INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATES THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING VOL- XIII

808.5 161 v.lS (

(Eitg
lubltr Hibra

Intercollegiate { -

(Volume XIII) ^V

THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

OXFORD HARVARD STANFORD DENISON UNIVERSITY
OF REDLANDS KENT COLLEGE OF LAW DEPAUW UNI
VERSITY WHITMAN OREGON STATE KANSAS STATE
IOWA STATE CARLETON SWARTHMORE UNIVERSITY
OF GEORGIA

WITH AN

APPENDIX CONTAINING A LIST OF
COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY DIRECTORS OF DEBATE

EDITED BY

EGBERT RAY NICHOLS

Professor of English Language and Literature
University of Redlands, California

T

NOBLE AND NOBLE, Publishers

76 FIFTH AVENUE NEW YORK CITY

Copyright, 1932
By NOBLE AND NOBLE

PRINTED IN USA.

EDITOR S FOREWORD

THE debate season of 1931-32 was almost univer
sally an economic year in debating. With the exception
of the divorce question almost no subjects were dis
cussed that were not primarily economic. True, some
of the subjects held tremendous social significance and
did invade the realm of sociology, also the realm of
politics and government when remedies for the present
economic distress were sought.

There were a few discussions of the Cancellation of
War Debts, which during the summer of 1931 looked
like the logical debate subject for the coming year
after President Hoover proclaimed the moratorium.
However, the depression and the consequent remedies
and proposals and governmental philosophies that came
with it, soon engaged the attention of the collegiate
debating world and absorbed it.

The discussion began at first along lines of Capi
talism versus Socialism, and there was a trend toward
the discussion of the Recognition of Soviet Russia,
until the debaters discovered that that discussion was
political rather than economic, and did not give suffi
cient opportunity for the study of the conditions they
found surrounding them in their own country. The
depression overshadowed and absorbed all attention.

The Mid-West Conference chose to discuss the

iii

iv EDITOR S FOREWORD

Stuart Chase plan of Control for Industry. The Pi
Kappa Delta organization, numbering about one hun
dred thirty colleges, voted to discuss capitalism in some
form. Their question was later framed as a discussion
of the Control of Industry without limitation to any
definite plan, and was used in their National Tourna
ment at Tulsa, Oklahoma. Many other colleges use
the Pi Kappa Delta subject annually in fact so many
that this subject annually becomes the most widely
used of all college debate subjects.

In the East, however, including Indiana and Ohio
and states East, especially New England and the North
Atlantic states, Capitalism as a social system was
widely debated. Another economic subject of con
siderable sociological and political import, Unemploy
ment Insurance, was again discussed throughout the
country especially by the High Schools and Junior
Colleges. The latter also discussed the Pi Kappa Delta
subject quite generally.

Other subjects of interest economically and socially
that were occasioned by the depression and the unem
ployment situation were "Reduction of Wages," a Old
Age Pensions," "Price Fixing of Agricultural Products"
and the "Stabilized Dollar."

From the preceding remarks it will be seen that the
debate season gave the debaters and their coaches a
supplementary course in economics and a most prac
tical course since the center of all thought and discus
sion was how to relieve and avoid financial depression.
Since the future leaders of American political thought
and action are now debating in college, the practical

EDITOR S FOREWORD v

results of this unusually concentrated study on the
world s biggest present and future problem may be of
untold value who can say. At least the college teach
ers who directed the debaters attention into this
channel cherished that hope, in a firm belief that
knowledge is power, and that an honest study of both
sides or rather all sides of such momentous questions
is conducive of judicial fairmindedness and earnest de
sire to find the right way out.

Outside of the general subject studied in debate
during this last season there was little to comment
upon, and little that was different or unusual. The
traveling teams were fewer; a consequence of the finan
cial conditions. In spite of this important restrain
ing power the debate conventions of the year were
remarkably well attended. The Pi Kappa Delta Con
vention at Tulsa had teams from approximately one
hundred ten colleges present out of one hundred forty
member colleges and charter applicants a truly re
markable record as the actual number of persons
present was as large as at Wichita two years previously.
The National High School Tournament was held also
for the second time this year at Sioux City, Iowa.
The depression was not allowed to prevent this new
enterprise from continuing on its way. The Junior
College National Tournament was held at Glendale,
California, a rather unusual and daring thing to go
so far west were it not for the strength of the Junior
Colleges in Southern California. Only two or three
Mid-West Junior colleges were able to send teams.
There is a movement on to take the Junior College

vi EDITOR S FOREWCXRD

Tournament to the same city and at the same time that
the Pi Kappa Delta Tournament meets biennially.

Another feature of the season which should be com
mented upon is the rise and popularity of the sectional
practice tournaments which lead naturally to develop
ment toward the National Tournaments. Eight or ten
such sectional tournaments were held in various parts
of the country, the largest at Southwestern College,
Winfield, Kansas; another large one at Durant, Okla
homa, with the Teachers College there; another at the
annual meeting of the Southern Teachers of Speech;
two at the University of Redlands in Southern Cali
fornia; and one at Linfield College, Oregon. A com
plete list would reveal several other regional meets of
the tournament type. This form of debating in spite
of its concentrated, nerve-racking intensity is proving
both popular and practicable. It effects an economic
saving over the old method of exchanging debates
from one campus to another, and is also a time saver.
It seems also to be a much better method of gaining
rapid debating facility and improvement in personal
ability. The debater gets an immediate opportunity to
apply newly gained knowledge both of subject matter
and argumentative technique.

Still another interesting development of the 1931-32
debate season is the multiplication of and popularity
of Radio Debating. Innumerable debates were broad
cast from innumerable stations including the cham
pionship debates at the Pi Kappa Delta National
Tournament and the National Forensic League High
School Tournament at Sioux City. Many of these de-

Vll

bates drew a remarkable number of letters from the
listening audiences. Two Radio debates included in
this volume deserve especial mention the first Trans-
Atlantic Radio Discussion between Harvard and Ox
ford universities on Cancellation of the War Debts
and the first Trans-continental Radio debate between
Harvard and Stanford universities on Increasing the
Federal Power. The novelty of these discussions occa
sioned widespread comment in the college press and in
the newspaper world generally. The debates also
brought many letters in comment to the radio stations
promoting them. The willingness of the radio public
to listen to serious discussions on major problems by
college debaters is a hopeful sign, and is also a notable
encouragement to the college debater who has had to
work very much in the past for the love of debating
rather than for the edification of an audience which
persisted in remaining away from the place of discus
sion. It may also help in the end to dispel from the
public the foolish belief that college speakers are too
immature and incapable to be worth listening to. Left
to pursue its general course the radio will inevitably
debunk the shallow brained politician and expose his
ignorance and inability to speak, and will inevitably
also call attention to the well informed and trained
speaker that championship college debaters must of
necessity come to be. This new audience will be of
inestimable value to the college debater as an incentive
to accurate and careful preparation and to the develop
ment of the power to speak ably and efficiently. It also
ought to increase the influence of the academic world

viii EDITOR S FOREWORD

upon the general public and should be mutually
beneficial.

It is well, perhaps, to conclude these remarks here,
with the suggestion that the importance of college
debating as practical education and practical service to
the general public is growing each year. This is as it
should be, and ought soon to penetrate the fossil-
minded attitude maintained by certain educators in the
past with a conviction that it is time for a revision of
opinion about debating and controversial discussion.
Debating is slowly but surely demonstrating that every
argument urged against it is ill-founded and readily
controverted. It is demonstrating the real value of
extemporaneous controversy in the training of youth,
and its real worth to the general public which listens
regularly to innumerable things of less import and
value.

EGBERT RAY NICHOLS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

FOREWORD iii

CANCELLATION OF WAR DEBTS (Trans-Atlantic Radio

Debate) 3

Oxford University Harvard University
Bibliography

CAPITALISM Is UNSOUND 41

Denison University Affirmative and Negative
Bibliography

AMERICA NEEDS A STRONGER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

(Trans-Continental Radio Debate) 99

Harvard University vs. Stanford University
Bibliography

THE CENTRALIZED CONTROL OF INDUSTRY (Case of

Pi Kappa Delta Champions 1932) . . . . 135
University of Redlands Affirmative and Negative
Bibliography

WAGE REDUCTIONS RETARD BUSINESS RECOVERY . . 191
Whitman College vs. Oregon State College
Bibliography

FIXING PRICES OF STAPLE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS 245
Kansas State College vs. Iowa State College
Bibliography

OLD AGE PENSIONS 291

Kent College of Law vs. DePauw University
Bibliography

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 313

Carleton College Affirmative and Negative
Bibliography

ix

X TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

DIVORCE Is A SOCIAL ASSET 379

Swarthmore College vs. University of Georgia
Bibliography

APPENDIX I 421

List of Debate Coaches and Directors in Amer
ican Colleges and Universities

APPENDIX II 447

List of Subjects Covered in Intercollegiate De
bates, Vols. I-XIII

APPENDIX III 457

List of Colleges Represented in Intercollegiate
Debates, Vols. I-XIII

INDEX 461

CANCELLATION OF WAR DEBTS

A Trans- All antic Radio Debate

Between Oxford (England) and Harvard
Universities

CANCELLATION OF WAR DEBTS

OXFORD-HARVARD TRANSATLANTIC
RADIO DEBATE

Voices across the sea three speaking from London and three from
New York debated the cancellation of war debts in the first trans-
. oceanic meeting in the history of two debating societies, separated
by three thousand miles of water.

The debaters, A. J. Irvine, E. D. O Brien, and Brian Davidson of
Oxford, speaking from the studios of the British Broadcasting Cor
poration in London, and Paul C. Reardon, Donald M. Sullivan, and
Philip H. Cohen, who spoke from the studios of the National Broad
casting Company in New York City, were divided irrespective of
university affiliation. Two Harvard men were thus teamed with one
Oxford man against two Oxford men and one Harvard opponent.

James W. Gerard, war-time ambassador from the United States
to Germany, presided from America. In his introduction he declared
that "the dangers of international misunderstanding are decreased
when nations know each other. And this debate by young men
three thousand miles apart, shows how science has narrowed what
was once the wide, wide world."

With barely a moment s hesitation, the voice of A. J. Irvine,
librarian of the Oxford Debating Union came with unusual clarity
into the room where the Harvard men were gathered with broad
casting officials and the chairman for the contest. Irvine, in a voice
that betrayed feeling, spoke of the event as an "historic occasion."
"We greatly appreciate the enterprise which has made this debate
possible," he said, "and, speaking for myself, I am delighted beyond
words to have this opportunity of taking part in a radio debate with
Harvard."

Irvine argued that in the interests of world prosperity, the cancel
lation of war debts was an imperative issue. He appeared to be
speaking from notes rather than from manuscript, and employed an

3

4 THE YEAR BOOK. OF COLLEGE DEBATING

informal style of delivery. As the first affirmative speaker he declared
that "Germany s prosperity means the future prosperity of all
Europe." His clear-cut Oxford speech was in contrast to the Yankee
accent of Reardon of Quincy, Massachusetts, the first negative
speaker.

Reardon s pace was more rapid and he piled up facts to refute the
"humanitarian" appeals put forward by his English opponent. The
clipped phrases and oratorical delivery of the American speakers
contrasted with the slower pace set by the English undergraduates.

The speakers who followed in order were Sullivan of Boston, the
second affirmative; O Brien of Oxford, the second negative; Cohen
of Baltimore who summarized the negative s argument, and Davidson
of Oxford who summed up the affirmative arguments and closed the
debate.

At the conclusion former Ambassador Gerard warmly compli
mented the debaters and spoke of the contest as an "epoch-making
occasion."

The broadcast was heard throughout the United States and Canada
over an NBC-WEAF network. Milton J. Cross introduced Gerard.

Broadcasting officials expressed pleasure at the manner in which
the debate ran through sixty minutes of broadcasting time. Al
though separated by a vast expanse of water the debate came to an
end on schedule and without the slightest mishap. Reception through
out America was said to be ideal. The debate was not broadcast
in England.

The text of this debate as recorded by the National Broadcasting
Company was contributed to this volume of debates by Mr. Edward
M. Rowe, Director of Debating at Harvard University, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.

Introduction, The Hon. James W. Gerard
Chairman

The chosen debaters of Oxford University, England,
tonight meet those of Harvard University, America, in
joint debate.

The Oxford men speak from England, the Amer
icans from New York, and through the courtesy of the

CANCELLATION OF WAR DEBTS 5

British Broadcasting Corporation of England, and the
National Broadcasting Company of America, the pub
lic listening in is privileged to hear this contest.

The subject is: "Resolved: That in the interests of
world prosperity, war debts should be cancelled." It
has been agreed that war debts, for the purposes of the
debate, shall be taken to mean both governmental loans
and reparations payments.

At the conclusion you will be asked to send in your
votes, voting not on the merits of the question debated,
but on the merits of the contestants as debaters.

It may be hard for you to do this and to disassociate
the debater from the subject of his talk, but please
try, as impartial judges, to determine the merits as de
baters of these opposing teams.

When nations know each other, the dangers of inter
national misunderstanding are decreased and this
debate by young men three thousand and more miles
apart each speaker heard by them and by you, shows
how science has narrowed what was once the wide,
wide world.

I introduce to you Mr. A. J. Irvine, the first affirma
tive, of Oxford University, speaking from London,
England.

First Affirmative, A. J. Irvine
Oxford University

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: I must first say how fully
we on this side realize that this is indeed so far as the
British and American Universities are concerned,
rather a historic occasion. We greatly appreciate the

6 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

enterprise which has made this debate possible, and,
speaking for myself, I am delighted beyond words to
have this opportunity of taking part in a radio debate
with Harvard.

I have to move that in the interests of world pros
perity War Debts and Reparations should be cancelled.

You will agree that this is a very suitable time for
representatives of the younger generation of our two
great nations to discuss Reparations and War Debts.
Europe and America, the whole world, indeed, is going
through bad times. We have the astonishing paradox
of unparalleled capacities for production coinciding
with unprecedentedly extensive poverty and unemploy
ment, dislocation and insecurity; a damaged trade.
We are faced with a real threat of a complete break
down starting perhaps in Germany and spreading
throughout the world. What can we do to revive
confidence?

Our generation, the young men and women of today,
are especially interested in this for we cannot put into
practice our ideals of reconstruction until this confi
dence is restored.

I strongly believe it would pay everyone to adopt
this policy of cancellation. Frankly, I am unimpressed
by the French arguments against this policy. M. Laval
says that in order to get the desired confidence and
security, obligations must be met; the national word
must be kept. At first sight, an impressive view, but
if a certain policy is suicidal, are we to refuse to aban
don it merely because countries have been pledged
to it?

CANCELLATION OF WAR DEBTS 7

The French say, "We paid up all right after the
Franco-Prussian War; we have a right to demand pay
ment from Germany." France made an immense ef
fort indeed on that occasion, but can anyone deny that
Germany since the War has also made a great effort?

In any case, the conditions are entirely different.
We have just been reminded by Herr Lichtler that
Prussia fought the Franco-Prussian War practically
unaided. On that occasion no political conditions were
imposed upon France. The indemnity had been com
pletely cleared off within three years. I say the pres
ent situation is different for after twelve years Germany
is still struggling and succeeding only in erecting a
vast amount of debt.

Don t forget that France received immense services
from the Allies during the War. Her demands now in
time of peace must not be allowed to imperil the safety,
the economic and cultural safety of these Allies.

That is my general case. I hold the view that can
cellation is an essential step in the creation of confi
dence which everyone wants, which everyone is crying
out for. I hold that the benefits now being gained from
Reparations by the victorious powers are superficial
and unreal; that from the point of view of the future,
in which you at Harvard and we in Oxford hope to play
a part, it is essential for world reconstruction that Ger
many should be saved and Germany encouraged to
prosper.

It is my view that three things are preeminently
necessary. We must aim at an all-around reduction of
tariff. "Hypocrite!" I hear you whisper, just when

8 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

my country is abandoning its traditional policy of free
trade, but I stress the point that this country for many
years stood loyal to free trade and has been forced by
the fiscal policies of other nations to leave the strong
hold.

We must raise, also, must we not, the world level of
wholesale prices? Both these things are absolutely*
necessary. But above all, I suggest that we must
secure a complete cancellation of War Debts and Rep
arations. You cannot separate the two. You cannot
cancel Reparations without a simultaneous cancellation
of War Debts and all other governmental loans.

How best can we describe the general situation?
Don t let us forget at any rate that Germany s diffi
culties in paying off her debts since the War have been
enormously increased by recent events. The fall in
the price level has in fact made It impossible. We,
at any rate, on this side cannot but admire the diligence
and enterprise with which, in spite of enormous loss
of manhood and territory, Germany has been able to
meet her obligations. She has stimulated her export
trade in an attempt to make it possible for her to meet
these obligations. It has been a heroic story. Ger
many was estimated this year to owe over seven hun
dred million pounds at gold parity. What a burden!
What a preposterous burden for any country to have
to carry! In 1930, faced with the world slump, Ger
many experienced a very black year, but she main
tained and did her level best to maintain her payment
of Reparations at a remarkably high level.

CANCELLATION OF WAR DEBTS 9

But now Germany cannot pay along the lines laid
down by the Young Plan. It was a great act of inter
national statesmanship on the part of your country,
America, to secure a moratorium for one year, but
undoubtedly, though much, that has not been enough.
Germany is on her knees. After all, don t forget she
Is the central distributing power of Europe. The
Allies have immense sums at stake in Germany. Ger
many s prosperity means to an astonishing extent
Europe s prosperity.

In our own interests, apart from other and honestly
greater considerations, she must be saved.

It s your country, America, which would superficially
seem to lose most if this policy I am recommending is
adopted. But the question is, will it be your loss in
fact? Hitherto, your country has made enormous
regular loans to enable Germany to pay. There has
been surely a ludicrous, vicious circle of paying out
and receiving back. It simply isn t sensible economics.
Has not the only effect of the whole transaction been
the creation of misunderstanding? And you will know
on your side that the vast storage of gold which you
have accumulated is not really assisting your industry
or your enterprise.

Playing the game, as you know in Harvard, is a wise
policy in any case, but here it coincides with reaping
enormous economic advantage. The creditor countries
must realize that this is an instance where momentary
apparent loss will mean eventually the return of their
prosperity. It is the hope and prayer of the young men

10 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

and women of England that statesmen will take the
long view. Germany has had to suffer injustice since
the War. Let the sordid remnants of the Great War
be blotted out forever.

First Negative, Paul Cashman Reardon
Harvard University

Chairman Gerard: I next introduce to you Mr. Paul
C. Reardon } of Harvard, speaking in America.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: By common agreement
among the speakers this evening the phrase "War
Debts" is interpreted as applying both to the German
reparations payments and the various governmental
loans made during the war. Mr. Irvine and his con
freres believe that cancellation of these debts will place
us once again upon that smoothly paved turnpike of
prosperity. But in the true sense of the word the war
debts can never be cancelled. During the war the
stirring posters of James Montgomery Flagg and others
urged our people to purchase Liberty Bonds. From
the proceeds of the sale of these bonds our government
lent the stupendous sum of eleven billion dollars to its
Allies. It was distinctly understood that these bonds
would be paid and retired when the money was re
funded. Someone must pay the bondholders. The
affirmative is arguing tonight that good old Uncle Sam
should shoulder that burden that United States tax
payers should foot the cost of a World War which they
did not start, which they did not want, and from which
they did not profit.

CANCELLATION OF WAR DEBTS 11

This solution of this great problem hinges on the con
dition of Germany for it is to her that the Allies look
for the money with which they pay their just debts to
us. The basic argument of the affirmative this eve
ning is that Germany cannot pay. Upon this founda
tion stone they are building their entire case. But they
have to convince us that that stone is solid enough to
support so imposing an edifice. We contend that proof
is lacking to show that Germany can t pay. Although
she has felt the depression to an unusual degree, she
had a favorable commodity balance in 1930 which
allowed her to pay two-thirds of her obligations under
the Young Plan and the other one-third with borrowed
money. With a greater economy in administration we
believe that she could have surpassed the payments she
made without borrowing. The London conference of
last summer stated, "the present crisis in Germany is
not justified by the facts." Hjalmar Schacht, former
president of the Reichsbank, states in his recent book
on the Reparations that events might have transpired
favorably in Germany had not the governments, na
tional, provincial, and municipal, chosen to waste their
substance in lavish schemes. At the present moment,
Germany has her new bridges, her great kurhauses, her
modernistic apartments we have the bonds. Dr.
Schacht declares that there was no excuse for these
governments to resort to outside borrowing to balance
their budgets. Money loaned for rehabilitation has
been employed to put factional social policies into
effect. The increase in payments of state social in
surance in Germany from one billion marks in 1919 to

12 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

eight billions in the last year is significant. In the
event of cancellation, Germany still has her billions of
dollars in private debts to pay. We cannot counte
nance the burdening of our citizens with the cost of the
war in order that the international bankers may re
trieve their position in a field which evidently they had,
not too thoroughly surveyed. We believe that with
greater economy and a will to pay, Germany can pay.
Advocates of cancellation sometimes lose sight of the
fact that when we consider world prosperity, American
prosperity is an integral part of our consideration. We
wish to make clear with all the power at our command
that this country can ill afford to shoulder this new
burden. The. daily increases in the treasury deficit
promise a total deficit of two billions of dollars at the
end of this current fiscal year. Treasury officials are
now busily engaged in planning new taxation schemes
which our people will feel all too soon. Our vaunted
prosperity of three short years ago has left us. We
have our millions of unemployed. We have a tre
mendous agricultural problem with which to contend.
Our government is slashing its budget wherever pos-
" sible. We have our internal troubles in no less measure
than Europe. We are prepared to accept the challenge
hurled at us by the depression and fight it out but why
should we be expected to fight Europe s battle too. In
the excitement attendant in discussing this question it
is sometimes overlooked that the United States in 1925
scaled down her foreign debts considerably. Com
puted on the basis of the original principal and the
original interest rates of five per cent we have already

CANCELLATION OF WAR DEBTS 13

cancelled fifty-one per cent of our debtor s obligations.
In addition to this, those afflicted with the present
economic neurasthenia demand more relief. The facts
of the case will bear investigation by the affirmative.
Since the war our carelessly extended credit has en
abled European borrowers to enjoy a higher standard
of living not justified by their intrinsic means. Amer
ican money is caught in Europe in the vise of the
depression. Now come the advocates of this so-called
cancellation and beseech us in the name of a new pros
perity to forget these just debts, to add to a tax burden
soon to be increased anyway, to take on the shoulders
of our people these billions, to be paid for by an Amer
ican generation yet unborn. Surely this is not return
ing prosperity.

Even if America could pay, however, she should not
be forced to pay all. If Germany goes bankrupt then
Britain, France and Italy should chip in and help pay
the bill. Uncle Sam is being put in the position of the
Good Samaritan going down the road to Jericho. Not
only is he expected to bind the wounds of a Germany
fallen by the wayside but he is also requested by the
affirmative to overtake all the travelers who passed
poor Germany by and pay their expenses at the inn,
too.

If our friends are really looking for a revival of
world prosperity why do they play around the edges
of the question? After all, the War Debts constitute
but twenty-seven per cent of the balance of inter
national payments. Their cancellation would not go
far in aiding the return of normalcy. We must get to

14 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

the heart of the situation. In the first place, high
tariffs should go. International payments are depend
ent upon the free movement of goods from country to
country. The Wiggin report of last summer stated,
"We are pursuing two contradictory policies in per
mitting the development of an international system
which involves the annual payment of large sums by
debtor to creditor nations while at the same time
putting obstacles in the way of the free movement of
goods. The policy of obstruction is a poor one. 77
Tariff lowering augurs returning prosperity much more
surely than cancellation of just debts.

So does armament reduction. Next February there
meets in Geneva a conference fraught with conse
quences for the whole world. The subject to be
discussed is further disarmament. Today in the depths
of a major depression enfeebled treasuries are pouring
out their substance in preparation for the next world
war. On July 6, the President stated, "The world has
solemn need for thought on the causes which con
tributed to this depression. I need not repeat that one
of these causes is the burden imposed and the fear
aroused by competitive armaments. 77 The League of
Nations Armaments year book tells a story of increased
armaments expenditures up to and during this depres
sion. In the past three years our three most important
debtors paid us approximately two hundred million
doUars in interest and principal on their respective
debts while they expended one thousand one hundred
seventeen million dollars on armaments. There is
one of the real causes of the depression. Certainly the

CANCELLATION OF WAR DEBTS 15

American Taxpayer has the right to insist that the
world first disarm before he takes over the burden of
paying for a war the origins of which did not concern
him, and the results of which aided him not a whit.

If tariffs are cut, armaments slashed, and other
economic reforms instituted, there is no doubt that
these debts can be paid, for Germany will profit as
much as the rest of the world from the return of nor
malcy. As representatives of the generation which will
have to pay the bill, as individuals with the interests
of world prosperity at heart, we protest the cancella
tion of these just debts.

Second Affirmative, Donald Mark Sullivan
Harvard University

Chairman Gerard: Ladies and Gentlemen, I intro
duce to you Mr. Donald Mark Sullivan, the second
affirmative, of Harvard University speaking in America.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: Mr. Irvine, my colleague
from Oxford, has sketched an able picture of the gen
eral aspect of the War Debt situation. May I go into
some of the details of this situation, especially from
the American point of view. Mr. Reardon s parable
from Luke would have fitted even more appropriately
into my own speech. As you will remember through
his action of mercy, the Samaritan gained salvation.
Throughout his entire speech, Mr. Reardon laid great
stress on the phrase "just debts." But were these
debts really just? German diplomats in 1919 were
forced in the Versailles Treaty to sign a confession of

16 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

Germany s full moral responsibility for that product
of innumerable political and economic complexities,
the World War, and with that confession as an implied
premise, they also agreed that Germany should pay
reparations but the German people have never accepted
as just what their representatives were forced to swal
low under pain of military occupation.

A conquered nation must submit. Beginning in
1921, Germany began to pay the mad, exorbitant sum
of thirty-three billion dollars in gold. In 1922, warn
ing clouds appeared on the German financial horizon,
but the creditor Allies whistled in the wind. Even in
1923, when the storm of collapse broke, causing com
plete financial downfall and making the German mark
the laughing stock of the monetary world, the French
conceived the Germans to be practicing deceit, and
they occupied the Ruhr. But bayonets could not draw
gold from the empty air and in 1924, the Dawes Com
mission set about to repair the damage, scaling the
annual sum of Reparations down from the crazy
heights where hate and fear had placed them. Like
any other great enterprise, a nation must balance her
books, and when she bears on the debit side a vast
Reparations item of four hundred million dollars, she
must oppose to it on the credit side either income from
an export surplus or income from foreign borrowing.
From 1924 to 1928, Germany s books bore no income
from exports and foreign loans had to be made to pay
the reparations. In 1929, her exports and imports
were evenly matched and she was forced to borrow
again In 1930, as Mr. Irvine has told you, she had a

CANCELLATION OF WAR DEBTS 17

slight export surplus, but it was not enough to cover
the four hundred and five million dollar Reparations
payment. Again she borrowed. During those six
dreary years, from 1924 to 1930, the most drastic
price-cutting did not provide Germany with the export
surplus wherewith to pay her debt. Mr. Reardon has
very ably demonstrated that nations did not cooperate
when they raised tariff barriers against Germany s ex
ports, the only means by which she could pay and in
1930, private bankers, with a misguided caution born
of apprehension of gains of Communists and Fascists
in German elections, called in their loans, and created
a financial crisis which sucked eight hundred million
dollars from German banks and treasuries.

Germany was now on the brink of complete financial
downfall, but the Hoover moratorium and the standstill
agreement by private bankers gave her a lease of life.
A most horrible catastrophe had been postponed, but
it has not been averted for good. The evil day faces
us in July, when the moratorium ends. The Wiggin
Committee has declared that Germany must be relieved
before then for the present amount of political and
commercial debts are far above her capacity to pay.
Mr. Reardon may cavil at her internal expenditures as
unwise, he may rail at her social improvements, he may
demand economies, but who is to tell Germany how to
run her Government? Military occupation is out of
the question. Germany in her present condition can
not pay, and if we allow her to fall by forcing her to
pay, with her will go not only the whole sum of Repa
rations, but also five billion dollars in commercial

18 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

debts. Of this sum, American investors and banks
have at stake almost two billion.

The Wiggin Committee has said that Germany can
not pay all. Only yesterday, Adolph Hitler, leader of
the strong National Socialist Party in Germany stated
that he would back the commercial debts though he
would bar Reparations. Germany s creditors cannot
receive all. They must be satisfied with part. We
must insure the safety of our commercial debts which
Germany is able and willing to pay by cancelling the
War Debts. As Mr. Reardon has told you, the greatest
burden of cancellation will fall on the American tax
payer, but it is not too great for Alanson Houghton,
former Ambassador to Germany and England, has
estimated the cost per person in the United States at
one dollar and eighty cents a year for the sixty-two
year period over which we would have collected our
debts abroad. The loss of five billion dollars in com
mercial debts at one stroke in the event of German
collapse would smash the bond markets of the world
and in the United States alone the banks; many of
them already are on the ragged edge; would lose not
only what they might hold in German bonds, but also
would feel the depressing effect on London securities
and South American bonds. Banks pressed for cash
would call to domestic debtors, causing failure and col
lapse. The shock which would strike in Wall Street
would reverberate throughout the country affecting
any person or company which is even remotely con
nected with this vast network of loans. We are in a
period of depression. Such a shock to the securities

CANCELLATION OF WAR DEBTS 19

of the world would bring about severe financial strain,
possibly universal collapse. It might be well to save
the commercial loans by cancellation of the Repara
tions and Allied Debts, for if we continue to demand
of Germany what she cannot pay, we lose all.

We must recognize, too, that by forcing Germany to
pay Reparations, we are forcing her to strip her in
dustries, to depress her wage level, to make great cuts
in prices in order to gain an export surplus. She suc
ceeded in 1930 and 1931, but it was at the expense of
exporting nations, including the United States and
Great Britain. This unnatural competition weakens
Germany and injures us. A straw may break our in
dustrial back. We cannot afford to lose our markets
to Germany. Great vision is not required to warn us
that Germany as a healthy importer is far more ad
vantageous to us than as a competing exporter. If we
cancel our debts and if our former Allies cancel Ger
man Reparations, Germany will be saved. Her finan
cial position is an essential to the realization of the
changes which Mr. Reardon advocates. These changes
we admit are integral to prosperity, but they can never
come until the threat of German collapse is removed.
The banks of the world are full of credit. Industry
waits the signal to go. England, the United States,
South America, all have seen the worst of this depres
sion. The one obstacle to an upward movement is
Germany s weak condition which hangs like a sword
in the imagination of the investing public. The stabi
lization of Germany by cancellation of Reparations will
give us a fresh start; will have a tonic effect, which will

20 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

cause the wasted form of prosperity to rise and walk
again.

Germany must be saved. She is the last outpost
before the traveler casts away his liberty to enter Com
munistic Russia. The buffer state of capitalism, she
stands between Russia and a Coast-to-Coast Commun
istic Empire. The three and a quarter million Com
munistic votes in the German elections of 1928 grew
in 1930 to four and a half million. This is many times
the number which carried through the Red Revolution
in Russia in 1917. Adolph Hitler and his national
Socialists rise strong and formidable on a platform of
repudiation of Reparations. The gains of these two
radical parties are our warning that if she is crushed
by the greed and stupidity of her capitalistic neighbors,
Germany may face revolution. On the one hand, we
have the opportunity to save the commercial debts, to
relieve Germany from a devastating competition with
our exports, to lessen the political tension which stands
as a barrier to world confidence. On the other, we
have a Germany forced to collapse, a tempting prey to
Communism or Hitlerism. In this great struggle of
capitalistic civilization, Germany is our strong ally.
She must be preserved by cancelling the War Debts.

CANCELLATION OF WAR DEBTS 21

Second Negative, E. D. O Brien
Oxford University

Chairman Gerard: Ladies and Gentlemen: I intro
duce to you Mr. E. D. O Brien, of Oxford University,
the second negative, who will also speak from London.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: Good evening! I under
stand that time is in this debate the essence of the con
tract, but in spite of the fact that as I said, heaven
knows how many engineers may be twiddling heaven
knows what weird dials and glancing impatiently at
the second hands of their watches, as I do so, I feel
that it would not be fitting if I, as President of the
Oxford Union and Leader of the Oxford team, did not
take this opportunity of expressing our very deep grati
tude to our American friends for all the trouble that
they have taken in arranging this unique and, to the
speakers on this side of the Atlantic, at least, highly
interesting debate.

I must confess that I feel a little uneasy as I address
this unassuming and phlegmatic instrument tonight,
for when I suggested to Mr. Eccles, of Harvard, that
there should be a general mix-up of speakers, I little
imagined that it would be I who should find myself
speaking on this side of the debate, and I must make
it quite clear, therefore, that, as the editor says, I do
not hold myself personally responsible for any views
that I, in the role of a pure debater, may advance to
night.

I intend, however, to put forward what I believe

22 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

would be the view of the average young man who is
mildly interested in politics; who is very little of an
economist, but who holds that the whole structure of
international finance and financial relations is not one
which can be lightly or enthusiastically upset without
serious detrimental consequences to the world at large.
Here my personal opinions must be allowed to peep
through for a moment there is a very grave danger
that War Debts will be cancelled automatically by the
inability or the refusal of Germany to meet the inter
national financial obligation.

I had the good fortune to be in Germany during the
whole of the Reichstag election campaigns of 1928 and
again during that of 1930, and as far as an immature
and an incompetent foreign observer can in any way
judge the temper of a people, I would say that there is
every likelihood of Germany s refusing, on the grounds
of inability to pay, to honor those pledges which she
feels were extracted from her under duress and which
she now holds to be financially disastrous and morally
wrong.

To some extent they were mere paper transactions.
It is, as Mr. Irvine has said, pretty queer economics,
when you have the curious situation of a creditor lend
ing more and more money to his debtor in order that
that debtor might be able to meet his excessive de
mands upon him or that there is also a very great deal
to be said for the view that while the shadow of in
debtedness hangs over the relations of nation and na
tion, we shall remain bad neighbors.

But what happened, we may well ask, when the loan

CANCELLATION OP WAR DEBTS 23

Is offered by one ex-enemy country to another ex-enemy
country, or perhaps worse when the debt owed is to a
hostile victor by a hostile vanquished. That, as I said,
is the situation in Europe and the world today.

But in spite of the eloquence and the economics of
the preceding speakers, I refuse to admit that the case
that they have put forward is in itself and by itself
good, or that cancellation is any magic word which by
itself will unlock the now long cobwebs of world pros
perity, for after all cancellation is a word which is
frankly uncompromising. To the ordinary man, like
myself and many of my listeners, the ordinary man
carrying on his ordinary everyday business, surely
cancellation implies the immediate and unconditional
washing out, if I may use the word, of the debt.

Do my friends who are speaking on the other side of
this debate tonight honestly believe that international
financial transactions are as simple as all that? What
is going to be the effect on the world of this sudden and
drastic step? What is the position with regard to
Reparations? We have had many speakers tonight,
but the question resolved into its simplest form is this
America on the balance of Reparations payments is
four hundred fifty million pounds up; the Allied
countries, considered as a whole, three hundred
fifty million pounds up; Great Britain is one hundred
thirty-three million down, because of the fact that
the payments to Great Britain commenced much later
than her payments to America.

Could we not demand that reparation payments
should continue at least until such time as we are all

24 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

square? We cannot lightly sacrifice such a sum at
such a time for we owed the United States eight hun
dred fifty million pounds. We were owed by other
countries three thousand four hundred million pounds.
But by the balance for agreement., we agreed only to
receive as much as we paid the United States. We
have, therefore, given away in effect two thousand five
hundred fifty pounds. We in our present crisis,
we might well say, can do no more, and that might be
the narrow English view to take on the cancellation of
war debts.

Or, again, we have heard tonight the American view
put forward, a view which, as I said, is in logic un
answerable. The United States, we have been told,
and I see no reason for doubting the truth of that state
ment, has made great sacrifices for Europe. In the
event of an all-around cancellation of debt, the Ameri
can taxpayer, it is said, would have to bear the load of
Europe, even military folly in the past, while allowing
European nations financial freedom to pile up fresh
armaments for fresh catastrophe in the future.

That is a view which I understand is widely held in
America, and with very wide and very great justifica
tion. And, again, we hear in our own press a great
deal of uninformed nonsense being talked about the
French attitude. After all, for a logical nation like the
French I am not saying tonight that we are all of
us or should be logical nations but for a logical nation
like the French, the position is perfectly clear. "Ger
many, 55 she says, "has already, on a previous occasion
obtained an advantage over the rest of the world by

CANCELLATION OF WAR DEBTS 25

the collapse of the market." Heaven knows, she paid
heavily enough for it! But from the point of view of
industry she gained an advantage over Europe by the
collapse of the mark. "She," says France, "is intend
ing to do it again by repudiating her war debt." These
debts, say the French, are the equal obligation, ad
mitted by all to be binding, by any strict view of law.

My friend, Mr. Irvine, has said in effect that the
whole thing is a question of psychology. He has
poured eloquent scorn on the French view, on M.
Laval s view, that the great need of the world today is
a revival of confidence.

Well I would only say in conclusion, we have the
system for better or worse, and many of us think for
worse. On it depends the whole delicate nervous sys
tem of international finance. A sudden breakdown by
such a drastic step as debt cancellation can only mean
disaster. We on this side of the debate, or some of us
at any rate, are prepared to admit that international
agreements must be reconsidered in the future in the
light of the grave international situation.

As I came up in the train from Oxford today, I must
confess that I was prepared to approach this debate in
a spirit of levity. During the day I have talked with
two men, both of whom are what you would call big
business men. Both of them are faced with ruin. This
is no time for any misplaced levity. The shadows are
all over Europe and all over the world today. In Ger
many, starvation is not only a threat but a ghastly
actuality.

In our own country, we are faced with the long, gray

26 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

queues of the unemployed. In America, we are told
that problem is becoming increasingly grave.

We on this side tonight are not going, therefore, to
have any sympathy with a mere Shylock attitude, a
mere pound of flesh attitude. All we would say is this
we cannot risk a sudden, rapid collapse or reconsid
eration of international financial relations. That point
of view is not statesmanship; it is folly.

The way to world prosperity, we hold, is not an easy
one. Before us lies not one immediate, glorious sweep
which will put the world on its feet. Admittedly, for
some time to come, it will be disappointing and slow
work, but I honestly believe that in the long run it will
be work which will bear far greater and better fruit
than any easy, panicky, hysterical and sudden throw
ing up of the financial hands of the world.

That, ladies and gentlemen, I believe to be the case
against this motion.

Negative Summary and Rejoinder, Philip Henry Cohen
Harvard University

Chairman Gerard: Ladies and Gentlemen: I In
troduce to you Mr. Henry Cohen, of Harvard Uni
versity, who will give the negative summary, speaking
in America.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: Both friends and op
ponents of War Debt cancellations will agree after the
discussion this evening that it is unfortunate that our
debate takes place during an economic depression, at
a time when five-year plans, programs for unemploy-

CANCELLATION OF WAR DEBTS 27

ment relief, and cure-alls for business depression are
offered by the dozens; plans which in normal times
are scarcely discussed, receive consideration.

This evening the affirmative tells us that the cancella
tion of War Debts will perform wonders that would
put Aladdin with his magic lamp to shame. In one
breath we hear that cancellation will save Germany; in
the next breath we are told that shifting the burden of
these debts to America will not cause hardship on the
American taxpayer. Truly, we are a hardy people!

To establish their position this evening, the affirma
tive has painted two pictures, one of a destitute Eu
rope struggling helplessly under a tremendous burden
of debts; the other of an uncompromising America
which holds the key to prosperity but refuses to use
it. You will recall, however, that my colleagues have
shown that this destitute Europe squanders great sums
of money on lavish building expenditures and six times
as much on armament races as on war debts. You will
recall, too, that this uncompromising America has al
ready reduced by forty-three per cent these just debts.

Now America asks that other economists be em
ployed, and that the impossibility of Germany s paying
the Reparations be proved before the burden of the
debts is shifted to the shoulders of the American tax
payers.

Both sides have readily agreed that in order for
Germany to pay her debts and in the last analysis,
she is the debtor nation she must have the coopera
tion of the other nations of the world. The rabid
nationalism which results in the protection of one him-

28 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

dred and fifty year old infant industries, must cease.
We cannot extend one hand for payment and with the
other erect a tariff wall which makes payment impossi
ble. Let us admit at the outset, then, that a general
economic housecleaning will have to preface satisfac
tory debt settlement.

Such readjustment, enabling Germany to pay her
debts, would help world prosperity far more than a
general debt cancellation which would mean in effect
a declaration of bankruptcy. A nation which declares
itself bankrupt will have no easier time reestablishing
its credit than a bankrupt corporation. It would be
difficult to cite an instance in which confidence has
been bred by repudiation or in which the cancellation
of just debts has heralded the return of prosperity.

Strangely enough, the affirmative has hardly con
sidered America a part of the world when speaking of
world prosperity. They seem to assume that America
has not been affected by the world-wide depression.
Unfortunately, and we speak with feeling on this point,
such is not the case. It is estimated that the cancella
tion of debts would necessitate a twenty per cent in
crease in the personal tax of American citizens. This
will surely not restore prosperity in a country which
has seen more of its banks closed than any other nation
during the current depression.

The repayment of war loans today constitutes an
asset in our national budget. Cancellation would mean
wiping out that asset and substituting a liability. As
Mr. Reardon has pointed out, America was not a win
ner by the War. The expenditure of thirty-eight bil-

CANCELLATION OF WAR DEBTS 29

lions of dollars, the loss of one hundred twenty-
five thousand lives, are not items which can be added
to the credit side of a nation s budget. America got
none of the spoils of the War. Indeed, her only
souvenir is an eleven-billion-dollar Liberty Bond issue,
and let it be remembered that no trick of legerdemain
can spirit away these bonds. They are obligations of
the United States Government, and if the War Debts
are cancelled, American bondholders will see their
{axes increase in order that they may receive interest
on their bonds. Here is truly a case of a strange con
cept of economics.

In conclusion, then, we again urge that every effort
be made to wipe away false ideas of economic stability
and national honor. We endorse President Hoover s
moratorium, and realize that further consideration
must be given Germany as Mr. Irvine suggests. But
in the end, and this the affirmative fails to remember,
it must be recalled that we live in a capitalistic, com
petitive society, which relies for its very existence on
the fulfillment of obligations. Because the proposal
offered this evening strikes at the very foundations of
that system, we urge that the War Debts must not be
cancelled.

30 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

Affirmative Summary and Rejoinder, Brian Davidson
Oxford University

Chairman Gerard: Ladies and Gentlemen: I intro
duce to you Mr. Brian Davidson, of Oxford Uni
versity, who will give the affirmative summary and who
is the last speaker of the debate, and who will also be
heard from across the Atlantic in England.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: We have heard three very
eloquent speeches on the negative side this evening,
but I could not help feeling, and I think you must have
felt, too, as you listened to those speakers, that they
either do not or will not realize the full gravity of the
situation that confronts the world at this moment, and
in the world, let me state at once, that I am including
America, though the last speaker seemed to doubt it.

Let us look at the facts about War Debts and Repa
rations. First of all, let us put aside moral issues which
have been raised. They have nothing to do with the
question of the interest of world prosperity, and if you
want to argue about moral issues, I will ask you was it
morally right to lend the money to enable people to
wage a war? Is it morally right to hand a revolver to a
mad-man?

Next, let us put aside the mere theoretical question,
that creditors naturally want to be paid. I know it
very well. My tailor is always wanting to be paid, and
I dare say the tailors in America are very much the
same as they are in England.

But we are considering the prosperity of the whole

CANCELLATION OF WAR DEBTS 31

world America, England, France, Germany, all the
nations. And let us just look at the plain facts of the
case, all these irrelevant considerations laid aside.

Take a typical case of these payments. Say Ger
many owes so much reparations to England. Well, in
order to pay those reparations, Germany, as I think
Mr. Reardon said, must build up a favorable trade
balance. That she can only do by putting a tariff on
imports which lowers the standard of living of her own
people. And even so it is very difficult for her to pay.
So much for the effect upon the debtor nation.

We turn now to England, the creditor. Vast quanti
ties of German goods are being dumped upon her in
payment of reparations; the payment of these un
natural debts is always the most vicious form of what
we call dumping in these days. As a result of this
dumping, England s home industries lose their market
while at the same time the tariffs that Germany has put
up injure England s export trade very gravely. And
finally England, too, is driven to put on a high tariff,
the evils of which have been admitted by at least both
the speakers in America on the negative side of this
debate. England is driven even to protection, and so
she prevents Germany from paying the debts at all.

It is a fantastic situation, a really good case of one
man s meat being another man s poison. We are re
fusing to take the poison in this country very natu
rally; we are now even allowing the German to have
his sausage meat. And the same applies, of cause, to
all creditor and debtor nations. The same applies to
America, for I am including America in this analysis

32 THE YEAR BOOK OP COLLEGE DEBATING

of the economic situation. Where is the sense of it
all, Ladies and Gentlemen? Where is the sense of it?
Just look at the results. We live in a world whose
material resources are infinitely more abundant than
ever before. On the other hand, millions of our fellow
men in America, in England, in Germany, all over the
world, are on the verge of destitution. Trade is being
brought to a standstill. Industry is paralyzed. And
some of us think that we are within measurable dis
tance of a final break-up of the world that we have
known. Let there be no mistake, if any one of the
Great Powers is ruined, the rest of us will be involved,
and involved irreparably.

Is it very surprising then that we do think it essential
to cut away one of the main causes of the present
crisis? Is it surprising that we ask you, citizens of
America, to agree with us, not only to agree but to
take action? You especially who are members of a
great nation which will be honored by future nations
for having first, by proposing the debt moratorium,
taken steps to end the present folly and the present
madness of the world. Are you going back to a course
that can only involve you and the rest of the world
alike in ruin and utter disaster?

Now, if ever they were, those lines are true which
were written of your country: "Humanity with all its
fears, with all the hope of future years, hangs breath
less on thy fate."

And I cannot believe that humanity will be dis
appointed. Good night to you!

CANCELLATION OF WAR DEBTS 33

Closing Remarks, The Hon. James W. Gerard
Chairman

You have heard this most interesting debate by
champions physically three thousand miles apart and
somewhat apart in their view of the merits of this ques
tion of the payment of debts. We ask you again to
send in your votes ? voting on the merits of the debaters
as such and not on the merits of the question debated,
and I am sure that all of us wish again to express our
gratitude to the National Broadcasting Company of
America and the British Broadcasting Company of
England for the opportunity to hear these gifted young
men of both of our countries who tonight have spoken
so skillfully and who, I am sure, will in the future use
their talents for the promotion of true friendship be
tween the peoples of Great Britain and America.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: CANCELLATION OF WAR DEBTS

BOOKS

Bausman, Frederick. Facing Europe. Century Company, 1926.
Bogart, E. L.- Direct and Indirect Costs of the Great World War.

2nd rev. ed. 1920 $1. Oxford.

War Costs and Their Financing. 1921, $3. Appleton,

Chew, Oswald. The Stroke of the Moment. 1928, $3. Lippincott.
Dexter, P. and Sedgewick, J. H. War Debts. $1.50. Macmillan.
Gerould, J. T. and Turnbull, L. S.~ Comp. Selected Articles on

Interallied Debts and Revision of the Debt Settlements. 1928,

$2.40. H. W. Wilson.
Hills, R. W. Unliquidated War, From the Treaty to the Dawes

Plan. 1928, $2. B. S. Adams, 512 llth St. NW, Washington,

D. C.

34 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

Johnson, J. E. Comp. Cancellation of the Allied Debt. pa. 75c.

1922. H. W. Wilson.

Kuczynski, R. R. American Loans to Germany. 1927. $3. Brook-
ings (corr. pub.)
Moulton, H. G. and Lewis, C. French Debt Problems, 1925, $2.

Brookings. (corr. pub.)
World War Debt Settlements. 1926. $2. Brookings (corr.

pub.)
Page, Kirby. Dollar and World Peace. 1927. $1.50. D vi. 214 p.

Doran.
Phillips, A. Economic Aspects of Reparations and Interallied Debts.

pa. 1930. $1,80. Stechert.

Samuel, H. B.French Default. 5s. 1930. E. Wilson.
Vissering, G. International Economic and Financial Problems. 1920.

$1.60. Macmillan.

PAMPHLETS

Academy of Political Science. America as a Creditor Nation, pa.

1928. $2.50. The Academy.
American Academy of Political and Social Science. America and the

Rehabilitation of Europe. 1923. $1.50. pa. $1.
Financing the War. 1918. $1.50. pa. $1. The American

Academy.
Bankers Trust Co. Fisk, H. E. Inter ally Debts, bds. gratis. 1924.

pvt. print.

Interallied Debts. 1924. gratis.

Carnegie Endowment. Burland, E. G. Trend of Economic Restora
tion Since the Dawes Reparation Settlement. 1925. 5c.
Division of Intercourse and Education. Interallied Debts.

1927. 5c.
Chase National Bank. Anderson, B. M, Interallied Debts as a

Banking Problem. 1922. pa.
Chemical Foundation. G. Garrett. Rescue of Germany. Gratis.

As Noble Lenders. 1931 gratis.

Com. of American Business Men, 170 Broadway, New York City.

Strassburger, R, B. Is America a Shylock?
Criscuolo, L. Italy s Debt to America and the Allies Debt to Italy.

1925. The Author, suite 3133, 120 B way, New York City.
Foreign Policy Association. Balance of International Payments to

the United States, 1927. 25c. The Ass n.

CANCELLATION OF WAR DEBTS 35

War Debts. 1931. pa. I5c. The Ass n.

Young Plan in Relation to World Economics. 1930. I5c.

The Ass n.

Hentschke, Max. World Peace and War Debts. Wetzel Pub. Co.,
Inc., 336 South Broadway, Los Angeles, Calif.

Macaulay, T. B. Allied Debt to the United States, pa. 1922. The
Author, Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, Montreal, Can.

America and the War Debts, pa. 1922. Same Address.

National Industrial Conference Board. International Financial Po
sition of the United States. 1929. $5. the Bd.

Inter-ally Debts and the United States. 1925. pa. $2.50.

The Board.

Winston, G. B. American Debt Policy, gratis. The author, 55
Wall Street, New York City.

World Peace Foundation. League of Nations. Draft Convention for
Financial Assistance. 20c. 1929.

MAGAZINES AND PERIODICALS

American Economic Review. 21:236-48. June 1931. J. L. Boswell.
Some Neglected Aspects of the World War Debts.

Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.
120:30, July 1925. Debt Cancellation From an English View
point. 144:18, July 1929. W. Lichtenstein. Relation of Rep
arations to Allied Indebtedness to the United States.

Atlantic Monthly. 144:110, July 1929. G. E. Putnam, Our Side of
the Transfer Dilemma. 148:370, September 1931. G. P. Auld.
The International Millstone.

Business Week. July 15, 1931. p. 48. Beyond the Moratorium.
Editorial.

Canadian Magazine. 76:11, September 1931. Who is the War Debt
Doing Now? A reply to I. F. Marcosson in the Saturday Eve
ning Post.

Christian Century. 49:6, January 6, 1932. Let Europe Repudiate.

Collier s Weekly. 88:12, July 18, 1931. W. E. Borah. Where
Would the Money Go? 88:62, November 21, 1931. To our
profit. Editorial.

Congressional Digest. 2:13, January 1932. New Congress Tackles
the Debt Problem. 2:14-15, January 1932. Should United
States Further Readjust Foreign Debt Settlement. 8:208, August
1929. L. W. Jones. American Attitude toward Reparations.

36 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

10:227-56, October 1931. America s War Debt Policy. Pro and
Con Discussion.

Current History .24: 93 7, September 1926. War Debts That Have
Been, Cancelled. 26:263, May 1927. America s Attitude on War
Debt Cancellation. 26:589, July 1927. Question of Cancellation
of War Debts. 30:367, June 1929. H. G. Moulton* Interallied
Debts; Their Origin and Present Status.

Forum. 85:124, February 1931. G. Layman. Englishman s Opinion
of Us. 85:200, April 1931. J. T. Adams. What Cancellation
Would Mean. Discussion 86: sup. 19. July 1931. 85: sup. 38.
April 1931. D. R. Hanson. Let s Cancel the War Debts. 86:
sup. 26. September 1931. D. R. Hanson. Hoover Moratorium.

Harper s Magazine. 154:273, February 1927. Fists Across the Sea.
162:509, March 1931. E. S. Martin. World Changes and War
Debts. 163:376, August 1931. B. K. Sandwell. How to Pay
the War Debts: A Satire. 163:511, September 1931. Trying to
Help Europe.

Journal of Political Economy. 38:29-61. February 1930. H. Lutz.
Interallied Debts } Reparations and National Policy. Bibliography.

Literary Digest. 108:38, January 24, 1931. War Debt Reduction
and Business Recovery. 108:44, March 28, 1931. What Action
or Inaction on War Debts Will Do. 110:7, September 5, 1931.
Mr. Wiggin s Lusty Child. 111:1-3, December 26, 1931. War
Debt War in Congress.

Living Age. 336:332, July 1929. Debts, Reparations and America.
340:28, March 1931. R. Home. Truth About War Debts.

Nation. 125:104, August 4, 1926. America Should Cancel the War
Debts. 130:231, February 26, 1930. Burden of War Debts.
133:717, December 30, 1931. O. G. Villard. Congress, Debts,
and Bankers: An Appeal to Reason. 134:5, January 6, 1932.
End of the Young Plan.

New Republic. 67:193, July 8, 1931. New Era of Vanishing Debts.
69:173. December 30, 1931. Congress and Debt Payment.

North American Review. 232:196, September 1931. Strictly Busi
ness: The Hoover Moratorium: Where It Stands in- the Test of
the War Debts.

Outlook. 144:655, December 29, 1926. Professors and the War
Debts. 157:168, February 4, 1931. War Debt Cancellation.
157:208, February 11, 1931. Arms and the Debts. 157:254,

CANCELLATION OF WAR DEBTS 37

February 18, 1931. G. Greer. Economic Consequences of Rep
arations.

Review of Reviews. 84:52, December 1931. F. EL Simonds. End
of War Debts.

Saturday Evening Post. 203:28, December 6, 1930. Shifting the
Tax Burden to America. 203:24, December 13, 1930. Cancella
tion Again. 203:20, May 1931. War Debt Propaganda. 204:-
14-15, July 18, 1931. I. F. Marcosson. New Debt Drive. 204:-
6-7, October 17, 1931. -45 Noble Lenders. 204:22, January 2,
1932. He Speaks the American Language.

World Tomorrow. 12:247, June 1929. More About the Debt Prob
lem. 13:395, October 1930. War Guilt Soundings: Summary of
429 Opinions. 14:243, August 1931. July 1st. 1932. 14:259-60.
August 1931. W. Westarp. War Debts and Armaments. 14:308,
October 1931. Overcharging our Debtors. 14:352, November
1931. Economic Release for Germany. 15:3, January 1932.
Taxes and Reparations.

World s Work. 54:345, August 1929. Cancellation of the Allied
Debts. 58:52, October 1929. E. L. James. War Debts.

Yale Review N. S. 19:269, October 1929. G. Winston. Present
Phases of War Debts.

CAPITALISM IS UNSOUND
Ohio Debate League Proposition

CAPITALISM IS UNSOUND

DENISON UNIVERSITY AFFIRMATIVE AND
NEGATIVE

The Financial Depression of 1Q29-1932 introduced into debating
circles in the colleges discussions of capitalism and socialism, com
munism and control of industry during the 1931-32 college year.
The following discussion is one challenging and defending the system
of private property and enterprise that we have come to term
"capitalism."

The speeches of the Denison debaters were contributed by their
coach, Professor Lionel Crocker, and were used in debates with
Ohio Wesleyan University, Miami University, Ohio University, Uni
versity of Cincinnati, and Muskingum College.

The question as used by the Ohio Colleges was stated: Resolved
that Capitalism as a form of economic organization is unsound. The
same question with varying statements was used in several of the
New England and Atlantic seaboard states. Capitalism was the
subject originally selected by the Pi Kappa Delta National Forensic
Honor Society for the season of 1931-32, but in the process of getting
phrased into a debate proposition the final statement emerging was
one on the control of Industry. The two subjects are quite closely
related, yet different in debating parlance. The number of colleges
debating Capitalism and Control of Industry or both reaches rather
astounding totals.

First Affirmative, S. A. Anderson
Denison University

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: I speak for the Denison
Affirmative on the question, "Resolved: that Capital
ism as a system of economic organization is unsound."

41

42 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

We firmly believe that Capitalism is unsound and in
substantiating our belief I will outline briefly the case
against Capitalism which includes, unequal distribution
of wealth, tremendous overproduction in industry,
private monopoly of basic industries and natural re
sources; each of which is sufficiently important to
justify our releasing ourselves from this great menace
Capitalism. Mr. Klein will continue the argument
by explaining what true Socialism will do and by pre
senting our plan of Socialism. Mr. Kruse will conclude
our argument with a comparison of the future under
Capitalism and under Socialism.

Now allow me to show the faults of the present
economic system. The basic fault according to most
authorities on economics is an unequal distribution of
wealth which resolves itself into inadequate income for
the majority of people. In 1929, the Chicago Board
for compiling labor statistics after having interviewed
seven hundred colored families and one thousand white
families, which is a fair example of the population of
the United States, set as the minimum standard for
health and decency, a wage of one thousand thirty-five
dollars. Remember, that when I speak of the results
of Capitalism and use the United States as an example
I am showing Capitalism in the wealthiest country in
the world and much blacker pictures could be shown
of Capitalism in other countries of less financial stand
ing. This Chicago Board the following year, made
another survey and found that there was an average
shortage of seven hundred dollars, per year, which
means that on the average the majority of families in

CAPITALISM IS UNSOUND 43

the United States fall seven hundred dollars short of
the minimum for health and decency. If this be true
in the wealthiest nation on earth what is Capitalism
accomplishing in the nations less fortunate than ours.

It is obvious, from this report, that a low standard of
living is inevitable. As to the facts concerning our
present distribution; "The Aristocrats 3 of labor, by
those I mean construction men, railway engineers,
tailors, and so on, three million in all, receive an aver
age income of forty-two dollars, per week. While the
16,000,000 farmers, manual workers, servants, and
such, get less than twenty-five dollars per week; less
than a decent living wage. Is it not paramount that
some change in our economic system must be made in
order to ameliorate this deplorable condition? Do you
realize that forty-six per cent of the entire wealth of
the world is controlled by one one-hundredth of one
per cent of the total population? It is because of con
ditions like these that I am prompted to suggest a
change in the present economic system. This one fault
alone is sufficiently important to necessitate a change;
but there are others.

We will have if history repeats itself, as it always
has in this matter, periods of economic depression
which always result in gross unemployment. Today,
hundreds of thousands of skilled workers are walking
the streets looking for work, or looking for clothes,
food, shelter or anything that will better their condition
in any way. Who can deny that depressions and unem
ployment are not directly responsible to the economic
system for their existence. And even in the periods

44 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

of highest inflation upon the authority of the Fed
erated American Engineering Societies, there is always
one out of every forty wage earners out of work.
Should the people of the world bow down to Capitalism
and capitalists to such an extent that we risk our whole
existence to the whims of a class of persons who are so
warped by the constant following of the almighty dol
lar that they will gamble lives for dollars?

The rights of working men have become so con
trolled by capitalists that they have no voice at all.
Since there is no organization between the producers,
the markets become flooded with the same articles
made by different companies. For example there are
hundreds of shoe factories all over the United States
each trying to outfit the entire population with shoes.
Since there is such a vast overproducing of commod
ities, in order to sell the articles, it is necessary for each
producer to engage in an extensive advertising cam
paign to acquaint the public with the finest brand, his
particular brand, on the market. These advertising
campaigns must be paid for either by an increase in
price of the article or by a cut in the workmen s wage.
It inevitably results in the workman getting a cut be
cause if the price of the commodity is too high there
is no sale for it. As a result of this procedure by which
the workman is always getting the worst of the deal,
the workmen strike their only weapon. In such a
predicament the laborers have only their fellow work
men to lean upon for aid, for capitalists have even
obtained control of our agencies of government to such
an extent that the government relief agencies say they

CAPITALISM IS UNSOUND - 45

have no milk or food for starving families of workers
who dare strike against the bosses. In one instance,
the gentle bourgeoise lady, who handles poor relief in
Washington County, Pennsylvania, told the miners
there that she didn t care if all of their children died
they were striking against the bosses of the country
and that the depression was an act of God to rid the
country of such rats anyway. When five per cent of
the population controls the remaining ninety-five per
cent to the extent that I have just shown; to the extent
of life or death, is it not time, for the good of all, that a
system that fosters such control, be done away with?

Further, the fact is that the present ownership of
natural resources and basic industries is in the hands
of an unbelievable minority. For example: four-fifths
of the anthracite coal is owned by just eight com
panies; one-half of the copper is owned by four com
panies; three-fifths of the steel by just two companies,
and the entire oil business is controlled by just four
companies. When capitalists get such a control as this
over the people, how can anyone have a feeling of
safety and security with what little he has been able to
save away? What has happened to the theory of
the equality clause of our Constitution. Should we
continue to allow this private monopoly of the basic
industries to exist or should we change our economic
system to one which guarantees in a certain sense,
equality?

No one has yet shown how we can eliminate the
waste of uncoordinated industry, the waste of the ruth
less destruction of natural resources, without a pro-

46 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

found modification of our system of private ownership
of basic resources and their operation for private
property.

We believe that in our modern world today, So
cialism affords our best hope of utilizing our immense
resources of material and skill so as to abolish poverty
and the terrible insecurity of workers, which is so
prevalent under Capitalism. It will reduce the menace
of war that is constantly facing us under Capitalism,
and it will increase the measure of freedom and frater
nity in our world which now practically does not exist.
Mr. Klein will present our plan of sane Socialism.

First Negative, Arthur C. Mentall
Denison University

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: We, of the Negative, con
tend that Capitalism is functioning well in spite of the
present depression, and that there is no cause for
change.

Before we proceed with this debate, we must clearly
understand the meaning of the word, Capitalism.
Capitalism is that form of industrial organization
where the means of production are under the control of
private individuals. Each one of you can be classified
as a private individual.

Socialism is not easily defined, yet all advocates of
the system agree that the means of production shall
be under the control of the group. The group will con
trol the industries in such a manner as to eliminate
private profit, rent, and interest.

CAPITALISM: is UNSOUND 47

Mr. Anderson, first affirmative speaker, has accused
the capitalistic system of maintaining huge monopolies
to the detriment of industry. Anyone who has casually
gazed over the famous trust era that ended in 1904
must be astonished to note the number of failures to
retain control of the market in spite of ruthless meth
ods some of the less educated industrialists practiced.
Even when the act of combination resulted in complete
monopoly, it was rarely kept intact. These early
trusts, generally speaking, have a history of shrinkage
and leakage. Not only did they take advantage of
their dominant position but they charged high prices
for their commodities. Their huge profits attracted
other investors, competition appeared as the years went
by. This competition became exceedingly powerful,
powerful enough to destroy any monopoly there may
have been in existence at the time. Some of the domi
nant industries were moderate in the use of power,
charged fair prices, and consequently, became good
trusts and not ones to be feared.

Prior to 1913, forty consolidations experienced
financial difficulties. Many were forced out of busi
ness entirely, others lost their monopoly position. A
few like the United States Steel and the Standard Oil
reorganized and now hold strong positions, but keen
competition is being experienced by these reorganized
corporations today. The problem of monopolies is not
as serious as the socialist would have us believe, rather,
many of its evils have been eliminated through legis
lative action and by the initiative of the industrial
leaders themselves.

48 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

Considering over-production, we must admit that
the only true meaning of the word over-production
must be from the point of view of the machine itself.
Since modern industry has been marshalled into our
economic system, the machines have from time to time
produced more than the buyer could buy, and conse
quently, the machine was forced to cease producing.
The first ten machines over-produced, the first one
hundred did likewise, and the first million followed
their example. Soon these old machines or new ma
chines were running at top speed to overtake the de
mand. So we have never really produced more than
we need, but rather we have found ourselves with more
goods of certain kinds than could be sold at a profit
or at a legitimate price.

Now in the price of the commodity alone can we
hope to reduce over-production. If we produce too
much, prices will be lowered below costs of production,
consequently, production will cease because of its
unprofitableness. In. a highly organized industrial
system such as ours, we must produce in anticipation
of future demand, and should that demand cease, then
we have over-production. As long as the consumer
permits fashion to rule his purchases, he must content
himself with over-production. It* is not the fault of
supply, but rather that of demand. The only way to
restore economic health then is to build up demand.

There will always be unequal distribution of wealth
because Capitalism, the most democratic of all eco
nomic systems, rewards each individual according to

CAPITALISM: is UNSOUND 49

the value of his work. If he has ability, his rewards
are great. If he is shiftless, lazy, and indolent, Capi
talism rewards him accordingly. Under any other
system the individual s freedom is reduced, his char
acter undermined, his initiative stifled, his morals
permitted to degenerate. Capitalism places the respon
sibility for advancement upon the individual himself
and whoever exerts himself to the utmost is rewarded
in proportion to the amount of work that he has done.

Before we discuss bread lines, we should examine
one. Let us look at one hundred sixty-two men stand
ing in a bread line in Cleveland, Ohio. Very few if any
are without overcoats; they may be hungry but they
will soon be fed; their families may be in want, but
the huge social service machine will stretch forth its
fingers to aid them. Thirty or forty years ago, condi
tions were horrible. Men had little clothing, no food
whatever, and their families died in poverty. But
Capitalism has progressed because it has not been in
sensible to human needs. Its members have donated
millions for relief and charity work. Capitalism has
raised the individual s standard of living to the plane
where the unemployed today are better off than was
the working man of three decades ago.

Depressions have followed great advances in pro
duction before. Unemployment has ravaged through
out the land. But what seemed to be an over-supply
then would only satisfy a few of our wants today.
Surpluses may check temporarily industry s stride but
it is a step toward progress. However, it is a warning

SO THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

that the world is distributing too little rather than pro
ducing too much. We will never be able completely to
satisfy the needs of our people.

In spite of the major depressions the United States
has experienced, the jobless have eventually succeeded
in securing work in those new industries which con
tinued to create jobs as fast as jobs were vacated in
the old industries. The automobile industry alone cre
ated four million new jobs, and millions of others were
available by the invention of the radio, telephone, re
frigerator, electric shop and so forth.

The total amount of employment available for wage
earners tends to increase year by year. Each decade
offers greater opportunities for employment to an in
creasing population. Each year, the United States be
gins with huge amounts of capital to build more miles
of railroad track, more trains and steamships, automo
biles and tractors, larger and better factories, better
mining facilities, increased capacity to produce larger
amounts of agricultural and raw materials. Our eco
nomic system starts with a larger population, greater
demands are made, more employment is the result.

It must be remembered that there will always be
unemployment, for some people cannot be forced to
work. The crippled, the diseased, the mentally defec
tive, the aged cannot work. In times of our greatest
prosperity, we have unemployment. It is folly for the
socialist to claim that his system will eliminate or
reduce unemployment. The only possible way to re
duce unemployment regardless of the type of economic

CAPITALISM IS UNSOUND 51

system in operation is the capitalistic way which em
braces many progressive reforms.

Capitalists are eager to stabilize and regularize their
industries because idle machinery soon rusts. Idle
factories cause profits to diminish until they disappear
leaving deficits in their places. Construction programs
employing two million men and involving the expendi
ture of six and one-half billion dollars were carried to
completion in 1931. Immigration is being restricted
so as to protect the American worker. Five and four
day-a-week programs are being practiced in many
industries. Unemployment insurance is being con
sidered. More embracing compensation laws are being
enacted. National employment bureaus are being or
ganized. Is this not an evidence of the good intentions
of the capitalist?

Now in conclusion, why do we blame Capitalism en
tirely for this depression. Heretofore, Capitalism has
not been forced to bear the entire blame for this busi
ness cycle. Some of the panics in the past were more
acute than the present one yet the public was not mis
led into believing that Capitalism was the sole cause.
When economists diagnosed the cause of the panics in
1837, 1857, and also the crashes in 1873 and 1893, it
was found that the cause lay in the foolish maneuver-
ings of human beings. It was the fault of human
nature and not the fault of the system. There was wild
speculation, little consideration of the future, no no
tice taken of danger signals, and consequently, man is
suffering internal pains because of his own foolishness.

