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. 1935. Volume 6. Number 18.

Should Britain Leave League? — Otago Wins Joynt Scroll for Third Time

Should Britain Leave League?

Otago Wins Joynt Scroll for Third Time.

"We do not think the debate reached as high a standard as on past occasions, and we think the speakers failed in many cases to appreciate the point they had to debate. This was not a debate on the merits and demerits of the League. Too much time was devoted to fulsome praise or rank condemnation, and competitors failed to grasp the necessity for a logical argument."

These remarks of the chief judge, Mr. G. G. G. Watson, tempered by praise for a high standard of pronunciation and diction, were received with applause. The debate was by no means dull, however, and without exception speakers showed a knowledge of the subject which surprised International Law Students. The confident oratory of Mr. Meade and careful phrases of Mr. Stewart won Otago a well deserved success, while everyone agreed with the judges that Miss Johnson's speech "was the outstanding performance of the evening."

V.U.C. V. O.U.

A perfectly groomed Miss Shortall arose to tell us that the League has failed to foster internationalism. It has no bond of unity, its underlying principle is imperialism, Europe against the world. Miss Shortall was clearly nervous, but in her reply, especially, she brought home some telling thrusts.

Mr. Meade was confident, chatty, shook his hand at us too much and used his strong voice to advantage. He scorned the words of the bard, "O weak man that words of woman can sway," and defended the principle of the League. Its value is in what it offers; security and protection. It only remains for the nations to take advantage of their opportunity.

Mr. Brown also told some stories and must have nearly spoken himself into a place. He contended that the affirmative only thought of the 'possibilities of the League," instead of what is actually done. It has been estimated that a mosquito can fly for fourteen days without stopping but, says Punch, "the trouble is they don't." The League is a European clique-an unsuccessful attempt to foist a constitution on the nations to maintain the Versailles status quo.

Mr. Stewart has a splendid speaking voice and, like his team mate, pushed his points home with the right hand. He claimed that the League did foster internationalism both in its peace endeavours and in its campaign against social evils. Its work in the latter field alone justified its existence. Our withdrawal would mean the death of the League and a return to alliances and isolation. The first is odious to the Dominions, while the second is impossible to-day.

Both leading speakers made effective replies after which the curtain was drawn on the first act, while the A.U.C. and C.U.C. teams were being collected. The earlier debate, was, strange to relate, almost free from interjection of any kind, but A.U.C. and C.U.C. aroused the audience from its lethargy.

A.U.C. V. C.U.C.

Miss Johnson wasted no time in placing a clear before us. Unlike Victoria she did not attack the League as failing in attaining internationalism but argued that membership jeopardises the safety and integrity of the Empire. The Empire co-operated loyally but national hatred and distrust still remains. Peace, like charity, should begin at home. We do not want a pax Britannica under the orders of Geneva.

Mr. Wah has a fine command of English. He recognised the impatience of the affirmative for a better world, but challenged them to show that leaving the League would do it. The interests of the Empire are mixed up with the League. In these days of air attacks Britain would not hold a position of pre-eminence if she pursued a policy of isolation while alliances will, as in the past, lead to war.

Mr. Braybrooke smiled serenely through all of many interruptions and he spoke without acceding to the many requests to speak up. His attitude of "odi profanum vulgus et arceo" did not appeal to the audience but his speech bore the hall-mark of full preparation. The main point of his argument was that Britian, by continuing to support the League, was risking the disintegration of her Empire. The League is merely a "futile attempt" at peace, best described as "international discord and collective insecurity."

Miss Hunter was nervous, but her speech was a meritorious performance, especially when it is remembered that she only started debating this year. A League which had settled numerous dangerous disputes, and had done so much to control slavery and the opium trade and other social evils was not "futile." "Peace is indivisible," without the League we must revert to a system of alliances, more arms, more allies, and so till it breaks.

Mr. Wah and Miss Johnson summed up, the latter being particularly effective. We then sat back and awaited the verdict, while Mr. John Carrad entertained us in the one and only Carrad way.

After a long retirement the judges placed the teams in the following order: O.U., A.U.C., V.U.C., and C.U.C., while the three best speakers were Miss Johnson, A.U.C., Mr. Stewart and Mr. Meade, O.U. Supper was then served and the party continued upstairs into the early hours to the tunes of the piano accordeon.

That Weir House should break out occasionally and wake the neighbourhood is excusable, but what excuse can we offer for the party of Victoria House girls who were parading Manners Street at 11 45 one Saturday night, singing in lusty voices, "all sorts of things," according to our informant, who paused to listen and sadly passed on?