which  came  to 
a  boiling  point  during  the  debate  season  with  the  National  Bank 
Holiday. 

The  present  debate  was  held  just  a  few  days  before  President 
Roosevelt  took  things  in  hand  and  declared  the  National  Bank 
Holiday.  The  question  was  stated,  Resolved:  That'  all  banking 
functions  should  be  regulated  by  the  Federal  Government  with  de 
posits  guaranteed. 

The  present  debate  was  not  a  decision  contest  but  partakes  of  that 
style  as  both  colleges  represented  engaged  in  numerous  decision  as 
well  as  non-decision  debates  on  this  subject  during  the  course  of  the 
season.  This  discussion  is  of  unusual  value  because  of  the  current  and 
continued  interest  in  the  subject  since  nothing  has  been  done  up  to 
the  time  of  going  to  press  to  settle  this  giant  problem,  and  the  Senate 
hearings  in  the  Morgan  Bank  Inquiry  are  still  echoing  about  us. 

The  speeches  were  collected  and  submitted  to  this  Volume  by 
Professor  G,  F,  Rassweiler  of  Beloit  College,  Director  of  Debate. 


First  Affirmative,  John  S.  Nash 
Beloit  College 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  Before  proceeding  with 
the  Affirmative  case  I  should  like  to  clarify  the  ques 
tion.  First,  we  waive  the  constitutionality  of  the  ques- 

251 


252    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

tion.  Second,  by  the  term  "all  banking  functions"  we 
mean  all  those  functions  necessary  for  the  operation  of 
a  commercial  or  savings  bank.  Third,  by  the  word 
"regulate"  we  take  our  definition  from  the  Standard 
Dictionary  which  defines  it  as  follows,  "to  dispose, 
order,  or  govern  by  rule  or  system."  Fourth,  by  the 
"Federal  Government"  we  mean  any  authorized  agent 
of  the  government  such  as  the  Federal  Reserve  Board. 
Fiftk,  by  "deposits  guaranteed"  we  mean  a  complete 
reimbursement  to  the  depositor  for  losses  due  to  bank 
failures. 

This  question  is  of  supreme  importance  at  this  time 
for  the  newspapers  are  full  of  accounts  of  bank  fail 
ures,  which  we  individually  feel  either  directly  or  in 
directly.  President  Hoover,  in  his  message  to  Congress 
declared  that  banking  reform  is  imperative,  and  Henry 
Ford  says  that  it  is  so  necessary  that  he  who  shows  us 
the  way  will  make  his  name  immortal. 

Let  me  summarize  the  present  situation  with  a  few 
pertinent  statistics.  In  the  past  twelve  years  ten  thou 
sand  four  hundred  eighty-four  banks  have  failed  with 
a  loss  to  depositors  of  nearly  five  billion  dollars.  There 
were  nearly  six  times  as  many  state  banks  failed  as 
national  banks,  and  more  than  sixty-five  per  cent  of  the 
closed  banks  were  capitalized  at  less  than  twenty-five 
thousand  dollars.  Eighty  per  cent  of  the  failures  were 
in  towns  of  a  population  of  five  thousand  or  less.  This 
clearly  indicates  that  the  weakness  of  the  system  is  in 
the  small  state  banks.  Further  statistics  show  that 
from  January  30,  to  September  30,  1932,  there  were 
seven  hundred  seventy-eight  failures  in  the  Federal 


CONTROL   OF   THE  BANKING   SYSTEM  253 

Reserve  System.  This  amounted  to  ten  and  three 
tenths  per  cent  of  the  number  of  banks  in  the  system 
with  a  loss  of  four  and  two  tenths  per  cent  of  the  de 
posits  that  were  in  the  Federal  Reserve  Banks.  In 
contrast  with  this  we  find  that  three  thousand  eight 
hundred  ninety-eight  non-member  banks  have  failed 
during  the  same  period.  This  is  twenty-two  and  two 
tenths  per  cent  of  all  the  non-member  banks,  with  a 
loss  of  deposits  of  six  and  eight  tenths  per  cent.  In 
other  words  the  non-member  banks  are  nearly  twice  as 
bad  as  the  Federal  Reserve  Banks  in  both  of  these 
respects. 

We  find  that  currency  has  been  hoarded  until  it  was 
estimated  in  excess  of  one  and  one-half  billions  of  dol 
lars  according  to  figures  of  July  1932.  And  in  case 
any  of  you  think  that  the  depression  is  the  sole  cause 
of  bank  failures,  let  me  remind  you  that  four  hundred 
ninety-one  banks  failed  in  the  year  1928. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  during  the  same  period 
of  twelve  years  that  there  was  only  one  failure  in 
Canada,  none  in  England,  and  none  in  France.  This 
proves  conclusively  that  it  is  not  impossible  to  correct 
our  banking  system. 

Many  more  such  appalling  figures  could  be  given, 
but  in  general  we  have  found  the  following  "public 
enemies"  in  our  system. 

1.  The  lack  of  a  central  organization  which  can 
force  through  a  definite  reconstruction  program. 

2.  Dangerous  competition  between  member  and  non- 
member  banks,  which  impairs  the  operation  of  the  Fed 
eral  Reserve  System. 


254    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

3.  Many    under-capitalized    and    poorly    directed 
country  banks  which  are  contributing  many  bank  fail 
ures. 

4.  Our  Dollar  is  unstable — not  in  mint  value,  but  in 
buying  power.    Economists  tell  us  that  this  is  due  to 
insufficient  control  of  credit. 

5.  The  inability  to  expand  credit  at  times  when  it  is 
most  needed. 

6.  The  lack  of  ability  to  liquidate  quickly  in  times  of 
a  crisis.    This  is  due  to  a  lack  of  rigid  control  of  bank 
investments. 

7.  The  loss  of  millions  of  dollars  of  depositors' 
money  at  a  time  when  it  is  most  needed,  and  the  conse 
quent  limitation  of  buying  power. 

8.  The  inability  to  keep  the  faith  and  confidence  of 
the  public. 

With  these  weaknesses  in  mind  we,  of  the  Affirma 
tive,  have  formulated  a  plan  which  we  believe  will  do 
much  in  the  direction  of  the  curtailment  of  these 
pathological  conditions. 

We  further  contend  that  the  Negative  must  show 
that  there  will  be  a  worse  situation  under  our  system 
than  at  present,  or  else  they  must  develop  a  new  plan 
which  they  can  prove  is  superior  to  ours.  It  is  the 
duty  of  the  Negative  to  do  more  than  just  wrangle 
about  detailed  points  of  our  plan.  We  ask  them  what 
they  intend  to  do. 

We  have  based  our  argument  on  this  logical  syl 
logism.  "It  is  the  duty  of  the  government  to  protect 
the  property  and  lives  of  its  citizens,  and  therefore  to 
protect  their  deposits.  Our  plan  will  protect  the  de~ 


CONTROL   OF   THE  BANKING   SYSTEM  255 

positors.  Therefore,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  government 
to  adopt  our  plan."  It  is,  therefore,  only  necessary  for 
us  to  show  that  our  plan  will  protect  the  depositors, 
which  we  shall  do  during  the  course  of  the  debate  this 
evening. 

Our  plan,  in  general,  is  to  extend  the  Federal  Reserve 
System  downward  and  outward  so  as  to  include  all 
banks,  and  to  so  enhance  the  regulation  of  these  banks 
that  failure  will  be  reduced  to  a  minimum.  Further  we 
would  guarantee  all  deposits  which  should  become  tied 
up  through  failures.  Note  that  this  plan  is  very  simi 
lar  to  the  Glass-Steagall  bill  now  before  Congress, 
except  that  we  would  make  it  compulsory  for  all  banks 
to  enter  the  system. 

Our  plan  more  specifically  is  composed  of  four  parts. 

First,  we  would  legislate  to  force  all  banks  into  the 
Federal  Reserve  System.  This  was  the  original  idea 
of  Senator  Glass  and  other  originators  of  the  Act. 
Now  our  Federal  Reserve  System  is  merely  a  com 
promise  plan.  This  factor  in  our  plan  would  have  very 
definite  advantages. 

It  would  give  us  a  central  organization  which  could 
put  through  a  definite  reconstruction  program.  This 
corrects  "public  enemy"  number  one. 

It  would  do  away  with  the  dangerous  competition 
between  member  and  non-member  banks,  of  which 
Eugene  Meyer,  a  member  of  the  Federal  Reserve 
Board,  says,  "It  should  be  recognized  that  effective 
supervision  of  banking  in  this  country  has  been  seri 
ously  hampered  by  the  competition  between  member 
and  non-member  banks,  and  that  the  establishment  of 


256    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

a  unified  system  of  banking  under  national  supervision 
is  essential  to  fundamental  banking  reform."  Thus  we 
see  that  "public  enemy'5  number  two  has  been  con 
quered. 

We  can  in  no  wise  consider  a  plan  which  reduces  the 
number  of  banking  systems  in  this  country  from  forty- 
nine  to  one,  dangerous  or  radical.  It  is  a  plan  which 
is  recommended  by  the  Federal  Reserve  Board,  count 
less  economists,  and  many  bankers  including  Thomas 
Lamont,  Number  One  Morgan  Partner,  who  says,  "No 
thorough-going  banking  reform  can  be  brought  about 
until  two  vital  changes  have  been  accomplished.  First, 
we  must  have  all  commercial  banks  under  the  Federal 
Reserve  System.  Second,  we  must  establish  sensible 
provisions  for  regional  branch  banking." 

This  brings  me  to  the  second  step  in  our  plan.  We 
would  bring  the  smaller  banks  under  the  wing  of  the 
larger  and  more  ably-directed  banks  by  means  of 
branch  banking.  Mr.  Lamont  goes  on  to  say  that  it  is 
his  opinion  that  "almost  all  of  the  bank  failures  in 
Chicago  could  have  been  averted  with  branch  bank 
ing." 

This  eliminates  the  small  banking  unit  with  its  in 
sufficient  capital  ("public  enemy"  number  three).  We 
have  already  noted  that  sixty-five  per  cent  of  the  bank 
failures  in  the  last  twelve  years  were  in  this  class. 
With  small  banks  as "  they  now  are,  competition  is 
so  strong  that  the  profits  for  all  of  them  are  minimized 
and  as  a  consequence  they  are  encouraged  to  make 
unsafe  investments  in  the  hope  of  greater  profits.  An 
other  weakness  that  will  be  eliminated  by  our  system 


CONTROL   OF   THE  BANKING   SYSTEM  257 

is  that  the  smaller  banks  will  be  able  to  have  a  greater 
distribution  to  their  investment,  and  they  can  take 
long-time  paper  without  the  fear  of  not  being  able  to 
liquidate.  As  you  all  know  this  is  the  basis  of  the 
Canadian  system  which  has  proved  so  successful.  Og- 
den  Mills,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and  also  the 
Comptroller  of  the  Currency  are  firmly  in  favor  of 
branch  banking. 

Thirdly,  after  we  have  all  the  banks  in  the  system, 
and  we  have  eliminated  the  small  banking  unit  by 
bringing  it  under  the  wing  of  the  larger  banks,  we 
would  set  up  a  stricter  system  of  control  of  the  mem 
ber  banks.  We  would  force  the  banks  to  keep  a  cer 
tain  per  cent  of  their  investments  in  that  type  of  highly 
liquid  paper  which  the  Central  Banks  may  rediscount, 
As  our  system  now  operates  the  banks  have  this  privi 
lege,  but  few  of  them  keep  in  a  position  where  they  can 
take  advantage  of  this  privilege.  Besides  forcing  the 
banks  to  keep  a  definite  per  cent  of  this  highly  liquid 
paper  we  would  have  closer  supervision  of  all  bank 
investments.  This  stricter  supervision  will  keep  the 
bank  in  a  better  condition.  They  will  be  able  to  liqui 
date  when  necessary,  expand  credit  when  necessary, 
and  this  will  in  turn  be  a  material  aid  in  keeping  our 
dollar  more  stabilized.  Thus  we  have  conquered  "pub 
lic  enemies"  numbers  four,  five,  and  six. 

This  factor  of  our  plan  will  insure  safety  in  the  case 
of  a  run  on  the  bank.  It  will  increase  the  confidence  of 
the  public  in  the  banking  system,  and  it  will  check  un 
wise  investments  made  to  gain  a  larger  rate  of  interest. 

And  finally,  after  we  have  all  the  banks  under  the 


258    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

system,  eliminated  the  small  banking  unit,  and  added 
stricter  supervision  to  the  member  banks,  we  would 
add  as  an  additional  factor  the  guaranteeing  of  de 
posits.  We  believe  that  this  is  essential  to  the  regaining 
of  public  confidence  in  our  banks. 

To  do  this  we  would  set  up  a  fund  from  the  fran 
chise  taxes  and  the  profit  of  the  system.  Don't  you 
think  it  better  to  pay  for  losses  in  advance  by  means 
of  this  fund  than  to  have  the  same  cost  borne  by  de 
positors  at  a  time  when  we  can  little  afford  to  have 
their  buying  power  taken  away  from  them? 

Don't  you  think  we  have  a  plan  here  that  is  at  least 
better  than  the  lack  of  plan  which  we  now  have?  Don't 
you  think  it  will  strengthen  our  banking  system  and 
regain  the  confidence  of  the  public?  This  plan  is  not 
new.  It  is  one  which  has  the  favorable  opinion  of 
many  of  the  nation's  leaders  in  this  field.  In  conclu 
sion  let  me  quote  from  the  "Sooner  or  Later"  column 
of  The  Business  Weekly  which  says,  "Congress  should 
immediately  amend  the  Reserve  Act  to  compel  all 
banks  of  deposit  to  become  members  of  the  Federal 
Reserve  System,  and  set  up  in  the  system  a  deposit 
fund  for  the  protection  of  the  depositors.  This  is  a 
step  without  which  confidence  in  our  banking  system 
cannot  be  completely  restored  and  continuously  main 
tained." 

First  Negative,  Donald  W.  Gleascm 
Marquette  University 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  I  am  very  sincere  when  I 
state  at  the  outset  that  Marquette  University  is  pleased 


CONTROL   OF   THE  BANKING   SYSTEM  259 

to  have  the  opportunity  to  present  its  version  of  this 
important  question  of  banking,  a  subject  which  is  so 
intimately  related  with  the  lives  of  all  people.  The 
occasion  tonight  is  even  more  pleasant  for  us,  because 
it  is  Beloit  College  that  furnishes  the  opposition. 

While,  therefore,  we  engage  in  this  controversy  this 
evening  with  a  most  friendly  attitude  toward  our  Op 
ponents,  the  first  speaker  for  the  Affirmative  has  made 
so  many  unusual  remarks,  that  we  are  forced  to  dis 
agree  with  our  worthy  Opponents-  from  the  very  begin 
ning.  He  declared  somewhat  strikingly  "that  the 
Negative  tonight  must  uphold  the  present  mess  in  our 
banking  system,  or  they  must  propose  a  counter  plan, 
and  we  would  like  to  know  what  the  Negative  intends 
to  do."  When  Mr.  Nash  was  thus  mistaking  the  true 
function  of  a  Negative  team,  I  was  reminded  of  a  cer 
tain  prisoner  who  had  committed  a  very  serious  offense 
and  who  was  sentenced  to  be  hanged.  A  few  days 
before  the  hanging  was  to  take  place,  the  prisoner 
approached  the  warden  and  said:  "Warden,  I  would 
like  to  have  a  little  exercise."  The  warden  somewhat 
amazed  at  the  request  answered:  "Well,  my  good  man, 
just  what  kind  of  exercise  would  you  like  to  have?" 
And  said  the  prisoner  in  reply,  "I'd  like  to  skip  the 
rope."  Apparently,  the  Affirmative  tonight  would  like 
very  much  to  skip  the  burden  of  proving  the  proposi 
tion  by  calling  on  the  Negative  to  prove  a  counter 
proposition. 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen,  we  intend  to  do  but  one 
thing  tonight,  namely,  to  show  that  the  Affirmative  pro 
posal  cannot  be  substantiated  upon  the  fundamental 


260    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

issues  which  it  involves,  and  that  it  is  such  an  imprac 
ticable  theory  that  it  is  dangerous  and  unwise  seriously 
to  consider  its  adoption.  More  than  this  the  Negative 
need  not  do  in  any  debate.  We  want  it  to  be  distinctly 
understood  that  the  Affirmative  has  the  burden  of 
proof,  and  we  do  not  intend  to  permit  them  to  skip  that 
burden  by  creating  in  any  manner  the  impression  that 
the  Negative  is  under  an  obligation  to  present  a  solu 
tion  for  the  ills  of  our  banking  system.  However,  I 
suppose  the  worthy  opposition  will  now  harp  long  and 
loud  throughout  this  debate  that  our  answer  to  their 
assertion  of  the  Negative  duty  was  very  weak;  they 
may  even  attempt  to  capitalize  on  the  answer  by  sug 
gesting  to  you  that  the  Negative  cannot  produce  a 
better  plan.  To  forestall  such  an  attitude  it  has  just 
occurred  to  me  that  our  closing  speaker,  Mr.  Hansen, 
is  a  man  of  many  moods  and  inclined  to  be  very  chari 
table,  and  he  may  even  present  several  plans  that  would 
be  better  than  that  of  the  Affirmative,  but  I  repeat  that 
should  he  do  so,  it  will  be  the  result  of  his  disposition 
and  will  not  in  any  sense  be  done  with  a  feeling  of  obli 
gation. 

Not  only  has  Beloit's  opening  speaker  misconstrued 
the  duty  of  the  Negative  team  in  this  debate,  but  his 
analysis  of  the  question  indicates  that  the  Affirmative 
has  misinterpreted  their  own  burden  so  badly  that  up 
to  this  point  they  have  not  debated  the  question.  The 
Affirmative  case  begins  with  the  argument  that  the 
present  banking  system  is  defective;  they  point  with 
alarm  to  the  great  number  of  banks  that  have  failed  in 
recent  years;  next,  they  listed  about  eight  causes  for 


CONTROL   OF   THE  BANKING   SYSTEM  261 

the  failures,  and  then  they  present  a  remedy.  I  could 
not  write  down  all  of  the  eight  causes  as  Mr.  Nash 
recited  them,  but  here  are  a  few  of  them:  First,  a  lack 
of  central  organization  in  our  banking  system — Second, 
the  competition  between  member  and  non-member 
banks  of  the  Federal  Reserve  System — Third,  too 
many  rural,  small  banks,  and  so  on.  What  was  the 
remedy  proposed  for  these  alleged  defects?  First,  the 
placing  of  all  banks  under  the  Federal  Reserve  System. 
Second,  the  establishment  of  regional  banks.  Third, 
the  further  development  of  branch  banking.  What  do 
you  notice,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen,  about  each  one  of 
these  remedies?  You  should  note  this — that  every 
single  one  of  these  proposed  remedies  is  a  remedy  for 
some  part  of  the  organization  of  our  present  banking 
structure,  and  that  not  one  of  them  has  anything  at  all 
to  do  with  the  functions  of  a  bank.  In  that  very  essen 
tial  regard,  the  Affirmative  case  is  entirely  beside  the 
point.  Our  question  tonight  deals  with  the  regulation 
of  the  functions  of  a  bank,  not  with  organization  of 
banks.  The  Affirmative  is  supposed  to  argue  a  par 
ticular  method  of  regulating  banking  functions — and 
what  are  the  functions?  The  chief  function  of  a  bank 
is  to  receive  money  from  depositors,  retaining  their 
money  with  interest.  But  the  Affirmative  case  does  not 
touch  that  function  at  all;  instead,  they  tell  you  too 
many  of  our  banks  were  under-capitalized — but  is  it  a 
function  of  a  bank  to  be  capitalized  at  any  amount? 
That  is  a  defect  in  organization  of  banks.  Their  whole 
plan,  to  place  banks  in  the  Federal  Reserve  System,  to 
establish  regional  banks,  to  promote  branch  banking, 


262    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

— in  every  detail  the  plan  is  a  remedy  for  organization 
of  banks,  a  plan  that  does  nothing  in  the  way  of  regu 
lating  banking  functions,  and,  therefore,  the  Affirmative 
is  in  the  embarrassing  position  of  having  debated  before 
their  home  audience  on  the  wrong  question.  We  chal 
lenge  the  Affirmative  to  show  that  banking  functions 
are  not  now  properly  regulated,  and  to  explain  how 
they  propose  to  regulate  those  functions  so  as  to  come 
within  the  bounds  of  our  proposition. 

Another  general  criticism  of  the  Affirmative  case  thus 
far,  is  that  the  analysis  of  the  question  as  given  by  Mr. 
Nash  was  not  complete.  Let  us,  therefore,  examine 
the  wording  of  the  question  to  determine  in  more  detail 
the  exact  issues  of  this  controversy  and  to  show  more 
clearly  what  the  Affirmative  must  prove  tonight  in 
order  to  establish  its  case. 

The  proposition  is  worded  as  follows,  "Resolved: 
that  the  Federal  Government  should  regulate  all  bank 
ing  functions,  and  guarantee  deposits.37  You  will  note, 
therefore  that  there  are  three  distinct  parts  to  the  ques 
tion: — first,  Federal  Regulation;  second,  "of  all  bank 
ing  functions";  and  third,  guarantee  of  deposits. 

Let  us  now  consider  the  first  issue,  "Should  we  have 
Federal  Regulation."  That  issue  really  means  should 
we  have  Federal  Regulation  of  state  banks,  for  our 
national  banks  are  already  regulated  by  the  Federal 
government  It  is  therefore  the  burden  of  the  Affirma 
tive  to  prove  that  state  regulation  is  directly  responsi 
ble  for  the  defects;  that  there  is  a  direct  causal 
connection  between  the  defects  and  the  system  of  state 
regulation;  for  without  such  proof,  they  cannot  arrive 


CONTROL   OF   THE  BANKING   SYSTEM  263 

at  the  conclusion  that  state  regulation  should  be  abol 
ished;  and  it  must  then  be  shown  that  Federal  Regula 
tion  of  state  banks  will  not  be  possessed  of  the  same 
evils. 

The  Affirmative  condemns  the  present  system  chiefly 
because  a  great  number  of  state  banks  have  failed. 
We  are  sensible  enough  on  the  Negative  to  admit  that 
banks  have  failed,  but  what  the  Affirmative  must  show 
is  that  those  banks  failed  because  they  were  under 
state  regulation,  and  until  that  be  shown,  any  further 
mention  of  bank  failures  by  the  Affirmative  is  imma 
terial. 

How  about  these  failures?  What  did  cause  them? 
Do  you  think  for  one  moment  that  it  was  the  state  that 
caused  all  these  banks  to  fail?  According  to  the  first 
speaker's  very  own  argument,  some  of  our  banks  failed 
because  they  were  unable  to  keep  the  faith  of  the  pub 
lic,  but  is  that  the  fault  of  the  state?  No  system  of 
regulation,  no  division  of  government  could  prevent 
the  distrust  of  banks  that  has  grown  among  the  masses 
during  the  past  few  years,  for  some  people  were  fright 
ened  by  newspaper  accounts,  some  depositors  were  vic 
tims  of  the  pessimism  of  their  friends  and  neighbors, 
and  as  a  result  a  certain  fear  and  loss  of  confidence  was 
created.  Rumors  that  certain  banks  were  going  to 
fail  have  recently  been  widely  circulated,  creating 
more  fear,  and  the  result  would  have  a  telling  effect  on 
the  resources  of  any  bank.  The  whole  spirit  of  un 
easiness  often  produced  a  run  on  various  banks,  as 
was  experienced  in  Green  Bay,  Milwaukee,  and  Chi 
cago  within  the  last  year.  The  point  is,  that  many 


264    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

banks  were  forced  to  close  their  doors,  not  because  of 
state  regulation,  but  because  of  idle  rumor,  fear,  and 
loss  of  confidence.  State  regulation  did  not  cause  that 
feeling  of  distrust.  It  was  caused  in  great  part  by  the 
dishonesty  of  a  few  bankers  and  their  unlawful  prac 
tices.  Two  large  banks  were  closed  within  the  last 
year,  and  in  each  case  the  status  of  the  bank  was 
jeopardized  by  the  unlawful  practices  of  the  president 
and  cashier  respectively.  Both  men,  prominent  as 
bankers  for  years,  were  recently  convicted  in  Milwau 
kee  and  are  now  at  Leavenworth.  In  each  city,  the 
depositors  suffered  and  lost  their  confidence  as  a  result. 
In  the  city  of  Milwaukee,  the  president  of  another  bank 
was  recently  sentenced  to  Waupun  for  unlawful  bank 
ing  practices;  the  trial  of  another  banker  in  the  same 
city  is  now  pending,  and  depositors  there  also  suffered 
and  lost  confidence.  No  system  of  regulation  is  re 
sponsible  for  the  weakness  of  the  human  flesh  and  yet 
the  Affirmative  condemns  state  regulation  because 
banks  have  failed,  including  banks  that  failed  through 
weaknesses  in  the  human  element. 

An  even  greater  number  of  our  banks  failed  because 
of  the  severe  adverse  economic  conditions.  There  has 
been  a  world-wide  depression  for  forty-one  months  and 
our  banks  have  not  been  immune  to  its  effects.  A  bank 
is  not  a  large  stately  edifice,  located  on  a  busy  street 
corner,  whose  principal  function  it  is  to  have  uniformed 
attendants  to  direct  customers  to  the  proper  window. 
In  its  broad  aspects,  a  bank  is  the  mechanism  for  the 
distribution  of  the  products  of  the  world,  and  its  proper 
functioning  in  that  capacity  is  just  as  essential  to  our 


CONTROL   OF   THE  BANKING   SYSTEM  265 

economic  well-being  as  the  physical  transportation  of 
goods.  As  soon  as  there  is  a  break-down  in  our  money- 
credit  system,  there  is  inevitably  an  interference  with 
the  normal  production  and  distribution  of  goods.  It 
is  a  maxim  of  banking  that  the  strength  of  any  bank 
depends  on  the  value  of  its  securities.  Our  banks  were 
caught  in  the  tide  of  the  depression  just  as  you  and  I 
were  caught;  the  value  of  their  securities  was  lowered, 
beyond  all  reasonable  expectation.  Their  financial  sta 
bility  was  shattered  just  as  the  financial  status  of  the 
individual  was  broken.  Naturally,  some  of  the  banks 
could  not  withstand  the  intensity  and  duration  of  the 
economic  upheaval  and  were  consequently  forced  to 
close  their  doors.  State  regulation  cannot  be  blamed 
for  the  depression;  no  agency  of  government  could 
have  reasonably  been  expected  to  foresee  this  particular 
disorder;  yet  the  Affirmative  propose  to  abolish  state 
regulation  because  banks  have  failed,  including  those 
which  were  caused  by  the  disrupting  of  our  economic 
structure. 

I  have  purposely  refrained  from  plunging  into  sta 
tistics  on  the  causes  of  bank  failures,  because  statistics 
are  often  boring  and  unreliable,  and  have  wished  to 
base  my  argument  upon  matter  that  has  been  part  of 
the  general  thought  and  observation  of  every  member 
of  the  audience.  But  I  do  have  some  authentic  statis 
tical  evidence,  which  I  desire  to  present  because  it 
contains  such  a  strong  challenge  to  the  Affirmative 
case.  The  record  of  annual  bank  failures  shows  that 
from  January  1,  1929  until  August  31,  1932,  eight 
hundred  thirty-nine  national  banks  failed.  In  other 


266    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

words,  for  a  period  of  forty-four  months,  twenty  na 
tional  banks  failed  every  month;  twenty  banks  failed 
every  month  under  Federal  regulation,  yet  the  Affirma 
tive  proposes  to  cure  our  banking  ills  by  placing  all 
banks  under  Federal  regulation.  Now  the  challenge  is 
this — the  Affirmative  must  do  one  of  three  things; 
First,  admit  that  their  system  is  defective,  in  that  banks 
also  failed  under  Federal  regulation;  or  second,  admit 
that  my  argument  is  correct,  namely,  that  it  is  not  the 
system  of  regulation  that  causes  banks  to  fail,  but  cer 
tain  extraneous  matters  such  as  dishonesty  in  bankers, 
loss  of  confidence  by  depositors,  the  economic  depres 
sion,  and  so  on.  Such  an  admission  would  be  a  declara 
tion  that  they  cannot  prove  the  first  issue.  Or  third, 
they  must  offer  some  other  explanation  for  these  na 
tional  bank  failures.  We  demand  that  the  Affirmative 
answer  this  challenge  to  the  record  of  Federal  regula 
tion — and  until  it  is  answered  it  stands  as  prima  facie 
evidence  that  banks  fail  under  both  systems  of  regula 
tion,  which  admits  that  state  regulation  is  not  to  blame, 
and  which  means  that  the  Affirmative  cannot  establish 
the  first  of  the  three  basic  issues  in  this  discussion. 

It  has  been  my  intention,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen,  to 
establish  that  the  Negative  does  not  have  the  burden  of 
proving  a  counter  plan;  that  the  Affirmative  has  mis 
construed  the  question  in  proposing  remedies  for  the 
organization  of  banks  rather  than  for  the  functions  of 
banking;  that  the  proposition  involves  three  basic  is 
sues,  and  that  as  to  the  first,  "should  we  have  Federal 
regulation  ?",  the  Affirmative  proposal  cannot  be  sup- 


CONTROL  OF   THE  BANKING   SYSTEM  267 

ported  since  it  cannot  be  shown  that  state  regulation  is 
directly  responsible  for  the  evils  of  the  system. 


Second  Affirmative,  John  Martin 
Beloit  College 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  The  Negative  has  said 
among  other  things  that  we  must  show  that  state  regu 
lation  has  been  def ective,  and  I  wish  to  do  this  before  I 
go  any  further.  In  1929  there  were  in  the  United 
States  7530  national  banks.  From  January  1930  to 
September  1932  there  were  778  Federal  Reserve  banks 
that  failed.  About  ten  and  three  tenths  per  cent  of  the 
total  number  of  national  banks.  At  the  same  time 
there  were  17,580  non-national  banks  or  state  banks 
of  which  3898  failed  or  twenty-two  and  two  tenths  per 
cent  which  was  more  than  twice  the  proportion  of  those 
that  failed  in  the  National  system.  At  the  same  time 
there  was  deposited  in  the  national  banks  $19,500,000,- 
000.00.  During  this  same  period  in  this  Federal  Re 
serve  system  there  were  tied  up  deposits  to  the  amount 
of  $783,800,000.00  or  about  four  and  two  tenths  per 
cent  of  the  total  of  deposits,  while  in  the  state  banks 
at  the  same  time  there  were  $34,500,000,000.00  of 
which  amount  $2,356,248,000.00  was  tied  up  or  about 
six  and  eight  tenths  per  cent  which  is  more  than  half 
again  as  much  in  proportion  tied  up  in  the  state  banks 
as  in  the  national  banks.  So  this  distinctly  shows  that 
state  has  been  defective  in  comparison  to  Federal  regu 
lation. 

The  Negative  speaker  also  went  on  to  say  that  since 


268    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

some  state  banks  are  well  regulated  there  is  no  point 
in  bringing  them  all  under  the  system.  In  other  words 
he  wishes  us  to  go  right  on  letting  these  banks  fail, 
causing  suffering  and  hardship  to  all  persons  concerned, 
until  they  all  have  failed,  because  until  that  time  there 
will  be  some  of  them  that  are  well  regulated  and  have 
not  failed.  Now  I  do  not,  and  I  am  sure  that  you  do 
not  believe  that  this  is  good  sense  for  would  it  not  be 
better  to  put  this  group  of  state  regulated  banks  into 
the  National  system  which  we  have  just  shown  to  be 
better,  rather  than  let  a  great  many  go  on  failing  just 
because  a  few  are  better  regulated?  This  is  especially 
true  since  there  will  be  no  hardship  imposed  on  the 
better  regulated  banks  because  they  would  have  high 
standards  anyway. 

As  has  been  pointed  out  by  the  first  Affirmative 
speaker,  one  of  the  basic  faults  in  our  present  economic 
system  is  the  instability  of  the  American  dollar.  We 
thought  for  a  while  the  technocrats  had  solved  this 
problem  by  the  simple  method  of  doing  away  with  the 
dollar.  But  it  seems  the  plan  of  the  technocrats  has 
to  be  put  into  working  order  and  we  won't  be  able  to 
live  under  it  for  a  time  at  least.  In  the  meantime  I 
believe  that  we  had  better  try  to  get  along  with  the 
dollar. 

I  say,  "get  along  with  the  dollar,"  but  I  do  not  mean 
to  go  ambling  along  letting  this  most  important  measure 
of  value  fluctuate  up  and  down  in  the  manner  it  does 
at  the  present  time*  We  are  very  careful  to  keep  all 
other  forms  of  measurements  correct — we  put  the 
standard  yardstick  in  a  glass  case,  and  throw  a  man  in 


CONTROL   OF   THE  BANKING   SYSTEM  269 

jail  for  selling  wheat  from  a  different  sized  basket,  and 
so  on.  Yet  our  dollar  which  measures  almost  all  kinds 
of  commodities  is  allowed  to  fluctuate  over  two  hun-.. 
dred  per  cent  in  just  a  few  years.  Let  us  take  two 
examples  to  show  just  what  I  mean  by  changing  the 
dollar. 

Suppose  that  you  had  purchased  a  piece  of  land  in 
1918,  and  were  going  to  pay  for  this  land  with  wheat — 
using  wheat  as  an  average  commodity.  The  first  year 
you  paid  four  hundred  bushels  of  wheat;  the  second 
the  same,  and  so  on.  But,  although  you  were  paying 
four  hundred  bushels  a  year,  the  bushel  basket  was 
being  made  larger  and  larger,  until  in  1929  it  was  just 
two  and  one-half  times  as  large  as  it  had  been  when 
you  started  making  your  payments.  In  other  words 
you  were  paying  one  thousand  bushels  according  to  the 
1918  standard  under  which  you  made  the  contract. 
The  standard  of  value  had  expanded  two  hundred  and 
fifty  per  cent.  Unbelievable.  Yet  this  is  just  what 
happened  to  the  most  important  standard  of  value,  the 
dollar,  during  this  period. 

Or  to  take  the  case  of  a  man  who  was  not  a  debtor, 
but  a  thrifty  man  with  one  hundred  dollars  who  in 
1896  decided  to  follow  the  approved  method  of  saving 
and  put  his  money  in  a  savings  bank  at  three  and  one- 
half  per  cent  interest.  In  1918  this  thrifty  individual 
withdrew  his  money  and  found  to  his  great  delight  that 
it  had  grown  to  three  hundred  dollars.  That  was  fine 
until  he  went  to  spend  the  money  and  then  he  found 
that  over  an  average  list  of  commodities  his  three  hun 
dred  dollars  would  only  buy  what  seventy-five  dollars 


270    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

would  have  bought  when  he  deposited  the  money.  He 
had  lost  money  by  putting  it  in  the  bank — and  the  bank 
hadn't  closed.  Our  standard  bushel  basket  for  all 
commodities  had  changed  size. 

These  examples  show  how  the  buying  power  of  the 
dollar  varies,  but  to  impress  upon  you  the  seriousness 
of  the  situation  let  me  quote  from  the  booklet  Honest 
Money  by  the  American  Farm  Bureau  Federation: 

"The  effect  of  the  deflation  since  1929  has  been  the  in 
crease  of  public  and  private  debts  in  this  country  (in  terms 
of  commodities)  by  eighty  billion  dollars.  On  the  present 
price  level,  when  we  have  paid  off  our  debts  on  the  basis  of 
what  those  debts  were  worth  in  terms  of  commodities  in 
1926,  we  shall  still  have  eighty  billions  more  to  pay.  Even 
the  most  avaricious  loan  shark  never  dreamed  of  legalized 
robbery  in  such  terms  as  that." 

For  all  practical  purposes  this  is  the  same  thing  as 
the  wildcat  currency  which  we  had  at  one  period  in 
our  history  but  which  was  controlled  for  contractual 
payments  by  regulating  the  amount  issued.  But  it  is 
just  as  important  that  we  stabilize  the  dollar  in  terms 
of  those  commodities  which  we  can  use.  Economists 
are  declaring  this  with  increasing  emphasis.  For  in 
stance  the  Special  Banking  Commission  of  the  Cham 
ber  of  Commerce  of  the  United  States  says: 

"Our  objective  should  be  first  of  all  to  raise  prices  a  long 
way  above  the  present  level  and  then  to  maintain  them  at  the 
level  thus  reached  with  as  much  stability  as  can  be  managed. 
We  recommend  that  this  objective  be  accepted  as  the  guid 
ing  aim  of  the  monetary  policy  of  this  country." 


CONTROL  OF  THE  BANKING   SYSTEM  271 

And  from  another  country,  England,  we  hear  that 
the  Industrial  report  of  the  British  Liberal  party  con 
tains  this  statement: 

"A  steady  healthy  development  of  trade  requires,  as  an 
indispensable  condition,  the  utmost  stability  in  the  purchas 
ing  power  of  money." 

As  we  have  seen  the  currency  of  this  country  has 
been  stabilized,  but  when  we  realize  that  money  in  this 
form  takes  care  of  only  about  ten  per  cent  of  our  busi 
ness  transactions  we  realize  that  this  control  has  very 
little  effect.  The  money  that  takes  care  of  the  other 
ninety  per  cent  of  the  business  is  what  we  are  con 
cerned  with — this  is  credit  money:  money  created  when 
a  person  deposits  cash  in  a  bank,  and  the  bank  makes  a 
loan  to  another  person  by  giving  him  a  checking  ac 
count,  using  the  cash  just  as  a  reserve.  This  person 
pays  another  person  by  check  and  that  check  is  de 
posited  in  another  bank  where  it  serves  as  the  basis  of 
more  credit.  This  expansion  of  credit  goes  on  until  it 
is  theoretically  possible  to  expand  it  about  ten  times  the 
volume  of  actual  cash. 

Now  the  banks  control  this  credit  expansion  and  they 
can  make  money  dear  or  cheap  according  to  the  amount 
they  contract  or  expand  credit.  This  is  generally  a 
result  of  raising  or  lowering  the  discount  rates.  It  is 
now  generally  recognized  that  the  boom  market  was 
partly  caused  by  the  low  discount  rate  which  allowed 
speculation  to  get  too  big  a  start  and  then  nothing 
could  check  it. 

It  then  follows  that  the  banking  system  could  largely 


272    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

stabilize  our  monetary  system  by  regulating  credit  on  a 
scientific  basis.  That  is  all  banks  acting  as  a  unity 
could  do  this — no  individual  bank  can  get  away  from 
the  profit  motive  which  in  many  cases  does  not  run 
parallel  to  the  best  interests  of  the  country.  This  was 
recognized  by  those  who  drafted  our  Federal  Reserve 
system  for  there  was  a  clause  in  the  bill  as  adopted  by 
the  House  of  Representatives  in  1913  directing  the 
Federal  Reserve  System  to  use  its  powers  to  stabilize 
the  purchasing  power  of  money.  Though  this  was 
eliminated  in  the  Senate,  it  is  becoming  increasingly 
evident  that  something  of  this  kind  must  be  done. 
There  are  several  ways  the  dollar  may  be  stabilized, 
but  they  all  depend  on  the  unity  of  the  banking  system 
because  an  increase  and  decrease  of  the  discount  rate 
is  essential  to  control  the  value  of  the  dollar.  This 
unity  and  power  we  propose  in  our  extension  of  the 
Federal  Reserve  system. 

We  do  not  claim  that  this  would  revive  a  dead  busi 
ness  world,  but  we  do  say  it  will  control  live  and  going 
business  activity.  The  benefits  of  the  plan  toward 
reviving  business  will  be  taken  up  by  another  speaker. 
Not  only  do  we  say  this  but  let  me  read  what  some 
authorities  on  the  subject  say. 

Owen  D.  Young  says  in  regard  to  the  policy  of  the 
Federal  Reserve  System: 

"It  desires  to  contribute  to  the  stabilization  of  purchasing 
power  of  our  money." 

A.  C.  Whitaker  in  the  American  Economic  Review 


CONTROL   OF   THE  BANKING    SYSTEM  273 

(March  1930)  makes  various  proposals  for  change  In 
the  Federal  Reserve  System.    One  Is; 

"That  the  statute  be  made  to  declare  the  stabilization  of 
commodity  prices  to  be  a  leading  or  perhaps  the  chief  objec 
tive  of  the  Federal  Reserve  policy." 

Lastly  we  have  some  legislative  action  in  this  direc 
tion  in  the  Goldsborough  bill: 

"The  Goldsborough  bill  passed  by  the  House  in  May, 
1932,  would  make  it  the  duty  of  the  Federal  Reserve  banks 
and  the  Treasury  to  undertake  the  policy  of  restoring  the 
level  of  wholesale  commodity  prices  to  the  1921-1929  aver 
age;  and  after  such  result  had  been  accomplished,  to  main 
tain  a  stable  price  level  thereafter." 

In  summary  let  me  point  out  that  we  have  seen  that 
we  do  not  allow  other  measures  of  value  to  fluctuate 
and  there  is  no  reason  why  we  should  make  an  excep 
tion  to  the  most  important  one — the  dollar.  This  can 
be  controlled  by  a  definite  policy  to  that  end  on  the 
part  of  a  unified  banking  system,  and  we  propose  such 
a  system.  Notice  further  that  we  rest  this  policy  of 
control  of  the  dollar  for  the  protection  of  the  people's 
property  on  a  three  legged  stool,  any  one  leg  of  which 
may  have  little  utility  in  holding  up  the  policy.  But, 
when  we  take  the  three — all  banks  in  the  system,  strict 
regulation,  and  guarantee  of  deposits — we  have  a  firm 
and  sound  foundation. 


274    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

Second  Negative,  Ernest  O,  Eisenberg 
Marquette  University 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  It  is  most  regrettable  that 
one  of  the  modern  requisites  of  debate  technique  seems 
to  consist  of  the  practice  of  putting  one's  audience  to 
sleep  before  the  first  twenty  minutes  of  speaking  are 
completed.  As  I  gaze  about  this  room  and  notice  with 
what  tremendous  effort  you  are  struggling  to  maintain 
an  air  of  alertness,  my  heart  wells  with  sympathy  for 
you.  And  yet  I  am  quite  sure  that  you  did  not  come 
here  merely  for  the  purpose  of  being  put  to  sleep. 
There  are  so  many  more  congenial  methods  of  con 
ducing  slumber,  that  it  is  at  once  obvious  that  you 
came  here  for  some  other  purpose.  Frankly,  this  is  no 
ordinary  debate  question.  True,  it  has  its  baffling 
array  of  statistics;  well,  all  debate  questions  have  their 
statistics.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  what  would  a  debate 
speech  be  like  if  it  did  not  have  statistics?  And  yet, 
this  question  involves  much  more  than  the  mere  recita 
tion  of  facts  and  the  facile  flow  of  words.  Upon  a 
correct  understanding  of  the  issues  involved  in  this 
debate,  upon  a  correct  solution  of  the  problems  pre 
sented  herein,  depends  your  own  future  existence. 
Your  own  presence  in  this  University  one  year  from 
this  day  will  be  determined  largely  by  the  action  the 
people  of  the  United  States  take  as  to  the  safe-guarding 
of  their  economic  interests. 

Our  friends  of  the  Opposition  advocate  as  a  remedy 
for  our  modern  ills  the  plan  of  Federal  Regulation  of 
banking  functions  with  a  guaranty  of  deposits.  In 


CONTROL   OF   THE  BANKING   SYSTEM  275 

seeking  to  convince  you  of  the  feasibility  and  desira 
bility  of  their  proposal,  our  worthy  Opponents  have 
assumed  a  tremendous  burden  of  proof.  In  the  first 
place,  they  must  show  you  that  Federal  Regulation  is 
the  only  possible  solution.  They  must  absolutely  con 
vince  you  of  the  fact  that  regulation  by  the  states  is 
hopeless,  that  there  can  possibly  be  no  means  by  which 
state  regulation  can  be  improved.  The  first  speaker 
of  the  Negative,  in  opening  our  case  this  evening  has 
established  without  any  question  of  doubt  the  fact  that 
although  state  regulation  is  not  perfect  at  the  present, 
there  is  no  reason  why  it  cannot  be  improved  to  a  point 
where  it  would  possess  all  the  advantages  of  Federal 
Regulation  without  any  of  the  disadvantages  of  Fed 
eral  Regulation.  It  is  the  contention  of  the  Negative 
that  the  defects  in  state  regulation  are  not  inherent  in 
the  system.  True,  state  regulatory  bodies  in  certain 
parts  of  the  country  may  have  been  lax;  state  laws  may 
have  been  unwise;  but  we  wish  to  remind  you  that 
where  model  state  banking  regulations  have  been 
enacted,  competent  commissions  have  given  to  the  pub 
lic  a  protection  which  has  been  as  adequate  and  com 
plete  as  that  offered  by  the  Federal  Government. 

Then,  in  the  second  place,  the  Affirmative  must  show 
you  that  it  is  desirable  and  practical  for  the  Federal 
Government  to  regulate  the  functions  of  banking.  At 
this  time,  we  think  it  wise  to  draw  the  distinction  be 
tween  banking  organization  and  banking  functions. 
By  the  organization  of  banking  is  meant  the  structural 
form  of  banking,  such  as  its  capitalization,  its  opera 
tion  *as  a  unit,  or  its  operation  as  a  member  of  a  chain 


276    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

system.  For  example,  laws  providing  that  banks  must 
have  a  capital  fund  of  fifty  thousand  dollars,  laws  pro 
viding  that  banks  cannot  be  organized  except  where 
necessary  to  the  best  interests  of  the  community,  laws 
prohibiting  the  organization  of  chains  of  banks — these 
are  all  laws  pertaining  to  the  organization  of  banking. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  is  well  recognized  that  the  junc 
tions  of  banking  consist  of  the  business  of  taking  in 
money  in  the  form  of  deposits  and  of  giving  it  out  in 
the  form  of  loans.  Federal  Regulation  of  banking 
functions  would  therefore  consist  of  a  regulation  of  the 
very  business  of  the  bank.  Federal  agents  and  in 
spectors  would  have  supreme  authority  over  the  ad 
visability  of  certain  loans  and  extensions  of  credit. 
We  submit  this  question  for  your  consideration:  is  it 
to  the  best  interests  of  a  community  to  have  an  experi 
enced  banker  lend  money  to  the  people  he  knows  and 
trusts,  or  to  have  those  loans  checked  and  regulated  by 
some  distant  official  in  Washington?  The  plan  the 
Affirmative  proposes,  if  logically  carried  out,  would  of 
necessity  mean  a  financial  dictatorship  such  as  America 
has  never  had,  and  such  as  America  will  never  want  to 
have.  If  the  government  is  to  regulate  banking  func 
tions  so  completely,  why  not  have  complete  govern 
ment  ownership  and  control  of  banks?  And  if  the 
government  is  not  to  have  control  over  the  banks,  why 
should  the  government  be  forced  to  guarantee  the  de 
posits  which  may  be  jeopardized  by  factors  beyond  its 
scope  of  supervision?  Bluntly  speaking,  the  Affirma 
tive  is  caught  between  the  horns  of  a  dilemma  from 
which  there  is  no  escape. 


CONTROL  OF  THE  BANKING   SYSTEM  277 

Finally,  in  the  third  place,  the  Affirmative  must 
show  you  that  it  is  desirable  and  practical  for  the  Fed 
eral  Government  to  guarantee  the  deposits  of  all  Ameri 
can  banks.  And,  because  this  question  in  the  debate 
lends  itself  so  readily  and  so  easily  to  attack,  I  shall 
devote  the  remainder  of  my  time  in  disclosing  to  you 
the  impossibility  and  the  undesirability  of  guaranteeing 
bank  deposits.  As  the  Opposition  has  already  pointed 
out  to  you,  guaranty  of  bank  deposits  by  the  Federal 
Government  would  consist  in  the  building  up  of  a  huge 
insurance  fund  wherewith  the  government  would 
recompense  the  depositors  of  insolvent  banking  institu 
tions.  We  base  our  criticism  of  this  plan  upon  three 
grounds,  the  first  of  which  is  that  the  sum  required  for 
this  fund  would  be  so  large  as  to  be  impossible.  Ac 
cording  to  statistics  quoted  you  earlier  in  this  debate 
by  our  Opponents,  according  to  statistics  furnished  by 
the  Federal  Reserve  Board,  more  than  10,000  banks 
with  deposits  of  over  $5,000,000,000  involved,  have 
closed  their  doors  since  1920;  and  in  the  past  two  and 
one-half  years  more  than  5,000  banks  with  deposits 
totalling  more  than  $3,000,000,000  have  crashed  down 
in  the  collapse  of  our  general  economic  structure. 
Were  the  Federal  Government  to  attempt  to  guarantee 
these  deposits,  to  pay  out  dollar  for  dollar  the  amount 
of  money  involved,  we  should  have  to  build  up  a  guar 
anty  fund  of  not  $100,000,000,  nor  even  $500,000,000, 
but  actually  of  more  than  $2,500,000,000.  This  is  but 
elementary  insurance.  In  times  such  as  these,  when 
our  local  governments  are  breaking  down,  when  our 
Federal  Government  faces  the  hugest  deficit  in  its 


278    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

history,  is  it  at  all  sound  or  feasible  to  suggest  that  to 
this  added  burden  we  take  $2,500,000,000  and  say, 
"Here  is  something  more  you  can  pay  for"? 

Further,  we  wish  to  add  that  this  guaranty  fund  must 
essentially  consist  of  a  cash  or  gold  fund.  You  cannot 
insure  deposits  unless  you  have  a  fund  of  insurance 
money.  And  if  you  have  money,  you  must  have  a  gold 
security  behind  that  money.  The  Affirmative  may 
suggest  that  we  guarantee  deposits  with  a  credit  struc 
ture.  But  let  me  point  this  out  to  you :  if  you  guarantee 
deposits  by  credit  you  are  directly  inflating  the  Ameri 
can  dollar  in  a  most  pernicious  and  objectionable  man 
ner.  For  example,  let  us  say  that  1,000  banks  with 
$1,000,000,000  deposits  close.  The  government  has 
guaranteed  the  deposits,  but  it  lacks  a  fund  wherewith 
it  can  pay  out  $1,000,000,000.  Consequently,  under 
the  credit  system  it  will  issue  $1,000,000,000  of  notes 
on  the  credit  of  the  government  and  deliver  these  notes 
to  the  depositors.  What  has  actually  happened  is  that 
the  government  has  inflated  its  money.  It  has  gone  to 
the  printing  presses  and  has  caused  money  to  be  printed 
without  any  gold  backing.  Germany  tried  this  in  1923, 
and  the  mark  crashed  down  to  the  disappearing  point. 
Every  nation  which  has  tried  the  policy  of  inflation  has 
learned  to  rue  the  day  when  it  set  the  printing  presses 
whirring.  Such  men  as  Bernard  Baruch,  New  York 
financier,  and  Senator  Glass,  one  of  the  foremost  bank 
ing  authorities  in  America,  denounce  the  very  thought 
of  inflation.  Yet,  a  guaranty  of  bank  deposits  based 
upon  the  credit  of  the  government  can  mean  nothing 
else  but  inflation. 


CONTROL  OF  THE  BANKING   SYSTEM  279 

On  the  other  hand,  if  you  try  to  build  up  a  gold 
reserve,  you  must  come  to  the  understanding  that  there 
is  only  $5,500,000,000  of  gold  in  the  United  States. 
Remove  $2,500,000,000  from  this  total  and  you 
destroy  the  credit  structure  of  the  nation.  The  Affirma 
tive  speaks  of  the  dangers  of  hoarding.  The  forma 
tion  of  this  insurance  fund  would  be  wholesale  hoarding 
on  a  scale  never  before  attempted  in  the  United  States, 
and  I  assure  you,  never  again  to  be  attempted.  Further, 
remember  that  this  huge  gold  sum  will  lie  idle.  It  is 
capable  of  earning  at  six  per  cent  interest  a  year,  ap 
proximately  $150,000,000  a  year.  With  this  sum  lying 
idle  for  a  period  of  ten  years,  the  net  loss  to  the  United 
States  at  compound  interest  would  exceed  $1,500,000,- 
000.  To  summarize  then,  guaranty  of  deposits  would 
require  the  setting  up  of  an  enormous  fund.  It  is  im 
possible  to  guarantee  deposits  without  this  fund,  since 
any  other  system  would  lead  to  inflation;  yet  the  main 
tenance  of  this  fund  would  destroy  the  economic  fabric 
of  our  nation,  and  cause  greater  loss  to  the  nation  than 
the  present  total  of  bank  failures. 

The  second  ground  upon  which  we  attack  this  plan 
is  that  such  a  plan  will  remove  every  incentive  for 
honest  and  careful  banking.  With  the  government  pro 
viding  a  guaranty  of  deposits,  shrewd  and  unethical 
bankers  will  find  an  opportunity  to  speculate  with 
dangerous  risks,  since  if  they  lose,  their  depositors  will 
be  safeguarded.  To  quote  Representative  McFadden, 
former  Chairman  of  the  House  Banking  and  Currency 
Committee,  speaking  in  Congress,  May  25, 1932: 


280    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

"The  establishment  of  a  guaranty  fund  is  not  going  to 
stop  bank  failures.  If  anything  it  will  encourage  through 
irresponsible  management  more  bank  failures.  This  is  going 
to  permit  promoters  and  schemers  to  buy  up  banks  and  to 
use  them  because  the  deposits  will  be  insured." 

Representative  Hull  of  Illinois,  speaking  on  the  same 
day  in  Congress,  has  this  to  say  about  the  plan: 

"When  you  guarantee  bank  deposits  by  law,  you  immedi 
ately  penalize  the  honest  and  conservative  bankers  for  the 
mistakes  made  by  bankers  who  are  not  conservative,  and 
even  at  times  reckless  in  their  negotiations." 

Thus,  the  plan  of  the  Affirmative,  instead  of  encour 
aging  a  system  of  safe  and  prudent  banking,  will  ac 
tually  tend  to  lower  the  standards  we  already  have. 

Finally,  we  oppose  the  guaranty  of  deposits,  because 
the  actual  experience  of  eight  states  has  shown  this  plan 
to  be  disastrous  in  practical  operation.  You  know,  we 
in  America  are  fortunate  in  our  system  of  government. 
We  have  forty-eight  states  acting  as  forty-eight  labora 
tories  in  which  we  can  conduct  our  various  sociological 
and  economic  experiments.  By  the  results  of  these 
experiments  the  nation  can  gradually  improve  its  sys 
tem  of  government.  Well,  to  state  the  matter  briefly, 
eight  states  adopted  this  guaranty  plan  for  deposits. 
Everyone  of  these  eight  states  repealed  the  plan,  and 
for  this  reason: 

In  Oklahoma,  the  plan  resulted  in  a  deficit  of 
$8,000,000.  In  Kansas,  the  plan  resulted  in  a  deficit 
of  $7,000,000;  in  Mississippi,  of  $4,000,000;  in  North 
Dakota  of  $14,000,000;  in  Texas  of  $16,000,000;  in 


CONTROL  OF  THE  BANKING   SYSTEM  281 

Nebraska  of  $20,000,000;  and  in  South  Dakota  of  the 
grand  total  of  $32,000,000.  Washington  adopted  the 
plan,  but  repealed  it  immediately  upon  the  failure  of 
the  Scandinavian  American  Bank. 

Thus  according  to  Representative  McFadden,  speak 
ing  in  the  House  of  Congress,  May  25,  1932,  this  plan 
which  was  adopted  so  gloriously  in  eight  states,  was 
repealed  in  one  after  another,  as  the  total  of  losses 
soared  and  soared  until  these  states  are  faced  with  a 
total  deficit  of  more  than  $100,000,000.  The  rest  of 
the  states  can  thank  their  lucky  stars  that  they  did  not 
join  in  this  gay  procession.  And  yet,  our  friends  of 
the  Opposition  advocate  this  plan  as  the  salvation  for 
American  banking.  If  you  go  into  a  laboratory  and 
place  a  mixture  into  a  test  tube,  and  the  test  tube 
explodes,  and  you  place  the  mixture  in  another  test 
tube,  and  that  also  explodes,  and  you  then  place  the 
mixture  into  a  third,  a  fourth,  a  fifth,  a  sixth,  a  seventh 
and  an  eighth,  and  they  all  explode,  you  begin  to  under 
stand  that  there  is  something  wrong  with  the  mixture. 
Similarly  we  say  that  there  is  something  wrong  with 
guaranty  of  deposits.  It  can't  possibly  work;  it  doesn't 
work;  and  it  never  will  work.  Consequently,  in  con 
clusion,  I  will  say  that  because  of  these  three  reasons, 
first,  the  impracticability  of  building  up  a  fund  large 
enough,  second,  the  increased  inefficiency  of  banking 
under  it,  and  third,  its  failure  wherever  tried,  guaranty 
of  bank  deposits  should  not  be  adopted  by  the  United 
States  Government. 


282    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

Third  Affirmative,  John  K.  Strong 
Beloit  College 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  Two  negroes  were  having 
an  altercation,  and  one,  growing  angry,  pulled  a  razor 
and  slashed  at  the  throat  of  the  other,  who  laughed  up 
roariously  and  cried,  "Well,  Sambo,  I  guess  dat's  the 
first  time  you  evah  missed."  "Missed?"  chuckled 
Sambo,  "missed?  Shake  yo-self,  Henry,  shake  yo- 
self." 

Now  we've  been  playing  the  r61e  of  Sambo,  and 
Henry  across  the  table  there  hasn't  realized  what  has 
happened.  Our  Opponents  have  been  decapitated,  and 
they  don't  know  it  yet!  For  look — we  have  shown 
them  that  the  state  banks,  in  fair  weather  and  foul, 
have  had  a  record  about  twice  as  bad  as  that  of  the 
National  banks.  We  have  exposed  the  defects  of  the 
present  dual  banking  system  which  in  spite  of  the 
transcendent  faith  of  our  Opponents  has  brought 
American  life  into  this  present  morass.  And  we  have 
also  proposed  a  plan  that  would  remedy,  with  major 
effectiveness,  the  evils  of  the  present  situation.  And 
what  do  our  opponents  do  but  take  a  wide  detour 
around  this  unshakable  case  that  fulfills  our  obligation 
as  Affirmative,  and  begin  to  peck  at  us  on  matters  in 
consequential  or  unrelated  to  the  subject  for  debate. 

They  have  rung  all  the  changes  on  a  brain-tantalizer 
which  they  call  Organization  versus  Function.  In  this 
it  is  apparent  that  they  have  fallen  prey  to  a  common 
philosophical  error.  It  will  be  distasteful  to  you, 
Ladies  and  Gentlemen,  for  me  to  enter  the  metaphysi- 


CONTROL  OF   THE  BANKING   SYSTEM  283 

cal  realm,  and  resurrect  Descartes  and  Leibnitz;  let 
it  suffice  to  say  that  all  -matter  is  meaningless  unless 
it  has  organization;  and  it  is  the  organization  of  an 
institution  that  determines  and  controls  its  function. 
A  cat  does  not  function  like  a  carburetor  because  it  is 
not  organized  on  that  principle.  And  every  speck  of 
control  over  Function  is  to  be  found  hi  Organization. 
Therefore  the  only  way  that  we  may  effectively  control 
the  functions  of  banks  is  to  control  their  larger  organ 
ization. 

Still  ignoring  the  Affirmative  case,  the  Gentlemen  of 
the  Opposition  have  presented  us  with  an  ultimatum. 
We  must  show  three  things,  they  declare,  and  the  first 
of  these  is  that  regulation  by  the  states  is  hopeless. 
Upon  my  soul,  do  we  have  to  prove  this  to  them?  Do 
I  have  to  present  to  you  conclusive  proof  that  there  is 
a  depression,  and  that  the  breakdown  of  state  regula 
tion  has  contributed  enormously  to  the  severity  of  the 
disorder?  I  do  not  have  to  defend  this  point — it  shouts 
its  truth  through  the  blinds  of  ten  thousand  closed  bank 
buildings. 

We  are  told  in  the  second  place  that  we  must  prove 
that  regulation  by  the  government  is  practical.  All 
right:  (a)  We  have  tried  everything,  including  state 
control  and  private  initiative,  until  we  now  jingle  pen 
nies  instead  of  dollars  in  our  pockets,  and  until  one- 
third  of  Beloit's  families  are  receiving  County  aid. 
From  the  record  of  the  government  in  contrast  with 
private  enterprise,  there  is  much  to  be  hoped  for  in 
complete  Government  Regulation  of  our  wildcat  bank 
ing.  (5)  The  eight  defects  of  our  present  banking 


284    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

system,  enumerated,  by  Mr.  Nash  and  so  studiously 
avoided  by  the  Negative,  are  all  defects  which  are 
remediable  to  a  significant  degree  by  inclusive  mem 
bership  in  the  Federal  Reserve  System,  whose  Organ 
ization  and  therefore  whose  Functions  are  controlled  by 
the  government,  (c)  With  Government  Regulation 
will  come  the  elimination  of  other  causes  of  bank  fail 
ure  mentioned  by  Mr.  Gleason  of  the  Negative.  Dis 
trust  of  banks,  uneasiness  concerning  deposits,  dis 
honesty  of  bankers — these  will  become  negligible  when 
the  National  Government  manages  the  entire  banking 
system.  Even  a  fourth  cause  (d)  of  failure  also  men 
tioned,  the  general  breakdown  of  the  money-credit 
system,  will  be  removed  since,  as  Mr.  Martin  has 
shown,  the  Federal  Reserve  System  does,  in  the  words 
of  Owen  D.  Young,  "contribute  to  the  stabilization  of 
the  purchasing  power  of  our  money." 

And  the  third  challenge  that  has  been  flung  at  us  this 
evening  is  to  show  that  the  guaranty  of  bank  deposits  is 
practical  and  desirable.  Let  us  look  more  closely  at 
some  of  Mr.  Eisenberg's  statements  about  this,  (a)  He 
says  that  the  fund  required  is  too  large.  But  let  us  see 
what  Senator  Glass,  foremost  banking  expert  in  the 
country,  has  to  say.  In  the  Glass-Steagall  bill  now 
before  Congress,  he  would  establish  a  Federal  Liqui 
dating  Board  consisting  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas 
ury,  Comptroller  of  the  Currency,  and  three  appointees 
of  the  President.  They  are  to  administer  a  deposit 
guarantee  fund  of  not  more  than  five  hundred  million 
dollars,  one-fourth  of  which  has  already  been  obtained, 
to  be  raised  by  ( 1 )  treasury  subscription  to  the  amount 


CONTROL  OF   THE  BANKING  SYSTEM  285 

of  franchise  payments,  (2)  levy  upon  surplus  account 
of  each  Federal  Reserve  bank,  (3)  assessment  upon 
member  and  participating  non-member  banks  in  pro 
portion  to  their  deposits,  and  (4)  borrowings  from  the 
Reconstruction  Finance  Corporation.  Senator  Glass 
says  that  it  can  be  done!  Equally  as  powerful  an  argu 
ment  is  the  fact  that  an  estimated  amount  of  one  billion 
six  hundred  million  dollars  is  being  hoarded  today  be 
cause  of  people's  fear  of  losing  their  bank  deposits. 
The  establishing  of  a  guaranty  fund  of  five  hundred 
million  dollars  would  be  of  inestimable  aid  in  returning 
to  active  turnover  this  huge  amount  of  money.  More 
over  Canada  has  guaranty  of  bank  deposits.  Does  she 
find  it  to  be  too  expensive? 