Capitalism as a system is sound, but the people in

52 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

the system must be educated to the point whereby the
system can be operated on a higher level of efficiency
than it is being conducted at the present moment.

Second Affirmative, H. L. Klein
Denison University

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: We, of the Affirmative,
fully realize the futility of any effort on our part of
assuming the stand that the adoption of Socialism by
the United States, or the world, would be the Moses to
lead us completely out of the wilderness.

Socialism is not perfect, as certainly Capitalism is
not perfect. Were we to contend that it was, and that
its adoption is the sure and certain panacea to lift an
economically sick nation off its death bed in one mi
raculous cure, we would be guilty of the supreme folly.

We realize, as you in the audience do, that advocacy
of Socialism is dangerous. Popular belief has Social
ism confused with Communism; and thoroughly under
stands neither. Our opponents will in all probability
hasten to assure you that Socialism has many and
patent deficiencies. They can save themselves the
vocal trouble because I and my colleagues will forestall
their efforts by admitting at the outset that Socialism
does have faults, and many of them some of which
are major in significance. However, by the same token,
it is similarly obvious that Capitalism has most glaring
faults. These faults are either in need of correction,
immediately, or are at present beyond correction

CAPITALISM IS UNSOUND 53

their evils being possible of remedy only by absolution
of the system. The evils of Capitalism are inherent.

Were it possible to combine the outstanding assets
of both the systems of Capitalism and Socialism into
one economic scheme, we would assuredly be better off.
The probability of such an affiliation is highly improba
ble because the proponents of each system are apart
in interest, in knowledge and in concern.

It seems, to us of the Affirmative, that this whole
case resolves itself into a proposition of adopting one
of the two systems: Socialism, or Capitalism. Neither
is perfect, neither near the stage of perfection; conse
quently, it is necessary that the system with the least
faults be chosen. We must then permit the world a
chance to settle down to an adoption of the new child,
Socialism.

Socialism offers in this highly complete existence
the best solution for a happier, more secure, estimable
existence than any other system known today. When
we say that we favor Socialism, it is certainly most
remote from our intentions to contend that we desire,
or want a community, or a nation, in which absolutely
every penny earned is divided equally among all in
habitants regardless of the fact that one person works
diligently while bums sit around the corner saloon and
smoke and drink and decide what is wrong with the
country.

Socialism does not want a life of the "Pollyanna" in
which every man shares equally despite the fact that
he fails to share equally in the amount of work. So
cialism does want a reduction in the differences be-

54 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

tween the incomes and resources of the wealthiest and
the poorest, because it is perfectly apparent to any
intelligent and sympathetic man that such a condition
is imperative; but Socialism also wants the man who
knows more about his work, and who works harder at
his work to receive more money for his knowledge and
his efforts.

Intelligent socialists who want Socialism would ad
vocate the following:

1. A Vigorous Labor Party The nation today is in
the throes of two parties which have become powerful
enough to operate on the strength of organization, not
on principle. This new labor party would advocate a
lowered tariff, which would be high enough to protect
national industries, but low enough to stimulate and
interest trade with foreign countries. This party
would also ask for an increase in inheritance taxes, for
the abolition of the defense of private property and
interests abroad by governmental armed force.

2. A Scaled Wage System Although Socialism does
not intend to pay every man equally, it does feel that
the present system is Inadequate and unfair to the
security and happiness of the greatest number of peo
ple. Under Capitalism there is a difference as great
as a thousand times, and even more, between the largest
and the smallest incomes. There are some three mil
lion men in this country known as the "aristocrats of
labor 33 who make approximately each week the sum of
forty dollars. These are unusual; their fellows, who
are more the common run, sixteen million in number,
average a bit less than twenty-five dollars weekly, and

CAPITALISM IS UNSOUND 55

are expected to raise their families on that. The capi
talist on the other hand, comprising one per cent of the
income earning body of the country, possesses thirty-
three per cent of the income. If this is intelligent and
adequate distribution of wealth, socialists are willing
to give up their policy and gladly follow in the chains
of Capitalism. Socialists will have no greater differ
ence between the highest and the lowest than eight
times. Under this system the man better equipped to
handle certain phases of work will be paid propor
tionately higher for the skill he possesses, and also for
the arduousness of the task he is asked to perform.
The difference is great enough to urge a man on in his
work, but also small enough to keep the common
laborer within financial reach of the "wealthy" man;
and thus eliminate the tremendous disparity between
the two classes as existing under the present system.
3. Public Ownership of Private and Basic Industries
As explained by Mr. Anderson, under the present
formula the operation and ownership of basic industries
by private control provides a system too grasping in
interest, and too inconsiderate in fabrication for the
good of the nation. With government control, more
reasonable rates can be provided, better service given,
and a more adequate consideration of the people as a
nation can be achieved. The government virtually
controls the railroads, and waterways, and water
power today, since it constantly supervises all three,
and grants each its powers and limitations. Accord
ingly, since this is in effect already government owner
ship, it should be made completely such, and thus

56 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

eliminate the necessity for profit that the individual
feels he must have, and does have a perfect right to
expect. Profit, profit, profit is the cry of the capitalist.

4. State Planning Commission Although the theo
ries and solutions advanced as reasons for the cause
of the current depression reach into the thousands,
there is a considerable leaning toward the hypothesis
that over-production has been the precipitate that has
brought the world into its present economic slump.
Socialism has a plan which will combat over-produc
tion, and consequently, if intelligently handled, aid a
great deal in eliminating possible future depressions.

The creation of. a State, or National Planning Com
mission appointed by the government would be manned
by experts who would plan production to meet demand
as nearly as it is within human power to do such a
thing.

Socialism, as sane socialists understand it, offers
these four points as the basis of its claim to considera
tion. There is nothing that you will find startling or
unsound. We, of the Affirmative, would like to try it.

Second Negative, Mortimer C. Dean
Denison University

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: We of the Negative are to
affirm our belief in the economic soundness of the capi
talistic system. As the second speaker for the Nega
tive I am going to attempt to show some of the more

s^fetfcffe iti o

CAPITALISM IS UNSOUND 57

that you may have a clearer idea of its actual func
tional capacity.

It is easy in these times to put the case against any
existing institution. Most of us are in a highly critical
mood, because we feel that during the last few years
things have happened which ought never to have hap
pened, and that these earth-shaking events were not
well met and handled, especially on their economic side.
We have passed through the chaotic struggle of a great
world conflict. During the contest we have seen the
best physically fit men of all countries, the best in
courage and devotion, suffering untold hardships,
wounds and death, while a certain few have stayed at
home and amassed great fortunes. It is no wonder
that many impatient minds are driven to the conclu
sion that every institution which existed at the time
when these crimes and absurdities were perpetrated
should be cut down, rooted out and cast upon the dust
heap.

Is this state of mind a good one in which to set out
on the task of mending the breaches that have been
made in the walls of the building in which we have
lived? Is it wise because our structure has not been
weather-proof, to pull it down in disgust and start mak
ing a new one to a new plan and on a new system of
mechanics which has never been tested and may turn
out a home that will not even stand up? The need for
amendment is now being admitted by the great major
ity. The only question to be decided is whether the
changes are to be made on lines that have produced a
working result; or to be based on imaginative dreams

58 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

which tell us how much better everything might be if
we worked under a new system, which has only been
sketched in hazy outline; about which its advocates
have shown much unanimity in disagreeing. One or
two socialistic attempts that have resulted in failure
can be cited in the case of the Fourrier Movement in
this country in 1842 which lasted only three years be
fore meeting an inevitable end. Even more pronounced
was Lane s experiment in New Australia which resulted
in an increased cost of living, decreased production,
and increased unemployment. One might also call to
mind the present experiment in Russia about which
Mr. Bernard Shaw writes so enthusiastically. It is to
be noted however that Shaw lives in England and has
his books published there by capitalistic concerns
which insure him a fair return for his imaginary non
sense. Thus we can readily see upon examination of
most socialistic schemes that there is in reality little
hope of their achieving a heaven on earth.

Of course there is always the possibility, and in an
age which has witnessed so many types of phenomena,
who knows but what our worthy opponents may have
in their plans, as proposed in this debate, a scheme
which will be heralded the socialistic reality that we
have all been awaiting. But we of the Negative realiz
ing the human limitations of most college students do
not consider that their plans will achieve any more
perfection than is now present under Capitalism. Let
us now diagnose some of the more obvious advantages
of the Capitalism which we believe to be fundamentally
sound.

CAPITALISM IS UNSOUND 59

In discussing these advantages we want to confine
ourselves to what has been achieved and not to what
might have been attained under any other system.
First and foremost, we must recognize the accumula
tion of wealth irrespective of where it is and in whose
hands it is, because it is an undeniable fact that cer-
tan advantages have accrued to the worker, because of
this accumulated capital. Take as example the rail
ways system of this country with its twenty billions of
capital, which would have been impossible in any other
preceding order of society, and consider its benefits to
the laborer in transportation facilities alone; take the
accumulation of wealth as typified in our large city
Public Libraries, in our Natural Museums of History
and Art and in all other things which make for the
pleasure and convenience of life. None of these
things would have been possible without the accumula
tion of necessary capital.

Capitalism has made the enjoyment of life possible
to millions. It has produced millions of active, busy
men and women, spread them over the world, reclaimed
its waste places and increased production. All this has
to be considered before we throw it down and put an
untried system in its place. It is true that there are
existing conditions of which we should be ashamed.
But the gift of life is something, and social reformers
are rather apt to forget, in their eagerness to put right
the evils which beset the destitute among us, that the
greater part of our population leads and has led lives,
which thougH far from being ideal from an economic
or any other point of view, have taken them through

60 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

the world in a state of fair contentment, and with a
reasonable and growing share in the gifts which science
has placed at man s disposal.

Many argue that Capitalism has exploited Science
and Invention for its own profit without very much
creative effort on its own part; that science is responsi
ble for our present status of society. This may be so,
but, on the other hand, science could never have
wrought its miracles if there had not been a vast store
of accumulated wealth to apply to the development of
its discoveries. It is doubtful whether a Collectivist
state would have made use of the services of science
with the readiness, adaptability and courage in taking
risks, that have been shown by the organizers of indus
try spurred by the incentive of profit making. The
material achievements under Capitalism have been
enormous and the future is still most promising.

As one writer states it, "The world has been covered
with a network of railways, and continents have been
linked together by steamships of enormous power.
Factories have been improved and developed with in
credible speed. Telegraphs and telephones have made
the world into one great listening gallery. The Ameri
can workman today has his life embellished and made
comfortable by the products of all the climates of the
world, from tea to tobacco, with a freedom which would
have been envied by many a medieval monarch. If
there are terrible inequalities in the distribution of this
wealth, it is possible to climb from the lowest rung of
the ladder to the highest. Talent backed by individual
enterprise seems likely to have a better chance under

CAPITALISM IS UNSOUND 61

Capitalism than under bureaucratic red-tape or Guild
Monoply."

We have seen great improvements in education and
sanitation, the lengthening of human life, the total
extinction of the plagues which used to scourge Eu
rope periodically and a distinct general improvement
of health of all classes. It may be true that Capitalism
has done little in a direct way toward these improve
ments, but it is certain that the store of wealth which
was necessary to carry them out has been called into
being by the working of Capitalism with the incentive
of profit before it.

Capitalism must please the consumer in order to
prosper, and the consumer is the mass of humanity.
From this point of view its achievements are significant
compared with diplomacy which drenched the world in
blood, or of churches who have used God s Word to
sanction bloody persecutions. Capitalism though be
ing accused the father of militarism has incidentally
been working for peace. It is true that Capitalism so
far has provided most of the military equipment but
only at the request of humanity. If humanity will only
ask for something more sensible, Capitalism will oblige
with equal readiness and success. Capitalism knows
that though it may seem to make big profits out of de
struction it will pay heavily for them before the account
is closed, and that it can only earn a good living out of
prosperity and peace and progress.

Capitalism is largely responsible for democracy.
The industrial revolution marks the beginning of our
present democracy. As a result of this system every

62 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

worker is able to enjoy the benefits of government and
has a voice in influencing even to a small extent the
management of the affairs of State under which he
lives.

Another achievement that might be mentioned is
the liberty movement. The serf in the middle ages
was bound to the soil and it is only since Capitalism
has developed that we have the modern liberty of
movement, carrying along with it the liberty of pro
duction as well as the liberty of consumption. This
idea of liberty and individuality is a point which So
cialism must o er leap or else condemn itself to doom.
The Soviets forget the fundamental principle in all
life: that of giving the individual a chance to express
himself. So long as they forget this principle Russia
is bound to be a lower state. Not allowing freedom to
the individual means spiritual prostitution. No man
under such a regime can call his soul his own; and any
nation that lives by it cannot in the long run achieve
human or economic prosperity.

We, of the Negative, believe that it is possible to
work out an adjustment between the forces of individ
ualism and Socialism. Social contact will be carried to
that point where it will not interfere with the economic
freedom of the individual or with his personal initia
tive. There would be more socialized production and
more equitable taxation. The ideal as close to the
millenium as we can hope to get is a system where
every man has an equal opportunity, in which the bur
dens are borne by those who can afford to do so.

Dean Inge, of St. Pauls, London, says, "As for the

CAPITALISM IS UNSOUND 63

notion of abolishing private gain, I will make only one
obvious statement. If you destroy the chief motives
that induce men to work hard, namely the desire to im
prove their own position, and still more to give their
children a good start in the world, a few people will work
as well as they do now, the majority will work badly and
a considerable number will refuse to work at all unless
someone stands over them with a whip. The output
of commodities would beyond question be enormously
reduced; and the country would be very poor. In
desperation we would adopt the whip or its equivalent."
As Herbert Spencer says, "Socialism would mean slav
ery, and it would not be a mild type of slavery. Our
social arrangements today are better for the poorer
classes than they have ever been before and they are in
the way to become better still."

States Newton D. Baker, "Russia is only planning
to catch up and there will have to be severe modifica
tions when they do catch up. Political institutions
cannot be widely subjected to sudden and revolutionary
changes. We cannot tear ourselves loose from our his
tory and adopt unfamiliar and exotic political arrange
ments to facilitate our economic development. For our
economic process has gone on continually in our own
country and in every other country with a modern
civilization. Our own Capitalistic system obviously
needs modification. But to fly from what we have to
a system which so far has resulted in mere hope of an
ultimate gain, [such as that now proposed by our op
ponent, Mr. Klein] , by drastic subjection of the people

64 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

to a system of compulsory and uncompensated servi
tude, invites social instability from another cause."

We, of the Negative, like the men I have quoted, do
not infer the Capitalistic system to be a social Utopia.
We are not quite so foolish as to believe that any social
system will ever be perfect. But we do want to point
out here that many of the inherent evils which the
Socialist claims for Capitalism cannot be better eradi
cated by Socialistic skill than they can be by construc
tive Capitalistic manipulation. Capitalism is just as
capable of planning and of correcting its own faults as
is any untried scheme of Socialism.

If government at the present time is claimed to be
inefficient would the Socialist working in the same en
vironment and with the same people be any more able
to keep governmental harmony and stability? The
complexity of and centralization of our great industries
is in itself a handicap to any new system of Socialism.
How would the Socialist go about to construct a fair
and equal wage scale? This has puzzled men for cen
turies and we doubt whether the Socialist today will
solve the mystery. Who is going to do all the dis
agreeable tasks that need to be done in any society if
everyone is to be placed on an equal basis? What will
the Socialist substitute for the lure of great wealth and
power? How will he eliminate graft? For these and
many other questions he doesn t seem to have found
an adequate solution.

Therefore we, of the Negative, affirm our belief in
the economic soundness, fundamentally speaking, of
the Capitalist society; first, because it has given us a

CAPITALISM IS UNSOUND 65

higher standard of life than ever before experienced
by the average man. Capitalism is essentially demo
cratic. State Socialism would hand us over to the
regulation of the impervious and elusive bureaucrat.
Guild Socialism would leave the consumer to the tender
mercies of producing Guilds. Capitalism puts the real
power in the hands of the average consumer, and so
suffers from and rejoices in all the weaknesses and
force, all the hopefulness and despair, that are asso
ciated with democracy. If democracy succeeds in pro
ducing a race of men fit to run it, then its victory will
cure the worst evils of Capitalism. Capitalism can
plan and correct its own faults. Unemployment can
be corrected through some form of social insurance
which Is not a dole. Mai-distribution and mal-
production can be remedied under Capitalism through
national planning boards as well as it can under Social
ism. Ruthless competition is being greatly modified
by education and public opinion voiced in law. It
would be folly to destroy all competition as this has
given us low prices, variety of products, and insured
efficient service in all fields of production. The Bell
telephone system helps us to realize the advantages
that competition has brought to the door of everyone.
Advertising in many cases takes unfair advantages of
the public, but here education and enlightened public
opinion is all that is necessary. In broadcasting neces
sary information in regard to the accessories of life it
is undoubtedly a boon to the common man. Yet the
Socialist takes a biased and short-sighted look and
condemns competition as unfair.

66 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

The next speaker will attempt to point out some of
the more obvious evils of Socialistic schemes hoping to
show you that the so-called inherent evils of Capitalism
are also inherent in Socialism, and will not be elimi
nated very much quicker by the imaginative Socialist.

The dangers of competition are a patent fact. The
Socialist error lies not in any misstatement of the case
but the failure to recognize the counteracting forces at
work. In many cases the self-interest of one group
tends to offset the injurious tendencies of another
group. Where this fails the power of the State usually
holds the balance fair.

In conclusion, I again affirm the belief of the Nega
tive in the fundamental economic soundness of the
present order and fail to see where the Affirmative have
proved or will be able to prove that Socialism ought to
be substituted for Capitalism.

Third Affirmative, Richard R. Kruse
Denison University

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: So far we, of the Affirma
tive, have contented ourselves with picturing the evils
of Capitalism and have suggested Socialism as the only
alternative. Obviously, we do not contend that any
plan we suggest would have the effect of completely
remedying all of the evils of Capitalism. No system
is infallible. We freely grant that our plan, which has
been subject to much criticism by the Negative, is only
an attempt at the solution of the economic chaos and
distress under which we are existing. But at the very

CAPITALISM: is UNSOUND 67

least, we take cognizance of the profound exigencies of
the world suffering, and make an honest and, we be
lieve, an intelligent approach at the solution of the
situation.

With eight million unemployed in the United States
and perhaps three times as many in the entire domain
of mechanical civilization; with industry functioning
at thirty per cent or more below normal here, and still
more rheumatically in Europe, the times call, if they
do not shriek, for economic therapy. Replies have
ranged all the way from the complacent optimism of
the proponents of the capitalistic system to plans sug
gested by socialists and revolution advocated by some
fiery partisans of the communistically-inclined. Our
opponents necessarily are optimistic. But admitting
the seriousness of the situation, their program would
simply depend upon the volition of capitalists to re
strict their production, regularize their employment,
and so on things which capitalists never have done
and never will do. We cannot depend upon the initia
tive of the exploiting class to remedy defects in itself.
As well expect Al Capone to turn philanthropist or
Mussolini, pacifist.

Realizing that the selfishness and greed of Capital
ism as a whole preclude any perceptible improvement
in the system, what may we expect of it in the future?
And what, if any, are the signs of an incipient Social
ism? These are questions which, straying somewhat
from the theme of our debate, nevertheless, have a
preeminent place in our consideration of the subject.

Much has been said about the danger of monopoly.

68 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

What would Roosevelt, the arch trust-breaker of them
all, say to the gigantic trusts which now dominate our
industrial system? The first speaker for the Affirma
tive gave figures to show that in the basic industries
such as coal, iron, oil, et cetera a few companies com
pletely own our natural resources and exercise a virtual
monopoly in their distribution. Thus we have huge
corporations in their realm as absolute in their power
as any feudal state. Prices are fixed, exorbitant profits
realized, and the workers and the public are exploited.
These corporations do not hesitate to use corrupt
methods in securing political favors. The tariff, much
decried at the moment, smells of special privilege; of
political bargaining, by which certain industries as
sured themselves of protection.

We can only view the rising power of monopolies
with alarm. Their political strength enables them to
avoid punishment and secure protection. Economists
freely admit that the tendency is not towards decen
tralization of industry but towards greater and farther-
reaching monopoly. Witness the growth of chain
stores of every description in recent years; the amalga
mation of steel and coal companies; huge power trusts;
the increasing power of public utility groups. Capi
talism resorts to anything and everything to attain its
ends. A few years ago the Federal Trade Commission
discovered that public utility groups had subsidized
college professors; that is, paid them to write favorably
in their texts on individual operation of public utilities
as opposed to municipal control. Corporations are not
even honest with their own stockholders. During an

CAPITALISM IS UNSOUND 69

Investigation of the St. Louis and San Francisco rail
road finances a few years ago when the company went
into a receivership, it was revealed that a syndicate
which included the names of many directors and officers
of the Frisco had sold a subsidiary road to it at a
profit of $3,000,000 or seventy-five per cent on their
investment. Even the chairman of the board of direc
tors was implicated. During investigations and suits
concerning . the Goodyear Rubber Company, a few
years back, it was alleged and partially proved that
some $15,000,000 had been milked out of the corpora
tion by "high financiers" with at least the silent under
standing of the officers of the company. Here we have
fine illustrations of how our capitalists live up to their
trusts. Their greed and avarice leads them to betray
even the stockholders and workers of their companies.
And yet our opponents would have you believe them
to be a self-righteous class eager to make any improve
ments to relieve the present crisis. As well expect
mercy from the Spanish Inquisition or roses from the
desert. And in the future we may expect duplication
of these instances.

The day of the small entrepreneur is past. No
longer can the ambitious young inventor start on a
shoe-string and make a million. Why? Because huge
corporations crowd him out; influence banks which
they control to deny him capital; institute patent suits
which the individual is unable to fight. As Norman
Thomas suggests, "Few things are more ironical to
contemplate than the spectacle of the ayerage American

70 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

Sweet Land of Liberty. The freedom of the masses is
a myth. The average man works for a large corpora
tion which may hire or fire at their pleasure. He must
render homage as surely as to any king. His very
existence hangs in balance." Statistics which our first
speaker presented show how far below a decent living
standard our workers are compelled to exist simply by
virtue of exploitation of the capitalist.

Banks can refuse accommodations to rising young
businessmen who play with radical ideas. Any protest
against the ruling class is quickly suppressed. There
are many methods and Capitalism has the upper hand.
Though tremendously out-voted in this fine democracy
of ours, Capitalism, by means of coercion, corruption,
and intimidation retains control not alone of our
wealth, but of our government. Poetic justice indeed I
Actually in America our rights have been whittled
away not only by the cajolery and intimidation prac
ticed by the masters of our economic life but by "legis
lation/ 7 administrative action and judicial processes.
Our "bill of rights" is no more than a scrap of paper.
Even Charles Beard comments, on the "decline in our
ancient ideals of liberty."

Not merely civil liberty is denied but ordinary jus
tice. There is in America one justice for the rich and
another for the poor; one for the white and another for
the colored, one for the employer and another for the
worker especially during strikes. Injunctions have
denied to workers the right to carry on every act
necessary to the peaceful conduct of a strike. Recently
in the coal crisis in Harlan County, Kentucky, where

CAPITALISM IS UNSOUND 71

the courts cooperated with the coal companies to sup
press rebellion, deputy sheriffs who actually shot down
some of the strikers were paid by the coal companies.
A member of the Dreiser committee told that in a
mining town of three hundred homes, only one was
waterproof; that the miners were obliged to purchase
food from the company store at an exorbitant rate ; that
milk was an unknown luxury. Such are the ministra
tions of Capitalism. An extreme but not untypical in
stance of justice for the worker is the Mooney and
Billings case. Convicted of murder in connection with
the Preparedness Day bomb outrage in San Francisco
in 1916, Judge Griffiths, who sentenced Mooney, ever
since he discovered the flagrant perjury in the case,
has been a leading advocate of Mooney s unconditional
pardon. A tragic miscarriage of justice. Yet fifteen
years later they are still in jail. Why? Need I ex
plain?

No, the future is indeed black. Our expectation of
increasing monopoly means inevitably renewed sub
version of the government and the courts to Capitalism.
It means the continued advance of trusts and combines
enslaving the workers still further and making them
minions of huge industrial states subject to the whims
and caprices of our benevolent "masters."

But what of Socialism? What hope are we able to
glean from the trend of the times? Obviously, so long
as Capitalism is in the driver s seat, and the mass of
workers apathetic about their rights, little can be ac
complished. But many of our leading men, economists,
and men of affairs are tirging plans for the reform of

72 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

our competitive system tending, of course, towards
Socialism.

Our opponents have told you that no socialistic plan
has ever worked. They have deprecated the possibility
of Socialism s succeeding where Capitalism has failed.
Perhaps, the most important part of our Socialism is
our demand for federal control of production through
a national planning board which coordinates state and
local units. Some of you will remember the War In
dustries Board which contributed so much to our suc
cessful entrance into the World War. Stuart Chase
has described its work thus: "A wilderness roaring with
contrary orders. It is safe to say that many of the
orders would be yet unfilled, and hardly an armed
soldier would have arrived in France, had it not been
for the War Industries Board. It stopped the whole
pandemonium with clearance orders. Then it started
an orderly process moving with priority orders. It
found out from the army, the navy, the Allies what
their requirements were; it inventoried industry to de
termine how far those requirements could be met. It
transformed specific industries to help meet them; it
silenced non-essential production; crippled the luxury
trades; made secret processes common property if they
stimulated output anywhere, and set up a regional
form of industrial planning to prevent one section from
becoming over-congested or over-prosperous. It made
enormous technical improvements in output through
simplification and standardization (the cantV of busi
ness were found to be largely had-not-been-trieds ), it
re-located skilled and unskilled labor; and forecast, if

CAPITALISM IS UNSOUND 73

you please, the exact day of the Armistice by virtue of
its study of raw material absorption in Germany.

"What the War Industries Board really did was to
allow one-third of the productive man power of the
country to be lifted from the map and turned into sol
diers and munitions makers; to stimulate millions of
tons of new sorts of materials for their equipment and
for the annihilation of the Germans, and to keep the
domestic population fully and purposefully employed
at a higher standard of living than it had ever before
enjoyed. In brief, it so organized the nation that two
men did the work of three, and did it better. This is
the kind of thing a master plan can do if it has a
chance to function.

"Business surrendered to the War Industries Board
primarily on the plea and psychology of patriotism.
The flags were flying, the drums beating, and a band
was playing Over There. Today no flags fly and no
bands play, but eight million workless men upon the
streets are a greater menace than were the Germans
in Lorraine! 9

Why not a "Peace Industries Board?" We need it.
It would be charged with the responsibility of originat
ing a master plan to guide the economic life of America.
It would coordinate the forces of production, distribu
tion and consumption.

We can do it! We must not sit idly by and placidly
allow this Frankenstein to continue its ravages upon
human life and health. We have within ourselves the
means of correction.

Two basic things must be accomplished First, the

74 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

national income must be more equitably divided so that
purchasing power may be maintained. Second, there
must be public ownership of the basic industries. This
is the essence of our program of intelligent Socialism.
Now what do you as a citizen think about it? Are
you complacent about the future under Capitalism
when the keenest minds among our economists are
greatly harassed? Do you wish a continuance of this
unregulated competitive system with its exorbitant
profits, its over-production, its recurrent depressions,
its millions of unemployed? The answer is found in the
words of that great American philosopher, John Dewey,
"We are in for some kind of Socialism, call it by what
ever name we please, and no matter what it will be
called when it is realized."

Third Negative, Sherwood Blasdel
Denison University

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: If our opponents flouted
the laws of gravitation as they do the economic laws,
their efforts would have at least some value as it would
be amusing to watch them walk up the walls and across
the ceiling or gesticulate while suspended in mid air.
They are part of the small minority which has painted
the blackest pictures and wailed of the yawning depths
of Hades during every depression we have ever had,
but whose numerous plans for recovery have been con
sistently relegated to the waste basket, not to be heard
of again until another depression revives the socialists
and their panaceas.

CAPITALISM IS UNSOUND 75

The fundamental reason why the plans such as pre
sented by our opponents have always been unsound is
that they Interfere with the law of supply and demand,
which is as old as mankind and works whether we have
Capitalism, Socialism, manorialism, or what not. When
under-production occurs or demand increases, the
price of the commodity increases, and when over
production occurs or demand decreases, the price de
creases. The equilibrium between supply and demand
is automatically maintained, provided the law is not
interfered with, in this way: When the price of certain
goods goes up, its increase being caused by less supply
or more demand, it gives more profit to those engaged
in producing those goods, thereby attracting more pro
ducers, or capital and labor, to that particular industry.
This increases production or supply until it more nearly
approaches demand, causing the price to fall back to
normal. However, any interference with operation of
this law causes a maladjustment, and socialistic plans
are a good example of such. If the government yields
to popular opinion and extends aid to, for example, the
farmers with the purpose of stabilization of agriculture
and pegs the price of wheat at seventy-five cents,
arguing that it is unfair to expect the farmers to pro
duce for less than that, they are placing an unnatural
premium on the production of wheat, because, if and
when wheat growing increases and it would because a
fair return is guaranteed the price would not decline
as it naturally would in ordinary cases of increased
supply. Thus, since the familiar and dependable re
straint of lowered prices is estopped from curtailing

76 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

production in its usual way, more and more wheat
would be grown until there was a tremendous and
irremediable over-supply of wheat in the world. The
longer such aid is maintained the more serious the
situation becomes until the only way out is a chaotic
readjustment. The old economic law works at its best
efficiently in a field of competitive and free enterprise,
and at any attempt to harness it by legislation you can
expect a violent reaction, such as this depression. Our
own Farm Board illustrates my case, and Britain s at
tempt to control rubber production and Brazil s Coffee
Valorization plan produced identically the same results.

Our opponents will probably reply that their plan
is not within the category I have mentioned, for the
government would have complete control over the
means of production in the major industries and could
thereby prevent the chaos I have just described since
it could strike at the very source of the evil of over
production. My colleague showed one reason why a
government couldn t rationalize production, since the
wants of the consumers couldn t be gauged ahead of
time unless we became communistic as Russia is, and I
will show you the fallacy of even attempting collective
ownership.

Their plan involves choosing the key industries of
the country for stabilization. Now suppose that one
of the plans similar to our opponents were actually
adopted during the depression of 1873, and a huge
efficient organization embodying all of the technical
knowledge available at that time were created to con
trol all the major industries of the country, so that

CAPITALISM IS UNSOUND 77

over-production and wasteful competition would be
eliminated, guaranteeing, incidentally, a fair return to
the producers. They would have proceeded to stabilize
the coal industry, the iron industry, the buggy indus
try, the canal shipping and construction companies, and
the oats and hay raising farmers. The results would
have been obvious and enlightening. Coal has and is
being largely replaced by gas and fuel oils; iron has
resigned its place to steel; buggies to automobiles;
canals have passed out of the picture; and oats and
hay to gasoline, since hay would probably be as hard
on a carburetor as gasoline would be on a horse.

Take an example in Russia. When she has com
pleted her Five Year Plan after going to unlimited but
justified expense to install the most efficient machinery
available and instructed her men to operate it under
their vast organized scheme, she will find that inven
tion and efficient methods are more advanced in 1933
than they were in 1928 her factories will be obsolete.
Each of her two alternatives is equally undesirable.
Either she can undergo a complete reorganization; that
is, promote another five-year-plan to catch up again,
or else she must continue to use 1928 methods to com
pete with a 19SO or 1960 world, which is absurd.

Our opposition will undoubtedly say that improve
ments could be made in each factory as worn out
machines were replaced; but would they be made?
No. With competitive and free enterprise replaced by
governmental paternalism improvements would be
lacking, because a government official would not shoul
der the onus of technological unemployment which

78 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

necessarily accompanies installation of labor-saving
devices. This is best illustrated in England where ris
ing manufacturing costs due to decreased efficiency
have occurred because the Labor Party, similar to the
one advocated by Mr. Klein, has discouraged the jetti
son of obsolete methods and machinery.

I have shown you what would happen if we should
abolish Capitalism and stabilize our major industries;
either complete periodical readjustment in order to
continue our progress, which would be prohibitive on
account of the cost, would be necessary, or else we
would have to continue using the same methods with
the same machinery and organization and pass into de
cadence. No wonder Henry Ford remarked that the
only things that stabilization would stabilize are our
present conditions!

Thus far, I have shown you how the plan of the
affirmative is fundamentally unsound as regards the
economic law and life under which we live. But there
is a physical limitation to a collectivistic system which
our opponents have blandly overlooked. They have
tried to borrow the mass production idea, which Capi
talism developed, without taking cognizance of its
limitations.

When a man wants to put his plant on a mass pro
duction basis, he doesn t just do it arbitrarily. He must
consider two factors: Is his business one of increasing
or decreasing costs? Is the market for his special
product elastic? That is, does the cost per unit be
come high or lower with increased output, and if so,

CAPITALISM IS UNSOUND 79

Is the lowered price reflected in the market with a large
increase of consumption? Only after he answers these
questions does he know whether to go ahead and or
ganize on a large scale or not it all depends upon the
special characteristics of his particular business. Chev-
rolets lend themselves well to mass production, but that
is no sign that Rolls Royces or airplanes will. It
would be idiotic to even attempt to force the produc
tion of the latter two along the same lines as the
former.

Each industry works under the law of diminishing
returns, the point or degree of organization at which
the greatest profit is made being called the optimum
point. Obviously, this point varies, not only between
industries, but between plants in the same industry
because of the large number of factors entering into
the determination of it; it also varies in any one plant
from time to time as conditions change. And yet, the
socialists would force our vast individualistic industries
into a single mold which would probably be of the de
gree of organization at which at least half of them
would be the least efficiently adapted.

First Negative Rebuttal, Arthur Mentall
Denison University

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: The capitalistic system
has been accused of permitting the great evil, unequal
distribution of wealth, to exist. We of the Negative
maintain that unequal distribution of wealth is desir-

80 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

able on the principle that the man who works hard and
saves part of his income is entitled to more than the
man who spends his entire income.

One thousand thirty-five dollars is the minimum
wage for health and decency ; Mr, Anderson has stated.
Furthermore, 3,000,000 skilled laborers earn only forty-
two dollars a week, and 16,000,000 farmers only
twenty-five dollars a week. However, multiply forty-
two dollars by fifty working weeks in a year and you
get two thousand one hundred dollars, or in a similar
way, you find the farmer earns one thousand two hun
dred fifty dollars excepting all the food he produces
for his own immediate use. The minimum standard
wage is one thousand thirty-five dollars and these men
earn less than a decent living wage, my opponent has
said. This is the logical reasoning of the socialist.

It is not necessary to change our entire economic
system because there exists unequal distribution of
wealth. Capitalism is eliminating this evil by higher
income and inheritance taxes which tend to reduce in
equality of wealth. How foolish it is to plunge us into
an economic chaos for a fault that is rapidly being
eliminated.

In 1900, the industrial system provided the indi
vidual with one pair of shoes throughout the year, but
capitalists increased production so that the individual
wears four pairs of shoes a year. The present-day
shoes give better service than those in 1900; they cost
approximately the same as the one pair did, and the
manufacturer realizes practically the same profit from
the four pairs as he did from the single pair. It is by

CAPITALISM IS UNSOUND 81

increasing supply to meet demand that the United
States has obtained its great leadership of world in
dustry today. Under a system of Socialism, we would
still be a backward nation as far as dominance in in
dustry is concerned.

Advertising is necessary to acquaint the public with
articles ready for sale. Without extensive advertising,
the public would be forced to buy blindly without
knowledge of competing commodities that may be of
superior quality or may be offered at lower prices.

We recognize the fact that competition between pub
lic utility companies, railroads, and traction concerns
would be a duplication of effort resulting in great
waste. But competition Is desirable between businesses
producing the same commodity because the article
will be offered at a reasonable price by the manufac
turer who fears his competitor s price.

Mr. Anderson criticized the capitalistic method of
rewarding" the individual. However, he has only two
other methods whereby the worker can be rewarded.
First, the method of equal pay, and second, according
to the social value of the work performed.

Socialists are beginning to realize the hopelessness
of rewarding equally, consequently, they cling tena
ciously to the scale method. But how can they deter
mine exactly the social value of the work performed by
a Charley Chaplin to that of an Evangeline Booth in
the slums of a city. It is impossible to do so. And
who would do the determining of the scale? A board
of politicians who would have great opportunities for
graft and bribery?

82 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

In conclusion, the socialist loudly denounces Capi
talism yet the very evils he has condemned would be
inherent in his own system because he has found no
solution for any one of the defects. He criticizes but
he has nothing better to put in Capitalism s place.
Capitalism is not wasting time denouncing evils, but it
is utilizing its energy toward remedying these defects
as they now exist in our present economic system.

First Affirmative Rebuttal, S. A. Anderson
Denison University

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: The first speaker of the
opposition spent his entire time telling us what a men
ace Socialism is to the peace and prosperity of the
world. Let me remind you, Gentlemen, that we are
not discussing the relative merits of Socialism and
Capitalism. We are debating whether or not Capi
talism is unsound and since we believe it is unsound we
merely suggest that a plan of Socialism be instituted.
If Socialism is not the system of government then
bring in some other plan; the point is that Capitalism
as our system of economic organization has outgrown
its usefulness and has become the root of nearly all
evil existing in our world today.

The proponents of Capitalism, thus far in our dis
cussion, have not challenged the existent evils of
Capitalism which I brought out in my constructive
argument. Since they do not challenge them they must
agree with me that Capitalism has brought this dread
ful depression upon us: a thing which is more harmful

CAPITALISM IS UNSOUND 83

than the worst of plagues, a thing which works like a
giant leech upon our people. If for no other reason
than this, should we not rid ourselves of this menace?
As a result of the depression, responsible to Capitalism,
we have a vast army of unemployed. Shall we con
tinue to have long bread lines, hungry children,
mothers sacrificing their lives in order that starving
babies may receive nourishment and as many little
comforts as possible. Should we not remedy this situa
tion in some way? And since the best way to eliminate
a thing entirely is to strike at its root, and since both
those in favor and those approved of Capitalism agree
that depressions are directly responsible to the system
of economic organization in force, for their existence,
should we not do away with Capitalism?

As yet our opponents have suggested no way to
bring about a more equal distribution of wealth. They
would continue to allow a great percentage of the peo
ple to be forced to live in the unhealthful, indecent
conditions as shown by the Chicago Board in 1930.
They would continue to allow one one-hundredth of
one per cent of the total population to control forty-six
per cent of the wealth. Our government was founded
on the principle of equality but look how it has de
generated and wavered from that principle of equality.
No longer is it "the land of the free and the home of
the brave!" It has become the land of the rich and
the home of the Morgans, Mellons, Rockefellers.
Capitalism has gotten a stranglehold even upon our
people, our government, and upon the interpretation
of the Constitution itself. But Capitalism within itself

84 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

has carried the germs of its own decay. It has placed
wealth above life. It has in a sense placed man above
God. Let us ruin Capitalism before Capitalism ruins
us.

By definition, Capitalism means, a system that favors
the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, giv
ing that few the power and influence of concentrated
capital. I m sure the proponents of Capitalism will not
question this definition for it was taken from Mr. Web
ster s Dictionary the one accepted authority on the
meaning of words.

Second Negative Rebuttal, Mortimer C. Dean
Denison University

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: Let us now examine care
fully the three proposals upon which Mr. Klein, in
speaking for the Affirmative, based his hope for the
future. First, we have mentioned the construction of
a vigorous Labor party. It is only very recently that
most of you have heard of or read about the destruction
of a very vigorous Labor party in England. Why did
such a scheme fail and did it prove to be completely
and efficiently Socialistic? What happened to the
finances of England? What happened to employment?
Most of what did happen was certainly vigorous, but
like most schemes with a surfeit of Socialism it was
vigorous in the wrong direction. Socialistic leadership
taking the interests of the working classes to heart
had quite a struggle to champion the rights of Eng
land s workers. Taxes increased; unemployment in-

CAPITALISM IS UNSOUND 85

creased; the dole wouldn t function; industry was
unable to compete with the lower price scales of for
eign competitors who were not afflicted by a filching
and expensive Labor Party. Then as a sort of a
climax, the industrial leaders and the workers together
requested the Laborites to get out. Of course, the
members of the Affirmative may have a different type
of vim, vigor, and vitality to instill into their proposed
Labor Party and we, of the Negative, hope so, because
we feel that they will need it if they are to make their
organization function in the same sort of an environ
ment that the recent English experiment had to deal
with.

Mr. Klein then proceeds generally and vaguely to
suggest a wage scale capable of operating in his neatly
planned Utopia. There only seems to be one obvious
fault, and incidentally this is vigorous enough to make
me believe that it might not work with human beings-
It is simply this. The fellows who run the govern
ment or, rather, the board of directors, are going to
receive about eight times less than the janitor who
cleans up the cigar butts after the board meets to settle
the affairs of state. Then, too, how is the social value
of the work done to be rated? Who is going to do the
rating and will he be better paid for making the selec
tion, and will those selected be satisfied with the opinion
of a few men in regard to the social value of the work
done? Will there be any opportunity for graft and in
efficiency? Where is the money or capital going to
come from, and what is going to happen when money
doesn t appear quite as rapidly as needed? How will

86 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

the United States compete with nations controlled by
individual capital that can afford to take risks? You
see one difficulty only leads into another and it
wouldn t be long before an exit would be created some
where for such a scheme to escape.

The third proposal is that of public ownership. We
already have considerable public control operating
through government supervision. Why overthrow the
whole status quo in order to name the idea Socialistic
and install some new men to run it? We can have a
degree of sane public ownership under capitalistic con
trol as well as under socialistic control. This point
needs no further comment, except that providing there
is control by the public, can the public be insured
against individual ownership and gain? Perhaps the
Affirmative can answer that.

The Affirmative keeps emphasizing the fact that we
have over-production in the face of extreme poverty.
We, of the Negative, feel that it is not so much over
production as it is underconsumption. We need to
create new markets and this can best be achieved
through individual capital capable of taking risks which
will not endanger the whole economic structure. Bu
reaucracies cannot take these risks. Progress under
bureaucracies is much too slow and in most cases there
is a complete standstill.

In these proposals Mr. Klein has not eliminated
graft, inequality, poor leadership, foreign competition,
individual desire for gain, and, in short, he still has
most of the inherent evils which he claims to be in
Capitalism only.

CAPITALISM IS UNSOUND 87

Therefore, I again affirm the Capitalistic system
sound enough to operate successfully in the future;
efficient enough to correct its own evils; and progres
sive enough to advance far beyond the most imaginative
dream of a Socialistic Utopia.

Second Affirmative Rebuttal, H. L. Klein
Denison University

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: The opposition contends
that Socialism is for radicals. They contend that Capi
talism has endured for centuries, and because of the
time factor should be allowed to continue to endure.
Such an argument is naive. We have always had de
pressions and will continue to have as long as the
present system endures.

The opposition has stated that Socialism offers noth
ing definite to forestall depressions that the whole
theory is merely a high-flying hypothesis with little
more than high sounding words to back its supporters.
When anything offers as sound a remedy for the eco
nomic situation as a state planning commission that
remedy is certainly composed of ideas greater than
admirable syntax. Under the socialists planning com
mission, the products realized from the soils of this
nation will be utilized to meet the demand. In time,
no more will be produced than will be necessary, and
under the supervision of the commission, waste, price
fluctuation, and consequent gambling should be on the
way to elimination. This commission will not only
plan the amount of goods to be distributed, but will

88 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

consider at the same time, the necessary factors that
are involved in distribution.

When the opposition contends that Capitalism will
work itself out of the present mess just as it has in the
past, it is stating the truth. But the blinding fact, still
exists: they do not know when Capitalism is going to
extricate itself. In the meantime bread-lines will in
crease, and jobs will decrease, until, finally, after much
suffering the wheel will start turning slowly around
again. Once more the high-flung jabs of prosperity
will make everyone dizzy until the circle is completed
into the depression again.

Socialists do not want this constant up and down
existence. A steady, if indeed, a trifle smaller diet in
time of prosperity, is far more commendable than
caviar once a year, and bread and water the other
three hundred sixty-four days.

Third Negative Rebuttal, Sherwood Blasdel
Denison University

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: Mr. Kruse attempted to
show in his argument that since the War Industries
Board pulled us through the war, a similar government
control would pull us through in peace time.

The War Industries Board was created for one pur
pose, and it served to that end: It pulled us through the
war. But looking at it from an economic and peace
time standpoint it is as unsound as the socialistic plans
I referred to in my first speech. Let s see what hap
pened when this Board was inaugurated. Business

CAPITALISM IS UNSOUND 89

was on the tremendous upswing of the business cycle.
Demands for higher wages, in order to deal with the
higher cost of living could be conceded because em
ployers were guaranteed a fixed return on their capital
by the Board, and the demand was urgent and great.
Plants were geared for a vast amount of production,
much of which was uneconomical. It is analogous to
working at top speed on one s nerves before the in
evitable breakdown occurs. But before the post-war
depression came the government had withdrawn from
the field to let business reap what had been sown dur
ing the dangerous inflation. The War Industries
Board merely rode to the top of the wave and stepped
off before it broke.

Its success in winning the war in no way alters its
economic value. In fact it is best that it did step out
when it did because the necessary readjustment would
have merely been postponed and accentuated had the
board directed industries any longer than was neces
sary to win the war. A comparison of United States
with Japan in the post-war period illustrates that gov
ernment control won t bridge over a depression. The
Japanese war industries board remained in control a
couple of years longer than necessary in a vain effort
to stand off the impending breakdown, but it finally
failed and the ensuing conditions were much worse
than ours, where we let the old economic law back to
its freedom as soon as possible.

Mr. Kruse s reference to the rising standard of living
in connection with the War Board is misleading. He

90 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

forgot to mention the pain experienced after the crazy
inflation reached its limit.

Similarly, his indictments against certain capitalists
for corruption do not prove anything. He overlooked
the multiplicity of opportunities for graft in the gov
ernmental system he recommends, as evidenced by the
amount of graft in our present government. I don t
need to recite figures.

I think the Negative s stand is clear. The law of
supply and demand is fundamental and has always
existed and always will no matter what form of eco
nomic organization we have, whether it be socialistic,
feudal, mercantilist^, capitalistic, or what not. Every
system has to take it into account in its organization,
and the system that most conforms to its operation or
that hampers it the least is the most successful. His
tory has shown that of all previous systems our present
one is the best, and I think that you can see that it is
better than Socialism, that is, if you intend to continue
the progress that Capitalism has afforded. To prove
that Capitalism is unsound, a system better in opera
tion, not theory, with which to compare it must be de
scribed, and the Affirmative has failed to do this.

Third Affirmative Rebuttal, Richard Kruse
Denison University

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: The Negative has played
a rather futile part in our debate shuttling back and
forth from the support of Capitalism to the criticism

CAPITALISM IS UNSOUND 91

of Socialism, and proving nothing definitely on either
score.

Mr. Blasdel, last speaker for the Negative, attacked
the Peace Industries Board proposal which we sug
gested. His criticism is that the War Industries
Board abandoned industry at a crucial time and let it
take the terrific post-war slump. Naturally, the Na
tional Planning Board in time of war can not stimulate
new industries; check the production of the old; and
divert the whole production of the nation into war
preparedness without running into a slump when that
war is over. A war is a tremendous emergency which
necessarily unbalances industry. But a Peace Indus
tries Board could and would have no less an authority
than Stuart Chase urging that we use the machinery
evoked by the war, realizing that it is not one hundred
per cent perfect but above all that it will effect a tre
mendous permanent improvement, the integration of
industry.

Mr. Blasdel also whittled away his time with a de
tailed study of supply and demand which he said was
so simple that any child could understand it. Certainly
a thing so obvious should have been precluded from
discussion. But we do not think to contravene this
law. It will function assuredly under Socialism but
not as wastefully and indiscriminately as before.
There is no point to Mr. BlasdeFs talk.

The Negative has been unable to show that Capital
ism as a system is sound. And that was their responsi
bility if they were to win this debate. Their argument
on this point has been totally inadequate.

92 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

They have not suggested any means of remedying
the evils inherent in the capitalistic system. They de
pend upon the capitalists themselves to better condi
tions individually. We have shown that there is no
serious attempt in process to make machinery system
atically lighten toil but only to make it increase profits.

We have shown the terrific inequitable division of
our national income pointing to millions of our workers
compelled to live under the minimum standards of
decent living.

We have suggested the untold suffering, the agony
caused by our eight million unemployed walking the
streets. And we have had the temerity to insist that
something should be done about it quickly.

As Mr. Blasdel pointed out, Capitalism thus far has
been the best economic system judging as well as we
can. But economics are constantly changing and
evolving. When one system no longer satisfies our
needs and demands, we should turn to another.

We have suggested a plan of intelligent Socialism
embodying five parts: 1. Public ownership of land
with title vested in nation, state or city. 2. Public
ownership of all basic industries and natural resources
under like conditions. 3. A vigorous labor party. 4.
State Peace Industries Board. 5. Stabilized price levels
through control of credit and money.

The Negative by their passive, do-nothing stand
have indicated a complete willingness to perpetuate
present conditions. You, Ladies and Gentlemen, can
see that conditions cry for change and readjustment.

This is no time for indecision and vacillation. No

CAPITALISM IS UNSOUND 93

longer can any true American sit idly by and view in
differently the spectacle of increasing unemployment,
dangerous monopoly, over-production, excessive profits,
and the glaring unequal distribution of wealth. This
is the time for action! The exploitation of the masses
must cease!

BIBLIOGRAPHY: CAPITALISM IS UNSOUND

BOOKS

Acquisitive Society, The. R. H. Tarney, London. G. Bell and Son,
Ltd.

America s Way Out. Norman Thomas, Macmillan, 1931.

Applied Economics. Hewitt.

Case For Capitalism, The. Hartley Withers, Published E. P. Button
Co. 681 Fifth Ave., 3ST. Y. 1920.

Economic Problems. Fairchild and Compton. Rev. Ed. Macmillan.

Economic Problems of Modern Life. Patterson and Scholz, Publish
er. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., N. Y. & London. 1931.

Humanity Uprooted. Maurice Hindus.

Living Philosophies. Simon & Schuster, N, Y. 1931. p. 308.

Making Bolsheviks. Samuel N. Harper, Currents of Chicago Press,
Chicago. 1931.

Outline of Economics. Richard T. Ely. 5th Ed. Macmillan.

Social Aspects of Industry. Patterson, McGraw-Hill.

Social Democracy Explained. John Spargo, Harper & Bros. 193L

Socialism For Our Times, Henry Laidler, Vanguard Press. 1929.

Socialisation Vs. Socialism. N. Thomas, R. M, Lovett.

Soviet Challenge To America, The. George S. Counts, The John
Day Co. N. Y.

MAGAZINES AND PAPERS

Atwood, A. W. Saturday Evening Post, pages 202:223, October 26,

1929.
A Ten Year Plan {or America. Stuart Chase, Harper s Magazine,

pages 163:1-10, June 1930.
Bache Review, The. Recent copies.

94 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

Business Cycles: A Tragi-Comedy. Andre Maurois, Reader s Digest,
February 1931.

Can, L. F., Vice Pres. Gen. Motors. Saturday Evening Post, pages
203:225, December 19, 1930.

Capitalism. Encyclopedia Britannica.

Capitalism Has Just Begun. Review of Reviews. May 1931.

Capitalism or Socialism. Q. Howe, New Republic, pages 66:236-7,
April 15, 1931.

Capitalism Vs. Socialism. Chase Economic Bulletin. June 23, 1922.

Capitalism Weighed in the Balance. World Tomorrow. 1929.

Case Against Rationalization, The. Prof. T. Gregory, D.Sc., Fort
nightly Review. October 1931.

Collapse of Organised Labor. Louis Adams, Harper s Magazine.
January 1932.

Collective Capitalism. North American. July 1931.

Economic Law in Business. Richard Whitney From an address de
livered before the Merchants Association of New York. Sep
tember 17, 1931.

Editorial. Harpers weekly. October 10, 1857.

Editorial. New York Times Recent Copies.

Fallacy of Profits, The. Henry Pratt Fairchild, Harper s Magazine.
February 1932.

Fighting Economic Law. Barrens Financial Weekly. January 25,
1932.

Garet Garett. Saturday Evening Post, pages 203:98. March 14,
1931.

Happy Days Will Come Again. Elmer Davis, Harper s Magazine.
October 1931.

How About Socialism? A Franco-British Debate, Liv. Age. 338:-
525-35, June 1930.

Impending Collapse, The. Major Chas. Lacy Hall, North American
Review. June 1930.

Myth of Rugged American Individualism, The. Chas. A. Beard,
Harper s Magazine. December 1931.

National City Bank Bulletin. Recent Copies.

Nation Editorial. August 26, 1931. Pages 133:198.

New Republic. Benjamin M. Anderson, Jr. July 6, 1927. Pages 164.

No More Plans. L. M. Graves, Forum. November 1931.

Our Vanishing Economic Freedom. Merle Thorpe Editorials, Satur
day Evening Post. December 5, 1931.

CAPITALISM IS UNSOUND 95

Review of Reviews. E. R. A. Seligman. Pages 83:161. June 1931.
Socialists as Conservatives. New Republic, pages 68:4-5. August 19,

1931.

Survey. Sumner Slichter. Pages 62:117. April 1, 1929.
Tragic Eras of American Business. Wm. B. Craig, Nations Business.

January 1932.
Types of Social Radicalism. Chase Economic Bulletin. June 21,

1927.
What A 10% Rail Cut Means. Barrens Financial Weekly. February

8, 1932.
We Can t Legislate Prosperity. Ralph Borsoda, Reader s Digest.

January 1932.
Who Bears The Business Risks? Wm. M. Leiserson. May 1931.

Reader s Digest.
Why Stalin Shifted. J. Parmell Mandeville, Living Age. September

1931.

AMERICA NEEDS A STRONGER
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

A Trans-Continental Radio Debate
Between Harvard and Stanford Universities

AMERICA NEEDS A STRONGER
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

HARVARD UNIVERSITY AFFIRMATIVE VS.
STANFORD UNIVERSITY NEGATIVE

The first trans-continental radio debate in the history of American
college debating was held November 27, 1931, over stations WNAC,
Boston, Massachusetts, and KFRC, San Francisco, California, between
speakers representing Harvard and Stanford universities, and the
chairman, Mr. Francis Bellamy, spoke from WABC in New York
City. The debate was broadcast over the entire Columbia Broad
casting network. About two hundred letters were sent in after the
debate by interested listeners.

The subject was stated: Resolved, that America needs a stronger
central government. The Harvard team was coached by Edward M.
Howe and J. Mack Swigert, both Harvard graduates, and the Stan
ford debaters by J. G. Emerson, of the Stanford department of
Speech. The debate was contributed to this volume by the coaches.

The debate is an attempt to weigh politically the urgent and
pressing economic and social questions discussed in other debates in
this volume, and is a most interesting cap-sheaf for the separate
discussions of various problems.

First Affirmative, Jerrold EL Ruskin
Harvard University

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: One hundred and forty
years ago when our Federal government was estab
lished it took a rumbling stage-coach three days and a
half to come to Boston from the little town of

99

100 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

Northampton. Wednesday the Leland Stanford foot
ball team arrived in Boston after three days enroute
from California. Tomorrow they play Dartmouth in
the Harvard Stadium. Just an hour ago some spec
tators left California by airplane for a twenty-four
hour journey to Boston to witness the game.

But at this moment distance is being annihilated
even more dramatically. Within a split second after
these words are uttered our friends in California will
hear them distinctly. So will you people in New
Orleans, Denver, and Chicago. In fact, for practical
purposes, the whole nation is gathered together in this
room!

And so, we are doubly glad to participate in this
broadcast first, because our opponents represent a
great West Coast University; second, because the
fact that such a broadcast is possible illustrates graphi
cally that for governmental and economic purposes our
vast American continent has shrunk during the past
one hundred years until in communication and trans
portation hours it is no larger than the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts, alone, in 1789.

No longer are we thirteen independent colonies nor
forty-eight separate states but we are one nation.
Our friends in California wear the same clothes, eat
the same foods, read the same literature, see the same
movies, and listen to the same broadcasts as we. Eco
nomically, socially, culturally, we are one but politi
cally we are subject to forty-nine contradictory gov
ernments! As a result of this disorder, our political
institutions are powerless to cope with the multitude

A STRONGER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT 101

of problems which fusion has created. There is but
one remedy. We must strengthen our central govern
ment. By this we do not mean that our state govern
ments should be abolished or so restricted as to be use
less. They should continue to administer problems of
purely intra-state scope. But the Federal government
should be given full power to deal with all problems
national in importance.

It is surprising how many people do not realize the
muddled state of our nation s affairs. Our central gov
ernment stands helpless before a myriad of problems,
powerless to grapple successfully with any one. Many
of these are economic, and foremost is, of course, this
depression with its accompanying misery and hardship
to countless thousands. Although it cannot be said
that government weakness brought about the depres
sion, certainly, it was an important contributing cause.
It has been three years, now, since the various indus
tries started on their long downhill slide and to the
present day none of them with the possible exception
of the morticians, has shown any encouraging signs of
recovery. Here, certainly, the states have shown them
selves pitifully weak, not only in preventing the situa
tion from arising but in remedying the damage that
has been done. The reason is that the depression arose
from causes, national, even international in their scope
yet the Federal government lacked the power to cope
with the situation in its infancy. Mr. Hoffmann will
show you later how a strengthened Federal government
could alleviate the wants of the people suffering at
present, and by planning for industry and strengthen-

102 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

ing our banking system could do much to prevent a
similar depression from ever again afflicting the na
tion.

Of major economic importance is the regulation of
interstate transmission of electric power. Under exist
ing laws the various state public service commissions
do not have the authority to regulate a company gen
erating power in one state and selling it to a retail dis
tributor in another. The Federal government now has
no machinery for such regulation. This condition al
lows many power interests to use the holding company
device to evade regulation and to victimize the public.
This is clearly wrong. The one obvious remedy is a
Federal government empowered to deal with the
problem.

Another difficulty which the states have shown a
complete incapacity to meet, is the present alarming
condition of the railroads, owing to the unfair and un
regulated competition by trucking agencies and bus
lines which, without a shred of supervision, use roads
built at huge expense by public taxes. The railroads
are now suffering from the greatest decline of business
they have ever been forced to undergo. Certainly,
when the ownership of the railroads is distributed
among millions of people, and railways normally em
ploy about 1,750,000 persons, of whom at least 500,000
are now unemployed, it seems only fair to regulate
these new competing agencies as we have regulated
the railroads, themselves. This the states have proved
unable to do and the matter now remains for a stronger
Federal government to adjust.

A STRONGER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT 103

The next class of national evils is governmental or
legal and points to the necessity for uniformity in laws
affecting the daily lives of citizens of the whole country.
The most flagrant is the current conflict in marriage
and divorce laws which confuses the entire domestic
system of the nation. With certain Western states
bidding for the lucrative divorce trade, with other
states in the East reluctant to grant divorce and with
South Carolina denying any at all, a confusion arises
which is without excuse. At the same time, one may be
a wife in South Carolina and a grass widow in Nevada.
A Federal statute would eradicate this unhappy condi
tion.

This conflict of laws touches more than marital
affairs. In the matter of social legislation, such as
workman s compensation, child labor, female labor,
maximum hours and minimum wage laws, it places
progressive communities at an economic disadvantage
in competing with less conscientious ones. For example,
one of the chief reasons for the removal of the textile
industry from the Northern states to the South is be
cause Southern states do not have the same high
standards for protecting the worker. Federal statutes
would equalize the shameful differences.

Another conflict touches your pocketbook. There is
no reason why states like California and Florida should
be allowed to hold out the absence of income and in
heritance taxes as bait to lure people of means from
other states. A strengthened Federal government
could effect a standardization that would be fair to all.

In the state speed and traffic laws we find still an-

104 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

other source of confusion. A citizen may travel at an
unlimited speed in one state and a few minutes later,
at a snaiPs pace in another. All these conflicts are
unnecessary and undesirable. Mr. Hoffmann will show
you how a stronger Federal government can bring or
der out of the existing chaos.

Finally, let us turn to the social evils which are un
dermining American civilization. At the present time
the educational systems of the several states are in
what one writer calls "a condition of variegated con
fusion/ 7 Children educated in some sections of the
country are almost unfit to compete with children who
have received their training in states where standards
are high. The welfare of the nation depends upon
maintaining standard minimum requirements. This
can be done only by Federal action.

In line with the need for standard minimum require
ments in the field of education is an even greater need
for minimum requirements for entrance to the profes
sions. The differences among the states in this respect
are outstanding. The lawyers as a class admit it and
condemn it. As for medicine let me give you an illus
tration. Just recently a case came before the public
in which a purported physician operating a goat-gland
hospital in Kansas had secured his degree from a Mis
souri diploma mill; had gone to Arkansas and secured
a license to practice there. On a reciprocity arrange
ment he got a Kansas license. In the same way he se
cured a Texas license. When his Kansas license was
revoked he moved to Texas. That this condition is a
national menace is obvious. The American Medical

A STRONGER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT 105

Association deplores it but is helpless. Such evils can
be remedied by the establishment of Federal require
ments for admission to the professions.

I have purposely reserved until the last the much-
talked-of and little done-about crime wave which men
aces the entire country. Of sinister magnitude is
crime crime no longer on a local scale, but national in
its scope. Because of the woeful inability of the in
dividual states to cope with the situation, gangsters
have extended their organized efforts over the whole
country until crime now costs us the shameful amount
of seventeen million dollars a year! Twelve thousand
murders extortionate racketeering unchecked drug
and liquor traffic all reflect a reign of terror which
only a strong federal government can stop. The states
are helpless to cope with criminals who jump from
Illinois, to Indiana, to Michigan, to Canada in the
twinkling of an eye. Imagine seven thousand federal
officers trying to check rum-running alone! We need
a stronger Federal police force; we need a Federal act
to restrict the sale of firearms through the mails; we
need unhampered extradition of criminals; we need
sufficient courts and prisons to handle adequately the
situation.

The states cannot handle these evils. The Federal
government must! The only hope for the future lies
in this direction. If we are ever to come out of the
haze of a disorganized, depressed, burdened, and con
fused era of government into the clarity of enlightened
and prosperous times, we must call the Federal govern-

106 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

ment, our one hope, to our aid. How this can be done
Mr. Hoffmann will soon tell you.

First Negative, Howard Conn
Stanford University

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: The Stanford Cardinal
greets the Harvard Crimson! We are happy to have
the privilege of debating the gentlemen from America s
oldest institution of learning by the means so gra
ciously placed at our disposal by the Columbia Net
work. Through the use of the radio, the Golden Gate
may now salute Plymouth Rock.

And this afternoon we are discussing whether this
unification by science of the physical territory of the
United States should be met by a corresponding cen
tralization in the structural form of its government.
When the Negative says that the United States should
not have a stronger central government, we are not
arguing against an increase in the efficiency with which
that government performs its present tasks, for every
one wants it to exercise properly the powers that be
long to it. But the question is, what are those powers?
And we of the Negative are speaking against an expan
sion in the powers delegated to it. This distinction is
clearly indicated by the recent report of the National
Commission on Education, which, while recommending
the establishment of a Department of Education that
would tend to make the administration of education
more efficient within limited spheres, nevertheless at
the same time made it quite clear that that Depart-

A STRONGER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT 107

ment was to have fewer powers, as against those of the
states, than the present variously functioning bureaus
within the cabinet departments. We are opposed to a
stronger central government which takes away powers
now exercised by the states.

The Constitution of the United States stands as a
monument to the principle that in so far as possible the
people are to retain the right to local self-government.
The dual or federal system established in this nation
which makes for "an indestructible Union, composed
of indestructible States/ provides that only in limited
spheres is the national government to have complete
sovereignty, but that in most cases the states are to
legislate for themselves. This principle is still the
theory on which our government rests, but in recent
years there has been a tendency toward centralization
of power which threatens in practice that to which we
yet adhere in theory. And for the modern scientific
spirit, which so ruinously spurns authority, it is not
enough that the tradition of one hundred fifty years be
behind local self-government; it is not enough that it
has proved successful in the past; it is not enough that
James Bryce with countless others should have said of
this principle, that "nothing has contributed more to
give strength and flexibility to the government of the
United States." No; today we are challenged to
prove that this principle of local self-government is
pragmatically desirable, that in actual practice it is yet
a worthy foundation for our nation. In this proof
we are not concerned with the efficacy of centralization

108 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

in individual instances, but with the sum total of these
cases on our national life.

The first evil of centralization is that it attempts to
enforce a standard administration over a vast domain
in which interests and problems are not standardized.
Our nation is so large that we find within its borders
differences in economic development among sections,
differences in economic activity, differences in racial
problems and religious points of view. Problems are
not everywhere the same, and cannot be handled uni
formly. Our state boundaries may be artificial, but
they more nearly represent sectional interests than
would a centralized bureaucracy at Washington.

But our opponents may tell us that scientific ad
vances have unified our nation so that state lines must
be erased. Now, we may speak of all problems being
national problems today, and in a sense they are.
Marriage, prohibition, divorce, education, roads, are
national in the sense that people in all sections have
to deal with them. But they are not national in the
sense that all sections can solve the problems in the
same fashion. The price of gasoline is a national prob
lem to the extent that everyone has to buy gasoline,
but it is not national in the sense that Washington
should establish a uniform price for it throughout the
country. There are local relationships involved in
these questions which must be given local solution.
Of course, there are some problems that are purely
national in scope, such as Foreign Affairs, National
Currency, what to do about the Philippines, the
Weather, and Jimmy Walker.

A STRONGER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT 109

If we are told that a centralized government would
take into consideration sectional problems, then it is
not a real standardization at all, but is only a duplica
tion of the work of local officers. Either federal con
trol takes into account local problems, and hence is
unnecessary, or else it overlooks territorial differences
and thus is undesirable. No policy can combine these
two alternatives in a program whose advantages offset
the evils of each.

Not only is standardization impossible in many in
stances, but it is undesirable in others. Such reforms
as the direct primary, initiative and recall, woman suf
frage, have come from state experimentation. The
initial advances of individual states have in such mat
ters shown the efficacy of various reforms which the
national government could never have initiated as a
whole. It is all well and good to say that a centralized
government would raise the standard throughout the
nation, but it must be remembered that certain stand
ards would never have been recognized in the first
place had it not been for state governments experi
menting along new lines Only by a non-uniformity of
rule in certain matters can we discover those features
of government which are deserving of uniform accept
ance.

Federal enforcement has taken no more insidious
form than the policy of Federal Grants-in-Aid, by
which the national government matches dollar for dol
lar state appropriations in certain matters, but always
on the condition that the national government be given
the control of all such expenditures. States are thus

110 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

bribed to surrender the right of local self-government,
and Washington gains the whip hand. The result is
an undue standardization and a habit of running to
Uncle Sam with the belief that what we get from him
costs nothing.

The greatest evil of centralization, and one whose
significance we are beginning to realize as a result of
the centralization that has taken place in the last
quarter century, is that such a program tends to make
impotent and helpless local agencies in the administra
tion of justice. Local courts and local officers have
lost their independence and hence the esteem neces
sary to make themselves effective. The psychological
attitude has been created which makes people look to
Washington for everything. This is exemplified by the
case of Chicago which had to turn to the federal govern
ment for the conviction of a man whose hands were red
with the blood of fellow citizens. Prohibition affords
another example of this effect. Local officers play al
most no part in the enforcement of it, but leave the
problem to federal agents with the dual result that the
latter cannot enforce prohibition successfully, and the
former lose the respect which makes them effective in
other cases. It is not a question of whether you believe
in liquor, it was not a question of whether you believed
in child labor, but whether the best administration of
justice is to be achieved by the federal government
attempting to do what must in the last analysis depend
on the attitude of local units. And bear in mind that
the increased impotence of local units is a result and
not a cause of the increased powers of the federal gov-

A STRONGER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT 111

eminent. Chicago convicted its own criminals until
the last few years. Prohibition was being better en
forced in the states that had adopted it before the
Eighteenth Amendment was passed.

