Rongotea y. Feilding Debating Societies.

Feilding Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 18, 21 July 1896, Page 2

Rongotea y. Feilding Debating Societies.

A public meeting was held in the Rongotea Temperance Hall last evening between the Feilding and Rongotea Debating Societies. There was a large attendance and Mr J. Sanson presided. The subject under discussion was " That national co-operation is preferable to our present system of individual competition," Rongotea leading in the affirmitive and Feilding opposing. The debate was decided on the style of the speakers and arguments produced. The Rev Mr Dawson acted as judge on behalf of Rongotea, while Mr H. L. Sherwill acted in a similar capacity for Feilding. The judges awarded points independently and at the- conclusion of the debate these were compared and judgment was given in favor of Feilding. There were five debaters on either side, Messrs C. Anderson, S. Knight, H. Sanson, C. Bo water and Y. G. Ransom representing Rongotea, while Messrs T. Watson, J. Cobbe. J. H. Stevens, F. F. Haggitt, and T. West represented Feilding. Mr C. Anderson opened the debate, describing competition as a spirit of rivalry where no man considered his fellow. National co-operation meant everyone co-operating, and he quoted post, telegraph, railways, and various other institutions under the control of the Government to show that benefits would accrue to a nation by the State undertaking a greater responsibility and supervision over the means of production. He argued that if it were right and proper for the Government to control the institutions named, it was right they should hold all things. Individualism wanted a dividend bat the State did not require to get more than working expenses. Mr T. Watson combatted the arguments of the previous speaker, contending that the individual settlers were responsible for the roads and bridges in in the early settlement. It was no use demolishing the {present system unless it could be shown that something better was raised in its place. National cooperation meant that the whole nation banded to gether, and each individual had nothing, but everything belonged to the Government. Mr H. Sanson contended that national co-operation was Christian socialism. Mr Cobbe argned that the state control of all means of production and distribution was impracticable, and if practicable would be pernicious. He went on to show that men work hard to gain an independence, while a State management would encourage laziness. That a state was no better or worse than the people who composed it. National cooperation was socialism, which would introduce the worst body of civilisation and be demoralising in its influence. Mr Knight thought they should do their best without money and their ambition should be to assist each other and control excessive luxuries. Mr Stevens ridiculed the proposal for the State to undertake such extensive responsibility while the individual effort was suppressed. The proposal of State control of all things was discredited by human nature. ( Mr Bowater instanced the vast number of the unemployed, which he contended was the outcome of the present system of individualism. r Hn« degeneration of the race was due to the poor and the unemployed, who were reduced to their condition by the evil of competition. , Mr Haggitt thought national co-oper-ation would be a retrograde step as it would interfere with the liberty of the subject, and it was wrong for the State to look after the individual when be could look after himself. Mr Ransom reviewed the State institutions at present in existence and wished to extend the principle. Mr West argued that the institutions named were the natural functions of State which should not interfere with the in» dividual efforts of the people. Competition urged men on, and capitalists competed with each other as much as laborers. Mr Watson replied to the speakers on the other side and Mr Anderson reviewed the contentions of his opponents, concluding the debate. The speakers were well received by the audience, and Mr Watson, on behalf of the visitors, thanked the Rongotea Society and the audience for tbe reception accorded them. The judges were also thanked. At the conclusion of the debate a supper was kindly provided for the visitors by the members of the Rongotea Society.