(6)  Mr  Eisenberg  also  has  declared  that  the  guar 
anty  of  bank  deposits  would  eliminate  good  banking. 
How  can  he  be  sure?  It  never  has  been  tried  long 
enough  for  anyone  to  tell  what  the  results  in  that  par 
ticular  line  will  be!  And  yet  I  think  that  we  may  lean 
a  big  question-mark  against  this  Negative  argument  by 
demonstrating  by  analogy  what  effect  such  a  scheme 
might  have  upon  the  tender  art  of  banking.  In  Eng 
land  in  1925  a  Workmen's  Compensation  Act  was  put 
through  by  the  British  Labor  Party  providing  com 
pensation  for  injuries  received  in  pursuit  of  work.  Not 
deposits,  but  welfare  was  protected.  Did  this  encour 
age  sloppier  work  or  more  careless  attention  to  the  use 
of  dangerous  machinery?  Well,  all  over  England, 
Safety  Campaigns  were  put  on;  industrial  workers  and 
employers  were  informed  of  the  implications  of  this 
social  legislation,  and  as  a  result,  the  number  of  indus- 


286    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

trial  accidents  dropped  off  appreciably  the  following 
months.  If  anything,  the  guaranty  of  bank  deposits, 
placing  a  real  obligation  to  the  government  on  the 
shoulders  of  our  bankers,  ought  to  create  a  sounder 
kind  of  banking.  Canada  has  guaranty  of  deposits; 
does  it  eliminate  good  banking  there? 

(c)  The  third  reason  presented  as  to  why  guaranty 
of  bank  deposits  is  neither  practical  nor  desirable  is 
that  eight  states  have  tried  it  and  failed.  Yes,  and 
failed  dismally.  In  proposing  this  argument,  the  Gen 
tleman  of  the  Opposition  shows,  I  fear  me,  only  a 
rouge-deep  apprehension  of  the  conditions  of  these 
State  fiascos.  He  knows  that  they  failed,  but  does  not 
ask  why.  Let  me  tell  you  why  they  failed,  for  I  find  in 
their  mistakes  the  most  powerful  argument  for  national 
guaranty. 

They  failed  in  the  first  place  because  they  violated 
basic  principles  of  insurance  in  not  extending  the  risk 
over  an  area  large  enough  to  include  a  diversity  of  eco 
nomic  and  industrial  interests.  You  would  think  a 
company  crazy  that  sold  all  its  hail  insurance  in  only 
one  county.  But  these  eight  states  were  too  ignorant 
to  realize  that  actually  they  were  making  a  similar 
error,  For  they  were  all  Mississippi  basin  states,  agri 
cultural,  and  in  the  time  of  agricultural  disaster,  the 
banks  in  this  area  were  all  equally  hard  hit,  and  none 
could  absorb  the  strain.  The  plan  we  have  proposed 
is  national  in  scope,  tending  to  distribute  sectional 
strains  over  the  whole  of  the  United  States,  in  accord 
ance  with  sound  insurance  principles. 

In  the  second  place,  these  states  failed  because  they 


CONTROL  OF   THE  BANKING   SYSTEM  287 

guaranteed  something  impossible  under  the  present 
banking  system;— and  please  notice  that  I  said  the 
present  system.  You  stockholders  in  the  Second  Na 
tional  Bank  downtown  know  that  your  bank  would  not 
guarantee  the  financial  stability  of  Fairbanks-Morse 
and  Company  unless  your  bank  had  a  large  measure  of 
control  over  the  financial  policy  of  that  company.  Yet 
this  is  precisely  what  the  states  did.  Even  though  our 
banks  have  proved  themselves  incapable  of  practicing 
sound  banking  under  the  present  law  of  private  initia 
tive,  these  states  guaranteed  bank  deposits  without  the 
assurance  that  their  banks  would  remain  solvent.  Is  it 
any  wonder  that  those  states  found  the  discharge  of 
their  guaranty  obligations  to  be  so  onerous  as  to  cause 
the  abandonment  of  the  scheme?  The  guaranty  of 
bank  deposits  must  be  founded  upon  a  National  Fed 
eral  Regulation  that  will  force  all  banks  into  policies 
and  practices  that  will  strengthen  the  financial  world. 
And  as  you  will  remember,  this  is  one  of  the  foremost 
tenets  of  the  plan  we  proposed. 

A  third  reason  also  might  be  added:  because  the 
guaranty  was  based  upon  narrow  state  areas,  the  fund 
had  to  be  raised  by  taxing  the  state  banks.  To  avoid 
this  objectionable  tax  the  state  banks  tended  to  go 
National,  thus  throwing  the  whole  burden  of  the  guar 
anty  fund  upon  the  banks  with  too  small  capitalization 
to  become  Federal  Reserve  members.  Obviously  these 
few  weak  banks  could  not  support  the  strain.  A  uni 
fied  National  scheme,  with  an  equal  distribution  of 
obligation  is  necessary  if  guaranteeing  deposits  is  to 
work,  and  as  you  know,  this  is  one  of  the  stipulations 


288    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

of  our  plan.  And  I  might  just  throw  in  the  fact  that 
Canada  has  a  National  plan  of  guaranteed  deposits 
that  has  functioned  successfully  since  its  inception. 

But  we  are  not  satisfied  merely  with  annihilating 
their  counter-arguments — we  offer  you  proof  of  several 
benefits  that  will  result  from  the  functioning  of  such 
a  plan  as  we  propose.  The  first  and  most  obvious  bene 
fit  that  will  result  is  that  of  absolute  safety  of  deposits. 
Four  billion  two  hundred  and  twenty-seven  million  dol 
lars  are  lost  or  tied  up  by  bank  failures  of  the  past  ten 
years — an  amount  so  enormous  that  it  is  almost  im 
possible  to  comprehend.  If  every  minute  from  the 
birth  of  Christ  one  dollar  and  fifty  cents  had  been 
dropped  into  the  ocean?  this  loss  by  today  would  be 
four  hundred  and  twenty-five  million  dollars  less  than 
the  loss  caused  by  the  failure  of  our  banks.  Of  course 
a  rather  large  percentage  of  this  has  eventually  been 
returned,  but  only  after  causing  uncertainty,  untold 
suffering  and  misery,  and  economic  maladjustment. 

Not  only  will  there  be  no  money  lost,  but  also  there 
will  come  a  peace  of  mind  and  public  confidence  that 
long  has  been  a  significant  lack  in  our  American  life. 
Once  we  are  sure  that  we  can  lose  no  money  in  our 
banks,  we  will  be  glad  to  cooperate  with  them  in  put 
ting  the  dollar  back  to  work  along  with  our  citizens. 
This  is  the  greatest  need,  says  Roger  Babson,  that  of 
increasing  the  velocity  of  our  money  turn-over.  The 
one  billion  six  hundred  million  dollars  of  hoarded 
money  would  return  to  circulation  and  aid  greatly  in 
stabilizing  industry.  But  all  this  will  happen  only 


CONTROL  OF   THE  BANKING   SYSTEM  289 

when  public  confidence  is  created  by  a  policy  of  guar 
anteed  deposits. 

I  would  invite  your  attention  to  only  one  more  of  a 
number  of  benefits,  namely,  that  our  plan  would  re 
move  the  major  cause  for  bank  failures.  The  Uni 
versity  of  Chicago  professors  several  weeks  ago  in 
their  Sunday  afternoon  radio  round  table  agreed  that 
most  of  the  bank  failures  were  precipitated  by  drains  in 
the  time  of  economic  duress  or  psychological  uneasi 
ness.  The  Michigan  moratorium  of  several  days  ago 
was  the  necessary  climax  of  a  series  of  disastrous  runs, 
It  is  possible  that  if  the  situation  continues  as  at  pres 
ent,  there  may  be  a  national  moratorium  that  will  be 
come  the  first  step  in  the  adoption  of  the  very  plan  we 
are  proposing  to  you  this  evening.  When  men  and 
women  know  for  certain  that  they  cannot  lose  their 
money,  the  disaster  of  bank  failures  may  in  large  meas 
ure  be  averted. 

In  summary,  we  have  presented  our  case  and  have 
met  the  three  requirements  of  the  Negative,  to  show 
that  state  regulation  has  failed,  that  Government  Regu 
lation  would  be  desirable,  and  that  the  guaranty  of 
deposits  would  be  practical.  As  regards  the  latter,  I 
have  shown  that  with  a  system  of  guaranty  we  will  lose 
no  more  money,  will  support  and  stabilize  business,  and 
will  check  disastrous  runs  on  our  banks.  Therefore, 
we  submit  to  you  our  plan  of  guaranteed  deposits,  func 
tioning  within  an  inclusive  Federal  Reserve  System,  as 
the  solution  of  our  present  problem, 


290    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

Third  Negative,  Robert  W.  Hansen 
Marquette  University 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  The  preceding  speaker 
returned  to  Biblical  times  to  secure  a  basis  for  com 
puting  certain  statistics.  Possibly,  it  was  his  so  doing 
that  reminded  us  of  the  Biblical  parable  of  the  wheat 
and  the  tares,  in  which,  you  will  remember,  the  master 
said  to  the  servant,  ".  .  .  and  in  the  time  of  the  har 
vest  I  will  say  to  the  reapers,  Gather  up  first  the  tares, 
and  bind  them  in  bundles  to  burn  them;  but  gather  the 
wheat  into  my  barn/3  It  is  in  somewhat  this  spirit  of 
selection  and  discrimination  that  we  propose  to  analyze 
the  case  of  the  Opposition  separating  the  wheat  from 
the  tares,  the  relevant  from  the  irrelevant. 

Great  emphasis  has  been  placed  upon  the  fact  that 
while  in  former  days  checks  came  back  marked,  "No 
funds,"  nowadays  they  return  marked,  "No  bank." 
Yet  can  banking  institutions  stand  unmoved  in  the 
midst  of  commercial  and  economic  wreckage?  This 
very  speech  is  punctuated  by  the  detonations  of  crash 
ing  industrial  enterprises.  This  nation  has  had  over  a 
decade  of  agricultural  paralysis;  it  has  been  four  long 
years  since  the  last  paper  profits  went  west  in  the  cov 
ered  wagon  of  margin  calls.  If  banks  fail,  the  fault 
lies  not  in  our  banking  structure,  but  in  the  economic 
system  of  the  country.  If  banks  fail,  it  is  because  the 
economic  communities  in  which  they  are  located  are 
failing.  Much  has  also  been  said  about  branch  bank 
ing,  a  very  interesting  question;  much  can  be  said  in 
favor  of  and  against  branch  banking,  but  all  such 


CONTROL  OF  THE  BANKING   SYSTEM  291 

arguments  are  entirely  irrelevant  as  far  as  the  question 
of  Federal  Regulation  of  banking  functions  and  Fed 
eral  Guaranty  of  bank  deposits  is  concerned.  Remove 
the  legislative  barriers  to  branch  banking  and  the  unit 
banker  will  go  for  a  one-way  journey  reminiscent  of  a 
Windy  City's  gangster's  last  ride.  Whether  such 
branch  banking  would  be  desirable  is  a  separate  de 
bate  question,  and,  therefore,  feeling  that  the  issue 
raised  is  irrelevant  to  the  question  under  discussion  we 
resist  with  firm  resolution  the  temptation  to  wander 
into  the  by-path  of  branch  banking. 

However  much  we  might  extend  the  list  of  sins  of 
commission  of  our  Affirmative  brethren,  we  feel  that  the 
sin  of  omission  of  which  they  are  guilty  is  far  more 
grievous.  The  question  puts  upon  them  the  burden  of 
arguing  in  favor  of  Federal  Regulation  of  banking 
functions.  What  are  the  functions  of  a  bank?  In  our 
humble  opinion  they  consist  quite  largely  of  accepting 
deposits  and  making  loans.  No  bank  performs  a  more 
important  function  than  that  of  extending  credit  to 
certain  enterprises  and  individuals;  the  problem  of 
what  enterprises  are  going  to  be  given  loans  is  all- 
important  to  the  continued  existence  of  the  bank.  Yet 
the  plan  of  the  Affirmative  provides  for  no  effective 
regulation  of  these  actual  operations  of  a  bank. 

To  this  they  counter  that  they  will  control  the  organ 
ization,  permitting  the  organization  to  control  the  func 
tions.  This  is  certainly  Government  Regulation  of 
banking  organization,  but  it  is  a  remarkably  indirect 
method  of  regulating  banking  functions.  To  illustrate; 
if  we  had  been  debating  Governmental  Regulation  of 


292    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

public  utilities  some  few  years  back,  it  would  have  been 
the  Affirmative's  position  that  the  control  exercised 
would  be  to  tell  the  Insulls  and  the  Byllesbys  that 
they  might  have  branch  companies,  that  they  were  to 
have  a  certain  minimum  capitalization,  that  they  were 
to  be  subject  to  no  state  restrictions.  This  might  be 
controlling  the  organization  but  it  would  hardly  be 
regarded  as  control  of  the  functions  of  the  utility.  We 
now  realize  regulation  implies  the  government's  de 
termining  what  rate  the  utility  may  charge,  what  stand 
ard  of  service  they  shall  render;  or,  in  other  words, 
effective  control  over  the  actual  operation  of  the  utility. 
Without  such  active  control,  it  can  hardly  be  said  that 
the  functions  of  any  enterprise  are  being  Govern- 
mentally  Regulated. 

We  might  remark,  however,  that  there  is  one  funda 
mental  disagreement  between  the  two  teams  upon  this 
platform  this  evening.  It  seems  to  be  the  Affirmative's 
viewpoint  that  banks  are  failing  because  there  is  not 
sufficient  Federal  Regulation  and  Federal  guaranty  of 
bank  deposits.  And  yet,  in  the  forty-four  months  fol 
lowing  January  1st,  1929,  eight  hundred  thirty-nine 
national  banks,  operating  under  the  very  system  whicK 
the  Affirmative  lauds  so  highly,  failed.  Twenty  na 
tional  banks,  many  of  them  located  in  larger  cities  and 
strongly  financed,  closed  their  doors  each  month.  In 
every  state  which  has  attempted  guaranty  of  bank 
deposits,  despite  the  fact  that  the  resources  of  the 
state  were  pitted  behind  the  banking  institutions,  banks 
failed  and  deficits  accumulated.  It  is  the  opinion  of 
the  Negative  that  in  these  and  other  cases  the  credit 


CONTROL   OF   THE  BANKING   SYSTEM  293 

institutions  have  failed  because  the  economic  com 
munities  from  which  they  draw  their  strength  and 
permanence  also  failed.  Thus  it  is  that  when  the  bot 
tom  dropped  out  of  the  Florida  real  estate  boom,  even 
the  chain  banks  located  in  that  sector  were  forced  to 
the  wall;  thus  it  is  that  so  many  small  rural  banks, 
with  their  eggs  resting  in  the  basket  of  farm  prosperity, 
have  failed  because  farmers  remained  impoverished 
and  farming  remained  a  not  especially  lucrative  form 
of  endeavor.  The  cases  where  defalcating  cashiers  and 
embezzling  bank  presidents  ruin  banks  are  compara 
tively  rare.  No  banker  goes  into  ecstasies  of  delight 
nor  sings  rhapsodies  of  joy  when  the  banking  commis 
sioner  tacks  the  sign  "Closed"  upon  his  bank  entrance. 
It  is  to  the  banker's  interest,  aside  from  any  altruistic 
motives  of  community  service,  to  keep  the  bank  func 
tioning.  If  the  bank  does  fail,  it  usually  fails  because 
of  outside  circumstances  over  which  the  banker  has  no 
control. 

It  is  then  the  considered  opinion  of  the  Negative 
that  the  instability  of  American  banks  can  be  attributed 
to  the  instability  of  the  entire  American  economic  struc 
ture.  And,  as  we  view  it,  the  problem  is  not  to  attempt 
to  build  a  stronger  banking  system;  it  is  to  build  a  sub 
structure  of  sound  agricultural  and  industrial  pros 
perity.  With  such  substructure  the  present  banking 
system  will  prove  more  than  adequate  to  meet  the  tests 
of  stability  and  flexibility;  without  such  foundation  no 
banking  system  can  be  devised  that  will  be  able  to  stand 
upon  the  shifting  sands  of  business  chaos.  We  do  not 
come  as  a  Moses  leading  a  depression-weary  world  to  a 


294    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

land  of  plenty.  We  intend  merely  to  indicate  the  direc 
tion  in  which  the  nation  must  travel  and  the  mode  of 
attack  the  nation  must  adopt. 

Some  means  must  be  found  to  stabilize  our  economic 
system.  Ability  to  produce  must  not  be  permitted  to 
outrun  ability  to  consume.  Some  method  of  teaming 
productive  capacity  and  power  to  consume  in  double 
harness  must  be  devised.  It  is  possible  that,  if  the  so- 
called  Roosevelt  agricultural  domestic  allotment  plan 
proves  feasible,  it  might  be  given  a  wider  application. 
Perhaps  some  more  stringent  form  of  social  control 
along  the  lines  of  economic  planning  as  suggested  by 
Stuart  Chase  or  of  industrial  coordination  as  suggested 
by  Gerard  Swope  and  other  industrial  leaders  will  have 
to  be  adopted.  Quite  possibly  minimum  wage  legisla 
tion  and  restriction  of  the  hours  of  labor  for  both  men 
and  women  will  be  utilized  to  increase  the  purchasing 
power  of  the  ultimate  consumers.  There  may  be  differ 
ences  as  to  the  choice  of  method;  possibly  we  can 
return  to  this  platform  to  discuss  the  comparative  ad 
vantages  and  disadvantages  of  the  various  plans  for 
remodeling  our  economic  structure.  However  for  the 
present  our  general  position  remains  clear;  it  is  that  in 
a  coal  mining  section  where  for  thirty  years  the  miners 
have  averaged  but  nine  months  employment  per  year 
and  in  agricultural  regions  where  the  market  price  of 
farm  commodities  does  not  pay  for  the  costs  of  pro 
ducing  them;  in  such  sections,  no  banking  institutions 
can  expect  to  carry  on  a  profitable  or  long  continued 
business.  And  the  problem  is  not  to  bulwark  th<e  banks 
but  to  rebuild  the  economic  community. 


CONTROL   OF   THE  BANKING   SYSTEM  295 

If  we  might  consider  these  periodic  economic  crises 
as  surging,  seething  torrents  sweeping  down  upon  a 
countryside,  causing  untold  damage,  and  shattering  all 
dikes  and  engulfing  all  buildings,  then  it  seems  to  be 
the  Affirmative  position  that  we  should  build  taller 
buildings  and  higher  structures.  But  we  have  learned 
that  when  the  freshets  come,  no  building  can  withstand 
their  fury.  And  so  the  Negative  proposes  that  we  go 
up  into  the  headwaters  of  the  river  and  there,  where 
the  floods  are  starting,  build  the  reservoirs  of  a  planned 
production  and  plant  the  forests  of  more  equitably  dis 
tributed  purchasing  power,  so  that  we  may  check  these 
floods  before  they  begin.  It  has  been  our  sad  experi 
ence  that  once  the  flood  has  started  no  institution,  in 
dustrial  or  commercial,  can  long  withstand  its  fury. 

First  Negative  Rebuttal,  Donald  W.  Gleason 
Marquette  University 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  In  my  constructive  speech, 
I  indicated  that  the  first  issue  involved  in  this  proposi 
tion  was — "Should  we  have  Federal  Regulation"?,  and 
that  to  substantiate  that  issue  the  Affirmative  would 
have  to  prove  that  the  defects  in  the  banking  system 
were  due  to  state  regulation.  I  hope  that  the  stenogra 
pher  heard  me  say  that,  for  apparently  the  Affirmative 
did  not.  The  Affirmative  has  utterly  failed  to  show 
that  any  one  defect  was  directly  due  to  the  system  of 
regulation.  If  there  were  three  more  speakers  on  the 
Affirmative  side,  they  would  remind  us  of  the  "secret 
six"  of  Chicago  fame,  for  they  label  the  defects  of 


296    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

banking  as  being  "public  enemies,"  and  their  secrecy 
lies  in  the  fact  that  they  prove  nothing  relevant  about 
what  produced  these  so-called  public  enemies. 

You  have  heard  from  the  lips  of  the  Affirmative 
speakers,  that  today  we  have  too  many  small,  rural, 
under-capitalized  banks;  but  if  that  is  true  then  greater 
capitalization  is  the  remedy  and  not  the  abolition  of 
state  regulation.  Banks  are  organized  with  a  certain 
capitalization  and  if  the  amount  thereof  has  proved 
too  small,  then  we  have  discovered  a  defect  in  the  or 
ganization  of  banks,  which  does  not  prove  anything  for 
the  Affirmative  except  that  the  argument  is  immaterial 
to  the  issue.  They  told  you  further  that  the  American 
dollar  is  unstable,  and  that  our  banks  are  not  able  to 
extend  credit  at  a  time  when  it  is  most  needed,  but  if 
those  factors  were  intended  by  the  Affirmative  to  be 
pertinent  to  our  discussion,  then  they  should  have 
shown  that  state  regulation  of  banking  functions  was 
responsible  for  their  existence.  If  you  have  heard  the 
Affirmative  take  any  single  defect  of  banking  and  say 
in  regard  to  it  "now  this  defect  is  directly  due  to  state 
regulation  and,  therefore,  state  regulation  has  failed" 
— I  repeat,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen,  if  you  have  heard 
the  Affirmative  say  that,  then  we  of  the  Negative  are 
the  "deaf  trio"  and  the  Gentlemen  from  Beloit  are  not 
the  "secret  six."  It  is  our  contention  that  the  Affirma 
tive  has  failed  to  prove  the  necessary  elements  to  win 
the  first  issue. 

The  second  basic  issue  in  this  debate  is  "Should 
Federal  Regulation  be  extended  to  all  banking  junc 
tions"  and  as  to  this  issue  the  Affirmative  proceeded  on 


CONTROL  OF   THE  BANKING   SYSTEM  297 

the  bald  assumption  that  our  state  governments  are 
incapable  of  regulating  any  banking  function.  In  none 
of  their  three  speeches  can  we  find  as  much  as  an  illus 
tration  to  prove  that  a  state  cannot  regulate  the  func 
tions  of  a  bank,  to  say  nothing  of  the  fact  that  their 
case  lacks  any  mention  of  why  the  Federal  Govern 
ment  must  step  in  to  regulate  all  junctions.  The  Af 
firmative  ignores  the  fact  that  many  of  our  state  banks, 
familiar  with  the  problems  within  the  particular  state 
have  experienced  twenty  and  thirty  years  of  successful 
bank  management.  The  equipment,  efficient  organ 
ization,  and  careful  personal  attention  given  by  most 
of  our  state  banks  to  banking  problems  has  constituted 
a  very  satisfactory  service. 

According  to  the  Banker's  Magazine  for  September, 
1932,  of  the  total  number  of  all  banks  in  existence  dur 
ing  the  year  1931,  only  ten  per  cent  failed.  Despite  the 
dishonesty  of  some  bankers,  despite  the  loss  of  confi 
dence  and  even  despite  the  depression,  ninety  per  cent 
of  our  banks  in  1931  remained  in  existence  and  bore 
testimony  to  the  fact  that  our  states  can  and  do  success 
fully  regulate  banking  functions,  but  the  boys  from 
Beloit  seize  upon  the  ten  per  cent  that  failed  and  then 
hasten  to  the  conclusion  that  no  state  can  regulate  bank 
functions. 

If  I  have  a  draft  issued  by  a  Milwaukee  bank,  I  may 
present  it  to  a  bank  in  Beloit  for  collection.  The  Beloit 
bank  accepts  the  draft  on  deposit  for  collection,  but 
only  in  the  capacity  as  my  agent.  All  that  is  required 
of  the  Beloit  bank  is  that  it  send  the  draft  to  Milwau 
kee;  in  other  words,  it  need  only  make  use  of  the  mails. 


298         THE   YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE   DEBATING 

But  the  Affirmative  case  assumes  that  the  Beloit  bank 
is  unable  to  perform  that  function  because  it  is  under 
state  regulation,  whereas  in  fact,  it  has  successfully 
handled  such  transactions  for  many  years.  When  the 
Affirmative  recommends  that  the  Federal  Government 
regulate  all  banking  functions,  they  in  effect  say  to 
you  that  your  bank  in  Beloit  cannot  receive  your  money 
or  retain  it  for  you  at  interest,  that  it  cannot  collect 
your  drafts,  give  you  investment  advice,  or  provide  a 
checking  account  service  for  you,  while  you  know  from 
experience  that  your  bank  has  done  all  these  things  for 
you  ever  since  you  became  part  of  the  commercial 
world.  We  believe,  not  only  that  the  Affirmative  has 
failed  to  prove  that  our  states  cannot  regulate  bank 
functions,  but  that  it  is  absurd  to  even  attempt  to  do 
so,  and  that  consequently,  they  have  lost  the  second 
issue. 

"Shall  the  Federal  Government  guarantee  deposits" 
is  the  final  issue  this  evening.  Mr.  Eisenberg,  our  sec 
ond  speaker,  has  shown  that  such  a  proposal  is  unwise, 
impossible,  that  it  has  already  failed  in  eight  states, 
and  will  further  deal  with  the  issue  in  his  rebuttal, 
since  my  time  is  about  spent. 

In  closing  I  want  to  raise  an  important  inquiry.  The 
Affirmative  supposedly  condemns  state  regulation; 
they  would  replace  it  with  Federal  Regulation.  I  pre 
sume  that  the  idea  is  that  Federal  Regulation  would 
be  so  much  better.  (Presumed,  because  not  shown  by 
Affirmative.)  But  in  that  case,  why  does  the  Affirma 
tive  contend  that  the  Federal  Government  should  also 
guarantee  deposits?  If  Federal  Regulation  is  to  mark 


CONTROL  OF  THE  BANKING  SYSTEM  299 

an  advance  in  our  banking  system,  why  must  deposits 
be  guaranteed?  To  the  Negative  your  double  proposal 
is  contradictory;  the  guaranty  clause  seems  to  be  an 
implied  admission  that  Federal  Regulation  alone  will 
not  be  sufficient.  I  submit  the  question  to  our  Op 
ponents  but  I  do  so  with  shaken  confidence  that  it  will 
be  answered,  for  as  yet  the  Affirmative  has  refused  to 
tell  us  why  the  eight  hundred  thirty-nine  national  banks 
failed.  Gentlemen,  shall  we  assume  that  it  is  because 
so  many  national  banks  fail  under  Federal  Regulation 
that  you  want  to  guarantee  deposits? 


First  Affirmative  Rebuttal,  John  S.  Nash 
Beloit  College 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  At  the  outset  of  this  de 
bate  the  Affirmative  took  the  position  that  the  Negative 
must  either  uphold  the  present  situation  or  else  present 
a  plan  which  they  can  prove  to  be  a  better  one.  The 
Negative  denied  this  and  said  that  if  they  gave  a  plan 
it  was  from  choice  and  not  from  necessity.  The  Af 
firmative  of  the  question  as  stated  implies  that  there 
are  more  benefits  to  be  derived  from  having  the  gov 
ernment  regulate  banking  functions  than  under  the 
present  situation.  The  Negative  therefore,  implies 
that  there  will  be  less  benefits,  and  as  yet  they  have 
only  given  you  a  hatful  of  reasons  why  they  think  that 
the  Affirmative  plan  will  not  work.  But  they  have  not 
shown  you  that  there  will  be  more  harm  than  good  done 
by  our  plan,  and  until  they  can  point  with  proof  at  the 


300    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

items  of  our  proposal  and  say,  "These  would  make  the 
present  mess  worse,"  we  maintain  our  position. 

Now  let  us  examine  this  plan  which  they  have  pre 
sented.  They  would  stabilize  the  whole  economic 
structure,  and  thus  the  banking  structure  would  neces 
sarily  be  made  stronger.  Now  we  believe  strongly  in 
stabilizing  the  whole  economic  structure,  but  what  a 
hypothetical  plan  it  is  that  supposes  that  we  can  do  this 
without  a  complete  overturning  of  our  present  economic 
order.  It  will  be  absolutely  impossible  to  do  this  unless 
we  start  with  smaller  units.  Our  plan  is  really  a  com 
ponent  part  of  making  the  whole  structure  more  stable. 
It  is  impossible  to  have  business  unless  we  have  a  bank 
ing  system  that  can  take  care  of  the  demands  of  it. 
We  contend  that  the  Negative  have  presented  a  meta 
physical  thing  which  in  no  wise  can  be  used  as  a  sub 
stitute  plan  for  the  one  which  we  have  presented  this 
evening. 

The  Negative,  this  evening,  have  neither  presented  a 
substitute  plan  nor  have  they  proven  the  results  of  our 
plan  to  be  worse  than  the  present  situation,  and  so  we 
claim  that  our  position  has  been  untouched. 

Now  the  Negative  have  further  contended  that  we 
must  show  that  the  state  banks  are  the  cause  of  our 
present  crisis  or  else  there  is  no  justification  for  turning 
the  banks  over  to  the  Federal  Government.  We  have 
shown  that  the  record  of  the  state  banks  is  twice  as 
bad  as  the  Federal  Reserve  Banks  both  in  regard  to 
the  proportion  of  bank  failures  and  to  the  percentage 
of  the  deposits  lost.  Our  main  fight,  however,  is  not 
with  the  state  bank  as  such,  as  it  is  against  having 


CONTROL   OF    THE   BANKING   SYSTEM  301 

forty-nine  systems  instead  of  one  central  system.  We 
have  already  shown  the  dangerous  and  unfair  competi 
tion  which  exists  between  member  and  non-member 
banks. 

The  second  speaker  for  the  Negative  attempted  to 
show  you  how  impossible  it  would  be  to  establish  a 
fund  for  the  guaranteeing  of  deposits.  With  mathe 
matical  precision  he  showed  that  it  would  demand  a 
cash  fund  of  three  or  four  billions  of  dollars.  If  the 
Gentleman  had  spent  more  time  reading  the  papers 
instead  of  on  his  mathematics  he  would  find  that  it  is 
not  only  possible,  but  that  it  is  being  done — and  not  at 
the  sacrifice  of  having  billions  of  dollars  tied  up  either. 
Canada  is  guaranteeing  deposits  very  successfully.  As 
a  matter  of  fact  the  Glass-Steagall  bill  now  before  Con 
gress  provides  that  when  the  fund  reaches  $500,000,000 
they  will  refund  money  to  the  banks. 

We  have  been  accused  of  arguing  against  ourselves 
as  we  propose  a  sound  banking  plan,  and  then  feeling 
that  it  isn't  so  sound  after  all,  we  decide  to  guarantee 
deposits.  They  ask  us  why  we  include  this.  There  are 
two  reasons.  Superficially  we  include  it  because  it  is  in 
the  question.  But  there  is  a  much  more  real  reason. 
We  feel  that  without  guaranteed  deposits  we  cannot 
establish  confidence  in  the  banking  system.  This  item 
in  itself  reduces  failures  for  it  reduces  the  danger  of 
runs  on  banks.  We  note  that  Canada,  although  it  has 
had  only  one  failure  in  the  last  twelve  years,  guarantees 
deposits.  Further  the  cost  of  guaranteeing  will  be 
reduced  to  a  negligible  amount  as  the  number  of  bank 
failures  is  minimized. 


302    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

In  regard  to  the  failures  in  the  eight  states  which 
the  Negative  made  so  much  of,  let  me  remind  you  that 
there  is  a  lot  of  difference  between  state  and  Federal 
action.  We  notice  that  all  the  states  that  adopted  this 
plan  were  agricultural  states,  and  the  investments  were 
local  instead  of  being  spread  over  the  whole  nation. 
It  would  be  analogous  to  an  insurance  company  insur 
ing  against  a  hail  storm  in  a  local  area.  Further,  the 
state  guarantee  system  did  not  include  National  banks, 
and  so,  as  the  system  weakened  the  stronger  banks  that 
were  able  to,  withdrew  and  became  nationalized  and 
left  the  small,  weak  banks  to  support  the  system,  which 
of  course  was  impossible. 

In  conclusion  then,  we  have  presented  a  plan  which 
the  Negative  have  not  proven  worse  than  the  present 
system,  nor  have  they  themselves  produced  an  adequate 
substitute  plan.  They  have  wasted  your  time  and  ours 
by  merely  wrangling  about  minor  points.  We  have 
presented  this  plan,  and  we  have  shown  definitely  how 
it  will  meet  the  pathological  conditions  which  are  in  our 
present  system.  We  have  included  guaranteeing  of 
deposits  and  we  have  proven  to  you  that  this  is  not  only 
easily  possible  and  now  successfully  in  operation  in 
Canada,  but  we  have  shown  that  it  is  necessary  to 
restore  the  confidence  and  faith  of  the  public  in  our 
banking  structure* 


CONTROL   OF   THE   BANKING    SYSTEM  303 

Second  Negative  Rebuttal,  Ernest  O.  Eisenberg 
Marquette  University 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  Our  worthy  Opponents 
have  seen  fit  to  wax  philosophical  in  this  debate.  In 
fact  they  have  taken  the  famous  French  philosopher 
Descartes  and  have  embraced  him  in  their  arms. 
May  I  add,  that  their  entire  case  is  built  upon  a  process 
of  reasoning  which  is  typical  of  Descartes.  If  you 
will  remember,  Descartes  achieved  fame  because  of 
one  simple  sentence,  namely,  "I  think;  therefore  I 
am."  The  fallacy  in  this  statement  should  be  quite 
obvious  to  you,  for  what  Descartes  actually  said  was 
this:  "I  am  thinking;  therefore  /  am"  Similarly  the 
Affirmative  states:  "The  Federal  Government  should 
regulate  banking  functions  with  a  guaranty  of  deposits. 
Therefore  the  Federal  Government  should  regulate 
banking  functions  with  a  guaranty  of  deposits."  It 
may  be  pertinent  to  point  out  to  you  at  this  time,  that 
thus  far  in  the  debate  the  Affirmative  has  failed  to 
show  you,  first  that  state  regulation  cannot  cope  with 
the  present  problem;  second,  that  the  Federal  Govern 
ment  can  actually  regulate  the  functions  of  banking; 
and  third,  that  the  Federal  Government  can  practically 
guarantee  deposits.  We  want  more  than  mere  assump 
tions;  we  demand  proof! 

It  is  characteristic  of  the  Affirmative  that  throughout 
this  debate  they  have  failed  to  attack  fundamentals, 
and  have  concerned  themselves  only  with  the  superfi 
cial  manifestations  of  what  is  really  a  deep  rooted 
problem.  Bank  failure  is  not  due  so  much  to  methods 


304    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

of  regulation,  as  to  the  failure  of  the  economic  com 
munities  supporting  the  banks.  Yet  the  Affirmative 
contends  that  regulation  will  prevent  failure,  without 
first  proving  to  you  that  regulation  will  prevent  failure 
of  the  economic  communities  supporting  the  banks. 
In  a  similar  manner,  they  have  proceeded  throughout 
their  entire  second  speech  to  prove  to  you  that  the  lack 
of  stabilization  of  the  dollar  is  a  cause  for  bank  failure, 
and  that  through  their  plan  for  relief,  they  will  stabilize 
the  dollar. 

This  matter  of  stabilizing  the  dollar,  however,  cannot 
be  so  simply  explained  away.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  just 
why  is  your  dollar  worth  more  today  than  it  was  in 
1928;  and  why  was  the  dollar  in  1928  worth  less  than 
it  was  in  1913?  Simply  for  this  reason:  the  relative 
value  of  the  dollar  depends  upon  the  ratio  between  con 
suming  power  and  producing  power.  We  have  had  no 
tie  up,  no  connection  between  our  producing  power  and 
our  purchasing  power.  The  plan  proposed  by  the  Af 
firmative  errs  in  that  it  neglects  to  make  any  provision 
for  the  financing  of  consumption.  The  reason  why 
banks  fail  to  lend  money  today,  is  not  due  to  the  fact 
that  the  banks  have  no  money,  but  rather  due  to  the 
fact  that  business  men  are  afraid  to  borrow  money, 
since  if  they  do  manufacture  goods  they  will  have  no 
market  for  those  goods. 

Throughout  this  debate  the  Affirmative  has  refused 
to  recognize  the  ultimate  problem  involved,  namely  the 
problem  of  the  collapse  of  the  American  credit  struc 
ture  due  to  the  failure  of  purchasing  power  of  the  pub 
lic  to  keep  up  with  producing  power.  The  third  speaker 


CONTROL   OF   THE  BANKING   SYSTEM  305 

for  the  Negative,  Mr.  Hansen,  has  shown  you  in  his 
speech  that  the  proper  method  of  curing  this  evil  is  by 
the  plan  proposed  by  President  Roosevelt,  namely  the 
farm  allotment  plan.  Use  the  principles  outlined  in 
this  plan  in  every  other  phase  of  economic  activity,  use 
the  principles  of  scientific  planning  in  our  national 
economy,  balance  consuming  power  and  purchasing 
power,  and  the  problem  of  bank  failures  together  with 
the  problem  of  the  fluctuating  dollar  will  disappear. 

The  failure  to  recognize  the  fundamental  nature  of 
the  problem  on  the  part  of  the  Affirmative,  naturally 
causes  our  worthy  Opponents  to  suggest  to  you  methods 
of  reform  which  will  not  bear  close  scrutiny.  For 
example  they  propose  to  stabilize  the  dollar  by  increas 
ing  or  decreasing  the  rediscount  rate  of  the  Federal 
Reserve  Structure.  May  we  remind  you  that  though 
the  Federal  Reserve  Board  repeatedly  increased  the 
rediscount  rate  in  1929,  it  failed  to  check  the  stock- 
market  boom;  and  may  we  point  out  to  you  once  more 
that  in  spite  of  a  fifty  per  cent  reduction  in  the  redis 
count  rate  this  year,  the  credit  situation  has  not  been 
eased.  Why  has  this  method  failed?  The  Affirmative 
rightly  claims  that  its  failure  is  due  to  the  fact  that 
there  is  too  much  money  outside  the  Federal  Reserve 
System;  they  err,  however,  when  they  state  that  under 
their  plan  this  money  would  be  controlled  by  the  Fed 
eral  Reserve  Board.  All  that  they  would  embrace 
would  be  the  banks  now  outside  the  system;  they  could 
do  nothing  to  control  the  investments  of  large  industrial 
corporations  with  millions  of  dollars  of  cash  assets; 
they  could  not  control  investment  trusts;  they  could 


306    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

not  control  building  and  loan  societies;  they  could  not 
control  huge  private  pools  of  professional  lenders  and 
stock  market  speculators;  in  short,  they  could  control 
but  a  fraction  of  the  nation's  credit.  We  say,  on  the 
other  hand,  regulate  production  and  purchasing  power; 
strike  at  the  root  of  the  evil,  and  not  at  its  most  promi 
nent  branches.  Further,  we  should  like  to  remind  you 
that  under  the  proposal  of  the  Affirmative,  nothing  is 
done  to  extend  credit  to  the  consumer.  As  long  as 
there  are  fifteen  million  men  unemployed  in  America; 
as  long  as  the  farmer  is  destitute;  so  long  will  our 
factories  remain  closed.  If  people  cannot  buy,  the 
industrialists  cannot  manufacture.  The  plan  of  the 
Affirmative  in  no  way  seeks  to  remedy  this  problem, 
which  is  perhaps  the  most  vital  of  all. 

Therefore  to  summarize  the  weaknesses  of  the  Af 
firmative's  case; 

1.  They  have  pointed  out  as  "public  enemy"  Num 
ber  One  the  lack  of  central  organization.    We 
have  shown  you  that  two-fifths  of  the  bank  fail 
ures  occurred  within  the  Federal  Reserve  System. 

2.  They  have  shown  as  "public  enemy"  Number 
Two   competition   between   member    and    non- 
member  banks.    We  have  shown  you  that  this 
competition  will  continue  between  member  banks. 

3.  They  have  given  as  "public  enemy"  Number  Three 
the  failure  of  rural  banks.    We  have  shown  you 
that  rural  banks  failed  because  of  the  rural  de 
pression.    In  no  way  have  they  pointed  out  how 
they  would  safeguard  rural  banks  under  their 
plan* 


CONTROL  OF   THE  BANKING   SYSTEM  307 

4.  They  have  offered  as  "public  enemy"  Number 
Four  the  instability  of  the  dollar.    We  have  shown 
you  that  this  instability  is  due  to  basic  economic 
conditions  which  would  not  be  altered  by  the  plan 
they  propose. 

5.  They  have  asserted  as  "public  enemy"  Number 
Five  the  inability  to  expand  credit.     Yet  their 
plan  would  in  no  way  expand  credit  to  the  con 
sumer  who  needs  credit  the  most. 

6.  They  have  indicated  as  "public  enemy"  Number 
Six  the  inability  of  banks   to  liquidate.    This 
weakness  is  due  to  the  loss  of  confidence  of  people 
in  the  business  structure  of  the  country,  and  can 
in  no  way  be  affected  by  a  plan  of  regulation  or 
guaranty. 

7.  They  have  proposed  as  "public  enemy"  Number 
Seven  the  reduction  of  buying  power.    However, 
they  could  not  prove  to  you  that  under  their  plan 
buying  power  would  be  expanded.    We,  on  the 
other  hand,  have  continuously  advocated  a  better 
control  of  the  ratio  between  purchasing  power 
and  producing  power. 

8.  And  finally  they  have  tendered  as  "public  enemy" 
Number  Eight  the  inability  of  the  banks  to  keep 
the  faith  of  the  public.    My  friends,  the  public 
has  not  lost  its  faith  in  the  banks  so  much  as  it 
has  lost  its  faith  in  the  business  structure  of  the 
entire  nation.    We  propose  to  put  that  business 
structure  on  a  permanently  sound  basis. 

Therefore  in  conclusion,  I  should  like  to  state  this: 
our  banking  system  is  comparable  to  a  train  speeding 


308    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

along  the  country.  At  a  certain  place  that  train  must 
cross  a  bridge.  Economic  disturbances  however;  like 
a  torrent  beyond  the  control  of  the  engineer  of  the 
train,  have  demolished  the  bridge.  The  Affirmative 
does  not  propose  that  we  rebuild  the  bridge;  our  Op 
ponents  do  not  wish  to  dam  back  the  waters;  all  they 
advocate  as  relief  is  that  we  regulate  the  speed  of  the 
train,  and  guarantee1  that  if  the  first  train  falls  over  the 
bridge,  we  shall  have  a  second  train  ready  to  proceed, 
and  likewise  to  fall  over  the  bridge. 


Second  Affirmative  Rebuttal,  John  Martin 
Beloit  College 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  I  certainly  feel  pretty 
badly  about  that  first  speech  of  mine;  for  after  having 
spent  ten  minutes  expounding  the  necessity  of  a  stable 
dollar  for  a  sound  economic  development  of  our  coun 
try,  Mr.  Hansen  stated  that  we  were  building  on  a 
foundation  of  shifting  sands  and  that  we  should  "dam 
the  torrent  at  the  headwaters"  in  order  to  have  a  sound 
economic  development.  This  is  just  exactly  what  I 
was  proposing,  only  I  tried  to  put  a  very  definite  plan 
before  you  as  to  how  this  could  be  done  rather  than 
sluffing  off  this  subject  with  a  figure  of  speech  and 
vague  references  to  boards  and  commissions.  The 
point  is,  we  maintain  that  the  banking  system  is  a  part 
and  in  fact  a  very  important  part  of  the  basis  of  our 
economic  system  and  anything  that  is  done  must  be 
done  with  an  eye  to  and  a  help  from  the  banks. 

And  as  to  the  point  about  whether  we  are  regulating 


CONTROL   OF   THE  BANKING    SYSTEM  309 

Function  or  Organization,  ~L  think  that  you  students 
will  take  it  just  as  lightly  as  they  did  Mr.  Strong's 
allusion  to  a  like  subject  of  discussion  between  the 
Platonic  and  Aristotelian  schools.  As  we  have  said 
before,  organization  and  function  are  so  interwoven 
that  nothing  can  be  done  to  one  without  affecting  the 
other.  As  far  as  that  goes  I  believe  that  our  control 
of  the  volume  of  loans  by  means  of  the  discount  rate  is 
a  very  direct  means  of  regulation  of  banking  functions. 

We  have  shown  how  the  change  in  the  discount  rate 
precipitated  the  stock  crash  and  fixing  the  discount  rate 
is  certainly  a  banking  function.  This  shows  how  neces 
sary  it  is  to  regulate  banking  functions  that  we  may 
avoid  another  such  crash,  and  in  regulating  the  discount 
rate  as  we  propose  we  would  certainly  be  regulating 
banking  functions. 

On  the  subject  of  loans  there  is  one  point  that  is 
very  obvious  that  might  bear  repeating.  1  refer  to 
competition  between  member  banks.  The  Negative 
say  that  under  our  plan  competition  would  still  be  car 
ried  on  between  the  banks  even  if  they  all  became  na 
tional  banks.  We  admit  this,  but  it  will  not  be  that 
unfair  and  demoralizing  competition  that  now  exists 
under  our  dual  system,  for  it  will  be  competition  under 
the  same  rules,  instead  of  competition  against  banks 
operating  under  lower  standards  thus  bringing  about 
lower  standards  for  all  banks.  It  is  like  organizing 
kids'  gangs  into  football  teams — they  still  fight  with 
each  other  but  in  an  organized  way  and  the  sticks  and 
bricks  are  discarded  in  favor  of  more  favorable  com 
petition. 


310    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

And,  lastly,  I  wish  to  touch  on  another  of  the  Nega 
tive's  analogies.  He  referred  to  the  fact  that  the  state 
failures  were  like  putting  chemical  mixtures  in  one  test 
tube  after  another  and  watching  them  break.  Then 
he  inferred  that  the  Nation  was  just  another  test  tube 
and  another  failure  would  result.  We  have  pointed 
out  that  in  the  Nation  we  have  a  chance  for  diversifica 
tion,  and,  hence,  weakness  in  one  part  of  the  country 
would  not  ruin  the  whole  system.  We  say  that  with 
the  Nation  we  do  not  have  just  another  test  tube  which 
will  break  with  the  mixing  of  the  elements,  but  we  have 
a  strong  pyrex  beaker  which  will  easily  stand  the  strain 
and  a  successful  reaction  is  the  result. 

Mr.  Hansen  maintains  that  what  we  need  is  a  gen 
eral  readjustment  of  commercial  and  industrial 
conditions,  but  even  if  we  could  find  a  perfect  and  all- 
inclusive  society  stabilizer,  we  still  maintain  that  it 
would  not  be  the  solution  for  our  banking  problem. 
Ten  thousand  four  hundred  eighty-four  banks  have 
failed  in  the  last  ten  years  in  America,  in  times  of  both 
prosperity  and  depression.  And  yet  in  Canada,  where 
the  same  conditions  have  prevailed,  there  has  been 
only  one  bank  failure!  During  the  same  years  and 
under  the  same  economic  conditions,  Canadian  banks 
have  remained  firm  and  sound,  while  American  banks 
have  failed  on  every  side.  The  difference  is  not  in  the 
economic  substructure  but  in  the  banking  system! 
The  Canadian  banks  are  Government  Regulated,  and 
have  guaranteed  deposits. 


CONTROL  OP   THE  BANKING   SYSTEM  311 

Third  Negative  Rebuttal,  Robert  W.  Hansen 
Marquette  University 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  Two  darkies  were  slowly 
making  their  way  up  a  dimly  lighted  stairway  when 
their  boss  asked  them,  "Boys,  what  you-all  doin?  here?" 
And  Sambo  answered,  "Boss,  we  done  been  carryin' 
dis  heah  trunk  up  dese  stairs."  "Ah,"  but  the  boss 
answered,  "Where  is  de  trunk?"  "Rastus,"  Sambo 
mournfully  informed  his  partner,  "we  done  forgot  de 
trunk."  It  is  in  somewhat  the  position  of  having  for 
gotten  the  trunk  that  the  Affirmative  team  has  placed 
itself.  They  have  rather  completely  ignored  the  bur 
den  placed  upon  their  shoulders  of  arguing  in  favor  of 
Governmental  Regulation  of  banking  functions.  And 
when  they  remark  that  control  of  Organization  means 
control  of  Function,  we  mention  the  fact  that  if  one  set 
out  to  control  the  functions  of  a  saloon,  and  merely 
regulated  the  organization  by  placing  larger  brass  rails 
under  the  well  worn  shoes  of  the  customers  and  hang 
ing  larger  curtains  in  the  window,  you  might  be  con 
trolling  the  structure,  the  form,  the  organization,  but 
you  would  not  be  controlling  the  activities  or  the  func 
tions. 

The  importance  of  the  distinction  cannot  be  over 
emphasized.  Some  time  ago  a  Milwaukee  bank  failed, 
and  in  the  closing  there  was  involved  the  ntoe  dollar 
deposit  which  represented  a  sizeable  portion  of  your 
humble  servant's  private  fortune.  So  I  have  a  keen 
personal  interest  in  the  activities  and  reason  for  failure 
of  this  particular  bank.  It  failed  because  of  unfortu- 


312    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

nate  investments.  It 'invested  in  real  estate,  and  real 
estate  values  fell;  it  dabbled  in  South  American  bonds, 
than  which  there  was  no  more  perilous  pastime.  Its 
directors  were  no  lineal  descendants  of  Midas;  what 
ever  they  touched  turned  out  to  be  considerably  less 
valuable  than  gold  and  less  valuable  than  they  had 
anticipated.  It  is,  then,  the  contention  of  the  Negative 
that  when  the  Opposition  exercises  no  control  whatso 
ever  over  the  investments  of  this  bank  or  over  the 
types  of  investment  that  other  banks  may  make,  they 
do  not  sufficiently  regulate  banking  functions. '  It 
might  also  be  again  remarked  that  they  certainly  en 
courage  slipshod  banking  by  allowing  the  banker  to 
make  the  choice  and  having  the  government  under 
write  his  losses.  Uncle  Sam  has  often  played  the  simi 
lar  role  of  wet  nurse  to  various  businesses,  but  never 
with  distinction.  And  so,  we  ask  the  Opponents,  "Why 
all  the  talk  about  .regulating  banking  functions  when 
your  plan  does  not  include  regulation  of  such  func 
tions?" 

As  to  the  strenuously  maintained  argument  that  uni 
fying  banks  would  control  industrial  stability  by  con 
trolling  credit,  we  might  remark  that  although  the 
National  City  Bank  bulletin  for  January,  1933,  men 
tions  ''further  reduction  of  interest  rates,  already  un- 
precedently  low  to  almost  the  vanishing  point,"  the 
effect  upon  the  business  structure  of  these  additional 
credit  facilities  is  not  noticeably  apparent.  As  a  matter 
of  principle  it  would  appear  the  tail  of  credit  could 
hardly  wag  the  dog  of  industry.  The  banks  and  the 
manufactures  may  have  credit;  but  the  consumers  have 


CONTROL   OF   THE   BANKING    SYSTEM  313 

no  purchasing  power.  And  even  if  the  manufacturers 
might  secure  greatly  increased  credit,  they  could  not 
sell  the  products  which  they  might  produce  with  this 
additional  credit.  The  problem  in  this  nation  is  not 
that  of  securing  credit  for  business  men,  it  is  the  prob 
lem  of  securing  purchasing  power  for  the  masses  of 
the  people  in  the  land. 

And  when  we  asked  the  Opposition,  in  regard  to  the 
guaranty  of  deposits  feature  of  their  plan,  where  they 
would  get  the  money  and  how  they  would  avoid  harm 
ful  effects  upon  the  business  of  the  nation  involved  in 
withdrawing  so  much  gold  from  the  channels  of  trade, 
their  only  answer  was  the  rather  naive  remark,  "Guar 
anty  is  in  the  question,  and  we  will  have  to  debate  it." 
We  certainly  offer  them  our  heartfelt  sympathy,  but 
we  can  hardly  grant  them  exemptions  from  their  bur 
dens.  And  so  we  tell  them  that  if  they  do  not  build  up 
a  fund,  every  bank  liquidation  in  time  of  stress  will 
put  an  additional  strain  upon  the  remaining  solvent 
financial  institutions.  And  if  they  do  propose  to  build 
up  a  fund,  we  ask  them,  "Where  do  you  propose  to  get 
the  money?"  and  "How  do  you  propose  to  avoid  the 
almost  inevitable  repercussions  upon  the  credit  system 
of  the  land  involved  in  withdrawing  billions  of  dollars 
of  gold  from  active  circulation  in  the  channels  of 
trade?"  Their  answer  will  be  rather  belated,  of  course, 
but  that  is  better  than  no  answer. 

Newspaper  dispatches  tell  of  the  two  hundred  mile 
battlefront  between  warring  Chinese  and  Japanese 
troops.  In  the  not  quite  as  extended  battlefront  and 
hardly  as  bitterly  contested  struggle  between  the  two 


314    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

teams  this  evening,  we  conceive  it  to  be  the  duty  of  the 
Affirmative  to  shell  every  vantage  point,  to  wage  the 
war  all  along  the  line  of  battle,  to  establish  every  ulti 
mate  issuable  fact.  We  conceive  it  to  be  the  privilege 
of  the  Negative  commanders  to  mass  their  argumenta 
tive  battalions  anywhere  along  the  battlefront  This 
we  have  done.  We  have  had  one  intrenched  battalion 
training  its  guns  on  regulation  of  banking  functions; 
what  does  it  mean,  what  does  it  involve,  what  benefits 
will  it  bring.  This  conflict  was  rendered  a  bit  unsatis 
factory  by  the  fact  that  we  could  not  ascertain  the 
nationality  or  even  existence  of  the  Affirmative  troops. 
We  placed  one  flank  of  our  army  opposing  guaranty  of 
bank  deposits,  pointing  out  the  record  of  failure  of 
such  systems,  pointing  out  the  impossibility  and  in- 
advisability  of  building  up  a  great  gold  reserve  fund. 
The  Opposition  guns  were  also  strangely  silent  in  this 
sector.  Finally,  we  made  one  counter  attack  at  the 
very  heart  of  the  Affirmative  position  when  we  main 
tained  that  the  problem  in  this  country  was  not  that  of 
building  larger  banks  but  that  of  building  stronger  eco 
nomic  communities,  feeling  that  banks  are  strong  or 
weak  dependent  upon  whether  the  economic  communi 
ties  in  which  such  banks  are  located  are  strong  or  weak. 
This  is  the  position  of  our  respective  troops  at  the 
present  time,  and  we  yield  this  war-torn  platform  to  the 
Affirmative  who  will  attempt,  we  suppose,  to  dislodge 
our  troops  with  a  barrage  of  argument  and  fusillade  of 
criticism. 


CONTROL   OF   THE  BANKING    SYSTEM  315 

Third  Affirmative  Rebuttal,  John  K.  Strong 
Beloit  College 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  In  order  to  give  validity 
to  his  arguments  the  third  Negative  speaker  turned  to 
scriptural  sources.  There  is  a  verse  of  scripture,  how 
ever,  in  Second  Kings,  I  believe,  that  may  be  very 
happily  applied  to  the  debate  this  evening.  A  para 
phrase  would  read  something  like  this:  "And  a  great 
and  strong  wind  rent  the  mountains  and  brake  in  pieces 
before  the  Truth;  but  the  Truth  was  not  in  the  wind: 
and  after  the  wind  an  earthquake;  but  the  Truth  was 
not  in  the  earthquake:  and  after  the  earthquake  a  fire; 
but  the  Truth  was  not  in  the  fire:  and  after  the  fire,  a 
still  small  voice,  which  was  the  voice  of  Truth."  Ladies 
and  Gentlemen,  while  you  and  I  have  been  entertained 
this  evening  with  roaratorical  contests,  the  states  of  this 
union  are  having  moratorical  contests  that  are  pro 
foundly  influencing  the  life  and  interests  of  the  Ameri 
can  people.  And  still  the  Gentlemen  of  the  Negative 
blare  that  if  we  will  have  faith  in  our  present  system 
everything  will  be  lovely  some  day.  Wise  was  that 
writer  who  said,  "But  the  Truth  was  not  in  the  wind." 

The  still  small  voice  has  spoken  this  evening,  but  the 
deaf  have  not  profited  therefrom.  The  Negative  has 
left  the  Affirmative  case,  as  progressively  established, 
almost  completely  untouched.  It  has  executed  several 
admirable  circumlocutions  around  it,  as  if  it  were  a 
briar-patch  rather  than  just  an  ordinary  bush.  We 
have  shown  you  that  the  dual,  state-national  banking 
system  is  the  major  evil  of  the  present  system.  Mr. 


316    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

Nash  proved  this,  Mr.  Martin  supplemented  it,  and  the 
present  speaker  gold-leafed  it.  And  still  they  say  to 
us — "First,  you  must  prove  that  state  regulation  has 
failed." 

With  urbane  boldness  they  continue  to  tell  us,  di 
rectly  to  our  faces  that  we  must  also  prove  that  Gov 
ernmental  Regulation  is  desirable  and  practical!  If 
they  had  not  been  worrying  so  much  they  might  have 
heard  Mr.  Nash  give  you  the  eight  defects  of  the  pres 
ent  banking  system — later  very  kindly  supplemented 
by  Mr.  Gleason — and  show  you  how  in  each  case  a 
remedy  would  be  effected  through  membership  in  the 
Federal  Reserve  System.  They  would  also  have  heard 
Mr.  Martin  tell  you  about  the  opportunities  in  govern 
ment  control  for  the  stabilization  of  the  purchasing 
power  of  our  money.  Even  I  took  the  occasion  to 
reiterate  all  these  points  in  my  constructive  speech,  but 
I  noted  at  the  time  that  the  Negative  was  in  a  strained 
huddle. 

There  has  been,  I  will  admit,  the  semblance  of  a  de 
bate  upon  the  proposition  of  guaranteed  deposits,  but 
we  have  shown  you,  in  answer  to  Mr.  Eisenberg's 
charges,  that  the  fund  would  not  be  too  large,  that  it 
would  not  eliminate  good  banking,  and  that  the  eight 
states  failed  because  they  didn't  try  it  on  a  national 
scale.  We  further  cited  several  outstanding  benefits 
that  would  result,  not  one  of  which  was  even  sniffed  at 
by  the  Negative. 

These  three  points  then,  seem  to  have  been  the  center 
of  this  debate,  but  it  is  equally  interesting  to  notice  that 
this  center  is  well  within  the  bounds  of  the  Affirmative's 


CONTROL  OF   THE  BANKING    SYSTEM  317 

case.  Only  two  minor  matters  remain.  One  of  these 
is  that  Lilliputian  matter  of  Organization  versus  Func 
tion.  Although  I  recognize  that  you  of  the  audience 
understood  my  answer  the  first  time,  let  me  briefly 
reiterate  it.  Form  always  determines  Function,  and 
Function  is  possible  only  through  the  medium  of,  and 
in  conformity  with,  Form.  Hence  it  is  absolutely  neces 
sary  to  control  the  Form  in  order  to  control  the  Func 
tion.  Now  the  three  Functions  of  banks  are  to  make 
investments  and  loans,  support  the  credit  structure, 
receive  and  return  deposits.  And  the  Federal  Reserve 
System  through  its  Organization  controls  these  very 
Functions! 

And  just  one  more  word — as  regards  the  Negative 
plan  which  Mr.  Hansen  so  charitably  proposed.  From 
Plato's  Republic  through  Bacon's  New  Atlantis  down 
to  Scott's  Technocracy,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen,  man 
kind  has  been  striving  toward  this  Utopian  goal.  And 
like  these  visionaries  of  old,  our  friends  of  the  Negative 
have  seen  the  Perfect  State,  but  have  forgotten  to  con 
sider  the  component  elements  that  first  must  attain 
perfection.  They  see  the  complete  tapestry,  but  have 
no  eye  for  the  thousand  threads  that  must  be  perfectly 
coordinated.  Their  mistake  is  a  good  case  of  the  error 
that  the  medieval  Nominalists  made, — that  of  thinking 
the  universal-general  to  be  more  real  than  the  immedi 
ate-particular.  This  splendid  society  envisioned  by  the 
Opposition  will  undoubtedly  come  some  day,  but  only 
when  men  and  women  forget  the  larger  pattern  and 
work  with  the  individual  and  component  parts  of  so 
ciety.  And  one  of  the  first  steps  we  must  take  in  this 


318    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

direction  is  the  very  thing  that  we  have  so  consistently 
upheld  this  evening  and  which  the  Negative  has  as 
consistently  opposed — the  stabilization  of  our  banking 
structure. 

Some  of  you  no  doubt  are  acquainted  with  the  Peter- 
kin  Papers,  whose  delightful  philosophy  has  whiled 
away  many  a  rainy  day.  In  one  of  them  is  recorded 
the  story  of  how  Elizabeth-Eliza  made  a  cup  of  coffee, 
but  put  salt  in  by  mistake.  The  whole  family  as 
sembled  around  that  tea-cup,  and  one  by  one  made 
suggestions  as  to  what  would  remedy  the  situation. 
One  suggested  putting  in  a  dash  of  baking  soda,  an 
other  would  add  some  capsicum.  A  third  tried  a 
quarter  of  a  spoon  of  cream  of  tartar,  and  Elizabeth- 
Eliza  finally  pulled  out  the  drug-chest,  none  of  the 
contents  of  which  make  the  coffee  taste  as  it  should. 
In  despair  Elizabeth-Eliza  finally  telephoned  the  Lady 
from  Philadelphia,  who,  after  being  introduced  to  the 
trouble,  suggested  that  another  cup  of  coffee  be  made. 
And  the  family  gave  three  cheers  and  carried  out  the 
advice  successfully.  The  Gentlemen  of  the  Negative 
have  been  telling  us  this  evening  that  our  present  situa 
tion  must  not  be  changed,  and  that  we  can  doctor  it  up, 
and  drug  it  so*  that  perhaps  it  will  operate  soundly  in 
the  future.  But  we  are  tired  of  such  Elizabeth-Eliza 
tactics,  as  no  doubt  you  are,  and  we  propose  to  create 
an  entirely  new  cup  of  coffee,  as  it  were,  a  national 
banking  system  on  the  lines  of  the  present  Federal 
Reserve  Plan  that  will  guarantee  to  the  people  of 
America  the  financial  integrity  of  their  banks.  This 


CONTROL  OF  THE  BANKING   SYSTEM  319 

we  most  thoroughly  believe  in,  and  this  we  recommend 
to  your  most  earnest  support. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY:  CONTROL  OF  BANKS 
BOOKS 

Aggar. — Organized  Banking. 

Conant. — History  of  Modern  Banks  of  Issue. 

' Principles  of  Money  and  Banking.  Vol.  2  Regulation  of  Bank 
ing  and  State  Interference  with  Banking. 

Bradford. — Federal  Regulation  of  Banking.  Reference  Shelf.  1933. 
Wilson. 

