ThisJpoIume is for
REFERENCE USE ONLY
TlTTftf^
INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATES
YEAR BOOK QF^GQKLEQE DE&4
> > i j ' - j* \ % ., *> ., \,
^ ' t' T 'j, "* T i , , ** ft , T ,,.L .^, ^ ,-e . _ *, _
INTERCOLllGIATE
DEBATES
/Ve^ by
EGBERT RAY NICHOLS
Professor of Speech
University of Redlands f California
T
VOLUME XXI
NOBLE & NOBLE, PUBLISHERS, INC.
100 Fifth Avenue, New York City
Copyright, 1940,
By NOBLE AND NOBLE, Publishers, Inc.
EDITOR'S FOREWORD
The twenty-first volume of Intercollegiate Debates is
hereby presented, dedicated to the interests of intercol
legiate debate throughout the country. This number
differs from its twenty predecessors only slightly; yet
perhaps that difference is important for it reflects the
changes in rules and customs of conducting debates.
A comparison with earlier volumes in the series is quite
revealing, for most of the ideals and habits are much
changed from that day to this. The entire trend of
debating has been away from the old, set, formally
committed speeches toward extemporaneous and in
formal address. In order to record a debate nowadays
it is necessary to have a stenographer or to take the
debate by electrical transcription. What modern de
bating lacks in style and polish which the older debates
had is made up in vigor, argumentative clash and ready
rebuttal.
In one of the new features of this volume, Appendix
II, which gives the season's record in tournament de
bating, there is a very definite contrast with those car
ried in several of the earlier volumes of the series.
Here the change in the form and type of debating, in
the type of student organization of leagues and conduct
of contest debate is notable. Few leagues survive that
were once so common to intercollegiate debate. Espe
cially is this true of the old triangular, quadrangular
and pentangular leagues. Now, there are tournaments,
league meets and cjistrict meets. The debates that were
vi EDITOR'S FOREWORD
once held over a period of weeks at the various colleges
are now held in one week-end in a tournament or league
meeting.
The attempt to give the season's record of tourna
ment debating is a new venture, suggested by the old
Year Book, of course, but designed to serve new con
ditions and to reflect the extent and importance of the
new method of debate which has swept the country
during the last decade. As this series reaches its ma
jority or twenty-first year, it was felt that it would be
a good way to celebrate that fact by installing this new
feature of reporting the year in debate. It is hoped
that it will prove informative and popular and may be
continued in succeeding volumes with a much more
complete reporting of the year's events.
This volume reflects an average year in debate.
Most debates and most tournaments were held on the
National Pi Kappa Delta subject, Isolation, and on
the statement adopted by that organization. In New
England and in some of the other eastern states several
other subjects were debated. The Southern Associa
tion of Teachers of Speech used the Conscription of
Wealth in Time of War as its subject and held its
tournament in the spring, shortly after the Pi Kappa
Delta National Meet and in the same state, Tennessee.
One of the leagues in Ohio discussed un-American Ac
tivities; and in Pennsylvania, Civil Liberties and the
Dies Committee was discussed. Here and there de
bates were held on the Third Term for President,
which, in this instance, had more than mere academic
interest. One or two new things developed, possibly
EDITOR'S FOREWORD vii
small in the long run of debating, but of interest in a
yearly chronicle. They were: the invention of a new
type of cross-question debate by the National Forensic
League, whose championship high school debate is
presented in this volume for the first time. Second,
the first television debate, which reveals some new pos
sibilities in debate technique, was held in New York
City between Bucknell University and Columbia Uni
versity. The possibility of using graphs, charts, pic
tures and other visible aids to the speaker developed
in this very first specimen of television debating. These
features may make it much more attractive and popu
lar ultimately than radio debating where the voice is
the sole medium of communication. It makes the
broadcast begin to approach the platform with the re
turn of visual interest. The editor is very glad to
mark this new development by including this first tele
vision debate in this volume. Perhaps it will have
historical significance as the years go by and the new
medium develops.
In this volume the national championship debate of
the Junior College honor society, Phi Rho Pi, appears
for the first time. It is hoped that this organization
will contribute its championship debate again. The
Pi Kappa Delta subject was used; so the Pi Kappa
Delta championship debate could not also be used.
Formerly Pi Kappa Delta has published its champion
ship debate and speech winners in a separate volume
of its own, but as this publication is being dropped, it
is hoped that some of the Pi Kappa Delta convention
debates may be included in future volumes.
viii EDITOR'S FOREWORD
Naturally the war interest is reflected throughout
the volume from Isolation, to Aid to the Allies and Ac
tivities against the "Fifth Column." However, the
events of the war have been rushing so fast since the
editing of these manuscripts was begun that already
what was said last winter and spring is out-of-date and
has merely a sort of historical interest as to what the
college world was thinking during the debate season.
Many of the subjects that we would like to debate to
day will be impossible subjects by the beginning of the
school and college year next September. They will have
been settled on their timeliness will have evaporated
with the resounding echoes of tremendous events. The
war is changing everything and debaters will probably
be driven from the field of foreign affairs in next year's
selections because of the speed of events. The new
National High School subject, "Resolved, that the
power of the Federal Government should be in
creased," is an example of the type of subject that will
have to be resorted to in order to get a subject that
will not be ruined as a debate possibility by the swift
flow of events. The debate on the new high school
subject will be found in this volume.
As we confront the new debate season as this vol
ume comes from the press, and debaters everywhere
will be making plans and preparing for the new season,
the editor wishes to ask that any persons interested in
contributing to the next volume write him and make
preliminary arrangements.
EGBERT RAY NICHOLS,
University of Redlands,
Redlands, California.
CONTENTS
PAGE
EDITOR'S FOREWORD v
DIMINISHING THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERN
MENT 1
University of Redlands vs. College of the Pacific
SUPPRESSION OF UN- AMERICAN ACTIVITIES .... 35
Oberlin College vs. Ohio Wesleyan University
MAINTAINING CIVIL LIBERTIES 73
University of Pittsburgh vs. Pennsylvania State
College
ISOLATION FROM COUNTRIES AT WAR 101
Phi Rho Pi National Championship Debate, Went-
worth Military Academy vs. Glendale Junior
College
INTERNATIONAL FEDERAL UNION OF THE DEMOCRA
CIES 157
Manchester College vs. DePaul University
AID TO THE ALLIES 193
Williams College vs. Middlebury College
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION 235
Colgate University vs. Syracuse University
IMPROVEMENT OF THE DUST BOWL 283
First Television Debate, Bucknell University vs.
Columbia University
ix
x CONTENTS
PAGE
GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION or THE
RAILROADS 311
National Forensic League Championship Debate,
Bristow (Okla.) High School vs. Sioux City
(Iowa) East High School
APPENDICES
1. Topic Index of Debate Subjects Appearing in
the Various Volumes of Intercollegiate Debates 363
2. List of Tournament Results for the Debate
Season of 1939-1940 376
INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATES
DIMINISHING THE POWER OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
A Correspondence Debate on the 1940-1941
High School Question
UNIVERSITY OF REDLANDS AFFIRMATIVE vs. COLLEGE OF
THE PACIFIC NEGATIVE
During the month of May the University of Redlands and the Col
lege of the Pacific engaged in a post-season correspondence debate on
the high school subject for the coming debate season, 1940-41, with a
view to submitting their effort to Intercollegiate Debates for publica
tion.
The new high school question is: Resolved, that the power of the
Federal Government should be diminished.*
The report on the debatability of this proposition is not very fa
vorable. The definition of the term "power" is the difficulty as the
Pi Kappa Delta college debaters discovered several years ago in the
discussion of the "Powers of the President should be increased."
The College of the Pacific debaters won the tournament at Linfield
during the season, and the Redlands debaters won the Western Speech
Tournament and the National Pi Kappa Delta Tournament. In this
debate, however, Eugene Sill substituted for Carl Burness of the
University of Redlands team and Gregg Phifer substituted for Wil
liam Biddick on the College of the Pacific team. These season records
were made on the Pi Kappa Delta subject, Isolation.
* Editor's Note: Although the wording of the question has since
been changed to read: "Resolved, that the power of the Federal Gov
ernment should be increased," the essence of the question remains the
same.
DIMINISHING THE POWER OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
First Affirmative, William Roskam
University o Redlands
FRIENDS: The question for debate is: Resolved, that
the power of the Federal Government should be dimin
ished. Contemporary and recent actions render this
question pertinent for discussion.
In defining the terms and achieving the meaning of
the question, it would be well to review briefly the
establishment of the power of the Federal Government.
In 1788 with the ratification of the Constitution by
all of the states, the Federal Government was set up
and given certain powers. These powers were divided
into three forms: legislative, executive and judicial.
Soon after the Constitution had been ratified, deline
ating certain powers to the Federal Government, there
was seen a need to make a reservation of powers to the
people. The first ten amendments to the Constitution,
known as the "Bill of Rights" was the result. The de
sirability of the "Bill of Rights," as a guarantee to the
people of their freedom of action, has never been de
nied in any valid manner.
As time passed and the action of government con
tinued, powers were used and interpreted which re
sulted in a general expansion. This expansion took
place through the passage of laws, the redelegation of
3
4 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
power and the interpretation of original and legislated
power.
From these facts it is obvious that the framers of
the question were not asking for a diminishing of power
by removal or destruction of some definite power origi
nally granted in the Constitution, such as the power to
coin money or declare war. What the framers of the
question, by logic and by necessity of practical inter
pretation, must have meant, was a diminishing of power
in use. Thus the word "power" shall be defined as
"power in use," this is the definition upon which the
Affirmative will predicate the discussion to follow. In
asmuch as no other terms are in need of defining we
shall proceed with the Affirmative case.
May we first point out, it is possible to dimmish the
power of the Federal Government. It is possible to
diminish the power of the Federal Government through
the removal of the legislative and judicial powers of
commissions. Ordinarily, a law is passed through
Congress with a provision for a commission. The
avowed purpose of the commission is to administer the
law. But by assumption of legislative and judicial ac
tivities the commission increases the power of the Fed
eral Government, because the agency exercising these
powers exercises all of them as one body, and there is
no check or balance of one group against another.
It is possible to diminish the power of the Federal
Government by the removal of these powers because
the Government has only recently begun to exercise
such powers. For example, the following editorial
from the Saturday Evening Post of April 27 states:
POWER OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 5
Chester Allen Everts is a Texas oil operator. In Feb
ruary he inserted a large display advertisement in the Watt
Street Journal which read in part: 'Wanted Fast! One
man with $15,000 in cash money or two men with $7500
cash money each. I am just getting ready to dig a 4300-
foot well on an 80-acre property in Ector County, West
Texas, that is right square between production. 5
Two weeks later, the same newspaper carried another dis
play advertisement paid for by Mr. Everts which read:
'On February 27th I advertised in this paper ... I sure
didn't know I was breaking any law. Since then I have
been notified by the Securities and Exchange Commission
that in publicly making that offer I had violated their rules. 7
Mr. Everts has been drilling wells for twenty years and
has been a success at it. He is not a promoter of oil stocks.
The SEC was created to prevent frauds and abuses in the
security market. But if its power extends to preventing a
man in Texas from advertising for a partner with $15,000,
we wonder just where the power of the SEC may end.
It follows, in reason, that if the SEC can do this lawfully,
then it can prevent a man with a hamburger stand from
advertising a half interest for sale for $150, or what have
you, until he has filed a formal financial statement on the
official offering sheet. The Business Opportunity columns
in the want-ad pages in any city carry dozens of offers no
different in principle from Mr. Everts: Here is an adver
tiser offering a beauty shop 'cost $1100, sacrifice for $400.'
Here is another who would sell his gas station at a sacrifice,
a third seeking a partner to invest $600 new capital in a
going luncheonette.
Puzzled, we wrote Mr. Jerome Frank, chairman of the
SEC, asking him the distinction, if any, between the Everts
ad and these. Was it the intent of Congress that the SEC
should police the small finances of the barber, the butcher
and the baker? Ten days later he had not replied.
6 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
True, this quotation is long but the story is com
plete, and we shall refer back to it, which probably
justifies its length. From this editorial it is clear that
it would be very possible to return to the people some
of the power they formerly exercised through complete
freedom of contract. In further support of the practi
cability of removing some of the power from commis
sions, we offer the Logan-Walter bill; certainly many
of our legislators show their belief in its feasibility
when they support it.
The second issue the Affirmative would like to intro
duce is that it is desirable to diminish the power of the
Federal Government by limiting and separating the
power of commissions.
Inherent in the Constitution are certain principles,
part of which are expressed by Montesquieu in Spirit
0/ icraw, Bk. XI, Ch. 6, 154.
Again, there is no liberty if the judiciary power be not
separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined
with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would
be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would then
be the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power,
the judge might behave with violence and oppression.
There would be an end of everything, were the same man,
or the same body, whether of the nobles or of the people,
to exercise those three powers, that of enacting laws, that
of executing the public resolutions and that of trying the
causes of individuals.
We of the Affirmative contend that any grouping of
these powers is undesirable and leads to an increase of
"power in use" and to a tremendous increase of pos
sible "power in use."
POWER OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 7
In the January 19th issue of the United States News,
the following quotation concurs with the Affirmative
view: "At Chicago, the Circuit Court commented in the
decision involving The Inland Steel Corporation: 'The
whole record in this case convincingly discloses . . .
the danger of imposing upon a single agency the mul
tiple duties of prosecutor, judge, jury and execu
tioner.' "
The desirability of diminishing the power of the
Federal Government is given further impetus when we
see the support given the Logan-Walter bill. In the
United States News of April 26, 1940, it is stated that
"The measure would provide, according to the New
York Herald Tribune (Rep.) <a much-needed check on
the unrestricted growth of administrative law the
rules and decisions made by various administrative
agencies. Complaint most frequently made against
these bodies is that their rulings are often arbitrary and
can only with difficulty be appealed.' "
For instance, not only is freedom of contract in
fringed upon by some of its actions, but the NLRB has
curtailed the right of free speech on the part of em
ployers, which is guaranteed by the Constitution. As
a government we have been drifting into a situation
very similar to the one which resulted in the establish
ment of the Bill of Rights. The people were willing to
delineate certain powers to the Federal Government
but wanted freedom of action without governmental re
straint in other matters. Recently we have been per
fectly willing to allow the assumption and combination
of power by the Federal Government to curb certain
8 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
abuses in the business and industrial world, but when
that power hinders undesirably the people's freedom of
action, guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, then a change
must be made. The power of the Federal Government
must be diminished in order to return certain rights
originally retained by the citizen.
First Negative, Martin Pulich
College of the Pacific
FRIENDS: Since the date of the ratification of our
Constitution, many changes have occurred in the fields
of invention and usage. With the development of new
techniques relationships within society were directed
into channels necessitating new forms of social control.
Government, the instrument of social organization, real
ized an increased concept of service and regulation.
Inevitably government had to broaden its functions to
meet the demands of the people. Within each political
jurisdiction local, state, and federal new powers
were assumed to meet the new needs. We are now
asked to consider whether or not the authority vested
with our National Government should be lessened.
In opening the argument for reduction of the power
of our National Government, the first Affirmative
speaker has stated that it is possible to reduce the
power by limiting the activities of certain commissions.
The Securities Exchange Commission has been speci
fically cited. We take issue on the point that such ac
tion would constitute a reduction in power. A change
in the administration of the Securities Exchange Com-
POWER OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 9
mission would not be a diminution of the control of
Federal power, for there must be a restriction or limi
tation placed on the constitutional sanction to exercise
authority over a given area of economic affairs. Specifi
cally, we ask: Should the Federal Government relin
quish its authority to regulate securities? Such a step
would be a reduction in actual control. Should the
administration of the legislation be placed in some
agency other than the Securities Exchange Commis
sion? If such an agency were a state or local agency,
there would be a diminishing of authority. Or is the
question simply: Should the act be amended so as spe
cifically to permit a business man to advertise for a
partner? We do not feel that it is necessary to with
hold the right of control to correct a matter of ad
ministration.
The second issue advanced by Mr. Roskam is that it
is desirable to limit and separate the powers of com
missions. He has suggested that the administration of
the legislation be reallocated to other divisions in the
Federal Government. If this step were taken, we con
tend that the Government will not have suffered a re
duction in power. The right of control over that area
would remain in the hands of the Federal Government.
It would be a question of the method in which Congress
should provide for administration of legislation rather
than a question of limitation of Federal authority. At
this point we should like to clarify our position in this
matter; we do not wish to assume the attitude that no
change should be made in certain legislation if such
changes are necessary to make the legislation more ef-
io YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
fective, but we do feel that the jurisdiction should re
main within the powers of the National Government.
It is obvious, then, that mere alteration in the form
of administration of governmental powers does not con
stitute limitation. As it was indicated in the opening
remarks of this address, government has greater bur
dens with the modern demands for social control. It
is the Negative contention in this discussion that it is
necessary to keep intact Federal authority. The pur
poses to which the control is used by the Government
are justifiable and necessary. Problems of the proper
functioning of the socio-economic life of the nation
must be solved by government. To that end certain
measures of regulation have been included within the
scope of the power of the Federal Government, and
such control must continue to be exercised. In uphold
ing the use of power by the Federal Government, we
refer to our statement that to diminish means to re
move from the jurisdiction, and we are opposed to any
step in this direction. The constitutional or legislative
effort to deny the right of control would specifically
challenge the welfare of the nation, in that much
needed checks on abuses would be removed or rendered
impotent.
Let us examine some of the realms in which the use
of power is necessary to the protection of the people.
The Affirmative has indicated the Securities Exchange
Commission with the exertion of undue control over
private enterprise. For many years prior to the pas
sage of such legislation thousands of citizens were an
nually deprived of investments and savings because of
POWER OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT n
unscrupulous tactics employed in the sale of securities
on the market. The restrictions placed on the market
ing of stocks and bonds are to protect the investor from
being duped by the fraudulent claims of promoters of
worthless securities by refusing to grant a license for
the sale of any issue which is not financially sound. We
insist that such power should be retained.
Another agency condemned by Mr. Roskam is the
National Labor Relations Board. Again we find that
the purpose for the legislation is to protect a certain
group within our society. For years conflict between
labor and capital has disrupted relations within indus
try. We admit that within the provisions of the legis
lation certain undesirable provisions for enforcement
exist, but these can be changed without limiting the
power of the government in the field of labor relations.
There must be regulation of the activities of collective
bargaining, and such regulation is rightfully in the
scope of Federal control.
Let us turn to some other agencies. The Federal
Trade Commission is somewhat similar to the National
Labor Relations Board in its regulation of fair trade
practices within industry. For many years ruinous
competition impaired not only business but the public.
Again the power of the Federal Government was uti
lized to correct the unfair trade practices and provide
the proper safeguards. Another area in which the Fed
eral Government has used its authority is in the regula
tion of commerce. Again the circumstances demanded
some type of limitation to correct the existing evils.
With the establishment of the Interstate Commerce
12 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
Commission, the regulation of the carriers has pro
duced the proper elimination of the abuses in the sys
tem. From these instances it can be seen that social
control is necessary and justifiable.
The final question is : Can the power be exercised by
any other agency of government? For the solution to
problems national in scope, we must turn to the Fed
eral Government. We have seen the necessity of such
regulation. Such social control is not forthcoming
from the states. In many instances the states refuse
to take the necessary measures to insure the proper
regulations. For years some of the states have refused
to enact child labor laws and minimum wage and maxi
mum hour laws to apply within their political bound
aries. To correct these problems we must turn to the
National Government as the states are unwilling to
overcome their inertia. There is a further objection to
the exercising of the power by the states. Such meas
ures of social control must have national uniformity to
be effective. Such is impossible with state-wide legisla
tion. Within each state there would be a different law
as each state competed with the other to minimize
the stringency of its provisions to encourage evasion.
With such a situation social control becomes ineffective
and inoperative.
The welfare of our social order is dependent on the.
judicious application of social control and we feel that
such authority should not be diminished within the
Federal Government. As we have indicated we do not
consider the provisions of administration an inherent
part of the power of the Federal Government. We ad-
POWER OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 13
vocate the correction of administrative errors so as to
provide more effective enforcement. We close with
these questions for the Affirmative: Should the Federal
Government relinquish its right to control the market
ing of securities? Should the regulation of industrial
relations be denied to our National Government?
Should unfair trade practices be restricted by Con-
/---gress?
^y Should we limit the power of the Federal Govern
ment to regulate the railroads?
Can any other agency of government provide the
^ necessary social controls?
>
Second Affirmative, Eugene Sill
University of Redlands
vj FRIENDS: In this question: Resolved, that the power
/I of the Federal Government should be diminished, the
I ' Affirmative has received a barrage of questions from
the Negative in an attempt to commit the Affirmative
to statements that obscure the main issues. (1) Are
1/3 regulations upon certain industries necessary? (We
^ are expected to say yes or no.) (2) Are there any
other agencies of government that could provide such
controls? (We are expected to choose.) The Nega
tive is trying to force us into an apparent dilemma
by assuming that all we are really doing is shifting
the powers of the Federal Government to the state
or local governments, or dividing them between new
Federal commissions to maintain separation of pow
ers but still leaving all control in the Federal
14 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
Government, hence, not diminishing government
power; or that we believe the industries of America
should not be controlled at all. We observe, however,
the phases of control of which they speak. Our answer
is: Securities should be controlled, but constitutionally.
Perhaps the Federal Government should do it; but
again we say, "constitutionally." More likely, even if
the Federal Government were not controlling them, the
sale of securities will never again be such a speculative
undertaking as it was in the twenties because of the
fears that have since arisen; so perhaps this issue is
not very important. The Affirmative is not prepared
to say whether the Government should have launched
out on a policy of control or whether such a policy
should be revoked today, but it notices some assump
tions that the Negative has made. First, they say
some form of government must control all abuses.
That statement they nowhere prove. Second, they for
get that other factors, such as natural changes in at
titudes or practices, often are more effective controls
than are legislative acts. We cannot accept any as
sumption which attempts to say that when an abuse
arises there is but one agency to control it some
form of government and that agency must control it,
even at the expense of constitutional rights of Ameri
cans! We should again clarify our stand, then. Those
fundamental constitutional powers given to the Fed
eral Government should not be diminished, nor should
any constitutional regulation of industry and society
be diminished. But it is the unconstitutional controls
that the Federal Government places upon the employer
POWER OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 15
and employees in such agencies as the NLRB, the
SEC, etc. to which we object. In other words, we in
sist upon a limitation of power we have defined as
"power in use." The Negative nowhere has mentioned
or disproved our definition of the term "power" in this
debate. Therefore, we assume they accept it and pro
ceed to circumvent it. They ignore the difference,
which we pointed out between the constitutional and
fundamental powers delegated to the Federal Govern
ment and the result of certain assumptions of practical
"power in use." They do not actually say that they
reject our definition and insist upon our diminishing
powers in the constitution delegated to the Federal
Government but they would like to steer the discussion
toward the Federal vs. States' Rights issue. Now as
to their circumvention of "power in use."
One of the chief points of contention is whether the
Affirmative is merely shifting controls from a commis
sion such as the NLRB to some other agency; thus
leaving all the power with the Federal Government.
No, we are not. When the legislative, executive and
judicial functions are carried out by one agency,
tyranny may be, and is, as we shall see, rampant, and
"power in use" transcends delegated constitutional
power. When those functions are segregated as they
should be, the tyranny is lessened and "power in use"
is diminished and no longer unconstitutional. The
Negative refuses to admit this diminishing of actual
power, or ignores it.
If the NLRB can deny freedom of speech to an em
ployer, can enforce the decision, and can then declare
16 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
that decision legal, there is much more chance for con
stitutional violations by agencies of government than
if the board were merely executive in nature and must
carry out not its own decisions but those of Congress
or of the President. The valuable safeguard of division
of powers must not be violated. So the Affirmative
would not relinquish the right to control industry, but
it would not permit the use of dictatorial and uncon
stitutional methods to control it, merely because we
might feel control to be so necessary as to warrant any
abuses on the part of government.
We believe not only that the principle of the division
of powers is being violated by control through com
missions, but that unlawful delegation of legislative
power to commissions is occurring. The Constitution
forbids Congress to delegate its powers. And yet that
is what Congress does when it gives to the NLRB the
right to deny an employer the privilege of deciding
which labor union shall dominate in his business. If
Congress feels it must control the minute details of
businesses, then let it either work out the minute de
tails so that they may be subjected to testing by the
Supreme Court, or else let the Congress appoint com
missions that are solely legislative or solely judicial. If
some agency must determine the legality of an act of
Congress, or of a commission, the Congress or the com
mission itself must not do it. It must be some court.
And that court should be entirely separate from the
agency. In any case, it is a dangerous practice for the
Congress of the United States to delegate its authority,
even for the sake of so-called efficiency. Again, the
POWER OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 17
Affirmative does not think any efficiency more valuable
than the fundamental right of freedom of speech.
Of the Logan-Walter bill for controlling bureau
cracy, my colleague has spoken. The Washington Star
is quoted in the United States News for April 26, 1940,
page 26: "The need for curbing the ever-widening au
thority assumed by executive agencies is no whit abated
by President Roosevelt's complaint that administrative
processes would be slowed unduly if they were required
to conform more closely to the pattern of the courts.
Speed, however, is not always either desirable or essen
tial." The Affirmative believes that when national
policy must decide between speed and fundamental
rights, the latter must be chosen.
We have a reason for constant references to the
NLRB. In this one agency there has been a very
dangerous extension of Federal power; an extension
which even the Supreme Court as now constituted
seems unwilling to curb. Because of the critical status
of the labor-capital problem and because of the so-
called liberality of the Court, there is a hesitation to
act in any more than individual cases. We believe
that power should so be divided that constitutional
controls are possible, and yet that the "power in use"
now exerted against the employers may be drastically
reduced.
The career of the NLRB has been a checkered one
since its inception. Charges of favoritism in struggles
between capital and labor and between various labor
organizations have been underlined by the very con
stitution of the Act itself which forbids the Board to
i8 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
hear the complaints of employers but to listen to em
ployees. The Revue for June, 1937, page 93, points
out that charges by employers are never investigated
and also that the Board may appeal to the Circuit
Court of Appeal for an enforcement order against the
employer. Here, then, is cause and opportunity in
plenty for flagrant abuses. If the employer cannot
complain but can be subjected to the decisions of the
Board without a chance for a fair trial of his griev
ances, there is certainly disregard for the constitu
tional practices of legal trial and of the division of
power. President Roosevelt when signing the Act said
that the Board was to be quasi-judicial and would thus
interpret the Wagner Labor Relations Act. The Af
firmative does not object to that statement. But in
so far as the Board is an enforcement agency at the
same time, and makes administrative laws, and in so
far as it may discriminate between individuals, even
to the extent of suppressing freedom of speech and
trial to the employer, we object.
In fact, the Act itself must by nature suppress the
rights of employers, a very dangerous instance of
"power in use" by Congress. In the Digest for Sep
tember 25, 1937, the following statement is made
(quoting from The New York Times}: "Those who
are directing their protests against the present deci
sions of the Labor Board would much better direct
them, in most cases, to demands for revision of the
one-sided Act under which these decisions must be
made." Dorothy Thompson in the Literary Digest
for Jan. 23, 1937, page 8, indicated that the Board was
POWER OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 19
also a legislative body, disregarding again the principle
of divided powers.
The charges that were hurled against the Act in the
early months of its existence are still characteristic.
According to the United States News of January 19,
1940, more than eighty cases involving the Labor Board
are now pending in the eleven Federal Appeals Courts.
On page 12 of that issue of the United States News is
found the following startling decision: "At Chicago
the Circuit Court commented in the decision involving
the Inland Steel Corporation, 'The whole record in this
case convincingly discloses ... the danger of impos
ing upon a single agency the multiple duties of prose
cutor, judge, jury and executioner.' " Of the last
fourteen cases in the Circuit Courts, the Board lost
twelve, wholly or in part.
The NLRB is merely an example of the procedures
of other quasi-judicial and administrative agencies. In
opposition to such governmental machinery the Logan-
Walter bill has been pushed through the House of
Representatives by a vote of 282 to 97. It has two
provisions: to require administrative agencies of the
Federal Government to have fixed rules of procedure:
and to permit appeals to the courts from the orders
issued by such agencies. The Interstate Commerce
Commission and the Federal Trade Commission are
justifiably exempt. According to the United States
News, April 26, 1940, page 18, there are now 130 Fed
eral agencies which have administrative authority.
"They interpret laws, make rules which they may
change at will, and issue orders which have the effect
20 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
of law. They combine legislative, executive and judi
cial authority."
Hence, it is obvious that action is being taken today
to remedy the evil which we of the Affirmative have
shown to exist. In brief summary, let us see what the
Affirmative has done. We have not desired to remove
any fundamental powers of the Federal Government
received from the Constitution, but have desired to
diminish some of the "powers in use" of the Federal
Government. We believe that agencies of government
may in certain important instances need to control in
dustry, but we do not believe that, even at the cost of
decreased efficiency, undemocratic and unconstitutional
methods of control should be used. We have shown
what some of the tyrannical practices of Federal ad
ministrative boards have done to the rights of individ
uals and of society as a whole. We have shown that
agencies such as the NLRB have been partisan and
unfair. Further, we have seen how dangers lie in two
general directions: (1) Federal agencies destroy the
principle of the balance of power between branches of
the government; (2) Congress is unlawfully delegating
its authority under such conditions. These procedures
result in violations of the constitutional rights of citi
zens; therefore, we advocate that such "power in use"
be limited and diminished. With these concepts we
conclude our case.
POWER OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 21
Second Negative, Gregg Phifer
College of the Pacific
FRIENDS: The gentlemen of the Affirmative are un
willing to assume the burden imposed by a common-
sense interpretation of the question. They refuse to
argue that the Federal Government should relinquish
some or all of its attempts to correct social ills. Let me
cite my colleague's question: "Should the Federal Gov
ernment relinquish its right to control the marketing of
securities?" The second Affirmative speaker answers:
"Securities should be controlled. . . . Perhaps the
Federal Government should do it. . . ."
In short, the Affirmative speakers agree with us
upon what we consider should be the major issue of the
debate. However, they are understandably reluctant to
condemn Federal intervention to protect the public
from flagrant abuses of Wall Street gamblers. This
and social security, minimum wage legislation, pure
food standards are part of the signs of our times. The
logic of events moves relentlessly, demanding exten
sion, not diminution, of Federal responsibility and
consequent power.
The Affirmative speakers define power as "power in
use," but leave the latter term undefined. The major
Affirmative attack is upon unconstitutional use of
power or "power in use" by the Federal Govern
ment. Do you doubt my analysis? In his brief speech
Mr. Sill employs the word "constitutional" ten times,
and "unconstitutional" four times. Answering my col
league's question about Federal control of securities,
22 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
Mr. Sill says, "Securities should be controlled, but con
stitutionally. Perhaps the Federal Government should
do it, but again we say constitutionally. " Note again,
"Those fundamental constitutional powers given to the
Federal Government should not be diminished, nor
should any constitutional regulation of industry and
society be diminished." Consider that last statement.
The Affirmative in this debate upon the proposition
that the powers of the Federal Government should be
diminished, argues that no constitutional regulation of
industry and society should be diminished. With that
stand we are in wholehearted agreement.
Do you see the Affirmative strategy? It is to force
upon us the burden of defending unconstitutional acts,
violations of civil liberties, by the Federal Government.
This burden we refuse to assume; we do not intend to
defend unconstitutional procedures. But we do intend
to refuse Mr. Sill and Mr. Roskam the right of saying
whether any act of the Federal Government or of one
of its agencies is unconstitutional. This is not their
prerogative, either in this debate or in national life.
That is reserved to the Supreme Court, whose liberal
ity Mr. Sill deplores, but for whose action he offers no
substitute. Any truly unconstitutional, illegal acts of
the Federal Government will be invalidated by our
highest tribunal. This is, therefore, a false issue and
may be waived from our discussion.
The minor Affirmative attack has been on the rising
tide of what is called administrative law. Checks and
balances are eliminated, so the gentlemen argue, and
POWER OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 23
detailed administrative regulations established. In sup
port, they cite, primarily, the NLRB.
Notice again the major attack, quoting Mr. Sill: "It
is the unconstitutional controls that the Federal Gov
ernment places upon the employer and employees in
such agencies as the NLRB, the SEC, etc. to which we
object." Unconstitutionality is the first and most se
rious charge.
The minor attack upon the NLRB is its alleged
arbitrary nature; the NLRB "legislates" minute rules
for the regulation of industrial relations, enforces its
decisions, and judges their validity. Upon this ques
tion we deem Chief Justice Hughes a more competent
authority. Quoted in The Nation for April 27, 1940,
he says:
The act establishes standards to which the Board must
conform. There must be complaint, notice and hearing.
The Board must receive evidence and make findings. The
findings as to facts are to be conclusive, but only if sup
ported by evidence. The order of the Board is subject to
review by the designated court, and only when sustained
by the court may the order be enforced.
Let us further remember that rules and regulations
of this and other Federal agencies serve solely to im
plement specific congressional legislation. Could Con
gress debate the cost of a railroad ticket from Los
Angeles to New Orleans? Could it debate the dates
for holding elections to determine the collective bar
gaining agent for steel workers in Gary, aircraft em
ployees in Southern California, mill workers in Massa
chusetts? Such power has been and must continue to
24 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
be delegated to the ICC, the NLRB or to other Federal
administrative agencies. Only when the Federal Gov
ernment ceases to perform these services for the people
can it cease giving administrative authority to agencies
such as those which the Affirmative team attacks.
A final issue arises over the practicability of the
Affirmative proposition. Can the power of the Federal
Government be diminished by immediate, practical
acts? If so, how? Here the burden of proof is clearly
upon the Affirmative speakers. They must suggest
ways and means of diminishing the power of the Fed
eral Government. Consequently, they should have
stated, in at least general terms, legislative or judicial
procedures designed for that purpose.
The lone legislative proposal is the Walter-Logan
bill; there are no concrete suggestions for judicial re
form. In fact, upon this issue our question might be :
Resolved, that the Walter-Logan bill should be adopted.
Through analyzing this one suggestion, we shall
expose the danger inherent in the proposition. Efforts
to diminish the power of the Federal Government by
circumscribing its agencies with minute regulations
and endless litigation would result in checkmating its
efforts to intervene in labor-capital relations or to cor
rect other abuses of our economic system. No better
illustration of the negative destructiveness of such at
tempts could be found than the Walter-Logan bill.
As the editors of The Nation comment in their issue
for April 27, 1940, this piece of legislative skulduggery-
represents an attempt to hamstring government through
encouraging endless litigation. Let me quote further
POWER OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 25
from that editorial: "The Walter-Logan biU is the
greatest labor saving device hit upon by the enemies of
the New Deal. If it passes, they can sit back and
wait for the Roosevelt reform agencies to be buried
under a landslide of litigation."
Time, on April 29th, said:
The independent Brookings Institution . . . found that
the bill would seriously retard and hamper the processes of
government . . . leave the administration of statutes open
to obstructive and dilatory tactics ... be contrary to our
basic concepts of the judicial process . . . demoralizing
government departments, destroying their efficiency, delay
ing the transaction of government business to an excessive
and intolerable degree, and greatly enhancing the cost of
government.
Here is legislative sabotage on a national scale. The
Walter-Logan bill is not a frontal condemnation of the
NLRB, the SEC and other New Deal agencies; it is
a knife stuck into their backs.
And this is the one definite Affirmative proposal.
Unwilling to attack squarely, advocating repeal of the
NLRB and death for the SEC, they seek to accomplish
the same result through crippling, delaying legislation
the Walter-Logan bill. Not too unfair for these tac
tics is the label, "reaction through circumlocution."
What do we believe? We believe that the Federal
Government has been forced to intervene in our in
creasingly complex society to protect the interests of
the public. We believe that any unconstitutional or
unlawful powers granted by Congress to administrative
agencies should and will be dealt with by the Supreme
26 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
Court, and that legal advice to that body by the gen
tlemen of the Affirmative is presumptuous. We be
lieve that the Affirmative speakers have failed to sug
gest any practical measure for correcting the alleged
abuses in Federal agencies. We believe that their one
direct proposal the Walter-Logan bill shows the ex
treme danger of sabotaging all desirable social legis-
ation in the attempt to correct alleged abuses of
administration.
Negative Rebuttal, Martin Pulich
College of the Pacific
FRIENDS: At this point in the debate let us clarify
the position of the Affirmative and the Negative. It
would seem that the fundamental issue in the discus
sion should be: Should the authority vested in the
National Government be lessened? Upon this issue
the Affirmative refuses to clash; hence, the arguments
which have been presented have failed to establish any
specific suggestion wherein the power of the National
Government should be diminished. Rather we have
been concerned with minor considerations as to whether
the activities of certain boards and commissions should
be curtailed or amended. We of the Negative would
like to state our position toward all such amendments.
If the amendments do not curtail the right of the Fed
eral Government to exercise control over the specific
fields, we believe that they could be adopted without
any implication to either the Affirmative or Negative
interpretation of the question.
POWER OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 27
Again, we repeat that we do not consider the sugges
tion, that the reallocating of the administration of
certain powers of the Federal Government from their
present agencies by dividing the number of boards and
commissions, is a reduction in power as long as such
authority remains within the Federal Government. We
have specifically challenged the Affirmative as to
whether reallocation meant a diminution of authority.
And the speakers have replied at length with the argu
ment that such a revision would constitute diminishing
the power of the Federal Government because there
has been an unconstitutional division of powers by
Congress. I reaffirm my colleague's stand on this
point. If the issue is to be that of constitutionality
versus unconstitutionality, we feel that the question is
undebatable as we certainly do not intend to uphold
that which is unconstitutional. We do, however, chal
lenge the authority with which the Affirmative has
branded certain legislation unconstitutional. We have
heard the indictments against the National Labor Re
lations Board. It must be remembered that all orders
of the Board are enforced by the Circuit Court of Ap
peals, and that anyone who feels that he has been
aggrieved by the Board may petition his case to the
courts. Hence, there is no dictatorship or tyranny
here. Furthermore, the Board has been upheld by
the Supreme Court as constitutional. We ask the Af
firmative, then, what change do they propose. We feel
that the Board and the Act should be changed, but that
such change would not constitute a reduction in the
power of the Federal Government as long as the right
28 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
to regulate relations between capital and labor remains
within the constitutional powers of the Federal Gov
ernment.
Lastly, the Affirmative has upheld the Walter-Logan
bill which seeks to establish extra procedure to carry
out the activities of government. Mr. Phifer has at
tacked the undesirability of such legislation designed
to thwart governmental attempts to curb social ills.
We note, however, that the Affirmative is in favor of
some boards and commissions, the Interstate Com
merce Commission and the Federal Trade Commission.
At this point we feel that there is an inconsistency, for
these boards operate in much the same manner as those
agencies which they have branded. We ask: Is it the
method in which the board operates, or the purpose for
which it operates, that is the underlying reason for
your attack? You have been unwilling to uphold the
latter approach and yet such an inference is the only
one which can be clearly drawn.
In closing this rebuttal we find that the question has
not been faithfully upheld by the Affirmative. Rather
than assume the approach to States 7 Rights or laissez
faire, they seek to avoid limiting the power of the
Federal Government by arguing unconstitutionally
and divisions of power. We have, therefore, only a
negative interpretation of the question.
POWER OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 29
Affirmative Rebuttal, William Roskam
University of Redlands
FRIENDS: The gentlemen of the Negative accuse us
of being unwilling to assume the burden imposed by a
common-sense interpretation of the question, that in
terpretation, of course, being the one assumed by the
Negative. We wish to point out that they are unwill
ing to meet the issue presented by the Affirmative in
terpretation of power as "power in use." They ignore
the existence of such a thing and refuse to meet it.
Now we might have proposed a "common-sense" reduc
tion of the power of the Federal Government by tak
ing away its constitutional right to declare war, and
we might have proposed the Ludlow Amendment which
gives that power to the people by popular vote. How
ever, we did not think that the f ramers of the question
intended us to debate the Ludlow Amendment or they
would have phrased the question: Resolved, that the
United States should adopt the Ludlow Amendment to
the Constitution.
We felt that the framers of the question wanted to
have a discussion of the growing centralization of
power in the Federal Government which has come
about without adding any clauses to the powers given
in the Constitution. The citizens feel the power of
government when it reaches out to take in new terri
tory and governs matters formerly left to the free
action of the citizen. This extension of power through
legislation, we defined as "power in use." The gentle
men cannot understand this. Their minds reach only
3 o YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
to fundamental powers set forth in the Constitution.
They cannot conceive of practical power or "power
in use." Every one of the series of questions asked by
the first Negative speaker ignores the interpretation of
practical power. All are asked in general terms, ig
noring the fact as presented in the first speech that
three powers in the hands of one group constitute more
"power in use" that the same three powers in the hands
of three groups. May I again refer them to the quota
tion from Spirit of Laws by Montesquieu as given in
the first speech.
The first speaker of the Negative testifies either to
his inability or unwillingness to conceive the Affirma
tive definition when, regarding the NLRB, he says:
"We admit that within the provision of the legislation
certain undesirable provisions for enforcement exist,
but these can be changed without limiting the power of
the Government in the field of labor relation." We
pointed out those undesirable provisions were due to
combination of power and removal of constitutional
rights, such as freedom of speech on the part of the
employer.
We ask: How is he going to change these provisions
without reducing "power in use"? This keystone argu
ment of how is missing in each reference.
We feel that it might be a good idea to stop the
Federal intervention in the capital-labor quarrel as a
participant on one side. The place of government is
that of impartial arbiter. To effect this change would
be to reduce government "power in use."
Again in his rebuttal Mr. Pulich says that we of the
POWER OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 31
Affirmative have concerned ourselves with considera
tion as to whether the activities of certain boards and
commissions should be curtailed or amended. He be
lieves that, if control is not curtailed, no implication is
made for either side. But in his own constructive
speech he says we have advocated curtailment of con
trol. Why, then, didn't he deal with the implication
and debate the Affirmative definition which he is obli
gated to do, as he in no way answered it or refuted it?
Besides condemning us for not taking a "common-
sense" definition, the second speaker deals with con
stitutionality and the Logan-Walter bill.
Dealing with constitutionality, he says, "We believe
that any unconstitutional or unlawful powers granted
by Congress to administrative agencies should and will
be dealt with by the Supreme Court." Upon what basis
does he make this statement of belief? The NLRB
prohibits freedom of speech on the part of the em
ployer. We of the Affirmative say this "power in use"
of the Federal Government should be diminished. Mr.
Phifer believes the Supreme Court should and will deal
with it. We again ask: How, if not by reducing "power
in use"?
Congress does not seem to have this all-abiding faith
in the Supreme Court and by a vote of 258 to 129 has
passed amendments to the NLRB, to avoid the very
exercise of power we have been complaining about.
This may also be offered as proof of our first issue,
that it is possible to diminish the power of the Federal
Government. It also seems that 2 58 members of
32 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
Congress agree with our second issue that it is desira
ble to do so.
In attacking our presentation of the Logan-Walter
bill, Mr. Phifer quotes The Nation, which calls it "leg
islative skulduggery." He then quotes Time to the
effect that it will slow government down and concludes
that it is a knife stuck in the back of the New Deal.
However, this bill was introduced into the New Deal
Congress and whether they agree with this eloquent
and graphic description will be shown in their vote.
Finally, we are accused by the Negative of trying to
force them to defend unconstitutional procedure. Not
so; we merely asked them to admit the desirability of
limiting and diminishing the application of Federal
power through boards and commissions set up, but
inadequately restrained and limited in their process of
interpreting law and administrating it. We maintain
that, by proving the advisability and necessity of this
action, we have fulfilled our burden of proof and shown
a way to diminish the power of the Federal Govern
ment. The Negative maintains, we believe in error,
that all power of such commissions and boards must be
abolished in order to diminish Federal power. Since
when did diminish come to mean "abolish"?
Summarizing, we have exposed the flaw in the rea
soning of the first Negative speaker and have refuted
the contentions of the second.
In order that the basic definition upon which this
debate should have been predicated may be mentioned
in more than one speech, I repeat it now.
The word power is to be defined as "power in use."
POWER OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 33
In the first speech we of the Affirmative proved it was
possible to diminish power in the manner we advocated.
Rather than being attacked, this contention has been
admitted by the Negative but they contended such ac
tion was not diminishing power.
The second issue proposed by the Affirmative was
that it is desirable to diminish the power of the Federal
Government. An attempt was made to answer this
when the first Negative speaker pointed out needs for
control and then disproved the possibility of the states
meeting the need. However, Mr. Pulich merely as
serted control was necessary and sought his proof by
putting his search in the form of questions. It is, of
course, unnecessary to refute a mere assertion and we
have refused to answer questions to provide proof for
his arguments.
In view of the refutation and summary just covered,
we of the Affirmative are left with but one conclusion.
It is possible and desirable, therefore, that the power
of the Federal Government should be diminished.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
DIMINISHING THE POWER OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS
American Academy of Political and Social Science. Government Ex
pansion in the Economic Sphere. The Academy. 1939. $2.50.
pa. $2.00
Intergovernmental Relations in the United States. The Acad
emy. 1940. $2.50.
Clark, Glenn. The World's Greatest Debate. Macalester Park Pub
lishing Co., St. Paul, Minn. $2.75.
34 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
Doyle, W. K. Independent Commissions in the Federal Government.
University of North Carolina Press. 1939. $1.50.
Marey, C. C. American Problem of Government. 3rd ed. F. S,
Crofts. 1939. $3.75.
Steinberg, S. and Lamm, L. Our Changing Government. Lippincott.
1939. $1.80.
MAGAZINES AND PERIODICALS
Annals of the American Academy. 206:6, November, 1939. Rise of
Government Control. W. W. Jennings. 207:138, January, 1940.
Political Regionalism and Administrative Regionalism. D. Da
vidson. 207:1, January, 1940. Intergovernmental Relations in
the U.S. W. B. Graves (Ed.)
Current History. 51:31, January, 1940. Democracy on the Defen
sive. G. V. Denny.
Fortune. 21:90, February, 1940. Washington Steals the Show, but
175,000 Local Governing Units Are the Guarantors of Democ
racy.
Independent Woman. 18:389, December, 1939. There Ought to Be
a Law; Just How Much Government Regulation and Planning
Will Make for Widespread Better Living? D. D. Cook.
Scholastic. 35: 18S, January 8, 1940. Democracy: Its Essentials and
Its Problems. 36:8, April 1, 1940. Balance of Powers: Ameri
can Framework of Government. J. F. Adams.
United States News. 8:26, February 9, 1940. Can the NLRB Curb
Free Speech? 8:18, March 8, 1940. The Revolution. David
Lawrence. 8:20, March 29, 1940. Who Shall Make the Laws?
David Lawrence. 8:19, April 26, 1940. Government's Fourth
Arm: Move to Define Power. 8:26, April 26, 1940. Logan-Walter
Bill Endorsed by Most Editors.
Vital Speeches. 5:327, March 15, 1939. Making Democracy Work
able. C. E. Hughes. 5:371, April 1, 1939. What Really Threat
ens American Democracy. E. E. Day. 6:178, January 1, 1940.
Private Enterprise: We Have Gone Far Enough Down the Road
to Federal Control. Wendell L. Willkie. 6:202, January 15,
1940. Democracy Shall Not Be Plowed Under. J. W. Stude-
baker. 6:246, February 1, 1940. What Democracy Means: It Is
Man's Quest for Liberation. H. Styles Bridges. 6:327, March
15, 1940. Our Republic Is at Stake; Persistent Effort to Substi
tute Dictatorship and Socialism.
SUPPRESSION OF UN-AMERICAN
ACTIVITIES
OBERLIN COLLEGE AFFIRMATIVE vs. OHIO WESLEYAN
UNIVERSITY NEGATIVE
For a number of years Oberlin College of Ohio and Ohio Wesleyan
University have met in an annual debate. The subject used for this
debate, which occurred May 16 on the campus of Ohio Weslej^an
University, was: Suppression of un-American activities as typified
by the German-American Bund. The subject was chosen in the fall
of 1939 for a Debate League composed of the two above mentioned
colleges and the College of Wooster, Western Reserve University and
Allegheny College of Pennsylvania.
The manuscripts were taken from a steno typist record of the de
bate and then revised by the speakers. The type of debate used was
the three-man team with only one rebuttal speech on each side. The
debate was a non-decision. The question was stated: Resolved, that
the German-American Bund should be suppressed. It was taken by
mutual consent that the debate applied to all un-American activities
and the German-American Bund was used as a symbol to include all
subversive activities.
This debate was particularly timely as it was held at the eventful
moment when the full consequences of "fifth column" activities in
Holland and Belgium were following precipitately upon those in Nor
way and Denmark. Also it was on the day that President Roosevelt
made a speech which specifically noticed the danger of such subver
sive activities in this country. The debate came at a time when bills
for suppression or some definite limiting action for subversive activi
ties were being agitated and introduced into Congress. It is not often
that academic debaters get a chance at such a pertinent subject at the
psychological moment of its greatest public interest.
The speeches were collected and submitted to Intercollegiate De
bates by Professor J. J. Auer of Oberlin College and Professor W.
Roy Diem of Ohio Wesleyan University, Directors of Debate at these
colleges.
SUPPRESSION OF UN-AMERICAN
ACTIVITIES
First Affirmative, Winfield Smith
Oberlin College
FRIENDS: The question for discussion today is: Re
solved, that the German-American Bund should be
suppressed. Now we feel that this resolution should
be interpreted to include all antidemocratic and un-
American groups in this country today, both the Right
ists and Leftists, for the German-American Bund is but
one of the hundreds of its kind. With this in mind,
we shall proceed to the discussion at hand. The front
page of every newspaper reveals to us the Nazi tech
nique of boring from within to undermine the morale
of other peoples. Our radio news broadcasts tell us
much the same story of vicious German propaganda
aimed at destroying the democratic enemies of Ger
many. Our knowledge of the German use of "Trojan
horse" tactics to undermine governments should forci
bly bring to our attention the fact that American ears
are today being bombarded by this propaganda which
strikes at the fundamental concepts of our American
democracy. Propaganda from hundreds of organized
antidemocratic groups is being distributed freely every
day, propaganda which is aimed at the violent over
throw of our Government from within. America is be
ing threatened by these antidemocratic groups and
37
38 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
we would define as antidemocratic any organization
which incites others to violence and advocates the over
throw of our Government by force. Something must be
done immediately to suppress these un-American ac
tivities and any groups which would destroy our
democracy.