Speaking of Federal encroachments, Senator King
of Utah made this statement in 1921: "There was a
time when the states possessed that pride which would
have led them to resist these attempts to influence
their local affairs." Senator King thus states clearly
our duty. The founders of our nation would have
resented the encroachment on local self-government,
for that principle is the one on which they established
our federal system. We today, if we be wise, will like
wise resent this encroachment, for it sounds the death
knell of that governmental success of which Americans
have been proud for over one hundred fifty years. It
means an attempt to standardize the administration of
a nation whose interests are not standardized, and the
resulting impotence of all local units to function with
any degree of effectiveness. May ours be the courage
to say that America has reached the point in its cen
tralization of power where the evils of that centraliza
tion are beginning to outweigh the benefits thereof.

Second Affirmative, Malcolm Arthur Hoffmann
Harvard University

MR. CHAIRMAN, FRIENDS: If anything, Mr. Ruskin
has been too modest in his picture of the evils besetting
the nation today. But because you know too well how
wide-spread and deep-rooted they are, it is unnecessary

112 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

for us to emphasize them further. Rather, it is more
important to point out a number of ways in which the
federal government could solve these pressing problems
by preventing some of the evils from arising, and by
alleviating the damage done by others.

We favor strengthening the federal government
either by Congress assuming more power under the
provisions in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, or
by amendment. We are not here to urge upsetting the
state governments. We seek unification of govern
mental power in all matters of national importance,
with such fixation of responsibility as to allow us to
put our finger upon the agency which fails to function.
In this way we are eliminating any undesirability of
bureaucracy about which Mr. Conn is troubled.

Accordingly, we offer for your consideration certain
suggestions as to what might well be done to strengthen
our central government, so as to enable it to meet the
needs of the hour. These suggestions are not final.
They are but guides as to what ought to be done. If
any of you has a more suitable plan to give to the
federal government sufficient power to deal with to
day s problems, we are heartily in favor of it. But the
suggestions we offer are calculated to meet directly the
specific difficulties with which both our state and fed
eral governments have been unable to cope.

Let us consider first the matter which most concerns
everyone of us this depression. When you see the
cold figures of seven million unemployed, one and a
quarter million in want and hunger, ten thousand banks
closed, you feel the need of a tool large enough to grap-

A STRONGER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT 113

pie with such huge calamities. A National Economic
Council with powers of supervision over all large in
dustries will be such a tool, as well as a preventive of
perennial business depression. We do not propose
that the federal government place itself in business to
compete with its citizens. We do mean, however, that
all corporations engaged in interstate commerce, this
includes most of big business, be chartered by the fed
eral government, with their powers definitely restricted
to the field of business in which they engage. We
mean further that essential or key industries be re
quired to operate under supervision of the National
Economic Council, which should be established to
work in close harmony with the Federal Reserve Board
and the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and
Labor.

From the national point of view all enterprise would
fall into three classes: First, government work; second,
truly competitive work; third, privately-owned but
publicly-controlled work. I shall deal with each in
turn.

Government work should ordinarily be kept at a
minimum, with its costs met out of taxation. The
National Economic Council could make long time plans
for development of public works, to be done in times
of slack business, thus effecting savings for the tax
payers, and providing employment for those who would
otherwise be without work. Back in 1923, Secretary
of Commerce Herbert Hoover, as chairman of Presi
dent Harding s conference on unemployment submitted
this long time planning as one of the ways to prevent

114 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

and alleviate suffering and want. If it had been done
on a larger scale two years ago, today s situation would
be less grievous.

The class of truly competitive work includes all in
dustry not basic. With this, the National Economic
Council need have little to do.

The privately-owned but publicly-controlled field
will include basic and key industries, in which un
controlled competition is disastrous to our economic
structure. Here, the National Economic Council will
supervise minimum standards for quality and service;
prices and rates; limits of profits; wage scales and
conditions of employment. The Council would also
pass upon the advisability of expansion into new fields
and the issuance of securities.

It is clear, too, that the Federal Reserve Board needs
greater powers than it has at present. Indeed, the
creation by President Hoover of a National Credit Pool
is conclusive proof that if the Federal Reserve Board
is to uphold the splendid improvement its creation
brought about in our monetary and financial system,
it must be given greater authority.

Mr. Ruskin did not emphasize enough the need for
regulation of interstate traffic in electric power. At
least fifteen per cent of all power sold is interstate
commerce. Under existing laws the states cannot regu
late this fifteen per cent. We must set up a new and
potent federal power commission to do for the con
sumers of electricity what the Interstate Commerce
did for the shippers thirty years ago.

The railroads are vital necessities to our economic

A STRONGER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT 115

and social structures. To allow them to be destroyed
by unregulated and unfair competition of trucks and
busses is the height of folly. The Interstate Commerce
Commission should be given power to regulate truck
and bus activities, just as it does the railroads.

Our National Economic Council, then, with the as
sistance of the federal departments of Agriculture,
Commerce and Labor, and working in close harmony
with a strengthened Federal Reserve Board, a more
authoritative Interstate Commerce Commission and a
new and potent federal power commission, would be
able to provide the necessary equalization, to keep
down ruthless competition, speculation, and unwar
ranted expansion, that inevitably lead to crises, panics,
and depressions, the worst of which we see today.

Let us turn now to the need for uniformity in laws
which affect the daily life of every citizen in the land.
As Mr. Ruskin told you, Nevada and Arkansas com
pete for lucrative divorce business; New York allows
divorce upon proof of infidelity; and South Carolina
grants it not at all. As a result, a couple may be mar
ried in one state and not in another their children
legitimate in State A and not in State B. The remedy
for this is a federal statute prescribing uniform condi
tions of marriage and divorce.

In the field of social legislation, it is a national dis
grace that a state which protects its workers against
industrial accident; its women and children against un
conscionable exploitation by greedy employers; should
be penalized because a sister state is heartless enough
to refuse to do the same thing. A uniform federal stat-

116 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

ute will cure this. Exactly the same thing may be
said about uniform income and inheritance tax laws.
A federal statute providing such uniformity will pre
vent California and Florida from setting themselves
up as havens of refuge for tax-dodgers. The need for
uniform speed and traffic laws is equally clear. The
four matters we have indicated are certainly of na
tional importance, national scope, national confusion,
and hence require a remedy extensive enough to apply
everywhere in the nation.

The need of a Federal Department of Education has
been repeatedly emphasized by associations of educa
tors. This department would set up standard mini
mum requirements for teachers, courses of instruction,
and physical equipment. It is not too much to ask for
a high minimum for every child in the country.

For admission to the professions, the American Bar
Association, the American Medical Association, and the
National Institute of Accountants each has urged the
establishment of uniform national requirements, but
the states have been very slow to provide these mini
mum standards. The quick, the sure means, is federal
supervision.

In dealing with the national crime problem, let me
give you the particular facts about the case Mr. Conn
mentioned. For twelve years Al Capone operated in
and around Chicago, engaging in enterprises of which
everyone is aware. Did the state of Illinois? Did
Cook County? Did Chicago? ever try him for murder,
racketeering, white slavery, operating a gambling
house, dealing in narcotics, bribery of public officials,

A STRONGER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT 117

or any other major crime? If trial was ever started,
was it carried to a successful close? You know the
answer as well as I. Al Capone was finally tried before
a federal judge, by a federal jury, with a federal prose
cutor, and was convicted. Convicted of what? Of
violation of the income tax laws the only federal
offense for which evidence could be found. Now, give
your federal government power enough, means enough,
machinery enough, and it can and will stamp out the
national crime industry.

The specific needs of the federal government for
this job are: first, statutes making murder and the
sale of firearms by mail federal offenses; second, the
establishment of a federal police force to investigate,
to detect, to run down and arrest national criminals;
third, the necessary number of federal criminal courts
to try such cases; fourth, more federal prisons to con
fine the felons caught and convicted. True, these
measures would cost some money. But national crime
costs a lot of money thirteen billions a year the
Wickersham Commission said and in spending our
money in one way, we save a great deal more in an
other.

Briefly, I have sketched the ways in which the fed
eral government can and must be strengthened. What
I have said is bold, but is founded upon fact. The
men who drew up the Constitution and established our
central government were bold. They left the document
elastic enough to provide for change, whenever, wher
ever, change was desirable. It is in keeping with our
national tradition for us to be as bold as they, for us

118 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

to look directly at the facts, to acknowledge the evils
when they exist, and to do what must be done to cor
rect them. The one remedy is to strengthen the Fed
eral Government!

Second Negative, John Huneke
Stanford University

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: My colleague, Mr. Conn,
has pointed out that in our vast country of highly di
versified interests, the state constitutes the only logical
machinery that can meet, satisfactorily, the problems
of the local units; and that pursuit of a policy of cen
tralization would bring about a further deterioration
of the state with resulting dissatisfaction and ineffi
ciency in local areas. I shall attempt to prove that to
strengthen further the central government would be
to overload an already overburdened organization and
that the only possible result would be the formation
of a bureaucracy under which the government could
not function to the best interests of the whole nation.
Let me repeat our stand: by "strengthening the cen
tral government" we do not mean the mere increasing
of efficiency in exercising present power but, rather,
the adding of entirely new powers.

From the time of its first organization our central
government has become more and more powerful, until
today we have progressed so far in the tendency to
look to Washington for a solution of our problems that
we are hampering the actual functioning of our central
government. The Fifteenth, Eighteenth, and Nine-

A STRONGER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT 119

teenth Amendments to the Constitution, which concern
purely local matters, exemplify this fact. The Fifteenth
Amendment, having to do with negro suffrage, has been
nullified by the states which objected to it; and today
the negro does not vote in these sections. The Eight
eenth, or prohibition amendment, is still an experi
ment. The lack of local cooperation has made its
enforcement often impossible. The Nineteenth Amend
ment, concerning woman suffrage, has functioned only
because there has been no serious local objection to it.
There is the proposed Child Labor Amendment which
is also primarily a local matter. But these constitute
only a small part of the whole overloading process.
We have enlarged and stretched the other constitu
tional powers to cover almost any desired action either
national or local. The taxing and money powers have
been used to form national banks and federal reserve
systems; the commerce clause has brought about the
regulation of telephones and telegraphs, power and
pipe lines, airplane travel and broadcasting stations;
the post office and post roads power has been enlarged
to include airports, parcel post, savings banks and a
farm, loan board. All of these various factors have
heaped on our government numerous duties that are
overwhelming. One has only to look at Congress
struggling along in its slow and cumbersome fashion,
its sessions choked with twenty to thirty thousand bills,
its machinery complicated by committees and sub
committees, and its work thwarted by the evils of pork-
barrel legislation and log-rolling, to imagine the chaos
that would result" under greater centralization.

120 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

Likewise our Chief Executive is overburdened with
constantly increasing duties. The steady growth of
the cabinet in size and detail has added to his burden
in that he is the controlling and regulating factor be
hind it. In addition to the ten departments, each with
numerous subdivisions and bureaus, there are twenty-
five independent executive agencies such as the Inter
state Commerce Commission, the Federal Farm Board,
and the Federal Radio Commission, with the President
as their appointing head. American interest in inter
national affairs has grown tremendously in the last
twenty years. Great problems of foreign policy have
confronted us at every turn, taxing our every resource
of intellect, time and machinery. Europe has suddenly
become our next-door neighbor; Russia demands recog
nition; Manchuria, the Philippines, Latin America
all are present problems involving us as never before
and placing an incalculable burden upon our federal
executive chiefs. The rapid increase in all of these
functions has made the task of the President one re
quiring almost superhuman powers of intellect and
physical constitution. To further centralize power in
Washington would bring us face to face with actual
deterioration in the prestige and efficiency of the presi
dential office.

Our federal judiciary has long been held in the
highest respect because of its accomplishments; but
even that citadel of judiciary efficiency is beginning to
show the effects of overloading. The year after the
passage of the Eighteenth Amendment the cases in
creased tenfold and have since continued to pile up.

A STRONGER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT 121

Our Supreme Court has become so swamped with busi
ness that It has had to render oral decisions on the
Eighteenth Amendment. The pressure all along the
line has reduced the efficiency of the federal adminis
tration of justice. Further centralization is bound to
increase this evil and bring this all-important instru
ment of justice into disrepute.

From the foregoing it is apparent that at present
our ship of state is already overloaded. The only re
lief, the only possible alternative would be the further
development of bureaucracy. We are advancing along
these lines at the present time, and political scientists
are pointing out that our government no longer consists
of only three departments, the executive, the legislative
and the judicial, but that there has been added a
fourth, the administrative. This administrative de
partment is made up of numerous bureaus and com
missions including well over one hundred under cabinet
offices alone. We are not denouncing the accomplish
ments of some of these boards but we wish to point out
the danger of constantly increasing this structure with
local duties such as those just mentioned. This ad
ministrative bureaucracy would gradually be built up
under increased centralization until it would over
shadow our constitutional forms in central government.
It would be a separate structure; removed from the
people by distance, lack of direct responsibility, and
the mazes of red-tape. Its leaders would be appointed
by Congress or by the President. Its membership
would be filled by the Civil Service and it would become

122 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

a mere machine not responsive to the people and yet
guiding their destinies.

As Mr. Conn pointed out, this central bureau could
not meet local needs and would not react to local prob
lems. How can the various bureaus of education know
and understand all the local needs in our country when
even the state boards today are under criticism for
being out of touch with the situation in the individual
counties? This structure would gradually expand, for
it is so easy to turn over vexing matters to another
bureau. Discontent would follow. Public opinion
must be back of a law for that law to become effective,
and such opinion, while it might be a majority in the
local area, would become merely a minority in the
nation with the result that any following law would
be nullified in the dissatisfied areas. This, as was
pointed out, has already happened in the cases of the
Fifteenth and Eighteenth Amendments. Our whole
lives would be governed by this distant machine-like
bureaucracy. A few years ago Mr. Bentley W. War
ren, a political scientist and lawyer, pointed out the
possibilities of this tendency apparent even then. He
said, "Before the citizen of a state can be born, he and
his prospective mother are subject to rules and regula
tions established by a federal bureau,. After birth, the
extent and method of his education will, under the pro
posed Sterling-Towner bill, be fixed by a federal de
partment of education. However needy his parents
may be, or however great his own ambition to earn
something, the Child Labor Amendment will enable
Congress entirely to prohibit his labor until he is

A STRONGER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT 123

eighteen years old. On reaching manhood, his right
to marry, and in the event of an unfortunate marriage,
his right to divorce may be regulated by the federal
government. That bureaucratic and to him remote
government already has decided which of his bever
ages constitute intoxicating liquors and shall be denied
him. By the Income Tax Amendment a blank check
upon his earnings during life has been given Congress
which also does not hesitate, after his death and burial,
even to reach out through the Estate Tax to deprive his
widow and offspring of what he may have intended to
leave them for their support."

Today we have numerous commissions created by
Congress, appropriated for, and then left entirely to
their own devices, as witness the Commission for the
reception of Admiral Byrd, and the Commission work
ing on insignia designs for the wings of government
planes. Thus would graft and corruption be en
couraged and the man in the street would be powerless
to object. Like a giant nautilus the structure of our
federal government is constantly enlarging. If we
hasten this tendency by adding still further powers we
shall hasten the development of a giant bureaucracy
as the only possible substitute.

Let me briefly review the negative case. Mr. Conn
has pointed out that the policy of centralization tends
unduly to destroy state prerogative and efficiency, by
direct transfer of power from state to national govern
ment; by the ignoring of local differences; and by
causing the people to look to Washington as a sort of
benevolent Santa Claus. I have attempted to show

124 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

that we have already overloaded our central govern
ment to the breaking point and that a furtherance of
this policy would bring chaos and a dangerous, ineffi
cient bureaucracy. In closing let us bear in mind that
there comes a time in any tendency when the evils
begin to outweigh the benefits thereof. The English
Empire, for example, has found it desirable to adopt a
policy the exact opposite of centralization. Local dif
ferences, she has found, make it expedient to turn al
most all matters over to dominion control. While
America is not as far-flung territorially as Great
Britain, her domain is nevertheless very great and her
interests, even her races, are very heterogeneous. It
is our contention that for the reasons advanced, we
have come to the point in our own tendency toward
centralization where the evils are beginning unduly to
outweigh the benefits.

Negative Rebuttal, Howard Conn
Stanford University

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: The Affirmative has made
much of the need for federal alleviation of the eco
nomic depression. But the causes of our depression
are many, and we cannot say that a centralized gov
ernment would have avoided it. We find that it is
world-wide, and that countries in Europe such as
France and Italy have suffered more than we, and they
have centralized governments. So the causes of the
depression are much deeper than the form of govern
ment.

A STRONGER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT 125

The Affirmative has spoken of the need for federal
action in Interstate Commerce and Railroads. But
these problems are ones in which activity crosses state
barriers and a certain amount of uniformity is essen
tial. They are inter-state problems in the first place,
and the federal government must act on them. But
the federal encroachment to which we are objecting is
that which attempts to surrender purely local prob
lems to government solution. Matters of divorce and
education do not extend beyond local areas in the same
sense that interstate commerce does. The federal
government should arbitrate between states, but it
must not seek to encroach upon problems that are
confined to local areas. Hence the uniform regula
tions cited by the Affirmative are of a different nature
from those to which we are objecting.

The educational system has been stressed this after
noon. In my constructive speech I spoke of the recent
report of the National Commission on Education which
advocated that the national power over the states be
decreased. Centralization in education is detrimental
because it so standardizes the work of the teachers that
their personalities and initiative become submerged.
Supervision of teaching becomes overburdened and
impersonalized. With greater centralization, we would
have supervisors supervising the supervisors. Educa
tion would become a mass machine rather than a mat
ter of character building and personal instruction.
Anyone familiar with college students today knows
how deficient they are in fundamentals owing to the

126 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

standardization we now have. Certainly we do not
want this standardization to continue.

The breakdown of local enforcement in Chicago has
been cited as a reason for centralization. But we
maintain that that breakdown is a result of centrali
zation. Federal officers have taken so much power in
the past few years that people have lost respect for
local officers. If centralization continues, we may ex
pect a continued deterioration of local units.

The Negative is not arguing against centralization in
specific instances, but against those instances in the
aggregate. America has reached that point in her cen
tralization program where the evils of such are begin
ning to outweigh its benefits. An increase in federal
power means a weakening of state governments, for
they will then turn to a far-removed bureaucracy at
Washington for the solution of local problems. Such a
program will likewise weaken the federal government,
for it will become overburdened with so many tasks
that it will not be able to perform properly the duties
that belong to it as a national government. Be
cause centralization would thus weaken rather than
strengthen our national life, we believe that the United
States should not have a stronger central government.

Affirmative Rebuttal, Jerrold H. Ruskin
Harvard University

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: From the speech of our
friend, Mr. Conn, it would seem that the Negative feels
that we are advocating the removal of all powers from

A STRONGER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT 127

the local state governments. He tells us that the
"Constitutional Fathers" would have deplored this
action deeply. No more would they, than we! It
is the firm belief of the Affirmative that the local
authorities are best fitted to administrate local affairs.
However, let us remind you that the makers of the
Constitution saw that with the inevitable changes in
American civilization the powers of the federal gov
ernment would have to be increased to handle the new
problems which must arise, which were national in
scope. It was for this reason that they, in their wis
dom, provided two definite means of revising the Con
stitution.

We are very glad that Mr. Conn reminded us that
the recent inquiry asked for Federal Supervision of
Education. Certainly no more proof should be neces
sary to show the need of Federal control in this field.

May we also extend our thanks to Mr, Conn for re
minding us that railroads and interstate transmission
of power are federal problems. It is on precisely these
grounds that we ask for stronger federal supervision
in these fields.

Mr. Huneke has told us that in our Southern states
the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution has been
absolutely nullified so that the negro is prevented from
casting his ballot. Yes, sad to relate, that is exactly
the plight of the black man. And it is for precisely
this reason that we plead for a stronger federal gov
ernment. There is no reason on earth why every
literate Negro in the country should not vote. If at the
present time certain states are forbidding citizens this

128 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

sacred privilege we claim that there should be a special
arm of the federal government to enforce the provisions
of the Constitution of the United States so that every
qualified Negro in the nation shall be enabled to vote.

Mr. Huneke has made much of the fact that if fur
ther centralization is effected the federal government
will be made to carry an impossible burden whereas,
under the present conditions, it, particularly in the
Department of Justice, is overworked. It might be
relevant at this time to note that the Supreme Court
of the United States was recently forced to adjourn
because of a lack of judicial business. However, it is
just because certain federal agencies are overworked
at the present time that we ask that they be made
stronger so as to enable them to bear their burdens
efficiently.

Mr. Huneke has also warned us of the great dan
gers of bureaucracy. We believe there is more bu
reaucracy in some of our state governments than
Washington ever dreamed of. Our federal govern
ment has the finest civil service in the country. Every
department is headed by competent men. Every
Bureau is in response to a widespread public demand.
Bureaucracy is a frightful word but like the windmills
of Don Quixote, perfectly harmless!

Mr. Conn has told us that all of the sections of the
country cannot solve the problem of marriage and
divorce in the same manner. The obvious question
which enters our minds is, "Why not?" Do not these
fundamental laws of nature affect every human being
in the same manner? Why should the existing differ-

A STRONGER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT 129

ent standards cause so great a confusion as to allow
a child to be perfectly legitimate in one state, and right
across the border in another to be misbegotten?

The debate is drawing to a close. The issues have
shaped themselves definitely. In my first speech I
presented for your consideration a number of national
evils. The ones I emphasized most were: the depres
sion, with its accompanying unemployment and want;
the lack of regulation of electric power companies do
ing an interstate business; the condition of the rail
roads; the unsatisfactory and annoying result of lack
of uniform laws for marriage and divorce, for protec
tion of industrial workers, for income and inheritance
taxes; the embarrassing result of lack of uniform stand
ards for admission to the professions; and finally I
stressed that well-known national affliction, Crime
with its horrible cost in lives and money. These evils
are national they are intense. Mr. Hoffmann has
pointed out to you specific ways in which the Federal
government could be strengthened to meet the needs
of our people. For depression he suggested a National
Economic Council, to work with a federal reserve
board, the Interstate Commerce Commission and a new
federal power commission. For the confusion and con
flicts caused by the lack of uniformity in the law in
domestic relations, in taxes, in social legislation, he
proposed a federal statute to be the uniform law in
each instance. For crime, we both stressed the need
of a federal police force, more federal courts, more
federal prisons.

It is important to point out to you that it is not

130 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

necessary that you approve the suggestions we have
given for strengthening the federal government. It is
quite sufficient if you agree with us that the evils we
cited are national in scope, that the states are not meet
ing them satisfactorily, and that the logical thing to do
is to empower our central government to meet the
needs of its people. If you have other plans for
strengthening the federal government, and they will
work, we are quite willing to indorse them. The im
portant thing is this we must concur that the condi
tions of today are such that America needs a stronger
central government.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: STRONGER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
BOOKS

Barnes, H. E. Social and Political Theory. 1924. Knopf. $2.50.
Beard, C. A. Economic Basis of Politics. 1922. Knopf. $1.25.
Bondy, W. Separation of Governmental Powers. Columbia Univ.

Press. $1.50.
Bryce, Viscount James. The American Commonwealth. 2 vols.

1923. Macmillan.
Delaisi, F. Political Myths and Economic Realities. 1927. Viking.

$4.

Hamilton, J. J. Government by Commissions. Funk. 75c.
Hecht, J. S. Unsolved Problems; National and International. 1930.

Jarrold s. 16s.
James, J. A. and Sanford, A. H. Government in State and Nation.

Scribner s. $1.60. -

Jenks, E. State and the Nation. 1919. Button. $1.50.
Laski, H. J.^Liberty in the Modern State. 1930. Faber. 7s6d

Musson. $3. Harper s. $3.

Munro, W. B. Government in the United States. Macmillan. $3.75.
Pipkin, C. W. Social Politics and Modern Democracies. 2 vols.

1931. Macmillan. $7.50.
Sarkar, B. K. Political Philosophy Since 1905. 1928. B. G. Paul. 4s.

A STRONGER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT 131

Schulz, E, B. Government a Phase of Social Organization. Publica
tion vol. 3, No. 6, Institute of Research Circular No. 28. Studies
in the humanities. No. 5. 1929. Lehigh University. Paper 50c.

Sherrington, C. E. R. Government Interference with the Free Play
of Economic Forces. H. T. Simonds, Fitchburg, Massachusetts.
$1.

Shimrell, L. Government of the United States. Merrill. 98c.

Smith, H. L. and others. Government in the United States. Laid-
law Bros. $1.52.

Titus, C. H. and Harding, V. H. Government and Society. Crofts.
$2.75.

Will, H. S. Government in State and Nation. Meyer and Thai-
heimer, 10 No. Howard St., Baltimore, Md. $1.25.

Willoughby, W. F. Government Organization in War Time and
After. Appleton. $2.50.

Wilson, W. The State. Heath. State and Federal governments of
the United States. Heath. 80c.

Young, J. S. State and Government. 1917. McClurg. $1.

THE CENTRALIZED CONTROL
OF INDUSTRY

The Case of The Pi Kappa Delta Champions
of 1932

THE CENTRALIZED CONTROL
OF INDUSTRY

UNIVERSITY OF REDLANDS AFFIRMATIVE
AND NEGATIVE

The following speeches were not used in actual debate as they are
the Affirmative and Negative arguments used during forty-one de
bates during the debate season of 1931-32 by the same team, the
winners of the Pi Kappa Delta Championship at the National Con
vention at Tulsa, Oklahoma, April 1-5, 1932. The rules of the Pi
Kappa Delta Tournament require that the same team debate both
sides of the proposition, and the arguments given here are arranged
in the form of a debate for convenience in presentation in this vol
ume by the Editor.

During the season the Redlands Team, composed of Mr. Mason
Frost, first affirmative and first negative speaker, and Mr. Marvin
Dean, second affirmative and second negative speaker, entered four
tournaments, two of which they won the Redlands practice tourna
ment on December 4-5, 1931, and the Pi Kappa Delta National
tournament as indicated above. In addition they engaged in several
single and dual debates with various colleges on the Pacific Coast and
on their trip to and from the convention at Tulsa. Three or four
different cases were developed on each side during the season, the
cases given here being the kst and most efficient. Of the forty-one
debates entered, five were lost, three were non-decision, and the rest
were won. The team was the first to win a Pi Kappa Delta Tourna
ment for men s teams without a single defeat. The Redlands team
debated the negative three times in the first five rounds and the
affirmative twice. In the sixth and seventh rounds they were re
quired to take the negative, and in the eighth the affirmative. In
the ninth with seven teams left out of the one hundred and two that
entered the tournament, they were the only undefeated team and
drew a bye. This round left four teams, and Redknds debated the

135

136 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

negative in the tenth and the affirmative in the final round against
William Jewell.

The Redlands case was not written out and appears in steno
graphic account with the William Jewell speeches in the Pi Kappa
Delta Winning Speeches Vol. IV (Noble and Noble) with revisions
made by the speakers. The first speech on the affirmative was
written out a week before the National Tournament while the team
was on the way to the convention, but was not given as a committed
speech but paraphrased extemporaneously. The first negative was
planned in similar manner and written out the day before the tourna
ment began at Tulsa, and was also paraphrased in actual debate.
Thus the speeches were never given twice alike.

The argument given here against credit control was not used by
the Redlands team at the Tournament as they did not wish to have
it turned back on their affirmative case, but it was used in the last
debate of the season to defeat the team from Southern Methodist
University, which used the Redlands credit control case, as part of
their affirmative debate. The Redlands negative depended in the
tournament upon the regular attack against an economic planning
case, and when they met credit control showed that it could be re
duced to the arguments, setting of prices and limiting of production,
and did not provide for complete control of credit outside the banks.
Usually the credit control cases were not sufficiently planned to
escape their analysis. In turn the Redlands team won on the affirma
tive by using federal incorporation for the credit control outside of
the banking system, and by emphasizing that they were not attempt
ing to control production or prices.

The teams that could have attacked credit control as Redlands
does in the negative given here were eliminated in the earlier rounds,
and Redlands never had to meet its own attack on Credit Control.
What they intended to do in case they did meet the Gold Reserve
argument, is indicated here in the last rebuttal speech on the affirma
tive. Redlands did use the commodity dollar on the negative as a
counter-plan, but guardedly as they feared it would be turned back
upon them.

Mr. Frost and Mr. Dean were both members of the Class of 1932,
and debated together as a team for two debate seasons. They were
coached during this time by Professors Joseph Baccus and E. R.
Nichols of the Speech Department of the University of Redlands.

THE CONTROL OF INDUSTRY 137

First Affirmative
University of Redlands

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: The Chairman has al
ready stated the question: "Resolved, that Congress
should enact legislation providing for the Centralized
Control of Industry." The first thing that I wish to
do is to make clear to you our understanding of the
meaning of the question and the issues involved. In
order that we may be perfectly clear let us look at the
definition of the terms. "Industry/ according to Web
ster, is "any department or branch of art, occupation,
or business which is a distinct branch of trade." This
is the broadest definition of "Industry" that we have
found, so in taking it we are not shirking any of our
burden. "Industry," if we accept this definition,
means the business world, not merely manufacturing.
"Control," by the same authority, is "to exercise a re
straining or directing influence over." Control may be
anything from the merest influence to absolute domina
tion. This gives us considerable latitude. We shall
choose the word regulation as best exemplifying the
kind of control we think the question means. "Cen
tralized," which modifies the word "control" in the
statement of the question, means "unified" or "placed
under a single authority." Summing up these defini
tions, the affirmative believes that the correct interpre
tation of the question is that Congress should pass
legislation providing for or setting up an Economic
Council or body which shall be the single regulating

138 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

power over industry, and shall be held responsible for
the regulation of business conditions in the United
States. We think that this is a fair and accurate in
terpretation of the question and the one which the
framers of the proposition intended.

The issue of the debate is, of course, the wisdom and
practicability of such a plan. Manifestly the wisdom
and practicability depend entirely upon the method
which an Economic Council would use to regulate in
dustry. Our question is so liberally stated that more
than one method of centralizing the control of indus
try is possible. We have chosen government regula
tion through an Economic Council, but two other
methods might be possible. The government could
choose to own and operate and this would be central
ized control but it would also be Socialism, or it might
be Communism. We cite this to point out in the begin
ning the difference between that and the thing we
propose. Again, the government could authorize the
repeal of the Sherman Law and other restrictions on
trade and allow the big financial interests to centralize
the control of industry in private hands. This policy
would remove government interference and place us in
the hands of the strongest, but it would undoubtedly re
sult in centralization of control. We do not believe in
giving private business this unrestricted power, so we
come back to government regulation and direction of
the centralized control as the most logical and prac
ticable plan. We do not believe that government
should stay out of business. We think that in order to
protect the interests of the public, of the common citi-

THE CONTROL OF INDUSTRY 139

zen, that there must be regulation. We cannot con
tinue with unrestricted capitalism. Present conditions
prove this contention. We are at the place where
something must be done to restore business to pros
perity and to banish the burden of unemployment.

There are three methods which an Economic Council
might use to control industry. They might attempt to
limit production and adjust it to estimated demand,
and regulate prices. This is called Economic Planning,
and has received considerable attention of late. The
second method that the Council might use is to require
federal incorporation and license of all businesses.
This would give the government a centralized control,
and the power of life and death over a business so that
it would have to submit to whatever regulation the
government desired. Third, the economic council
might control industry indirectly through control of
the key industry of all industries banking and finance.
This is a practical method of control and the control
of money is a natural government function. Since
over ninety per cent of our business is done through
credit or bank money, the government through control
of banking could exercise an almost perfect control
over industry.

Now of these three methods which best meets our
needs? The first plan, the dictation of production and
prices by fiat or command, has never succeeded where
tried, for it implies control of consumption to work
satisfactorily and such control is manifestly impos
sible. It places too much managerial responsibility on
the Council, and takes away too much of the liberty of

140 THE YEAH BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

action of the private individual. It is not a logical
method of procedure, and in the opinion of the best
economic thinkers should not be tried. For that rea
son, throughout the rest of this debate let it be dis
tinctly understood that we shall not advocate dictation
of production or prices. We do not feel that the law
of supply and demand can be repealed, so we propose
to let it work and try to better our conditions by an
other method.

Now as to the other two methods, we shall not choose
between them, but propose to use them both. Numer
ous writers have pointed out, and those bankers and
economists that appeared before the Senate Committee
hearings on the establishment of a National Economic
Council last fall said, that if business was to be stabi
lized through any kind of government action, that credit
control was the logical way to do it. In order to con
trol credit the government must not only control
banking, but it must charter and license business in
order to insure one hundred per cent control. For
that reason we shall use both methods, and place them
under the direction of the National Economic Council
as my colleague will later explain to you.

Now what do we expect to accomplish by such ac
tion why do we want this form of centralized control?
What is the need for it? The deplorable conditions in
industry today are the answer. We are in the throes
of the worst business depression we have ever known.
Over ten millions of honest, capable, hard working men
are out of employment. Their families are in distress.
We are face to face with wholesale charity. We are

THE CONTROL OF INDUSTRY 141

pauperizing and debasing men, who, given the oppor
tunity to work, are the most important fabric of our
citizenship our very foundations for labor is the
basis of industry. The economic system which places
us in such a position periodically is a discredited and
unsuccessful system, and menaces our future. We do
not say that our system should be abolished, for that
is what we hope to avoid. We propose to reform and
regulate, that we may avoid Communism and such
social experiments. We do not say that we can do
away with the business cycle absolutely or make things
perfect, but we do say that through centralized control
of industry we can go a long way toward bettering con
ditions in the future and preventing the extremes of
panic and depression such as the present one.

There have been about twenty-five panics in our
business history. Some of them have been very seri
ous, for instance 1831, 1851, 1873, and 1893. Many
of us are still familiar with Coxey s army of 1893, and
at the present time with about ten million men unem
ployed, we face the most serious crisis in our financial
life as a nation. If through centralized control of in
dustry; if by credit control, we may alleviate the ex
tremes of panic, to which our system is subject, we
have certainly struck directly at the problem the Amer
ican people desire to solve.

There are two kinds of unemployment normal and
abnormal or cyclical unemployment. By normal un
employment we mean those who are willingly unem
ployed; those who are technologically unemployed;
those seasonally unemployed, and those in transition

142 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

from one job to another. They amount normally to
from one to two million men. We can stand that much
unemployment in good times. By abnormal unem
ployment we mean those unemployed because of the
business depression, called cyclical unemployment. If
we subtract the normal unemployment, say two million
from ten million, the probable number of those now
unemployed, we find that cyclical unemployment ap
proximates eight million. This unemployment con
stitutes a burden to our economic system that is well
nigh unendurable. We must do something about it.
That means we must do something about the cause of
panics so that we may escape like situations in the
future.

Now what are the causes of panics? There is no
general agreement here. Many causes are urged. The
only scientific way to discover the real causes of panics,
however, is to consider all panics, and find out what
factors are always present and what factors are some
times present. This will give us two kinds of causes,
the occasional or incidental ones and the permanent
or ultimate ones.

War is offered as a cause of business depression.
We are told that after every war there is a primary and
then a secondary depression, and that the panic we are
now experiencing is the secondary one following the
Great War. Likewise, 1873 is cited as a post war
panic. But what about 1831, 1851, 1893 and 1907?
We had no wars of any consequence or magnitude to
cause them. Also, the foreign loans and debts are
urged as causes for this panic, but this is the only panic

THE CONTROL OF INDUSTRY 143

in which foreign loans have figured at all. Hence these
causes although they may be contributory are inci
dental and not fundamental causes.

If we look further we shall find ? however, that there
are factors that precede and are present in every panic.
For instance there is always a mass of indebtedness
just preceding and during a panic. There has always
been speculation of gigantic proportions in the boom
period that invariably precedes a panic, in land and
city real estate, or in stocks and bonds, or in some
kind of investment. There never has been a depres
sion in which this piling up of indebtedness, in which
this wasting of wealth through speculation did not
appear. The boom period brings high prices or in
flation of values and the panic, low prices and defla
tion. These factors are always present in the business
cycle. Evidently the key to depression lies here some
where in the piling up of debt, in inflation and deflation,
speculation and loss.

Allow me to give you an illustration of how it works.
A clothing man, say, stocks up with a supply of suits
at high prices in a so-called era of prosperity or boom
period of the business cycle. Depression arrives. He
is taken unawares. He cannot now sell those suits on
a falling market for what he paid for them wholesale
to say nothing of taking a profit. Unless he can bor
row or tide through some way, he must take a gigantic
loss or fail completely and go into bankruptcy. An
other example A man buys a home for six or seven
thousand dollars in prosperous times. He gives a
mortgage for thirty-five hundred dollars. Prices de-

144 THE YEAJR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

flate in depression and lie cannot renew the mortgage
for that amount. He must either pay off a part of it
or lose his property. He cannot get the money or is
out of work and cannot keep up the interest even so
he loses his home. We see examples of this kind about
us every day.

Now if the Affirmative can show that through a sys
tem of credit control we can do away with the extremes
of over-inflation and thus escape the consequent exces
sive deflation, if we can prevent speculative prices and
booms, if we can keep indebtedness within bounds,
then we can stabilize values, prevent extremes, and
thus have justified centralized control. This is exactly
what we propose to do in this debate.

The Federal Reserve System was created with ex
actly this thing in mind, but it has failed because the
Reserve System did not have complete control of the
credit situation in the United States.

That we are on the right road is evidenced by the
fact that President Hoover in his reconstruction pro
gram has recognized that the proper place to attempt
to relieve depression is through the credit system, and
he has been trying to inflate credit; he is trying to give
business enough credit to prevent failures and to carry
on. The President s plan does not include a method
of controlling excessive inflation, but when you hear
the details of our plan you will see that we have pro
vided for that.

We have presented the situation to you. We have
shown why we need Centralized Control of Industry,
and why credit control meets the situation. My col-

THE CONTROL OF INDUSTRY 145

league will show you how we shall get and operate
credit control. He will show you how we shall cut
down the extremes of inflation and deflation, and how
we shall control speculation. We do not say that we
can destroy the business cycle, but we do believe that
we can control it and prevent its wide extremes of
prosperity and depression, and that is the meaning of
Centralized Control of Industry as we conceive it.

First Negative
University of Redlands

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: Without repeating the
proposition already read in your hearing, let me say
that according to the question Congress is to provide
for the centralized control of industry by establishing
some body, council, or authority whose duty it shall be
to exercise control. This may be a new body or an
old one with new powers. For the first time in about
forty debates upon this subject we find ourselves in
agreement with the definition of the terms of the ques
tion as given by the opposition.

We believe that the issue is: Will this centralized au
thority solve our industrial problems, or at least the
major evils involved? The answer to this question de
pends entirely upon the method of procedure of the
controlling authority. Their plan of action must be
feasible and practicable. It must reach the evils which
the Affirmative urge that it be established to meet.

What are the major evils of industry that occasion
this discussion? They are over-production and under-

146 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

consumption or lack of buying power, and unemploy
ment. Why do we have these evils in such a wealthy
country as the United States? Because our financial
system is subject to periodic panics or depressions;
because we have alternating periods of inflation and
deflation in our monetary system; because our money
changes in value with relation to the products it is used
to purchase. Our trouble, then, is a maladjustment in
the financial and banking system. It is the burden of
the Affirmative to solve these difficulties by some practi
cal method of Centralized Control of Industry.

The Negative may solve the difficulties by any other
method that is not centralized control, or it may con
tent itself with pointing out the fallacies in the Affirma
tive case for centralized control, or the Negative may
attempt to do both of these things.

Now there are three possible types of centralized
control which the Affirmative might offer: Government
regulation; repeal of the Sherman Anti-Trust Law and
other restrictions and allowing business to build up its
own centralized, monopolistic control; and Govern
ment Ownership, that is, Socialism or Communism.
The Affirmative have indicated already that they will
choose the first of these, government regulation of
industry. They have indicated that they will establish
a National Economic Control and that it will attempt
to control positively but indirectly through money
power, or credit control. Now since we do not know
the exact details of the Affirmative plan as yet, we
can only attack their contentions in a general way at
this time. That is what I propose to do, leaving to

THE CONTROL OF INDUSTRY 147

my colleague the more specific attack when the Affirma
tive case is completely before us.

Whatever the method of centralized control ad
vanced, (in this case we understand it is to be credit
control), there are three factors involved that must be
controlled. They are: Labor, Capital, and Manage
ment. The Affirmative must arrange to control all of
these factors, for, if they control but one, or even two,
and do not control the third, the element of defeat is
present. The uncontrolled element will wreck the plan.

First, let us take Labor. It is perhaps the most sig
nificant element in industry today the one suffering
most from unemployment. It is the element which has
power at the ballot box; it is the element that may re
volt or wage active war against control. To control
Labor in a free government like ours is well nigh im
possible. If the centralized control attempts to tell
Labor how much it shall produce and how much it shall
receive for it, immediately there is tremendous opposi
tion. To do this it must abolish the Labor Union,
destroy collective bargaining, and deny the right to
strike. The centralized control, then, loses the posi
tion of arbiter of the quarrel between Capital and
Labor and becomes Management itself, a new position
for government and an unfortunate one. England
found herself in this position in the General Strike of
1926, and had to call out the standing army to come
and subdue its own citizens. Manifestly America must
avoid any situation that might lead to riot and revolu
tion. Labor, then, cannot be controlled except in one
direction it can be pacified by ever increasing wages

148 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

and shortening of hours and this is what will neces
sarily happen. The controlling body will maintain its
position by favoring the voter. If it does not, Labor
will reach out with voting strength and take control of
the Centralized Control of Industry in order to protect
itself. The control of industry will inevitably become
a political prize, for it must be responsible to the peo
ple through the President and Congress. If it is not,
it will be a tyrannical oligarchy subject to all forms
of corruption & thing the people will never tolerate.
Second, Capital how can Capital be controlled?
If Labor reaches for power, Capital will do the same
thing and we shall witness a struggle for control at
each election. The issue will pass into politics per
manently. We all know what happens to business
when the tariff is to be overhauled. That unsettling
of conditions is as nothing to the breakers ahead when
we put all industry into jeopardy at each election.
Moreover, if Capital loses it will buy its way to con
trol, and the people, fooled a few times, will rise up in
rebellion and we shall face Communism in reality.
Again Capital will not submit to regulation. It never
has. Capital is timid and will not venture unless there
is freedom of action. No one can compel Capital to
invest in production if it does not like the control ex
ercised over industry. Capital can migrate to coun
tries where there are no restrictions, where investment
is less controlled and restrained. There is no way of
preventing this except by confiscation of wealth before
it migrates and this is not in accord with American
ideals. If Capital deserts, industry is destroyed. Capi-

THE CONTROL OF INDUSTRY 149

tal demands safety and profit. Any attempt to restrict
freedom in business is likely to cut down profits, and
incur CapitaPs strenuous opposition. Less government
in business is the slogan of Capital and it means that
Capital will evade all regulation, as it always has, or
will control the regulators. Capital will rule or ruin.
This is not guess work it is fact. We are where we
are today because Capital has insisted upon doing as
it pleases regardless of restraint. Witness the evasion
of the Sherman Anti-Trust law and the building up of
holding companies, mergers, and monopolies against
the express will of the people. The Capital has passed
into the hands of a few, and now the income is also
concentrated. The common man has lost buying
power, and even the capitalist has encompassed his
own ruin. But he will not give in to re-adjust the dis
tribution of the income. We cannot control Capital,
and yet its control is necessary to the success of the
Affirmative plan.

Third, this leaves us Management, or the actual
direction of industry. Management controls industry
today. The Affirmative proposes to take over the con
trol exercised by Management to a certain extent and
place it in the hands of a centralized body or board.
The Affirmative say that control of production and
prices and such functions as the detailed work of plan
ning production and its sale and distribution is not
what they mean by Control of Industry. Very well,
we understand that they realize that to control these
things they must also control consumption and that
is impossible. They also realize that were it possible

ISO THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

it would not be desirable. They say they will have
nothing to do with this type of centralized control as
it has already failed in principle and practice. How
ever, we shall show that they cannot avoid limiting
production and manipulating prices, even with their
plan of credit control and federal incorporation and
licensing.

If we are to have credit control we must proceed
upon a basis of mere national control We cannot
affect other countries enough to control their credit and
finances. Unless we shut them out of our markets we
cannot control our own industry. This means that the
first step in credit control is a prohibitive tariff. If we
can shut out foreign goods we have a better chance of
maintaining a balance between our money value and
our products. Unless we can maintain this balance we
cannot control credit. If our money shifts in value
or increases or decreases in amount because of for
eign trade, our credit basis shifts, and we are obliged
to keep trying to adjust.

Any attempt to limit the American producer to the
home market cuts off foreign trade and business ex
pansion beyond domestic need. Capital will rebel at
this, and if it submitted it would have to reduce pro
duction and men would be thrown out of employment.
National credit control implies within its very nature
the limiting of production to domestic trade. As we
know the tariff also is a great price fixer and adjuster.
Under its protection we pay more than we would in
the free trade market. Thus you see the Affirmative

THE CONTROL OF INDUSTRY 151

cannot escape control of production and an arbitrary
tampering with prices.

Foreign trade is ten per cent of the American trade
not a large proportion but it is the margin of suc
cess and failure in business. Also ten per cent of our
trade furnishes a lot of needed employment. We can
not stabilize without world cooperation and retain for
eign trade how then are we to have National Credit
Control?

The Affirmative cannot solve the situation by hitting
at superficial things. They must get down to causes
and down to the problems of management. Manage
ment is willing to be shown. This is a time of self-
condemnation and inward castigation. Business would
like to go ahead and have good times, but it does not
see how it is to be managed in the face of world condi
tions. How are we to find men wise enough to be the
National Economic Council when our best business
minds are already in a quandary as to what should be
done?

Men are out of work because there is over-production
and a falling market. There is over-production be
cause there is no buying power at home or abroad.
This was brought on by credit and monetary troubles,
by speculation ^nd piling up of indebtedness and the
consequent crash in other words, by the business
cycle. How is centralized control going to affect the
business cycle?

The business cycle cannot be controlled until we
find a way to prevent fluctuation in values change in
the relationship of the price of commodities and the

152 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

value of purchasing power of money. Yesterday a
dollar bought a bushel of wheat, today it will buy
over two bushels, for a time, four bushels. This ruins
the farmer. How will Centralized Control of Indus
try affect this? Yesterday an orange grove paid an
income to justify a valuation of from twenty-five hun
dred to three thousand dollars an acre. Today it will
not pay interest on more than a thousand dollars an
acre if it does that well. What happens to the man
who bought at a high price and gave a mortgage? To
day the grove is not worth the mortgage then what?
Ruin. What shall we do about this? How shall we
stabilize values and at what level, and just how is
credit control going to do it? The control of industry
requires the stabilization of values or we can never
make production and consumption meet. For in
stance, the centralized control may estimate that we
need one hundred thirty million pairs of shoes an
nually, but suppose the price rises (as it often does)
from five dollars to eight dollars or ten dollars a pair
and we cannot sell them because there is a buyer s
strike (which also often happens ) then what ? Who
is to take the loss for the centralized control s mistakes
of judgment the public? the producer? the employee?
Can government take the strain in the treasury with
out increasing taxes or plunging into deficits? Will
not the producer go broke, drag down the banker with
him and throw his men out of employment? Should
the management of capital take the risks? If govern
ment manages and does not take the risk then what?
Manifestly we must control the relationship be-

THE CONTROL OF INDUSTRY 153

tween money and the fluctuation, in value of commod
ities. This is also true of land, stocks, bonds; all
property. If we capitalize a company at half a mil
lion, tomorrow its stock may be worth only two hundred
fifty thousand dollars or even one hundred thousand
dollars or fifty thousand dollars. Then the remainder
of the original stock represents fictitious value or
water. Later the company may in prosperous times
be worth a million instead of a half million or maybe
a million and a half or two million. Instead of giving
extra dividends it issues more stock to reduce the per
cent of dividend to a reasonable rate. Then the busi
ness cycle turns round again and the added stock is all
water upon which the business must pay dividends and
this brings failure and ruin. How are we to manage
these problems and sustain buying power and employ
ment?

The entire problem is one of finding a way of
stabilizing business conditions and values. If this
could be done we would not need to worry over the
matter of production and consumption, or the Cen
tralized Control of Industry. We shall await with in
terest the Affirmative s plan to meet this situation.

Second Affirmative
University of Redlands

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: We find ourselves in
agreement with the Negative as to the issue of this
debate: Will Centralized Control of Industry solve our
problems, or the major evils? If so, it should be

154 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

adopted; if not, abandoned. We shall attempt to
show that that credit control operated by a National
Economic Council will better our situation consider
ably. If the Negative does not like our plan they
must show why it will not work. If the Negative has
a plan they think is better, as they seem to hint in their
discussion of monetary and commodity values, then
let them by all means advance it. And if they do
advance any such plan they must assume a burden of
proof and give evidence for their plan. They can
not merely mention it in the closing minute of argu
ment and expect it to stand.

We find we are in agreement with the Negative as
to the real cause of our trouble today "Mai-adjust
ment in the financial and banking system" We are
told that it is our duty to solve this difficulty by Cen
tralized Control of Industry. That is precisely what
we purpose to do in advancing a system of credit
control.

Before we enter definitely into our plan, however,
let us consider the refutation in general of our oppo
nent against Centralized Control of Industry. The
first Negative speaker says that we must control Labor,
Capital, and Management. He implies that the only
way to control Labor is by fiat or command, or by giv
ing them everything they want in the way of high
wages and shorter hours, or we must face political
unrest. We deny this absolutely. Labor is positively
and absolutely controlled today by money and credit.
Men must live by work and wages or by accumulated
wealth or by charity. Nor do they rebel or turn red

THE CONTROL OF INDUSTRY 155

in adversity as we who are passing through this de
pression know. Of course they will vote, and they
may vote blindly. They may blame the administration
and the President and insist upon a change when we
all know that the President has had no real control
over the situation. However, under the plan which we
advocate there will be a place to fix responsibility.
The National Economic Council will be held respon
sible, and its policy will be subject to politics. This
Council will be under the control of the people. We
believe that that is right that that is the essence of
democracy. Nor do we think it will create an up
heaval at election time. Even if it did, we should not
be any worse off than we are now under the ungov-
erned business cycle. At least we should know when
to look for unsettled conditions and we should not be
taken by surprise as we are now, and that would be
something gained at least. We believe that the broad
general policies would soon become so fixed that any
great upheaval at an election time would be an ab
surdity.

Next, the gentlemen say that Capital cannot be
controlled. It is controlled. Today it is manipulated
at will by a few men who are not at all responsible to
the people by any law, custom or method yet devised.
We maintain that the control of Capital can be taken
out of the hands of a few inordinately rich men who
have been ruling our destiny by the very force of
financial power, and that this financial power can be
operated for the benefit of the public rather than for
the aggrandizement of the special few. If that be

156 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

heresy, Socialism, or disloyalty to the principle of
individual liberty in America make the most of it.
At least it is common sense and must come to pass if
we are to avoid red riot and revolution, Communism
and such social experiments in the near future. Great
as is the patience, and the stamina of the American
people, we cannot survive many more such panics as
the present one. If Capital cannot see the handwrit
ing on the wall, and is not willing to consent to a cer
tain amount of regulation and control then their blood
and that of the people will be on their hands. The
right of man to work for a living at a decent living
wage is and must be supreme, and if under the present
system it cannot be successfully maintained then that
civilization that we know is destined to go down. Capi
tal can and must be controlled.

Nor is there much danger that it will migrate.
America has the real market of the world. What shall
it profit the capitalist to migrate and lose his market?
The negative speaker pointed out that tariff could
keep out the foreign product. Then how is the capi
talist to live if he migrates? He may meet much worse
conditions than some sensible regulations. Capital is
timid, and is not likely to rush off to foreign countries
without any guarantee of safety or protection.

And now management how shall we control it?
Management is also ruled by money power. Business
is done as my colleague has shown, on credit over
ninety per cent of it. The control of the banking situ
ation is the key to industry. Inasmuch as the debate
is over the management of industry, let us turn now to

THE CONTROL OF INDUSTRY 157

the outline of our plan of control, discussing the prob
lems and issues of the debate as they arise.

As my colleague has indicated we propose to estab
lish a National Economic Council as the centralized
authority. Under this Council we suggest three sub
sidiary boards or bureaus through which it shall
proceed. It will also have the right to suggest various
kinds of legislation as our commissions do at the
present time to care for problems that arise beyond
its authorization or grant of power.

First, we propose to strengthen the Federal Reserve
Board, and to require all banks of deposit to join the
system and abide by its rules and regulations. The
obvious advantage of this is to avoid bank failures,
and to control the interest rates of credit, and other
matters that are pertinent. One big financial system
means that we shall have every bank as strong as
Uncle Sam. The bank of England also the system
of Canada, where there has been almost no bank
failures in ten years time, whereas we had about three
thousand in 1931 alone to say nothing of a decrease
of nine thousand banks in ten years; many through
failure and disaster to their communities demon
strates the wisdom of this move. We do not mean to
take the banker out of his bank. He may still invest
his money in bank stock but he cannot run a bank
absolutely as he pleases. Money is a public utility
and we propose to treat it as such. The Head of the
Federal Reserve Board will be a member of the Na
tional Economic Council.

Second, we propose to have a bureau of incorpora-

158 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

tion and business license under the National Economic
Council. There are many reasons for this. At present
we have a divided control exercised by the states,
bidding against each other with lax laws for the license
and incorporation of businesses that engage in inter
state commerce regardless of the laws of the other
states. There is a margin of non-control between state
and nation here that has been a big disadvantage in
dealing with the trust problem. We can abolish this
with federal incorporation, and can regulate the hold
ing company, the merger, the capitalization, the dis
position of surplus profits in fact, through federal
incorporation with power to charter or revoke, the
federal government can centralize and dominate the
industrial corporations, and the financial institutions
outside the banking realm. As surplus from corpora
tions financed the stock boom of 1928-29, it is essential
that centralized control gain power over the possi
bilities of credit outside the Federal Reserve System
especially since this boom was financed against the
advice and expressed will of the Federal Reserve Sys
tem. Once the Federal Reserve is master of all the
credit possibilities, stock gambling on Wall Street and
in the Chicago Board of Trade in grain can be defi
nitely controlled.

Third, we propose that a single Bureau of Statistics
be established in which the present agencies (about
thirty of them in various governmental departments)
shall be merged. These statistics will be needed to
guide the National Economic Council in forming trade
and business policies. Statistics on volume of business

THE CONTROL OF INDUSTRY 159

and credit demand will be of the utmost value. Carl
Snyder, of the Federal Reserve System, has discovered
that business in America over a long period of years
grew at the rate of four per cent a year. He also dis
covered that when the expansion of credit kept pace
with the business expansion, or remained at the same
rate, that we had prosperous times. Whenever the
credit facilities expanded beyond the needs of business
we had a boom period high prices, inflated values,
speculation, increasing indebtedness until a crash came
and depression resulted with deflated values, low
prices, and hard times. We propose that all credit
transactions and loans shall be registered with the
bureau of statistics in order that we may know at all
times the rate of credit expansion so that it may be
compared to the rate of business expansion. If we
can prevent speculation by contracting and expanding
credit, we can regulate the business cycle and bring
it under a reasonable measure of control

How can we do this? By raising or lowering the
rate of interest on loans; by doing the same with the
re-discount rate; by expanding and contracting the
amount of currency in circulation; by refusing loans
where the risk is too great; and by various like meth
ods known to finance. What will this accomplish?
Take for instance a line of business which the statis
tical bureau shows to be over-producing or nearing it.
The National Economic Council can order the rate
raised for that industry and can thus discourage new
industrial concerns from entering that field, and can,
through the withdrawal of credit naturally involved in

160 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

an increased rate, retard the production in the field
to the reasonable expectations of consumption.

There will be no change in the method of making
loans. Character and security will still obtain, and the
same banker will be on the job. He must, however,
abide by the rules and the borrower will be forced to
heed the facts because of the difficulties of obtaining
credit when the risk is great. We have thus taken
advantage of a natural financial law. There will be
no more dictation in financial matters than there is
today, but the government will do it not private
bankers in Wall Street. Moreover, it will be done in
the interests of the public welfare.

Finally, the National Economic Council and its sub
sidiaries will be under the control of the people through
the President, who will select its personnel, and
through the Senate which shall ratify the appointments.
This fits in with our democratic ideals, and makes the
whole system responsive to the will of the people. If
we do not like the way the system is administered, we
shall have the right to express that disapproval at the
ballot box.

Also the facts about the business situation which the
Statistical Bureau will have available should be of
great value to individual business men. The banking
system will be designed for business service and not for
the benefit of the speculators or for the personal
aggrandizement of the stockholders and managers.

Another important element of the centralized con
trol will be the power over the distribution of income
from industry that will be in the hands of the National

THE CONTROL OF INDUSTRY 161

Economic Council. They will be able to compel a
minimum wage. Moreover, they will be able to com
pel profit sharing when a business is making money.
They will be able to control the expansion of the busi
ness, the amount spent for upkeep and dividends.
They could if it were found desirable compel unem
ployment insurance, old age pensions, and other social
advantages.

By the power of taxation they could direct a part of
the surplus into the federal treasury to be used for
public improvements, thus giving the entire public the
benefit of the increased efficiency in industry, which
under our present system goes largely into the aggran
dizement of the wealthy owners of big businesses.

What we need is buying power a better distribu
tion of the income from industry. The federal govern
ment could easily accomplish this through incorpora
tion and license. According to the best available
statistics sixty-five per cent of the wage earners get
less than a decent living wage in this country. This
ought not to be. The increased standard of living
must be shared more widely. Business will be pros
perous only when our consumption of goods justifies
production and employment of labor.

The farmer, who has been most neglected under the
present system of rewarding labor and enterprise, will
share in the general prosperity when there is more
money to spend for his products. A wise credit policy
will ultimately place agriculture upon a paying basis.
It may be that we shall cultivate more or less ground

162 THE YEAH BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

that will have to be figured upon a financial basis
and left to the possibilities of credit.

We do not claim that our plan is a panacea for all
ills or that it will work miracles, but we are convinced
that it will improve our situation. We believe that it
will forestall the inevitable "red," and protect us from
Communism. We do feel that a reconstructed Capi
talism, better fitted to the needs of the common man
has a chance to survive, and it is for this that we
plead. We believe in individual enterprise and indi
vidual property right, but we think the time has come
to safeguard the interests of the common man and in
sure justice to all. We believe that the American peo
ple are tired of the ever recurring business panic and
that something must be done. That something should
be Centralized Control of Industry.

Second Negative
University of Redlands

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: Allow me first of all to
compliment the Affirmative on the adroit way they have
sidestepped all the real difficulties involved in their
plan of action and have managed to make it appear
logical and practicable. On first thought I found my
self almost convinced, and had I not made a study of
this question, I might have admitted their contentions.
For fear that you who have not studied the question
will accept what they have said at full value and thus
be misled, I am going to take up their scheme and
analyze it, pointing out to you the fallacies and diffi-

THE CONTROL OF INDUSTRY 163

culties which they have not met; which they have
glossed over and concealed.

As I understand their plan they are going to have a
National Economic Council, which will work through
three subsidiary commissions or bureaus, namely: A
Bureau of Statistics, a Bureau of Incorporation and
License, and a strengthened Federal Reserve System.
They have indicated the scope of the activities of each
of these divisions of the machinery of Centralized
Control, and it is here that I wish to begin analyzing.
Let us take these divisions in turn, and inquire into
their powers and functions.

First, The Statistical Bureau. The Affirmative have
placed a great deal of faith in the value of statistics.
They feel that all they have to do is to gather statistics
upon the amount of credit used and upon the amount
of business transacted, and upon these figures regulate
the proportion of credit to the rate of business growth.
This sounds simple, but is it? It sounds easy, but is
it? Arriving at such figures for a country with the
magnitude of the United States is a gigantic and almost
superhuman task. It is full of endless complications.
It is full of the necessity of judging at every turn the
relationship of one set of facts and figures to another
set, and whenever human judgment enters in the pos
sibilities of error grow in geometrical progression.
What will be the result? When the final figures are
arrived at, there can always be more than one interpre
tation of their meaning. This fact implies many lines
of action may be followed depending upon the interpre
tation chosen. Tremendous mistakes of judgment will

164 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

then follow in making recommendations and adopting
policies. The wrong policy may bring disaster and
panic such as we have never known. The fact is, there
is no absolute and certain virtue in statistics. They
may be of great value and they may be worthless after
millions of dollars are spent in collecting them. We
cannot pin our faith upon them absolutely.

Second, The Bureau of Incorporation. Here again
I must compliment the Affirmative upon an adroit
move. Usually in meeting a credit control case all the
Negative has to do is to show that the banks and the
strengthened Federal Reserve System do not include
all the credit that the industrial and financial cor
porations outside the banks control a large proportion,
and that credit control fails because it does not cover
the entire field of credit. The gentlemen, perceiving
that control of the banks in a Federal Reserve System
is not enough, have sought control of the outside credit
through Federal Incorporation. However, let me point
out one extremely significant fact the gentlemen have
stretched the meaning of incorporation and business
license so far that they are unrecognizable.

When one incorporates a company he applies for a
charter to do business and pays a fee. The same thing
is true of a license. It is merely a permit to do busi
ness. Yet the gentlemen propose to write into the
charter or license just how the business must be con
ducted. They intend to compel a minimum wage,
profit sharing, control and division of the surplus earn
ings, and innumerable things such as social insurance
when granting the charter or license upon pain of re-

THE CONTROL OF INDUSTRY 165

yoking the permit. These matters are usually thought
of as legislation, not as incorporation details. In fact.
It would be impossible to forecast, when granting a
charter, just what rules and legislation would be needed
ultimately. Yet the gentlemen are going to attempt it.
We fear they are somewhat idealistic if not absurd.
They are trying to do the impossible and the revolu
tionary.

It is true that capitalization, the amount the com
pany Is to issue in capital stock, preferred and common,
are matters of charter privilege. It is true that one
state may charter corporations that are offensive in
interstate commerce to other states. Let us examine
these two things.

The federal government does have control of inter
state commerce but it has allowed the states to keep
the incorporation function. The government regulates
interstate commerce, and does it in such a way that
there has been little complaint. The states are not
without defense, and may tax foreign corporations
and require them to meet certain conditions before they
can do business in the states at large, so there is not
sufficient reason for the demand for federal incorpora
tion here or we should have had it long ago. It is
evidently a debate device to get control of the outside
credit to make their plan look consistent.

Now as to the matter of capitalization. They pro
pose to eliminate the watered stock, and thus regulate
the amount there is to sell on the stock exchange; the
amount there is to pay dividends on. It is true that
there arises a lot of dishonesty here in the business

166 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

world, but it is not going to be a simple and easy thing
to handle it. My colleague has already pointed out the
reason. Suppose a company proposes to capitalize at
two hundred thousand dollars and their actual invest
ment or physical valuation is only one hundred twenty-
five thousand dollars. The rest is water. This can
be controlled at the time of granting charter, and
the capitalization can be reduced. But suppose further
that the company is prosperous, that it makes enough
money annually in good years to pay good wages to
its employees and a fifty or sixty per cent dividend on
all its stock and still has an undivided surplus. This
is of course an extremely big dividend but it has hap
pened many times in the business world. Suppose the
company decides to reorganize. Upon a basis of its
showing it is allowed a much larger capitalization.
The stock is sold and part of the money is invested in
further plant facilities and part returned to the original
investors, and part used to buy up smaller competitors.
The company can pay a good dividend on this larger
capitalization, and is, therefore, worth its new capi
talization. Then suppose again, panic and depression
arrive. The company cannot pay dividends it passes
them. It reduces its production and throws men out
of employment. The value of its stock drops from
above par to fifteen or twenty cents on the dollar. At
this valuation four-fifths of its stock is water. The
people who bought it in good faith, or in a speculative
mood, have lost heavily on their investment. Are they
going to blame the Bureau of Incorporation for allow
ing the company to issue so much stock? How are we

THE CONTROL OE INDUSTRY 167

going to tell what the capitalization of a company
should be, or whether it should be allowed to enlarge?
As a matter of fact it is an impossible task unless we
have absolute stationary values.

We are back again to the thing we have insisted upon
from the beginning. We are face to face with changing
values. Now remember that this wide variation in
values must be multiplied many times when we con
sider the number of corporations in business, and that
all this fluctuation of value will be reflected in credit
needs and that the Affirmative s credit control must
be prepared to absorb and care for all this inflation and
deflation unless it can prevent fluctuation. We shall
come back to this proposition again. Suffice it to say,
that after all, perhaps the Affirmative is accepting a
lot of grief for their Bureau of Corporations and Na
tional Economic Council, before this situation is solved
satisfactorily.

Third, The Federal Reserve. Up to the present
time the Federal Reserve System has refused to make
any attempts toward credit control. They have re
garded it as an unsound proposition and have fre
quently said so. The Affirmative, of course, urge that
the Reserve System is not now in a position to handle
credit control, but that things will be different when it
is strengthened and reorganized as they plan it. Let
us see.

The Federal Reserve System was organized to give
us a flexible currency, and at the time it was felt that
we had solved the panic problem and would never have
another. However in 1921 we found out that a finan-

168 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

cial panic was still possible. A flexible currency is a
fine thing and necessary, but we need something more
to prevent panics. The Affirmative say it is a flexible
flow of credit that we need since credit and money are
practically the same thing. Now let us consider the
difficulty in maintaining a flexible flow of credit.

It is figured that we can base ten dollars worth of
credit on every dollar of money in the country and do
it safely. If we multiply our six billions of currency
by ten we have sixty billions of credit to care for and
the fluctuation will be consequently greater, so you see
something of the magnitude of the problem that the
Federal Reserve system will face under the Affirmative
plan, and we have not provided for growth in the
future. These are present figures.

Now, if for any reason such as change in the value
of money in relation to commodities, the amount of
credit extended rises over night in a crisis from ten
dollars of credit to fifteen or twenty on the dollar, we
shall face a situation well nigh impossible for the Fed
eral Reserve to handle and still remain solvent. For,
remember, that the first duty of a bank is to maintain
a reserve behind its obligations. The Reserve System
in such a crash would find its reserves inadequate, and
it would have to look to the safety of the banks and
their deposits, and abandon all thought of credit con
trol and let the smash come.

Now further, behind all currency upon which we are
going to base our credit, lies a gold reserve and it is
only part of the currency value it does not cover it
all. Gold is a commodity. Suppose for some reason

THE CONTROL OF INDUSTRY 169

the value of gold changes (as it does frequently) and
our supply behind our currency that is kept in the
United States Treasury becomes inadequate. This
will topple the whole credit structure based on the
currency.

You see the whole principle of the reserve system is
safety, and that a reserve cannot be maintained in the
face of credit control demands when the real period of
stress comes. The secret of the whole trouble is the
change in values, and this is not always occasioned by
speculation and indebtedness. It is also induced by
over-production, lack of consumption, over-expansion
of productive capacity or over-investment. In fact,
the ten per cent of our commerce which is foreign
might seriously affect our gold reserve, and change the
amount of money behind our credit structure. It
doesn t take much to topple over the entire pyramid
and initiate a period of deflation and depression such
as we are now in. Spahr says in his book on the Fed
eral Reserve System and Control of Credit that "The
ideal of stabilization cannot be followed until a way
is found to free a country from the control which gold
reserves now exercise over a nation s credit policy."

So we find we are up against the gold standard (in
ternationally approved), and credit control and the
reserve system are diametrically opposed. As long as
times are good we may have a semblance of credit
control, but in the long run we cannot escape the
depression half of the business cycle. Here the strain
will be too great and we cannot expand credit enough
on a safe and conservative basis to handle the situation.

170 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

The National Economic Council, then, will find itself
in an untenable position, in which ability, judgment,
and power will be insufficient.

What is the answer? Must we despair? If we de
pend upon credit control and a National Economic
Council we may well despair. Why hand over all this
power in a grand and glorious experiment bound to
fail in the end? Why not do something about the thing
that controls the value of money and its fluctuation?
Is not this the real crux of the situation?

Instead of trying to stabilize prices through credit
control, why not stabilize the dollar why not seek a
way to give it a constant relationship in its purchasing
power to all other commodities? To do this we must
change the monetary basis. Money is a means of ex
change. It has no real value otherwise except that gold
and silver have commodity value. And this very com
modity value helps upset things as it changes in rela
tion to other commodities.