Dowrie. — American  Monetary  and  Banking  Policies.  Chapters:  1. 
The  Nature  of  Monetary  and  Banking  Policies.  2.  Policies  Relat 
ing  to  the  Banking  Structure.  3.  Policies  of  Internal  Manage 
ment.  4.  Public  Regulation  of  Banking.  5.  Stabilization  Problem. 

Hodgson. — Federal  Control  of  Banking. 

Holdsworth. — Money  and  Banking.  Chapters:  8.  Banking,  10.  Func 
tions  of  the  Bank.  11.  The  National  Banking  System.  12.  Ad 
ministration.  13.  Deposits.  21.  Defects  of  National  Banking 
System. 

Harris. — Practical  Banking.  Chapters:  1.  What  is  a  Bank.  2.  The 
Stockholders.  15.  National  Banks.  16.  National  Bank  Notes. 
19.  Crises  in  the  United  States.  20.  The  Federal  Reserve  Bank. 

Encyclopedias  on  Banking. — The  Americana.  Britannica.  New  In 
ternational.  Encyclopedia  of  the  Social  Sciences.  Dictionary  of 
Political  Sciences.  Encyclopedia  of  American  Government. 

Kilburne, — Reports  of  the  Comptroller  of  the  Currency. 

Kniffen. — The  Business  Man  and  His  Bank.  Chapters:  1,  2,  16,  23, 
24,  25. 

Rodkey. — The  Banking  Process, 

Scott. — Banking. 

Westerfield. — Banking  Principles  and  Practice.  Chapters:  6.  Bank 
Operations  and  Functions.  7.  Protection  of  Bank  Note  Holders. 
8.  Protection  of  Depositors.  9.  Reserves  for  Protection  of  Bank 
Credit.  11.  Classification  and  Function  of  Banks. 

Willit. — Selected  Articles  on  Chain t  Group  and  Branch  Banking. 


320         THE  YEAR  BOOK   OF   COLLEGE   DEBATING 


MAGAZINES 

American  Economic  Review. — March  1932.    Bank  Failures. 

American  Federationist. — April  1932.  Branch  Banks.  May  1932. 
Branch  Banking.  July  1932.  Federal  Reserve  System.  August 
1932.  Branch  Banking. 

American  Bankers  Monthly.    May  1932. 

American  Mercury.    September  1932.    Relief  -for  Bankers. 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy.  November  1932.  Banking  and 
Credit. 

Business  Week. — September  23,  1931.  December  16,  1931.  February 
24,  1932.  Sooner  or  Later.  March  23,  1932.  Bank  Reorganiza 
tion.  March  30,  1932.  Glass  Bill  April  13,  1932.  Federal  Re 
serve  Asks  for  Unified  System.  April  20,  1932.  Glass  Bill.  Oc 
tober  12,  1932;  December  21,  28,  1932;  January  4,  1933. 

Collier's  Weekly. — April  16,  1932.  Something  to  Bank  on.  October 
1932.  Plight  of  the  Farmer. 

Congressional  Digest. — February  1932.  Revision  of  Bank  Laws. 
March  and  April  1933. 

Current  History. — May  1932. 

Forum.— December  1931.  August  1931.  July  1932.  What  Hap 
pened  to  DuBois.  May  1933.  Danger  of  State  Banking. 

Harper's. — January  1932.  Banker's  Bankrupt  World.  April  1932. 
Confidence,  Credit,  Cash.  January  1933.  Why  Canadian  Banks 
Don't  Fail.  February  1933.  Inside  the  R.F.C. 

Journal  of  Political  Economy. — June  1932. 

Living  Age. — December  1931. 

Literary  Digest.— December  12,  1931.  One  Hundred  Per  Cent  Liquid 
Bank.  January  2,  1932.  Guaranteed  Deposits.  August  1932. 
How  Uncle  Sam  Will  Fix  His  Mortgages.  April  9,  1932.  Glass 
Bill.  February  27,  1932.  Deflation  and  Undeflation.  March  26, 
1932.  "U.S."  Guarantees  Bank  Deposits. 

Nation.— November  1931.  Guaranteed  Deposits.  April  13,  1932. 
What  Shall  We  Do  with  Our  Banks?  August  24,  1932.  Edi 
torial.  Dismal  Record  of  Bank  Failures. 

New  Republic.— July  1932.    Not  on  the  Ticker  Tape. 

Outlook.— July  22,  1932.    Failure  of  Bank  Guarantee  Plans. 

Popular  Science.— -June  1932.    Millions  Now  Behind  Banks. 

Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics.— February  1932.  Branch  Banking 
in  California. 


CONTROL   OF   THE  BANKING   SYSTEM  321 

Redbook  Magazine.— June  1931.    Article  by  Walter  Lippmann. 
Review  of  Reviews. — September  1931.     February  1932.    Insurance 

Against  Bank  Failures.    December  1932.    The  Strength  of  Our 

Banking  System.    January  1933.    Urgent  Need  of  Bank  Reform. 

May  1933.    Failure  of  State  Banking. 
Saturday  Evening  Post.— October  17,  1931;  July  11,  1931;  August  8, 

1931;  May  7,  1932.    Safer  Banking.    July  2,  9,  16,  1932. 
World  Tomorrow. — September  1931. 
World's  Work.— October  1931,    December  1931. 


NEWSPAPERS 

New  York  Times.— August  29,  1932.  p.  24,  c,  1.  Branch  Banking. 
August  8,  1932.  p.  2,  c.  6.  District  Bank  Plan.  August  9,  1932. 
p.  21,  c.  1.  Dr.  Cries  Explains.  August  26,  1932.  p.  3,  c.  3. 
/.  Bain  Sentenced.  August  25,  1932.  p.  40,  c.  3.  McDonald 
and  Senator  Glass  on  Insuring  Against  Loss.  June  26,  1932. 
Sec.  4,  p.  1,  c.  1.  Recommendations  by  United  States  Chamber 
of  Commerce.  June  11,  1932.  p.  21,  c.  8.  Senator  Cheney  Tells 
Plans  for  Central  Banks.  June  26,  1932.  p.  27,  c.  4.  F.  Me- 
Whirter  Attacks  Plan  for  Unified  System,  National  Conference 
Approves.  May  9,  1932.  p.  27,  c.  2.  C.  B.  Axford  Attacks 
Branch  Banking  Provision.  May  10,  1932.  p.  32,  c.  1.  Senator 
Glass  Defends  Plan  of  Branch  Banking.  May  20,  1932.  p.  4, 
c.  4.  H.  I.  Harriman  Defends  Plan.  May  20,  1932.  p.  33,  c.  1. 
Maryland  Bankers  Endorse  Glass  Bill.  May  21,  1932.  p.  21, 
c.  7.  H.  A.  Wheeler  Against  Branch  Banking.  April  24,  1932. 
p.  16,  c.  1,  G.  W.  Norris  Advocates  Branch  Banking.  April  6, 
1932.  p.  23,  c.  1.  Federal  Reserve  System  Reports  Legal  Bar  to 
One  System.  April  15,  1932.  p.  1,  c.  3.  E.  Meyer  Advocates  Na 
tional  System.  March  17,  1932.  p.  36,  c.  1.  H.  W.  Beers  As 
sails  Combinations.  March  8,  1932.  p,  16,  c.  2.  Representative 
Steagall'Offers  Bill  to  Guarantee  Deposits.  March  9,  1932.  p.  29, 
c.  7.  March  31,  1932.  p.  36,  c.  3.  Representative  Steagall. 
March  18,  1932.  p.  1,  c.  8.  Glass  Bill.  Text  of,  p.  16,  c.  1. 
March  22,  1932.  p.  2,  c.  5.  March  24.  p.  1,  c.  5.  March  25. 
p.  27,  c.  8.  Hearings  on  Glass  Bill. 
United  States  Daily.— December  12,  1932. 


LIMITATION  OF  WEALTH 

Ohio  Conference  Debate 


LIMITATION  OF  WEALTH 

COLLEGE  OF  WOOSTER  AFFIRMATIVE 
AND  NEGATIVE 

The  Ohio  Conference  colleges  chose  during  the  1932-33  debate 
season  to  discuss  a  most  unusual  and  interesting  proposition  inspired 
of  course  by  the  depression  and  by  the  problem  of  maintaining  buying 
power  in  this  country.  The  question  was  stated,  Resolved;  That  no 
individual  in  the  United  States  should  be  permitted  to  receive  as  a 
gift  or  inheritance  more  than  fifty  thousand  dollars  during  lifetime,  or 
to  receive  as  income  more  than  fifty  thousand  dollars  a  year. 

The  question  as  stated  was  selected  in  September  1932,  by  a  group 
of  colleges  meeting  in  conference  at  the  City  Club,  Cleveland,  Ohio. 
Representatives  from  the  following  colleges  were  present:  Ohio  Wes- 
leyan,  Western  Reserve,  Allegheny  College,  Oberlin  College,  and  Col 
lege  of  Wooster.  These  colleges  have  been  associated  together  for  a 
number  of  years  and  maintain  perhaps  one  of  the  oldest  organizations 
for  debate  and  oratory  in  the  country.  Other  questions  are  debated 
in  addition  to  the  one  chosen  annually  for  this  conference,  but  this  is 
usually  their  main  varsity  proposition. 

This  question  proved  to  be  very  popular  and  was  chosen  by  several 
colleges  not  in  the  above  organization.  The  College  of  Wooster  held 
about  twenty  open  forum  debates  on  this  subject  before  clubs  and 
organizations  in  the  vicinity  of  Wooster,  Ohio.  The  debates  were  well 
attended  ranging  from  thirty  to  three  hundred  and  fifty  in  the  audi 
ence.  Open  forum  discussions  following  the  debates  lasted  from  thirty 
minutes  to  two  hours. 

The  debate  as  given  here  is  representative  of  the  open  forum  debates 
held  by  the  College  of  Wooster  as  contributions  to  community  dis 
cussion.  The  speeches  were  prepared  by  the  debaters  and  collected 
by  Professor  Emerson  W.  Miller,  Director  of  Debate  at  the  College  of 
Wooster,  who  contributed  them  to  this  Volume. 

325 


326    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

First  Affirmative,  Adeline  Heisner 
College  of  Wooster 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  American  economic  life 
faces  increasing  complexities.  As  usual  when  prob 
lems  become  particularly  pressing,  many  prescriptions 
for  cure  are  brought  forth  by  well-meaning  individuals, 
We  are  to  consider  in  this  discussion  the  advisability  of 
limiting  incomes  to  $50,000  a  year  and  gifts  and  in 
heritances  to  $50,000  during  lifetime. 

Our  foremost  economists  tell  us  that  what  we  lack 
today  is  mass  purchasing  power.  Until  we  place 
enough  money  in  the  hands  of  the  worker  to  enable 
him  to  buy  back  what  he  produces,  depressions  will  be 
inevitable.  Mass  producing  power  has  been  developed ; 
mass-producing  wealth  has  been  accumulated;  but  all 
these  facilities  for  greater  production  do  not  spell  prog 
ress  until  we  supply  a  means  of  distributing  our 
wealth. 

One  of  the  most  startling  discoveries  about  our  pres 
ent  condition  is  the  fact  that  there  is  a  definite  class 
making  more  money  than  ever  before.  Although  our 
business  activity  has  decreased  fif  ty  per  cent  and  wages 
sixty  per  cent  and  many  of  our  schools  and  libraries 
have  been  forced  to  close,  interest  charges  have  risen 
thirty-five  per  cent.  The  Standard  Oil  Company  of 
New  Jersey  for  example,  had  as  their  average  annual 
dividend  payments  from  1921-32,  $190,000,000.  In 
the  last  three  years,  during  the  most  severe  depression 
our  country  has  ever  faced,  their  dividend  payments 
have  increased  to  $230,000,000. 


LIMITATION   OF   WEALTH  327 

When  we  turn  our  eyes  in  the  other  direction  we  dis 
cover  a  most  pertinent  contrast.  The  average  income 
in  1912  was  $1500  a  year  while  the  average  debt  was 
$3,000.  Today  the  average  income  is  the  same  while 
the  average  debt  has  about  doubled  itself.  Again  we 
feel  strongly  that  the  problem  we  face  is  one  of  dis 
tribution. 

Upon  further  inspection  of  the  situation  we  face  to 
day  we  find  that  the  most  outstanding  difficulty  con 
tributing  to  this  lack  of  mass  purchasing  power  is  the 
fact  that  twelve  millions  of  men  are  unemployed.  Many 
more  have  accepted  salary  cuts  or  are  only  employed 
part  of  the  time.  With  every  day,  these  men  are  being 
confronted  with  more  disheartening  conditions.  They 
are  burdened  with  debts;  banks  restrict  withdrawals. 
We  have  learned  with  the  bitterness  of  actual  experi 
ence  that  mass  production  without  mass  purchasing 
power  can  only  give  us  the  ghastly  contrast  of  ragged 
bread  lines  on  one  side  of  our  streets  and  unmarketable 
surpluses  of  both  food  and  clothing  on  the  other  side. 

In  this  connection  I  am  reminded  of  a  cartoon  I  saw 
in  a  recent  issue  of  the  Business  Week.  The  cartoonist 
had  pictured  Old  Man  Depression  as  a  well  cleaner. 
He  was  fishing  such  malodorous  things  as  the  Kreuger 
affair  from  the  depths  of  the  well  which  was  labelled 
"American  Business."  John  Citizen,  in  the  back 
ground,  was  remarking  that  it  certainly  smelled  bad, 
but  if  the  Old  Fellow  hadn't  come  along  we  might  still 
be  drinking  the  stuff  from  the  well. 

It  is  quite  certain  that  the  depression  has  focused 
our  attention  upon  our  economic  order  and  has  made 


328    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

us  ask  ourselves,  "What  is  wrong?"  There  is  another 
condition,  however,  that  makes  the  spectre  of  the  army 
of  the  unemployed  even  more  disturbing  and  paradoxi 
cal.  We  find  that  when  we  look  at  the  other  extreme  of 
our  society  we  see  a  decided  contrast  to  these  who  are 
so  lacking  in  the  necessary  purchasing  power.  Here 
are  those  who  have  incomes  which  exceed  their  spend 
ing  power.  The  concentration  of  wealth  at  the  top 
strata  of  our  society  is  made  evident  when  we  discover 
that  ten  per  cent  of  the  people  in  this  country  control 
sixty-six  and  two-thirds  per  cent  of  the  wealth.  Only 
one  thing  do  these  two  groups  have  in  common — both 
are  idle.  We  have  at  the  bottom  twelve  million  idle 
poor  suffering  for  the  mere  necessities  of  life  and  at 
the  top  we  have  the  idle  rich.  This  great  concentration 
of  wealth  is  in  the  hands  of  10,799  men  who  earn  more 
than  $50,000  a  year. 

From  the  income  tax  returns  for  1929  we  can  see  that 
there  are  five  hundred  individual  yearly  incomes  in  this 
country  exceeding  $1,000,000.  In  fact,  thirty-six  of 
these  incomes  exceed  $5,000,000.  In  other  terms  there 
is  an  aggregate  income  for  five  hundred  and  four  per 
sons  of  $1,470,000,000,000.  We  discover  that  C.  E. 
Mitchell,  Chairman  of  the  Board  of  the  National  City 
Bank,  managed  to  bestow  on  himself  the  tidy  sum  of 
$3,500,000  as  a  bonus;  at  the  same  time  he  adequately 
provided  for  some  of  his  relatives  to  the  tune  of  several 
more  millions. 

The  opportunity  to  make  unlimited  profits  has  not 
only  brought  about  this  maladjustment  between  our 
idle  poor  and  our  idle  rich  but  it  has  been  responsible 


LIMITATION   OF   WEALTH  329 

for  mucH  of  the  graft,  bribery,  and  dishonesty  in  busi 
ness.  Notice  the  Penn  Road  Corporation.  They  sold 
shares  at  IS  to  their  employees  and,  today,  when  the 
whole  thing  is  exposed,  we  find  the  shares  selling  at  one 
and  one-quarter,  and  a  receivership  has  been  asked  for. 
Small  holders  are  the  ones  who  suffer  in  deals  such  as 
this.  The  same  thing  occurs  frequently.  It  happened 
in  the  Van  Sweringen  interests  through  the  Allegheny 
Holding  Company.  The  Insull  interests  as  well  as 
Kreugers  brought  the  same  effects  to  these  small 
holders. 

Unlimited  profits  have  invited  men  to  use  every 
means  to  gain  control  over  huge  sums  of  money  and,  in 
gaining  this  control,  the  small  consumers  were  crushed. 
Morris  Llewellyn  Cooke,  the  hydro-electric  engineer 
says  we  pay  $1,000,000  a  day  too  much  for  electricity. 
In  Ontario,  where  the  utility  is  under  government  con 
trol,  the  housewife  pays  $3.40  on  the  average  for  her 
monthly  electricity  bill.  Just  across  the  line,  in  New 
York,  where  public  utilities  are  privately  controlled  for 
profit,  the  housewife  pays  $11.15  for  the  same  amount 
of  electricity. 

This  great  contrast  in  our  economic  order,  between 
the  idle  rich  and  the  idle  poor,  is  constantly  being  ag 
gravated  by  unlimited  profits.  Our  need  is  for  some 
means  of  bringing  these  two  extremes  of  our  society 
into  greater  equality,  placing  the  surplus  idle  capital 
in  the  hands  of  the  masses  to  enable  them  to  buy  back 
the  things  they  produce.  Why  do  we  advocate  the 
limiting  of  incomes  and  inheritances  as  a  means  of 
bringing  this  adjustment? 


330    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

First  of  all,  because  this  plan  is  not  radical,  not 
extreme.  It  is  a  sane,  sensible  step  carrying  us  forward 
in  our  program  of  social  legislation.  Such  a  plan  will 
perform  one  of  its  greatest  services  in  preventing  more 
radical  measures.  Norman  Thomas,  for  instance, 
would  have  a  family  dole  system;  Kirby  Page  would 
limit  incomes  to  $20,000;  far  too  many  Communists  in 
our  country  see  Communism  as  the  only  way  out. 

One  is  not  a  calamity  howler  when  he  says  that  un 
less  some  such  sane,  moderate  measure  is  adopted  very 
soon,  a  greater  evil  is  sure  to  result.  We  cannot  close 
our  eyes  to  the  fact  that  the  people  of  this  country  are 
desperate.  Though  we  may  feel  ourselves  immune 
from  such  things  as  a  revolution,  we  have  no  assurance 
that  people  will  placidly  watch  their  children  starve 
while  they  see  five  hundred  individuals  receiving  mil 
lion  dollar  incomes  annually.  America  has  learned  that 
hunger  knows  no  holiday.  When  many  of  the  farmers 
of  Ohio  band  together  and  prevent  the  foreclosure  of 
mortgages  again  and  again  with  a  sort  of  grim  de 
termination;  when  hunger  marches  are  a  thing  of  daily 
occurrence;  when  seven  thousand  women  parade  the 
streets  of  Springfield,  Illinois,  to  depict  the  suffering 
of  the  coal  miners  in  that  state;  when  Wisconsin  has 
relentless  milk  dumping  and  Iowa  has  farm  products 
picketed,  we  cannot  consider  our  country  a  barren 
rack  for  the  seeds  of  revolution.  Desperation  in  the 
hearts  of  millions  of  unemployed  is  very  fertile  soil  for 
such  an  occurrence. 

Thus  we  see  that  the  limitation  of  incomes,  gifts  and 
inheritances  is  not  only  a  live  question  but  it  is  also  one 


LIMITATION  OF  WEALTH  331 

that  strikes  directly  at  the  heart  of  our  present  difficulty 
— maladjustment  of  wealth.  We  do  not  claim  that  such 
a  measure  is  a  cure-all,  a  panacea.  Rather  we  say  it 
is  a  sane,  sensible  measure  that  provides  one  means  of 
bringing  about  an  essential  distribution  of  wealth  that 
we  must  have. 


First  Negative,  Marguerite  Garber 
College  of  Wooster 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  "Many  are  out  of  work; 
gold  is  scarce;  the  laborer  gets  nothing  while  he  who 
does  not  work  reaps  all  the  profits;  the  whole  land  is 
turned  upsidedown;  the  end  of  civilization  is  drawing 
near."  This  sounds  like  Miss  Heisner's  description  of 
present  conditions,  doesn't  it?  But  this  is  a  translation 
of  an  Egyptian  papyrus  over  forty  centuries  old. 
These  people  just  couldn't  see  how  the  world  could 
wobble  along  any  longer;  yet  here  we  are  nearly  five 
thousand  years  later.  The  Egyptians  had  a  name  for 
these  conditions — the  equivalent  of  our  word  depres 
sion.  And  to  think  that  we  lay  the  whole  blame  for 
past  and  present  depressions  on  our  capitalistic  sys 
tem  which  is  only  one  hundred  fifty  years  old;  on  the 
system  which  allows  freedom  of  enterprise  and  the 
accumulation  of  wealth  I 

In  reality  there  is  no  agreement  among  authorities 
on  the  cause  or  causes  of  our  sad  state  of  affairs  today. 
For  every  man  who  blames  large  fortunes  there  is  an 
other  who  blames  the  World  War,  another,  reparations, 
another,  the  tariffs,  and  so  on  ad  infinitum,  including 


332    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

everything  and  everybody  from  prohibition  to  Senator 
Huey  Long.  The  International  Chamber  of  Commerce 
which  met  in  Paris  to  discuss  the  depression  named 
twelve  causes.  All  but  two  of  these  were  of  an  inter 
national  nature  such  as  the  gold  standard,  credit,  and 
reparations.  Mr.  Hoover's  committee  of  five  hundred 
men  who  have  been  studying  conditions  all  over  the 
United  States  for  three  years  reported  on  January  first 
1933  that  the  causes  of  a  great  many  of  our  ills,  espe 
cially  of  the  widespread  unemployment  which  the  Af 
firmative  rightly  bewails,  is  not  large  fortunes;  it  is 
technological  development.  We  can  readily  understand 
this  if  we  notice  on  every  side  the  examples  of  men 
replaced  by  machines.  A  railroad  switching  device 
puts  one  hundred  sixty-eight  men  out  of  work  in  one 
yard,  a  razor  blade  machine  fills  the  places  of  five 
hundred  men;  a  certain  rayon  factory  in  New  Jersey 
runs  twenty-four  hours  a  day  without  the  help  of  a 
single  hand. 

Miss  Heisner  is  right:  cures  are  just  as  numerous  as 
causes — another  deplorable  sort  of  overproduction. 
What  reason  have  we  to  believe  that  this  is  not  just 
another  prescription  proposed  by  some  well-meaning 
individual?  Remember,  the  partisans  of  this  plan  do 
not  promise  anyone  any  income.  They  reason,  thus, 
"If  we  limit  incomes  to  $50,000  the  surplus  must  go 
somewhere  and  therefore,  it  will  go  down  to  those  with 
out  incomes.3' 

We  of  the  Negative  maintain  that  the  plan  is  not 
desirable  because:  it  would  inhibit  the  progress  de 
pendent  on  a  surplus  of  capital  and  on  risk,  it  would 


LIMITATION   OF   WEALTH  333 

neither  meet  Immediate  needs  nor  form  a  sound  policy 
for  the  future,  and  it  would  prevent  the  adoption  of  a 
more  fundamental  measure. 

Thus  far  in  the  case  we  have  been  told  a  single  reason 
why  this  plan  should  be  accepted:  it  is  not  extreme. 
On  this  point  a  great  many  doubts  crowd  into  my  mind. 
Would  men  stand  by  and  watch  themselves  be  dis 
possessed  without  a  murmur?  Could  this  measure  be 
put  into  effect  without  a  class  war  such  as  Russia's? 
Even  if  the  government  could  gain  control  over  in 
comes  and  inheritances,  should  it  have  this  control? 
Does  the  government's  past  record  in  business  warrant 
the  addition  of  this  great  power?  Just  consider  for  a 
moment,  the  Farm  Board,  the  Federal  Shipping  Board, 
and  war  control  of  the  railroads,  then  decide  the  ad 
visability  of  such  a  step.  However,  I  shall  not  tarry  on 
these  questions.  My  main  contention  is  that  breaking 
up  of  pools  of  wealth  would  cut  down  production  and 
halt  our  progress.  I  will  let  you  judge  whether  a  meas 
ure  which  would  do  this  is  extreme. 

Let  us  glance  back  over  the  progress  which  we  have 
made  in  the  last  few  decades.  For  the  sake  of  fairness 
we  must  examine  the  benefits  as  well  as  the  evils  arising 
from  large  fortunes.  In  times  of  stress  we  are  too 
prone  to  see  only  the  flaws  in  anything  and  most  of  all 
in  our  economic  system.  Now  our  progress  in  America 
has  always  been  a  point  of  pride,  and  rightly  so.  The 
underlying  cause  of  this  progress  is  what?  Professor 
Taussig,  of  Harvard,  in  his  book,  Principles  of  Eco 
nomics  says  that  it  is  the  very  thing  which  the  Affirma 
tive  wants  to  destroy — the  concentration  of  wealth. 


334    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

"The  plain  facts  must  be  faced,"  says  Mr.  Taussig, 
"that  without  marked  inequalities  in  earnings  and  pos 
sessions  the  material  progress  in  the  modern  world 
would  not  have  taken  place."  He  also  adds,  "There  is 
no  clear  indication  that  this  condition  of  progress  can  be 
dispensed  with  in  the  future."  Thus  we  see  that  ac 
cumulations  of  wealth  are  indispensable  unless  we 
want  to  stagnate.  Accumulations  of  wealth  are  indis 
pensable  unless  we  want  even  our  common  conveniences 
taken  away.  Because  money  is  concentrated  in  the 
hands  of  a  few  we  can  ride  on  the  train  for  3.6  cents  a 
mile,  make  a  telephone  call  for  a  nickel;  because  money 
has  been  concentrated  we  have  the  radio,  airplane,  re 
frigerator,  telegraph,  electric  lights;  because  money 
has  been  concentrated  we  have  enough  automobiles 
that  very  person  in  the  United  States  could  go  riding  at 
once.  Mass  production  has  meant  just  what  it  says — 
production  for  the  masses.  Our  common  workers  now 
enjoy  conveniences  which  kings  couldn't  have  one  hun 
dred  years  ago.  Mr.  Rockefeller  a  few  years  ago  said, 
"I  am  harnessed  to  a  cart  in  which  the  people  ride; 
whether  I  like  it  or  not,  I  must  work  for  the  race.37  If 
a  man  makes  a  profit  for  himself  he  must  serve  others. 
For  example,  when  Andrew  Carnegie  started  in  the 
steel  business  iron  rails  for  the  new  railroad  tracks  cost 
$130  per  ton.  He  built  up  a  company  so  large  and 
efficient  that  he  was  able  to  bring  the  price  of  rails 
down  to  $22  per  ton.  Think  of  the  greater  number  of 
roads  that  could  be  built  and  lands  opened  up  for 
development  when  the  price  of  transportation  was 
brought  within  the  reach  of  the  common  man.  This  is 


LIMITATION   OF   WEALTH  335 

ane  instance  of  what  big  fortunes  mean  to  you  and  me, 
and  why  we  do  not  want  them  destroyed.  There  are 
provinces  in  China  more  fertile  in  land  and  resources 
than  any  in  the  United  States  yet  there  has  been  no  one 
to  build  railroads  or  low  cost  systems  of  transportation. 
For  hundreds  of  years  the  standard  of  civilization  in 
these  provinces  has  been  stationary.  In  the  United 
States  the  railroad  is  a  good  example  of  an  attack  on 
surplus  savings  too.  Guy  Morrison  Walker  tells  us  in 
Defense  of  Wealth  that  we  are  paying  fifty  per  cent 
more  than  formerly  for  poorer  service  because  the  gov 
ernment  destroyed  the  surplus  savings.  As  soon  as 
this  happened  it  became  impossible  to  get  new  capital 
to  invest  in  the  roads. 

We  have  scores  of  products  brought  within  the  reach 
of  the  common  man  by  the  concentration  of  wealth. 
The  price  of  kerosene  has  been  reduced  from  30^  to 
10^  a  gallon;  of  sugar  from  20^  to  4$  or  5^  a  pound,  of 
gas  from  $2.50  to  $1.00  per  thousand  cubic  feet,  and 
of  electricity  from  25#  to  8^  per  kilowatt  and  as  low  as 
2^  if  used  in  large  quantities.  If  incomes  are  limited 
production  and  progress  will  be  limited  for  two  reasons: 
Risks  will  not  be  taken  and  industry  will  be  decen 
tralized.  An  abundance  of  wealth  is  necessary  before 
a  man  will  take  a  risk  for  the  chances  are  three  to  one 
against  him.  Under  the  new  plan  capital,  if  not  driven 
out  of  the  country,  would  go  into  safe  and  tax-exempt 
government  bonds.  The  development  of  most  of  our 
large  companies  such  as  Henry  Ford's  has  been  the 
result  of  the  foresight  and  direction  of  one  or  a  few 
men.  Can  you  imagine  how  the  companies  would  be 


336    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

run  if  one  hundred  thousand  or  so  stockholders  had 
equal  rights  in  determining  the  policies?  Liberal 
leaders,  even  Norman  Thomas,  admit  that  production 
would  probably  decrease  if  accumulations  of  wealth 
were  broken  up.  Kirby  Page,  one  of  the  Affirmative's 
own  authorities,  estimates  that  there  are  scarcely 
enough  of  the  necessities  of  life  produced  now  to  go 
around  if  equally  divided.  Would  limiting  incomes 
and  diminishing  production  then  help  solve  today's 
problems?  Instead  of  having  breadlines  on  one  side 
of  the  street  and  storehouses  of  grain  on  the  other  we 
would  have  breadlines  on  both  sides. 

Something  must  be  done  and  done  now.  I  think  the 
major  part  of  the  last  speech  was  spent  in  impressing 
that  upon  our  minds.  But  what  does  this  plan  offer  to 
the  twelve  million  people  who  are  starving  right  now? 
A  whole  year  would  have  to  pass  before  we  could  get 
much  money  through  the  functioning  of  this  plan,  for 
how  can  we  know  a  man's  income  in  less  time  than 
that?  He  might  make  $85,000  in  the  first  nine  months 
of  the  year  and  lose  $35,000  in  the  last  three  months. 
We  fear  if  the  men  are  so  near  starvation  now  they 
would  not  be  here  to  appreciate  the  plan. 

If  the  plan  were  once  adopted  what  would  be  the 
results?  We  have  in  France  a  glaring  example  of  the 
effects  of  such  a  scheme.  In  1799  the  French  Direc 
torate  decided  to  take  a  large  percentage  of  the  big 
incomes.  Even  before  they  actually  took  any  money 
the  people  were  panic-stricken;  the  mere  imminence 
of  the  plan  caused  fraudulent  bankruptcies,  a  standstill 
in  the  circulation  of  money  and  in  business,  and  a 


LIMITATION   OF   WEALTH  337 

lowering  of  the  standard  of  living.    Imagine  all  that 
added  to  the  present  depression  burden. 

We  want  to  remind  you  we  are  not  laboring  under 
the  delusion  that  the  present  system  is  perfect.  But 
we  are  not  talking  in  terms  of  perfections;  we  are  talk 
ing  in  terms  of  comparatives,  and  we  believe  the  present 
system  would  not  be  improved  by  trying  to  graft  on  it 
something  entirely  contrary  to  its  principles.  Since  its 
very  beginning  our  nation  has  been  called  the  "land  of 
the  free/'  and  it  has  made  incomparable  progress  under 
this  principle.  Do  we  want  to  block  this  progress  as 
well  as  blot  out  the  significance  of  our  proud  name  by 
limitation  at  every  turn,  by  binding  the  individual  hand 
and  foot?  We  believe  with  Hartley  Withers  that  "in 
dividual  freedom,  initiative,  and  enterprise  have  been 
the  life  blood  of  our  race  and  of  our  nation.  If  we 
throw  away  this  heritage  because  we  think  that  regula 
tion  and  regimentation  will  serve  us  better,  we  shall  do 
a  bad  day's  work  for  ourselves  and  for  human 
progress." 

Second  Affirmative,  R.  A.  McBane 
College  of  Wooster 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  Miss  Garber  has  pointed 
out  to  you  that  there  are  many  causes  of  our  present 
social  chaos.  That  is  true.  There  are  many  causes. 
Behind  each  of  these  causes,  however,  we  find  one 
fundamental  motive — selfishness.  Why  was  the  World 
War  fought?  We  of  the  Affirmative  believe  that  the 
fundamental  reason  was  a  selfish  desire  for  advance 
ment.  Why  do  we  have  high  tariffs?  Is  it  to  protect 


338         THE   YEAR  BOOK  OF   COLLEGE  DEBATING 

the  workingman  or  to  enable  those  few  owning  and 
controlling  our  major  industries  to  make  more  profits? 
We  believe  that  if  it  is  designed  to  protect  the  working 
man  it  has  failed — miserably.  Who  is  it  that  furnishes 
the  money  for  our  lobbies  for  high  tariffs?  It  is  the 
few  who  profit  from  those  same  high  tariffs.  In  short 
we  feel  that  in  striking  at  excessive  profits,  gifts,  and 
inheritances  we  are  striking  at  the  fundamental  cause 
of  our  present  economic  crisis.  We  feel  that  our  propo 
sition  dealing  directly  with  the  cause  is,  therefore,  a 
more  fundamental  remedy  than  any  other  so  far  pro 
posed.  Miss  Heisner  has  shown  you  the  differences 
between  the  top  and  the  bottom  of  our  economic  or 
ganization  and  has  pointed  out  the  connection  that 
high  incomes  have  with  the  low  position  occupied  by 
the  great  masses  at  the  present  time.  I  shall,  therefore, 
try  to  demonstrate  that  this  inequality  of  wealth  is 
morally  wrong — that  it  has  no  just  place  in  our  society. 
Let  us  examine  a  few  of  the  men  who  have  had  in 
comes  of  over  $50,000.00  a  year  and  see  just  how  they 
have  acquired  them.  Starting  with  Jay  Gould  and 
coming  down  to  the  present  time  we  find  always  the 
same  basic  story — a  keen,  hard  headed  young  man 
starting  out  in  business  for  himself,  gaining  the  confi 
dence  of  his  associates,  the  confidence  of  the  public*, 
performing  perhaps  a  real  service;  then  having  ob 
tained  a  position  for  himself,  seeing  a  possibility  to 
advance  himself  economically  by  sacrificing  his 
friends,  his  honor,  or  the  public  for  the  almighty  dollar, 
this  same  young  man  gives  everything  to  advance  him 
self.  To  become  more  specific  let  us  examine  a  few  of 


LIMITATION   OF   WEALTH  339 

these  cases.  How  did  Jay  Gould  attain  his  position? 
Several  biographies  have  been  written  on  Gould  but 
through  them  all  we  find  a  few  singular  facts  standing 
out.  Throughout  his  entire  life  he  never  hesitated  to 
sacrifice  the  welfare  of  those  opposed  to  him,  to  sacri 
fice  those  innocent  investors  who  had  no  quarrel  with 
him.  In  his  attempt  to  corner  the  gold  market  you 
will  remember  that  he  did  not  let  even  John  Drew,  his 
partner  in  many  previous  coups,  know  his  plans.  On 
Black  Friday  he  permitted  his  best  friend  and  business 
associate  to  lose  his  entire  fortune.  Here  is  an  example 
of  a  man  sacrificing  everything  in  order  to  advance  his 
own  personal  interests.  Yes,  it  is  true  that  he  later 
took  care  of  Drew,  but  it  is  also  just  as  true  that  he 
never  took  a  thought  for  the  thousands  of  others  whose 
entire  fortunes  had  been  swept  away.  We  may  turn  to 
John  D.  Rockefeller  and  his  speculation  in  oil.  There 
also  we  find  a  man  building  a  mighty  corporation — 
establishing  a  mighty  business  on  the  destruction  of 
others. 

When  we  read  of  the  ancient  Kings  of  Egypt  forcing 
the  slaves  to  build  vast  pyramids  we  condemn  them. 
The  pyramids  are  mighty  but  they  were  built  at  a  tre 
mendous  cost  in  human  suffering.  We  appreciate  the 
system  of  Roman  laws  established  throughout  the  old 
world  but  when  we  look  at  the  cost  in  human  lives  we 
doubt  the  efficacy  of  the  establishment  of  the  system. 
The  cathedrals  of  Europe  are  magnificent.  They  are 
among  the  wonders  of  the  world  but  think  back  to  the 
existence  endured  by  the  serfs,  think  of  the  excessive 
taxation  forced  upon  them,  of  the  many  times  the 


340    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

laborers  had  not  enough  to  eat.  Are  the  cathedrals 
worth  the  price  that  was  paid  for  them?  Today  his 
tory  is  repeating  itself.  We  have  many  Jane  Carnegie 
libraries  being  built,  fine  hospitals  being  built,  art 
galleries  being  established,  museums  being  founded, 
philanthropists  giving  money  for  schools  or  charities 
and  yet  we  are  paying  for  them  even  as  the  Egyptians 
and  the  Europeans  paid  for  their  culture.  Our  conten 
tion  is  that  we  are  paying  too  high  a  price.  Too  long 
have  we  kept  our  left  hands  from  knowing  what  our 
right  hands  are  doing.  And  then  we  try  to  reestablish 
our  ideals  with  gifts  to  charitable  institutions.  What 
good  is  it  to  have  hospitals  to  heal  the  sick  when  we 
build  them  with  money  needed  by  the  employees  of 
the  donor  in  order  to  live?  We  have  hospitals  to  save 
but  at  the  cost  of  destroying  many  others.  What  are 
fine  music  halls  to  feed  the  aesthetic  soul  when  we  deny 
millions  of  the  right  to  earn  sufficient  to  feed  their 
stomachs?  Carnegie's  name  is  known  throughout  the 
world.  He  has  done  much  to  advance  culture  among 
selected  groups  yet  this  advance  has  been  made  at  the 
cost  of  much  suffering  on  the  part  of  his  employees. 
Consider  Henry  Ford  for  a  moment.  He  has  done 
much  to  advance  transportation.  Yet  whenever  his 
costs  of  production  must  be  cut  down  it  is  not  the  large 
owners  of  stock  that  bear  the  loss.  When  the  plant 
closes  down  to  install  new  machinery,  it  is  not  the 
stockholder  that  suffers,  rather  it  is  the  man  working  in 
the  factory  producing  cars  that  bear  the  name  of  Ford. 
When  railroads  have  to  cut  expenses  in  order  that  they 
may  continue  to  operate  it  is  not  the  white  collar  man 


LIMITATION  OF  WEALTH  341 

at  the  top  that  takes  the  slash  but  rather  it  is  the  man 
working  on  the  section  gang.  In  the  tobacco  industry 
we  all  hear  the  name  of  Duke  and  remember  the  phil 
anthropic  bequests  of  Mr.  Duke  but  let  us  not  forget 
the  thousands  of  men  and  women  that  worked  long 
hours  in  the  factory  that  Mr.  Duke  might  acquire  and 
accumulate  this  money.  When  next  you  buy  a  suit  and 
remark  how  wonderful  it  is  that  you  can  buy  a  suit  for 
so  little  and  still  enable  the  manufacturer  to  make  a 
profit,  remember  the  textile  worker  that  earns  scarcely 
enough  to  make  a  living.  When  you  go  to  the  Five 
and  Ten  cent  store  for  some  little  trinket  do  not  praise 
Mr.  Woolworth  for  enabling  us  to  buy  at  such  a  low 
price  until  you  think  of  the  thousands  of  girls  working 
fora  few  dollars  a  week  in  his  stores.  Thousands  of  girls 
are  not  sure  that  they  can  make  the  pay  check  last  long 
enough  to  pay  their  room  rent  and  to  pay  for  the  food 
they  must  have.  It  is  true  that  I  have  painted  a  black 
picture,  but  the  facts  themselves  are  very  black.  These 
men,  giving  their  thousands  to  charities  and  philanthro 
pies,  have  robbed  their  employees  of  millions  of  dollars 
— millions  of  dollars  needed  for  food,  for  shelter  and 
the  other  necessities  of  life.  The  gain  of  the  few  has 
been  made  at  the  expense  of  and  by  the  suffering  of  the 
many.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  on  the  income  tax 
blank  there  are  two  columns — one  for  earned  income  up 
to  $30,000.00  a  year  and  the  other  a  column  for  un 
earned  income  over  that  figure.  The  government  evi 
dently  believes  that  $30,000.00  is  all  that  a  man  can 
really  earn  in  one  year.  Have  any  of  the  men  we  have 
been  considering  been  so  much  better  than  the  ordinary 


342    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

individual?  I  think  you  will  agree  with  me  when  I  say 
that  these  huge  incomes  have  not  been  earned. 

For  a  moment  let  us  consider  inheritances  and  gifts. 
A  good  many  years  ago  the  Astors  bought  Manhattan 
Island  for  something  like  $24.00.  As  the  years  slipped 
by,  New  York  grew.  Manhattan  became  valuable. 
Nothing  the  Astors  had  done  had  increased  the  value 
of  the  land  but  nevertheless  they  received  the  income. 
From  this  fortune  they  have  been  able  to  pass  to  each 
succeeding  generation  a  very  large  inheritance.  They 
have  been  able  to  pass  unearned  wealth  to  their  sons 
and  daughters  when  millions  lack  the  price  of  a  meal. 
Or  let  us  look  at  the  House  of  Morgan,  International 
Bankers.  Although  many  of  our  men  have  had  to  with 
draw  all  of  their  wealth  from  the  banks  still  the  House 
of  Morgan  goes  maching  on,  marching  on  with  the 
control  of  twenty-seven  per  cent  of  our  corporate 
wealth.  These  are  only  a  few  of  the  examples  I  could 
bring  up  to  disprove  the  gross  statement  that  our  pres 
ent  system  is  desirable  or  just.  Time  does  not  permit 
me  to  continue  much  longer. 

In  summing  up  what  I  have  been  saying  I  can  merely 
point  out  that  in  practically  all  cases  of  concentration 
of  wealth,  it  has  been  secured  as  a  result  of  the  crushing 
out  of  the  personalities  of  the  masses  in  the  benefit  of 
the  few.  This  we  contend  is  morally  and  socially 
wrong. 


LIMITATION   OF   WEALTH  343 

Second  Negative,  Don  H.  McMillen 
College  of  Wooster 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  Mr.  McBane  has  attacked 
our  problem  from  the  standpoint  that  inequality  of 
wealth  is  morally  wrong  and  that  it  has  no  just  place 
in  our  society.  He  has  attempted  to  prove  this  conten 
tion  from  several  different  standpoints.  First,  he  has 
attacked  the  low  wages  that  many  people  receive  in 
contrast  with  the  large  incomes  that  others  receive. 
But  my  Opponent,  seemingly  forgetful  of  the  fact  that 
there  are  many  implications  to  adopting  such  a  plan  of 
limitation,  insists  that  since  Jay  Gould,  Carnegie,  Ford 
and  a  few  others  have  or  have  had  incomes  in  excess  of 
$50,000,  while  many  others  receive  much  less  than  this 
sum,  that  all  incomes  should  have  this  arbitrary  limit 
placed  upon  them. 

Next  he  attacks  the  problem  from  the  standpoint  of 
the  inequalities  of  inheritance.  An  absolute  limitation 
will  destroy  all  incentive  for  accumulating  a  sum  larger 
than  that  which  may  be  passed  on  to  one's  children. 
This,  as  we  have  already  seen,  will  mean  a  great  de 
crease  in  productive  capital.  Without  productive  capi 
tal  increased  purchasing  power  won't  be  worth  a 
continental  to  anyone. 

The  first  speaker,  Miss  Heisner,  has  explained  to  us 
that  conditions  at  the  present  time  are  bad  and  that  this 
proposed  measure  is  not  an  extreme  one.  They  have 
told  us  that  our  need  is  increased  purchasing  power; 
yet  what  evidence  have  they  presented  to  show  that 
their  plan  will  provide  it? 


344    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

I  am  going  to  uphold  the  Negative  with  the  conten 
tion  that  the  adoption  of  this  plan  will,  in  the  long-run, 
cause  social  disruption;  our  last  speaker,  Mr.  Wallace, 
will  present  some  measures  which  are  more  funda 
mental  and  basic,  since  they  are  in  harmony  with  pres 
ent  social  trends.  I  believe  that  limitation  will  cause 
social  disruption  because:  it  will  result  in  a  loss  of  taxes 
to  the  government  and  in  a  limitation  of  philanthropies; 
it  will  result  in  widespread  evasions,  and,  if  the  govern 
ment  were  to  get  the  income,  it  would  disrupt  the  se 
curity  market. 

Before  this  debate  is  over  the"  Affirmative  may  tell 
us  that  with  the  adoption  of  this  plan  the  government 
will  receive  a  greatly  increased  income  because  of  the 
incomes  and  inheritances  over  $50,000  that  will  be  con 
fiscated.  This  may  all  work  very  well  the  first  year 
since  the  incomes  will  already  have  been  earned  but 
will  it  work  out  so  nicely  after  the  first  year?  Will  the 
large  income  receivers  willingly  turn  over  all  incomes 
in  excess  of  $50,000  to  the  state  or  will  they  see  to  it 
that  their  incomes  do  not  exceed  that  amount?  You 
see  we  are  faced  with  a  dilemma  and  we  shall  first 
consider  the  more  likely  way  out. 

Here  are  some  of  the  disrupting  effects  of  this  plan. 
The  government  now  gets  approximately  $800,000,000 
from  taxes  on  income  over  $50,000  each  year.  If  no 
one  permits  his  income  to  exceed  this  amount  the  gov 
ernment  will  not  get  anything  in  taxes  from  this  source. 
State  and  federal  inheritance  taxes  amount  to  $100,- 
000,000  per  year.  This  revenue  will  also  be  lost.  We 
must  not  forget  that  the  government  will  also  lose  this 


LIMITATION   OF  WEALTH  345 

source  for  obtaining  any  revenue  whatsoever  in  the 
future.  No  longer  will  it  be  possible  to  tax  incomes 
over  $50,000  as  a  source  of  revenue  to  help  balance  the 
budget.  These  implications  are  terrific! 

Furthermore,  because  of  philanthropic  enterprise 
we,  the  masses  of  people,  enjoy  such  things  as  hospitals, 
colleges,  libraries,  museums,  research  foundations, 
scholarships  and  fellowships,  as  well  as  a  host  of  other 
things;  the  Rockefeller  Foundation,  Carnegie  Libra 
ries,  the  Hart  Schafner  and  Marx  Foundation.  These 
many  benefits  have  been  ours  to  use  largely  because  a 
few  men  have  had  incomes  greater  than  $50,000.  Last 
year  more  than  $2,000,000,000  were  expended  on  just 
such  enterprises.  What  is  the  relevancy  of  this  in 
formation?  Just  this — without  unlimited  incomes  and 
large  fortunes  we  would  not  have  these  things  or  else 
the  state  would  have  to  provide  them.  It  would  be  an 
added  expense  to  the  state  of  $2,000,000,000  each 
year.  This  is  a  sum  as  large  as  that  demanded  by  the 
bonus  marchers  last  year;  and  we  were  told  by  our 
gubernatorial  representative  that  the  payment  of  this 
sum  would  wreck  the  whole  financial  structure  of  our 
government. 

You  have  probably  all  heard  the  expression  "money 
talks";  and  you  know  what  it  means.  Here  we  will 
have  a  loss  to  our  government  of  $900,000,000  in  taxes 
and  an  increased  burden  on  the  state  of  $2,000,000,000 
because  of  philanthropies.  This  makes  a  total  of 
$2,900,000,000  combined  with  the  loss  of  a  possible 
source  of  increased  revenue  from  any  incomes  over 

$so;ooo. 


346    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

You  have  not  heard  the  whole  story  yet;  besides  this 
potential  burden  for  the  taxpayer  we  had  an  accumu 
lated  deficit  in  the  national  budget  of  $3,247,000,000 
in  1932.  This  plan  would  increase  the  deficit  by 
eighty-nine  and  three-tenths  per  cent;  at  the  same  time 
we  are  told  that  balancing  the  budget  is  an  absolute 
necessity,  a  prerequisite  to  recovery.  Our  hard  pressed 
legislators  will  be  even  more  sorely  pressed  to  balance 
the  budget  and  find  a  source  for  the  necessary  revenue, 
yet  the  Affirmative  say  that  this  is  not  an  extreme 
measure. 

That  we  may  not  be  thought  to  be  unfair  we  must 
also  consider  the  possibility  that  the  government  may 
get  a  continued  revenue  from  incomes  and  inheritances 
over  $50,000.  It  will  be  utterly  impossible  to  transfer 
the  confiscated  values  to  the  government  in  the  form  of 
money.  The  only  alternative  will  be  to  give  the  govern 
ment  property  and  to  give  it  stocks  and  bonds.  The 
turning  over  of  property  outright  would  mean  the  worst 
kind  of  Socialism,  and  it  would  not  stop  with  natural 
resources  or  key  industries.  It  would  mean  the  turn 
ing  over  of  every  conceivable  sort  of  industry  and 
property.  Is  our  government  prepared  to  administer 
every  sort  of  property  that  it  might  be  called  on  to 
administer?  If  the  government  were  paid  in  stocks 
and  bonds  the  large  quantities  of  them  offered  for  sale 
would  mean  untold  disruption  of  the  security  market 
with  the  accompanying  evils  of  falling  security  prices 
and  market  panic.  Is  the  inevitable  disruption  worth 
the  risk  for  such  an  uncertain  result?  Is  any  plan 


LIMITATION  OF  WEALTH  347 

morally  right  which  threatens  such  disrupting  effects  as 
this  one  promises? 

Another  obstacle  in  the  way  of  adopting  this  plan  is 
the  fact  that  there  will  inevitably  be  evasions.  It  is  not 
inconceivable,  is  it,  that  small  gifts  could  be  made  over 
a  period  of  time  without  detection?  We  have  no  ma 
chinery  to  enforce  a  law  prohibiting  it;  any  machinery 
that  would  perform  the  task  with  even  a  moderate 
degree  of  success  would  require  hundreds  of  additional 
employees,  some  of  whom  would  no  doubt  be  suscepti 
ble  to  bribes. 

Another  means  of  evasion  is  the  sale  of  property  or 
securities  for  a  nominal  sum;  that  is,  selling  them  for 
a  price  far  below  the  actual  value.  Let  me  remind  you, 
too,  that  this  measure  of  evasion  would  be  absolutely 
legal  according  to  the  proposition  in  question.  Let  me 
refer  you  to  a  specific  instance  of  this  sort  of  evasion. 
Charles  E.  Mitchell,  recent  chairman  of  the  Board  of 
Directors  of  the  National  City  Bank  of  New  York,  sold 
thousands  of  dollars  worth  of  stock  to  his  relatives  for 
only  a  few  dollars.  Mr.  Mitchell's  reason  of  course 
was  to  evade  the  income  tax  and  yet  keep  control  over 
the  money.  The  low  selling  price  meant  that  he  sold 
the  stock  at  a  loss  which  would  be  subtracted  from  his 
total  income  when  considered  for  taxing  purposes.  We 
might  also  cite  the  example  of  a  New  York  stenogra 
pher  whose  attorney  employer  assisted  a  client  to  find 
sufficient  exemptions  to  make  his  income  tax  less  than 
the  stenographer's. 

It  would  also  be  possible  to  evade  the  law  by  forming 
a  corporation  to  receive  your  income.  In  this  way  it 


348    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

would  not  be  an  individual  income  and  therefore  not 
taxable  according  to  the  proposed  measure.  There  are 
illegal  evasions  even  now  while  we  have  a  comparatively 
light  income  tax.  What  will  happen  if  this  tax  is  made 
so  heavy  as  to  prohibit  all  income  over  $50,000?  An 
Associated  Press  dispatch  of  February  28th,  1933,  says 
that  Andrew  W.  Mellon,  recent  Secretary  of  the  Treas 
ury,  along  with  two  former  officials  of  the  Internal 
Revenue  Bureau,  was  sued  for  $220,000,000  for  con 
niving  with  officials  of  foreign  steamship  companies  to 
evade  just  income  taxes. 

Let  us  review  briefly  what  has  been  presented  thus 
far  on  both  sides  of  this  debate.  Miss  Heisner  opened 
the  discussion  for  the  Affirmative  by  presenting  evi 
dence  leading  to  the  conclusion  that  our  problem  today 
is  to  place  purchasing  power  in  the  hands  of  the  masses. 
She  told  us  that  although  their  proposition  is  neither  a 
panacea  nor  a  cure-all  that  their  contention  is  that  its 
adoption  will  provide  this  needed  purchasing  power. 
She  upheld  this  contention  with  the  argument  that  the 
plan  is  not  extreme.  Mr.  McBane  continued  for  the 
Affirmative,  contending  that  inequality  of  wealth  is 
morally  wrong  and  has  no  just  place  in  our  society. 

Thus  far  our  Opponents  have  not  shown  us  how  this 
purchasing  power  will  trickle  down  to  the  masses,  nor 
have  they  assured  us  that  our  purchasing  power  would 
not  be  materially  reduced.  This  is  a  question  that 
can't  be  passed  by  without  due  consideration. 

On  the  Negative  side  Miss  Garber  has  presented  a 
defense  of  the  concentration  of  wealth,  showing  that 
progress  is  dependent  on  unlimited  income;  she  has 


LIMITATION   OF  WEALTH  349 

shown  us  that  we  have  an  immediate  necessity  to  meet 
and  that  the  Affirmative  proposition  will  not  meet  this 
necessity.  I  have  argued  against  the  measure  because 
of  the  long-run  effect  that  it  will  have  in  causing  social 
disruption.  Mr.  Wallace,  the  last  speaker  for  the 
Negative,  will  present  some  measures  which  will  be  in 
accord  with  our  present  trends  in  social  legislation. 

The  Negative  is  basing  its  case  on  three  main  con 
tentions;  that  the  proposed  measure  cannot  be  immedi 
ately  effective,  that  the  long-run  effect  would  be  very 
undesirable,  and,  that  more  effective  and  basic  meas 
ures  are  available. 


Third  Affirmative,  Roy  McCorkel 
College  of  Wooster 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  Am  I  merely  generalizing 
in  a  vague  way  when  I  say  that  nearly  everywhere  ex 
tremes  in  life  are  checked?  We  are  forced,  if  we  are 
wise,  to  limit  the  amount  we  eat,  the  amount  we  drink, 
the  time  spent  in  sleep,  the  number  of  times"  we  go  to 
the  theatre,  and  now  in  our  industrial  system  we  have 
limited  the  number  of  hours  a  man  can  work.  Why  is 
this  so?  Isn't  it  because  moderation  is  sensible  in  all 
things.  And  isn't  it  true  that  if  we  don't  have  a  system 
of  limitation,  we  always  have  a  group  of  people  who 
take  advantage  of  their  opportunities  to  exploit,  and 
who  abuse  the  privileges  that  they  do  have?  What  I 
am  trying  to  say,  in  other  words,  is  that  without  limita 
tion  on  the  number  of  hours  a  man  can  work,  we  have 
some  employers  who  would  expect  their  laborers  to 


3  SO    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

work  sixteen  and  twenty  hours  a  day.  I  can't  see  why 
this  same  principle  of  limitation  should  not  apply  to 
the  amount  of  money  a  man  can  earn  or  pass  on.  This 
limitation  should  be  particularly  appropriate  when  we 
are  only  trying  to  curb  the  extremes  and  the  absurdities 
of  the  arbitrary  number  of  10,799  men  at  the  top  of 
our  financial  scale  who  are  making  annual  incomes  in 
excess  of  fifty  thousand  dollars,  or  those  who  have 
accumulated  tremendous  sums  of  money  to  be  passed 
on  to  their  friends  or  progeny. 

The  Negative  speaker  who  preceded  me  has  said  the 
Negative  case  is  based  on  three  main  contentions.  First 
Miss  Garber  says  our  proposal  cannot  be  immediately 
effective.  However,  in  her  speech  she  admitted  the 
possibility  of  the  government  being  able  to  collect  con 
siderable  money  the  first  year.  Furthermore,  she 
should  remember  that  the  debate  is  primarily  concerned 
with  the  great  principle  of  limiting  wealth  by  govern 
mental  legislation,  and  that  the  congressional  act  neces 
sary  to  make  the  proposition  a  law  is  to  be  waived  for 
the  preseht. 

The  second  contention  was  that  "the  long  run  effect 
would  be  very  undesirable."  Mr.  McMillen  based  his 
contention  on  three  main  arguments.  He  says  in  the 
first  place  that  our  resolution  will  result  in  a  great  loss 
of  revenue  to  the  government,  and  in  a  decrease  in  the 
many  philanthropies  which  we  now  have.  Well,  to 
be  sure  anyone  can  see  that  if  you  take  away  great 
amounts  of  wealth  from  the  people  who  own  and  con 
trol  it  today,  you  are  undoubtedly  losing  revenue  from 
that  particular  source,  or  from  the  particular  men  who 


LIMITATION   OF  WEALTH  351 

have  and  control  taxable  wealth  in  excess  of  fifty  thou 
sand  dollars  today.  But  the  Opposition  must  remem 
ber  that  it  is  not  our  plan  to  destroy  this  wealth.  It  is 
our  plan  to  redistribute  it.  We  are  merely  taking  it 
away  from  the  group  that  already  has  far  too  much  to 
benefit  either  themselves  or  society.  Regardless  of 
where  the  money  above  fifty  thousand  dollars  goes,  it 
can  be  taxed  at  that  source.  True  we  may  have  to 
change  our  tax  rate  and  our  tax  system;  but  I  would 
rather  pay  a  tax  on  fifteen  hundred  dollars  that  I  have 
earned  than  be  denied  the  privilege  of  earning  it.  That 
is  certainly  better  than  to  have  someone  else  have  it 
(those  in  the  higher  income  brackets)  just  to  insure 
the  government  an  adequate  revenue.  As  for  philan 
thropies — suffice  it  to  say  that  we  of  the  Affirmative 
wonder  whether,  if  to  have  philanthropies,  we  must 
submit  to  our  present  injustices  to  labor,  to  our  present 
inequality,  maldistribution  of  wealth,  and  super- 
privileges.  We  wonder  whether  these  gifts  are  worth 
the  human  suffering  that  their  donors  force  on  society. 
It  may  be  that  we  could  still  have  much  philanthropy 
by  generous  people  who  would  be  making  more  mod 
erate  incomes. 

Mr.  McMillen  says  the  long-run  effects  of  our  pro 
posal  would  be  undesirable  in  the  second  place  because 
it  would  result  in  widespread  legal  and  illegal  evasions. 
But  the  income  tax  law  has  worked  pretty  well  even 
though  there  has  been  some  evasion.  There  has  been 
some  evasion  in  connection  with  every  law  which  has 
ever  been  passed;  but  does  that  condemn  the  law 
against  stealing  or  murder?  No!  If  this  great  princi- 


352    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OP  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

pie  is  fundamentally  right,  we  can  find  a  way  to  make 
the  thing  work  in  practice. 

The  third  argument  against  our  proposal  was  that  it 
would  lead  to  a  disruption  of  the  securities  market. 
Rather  humorous,  I  would  say.  Especially  so  when, 
only  last  week,  the  stock  exchange  had  to  close  its 
doors,  and  when  the  government  had  to  step  in  to  save 
our  banking  system.  And  our  proposal  is  not  in  effect 
now.  The  truth  is  that  the  present  system  of  super- 
privilege  and  ownership  and  control  by  the  few  has 
been  the  admitted  cause  of  the  recent  chaos  and  dis 
ruption  in  our  securities  market  and  in  our  financial 
institutions  generally;  so  that  our  plan  doesn't  have  to 
lead  to  disruption,  our  present  system  has  already 
brought  us  there. 

I  propose  to  show  the  temporary  and  lasting  effects 
of  our  proposal.  May  I  say  that  even  if  our  resolution 
would  not  help  the  men  at  the  bottom  of  the  social  scale 
(if  that  is  conceivable)  the  measure  would  still  be 
justifiable;  because,  as  Mr.  McBane  has  pointed  out, 
as  well  as  Miss  Heisner,  when  there  is  only  so  much 
wealth  to  be  had,  it  is  unfair  and  unjust  that  one  per 
cent  of  the  people  should  own  and  control  thirty-three 
per  cent  of  the  total,  and  especially  when  wealth  means 
privilege  and  power. 

What  are  some  of  the  temporary  and  permanent 
effects  of  our  proposal?  The  power  industry  in  this 
country  is  dominated  by  five  or  six  major  corporations. 
Each  of  these  corporations  is  controlled  by  a  few  men 
who  are  mainly  interested  in  making  money  in  large 
amounts.  According  to  Stephen  Rausenbush,  the 


LIMITATION   OF   WEALTH  353 

American  public  is  paying  one  million  dollars  a  day 
more  than  it  should  for  electric  power.  Morris  Llewel 
lyn  Cooke  has  estimated  that  domestic  power  rates  in 
the  United  States  are  approximately  one  hundred  per 
cent  too  high.  When  we  consider  that  the  basic  things 
that  the  great  masses  of  people  need: — power,  steel, 
coal,  telephones,  railroads,  banks — are  controlled  by  a 
few  men  who  are  permitted  to  make  money  in  un 
limited  quantities,  we  begin  to  see  why  we  have  the 
abuses  of  our  present  system.  The  great  masses  of 
consumers  in  this  country  are  being  exploited  because 
the  basic  things  that  they  need  are  in  the  control  of  the 
few  who  are  in  the  business  to  make  profits,  excessive 
profits,  as  is  exemplified  by  the  exaggerated  rates  they 
charge  for  their  products,  the  way  they  under-pay  their 
help,  and  the  disproportion  in  the  amount  that  goes  to 
dividends  and  high  salaries. 

We  are  maintaining  that  if  you  take  away  the  oppor 
tunity  for  a  man  to  accumulate  and  pass  on  unlimited 
amount  of  wealth,  there  will  be  no  incentive  to  charge 
exhorbitant  power  rates,  or  to  exploit  to  the  present 
degree  the  employees  and  consumers.  Because,  what 
is  the  point  in  charging  excessive  prices  for  products, 
and  of  paying  extremely  low  wages  if  you  are  not  per 
mitted  to  keep  the  money  above  a  specified  limit  that 
you  gain  thereby?  If  this  resolution,  then,  means  that 
electric  light  rates,  coal  bills,  and  the  others  are  going 
to  cost  the  consuming  public  less,  if  it  means  that  there 
will  be  less  incentive  to  exploit  the  workers,  then  we 
think  that  the  resolution  will  benefit  the  masses  both 
now  and  in  the  future. 