Until recently few people considered these subver
sive organizations seriously. Indicative of the typical
attitude in the past is a cartoon I once saw. It was a
picture of two huge, gruff policemen dragging a meek
little man between them. One interested onlooker
said to the other, "What's he been doin?" The an
swer was, "Overthrowing the Government." Now ob
viously the impression this cartoon meant to leave was
that the un-American activities which exist constitute
no threat to our democracy. But this is the very atti
tude which has permitted the growth of antidemocratic
groups in the past.
Recent events, however, have exposed these un-
American activities. For example, the Dies Committee
is bringing to light the aims and activities of subver
sive groups in this country and is forcing the American
people to realize the great extent and great danger of
this internal attack on our democracy. The recent
conviction of Bund Leader Fritz Kuhn has served
further to draw our attention to these groups.
Now antidemocratic groups which would overthrow
our Government by force are penetrating every city,
town and hamlet in the nation. In our country there
are 800 organizations of this kind plotting the violent
overthrow of our Government. These groups must be
UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES 39
suppressed right now if our democracy is to survive.
These fascist groups parade under many names, such
as Defenders of the Faith, the Silver Shirts, the White
Shirts, the German-American Bund, the Militant Chris
tian Patriots, the Knights of the White Camelia and
many others. The membership rolls of these organi
zations never have been made public, but it is certain
that their members and sympathizers form a group of
impressive numbers. For example, Social Justice
the Coughlin paper estimated that by the end of
1940, the membership of the Christian Front, which
recently was charged with attempting to bomb selected
public buildings and assassinate fourteen Congressmen,
would reach 5,000,000; New York has now some 12,-
000 fanatical Frontists.
George W. Christians, President of Crusaders for
Economic Liberty and Commander-in-Chief of the
Crusader White Shirts, says in an undelivered address
entitled Economic Liberty that "our secret revolution
ary organizations have been in operation for five years
and have reached into every city, town and hamlet in
this nation and most of the other countries of the
world. They have placed men in the inner councils of
every organization of importance in America from the
Communists to the American Bankers' Association."
These insidious groups are worming their way into
every nook and cranny in the land, and we must sup
press them now if our democracy is to survive.
The German-American Bund is the most extensive
and powerful of these organizations; yet it stands as
but a symbol for the 800 others of its kind. Now these
40 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
groups, once working independently, are organizing on
a national scale and thus creating a potential force 800
times as strong. This national confederation devotes
itself to the downfall of democracy by spreading prop
aganda put out by the German Government as well as
propaganda of its own.
It is this insidious propaganda inspired by the Ger
man Government which provides the international
unity of Fascist groups everywhere. It is infamous
international organizations of this kind that led to the
downfall of democracy in Spain and Czechoslovakia,
and it is these same "Trojan horse" tactics that we
must beware of lest our own democracy be suddenly
destroyed. As an example of how these Fascist groups
advocate a revolutionary overthrow of our Govern
ment, I quote the general Orders for the Crusader
White Shirts:
The first objective should be to take control of the local
government in the following manner: 'March in military
formation to, and surround, the governmental buildings.
Then by sheer numbers and a patriotic appeal force the
officials to accept and act under the direction of an economic
adviser appointed by the President of the White Shirts
this adviser's first duty will be to repudiate the public debt
and utilize the payments assigned thereto for the public
welfare. Preparations should then be made at once for the
Crusade to Washington.
This charming little document is signed by George W,
Christians, commander of the Crusader White Shirts.
More than this, I have already mentioned the Chris
tian Frontists who were charged with a plot to blow up
UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES 41
bridges and certain public buildings, take over public
utilities, assail the Jews, kill fourteen Congressmen and
set up a dictatorship.
Nazi summer camps dot the east and everywhere
else that the German population is strong. In these
camps, youths of German descent are trained in the
use of arms and munitions, and drills are held to train
them for the Revolution.
The violence of these Fascists is seen further by this
incitement of the White Shirts which says, "Arise
Americans, assemble. (1) Drive the Jewish philosophy
of gold and greed out of temples of finance. (2) Kick
the Roman Catholic corruption out of our Government.
(3) Throw the Protestant hypocrisy out of our press
and pulpits." It is this incitement to violence and
overthrow of the Government which we must stop now
if our democracy is to live.
I have pointed out the extent to which these Fascist
groups exist in this country today. I have shown that
their numbers are great and constantly growing. More
than this, I have pointed out that democracy cannot
survive and at the same time tolerate these "Trojan
horse" tactics and these violent attempts to overthrow
the Government. Thus these practices must be sup
pressed now for they constitute a real danger. What
is needed in this country is an immediate counter-
offensive to suppress this threat to our democracy.
42 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
First Negative, William Case
Ohio Wesleyan University
FRIENDS : We are very happy to have the gentlemen
from Oberlin here to indulge in this very ethical de
bate this afternoon. I would like to say that the im
portance of this question cannot be overemphasized.
Whether the United States should suppress the Ger
man-American Bund is a very important question.
However, its importance does not rest on the fact that
the German-American' Bund is an organization active
in this country, but rather it is important because of
what the suppression of the German-American Bund
would do to us.
There is abroad in the world today, a spirit of dic
tatorship, of totalitarianism such as none of us has
ever seen before. Every screaming headline from the
war-torn nations of Europe brings closer to our atten
tion the power and force of that spirit of militarism
and dictatorship, and so it is vitally essential that we,
as a nation, should guard our democracy, should take
every step to see that not the first wedge should be
driven into our democracy that might give a chance
for the spread of dictatorship. We seem to have for
gotten that our forefathers had to fight and die to
win these freedoms that we hold so dear. We also seem
to forget that those same freedoms are today worth
as little as the paper on which they are written, unless
they are guarded by a zealous people. So I say to
you this afternoon that we must take care to see that
none of the steps toward dictatorship, none of the steps
UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES 43
such as denying the right of freedom of speech, assem
bly and freedom of press should be taken away from
us. These rights are guaranteed in our Constitution
to any and all American groups, and they must be
made to stand firm. We must, rather, guarantee to
our minorities the right to express themselves freely
and openly, for this is the very foundation on which
democracy is based. Whenever we deny these rights,
we are stepping toward dictatorship.
Now this idea I am expressing this afternoon is not
a radical one; rather it is the idea of the founding
fathers of our democracy, the ideas of those who wrote
the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
Thomas Jefferson has this to say, "The spirit of resist
ance to government is so valuable on certain occasions
that I wish it always to be kept alive. It will often
be exercised when wrong, but better so than its not
being exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and
then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere."
So I ask you to think seriously whether we, as a
democracy, can afford to take these steps of suppres
sion against minority groups. Then I would like to
point out that the German-American Bund is in itself
not a serious threat to American democracy.
In the first place, the membership of the German-
American Bund is too small. Now when you start esti
mating the size of the German-American Bund, you get
figures ranging all the way from 20,000 to 350,000.
Fritz Kuhn, ex-leader of the Bund, claims that there
are about 200,000 members. Whichever it might be,
it still is less than one-third of one per cent of our pop-
44 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
ulation. In other words, the population of the United
States is better than 99.67 per cent pure, and so for
that reason it seems to be rather futile for these groups
to think that they can seriously threaten American
democracy. There are more policemen on the streets
of American cities than there are members of the
German-American Bund, and the Communist party is
even smaller than the German-American Bund. The
recent alliance between Germany and Russia seriously
decreased the size of the Communist party and its
largest membership is 100,000. So we see from the
size of these groups, that they are not large enough
to be serious threats to American democracy.
The second point, which is much more important,
is that we are not in any particular danger from these
groups because conditions are such in the United States
that we have nothing to fear from minority groups.
The duty and function of a government are to give the
people what they need and want, and as long as the
government is doing that, it has nothing to fear from
minority groups. Conditions in the United States are
not such that people are demanding a change. I don't
want to be accused of looking at the world through
rose-colored glasses and saying that everything is fine
in the United States, that we have nothing to fear. No,
I am looking at it realistically, realizing that we have
serious problems to solve in the United States.
I realize that we have 10,000,000 unemployed peo
ple, that we have serious economic maladjustments
that must be corrected, that the problem of distribution
of wealth is still a serious one and in spite of all these
UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES 45
things, I say that the United States is not in a condi
tion where it has anything to fear from minority groups
or groups working against it. The fact is that as long
as our Nation and Government are doing their duty
and trying to meet the economic problems that come up
and are meeting these problems efficiently, these groups
have nothing to offer the people. If there are reforms
that need to be made and these groups advocate these
changes, let them be made, for that is the way that
democracy works. All the great reforms that have
been made in our nation were started by these small
minority groups and eventually these ideas became
the practice of the group. And so I say we have noth
ing to fear from German-American Bund and such or
ganizations, because conditions are such in the United
States that we have nothing to fear.
And then in the third place, we are not helpless in
the face of these groups; rather we do have means of
keeping peace and of holding these organizations un
der control and the means of protecting our nation.
We have laws. We have laws that permit deporta
tion of undesirable aliens. Let us stop the activities
of these groups when the activities of these groups
break the law. We have steps that we can take that
are legal and peaceful that will keep these groups from
spreading, but more important, we can provide our
people with education, we can let our people know
what these groups are doing, we can open the blinds
and let them see exactly what the activities and pur
poses of these groups are. Democracy can afford to
face the truth; it can afford to let its people know
46 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
what these groups are trying to do. Once they have
done that, we feel sure that when the people see the
purposes and activities of these groups, they will not
be anxious to change their democracy for these things.
So, I would like to point out, then, that the German-
American Bund is not a serious threat to American
democracy because it is not large enough, because con
ditions are not such that they demand a change here in
the United States; and because we can protect our
selves by legal means and by education. I would like
to ask you to think seriously whether our democracy
can deny the rights of freedom of speech, of press
and assembly to any minority group and still be a
democracy.
Second Affirmative, Joseph Creighton
Oberlin College
FRIENDS: We of the Affirmative plan to show, first,
that there is a definite need for suppression of these
minority groups; second, that we have a constitu
tional right to suppress these groups; and third, that
we have a definite means, a definite plan to suppress
them. As far as the last two points are concerned,
there has been no objection by our opponents as yet.
The main fight in this discussion seems to turn on the
point as to whether we actually need to suppress these
groups today. Are they actually dangerous to our
democracy?
Our opponents from Ohio Wesleyan seem to feel,
first, that suppression in itself is a definite threat; that
UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES 47
is, if we start to suppress these minority groups which
are undermining our liberties, we shall have suppres
sion such as the Italians have, suppression such as the
Germans have, and now the Norwegians and the Dutch
have. They have brought up examples of what might
be called suppression today elections in California
and people riding on trains. That is true; those cases
exist in our democracy today and I am afraid they will
exist always. However, our plan does not provide for
that kind of suppression. The plan which we propose
means to suppress all groups, not persons, groups which
by violence and terrorism try to overthrow the Govern
ment. A man can talk as he pleases; he can say what
he wants to say; he can read what he wants to read.
We don't care. This plan is under the Department of
Justice and that Department of Justice decides if any
group advocates violence, terrorism or overthrow of
the Government and if it is' deliberately trying to force
other people, to incite others actively to lead a revolu
tion. That is where we draw the line. The Depart
ment of Justice will decide, but at any time it can be
taken up in any court.
Now what about the matter of suppression today?
Will this actually take away our liberties? I don't be
lieve so. For I believe it is these groups in our country
today, the 800 Fascist groups, the 100,000 members of
the Communist party, which are threatening our de
mocracy. These groups, as you know, exist all over
the country. Furthermore, these minorities intend to
overthrow our Government. You will remember Mr.
Smith quoting from the general orders of the Crusader
48 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
White Shirts, the leader of which is Mr. George W.
Christians, who signs his letters, "Yours for the Riots
of Revolution.' 7 That is what these groups plan. Un
der the plan which my colleagues and I propose, we
will stop these groups from suppressing us. We will
make it impossible for any armed group to take away
our liberties in that fashion.
But our opponents seem to be worried that this
change will come about. The way of democracy, by
minorities, is that these minorities can advocate
changes in government laws, they say. That is the way
we make progress, and I agree. But under a de
mocracy we make progress not through armed minori
ties but through minorities that go to the polls and
vote, In the so-called Populist Revolution of the nine
ties they did this. At that time the ideas of the Popu
lists were not what the majority of the Americans
believed in. But they didn't advocate a revolution.
They went to the ballot box and, though it is true they
failed to elect Bryan in 1896, they succeeded with their
propaganda in the long run. We have direct election
of Senators and that is one of the things they asked.
We have direct primaries to a great extent today and
that is what they asked. Although they failed to elect
Bryan with the Populist platform in 1896, this plat
form is incorporated in the laws of the United States
today. The reason is that these groups advocated
change, but they did not advocate change by writing
on their letters, "Yours for the Riots of Revolution,"
and ordering their organizations to march on Washing
ton* They organized a party. That is the democratic
UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES 49
way of progress. Every single one of us wants the
right to change. If we disagree with our Government,
we want the chance to organize public opinion and
try to get changes in government; in order for us to
keep that chance, in order for it to be possible for us
to have the kind of government we want, we must see
to it that this is a free government; and the only way
we can see to it that this is a free government is by
absolutely forbidding any armed minority to -take that
away from us, by absolutely denying the right of any
group to overthrow our democratic Government and
put in its place a government such as that of Germany
and Italy. In other words, we can have suppression
but there is a definite line. All we propose to do is
keep any organization from overthrowing our Gov
ernment, from having an army a private army and
then drilling as does the German-American Bund, the
Steel Helmets and such organizations. In this way we
can prevent suppression such as that in Germany and
Italy from coming to the United States,
The second point brought up by our opponents is
that the Bund is not a definite threat today. The Bund
is not a threat because of its small membership, only
200,000 or 300,000 (the Communists 100,000 more).
In addition to this there are several groups which our
opponents failed to mention 800 Fascist groups: the
Knights of the White Camelia, the Steel Helmets, the
Crusader White Shirts, the Christian Front and many
others 800 groups which our opponents forgot to
mention; and let me remind you that it took only 30,-
000 in Russia to bring about the Communist Revolu-
SO YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
tion. In Norway, the "fifth column/' probably even
smaller in number, led the Germans in their conquest.
The German-American Bund, then, is a threat, not
only because of its membership today, but because of
the fact that it is growing. The Christian Front is also
growing. By the end of this year, there will be ap
proximately 5,000,000 members in it and it is growing
every day. If we don't worry about it today, we will
find ourselves in the shoes of the Norwegians, Germans
and Italians tomorrow.
But there is still another reason why the Bund is
not a threat, our opponents say. We need not worry.
Conditions in the United States are not bad today.
Granted the conditions are not as bad today as they
were in some other countries before their revolutions.
The fact that we have 10,000,000 unemployed makes
no difference to them. Conditions are still good. We
have Father Coughlin preaching over the radio and
criticizing our Government, we have Townsend Plans,
Ham-and-Egg plans, Bigelow plans all over the coun
try, and still our opponents say our conditions are good
today. Our conditions are such that we must fear these
organizations. I do not want to paint a picture about
the dark conditions in our country, for I believe our
country will stand the test. But it will remain a de
mocracy only if we suppress the groups that try to take
away our rights.
Therefore, we of the Affirmative have tried, have
shown today, first, that we must suppress these groups
which are trying to take away our liberties; second,
that we have the right, the constitutional, American
UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES 51
right to suppress these groups; and third, that we have
the means at hand to do it. We must suppress these
groups which are taking away our liberties. We must
not substitute the rhythm of the marching boot for free
discussion.
Second Negative, Gerald Vance
Ohio Wesleyan University
FRIENDS: Mr. Smith has pointed out in the first
speech of this debate that the Nazis' technique in
practically all their undertakings is that of boring from
within. Mr. Case has already mentioned this point,
but may I go a bit further to point out, as Knight Dun-
lap says, that we only progress through those laws
which are broken- In other words, we have laws set up
under which we are supposed to live, but when those
laws come to such a point as to hinder our living con
ditions, then they must be broken they must be
tested and found useless and new ones must be put in
their place.
Under the program of suppression which the Af
firmative offers this afternoon, it would be possible to
push down any minority group which was not in favor
with the ruling group. It would be possible to push
that group down to the point where laws would become
only dogmatic things hanging over our heads and hin
dering our progress,
We offer on the Negative side of this case this after
noon the second contention: that the German-Ameri
can Bund is not only a threat to our democracy, but
52 YEAR BOOK OP COLLEGE DEBATING
any suppression which we might practice against this
organization, or any other minority group, would be a
definite threat, a definite destroying force to our de
mocracy and to our civil liberties and our freedom.
This is shown by a very easy process of logic,
It would seem that our people today are so over
whelmed with propaganda which is floating around
propaganda and sentiment against Germany, propa
ganda in the form of what the Dies Committee is do
ing that they (and when I say they, I include the
members of the Affirmative) have lost sight of the thing
which we fear. It is not the German-American Bund
as an organization or a minority group that we fear,
but rather the inherent things in the German-American
Bund; the agent back of the Bund, the thing that Ger
many, led by Hitler, is doing today. That is the thing
we fear as a democracy. But may I point out that
while we object to Hitlerism, we cannot fight Hitler's
tactics by using tactics which are identical with those
that he used. In other words, any suppressive action
against any group nullifies those liberties and that free
dom for which we stand and which is written into our
Constitution. Any act, then, which says it is going to
protect a given policy by using that policy itself, sa
distically kills the thing which it is supposed to be
protecting. This is an inevitable paradox.
Over in Germany today we know that men are being
put into concentration camps because they dare to
think for themselves, they dare to express their
thoughts, they dare to go over and pull against the
strings which the chief puppeteer is pulling. We of
UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES 53
the Negative believe that this is a deplorable condition,
and that something should be done about it. But it is
because of this agreement that we cannot advocate
any policy by which the suppression which is being
practiced in Europe today should be practiced here. I
can give you concrete examples of what I mean.
Over in Germany today, any man who has so much as
murmured against the German Government is classed
as an antagonist against Adolf Hitler and the things
he is doing, and he can be justly afraid to go out and
walk down the street lest he be pointed out by some *
German officer and sent to a concentration camp, or,
worse yet, be put to death. Yet, we find in this coun
try that, by a very subtle means, the very same course
of action can be taken even today without any active
or legal suppression of any group.
Senator Jerry Vorhis points out how, in the primary
elections in California, on the eve of those elections,
the names of many Democratic candidates were linked
with Dies Committee investigations. This wasn't done
openly or rationally, but rather by the roundabout
political grapevine telephone which is so comparable to
our anonymous letter and comic valentine. The next
day in the elections, not a single Democrat was put into
office.
Bringing this still closer home, down to the level of
the man on the street, to you and to me and to thou
sands like us, a friend of mine was traveling on a train
in New York not so long ago. Being a philosopher, he
likes to keep busy, and on this trip he was reading a
book written by Karl Marx. He was reading this book
54 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
because, as he put it, he wanted to find out what Marx
had to say in comparison with other points of view.
But because of the snoopy curiosity of the man sitting
next to him, this friend of mine finds himself today on
the Dies Committee black list. Where is the difference
between that type of thing and those things in Ger
many which we fear as a threat to our democracy?
The only difference is that Germany is an organized
state threatening suppression in this country, while
here in the United States we do not have that organiza
tion. Yet we still find that we have something to fight
in the form of a threat. As Senator Vorhis has further
put it, "We dare not lose man's faith in man.' 3 All I
have to do to get even with an enemy of mine is to say,
"Well, he is a Communist, or a Socialist, or even a
Democrat or Republican," and all society knows what
I mean. To legalize and to organize suppression
against the German-American Bund, or any other
group, would simply be to hand to a man another name
to hang on his enemy, placing in the hands of society
a dangerous weapon with which to push him back into
the background.
In brief conclusion then, I have said this: It is not
the German-American Bund that we fear; it is the
agent back of the Bund and the activities which go on
there. Suppression, which the Affirmative advocates
this afternoon, is the very tool which that German-
American Bund uses as its chief weapon. And yet that
same suppression is advocated in our country by the
Affirmative to protect our democracy. Yet we have
seen that this protection in itself destroys that democ-
UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES 55
racy which we so love, and because of this inconsist
ency in the Affirmative argument, we of the Negative
maintain this afternoon that to organize any suppres
sion in this country against any minority group is to
set up dangerous and unwanted precedents which
might, once they got started, be rather difficult to stop.
Third Affirmative, John Christie
Oberlin College
FRIENDS: On the way over here to Ohio Wesleyan,
we were listening to a speech by the President of the
United States addressing Congress. Perhaps it may
prove to be the most important speech he has ever
made. One of the basic points in that speech dealt
with the topic with which we are dealing this after
noon. The core and pith of his statements summarized
is this: that today the world is witnessing a new type
of internal destruction, a type which has never been
used before to such an extent or with such success.
This is the so-called "Trojan horse" method which Mr.
Smith has already mentioned to you. This is a new
method of attacking a country, the famed "fifth col
umn" tactics which have been used with such unbe
lievable success in Belgium, Norway, Denmark and
Holland. It is a method of working against a country
from the inside as well as from the outside, of under
mining the resistance of that country and thus render
ing it more vulnerable to overthrow. In order for this
result to be brought about, it means the setting up of
antidemocratic groups within a democratic country,
56 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
groups which may then utilize the privileges of that
democracy for the sole purpose of destroying it. It is
such groups as these with which we are concerned this
afternoon.
Mr. Smith has defined antidemocratic groups for
you as groups which incite others to violence and the
overthrow of our Government by force. With this in
mind, let us look at these various groups, specifically
the German- American Bund, which we use as a symbol
representing all Rightist and Leftist groups. We find
that these group organizations come directly under that
definition. Mr. Smith has given you the marching or
ders of George W. Christians, leader of the Crusader
White Shirts, and there you have without any mincing
of meaning, clear and concise, the advocation of the
overthrow of our Government by force. The Com
munists are doing the same thing, as they themselves
state, allying themselves with labor, stirring up class
consciousness where it can be found, the first essential
for any revolution. In short, both the Fascists and the
Communists are at the present time antidemocratic,
and, as Mr. Smith has already shown you, constitute a
very real threat to our balanced system of democracy.
And so comes the question: What can be done about it?
First, we must have the right to suppress these
groups, and then we must have the means to do so.
Neither one of these is of any use without the other;
we must have them both. And we do. The United
States Government has the right to protect itself
against such organizations. I should like to read you
a concrete fact of law, derived from our Supreme
UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES 57
Court. It is this: "The Supreme Court of the United
States, Senatorial Document 239, Seventy-fourth Con
gress, second Session, 1938; Fox vs. Washington, Gil
bert vs. Minnesota, Gitlow vs. New York, Whitney vs.
California." And it decrees this: "The state may pun
ish publications advocating breach of criminal laws,
and utterances advocating the overthrow of organized
government by violence and unlawful means. The state
may also require organizations with oath-bound mem
bers to file with some responsible government agency a
record of their members, their officers and their con
stitutions." That decree speaks for itself. The sup
pression of these groups can be absolutely consistent
both with our Constitution and our democracy.
And then there must be the means. In this case, it
must be a plan, a plan for carrying out this truth, this
right which our democratic Government already has;
and at the same time, a plan which can limit the extent
of suppression to actual offenders, to define, to keep it
within bounds. And again I should like to read to you
for a moment, this time a plan which we believe will
accomplish this end. There are four points to this
plan, and they read as follows: first, to require that all
interstate organizations register with the Department
of Justice, stating their aims, their members, their
leaders and their affiliation with foreign powers, if any.
After they have registered, a permit is granted these
organizations to operate; when violence is advocated,
the permit is taken away, and the leaders and members
of the organization are subject to prosecution. Second,
to prohibit the use of the mails for flagrant propaganda
58 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
(and by "propaganda/ 5 we mean definitely an incite
ment to the violent overthrow of the Government).
Third, to prohibit the use of parks and public buildings
for propaganda purposes; that is, specifically, to those
who advocate this principle of violence. Fourth, to
prohibit the use of private armies.
This is not a perfect plan; no plan ever is. But we
believe that it best serves as a means by which our
Government may utilize that right which it already has,
and which was granted it for no other purpose than for
its own protection.
In closing, let me emphasize that we are not opposed
to freedom of speech. It is the inherent right of any
person, for any reason, to object to our form of govern
ment. But for our own advantage and for the preser
vation of individual safety and security in these United
States, it is absolutely necessary that this objection be
made through the democratic procedure which is pro
vided for it.
We of the Affirmative have attempted to show three
basic truths regarding the suppression of these anti
democratic groups: first, that we have the need to sup
press them; second, that we have the right to suppress
them, constitutionally; and third, that we have,
through a definite plan, the means of suppressing them
successfully.
UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES 59
Third Negative, Ralph Holsinger
Ohio Wesleyan University
FRIENDS : This debate has at least brought one thing
home to us and that is that the world today is a dark
and frightening place. Indeed the events of the last
few weeks have made it increasingly apparent that our
generation is destined to be the second lost generation
of this young country. In the last few years we have
seen a Germany, supposedly too weak to support her
self, go first into Austria and Czechoslovakia without a
shot being fired, then to Poland with little opposition
and on into Norway and Denmark. And now we see a
Germany, which has battered down strong opposition,
march into Holland and Belgium in five days and
today threaten the very existence of France and Eng
land. Certainly it must be these events that have
caused a note of fear to run through every speech that
the Affirmative has given. It is a fear that we in
America are going to follow those poor little countries
of Europe into dictatorship.
I claim as third speaker for the Negative that we
have no reason to fear. It is my contention, first of all,
that conditions in our country are so different from
conditions in those countries, that we have nothing to
fear; and secondly, that we can remove whatever threat
there is without resorting to that dangerous, un-Ameri
can step of suppression that step which will mean the
end of democracy in our country.
Now first of all, conditions are different from what
they are in those countries. I am not going to give you
60 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
anything spectacular. I am merely going to quote a
few facts of geography.
Czechoslovakia is a nation the size of the state of
Massachusetts. It has 10,000,000 people within its
borders and 3 ,000,000 of these are alien Germans
openly in sympathy with the German state. It is ob
vious that nearly one-third of our people do not today
claim allegiance to a foreign state.
Norway is the size of New Mexico. Norway has
3,000,000 people living within its borders, as many
people as are living in the city of Chicago. Certainly
in such a small area with such a small number of people,
it might be possible for a group of 2 5,000 Germans to
cause enough disturbance to make it easily open to
conquest.
Belgium, only a little larger than the state of New
Hampshire, is a country of 8,000,000 people.
The Netherlands has a population of less than 9,-
000,000 and is about the size of the state of Maryland.
In small nations such as these, it is possible for such
subversive groups as the German-American Bund in
our country to cause enough trouble to permit other
nations to step in and conquer them. In a nation of
3,000,000 square miles, and 130,000,000 people, I don't
think it's possible. We must also consider that these
subversive groups alone did not conquer those little
nations. It was the German army that did that and
we must remember that we are 3,000 miles away from
that army as compared to 250 miles for the farthest
of those nations.
These are not spectacular facts but they are the
UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES 61
facts, as I see them, and from them we can get but one
principle, and that is that we in America have nothing
to fear from subversive groups proposing to overthrow
our Government. As I said, the facts of geography are
not very spectacular; so what chance do they have to
compete with the spectacular, frightening and, I say,
fallacious statements that are being made by so-called
newspaper experts and even by the President of the
United States?
My second contention is that we can take care of
these subversive groups without resorting to the dan
gerous step of oppression. We must remember,
friends, that we have laws in this nation. We have
laws against violence, and you and I are just as much
subject to them as the leaders of the subversive organi
zations, and some of these leaders have run afoul of
those laws.
Fritz Kuhn is in jail, Earl Browder is in jail, seven
teen leaders of the Silver Shirts are on their way to
jail, because they broke the laws of the United States;
and I am sure that you and I and the rest of the think
ing people of the United States would not be willing to
put our faith in leaders who are guilty of such crimes
as embezzlement of funds and passport fraud. Mr.
Case pointed out that our police force is larger than
these subversive organizations and certainly our police
force aided, if necessary, by the militia, could put down
any trouble they might start. I don't think that would
be necessary. We should be able to enforce these laws
against violence so as to prevent the start of wide
spread disturbance by these groups.
62 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
We of the Negative want to play fair in this debate,
and we want to present a positive program. We think
we can go just a little bit further. We say that, if these
groups have anything worth-while to present, let them
present it. Let us require, even as the Affirmative
would, that they publish their membership list, and
publish a statement of their principles. We do not
propose suppressing those principles as the gentlemen
of the Affirmative would do in the joker clause of their
plan; we do not propose suppressing the individuals in
these groups. For remember, the Affirmative is not
suppressing groups because they are groups; they are
not suppressing the Y.M.C.A. and the Boy Scouts.
Why? Because the principles which these groups ad
vocate are all right. If there be suppression, it will be
suppression of the principles for which those groups
stand.
Now we of the Negative do not want to suppress the
principles for which these groups stand. We want to
publish them for all to see. Then you and I could say,
"Here is what the Republican party proposes ; here is
what the Democratic party proposes; yes, and here is
what the Communist party and the German- American
Bund propose."
We must do this if we are going to have a democracy,
because democracy and our Constitution are based
upon the theory of an enlightened people. Our Consti
tution does not say that forever and forever we are to
govern ourselves according to a certain set of rules. It
does not say, "Here is all the truth by which America
shall be governed." No, the Constitution does not say
UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES 63
that. It simply says that the people themselves are the
best judge of those things which are good for them. It
sets up machinery by which the people can look at the
truth and govern themselves by the laws which they
themselves desire. This theory of the Constitution is
supported by one of the most respected judges who
ever sat in the Supreme Court of the United States
Mr. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. He once wrote
into one of his decisions these immortal words, "The
only test of truth is the power of the thought to get
itself accepted in the free competition of the market
place." That, at any rate, is the theory of the Consti
tution. It is an experiment as all life is an experiment.
One thought before I close I would like to ask the
Affirmative, who is going to find what thought, what
ideas, are to be suppressed? Who is to say what
groups are to be suppressed? If you are going to sup
press, you must define what you are suppressing. The
power of definition would most probably be given to
the Government, but we must remember that the Gov
ernment is composed of individuals with the same
faults and virtues that you and I have. Who can tell
when they might start deciding that those things are
un-American which might serve to get them out of
power? I want you to think that over.
We of the Negative contend that if we are to
preserve our democracy, we must not resort to sup
pression. We must not resort to this weapon of
dictatorship. Everywhere dictatorship has followed
suppression of thoughts and ideas.
64 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
Negative Rebuttal, William Case
Ohio Wesleyan University
FRIENDS: I tremble to appear before you after this
introduction of what is about to come. But, I am not
going to be spectacular at all; I am not going to have
a mighty wit flashing forth; rather I am going to ask
you to think very seriously and very calmly about this
debate this afternoon. I think it is a question that is
apt to be given a little too much fire and not quite
enough serious thought.
To begin with, I would like to start out by agreeing.
I would like to agree with the Affirmative plan to a cer
tain extent. We agree that certain of these activities
of certain subversive groups could well be stopped.
There are certain activities of the German-American
Bund and some of these other groups that should defi
nitely be stopped. It comes within the laws of a nation
to stop these things, and we have the legal means and
the right to stop them and we agree heartily that that
should be done. We have even gone so far in our plan
as to agree with the Affirmative that these groups
should declare their principles, their purposes should
be registered, and everything that they do we should
know. We think that is all fine and we agree. Now
you gentlemen say that you fear these subversive
groups and there is only one reason you fear them.
You don't fear them for what they are now. You don't
fear the German-American Bund for what it is now,
but you fear the German-American Bund for what it
stands for, for what it might become.
UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES 65
We say that we fear suppression. We don't fear
suppression because Mr. Vance's friend happened to
be reading Karl Marx and is now on the Dies black
list. We don't fear suppression because of that; we
fear suppression because of what it stands for and
what it might become.
So now let us look coolly at the facts before us. How
can these groups, these subversive groups, become large
enough to be a serious threat unless they use means of
suppression? Now I ask you, are you ready to join
these groups? Are any of you ready to join any of
these groups that you are so anxious to have sup
pressed? There are some of these groups that Mr.
Smith told us about, and some of these were mentioned
again by Mr. Qreighton, that have been in existence
since the Civil War, and their policies and the things
they have advocated have had so little influence on
the American people that their group membership is
still in the tens of thousands, and those groups cannot
grow unless the element of suppression enters in. And
it is when those groups get the suppression of organiza
tions behind them that they can become dangerous;
and this right of suppression that you are trying to give
to our Government will make them the thing you fear.
When the Government gets the right to suppress
these minority groups, and gets the right to determine
who is working against the American democracy, when
it gets the right to determine any activity which is apt
to overthrow our Government, and then we give to our
Government the right to suppress these groups and
have them determined subversive, then we have entered
66 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
the opening wedge for a policy of suppression and
dictatorship; and so this afternoon we say we fear
more an organized suppression than we fear the kind
of policy advocated by these so-called subversive
groups. That is the crux of the whole debate, whether
we are willing to give to our Government the right to
suppress and determine all the ideas that should be
suppressed, or whether we are going to let the final
authority rest with the people; whether we are going
to let it be determined that the people themselves
should decide whether they should belong to the Com
munist party, the German- American Bund, or if they
should be Republican or even Democrat,
When we have answered that question, we have an
swered the final question of whether the United States
should suppress the German-American Bund.
Affirmative Rebuttal, John Christie
Oberlin College
FRIENDS: During the last two speeches, we of the
Affirmative have been asked numerous questions, and
it would be rather difficult to answer them all in the
short space of five minutes. Suppose we take the most
outstanding one and consider that. Before we get on
this topic of questions, however, I would like to add
just this as a bit of explanation before we start. Con
trary to the statement of the Negative, the German-
American Bund is not an ancient organization by any
means; it goes back to 1920 at the very earliest Like
wise, the other Fascist organizations we have been
UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES 67
taking about this afternoon are decidedly recent or
ganizations. True, there have been organizations that
have incited violence in the past; the Ku Klux Klan
was such a one and, consistent with the American pol
icy of protecting its democracy and its citizens, it was
successfully suppressed.
But now to consider the last pointed question which
was asked us: "Who is to decide what principles are
to be suppressed?" Certainly it is a question which
we are glad to answer. Under our plan, the Depart
ment of Justice will have jurisdiction over these groups,
with access to the legal courts, the natural way in
which such a question would always be decided. And
the principle which in this case would be suppressed is,
as we have continually stated, the principle of violence.
It is entirely true that we are suppressing principles,
not people. The thing which we are suppressing is that
inherent principle of violence and of incitement to
violence against our Government. Someone of the
Negative has said that he enjoyed rebellion now and
then. We may enjoy rebellion, but unfortunately at
the present time we cannot afford it.
The Negative have also given us a plan, closely cor
responding to ours. However, it only provides that
these groups declare their principles and aims. It is
not enough to have an organization merely state its
aims, even if you force it to do so. The important
point is that that principle not be harmful to our pres
ent form of government, and if it is, then any plan, like
ours, must grant the right to suppress that principle.
Our opponents have pointed to a "note of fear"
68 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
which they seem to discern in the Affirmative case.
They go on in their attempts to show that there is no
reason for fear, in this case, specifically of invasion.
They say that the conditions are different in the United
States than in the other countries which were under
mined by "fifth column" activities. In attempting to re
mind us of our geography, they state that even the size
of the United States is far larger than any of the small
countries affected by these groups. I should like to
remind the Negative in turn of some further geography.
Russia is 4,000,000 square miles in extent, the United
States 3,000,000 square miles; Russia has 140,000,000
people, the United States 130,000,000; regardless of
whether or not we could at that time have called them
"fifth column" activities, it took only 30,000 Com
munists to overthrow Russia, one-sixth of the earth's
surface, while in the United States at present there are
100,000 Communists as well as the 800 other Fascist
organizations to the extent that we have already de
scribed.
But continuing on the question of invasion, the Neg
ative has attempted to point out that we are not in
danger of invasion today. Although President Roose
velt seemed to disagree with them conspicuously in his
speech this afternoon, this debate cannot afford to turn
into a bickering as to whether or not we are in danger
of invasion from Germany. I would like to explain a
little further that this is a somewhat different case. It
is a case, say, of a man who disobeys or breaks a law
and must be punished for it. It is a case of Federal
protection against direct action, criminal action against
UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES 69
the Government. These groups are definitely a part of
"Trojan horse" tactics; nevertheless, their danger to
us may not necessarily lie in their connection with
powers outside of the country. Right here and now
they are presenting in themselves a danger to our form
of government, a form of government which cannot af
ford to tolerate violence against its citizens or against
itself. The great benefit and privilege of democracy is
that it deliberately leaves an opening, the ballot if you
wish, through which any objection to it may be made.
The only requirement that democracy demands is that
the objectors use this opening.
In closing, let me summarize again the Affirmative
case. We have tried our best to explain; first, that
there is a danger to democracy even in America, and
that these subversive groups do constitute that danger;
there is a need for suppression; second, that we have,
by constitutional decrees, the right to protect ourselves
against this danger; and third, that through this plan
which we have described, we firmly believe that we
have the means of doing so!
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES
BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS
Allen, Frederick Lewis. Only Yesterday. Harper, New York. 1931.
Brindye, Ruth. Not to be Broadcast. Vanguard Press, New York.
1937.
Case, Clarence M. Non-Violent Coercion. The Century Co., New
York and London. 1923.
70 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
Clarke, Edwin Levitt. The Art of Straight Thinking. Appleton Co.,
New York. 1929.
Cushman, Robert Eugene. Leading Constitutional Decisions. 6th ed.
F. S. Crofts and Co., New York. 1937.
Billing, Mrs. Elizabeth. T/ze Red Network. The Author, 53 W. Jack
son Blvd., Chicago, 111. 1934.
Doob, Leonard William. The Psychology of Propaganda. H. Holt
Co., New York. 1935.
Graves, William B. Readings in Public Opinion. D. Appleton & Co.,
New York. 1928.
Institute for Propaganda Analysis, Inc. Propaganda. The Institute,
New York. 1938.
Kassner, Minna and Zacharoff, Lucien. Radio is Censored. Ameri
can Civil Liberties Union, New York. 1932.
Lee, Ivy L. Publicity. Industries Publishing Co., New York. 1925.
Lippmann, Walter. The Phantom Public. Harcourt, Brace & Co.,
New York. 1925. Public Opinion. Harcourt, Brace & Co., New
York. 1922.
Lumly, Frederick Elmore. Means of Social Control. The Century
Co., New York. 1925.
Phelps, Edith M. Civil Liberty. H. W. Wilson, New York. 1927.
Propaganda Analysis. August 1, October 1, October 15, November
15, December 15, 1939.
Shroeder, Theodore. Free Speech for Radicals. Free Speech League,
New York. 1916,
Supreme Court Reports. 249 U.S. 48, March 3, 1919. Schenk vs.
U.S. 268 U.S. 652, June 8, 1935. Gitlow vs. New York.
U.S. Congress, House. Report of Special Committee on Un-American
Activities, pursuant to H. Res. 282, 75th Congress, January 3,
1939. Government Printing Office. Investigation of Un-Amer
ican Activities and Propaganda.
Young Communist League. Defense of the Bill of Rights. The
League, 1514 Prospect Ave., Cleveland, Ohio.
Young, Eugene J. Looking Behind the Censorship. Lippincott,
Philadelphia. 1938.
MAGAZINES AND PERIODICALS
American Magazine. 124:14-15, August, 1937. Reprinted in Reader's
Digest. 31:10-13, October, 1937. Those Nazi Americans.
UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES ,., 71
American Mercury .47: 293, July, 1939. Mrs. Billing; Lady of the
Red Network. M. S. Mayer.
American Scholar. 1:97, January, 1940. Freedom of Speech. M.
Ascoli.
Annals of the American Academy. 200:1-12, November, 1938. Free
dom and Restraint. E. P. Cheyney.
Atlantic Monthly. 164:186, August, 1939. The Indispensable Oppo
sition. W. Lippmann.
Collier's Weekly. January 14, 1939. More Dollars for Dies.
Common Sense. 9:8-9, March, 1940. Should Democracy Curb
Propaganda? Julius R. Young.
Commonweal. 31:315, February 2, 1940. Communism Condemned.
Congressional Digest. 18:259, November, 1939. Congress and Un-
American Activities. Ibid. Should Dies Committee Inquiries
into Un-American Activites be Continued?
Current History. 51:44, December, 1939. What Shall We Do- About
Un-American Activities? G. V. Denny.
Foreign Affairs. 16:1-20, October, 1937. Foreign Political Move
ments in the United States. Frank C. Hanighen.
Forum. 103:102, March, 1940. Inside the Christian Front. Theo
dore Irwin.
Ladies Home Journal. December, 1939. Propaganda Bogey. Doro
thy Thompson.
Life. 6:57, March 6, 1939. Fascism in America; Like Communism
It Masquerades as Americanism.
Literary Digest. 124:16, August 14, 1937. Fascism in America.
Monthly Labor Review. 49:140, July, 1939. Ordinance Restricting
Right of Assembly Held Unconstitutional by United States Su
preme Court.
Nation. November 8, 1933. How Shall We Meet Nazi Propaganda?
June 3, 1939. Dies and the Press; October 1, 1939. A Revolu
tion in Ideas. Max Lerner; November 4, 1939. Freedom for
Opinion Industries. M. Lerner; November 11, 1939. A TV A
for Opinion Industries. M. Lerner; March 4, 1939. The Nazis
Are Here; 148:605, May 27, 1939. Red Totalitarianism. F.
Kirchway; 149:399, October 14, 1939. Communists and Democ
racy. F. Kirchway; 144:636, June 5, 1937. What Are the Amer
ican Nazis Doing? L. Lore; 149:199, August 19, 1939. Subver
sive Activity. P. H. Odegard; 146:632, June 4, 1938. Yankee
72 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
Communism. 150:36, January 13, 1940. Real Dies Report. K. G.
Crawford.
New Republic. 100:186, September 20, 1939. Not All Leopards.
H. Brown; 101:185, December 6, 1939. Case History of a Red
Hunt. March 27, 1935. Holmes on Strachey ; 100:356, Novem
ber 1, 1939. Labor Party Purge,
News Week. 14:64, November 20, 1939. Strange Roads to Freedom.
R. Moley.
New York Times. December 14, 1939. German- American Bund
Publicly Assails U.S. Jews; December 24, 1939. Senator Her
ring Plans Bill to Ban Uniforms. December 26, 1939; Member
ship Denials, an Editorial, December 30, 1939. Silver Shirt Le
gion Members Sentenced for October Anti-Semitic Sabotage,
Chicago. December 31, 1939. Plans for N.Y.C. Student Toler
ance Project Sponsored by Mrs. Roosevelt.
Propaganda Analysis. 2:No. 12, August 1, 1939. The Associated
Farmers.
Reader's Digest. April, 1938. Should We Curtail Those Who Would
Destroy Us? March, 1940. America Looks at the War. de Sales,
Raoul de Roussy.
Saturday Evening Post. 211:5-6, July 9, 1938. Communism Presses
Its Pants. Stanley High. 211:5-7, May 27, 1939. Star Span
gled Fascists. Stanley High.
School and Society. 50:449, October 7, 1939, Article by E. V. Hol-
lins.
Science News Letter. 36:250, October 14, 1939.
Survey Graphic. 28:117, February, 1939. Freedom to End Freedom.
A. MacLeish. 28:83, February, 1939. Minorities of Opinion.
E. A. Mowrer. November, 1939. Propaganda Good and Bad
for Democracy. C. E. Miller and L. Minsky.
Vital Speeches. 6:242, February 1, 1940. Speech and the Demo
cratic Process. A. C. Baird; 5:762, October 1, 1939. Challenge
to Democracy. M. Dies; 6:120, December 1, 1939. Termites in
America. Stanley High; 5:546, July 1, 1939. Problems of Free
dom. Thomas Mann. 5:495, June 1, 1939.
World Tomorrow. November 9, 1933. Free Speech for the Nazis?
Roger Baldwin.
MAINTAINING CIVIL LIBERTIES
A Symposium Discussion
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH vs. PENNSYLVANIA STATE
COLLEGE DEBATERS ON THE PROS AND CONS OF CERTAIN
ISSUES IN MAINTAINING CIVIL LIBERTIES
Occasionally college debaters like to engage in -a friendly inter
change of views or in a discussion of mooted issues in which there
is no occasion to take sides and oppose each other as in debate. The
present set of speeches is such a discussion. The four speeches given
here are each on a different subject in a related field. David R. Ben
jamin of Pennsylvania State spoke first on: Should the Communist
Party and the German- American JJund be suppressed? He was fol
lowed by Ernest T. Larson of Pittsburgh who discussed whether
Father Coughlin should have his radio privileges curtailed. The
next speaker, Leonard S. Schneider of Pennsylvania State, discussed:
Should the Dies Committee be continued? The final speaker, Abe
Wolovitz of Pittsburgh, considered whether the labor situation justi
fied the continuance of the LaFollette Civil Liberties Committee.
The four symposium speakers were only a part of the evening's
program. Representatives of the debate squads of Geneva College
of Beaver Falls, Pa., Mount Mercy College and Pennsylvania Col
lege for Women, both of Pittsburgh, were present and held a panel
discussion with the four symposium speakers on the general theme:
What Should be Our Attitude toward Civil Liberties in the United
States? Following the panel discussion there was an open forum in
which members of the audience questioned the panel speakers.
The symposium and panel discussions were held on the evening of
March 4, 1940 at the Cathedral of Learning. Miss Freda Jaffe of
the Pittsburgh debate squad presided and introduced the speakers.
The discussion was organized by Abe Wolovitz, the debate manager
of the University of Pittsburgh. He collected the speeches and sub
mitted them for publication in Intercollegiate Debates.
MAINTAINING CIVIL LIBERTIES
Chairman's Introduction to the Symposium
Freda Jaffe, University of Pittsburgh
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: This evening four gentle
men, two from Pennsylvania State College and two
from the University of Pittsburgh, will speak on vari
ous phases of civil liberties. The question of such
liberties has been contested from the day of the signing
of the Constitution to this very hour. They are guar
anteed in the National Constitution and repeated with
out exception in the constitution of every state. In the
first amendment the American people find these guar
antees: "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exer
cise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech; or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to as
semble, and to petition the Government for a redress
of grievances." In the next several amendments to the
Federal Constitution are further guarantees: "the right
of the people to keep and bear arms"; the right "to be
secure . . . against unreasonable searches and seiz
ures"; regulation of quartering soldiers during peace
and war times; and finally rights in both civil and
criminal trials.
In these words, then, live the roots of a liberty which
Americans, on the whole, agree that we must always
maintain. Within this broad agreement are many dif-
75
76 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
ferences. The way to preserve "the American way of
life," and this means liberty, is to curtail the speech
and press of those who speak and write against such
American liberties, say one group. Another part of
the American populace claims that the only way to
insure that liberty is to allow, regardless of conse
quences, complete expression and freedom to those
who disagree with the present setup.
That this problem is an old one is no doubt true.
That the question of civil liberties is particularly im
portant today is also true. In a world that has seen in
recent months the curtailment in major countries of
the press, of speech and of personal liberties, the prob
lem is thrust before us Americans in headline, in maga
zine and by word of mouth. The situation outside
American boundaries has emphasized certain Ameri
can activities. This evening four gentlemen will dis
cuss such activities: the Communist Party and the
German-American Bund; Radio Speeches of Father
Coughlin; the Dies Committee; and Industrial De
mocracy. Representing Pennsylvania State College to
night are David R. Benjamin and Leonard S. Schneider.
Abe Wolovitz and Ernest T. Larson are our University
speakers. We of the University of Pittsburgh are very
glad to have the Penn State gentlemen speak with us
in this symposium on civil liberties. For this sym
posium is one of several meetings of our debating squad
with that of Penn State, and in addition it is one of the
few times that Penn State has not been battling on the
other side of the fence. We have sidestepped such bat
tling tonight by giving the gentlemen from the visiting
MAINTAINING CIVIL LIBERTIES 77
school topics different from ours. The speakers this
evening will merely present their own views. There
will be no verbal rebuttal by the members of the sym
posium although the audience will have an opportunity
to question any one of the four speakers. With some
idea of the particular timeliness of the timeless prob
lem of civil liberties, may I present Mr. Benjamin who
will start the discussion this evening with his answer
to the question, "Should the Communist Party and the
German-American Bund be suppressed?" Mr. Ben
jamin
Should the Communist Party and the German-Ameri
can Bund Be Suppressed?
David R. Benjamin, Pennsylvania State College
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: Meeting a debate team
from the University of Pittsburgh has always been an
outstanding occasion on our debate calendar. How
ever, to be able to debate with them before an audi
ence composed of debaters from the various schools in
the Pittsburgh area is an occasion I shall remember for
quite some time.
One thing I can safely say we all agree on this eve
ning, namely, the preservation of American democracy
and our Constitution, along with the principles and
ideals which the latter contains. I am sure that not
one of you would hesitate one minute to protest, and
protest vigorously, if you suddenly were awakened one
morning and told that no longer were you able to say
what you pleased, and no longer were you able to dis-
78 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
cuss and criticize the actions of our Government. Yet
you know as well as I do that there are people living in
what we term civilized countries who do not have the
power to criticize . . . nor the power to assemble . . .
nor to worship the way they please.
