Newspaper Page Text
THE MAROON TIGER
Page Fifteen
Bob Clark is fuming over the kicks they gave
him last month, well that’s just too bad . . . you
shouldn’t be a “sugar daddy” . . . poor sap, maybe
if you had come from Athens, Ga., by the way
of Washington, instead of vice versa you’d be
able to learn the “ways of women.”
Big Norvella Clark has found his “grande pas
sion” is the former “dashing frosh fern.—What
a lovely couple.—
“Bill” Thomas and “Bro” Johnson are giving
the Creaghs their one “big break.”—They seem
to like it, too.—I mean the Creaghs.
The Editor is busily guarding his treasure,
the charming Miss C. M. R.
“Izzy” Chisholm has any number of Morehouse
men standing on their heads, viz: ?? who?? — I
know one guy who is really “that way” about her.
—Give him a break, lady.—
Justine G. has scooped again. — Lavel Smith
has been caught in the toils of poise, grace,
smiles, and personality.—
Folk—don’t go home Christmas, ’cause all the
fun is gonna be right here . . . you never saw so
many sparks fly in all you life.—The stuff will be
here and so will the mess.—Girls coming home,
fellows visiting—somebody out in the cold and I
don’t mean to miss a thing.—
I have only to say—Be careful.—
’Til the University System goes co-ed, I remain,
Your Monthly Commentator.
THE FOURTH INTERNATIONAL
DEBATE
By Charles R. Lawrence, Jr.
For the fourth time in five years the Chi Delta
Sigma Debating Society presented the students
of Morehouse and the population of Atlanta with
an International Debate between the Morehouse
team and a team representing England. The
team debating Morehouse this year was from Ox
ford University. The question was, “Resolved:
That a Written Constitution Is a Hindrance
Rather Than a Safeguard to Social Progress.” The
English team took the affirmative and the More
house team the negative side of the question.
The first speaker for the affirmative was Mr.
Richard U. P. Kay-Shuttleworth who is a gradu
ate of Balliol College, Oxford, and is planning to
enter the Law School on his return to England.
He made it known plainly that the mission of
the English team was primarily one of good-will.
He announced to us that his colleague would
spend most of his allotted time in wise-cracks. He
spoke of his appreciation of American hospitality,
and incidently pointed out some of the defects of
a written constitution. In his constructive ar
gument, Kay-Shuttleworth pointed out several
instances of social legislation being held up by
the Supreme Court in judging the acts unconsti
tutional.
Mr. Butler Alphonso Jones, ’38, of Dothan,
Alabama, was the first speaker for the negative.
His argument was well prepared and well deliv
ered. He defended the written constitution on
the grounds that it “guaranteed” to the people
whom it governed certain rights, while the un
written constitution could only “grant” those
those rights by acts of the legislative body.
Mr. S. W. J. Greenwood, also a graduate of Bal
liol College, Oxford, and in his last year in the
Law School, was the second speaker for the af
firmative side. He came up to all of his col
league’s claims for his wit. However, he did not
take the large part of his time in the wise-cracks
that his colleague had predicted that he would.
He soon entered into a discussion of the question
at hand. He pointed out the fact that the Amer
ican people had made a noteworthy step in de
claring their independence from England because
of “taxation without representation,” and had
given themselves a government by which a writ
ten document could give them in fact the same
sort of government.
Mr. J. C. Long,Jr., ’36, of Atlanta, pointed out
in a well-planned argument, that a constitution
that is written protects the people against the
mal-effects of changes that come about too hastily.
On the whole, the debate was very interesting.
As debaters, the Morehouse team did better than
the English team. On the other hand, the Eng
lish team was much better equipped with wit.
The men from Oxford threw aside all of the
usual formality that we usually connect with de
bating and won their audience if not the debate.
If you didn’t like what they said, you at least
liked the way that they said it. For the fourth
time in the five years over which the four Inter
national Debates have extended, the men of
Morehouse were masters of the situation. On
left the debate with a feeling that everyone had
been pleased and much thought had been stimu
lated by the speakers of both sides of the ques
tion.
After the debate, there was a reception at the
home of President and Mrs. Archer at which
members of the always loyal Morehouse Auxiliary
acted as hostesses. The ladies poured us tea and
we were afforded an opportunity to talk with
the debaters on both teams. The Englishmen
proved to be even better conversationalists than
debaters.
When I retired early Friday morning for my
Thursday night’s sleep, in my ears were ringing
the closing remarks of the last rebuttal speaker,
Mr. Greenwood. He said in part, “I hope that
because of this debate there will be a feeling be
tween the students of England and the students
of America so that if our countries should ever
be on less-friendly terms, you can say, ‘One night,
not so long ago, two young Americans and two
young Englishmen met on the same stage and
discussed a question together. They convinced
me that regardless of the tricks of diplomats,
there is not much difference between the young
people of the world.”
PATRONIZE MAROON
ADVERTISERS