354    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

If  you  ask  me  how  our  plan  of  limitation  is  going  to 
work  in  detail,  I  cannot  tell  you.  But  I  do  know  that 
if  our  plan  is  adopted,  wealth  will  be  more  equally 
distributed,  and  I  know  that  Senator  Norris,  Dr.  Henry 
Pratt  Fairchild,  Kirby  Page,  Norman  Thomas,  and 
even  President  Roosevelt  are  strongly  in  favor  of  a 
re-distribution  of  wealth.  Moreover,  I  know  that  the 
ownership  and  control  of  immense  fortunes  brings 
about  an  unjust,  selfish,  monetary  control  over  the 
great  masses  of  our  citizenry.  I  know  that  the  desire 
for  unlimited  fortunes  manifests  itself  in  the  greedy 
exploitation  of  the  many  by  the  few  who  own.  I  am 
also  confident  that  fifty  thousand  dollars  is  an  ample 
income,  a  worthy  monetary  incentive,  and  that  there  is 
comparatively  little  danger  of  our  business  progress 
suffering  because  we  lack  private  capital.  Germany  is 
ahead  of  us  in  transportation  facilities.  She  has  de 
veloped  the  Deisel  Electric  train  with  a  running  speed 
of  ninety-five  miles  per  hour  and  without  the  aid  of 
private  capital. 

We  are  not  expecting  that  our  plajti  will  cure  the 
world's  ills.  But  for  the  above  mentioned  reasons  we 
do  feel  that  the  plan  will  help  present  conditions,  and 
that  it  will  curb  the  abuses  of  the  present  system.  We 
have  tried  to  show  that  concentration  of  wealth  is  the 
significant  factor  in  our  present  economic  debacle.  We 
believe  that  consuming  power  is  the  crying  need.  The 
justice  of  our  resolution,  and  the  injustice  of  present 
day  gifts,  inheritances,  and  incomes  have  also  been 
emphasized.  I  have  tried  to  show  that  our  plan  would 


LIMITATION   OF   WEALTH  355 

take  away  the  selfish,  unjust,  monetary  control  from 
the  super-privileged  class. 


Third  Negative,  Eugene  H.  Wallace 
College  of  Wooster 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  As  the  Opposition  has  un 
folded  its  case  here  this  evening,  I  have  been  reminded 
time  and  again  of  that  old  fable  called,  I  believe,  "Bett 
ing  the  Cat."  As  I  remember,  the  mice  were  suffering 
from  the  depredations  of  a  cat  and  decided  in  high 
council  that  the  solution  to  their  problem  would  be  in 
putting  a  bell  on  the  cat  so  that  they  might  be  warned 
of  his  approach.  The  plan  sounded  great;  it  met  with 
almost  unanimous  approval.  Some  kill-joy,  however, 
asked  how  the  bell  would  be  tied  on.  That  is  like  the 
Affirmative's  proposal  to  limit  incomes  in  order  to  solve 
the  mystery  of  the  missing  purchasing  power:  it  sounds 
fine  in  theory;  the  benefits  to  be  derived  from  it  are 
glorious  to  consider;  but  will  the  plan  work?  Is  it 
based  upon  a  valid  assumption? 

It  is  all  very  well  for  Mr.  McBane  and  Mr.  Mc- 
Corkel  to  tell  you  that  large  incomes  are  unjustifiable 
and  should  be  limited,  but  in  considering  their  method 
of  so  limiting  incomes,  the  matter  of  practicability  can 
not  be  excluded.  Of  course  Mr.  McCorkel  cannot  draw 
a  blueprint  of  his  plan;  but  neither  can  he  waive  the 
argument  aside  so  easily  as  he  has  attempted  to.  The 
Negative  has  gone  into  some  detail  to  show  how  the 
system  would  inevitably  result  in  a  loss  of  revenue  to 
the  government,  a  loss  of  the  philanthropic  enterprises 


356    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

which  comprise  so  large  a  part  of  our  life,  and  whole 
sale  evasion  which  would  almost  negate  the  scheme  al 
together.  The  Affirmative's  beautiful  theory  has  been 
murdered  by  a  gang  of  brutal  facts.  This  plan  is  not 
practicable. 

Nor  is  it  based  upon  a  sound  premise.  In  reply  to 
Mr.  McMillen's  argument  that  the  government  would 
lose  $900,000,000  in  revenue  from  taxes,  Mr.  McCorkel 
says,  "We  are  not  destroying  wealth;  we  are  merely 
re-distributing  it."  He  assumes  that  surplus  wealth 
may  be  sliced  off  the  top  and  thrust  in  at  the  bottom, 
and  even  presumes  that  he  will  get  some  of  it.  "I 
would  gladly  pay  a  tax  on  an  income  of  $1500  if  I  could 
get  it,  as  I  can't  today,"  he  remarks.  Well  now,  I  ad 
mire  Mr.  McCorkel's  altruism,  but  I  condemn  his  eco 
nomics.  Won't  we  destroy  wealth?  Isn't  "wealth" 
merely  "value"?  It  isn't,  you  see,  actual  bank  notes 
and  coin.  For  instance,  statistics  indicate  that  in  1929 
our  national  wealth  was  four  hundred  billion  dollars. 
In  1933  it  is  estimated  at  two  hundred  billion.  What 
happened  to  the  missing  two  hundred  billion?  Was  it 
burned;  lost;  destroyed?  No;  evaluation  of  property 
merely  fell  off.  Now  take  away  these  big  fortunes  that 
operate  industry  and  create  more  wealth,  and  what  do 
you  do?  Instead  of  re-distributing  anything,  you 
merely  make  it  impossible  for  additional  wealth  to  be 
created.  You  really  have  nothing  to  play  with  under 
this  proposal  except  value,  and  you  can't  divide  that  up 
and  pass  it  around.  You  are  destroying  actual  value 
or  wealth  which  is  working,  and  are  putting  nothing  in 
its  place.  Mr.  McCorkel  never  would  get  his  $1500  if 


LIMITATION  OF  WEALTH  357 

he  had  his  way  in  this  matter.  If  you  are  in  any  doubt 
as  to  the  truth  of  this  statement  of  mine  in  regard  to 
the  nature  of  wealth,  just  look  at  the  money  in  circula 
tion  today:  nine  billions  of  it.  However,  there  are 
forty-four  billion  in  Federal  Reserve  credit.  Our  eco 
nomic  society  is  conducted  on  a  credit  basis,  not  upon 
a  cash  basis.  No,  I  am  afraid  that  while  the  idealism 
of  the  Affirmative  is  greatly  to  be  commended,  their 
fundamental  premise  must  be  highly  condemned. 

Accordingly,  you  see,  the  assumption  upon  which 
this  plan  is  based  is  unsound.  In  addition  to  that  its 
use  would  be  extremely  impractical.  Not  only  that, 
but  we  do  have  a  very  definite  need  for  big  incomes,  as 
Miss  Garber  pointed  out  not  long  ago.  Our  critical 
economic  status  calls  for  a  remedy,  but  certainly  this 
plan  is  not  what  we  are  looking  for. 

Our  attention  has  been  too  easily  turned  in  the  wrong 
direction.  We  see  great  wealth  in  one  place  and  little 
wealth  in  another,  and  we  think  we  can  solve  everything 
by  simply  evening  things  up.  But  that  is  not  the  point 
of  attack.  The  fact  that  credit  is  the  basic  and  funda 
mental  thing  in  our  economic  society  indicates  the 
proper  place  upon  which  to  focus  our  attention  in  en 
deavoring  to  escape  from  this  chaotic  condition  which 
Miss  Heisner  has  so  ably  pictured. 

Let  us  see  if  our  hope  does  not  lie  in  credit.  Industry 
depends  for  its  operation  upon  credit.  When  credit 
is  easily  obtained,  industry  booms,  and  production  in 
creases  rapidly  to  a  point  where  over-production  re 
sults  and  surpluses  are  created.  Then  men  are  laid 
off,  production  declines  or  stops  altogether,  prices  fall, 


358    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

and  deflation  ensues  which  carries  us  into  a  depression 
such  as  this  current  one.  That  is  in  brief  outline  the 
business  cycle.  On  the  one  side  of  the  norm  you  have 
abnormal  prosperity,  and  on  the  other,  abnormal 
slumps.  The  result  is  the  chaos  which  gives  cause  for 
this  debate.  Now  is  it  not  logical  to  suppose  that  if 
business  activity  were  to  be  stabilized  at  normal,  we 
would  have  a  very  desirable  economic  order?  It  would 
not  be  perfect,  of  course,  but  what  is  perfect?  Very 
well  then,  since  business  depends  on  credit,  and  our 
deplorable  economic  conditions  depend  on  business, 
why  not  remedy  conditions  by  controlling  credit? 

The  approach  of  the  Negative,  therefore,  to  the  solu 
tion  of  this  problem  would  be  through  the  Federal 
Reserve  System,  Today  that  organization  embraces 
more  than  one-third  of  the  banking  institutions  of  the 
nation  and  over  three-fourths  of  the  resources  of  the 
country.  It  exercises  a  large  measure  of  control,  ac 
cordingly,  over  credit.  We  propose  that  the  Federal 
Reserve  system  be  given  complete  control  of  credit  by 
compelling  all  banks  to  come  into  the  system;  by  in 
creasing  and  extending  the  powers  of  the  various  Re 
serve  boards  so  that  they  might  touch  very  definitely 
upon  each  bank's  supply  of  credit;  and  making  more 
sensitive  each  bank's  contact  with  each  individual  in 
dustry  in  its  community.  What  you  have  done  then  is 
to  centralize  the  control  of  credit  in  the  hands  of  the 
Federal  Reserve  System.  By  doing  that  you  have 
made  it  possible  to  regulate  the  supply  of  credit — its 
increase  or  diminution — and  have  accordingly  suc 
ceeded  in  controlling  business  activity. 


LIMITATION   OF   WEALTH  359 

We  have  data  available  today  which  indicates  when 
expansion  should  take  place;  that  is,  when  a  boom  is 
coming  and  when  a  depression  is  in  sight.  The  trouble 
is  that  with  decentralized  control,  the  warning  signals 
are  not  heeded.  By  centralizing  control,  all  the  numer 
ous  signs  of  a  coming  boom  period  could  be  the  dic 
tators  of  policy  and  the  boom  could  be  avoided.  So  too 
with  the  depression  which  inevitably  follows  this  artifi 
cial  inflation  of  value. 

In  line  with  such  a  policy  as  this  would  be  such  social 
legislation  as  old  age  pensions,  abolition  of  child  labor, 
unemployment  insurance,  minimum  wage  laws,  the 
thirty-hour  week,  et  cetera.  All  these  measures  will 
protect  the  worker  while  control  of  credit  will  do  much 
to  abolish  the  need  for  protection. 

This  course  has  been  the  trend  of  action  since  1890. 
Not  action  which  would  disrupt  the  whole  order  of  our 
lives;  not  action  which  would  destroy  the  fundamental 
precepts  upon  which  this  nation  is  founded — precepts 
of  freedom,  and  individuality;  not  foolish  and  untried 
theories;  but  rather  sound,  rational,  logical  action;  ac 
tion  which  has  constantly  raised  our  standard  of  living; 
action  which  has  brought  us  to  a  point  man  never  dared 
hope  to  reach;  albeit,  action  which  has  not  been  com 
plete.  This  step  to  control  credit  and  regulate  business 
activity  is  the  next  step  in  a  very  definite  trend  which 
we  are  following. 

Well,  where  do  we  stand  now  in  this  debate?  The 
Affirmative  has  told  you  that  because  we  have  this 
terrible  condition  upon  our  hands,  something  must  be 
done.  We  agree.  They  have  told  you  that  huge  for- 


360    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

tunes  and  incomes  are  unjustifiable  and  unfair.  They 
have  insisted  that  the  existence  of  such  incomes  and 
fortunes  results  in  monetary  control  by  a  few  men. 

On  the  other  hand,  you  have  the  Negative's  conten 
tion  that  progress  depends  upon  large  incomes;  that 
this  proposal  to  limit  incomes  would  be  of  no  immediate 
value  in  alleviating  conditions;  that  it  would  be  de 
cidedly  detrimental  in  that  it  would  mean  a  loss  in 
revenues  and  philanthropies;  and  finally,  and  most  im 
portant  of  all,  that  the  whole  case  of  the  Affirmative  is 
based  upon  a  false  assumption — the  assumption  that 
wealth  is  money  and  could  be  handled  as  such.  In 
addition  to  demonstrating  the  fallacy  of  the  limitation 
proposal,  the  Negative  has  also  indicated  the  proper 
course  of  action,  control  of  credit. 

The  Negative  feels  that  the  Affirmative  is  right  in 
saying  that  something  must  be  done.  But  we  cannot 
agree  that  the  plan  proposed  is  sound,  logical,  desirable, 
or  basic.  It  cannot  work;  its  premise  is  invalid.  We 
propose,  therefore,  that  we  do  not  disrupt  the  social 
organization  which  has  undeniably  brought  us  so  far 
along  the  road  of  progress;  but  rather  that  we  act 
rationally  and  logically  in  carrying  out  the  trends  of  the 
times. 

Affirmative  Rebuttal,  Adeline  Heisner 
College  of  Wooster 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  Mr.  Wallace  claims  that 
you  have  witnessed  a  brutal  murder  here  tonight — a 
murder  of  a  beautiful  theory  by  a  gang  of  brutal  facts! 
Strangely  enough  the  theory  seems  to  be  feeling  new 


LIMITATION  OF  WEALTH  361 

signs  of  life,  in  fact  before  I  finish  I  hope  to  have  it 
quite  revived — a  lusty,  hardy  theory.  The  Affirmative 
believes  that  it  takes  more  than  some  technical  objec 
tions  and  opposition  in  the  form  of  counter  propositions 
to  kill  our  plan  for  limiting  wealth. 

You  see  both  sides  of  this  debate  are  really  quite 
altruistic.  We  all  realize  the  immediate  and  pressing  need 
for  some  definite  economic  reform;  we  all  are  agreed 
that  the  millions  of  people  who  are  suffering  privation, 
tonight,  must  be  given  relief.  The  Affirmative  is  quite 
willing  to  agree  with  Mr.  Wallace  that  a  control  of  our 
credit  system  might  be  a  very  helpful  measure;  we  are 
quite  willing  to  approve  of  all  the  social  legislation  he 
has  suggested — old  age  pensions,  minimum  wage  laws, 
unemployment  insurance,  the  six-hour  day  and  the  five- 
day  week.  Why,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen,  I  doubt  very 
seriously  if  we  could  even  work  up  a  debate  over  these 
issues.  But  we  are  not  here  to  debate  the  advisability 
of  these  measures;  we  are  here  to  try  to  find  out  if 
limiting  incomes  is  a  just,  sane  and  practicable  meas 
ure  that  will  help  to  redistribute  wealth.  We  have  not 
claimed  that  our  plan  is  a  miracle-worker,  a  cure-all; 
we  claim  that  it  is  one  measure  that  strikes  at  the  deep 
est  root  of  our  economic  distress — the  unlimited  privi 
lege  and  the  consequent  power  of  individuals  who  secure 
vast  sums  of  unearned  wealth  by  fair  or  foul  means, 
while  millions  lack  the  necessities  of  life.  Maldistribu 
tion  of  wealth  and  lack  of  purchasing  power  are  the 
brutal  facts  that  we  must  correlate.  Perhaps  the  most 
brutal  fact  with  which  to  reply  to  Mr.  Wallace's  speech 
is  that  we  are  debating  limitation  of  incomes,  gifts  and 


362    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

inheritances,  not  credit  control.  I  have  nothing  to  say 
against  his  proposition;  it  is  not  my  responsibility  to 
show  that  credit  control  is  not  advisable,  in  fact  I  know 
very  little  about  credit  control  and  have  no  intention  of 
dealing  with  the  subject  now;  too  much  time  has  al 
ready  been  spent  on  this  irrelevant  matter. 

I  was  particularly  interested  in  the  last  speech,  in 
the  statement:  "the  whole  Affirmative  case  is  founded 
on  a  false  premise — the  premise  that  wealth  is  money 
and  could  be  handled  as  such."  In  an  earlier  part  of  the 
same  speech  we  were  told  that  our  national  wealth  had 
decreased  two  hundred  billion  dollars  between  1929 
and  1933.  I  resent  the  accusation  made  against  the 
Affirmative  case  in  suggesting  that  we  do  not  under 
stand  the  difference  between  wealth  and  money.  Of 
course  the  national  money  values  fluctuate;  perhaps 
they  will  fluctuate  when  our  plan  is  put  into  work  but 
the  $50,000  limitation  is  not  rigid;  it  is  merely  a  con 
venient  figure  settled  upon  to  make  the  discussion 
definite.  Limitation  can  be  made  flexible  and  corre 
lated  with  the  fluctuations  in  values.  National  wealth 
is  in  land,  cattle,  tangible  possessions — not  in  money, 
securities,  stocks  and  bonds. 

Mr.  Wallace  pleads  with  you  to  endorse  only  those 
plans  which  are  compatible  with  the  "fundamental  pre 
cepts  upon  which  this  nation  is  founded,  precepts  of 
freedom  and  individuality."  That  is  a  most  commend 
able  plea,  my  friends.  We  add  our  voice  to  that  of 
Mr.  Wallace  in  asking  you  for  respect  for  individuality. 
There  is  a  great  distinction  between  individuality  and 
selfish  individualism.  How  much  individuality  and 


LIMITATION   OF  WEALTH  363 

freedom  do  the  oppressed  coal  miners  in  the  southern 
part  of  our  state  have?  Can  they  demand  decent  wages 
even  when  they  are  offered  part  time  work?  There  is 
no  freedom  when  definite  class  oppression  such  as  this 
exists. 

It  seems  to  me  this  question  is  a  matter  of  ratios. 
Shall  10,799  men  be  free — perfectly  free — to  get  as 
much  as  they  can,  in  any  way  that  they  can  at  the  ex 
pense  of  millions  of  others?  The  Affirmative  has  tried 
to  show  you  that  a  great  maldistribution  of  wealth 
exists  in  this  country  today,  that  the  unlimited  profits 
system  leads  to  social  abuse,  great  suffering  and  injus 
tices;  that  the  limitation  of  incomes,  gifts  and  inheri 
tances  to  $50,000  is  a  sane,  moderate  plan  which  will 
strike  at  this  root  problem — the  need  for  a  more  even 
distribution  of  wealth. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY:  LIMITATION  OF  WEALTH 

BOOKS 

Adams,  James  Truslow. — The  Epic  of  America. 

Brown,  H.  G. — Economics  of  Taxation.    1924. 

Chase,  Stuart— 4  New  Deal. 

Corey,  Lewis.— House  of  Morgan.    G.  H.  Watt,  N.  Y.    1930. 

Douglass,  Paul  H. — The  Coming  of  a  New  Party. 

Faulkner,  H.  U. — American  Economic  History,    1932. 

Flynn,  John  T. — Graft  in  Business.    Vanguard  Press.    1931. 

Foster  and  Catchings. — Money.    Houghton,  Minim.    1923. 

Hamilton  and  May.— The  Control  of  Wages.    1923. 

Hansen. — Economic  Stabilization  of  an  Unbalanced  World.    1932. 

Hobson,  J.  A. — Economics  and  Ethics.    D.  C.  Heath.    1929. 

Taxation  in  the  New  State.    1919. 

Lutz,  H.  L. — Public  Finance.    1930. 


364    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

Minnigerode,  Meade. — Jay  Gould.  Putnam's,  N.  Y.  and  London. 
1927. 

Patterson,  E.  M. — The  World's  Economic  Dilemma.    1930. 

Peck,  H.  W.— Taxation  and  Welfare.    1925. 

Shuk. — Taxation  of  Inheritances.    1926. 

Statistical  Abstract  of  the  United  States.  Supt.  of  Documents,  Gov 
ernment  Printing  Office.  1932. 

Taussig. — Principles  of  Economics.    Chapter  51.    1921. 

Walker,  G.  M.— 4  Defense  of  Wealth. 

Warshaw,  Robert  I.— Jay  Gould.    Greenberg,  N.  Y.    1928. 

World  Almanac,  The. — 1933.    Income  Tax  Reports.    N.  Y.  World. 


MAGAZINES 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy. — January  1933.  Sumner  H.  Slich- 
ter.  The  Immediate  Unemployment  Problem.  1933.  L.  C. 
Walker.  The  Share-the-Work  Movement. 

Atlantic  Monthly. — December  1932.  G.  W.  Anderson.  Our  Railroads. 
Business  Week.— January  13,  1932.    European  Real  Wages. 
Christian   Century. — 47:1210-12.     October   8,    1930.     L.   F.   Wood. 
Pauperizing  the  Rich.    47:1385-6.    November  12,  1930.    H.  F. 
Ward.    Stagger  Incomes  Instead  of  Wages. 
Commonweal— July  5,  1932.    Distribution  of  Income.     August  17, 

1932.    That  Rugged  Individualism. 

Current  History.— October  1932.     E.  Gruening.    Power  as  a  Cam 
paign  Issue.    February  1933.    R.  W.  Robey.    The  Outlook  for 
Recovery. 
Journal   of  Commerce. — United   States  Department   of   Commerce. 

Survey  of  Current  Business. 

Literary  Digest.— May  24,  1930.    Tale  of  Two  Income  Taxes. 
Monthly  Labor  Review. — April  1927. 
Nation,  The.— November  21,  1929.    The  Ideal  Income.     134:339-40, 

March  23,  1932.    M.  S.  Stewart.    Now  to  Tax  the  Rich. 
Ohio  State  Journal.— February  28,  1933.    Mellon  One  of  Trio  Named 

in  Tax  Case. 

Review  of  Reviews.— July  1931.    Wealth  Rises  to  the  Top.    Septem 
ber  1932.    All  Quiet  on  the  Yankee  Front. 
Saturday  Evening  Post.— July  16,  1932.    F.  Britten  Austin.    Soak  the 

Rich. 

World  Tomorrow.— August   1932.     Why  Not  Income  and   Wealth 
Also?    February  8,  1933. 


LIMITATION  OF  WEALTH  365 


NEWSPAPERS 

Christian  Science  Monitor. — February  6,  1933.   European  Labor  Con- 

ference. 
New  York  Times.— February  8,  1933.    Smith  Urges  Public  Works 

Dictator.    February  26,  1933.    Senate  Currency  Committee  Stock 

Market  Investigation.    Looks  to  the  Masses  for  Economic  Aid. 

Governor  Lehman's  Message  on  Minimum  Wage  Laws. 


JAPAN'S  POLICY  IN  MANCHURIA 
A  Radio  Debate 


JAPAN'S  POLICY  IN  MANCHURIA 

BUCKNELL    UNIVERSITY   AFFIRMATIVE 
AND  NEGATIVE 

The  following  debate  on  Japan's  Policy  in  Manchuria  is  one  be 
tween  two  men's  teams  of  Bucknell  University,  Lewisburg,  Pennsyl 
vania.  The  debate  as  printed  here  was  given  over  the  University 
radio  station  WJBU.  During  the  regular  season  Bucknell  teams  took 
trips  through  the  New  England  states,  through  Ohio,  and  through 
New  Jersey  and  Eastern  Pennsylvania.  Teams  from  ten  states  were 
met  in  Lewisburg.  Among  the  season's  opponents  were  the  Uni 
versity  of  Pennsylvania,  Bates,  Rutgers,  Davidson,  Fordham,  Colby, 
Bowdoin,  Boston  University,  Colgate,  Ohio  Wesleyan,  Washington 
and  Jefferson,  and  Denison. 

Bucknell  is  one  of  the  few  Eastern  co-educational  universities  that 
conducts  an  extensive  debate  program  for  women.  This  year  a< 
women's  team  made  a  trip  through  Indiana,  Missouri,  Oklahoma,  and 
North  Texas  for  a  series  of  ten  debates. 

The  1933  Bucknell  teams  discussed  four  subjects,  with  the  Cancel 
lation  of  War  Debts  the  featured  proposition.  The  present  discussion, 
Resolved:  That  Japan's  policy  in  Manchuria  is  justified,  would,  in  all 
probability,  have  been  the  outstanding  debate  topic  of  the  year,  be 
cause  of  its  international  importance,  had  not  changing  economic  and 
political  conditions  in  Europe  and  the  United  States  brought  other 
subjects  hurriedly  into  prominence. 

Speeches  for  the  debate  herein  printed  were  collected  and  con 
tributed  by  Professor  Arthur  L.  Brandon,  Director  of  Debating  at 
Bucknell  University. 


First  Affirmative,  Harald  E.  Kenseth 
Bucknell  University 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  We  shall  attempt  to  show 
you  tonight  why  Japan's  policy  in  Manchuria  is  justifi- 

369 


370    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

able.  Manchuria,  as  you  all  know,  lies  north  of  China 
proper  and  consists  of  the  four  provinces  of  Liaoning, 
Kirin,  Heliungkiang,  and  Jehol.  The  Japanese  classify 
this  territory  as  North  and  SoutB.  Manchuria  and  East 
ern  Inner  Mongolia.  Manchuria  was  an  independent 
state  until  the  Manchus  conquered  China  in  1644,  dis 
placed  the  Ming  dynasty,  set  up  the  Ching  or  Manchu 
dynasty,  and  ruled  China  until  the  Republic  was  estab 
lished  in  1911.  From  the  time  of  the  Manchu  con 
quest,  Manchuria  has  never  been  more  than  nominally 
a  part  of  China  although  it  has  been  accorded  the  same 
color  on  the  maps  of  our  geographies  as  China  proper. 
The  Japanese  policy  which  has  provoked  this  dis 
cussion  began  with  the  military  intervention  in  Man 
churia  by  the  Japanese  in  September,  1931,  and 
includes  the  establishment  of  the  new  state  of  Man- 
chukuo.  This  policy  has  resulted  in  the  substitution  of 
a  free,  independent,  and  stable  government  capable  of 
discharging  its  international  obligations  in  the  place  of 
the  confusion,  chaos,  Communism,  and  feudalism  which 
characterized  the  regime  of  the  Manchu  war  lords. 
Japan  has  been  condemned  by  the  world  for  aggres 
sions  against  the  sovereignty  of  China,  and  for  jeopard 
izing  the  peace  of  the  world.  We  believe  that  this 
condemnation  is  unjust,  and  is  based  largely  on  inflam 
matory  misinformation  and  anti- Japanese  propaganda 
spread  by  the  press  throughout  the  world.  We  believe 
that  Japan  stands  condemned  before  she  has  been 
proven  guilty,  a  condition  which  is  contrary  to  the  prac 
tice  of  all  the  great  courts  of  justice  in  the  world. 


JAPAN'S  POLICY  IN  MANCHURIA  371 

Furthermore,  we  feel  that  the  nations  of  the  world  by 
their  inactivity,  have  given  tacit  consent  to  the  Japa 
nese  policy  and  that  the  League  of  Nations'  report  con 
cerning  this  policy,  which  was  prejudicial  to  Japan, 
was  used  merely  as  a  sedative  to  quiet  the  feelings  of 
the  people  of  the  world  which  had  been  aroused  by  the 
sensational  betrayal  of  facts  by  the  press.  It  is  for 
these  reasons,  then,  that  we  believe  the  time  has  come 
for  the  nations  openly  to  adjudge  Japan's  policy  to  be 
justifiable.  We  of  the  Affirmative  wish  to  enter  our 
plea  for  the  overt  approbation  of  the  policy  of  Japan 
on  the  grounds  that  it  was  dictated  by  the  law  of  self- 
preservation,  and  that  it  will  redound  to  the  benefit  of 
all  the  world,  including  China. 

The  law  of  self-preservation  dictated  the  Japanese 
policy,  because  Japan  is  economically  dependent  on 
Manchuria.  According  to  the  Lytton  or  League  of 
Nations'  report,  Japan's  population  stood  at  65,000,000 
in  1930  and  was  expanding  at  the  rate  of  900,000 
yearly.  Her  population  per  square  mile  of  arable  land 
was  2,774,  the  densest  in  the  world,  and  in  order  to 
support  this  huge  and  expanding  population  it  was 
necessary  for  Japan  to  industrialize  on  a  large  scale. 
With  such  a  rate  of  population  increase  it  will  be  neces 
sary  for  her  to  industrialize  still  further  in  the  future. 
The  correlaries  of  this  increased  industrialization  are 
well  stated  by  the  Lytton  report  which  says: 

"If  Japan  is  to  find  employment  for  her  increasing  popula 
tion  through  the  process  of  further  industrialization,  the 
development  of  her  export  trade  and  foreign  markets  capa 
ble  of  absorbing  increasing  amounts  of  her  goods  becomes 


372    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

more  and  more  essential.  Such  markets  would  at  the  same 
time  serve  as  a  source  of  supply  of  raw  materials  and  of 
foodstuffs." 

Where,  may  we  ask,  was  Japan  to  find  a  market  and 
source  of  raw  materials  that  would  be  unrestricted  in 
time  of  peace  and  war?  She  had  no  colonies.  In  fact, 
all  the  land  available  for  colonization  had  long  since 
been  acquired  by  such  capitalistic  nations  as  Great 
Britain,  France,  and  the  United  States.  Was  it  not 
natural,  then,  for  Japan  to  seek  special  interests  in  the 
richest  source  of  raw  materials  and  most  potential 
market  in  the  Far  East,  Manchuria,  which  lay  in  her 
own  back  yard?  Shall  we  penalize  Japan  because  she 
awoke  to  her  needs  after  ours  had  been  sated?  Is  not 
such  a  condemnation  doubly  unjust  since  her  policy  is 
not  that  of  colonization  like  Great  Britain's  and 
France's?  Would  we  ask  Great  Britain  to  give  up  her 
colonies  because  she  acquired  them  by  force?  We  feel 
that  the  time  has  come  for  us  to  look  upon  Japan  in  the 
same  light  as  we  look  upon  the  island  kingdom  of  Great 
Britain,  whose  case  closely  parallels  that  of  Japan's. 
Like  Japan,  England  could  not  long  survive  unless  she 
had  an  unrestricted  flow  of  raw  materials  and  ever  open 
markets  in  her  associated  commonwealths.  We  cannot 
conceive  of  Englishmen  starving  through  the  loss  of 
their  colonies.  Neither  should  we  forget  the  fact  that 
the  Japanese  will  starve  unless  they  are  able  to  main 
tain  a  special  position  in  Manchuria. 

Japan  needs  this  special  position  in  Manchuria  also 
because  she  must  defend  her  economic  interests  there 
with  military  force.  She  is  constantly  threatened  by 


JAPAN'S  POLICY  IN  MANCHURIA  373 

Soviet  Russia,  but  since  the  problem  of  the  Red  ad 
vance  is  not  only  a  problem  for  Japan  but  for  the  whole 
world,  I  shall  leave  that  part  of  this  discussion  for  my 
colleague  to  emphasize.  Let  us  not  forget,  however, 
that  it  is  necessary  for  Japan  to  have  strategic  military 
bases  in  Manchuria  to  protect  her  economic  interests 
and  her  life. 

Japan  secured  such  a  position  in  Manchuria  fairly. 
By  the  Portsmouth  treaty  after  the  Russo-Japanese 
War,  (a  war  in  which  Japan  preserved  the  integrity  of 
China),  by  the  famous  1915  agreements,  and  by  various 
later  treaties  certain  rights  were  given  to  her,  rights 
which  she  has  held  for  years.  These  rights,  which  gave 
a  major  share  of  the  exploitation  of  Manchuria  to  Japan, 
include  the  South  Manchurian  Railway  running  through 
central  Manchuria  to  the  sea,  together  with  the  Bright 
to  administer  the  railway  zone,  to  station  guard  troops 
there,  and  to  exploit  contingent  coal  and  iron  mines. 
There  was  also  an  agreement  made  by  China  not  to 
build  parallel  railroads.  Japan  was  also  to  have  the 
first  chance  at  investing  money  in  Manchuria.  She 
secured  by  lease  the  ports  of  Port  Arthur  and  Dairen 
which  have  become  great  trade  centers.  She  has  the 
right  of  extraterritoriality  or  the  privilege  of  having 
court  jurisdiction  over  her  nationals  in  China.  Be 
cause  of  the  rapid  development  attendant  upon  these 
secured  privileges,  Japan  has  over  a  million  nationals 
in  Manchuria,  more  than  any  other  nation  except 
'China;  she  has  invested  seventy-three  per  cent  of  all 
the  money  invested  in  Manchuria;  and  she  handles 
fifty  per  cent  of  the  Manchurian  trade. 


374    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

The  present  Japanese  policy  was  Inaugurated  in  self- 
defense  because  of  the  infringement  of  these  rights 
which  were  vital  to  Japan's  very  life.  Chang  Tso  Lin, 
Manchurian  general,  is  definitely  known  to  have  had 
an  anti-foreign  attitude  in  the  last  years  of  his  life.  He 
built  a  railroad  parallel  to  the  South  Manchurian  Rail 
way  in  order  to  ruin  the  Japanese  enterprise,  although 
China  had  agreed  not  to  build  such  a  road.  Moreover, 
he  took  over  roads  under  joint  control  of  Japanese  and 
Chinese  and  integrated  them  with  his  system,  mean 
while  working  the  far-eastern  plan  whereby  he  and  all 
his  officials  got  their  cut  on  all  freight  shipped  over  its 
lines.  The  fact  that  Chang  Tso  Lin  declared  himself 
independent  of  the  Central  Government  of  China,  and 
fought  that  government,  shows  that  the  government 
officials  were  powerless  to  make  him  abide  by  the 
treaties  they  had  made.  Moreover,  the  Koreans,  sub 
ject  to  all  kinds  of  mistreatment  in  China,  were  not 
permitted  to  lease  land  in  Manchuria  although  they 
were  expressly  given  this  right  by  treaty.  Further 
treaty  violations  came  with  the  demands  for  the  return 
of  Port  Arthur  and  Dairen,  and  the  demand  that  Japan 
withdraw  her  guard  troops  from  the  railway  zone. 
Added  to  this  infringement  of  rights  was  the  boycott 
instituted  against  Japanese  goods  by  the  Chinese  peo 
ple — an  act  which  is  of  itself  often  a  cause  of  war. 
Thus  the  direct  assaults  on  the  Japanese  positions 
around  September  1931  served  only  to  set  off  the  hair- 
trigger  relationship  which  existed  because  of  these 
widespread  treaty  violations.  Japan  at  last  awoke  to 
the  fact  that  she  could  no  longer  sit  back  and  watch 


JAPAN'S  POLICY  IN  MANCHURIA  375 

these  aggressions  on  her  special  position  in  Manchuria 
and  save  her  life.  She  therefore  intervened. 

The  policy  of  intervention  is  legally  justifiable  ac 
cording  to  International  Law  which  states  that:  "Inde 
pendence  may  be  defined  as  the  right  of  a  state  to 
manage  all  its  affairs  whether  internal  or  external  with 
out  the  control  from  other  states."  No  nation  has  the 
right,  then,  to  challenge  Japan's  action.  Moreover, 
the  law  states,  "the  most  important  of  the  fundamental 
rights  of  a  state  is  that  of  existence  which  involves  self- 
preservation  and  defense"  and  "the  right  of  self- 
preservation  includes  the  right  to  preserve  the  integrity 
and  inviolability  of  its  territory,"  and  further  "that 
intervention  for  the  sake  of  self-preservation  Is  a 
fundamental  right  which  takes  precedence  over  all  sys 
tems  of  positive  law  and  custom."  It  can  readily  be 
seen  then  that  Japan  is  fighting  for  her  very  existence, 
and  that  she  has  been  subjected  to  direct  aggressions 
against  her.  I  have  cited  International  Law  to  show 
that  her  policy  is  legally  justifiable.  This  right  of  self- 
preservation  is  more  fundamental  than  any  peace  pact 
she  may  have  been  party  to  because  of  membership  in 
the  League  of  Nations.  Moreover,  lest  the  Negative 
ask  "what  about  China's  independence,"  let  me  say 
that,  even  if  China  were  a  sovereign  nation,  the  policy 
of  Japan  would  still  be  legally  justifiable,  for  the  law 
states  "that  the  right  of  self-preservation  is  even  more 
sacred  than  the  duty  of  respecting  the  independence  of 
others." 

You  may  agree  to  the  legal  justifiability  of  Japan's 
action  and  still  wonder  why  it  was  not  possible  for  an 


376    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

amicable  settlement  to  Have  been  made.  The  fact  is 
that  China  is  no  longer  a  sovereign  nation.  Sover 
eignty  implies,  besides  the  possession  of  land  and  popu 
lation,  that  a  nation  has  a  stable  government  and  that 
this  government  has  the  power  to  impose  its  will  on  its 
people.  The  hope  expressed  in  the  second  article  of 
the  Nine  Power  Pact  that  China  would  put  her  house 
in  order  has  not  been  realized.  It  was  China  that  made 
this  pact  a  scrap  of  paper  by  her  ineptitude.  No  one 
will  deny  that  in  recent  years  she  has  lacked  a  stable 
government.  In  fact  she  was  so  politically  disunited  that 
while  the  Central  or  Nanking  government  claimed  to 
be  in  power,  the  Soviets  were  controlling  outer  Mon 
golia,  the  Communists  were  in  control  of  three  western 
provinces,  the  Canton  government  was  law  unto  itself, 
and  war  lords  ruled  various  provinces,  including  Man 
churia.  Thus  China  could  not  boast  any  central  gov 
ernment.  The  futility  of  arbitrating  with  such  a 
political  topsy-turvydom  is  evident. 

Moreover,  as  I  have  said,  sovereignty  implies  the 
power  of  a  state  to  impose  its  will  upon  its  people.  Po 
litical  disunion  in  China  made  any  such  power  impossi 
ble.  The  fact  that  the  Central  Government  could  not 
impose  its  will  on  the  people  is  shown  by  the  aggres 
sions  against  the  Japanese  position  legally  granted  by 
the  central  government,  by  the  widespread  anti-foreign 
acts  in  China  and  Manchuria,  and  by  the  attacks  on 
the  persons  and  property  of  foreign  nationals.  Great 
Britain  was  forced  to  intervene  in  China  to  protect  her 
nationals  in  1927.  In  fact,  China  is  a  backward  nation 
suffering  from  the  blights  of  Communism,  hatred  of 


JAPAN'S  POLICY  IN  MANCHURIA  377 

foreigners,  and  chaotic  and  corrupt  government.  It 
would  be  foolish  for  us  to  believe  that  any  such  pseudo- 
state  was  a  sovereign  nation,  or  one  capable  of  arbi 
trating  the  present  controversy  with  Japan  and  then 
abiding  by  the  decisions  of  such  a  settlement. 

I  have  shown  that  Japan's  needs  justified  the  acquisi 
tion  of  her  special  position  in  Manchuria,  and  that  her 
defense  of  this  position  is  justified  by  the  dicta  of  In 
ternational  Law.  Therefore,  we  favor  Japan's  policy 
in  Manchuria. 


First  Negative,  Samuel  Barker 
Bucknell  University 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  "When  there  is  a  fire  In  a 
jewelry  shop  the  neighbors  cannot  be  expected  to  re 
frain  from  helping  themselves/3  is  an  old  Japanese 
saying  which  seems  to  be  especially  applicable  to  the 
present  policy  which  is  being  pursued  by  the  Nipponese 
government  in  Manchuria.  According  to  the  first 
speaker  for  the  Affirmative,  Japan  is  justified  in  using 
force  because  she  can  use  the  products  of  Manchuria. 
In  other  words,  need  is  a  justification  for  robbery. 

Since  1894,  when  the  first  Sino-Japanese  difficulties 
arose,  Japanese  publicists  have  attempted  to  justify 
Japan's  policy  on  the  grounds  that  possession  of  Man 
churia  was  necessary  for  economic  and  military  rea 
sons.  The  preceding  speaker  has  substantially  fol 
lowed  these  lines,  although  he  has  overlooked  the  fact 
that  China  has  her  needs  too.  We  may  well  pause  at 
this  moment  and  ask,  what  about  the  national  existence 


378    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

of  China,  the  national  defense  of  China,  and  the  eco 
nomic  requirements  of  China? 

The  claim  of  China  over  Manchuria  has  been  un 
disputed  for  nearly  300  years.  On  July  13,  1928,  Sir 
Austin  Chamberlain  declared  that  England  considered 
Manchuria  a  part  of  China,  while  on  May  21  of  the 
same  year  Frank  B.  Kellogg,  then  Secretary  of  State, 
said:  "As  far  as  the  United  States  is  concerned,  Man 
churia  is  essentially  Chinese."  In  1922  Manchuria 
was  definitely  recognized  as  part  of  China  at  the  Wash 
ington  Conference  and  has  always  been  so  considered 
by  the  League  of  Nations,  So  we  see  that  not  only 
China  but  also  the  rest  of  the  world  recognizes  China's 
claim  to  Manchuria. 

Since  the  establishment  of  the  Ching  dynasty,  Chi 
nese  people  have  been  peacefully  colonizing  Manchuria. 
Today  ninety-seven  per  cent  of  the  people  in  Man 
churia  are  Chinese.  Moreover,  the  language  and  cus 
toms  of  the  Manchus  and  Chinese  are  identical,  while 
inter-marriage  has  established  similar  traditions  for  all 

Although  Japan  claims  that  she  needs  strategic  mili 
tary  bases  in  Manchuria,  we  cannot  overlook  the  fact 
that  Manchuria  is  China's  outpost  against  penetration 
from  the  North  and  from  the  East,  Chinese  history 
proves  conclusively  that  her  security  depends  upon  a 
protected  northern  boundary.  Japan's  recent  advance 
to  the  Great  Wall  is  in  itself  sufficient  proof  of  the  im 
portance  to  China  of  a  well  protected  northern  frontier. 

The  first  speaker  has  emphasized  the  economic  needs 
of  Japan,  yet  the  fact  that  Manchuria  is  of  vital  eco 
nomic  importance  to  China  does  not  enter  into  his 


JAPAN'S  POLICY  IN  MANCHURIA  379 

survey.  Over  500,000  Chinese  annually  settle  in  Man 
churia,  while  approximately  the  same  number  of  Chi 
nese  outside  of  Manchuria  depend  upon  her  for 
seasonal  employment.  China,  as  well  as  Japan,  needs 
coal,  iron,  and  food  for  her  crowded  population. 

Let  us  analyze  the  case  advanced  by  the  Affirmative 
thus  far.  They  maintain  that  Japan  needs  the  re 
sources  of  Manchuria;  and  they  say  that  this  need 
justifies  Japanese  aggression.  I  have  pointed  out  that 
Manchuria  is  an  integral  part  of  China,  and  that  China 
also  needs  Manchuria.  Shall  Manchuria  go  to  Japan 
merely  because  she  is  more  powerful?  The  entire 
justification  of  Japan's  policy  is  based  upon  the  fact 
that  she  needs  Manchuria.  Well,  so  does  China,  and 
what  is  more  important,  Manchuria  belongs  to  China. 

The  opening  speaker  for  the  Opposition  has  told  you 
that  Japan  has  special  interests  in  Manchuria  which 
she  secured  as  a  result  of  certain  treaties,  notably  the 
Protocol  of  1905  and  the  1915  agreements.  At  the 
same  time  he  has  told  you  that  China  is  no  longer  a 
sovereign  state.  Yet  he  asserts  that  the  reason  Japan 
has  invaded  China  is  that  these  treaty  rights  are  not 
being  carried  out.  If  China  is  not  a  sovereign  state, 
how  can  Japan  have  a  treaty  with  her?  However,  let 
us  waive  this  question  for  the  time  and  look  into  the 
actual  making  of  these  "treaties." 

China  has  never  recognized  the  existence  of  the  1905 
Protocols.  She  maintains  that  the  provisions  referred 
to  in  the  agreement  were  discussed  at  the  Conference, 
but  were  never  sanctioned  by  any  Chinese  government 


380    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

The  statement  made  by  C.  Walter  Young,  after  a  study 
of  the  controversy,  is  highly  illuminating: 

"It  is  conspicuous  that  where  the  treaty  and  additional 
agreements  of  1905  appear  in  the  official  Japanese  Foreign 
Treaty  collections  there  is  no  version,  either  in  French, 
Japanese  or  Chinese,  or  any  language,  of  such  'Protocols.7  " 

And  so  we  see  that  as  far  as  this  treaty  is  concerned, 
Japan  is  attempting  to  enforce  a  document  which  she 
herself  introduced  and  which  was  never  accepted  by 
the  nation  upon  which  she  is  attempting  to  enforce  it. 
The  1915  agreements  have  also  been  mentioned. 
Let  us  see  just  what  these  famed  twenty-one  demands 
included.  First,  they  asked  for  railroad  mining,  and 
concession  rights  in  Shantung.  Second,  they  asked  for 
an  extension  to  ninety-nine  years  of  the  leases  of  Port 
Arthur,  Dairen,  the  Southern  Manchurian  railroad,  the 
management  and  control  of  the  Kiren-Changchun  rail 
road,  and  other  exclusive  railroad  and  mining  rights, 
and  priority  in  investments.  All  these  leases  were  un 
conditionally  renewable.  Japan  could  extend  the  life 
of  the  leases  indefinitely  although  China  opposed  such 
action.  Third,  they  demanded  the  control  of  China's 
main  source  of  iron  and  coal.  Fourth,  they  demanded 
special  concessions  on  the  coast  of  China.  And  finally, 
they  demanded  that  China  should  have  Japanese  police 
and  that  China  should  employ  Japanese  advisors  in 
financial,  political,  and  military  affairs.  Only  five 
months  previous  to  these  demands,  the  Premier  of 
Japan  had  made  the  following  statement: 


JAPAN'S  POLICY  IN  MANCHURIA  381 

"Japan  has  no  ulterior  motive,  no  desire  to  secure  more 
territory,  no  thought  of  depriving  China  or  other  people  of 
anything  which  they  now  possess." 

Let  us  briefly  examine  the  situation  as  it  then  existed 
throughout  the  world.  The  rest  of  the  world  was  at 
war;  the  1905  Portsmouth  "rights"  would  expire  in 
1923.  Japan  had  no  particular  justification  for  making 
the  Demands.  China  had  done  nothing  against  Japan; 
there  had  been  no  grievances  and  no  quarrel.  Well 
aware  of  the  unjust  action  which  she  was  taking,  Japan 
demanded  secrecy  of  China  and  attempted  to  keep  the 
world  uninformed  as  to  the  content  and  character  of 
the  Demands.  China  has  never  accepted  responsibility 
for  this  treaty  which  was  forced  upon  her  by  the  Japa 
nese  military  machine. 

Under  the  guise  of  so-called  treaties  Japan  has  in 
vaded  China  and  has  struck  at  the  very  heart  of  her 
sovereignty.  Immediately  after  the  capture  of  Muk 
den,  a  Japanese  mayor  was  appointed.  The  Mukden 
Telegraph  office  is  now  controlled  by  Japanese  as  is  the 
Chinese  Post  Office.  The  Bank  of  The  Three  Eastern 
Provinces,  the  official  organ  of  the  former  Chinese  ad- 
minstration,  was  taken  over  by  the  Japanese  military 
officials.  The  Pen-Chi  Hu  Coal  Mine,  previously  a 
Sino- Japanese  enterprise,  was  forcibly  taken  by  the 
Japanese;  while  the  Mukden  Electric  Light  Company 
constructed  and  operated  by  the  Chinese,  was  likewise 
confiscated.  At  Shanghai,  the  Japanese  destroyed  the 
huge  printing  presses  which  were  used  to  write  the  text 
books  for  the  Chinese  schools.  And  so  we  might 


382    THE  YEAS  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

enumerate  endless  similar  actions,  all  done  to  "protect 
Japanese  special  interests." 

The  first  speaker  for  the  Affirmative  has  claimed 
that  the  Chinese  government  is  not  sovereign  because  it 
cannot  prevent  lawlessness  in  Manchuria;  however,  he 
evades  the  fact  that  the  Japanese  army  is  creating 
bandits  rather  than  establishing  order.  The  farmers 
who  are  driven  off  the  land  are  compelled  to  resort  to 
robbery  in  order  to  survive.  The  cruelty  of  the  Japa 
nese  soldiers  in  Manchuria  is  well  illustrated  by  the 
following  incident  related  by  Stanley  K.  Hornbeck: 

"Here  (Changli),  as  a  result  of  a  quarrel  between  a  soldier 
of  the  Japanese  railway  guard  and  a  Chinese  fruit-vender, 
the  former  refusing  to  pay  the  latter  for  wares  he  was  con 
suming,  Japanese  guards  set  upon  and  killed  five  Chinese 
policemen.  The  investigation  which  followed  show  that  the 
Japanese  were  clearly  the  aggressors  and  had  acted  with 
wanton  brutality." 

The  Japanese  established  an  independent  state  in 
Manchukuo  by  threatening  the  Chinese  officials.  Sher 
wood  Eddy,  in  his  report  of  the  Japanese  invasion  of 
Manchuria,  points  out  that  several  prominent  Chinese 
leaders  were  approached  by  Japanese  officials  who 
attempted  to  force  them  to  establish  a  new  government. 
Some  Chinese  statesmen  have  yielded  to  this  use  of 
force  and  are  now  being  referred  to  as  advocates  of 
the  new  regime. 

Briefly,  then,  here  is  the  situation:  Japan  claims  that 
she  has  certain  special  treaty  rights  in  China;  China 
contends  that  the  treaties  are  illegal  and  refuses  to  be 
governed  by  their  provisions.  We  have  attempted  to 


JAPAN'S  POLICY  IN  MANCHURIA  383 

show  you  the  Chinese  position;  our  Opponents  are 
giving  you  the  Japanese  angle.  However,  regardless 
of  which  party  is  right  in  the  treaty  controversies,  our 
contention  is  that  armed  force  is  not  a  justifiable 
method  of  settling  this  dispute. 

Naturally  during  an  international  crisis,  the  states 
men  of  the  conflicting  countries  are  prone  to  write  "air 
tight"  cases  in  justification  of  their  individual  states. 
We  have  seen  that  this  is  especially  true  in  regard  to 
both  China  and  Japan.  Now  it  is  our  purpose  to  at 
tempt  to  get  above  this  dogmatic  attitude  and  to  try  to 
discuss  this  matter  upon  the  fundamental  issues  of  the 
case. 

We  have  two  nations  each  demanding  a  certain  sec 
tion  of  land.  Both  countries  need  the  province  for 
economic  and  military  positions.  One  country  has  an 
undisputed  priority  right  to  the  contested  area,  while 
the  other  country — more  powerful — claims  a  special 
position  as  a  result  of  certain  treaties.  These  treaties 
are  contested  by  one  of  the  parties  and  the  second 
party  is  attempting  to  set  herself  up  as  a  judge  in  a 
dispute  in  which  she  herself  is  involved.  It  is  not  only 
Japan's  action  that  is  on  trial,  it  is  the  well-known 
policy  of  imperialism  and  exploitation  that  is  at  stake 
in  this  dispute! 

We  do  not  believe  that  it  is  our  duty  to  settle  these 
controversies  at  this  time.  What  treaties  are  valid  and 
what  treaties  have  been  violated  are  questions  which 
must  be  settled  by  an  impartial  international  body. 
But  we  contend  that  the  use  of  force  by  Japan  to  settle 
these  disputes  is  unjust  and  unfair  to  China. 


384    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

In  conclusion,  let  me  remind  you  of  our  contentions 
this  evening.  First,  we  believe  that  Manchuria  is  an 
integral  part  of  the  Chinese  empire  and  belongs  to 
China.  Second,  we  feel  that  the  Japanese  invasion  of 
China  to  enforce  treaties  which  she  alone  claims  are 
legal,  strikes  at  the  very  heart  of  China's  sovereignty, 
and  is  unjust  to  any  sovereign  country. 


Second  Affirmative,  Franklin  H.  Cook 
Bucknell  University 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  Let  us  pause  a  moment  to 
analyze  the  statements  of  the  previous  speaker.  His 
argument  rested  upon  two  main  contentions:  first,  the 
invasion  of  Manchuria  by  Japan  is  detrimental  to  the 
interests  of  China;  and  second,  Japan's  claims  to  a 
"special  position"  in  Manchuria  conflict  with  China's 
sovereign  rights  and  policies.  The  first  point  the 
speaker  of  the  Negative  attempted  to  substantiate  by 
claiming  that  Manchuria  for  nearly  300  years  has  been 
recognized  as  a  part  of  China.  Replying  to  this  argu 
ment  we  contend  that  the  only  relationship  between 
China  and  Manchuria  has  been  that  incurred  through 
alliance.  Previous  to  1644,  Manchuria  was  an  inde 
pendent  state;  then  when  the  Manchus  conquered 
China,  China  became  a  part  of  the  Manchurian  em 
pire;  Manchuria  did  not  become  a  part  of  the  Chinese 
empire.  Until  1912  Manchuria  always  had  an  emperor 
independent  of  China.  For  purposes  of  safety  and 
defense  he  found  it  to  his  convenience  to  enter  into 
alliances  with  China.  However,  in  1912  Emperor  Pu 


JAPAN'S  POLICY  IN  MANCHURIA  385 

Yi  of  Manchuria  was  dethroned  by  Feng,  the  leader  of 
the  Chinese  Revolution.  Since  that  date  independent 
war-lords  have  ruled  Manchuria,  at  times  asserting 
their  independence  from  China,  at  times,  for  strength, 
making  alliances  with  the  national  government  of  China 
and  the  northern  Chinese  war  lords.  On  the  basis  of 
these  flimsy  alliances  China  claims  sovereignty  over 
Manchuria.  Now,  Japan  has  returned  to  the  deposed 
emperor  of  the  Manchus,  Pu  Yi,  his  state,  freed  from 
the  influences  of  the  Nanking  government. 

The  Negative  speaker  has  supported  his  argument 
further,  concerning  the  detrimental  effect  to  China  of 
Japan's  policy  in  Manchuria  by  contending  that  the 
Chinese  colonists  have  emigrated  to  Manchuria,  and 
that  Manchuria  is  of  vital  economic  importance  to 
China.  The  first  point  we  refute  by  simply  stating 
that  it  is  an  invalid  argument;  for,  if  we  should  pursue 
the  same  line  of  reasoning  we  should  have  to  argue  that 
Southeastern  Pennsylvania  should  belong  to  Germany 
because  of  the  predominance  of  inhabitants  who  possess 
German  blood  in  their  veins;  the  second  assertion,  re 
garding  the  economic  importance  of  Manchuria  to 
China,  which  our  Opponent  stressed  so  heavily,  we 
refute  by  stating  that  the  economic  stability  of  Man 
churia  is  more  important  to  an  industrial  Japan  than  to 
an  agricultural  China  which  at  present  has  only  fifteen 
per  cent  of  its  tillable  land  under  cultivation,  and  that, 
in  the  future,  Chinese  economic  relations  with  Man 
churia  will  not  be  restrained  but  should  grow  greater 
each  year  because  of  the  stability  of  the  Manchukuo 
state. 


386    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

At  this  time,  in  order  to  advance  the  Affirmative 
case  further,  we  shall  defer  answering  the  preceding 
speaker's  second  point,  that  Japan's  claims  to  a  "spe 
cial  position"  in  Manchuria  conflict  with  China's  sov 
ereign  rights  and  policies.  This  point  we  shall  answer 
in  rebuttal. 

Briefly,  for  a  moment,  let  me  summarize  the  Affirma 
tive  case  as  it  now  stands:  first,  we  have  shown  by  legal 
precedent  that  self-defensive  intervention  is  recognized 
by  all  international  tribunals;  then,  we  have  shown 
that  Japan  is  fighting  self-defensively  in  Manchuria. 
No  international  tribunal  may  order  a  nation  to  com 
mit  suicide;  no  power  is  restrained  from  entering  a 
foreign  country  to  protect  its  nationals;  no  nation  in 
the  world  today  can  question  Japan's  right  to  enter 
Manchuria  as  a  defensive  measure  against  Russia. 
England  has  her  lowland  countries  of  Belgium  and  the 
Netherlands  to  protect  her  from  Europe;  she  has  her 
Gibraltar,  Egypt,  and  Palestine  to  protect  India. 
France  has  her  Little  Entente.  The  United  States  has 
her  Cuba,  Puerto  Rico,  Haiti,  Santo  Domingo,  Panama, 
and  the  Monroe  Doctrine  to  protect  her.  Japan  has  no 
protection  against  Russia;  Manchukuo  will  serve  as 
an  independent  "buffer"  state.  On  anyone  of  the  afore 
mentioned  grounds,  which  were  established  in  the  open 
ing  speech  and  which  I  have  repeated  here  for 
emphasis,  Japan's  policy  in  Manchuria  is  legally  justifi 
able. 

However,  now  that  we  have  established  that  the 
present  policy  of  Japan  in  Manchuria  is  beneficial  to 
Japan,  let  us  see  the  results  of  this  action  upon  the  rest 


JAPAN'S  POLICY  IN  MANCHURIA  387 

of  the  world  and  especially  upon  China  and  Manchuria. 
From  a  brief  survey  of  the  Japanese  policy  we  note  that 
Japan's  action  will  save  the  Far  East  from.  Commu 
nism,  that  the  establishment  of  a  stable  government  in 
Manchuria  will  mean  a  resumption  of  the  open-door 
policy  in  that  state,  and  finally,  that  world  peace  will 
be  enhanced  by  friendly  relations  between  Manchuria 
and  Japan. 

Japan  has  entered  Manchuria  to  keep  Russia  out. 
Japan  fears  Russia  as  a  nation,  but  she  fears  her  more 
because  of  the  close  relationship  between  the  Third 
International  and  the  Soviet.  Japan  has  been  alarmed 
at  the  rapid  strides  of  Communism  throughout  the  East. 
The  weak,  disorganized  governments  of  China  have 
been  toys  in  the  hands  of  Moscow.  With  the  sanction 
of  the  Chinese  governments,  Communism  has  spread 
throughout  China.  Authorities  now  agree  that  half  of 
China  is  Communistic.  Outer  Mongolia,  a  Chinese 
province,  in  area  larger  than  Manchuria,  has  become 
unofficially  part  of  the  United  States  of  Soviet  Russia. 
Chinese  are  forbidden  within  its  borders.  Russian  offi 
cials  administer  its  government;  Russian  officers  train 
its  army;  Russian  engineers  run  Russian  railways  to 
the  Chinese  borders;  Russian  schools  teach  Chinese 
students  the  lessons  of  Communism,  and  then  send 
them  into  China  and  Manchuria  to  boycott  the  for 
eigner,  destroy  foreign  capitalistic  interests,  and  to 
demolish  Chinese  civilization  by  pillage  and  slaughter. 
The  Chinese  officials  who  have  realized  the  dangers  of 
Communism  have  been  too  weak  to  check  the  rapid 
spread  of  the  Red  Menace.  A  few  sporadic  raids  have 


388    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

been  the  only  measures  taken  by  the  fighting  war  lords 
to  check  the  impending  danger.  For  the  last  five  years 
Japan  has  seen  Chinese  war  lords  fighting  in  all  parts 
of  chaotic  China  for  the  spoils  of  a  corrupt  government, 
entirely  oblivious  of  the  powder  magazine  which  the 
Communists  have  been  placing  directly  beneath  their 
feet.  Realizing  that  it  would  be  dangerous  if  she  waited 
two  years  until  the  two  big  Siberian  steel  mills  had 
been  completed,  and  faced  with  the  actual  fact  that  the 
Trans-Siberian  railway  had  been  double-tracked,  Japan 
decided  that  to  act  now  was  the  only  means  by  which 
she  could  protect  herself  from  being  embroiled  in  a 
world  conflict  with  Russia  within  the  next  five  years. 
Japan  has  acted,  and  from  the  world  point  of  view  she 
has  acted  wisely,  for  if  she  can  check  Communism  she 
can  save  the  Far  East  from  a  Communistic  Revolution. 
The  other  nations  of  the  world  should  applaud  Japan 
for  fighting  their  battles  for  them;  but  they  are  too 
engrossed  with  tariffs,  with  war  debts,  and  with  the 
depression  to  realize  the  true  status  of  affairs  in  the 
Far  East.  Like  the  Chinese  generals  they  have  failed 
to  heed  the  warning  against  the  Red  Menace  as  pointed 
out  by  such  Far  Eastern  authorities  as  Sherwood  Eddy, 
George  Sokolsky,  and  G.  B.  Rea. 

Japan,  if  she  can  maintain  her  position  in  Manchuria, 
constitutes  an  effectual  barrier  to  the  spread  of  Com 
munism.  But  her  presence  in  Manchuria  means  more 
than  that  to  the  inhabitants  of  that  state  and  to  the 
foreign  nations  having  relations  with  her.  To  the  in 
habitants  Japan  gives  a  stable  government — a  govern- 


JAPAN'S  POLICY  IN  MANCHURIA  389 

ment  free  from  bandits,  from  Communists,  from  war 
lords,  from  corrupt  officials. 

These  are  replaced  by  free  schools,  free  clinics,  hospi 
tals,  and  a  unified  government  supported  by  an  efficient 
police  force.  A  stable  Manchuria  means  prosperity 
and  freedom  from  danger  to  the  Soya  bean  farmer. 
But  further,  the  well-being  of  the  Manchurians  means 
the  well-being  of  the  500,000  Chinese  and  the  millions 
of  Japanese  dependent  upon  these  farmers  for  their 
livelihood.  Previous  to  Japan's  entrance  into  Man 
churia  the  government  in  control  of  Manchuria  had 
violated  the  open-door  policy,  which  was  sought  so 
eagerly  by  the  nations  of  the  world  in  the  Nine  Power 
Pact  of  1922.  Japan's  entrance  into  Manchuria  has 
re-established  the  open-door  policy,  giving  to  every 
nation,  England,  France,  the  United  States,  Germany, 
all  the  nations  of  the  world,  as  well  as  China  and  Japan 
the  right  to  participate  in  the  trade  which  naturally 
results  from  a  prosperous  nation,  a  prosperous  Man 
churia. 

We  have  been  considering  the  effects  of  Japan's 
policy  upon  the  world  generally.  First,  we  have  seen 
that  Japan's  penetration  into  Manchuria  constitutes  an 
obstacle  to  a  Communistic  Revolution  in  the  East;  sec 
ond,  we  have  noted  the  economic  benefits  of  the  estab 
lishment  of  a  stable  government  in  Manchuria.  Now 
let  us  regard  from  a  different  point  of  view  the  benefits 
of  Japan's  action  to  the  world,  especially  to  England 
and  the  United  States.  Because  of  the  pressure  of  an 
increasing  population,  Japan  for  the  last  decade  has 
been  a  threat  to  the  peace  of  the  world.  Ten  years  ago 


390    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

because  of  the  population  pressure  in  Japan  the  United 
States  and  Japan  almost  had  war.  Since  1924  condi 
tions  in  Japan  have  not  improved;  they  have  become 
more  acute.  Japan,  in  the  past  kept  from  the  United 
States,  from  the  English  domains,  from  China,  and 
from  Manchuria,  had  to  have  an  outlet  somewhere  for 
her  increasing  population.  Instead  of  turning  her  face 
to  the  West  she  turned  to  the  East  and  made  a  place 
for  herself  in  the  "reservoir/7  Manchuria.  Previous 
to  the  establishment  of  Manchukuo,  Manchuria  was 
closed  to  the  Japanese;  now  they  may  emigrate  to  that 
nation  freely  or  if  they  do  not  wish  to  settle  in  it  they 
may  have  access  to  the  raw  materials  of  its  vast  domain, 
which  as  an  industrial  state  will  help  Japan  to  support 
her  huge  population  at  home.  The  establishment  of 
friendly  relations  between  Japan  and  Manchukuo 
means  that  the  threat  of  a  future  war  with  Japan  has 
been  removed  from  the  minds  of  English  and  American 
statesmen.  Peace  has  been  re-established  in  the  East, 
for  in  Manchuria  Japan  has  found  an  outlet  for  her 
excess  population. 

