HD 7/O6 UC-NRLF C\J o THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXA; DEPARTMENT OF EXTENSION r f Extensio * <>f the University of Texas established for the purpose of rendering service to the peopl< the State generally, and especially to those who are unable to att he University The work of this Department is carried on nr the following five Divisions : PUBLIC DISCUSION DIVISION. This Division has immediate charge of 'The University In scholastic League/' This is an organization of all the -school* Texas for the purpose of promoting contests in debate, deck] .ion, and athletics. The University is desirous of aiding schools in the matter of training for citizenship; and also to teachers in developing, controlling, and standardizing a thl< activities in the schools. This Division is also engaged in the preparation of refere Jists and material on various subjects of general interest, and collection of small traveling libraries for loaning to citizens Texas upon application. Books and pamphlets thus loaned n be kept not longer than two weeks. The person to whom matei s loaned pays the carriage (postage or express) both ways Eei ence lists, together with more or less material in the way of boo pamphlets, or bulletins, are now ready on the following subiee Commission Form of City Government; Compulsory Educatic educational Improvement and Social Reform; Initiative and R erendum; Municipal Ownership of Public Utilities; Old Age Insi ance; Penitentiary Refrom; Prohibition and the Liuor Problei Tariff and Free Raw Materials; and Woman Suffrage. Clippings and miscellaneous material have also been collect on various other subjects. Correspondence is invited. PUBLIC LECTURE DIVISION. t Provision has been made to allow members of the staff of instrt tion to deliver public lectures in Texas towns, when asked to do ; About a hundred lectures in fifteen different lines of work are n< available. (CONTINUED ON INSIDE OF BACK COVEB.) I BULLETIN 252-7 13-2m-3467 OF E UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS NO. 284 FOUR TIMES A MONTH ?.NSION SERIES 34 JUNE 22, 1913 PUBLIC DISCUSSION DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EXTENSION r nter collegiate Debates and Bibliographies On Old Age Insurance And Banking and Currency Reform PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS Entered as second-class mail matter at the postoffice at Austin, Texas T) * PEEEACE. This bulletin contains the affirmative and negative speeches of the University of Texas debating teams in the intercollegiate de- bates of 1913, together with bibliographies. The main speeches only are included, arranged in the order of affirmative-negative in each case. The University of Texas is a member of two intercollegiate debat- ing leagues: The Triangular Debating League, consisting of the State Universities of Colorado, Missouri, and Texas ; and the Penta- gonal League of Southern State Universities, consisting of the State Universities of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Texas. In the Triangular League the question for debate was, Re- solved, that a Policy of Compulsory Old Age Insurance should be adopted by the Federal Government, Constitutionality waived, Mr. Eugene H. Cavin of Galveston and Mr. Douglas Tomlinson of Hillsboro supported the affirmative of this question in a debate with ihe University of Colorado, held at Austin on April 18, 1913, the negative winning by a vote of two to one-. On the same date a Texas team consisting of Mr. Charles I. Francis of Denton and Mr. George W. Dupree of Clairette upheld the negative of the same question in a debate with the LTniversity of Missouri at Columbia, Missouri, the Texas team winning a unanimous deciion in this debate. In the Pentagonal League series the question for debate was. Resolved, that the Plan for a National Reserve Association ax pro- posed by the United States Monetary Commission offers a desirable remedy for the defects of our present Banking and Currency Sys- tems. Mr. Theodore A. Gatchell of Austin and Mr. Sylvan Lang of San Antonio upheld the affirmative side of this question in a debate with the University of Mississippi at Austin, Texas, April 11, 1913. The Texas team won a unanimous decision. On the same date a team from the University of Texas, consisting of Mr. Winfree W. Meachum, Jr., of Anderson and Mr. Tom B. Ramev, Jr., of Tyler upheld the negative of the same question in a debate with the Universitv of Tennessee at Knoxville, Tennesse. In this debate the affirmative side won the decision by a vote of two to one. It is interesting to note that two of the members of the Texas team's were former district winners in the debates of the State De- bating and Declamation League. M261421 UNIVERSITY TEXAS INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATING, TEAMS, 1913. In order from left to risftt, Texas-Colorado Debate: Eugene H. Gavin and Douglas Tomlinson. and George W. Dnpree. Texas-Missouri Debate: Charles I. Francis UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATING TEAMS, 1913. In order from loft to rio-lit. Texas-Mississippi Debate: Theodore A. Gate-hell and Sylvan Lang-. Texas-Tennessee Debate: Tom B. "Ramey and Win free W. Meacrmm, Jr. COMPULSORY OLD AGE INSURANCE. FIEST