But you answer me by saying that such a thing can't
happen here. Well, I hope not. However, there are
certain organizations in this country which, if success
ful in their struggle to gain control of the Government,
would not hesitate to do exactly what is being done in
those countries. Now the question this evening is
whether we should allow them to continue undisturbed,
or whether they should be suppressed.
My answer this evening is very simple. We must
extend even to these destructive organizations all the
traditional civil liberties. To do otherwise would be
mockery of the tradition. To do otherwise would be
committing suicide, for free speech and free assembly
are the vital organs of democracy, without which it
perishes. Democracy cannot survive by becoming its
opposite.
Article I of the amendments to the Constitution
reads as follows:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech; or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.
This article, drawn up more than a hundred years
ago, is the palladium of the rights and liberties of the
MAINTAINING CIVIL LIBERTIES 79
American people regardless of race, color or creed, or
whether in the majority or minority.
I feel that our program of action should be one that
would do everything within our power to curb the effi
ciency of these organizations and still do so within the
framework of our Constitution. Instead of not allow
ing them to get up and say what they please, extend to
them the right that is justly theirs under a democratic
government, and allow them to talk until they are red
in the face, if you will pardon the trite saying. Let
them shout their heads off, and then show the Ameri
can people where they are wrong. Meet speech with
speech. Advertise the fact that it is great to be able
to get up and say what you please. Make us aware
of the fact that it is a privilege to be able to say what
you want whenever you want. In short, expose these
agencies which are trying to break up our Government
and then fight from without instead of within. If this
type of a program is maintained, our united opposition
to these organizations would be expressed in what we
say, in how we vote, in running our businesses and our
Government to increase the welfare of our citizens.
But our disapproval would never be shown in govern
mental acts of violence, or suppression, or disfranchise-
ment, or other unconstitutional conduct which would
be imitative of the ways of foreign dictators in dealing
with minorities.
On August 18, 1937, President Roosevelt, speaking
at Fort Raleigh, N. C., on the 350th anniversary of the
birth of Virginia Dare, took as his subject the letter of
Lord Macaulay written approximately eighty years ago
8o YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
to a friend in America, prophesying as to America's
future. Recorded facts show that he was a pretty ac
curate prophet. In discussing the letter, the President
did not seem to voice any fears as to the extremes pre
sented; that is, a dictatorship by a Caesar or a dicta
torship by the proletariat. His last quotation from
Lord Macaulay's letter was as follows:
Your Constitution is all sail and no anchor . . . either
some Caesar or Napoleon will seize the reins of government
with a strong hand, or your Republic will be laid waste
by barbarians in the twentieth century as the Roman Em
pire was in the fifth.
The President ended that quotation with a period.
But in Macaulay's letter there was a semicolon fol
lowed by a concluding phrase, as follows:
With this difference, that the Huns and Vandals who
ravished the Roman Empire, came from without, and that
your Huns and Vandals will have been engendered within
your own country by your own institutions.
It is your duty and mine to see that this prophecy
never comes true. Millions of Americans, united under
the stars and stripes throughout the North, South, East
and West will secure the safety of our Union. In
fighting Communism, Germany gave birth to Nazism,
and Italy gave birth to Fascism. Let us not make the
same mistake. For years syphilis was never mentioned
in polite society. As a result, it was eating away our
man power from within. Today we have it in the open,
and the campaign to rid the United States of syphilis
is progressing rapidly. We must use the same princi-
MAINTAINING CIVIL LIBERTIES 81
pies in attacking Communism and any other "ism"
which would destroy America from within. Brought
into the light of day, the disease is easily recognized
and the germ can be definitely killed.
Should Father Coughlin's Privileges on the Radio
Be Curtailed?
Ernest T. Larson, University of Pittsburgh
GENTLEMEN FROM PENN STATE, LADIES AND GEN
TLEMEN: As the Chairman has just told you, the ques
tion which I am to discuss this evening is, "Should
Father Coughlin's privileges on the radio be cur
tailed?" In other words, "Should we give Father
Coughlin the air or should we give him the air?"
Paradoxical though it may seem, my answer to both
of those questions is, "Yes." I believe that Father
Coughlin is an undesirable menace of whom we should
rid ourselves, but, at the same time, I am opposed to
denying to him the freedom which he now has of using
the radio. I say that, not because I believe that free
speech is justifiable only as an undeniable right with
which all men are born, but rather because I feel that
an attempt to limit Father Coughlin's use of the radio
would defeat the purpose for which it was intended.
The Father Coughlin of today started out simply
enough as a young Detroit priest conducting a Sunday
afternoon children's hour over a local radio station.
Gradually the content of those talks changed into what
he called "educational talks on economics and politics"
until today he has his own private network of forty-
82 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
seven stations, with an audience that may number as
many as twenty million persons. His weekly mail runs
well into the tens of thousands, and he has received a
response of over one million letters from one broadcast
alone.
As far as domestic economic and political policies are
concerned, I can see little of significance in what Father
Coughlin offers. An example from the past will il
lustrate. In the presidential campaign of 1936 Father
Coughlin supported William Lemke for President. At
that time he said that if his candidate did not poll nine
million votes he would leave the air. Actually, Lemke
received less than one million votes, and shortly after
the election Father Coughlin discontinued his broad
casts. The retirement was only for a short time of
course, but the incident shows that the political and
economic views of Father Coughlin are not taken very
seriously by the people.
On the other hand, there is one phase of Father
Coughlin's program which is a real threat, and that is
what I want to talk to you about this evening. Father
Coughlin says that he is anti-Communist. He says
that Communism in Russia came about as a result of
the activity of Jews. He believes also that Communism
in other parts of the world, including the United States,
is fostered by Jews. Father Coughlin is against Com
munism. Father Coughlin believes that Communism
is caused by Jews. Therefore, Father Coughlin is
against what he calls "Communistic Jews." He has
openly advocated the formation of militant groups to
combat the forces of "anti-Christ." And what has
MAINTAINING CIVIL LIBERTIES 83
been the result? You all know the answer. Just a
few weeks ago in New York City eighteen men were
charged with a plot to store up arms and ammunition
and to start a reign of terror to be climaxed by their
taking over the Government of the United States by
force. Those men were members of the Christian
Front which Father Coughlin had encouraged as a
means of combating the "anti-Christ" menace. When
first asked whether or not he sponsored the Christian
Front, Father Coughlin denied any connection with
the organization, but when confronted with concrete
evidence that he had supported this very Christian
Front in his magazine Social Justice, Father Coughlin
reversed his stand and admitted that he had.
Father Coughlin hated the "Communistic Jews 57 be
cause he hated Communism. Unfortunately, the
Christian Front, openly supported by Father Cough
lin, did not stop at "Communistic Jews" but went on
to hate and despise all Jews. Now such a program to
foster racial hatred is vicious enough in itself, but is
Father Coughlin right when he contends that the Jews
caused and are causing Communism? Who were the
leaders of Communism in Russia? Were they Jews?
Karl Marx was a Jew. Yes, but at the age of four
years he was baptized a Lutheran, and thereafter was
no longer a Jew. Trotsky was a Jew, but when a group
of Jewish rabbis and laymen asked him to cease in his
program which was causing so much suffering for the
Jews, he told them that he was no longer a Jew, and
that he cared not for the welfare of the Jews. Only
a very small percentage of the members of the Bolshe-
84 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
vist party in Russia before the Revolution were Jews.
Who are the leaders of the Communist party in the
United States? Are they Jews? Read down the list:
Earl Browder, William Foster, Clarence Hathaway,
James Ford and so on. None of them Jews. Less
than one-tenth of one per cent of the Jewish popula
tion of the United States belongs to the Communist
party. The Institute for Propaganda Analysis spends
a large portion of its book on Father Coughlin, point
ing out how absurd it is to believe that the Jews are
responsible for Communism in Russia or that Nazism
in Germany came about as a "defense mechanism 5 '
against Communism.
And there you have the real menace which Father
Coughlin presents, a malicious campaign for racial
hatred, made all the worse by its unjustifiability even
on the grounds on which its supporters base their op
pression. What should we do about it? Should we
allow Father Coughlin to continue to go on the air each
afternoon and carry on unrestricted his program
against the "Communistic Jews"?
There are two affirmative answers to that question.
We might say that, although we recognize the unde-
sirability of what Father Coughlin says, "We shall give
our lives to defend his right to say it." That seems to
me, however, to be an artificial way out. It seems more
like an evasion of the question than an answer to it. I
believe that we should not limit Father Coughlin's
privileges on the air because it would only serve to
make a martyr of him. Past experience has shown what
we might expect if we made such an attempt. The
MAINTAINING CIVIL LIBERTIES 85
Columbia Broadcasting System several years ago
sought to impose a mild form of censorship on Father
Coughlin because of the objections of its listeners. It
took Father Coughlin just one broadcast to take the
question to his followers and to bring down a flood of
protests upon the broadcasting company, forcing it to
withdraw its attempts at censorship. No doubt the
same thing would happen today. Just imagine how
the two million "signed-up" followers of Father Cough
lin would react to his cries of "persecution." Think
of the effect of those words upon the thousands who
are willing to give the financial support necessary to
maintain that private network of stations, and upon
those persons who are gullible enough to believe Social
Justice when it says, "Father Coughlin is the only
source of truth." No, to attempt an outright denial of
the radio to Father Coughlin would do more to aid his
cause than to harm it.
I think the solution lies not in such direct methods,
but in other, indirect methods. Such agencies as the
Institute for Propaganda Analysis can do much to help
make people see through the illogical conclusions which
Father Coughlin draws, and to make them realize that
much of his evidence is totally or partly untrue. We
can educate the people to realize that most, if not all,
of the publications of the Catholic Church are op
posed to Father Coughlin and that, as George Cardinal
Mundelein has said, "Father Coughlin does not repre
sent the doctrine or sentiments of the Church.' 7 Such
indirect methods are, I realize, slow and somewhat
86 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
doubtful, but under the circumstances they are the
only real way of giving Father Coughlin "the air."
Should the Dies Committee Be Continued?
Leonard S. Schneider
Pennsylvania State College
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: I am extremely happy to
be here speaking to you tonight. Being a native Pitts-
burgher, I canntft say that I feel strange in Pittsburgh.
Nevertheless, it is a real pleasure, I assure you, to be
the recipient of the fine hospitality accorded my col
league and me. Indeed, it is all the more appreciated,
because, as a Pittsburgher, I am happy to realize that
one does not have to travel outside his own home town
to be treated so grandly. For the fine reception gen
erally, my colleague and I sincerely wish to offer you
our humblest gratitude.
The subject of my speech tonight is "Should the
Dies investigation be continued?" In reviewing this
topic, P have attempted to be as objective as my
knowledge of the subject and feelings about it would
permit me to me. In line with this attempt at objec
tivity, therefore, we shall examine this topic from two
points of view; first, what is the function of any com
mittee set up to investigate un-American activities; and
second, how well has the Dies committee lived up to
this function?
Just what, therefore, is the function of any com
mittee of Congress, established to investigate un-Amer
ican activities? Is it judicial? With a Department of
MAINTAINING CIVIL LIBERTIES 87
Justice working overactively today to enforce the laws
against so-called subversive groups (witness the recent
prosecutions of Earl Browder and Fritz Kuhn for
minor offenses), it would seem hardly necessary for a
legislative committee to duplicate this work. No!
The Department of Justice, with a capable staff and
the finest facilities, is far more competent to investi
gate un-American groups, with a view to prosecution,
than is any legislative committee set up for the pur
pose. Keeping this in mind, it seems quite apparent
that the judicial function is not suited for a legislative
investigating committee.
Is the proper function of this committee legislative;
that is, can a committee of this sort serve a useful pur
pose in recommending to Congress legislation to curb
subversive movements and groups? I venture to say
there is no legislation whatever which any such com
mittee can recommend to curb what is loosely called
un-American or subversive propaganda without at the
same time striking at freedom of speech or of the press.
Mr. Dies himself recognized that fact in an interview
given on December 20 of last year, and his committee
report affirmed it. He called only for enforcement of
existing statutes. Thus, the legislative function of an
extraordinary committee of Congress is hardly a fit
excuse for its establishment and continuance.
With its legislative function admittedly out assum
ing the statesman from Texas voices the committee's
decisions and with prosecutions wholly outside the
powers of a Congressional committee, there remains
only one other function for this special committee of
88 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
Congress to perform, exposure. In the pursuance of
this function, the committee might serve a very use
ful purpose. Subversive organizations thrive only in
the dark. Their suit of lies and hate and prejudice
appears threadbare when exposed to the germ-killing
rays of the sun. Exposure gives the truth a chance to
shoot holes into the structurally defective framework
by which these underground groups attempt to justify
their position.
Inspection has revealed to us that the judicial or
prosecution power and the legislative function are ob
viously not sound as a basis for the continuance of a
committee to investigate un-American activities. The
weapon of exposure, however, is a dagger sharp and
powerful. The bringing to light of underground sub
versive tendencies, therefore, might be sufficient justi
fication for the continuing existence of an extraordinary
committee, if this weapon of exposure were properly
used by a committee interested in more than merely
the furtherance of selfish political ambitions.
Now we come to the second phase of tonight's dis
cussion. Just how well has the Dies committee lived
up to this objective we have set for it, the impartial,
nonpolitical exposure of underground subversive move
ments?
I contend tonight (and I shall give ample substan
tiation for my contentions) that, although some com
mittee to investigate un-American activities might per
form a valuable service, the Dies committee, as we
have learned to know it, has done little good and has
MAINTAINING CIVIL LIBERTIES 89
accomplished a great deal of harm. Therefore, it
should be abolished.
The Dies committee, I repeat, has done little good.
Its chief result has been to magnify the number and
influence of subversive groups far beyond their real
importance. There have never been over 100,000
Communist party members in the United States. The
total of Communist sympathizers has never risen above
250,000. This number is considerably smaller today,
since the completion of the German-Russian nonaggres-
sion pact and Russia's invasion of Finland. In a na
tion of 130,000,000 people, therefore, the number of
Communist followers and sympathizers is pitifully
small. But yet Mr. Dies and his cohorts on the com
mittee have done their best to picture a Communist in
every bedroom, and have even invaded the sanctity of
Shirley Temple's nursery to prove their point.
Instead of merely exposing existing conditions, the
committee has presented a picture whose effect is to
create a new, nonexisting condition. Indeed, the com
mittee's work has had such a feeble effect in discourag
ing the Communist movement, that we have no choice
but to agree with Roger Baldwin, director of 'the Ameri
can Civil Liberties Union, who declared in a radio ad
dress on January 8, 1940, "Stalin has done a vastly
better job than Dies in reducing to impotence the ap
peal of Communism to any element in American life."
Even if the menace from subversive groups is re
garded as seriously threatening American democracy,
however, the investigation, as it has beer), conducted,
has resulted in little of value.
90 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
The careless method of conducting hearings has cast
disrepute upon the entire investigation. As proof of
this statement, a glance over the list of witnesses called
to testify discloses that most of those who have ap
peared before the committee have accused themselves
of having lied and conspired in the past. The truth of
their statements could be established only by extensive
investigation. Such investigations have not been made.
Furthermore, individuals and organizations are,
through mere mention and appearance at committee
hearings, libeled on the front page of every newspaper
in the United States. The victims must themselves
discredit the falsehoods.
Can these methods be justified on the part of a fact-
finding committee appointed by Congress to discover
actual conditions?
But yet this was no worse than the methods adopted
to reach committee decisions, which were so undemo
cratic as to disillusion even the public. Thus, the first
volume of the hearings, which includes five hundred
pages, was "read in" to the Record with little or no
questioning. The same testimony named as "Com
munist" 640 organizations, 483 newspapers and 280
labor organizers. Furthermore, a report labeling con
sumers 7 organizations as "Communist transmission
belts" was issued by Dies and a discredited aide, J. B.
Matthews, without consulting the other members of the
committee and without a single hearing.
And yet this is a committee set up to investigate un-
American and undemocratic activities. Well, who is to
investigate the committee?
MAINTAINING CIVIL LIBERTIES 91
The Dies committee is to be condemned severely,
not only for conducting the investigation in a thor
oughly biased (and I might add, with my tongue in my
cheek, un-American) manner, but also in conducting
that investigation in such a way as to permit it to be
dominated by political motives.
The committee entered close state and national elec
tions in Michigan, Minnesota and California, and drew
up a list of unsupported charges against the liberal
candidates in the elections such as to discredit them,
without giving them opportunity to reply. President
Roosevelt himself rebuked the committee for its inves
tigation of the alleged Communist connections of Gov
ernor Murphy, (now U. S. Attorney General), on the
eve of the Michigan elections, when he termed the
whole affair a "sordid procedure."
In view of the careless method of conducting hear
ings, the undemocratic methods of reaching decisions,
and the political motives dominating the investigation,
it would seem evident that the investigation, as it has
been conducted, has resulted in little value.
But more than this, the Dies committee itself has
done a great deal of harm.
The committee has carelessly maligned personalities.
To prove this, we need only point to the publication of
the mailing list of the American League for Peace and
Democracy, a liberal and anti-Fascist organization
charged with being a "Communist front,' 7 despite the
fact that but ten per cent of its members belong to the
Communist party. By the publication of this list, out
standing men and women throughout the country are
92 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
unjustly accused by the implication that all on the
mailing list are Communists.
The committee has carried this tendency to such a
degree that they have been properly reprimanded by
Mr. Wendell Willkie of Wall Street, president of the
Commonwealth and Southern Corporation. Mr. Will
kie declared, "The Dies committee has been destroying
reputations by publicity, by inference, by innuendo."
Likewise, the Dies committee has maligned groups.
Thus, the report issued to prove that consumers'
groups constitute a segment of the "Communist front"
was prepared by the chief investigator, J. B. Matthews,
a former official of a consumers' organization. What
more flagrant instance could be given to illustrate the
obvious bias and political prejudice of the committee's
investigation?
The Dies investigation has been harmful in still an
other way. Through its careless procedure, it has les
sened public respect for legislative investigations. Thus,
future investigations, which may be run on a more
democratic basis, will be less effective because of public
distrust, fostered by the undemocratic tactics and po
litical bias of the Dies committee.
Fellow-debaters, I have shown you tonight that the
Dies committee has done little good. They have exag
gerated the menace of subversive groups, particularly
the Communists, in the United States far beyond their
actual number and influence. They have conducted
their investigation in such a prejudiced manner as to
make it of little value. I have further shown you that
the Dies committee has done a great deal of harm. It
MAINTAINING CIVIL LIBERTIES 93
has carelessly maligned innocent personalities and
groups.
Ladies and gentlemen, I am opposed to un-Ameri-
canism in any of its forms. I am even opposed to
tm-Americanism on the part of a committee set up to
investigate un-American activities. It is precisely for
this reason, for the un-American and undemocratic
tactics it has used, that I am opposed to the continu
ance of the Dies committee.
If anything useful has come out of the Dies in
vestigation in the way of popularizing information
previously confined only to the well-informed, it has
been wholly obscured by these un-American methods
of inquiry and the bias with which the investigation
has been pursued. It is a matter of record that every
force in the country opposed to civil rights and demo
cratic progress is lined up behind the Dies committee.
Not a single progressive force in the country sup
ports it.
If the committee has effected a single benefit, it has
more than nullified its attempts with a bigoted and
Hitlerian pattern of tactics which future historians will
look upon as a cancer on the body of democratic gov
ernment.
Let us send Old Man Dies and his ghost-hunters
back to the political graveyard, where they belong, so
that liberal groups need no longer fear an inquisition
by a committee outwardly engaging on a Communist
witch hunt, but which includes all progressive activities
in its definition of "Communist." If liberty is to live,
the Dies committee should die.
94 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
Should the La Follette Civil Liberties Committee
Be Continued?
Abe Wolovitz, University of Pittsburgh
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: This evening in our dis
cussion of civil liberties we have heard Mr. Benjamin
oppose the suppression of the Communist party and
the German- American Bund; we have heard Mr. Lar
son defend the right of Father Coughlin to speak on the
radio; and we have heard Mr. Schneider demand the
abolition of the Dies Committee. I shall now discuss
the problems of civil liberties for the workers.
In the long run, I believe that this question of indus
trial democracy is more vital to our political democracy
than are any of the other three phases of this topic.
The Communist party and the Bund represent but
small minority elements in our population; it will af
fect our lives little whether we tolerate or suppress
them. Whether we permit Father Coughlin the use of
the radio or deny him that privilege will probably not
affect our basic liberties decisively. The Dies Commit
tee simply indicates a passing phenomenon in American
life which will probably not jeopardize our traditional
institutions. Industrial democracy, on the other hand,
affects the lives of millions of our fellow-citizens. We
must realize that we cannot remain oblivious to the
plight of a great number of Americans without being
directly threatened ourselves. How can we expect men
to retain their faith in political democracy when they
are clubbed around for trying to organize themselves
into a union? How can we expect fidelity toward our
MAINTAINING CIVIL LIBERTIES 95
democratic institutions from those who are beset upon
by hirelings of the state when engaged in peaceful
picketing. That is why this question is so vital for
those of us who cherish our liberties. We can make
the workers of this country either the great defenders
or the great foes of civil liberties, depending upon
whether or not we grant basic civil liberties to them.
The deprivation of civil liberties for workers may be
classified under two headings: peacetime and wartime
(nonstrike and strike) . Peacetime tactics include such
things as beating up union leaders, breaking into and
damaging union offices, denying unions the use of pub
lic halls in which to assemble, passing ordinances
against the distribution of union leaflets and papers,
evicting workers from company-owned houses, instal
ling a virtual peonage system by means of company-
owned stores, and passing anti-syndicalism legislation
aimed at organized workers. Wartime tactics are even
harsher and more repressive. Companies often fortify
their plants with pistols, rifles, riot guns, machine guns,
gas grenades, gas masks, barbed wire and even armored
trucks and airplanes. Professional guards and strike
breakers, such as the notorious Pearl BergofPs, are
often employed. The city, county or state government
authorities often supply police, deputy sheriff or mi
litia protection. Organized vigilante groups violently
attack strikers and aid in the breaking of strikes.
With the aid of the La Follette Civil Liberties Com
mittee many heretofore unknown illustrations of the
denial of civil liberties have been exposed. For in
stance, in one western Pennsylvania steel town during
g6 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
1934, the chief of police was an ex-police head of the
largest company, and the warden of the county jail and
the sheriff had had similar company connections. It is
not surprising that under such conditions union organ
izers are terrorized and beaten. In June, 1936, the
head of the C.I.O. United Rubber Workers and other
unionists were severely beaten by deputy sheriffs and
Goodyear Rubber "service squad" men when they at
tempted to speak to a union meeting in Gadsden, Ala
bama. From 1933 to 1937, the sheriff, deputies and
mine guards of Harlan County in Kentucky instituted
an unparalleled reign of terror against organizers and
members of the United Mine Workers and their fami
lies. Their "thugging" included the use of machine
guns, rifles, shotguns, pistols, blackjacks, dynamite and
other weapons of murder and destruction; men were
killed and maimed, and houses blown up. In May,
1937, head organizers and members of the United
Automobile Workers were severely beaten by "service
men 7 ' (company spies and guards) of the Ford Motor
Company as they tried to distribute union leaflets in
front of one of the plant gates in Dearborn, Michigan.
In a few states companies have used and paid for po
lice, commissioned by the Governor. In 1931, about
800 out of 1,000 Pennsylvania state coal and iron
police were in the employ and pay of fifteen coal and
steel companies.
A favorite device of employer-government alliances
is to keep unionists from meeting freely together. Thus,
in 1934, when the wife of the Governor of Pennsyl
vania made a speech under state police protection, no
MAINTAINING CIVIL LIBERTIES 97
union meeting had ever been held in Aliquippa. Cities,
like Edgewater and Jersey City, New Jersey, often
denied permission for the distribution of union "litera
ture" and for the holding of meetings in public places.
In Bethlehem, in 1935, clergymen favorable to the
unionists were compelled to resign by important anti-
union church members.
When a strike has been called, employer-dominated
governments deny the workers of their civil liberties
in less subtle ways if that is possible. Antipicketing
ordinances are almost universal. A common practice
(as in Kansas City, Missouri, during a Ford strike in
1937) is to jail picketeers without preferring formal
charges against them and then release them after a few
hours, repeating the process endlessly. The Georgia
militia in the textile strike of September, 1934, se
questered strikers behind barbed wires in "concentra
tion camps." Organizations, such as the Ku Klux
Klan, the Black Legion, the Young Nationalists, the
Stahlmate Clubs, the Flint Alliance, the Knights of
Dearborn and the Johnstown Citizens' Committee,
have engaged in violent strikebreaking.
The record for 1936 and 1937 is not a very pretty
one. It showed twelve killings of workers; almost five
hundred injuries of strikers; fifteen hundred arrests of
strikers; about one hundred beatings, kidnappings and
bombings of unionists or their homes by vigilante
groups, and ten by law-enforcement officers; about ten
raids on workers' halls by vigilantes and thirty by po
lice; and more than ten instances in which the Na
tional Guard was used to break strikes. The 1937 rec-
98 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
ord was worse in many respects. In May, 1937 ten
strikers were shot down and killed outside the Repub
lic Steel Corporation's South Chicago plant in an ex
hibition of particularly cold-blooded police brutality.
All of us, I believe, are firmly convinced of the ne
cessity of civil liberties. The record is not one to make
us particularly proud of ourselves; but, more impor
tant, it is fraught with dangerous implications to us
who are not directly affected. That record means that
to a large proportion of our population the word de
mocracy is a bitter joke. It means that the Bill of
Rights which Miss Jaffe read affects only those who
have enough money to pay for it. It means that a
huge number of Americans are disaffected and distrust
ful of democracy. That fact contributes to the insta
bility of our society and jeopardizes the civil liberties
of each one of us. Let's recognize, then, that the great
danger to our civil liberties today does not come from
the Communist party or the German-American Bund,
not from Father Coughlin or the Dies Committee. Our
liberties are menaced because so many Americans are
deprived of theirs.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
CIVIL LIBERTIES
BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS
American Civil Liberties Union. Eternal Vigilance. The Union.
1938. lOtf.
American Civil Liberties Union. Bill of Rights 150 Years After,
The Union. 1939. lOtf.
Brooks, R.R.R. When Labor Organizes. Yale University Press.
MAINTAINING CIVIL LIBERTIES 99
Commons and Andrews. Principles of Labor Legislation. Harpers.
Daugherty, Carrol R. Labor Problems in American Industry.
Houghton Mifflin Co. 1933. $3.50.
Swing, Raymond G. Forerunners of American Fascism. Messner.
1935. $1.75.
The Institute for Propaganda Analysis. The Fine AH of Propa
ganda. Harcourt, Brace and Co. New York. 1935.
Reports of the La Follette Civil Liberties Committee.
Reports of the Dies Committee on Un-American Activities.
MAGAZINES AND PERIODICALS
American City. 54:121, June, 1939. Civil Liberties and the Cities.
F. Murphy,
Business Week. P. 38, January 13, 1940. LaFollette Quiz Lacks
Fireworks.
Christian Century. 57:134-5, January 31, 1940. Catholicism and
Father Coughlin.
Christian Science Monitor. P. 6, July 1, 1939. United States Con
stitution. I am the Law. A. Ware.
Collier's Weekly. 105:58, February 10, 1940. Stop the Witch
Hunters.
Commonweal. 31:293, January 26, 1940. Hypnotized. Editorial.
Cummins, E. A.- 57:164, February 7, 1940. Father Coughlin Takes
His Stand with the Christian Front. Editorial.
Forum. 102:145, October, 1939. Safety Valves for Democracy.
H. G. Leach.
Forum. 103:102-8, March, 1940. Inside the Christian Front. T.
Irwin.
Living Age. 358:137, April, 1940. Civil Liberty in Canada at War.
R. S. Lambert.
Nation. 149:61, July 15, 1939. Funds for LaFollette. 149:462,
October 28, 1939. Let Canada be a Warning. G. J. Kennedy.
149:399. October 14, 1939. Communists and Democracy. F.
Kirchwey.
New Republic. 99:321, June 26, 1939. Check up on Civil Liberties.
Annual Survey by the American Civil Liberties Union. 100:327,
October 25, 1939. Attack on Civil Liberties. 102:99, January
22,1940. Brooklyn Beer Hall Putsch. Editorial. 102:108, Jan
uary 22, 1940. Civil Rights in California. La Follette Civil Lib-
ioo YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
erty Commission Hearings. C. McWillams. 102:142-5, June 29,
1940. Coughliri's Christian Front. G. Britt.
Reader's Digest. 36:33-8, May, 1940. Whither Father Coughlin?
J. P. McEvoy.
Scholastic. 35:185-195, October 2, 1939. Democracy; Its Essentials
and Its Problems; Freedom of Speech, Assembly, Petition.
School and Society. 50:228, August 19, 1939. Essentials of De
mocracy. C. A. Beard. Also in Vital Speeches. 5:729, Septem
ber 15, 1939.
Virginia Quarterly Report. 16, No. 1:8-91, January, 1940. Civil
Liberties in the South. V. Dabney.
Vital Speeches. 5:542, June 15, 1939. Civil Liberties and the Cities.
F. Murphy. 5:679, September 1, 1939. Relative Position of the
Individual Under Democratic and Totalitarian States. J. G Har-
ford.
ISOLATION FROM COUNTRIES
AT WAR
Phi Rho Pi National Championship Debate
WENTWORTH MILITARY ACADEMY AFFIRMATIVE w. GLEN-
DALE JUNIOR COLLEGE NEGATIVE
The Phi Rho Pi forensic honor society for junior colleges of the
country, holds an annual convention-tournament, and this year,
during the week of March 18-22, met at Ogden, Utah, with Weber
College as host. The final or championship debate of the tourna
ment is always the climax of the contests. This year the two final
ists were Wentworth Military Academy of Lexington, Missouri, and
Glendale Junior College of Glendale, California. The Phi Rho Pi
uses the Pi Kappa Delta national debate question which was:
American Isolation from Countries Outside the Western Hemisphere
Engaged in Civil or International Conflict.
The debate was won by Wentworth Military Academy advocating
the policy of isolation.
The speeches were collected by the coaches of the teams, Professor
J. D. Davis of Glendale Junior College and Captain D. C. Buck of
Wentworth Military Academy, for Intercollegiate Debates.
The Glendale team had participated in five tournaments and had
won the Pacific Coast Phi Rho Pi district meet previous to the
national tournament. The Wentworth team did not report its season
record but it was undoubtedly a similar one.
ISOLATION FROM COUNTRIES
AT WAR
First Affirmative, Cadet Allan Conwill
Wentworth Military Academy
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: In a world torn again by
war, with two conflicts already under way, one recently
completed, and more very likely in the making, we feel
that it is time for America to cast about and protect
our hemisphere. The need is made acute through our
lack of a policy that is safe, consistent and profitable
from the long-term viewpoint.
We have adopted a policy of cash and carry as be
tween England, France and Germany. After we had
declared neutrality in that particular conflict, we voted
our present policy with the definite intent of helping
England and France. That is not neutral, it is not
honorable in view of our declaration of strict neutral
ity, and it is bad business from the standpoint of
American economic and military welfare, for it makes
us again a meddler in European affairs.
In the case of the Russian-Finnish War which has
just been completed, we adopted a policy of outright
financial and economic assistance to the side with
whom our sympathies lay. In the Japanese-Chinese
affair we have again taken sides; we have loaned money
to China and we are even now threatening to stop all
trade with Japan unless she withdraws from China.
103
104 TEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
What does that all add up to? To no settled policy at
all except the policy that is so obnoxious to the over
whelming majority of Americans; that is, intervention
in the quarrels of every other continent.
Think of it: In every one of the wars which have
been raging in Europe and Asia, we have taken chips
by adopting policies directly favorable to one side or
the other. It is only when we look at the whole pic
ture in general that the truth of the matter is ade
quately instilled in us. In all of those wars we are
taking a hand, in all of them we are engaging in the
ancient game of power politics. The enemies of a
permanent and general policy like to divert our atten
tion from the damning facts by considering each war
separately and telling us in each instance that the par
ticular policy applied to that particular war is safe and
won't get us into war. Maybe so. But, taken together,
these different policies add up to just this one policy:
constantly taking sides in every European and Asiatic
quarrel, that is our policy, and it's extremely danger
ous, for sooner or later we're going to get so involved
that we can extricate ourselves only by war. While
it may make for a temporary trade advantage during
an emergency, it gains us the reputation of being the
world's worst meddler. You don't buy permanently
from a person with that kind of a reputation. We
found that out in Central and South America. We
used to insist upon taking chips in every one of their
quarrels. We used to send troops to help one side or
the other in Cuba, in Haiti, in Nicaragua and else
where. The sum total of result was that those we
ISOLATION FROM COUNTRIES AT WAR 105
befriended were ungrateful and all the rest despised
us, and our permanent trade suffered severely. So we
abandoned the policy of taking chips in every quarrel
and adopted a good neighbor policy of strict neutral
ity. And our trade, our respect and our prestige have
grown by leaps and bounds in this hemisphere.
We should have learned something from our expe
riences in this regard. You neither respect nor trade
with the man you consider a meddler. In this hemi
sphere we have abandoned the policy of policing the
morals and family quarrels of our neighbors, because
it didn't pay in hard cash and because it constantly
involved us in armed expeditions or wars.
But our imperialists die hard. Thwarted at last by
common sense in their attempt to tell every nation in
this hemisphere how to run its business and its foreign
affairs, they have turned their attention to bigger game
and now have us involved in two different quarrels
completely outside of this hemisphere. If meddling
didn't pay here, if it kept us involved in the constant
danger of war, how do they expect it to pay in quarrels
that are much more none of our business?
What we are getting at is the idea that we must
formulate a policy toward these exterior quarrels that
will be as sensible as our good neighbor policy is within
this hemisphere. If we do not, there is a danger, nay
a certainty, that sooner or later we will get our fingers
burned as we have before. In any case we will feel
the effects of our meddling attitude upon our perma
nent foreign trade just as we did in this hemisphere
before we woke up.
io6 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
What policies are there that can be applied to all
foreign wars? If we apply one to the German situa
tion, another one to the Finnish situation, another one
to the Japanese situation, and if each of these plays
favorites, we are right back where we started, med
dling in every case. Let me bear down upon this idea:
It is not the individual policy in an individual case
that makes our position precarious; it is the constantly
shifting policies in different situations that are danger
ous, likely to lead us into war, and sure to hurt our
permanent trade, as more and more we attain the rep
utation of the world's most obnoxious official policeman.
We believe that we have shown the necessity of one
policy, applicable to all.
Shall it be cash and carry or one of the many varia
tions of that plan? If it is, that makes us the ally of
England, the enemy of Germany. It also would have
made us the ally of Russia, the enemy of Finland, for
Russia was far more able to come and get our supplies
and pay cash or its equivalent than was Finland. It
makes us the ally of Japan, the enemy of China, for
the former is the only one of the two that can come and
get our supplies at all. Obviously cash and carry or
any of its variations is impossible as a settled and gen
eral policy, for it always makes us the ally of the sea
power right or wrong. In this instance it makes us
the ally of common blood-stained aggressors in at least
two cases.
The second policy capable of being generally applied
would be to go back to our ancient insistence upon our
rights to trade with everybody war or no war. We
ISOLATION FROM COUNTRIES AT WAR 107
know by sad experience where that leads and we can
discard it without discussion.
The only remaining policy, and the one that we ad
vocate, is to cut off military and commercial relations
with all nations, beyond this hemisphere, engaged in
war.
The advantages of this policy are many. First, it
makes us the ally, and therefore the enemy, of nobody.
Second, it is the only policy that can be fairly applied
to everybody. Third, it will keep our noses out of a
lot of quarrels that are none of our business and there
fore will not lead us into war, as all other policies are
gravely in danger of doing. Fourth, it will help our
trade relations in the years of peace by increasing our
prestige and stature among the nations of the world
as we found after long experience that only non-inter
vention in South and Central America would do. Tak
ing sides in family quarrels may for the moment be
profitable, but we have found after bitter experience
that after the quarrel is over the whole family is down
on the intruder like a pack of wolves. Remember the
cracks about Uncle Shylock, and dollar imperialism?
It's about time we learned a few things.
Fifth, it won't cost us much. Not nearly as much
as the permanent injury to our trade that comes from
meddling as we found out in this hemisphere. Not
nearly as much as the cost of involvement in foreign
wars, which is absolutely certain to come somewhere
unless we quit this policy of taking economic sides in
every war under the sun. As a matter of fact, a nation
at war gives up its normal trade anyway with any na-
io8 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
tion that forces it to pay cash. They can buy wheat
and beef and cotton and tobacco and everything else
under the sun elsewhere for credit. Why pay us cash
for anything except munitions and airplanes? That
is exactly what is happening now. We are selling noth
ing else to Japan, England and France. And when the
wars are over this industry must crash and drag down
with it all the other business and financial institutions
allied with it. And great will be the fall thereof. It
just doesn't pay to build up such an artificial thing
when we aren't selling the other products anyway to
warring nations.
We have shown the need for a change to a settled
and general policy to keep us out of war, to maintain
our permanent trade and to avoid economic dislocation.
We have shown that of the possible policies before us
only complete military and economic isolation from
wars beyond our hemisphere can possibly succeed.
First Negative, Raymond L. Somers, Jr.
Glendale Junior College
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: Let me first say that Mr.
Boyd and I are indeed glad to debate the gentlemen
from Wentworth Military Academy on a subject of
such vital importance as the foreign policy of the
United States.
In upholding the Negative against a policy of com
plete economic and military isolation toward all na
tions outside the Western Hemisphere engaged in armed
international or civil conflict, let us first briefly review
ISOLATION FROM COUNTRIES AT WAR 109
the main issues of the first speaker for the Affirmative.
You will recall that Mr. Conwill of Wentworth has
based his contention for a change from our present
policy of cash and carry neutrality upon two major
contentions: first, and most important, that the United
States is meddling in the affairs of Europe and eventu
ally will become involved in the present and any future
European war; second, that war time purchases by the
Allies will cause a terrific war boom in the munitions
and related industrials, and that this boom will upset
our economic structure and cause a devastating depres
sion. These two evils, Mr. Conwill says, warrant a
change in our foreign policy, a change to a plan of eco
nomic and military isolation toward all belligerent
powers outside the Western Hemisphere.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, let us take these so-
called evils and analyze them. Let us see if they actu
ally exist. In the first place we of the Negative will
agree with Mr. Conwill that the United States should
not meddle in the affairs of Europe. We admit that
our country should have one sane and stable foreign
policy which will keep this country out of war and
preserve our domestic economy. But we do not agree
with the Affirmative that there is a need for a change
from our present policy. We believe and intend to
prove that the newly initiated plan of "cash and carry
neutrality" will keep this country out of war and main
tain a sound economic condition within her borders.
The Affirmative seems to believe that heretofore we
have been taking sides in every quarrel that has taken
place in the world. They say that at the present we
no YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
we are directly aiding the Allies by the cash and carry
policy. The Negative believes, ladies and gentlemen,
that in forming a foreign policy we must not only strive
toward nonpartiality but take into consideration which
policy would be the soundest and most beneficial to
this country. However, I might ask the gentlemen of
the opposition, would not a policy of isolation toward
belligerents most help the Germans who are the aggres
sors in this war? Indeed it would. Some of the most
ardent isolationists in the United States today are pro-
German. And naturally so, a policy of isolation would
definitely be to Hitler's interests. Secondly, I might
ask the Affirmative: Under your proposal would we
not still be trading with Canada who is a belligerent?
Canada is in the Western Hemisphere.
No, friends. The fact is, that any policy, whether
it be isolation, cash and carry or any other type of
plan, will sometime or another aid some belligerent
power. The main issue at stake is to maintain a policy
which is to the best interests of the United States and
will best keep this country out of war.
We believe that the cash and carry policy does just
this. As I said before, the Negative agrees that our
country should not meddle in the power policies of
Europe. We fail to see where the United States is in
terfering in Europe's affairs other than carrying on
normal economic intercourse with her great powers.
Our present policy of cash and carry is directed against
such a possibility. For in making unlawful the exten
sion of credit to belligerent powers and in keeping
our ships out of prescribed war zones, certainly we are
ISOLATION FROM COUNTRIES AT WAR in
not meddling in Europe's chaotic conditions. And if
the gentlemen of the opposition are referring to "med
dling" in peacetime, then the policy which they advo
cate would not alleviate this so-called evil for their
policy is only in effect during times of actual war
fare. And thus we see that the first point of the
Affirmative falls. First, because under our present pol
icy we are not meddling in the affairs of Europe and,
second, because a policy of isolation does nothing to
alleviate this even if we were.
The second contention of Mr. Conwill was that the
wartime purchases of munitions would cause a boom
in that industry, a depression would follow and our
country would be wrecked.
In regard to this terrific boom which we are going
to experience in the business of our country, we of the
Negative again believe that the present policy of cash
and carry eliminates any possibility of a war boom.
We need only to look at the facts. When the present
war began, it is true the business index of this country
rose some fifteen or twenty points within a few weeks.
It looked as though we might have a war boom. How
ever, ladies and gentlemen, the very week that cash
and carry was put into effect, it leveled off and has
not risen two-tenths of a point since. That is over
four months ago and we believe that, if we were to
experience a war boom, there would have been signs
of it before now. No, friends, the truth is that we have
solved the problem of a war boom in our new plan of
cash and carry. The only industry which might ex
pand because of the war is, as you say, the munitions
112 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
industry and it is inconceivable that one industry,
which incidentally constitutes less than one per cent
of the nation's business, could cause such a terrific eco
nomic upheaval in this country. And so we see that
the two major contentions of the Affirmative have
been refuted and there stands no need for a change
from our present policy.
But now let us examine the newly proposed plan of
isolation. You will recall that throughout Mr. Con-
wilPs entire speech there was no mention of their ad
vocated policy; rather he spent most of his time try
ing to show us what he thought was wrong with our
present system. It is the contention of the Negative
this evening that before the United States should adopt
any new plan, whether or not there is a need for a
change, that new plan should first be analyzed and
examined. For it would be foolhardly to adopt a policy
of which we knew nothing. We must realize that the
proposed plan of isolation from belligerents has two
phases. First, we would have to stop completely all
purchases from warring nations, and second, we would
have to stop completely all sales to those nations. In
other words, we would have to eliminate all imports
from, and all exports to belligerent powers. The Neg
ative believes that the cutting off of all trade inter
course with these nations would seriously impair the
entire business system of the United States. It would
precipitate a much worse depression than the Affirma
tive anticipates as a result of our present policy, be
cause it would cut off the source of many vital supplies
and put a stopper in the outlet of all surpluses.
ISOLATION FROM COUNTRIES AT WAR 113
Let us look a little further into the import phase
of the plan of isolation. According to the Department
of Commerce, the United States is deficient in twenty-
one essential commodities. The most important being
rubber, tin, silk, chromium, manganese and tungsten. It
is imperative, according to their bulletin, that these com
modities have an uninterrupted flow into this country.
Over 80 per cent of our industries could not operate
without them. For example, if our rubber supply were
abruptly cut off, the food packing industries would be
in a serious condition. Manganese and tungsten are
just as important to other industries. We believe that,
before the United States should adopt a policy of iso
lation, it must be shown where these vital necessities
can be obtained, for under the advocated plan their
source would be completely shut off.
The gentlemen of the opposition might say, "Well,
but all these materials can be obtained in the Western
Hemisphere." They might say, "We can get our rub
ber from Brazil." But if we look into the matter, we
shall find that this is very improbable. May I quote
from a recent Pan-American trade report? "After hav
ing spent millions of dollars in Brazil trying to develop
rubber plantations, American businessmen have come
to the conclusion that South America will never be
able to supply the rubber demands of the United
States." Why is this so? Simply because rubber can
not be grown in sufficient quantity or at a comparable
cost in the Latin-American countries. The same thing
is true of tin. "Although deposits of tin exist in Bo
livia," states the same report, "they exist in such an
II 4 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
impure form that the United States cannot look to
Bolivia for much of her tin supply." Anyway, gentle
men, the Bolivian tin mines are owned and controlled
by British concerns and certainly if we isolate our
selves from Britain, we could not expect her to supply
our tin.
The same thing exists in every instance. The com
modities which we import either do not exist in suffi
cient quantity in the Western Hemisphere, or the cost
of producing them is prohibitive. So with these facts
before us the Negative believes that a policy of isola
tion would have a drastic effect on the business of
our country.
Now the other phase of a plan of isolation: the ex
port phrase. At the present time the United States
depends to a great extent upon her export trade. For
example, over one-half of the cotton that is grown in
this country is exported to nations which are now bel
ligerents. If we were to cut off this trade, over one-
half of our 3,000,000 cotton farmers would be thrown
on direct relief. Now the opposition might say, "But
the Allies have already stopped their purchases of cot
ton and we must face this situation anyway." The
only reason for this is that cotton is never shipped dur
ing this time of year, because it is out of season. The
truth is that the entire South depends on our export
trade of cotton alone for its very livelihood.
The same condition exists in many other industries.
Millions of American men and women are dependent
on our export trade of cotton, wheat, petroleum, to
bacco and many other export products. The Negative
ISOLATION FROM COUNTRIES AT WAR 115
believes that the loss of export trade would likewise
have a drastic effect on our business economy.
Now in brief summary, what have I shown you? In
the first place, I have shown you that the so-called
evils of our present cash and carry neutrality policy do
not exist. We are not meddling in the affairs of Eu
rope. We shall not get into the war. In the second
place, I have shown you that the United States will not
have a terrific war boom which will be followed by a
depression. And in the third place, I pointed out the
evils under a policy of isolation: how we would lose
many of our vital necessities, such as rubber, tin, an
timony, silk, chromium and other commodities we need
to carry on our economic livelihood; how millions of
American men and women would be thrown out of
their jobs by the loss of our export trade in cotton,
tobacco, wheat, petroleum. So, in view of the facts
presented, we of the Negative cannot but contend that
by all means the United States should not adopt a
policy of isolation, but should follow a safe, sane plan
of cash and carry neutrality.
Second Affirmative, Cadet Grier Stewart
Wentworth Military Academy
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: Now that we have heard
a statement of the Negative position, let me return for
a few moments to review the affirmative case as pre
sented by my colleague.
In regard to our case, it seems to me that our oppo
nents have quite missed the boat. They have assumed
n6 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
that our fear of the present policy is based on a belief
that we should not meddle in Europe, and they have
agreed with us that we should not. But as a matter of
fact, our objection lies in the fact that we believe we
have no business taking sides in any war outside this
hemisphere, whether in Europe, Asia or Africa.
Again they have tried to make it appear that we
are opposed to cash and carry, because it may draw
us into war in Europe. Again they have missed the
boat. We have no fear that cash and carry will draw
us into any war of itself.
Our contention is that we should stop meddling in
each individual war outside this hemisphere. That is
our present foreign policy, not cash and carry. Con
sider the record: In the Sino- Japanese war we lend
money to China; we trade with Japan, and then we
threaten Japan. In the Russo-Finnish war we gave
outright financial assistance to Finland. In the Ger
man, French, English situation, we open our resources
to England and France and forbid commercial subma
rines to call at our ports. In other words, we chose
sides in every one of these conflicts. That's the sort
of thing that's going to burn our fingers one of these
days. It is to that policy that we object.
If we don't adopt one settled reasonable policy to
ward all such wars, we are gravely in danger of being
drawn into war in one of the many spots in the Eastern
Hemisphere where it may break out.
Mr. Conwill went on to point out that the meddling
policy hasn't even paid in regard to conflicts in this
hemisphere. We have heard here that even our com-
ISOLATION FROM COUNTRIES AT WAR 117
merce is helped by our staying strictly out of our neigh
bor's family quarrels, and we have adopted a good
neighbor policy rather than an interventionist policy.
If meddling doesn't pay here in dollars and cents, how
can it be expected to pay in the long run in extra
hemisphere conflicts? Mr. Somers found it convenient
to ignore completely this part of my colleague's ar
gument.
The most interesting statement in Mr. Somer's
speech was this: "We admit that our country should
have one sane and stable foreign policy which will keep
this country out of war and preserve our domestic
economy." He then went on to assert that the newly
initiated plan of cash and carry neutrality would meet
this requirement.
Cash assistance to Finland isn't cash and carry neu
trality. Loans to China and threats to Japan aren't
cash and carry neutrality. And yet they are a part of
our present foreign policy. In one war we have
adopted cash and carry neutrality, but in only one of
the three. If cash and carry is such a sure-fire policy,
if it is the one policy we should follow and note that
Mr. Somers himself admitted that we should follow
one policy why hasn't it been invoked in those other
two conflicts?
The reason is that it would have made us the ally
of Russia, the aggressor, since she had far better access
to the sea than Finland. It would make us the ally
of Japan, the aggressor, since she alone has access to
our markets. And Mr. Somers said that we must help
the Allies, because our failure to do so would be a
n8 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
help to Hitler, the aggressor. The inference is that
we shouldn't help aggressors. Now, Mr. Somers says
that we should have a single policy; he says that we
shouldn't help aggressors; he says that we should in
voke cash and carry, which would have helped Russia
against Finland and which would help Japan against
China. Add that all up and what do you get? Where
is the negative case?
The plain fact is that, if we are to have one policy
rather than half a dozen and always remember that
the Negative has admitted this basic point in our case
then cash and carry just won't do. Americans
wouldn't adopt a policy that will help Japan. They
won't adopt a policy that will always help the sea
power, right or wrong. These are obvious facts.
Therefore, the one sane and settled policy that Mr.
Somers wishes just can't be cash and carry.
A policy of strict isolation will fill all requirements.