In  conclusion,  let  us  review  Japan's  position  in  Man 
churia.  First,  we  see  that  she  is  fighting  self- 
defensively  for  her  economic  self-preservation  as  a 
national  state,  for  the  protection  of  her  nationals,  and 
for  the  prevention  of  Russian  encroachment.  Self- 
defense  is  the  primary  law  of  nature;  it  is  the  primary 
law  of  International  Law.  Self-defensive  action  is  al 
ways  justifiable.  We  have  seen  that  Japan's  policy  in 
Manchuria  is  beneficial  to  Japan.  Let  us  summarize 
the  benefits  of  Japan's  policy  to  the  other  nations  of 


JAPAN'S  POLICY  IN  MANCHURIA  391 

the  world.  First,  Japan  is  fighting  the  world's  fight 
against  Communism,  and  the  world  will  benefit  from, 
the  Japanese  barrier  erected  against  Communism. 
Second,  the  establishment  of  a  stable  government  in 
Manchuria  benefits  not  only  that  state  but  also  the 
nations  having  trade  relations  with  Manchukuo. 
Finally,  the  overflow  of  the  Japanese  population  into 
Manchuria  removes  the  threat  of  Japan,  fighting  under 
population  pressure,  to  the  peace  of  the  world.  There 
fore,  Japan's  policy  in  Manchuria  is  justifiable. 


Second  Negative,  Robert  N.  Cook 
Bucknell  University 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  We  have  been  told  that 
Japan  is  the  hero  in  a  great  drama  which  is  now  being 
enacted.  The  first  speaker  of  the  Affirmative  tried  to 
separate  Manchuria  from  China.  We  of  the  Negative 
cannot  agree  with  such  an  interpretation  of  history. 
My  colleague  has  shown  that  Manchuria  is  an  integral 
part  of  China,  inhabited  by  ninety-seven  per  cent  Chi 
nese  and  recognized  by  the  nations  of  the  world  as 
part  of  the  territory  of  China,  having  similar  customs, 
language,  and  traditions.  Only  our  opponents  and 
Japan  contend  that  Manchuria  and  China  are  two 
separate  and  distinct  nations.  The  burden  of  proof 
rests  upon  the  Affirmative  to  establish  the  fact  that 
China  and  Manchuria,  or  should  I  say  Manchukuo, 
are  separate  states. 

Then  with  typical  Japanese  logic,  our  opponents 
tried  to  prove  that  Japan  is  fighting  in  self-defense,  and 


392    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

for  the  benefit  of  the  world.  We  believe  that  the  best 
way  to  help  China  form  a  stable  government  is  not  by 
taking  part  of  her  territory  and  disrupting  her  social, 
economic,  and  political  life,  but  by  cooperating  with 
her  in  arbitration  conferences.  Japan  has  refused  to 
arbitrate  when  China  was  willing  to  do  so.  We  believe 
that  the  method  of  settlement  used  by  Japan,  force,  is 
not  only  detrimental  to  China,  but  also  to  the  peace 
and  welfare  of  the  nations  of  the  world.  Japan  has 
violated  the  Covenant  of  the  League  of  Nations,  the 
Nine  Power  Pact,  and  the  Kellogg  Peace  Pact.  These 
pacts  or  treaties  were  established  to  protect  the  peace 
and  welfare  of  the  nations  of  the  world.  Any  power 
which  acts  in  such  a  manner  as  to  violate  any  or  all  of 
these  treaties  is  a  menace  to  world  peace.  Such  a 
power  is  Japan.  Japan  signed  the  Covenant  of  the 
League  of  Nations,  which  provides  in  Article  X  "The 
Members  of  the  League  undertake  to  respect  and  pre 
serve  as  against  external  aggression  the  territorial  in 
tegrity  and  existing  political  independence  of  all  mem 
bers  of  the  League.  In  case  of  any  such  aggression,  the 
Council  shall  advise  upon  the  means  by  which  this 
obligation  shall  be  fulfilled."  China  is  also  a  member 
of  the  League  of  Nations,  and  is  safe-guarded  by  treaty 
against  aggression.  The  League  recognized  and  con 
tinues  to  recognize  China  as  a  sovereign,  independent 
state  whose  territorial  rights,  which  include  Manchuria, 
should  not  be  violated.  The  invasion  of  Chinese  terri 
tory  by  the  Japanese  military  forces  is  an  offense 
against  China  and  against  all  members  of  the  League. 
Also,  Japan  has  broken  the  Nine  Power  Pact,  a  pact 


JAPAN'S  POLICY  IN  MANCHURIA  393 

signed  in  1922  by  the  nine  leading  nations  in  the  Pacific 
—the  United  States,  Great  Britain,  France,  Belgium, 
Italy,  The  Netherlands,  Portugal,  and  Japan.  Article  1 
reads: 

"The  contracting  powers,  other  than  China,  agree: 

1.  "To  respect  the  sovereignty,  the  independency,  and  the 
territorial  and  administrative  integrity  of  China; 

2.  "To  provide  the  fullest  and  most  unembarrassed  oppor 
tunity  to  China  to  develop  and  maintain  for  herself  an  effec 
tive  and  stable  Government; 

3.  "To  use  their  influence  for  the  purpose  of  effectually 
establishing  and  maintaining  the  principle  of  equal  oppor 
tunity  for  the  commerce  and  industry  of  all  nations  through 
out  the  territory  of  China; 

4.  "To  refrain  from  taking  advantage  of  conditions  in 
China  in  order  to  seek  special  rights  or  privileges  which 
would  abridge  the  rights  of  subjects  or  citizens  of  friendly 
States,  and  from  countenancing  action  inimical  to  the  se 
curity  of  such  States." 

This  last  provision  which  prohibits  the  securing  of  spe 
cial  privileges  in  China  was  placed  in  the  treaty  because 
Japan  had  demanded  special  rights  in  China.  Today 
Japan  bases  her  action  upon  certain  special  privileges 
which  she  claims  in  Manchuria  although  such  rights 
are  denied  to  her  by  the  treaty  of  1922  which  estab 
lished  the  open  door  policy  for  China. 

In  1928  Japan  signed  the  Kellogg  Peace  Pact,  which 
reads: 

ARTICLE  I 

"The  High  Contracting  Parties  solemnly  declare  in  the 
names  of  their  respective  peoples  that  they  condemn  recourse 


394    THE  YEAS  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

to  war  for  the  solution  of  international  controversies,  and 
renounce  it  as  an  instrument  of  national  policy  in  their  rela 
tions  with  one  another. 

ARTICLE  II 

"The  High  Contracting  Parties  agree  that  the  settlement 
or  solution  of  all  disputes  or  conflicts  of  whatever  origin 
they  may  be,  which  may  arise  among  them,  shall  never  be 
sought  except  by  pacific  means." 

Fifty-six  nations  signed  this  pact  renouncing  war. 
The  aggressive  policy  of  Japan  in  Manchuria  is  an 
offense  against  practically  every  nation  in  the  world, 
and  a  threat  to  world  peace. 

We  admit  that  every  nation  has  the  right  to  protect 
itself  against  aggression  or  destruction;  but  we  deny 
that  Japan  is  fighting  a  defensive  war.  According  to 
International  Law  and  practice  a  nation  may  legally 
defend  itself  only  when  It  has  been  attacked  or  when 
there  is  a  threat  of  immediate,  impending,  irreparable 
injury  and  for  these  purposes  alone.  Japan  was  not 
attacked  by  the  Chinese  forces;  neither  was  she  threat 
ened  with  immediate  and  irreparable  damage.  The 
Chinese  sentries  on  duty  at  Mukden  carried  dummy 
guns  so  that  they  could  not  fire,  thus  giving  the  Japa 
nese  an  excuse  to  take  Manchuria.  Unfortunately,  on 
the  night  of  September  18,  1931,  some  one,  no  one 
knows  who,  dynamited  the  South  Manchurian  Rail 
way.  About  a  foot  of  track  was  blown  out  at  ten 
o'clock  at  night,  but  the  train  crossed  the  damaged 
track  and  arrived  unharmed  and  on  time  at  the  station. 
However,  the  Japanese  soldiers  had  reported  to  Japa- 


JAPAN'S  POLICY  IN  MANCHURIA  395 

nese  headquarters  that  the  South  Manchurian  Railway 
had  been  dynamited;  Japanese  headquarters  immedi 
ately  put  into  execution  a  well-planned  attack  upon  the 
Chinese  garrisons  in  Manchuria.  Many  garrisons 
were  taken  with  practically  no  resistance  being  given 
by  the  Chinese,  because  they  had  been  commanded  not 
to  resist,  thus  provoking  hostilities. 

The  Japanese  people  had  been  aroused  by  inflamma 
tory  propaganda  against  the  Chinese  spread  through 
the  Japanese  newspapers  and  through  the  use  of  hand 
bills.  The  use  of  military  force  on  September  18,  1931, 
was  entirely  unwarranted.  Such  action  did  not  prove 
who  bombed  the  railway,  nor  was  it  necessary  to  protect 
Japanese  nationals  against  a  threatening  danger.  The 
incident  was  a  subject  for  arbitration,  not  war. 

The  Japanese  military  organization  is  like  a  certain 
Captain  Moir  who  owned  a  piece  of  property  in  a  small 
community.  He  first  warned  the  people  of  the  neigh 
borhood  not  to  trespass  on  his  property.  When  they 
did  not  obey  his  command,  he  seized  his  gun  and  killed 
a  young  man.  The  Captain  was  tried  for  murder,  con 
victed,  and  hanged.  The  moral  of  this  case  in  criminal 
law  is  that  no  person  should  assume  the  power  of  en 
forcing  his  imagined  rights.  Captain  Moir  should  have 
called  a  policeman;  Japan  should  have  appealed  to  the 
League  of  Nations,  a  qualified  and  proper  tribunal  to 
settle  international  disputes  to  determine  who  dyna 
mited  the  railway. 

The  League  of  Nations  appointed  the  Lytton  Com 
mission,  a  committee  of  neutrals,  to  investigate  and  to 
study  the  Japanese  invasion  of  Manchuria.  Japan  was 


396    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

willing  at  that  time  to  have  such  a  committee  study  the 
facts  of  the  case.  However,  when  the  Lytton  Commis 
sion  reported  against  Japan,  the  Japanese  protested, 
claiming  that  they  alone  were  competent  to  decide 
whether  they  had  acted  in  self-defense.  Permit  me  to 
read  a  statement  made  by  the  then  Secretary  of  State, 
Mr.  Frank  B.  Kellogg,  in  connection  with  the  Kellogg 
Peace  Pact:  "Every  nation  is  free  at  all  times  and  re 
gardless  of  treaty  provisions  to  defend  its  territory  from 
attack  or  invasion,  and  it  alone  is  competent  to  decide 
whether  circumstances  require  recourse  to  war  in  self- 
defense.  If  it  has  a  good  case  the  world  will  applaud 
and  not  condemn  its  action."  The  Japanese  statesmen 
have  often  quoted  this  same  statement,  but  they  always 
forget  to  add  the  last  sentence, — "If  it  has  a  good  case 
the  world  mtt  applaud  and  not  condemn  its  action." 
This  statement  means  that  each  nation  has  the  power 
to  act  in  what  it  considers  self-defense,  but  the  action 
will  be  judged  by  the  world  through  the  proper  tribunal, 
being  praised  if  just,  condemned  if  unjust.  The  Coun 
cil  of  the  League  of  Nations,  a  proper  tribunal, 
considered  the  action  of  Japan  in  Manchuria  and  con 
demned  it. 

Japan  has  been  condemned  by  the  world  for  her 
policy  in  Manchuria  because  she  is  fighting  a  war  of 
aggression.  When  a  nation  uses  military  power  to 
force  upon  another  nation  her  demands,  that  nation  is 
pursuing  a  policy  of  aggression.  Japan  maintained  her 
troops  in  Manchuria,  and  has  continued  to  invade  not 
only  Manchuria  but  also  China  beyond  the  Great  Wall, 
while  she  was  negotiating  with  the  Chinese  government. 


JAPAN'S  POLICY  IN  MANCHURIA  397 

The  League  of  Nations  demanded  that  Japan  withdraw 
her  troops  from  Chinese  territory  so  that  negotiations 
might  be  conducted  in  a  fair  manner.  Although  the 
Japanese  representative  assured  the  Council  of  the 
League  that  the  Japanese  troops  were  being  withdrawn 
within  the  zone  of  the  South  Manchurian  Railway,  the 
cable  dispatches  from  Manchuria  stated  that  the  Japa-* 
nese  military  force  was  extending  its  control  over  Man 
churia,  taking  new  towns  every  day.  To  the  world  it 
seemed  that  the  Japanese  war  lords  were  out  of  the 
control  of  the  civil  government  of  Japan.  Throughout 
this  debate  our  Opponents  have  been  telling  us  that 
China  is  disunited,  because  the  central  government 
could  not  control  the  action  of  the  Chinese  generals. 
They  forget  that  the  only  difference  between  a  Chinese 
and  a  Japanese  war  lord  is  that  the  Japanese  generals 
are  better  equipped. 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen,  is  it  necessary  for  a  nation 
to  take  Chinese  railroads,  to  seize  Chinese  banks,  to 
operate  Chinese  utilities,  to  collect  Chinese  revenue,  to 
destroy  Chinese  printing  presses,  and  to  establish  a  new 
government  in  order  to  protect  the  nationals  of  that 
state?  The  only  difference  between  Chinese  bandits 
and  Japanese  soldiers  is  that  the  Chinese  bandits  take 
only  part  of  the  Chinese's  goods;  the  Japanese  soldiers 
take  all! 

We  have  tried  to  show,  first,  that  Manchuria  is  an 
integral  part  of  China,  and  that  any  invasion  of  Man 
churia  is  detrimental  to  China,  and  second,  that  Japan's 
action  is  detrimental  to  the  peace  and  welfare  of  the 
world,  because  she  has  disregarded  and  violated  the 


398    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

Covenant  of  the  League  of  Nations,  The  Nine  Power 
Pact,  The  Kellogg  Peace  Pact,  all  of  which  were  estab 
lished  to  protect  China  and  other  nations  against  un 
just  aggression.  Therefore,  we  believe  that  the  action 
of  Japan  in  Manchuria  is  not  justifiable. 


First  Negative  Rebuttal,  Samuel  Barker 
Bucknell  University 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  The  Affirmative  team  has 
attempted  to  evade  Japan's  obligations  under  the 
League  of  Nations'  Covenant  and  the  Nine  Power 
Treaty  by  contending  that  China  is  no  longer  a  sover 
eign  state  and  has  no  responsible  government.  At  the 
same  time  Japan  claims  that  the  Chinese  government  is 
responsible  for  the  economic  boycott  and  also  insists 
on  direct  negotiations  with  the  Chinese  government. 
Sovereignty  is  recognized  by  all  authorities  of  Inter 
national  Law  as  an  attribute  to  statehood.  China  has 
been  recognized  as  a  state  by  the  members  of  the 
League  of  Nations  and  by  Russia  and  the  United 
States.  As  a  member  of  the  League  she  is  upon  a 
parity  with  Japan. 

We  must  realize  that  China  is  now  going  through  a 
period  of  social  and  political  adjustment.  Every  other 
major  country  has  gone  through  a  similar  period.  The 
French  Revolution,  the  Civil  War,  and  the  Industrial 
Revolution  are  being  enacted  in  China  at  one  time. 

Japan,  the  one  country  which  contends  that  China 
cannot  govern  herself,  has  not  been  able  to  control  her 
own  army  and  navy,  for  these  forces  have  violated 


JAPAN'S  POLICY  IN  MANCHURIA  399 

international  treaties  and  solemn  pledges  of  their  gov 
ernment. 

Our  Opponents  claim  that  the  presence  of  Japanese 
troops  has  been  a  stabilizing  influence.  Yet  an  analysis 
of  this  contention  proves  it  to  be  fallacious.  Before 
1931  Japan  controlled  less  than  one-half  of  one  per 
cent  of  the  whole  territory  of  Manchuria,  in  which  she 
had  stationed  some  15,000  troops.  At  present  Japan 
has  some  35,000  troops  in  Manchuria  and  yet,  accord 
ing  to  the  Gentlemen  of  the  Affirmative,  robbery  and 
banditry  are  increasing  daily.  The  Japanese  them 
selves  contradict  each  other  on  this  point.  On  Novem 
ber  H,  1931,  the  Japanese  ambassador  to  France,  in 
attempting  to  justify  Japan's  action  said,  "We  have 
succeeded  in  transforming  Manchuria  into  a  country 
better  governed  than  the  rest  of  the  world."  The  fol 
lowing  day,  General  Honjo  declared  that  the  reason 
Japan  was  fighting  in  Manchuria  was  that  frequent 
murders  and  riots  were  prevalent! 

Our  Opponents  would  have  us  believe  that  Japanese 
control  over  Manchuria  would  "save"  that  territory  for 
the  world.  The  Japanese  action  toward  Korea  is  a 
good  example  of  their  intentions  to  "save"  weak  prov 
inces.  In  1894  after  a  rebellion  had  broken  out  in 
Korea,  as  a  protest  against  Japanese  interference, 
China  was  asked  to  assist  the  Korean  Emperor.  Japan 
immediately  declared  war  on  China  and  forced  her  to 
recognize  the  independence  of  Korea.  Five  years  later, 
Prince  Ito,  in  a  public  address  said,  "The  annexation  of 
Korea  has  no  part  in  the  purpose  of  the  Japanese  gov 
ernment."  One  year  after  this  fine  proclamation,  Japan 


400    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

annexed  Korea  and  has  kept  her  under  strict  control 
ever  since.  That  is  how  Japan  bears  "Self-denials" 
and  "hardships"  to  "save"  her  neighbors! 

Japan  is  not  interested  in  the  welfare  of  the  inhabi 
tants  of  Manchuria.  While  the  use  and  sale  of  nar 
cotics  are  prohibited  by  law  in  Japan,  her  attitude 
toward  this  trade  is  exactly  the  opposite  in  Manchuria. 
According  to  reports  recently  published  by  the  National 
Anti-Opium  Association  of  China,  no  less  than  seventy- 
five  per  cent  of  the  Japanese  nationals  residing  in  South 
Manchuria  are  directly  or  indirectly  connected  with 
the  drug  traffic.  These  statistics  were  furnished  the 
Association  by  Mr.  U.  Kikucii,  Secretary  of  the  Asso 
ciation  for  the  Prevention  of  Opium  Evils  of  Japan. 

Not  only  are  the  members  of  the  Affirmative  saving 
Manchuria  for  the  world  but  they  are  also  preventing 
the  spread  of  the  Red  Menace,  by  making  China  so 
weak  that  she  will  be  the  prey  for  any  covetous  nation. 
As  Sherwood  Eddy  pointed  out, 

"Japan  must  face  the  terrible  responsibility  of  being  the 
cause  or  occasion  of  the  break-up  of  China  and  the  forming 
of  a  large  Communist  state  in  the  heart  of  the  Far  East,  a 
war  with  Russia  followed  by  internal  revolution  in  Japan, 
and  a  world  war  which  may  again  draw  into  its  seething 
vortex  all  the  principal  nations  of  the  world," 

And  yet  the  Gentlemen  of  the  Opposition  maintain 
that  the  breaking  up  of  China  by  Japan  will  benefit  the 
world! 

We  have  seen  that  China  is  recognized  as  a  sovereign 
state  not  only  by  the  other  powers  of  the  world,  but 


JAPAN'S  POLICY  IN  MANCHURIA  401 

also  by  Japan  herself,  since  she  insists  on  direct  negotia 
tions  with  the  Chinese  government.  We  have  seen  that 
Japanese  force  has  not  succeeded  in  Manchuria,  and 
we  firmly  maintain  that  the  way  to  help  China  is  not  to 
invade  her,  territory  but  to  counsel  and  cooperate 
with  her. 


First  Affirmative  Rebuttal,  Harald  E.  Kenseth 
Bucknell  University 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  The  speakers  for  the 
Negative  side  admit  that  Japan  needs  her  special 
position  in  Manchuria  and  then  they  say  that  she  shall 
leave  Manchuria.  This  leaves  us  with  the  dilemma 
consisting  of  Japan's  having  to  be  there  and  get  out  at 
the  same  time.  They  claim  that  she  should  leave  Man 
churia  because  her  treaties  with  China  are  illegal  May 
we  point  out  that  the  very  nations  the  Negative  cites  as 
being  opposed  to  Japan's  present  policy  have  recog 
nized  the  treaties  in  question.  We  feel  that  the  legality 
of  Japan's  position  has  been  established,  and  on  that 
basis  we  are  discussing  her  immediate  policy. 

The  Negative  also  asserts  that  the  Japanese  will  not 
settle  in  Manchuria,  and  that  Manchuria  cannot,  there 
fore,  be  considered  as  a  safety  valve  for  her  surplus 
population.  Large  numbers  of  Japanese  have  not  set 
tled  in  Manchuria  because  the  Chinese  officials  have 
kept  the  Japanese  out,  and  because  Japan  has  been 
taking  care  of  her  excess  population  by  increased  in 
dustrialization.  The  time  will  come  shortly,  however, 
when  Japan  will  not  be  able  to  care  for  nearly  a  million 


402    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

newcomers  a  year  in  her  small  islands.  The  Japanese 
will  have  to  emigrate  in  large  numbers.  Shall  they 
force  their  way  into  the  United  States,  or  shall  they 
move  into  Manchuria  where  they  have  a  legal  right  to 
live? 

Is  Manchuria  really  an  integral  part  of  China  as  the 
Negative  contends?  We  have  already  shown  this  con 
tention  to  be  unsound.  May  we  add  here  that  when 
China  declared  herself  neutral  during  the  Russo- 
Japanese  War,  this  neutrality  did  not  include  Man 
churia.  If  Manchuria  were  an  integral  part  of  China 
would  not  China's  declaration  have  included  Manchu 
ria?  Amos  S.  Hershey,  an  eminent  authority  on  Interna 
tional  Law,  states  that  "Manchuria  is  a  case  of  double 
or  ambiguous  sovereignty.53  This  evidence  in  addition 
to  what  we  have  already  presented  should  impress  you 
with  the  fact  that  since  the  rise  of  the  republic,  Man 
churia  has  been  virtually  independent  of  China  proper. 

Another  contention  of  the  Negative  is  that  Japan  has 
violated  the  sovereignty  of  China.  They  argue  that 
sovereignty  is  an  inherent  attribute  of  statehood,  and 
that  since  China  is  a  state  she  is  sovereign.  We  will 
admit  that  all  states  are  theoretically  sovereign  over 
certain  lands  and  peoples,  but,  as  Hershey  reasons,  a 
state  to  persist  must  exercise  sovereignty  in  fact. 
Sovereignty  in  fact  means  that  a  government  controls 
its  territory  and  its  peoples.  We  have  shown  you  that 
China  has  been  capable  of  doing  neither  of  these.  The 
Lytton  report  shows  that  the  granting  of  League  mem 
bership  to  China  was  based  on  the  hope  that  the  theo 
retical  sovereignty  of  the  central  government  would 


JAPAN'S  POLICY  IN  MANCHURIA  403 

become  actual.  While  the  powers  maintained  a  "hands 
off33  policy  in  China  this  government  did  not  improve. 
In  fact,  matters  grew  progressively  worse  until  by  the 
fall  of  193 1,  the  central  government  was  actually  sov 
ereign  only  in  the  Yangtse  valley.  Meanwhile  a  war 
lord  was  running — or  should  I  say  ruining — Man 
churia.  Since  China  is  only  theoretically  sovereign,  and 
since  Manchuria  is  not  an  integral  part  of  China,  we 
fail  to  see  how  Japan  has  in  any  way  violated  China's 
integrity. 

The  Negative  feel  that  Japan  should  have  arbitrated 
with  China.  But  when  we  perceive  this  lack  of  real 
sovereignty  on  the  part  of  China,  we  can  see  why  it  was 
impossible  for  Japan  to  make  an  amicable  settlement 
with  her.  In  fact,  Japan  went  from  government  to 
government  in  China  seeking  one  that  would  accept 
the  responsibility  for  the  actions  of  the  Chinese,  Not 
one  of  them  would  accept  it. 

The  Negative  quoted  from  two  pacts  to  prove  that 
Japan  is  not  fighting  in  self-defense,  and  then  disre 
garded  them  by  asking  us  to  show  a  good  case  for  self- 
defense  according  to  International  Law.  We  have 
already  done  this,  but  if  they  wish,  we  will  give  addi 
tional  proof.  We  believe  Japan's  case  is  better  than 
England's  in  the  Caroline  case  when  she  intervened  in 
American  territory,  or  the  Danish  Fleet  case  in  which 
England  seized  the  Danish  fleet  in  1807  to  keep  it  out 
of  Napoleon's  hands.  The  leading  authorities  on  Inter 
national  Law  held  that  these  two  cases  were  justifiable 
actions  in  self-defense. 

Although  the  Negative  has  given  you  the  Chinese 


404    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

version  of  the  particular  events  leading  up  to  Japan's 
intervention,  we  will  not  counter  with  the  Japanese  ver 
sion,  for  we  do  not  wish  to  quibble  over  minor  details. 
On  the  other  hand,  we  will  show  you  by  analyzing  the 
background  of  the  conflict  in  Manchuria  that  the  situa 
tion  there  was  very  dangerous  to  Japan's  existence.  In 
the  first  place,  you  know  that  the  Chinese  have  always 
hated  foreigners  since  the  time  China  was  opened  to 
trade  with  the  modern  world.  You  know  that  the 
Boxer  rebellion  was  not  fiction,  and  that  it  took  the 
concerted  action  of  the  great  powers  to  quell  the  at 
tacks  on  their  nationals  at  that  time.  You  know  that 
every  leading  nation  keeps  troops  in  China  to  protect 
its  people  and  interests.  You  know  that  Great  Britain 
had  to  intervene  in  1927.  We  have  shown  you  how 
chaotic  the  condition  in  Manchuria  was,  with  a  war 
lord  in  power  and  Communism  and  anti-foreignism 
rampant.  The  boycott  was  only  one  of  the  direct  at 
tacks  on  Japan  arising  from  this  inflamed  anti-foreign 
feeling.  It  was  a  cause  and  not  a  result  of  the  present 
trouble.  Many  were  the  coercive  forces  at  work  un 
dermining  Japan's  position  in  China.  Will  you  deny 
then  that  the  fuel  for  the  fire  was  there?  You  can  see 
that  Japan's  position  in  Manchuria,  on  which  her  life 
depends,  was  in  imminent  danger,  and  that  the  policy 
she  is  pursuing  is  one  of  self-preservation,  and  fully  as 
justifiable  as  the  cases  I  have  cited. 

Moreover,  we  repeat  the  fundamental  thesis  that  no 
nation  has  the  right  to  question  the  actions  of  an  inde 
pendent  nation  either  internally  or  externally.  Nor 
does  any  judge  who  was  sitting  comfortably  in  Geneva 


JAPAN'S  POLICY  IN  MANCHURIA  405 

when  the  trouble  started  have  the  right  to  question 
Japan's  policy.  If  your  life  were  threatened  you  would 
act,  for  you  would  probably  be  killed  if  you  didn't.  So 
it  was  with  Japan,  and  we  say  that  her  action  is  justifi 
able  for  that  reason. 

We,  the  Affirmative,  'deny  tie  suppositions  of  the 
Negative  that  Manchuria  is  an  integral  part  of  China, 
and  that  Japan  has  violated  China's  sovereignty.  We 
believe  that  her  positive  action  in  defense  of  her  na 
tionals  and  of  her  economic  life  is  just,  and  is  to  the 
interest  of  humanity,  and  we  ask  you  to  approve  with 
us  this  measure. 


Second  Negative  Rebuttal,  Robert  N.  Cook 
Bucknell  University 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN  :  Our  Opponents  have  tried 
to  justify  the  action  of  Japan  in  Manchuria  by  citing 
the  economic  dependency  of  Japan  upon  Manchuria, 
the  right  of  a  nation  to  fight  in  self-defense,  and  the 
benefits  which  are  supposed  to  accrue  to  the  rest  of  the 
world.  The  fact  that  Japan  is  economically  dependent 
upon  Manchuria  does  not  justify  the  controlling  of 
Manchuria  by  Japan.  The  United  States,  and  every 
nation  in  the  world,  is  dependent  upon  other  nations. 
The  world  is  an  economic  unit. 

The  fact  that  the  United  States  depends  upon  other 
countries  for  her  tropical  fruits,  raw  rubber,  nickel, 
and  other  necessary  products  would  not  justify  the 
invasion  of  these  countries  by  the  United  States.  Al 
though  our  country  in  the  past  has  invaded  Nicaragua, 


406    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

Haiti,  and  the  Philippine  Islands,  we  would  like  to  re 
mind  the  Affirmative  that  the  United  States  has  with 
drawn  her  troops  from  Nicaragua,  has  voted  to  free  the 
Philippine  Islands,  and  is  withdrawing  her  troops  from 
Haiti.  The  signing  of  the  Kellogg  Peace  Pact  out 
lawed  war  and  made  illegal  its  use  to  decide  any  inter 
national  dispute.  The  United  States  has  recognized 
the  benefits  which  will  come  from  a  policy  of  peace  and 
has  changed  her  entire  foreign  policy.  We  are  in  a  new 
era.  Japan  cannot  justify  her  action  by  appealing  to 
old  precedents  which  have  become  obsolete  because  a 
new  principle  and  a  new  law  has  been  established  with 
the  signing  of  the  Kellogg  Peace  Pact  of  1928.  Our 
Opponents  have  based  their  case  upon  practices  which 
were  formerly  recognized  as  legal  and  just,  but  which 
have  now  been  condemned  by  practically  every  nation 
in  the  world.  Our  Opponents  have  forgotten  that  ac 
tions  which  may  have  been  legal  and  justifiable  before 
the  signing  of  the  Covenant  of  the  League  of  Nations, 
the  Nine  Power  Pact  of  1922,  and  the  Kellogg  Peace 
Pact  are  no  longer  legal  or  justifiable. 

The  Members  of  the  Affirmative  have  cited  the  rapid 
increase  in  the  population  of  Japan,  claiming  that  she 
needed  Manchuria  as  an  outlet  for  this  surplus  popula 
tion.  They  forget,  first,  that  the  population  of  China 
is  also  increasing  very  rapidly,  and,  second,  that  the 
Japanese  refuse  to  go  to  Manchuria.  Although  the 
Japanese  government  has  tried  to  colonize  Manchuria, 
there  are  today  only  220,000  Japanese  there.  These 
Japanese  are  business  men,  not  colonists.  On  the  other 
hand  there  are  thirty  million  Chinese  in  this  area.  The 


JAPAN'S  POLICY  IN  MANCHURIA  407 

second  speaker  of  the  Affirmative  has  stated  tHat  by 
our  reasoning  the  southeastern  part  of  Pennsylvania 
should  be  a  part  of  Germany  because  a  majority  of  the 
inhabitants  are  descendants  from  German  parents. 
Proof  by  analogy  is  very  dangerous  and  often  mislead 
ing.  Our  Opponents  have  forgotten,  first,  that  these 
descendants  from  German  parents  are  American  citi 
zens;  second,  that  they  speak  the  English  language; 
third,  that  they  constitute  a  majority  of  the  population 
in  only  a  few  localities  of  Pennsylvania,  and  fourth, 
that  Pennsylvania  is  not  a  part  of  Germany.  On  the 
contrary,  the  inhabitants  of  Manchuria  are  Chinese 
citizens,  speak  the  Chinese  language,  follow  Chinese 
customs,  are  ninety-seven  per  cent  Chinese,  and  live 
on  Chinese  soil.  The  conditions  in  Pennsylvania  are 
not  analogous  to  the  conditions  in  Manchuria,  and 
therefore,  to  use  such  an  analogy  is  misleading.  Man 
churia  should  belong  to  China  because  it  is  an  integral 
part  of  China  the  same  as  Pennsylvania  is  an  integral 
part  of  the  United  States. 

Our  Opponents  have  tried  to  justify  the  invasion  of 
Manchuria  by  Japan  by  referring  to  the  historical  fact 
that  the  Manchus  conquered  China  and  were  therefore 
not  a  part  of  China.  If  this  logic  were  true,  Japan 
could  justify  an  invasion  into  the  thirteen  original 
states  of  the  United  States,  claiming  that  these  thirteen 
are  not  a  part  of  the  United  States  because  they  con 
quered  and  acquired  the  land  which  now  belongs  to  the 
United  States.  In  fact,  Japan  could  justify  Japanese 
control  of  Prussia,  because  Prussia  conquered  the  other 
provinces  of  Germany.  No  one  would  be  so  foolish  as 


408    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

to  say  that  the  northern  states  of  the  United  States  are 
not  an  integral  part  of  the  United  States,  simply  be 
cause  they  conquered  the  southern  states  in  the  Civil 
War,  or  that  Prussia  is  not  a  part  of  Germany  because 
she  conquered  the  other  German  provinces.  We  be 
lieve  that  the  logic  of  our  Opponents  is  equally  absurd 
when  they  say  that  Manchuria  is  not  a  part  of  China 
because  Manchuria  conquered  China. 

Throughout  this  debate  our  Opponents  have  been 
using  Japanese  logic  to  justify  the  policy  of  Japan  in 
Manchuria.  What  is  Japanese  logic?  Japanese  logic 
is  the  mingling  of  true  and  false  statements  so  that  one 
cannot  detect  which  statements  are  true  and  which 
statements  are  false.  They  say  that  the  Manchus  con 
quered  China.  We  admit  this.  Therefore,  they  claim, 
Manchuria  is  not  a  part  of  China.  We  have  shown 
that  this  conclusion  cannot  be  drawn  from  the  previ 
ously  mentioned  fact,  and  furthermore,  we  have  pre 
sented  evidence  to  show  that  Manchuria  is  a  part  of 
China  and  is  recognized  by  practically  every  nation  as 
a  part  of  China. 

They  state  that  Japan  is  economically  dependent 
upon  Manchuria.  We  also  admit  this  to  be  true. 
Therefore,  they  say,  Japan  has  a  right  to  invade  Man 
churia.  We  deny  that  Japan  has  such  a  right,  showing 
the  absurdity  of  such  a  conclusion  by  citing  the  fact 
that  every  nation  is  dependent  economically  upon 
other  nations. 

They  claim  that  Communism  is  spreading  rapidly 
through  China.  We  admit  this  fact.  Therefore,  they 
say,  Japan's  invasion  into  Manchuria  to  halt  the  rise 


JAPAN'S  POLICY  IN  MANCHURIA  409 

of  Communism  Is  justifiable.  This  conclusion  is  mis 
leading,  because  the  Japanese  invasion  is  not  halting 
the  spread  of  Communism  but  is  aiding  its  rise  as  we 
have  shown.  They  maintain  that  every  nation  has  the 
right  to  fight  in  self-defense.  We  recognize  the  truth 
of  this  statement;  however,  they  have  not  proved  that 
Japan  was  threatened  with  an  attack,  and  one  cannot 
legally  defend  himself  unless  he  is  attacked  or  threat 
ened  with  irreparable  damage.  We  have  shown  that 
Japan  was  not  attacked  nor  threatened  with  irreparable 
damage.  We  hope  that  you  will  not  be  misled  by  these 
half-truths  which  our  Opponents  have  presented  to 
you.  The  burden  of  proof  rests  upon  the  Affirmative 
to  show  that  the  action  of  Japan  in  Manchuria  is  not 
detrimental  to  China  nor  to  the  general  welfare  and 
peace  of  the  world,  for  no  action  which  is  detrimental 
to  the  interests  of  China  and  a  threat  to  world  peace 
can  be  called  justifiable.  We  believe  that  the  policy 
of  Japan  in  Manchuria  is  not  justifiable. 

Second  Affirmative  Rebuttal,  Franklin  H.  Cook 
Bucknell  University 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  The  previous  speaker 
made  three  outstanding  assertions  in  his  rebuttal. 
First,  that  Manchuria  need  not  be  a  part  of  Japanese 
territory  to  enable  Japan  to  benefit  from  Manchuria; 
second,  that  Japan  does  not  need  Manchuria  for  her 
excess  population  because  of  the  small  number  of  Japa 
nese  in  Manchuria;  and  third,  that  a  new  era  of  Inter 
national  Law  has  arisen. 


410    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

We  agree  that  Manchuria  need  not  be  a  part  of 
Japanese  territory  In  order  that  Japan  may  benefit 
from  Manchuria.  But  when  we  agree  to  this  proposi 
tion  we  insist  also  that  Manchuria  is  not  necessary  for 
China's  existence.  Manchukuo  is  an  independent 
state.  She  is  not  related  to  Japan  as  Haiti,  the  Ha 
waiian  Islands,  and  the  Philippine  Islands  are  to  the 
United  States.  Japan  entered  Manchuria  to  aid  in 
the  establishment  of  an  independent,  sovereign,  stable 
government.  The  previous  war  lords  had  been  unable 
to  protect  Japanese  lives  and  property,  for  economic 
discrimination  had  been  made  against  the  Japanese 
and  Koreans.  Even  the  inhabitants  themselves  have 
testified  to  the  evils  of  the  status  quo  ante.  The  League 
of  Nations  condemns  this  status  quo  ante.  Yet  in  spite 
of  the  protests  of  the  inhabitants  and  the  League  of 
Nations  the  Negative  wishes  the  former  conditions 
restored.  Manchukuo  is  an  independent  state  just  as 
the  League  desired.  As  an  independent  state  it  can 
establish  just  trade  relations  with  both  China  and  Japan 
to  the  economic  benefit  of  both  nations. 

In  refuting  the  second  point  of  the  previous  speaker 
in  which  he  denied  Japan's  need  for  Manchuria  as  a 
reservoir  for  her  excess  population  may  we  repeat  that 
Manchuria  is  an  independent  nation;  and  may  we 
further  assert  that  under  the  Manchukuo  government 
Japan  is  not  forcing  her  people  to  enter  Manchuria,  but 
by  driving  out  a  disorganized  government  she  has  made 
it  possible  for  her  inhabitants  to  settle  freely  in  Man 
churia  and  for  her  economic  interests  in  that  land  to  be 
as  safe  as  investments  of  the  United  States  are  in  Eng- 


JAPAN'S  POLICY  IN  MANCHURIA  411 

land  and  France.  Under  the  Chiangs,  because  of  dis 
crimination  against  the  Japanese,  this  race  was  barred 
from  emigrating  freely  to  Manchuria.  This  fact  ac 
counts  for  the  comparatively  small  number  of  Japanese 
settlers  there.  Further,  freedom  from  the  former 
dangers  of  war  lords,  bandits,  and  Communists  will 
enable  the  Japanese-owned  industries  to  send  a  steady 
flow  of  the  necessary  raw  materials  to  Japan's  Indus* 
trial  population. 

Lastly,  may  we  refute  the  argument  that  a  new  era 
of  International  Law  has  arisen.  This  argument,  by 
the  way,  was  the  main  contention  in  the  second  Nega 
tive  speaker's  constructive  speech.  With  a  great 
amount  of  emotionalism  the  Negative  supported  the 
sacredness  of  treaties  and  their  inviolability.  We  of 
the  Affirmative  recognize  the  power  of  Treaties  as 
organs  of  Peace;  but  we  disagree  with  the  Negative's 
assumption  that  Japan  has  violated  the  Nine  Power 
Pact  and  the  Kellogg  Pact.  International  Law  main 
tains  that  a  state's  first  obligation  is  to  preserve  its  own 
existence.  A  treaty  is  not  binding  when  the  preserva 
tion  of  the  state  is  endangered.  In  our  first  construc 
tive  speech  we  showed  that  Japan's  national  existence 
was  threatened.  Further,  under  the  Kellogg  Pact  and 
the  Nine  Power  Pact,  Japan  has  a  right  to  enter  Man 
churia  to  protect  her  "nationals."  Chief  Justice 
Hughes  of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  in  a  lec 
ture  at  Princeton  in  May  1928  said:  "On  our  part  there 
is  no  disposition  to  forego  our  right  to  protect  our 
nationals  when  their  lives  and  property  are  imperiled 
because  the  sovereign  power  for  the  time  being  and  in 


412    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

certain  districts  cannot  be  exercised  and  there  is  no 
government  to  afford  protection."  We  have  shown  the 
danger  to  Japanese  lives  and  property  which  precipi 
tated  the  Japanese  intervention.  Legally,  Japan  has  a 
right  to  be  in  Manchuria. 

Japan  is  not  subjugating  Manchuria.  The  United 
States  subjugated  Haiti,  Hawaii,  and  the  Philippines. 
To  date,  thirty-five  years  after  the  Spanish-American 
war,  none  has  gained  independence;  yet  the  Negative 
compares  Japan's  aid  in  establishing  an  independent 
state  in  Manchuria  to  the  United  States'  conquest  of 
the  Spanish  territories.  These  cases  are  not  analogous. 
Has  the  United  States  ever  recognized  the  independ 
ence  of  the  ex-Spanish  possessions?  She  has  not.  Yet 
Japan  has  recognized  Manchukuo's  independence;  she, 
who  would  seem  to  frustrate  her  own  ends  by  recogni 
tion  according  to  the  Negative,  was  the  first  state  to 
recognize  the  sovereignty  of  Manchukuo. 

In  the  closing  remarks  of  the  debate  let  us  review 
the  two  cases.  The  Negative  established  two  main 
contentions.  First,  they  asserted  that  historically  and 
economically  Manchuria  is  bound  to  China.  This  argu 
ment  we  refuted  by  showing  that  historically  Man 
churia  has  been  independent  of  China;  and  that  eco 
nomically  both  China  and  Japan  will  benefit  from  the 
stable  government  of  Manchukuo.  Second,  they  dwelt 
upon  the  sacredness  of  treaties.  We,  although  recog 
nizing  the  power  of  treaties  for  peace,  assert  that  every 
nation  has  the  right  to  fight  for  her  self-preservation. 

By  showing  Japan's  need  for  the  safety  of  her  indus 
tries  in  Manchuria  and  by  demonstrating  the  unjust 


JAPAN'S  POLICY  IN  MANCHURIA  413 

and  unfair  treatment  of  the  Japanese,  in  violation  of 
the  open-door  policy,  we  proved  our  first  contention 
that  Japan  is  fighting  self-defensively  in  Manchuria. 
Our  second  argument,  that  Japan's  policy  in  Manchuria 
is  beneficial  to  the  world  was  supported  by  showing  the 
effectual  barrier  that  Japan  will  be  to  the  formation  of 
a  Communist  Revolution  in  the  Far  East,  by  illus 
trating  the  benefits  to  the  world  from  the  establishment 
of  a  stable,  sovereign  government  in  Manchuria,  and 
finally,  by  pointing  out  that  the  freedom  of  the  Japa 
nese  to  enter  Manchuria  has  removed  Japan  as  a  threat 
to  world  peace.  A  preponderance  of  evidence  shows 
that  Japan's  policy  in  Manchuria  is  justifiable. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY:  JAPAN'S  POLICY  IN  MANCHURIA 

BOOKS 

Condliffe,  John  Bell. — China  Today:  Economic.  World  Peace  Foun 
dation,  Boston.  1932. 

Eddy,  Sherwood. — The  Challenge  of  the  East.  Farrar  &  Rinehart, 
N.  Y.  1931. 

The  World's  Danger  Zone.    Farrar  &  Rinehart.    1932. 

The  Challenge  of  Europe.    Farrar  &  Rinehart.    1933. 

Hall,  W.  H. — International  Law.  Clarendon  Press,  Oxford,  Eng.  1880. 

Hornbeck,  Stanley  K. — China  Today:  Political.  World  Peace  Foun 
dation.  1927. 

Hershey,  Amos  S. — Essentials  of  International  Public  Law  and  Or 
ganization.  Macrnillan.  1929. 

Kawakami,  K.  K. — Japan  Speaks.    Macmillan.    1932, 

Lattimore,  Owen. — Manchuria,  Cradle  of  Conflict.    Macmillan.    1932. 

Lawrence,  T.  J. — Principles  of  International  Law.  7th  ed.  D.  C. 
Heath. 

Meng,  Chih. — China  Speaks.    Macmillan.    1932. 

Moore,  John  Bassett. — International  Law  Digest.    Vol.  11,  Sec.  215, 


414    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

216,  217;  pp.  402-14.    Government  Printing  Office,  Washington, 

1906. 
Orchard,  J.  E. — Japan's  Economic  Position.    Whittlesey  House.    Mc- 

Graw-Hffi,  N.  Y.    1930. 

Willoughby,  W.  W. — Foreign  Rights  and  Interests  in  China.    Rev. 

.  and  Enl.  Ed.,  Vol.  11.    Johns  HopMns  Press,  Baltimore.    1927. 

Wool!,  Leonard. — Economic  Imperialism.     Swarthmore  Press,  Ltd., 

London.    Harcourt,  Brace,  &  Howe,  N,  Y.    1920. 


MAGAZINES 

American  Journal  of  International  Law. — 27:38,  January  1933.    The 

Meaning  of  the  Pact  of  Paris.    Quincy  Wright. 
Annals  of  American  Academy. — 152:329-35,  November  1930.    Japa 
nese  Expansion  in  Manchuria.    J.  E.  Orchard. 
Current  History. — 35:345-52,  December  1931.     Issues  in  the  Man- 

churian  Crisis.     Japanese  and  Russian  Interests.     Weakness  of 

Chinese  Control.    A.  N.  Holcombe. 
Foreign  Affairs. — S: 52-68,  October  1929.     Russo-Chinese  Conflict  in 

Manchuria.    K.  K.  KawakamL 
Fortnightly  Review.— April  1933.    pp.  453-62.    A  British  Policy  for 

China.    Owen  M.  Green. 
Forum. — 88:262-8,  November  1932.    Storm  Over  Asia.    Paul  Hutch- 

inson.    87:194-9,  April  1932.    What  Japan  Really  Wants.    Paul 

Hutchinson. 

OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS 

Manchuria. — Report  of  Commission  of  Enquiry  Appointed  by  the 

League  of  Nations.    United  States  Government  Printing  Office, 

Washington.    1932. 
Treaties,  Conventions,  International  Acts,  Protocols,  and  Agreements 

Between  the  United  States  of  America  and  Other  Powers. — Vol. 

Ill    (1910-1923),   pp.   3120-3140.     United    States    Government 

Printing  Office,  Washington.    1923. 


BULLETINS 

Japanese  Chamber  of  Commerce,  Bureau  of  Information,  90  Broad 
St.,  N.  Y. — Background  of  the  Manchurian  Trouble. 


JAPAN'S  POLICY  IN  MANCHURIA  415 

Backgromd  of  the  Shanghai  Trouble* — New  York  Office  of  Japanese 
New  York  Office  of  Japanese  National  Committee  of  Interna 
tional  Chamber  of  Commerce. — Background  of  the  Shanghai 
Trouble.  1932. 

Press  Union,  Shanghai  (P.  O.  Box  455) .— The  Shanghai  Incident  Mis 
represented. 

Rea,  George  B. — The  Highway  to  Hostilities  in  the  Far  East,  Japanese 
Association  in  China,  Shanghai.  1932. 

Itok,  Takeo. — China's  Challenge  in  Manchuria.  South  Manchurian 
Railway  Co.  1932. 

Saito,  Hirosi. — Manchukuo,  the  New-Born  State.  Japanese  Chamber 
of  Commerce.  1932. 

Research  Office,  South  Manchurian  Railway  Co.,  Dairen. — Brief 
History  of  Japan's  Rights  and  Interests  in  Manchuria.  1932. 

Japanese  Delegation  to  the  League  of  Nations,  Geneva. — Manchurian 
Question,  Japan's  Case.  1933. 

Ishi,  Kikujiro.— The  Permanent  Basis  of  Japanese  Foreign  Policy. 
Reprinted  from  Foreign  Affairs,  an  American  Quarterly  Review. 
January  1933.  45  East  65th  Street,  N.  Y. 

Rea,  George  B. — Fundamentals,  The  Sino- Japanese  Question  from  a 
Different  Angle.  Reprinted  from  the  Far  Eastern  Review, 
Shanghai. 

NEWSPAPER  CLIPPINGS 

Close,  Upton. — Jehol:  A  Struggle  Colored  with  Opium.    New  York 

Times.    January  15,  1933. 
Forgotten  Men  of  Manchuria.    New  York  Times.    November 

27,  1932. 
Fisher,  Sterling,  Jr. — Japan,  by  Vigorous  Measures  Binds  Manchuria 

More  Closely.  New  York  Times.    December  11,  1932. 
Nanking  Is  Facing  Civil  War  Ideate.— Philadelphia  Public  Ledger. 

April  8,  1932. 

Fact,  Not  Treaties,  Is  Manchurian  Key,  Says  Tokio  Savant. — Phila 
delphia  Inquirer.   March  27,  1932. 
Soklosky,  George  E, — The  Manchurian  Issue  Grows  and  Thunders. 

New  York  Times.    January  15,  1933. 
Editorial— China  and  Jehol.    Philadelphia  Public  Ledger.    March  18, 

1933, 


A  PRESIDENTIAL  DICTATORSHIP 

An  Extension  Debate 


A  PRESIDENTIAL  DICTATORSHIP 

COLGATE  UNIVERSITY  AFFIRMATIVE  VS. 
NEW   YORK   UNIVERSITY  NEGATIVE 

This  debate  is  the  annual  one  between  two  old  rivals  on  the  grid 
iron  and  on  the  forensic  platform,  In  spite  of  the  great  differences 
in  the  makeup  of  the  two  institutions,  debating  between  the  two  has 
formed  a  link  that  is  carefully  preserved  by  each.  Colgate  is  a  small 
university  of  a  limited  enrollment  of  one  thousand  ,men,  located  In  the 
Chenango  Valley  at  Hamilton,  New  York.  New  York  University,  as 
every  one  knows,  is  a  large  metropolitan  university,  co-educational, 
and  as  urban,  at  least  in  location,  as  any  university  in  the  country. 

The  debate  here  produced  was  held  before  the  Jewish  Community 
Center  of  Stamford,  Conn.  The  audience  numbered  about  two  hun 
dred  fifty.  The  then  recent  persecutions  of  the  Jews  in  Germany  by 
Hitler  gave  this  audience,  composed  largely  of  people  of  Jewish  ex 
traction,  a  special  interest  in  the  question. 

The  debate  was  originally  planned  on  the  question,  "Resolved:  That 
in  the  present  state  of  world  affairs,  dictatorship  is  preferable  to 
democracy."  This  question  seemed  rather  large  for  a  single  debate; 
consequently,  the  question  was  narrowed  to  read,  Resolved:  That  tke 
United  States  should  establish  a  dictatorship. 

The  bibliography  was  prepared  by  Miss  Lida  C.  Vasbinder,  Ref 
erence  Librarian  of  the  Colgate  Library,  and  the  speeches  were  as 
sembled  and  contributed  to  this  Volume  by  Professor  J.  V,  Garland, 
Director  of  Debate  at  Colgate  University. 


First  Affirmative,  A.  William  Christopher 
Colgate  University 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  On  behalf  of  the  Colgate 
Debating  Team  I  wish  to  thank  the  members  of  the 

419 


420        THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

Jewish  Community  Center  of  Stamford  for  their  kind 
reception.  I  also  would  like  to  take  this  opportunity  to 
thank  the  members  of  the  New  York  University  De 
bating  Team  for  the  kindness  which  they  have  shown 
us.  We  sincerely  Hope  that  the  debating  relations  be 
tween  the  two  Universities  may  be  continued  in  the 
future. 

You  know,  the  word  "Dictator"  is  one  which  is 
abhorrent  to  most  people;  yet  I  believe  that  this  is  due 
to  the  fact  that  they  do  not  understand  that  there  are 
varying  kinds  of  dictators.  The  first  thought  which 
comes  into  our  minds  at  the  mention  of  this  word  is 
the  kind  of  dictatorship  which  Mussolini  has  estab 
lished  in  Italy — that  of  the  "mailed  fist"  type.  We  also 
think  of  Mr.  Hitler  and  the  dictatorship  which  he  has 
recently  established  in  Germany.  We  may  find,  how 
ever,  that  this  form  of  government  is  in  reality  an  old 
one;  that  the  first  dictatorship  on  record  was  estab 
lished  in  Rome  in  the  year  501  B.C.  This  type  of  dic 
tatorship  was  of  a  more  limited  nature.  In  truth,  it 
was  just  such  a  government  which  called  Cincinnatus 
from  his  fields.  The  Roman  dictator  took  over  the 
reins  of  government  for  only  a  designated  period  of 
time.  He  was  limited  in  his  powers;  for  example,  in 
some  cases  the  dictator  did  not  have  any  control  over 
the  treasury.  And  so  we  see  that  this  sort  of  dictator 
ship  is  much  different  from  that  with  which  we  most 
commonly  associate  the  word.  Then,  too,  the  dictator 
ships  in  Poland,  Hungary,  Russia  and  the  Latin  Ameri 
can  States  are  all  widely  different. 

It  is  extremely  fortunate  that  we  are  able  to  discuss 


A  PRESIDENTIAL  DICTATORSHIP  421 

this  topic  this  evening  in  view  of  its-  timeliness.  We 
find  that  the  people  of  the  United  States  are  faced  with 
certain  fundamental  problems  which  demand  our  im 
mediate  attention.  These  problems  faced  Franklin  D. 
Roosevelt  when  he  took  office  on  the  fourth  of  March. 
He  found  it  absolutely  necessary  that  some  solution  be 
brought  about  for  these  problems.  He  was  faced  with 
the  question  of  unemployment,  the  matter  of  the  rail 
roads,  the  distressing  condition  of  the  fanner,  the  ques 
tion  of  interallied  war  debts.  He  must  start  some 
governmental  reorganization  and  probably  the  most 
immediate  problem  was  that  of  the  banking  situation. 
President  Roosevelt  recognized  the  need  for  immediate 
action  when  he  took  office  and  it  is  for  that  reason  that 
he  asked  Congress  to  grant  him  powers  of  a  dictatorial 
nature.  What  he  asked  Congress  to  grant  him  was  not 
something  entirely  new  to  the  people  of  this  country. 
We  find  that  Abraham  Lincoln  and  Woodrow  Wilson 
both  received  powers  of  thi^s  nature.  They  were  faced 
with  a  crisis;  so  was  Roosevelt.  The  leaders  of  this 
country  granted  Roosevelt  the  (powers  which  he  desired 
because  they  realized,  as  did  \he,  the  necessity  of  an 
immediate  solution. 

We  have  seen  the  record  of  Capitalism.  It  has  been 
successful  in  helping  the  United  States  to  grow,  to  be 
come  one  of  the  most  powerful  nations  in  the  world; 
yet,  in  the  last  seventy-five  years  our  economic  struc 
ture  has  tottered  twenty-two  times.  Are  we  going  to 
save  our  economic  order,  or  are  we  going  to  scrap  it? 
We  might  substitute  some  other  order  and  then  again, 
if  we  are  convinced  that  the  capitalistic  system  is 


422    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

worthwhile,  we  must  take  steps  to  save  It.  Daniel  Wil- 
lard,  President  of  the  Baltimore  &  Ohio  Railroad,  be 
lieves  that  it  is  certain  that  a  system  in  which  millions 
of  people,  through  no  fault  of  their  own,  are  thrown 
out  of  work  and  remain  out  of  work  for  many  months 
and  have  no  income  in  the  meantime,  cannot  call  itself 
perfect.  Certainly,  with  millions  going  hungry  while 
warehouses  are  stuffed  with  food,  and  with  bankrupt 
cies  and  foreclosures  multiplying  even  though  there  is 
plenty  of  money  in  the  banks,  there  must  be  something 
radically  wrong  with  our  capitalistic  system. 

The  capitalistic  system  stands  on  trial.  We  must 
mend  it,  no  matter  at  what  sacrifice  to  individualism  or 
the  tremblings  of  Pollyannas.  That  era  of  rugged  in 
dividualism  so  widely  advocated  by  a  past  administra 
tion  has  come  to  an  end.  Collective  effort  and  collec 
tivism  is  the  order  of  the  day  for  President  Roosevelt. 
America  has  come  to  the  end  of  an  era — the  era  of 
unplanned,  uncontrolled  and  wasteful  production — and 
we  are  now  enduring  not  a  slump  but  the  breakdown  of 
a  system. 

Albert  G.  Milbank,  a  prominent  New  York  banker, 
shows  the  way  by  saying  that  capitalism  must  be  "hu 
manized,  mutualized,  socialized,  and  stabilized."  Our 
essential  job,  then,  is  to  bring  these  wild,  undisciplined 
forces  of  capitalism  into  order  for  the  services  of  So 
ciety.  We  hear  the  cry  for  a  governor  for  our  capital 
istic  system.  We  must  have  planning  and,  according 
to  the  Institute  of  Politics  Report  for  1932,  "planning 
will  involve  a  movement  toward  an  intelligent  and  effi- 


A  PRESIDENTIAL  DICTATORSHIP  423 


dent  democracy  under  the  control  of  an  intelligent 
dictatorship.57 

Our  ship  of  state  needs  a  skilled  pilot  and  as  a  com 
mander  turns  over  his  ship  in  dangerous  waters  to  an 
experienced  pilot,  so  should  we  turn  over  our  ship  of 
state  to  a  capable  pilot,  a  man  like  our  President,  to 
bring  us  safely  into  port. 


First  Negative,  Daniel  Levy 
New  York  University 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  It  is  indeed  a  pleasure  to 
meet  the  debating  team  from  Colgate  this  afternoon 
and,  on  the  behalf  of  New  York  University,  I  bid  you 
welcome,  most  heartily. 

We  are  now  facing  extraordinary  times,  critical  con 
ditions,  and  in  view  of  the  current  situation,  it  is  not  at 
all  surprising  that  there  are  many  who  would  advocate 
radical,  and  in  many  ways,  illogical  and  unwarranted 
changes.  Democracy  has  been  challenged  by  a  theory 
of  government  which  has  diametrically  opposite  the 
orems.  It  is  proposed  that  we  change  government  by 
consent  to  government  by  force.  In  view  of  these  pro 
posals  it  seems  most  pertinent  to  decide  this  afternoon 
as  to  whether  or  not  in  the  present  state  of  world  affairs 
dictatorship  is  to  be  preferred  to  democracy. 

The  Affirmative  has  attacked  democracy.  Their 
case  is  an  easy  one  for  every  existing  political  institu 
tion  is  imperfect.  Their  difficulty  is  to  substitute  an 
institution  for  the  present  one  that  will  work  more 
effectively  and  just  as  fairly.  That  difficulty  the  Af- 


424         THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF   COLLEGE  DEBATING 

firmative  must  overcome  or  else  their  case  Is  shattered 
and  the  burden  of  proof  has  not  been  met. 

Our  worthy  Opponents  are  advocating  dictatorship, 
a  form  similar  to,  and  descended  from  the  monarchical 
scheme  of  government  which  our  forefathers  decisively 
rejected  when  our  Constitution  was  framed.  In  short, 
they  would  have  us  adopt  that  rejected  form  today. 
We  have  heard  this  afternoon  of  the  evils  of  democracy, 
but  the  evils  of  dictatorship  are  not  only  more  numer 
ous,  but  more  deeply  imbedded  in  the  institution.  What 
is  this  elusive,  high-sounding,  fashionable  word  called 
dictatorship?  What  specifically  is  this  form  of  govern 
ment,  which  to  exist,  must  deprive  us  of  representation, 
of  a  voice  in  government,  of  the  freedom  of  speech, 
press,  or  assembly,  of  the  right  to  hold  property?  What 
is  there  in  dictatorship  which  makes  for  security  of  life, 
liberty,  property,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness — all 
characteristics  of  a  democratic  regime.  A  dictatorship 
has  all  the  features  of  a  monarchy.  I  will  repeat  them 
so  as  to  combat  those  who  would  foist  upon  us  reac 
tionary  ideas  and  philosophies,  beliefs  which  we  in  the 
United  States  have  tried  to  avoid. 

Dictatorship  stands  for  transference  of  authority  to 
a  ruler  who  is  entirely  independent  of  any  public  opin 
ion,  a  man  who  comprehends  within  himself  executive, 
legislative,  and  judicial  power,  and  is  above  restraint 
of  law  or  popular  opinion.  Dictatorship,  then,  is  an 
authoritarian  form  of  government,  centralized  in  one 
man,  one  person  independent  of  all  checks,  either  popu 
lar  or  legal — whose  wish  is  entirely  his  own. 

