STUDENT DEBATERS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20450, 3 July 1928, Page 13

STUDENT DEBATERS.

BATES COLLEGE TEAM. THREE BRILLIANT SPEAKERS. MEETING AT OTAGO UNIVERSITY. The three brilliant young speakers who comprise the debating team of Bates College (Maine) that is at present visiting Dunedin, made their first platform appearance last evening in Allen Hall, when they were opposed by a team representing the Otago University. There was a large attendance, and the audience enjoyed a particularly close and interesting debate in which the American visitors were victorious. The motion before the meeting was—- “ That this house deplores the policy of protecting Capital in foreign countries by force of arms without a formal declaration of war.” The affirmative was taken by the Otago University team, which consisted of Messrs D. C. Muir, G. L, M'Leod and R. E. Free. The Bates College speakers were Messrs J. F. Davis, M. L. Ames, and C. H. Guptill. All three proved to be speakers of exceptional ability, the first-named being distinguished by his clarity of reasoning, the second by his reserve of facts, and the third by his prowess as a critic of opposing arguments. Dr A. Fisher occupied the chair, and briefly introduced the speakers. The motion was moved by Mr Muir, who said that he and his colleagues were there that evening to back the right of small nations to exist. What right bad the armed forces of powerful nations to force themselves on weaker countries? The history of nations such as Great Britain and the United States of America showed that these unfair tactics had been resorted to frequently. No country had the right to force trade on another. The merchants of Britain and the United States of America took the attitude of peaceful pedlars, but when they paid their visits they came armed and with a threatening friend at the gate. It was not as if the Governments of the larger nations allowed the Chinese or the peoples of one of the other weaker countries to enter their territorities unrestricted. Chinese were not allowed into the United States of America, and there was the example of “ white ” Australia. In cases where Britain and the United States of America had forced themselves into the trade of the smaller countries it was always to the detriment "of these countries. (A voice: How do you know?) In the case of India Britain had first sent traders, and then guns to protect them. To-day, she owned the whole of India. What had been done? All the development there had been for Britain’s own benefit, and the nation had crushed the individualism of the native peoples. America had a delightful system of penetration into foreign territory. First, the American bankers made a large loan to the country; later America sent warships to protect their interests; and, finally, someone was appointed by America to control the Customs tariff of the country. In India, China, and Egypt the foreign merchants hpd the stability that came from being under the protection of their warships, and they kept the native traders down. In India tlie English had the impudence to class themselves as “ the dominant race.” Were the young pups—the scapegoats of English families — fit people to class themselves as members of a “ dominant race,” dominating such peoples as those in India? Similarly, were Yankee gentlemen who would not ride in cars with niggers fit people t® govern and penetrate loreign lands? New Zealand would not stand a Chinese invasion because a Chinese fruiterer had been annoyed or because his trade had been injured. Why should the Chinese not adopt a similar attitude in China? The first speaker representing the Bates College team was Mr Davis, who agreed that one country should not force its trade on another, but contended that when that trade was invited by rulers it was the duty of the trading country to protect its representatives by armed forces. If his opponents diet not agree with the protection of trade, did they agree with the protection of the lives of the nationals in the countries in question? ' He did not agree that the countries into which traders had been sent had suffered. They had been given the advantages of western civilisation and all that it meant, and this civilisation came only through trade. The reason why Great Britain did not go to war - with China, and the United States of America with the Central American countries was that war had a beginning and an end. Its object was to. harm the nations concerned, whereas the object of armed intervention was to protect the countries. Small nations in America had been like naughty children, and had become restless, but America, through President Monroe, had hung up the sign “ hands off,” and the only thing for her to do was to step in herself. That was not the attitude qf a grasping miser. In Egypt corrupt rule had oppressed the country until Britain had stepped in. Perhaps she had been harsh, but the general run of the natives had prospered under her rule. In Hayti, one president out of 25 had completed his term of office—a faot that indicated a state that, to say the least, was undesirable.— (Laughter.) In view of this, America was surely entitled to step in and help. For the affirmative, Mr M'Leod referred to the position at Shanghai, where the English were to be seen marching about with rifles in case their trade was harmed. Even a Chinese university man was not allowed into an English club, just because he had a little yellow in his composition, and, although the Chinese paid taxes for parks and an orchestra, they were not allowed to use or enjoy them. There was a notice, “No Chinamen and dogs allowed,” in a Shanghai park. The previous speaker had said that the weaker natives were like naughty children, and, as China had been said to be a sleeping nation, it could perhaps be called a sleeping child. The larger nations were the grown-ups, who were carousing in another part of the house and waking the child. For years the university men of China had looked on the English as equals, but the coolies had looked on the Englishman as a superman. But the Great War had altered all this, and the coolie had come to realise his true position as compared with the man outside. War certair/y began and ended, but it was the middle of a war that mattered. The correct attitude regarding armed intervention and war could be aptly compared with that adopted towards the highwayman and the murderer. England had done a lot for Egypt and India, but these countries had progressed greatly, and the time had come to alter the policy and give these countries freedom to grow. America should drop the policy of keeping out of the “ dirty politics ” of Europe, and Great Britain should stand shoulder to shoulder with America with the object of their becoming the policemen of the Pacific. All troops except those necessary to maintain law and order should be withdrawn from foreign countries. For the negative Mr Ames opened by expressing his relief, and the relief of his colleagues, that they were not going to be called upon in Dunedin to debate on prohibition. During the tour lie had noted that it was the spectacular that was given publicity, and many people had been surprised that the American debaters did not smoke long black cigars or wear big horn-rimmed spectacles. In turning to his subject he said that the nations “imposed on “ by Great Britain had suffered far more when governed completely by their own autocratic rulers. Capital had been very desirable and very useful to many small countries, and history told of the railways, the postal services, and the schools that had thus been introduced. France had been of immense benefit to Tunis, and all American text books extolled the great benefits that Great Britain bad brought to Egypt. Ho and his colleagues believed that the policy of peaceful penetration was the right one. In India Britain had introduced 200 colleges containing 65,000 men students, and 21 colleges containing 1248 women students. In the face* of those facts he could not believe that Great Britain’s object was a selfish one, ’yet those were things that had been done quietly without publicity, such as that which had been given to the oppressed few. One point was that because armed forces were present in a country, it did not follow that their full strength had to be used. Moreover, the threat of force was often sufficient to settle trouble and avoid friction. Armed intervention was a sound preventive measure, and helped with the settlement of debts that should, and had to bo settled. The only alternative was arbitration, but in a great number of cases much time was lost and the delay cost lives and money. For the affirmative, Mr Free spoke of