If there is too much wheat the price per bushel goes
down. Likewise if there is too much gold or silver, the
price per ounce goes down. Then money will buy less.
If money is scarce, its value goes up and it will buy
more. Our trouble is that it is constantly changing in
relation to other things which are supreme needs in
human life such as food, clothing, and the raw mate
rials and land behind them.

Professor Irving Fisher has suggested that we place
our money on a commodity basis that is place it upon
the real wealth of our country and not merely upon one
commodity such as gold. If we took several hundred

THE CONTROL OF INDUSTRY 171

commodities and averaged them, thus obtaining an in
dex number that represented an average valuation
for money and established our money on that standard
the relationship of money to commodities would remain
relatively fixed. There would be very little variation
between money and commodities, as the value of
money would change with the average of the com
modities only. Upon such a basis as this we could
get away from wide extremes of fluctuation, and over
production and fluctuation in one or two commodities
could not destroy our whole credit structure as at
present.

We could make this change in our monetary system
and practically solve our inflation and deflation trouble,
thus getting control of the business cycle and achieving
stabilization. Many economists favor this action, and
we could carry it out without any Centralized Control
of Industry. We need only change our monetary basis
by legislation. Our wealth is in land and commodities
and this action would place our entire wealth behind
our money. We need not abandon gold as a medium
of exchange we can figure it in as a commodity, and
place our currency on the index value of all commod
ities. The amount of gold behind each currency dol
lar would vary with the value of the commodity dollar.
The Negative believe that this is a much better
method of solving our problem than the adoption of
Centralized Control of Industry through credit control.

172 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

First Negative Rebuttal
University of Redlands

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: My colleague has taken
up in detail the three subsidiary boards proposed by
the Affirmative and has shown you where the element
of failure lies in each. He has shown you that credit
control, the main proposal of the Affirmative, is not
sound that changing values will wreck it; that it is
impossible to maintain safe reserves and still control
credit in times of stress; that the influence of the flow
of gold from one country to another because of foreign
trade holds dangers for credit control; and that the
system will not work.

In the time at my disposal I would like to take up
the National Economic Council, which the Affirmative
propose, and show you that it is an undesirable com
mission.

To begin with, the Affirmative plan entrusts the
Economic Council with too much power arbitrary
power. Such a delegation of power over the entire
financial and business world is unheard of, short of
absolute despotism or Communism. As a matter of
fact the Affirmative plan is the first step toward Com
munism. Take this step and you must logically take
the next and the goal is absolute ownership of every
thing by the state. The Affirmative proposal is to give
the Economic Council control over the destiny of
every commercial enterprise in the country of any con
sequence. It is true the plan does not require govern-

THE CONTROL OF INDUSTRY 173

ment ownership, but it does give the Economic Council
the power to make or break any company or even an
entire industry.

For instance, any business can reach the place where
a loan is a necessity. The business may be perfectly
sound and the loan the best business method in the
world to keep production and employment going. It
may be a situation where the end justifies the means.
In fact, that is what credit is for to keep business
going. But suppose the Economic Council decides
against the loan to this particular company, saying
that there is already over-production in the field. The
company has to retrench, throw men out of employ
ment perhaps go through bankruptcy because it can
not afford the high price for credit. The stockholders
lose a profitable business, maybe the savings of a life
time that they have invested all because too much
power is vested in a government Council. Left alone
some banker with confidence in the concern would tide
them through with a loan and insure financial success.

Take another example. A new invention will revo
lutionize the industry and make it more efficient. One
company desires a loan in order to reorganize, install
the new machinery, and reap the benefits of initiative.
The Economic Council decides that this will force other
concerns to the wall which are less efficient or desire
to go on in the old way and refuses a loan. Then how
are we to progress? Or, suppose they favor improve
ment and grant the loan, then the other companies will
want loans, but with the increased efficiency they are
not all needed. Who is to say which ones get the loans

174 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

and which retire? Shall we allow the Economic Coun
cil to force companies out of business at will, or whim,
or caprice, or what have you? Either we protect in
efficiency and stop progress, or we deal out favoritism
and injustice? Take your choice. A pleasant prospect
isn t it?

We maintain that this is too much power to hand
over to any government commission. It means lock-
step civilization. There will be constant injustice in
the manipulation of interest rates and business oppor
tunity. Our freedom of enterprise will be gone. The
arbitrary limitations that will be placed upon invest
ment, upon profit, and upon the conduct of business
will be intolerable in a free country. The Economic
Council will have to have an army of investigators,
appraisers, and experts in every line of industry or fail
for lack of knowledge and time to consider the many
problems that will arise. The whole scheme is un
wieldy, bureaucratic, and tyrannical. It reminds me
of the words of the immortal Hamlet: it

"makes us rather bear those ills we have
than fly to others that we know not of."

Ladies and gentlemen, do you feel that you want
to take the chance? We do not believe it wise, my
colleague and I, when we may arrive at stabilization
by a more positive method. Why risk our all on the
wisdom and ability of a group of Economic Council-
men, when an automatic change that is certain to treat
all alike is possible in our monetary system a change

THE CONTROL OF INDUSTRY 175

that will stop the fluctuation in values that will put
an end to inflation and deflation.

First Affirmative Rebuttal
University of Redlands

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: My opponent, who has
just left the floor has made a most interesting appeal
to your fear of Communism, tyranny and injustice,
and "lock-step civilization." But just what are we in
now? Are we not in the toils of a system just as bad?
Do not a few men control our lives, our fortunes, and
our sacred business opportunities now? Are not the
days gone when a poor man could start a business and
succeed with practically no capital? Does not the man
who controls credit today rule your destiny and mine?
And what have the giants of big business done to us
put us into the worst panic in the history of civiliza
tion a world wide debacle!

What about our ten million men out of work
clamoring for a chance to make a decent living for
themselves and families and finding it impossible?
What about the soup kitchens and bread lines the
wholesale charity and the doles to these helpless un
fortunates! If we go on with a system like this, the
next panic will be worse until we reach rebellion and
the Communism the gentleman fears so much. He
would rather "bear the ills we have than fly to others
that we know not of." With the present system he is
likely to get both. We prefer to trust the efforts of
a government agency created purposely to look after

176 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

the common welfare, than remain the wage slaves of a
system such as ours. We d rather trust the Economic
Council than the modern Capitalists, whose selfish
ness and blunders, under the guise of individual in
itiative, have put us where we are and threaten our
future with things much worse. After all it is a matter
of choice. You may have yours we have ours.

The second speaker of the Negative has done ex
actly what my colleague predicted suggested in the
last minute or two of his speech a counterplan. We
have spent the whole debate upon our plan and its
foundations. The Negative have spent their time
objecting to our plan, and then in the last minute
suggest a plan without assuming any burden of proof
or advancing any evidence in favor of it. I believe
he did say that Professor Irving Fisher and some
economists whom he did not mention favored it. I
am going to leave the answer to his plan to my col
league, for I wish during my speech to simmer the
argument down to a contest between these two plans
of achieving stabilization.

I do not have time to take up all the arguments the
Negative have advanced against our plan, but I shall
mention a few. The attack on the Statistical Bureau
was superficial and deceitful. We all know that there
are several commercial statistical organizations in that
field which are being paid huge sums for their services
by business men. Statistics have much value.

The attack on the Federal Incorporation was in
consequential. It admitted that the federal govern
ment, the authority over interstate commerce, could

THE CONTROL OF INDUSTRY 177

and should charter such corporations and businesses.
He doubts the effectiveness of incorporation laws
working much change for social betterment, and said
it was not usual to do it that way. That does not
condemn it or answer its effectiveness. Perhaps we
could not prevent all the stock-watering but we could
at least make the intentional and dishonest practices
no longer valid. We do not expect perfection, but we
do expect to better conditions. I think the gentleman
was disappointed because we had found a method of
controlling the credit outside of banks and spoiled one
of his victory arguments.

Now as to the Federal Reserve System and Credit
Control Last fall (1931) the LaFollette Committee
of the United States Senate held hearings on the estab
lishment of a National Economic Council. We have
gone through these hearings, and we have found several
Economists, notably Mr. Virgil Jordan, Mr. Ralph E.
Flanders, and others advocating that credit control
was the proper action for the Economic Council to take
in stabilizing business. Walter Spahr, whom the gen
tleman quoted says on page 125 of his book on the
Federal Reserve System, "It seems safe to say that the
predominant opinion of those persons competent to
judge is in favor of attempting to stabilize the price
level, and that one of the best means of securing this
stabilization is through the control of credit. While
there is some difference of opinion regarding this con
tention, the opposition appears to be relatively unim
portant."

Neither Mr. Spahr nor the gentlemen who appeared

178 THE YEAR BOOK. OF COLLEGE DEBATING

before the LaFollette Committee championed the
Negative s method of stabilization a change from the
gold standard to the commodity basis for our money.
They did favor credit control. Mr. Spahr says the
opposition appears to be relatively unimportant and
this is our opinion of the Negative objections to credit
control. Mr. Spahr discussed all the negative argu
ments in his book before he made the statement that
we quoted, so we have his opinion of them. In fact
the Negative got its gold reserve argument from Mr.
Spahr s book.

The fact is that credit control is recognized as the
potent way to stop the change in valuation that the
Negative has made so much of in this debate, so we
feel that in choosing between their plan and ours the
weight of authority rests with us. Ours is a compre
hensive system that offers much. Theirs is a legis
lative change that lacks much of meeting the entire
situation. For these reasons we still urge your ap
proval of Centralized Control of Industry through the
plan that we have presented.

Second Negative Rebuttal
University of Redlands

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: The issue of this debate
now lies, as the speaker who just left the floor said,
between the Affirmative plan and the Negative method
of obtaining stabilization by changing the monetary
basis. I have just been accused of advocating this
legislative change from the gold basis to the commodity

THE CONTROL OF INDUSTRY 179

basis as a last minute proposition with no evidence in
support. Ladies and Gentlemen, my colleague and I
have spent our entire time analyzing the present situa
tion in this country in order to show you what kind of
a remedy is needed, and in order to show you how the
Affirmative remedy fails. This is our negative duty
and must be fulfilled. We have done this first. What
time we have left we have given to the advancement of
a plan which we think is much better than the Affirma
tive proposition. Everything that we said laid a
foundation for our plan in fact our whole argument
led to our plan. It is a sort of a cap sheaf to the entire
argument. In our judgment it does not require a
great deal of supporting evidence it follows logically
upon the kind of reasoning we have done in this debate.
I suppose my opponent wants me to quote a lot of
authorities who favor it, and all that sort of thing* I
notice, however, that he advanced no arguments
against the Negative plan, except the remark that we
had given no supporting evidence and had not devoted
a great deal of time to the statement of our exact plan.
As I have said it does not need it, and until he attacks
our plan I have nothing to refute and the plan stands.
He has offered no reason why it will not work. As a
matter of fact he cannot for he knows it is working
in part today. Our bank-notes today are backed in
part by commercial paper representing commodities,
and not entirely backed by gold reserve. Our oppo
nents know that our plan is sound and practicable.
That is why he did not attack. He said his colleague
would answer our plan. Allow me to point out that

180 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

we have no further rebuttal speech and that the gentle
men in reserving what they have to say about our plan
until we have no opportunity to answer, are taking all
the advantage the rules of debate will permit. Why?
Possibly because they are afraid we could easily an
swer their refutation possibly because they have no
answer 1

Let us compare these two plans. Let us sum them
up that we may be in better position to decide between
them. We have agreed in this debate that stabilization
of business conditions is the goal we are seeking, in
order that we may recover from depression and stay
out permanently, and in order that employment may be
given again to the millions out of work, and that there
may through wages be buying power to end this
gigantic plethora of production. The Affirmative wish
to solve this problem with credit control operated by a
National Economic Council with three bureaus through
which they may rule the country with a sort of business
oligarchy, which they insist will be beneficient, but
which we have pointed out is likely to be tyrannical and
dangerous and the first step to Communism. We have
likewise pointed out that the problems these three sub
sidiary bureaus face are not so simple that they will
yield easily to the means the Affirmative proposes to
use. I cannot review all the argument but let me re
mind you that their main argument credit control
stands discredited until they answer the argument we
advanced about the gold reserve upon which credit is
based. We showed that the gold reserve may ebb and
flow that it is an inconstant factor, and may be taken

THE CONTROL OF INDUSTRY 181

from us by other countries. We also showed that if
every ounce of gold remained in the Federal Reserve
vaults and in the United States Treasury, that changes
in the value of the money or the gold with reference
to commodities could reduce our reserves upon which
credit is based. Without the loss of a single dollar,
our reserves could be reduced until we had far too
much credit based upon our money for safety. You
know what this means runs on the bank demands
for payment in gold the possibility of a far greater
debacle than any panic we have ever faced. We have
shown that credit control would break down could
not be maintained in the face of such conditions.

Now, on the other hand, we have shown you that a
National Economic Council is not necessary with all
the other machinery that it entails, because we can
arrange to keep the value of money in a constant
relationship with the commodities it must buy for us
by making a change from the gold standard to a com
modity standard in other words stabilizing the dollar
adopting the index dollar. We have shown you that
this is as sound a proposition as the resources of our
country, for it puts all our resources behind our money.
There is nothing dangerous or unstable about it. We
can accomplish it through legislation, and can avoid
adopting all this dangerous and experimental machinery
the Affirmative advocate. We can dodge the risks
involved in bureaucratic rule. Certainly we do not
want Centralized Control of Industry if it can be
avoided. We want freedom of action, individual in
itiative, and business without government interference.

182 THE YEAH BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

We want to avoid paternalism. If we can solve this
problem of the changing relationship of values between
money and commodities, which is our real trouble with
out running the risk of bureaus and commissions that
may do the wrong thing, why do we not take the sim
pler solution, the safer and more democratic plan?
It is our firm belief that we should depend as little as
possible upon government for business direction. The
whole attitude upon which the Affirmative plan is based
is wrong. Government ought not to be supporting the
people^ running their businesses for them the people
should support the government. Government is to
maintain order and safeguard society, so that the citi
zens may live and work in peace. We pay taxes that
we may support social organization. It is not the func
tion of government to direct business in this country
and certainly government should not attempt to run
the most significant and important business we have,
banking and finance.

Ladies and Gentlemen, my time is gone and I must
leave you with this final admonition let us beware of
centralization of power as long as we have a simpler
and easier way out of our difficulties.

Second Affirmative Rebuttal
University of Redlands

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: I shall not take a great
deal of your time. I may not use all the time that is
allotted me. The debate has narrowed down to a final
issue what about the Negative plan? Will it do all

THE CONTROL OF INDUSTRY 183

that the Negative claims for it? I do not know. I
think it is a good plan. I am favorably impressed with
it. Perhaps this surprises you. Well here goes for
another surprise. I am ready to make some admissions
that may look very damaging to the Affirmative case
at first but please follow me through carefully and see
where we come out.

I wish to admit that in attacking credit control in
the way that he did, through the gold reserve behind
our currency, my opponent has made credit control
look rather weak. I wish to admit that my opponent
is entirely in the right. His analysis of the weakness
in credit control is correct. I know that this is an
unusual thing to do in a debate admit that your op
ponent has delivered a solar plexus blow at your case
but in debate there are two real aims; training for the
speakers in logical delivery and public speaking and
losers benefit here as much as winners and second, we
aim in a debate to seek truth. We aim if possible to
solve a problem as surely and effectively as we can.
That is more important than winning a decision.

Now with this as a preface allow me to congratulate
my opponent on the knowledge he has shown of credit
control and the skill with which he has assailed its
great weakness. Permit me further to thank him for
the generous and magnificent way also in which he
solved that great weakness in credit control In other
words, allow me to thank him for furnishing the Affirm
ative with exactly what it needed and purposed to use
to refute the attack he made on credit control through
the gold reserve. Did you not observe that his change

184 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

of monetary basis from gold to commodities removes
the danger of a fluctuating gold reserve and demolishes
the attack he made upon our plan? Do you know
what we intend to do adopt his commodity dollar, as
an articulate part of our credit control plan. That is
what the National Economic Council, which he fears
so greatly would do, just as soon as the dangers he
pointed out threatened credit control.

Now you will see why we made no attack upon his
plan. We intended from the first to use the commodity
dollar to refute the gold reserve argument against
credit control but why not let our opponent waste his
time and do it for us. It saves us time and saves your
time also.

I must of course point out that his monetary scheme
merely fits into our plan, it does not rival our plan and
cannot take its place. For instance all the benefits
that we gain from federal incorporation are impossible
in his plan and we pointed out to you many things that
we could accomplish for the betterment of industry
through federal incorporation. Also we shall reap
much benefit from accurate and thorough statistics of
business in this country. The advantages of such a
service will be great. Moreover, our strengthened
Federal Reserve System will give America the kind
of banking system that we need; a unified one; a safe
one. The Negative suggestion is a good one, as I have
admitted, so good that we make a place for it in our
plan, and thank the gentlemen for it.

And now the debate is over. We appreciate greatly
the interest you have shown in this contest. If there

THE CONTROL OF INDUSTRY 185

is to be a decision, it must rest with you. We have
enjoyed this little discussion with ourselves, and hope
we have not bored you beyond your ability to endure,
for we do hope that you will think seriously along the
lines of this discussion. We have made an honest
effort to present some of the best thought on this sub
ject that we have been able to find. These issues and
this reasoning is not ours alone, of course it is gleaned
from the writings of the men who have studied this
situation and know whereof they speak. We present
the ideas in our own manner, in our own way, and
hope that you may profit by them. In the final analysis
we hope that you will see the great possibilities for
relief from depression, and for a fairer and better in
dustrial organization than we have known in the past,
through Centralized Control of Industry.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: CONTROL OF INDUSTRY

BOOKS

Cahn, H. (Editor). Capital To-day. Kerr. $2.

Carter. Limitations to State Control of Industry. Stokes.

Chase, Stuart.- Nemesis of American Business. Macmillan. 1931.

191pp.

Clark.- Social Control of Business. 1926. Univ. of Chicago Press.
Donham, W. B. Business Adrift. McGraw-Hill.
Douglas, P, H. and Director, A. The Problem of Unemployment.
Ely, Richard T.Hard Times The Way In and the Way Out. 1931.

Epstein, Abraham. The Challenge of the Aged. 1928. Vagabond

Press.

Fairchild and Compton. Economic Problems. 1928. Macmilkii.
Fetter, Frank A. -The Masquerade of Monopoly. 1931. Harcourt.

?3.5<X

186 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

Filene, Edward A. The Way Out a Forecast of Coming Changes in
American Business and Industry. 1925. Doubleday.

Foster, W. T. and Catchings, W. Profits. 1925. Houghton. 460pp.

Frederick, J. George. The Swope Plan of Stabilizing Industry. 1931.
The Business Bourse, N. Y. 196pp.

Hamlin, Scoville. The Menace of Over-production f Extent and Cure.

1930. Wiley, N. Y.

Hobson, John A. Poverty in Plenty. 1931. Macmillan. $1.50.
Hobson, John A. Rationalisation and Unemployment. 1930. Mac-

millaxi.
Hodgson, James G. (Compiler). Planning for Economic Stability.

No. 9. Vol. 7. Reference Shelf. H. W. Wilson. December

1931.
James, Cyril. The Economics of Money t Credit, and Banking.

Ronald.
Johnson, Julia E. (Compiler). Capitalism on Trial. 1931. Ref.

Shelf. H. W. Wilson, N. Y. 90c
Laidler, Harry W. Concentration of Control in American Industry.

1931. T. Y. CroweU, N. Y. $3.75. 501pp.

Muir, Ramsey. Liberalism and Industry. 1921. Houghton. 203pp.
Myers, James. Representative Government in Industry. Doubleday.

$2.

Russell, Charles Edward. Doing Us Good and Plenty. Ken:, Chicago.
Spahr. The Federal Reserve System and Credit Control. 1931.

Macmillan.

Taussig, F. W. Principles of Economics. Vol. 2.
Tugwell, Munro, and Stryker. American Economic Life. Harcourt.
Warburg, Paul. The Federal Reserve System. 1930. Macmillan.

2 vols.

Webb, Sidney and Beatrice. Decay of Capitalistic Civilization.
Yugoff, A. Economic Trends in Soviet Russia. 1930. Richard R.

Smith, N. Y. $4.25.

PAMEHXETS

Academy of Poh tical Science. Gerald Swope Discussion of "Stabi
lization of Industry" by Swope an address given at Hotel Astor,
N. Y. C. November 13, 1931 before the Academy.

Chamber of Commerce of the United States, Washington, D. C.
Report of the Committee on Continuity of Business and Employ
ment. 1931. October 5. Report No. 12, 121st. Bd. Meeting.

THE CONTROL OF INDUSTRY 187

Conference on Permanent Preventives of Unemployment, Washington,
D. C. January 26-27, 1931. Federal Council of Churches,

N. y. a soc.

League for Industrial Democracy. H. W. Laidler Unemployment

and its Remedies. 2Sc.
Modem Eloquence Corporation. Jesse Rainsford Sprague Big

Business on Trial, June 1928.
National Electric Manufacturing Association. Gerald Swope

Stabilization of Industry an address before the Association at

Hotel Commodore. N. Y. C. September 16, 1931.

ADDITIONAL REFERENCES

Hodgson, J. G. Stabilization of Industry in the Reference Shelf.

H. W. Wilson, N. Y. has an excellent bibliography.
Nichols, E. R. The Control of Industry, Univ. of Redlands Debate

Bureau, Redlands, Calif., contains IS pages of bibliography.
The Wilson Bulletin. January 1932. List of recent references on

debate subjects.

WAGE REDUCTIONS RETARD
BUSINESS RECOVERY

Northwest Conference Debate

WAGE REDUCTIONS RETARD
BUSINESS RECOVERY

WHITMAN COLLEGE AFFIRMATIVE VS.
OREGON STATE COLLEGE

The Northwest Colleges which usually debate the question chosen
by the Pacific Coast Conference, decided to discuss the effect of
wage reductions on recovery from the business depression during the
debate season of 1931-32, instead of the Presidential campaign of
1932, the subject recommended by a committee of the Conference.
In addition most of the Northwest Colleges also debated the Pi
Kappa Delta National subject, the Control of Industry.

The following debate submitted by Roy C. McCall, Debate Coach
at Whitman College, and W. A. Dahlberg, Men s Varsity Debate
Coach at Oregon State College, was on the proposition: Resolved,
that the cutting of wages has retarded the process of recovery from
the business depression.

The arguments advanced by the speakers were used in several de
bates against other colleges of the Northwest in addition to the debate
recorded here. The debate proved to be very pertinent, timely, and
interesting, and develops well both sides of this extremely important
problem. The decision was a tie, the third Judge refusing to vote.

First Affirmative, Harry Lehrer
Whitman College

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: It is indeed a source of
great pleasure to us this afternoon, to be able to meet
the gentlemen from Oregon State College, and although
our accommodations do not in any way equal those

191

192 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

so graciously given to our use in Corvallis, we hope
that the warmth of the argument will minimize the dis
comforts which are usually imposed by an impecunious
cultural college.

As the Chairman has already announced to you the
subject of our discussion, and has done so in a much
more erudite and delightful manner than I could ever
hope to, I will dispense with that formality and begin.
But before we commence the discussion of such an im-
portant, if not interesting, subject, it might be well to
pause a moment and reflect on the meaning of some of
the words in the statement of the question. Now,
obviously the word "retard" means to slow up, so we
can skip over that, but when we come to "wage cut
ting," we find that several interpretations may be
given. We might say that "wage cutting" includes
unemployment, for surely when you put a man out of
work you cut his wages, in fact, you cut them off com
pletely, but in order that we might be fair in our
definition and in order that this might remain a verbal,
rather than a fistal combat, we will define "wage
cutting" as a reduction in the hourly rate of pay. We
hope that this will meet with the approval of the gen
tlemen from Oregon State and that our debate may
continue on that definition.

All of you realize that we are in the midst of a de
pression. It is unnecessary for me to bring before you
the disaster, the starvation, and destitution with which
we have been afflicted for the past three years. Mil
lions of unemployed, starving families, huge soup lines,
and all the other evidences of this dread pestilence

WAGE REDUCTIONS RETARD RECOVERY 193

bring to our attention forcefully, the necessity and im
portance of labor and wages. However, before we can
understand the effect of wage-cuts on the continuation
of these undesirable conditions, we must go back a few
years and trace the causes which led to the predica
ment in which we found ourselves in 1929. During the
so-called prosperous years, from 1923 to 1929, capital
was guilty of a bad blunder and now it is paying for it.
During these years the productive capacity of labor,
that is the average power of labor to produce goods,
increased seventeen per cent; however, during this
same period, the increase in the buying power of labor
(that is the increase in the real wages of labor)
amounted to only five per cent. Notice the situation.
The increased producing power was equivalent to three
times the increased consuming power. Now, labor
constitutes a very important part of the consuming
public, some authorities crediting it with removing
around eighty per cent of all that is produced, and the
inability of labor to take off the market that which it
properly should, naturally led to disastrous results.
Since the increased buying power of labor enabled it
to take off the market only one-third of its increased
production, a surplus immediately resulted, and on
this surplus hinges a great deal. Capital, realizing that
the piling up of this surplus was undesirable, looked
about for means of removing it and stumbled onto the
"installment buying system" that is, buying on future
wages. For a time this scheme worked and aided in
the reduction of the surplus, but being based on shaky
economic foundations, it collapsed with the crash of

194 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

credit, due to the disastrous effects of the fall in the
stock market in 1929.

Here was the situation in the beginning of the de
pression. A huge surplus piled up, due to the failure
of capital to increase the real wage in accordance with
increased productive ability, and a low buying power,
first due to the failure of the real wage to increase in
accordance with production ability, and second, to the
fact that installment buying had led to mortgaging of
future wages, and laborers found themselves with in
stallment contracts on hand, which had to be paid
before they could continue to buy. A sad picture, but
not beyond hope if proper action could be taken; and
here is where capital failed us.

Good times, or conditions of prosperity, may be said
to be in operation when production and consumption
are balanced, and are on an even keel. Now obviously,
the necessary and logical thing to do at this time was
to remove the surplus. Since a balance between pro
duction and consumption is vital to the continuation of
good times it was absolutely necessary to remove the
surplus from the market immediately; and how could
this be done? Logically, the quickest way to do away
with the surplus was to increase buying power by in
creasing, or at least maintaining the buying power in
1929 and 1930. If this could have been done, the sur
plus would have been speedily removed, production
and consumption would have been balanced and we
would have found ourselves in the process of economic
recovery. But what did the grand moguls of industry
do? Instead of maintaining or even increasing buying

WAGE REDUCTIONS RETARD RECOVERY 195

power in order to remove quickly, they cut real wages,
thereby decreasing the buying power of labor when it
was most important that it be increased or maintained.
To illustrate more clearly what actually occurred, allow
me to quote you some figures from the Annalist for
April 8, 1932 these figures were compiled by the
Statistical Abstract Company of the United States.
These figures show that in December of 1929, the
cost of living (based on 1914 as one hundred three)
was at one hundred seventy-one and four-tenths, while
in December of 1930, it was at one hundred sixty and
seven-tenths, thus showing a drop of ten and seven-
tenths in the cost of living. However, during this same
period, wages dropped twenty and one-tenth being
one hundred and four-tenths in 1929 and eighty and
three-tenths in 1930. Thus it is readily seen that in
the beginning of the depression instead of wages being
increased as necessary they were actually decreased.
The debate hinges on the word retard; if cuts in wages
have slowed up the removal of the surplus, as they
obviously have, and since the quick removal of the
surplus was vital to the continuation of good times,
then logically cuts in wages have retarded the return
to economic recovery.

Were it only by cuts in the real wage that wage
cutting has retarded the return to recovery, this debate
might remain a simple argument over whether or not
real wages have been cut, but wage cutting has led to
other detrimental activity in our economic structure.

Wage cutting has led to reduction of buying power in
another manner, and has thereby added to the retard

196 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

of economic recovery. It has brought about a psycho
logical fear in the hearts of our working class, which
has caused laborers to bank and hoard their money
instead of spending it, as they were formerly accus
tomed to do. Seeing his own and his neighbor s wages
cut, the laborer has been beset with a fear of future
wage-cuts and in that state of mind has hoarded and
banked his money instead of increasing consumption
by properly spending it. To illustrate this point it is
necessary only to take the example offered by the
"Braddock steel" producing region, around Pittsburgh.
Although there have been wage-cuts and unemploy
ment has not spared this district, the savings banks of
the locality hold nearly four million dollars more than
they did in 1929. And according to Mr. George A.
Todd, president of one of the Mellon Banks in the
region, this money is the savings of workers and not
commercial funds awaiting better opportunities for
investment. It is important to note, then, in the face
of this evidence, that wage-cuts have affected the
spending of workers to such an extent as to further de
crease the market, at the time when it should be
increased, thereby contributing greatly to the retard
of the process of economic recovery.

Nor can the condemnation of wage cutting properly
rest when we have considered only the actual reduction
in buying power through cuts in real wages and through
the element of psychological fear. There remains yet
a charge against this practice which is extremely im
portant and that is increasing unemployment.

Let us consider how wage-cuts have brought in-

WAGE REDUCTIONS RETARD RECOVERY 197

creased unemployment about. As we have already
attempted to demonstrate to you, wage cutting has
decreased buying power in two ways. Now, what has
decreased buying power led to? First, a faU in the
markets, for naturally if men don t buy there is no
market, then if there Is no market, producers must cut
production. Now in order that production may be
cut, producers lay off men. Laying off men serves in
turn still further to decrease the market (because un
employed men have no money with which to buy) and
thus causes more unemployed through a repetition of
the same process. You see the vicious cycle that
occurs; a weak market due to decrease in buying
power leads manufacturers to cut production. These
men who are unemployed cannot buy, therefore, the
producer is forced still further to cut production, lay
off more men, until we find ourselves in a chaotic con
dition of unemployment and economic unrest, due prin
cipally and originally to the lack of buying power
brought about by wage cutting in the two ways we have
given you. Now even the gentlemen from Oregon
would say that unemployment has retarded the process
of economic recovery. Then if wage cutting has in
creased unemployment, obviously then, wage cutting
has been effective In retarding the process of recovery.
We have attempted to show you this afternoon how
wage cutting has slowed up the return to normal, first;
by actually decreasing real wages when It was neces
sary that they be maintained, or even increased. Sec
ond, by decreasing purchasing power by means of the
psychological fear, which has resulted from this prac-

198 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

tice, and third, by means of the actual increase in un
employment which may be traced to wage cutting.
These are indeed weighty condemnations of the prac
tice, and illustrate clearly, I hope, to our worthy
opponents, how wage-cuts have retarded the process of
economic recovery.

Now, it would be foolish for us to condemn wage
cutting as we have done if the practice were necessary
and could not be avoided, as is often argued. But to
demonstrate to you that we are not arguing mere
theory and that the maintenance of high wages at the
beginning of this depression was practical, allow us to
quote to you a few statistics substantiating our view
point. The Bankers Monthly for March 1931, giving
statistics compiled by the Standard Statistic Company,
gives us the following interesting figures: "Wages in
1930 were below 1929 by $707,000,000, yet dividend
payments during this period increased by $350,000,-
000." To continue, "Wage earners incomes were cut
twelve per cent while the stockholders increased
twenty-eight per cent." These figures in themselves tell
you the story. Were wage-cuts necessary? Yes, in
order that increased dividends might be paid. Capital
robbed labor in order to pay increased dividends to
investors.

Proof of this practice abounds, but time permits me
only one more example. Quoting this time from the
Federationist of November 1931:

"In 1930 employees of United States Steel lost $28,-
800,000 due to lay-offs and part time work, yet it paid
full dividends incurring a deficit of $22,000,000. In

WAGE REDUCTIONS RETARD RECOVERY 199

October of 1931, United States Steel made a wage cut
of $5,000,000 to make up the deficit incurred by pay
ing these dividends." The evidence speaks for itself.
Was it necessary that dividend payments should be
continued or even increased at the price of the workers
wage? Yet obviously that is what American industry
has done.

We have attempted to show you the detrimental
effects of wage-cuts how they have actually retarded
the process of economic recovery. Furthermore, in
order that we might not debate as did the ancients, as
to how many angels could stand on a pin-point, we
have given you figures to substantiate our argument
that such a drastic and unsound economic policy was
unnecessary.

First Negative, George W. Hartley
Oregon State College

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: First, I wish to thank the
Gentlemen from Whitman College for the kind recep
tion they have given us, and then I want to say that
we shall try to make them as uncomfortable as pos
sible during the next hour and a half,

Mr. Lehrer would have you believe that he has
granted us a distinct favor by deciding to exclude wage
losses due to unemployment from this discussion. As
a matter of fact he had no choice, for the spirit of the
question as well as economic definitions plainly intend
the term Vage cutting" to exclude unemployment.
The fact that Mr. Lehrer thought he might include

200 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

unemployment should of itself breed a healthy skepti
cism toward everything else that he uttered.

The gentlemen of the Affirmative have told you that
wage cutting brought about a psychological fear that
caused people to hoard. However, Mr. Lehrer failed
to remind you that most of this hoarding is a result of
a world depression and cannot be directly attributed
to wage-cuts. The very fact that we are in a world
wide depression is enough to cause people to spend less,
even though wages had never been affected. And later
in our case we shall show you that a wage-cut, instead
of increasing hoarding, allows for the continued oper
ation of industry and actually prevents the hoarding
that follows when people fear for their very jobs.

Now in regard to this "vicious cycle" of which the
Affirmative speaks, and in which they tell you that
wage cutting decreases buying power which tends to
lower markets; which lowers production, and ulti
mately to occasion unemployment. Such reasoning is
based upon pure assumption and can be done by both
sides. Let me paint a vicious cycle also. The arbitrary
maintenance of high wages in an economic depression
increases production costs which decreases profits,
which demands reduced production costs and ultimately
leads to unemployment. In other words, we can take
the other side of the cycle and draw the same con
clusion. Is not my cycle just as valid as that of Mr.
Lehrer? The fallacy comes in assuming the first prem
ise to be true. His entire chain of reasoning is based
on the assumption that the purchasing power of the
people has been decreased. And that statement we

WAGE REDUCTIONS RETARD RECOVERY 201

challenge the Affirmative to prove. Before I present
the argument showing that the purchasing power has
not been decreased, allow me to explain our position in
regard to this question.

Mr. Wood and I are as much disturbed by the pres
ent economic dislocation of business as are Mr. Lehrer
and Mr. Ball. We appreciate the awful significance
of having eight million unemployed men smothering
every semblance of respectability in the acceptance of
charity from their friends. And we would ally our
selves with these gentlemen against any force working -
contrary to a quick relief from the whole disgusting
situation. The question is, "How can we get relief ?"
How can we best accelerate the return to pleasanter
conditions?

In the depression of 1873, wages were ruthlessly
cut with no thought of society. No one deliberated;
no one questioned the wisdom. In 1893, cuts were
again effected though there could be heard a protest
and in some instances even by the employers them
selves. In 1921 when wages were on the verge of
collapse, the protest was more audible still, and in
1931 the surprising thing occurred. Every distin
guished leader in industry openly and frankly fought
wage reduction. With a sincerity hardly believable
these leaders at the Hoover conference of 1930
pledged themselves not to cut wages unless it was abso
lutely imperative. Articles prepared by these men
were published in the most reputable magazines of the
country outlining their objections to a wage cutting
policy. Henry Ford, the world champion of high

202 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

wages, contrary to his whole economic philosophy;
contrary to his high wage plan revealed in the Ford-
Dodge Case; contrary to his whole European survey
which disclosed the value of high wages; this man, I
say, cut the money wages of his employees. These
men, reluctant wage cutters in every instance, have
cut wages and they have done so because they couldn t
do otherwise.

Let us bear in mind that leaders of industry, though
they are not entirely altruistic in their conduct, neither
are they blind. Ford understands that his twenty per
cent cut means a drop in the purchase of his cars and
a consequent fall in profit. The United States Steel
Corporation grasps the meaning of wage slices and the
reduction in sales. The Goodyear Tire and Rubber
Company knows who buys their tires; they know, and
had they been able to sustain industry without cuts
they would have done so, if for no other than selfish
reasons.

And now just one word of explanation. We hold
that this thing called prosperity is a balance between
the production and the consumption of goods. What
ever threatens its restoration; whatever stands in the
way of realizing that balance retards prosperity. Our
stand is that the cutting of money wages has not upset
this balance, for the real wage has remained the same
and hence the power of consumption remains constant.
Further the wage-cut did allow for the continued
operation of industry, which operation would not other
wise have been possible. If we succeed in showing this
to be true, we would show that not only has wage

WAGE REDUCTIONS RETARD RECOVERY 203

cutting not retarded the balance necessary for pros
perity, but that it has actually contributed to its more
rapid return.

And how has the cut in money wages reduced real
wages and the wage earners power to consume? Con
trary to Mr. Lehrer s figures, our answer is that it
has not.

A survey in Portland, Oregon, shows a weighted de
crease of sixteen per cent in the cost of living and a
twelve per cent decrease in wages; in other words, a
four per cent increase in real wages. Professor Fisher s
index of over two hundred commodity prices showed
the purchasing power for 1929 to be one hundred four
per cent, in 1931, one hundred thirty-three per cent or
a twenty-nine per cent increase in purchasing power.
The United States Bureau of Labor said that there had
been an average wage per hour decrease of sixteen per
cent since 1929 and that the average cost of living fell
twenty-five per cent. A survey by a graduate commit
tee of the University of Chicago estimates a fifteen per
cent wage reduction and a twenty-five per cent re
duction in prices.

There is not a reputable survey in circulation that
will tell you otherwise; frankly, there was not one
worthy authority who even attempted a refutation of
these reports, and my opinion is (I give it with some
modesty) that if the gentlemen are fair with the evi
dence, they will admit the issue. Rents have fallen
everywhere; food has dropped twenty-five to thirty
per cent; furniture has been slashed unmercifully;
shoes are sold at one-half their original cost; clothes

204 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

have taken a shameful drop, in prices; in your own
grocery store eggs sell for fifteen cents and eighteen
cents a dozen as contrasted with thirty-five cents in
1928; butter is twenty-three cents as contrasted with
forty cents and forty-five cents in 1928; pork at the
butcher shop on your own Main Street at eighteen
cents as contrasted with thirty cents and thirty-five
cents in 1928. Mr. Dolan, your clothier, sells suits
at twenty dollars, which three years ago cost forty
dollars. Fuel and light have come down twenty per
cent according to the United States Bureau of Labor.

Magnus M. Alexander, president of the National
Industrial Conference Board, said in Forbes Magazine
of last May, "It is childishly absurd to argue that
wage rates must be maintained despite reduction in
the cost of living; for after all It Is the real wage that
establishes the standard of living."

And today we have the purchasing power of 1926.
The functioning wage earners have it and at least five
per cent to ten per cent in addition, even after allow
ing for a wage-cut.

We know that suffering prevails; that people are
unemployed; that charity is more prevalent than ever,
but men still working for wages and who have had
their wages cut have more with which to buy than they
had when they complained the least, and since they
have, we hold that their purchasing power has not
been impaired.

And now just one word on the second issue, namely,
that industry had to cut wages in order to maintain it
self. The gentlemen of the Affirmative will tell you

WAGE REDUCTIONS RETARD RECOVERY 205

that the cutting of wages was not necessary for the con
tinued operation of industry. We hold the contrary to
be true. Perhaps they can explain just how industry
could have met its problem of fixed costs. Whether a
factory runs slow or fast; whether it produces much or
little, the cost of maintenance, interest, and wages re
main the same. For example, suppose we own a
bakery. It costs us one dollar in rent, interest and
maintenance to produce twenty-five loaves of bread
daily. The cost, therefore, per unit loaf is four cents.
Suppose we were producing fifty loaves as was our
capacity in 1928 and 1929, then our unit costs would
be two cents per loaf. Then the depression hits and we
are only producing ten loaves of bread with a conse
quent cost of ten cents per loaf. This, Ladies and Gen
tlemen, is exactly what happened to industry following
the crash. With their machines running at half their
capacity, with interest, maintenance costs and wages
remaining fixed 3 they were forced to cut what they
could if industry was to stand the shock. I ask you
what would you have done when the world market fell
through; when prices fell twenty per cent and thirty
per cent and when the fixed costs of operation remained
at their old level? My guess is that you would do as
Chicago s largest bakery did; as the United States
Steel Corporation did; as Ford did; cut wages and
anything else that could be cut in the interest of your
producing organization.

According to Dr. Dreesen, the fixed costs of rail
roads and industries today are the same as ever, though
their income has been cut in half. Their factories

206 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

must be maintained; the government requires the rail
ways to retain certain definite schedules, and interest
rates are as they were three years ago.

And here is an interesting observation. We think
of the railways as an over-powering menace to the
American masses; whose sole purpose is to bleed the
under-dog and our sympathies are with the brother
hoods that stand out for high wages and old rates.
And then I say that the bonds and securities of these
railroads according to the Daily Digest published by
the United States Government are being held by life
insurance companies to the extent of three billion dol
lars, which go back to the life insurance policies of
50,000,000 people. Dividends consequently, support
the policies of 50,000,000 workers. Mutual savings
banks are holding over $1,700,000,000 of railroad
bonds and securities which, should they become dis
credited or disqualified by industries distress, would
jeopardize the savings of 12,500,000 wage earners in
this country. The question then is decidedly not one
of the industrialist versus the wage earner! In the
publication of the National City Bank of New York
of January 1932 we learn that nearly a billion dollars
worth of railroad bonds and securities are held by the
member banks of the Federal Reserve system while
non-member banks hold $300,000,000. Furthermore,
universities, hospitals, religious and charitable organi
zations and fire insurance companies are known to be
holding weH in excess of $1,500,000,000, of these same
securities.

Fixed costs of large corporations, in view of price

WAGE REDUCTIONS RETARD RECOVERY 207

cuts, are ready to destroy the whole complex system
and to ignore industry s cry for help is to ignore the
interests of millions of small investors., wage earners if
you please, and this the Affirmative certainly does not
want to do.

This then is the first small reason why industry
could not have continued had money wages not been
cut. Mr. Wood will give you the body of that argu
ment later.

Second Affirmative, Walter Ball
Whitman College

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: After listening to the very
convincing speech of Mr. Hartley, I almost wondered
if we hadn t taken the wrong side of this question. And
after hearing him explain to you how the real value of
the dollar has increased, I reached into my pockets to
feel a coin which I had there when this debate started.
It was only twenty-five cents then, but I thought that
surely by this time it must be at least fifty cents. But
there is something very wrong, it is only a dime now.
So for this reason and because we really do believe in
our side of this question, I am afraid that I shall have
to disagree with Mr. Hartley in many things.

First of all, he said that most of the wage-cuts did
not come until after 1930; that the industrial leaders
have fought wage-cuts, that they made a promise to
President Hoover that they would not cut wages, and
kept that promise for twenty months. Now I admit
that these leaders did make that promise and that they

208 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

have verbally fought wage-cuts; but let us see what
these same men were doing in their own industries
while they were writing magazine articles and giving
interviews in which they decried this practice.

For instance, the Monthly Labor Review tells us
that in April 1930, the Cotton Goods industry made
wage cuts of about ten per cent. In June 1930 the
Lumber Industry made cuts as high as twenty per cent.
In the summer of this same year the American Tele
phone and Telegraph Company followed suit; and it
was followed in September by the Standard Oil Com
pany. The Statistical Abstract of the United States
tells us that the Automobile Industry reduced the
hourly rate of wages for common laborers from fifty-
five and nine-tenth cents on January 1, 1929, to forty-
eight and three-tenth cent on July 1, 1930. It also
tells us that all manufacturing industries in 1929 paid
wages of one hundred and four-tenths based upon 1926
as one hundred; but that in 1930 wages had been re
duced to eighty and three-tenths; a decline of twenty
per cent.

Now all of these wage-cuts which I have mentioned
were made within much less than twenty months after
the beginning of the depression. In fact most of them
were made in the seven or eight months after the Stock
Market crash; and they were made by huge industries,
by these very men who solemnly promised President
Hoover to maintain wages and then went back and
immediately and as solemnly began to cut them.

But, the Gentlemen say, even though some few wage-
cuts were made, they were more than taken care of by

WAGE REDUCTIONS RETARD RECOVERY 209

the increase in the real value of the dollar, and the real
wages have remained practically the same. In support
of this contention they cite a statement that the value
of the dollar has increased greatly in Portland, Oregon,
one city out of many in the United States. And they
give a statement from Irving Fisher to the effect that
the cost of living has declined some fifty per cent.
Now, Irving Fisher is but one man and Portland,
Oregon, is but one city. We base our contention that
the wage-cuts made exceeded the increase in the real
value of the dollar upon statistics taken from the
Statistical Abstract of the United States and applying
to the whole of the nation, and certainly this source
should be reliable if there are any such.

As I have mentioned above, wages in manufacturing
industries decreased twenty per cent from 1929 to 1930.
Yet in this same period the cost of living, based upon
1914 as one hundred three, declined from one hundred
seventy-one, in December 1929, to one hundred sixty
and seven-tenths December 1930 7 a decline of but ten
and seven-tenths per cent. So you see that the real
wage actually did decline about ten per cent. Cover
ing the period from 1929 to April 5, 1932, the Annalist
for April the 8th tells us that while there has been a
decrease in living costs of about fourteen per cent, the
decrease in wages has been at least sixteen per cent.

The Gentlemen have said that if we are fair we will
admit the issue of the increase in real wages. We re
fuse to admit this, and back our contention by statistics
taken from two of the most reliable sources of which

210 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

we have any knowledge, the Statistical Abstract of the
United States and the Annalist.

Another main contention of Mr. Hartley is this, that
it was necessary for these concerns to cut wages even
though they did not wish to do so. But let us consider
a few of these industries and see if this is really so.
For instance, the United States Steel Corporation an
nounced a ten per cent cut in October, 1931. Within
a week it was followed by General Motors, Bethlehem
Steel, United States Rubber, and the Aluminum Com
pany of America all huge concerns. Does it seem
logical that all of these million dollar businesses should
have found it necessary to cut wages within the same
week in order to avoid bankruptcy? Does not it seem
more logical to assume that they were merely treating
labor as a commodity which might be bought upon the
open market at the cheapest possible price? Certainly
this has been the capitalists idea in the years preceding
this, and it is an idea which has led directly to this
depression, as my colleague, Mr. Lehrer, pointed out
for you.

But let us consider more closely the United States
Steel Corporation. In 1930 it had a surplus account
of $471,000,000 and an operating surplus of $18,800,-
000. Yet in that same year the employees of this
company lost, by lay-offs and part time work, $28,-
800,000. In 1930 it paid its full dividend of three dol
lars and fifty cents per share on its common stock. But
only seventeen cents of that three dollars and fifty
cents was earned by the company. The rest was paid
from the surplus, thereby incurring a deficit of $22,-

WAGE REDUCTIONS RETARD RECOVERY 211

000,000. In October wages were lowered ten per cent
to make up for that loss. You will note, however, that
the wages were earned, while the dividends were not.
It is true, as Mr. Hartley has told you, that the Steel
Corporation is not operating upon a very profitable
basis at the present time, but it has put itself into this
position by Its unwise payment of dividends. The
wage earners are made to suffer for this.

The Financial World for March 30, 1932, gives a
summary of fifty leading corporations in the United
States; their rating given them by the amount of divi
dends paid out. These corporations paid out $63,-
500,000 more of dividends in 1931 than in 1929. They
decreased wage payments in this same period, however,
by an amount even greater than the increase in divi
dends. Seventy-six per cent of these companies showed
a drop in net earnings, but only twelve per cent of
them have reduced dividends while eighty-nine per
cent have reduced wages.

The rating given these corporations according to
funds paid out in annual dividends in 1931 placed the
American Telephone and Telegraph Company as first;
General Motors, second; United States Steel, third;
Consolidated Gas Company of New York, fourth;
Standard Oil, fifth; Du Pont, sixth, and General Elec
tric, seventh. The American Telephone and Telegraph
Company, the largest dividend payer, paid out in
1930, $139,239 in dividends and in 1931, $163,588;
an increase of $24,349, but during this same period
they cut their wages over $75,000. General Motors,
second ranking concern, in 1930 paid dividends of

212 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

$140,038 and in 1931, $139,876, a decrease of only
one hundred and sixty-two dollars. They, however,
reduced wages by over $100,000. United States Steel,
the third ranking, we have already considered suffi
ciently, I believe. The Consolidated Gas Company of
New York ranks fourth. In 1930 it paid out $56,382,
in 1931, $56,489, an increase of one hundred seven
dollars while they were cutting their wages about
$50,000.

And so we might run on down the rest of this list of
companies and in the majority of them we would find
dividends increased or maintained while wages were
cut, as in the first four corporations. But I have here
a rather refreshing list of concerns, industries which
have shortened the working week, without changing
the rate of pay per hour and have profited despite their
fair treatment of laborers. American Radiator Com
pany, DuPont, Eastman Kodak, Firestone Rubber,
General Electric, Iron Fireman Manufacturing Com
pany, National Cash Register, and American Rolling
Mills, all huge concerns, and every one a specific
example of the fact that wage cutting has not been
necessary if the company were willing to adopt a sen
sible plan of procedure.

Now I realize that I have no doubt bored all of you
with these statistics that I have been giving, and have
put a few of you to sleep with them, but they were
necessary to disprove the contention that wage cutting
has been inevitable. I have pointed out to you com
pany after company that has cut its wages, but at the
same time maintained or increased its dividends, even

WAGE REDUCTIONS RETARD RECOVERY 213

though those dividends were not earned. Certainly
it was not necessary for these companies to cut wages.
As Mr. Lehrer pointed out to you, the maladjustment
between wages and the productive power of the laborer
in the years from 1923 to 1929 was one of the main
causes of this depression. By lowering wages, we
thereby make that maladjustment even greater and so
intensify that situation which put us where we now are.
What a foolish method that is, when we wish the re
turn of prosperity! Recovery lies in an increase in the
purchasing power of the laboring class. That can never
be brought about by wage-cuts.

American business in the past has been based upon
two things, exploitation of resources, and exploitation
of man power. The exploitation of resources may go
on, but that of labor must cease. Too long have we
treated our laborers as mere commodities to be bought
and sold on the public market at the lowest possible
price. These industries which are cutting wages at the
present time, rather than reducing their dividend pay
ments are treating their employees as robots rather
than as human beings; men and women who must
clothe, shelter, and feed themselves and who, more
over, constitute a great part of our buying public.
Such a policy as this on the part of our industries is
merely cutting their own throats merely continuing
the business depression.

214 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

Second Negative, G. Burton Wood
Oregon State College

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: I was not alarmed when
Mr, BaE arose a few minutes ago to tell us that he felt
the quarter which he had in his pocket should have
increased to fifty cents during Mr. Hartley s speech.
Instead, he says, it had shrunk to only ten cents. I
don t wish to make any insinuations, but I might
suggest that Mr. Ball must have a light-fingered com
panion!

I had hoped that Mr. Lehrer and Mr. Ball would
confine their arguments to the question at hand this
afternoon, namely, that "the cutting of wages has re
tarded the process of recovery." Instead, the gentle
men have launched a very vicious attack against capi
talism. May I remind them that we are not debating
whether or not capitalism is a desirable thing we are
not weighing the evidence to decide if the distribution
of income under this system is just. Our discussion
this afternoon must be confined to whether or not
wage cutting has retarded our return to prosperity.
May I point out now that we are living under a capi
talistic system whether we like it or not. The welfare
of our hundred twenty million people depends upon the
strength and durability of this industrialism during this
depression. Such being the case, Mr. Hartley and I
believe sincerely that "for the common good" we should
do everything within our power to protect, preserve,
and safeguard our present economic order. Remove

WAGE REDUCTIONS RETARD RECOVERY 215

this protection, and it will crumble. If that Is the type
of remedy the Affirmative, Mr. Ball and Mr. Leher, are
advocating during this present economic dislocation
they certainly are welcome to it. With this thought
in mind, let us consider for a few minutes the condi
tion of industry and justify its ultimatum during the
depression.

Mr. Hartley has shown you that the purchasing
power has remained constant despite the cut in money
wages; indicating clearly that cuts in money wages
in no way contributed to the further upset of the bal
ance between production and consumption, at least
from the consumption side.

And now, what about the production side? Our
position is that a cut in money wages was necessary for
the continued operation of Industry; its maintenance
could not be effected in any other way.

To better understand the whole problem of Industry
let us return to 1928 and 1929. Everyone knows that
Industry was inflated; factories were built on credit;
banks had given the limit; and the whole feverish
program was built on promise and faith. We manu
factured for Russia at that time; since then Russia
has turned exporter and we lost a good share of her
market. Germany was buying of us; and since then
Germany has declared bankruptcy and we lost some
more. England cut her demand over-night and Canada
not to be outdone erected a tariff barrier and immedi
ately one hundred forty-seven factories arose on
Canadian soil, ready to produce, what heretofore they
had purchased from us. The logical thing occurred.

216 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

Billions of dollars worth of goods crammed our ware
houses; prices crashed; unemployment followed and
the producers stood breathless! The banks called for
money on the notes; some paid and some went into the
hands of the receivers; factories closed or slowed down;
banks failed to the tune of thirty-four per week in the
city of Chicago; and the stock market sounded the
final gun in 1929, climaxing the most sensational
cataclysm in human history.

Who was at fault, is hard to say. Let us suppose
that capital was to blame. What next? It is no es
cape to argue that inasmuch as they caused it they
should remedy it. It does not follow that because a
cyclone destroys this city we should do nothing until
that same cyclone has repaired the damage. The thing
to do is to set about the task ourselves and then take
precautions so that when the next storm approaches
we will find ourselves immune to the ravages which
were experienced the first time. If capital could offer
the remedy certainly they should be called upon to pay
for their own folly, but this cannot be done without
jeopardizing the whole machinery of production, and
to do this would upset that balance so essential to pros
perity.

Mr. Hartley pointed out in his speech the threat of
fixed costs in Industry, and showed you that the only
way Industry could meet these fixed costs was to cut
wages. There is not a reputable economist in the
country who would argue otherwise and yet Mr. Lehrer
and Mr. Ball hold that Industry should continue to pay
the old wage; despite decreased prices; despite de-

WAGE REDUCTIONS RETARD RECOVERY 217

creased profits and regardless of the fixed costs of
operation. F. L. Lipman, president of the Union Trust
Company, summarizes it all when he says, "It stands
to reason that Industry generally cannot continue to
pay the old scale of wages if it cannot sell its products
in volume and at old prices. 57

"But/ 3 the Gentlemen wonder, "where is the wealth
accumulated by Industry during the prosperous period?
Where are the millions that were sweated out of labor
before the crash? Why can t labor be paid out of
that?" The truth is that it was reinvested; expansion
programs were inaugurated; factories were built; high
dividends were declared; and according to a United
Press despatch of January 1, 1932, sixteen billion dol
lars of our prosperity earnings are invested in foreign
securities; and so the answer is that there is not one
buffalo nickel available. No provision was made for
unemployment insurance; no measures were enacted
whereby the real wage could be increased during a
depression.

And then the Gentlemen protest again and say, "But
that is unfair; unjust; and capitalists should be penal
ized." Certainly it was unfair and unjust, but it will
not avail us now to penalize the industrialist if by that
act we cripple production. You see, our stand is not
in defense of malpractice in industry; but rather in
defense of the whole ramified system of production
which must be guarded if we expect a return to pros
perity. Then and then only will it be time to forestall
further disaster.

Again most of the surpluses of our large plants are

218 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

frozen assets and frozen assets will not pay wages.
The American Rubber Company has four million dol
lars tied up in southern factories with every door bolted
and every machine inoperative. According to the
Labor Review of December 1931, three cotton mills
in North Carolina worth two and one-half million
dollars are standing idle and one new cannery in
Eastern Oregon, worth sixty thousand dollars has
never turned a wheel. There is where the profits of
1928 and 1929 are and today they are worth less to
the owners than if they did not have them at all for
interest and taxes must be paid regardless. Need I say
anything about the man who is so ironically called the
Lumber King? Owner of millions of acres of tax
ridden timber and a market price at beggars citation!
Frozen assets, indeed, and to suppose that these men
have surpluses which can be used to increase the real
wages of the workers is utterly absurd. And I chal
lenge Mr. Lehrer and Mr. Ball to show us how these
frozen assets could be liquidated.

Furthermore, the earnings of Industry have literally
tumbled. In the February issue of the Business Week
the author says, "reports now forthcoming indicate
that the earnings will show an eighteen per cent to
twenty-five per cent reduction. 57 In the Annalist of
1931, Henry Hansen says, "The operation of American
factories in 1930 showed sharp declines in net asset
values; sharp decreases in net income and an increase
in the number of companies paying no dividends on
common stock and in some cases none on preferred."
He adds, "In 1931, thirty-four companies reported the

WAGE REDUCTIONS RETARD RECOVERY 219

market value of their investments for the last two years
had a loss in net asset values of $400,000,000 for one
year whereas out of fifty-six investment companies
thirty-five were paying no dividends on common stock
and seven paid absolutely nothing on preferred." After
all ; profit is the controlling motive in business and as
long as it is, you cannot expect to support wages by
a total destruction of that profit.

Now, our friends of the Affirmative infer that there
is no reason to believe that industry was compelled
either to close its doors or reduce its wages. I won
der if they know that of corporations with a capital of
over one million dollars sixteen failed in 1929; that
forty-three of these concerns went bankrupt in 1930;
and that In the first six months of 1931, thirty-seven
of these million dollar corporations went insolvent and
left their plants dark and gloomy. I quote these fig
ures from an analysis of Bradstreet s reports in the
New York Times for July 12, 1931.

But suppose the Gentlemen say, "Isn t it a matter
after all of cutting down production costs? Is labor
the only element in the cost of production that can be
trimmed? Why not hold labor costs where they are
and cut the costs of production by greater efficiency;
and by labor saving devices? If the plants were more
efficient they could eliminate wastes and thereby add
the saving to labor. 35

Yes, we can add to the efficiency and just that soon
one of two things must happen; either we will speed up
production giving society more goods when heaven
knows we have more now than we can sell, or ma-

220 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

chinery will replace men due to the greater efficiency
of the machine and automatically we send still more
men into the ranks of the unemployed.

The reason for the present salvage prices on com
modities is the result of too much efficiency. One
can t say that Henry Ford has not incorporated every
principle of industrial efficiency and yet he cut wages
twenty per cent. Ford, mind you, the very man who
was laughed at for harnessing the smoke that belched
from the smokestacks of his factories, and who by
that harnessing took thousands of dollars out of the
air, that man cut wages.

Why did James A. Farrell, president of the United
States Steel Corporation, say, "Wages in the steel in
dustry are not coming down. If you expect to get
profits from selling to men whose wages you have cut
you are greatly mistaken." If you can explain this,
then explain the order which he gave six months later
which gave every employee in his plant a ten per cent
wage-cut. Explain too why the food magnate, Mr.
Kellogg, cancelled his order for new machinery which
would have increased the efficiency of his mill. Ex
plain why he said, "If I install that machinery now I
will have to discharge one hundred girls."

Explain at the same time Secretary of Commerce,
Mr. Lamonf s statement, "Many worthy factories are
faced with the prospect of closing down altogether
and thus creating more unemployment and more
privation. The only possible remedy is wage reduc
tions." And we would remind you that Mr. Lamont

WAGE REDUCTIONS RETARD RECOVERY 221

Is in the position to have the most intimate contact with
industry.

Every respectable and reluctant industrialist in the
country has cut wages, and they did this knowing,
as you and I know, that wages represent purchasing
power and that purchasing power represents profit in
business. If other production costs should be sliced,
why does the State of Oregon hire three hundred men
to struggle three weeks on a highway job that a steam
shovel could discharge in three days? Why does your
own state shift from machines to shovels in its road
program?

All we are saying is that a temporary wage cut is
imperative. We want high wages as do Mr. Lehrer
and Mr. Ball, and goodness knows we like to see
everyone wealthy, comfortable or contented, but when
a country is depressed and prosperity is sought we
must not yield to emotionalism and prejudice. What
we are seeking after all is a proper balance between
production and consumption, and, since this cut in
money wages has not lessened the purchasing power of
those still working for wages, and, since it is the only
means by which production can be sustained, then
certainly it is going the limit in working for that bal
ance which prosperity demands.

You may give doles to every person In America; you
may distribute without profit the vast surpluses caused
by over-production; you may increase the purchasing
power of every man on earth; you may persist until
Industry has dissipated every reserve at its despatch
and you have not then added one iota to the quicker

222 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

return of prosperity. You have accomplished abso
lutely nothing but a complete destruction of the whole
network of production and as a consequence forced the
wage earners into a greater jeopardy than ever before.

First Negative Rebuttal, George W. Hartley
Oregon State College

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: It is not my intention to
allow this debate to drift into statistical channels this
evening. However, I fear I must burden you with
additional evidence, since the Affirmative have attacked
the authenticity of our statements in support of our
contention that the purchasing power has not been
decreased. And they conclude by saying that we also
have too little authority to contend that the purchasing
power has increased twenty per cent to twenty-five
per cent. I am inclined to think that we have been
entirely too conservative. What better authority
would they have us quote than the United States Bu-
erau of Labor? For their satisfaction, however, let
me present the results of a survey published in the
Literary Digest in 1932, the figures being gathered
by them from a United States publication: that the
cost of goods has dropped thirty-two per cent. Here s
one by the United States Department of Labor in the
Monthly Review reduction of thirty per cent; Dun s
Review for February 1932, weighted decrease of thirty-
four per cent; Economic Review in March 1931, de
crease of twenty-three per cent. American Economic
Review by Carl Snyder of Federal Reserve Bank,

WAGE REDUCTIONS RETAED lUECOVERY 223

average decline of thirty per cent; in the Review of
Reviews for July 1931, a drop of thirty-six per cent is
recorded. And then don t forget that the prices have
constantly been coming down since these surveys were
taken. After six months of exhaustive effort on the
part of our debate squad, I can truthfully say that real
wages have increased twenty per cent to twenty-five
per cent, which undoubtedly is a conservative state
ment, as well as one that is supported by reliable evi
dence. And we have yet to find a single authoritative
survey that will tell us otherwise.

And now as to this problem of fixed costs. We are
still waiting to hear from the Gentlemen as to how
industry is to settle its problem of high maintenance
costs of interests, equipment, and so on without cut
ting wages. Only last fall one thousand five hundred
representatives of 2,000,000 railroad workers con
ferred with the executives of over two hundred Class
A railroads to thresh out this problem of wage-cuts.
The workers came prepared to fight and their brother
hoods were behind them. Corporation lawyers were
on the scene. Certified Public Accountants checked
the balance sheets and profit and loss statements of the
Railways. And, after several weeks of parleying, the
workers voluntarily agreed to a ten per cent wage cut
saying: "After examining the records we find that if
the railroads are to continue, and we are to maintain
our jobs, the fixed costs must be reduced. At present
there is no alternative, but to accept temporary wage
reductions." And this, roind you, from the employees
and workers themselves! Does this not indicate the

224 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

condition of our country s industries at this critical
period? The railway workers have realized it and have
submitted peacefully, realizing that it was for their
own good. And does it not also successfully show that
the cut in wages was imperative if Industry was to con
tinue? Apparently the complaint against wage cuts is
not coming from the wage earners, but rather from
college debaters, who with more enthusiasm than judg
ment, have the panacea that will erase all human ills.
As to this psychology argument, it seems that they
still insist upon saying, that because a wage-cut does
exert a negative psychological influence, that the wage-
cut is therefore detrimental. A little over three weeks
ago I was in the city of Medford, Oregon, the day
after their most important bank had failed. I want
to say that a definite psychological attitude was preva
lent there. The failure of that bank caused a run on
the other bank, caused people to cut off all but neces
sary purchasing, which had a general dampening effect
that mil hurt every business man in Medford. And
why did that bank fail? One big reason was because
the bank s securities were made worthless by the
failure of interest payments. When industries go to
the wall, they exert a far-reaching influence. Perhaps
their securities are being held by trust companies or
banks and contribute immensely toward the downfall
of those companies. I ask you again if the negative
psychological effect of a wage-cut can be compared to
that which is caused by the failure of industries? The
total bankruptcies have increased thirty per cent in
1931 over 1929. Here are a few nationally known

WAGE SEDUCTIONS RETARD RECOVERY 225

companies that have gone into receivership only re
cently: Long Bell Lumber Corporation; Longview
Dredging, and Public Service Companies; Louisiana
and Pacific Railway Company; Mississippi Eastern
Railway Company; American Commonwealth Power
Company. Dun s Review shows a failure increase o r i
ten per cent in 1931 over 1930. I wonder if hesitancy
to buy was noticed by people affected by the foregoing
corporations?

The Affirmative this afternoon have held that since
wage-cuts cramp consumption and since large consump
tion is necessary to prosperity then the cut has
retarded prosperity. Now if such an argument were
valid, the question would not be debatable, and the
Gentlemen know it. They know too, that the word
retard is purely a relative term. For example: wages
can be in three positions: First, raised above 1928
level; second, unchanged, i.e., not cut; and third, cut.
What we are seeking is that level which will insure the
quickest return to prosperity. We have shown you
that the old wage, and certainly an increased wage, can
do nothing but destroy the whole ramified system of
production a maintenance of which is demanded by
prosperity. We have shown too, that the cut in money
wages did not reduce the real wage, and this the Gen
tlemen cannot deny. Are we not then fair in our belief
when we say that since a wage-cut did not decrease the
purchasing power and did allow for the continued
operation of Industry, that the cutting of wages aided
the return to prosperity?

226 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

First Affirmative Rebuttal, Harry Lehrer
Whitman College

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: It seems that since the
quarter in my colleague s pocket has turned to a dime,
my name must be dragged into the mire and besmirched
by the stain of theft. But since there is but little time
given to me, I will not defend my good name, but
rather respond to the arguments of our worthy oppo
nents.

They have gone to the trouble of giving you around
ten different sources to prove that our statistics are
wrong, but we beg to point out that the statistical
company which we quoted makes it a business of
gathering data and compiling it further that it is a
house with a national reputation and we still trust im
plicitly in its findings despite what our worthy oppo
nents say. Our figures still show that real wages were
lowered, when it was vitally important that they be
raised.

The Gentlemen from Oregon accuse us of being un
fair and unjust to the capitalist; they tell us that the
money made in prosperous years was reinvested and
therefore cannot be used now. We are not asking that
it should be. We know where that money went. We
are merely objecting to the increased dividend pay
ments, in the place of higher wages. Is it unjust to
ask that capital use some of its profits in maintaining
the buying power of labor? Is it unjust to advocate
a sound economic policy? If capital had maintained

WAGE REDUCTIONS RETARD RECOVERY 227

wages, the surplus would have been rapidly removed.
It Is not then injustice we ask for, but the exercise of
ordinary common sense.

Mr. Wood has painted for you a vivid and excellent
picture of conditions as they now exist. He has shown
you that in each year that the depression continues^
the number of million dollar firms which are forced to
close is increasing. First sixteen, then thirty-four,
finally forty-three million-dollar firms are forced to
close. He argues for wage cutting and yet clearly and
effectively points out to you the detrimental results
of wage cutting showing how things have become
more chaotic after wages have been cut. We feel with
Mr. Wood, wage-cuts have really led to a sad situation.

Now probably the main argument of our opponent is
that the cutting of wages was necessary, due largely to
fixed expenses. We beg you to note this: That during
the period of cutting wages most of the larger concerns
continued not only to maintain^ but actually to increase
dividends. We have given you the example of United
States Steel which actually cut wages in order to make
up for payment of dividends which it did not earn.
Gentlemen, if fixed expenses were driving them to cut
wages how could they continue to pay increased divi
dends? Now, we are not picturing the capitalist as
a greedy monster who bleeds and crushes the worker,
but we are pointing out that it was not necessary to
cut wages because fixed costs were becoming oppres
sive. Could not the money which was given to investors
as profit and which would probably be banked just as
well have been given to the workers, increasing their

228 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

buying power and bringing us into a better position?
Gentlemen, we repeat that it was unnecessary to cut
wages and yet at the same time pay increased profits.

They say that we would jeopardize the continuity
of business. If the increased buying power jeopardizes
the continuity of business, then, yes! we are guilty.
But on the other hand if it has an opposite effect, then
surely the crime does not rest upon our shoulders.