Note carefully that the only objection our opponent
could bring against isolation from the standpoint of
foreign policy was the fear that it would help Hitler,
the aggressor. His reasoning was rather peculiar. He
says in effect that, if we see two fellows fighting and
refuse to help one of them, then we are helping the
other one. That is curious logic, indeed. No, it just
won't do. Let's suppose, for a moment, that that kind
of logic is correct. Suppose that it would be interven
tion on Hitler's side to adopt a completely neutral
stand and stop selling to the Allies. Then it follows
that selling to the Allies is hurting Hitler and helping
the Allies. Yet Mr. Somers says: "The Negative agrees
ISOLATION FROM COUNTRIES AT WAR 119
with Mr. Conwill that the United States should not
meddle in the affairs of Europe." Very well, let's stop
taking sides.
Where do we stand now? We are both agreed that
we need one settled policy. We are both agreed that
we should stop meddling. We are both agreed that we
should not help aggressors. Strict isolation can be
adopted as one settled policy; cash and carry cannot.
Isolation meddles with nobody; cash and carry very
definitely does meddle. Isolation would help no ag
gressor; cash and carry would have helped aggressors
in at least two of the three recent wars.
My colleague told you that he feared economic in
stability would result from our selling munitions to
England and France. Sometime the war will end; on
that day the industries that have temporarily been
built up, and all those associated with them, will crash,
and the snowball of another depression may well be
on its way.
Mr. Somers answered this by telling you that the
general business index was remaining relatively stable.
That is a pretty evasion of the question. When we say
that two or three great industries are being dangerously
overloaded, he answers, not with statistics on those in
dustries, but with averages for all the hundreds of
industries in the country. He might as well say that
I couldn't possibly be red-headed, because the average
person in this hall isn't red-headed. I believe that the
real test of this condition will come in the future, when
war breaks out in earnest and vast quantities of muni
tions are used up, and the Allies come to our markets to
120 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
replenish their supplies. That hasn't happened yet,
but it will
Then Mr. Somers went on to view with alarm the
depression that would be brought on by the loss of our
trade with the Allies. He tells us that millions of
Americans are dependent on our export trade and that
its loss would have a drastic effect upon our business
economy. May I remind him that we are not going to
lose all of our export trade? England and France
aren't buying wheat, cotton and tobacco here anyway.
They are reserving their gold for the purpose of buying
war materials. They can buy all our normal exports
elsewhere for credit. Why use their cash here for any
thing they don't have to?
The fact is that our trade with the neutrals of the
world in January, leaving out all seven of the then
belligerent powers, was $16,000,000 greater than our
trade with all the world, those same belligerents in
cluded, in January, 1939. In other words, if we had
had a policy of isolation in January, we would still have
had $16,000,000 more foreign trade than we had the
same month a year ago. These statistics were released
in March by the Department of Commerce. Where is
Mr. Somers' great depression? Where is the drastic
effect upon our economy that he dreads? Those bare
facts prove that a perfectly healthy, normal condition
would continue under isolation, and that there would
be no inflation and no depression. These are facts, and
not theory.
Why is this? Wheat, cotton, tobacco and our other
great staples are sold on a world market. They con-
ISOLATION FROM COUNTRIES AT WAR 121
stitute a world supply from which is drawn a world de
mand. England is going to keep on drawing from that
world supply, whether she actually loads her ships in
our ports or not. Take tobacco, for instance. Early
in the war England stopped all American purchases of
this commodity and contracted for the complete Turk
ish crop. Did this hurt our export of tobacco? Not
a bit. As a matter of fact, our exports of tobacco in
January this year were greater than they were a year
ago. The great point that Mr. Somers and all other
alarmists miss is this: Turkish tobacco was going to
be sold anyway in competition with ours. When Eng
land took it all, the customers that used to buy Turk
ish tobacco had to turn to America. If England buys
Brazilian cotton, what about the people that used to
buy Brazilian cotton? They have to look elsewhere
to a world demand. During war many countries that
used to contribute to the supply are using their ener
gies elsewhere, but in most cases their demand will in
crease. This is no theory; it is a fact, proved by the
specific case of tobacco, a commodity first mentioned
in this connection by Mr. Somers himself. Cutting off
from the Allies will not in any way hurt our total nor
mal sales of the great commodities Mr. Somers is so
worried about. So there will be no depression. Now
just what is left of the negative case?
But Mr. Somers has one more shot left in his locker.
He wants to know what we are going to do without
rubber, tin, manganese and silk. The answer is that
we are not going to do without them. All the items he
mentions are world commodities, sold on world mar-
122 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
kets. We don't have to buy them in the countries of
their origin. An importer in Mexico City or Rio de
Janeiro can buy them as easily as an importer in New
York, and if so, we can buy them as easily from him.
The world supply factor works both ways, you know.
We could show a pretty good case for developing Boliv
ian tin, Brazilian rubber, Cuban manganese, and using
some of our surplus cotton rather than silk, but there's
no point to it.
The plain facts are that the economic results of isola
tion would be slight, for through the world demand fac
tor our exports of the important products would .remain
normal, as has already been proved in the case of
tobacco, and through the world supply factor, we could
still obtain those few products that are produced
largely by belligerent countries. Our munitions don't
come into this category, for we can simply embargo
their sale.
Remember the conditions laid down by Mr. Somers :
"We admit that our country should have one sane and
stable foreign policy which will keep this country out
of war and preserve our domestic economy." All right.
We have shown that isolation meets the first require
ment, and that cash and carry does not. Now the sec
ond requirement, preservation of domestic economy, is
clarified. Isolation, we have shown, by an appeal to
facts, would maintain the approximate level of our pre
war exports. It follows then that every time we now
sell to belligerents simply goes to upset that equilibrium
by temporary inflation. We demand that the Negative
in their next speech square cash and carry with the two
ISOLATION FROM COUNTRIES AT WAR 123
requirements we both have made basic to this question.
In summary our case is this: We need one single
foreign policy toward wars that are none of our busi
ness. On the basis of the debate so far, that policy
can be only isolation or cash and carry. The Negative
has admitted that we must have one policy. Their
only attack on the policy itself is that it might help an
aggressor. We have shown that helping nobody isn't
helping anybody, and that cash and carry would defi
nitely have helped two aggressors out of the last three
wars, and that America, therefore, refused to adopt it
as the single policy which the Negative agrees we must
have.
We contended that cash and carry would eventually
inflate dangerously a few industries. The Negative
answered that at the present time the average industry
isn't inflated, avoiding both definite figures on the spe
cific industry, and the obvious fact that this is some
thing to be expected in the future. My colleague's
case is still unaffected.
The Negative bases its case, first, on the fear that we
might be cut off from vital imports, and, second, on the
belief that our export trade would suffer to the extent
of depression. I have shown that those imports are
piled up in a world supply, any part of which we can
buy in any port in the world, avoiding direct contacts
with belligerent nations. I have shown by actual fig
ures that, if we were not trading with any belligerent,
our export trade would be greater than it was a year ago
with all the world. And I have shown you why this is
so by explaining the thing Mr. Somers overlooked the
124 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
world supply and the world demand. There just isn't
any depression wrapped up in isolation and there isn't
any shortage of vital commodities therein. I do not
see that a single negative contention can stand. There
fore, I ask you to concur with us in favor of strict
isolation.
Second Negative, A. E. Boyd, Jr.
Glendale Junior College
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: We have now before us
the entire constructive case of the Affirmative. As we
close the negative argument, let us summarize what
has been said. The members of Affirmative have
advocated a policy of isolation for two reasons. First
of all, they say that we should stop meddling in wars
outside the Western Hemisphere or we will eventually
become involved in them. They seem to think that
their policy of isolation will furnish the United States
with a uniform, impartial stand as regards foreign
wars. If we investigate their argument a little further,
however, it becomes apparent that, to put it in their
own words, Mr. Conwill and Mr. Stewart have quite
missed the boat. Let us look into their argument and
see why this is true.
Apparently Mr. Stewart, synthesizing his case, was
either misled or had no intention of removing ourselves
from this present conflict, as he said that increased neu
tral trade would make up for the loss of belligerent
trade. This means, in the light of all economic knowl
edge, that we will, under the plan of the Affirmative,
ISOLATION FROM COUNTRIES AT WAR 125
become involved in the war economically through neu
trals at least to the extent we are involved under cash
and carry. In regard to this point I quote from Beard
and Beard in their recent book, America in Midpas-
sage.
Looking back to the World War, it becomes quite evi
dent that most of the incidents which influenced the de
cision of America to join the Allies came about . . . directly
because of trade with neutrals.
If we reason out their argument, we can see why this
would be true, for by the very argument of the Affirma
tive, these increased neutral purchases must go some
where. We know from experience that, in wartime at
least, they go to belligerents. The argument that neu
trals turn to us only for those products of which bel
ligerent nations have deprived them in another market
is misleading, for in every instance the trade which
would come to us in this way would be much too small
to account for the increases pointed out by Mr. Stewart
in his last speech. For instance, quoting from the New
York Stock Exchange magazine for February, we know
that over 10,000 barrels of oil purchased by Belgium
was resold to France. There are many other such ex
amples. And so in the final analysis we are involved
in the war economically just as much by selling to neu
trals as by selling directly to belligerents. So falls tha
first point of the Affirmative, the argument that we
would be removing ourselves from this war under a
policy of isolation.
Now let us look at the second argument. The mem-
126 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
bers of the opposition seem to believe that under our
present policy we are inviting a huge war boom with
a consequent severe depression when the war is over.
The boom will not be in raw materials, they say, as it
was in the last war, but in munitions and related indus
tries. Possibly our war industries are booming because
of the present conflict, but if we investigate the case
the fallacies in the Affirmative's war boom argument
become apparent. In the first place, as Mr. Somers
pointed out, the munitions industry constitutes only
about 1 per cent of our total income, whereas raw ma
terial industries constitute about 80 per cent. Now, as
the Affirmative probably realizes only too well, the
only sign of a boom they can point to since cash and
carry went into effect is in the munitions and related
industries. Even then, they are basing their whole
argument on the assumption that these industries are
booming because of the war, which is not directly the
case. Do you realize that the aircraft and steel indus
tries have on hand over $700,000,000 in back domestic
orders that they are not able to fill? The aircraft in
dustry would be booming, isolation or no isolation, be
cause of our own rearmament program. The very same
thing is true of the steel industry. We find, therefore,
that the second contention of the members of the op
position, that of a war boom under cash and carry and
removal under a policy of isolation, falls.
It has been the aim of the Affirmative throughout
their constructive cases to show that, under their plan
of isolation, we would be following a clear-cut policy
of complete removal from foreign wars. We believe,
ISOLATION FROM COUNTRIES AT WAR 127
in the light of the facts we have presented, that this
argument is without any logical basis.
There is, however, still a more important and more
basic reason why a policy of isolation from England
and France and their colonies would be ruinous to our
economy. It may seem a rash statement, but neverthe
less, it is a true one, that our high standard of living is
directly due to an international exchange in which
these two democracies play the leading roles. I won
der if the members of the opposition have asked them
selves why we in the United States have an economic
position envied by all the world, and why our democ
racy and our economy today are the principles of in
ternational division of labor. It is the thing which has
taken the world out of the Middle Ages and has given
birth to a twentieth century civilization. The United
States, as the world's richest nation, has profited per
haps more than any other from this international spe
cialization.
The only logical excuse for the Affirmative's case
would be that under a policy of isolation we could
maintain this international division of labor and still
have a policy of noncontact with warring nations. This
is an impossibility. For proof we have only to look to
Messrs. Fairchild, Furniss and Buck, noted Yale econo
mists, in their recent book, Elementary Economics,
Vol. 2.
While it is true that production for the foreign market
is on the whole a fairly small part of total production, in
particular basic industries it may amount to a large fraction
of the total output, quite naturally anything which inter-
128 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
feres with the foreign market of such industries is a serious
matter, for the loss of 10 per cent, or even less, of the total
market may mean the difference between producing at a
profit and at a loss. The loss of the foreign markets of
Britain and France, for instance, is of immediate practical
concern not alone to the particular producers immediately
involved but to the nation as a whole. If their foreign
markets are closed to an appreciable extent, the depressing
influence is not confined to the export industries, but tends
to be generalized and cumulative.
We cannot maintain a normal economic basis if we
cut off our trade with belligerents. Although, neutral
trade increases in time of war, as the members of the
opposition say (Mr. Stewart in his last speech pointed
out that our January, 1940, trade with neutrals alone
was greater than our total foreign trade of the pre
ceding January), the reason for this increase is reship-
ment by the neutrals to belligerents, as we have pointed
out. The increase is in war products, and not in the
products we would be losing were we to cut off our
trade with Britain and France. This is true because
only in the case of war products would the marginal
consumption of the belligerents allow them to buy
through a third nation with all the added expense in
volved.
With this in mind let us see what trade we would
lose under isolation. Let us keep in mind also that this
trade cannot be made up by trade with neutrals, be
cause the only extensive demand comes from the now
belligerent nations. In 1938 thirty-three per cent of
our tobacco was sold to belligerent nations. That
means that our tobacco industry depended for its mar-
ISOLATION FROM COUNTRIES AT WAR 129
gin of profit upon exports to France, Britain and colo
nies, a quantity which could never be made up by
neutrals under isolation. Cut these exports off and
600,000 men would be put out of work. We pointed
out that nearly half of our cotton is exported to Britain
and France. Under a policy of isolation half of our
southern cotton farmers would be put out of work.
The same startling fact exists in our automobile in
dustry. Over 8 per cent of our total automobile output
goes to these nations and to their colonies. General
Motors issued a bulletin only last week stating that,
were the March orders of Britain and France and
Scandinavian countries cut off, operations would have
to be suspended, for profit for that month would be
lost. Further bearing out the statements of these au
thorities that profit would be lost to many of our basic
industries were we to cut off our belligerent trade, we
find that 10.6 per cent of our agricultural implements
and machinery business is carried on abroad. The
same thing is true of 10 per cent of our industrial ma
chinery, and there are many other such instances. We
now begin to realize how dependent we are upon trade
with the other great democracies, and to see the drastic
consequences cutting this trade off would entail.
The gentlemen of the Affirmative are faced, in spite
of all their feverish arguments, with the necessity of
showing us, first, why we would not be involved just
as much through trade with neutrals as through trade
directly with belligerents, and, secondly, how we could
keep a stable economy if we were to cut off our trade
with nations who happen to be at war. In other words,
130 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
they have yet to prove, in the first place, a need for a
policy of isolation, and, in the second place, that it
would not be disastrous to our general well-being. This
they should have done before the close of their con
structive speeches.
May I point out that South American trade can never
offset the loss of British and French. Why is this
true? It is true because South American nations are
not our customers, they are our competitors. Their
surpluses are our surpluses, for the most part, and their
needs our needs. They export cotton, wheat, tobacco
and oil; we do also. They import rubber, magnesium,
chromium, silk; we do likewise. There is absolutely
no substantial basis upon which to say that we can turn
to South America to make up British and French
losses ; so the members of the opposition are still faced
with the fact that under their system a big slice would
be cut out of our foreign trade.
There are many more death dealing blows to our
economy which would be brought about under a policy
of isolation, but time does not permit enumerating all
of them. May we mention once again, however, that
under such a system our cheap imports of rubber, silk,
manganese, etc., would be cut off. Whether or not they
are potentially available in the Western Hemisphere or
can be brought through three-way trade with neutrals
does not matter. What matters is that in every case the
cost of three-way trade or of our western potentialities
is exorbitant. For instance, Ford Motor Company can
sell a Ford for $750 because of cheap importations of a
good quality. Cut them off or force Ford to buy
ISOLATION FROM COUNTRIES AT WAR 131
through a neutral with all the additional tariffs in
volved, and the price of Ford automobiles would jump
substantially. There can be no denying in the light of
these facts that a policy of isolation would cut off that
cheap importation of good quality materials which is
the basis of our industrial economy.
Concluding both of the constructive cases, therefore,
we find that the members of the opposition, to use again
their own phrasing, have quite missed the boat. They
have said, first, that we should adopt a policy of isola
tion to stop meddling in European affairs and establish
a uniform foreign policy. We have shown that that
would be meddling just as much as we are at present
through trade with neutrals. Obviously their isolation
plan has so many loopholes that it is not uniform at all.
Secondly, they have said that cash and carry results in
a disastrous war boom and a following depression. We
have shown the fallacy of this argument by showing
you that the munitions industry is the only one boom
ing after seven months of war and that it would be
booming even under isolation. We have shown that
their argument in regard to importation and exporta
tion under a policy of isolation is entirely fallacious.
They have yet to show us that there would be any im
provements under their policy and that it would not
entail drastic consequences for the American nation.
I think, therefore, at the end of the constructive
cases you can conclude with us that, by all means, the
United States should not allow a policy of isolation to
ward belligerent nations outside the Western Hemi
sphere.
132 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
First Negative Rebuttal, Raymond L. Somers, Jr.
Glendale Junior College
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: We come to the first re
buttal of the Negative, and now with the entire con
structive cases of both sides before us, let us review
what has been said.
The Affirmative contends that they have no objec
tion to cash and carry neutrality in itself and it is quite
evident that we of the Negative have missed the boat.
Mr. Stewart in his last speech said: "We have no fear
that cash and carry will draw us into any war of itself.
Our contention is that we should stop meddling in each
individual war outside this hemisphere. That is our
present foreign policy, not cash and carry."
Throughout the entire debate, the Affirmative has
been evading the issue. One moment they tell us that
they have no objection to cash and carry. The next
moment they tell us they object to cash and carry be
cause it embodies a number of individual policies. Then
they tell us that they object only to meddling in each
individual war. They say this meddling is our foreign
policy not cash and carry. And finally they tell us
that cash and carry will result in a terrible depression.
Now, once and for all, to just what does the Affirmative
object?
Out of this conglomeration of words it appears that
the gentlemen of the Affirmative have two main objec
tions against what they call our foreign policy, whether
or not it is cash and carry neutrality toward belliger
ents. First, they say we meddle in each individual con-
ISOLATION FROM COUNTRIES AT WAR 133
flict outside this hemisphere and, second, that we shall
have a depression because of trade with belligerents.
In substantiation of their first point they say we
should adopt isolation, because under our present pol
icy we have loaned money to China, we have given Fin
land financial assistance, and we have opened our ports
to England and France. They say we have taken sides
in every conflict across the seas and therefore we are
going to war. They have talked a lot, but said exactly
nothing. In the first place they have neither proven,
nor even attempted to prove, that financial assistance
to Finland would lead this country to war. And last,
they have admitted that our adoption of cash and carry
neutrality toward England and France would not neces
sarily get us into war.
The only thing they say is that all these things com
bined will lead the United States to war. Gentlemen,
we want concrete facts. How will they lead to war,
and are these loans, etc. meddling? We of the Nega
tive believe they are not. If the people of the United
States choose to loan money to China or to give Finland
financial assistance, they will do it whether or not we
have isolation, for by Mr. Stewart's very own words,
Americans just will not adopt a policy that will aid
aggressors. If Mr. Stewart is to be consistent, he must
admit that the people of the United States will not
adopt isolation, because it would aid Germany. It is
foolish for anyone to say that at the present time a
policy of isolation would not aid Germany, the world's
leading aggressor.
We have a sane foreign policy now, for we have
134 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
eliminated the fundamental causes for involvement in
foreign wars under our plan of cash and carry. I ask
you to look back through the entire Affirmative case.
Yes, they have shown where x the United States has
loaned money to poverty-stricken China. They have
shown where our country has aided poor little Finland
in her time of need, the only nation which has paid her
war debts to us. They have shown where we kept our
ships at home out of war zones and refused to extend
credit to all belligerent powers in the second World
War. They have shown us these things. But where
have they shown us that the United States will become
involved in war because of our actions? Not in one
instance, not in one single sentence did they prove that
contention.
Our policy of cash and carry will keep this country
out of war. The Affirmative has not proven otherwise.
The second point of the opposition, and a rather
weak point, was that this country will have a terrific
boom in the munition industries. My colleague has
already pointed that the munitions industries which
constitute about one per cent of our entire business
would be booming anyway, isolation or no isolation.
Our domestic orders and orders from neutral nations
would keep them booming for the next ten years. And
another point which I might bring out here is the fact
that isolation would only take effect during actual times
of war. It is a known fact that all the belligerent
powers bought more munitions in the few months pre
ceding the war than during the entire conflict thus far.
If we had a policy of isolation, potential belligerents
ISOLATION FROM COUNTRIES AT WAR 135
would buy all the munitions they need before actually
declaring war. We would have a boom anyway. And
so we see that this point of the Affirmative can stand
but little punishment.
But thus far we of the Negative have been defend
ing our present policy. Now let us look more closely
at a plan of isolation. In my constructive speech I
pointed out that we were dependent on nations which
are now belligerents for certain vital necessities, like
rubber, tin, antimony, silk and manganese. I showed
that our country would suffer greatly by the loss of
these commodities, according to a Department of Com
merce bulletin. The Affirmative in answer to this very
vital question spent exactly two sentences. They said
we wouldn't have to buy the products directly from
the belligerents, but that an importer in Mexico City
or in Rio de Janeiro could buy them just as well and
we in turn could buy them from the importer in Latin
America. But, is that isolation? Indeed, I might
mention Canada which also has importers. We could
buy and sell the same products through Canada, but
again, is that isolation from the belligerent powers?
Hardly. Thus we find the isolation policy is illogical
in this regard.
The second point I brought out in my constructive
speech was that the loss of our export trade would
seriously harm the United States. Many of our in
dustries depend upon our export business with nations
that are now belligerents. The Affirmative in answer
to this says that the loss of trade with belligerents
would be made up by neutrals. They admit that, if we
136 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
lost all this trade, it would be disastrous, but they say
we won't lose it. We'll merely shift it to nations not
engaged in war. Again another barrage of dilemmas
appears. In the first place, my colleague showed you
that it was not only trade with belligerents, but trade
with neutrals that drew the United States into the last
war. This factor would not be eliminated under isola
tion. In the second place, the Affirmative, in admit
ting that the United States would be dependent on
neutral trade under isolation, is forgetting one very
important factor. All of the neutral nations in Europe
today are potential belligerents. It is very probable
that before this war is over there will be no neutral na
tions on the continent. Then what happens to the
affirmative theory? Our opponents have depended
their case on these neutrals. If these become belliger
ents, what do they propose? Then their theory of
world trade collapses. Another factor in this neutral
trade business is that there would be transshipment
under isolation. Would not nations favorable to one
side or another reship the commodities we sold them to
belligerents? Wouldn't we have the same war boom
which you say we will have under our present policy?
But they may contend it would only be in the muni
tions industries and that we could place an embargo on
munitions, thus preventing this. Isn't it true, then,
that by that very statement the Affirmative has ad
mitted we could place an embargo on munitions under
our present policy? Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea
to readopt the embargo on munitions. It's something
to think over. Wouldn't we accomplish the same thing
ISOLATION PROM COUNTRIES AT WAR 137
as the Affirmative desires under isolation and yet be
free of the evils of your plan?
If we adopt isolation, we would still be carrying on
trade with belligerents via Latin America or some neu
tral nations. The gentlemen of the opposition have
admitted this. Under isolation we would still be trad
ing with Canada, a belligerent, and incidentally the
opposition has been mysteriously silent about this sub
ject. What I am driving at is this: The affirmative
proposal doesn't hold water. They call it isolation and
it isn't isolation. We won't have accomplished any
thing. We of the Negative believe that it would be
disastrous to this country.
On the other hand we now have a safe, sane policy
of cash and carry. We are not becoming involved in
Europe's wars; our ships are kept out of war zones;
we don't extend credit to the belligerent powers in
Europe; we haven't lost any of our vital imports, nec
essary to the livelihood of our business; we haven't
dumped overboard our export business. In view of
these facts, we of the Negative cannot but contend
that by all means the United States should not adopt a
policy of isolation but continue under our present pol
icy of cash and carry neutrality.
First Affirmative Rebuttal, Cadet Allan Conwill
Wentworth Military Academy
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: Now that we have had
fifteen minutes of negative speeches, it is time to turn
briefly once more to the affirmative case.
138 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
You will recall that we have objected mainly to the
present lack of a uniform foreign policy with regard to
wars in the other hemispheres. We have not particu
larly objected to cash and carry as such. We have
simply been searching for a policy that can fairly be
applied in all cases. In this regard we insist that it is
of paramount importance to remember that Mr. Somers
in his first speech agreed that we need such a policy.
That admission settled the terrain of the discussion
from that moment forth. Taking up the battle on that
clearly defined ground, my colleague showed that isola
tion could be applied in all cases; that cash and carry
could not be so applied. We insisted that, in the light
of this admitted issue, the Negative should show us how
cash and carry can be the single, settled foreign policy
that they themselves have insisted we must have. We
asked them to square their policy with the requirement
they have insisted is demanded at this period in our
history. We demanded that they show us how a policy
that would have helped Russia against Finland, Japan
against China how such a policy could for a minute
be considered as an appropriate single foreign policy
for this country a sane, single policy that they ad
mitted we must have. We have just heard both the
members of the opposition. To this moment neither
has tried to square the negative policy with this cen
tral requirement. They have admitted by absolute
silence that cash and carry could not possibly fill that
bill, Why wasn't it applied in the Russo-Finnish war?
Silence. Why wasn't it applied in the Sino-Japanese
conflict? Silence.
ISOLATION FROM COUNTRIES AT WAR 139
They have preferred to talk about other things. Mr.
Boyd tells us we are putting too much reliance upon our
trade with neutrals; that it may also get us into war.
In this connection he trots out a quotation telling us
that in the last war our trade with neutrals helped to
lead us into that conflict. If he will read the section
in his authority preceding his quotation he will note
that it had reference to the sinking of American ships
headed for neutral countries in the war zone. They
were sunk because we were insisting on trading with
belligerents, and a U-boat couldn't be sure where they
were going. It should be clear to anyone that, if our
law forbade them to go to a belligerent port, there
would be no occasion at all to sink them.
Then he tells us that we may expect transshipment,
and brings forth another quotation to show that oil
shipped to Belgium during this war was transshipped
to France. May I remind him that this occurred under
his cherished policy of cash and carry? Certainly there
is no way that we can prevent anything except arms
and munitions from being transshipped, and he makes
it crystal-clear that the same thing is going on under
cash and carry. So what? In this connection I think
that he should be set right on the basis of our case.
We want isolation, not because our morals are shocked
by trading with belligerent nations, but purely and
simply because it will better keep this country out of
war and maintain our foreign trade at its normal level
without dangerous inflation.
In this last matter we have shown that, if we had
been isolated in January from belligerent powers in
140 YEAR BOO K OF COLLEGE DEBATING
the other hemisphere, our normal trade would have
actually been $16,000,000 greater in that month than
it was in January of the previous year certainly no
depression indication. The opposition indirectly ad
mitted this undoubted fact and then went on at great
length to worry about the economic disaster that would
attend the loss of our normal trade a normal trade
that it is admitted we wouldn't have lost, but rather
would slightly have increased. That all seems much
beside the point. They chided us at one time for dis
missing their argument about imports with two sen
tences sentences that seemed to us to cover very ade
quately the character of the argument. Perhaps they
will bear with us when we chide them for using two
chapters to talk about something they already have ad
mitted wouldn't have happened.
Mr. Boyd needs only two sentences to hang himself
on three arguments. He says; "The increase (in pres
ent trade to neutrals) is in war products, and not in the
products we would be losing were we to cut off our trade
with Britain and France. This is true because only in
the case of war products would the marginal consump
tion of the belligerents allow them to buy through a
third nation with all the added expense involved."
This statement does three things. First, it admits
openly that transshipment is going on under cash and
carry. Second, it admits that, if they are transshipping
war materials, it increases the expense. Why then
should this increase in trade to neutrals be attributed
to war materials, since England and France can buy
them here anyway without that added expense? Third,
ISOLATION FROM COUNTRIES AT WAR 141
if it is not due to transshipped war materials, then it
must be due, as we have previously shown, to an in
crease in demand for normal exports, because normal
sources of supply are pre-empted by the belligerents.
Mr. Boyd still worries about throwing all those to
bacco workers out of work when England, France and
Germany are cut off from our markets. Well, England
cut herself off by embargoing our tobacco in November,
and Germany can't get it anyway. However, we showed
that, in spite of that fact, we sold more tobacco in
January than we did the same month the preceding
year. And we showed why this would be natural. Mr.
Boyd doesn't dispute the plain facts, but he still wor
ries about something that has already happened. His
chosen example proves our case better than any we
could have chosen ourselves.
He tells us that before the end of our constructive
cases we should have proved how trading only with
neutrals would keep us away from war better than
trading with both neutrals and belligerents. Since our
main contention was our need of a single policy ap
plicable to all cases and since his colleague agreed, all
that seems a little obscure. However, since this is the
first affirmative speech since he made his point about
the dangers of trading with neutrals, perhaps he will
permit us to say something about it, even at this late
time. They trade with both belligerents and neutrals.
They say it is dangerous to trade with neutrals. Then
possibly there are some added risks when they trade
with belligerents. We eliminate these added risks.
He says we should also have done something about
142 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
showing that we would retain a normal foreign trade.
He seems to have forgotten our repeated statements
that if we had traded only with neutrals in January
our foreign trade still would have been slightly above
normal. It follows then that all our present trade with
belligerents is added and above our normal level of
world trade. It is his case that is sadly in need of re
organization to meet the second point agreed upon by
both of us: that we should have something as nearly
approaching normalcy as possible.
Now Mr. Somers comes up with a nifty one. He
says that, if we had isolation, "potential belligerents
would buy all the munitions they need before actually
declaring war. We would have a boom anyway," He
forgets that before the present war we had an arms
embargo for all nations engaged in war. In other
words, as far as munitions are concerned, we had just
exactly that policy. Therefore, to follow his reasoning,
England and France must have bought all the arms
they needed before war broke out, and they aren't buy
ing any now.
He also is worried about what will happen to our
total foreign trade. We have given him proof about
what would have happened by repeatedly giving the
exact statistics. He does not challenge those statistics
but beats the air with dire predictions about a depres
sion that would result from the loss of our normal
trade. If we were trading only with neutrals, our for
eign trade would still be above our normal world trade.
Until you whip that fact, whole chapters of your argu
ments are wasted. He still worries about transship-
ISOLATION FROM COUNTRIES AT WAR 143
ment, which his colleague has gone to great lengths to
prove exists already under cash and carry.
Until the Negative can square their case with the
two great admitted requirements of this debate, I ask
you to concur with the Affirmative in favor of isolation.
Second Negative Rebuttal, A. E. Boyd
Glendale Junior College
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: Closing the negative case
this evening, let us now take the evidence before us
and arrange it in some order so that we may all better
understand the positions of both sides.
Actually the gentlemen of the Affirmative have told
us two things throughout their entire case. They have
constantly referred back to these arguments as the
basis of everything they have said. First, they have
demanded a change from our present foreign policy of
cash and carry neutrality, not because they objected to
cash and carry in itself, but because they say we need
a uniform foreign policy and cash and carry does not
fill the bill. Second, they have contended that isola
tion from belligerent powers will not have a disastrous
effect on the United States because the trade with neu
tral nations will more than make up the loss of trade.
Now actually that is all the Affirmative has said this
evening. Oh, yes, they mentioned something about a
war boom from munitions under cash and carry, but
we of the Negative have so thoroughly squelched that
argument that the Affirmative has been absolutely
144 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
silent about it since. Perhaps they are waiting until
their last rebuttal to refute our evidence.
But now let us take their two main arguments and
compare them with what has been said by the Negative.
They have time and again demanded to know why cash
and carry was not adopted in the Russo-Finnish War,
why did the United States give Finland financial as
sistance. Why did this country loan money to China?
They tell us that cash and carry is not a single uniform
policy ? and that therefore we need a change. Now,
if the gentlemen of the opposition had paid any atten
tion to my colleague Mr. Somers, they would have
heard the negative viewpoint on this argument. Mr.
Somers pointed out that the Affirmative has not proven,
nor even attempted to prove, that the giving of finan
cial assistance to Finland would get this country into
war. They did not prove, nor even attempt to prove,
that loans to China would involve the United States in
war. As long as they have not shown how these
things are actually to the detriment of our country,
and we believe that, if they were going to, they should
have before now, this point is irrelevant to the case. In
reference to this point Mr. Stewart of the Affirmative
specifically said that the reason the United States had
aided Finland and loaned money to China was that the
people of this country absolutely would not do any
thing to assist an aggressor nation. So by Mr. Stew
art's own words the people of the United States abso
lutely will not adopt a policy of isolation which would
aid Germany, the world's leading aggressor. So up to
this time, we fail to see where the Affirmative has pre-
ISOLATION FROM COUNTRIES AT WAR 145
sented a concrete need for a change from our present
policy, while the Negative in defense of cash and
carry has proved that, by keeping our ships out of war
zones and by not building an economic stake in Eu
rope's war, the United States can stay out of war. The
gentlemen of the opposition have not attacked this
point in any respect up to the final negative rebuttal.
Now, let us look at the Affirmative's great defense of
isolation. They say we could adopt their policy with
no disastrous consequences whatever, because the neu
tral nations would more than make up our loss of trade
with the belligerent powers. Time and again they re
fer, as their only reference, to January of this year
when they say our trade with neutral nations alone
more than equalled our total trade with neutral and
belligerent nations a year ago. Because of this fact,
they say isolation is perfectly possible and no disastrous
consequences will come as a result of it.
Again if the gentlemen of the opposition had been
listening, they would have perceived the huge fallacy
of this argument which we of the Negative have pointed
out. Now remember, that under a policy of isolation
the United States must depend for all of its export and
import business on neutral nations. The gentlemen of
the Affirmative have based their entire case upon the
fact that these neutral nations will make up the loss
of business which will come as a result of isolation from
belligerents. You will recall that Mr. Somers in his
speech pointed out that every nation in Europe was
potentially a belligerent. In order to have a policy
which would work under any circumstances, the Af-
146 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
firmative must prove that we could isolate from every
nation outside the Western Hemisphere. For example,
should we adopt this policy now we would have to in
clude on the list France, England, Germany, Poland,
China, Japan. We could rely on the other nations of
the world to carry on our business. But then suppose
that Italy became involved in the war. You know, she is
very likely to. Then we must isolate from her. Now
suppose again that Holland and Belgium should be
come involved. That is another likelihood. We should
then have to isolate from them. Lastly suppose that
Russia and the Scandinavian countries get into the war.
Here again we would have to isolate. Then with whom
does the Affirmative propose to trade? They have
based your case upon trade with these neutrals. They
have admitted that we would depend on them to make
up the loss of our trade with present belligerents.
Every one of them is very likely to became involved in
the war. Now, where is the affirmative case, ladies
and gentlemen? It's full of holes. After all, we want
a policy which will work under any circumstance. Iso
lation will not, by the opposition's own admission.
So we see there is nothing left of the affirmative case,
and that, besides not showing a need for a change from
our present policy, the opposition has admitted that
isolation will not work under any circumstances.
Now there are a few points which we of the Negative
have brought out which have never been answered. We
ask the Affirmative just where this country would ob
tain certain vital imports such as rubber, tin, silk, an
timony, chromium, manganese. We quoted a bulletin
ISOLATION FROM COUNTRIES AT WAR 147
from the Department of Commerce saying that this
country is deficient in twenty-one essential commodi
ties. These products are absolutely necessary to carry
on the business of the United States. The only thing
the Affirmative said in answer to this was that we could
have an importer in Mexico City buy these commodi
ties from the belligerent powers and we in turn could buy
them from him. My colleague, Mr. Somers, pointed out
that the Affirmative was hedging the question a bit on
this score. Realizing that we could not really isolate
ourselves from these powers, the opposition had to ad
vocate a three-way deal to get around an embarrassing
subject. Mr. Somers showed that this was not really
isolation, and up to the final negative rebuttal this
point has not been answered.
A second point which has not been answered is this
subject of Canada. We have shown time and again
that Canada is a belligerent and, as long as she is in the
Western Hemisphere, we could not isolate ourselves
from her under the proposed plan. So, actually the
Affirmative would not be accomplishing anything under
their policy. We would still be trading with belliger
ent powers. The Affirmative has said nothing about
this embarrassing subject.
Lastly, I pointed out how the United States has de
veloped to be the great industrial and commercial na
tion that she is today only because of international
specialization and exchange. We depend upon a cheap
inflow of products from powers outside the Western
Hemisphere to carry on our business. If the cost of
these products is substantially Increased, say Beard
148 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
and Beard, our business will suffer tremendously. It
is only because of these cheap imports that we are
able to function so efficiently. In answer to this the
Affirmative has said exactly nothing. These things
should all have been answered before this time as this
is the last negative speech in the debate.
So, in conclusion, we believe that as long as the Af
firmative has not proved a definite need for a change
from our present policy and, in view of the fact that
they have not proved that isolation would be a better
policy, but instead have admitted that it would not
work under every condition, we cannot but contend
that by all means the United States should not adopt
a policy of isolation but should continue under our
present foreign policy of cash and carry neutrality.
Second Affirmative Rebuttal, Cadet Grier Stewart
Wentworth Military Academy
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: We bring this debate to
a close by examining the cases as they now stand. Mr.
Boyd bitterly criticizes us for harping on two main
contentions, namely, that we need a single foreign
policy, and that we can retain normalcy in foreign
trade under a policy of isolation. We have harped on
these issues. Why? Because Mr. Somers, in the first
minute of the first negative speech, agreed with us
specifically that we should have a single foreign policy,
retaining if possible a normal flow of foreign trade.
We had thrown down the glove and it was accepted.
From that instant forth the course of the debate was
ISOLATION FROM COUNTRIES AT WAR 149
clear. Over and over again we showed that a policy
of isolation could be applied to Japan and China, to
Russia and Finland, to England and Germany; that
cash and carry could not be applied to the first two,
and indeed has not been. Yet the Negative agreed
that we should have a single foreign policy and even
boasted that cash and carry could be that policy. Not
in a single place in all the time that has passed since
then have they shown how cash and carry could be
that single policy. Indeed, they have admitted that
it was not applied and should not have been applied
to two of the three current wars. Yes, indeed, we have
"harped."
Over and over again we have come back to the
second issue agreed upon by both of us, namely, that
we should have a normal volume of foreign trade if
possible. Over and over again we have pointed out
that, if we had a policy of isolation right now, our
foreign trade would even be slightly above normal.
Therefore, all our trade with the belligerents is abnor
mal and inflationary. These plain facts have never
been contested; in fact, they have been admitted. Yet
the Negative agrees that we should have something
approaching normalcy. Yes, indeed, we have "harped."
In this connection it is interesting to note that Mr.
Boyd in his last speech joins Mr. Somers and the
Affirmative with the following clear cut statement:
"After all, we want a policy that will work under all
circumstances." Then why haven't they given us
such a policy? Why haven't they explained how cash
150 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
and carry would work were it applied to Russia and
Finland^ to Japan and China?
Then Mr. Boyd tells us that evidently we are
"squelched" on the issue that there is a dangerous
boom in the munition industry a boom that will col
lapse when war is over and drag related industries
into the snowball of a depression. I don't feel
squelched. Mr. Boyd had answered by stating that
the average industry, as presented by the business
index, had not boomed. I answered that figures that
show the concrete or lumber industries have not
boomed constitute no answer at all, because those
figures deal with the average of hundreds of industries,
not the munition industry alone. The Negative quickly
forgot about the business index and twisted in another
direction. They then said that munitions would boom
anyway because of our own increased armament orders.
In other words, since they admit that our own orders
have already dangerously overextended these indus
tries, we ought to go ahead and make matters much
worse by pyramiding the Allied orders on top of these.
No, indeed I don't feel exactly squelched.
Then Mr. Boyd gazes into the crystal ball of the
future and foresees Italy in the war; the Scandinavian
countries, Belgium and Holland may be involved, and
if they are, what about our trade with neutrals? He
complains that we are putting too much emphasis upon
our trade with these countries, which would be cut off
under isolation if they become involved. Now let's
look at the other side of that picture. What would
happen to our trade with these countries under the
ISOLATION FROM COUNTRIES AT WAR 151
same conditions with cash and carry? If the Scandi
navian countries and the Low Countries were overrun
by Germany, England would instantly bring them un
der the blockade. Just how would you trade with
them? If Italy were at war, England and France would
instantly bottle up Gibraltar and Suez. Just how
would we trade with her?
If we could trade with these countries if they go to
war, which we couldn't, it would only mean that we
would be putting more and more emphasis on traffic
in airplanes and munitions, increasing the dangerous
overemphasis on these artificial industries more and
more. Just where does that leave the negative case?
While we are doing all this supposing, let's suppose
that Germany lands a knockout blow on England and
France this summer. Then what becomes of indus
tries keyed to an inflationary war trade with England
and France? What becomes of all our European trade
in the face of a victorious Germany, a very angry Ger
many, angry over our aid to the Allies under cover of
cash and carry neutrality?
The Negative surprises us by insinuating Canada
into the debate. Since the statement of the question
refers only to the other hemisphere, perhaps the Nega
tive would benefit by a study of elementary geography.
Anyway, why should they ask us to apply isolation,
which was supposed to refer only to countries in the
other hemisphere, to Canada, when they have not ap
plied cash and carry, which was supposed to be applied
to all foreign countries? Our ships still call at Canadian
ports; our trains still run freely over the Canadian
152 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
frontier, loaded with everything except airplanes. We
still give Canada credit, except for war materials.
Mr. Boyd says that I asserted we loaned money to
China and Finland because this country would not
help an aggressor. I was guilty of no such a non
sensical hash of logic as that. I said that we did not
apply Mr. Boyd's cash and carry neutrality to those
countries, because to do so would be to help an aggres
sor, which Mr. Somers had said was something we
must not do. No amount of squirming will let him
get around Mr. Somers 7 statement that we need a single
policy, coupled with Mr. Boyd's own statement that
we want a policy that will work in all circumstances.
My question was and is: How do those two statements
square with a policy that the Negative admits can't
be applied, and shouldn't be applied in two out of the
three current wars?
In summary, the case is still what it has always
been: first, that we need a policy that doesn't meddle
and which can be applied in all cases. The Negative
admitted this need. Both members of the opposition
have flatly stated that we need one policy that will
work in all cases. We showed that cash and carry
could not meet this requirement. We hardly needed
to, for the Negative has admitted over and over again
that it was not and should not be applied in all cases.
In the face of these crystal-clear statements, the Nega
tive goes into its last rebuttal insisting that we have
not proved a need for a change a need that on the
face of it they have admitted over and over again.
Secondly, we showed that we could return to nor-
ISOLATION FROM COUNTRIES AT WAR 153
malcy in the volume of our foreign trade, and why.
We proved this flatly by statistics that have been ad
mitted by the Negative. The Negative by their own
statement made this normalcy their second main re
quirement. We have proved to the hilt that normalcy
can be achieved under isolation; we proved that ab
normality prevails under cash and carry. At no place
in this debate has the Negative ever denied the last
statement or even referred to it. They only fear that
our normalcy may be imperiled by future events; we
have shown that those future events are as perilous
for their policy as for ours, and we have asked: Why
worry so much about what may happen to normalcy
in the future under our plan, when we have no nor
malcy in the all-important present under their plan?
These are the two great issues. They have been
admitted by both sides. In view of the fact that isola
tion meets both, that cash and carry all too clearly
meets neither of them, I ask you to concur with the
Affirmative in support of military and economic isola
tion from wars beyond our hemisphere.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
ISOLATION FROM COUNTRIES AT WAR
BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS
Beard, Charles A. and Smith, H. E. The Idea of National Interest.
Macmilkn. 1934. The Open Door at Home. Macmillan. 1934.
Beard, Charles A. and Mary. America in Midpassage. Macmillan.
1938.
Belmont. National Isolation, An Illusion. Putnam. 1925.
154 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
Chase, Stuart and Tyler, M. The New Western Front. Harcourt.
1939.
Dulles, A. W. and Armstrong, H. F. Can America Stay Neutral?
Harper. 1939. $2.50.
Eliot. The Ramparts We Watch. Reynal & Hitchcock. 1938.
Farley, M. S. America's Stake in the Far East. Institute of Pacific
Relations. 1938.
Faulkner, H. U. American Economic History. 4th ed. Harper. 1938.
Griffin, Clare E. Principles oj Foreign Trade. Macmillan. 1934.
Haberler, Gottfried. The Theory af International Trade. Macmillian.
1934.
Heilperin, Michael A. International Monetary Organization. Inter
national Institute of Intellectual Cooperation. League of Nations.
The Hague. 1939.
Johnson, Julia E. United States Foreign Policy. Reference Shelf
Series, 12 :No. 6. H. W. Wilson Co. 1939. $1.25. United States
Foreign Policy. A supplement. Reference Shelf Series, 13: No. 6.
H. W. Wilson Co. 90c.
Killough, Hugh Baxter. International Trade. McGraw-Hill. 1938.
Minerals Yearbook for 1937. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau
of Mines. Government Printing Office.
Nichols, E. R.~ Intercollegiate Debates, Vol. XIX (1938). Vol. XX
(1939). Noble and Noble. New York. Each volume, $2.50.
Phillips, C. E. and Garland, J. W. American Neutrality Problem.
Contemporary Social Problems No. 2. H. W. Wilson Co. 1939.
Phillips, Robert. American Government and Its Problems. Hough-
ton Mifflin. Boston. 1937.
Popper, D. H. America Charts Her Course. Foreign Policy Na
tional Peace Conference. 8 W. 40th St., New York. 1939. 25c.
Roush, Gar A. Strategic Mineral Supplies. McGraw-Hill. 1939.
Schevill, Ferdinand. -A History of Europe from the Reformation to
the Present Day. Harcourt. 1938.
Staley, E. Raw Materials in Peace and War. Report, Council on
Foreign Affairs. New York, 1937.
Statistical Abstract for 1938. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of Foreign and Domestic Commerce. Government Printing Office.
Tasca, Henry Joseph. The Reciprocal Trade Policy of the United
States. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 1938.
Taussig, Frank W. -International Trade. Macmillan. 1927.
ISOLATION FROM COUNTRIES AT WAR 155
Taylor, Horace and the Columbia Associates. Contemporary Prob
lems in the United States. Harcourt. 1937.
Thomas, N. M. and Wolfe, B. D Keep America Out of War. F. A.
Stokes. 1939.
Williams, Benjamin Harrison. Economic Foreign Policy of the
United States. McGraw. 1929.
World Almanac for 1940. New York World.
World Peace Foundation. Neutrality of the United States. The
Foundation. 25c.
Ybarra, T. R. America Faces South. Dodd. 1939. 30c.
Zimmerman, Erich Walter. World Resources and Industries. Har
per, 1934.
MAGAZINES AND PERIODICALS
Annals of the American Academy. 204:147, July, 1939. Inter-Amer
ican Trade Problems. E. P. Thomas. 204:164, July, 1939. Some
Inter-American Financial Problems Having to Do With Trade.
Asia. 39:541, September, 1939. Crisis in American Cotton. E. Jane-
way.
Atlantic. 164:155, August, 1939. Isolation: the Dodo. D. L. Cohn.
Barron's Financial Magazine. January, February, 1940.
Bulletin, Pan-American Union. 73:525, September, 1939. US. Trade
with Latin America in 1938-39. J. G. Zier.
Business Week, P. 15, July 15, 1939. Neutrality, Its Business Angle:
American Sales of War Materials. P. 62, December 9, 1939. US.
Exports of War Materials in the World War. P. 15, September
30, 1939. What Price Neutrality? P. 43, November 4, 1939.
What Will the Allies Buy?
Christian Century. 56:1126, September 20, 1939. Keep the Arms
Embargo.
Christian Science Monitor. P. 1-2, November 11, 1939. Can Amer
ica Afford Isolation? P. 7, July 22, 1939. America's Investment
Stake Abroad. W. W. Case.
Congressional Digest. October, 1939.
Foreign Affairs. 18:179, January, 1940. Cash and Carry Neutrality.
Pittman Act, A. W. Dulles. 18:29, October, 1939. American
Isolation. J. C. Brown.
Foreign Policy Reports. 1939, 1940 issues. 15:166, October 1, 1939.
Will Neutrality Keep US. Out of War? W. F. Stone. 15:218,
156 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
December 1, 1939. War and U.S. Latin-American Trade. H. J.
Trueblood.
Fortune. 20:82; 72-73, November, 1939. Foreign Policy for the
U.S. Fortune Survey. 20:79, December, 1939. Does Cash and
Carry Mean Cash? Fortune Survey. 21:70, January, 1940.
America's Stake in the Present War and the Future World Order.
Fortune Round Table.
Forum. 103:214, April, 1940. Self-government and Isolation.
New Republic. 100:270, October 11, 1939. We're All for Cash and
Carry. J. T. Flynn. 101:193, December 6, 1939. Will Arma
ment Industry Save Us? J. T. Flynn. 101:250, December 20,
1939. Is Munitions Boom Coming? E. D. Kennedy. 99:159,
June 14, 1939. Isolation and Foreign Trade. J. T. Flynn.
News Week. 14:59, December 18, 1939. Cash to Put on the Barrel
Head. R. Robey. 15:46, January 29, 1940. U.S. Latin-Ameri
can Trade Soaring Since Start of War.
Scholastic. 35: lls-12s, October 16, 1939. War Boom or Real Re
covery?
Time. 34:14, November 6, 1939. Debates End; Neutrality Bill.
Vital Speeches. 5:663, August 15, 1939. Cornerstone of Our For
eign Policy Peace and Neutrality. C. Hull. 5:751, October 1,
1939. Appeal for Isolation. C. A. Lindbergh. 6:29, October 15,
1939. America Looks at Europe's War: We Witt Have to Make
A Choice. H. Van Loon. 6:111, December 1, 1939. War, Its
Economic Impact on the U.S. J. S. Gow.
United States News. 8:13, January 12, 1940. Nation's Treasure
Hunt: Quest for Rare Metals. 8:14, January 12, 1940. A Vic
tory Without Guns; U.S. Power in the Orient. 8:34, January 12,
1940. War Chests of the Allies. 8:39, January 19, 1940. U.S.
Control in the Orient. 8:9, January 26, 1940. Our Money in the
War. 8:12, February 2, 1940. The Case for Isolation. 8:26,
February 23, 1940. America's Future in the Orient. 8:28, March
8, 1940. Is the U.S. Self-sufficient? 8:30, March 22, 1940.