AFFIRMATIVE SPEECH. BY EUGENE H. GAVIN, OP GALVESTON, TEXAS. Mr. Chairman,, Honorable Judges, Ladies and Gentlemen: In offering the plan of old-age insurance which we of the affirma- tive advocate tonight, we offer a plan which England, after forty years of experiment with industrial insurance, has seen fit to follow as the best remedy for the relief of her old-age poor ; a plan which has operated in Germany for half a century, and which has been found to work so successfully that this year the plan in Germany was extended three-fold; a plan which Denmark, which France, which every great civilized country in the world to-day, with the single exception of these United States, is successfully operating and constantly extending. Briefly, the plan is this : Throughout the laborer's active life, a small monthly premium is to be paid for the support of old age. Of this small premium,, the laborer pays a part, the employer pays a part, and the government pays a part. The money thus raised is to be used for supporting those who would otherwise be objects of charity in their old age. In the discussion this evening, it is my purpose to present the needs of some plan for the relief of old age poverty in this country, and the intrinsic merits of the plan which we propose, while my colleague will describe the successful working of the plan in every great and civilized country in the world, except in these United States. Year by year, as this country grows older, there is a gradual in- crease in the percentage of the old people in our population. The census of 1910 shows that from 1900 to 1910 the number of people in this country who had reached the age of 65 and over increased 869,000, or according to population, an increase of two-tenths per cent. A large number of this steadily increasing class are too poor to provide for themselves. This offers the steadily increasing prob- lem of providing for them. There are in "this country 18,000,000 wage earners. There are 1,250,000 former wage earners who have reached the age of 65 in want, and are forced to depend upon public and private charity for support. Now, if everyone of these 1,250,000 old age depend- ents had a monthly income to take care of him, there would be no old age poverty. If we could give just such an income to every 8 . ', / University of Texas Debates old age dependent,. ij; would certainly be desirable; if we could give this income at a very small cost, it would be more desirable; if we could give this income at no additional cost at all, it would certainly be most desirable. Let us see. In an effort to take care of these 1,250,000 former wasre earners who have reached the age of 65 and who are in want, the people of this country are spending annually in nublic and private charity, $220,000,000. Yet, although we are spending enough monev to adequately care for our old-age poor, they are not adequately cared for. Why? Because of the lack of a systematic method for col- lecting and administering the money which is now being spent in a haphazard manner ! Thus we see that this situation exists : We have 1,250,000 old age dependents. We spend enough money to provide for them. But they are not provided for. Why ? Because we have no systematic method for collecting and administering the money which we are spending! Now, ladies and gentlemen, what is it that we propose to do? We simply take the 1.250,000 old age dependents we have. We then take the $220,000,000 we are spending. And what we propose to do is to provide a systematic method for collecting and administering this money instead of allowing it to be wasted in the present haphazard manner. Can such a plan be worked? Let us see. We have 18,000,000 wage earners. We are spending $220,000,- 000 to take care of the 1,250,000 wap-e earners who reach old age dependency. But we are spending this money under a very haphazard plan, the administration of which costs a waste- ful per cent of the capital. But we propose to do this: Dividing this $220,000,000 by 18,000,000 wage earners, we find that $12 per wage earner must be raised per year. Dividing thig^ $12 per year by 12, we find that $1 per wage earner must be raised per month. Dividing* this $1 per month by three, that is, the part of the premium paid by the government, the employer, and the em- ployee, we find that the monthly premium which must be paid in order to put our plan into successful operation is 33^ cents. Now. how about the cost of administration? Whv even in Germany, the country against which the opponents of our plan complain most bitterlv, the administration only costs 7^ ner cent. So we find that under our plan, the $220,000.000.00 necessary to support the aged poor, can be raised at the small cost of a premium of 33^ cents. Furthermore, under our plan, the admin- istration of this money only costs 7} per cent, whereas, under the present plan the administration of this money costs many times as much. In other words, we simply replace chaos with system. Our Compulsory Old Age Insurance 9 plan is not one cent of additional cost. We simply propose that the money we are now spending shall be collected and administered in a systematic manner, instead of the present haphazard manner, in order to save the waste of misdirected