The Gentlemen have said that wage-cuts are an
alternative to unemployment. That is not the case.
Unemployment means letting off men or decreasing
production; whereas wage cutting means continuing
the same production under reduced wages. Obviously
then, if one cuts wages, he is not cutting production.
It is not an alternative because it does not serve the
same purpose.

Now the statements of our worthy opponents are
many and various and would be impossible to answer
in such a brief period. However, summing it up, they
object to our case first, on the grounds that the real
wage was increased, and second that wage-cuts were
necessary.

In reply to their first argument we have given fig
ures to show that such was not the case during the first
part of the depression and that is the time that par
ticularly concerns us. Secondly, we have attempted to
demonstrate that cuts were not necessary, because at
the very times cuts were made, firms maintained or in
creased their dividends, and this, oftentimes, at the
expense of the workers.

WAGE SEDUCTIONS RETARD RECOVERY 229

Ladles and Gentlemen, in view of these facts, we still
believe that the cutting of wages has retarded the re
turn of economic recovery.

Second Negative Rebuttal, Burton Wood
Oregon State College

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: I must say that Mr.
Lehrer and Mr. Ball are very persistent this afternoon.
Mr. Hartley and I have consistently blasted their con
tention that the purchasing power has been reduced
because of wage-cuts, and yet they bring it up again.
We have shown evidence, the latest available, and yet
this avalanche of material will not convince them that
during the first three months of this year the purchas
ing power has greatly increased. I had some spare
time this afternoon before the debate and spent it in
their library, not over two hundred feet from this plat
form, reading material from April issues of current
magazines. And let me point out that this evidence is
the latest material available on the subject. I am sur
prised that our two formidable foes did not spend some
of their time in bringing their material up to date by
consulting periodicals in their own library. But since
they have chosen to have us do it, I feel happy that I
am able to perform the task well. First, I quote none
other than Irving Fisher, the brilliant Yale economist
who, perhaps, has written more material on questions
of purchasing power, the value of money, and dis
tribution of wealth than any other living man. This
man in an April, 1932 issue of a magazine found in

230 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

their own library says, "That up to the present time
the dollar will now buy as much as a dollar and a half
would two years ago." We have quoted surveys con
ducted by R, G. Dun and many others that Mr.
Hartley pointed out to you, showing that it is from ten
to twenty per cent greater than in 1929. And, mind
you, these figures are not taken from material pub
lished in 1931 which the Affirmative is using this after
noon. Perhaps if the Gentlemen have time to do some
reading in current material available in their library
they will be able to meet others on this question more
safely.

We feel that the discussion this afternoon hinges on
whether industry could or could not continue to pay its
old wage. We challenged the Gentlemen earlier in the
debate to show us that the surplus of industry is not
tied up in frozen assets, and we also asked that they
show us how industry could have liquidated these sur
pluses sufficiently. They have failed to answer us, and
we know why. When our nation has an industrial
system built to supply the world with goods, and the
world is not consuming those goods, we have billions
of dollars tied up in useless machinery, plants, and
other assets. Certainly it has a potential value, but
why did the Richfield Oil Company fail? Because it
did not have enough assets? Oh no! Their assets
were frozen or fixed in the form of airway beacons,
service stations, refinery equipment, and distributing
warehouses. Hence one can see Industry s problem.

Mr. Lehrer thought he had us trapped when he
asked how we could continue to pay dividends when

WAGE REDUCTIONS RETARD RECOVERY 231

our assets were supposedly frozen. Let me remind
you that industry, in prosperous years, lays aside
something for the lean years which are bound to come.
The dividends that are being paid now, are coming
from that reserve, which carries us back" to our stand
that since we are living under a capitalistic system, the
future, the welfare, and the existence of our nation s
people depend upon the protection of that system.
Anyone who argues for the weakening of tils system
without offering something to replace it, is laying the
very germ of self-destruction.

Consider for a moment the case of the United States
Steel Corporation which was mentioned by Mr. Lehrer.
He didn t tell you that in 1929 the corporation made
$197,000,000, and that in 1931 it suffered a $6,000,000
loss from operations. We feel that this corporation
felt some depression! I ask you, what would you do
in this case if you were president of the United States
Steel Corporation? You would have done the same
as James A. Farrell did do everything in the world
to cut costs and thereby bring costs in line with selling
prices.

Mr. Lehrer again accuses the United States Steel
Corporation of cutting wages and paying dividends on
the same level as before. The United States Steel Cor
poration cut dividends before it cut salaries and wages,
saying, "That unless the situation changed for the bet
ter, they would not continue with the regular divi
dends." And while we are on the subject of dividends
let s clear Mr. Lehrer s accusation. He said that divi
dend money should be converted into wages. Just a

232 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

few minutes ago, I said that the rewards of placing
money in industry is found in dividends. And just as
soon as you cease rewarding capital, just that soon
will your industrial structure crumble. If they hope
to help the working man by seeing the industrial sys
tem destroyed, I must say it is a very unique philos
ophy. We admit that many industries did pay high
dividends to protect their capital, but they did not
mention those industries that could not meet their
dividend payments. May I show Mr. Lehrer and
Mr. Ball, the judges, and friends here this afternoon,
a January 1932 issue of the Financial World, another
magazine which they could find in their own library.
Here it lists in glaring headlines, "The Great Dividend
Disaster of 1931." Look at the different industries
mentioned Automobiles, Railroading, Steel, Meat
Packing, Mining, Manufacturing, Lumber, and the
rest of these here. In the face of such evidence as this,
we cannot understand how they can say that high
dividends are being declared by our nation s industry.
Mr. Lehrer mentioned that the word "retard" is the
key word of the question under discussion this after
noon. We find, however, that the word "retard" is
purely a relative term. Let me explain by a simple
analogy. We came to Walla Walla for this debate by
automobile. Our ultimate goal, when we left Corvallis,
was to arrive in this city. Naturally we had to stop
on our way here time and again to buy gasoline and oil.
Now the immediate effect of these stops was a slight
retardation, but in light of our goal, our destination,
it was an actual acceleration. Had we not suffered a

WAGE REDUCTIONS RETARD RECOVERY 233

slight retardation by stopping for fuel, we could not
have reached here at all. So it is with the problem of
wage cutting. The ultimate effect, viewed over a long
period, is actual acceleration. Although the immediate
effect is a slight retardation, it gives Industry the chance
to work out of its difficulty and speed up its return
toward prosperity. Mr. Hartley and I are concerned
with the ultimate effect, the working out of the prob
lem of depression. Perhaps Mr. Lehrer and Mr. Ball
are interested in just the immediate effect, willing to
ignore entirely the spirit of the question.

Mr. Hartley and I are loathe to let you go away from
the auditorium this afternoon feeling so glum and dis
couraged over the economic outlook which has been
pictured for you. Mr. Lehrer says there is nothing to
indicate that things are getting better. I regret that
he hasn t had the time to acquaint himself with the
world s progress, for this afternoon in their library I
found the following information. Chrysler Motors
puts 22,000 men back to work; General Motors hired
another 18,000; and Henry Ford called for 20,000 men
to build new cars for him. Think of it! 60,000 men
within a month, and this does not have any meaning to
Mr. Lehrer. Perhaps it means nothing to him when we
find in the April issue of the World s Work, another
magazine found in their library, that Ford will have a
monthly purchase of raw materials and manufactured
parts amounting to fifty-two million dollars; that he
will spend for bodies by outside makers over one hun
dred forty millions; for freight some eighty-six mil
lions; for steel forty-seven millions; is adding to this

234 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

payroll eighteen million dollars per month; and is
causing the employment of some 300,000 men working
for 5,500 direct and indirect industries supplying Ford
with materials and supplies. When we find that the
cotton makers union reports that conditions are better
this season than last, and when the bonds held as
security for the deposits of its community increase by
one billion eight hundred million dollars since the first
of the year, we cannot understand why Mr. Lehrer and
Mr. Ball want to discourage you. Perhaps it is a
smoke-screen for their weak arguments.

Mr. Hartley and I feel we have shown that the pur
chasing power is greatly increased despite the fact
that wage-cuts have been made, and that industry
could not have operated, could not have maintained
itself had it not brought about these cuts in wages.
Again, let me say that Mr. Hartley and I want high
wages just as earnestly as do Mr. Lehrer and Mr. Ball,
but we do feel that when our nation is faced with a
temporary dislocation of financial and economic fac
tors, we should remember that our problem is the
welfare of one hundred twenty million people and be
willing to shoulder our share of the responsibility.
Since a cut in wages actually accelerated our return to
prosperity, Mr. Hartley and I feel that it has been the
greatest benefit in solving our economic problem.

WAGE REDUCTIONS RETARD RECOVERY 235

Second Affirmative Rebuttal, Walter Ball
Whitman College

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: Mr. Wood, who has just
finished speaking, has kindly suggested that I might
learn a little more about this question; that is we pre
sume, enough so that I would agree with him, if I
would spend a few hours in our own library. But,
believe it or not, I have spent almost the entire last
two weeks doing just that thing, and I have had many
a headache out of gathering statistics for this case,
almost as many, I suspect, as I gave you when I re
cited a few of those figures during my first speech.

But seriously, Mr Wood has told us that business
is improving, and he has cited as his evidence for this
fact, the Financial World for January 1932. Therein
he finds that forty bonds have increased since the low
of 1931. He fails to tell you, however, that that is
forty out of several thousand bonds, and that most of
the rest of them have decreased in value. Moreover,
if Mr. Wood had read the April number of the Finan
cial World, as I have, he would have found there a
graph which pictures business conditions as being
worse now than at any time since the beginning of the
depression.

It gives me great pain to do this, but I am afraid
that I shall once more have to contest the figures which
the Gentlemen give you for the decline of the cost of
living. They give you nine other magazines containing
statements estimating the decline of living costs to be

236 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

as high as fifty per cent. They fall to tell you, how
ever, whether those estimates apply to one locality or
to many, whether they apply to only one city such as
Portland or to the whole United States. We can only
refer you again to the figures which we have given you,
taken from the Statistical Abstract of the United States
and the Annalist, two of the most reliable sources ob
tainable. Those figures placed the decline of living
costs as being from fourteen per cent to sixteen per
cent.

But let us forget this real wage and real value of
the dollar, for after all it doesn t make a great deal
of difference now. I have here a statement from Mr.
Wood in which he says that if we could increase wages
it would be a desirable thing to do and would undoubt
edly hasten business recovery. And after all, isn t that
what we are debating? For certainly if an increase
in wages would hasten recovery, conversely, a decrease
would mean a retardation of recovery. Then it would
seem that the whole question revolves about whether it
were possible to maintain wages. I have cited you any
number of concerns, huge industrial wage cutters, who
at the same time that they were decreasing their wages,
were increasing or maintaining their dividends. Cer
tainly that is proof enough of the fact that these con
cerns could have maintained wages if they had so
desired.

I have here another statement by Mr. Wood in
which he admits that there may have been a temporary
retardation of recovery by this wage cutting. Now I
do not know Mr. Wood s definition of temporary, but

WAGE REDUCTIONS RETARD RECOVERY 237

I do know that this question deals with time only up
to the present and does not extend to future conditions.
As I have pointed out to you, business still seems to be
on the decline. Whether you can call three years only
a temporary period or not makes no difference to me.
The fact remains that Mr. Wood has admitted that
business recovery up to the present time has been re
tarded by wage cutting.

We have endeavored in this debate this afternoon to
show you certain tendencies in modern business and
the results of those tendencies. Whether we have been
successful in doing that, only you can say. We have
endeavored to show you how labor is being and has
been in the past treated as a commodity. W r e have
pointed out to you the maladjustments which have
arisen between the productive power of labor and
wages in the years from 1923 to 1929. That was one
of the major causes of this depression, and certainly a
continuation and increase of that cause is not going to
hasten, but is going to retard recovery.

If it were possible to make any plea in a debate and
expect that plea to be acted upon in any measure what
soever, our case would have been the case of the la
borer. We would have asked that the insane policy of
treating him as a commodity, as a nonentity without
feeling and soul, should be discontinued; that he should
no longer be bid for upon the public mart with no
thought of Ms or of the nation s welfare. Laborers are
human beings like yourselves. They have to live, to
feed and shelter themselves as do you; but more than
that, they do constitute eighty-three per cent of our

238 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

buying public. When this eighty-three per cent pro
duces much more than it can consume we have a sur
plus of goods upon the market. That surplus clogs the
wheels of industry and causes a business crises. It is
for this reason more than the humanitarian aspect, that
we argue that wage cutting, which is a reduction in
consumptive power of the laboring class, retards the
process of business recovery.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: WAGES AND WAGE REDUCTION

BOOKS

Dobb, M. H. Wages. 1928. Harcourt. $1.25.

Douglas, P. H. and Jennison, F. T. Movement of Money and Real
Earnings in the United States. 1926-28. 1930. University of
Chicago Press, pa. No. 1.

Humphrey, A. W. Workers Share. 1930. G. Allen. London. 3s. 6d.

Lauck, W, J. Industrial Revolution and Wages. 1929. Funk. $2.50.

Leads, M. E. and Balderston, C. C. Wages. 1931. Press of Uni
versity of Pennsylvania. $1.50.

Mooney, J. D. Wages and the Road Ahead. 1931. Longmans. $2.

Rowe, J. W. F. Wages in Practice and Theory. 1928. Routledge.
12s. 6d.

KuczynskI, J. and Steinfeld, M. Wages and Labor s Share. 1927.
American Federation of Labor. Washington, D. C. 20c.

PAMPHLETS

Boston Chamber of Commerce. Bureau of industrial affairs. Prin
ciples of Wage Payment. 25c. The Chamber.

Int. Pamphlets. Burnham, G. M. Work or Wages. 1930. paper lOc.

National Association of Cost Accountants. R. R. Thompson. Various
Wage Systems m Relation to Indirect Factory Charges. 1925.
75c.

National Industrial Conference Board. Wages in the United States
1914-1930. The Board. $3.

Wages in the United States 1914-1929. The Board. $2.50.

WAGE REDUCTIONS RETARD RECOVERY 239

Wages in the United States in 1928, 1929. The Board.

paper $1.
PoHak Foundation for Economic Research. P. H. Dougks. -Real

Wages in the United States. 1890-1926. 1930. Houghton. $7.50.

MAGAZINES

Business Week. August 6, 1930. p. 20. Business Ills Not Caused by
Wage Cuts. August 20, 1930. p. 12. June-July Wage Cuts
Exceeded Increases. April 29, 1931. p. 16. Wage Cut Debate
Continued. April 22, 1931. p. 32. Wage Cuts Continue. May
6, 1931. p. 52. Editorial opposing wage cuts Speaking of Op
erations. July 16, 1930. p. 13. Ford Wage Inquiry Threatens
a Social Upset in Europe. June 17, 1931. p. 20. In the Midst
of Wage Wars Some Companies Are at Peace. June 24, 1931.
p. 13. Survey Shows Wages 14% to 27% Below Scale in Build
ing Trades. August 5, 1931. p. 40. They Meant Well. August
26, 1931. p. 22. WMe Others Debate Wages, Oil Follows a
Tradition. October 7, 1931. p. 56. Wisdom of Steel s Wage
Cut Yet to Be Proved by the Outcome. October 14, 1931. p.

26. $22 Wage Makes Manufacturing Worker a Poor Customer.
May 4, 1932. Part Time Work -13% Wage Cut Shrunk Pay
Envelopes by 32 Per Cent. January 20, 1932. p. 20. Wage
Cutting Problem Brings New Solution. January 13, 1932. p.

27. Labor s Share of Business Income is No-w Going Up. Janu
ary 13, 1932. p. 28. Low Wages Mean Low Standards of Liv
ing, Not Low Costs. April 20, 1932. p. 13. After Wage Cuts
What s Left to Spend?

Christian Century. 49:188, February 10, 1932. Need for Supreme
Economic Council with Dictatorial Powers.

Commonweal. 10:612, October 16, 1929. Higher Wages for the
Masses. J. A. Ryan. 13:259, January 7, 1931. High Wages and
Unemployment. J. A, Ryan. 13:459, February 25, 1931.
Wages and Unemployment, a Reply to J. A. Ryan. H. Somer-
vffle. 14:352, August 12, 1931. Wage Cuts and the Administra
tion. 15:651, April 13, 1932. C&n Employers Pay a Living Wage?
C. J. FxecouL

Current History. 35:16, October 1931. Effect of High Wages. 35:-
20, October 1931. Objections to Wage Cutting. L. Wolman.
35: 264 , November 1931. Reductions in Wages. R. W. Morse.

240 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

Factory and Industrial Management. 80:948, November 1930. Basic
Laws of Employment Relations. N. Sargent.

Forum. 86:180, September 1931. Should Wages Be Cut? J. Borun,
jr., R. Spreckels, B, W. Holt.

Literary Digest. 106:7, August 16, 1930. Keeping Wages Up in the
Business Dip. 108:, March 14, 1931. Must Wages Fall? 109:12,
April 18, 1931. Fighting the Wage Slashers. 111:5, October 10,
1931. Wage Slashing as a Great National Issue.

Living Age. 339:124, October 1930. How to Solve Unemployment.
N. M. P. Reffly.

Monthly Labor Review. 31:444, August 1930. P. H. Douglas. Real
Wages in the United States 1890-1926. Summary and Review
by L. Wolman. 32:1409; 33:158, 372, 667, 922, 1188, June-
November 1931. Recent Changes in Wages and Hours of Labor.
31:1329, Becember 1930. Ratio of Value of Production to Wages
and the Purchasing Power in Manufacturing Establishments. 32:-
1178, May 1931. Testing the Adequacy of Wages. 33:539,
September 1931. British Attitude Toward Labor Reduction as
a Remedy for Depression. 33:1195, November 1931. Wage Rate
Changes in Manufacturing Industries. September 1931.

Nation. 131:393, October 15, 1930. Less Work, More Pay. 131:-
489, November 5, 1930. Are Wages Going Down? 133:351,
October 7, 1931. Diminishing Wage. 134:359, March 30, 1932.
Shall We Devaluate the Dollar?

National Republic. 19:13, December 1931. Figures Collide with
Theories.

National Educational Association Journal. February 1932. W. M.
Leiserson. Shall Wages and Salaries be Reduced?

New Republic. 66:195, April 8, 1931. United States, Russia, and a
Wage Cut. 66:219, April 15, 1931. Battle of Wages. 68:192,
October 1931. Industry s Wage Surrender.

19th Century. 110:703, December 1931. Wages. C. Harris.

North American Review. 228:129, August 1929. Foundations of
Prosperity. S. Crowther.

Outlook. 155:498, July 30, 1930. Flight from High Wages. A.
Raymond. 155:544, August 6, 1930. High Wages and Low Prices,
W. O. Scroggs. 157:144, January 28, 1931. What About Wages?
W. O. Scroggs. 158:19, May 6, 1931. Shall We Cut Wages? W.
O. Scroggs. 158:270, July 1, 1931. Shall We Cut Wages? N.
Morris. 158:271, July 1, 1931. Will Wage Cuts Help? Reply

WAGE REDUCTIONS RETARD RECOVERY 241

to N. Morris. W. O. Scrogg. 159:164, October 1931. Too

Casual by Far; Wage Cuts of United States Steel Corporation.
Quarterly Journal of Economics. 46:398, February 1932. L. Wol-

man. American Wages.
Review of Reviews. 84:78, December 1931. Steel and the Railroads

Tackle Wages. 84:86, July 1931. H. Florance. But Wages

Have Come Down. 84:88, August 1931. Do High Wages Cause

Unemployment?
Saturday Evening Post. 203:10, July 19, 1930. Place of Wages.

204:20, November 28, 1931. Wage Controversy.
Scientific American. 145:12, July 1931. Wages and Prosperity.
Survey. 66:308, June 15, 1931. Wage Cuts. L. Wolman. 66:476,

August 15, 1931. Wage Facts. 67:181, November 15, 1931.

Consumer Mindedness. 67:207, November 15, 1931. Wages of

1931.
World Tomorrow. 14:181, June, 1931. Wage Reductions.

FIXING PRICES OF STAPLE
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS

Extension or Public Service Debate

FIXING PRICES OF STAPLE
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS

KANSAS STATE COLLEGE AFFIRMATIVE VS.
IOWA STATE COLLEGE NEGATIVE

The seeming failure of the Federal Farm Board and the failure of
Congress to pass the McNary-Haugen bill, along with the continued
over-production and depression in the agricultural world brings an
other method of federal farm relief to the fore. The present discus
sion was broadcast twice in order to reach the farming publics of
Iowa and Kansas; first over WOI at Ames, Iowa, and then over
WIBW at Topeka, Kansas. The discussion has the question and
answer feature of the Oregon Pkn of debating, a type always popular
with audiences. The debate was only one of a series held during the
season of 1931-32 for the basic purpose of enlightening the audiences
concerning the pros and cons of important public questions. All
were chosen with particular consideration for the interests of the
audiences. In addition to Radio stations WOI and WIBW, KSAC
at Manhattan, Kansas, was also used to broadcast the series of dis
cussions. The tariff question and the political campaign of 1932
figured in the series.

There was no decision in the present discussion but listener response
to the Radio stations was heavy, over two hundred letters of appre
ciation being received by WOI alone.

Both Iowa State and Kansas State engage each season in a rather
extensive schedule of debates. This season Iowa held thirty-five
debates on eight different questions, and Kansas held fifty debates on
thirteen questions. Both schools specialize in the discussion type of
debate, attempting to discuss topics of vital concern to the audiences
before which the debates are presented; the debates being held almost
entirely off the campus, before farm groups, civic dubs, womens*
organizations, kbor unions, church gatherings, and in many cases
over the radio. During the season just past, Kansas broadcast four-

245

246 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

teen different debates on twelve questions, using the facilities of eight
broadcasting stations.

Professor F. L. Whan is coach of debate at Iowa State, and Pro
fessor Harrison B. Summers directs debate at Kansas State College.
This debate was contributed to the present volume through their
cooperation.

First Affirmative, Edward Kelly
Kansas State College

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: It lias become painfully
evident to every man, woman and child in the United
States today, that this nation is suffering from an acute
industrial depression. Countless reasons have been
offered; doubtless the causes for depression are as
numerous as we are told. But here in the agricultural
sections of the United States, one reason is outstanding.
The American farmer, last summer, received twenty-
five cents a bushel- for Ms wheat.

At twenty-five cents a bushel, the farmer can t even
pay ordinary costs of production. And naturally, he
hasn t had anything left to spend for luxuries; in most
cases, he s hard put to buy even the simplest neces
sities. The farmer who raises hogs, or cattle, or corn,
or cotton, has been equally hard hit. And as a result,
one-third of the population of the United States is
almost wholly without buying power.

It seems that there is very little chance of a busi
ness recovery until the farmers of this nation are back
on their feet. And so we re vitally concerned, this eve
ning, with the possible means of increasing the pros
perity, and consequently the buying power, of the
farmer.

FIXING PRICES OF STAPLE PRODUCTS 247

Certainly, we can t bring back the farmer s buying
power by doing nothing. Probably in the next forty
or fifty years, population in the United States will catch
up with the food supply; but we can t wait that long.
Cooperatives offer a possible means of bettering con
ditions in minor crops, such as fruits, cream, and to
bacco; but it will take a score of years or more to
organize the producers of such major crops as wheat,
cotton, or corn. About the only remaining alternative
is action by the government; and because there is a
vital need for a striking improvement of conditions in
the near future, Mr. Chase and I are advocating, this
evening, the proposal that the federal government
should fix and maintain minimum prices for staple
agricultural products.

It s hardly necessary for me to waste time in justi
fying action by the government to aid the farmer. The
government has been aiding industry for years, through
the protective tariff; it has given very direct aid to
railroads, first by gift of public lands, and in the last
few years even guaranteeing the roads a fair rate of
profit; in the past few weeks the government has come
to the aid of industry once again, with the organization
of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. Cer
tainly, no one can reasonably urge that the farmer
alone should be denied the assistance of the govern
ment.

But there is objection of another kind to the idea of
stabilizing farm prices. Possibly you will say, we ve
already tried price fixing, and it has failed. The Fed
eral Farm Board lias wasted hundreds of millions of

248 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

dollars, trying to fix and maintain farm prices; and it
has given up the idea as impossible.

Well, I ll have to admit that the Federal Farm
Board s attempt to stabilize prices didn t work very
well. But after all, the board attempted to put into
effect a most unintelligent method of price maintenance.
It tried to buy up all the surplus wheat, over and above
our own American needs, and hold it right here in
America, and hope for a crop failure to come along so
that it could unload this surplus wheat without loss.
The idea touches on the absurd, when you give it a
bit of thought.

But please remember that that is not the only way
by which prices may be maintained. There is a way,
a very simple and effective way, to maintain reasonable
prices on farm products. It is the way suggested in
the Export Debenture Bill, now before Congress.

The idea of the Export Debenture takes into ac
count the fact that we have here in the United States,
not some years but every year, a surplus of nearly
every major agricultural crop, over and above the
amount we can use here in our own nation. It recog
nizes the fact that if this surplus is held here on our
own domestic market, the price must come down as
always happens when the supply on any market ex
ceeds the demand. And so the Export Debenture
provides a means of making it profitable for private
exporters to buy up this surplus and sell it abroad,
thus allowing the American price to rise.

Now, let me explain this idea a little more in detail.
The bill provides that every exporter who ships any

FIXING PRICES OF STAPLE PRODUCTS 249

amount of an agricultural staple out of the country,
shall be given a certificate or debenture by the gov
ernment, representing a certain amount of credit with
the government which may be used in paying duties
on imports. For instance, if an exporter ships a bushel
of wheat to England, our government would give Mm
a debenture certificate valued, let us say, at twenty-five
cents, which might be used as part payment on import
tariff duties. The certificate would be freely trans
ferable, which would allow the exporter receiving it
to sell it to some importer who has tariff duties to pay,
practically at face value. By giving such a debenture,
valued practically at twenty-five cents for each bushel
of wheat exported, exporters would be given a tre
mendous incentive to buy up wheat in this country and
sell it abroad, even though the American price rose
above the world price level. In fact, with such a deben
ture in effect, exporters would continue to buy wheat
and export it, until a domestic shortage forced the price
here in America to a figure equal practically to the
world price plus the amount of the debenture paid.

Now, let us see just how this debenture plan could
be used by the government to fix and maintain mini
mum agricultural prices. First of all, we believe that
there should be established a Stabilization Board to
handle the whole affair & board, incidentally, com
posed of actual farm leaders with both farm and busi
ness experience, rather than of newspaper editors^ or
bankers, or lawyers, or corporation heads. This board
would be given two duties: first, to fix a fair price to
be maintained on agricultural commodities for each

250 THE YEAE BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

crop season; and second ? to fix the amount of the ex
port debenture to be paid.

First of all, the board would make a preliminary
survey, and determine upon a fair price for the com
modity and for the sake of illustration^ let s consider
the case of wheat. Possibly the board would decide
that a price of eighty cents a bushel at Chicago would
give the wheat producer a fair return. This price,
eighty cents a bushel^ Chicago, would be announced
early in September before the beginning of the planting
so that each farmer could decide for himself
whether it would be profitable for him to raise wheat
the coming crop year, at the announced price.
Next, about the time the new crop began to come
on the market in the Spring, the board would engage
in its second line of activity. Let me make it entirely
clear the board itself would not buy a single

of wheat, either on its own account, or through
any subsidiary corporations. It would merely fix the
of a debenture to be given to wheat exporters.
Suppose^ as we have said, that the board decided that
the price of wheat for the season should be eighty
centSj Chicago, but that the world price of wheat is
sixty a bushel, in the Liverpool market.

An exporter, then, would receive only sixty cents for
he sold abroad, from the purchaser, out
of he would have to pay about six cents for ship-

and charges. So to encourage export,

the Board would put into effect a debenture, sufficient
to up the difference ? and allow the exporter a

FIXING PRICES OF STAPLE PRODUCTS 251

small profit. The amount of the debenture would be
the difference between the world price of sixty cents
and the American announced price of eighty cents, or
twenty cents, plus an additional six cents for shipping
and handling costs, and an additional one cent or so
for exporter s profit say twenty-seven cents in all.
At this figure, the exporter would receive for each
bushel he exported, sixty cents from the foreign buyer,
and another twenty-seven cents in credit from the
American government eighty-seven cents in all. De
ducting from this figure six cents a bushel representing
handling costs, the exporter would find it profitable to
pay any price up to eighty cents or eighty-one cents a
bushel for wheat for export; and to make as much
profit as possible, he d enter the American market,
bidding against other exporters and against American
millers for wheat as it came on the market, and ex
porting as rapidly as he bought. The result would be
two-fold. First of all, export of wheat would go on
until the entire surplus had been taken off the Amer
ican market; and the second, active competitive buying
would send the price up almost at once to the Stabiliza
tion Board s figure of eighty cents. If wheat could be
secured even half a cent below that price, exporters
would find it Mghly profitable to buy it for export, so
that the price could be maintained without the slightest
difficulty.

Of course, the amount of the debenture would prob
ably not remain at exactly twenty-seven cents during
the entire crop season. Possibly there might be a

252 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

change in world price levels; the Liverpool price might
slip to fifty-five cents instead of sixty cents, in which
case the board would immediately increase the amount
of the debenture by five cents a bushel; or it might
rise to sixty-five cents or seventy cents, in which case
the board would reduce the debenture rate to cor
respond.

Now there s one thing I d like to emphasize. This

not for any huge revolving fund; it

doesn t provide for the expenditure by the board of

a cent for purchase of wheat; it doesn t call for

a tax the farmer in the form of an equali-

fee; it involve unsound economics of

kind. It simply provides a means by which it is

for private exporters to buy and export

agricultural staples, and through making it profitable

for them, to to export agricultural products

the surplus is disposed of, and the price rises to

the level.

Time will not permit me to consider the debenture

fully. But just as I have shown it would

work in the of wheat, it could be applied to main-

reasonable prices for com and live-stock; and if

Congress is to pkce a tariff on cotton, for that

as And because., through this method 3 we

use of the natural economic law of supply

to secure and maintain fair prices for

agriculture ? because by this means the greatest

be given to the recovery not only of

but of business in general from the present

depression, Mr. Chase and I believe that the

FIXING PRICES OF STAPLE PRODUCTS 253

government should make use of the export debenture
Idea for fixing and maintaining minimum prices on
staple agricultural products.

First Negative, Marvin Kruse

Iowa State College

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: I was greatly interested
in Mr. Kelly s very clear discussion of the serious
farm situation in Kansas. If all that he tells us is true,
it seems that about the same things are happening to
Kansas farmers that have happened to the corn farm
ers of Iowa. There is no doubt that the farmers are
in bad shape, financially. There is no doubt that
something should be done. We certainly cannot allow
things to go on as they have. And I want to here and
now second what Mr. Kelly told you when he said
that we cannot expect cooperatives or other existing
agencies to be able to do much towards relieving the
situation for a few years to come. It is equally true
that there is no hope of immediate industrial recovery
in sight, so ? I agree with Mr. Kelly in that it is desir
able that the government do something to help the
farmer this year.

But what can be done to help the farmer? Mr.
Kelly has told you that there is only one way to help the
farmer , and that that is to get Mm higher prices for Ms
products. As we see it, there are two possible ways of
helping the farmer make more money. One is to get
Mm Mgher prices, if that can possibly be done; and the
other is to cut Ms overhead so much that he will be able

254 THE OF DEBATING

to live in spite of the present low prices. The Affirma
tive has forgotten to mention this latter expedient to
you. Well, let s at two plans.

First, let us at this of raising agricultural

prices. Now Mr. King and myself would be more

than willing to agree with the Gentlemen that a price

plan be adopted If they can show us that

It can be to work. But we firmly believe that

a be to failure.

You know 7 price-fixing, itself, is an old experiment.

Many have tried all down through the ages

to fix the prices of agricultural commodities, but all

First of all, in the old days, they

to fix prices by merely it illegal to sel

a certain level tried it in 1750 B.C.

it failed, of course. In 332 A.D. the Romans tried to

fix the of agricultural by imposing

the of death any violating the decree.

I the law was quite popular for reports tell

us so "lost their heads over the

scheme" the Romans were forced to abandon it.

Coming the ages both Spain and France

to a price on farm products and

Edward, the Third, tried a similar plan

in and forced to the scheme after

two years trial. It that the price was

by the factors, supply and demand, and not

by decree. So we see it has been known

the of the ancients that price fixing by the

of law not maintain a set price.
Another of fixing prices has been that of

FIXING PRICES OF STAPLE PRODUCTS 2 55

buying up surpluses and holding them off of tie market.
But thfe plan, also, has always faled. Two hundred
and fifty years before Christ ? Minister We! of CMna
tried this scheme. He nearly bankrupted the nation.
The surplus increased to such an extent that it was
impossible to pay the set price for all of the commodity.

A more recent example of endeavoring to maintain
a set price by buying up surplus products is to be
found in Brazil. She tried to raise the price of coffee
by purchasing all of the surplus. The result of the
scheme was the dumping of millions of bushels of
coffee into the Atlantic ocean and still the price hit a
new all-time low.

The English experiment with price fixing on rubber
involving the purchase of the surplus is another notable
example of the failure of surplus-buying schemes.

And then there is the noble experiment of the Fed
eral Farm Board which drained over $600,000,000
from the United States treasury. In reality this wasn t
an experiment at all. Had the Farm Board read his
tory, it would have known that its so-called stabiliza
tion activities were doomed to failure.

Thus we see that previous experiments with price-
fixing can be grouped under two heads, attempts to
maintain a set price by legal enactment, and attempts
by buying up of surplus; and that both of these types
of price-fixing have always failed to maintain a set
price. Now the Gentlemen from Kansas State College
are merely proposing a slightly different scheme for
price-fixing. This scheme, like all others in the past,
is doomed to failure because it is artificial interference

256 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

with the law of supply and demand. They propose an
export debenture. Of course, Mr. Kelly lias attempted
to show you that the debenture plan would not embody
the evls of the plan used by the Federal Farm Board.
He has that the disposal of the surpluses was

the only factor lacking in the program of the Board.
He to think that if Ms debenture plan were put

into effect It would supply this factor of surplus dis-
and be an overwhelming success. But the ex
port debenture would never succeed in disposing of the
surplus,, and is but one of its defects. Foreign

not buy our surplus farm products when
they already have surpluses of their own to contend
with. And we the Affirmative to explain to us how
we to our surplus to Spain, which has

a tariff barrier of seventy-four cents against our wheat;
to France, with her eighty-five cents tariff on wheat;
to Italy, with her eighty-seven cents tariff or to Ger
many her tariff on standing at one dollar
and sixty-two cents a bushel. And England is also
a tariff on agricultural commodities. It
is a fact many countries, which before the
war importers of our staple products, are

production to meet home de
mand and are likely soon to raise tariff
our farm products. Certainly, there
is grave as to the success of a plan which hopes
to of by dumping that surplus abroad.
The may make us more willing to export;
but wll it the other nations more willing to
Import?

FIXING PRICES OF STAPLE PRODUCTS 257

But let me point out a number of other defects in
the Affirmative s proposal.

In the first place, this price-fixing measure like all
others designed to set minimum prices on farm prod
ucts would defeat its purpose by increasing acreage and
consequently the surplus. I need not go into detail to
show you how this would be brought about; you can
easily see that if the Stabilization Board guarantees a
fair price to the farmer (which price, by the way, the
Affirmative has neglected to mention), a great many
producers will increase their acreage and other pro
ducers will begin fanning. The result will be the same
as that of other price-fixing plans a tremendous sur
plus will be produced, and the price will fall.

In the second place, we do not agree that the deben
ture plan will maintain a set price because it would not
operate on the important staple farm commodities.

Let us first consider corn, since Mr. King and my
self come from a corn state and know more about that
commodity. Now before the debenture can work, we
will have to export the commodity. That is perfectly
obvious, I think. But statistics show that eighty per
cent of the corn raised in the United States is fed in
the county in which it is raised. This eighty per cent
is fed to cattle, hogs, horses, mules and chickens; and
is never shipped from the county in which It is grown.
Our entire com crop constitutes from one-half to two-
thirds of the estimated world crop, yet our exports
represent usually less than one per cent of our produc
tion. Argentine corn, because of its superior keeping
qualities, is usually preferred to American corn by

258 YEAR OF COLLEGE DEBATING

foreign nations. Consequently, Argentine leads the
nations of the world in the export of com. According
to the United States Department of Agriculture year
book, United States exported four-tenths of one per
cent of its com crop in 1930. And so you see that our
exports of corn are so insignificant as to make the
debenture worthless as a to stabilize the

price of that product. The debenture cannot make
Europe eat more com ? nor will it make our corn pref
erable to Argentine s.

Now let us consider what benefit the plan would

the who raise meat. Our exports of

live are negligible. Most of the meat

at the present (with the exception of

dairy cows into this country) is packed meat.

The farmers sell to the meat packers" trusts. The

dress the meat and either sel it at home or ship

it abroad. The farmers do not sell abroad. Certainly,

then, any to be derived from this debenture plan

go to the packers not to the farmer. We

have only to look into the history of trusts to see that

the are not in the habit of passing on

any profits ? that they may make 3 to the

farmers. And so we fail to see where the debenture

could the farmer from the standpoint of the

of meat.

Let us consider wheat, the product in which

you are interested. For an example of price-

on this commodity, I only to point again

to the experiment of the Federal Farm

Board; to remind you that there are millions

FIXING PRICES OF STAPLE PRODUCTS 259

of acres of virgin land in western Nebraska^ Kansas,
Oklahoma, eastern Colorado, New Mexico, and north
ern Texas adapted to the raising of high-grade hard
winter wheat. This land is ready to be improved as
soon as such improvement will be profitable. In fact,
we had half again as many acres in wheat in 1919 as
we had last year. We have, in other words, about
twenty-five million acres on which wheat was raised
in 1919 which are not growing wheat now. If the gov
ernment guaranteed a fair price, it is only reasonable to
believe that the farmers who so badly need money to
day would be quick to replant this land, and any otter
land on which wheat could be grown. In short, the
surplus of wheat would be increased by the export
debenture plan, and our stabilization board would find
it rather expensive, don t you think, to hand out
twenty-seven cents, thirty-seven cents, or any other
number of cents to dump every one of those hundreds
of millions of bushels of surplus wheat upon the heads
of our unwilling neighbors. The surplus would swell
the world supply and lower the world price. The de
benture would have to be increased, and the govern
ment would find itself handing out billions of dollars
in debentures. The plan proposed by the Affirmative
would of necessity fail to maintain a set price on wheat.

Why, your own Senator Capper said of the deben
ture, "If you put this subsidy into effect, we wiH
increase our production of wheat in Kansas, through
our use of big power on our level fields, m a way that
will give the Treasury plenty of work to do."

In addition, the Affirmative have admitted that their

260 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

plan will not work on cotton ? so it appears that the list
of commodities on which the plan has no chance of
success contains the typical farm staples.

I might add ? however, that the debenture could do
nothing for poultry, butter, egg and similar commodity
prices, since here again exports are negligible. For the
most part these products cannot be shipped long dis
tances economically.

So Mr. King and myself maintain that the export

debenture plan could not possibly benefit the farmer.

I have out that the law of supply and demand

has prevailed to ruin attempts to maintain a set

price by price-fixing plans; and that this law will

prevent the price-fixing scheme which the Affirmative

evening from aiding the farmer. A fair

price will only increase the surplus^ which will depress

prices in return. I have also pointed out that the plan

fail on many of our staple crops which are not

exported. I have why it cannot succeed in

And the Gentlemen, themselves, have admitted

the will fail in cotton. I have raised the

of the surplus can be sold in countries

do not want it. I have pointed out the extreme

to the government of issuing debentures to export

a never ceases to increase as long as a

fair is

Is the hopeless? Certainly not! Remem

ber are two ways by which we might help the

We have shown the first, that of in-

his by artificial means, is Impossible

to attain. Of a certainty, the plan proposed by the

FIXING PRICES OF STAPLE PRODUCTS 261

Affirmative will not do it. Then why not try the second
plan? We propose to cut the farmer s overhead so
that even at the existing price level, he can exist. In
Iowa the farm population, comprising about thirty-
seven per cent of the population^ pays eighty-seven
per cent of the taxes. We presume that the situation
is nearly as bad in Kansas. Most certainly there
should be some readjustment of the tax burden of our
agricultural states. And at the same time that the
farmers are paying more than their share of the taxes,
they are forced to pay high rates of interest on their
mortgages. Big business pays less than three per cent
on long term investments; the farmer pays six, seven
or eight. A bill is before Congress at the present time
asking that the government replace these high interest
loans with low interest mortgages. Certainly, there
should be some readjustment made. And finally, we
propose an immediate cut in industrial tariffs. It is a
well known fact that the farmer is forced to buy on
a protected market and sell on the open market.

We realize that readjustment of taxes, lowering of
tariff rates and a lowering of interest rates on mort
gages will not make the farmers wealthy. But we be
lieve that such readjustments would save the farmer a
great deal ? allowing him to exist until better times raise
the prices of farm products. In short ? we advocate
giving the farmer a "fair break" by placing him on a
par with other industries in the matter of taxes, interest
rates and tariffs. We believe that the farmer is capable
of fighting Ms own battles if placed on such an equal
plane.

262 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

The export debenture will not help the farmers. We
believe that you will agree with us we say that

Congress shpuld not exact legislation providing for the
ixation maintenance of minimum prices on staple
farm commodities.

Negative Question Period
Homer King o Iowa State Questioning Edward Kelly

Qnestion* Now, Mr. Kelly, I m rather interested in
this problem of setting a price. In our questions, we re
to the example of wheat, since you re prob
ably with that product, and more inter-
in it in Kansas. Do you think that the

price of wheat is high enough?
Answer. No ? it isn t.

If your adoptedj your board

would, then, set a price year quite a bit higher

the price. Is that right?

Answer, higher, certainly.

Now of course we don t believe that this
price can be but that isn t what s bother

ing me Just now. What I d like to know is this: Do
you farmers at the present time are

other than wheat because of the
price?
Answer. Probably some of them are, of course.

And do some of the wheat farmers con-
to in spite of the fact that they lose

money?

FIXING PRICES OF STAPLE PRODUCTS 263

Answer. Yes, with many of them, there s no other
crop they can raise.

Question. They hope the price will go up, don t
they?

Answer. Undoubtedly they hope so.

Question. You will agree^ will you not, Mr. Kelly ?
that some farmers will plant more acres to wheat If
the board guarantees that the price can t fall to an
extremely low level?

Answer. Certainly, some farmers will; but not
necessarily any great number of them.

Question. So the higher the set price, the greater
the acreage?

Answer. Not necessarily; It hasn t worked that
way in the past.

Question. But they ve never been guaranteed that
the price wouldn t fall to a low level In the past ? have
they?

Answer. Not guaranteed, that I know of. But there
have been times when the fanner has been given every
reason to expect a high price.

Question. Of course, the farmer has found that
mere expectation Is not a guaranteed price. But your
board will guarantee that the price won t go to a low
level Isn t that right?

Answer. That s the idea.

Question. Of course, Mr. Kelly, you won t admit
that there wfll be an Increase in production, because
that would be disastrous to your case; but you will
certainly admit that there Is a possibility of produc
tion being Increased, won t you?

264 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

Answer. I don ? t know that an increase In produc-
would be so injurious as you seem to think, but of
course I ll admit that there s a possibility that an in
crease in price might cause an increase in acreage.

Question. I thought you ? d have to admit that. But
Iet ? s turn to something else. Now according to your
statement a moment ago ; Mr. Kelly, we can t main
tain a minimum price above the world market until we
get rid of the surplus by exporting it. Is that correct?
Answer. So long as we produce a surplus, we d have
to of it in some way or other to secure a do-

price above the world price.

Then to be brutally frank about it, this
is really a dumping plan, isn ? t it?

Answer. It s a to get rid of the surplus.
Question. Do you think foreign nations would like
to have our surplus commodities dumped on their
markets?

Well, Mr. King, at the present time those
foreign nations are buying exactly the same surpluses,
at the world price.

Would our people like to have foreign
pay a bounty to exporters for dumping their
on our markets?

I don ? t like the connotation of your word
"dumping." However, we certainly would not object
to shipping products over here that we

we couldn t produce ourselves.
But you know, do you not, that the
United States, in order to forestall such dumping actu
ally has a measure on its statutes today, providing for

FIXING PRICES OP STAPLE PRODUCTS 26S

a raise in tariff on any commodity on which a foreign
nation pays a bounty to exporters?

Answer* I ve heard that we have such a law.

Question. And you know that all great nations have
just such laws in order to forestall such dumping?

Answer. If such laws exist, I know that they
haven t kept those nations from importing the food
stuffs which they have to have from abroad.

Question. But you told us a moment ago, didn t
you, Mr. Kelly, that unless we could dump our sur
plus abroad, the home price couldn t be set above the
world price?

Answer. I certainly did say that our domestic price
could not be raised above the world price unless we
got rid of our surplus.

Question. Well, let s turn to one more point, Mr.
Kelly. If your plan of paying a debenture on exports
of farm products were put into effect, the government
would, in effect, be paying a certain sum of money to
the exporter for every unit of product sent out of the
country, wouldn t it?

Answer. Not at all. The government would not pay
a cent out of the treasury, but would merely give cer
tificates to the exporter which could be used In pay
ment of duties on imports.

Question. But such certificates would lower the
amount of duties coming into the treasury, wouldn t
they?

Answer. Certainly but the reduction wouldn t be
as great as if we lower the tariff as Mr. Kruse proposed
a moment ago.

266 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

Question. Do you have any idea, Mr. Kelly, just
what the cost to the government would be?

Answer. On the basis of present conditions of ex
port of farm commodities, I have a very definite idea.
Question. Did you know that President Hoover
estimated that it would cost the government more than

per year?

Answer. No, but if President Hoover did make such
an estimate, he certainly didn t base it on present
amounts of agricultural exports.

Of course, that s a harsh, unsupported

assertion, Mr, Kelly. But if it did cost that amount,

it would be a pretty expensive proposition, wouldn t it?

Not in proportion to the value received by

the farmer, even if it cost that much but there s no

to expect that great a reduction in import

revenue.

Mr. King. Personally, I d rather accept Mr. Hoo
ver s statement about that. That s all, Mr. Kelly.

Affirmative Questioning Period

Arnold Chase of Kansas State Questioning

Marvin Krase

Mr. Krase, do you believe that the fed-
government should refuse to aid the farmer?

No, not if the government can really help

him, if the farmer can t be helped by other means.

Wei, let s see. These other means you

have are those of lowering tariffs, tax re-

vision, lowering interest rates ? I believe?

FIXING PRICES OF STAPLE PRODUCTS 267

Answer, Those are the ones we have suggested.
There may be others.

Question. If the actual cost of planting, caring for
and harvesting a crop, exclusive of so-called overhead,
is thirty cents or forty cents a bushel, then the farmer
is going to lose money when wheat brings only twenty-
five cents a bushel, no matter how much these over
head items are reduced, isn t he?

Answer, If the farmer continually got only twenty-
five cents and if that was his cost, why certainly. But
he s getting more than that right now in a depression
year.

Question. Well, you know what the farmer got last
summer, I think. Now, Mr. Kruse, you gave us a long
list of instances where certain types of price fixing had
failed according to your statement. Was there a
single instance in that list where the method used was
to maintain prices by an export debenture, or some
other method of stimulating exports, such as we are
suggesting this evening?

Answer. Certainly not, as I have already explained.
Your plan is a new scheme for an old principle which
has always failed.

Question. But the specific principle of stimulating
export was not included in your list, was it?

Answer. As I said, no.

Question. All right. Now, Mr. Krase, if you gave
an exporter a certificate or debenture which he could
sel for twenty-five cents or so, for each bushel of wheat
he exported, he d .have a pretty strong motive for buy
ing wheat and exporting it, wouldn t he?

268 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

Answer. He d have a strong motive for wanting to,

yes.

Question. If lie could sell that wheat abroad for,
say, sixty cents above costs of shipping^ and received
in addition a debenture for each bushel worth twenty-
Ive cents more ? he 3 d make a profit even in exporting
wheat that he paid seventy-five cents or eighty cents
for, wouldn t he?

If he could sel it, and if other countries
didn t raise their tariffs, yes.

Then the question becomes one, essen
tially, of whether the foreign nations would buy wheat
at sixty cents?

Answer. The question of it being profitable to the
exporter^ yes. But not the question of the whole mat
ter of price fixing.

Now ? Mr. Kruse, let me go over this once

You say that, providing the exporter can find

a market abroad for exported wheat at sixty cents a

shipping costs, the addition of a deben-

of say twenty-five cents a bushel would allow Mm

to a profit by exporting wheat even if he paid

or even eighty-three cents or eighty-four

for it, here in America?

Answer. A profit , yes. Of course, he d make

a greater if he bought wheat here at sixty cents.

Well, with the certainty of this profit,

he ? d buy wheat and export it, if he could

sel it abroad^ wouldn t he?

If he could sel it, yes.

FIXING PRICES OF STAPLE PRODUCTS 269

Question. And in buying this wheat and exporting
it, he d shorten the American supply, wouldn t he?

Answer. Certainly, if he could sell It.

Question. And if this exporter and all the other
exporters kept this export up ? we d get rid of the sur
plus, and possibly even have a shortage of wheat on
the home market, wouldn t we?

Answer. Certainly.

Question. Well, under those conditions, the price
would go up quite a bit, wouldn t it?

Answer. Certainly: if you get rid of the surplus, the
price would go up.

Question. Under the conditions I have suggested,
it would go up to the amount of the world price plus
the debenture^ minus, of course^ cost of shipping,
wouldn t it?

Answer. Certainly, except for a small margin of
profit for the exporter.

Question. But you say, all this is conditioned upon
the ability of the exporter to sell his wheat abroad?

Answer. Yes.

Question. Well, does England today raise enough
wheat and other food products to feed her own people?

Answer. No, England doesn t.

Question. Isn t it true that not only England, but
France^ Italy, Belgium, Spain, and various other coun
tries of Europe, are all importing wheat and other food
stuffs today 3 simply because they can t raise enough
themselves to meet the need of their own people for
food?

270 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

Answer. Why certainly; but even the United States
imports wheat.

Question, Then so long as these countries must have
food, they re going to buy it, aren t they?

Answer. Certainly. But not necessarily here.

Question*. Yes, but at present, Mr. Kruse, they are
forced to depend for a part of this import of food upon
American wheat and other products,, aren t they?

Answer. For a part, yes.

Question. All right, Mr Kruse. Now let s turn to
another line of argument you advanced. Has it been
the experience of the United States that an increase in
price of wheat one season resulted in an increased
acreage the next?

Answer. Yes.

Question. Did you know that in 1924, an increase
of twenty-five cents a bushel in the price of wheat was
followed by a marked decrease in the number of acres
planted; and that substantially the same thing occurred
in the planting seasons of 1929 and 1930?

Certainly; but the increase in price was
not guaranteed for the following year, as your plan
proposes.

Ah, but it was, Mr. Kruse at least in

1929, the Farm Board was created, the fanner

to understand that he could expect an in-

in the wheat price, or at least, definitely main-

prices; still he cut Ms acreage for wheat for

the year, by over two million acres.

Answer. Certainly, but that was a year of depres-
and a good many farmers were bankrupt and

FIXING PRICES OF STAPLE PRODUCTS 271

unable to plant wheat. And you ll notice that there
were fewer fanners that year ? too.

Question. Apparently, Mr. Kruse, you forget the
fact that the depression didn t get much beyond the
stock market in which the farmer isn t greatly in
terested until along in the spring of 1930, after the
wheat had been planted. And the farmer who received
one dollar and twenty-five cents a bushel for his wheat
certainly wouldn t be bankrupt. But at any event,
you ll admit, won t you, that on several occasions in the
past ten years, an increase in price has not been fol
lowed by an increase in acreage, but rather by a de
crease?

Answer. Certainly, under the present system.

Ifr. Chase. That will be all. Thank you, Mr.
Kruse.

Negative Rejoinder, Homer King
Iowa State College

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: I was rather interested
in Mr. Chase s very cleverly worded questions, espe
cially in the last few asked. By those questions Mr.
Chase has arrived at the inference that Europe will
continue to buy from the United States because there
is no place else to go for the food she needs. He asked
Mr. Kruse if it was not true that Europe depended
upon us at the present time for a part of its imported
food. As Mr, Krase told Mm, this is quite true. But
what Mr. Chase did not tell you was that Europe de
pended on us for a great deal less last year than ever

272 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

before. In fact, It Is well known that our exports are
falling off every year, partly due to our tariff and
partly due to the increase in production on the part
of certain other nations^ Russia for instance. So we
still can t agree with the Gentleman s conclusion that
Europe will have to buy all of our surplus or starve.
Europe didn t buy all of our surplus last year or the
year before; or we wouldn t have any surplus. And
the mere fact that this plan would make the exporter
offer Europe the wheat more readily would not make
the Europeans more from us than they do now it
wouldn t increase the demand. And the demand for
afl of our does not exist. If it did, the Euro-

nations would come to us rather than starve, as
the suggested that they must do without

oar wheat. So we see that Europe does not have to
buy all of our surplus, for they aren t doing it now;
and we don t feel that Mr. Chasers questions have
Ms contention that we could sell all of our
abroad.

Now it to me ? after listening to the debate so

far, the whole difference of opinions is on two

First, would the plan of the Affirmative work
in the of wheat; and secondly, if it could be made
to work 7 is the Affirmative plan the only plan that will
aid the farmer. Right here I want to call your atten
tion to the fact that we are discussing the use of the
on all farm staples, not merely wheat. And
as Mr. Knise has shown you ? the debenture will fail
on other than wheat for very different

which will cause its failure in wheat.

FIXING PRICES OF STAPLE PRODUCTS 273

The Affirmative themselves admit that it will fail in
cotton, one of the greatest farm staples; and they have
absolutely failed to question our proof for the fact that
it cannot work in the case of live stock, dressed meat,
com, butter, eggs or poultry. Mr. Chase is going to
have to show how the debenture will work in each of
these cases before we can accept Ms plan for deben
tures on all farm staples.

But let us take up the case of wheat, the commodity
in which the Affirmative are so interested. You will
remember that it is an example of the type of agri
cultural commodity of which we export a great deal
and which is protected from import by a fairly high
tariff.

First of all, let me take up the two issues on which
the teams have disagreed so far. First, will the deben
ture plan work in the case of commodities like wheat
if it is put into operation? Now it seems to me, after
analyzing the statements made thus far, that there are
three outstanding aspects of the plan which danger
ously threaten to make it fail in these commodities.
First, will the plan increase the surplus enough to
make the plan undesirable? Second, will the exporters
be able to sell all of the surplus abroad without lower
ing the world price to such an extent that the plan for
fixing prices at home will fail? And third, will the cost
of the plan be great enough to make us want to forego
trying another experiment, which the Affirmative them
selves have admitted has never been tried?

In the first place, will the plan increase the surplus
enough to make it undesirable? Now when I ques-

274 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

tioned Mr. Kelly on this proposition, lie was forced

to admit that there was the possibility that the surplus
would be increased. In fact he definitely admitted
that he believed that some farmers would increase their
acreage if the price was raised to a higher level. But
he wouldn t admit that it would increase the acreage
greatly. Of course I appreciate the reason for Mr.
Kelly s reluctance in admitting that the acreage would
be increased; for if the surplus is increased to any
great extent Ms plan will of necessity fail. But Mr.
Kelly s mere refusal to admit a great increase does
not disprove the fact that it will be bound to appear.
It is only logical to believe that, if a fanner is willing
to plant much wheat when he is running the chance
of an extremely low price, that same person will be
willing to take a bigger chance if he is guaranteed that
the price will not fall below eighty cents or a dollar
or a dollar and a half or any other price which the
board may set. Of course we don t know how high
this minimum price will be that very question will
undoubtedly become a national political issue, if the
is enacted. But the point is that if the price
is set very low, the Board won t be helping very many
farmers. During the war the government declared
that three dollars was a fair price. So we believe that
It is to beleve that the surplus will be greatly

in the case of wheat, should the plan be
TMs increase in surplus, as Mr. Kruse has
out 3 will of necessity cause the plan
to faiL We see that the plan is inherently weak in that
respect

FIXING PRICES OF STAPLE PRODUCTS 275

Secondly, will the plan be too expensive to be fea
sible? Now Mr. Kelly again refused to admit a very
evident fact. If the government pays the exporter in
debentures, the government will receive that much less
tariff duties on imports. So the government will lose
that much income. In effect, every dollar s worth of
debentures will cost the government one dollar. Now,
that in itself doesn t matter if the cost isn t too great.
But President Hoover has estimated that such a plan
would cost the government $200,000,000 annually.
So the cost will be great. In fact, the war export board
spent $500,000,000 in a year and a half in exporting
wheat during the war, and they paid no debentures.
Of course the government won t do the actual export
ing under the Affirmative plan, but it will bear the
cost of exportation. For the exporter has to pay this
cost and he has to make a profit, too. As the Affirm
ative has indicated, this cost and profit must come from
the debenture. Certainly, then, there is every reason
to believe that the cost will be great. And if the cost
is so great, we cannot afford to experiment with the
plan unless we are absolutely assured of its success.
We ve had enough experimentation with price fixing
by the Farm Board with its hundreds of millions of
dollars squandered on an idea that failed.

And lastly, will the exporters be able to sell all of the
surplus abroad? Even though there was no increase
in surplus, the exporters wouldn t be able to sell the
wheat abroad and still give our farmers an increase in
price. For most of the great countries of the world
have a tariff on wheat, and a provision on their statutes

276 THE YEAR BOOK OP COLLEGE DEBATING

to tie effect that they will raise that tariff if we pay a
bounty to exporters for dumping. Besides, the ex
porters cannot get rid of the surplus today. There is
not enough demand. So in order to dump the wheat
abroad, they would have to sell it at a big discount.
The mere fact that we want to export wheat badly will
not make the Europeans want to eat more of it. And
if the exporters are forced to sell by cutting prices,
they can t afford to pay most of the debenture to our
farmers. So the exporters couldn t get rid of all of
the surplus still pay our farmers the minimum
price. Consequently, the plan wouldn t help the farm
ers, or else it wouldn t get rid of the surplus. And the
Affirmative have admitted that unless we get rid of
the surplus, price fixing will fail. Furthermore, re-
that all this is supposing that there is no
increase in surplus. With the increase in surplus that
is to occur^ the plan would be hopeless.

So we see that the Affirmative plan for raising the
price on commodities like wheat is hopeless. Like
wise, we see that the debenture will not maintain a
price on any of the other farm staples.
Then, since the will not work, we don t believe
it be adopted, even though there was noth

ing else could be done. There is no need of adding
to our predicament by placing an added burden

in the of on the shoulders of the American

people.

But there is another way of aiding the fanner by

Ms The Affirmative Gentle-

objected to this suggestion by telling you

FIXING PRICES OF STAPLE PRODUCTS 277

that so long as the price of wheat Is lower than planting
costs, it will do no good to cut overhead. I believe that
Mr. Chase mentioned twenty-five cents a bushel. Of
course the price isn t that low, even in this year of
depression. But his inference is that you can t cut
overhead enough to allow the farmer to make profits.
Now we have not intimated that the farmer is going
to make huge profits if we merely cut his taxes and
interest rates and lower the prices of industrial articles
by lowering the tariff. We admit that nothing can
make him rich in a time of depression. But we do
maintain, as have some of our own Western Senators,
that such a plan would allow the farmers to exist until
better times are in sight. That is about all that any
one can hope for in times like these. Certainly, it will
be of some help to have taxes and interest rates cut.
It will save the farmers that much money. It is
merely a plan that will give the farmer an even break
with other industries. That certainly should be done,
even though the export debenture is accepted. I was
extremely surprised to hear the Affirmative Gentle
men condemn it. I was under the impression that they
wanted to help the farmers. And most certainly, since
the debenture cannot work, we should do as much as
possible to help the farmer.

So I believe that you will agree with Mr. Kruse and
myself when we maintain that the government should
not adopt the Affirmative plan of fixing agricultural
prices by an export debenture, because such a plan
cannot maintain a Hgher price on any staple crop, and
because it will merely prove to be another useless bur-

278 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

den on the American people. We will have to find
some other means of helping the farmer. But in the
meantime, there should be a revision In taxes, a lower-
Ing of interest rates on mortgages and a lowering of
industrial tariffs In order that the farmer can have
an even break with other Industries,

Affirmative Rejoinder, Arnold Chase
Kansas State College

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: I shall not have time in
the few remaining to consider all of the points

at In our discussion In a detailed way, so I shall

try to take up only the points which are really vital.

First of aB ? I d Mke to stress the fact that both Mr.
Krase and Mr. Kmg have agreed with us that the
farmer Is In a distressing plight, and further, that the
government should act to relieve agricultural distress.
At least farj we are all In complete agreement.

There have two principal angles to the argu-

of our friends from the state of Iowa. First,
they have brought up a number of objections to our
for maintaining fair prices by use of the
debenture; second, they have suggested another
for the farmer. Td like to reverse the pro

cedure a little, and take up their plan for helping the
fanner first

briefly, Mr. Knise ? s plan for farm relief is to
reduce the farmer s overhead by lowering the tariff,
by taxes, and by cutting the Interest rates

FIXING PRICES OF STAPLE PRODUCTS 279

011 farm mortgages. Let s consider each of these meth
ods separately.

First, with reference to lowering the tariffs, I might
be so unkind as to use our friends own argument
against them ? for I believe you will recall how Mr.
King insisted that the debenture would reduce the gov
ernment s revenues from import duties, and how vital
it is that at this time, governmental revenues should
not be reduced. And now Mr. King joins Mr. Knise in
suggesting that all tariff rates should be appreciably
lowered which would surely reduce the government s
revenues far more than would the debenture. But
there is a more important fact to be considered. We
are not dealing with what is desirable alone, but like
wise with what is likely to happen. And there isn t
the slightest possibility that Congress will even con
sider the idea of lowering the tariff. So Mr. Krase s
first method of aiding the farmer is utterly impractical.

But second, he suggests that interest rates on farm
mortgages be lowered. Ill ask you frankly; do you
realy think that in these times of tight credit, when
farm loans are a drug on the market, there is the
slightest possibility of lower interest rates on farm
mortgages? Of course, Mr. Kruse tells us that there
is a bill in Congress providing for loans to farmers at
low rates. Pd like to remind him that under the Fed
eral Farm Loan act, loans to farmers at fairly low rates
have been available for years but so hedged around
with restrictions that not one farmer in ten can take
advantage of them. And even if low-interest loans
were made available for all farmers, that wouldn t

280 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

help the basic situation. The farmer doesn t want to

be given new facilities for going further into debt he
wants to be able to get out of debt. And that is pos
sible., only when prices are high enough to allow him
to make a profit. So Mr. Krase s second method of
farm relief holds forth little promise.

And finally, Ms third solution lower taxes. I ll
willingly agree that the farmer is bearing a dispropor
tionate share of the tax burden. But is there any real
probability of relief? To be sure, there is a cry from
the farmer for tax relief but mark this fact: prac
tically every state in the Union is going right ahead,
increasing its expenditures; and our legislatures are
Interested in tax reform only as a means of finding new
forms of taxes to add to those we already have. There
is no hope for the farmer along this line, at least for
years to come.

So Mr, Krase s suggestions for farm relief ? while no
doubt eminently desirable, are absolutely worthless as
a practical policy^ as there isn t the slightest chance of
a single one being put into effect. But you will recall,
Mr. Krase and Mr. King agree with us, we have
to do something to put the farmer on Ms feet. Their
proposal has proved impossible; so now let s turn again
to the method that we have advocated that of main
taining reasonable prices through use of the export
debenture.

Our friends from Iowa have made a variety of at
tacks on the debenture plan, but I believe that all their
arguments may be grouped around five main points.

FIXING PRICES OF STAPLE PRODUCTS 281

So I want to give a little attention to each of these five
basic objections.

First of all, Mr. Kruse spent nearly half of Ms total
time in relating various instances of failure of price
fixing, and attempted to leave the impression that all
efforts at price fixing in the past have failed. Now if
I wished, I might cite to Mr. Krase numerous instances
where government price fixing has been wholly suc
cessful the experience of the United States itself
during the world war ? for instance, in which prices were
fixed and maintained without the slightest variation on
more than two hundred fifty different commodities, or
the price-regulatory methods in use in Germany today.
But after all, whether price fixing by government fiat
has succeeded or failed, either in recent years or back
in those periods of ancient history with which Mr.
Kruse chiefly occupied himself, is entirely beside the
point. We aren t advocating the fixing of prices by
government dictum; we are advocating the use of a
debenture plan to make it profitable for traders to buy
and so send the domestic price up to the desired level.
And if you will recall, Mr. Krase was forced to admit
during the question period^ that not a single one of
his instances of price fixing failure had the slightest
relation to price stabilization of that sort. So that
objection simply doesn^t happen to fit the debenture
plan.

Next, Mr. Krase made use of a somewhat different
method of attack. More or less admitting that the
debenture might succeed if applied to wheat, he argued
that it wouldn t work in the case of other commodities.

282 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

It won t work with live-stock, he says, because only

dressed meats are exported. Well, although Mr. Knise
apparently doesn t know it, there does happen to be
a market for live animals in other countries; much of
the export from the Argentine Is in the form of ani
mals on the hoof, and our own Department of Com
merce tells us that our own country has an annual
export of live animals averaging over six million dol
lars. With the stimulus which a debenture would give,
the export of live cattle and hogs could be greatly in
creased, and the domestic price raised accordingly.
Then Mr. Knise tells us, there isn t any European
market for corn but again, the United States Depart
ment of Commerce thinks otherwise. It is true that
we export less than one per cent of our total com crop;
but there is a market, and with the aid of a debenture,
our export of com could be increased at least enough
to bring about a marked raise in price. And finally,
Mr. Knise tells us that the plan will not work in the

of cotton, since we have no tariff. We fully agree

this; Mr. Kelly told you in his opening talk that
a tariff on cotton would be necessary to make the use
of the debenture effective for that crop. But even Mr.
Knise isn t to argue that given a tariff on cotton,

the debenture could not be applied to that crop. So
the Mne of objection advanced by our friends

Iowa State seems to have little force.
TMs brings us to the line of argument advanced by
Mr. King, in the talk which just preceded mine. He

us there are really two big issues at stake;
whether there is a better method of farm relief and

FIXING PRICES OF STAPLE PRODUCTS 283

we have already handled that, I think, sufficiently
and second, whether the debenture plan would work
in the case of wheat in particular. And with respect to
wheat in particular^ he raises three objections.

First, he tells us and this is the third main objec
tion our friends from Iowa have raised that it would
be too expensive that it would reduce government
revenues from import duties. It seems to me that this
argument comes from Mr Bang with rather poor grace,
in view of the fact that both he and Mr Kruse have
advocated drastic reduction of tariff as a method of
farm relief, and that such reduction would certainly
reduce government revenues far more than would the
debenture method. At any event, the fact that both
Mr. King and Mr. Kruse have suggested tariff reduc
tion as a method of aiding the farmer must certainly
indicate that they believe the farm situation serious
enough to justify expenditure from the federal treas
ury, so long as the farmer is aided, and I believe that
we have shown that the debenture would definitely
better agricultural prices. So this third main objection
is hardly enough to show that the debenture is un
desirable.

