Southampton High School - Sea Spray Yearbook (Southampton, NY)

Page 11 text:

THE TALLY 9 After entering the lower house of Congress, Mr. Webster soon showed that he was a man to be reckoned with in all public (questions as he brought his arguments to a logical conclusion. He took his position with the party which held the key to the question, defeating two bills to establish a paper money bank, solely by the lucid manner of his speech, accompanied by all the rudimentary facts fused together by a real orator for impressive delivery. The days of amateur speaking were now over. Daniel Webster had been converted into a professional orator to whose eloquence America was privileged and proud to base a claim. The new era of his advanced oratory was precipitated by his testimony and arguments involved in the Dartmouth College case, which he brought to a suitable climax by winning the unani- mous decision of the judges present. The result was finally attained in his masterly reply to Hayne. In this debate he advanced a candid heart to heart talk with his reasoning American public. His brief and pregnant sentences found their way with favor to the ears of those who were most prejudiced to his cause. It was a grand victory for the man who swayed three-fourths of the Senate, who were formerly in sympathy with his most worthy opponent, Mr. Hayne, to his way of reason- ing and to his views merely by the flowery flow of his oratory. In this debate his vigorous sarcasm and unexcelled interpretation of the Constitu- tion stood him in good stead in bringing it to a suitable conclusion. Mr. Webster did not use his marvelous powers of debate for personal prain or popularity, but rather for the prestige and compactness of the Union resulting from a government which was born m Greece, saw child- hood in England, and finally attained manhood and perfection in these United States. The Union was always foremost in his mind. For it he sacrificed his time and opportunities and I think that I may safely say that he was the strongest thread that bound it while he was living. Nay, more than that, Daniel Webster was incorporated in the Union and unity was wholly de- pendent upon Daniel Webster. They thus formed a political equation, the one non-existent without the accompaniment of the other. The fact that I would like to impress upon your minds, fellow citizens, is that Daniel Webster realized the solemn obligation we had to fulfill in handing down our model government, whole and unbroken, to be enjoyed by our successors. He fulfilled his obligation by his many impressive and sincere speeches most of which he dedicated to the advancement of his theory of the indestructibility of the Union. His views on the bank, his views on the tariff, his views on slavery, all found their arguments in their connection with the Union. If he com- promised, it was to save that Union. If he threatened, it was to demand respect for that Union. In all his pleadings for unity his arguments became incandescent. Some of you may ask why this man was never president; the answer is simple. He spoke contrary to the views of his party to keep these states of ours united forever. I should like to ask you, ladies and gentlemen, which is better—to have your name blazoned on the hearts of every American citizen or scrolled on some public document with the names of thirty-one executives of those United States to which he dedicated his life and fortune to keep united. What nation today could long consider dismemberment or factional strife if it had been aroused by the inspiring words of a Daniel Webster when he said, “Standing hand to hand and clasping hands, let us remain united as we have been for sixty years, citizens of the same country, mem- bers of the same government, united, all united now, and united forever.” DUNCAN MacLEAN,

Page 10 text:

8 THE TALLY Editorial Like some swarthy muezzin calling his people to prayer, there’s a song pealing from the minaret of my mind, calling my thoughts to a memory of the past four years. It’s a swan song, this song. And it’s a beautiful, fa- miliar song, this swan song. It is a song of joy, anticipation, sorrow, failure, triumph. It first steals upon the mind with a halting, joyful, uncertain lilt, full of a wonder and awe. It is thus that our song interprets the Freshman year. It changes now; it is of the Sophomore year that it now sings. There is more volume, a bit of the wavering is gone, swallowed by a deeper tone which is beginning to be heard. There is a more brazenly, resonant quality to it, there is an almost steady beat which gives way to a swell which intro- duces the Junior year. There are many swells now; there is joy; there are some crashes as of cymbals. We are sure of our footing. The wavering note disappears entirely, supplanted here and there by a bar of triumph, But a note of sadness has begun to creep in. Midst all the joy and blare, a plaintive strain of melody is rising and falling, scarcely perceptible, but strengthening into the measure by which the Senior year is preceded. It is the most plaintive of all, the Senior year. It is the most triumphal, too. There are bits of exquisite, joyous melody, there are bits of rhapsody, there are bits of a poignantly sorrowful strain. It is the sorrow of farewell that this song expresses now. A sorrow which is not a child of melancholy but a child of memory. It is ending now. It is reaching its climax. The melody swells to a glorious culmination. It is ended and it fades until it is gone. Yes, it’s a beautiful song, this swan song, as beautiful as we have made it for ourselves during these four years. U. S. B. ----o----- Daniel Webster and the Indestructibility of the Union On the eighteenth of January of the year seventeen hundred and eighty- two there was born in the small village of Cassandras, New Hampsire, a frail, weakly boy, whom the neighbors predicted would die in early childhood. Little did the mother know of the iron constitution concealed in the frail body of this child. This juevenile phenomenon was Daniel Webster. I need not dwell further on the youth and education of this man, who was destined to become one of the greatest orators that the world has ever produced, unless to say that he had an insatiable desire for reading and an outstanding faculty of rapid acquisition, combined with a burning zeal to acquaint himself more with the things which pertained to his own and his country’s betterment. The first speech which was delivered by the “Iron Orator,” which ap- proached the later perfected eloquence, was presented on a bill against the encouragement of enlistments. I think Mr. Lodge summed up the whole matter when he said that Webster was now master of the style at which he aimed. This speech typified the elasticity and vigor of his destined force. His deliberate and measured phrases conveyed themselves with favor to the previously doubting ears of his fickle audience. He wielded his powerful weapon of sarcasm with formidable strength and wisdom, a weapon which was always feared by his most worthy opponents,

Page 12 text:

10 THE TALLY Freedom of Speech and Press; Its Scope and Limitations When the Constitution of the United States was being formulated, the scrupulous Democrats of that day, fearing that the houses of Congress would develop into an oligarchy, demanded among other fundamental rights, freedom of speech and press. These the Constitution grants in Article I of the first ten amendments, knowm as the “Bill of Rights.' : “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances.” These rights were just and necessary then as they are just and neces- sary now. The thing that has made this clause of the Constitution seem too liberal is the perversions to which these rights have been put by those un- acquainted with the true principles of American democracy and viciously seeking to undermine the foundations of our glorious republic. The City of New York today is in the grasp of communist rioters, in- cited by “soap-box oratory” on the street corners, shouting the principles of anarchy and waving the red flag of bolshevism. Can these people be supporting a great and noble cause when they put their women and children in the first ranks that they may be injured and excite compassion? Can they better conditions for the working man by training their women to fall down in front of the police and scream that they have been beaten or in- sulted? Have you heard that the Russian government has spent one million dollars to further the cause of communism in America? To the furtherance of such irrational aims has our Constitution of the United States been perverted. I commend and heartily endorse the policemen who showed these rioters the error of their ways with the business end of a nightstick. The fathers of our country inserted the “Bill of Rights” into our Con- stitution to protect the citizens from being infringed upon, to allow them to voice their opinion in an orderly and dignified manner, not to rouse crowds of rioters and vandals, not to enable the yellow press to stir the fires of anarchism with destructive criticism of our government and its institutions. Wise and justified restraint has been put upon these rights in times of national stress. During the World War, President Wilson found it neces- sary to silence propagandists to protect the government and its citizens from the influences of grotesquely biased reports of the allied policy in Europe. There is, however, another side to this story. The people of our country have not always allowed the exercise of these rights in causes that were just and commendable. In 1835, William Lloyd Garrison narrowly escaped death at the hands of a mob in the most conservative city of Boston for advocating the emancipation of the negro slaves. June 14, 1798, the Federalist party passed the Sedition Act providing that, “anyone writing or publishing false, scandalous, and malicious writings against the government, either House of Congress, o’r the President” or “exciting against them the hatred of the good people of the United States to stir up sedition” should be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars and by imprison- ment not exceeding two years. This was an unfair measure, clearly uncon- stitutional and designed expressly to curtail the newspapers of the opposing Republican party, not as a measure for protecting the government. It caused the downfall of the Federalist party and became inactive March 3, 1804. Free speech and free press are at the same time glorious privileges echoing the quintessence of American democracy and lethal weapons which