News
Garber Announces Advisory Committee for Harvard Law School Dean Search
News
First Harvard Prize Book in Kosovo Established by Harvard Alumni
News
Ryan Murdock ’25 Remembered as Dedicated Advocate and Caring Friend
News
Harvard Faculty Appeal Temporary Suspensions From Widener Library
News
Man Who Managed Clients for High-End Cambridge Brothel Network Pleads Guilty
The Seniors won the first of the interclass debates, held last night between the Seniors and the Juniors. The question was Resolved, That the representation of the several states ought to be reapportioned in accordance with Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment." The Senior team, P. H. Eley, A. G. Alley and T. H. Reed, supported the affirmative. C. P. McCarthy, E. B. Boynton and E. E. Smith were the Junior speakers.
The Seniors defined the question as meaning that there was to be no abridgment of the right to vote, and maintained that the property and educational exactions of the northern states are not such abridgments, but expedient regulations. The negative failed to meet the affirmative in their definition of the question, but maintained that all regulations were abridgments, and that the Fourteenth Amendment was applicable to the whole of the country if applicable at all. But they contended that the amendment ought not to be enforced: first, because it is hostile to the desires of the South; secondly, because it will be injurious to the negro; and thirdly, because it will depreciate manhood suffrage throughout the country.
The speeches of the Seniors were commendable for a skilful use of persuasion. On rebuttal both sides were weak and the arguments were almost always destructive.
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.