expenditure. How much better is our plan than the present plan of individual saving ! Under the present plan of individual saving, each laborer must provide all the money which will be needed to care for him in his old age. But only one out of every fourteen ever reaches the age of 65 years, and needs this annuity. Therefore, the present plan is costing the laborers as a class, fourteen times as much as is necessary. To illustrate : Suppose fourteen laborers are serving under the present plan to provide for old age depend- ency. Suppose, for example, $100 apiece will be needed to sup- port those who reach old age dependency. Now we have seen that only one of these fourteen laborers reaches old age dependency. So. while these fourteen laborers must each save $100 apiece, mak- ing a total of $1400 which must be saved, vet only one of them reaches old age dependency, and, therefore, only $100 is needed to provide for old-age dependency of this class of fourteen. So we see that in providing for old age dependency under the plan of individual saving, for every $100 needed, $1400 must be raised. Therefore, under our plan, $1 of savings will go as far as $14 of savings will go under the present plan. Then, since our plan does everything that the present plan of individual saving could do, and only costs one-fourteenth as much, isn't our plan better than the present plan? But granting the merits of our plan, some have questioned the right of the government to make it compulsory. Ladies and gentlemen, the government itself is based ur>on the right of society to control individuals where the welfare of society demands it. Individuals are compelled to pay taxes. Why? Because the welfare of society demands it. Individuals should be compelled to pay the premium on an old-age insurance policy ! Why ? For the same reason that the payment of taxes is compul- sory: Because the welfare of society demands it! Because the rights of the individual are subordinate to the rights of society ! But let us see if the compulsory feature we propose is as bad as its opponents would have it seem. Fearing compulsion be- cause of the way it sounds, it opponents say : Let the plan be vol- untary. But a voluntary plan could only succeed* if the laborers would voluntarily take advantage of it. Then, if the laborers will voluntarily take advantage of the plan anyhow, we can do no possible harm by adding a clause which requires them to do so, because you do not affect a man when you require him to do that 10 University of Texas Debates which he will do anyhow. Suppose the law which requires men to wear clothes when they go out on the street were to be repealed ! Yet surely we would all wear clothes voluntarily. Then suppose that the next day the law requiring men to wear clothes were to be reenacted ! How much would that affect us ? Not one jot ! Why? Because it would simply require us to do that which we would do anyhow ! So, if our opponents attack this compulsory feature, they find themselves in this embarrassing predicament: If the voluntary plan will not succeed, then the system, if adopted at all, must be compulsory. On the other hand, if the voluntary plan will succeed, it must be universally adopted. If it will be universally adopted anyhow, then the addition of a clause requiring it to be adopted will not in fact coerce anybody. Now, having seen that the compulsory feature of this plan is not at all the paternalistic bogie its opponents would have von believe, we next naturally inquire : Is the compulsory feature sim- ply a harmless addition, or will its adoption do anv affirmative good ? Even if the experience of other countries had not demon- strated that the compulsory feature is necessary to the successful administration of the plan, the compulsory feature would still be rendered desirable because of the money it will save. Any volun- tary system must be carried on by solicitors. Insurance company statistics show that it costs 40 per cent of the premiums to solicit and collect them. Therefore, any voluntary nlan would cost 40 per cent more than will our plan, which dispenses with the services of these solicitors and collects the insurance through the employers. If a voluntary plan, then, would succeed, the addition of a com- pulsory feature could do no harm: since the compulsory feature is necessary to the successful administration of the plan, and, further- more, since the compulsory feature will save to the aged poor 40 per cent of their savings which under a voluntary plan they would lose, can any one seriously contend that the compulsory feature is not to be desired ? But aside from the good which thus directlv flows from the plan, there is another, I would almost say a greater reason for its adoption. Picture to yourselves the "worn-out toiler, turned from the ranks of the industrial army because he is too old to work. Where does he go when the day of his usefulness is past? Some- times he goes to the poor-house; sometimes he goes to the street- corner to beg; sometimes he goes to the home of some poor son or daughter, where, although he knows there waits the loving wel- Compulsory Old Age Insurance 11 corne, he also knows he is too heavy a burden. So the burden~of~ the old man's support falls at last upon