Mr. King s next line of attack, stressed both during
Ms question period and in his concluding speech, was
an attempt to show that under the debenture system,
the American exporter could find no markets for Ms
products abroad. Mr. King talked at some length
about ruinously Mgh foreign tariffs against wheat in
particular; about anti-dumping regulations, and the
like. But Mr. Kruse more or less nullified everytMng

284 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

that Mr. King said, when he admitted, in reply to my

questions, that European nations are importing wheat
today, because they need it for food; and that as long
as they need it, they will continue to import it in spite
of tariff duties. Indeed, we find that the grain supply
of leading European nations and incidentally, those
which have the highest tariffs quoted by Mr. King
are so far short of their food requirements that last
year, Germany had to import thirty million bushels of
wheat; Italy eighty-three million bushels; France
forty-five million bushels; Belgium forty-five million
bushels; and the Netherlands thirty-five million bush
els, in spite of these high, prohibitive tariffs. So again,
on Mr. Kruse s admissions, and on the facts presented
by our Department of Agriculture, it is very evident

there is and will continue to be a market for
American wheat abroad; and so Mr. King s fourth
objection is invalid
There remains one further objection one to which

Mr. King and Mr. Krase have devoted particu
larly great attention. Both of them have told us that
the inevitable effect of any increase in the price of
or of other commodities would be to increase
the existing surplus even greater than
it is. And so they argue that the price should be
no it now is, for fear of causing a greater

But is it true that a higher price on wheat,
for example, really would increase the supply, or rather,
to increase acreage and so cause a greater
supply? It that the records of the past do not

out this assumption. During the past twenty

FIXING PRICES OF STAPLE PRODUCTS 285

years, we find for fourteen years an annual average
price on wheat higher than that of the previous year.
And of these fourteen years, in only five cases do we
find that the increase in price resulted in an increase
in wheat acreage for the following crop season in the
other nine cases, the increase in price was followed by
a decrease in acreage. I called Mr. Kruse s attention
to one or two of these cases during the question period ,
and Mr. Krase attempted to explain the fact away by
saying that the higher price was not guaranteed for the
coming crop season. But it happens that we have at
least one case in which a price was guaranteed for a
succeeding season, so let s see what happened in that
case. In 1929, when the Farm Board was created, it
did very definitely promise the fanners a continuation
of high wheat prices for the coming season a price in
fact, of one dollar and twenty-five cents a bushel,
Chicago. But in spite of that definite promise, there
was a reduction in wheat acreage for 1930 as compared
with 1929, and a further reduction in 1931. So even
a guaranteed high price, in the only case in which
such a price has been guaranteed during the past ten
years, failed to produce the increase in acreage that
Mr. Kruse and Mr. King predict. And we have no
reason to believe that the prices announced by a
Stabilization Board remember that these are not to
be artificially high prices, but prices adjudged reason
able by the Board on the basis of economic conditions
we have no cause to believe that these reasonable
prices would increase wheat acreage, in spite of all that

286 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

our friends from Iowa have said. And so their fifth
and last objection has been met.

From the beginning of this discussion, our friends
have definitely agreed with us that the farm situation
is such as to demand relief, and that the government
must act. You have been given a choice of two forms
of action by the government; the method of reducing
tariff duties, interest rates and taxes, which while
highly desirable, simply doesn t stand a chance of being
put into effect; and the method of securing reasonable
prices through use of the export debenture. Our
friends from Iowa have attacked the debenture from
every angle from which attack is possible; yet I be
lieve that from their own admissions, and from the
facts which we have presented, the validity of these
attacks has been destroyed. So in summing up the
situatfon ? this is what we find. The farmer is des
perately in need of aid. That aid must come from the
government. Reduction of tariff, of taxes, of interest
rates is so improbable that nothing can be hoped for
along that line. The only plan which holds forth any
promise of success is that of maintaining reasonable
prices by use of the export debenture. And so tonight,
I strongly urge that our government should adopt the
as a means of securing fair prices for the
farmer, and bringing prosperity back to the United
States.

FIXING PRICES OF STAPLE PRODUCTS 287

BIBLIOGRAPHY: PRICES AND PRICE FIXING
BOOKS

Angel, J. W. Theory of International Prices. 1926. Harvard Uni
versity Press. $3.

Ashley, W. J. Gold and Prices. 1912. Longmans, pa. 50c.

Baumert, W. A. Method of Forecasting the Prices of Wheat by By-
Products. 1926. Catholic University of America. Si.

Edie, L. D. Money, Bank Credit, and Prices. 1928. Harper s. $3.50.

Fisher* Irving. Mathematical Investigations in ike Theory of Value
and Prices. 1925. Yale University Press. 75c.

GasMfl, N. B. T Price Control in the Public Interest. 1931. Sales
Management, 542 National Press BIdg. s Washington, B.C.

Hicks, F. C. Competitive and Monopoly Prices. 1911. University
of Cincinnati. 40c.

Lawrence, F. W. P. Why Prices Rise and Fall. 1921. Oxford Press.
85c.

Lawrence, J. S. Stabilisation of Prices. 1928. Macmillan. 5.

Layton, W. T. Introduction to the Study of Prices. 1920. Macmil-
kn. $3.

Lloyds E. M. H. Experiments in State Control at ike War Office and
the Ministry of Food. 1925. Oxford Press. Yale University
Press. $4.

Lloyd, E. M. U^Stabmzatwn. 1923. Knopf. $1.50.

Moore, H. L. Generating Economic Cycles. 1923. Macmillan. $2.50.

MurcMson, C. T. Resale Price Maintenance. 1919. Columbia Uni
versity Press. $2.25.

Peddie, J. T. DIM! System of Stabilization. 1930. Macmilkn. $3.40.

Todd, J. A. Science of Prices. 1925. Oxford University Press. Re
vised 1927, and 1931. $2.

Willis, H. P. Problem of Competitive Prices. 1925. Columbia Uni
versity Press, gratis.

PAMPHLETS

Academy of Political Science. Fntwre of Prices at Home and Abroad.

1926. Hie Academy. $1.50. Inflation and High Prices* 1920.

Hie Academy. $1.50.
American Academy of Political and Social Science. StabiKsati&n of

Commodity Prices, 1928. The Academy. 2.

288 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

American Economic Association. S. N. Patten Stability of Prices.

7Sc.

American Institute of Agriculture. -A. Hobson Can Prices be Con
trolled? 1923. Why Prices Fluctuate.
Chamber of Commerce of the U. S. Prices of Agricultural Exports.

1926. paper 30C.
Chase National Bank. S. M. Anderson Artificial Prices a Menace to

Economic Stability. 1924.
Commonwealth dub of California, San Francisco. Food Prices, 1919.

Tie Club. 12c.
National Bureau of Economic Research. F. C. Mills Behavior of

Prices. 1927. The Bureau. 7.
National Wholesale Druggists Association. W. A. Hoover. Wity

Pnce Legation is Essential. The Association,

gratis.

OLD AGE PENSIONS
A Discussion of Old Age Insurance

OLD AGE PENSIONS

KMT COLLEGE VS. DEPAUW UNIVERSITY

On January 3, 1932, Radio Station WGN (Chicago Tribune)
broadcast a debate between DePauw University and the Kent Col
lege of Law on the subject of Pensions for the Aged, The question
was stated: Resolved, that the several states should adopt uniform
systems of Old Age pensions.

This is another of the social insurance subjects growing out of
technological unemployment and the financial depression. Should
machine efficiency and economic saving be passed on to the discarded
workman should he not share in the general prosperity that economic
saving brings? Does society owe nothing to the superannuated work
man especialy since we have shortened the period of employment
for the average man and have discarded him long before his strength
and ability have kpsed into uselessness? Does not the necessity of
buying power if we are to continue to produce in quantity^ demand
the sharing of industry s profits beyond the actual contribution of the
workman or is this merely a system of deferred payment? If so, has
it merit?

The fact that colege students are interesting themselves in these
sock! and economic questions and that the radio is taking them to a
pubic that would not usually find its way to a college debate, is one
of the hopeful signs in modem democracy.

The debate was contributed by Professor Herald T. Ross, debate
coach at DePauw University, with the cooperation of Mr. William
M. James, director of debate at Kent Colege of Law.

First Affirmative, John W. Cavanaugfa
Kent College of Law

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: The social problem we are
discussing this afternoon is one of the great contin-

292 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

gencles In Hie life of every American wage earner along
with accident^ sickness, and unemployment. This
problem of old age is one of first magnitude in these
United States where industrial development plays such
an important role in our progress and prosperity.

If we are to follow the ethical principle that the
government exists for the citizen and not the citizen
for the government we must accept this social respon
sibility with all Its glaring faults; we must realize that
the problem of dependency in old age runs deep into
the social structure of our industrial society and that
the present machinery for relief has proved grossly
inadequate.

Within the last fifty years our Nation has undergone
a complete economic and social change. Congested
cities now reach out to engulf the open spaces of the
country side. The primitive American town of the
"gay nineties" has taken on all the airs of its neighbor
ing metropolis. Thousands upon thousands have left
the quiet comfort and security of the farm for the tur
moil of the factory or the confining existence of work
ing in a skyscraper. We have become a nation of cliff
dwellers, the rambling homestead of ample and expan
sive chambers has been deserted for the three and four
room kitchenette. Food and clothing now come only
by a cash outlay and the ominous figure of the landlord
Is perpetually camped at the door step.

No longer, therefore, can the aged rely on their
ancient social prerogatives. The dependent aged of our
present society can no longer be assured of a place at
the fireside, a bed upstairs to sleep in, a welcome at

OLD AGE PENSIONS 293

the dinner table, and best of all, a steady job with the
chores^ or a bit of work in the shop.

The great mass of our present population lives in
ignorance of this primitive and rural America that our
grandfathers and grandmothers once knew and loved.
Likewise, our people today, if left to themselves, fail
to recognize the responsibilities and the uncertainty of
life.

The question of what to do with the ever increasing
numbers of men and women who are threatened with
dependency in old age challenges the ingenuity and
prudence of our statesmen and industrial leaders.

The average American family of today must indeed
be possessed of great resourcefulness even to make
both ends meet, to say nothing of being able to save.
Consider what sacrifices must be made to rear a family.
It is far more expensive under existing economic con
ditions. Years ago a child soon became an important
contributor to its own support, whereas at present in
industrial communities, where school attendance and
child labor are in force, the parent must provide the
entire support of the child up to fourteen or sixteen
years of age.

Further the worker s income is seldom as large as the
wages he receives, as seasonal employment cuts down
what he might earn and cyclical depressions, such as
we are now undergoing, throw hundreds of thousands
out of work and compel them to use any savings they
may have been able to accumulate.

Mass production has driven out the small producer;
chain stores, chain banks and mail order houses are

294 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

driving out the small dealer; mergers and consolida
tions are increasing efficiency, but cutting down the
number of workers needed.

All these changes have intensified the demand for
youth and vigor in our workers and a man now is too
old for industry at fifty or fifty-five. Ironically enough,
science and medicine have increased the wage-earner s
life expectancy, so he is confronted with the dilemma
of longevity on the one hand and loss of livelihood on
the other. It is the duty of our government in con
junction with American industries and businesses to
devise a plan of old age pensions to provide for these
sad victims who, when industry has relegated them
to the "human scrap heap/ 3 must face the ignominious
consequence of the almshouse.

The United States as a nation stands alone among
the industrially developed countries, in still applying
antiquated methods of relief to this twentieth century
problem of old age dependency. Under our present
system almost the only measure of public relief for the
aged dependents is the almshouse. In spite of our
superior economic social order and incredible wealth,
we continue to send the unfortunate aged victims of
our progress to these almshouses where the sick and
the welj the mentally defective, the worn-out criminal,
and the dangerously diseased are crowded together
with little discrimination. Very often these poor-
houses are of a peculiarly unattractive type where the
old couple is separated and compelled to live in sur
roundings that are filthy, verminouSj and foully un-

OLD AGE PENSIONS 295

sanitary. To force respectable aged dependents to live
in a mess of insanity and depravity is downright in
humanity and a smirch upon our civilization.

A system of old age Federal govern

mental aid will correct this. To ameliorate the present
condition, we of the Affirmative advance a plan with
these features:

First of all we would continue the great good now
being done by many large industries and businesses
with direction of old age pensions. To do this we
advocate the adoption of the plan of Gerald Swope ?
President of the General Electric Corporation. In his
plan that is now working successfully in his own cor
poration, Mr. Swope outlines a system of old age pen
sions whereby the employee contributes to a pension
fund during his useful years. Mr. Swope advocates
control of this nation-wide industrial and business pen
sion plan by a federal supervisory board in order to
stimulate interest and provide for the education of our
citizens to this responsibility of caring for the aged.

A simple illustration of this plan as it is now working
in the General Electric organization will explain more
clearly how it operates.

Let us assume that a young man comes to a par
ticular industry at the age of twenty-five and remains
to the retiring age of sixty-five a period of forty years
and say his average wage is forty dollars a week or
two thousand dolars a year. The pension at the time
of Ms retirement will be thirty dolars a week or
seventy-five per cent of his earnings, ten dollars of

296 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

which will have been accumulated from Ms own savings
and twenty dollars from the pension fund provided by
the company.

Through government supervision we would make
this plan compulsory and uniform in all states so that
employees could transfer from one industry to another
without losing the benefit of their years of service in
the former place of occupation.

This feature which we propose will be giving mil
lions of our daily breadwinners a protection that they,
themselves, have helped to provide.

Secondly 3 we advocate a compulsory Federal pension
plan for the several states to care for those unfor
tunate aged dependents who during their productive
years have been unable to set aside enough to support
them in their old age. A nation-wide plan of this type
working in conjunction with our first proposal of a
national industrial pension plan would effect many
economies besides doing away with the abuses of the
almshouse. It would give greater happiness and con
tentment to our aged dependents^ who, with the income
our plan provides will be able to continue life together
among their accustomed surroundings, doing whatever
comes within the limits of their powers, and sharing in
the interests and activities of their advancing

years.

In conclusion^ we of the Affirmative feel confident

the people of the United States are ready to face

problem; that they are through burying their

heads in the sand like the proverbial ostrich; that they

are ready to meet the facts of this social evil of old age

OLD AGE PENSIONS 297

dependency without fear of being accused of paternal-
Ism or socialism.

First Negative, William Spray
DePauw University

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN : We have listened with in
terest to the arguments of our worthy opponents, and
we hasten to assure them and you that we of the Nega
tive are most emphatically in favor of care for the aged
in favor of the best possible care that can be provided
for their every need. But we do not believe that old
age pensions ever were or ever will be so designed as to
provide the aged with the real care which their condi
tion necessitates.

If pensions can accomplish this end why have they
not done so in the past? The plan is not new. Experi
ments have been conducted with it since the 1890 ? s ? as
our opponents have told you. England, New Zealand,
France ? Germany ? Belgium and several of our own
states have on occasion adopted pension laws. But
despite the arguments advanced here this afternoon,
these plans have failed to provide the real care promised
by their supporters. L. J. Conant, an eminent author
ity, says: "Indeed it is hardly too much to say that
the history of pension schemes has been a record of
mistakes and failures."

The fundamental reasons for these failures are not
obscure. For one thing, many old people are incapable
of handling pension money so as to obtain good care
for themselves. Some of them suffer a decline in men-

298 THE YEAR "BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

tal power to the extent that they are Irresponsible.
Some of them have built up life-long habits of improvi
dence. These groups simply cannot use money wisely;
they need more direct attention. To indicate that this
objection is not simply a flight of my own imagination,
I quote Charles L. Edgar, who summed up an investi
gation of the pension system in Montana by saying,
"Many of the aged poor were found to require constant
care. . . . Some of the aged in receipt of the maximum
pension were found living in shacks,, in indescribable
filth and misery. Some had wasted their entire pen-
on liquor. 53 A system which results in such care
as this is certainly anything but desirable.

But even if all these people were provident and
economical they could scarcely produce a living from
the pitiable allowances supplied by pensions. And this
sum is now over thirty dollars per month. At least
forty per cent of the pensioners could get no support
from children. What kind of a living can such persons
get for thirty dollars per month? Very often they are
so enfeebled as to require the attention of a nurse, and
this, too, they are expected to get with their thirty dol
lars. Good foodj clothing, shelter, heat, light, medical
attention; al must be paid for. It isn t being very
kind to an old to hand him thirty dollars each

and say to him, "Now take this and get out of
the way; don t bother us any more." We cannot dis
charge our obligations with thirty pieces of silver.
That would be a very convenient way for us to dismiss
the matter, but it would not care for the aged. Such
a system is not generous; nor even humane. Imagine

OLD AGE PENSIONS 299

yourself thrown into the cold world of depression with
no earning power and no support except a thirty dollar
pension per month. To force anyone to accept such a
condition of life is needlessly cruel. Can our opponents
show that pensions have ever done any more for aged
persons than to carry them along in a miserable and
degrading plane of existence? What proof can they
offer?

Now can the Gentlemen from Kent 3 faced with this
weakness in their proposition, advocate the payment
of a really adequate sum? The Census Bureau gives
the average wage today as about one thousand two
hundred dollars a year. Yet, for obvious reasons ; it is
not proposed to pay our 1 ? 800,000 aged dependents
this amount. The total cost would be staggering so
staggering that not even the most enthusiastic pension
advocates have ever suggested it.

The inadequacy of the pension plan is well demon
strated by its record in this country. While it is true
six states have made it optional with their counties s
only fifty-three of the two hundred eighty counties
affected have ever tried it. The experience of these
few does not seem to have recommended the plan to
the other counties. Pensions^ the county officials have
seen ? fail to provide adequate care which must be
arranged anyway. In view of these facts is it not
reasonable to turn to some other method of meeting the
situation which will actually give the aged the care they
need and deserve?

Past generations have not been blind to the Beads of
their elders, but have long recognized that provision

300 THE YEAS BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

must be made for the suitable care of the aged. Fra
ternal organizations of all kinds, as well as state gov
ernments, have admitted that good care of their aged
comes not through giving them a mere pittance of a
monetary allowance^ but by giving them institutional
care a care which is both cheaper and more adequate
than anything else ever devised.

My fellow students join their individual buying
powers with mine in a collective enterprise by which
we gain all the advantages of an education at a much
smaller cost. Common sense dictates that this prin
ciple of combined buying power should be used to
secure adequate care for the aged. And in spite of the
fact that many county poor farms in our states are
disgracefully and incompetently managed, it is still
apparent that institutional care is the best that can be
given our old people. A "United States Bureau of Labor
survey indicates that the f raternal ? the church,, and the
soldiers 7 homes are splendid in equipment and manage
ment. They usually provide private rooms; excellent
dining halls; doctors, nurses^ and hospital equipment;
elevators; recreation; and a score of other comforts.
Most of them have libraries, card rooms, and motion
pictures. Barber shops are found in some of them.
As a rule they are situated in beautiful locations, sur
rounded by parks and gardens. Every attempt is made
to meet individual needs; one home even supplies a
man whose only work is to read to the blind. The
Soldiers Home at Milwaukee has a library of twelve
thousand volumes. The old people are allowed to visit
to receive callers. Almost no home is without

OLD AGE PENSIONS 301

some regular religious service, Can the Affirmative
provide care like this with a small pension?

All this relief is afforded in institutions which care
"for about as many of the aged as do the county poor
farms. Nor is there any reason why the county homes,
properly reorganized, cannot be just as excellent. In
fact, according to the Bureau of Labor, many county
homes are already equal to private institutions. The
only change that needs to be made is an improvement
in administration, which can be brought about largely
by county consolidation. Just as many one-room school
houses of a county were consolidated into one fine
central school, so can several counties consolidate their
homes for the aged, and provide them with finer care
at a smaller cost per county.

The institutional method of caring for the aged has
been shown to be adequate, so that the reasonable
tiling to do is to develop this system instead of trying
out the plan of pauper pensions. The one plan, pen
sions, would turn the aged adrift with a small sum of
money; the other would look after and provide the
aged with care for their every need.

Shall it be with love and solicitude or with thirty
heartless pieces of silver that we discharge the noblest
duty and obligation of our generation?

Negative Rebuttal, John Millett
DePauw University

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: My colleague has already
pointed out to you that we of the Negative are heartily

302 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

in favor of care for the aged, that we recognize that
they are deserving of care, and that we have not, as the
gentlemen of the Affirmative obviously have been,
deluded into any materialistic belief that care can be
satisfied by mere money. We are thankful, indeed,
that we recognize that there are greater things than
mere money., and to these we think our aged are by all
rights entitled.

Now in the first place we are confronted with several
glaring inconsistencies in the argument of the first
speaker for the Affirmative this afternoon which throw
upon aH that been so freely declared.
The speaker has painted in eloquent words the de
plorable picture of the industrial laborer of today.
Emphatically has he declared that the workman s days
of useful toil are short, and his wages small, inadequate
to meet the burden of supporting himself and
famfly. Yet Ms plan calls for contributions to be made
by this workman out of his "pitifully small"

salary to a pension fund whose benefit he is to receive
sometime in the future, provided of course that he lives
that long. On one hand the speaker declares that the
workman s salary is too to enable him to save,

and on the other he advocates a plan which

to compulsory saving. Here are contradictory
propositions; which would the Affirmative have us be
lieve? In arguing necessity the Affirmative bemoans
the forced retirement of underpaid workers at fifty; in
presenting the plan, they use as a typical worker, a
man drawing two thousand dollars a year and working
sixty-five. The gulf between these two positions

OLD AGE PENSIONS 303

is the distance between the theory and practice of their
proposal

Then they say those who have not been able to get
a job will receive a pension from the government with
out having to contribute one cent to it. In other words
the man who works has to contribute, but the man who
doestft work gets the pension anyway. If this is not
placing a handicap and burden on the laborer, the man
who works, then what is it?

Another startling defect in the proposition for old
age pensions confronts us. We are a nation of diff
dwellers, of poor and unsanitary homes, says our
friend from Kent. Yet would he have a pension fund
to enable the workman to straggle along in just such
conditions as these? What else can you expect on
thirty dollars a month and neither through compulsory
saving and industrial contribution, nor through state
pension funds are we going to be able to give workmen
enough money to permit them to maintain in old age a
home on Riverside Drive.

These striking inconsistencies in the case of the
Affirmative are sufficient to cast a cloud of doubt as to
the accuracy of al that the first speaker says.

Moreover, the practical difficulties which obstruct
the plan are numerous. How much wiH be paid to the
aged? Who will determine those deserving of pen
sions? What will be the cost of administering the
pension fund? And finally the greatest problem is
this. A large fund is going to be built up by the indus
tries of money contributed by the workman and the
company. Furthennore ? a fund will have to be built

304 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

up by the state to pay the pensions of those who have
not earned anything. How is this fund, then 3 to be
administered? It is an elementary principle of eco
nomics that the holding out of circulation of a large
sum of money would be death to our industrial struc
ture. The problem of investment therefore confronts
us* That this is in truth a tremendous problem you
have only to consult the difficulties the United States
government has had in its pension fund for its own
employees. Think of multiplying that problem on a
scale to include all our aged and then you will approach
a realization of what is implied! Losses are bound to
be sustained In investment. Who would dare deny
that fact in this day? And when the pension system
begins to default, confidence will be forever destroyed.
The poor and the laborers live in miserable condi
tions today. This the Affirmative declares. Why give
them just enough money to enable them to continue to
live in that fashion? The answer to the problem of old
age care Mes not in absolving our obligation by the
mere gift of a pittance of money, but rather in the field
of better homes for them. County consolidation is
being carried on now, and there are already hundreds
of fine ? beautiful homes where every need of the aged
is cared for. The Affirmative is not providing for care
for the aged, but Just giving them a bit of money, and
even then they cannot always guarantee to the people
that money. It is better to continue on our present
path toward adequate care for the aged which can be
in our present tendencies, rather than to start
aH over again on a new uncharted way. What we need

OLD AGE PENSIONS 305

Is not old age pensions, but a renewed enthusiasm and
determination to carry our present process to its con
clusion.

Affirmative Rebuttal, Roger Sevems
Kent College of Law

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: Our friends of the Nega
tive have ably and clearly stated the case against old
age pensions. Our task 5 then 5 is to disprove the
chargeSj to defend the accused.

Old age pensions fail, they tell us, because many old
people are incapable of handling money due to declin
ing mental power^ habits of improvidencej and drunk
enness. We will admit that there are incompetents
among the aged poor. Just as there are recipients of
civil war pensions and more recent soldier s bonuses
who have squandered them for a mess of pottage.
That in itself is no argument against old age pensions.

The gentlemen charge that pensions are inadequate
failing to provide even a bare living. We would
discharge the solemn duty of society to its faithful
servants, say the Negative, with thirty pieces of silver.
No, gentlemen, not with thirty pieces of silver do we
pay society s debt, but with the greatest boon within
our power a guaranty against absolute^ total depend
ence when the afternoon of life is reached. Gone is
the haunting specter of a pauper old age with BO
alternative but the poorhouse ? that keeps every man
back over his shoulder with a shudder. Better
should he have the thirty pieces of s3ver 7 than depend

306 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

upon the doubtful mercies of friends and relatives or
of public charity. The gentlemen tell us that forty
per cent of the pensioners can get no support from
children or relatives. How obvious then ? that industry
and society must discharge their obligation. Better
the thirty pieces of silver than starvation in a desolate
old age. Better an income even though small than the
humiliation and shame of the almshouse. Corpora
tions such as the International Harvester Company,
operating under pension systems, pay as high as fifty
to a hundred dollars a month to faithful employees.

The gentlemen would indict old age pensions because
they 9o not care for the aged. But to so indict they
must first assume that the aged as a class need care.
The vast majority of those who make up the aged poor
are not decrepit, incompetent, blind, or sick. The
majority are those whose steps are merely a trifle
slower than they once were. Industry says to these,
"Your hand is not as quick, your feet not as swift,
make way for youth." Many are in the prime men
tally; many can stil find ways to use their remaining
physical powers in gainful labor. What a boon to them
would be even the thirty pieces of silver of which the
gentleman spoke so depreciatingly. A guaranteed in
come, an endowed old age, if you please. It would
the difference between courage and despair, be
tween independence and beggary.

The gentlemen of the Negative have said that old
age pensions have been a failure wherever tried. Ger
many adopted an old age pension law in 1889. Great
Britain in 1908, Austria in 1909, France in 1910, Bel-

OLD AGE PENSIONS 307

giuia in 1920. And in every one of these countries old
age pension laws ate still in force. Not in one single
instance have they been abandoned or repealed. Yet
the gentlemen tell us they do not work.

Finally, our friends of the Negative have told you
that the need of the aged poor has been met by insti
tutional care provided by fraternal and religious in
stitutions and county poor farms. We do not belittle
the splendid work done by institutions. But the best
institution is a poor substitute for a home, humble
though it may be. The report of a committee of the
United Mine Workers speaks thus of institutional care
in Illinois: "This committee has paid a personal visit
to each of the eighty county homes of this state. We
have found conditions varying from the very best to
the most horrible. Even in the very best, where the in
mates had nothing but praise for their treatment, it was
a touching sight to see how their old faces would light
up with joy and hope at the mere suggestion of a pen
sion that would enable them to go home and live and
die among familiar scenes and happy associations now
lost to them forever." That is institutional care, ladies
and gentlemen, with its libraries and its hospitals, com
plete in every detail save one Home. No institution
however fine its physical equipment, however kind and
efficient its personnel, can ever take the place of home
to independence-loving American citizens. It is obvi
ous that the sick, the crippled mentally and physically^
must be cared for in institutions. But the vast ma
jority of our dependents who have no other affliction
save that youth has passed them by, do we not owe

308 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

them something better than commitment to an insti
tution for life? When we sentence them thus, are we
not making it a crime to be old?

The gentlemen of the Negative pass from extolling
the benefits of institutional care to a suggestion that
the remedy lies in a reorganization of our institutions,
thereby admitting that institutions are not adequately
meeting the situation. To try to bring together and
centralize all of our various institutions is to attempt
the impossible.

The Negative have cited the failure so they say of
state laws by which the payment of pensions has been
made optional with the counties. But does this not
strengthen rather than weaken our contention that the
Federal Government should adopt a system of old age
pensions?

The problem of these whom industry no longer
needs, these who are outstripped in the race of life, is
capable of solution. May that solution come through
kindness and understanding, and the realization that
the aged of today were the youth of yesterday. In the
words of the poet:

not ambition meek their useful toil,
Their homely joys, and destiny obscure;
Nor grandeur hear with a disdainful smile
The short and simple annals of the poor."

OLD AGE PENSIONS 309

BIBLIOGRAPHY: OLD AGE PENSIONS
BOOKS

Beemaa, L. T. Selected Articles on Old Age Pensions. 1927. H, W.

Wilson. 52.40.
Epstein, A. Challenge of the Aged. Vanguard Press. 1928. $3.

Pacing Old Age. 1922. Knopf.

Johnson, J. E. (Comp.) Selected Articles on Social Insurance. 1922.

H. W. Wilson. $2.40,
McDonald, T. P. and Davie, G. Handbook of Widows, Orphans, and

Old Age Contributory Pensions. 1930. Hodge. 3s. 6d.
Seager, H. R.Socml Insurance. 1910. MaonlBan. $1.60.
Squier, L. W. Old Age Dependency in the Umied Siflies. 1912.

Hacmillan. $2.50.

PAMPHLETS

American Association for Labor Legislation. Old Age Pensions.
gratis. The Assoc.

California Department of Social Welfare, Old Age Dependency.

1928. Sacramento, gratis.

California University. Heller Committee for Research in Social Eco
nomics. Dependent Aged in San Frsndsco. 1928. University

of California. Berkeley. $1.80.
Canada. Dept. of Labor. Old Age Pension Sysiems Existing in

Various Countries. 1926. The Dept., Ottawa.
Dept. of Labor. Old Age Pensions in Canada Together with

Old Age Pensions Systems in Other Countries. 1929. The Dept.

Ottawa.
Chicago. Pubic Welfare Dept. Care of Aged in Chicago. 1927.

gratis. Chicago Municipal Reference Library. Cure of the Aged

in Chicago. 1927. The Dept, 139 N. Clark St. E. A. Hughes

and E. W. Hayden.
Manufacturers Association of Connecticut. Old Age Dependency in

Cmnedicid. 1931. The Assoc. 50 Lewis St., Hartford, Conn. $2.

Missouri, Constitutional Convention 1922-23. Record of Proceed-

of lie Convention, jr. 1922 on the proposed amendment

providing for Old Age pensions. 1924. gratis. J. B. Shannon,

41S Scarritt St., Kansas City, Mo.

310 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

National Civic Federation. Industrial Welfare Department. Old
Age AnmtdtKS. 192S. The Federation.

P. T. Sherman. Old Age Pensions. 1923. gratis. The Fed
eration.
Old Age Penswns Conference. Industrial Welfare Dept. SO.

The Federation, 1 Madison Ave. ? N. Y.
New Yozk. Commission on Old Age Security. Old Age Security.

Report, 1930. Lyon.
Pennsylvania. Old Age Commisson. Report. January 1927.

Harrisburg.
Russell Sage Foundation. N. Y. Library. Provisions for the Care of

ike Aged. 1926. The Foundation, pa. lOc.
Womens* Education and Industrial Union. Dept. of Research. Old

Age Support of Women Teachers. 1921. The Union. $1.25.

paper 75c.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
An Intra-Collegiate Economic Discussion

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

CARLETON COLLEGE AFFIRMATIVE AND

NEGATIVE

The following debate on Unemployment Insurance is one between
the two teams at Carleton College after their regular season had
closed. During the season the Affirmative team took an extended
trip through the east, holding two decision debates and the rest Don-
decision. One decision debate was with Creighton University of
Omaha, Nebraska, at Northfield, Minnesota, prior to the trip and
was won by Carfeton two to one. The second decision debate was
held with American University of Washington, D. C., and was lost by
a two to one decision^ the chief argument being that the pkn of the
Cadeton Affirmative was not insurance but something else. The
present debate takes up this issue.

The Carleton Negative team met five colleges in debate on the
home fifoor at Northfield all of the non-decision type. The question
was stated: Resolved, that the several states should enact legislation
providing for compulsory unemployment insurance to which the em
ployers must contribute. Reservations: 1. Constitutionality waived.

2. All employers employing less than ten men not to be considered,

3. Strictly seasonal industries to be exempted from consideration.
The Carfetort speeches were collected and contributed by Pro
fessor I. M. Coduan, of the Department of Speech of Carieton
College.

First Affirmative, John Wfayte
Carleton College

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: Hie question for debate
this evening is Rested: that the several states should
enact legislation providing for compulsory imeiBploy-

314 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

ment insurance to which the employers must con
tribute. Three reservations have been made: first,
that the constitutionality of the measure Is to be
waived; secondly , that all employers employing less
than ten men are not to be considered; and thirdly,
that strictly seasonal industries are also to be ex
empted from consideration.

Perhaps it would be well for us to define exactly
what we mean by "compulsory unemployment insur
ance," by the term "unemployed/* and by "strictly
seasonal Industries." By "compulsory unemployment
insurance 33 we mean a social insurance which will
guarantee the insured employee a definite sum of
money during the periods In which he may be unem
ployed through no fault of his own. When we refer
to the term "unemployed/ 5 we simply mean a man
who Is wiling to work but Is unable to find work. By
"strictly seasonal industries 75 we mean those industries
which are directly affected by weather or climatic con
ditions and not by business custom, such as canning,
agriculture, or shipping.

Nearly al of the eminent political scientists of our
day are in agreement that there are three fundamental
obligations of every nation to the citizens within Its
domains. These are, briefly speaking; first. Its obliga
tion for the setting up of an adequate standard of
money and credit; secondly, Its obligation for the pro
tection and facilitation of commerce; and, lastly, Its
responsibility for the protection of labor and the
workingman. Now the first two of these obligations
have been largely fulfilled in the United States. In

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 3 IS

regard to the third obligation,, however, namely, the
responsibility of each and every government for the

protection of labor and tie working man, we of the
Affirmative do not feel that this has been fully carried
out in the United States. True enough^ we have wit
nessed the passage of some notable pieces of social
legislation such as compulsory working men s compen-
sation^ child and woman labor laws, accident and health
insurance 3 and the like. But ? peculiarly enough^ the
United States government or the forty-eight state gov
ernments have as yet not seen fit to enact legislation
which will assist the workingman over the greatest
barrier wHch he has yet been called upon to face,
namely, unemployment.

Nothing can better illustrate the extreme seriousness
of the situation than the present depression through
which we are passing. According to Colonel Arthur
Woods, chairman of President Hoover s commission for
the relief of the unemployed^ between four and five
million worMngmen are out of their jobs at the present
time. Think of it! Five million men to swell the
breadlines and patronize the soup kitchens which have
been set up in all the leading cities of our country.
Charity football games have been played and the pro
ceeds turned over to the relief of the unemployed,
Community chest funds have increased from two to
three their original quotas. Congress has been

upon to pass measures for the relief of the suf
fering due to unemployment as they have never been
called before. It can, therefore, be readly seen

that measure for the remedy of this evil such as

316 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

unemployment insurance is no longer something which
can be postponed indefinitely 7 but an action which
must be taken at once.

We of the Affirmative believe that if a man has
worked honestly and efficiently and is then thrown out
of Ms Job through no fault of Ms own, he is deserving
of some consideration from industry. Industry has
always made use of a "reserve of labor/ 7 that is, a
group of men who could be shot onto a job during boom
or production periods and then when they were no
longer needed during the ensuing slack periods they
were automatically sloughed off. TMs reserve of labor
has operated very largely to the profit of the individual
employer, and it is only fair and just that the employers
should be called upon to bear part of the burden of
unemployment of those who have helped to line their
own pockets. During a period of depression an em
ployer provides for the upkeep of the macMnery within
his plant; if he makes use of beasts of burden he pro
vides for their proper food and shelter; but the very
employees^ the flesh and blood men ? who run Ms pknt
and make possible Ms production he has no considera
tion for whatsoever. Today, when a workingman is
thrown out of Ms job through no fault of his own he
is forced to turn to charity. The indiscriminate and
wholesale spread of charity in this country has done
more to undermine the self-respect, the initiative, the
ability of the workingman to stand up on Ms own f eet ?
than any other single factor. It fosters a feeling of
dependence upon society for a living. And, theref ore,
as opposed to any system under which charity is the

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 317

sole means of support of a workingman thrown out of
a job through no fault of Ms own, we of the Affirma
tive are advocating this evening a plan for compulsory
unemployment insurance.

We believe that this plan of unemployment insurance
must be compulsory for a very good reason. It has
been suggested that the individual employers would pre
fer to work voluntary schemes of insurance "within their
own plants. American industry has had years in which
to do something about the present situation; and it has
done very little indeed. Today we have some thirty-
five successful plans of unemployment insurance
operating in the United States, but obviously, thirty-
five plans as compared with the whole field of American
industry is a narrow and restricted use of progressive
methods. Before the passage of compulsory working
men s compensation^ child and woman labor laws,
accident and health insurance all pieces of beneficial
social legislation although there had been consider
able agitation, nothing was done except by compulsory
legal enactment. Hie great rank and file of employers
wfll do very little indeed to better the situation unless
they are compelled to fall into line by compulsory
legislation.

We of the Affirmative believe that our plan for com
pulsory unemployment insurance will bring with it
three very definite benefits. The first of these we
might term an economic or efficiency benefit. As a
result of the psychological effect upon a working man
who knows that he will have the assurance of a rea-
income during periods in which he may be

318 THE YEAS BOOK OP COIXEGE DEBATING

thrown out of Ms job through no fault of Ms own, his
general efficiency and productivity will be greatly in
creased, Mr, N. I. Stone ? of the Hickey-Freeman
Company, tells us that the efficiency of their labor after
the introduction of a plan of Insurance within their
plant has increased from ten to fifty per cent* The
Cleveland Garment Workers ? another industry in which
a plan of insurance similar to ours has been adopted,
tells us that since the adoption of that plan within their
plant their output on piece-work has increased fifteen
per cent 3 and their output on week work, that is, work
spread throughout the entire week, has Increased forty-
seven per cent! Can anytMng be more conclusive as
to the increase of efficiency in those plants which have
adopted a system of unemployment insurance. Then ?
toOj the American employer is just beginning to realize
that his employee is not only a producer but a con
sumer as well. Now obviously, if that employee is
given the wherewithal with wMch he can consume,
then and then only will consumption go on very much
as It did before and will production necessarily be kept
up. These facts lead us to a very obvious conclusion.
Compulsory unemployment insurance means good
business; it means greater efficiency and productivity
on the part of the employee; greater purchasing power
for the employee; and consequently greater confidence
throughout business as a whole.

A second benefit which will accrue from our plan of
compulsory unemployment insurance is the physical
benefit to the worker. The assurance of a reasonable
income during periods of depression in wMch a work-

INSURANCE 319

ragman Is out of Ms Job through no fault of Ms own
will mean that he will be able to provide for himself
and Ms family some of the necessities of life; food,
shelter, and clothing. He will not then be forced to turn
to charity which undermines his own self-respect and
initiative.

And a last and very definite benefit which will result
from our plan is what we might term a "moral" benefit.
During a period of extreme privation, a man will often
do those things which he would not ordinarily do. He
will rob, he will steal, he will commit crimes against
society anything by which he may gain money or
subsistence on which to live. During these depression
periods vice and immorality are on the increase. We
have here some statistics taken from the American
Labor Legislation Review for December 1930. "The
daily average of crimes committed against property
in fifty-eight cities throughout the country has steadily
increased. In May it was six hundred and five crimes
per day; in October, it shot up to seven hundred
twenty-seven crimes per day" an increase of over
one hundred crimes per day throughout these fifty-
eight principal cities of our country. A large part of
the increased crime, vice, and immorality, which con
fronts us on every page of our daily papers is traceable
to the period of depression through which we are
passing.

And 7 therefore, we of the Affirmative are advocating
this evening a plan for compulsory unemployment in
surance because it will bring with it three very note
worthy benefits. It will mean greater efficiency and

320 THE 1HEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

productivity on tie part of the employee, greater gen
eral confidence throughout al business, in short, a
definite economic benefit. It will mean that the work-
ingman will be able to provide for Mmself and his
dependents during periods of depression with some of
the necessities of life instead of being forced to turn
to charity which undermines his initiative and his
ability to stand on his own feet. And, lastly, there
will be a distinct moral benefit in that there will be a
decrease of the crime, vice, and immorality which
accompany our modern depressions.

First Negative, Alois Keller
Carleton College

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: The speaker who has just

concluded Ms argument has stated that the plan of the
Affirmative is designed to aid workmen who have been
discharged through no fault of their own. The gentle
men feel that men who have worked honestly and effi
ciently should be compensated when they are thrown
out of work. Under any plan of compulsory unem
ployment insurance to which the employers are forced
to contribute, the risk will be borne by the individual
employer. It would seem, therefore, that the em
ployers would tend to daim that laborers had been
discharged because of inefficiency or because of miscon
duct. Some means of determining whether or not a
has been discharged for cause must be found.
The body which has the power to make such decisions

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 321

must be unbiased. Such a plan certainly Involves a
great administrative expense.

The plan of the Affirmative wfll, we are told, provide
each workman with sufficient buying power to provide
Ms dependents with food ? clothing and shelter. Yet
charitable organizations are spending enormous sums
in an effort to accomplish that end. According to
Mollie Ray Carroll, of the Brookings Institute of Eco
nomics,, in Germany, where compulsory unemployment
insurance is in effect, one-third of the annual budget of
the average city is spent for such a purpose. Is it not
quite possible that the placing of this great burden
upon industry will cause the failure of many firms?

In discussing the problem of unemployment, we ask
that you keep in mind the fact that the size of this
problem has never been accurately determined. At
tempts have been made, through the medium of the
Federal census in 1890, 190Q 3 and again in 1920. Each
time the project was dropped, because the accuracy of
the information was questioned, and because the cost
of making the survey was found too great. We see,
therefore, that we are not sure of the size of the group
with which we are dealing.

We of the Negative object to compulsory unemploy
ment insurance in the first place because we believe
that it will decrease the mobility of labor. Under a
of insurance administered by the individual states
it will be impossible for the labor reserve to move from
state to state. The laborers in other states will desire
to keep the number of available workmen as law as

322 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

possible, so that wages may be kept at a high level.

The increase of the laboring force will also increase
the liability of the employers, and for that reason, a
large reserve will be undesirable from the employer s
standpoint. The state itself will be called upon to open
and close the accounts of such transient laborers, and
will be forced to keep in touch with him as he moves
from one state to another. The cost of such service
would be prohibitive. It is clear then that a plan of
insurance will decrease the mobility of the labor re
serve. We also contend that laborers will refuse to
transfer from one industry to another during periods of
unemployment. The plan of unemployment insurance
adopted by Great Britain in 1921 insured some three
million women. An average group of one million have
drawn benefits each year since that time. Yet, three
hundred thousand women are imported annually to do
domestic work in England. Those who had been in
clerical trades or other positions higher than domestic
service refused to accept such employment. In Ger
many, from sixty to seventy thousand agricultural
workers are imported each year to aid in the cultivation
of the farms, in spite of the fact that a group far larger
is drawing benefits from the unemployment insurance
fund. Workers will not change from one industry to
another. The mobility of the labor reserves is de
stroyed by a plan of guaranteed benefits.

The adoption of a plan of compulsory unemploy
ment insurance will bring about the very conditions it
is striving to eliminate. Unemployment will be in
creased, and the unemployed will experience difficulty

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 323

in a new position. The adoption of any

of imemployment insurance which makes each em
ployer liable for the men within Ms plant will result
In the reduction of the working force 3 in order to re
duce the liability in case of unemployment. Machines
will be substituted for human labor when that is
possible. We find, for example, according to the In
dustrial Relations Counselers, in their book Unem
ployment Benefits tn the United State?* that the
Dennison Manufacturing Company reduced its labor
force sixteen per cent in the five years following the
adoption of their plan of guaranteed benefits. The
working force of the Chicago Garment Workers was
reduced from twenty-seven thousand at the time of the
of the insurance plan ? to less than fourteen
thousand five years later* Employers will hesitate to
take on men in periods of prosperity, because they will
be liable for them in periods of depression. In other
words,, lie same working force will be employed con
tinually ? but those men who are unfortunate enough
to become unemployed will not be placed in industry.
The stabilization wMcfa the gentlemen insist must take
place is not a favorable solution.
We do not believe a plan of compulsory unemploy-
insurance can be successfully devised because
unemployment is a risk which cannot be insured
against. The National Industrial Conference Board,
up of the most prominent of American econo-
the various plans of insurance now in
effect, their conclusions are found in the Bulletin
Number Fifty-One of the Board. The primary pur-

324 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

pose of all insurance, according to these economists^
is to spread the risks over a large group. In this way ?
the cost of insurance against losses can be cut down.

We see, therefore, that the first requisite of an insur
ance plan is that it cover a large number of risks. The
Board also sets up the following principles as necessary
in any plan of insurance which is to be made com
pulsory or spread over a large area: (1) The risk must
be reduced to the point at which industry can bear the
burden of insurance; (2) That the rates of premium
must be determined in advance; (3) That the costs
must be distributed in proportion to the risk incurred
by the insured party.

When we consider the figures given us by the Affirm
ative as representing the amount spent for charity in
the United States ? and then realize that their plan is
designed to care for the functions of these charitable
organization5 ? we hesitate to believe that industry can
bear the burden. It is very obvious, since the size of
the problem has not been determined, that the rates
cannot be fixed in advance. It is also exceedingly
expensive to procure the information which would
enable these rates to be fixed in such a ratio that the
cost would be spread according to the risk incurred.

In conclusion we have seen that the size of the un
employment problem cannot be accurately determined.
We have seen that the adoption of a plan of unem
ployment insurance will decrease the mobility of labor
between States and between industries. Unemployment
insurance and the stabilization which will result will
cause an increase in the amount of unemployment and

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 325

a decrease in the number of available positions.
Finally, unemployment is not an insurable risk. For
these reasons, it is the contention of the Negative that
compulsory unemployment insurance should not be
adopted.

Second Affirmative, F. Atherton Bean
Carleton College

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: You have heard a number
of general objections to unemployment insurance
brought forward by the Negative. Now, of course, for
these to be valid they must stand scrutiny with regard
to a definite plan of unemployment insurance. There-
f ore 3 in order that there may be a definite focus for the
discussion this evening I wish to present the plan of
insurance which is advocated by the Affirmative. The
objections will be answered in the course of the dis
cussion of the plan and the succeeding Affirmative
speeches.

First f the Affirmative advocate the establishment of
state systems of employment exchanges. These state
systems should be inter-state cooperative so that the
workers may move from one part of the country to
another with definite information concerning laboring
conditions elsewhere.

Sccondy we advocate that every employer be required
to insure Ms employees against the losses of unemploy
ment. He must lay aside with the state treasurer a
of which shall aggregate a definite amount

for each employee in Ms establishment. This shall be

326 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

his own insurance fund and out of it the employee
when out of work through no fault of his own will
draw a stipulated benefit for a determinate period.

This plan has behind it the endorsement of the
theoretical and practical economic minds in the country.
Plans of this type have been endorsed by John R.
Commons of the University of Wisconsin, who is
probably the outstanding authority on labor legislation
in this country; by Leo Wolman of the New School
of Social Research; by John G. Lonsdale, the 1930
President of the American Bankers 3 Association, and
one has but recently been introduced as a bill into the
Wisconsin Legislature.

Now that I have given you the outline of the plan,
let us consider it more in detail First the employment
exchanges. One of the great difficulties in the past has
been that although work might be available, the work-
mgman not knowing of its existence could not take
advantage of the opportunities which really existed.
The employment exchanges wiH serve as a very
valuable link between the workingman on one hand
the job on the other, thus cutting down the unneces
sary unemployment as much as possible. Also since
state systems will be inter-state cooperative, each
exchange will have information concerning laboring
conditions in other states, and the laborers will no
longer have to move from one state to another without
any idea whether or not jobs are available.

Now let us consider the insurance feature of the
plan. Every employer is required to lay aside with
the state treasurer a definite sum for each of his em-

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 327

ployees. Yon realize, of course, that the conditions

affecting labor vary greatly over the country. The
cost of living in New York is much higher than it is ia
Minnesota. There are other factors which must also
be considered. So we have not attempted to set defi
nitely what the amount of the deposit for each em
ployee shall be. It may have to be one hundred dollars
in New York. It may only be eighty dollars in
Minnesota. At any rate the conditions within the state
mil have to be considered and the amount set in the
enactment of the statute.

The employer will be given a period during which
to build up the necessary fund and to adjust himself
to new conditions. The period proposed in the Wis
consin Bill is thirteen months, but it is by no means a
mandatory period. Once the fund is established and
actively working the employer shall become liable to
pay benefits from the fund after a worker has been
employed for a time of four weeks. His liability will
be proportionate to the period that the worker has been
in Ms employ. That is, the worker who has held his
job for, let us say, six weeks might receive only six
weeks 7 benefits from Ms employer s fund; the employee
of eight weeks only eight weeks 7 benefit; but there is
to be a definite limit to the liability of the employer to
pay these benefits. That limit will be set in the enact
ment of the statute. In the Wisconsin Bill it happens
to be tMrteen weeks.

Now, concerning the eligibility of the worker to
receive benefits. The prime requisite for the reception
of the benefits is that the individual be able and will-

328 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

ing to work, but unable to find a job. When he is
thrown out of a job through no fault of his own he
must go to an employment exchange and register.
After a waiting period of one week if he has no job he
will receive benefit from the unemployment insurance
fund. These benefits are to be disbursed through the
employment exchanges. In this way there is a check
upon anything in the nature of malingering; that is,
the attempt to receive benefits while making no effort
to find another job. The worker must accept a suitable
job if it is offered to him. If he refuses a suitable job
when offered, he thereby forfeits his right to receive the
insurance benefits from his former employer s fund. If
there is any question as to the suitability of the work
offered, it may be referred to a district committee
which will determine whether he still has any claim
upon the employer s fund. Thus the all-important
requisite is that the individual be willing and able to
work, but unable to find work, and we have a definite
check upon this by disbursing the benefits through the
employment agencies.

A man will not receive benefit, if he voluntarily
leaves a job without just cause, if he is discharged for
misconduct, or if he is out of work because of a strike
or similar labor dispute.

It would be well in this connection to state what the
attitude of the labor exchanges win be toward organ
ized labor. No man will be refused benefit because
he does not accept a job which has been vacated be
cause of a strike, nor will the activities of the labor
exchanges in any way interfere with any union or shop

INSURANCE 329

agreements which have been entered into between em
ployers and employees. So the place of organized
labor will in no way be affected by the establishment
of unemployment insurance. It will be able to use all
its methods of collective bargaining with the same
effectiveness that it does at present.

You will notice that the burden of the unemployment
insurance has been placed squarely upon the shoulders
of the employer. This is one of the most important
features of the Affirmative plan for it makes it a
measure not only for relief but for prevention as well.
The Affirmative plan gives the employer a financial
stake in the prevention of unemployment. Every time
that he discharges a man he knows that that man is
likely to draw benefit from his insurance fund. He
knows that unemployment is going to be a definite item
on his Profit and Loss statement. Industry can pre
vent a large measure of unemployment. The experience
of many companies shows this conclusively. Proctor
and Gamble, Hills Brothers, the Dennison Manufactur
ing Company, and others have shown the way toward
regularization and stabilization of industry. But the
rank and file of industry will not follow unless it is
given an incentive that it cannot ignore. For twenty
years we have been advocating and recommending
regularization and stabilization yet practically nothing
has been done. We must talk to the employer in the
only language that he really understands that of
dollars and cents. The Affirmative plan makes unem
ployment an expense that can no longer be ignored

330 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

and with that incentive industry will make real at
tempts toward regularization and stabilization.

Let us consider for a moment the Negative conten
tion that unemployment insurance will reduce the
mobility of labor between industries and between
states. In the past the mobility of labor has been
definitely hindered because there has been no system
of employment exchanges which would help it. We
are establishing systems of exchanges which will
actually increase the mobility of labor for the worker
then will be able to move with knowledge whether jobs
are available and whenever any are procurable, men
will be put in contact with them as soon as possible.

It is absurd to think that laborers and employers are
going to hinder the free movement of labor: First be
cause it is constitutionally impossible. Secondly, be
cause men are not going to move into a state where they
know, through the exchanges, no jobs are to be had.
Lastly, because the employer has no liability toward
any individual until he has worked for him at least
four weeks. Thus we see that the contention of the
Negative that the insurance will decrease the mobility
of labor does not stand, that the ultimate effect of the
plan of the Affirmative will be to greatly increase the
mobility of labor.

We have presented to you a plan which calls for
state systems of employment exchanges which will be
inter-state cooperative, for compulsory unemployment
insurance which is borne entirely by the employer. It
is a plan which will increase the mobility of labor. It
gives relief to the unemployed and above all it acts

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 331

as a definite deterrent to the evil of unemployment by
placing upon the employer, the dynamic factor in
industry, the incentive to stabilize and regularize.

Second Negative, Ward B. Lewis
Carleton College

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: The second Affirmative
speaker concluded his argument by naming certain
authorities who are in favor of unemployment insur
ance. This, he believed, was a further argument in
favor of its adoption. However, there are certain
other prominent authorities in the United States whom
we believe to be well qualified to judge who have stated
themselves to be opposed to compulsory unemployment
insurance.

First and foremost is President Herbert Hoover who
is unconditionally opposed to such insurance. In
March, 1931, President Hoover vetoed the Wagner
Bill for unemployment relief which he believed might
be the stepping-stone to a system of unemployment
insurance. Ex-President Calvin Coolidge, possessed
of some knowledge concerning the needs of the laborer,
is opposed to such insurance. Arthur T. Woods, ap
pointed by President Hoover in 1929 to head a com
mission to study unemployment relief, has concluded
that such insurance is not feasible. Noel Sargent,
president of the American Manufacturers Association,
has, from his executive chair, stated that his associa
tion is opposed to compulsory unemployment insur
ance. Samuel Gompers, deceased president of the

332 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

American Federation of Labor, lias stated Ms disap
proval of such a measure. William Green, president
at the present time of the American Federation of
Labor, himself an individual who has risen from the
ranks of the workers, in addressing the executive coun
cil of the American Federation at Atlantic City, New
Jersey, in September, 1930, stated the sentiment of the
organization when he expressed Ms extreme disapproval
of compulsory unemployment insurance. Warren E.
Stone, deceased labor leader, ex-president of the
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, has repeatedly
stated that he was unequivocally opposed to such in
surance. Dr. Frank W. Taussig, probably the most
prominent economist in the United States, states in
volume two of his "Principles of Economics" that it
would be extremely difficult to devise any successful
system of unemployment insurance for "non-employ
ment is an unceasingly recurring phenomenon and in
that sense a permanent one."

Thus, it would seem that there are many prominent
authorities who do not believe that compulsory unem
ployment insurance should be adopted. The individuals
whom I have quoted, representatives of a much larger
group, are the outstanding ones in their varied fields.

The first speaker for the Negative proved that
unemployment is not an insurable risk for it does not
fulfill the three principles invariably found in any suc
cessful insurance; furthermore, the enforced stabiliza
tion wMch will result from this insurance will cause an
increased unemployment problem for, because of this
new liability placed upon them, the employers will cut

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 333

down their labor force to a minimum and will be very
hesitant to undertake any constructive enterprise.

In addition, we believe that such insurance is unde
sirable for it is unjust both to the employer and to the
employee. It is unjust to the employer, first, for he is
penalized when the causes of unemployment are beyond
his control. The cause of unemployment may be
found in the maladjustment which has occurred be
tween the forces of supply and those of demand. These
forces operate outside of the employer s factory and
thus he is unable to control them. He may desire to
sell his goods and thus keep his men employed but if
the public will not buy he is powerless. In workmen s
compensation, however, we find that the employer is
directly responsible for accidents occurring within his
plant and thus it is just that a penalty should be placed
upon him. However, we cannot defend compulsory
unemployment insurance from this standpoint.

Second, we find that the employer is cheated by com
pulsory unemployment insurance because decreased
efficiency of his employees ensues as a natural result.
The members of the Negative believe that our present
social system, the survival of the fittest, is, after all,
the best course to be followed. It seems logical to
assume that any individual, who realizes that he is
guaranteed a job or a certain amount of cash benefit
if he is unemployed, will tend to be rather inattentive
and thus inefficient in the performance of his duties.
The fear of discharge because of shiftlessness is largely
removed, since the employer must definitely prove that
the individual discharged is not entitled to insurance.

334 THE YEAB. BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

Authorities state tliat consequent inefficiency upon the
part of the employee has been one of the worst results
of the English system of unemployment insurance.

In addition, we believe that such insurance is unjust
to the employers as a whole because, from the state
ment of our question, we see that many industries must
be included which will contribute to the failure of the
whole scheme. For instance, as Dr. John R. Commons
has pointed out in his volume, "Can Industry Prevent
Unemployment" there are many industries which are
so greatly over-manned that the amount of unemploy
ment which would occur in them while the insurance
scheme is in operation must spell financial failure. He
cites the metal manufacturing industries in which one
hundred thousand too many men are being employed
and the coal industry in which one-half of those men
now employed could produce a year s supply of coal
in three months. The United Typothetae, the printing
union, is one hundred fifty per cent over-manned.
Other industries are similarly situated. The result
under compulsory unemployment insurance would be
that many more men would be constantly drawing from
the central insurance fund than would be contributing.
In addition, the rate of insurance payments, because of
the great risk of unemployment, would be unbearably
high for both employer and employee.

Compulsory unemployment insurance, therefore, is
not desirable because, in many respects, it is unjust
to the employer. In additional ways, however, it is
unjust to the employee and presents such obstacles that
its adoption seems inadvisable.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 335

In the first place. It seems very doubtful tliat the
American worker would ever accept any such plan of
insurance for it gives the employer too much power.
Organized labor in the United States has repeatedly
expressed itself through its heads, William Green and
the late Samuel Gompers, as opposed to such insurance.
Compulsory unemployment insurance takes away the
employee s right to strike. If an individual should
strike, the employment exchange would immediately
fill his position with an unemployed person receiving
insurance from the fund. In addition, the agencies
would only place those individuals drawing upon the
fund and, since strikers are prohibited from insurance
benefits, the striker would find it very difficult to secure
a new job. The loss of the right to strike would ulti
mately mean the abolition of the labor union. The
advisability of the abolition of the labor union is, in
itself, a debatable issue. Thus the right to strike, the
modern retaliatory weapon of the employee against
the employer is swept away by the institution of com
pulsory unemployment insurance.

Second, such insurance seems to have a tendency to
reduce wages. The employer may answer the request
of his employees for increased wages by reminding
him that he is being insured against the possibility
of being unemployed. Dr, Mollie Ray Carroll, an
authority upon the German system of unemployment
insurance, in her work, "Unemployment Insurance in
Germany" has pointed out this evil resulting from
unemployment insurance as demonstrated in the Ger
man system. The result would be, then, that the

336 THE YEAH BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

American worker would be forced to buy articles
which are constantly increasing in selling price, because
of the increased production cost of the employer re
sulting from the insurance which he must pay, with a
wage which is static or possibly decreasing in amount.
Such a condition must be far-reaching in Its conse
quences.

The members of the Negative believe that the solu
tion to our unemployment problem will be largely
evolved by industry itself. Unemployment is not
profitable to the employer and, in the endeavor to
secure larger profits, he is gradually being forced to
adopt many methods of stabilization and of adjustment
of the forces of supply to those of demand. It is a
certainty that, as competition becomes keener because
of improved production and sales methods and the in
creasing use of effective advertising, these devices to
reduce the fluctuation of industry will be adopted with
ever-increasing rapidity.

In addition, we are in favor of the establishment of
a national system of employment exchanges. Such
exchanges were utilized for two years at the close of
the World War and were considered very successful.
We believe that they should be reinstalled for the
benefit of the American workman.

In conclusion, then, we have seen that compulsory
unemployment insurance should not be introduced into
the United States for unemployment is not an insurable
risk; in addition, the logical result of the introduction
of such insurance would be increased unemployment
because of the enforced stabilization which would

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 337

ensue. In addition, such insurance Is unjust to the
employer and to the employee,

We have seen, however, that if the present tendency
of American industry is a sound criterion, the em
ployers themselves will remedy the present evils.

The third speaker for the Negative will prove that
the theory underlying compulsory unemployment in
surance is, in its essence, unsound and will point out
the results of the introduction of that type of insurance
in foreign countries.

Third Affirmative, J. Stanley Stevens
Carleton College

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: The gentlemen of the
Negative have argued this evening that unemployment
is not an insurable risk. They have supported their
contention by the advancement of three principles of
insurance with which, they have said, unemployment
insurance cannot be identified. These principles are:
fir st y that the risk must be reduced to a minimum;
second y the rates must be determined in advance; and
third, the cost of the insurance must be distributed in
proportion to the risk incurred. Now let us see if
unemployment insurance does not comply with the
demands of these three principles. First, that the risk
must be reduced to an insurable basis. The meaning
of this principle is that the insurance must be placed
on a sound actuarial basis; that the risk be reduced to
a minimum so that the insurance becomes a financial
asset instead of a liability. We find that the Dennison

338 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

Manufacturing Company, the Hills Brothers Com
pany, the Chicago Garment Workers, and other firms
have successfully insured against unemployment They
have worked out plans of insurance that are working
today on a sound actuarial basis* This fact, in itself,
proves that unemployment can be reduced to an in-
surable basis, or to a minimum, because the principle
has already been satisfied by experience.

The second principle is that the rates must be deter
mined in advance. That will be very simple under our
plan because each employer has only to figure how
much he will have to contribute and how long he will
have to contribute in order to lay aside the necessary
reserve for each man in his employ. This is a matter
of simple mathematics. And, as in the case of accident
compensation which has been so successful in this
country, the rates of benefits can be determined by the
action of the several state legislatures. The Negative
have contended that the kck of general and accurate
statistics on employment makes the determination of
the rates difficult. The important thing is not whether
we have general statistics on employment It is rather
that each employer be made to realize the importance
of the problem within Ms own plant He can determine
from his payroll statistics what the nature of the em
ployment problem is within his company and he can
plan his production and insurance against that risk
accordingly. And the employer will see also, that only
as many men as it is absolutely necessary to lay off,
are laid off, because he will know that it costs him
money to hire and fire each man of his payroll. That

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 339

Is the important factor; that the employer be made to
realize the size and the vital nature of the problem
within his own plant. The rates can be determined in
advance. And lastly, the Negative contend that the
cost of the insurance must be distributed in proportion
to the risk incurred. That is exactly what our plan
provides for, because, under this method of insurance,
the employer who has the most unemployment has to
pay the greatest amount from his insurance fund.
The insurance will be the most expensive to that em
ployer who is so careless in his production methods
that he has the most unemployment. Thus, we see
that the cost of the insurance is distributed in propor
tion to the risk incurred. Finally, then, our plan of
unemployment insurance agrees in every respect with
the principles of insurance that have been advanced
by the Negative. Unemployment insurance is an
insurable risk.

The Negative have argued that a plan of unemploy
ment insurance is unfair to the employer because he
cannot control unemployment. We know, however, that
such firms as Proctor and Gamble, The Dennison
Manufacturing Company, and the Hills Brothers
Company have been able to reduce their unemploy
ment until even in depression periods, it is of prac
tically no importance. They have stabilized and
regularized their businesses because the plans of
unemployment insurance and guaranteed employment
which these companies carry make it their direct
financial advantage to reduce their unemployment
problem. Under our plan, the employer will also be

340 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

given a definite cash incentive to smooth out his fluctu
ations in employment and we are making the employer
responsible because it has been demonstrated that he
is the dynamic force of industry; he can do more
about employment and the organization of industry
than any other factor. The fact that there may be
some factors entering into unemployment which are
beyond the control of the employer does not make the
insurance impossible, as the gentlemen of the Negative
would have you believe. John R. Commons, the noted
economist and labor authority of the University of
Wisconsin, points out that two-thirds of the accidents
which occur within a plant are beyond the control of
the employer and yet, we know that accidents have
been successfully insured against in this country in
forty-four states. The employer has insured himself
and his employees so ably against this risk that accident
compensation is now regarded as a permanent part of
our industrial order.

Unemployment insurance will lead to decreased
efficiency, the Negative contends. And yet, those com
panies which we think of in this country as being the
paragons of efficiency, such as General Electric and
the Dennison Manufacturing Company, have adopted
plans of unemployment insurance. Is it logical to
assume that they would be so foolhardy as to aiiopt
something as a part of their industrial program which
would be demoralizing in its effects? Is it logical to
assume that these companies are trying to tax them
selves out of existence, that they are trying to commit

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 341

economic suicide? We know that such assumptions
are absurd.

It lias been argued by the Negative that the presence
of over-manned industries in this country would work
undue hardship on any plan of unemployment insur
ance. In the first place, we must remember that the
failure of any one company to work out its unemploy
ment problem would in no way affect the plans of the
other companies because the insurance is financed inde
pendently by each company. AH economists are
agreed that human wants are extensible, that as long
as man has any imagination or creative genius, he will
think of more things that he has to have and the way
in which they may be manufactured. Man is never
entirely satisfied with the current state of things. So
we can readily see that there will always be demands
for new kinds of labor as there have been in the last
two generations for automobile mechanics. Further
more, labor will continue to mobilize from those indus
tries in which there is a surplus of man-power to those
where the demand is keener. Natural forces govern
this and no plan of unemployment insurance will affect
it in any way. Taussig, the noted economist at Har
vard, points out in his book, "Principles of Economics"
that material prosperity in this country depends "on
getting as much done as possible with as little labor as
possible." His argument is that the surplus of a re
serve of labor in some industries is not an alarming
condition. We see, therefore, that unemployment
insurance is not unfair to the employer. He will not
be unduly penalized because he can control employ-

342 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

ment, he will be able to use the money invested for a
constructive purpose, he will have increased efficiency
in his plant, and labor will move from those industries
which are over-manned to new industries and to those
where there is a need for more labor.

Let us look a little further into the practicability of
the Affirmative plan. We find that the rates of benefits
are to be controlled by the action of the several state
legislatures. The history of accident compensation,
which has been so successful in this country under
a like method of control, is, in itself, proof that our
plan will be beneficial to the employer and to the em
ployee, that it will be controlled to the best interests
of all concerned. In the second place, we find that the
plans of unemployment insurance which have been
tried in this country have not been unduly expensive,
as the gentlemen of the Negative would have you be
lieve such a plan must necessarily be. The Chicago
Garment Workers have a plan in operation which in
spite of the severe years that it has had to go through
since its inception in 1923 3 finished 1930 with a surplus
of five hundred thousand dollars. Under this plan,
which is practically identical to that which we are
advocating, the payroll is taxed four and one-half per
cent, a cost which has not been found excessive, but
instead, well invested. And, finally, under our plan of
unemployment insurance, the burden of unemployment
is borne by the employer and the employee. The em
ployer is responsible for maintaining the insurance
fund to insure his workingmen, but the employee also
has his part to play. If he is out of work and drawing

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 343

the insurance benefits, he loses the margin between his
regular wages and insurance benefits and that amount
is in a sense, contributed to the relief of the burden of
unemployment. Moreover, if an employee is forced
to give up one regular working day out of six because
of long time planned production, he loses one-sixth of
his income and that amount is also given to the relief
of the burden of unemployment because the purpose
of planned production is to prevent fluctuations in
employment.

We have presented to you a plan of state employ
ment exchanges which shall be interstate cooperative
and we also recommend that each employer be made
responsible for insuring his employees against the risk
of unemployment. Such a plan is to be desired because
it will give each employer a definite cash incentive to
stabilize and thereby reduce unemployment within his
plant. But since it is impossible to remove all unem
ployment from our industrial order, we have proposed
a practical system of insurance which will work the
same as any other plan of insurance. It will be a
means of temporary relief during emergency periods
and work positively as a preventive. Therefore, we
believe that the several states should enact legislation
providing for compulsory unemployment insurance.

Third Negative, Edwin R. Gustafson
Carleton College

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: It is with a great deal of
surprise that the Negative views the so-called Affirma-

344 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

tive "plan of Insurance/ for, it is our belief that this
plan is not insurance at all, and, therefore, does not
come under the provision of the question. In the first
place, we note that the plan which the Affirmative
proposes is identically the same plan which John R.
Commons, leading labor economist and authority has
proposed in the Wisconsin State Legislature several
times. Mr. Commons originator of the plan makes the
following statement in the American Labor Legislation
Review for September 1930, on page 249: "The Huber
BOl also provides for so-called self-insurance 5 which
is really not insurance at ally but is an Unemployment
Reserve carried by an individual company, if finan
cially responsible for the payment of unemployment
compensation to its own employees." That is the pub
lic statement of the man who originated the Affirma
tive plan! And yet the Affirmative calls their plan
"unemployment insurance!"

Again, it is interesting to note that the following
definition of insurance is given in "Principles of Social
Legislation" by Commons and Andrews: "When an
insurance provision is made through legislation, it
marks the adoption by society of a settled policy of
cooperative action to distribute among a group the
losses suffered by individuals due to their inability to
work and thereby earn a livelihood." In the plan put
forward by the Affirmative, there is no group among
which to distribute the losses suffered by individuals.
Indeed, it is the other way around the losses suffered
by a group of unemployed from a particular plant are
borne by one individual the employer. Andrews, a

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 345

lawyer, who deals every day with definitions and terms
of law, gives us the above definition, and is confirmed
by John R. Commons, an economist who is deeply in
sympathy with labor and proposed the Affirmative
plan. Both of these men declare the Affirmative plan
is not insurance Commons, by an outright statement,
and the two of them together by their definition of
insurance.