The  first  principle  of  a  dictatorship  is  that  it  be  inde- 


A  PRESIDENTIAL  DICTATORSHIP  425 

pendent  of  any  public  opinion,  be  tliat  opinion  favor 
able  or  unfavorable.  Being  based  on  force  and  action 
it  must  be  entirely  independent  of  popular  check,  and 
so  we  do  not  find  measures  referred  to  any  representa 
tive  assembly,  ballot  or  referendum.  A  dictator  may, 
and  usually  does,  use  the  force  of  the  State  to  suppress 
dissenting  opinion.  Criticism  is  stifled  and  the  organs 
of  government  which  are  supported  by  the  taxes  of  all 
the  people,  are  used  to  suppress  and  injure  those  same 
taxpayers.  The  police  force,  instead  of  being  an  arm 
of  public  protection,  merely  becomes  the  iron  fist  of 
the  dictator  to  perpetuate  his  own  policies  and  power. 
We  have  current  testimonials  of  what  power  placed  in 
the  hands  of  one  man  can  do.  In  Italy  we  find  the 
people  unable  to  nominate  representatives — they 
merely  vote  "yes"  or  "no"  upon  the  names  submitted 
to  them  by  Mussolini.  Italian  elections  are  mute 
proofs  of  how  illegally  the  ballot  can  be  conducted.  In 
the  last  election  held  in  Italy,  which  was  in  1925,  a 
time  when  there  was  considerable  dissatisfaction  with 
the  Fascist  regime,  the  official  count  as  handed  out  by 
the  Mussolini  controlled  election  board  read:  eighteen 
million  for  Mussolini,  and  twenty  thousand  against 
him.  Witness  the  recent  German  elections,  when  all 
anti-Nazis  were  beaten,  jailed,  or  otherwise  intimidated 
so  that  Hitler  might  claim  a  surprising  increase  in 
"Nazi  sentiment."  In  Russia  we  find  the  Soviet  party 
numbering  two  million  holding  in  subjection  one  hun 
dred  and  sixty  million  people,  and  actually  refusing 
work,  lodging  and  food  to  all  those  who  oppose  the 
Communist  party.  In  a  dictatorship  we  may  look  for, 


426    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

but  seek  in  vain,  such  devices  as  a  Bill  of  Rights,  fair 
trial,  freedom  of  speech,  press  and  assembly.   Old  Law 
is  suppressed,  and  the  new  law  is  the  will  and  whim  of 
the  dictator?  who  can  either  violate  established  nos 
trums  or  set  up  new  dogma  as  he,  and  only  he,  wishes. 
Yet  our  Opponents  claim  that  dictatorship  justifies 
its  use  of  force  because  it  is  a  government  of  action. 
But  there  are  two  questions  we  would  like  to  put. 
First,  what  guarantee  is  there  that  the  action  of  a  dic 
tator  will  best  promote  the  community  welfare?    Will 
this  strong  dictator  of  ours  use  his  unlimited  power  to 
promote  the  social  good?    And  second,  how  will  he 
know  what  the  public  welfare  is,  if  he  has  forcibly 
dosed  the  channels  for  the  expression  of  that  opinion? 
Let  us  take  up  the  first  question — the  problem  as  to 
whether  or  not  an  incoming  dictator  will  rule  for  the 
public  welfare.    Let  us  consider  the  fact  that  a  man 
of  this  sort  rules  with  no  checks  of  any  sort  upon  him. 
Dictators  are  always  minority  dictators,  and  his  group 
or  party,  if  they  master  the  State,  will  master  him.    He 
is  human,  and  the  itching  palm  has  been  reached  in 
the  loftiest  heights  of  political  power.   Even  if  he  were 
of  unimpeachable  integrity  and  not  susceptible  to  the 
easy  money  of  interested  men  and  groups,  a  dictator 
still  has  friends  and  a  party — he  has  a  faction  that  has 
placed  him  in  power — a  minority  faction  that  has  been 
rejected  by  a  majority  of  the  country.    Hitler,  in  spite 
of  threats  and  punishments  to  all  opposition,  could  not 
poll  a  majority  of  the  German  vote.    Mussolini  never 
was  able  to  secure  a  popular  majority  in  the  Italian 
Chamber  of  Deputies,  but  had  to  dissolve  that  body  to 


A  PRESIDENTIAL  DICTATORSHIP  427 

establish  and  perpetuate  Ms  power.  How  can  a  dic 
tator  consistently  think  of  the  public  welfare  when  he 
has  been  repudiated  by  the  public?  How  can  he  pos 
sibly  think  of  the  community  advancement  when  he 
has  been  placed  in  power  by  a  minority  faction  with 
peculiar  beliefs  and  dogma,  ideas  that  in  many  cases 
are  for  party  advancement  rather  than  for  the  good 
of  all?  How  can  anyone  say  that  the  current  persecu 
tion  against  the  Jews  of  Germany  is  promoting  national 
welfare?  Are  we  to  believe  Hitler  when  he  says  that 
the  Jews  are  the  causes  of  German  poverty  and  deprfes- 
sion?  This  unbelievable  outrage  of  modern  times  Is 
but  a  single  example  whereby  we  can  see  how  the  para 
mount  concern  of  a  dictator  is  individual  and  party 
advancement  decidedly  more  than  the  public  welfare. 

But  let  us  assume  that  this  dictator  of  ours  is  a  most 
extraordinary  individual,  and  for  some  strange  reason 
of  his  own,  desires  to  forget  his  party  so  that  he  can 
fully  promote  the  community  welfare.  How  can  he 
possibly  carry  out  this  most  Utopian  desire  when  he 
has  forcibly  suppressed  all  the  organs  of  opinion  by 
which  the  people  can  possibly  express  themselves?  As 
long  as  these  channels  of  popular  opinion  are  closed 
there  is  no  true  index  of  what  is  proper  or  what  the 
populace  wants.  And  once  these  channels  of  opinion 
are  opened,  dictatorship  can  no  longer  exist,  for  then  it 
is  open  to  popular  check  and  democracy  is  in  existence 
once  more.  Today  in  the  United  States,  if  there  is 
sufficient  popular  clamor  for  a  law,  we  are  sufficiently 
able  to  express  ourselves  and  we  must  be  listened  to, 
for  not  only  have  we  the  power  of  the  ballot  to  change 


428         THE   YEAR   BOOK   OF   COLLEGE   DEBATING 

previous  law  or  the  Constitution  if  necessary,  but  our 
representatives,  anxious  to  keep  their  positions,  must 
listen  sooner  or  later.  The  long  awaited  anti-prohibi 
tion  movement  is  at  last  gaining  momentum  and  its 
eventual  success  cannot  be  doubted.  However  long  it 
may  take,  it  is  the  will  of  the  people  being  carried  out, 
and  if  the  people  are  so  inclined,  Prohibition  must  be 
repealed!  As  long  as  the  people  have  any  say,  dicta 
torship  cannot  exist  for  then  it  is  no  longer  a  govern 
ment  of  force  and  action. 

As  a  result  we  will  find  stagnation  in  a  dictatorship 
where  ideas  of  the  community  are  suppressed.  All  the 
political  advances  of  the  world  have  come  through 
democracy.  Direct  election,  the  initiative,  referendum, 
and  recall,  popular  assembly,  women's  suffrage,  and 
thousands  of  other  political  rights  have  been  carried  to 
completion  in  democratic  states.  A  dictatorship  must, 
of  necessity,  crush  such  enlightenment  as  that  is  op 
posed  to  an  authoritarian  form  of  government.  Re 
ferring  again  to  our  classic  examples — women  have  no 
right  to  vote  in  Italy.  In  Germany  a  Communist,  Jew, 
or  liberal  thinker  has  as  much  opportunity  of  express 
ing  his  opinion  at  the  polls  as  a  Republican  candidate 
has  hopes  of  being  elected  in  a  solid  and  staunch  Tam 
many  district!  How  can  there  be  any  political  ad 
vancement  when  the  people  cannot  express  themselves? 

We  of  the  Negative  do  not  believe  it  possible  for  one 
man  to  know  completely  all  that  is  necessary  for  the 
public  welfare.  The  history  of  the  entire  world  has 
never  revealed  a  man  who  was  a  capable  expert  as  well 
as  a  practical  politician.  If  our  dictator  be  an  expert, 


A  PRESIDENTIAL  DICTATORSHIP  429 

he  will  have  the  proper  ideals  in  mind,  but  not  being  a 
politician,  he  will  not  have  the  practical  knowledge  to 
carry  out  his  plans.  If  he  is  a  politician,  as  all  of  our 
present  dictators  are,  he  will  be  merely  interested  in  the 
promotion  of  his  party  and  in  his  personal  advance 
ment.  If  it  has  proven  most  difficult  to  get  the  proper 
combination  of  the  expert  and  politician  in  political 
institutions,  how  can  that  combination  ever  be  success 
fully  achieved  in  one  human  being? 

But  again  let  us  assume  that  there  can  be  found 
somewhere  in  the  world  a  man  who  is  a  great  expert  as 
well  as  a  most  practical  politician — there  can  be  no 
denying  of  the  fact  that  this  most  extraordinary  in 
dividual  is  still  a  human  being.  Being  but  human  he  is 
susceptible  sooner  or  later  to  the  pangs  of  sickness,  in 
jury,  mental  feebleness,  and  eventually  death  itself. 
What  guarantee  can  there  possibly  be  that  Hitler's  suc 
cessor,  Mussolini's  apostle,  or  Stalin's  disciple  will  have 
that  same  unusual  breadth  of  vision,  power,  and  per 
sonality  that  their  predecessor  so  strangely  had?  And 
furthermore,  how  can  such  unusual  successors  exist 
when,  during  the  life  of  a  Hitler  for  instance,  all  the 
thinking  for  Germany  has  been  done  by  Hitler.  All 
others  who  have  any  notions  of  what  proper  govern 
ment  should  be,  are  either  driven  into  exile  or  sup 
pressed,  which  is  another  reason  for  the  present  war  on 
culture  and  religion  in  Germany  and  Russia.  We  will 
find  after  the  death  of  such  extraordinary  men  that 
dictatorship  must  give  way  to  either  anarchy  or  mob 
rule.  We  find,  going  back  to  historical  examples,  that 
after  the  eighteenth  century  sway  of  the  "enlightened 


430    THE  YEAE  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

despots,"  who  were  purely  monarchical  dictators,  that 
the  greatest  of  bloodshed  and  revolutions  took  place. 
The  historic  French  Revolution  came  as  an  aftermath 
of  the  despotism  of  Louis  the  Fourteenth;  Austria  and 
Prussia  were  involved  in  several  bloody  struggles  after 
the  deaths  of  Joseph  and  Frederick.  And  Russia  felt 
most  helpless  after  Catherine  the  Great  had  passed 
away.  We  will  find  that  when  our  current  dictators 
leave  this  mortal  world,  either  nobody  or  everybody 
will  rule,  and  all  the  advantages  that  could  have  re 
sulted  from  dictatorship  will  more  than  be  wiped  out. 
The  Affirmative  has  said  that  there  are  evils  in  de 
mocracy.  History  as  well  as  reason  shows  us  that  the 
evils  of  dictatorship  are  a  thousand  times  greater.  Be 
fore  we  change  let  us  be  careful  into  what  we  leap. 


Second  Affirmative,  Ellery  B.  Haskell 
Colgate  University 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  Mr.  Christopher  has 
described  to  you  the  present  critical  state  of  affairs 
in  the  United  States.  He  has  pointed  out  that  there  is 
an  urgent  need  for  immediate  action  by  the  govern 
ment.  He  concluded  by*  expounding  the  definitions  of 
dictatorship  and  democracy. 

We  believe  that  the  present  situation's  demand  for 
immediate  governmental  action  is  so  urgent  that  our 
present  democratic  system  of  government  will  be  un 
able  to  meet  that  demand.  The  chief  point  of  weakness 
in  our  present  system  is  Congress.  It  is  Congress 
which  retards  action.  The  extreme  slowness  of  this 


A  PRESIDENTIAL  DICTATORSHIP  431 

body  can  be  easily  explained.  The  mere  fact  of  its 
parliamentary  procedure  is  a  cause  for  delay.  It  took 
a  week  and  a  half  to  two  weeks  to  organize  the  two 
houses  of  the  present  Congress.  A  glance  at  the  recent 
daily  issues  of  the  Congressional  Record  will  demon 
strate  clearly  the  inevitable  drag  on  all  attempts  at 
speed  by  a  normal  Congress.  There  are  necessarily 
rigid  rules  on  debate,  but  despite  them  members  are 
able  to  hold  the  floor  for  a  long  time.  In  the  last  few 
weeks  of  the  Hoover  administration.  Senator  Shepard- 
son  held  the  floor  of  the  Senate  for  eight  hours  in  order 
to  prevent  any  attempt  at  a  repeal  of  the  Eighteenth 
Amendment.  Huey  Long  conducted  a  superb  filibuster 
of  five  or  six  days  in  order  to  prevent  some  banking 
legislation  proposed  by  Carter  Glass.  In  addition  to 
this,  members  are  constantly  interrupting  each  other 
to  ask  questions,  to  obtain  speaking  time,  and  some 
times  to  find  out  if  a  quorum  is  present.  The  fate  of 
the  country  hangs  upon  the  speed  with  which  a  gov 
ernmental  body  acts  which  constantly  has  to  interrupt 
its  work  to  discover  whether  it  is  all  there  or  not.  Every 
now  and  then  some  enterprising  Congressman  suggests 
that  the  rules  of  the  House  or  Senate  be  modified. 
This  happened  in  the  midst  of  our  crucial  time  in  the 
House  on  March  14th.  The  only  way  to  remedy  this 
great  difficulty  is  drastically  to  limit  debate  as  to  the 
length  and  nature  of  it. 

The  nature  of  a  parliamentary  body,  such  as  Con 
gress,  and  its  duties  are  detrimental  to  action.  There 
may  even  be  a  question  of  the  status  of  certain  mem 
bers.  In  this  special  session  of  Congress,  there  has 


432         THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

been  a  lengthy  argument  concerning  the  unseating  of  a 
member  because  of  felony.    There  has  been  delay  and 
incompetence  because  of  the  lack  of  knowledge  on  the 
part  of  Congress.     Representative  Dunn,  on  March 
llth,  stated  that  the  new  members  had  had  no  time  to 
study  the  Economy  Bill.    Senators  in  the  hurly-burly 
of  the  rush  in  which  Roosevelt  has  forced  Congress, 
admit  their  lack  of  knowledge  about  proposed  amend 
ments  which  they  are  discussing.    Senator  George  said 
at  one  time:  "I  am  not  familiar  with  the  exact  terms 
of  the  Amendment."   The  vast  number  of  bills  and  the 
minute  character  of  most  of  them  make  it  physically 
impossible  for  Congress  to  act  quickly.   The  same  body 
that  acts  on  the  most  important  legislation  of  the  crisis, 
like  the  Economy  Bill,  is  also  bombarded  by  innumer 
able  others.    There  are  some  3,125  bills  before  the 
House  and  in  addition  to  these,  are  the  ones  which  origi 
nate  in  the  Senate.    These  bills  deal  with  almost  every 
conceivable  thing  under  the  sun.    Some  of  the  bills  are: 
Relief  for  Agnes  M.  Angle;  Relief  for  Daisy  Anderson; 
Relief  for  Holy  Family  Hospital,  St.  Ignatius,  Mon 
tana;  and  Bill  for  conveying  certain  land  in  the  County 
of  Los  Angeles,  California.    The  House  was  obliged  to 
devote  not  a  little  time  recently  to  the  discussion  of  a 
bill  enacting  a  memorial  postage  stamp  for  A.  J.  Cer- 
mak.    Thus  we  can  readily  understand  why  the  vast 
and  diverse  legislation  in  conjunction  with  such  a  body 
as  Congress  renders  swift  action  physically  impossible. 
The  only  alternative  to  this  difficulty  is  to  limit  dras 
tically  the  character  of  bills  to  be  discussed. 
The  conflict  of  interests  and  opinions  within  Con- 


A  PRESIDENTIAL  DICTATORSHIP  433 

gress  is  one  of  the  most  important  features  holding  up 
action.  We  may  note  that  in  the  last  long  session  of 
Congress,  from  December,  1931,  to  July,  1932,  very 
little  was  accomplished.  The  most  important  bills  had 
to  do  with  the  present  crisis  and  embodied  the  ideas 
and  messages  to  Congress  of  former  President  Hoover. 
These  most  important  bills,  having  to  do  with  the  Re 
construction  Finance  Corporation  and  the  Federal 
Home  Loan  Banks,  were  pushed  through  in  the  very- 
last  few  days  of  Congress,  late  in  July.  The  short 
session,  from  December,  1932,  to  last  March  4th,  ac 
complished  nothing.  In  the  New  York  Times  for 
December  29th,  we  read  that  there  was  a  lack  of  co 
operation  due  to  wide  divergence  of  basic  views  on 
every  subject  among  political  leaders.  All  action  on 
basic  issues  would  be  deferred  until  after  March  4th. 
Congress  would  do  nothing  about  the  budget,  war 
debts,  farm  relief,  prohibition,  and  granting  of  admin 
istrative  efficiencies  to  President  Hoover.  It  became  a 
do-nothing  session. 

The  reason  for  this  inability  to  act  is  not  simply  the 
political  party  fracas,  but  also  that  particular  interests 
and  opinions  are  at  work.  That  the  trouble  is  not  due 
alone  to  party  lines  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  in 
recent  emergency  legislation  more  Democrats  voted 
against  the  bills  than  have  Republicans.  The  other 
factors  making  for  inaction  are  quarrels  of  opinion  and 
interests.  There  are  countless  lobbies  capable  of  ex 
ercising  great  power  which  influence  Representatives 
and  Senators.  Their  methods  are  to  influence  the  Con 
gressmen  themselves  and  especially  to  propagandize  the 


434    THE  YEAH  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

public  which  forms  the  constituencies  of  these  repre 
sentatives  of  the  people.  They  also  present  their  case 
before  committees.  The  chief  function  of  the  lobbies  is 
to  secure  the  interest  of  the  particular  group,  The 
trade  association^  chief  interest  in  government  is  due 
to  the  fear  that  Congress  may  enact  legislation  regu 
lating  industry.  Representative  Burton  of  Ohio  has 
said:  "In  nothing  is  there  greater  danger  to  the  body 
politic  than  in  the  power  of  the  persistent  and  well- 
organised  groups  to  secure  the  enactment  of  measures 
which  axe  contrary  to  the  interests  of  the  aggregate 
body  of  citizenship.  Washington  is  filled  with  lobbyists 
who  seek  to  overawe  Congress  for  matters  of  individ 
ual  and  local  concern."  The  effect  of  the  lobbies  can 
not  be  doubted.  For  example,  very  recently  in  the 
Senate,  Senator  Tydings  heroically  said  that  the  Sena 
tors  must  balance  the  question  of  the  country's  welfare 
over  against  death,  politically.  Senator  Tydings  also 
admitted,  to  a  question  by  Senator  Borah  as  to  where 
the  pressure  came  to  drive  out  certain  items  in  an 
Economy  Bill,  that  the  pressure  had  come  from  busi 
ness  interests.  The  effects  of  lobbying  interests  can 
be  seen  in  the  fights  over  the  very  important  economy 
legislation  in  Congress.  The  veterans  gave  a  stiff  op 
position.  Representatives  and  Senators  spoke  lengthily 
in  defence  of  them.  What  may  happen  about  the  Farm 
legislation  can  be  seen  by  the  fact  that  the  McNary- 
Haugen  Farm  Relief  Bill  was  passed  under  the  wing 
of  lobbies.  There  are  signs  of  storms  of  opposition  for 
every  move  that  President  Roosevelt  makes  from  now 
on.  There  is  a  welter  of  interests  concentrated  upon  a 


A  PRESIDENTIAL  DICTATORSHIP  435 

great  number  of  Congressmen  dependent  upon  these 
interests  for  their  jobs. 

In  order  to  avoid  the  difficulty  of  debate,  of  the  mass 
of  bills  and  of  conflicts  of  interest,  Congress  will  have 
to  limit  debate  drastically,  to  limit  the  kind  of  bills  to 
be  discussed,  and  to  delegate  power  to  the  President. 
The  recent  Congress  is  doing  this.  Is  Congress  saved? 
Is  Democracy  saved?  The  function  of  Congress  is"  to 
produce  legislation  which  is  the  result  of  integrated 
opinion  of  representatives  of  the  people.  Cutting  down 
debate  cuts  out  the  possibility  of  an  integrated  opinion. 
Delegating  power  to  the  President  to  change  bills  cuts 
out  the  power  of  Congress.  We  have,  then,  a  Congress 
shorn  of  power  and  simply  doing  what  Roosevelt  wants 
it  to  do.  The  Negative  is  presented  with  the  following 
dilemma:  Either  Congress  should  be  allowed  plenty  of 
time  to  debate  and  obtain  an  integrated  opinion,  or,  in 
the  present  crisis,  the  time  allowed  should  be  drastically 
limited  and  no  integrated  opinion  obtained  or  the  value 
of  Congress  lost. 

4- We  believe,  then,  that  the  present  crisis  calls  for 
immediate  action  by  the  government.  We  advocate  a 
dictatorship  which  need  not  be  absolute  but  at  least 
have  very  great  powers.  We  believe  it  is  necessary,  for 
Congress  or  parliamentary  democracy  is  incapable  of 
swift  action  in  a  crisis.  We  ask  the  Gentlemen  of  the 
Opposition  to  admit  or  deny  the  following:  the  need  for 
immediate  governmental  action;  in  order  to  avoid 
quibbling,  the  definition  of  a  limited  but  powerful  dic 
tatorship,  and  the  following  dilemma:  either  Congress 


436    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

acts  slowly  and  we  derive  value  from  it,  or  it  acts 
swiftly  and  is  of  no  value. 


Second  Negative,  Sanford  Solender 
New  York  University 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  It  is  an  exceedingly  sig 
nificant  fact,  that  on  a  cold,  rainy,  and  bleak  evening 
such  as  this,  so  large  a  group  of  people  are  sufficiently 
aroused  by  the  suggestion  of  the  establishment  of  a 
dictatorship  in  America,  to  attend  this  discussion.  We, 
of  New  York  University,  welcome  this  opportunity 
which  our  American  democracy  so  firmly  guarantees  us, 
of  discussing  the  comparative  merits  of  a  dictatorship 
and  of  a  democracy,  with  all  the  freedom  that  we  de 
sire. 

The  tremendous  evils  of  a  dictatorship  have  already 
been  indicated.  Insecurity,  arising  from  indefiniteness 
of  succession;  the  danger  of  the  system  becoming  per 
manent;  complete  concentration  of  power  in  a  single 
organ  who  is  entirely  free  from  constitutional  restraint; 
and  a  form  of  government  which  is  entirely  free  of 
popular  control,  all  characterize  the  type  of  system 
which  the  Gentlemen  from  Colgate  offer.  We  ieel, 
however,  that  this  system  is  entirely  contrary  to  the 
most  fundamental  factors  in  our  American  government, 
and  it  is  my  duty  to  point  out  that  our  system,  as  a 
result  of  certain  unique  features  which  it  possesses,  is 
entirely  capable  of  coping  with  the  present  problems. 

In  order  to  see  more  clearly  how  adequate  our  pres 
ent  system  is  for  coping  with  these  problems,  it  will  be 


A  PRESIDENTIAL  DICTATORSHIP  437 

necessary  to  turn  for  a  moment  to  the  background  of 
our  government. 

From  the  very  formation  of  the  union,  all  those  free 
doms,  rights,  and  liberties  embodied  in  the  Bill  of 
Rights  have  been  held  sacred.  Our  government  was 
constructed  in  such  a  fashion  as  to  prevent  undue  exer 
cise  of  power  by  any  organ  and  to  restrain  adequately 
each  department,  thus  preventing  any  violation  of  our 
democracy  and  of  the  security  of  our  rights.  Various 
devices  were  inserted  in  our  Constitution  to  provide 
this.  A  system  of  division  of  powers  into  Legislative, 
Executive,  and  Judicial  Departments  with  a  balance  of 
powers  functioning,  making  each  department  a  check 
upon  the  other.  Frequent  elections  were  provided  to 
insure  popular  control  of  the  government,  and  all  man 
ner  of  restraints  were  placed  upon  both  state  and  na 
tional  governments  in  order  to  insure  the  inviolability 
of  the  fundamental  rights  of  the  people.  As  Harold 
Laski  states,  "The  democrative  move  is  not  historical 
accident.  It  grew  out  of  a  realization  that  if  popular 
well-being  is  the  purpose  of  government,  popular  con 
trol  is  essential." 

And  now,  after  a  century  and  a  half  of  our  existence, 
we  have  a  system  in  America  that  the  whole  world,  so 
torn  by  dictatorships  and  suppression,  may  look  upon 
with  envy.  While  the  people  of  Germany  and  Italy  are 
utterly  helpless  in  the  face  of  vicious  denials  of  every 
fundamental  right  of  man,  we  in  America  have  absolute 
freedom.  The  very  fact  that  we  may  meet  and  discuss 
this  problem  so  freely  is  indicative  of  the  complete 
freedom  of  speech  and  assemblage  in  the  United  States. 


438    THE  YEA*  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

Freedom  of  religion,  of  the  press,  and  absolute  guar 
antee  of  fair  and  equal  treatment  before  the  law,  are 
but  a  few  of  the  fundamental  rights  which  are  so  com 
pletely  denied  in  dictatorship  nations  but  which  our 
American  government  so  carefully  guards  for  us.  Yet 
the  Gentlemen  from  Colgate  would  forget  all  these 
facts,  would  throw  aside  the  democratic  system  and 
adopt  a  dictatorship  with  its  inherent  viciousness. 

During  this  century  and  a  half  of  our  existence,  an 
other  very  important  development  has  occurred.  As 
was  quite  natural,  within  a  short  time  after  our  govern 
ment  began  to  function,  differences  arose  among  our 
statesmen  over  the  treatment  of  the  various  problems 
facing  the  new  nation.  Political  parties  took  root  and 
began  a  long  series  of  developments  which  have  culmi 
nated  today  with  the  parties  as  the  most  important  cogs 
in  our  political  system.  Not  only  do  the  parties  provide 
coordination  between  the  state  and  national  govern 
ments;  not  only  do  they  nominate  candidates,  select 
platforms  and  conduct  campaigns;  but,  most  important, 
they  have  provided  a  medium  for  securing  complete 
coordination  between  the  Legislative  and  Executive 
Departments,  particularly  in  times  of  stress  such  as 
we  are  experiencing  at  present. 

We  wish,  in  our  discussion,  to  determine  the  most 
adequate  system  to  solve  our  present  problems.  We 
must  of  necessity,  therefore  confine  our  discussion  to  the 
present  political  situation.  As  it  stands  today,  Presi 
dent  Roosevelt's  Democratic  party  maintains  an  over 
whelming  majority  in  Congress.  He  is  thus  able,  by 
his  readily  recognizable  ability  as  a  leader,  to  enforce 


A  PRESIDENTIAL  DICTATORSHIP  439 

party  discipline  within  the  Democratic  organization, 
and  to  have  his  plans  for  the  solution  of  the  present 
crisis  executed  in  this  manner  with  all  promptness.  In 
a  few  words,  the  party  system,  by  virtue  of  its  disci 
pline,  has  enabled  us  to  bring  about  rapid  coordination 
between  the  executive  and  the  legislative,  and  to  thus 
meet  emergencies  with  all  the  necessary  promptness. 

One  need  but  examine  the  amazing  record  of  speed 
and  completeness  with  which  President  Roosevelt, 
within  three  weeks  of  his  inauguration,  has  met  each 
of  the  problems  facing  the  United  States.  First,  faced 
with  an  acute  banking  problem,  the  President  exerted 
his  leadership  and  initiated  adequate  legislation  to 
meet  the  crisis.  Then,  when  the  problem  of  legalizing 
beer  arose,  he  immediately  guided  the  needed  legislation 
through  with  all  necessary  speed.  Faced  with  the  need 
of  balancing  the  budget,  he  initiated  the  required  legis 
lation,  and  with  all  promptness  performed  the  necessary 
actions  to  solve  this  problem.  Thus,  we  have  had  com 
plete,  adequate,  and  speedy  functioning  of  the  gov 
ernment  in  crises.  In  other  words,  we  have  here  actual 
examples  of  the  fact  that  under  our  present  political 
system,  the  party  in  power,  with  its  discipline,  is  en 
tirely  capable  of  executing  all  necessary  governmental 
action  to  meet  the  existing  problems. 

Yet,  the  Gentlemen  from  Colgate  would  ignore  these 
facts,  and  would  destroy  entirely  our  present  system, 
substituting  in  its  stead,  a  dictatorship,  with  all  its  in 
security,  lack  of  popular  control  and  entire  super 
sedence  of  the  Constitution  and  fundamental  law. 

The  last  few  weeks  have  witnessed  a  revelation  in 


440    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

political  history  of  the  United  States.  It  has  been  evi 
denced,  beyond  doubt,  that  the  executive  has  set  a  new 
precedent  in  the  conduct  of  affairs,  both  in  emergencies 
and  in  normal  times.  Party  discipline  has  made  him 
the  leader  in  legislation.  He  decides  what  is  best, 
initiates  legislation  and  guides  it  through  the  Congress 
with  all  necessary  speed.  How  could  a  dictatorship 
possibly  give  quicker,  more  decisive,  and  yet  thoroughly 
constitutional  action  such  as  this? 

Thus,  because  we  feel  that  the  inherent  evils  of  a 
dictatorship  are  so  great  that  they  far  outweigh  any 
possible  faults  of  a  democracy,  and  because  it  is  obvi 
ous  that  democracy  in  America  has  proven  itself,  both 
as  a  protector  of  the  fundamental  rights  of  the  people 
and  as  a  form  of  government  capable  of  meeting  all 
situations  and  emergencies,  we  urge  that  the  suggestion 
of  a  dictatorship  for  America  be  rejected  and  the  pres 
ent  democracy  be  maintained. 


Third  Affirmative,  Carl  T.  Arlt,  Jr. 
Colgate  University 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  In  the  course  of  the  dis 
cussion  there  are  several  important  points  which  gain 
prominence.  First  of  all,  there  is  the  severe  economic 
crisis  which  demands  coordination  and  planning.  In 
order  to  preserve  the  present  system  we  need  action. 
However,  when  we  look  over  our  governmental  ma 
chinery  we  find  that  this  representative  government, 
this  democracy,  does  not  satisfy  that  particular  need. 
Democracy  is  a  form  of  government  in  which  everyone 


A  PRESIDENTIAL  DICTATORSHIP  441 

knows  what  to  do  but  no  one  has  the  authority  to  do  it. 
Thus,  we  are  faced  with  the  question — What  shall  we 
do  to  be  saved? 

It  is  the  contention  of  the  Affirmative  that  dictator 
ship  is  the  answer  to  the  need.  Dictatorship  would  be 
that  form  of  government  in  which  our  dependence  is 
no  longer  placed  on  the  legislature  but  rather  on  a  very- 
strong  executive  with  unlimited  power.  He  would  then 
be  able  to  deal  courageously  with  problems  of  tariff, 
war  debts,  economic  planning,  and  taxation.  In  other 
words,  he  would  eliminate  that  problem  of  deadlock 
which  is  not  unlike  the  problem  faced  by  the  equally 
hungry  and  equally  thirsty  donkey,  equally  hesitant 
and  equally  inhibited  between  a  bag  of  oats  and  a 
bucket  of  water.  Torn  by  conflicting  forces,  dumb  in 
the  presence  of  the  equality  of  ideas  and  opportunities, 
the  donkey  starves.  We  must  answer  the  need  with 
action. 

This  idea  of  concentrating  the  power  in  the  hands  of 
one  individual  or 'a  few  individuals,  when  regarded  from 
the  standpoint  of  efficiency  and  action,  is  inevitable. 
wWe  note  that  we  have  never  had  a  pure  democracy  even 
in  the  early  beginnings  of  democracy  in  the  Greek  state. 
It  was  deemed  impossible  and  impractical  that  every 
individual  should  have  an  active  participation  in  gov 
ernment.  Another  shining  example  of  this  concentra 
tion  of  authority  lies  in  the  make-up  of  a  corporation. 
Although  that  particular  business  unit  may  be  owned 
by  thousands  and  thousands  of  stockholders,  the  con 
trol  and  management  lie  in  the  hands  of  a  few  directors. 
In  the  field  of  taxation  it  has  been  considered  very  prac- 


442    THE  YEAH  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

tical  to  centralize  the  taxing  authorities  in  the  state 
administration.  Those  states  which  have  been  most 
successful  in  administering  their  income  tax  have  been 
those  which  have  had  centralized  tax  authority  con 
trolling  the  activities  of  many  units.  One  has  merely 
to  glance  at  the  branch  banking  system  of  Canada  to 
realize  the  soundness  of  centralized  control  and,  as  has 
been  mentioned  previously  in  this  debate,  the  Institute 
of  Politics,  meeting  at  Williamstown,  Massachusetts, 
recognized  that  power  is  passing  into  the  hands  of 
small  groups  of  competent  men.  Thus,  in  analyzing  all 
these  examples,  we  may  justly  conclude  that  an  eco 
nomic  dictator  is  consistent  with  the  trends  of  the  pres 
ent  time. 

The  histories  of  outstanding  democracies  bear  wit 
ness  to  the  fact  that  in  times  of  emergency  they  have 
become  less  democratic  and  more  dictatorial.  In  1925 
the  Belgian  Parliament  abdicated  so  that  her  problems 
of  taxes,  economy,  and  public  debt  might  be  dealt  with 
directly  by  a  single  individual  or  a  small  group  of  in 
dividuals.  The  results  attained  favored  this  dictatorial 
action.  In  1926,  when  the  French  finances  were  in  a 
precarious  position,  Monsieur  Poincare  was  given  the 
reins  of  the  government.  Through  his  actions  the 
French  finances  were  restored  to  normalcy.  In  Eng 
land,  the  stronghold  of  Parliamentary  procedure,  we 
find  the  House  of  Commons  relinquishing  its  control 
over  the  purse-strings  and  abdicating  in  favor  of  a 
strong  cabinet  which  acted,  not  by  parliamentary 
process,  but  by  Orders  in  Council. 

One  of  the  most  outstanding  grants  of  dictatorial 


A  PRESIDENTIAL  DICTATORSHIP  443 

power  rendered  by  democracy  is  found  in  no  other 
country  than  our  own  United  States.  In  the  recent 
World  War,  when  the  country  was  faced  by  a  world 
crisis,  Congress  granted  extraordinary  powers  to  Presi 
dent  Wilson,  and  working  with  President  Wilson  was  a 
War  Industries  Board  which  was  in  effect  a  dictator 
ship.  It  controlled  production  by  encouraging  it  in 
some  sections,  limiting  it  in  others;  by  directing  the 
administration  of  fuel  and  food;  and  supervising  the 
operation  of  our  transportation  facilities.  Action  was 
needed  and  the  War  Industries  Board  restored  order 
out  of  chaos. 

It  is  not  for  me  to  say  definitely  that  these  examples 
are  examples  of  dictatorship.  Some  may  call  them 
dictatorships,  others  may  call  them  efficient  democra 
cies.  But  regardless  of  the  name  which  you  choose  to 
give  them,  the  fact  remains  that  when  action  is  needed 
in  times  of  emergency,  organization  becomes  less  demo 
cratic  and  more  dictatorial. 

A  glance  at  the  existing  dictatorships  and  their  origin 
shows  very  clearly  that  when  chaos  reigns,  people  have 
resorted  to  dictatorial  action.  Battagalia,  editor  of  that 
book,  Dictatorship  on  Trial,  says  this: 

"Dictatorship  presupposes  the  failure  or  disintegration  of 
an  older,  outworn  system;  it  is  chaos  and  confusion  that 
summon  the  Alexander  of  the  moment  to  cut  the  Gordian 
knot  with  his  sword.  As  a  rule,  the  old  system  goes  bank 
rupt  at  a  critical  moment  in  the  domestic  and  foreign  re 
lations  of  a  country.  It  was  thus  that  dictatorship  came  to  be 
established  in  Russia,  Turkey,  Hungary,  Italy,  Spain,  Po 
land  and  Yugoslavia." 


444    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

Dictatorships  of  a  greater  legal  character  have  arisen 
and  do  arise  in  other  countries,  and  yet,  like  all  dicta 
torships,  they  are  the  result  of  the  effort  to  restore 
order  out  of  chaos.  These  dictatorships  may  be  re 
ferred  to  as  constitutional  dictatorships.  In  Rome  the 
dictator  received  his  super-legal  powers  from  a  legal 
body.  Legal  dictatorships  occurred  for  the  longest 
period  of  time  in  the  so-called  Polish  Confederation. 
Sforza,  although  an  opponent  of  dictatorship,  admits 
that  in  South  America,  constitutional  dictatorships  are 
in  existence  because  of  the  need  for  action. 

Thus,  one  may  see  that  dictatorships  may  be  of  vari 
ous  types  and  degree.  Some  are  more  absolute  than 
others.  They  have  varied  to  meet  the  needs  of  the 
hour.  Some  are  defensive,  others  are  aggressive.  In 
addition,  one  cannot  deny  that  some  of  these  dictator 
ships  are  too  tyrannical  for  the  good  of  the  people. 
However,  all  these  dictatorships  point  to  this  one  very 
obvious  truth  which  Mr.  Lippmann  has  expressed  so 
effectively: 

"The  problems  that  vex  democracy  seem  to  be  unman 
ageable  by  democratic  methods.  In  supreme  crises  the 
dilemma  is  presented  absolutely.  Possibly  a  war  can  be 
fought  for  democracy;  it  cannot  be  fought  democratically. 
Possibly  a  sudden  revolution  may  be  made  to  advance 
democracy;  but  the  revolution  itself  will  be  conducted  by 
dictatorship.  Democracy  may  be  defended  against  its  ene 
mies  but  it  will  be  defended  by  a  committee  of  safety.  The 
history  of  wars  and  revolutions  since  1914  is  ample  evidence 
on  this  point.  In  the  presence  of  danger,  where  swift  and 
concerted  action  is  required,  the  methods  of  democracy  can 
not  be  employed." 


A  PRESIDENTIAL  DICTATORSHIP  445 

At  the  present  time  Roosevelt  has  been  given  dic 
tatorial  authority.  Indications  point  to  grants  of  even 
more  dictatorial  authority  to  control  more  effectively 
the  factors  of  production.  Every  day  bears  witness  to 
a  decided  tendency  to  deal  less  democratically  with  the 
problems  of  the  day.  It  is  impossible  to  deny  that. 
However,  there  is  still  too  much  clumsiness  and  delay 
in  our  governmental  functions.  Such  is  the  opinion  of 
Babson,  the  statistician,  who  has  studied  the  situation 
very  carefully.  According  to  him,  we  should  scrap  the 
Constitution  and  establish  a  dictator. 

Thus,  we  may  conclude  that  when  the  United  States 
is  faced  by  this  economic  crisis  in  which  chaos  prevails; 
that  when  our  present  democratic  machinery  of  govern 
ment  cannot  act  swiftly  with  efficiency;  when  we  see 
that  trends  point  to  dictatorial  action;  that  outstanding 
democracies  bear  witness  to  dictatorial  action;  we  of 
the  Affirmative  naturally  advocate  that  in  the  present 
state  of  world  affairs  a  dictatorship  is  preferable  to  a 
democracy. 

Third  Negative,  James  Keller 
New  York  University 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  Our  Affirmative  friends 
base  their  plea  for  dictatorship  upon  one  great  argu 
ment — America  needs  action! 

The  answer  to  their  argument  is  that  we  already  have 
action,  that  ever  since  the  inauguration  of  President 
Roosevelt  we  have  had  nothing  but  action.  From  Capi 
tol  Hill  has  come  a  series  of  rapid  fire  decisions,  of 
swiftly  enacted  legislative  measures.  Bank  Bill, 


446    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

Economy  Act,  and  Reforestation  Measures,  have  fol 
lowed  each  other  in  rapid  succession.  Congress  has  not 
been  abolished,  but  it  has  cooperated,  so  much  so  that 
the  action  our  friends  desire  has  become  the  keynote  of 
present  administrative  policy.  What  you  wanted, 
Gentlemen  from  Colgate,  you  now  have;  and  your 
wishes  have  been  granted  without  scrapping  the  Con 
stitution,  without  dissolving  Congress,  without  install 
ing  a  dictator  in  the  White  House. 

And  now  that  your  wishes  have  been  met,  upon  what 
basis  do  you  still  complain?  Would  you  be  so  un 
informed  as  to  argue  that  Congressmen  filibuster,  and 
therefore  action  is  impossible?  You  seek  to  prove  your 
assertion  by  remarking  that  Huey  Long  and  his  co- 
members  of  the  senatorial  lunatic  fringe  filibustered 
during  the  last  congressional  session.  You  are  right. 
They  did  filibuster,  but  that  was  the  last  session.  Then 
there  was  no  leader  in  the  White  House,  then  our  nation 
was  in  that  dull  interlude  which  followed  the  dropping 
of  the  curtain  on  old  policies,  and  preceded  the  inaugu 
ration  of  the  new.  But  March  4th,  Franklin  D.  Roose 
velt  took  office.  Filibustering  became  a  mere  memory 
— a  legislature  bound  by  party  ties  and  driven  by  the 
manifestations  of  national  will,  followed  him  on  every 
one  of  his  measures.  You  are  right  that  before  March 
4th,  we  lacked  action;  but  today  that  need  is  satisfied. 

What  other  fault  remains  with  our  present  repre 
sentative,  institutional  form  of  government?  You 
present  to  us  a  rather  queer,  and  a  slightly  far-fetched 
dilemma.  Congress,  you  announce,  can  either  talk  or 
act,  it  cannot  do  both.  Now,  if  it  spends  all  of  its  time 


A  PRESIDENTIAL  DICTATORSHIP  447 

In  discussion,  then  the  necessary  legislation  will  be  im 
possible;  but  if  it  doesn't  talk  things  over,  if  it  acts  so 
hastily  as  not  to  have  carefully  considered  measures, 
it  is  useless.  Let  me  point  out  to  you  that  there  exists 
a  middle  course  which  is  not  an  impossibility.  Con 
gress  may  spend  a  moderate  amount  of  time  upon  a 
measure,  discuss  it  with  moderate  fullness,  and  then 
vote.  Such  is  in  fact  the  customary  practice  of  repre 
sentative  government.  That  is  a  way  by  which  discus 
sion  and  action  can  be  combined. 

There  are  times  when  this  theory,  like  every  other 
one,  does  not  work  perfectly.  It  is  neither  wise  nor 
logical  to  build  a  rule  out  of  those  exceptions.  There 
is  filibustering  sometimes,  but  filibustering  arouses 
comment  only  because  of  its  infrequency. 

There  are  also  times  of  stress  like  the  present  one  in 
which  Congress — perceiving  that  an  emergency  exists 
— willingly  curtails  its  right  of  discussion  in  order  to 
expedite  action.  That  temporary  limitation  of  discus 
sion  is  no  proof  that  Congress  is  worthless.  In  more 
normal  times  freer  discussion  will  be  resumed.  And, 
even  drastic  limitation  of  debate  is  far  different  from 
dissolution  of  Congress.  Limitation  of  debate  is  not 
the  same  as  permanent  destruction  of  freedom  of  dis 
cussion.  Very  often,  a  Congressman  can,  by  removing 
pompous  phrases  from  his  speech,  say  more  in  five  min 
utes  than  he  normally  does  in  five  hours. 

Besides,  Congress  retains  its  vote.  When  the  vote  is 
affirmative  it  is  a  general  declaration  that  Congress 
men  believe  the  measure  sound,  and  believe  that  their 
constituents  want  it.  Where  the  free  exercise  of  such 


448    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

a  right  to  vote  exists,  there  is  no  arbitrary  dictatorial 
power;  representative  government  is  neither  abolished 
nor  ineffective. 

What  then  remains,  of  the  Affirmative  onslaught 
against  Congress?  Well,  our  friends  announce  their 
suspicion  that  Congressmen  may  be  bribed,  that  per 
suasive,  slick,  unscrupulous  lobbyists  may  bring  pres 
sure  to  bear  upon  them. 

Now  it  may  be  that  they  are  right.  It  may  be  that 
some  Congressmen  will  yield  to  pressure.  But  this 
dictator  of  theirs — what  vaccine  will  they  use  to 
inoculate  him  against  bribery  and  corruption?  None 
has  ever  yet  been  discovered.  And  it  is  easier  for  a 
group  to  influence  one  man  than  it  is  to  control  two 
hundred.  All  the  organs  of  propaganda,  all  known 
instrumentalities  for  dominating  an  individual,  will  be 
focused  on  this  one  dictator.  He  may  be  a  superman; 
but  after  all,  there  is  no  guarantee  that  he  will  be.  A 
dictatorial  glass-house  is  a  poor  place  into  which  to  toss 
stones.  History  does  not  record  that  most  dictators 
have  stood  above  all  special,  narrow  interests,  and  de 
voted  themselves  to  a  furtherance  of  the  general  good. 
Rather,  the  opposite  has  generally  been  true. 

Now  that  our  friends  have  received  action,  now  that 
their  dilemma  has  been  solved,  and  the  great  difficul 
ties  they  feared  disposed  of,  no  reason  remains  for  in 
stalling  a  dictator  in  the  White  House. 

But  many,  many  reasons  still  remain  that  make  one 
reluctant  to  put  a  Caesar,  a  Napoleon,  a  potential  Hit 
ler,  or  a  Nero  at  the  head  of  our  government.  All  his 
tory  unites  to  bid  us  hesitate.  A  dictator  would  possess 


A  PRESIDENTIAL  DICTATORSHIP  449 

absolute  power,  he  would  control  the  army,  he  would 
control  the  organs  that  formulate  opinion — press,  radio, 
and  motion  picture.  He  could  dominate  majorities; 
he  could  smash  minorities;  his  rule  would  be  limited 
only  by  his  power  to  compel  obedience,  and  that  power 
would  be  great. 

Now  in  that  lack  of  limitation  lurks  the  fatal  danger 
of  dictatorship.  If  the  dictator  were  perfect  all  might 
be  well.  But,  there  is  no  guarantee  of  perfection. 
Demagogue  and  cheap  politician  backed  by  the  propa 
ganda  of  powerful  special  interests  can  win  a  grant  of 
power,  and  once  in  office,  forget  all  promises  and 
brazenly  suppress  criticism,  relentlessly  persecute 
minorities,  and  rule  with  an  iron  hand. 

History  makes  such  dangers  vivid.  This  nation  re 
jected  monarchy  because  our  Constitution-makers  had 
read  history  and  knew  its  dangers.  Why  should  we 
be  deluded  into  the  error  they  avoided?  Let  us  too 
follow  their  advice;  utilize  the  advantages  inherent  in 
our  institutions;  and  cleave  firmly  to  that  we  possess. 

Before  we  rush  blindly  from  the  institutions  that 
satisfy  our  needs,  let  us  reflect  on  the  admission  which 
even  Will  Durant,  arch-foe  of  democracy,  is  compelled 
to  make: 

"To  be  successful,  a  dictator  must  be  both  a  genius  and  a 
%  gentleman,  usually,  he  has  been  neither." 


450    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

Negative  Refutation,  James  Keller 
New  York  University 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  As  concluding  speaker  of 
the  Negative,  I  want  to  first  remove  a  few  of  the  minor 
misconceptions  which  stud  the  Affirmative  case,  and 
then  deal  directly  with  the  fundamental  issue  of  this 
debate. 

The  first  of  the  misconceptions  consists  in  the  vague 
and  slightly  naive  statement  that  not  until  Roosevelt 
became  dictator  was  Prohibition  abolished.  To  attrib 
ute  the  abolition  of  Prohibtion  to  the  benefits  of  dic 
tatorship  is  to  overlook  the  fact  that  Roosevelt  is  not, 
according  to  the  definitions  we  presented  and  the  Af 
firmative  have  agreed  to,  a  dictator.  If  our  friends, 
whenever  they  talk  of  dictatorial  benefits,  are  pursuing 
logic  as  fantastical  as  this,  then  Heaven  save  us  from  a 
dictator. 

The  second  misconception  revolves  about  the  Beer 
Bill  now  being  discussed  in  the  New  York  State  Legis 
lature.  To  listen  to  them  discuss  the  temporary  delay, 
in  the  passage  of  a  State  bill  regulating  the  sale  of  beer, 
is  almost  to  believe  that  none  will  ever  be  decided  upon, 
that  New  York  State  will  not  have  beer  on  April  7th, 
and  that  all  of  this  is  due  to  the  breakdown  of  de 
mocracy. 

Our  friends  may  rest  reassured,  for  if  no  State  meas 
ure  is  passed  on  April  7th,  there  will  be  beer  in  New 
York  State,  because  there  will  not  exist  any  State  law 
forbidding  its  sale,  and  there  does  exist  a  national 
authorization  for  such  a  sale  after  that  date. 


A  PRESIDENTIAL  DICTATORSHIP  451 

After  all,  temporary  delay  in  the  passage  of  this  one 
Bill  does  not  prove  the  failure  of  all  democracy.  It 
does  not  even  prove  that  democracy  is  not  functioning 
well  in  that  one  instance.  For  there  is  a  choice  to  be 
made.  There  are  different  plans  of  State  control  advo 
cated.  One  is  best.  It  will  take  long  discussion  to 
determine  which  is  best,  and  out  of  the  conference 
rooms  will  come  the  knowledge  that  will  make  enlight 
ened  action  possible — that  will  give  the  people  of  the 
State,  the  beer  they  want  and  give  it  to  them  before 
April  7th.  Discussion,  knowledge,  action — such  is  the 
process  of  democratic  government. 

Let  us  then  sum  up  the  chief  issue  of  debate.  For 
the  sake  of  clarity  let  us  reduce  the  argument  of  the 
Affirmative  to  a  syllogism  that  will  reveal  its  flaws. 

Action  is  necessary. 

Only  a  dictator  can  give  action. 

Therefore,  a  dictator  must  be  chosen. 

If  they  prove  that  syllogism,  the  debate  is  theirs.  If, 
as  the  Affirmative  team,  they  cannot  maintain  their 
burden  of  proof,  if  they  cannot  prove  what  they  assert, 
their  case  collapses. 

We  admit  their  major  premise.  We  admit  the  need 
for  action. 

But  we  challenge  their  minor  premise,  because  we 
can  have  action  even  though  we  do  not  have  a  dictator. 

Our  answer  is  backed  by  events.  While  our  friends 
talk  of  the  impossibility  of  action,  under  a  democratic 
government,  Roosevelt  is  acting.  His  deeds  disprove 
their  words. 


452    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

Can  they  dodge  that  fact?  Well,  they  argue  that 
Roosevelt  will  soon  become  impotent,  that  a  so-called 
revolt  over  the  Farm  Bill  is  good  evidence  that  soon 
Congress  will  cease  to  follow  him. 

Note,  first  of  all,  that  the  very  argument — Roosevelt 
will  soon  stop  doing  things — implies  that  at  present  we 
are  getting  action.  You  cannot  stop  what  has  not  be 
gun. 

Secondly,  a  temporary  opportunity  for  Congress  to 
have  a  long  discussion  of  one  bill  is  no  proof  that 
Roosevelt  has  lost  all  power,  and  that  inertia  is  about 
to  overwhelm  all  government.  There  was  a  definite 
reason  for  prolonging  the  discussion  of  the  Farm  Bill. 
Roosevelt  wanted  that  discussion,  as  he  frankly  an 
nounced  in  the  message  by  which  he  introduced  it  to 
Congress.  He  is  not  sure  that  it  is  a  perfect  way  to 
solve  the  Farm  Problem.  It  is  the  best  way  he  does 
know  of  but  discussion  may  bring  new  ideas  and  that  is 
what  is  wanted.  Information  may  lead  to  more  intelli 
gent  action. 

If  no  new  information  is  forthcoming,  if  Congress 
does  prove  recalcitrant,  Roosevelt  can  get  results  by 
using  the  radio  to  come  right  into  the  homes  of  millions 
of  Americans,  and  persuade  them  to  write  to  their  Con 
gressmen  demanding  action.  Patronage,  party  leader 
ship,  personal  popularity,  and  the  force  of  necessity 
will  make  America  follow  him  when  the  need  for  action 
grows  imperative. 

Democracy  is  as  effective  as  dictatorship;  it  implies 
no  destruction  of  individual  rights,  no  sheeplike  de 
pendence  upon  the  whim  of  one  man.  It  is  more  safe. 


A  PRESIDENTIAL  DICTATORSHIP  453 

The  stress  of  necessity  is  proving  its  efficiency — why 
then  desert  it?  Let  us  repudiate  dictatorship  and  re 
tain  democracy. 


Affirmative  Refutation,  Ellery  B.  Haskell 
Colgate  University 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  The  Affirmative  and 
Negative  have  cooperated  to  make  clear  the  distinction 
between  dictatorship  and  democracy.  The  Negative  has 
not  pressed  the  point  of  absolute  power  since  absolute 
power  is  not  necessary,  although  some  authorities  do 
state  that  such  a  condition  is  a  prerequisite  for  true 
dictatorship.  However,  we  have  merely  to  remind  our 
selves  of  constitutionally  limited  Roman  dictatorships 
and  of  Hitler's  limited  power  as  a  dictator.  Hitler  is 
limited  since  President  von  Hindenberg  controls  the 
army  and  can  have  Hitler  arrested  if  he  chooses.  I 
mention  these  instances  since  both  sides  have  agreed 
to  call  them  dictators.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Affirma 
tive  recognizes  that  a  dictatorship  involves,  if  not  abso 
lute  power,  a  very  great  deal  of  power,  and  has  no  wish 
to  encroach  on  the  field  of  modified  democracy  such  as 
we  have  in  the  present  crisis  under  Roosevelt. 

The  issues  of  tHis  debate  stand  out  clearly  and  have 
been  squarely  met  by  both  teams.  First,  is  an  immedi 
ate  action  by  the  government  necessary?  This  is  ad 
mitted  by  the  Negative.  Second,  is  parliamentary 
democracy  incapable  of  meeting  the  present  crisis? 
The  Affirmative  says  "yes";  the  Negative,  "no," 
Third,  is  dictatorship  the  best  form  of  government  for 


454    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

this  crisis?    The  Affirmative  says  **yes";  the  Negative, 
"no." 

Let  us  turn  our  attention  to  the  second  issue,  which  is 
the  crux  of  the  debate.  The  Affirmative  has  pointed 
out  the  slowness  and  ineffectiveness  of  Congress.  The 
Negative  has  rejoined  by  pointing  out  that  the  argu 
ments  of  the  Affirmative  concerning  the  weaknesses  of 
Congress  refer  to  the  Hoover  administration  and  not 
to  the  speedy  Roosevelt  Congress.  This  is  only  par 
tially  true.  Filibustering  was  carried  on  under  the 
Hoover  administration  only,  it  is  true.  However,  all 
the  arguments  about  the  parliamentary  procedure  of 
Congress,  the  ignorance  of  Congressmen,  the  mass  of 
bills,  and  the  conflict  of  interests,  refer  to  this  session. 
This  special  session  has  trouble  over  roll-calls,  ques 
tions,  amending  of  house  rules,  unseating  of  members, 
and  limitations  of  debate.  In  the  House  the  time  for 
debate  for  the  Economy  Bill  was  four  hours  for  over 
four  hundred  men.  This  means  less  than  three- 
quarters  of  a  minute  per  man.  How  many  of  you  could 
utter  much  wise  council  on  an  important  bill  like  the 
Economy  Bill  in  three-quarters  of  a  minute?  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  many  interests  were  unheard  from  and 
most  representatives  took  up  time  by  getting  up  and 
giving  their  reasons  for  supporting  the  President  rather 
than  dissecting  the  bill.  This  is  the  body  which  is  sup 
posed  to  help  us  out  of  our  crisis.  Here  the  Negative 
has  attempted  to  answer  the  Affirmative's  dilemma  by 
choosing  to  make  Congress  speedy  but  also  making  it 
worthless  as  a  deliberative  body.  They  deny  that  the 
conclusion  follows,  since  they  try  to  stand  for  a  middle 


A  PRESIDENTIAL  DICTATORSHIP  455 

course:  medium  speed  and  some  discussion  and  useful 
ness.  However,  the  present  Congress  actually  Is  re 
quired  by  our  crisis  to  operate  so  fast  that  it  is  useless, 
as  I  have  pointed  out.  We  cannot  fix  a  speed  for  the 
efficiency  of  Congress,  we  have  to  fix  a  speed  to  meet 
the  present  situation,  which  speed  is  beyond  the  power 
of  Congress.  The  strongest  argument  for  the  Negative 
at  this  point  is  the  speedy  action  of  Congress  at  present. 
Both  sides  want  immediate  action  by  the  government. 
Congress  has  given  it  to  us.  Now  the  point  at  issue  is, 
is  Congress  helpful  or  not?  The  Negative  nods  em 
phatically,  declaring  that  Congress  is  passing  Roose 
velt's  suggestions  quickly.  The  Negative,  incidentally, 
has  admitted  Roosevelt's  abilities.  We  reply:  "Pre 
cisely,  Congress  is  approving  Roosevelt's  bills  but  to 
anyone  who  reads  the  Congressional  Digest,  it  is  obvi 
ous  that  there  is  no  intelligent  discussion  of  point  after 
point,  but  rather  speech  after  speech,  arguing  for  or 
against  support  of  the  administration  and  its  increasing 
power  in  this  time  of  crisis."  We  wish  to  emphasize  the 
fact  that,  although  this  is  the  strongest  argument  of  the 
Negative — modified  democracy  and  its  present  speed — 
it  is  a  very  weak  procedure  to  render  Congress  as  a  de 
liberative  body  practically  worthless  and,  in  effect,  to 
allow  it  to  hold  up  to  some  extent  the  bills  of  Roose 
velt  which  they  are  passing.  We  advocate  the  wiping 
out  of  this  delay  by  temporary  dismissal  of  a  body  use 
less  in  critical  times.  Our  essential  argument  on  this 
most  important  point  is  that  whereas  Congress  acts 
swiftly  now,  it  is  of  no  use  to  us.  The  Negative  has 
failed  to  answer  our  arguments  on  the  uselessness  of 


456    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

that  body.  In  fact,  the  last  speaker  for  the  Negative 
has  admitted  that  Congress,  in  order  to  aid  Roosevelt, 
had  to  be  allowed  time  for  discussion.  As  for  meas 
uring  public  opinion,  Roosevelt  as  dictator  has  the 
same  sources  as  Congress:  letters,  newspapers,  and  so 
on.  If  we  want  speed,  why  not  drive  an  Austin  at 
breakneck  speed  along  the  highways?  This  procedure 
is  as  relevant  and  helpful  to  our  present  crisis  as  a 
speedy  Congress. 

Moreover,  we  may  be  assured  that  the  conflict  of 
interests  in  Congress  will  assert  itself  as  more  important 
bills  come  before  it.  A  Senator  has  declared  that  the 
honeymoon  of  President  Roosevelt  has  come  to  an  end. 
The  opposition  of  the  veterans  to  such  a  necessary  bill 
as  the  Economy  Bill  is  but  a  precursor  to  what  follows 
for  more  controversial  and  yet  just  as  necessary  legis 
lation.  Any  attempts  of  President  Roosevelt  to  deal 
with  the  farming  situation  and  especially  the  industrial 
chaos,  with  the  planned  economy  which  he  favors  and 
which  most  economists  consider  necessary,  will  meet 
with  storms  of  opposition  from  general  business  and 
farming  opinion  and  the  powerful  lobbies.  This  means 
delay  and  delay.  Instead  of  an  Austin  racing  along  the 
highways,  we  shall  have  a  Mack  truck  with  a  governor 
on  the  engine  and  a  load  of  backseat  drivers.  We  of 
the  Affirmative  point  to  the  slowness  of  Congress  in  the 
past,  to  the  set-up  tending  toward  interference  in  the 
immediate  future,  and  to  the  uselessness  of  the  present 
hog-tied  democracy  which  amounts  to  a  limping  dicta 
torship.  It  is  for  these  reasons  that  we  advocate  a 


A  PRESIDENTIAL  DICTATORSHIP  457 

strong  government,  a  dictatorship  to  act  swiftly  and 
intelligently  in  the  present  crisis. 

The  Negative  has  been  obliged  to  admit  the  swiftness 
of  action  of  a  dictatorship.  As  I  have  ponted  out,  it 
must  necessarily  admit  that  a  swift-acting  dictatorship 
can  perform  more  intelligently  than  a  swift-acting  Con 
gress.  The  chief  criticism  by  the  Negative  of  dictator 
ship  seems  to  consist  of  asserting  that  it  will  rob  the 
country  of  the  privileges  of  democracy.  Freedom  of 
speech,  press,  and  religion  and  so  on,  will  be  denied  to 
us.  They  point  to  the  persecuting  of  the  Jews  by  Hitler 
in  Germany.  First  of  all,  we  say  that  the  dictatorship 
we  want  is  a  temporary  one,  designed  to  meet  the  crisis, 
and  hence  there  would  be  little  point  in  destroying  such 
benefits  of  democracy  as  the  Gentlemen  of  the  Opposi 
tion  have  named.  Furthermore,  the  party  system  will 
be  retained  as  it  is  in  all  modern  governments,  whether 
autocratic  or  democratic.  Since  our  choice  for  dic 
tator  is  Roosevelt,  elected  by  a  majority  of  the  people, 
and  of  whom  the  Opposition  approves,  and  the  presi 
dent  is  of  the  Democratic  party,  the  ideals  of  the  Demo 
cratic  party  will  be  the  essential  policy  of  the 
dictatorship.  Contrary  to  the  Negative,  we  have  the 
support  of  political  scientists  and  any  dictator  is  limited 
in  action  by  the  support  of  the  people  and  especially  of 
his  organized  backing:  his  party.  Stalin  could  not  act 
to  restore  Capitalism  nor  Mussolini  to  establish  Com 
munism.  The  Democratic  party  stands  for  the  demo 
cratic  things  we  want  preserved.  There  will  be  no 
persecution  of  Jews,  for  the  Democratic  party  does  not 
have  that  as  a  plank  in  its  platform  as  does  the  Nazi 


458    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

party.  Hitler  does  not  act  so  because  he  is  a  dictator, 
but  because  he  is  the  leader  of  the  Nazi  party.  Roose 
velt's  essential  policy  will  be  dominated  by  democratic 
ideals  in  a  great  effort  to  lift  us  from  our  present  chaos. 

The  attacks  of  the  Opposition  on  personal  charac 
teristics  of  a  dictator  are  unjustified.  They  have  said 
that  the  record  of  dictators  has  not  been  good,  on  the 
whole.  We  note  a  lack  of  evidence.  Time  passes 
quickly,  and  I  can  simply  reply  that  the  dictators  of 
ancient  Rome  had  a  splendid  record,  and  dictators  since 
then  in  France,  England  and  South  American  countries 
have  been  noted  for  their  success  in  promoting  the 
national  welfare.  Also,  a  dictator  wpuld  be  less  sus 
ceptible  to  pressure  or  bribes  for  he  is  not  dependent 
for  his  job  on  special  interests  and  all  his  actions  are  in 
the  limelight  and  a  matter  of  personal  achievement, 
whereas  those  of  a  legislator  are  obscure  and  take  place 
where  responsibility  is  divided. 

We  of  the  Affirmative  maintain  the  preferability  of 
dictatorship  as  a  form  of  government  to  democracy  in 
this  time  of  crisis  on  the  grounds  that  immediate  action 
by  government  is  necessary;  second,  that  parliamentary 
democracy  is  incapable  of  meeting  the  crisis  since  it 
will  either  act  too  slowly  due  to  expression  of  a  world 
of  conflicting  interests,  or  act  so  swiftly  that  as  a  delib 
erative  body  it  will  be  unintelligent,  parroting  the  de 
mands  of  the  administration,  and  useless;  and  thirdly, 
that  a  dictatorship  acts  swiftly,  much  more  intelligently 
than  a  swift-acting  Congress,  and  being  dominated  by 
party  aims  and  the  specific  goal  of  getting  out  of  the 
present  crisis,  will  act  for  the  benefit  of  the  people. 


A  PRESIDENTIAL  DICTATORSHIP  459 

Dictatorship  having  saved  the  people  in  a  crisis,  we  can 
then  go  back  to  our  more  leisurely  proceeding  democ 
racy  which  at  a  normal  pace  is  apt  to  be  more  just  and 
perhaps  wiser.  Dictatorship  in  a  crisis  and  democracy 
in  normal  times  will  then  be  performing  the  true  func 
tion  of  government — promoting  the  welfare  of  the 
people  by  whom  it  was  fashioned. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY:  DEMOCRACY  vs.  DICTATORSHIP 
BOOKS  AND  PAKPHLETS 

Becker,  Carl  L. — The  United  States;  An  Experiment  in  Democracy. 

Harper,  New  York.    1920. 

Bolitho,  Wm. — Italy  Under  Mussolini.  Macmillan,  New  York.  1926. 
Bonn,  Moritz  J. — Crisis  of  European  Democracy.  Yale  University 

Press,  New  Haven.     1925. 

