3. Travel to all this region will be restricted if a municipal water system is allowed to store water which drains directly from it, for

a. There is enormous danger of pollution, according to the statement of Horace McFarland, President of the American Civic Association, who has given careful consideration to the subject of sanitation of municipal water supplies. He says: "Not only in the reservoir itself would danger from pollution exist, but a greater danger would arise through the possible pollution of the watershed feeding the reservoir proposed, for

(a) A single case of 'walking typhoid' on the borders of the lake proposed to be established as a reservoir could start an epidemic of typhoid fever in the city to be supposedly benefited, causing the loss of hundreds of innocent lives, for (1) As an example, the city of Reading, Penn

sylvania, has had eight hundred cases of typhoid fever within less than eight weeks through the pollution of a supposedly guarded water supply.

(2) The epidemics at Plymouth, at Ithaca, and elsewhere are well known to have resulted from exactly the conditions which might be expected in respect to the city of San Francisco.

(b) One case of 'walking typhoid,' again, affecting a camper or stroller, or ordinary visitor, who had acquired typhoid on his way into the park, could make the proposed water supply a source of desperate danger to the city supposed to be benefited.

(c) Nothing is better established in the modern sanitary science than that the watershed of any domestic water supply must be jealously guarded and kept free from human occupancy at all times if that water is to result in other than the dissemination of disease, and the bringing about of untimely death."

D. It is unreasonable to destroy a unique national treasure for the sake of enabling the city of San Francisco to effect a saving in money, for

1. The chief advantage of the Hetch-Hetchy plan is that it will enable the city to save the difference between the cost and the market price of water power for lighting its streets and public buildings and for operating, possibly, a municipal street railway, for

a. Marsden Manson says (California Weekly, June 18, 1909): "It is the possibility of a power supply that makes this proposition preeminently attractive."

CONCLUSION

I. Since it is scientifically shown that the present source is potable, II. Since there are many other practicable sources of water-supply for San Francisco,

III. Since the Hetch-Hetchy dam-lake would be only a rough imitation of a natural lake for a few of the spring months, an "open mountain sepulchre" during the rest of the year, and IV. Since it is legally questionable and morally unjust for the nation to give away a public treasure for the special economic profit of the city of San Francisco,

Therefore: The nation should not allow the city of San Francisco to utilize the Hetch-Hetchy valley as a municipal reservoir.

THE VALUE OF INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATING

A GENERATION ago educational institutions paid so little attention to debating that it was difficult, if not impossible, to find a university offering systematic courses in argumentation and debate. To-day most of our larger universities and many of the smaller colleges offer an opportunity for training of this kind. Yet of all the forms of public speaking which have been used for intercollegiate contests, the debate is the most recent in development. It was preceded by the declamation and the oration, both of which are still in vogue. Each of these three forms has a distinct purpose of its own. The declaimer confines himself absolutely to the interpretation of the thought and expression of others. The orator interprets a composition of his own, a composition formal in nature and structure, and written for a particular time and place. The debate may be looked upon as a

kind of oration in which the speaker must adjust his words to fit the immediate occasion and to refute the argument of an opponent. It is probably this extempore nature of debating that has made it so popular for intercollegiate contests.

Yet, regardless of its popularity, there are many who doubt the value of debating. Some claim that the debate is too formal, too rigid in rule, too artificial in aim, too unlike the contests in which the debater will find himself placed after graduation. Some doubt the value of the study given to the questions debated, on the ground that the propositions are often so vague and so cleverly phrased, that the time which should be spent on vital issues is wasted in quibbling over the meaning of terms. Others condemn the intercollegiate debate upon ethical grounds, arguing that the desire to win often tempts the debater to use dishonest methods, and that, at the best, the debater must often act the part of a hypocrite in supporting opinions in which he does not believe.

But should not the department of public speaking in the university be provided with some adequate means of showing to the public what it can turn out in the way of finished public speakers? The success of the debater depends upon the same elements which make for the success of all public speakers; he must be able to reason logically and to express his thoughts orally in a clear, convincing, and persuasive manner. In order to do this, a careful analysis and an unprejudiced investigation of the subject are indispensable. Such habits of analysis, once formed, will be of inestimable value to the debater in later life. They contend also that the questions debated are usually great public issues, and that the study of such questions prepares the student for the most intelligent citizenship. Those who believe that debating has a positive moral value defend their position by arguing that the debater is put upon his honor; that he is taught self-control and respect for the opinions of others; and that he does not act the part of the hypocrite by defending either side of a question, because of the fact that the public knows that this is only a necessary requirement of the game.

