Oregon!
eekly.
UNIVERSITY OF OREGON
VOL. IX.
EUGENE. OREGON, MONDAY. MARCH 30, 1908.
No. 25
AFFIRM ATIVE MEN DEFEATED such restriction. He brought in evi
NEGATIVE tr io IS DEFEATED
dence to show that these laws had been
By Idaho’s Strong Negative Trio—De ineffective in excluding Chinese, and
At Seattle Thursday Night by Wash
cision Was Two to One Against
further that they were not adapted to
ington Varsity’s Affirmative
Oregon.
meet the conditions in different locali
Squad
ties in this connection comparing the
The University of Idaho’s negative conditions in the Philippines, Hawaii
Oregon’s negative team met an hon
debating team won a two to one deci and different portions of the United
orable defeat last Thursday night at
sion from Oregon’s affirmative team States. At his conclusion, he handed
- .......Seattle when the affirmative debaters
last Thursday evening, thereby rever
a question to the affirmative team ask- representing the University of Wash-
t 1 O’ it if 1 it t 1 would
■ » y"** not
~ A
- T_ be
_ 1 better
1 for
/• Japan
W
I • x-w
aA
- A.
sing the outcome of last year’s debate 1 ing
ington won a unanimous decision over
between these two institutions. The to enact the restrictive legislation.
the Oregon men. It is difficult to say
question was, “Resolved, that the pres
\\ alter II. Eaton was the second just why Oregon lost; but it is certain
ent laws relating to the admission of speaker for ( )regon, and answered di that the excellent work of Washing
Chinese into the territory of the U. S. rectly the question of the negative as
ton s leader, J hos. E. Latimer, in re
should be extended to Japanese im serting that Japanese legislation would buttal, was a very potent. factor, in
migrants.” Oregon’s team had pre be unsatisfactory, unreliable and inef bringing about the defeat. The judges
pared strong argument for the ex fective. He spoke also on conditions were Judge Milo A. Root, Judge R. A.
clusion of the Jap which had as their in Hawaii, showing that the whole halkner and Superior Judge P. D. Al
basis his undesirability as a citizen. field of labor was not monopolized by bertson, all of Seattle.
The negative, however, by admitting the Japs.
Leo Jones opened the debate for
these arguments practically dulled
J. D. Matthews, of idaho, followed, W ashington and in a clear and con
their edge and by centering their at and pursuing the line of his colleague, cise manner outlined the affirmative
tack upon the present laws against showed that the Chinese immigration case. He argued that the Japanese
Chinese, proving them not to be the laws are unjust in that they infringe cannot be assimilated and that they will
best means for exclusion, they con upon the natural rights of man.
not adopt American customs. Hence
structed a case which the affirmative
He also stated that the extension of they will form an alien class in our
after valiant attempts, failed to refute. these laws to include the Japs would midst and become a danger to cur so
W . C. Nicholas for Oregon opened be an inexpedient measure in that hos cial welfare. For this reason the Jap
the debate. He defined the question tilities between the two countries anese should be excluded.
and outlined affirmative line of argu would inevitably ensue.
Earl Kilpatrick opened the argument
ment, stating that two things would be
Jesse IT Bond, leader of the Oregon for Oregon. He maintained that,Jap
proven; that the Japanese should be team, spoke next and made a strong anese exclusion must be justified on
excluded and that the Chinese exclu refutation of his opponent’s arguments. two main grounds, social and econom
sion laws are the best means for that He quoted President Roosevelt and ic. In rebuttal, he argued that exclu
purpose.
other authorities to show that the pres- sion could not be justified on social
His line of argument consisted prin nt immigration laws have been and grounds since the Japanese are not a
cipally in showing that the Japanese are effective. Also he argued that dras dangerous element in society; and like
are an undesirable class of citizens be tic measures are required owing to wise such exclusion can not be justified
cause their continued admission leads the nature of the people dealt with, on industrial „ grounds
since w
the
___ ___
..„ Jap-
to lawlessness, because of their im- but the laws were far from being un- anese do not seriously compete with
morality, and because of their inability just. Answering the argument for Jap- American workmen. Further he con-
to become Americanized. He closed anese restrictive legislation, he quoted tinued, the Japanese are an absolute
showing that the barring of these im a Japanese authority which stated that economic necessity to the Pacific Coast.
migrants would put an end to an im Japan had no intention of t. king such
showed conclusively that there is
mense amount of disorder and lawless steps, and Mr. Bond brought in fur a class of work which none but Jap
ness.
ther proof to show that the promises anese labor will do and hence exclusion
B. D. Mudgett, for Idaho, followed: of Japan were unreliable and that such would be unwise. A great many quo
tations from employers of labor all over
He began by admitting the substance legislation would be ineffective.
R. O. Jones closed the debate for the the I’acific coast were read to prove the
of his opponent's argument that Jap
anese immigration should be restricted, negative, summing up the arguments truth of his contentions.
X. (». Harris spoke next for Wash
but stated that it would be the policy of his colleagues and showing further
of the negative team to show that the that the affirmative’s plan for exclusion ington and argued on industrial
present laws relating to Chinese im- was not only ineffective, unjust, and grounds that the Japanese should be
(Continued on Page three.)
(Concluded on Page 5)
migration were not the best means of
1