Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

SMAD. An Organ of Student Opinion. 1934. Volume 5. Number 5.

Burns Wins Town Hall Debate

page 8

Burns Wins Town Hall Debate

The certainty with which some of us held to the cause of cancellation of War Debts received a bad knock on Saturday, August 4th., when Robt. K. Burns put the case for the other side. No pain was fell with the blow, however, for Mr. Burns's pleasing personality, courtesy in debate, and persuasive presentation were an anaesthetic, or, to use his own metaphor, he greases up one side and down the other.

Prof. von Zedlitz was chairman, and in welcoming Mr. Burns he expressed sentiments with which the audience was heartily in accord.

"Honk" Scotney, who opened the debate, had a powerful opportunity in saying the first words.

"Twenty years ago this very day—," a significant pause, in it the audience felt the horror and futility of all the intervening years, and Mr. Scotney drove his advantage home. He traversed the course of the world's failure, and blamed it on to the War Debt issue. He argued that the Allied debts were entirely represented by goods and services rendered by U.S.A., yet that nation would not accept payment in kind. Gold was demanded, though, in fact, the whole world's gold supply could only half meet the debt. There was no way the debts could be paid, and the only course was to cancel them.

"Bonk" was at the top of form, and the audience sat back in their chairs, quietly confident that his case was impregnable.

Mr. Burns was popular from the start when he told a story about his little sister. (Sundry interjections from the boys who are always sceptical about little sister stories).

The fundamental problem as he saw it was the question of whether the Allies could pay or could not pay, and if they could, were they willing to? The loans which the greater nations granted to Eastern and Central Europe with which to purchase arms were damning evidence, apart from the sums they spent on arming themselves. Mr. Burns drew applause when he stated that the best way to prevent another war was to make sure that the nations pay for the last one. Neither had the Allies asked for cancellation, they all professed willingness to pay— if they could.

Max Brown, seconding the motion, said that all repayments that had been made, to date, had actually been out of further loan money from the U.S.A. "Make the foreigner pay" and "Buy American" were mutually abhorent slogans. If Congress were prepared to accept payment in goods it would mean further hardship to thousands of Americans discharged from doomed industries.

Max has seldom spoken to better effect. It was one of his best efforts.

Mr. Burns, rising the second time, challenged the statement that America would not accept payment in goods. Payment was quite possible by this means, as well as by certain other, such as the transfer of American securities. Payment also was preferable. Sanctity of international interests was essential to preserve the stability of the private debt structure. Cancellation would direct further money to arms expenditure, and in any case it only meant a transfer of the burden from the European to the American taxpayers.

Mr. Scotney and Mr. Burns summed up their cases, thrust for thrust, and the audience waited for the decision of the judge.

The Solicitor-General had no hesitation in awarding the palm to Mr. Burns. Apart from subject matter, Mr. Burns gained in advantage by his persuasive manner and good humour. The others were too much inclined to scold America.