Loyola College - Review Yearbook (Montreal, Quebec Canada)

Page 23 text:

LOYOLA Page 9 COLLEGE REVIEW al eatin 5 Ta 1944-45 season has found the Loyola Literary and Debating Society as active as ever in the Inter-University and Montreal Debating Leagues. The Society is particularly proud of the fact that they again captured the I.U.D.L. cham- pionship this year for the third successive time. We are also proud of our record of successes in the Inter-University Debating League. Since entering the League in 1922, Loyola has won the championship on nine occasions, and has been a finalist seventeen times. I.U.D.L. SERIES The members of the I.U.D.L. this year were Ottawa University, McGill, Bishop's, and Loyola in the Eastern Section, and St. Pats, MacMaster, and Oueen's University in the Western Section. The winners in each section met in the finals to determine the championship of the League. The I.U.D.L. trophy was awarded to Loyola, who had St. Pat's as their opponents in the final round. The subject of this year's debate, agreed upon by the executive of the League was: Resolved, that “salvation of Canadian democracy demands the implementation of the C.C.F. program.” The teams which represented Loyola were: Arthur Halley and Jack O'Brien on the Affirma- tive team, and William Sullivan and Neil King on the Negative. 3 McGILL AT LOYOLA On Thursday evening, February the eighth, McGill Debating Society was represented in the College Auditorium by two of our alumni, James Hemens and Richard Blanchfield; Loyola's team of Jack O'Brien and Arthur Halley defended the resolution. In his opening remarks, Mr. O'Brien laid particular stress on the wrongs that exist under the present system, wrongs which are threatening the very basis of democracy. He pointed out that a partial introduction of the C.C.F. program has rectified many of the wrongs—and that Canada can have real democracy only when the rest is introduced. Mr. Blanchfield opened the case for McGill against the resolution by protesting the fact that the Affirmative were using the Regina Manifesto, which, he claimed, was no longer the chief statement of principal, having been superceded by the 1944 Manifesto. He then attempted to show how the introduction of the C.C.F. program would drastically curtail personal freedom. Emphasizing that advocating the C.C.F. program had nothing to do with advocating the election of the C.C.F., Mr. Halley agreed that the C.C.F. program was not perfect, but main- tained that it was the only one capable of correcting the wrongs of the present system. He then showed how each of the nine points of the Manifesto would minimize existing wrongs. Mr. Hemens, in his attack, tried to ridicule the arguments of the affirmative without actually answering them; he then proceeded to base his whole speech upon an attack on the C.C.F party, its leaders, and its conduct at the beginning of the war. In his rebuttal, Mr. O'Brien showed that his opponents were begging the question by bring- ing in the faults of the C.C.F. party, and that the discussion was actually centred on its program. The decision rendered was two to one in favour of Loyola's affirmative team. LOYOLA AT OTTAWA On the same evening, Neil King and Bill Sullivan represented Loyola at Ottawa, uphold- ing the negative of the same resolution. Mr. Thomas Van Dusen, the first speaker for Ottawa, showed that the present party offered little democracy, and that the C.C.F. was the only party able to cope with the situation.

Page 22 text:

LOYOLA COLLEGE Page 8 REVIEW EASTER INTERLUDE A SMALL boy named Peter strolled along the Champs-Elysees. It was spring . . . spring in Paris! and though he knew not the reason why, his young heart was overwhelmed by its exuberance. As he wandered down the broad boulevard, drinking in with child-like imperceptibility the subtle change of this new world, his spirits were somewhat clouded by the sad thought of the coming Easter. This year, under German occupation, there would be no Easter celebrations, no religious festivities . . . nothing. His father and mother had been taken away to work for the enemy. This year there would be no Easter party, no search for Easter eggs, the large coloured ones that he sometimes found hidden under his well-worn hat . . . no, nothing like that during German occupation. Peter and his grandfather would have to stay at home on Sunday. They would not be allowed to attend Mass at the great Cathedral as had been their custom. Yet for all his troubles Peter's laden spirits quickly succumbed to the magic effects of this lovely day. Turning a corner, he noticed a man hurriedly carving the emblem of a fish on one of the trees that bordered the avenue. He would have stopped to watch, but it was nearing lunch time . . . he kept on his way. Suddenly the loud bang of a pistol shot pierced the air. The man who had been carving the fish emblem a few yards back, crumpled to the ground, lifeless. Peter lost all further incentive to idle on the way home. A few minutes es breathless and excited, he burst in on his grandfather, relating the incident just as he had seen it. The old gentle- man listened attentively, in without comment said, Sit down and eat your lunch, my boy. They ate in silence. Immediately after lunch grandfather left the house and did not return until late that evening. Surely, thought Peter, “this unusual absence is because of what I have told grandpa. Yet try as he would, he could not find any clue. Days slipped by. At times Peter noticed the strange emblem here and there on different trees, but by this time he had come to disregard them. Good Friday came without any public recognition. Peter's fears of an Easter void of all former joys, loomed large and dismal. On the evening of Holy Saturday a group of people met at grandfather's home. They spoke in low tones, and by their behaviour Peter knew that something was about to happen. It was not long, however, before his grandfather sent him off to bed, but with a timely warning, We will rise early tomorrow morning, Peter, so have a good sleep. That night in his prayers Peter asked God that he might yet enjoy at least a part of Easter in the way they used to. At dawn grandfather awakened Peter. He dressed quickly and they left the house together. As Peter stepped out on the porch, he was surprised to see a tiny fish carved on the tree on the lawn. “Follow me and do not ask any questions, said the old man gruffly. Every now and then the boy noticed the strange sign carved on wood or sometimes the word chalked on the pave- ment with an arrow. Why, we are following the sign, thought Peter, but why? He remem- bered his grandfather's warning, so he did not speak. Soon they reached the outskirts of the city, then a small wood. There on one of the trees was the sign marking the way. As they approached, they were stopped by a man. He seemed to be asking for a password, and Peter heard his grandfather mumble, “Fish is being served. They passed on. Soon they came to clearing in the woods. The grass was beaded with dew. Peter caught sight of a small crowd gathered around a make-shift altar. A priest was preparing to say Mass. His grandfather led him into the midst of the silent assembly. There, for a brief half hour, Peter enjoyed his happiest Easter. There in the midst of that damp, crowded wood, he felt once more the jovs he had experienced on previous Easter morns. As the sun slowly rose to the blue sky, filling the grove with its new brilliance, Peter recalled how he used to kneel by the side of his parents in quiet contentment. how in thé large cathedral every Easter Sunday morning he used to hear the choir singing the praises of God just as now the thousand little beauties of that tiny wood seemed to be doing. Then as if each fond memory seemed to be a stev to further enlightenment, Peter at last remembered the reason whv the emblem of a fish had been chosen to lead the way to this secret place. They were used by the early Christian martyrs to point out the intricate mazes of the catacombs. far beneath the pagan city of Rome. Yes, it was that symbol of the fish which meant in Greek, Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour of the world!! ` HENRY GRIFFIN, '46. WALTER BANNAN, '47.

Page 24 text:

LOYOLA | . COLLEGE Page 10 REVIEW Mr. Sullivan of Loyola, insisted that the discussion be limited to those points peculiar to the C.C.F. party. After quoting Mr. Coldwell to establish the Regina Manifesto as the official pro- gram, he showed that the first point of the Manifesto would ultimately cause the loss of freedom. The second speaker of the Affirmative, Mr. McCarthy maintained that the C.C.F. was the only solution, because it was an organization of the people, by the people, and for the people. In closing the case for Loyola, Mr. King discussed the second point of the Manifesto, the socialization of finance and industry. He showed that it would lead to bankruptcy—if the gov- ernment intended to buy all business—or to revolution—if they tried to expel the owners by force of arms. The decision was two to one in favour of Loyola's negative team. FINALS By virtue of winning their two preliminary debates, Loyola won the right to meet St. Pat's, the finalists in the Western Section, to decide the I.U.D.L. championship. ST. PAT'S AT LOYOLA Walter Bambrick and Brian Freeland represented St. Pat's College and defended the same resolution against Bill Sullivan and Neil King. The debate took place on F ebruary 22nd in the College Auditorium. Brian Freeland, the first speaker for St. Pat's, gave a general outline of the C.C.F. program with special refere nce to the apparent success ofSocialization in Russia. Walter Bambrick, the second speaker of the affirmative, also dwelt on the wrongs of the present system and their remedy—the C.C.F. program. The arguments of Bill Sullivan and Neil King were substantially the same as in the prelimi- nary debate. Particularly noteworthy, however, was the forceful method in which the latter speaker delivered his speech. The verdict was unanimous in favour of the Loyola negative team. LOYOLA AT ST. PAT'S On the same evening, the affirmative team of Arthur Halley and Jack O'Brien met St. Pat's negative team of Gary O'Neil and Frank Dunlap in the Chateau Laurier in Ottawa. The St. Pat's team criticized the C.C.F. leaders and their party, and laid special stress on the evil effects that would follow the C.C.F.'s entry into power. Arthur Halley and Jack O'Brien again distinguished between the party itself and its pro- gram. The distinction, however, was not recognized by the judges, and the decision was unani- mous in favour of St. Pat's. Loyola was dcelared champion of the LU.D.L. on a basis of percentage of points. MONTREAL DEBATING LEAGUE The Loyola Debating Society took part in two M.D.L. debates during the season. In the first, Joe White and Harry Griffin defended the resolution, Resolved, that children under sixteen should be admitted to the movies when accompanied by an adult.” In a close decision, the affirmative lost by a two to one vote. In the second debate, Bernard Vanier and Russ Breen defended the resolution that “post-war large-scale immigration into Canada should be encouraged.” After a closely contested debate, Loyola was defeated by a two to one vote of the judges, although on a basis of points, the result was otherwise. This brought to an end the activities of the Society for the 1944-45 season. The general lack of interest in debating of the student body is particularly to be deplored, in view of the magnificent work the Society has done. We are confident that the students will. in the years to come, appreciate more fully the efforts of the debaters and their continued success. BERNARD VANIER, '45.