Latin Trade: Boom or Bubble?
Wall Street Magazine. October and November, 1939 issues.
INTERNATIONAL FEDERAL UNION
OF THE DEMOCRACIES
An Intercollegiate Debate
MANCHESTER COLLEGE AFFIRMATIVE vs.
DE?AUL UNIVERSITY NEGATIVE
The publication of the Streit plan for an international federal union
of the democratic nations was the genesis of the college debate here
with presented. After some discussion it was decided to phrase the
debate proposition as follows: Resolved, that the United States should
join a federal union of world democracies. It was then mutually
agreed to base the debate upon the assumption that there was such
a union of democracies to join, and reasons for and against advanced,
just as there would be if the teams were debating that the United
States should join the League of Nations.
The debate was held at DePaul University, Chicago, Illinois, on
the evening of April 12, 1940. The debate was held under the regular
intercollegiate rules and plan with two speakers on each side, each
speaker having a constructive and a rebuttal speech. No decision
was rendered.
The speeches were collected and contributed to Intercollegiate De
bates by Professor George Beauchamp of Manchester College, with
the cooperation of the coach of debate at DePaul University, Mr. Leo
S. Shapiro, and the speakers. The debate was taken down in short
hand by four stenographers.
INTERNATIONAL FEDERAL UNION
OF THE DEMOCRACIES
First Affirmative, Galen Frantz
Manchester College
FRIENDS: In spite of this April fool weather, we
enjoyed a fine trip to Chicago, and we are finding our
stay here very enjoyable. We are very happy to have
the opportunity this evening of meeting DePaul Uni
versity and discussing with them a proposition that so
vitally concerns the welfare of ourselves and of the
other peoples in this world who hold ideals of peace
and democracy that are similar to ours. In order that
we might better understand the nature of this debate,
I would first like to recall to our minds a period in the
history of the United States. After the Revolution
the thirteen little American Republics found themselves
struggling along under the responsibilities of independ
ence. But they discovered that they were not living
together to the best advantage, that their league sort
of government was inadequate to meet the problems
which were continually arising from the fact that each
state maintained its own militia, its own currency, its
own government and its own tariff barriers. New
Jersey imposed certain duties on New York products;
New York imposed certain duties on New Jersey prod
ucts; currency of one state was not always good in the
currency of another state. Therefore, despite seem-
159
160 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
ingly insurmountable obstacles, they joined themselves
into a union in which their defenses were one, in which
they were free to trade with each other as they chose,
in which there was but one currency, and one govern
ment was supreme.
Today a situation exists similar to the one existing
before the American union was put into effect. Al
though the democracies of the world have many likes,
dislikes and characteristics in common, they are not
living together to the best advantage for much the
same reasons as were retarding the American Re
publics.
Thus our question for discussion is indeed a timely
one: Resolved, that the United States should join a
federal union of world democracies.
As to just what this proposition involves, we believe
that it will suffice to say that we are not debating
whether such a union should or could be formed, but
that rather if such a union were in existence, the United
States should join it for two reasons: (1) that the
union would be greatly strengthened and more success
ful if it included the economic and diplomatic power
of the United States; and (2) that the advantages of
our entry would make it highly desirable for the United
States.
By "a federal union of world democracies" we mean
a nucleus union of the democratic nations consisting
of the British Commonwealth (that is, Canada, Aus
tralia, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, Ireland
and the other nations of the United Kingdom), France,
Belgium, Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway
FEDERAL UNION OF DEMOCRACIES 161
and Finland. Because of obvious similarities, we need
not go into detail concerning how these countries are
so closely interwoven. We need only say that they all
have a common concept of government. The mecha
nism of government may differ slightly, but the funda
mentals of government are basically the same; namely,
that the welfare of the individual shall be placed above
the welfare of the state. However, other countries
will be free to enter upon their guaranteeing the rights
of the individual. The nature of the union we propose
would be common defense, free trade, common foreign
policy and common currency.
It should be kept in mind throughout this debate that
this union as proposed will not be perfect, but it will
more closely approach the solution to many of our in
ternational problems than does the existing system.
For over a hundred and twenty years the democra
cies that I have already named have lived at peace
with each other. Yet today these democracies are
spending billions of dollars to build up their individual
defenses against their common enemies. United, their
defense bill would be slashed to a much smaller pro
portion than their present bill For example: Sup
pose the states of the United States would revert to
the setup existent before the union was drawn up.
Each would be arming not only against each other, but
each would be maintaining an army, and perhaps a
navy, at little more than the combined cost to but
five or six states individually. United, the democra
cies would be powerful, not only in pure military might,
but in an ultimate economic control which would aid
162 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
in making them invulnerable. Thus it would be to the
advantage not only of the United States but of every
other nation to join the union and in so doing, divert
a large part of their defense expenditures into the build
ing up of trade, relief work and other channels that are
in need of development.
In explaining the advantages of free trade, I would
like to point out that England can make and sell suits
for almost half of what the United States can do it for.
The United States, on the other hand, can make and
sell good automobiles for almost half of what England
can do it for. If it were not for the trade barriers,
the United States would import more suits, and Eng
land would import more autos, and you and I could
buy our suits for almost half of the price we now pay
for them. Because of the tariffs, England is forced to
manufacture fewer suits and more autos, while the
United States is forced to manufacture fewer autos and
more suits, with the result that the output of both
autos and suits is reduced. Thus, if there were no pro
tective tariffs, the proportion of commodities would
tend to be concentrated in the places where the cost
of production was least, resulting in the ability of coun
tries to get their needed commodities at a much less
cost. To clarify still more the effect of protective
tariffs, suppose that each of the states of the United
States were surrounded by a high tariff wall. If this
were the case, there would be no huge automobile in
dustries today in Detroit, no huge packing houses here
in Chicago, no large steel plants in the East. Instead,
each state would have its own little automobile in-
FEDERAL UNION OF DEMOCRACIES 163
dustry, its own packing houses and its own steel plants.
Some states would then have a surplus of automobiles
and perhaps a scarcity of agricultural products, while
in a neighboring state there might be a surplus of agri
cultural products and a scarcity of automobiles. Again,
we see that it would be to the advantage not only of
the United States but of any nation to join a union in
which barriers would not interfere with the specializa
tion of industry, and the various parts of the world
could obtain their needed commodities at a much lower
cost. Furthermore, our present setup cannot satisfac
torily include a system of free trade because of the
tendency of each nation to make itself self-sufficient
as possible against the threat of war.
A common foreign policy also makes the union
attractive for any nation considering entry. To the
United States especially, a common foreign policy holds
its advantages. No other nation has so much to lose as
we by failure to solve in time the problem of world
government. No other nation is made up to the ex
tent that we are in world-making and world-needing
machines. The United States suffers as much as any
other nation when such customers as China, Ethiopia,
Czechoslovakia are taken by some aggressor. The
union would be united in its attitude toward such
aggression, and in such cases as China and Ethiopia,
the aggression could have been , nipped in the bud by
the union's powerful economic stronghold.
Without a common currency we have speculation
and the task of regulating and adjusting international
exchange. Therefore, common currency would be a
164 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
great convenience in world trade and would eliminate
many of the cumbersome details of our present inter
national exchange. My colleague will deal further
with this particular point in his constructive speech.
Thus, we see how our entry into a federal union of
world democracies would hold outstanding advantages
both to ourselves and to the union that the huge ex
pense for defenses would be slashed to a much smaller
proportion by a common defense; that the needed com
modities of the various parts of the union could be ob
tained at a much lower cost due to free trade; that
such aggressions and resulting losses, as in Ethiopia
and China, could be averted due to the common foreign
policy; and that speculation and our cumbersome in
ternational exchange would be simplified due to com
mon currency.
My colleague will further deal with the practical
advantages of this plan; but may I repeat that we
must keep in mind that the plan as we present it is
not perfect, but that it more closely approaches the
solution to many of the problems of the world than
does our existing setup. Like the beginning of the
American union, we recognize the need and the ad
vantages of a change and in the bringing about of it
we must feel our way and solve our problems as we
meet them in our forward progress.
FEDERAL UNION OF DEMOCRACIES 165
First Negative; Eugene Kennedy
DePaul University
FRIENDS: In behalf of my colleague and myself, I
should like to add a word of welcome to the greetings
already extended to the debaters from Manchester
College by the Chairman.
Before beginning the Negative side of this debate,
there are a few principal considerations which should
be cleared up. To begin with, the issue which we are
debating this evening is a particularly timeless one.
You see, the Affirmative has assumed that the federal
union of world democracies is already in existence, and
is already working. We of the Negative accede to such
an interpretation of the terms in order to meet the
Affirmative upon a clear issue. The aspect of practi
cability of the union is thus curtailed. By some devious
working out of the fates of the nations, we must assume
that the federal union is in existence and is working.
Any of us who happen to have read the morning papers
can forget the information gleaned there. The entire
world outlook, for the purposes of this debate, has
been changed. We are not concerned with the means
through which this change has been worked. The
only issue of practicability in this discussion is this:
Can the United States efficiently and profitably take
part in the union?
In view of these considerations, the issue which con
fronts us is: Shall the United States join such a federal
union of world democracies, assuming that it already
exists?
166 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
In this debate, the Negative shall prove the following
three major issues : first, that there is no need for the
United States to join the union; second, that the argu
ments for the desirability of the United States join
ing the union are fallacious; and third, that the posi
tive disadvantages of the United States joining the
union far outweigh any alleged advantages.
In regard to the first point, that of need, let us con
sider for a moment the elements involved in a change.
Any change which is made must be justified by a need.
Otherwise there would be no reason for the change.
The change must always be justified by a definite and
proportionate need. Let us say I have a need for
seventy-five cents. This need is actual, and let me
emphasize, it is pressing. Nonetheless, I would be
foolish were I to risk my life, my fortune and my
sacred honor in order to fill that need. The need would
be too small. An insignificant need can justify only
an insignificant change.
With this axiom in mind, namely, that the need must
be large enough to justify the change, let us see exactly
how large a change is contemplated when it is proposed
that the United States enter the federal union of de
mocracies. In the first place, historically, entrance
into the Union represents a tremendous departure from
American tradition.
To enter the federal union is to run clearly contrary
to the Monroe Doctrine. If we would enter such a
union, we must admit that our destiny no longer makes
it imperative that the Western Hemisphere be pre
served intact for American nations. We admit this
FEDERAL UNION OF DEMOCRACIES 167
by ourselves entering a union composed of European
and non-American members, and thus expanding a non-
American power in the Western Hemisphere. The
Monroe Doctrine is clearly opposed to such a move.
The Monroe Doctrine would preserve this hemisphere
for the American nations. Furthermore, entrance into
the union means that Pan-Americanism as a guiding
policy is dead. We enter a union which excludes the
South American nations. Further, we may actually be
driving our South American neighbors into the arms
of the totalitarian states.
Furthermore and this is very important once in
the union, the United States must stay in the union for
ever. A long and bloody civil war has already scarred
our history to prove that the separate states of a
federal union may not withdraw at will. Membership
entails committing ourselves irrevocably to the relation
ships with the other peoples of the union. Our tradi
tional flexibility of foreign policy is thus forevermore
destroyed. So we see that in regard to history and
world outlook the change advocated by the Affirmative
is tremendous. It destroys the Monroe Doctrine; it
destroys Pan-Americanism. These two policies have
guided the United States for many decades. Therefore
the change must be very great.
Now we shall consider an even more important
aspect of the change wrought by such an entrance into
the federal union. Politically and socially it means the
most tremendous change ever advocated for the
United States. For, to join the world union means that
each of us you, and you, and I will all become
i68 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
members of a superstate. It means that a higher gov
ernment than that of the United States will be set up
over us. It means that we will recognize a superior
legislative and judicial system. It means that the
United States will no longer exist as a sovereign nation.
There is the crux of the change. If we join the union,
we give up our life as a nation. The United States no
longer will control its own national destiny.
And another point. We, the citizens of the United
States, will have to pay for this burden of an extra
legislative and judicial system by taxes. All of us will
be hit directly in the pocketbooks. Membership in
the union is not to be got by whistling for it. We must
pay, and pay through taxes. We'll be the ones to pay
for all this machinery of a superstate.
Let us now sum up the entire change. It changes
completely our entire outlook on the world. We shall
be committed forever to certain relationships with
peoples now foreign to us. We shall take upon our
selves the burden of another legal and juridical system
which we shall recognize as superior to our own. Our
relationships with South American nations and the
doctrine of Pan-Americanism will simultaneously be
shattered. The Monroe Doctrine will pass out of exist
ence. And above all, we shall cease to exist as a na
tion. We shall no longer control our own destiny as
a sovereign state.
What does all this boil down to? It is the greatest
change ever proposed in the history of the United
States. But we have just seen that no change is jus
tifiable save as a solution to a proportionate need. Now
FEDERAL UNION OF DEMOCRACIES 169
precisely what must the size of the need be, in order
that it would be sufficient to justify such a change?
It should be the greatest need we have ever been con
fronted with, for it seeks to justify a change of this
tremendous nature. It should be an overwhelmingly
pressing and crying need. Otherwise the entire dis
cussion of the Affirmative is pointless. And what need
has the Affirmative brought forward to meet these re
quirements? None at all ! In outlining the case which
the Affirmative would prove, the fact that the union
would be strengthened and that advantages (advan
tages, and not need, mind you) would allegedly accrue
to the United States constituted the entire Affirmative
case. In other words, the Affirmative admits that there
is no need for the United States to enter the union.
We see, then, that the need, which should be of the
greatest size in order that the Affirmative can begin to
argue the other phases of the question, by their own
admission does not even exist. If, however, the Affirma
tive does now bring forth a need, the Negative chal
lenges them to prove it a need sufficient to justify so
overwhelming a change.
The position of the discussion, then, is this. In order
to carry the issue, in fact, in order to begin to carry the
issue, the Affirmative must prove that a need exists
big enough to justify a change such as we have indi
cated. Instead of doing this, the Affirmative has
proved no need whatsoever. In regard to desirability,
my colleague will go still further, and show that the
desirability of the United States entering the union is
170 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
fallacious, and the positive disadvantages of our en
trance alone should keep us out of the union.
Let us remember, however, that the question of de
sirability enters the question, which we are discussing
only after a need has been established. But this need
has not been established. Therefore, when my col
league demonstrates that even desirability is not an
argument for the Affirmative, the issue stands clear.
The United States should not join a world union of
.democracies such as has been proposed by the
Affirmative.
Second Affirmative, Robert Underfill!
Manchester College
FRIENDS: Before embarking on any further argu
ments, let us stop and analyze in order to see just what
are the central issues involved in this debate. The
first speaker of the Negative has agreed that, because
of the very wording of the question, the idea is presup
posed that such a union as we are discussing is already
in existence. Therefore, the only central issue left in
this debate is simply: Will the advantages of such a
union be great enough to warrant its adoption? The
best way for us to recognize the advantages of such a
plan is to study it a little more in detail. My colleague
has already told you that the plan which we are de
fending will follow roughly in the footsteps of the one
which laid the groundwork for the American union,
and yet the first speaker for the Negative has just
made the startling statement that "such a federal union
FEDERAL UNION OF DEMOCRACIES 171
is contrary to every past policy of the United States/'
Our opponents have taken the stand that such a plan
would be a reversal of the Monroe Doctrine. May I
ask whether the Monroe Doctrine was an outgrowth
of the American Constitution, or the Constitution
an outgrowth of the Monroe Doctrine?
My colleague has also told you that because of the
interdependence and similar structures of the democra
cies, we believe that such a union would be practical
and offer many advantages to the United States. One
great advantage would be in a common foreign policy.
What would be the advantages to the United States
as well as to the entire world of such a policy? One
basic advantage would lie in the fact that the demo
cratic countries could be united. If an autocratic com
bination of Germany and Italy, Italy and Japan, or
any similar combination one might devise, were to at
tack any democracy, all of the countries would be
united in a common cause to repel that attack. Fur
thermore, under such a plan as we are defending, we
would have on one side an overwhelming strength.
The old idea of a balance of power would be gone.
With the elimination of a balance of power, feeling,
such as fear, hatred and jealousy which would give rise
to war, would also be gone. For instance, in considering
the strength of the union, if the fourteen democra
cies were to be united, they would have a total popu
lation of 913,653,000 people. The only plausible com
bination of autocracies, Germany, Italy and Japan,
would have a total population of only 263,522,000
people. We can easily see that under such a policy as
172 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
we are defending, on one side we would have an over
whelming balance of strength to which there could be
no system even approaching the old idea of a balance
of power. In order that the union could successfully
cope with any military problem which might arise, we
would have a common defense system ; composed of
an army, a navy, air forces, and all the other divisions
included in a military defense. Immediately the prob
lem arises: Could our military strength match that
of the autocracies? The answer is that we could not
only match the strength of the autocracies but could
far outdistance it. We could also drastically cut our
armament expenditures, a point which has as yet not
been touched by the Negative.
Furthermore, if we are entangled in any way, we
must realize just what is involved. First of all, we un
derstand the union of European democracies, even
without the aid of the United States and Canada (the
two democratic countries which lie across the Atlantic),
would still have a total population of 728,000,000
people or nearly twice the 263,522,000 people of the
three autocracies. Certainly the European democra
cies would not need man power. Their problems would
lie in obtaining such materials as food, clothing, am
munition and the armaments necessary to wage a quick
and effective war. Since we are already heavily sup
plying the Allies, our status would remain relatively
unchanged, for we would only be increasing our eco
nomic aid to them. We must realize also that, with
our decisively overwhelming strength on one side, we
would be in a better position to gain a settled and en-
FEDERAL UNION OF DEMOCRACIES 173
during world order. There can be no lasting world
order built up on the precarious idea of a balance of
power.
The gentlemen of the Negative have said that we
must renounce our national destiny. We agree com
pletely, for there can be no lasting world order as long
as national sovereignty is championed and defended.
As my colleague has pointed out, by the removal
of trade barriers which tend to restrict and bind a
nation in economic strait-jackets, we could pro
mote a more liberal and free type of trade through
out the world. Since the democracies carry on
two-thirds of the world's trade, mostly among them
selves, the abolition of trade barriers would not only
solve their economic disarmament problem, but similar
problems for the entire world. We discover that the
fourteen democracies handle nearly four times the total
volume of trade handled by the autocracies. It is also
of importance to note that in the elements and products
which are most essential to modern civilization, the
fifteen democracies are the strongest and the autocra
cies are the weakest. The more one studies the world
economic system, the more overwhelming appears the
strength of the democracies.
Another fundamental principle of our union would
lie in a common currency. The problem of currency
is far more important than we often realize. As Mr.
Leon Fraser said, in his 1935 report as president of
the Bank for International Settlements, "With the
passage of time, it becomes more and more clear that
no fundamental, durable recovery can be hoped for
174 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
unless and until a general stabilization at least of the
leading currencies has been brought about." As long
as countries insist on their remaining sovereign there
can be no leading currency established. In the past
and at present we find the uncertainties of money al
ways threatening and hampering trade and burdening
the government. We could restore a leading currency
under this plan. A democratic union of the type we
are discussing could handle such problems, as we have
pointed out, of economic stability and of a settled and
lasting world order.
There are many gigantic problems confronting us as
well as other nations the world over. There are such
problems as a settled and peaceful world order, an eco
nomic stability and a monetary stabilization. These
problems are universal and obviously all nations .will
profit greatly when they are solved or alleviated in
any way. The democratic union which we are debat
ing will help to solve and lessen these problems by
including the four fundamentals which we have men
tioned, namely, a common foreign policy, a common de
fense, a common currency and the removal of tariff
barriers. By remedying many of the existing evils we
will not only be greatly improving and strengthening
our own position, but we will equally help to improve
world chaotic conditions. Therefore, we earnestly
advocate that the United States should join this federal
union of democracies.
FEDERAL UNION OF DEMOCRACIES 175
Second Negative, Eugene Majewski
DePaul University
FRIENDS: I think it is high time someone analyzed
the entire Affirmative case. The gentlemen from Man
chester, if they are sincere in advancing the plan they
have discussed tonight, are woefully misguided. They
have tried to prove the case for entrance into a federal
union of world democracies on the basis of four points.
Since my colleague has pointed out with some fervor
that the Affirmative has neglected even to consider the
first point they should have proved, namely, the need
for such a revolutionary change, I listened with some
interest to the four points tending to prove that such
a change, though seemingly not needed, is desirable.
I should like to discuss each of these four arguments.
The Affirmative made much of the argument of free
trade. The first speaker was of the opinion that be
cause England makes suits of clothes more cheaply
than does the United States, and because this country
produces automobiles more efficiently than does Eng
land, there is no reason for not exchanging those prod
ucts freely, without hindrance of a tariff. And he is
right. If the gentleman was trying to prove that the
tariff is a hindrance rather than an asset to our world
economy, he did a good job. If he was trying to prove
that it was a necessity for the United States to enter
a world federation in order to gain the benefits of a
tariff-free exchange, he was far short of the thesis he
tried to prove. The Affirmative must show, not only
that a tariff is undesirable, but that in order to have a
176 TEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
tariff-free economy the United States must join the
federal union. This latter they have not even at
tempted to do. But even if they had shown the neces
sity for immediate entrance into a federal union in
order to have an immediate tariff-free economy, we
could not approve of their plan. The reason is almost
obvious. If the United States should abolish tariffs,
immediately, it would mean that all of our protected
industries would be put out of business. Since a great
proportion of our steel industry, not to mention the
tremendous number of agriculturalists, is protected by
tariff we see what chaos would result. A lowering of
the tariff is only desirable on a long-term basis. A
quick abolition of the tariff is suicidal. Yet that is the
position the Affirmative is pledged to uphold. My
colleague and I are rather of the opinion that the
more sensible idea is to arrange for a long-range pro
gram of tariff reduction in cooperation with those na
tions that are members of the federal union. Thus we
would have eventually a tariff-free economy without
any of the dangers of joining this group of nations.
The second argument presented by the Affirmative
had to do with the advantages of a common currency
throughout the federal union. The Affirmative should
have, of course, shown us why it was desirable for the
United States to abrogate their present currency in
favor of a common union currency. They haven't
even touched on that point. But even if they had, they
should also have proved that this world currency could
work out in practice. They haven't done this either.
I think I know why. You see, the United States con-
FEDERAL UNION OF DEMOCRACIES 177
trols about 65 per cent of the world's gold supply.
This fact is of primary importance when we consider
what would be the basis or standard of this world cur
rency. It surely would not be the fiat money of any
of these nations. It would have to be a gold or silver
standard. Both of those precious metals are principally
held in this country. Now how are the countries with
out gold going to trade on a parity with the nations
that do have gold? They won't. The only possible
way to do it would be to reallocate the gold supply of
the United States among all the nations of the federal
union. That such a thing is virtually an impossibility
is shown by Mr. E. A. Goldenweiser, Director of the
Research and Statistics Division of the Federal Re
serve System. He writes in the Federal Reserve Bul
letin for January, 1940: "... A flight of capital from
the United States, which is hard to conceive, or invest
ment abroad, which is not likely to assume large pro
portions, presents the only possibility of the United
States losing gold." So Mr. Goldenweiser himself
seems to think that the problem is insoluble. The
gentlemen of the Affirmative have, no doubt, some
occult information with which to solve this problem.
But they have not, as yet, presented it. When they
do they will be in a fair way toward establishing one
of their four points in the debate. And establish it
they must, if they are to prove a case.
The third point presented by the gentlemen of the
Affirmative dealt with common defense. The gentle
men who talked on this point said that this world
union would help defend the United States if we were
178 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
ever attacked. But before this argument can be of any
validity, the Affirmative must show that there is an
imminent danger of our being attacked by someone.
This, of course, hasn't been done. Surely the Affirma
tive does not expect the United States to join this union
in order to help the union resist attacks which might
be made against it. The Affirmative is actually faced
with a dilemma, as someone has neatly called it. If
there is no conflict between the world democracies and
the autocracies, there seems to be no reason for the
United States joining either side, either for our own
protection or much less to help protect the union. If,
on the other hand, there is a conflict between the de
mocracies and the autocracies, my colleague and I
don't want any part of their plan. The United States
has never been an aggressor nation and thus does not
need the help of the world democracies for further con
quest. Nor has the Affirmative shown that the
United States is so vulnerable that it needs the
military aid of the world democracies for her own pro
tection. The argument of common defense, as being
a reason for our entrance into this so-called union, is
of little value.
The only other argument that the Affirmative had
this evening was over foreign policy. The Affirmative
said that, if the United States entered the union, all the
democratic countries would have a common foreign
policy. I don't doubt it. I don't even doubt that this
would be a good thing for the union. Especially would
it be a good thing for the union to have the United
States join in order to bolster the foreign policy of the
FEDERAL UNION OF DEMOCRACIES 179
union. But that by no means proves that the United
States has anything to gain, nor do the inhabitants of
the present United States have anything to gain by
abrogation of our present policy of independence from
foreign entanglement. The Affirmative has not shown
that our present United States foreign policy is in such
a sad condition that it must be discontinued. They
have shown no need for a change in regard to this point
of their case, even as they have shown no need for a
change on the ground of any other point they advanced.
As a matter of fact, if the foreign policy of the union
is working, neither they nor the United States are in
need of merging foreign policies. If the union's for
eign policy is not working, does the Affirmative seri
ously recommend that the United States act as the
agent to pull the foreign chestnuts out of the fire?
My colleague and I have thus far shown that there is
no need for such a revolutionary change in American
policy and that the arguments advanced by the Af
firmative to show the desirability of their plan are
fallacious. We have done the latter by examining the
four points of the affirmative case and have demon
strated that every one of the four points is of small
value some, even less.
Now let us consider some of the positive disadvan
tages of the Affirmative plan. First, we would have
the United States Army and Navy, as part of this
superstate, patrolling not only the Atlantic and the
Pacific which are of some concern to us, but also the
entire civilized world. Most of the territory which we
would be patrolling is of no concern to us. We have
180 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
no interests in the territory around the Union of South
Africa or Norway, for that matter. Patrolling those
districts, far-flung as they are, would increase the pos
sibility of friction with the autocracies that are not
included in the Affirmative pipe dream. There is no
earthly reason why we should assume this added burden
and its attendant dangers when the Affirmative has
given us no reason to suppose that such a thing has
any merit so far as our own country is concerned.
Thus it seems to me that the Affirmative has not
proved either a need for a change or the desirability of
such a change. As a result we cannot help but contend
that the United States should not join a federal union
of world democracies.
First Negative Rebuttal, Eugene Kennedy
DePaul University
FRIENDS: In considering just exactly what the Af
firmative has accomplished this evening, I think it
would be worth-while if we were to review what they
intended to accomplish. For anything which they
accomplished other than this must have been accom
plished by accident. The first speaker for the Affirma
tive has outlined the Affirmative case in two issues.
The first issue is that the union would be strengthened
by our entrance into it. The second issue is that the
United States (they allege) would derive benefits from
entrance into the union.
Now this Affirmative team, like any other Affirma
tive team, must carry three major issues in their burden
FEDERAL UNION OF DEMOCRACIES 181
of the proof. First, a need must be established; sec
ond, desirability of their plan as a solution for this
need must be shown; and third, the workability of their
plan must be proved. Each of these issues must be
carried in order that the Affirmative establish its case.
Now, not only has the Negative demonstrated that
there can be no need, but the Affirmative has not even
attempted really to establish one. Added to this fact
is the consideration that even were a need advanced to
enter the union, it would have to be shown to be of size
proportional to the change. On this aspect of the ques
tion alone, the Affirmative clearly has failed to carry
its burden.
Further, we see upon examination of the Affirma
tive's case that it is based very largely upon an analogy.
This analogy is represented as existing between the
various democratic nations of today and the thirteen
colonies at the beginning of the history of the United
States. Now an analogy is good only in so far as it is
an analogy. If I am being compared to a Martian in
order to prove a point in a discussion, that point is
proved only if I do bear an essential resemblance to a
Martian. If I do not b,ear an essential resemblance to
a Martian, the entire argument falls flat. But we find
a wide difference between the world union and the
thirteen colonies. The thirteen colonies were bound
together by grim necessity and by the closest economic
and cultural ties. But what cultural ties sufficient to
carry the analogy exist between the United States and
the Union of South Africa? Geographically, New
Zealand, Belgium, Ireland and the United States are
182 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
distributed as widely apart as is reasonably possible on
this globe. No necessity is felt to bind all these na
tions together in order to insure their existence. For
the union is already existing and getting along without
us, and certainly the United States has been getting
along without the union. The whole analogy is seen,
then, to be distorted, and carries no weight.
Further, the Affimative has charged that I have
maintained that the union is against American princi
ples such as the Monroe Doctrine. This is not so. I
maintained that the entrance of the United States into
the union is against the Monroe Doctrine. I do not
hold, for example, that the British Empire is against
the Monroe Doctrine. But I do hold that the expan
sion of the British Empire in the Western Hemisphere
would be against the Monroe Doctrine. We are not
arguing whether or not the union should exist, remem
ber; we are arguing whether the United States should
enter the union once it has been established. There
fore, the whole issue concerning the Monroe Doctrine
and the maintenance of traditional American foreign
policy pertains to the entrance of the United States into
the union, and not the mere existence of the union.
Let it here be emphasized that the Affirmative has not
attacked the size of the change postulated in the first
Negative constructive speech, and that the perma
nence of the move has already been explicitly expressed
by the Affirmative.
In regard to such matters as common defense, these
are easily seen to be incapable of examination under
the strong light of reason. For in order to show that
FEDERAL UNION OF DEMOCRACIES 183
common defense is a point in their favor, the Affirma
tive must show that the United States will be getting
something out of common defense which it did not have
before, and that is security. But the United States by
geographical position and strength of arms is invul
nerable militarily. And even if the United States were
vulnerable militarily, the Affirmative would have to
show that we actually were being threatened. Neither
of these things, of course, can be demonstrated.
There is little left, then, of the Affirmative case. In
regard to need, the Affirmative loses the issue. Desira
bility has already been attacked by my colleague, and
further attacks in his rebuttal upon what may be left
of the Affirmative contentions in this regard will com
plete our case.
Therefore, since we have demonstrated that the Af
firmative case rests upon an analogy between the
United States and peoples like the Zulus or Hottentots
of South Africa, and since the Negative contentions as
to the need which must be shown have not been refuted,
we feel that the United States should not join a world
union of democracies.
First Affirmative Rebuttal, Galen Frantz
Manchester College
FRIENDS: I hold in my hands a copy of Martin's
History of the United States. Concerning the accusa
tion of the Negative that our present situation cannot
be compared to the situation existing before the Ameri
can union was drawn up, we find the following quota-
184 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
tion in this book: "In addition to the problems of the
new nation already mentioned were those involved in
differences in the race, nationality, religion, manners,
customs and even speech of the people themselves."
Also, one of the strongest of the fellow-opponents of
the Negative to our plan, Adolf Hitler, points out that
the American Union came within two votes of having
German for its national language. Thus we see that
the obstacles facing us today are no more difficult than
those facing the American colonies.
Furthermore, the Negative has been pointing out
throughout this debate that the doctrine of 1823 as pro
claimed by Monroe should be our policy for today. In
other words, the Negative would have us retain an 1823
model horse and buggy on our 1940 highway simply
because they do not see any need for a change, despite
the obvious advantages of an automobile. As we have
previously pointed out, wars of aggression hurt the
United States as much as any other nation, outside of
the victim itself, by the loss of customers. Under our
present system, we are spending some $25,000,000 an
nually to protect a $15,000,000 trade in China. Under
the system of union the democratic nations would be
united in attitude toward aggression, and such aggres
sion could be nipped in the bud by the powerful eco
nomic weapon which the union would control.
One of the contentions of the Negative was that once
in the union the United States could not get out of it.
That is true ! Neither can the republic of Texas change
its mind about getting out of the American Union, nor
does it want to. It finds it advantageous to enjoy the
FEDERAL UNION OF DEMOCRACIES 185
benefits the union gives to it, as the United States en
joys the advantages given to it by a federal union of
world democracies.
The Negative also pointed out as a disadvantage how
much it would cost the United States to do its share in
the maintaining of a union legislature. This is also
true. It also cost the American colonies to help in the
maintaining of the American legislature; but to offset
this disadvantage, if it is a disadvantage, the American
colonies found it a saving to have a common defense.
They found that this saving was more than enough to
counteract the expense of a common legislature.
In regard to free trade, the Negative admitted its
advantages but pointed out that the immediate adop
tion of a system of free trade would greatly embarrass
the protected industries of the United States. Re
ferring again to our illustration, we see that the manu
facturer of suits in the United States would no doubt
suffer. However, we see that the production of auto
mobiles would offset this loss. Thus the losses would
be met by the gain, to the benefit of all concerned. The
Negative proposes that we put this system of free trade
into operation through a slow process, but this would
not work. It could not work because the union would
find it necessary to protect its own industry by the use
of protective barriers, thus prohibiting any system of
free trade by the United States without our active par
ticipation in the union.
i86 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
Second Negative Rebuttal, Eugene Majewski
DePaul University
FRIENDS: The gentleman who just left the platform
said that a process of gradual tariff reform would not
work because the union would have to protect its in
dustry from us by the use of "protective barriers." In
other words, the Affirmative thinks that both the United
States and the federal union would have trade barriers
against each other, but that a gradual lowering of these
barriers would be a failure. They prove this conten
tion by the rather fanciful method of saying that an
abrupt abrogation is the only answer. But we have al
ready shown that in such a case the protected industry
or industries of each country would cease producing
and each country would be faced with wholesale un
employment and chaos. Furthermore, even if immedi
ate abolition of the tariff is desirable, and that has not
been shown, there is no reason to think that such aboli
tion could not be accomplished without having to join
the union. After all, if it is desirable for both parties,
they would each be glad to cooperate in doing away
with the tariff. But there is no necessity for merging
our nationalities. Notice our present lowering of trade
barriers in cooperation with Canada, yet no one even
thinks of our uniting with Canada in order to accom
plish a lowering of trade barriers.
The Affirmative raised another interesting conten
tion. They said that the United States now spends a
great deal of money protecting trade in China. And
from whom are we protecting ourselves? England,
FEDERAL UNION OF DEMOCRACIES 187
France, and Japan. Two of those nations are in this
new union. The Affirmative plan seems to say that if
you are arguing with a lady and the argument annoys
you, don't avoid her; marry her!
But let us not piddle with such minor argument. The
gentlemen of the Affirmative tried to sustain their case
on the basis of two points. The first was that the union
would be strengthened by our entering it. My col
league and I could well admit this. As a matter of fact,
we do admit it, and only because it does not go toward
proving the Affirmative case. Just because other na
tions would benefit by our entrance does not prove that
our entrance is desirable for our country.
The only other point in the Affirmative case was that
there would be certain advantages to our joining the
union. There were four such advantages. The first,
free trade, I have already discussed and shown that it
is not at all necessary to join this union in order to
have the advantages of free trade. The second argu
ment dealt with a common world currency. The Af
firmative has not as yet, however, shown that this world
currency is.a plan which can work in practice. Since
they have not even attempted to prove this point, my
colleague and I feel that one rebuttal of it is enough.
The third Affirmative argument was based on the
desirability of a common defense. Our discussion of
the fallacies inherent in this argument have not been
rebutted and we feel that therefore this third point has
not been established.
The only other Affirmative point was based on the
desirability of a common foreign policy. But in order
188 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
to begin to discuss this argument, the Affirmative
should have shown the weaknesses of our present
American foreign policy. This they haven't done at all,
remember?
We see, then, that the gentlemen of the Affirmative
have tried to prove their case on the basis of two points.
The first was beside the issue and the second they did
not prove. But they neglected to do a most important
thing in this debate. They have neglected even to dis
cuss the most fundamental portion of an Affirmative
case the need for a change from the status quo! My
colleague has, on the other hand, shown there is no
need for a change, that the Affirmative arguments tend
ing to prove the desirability of their plan are fallacious,
and that there are positive disadvantages to the whole
scheme.
Before I conclude I should like to remind the audi
ence that there is only one more speaker left. A gen
tleman on the Affirmative. He will, of course, say
nothing contrary to the facts but he will be attempting
very much to prove his side of the case. Before he can
do this he must demonstrate that there is a great need
for his proposed change. This he must do because the
Affirmative has not done so yet. He must substanti
ate the four Affirmative points which we have already
rebutted. Then he must somehow show that their
plan will be a practical one for the United States. After
he does this, he should rebut the three points which the
Negative has already demonstrated. I wish him well.
Now I see my time is up. My colleague and I en-
FEDERAL UNION OF DEMOCRACIES 189
joyed ourselves no end. We hope some day to be able
to come out to debate you on your terrain.
Second Affirmative Rebuttal, Robert Underbill
Manchester College
FRIENDS: Let's first take up the accusation of the
speaker who just left the floor. In spite of the fact that
we have shown you that our plan is practical and de
sirable, the speakers for the Negative maintain that we
have not shown a need. The very fact that such a plan
offers so many advantages is certainly enough of a
need.
We have shown you that we are more involved in
world affairs and more dependent on world conditions
than when the American union was formed. Certainly
by improving conditions throughout the world, we
would be improving our own position. In outlining
their case the gentlemen of the Negative told us that
they would show us great disadvantages of the plan of
a federal union, and yet so far they have shown us no
such disadvantages. Instead, they have attempted to
minimize the advantages which we have mentioned.
The Negative has asked us if the United States gov
ernment would have to pay for the extra expenditures
involved in such a union. Evidently our friends on the
Negative misunderstood the plan of union. In the
United States today, the state of California pays no
more Federal expenditures than the state of New York.
Likewise, the democracies in our union would equally
share the costs of government. As my colleague has
190 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
shown you, we are now spending $15,000,000 annually
for the protection of our national investments in China
alone. Under a plan of union there would be no such
huge debt nor huge expenditures accumulated in pro
tecting national investments.
The gentlemen of the Negative have accused us by
saying that the plan of a federal union will be making
a great change. This is precisely the attitude taken
when the American union was formed. Such objections
were so great that the following statement was written
by Thomas Paine in his famous article entitled, Com
mon Sense: "These proceedings may at first appear
strange and difficult, but, like other steps which we
have already passed over, will in a little time become
familiar and agreeable." The same old objections are
being raised to the plan which we are defending. This
plan of union is merely a larger step in the direction
of world order. The Negative has told us that the
democracies could not unite because of great differ
ences. They would not want the people from Euro
pean countries within our union. The elite Bostonians
objected, likewise, very strenuously to taking in the un
couth barbarians from some of the far western states
of Indiana and Illinois.
The gentlemen of the Negative have asked us just
why common currency will help solve our problems in
this way. Before the World War we had a monetary
stabilization. Why? Simply because one country,
Great Britain, was controlling enough in the world to
establish leading currency. At that time we were really
not on a gold standard but rather on the sterling stand-
FEDERAL UNION OF DEMOCRACIES 191
ard of Great Britain. With the World War, England's
leading currency was destroyed. We have not had a
monetary stabilization merely because there has not
been a country powerful enough to establish a leading
currency.
Because of the overwhelming strength of the federal
union, a leading currency could be established; a cur
rency which would solve monetary problems confront
ing the nations of today.
One of the statements made by the Negative was that
if the plan were a good one we need not be in it. With
their permission we would like to use another analogy.
In their day, gas and coal oil lamps were certainly a
very good thing, but when the electric light was in
vented, all the advantages of the gasoline lamp could
not save it. In the same way any advantages that na
tional sovereignty may have had are today obsolete and
must give way for the more advantageous system of a
world union.
In reviewing the argument for the Negative, we find
that there has not been shown us a single larger ob
stacle to the formation of a federal union of world
democracies than there was to the formation of the
American union. The Negative has neither agreed nor
disagreed with our idea that a balance of power is one
of the fundamental causes of war. They have not
disputed our challenge that no lasting world order can
be set up with the idea of power politics as its base.
The only way to eliminate the idea of a balance of
power is to adopt the plan which we have discussed.
Because the very advantages offered by such a union
I 9 2 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
create a great enough need, we earnestly advocate that
the United States should join a federal union of world
democracies.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
INTERNATIONAL FEDERAL UNION OF DEMOCRACIES
BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS
Nichols, E. R.-~ Intercollegiate Debates. Vol. XX (1939). Alliance
of the Democracies. Noble & Noble, New York. $2.50.
Streit, C. K. Union Now. Proposal for an Inter-democracy federal
union. Harper. 1940. $2.00.
Streit, C. K. Essence of Union Now. For Union Now. Need for
Union Now. Inter-democracy Federal Unionists Union House,
10 E, 40th St., New York. Each pamphlet, 25c.
MAGAZINES
Association of American Colleges, Bulletin. 26:15, March, 1940.
Union Now. C. K. Streit.
Christian Century. 57:103, January 24, 1940. America and a Fed
eral Europe.
Contemporary Review. 157:40, January, 1940. Stalinism and Hit-
lerism. F. Utley.
Foreign Affairs. 17:663, July, 1939. Frontiers of the United States.
A. L. Lowell.
Fortnightly. 153 (147) 24, January, 1940. Twilight of Neutrality.
W. Friedmann.
Fortune. 20:42, October, 1939. War and Peace: United States Must
Now Choose Among Retreat, Isolation and International Leader-
skip.
Fortune, 21:97-104, February, 1940. United States Frontier Has
Changed Is Becoming International.
Harper. 180:449, April, 1940. War and America. E. Davis.
Nation. 150:72, January 20, 1940. Idealists vs. Cynics. Pacifists
and Socialists Believe Nothing Is at Stake in the European Strug
gle. R. Niebuhr.
Vital Speeches. 5:628, August 1, 1939. Totalitarian and the Democ
racies. H. S. Johnson.
Vital Speeches. 5:610, August 1, 1939. War and the Democracies.
W. R. Castle.
AID TO THE ALLIES
Three Member Team Debate
WILLIAMS COLLEGE AFFIRMATIVE vs.
MIDDLES URY COLLEGE NEGATIVE
A question reflecting the common interest in the present European
war was the general favorite during the past intercollegiate debate
season. The phrasing of the question varied greatly throughout the
country. In general, debaters were concerned with staying out of the
war. The present discussion concerns itself with participation in ev
ery way except actual military action.
This debate was held in Mead Memorial Chapel at Middlebury
College, Middlebury, Vermont, at eight o'clock on the evening of
March 19, 1940, Williams College of Massachusetts upholding the
Affirmative and Middlebury College of Vermont championing the
Negative. The type of debate was the regular intercollegiate uni
versity plan with three member teams a type quite prevalent before
tournament debating confirmed the two man team plan now most
prevalent throughout the country. Each team was given three ten
minutes' constructive and one six minutes' rebuttal, a departure from
the original university plan which gave each speaker a rebuttal speech.
The debate was judged by a critic judge, Professor Carl D. England
of the Department of Public Speaking of Dartmouth College, Han
over, New Hampshire. His decision for the Middlebury Negative
team follows the debate.
The speeches and decision were collected by Professor Perley C.
Perkins, director of debate at Middlebury College, with the coopera
tion of the speakers and the director of debate at Williams College,
Professor Albert H. Licklider.
The question was stated: Resolved, that the United States should
extend all possible material aid, short of participation by our armed
forces, to Great Britain and France during the present war.
AID TO THE ALLIES
First Affirmative, William Stedman
Williams College
MR. CHAIRMAN, LADIES AND GENTLEMAN, HONOR
ABLE JUDGE: We feel it a great privilege to be able to
battle this evening with the forensic representatives of
Middlebury College. We are forced to add, the college
which has hounded us in football and which also boasts
an A-l ski team. Already this year Williams met Mid
dlebury in the Dartmouth practice tournament on the
isolation question; so that I feel that we meet on com
mon ground.
Tonight's debate hinges around the much discussed
question: Resolved, that the United States should ex
tend all possible material aid, short of participation by
our armed forces, to Great Britain and France during
the present war. By all material aid we mean extend
ing to the Allies all the resources which are not required
in the operation of our own economy. The domestic
market will first be satisfied and then we intend to ship
the Allies our surplus. We kill little pigs in this country.
We suggest that we send those little pigs abroad. We
plow under crops. We suggest that we send certain
of these products abroad. To facilitate the sending of
such aid, the United States would drop her present
neutrality clauses, at least cash and carry, and the trade
restriction clause. The Affimative will seek to prove its
196 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
case on two basic principles: First, the United States,
as a democratic state, must help check totalitarianism;
and, second, this can be done most effectively by the
extension to the Allies of all possible material aid short
of participation in war.
At the outset, let us make sure what we mean by
democracy and totalitarianism, and particularly the
opposite roles that they play in the present struggle.
We do not claim that Great Britain and France are
pure democracies, for democracy is in feeble health,
but we do know that these nations have certain of the
fundamental policies of democracy, such as majority
rule, free speech, free press, free assembly, the prin
ciples of tolerance, equality and justice. Certain other
nations on the other hand, Germany, Italy, Russia and
Japan, have substituted for democracy such concepts
as the theories of racial superiority, the theories of the
exalted degree of the state, dictatorial governments and
ruthless .encroachments on the rights of man. The
German Republic, Czechoslovakia and Poland may well
tell us these things. Democracy today is like a man
with diseased tissues. Totalitarianism is like a cancer
which has grown on these tissues. The question be
fore us, now that cancer is plainly in view, is whether
or not an operation is necessary to ease the condition.
Sometimes an operation may be very unnecessary and
painful, but sometimes it is necessary in order to save
life. This was the decision of Great Britain and France
in September, 1939, following those days in which gov
ernments and nations disappeared overnight.
The participants in the present war are only three,
AID TO THE ALLIES 197
Great Britain, France and Germany. But the other
powers are all vitally interested in the outcome of that
war. The other powers realize how important is its
outcome. Nations, instead of being neutral today, are
rather extending their economic resources to the nations
involved in the war, and that economic aid is the thing
which will bring victory to one side or the other. It
is important to realize just where we stand in the
present situation. It is important to realize that
democracy cannot live by itself.
In a recent Fortune Round Table on World Affairs,
the members of that discussion said in a joint state
ment: "If the United States were the one remaining
democracy in a totalitarian world, it would live under
the fear of attack from without and the fear of sub
versive propaganda from within, and might develop a
native totalitarianism of its own." With a totalitarian
Europe I believe our future would appear rather grey,
or some people would say pitch black. But suppose
the present war ends in not a totalitarian victory but
in a compromise, a decision where neither side wins.
Just how would that affect us as a nation? The answer
is that it would affect us to the extent that obituaries
could be written for our most cherished policy, for the
policy of a good neighbor and the policy of world
security, free trade and good faith among nations.
In order to extend real material aid to Britain and
France, we must first bid good-by to the scruples of
neutrality. We must play our part in the outcome of
the course of world events. We must in fact adopt a
realistic foreign policy, a foreign policy which is not
198 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
a combination of missionary and Yankee imperialism,
which recognizes that there are no neutral rights today,
but that freedom is a mint and we must stick up for
our rights wherever we can.
Imagine for a moment what would happen if the
democracies refused to help; if American democracy
refused to help Great Britain and France. We fear per
haps that the Germans might win the war. What then?
If the Germans were winning the war, perhaps we would
send over our armed forces. This was part of the war
hysteria in which people of the United States at the
eleventh hour woke up to the fact that Great Britain
and France must be helped in order to save ourselves
from the threat of a totalitarian Europe, In case of
a German victory and a totalitarian Europe we could
vision before us a world in which school children are
taught the inherent superiority of Race A over Race B,
or Race B over Race C. In a totalitarian world we
would see a headman, a government dominated by one
man, a dictator; we would see our own stakes in the
world forever playing king of the hill and that one
won and became tyrant to the rest. We would see a
struggle in which war according to Mussolini is justice,
nobility and brotherly pity.
If we want this kind of world to live in, we should
by all means stay neutral, retreat into our shell and tell
the Allies to go to blazes. But if we desire a better
society in which to live, a society in which men work
together, then by all means we should help in eradicat
ing the effects of totalitarianism which now threaten
people in all corners of the world.
AID TO THE ALLIES 199
First Negative, J. Halford Gordon
Middlebury College
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: May I add to the re
marks of the Chairman that we are indeed very happy
to welcome the gentlemen from Williams to our campus
this evening. This debate has an especial significance for
both Mr. Leggett and myself because it is the last debate
consisting of formal speeches and rebuttals of our col
lege careers that we will participate in here on our own
campus. As you can well surmise, we have looked for
ward to it with a great deal of keen anticipation.
In opening this case for the Negative this evening,
I should like to make three factors very clear. They
concern a logical interpretation of three important
phrases in the proposition. Our first objective must
be to clarify the meaning of the term "United States."
A logical realistic interpretation of this term compels
us to notice that the United States means our nation
our industries, agriculture, banking and financial insti
tutions as well as our Government. I want to point
out here that, if the United States follows a policy of
helping the Allies, you can see by the wording of this
proposition, "extend all possible material aid," that it
is both absurd and fallacious to interpret it as mean
ing that the United States send to the Allies only what
she feels she can possibly spare. The terms of this
proposition are clear, irrevocable and definite. In this
case the Government may have to pass enabling or
restricting legislation, but the point I want to make
dear is that our economic life is carried on by private
200 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
industry and it is the output of this industry which
the Affirmative must call upon when they refer to the
"United States."
Let us look for a moment to four other words "ex
tend all possible aid." Extend means to proffer or
bestow. "Possible" means that which can logically
occur. "Material" pertains to the implements and
parts necessary to the doing of anything. Frankly,
the scope of this phrase "extend all possible aid"
staggered my colleagues and myself as much as it must
stagger you. What does it mean? Logically it means
all that the Allies need and demand we give. In all
logic, we must send all goods, supplies, money or credit
which can possibly be sent. I want to point out here
that we must extend credit to the limit. I want to
point out that the Affirmative must also assume the
terrific burden (as they have already admitted) of doing
away with our present structure as embodied in our
neutrality policy. The Johnson Act, prohibiting loans
from being floated in this country, the cash and carry-
plan and the neutrality policy, all of which were formed
in the light of past experience, must be scrapped.