There is yet a third reason why we of the Negative
do not consider the Affirmative plan an insurance plan.
It is evident that the Affirmative accepts the insurance
principles which our first speaker put forth, since they
have tried to explain how their plan meets them. And
yet their plan is not in accordance with the very basic
and fundamental principle upon which all insurance
rests namely, that there must be a large number of
risks spread over a large area. It is evident that there
are not a large number of risks, as insurance goes, in
any single plant. Few plants would employ over two
hundred fifty men and very few indeed over one thou
sand men. Most insurance companies have millions of
policy holders among whom they spread the cost of
insurance that is deaths, accidents, and so on. In
the Affirmative plan, only a few men, relatively, are
the risks, and one man, the employer, bears the entire
direct cost.

Again the risks are not spread over a large area.
Rather they are concentrated in one plant. Accord
ing to the Affirmative second speaker s statement, the
employer bears the risk only for his own plant. The
cost for all plants are separate. So we see that the

346 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

Affirmative, while accepting our principles, cannot
meet the most fundamental and basic of them for their
plan does not have a large number of risks; nor are
such risks as they do include spread over a large area.

Therefore, we repeat that the Affirmative plan is
not insurance, because the originator of their plan,
John R. Commons, makes a public statement that it
is not because It does not meet with the definition of
insurance given by Commons and Andrews; and be
cause it does not live up to the basic, fundamental
principle of all insurance. Therefore, the Negative
contends that the Affirmative plan does not come within
the scope of the question, and should be dismissed.

Let us now consider what happens when a plan is
adopted which: (1) Is enacted by legislatures, (2)
Pays the laborer benefits when he is not working.
Whether such a plan be insurance or not, the evils
and dangers of it are too great to warrant its being
adopted. First, the legislators are dealing with some
thing which they but imperfectly understand. They
do not see the problem in its entirety, and consider
this plan as only one means of getting votes for them
selves, and at the same time appeasing the minds of the
people. They are a busy body, having many other
affairs of state to occupy their attention. They are a
large and unwieldy body either very slow to act
witness the many bills which have died of neglect
or else too quick and impulsive to act witness the
Farm Board, a self-confessed failure. It is this body
that the Affirmative urges to enact a law providing for
their plan; to this body the Affirmative gives the power

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 347

to fix rates and determine benefits. How? Simply
by laws, of which we have too many already.

Second, this plan, or any other plan of like character,
insurance or not insurance, gives to the laborer when
he is out of work, money benefits. He is paid while
remaining idle. He has received from the state, by
means of a law enacted by a legislative body, the right
to receive (call them wages if you will) when he is not
working. That is the fundamental theory underlying
the Affirmative plan. Of course there are provisions
and stipulations for example, he shall not receive
benefits if he is voluntarily idle as there always are.
Nevertheless, when such a plan as the Affirmative
proposes, or a plan of insurance for that matter, be
comes effective, the worker is vested with a new right
the right to receive wages when he is not working.
And therein lies a great danger 1 For, backed by this
vested right, he has the power, through his vote, to
expand this right to any limit he may desire.

Let us now take a concrete example and examine it.
In 1911, England s legislature enacted a law providing
for compulsory unemployment insurance, even as the
Affirmative would do for their plan. This law provided
that a man not voluntarily out of work should receive
money benefits. Here then, are the two embodiments
of any Affirmative plan, (1) the law, (2) money bene
fits to men not voluntarily out of work.

In 1911, the English plan was on a sound basis;
benefits were limited to one dollar and seventy cents
per week, with twelve weeks the maximum limit for
each worker to receive benefits; in order to receive

348 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

benefit at all it was necessary for the laborer to have
been employed at least twenty-six consecutive weeks
in one industry. At the present time, 1931, an English
laborer can draw nearly six dollars benefit a week for
himself, and some for each of his dependents; he can
receive this benefit with a few minor excuses for fifty-
two weeks out of the year; to get a start on this mag
nificent dole he has but to work in one industry a few
weeks! How did this come about? By laws which
were passed by the legislature because of the pressure
of labor voting power. The laborer reasoned that if
it was a right of one man to receive wage while he was
not working, then it was right for another man to
receive the same consideration that the principle, if
sound, could be applied to all laborers. According to
the National Industrial Conference Board report num
ber 51 5 page 41, the benefits were raised as follows,
while the maximum length of time to receive them was
lengthened accordingly:

1911. $1.70 per week

1919 2.68 per week

1920. 3.65 per week

1921 4.86 per week

The benefits were again raised in 1930 to nearly six
dollars per week!

As a result of giving the laborer this vested right,
the British plan is $215,000,000 in debt, and continu
ing to go in debt at the rate of $125,000,000 a year,
according to Philip Snowden. In addition to this in
surance, England has been forced to grant a $225,-

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 349

000,000 charity dole, for this year alone! And the
Affirmative is doing away with charity by such a plan!
We see, then, that in Great Britain, this law which
gives the laborer the right to receive money benefits
while he is not working has resulted in more people
demanding more benefits for a greater length of time.

The German unemployment insurance system is,
according to Edmund Brok, a native German Econ
omist who writes in the March issue of "The Nation
$180,000,000 in debt, and going in debt faster all the
time, while at the same time, the city, state, and
national governments are giving outright gifts of
charity!

A review of the debate thus far brings to light the
following facts: First, the Affirmative plan does not
meet the basic underlying insurance principle that
there must be a large number of risks spread over a
large area. Such a plan would decrease the mobility
of labor from State to State and from industry to
industry. It would increase the amount of unemploy
ment. The size of the problem is unknown.

Second, the Affirmative plan is unjust to the em
ployer, for, it penalizes him for causes which are out
side his control; it is a tax on capital; it decreases the
efficiency of the employee; and some Industries could
never be included. It is unjust to the employee, for,
it takes away his right to strike; it reduces his wages;
it would end the labor unions. We further note that
the key to the problem is the reduction of the fluctua
tions in industry by private means, on a safe and sound

350 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

basis, and the establishment of a national system of
employment of exchanges.

Lastly, such a means would not be dangerous for it
would not mean (1) a law or (2) the establishment of
the right to money benefits. For these reasons the
Negative contends that the states should neither enact
a law providing for compulsory unemployment insur
ance, nor a plan such as the Affirmative proposes.

First Negative Rebuttal, Alois Kiefer
Carleton College

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: The gentlemen of the
Affirmative have presented their solution to the prob
lem of unemployment. We wonder, however, if it is
perfectly dear to you that the plan which they have
presented constitutes insurance in the real sense of the
word. Funk and Wagnalls* Standard dictionary de
fines insurance as "a contract, for a consideration, to
pay a specified sum to a party or his representatives in
case of loss, accident, or death. 35 Insurance, then, in
volves a contract between two parties. Yet the plan
of the Affirmative contains no such provision. The
plan which has been presented as a form of compulsory
unemployment insurance is merely a plan by which
employers are compelled to set aside a definite reserve
from which their employees can draw in case of unem
ployment. It is, in short, a compulsory reserve act,
rather than an act of insurance. We fail to see where
in the plan of the gentlemen meets the requirements
set forth in the question for discussion.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 351

We have contended that unemployment insurance
should not be adopted because unemployment is a risk
which cannot be insured against. Yet the Affirmative
have attempted to show that because certain private
concerns have been able to carry out plans of guaran
teed benefit the principles can be applied to all indus
tries and all plants. The first speaker of the Affirmative
pointed out in his constructive speech that some plans
of voluntary insurance had been carried out in the
United States, but he went on to state that only the
leaders of industry, the most stable and efficient plants,
had put these plans into effect. We do not believe that
it is reasonable to expect that because it has been pos
sible for these efficient plants to adopt insurance, the
plan can be enlarged to cover all industries.

Let us examine the plans of insurance which have
been adopted and see just how successfully they have
been carried out. The gentlemen have cited the
Chicago Garment Workers plan of unemployment
insurance as an example of the success of the insurance
principle. There are several features of this plan
which we should like to mention. Bryce Stewart, of
the Industrial Relations Counselors, made a very com
plete study of the Chicago plan and published his
findings in the book, "Unemployment Benefits In The
United States? In the first place, it is very interesting
to note that the working force of the Chicago Garment
industry has decreased almost fifty per cent since the
adoption of the plan. The workmen must work for
one year before they become eligible to receive benefit
under the plan. The maximum benefit which has ever

352 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

been allowed was only for two and one-half weeks.
Workmen must pay into the fund for ten weeks in
order to receive one week s benefits. It is also inter
esting to note the administration of the plan during
periods of depression. The period during which bene
fits could be drawn was reduced from two and one-
half weeks to two weeks, then to one week, and finally
to three days. Can it be possible that an insurance
plan which provides unemployed laborers with benefits
for three days of the period of unemployment will give
him added buying power? We see that even when
insurance is adopted by an efficient concern, there are
difficulties involved in the carrying out of the plan.
Yet the gentlemen are asking that we extend such a
system to all industry.

We have seen then, that there is some question as to
whether the plan of the Affirmative is insurance. We
have also seen that the gentlemen have contended that
insurance is practical because a few of the most effi
cient business house of the nation have adopted it.
Finally, we have examined carefully the administrative
methods employed in one of the more successful insur
ance schemes.

First Affirmative Rebuttal, John Whyte
Carleton College

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: The gentlemen from the
Negative have attempted to leave the impression in
your minds that our plan is not insurance but merely
a system of unemployment reserves. We have here a

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 353

statement made by Leo Wolman, one of tfie foremost
authorities in the United States, on unemployment
problems and unemployment insurance, taken from the
"American Labor Legislation Review" for December
1930. "An American plan of unemployment insurance
(notice particularly that Mr. Wolman refers to this
plan as insurance) which imposes on industry the
obligations to lay aside reserves for the relief of the
unemployed can solve the problem." Mr. Wolman
specifically states that a plan under which each estab
lishment lays aside reserves for the relief of its unem
ployed is a plan of unemployment insurance. Likewise
we have here another statement made by Herman
Feldman, professor of industrial relations at Dart
mouth College, on page 374 of Ms book "Regularization
of Employment." "Our discussion of insurance plans
in general will now be made more concrete by consid
eration of plans in use in American industry." And
Mr. Feldman goes on to consider concretely as a flan
of insurance the system now in operation in the Cleve
land Garment Workers Association, a plan which is
almost identically the same as ours in all of its essential
features. Here we have the statements of two of the
most prominent authorities in our country on the sub
ject of unemployment who definitely assert that a plan,
such as the one we are advocating, is a plan of in
surance pure and simple.

Now the second speaker for the Negative has
brought forward the objection that certain marginal
industries, that is, those industries which are producing
on a small margin of profit, will be forced to drop out

3S4 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

of the field of American business because of the cost
of our system of unemployment insurance. I think
that it is most reasonable to state that we Americans
expect any industry to bear its cost of production.
Accident insurance which provides for the remunera
tion of a working man disabled by accident is now in
operation in forty-four states in our Union and has
long been regarded by all the employers upon whom
it rests as a part of their cost of production. Unem
ployment likewise has now come to be reckoned by the
industrial leaders of our country as another definite
factor in the cost of production which industry today
should bear.

We have already pointed out that in a period of de
pression today an employer takes the utmost care of
his idle machines. We of the Affirmative are asking
only as much consideration for the very men who
make possible his production. And we frankly state
that, if an industry cannot bear the cost of production
which is properly its own we do not believe that such
an industry has any place whatsoever in the field of
American business. We doubt very seriously whether
any industry which is not able to stand on its own feet
and maintain its rightful costs of production is socially
desirable. There is also every indication to believe
that claims of the greatly increased cost of unemploy
ment insurance have been highly exaggerated. This
self same objection was raised prior to the passage of
compulsory workingmen s compensation. For instance,
a certain employer in the state of Wisconsin complained
that the passage of such a bill would necessitate his

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 355

annual expenditure of twenty thousand dollars for
accident compensation, whereas at the present lie was
paying but five thousand dollars. The first year in
which the law was in operation he paid not twenty
thousand dollars, nor even five thousand dollars, but
exactly twenty-five hundred dollars. The passage of
that law actually decreased his liability for accidents
by one-half.

The gentlemen from the Negative have also con
tended that a system of national unemployment ex
changes would be superior to a state system of
exchanges which we are advocating. There are two
serious objections to the national control of unemploy
ment agencies, however. In the first place, how would
it be possible for the national government to be so well
acquainted with the local conditions and varying cir
cumstances of plants in widely separated sections of
the country as it would be for the state governments
who would be much better acquainted with local con
ditions? The state governments would be much more
conversant with community unemployment and busi
ness needs than the national government could pos
sibly be. And in the second place, there will be far
less administrative machinery necessary for separate
state systems than there would be for one huge un
wieldy national system covering the entire country.
We are advocating a system of exchanges which will be
as sensitive as possible to the state of business affairs
in different sections of the country which is at the
same time operated by a much less cumbersome
machinery.

356 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

The gentlemen of the Negative have further con
tended that under the plan of the Chicago Garment
Workers which we have cited, the working force has
decreased fifty per cent and this length of benefit
period reduced to but three days in a season. In re
gard to the decrease of the working force, we must
remember that there has been considerable deflation in
all garment industries since the war. In the Chicago
district, fifty-nine per cent of the firms have been
forced to retire from business, but this action can in
no way be ascribed to a plan of insurance. In respect
to the reduction of the benefit period, it was only in
the second year of the plan s existence that this situa
tion occurred; whereas at the present time the plan
is paying a full two and one-half weeks of benefit per
season. Each year is divided into two distinct seasons.
Despite the highly irregular nature of such an industry,
it is interesting to note that the union officials are look
ing forward to a greater success than ever before
through increase both of the benefit and the length of
the benefit period.

Second Negative Rebuttal, Ward B. Lewis
Carleton College

LADIES AKB GENTLEMEN: The members of the
Affirmative this evening have attempted to draw an
analogy between compulsory unemployment insurance
and workmen s compensation, assuring us that because
the latter type of social legislation has been a success,
their proposal will be successful, too. However, there

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 357

is a difference between workmen s compensation and
compulsory unemployment insurance which prevents
the drawing of a fair analogy.

The causes of accidents are within the employer s
control and thus he should be made liable. He can
install safety devices and thus cut down the number
of accidents in his plant. However, as I pointed out
in my constructive argument, the causes of unemploy
ment are beyond the employer s control. He is subject
to the forces of supply and demand which function
outside of his plant. The originators of workmen s
compensation made the employer liable only for those
accidents occurring within his plant in "the due course
of employment." Yet, the causes of unemployment
function outside the employer s plant; they are out of
his control. Thus, we see that there are fundamental
differences between these two types of social legisla
tion which prevent us from drawing a fair analogy
between the two for use in tonight s discussion.

In the discussion of any such theoretical measure
as compulsory unemployment insurance, one of the
most important aspects to be considered is the prac
ticability of the whole scheme. Will it work? Will it
be possible to introduce such insurance successfully
into the United States?

In answer to this natural question upon the part of
the Negative, the second speaker of the Affirmative
has proposed a plan, by means of which it is hoped that
compulsory unemployment insurance may be efficiently
administered. Let us consider this plan and see if it
is really sound.

358 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

In the first place, they have provided that the state
should enact legislation which will provide for an un
employment commission to be composed of representa
tives of both employers and employees. From the
first, then, we see that it is made possible for the state
to enter into the plan of compulsory unemployment
insurance. Since one of the duties of a state to its citi
zens is to enforce those laws which it enacts, it is very
probable that force must be used in some cases to
institute the insurance. After the plan has begun
then, we will see the same conditions found in Germany
and Great Britain. The state, having introduced what
the laborer believes to be a new personal right, to re
ceive cash benefits for which he does not have to work,
will be obliged to take an ever-increasing hold upon
the scheme. The plea for higher insurance benefits will
be directly aimed at the state officials and state legis
lature. Thus, eventually, we will find the same pres
ence of political manipulation which is so evident in
British insurance.

The second provision of the plan is that each em
ployer shall be forced to set aside a definite sum of
money as an unemployment reserve for each man
whom he employs. As I pointed out in my construc
tive argument, this feature must have a deleterious
effect upon capital. This heavy liability, the members
of the Affirmative say, will serve as a check against
over-expansion and thus will aid in reducing unemploy
ment. Yet is it not logical to assume that it will serve
as just a positive check to rebuilding and reconstruc-

U3STEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 359

tion in industry after a period of depression and thus
prolong unemployment?

We must conclude, then, that the vague framework
of the Affirmative plan does not indicate that com
pulsory unemployment insurance can be successfully
administered. The members of the Affirmative have
made no attempt to reveal the answers to any of those
minor questions which most surely will arise. Yet, we
find, from foreign experience, that even these so-called
minor questions can destroy the whole insurance
scheme. The whole is equal to the sum of its parts and
each part must be well-harmonized with the others to
secure success in any venture.

Therefore, because unemployment does not seem to
be an insurable risk, not fulfilling the three principles
of successful insurance; because it will increase the
amount of unemployment in the United States; be
cause it is unjust to both the employer and employee,
and because it is established upon a new principle
which in practice seems to be unsound; we of the
Negative believe that compulsory unemployment in
surance should not be enacted by the several states.

Second Affirmative Rebuttal, F. Atherton Bean
Carleton College

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: We find the Negative
making the contention that the enactment of the
Affirmative plan would establish a new right resulting
in an experience similar to that in England, and also

360 THE YEAH BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

that the Legislatures are incompetent to enact these
laws.

Let us take the second of these objections first. We
have already pointed out to you that a number of great
social projects have been very successfully handled
through the medium of legislative enactment. The
Workingman s Compensation Insurance laws, Mini
mum Wage laws, and many others have been very well
taken care of by the various state legislatures. We,
having some confidence in our democratic system, feel
that they are quite as competent to enact Unemploy
ment Insurance laws as they were to enact these others
which have been handled so ably.

Now for the objection that we are establishing a
new right. Society today does not allow the unfortunate
to starve. The existence of countless charity organi
zations is ample evidence that we recognize the right
of the individual to have enough to live on. Now the
cost which the recognition of this right entails is borne
entirely by public subscription or taxes. It is charity
and it brings the bad moral effects of charity. The
Affirmative plan places some of that burden of relief
where it belongs, upon the shoulders of the employer,
and provides, not charity, but an insurance benefit.
We are not establishing a new right. We are allocating
to industry part of the cost of a right already long
recognized by society; the right of the unfortunate to
a decent maintenance.

Let us now consider the sequel to this first objection:
that the benefits will be greatly extended and that be
fore long we would have a dole system such as has

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 361

grown up in England. Now in this analysis I wish you
to keep constantly in mind one most important differ
ence between the Affirmative plan and the one used in
England: the government has always been a contributor
to the English insurance plan, while under the Affirma
tive plan it contributes in no way to the unemployment
insurance funds.

England foEowing the war found herself in a very
serious predicament. Millions of her people were out
of work because of the depression. These people
needed relief. They could not be allowed to starve.
For a while the government gave what was known as
Out of Work Donations to the needy. This was the
Dole. Soon, however, it began to cast about for a more
effective machinery to administer this relief. It chose
the machinery of unemployment insurance. It had
always contributed to the insurance funds. So all that
was necessary was for the government to increase its
contribution. The dole and the insurance became in
extricably mixed. The dole which is not a part of the
insurance at all has been charged against the account
of unemployment insurance. The situation confront
ing the English system has arisen from the fact that
the Government contributed to the plan. But under
the Affirmative plan the government does not con
tribute in any way to the maintenance of the insurance
funds. They are maintained by each individual em
ployer. There is no loophole for such a program as
has developed in England.

We must admit that the English and German plans
are financially embarrassed. But we are not proposing

362 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

either the German or English plans. There are im
portant differences between our plan and those now
used in foreign countries. We have under our plan a
definite and strong incentive toward stabilization and
regularization. This has not been true under the
English plan at all and not under the German plan
until last August. The German plan includes hun
dreds of thousands of seasonal laborers who are ex
cluded under the wording of the question from the
Affirmative plan. The Affirmative plan excludes
plants employing less than ten men. This is not true
under either of the foreign plans. These radical
differences show how different our proposal is from that
now in operation abroad.

It is, however, interesting to note that although the
English plan has been financially embarrassed, and
there is much controversy about the methods of ad
ministrations, still the principle of unemployment
insurance has been firmly established, as evidenced by
the reports of the Balfour Committee, the Melchett-
Turner Committee, and the Blanesburgh Committee
within the last two or three years.

Again we find the Negative making the attack that
the plan which we are advocating is not insurance. We
have already shown you that both Leo Wolman and
Herman Feldnian, among the most prominent author
ities in the field, call this insurance. Let us turn to an
outstanding text on the subject of insurance and see
what conclusion we may draw from what it says. On
page 168 of "Insurance, Principles and Practices/ by
Professors Riegel and Loman of the Wharton School

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 363

of Finance, we find this statement regarding methods
of insurance, "We find four methods of insurance in
vogue for the protection of employers against the legal
liability imposed by a compensation act; insurance in
a stock company, in a mutual or reciprocal, in a state
fund, or self -insurance? Certainly Professors Riegel
and Loman would not explicitly mention self-insurance
as a method of insurance, if "having a large number of
risks spread over a large area" were a cardinal prin
ciple of insurance. That condition is frequently true,
but this statement from a standard text shows con
clusively that it is not necessary. The plan of the
Affirmative is a plan providing for compulsory self-
insurance, that is, each employer is made directly re
sponsible for the unemployment caused in his own
plant and must provide the insurance fund for that
purpose. Thus we find that our plan is not only
specifically noted as insurance by two leading author
ities, Leo Wolman and Herman Feldnxan, but also
belongs to one of the four methods of insurance
recognized by a standard text on the subject.

Third Negative Rebuttal, Edwin R. Gustafson
Carleton College

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: We of the Negative, in
spite of what the Affirmative says to the contrary, still
contend that the plan which the Affirmative proposes is
not insurance. We remind you of the statement of
John R. Commons, originator of the plan; of the
definition given by Commons and Andrews, which ex-

364 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

eludes their plan as one of insurance; of the contract
which is necessary for insurance, and is lacking in their
plan; and finally, of the insurance principle which they
have failed to meet in not spreading the risk over a
large area.

They have, in attempting to prove their plan insur
ance, quoted numerous vague and hazy definitions, no
two of which are the same as to all requirements. On
the other hand, we have submitted to you but one
definition, but that definition is accepted by all social
legislators at the present time. Watkins, Andrews,
Commons, even the American Federation of Labor
itself, all accept our definition, and are deeply in sym
pathy with labor.

It is noticeable to us that the plan submitted to you
by the Affirmative is nothing but ill-disguised charity,
with the word insurance hung over it as a cloak. Not
a single cent is contributed by the workmen. The
employer is forced to donate or give to his workmen
from eighty dollars to one hundred dollars each. In
return he gets what? Nothing. We see, then, that
there is as much charity, (if not more) in their plan as
we have at the present time. The difference is this
at the present time, the donor gives of his own free
will, while under the Affirmative plan he gives because
he is compelled to do so.

We may notice that the Chicago Garment Workers
plan, the classical example of the Affirmative, is much
less of a success than we were led to believe. Indeed
if figures speak the truth, it is a failure, and is a detri
ment, rather than a boon to the worker.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 365

Here, then, is a summary of the debate thus far:
We have learned that the size of the problem Is not
known. The Affirmative replies that this is not neces
sary; that it is of no consequence how large or small
the problem is. We have pointed out that the Affirma
tive plan would decrease the mobility of labor from
State to State, and from industry to industry. Concrete
examples were used. In the case of England and
Germany, and the Chicago Garment Workers and other
companies in the United States, unemployment has
increased. It is not in accord with the basic insurance
principle.

Next we learn that it is unfair to the employer be
cause it penalizes him for something he cannot control.
It is a tax on capital; it decreases efficiency, and some
industries could never be included in such a plan. It
is unfair to the employee, because it would take away
his right to strike; it would reduce his wages; and
would do away with labor unions.

We see also that the plan submitted is not insurance,
but that nevertheless our objections hold because it
embodies two features which spell its ruin. (1) It is
to be put in force by means of a law through the state
legislative bodies. These bodies are large and un
wieldy, and at the same time, inefficient when it comes
to business matters. Yet they are to have charge of
first putting the plan into effect, and later regulating
the premium rates and benefits. (2) It creates for the
worker a new right the right to receive money-
benefits, or wages, when he is not working. Since he
can control the legislatures who vote these benefits, he

366 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

can extend and expand this right to the limit, and
beyond. This has been done in England, and the result
has been a ten year depression, constant and increasing
unemployment, and a class of laborers who are de
pendent upon the state for their livelihood and who
consider this one of their rights. The Affirmative says
that their plan is different from the English plan.
Undoubtedly it is, in some respects, but in the two im
portant points it is the same. (1) The enactment of a
law or laws. (2) Payment of money-benefits to men
out of work, and the right of men to these benefits.

Finally, the Affirmative have asked us what we would
do about the situation. Our reply was brief and con
sisted of two parts. (1) Establish a national system
of employment exchanges. (2) Encourage what in
dustry is doing now the reduction of fluctuations by
regulation through private means. The incentive is
added profit.

Here are the advantages of such procedure: (1) The
incentive remains the same under both plans it is
cask. The difference is that the one is a penalty, ours
a reward. (2) It is not unfair to either party it
allows them to cooperate and work along present lines.
Cooperation under the Affirmative plan would be im
possible, for the employers do not want it; the em
ployees do not want it. (3) The Negative plan
increases the mobility of labor, while the Affirmative
plan decreases it. (4) It does not become involved in
politics, nor would it in any way result in new laws.
(5) It does not create a new and extremely dangerous
right, nor does it demoralize the worker and make him

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 367

a "perfect ward of the state/ 3 as Philip Snowden
describes the British laborer.

We offer yon a plan of cooperation instead of com
pulsion; a plan which will preserve the honest, inde
pendent, self-sustaining, intelligent American laborer
instead of creating a class of shiftless, job-evading,
degenerate, demoralized, and dependent laborers; a
plan which will keep our nation busy and prosperous at
least the greater amount of time, instead of plunging
it into an eleven or twelve year depression which
would ruin it forever. Therefore, for these reasons,
and for the sake of the employer, the employee, and the
nation as a whole, the Negative maintains that the
states should not enact legislation providing for com
pulsory unemployment insurance, or a plan such as the
Affirmative proposes, to which the employer shall
contribute.

Third Affirmative Rebuttal, J. Stanley Stevens
Carleton College

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: The gentlemen of the
Negative still insist that we have not made it clear why
the plan that we are advocating is insurance. To prove
their contention, that it is not insurance, the Negative
have given the word of one man, John R. Commons.
It is highly probable that he is afraid to call Ms own
plan "insurance," because of the bad repute that this
name has had in the case of the English plan. John
R. Commons is afraid of defeating his own plan of
unemployment insurance by the attachment of a

368 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

stigma which would work against its progress. We
have already shown how our plan meets the demands
of the three principles of insurance which were ad
vanced by the Negative and this fact in itself is quite
sufficient to prove that we are advocating an insurance
plan.

However, let us review the additional evidence that
has been presented to support this contention. We
have seen that Riegel and Loman, both outstanding
authorities on insurance, have in their book on that
subject said that there are four ways in which the
employer may insure himself against "the legal liability
imposed by a compensation act. 33 Four ways are
enumerated among which is one called "self -insurance"
"Self-insurance" means that the employer is called
upon to lay aside a reserve fund to insure only the
workingmen within his own plant. We can readily see
that the principle in this type is identical with that of
our plan and that it is, therefore, "self -insurance" In
the second place, we have pointed out that Herman
Feldman, professor of industrial relations at Dartmouth,
has in his book, "Regularization of Employment"
listed the Cleveland plan of unemployment insurance
under Ms discussion of insurance plans in the United
States. Since the Cleveland plan makes each employer
responsible for maintaining a reserve fund to insure
his employees against the risk of unemployment, we
can see that Professor Feldman would also list our
plan as insurance. In the third place, Leo Wolman, the
noted economist, says in the "American Labor Legisla
tion Review" for December 1930, that "An American

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 369

plan of unemployment insurance which imposes on in
dustry the obligation to lay aside reserves for the relief
of the unemployed can solve the problem." Notice
please, that he calls a plan of this type, "insurance"
And lastly, we have here the official definition of social
insurance which was issued in the twenty-fourth an
nual report of the Bureau of Labor. It is well to
remember that there is a marked distinction between
social insurance and the individual contract types.
Life insurance and fire insurance are individual and
voluntary contracts, which means that they are of a
different category from social insurance. The latter
implies that the insurance is, as in the case of accident
compensation, enacted by legislation and is of a com
pulsory nature. This difference in character of types
of insurance explains the absence of a contract which
the Negative have contended proves that we are not
advocating insurance. They must not forget to dis
tinguish between social insurance and the individual
and voluntary type. The Bureau of Labor says that
social insurance is, "The method of organizing relief
by which wage earners or persons similarly situated
and their dependents or survivors become entitled to
specific benefits. The right to these benefits is secured
by means of contributions from wages or by the fact
of the insured person s employment or by his citizen
ship or residence in the country." I call your attention
to the fact that the right to these benefits may be had
by "the fact of the insured person s employment."
This proves that our plan is social insurance. Against
the word of one man which the Negative have used to

370 THE YEAS. BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

prove that our plan is not insurance, we have first
shown that our plan meets the demands of the three
principles of insurance which they advanced, and we
have also shown that Riegel and Lonian, Herman
Feldman, Leo Wolman, and the Bureau of Labor be
lieve that it is insurance. It would seem, therefore,
that we have proved our point beyond any doubt.

The last speaker of the Negative has characterized
our plan as "disguised charity, with the word, insur
ance, hung over it as a cloak." We have already
shown that we favor a plan of "insurance?* The term
"charity" carries with it a bad flavor because pure
charity, if it is administered indiscriminately and for
long periods of time, does demoralize those receiving
it. It is helpful to note that the bad effects of charity
have not been manifest in the plans of unemployment
insurance that have been tried in this country. The
workingman does not think that unemployment insur
ance is charity any more than he thinks that accident
compensation is charity and we have shown that these
two are quite similar. Unemployment insurance is not
charity because it will be paid out only to those men
who are out of work through no fault of their own
and would willingly go back to work, if any were
available. The payment of the benefits will be defi
nitely checked by the employment exchanges. Some
definite time limit, during which a man may draw out-
of-work benefits, will be determined and used. We do
not pay a man "not to work/ as the gentlemen of the
Negative would have you believe, but we pay him a
limited amount for a limited time so that he may live

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 371

and support those dependent on him during an emer
gency period.

The Negative have declared themselves in favor of a
plan of stabilization and of employment exchanges.
We welcome these suggestions as a valuable part of our
plan. They have said that they favor a plan of co
operation instead of compulsion, that they would rather
leave industry to work out its own problem. This is
fine talk but the employers were told that they should
cooperate and stabilize twenty years ago and what have
they done? Three times in the last fifteen years, this
nation, the wealthiest nation in the world, has stretched
out bread lines and set up soup kitchens to feed the
millions of unemployed during a major financial crisis
which visits us largely because the employer does not
stabilize; does not adjust his production to the cur
rent demand. We are giving him an incentive which
will force him to realize the vital nature of this problem
and which will, at the same time, leave him to work out
his own problem within his plant. The responsibility
is still with the employer. The incentive to stabilize
is given in the language of dollars and cents; a language
which no business man will fail to understand and heed.

We have presented to you a plan of unemployment
insurance which makes each employer responsible for
insuring his own employees against the risk of unem
ployment. We have recommended, also, that a system
of state employment exchanges, which shall be inter
state cooperative, shall be set up to distribute informa
tion regarding labor conditions and to aid in the
administration of the insurance. We have shown how

372 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

such a plan will promote and facilitate the mobility
of labor between states and between industries. We
have shown that a plan of unemployment Insurance is
economically beneficial because (1) it means more
efficient production, (2) it will bring increased pur
chasing power to employees during a period of depres
sion, and (3) the wage earner will spend his money
with more confidence because of his security of income
and employment. The fact that leading corporations
in this country have adopted plans of unemployment
insurance shows that the practical business man recog
nizes that these benefits are real, and that unemploy
ment insurance is a progressive factor in solving the
problems of modern production and consumption.
But more important than economic welfare, unemploy
ment insurance will raise the physical and moral
standards of the millions that are usually out of work
during a depression. They will not have to resort to
vice or crime for their bread and butter. They will be
protected and provided for by a practical system of
insurance.

Let us remember that our plan of unemployment
insurance cannot fairly be compared with the German
and the English plans, as we have already shown, be
cause these plans are of an entirely different nature
and they were forced to operate under conditions quite
foreign to conditions in this country.

Finally then, if we want to stabilize industry and to
provide some temporary relief for the unemployed,
we should have unemployment insurance to make that
possible. We are not changing the status of the work-

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 373

ingman but we are making industry give him his
deserved recognition. We are not creating a new right
but we are recognizing the right of a man to live and
to support those dependent on him. We are recogniz
ing the right of the American people to rid themselves
of bread lines and soup kitchens and other demoraliz
ing charitable agencies. We do not want ever again
to have the terrible national specter of five million
men pounding the pavements seeking some means to
feed those millions of women and children who are
dependent on them. Therefore, the several states
should enact legislation providing for compulsory un
employment insurance.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS

Andrews, J. B. Labor Problems and Legislation.
Beveridge, W. H.Tke Past and Present of Unemployment Insur
ance. Oxford University Press. 1930. (Banaett House paper

No, 13.)
Carr, A. S. C. Escape from the Dole; Unemployment Insurance or

Employment Assurance. 1930. Faber. London.
Carroll, Mollie Ray. Unemployment Insurance in Germany. 1929.

The Brookings Institution, Washington, D. C.
Cohen, J. L. Insurance Against Unemployment.

Insurance by Industry Explained.

Social Insurance Unified.

Commons, J. R. Unemployment Insurance.

Commons, J. R. and Lewisohn, Lescohier. Can Industry Prevent

Unemployment?
Crew, Albert. The Unemployment Insurance Acts. 1920-1927-1928.

Jordan and Sons. London.
Davison, Ronald C. The Unemployed, Old Policies and New. 1929.

Longmans, Green. N. Y.

374 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

What s Wrong with Unemployment Insurance? 1930.

Longmans, Green. London.

Feldman, Herman. Regularisation of Employment.
Forsberg, A. B. Huber Unemployment BilL

Selected Articles on Unemployment Insurance.

Gephart, W. F. Insurance and the State.

Gibbon, L. G. Unemployment.

Hatch, H. A. Experience of American Employers Favorable to Un
employment Compensation.

International Labor Office. Remedies for Unemployment.

Johnson, J. E. Selected Articles on Social Insurance.

Lescohier, K. D. Labor Market.

Lesser, Henry. Unemployment Insurance.

National Conference of Social Workers Report 1930. Unemploy
ment and Progress.

National Industrial Conference Board. Unemployment Insurance in
Theory and Practice. Century Co. N. Y. Research report.
The Unemployment Problem.

Massachusetts Special Commission on Social Insurance. Report 1914.

Pigou, A. C. Unemployment.

Riegal and Loman. Insurance, Principles and Practice.

Rubinow, I. M. Can Insurance Help the Unemployment Situation?
Proceedings, Casualty Actuarial Society. May 25, 1928. v. 14:
373. Paper read before the Society at Philadelphia, May 25, 1928.

Seager, H. F. Social Insurance.

Selekman, Ben. M. British Industry Today. 1929. Harper s. N. Y.

Stewart, B. M. Unemployment Benefits in the United States.

MAGAZINES

American Economic Review. March 1929. Sup. 23-29 Leo Wolman,
Some Observations on Unemployment Insurance.

American Federationist. May 1930. Green, Constructive Progress
of Doles; May 1928, 35:536 a Carrol, German Unemployment
Insurance.

American Labor Legislation Review. September 1930. 20:257, Au
thorities Discredit Manufacturers Attack on Unemployment In
surance. March 1929. 19:97, Carroll, M. R. Germany s New
Unemployment Insurance. September 1930. 20:249. Commons,
J. R. Unemployment Compensation. December 1922. Ad
vantages of Unemployment Insurance. December 1923. Un-

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 37S

employment Prevention Insurance an Aid to Stabilizing Business.
March 1926. Unemployment Insurance is Not a Dole. March
1930. Unemployment. December 1930. Unemployment.

Business Week. April 2, 1930. Clothing Worker Saved up for
Rainy Day. April 30, 1930. One Insurance Company is Ready
to Write Unemployment Policy: Metropolitan Life Insurance
Co. October 1, 1930. Unemployment Insurance Pushes Forward
as a Political Issue.

Commercial and Financial Chronicle. 131:730, August 2, 1930. J.
Dewe}-, Request of President Hoover for Special Session of
Congress to Provide Appropriation for State Unemployment In
surance Systems. 127:765, August 11, 1928. Report on Unemploy
ment Insurance in Canada. 131:1482, September 6, 1930, F. D.
Roosevelt. Favors Supervised System of State Unemployment
Insurance. 131:32, July 5, 1930. F. D. Roosevelt Urges Insur
ance Against Unemployment.

Economic Journal. 4-0:140, March 1930. R. C. Davison. Unem
ployment Relief in Germany.

Economic World. April 1924. Advantages of Unemployment Insur
ance by Industries.

Monthly Labor Review. December 1930. Joint Company Unem
ployment Insurance Plan. October 1930. Present Status of Eng
lish Unemployment Plan. November 1927. Unemployment
Insurance in Chicago Clothing Industry. December 1928. Insur
ance in Foreign Countries.

New Republic. October 29, 1930. America Turns to the Dole.

Railroad Trainman. January 1931. American Plan for Unemploy
ment Insurance.

Saturday Evening Post. November 1, 1930. Testing Unemployment
Insurance.

Survey. December 1, 1930. Out of the House of Magic. February
1, 1931. Douglas, American Plans of Unemployment Insurance.
Dole-itis. April 1, 1929. America Experiments with Unemploy
ment Insurance.

DIVORCE IS A SOCIAL ASSET
Inter-Sectional Debate

DIVORCE IS A SOCIAL ASSET

SWARTHMORE COLLEGE VS. UNIVERSITY
OF GEORGIA

The debaters of the Pennsylvania Friends or Quaker College jour
neyed from Swarthmore, Pennsylvania, to Athens, Georgia, by auto
mobile to engage in the debate given below with the team of the
University of Georgia. The debate was held on the evening of
March 13, 1931, in the University of Georgia Chapel

The debate is of the popular discussion or non-decision type and
is on a subject of considerable interest Divorce. As a rule this is
debated as a Federal versus State control proposition but here it is
considered as a social asset or detriment. During the early part of
the present college year 1931-32, the Nevada divorce law is being
debated by far-western colleges.

The question as discussed was stated: Resolved, that divorce is a
social asset.

The speeches were contributed by the debaters through Professor
George G. Connelly, director of debating at the University of Georgia.

First Affirmative, Robert H. Wilson
Swarthmore College

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: May I first attempt to
express the sincere appreciation of your Georgian hos
pitality which both Mr. Stickney and I have felt during
our visit here, The courtesy and friendliness of the
University of Georgia representatives has more than
made up for the inconvenience of a long automobile
trip down here. We hope that some time we shall have

379

380 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

the opportunity of returning at least part of your
favors.

As first speaker for the Affirmative I find myself in
somewhat of an awkward position. According to all
the accepted rules for debating the first speaker is
supposed to introduce the subject and to arouse the
audience s interest in it. Consequently my purpose
tonight is to interest you in divorce; but I m a debater
and not a lawyer and I hope you will not misinterpret
my intentions.

We are resolved that "Divorce is a social asset."
And we of Swarthmore are willing to accept a liberal
interpretation of the question. Otherwise there could
be no debate of the subject. So we are willing to
weaken the strong position which the framers of the
question have given us and we shall open up the discus
sion freely so the arguments of the opposition will find
a place in the debate. The question says only that
"Divorce is a social asset. 7 Now it is obvious that in
some cases divorce is not only "an asset but a positive
necessity. You will grant that we might confine our
efforts tonight to showing you a few of these cases and
thus conclusively prove the Affirmative side of the
question. However, for the sake of discussion, let us
take up the problem of divorce from a wider viewpoint.

We are convinced that divorce is a definite social
asset. It is not one of these necessary evils we hear
so much about. It has a positive place in the social
structure of our world today.

We regard divorce as an asset first because it is
quite obviously our only means of ending unsuccessful

DIVORCE IS A SOCIAL ASSET 381

marriages. Our civilized society for centuries has been
based primarily on the monogamous marriage. The
ideas of the home, the family and life-long marriage are
the basic principles around which the other conventions
of our lives are built up. If marriage fails, we are cer
tain that all our social structure will collapse. Mar
riage is the necessary element. We believe that divorce,
being necessarily connected with marriage, is there
fore every bit as indispensable.

In presenting the Affirmative side of this debate we
should like to feel certain that you completely under
stand our position. We are not advocates of divorce.
We are simply proving to you that some divorce is
definitely an asset to society. Our main desire Is to
see the institution of marriage marriage without di
vorce become universally successful. Until that time
when all marriages are happy and successful we feel
forced to regard divorce as a valuable means toward
the eventful realization of our desired end. This dis
tinction is an important one, but we are willing to bet
that the gentlemen of the Negative will deliberately
overlook It in analyzing our position.

When we all realize the desirability of divorce in
many particular instances, perhaps we shall find our
selves debating not so much the desirability of divorce
itself as the desirability of the ease with which divorce
Is now secured. When marriage proves unsuccessful,
what else Is there except divorce? Society frowns upon
desertion. It also frowns on murder although if one
Is to judge from the newspapers, perhaps this frown
may not be the old enthusiastic one of former days.

382 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

At any rate, these two other solutions being obviated
as possibilities in a civilized world, we are forced to
resort to divorce. The question is whether or not
divorce should be as easily accessible as it now seems
to be.

Our answer is that the opportunities for divorce
should be as frequent and as easy as the opportunities
for unsuccessful marriages. As long as we are to have
"Marrying Parsons" in every little country town, and
as long as clever minds keep thinking up experiments
like trial marriage and companionate marriage, we are
bound to have many unhappy wedlocks. The only
remedy for such a serious social disease as companion-
ate marriage is a series of lenient divorce laws in the
states that allow such unions.

So much for the natural place of divorce. I find that
in our modern civilization there is an ever increasing
need for it corresponding to the ever increasing chances
for failure in marriage. People are marrying today
just as they always have for three principal reasons.
They desire to have children: they marry because of
personal attractions: or they seek wedlock purely be
cause of individual loneliness. Now if marriage were
only a temporary affair, all marriages would probably
satisfy whichever of these desires was felt, and all
would be happy and successful. But our traditions of
regarding marriage as permanent makes all these rea
sons lose their importance as the days following the
wedding ceremony pass by. If there are to be chil
dren, they are soon born: the element of personal at
traction soon loses its importance: and those who

DIVORCE IS A SOCIAL ASSET 383

marry for companionship find that even in marriage the
personal ego can be submerged only so far. With our
system of permanent marriage, then, there is a tend
ency for all unions, no matter why they were entered
into, to break apart. Of course we do not believe that
all marriages will fail. We are sure they won t. But
there is a very definite possibility, if not a likelihood,
that many of them can end in failure.

That applies even to those which we call the "wise"
and the "well planned" marriages. As for those which
our younger generation is hastening into so light-
heartedly, the possibilities for their failures are obvi
ous. To put the sermons which all of us hear every
day in a nutshell which is, I think, where they belong
the younger element today is shunning responsi
bility. It has a whole-hearted disregard for anything
except its own personal pleasure. Consequently its
marriages, as soon as they start, are pretty close to
those much discussed matrimonial rocks. And all
kinds of marriages would seem to contain rather more
than their share of the elements of failure. While this
condition exists we have only divorce as a remedy.

At this point some one is sure to offer the objection
that there were never so many divorces in the past.
That is true. But it is also true that there were just
as many unhappy marriages. The difference was that
in the old days a woman who was unsuccessfully mar
ried remained that way because of the social stigma
surrounding divorce. Today our women have a new
freedom a freedom which enables them to escape
the social, moral, and mental repression of unsatis-

384 THE YEAH BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

factory married life. The old idea of marriage was
something of a domestic partnership based on a division
of labor. But today women are not compelled to
accept the drudgery of that partnership. Our social
consciousness acknowledges them as individuals, not
domestic workers. The Modern Woman is every bit
as fine a mother and a housekeeper as her ancestors;
but she is not forced to remain married when doing so
means complete suppression of her own life. Civiliza
tion needs divorce until it is completely adapted to the
new status of women.

It is only natural that we have more divorces now,
and we consider it a sign of present day enlightenment
and intelligence that such discussions as this one to-
night can be held openly on such a complex problem.
In the past the institution of marriage was regarded as
something too sacred for discussion. Any attempt to
reconcile it with what was unintelligently called the
divorce "evil" was surrounded by emotionalism that
prevented a real solution of the problem. Even today
we are not free from this kind of prejudice. I can
speak as a pretty good authority on that. You know
we come from a "co-ed" college, and when we started
out to speak of divorce as a social asset we found that
we were by no means expressing the unanimous senti
ment of all of our fellow students.

However, my point is that our attitude toward mar
riage and divorce today is by far the healthier and
sounder one. Why should we weep over the evident
passage of permanent marriage in all cases? Remem-

DIVORCE IS A SOCIAL ASSET 385

ber it is the unsuccessful marriages that divorce is
ending not the successful ones.

The gentlemen of the opposition wiU no doubt tell
you that the prevalence of divorce today serves only
as an incentive for other divorces and that people are
less likely to try to make marriage successful "when
they realize that a divorce can be easily obtained. We
recognize that there is much that is valid in this argu
ment, but we must also remember that tonight we are
debating, and that we are not on this platform to offer
you arguments that may be sound enough but which
have no connection with the problem under discussion.
The fact that there are many divorces does not alter
the fact that some of them are desirable and necessary.

We are certainly ready to agree with those who
criticize the present state of divorce and marriage as
chaotic. We believe that is because at the present
time we have neither the complete modern view nor
the older conservative opinion. We have a combina
tion of two opposing attitudes^ unfortunately, and the
result is confusion. Doesn t it seem natural that in
striving toward our ultimate goal the happiness of
all marriage we have to pass through an unsettled
preliminary state of affairs?

My own idea is that the intelligent thing to do would
be to attach to the unthinking marriage and the hasty
elopement some of the strict moral criticism that in
the past has been applied only to divorce. To have
successful marriages we must eliminate those in which
the man and wife only half-heartedly intend to try to
make their union happy. Perhaps when we have only

386 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

intelligent marriages we will need little or no divorce.
But that time is not the present. Divorce now stands
and will stand in the near future as our only relief for
maladjusted personalities and unfortunate marriages.
It will consequently have to be recognized as a definite
social asset.

First Negative, Benson C. Pressly
University o Georgia

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: For thousands of years
families enjoying sacred marriage have been the back
bone of civilization. During these countless ages men
and women have become united with one another to
live together as one person spiritually and physically.
The gentleman from Swarthmore would have you be
lieve the requirements of modern civilization have
wrought such a change in the contemporary scene of
morals and inter-relationship of sexes, that a system
of divorce laws becomes beneficial to mankind. They
have represented divorce as a necessary social asset,
a desirable institution with what they seem to consider
the modern trend of thought; the school of thought
which has been so prevalent in this post-war era of
cynicism and sophistication. For more than a decade
now we have been deluged by perverted literature
written by a generation of authors whose perspective of
life has been undermined with the hardships, horrors,
and privations of warfare. We accepted these writings
as a natural reaction to the war, read them, applied
them to our philosophy of life and found them wanting.

DIVORCE IS A SOCIAL ASSET 387

Indeed, we consider ourselves too modern a people
to change our standards of morals with the whims of
every literary genius. How ridiculous it would be to
let these perfidious literati, no matter how amusing
and clever we may think them, dictate our morals, con
ventions, and conduct. If Theodore Dreiser wants to
write morbid books about pathetic specimens of our
race we will not stop him; it might be good literature,
but that doesn t mean that it is good, common sense,
nor that it can be used as a basis for a reformation for
a moral code that has worked successfully for genera
tions. If Judge Ben Lindsay wants to amuse his public
by writing scrofulous articles attacking the institu
tion of marriage and baiting Bishop Manning that
may make racy newspaper copy but we are not so
callow as to make his tirades referable to our system
of living. We cannot permit a judge from the Middle
West, no matter how facile he may be with his tongue
and pen, to overturn the wisdom of centuries and upset
our system of living. Now that our generation is
reaching its majority we intend to discard these crude
principles of conduct along with our other adolescent
ideas. This post-war generation has done so much and
has seen so much that life has lost its savor; they are
fed up, burned out, and bored. They no longer believe
in romantic love because they have lost the capacity for
it. They had learned about Santa Claus and had seen
the circus but the boredom of those who have seen the
circus many times is not inherited by their children.
We are bidding an au revoir to sophistication and bas
ing our theories on sound principles of relationship be-

388 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

tween man and woman. We realize that man and
woman are not only biologically different but morally,
spiritually, mentally, and esthetically different as well.
Before real happiness can be found in marriage certain
adaptations must be made and it is because these adap
tations are not mutually sought by both of the parties
that so many men and women find their marriage con
tract to be one of the quasi-variety.

Thus we see that the divorce courts are crowded
with suits for divorce based entirely upon the idiosyn
crasies of one or both the parties. People who have
been unable to live with themselves nevertheless are
trying to live in harmony with others. They have been
unable to make the sacrifices necessary in order to
blend two lives into one. When a divorce court grants
a decree, as the statute books of some states reveal,
on such insignificant grounds as the husband eating
onions, then we know that the divorce courts are grant
ing divorces in such a lax manner that it is nothing
more or less than mutual consent; that is, if one can
afford to migrate to a distant state and pay the extor
tionate fees. Then these people who have allowed their
marriage to become a failure are permitted to remarry
and go through the same ordeal again. We contend
that this sort of thing is nothing more or less than
common adultery.

Mr. Hawkins and I are of the opinion that one of the
principles of marriage is the procreation and the rear
ing of children. Then let us consider for a moment
the plight of the child of divorced parents. It is only
now being understood in the light of modern psycho-

DIVORCE IS A SOCIAL ASSET 389

logical research how much a child depends upon the
presence of both parents in the home for its healthy
growth. Dean Christian Gauss of Princeton, in his
recent book, "Lije in College" says: "The boys who,
on the side of conduct and morals, do least well in
college are the sons of divorced parents." The chil
dren of divorced parents seem to suffer the same dis
advantages as illegitimate children. More than likely
they will be torn by a divided control; moreover they
do not grow up with the solid assurance which the
home as an unassailable background gives to a large
percentage of the children reared in the average pleas
ant home. They are less likely, therefore, to feel their
true social status. Unless they are possessed of
unusual faculties indeed, they may start life with a
demoralizing inferiority complex. You are well enough
acquainted with the evils of the methods of disposition
of the child of divorced parents not to take the time
here to point them out. The point we wish to make,
if we are correct in our assumption that one of the
principal objects of marriage is for the procreation and
rearing of children, and knowing you realize the miser
able plight of the child of divorced parents, is this:
Can any law which creates such conditions be called
a social asset?

We contend that if divorce as it exists today is a so
cial asset, then it follows that marriage is a failure. If
those who are divorced are not sincere, then it f ollows
that marriage as we have accepted it all these centuries
is deficient. We are unwilling to accept this conclusion.
We contend that the large number of divorces, and

390 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

they are increasing every year, and the ease with which
they may be obtained, is causing the destruction of the
institution of marriage. And we are unwilling that
this should continue. To our way of thinking, mar
riage is one of the few things left in our jaded civiliza
tion to which we can point with pride. It is surely
worth salvaging from our muckrakers and free-love
advocates. To us it is the very foundation of civilized
society. Any agency that would undermine marriage
is not to our minds a social asset. And that is exactly
what divorce is continuing to do. If marriage is not
all it should be today then it is because divorce has
weakened it. And let me show you specifically what
I mean when I say that divorce is the cause of the
destruction of the institution of marriage. If two
people contemplate marriage, and realize as they should
that it is a contract for life a religious sacrament as
well as a civil contract then these two people realize
likewise that it is a vow for all time. Briefly, they will
be in the proper frame of mind, and will regard the
ceremony with all the seriousness and finality that such
an agreement should have. This is as it should be!
In such a state of mind the security, not only of the
two parties themselves, but indeed the security of so
ciety and civilization depend. Upon such a binding
contract the security of our church, our state, and our
very self-respect rests.

Now let us consider the reverse. When the parties
know the contract need not be binding and that for
any number of petty and often frivolous reasons they
can be released, what is going to be the outcome?

DIVORCE IS A SOCIAL ASSET 391

Simply this: that the parties will not give the same
consideration or deliberation to their contract. They
will not even think twice before entering the contract
since they know they can withdraw from it at will.
Divorce has lowered the status of marriage below the
dignity of the ordinary business contract. So when
we see man and woman go to the altar, literally with
their fingers crossed, how can we hope to make the
institution of marriage all that it should be. It is
doomed in many cases before it was consummated.
The parties knowing they have an easy exit enter it as
a lark. The truth is that the ease of securing a divorce
has encouraged most of these mismated unions.

So we say with the evidence before us that divorce
has undermined the institution of marriage. If the
Affirmative are dissatisfied with marriage as it exists
today, we can say the fault lies in the parties not tak
ing it seriously. And they do not take it seriously
because they know with an easy divorce to be had, it
is just not a serious or binding matter. One could with
justice say that our present lax divorce laws laws that
permit the parties to break their marital status because
of incompatibility of temperament and other such
inane reasons make the present day marriage a trial
period if the parties deign to treat it so. With divorce
so casually obtainable, present day marriage is noth
ing short of companionate marriage, dissoluble at every
whim or caprice of either party. And let me warn my
opponents that this is not over-stating the matter in
the least; I would remind them that when divorce is

392 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

obtained by a collusion of the parties it is companionate
marriage pure and simple.

When two persons can be joined in the holy bonds of
matrimony with the proviso that they may leave each
other whenever, for any petty reasons, it pleases either
of them, then that is companionate marriage and it is
neither holy nor indeed is it a union at all. It is this
element in divorce that we cannot tolerate in civilized
society; that it nullifies the very essence of the mar
riage contract at its inception; it is a mere temporary
agreement; an arrangement for the convenience of the
parties and at the sufferance of either only for that
period of time that each is wholly satisfied. Such is
not the status we desire for the cornerstone of our
family and our society.

I cannot believe that the gentlemen from Swarth-
more would for one moment condone companionate
marriage yet it is what in effect marriage with present
day easy divorce means. We agree heartily that there
are evils in our present system and that all marriages
are not successful; that some are better dissolved; and
that many are quite dull. But we are still pleased to
return to the point that marriage, and marriage alone,
is the one recourse against the evils of the present day
indeed against such evils as Dreiser, Russell and
Lindsay. Marriage is not all a path of roses no
human relationship can hope to be. It should not be
wondered that two persons living together experience
difficulties. We grant that marriage is a trial; an
effort; it is a difficult, an exacting state. But that does
not mean that we must tear down the state rather than

DIVORCE IS A SOCIAL ASSET 393

put up safeguards around it. Can we think of any good
thing accomplished without patience and love of labor?
Is the artist or musician the product of a week s li
cense? It is the strengthening and not the weakening
of this marital relation that is the answer to these evils.
More marriages rather than less, longer ones rather
than shorter ones is the solution. If a man is intem
perate in drink, we do not try to improve his condition
by making drink easier for him to get; we make it more
difficult. Mr. Russell and his element would prevent
immorality by offering new and easier ways of being
immoral. We live for the next generation. Our laws
are made for them as well as for us. If we forget them,
God help posterity and us.

Second Affirmative, David W. Stickney
Swarthmore College

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: It has been a very real
pleasure for the Swarthmore Men s Debate Team to
travel two thousand miles for this debate. My col
league and I want to take advantage of this occasion
to express our warmest appreciation for the fullness of
your Georgian hospitality, and to assure you that we
are enjoying every moment of our visit.

The question we are considering this evening has
been very wisely chosen because of its paramount im
portance to all society. We are convinced that happy
marriage is an absolute fundamental of society, that
it is a prerequisite for cultural and material happiness.
Nothing is more destructive to society than a com-

394 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

munlty of wrecked homes and wrecked family lives,
and we are sure that nothing can be more detrimental
to the welfare of children than to have the spectacle
of the unfortunate marriage thrust before them daily.
The institution of marriage is imperfect; happiness is
not always the corollary. My colleague has shown that
when this is the case divorce is the only resort all
other palliatives having failed.

As I said, we are discussing a problem which is of
greatest importance to the whole world. When we are
dealing with a situation applying to at least one-fourth
of our married population (twenty-four and five-tenths
per cent), divorce cannot be regarded as a sin, a crime,
or even a helpless disgrace but as an ordinary, and
rather commonplace occurrence to which all our social
and economic conditions must be adjusted.

The basis for all opposition to divorce comes from
the Roman Catholic Church and their interpretation of
natural and divine law. The Pope s Encyclical of
January 1, 1931, explains this concept: matrimony is
instituted by God; and a divine ordinance, such as
marriage, is not subject to human decree. None of
our laws or statutes derives more directly from ecclesi
astical influence; and about nothing else are we in so
great a mess.

Marriage, in the eyes of the state, is a status result
ing from a civil contract based on certain special and
moral duties but not conditioned by personal happi
ness. The assumptions are that the wage-earner will
provide, that the partners will live in a happy state,
that each will live a moral life, and that the contract

DIVORCE IS A SOCIAL ASSET 395

lasts "until death do us part." This contract may be
broken only by the commitment of a criminal breach
sufficiently drastic that the court will award a divorce.
Every state in the union appreciates the shortcomings
of matrimony as it exists today, and every state makes
provisions for the annulment of the marriage contract.
But there is absolutely no uniformity among the vari
ous states, and the requirements vary as frequently as
the color of license plates. Thirty-seven per cent of
the divorces are granted on grounds of cruelty, a third
for desertion as in Nevada and only four per cent
for failure to provide. However, in New York, the
only basis on which a divorce will be granted is the
proof of adultery.

Relatively few wrecked homes are caused by these
enumerated breaches. The laws that do exist offer no
relief for insanity, or for mean, nagging and irrespon
sible dispositions. After all, married life is a human
affair; no divorce code can pretend to fix the causes
for all unsuccessful marriages.

Let us take the instance of a perfectly civilized
couple living in the state of New York. For them
married life has proved a decided failure; they want a
divorce, they even agree that this is the only way to
happiness. What can this couple do? Well, they have
one of three courses to follow. One may go forth and
deliberately commit the scandalous crime of adultery,
since this is the only crime recognized as grounds for
divorce in New York. Then the courts of the state will
reluctantly award them a divorce. But such a course
is rather damaging to one s social position, and perhaps

396 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

contrary to one s Ideals. Our couple may then decide
to establish that very nice legal pretext which Reno and
the state of Nevada offer to the wealthy. The wife
may pack her trunk, embark for Reno, and after a
short stay in Nevada bring suit in the courts of that
state charging that her husband has deserted her. But
this procedure is too expensive for our couple, so they
decide on the most frequent practice of New York
that of committing perjury. Both husband and wife
go to court and swear falsely under oath that one is
guilty of adultery each lying for the sake of the other
that both may escape the trials and tribulations of their
married life.

Thus it is that the whole court and legal system of
our country is being demoralized; the racketeering
which follows destroys respect and security in the law.
The whole world is shocked by the abuses of Reno, and
rightly so. Either we must tolerate this demoralizing
influence, or perfect the institution of marriage. We,
from Swarthmore, choose the latter course. Society
demands a solution that wfll permit civilized people to
secure happiness without incriminating themselves.
As long as every justice of the peace will sell marriage
licenses as willingly as fishing licenses merely for the
sake of the fee attached just so long will we have
hasty marriages proving to be failures, and just so
long will we be in absolute need of a divorce system
which will correct the shortcomings of the present
institution of matrimony.

The experience of the Scandinavian countries has
proved a great success and may assist us in solving our

DIVORCE IS A SOCIAL ASSET 397

problem. In Norway, Sweden and Denmark divorce
may be granted by consent. This is a frank recogni
tion of the imperfection of the marriage system, and
a bold attempt to relieve the situation. Success has
been universal. There is little difference between the
moral and social life in Scandinavia, where divorce is
liberal, and in England where divorce is a long and ex
pensive process. This is a valuable experience which
America will do well to profit by.

People have to be pretty miserable before they will
agree to upset their lives by legal separation. The
social censure is so strong that people dare not willingly
or hastily seek annulment of their marriage. It is
quite impossible to list and codify all the causes of the
unfortunate marriage, yet under the present system one
must assert a grave crime or tort. This system is ex
ceedingly unjust; our courts are demoralized, and our
people are forced to incriminate themselves. Neither
is conducive for a healthy and sound state.

First, we should insist on more stringent marriage
laws to prevent experimental marriage, and to suppress
the infamous racketeering by the justices of the peace.
Then, we should establish divorce by consent as prac
ticed so successfully in the Scandinavian countries.
This would eliminate the corrupting racketeering, the
shyster lawyers of Reno, and would permit a per
fectly civilized and rational couple to secure a divorce
without committing a crime, or at least perjuring
themselves.

Marriage is perhaps the most fundamental relation
ship in the state. No civilized community can permit

398 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

Its sanctity to be jeopardized by inadequate marriage
and divorce laws. The sole objective of the Affirm
ative has been to promote the social welfare by per
fecting the institution of marriage. Divorce is the
indispensable means. Since domestic happiness is the
basis of national welfare, divorce is inherently a social
asset. It is the only security society possesses after
marriage has failed.

Second Negative, Frank Hawkins
University of Georgia

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: The gentlemen from
Swarthmore have stated that they want this debate
handled in a liberal manner. But we are opposed to
this because we realize that too much liberty has al
ready been taken with marriage and divorce and that
is what is wrong with it today. We are in favor of
pinning the subject down to the facts and that is what
we are doing.

Our most vital concern is that our nation should be
protected from the evil that is undermining it. This
evil is divorce. Since hearing the speakers for the
Affirmative, the Negative is even more convinced that
divorce is not a social asset, for they clearly show that
they follow the school of modern cynicism which would
destroy our moral and social fibers and strip us of our
self-respect.

This must sound as though you are going to hear a
good old-fashioned lecture on morals and ethics and
the sacredness of marriage We frankly confess that

DIVORCE IS A SOCIAL ASSET 399

we are in favor of such proceedings and our reasons are
justified.

It is a pleasure for us to allow our old-fashioned
ideas a chance to return and be considered in the face
of vulgar modernism. The time is ripe for someone to
uphold the sacred institution of marriage, or something,
since we have been so disgustingly deluged with im
moral writings, teachings, and outbursts from the pens
of these who mock our most valued and treasured
institutions.

Suppose we have a look at a few of the popular
writers who champion divorce and immorality and
who, through the skill of their pens, are rapidly in
fluencing the young to believe that there is no such
thing as decency. First, and foremost, there is Henry
L. Mencken who admits that he has no "moral pur
pose" and who says, "Let us trust in God who has
always failed us in the past." There is Sherwood
Anderson, a recent visitor to our campus, who says
there is nothing to life but sex. His philosophy of
life is based on sex alone. And finally, there is Ber-
trand Russell who states that adultery is the only
ground on which a divorce should not be granted. Now
all this may sound very proper and smart. For a
while we were lead to believe that this modern school
of thought was attractive and clever, but we have be
come so disgusted with having it continually thrown in
our faces, that our spirit revolts at such obscene teach
ings so treacherously veiled in the robes of cleverness
and humor.

And so you see exactly how the Negative regards the

400 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

modern teachings on divorce. It is obvious that such
cynicism and sophistication is too deep and subtle for
us. Alas, we must resort to the old, time-worn teach
ings that we learned in former years. We have neither
faith nor admiration for debunking.

Divorce is corrupting and destroying our legal in
stitutions and making a joke of laws in general. We
know that divorces are too easily secured and offer too
much opportunity for the evasion of law. With the
first quarrel, one of the parties can go into a rage and
sever marital relations.

There is a ridiculously large number of grounds on
which to secure a divorce. In fact one doesn t even
have to have grounds. They can be framed, wrapped,
delivered, and bought to order through the medium of
our courts. According to Judge Joseph David of
Chicago, fifty per cent of the divorces granted involve
perjury, and according to Judge Harry A. Lewis, also
of Chicago, fifty per cent to sixty per cent of all de
crees are obtained through fraudulent testimony. The
most disgraceful aspect of this is the fact that the
judges granting these divorces realize that they are
tainted, thereby setting at naught our faith in them
and reducing the respect of society for law. How can
we feel justified in taking any of our difficulties, no
matter how trivial, before courts that are polluted with
fraud and perjury?

Persons securing divorces resort to perjury, false
testimony, and bribery to secure freedom from a mar
riage which they admit that they erred in making.
Suppose we illustrate with a typical case. A man and

DIVORCE IS A SOCIAL ASSET 401

Ms wife decide after a time that they do not wisii to
continue living together under the same roof. There
is no need to patch up the quarrel and make the best
of things because they realize that they can easily
secure a divorce if they are willing to pay the price.
One, or both of them go to see their respective lawyers
and either give or invent grounds for divorce. If the
parties are in collusion, as they frequently are, they
agree for the husband to rent a room in a hotel where
he can be caught by paid detectives in a compromising
situation with a hired companion. Then the shyster
lawyer enters suit, witnesses are bought, false testi
mony is sworn to and once more the principals involved
are free to go their ways. But in the meantime what
of the courts? Are they serving their purposes in the
manner that they are intended to serve them? Of
course not. They are knowingly and willfully allow
ing divorce on the assumption that one party has
willfully or maliciously wronged the other.

Next we must consider the money that is involved in
securing divorce. Divorce has come to be a source of
lively competition between the states. There is great
rivalry for the tainted dollars that the divorce scatters
in order to secure his release. Divorce is being made
easier to secure by certain states that are jealous of
their enterprising sisters, in order to draw some of the
trade which will enrich shyster lawyers, detective
agencies, perjured witnesses and other commercial
enterprises. Florida and Arkansas have decided to
compete with Nevada and have recently reduced the
residence requirements for parties wishing to secure

402 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

divorce under their jurisdiction. They figure, as does
Nevada, that if there is going to be divorce, they might
as well be the ones to be financially benefited. If we
are going to have divorce at all, it can be secured in
some manner, somewhere. Nothing as commercialized
as divorce can be run on a high level without corrupt
ing our social and legal institutions. Mr. Pressly and
I wonder if it can be called a social asset.

Our sense of decency and propriety is being cor
rupted by the unpleasant publicity which comes out in
divorce cases. Much of our fiction, as well as our news
papers and magazines, deals with divorce, not only
lightly, but flippantly, and at times sordidly, with
seldom a gleam of moral insight or spiritual vision,
as if marriage has become a bondage from which to
secure a release. We come in daily contact with
writings portraying the brutal husbands, unfaithful
wives, dispensations of children, and the amounts of
money to be paid as alimony. Nor do these accounts
seem satisfied with merely giving the facts in the case.
They go into detail and seem to delight in presenting
the scandal and sensational evidence which comes out
in the court room. It is our contention that such
written matter exerts an unwholesome and anti-social
influence on its readers and is, therefore, decidedly not
a social asset.

After reading and observing how easily divorce can
be secured, young people become satisfied that mar
riage bonds are things which can easily be cast aside,
and as a result enter into hasty marriages without
thinking of the importance of such an act. But why

DIVORCE IS A SOCIAL ASSET 403

should they give marriage a second thought when they
realize that if either party becomes disappointed in
his or her choice then the undesired party can be traded
in on a new one through divorce? When these experi
ments in marriage become frequent enough, we do not
really have marriage but a ceremony performed to
satisfy the animal passions.