Bryce,  James  B. — Modern  Democracies.  Macmillan,  New  York.  1921. 
Burns,  Cecil  D. — Democracy,  Its  Defects  and  Advantages.  Macmillan, 

New  York.    1929. 
Cheyney,  Edward  P. — Historical  Tests  of  Democracy.    (In  University 

of  Pennsylvania  lectures.    1918-19,  p.  189-218.) 
Cram,  Ralph  A. — Limitations  of  Democracy.    Rice  Institute.    Pam 
phlet  17,  No.  3,  175-199.    July  1930. 
Forst-Battaglia,  Otto,  ed. — Dictatorship  on  Trial.     Harcourt,  New 

York.    1931. 
Herring,  Edward  P. — Group  Representation  Before  Congress.    Johns 

Hopkins  Press,  Baltimore.    1929. 
Hobson,  John  A.— Democracy  After  the  War.    Macmillan,  New  York. 

1919. 

Lippmann,  Walter. — Phantom  Public.  Harcourt,  New  York.  1925. 
Maclver,  Robert  M.— Modern  State.  Clarendon  Press,  Oxford.  1926. 
Myers,  Wm.  S. — Socialism  and  American  Ideals.  Princeton  University 

Press,  Princeton.    1919. 
Nitti,  Francesco   S. — Bolshevism,  Fascism  and  Democracy.     Allen, 

London.    1927. 
Rowell,  Chester  H.— -Challenge  to  Democracy.    National  Conference 

of  Social  Work  1927,     13-19. 


460    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  BEBATING 

Russell,  Bertrand  A.  W. — Bolshevism;  Practice  and  Theory.  Harcourt, 
New  York.  1920. 

Salt,  Edward  M. — Democracy.    Century  Co.,  New  York.    1929. 

Salvemini,  Gaetano. — Fascist  Dictatorship  in  Italy.  Holt,  New  York. 
1927. 

Sforza,  Carlo,  conte. — European  Dictatorships.  Brentano,  New  York. 
1931. 

Spargo,  John*— Bolshevism  the  Enemy  of  Political  and  Industrial 
Democracy.  Harper,  New  York.  1919. 

Spencer,  Henry  R. — Dictatorship  versus  Democracy  in  Europe,  (In 
Institute  of  Politics,  Williamstown,  Mass.  Report,  1927,  p.  28-48.) 

Zimmern,  Alfred  E.— Future  of  Democracy.  (In  University  of  Buf 
falo  Studies,  v.  8,  No.  2.)  May  1930. 


PERIODICALS 

Academy  of  Political  Science.  Proceedings.  14:592-98,  January 
1932.  Democracy  in  the  World  Crisis.  A.  C.  Ritchie. 

American  Journal  of  Sociology.  24:704-14,  May  1919.  Origin  of 
Democracy.  J.  L.  Gillin. 

25:202-14,   September  1919.     Ethical  Bases  of  Democracy. 

F.  G.  Henke. 

26:545-57,  March  1921.  Some  Ambiguities  in  Democracy. 

H.  L.  Stewart. 

American  Mercury. — 19:462-68,  April  1930.  Collapse  of  Democracy. 
R.  A.  Egger. 

American  Political  Science  Review.— 21:537-51,  August  1927.  Euro 
pean  Dictatorships.  H.  R.  Spencer. 

American  Scholar.— 2:187-99,  March  1933.  Present-day  Forces  in 
European  Politics.  W.  B.  Munro. 

Atlantic  Monthly.— 124; 616-2  7,  November  1919.  Basic  Problem  of 
Democracy.  Walter  Lippmann. 

133:456-67,  April  1924.    Receding  Tide  of  Democracy.    H.  H. 

Powers. 

137:825-33,  June  1926.    Europe's  Bursting  Bubble  of  Democ 
racy.    R.  E.  Sencourt.    pseud. 

Century.— 103  (n.s.  81):957-60,  April  1922.  Democracy  at  the  Cross 
roads.  Glenn  Frank. 

104  (n.s.  82):157-60,  May  1922.    On  Discontent  with  Democ 


racy.    Glenn  Frank. 


A  PRESIDENTIAL  DICTATORSHIP  461 

. 112  (n.s.  90):203-12,  June  1926.    Democracy's  Flat,  Tire.    C. 

T.  Crowell 
. 120  (n.s.  98):  170-79,  April  1930.    Challenge  of  Dictatorship. 

Jerome  Davis. 
Commonweal.— 17:449-50,   February   22,   1933.     Democracy's    Self- 

Dictatorship. 
Current  History.— 22:345-54,  June  1925.    Dictatorship  in  Spain.    Al- 

phonse  Lugan. 
26:175-86,  May  1927.    Italy  Under  MussoUw.    H.  G.  WeHs 

and  T.  Sillani. 
. 26:708-13,  August  1927.     Government  by  Dictators,  a  New 

Phase  of  European  History.    Francesco  Nitti. 
28:81-84,  April  1928.    Defense  of  Democracy.    V.  F.  Cal- 

verton. 

. 28:175-204,  May  1928.    Is  Democracy  a  Failure? 

< 36:641-48,  September  1932.    Does  America  Need  a  Dictator? 

F.  A.  Ogg. 

Current  Opinion. — 70:788-91,  June  1921.  Lord  Bryce  on  the  Merits 
and  Defects  of  Democracy. 

Foreign  Affairs. — 3:358-70,  April  1925.  Italy  and  Fascism.  Carlo 
Sforza,  Conte. 

•  5:276-92,  January  1927.  Dictatorship  in  Spam.  R.  T.  Des 
mond. 

Fortnightly  Review. — 130:157-64,  August  1928.  Democracy  Has  Not 
Failed.  W.  E.  Borah. 

Forum.— 67:415-21,  May  1922.    Shall  We  Hold  to  Democracy?    W. 

G.  Brown. 

72:629-35,  November  1924.    Despair  of  Democracy.    G.  A.  S. 

Kennedy. 

. 75:481-95,  April  1926.  Is  Democracy  Doomed?  Shaw  Des 
mond  and  W.  Y.  Elliott. 

. 79:562-73,  April  1928.  Democracy's  Dilemma.  0.  W.  Under 
wood. 

81:34-42,  January  1929;  Supple.  47-50,  February  1929.    Has 


Democracy   Broken  Down?   With  Replies  by   the  Mayors   of 

of  America.   W.  J.  Durant. 
JHarper's   Magazine.— 153:555-65,   October   1926.     /s  Democracy   a 

Failure?    W.  J.  Durant. 
157:680-91,  November  1928.    Democracy  Holds  Its  Ground. 

C.  A.  Beard. 


462    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 


160:144-52,  January  1930.    Whom  Does  Congress  Represent? 

C.  A.  Beard 

Independent. — 103:338,  September  18,  1920.    Strong  Man  Panacea. 
Preston  Slosson. 

Literary  Digest.— 99:22,  October  27,  1928.    Dictator  Defends  Dicta 
torship. 

Living  Age. — 303:697-700,  December  20,  1919.    Danger  of  American 
Democracy.    S.  Wasshio. 

322:15-16,  July  5,  1924.    Mussolini  on  Democracy.    W.  R. 

Inge. 

324:633-40,  March  21,  1925.    Study  in  Dictatorship.    Fernand 

de  Brinon. 

325:565-68,  June  13,  1925.    Difficulties  of  Democracy.    Albert 

Apponyi. 

332:1060-64,  June  15,  1927.    Can  Democracy  Survive?    J.  M. 

Kenworthy  and  Chas.  Petrie. 

Nation.— -136:220,  March  1,  1933.    Do  We  Need  a  Dictator? 
"New  Republic. — 51:36-39,  June  1,  1927.    Evolution  of  the  Russian 
Dictatorship.    H.  N.  Brailsford. 

Nineteenth  Century. — 98:839-46,  December  1925.    Crisis  of  Democ 
racy.    Stuart  Hodgson. 

North  American  Review.— 224:646-53,  December  1927.     Too  Much 
Democracy,    C.  H.  Bretherton. 

226:171-77,  August  1928.    Meaning  of  Democracy.    Reply  to 

C,  H.  Bretherton,  J.  S.  Dean. 

234:484-92,  December  1932.     What  a  Real  Dictator  Would 


Do....    Fredericka  Blankner. 

Open  Court. — 41:381-84,  June  1927.     Democracy  and  Dictatorship. 
Arthur  Spate. 

Outlook.— 149:43-45,  May  4,  1928.     Future  of  Democracy.     Carlo 
Sforza,  Conte. 

Quarterly  Review.— 235:157-74,  January  1921.    Bolshevism  and  De 
mocracy.    Wm.  Ashley. 

Review  of  Reviews.— 73:89,  January  1926.    Democracy  and  Its  Al 
ternatives. 

73:288-98,  March  1926.    Parliamentary  Breakdown  in  Europe. 


F.  H.  Simonds. 


Shaw. 


82:68-71,  September  1930.    Dictators  or  Democrats?    Roger 


A  PRESIDENTIAL  DICTATORSHIP  463 

Saturday  Evening  Post.— 202:22,  October  26,  1929.    Government  by 

Propaganda. 
205:3-5,  September  24,  1932.   Is  Democracy  a  Failure?    F.  A. 

Vanderlip. 

205:20,  October  8,  1932.    No  Dictator. 


Scribner's  Magazine.— 83:419-29,  April  1928.  Shall  We  Govern  Our 
selves?  A.  C.  Ritchie. 

. 87:500-06,  May  1930.    Great  Lobby  Hunt.    F.  R.  Kent. 

89:465-76,  May  1931.  Twilight  of  the  Dictators.  George 

Seldes. 

World  Tomorrow. — 16:11-13,  January  4,  1933.  Which  Dictator? 
J.  M.  Murry. 

World's  Work.— 50:57-62,  May  1925.  Does  Democracy  Fit  Most 
Peoples?  T.  L.  Stoddard. 

60:67-70,  January  1931.    Why  Dictators?    T.  L.  Stoddard. 

Yale  Review. — (n.s.  9):  788-803,  July  1920.  Democracy  at  the  Cross- 
roads.  H.  J.  Laski. 

. (n.s.  16):  1-16,  October  1926.  Democracy  or  Dictatorship? 

W.  C.  Abbott. 


RADIO  BROADCASTING 
A  Discussion  of  Values 


RADIO  BROADCASTING 

OCCIDENTAL  COLLEGE  VS. 
THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  ARIZONA 

The  growing  significance  of  the  radio  in  American  life  has  led 
inevitably  to  a  discussion  of  its  uses  and  abuses,  of  its  values  and  of 
its  baneful  influences,  of  its  possibilities  and  of  the  forces  that  are 
thwarting  its  benefits.  Is  the  best  educational  and  cultural  use  being 
made  of  the  radio — and  if  not,  why  not? 

The  debate  which  follows  deals  with  some  of  these  considerations. 
In  fairness  to  the  debaters  of  the  two  educational  institutions  it  must 
be  said  that  the  debate  included  here  was  an  extemporaneous  debate 
rather  than  a  studied  effort,  and  was  held  without  the  usual  period 
of  preparation  and  research  time  allowed  for  the  average  college 
debate.  The  fact  that  all  of  the  debaters  involved  were  radio  an 
nouncers  or  radio  workers  gives  the  discussion  added  interest  for  it 
gives  opportunity  for  the  expression  of  ideas  gained  from  participating 
in  the  activity  discussed. 

The  proposition  was  at  first  stated — "Resolved:  That  the  radio 
announcer  is  a  public  menace."  However,  as  two  of  the  debaters 
were  radio  announcers  and  the  other  two  connected  with  radio,  by 
common  consent  the  subject  was  phrased  for  the  actual  discussion — 
Resolved:  That  radio,  as  now  operated,  is  a  cultural  and  intellectual 
liability. 

The  debate  was  held  at  Occidental  College  toward  the  end  of  the 
college  year  in  May  1933,  and  was  afterward  written  up — the  two 
sides  exchanging  speeches  to  produce  the  present  manuscript.  To 
Professor  Charles  Frederick  Lindsley  of  Occidental  College  and  Pro 
fessor  W.  Arthur  Cable  of  the  University  of  Arizona,  Directors  of 
Debating  at  their  respective  institutions,  goes  the  credit  for  assembling 
and  contributing  the  speeches. 


467 


468    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

First  Affirmative,  Donald  A.  Fareed 
Occidental  College 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  It  is  recounted  of  George 
Whitefield,  the  great  evangelist  speaker,  that  upon  one 
occasion  Benjamin  Franklin,  a  great  admirer  of  White- 
field's  voice  and  style  of  oratory,  paced  off  a  distance 
beyond  which  Whitefield's  great  voice  could  not  be  dis 
tinguished  and  drawing  an  imaginary  circle  with  that 
distance  as  its  radius,  made  this  statement:  "Within 
this  circle  are  the  limits  of  democracy  by  the  spoken 
voice."  Radio  has  made  the  thought,  embodied  in  that 
phrase,  an  obsolete  curiosity.  Today  Mussolini's 
dynamic  voice  can  be  heard  from  Rome  to  Los  Angeles; 
the  spiritual  admonitions  of  the  Catholic  Pope  in  the 
Vatican  can  be  felt  and  heard  by  penitent  Catholics 
in  Alaska;  and  Franklin  D.  Roosevelt  has  explained 
why  he  has  closed  the  banks  and  inflated  the  currency 
to  millions  of  confused  Americans.  Radio  has  trans 
formed  the  world  from  a  barrier  of  continents  to  one 
great  amphitheatre  wherein  all  may  listen  and  enjoy. 
This  has  all  transpired  within  the  last  two  decades. 

Consider  the  stupendous  growth  of  this  infant  insti 
tution  we  call  radio.  From  a  few  scattered  transmit 
ters,  there  has  evolved  in  this  country  alone  over  six 
hundred  licensed  radio  stations,  broadcasting  from 
morning  until  midnight,  to  an  audience  of  over  fifty 
million  people.  Let  us  survey  the  growth  in  actual 
business  gains  in  radio.  In  1920  the  American  people 
spent  only  two  million  dollars.  In  1921,  with  the  in 
creased  power  and  range  of  the  vacuum  tube,  sales 


RADIO  BROADCASTING  469 

increased  to  six  million  dollars.  The  retail  sales  for 
1923  again  doubled  those  of  1922  and  attained  the  as 
tonishing  total  of  one  hundred  twenty  million  dollars. 
Thus  did  the  industry  increase  by  leaps  and  bounds. 
By  1928  radio  trade  realized  a  retail  income  estimated 
at  six  hundred  fifty  million  dollars.  The  close  of  one 
decade  revealed  a  net  revenue  of  almost  four  billion 
dollars.  Such  has  been  the  growth  of  radio.  Today  it 
is  potentially  one  of  the  greatest  media  for  cultural  and 
intellectual  benefit  ever  devised  by  man* 

Thus  our  debate  revolves  about  a  pertinent,  vital, 
and  epoch-making  instrumentality.  The  question  for 
discussion,  as  originally  stated,  was — "Resolved:  That 
the  Radio  Announcer  Is  a  Public  Menace."  This  state 
ment  of  proposition  we  of  the  Affirmative  have  inter 
preted  to  mean  the  following:  by  "radio  announcer"  is 
merely  signified  or  symbolized  the  operation  of  the 
radio  industry  itself,  and  we  shall  restrict  "public 
menace,"  for  purposes  of  argument,  to  mean  a  cultural 
and  intellectual  liability.  Thus,  the  issue  becomes 
sharply  drawn  as  we  discover  an  intelligible  restate 
ment  of  the  question  to  which  our  friends  of  the  oppo 
sition  will  doubtless  agree — "Resolved:  That  Radio, 
as  Now  Operated,  Is  a  Cultural  and  Intellectual  Lia 
bility." 

At  the  outset  of  the  debate  it  must  be  noted  also  that 
we  of  the  Affirmative  are  not  immediately  interested  in 
whether  or  not  radio,  as  now  operated,  is  a  paying  busi 
ness  asset  to  producers.  That  is  waived  material.  We 
are  not  arguing  the  financial  or  commercial  merits  of 
radio.  Our  clash  of  opinion,  as  set  forth  in  the  intro- 


470    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

duction,  revolves  about  the  question  as  to  whether  or 
not  radio,  as  now  operated,  is  a  cultural  and  intellectual 
liability. 

In  support  of  our  case,  we  of  the  Affirmative  advance 
two  main  contentions.  The  first,  which  it  is  my  pur 
pose  to  establish,  is  that  radio  is  dominated  by  a  selfish 
profit  motive  and  its  facilities  are  ruthlessly  commer 
cialized  by  private  industry.  The  second,  which  my 
colleague,  Mr.  Boardman,  will  prove  is  that  the  general 
type  of  radio  entertainment  is  on  the  whole  culturally 
and  intellectually  worthless. 

I  have  just  cited  for  you  indicative  figures  which  re 
veal  the  astonishing  growth  of  the  radio  industry  within 
the  last  decade.  It  is  needless  to  emphasize  for,  indeed, 
it  is  patent  that  radio  is  today  one  of  the  greatest  media 
potentially  for  the  spread  of  culture  and  dissemination 
of  knowledge  that  we  have.  Why  have  I  said  poten 
tially?  The  answer  is  discovered  first  of  all  in  the  fact 
that  only  one-sixteenth  of  available  radio  frequencies 
is  used  by  educational  interests.  The  great  bulk  of  air 
frequencies  serves  the  private  interests  of  some  com 
mercial  concern  or  business. 

This  brings  us  to  our  first  and  perhaps  basic  conten 
tion — Radio,  as  now  operated,  is  dominated  by  a  selfish 
profit  motive  and  its  facilities  are  ruthlessly  commer 
cialized  by  private  industry.  Joy  Elmer  Morgan, 
Chairman  of  the  National  Committee  on  Education  by 
Radio,  has  caught  the  spirit  of  this  argument  as  he 
voices  protest  in  the  following  significant  words: 
"There  has  not  been  in  the  entire  history  of  the  United 
States  an  example  of  mismanagement  and  lack  of  vision 


RADIO  BROADCASTING  471 

so  colossal  and  far-reaching  in  its  consequences  as  otir 
turning  of  the  radio  channels  almost  exclusively  into 
commercial  hands."  Think  of  it!  In  California  alone, 
out  of  thirty-nine  licensed  radio  broadcasting  stations, 
fully  thirty-four  are  owned  and  operated  by  private  cor 
porations  and  business  men  as,  for  example,  KFI  by 
Earle  C.  Anthony,  KHJ  by  Don  Lee,  KFWB  by  War 
ner  Bros.,  KMPC  by  MacMillan  Petroleum,  and  so 
down  the  line.  The  five  remaining  California  stations 
are  religious  outlets,  leaving  not  one  station  in  the  state 
of  California  available  completely  for  education.  Now 
it  logically  follows  that  the  businesses  owning  these 
radio  channels  are  concerned  above  all  else  with  the  ex 
ploitation  of  those  rights  for  their  private  benefit.  In 
other  words,  the  basic  underlying  motive  in  radio  today 
is  not  how  a  station's  programs  will  affect  the  intellec 
tual  and  cultural  tone  of  the  radio  audience,  but  what 
kinds  of  programs  will  hold  the  largest  audience  so  that 
a  business  may  market  its  product.  The  underlying 
motive  is  the  desire  for  private  profit. 

This  argument  might  well  be  fortified  by  using  as 
analogy  the  case  of  the  motion-picture  industry.  Of 
course  the  basic  similarity  between  radio  and  moving 
pictures  is  that  both  are  superb  potential  media  for  ed 
ucational  instruction,  political  propaganda,  and  the  dis 
semination  of  culture.  Yet  the  same  thing  has  hap 
pened  in  the  motion  picture  industry  that  is  occurring 
in  radio,  namely,  its  facilities  are  manipulated  by  pri 
vate,  commercial  owners  to  extract  the  highest  possible 
profit.  In  the  motion  picture  industry  this  means  pro 
ducing  entertainment  that  will  pander  to  the  lusts,  pas- 


472    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

sions,  likes  and  propensities  of  the  man  in  the  street. 
It  means  producing  anything  that  will  translate  itself 
into  fat,  huge  box-office  receipts.  In  radio  this  has 
come  to  mean  the  presentation  of  a  general  type  of 
entertainment  that  will  appeal  to  the  great  mass  of  the 
people  and  sell  the  producer's  soap,  toothpaste,  refrig 
erator,  or  pills.  In  both,  the  vast  educational  and  cul 
tural  possibilities  of  the  instrumentality  are  utterly  lost 
sight  of  in  the  mad  scramble  for  profits  through  organ 
ized  commercialization. 

We  may  argue  still  further  by  analogy.  Whenever 
important  national  resources  have  been  turned  over  to 
private  interests,  they  have  been  exploited  for  private 
profit  and  not  for  public  welfare.  Consider  cases  in 
business  history  of  waterways,  oil  fields,  forests,  and 
so  on.  Radio  today  with  its  tremendous  influence  on 
the  millions  of  people  who  listen  to  it  each  day,  has 
assumed  the  proportions  of  a  great  national  resource,  a 
potent,  mighty  instrumentality.  Both  England  and 
Germany  as  well  as  other  lesser  European  nations  have 
recognized  this  fact.  The  result  has  been  that  in  both 
countries,  radio  has  lent  itself  to  the  dissemination  of 
political  propaganda,  to  the  crystallization  of  an  organ 
ized  national  political  policy,  to  the  broadcasting  of 
good  music,  and  so  on.  However,  we  of  the  Affirmative 
are  not  arguing  for  state  control  All  we  contend  is 
that  as  long  as  radio  is  subjected  to  operation  and  con 
trol  by  business  interests,  there  will  be  that  incurable, 
natural,  yet  sometimes  shortsighted  profit  motive;  and 
as  long  as  there  exists  the  profit  motive,  the  desire  for 
profit  gains,  there  can  be  no  true  forward  progress  in 


RADIO  BROADCASTING  473 

the  use  of  radio  for  education  and  culture  of  the  people. 
An  editorial  appeared  in  the  Christian  Science  Mon 
itor,  February  28,  1931.  Among  other  things  the  writer 
declared:  "Radio  channels  have  often  been  likened  to 
the  highways  of  the  air.  Today,  in  America,  like  the 
motor  highways,  the  ether  routes  are  filled  with  adver 
tising  billboards,  spoiling  the  musical  scenery  which  is 
their  normal  charm.  Seated  at  the  dial  of  a  radio  set, 
the  seeker  of  beauty  finds  himself  in  a  position  analo 
gous  to  the  driver  of  a  motor  car.  A  splendid  road  is 
found.  It  is  called  'Hungarian  Rhapsody'  by  Liszt. 
Suddenly  a  vocal  billboard  breaks  in  upon  the  satisfy 
ing  mental  picture  the  rhapsody  has  brought  and  an 
nounces  that  unless  you  eat  Tiff's  Particular  Pickles' 
you  have  known  only  a  dismal  world.  If  you  haven't 
tried  Piff's  Pickles,  you  ought  to  stop  listening  and 
hurry  down  to  the  nearest  grocer — "  After  reading 
such  a  comment  we  see  a  justification  for  the  indignant 
outburst  of  the  very  man  who  was  in  great  part  re 
sponsible  for  the  growth  of  radio — DeForrest,  inventor 
and  perfector  of  the  radio  tube.  He  says  in  an  irate 
outburst:  "Why  should  anyone  want  to  buy  a  radio  or 
new  tubes  for  an  old  set  when  nine-tenths  of  what  one 
can  hear  is  the  continual  drivel  of  second-rate  jazz, 
sickening  crooning  by  degenerate  sax  players,  inter 
rupted  by  blatant  sales  talk,  meaningless  but  madden 
ing  station  announcements,  impudent  demands  to  buy 
or  try,  actually  imposed  over  a  background  of  what 
might  alone  have  been  good  music?  Get  out  into  the 
sticks,  away  from  your  fine  symphony  orchestra 
pickups,  and  listen  to  what  eighty  per  cent  of  American 


474    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

listeners  have  to  endure  twenty-four  hours  a  day.  Then 
youTl  learn  what  Is  wrong  with  the  radio  industry.  It 
isn't  hard  times.  It  is  Broadcaster's  Greed,  which  is 
worse." 

To  recapitulate,  we  have  'demonstrated  by  definite 
statistics  and  by  analogy  that  underlying  all  radio,  as 
now  operated,  is  the  desire  for  profit,  that  upon  the 
altar  of  the  profit  motive  is  being  prostituted  the  cul 
tural  and  intellectual  potentialities  of  radio.  My  col 
league  wOl  further  establish  the  case  for  the  Affirmative 
by  concrete  demonstration  of  the  effect  of  this  com 
mercial  spirit  in  the  general  character  of  the  programs, 
proving  to  you  that  they  are  culturally  and  intellec 
tually  not  an  asset  but  a  liability. 

First  Negative,  William  S.  Dunipace 
University  o£  Arizona 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  We  of  the  Negative  are 
more  than  glad  to  be  participating  in  a  debate  with  the 
representatives  of  Occidental  College  and  wish  to  offer 
our  sincere  appreciation  for  the  welcome  which  we  have 
received  here  today.  The  nature  of  an  extemporane 
ous  debate  makes  it  rather  impossible  to  anticipate  all 
the  various  angles  of  the  question  which  are  likely  to 
be  discussed  by  the  opposing  team.  However,  my  col 
league,  Mr.  Taylor,  and  I  had  surmised  that  in  the 
question,  "Resolved:  That  the  Radio  Announcer  Is  a 
Public  Menace,"  our  opponents  would  be  forced  to  dis 
cuss  the  whole  radio  industry  under  the  heading  of 
"The  Radio  Announcer.'7  Judging  from  their  first 


RADIO  BROADCASTING  475 

speech,  this  surmise  was  correct;  that  in  indicting  the 
radio  announcer  they  have  meant  to  include  the  entire 
field  of  radio.  So  far,  their  main  contention  seems  to 
be  that  the  radio,  as  an  influence  in  American  life,  is 
more  of  a  detriment  than  a  good. 

It  so  happens  that  the  members  of  the  Arizona  team 
are  more  than  casually  interested  in  this  question.  My 
colleague,  Mr.  Taylor,  has  had  some  professional  ex 
perience  as  a  radio  announcer,  and  I  have  spent  some 
time  making  a  survey  of  radio  advertising  for  the 
Percival  White  Company  of  New  York  City.  It  is  our 
conclusion  that  radio,  both  as  a  contribution  to  culture 
and  a  stimulus  to  industry,  has  made  a  distinct  con 
tribution  to  American  life. 

Of  course,  the  members  of  the  audience  are  quite 
familiar  with  the  book  which  my  colleague  and  I  have 
here  on  the  platform.  The  World  Almanac  for  1933 
has  proved  to  be  a  lif esaver  for  statistical  proof  in  many 
debates  which  we  have  had  this  winter,  and  no  doubt 
our  opponents  will  quote  from  this  same  book  before 
the  conclusion  of  this  debate. 

It  will  be  my  purpose,  as  the  first  speaker  on  the 
Negative,  to  present  a  few  figures  from  this  book  show 
ing  the  importance  of  radio  in  the  United  States.  Ac 
cording  to  information  submitted  by  the  Federal  Radio 
Commission  in  1931,  radio  has  become  one  of  the  fore 
most  industries  in  the  country.  There  were  558  stations 
with  a  total  investment  of  $36,900,000.  Considering 
the  radio  question  from  the  chain  station  standpoint, 
the  National  Broadcasting  Company  had  an  investment 
of  $6,200,000  in  its  stations.  Columbia,  with  $4,500,- 


476    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

000,  was  a  dose  second.    Other  chain  stations  smaller 
in  size  raised  the  grand  total  to  $11,000,000. 

According  to  the  1930  census,  there  were  12,000,000 
families  in  the  United  States  owning  radios.  That 
amounted  to  40.3  per  cent  of  all  the  families  in  the 
United  States.  Totaling  the  members  of  such  families, 
the  estimated  number  of  listeners  was  50,000,000 
people.  Thus,  from  two  angles  we  see  that  radios  must 
wield  an  important  influence,  both  from  the  amount 
of  money  invested  and  the  number  of  stations,  and 
from  the  number  of  radios  in  actual  use.  It  is  only  fair 
to  suggest  that,  in  view  of  the  decline  of  prices  since 
1930,  many  more  families  have  been  able  to  invest  in 
a  radio  since  that  time,  and  thus  make  themselves  a 
part  of  the  large  group  of  people  so  served. 

How  has  radio  made  itself  important  culturally? 
Only  twelve  years  ago  radio  as  an  agency  for  the  pre 
sentation  of  such  cultural  programs  as  are  now  com 
mon  on  the  air,  was  in  its  infancy.  The  speaker  can 
well  remember  the  reverent  hush  of  the  small  group 
clustered  about  an  old  earphone  set  on  the  occasion  of 
President  Harding's  inauguration  in  1921.  School 
teachers  dismissed  students  from  classes  so  that  they 
might  listen  to  far-away  Washington  and  learn  in  a 
most  practical  manner  the  significance  and  importance 
of  a  President's  inauguration.  At  that  time  there  were 
only  a  few  large  stations  in  the  country.  KDKA,  Pitts 
burgh,  which  had  a  habit  of  fading  and  fluttering  in  its 
transmission,  was  the  goal  of  all  amateur  radio  enthusi 
asts.  Since  that  time  the  policy  of  other  stations  has 
been  much  the  same  as  that  which  KDKA  inaugurated 


RADIO  BROADCASTING  477 

during  its  first  broadcasts.  Listeners  were  asked  to 
send  in  their  comments  and  requests  for  the  type  of 
programs  they  most  enjoyed,  and  as  a  result  of  that 
policy  radio  became  more  and  more  popular  through 
the  intervening  twelve  years,  until  at  the  present  time 
the  annual  expenditures  for  talent,  programs,  and  other 
incidental  expenses  attendant  thereto,  amounted  In  one 
year  (1931)  to  $78,000,000.  Considering  the  fact  that 
only  twelve  short  years  ago  there  was  no  market  at  aU, 
so  to  speak,  for  this  talent  and  for  those  connected  with 
the  various  programs,  we  are  safe  in  concluding  that 
radio  has  created  for  art  a  new  market  worth  $78,000,- 
000  each  year.  Of  course,  to  the  aesthetic  mind  any 
thing  so  gross  as  money  in  connection  with  art  is  not  to 
be  thought  of.  Nevertheless,  doesn't  it  seem  that  since 
every  man  must  live,  radio  must  be  responsible  for  giv 
ing  those  who  wish  an  artistic  chance  an  opportunity 
to  develop  their  talents?  Our  opponents  will  probably 
tell  you  in  the  course  of  this  debate  that  radio  programs 
are  an  atrocious  type  of  pseudo  art  and  that  as  such 
they  should  not  be  called  a  true  contribution  to  higher 
thought  and  musical  expression.  They  will  probably 
insist  that  since  radio  is  a  commercial  proposition  and 
since  advertisers  must  be  found  to  sponsor  such  pro 
grams  as  are  given,  such  programs  are  not,  as  a  whole, 
truly  artistic  but  merely  cater  to  the  desires  of  the 
sponsors'  advertising  managers.  My  colleague  will 
show  in  his  speech  that  such  restrictions  as  are  placed 
on  programs  by  their  sponsors  have  been  dictated  by 
the  request  of  their  listeners  and  not  by  the  unlearned 
and  egotistical  desires  of  some  advertising  manager. 


478    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

It  will  be  the  duty  of  our  friends  from  Occidental  to 
show  that  radio  is  a  definite  menace  to  the  cultural,  to 
the  intellectual,  and  to  the  commercial  life  of  this  coun 
try,  and  they  must  present  such  facts  as  are  necessary 
to  discredit  the  part  that  radio  has  had  in  stimulating 
artistic  efforts,  as  well  as  the  large  amount  of  new  busi 
ness  which  radio  has  created  for  all  types  of  industry 
connected  with  it.  They  must  refute  the  Negative  con 
tention  that  the  large  majority  of  this  business  has  ac 
tually  been  created.  They  must  show  that  the  other 
advertising  mediums  have  suffered  in  proportion  to  the 
amount  that  radio  has  gained.  They  must  do  this  by 
quoting  the  number  of  advertising  lines  in  prominent 
publications  throughout  the  country  before  radio  en 
tered  the  field  and  comparing  those  figures  with  those 
of  the  present  day,  making  due  allowance  for  the  pres 
ent  economic  situation.  They  must  show,  too,  that  the 
type  of  talent  now  being  presented  on  the  air  would 
have  had  an  equally  advantageous  market  had  radio 
never  existed  in  its  present  form.  They  must  disprove 
the  fine  work  now  being  done  by  such  institutions  as 
our  various  Universities  throughout  the  country  which 
now  offer  courses  of  instruction  by  way  of  the  radio 
loudspeaker,  and  which  present  daily  high-class  pro 
grams  of  splendid  variety  and  merit.  They  must  dis 
prove  the  statement  of  a  certain  well  known  research 
worker  in  a  speech  who  said  that,  due  to  the  radio,  the 
speech  provincialisms  of  various  remote  sections  of  the 
country  have  largely  been  eliminated. 

It  is  doubtless  known  to  our  Affirmative  friends  and 
the  members  of  this  audience  that  men  and  women  who 


RADIO  BROADCASTING  479 

aspire  to  announcers'  jobs  with  the  large  chain  systems 
must  undergo  a  course  in  speech  training  in  order  that 
they  may  better  present  the  part  of  the  program  for 
which  they  are  responsible.  This  in  itself  seems  to 
have  had  a  definite  effect  upon  the  problem  which  we 
have  just  been  discussing.  Does  it  not  seem  reasonable 
that  if  our  friends  who  oppose  radio  must  ridicule  radio 
as  a  means  of  improving  the  cultural  background  of  its 
listeners,  then  they  must  submit,  from  those  plans  al 
ready  proved  effective,  one  that  has  a  better  and  more 
far-reaching  means  of  achieving  the  same  ends,  and 
must  support  its  asserted  superiority  by  factual  infor 
mation?  In  order  that  clear-cut  comparisons  may  be 
made,  we  request  such  information. 

Second  Affirmative,  True  Boardman 
Occidental  College 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  The  gentleman  from 
Arizona  has  intimated  that  he  and  his  colleague  are  en 
titled  to  speak  with  added  authority  on  the  subject  of 
this  debate  since  he,  himself,  is  a  radio  announcer^  and 
his  colleague  has  worked  in  the  commercial  department 
of  an  Arizona  Broadcasting  station.  Under  such  cir 
cumstances  it  might  appear  that  in  contending  that  the 
radio  announcer  is  a  public  menace  we  were  in  effect 
launching  a  personal  attack  on  at  least  one  of  our  op 
ponents.  To  eradicate  any  such  an  impression,  I  must 
make  a  confession — make  it  on  behalf  not  only  of  my 
self  but  also  for  my  handsome  and  distinguished  young 
colleague,  Mr.  Don  Fareed.  Ladies  and  Gentlemen, 


480    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

despite  the  frank  open  countenance  of  the  first  speaker 
for  the  Affirmative,  he  is  in  reality  leading  a  double 
life — for  not  alone  is  he  a  student  here  at  Occi 
dental  but  he  is  likewise  a  radio  announcer  outside  of 
school  hours.  And  as  for  myself,  if  it  were  not  for  a 
very  small  portion  of  the  large  amount  mentioned  by 
the  first  speaker  of  the  Negative  as  the  radio  payroll 
for  last  year,  I  know  of  one  student  who  would  proba 
bly  have  been  unable  to  pay  his  tuition  for  this  college 
yean  So  not  only  the  gentlemen  of  the  Negative,  but 
also  those  of  the  Affirmative  have  found  in  radio  their 
means  of  livelihood.  Therefore,  if  affiliation  is  a  test 
of  authority,  we  are  all  on  common  ground. 

Speaking  quite  seriously,  I  should  like  very  briefly 
to  consider  at  the  outset  the  argument  of  the  first 
speaker  of  the  Negative  in  regard  to  the  economic  value 
of  radio.  Thousands,  millions  of  dollars,  he  has  told 
us  are  invested  in  radio;  it  is  a  source  of  employment 
for  a  considerable  group  of  our  citizens.  True — indis 
putably  true.  And  the  argument  would  be  completely 
valid  in  this  debate  if  we  of  the  Affirmative  were  pro 
posing  the  abolishment  of  radio  altogether.  It  seems 
to  me,  however,  that  my  colleague  showed  that  our  in 
tention  was  rather  to  point  out  the  evils  existent  in  the 
present  use  of  the  air  and  the  need  for  reform.  We 
contend  that  the  caliber  of  the  average  radio  program 
can  be  improved  both  culturally  and  intellectually  with 
out  necessarily  having  an  adverse  financial  effect  on 
radio  in  general. 

My  colleague  has  discussed  the  rabid  commercialism 
of  the  radio  of  the  present  day.  It  is  my  purpose  to 


RADIO   BROADCASTING  481 

show  further  the  effect  this  commercial  emphasis  is 
having  on  society — in  other  words,  that  radio  as  now 
organized  and  operated  is  a  cultural  liability. 

Before  considering  the  deleterious  effects  produced 
by'the  radio  on  any  especial  class  or  group,  suppose  we 
look  to  the  general  way  in  which  it  harms  all  society. 
Unquestionably  under  this  heading  we  may  place  fake 
ballyhoo  advertising.  Night  after  night,  hour  after 
hour,  the  "tuner-in"  is  bombarded  by  sales  talk  after 
sales  talk  in  behalf  of  quack  patent  medicines,  "bunko" 
oil  schemes,  and  a  long  and  varied  assortment  of  gold 
bricks.  And  since  the  breadth  of  the  radio  selling  field 
and  the  possibility  of  lucrative  returns  have  lured  many 
of  the  most  efficient  salesmen  into  the  ranks  of  the 
radio  "pluggers,"  many  an  individual  who  started  by 
wasting  a  half  hour  listening  to  the  Tin  Fanners  Royal 
Andulasian  Orchestra  ends  by  buying  a  hundred  shares 
in  the  Kreuger  match  works  or  a  half  interest  in  the 
company  which  holds  the  exclusive  franchise  to  con 
struct  submarines  for  the  Bolivian  navy. 

The  harm  of  such  advertising,  however,  is  more  eco 
nomic  than  cultural.  While  it  is  a  fault,  it  does  not 
represent  that  the  greatest  fault  of  which  the  radio  of 
today  must  stand  indicted.  The  danger  is  not  so  much 
to  our  pocket  book  as  to  our  intellect.  Further,  cheap 
advertising  counts  its  chief  victims  among  adults,  but 
those  really  harmed  the  most  from  the  cultural  view 
point  are  children.  The  grown  man  or  woman  is  not 
apt  to  be  influenced  greatly  by  a  radio  program. 
Habits  of  thought,  artistic  tastes,  and  general  philoso 
phies  of  life  are  already  settled.  Certainly  poor  gram- 


482    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OP  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

mar  and  cheap  jazz  music  does  not  elevate  the  adult 
mind.  In  many  cases  it  may  lower  it.  But  the  harm 
to  Mr.  and  Mrs.  American  Citizen  of  Today  is  negli 
gible  by  comparison  with  the  harm  to  Mr.  and  Mrs. 
American  Citizen  of  Tomorrow.  Psychology  has 
proved  within  recent  years  that  by  the  time  the  child 
attains  his  sixteenth  year,  his  speech  patterns,  his 
tastes  in  the  arts  and  the  general  tenor  of  his  emotional 
reactions  are  well  established.  The  development  of 
character  is  largely  (completely,  say  the  behaviorists) 
dependent  upon  the  contacts  made  during  the  formative 
years.  And  in  these  days  the  radio  is  an  almost  omni 
present  contact  for  the  greater  proportion  of  the 
younger  generation.  Yet  that  same  omnipresent  radio 
brings  stimuli  that  are  anything  but  healthful  for  the 
juvenile  mind.  To  a  considerable — a  very  considerable 
— proportion  of  programs  being  sent  over  the  ether  ob 
jection  may  be  made  on  at  least  one  of  the  following 
grounds: 

1.  They  are  conducive  to  the  use  of  poor  grammar. 

2.  They  instruct  in  details  of  crime. 

3.  They  are  over-stimulating  and  emotionally  un 
balancing. 

4.  They  tend  to  create  vulgar  tastes    (in  music, 
drama,  and  so  on). 

In  the  light  of  these  categories  consider  the  daily  log 
sheet  of  radio  fare.  There  are  far  too  few  which  may 
be  granted  a  clean  bill  of  health  when  we  consider  the 
above  faults  as  diseases.  Particularly  offensive  are 
many  of  the  crime  and  horror  serials.  In  this  latter 


KADIO  BROADCASTING  483 

regard  the  Washington  Evening  Star  has  expressed  an 
editorial  opinion  to  the  effect  that: 

"Parental  complaint  is  heard  against  a  surfeit  of 
blood  and  thunder  in  commercial  radio  programs  de 
signed  especially  to  intrigue  juvenile  interest.  Parent- 
teacher  associations  are  discussing  the  effects  of  that 
sort  of  mental  diet  on  child  minds.  An  adult  revolt 
seems  brewing. 

"It  is  alleged  that  at  the  twilight  hour,  when  eight- 
year-old  Jimmy  tunes  in,  the  serenity  of  the  home  is 
assailed  by  the  raucous  growls  of  desperate  hoodlums, 
shrill  screams  of  terrified  victims,  rattle  of  gunfire,  and 
groans  of  the  dying.  In  an  atmosphere  shivery  with 
stealthy  plotting  »and  sanguinary  with  violent  deeds, 
the  temperature  of  Jimmy's  imagination  rises  to  fever 
heat.  Later  he  kicks  off  the  bedclothes  and  rouses  his 
slumbering  parents  with  yells  of  nightmare  panic.  In 
the  days  when  crime  is  a  social  problem  of  the  first 
magnitude,  feeding  crime  thrills  as  leisure  time  enjoy 
ment  to  infant  minds  is  surely  to  be  deprecated,  and 
good  homes  are  justified  in  resenting  an  invasion  of  the 
undesirable,  so  easily  made  and  so  difficult  to  prevent." 

Even  so  called  children's  programs  are  not  exempt 
from  criticism.  In  fact  the  Minneapolis  College 
Women's  Club  went  so  far  as  to  issue  a  formal  protest 
against  two  of  these  "kid"  programs  on  the  grounds 
that  they  encouraged  the  use  of  poor  grammar,  were 
cheap,  artificial,  melodramatically  sensational,  and  gen 
erally  undesirable  for  children. 

As  for  the  development  in  children  of  a  taste  for 
good  music,  it  seems  self-evident  that  the  great  pre- 


484    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

ponderance  of  cheap  jazz  which  issues  forth  from  tike 
majority  of  stations  can  only  be  said  to  be  directly 
counter  to  the  music  appreciation  study  of  our  public 
schools. 

All  these  things  considered — and  especially  as  far  as 
children  are  concerned — we  of  the  Affirmative  contend 
that  the  radio  today  is  a  cultural  and  intellectual 
liability. 

It  is  inevitable  that  the  gentlemen  of  the  Negative 
should  laud  the  virtues  of  radio,  should  point  out  the 
fact  that  there  are  programs  on  the  air  of  real  merit  and 
which  are  a  genuine  source  not  only  of  entertainment 
but  also  in  certain  cases,  of  instruction  to  the  listening 
public.  In  reply  to  that  argument,  we  ask  our  oppo 
nents  to  look  again  at  the  log  of  programs  for  the  day — 
any  day.  What  proportion  of  the  broadcast  time  is  de 
voted  to  really  worth-while  features  and  what  propor 
tion — considering  stations  large  and  small,  urban  and 
rural — is  consumed  by  cheap  commercialized  programs 
of  the  sort  to  which  we  have  made  objection. 

The  fault  is  a  fault  of  emphasis,  say  Mr.  Fareed  and 
myself.  Rather  it  should  be  constantly  held  in  mind 
that  the  radio  is  a  public  utility  rather  than  a  field  of 
exploitation.  Regulation  of  the  air  to  prevent  these 
evils  we  have  pointed  out  should  be  progressively 
stronger,  and  the  emphasis  should  be  placed  to  an  in 
creasingly  greater  extent  on  the  value  of  radio  as  a 
public  servant.  True,  it  may  be  argued  that  it  is  not 
the  purpose  of  the  radio  to  serve  as  a  sort  of  free  school 
to  the  public  (I  say  "it  may  be  argued"  because  that 
question  in  itself  is  worthy  of  lengthy  debate),  but  cer- 


RADIO  BROADCASTING  485 

tainly  the  radio  has  no  right  to  work  In  diametric 
opposition  to  the  interests  of  education. 

In  conclusion,  then,  there  is  unbounded  hope  for 
radio.  In  saying  that  the  radio  announcer  of  today 
is  a  public  menace,  we  do  not  mean  that  he  is  inherently 
so.  It  is  only  that  his  aims  have  been  perverted;  he 
has  sold  out,  or,  let  us  hope,  leased  his  patrimony  for  a 
handful  of  silver.  Our  nation,  criticized  before  for  the 
wasting  of  her  natural  resources,  has  been  no  more 
wary  in  her  use  of  the  one  most  newly  utilized — the  air. 
But  the  waste  is  by  no  means  inevitable.  Radio  can 
become  the  most  useful  of  public  utilities.  It  may  well 
be  the  means  of  completely  altering  human  relations. 
The  chief  requirement  in  order  to  bring  about  such  a 
consummation  is  a  change  of  attitude  as  to  the  funda 
mental  purpose  of  radio.  When  such  a  change  occurs, 
the  radio  announcer  will  no  longer  be  a  public  menace, 
but  the  symbol  of  public  benefaction. 


Second  Negative,  Leslie  Taylor 
University  of  Arizona 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN: It  is  with  extreme  regret 
to  me  that  we  approach  the  close  of  this  most  interest 
ing  verbal  tilt  with  our  opponents  and  friends,  Mr. 
Fareed  and  Mr.  Boardman. 

The  question,  according  to  the  interpretation  placed 
upon  it  both  by  my  colleague  and  opponents,  would 
read  something  like  this  if  printed — Resolved:  That  the 
Present  Radio  Industry  is  a  Cultural  and  Intellectual 
Menace  to  the  American  People.  Now,  before  I  pro- 


486    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

ceed  any  further,  I  should  like  to  make  one  or  two 
statements  with  regard  to  the  Affirmative  stand  on  this 
question.  My  most  worthy  opponents  have  taken  a 
burden  of  tremendous  responsibility  upon  their  shoul 
ders  in  interpreting  this  question  as  they  have.  How  is 
it  possible  for  them  to  define  culture  as  it  exists  in  the 
United  States.?  Culture  can  only  be  defined  through 
comparisons.  You  people  of  California  undoubtedly 
think  that  Arizonans  are  tremendously  uncultured, 
from  your  standpoint.  Similarly,  we  Arizonans  would 
think  the  backwoodsmen  of  Arkansas  uncultured.  To 
reverse  the  order,  the  people  of  Boston  would  frown 
with  distaste  upon  the  synthetic  culture  of  California. 
In  other  words,  I  am  trying  to  say  that  it  is  an  impos 
sibility  to  set  up  a  universal  standard  for  or  to  define 
culture  in  terms  of  radio  programs. 

Throughout  the  entirety  of  this  debate  both  Mr. 
Boardman  and  Mr.  Fareed  have  seen  fit  to  attack  that 
sort  of  radio  program  which  appeals  to  the  largest  num 
ber  of  its  patrons.  Now,  it  is  all  very  well  to  talk  about 
the  radio  being  a  danger  to  the  American  public,  but  we 
must  also  bear  in  mind  that  the  sort  of  program  which  is 
most  popular  with  the  radio  listeners  is  the  kind  of 
program  that  is  going  to  be  broadcast  most  frequently. 
Remember  the  policy  developed  by  radio  in  its  infancy 
— that  of  asking  its  public  to  indicate  the  kinds  of  pro- 
.grams  it  liked  best,  and  of  featuring  that  kind  of  pro 
grams.  The  policy  is  still  followed.  The  point  we  are 
trying  to  make  is  this:  if  a  large  portion  of  the  Ameri 
can  radio  public  do  not  desire  Beethoven's  Unfinished 
Symphony  or  a  dissertation  on  the  Gobi  Desert,  they 


RADIO  BROADCASTING  487 

are  not  going  to  listen  to  that  type  of  program  and  we 
cannot  force  it  down  their  throats,  so  to  speak.  And 
to  say  that  such  a  program  is  a  cultural  menace  is  a 
gross  mis-statement.  According  to  Webster,  "Culture 
is  the  characteristic  attainments  of  a  group  of  peopled 
The  American  people  have  shown  by  their  popular  ac 
claim  that  modern  radio  entertainment  programs  are 
the  characteristic  attainments  of  the  radio  which  they 
desire,  therefore  such  programs  are  indicative  of  Ameri 
can  culture  and  not  harmful  or  menacing  to  the 
American  public  mind  at  present. 

The  Affirmative  arguments  were  summed  up  by 
Mr.  Boardman  in  four  points.  Radio  programs  are  a 
menace:  first,  because  they  are  conducive  to  the  use  of 
poor  grammar;  second,  because  they  instruct  in  the  de 
tails  of  crime;  third,  because  they  are  over-stimulating 
and  unbalancing;  and  fourth,  because  they  tend  to 
create  vulgar  tastes  in  music,  drama,  etc.  Now  I,  like 
Mr.  Boardman,  ask  you  to  pick  up  a  radio  log-sheet  of 
any  popular  radio  station.  In  it  you  will  find  listed 
every  variety  of  program — programs  which  appeal  to 
all  types  of  minds — and  very  few  of  them,  I  am  sure, 
you  will  find  appearing  in  any  of  these  four  categories 
which  he  gives.  How  Mr.  Boardman  can  stand  on  this 
platform  and  say  that  he  is  a  radio  announcer  and,  in 
the  same  breath,  assert  that  radio  programs  are  con 
ducive  to  poor  grammar  is  astounding  to  me.  If  Mr. 
Boardman  has,  as  I  presume  he  has,  ever  seen  or  passed 
a  radio-announcer's  examination,  he  will  readily  agree 
with  me  that  a  prospective  announcer  who  uses  poor 


488    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

grammar  has  little  or  no  chance  of  ever  realizing  his 
ambition. 

And  how  such  programs  as  "The  Life  of  Little  Or 
phan  Annie/7  "Skippy,"  or  "High  Lights  of  History" 
can  instruct  in  crime  or  be  detrimental  to  the  American 
public,  remains  another  mystery.  The  radio  provides 
and  is  utilized  as  an  excellent  medium  for  education 
against  crime.  Would  our  opponents  have  us  believe 
that  an  address  by  a  government  official  against  crime 
instructs  in  the  details  of  crime?  Are  not  the  talks  and 
stories  of  Captain  Don  Wilkie  very  good  object  lessons 
in  the  time-worn  adage  that  "Crime  does  not  pay?" 
It  is  quite  evident  that  our  opponents  were  thinking  of 
the  "Life  of  the  Borgias"  or  "Murder  in  the  Rue 
Morgue"  or  some  other  citltural  classic  when  they  made 
this  statement. 

The  third  count,  that  radio  programs  are  over-stim 
ulating  or  emotionally  unbalancing,  is  rather  weak,  in 
asmuch  as  such  a  remark  might  be  applied  even  to 
those  programs  which  our  opponents  uphold  so  val 
iantly  as  being  cultural.  Good  music  or  a  good  play 
which  grips  one  is  emotionally  stimulating,  but  it  is 
also  cultural. 

The  fourth  count,  that  the  modern  radio  program  in 
the  United  States  tends  to  create  vulgar  tastes  in  music 
and  drama,  has  already  been  answered.  As  we  stated 
before,  those  programs  and  only  those  programs  which 
meet  the  test  of  popular  approval  are  given  to  the 
radio  public;  and  if  these  are  characteristic  of  Ameri 
can  attainments,  then  they  represent  the  culture  of  the 
American  people  and  are  not  detrimental. 


RADIO  BROADCASTING  489 

Mr.  Farced  says  that  radio,  as  now  operated,  is 
dominated  by  a  selfish  desire  for  profit  and  that  the 
facilities  of  radio  are  ruthlessly  commercialized  by 
private  business.  But,  if  this  be  true  does  it  indict 
radio  as  a  public  menace?  Does  not  the  menace,  if 
there  is  any,  lie  rather  in  the  type  of  hands  into  which 
some  of  the  radio  stations  have  fallen?  Clearly,  the 
indictment  is  misplaced;  it  should  be  charged,  if  at  all, 
against  the  manipulators  of  the  agency,  not  against  the 
agency  itself. 

But,  may  I  ask  you,  what  is  wrong  with  the  desire 
for  profit  on  the  part  of  an  investor  in  a  radio  station? 
Men  who  invest  money  in  private  schools  of  all  types, 
in  medical  clinics  and  private  hospitals,  in  banks  and 
stores  and  shops  and  factories,  in  railroads  and  steam 
ships  and  transportation  airplanes,  all  look  for  a  fair 
degree  of  profit  from  their  investments.  It  is  a  custom 
in  our  economic  society  that  men  and  women  must  sup 
port  themselves  financially;  those  with  money  try  to 
do  it  by  investing  that  money  wisely.  The  schools,  the 
clinics  and  hospitals,  the  banks,  stores,  shops  and  fac 
tories,  the  transportation  lines  render  much  service  to 
society  and  thereby  do  a  great  deal  of  good.  But  they 
also  should  make  money  for  their  owners  and  those 
who  have  invested  in  them,  and  the  world  regards  this 
as  a  legitimate  and  laudable  return.  Isn't  it  a  bit 
ridiculous  to  contend  that  an  investor  in  a  radio  broad 
casting  station,  that  newest  wonder  of  this  amazing 
world,  in  which  incredible  miracles  are  performed  be 
fore  our  astounded  ears  every  minute  of  the  day  round 
and  round  this  planet — isn't  it  ridiculous,  I  say,  that  he 


490    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

cannot  look  for  a  reasonable  profit  without  contumely 
being  heaped  upon  Mm?  And  if  the  owners  of  broad 
casting  stations  are  justly  entitled  to  a  fair  degree  of 
profit  from,  their  investments,  one-half  of  the  case  ad 
vanced  by  our  opponents  falls,  for  you  will  remember 
that  half  of  their  entire  case  was  dependent  upon  the 
charge  of  a  profit  motive. 

And  now  may  we  notice  this  question  of  an  alleged 
cultural  and  educational  menace.  What  constitutes  a 
menace,  anyway?  I  wish  our  opponents  had  told  us 
that  Does  the  radio  industry  threaten  to  inflict  a 
calamity  upon  America?  Is  an  impending  calamity 
imminent,  because  some  radio  programs  are  not  all 
that  we  wish  they  were?  I  do  not  know  whether  our 
Occidental  friends  mean  to  decry  all  entertainment  pro 
grams,  or  only  a  portion  of  them;  but  it  is  being  said 
by  the  men  on  the  street  and  by  the  man  in  the  office 
and  shop  that  entertainment  is  a  necessity,  while  cul 
ture  is  a  luxury.  Those  who  devote  their  working  time 
to  radio  say  that  less  than  ten  per  cent  of  the  vast 
radio  audience  of  America  is  cultured.  And  yet 
roughly  one-third  of  all  the  radio  broadcasting  done  in 
the  United  States  is  of  a  cultural  or  educational  nature, 
says  the  Federal  Radio  Commission.  Isn't  that  a  dan 
gerous  ratio  for  the  Affirmative  to  consider:  one-third 
of  the  broadcasting  designed  for  less  than  ten  per  cent 
of  the  radio  public?  Where  is  the  menace  in  these  fig 
ures?  And  when  we  remember  that,  by  tuning  from 
one  station  to  another,  ajperson  can  go  straight  through 
the  entire  day  and  can  continue  day  after  day,  with 
nothing  but  a  cultural  or  an  educational  program — that 


RADIO  BROADCASTING  491 

It  becomes  a  matter  of  choice  with  the  radio  public — 
the  imminence  of  a  national  calamity  fades  materially. 

However,  there  are  added  considerations  bearing  on 
this  matter.  Of  the  sixty-three  and  two-thirds  per  cent 
of  broadcasts  in  this  country  which  are  classified  as 
commercial,  much  of  them  are  really  of  a  cultural  or 
an  educational  nature.  Home  economics  programs  are 
classified  as  commercial;  but  they  are  really  cultural  or 
educational,  are  they  not?  So  are  the  majority  of  pro 
grams  concerning  topics  of  personal  hygiene,  as  the 
care  of  the  eyes,  and  so  on.  Also,  the  commercial  time 
decreases  greatly  from  these  estimates  because  the 
announcer  takes  a  couple  of  minutes  to  advertise  the 
goods  of  the  sponsor  of  the  program,  and  then  for  the 
remainder  of  the  fifteen-minute  or  half  hour  period  the 
program  comes  uninterruptedly  over  the  air,  much  of 
the  time  high-class,  artistic,  and  cultural — Seth  Parker 
programs,  the  Sherlock  Holmes  detective  stories,  the 
Shell  Symphony  programs,  the  Standard  Symphony 
hour,  and  multitudes  of  others. 

Mr.  Fareed  also  says  that  the  present  status  of  radio 
in  California  "leaves  not  one  station  in  the  state  avail 
able  completely  for  education" — I  think  those  were  his 
words.  May  we  remind  him  that  a  station  need  not 
broadcast  programs  of  a  cultural  or  educational  nature 
all  the  time  in  order  to  be  an  asset  to  society.  Bear  in 
mind  the  ratios  I  have  just  given  you,  in  which  the 
cultural  and  high-class  bears  up  favorably  and  then 
add  to  them  the  five  stations — one-twelfth  of  the  total 
California  stations — which,  according  to  their  own 
admission,  are  maintained  for  religious  broadcasts.  I 


492    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

suppose  our  opponents  will  agree  with  us,  as  you  will 
agree  with  us,  that  religion  contributes  definitely  to 
culture.  That  fact  is  so  universally  recognized  that 
further  attention  to  it  seems  unnecessary.  It  is  appar 
ent  that  Mr.  Fareed  used  only  theoretical  and  deductive 
inference  in  arriving  at  his  conclusion  that,  since  most 
of  the  broadcasting  stations  were  owned  by  business 
firms,  the  broadcasts  from  them  were  culturally  and 
intellectually  menacing. 

These  facts  place  the  question  of  an  alleged  menace 
before  us  in  a  very  different  light.  In  fact,  considering 
the  free  will  which  is  left  to  each  of  us  in  making  choice 
and  the  large  amount  of  high-class  subject-matter 
which  constantly  goes  out  over  the  air,  the  menace 
fades  into  unreality — just  a  nightmare  caused  by  an 
unwise  diet  such  as  our  Affirmative  friends  have  been 
handing  us — and  the  other  half  of  the  Affirmative  case 
falls.  Therefore,  we  can  only  conclude — and  are 
happy  to  do  so — that  radio  is  not  a  public  menace. 

There  are  one  or  two  additional  points  with  which  I 
should  like  to  bring  my  speech  to  a  close.  While  the 
Affirmative  members  have  been  most  vociferous  in 
their  denunciations  of  the  radio  as  it  exists  today,  they 
have  not  given  us  any  explanation  whatever  as  to  how 
they  would  better  these  alleged  conditions.  If  they 
were  to  revise  our  radio  programs  today,  in  what  man 
ner  would  they  do  this?  Until  they  have  given  us  a 
definite  plan,  they  have  not  established  their  case.  And 
furthermore,  the  Affirmative  have  made  no  direct  state 
ment  as  to  what  culture  is,  or  what  they  would  class  as 
a  cultural  program.  Until  they  do,  they  have  not  es- 


RADIO   BROADCASTING  493 

tablished  any  basis  upon  which  to  defend  or  support 
their  contention  that  radio  is  a  cultural  menace  to  the 
United  States. 

We  of  the  Negative  have  admitted  that  the  radio  in 
the  United  States  Is  largely  a  commercial  enterprise. 
We  will  agree,  also,  that,  like  literature,  drama,  art, 
and  music,  there  are  some  programs  that  are  objec 
tionable  and  perhaps  even  harmful.  But  this  is  not 
true  of  the  average  radio  program,  and  our  opponents 
must  take  the  position  that  such  a  condition  is  true  of 
the  average  program,  and  they  must  offer  support 
enough  to  establish  that  contention.  This  they  have 
failed  to  do,  and  it  is  now  too  late  for  them  to  offer 
such  proof,  as  they  have  completed  all  but  the  closing 
rebuttal  speech,  in  which  no  new  material  is  permissi 
ble  because  the  Negative  would  have  no  opportunity  to 
answer  it. 

Thus,  contrasting  Affirmative  with  Negative  argu 
ments,  we  can  only  conclude  that  radio  is  not  a  public 
menace. 


Negative  Rebuttal,  William  S.  Dunipace 
University  of  Arizona 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  Due  to  the  shortness  of 
time  and  the  desire  of  most  of  you,  including  the 
speakers,  to  appease  the  animal  man  with  a  little  lunch, 
we  are  reminded  that  much  the  same  urges  are  govern 
ing  the  real  forces  in  this  debate. 

Perhaps,  as  we  have  discussed  this  question  here  this 
morning  concerning  the  cultural  values  of  the  radio, 


494    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

you  too,  were  reminded  of  those  Shakespearian  char 
acters,  Ariel  and  Calaban;  Ariel  always  cultural  and 
Calaban  just  a  poor  radio  advertising  sponsor  trying 
to  reach  the  public  ear. 

Although  their  speeches  have  been  instructional,  our 
opponents  have  presented  nothing  vitally  new  or  un 
acknowledged  by  the  Negative,  and  by  refusing  to 
state  a  definite  plan,  our  Occidental  friends  have  defi 
nitely  embraced  the  policy  of  Ariel,  which  was  to  prod 
poor  Calaban  to  distraction  but  to  offer  him  very  little 
real  assistance.  It  is  true  enough  that  our  Universities 
and  Colleges  should  have  the  national  culture  well  in 
hand,  but,  on  the  other  hand,  few  of  them  have  estab 
lished  radio  stations.  And  if  they  did,  just  where 
would  cultural  Ariel  find  the  wherewithal  to  dispense 
his  fine  music  and  educational  programs?  Did  some 
one  mention  college  budgets?  And  why  has  Occi 
dental,  this  seat  of  culture  from  which  we  speak,  no 
radio  station? 

If  our  opponents  adopted  the  taxation  policy  of 
England,  they  would  immediately  create  another  bar 
rier  against  Chaste  Culture  by  the  fact  that  the  tax  on 
each  radio  set  would  materially  lessen  the  number  of 
people  who  would  be  able  to  avail  themselves  of  such 
an  entertainment  luxury.  Seventy-six  million  dollars 
is  a  large  tax  to  levy  on  radio  sets  each  year. 

Too,  by  far  the  greater  number  of  the  people  in  the 
country  are  not  educated  to  culture.  By  a  national 
survey,  taken  by  the  Percival  White  Company  of  New 
York,  it  was  found  that  the  number  of  people  who 
listen  to  educative  and  purely  cultural  programs  is 


RADIO   BROADCASTING  495 

small,  which  upon  reflection,  probably  would  not  be 
considered  as  news  by  any  member  of  the  audience  this 
morning.  The  Negative  will  even  be  so  bold  as  to 
suggest  that  if  this  audience  of  college  students  were 
given  the  opportunity  at  their  own  firesides,  of  choos 
ing  between  a  symphony  concert  and  a  famous  crooner 
and  his  band,  there  would  not  be  an  appreciable  per 
centage  who  would  listen  to  the  former.  Would  it  not 
be  fair,  therefore,  for  the  Negative  to  ask  if  a  small 
group  of  culturally-minded  should  have  the  privilege 
of  dictating  to  the  entertainment  tastes  of  a  democratic 
nation?  Isn't  radio,  a  national  utility  as  the  Affirma 
tive  has  said,  for  the  entertainment  of  all  radio  set 
owners  instead  of  a  few?  And  too,  as  has  already  been 
said,  hasn't  the  set  owner  the  privilege  of  listening  or 
not  listening,  as  he  may  choose? 