a previous speaker’s reference to the fact that the American policy with smaller nations was futuristic. America said; “We shall control the finance in the future.” The same applied to Great Britain, which had been a huge octopus, stretching forth its tentacles to grasp the natural resources of the weaker countries of the world. This was followed by the necessity for armed forces to protect such' points of wealth. England had started her “ peaceful penetration ” of Egypt with a bombardment from her warships. She might have built the Assouan dam, but it was built for the benefit of British capital. (A voice: That won’t hold water). The protection of capital •by armed forces was all the more unfair because a country so treated could not protest. There was no question in the mind of the world at the present time that armed intervention was merely a commercial ruse for the purpose of obtaining capital. The revolution in Panama had been used by America for the purpose of bringing into existence the treaty that made possible the Panama Canal. In conclusion, he said that commerce should win its own way without the help of arms. For the negative, Mr Guptill said that Mr Muir had referred to traders as buccaneers. He did not know how trade was conducted in Dunedin, but during the time he had spent on the waterfronts of America he had never seen a trading ship starting off with guns on every deck for the purpose of forcing the poor natives to buy a couple of pounds of tea. The Otago representatives evidently saw no reason why the natives of the small countries should not run round letting off guns and destroying a few British mines or American trading posts. That, however, was not the opinion of his team. The Chinese in America received the same protection as the American citizens, ami if one’s shirt was torn by a Chinese bimidrymaii, one had no right to punch him on the nose. Foreigners in the smaller countries were surely entitled to the same consideration, and armed intervention was the best and most succesful method of ensuring this protection when the peoples of the countries were not able to ensure it themselves. He happened to know that the sign referred to by Mr M'Leod had been removed 50 years ago. It was hardly fair to bring up in a serious debate something that had happened 50 years back.— (Laughter.) He had heard that the Chinese were not allowed into English and American clubs in Shanghai. He dared say that Americans and Englishmen were not allowed into Chinese clubs. Mr M’Leod had also said that protection was all right until a country was fit to govern itself. Ho and his colleagues heartily agreed, and wished to point out that such a policy was being adopted in China and elsewhere to-day. It seemed to him that in protecting a man’s life a nation also protected his capital, yet the affirmative speakers had drawn a distinction. Mr Free had called the American policy in Hayti “imperialistic,” but the President of Hayti had disagreed. The speaker hated to set up the President of Hayti as an authority against Mr Free, but he had said the American intervention had been for the benefit of Hayti.— (Laughter.) He saw no reason why the fact that a few Englishmen . or Americans opened businesses in foreign countries should cause alarm in those countries. Of late Australia had made a great many offers to America-,'s to come and invest capital and open up factories in that continent. If that could be done with impunity in the case of Australia, surely it could be done elsewhere. Mr M'Leod teplied on behalf of the Otago University team, and contended that works which were improvements in the eyes of Americans or Englishmen were not necessarily improvements in the eyes of Chinese. There was too much militarism in the foreign policy in China. A hearty vote of thanks was accorded the speakers on the motion of Mr W. J. Morrrell. In closing the meeting, Mr Fisher said it was hardly necessary for him to voice the opinion of the audience after such brilliant exhibitions as those given by the American visitors. After the meeting had adjourned the Bates’s College team was entertained in the women’s common room.