Soldan High School - Scrip Yearbook (St Louis, MO)

Page 29 text:

are covered by international law, which guarantees the right of self-de- fense and the right of protection for the weak. The South American people hate the United States on account of the Monroe Doctrine. This hatred is shown in their newspapers, their books, and by the voices of prominent men. The trade of the United States with South America has fallen off because of the Monroe Doctrine. Statistics from the Department of Commerce were quoted in proof of this statement. The Monroe Doctrine would provoke rather than prevent war. The United States, having assumed the role of protector, guardian, and policeman of the Western Hemisphere, has unjustly interfered in the national, political, and financial affairs of South American republics. In its concluding point, the aH-irmative offered the constructive measure that either international law, or a more satisfactory develop- ment of the Pan-American Union, or the International League to En- force Peace be substituted for the Monroe Doctrine. The audience took a keener interest in the rebuttal speeches, which were generally good. Jack Ruel gave the best refutation for the nega- tive. Several of his points were so aptly made that the audience burst into involuntary applause. The negative struck at the heart of Soldan's argument by asking to what extent international law had been consid- ered in the present conflict. Walter Wolf showed in his rebuttal why he had been chosen to speak last. Although his opponents rose several times and almost nailed him in with well chosen points, he struck back with telling effect. He, also, received generous applause. While the expectant audience awaited the decision of the judges, Mr. Forrest G. Ferris, chairman, Mr. john H. Gundlach, and Mr. A. Holt Rodebush, Miss Ethel Knobeloch, a talented Soldan student, ren- dered most pleasantly two violin solos. Without delay Mr. Ferris mounted the platform and delivered the decisions of the judges in sealed envelopes to the chairman. Mr. Powell opened them carefully, painstakingly,-even slowly, and then said, It gives me pleasure to announce that the decision has been award- ed by a unanimous vote to the affirmative. Harry Freedman's predic- tion was right. Mr. MacQueary's coaching, the team's clearness in separating and advancing points, and their unimpassioned but intelligent and impressive delivery had won the third interscholastic debate for Soldan. ' -C. Gordon Fennel! 7. 75

Page 28 text:

e 'es wife 'A' -- effx-1?- Y 4 - ..--flex 4 51 r as JM should have done and time was called before he concluded. Frisch's voice was excellent. He was able to get just the right pitch and em- phasis to lead his remarks to a forceful climax. His ease on the plat- form also attested to his three years of conscientious work in the Forum. Edgar A. Flory, who opened the negative for Central, was already known to many Forum members. Before the present debating league was organized a year ago, he had been a member of the team which de- feated the Forum's representation in a so-called first interscholastic debate. Flory spoke forcefully, but his delivery was excitable and rather piercing. Can we afford to abolish a principle which excludes European influence from the Western Hemisphere? he asked. He of- fered Taft's and Wilson's indorsement of the Monroe Doctrine and the fact that it prevents colonization in South America as his main points. The bell sounded just as he concluded. Edward Selden was the next speaker to advance S0ldan's argu- ments. The manner in which he presented his arguments gave his audi- ence the impression that they had been arrived at only after serious thought and deliberation. His delivery was slow and unimpassioned. He seemed to prefer to skillfully reason his way through a point rather than to drive it home by any elocutionary effort. The cause of the negative was continued by jack Ruel. He spoke in a frank and convincing manner, although somewhat jerkily. He cited Cleveland's message to Congress in 1895, and the fact that both the democratic and republican parties upheld the Doctrine in their 1916 platforms as two big reasons why we should not abandon the Monroe Doctrine, asserting that our safety is assured as long as the European powers are three thousand miles distant. Walter B. Wolf now came forward to close the aFfirmative's direct proof. His usual free and easy delivery was greatly hampered by hoarseness and a cold. Herbert Koeneke spoke last hoping to turn the tide of argument toward Central. The excitement of the moment and his evident earn- estness carried him somewhat beyond the bounds of propitious debating until his oratory waxed so hot that it became a source of amusement. The Soldan team offered the following arguments: The Monroe Doctrine is an assumption on the part of the United States to act in the role of protector and guardian of the Western Hemisphere. It was written at a definite time to meet a specific object: that is, The Holy Alliance, a league composed of Russia, Prussia, Austria, and France, with the purpose of suppressing all forms of republican govern- ment. The Monroe Doctrine is now useless because all its salient points 74

Page 30 text:

'X s UN funiors, fanunry, I New