In  other  words,  the  Negative  believes  the  Affirmative 
has  attempted  to  blame  a  public  utility  for  the  failure 
of  the  Great  American  Public  to  have  artistic  and  cul 
tural  tastes.  It  does  not  seem  to  us  that  it  is  any  more 
the  radio's  place  to  educate  the  public  than  it  is  for 
current  literature,  the  movies,  or  our  system  of  public 
education  to  do  so.  And  if  the  latter  has  failed  to  make 
the  public  culture-conscious,  why  blame  radio,  which 
must  depend  upon  commercial  support  while  the 
schools  are  supported  by  public  taxation? 

The  gentlemen  of  the  Affirmative  have  endeavored 
to  limit  the  issues  of  this  debate  to  the  cultural  and 
intellectual  contributions  of  the  radio  industry  in  this 
country.  But  may  I  remind  you  that,  to  the  degree  to 
which  radio  has  contributed  to  industrial  advancement 


496    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

in  America,  just  so  far  that  enterprise  is  proved  to  be 
not  a  menace  but  a  boon  to  us.  And  an  industry  of 
the  magnitude  of  seventy-eight  million  dollars  a  year 
and  upwards,  furnishing  employment  to  thousands  of 
people  in  these  grave  times  of  unemployment — to  man 
ufacturers,  transportation  companies,  jobbers,  retailers, 
business  men,  promoters,  technicians,  and  artists  of 
widely  different  types — who  can  deny  that  such  an 
industry  is  an  asset  to  us  economically? 

The  Affirmative  have  failed  to  prove  that  it  is  radio's 
duty  to  cease  being  a  Calaban  to  Culture;  that  radio 
can  do  more  good  in  the  limited  field  to  which  the 
Affirmative's  stand  would  limit  it,  than  it  does  now  as 
a  commercial  proposition.  (And  their  opportunity  to 
submit  such  proof  has  passed,  as  they  have  but  one 
speech  yet  to  make  and  we  cannot  reply  to  it.)  We 
regret  as  much  as  they  that  it  is  necessary  for  commer 
cial  advertisers  to  sponsor  our  radio  entertainment,  but 
we  believe  the  future  is  bright  instead  of  dark,  for  we 
are  sure  that  with  such  earnest  and  convincing  ex 
ponents  as  our  friends  of  the  Affirmative  to  carry  the 
Torch  of  Culture  into  the  unappreciative  hinterlands, 
the  public's  demands  to  the  vulgar  radio  advertisers 
will,  in  the  not  far  distant  future,  be  for  educative 
talks,  chamber  music,  and  symphonic  concerts  without 
number.  Then  not  even  our  opponents  will  be  able  to 
say  that  The  Radio  Announcer  is  a  Public  Menace. 


RADIO  BROADCASTING  497 

Affirmative  Rebuttal,  Donald  A.  Pareed 
Occidental  College 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  After  our  constructive 
arguments  are  completed,  the  last  gentleman  of  the 
Negative  tells  us  that  we  must  submit  a  constructive 
substitute  plan,  reminding  us  with  glee  that  we  cannot 
introduce  constructive  material  into  the  rebuttal  speech. 
That  is  very  much  like  the  case  of  a  drowning  man 
calling  frantically  for  help  (being  unable  to  swim)  and 
receiving  from  the  only  person  on  the  pier  a  note  at 
tached  to  a  rock  telling  him  to  save  himself  by  swim 
ming  ashore,  the  only  difference  being  that  in  our  case, 
the  Affirmative  is  far  from  drowning  and  finds  itself  on 
solid  ground. 

The  gentlemen  of  the  opposition  have  expressed  dis 
satisfaction  with  our  interpretation  of  the  term  culture. 
May  we  remind  them  of  the  wisdom  of  first  being 
consistent  within  their  own  ranks.  With  strange  incon 
sistency,  in  one  breath  Mr.  Taylor  declares  that  because 
modern  radio  entertainment  programs  "are  character 
istic  attainments  of  radio  which  they  (the  people) 
desire,  therefore,  such  programs  are  indicative  of  Amer 
ican  culture."  While  in  this  assertion  Mr.  Taylor 
makes  culture  the  reflection  of  people's  tastes  and  de 
sire,  in  rebuttal  Mr.  Dunipace  turns  about  and  quotes 
a  survey  showing  that  "by  far  the  greater  number  of 
people  in  the  country  are  not  educated  to  culture!9 
May  we  suggest  that  the  gentlemen  of  the  opposition 
agree  among  themselves  first  and  then  take  issue  with 
the  Affirmative. 


498    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

Now  let  us  turn  to  the  arguments  of  the  Negative  in 
the  order  in  which  they  were  presented.  First  of  all 
our  opponents  have  stressed  in  constructive  argument, 
even  in  rebuttal  the  benefit  of  radio  to  industry,  quot 
ing  figures  to  show  the  large  amount  of  business  which 
may  be  attributed  to  radio.  All  their  argument  on  this 
point  may  be  stricken  from  this  debate  as  irrelevant. 
We  are  not  arguing  the  commercial  benefits  of  radio. 
As  a  matter  of  fact  we  admit  these  commercial  benefits. 
We  are  only  arguing  radio  as  a  cultural  and  intellectual 
liability.  The  industrial  argument  of  the  Negative  has 
as  much  pertinence  to  the  question  at  issue  as  the  dis 
cussion  of  box-office  receipts  to  the  question  of  whether 
or  not  a  certain  play  is  of  artistic  or  classic  value  to 
the  audience. 

The  gentlemen  of  the  Negative  have  endeavored  to 
indicate  the  cultural  and  intellectual  benefits  of  radio 
by  the  following  arguments:  They  have  pointed  to  the 
University  broadcasts  over  the  air.  My  friends,  in 
answering  this  argument  I  appeal  to  your  own  experi 
ence.  How  many  times  can  you  recall  having  heard  a 
scholarly  or  academic  university  broadcast?  In  com 
parison  with  so-called  popular  programs  (jazz,  croon 
ing,  serials,  etc.),  such  presentations  are  almost  to  be 
counted  on  the  fingers  of  one's  hands.  Again  they  have 
cited  improvement  of  speech  as  a  benefit  of  radio.  In 
intellectual  fairness  we  of  the  Affirmative  will  admit 
that,  in  part,  this  is  true.  Yet  in  this,  as  in  the  pre 
ceding,  the  same  problem  exists.  It  has  been  my  ob 
servation  in  radio,  as  Mr.  Boardman  will  likewise  tes 
tify,  that  for  every  program  on  a  large  station,  with 


RADIO  BROADCASTING  499 

good  continuity  (embodying  a  high  standard  of  Eng 
lish),  there  are  a  dozen  so-called  "plug"  deals  on  a 
small  station  to  "high  pressure"  some  gullible  listener 
into  purchasing  hokum  tablets  for  his  kidneys,  or  some 
fantastic  reducing  lotion  for  rotund  ladies.  My  experi 
ence  and  doubtless  your  general  observation  confirms 
the  fact  that  on  these  strictly  commercial  programs 
the  quality  of  English  used  is  very  dubious.  There  are 
frequent  grammatical  mistakes,  slurring  of  words, 
though  mistakes  of  pronunciation  are  kept  to  a  mini 
mum.  It  must  be  also  remembered  that  for  every 
fifty  thousand  watt  station  there  are  four,  five,  or  six, 
five  hundred  "watters."  Thus  this  observation  attains 
greater  significance  when  considering  the  effects  of 
radio  as  a  whole  upon  the  speech  habits  of  the  listening 
audience.  Moreover,  since  on  these  small  stations,  the 
profit  motive  is  all-important,  since  commercial  spon 
sors  wish  to  secure  the  best  possible  response  to  their 
advertising,  they  therefore  adapt  the  vocabulary  and 
style  of  speech  used,  to  the  listener.  As  a  consequence 
we  discover  in  the  continuity  of  small  stations  the  same 
limitations  and  restrictions  as  in  the  speech  of  the  aver 
age  listener.  This  definitely  does  not  make  for  im 
provement  of  speech  since  the  station  is  adapting  its 
speech  to  the  individual,  average  listener.  Still  further, 
the  Negative  has  selected  a  few  exceptional  programs 
such  as  the  Shell  Symphony  hour,  the  Standard  Sym 
phony  hour,  and  the  Seth  Parker  programs  and  on  the 
basis  of  these  exceptions  have  tried  to  prove  the  cultural 
value  of  radio.  They  totally  ignore  or  at  least  neglect 
to  consider,  the  great  bulk  of  programs  throughout  one 


500    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

day  on  stations  throughout  the  nation;  programs  of  the 
culturally  worthless  type  that  Mr.  Boardman  men 
tioned  which,  though  we  admit,  might  be  acceptable  as 
entertainment,  are  a  liability  from  the  cultural  and 
intellectual  viewpoint. 

The  Negative  has  argued  that  those  who  are  desirous 
of  enjoying  cultural  programs  may  tune  in  to  such 
broadcasts,  practically  admitting  in  this  argument  the 
small  minority  of  these  programs.  In  the  first  place, 
this  argument  in  no  way  vindicates  the  cultural  worth 
of  radio  as  a  whole  but  admits  the  disproportionately 
small  number  of  worth-while  (that  is,  from  the  educa 
tional  standpoint)  programs.  In  the  second  place,  we 
may  reason  by  analogy  that,  according  to  arguments 
of  the  Negative,  simply  because  an  educated  man  can 
attend  five  or  six  artistic,  classic,  or«  instructive  moving 
pictures  in  a  year,  this  fact  upholds  the  moving  picture 
industry  as  a  cultural  asset*  Do  you  see  the  fallacy 
involved  in  their  reasoning?  In  the  third  place  this 
argument  is  not  sound  because  in  order  to  direct  cul 
tural  influence  of  radio  there  must  be  selectivity  at  the 
broadcasting  end  rather  than  selectivity  at  the  listeners9 
end. 

From  this  point  on  the  gentlemen  of  the  opposition 
seem  to  have  lost  their  bearings.  When  backed  up 
against  the  wall  they  say,  the  responsibility  is  with  the 
manipulators,  not  with  the  agency  itself.  Of  course 
not,  but  how  is  this  relevant  to  the  question  which  con 
siders  "radio  as  now  operated"  The  indictment  still 
holds  true.  They  tell  us  that  the  first  half  of  the 
Affirmative  argument  falls  because  nothing  is  wrong 


RADIO  BROADCASTING  501 

with,  the  profit  motive  in  business  as  in  radio*  Of 
course  not,  but  they  have  missed  the  point  in  our  argu 
ment,  the  causal  relation  involved:  that  the  profit  motive 
is  subversive  to  cultural  progress  in  radio  programs. 
Thus  it  is  not  the  profit  motive,  as  such,  that  we  con 
demn  but  its  effects.  In  his  rebuttal  Mr.  Dunipace  has 
gone  so  far  as  to  say  that  since  it's  not  radio's  purpose 
to  educate  the  public  why  blame  radio?  My  friends^  it 
is  not  a  question  of  blame,  nor  of  purpose  in  this  de 
bate  but  one  of  the  influence  or  effect  of  radio,  irrespec 
tive  of  all  else,  upon  the  culture  and  intellect  of  the 
public. 

To  restate  our  case,  we  of  the  Affirmative  have 
proved:  first,  that  the  profit  motive  is  prostituting  the 
cultural  and  intellectual  potentialities  of  radio  and 
second,  as  now  operated  and  revealed  in  its  programs, 
radio  is  a  cultural  and  intellectual  liability.  And  now 
— one  last  word  to  our  opponents — We  have  enjoyed 
the  debate  and  may  we  meet  them  again  at  the  Radio 
Announcers7  Convention. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY:  RADIO  BROADCASTING 

BOOKS 

Arnold,  F.  A.— Broadcast  Advertising.    1933.    Wiley.    $3. 

Darrow,  *B.  H.— Radio,  the  Assistant  Teacher.  1932.  Adams,  R.  G. 
$1.90. 

Kirkpatrick,  C.— Report  of  a  Research  into  the  Attitudes  and  Habits 
of  Radio  Listeners.  1933.  Webb.  $1.50. 

Lingel,  R.  J.  C.— Educational  Broadcasting.  University  of  Chicago 
Press.  1932.  $1.50. 

Tyson,  L.— What  to  Read  About  Radio.  1933.  University  of  Chi 
cago  Press,  pa.  25c. 


502    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

Young,  F. — Shall  I  Listen;  Studies  in  the  Adventure  of  Broadcasting. 
1933.    Constable. 

PAMPHLETS  AND  DOCUMENTS 

Institute  for  Education  by  Radio.    Education  on  the  Air.    Three  vols. 

1930-1932.     Each  $3.     Ohio  State  University,  Columbus,  Ohio. 

Third  volume  contains  a  number  of  interesting  topics  related  to 

the  debate  subject. 
Institute  of  International  Education — News  Bureau.     International 

Broadcasting.    F.  C.  Wilks.    March  1933. 
Joint  Radio  Survey  Committee.    Appraisal  of  Radio  Broadcasting  in 

Land  Grant  Colleges  and  State   Universities.     1933.     National 

Committee  on  Education  by  Radio,    gratis.    1201  16th  St.,  N.  W. 

Washington,  D.  C. 
Music  Supervisors  National  Conference.     Yearbook  1932.    p.  276-8; 

p.  263-8. 
Music  Teachers  National  Association.    Proceedings.    1932.    p.  124-5. 

What  May  We  Expect  in  Music  Education  Through  Radio. 
National  Advisory  Council  on  Radio  in  Education.    Radio  and  Edu 
cation.    1932.    University  of  Chicago  Press.    $3. 
Proceedings,  Second  Annual  Assembly.    1932.     University  of 

Chicago  Press.    $3. 
National  Broadcasting  Company.    Analysis  of  History  Making  NBC 

Contributions  to  the  Art  of  Radio  in  1932.    The  NBC,  711  5th 

Ave.,  New  York,  N.  Y. 
United  States  Office  of  Education.     Biennial  Survey  of  Education. 

1928-1930.    A.  Perry.    V.  1,  p.  619-41. 

MAGAZINE  REFERENCES 

American  Teacher.— 17:25,  February  1933.     Radio  Channel  Grants 

and  Grantees.    H.  K.  Randall. 
Atlantic  Monthly.— 150:499,  October  1932.    Europe's  Air  and  Ours 

W.  Hard. 
American  Mercury.— 29:245,  June  1933.    Adding  Insult  to  Injury. 

W.  S.  Howard. 
Catholic  Educational  Review.— 30:321,  June   1932.     Brief  for  the 

Freedom  of  Radio  Education. 
Child  Study.— 10:187,  April  1933.    Movies  and  Radio  Change  Old 

Standards.    S.  M.  Gruenberg.     10:193,  April.  1933.    Radio  for 

Children,  Parents  Listen  in. 


RADIO  BROADCASTING  503 

Christian  Century. — 49:1190,  October  5,  1932.    Freedom  of  the  Air 

and  Press.    50:108,  January  25, 1933.    New  Year's  Eve  Here  and 

in  'England.     50:579,  May  3,  1933.     Uneasy  Days  for  Radio 

Chains — Why  Not  a  Hearer's  Chain? 

Commonweal. — 16:229,  June  29,  1912.    Education  Through  the  Air. 
Educational  Survey. — 3:126,  March  1932.    International  Labor  Office 

and  Wireless  Broadcasting. 
English   Journal    (High   School   edition). — 21:757,   November   1932. 

Announcing  and  Oral  English.    G.  Fine. 

Etude. — 50:517,  July  1932.    What  Do  People  Listen  to  on  the  Radio? 
Foreign  Affairs. — 11:501,  April   1933.     Progress  of  Socialization  in 

England. 
Grade  Teacher. — 50:372,  January  1933.    New  Education  for  a  New 

World.    American  Schools  Radio  Broadcast  by  N.  E.  A. 
Harper's  Magazine. — 165:467,  September  1932.    Radio  Goes  Educa 
tional    T.  Hoke.     166:554,  April  1933.    Radio,  a  Brief  for  the 

Defense. 
High  School  Teacher. — 8:355,  November  1932.    Ohio  School  of  the 

Air.    8:302,  October  1932. 
Journal  of  Adult  Education.     4:234,  June  1932.    Revolt  of  Radio 

Listeners.    4:288,  June  1932.    International  Broadcasting.    J.  G. 

McDonald. 
Journal  of  Education.— 115:550,  October  3,  1932.    Radio  More  Than 

a  Commodity.    C.  H.  Moore. 
J-S.  High  School  Clearing  House.— 7:83,  October  1932.    Survey  of 

What  is  being  Done  in  Radio  Education.    M.  B.  Harrison. 
Literary  Digest. — 114:8,  August  13,  1932.    First  Aid  for  Mikemasters. 

114:8,  December  10,  1932.    Breaking  up  the  Radio  Monopoly. 

115:16,  January  7,  1933.    Kind  Word  for  Radio  Music.    115:32, 

March  18,  1933.    Mother's  Fighting  Radio  Bogies.    115:14,  April 

1,  1933.    Child  Radio  Fans. 
Musician.— 37:3,  November  1932.    Shall  We  Expose  Our  Children  to 

Modern  Music?    38:9,  January  1933.    Does  the  Radio  Reflect 
Our  Demand  for  Good  Music?     R.  Hoylbut. 
Nation.— 136:128,  February  1,  1933.    Setting  Symphonies.     136:362, 

April  5,  1933.    Children's  Hour. 
New  Republic.— 73:93,  December  7,  1932.     Crutches  for  Broadcast 

Music.    B.  H.  Higgin. 

Quar.  Journal  of  Speech.— 18:560,  November  1932.    Studies  in  the 
Techniques  of  Radio  Speech.  H.  L.  Ewbank.   19:211,  April  1933. 


504    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

Radio  Medal  of  American  Academy.  Hamlin  Garland.  19:219, 
April  1933.  Radio  Influences  Speech.  L.  B.  Tyson. 

Parents  Magazine. — 8:13,  May  1933.  Better  Radio  Programs  for 
Children.  C.  S.  Littledale. 

Pictorial  Review.— 34:18,  October  1932.  Coming  up  for  Air.  C.  Lowe. 

School  and  Society. — 35:824,  June  18,  1932.  Broadcasting  Abroad. 
National  Advisory  Council  on  Radio  in  Education.  Same.  The 
Council,  60  E.  42d  St.,  N.  Y.  C.  37:93,  January  21,  1933.  Radio 
and  the  Liquor  Problem.  J.  E.  Morgan.  37:57,  January  14, 
1933.  Radio  Programs  in  Our  American  Schools.  37:612,  May 
13,  1933.  Educational  Broadcasts  in  California. 

School  Life.— 17:198,  June  1932.  First  College  Course  in  Radio 
Broadcast  Advertising.  F.  H.  Arnold.  18:157,  April  1933.  Radio 
Broadcasting  Courses.  C.  M.  Koon.  18:127,  March  1933,  6:30 
P.  M.  Sunday.  When  Education  Goes  on  the  Air. 

School  Music.— 32:11,  November  1932.  Music  That  Is  Broadcast. 
B.  H.  Higgin. 

School  Review. — 40:646,  November  1932.    Civic  Education  by  Radio. 

School  Science  and  Mathematics. — 32:776,  October  1932.  What  to 
Teach  in  Radio.  W.  E.  Smith. 

Scribner's  Magazine. — 93:313,  May  1933.  Children's  Hour  of  Crime. 
A.  Mann. 

World  Tomorrow.— 16:271,  March  22,  1933.    Who  Owns  the  Air? 

BIBLIOGRAPHIES 

R.  Lingel. — Educational  Broadcasting.  Compilation.  University  of 
Chicago  Press.  1932.  pa.  $1.50. 

U.  S.  Office  of  Education. — Good  References  on  Education  by  Radio. 
1932.  M.  Koon  and  M.  McCabe. 

U.  S.  Office  of  Education. — Library  Division,  Bibliography  of  Re 
search  Studies  in  Education.  1930-31.  p.  34. 


APPENDICES 


APPENDIX  I 

Topic  Index  of  Debate  Subjects  Appearing  in  the 
Various  Volumes  of  "Intercollegiate  Debates" 


Volume  numbers  are  indicated  after  the  subjects 

Abandonment   of   Policy   of   Military   Preparedness, 

Vol.  12. 

Accident  Insurance,  Vol.  4. 
Advertising,  Modern,  Vol.  10. 
American  Legion  Should  Be  Condemned,  Vol.  14. 
Armed  Intervention  for  Collection  of  Debts,  Vols.  19  9. 
Asset  Currency,  Vol.  1. 

Athletics,  Amateur  and  Professionalism  in,  Vol.  12. 
Banks,  Government  Control  of,  VoL  14. 
Bank  Notes  Secured  by  Commercial  Paper,  Vol.  1. 

(See  also  Asset  Currency.) 
Bonus  (See  American  Legion.) 
Cabinet  System  of  Government,  Vols.  1,  3,  10. 
Cabinet  Officers  in  Congress,  VoL  4. 
Cancellation  of  War  Debts,  Vols.  13,  14. 
Capitalism  vs.  Socialism 

Capitalism  Is  Unsound,  Vol.  13. 

Social  Control  of  Production  and  Exchange,  Vol.  7. 

Limitation  of  Wealth,  Vol.  14. 
Central  Bank,  Vols.  1,3.  (See  Banks,  Gov't  Control  of.) 

507 


508    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

Centralization  of  Power  in  Federal  Government,  Vols. 
9,  13.     (See  also  Control  of  Industry,  Banks, 
Gov't  Control  of.) 
Chain  Store,  VoL  11. 
Child  Labor,  VoL  8. 

City  Manager  Plan  of  Municipal  Government,  VoL  7. 
Closed  and  Open  Shop,  Vols.  1,  3. 
Coal  Mines,  Government  Ownership  of,  VoL  1. 
Co-education,  VoL  10. 

Commission  Form  of  Municipal  Government,  Vols.  1, 3. 
Compulsory  Military  Service,  VoL  6.    (See  also  Swiss 

Military  System,  VoL  7.} 
Conservation  of  Natural  Resources,  VoL  2. 
Control  of  Industry,  VoL  13. 
Courts  and  Reform  in  Legal  Procedure. 

Abolition  of  Insanity  Plea  in  Criminal  Cases,  VoL  10. 

Judges,  Appointment  vs.  Election,  VoL  1. 

Judges,  Recall  of,  VoL  2. 

Judicial  Decisions,  Recall  of,  VoL  4. 

Three-fourths  Jury  Decision,  VoL  3. 
Cuba,  Annexation  of,  VoL  1. 
Declaration  of  War  by  Popular  Vote,  VoL  8. 
Dictatorship,  Presidential,  VoL  14. 
Direct  Primary,  VoL  3. 

Disarmament,  International,  VoL  11.    (See  Abandon 
ment  of  Policy  of  Military  Preparedness.) 
Divorce 

Divorce  Is  a  Social  Asset,  VoL  13. 

Uniform  Marriage  and  Divorce  Laws,  VoL  8. 
Education 

Amateurism  vs.  Professionalism  in  Athletics,  VoL  12. 


APPENDIX  I  509 

Education — (Continued) 

Co-education,  Vol.  10. 

Federal  Department  of  Education,  Vol.  9. 
Educational  Qualification  for  Suffrage,  Vol.  1. 
Election  of  Senators  by  Popular  Vote,  VoL  1. 
Emergence  of  Women  from  the  Home,  VoL  12. 
Farm  Relief 

McNary-Haugen  Bill  (Two  debates),  VoL  9. 

Fixing  Prices  of  Staple  Agricultural  Products,  Vol. 

13. 
Federal  Charter  for  Interstate  Commerce  Corporations, 

Vols.  1,  4. 

Federal  Control  of  Banks,  VoL  14. 
Federal  Control  of  the  Express  Business,  VoL  5. 
Federal  Control  of  Railroads,  VoL  1. 
Federal  Department  of  Education,  VoL  9. 
Foreign  Affairs 

Governmental  Principles  of  Mussolini,  Vols.  9, 11. 

Japanese  Policy  in  Manchuria,  VoL  14. 
Foreign  Loans  and  Investments 

Armed  Intervention  for  Collection  of,  Vols.  1,  9. 
Foreign  Relations 

Cancellation  of  War  Debts,  Vols.  13,  14. 

League  of  Nations,  Vols.  8,  10. 

Monroe  Doctrine,  VoL  5. 

Open  Door  Policy  in  China,  VoL  7. 

Recognition  of  Soviet  Russia,  VoL  8. 
Free  Trade.     (See  also  Tariff.) 

In  Raw  Materials,  VoL  2. 

International  Free  Trade,  VoL  12. 

Protective  Tariff,  Abandonment  of,  Vols.  1,  2. 


510    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

Government,  Change  In  Form  of 

Cabinet  Form  of  Government,  Vols.  ly  3,  10. 

Centralization  of  Power  in  Federal   Government, 
Vols.  9,  13. 

Educational  Qualification  for  Suffrage,  Vol.  1. 

Election  of  Senators  by  Popular  Vote,  Vol.  1. 

Personal  Liberty,  Restriction  of  by  Government, 
Vol.  P. 

Power  of  Supreme  Court  to  Declare  Laws  Uncon 
stitutional,  Vol.  8. 

Six  Year  Term  for  President,  Vol.  5. 
Government  Ownership 

Of  Coal  Mines,  Vol.  1. 

Hydro-Electric  Power,  Vols.  10,  11. 

Merchant  Marine,  Vol.  6. 

Telegraph  and  Telephone,  Vol.  6. 

Railroads,  Vols.  4,  6,  7. 
Government  Policies 

Annexation  of  Cuba,  Vol.  1. 

Conservation  of  Natural  Resources,  Vol.  2. 

Independence  of  the  Philippines,  Vol.  5. 

Ship  Subsidy,  Vols.  1,  6. 
Hydro-Electric   Power,    Government   Ownership   and 

Control  of,  Vols.  10,  11. 
Immigration 

Japanese  Immigration  Law,  Vol.  8. 

Literacy  Test,  Vol.  5. 

Restriction  of,  Vol.  1. 

Income  Tax,  Vol.  1,  2.    (See  Limitation  of  Wealth.) 
Incorporation,  Federal,  Vols.  1,  4.     (See  Federal  In 
corporation  of  Railroads,  Vol.  1.) 


APPENDIX  I 

Increase  in  Army  and  Navy,  Vol.  7.     (Navy  alone 

Vol.  1.) 

Independence  of  Philippines,  Vol.  5. 
Industry,  Control  of,  Vol.  13. 
Inheritance  Tax,  Vol.  1. 
Initiative  and  Referendum,  Vols.  1,  2. 
Injunction  in  Labor  Disputes,  Vols.  1,  5. 
Insanity  Plea  in  Criminal  Cases,  Abolishment  of,  Vol 

10. 

Installment  Buying,  Vol.  11. 
International  Free  Trade,  Vol.  12. 
Interstate  Commerce 

Advertising,  Modern,  Vol.  10. 

Chain  Store,  Vol.  11. 

Control  of  Industry,  Vol.  13. 

Federal  Charter  for  Interstate  Commerce  Corpora 
tions,  Vols.  1,  4. 

Federal  Control  of  Express  Business,  Vol.  5. 

Federal  Control  of  Railroads,  Vol.  1. 

Federal  Control  of  Banks,  Vol.  14. 

Government  Ownership  of  Railroads,  Vol.  4. 

Installment  Buying,  Vol.  11. 

Reduction  of  Wages  Retards  Business  Recovery, 
Vol.  13. 

Regulation  vs.  Dissolution  of  Trusts,  Vol.  4. 
Japanese  Immigration,  Vol.  8. 
Japanese  Policy  in  Manchuria,  Vol.  14. 
Judges,  Appointment  vs.  Election  of,  Vol.  1. 
Judges,  Recall  of,  Vol.  2. 
Judicial  Decisions,  Recall  of,  Vol.  4. 
Jury  System,  Abolition  of,  Vol.  10. 


512    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

Labor  and  Capital 

Benefits  of  Labor  Unions,  Vol.  1. 

Child  Labor,  Vol.  8. 

Closed  and  Open  Shop,  Vols.  1,  3. 

Exemption  of  Labor  Unions  from  Anti-trust  Laws, 
Vol.  7. 

Forty  Hour  Week,  Vol.  11. 

Injunction  in  Labor  Disputes,  Vols.  1,  5. 

Minimum  Wage,  Vols.  3,  6. 

Reduction  of  Wages,  Vol.  13. 
Labor  Unions,  Benefits  of,  Vol.  1. 

Exemption  of  from  Anti-trust  Laws,  Vol.  7. 
League  of  Nations,  Vols.  8,  10. 
Light  Wines  and  Beer,  Vol.  9. 
Liquor  Control,  Vols.  8,  9,  12. 
Limitation  of  Wealth,  Vol.  14. 
Literacy  Test  for  Immigrants,  Vol.  5. 
McNary-Haugen  Bill,  Vol.  9. 

Merchant  Marine,  Government  Ownership  of,  Vol.  6. 
Military  Problems  and  War 

Abandonment  of  Military  Preparedness,  Vol.  12. 

Compulsory  Military  Service,  Vol.  6. 

Swiss  System  of  Compulsory  Military  Service,  Vol.  7. 

Declaration  of  War  by  Popular  Vote,  Vol.  8. 

Increase  in  Army  and  Navy,  Vols.  1,  7. 

International  Disarmament,  Vol.  11. 
Money  and  Banking 

Asset  Currency,  Vol.  L 

Banks,  Government  Control  of,  Vol.  14. 

Bank  Notes  Secured  by  Commercial  Paper,  Vol.  1. 

Central  Bank,  Vols.  1,  3. 


APPENDIX  I  S13 

Money  and  Banking — (Continued) 

Control  of  Industry  (Credit  Control),  Vol.  13. 

Guarantee  of  Bank  Deposits,  Vol.  I. 

Postal  Savings  Banks,  Vol.  1. 
Monroe  Doctrine,  Vol.  5. 
Municipal  Government 

Commission  Form,  Vols.  1,  3. 

City  Manager  Plan,  Vol.  7. 

Mussolini,  Governmental  Principles  of,  Vols.  9,  11. 
Old  Age  Insurance  or  Pension,  Vols.  4,  13. 
Ontario  Plan  of  Liquor  Control,  Vol.  12. 
Open  Door  Policy  in  China,  Vol.  7. 
Open  vs.  Closed  Shop,  Vols.  1,  3. 
Personal  Liberty,  Restriction  by  Government,  Vol.  9. 
Postal  Savings  Banks,  Vol.  1. 
Power  of  Supreme  Court,  Vol.  8. 
Power  of  Government.    (See  Centralization  of  Power.) 
Prohibition,  Vols.  8,  9,  12. 

Protective  Tariff,  Vols.  1,  2.    (See  also  Free  Trade.) 
Radio  Broadcasting,  Vol.  14. 
Railroads 

Government  Ownership  of,  Vols.  4,  6y  7. 

Federal  Control  of,  Vol.  1. 
Raw  Materials,  Free  Trade  in,  Vol.  2. 
Recognition  of  Russia,  Vol.  8. 
Reduction  of  Wages  Retards  Business  Recovery,  Vol. 

13. 
Regulation  vs.  Dissolution  of  Trusts,  Vol.  4.    (See  also 

Federal  Control.) 

Restriction  of  Immigration,  Vols.  1,  5,  8.    (See  Immi 
gration.) 


514    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

Ship  Subsidy,  Vol.  6. 

Short  Ballot,  Vol.  2. 

Single  Tax,  VoL  6. 

Six  Year  Term  for  President,  VoL  5. 

Social  Insurance 

Accident,  Vol.  4. 

Old  Age,  Vols.  4,  13. 

Unemployment,  Vols.  11,  12,  13. 
Socialistic  Control  of  Production  and  Exchange,  VoL  7. 
Socialism,  VoL  14. 

Soldier  Bonus,  VoL  14.    (See  American  Legion.) 
State  Government,  Reform  and  Change  in 

Abolition  of  Insanity  Plea  in  Criminal  Cases,  VoL  10. 

Abolition  of  Jury  System,  VoL  10. 

Appointment  vs.  Election  of  Judges,  VoL  1. 

Direct  Primary,  VoL  3. 

Initiative  and  Referendum,  VoL  3. 

Recall  of  Judges,  VoL  2. 

Recall  of  Judicial  Decisions,  Vol.  4. 

State  Medical  Aid,  VoL  12. 

Short  Ballot,  VoL  2. 

Three-fourths  Jury  Decision,  VoL  3. 

Unicameral  Legislature,  VoL  5. 
State  Medical  Aid,  VoL  12. 

Swiss  System  of  Compulsory  Military  Service,  VoL  7. 
Tariff  (See  Free  Trade,  also  Protection),  Vols.  1,  2, 12. 
Taxation 

Income  Tax,  Vols.  1,  2. 

Inheritance  Tax,  VoL  1. 

Intangible  Property  Tax,  VoL  14. 


APPENDIX  I  515 

Taxation — (Continued] 

Limitation  of  Wealth  by  Income  and  Inheritance 
Taxes,  Vol.  14. 

On  Rental  Value  of  Land,  Vol.  2. 

Single  Tax,  Vol.  6. 
Telegraph  and  Telephone,  Government  Ownership  of, 

Vol.  6. 

Three-fourths  Jury  Decision,  Vol.  3. 
Trusts,  Vol.  4.  (See  also  Control  of  Industry,  Vol.  13.) 
Unemployment  Insurance,  Vols.  11,  12,  13. 
Unicameral  Legislature,  Vol.  5. 
Uniform  Marriage  and  Divorce  Laws,  Vol.  8. 
Wages 

Minimum  Wages,  Vols.  3,  6. 

Reduction  of  Wages,  VoL  13. 
Working  Week  of  Forty  Hours,  Vol.  11. 


APPENDIX  II 

List  of  Colleges,  the  work  of  whose  debaters 

has  appeared  in  the  Various  Volumes  of 

"Intercollegiate  Debates'3 


Volume  numbers  in  which  the  various  colleges  have 
had  contributions  follow  the  names 

Amherst  College,  Vol.  1. 

Baker  University,  Vol.  1. 

Bates  College,  Vols.  10,  12. 

Baylor  College  for  Women,  Vol.  8. 

Baylor  University,  Vol.  2. 

Bellevue  College4,  Vol.  2. 

Beloit  College,  Vols.  1,  9,  14. 

Bethany  College,  Kansas,  Vols.  9,  11. 

Bowdoin  College,  Vol.  1. 

British  Columbia,  University  of,  Vol.  8. 

British  Universities,  Student  Union,  Vol.  10. 

Brown  University,  Vol.  2. 

Bucknell  University,  Vol.  14. 

California  Institute  of  Technology,  Vol.  8. 

Canton  College,  Vol.  2. 

Carleton  College,  Vols.  6, 10, 13, 14. 

Chattanooga,  University  of,  Vol.  1. 

Chicago,  University  of,  Vols.  1,  2. 

Cincinnati,  University  of,  Vols.  1,  12. 

Colgate  University,  Vols.  1,  2,  12,  14. 

College  of  Emporia,  Vols.  8,  9. 

517 


518    THE  YEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

College  of  the  Pacific,  Vol.  9. 

College  of  Wooster,  Vol.  14. 

Colorado  Agricultural  College,  Vol.  6. 

Colorado  University,  VoL  4. 

Columbia  University,  Vol.  7. 

Cotner  College,  VoL  2. 

Cumberland  College,  Vol.  1. 

Dartmouth  College,  Vol.  1. 

Denison  University,  Vols.  3,  13. 

DePauw  University,  Vols.  12,  13. 

Dickinson  College,  Vol.  1. 

Doane  College,  Vol.  2. 

Drake  University,  Vol.  1. 

Eureka  College,  Vols.  6,  8. 

Franklin  College,  VoL  11. 

Franklin  and  Marshall  College,  VoL  1* 

Fresno  State  College,  VoL  14. 

Friends  University,  VoL  6. 

Georgia,  University  of,  Vols.  1,  13,  14. 

German  Universities,  VoL  12. 

Glendale  Junior  College,  VoL  11. 

Harvard  University,  Vols.  1,  2,  13. 

Hawaii,  University  of,  VoL  10. 

Heidelberg  College,  VoL  9. 

Hillsdale  College,  VoL  6. 

Hope  College,  VoL  9. 

Illinois,  University  of,  VoL  1. 

Illinois  Wesleyan,  Vols.  1,  3,  4. 

Indiana  University,  Vols.  11,  12. 

Iowa  State  College,  VoL  13. 

Iowa  State  Teachers  College,  VoL  4. 

Iowa  Wesleyan  College,  VoL  3. 


APPENDIX  n  519 

Johns  Hopkins  University,  Vols.  1,  5. 

Kansas  State  Agricultural  College,  Vols.  4,  7,  99  13. 

Kansas,  University  of,  Vols.  2,  5,  14. 

Kansas  Wesleyan,  Vols.  4,  5. 

Kent  College  of  Law,  Vol.  13. 

Knox  College,  Vol.  1. 

Lawrence  College,  Vols.  5,  11. 

Los  Angeles  Junior  College,  Vol.  11. 

Marquette  University,  Vol.  14. 

Michigan  State  College,  Vols.  9,  12. 

Michigan,  University  of,  Vols.  1,  14. 

Minnesota,  University  of,  Vol.  12. 

Monmouth  College,  Vols.  3,  5,  10. 

Morningside  College,  Vols.  3,  7. 

New  York  University,  Vols.  1,  14. 

North  Central  College,  Vol.  9. 

Northern  State  Teachers  College  (South  Dakota), 

Vols.  8,  12. 

Northwestern  University,  Vols.  1,  11,  14. 
Occidental  College,  Vol.  14. 
Ohio  State  University,  Vol.  6. 
Ohio  Wesleyan,  Vol.  1. 
Oklahoma,  University  of,  Vols.  2,  3. 
Oregon  State  College,  Vol.  13. 
Ottawa  University  (Kansas),  Vol.  3. 
Oxford  University  (England),  Vols.  8,  9,  13,  14. 
Penn  College  (Iowa),  Vol.  2. 
Pennsylvania  State  College,  Vols.  1,  10,  12. 
Pennsylvania,  University  of,  Vol.  6. 
Pittsburgh,  University  of,  Vol.  10. 
Princeton  University,  Vols.  1,  4,  7,  14. 
Pomona  College,  Vol.  5. 


520    THE  HEAR  BOOK  OF  COLLEGE  DEBATING 

Redlands,  University  of,  Vols.  6,  7,  8,  11,  13. 

Ripon  College,  Vols.  4,  8. 

Rochester,  University  of,  Vol.  1. 

Rutgers  College,  Vol.  1. 

South  Dakota  Wesleyan,  Vols.  7,  12. 

Southern  California,  University  of,  Vols.  6,  9,  14. 

Southern  California  Law  School,  Vol.  7. 

Southwestern  College  (Kansas),  Vols.  7,  8. 

Stanford  University,  Vols.  10,  13. 

Swarthmore  College,  Vols.  1,  2,  12,  13. 

Sydney,  University  of,  (Australia),  Vol.  10. 

Texas,  University  of,  Vols.  4,  5. 

Trinity  University  (Texas),  Vol.  5. 

University  of  Arizona,  Vol.  14. 

University  of  California  at  Los  Angeles,  Vols.  8,  9. 

University  of  Iowa,  Vol.  14. 

University  of  North  Dakota,  Vol.  14. 

University  of  the  South,  Vol.  1. 

University  of  Wyoming,  Vol.  14. 

Vanderbflt  University,  Vol.  1. 

Vermont,  University  of,  Vol.  1. 

Washburn  College,  Vol.  1. 

Washington  and  Lee  University,  Vol.  1. 

Washington  State  College,  Vol.  11. 

Washington  University  (St.  Louis,  Mo.),  Vols.  10,  11. 

Whitman  College,  Vol.  13. 

William  and  Vashti  College,  Vol.  3. 

William  Jewell  College,  Vols.  2,  3,  5. 

Williamette  University,  Vol.  8. 

Wisconsin,  University  of,  Vols.  11,  12,  14. 

Yale  University,  Vol.  14. 

Yankton  College,  Vol.  7. 


INDEX 

PAGE 

REVENUES  FROM  INTANGIBLE  PROPERTY 3 

Affirmative 5,  18,  31,  47,  53,  59 

Negative 11,  25,  38,  45,  50,  56 

Bibliography 64 

Affirmative 
Fifty  Per  Cent  Tax  on  Intangibles  Necessary 

Best  means  of  redistributing  revenue 22 

Income  tax  necessary 9,  20,  21,  22,  23,  38 

Inequalities  under  present  system 7,  10,  35 

Plan  is  practical 19,  20,  24,  25,  32,  38,  54,  59 

Plan  is  successful  in  Virginia 24,  31 

Plan  is  successful  in  Delaware 31 

Plan  is  successful  in  North  Carolina  19,  21,  23,  26,  32,  33,  53 

Plan  is  successful  in  South  Carolina 24 

Present  Situation  Intolerable 6,  49 

Produces  a  More  Equitable  Situation. . .  7,  34,  35,  38,  39,  49,  61 
Property  Tax 

Condemned  by  leading  tax  authorities  38 

Discarded  in  Europe 11,  32 

Places  unequal  burden  on  farmer 7,  36,  37 

Case  of  Green  County  farmer 8 

Case  of  Wisconsin  farmer 7,  35,  48,  50,  51 

Theory  erroneous 9,  38 

Unjust 8,  34,  35,  38 

Proposed  Shift  Feasible 6,  21,  34,  38,  49,  61 

Results  in  Total  Tax  Reduction 33,  34 

Sufficiency  of 21 

Supporting  Testimony 

Michigan  committee 8 

Minnesota  Tax  Commission 7,  49 

Model  P.Ian  of  National  Tax  Association 20,  22,  55 

National  Industry  Conference 9,  10 

National  Tax  Associatipn .20,  22 

North  Carolina  Tax  Committee 21,  32,  33 

President  Hoover 10,  36 

Richard  T.  Ely  55 

Taxation 

Delinquency  of 19,  37,  49,  50,  54 

Federal    :-..  12 

.  Fifty  per  cent  should  be  derived  from  taxing  intangibles  5 

6,  25 

Meaning  of • 5 

521 


522  INDEX 

Revenues  From  Intangible  Property  (conlmued)  PAGE 

Present  methods  6,  38,  49 

Primary  object 13,  19 

Reapportionment  necessary '  6,  10,  11 

Reduction  necessary  10,  11 

Negative 

Intangible  Property  Tax 

Burdens  farmer 14 

Inequitable 41,  42 

Impractical 14 

Not  fiscally  adequate 13,  40,  45 

Not  Correlated  with  Ability  to  Pay 45 

Results  in  Delinquency   52 

Results  in  Tax  Evasion 28,  52,  57 

Supporting  Testimony 

Michigan 58 

Mississippi 17 

National  Industrial  Conference  Board 40 

New  York  State  Tax  Commission 42,  43,  44,  59 

North  Carolina  17 

Professor  Lutz 13 

Unfeasible  in  Agricultural  States 16,  17,  27,  38,  53 

Mississippi 16,  17 

Missouri 40 

North  Carolina 17,  26,  27 

Utah  17,  39 

Unreliable  Means  of  Revenue 14,  16,  18,  26,  27,  28,  29,  45 

Situation  in  New  York 14,  15,  26 

Situation  in  North  Dakota 15,  16,  26,  27 

Unsatisfactory  Means  of  Distributing  Revenue 14 

28,  29,  30,  31  53 

SOCIALISM 77 

Affirmative 78,    95 

Negative 86,  104 

Bibliography 115 

Affirmative 

Need  for  Centralized  Control 80 

Need  for  Centralized  Planning  80 

Present  Economic  Disorder 79,    80 

Socialism 

Definition  of 81,    82 

Does  not  give  leadership 104 

Failure  in  Great  Britain 99,  102,  103 

Is  Marxism  96,  103 

Means  annihilation  of  political  freedom 101 

Means  annulment  of  private  enterprise 96 

Offers  no  remedy  86 

Success  of  Private  Enterprise 

Achievements  under 99,  100 

Allows  for  planning  97 


INDEX  523 

Socialism  (continued)  PACE 

Results  In  high  wages 98 

Results  in  wealth  equality 98 

Negative 

Collapse  of  Present  System 

Failure  of  distribution 90,    91 

Failure  of  production 91,  111 

Need  for  higher  wages 93 

Need  for  planning 92,  108 

Need  for  productive  and  distributive  control 92,  108 

Need  for  stabilization  93 

Socialism 

Benefits  all Ill 

Coordinates  production  and  consumption 109,  110 

Definition  of 87,    94 

Is  not  Communism 112 

Offers  a  practical  economic  program 88,  90,  93,    94 

Successful  in  Kansas 114 

Successful  in  Milwaukee 114 

Successful  in  Russia 113 

Would  cure  speculation Ill 

Would  cure  unemployment 110 

CANCELLATION  OP  WAR  DEBTS 121 

Affirmative  . 122,  134,  151,  158 

Negative 128,  141,  148,  154 

Bibliography 162 

Affirmative 

Cancellation 

Effect  on  United  States 123,  126,  139,  140 

Moral  justification   134 

Result  in  unemployment 127,  140 

Will  not  increase  taxation  127,  135 

Will  return  prosperity 135,  136 

Will  stimulate  business 127 

Payment  is  Undesirable 

Bad  effect  on  trade 124,  138,  139 

Cannot  pay  with  goods «  138 

Creates  unfavorable  trade  balance 125,  136,  140,  148 

Demoralizes  foreign  and  domestic  markets 141 

Depreciates  foreign  currencies 136,  137,  138,  140,  141 

Disastrous  to  foreign  trade 137,  139,  141 

Payment  by  crossing  off  surplus  credits 152 

Payment  by  loan  is  postponement 124,  148,  159 

Payment  by  Hoover-Mills  plan  unfeasible..  152,  159,  160,  161 

Payment  impossible  by  gold 124,  141,  159 

Payment  impossible  by  goods *. 138 

Methods  of  Payment '123,  141,  142,  159 

Gold 

Exchange  of  Goods  and  Services 

Loans 


524  INDEX 

Cancellation  of  War  Debts  (continued)  PAGE 

Negative 
Cancellation 

American  industry  would  suffer , 133 

American  taxpayer  would  suffer 133 

Definition 128 

Not  preferable  to  moratorium 147,  ISO,  157,  158 

Would  decrease  purchasing  power 133 

Would  increase  United  States'  taxes  133,  156 

Would  ruin  world  markets 133,  155 

Payment  Desirable 

Debtor  nations  are  able  to  pay 145,  148,  150,  157,  158 

Debtor  nations  have  favorable  balance  of  payments 143 

144,  145,  146 

Debter  nations  morally  obligated 128,  129,  132,  146,  154 

Debtor  nations  received  spoils  in  excess  of  debts 130,  131 

France  has  repaid  private  loans 131 

Hoover-Mills  plan 145,  148,  158 

War  Debts 122 

Amount  Paid 122 

Average  Payment 122 

Occasion 122 

Purpose   122 

WAR  DEBTS 168 

Cancellation 

American  Opinion  Against 179,  180 

Congress  Opposed  to  it 196 

Economically  Sound 178 

Necessary  to 

Combat  British  policy 170,  171 

Decrease  unemployment 170 

Increase  employment 178 

Open  European  markets  178 

Public  Must  Accept 183,  184,  196 

Relation  to  Disarmament 186,  188,  194,  195 

Relation  to  Political  Sentiment 195,  196 

Relation  to  Public  Opinion 191 

Would  Create  Favorable  Trade  Balance 170,  178 

Would  Destroy  Favorable  Trade  Balance 169,  170,  178 

Payment  of 

Ability  of  Europe  to  Pay 188 

Advantage  of  Acceptance 198,  199 

Allies  Will  Not  Pay 180,  197 

Alternatives 

Extension 180,  183,  192 

Repudiation    180 

Detrimental  to  Creditor  Nation 173,  178,  179,  193,  194 

Europe  Cannot  Pay 170,  187 

Europe  Unwilling  to  Pay 194 

Germany  Cannot  Pay 180,  191 


INDEX  525 

War  Debts  (continued}  PAGE 

Loss  is  Greater  Than  Gain 194 

Means  of  Payment 189,  190 

Impossible  to  pay  in  gold 190 

Impossible  to  pay  in  services .  „ . .  190 

No  Method  of 197 

Possibility  of  Future  Payment 181,  182,  183 

United  States  Cannot  Accept  Payments 185 

War  Debts 

Confederate  180,  192 

Interest  on 168 

Origin  of 168 

Payment  to  Date 168 

THE  AMERICAN"  LEGION  SHOULD  BE  CONDEMNED 203 

Affirmative 203,  219,  236,  242 

Negative 212,  227,  233,  239 

Bibliography    246 

Activities  of  Legion 

Association  with  schools 207,  216,  235 

Bills  passed  by  Legion 210,  221,  223,  235,  244 

Censorship  and  suppression  of  speakers,  206,  207,  208,  234,  238 

Civil  service  preferment 224 

Conventions 205,  234 

Fostering  Americanism *.....  214 

Lobbying  and  results  of  lobbying 209 

210,  211,  221,  232,  244,  245 

Maintaining  law  and  order 213 

Obtaining  medical  treatment.  ..222,  223,  226,  240,  241,  242,  244 

Promoting  peace 214,  215,  216 

Pro-war  and  anti-foreign  policies,  208,  209,  211,  235,  238,  242 

Raiding  treasury . .  205,  229 

Red-baiting   205,  231 

Welfare  work 216,  217,  218,  237 

Legion  Contrasted  with  the  Grand  Army  of  the  Republic  228 

229,  244 

Membership  of  Legion 

Financial  status  of  members 225 

One  third  actual  veterans  205 

Purposes  of  Legion 

Non-political  organization    204 

Original  purpose 228 

Preserving  comradeship  . . .' 204 

Stated  in  Legion  Constitution 204,  212,  213 

Stand  on  Bonus 219,  224,  230,  231,  234,  240,  241,  244,  245 

Stand  on  Pensions 219 

220,  221,  223,  224,  226,  227,  230,  231,  239,  240,  243,  244 

United  States*  Veterans  Compared  with   Foreign  Veterans  225 

226,  243 


526  INDEX 

PAGE 

GOVERNMENT  CONTROL  or  THE  BANKING  SYSTEM: 251 

Affirmative . 251,  267,  282,  299,  308,  315 

Negative 258,274,290,295,303,311,319 

Bibliography 319 

Affirmative  Plan  of  Control  With  Negative  Objections 

All  banks  in  the  Federal  Reserve  System  . 255 

268,  272,  283,  284,  289,  297,  298,  299,  303,  305,  306,  309 

Branch  banking 256,  290 

Control  of  investments 257,  305 

Guarantee  of  deposits,  258,  275,  277,  278,  279,  280,  281,  284,  285 
286,  287,  288,  298,  299,  301,  303,  307,  313,  314,  316 

Defects  of  State  Regulation 267,  275,  283,  300,  316 

Federal  Reserve  System 253 

Foreign  Banking  Systems  253,  257,  271,  285,  286,  301,  302,  310 

Organization  vs.  Functions  of  Banks 261 

262,  266,  275,  282,  283,  291,  292,  296,  309,  311,  317 

Past  Record  of  Bank  Failures 252 

253,  260,  266,  292,  297,  302,  310 
Reasons  for  Bank  Failures 

Competition  between  banks 253,  261,  301,  306,  309 

Dishonesty  of  officials 264,  266,  293 

Economic  conditions. . . .  264,  290,  293,  294,  295,  300,  306,  314 

Inability  to  expand  credit 254,  307,  312 

Inability  to  liquidate 254,  307 

Lack  of  central  organization %  253,  261,  266,  284,  306 

Loss  of  confidence 254,  263,  284,  288,  289,  307 

Under-capitalization  254,  261,  296 

Unstable  dollar  254 

265,  268,  269,  270,  273,  284,  206,  304,  305,  307,  308 

LIMITATION  OP  WEALTH  325 

Affirmative 326,  337,  349,  360 

Negative   331,  343,  355 

Bibliography    363 

Advantages  of  Limitation 

Eliminates  moral  and  social  wrong 338 

339,  340,  341,  342,  352,  354,  363 

Ends  exploitation  of  public 353 

Practicable 351 

Prevents  radical  measures 330 

Promotes  universal  moderation 349,  350 

Raises  consuming  power 354 

Win  not  destroy  philanthropy  or  tax  income 351 

Disadvantages  of  Limitation 

Cannot  be  effected 333,  347,  348,  355 

Causes  limitation  of  philanthropies 344,  345,  350,  355,  360 

Causes  loss  of  taxes 344,  345,  346,  350,  356 

Disastrous  historical  precedents 336 

Forces  Government  administration  of  property 346,  360 


INDEX  527 

Limitation  of  Wealth  (continued)  PAGE 

Inhibits  progress  dependent  upon  surplus  of  capital  .......  332 

333,  334,  335,  336,  337,  343,  34S,  349,  360 

No  certain  cure  for  economic  ills 332,  343 

No  immediate  benefits 336,  349,  350,  360 

Prevents  adoption  of  more  fundamental  measures  333,  349,  359 
Will  not  control  credit 357,  358 

Negative  Counter  Plan 

Abolition  of  child  labor 359 

Control  of  credit  by  Federal  Reserve  System 358 

Minimum  wage  laws , 359 

Old  age  pensions  359 

Thirty  hour  week 359 

Unemployment  insurance 359 

Unequal  Distribution  of  Wealth — Causes  and  Effects 326 

327,  328,  329,  331,  337,  338,  339,  340,  341,  342,  361,  363 

JAPAN'S  POLICY  IN  MANCHURIA. 369 

Affirmative 369,  384,  401,  409 

Negative 377,  391,  398,  405 

Bibliography 413 

History  of  Manchurian  Relations 370 

373,  377,  378,  379,  380,  381,  382,  384,  407,  411 
Japan's  Policy  Justifiable 

Action  beneficial  to  China,  Mancnur*a  and  the  World. . . .  387 

388,  389,  390,  391,  412,  413 

Citation  of  similar  cases  of  intervention 403,  412 

Dictated  by  law  of  self-preservation 371 

372,  374,  377,  385,  386,  390,  404,  405,  410,  413 

Establishes  bulwark  against  Communism 370 

373,  386,  387,  388,  390,  413 

Establishes  stable,  independent  government  for  Manchukuo  370 

385,  388,  389,  410,  412 

Japan  needs  colonies  for  protection  and  expansion 372 

386,  390,  401,  402 

Sanction  of  International  Law 375,  377,  386,  411 

Japan's  Policy  Not  Justified 

Armed  force  is  not  justifiable 383,  392,  394,  395,  396,  397 

China  has  both  need  for  and  claim  on  Manchuria 378 

379,  383,  384,  391,  397,  406,  407,  408 

Japan  should  have  appealed  to  League 395,  396,  406 

Japan's  action  violates  treaties 383,  392,  393,  394,  398,  406 

Korea  as  an  example 399,  400 

Need  is  no  justification 377,  379,  405,  408 

No  benefit  to  Manchuria 399,  400 

Spread  of  Communism  encouraged  by  Japanese  action 400 

408,  409 
Sovereignty  of  China 376,  379,  382,  384,  398,  402,  403 

A  PRESIDENTIAL  DICTATORSHIP 419 

Affirmative  419,  430,  440,  453 


528  INDEX 

A  Presidential  Dictatorship  (continued) 

Negative  423,  436,  445,  45C 

Bibliography , 455 

Benefits  of  Dictatorship 

Dictators  less  easily  bribed 453 

Dictators  not  absolute 453,  457,  453 

History  proves  dictators  beneficial . . 458 

History  sanctions  dictators  in  crises 421,  442,  443,  444,  445 

Promotes  efficiency  and  coordination 441,  442,  458 

Promotes  immediate  governmental  action  . 430 

431,  432,  433,  434,  435,  440,  453,  454,  455,  456,  457,  458 
Temporary  dictatorship  will  not  imperil  democracy  457,  459 
Conditions  Demanding  Immediate  Action 

Banking 421 

Farmers'  situation , , . . . 421 

Railroads 421 

Unemployment , 421 

War  debts , 421 

Evils  of  Dictatorship 
Annuls  our  progress  from  monarchial  to  democratic  form 

of  government 437,  43$ 

Bribery  of  dictators  possible 448 

Characters  of  dictators , 426 

Citation  of  foreign  examples  of  dictators . . . .  425 

426,  427,    428,  437 

Crushes  democratic  political  advances 428 

Dependence  upon  party 426,  449 

Dictator  independent  of  public  opinion  424,  425,  427,  436,  449 

Does  not  promote  social  welfare , . . , 426,  427 

History  warns  against  dictatorships 443,  449 

No  capable  successors  of  dictators 429,  430,  436 

No  freedom  of  speech  or  press 424,  427,  436,  437,  449 

No  representative  government 424,  425 

No  right  to  hold  property 424 

Not  necessary  for  quick  governmental  action .  439 

,,      .  440,  445,  446,  447,  450,  451 ,  452 

Meaning  of  Dictator , 420,  444 

Precedent  for  Dictatorial  Powers 421,  442,  443 

Record  and  Results  of  Capitalism  ...„,,..,.,....* 421,  422 

RADIO  BROADCASTOTG  ,,.,.. 467 

Affirmative  .„ „,..,.,„ 4681479,  497 

Negative  . 4  474,  43$,  493 

Bibliography  „ 4 501 

Explanation  of  Question 469,  474,  475,  478,  4S5,  4S6 

Growth  of  Radio 468,  469,  475,  476 

Radio  Analogous  to  Moving  Pictures , . . . , 471 

Radio,  as  Operated,  Is  a  Cultural  Liability 

Dominated  by  profit  motive  ...» 470,  471,  472,  473,  474 

Encourages  use  of  poor  grammar 48 1,  482,  483,  499 

Industrial  benefits  not  relevant 498 


INDEX  529 

Radio  Broadcasting  (continued)  PAGE 

Instructs  in  crime 482,  483 

Lowers  artistic  tastes 

Of  adults 481,500,501 

Of  children , 482,  484 

Over-stimulating   482 

Promotes  advertising  of  worthless  products 481 

Small  proportion  of  broadcast  time  cultural  or  educa 
tional  484,  498,  500 

Radio,  as  Operated,  Is  Not  a  Cultural  Liability 
Ample  broadcast  time  given  to  cultural  and  educational 

programs  >. 487,  490,  491,  492,  495 

Creates  new  market  for  talent 477,  478,  496 

Establishes  familiarity  with  political  events  . . , 476 

Improves  speech 

Of  announcers 479,  487 

Of  general  public 478 

Profit  motive  necessary  and  not  undesirable  489,  490,  494,  496 

Reflects  public's  taste 476,  477,  486,  487,  488,  496 

Thwarts  crime 488 


Speaking!   Debating! 

Declamations,  Recitations,  Readings,  Dialogues,  Debates, 
Prize     Speaking,     Orations,    FOB    ALL    OCCASIONS. 

Edgerton's  A.  Speech  for  Every  Occasion $2.00 

Thomas'  A  Speech  and  A  Story  for  Every  Occasion. .'.      2.00 

LeRow's  Pieces  for  Every  Occasion ,      2.00 

Deming  and  Benxis*   New  Pieces  for  Every  Day  the 

Schools  Celebrate 2.00. 

Niemeier's    New    Plays    for    Every    Day    the    Schools 

Celebrate 2.00 

Gunnison's  New  Dialogues*  and  Plays  (Primary,  Inter 
mediate  and  Advanced) 2.50 

Lovejoy  &  Adams1  Pieces  for  Every  Month  of  the  Year     2.00 
Ashley's  50  Orations  That  Have  Won  Prizes  In  Speak 
ing  Contests 2.00 

Blackstone's  The  Best  American  Orations  of  Today.  . .  2.00 
Esenwein's  How  to  Attract  and  Hold  an  Audience.  . . .  1.50 

Scott's  Psychology  of  Public  Speaking  (Revised) 1.60 

Neil's  Sources  of  Effectiveness  in  Public  Speaking.  . .      2.60 

Pearson's  Extemporaneous  Speaking* .  .• .          2.00 

Pearson's  Humorous  Speaker  ...  * -. . . . 2.00 

Pearson's  The  Speakers'  Library  (8  Volumes)  each. .      2.50 

Brownlee's  "Patriotic  Speaker"   . 1-75 

Craig  and  Gunnison's  Pieces  That  Have  Taken,  Prizes     2.00 

McHale's  Pieces'  That  Have  Won  Prizes . 2.00 

Blffickston'e's   New    Pieces  *  That   Will    Take   Prizes  In 

Speaking  Contests 2.00 

Shurter    and    Watkins'    New    Poema   That   Will   Take 

Prizes  in  Speaking  Contests 2.00 

Shurter 's  Winning  Declamations — How  to  Speak  Them  2.00 
Davis*  Model  Commencement  Parts,  Orations,  Essays..  2.50 
Skinner's  The  Bright  Side  (Inspirational  Verse) . . . .  1.50 

Fenno's  New  Science  and  Art  of  Elocution 2.00 

Fry's  Educational  Dramatics 75 

Fry's  A  Midsummer  Night's  Dream  (A  Dramatic  Cast 

Reading  Arrangement) , 60 

Shurter  &  Watkins*  New  Poems  for  Oral  Interpretation     2.00 

Barbe's  Famous  Poems  Explained,  , , . « . 1.50 

Barbe's  Great  Poems,  Interpreted 2.00 

Shurter  and  Watkins'  Masterpieces  of  Modern  Verse. .      1.50 
Hix'   Poetry  for  Each  School  Year,   Grades  1-8    (Ap 
proved  Selections)    each 72 

Reynold's  Graded  Poetry  for  Memorizing  (3  Vols.)  ea.  .75 
Reynold's  Graded  Poetry  for  Memorizing,  for  Junior 

High  Schools,  7th  and  8th  Years,  each 85 

Craig's  Both  Sides  of  30  Public  Questions  Completely 

Debated  (Pros  and  Cons),  (Revised  Edition) 2.25 

Shurter's  Both  Sides  of  100  Public  Questions  Briefly 

Debated    (Revised  Edition) . . 2.00 

Henry-Seeley's  How  to  Organize  &  Conduct  a  Meeting     1.50 

Howe's  Handbook  of  Parliamentary  Usage 75 

Palmer's  New  Parliamentary  Manual 1.00 

Nichols  and  Pearson's   Intercollegiate  Debates — Year 

Book  of  College  Debating  (11  Volumes)  each 2.50 

Pi  Kappa  Delta's  Winning  Intercollegiate  Debates1  and 

Orations  (3  Volumfs)  each 1,50 

Shurter's  The  Science  and  Art  of  Effective  Debating. .  2.00 


102133