Our fairer sex, as well as our sovereign states, are
looking on marriage and divorce as a "racket." It is
woman s chief end to exert her charms until she has
secured a male being who will serve as a lover and
meal ticket until he ceases to be considered a lover.
But when this unfortunate situation arises, it would
be too bad to lose both the lover and the meal ticket,
so a divorce is secured whereby the lover can be cast
aside and a meal ticket retained through alimony. Of
course we realize that divorcees must eat, but after two
or three divorces, each ending in a more advantageous
alimony settlement, it occurs to us that she is in danger
of becoming over-nourished at the expense of innocent
parties. We have a certain class of women in this
country who seem to feel cheated if they do not have at
least three or four divorce scalps on their belts. And
when we allow a thing like divorce to become a fad
and fashion among women, it is time to put a stop to it
or there is no telling how far it will go. It s the old
principle of "IVe got to have a new hat because Mrs.
Jones has one." The difference in this case is that
men are used in place of hats.

Marriage is in danger of becoming a farce because
the laws governing divorce are as easily and trnflinch-

404 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

ingly evaded as are those regulating prohibition. When
we allow our social institutions to become laughing
stocks, they are social menaces rather than social
assets.

The divorce situation is causing our population to
laugh, not only at the state laws regulating divorce,
but also at the laws of the various religions. The mar
riage ceremony is being shorn of its recognition as an
act of God. The churches are being used to create
supposedly life-long contracts between men and women
which can be easily broken up by the state. There we
have the old conflict of Church and State. What one
is creating the other is destroying. If marriage is to
be a thing of a worldly nature to be broken up by un
scrupulous state laws, why not force the state to per
form all marriage ceremonies? Then we would have
legalized adultery and the rites of the Church would
not be degraded in performing ceremonies which were
originally intended to be acts of God. It is not for
the best interests of man that his two chief governing
bodies, the Church and the State, should be setting at
naught each other s acts.

To be a social asset, an institution should be founded
on the principles of uniformity and equality. Assum
ing that divorce is a social asset, does it come up to
these requirements? The answer is evident that it
does not. There is no uniform divorce law in this
country. All of which brings us right down to the
facts. Either we are going to have divorce or we are
not going to have divorce but allow separation in ex
treme cases. We champion the latter stand as being

DIVORCE IS A SOCIAL ASSET 405

the most logical, decent, and law-abiding. We have
either got to cease our pretensions of sacred marriages
performed for true love, where the real purpose
is only for sex gratification, or else we must denounce
divorce and live up to marriage contracts whicH have
been and will continue to be society s greatest asset.

First Negative Rebuttal, Frank Hawkins
University of Georgia

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: The gentlemen from
Swarthmore have made it very clear that they realize
that there is something wrong with marriage as we are
faced with an increasing number of unhappy experi
ments. They say that the way to remedy this situation
is through divorce even more lax divorce laws than
we have now. We contend that divorce is not the
remedy; it has been tried and found wanting. The
truth of the matter is that our present divorce laws are
responsible for many of the current unhappy homes.
People who are unsuited to each other and unfit for
the responsibilities of married life are heedlessly
entering matrimony because they realize that the di
vorce laws provide a convenient loophole when the
marriage proves a failure. If the parties entering into
the marriage contract were made to realize that the
marriage was a permanent thing then they would use
more discretion in selecting a life-long partner.

The Affirmative even go so far as to say that we
must have divorce because it is the only way to ter
minate the marriage contract of persons who simply

406 THE YEAE BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

cannot make a go of matrimony. We also know that
there are times when some situation arises that would
prohibit the living together of a man and his wife. In
this case something must be done and we advocate
separation but not divorce. We contend that this would
end the trouble between the man and wife and at
the same time it would be protecting our courts and
citizens from the present iniquities of the divorce laws.
It is not our plan to force two ill-mated persons to
continue to live together in strife, but it is our plan to
do away with divorce and its attendant evils. Separa
tion is the solution to the problem.

When one party of a marriage desires a divorce, it is
usually because he, or she, desires to marry someone
else. The only way they can accomplish this purpose
is through divorce. But if the person knew that a
divorce could not be secured he would not be looking
for a new mate. At least he would realize the futility
of Ms search and the chances are that he would make
himself content with his wife or else secure a separation.

We expected that the Affirmative would say that it
is detrimental to the welfare of children to have the
spectacle of the unfortunate marriage thrust before
them. Let me answer that we do not favor this situa
tion either and under our terms the child would not
live with quarreling parents. As we have already said,
we favor separation in extreme cases. But more than
this; if there were no chance of the easy divorce as it
exists today, we contend that there would be mighty
few households of fighting parents. When a couple
altering into an agreement are made to realize that they

DIVORCE IS A SOCIAL ASSET 407

cannot break that agreement, except under the most
extreme circumstances, we know that that agreement
is going to be made only after the most serious thought
and deliberation. When they know that it is a contract
for life, not to be easily broken, they will not enter
into it unless they are willing to accept all the trials
and hardships that it entails.

At present, with the easy exit, anybody is willing to
enter lightly into the marriage contract. This is why
it is so unsuccessful; this is why we have our fighting
parents. When no responsibility is demanded of the
parties entering the marriage state, we are bound to
find unhappy homes. And this is the very crux of our
case. Marriage without divorce is marriage with re
sponsibility. It guarantees, so far as we can give a
guarantee in human relations, that the parties contract
ing are serious. Under these circumstances, if ever,
you have the requisites for a happy marriage. Your
parents won t be quarreling because they know that if
they do quarrel there is no chance of a divorce. Now,
consequently, if they can possibly see a chance of dis
agreement they will not marry. We realize that such
contingencies cannot always be foreseen but we submit
that it is better that the parties not be told prior to the
agreement that tEey may break it at any time for
almost any reason. In this latter case marriage never
has a chance it is doomed and maimed at its very
inception.

408 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

First Affirmative Rebuttal, Robert EL Wilson
Swarthmore College

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: The gentlemen of the
Negative have spent a great deal of time telling you
all about the perverted type of literature that is per
meating our post-war civilization. They say that this
type of writing has influenced the public mind to the
point where it has cast over all its past conventions
and moral standards. May I say simply that we do
not believe that writers of the class they have men
tioned are either forceful enough or convincing enough
to influence the great force of popular opinion so
tremendously. We do not believe that anyone is going
to step out and divorce his wife because he reads an
article by Judge Ben Lindsay. We are trying to keep
this debate on an intellectual basis. We want to ex
change ideas and to discuss the question on its merits.
Quite frankly, I don t think any more of the type of
writing that Mencken and Dreiser produce than my
opponents do, but I m not taking up the time that we
should be debating to express my opinions.

Incidentally it strikes us as remarkable that gentle
men of such wholesome and conservative views are so
familiar and conversant with literature they are so sure
is meant only to corrupt their minds.

We regret, also, that the gentlemen from Georgia
have misunderstood our offer to discuss this question
liberally. In my opening remarks I said that we
thought a subject of such importance as this one should

DIVORCE IS A SOCIAL ASSET 409

neither security nor peace, and where the determina
tion of the parents that they will not be divorced only
prolongs the period of hardship and unnatural de
velopment.

Both teams tonight are criticizing the laxity and the
irregularity of the divorce laws. We believe that they
should be improved and regulated. Our opponents
want them done away with. They mentioned the eat
ing of onions as the most insignificant of all possible
grounds for divorce. I don t know whether that s in
significant or not. A lot would depend on the onions.

And let me warn the people of Georgia that right now
they are doing an awful lot toward creating another set
of insignificant grounds for divorce. Up north we have
been reading a lot about your cornpone and potlikker
controversy. According to the Atlanta Constitution
your state is torn between two factions those who be
lieve in dunking their cornpone and those who stand
firm for crumbling it. Aren t you afraid that this ques
tion may enter into marriage contracts? Divorces may
be granted some day on grounds of "incompatibility of
handling cornpone." It may even go so far that some
day brides will solemnly chant:

Whither thou goest, I will go;

What thou doest, I will do;

If thou dunkest, I will dunk:

But if you crumble, our wedding s sunk.

May I again emphasize the necessity of eliminating
sentiment and unthinking emotionalism from a discus
sion of this kind. Tonight I am afraid that much has

410 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

be discussed freely from all viewpoints- Our oppo
nents have turned this into a charge that we are being
too liberal and that we are taking liberties with the
institution of marriage.

The first speaker has told you that marriage is no
path of roses. I don t know whether that is meant
to cheer you up or not. He was pointing out the fact
that a large number of marriages end in failure. We
demonstrated that, too, and our solution for mar
riages that cannot possibly continue is divorce. His
remedy is "longer marriages and more of them." Now
this answer reminds me of the experience of a college
in Pennsylvania some years ago. Its football team had
been losing consistently every game that it played, and
finally some enthusiastic alumnus jumped up with the
suggestion that his alma mater ought to play better
teams and play twice a week instead of only on Satur
days. Well, they tried it. I hope this solution of the
marriage problem proves more successful.

In trying to show you that divorce is not a social
asset our opponents have taken great pains to paint
emotional pictures of the effects of divorce upon chil
dren. By using such phrases as "unassailable back
ground/ "pitiable plight," "disposition of the child"
and "demoralizing inferiority complex" they have
sought, very successfully, I believe, to arouse sym
pathy for their arguments. But they are overlooking
the fact that a child taken out of a wrecked home by
the divorce laws is far better off than one who is forced
by convention to remain in a home where its father
and mother are continually quarreling; where there is

DIVORCE IS A SOCIAL ASSET 411

been introduced that does not apply directly to the
question we are debating. We must ask you to remem
ber that a debate differs from an ordinary conversation.
Arguments that may sound very reasonable and which
appeal strongly to your sympathy are out of place
when they do not squarely meet the definitions of the
question as our chairman has proposed it tonight.
The Swarthmore team has done its best to follow his
instructions. We hope you will appreciate this
sincerity.

Second Negative Rebuttal, Benson C. Pressly
University of Georgia

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: It grieves my good Pres
byterian soul to hear the gentlemen from the old
Quaker school chide us for being narrow and illiberal
in our moral views. Why, he even intimated that we
are in league with the Pope, and take our strict views
towards marriage at his dictation. I want to say at
the outset that we are chiefly concerned in preserving
the institution of marriage. And our opponents pro
fess the same desire. They say that this can best be
done by permitting divorce as it is; we say that divorce
is destroying the marriage state. I cannot refrain,
however, from pointing out a serious disagreement
between my opponents. The first speaker, you will
recall, declared that we must have more lenient divorce
laws to combat the growing fad of companionate mar
riage. But the second speaker was quick to say that
the present divorce laws must be made stricter.

412 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

It also amused me to hear Mr. Wilson solemnly
declare tliat there were more divorces because there
were more unhappy marriages. Now, isn t he getting
the cart before the horse? If our unhappy married
people knew before they married that it was a per
manent affair, how many of them do you suppose
would be married? When you let them get a return
trip ticket, they do not give much thought to the
destination because they know they can come back.
No, I reaHy believe that most of the unhappy mar
riages are caused by the existing divorce laws; they
invite hasty and ill-considered unions. Indeed, they
give rise to what in effect are companionate marriages
which the gentlemen on the other side profess to fear.

The last Affirmative speaker blandly assured us that
since marriage has failed, there must be some divorce
law as an outlet. Now we don t believe that marriage
has failed; it has been undermined and weakened by
the presence of a divorce law inviting people to take
it lightly. But knowing that there are as the opposition
states it many "unsuccessful" marriages what do we
propose to do about it? In the first place, what is an
"unsuccessful" marriage? Doesn t that mean merely
that one of the parties is dissatisfied? And are we
going to take marriage so lightly that we will grant
divorces for disagreements? Yet that is being done
every day. As my colleague pointed out, we favor
relief in certain cases. For the insane and those suf
fering with incurable diseases there is annulment
although Mr. Stickney says the social censure con
nected with annulment overwhelms the people he would

DIVORCE IS A SOCIAL ASSET 413

seek to save from the ills of married life. For the
others with their incompatibility of temperament,
mental cruelty, and lack of attention, we doff our hats
to the Pope and say give this element a separation
though it s much too good for some of them. By re
fusing to give them a divorce, we put all on notice that
once married you must stay married. If after due
deliberation they cannot live together, let them sepa
rate. But to give them the right to remarry cheapens
this sacrament; it lowers the state of woman, and
encourages a temporary union for the gratification of
carnal desires.

Now about the success of divorce in the Scandi
navian countries that just has nothing to do with the
case we are discussing. It may do well there; indeed,
we have even heard that the prohibition of liquors is
doing well there. But even our opponents realize that
what may be true of those nations may have no appli
cation here. Indeed, they did not see fit to show their
grounds for making an analogy between the two be
cause they know it does not exist.

One word about the children before I close. The
Affirmative seem to have scored a good point when they
replied that they would rather have children of divorced
parents in an institution, than to have them in an
unhappy home. In general, we agree. But this does
not mean divorce is an asset or that it is necessary.
The parents could still be separated and have the
children placed in an institution. But our stand goes
deeper than these secondary remedies. We contend
that unhappy homes harboring such children would be

414 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

reduced to a minimum if the contracting parties were
made to take their agreement more seriously. They
can never take it seriously when they know they can
be released for little or no cause.

Second Affirmative Rebuttal, David W. Stickney
Swarthmore College

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: I wonder how many peo
ple in the South here remember the old-fashioned hoop
skirt that our grandmothers used to wear. Sitting here
on the platform tonight, the speeches of the Negative
reminded me very much of those old hoop skirts. They
covered a lot, but they didn t touch anything.

We realize that it is difficult to keep from wandering
when debating a subject as important and as difficult
as this problem of marriage and divorce. But we do
think that a conscientious effort should be made to
confine our discussion within the limits agreed upon.
It may be a great temptation, as the second speaker
for the opposition has said, to deliver an old-fashioned
lecture on morals and ethics. I don t know why the
speaker said he wanted to give you that kind of a
lecture tonight. I shouldn t accept it entirely as a com
pliment. At any rate, we believe that a mistake has
been made in leaving the consideration of divorce
strictly as a social asset.

We are not inclined to place as much importance
as the gentlemen from Georgia upon the scurrilous
writings of present day authors. There are many of
them, it is true, who put all their effort into producing

DIVORCE IS A SOCIAL ASSET 415

works that are obscene, immoral, and objectionable.
However, we do not feel that because of the presence
of these writers the present age is entirely an immoral
one. We do not condemn, as the second Negative
speaker did, the civilization of today as "vulgar
modernism." We are convinced that there is much
that is good, proper, and decent in the lives that our
people are living today. These elements, we hope, will
be those which will conquer and which in the future
will lead us to the condition of happy marriage and
happy family life that we all desire.

It appears that the Negative team is attacking the
corruption and evil it finds in the world because it
thinks that the Affirmative team is upholding that evil.
Such, you must realize, is certainly not the case. We
are as well aware as they of the so-called "modern
trend of thought." But instead of simply assailing
it, as they have done, we are attempting to analyze it
and to offer a constructive remedy. We leave it to you
as to which is the more worthwhile process.

Mr. Wflson has spoken to you of the old viewpoint
that regarded divorce, regardless of its causes, as an
evil. We did not expect to encounter that prejudice
here tonight; but we have. Three times from this
platform the opposing debaters have mentioned divorce
and immorality in the same phrase. The gentlemen
seem unable to conceive of divorce except as a scandal.
Don t you think that when a married couple find it
absolutely impossible to continue with each other,
when they feel that both their lives are being warped
by the strain, when they find that an atmosphere of

416 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

friction is harming their children and when they know
that divorce will remedy these ills don t you feel that
then they are justified in accepting the remedy which
modern civilization has prepared for them?

One of the other speakers has mentioned the pro
fessional divorcees who make a living from an ever
increasing alimony payroll. This seems to us to be
dragging professionalism into the sport. We believe
that after two marriages a person loses his matrimonial
amateur standing. Seriously, though, it seems unneces
sary to point out that these cases are the exceptional.
And it is well to remember that the corruption which
makes these cases possible is not confined alone to the
divorce courts. If there weren t as many dishonest
and insincere officials to perform civil and church
weddings, there wouldn t be unwise marriages to end in
the divorce courts.

We feel sincerely that divorce is a social asset. We
realize that the mechanics of divorce are not all that
they should be at the present time. That is why we
are in favor of modifying and changing these laws.
We do not look upon divorce as an end in itself. It is
only a means toward realizing our future aim The
time when because of an enlightened social conscience
all marriage will be permanent and successful. Until
that time we shall regard it as the only sensible and
effective way of ending impossible marital conflicts.

DIVORCE IS A SOCIAL ASSET 417

BIBLIOGRAPHY: DIVORCE

BOOKS

Bartlett, G. A..Nen, Women, and Conflict. 1931. Putnam. $3.
Bruce, G. M. Marriage and Divorce. 1930. Augsburg. $1.50.
Cahen, A. Statistical Analysis of American Divorce. 1932. Columbia

University Press. $2.25.

Davis, M. L.Other Side of Divorce. 1930. R. G. Badger. $3.
DeVecchi, P. Discourse on Divorce and its Shameful Abuse. 1929.

John Martin s House, Inc., 33 West 49th St., K. Y. $2.
Gwynne, Walker. Divorce in America Under State and Church.

Macmillan. $2.
Gwynne, Walker. Holy Matrimony and Common Sense. 1930.

Longmans. $1.25.
Hoffman, F. L. Marriage and Divorce, 1929. American Social

Hygiene Association, paper, gratis.
Johnson, J. E. (Comp.) Selected Articles on Marriage and Divorce.

1925. H. W. Wilson.

Lichtenberger, J. P. Divorce. 1931. McGraw. S4.
Melgarejo, Randolph. Is Divorce Necessary? 1930. Association

Features. 15 Park Row, N. Y.

Mowrer, E. R. Family Disorganization. 1927, University of Chi
cago Press. $3.

Russell, Bertrand A. and others. Divorce. Day. $1.50.
Waller, Wfllard W.Old Love and the New. 1930. Liveright. $3.50.

MAGAZINES

American Journal of Public Health. 20:1348, December 1930. Mar
riage and Divorce. 22:198, February 1932. Preliminary Report
on Marriage and Divorce 1930.

Annals of the American Academy. 160:191, March 1932. Divorce
and Re-adjustment. E. R. Mowrer.

Current History. 30:876, August 1929. Effect of Increasing Divorce.

Forum. 86:263, November 1931. Repenting in Haste.

Harper s Magazine. 164:125, December 1931. Divorce. E. S.
Martin.

Nation. 128:253, February 27, 1929. Broken Homes. 128:420, April
10, 1929. Companionate Divorce. 128:608, May 22, 1929. Cim-

418 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

Used Divorce. 130:172, 211, 268, 323, 293, February 12-19,

March 5-19, April 2, 1930. Divorce and After.
New Republic. 63:226, June 16, 1930. After Divorce What? I. M.

Rubinow.

Outlook. 154:143, January 22, 1930. Divorce. H. G. Keller,
Pictorial Review. 32:4, September 1931. Easy Divorce. C. F.

Reisner.
Saturday Evening Post. 201:30, March 9, 1929. Marriage and

Divorce.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I

A List of Debate Coaches and Directors in American
Colleges and Universities

This directory of debate coaches and instructors
makes no claims to completeness or to accuracy. It is
impossible to get such a list complete, and if that were
possible, it would be a hopeless task to keep it accurate.
Questionnaires meet with but a twenty-five to forty
per cent response and often they are inaccurate again
they reveal constant changes of the personnel in charge
of debate at the various institutions engaging in inter
collegiate debate.

This list was made up from questionnaires returned,
from the directories published by Delta Sigma Rho in
"The Gavel," by Tau Kappa Alpha in "The Speaker,"
and by Pi Kappa Delta in "The Forensic" from lists
sent in by Professor H. Adelbert White of the Uni
versity of Nebraska, by Professor G. W. Finley of
Colorado Teachers College of Greeley, Secretary of
Pi Kappa Delta, and by Professor M. F. Evans of
Birmingham-Southern College. The Editor wishes to
express his gratitude to these gentlemen for their assist
ance and interest in the project.

Now as to the mistakes and the guess work involved
unless another department is indicated after the

421

422 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

name of the debate coach It is to be presumed that he
or she is a member of the Speech Department. When
two names are given often both work in debate; or
one may be head of the department and the other the
actual coach; occasionally when a date follows the
name of the coach he has held the job temporarily
while the regular coach was on leave. No attempt has
been made to indicate Men s varsity, Women s varsity
and Freshmen Debate coaches consistently. Where
the persons named are not the coaches, the actual
coaches can be ascertained by writing to those listed,
and it is hoped that ultimately corrections may be made
and that this list may be more accurate in future vol
umes of "Intercollegiate Debates." When no coach is
named, the fact that the college is named indicates that
it engages in intercollegiate debate and that the list
should ultimately carry the name of the Debate Direc
tor. In this case address the Debate Manager.

Not all the colleges which debate are included. They
should be, and if your college is left out, it is to be
hoped that you will send the proper information to the
editor of this volume so that in future volumes your
college may be included.

With humble apologies for all the mistakes, omis
sions, and inaccuracies, the list is given in the hope
that it may prove useful, and that it will grow in
length, accuracy, and service in the future.

E. R. NICHOLS,
814 Campus Avenue,
Redlands, California

APPENDIX I 423

Alabama

Alabama College for Women. Montevallo. Helen
Osband.

Alabama Polytechnic Institute. Auburn. J. A. Kirk-
ley. C. P. Weaver.

Birmingham-Southern. Birmingham. M. F. Evans.

Howard College. Birmingham. Miss Floy Childs.

Talladega College. Talladega. Deckard Ritter.
English.

University of Alabama. University. T. Earle Johnson.

Arizona

Arizona State Teachers College. Flagstaff. Dr. Mary

Hill English.
Arizona State Teachers College. Tempe. Miss Beryl

Simpson.
University of Arizona. Tucson. W. Arthur Cable.

Lish Whitson.

Arkansas

Arkansas College. Batesville. S. C. Evins. English.
Arkansas State Teachers College. Conway. Glenn

Kirkland.
College of the Ozarks. Clarksville. Frank E. Mc-

Anear.

Harding College. Morrillton. Dean L. C. Sears.
Henderson State Teachers College. Arkaddphia.

Robert Cotner.

Hendrix College. Conway. Dr. O. T. Gooden.
Ouachita College. Arkadelphia. Dr. George R. Swan.

424 THE YEAE BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

University of Arkansas. Fayetteville. Virgil L.
Eater.

California

California Christian College. Los Angeles. Mrs.

Bertha Jackson McKay.
California Institute of Technology. Pasadena. Allyn

C. Loosely. 1931-32.

College of the Pacific. Stockton. Dwayne Orton.
Fresno State Teachers College. Fresno. J. Fred

McGrew.
LaVerne College. LaVerne. Crawford F. Brubaker.

English.

Loyola College. Los Angeles.
Mills College for Women. Oakland. Mrs. Alice

Stebbins.
Occidental College. Los Angeles. Dr. Charles F.

Lindsley.

Pasadena College. Pasadena. N. L. Ketchum.
Pomona College. Claremont. Benjamin D. Scott.
St. Mary s College. St. Marys. No coach. Debates.
San Diego State Teachers College. San Diego. Paul

Pfaff. 1455 University Avenue.
San Jose State Teachers College. San Jose. Clara

Elizabeth Kuck.

Santa Barbara State Teachers College. Santa Bar
bara. Dr. William Maxwell. English.
Southwestern University (and Law School). Los

Angeles. William Barber.
Stanford University. Stanford University. J. G.

Emerson.

APPENDIX I 425

University of California. Berkeley. Gerald E. Marsh.
University of California at Los Angeles. Westwood.

Charles A. Marsh.
University of Redlands. Redlands. E. R. Nichols.

Joseph Baccus.

Whittier College. Whittier. W. Eugene Knox.
Woodbury College. Los Angeles. Norman B. Clark.

Colorado

Colorado Agricultural College. Fort Collins. Wilbur
E. Moore.

Colorado College. Colorado Springs. W. D. Cope-
land. Arthur E. Baylis.

Colorado State Teachers College. Greeley. Robert
Allen.

University of Colorado. Boulder. D. Mack Easton.

University of Denver. Denver. Mrs. Isabelle B.
Longfellow, 1211 South Corona Street.

Western State Teachers College. Gunnison. Lois
Borland. Paul C. Soper.

Connecticut

Connecticut State Agricultural College. Storrs. Andre

Schereib.

Trinity College. Hartford.
Wesleyan University. Middletown. Wilbert Snow.

English.
Yale University. New Haven. J. C. Adams.

Delaware

University of Delaware. Newark. Albert DeBoons.

426 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

District of Columbia

American University. Washington. Donald J. Sher-

bondy. Hamilton House.
Georgetown University. Washington.
George Washington University. Washington, Henry

G. Roberts.
Howard University. Washington.

Florida

John B. Stetson University. Deland. Irving C.

Stover.

Rollins College. Winter Park. Harry R. Pierce.
University of Florida. Gainesville. Francis C. Savage.

Box 2444, University Station.
University of Miami. Miami. K. R. Close.

Georgia

Atlanta University. Atlanta. George A. Town. Edu
cation.

Emory College. Oxford. W. H. Underwood. Box
184, Covington.

Mercer University. Macon. Lewis H. Fowler. 1045
College Street.

Morehouse College. Atlanta. N. P. Tillman. Eng
lish.

University of Georgia. Athens. George G. Connelly.

Hawaii

University of Honolulu. Honolulu. N. B. Beck.

APPENDIX I 427

Idaho

College of Idaho. CaldwelL H. H. Hayman. Social

Sciences.
University of Idaho. Moscow. A. E. Whitehead, 110

Adams.

Illinois

Augustana College. Rock Island. Wendell Lund,

1931. Martin J. Holcomb, 1932-33.
Bradley Polytechnic Institute. Peoria. Sherman R.

Lawton.
Carthage College. Carthage. Merle E. Chapin. 901

Main Street.

Eureka College. Eureka. Ernest Higdon.
Illinois College. Jacksonville. Hoyt C. Franchere.
Illinois State Normal University. Normal. C. F.

Malmberg.

Illinois Wesleyan. Bloomington, Milford R. Waddell.
Kent College of Law. Chicago. William M. James.
Knox College. Galesburg. Warren C. Shaw.
McKendree College. Lebanon. Evelyn McNeely.
Monmouth College. Monmouth. Sylvester R. Tous-

saint. 221 South Seventh Street.
North Central College. Naperville. Guy Eugene

Oliver.

Northwestern University. Evanston. C. C. Cunning
ham.

Shurtleff College. Upper Alton. Harold B. Allen.
University of Chicago. Chicago. Bertram Nelson,

Reynolds Club.

428 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

University of Illinois. Urbana. W. P. Sandford.
Wheaton College. Wheaton. Florence Cobb.

Indiana

Butler College. Indianapolis. Claude Sifritt.
DePauw University. Greencastle. Herold T. Ross.
Earlham College. Richmond. E. P. Trueblood.
Evansville College. Evansville. Pearl LeCompte.
Franklin College. Franklin. I. George Blake.
Indiana Central College. Indianapolis. John J.

Haramy.

Indiana State Normal Terre Haute. John B. Wisely.
Indiana State University. Bloomington. L. R. Nor-

velle. 501^ North Park.
Manchester College. North Manchester. George

Beauchamp.
Notre Dame University. Notre Dame. Francis J.

Boland.

Purdue University. Lafayette. P. Emerson Lull.
Wabash College. Crawfordsville. Myron G. Phillips.

316 South Green Street.

Iowa

Buena Vista College. Storm Lake. Dewey Deal.
Central College. Pella. Miss Cunera Van Emerik.

Francis Bailey.

Coe College. Cedar Rapids. B. D. Silliman.
Cornell College. Mount Vernon. Dr. C. F. Littell.
Drake University. Des Moines. C. C. Corrothers.

APPENDIX I 429

Grinnell College. Grinnell. John P. Ryan.

Iowa State College. Ames. Forrest L. Whan. 2304
Knapp Street.

Iowa State Teachers College. Cedar Falls. W. A.
Brindley. 2116 Clay Street.

Iowa Wesleyan. Mount Pleasant. Ruth Leavengood.
D. E. Thomas.

Morningslde College. Sioux City. John W. Parlette.
3925 Orleans Avenue.

Parsons College. Fairfield. Mrs. Joel Carl Welty.
Mrs. Susan Fulton.

Penn College. Oskaloosa. Virginia Bailey.

Simpson College. Indianola. Edith B. Whittaker.

University of Dubuque. Dubuque. J. Bajemo.

University of Iowa. Iowa City. A. Craig Baird.

Upper Iowa University. Fayette. Lester C. Lindley.

Western Union College. LeMars. Alfred W. Mat
thews. E. H. Gates.

Kansas

Baker University. Baldwin. Alfred E. Leach.

Bethany College. Lindsborg.

College of Emporia. Emporia. J. H. Lawrence.

Friends University. Wichita. Paul G. Trueblood
201 North Charles.

Kansas State Agricultural College. Manhattan. Har
rison B. Summers.

Kansas State Teachers College. Emporia. George
R. R. Pflaum.

Hays State Teachers College. Hays. J. R. Start.

430 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

Pittsburgh State Teachers College. Pittsburgh. J. R.

Pelsma. O. F. Grubbs.
Kansas Wesleyan. Salina. Arthur Miles.
McPherson College. McPherson. Maurice A. Hess.
Ottawa University. Ottawa. R. H. Ritchie. English.
Sterling College. Sterling.
Southwestern University. Winfield. Dean LeRoy

Allen. Dr. J. Thompson Baker.
University of Kansas. Lawrence. E. C. Buehler.
University of Wichita. Wichita. C. C. Harbison.

LeRoy Lewis.
Washburn College. Topeka. G. S. Fulbright

Kentucky

Asbury College. Wilmore. L. A. King,
Berea College. Berea. Dr. A. G. WeicUer.
Centre College. Danville. B. A. Wise.
Georgetown College. Georgetown. Rena Calhoun.
Kentucky Wesleyan. Winchester. T. E. McMullen.

Education.
Transylvania University. Lexington. D. C. Troxel.

Louisiana

Centenary College. Shreveport S. A. Steger.
Louisiana College. Pineville. E. O. Wood.
Louisiana Industrial Institute. Lafayette. Harry De

La Rue. History.

Louisiana Normal. Nachatoches. R. L. Kopp.
Louisiana State University. Baton Rouge. C. L.

Shaver.

APPENDIX I 431

Maine

Bates College. Lewiston. F. Brooks Quimby.
Bowdoin College. Brunswick. Ralph de Someri

Childs. IS Cleaveland Street.
Colby College. Waterville. Herbert C. Libby.
University of Maine. Orono.

Maryland

Goucher College. Baltimore. Naomi Riches.
Johns Hopkins University. Baltimore. John C.
French. English.

Massachusetts

Amherst College. Amherst Lee Garrison.

Boston College. Boston. Walter McQuinn.

Boston University. Boston. Ward Browning.

Clark University. Worcester. Dr. S. J. Brendenburg.

Harvard University. Cambridge. Edward M. Rowe.
J. Mack Swigert.

Mt. Holyoke College. South Hadley. Jeanette Clarke
Dickie.

Springfield College. Springfield. Van H. Eakes.

Tufts College. Medford. N. C. Maynard. 132 Cur
tis Street, West Somervflle, Massachusetts.

Williams College. Williamstown. Albert H. Licklider.

Michigan

Albion College. Albion. N. J. Weiss.

432 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

Alma College. Alma. Herman W. Spencer.

College of the City of Detroit. Detroit. Garnet
Garrison.

Hillsdale College. Hillsdale. W. H. Roberts.

Hope College. Holland. Deckard Ritter.

Kalamazoo College. Kalamazoo. Milton Simpson.

Michigan State College. East Lansing. O. J. Drake.

Michigan State Teachers College. YpsilantL F. B.
McKay.

Olivet College. Olivet. James R. Cretcher.

University of Michigan. Ann Arbor. James M. Me-
Burney.

Western State Teachers College. Middleville. Car
roll P. Lahman. Anna E. Lindblom.

Minnesota

Carleton College. Northfield. I. M. Cochran.

Gustavus Adolphus College. St. Peter. Evan E. An
derson.

Hamline University. St. Paul. Charles S. Templer.

Macalester College. St. Paul. William O. Home.

St. Olaf College. Northfield. Abner Haugen.

College of St. Thomas. St. Paul. Owen P. McElmeel.

University of Minnesota. Minneapolis. Frank M.
Rang. Women s debate Agnes T. Sommer.

Mississippi

Milisaps College. Jackson. Walter Bivens.
University of Mississippi. Oxford. W. Dwight Wentz.

APPENDIX I 433

Missouri

Central College. Fayette. Bernard E. Meland.

Central Missouri State Teachers College. Warrens-
burg. Ben R. Craig. Louise Freeland.

Central Wesleyan. Warrenton.

Culver-Stockton College. Canton. Roy M. Smith.

Drury College. Springfield. Edwin Adams Davis.

Missouri State Teachers College. Kirksville. Clifton
Cornwell.

Northwest Missouri Teachers 5 College. Maryville.
Orville C. Miller.

Park College. Parkville. John Barnes.

Southeast Missouri State Teachers College. Cape
Girardeau. Forrest H. Rose.

Tarkio College. Tarkio. Lucille Seals.

University of Missouri. Columbia. Wilbur E. Gil-
man.

Washington University. St. Louis. Raymond F.
Howes. Robert E. Young.

Westminster College. Fulton. Frank L. McCleur,

William Jewell College. Liberty. W. Prewitt Ewing.

Montana

Intermountain Union College. Helena. C. H. Cnit-

tendon.

Montana School of Mines. Butte. Walter F. Scott.
Montana State Normal. Dillon. A. E. Albright.
Eastern Montana State Normal. Billings. Martha

E. Dewey.
Montana State College. Bozeman. W. F. Brewer.

434 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

Montana State University. Missoula. Darrell R.

Parker.
Mount St. Charles College. Helena. Robert M.

Dinkle.

Nebraska

Cotner College. Bethany. Mrs. Joanna C. Zink.
Creighton University. Omaha. O. P. Sullivan.
Doane College. Crete. Ray Ehrensperger.
Hastings College. Hastings. LeRoy T. Laase.
Kearney State Teachers College. Kearney. J. Clark

Weaver, 928 West 23rd Street.
Nebraska Wesleyan. University Place. Enid Miller.

C. Horton Talley.

Peru State Teachers 3 College. Peru. D. J. Nabors.
University of Nebraska. Lincoln. H. Adelbert White,

122 Andrews Hall.
York College. York. J. C. Morgen.

Nevada

University of Nevada. Reno. Robert S. Griffin.

New Hampshire

Dartmouth College. Hanover. E. V. Simrell.
University of New Hampshire. Durham. Edmund
A. Cortez.

New Jersey

Princeton University. Princeton. Hoyt H. Hudson,
10 East Middle Witherspoon.

APPENDIX I 435

Rutgers College. New Brunswick. Richard C. Reager,
6 Richardson Street.

New Mexico

New Mexico Normal University. Las Vegas, Lester

Raines.
University of New Mexico. Albuquerque. T. M.

Pearce. English.

New York

Colgate University. Hamilton. J. V. Garland, 60

Main Street.
Columbia University. New York City. A. W. Mac-

mahon.

Cornell University. Ithaca. Russell EL Wagner.
Elmira College. Elmira. Geraldine Quinlan.
Fordham University. New York City. James A.

Taaffe.

Hamilton College. Clinton. Willard B. Marsh.
Hunter College. New York City. Arthur Woehl
New York University. New York City. W. D.

Bryant.

Syracuse University. Syracuse. Sherman L. Kennedy.
Union College. Schenectady. Dr. W. Leon Godshall.
University of Buffalo. Buffalo. John T. Horton.
University of Rochester. Rochester.
Vassar College. Poughkeepsie. Margaret Walters.

North Carolina

Catawba College. Salisbury. Paul D. Seibert.
Davidson College. Davidson. Dr. W. P Gumming.

436 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

Duke University. Durham. Frank C. Brown.
North Carolina State College. Raleigh. Edwin H.

Paget.
University of North Carolina. Chapel Hill. George

McKie. Box 322.
Wake Forest College. Wake Forest. Dr. J. Rice

Quisenberry,

North Dakota

Fargo College. Fargo.

Jamestown College. Jamestown. Jesse C. Gray.

Mayville Teachers 5 College. Mayville. Elbert W.

Harrington.
North Dakota Agricultural College. Fargo. Donald

G. Hay.
University of North Dakota. Grand Forks. William

Schrier.

Ohio

Baldwin-Wallace College. Berea. Dana T. Burns.
Bowling Green State College. Bowling Green. J. W.

CarmichaeL
Capital College. Columbus. Arthur H. Kuhlman.

822 Pleasant Ridge Avenue.
Case School of Applied Science. Cleveland. Lee H.

StraH.

Denison University. Granville. Lionel Crocker.
Heidelberg University. Tiffin. H. Dana Hopkins.
Hiram College. Hiram. A. H. Brunelle.
Marietta College. Marietta.

APPENDIX I 437

Miami University. Oxford. H. H. Higglns.

Mt. Union College. Alliance. Karl Kettering.

Muskingum College. New Concord.

Oberlin College. Oberlin. William E. Utterback.

Ohio State University. Columbus. Victor L. Ketcham.

Ohio University. Athens. W. H. Cooper.

Ohio Wesleyan University. Delaware. Bernard I.

Griffith.

Otterbein University. Westerville. J. A. Smith.
University of Akron. Akron. Maxine Dye.
University of Cincinnati. Cincinnati. Arthur S.

Postle.

University of Toledo. Toledo.

University of Wooster. Wooster. Emerson W. Miller.
Western Reserve University. Cleveland. W. A. D.

Millson. 1933 East 70th Street.
Wittenberg University. Springfield. Paul R. Brees.

John E. Slater.

Oklahoma

Bethel-Peniel College. Bethany. Dr. A. K. Bracken.
Catholic College of Oklahoma for Women. Guthrie.

M. Agnes.
Central Teachers College. Edmond. W. H. Hord.

Dorothea Meagher.
East Central Teachers 7 College. Ada. William V,

O ConnelL
Northeastern Teachers College. Tahlequah. J. E.

Arendell.
Northwest State Teachers College. Alva. O. W.

Rush.

438 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical College. Still-
water. Harry H. Anderson.

Oklahoma Baptist University. Shawnee. Norman N.
Matthis.

Oklahoma City College. Oklahoma City. Carl W.
Skinner.

Oklahoma College for Women. Chickasha. Clarice
Tatman.

Phillips University. Enid. Spencer Austin.

Southeastern Teachers College. Durant. Pauline
Flint.

Southwestern Teachers 5 College. Weatherford. George
M. Crisp.

University of Oklahoma. Norman. Walter B. Emery.

University of Tulsa. Tulsa. Carl England.

Oregon

Albany College. Albany. Ruth Graham Case.
Linfield College. McMinneville. L. W.. Sawtelle.
Oregon State College. Corvallis. W. A. Dahlberg,

Men s Debate. Paul X. Knoll, Women s Debate.
Oregon State Normal. Monmouth. George Berreman.
Pacific College. Newberg. Chase L. Conover.
Pacific University. Forest Grove. Carlyn R. Winger.
Reed CoUege. Portland. William Blair Stewart.
University of Oregon. Eugene. W. A. Dahlberg.
Willamette University. Salem. Herbert E. Rahe.

835 D. Street.

Pennsylvania

Albright College. Reading. Dr. Raymond A. Houk.

APPENDIX I 439

Allegheny College. Meadville. Hurst R. Anderson.
Bucknell University. Lewisburg. Arthur L. Brandon.
Dickinson College. Carlisle.
Franklin and Marshall College. Lancaster.
Geneva College. Beaver Falls. Dr. Don M. Wolfe.
Gettysburg College. Gettysburg. Dr. Thomas L.

Cline.
Grove City College. Grove City. Hfllier McClure

Burrowes.

Juniata College. Huntingdon. Claude R. Flory.
Lafayette College. Easton.
Lincoln University. Lincoln University.
Muhlenburg College. Allentown. Arthur T. Gilles-

pie. 11 South Sth Street.
Pennsylvania State College. State College. John H.

Frizzell. Joseph F. O Brien.

Swarthmore College. Swarthmore. Everett L. Hunt.
Susquehanna University. Selinsgrove. G. N. Wood.
Temple University. Philadelphia. W. M. Crittenden.

1411 North 16th Street.

University of Pennsylvania. Donald W. Strickler.
University of Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh. William Max-
field Parrish.

Ursinus College. Collegeville. Martin W. Witmer.
Washington and Jefferson College. Washington.

Ezra K. Maxfield.
Waynesburg College. Waynesburg. Leslie V. Brock.

164 First Avenue.
Westminster College. New Wilmington. Ben Euwema.

440 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

Rhode Island

Brown University. Providence. H. B. Huntington.

South Carolina

Anderson College. Anderson. Gertrude Pratt.

The Citadel. Charleston. Major Hugh S. McGillivray.

Clemson Agricultural College. Clemson College. D.
W. Daniel. Rupert Taylor.

College of Charleston. Charleston. L. M. Harris.
M. A. McLaughlin.

Furman University. Greenville. J. F. Bozard.

Newberry College. Newberry. T. E. Espying.

Presbyterian College. Clinton. Malcolm G. Wood-
worth.

University of South Carolina. Columbia. William
Dean. Reed Smith.

Winthrop College. Rock Hill. Dr. Warren Keith.

Wofford College. Spartanburg. W. L. Pugh.

South Dakota

Augustana College. Sioux Falls. Hugo A. Carlson.
Dakota Wesleyan University. Mitchell. George V.

Bohman.
Eastern State Teachers 5 College. Madison. Karl E.

Mundt.

Huron College. Huron. E. H. Jackson.
Northern State Teachers College. Aberdeen. P. J.

Harkness.

Sioux Falls College. Sioux Falls. Arthur C. Gray.
South Dakota School of Mines. Rapid City. C. M.

Rowe.

APPENDIX I 441

South Dakota State College. Blockings. Upton 3.

Palmer. George McCarty. 1932-33.
Southern State Teachers College. Springfield. Charles

Ashton.
University of South Dakota. Vermillion. L. V, Jud-

son.
Yankton College. Yankton. Herbert L. Curry.

Tennessee

Carson and Newman College. Carson. W. Powell
Hale.

Fisk University. Nashville. Dora A. Scribner.

Knoxville College. Knoxville. N. Barr Miller.

Lincoln Memorial University. Harrogate. Earl Hob-
son Smith.

Maryville College. Maryville. Verton M. Queener.

Southwestern College. Memphis. A. P. Kelso.

Tusculum College. Tusculum. James H. Warren.

Union University. Jackson. Dr. H. E. Walters.

University of Chattanooga. Chattanooga. Mrs. Orelle
F. Cornelius.

University of the South. Sewanee. William Howard
McKellar.

University of Tennessee. Knoxville. A. W. McWhor-
ter. John B. Emperor.

Vanderbflt University. Nashville. A. M. Harris.

Texas

Abilene Christian College. Abilene. Don H. Morris.
Austin College. Sherman. C. H. Gillespie.

442 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

Baylor College for Women. Belton. W. H. Vann ;

English. Edna Irwin.

Baylor University. Waco. L. W. Courtney.
East Texas State Teachers College. Commerce.

Maud Webster.
Howard-Payne College. Brownwood Mrs. G. S.

Whitney.

McMurry College. Abilene. Marvin M. Boyd.
Northern Texas State Teachers College. Denton.

Ross Compton.
Sam Houston State Teachers College. Huntsville.

Earl Huffor.
Simmons University. Abilene. Dr. O. E. Baker.

Thelma Andrews.

Southern Methodist University. Dallas. M. McCord.
Southwest State Teachers College. San Marcos. M.

C. Lippman.
Southwestern University. Georgetown. E. R. Har-

din. E. P. Onstot.
Texas Christian University. Fort Worth. Lew D.

Fallis.

Trinity University. Waxahachie. Allan Mote.
University of Texas. Austin. Thomas A. Rousse.

William Oscar Moore.

Utah

Brigham Young University. Provo. T. Earl Pardoe.
University of Utah. Salt Lake City. Laverne Bane.
Utah State College. Logan. Dr. Wallace J. Vickers.
Weber College. Ogden.

APPENDIX I 443

Vermont

Middlebury College. Middlebury. Dr. V. C. Har
rington, 4 Storrs Avenue.
University of Vermont. Burlington, M. D. Powers.

Virginia

Bridgewater College. Bridgewater. F. D. Dove.
Emory and Henry College. Emory. E. R. Casto.
Hampden-Sidney College. Hampden-Sidney. Dr. D.

M. Allen.

Lynchburg College. Lynchburg. C. L. McPherson.
Randolph-Macon College. Ashland. Dr. E. L. Fox.
Randolph-Macon College for Women. Lynchburg.

James Peake.

Roanoke College. Salem. J. F. Prufer.
University of Richmond. Richmond. J. EL Russell.
University of Virginia. Charlottesville. L. H. Hoover.

George Rogers Apts.
Virginia State Teachers College. Farmville. S. M.

Holton.
Washington and Lee University. Lexington. Marvin

G. Bauer.

Westhampton College (University of Richmond Col
lege for Women) . Richmond. Miss Margaret Ross.
William and Mary College. Williamsburg. George E.

Brooks.

Washington

College of Puget Sound. Tacoma. John D. Regester.
Gonzaga University. Spokane. E. A. McNamara.

444 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

Spokane University. Spokane. F. D. Muse.
University of Washington. Seattle. F. Wesley Orr.
Washington State CoUege. Pullman. W. H. Veatch.
Whitman College. Walla Walla. Roy C. McCall.

,West Virginia

Bethany College. Bethany. Emmett E. Roberts.

Concord State Normal. Concord. Edgar P. Bengert.

Davis and Elkins College. Elkins. Jennings Ran
dolph.

Fairmount State Normal. Fairmount. Paul F. Opp.

Marshall College. Huntington. Edwin Turner Stump.

University of West Virginia. Morgantown. Wilbur
Jones Kay. J. Fred McGrew.

West Virginia Wesleyan. Buckhannon. L. C. Staats.
B. W. Folsom.

Wisconsin

Beloit CoUege. Beloit. G. F. Rassweiler.
Carroll College. Waukesha. Verton A. Utzinger.

LaCrosse Normal. LaCrosse. Raymond H. Barnard.
Lawrence College. Appleton. Albert L. Franzke.

815 East Franklin Street.
Marquette University. Milwaukee. Dr. William M.

Lamers.

Ripon College. Ripon. Henry P. Boody.
Oshkosh State Normal. Oshkosh. N. S. James.
River Falls State Normal. River Falls. Justin

Williams.

APPENDIX I 445

Stevens Point Normal Stevens Point. Leland W.

Burrough.
University of Wisconsin. Madison. H. L. Ewbank.

Gladys Borchers, Women s Debate.

Wyoming

University of Wyoming. Laramie. W. E. Stevens.

APPENDIX II

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.

Armed Intervention for Collection of Debts, Vols. 1, 9.
Asset Currency, Vol. 1.

Athletics, Amateur and Professionalism in, Vol. 12.
Bank Notes Secured by Commercial Paper, Vol. 1.

(See also Asset Currency.)
Cabinet System of Government, Vols. 1, 3, 10.
Cabinet Officers in Congress, Vol. 4.
Cancellation of War Debts, Vol. 13.
Capitalism vs. Socialism, etc.

Capitalism is Unsound, Vol. 13.

Social Control of Production and Exchange, Vol. 7.
Central Bank, Vols. 1, 3.
Centralization of Power in Federal Government, Vols.

9, 13. (See also Control of Industry, Vol. 13.}
Chain Store, Vol. 11.
Chfld Labor, VoL 8.
City Manager Plan of Municipal Government, VoL 7.

447

448 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

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 Versus Election of, 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.
Direct Primary, Vol. 3.

Disarmament, International, Vol. 11. (See also Aban
donment of Policy of Military Preparedness,
Vol. 12.)
Divorce

Divorce Is a Social Asset, Vol. 13.

Uniform Marriage and Divorce Laws, Vol. 8.
Education

Amateurism versus Professionalism in College Ath
letics, VoL 12.

Co-education, Vol. 10.

Federal Department of Education, VoL 9.
Educational Qualification for Suffrage, Vol. 1.

APPENDIX II 449

Election of Senators by Popular Vote, Vol. 1.
Emergence of Women from the Home, VoL 12.
Farm Relief

McNary-Haugen Bill, Vol. 9. (Two debates.)

Fixing Prices of Staple Agricultural Products, Vol.

13.

Federal Control of Railroads, VoL 1.
Federal Charter for Interstate Commerce Corpora
tions, etc., Vols. 1, 4.

Federal Control of the Express Business, Vol. 5.
Federal Department of Education, Vol. 9.
Foreign Affairs

Governmental Principles of Mussolini, Vols. 9 y 11.
Foreign Loans and Investments

Armed Intervention for Collection of, Vols. 1, 9.
Foreign Relations

CanceUation of War Debts, Vol. 13.

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.
Government, Change in Form of

Cabinet Form of Government, Vols. 1, 3 3 10.

Centralization of Power in Federal Government,
Vols. 9 y 13.

Educational Qualification for Suffrage, VoL 1.

Election of Senators by Popular Vote, VoL 1.

450 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

Government, Change in Form of (continued)
Personal Liberty, Restriction of by Government,

Vol. P.

Power of the Supreme Court to Declare Laws Un
constitutional, 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 for the Philippines, VoL 5.
Ship Subsidy, Vols. 1, 6.

Government Reforms and Changes in States. (See
State Government.) Guarantee of Bank De
posits, VoL 1.
Hydro-electric Power, Government Ownership and

Control, Vols. 10, 11.
Immigration

Japanese Immigration Law, VoL 8.
Literacy Test, VoL 5.
Restriction of, VoL 1.
Income Tax, Vols. 1, 2.

Incorporation, Federal, Vols. 1, 4. (See Federal In
corporation of Railroads, VoL 1.)
Increase in Army and Navy, VoL 7. (Navy alone,
VoL l.J

APPENDIX IT 451

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, Abolition 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. L

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.
Judges, Appointment vs. Election of, VoL 1.
Judges, Recall of, VoL 2.
Judicial Decisions, Recall of, VoL 4.
Jury System, Abolition of, VoL 10.
Labor and Capital

Benefits of Labor Unions, VoL 1.

Child Labor, VoL 8.

Closed and Open Shop, Vols. 1, 3.

452 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

Labor and Capital (continued)

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. (Two debates.)

Reduction of Wages, Vol. 13.
Labor Unions, Benefits of, Vol. L

Exemption of from Anti-trust Laws, Vol. 7.
League of Nations, Vols. 8, 10.
Light Wines and Beer, Vol. 9.
Liquor Control, Vols. 8, P, 12.
Literacy Test for Immigration, Vol. 5.
McNary-Haugen Bill, Vol. 9. (Two debates.)
Merchant Marine, Government Ownership of, Vol. 6.
Military Problems and War

Abandonment of Military Preparedness, Vol. 12.

Compulsory Military Service, Vol. 6.

Swiss System 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. 1.

Bank Note Secured by Commercial Paper, Vol. L

Central Bank, Vols. 1, 3.

Control of Industry (Credit Control), Vol. 13.

Guarantee of Bank Deposits, VoL 1.

Postal Savings Banks, VoL 1.
Monroe Doctrine, Vol. 5.

APPENDIX II 453

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 Shop vs. Closed Shop, Vols. 1 3 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.)
Railroads

Government Ownership of, Vols. 4, 6, 7.

Federal Control of, Vol. 1.
Raw Materials, Free Trade in, Vol. 2.
Recognition of Russia, Vol. 8.
Reduction of Wages Retard 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.)

Ship Subsidy, Vol. 6.
Short Ballot, Vol. 2.
Single Tax, Vol. 6.
Six Year Term for President, VoL 5.
Social Insurance

Accident, Vol. 4.

454 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

Social Insurance (continued)

Old Age, Vols. 4, 13.

Unemployment, Vols. 11, 12, 13.
Socialistic Control of Production and Exchange, VoL 7.
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 and Protection), Vols. 1, 2, 12.
Taxation

Income Tax, Vols. 1, 2.

Inheritance Tax, Vol. 1.

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.)
Unemployment Insurance, Vols. 11, 12, 13.
Unicameral Legislature, VoL 5.

APPENDIX II 455

Uniform Marriage and Divorce Law, Vol. 8.
Wages

Minimum Wages, Vols. 3, 6. (Two debates.)

Reduction of Wages, Vol. 13.
Working Week, Forty Hours, Vol. 11.

APPENDIX III

List of Colleges, the work of whose debaters

has appeared in the various volumes of

"Intercollegiate Debates "

Volume numbers in which the various colleges ham
had contributions follow the names

Amherst College, Vol. 1.

Baker University, Vol. 1.

Bates College, Vol. 10. (Two debates.) 12.

Baylor College for Women, Vol. 8.

Baylor University, Vol. 2.

Bellevue College, Vol. 2.

Beloit College, Vols. 1, 9.

Bethany College (Kansas), Vols. 9, 11.

Bowdoin College, Vol. 1.

British Columbia, University of, Vol. 8.

British University Student Union, Vol. 10.

Brown University, Vol. 2.

California Institute of Technology, Vol. 8.

Canton College, Vol. 2.

Carleton College, Vols. 6, 10, 13.

Chattanooga, University of, Vol. L

Chicago, University of, Vols. 1, 2.

Cincinnati, University of, Vols. 1, 12.

Colgate University, Vols. 1 } 2, 12.

457

458 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

College of Emporia, Vols. 8, 9.

College of the Pacific, Vol. 9.

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. (Two debates.)

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 CoUege, Vol. 11.

Franklin and Marshall College, Vol. 1.

Friends University, Vol. 6.

Georgia, University of, Vols. 1, 13.

German Universities, Vol. 12.

Glendale Junior College, Vol. 11.

Harvard University, Vols. 1, 2, 13. (Two debates.)

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 CoUege, Vol. 13.

Iowa State Teachers College, Vol. 4.

Iowa Wesleyan College, Vol. 3.

APPENDIX III 459

Johns Hopkins University, Vols. 1, 5.

Kansas State Agricultural College, Vols. 4, 7, 8, 13.

Kansas, University of, Vol. 2, 5.

Kansas Wesleyan, Vols. 4, 8.

Kent College of Law, Vol. 13.

Knox College, Vol. 1.

Lawrence College, Vols. 5, 11.

Los Angeles Junior College, Vol. 11.

Michigan State College, Vols. 9, 12,

Michigan, University of, Vol. 1. (Two debates.)

Minnesota, University of, Vol. 12.

Monmouth College, Vols. 3, 5, 10.

Morningside College, Vols. 3, 7.

New York University, Vol. 1.

North Central College, Vol. 9.

Northern State Teachers College, (South Dakota),

Vols. 8, 12.

Northwestern University, Vols. 1, 11.
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. (Two debates.)
Oxford University (England), Vols. 8, 9, 13.
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 y 7.
Pomona College, Vol. 5.
Redlands, University of, Vols. 6, 7, 8, 11, 13.

460 THE YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING

Ripon College, Vols. 4, 8.
Rochester, University of, Vol. 1.
Rutgers College, Vol. 1.
South Dakota Wesleyan, Vols. 7, 12.
Southern California University, Vols. 6, 9.
Southern California Law School, Vol. 7.
Southwestern College (Kansas), Vol. 7. (Two de
bates.) 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 California at Los Angeles, Vols. 8, 9.
University of the South, VoL 1.
Vanderbilt University, Vol. 1. (Two debates.)
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, VoL 3.
William Jewell College, Vols. 2 } 3, 5.
Willamette University, Vol. 8.
Wisconsin, University of, VoL 11, 12.
Yankton College, Vol. 7.

INDEX

PAGE

CANCELLATION OF WAR DEBTS 3

Affirmative S * "iS* 30

America s interest in Y.Y. .V," 16, 12," 24) 28, 29

Amount already cancelled ; 12

Bibliography ........"" 33

Cancellation and armaments . .... ,. . .. 14

Cancellation and communism 20

Depression ! ! ! ! ! 28

Essential step .". . . !!!.". !.*"."!!!!! 7

French attitude [ . * , ........... 6

Germany can pay i{ 12

Germany s plight ".."/8, lY, 16^ 28

Hitlerism 20

Hoover moratorium 17

International obligations 25," 30, 31

National interests, conflict of 31

Negative 10, 21, 26

Reasons for cancellation 6

Reduction of tariff 7, 14

Reichstag elections, 1928, 1930 22

Reparations 8, 19, 23

Ruhr occupation 16

Versailles treaty , IS

Wiggin committee 18

Young plan 9

CAPITALISM 41

Advantages of 59

Affirmative 41, 52, 66, 82, 87, 90

Bibliography 93

Bread lines 49

Consumer 61

Definitions 46

Depression 43, 49

Distribution of wealth 42, 48, 79, 80, 83

Five year plan 77

Industrial revolution 61

Justice in capitalistic system 70

Labor and capital 44

Labor Party 54, 84

Law of supply and demand 75, 90, 91

461

462 INDEX

Capitalism (continued) PAGE

Mass production 78

Negative 46, 56, 74, 79, 84, 88

Over-production 44, 48, 76, 86

Planning commission 56

Power of wealth 70

Profit motive 63

Public ownership of basic industries 55, 86

Serfdom 62

Small entrepreneur 69

Socialism 52, 58, 64, 71, 81, 82, 87

Stabilization 51, 76

Standard of living 43

Trusts and monopoly 45, 47, 67, 68

Unemployment 50, 67, 83

Utopia 64, 85

Wage system 54, 80

War industries board 73, 88, 91

CENTRAL GOVERJSTMENT 99

Affirmative 99, 111, 126

Bibliography 130

Bureaucracy 118, 121, 128

Child Labor amendment 119

Commissions and boards 120, 123

Competitive work 1 14

Constitution 107, 112, 117, 119

Crime 105

Depression 112, 124

Divorce and marriage laws 103, 115, 128

Education 104, 116, 122, 125

Evils of centralization 108

Federal encroachment on state Ill

Federal grants in aid 109

Federal Reserve board 114

Government benevolent 123

Interstate Commerce Commission 114, 125

Judiciary 120, 128

Local Self-Government 110, 116, 126, 127

National Economic Council 115

National Unity 100

Negative 106, 118, 124

Nullification 127

Professional training 104, 116

Public works 113

Publicly controlled work 114

Railroad control 102, 114

Regulation of trucking 102

Regulation of electric power 102

Social legislation 103, 115

INDEX 463

Central Government (continued) PAGE

Standardized administration 108

Taxation 103, 119

Traffic regulation 103, 104

Weakness of Federal Government 101

CENTRALIZED CONTROL OP INDUSTRY 135

Affirmative 137, 153, 175, 182

Banking system 146, 154

Bibliography 185

Business cycle 143, 151

Capitalization 165

Control of capital 148, 155

Credit control 140, 144, 150, 159, 168, 173, 177

Credit control, Spahr on 178

Communism 162, 175

Definitions 137

Depression 140

Distribution of Income 160, 161

Federal reserve system 144, 157, 167, 177

Fluctuation of values 152, 167

Foreign Loans 142, 143

Foreign Trade 151

Gold reserve 168, 183

Incorporation, Bureau of 157, 158, 164, 176

Invention 173

Issues 138, 153

Labor, control of 147, 154

Law of supply and demand 140

Lockstep civilization 174, 175

Management, control of 149, 151, 156

National Economic Council 138, 157, 160, 170, 172

Negative 145, 162, 172, 178

Panics 141

Panics, causes of 142

Paternalism 182

Plans, comparison of 180, 182

Production, control of 139, 150

Sherman Law !3S

Socialism 138

Stabilization l53

Stabilized doUar 170,179,184

Statistical Board 158, 160, 163, 176

Taxation - i6 *

Types of centralized control 146

Unemployment 141 1 /5

World War - 142

DIVORCE Is A SOCIAL ASSET V";;;"VnV ???

Affirmative 379, 393, 408, 414

464 INDEX

Divorce Is a Social Asset (continued) PAGE"

Alimony 416

Bibliography 417

Chaotic status of marriage and divorce laws 385

Church and state 404

Companionate marriage 392, 412

Fraudulent divorce 400

Immorality and divorce 415

Laxity in divorce laws 388, 390, 409

Marriage, failure of 381, 382, 389, 412

Marriage as a social contract 394

Marriage laws 397

Modern attitude on divorce and marriage, 386, 399, 402, 408, 414

Necessity . of divorce 380

Negative 386, 398, 405, 411

New York law 395

Prevalence of divorce 385

Purpose of marriage 388

Racket 403

Reno, Nevada 396

Roman Catholic attitude 394

Scandinavian experience 396, 413

Separation 406

State control of divorce 401

Undermines marriage 391, 402, 412

Unhappy marriages 383, 410

Welfare of children 406, 410, 413

FIXING PRICES OF STAPLE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS 245

Affirmative 246, 266, 278

Aid to farmers 247

Bibliography 287

Brazil s experience 255

Cooperatives 247

Dumping 264

English rubber experience 255

Export Debenture pkn 248, 256, 273, 281

Export Debenture plan and corn 257

Export Debenture pkn and cotton 273

Export Debenture pkn and meat 258

Export Debenture pkn and wheat 259

Export Debenture pkn, expense of 275, 283

Farm conditions 246, 253

Farm overhead 261, 276

Federal Farm Board - 247, 255

Foreign market 268, 271

Law of Supply and Demand 256, 260

Mortgages 279

Negative 253, 262, 271

Price fixing 254, 262, 265, 281

INDEX 465

Fixing Prices of Staple Agricultural Products (continued,} PAGE

Pricey of farm products 246, 253, 267, 277

Stabilization of prices 247 285

Surplus production 260, 263, 270, 273, 275, 284

Tariff 279, 283

T ^ e s 261, 280

OLD AGE PENSIONS 291

Affirmative ".."..". . //." "291", 305

Bibliography 309

Compulsory 296

Cost of living 293

Dependency 294

General Electric plan 295

Government principle 292

History of pensions 297

Improvidence 298, 305

Institutional care 300, 304, 306, 307

Investment of funds 304

Mass production 293

Negative 297, 301

Pensions 295, 303, 305, 306

Social relief 296

Superannuation 294, 302

Urbanity 292, 303

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 313

Administrative expense 322

Affirmative 313, 325, 337, 352, 359, 367

American federation of labor attitude 332, 335

Benefit, economically 317

Benefit, morally 319

Benefit, physically 318

Bibliography 373

Burden on Industry 321, 329, 342, 354, 358

Charity 316, 324, 360, 364, 370

Chicago Garment workers 351, 356, 364

Commons plan 344

Compulsory 317

Definition 314

Efficiency decreased 333, 340

Eligibility to insurance 327

Employment exchanges 325, 336, 343, 355, 371

Employment not insurable 323

332, 337, 345, 350, 353, 362, 364, 367

Evils of plan 346

Germany s plan 349, 361

Government obligation 314

Great Britain s plan 322, 347, 361

Hoover s attitude 331

466 INDEX

Unemployment Insurance (continued} PAGE

Huber bill 344

Insurance principles 337, 338

Mobility of labor 321, 330

Negative 320, 331, 343, 350, 356, 363

Organized labor 328

Plan of Insurance 326

Reduction of payroll 323

Reserve of labor 316

Security 317

State plan, failure of 358, 360

Summary Affirmative, 371 ; Negative 365

Unemployment 315, 321

Unjust 333, 339, 341

Wages, reduction of 335

Workmen s Compensation, analogy with 356, 360

WAGE REDUCTION RETARDS RECOVERY 191

Affirmative 191, 207, 226, 235

Bibliography 238

Business failures 219, 224

Buying power 193, 198, 200, 215, 222, 229, 234

Capitalism 214, 226

Cost of living 203, 235

Definition 192

Dividends 198, 210, 218, 231

Expansion of Industry 217

Exploitation 213

Fixed costs 205, 206, 216, 223, 227

Frozen assets 218, 230

Hoarding 196, 200

Installment buying 193

Necessity of wage cuts 204, 210, 220, 227

Negative 199, 214, 222, 229

Over-production 194, 215

Panics, 1873, 1893, 1921 201

Plant capacity 217

Producing power 193

Prosperity 202, 233

Unemployment 192, 196, 201

Value of the dolkr 209, 230, 236

Wage cuts 207, 208

APPENDICES

List of colleges contributing debates to "Intercollegiate De
bates" 457

List of debate coaches and managers in American Univer
sities and Colleges 421

Topic Index of Debate Subjects, Volumes I -XIII, "Inter
collegiate Debates" 447

Nichols and Pearson s Intercollegiate

Debates (13 Volumes each - 2.50

Volume VIII of this series has
only just been published (1927).
The English Journal, in review
ing this book in their November
issue made the following state
ment. "The resumption of the
annual volume of this popular
series will be welcomed by high
school and college debaters and
public-speaking instructors. Child Labor, Prohibition,
The League of Nations, Recognition of Soviet Rus
sia, and the Movement for Uniform Marriage and
Divorce Laws are among the nine topics fully treated
In the nine complete debates from as many colleges/

This series contains nearly all the questions dis
cussed in recent years in intercollegiate debates. No
question discussed in an important intercollegiate
debate is omitted. The following is the complete list
of questions fully debated both in the affirmative
and the negative.

VOLUME I

Initiative and Referendum

Abandonment of the Protective Tariff

An Inheritance Tax

Restriction of Foreign Immigration.

Are Labor Unions Beneficial?

Increased Navy

Appointment vs. Election of Judges

VOLUME H

The Income Tax

Tax on Income or Rental Value of Land
Abandonment of the Protective Tariff
Admis sion of Raw Material Free
Conservation of Natural Resources
The Initiative and Referendum
The Short Ballot
The Recall of Judges

VOLUME HI

The Commission Form of Municipal Government

The Direct Primary 1

The Minimum "Wage

Open Shop vs. Closed Shop

Parliamentary vs. Presidential Form of Government

Three-Fourths Decision in Jury Trials

The Central Bank

IV

Cabinet Officers in Congress
Recall of Judicial Decisions
Regulation vs. Dissolution of Trusts
Federal Charter for Corporations
Government Ownership of Railroads
Industrial Accident Insurance
Old Age Insurance

VOLUME V

Abandonment of the Monroe Doctrine

Federal Control of the Express Business

Illiteracy Test for Restricting Immigration

Independence for the Philippines

Unicameral Legislature for State Government s

Injunction in Labor Disputes

Six Year Term for the President of the United States

VOLUME VI

Government Ownership of Telegraph and Telephone

Systems

The Minimum "Wage
The Single Tax

Government Ownership of Merchant Marine
Ship Subsidy

Compulsory Military Service
Government Ownership of Interstate Railroads

VOLUME VH

The Swiss System of Compulsory Military Service

Exemption of Labor Unions from Anti-Trust Legislation

City Manager Plan of Municipal Government

Open Door Policy in China

Socialistic Control of Production and Exchange

Increase in Army and JSTavy

Government Ownership of Interstate Railroads

vm

Prohibition Enforcement

Child Labor Amendment

Recognition of Soviet Government of Russia

Restriction of the Power of the Supreme Court

Exclusion of Japanese Immigration

The League of Nations

Declaration of War by Popular Vote

Uniform Marriage and Divorce Laws

VOI/UME IX

The McNary-Haugen Bill for Farm Relief
Legalisation of Light Wines and Beer in the U. S.
Federal Department of Education
The Governmental Principles of Mussolini
Restriction of Personal Liberty in the United States
Centralization of Power in the Federal Government
Military Protection of Capital Invested in Foreign
Countries

VOLUME X

Ownership and Control of Hydro -Electric Power

Abolition of the Jury System

Abolition of the Insanity Plea in Criminal Cases

Modern Advertising

The League of Nations

Cabinet vs. Presidental Form of Government

Co-education

VOLUME XI

The Chain Store System.

Installment Buying

International Disarmament

Unemployment Insurance

Government Control of Hydro-Electric Power

The Policies of Mussolini

The Forty Hour Week

VOMHMOE XH

Unemployment Insurance

International Free Trade

Ontario (Canada) Plan of Liquor Control

Amateurism vs. Professionalism in College Athletics

State Medical Aid

Emergence of Women from the Home

Abandonment of Policy of Military Preparedness

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 Bemis* 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 & Adams 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

Bla-ckstone s New. Pieces That Will Take Prizes In

Speaking Contests 2.00

Shurter and Watkins New Poems 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 Vote.) 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 (II Volumes) each 2.50

Pi Kappa Delta s Winning Intercollegiate Debates and

Orations- (3 Volumes) each 1.50

Shurter s The Science and Art of Effective Debating. . 2.00

102135