The secondary school succeeds in training the memories of students, but often fails to instill correct methods of thinking. It is to be greatly regretted that the opinions of most men are largely the result of personal interests, popular opinion, or other forms of prejudice. One of the highest aims of debating is to cultivate in the student such an attitude of mind that he will base his opinions upon sound reasoning

rather than upon desire or caprice. Successful argumentation depends upon systematic thinking, which in its turn is based upon a strict adherence to the rules of logic. The debater soon learns to analyze questions carefully and to hold only those opinions which he has reached logically. The success of the individual depends to a great extent upon his ability to pick the essential things from those which are not essential. On choosing a vocation there are many who have not the power to analyze properly their own ability and to select the thing they are best fitted to do. The debater must examine his questions critically, he must learn to determine with precision just what the question involves, what is irrelevant and what essential. When he has once acquired this ability to analyze a situation, he carries it with him throughout his life. Debating, then, teaches the power of sound and independent thinking. The logical thinker is often placed in an awkward position if he cannot readily and fluently express his thoughts. Argumentation aims not only to produce logical methods of thinking, but also to train the student to express his thoughts orally in a straightforward and effective manner. He learns to adapt what he has to say to the immediate occasion and to a particular audience. He must not only convince but he must persuade; he must move his hearers into action. All of this depends upon a mastery of the art of speaking, an art which when once learned by the debater, will ever remain a valuable asset.

The educational value of the study of the question itself must not be overlooked. In making a thorough analysis of the propositions ordinarily used for intercollegiate debates, the student is preparing himself for useful citizenship. The questions used are usually public issues, problems which the student will be called upon to help solve in later life. A careful and consistent study of such public problems means simply that some day the debater will bring to the solution of these problems a well trained-mind and a knowledge sufficient to produce good results.

The objection that the questions debated are not of the kind which interest the public might easily have been sustained a few years past, but to-day the cry of vague and unfair questions cannot be consistently raised. The Round Robin system of debating leagues eliminates all intentional unfairness in the phrasing of questions. What could be the object in trying to phrase a proposition so as to favor one side or the other, when by the Round Robin method each university sends out both an affirmative and a negative team? And as

to the use of vague terms in the question, terms which might result in a quibble over their meaning, the debaters realize that to waste much time in this way means that less time will be left for the discussion of vital issues. They know that the use of any questionable methods only serves to antagonize both audience and judges.

It must be admitted that the debater may have to argue for a cause in which he does not believe, but so far as the intellectual appeal is concerned, if a man has a thorough knowledge of the subject and if he is fair minded, he should be able to present the arguments of one side quite as well as those of the other. The lawyer must be willing to plead a case whether he is sure of the absolute truth of his position or not. There is some truth on both sides of nearly every question, and in the case of the lawyer at least, the value of discovering and presenting the truth of either side of a proposition cannot be overestimated. It is only in the matter of persuasion that the questions of belief and morality assume any definite relation, and even from this standpoint there is nothing in debating that can really be considered immoral, for the public realizes that the speaker may be forced by circumstances to argue against his convictions. He is not practicing deception, but merely playing the game. Would it be consistent to argue that the villain in the tragedy is a bad man simply because he plays his part to perfection? It is just as inconsistent to accuse the debater of hypocrisy when both he himself and the public know that he is merely playing his part. The debater wants the practice in sound thinking and effective presentation of his thought; all that the public wants is a thorough discussion of both sides of a live question.

Just as the football and baseball game represent the finished product of athletic training, so the intercollegiate debate represents the finished product of forensic training. Just as the athletic contest arouses enthusiasm for manly sports and inspires loyalty both in the athlete and in the onlooker, so the intercollegiate debate arouses a general interest in debating and other forms of public speaking, and at the same time instills a deeper loyalty into the hearts both of the debaters and of those who hear the debate. Both the athlete and the debater may be tempted to win by unfair methods, but both realize that they have at stake not only their own honor but also the honor of the institution which they represent. In the same way that the gridiron star learns to accept an occasional blow which he feels he has not deserved, and yet maintains his sportsmanlike bear