Let us explore further and discover the tremendous
implications of a logical analysis of this term. In the
first place, we must extend the use of our ships. We
must set up our shipyards to build warships and com
mercial vessels for the Allies rather than for ourselves.
We must set our auto plants, our industrial plants,
armaments plants and our mines into motion to produce
cars, tractors, locomotives, rails, leather goods, food
and textiles. Logic compels me to point out that we
AID TO THE ALLIES 201
must send all of the products that it is possible to send.
The Affirmative would have us extend credit possi
bilities to the limit, and base this extension solely on
the need and demand of the Allies, whether such a
reckless policy might prove dangerous to our own
security and interests or not.
Let me graphically bring to your attention again the
bitter fact that in the first World War we did not ex
tend all possible aid to the Allies. No one can deny that
we certainly could have done more. Yet in the light
of the bitter experience of that drama, the Affirmative
condemns us to the task of doing anything that is pos
sible for the Allies. If the Allies decide they lack roll
ing stock, we must take our freight cars and locomotives
and ship them to Europe, for I must remind you that
all of this is possible under the proposition which the
Affirmative advocates this evening.
Today we have a neutrality act which may or may
not be perfect, but it does serve as some protection
against military and economic involvement. The
Affirmative asks that we throw out all this policy which
experience has proven sound, and not only go back to
the way of 1917 but to go even further and give all
possible aid, a thing we have never done before.
This point leads me up to the position of being able
to strike a most crucial blow at the heart of this propo
sition. Every fact of experience and logic shows that
an acceptance of this proposition can only lead to
definitely entering the war. If we place all our re
sources at the command of two nations fighting a war
202 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
with Germany and possibly Russia, we cannot help
but place ourselves right in the middle of this war.
In the first place our act would be looked upon as
anything but neutral. Acts of reprisal would surely
follow. I would remind you first that our ships would
be sunk because we must not forget that under the
Affirmative's proposition we will have to use our ships
to send them goods if we are to extend all possible aid.
Looking at the proposition from another angle
brings to light the amazing fact that by every dictum
of experience and reality, this proposition is so con
tradictory that it logically refutes itself. In the first
place, its two parts all possible aid and short of par
ticipation by armed forces are antithetical. If history
means anything, how can it be logically possible for
us to gain such a vast stake in this war and its victory
and not go in with arms to insure that stake if material
aid proves insufficient? Let us look at the record. In
the World War we staked the Allies to a large extent
economically. The Allies couldn't win; so we had to
enter to protect our stake.
The point I want to make here and now is this. It
is certain that, if we do as the Affirmative asks, and
victory does not follow and I want to drive home the
fact that we cannot tell at this unpredictable stage
whether the Allies will win our only recourse would
be to take such military measures as would insure the
safety of the tremendous stake the Affirmative would
have us make.
No, my friends, the Affirmative request itself is
illogical. They identify our welfare completely with
AID TO THE ALLIES 203
an Allied victory by demanding all possible aid. The
opposition faces a very distinct and real possibility
that this economic aid alone will not be sufficient be
cause we cannot tell what combination of powers
might finally form to strike the Allies.
The gentlemen of the opposition, therefore, are in
the difficult position of showing a willingness to extend
all possible material aid, yet having logically to justify
not using armed force to insure the success of that aid
if the unpredictable victory of the Allies does not
follow.
The plain fact of the matter is, as history has
shown, that you cannot separate the economic from
the military, especially if the economic calls for all
possible aid. In addition to this the Affirmative faces
the dilemma of advertising to the world that, since we
will not insure our tremendous stake in Europe, our
prestige and integrity, our own security and well-being
will be subservient to the whims and treacheries of
European power politics.
The fundamental point which must not escape no
tice is to see that the Affirmative proposition is illogical
at its very base. Essentially it is a halfway measure.
Being a halfway measure, it forces the opposition to
straddle the fence, which they logically cannot do.
Either we want to insure Allied victory or we don't.
If we do, we have to stand ready to go the whole way
to insure victory. If we do not want to insure victory,
how can the Affirmative justify extending all this pos
sible aid?
No, my friends, this staggering burden of providing
204 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
a split proposition, of giving with the left and taking
away with the right, falls squarely on the shoulders
of the opposition. Not for one moment can we let
them wiggle out of this crushing dilemma.
I want to make it clear at this point that our own
security is basic to us. Our own economic and military
security must be paramount in any action we take or
do not take in Europe.
The Affirmative must also clearly show and establish
a powerful motive to justify extending all this possible
aid to a warring Europe. My colleagues and I ask:
What can they logically cite for taking such a step?
In the first place, the Affirmative cannot even be sure
of victory.
However., I would point out one more question. Just
how will extending all this aid solve any of Europe's
age-old problems? The problems of minorities, racial
hatreds, economic boundaries, power politics, class
struggles and imperialism can only at best be futilely
continued to a point of temporary exhaustion.
I conclude by exposing one final burden of proof
which the opposition cannot dodge. They must show
that our economic life would not be thrown into another
post war crash when the peacetime policy is finally
reassumed. I leave to my colleague the problem of
analyzing this problem and showing to you its vital
implications.
AID TO THE ALLIES 205
Second Affirmative, Edgar Nathan
Williams College
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: The first speaker for
the Affirmative has shown you democracy would suffer
a body blow following a totalitarian victory. I will
go on to prove that America has material strength
necessary to effect a conquest of might without a bar
rage of armed forces.
The Negative tried to make this debate turn on a
verbal quibble, the definition of the word "possible."
The real question is what the foreign policy of the
United States should be in realistic terms. The Affirm
ative does not propose under any circumstances that
the United States should lend aid to such an extent that
our people will suffer, that our unemployed will starve.
We believe the battle must be done on the home front
as well as abroad. In our minds we propose a middle
road and are proud of it. Living our everyday lives
as a small segment of a great American community,
we don't realize the scope of our resources in land and
mineral wealth, factories and population. Let me
point out a few facts which would guarantee an Al
lied victory. The United States of America is second
in population in square miles only to Russia and China.
We have more land than Great Britain, France, Ger
many, Italy and Japan put together. This land and
population do not stagnate. From 1925-1929, 45 per
cent of the world's manufacturing was done in the
United States; 32 per cent of the raw material came
from the United States; 81 per cent of the world's
206 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
automobiles and 49 per cent of the world's telephones
were produced in America. In 1938, the United States
led the world in exports, $3,000,000,000 worth. A
merchant fleet is an obvious necessity. In 1939, we
were second only to Great Britain. We had 11,500,000
tons, Great Britain had 21,000,000 tons. Japan was
in third place with 5,500,000 tons. So the shipping
so necessary to aid is thus here available. Boats laid
up by the 1939 Neutrality Act can and must be placed
into service immediately. The sea power can lay
weight on the scales of the Allies.
Now we have seen the strength of sea transportation.
Let us turn to the essential war commodities which the
ships are to carry. Steel is perhaps the most essential
material for a successful army and navy. In 1938,
America led the world in the production of steel
28,000,000 gross tons. Under stress of war prepara
tions, Germany turned out 22,500,000, Russia 18,-
000,000. In 1929, which was a big year of American
production, we produced 56,500,000 gross tons.
In pig iron, raw material, steel, the United States
again leads, with 19,000,000 tons produced in 1938;
18,000,000 were produced in Germany. It should be
remembered that Germany was producing in anticipa
tion of war while we were producing only peacetime
needs. Under wartime orders this production could
be stepped up tremendously along with the increase
in steel production as shown above. This steel and
iron supply will revitalize and strengthen the forces
of the Allies. Of the nearly 2,000,000,000 forty-two
gallon barrels of crude petroleum, the United States
AID TO THE ALLIES 207
had 1,000,000,000. Russia had 200,000,000 barrels.
America can stall or supercharge. Oil can be sent
now and will give more aid than our men could even
if sent out with the greatest possible speed. Military
forces still travel on their stomachs. The United States
here also holds the lead. In wheat, in 1938, the world
grew 500,000,000,000 bushels; 200,000,000,000 came
from us. In corn, America leads again, shipping out,
in 1938, 140,000,000 bushels, out of a total world ex
port of 310,000,000 bushels. So America becomes the
bread box of the world by controlling the destinies of
these exports and facilitating their travel to food
kitchens and so rendering service to the Allied forces.
Under the above conditions, the sending of troops
would be not only undesirable but completely unneces
sary. The idea is to end the war quickly and surely on
the side of the Allies; to have peace, security and order
on the face of the earth. Short of war, it would mean
economic dislocation following its dangers, which we
will feel regardless of the amount of our participation,
financial or military. We do not propose to send so
much to them that we would have to withdraw, caus
ing poverty and distress. There is a just need to be
found here and we will find it. There is certain aid
we can send without disarranging the structure of our
form of government and society. Military aid cannot
be sent without sinking the structural foundations of
our community and political life. The World War
and the Civil War had great reverberations in a demo
cratic order. Civil liberties were violated right and
2 o8 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
left. During the World War the right of free speech
completely disappeared. Will democracy be able to
stand such an attack on our democratic system? We
have 11,000,000 unemployed today. The extent of
the depression is felt by everyone here. We would be
in the same position we were in in 1917. Can we stand
such an attack on our democratic setup? We cannot
and will not allow Germany to win the war because
of democracy and American national interests. There
are also emotional and sentimental ties with Britain
and France which will draw us into warfare if we see
Germany triumph. Language and literature are ties
with Britain. We will be drawn closer to war as the
German victory comes closer. The prospect of Ameri
can involvement decreases as Allied chances of victory
increase. Hence freedom from bloodshed and the
horrors of war will be guaranteed by an Allied victory
and we can help this by American economic aid short
of war. It is our duty to* act, not only in the interest
of democracy but for the United States, to lend
strength to the Allied cause. We can help without
sending armed forces. We must da so.
Second Negative, Kyle T. Brown
Middlebury College
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: My colleague, Mr. Gor
don, in opening the case for the Negative this evening,
analyzed the terms of the proposition, and gave you
their logical meaning. He pointed out the amazing
implications of the Affirmative proposal, the stagger-
AID TO THE ALLIES 209
ing burden of proof which they must assume, and cer
tain basic compelling factors involved in debating it.
In the next few moments I wish you would consider
with me the complete economic implications of the Af
firmative's proposed policy. And the significant point
which I want to make at once is that we do not have
to guess about it, or peer into any crystal ball in order
to know what would be the inescapable economic
effects of extending all possible material aid to Eng
land and France in the present war. We did it once,
but, as my colleague already has pointed out, we did
not go as far then as we are being asked to go now.
The dictates of logic and reason, therefore, would seem
to demand that we take a look at the record before
we, take a step involving such dire consequences, in
order to determine in advance whether after all the
game is worth the candle. Before listening to the
trumpet call of the Affirmative, look with me at the
lesson we should have learned, lest, indeed, we forget.
When the first World War broke out,, the character
istic attitude of citizens here was one of self-congratu
lation over the three thousand miles of ocean lying
between us and the warring nations. Whatever was
happening over there could affect us but little. We
heard President Wilson's injunction to "be neutral
even in spirit." Then American capital began to help
furnish the Allies with the sinews of war. Incidentally,
we should not forget either that, when the munitions
bill of the Allies reached $3,000,000,000, the Presi
dent's tone had changed to "benevolent neutrality,"
and when the bill reached $6,000,000,000, it became
2io YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
"armed neutrality." Finally, after the Allied debt had
reached nearly $10,000,000,000, we entered the war to
help our debtor who by then was nearly bankrupt and
whom nothing but the aid of his chief creditor could
save from utter bankruptcy. All of which is well
summed up by the Biblical saying: "Where a man's
purse is, there his heart is also." It also demonstrates
the fallacy of the theory that we can involve ourselves
economically without being involved militarily.
Today, my friends, as it is hardly necessary to point
out, we are in the throes of one of the major depres
sions of our history, a depression whose causes are,
largely, directly traceable to both phases of our par
ticipation in what future historians will probably call
the First World War. As you also know we have
11,000,000 unemployed, industry running far below
capacity, overproduction or underconsumption, which
ever you wish to call it, and a national debt of about
$42,000,000,000. We have a real problem on our hands
to repair and adjust our economic machine, and it is
not too much to say that this problem is the most
critical of our entire national existence. In fact, it is
so serious as to threaten us with grave social disorders
and possibly violent revolution if a solution is not
found. One fact stands out boldly, and that is that
we can't afford to accept any course of action which
will aggravate or increase our economic maladjustment.
In spite of this the Affirmative tonight is proposing that
we increase our problem tremendously by extending
all possible material aid to the Allies.
We must also recognize above most all other facts
AID TO TEE ALUES 211
in this debate that the World War and our part in it
were chiefly and directly responsible for this cat
astrophic breakdown of our economic life. Look
with me at the picture simply and factually.
In 1914 war was declared and 10,000,000 men were
mobilized in the major countries of the world. Now
modern war makes such demands that it cannot help
but wreck any economic system involved in it. And
it does it in this way. While taking men away from
productive enterprises, it increases the demand for
goods at least twofold to feed the ravenous maws of
the monster war. Therefore, some way must be found
to achieve that necessary production and there is only
one way in the modern world increasing the efficiency
of the machine. The fact is that technology increased
so tremendously under the spur of war needs that,
when the armistice came and the armies were dis
banded, there was no longer any place in industry for
a substantial portion of them, and there came into
being a new army of the unemployed. Need I ask if
you have heard of that army in America?
As a result of this, every government was forced to
embark upon a policy of protecting what opportunities
for work remained to its own people, and there, ladies
and gentlemen, you have the cause of the orgy of tariff
barriers, quotas, exchange restrictions and all the other
obstacles which, ever since the World War, have in
creasingly made a shambles of international trade. No
government could last a week if it allowed to enter
from other countries the goods which its own people
could make. It had to protect what opportunities for
212 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
work remained. The whole picture may be crazy
economics but it serves to show us how modern war can
disrupt and destroy all possibilities for sane and nor
mal economic life.
Now just where does the United States fit into the
picture? From the opening day of the war we did
what the Affirmative is asking that we do now in this
war we extended material aid, we sent our goods to
the Allies. We sent more and more goods, and, of
course, we geared our economy and industrial machine
higher and higher as the demand grew.
And this makes it imperative that I point out another
basic fact about a war economy that war is almost
completely destructive. Materials are shot away; they
do not create wealth. Everything goes into the jaws
of the beast; nothing but the fire and smoke of con
sumed goods comes out. War trade can never be real
trade or exchange of goods and values. Consequently
and inevitably, we were soon faced with the problem
of getting any pay for our goods and getting paid is
pretty important in any man's economics if business
is to go on. You know how we solved that problem
we floated loans for the Allies among our own people,
who furnished the money to pay for the materials we
were sending abroad. We kept up the flow of goods
to Europe throughout the war but our people footed
the bill to the tune of $11,000,000,000. Thus we had
three things: We had sent $11,000,000,000 worth of
goods to Europe; we had reduced the savings of our
people by that amount to pay for them; and, worst of
all, we had an economy and an industrial plant geared
AID TO THE ALLIES 213
to production for that war's needs. When peace came,
there was a huge need for peacetime goods in war-
devastated Europe, along with total inability to pay
for them, as well as the necessity of keeping our geared
up industrial and agricultural plants going to prevent
collapse. How did we solve this problem? You know
that, too. We sent $16,000,000,000 more of our
people's savings to pay our manufacturers for the
goods we sent to fill their needs and to prevent a col
lapse here. This hoax of prosperity involved that old
saw about sending good money after bad and it became
just a question of time before this vicious cycle caught
up with us in what we know as the crash of 1929, for
the evil day could not be postponed any longer.
I reiterate that today our economic system is still
in this war-stimulated collapse. And what are our
friends from Williams asking? Nothing less than that
we add a full-fledged depression to the one we still
have. And I want to add that since 1919 armies have
become so mechanized that war is going to be even
more costly.
Now let me close upon simple fact. It is that the
Affirmative proposal, asking that we extend all pos
sible material aid to the Allies, categorically forces us
to launch out upon the same insane course of pump
ing the life blood from our economic body into the
bottomless receptacle of a flaming Europe, of starting
the same cycle over again.
Can we do that with our eyes open?
214 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
Third Affirmative, Eugene Webb
Williams College
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: This is my first oppor
tunity to come to Middlebury and I have been very
happy to see the college and much pleased with its
natural beauty. But I am a little disappointed in our
opponents.
We were afraid that they would bring up the argu
ment that we should offer armed intervention in the
war. What they have done so far is to argue about the
meaning of all possible aid. I suggest that the word
"possible" in the proposition was intended as a quali
fication. What other way can we put it? All aid?
They would like to have it mean that.
I would like to go over a point which my colleague
advanced. The United States as a democratic state
must help to check the spread of totalitarianism. We
cannot exist as a lone democracy. We would be
threatened by jealous nations who envy us our im
mense wealth. We must abandon neutrality and face
the problems of the world. It is at this point that our
opponents close their eyes. They seem to think that
they are living in a world without war. Facts and
figures show that the United States has the material
strength to bring about an Allied victory without ex
tending the aid of armed forces. We have shipping
capacity, steel, oil, wheatgrowing capacity, which are
more than enough to tip the scales. By giving this
type of aid we will not cause America to be placed
under military dictatorship. But we would have to
AID TO TEE ALLIES 215
confront the chances of armed participation by the
United States if chances for an Allied success decreased.
In other words, there will be no repetition of 1917
when we were forced to enter the war to stave off an
Allied defeat, if we give all possible material aid. I
wonder if the Negative has read the headlines in to
day's New York Times. Have they asked themselves
what sort of peace one dictated by Hitler's Germany
would be? Or do they wish to see Nazism and Com
munism spread? Or hope that Hitler and Stalin shall
control the destiny of the world? Is this what they
want to live in? We would have no say in the preser
vation of civilized values of the world. I should do
them an injustice to infer they would, I would like to
ask them another question.
Will the policy they advocate insure peace? Our
opponents have advocated no specific program. We
are left in the dark. All we can do is to go through
and consider the policies which the United States might
conclude and see whether they would effect the de
sired result. First of all, can a neutrality policy ac
complish the desired result? Not in 1917. Let us be
realistic, and I mean by that a willingness to wade
through the facts and give to them the proper con
sideration regardless of how unpleasant they may be.
We cannot deny we have a stake. Witness the career
of the Roosevelt administration; we must focus our
attention on the problems which arise out of it. We
are in the world and we are forced to consider the
impact of war on our economy. We have a large
army, a larger navy. While there is peace, we can
216 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
relieve the taxpayers. War can only increase the tax
load, already burdensome. From 1914-1917 we had
neutrality, and since 1935 it has not solved this prob
lem. We live in fear; we hoped armed neutrality
would solve this. History of neutrality legislation
proves that, instead of preserving rights, wishful neu
trality only forces our nation to surrender its rights
under international law and forces us toward war as
it did in 1917.
President Roosevelt is convinced that the vital in
terests of the United States are jeopardized by the
existence of war in Europe and more important, by
German victory, which would reduce Great Britain and
France to second-rate powers. The destruction of the
British navy would expose us. We would have to en
large our standing army. Now it may be said that the
policy we advocate of giving all possible material aid
is one which has never been tried, but this is not true.
We had a good analogy of the policy during the Seven
Years' War. Finding himself engaged in a struggle,
Frederick conserved England's machinery for attempts
on other fronts. He engaged France on the Continent
and was supported by many others. This is the posi
tion the United States finds itself in at the present mo
ment. If democracy is to be preserved, the Allies must
win. If they are to win, they must be assured of con
tinued supplies of material. This is what we propose.
This is a way to insure an Allied victory. So the ma
terial aid which the United States can give to Britain
and France can be a means of preserving democracy.
What we advocate, in short, is extension of all pos-
AID TO THE ALLIES 217
sible material aid to Great Britain and France. Eco
nomic aid is sufficient. We recognize the weakness of
democracy at home and realize that only this policy
will prevent our involvement in actual warfare, which
would allow us to be placed under control of the army.
This is the solution of the domestic problem, of hous
ing of the ill-housed, feeding and clothing of the ill-fed
and ill-clothed. It was once said, when the American
people are asked to put up or shut up, they do neither.
The time has come to put up.
Third Negative, Glenn H. Leggett
Middlebury College
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: First of all, I would like
to make some remarks to the gentlemen from Williams.
We do not have to advocate a policy tonight. We are
the Negative; therefore, we do not like your proposal.
Because I do not like chocolate sodas does not mean
that I have to buy strawberry soda. It may be that
I am not thirsty. Thus, the Negative is not thirsty to
night and that is, I believe, perfectly within its rights.
Our disagreement with your proposal is that it presents
a questionable benefit against a known and experienced
catastrophe.
In beginning my speech this evening, I should like
to have you consider with me some aspects of the
Affirmative proposal as presented tonight. We heard
Mr. Stedman, the first speaker of the Affirmative, do
two things. First, he told us that all possible material
aid meant only that which is not necessary for our own
218 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
economy. Thus we simply ship our surplus. While this
definition may be debatable on its technicalities, it ig
nores the fact that our industry in order to give all pos
sible material aid, even if our own people are fed first,
must be geared to the highest possible efficiency, and
the results of this policy have been clearly demonstrated
by Mr. Brown. Moreover, I wonder how the gentle
men of the Affirmative are going to tell what is a sur
plus and what is not, unless they regiment our economy
into the very thing they do not want totalitarianism.
Do you suppose that private industry, unless care
fully and eternally watched, is going to sell its com
modities to America when they can sell them to Europe
for twice or three times the price? I fail to see how
the gentlemen of Williams are going to regulate their
definition of "all possible aid" logically. And these
remarks are directed at the Affirmative interpretation
of the question. To us of the Negative, "all possible
aid" means all the aid that the United States can
muster by increasing its industrialization to the utmost.
Munitions factories, airplane factories and so forth
must feed the European war according to the dictates
of Great Britain and France. It is not for us to say
how much we can give; the proposition gives the power
hand to the Allies to exploit us. But even in the light
of the Affirmative definition, we come on to another
significant fact. If the need is so great, can we be
sure that the "surplus," so called, will be enough?
The Affirmative gives us an overwhelming need for
United States aid on one hand, and then limits it to
nothing but a small surplus.
AID TO THE ALLIES 219
The second factor in the Affirmative proposal is
that our destiny is linked with that of the Allies. Now,
we think the time has come to be levelheaded, a course
our leaders have tried to insure in passing the neutrality
legislation, and decide whether Americans and America
shall preserve the things they came here for, or shall
go backward and stand in the midst of Europe's quar
rels and bear her burdens. Our ancestors came over
here to get away from intolerance, hatred, imperial
isms, commercial and economic rivalries, military
despotism, colonial feuds, dynastic ambitions, the pres
sure of too many nations and races on a small con
tinent, of uneconomic and indefensible boundaries, of
past injustices and a hundred other abominations.
Twenty-three years ago we tried our hand at straighten
ing out this mess. We gave our treasure and blood and
thought we had done something, only to have our
idealistic but easily deceived leader faced with cynical
selfishness and injustice on the part of the victorious
Allied leaders, and to see the old round of rivalry,
hatred, and breeding of new struggles start all over
again.
If there were a Chinaman's chance that our under
writing this war, yes, fighting it with armed forces,
would achieve the miracle of uprooting the vicious
forces which have damned Europe for centuries and
are still damning her irrevocably today, we would
acquiesce. We would say yes. We would accept the
curiously and illogically limited proposal of the Affirma
tive. We would frankly say that we should go the
whole way which the Affirmative proposal actually
220 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
would lead us, if it meant anything at all. We would
go to war again as well as subject our industrial and
economic life to the fatal drain of a great modern war.
We would be willing thus to bleed ourselves white and
face the inevitable catastrophe of a depression greater
than this one under which we are still suffering. We
would be willing to face the grave danger of internal
revolution, which must follow that perilous adventure
into new and greater economic upheavals, if the Affirm
ative could show us one single cause for belief that
this time we would cure those cancerous growths shot
through and through the diseased tissue of Europe.
But in all logic and honesty, what shred of hope for
such a miracle can anyone hold forth to you? What
confidence have we in the governments of Mr. Cham
berlain and Mr. Daladier? What confidence have we
that they really want to save democracy? That they
really care for social justice and international equality
of opportunity? What cause have we for believing
that the pious phrases which fall from their lips, now
that a state of war has overtaken their misgoverned
countries, mean any more to them, or come any more
directly from the heart, than did those other acts which
we cannot forget the cynical attempt to embroil
Russia and Germany in a war against each other by
urging upon the latter the defenselessness of the rich
Ukraine; the monstrous bargain of Munich; the fatal
hypocrisy of nonintervention in Spain; the present
treatment of Spanish refugees in France; these and
a dozen other unforgettable evidences of complete in
difference to human rights and human suffering. And
AID TO TEE ALLIES 221
these two governments are the ones the Affirmative
asks America to back to the limit, in fact without limit,
now that their treacherous policies have dragged
Europe into another of its periodic hells of war. And
out of this maelstrom of disaster, bred from callous
ness, stupidity and cynicism, the Affirmative expects
America to go fishing and catch the end of a rainbow.
Out of this the Affirmative expects our sacrifice of
treasure and stability and possibly our own liberties
to draw forth an era of idealism, of justice, of toler
ance and peace. Ladies and gentlemen, if facts and
logic mean anything today, they dictate as clearly as
a mirror reflects your own image that all the peace
which can ever be conjured out of Europe today is a
peace of exhaustion until those embittered nations can
arm for the next world war.
Any remark that America must choose between the
rather slim humanism of the Allied way of life and
the regimentation of Germany and Russia is nothing
but a tempting bit of wishful thinking a clever btit
rather fallacious attempt to catch you on the horns
of a dilemma that simply does not exist. I say to
you that America does not want and does not need
either the so-called imperialistic humanism of the Al
lies or the regimentation of Germany. I say to you
that there is still time for America to find its own pot
of gold at the end of the rainbow.
There is a third alternative which has somehow
been forgotten since the war began in September the
American way of life, which America has both the
resources and scientific skill to construct; an alterna-
222 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
tive which we must begin to construct at home, not
on the war-torn field of Europe. There is yet time to
save the vision of justice and liberty and happiness
which our Pilgrim Fathers brought with them from a
Europe even then headed for chaos and doom. We
can look about us and see that we are in danger our
selves, that intolerance and fear and bewilderment have
made some headway in our land, but we trust and be
lieve that it is not too late. We can do it if we but put
our shoulders to the wheel with intelligence and deter
mination; we can only invite failure and disaster for
ourselves if we turn our backs upon our problems,
give our energies to underwriting with all of our eco
nomic strength one side of the latest of Europe's
imperialistic struggles, as the Affirmative is asking to
night. Everyone is agreed that in another war liberties
will have to be surrendered; the blueprints are ready
in the War Office in Washington for our own sacrifice.
A gigantic economic effort can only draw us again in
a military adventure to save our stake and express the
heightened will of the people to see our economic effort
crowned with victory. Two choices lie before America
and I think you will agree with me that we cannot do
what the Affirmative asks.
In conclusion, I have several inconsistencies before
me this evening which the Affirmative has implied or
made. We heard in one place that democracy was
weakened by depression and in great danger, and that
we must make the final effort to establish it in the
world. But if it is true that democracy is weakened
by depression, then by gearing our own economy to
AID TO THE ALLIES 223
Europe in an attempt to save democracy we are going
to get ourselves in trouble again. The process, if the
gentlemen from Williams are correct, is endless. War
to save a democracy threatened by depression, then
depression after war, then democracy in trouble again
and so on and so on.
Now, the Affirmative wants us to extend all possible
material aid to the Allies; so they present a need. Thus
in one place they talk about that need, and they make
it almost desperate, as it must be to support such an
extreme proposal as theirs. But in holding that we
will never need to extend military aid, they soft-pedal
the need economic will be enough, they say. After
scaring us to death, or into pouring all our treasure
into the conflict, they stroke us gently, and say, "Don't
worry; the need can't be so great after all. We won't
have to fight. 37
In one breath, or rather a lot of warm breaths, they
say our destiny is bound up with that of the Allies;
yet they refuse to carry their thoughts to their logical
conclusion and become willing to fight to protect their
destiny. If our destiny is bound up with an Allied
victory, and we are going so far as to extend all pos
sible material aid, logic would seem to dictate military
effort if the economic didn't do the job. And no one
can say that economic aid would be enough.
Now, let's get it straight. Either there is a great
need for our material aid, or there isn't. If there
isn't, there is no sense in the proposal anyway. If
there is, they have got to face the fact that our whole
economic system will be geared again to a war-torn
224 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
world, with all of the inevitably disastrous conse
quences as we know them all too well from the last
war. The Affirmative has tried to straddle the fence,
and thereby has killed its own case.
Negative Rebuttal, Glenn H. Leggett, Jr.
Middlebury College
FRIENDS: I think we had better get our perspective
on the whole matter straight, and get down to the
simple logic of it. There are two issues which the
Affirmative had to meet and settle tonight.
First of all, is it necessary to us that France and
Britain win this war, and second, can it be shown that
they cannot now without greater aid from us than the
present cash and carry law permits us to extend to
them? In answering the first, the Affirmative has
said "yes" because they suppose, contrary to all past
history, that an Allied victory is going to cure the in
curable ills of Europe, while they ignore the certainty,
demonstrated by economic law and history, that a
victory purchased at the cost of coupling our industrial
and economic life to a World War is going to do us
untold harm.
In answering the second question, they assume the
Allies cannot win without our aid. Not only is there
nothing in the world to establish such a fact, but there
again they are asking what will certainly do our eco
nomic system as much harm as a defeat for the Allies
could ever do, if again, the need for aid is as great as
they would have you believe.
AID TO THE ALLIES 225
But, ladies and gentlemen, how could the Affirma
tive case avoid being self-contradictory, when its very
proposition is, as Mr. Gordon has so clearly pointed
out, so inherently self-contradictory? For it asks that
we give all possible material aid, but makes the definite
and clear exception that we should not participate with
our armed forces. Again, what good would it do to
extend all possible material aid, and if that proved
insufficient, refuse to fight to insure that victory?
The first part of the proposition implies terrific
necessity, compelling as anything could be, and the
second part cuts off that aid at a point and refuses to
go any further, negating all the results from the first
part. I ask you, my friends, if the public fervor, spirit,
determination and sacrifice engendered in the American
people by such a degree of effort as extending all pos
sible material aid to the Allied cause, which would
identify us so completely with that cause, could and
ever would be checked short of actual war when that
material aid were not enough? You know the answer
and so do I.
In considering some other aspects of the Affirmative
case this evening, some more interesting things come
to light. The second speaker for the Affirmative spent
most of his entire speech in telling us that democracy
was in trouble, and that it was our duty to do some
thing about it. All this is very fine idealism, and per
haps even may sound like common sense on its surface,
but it ignores Mr. Gordon's speech and Mr. Brown's
speech. The Affirmative interpretation of the proposal
is too loose, and built upon too many assertions. How
226 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
do we know that Germany is going to win the war
unless we give the Allies aid? How do we know, be
sides an assertion that it will not be, that military aid
will never be necessary? How do we know that we
can straighten out the European mess? How do we
know that our ultimate safety is bound up with an
Allied victory?
Now about this bugaboo of ultimate security rest
ing on our joining with the Allies, I turn, for confirma
tion of what I am going to say to you now, to Major
George F. Eliot, formerly of the United States Army,
and recognized as one of the outstanding military ex
perts in this country. In his book, published late in
1938, The Ramparts We Watch, Eliot tells us in direct,
simple language that the next time we go to war we
should go to war to protect our own shores. Anything
else is silly, stupid and illogical. Major Eliot proves
with facts and figures that a navy is great enough
to defend us in the next war, and then makes this
statement:
Nor is there reason for assuming that, if a general
European war occurs, we shall necessarily be drawn into it.
We were Involved in the last war through a variety of causes,
which it is needless to review here.
Means for controlling the operation of submarines have
vastly improved since the last war; they will not roam the
seas unchallenged and unhindered. Nor are airplanes oper
ated from Italy and Germany across hostile land and sea
any great peril to the Atlantic shipping lanes. The amount
of war-trade we will have with the Western powers will be
seriously affected by their inability to obtain credits here
under the Johnson Act. To this wise and just law we
AID TO THE ALLIES 227
should rigidly adhere, whatever our sympathies. It is worth
a dozen Neutrality Acts for keeping us from becoming too
deeply involved, our industries too greatly compromised by
foreign orders. But there is no necessity for otherwise con
fining our future policy within rigid limits. The necessity
is that we shall make up our minds that whatever betide,
we send no more great armies to fight in a European war.
This resolve once deeply inbedded in American hearts, and
with it the determination to command the sea-approaches
to our own country against all comers, and we may view, if
not with serenity at least with security, the struggle for
power which has through all recorded history made of the
continent of Europe a battlefield and a shambles.
Our safety probably lies in not becoming too deeply com
mitted becoming the economic partners of one side or the
other. This is controllable in part by policy, in part by the
purchasing power of those nations which have free access to
our ports by sea. Again it is this vital matter of sea-com
munications upon which our security rests. It is for us to
say what ships and what goods may pass safely in our wa
ters. It is for us to say to what degree we shall supply the
needs of belligerent nations, whoever they may be. There
is no reason to assume that we shall blindly repeat all our
errors of the past. We are not a nation of fools. If it is to
our advantage that certain powers shall be victorious, we
may help them to a degree. If it is to our advantage to
remain completely aloof, that too we may do while the
command of our waters is securely in our hands.
Now, I think Major Eliot's statements clear the
matter up entirely. He takes it for granted that we
should never be fools enough again to do two things:
first, gearing our industry to war-torn Europe, and
thus giving ourselves an economic stake in the war;
and second, abandoning the theory that we can defend
228 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
our own shores from aggressors much more cheaply
and efficiently than by crossing 3,000 miles of ocean
to meet them. Providence has given us a country
which is geographically and idealistically isolated from
Europe, and it is both suicidal and foolish not to profit
from the lessons of history.
Affirmative Rebuttal, Edgar Nathan
Williams College
LADLES AND GENTLEMEN: First, let me say that
we agree with the Negative on one point. We hate
war. We feel that the defense of peace means all the
aid which we can spare.
I have shown in my figures that our wheat exports,
our iron and steel exports are supreme, that the amount
of these exports is enough to turn the tide and give
Britain and France the necessary economic aid. This
will be enough to win the war for them. It is the only
way which we can help Britain and France without
ourselves going to war. Sending armed forces, we
admit, will bring high costs, higher, much higher than
the ones involved in sending all possible economic
aid. Our interests are involved in an Allied victory.
We are obviously economically interdependent with
Great Britain. If the Fascists use their rules, we will
have an America for refugees in war-torn England.
Their propaganda influence is especially noticeable
in South America. The distance from South America
to Spain is much smaller than we realize. Spain has
AID TO THE ALLIES 229
much more influence on Latin America through their
cultural ties.
We have the problem of curbing the totalitarian
world in our economic life. If the world goes totalitar
ian, we will have a totalitarian America. We will have
to build up our military strength so as to be able to fight
off the attack of Europe. We will have no British navy
to defend us. It is up to us to make a decision. We
believe war can be prevented by our entry in the field
of economic aid. We do not want to send our men over.
That is the point which we are trying to emphasize.
The danger increases. We cannot allow Germany to
win this war. We accept the proposition. There is
an economic stake involved in sending troops to Europe.
Our troops should be used to protect us. The cost of
sending troops would be much greater than sending
economic aid now. The plan is to prevent entry into
the war with our men.
The Negative has tried to show the Neutrality Act
as a level-headed document. It will assure peace and
security by giving up our rights, preventing horrors,
adopting cash and carry and restrictions of American
shipping. This would result in peace and security.
The danger of American involvement is minimized.
But this is a blow to our merchant marine and bankers.
It is also no assurance of our keeping out of war.
Frederick Schuman said, ". . . There are emotional
and sentimental ties involved in our national life."
The Negative has pointed out that the depression
will be greater because of giving economic aid. This is
one of the costs. I admit it is high. But I hold it is
230 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
necessary. We cannot allow Germany to be the victor.
In the last war we went in on the side of the country
serving American interests and democracy. It is vital
to Great Britain, and the danger to America is mini
mized by Great Britain's preventing an overwhelming
collapse. I have pointed out that we will have totali
tarianism in America if we do not send aid. But what
will happen if we send armed forces? Our argument
is that, in sending all possible economic aid, it will pre
vent sending armed forces, sacrificing lives, losing able-
bodied citizens. It is up to us to end this quickly and
send all possible economic aid at once.
The Negative made a point that we have no confi
dence in the governments of the Allied countries.
Britain and France tried to guarantee free trade prior
to this calamity. They upheld a democratic condition.
They are democracies. When you take one look at
Germany, Italy and Japan, you can see why. I say,
limit our aid to surpluses.
We can give to a certain extent but not to the extent
which will endanger our lives here and make our citi
zens suffer. We advocated a definite policy. An Allied
victory is necessary to prevent our entry into the war.
Therefore, we believe in sending all possible material
aid at once.
Critic Decision, Professor Carl D. England
Department of Public Speaking, Dartmouth College
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: First of all, I should like
to say that this was an excellent debate; I am sure that
you enjoyed it as much as I did.
AID TO THE ALLIES 231
In a sense it was a unique debate. In the first place,
as the Negative speaker pointed out, there was an in
consistency inherent in the statement of the question;
this made the analysis of the proposition unusually im
portant. In the second place, even among experts, it
is purely a matter of opinion whether extending econo
mic aid will facilitate or prevent our participation in
the war; this minimized the importance of evidence
from authority, and emphasized the value of logical
reasoning.
In formulating my judgment as to the winner of this
debate, there were of course many factors to take into
consideration, but those I have just mentioned were
primary. Of the other factors, I should like to discuss
first the speaking. Perhaps giving first place in my
discussion to proficiency in speaking lends it undue
importance. However, in intercollegiate debating,
where training in speaking is perhaps the debater's
chief reason for participating, speaking ability is
worthy of consideration. The gentlemen from Wil
liams, in sticking too closely to their manuscripts, lost
their audience contact. The debaters from Middlebury
were superior as speakers. Mr. Leggett, especially, is
to be commended for his force and fluency.
Next, I should like to discuss the analyses. Theo
retically, the analysis presented by the Affirmative
should be so clear, so unbiased, so inevitable, that the
Negative would accept it as a starting point for their
argument. In this debate, the Negative refused to ac
cept the Affirmative definition of "all possible," and
was therefore accused of quibbling. I believe the Nega-
232 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
tive was justified in its refusal, and in basing its case
on the inconsistency which developed in the Affirma
tive argument through its interpretation of that phrase.
That inconsistency lay in stressing the dangers of to
talitarian aggression in the event of Allied defeat, and
then limiting very narrowly the amount of help which
they would be willing to give to avoid that danger.
Now let us consider the teamwork of the two teams.
As in every other group activity, teamwork in debate
is essential. While both sides worked together very
well, I give the edge to the Negative, again because of
that inconsistency of definition with the arguments pre
sented.
Also, with regard to the case as a whole, the in
terpretation of "all possible" as shipping to the Allies
only our surpluses, and using as illustrations of our
surpluses "little pigs that were killed," and "crops that
were plowed under," tended to minimize the impor
tance of the case they were building up for aiding the
Allies in order to avert the dangers of totalitarian in
vasion.
Very little evidence was cited, either from authority
or from example. The best of what was used came
from the Negative; the example of the World War,
The Affirmative reference to Mr. Pitt's credit policy
lacked probative force, and should properly have been
used as an illustrative analogy, to make clear exactly
what tlie speaker wanted us to do.
Finally, the Negative gave a masterly rebuttal,
crowding into a very few minutes an excellent review
AID TO THE ALLIES 233
of the two cases, and establishing by contrast the su
periority of the Negative case.
Since I am supposed to render a decision, I shall do
so now, and award it, on the basis of superior speaking,
better analysis, closer teamwork, clearer logic and
stronger case, to the Negative.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
AID TO THE ALLIES
BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS
Angell, Sir Norman. The Great Illusion. Putnam. 1933. $2.50.
Bakeless, John E. Economic Causes of Modern War. 1921. O. P.
Buell, R. L. and Alexander, R. C. War Drums and Peace Plans.
Foreign Policy Association. (For sale by Grosset.) 1938. 25c.
Carter, B.Why Meddle in Europe. McBride. 1939. $2.00.
Clark, Hamilton, Moulton. Readings in Economics of War. Uni
versity of Chicago Press. $3.50.
Dupuy and Eliot. // War Comes. Macmillan. 1937. $3.00.
Editors of Fortune. Background of War. Knopf. $2.50.
Eliot, G. F. -Ramparts We Watch. Blue Ribbon Books. 1939. $1.49.
Hammerton and Barnes. The Illustrated World History. Wise. 1937.
$2.75.
Irwin, Will. The Next War. Women's Christian Temperance Union.
1921. $1.50.
Patterson, Ernest M. The United States and the World War. Amer
ican Academy. 1937. $2.50.
Smith, Fred B. Must We Have War? Harper. 1929. $2.50.
MAGAZINES AND PERIODICALS
Business Week. P. 56, April 6, 1940. US. Air Policy Is AUies First.
P. 15-17, January 27, 1940. Allies Oil Up Buying Machinery.
Christian Science Monthly. P. 2, January 6, 1940. Atties Unseen
Links With America. W. W. Case.
Contemporary Review. 157:40, January, 1940. Stalinism and Hit-
lerism. F. Utfey.
234 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
Current History. 51:54, April, 1940. // Germany Wins. S. De-
Mariaga. 51:54, February, 1940. Excerpts from Address of
Marquis of Lothian.
Independent Woman. 19:5, January, 1940. Charting America's
Foreign Policy.
Life. 8:11, January 8, 1940. America's Mass Shipment of Planes to
the Allies May Decide War's Outcome. G. F. Eliot.
Nation. 150:34, January 13, 1940. President's Message; Country's
Stake in the European War. F. Kirchwey.
Nation. 150:11, January 6, 1940. America's Stake in Britain's War.
F. L. Schuman.
Nation. 149:26, September 9, 1930. Measures Short of War.
Vital Speeches. 6:197:201, January 15, 1940. British Government
Is not Trying to Drag You into the War. Marquis of Lothian.
U.S. News. 8:9, March 22, 1940. Airplanes; For United States or
Allies? 8:12, March 29, 1940. Neutrality's Headaches. 8:42,
January 12, 1940. America or the Aggressors. 8:28, February 2,
1940. War Orders Increasing. 8:9, February 23, 1940. Europe's
Woes Enmesh Us. 8:9, February 23, 1940. Aircraft Price of
War; US. or Allies. 8:12, April 5, 1940. Billion in War Orders
Clear Trick for Allies. 8:9, April 19, 1940. More War Scares
for US.
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION
An Oregon Plan Debate
COLGATE UNIVERSITY AFFIRMATIVE vs.
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY NEGATIVE
Colgate University and Syracuse University debate teams met on
April 29, 1940 to discuss the subject of proportional representation as
a means of reforming municipal government into a more effective
instrument of representing the will of the constituency. The propo
sition was: Resolved, that a system of proportional representation
should be generally adopted in American cities.
The type of debate used was the cross-questioning or Oregon style
of discussion in which fifteen minutes is given to a constructive speech
on each side and the speaker is then questioned by the second mem
ber of the opposing team for a period of ten minutes, more or less,
according to agreement. The questioner then gives a rebuttal speech
of five or six minutes in which he refutes arguments of the opposition
and tries to show what his questioning has done to damage the op
posing argument.
This debate was held in the Maxwell School of Citizenship and
Public Affairs on the Syracuse campus, and the speeches were col
lected and submitted to Intercollegiate Debates by Professor J. V.
Garland of Colgate University in cooperation with the debaters.
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION
First Affirmative, Walter H. Carpenter, Jr.
Colgate University
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we are all agreed that we
are discussing a matter which is of direct interest to
everyone. We all suffer when our local governments
are corrupt and improperly representative of our in
terests. One of the most flagrant abuses which we find
in our city governments concerns the unfair representa
tion of the public. If we are to have effective, capable
decisions made by our ruling assemblies, we must first
guarantee that such a body is fit to represent the voters
of the city. It was said back in 1865 that: "In a demo
cratic government the right of decision belongs to the
majority but the right of representation belongs to all."
That is our problem in this discussion. We must de
termine the method by which we can obtain a thor
oughly representative body to make decisions for the
electorate.
We have seen many times what happens when the
public is not adequately represented. Nowhere was
the result of unfair representation more apparent than
in Hitler's accession to power after receiving only 44
per cent of the popular vote in Germany- This was a
national election in a far-off country, but it is a perfect
example of what has happened in our own United
States many times. For instance, in 1930, the state of
337
238 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
Michigan had a landslide in favor of the Republican
party. The Republicans received at that election 58
per cent of the total vote In the state and were repre
sented in the assembly with 98 officials out of a possible
100. In 1935, the Republicans of New York City re
ceived 26.1 per cent of the total vote but received a
representation of only 4.6 per cent on the city council.
I am sure that everyone knows that the victorious
party in this election was the Democratic Tammany ma
chine which has since been seriously weakened by a much
more accurate election system. In this instance we
can readily see the weak position in which the Repub
lican voters were placed. The Democrats who cast 75
per cent of the ballots had more than 95 per cent of
the say in any decision before the city council. Under
such a system of election, the Republican voters might
just as well have stayed at home and forgotten about
the election.
It is most essential that we bring into the open at this
time the methods by which such machines as Tammany
can maintain complete control without receiving the
complete authorization of the people. The political
machine derives its power largely from two accom
plishments, the primary and the gerrymander. The
machine within a party works hardest to elect its can
didates in the primary and having done so insures its
power for the duration of the term. The New Yorker
who wished to vote for Democratic principles had to
vote for the Tammany candidates or cast his ballot for
the Republican party, also controlled by a faction.
Anyone wishing to vote for the Democratic party in
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION 239
Boston a few years ago would have had to vote for
Curley candidates or the Republican party.
One of the main sources of power for our strong
political machines lies in the control of the primary
which excludes any free choice among the electorate.
The primary is always defended on the grounds that
it is a decision of the party members as a whole. Noth
ing could present a picture further from the real situa
tion. A very small percentage of the total membership
of any party vote in the primary election. Thus we
have a minority choosing the candidates for the many
to elect. The gerrymander is also effective in winning
the election for the machine. Machine-controlled
legislative assemblies pass districting laws which place
recalcitrant minorities in a hopeless situation. This
device is now being effectively used by the Republican
machine of this state. It is still being used in Boston.
When a proposal was forthcoming to amalgamate the
outlying suburban districts into the city proper, the
Democrats came out as the champion of local sover
eignty, for the suburbs in question had a large num
ber of Republican voters. The Curley machine is
gone, not because of an overwhelming popular uprising
but because another machine managed to corner the
power. Here we see another evil Under the present
system, machines are not destroyed by an antagonistic
majority but by the challenge of another machine. Mi
nority defeats minority and the majority is forced to
follow suit with the victorious few. This state of af
fairs has been discovered not only in Boston and New
York but also in Jersey City under Mayor Hague and
2 4 o YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
in Kansas City under Pendergast whose machine con
tinues even though its leader is in jail for evasion of
income tax.
The present majority system chooses candidates who
do not have a majority of the voters back of them. A
man can be elected with twice as many votes cast
against him as for him. A split within the ranks of a
faction will divide its votes. The dark horse wins the
election with a majority of the votes cast for other can
didates than himself. Such a situation seems to us to
be most unjust and we feel that it should be eliminated.
Thus we find that the present system of elections is
not fair to either majorities or minorities, it enhances
the power of political machines from which assumption
of dictatorial power usually arises, and candidates are
elected with a minority of voters behind them. It is
because of these serious evils that we of Colgate pro
pose that the so-called majority system of elections be
discarded and that American cities adopt proportional
representation.
The system of election that we offer is one where
every vote cast counts in the final result. The voters
mark their ballots by ranking each candidate accord
ing to their choice. There is a quota established which
represents both a minimum and a maximum for each
candidate in the election. This quota is obtained by
dividing the number of votes cast by the number of
offices to be filled plus one and then adding one to the
quotient. When any candidate receives this quota he
is declared duly elected. His surplus ballots are then
selected and the second choice recorded becomes the
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION 241
first choice on the ballot, and so on until all the choices
are used. After the surplus votes have been counted,
the man with the least votes is eliminated from the con
test inasmuch as he has not obtained the necessary
quota. Thus we see that the system insures every
voter that his vote will receive its proportional weight
in the election. Furthermore, candidates are not al
lowed to continue the count if they fail to obtain enough
votes for a possibility of election. So we see that time
is not wasted in counting votes for hopeless candidates.
The main advantage in this system is indicated by its
name, "proportional representation." It presents the
most accurate representation of groups that any system
has yet devised. If the election is to be one of party,
each party will have a representation on the legislative
body equal to its voting strength. We started with the
proposition that we should work for a body fit to make
decisions for the electorate. Under proportional repre
sentation we have the closest approximation of such a
condition. If a council elected under proportional
representation had nine members and they should split
five to four on an important matter, the five on the
board would be truly representing a majority of the
public. But if such a board were elected by the ma
jority system, the situation might be very different.
The five in the majority would be representing only a
majority in their respective districts. It is quite pos
sible that these district majorities would not represent
a true majority of the voters in the city. Invariably
we have different sized districts in the city. To be
elected from a large district takes a larger number of
242 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
votes to gain a majority than to be elected from a small
one.
