RAGGING FOR BISHOP

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 626, 1 April 1929, Page 1

RAGGING FOR BISHOP

ROWDY VARSITY DEBATE CHEERS, SONGS AND CRACKERS (Special to THE SUN) CHRISTCHURCH, To-day. CHEERING, singing-, whistling and throwing crackers or anything else that came to hand, the students who went to the University debate on Saturday evening devoted the whole of their -energies to making it a bright party. Earnest speakers on the platform, who were doing their best to win the debate and the tournament points for their colleges, were the butt of jokes, which became so violent during the speech of Mr. Forsman, of Auckland, that the debate had to be adjourned for half an hour by the chairman, Bishop West-Watson.

JjPHE humorists then left practically en bloc for the boxing counterattraction, which was put on with the idea of getting a peaceful debate. The rest of the evening was comparatively quiet, the speakers being interrupted only spasmodically by cheers, songs and occasional fireworks. The judges gave the verdict to Otago with 164 points, beating Canterbury College, and Victoria, 160, beating Auckland. The chairman was greeted familiarly with cries of “Dish.” He introduced the speakers and said that the subject was “That State interference with industry and commerce should be discouraged.” Mr. G. R. Bowles, Victoria, supported the motion. It was apparent immediately that the tactics of the interjectors were to be different from the usual. None of the traditional dead cats, fish or vegetables were thrown on the stage, and the students in the gallery, instead bombarded the front of the hall between the audience and the speakers with throwdowns and crackers.

believe that she did not mean booltmaker. “I have an idea,” said Mr. N. S. Woods, Otago, when he rose. This so tickled the gallery that it refused to give the speaker any peace. More effective choral work was put in, and finally the chairman had to threaten another adjournment. This ’ brought peace till Mr. L. C. Webb, Canterbury, supported Miss West-Watson’s contentions. Mr. Webb’s sober countenance and red hair was a too incongruous combination for the humourists, so “Please smile, Ginger,” they appealed right through the speech. When Mr. J. A. Stallworthy closed the debate he was struggling all the time for dominance over the loud yawns, snores and occasional quietsong sessions. Mr. J. H. E. Schroder, on behalf of the judges, announced the decision, naming Mr. Mountjoy and Mr. Stallworthy as the two best speakers. “If I may be allowed some purely personal comment,” he said, “much of the noise at the beginning was a great deal better organised and more amusing than many of the arguments of the speakers.” This brought cheers. Mr. Schroder said the speeches lacked force and humour. “Ah, Ginger should have smiled,” was the final decision of the gallery as it emptied.

Mr. Powles gallantly stuck •to the job of attacking Government interference amid an uproar of hymns and songs, most of which had beer as their theme.

The Bishop rose. “Here beginneth the first lesson.” intoned a musical student as the Bishop appealed for a fair hearing. “Amen,” again called the musical one.

A reference to Sir Joseph Ward brought forth cheers and more fireworks, and for some obscure reason interjectors began the singing of “Shall We Gather at the River” by one party, and “Ten Beers For Ten Dry Men” by another. The Bishop ' again rose, saying that the behaviour to the visiting students was outrageous, and he would adjourn the debate unless there was less noise. Mr. Powles finished with the students comparatively quiet, the two front rows of people in the hall being able to hoar what he was saying. Mr. Forsman, Auckland. was informed that he had a nice parting - in his hair as soon .as he got up. Then he was told that he had pretty shoes and handkerchief. After a few minutes it was obvious that the rowdy element thoroughly approved of Mr. Forsman’s style of personal beauty and his taste in dress; but were not much interested in his contention that there was justification for most State enterprises. “Never mind about that, tell us a story,” he was commanded. Either Mr. Forsman did not know any stories, or else he preferred to struggle against the disapproval of a serious speech, for he went on. There were more crackers, choruses, stamping and one or two fights among the galleryites whose views on most effective interjections differed. ADJOURNMENT CALLED Then the Bishop’s voice was heard long enough for it to be understood that the debate had been adjourned for half an hour. Most of the humourists then left for the boxing, leaving their fireworks behind them exploding merrily on the floor of the hall.

The debate was resumed in painful silence. The front of the stage was covered with paper and exploded crackers. Mr. Forsman recommenced his speech, defending State enterprise along conventional lines.

Mr. \\. J. Mountjoy, Victoria, refuting ihe arguments, and Air. Miller, Auckland, driving home his points with extended forefinger. This gesture roused even the quiet students left to queries of, “Is it loaded?” “Stop pointing,” whenever the gesture was used. The next debate, Canterbury versus Otago, on the same subject, followed. Miss C. West-Watson, in opening, did not take herself so seriously as most of the speakers, and got a better hearing. She said she wanted to tell the audience something about the bootmaker, but the students refused to