To make the point clearer, suppose we introduce
some figures. The two large districts we shall say have
10,000 voters in them. The three small districts have
5,000 voters. This makes a total of 35,000 votes to be
cast in the election. Two of the five represent a ma
jority of the voters in the 10,000 vote districts. These
men could have been elected by 5,001 votes each. The
other three in the 5,000 vote districts could have been
elected by 2,501 votes each. Add up these figures and
you will see that the total representation in that de
cision amounted to 17,505 out of a possible 35,000.
The rest of the voters might just as well have stayed
home at the election because they can have no part in
the decisions affecting the city. It is true that this is
an imaginative situation but many times a majority of
fifty or even 100 voters have been able to swing the
decisions without any representation of the minority
interests. Proportional representation will eliminate
this condition and give us a more accurate representa
tion of all groups in the community. Let me repeat, a
body fit to make decisions for the public should be
truly representative of the community.
Under proportional representation, no man can be
elected with twice as many votes cast against him as
for him. He will receive the unanimous backing of a
definite group of followers. Beyond the quota given
to him by his followers whoever or wherever they may
be in the city, votes cast for him are counted for the
benefit of the person mentioned second on his surplus
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION 243
ballots. Thus the candidate can work constructively
for what he believes because he will have a sympa
thetic following behind him. If the sentiment of the
people should change during his term, he will not be
returned to office.
Remember that we spoke of the disastrous evils of
the political machine under the majority system. It
was pointed out that the two avenues used mostly by
them for their grip on the public were the primary and
the gerrymander. Proportional representation weakens
the power of these machines very perceptibly, inasmuch
as both the primary and the gerrymander are done
away with. Proportional representation needs no pri
mary because in the election only those candidates who
have sufficient backing established by the quota can
hope to be elected to office. The machine must either
bend itself to the popular will or be exterminated.
Numerous examples can be pointed out to prove this
statement. The most outstanding is the present posi
tion of Tammany Hall in New York City. This for
merly powerful machine is now stripped of its power
in New York elections. Tammany councilmen are still
elected to the council but they come from Tammany
districts where the people are most sympathetic to the
machine. No longer is it possible for the Tammany
machine to nominate the entire Democratic ticket of
New York. The people have the right to choose candi
dates from the entire field of aspirants. How long
would the Hague machine of Jersey City continue its
reign if proportional representation were instituted?
The other device mentioned was the gerrymander.
244 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
Under proportional representation this is also effec
tively eliminated. The basis for office is not the dis
trict but it is the establishment of the quota. Just as
soon as any candidate receives the minimum quota, he
is elected. Under our present system, opposition blocks
of voters are divided and attached to overwhelmingly
sympathetic districts. Thus they are gerrymandered
out of having any voice whatsoever in the decisions
affecting the city. We suggest that the very large cities
using proportional representation adopt the system
prevalent in New York City. Here the number of
elected officials expands with the addition of 75,000
voters. If the city swells 150,000 in population during
a given year, the number of men on the council will be
larger by three. We do not advocate this system for
each and every city because not all of our municipali
ties are as large and complicated in structure. The
mere establishment of the quota, to be determined by
the mathematical formula outlined earlier, will be suffi
cient to eliminate the gerrymander problem in many
of our cities. Another dominant reason for the adop
tion of this system in New York City was the attempt
to Insure that the representative did not have too large
a constituency. Many times under the present system,
the councilman has to represent far more people than
he is capable of representing. This method, then, is
brought out as a suggestion for further refinement of
the system for large cities with fluctuating populations.
In any discussion of proportional representation
there always arise certain objections to the system.
iBQ&t predominant one is that proportional repre-
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION 245
sentation will tend to break down any constructive
party government. In answer to this objection it can
be said that most of our cities are attempting to do
away with parties altogether. In cities the problems
are of such local nature that usually a party is not
needed to express the alternative courses to follow.
Also the area is not of sufficient size to require party
organization. In other places such as France and the
Irish Free State, we find that proportional representa
tion came as the result of the multiparty system, not
as a cause for it. The Irish Free State has been ruled
off and on by two main parties, and after the adoption
of proportional representation, we find that the two
parties still exist. This country's government has not
been impaired by proportional representation as to effi
ciency and democratic representation. I can also point
to a homelier example, Colgate University. At our
school the student representatives on the senate are
elected by proportional representation. Before the
system was set up, the University was divided into two
political camps. Today these two organizations still
function but they are by far more responsive to the
changing desires of the student body. Since Colgate
is a community of only 1,000, it can serve as an exam
ple of proportional representation working in a small
community. Effective government has in no way been
impaired.
Very often the criticism is made that proportional
representation means minority government. We think
that from the first part of our case this idle conception
should have been expelled from your mind. The repre-
246 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
sentation of minorities is necessary if we wish to arrive
at majority rule. Under our present system we have
a condition that breeds minority rule and we have seen
examples of this in the power of political machines.
In the next breath those who propose the above criti
cism, suggest that proportional representation increases
the bargaining power of minorities. This objection is
also very absurd. In every type of assembly, a mi
nority may hold the balance of power. It can happen
under proportional representation just as well as under
the majority system. The essential difference is that
under proportional representation any victorious com
bination of the representatives will represent a majority
of the electorate, while under the majority system such
combinations invariably represent not a majority but
a minority of the electorate.
In summation, we of Colgate have not presented pro
portional representation to you this afternoon as the
outright panacea of all our ills. We realize that good
government comes from good officials. The propor
tional representation system can fail to give good gov
ernment if inferior candidates are elected. We feel
that by presenting the system to elect accurate repre
sentative bodies, we have made a large contribution to
true American government. We feel that the present
system is unfair to majorities and minorities alike, that
it breeds machine control which in turn breeds outright
minority control, that it elects men without the proper
backing and that it is not sufficiently representative to
be called a fair system. Because of these evils, we
propose proportional representation as the system
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION 247
which will most effectively eliminate the present diffi
culties of government in which American cities find
themselves.
First Negative, Richard W, Cooney
Syracuse University
MR. CHAIRMAN: I have listened with a great deal of
interest to the case of the Affirmative. But as with all
issues there is another side to this question of propor
tional representation.
Most cities in the United States have been satisfied
with the ordinary method of voting, namely, that single
constituencies elect by majority vote a representative.
We find that the cities are geographically divided into
wards, each ward or district electing a member to the
legislative council. If one party has a majority in each
ward in the city, that party will have complete control
even though another party polled 45 per cent of the
votes in each district. This is what the American peo
ple have always called majority rule. This is also the
system which the Affirmative wants to change.
A few decades ago some people began to feel that this
was not true democracy; the minority was not repre
sented according to its strength. They looked around
for a remedy and fell upon proportional representation.
The city wards were wiped out and the council was
elected on a city-wide basis. The council was made
smaller. The people were faced with a long list of
candidates representing just about every group in the
city. The electorate voted 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. in order of
248 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
their choice for the candidates they wished to represent
them. In this manner the 45 per cent minority group
became represented on the council. This is a view of
the scene, But it must not be thought that propor
tional representation solved all the old problems or that
it did not create new ones. A total of eleven cities have
used proportional representation. Five of them have
reverted to the old system for one reason or another. I
shall not be such a poor student of municipal govern
ment as to maintain that the change was made because
of the failure of proportional representation alone.
Practical politics are too involved to repeal a voting
system entirely on the basis of its merits. The fact re
mains that a very small number of cities have adopted
a voting system which the Affirmative would have us
believe would solve the problems of municipal govern
ment. Proportional representation has been known for
years now; there has been ample opportunity to extend
its use. Why has this extension not been more rapid?
Of course, any reform is slow-moving. However, in
addition, there are other factors which cause the elec
torate to hesitate about adopting proportional repre
sentation. Some arguments are more important than
others, but I shall not attempt to oppose proportional
representation on one issue alone. The opposition to it
has been because of the total defects of the plan and
not to any one.
A seemingly unanswerable argument in support of
proportional representation, an argument which un
doubtedly won it many supporters, was the contention
that the system would insure to minorities a representa-
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION 249
tion proportioned to their voting strength. Acual prac
tice has furnished an answer which may give pause to
its most enthusiastic supporters.
Almost 700,000 valid votes were cast in the Borough
of Brooklyn, entitling that borough to nine seats in the
council. A remainder of approximately 25,000 votes
fell short of the minimum requisite for an additional
councilman. The Democrats polled 220,600 votes,
somewhat less than one-third of the total borough vote,
and were hence entitled to three representatives. The
Republican Party, with 63,847 votes, or under 10 per
cent, the American Labor Party with 94,461, or over 13
per cent, and the City Fusion group, with 81,268, or
over 1 1 per cent, proportionately rated one each. The
Socialists, the Communists and the mass of independ
ents polled a total of 240,015 votes, an aggregate sub
stantially exceeding the Democrats and slightly over
topping the combined figures for the other three groups.
They thus merited at least three representatives on the
council. The shuffle of the cards produced no such
anticipated results.
The Democrats had two more representatives than
they were entitled to, according to first choice votes;
the American Labor Party had one excessive repre
sentative; while the Socialists, the Communists and the
independent groups had no representative. We there
fore see that about one-third of the first choice votes
did not receive actual representation.
It is my belief, and not an unsupported one, that
second, third, fourth, etc. choices are not very impor
tant ones in so far as they manifest the desire of the
250 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
electorate. Persons tend to lose interest after casting
their first choice and hence care little who obtain their
other votes. The Report of the New York State Con
stitutional Convention states that there was in New
York City "a definite evidence of ... unmistakably
alphabetical or geographical location on the ballot vot
ing." This fact is borne out by the following shifts of
votes.
For example, when Kesher was eliminated, the bulk
of his vote went to Kiernan and to Klien who immedi
ately followed his name on the ballot. These men had
little in common except geographical location on the
ballot. When M. O'Brien was eliminated, his vote
went to O'Connor and to J. L. O'Brien. When Mc-
Manus was eliminated, his vote went to the three fol
lowing names. Also Thomas' votes went to Wasselle
and Wren who followed him alphabetically. Stimson's
vote descended to Sullivan and Surpless. When Brod-
sky was eliminated, his vote went to Buchler, Butler,
Cacchione and Cashmore, all of different parties and
nationalities. In New York City we therefore find that
in many cases, after the voter marks his first choice,
he is apt to mark the next nearest choices as a simple
way to register his votes.
Now what about the representatives themselves?
Whom do they in fact represent? Under the older sys
tem there were twenty-four aldermanic districts in the
Borough of Brooklyn. Each district had one repre
sentative. Now we have in his place a councilman, but
in no sense can he be considered representative of any
particular area or fraction of the borough. Of the nine
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION 251
councilmen, one former aldermanic district alone claims
two; seven others come from an equal number of dis
tricts, and the remaining sixteen districts are entirely
without representation. Who is to speak for a district's
local needs? Where within their boundaries can the
residents find a representative to turn to? To sum up
these two points we find that proportional representa
tion is neither proportional nor is it representative.
In addition, proportional representation leads to
party disintegration and destroys party responsibility.
Factions of parties will break away from the parent
party to seek to elect their own candidates. The re
sult is that no party or group has a clear majority in the
council with the power to put through a constructive
program. Such a policy duplicates the experience of
such legislative groups as the French Chamber of
Deputies where a coalition group must be organized.
Even worse with proportional representation, there is a
shifting minority which can change its position and in
crease its bargaining power at will. When this system
is in operation, it is difficult, if not impossible, to place
responsibility on one majority group.
Party politics is the backbone of American de
mocracy, and where the local party breaks down, the
national party organization will suffer. As long as the
Affirmative wants proportional representation in all
cities, it is reasonable to deduce that such a plan, if
experience is a guide, would destroy political parties for
about SO per cent of the population of the United
States. Perhaps the destruction of party organizations
in all American cities would be a desirable feature of
252 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
proportional representation. I think not. It is a mat
ter of opinion, and I feel confident that I can leave the
choice to the American people.
Over the long history of our country the business of
government has best been done under the two party
system where party discipline demands subscription
to broad principles of government, with individual and
local leeway on lesser matters. Generally, under the
two party system there is a working majority on the
basis of legislative problems, though the majority may
shift from party to party on lesser issues. After each
election the voters feel certain as to the course of po
litical action on major lines until the next election.
Under proportional representation, it is extremely
doubtful whether the two party system will survive.
Small sectarian groups will be considerably strength
ened by capture of an office. Rule by majority, elected
on a definite platform, will be replaced by a rule of
blocks and combinations. The voters will, at each
election, be in the unhappy circumstance of not know
ing what they are getting. The vital question of who
is to have power as a result of the election will remain
undetermined. At a time when, in democracies, there
is a growing demand for legislative decisiveness, there
will be an increasing indecision in the conduct of gov
ernment The stability of representative institutions
will be endangered by the poorly suited mechanism of
proportional representation.
In the final analysis, the question is: Can a council,
elected by proportional representation, more closely ap
proximate ttoft the present system our notion of rep-
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION 253
resentative government? On this matter the Report to
the New York State Constitutional Convention says
that tinder the present party system the true majority
will not be fully realized. A party, winning each dis
trict by a small majority, may have overwhelming
strength in the council, whereas but 51 per cent of the
voters favored it. Is the minority unrepresented in
its needs and desires? The councilman is unlikely to
disregard the desires of the minority. He knows that
those who voted for him are a mixed group with vary
ing interests, many of whom might become antagonistic
to him in the course of his term in office. In his legis
lative career he, though loyal to the party program on
which elected, will try to please a sufficient number of
non-party men who are independent voters and who
may determine by their votes future elections. The
whole matter revolves on the question: Do people want
a city program decided upon before the election by a
responsible group, or do they want the policies decided
upon after the elections by no definitely responsible
group? Isn't it better to fight out the issues before
elections and have the better ideas of the minority in
corporated in the platform of one of the major parties,
rather than have a shifting minority in the council?
It is a matter of political philosophy which is better.
So far the people have chosen to keep the old voting
system.
In summary, I have shown that proportional repre
sentation is neither proportional nor representative,
that it destroys party responsibility, and that it causes
a breakdown of the two party system.
254 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
Affirmative Cross-Examination Period
Examiner, Mr. Willard E. Perlee, Colgate University
Respondent, Mr. Richard Cooney, Syracuse University
Q. Mr. Cooney, I would say that a system which
managed to break the control of party machines and
also managed to give a fair representation to minorities
would be a good one for us to adopt. Would you
agree?
A. No, not entirely. You have two different ques
tions. Which do you want me to answer first?
Q. First, take up the consideration of the power of
party machines. Are you in favor of machine politics?
A. Good machine politics, yes; bad machine poli
tics, no.
Q. By that do you mean politics which adequately
represent the people?
A. Yes.
Q. That is your definition?
A. Not entirely; but if they maintain discipline
within the party, keep control of their men in the
council, provide a suitable plan for city government
and carry it through.
Q. Now, if this is your conception of good machine
politics, Mr. Cooney, I would be willing to admit that
a political machine which managed to put its men in
office, managed to keep its men in office, which made
those men adhere to party lines laid down before the
campaign, was a good one. Is that the essence of the
statement you have given me?
A. Yes, sir.
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION 255
Q. Now, it is possible, is it not, under the system as
it exists at the present time, for a machine controlling
51 per cent of the voting population to control all of
the positions?
A. Yes, that is a majority.
Q. That means, then, that this machine which con
trols 51 per cent of the total 100 per cent of the voters
can manage to maintain power regardless of whether
it gives representation or heeds the pleas of minorities.
Further, it is a good machine and good politics and
should be maintained in the American system of gov
ernment. Is that correct?
A. No, it is not correct.
Q. But that machine fulfills all the requirements
you laid down for a good machine and good machine
politics, does it not?
A. No. In my main speech you will find that any
good party, if they have complete control of the city
council, will go along with the minority. I know in
Syracuse the Republicans who are in complete control
of the City Council, because of the causes you men
tion, play ball very well with the Democrats, and the
Democrats love to play ball with the Republicans.
Q. I understand. And aside from the political ball
games going on in the city of Syracuse, is it not pos
sible that, if the machine in power wished to, it could
effectively refuse to listen even to representatives of
mere minorities?
A. No. They would be thrown out sooner or later.
Q. Then the present political machine in the city
has not a 51 per cent majority?
256 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
A. I'd say 60 per cent majority.
Q. Obviously, if the machine as it exists at the
present time has to curry favor, then the machine in
and of itself must not be sufficiently powerful to bring
about the reelection of its members.
A. No. You are following the wrong reasoning
there.
Q. Would you illustrate why a machine that is able
to control 51 per cent of the votes of a city and is cer
tain of that control should have to, if it didn't want
to, curry favor with the other 49 per cent?
A. It could be certain of the votes for one or two
elections but sooner or later the man who votes changes
his mind and, if the party in any city having complete
control of the council did not play fair with the other
party, in the two party system, sooner or later, that
party would be broken.
Q. Still there is opposition, is there not?
A. Of course, there is opposition. They run Mayors
against each other and things like that.
Q. And if proportional representation were insti
tuted in Syracuse, do you believe a larger number of
the minority would find representation that a voice
would be given to a larger number of the minority
requests?
A. No, I don't believe so.
Q. Now, in regard to that, they have a few men
in the council.
A. Pardon?
Q. Ill grant you the minority has a few men in the
council but under proportional representation they'd
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION 257
have more men than there are at the present time.
And isn't it logical that more would be said in favor
of the minority's wishes? That is a logical conclu
sion, is it not?
A. I'll go along with you on it.
Q. Mr. Cooney, you have pointed out that propor
tional representation has existed for a long time and
yet only eleven cities have adopted it.
A. Yes. I hope my count is correct.
Q. You pointed out that five cities have reverted
to the old system. Are you at all familiar with the
cases?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Would you admit
A. I seldom admit anything.
Q. Would you agree, then, Mr. Cooney, that, in each
of these five cities that tried proportional representa
tion, the abandonment of it was not due to the de
ficiencies of the system itself?
A. Not as a single cause, no.
Q. Then the statement that five cities have reverted
from proportional representation is not detrimental
to the system and hence is irrelevant?
A. No, I wanted to give the facts.
Q. And you did not present the fact that five cities
have turned from proportional representation with the
idea of prejudicing the public or listeners that some
thing was wrong with proportional representation?
A. I think, if you had listened to my constructive
speech, you would find I simply gave tjie fact and
258 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
pointed out as a student of good government that those
cities
Q. But it would be convenient to leave the impres
sion that proportional representation had failed?
A. I didn't wish to.
Q. Thank you for clarifying that. You pointed out
that one of the main defects centers around the fact
that there is not adequate minority representation un
der proportional representation. You cite the case
of the Socialists and Communists and Independents
in Brooklyn, is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q, You pointed out that the Socialists, Communists
and Independents together had a greater number of
votes polled than Democrats, Republicans or Fusion-
ists and still failed to have representation, is that
correct?
A. That is quite correct.
Q. You have no evidence to indicate that the Social
ists, Communists and Independents all voted for the
same people, have you?
A. No.
Q. In fact, it is quite likely that each had inde
pendent candidates, is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct but they are still not repre
sented.
Q. But you do not have the Communist, Socialist
and independent organizations combined into one
minority. Rather you have them constituting three
minorities. Isn't this true?
A. If you divide the total number by three, you will
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION 259
get enough votes to put one man in, and not one of
them was elected.
Q. That would indicate that among minorities there
were differences as to whom should be elected and
would not be anything to do with proportional repre
sentation.
A. You will agree, if a quota of 75,000 were estab
lished, that 75,000 would elect a man regardless of
what constituency he was elected from. I just say
something is wrong. Somebody beat the system.
Q. You believe that there was a misuse of propor
tional representation in that case?
A. No, I didn't say it was crooked. Somebody was
smarter than the other fellow and it shows proportional
representation can be beaten.
Q. Would you explain that, Mr. Cooney?
A. It seems logical that if you have nine council-
men and the Democrats receive one-third of the votes
and the other parties, three other parties, receive the
same number of votes, that they should have as many
councilmen as the Democrats, but they didn't have
any* Can you tell me why?
Q. Can you tell me whether the Communists, So
cialists or Independents singly had as many votes as
the Democrats? Have you the figures on that?
A. Yes, sir. I have the figures here.
Q. Would you give me the figures in round numbers.
A. I cannot give it to you
Q. Would you give me the figures for the number
of votes the Socialist, Communist or Independents as
minorities had?
260 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
A. No, I cannot, but I can divide 240,000 by 75,000,
which was the quota, and find out you'd get at least
one man who had a quota of 80,000 votes. You'd have
to have at least one man. Where is he?
Q. You are intimating that the division must have
been equal. Have you any basis for that?
A. The Communists might have had 5,000 and the
Socialists, 5,000, but in that case the Independents
must have had 230,000 and they had their quota then.
Q. In view of the fact we have been unable to get
to specific statistics and since we are not able to
statistically determine whether each of these Socialists,
Communists or Independents did arrive at the quota
A. One of them must have.
Q. Can you prove one of them did?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you state your proof, please.
A. You have a total vote of 240,000 votes for three
groups. I don't care how you divide it: divide three
into 240,000 and you are going to get at least one
group having 75,000- I don't care how you work it.
Q. The explanation would be that somebody was
smart enough to beat the system?
A. That is one conclusion you can draw.
Q. Because of that fact, if it were necessary, it could
be beaten again later?
A. Yes, sir.
.Q. Are you indicating that the proportional repre
sentation system could be beaten as often as the present
majority system of voting?
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION 261
A. No. But it certainly is a disadvantage against
proportional representation.
Q. It's a disadvantage against the proportional repre
sentation system, but a greater disadvantage against
the majority system, isn't it?
A. You like proportional representation and I don't.
You think it is greater and I don't.
Q. Perhaps we can proceed to the consideration of
further statistics. You know, for example, under the
present system if we take the New York City elec
tion of 1935, the Democrats cast 66 per cent of the
votes, and the Republicans 21 per cent of the votes;
and still, for all representation on the Council, the
Democrats had 95 per cent
A. How many per cent is that figured on?
Q. We are working on the basis, I believe, of 100
per cent. The Democrats had 66.4 per cent and the Re
publicans 21.4 per cent plus the Socialists and others
with 12.2 per cent. That makes 100 per cent.
A. You didn't give it originally that way.
Q. Those statistics, as revised, are satisfactory to
you and you will accept them? We know the Demo
crats had 95.4 per cent and the Republicans had 4.6 per
cent of the Councilmen. That leaves the Democrats,
Mr. Cooney, with 66 per cent roughly in round figures
of the popular vote cast controlling 95 per cent of the
decisions made by the Council. Do you believe that
is an equitable adjustment?
A. No. They do not control 95 per cent of the
decisions. They control 95 per cent of the votes.
Q. Well, according to your own definition of a good
262 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
party machine, the machine control would be good
enough to hold the members in line. Controlling votes
amounts to controlling decisions, does it not? Would
you answer that yes or no?
A. I'd say possibly.
Q. It is possible for a winner, a winner in a present
day election, to have twice as many votes cast against
him as for him in an election and still win, is it not?
I would point to Lincoln winning over Breckinridge
and Douglas when Lincoln had twice as many votes
cast against him as for him; and still, because of the
split in the Democratic party, he was able to defeat
Breckinridge and Douglas who collectively polled more
votes than he.
A. Is that something against the present system?
Q. That is a statistical representation showing that
under the present system a winner in an election can
have twice as many votes cast against him as for him.
It is our contention that in proportional representa
tion, as you have not denied, this is impossible.
A. If anybody can win an election with twice as
many votes against him as for him, I'd like to see
those figures.
Q. Would you accept the example of the presidential
election of Lincoln versus Douglas and Breckinridge?
Lincoln didn't poll as many popular votes as Breckin
ridge and Douglas, but was able to be elected over
them, thus indicating that our present system was at
fault
A, If that is correct
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION 263
Q. Now, you pointed out that you believe the two
party system is the best.
A. Yes.
Q. I believe you also pointed out that you think
proportional representation would eliminate or seri
ously endanger it?
A. That is correct.
Q. Out of the eleven cities in which proportional
representation was instituted, can you name one where
that has happened?
A. Ashtabula, Hamilton, Boulder, Calgary.
Q. In Cincinnati, Cleveland and New York City the
party system remained intact as before the institution
of proportional representation. Is that not correct?
A. Yes.
Negative Cross-Examination Period
Examiner, Mr. John O'Byrne, Syracuse University
Respondent, Mr. Walter H. Carpenter, Jr.,
Colgate University
Q. Mr. Carpenter, have you ever played bingo?
A. Yes, Mr. O'Byrne, I have.
Q. Well, then, one who is familiar with the game of
bingo, as you are, will know that the question of chance
is a mighty important factor. Am I right?
A. Very much so.
Q. Mr. Carpenter, I brought up this question of
bingo because one of the leading exponents of propor
tional representation, a Mr. Hoag, with whom you are
quite familiar, has made the statement: "It is possible,
264 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
of course, that distributing one group of a thousand
ballots, instead of another, might make a difference
between the election of one candidate and the election
of another." If he is right you must admit there is an
element of chance in the ballot. I would like to ask
you, sir, exactly what proportional representation, to
your mind, is to achieve?
A. Proportional representation is to achieve the ac
curate representation of the community. I think that
is about the main conception of it that I have.
Q. It is to achieve the accurate representation of
the community.
A. As accurate as possible.
Q. Do I understand that by "accurate representa
tion 77 you mean the vote of the majority as compared
with the minority?
A. No, not necessarily. I mean the representation
of interests and groups within the community.
Q. You mean
A. It means the proportionate strength of the legis
lative council according to the number of the votes
cast.
Q. Then, the individual is selecting as his first choice
one whom he normally knows, and the assumption is
that he will know the candidates whom he places second,
third, fourth and fifth?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Yet in the City of New York, when it came to
a showdown on proportional representation, it was
fouod time and time again that the voter, having voted
his first choice as normally selected, put down for
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION 265
second, third, fourth and fifth choice those following
along the same position on the ballot in alphabetical
order, such as O'Brien, O'Mahoney and O'Zilch, in
such a way that it was evidence of alphabetical or
geographical voting,
A. Well, I couldn't
Q. Under the question of representation, I'd like to
ask you if you firmly believe that the minority and
majority are represented in proportion to ballots cast
in any given election under proportional representa
tion vote?
A. I feel it is decidedly more accurate than under
the majority system of elections.
Q. Minorities should be represented, shouldn't they?
A. I think so.
Q. And yet in the City of New York, in the Borough
of Brooklyn when the Socialist, Communistic and In
dependent groups polled together more votes than any
other two groups combined, they received no repre
sentation and one of the, shall we say, "highest" quali
fications of proportional representation offered by
many of your supporters is that no Communist or
Socialist has ever achieved an office under proportional
representation.
A. I think your conception is a little wrong,
Q. Yes? I'd be delighted if you would straighten
me out
A. Because the Socialists and Communists and
others were not banded together in a unified organiza
tion. The answer is they voted for their-
266 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
Q. Yet in mentioning "unified organization," you
bring up the idea of a machine which you have attacked.
A. I feel your conception is a little wrong again,
if I may correct you. I did not say I was opposed
to organization but the drastic effect of political ma
chines, such as Tammany, Hague, etc.
Q. That is very true. We of Syracuse would agree
with you entirely upon machine politics but it seems
when a group of voters, regardless of what their political
complexion might be, received no representation un
der a system which is admittedly, by the Affirmative,
the nearest to perfection we have yet achieved there
is something wrong. I would like to discuss for a
moment the candidate himself. He is elected by a
minority group scattered throughout a political area.
He is tied very loosely, you might say, with his elector
ate. Therefore, does it seem that the councilman or
alderman would concern himself with purely local mat
ters important to his neighbors and near neighbors,
as under the old system he used to do; or will he not
seek to curry favor through publicity and try to do a
good job of advertising?
A. I am afraid I will have to answer several points.
First, in Cincinnati, the type of proportional repre
sentation campaign run was astounding. It was proved
by editorials in the papers. It was the cleanest in the
city's history and the government was definitely better.
Q. Are you tying up proportional representation
with the city manager plan?
A. I am tying up proportional representation with
the results which occurred.
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION 267
Q. Are you taking into consideration Clarence
Dykstra, the City Manager?
A. Absolutely. He was City Manager but he was
chosen by a council elected by proportional represen
tation.
Q. It is difficult to separate proportional representa
tion alone, I'll grant you that, but inasmuch as we are
trying to do that, we must stay with that and not bring
in the City Manager, which, in Cincinnati, as you have
admitted, was the important question.
A. I could put another example. At Wheeling, West
Virginia, I believe, they adopted the proportional rep
resentation system. They had a very bad political
machine in that locality and as a result the machine
was wiped out. Taxes went down very perceptibly.
And I might further point out, in regard to something
else brought up, that 122 men ran and 86 per cent of
the ballots cast helped to elect someone something
I don't believe can be accomplished under the majority
system.
Q. One hundred and twenty-six men ran in Cin
cinnati?
A. One hundred and twenty-two in Wheeling, West
Virginia. And 86 per cent of all ballots were effective.
Q, Some of those 86 per cent effective were second,
third, fourth and fifth choices, I would assume?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it not logical to assume that very few of the
voters would be able to pick intelligently, from a list
of 122 men, more than one or two good men?
A. That is difficult to assume but the results speak
268 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
for themselves: the bettering of conditions in Wheeling,
West Virginia. Whether you assume they knew the
men or didn't, the result was that the government was
decidedly bettered.
Q. I'd like to ask you something. A moment ago
you spoke about the primary and gerrymander. Pre
viously, I believe, you suggested that proportional
representation would eliminate both of these.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. May I ask you if gerrymander and the primary
could be eliminated only by proportional represen
tation.
A. I would answer in this fashion and say that I
don't believe the primary could be effectively elimi
nated and I don't think gerrymander would be elimi
nated, inasmuch as they have been trying their level
best to redistrict cities, and we have seen the extremely
queer-looking districts that have emerged.
Q. I was interested because you further went on to
say that proportional representation, as any other sys
tem, is dependent on men of high caliber.
A. I said that.
Q. In developing such a system as proportional
representation which would, to a certain extent, elimi
nate primaries and to a certain extent gerrymander,
it must also be recalled that, on the basis of good men,
any system comes close to perfection. Should your
good men develop without proportional representation,
gerrymander and the primary would either be elimi
nated or made to serve some proper purpose.
A. Mr. O'Byrne, if I may interpose the conception
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION 269
is that, if any system of government has good men who
know how to run it and run it efficiently, the result and
effect will be beneficial whether it is dictatorial or
not. But, the fact is, under the present system with
a majority election, we have not had such a result.
Q. The point I wished to make to you, Mr. Car
penter, was that, in defending proportional representa
tion as you are, it becomes necessary to show us that
proportional representation and that alone is the solu
tion for the problem which we face today. I'd like to
continue with a few of your remarks which interested
me. Take the idea that any member of the propor
tional representation council, any group of members,
definitely represent a majority of the voters, is that
true?
A. Any victorious group in the assembly would
represent the voters.
Q. The majority of the assembly is representative
of the voters?
A. That is right.
Q. I'd like to compare that for a moment with the
"old system," as you call it, of party representation.
The men who are elected to the assembly under pro
portional representation are elected usually upon per
sonalities, upon the campaign they conduct and often
times upon a single issue. If that particular issue is
brought up, they represent their constituency to the
fullest extent. Any majority of that group would be
considered a majority of the voters on that particular
issue. But when any other issue comes up, about
which there was no mention during the election cam-
270 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
paign, proportional representation assemblymen are
free to vote as they please. They need not represent
the men who elected them. Whereas, under the
present system, general lines of policy are established
by your two parties before election. You can hold a
party responsible for applying those general principles
to whatever specific issues happen to arise. But can
you expect any enduring responsibility from propor
tionally represented elected individuals?
A. Mr. O'Byrne, I really think your conception is
a little twisted. I might point out the statement you
made that, under the old system, the majority system,
the assembly represented a majority of the people, or
tended to. I think events prove that this is fallacious,
inasmuch as we find that in Cincinnati the machine in
power before proportional representation had a mi
nority representation on the Council after proportional
representation, which seems to me to prove that the
machine was actually representative of minority con
trol The same holds in Tammany in New York City,
Q. You are assuming that a small political machine
is dominating the community and that occurs in a
few cases in the country, but we are debating the estab
lishment of proportional representation in all cities
in the nation and it is difficult to assume a strong
political machine exists in every community because
for the most part the two parties are working on a
fairly even basis.
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION 271
Negative Rebuttal, John C. O'Byrne
Syracuse University
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Carpenter of Colgate, ardent
advocate of the proportional representation bingo game,
has declared that it is his desire to achieve city councils
"fit to represent the voters, a thoroughly representa
tive body." He decries the existence and power of
"machines" which maintain that power through the
gerrymander and control of the primary. He views
with alarm a situation under which a minority of the
voters garners a majority of the offices of a city council.
With the true vigor of the professional reformer,
Mr. Carpenter "points with pride" to the cure, pro
portional representation, a system developed in the
nineteenth century, carried into the twentieth in the
minds of a few political idealists, finally established
in eleven American cities, and today extant in but six
of those cities.
Mr. Perlee, continuing the proportional representa
tion case in his cross-examination, unsuccessfully at
tempted to secure Mr. Cooney's agreement to the
existence of certain evils and the efficacy of propor
tional representation in combating them. That, then,
is the case for proportional representation.
It is interesting to speculate upon the claims made
for proportional representation. After removing the
ephemeral vagaries that surround any system, the ad
vantages, as claimed for proportional representation,
boil down to majority rule and minority representation.
In the first place, it is the contention of Mr. Car-
272 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
penter and Mr. Perlee that under proportional repre
sentation any majority of a city council represents a
majority of the voters. On the issue, if any, upon
which the candidates were elected by the widely scat
tered majority, it is probably true. But under pro
portional representation the voters select their can
didates usually on the basis of personality, seldom on
more than one issue. Thus the representation is de
cidedly limited, truly the antithesis of the general lines
of policy which become the issues under our present
system of two parties. Here the electorate has the
right to discuss the issues and policies before the elec
tion, make up their minds as to the most valid point
of view, then vote for the best party policy. Here is
definite, clear-cut policy, not the shifting vagaries of
a lone candidate.
Can a man truly represent 3,000 or 300,000 voters
scattered throughout the length and breadth of the
city's area, truly know their needs, care for their chang
ing demands? Remember that he was elected on but
one point of issue, has no delegate authority from the
electorate on any other issue. The men elected to our
city councils are representatives only; by no means
are they delegates.
It is further claimed by the advocates of propor
tional representation that a minority of the voters
can elect a majority of the candidates under the single
member district system. Would such representation
be purdy one-sided? Would a candidate elected within
a district by a very small majority (which is assumed
if the proportional representation accusation be ac-
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION 273
cepted) ignore the wishes of any of his constituency,
when his very chance of reelection hinges upon a very
slight variation in the voting? Far from it, for here
the candidate must certainly represent his group faith
fully at the risk of his political neck.
Mr. Cooney proved in his first speech and maintained
throughout in his scathing cross-examination that pro
portional representation is neither proportional nor
representative. This has not been refuted. He still
seeks to discover why (if proportional representation
grants true representation to all minorities as claimed)
the Communists, Socialists and Independents in the
Borough of Brooklyn received no representatives for
their 240,000 votes.
He further discussed the disastrous effects of the dis
integration of the two party system inevitable under
proportional representation. He showed clearly the
dangers inherent in a council dependent upon blocs
and factions to be able to conduct its affairs. An un
stable government is as bad as no government.
In regard to the voters angle on proportional repre
sentation, both Mr. Cooney and I have maintained
throughout, and with irrefutable evidence from actual
practice, that the average voter knows whom he wants
for first choice but becomes confused at a long array
of names. Thus has begun the phenomenon of alpha
betical voting.
In conclusion, let me say that the burden of proof
falls under the adherents of proportional representa
tion; it is their duty to convince us. In this point they
have failed. They have offered little definite basis
274 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
for our accepting proportional representation other
than that it will eliminate the "evils" of the "machine/ 7
the primary and the gerrymander. If such evils exist,
they have not destroyed our nation, nor are they im
possible to eliminate without revolutionizing our elec
toral system.
It has been fully proven that proportional repre
sentation is neither proportional nor representative,
that it brings with it greater evils, the disintegration
of our traditional two party system basis of American
democracy, loss of responsibility in government and
a confused voter picking his candidates because they
appear together on the ballot or for some similar
"democratic" reason.
We rest our defense of our electoral system. It
has served us well, even if it has a few faults. The
time has not yet arrived for the American people to
revolutionize democracy, and certainly not with pro
portional representation, which brings more troubles
than it cures.
Affirmative Rebuttal, Willard E. Perlee
Colgate University
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: I am sure that the gen
tlemen from Syracuse would agree that voting methods
should fit the facts of good government. In the case
of American cities, they should fit the demands of
just and equitable representation which we recognize
as fundamental to democratic government. It can
surely be said that, if democracy has any single dis-
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION 275
tinguishing feature, it is a scrupulous regard for the
rights of minorities.
Occasionally in this world there has been a flagrant
disregard of minority rights. Hitler's regime is one
of the more spectacular instances of the breach of this
right. Less sensational, but equally pernicious in
character, is the political misrule which has crept into
the local government of the American people. The
abrogation of minority rights has become such an ac
cepted phenomenon that it is now passively accepted.
It is in this respect that those who would defend the
present election methods for local government must
account for the apathy of a large part of the public
toward the political affairs of the community. You
and I know from first hand experience that this lack
of interest is largely a result of the demoralization
of voters, who realize they haven't a chance against
the political machine in power. When independent
efforts are made to remedy this situation, little can be
accomplished. Short of setting up another machine
to take the place of the old one, there is nothing to be
done. Machine politics must be fought with other
machines which in their turn breed the same evils.
It is toward the solution of this dilemma that the sys
tem of proportional representation is directed.
The old system has failed to assure fair representa
tion and as a result of that failure has engendered a
general lack of confidence in municipal government
today. Municipal government has earned for itself
the reputation of being the most corrupt and poorly
managed of all our governmental forms. Its record
276 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
affords evidence of its failure. There is nothing wrong
with our electoral system that an intelligent applica
tion of existing techniques cannot correct. There are
those who say that proportional representation is too
complicated an alternative. Well, in accordance with
the policy of choosing voting methods to fit the facts,
it might be indicated that we need a more complicated
system to fit our more complicated needs. A more
complicated system for politicians to manipulate and
a simpler one for the voter to obtain representation
would be a definite improvement on the American
scene.
Mr. Cooney of Syracuse has indicated that most
cities have been satisfied with the old system of voting.
I think it might be more accurate to say that the ma
chines in power have been satisfied with the old sys
tem and have fought, successfully in most cases, to
maintain it. The Negative asserts that proportional
representation not only failed to solve the old prob
lems but created new ones as well. In this connection,
they say, it is apparent that the party system will be
broken up, there will be no unit upon which the voter
can place responsibility, and sectarian groups will be
strengthened.
First, let us consider the charge that proportional
representation has failed to solve the old problems.
The only problem with which this debate has been
primarily concerned, and this has not been denied by
the Negative, is the just allotment of representation
to minorities. By Mr. Cooney's own admission in the
opening part of his speech the 45 per cent minority
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION 277
groups became represented in city councils under the
system of proportional representation. If this is true,
and we believe with Mr. Cooney that it is, then the
prime problem of securing effective minority repre
sentation has been solved.
Now let us look at the alleged new problems which
the Negative asserts have resulted from the use of
proportional representation. First by way of proof,
or possibly as a side remark, Mr. Cooney notes that
five of the eleven cities which had adopted propor
tional representation have abandoned it. "Of course,"
says Mr. Cooney, "I would not maintain that the
change was made because of the failure of proportional
representation alone." In fact, he does not attempt
to suggest, either in construction or in reply to exami
nation, that even one of the contributing reasons for
the abandonment of proportional representation was
anything but the working of the political machines
which he feels are so essential to the preservation of
democracy.
Proportional representation, the Negative claims, has
created unintelligent voting for second and third
choices, but this is not important. It would not be the
place here to deny that some of the voters are no doubt
unintelligent in the selection of their candidates. But
to people of this class, proportional representation offers
no obstacle to voting in their accustomed method for
one candidate alone. If the charge is made that pro
portional representation will not make a change in the
I.Q. of the voter, then Mr. Carpenter and myself would
agree. The significant thing is that the opportunity
278 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
for intelligent voting exists under proportional repre
sentation if voters wish to take advantage of it. Un
der the present system a voter who could make an
intelligent second and third choice is prevented from
doing so. It is this fact, coupled with the knowledge
that he must choose the majority candidate or see his
vote wasted, that creates indifference on the part of
the voter and allows the machine to entrench itself
still further.
The next new problem which proportional repre
sentation is supposed to have created concerns the
representation of constituencies. "What locality does
the representative serve?" asks the Negative. "Who
is to speak for a district's local needs?" In the opinion
of many experts on municipal government reform there
are, under the present system, far too many representa
tives speaking for special interests. Yet proportional
representation is accused of eliminating particular
representation. Paradoxically enough, the gentleman
from Syracuse charged in the next breath that propor
tional representation will strengthen the control of
small special interest groups. It is a simple matter
to determine whom the councilman represents under
a system of proportional representation. Naturally
his loyalty is to the objectives outlined in his election
platform* The Negative seems to think that the in
dividual candidate is not required to outline his policies
to the people before he is elected. To their minds,
only political parties submit to this obligation. You
and I know that no representative is elected without
first clarifying his views and objectives as a council-
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION 279
man to the people. An exception to this probably ex
ists under the present system where he can camouflage
his real aims under a broad and meaningless party
platform.
In answering this objection, it has become clear, I
think, that the next fear voiced by Mr. Cooney is
groundless, namely, that there is no unit under pro
portional representation on which to place the burden
of responsibility. Mr. Cooney talks as if he really
believes that present-day political parties actually do
assume responsibility through their platforms. I am
convinced that this is not the experience of the average
American voter. Under proportional representation
the representative himself is the unit of responsibility.
If he fails in his obligations, the penalty is failure to
be reelected.
Finally, it was argued that proportional representa
tion will destroy the two party system which is the
foundation stone of American democracy. In the first
place, it cannot be demonstrated by statistics or logical
analysis that such is the case. Secondly, it is a matter
of debate as to the vital part the two party system plays
in democracy. Proportional representation does destroy
the dictatorial power which the ruling party exerts
over the minority. If the life of the party system must
be maintained at the price of denying the right of
adequate representation to a possible 49 per cent of
the voters, then the party system should die quickly.
On the other hand, if minority representation does not
endanger the party system, proportional representa
tion certainly cannot destroy it.
2 8o YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
You will note that in the cross-examination Mr.
Cooney could not deny that a party machine in effec
tive control of a city government could withhold an
effective voice in the city government from the
minority. All that he could offer was the unsubstan
tiated belief that the majority would not ignore the
minority because they wished to keep in their favor.
It strikes me as inane to believe that the party in
power would bow gratuitously to the interests of the
minority, when the very system by which they became
the majority insures them of a continuing control.
Certainly historical fact does not bear this out.
Further, Mr. Cooney could find only one isolated in
stance where proportional representation did not afford
correct representation to minorities. Yet the particular
statistics needed to break down the case into an intel
ligent analysis are lacking. The Negative could offer
BO reason for this failure of proportional representa
tion except the supposition of a fraudulent count. Mr.
Cooney did find himself forced to admit much as
he dislikes to admit anything that this was no indi
cation that proportional representation could be mis
used as often as is the present system. In similar
fashion, Mr. Cooney consented to "go along" with
the Affirmative on the statement that proportional
representation would put more minority representa
tives in the city councils and for that reason would
afford a more proportional minority representation.
In conclusion, we must note that the claim made by
the Affirmative is that there is inadequate representa
tion under the existing system, and that proportional
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION 281
representation will remedy this situation. If you will
examine the evidence offered in support of this, you will
find not only adequate statistical data that such has
been the case where proportional representation has
been adopted, but also that the Negative has even ad
mitted this fact under cross-examination. It is our
sincere belief, therefore, that proportional representa
tion is the system of voting which most nearly meets
the requirements established by changing conditions
in our municipal governments. It has not been posed
as a panacea. It will not help unintelligent voters to
become more intelligent. It will not guarantee capable
men for our public offices.
It will give everyone a chance to have his say in gov
ernment if he wants it. It will give the opportunity for
intelligent choice if the desire for it exists and, we be
lieve, it will, by putting the choice of representatives
in the hands of more of the people, raise the caliber of
the men who are elected. Then men will be elected on
their own merits and not because they promise blind
obedience to party rule, which is apparently the neces
sity if the so-called "good machine politics" of the
Negative are to continue. Proportional representation
promises to do these things. Where it has been tried
fairly, it has accomplished them. On this basis we
urge its general adoption.
282 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION
MAGAZINES AND PERIODICALS
American City. 54:91, December, 1939. How Proportional Repre
sentation Fared at November Election.
Christian Science Monitor Magazine. P. 8-9, August 3, 1938. De
mocracy Bucks Its Dictators. R. R. Mullen.
Canadian Forum. 17:388, February, 1938. Proportional Represen
tation. H. Orliffe. 18:455, April, 1938. Proportional Represen
tation, Reply to H. Orliffe. W. H. Alexander.
Commonweal. 27:425, February 11, 1938. Proportional Representa
tion. E. A. Hermens. 27:88, November 19, 1937. Proportional
Representation in New York.
Contemporary Review. 153:15, January, 1938. Future of Parlia
mentary Democracy. C. G. Robertson.
Literary Digest. 124:9, December 11, 1937. Proportional Represen
tation in Practice.
Nation. 147:182, August 20, 1938. Need of Proportional Represen
tation in Congressional Elections. O. G. Villard.
Saturday Evening Post. 212:26, January 27, 1940. Proportional
Representation Meaning Power Racket. 210:22, October 2, 1937.
Minority's Right to Live.
Scholastic. 31:29, November 13, 1937. New Yorkers Try Out Pro
portional Representation at the Polls. J, Coyne.
Survey Graphic. 26:383, June, 1937. Proportional Representation
and New Yorkers. W. J. Schieffelin. 26:551, November, 1937.
IMPROVEMENT OF THE DUST BOWL
First Television Debate
BUCKNELL UNIVERSITY AFFIRMATIVE vs.
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY NEGATIVE
This debate is the first intercollegiate debate ever to be televised.
It is an illustration of what can be done by an alert public relations
manager. John J. McKenna, Jr. of Bucknell University conceived
the idea and made the arrangements for the debate, which consisted,
in addition to actual television, of a trip to New York by airplane
over the Eastern Air Lines, entertainment in a suite of rooms at the
Hotel Astor and expenses paid by the National Broadcasting Com
pany,
The debate was held from 8:30 o'clock to 9:05 o'clock P.M., April
3, 1940 at the National Broadcasting Television Studios, Station
W2XBS. The subject of the discussion was: Resolved, that the Dust
Bowl situation requires the United States to take extraordinary meas
ures for its improvement.
The speeches were taken down as given by electrical transcription,
then taken off by shorthand and typed. They were assembled and
contributed to Intercollegiate Debates by Robert T. Oliver, Director
of Debating at Bucknell University.
The manner of conducting the debate is interesting and reveals
techniques that have not been fully utilized in platform debating,
although not new, such as the use of charts and illustrations. Pro
fessor Oliver in describing the debate said: "The charts, photographs
and motion picture sequences which were used in the speeches . . .
were flashed on the screen of the television receivers as they were
mentioned by the debaters, and temporarily the debater himself was
not seen, while his voice of course was still heard going on with the
commentary. The place of insertion of the visual aids during the
telecast is noted in each of the speeches. Six cameras were used, thus
providing a constantly changing picture: now from the side, now in
front; at one time showing the whole group, then narrowing down
to the one speaker and showing him close-up, with occasional shots
of the debaters taking rebuttal notes, etc. Acme Newspapers made
available over two hundred dollars worth of photographs."
Some of the comments on this first venture of debaters into the
field of telecasting are most interesting. The New York Times (Sun
day, April 7) said:
"It is apparent that a television debate is more interesting than a
blind radio argument. Television has more than tongue action! It
enKveas the debate with personalities. . , . There is an opportunity
to look into the eyes and judge the sincerity of the speaker's thoughts.
IMPROVEMENT OF THE DUST BOWL
N. B. C. Television Announcer
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: This evening from our
television studios in Radio City, we are bringing you
another new experiment. Bucknell University has
challenged Columbia University to a television debate.
This is the first time that television has been used as a
forum for the free expression of opinions among Ameri
cans. We, therefore, thought it most fitting to ask Mr.
George V. Denny, Jr., president of Town Hall, New
York, to be with us tonight. As most of us know, Mr.
Denny is moderator and founder of the radio program,
Americans Town Meeting of the Air, which is not only
most popular but has done much to establish the im
portance of radio as a democratic forum. And so we
are most happy to have Mr. Denny act as chairman of
this, our first television debate. Dr. Denny.
Dr. George V. Denny, Jr., Chairman
Good evening, neighbors. This is one of those in
conspicuous pioneering events which may prove epoch-
making in its significance. The first television debate
to take place in America. How important is it? Who
knows? But it is one in which we all may take pride
years later. The impact of science upon our lives dur
ing the past quarter of a century has left most of us
285
286 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
bewildered and confused. Through the miracle of
radio, the National Broadcasting Company has opened
the doors of Town Hall to the entire nation for one
great American Town Meeting, and all over the country
groups meet simultaneously to discuss their common
problems. Tonight we take another forward step, dis
cussing one of America's great problems by radio and
television. An unseen audience not only hears our
voices but will look into our eyes, study the expressions
on our faces, and gather new meaning as to the sin
cerity and purpose of the thoughts we utter. We have
become accustomed to the annihilation of space where
the ear is concerned, and now another miracle of science
will take our eyes hundreds and thousands of miles
through space in fractions of seconds. If these inven
tions paralyze our imaginations momentarily, it may be
these very inventions, when properly used, which will
enable us to solve these problems and clear away the
clouds of doubt and misunderstanding that befall us
these days.
Tonight we are making a most constructive use of
this new instrument in order to discuss a problem of
deep concern to every American. The subject of the
debate is: Resolved, that the Dust Bowl situation re
quires the United States to take extraordinary meas
ures for its improvement.
Some of you may recall a Town Meeting program a
few weeks ago when we discussed the victims of the
Dust Bowl area who have become migratory workers
in California. The Dust Bowl, Itself, appears to be the
center of our controversy tonight.
IMPROVEMENT OF THE DUST BOWL 287
The Affirmative, upheld by Bucknell University, will
be represented by Mr. Raymond P. Underwood and
Mr. John J. McKenna, Jr.
The Negative side of the case will be upheld by
Columbia University and represented by Mr. Charles
H. Schneer and Mr. David Kagon.
Our first speaker on the Affirmative is Mr. Raymond
P. Underwood of Bucknell University, and I take
pleasure in presenting Mr. Underwood.
First Affirmative, Raymond P. Underwood
Bucknell University
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: We from Bucknell Uni
versity in the heart of rural Pennsylvania are happy
to welcome as our guests in the "First Television De
bate," the debaters from Columbia University in the
heart of metropolitan New York.
Before examining this tremendous national problem
of erosion of the Great Plains, it might be well to de
termine how it pertains to us, students from Bucknell
and Columbia, and to us all as the people of the East,
of the cities, of New York.
We, of Bucknell University, know at first hand some
of the problems of soil erosion and consequent losses of
land. Today, our debate coach, my colleague and I
were flown from the tragic scene of floods in our im
mediate locality in central Pennsylvania. Flood con
ditions are bad enough, but, even worse is the
consequent loss of tons of fertile Pennsylvania farm
land which at this very moment are flowing into the
288 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
sea. After the flood is past, we shall find what were
small gullies before the flood have become gaping,
yawning gulches. This condition multiplied a thou
sandfold might somewhat simulate the situation in the
Dust Bowl.
Nearly a third of the people of the nation till the soil.
The rest of us depend upon them and their soil to pro
duce for us our everyday needs. The soil feeds and
clothes us. The soil is essential to you, to me, and to
the welfare of our nation. The torn land of the Dust
Bowl causes a diminished sustenance not only for the
people of the Great Plains but for the men, women and
children of so far removed an area as metropolitan New
York. (MAP No. 1, Plain U. S.)
The Great Plains, now a treeless, wind-swept, bar
ren expanse, known to most of us as the "Dust Bowl,"
was once a stretching continent of fertile grassland.
From the Texas Panhandle to the Canadian border,
from the Mississippi to the Rockies, blow the shifting
sands, the forerunners of the dreaded "black blizzards,"
as the dust storms are called. (MAP No. 2, Dust
Bowl area shown.)
Until the end of the Civil War, these verdant lands
were almost as unmarred as when America was discov
ered. Cattle and sheep displaced the buffalo in the
short-grass country, overgrazed the land, and ruined the
grass. A wet cycle, a European war, high prices for
wheat encouraged a migration of farmers to the Great
Plains. Plows and tractors were next, mechanical en
gines destroying the last straggling evidences of grass
and fertility, ripping open nature's spongy carpet.
IMPROVEMENT OF THE DUST BOWL 289
And so, browbeaten nature bowed before these plun
derers of the plains.
But, you say, this is a big country and there seems to
be plenty of land, so why worry? One moment, let us
examine this problem more closely.
Here is a dust storm. Once prosperous farm land,
now desert. Not a wisp of grass in sight. Houses al
most buried under sand drifts. Dust, insidious de-
spoiler, cannot be kept out of the houses. Despite oil
cloth on window sills, adhesive tape on the door cracks,
sand sifts in and forms ripples on the floor. Paint is
scoured clean off the houses and barns. The dust
sometimes drifts 20 feet high and a qfiarter-mile long,
smack across what once were good fields. Fence posts
are buried out of sight. In one storm the Government
figured 40 to 80 tons of soil per acre were carried away.
(FILM SEQUENCE Movie Clip: Dust Storm.)
As a result of these ravages of nature, farms are go
ing back to banks, mortgage companies, insurance com
panies though the value of a desert as security is ques
tionable. People are moving from their silt-covered
farms. These people, objects of nature's wrath, are
despondent derelicts of the open road.
We are all now alarmed at the number of persons
driven from their homes in Finland, some 460,000.
This is indeed terrible, but America has a similar prob
lem of its own that is even worse; and it continues day
by day while we give it scarcely a thought. Due to
many causes flood, fire, drought, depleted range, high
feeding costs, the collapse of dry farming, and above
all, dust hundreds of thousands of people have moved
290 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
out of the Great Plains area. (PHOTO No. 1, Old
car and family.) For every summer month during
1938 and 1939, fifty thousand people were driven from
their homes in the Dust Bowl regions. Three hundred
thousand persons have been driven to California alone.
Other hundred thousands were driven into Oregon.
Every new dust storm is the wail of a siren, warning
hundreds of thousands of others to get ready to leave
the Great Plains. (PHOTO No. 2, Car in desert.)
(PHOTO No. 3, Dying animals.)
Dust and death in the High Plains. Dead and dying
crops. Dead and dying animals. Dead and dying hu
man beings. Why worry? Why worry, indeed!
(PHOTO No. 4, Shooting animals.)
The money loss to the peoples of the United States
is terrific. Do you know that an area the size of New
York State and New Jersey has been lost to productive
farming by all kinds of erosion in the Dust Bowl? An
average of 200 farms of 40 acres each is blown away
every day which amounts to $4,000,000 loss every
year.
Today we tend to consider only sensational and per
sonal problems as for instance the war, or the current
quotation of our favorite stock or bond, or the chances
of the Yankees' current ball team. Though not as ob
vious, this Dust Bowl problem is a real one affecting
us all and must be solved. Are we to watch our Great
Plains become a Sahara? Are we to raise no finger to
prevent our rich topsoil from flowing in swift torrents
into the sea? Are we to continue writing the most
tragic chapter in the history of American agriculture?
IMPROVEMENT OF THE DUST BOWL 291
Is the life of the Great Plains to erode with the soil?
Black blizzards of the Dust Bowl constitute a national
menace. We must act!
First Negative, Charles H. Schneer
Columbia University
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN : My colleague, Mr. David
Kagon, and I are very happy to participate with Mr.
Underwood and Mr. McKenna from Bucknell Uni
versity this evening in the first television intercollegiate
debate in history. On behalf of Columbia University
we wish to thank the National Broadcasting Company
and especially NBC television station W2XBS for this
distinct privilege.
Next to unemployment, the most important problem
that is confronting the American people is the farm
problem, and specifically thejattn problem as it applies
to the Dust Bowl farmer My colleague, Mr. Kagon,
has an especial intent in this problem because his
home, Lawrence, "Kansas, is in the midst of this Dust
Bowl area. My own personal interest is not exactly
farming or farm problems. I realize that, when the
farmer is at a disadvantage, the entire country is con
cerned to see that the disadvantage is removed. From
an economic standpoint, we cannot have prosperity
when one of the basic industries is depressed. I am in
terested in economic prosperity for the nation, let alone
the farmer. This economic prosperity for the nation
depends largely upon the prosperity of the farm.
In discussing this question this evening, namely,
292 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
whether or not the United States should take extraordi
nary measures for improving the Dust Bowl situation,
we assume that the phrase "extraordinary measures"
implies additional and perhaps greater expenditures on
behalf of the agricultural program than has been here
tofore expended, and an increased program that is de
signed to combat the Dust Bowl problem.
Let us examine what the New Deal farm program
has attempted to do for the farmer that has been
stricken by the erosive force, that has swept topsoil
from an area twice the size of all of New England; an
area that has been stricken by what has become known
as the "black blizzard" that our friends from Bucknell
have described in their best John Steinbeck manner.
First of all, the farmers have been given scientific in
struction as to the proper method of moisture conserva
tion. Second, the government experts are encouraging
the consistent use of cover crops; and third, the gov
ernment experts have caused the cessation of the disas
trous practice of planting wheat in a dry seedbed. In
addition, the Government has set up a Dust Bowl co
ordinator. Here we certainly have a sound program in
operation with which to combat the destructive forces
of nature that have played havoc through the Great
Plains region of this country.
It is quite plain that the farmers of this country do
not blame the Government for the predicament in
which they found themselves in 1935, although they are
frank to admit that the Government should come to
their assistance.
Farmer Andy James from Dalhart, Texas, is perhaps
IMPROVEMENT OF THE DUST BOWL 293
the typical victim of the dust scourge. James owned
or leased about 600,000 acres for his vast cattle outfit.
Short, succulent grasses clothed the land, with here and
there a patch of big bluestem, which often grew as
high as a man's armpits. Typical farmer Andy James
has this to say about the Dust Bowl lands: "I may
as well make my confession now as later. You see, I
helped create the Dust Bowl. When the farmers began
to come in and the price of land was high, I relin
quished my grass leases and gradually sold off the
range to which we held title. But we did keep about
26,000 acres. Today I've got about 20,000 acres in
grass and about 6,000 acres under cultivation."
Andy James and other farmers in the Dust Bowl area
are well satisfied with the work of the United States
Soil Conservation Service and the Prairie States For
estry Service. When you talk to Andy James he shows
you photographs, comparing his farming acres in 1935
and as they appear today.
As a result of this extensive planning on the part of
government agencies in this country, the Dakotas,
Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and the Texas Panhandle
right in the heart of what the map once called "The
Great American Desert" thousands of stricken acres
are now showing green against the pallor of sterility
and decay. As Andy James has said, this dramatic
change is in the scientific application to an entire region
of an idea long known to settlers on the plains. This
idea is the "shelterbelt": rows of trees planted in ex
posed country for the purpose of breaking the force of
the high winds, conserving soil moisture, reducing live-
294 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
stock losses and, in general, improving the chances of
efficient farming in areas subject to abnormal climatic
conditions. Today there are over 85,000,000 trees
where there once was desert.
In conclusion, we must remind the Affirmative that
Rome was not built in a day. Neither will the 600,000
square mile region still known as the Dust Bowl be
totally rehabilitated over the brief span of five years.
Even at the estimated average cost of four cents per
acre of reclaimed land, the Government can only move
slowly to bring about instantaneous prosperity in the
Great Plains region where mortgages, debts, soil decay,
absentee ownership and a whole horde of economic ob
stacles are still present.
If tonight were April 3, 1935, 1 would be inclined to
agree with my friends from Bucknell and say that it is
high time for the Government to come to the aid of the
helpless Dust Bowl farmer. But the government farm
aid services have come to the aid of what used to be
called the helpless Dust Bowl farmer. The period of
extraordinary measures, so called, is past. We of the
Negative believe that the 85,000,000 trees now grow
ing from end to end of the Great Plains are the advance
payment of our long overdue debt to the wealth, work
and happiness of the American people.
Second Affirmative, John J. McKenna, Jr.
Bucknell University
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: My colleague has shown
you the seriousness of this matter, both from the point
IMPROVEMENT OF THE DUST BOWL 295
of view of the good of the entire country, and of how
it affects you. My job is to tell you what the United
States should do and what it would cost.
Our plan is, briefly, to stop the wind from swirling
the homesteads away by holding them down; to pre
vent that most powerful force, water, from stealing the
rich layer of protective topsoil; and to allow the grass
to form a carpet, preserving it from being gnawed away
by overgrazing. There's the general idea; the farmers
know the details.
Let us not be warped in our thinking because we've
heard about surplus crops. We must not blind our
selves to the need of preventing an accumulative, and
that's what it is, an accumulative deterioration. Tem
porary measures will not suffice; in fact, they do harm;
they turn our attention from long range planning. Man
must work with nature; he must brace muscle with
vision.
I think you'd take the advice of a group of distin
guished scientists and engineers, the National Re
sources Committee, as to the best way to go about
curing the Dust Bowl. They've prepared a definite pic
ture of .what to do; a blueprint is ready. They say:
Check wind erosion by replanting and by listing list
is a technical term for turning up layers of sod against
the wind. The wind tends to blow horizontally; it
carries dust along the ground where furrowed ridges
may catch it. YouVe all noticed how snowdrifts build
around any obstruction.
Next: Halt overgrazing. This is most important in
order not to crowd range capacity. Integrate crop
296 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
land use with range land use so that the grazing cows
and sheep will have sufficient grass to feed on, and so
there'll be a good carpet left to bind down the land.
They propose that we build dams to hold the run-off
and save water. The farmers can halt erosion by re
planting, by counter plowing as depicted here, by
terracing rotating crops, and damming gullies. (Photo
graph demonstrating contour plowing.)
The last point recommended was to coordinate co
operatively the farms over whole watersheds. It seems
that rainfall, wind and erosion pay no attention to arti
ficial boundaries like farm lines or county borders. As
our lady listeners know, the elements sometimes even
complicate housecleaningl Over 40 per cent of the
Dust Bowl is owned by absentees, and during danger
ous periods many of them sit tight, at home, and simply
let it blow! They must be made responsible. (Photo
graph showing housewife wearing protective mask
while cleaning extremely dirty room.)
All right, there's the story; now let's look at the cost.
The project of reclamation would be spread over six
years at a total expense of $5,000,000,000. We realize
that the budget is unbalanced; that taxes are high.
But, we also realize that the need for action is great;
and that every penny invested now will be returned to
our sons and daughters many times over.
Let's see how the expenditure is offset. Let us not
forget the 200 forty-acre farms being washed away each
day of the year. Let us keep in mind the 50,000 farm
ers driven from their homes every summer month.
IMPROVEMENT OF THE DUST BOWL 297
(Charts A-l, A-2, A-3, A-4 lines snap in, illustrating
graphically points discussed.)
If man once more makes peace with nature, the land
may bloom again. We would save an estimated $400,-
000,000 a year; a dozen years would set us even with
the books, and the saving would continue.
One day in May, 1934, one storm tore away 300,-
000,000 tons of topsoil. The nation's capitol saw its
first dust clouds. It showed the full import of the situ
ation. Here's a Chicago street scene, and another.
Yes, gas masks symbol of our own war with nature.
(Photographs showing civilians walking in dust-laden
atmosphere wearing masks.)
Most of the farmers want this assistance from us;
they're willing to work. They'll build dams, and plow
according to Hoyle. They can do much better, though,
with machinery. In drought time they cart water for
five miles. Sure, it's going to cost something. Capital
is required; but then, isn't it a good American principle
to invest when seeking worth-while results? (Movie,
continuity showing men at work building other meas
ures to conserve the land.)
As everywhere, there are shirkers; some are in
dividualistic enough to negate the work of their
neighbors, refusing to lend a hand, even to work their
own land properly. These men should be made respon
sible. When snow and ice form on the city sidewalk,
the owner is obligated to clean it off, or he is penalized.
The point is that we must do something.
At this test area near Dalhardt, Texas, the virile re
cuperative powers of the wiry grass and of the men
298 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
who inhabit the area have been demonstrated. The
range is worth curing; the land is deep and rich. It's
flat, very cheap, not subject to soil acidity; its very
hardness offers trackage, a firm base for large field
implements that won't bog down. (Movie, continuity
showing a peaceful, prosperous farm scene.)
Let's wake up and rebuild America. Society is in
partnership with the farmer. I'm sure our people will
not countenance such defacement. Should we befoul
our country's beauty; weaken its base, darken its fu
ture, or can we recognize the ominous difficulty, and
take the proper measures for its alleviation?
Ladies and gentlemen, where's our good old horse
sense? Let's bring back the contented cows and return
this third of the nation to the bountiful prosperity
which its natives want to wrest from the good earth.
Second Negative, A. David Kagon
Columbia University
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: Allow me to preface my
remarks by stating that we of Columbia are not die
hard, mossback conservatives nor reactionaries. We
prefer to think of ourselves as practical, straight-
thinking individuals who are rather reluctant about
letting our emotions run away with us. Like the gen
tlemen from Bucknell, we have read Mr. Steinbeck's
much-emphasized book and gritted our teeth at every
turn of the pages. Unlike the gentlemen from Buck-
nell, we are not prepared to take the "Grapes" as our
Bible and proceed from thence to demand an extraordi-
IMPROVEMENT OF THE DUST BOWL 299
nary appropriation from the Government for a situation
which we fear is not clearly understood.
Let us examine the reasons that the first speaker for
the Affirmative presented as the evils of the situation,
and endeavor to discover if it is possible to control these
evils that are the direct cause for the dust created in
the Dust Bowl. The main reasons for this situation, as
outlined by the first speaker, are wind, erosion and
drought. Now, all of these phenomena are wholly de
pendent on the weather, and, although it is possible to
move Thanksgiving up a week or set it back a week,
no government appropriation, no matter how large,
could control the wind or the months of drought.
It has been suggested that trees be planted in this
area to stop the terrible rush of the dust laden wind.
(Chart showing quantity of trees in Bowl.) It is doubt
ful, if conditions are as bad as painted by the Affirma
tive, that trees would actually grow, and even if we
granted that they would grow, there is no reason to
believe that they would cause the wind to blow less
fiercely or facilitate flood control.
The weather, as we all know, travels in cycles. There
are dry years and there are wet years. We have just
experienced a cycle of dry years. From Joseph of
biblical times down to the present period of the stream
lined prairie schooner come the hue and cry for a guar
antee, a contract with the Deity for the purpose of
avoiding the dry portion of the cycle.
In the last three years, there has been much more
rain in the Dust Bowl area and as a result there is now
much less dust and devastation. And here, gentlemen,
300 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
I speak from firsthand knowledge. Before I heard the
talks of the men from Bucknell, I was happy to say that
I came from Lawrence, Kansas, which is situated, ac
cording to the Bucknell charts, in the center of the
Dust Bowl area. Now, I have my doubts as to whether
I am so overjoyed. In all the time I have lived in
Kansas, I have seen but three dust storms, worthy of
the name, one of which came the day after my mother
finished her spring cleaning. Aside from my mother's
hysteria, there was little havoc caused.
Dust storms are not new in Kansas, neither in the
last ten years nor for decades before that. Natural
conditions are comparatively mild today in comparison
to what they were when the frontiersmen had to fight
the Indians, droughts, dust storms and crop failures.
The people living in the area, called the Dust Bowl, are
not being driven out by the dust. They are the most
persistent cusses you ever saw. They are part of the
land and no minor ailment such as dust or drought will
drive them from the land they were born on.
As my colleague, Mr. Schneer, pointed out, the Gov
ernment is in the process of aiding these people, and
helping them in the right direction: subsistence farm
ing. Migration in search of economic opportunity is
deeply rooted in American history and life, and the day
when our people are satisfied to remain in one place,
when they do not think there are greener fields in some
other section of the nation, has not dawned.
The second major point made by the gentleman
from Bucknell was that the torn land of the Dust Bowl
provides a diminished sustenance not only for the peo-
IMPROVEMENT OF THE DUST BOWL 301
pie of the Great Plains but for the men, women and
children of so far removed an area as metropolitan New
York. If this were the actual fact, then there would
be good reason for concern. (The Dust Bowl area is
primarily a wheat-raising section.)
However, the facts prove otherwise. In 1920 and
1921, the years of our greatest agricultural prosperity,
we raised approximately 800,000,000 bushels of wheat.
In 1938, despite the droughts, dust storms, floods, crop
failures, ad nauseum, described by the Affirmative, we
raised 99,000,000 bushels. It is estimated by the
United States Department of Agriculture that the an
nual consumption of wheat is approximately 600,000,-
000 bushels which, in simple mathematics, leaves a sur
plus, not a scarcity, of 300,000,000 bushels. This is
hardly diminished sustenance, no matter how one looks
at it. In fact, the United States Government sold ap
proximately 100,000,000 bushels of wheat in the export
market at a loss to the Government of approximately
$26,000,000.
Therefore, if we were to follow the Affirmative plan
and make an extraordinary appropriation to increase
production, we would need a further extraordinary ap
propriation to get rid of the excess wheat. This is ob
viously not alleviating the situation but, contrarily,
making it worse. The difficulty is, therefore, not a lack
of supply, but, as Mr. Schneer pointed out, a lack of
adequate price to reimburse the farmer. It is just this
evil which the Government is at present trying to
remedy.
In conclusion, therefore, the position we have taken
302 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
is that it is not because of dust that the people are mi
grating from the dust area but rather because of the
economic depression. In addition, we suggested that
this is not a new occurrence but has happened in every
past economic depression, and that the Government is
already taking effective measures to remedy the situa
tion. Third, the proposition of the Affirmative that we
put this land back in production is the exact antithesis
of the present governmental program; and finally, and
most important of all, as Mr. Schneer pointed out, the
whole plan is impracticable. Therefore, we of the
Negative conclude that the Dust Bowl situation does
not require that the United States take extraordinary
measures for its improvement.
Dr. George V. Denny, Jr., Chairman
Thank you very much. Now, I believe, it is custom
ary in these debates to have rebuttals. We are going
to have very brief rebuttals this time. We'll start with
Columbia University. Mr. Charles H. Schneer will
speak first on behalf of Columbia. Mr. Schneer.
Negative Rebuttal, Charles H. Schneer
Columbia University
MR. DENNY, FRIENDS FROM BUCKNELL, LADIES AND
GENTLEMEN: Our rebuttal need be but very brief;
frankly, our case is "in the bag." Our friends from
Bucknell want to talk about contented cows, and they
want to talk about Americanism and they want to
IMPROVEMENT OF THE DUST BOWL 303
spend $5,000,000,000 on land over a period of six years
when the land that they're spending the money on is
only appraised at three-quarters of a billion dollars.
We can't afford to pay that kind of money. Do you
realize that $5,000,000,000 at 2 per cent, if you had
it in the bank, would yield interest at $100,000,000 a
year? It's hard to realize how much $5,000,000,000 is.
Our case is stated very simply. This is the latest
word. Our friends have been giving us history up to
1935. We come up to 1940. In the New York Times
this past Sunday, we had these headlines. I need but
read them and our case is cinched: "Return Trek Be
gun to the Dust Bowl; Best Spring Crop in Prospect
Since 1932; Seen Promoting a Land Boom; Storms
Help Society; Oldtimers and Oklahoma Panhandlers
in Good Spirits as Wheat Turns Green." I just want
to read this in one article: (This isn't a headline. It
should be!) "The tide of immigration has reversed it
self, and farmers are beginning to come back, accord
ing to old residents of the area who stuck it out through
the winds and drought."
Affirmative Rebuttal, Raymond P. Underwood
Bucknell University
Perhaps, according to the last speaker, it is very un
necessary for me to say anything, since "this is in the
bag" and is "all cinched," but I might add one word.
In the first place, and only in the first place, because
I am only going to make this one point, our opponents
have said that the Dust Bowl is worth three-quarters
304 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
of a billion dollars. Now this estimate is based, as you
know, on the Dust Bowl as it is now in its torn, devas
tated condition; naturally it's worth a certain de
pressed value of three-quarters of a billion dollars, but
if we expended more money it would certainly increase
in value. Therefore, the expenditure which we advo
cate certainly is necessary in order to increase the value
of this Dust Bowl land, which is a third of the nation.
We might liken it to an illustration which most of you
know. At one time Manhattan was worth only a string
of beads, but look at it now. The Dust Bowl may be
only worth three-quarters of a billion dollars today, but
let us consider its potentialities in the future. And so
we still maintain the Affirmative, that the Government
should take extraordinary measures to help solve this
Dust Bowl problem, which is indeed a national one.
Dr. George V. Denny, Jr., Chairman
Thank you very much, Mr. Underwood. Well, now
I suppose you'll all realize that, if Columbia has it "in
the bag," the boys from Bucknell have done a good
deal of punching on that bag, and in my capacity as
moderator I am not going to try to sum up. I am go
ing to leave that to the individual listeners and hearers
who have heard both sides, well-presented by these
young people, of a very grave and important problem.
I see here in the studio your friend and mine, Mr.
Lowell Thomas, and before we sign off, I'm going to
ask him to come here and say a few words to us. Step
right up, Lowell.
IMPROVEMENT OP THE DUST BOWL 305
Comments by Lowell Thomas
I have just had a rather interesting experience in
connection with this first debate in the history of tele
vision. When your broadcast got under way, I was
sitting in my apartment a mile or so from here at the
southern end of Central Park, up at Hampshire House,
and I turned on my television set, and I saw you fel
lows and Mr. Denny, and I listened there to the first
part of your debate; and just for the fun of it, I'll give
you a couple of slight impressions that are of no im
portance because I was only there for a few moments.
I heard just one man speaking before I went down
in the rain and jumped into a taxicab and dashed here
so that I could see the rest in the studio. But as I sat
in front of my television set, first of all, I thought how
marvelous it would be if I could only be as young as
these fellows from Bucknell and Columbia. How hand
some young Ray Underwood was here on my television
set! Ray, you've got a great future ahead of you in
television.
My second impression was: Wasn't that a lofty brow
Dr. George Denny had. It seemed to go back indefi
nitely.
My third impression was, rather it was a question
that came into my mind: What under the sun was the
picture that was right behind the head of each speaker?
Now I am standing in front of it and I can see that it
is a charming drinking scene. Those of you who are
looking in on this tonight might be interested to know,
because I was puzzled by it.
306 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
In conclusion, may I congratulate you on your hav
ing taken part in the first television debate in history.
Probably you, have made history tonight. I imagine
that in years to come it will be a common thing for de
bates to be carried on in this way, and, instead of
thousands, perhaps there will be millions listening to
those debates and it may play an important part in the
history of this country. Who knows?
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
THE DUST BOWL
BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS
Agricultural Experiment Station, Iowa State College. The Farmer
Looks at Soil Conservation in Southern Iowa. P. 163. 1939.
Ayres, Q. C. and Scoates, Daniels. Land Drainage and Reclamation.
McGraw-Hill. 1939.
Ayres, Q. C.Soil Erosion and Its Control. McGraw-Hill. 1936.
Bennett, H. H. -Report of the Chief of the Soil Conservation Service.
P. 55. 1938.
Bennett, H. H. and Chapline, W. R.Soil Erosion a National Men-
ace. P, 36. 1928.
Bennett, Hugh tt.Soil Conservation. McGraw-Hill. 1939.
Burges, A. E.Soil Erosion and Control. T. E. Smith, Atlanta,
Georgia. 1938.
Butler, O. M. American Conservation in Picture and in Story.
American Forestry Association. 1935.
Chase, Stuart Rich Land, Poor Land. McGraw-Hill. 1936.
CMlcott, E. F. Preventing Soil Blowing on the -^Southern Great
Plains. P. 29. 1937.
Cole, John S, and Morgan, George W .Implements and Methods of
Tillage to Control Soil Blowing on the Northern Great Plains
P. 21. 1938.
Extension Service of College of Agriculture, The University of Wis
consin, Madison, in cooperation with the State Soil Conservation
IMPROVEMENT OF THE DUST BOWL 307
Committee. Soil Conservation Districts How Farmers Can Or
ganize Them How They Help Control Erosion. P. 22. 1938.
Joel, Arthur H. Soil Conservation Reconnaissance Survey of the
Southern Great Plains Wind-Erosion Era. P. 68. 1937.
Lord, Russell. To Hold This Soil. P. 122. 1938.
Meginnis, H. G. Effect of Cover on Surface Run-Off and Erosion in
the Lovssial Uplands of Mississippi. P. 15. 1935.
Parkins, Almon Ernest. Our Natural Resources and Their Conserva
tion. J. Wiley and Sons, Inc. 1936.
Report of the Great Plains Committee. The Future of the Great
Plains. P. 194. 1936.
Rowalt, E. M. Soil Defense of Range and Farm Lands in the South
west. P. 51. 1939.
Rowalt, E. M.Soil Defense in the South. P. 64. 1938.
Rule, Glenn K. Crops Against the Wind on the Southern Great
Plains. P. 74. 1939.
Rule, Glenn K.' Emergency Wind-Erosion Control. P. 11. 1937.
Rule, Glenn K. Land Facts on the Southern Plains. P. 22. 1939.
Rule, Glenn K. Soil Defense in the Northeast. P. 70. 1938.
Sears, P. B. Deserts on the March. University of Oklahoma Press.
1935.
Sharpe, E. F. Stewart. What Is Soil Erosion. P. 84. 1938.
Shepard, Ward. Forests and Floods. P. 24. 1931.
Soil Conservation Service. Our Soil f Its Wastage Its Preservation.
P. 22. 1938.
Soil Conservation Service. Soil and Water Conservation in the
Northern Great Plains. P. 19. 1937.
Soil Conservation Service. Soil Conservation Distrcts for Erosion
Control. P. 19. 1937.
Soil Conservation Service. Ten Billion Little Dams. P. 19.
The Land Grant Colleges and Universities of the Tennessee Valley
States cooperating with the United States Department of Agri
culture and the Tennessee Valley Authority. Soil The Nation's
Basic Heritage. P. 60.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Soil Conservation. (Gov
ernment Printing Office.)
U.S. Department of Agriculture (Bureau of Soil Conservation list;
also, Miscellaneous Publications).
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Miscellaneous Publications. 221:1,
1935. SoU, Bftsmuiand Dust Storms. C. E. Kellogg.
308 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
Visher, S. S. Aids to the Student of Conservation. J. Wiley and
Sons. 1937.
Whitfield, Charles J, and Perrin, John A. Sand-Dune Reclamation in
the Southern Great Plains. P. 13. 1939.
MAGAZINES AND PERIODICALS
American Magazine. 124:46, September, 1937. Disaster Rides the
Plains. S. Chase.
Bird-Lore. 41:351, November, 1939. Grasslands. R. T. Peterson.
Business Week. P. 16, November 18, 1939. Drought Strikes the
Plains Again.
1 Christian Century. 57:108, January 24, 1940. Dust Bowl Tragedy.
57:213-15, February 14, 1940. Land: Man Used Her in Igno
rance and Selfishness, Destroying the Land. R. C. Kennedy.
Christian Science Monitor Magazine. P. 1-2, August 4, 1937. Dust
Bowl Revives. J. M. Collins.
Collier's. 100:12, September, 18, 1937. Land Where Our Children
Die. W. Davenport.
Ext. Service Review. 9:42, March, 1938. Brief Survey of Activities
in the Southwest to Lay the Dust.
Farmer's Bulletin. 1771:1, 1937. Preventing Soil Blowing on the
Southern Great Plains. 1797:1, 1938. Implements and Methods
of Tillage to Control Soil Blowing on the Northern Great Plains.
J. S. Cole and G. W. Martin. 1825:1,1939. Sand Dune Recla
mation in the Southern Great Plains. C. J. Whitfield and J. A.
Perrin.
*Farm Econ. 19:750, August, 1937. Why the Dust Bowl? P. H.
Stephens.
Fortune. 12:58, November, 1935. Grasslands; the Frontier, Culti
vation, and Dust.
Harper's Magazine. 171:149, June, 1935. Dust Blowing. A. D.
Carlson. J
Literary Digest. 120:15, November 2, 193#. Dust Storms Aftermath.
121:22, May 16, 1936. Dust Storm^Film: United States pictures
process on plains leading to tragedy.
Nation. 145:194, August 21, 1937. Dust Bowl. W. Cropper. 149:
269, September 9, 1939. Reclaiming the Dust Bowl. K. Dun
can. 142:753, June 10, 1936. Further Documents: Film Pro
duced by the Resettlement Administration. M. Van D^fen.
IMPROVEMENT OF THE DUST BOWL 309
Nebraska Agriculture Board Report. 1937:216. Is the Climate of
the Great Plains Changing? J. B. Kincer.
New York Times Magazine. P. 10, August 14, 1938. United Front
to Reclaim the Dust Bowl. R. I. Kimmel. P. 6, April 11, 1937.
When Biting Dust Sweeps Across the Land. H. Miller.
News Week. 5:5, March 30, 1935. Tons of Dust Cover Kansas and
Points East.
Review of Reviews. 93:37, June, 1936. Dust Bowl. W. I. Drum-
mond.
Saturday Evening Post. 210:16, December 18, 1937. Dust Bowl
Can Be Saved. B. Hibbs. 211:22, May 27, 1939. Right Side
up.
Scholastic. 36, February 26, 1940. Sustained Yield Principle:
America Rebuilds. H. Rugg.
Science. N.S. 88:289, September 30, 1938. Land Utilization Pro
gram in the Southern Great Plains. E. D. G. Roberts. n.s. 79:
473, May 25, 1934. Recent Destructive Dust Cloud. n.s. 83:
Suppl. 9, March 27, 1936. Floods and Dust Storms. P. B.'
Sears. n.s. 83:622, June 26, 1936. Floods and Dust Storms; a
reply to P. B. Sears, n.s. 91:53, January 19, 1940. White Man
vs. the Prairie. R. J. Pool.
Survey Graphic. 29:109, February, 1940. War at our Feet. Wal
lace, H. A.
Travel. 74:24, February, 1940. Conquering the Dust Bowl. EL
Ward.
Vital Speeches. 6:51, November 1, 1939. This Is Your Land. H. H.
Bennett.
GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP AND
OPERATION OF THE
RAILROADS
National Forensic League Championship
Debate
BRISTOW (OKLAHOMA) HIGH SCHOOL AFFIRMATIVE w.
Sioux CITY (!OWA) EAST HIGH SCHOOL NEGATIVE
The National Forensic League, which has a membership of over
five hundred high schools located in about forty different states, met
for its annual convention and speech tournament at Terre Haute,
Indiana, during the first week in May, 1940. In the debate section
of the meet there were sixty teams entered. Eliminations were made
after the first five rounds. The tournament then went five more
rounds to reach the finals, the manuscript speeches of which are pre
sented here.
A new form of cross-questioning was introduced in this debate,
consisting of a brief period of questioning by the opposition after
each constructive speech. The same number of speeches as are cus
tomary in the regular debate plan was retained and the questioning
after each speech was added. Considerable satisfaction was expressed
with this new method of bringing out the issues and clashes in the
debate.
The question used was the regular annual proposition selected by
the National University Extension Association for high schools: Re
solved, that the Federal Government should own and operate the
railroads. The debate was won on the Affirmative by the Bristow
High school team of Bristow, Oklahoma. Second place in the tourna
ment went to their opponents in the final debate, the Sioux City East
High School of Sioux City, Iowa. The DuQuoin (Illinois) High
School and the Muskogee (Oklahoma) High School were awarded
third place without further debate for reaching the semifinal round.
The speeches were taken by electrical transcription and then taken
from the records and revised to eliminate repetition and colloquial
mannerisms. They were contributed to Intercollegiate Debates by
Mr. Bruno E. Jacob, National Secretary and Founder of the Na
tional Forensic League.
GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP AND
OPERATION OF THE
RAILROADS
First Affirmative, Cyclone Covey
Bristow High School, Bristow, Oklahoma
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: In a democracy, when a
service is necessary and that service can no longer be
rendered profitably and properly by private enterprise,
it is the duty of the Government to take over that serv
ice and render it for the public good. And so we are
debating the question: Resolved, that the Federal Gov
ernment should own and operate the railroads.
By "the Federal Government" we mean our National
Government as represented in Washington. By "should
own and operate" we mean the title of all railroad
property shall be vested in the hands of the Govern
ment and the Government shall have exclusive and
complete control and management. By "railroads" we
mean all tracks, structures and railway equipment used
for intercity trains, excluding interurban and streetcar
lines.
The railroads are the nation's second largest indus
try, stretching over territory equal in value to all the
farm lands in the nation. They are a vital and essen
tial service to our economic welfare. They are still by
far the most important branch of our transportation
system, carrying 65 per cent of all inland freight. Since
313
314 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
they are vital as a source of investment, as a source of
employment, and as a patron of the nation's major in
dustries, the railroads are indispensable to our national
economy. And yet the railroads, important as they
are, are bankrupt. They are not just in debt; they
are bankrupt. According to major negative authority,
the Association of American Railroads itself, although
expanding on every point against government owner
ship, must still admit it is true that the railroads oper
ated at a deficit during four of the past seven years and
had a net deficit of over $123,000,000 in 1938. It is
true that more than 19,000 miles of railroads have
been abandoned and torn up since the World War.
Likewise, nearly one-third of the present railroad mile
age is in the hands of the bankruptcy court.
That the railroads are bankrupt is a fact which can
not be denied. And what is more, the railroads are
the only essential public service that is not financially
sound. There are four such public services the rail
roads, the utilities, the banks and the insurance com
panies that are considered so important to the nation
that they are not permitted to take advantage of the
bankruptcy laws. And of these four, the railroads are
the only one that has occasion to take advantage of the
bankruptcy laws. They are so important that they
cannot go out of business when they go bankrupt. In
a democracy, when a service is necessary and that
service can no longer be rendered profitably and
properly by private enterprise, it is the duty of the
Government to take over that service and render it for
the public good.
OWNERSHIP OF RAILROADS 315
One-third of the railroad mileage is bankrupt. That
is, the liabilities exceed their assets. And another third
is in debt and fast becoming bankrupt. And the rail
roads go bankrupt with every wave of depression, with
every decline in volume of business. About every ten
years there is a recurring economic depression. And
about every ten years the railroads go bankrupt. They
are among the first to be affected by depression and
among the last to be dragged out of depression. Their
influence on business conditions is so marked that,
when they go into depression, they drag all business into
depression and when prosperity is due to return, they
retard recovery for all business. Do you know that
there has never been a time in our history when all the
railroads were on a sound financial basis? There has
always been something so seriously wrong with the
railroads that ever since 1850 there has been agitation
for government ownership. The railroads go bankrupt
with every wave of depression.
Now what is the result of this bankruptcy upon the
rest of the nation? Now for one thing, the railroads
are unable to maintain their lines properly and their
physical depreciation weakens our entire economic
structure. ' Men are laid off, maintenance is curtailed,
purchases are discontinued, investments are made
worthless and the approaching crisis is not only
hastened but is intensified so that service suffers, the
investors suffer, the employees suffer, business suffers,
the public suffers, the entire national economy suffers.
These are the results of railroad bankruptcy.
So, it is not only essential that the railroads operate,
316 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
but it is essential that they operate on a sound basis.
Under private ownership, the railroads go bankrupt;
they have to reorganize. Depression, bankruptcy, re
organization all form a perpetual cycle by which the
railroads become more and more deeply involved in a
desperate situation. Now reorganization is simply de-
capitalization by which the investors lose, service is
curtailed, and in the main the results are about as dis
astrous as if from bankruptcy itself. So that reorgan
ization is no solution. The problem cannot be met
under private ownership. The railroads are subject to
bankruptcy with every wave of depression, because
even in times of greatest prosperity their margin of
profit is so thin that they are unable to lay aside a
reserve to see them through hard times. Their margin
of profit is thin chiefly because of two reasons: heavy
overhead expenses and competition, conditions which
are inherent under private ownership, conditions which
will always be present as long as the railroads remain
in private hands. The overhead expenses are expenses
which must be met every year out of the railroad
revenue regardless of what that revenue may be ex
penses such as building and maintaining their carriers
and roadbeds, tremendous interest payments and fixed
charges, expenses which are stationary, which do not
fluctuate with the fluctuations of business. So that
even though the railroad income may be very low, the
overhead expenses remain the same. And it is thus
with the greatest difficulty that the railroads make any
profit at all. And even if they do make a profit, much
of it must be paid out in the form of dividends.
OWNERSHIP OF RAILROADS 317
Now, formerly the railroads were able to recover
from depression in the face of all this, because they
had a virtual monopoly on transportation. But today,
not only must they cope with heavy overhead expenses,
but the automobile, the bus, the truck, the airplane and
the pipe lines have entered the field of transportation
and have had their part in slashing off the railroad
margin of profit. Competition and heavy overhead
expenses, conditions which are permanent under pri
vate ownership, are the cause of the railroad's inability
to build up a reserve, which is in turn responsible for
their inability to withstand business fluctuations.
Now we are not contending that government owner
ship will remove competition. But we are contending
that by certain economies, possible only under govern
ment ownership, the margin of profit can be increased,
the overhead expenses can be decreased, and the in
dustry can be so stabilized that it will be enabled to
withstand all competition and waves of depression.
These economies will be dealt with in detail by my
colleague.
We advocate that the railroads be acquired by the
Government through an exchange of securities. That
is, for every railroad bond should be exchanged a gov
ernment bond, which will be amortized and paid off out
of the railroad earnings, involving no cash and in no
way affecting the national debt. The railroads to be
placed under a governmental corporation similar to the
Federal Reserve Board.
So, since the railroads are vital to our national econ
omy, since they are bankrupt, since their bankruptcy
3i8 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
seriously affects all business, since they are subject to
bankruptcy with every wave of depression, because of
competition and heavy overhead expenses, conditions
which are permanent under private ownership and
which cannot be met by reorganization or any other
means under private ownership, we of the Affirmative
contend that there is a need for a change and that the
Federal Government should own and operate the rail
roads.
Negative Cross-Examination Period
Examiner, William Arnold
Sioux City East High School
Respondent, Cyclone Covey, Bristow High School
Q. You are familiar with the recent report made by
Eastman as to the amount of government aids to
various forms of transportation, are you not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Thank you. Exactly what are the specific causes
of railroad difficulty? Would you name them one, two,
three, please?
A. Well, the railroads have heavy overhead expenses,
are further hampered by competition; so, when depres
sion comes along, they can't
Q. Thank you. Then depression, competition and
heavy overhead are the causes. Would you accept In
terstate Commerce Commission findings as to the basic
causes of rail difficulty?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Thank you. You mentioned that the railroads
OWNERSHIP OF RAILROADS 319
go into bankruptcy every ten years. Do you have
figures as to how many railroads were in bankruptcy
in 1930, ten years past, in 1920, ten years before that?
A. I think we can find them for you.
Q. Will you please give them later? Do railroads
that are reorganized go into bankruptcy again?
A. Sometimes.
Q. Do they do so in a majority of cases?
A. I think so.
Q. Thank you. Now you stated, did you not, that
you consider roadbed expenses as overhead expense
and as a cause of the problem?
A. That is only a part of the overhead expenses,
but it is an overhead expense.
Q. Exactly how would you remove roadbed expense
under government ownership?
A. We won't.
Q. Thank you.
A. But there won't be as many roadbeds on which to
pay overhead.
Q. Thank you. Then specifically the largest item of
stationary expenses which you call overhead is fixed
charges, is it not?
A. Well, fixed charges are one of them. They are
pretty large.
Q. Is that not the principal one that you will be able
to remove under government ownership?
A. We will be removing dividends and interest.
Q. Thank you. Please point out exactly what per
centage of mileage was in bankruptcy in 1894 when the
rails experienced their worst depression.
320 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
A. I'll try to find that for you.
Q. Well, I believe I have the statistics here and
would you please explain your statement that the rail
roads go into bankruptcy every ten years to a large
degree when in 1894 according to the Interstate Com
merce Commission, in the worst depression previous
to the present one, only 18 per cent of the railroads
were in bankruptcy during this depression?
A. But they had a virtual monopoly of transporta
tion at that time.
Q. You admit, do you not, that only 18 per cent
were in bankruptcy in the worst depression period pre
vious to the present time according to the ICC?
A. That may be correct, but the present conditions
didn't exist then.
Q. Thank you.
First Negative, Wesley Jacobson
Sioux City East High School (Iowa)
MR. CHAIRMAN AND FRIENDS: Unquestionably
there is a railroad problem, the details of which have
been presented by the Affirmative. Thus there are the
two considerations remaining: first, the causes of the
problem; and second, the solution that will remove the
causes.
In analyzing the causes of railroad difficulty, we of
the Negative will point out that our present system is
not at fault and that, therefore, no change is necessary.
On the other hand the Affirmative has maintained that
our present system of ownership is to blame because
OWNERSHIP OF RAILROADS 321
of certain causes which they have presented. Now in
proving that our present system is not responsible, we
shall examine each of the Affirmative causes and show
that the railroad owners are not to blame.
Now, after carefully analyzing the argument of the
Affirmative, and the answers to my colleague's ques
tions with reference to what they considered the basic
causes of the situation, we arrive at the conclusion that
they are presenting three major causes of railroad
difficulty: heavy overhead expenses for fixed charges,
depression and competition. Now in answer to my
colleague's question, the gentleman of the Affirmative
virtually admitted that the chief one which they were
going to remove was fixed charges. Fixed charges are
one of the or rather the biggest item in heavy over
head expenses. And we shall point out a little bit
later five governmental policies which have kept over
head expenses high. So, therefore, let us examine fixed
charges, or interest on debt, and see whether or not
it has caused the railroad problem.
You will recall in answer to my colleague's ques
tion that the gentleman of the Affirmative said that
he believed that the ICC was competent as to the
causes of the railroad problem. Therefore, let us see
what the ICC says about fixed charges. Says the ICC
in a recent report, "The major cause of the unsatis
factory financial condition of the railroads is not to be
found in excessive fixed charges." In other words, the
very authority which the gentlemen of the Affirmative
themselves have qualified, states that fixed charges have
not been a basic cause of the present railroad situa-
322 YEAR BOOK' OF COLLEGE DEBATING
tion. And in addition, if fixed charges, or interest
on debt, were one of the basic factors of the present
railroad problem, we would naturally expect them to
be higher now with the railroads in a bad condition
than they were when the railroads were in a good con
dition. However, we find according to Fairman R.
Dick, "Today the burden of fixed charges in spite of
the depression requires fewer cents out of every dol
lar than during the first eight years of the century
when the railroads were at the peak of their prosperity.
During those years twenty-four cents out of a revenue
dollar was required for fixed charges. In 1937 only
fifteen cents was required." In other words, we find
that the Affirmative cause of fixed charges is not a
very basic factor, is rather a negligible factor as far
as being the cause of the present situation, since their
very own authority says that it is not a cause, and
since fixed charges are lower now with the railroads in
bad conditions than they were when in good condi
tion, showing that fixed charges cannot be a cause of
the present railroad trouble. Thus, we find that the
cause of the Affirmative of fixed charges, which was
their main one under heavy overhead expenses, is not
a basic cause of the present railroad problem.
But yet they have two other causes, depression and
competition; and we are only too happy to agree with
the opposition that the combination of depression and
competition is a basic cause of the present railroad
problem. However, I should like to point out that
at no time have the gentlemen of the Affirmative shown
you that depression and competition are caused by rail-
OWNERSHIP OF RAILROADS 323
road management. In other words, though depression
and competition are the basic factors of the present
railroad problem, they are not the fault of our present
ownership system. Railroad owners can't be blamed
for depressions and competition and at no time has the
Affirmative shown you that it's the fault of the pri
vate managers that these two causes do exist. In
summary, it is evident that the Affirmative has failed
to establish the responsibility of our present system in
regard to their three causes, since the first one is a
negligible factor according to their own authority and
the last two, though the basic causes of the situation,
are not caused by our present ownership system.
Now as to the solution. In reference to competition
and depression, other industries have recovered from
both depression and competition, while the railroads,
despite recent improvements, remain a problem. Thus,
we ask ourselves: Are the railroads affected by cer
tain specific causes not applicable to other industries?
Examination reveals five such specific factors, all of
which are the result of governmental policy and all
of which have prevented the railroads from remedying
the effect of depression and competition.
The first of these specific retarding railroad factors
is inequality of taxation. Quoting from the Presiden
tial Transportation Committee of six: "The railroads
pay nine cents out of every revenue dollar for taxes.
The highway transporters pay only four cents, one-
half as much. And the waterway transporters pay only
two cents. But the railroads receive no direct tax
return. The waterway or highway transporter, how-
324 YEAR BOOK OF COLLEGE DEBATING
ever, has his taxes used for his roadbed." Thus the
first specifically retarding railroad factor is inequality
of taxation.
The second of these specifically retarding railroad
factors, which are due to governmental policy, is the
forcing of unfair capital outlays, such as those for re
location of bridges and track elevations, to mention only
a few. According to Harold G. Moulton and associates
of the Brookings Institution, "The railroads have been
required to make unfair capital outlays which, in the
aggregate, amount to over $223,000,000."
And yet another specifically retarding railroad fac
tor which is due to governmental policy is economic
scarcity. According to the Transportation Asssocia-
tion of America, "The curtailment of agricultural pro
duction and the destruction of crops already raised have
withheld from the carriers untold amounts of potential
tonnage. For instance, in 1933 more than 4,000,000
bales of cotton were plowed under. The average haul
on a bale was 400 miles. At the average charge of a
dollar and a half per bale, this was $6,000,000 that the
railroads did not get in revenue."
And the fourth of these specific factors which have
retarded railroad recovery is governmental restriction
on reorganization. According to E. H. Collins, "The
chief difficulty of our present reorganization law is the
time it consumes. Its complexity can only be fully
appreciated by considering the thirteen steps that it
involves. They require at the minimum 540 days. The
process of reorganization takes a year and a half."
And the fifth and last of the factors which have kept
OWNERSHIP OF RAILROADS 325
the railroads from remedying the effects of depression
and competition is an unfair governmental attitude in
regard to railroad labor. According to Mr. Garrett:
"The National Railroad Adjustment Board's important
work is to put fat on the payroll." Here the word
"fat" is used in a very old sense, to be paid for work
you do not do. Listed in the annual statistical wage
bulletin of the ICC, the record for the year 1938 is
that the time paid for, but not worked, amounted to
17,000,000 days. And for those days that were not
worked, the railroads paid wages amounting to more
than $120,000,000. The story will be found in the
awards of the NLRB.
Thus we find five specifically retarding railroad fac
tors, all of which are due to governmental policy.
To summarize this entire consideration of causes, we
of the Negative have established that our present sys
tem of ownership has not caused the problem, first,
because the Affirmative causes are not the result of
private ownership, but the first (of fixed charges) is a
negligible factor, and the last two, though the basic
causes, are not the fault of the private railroad man
agement. Second, we agree with the Affirmative that
the depression and competition are the basic factors,
but they do not indict our present railroad ownership
system. Third, private ownership has not failed, be
cause the five-point policy of the Government itself
has retarded railroad recovery.
Thus, since our present railroad ownership system
has