the father of a family upon whose shoulders too many burdens already bear down. What is the result? In thousands of cases the children of this family must give up their education and go to work. The burdens must be borne ! The child must help ! And of what avail in such cases, let me ask you, are your com- pulsory education and your child labor laws? What can they do when the wolf must be driven from the door? A thing must be possible before it can be done. Give us this system. Give this old man his insurance policy, and let him go to that home not as a burden; it may be as a help. Give the child of this home a chance, and let his footsteps turn from the factory whistle and answer the school bell. Then will you build up a healthy citizen- ship of free Americans ! Will you reject this reform, and turn these thousands of chil- dren away from the door of equal opportunity which we Americans love to boast is open to all? Will you reject our plan when we have shown you that there is a steadily growing need for some plan for the care of the aged poor in this country, because the percentage of aged poor among our people is steadily increasing: that our plan makes adequate provision, and without additional cost. beca.use it simply means that the money which we are now spending improperly, shall be spent properly; that our plan i? better than the present plan of individual saving, because our. pi an does everything that the present plan does and onlv costs the laborer one-fourteenth as much; that the compulsory feature is to be desired, because it harms no one, is necessary to the successful administration of the plan, and will save to the aged poor forty per cent of their savings, which under a. voluntary r>lan would have to be paid to solicitors; that it will relieve thousands of families of a burden which will enable the children of these fami- lies to go school. It is for these reasons, together with the fact that commilsory old age insurance has been adopted with marked success in every civilized country in the world, except in these United States, that we of the affirmative submit that the plan is necessary, practicnl and just, and should, therefore, be adopted in this country. 12 University of Texas Debates FIRST NEGATIVE SPEECH. BY GEORGE M. DUPREE, OF CLAIRETTE, TEXAS. Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: A system of compulsory old-age insurance, administered by a host of Federal officials, reaching out over forty-eight states of diverse interests and different economic conditions, involving the incomes of twenty-five million laborers, in order that a few thousand workmen may become so-called financially independent this is the proposition which the affirmative is called upon to sup- port. It must be understood in the beginning, that the question is not whether this old-age insurance is better than our present conditions, but whether or not such a system recommends itself to the American people as a fixed governmental policy. Do you know, gentlemen, that in Germany under compulsory old-age insurance., pauperism is actually increasing, while in this country, according to government statistics, pauperism is decreasing? Do you know that the countries adopting old-age insurance have made it a mere incident of unemployment, accident, invalidity and other phases of insurance? Do you know that every nation adminis- tering forms of old-age relief has adopted that policy? We of the negative oppose the adoption of such a measure for the following reasons : First: The conditions of our society are not such as to war- rant the adoption of the proposed plan. Second: A system of compulsory old-age insurance admin- istered by the Federal Government is inexpedient. Third : A system of compulsory old-age insurance administered by the Federal Government is impracticable, and, Fourth : A consideration of the evils that would arise from the administration of such a system does not recommend its adoption as a desirable remedial measure. It is my purpose to show that this system is unnecessary and inexpedient. My colleague will show that such a system is im- practicable and undesirable. The supporters of compulsory old-age insurance must show that the conditions are such as to warrant the adoption of this system in the United States. They must show that the proposed plan is in conformity with American customs and ideas, and that such a measure, considering the social forces now at work, will solve the problem of old-age dependency in an expedient, desirable Compulsory Old Age Insurance 13 and practicable manner. We wish to provide for such denendents^ but it does not necessarily follow that we should adopt the plan proposed by the opposition. Let us investigate the necessity for adopting any such plan. The American laborer is not to be compared with those of other nations. He has a social standing, a force of organization behind him, and. the individual influence of social welfare of which no other nation can boast. Our dependent workmen are now cared for by mediums of support based upon our peculiar economic con- ditions and American means of relief, mediums direct in their nature, relieving the individual laborer according to local condi- tions. An organization characteristic of our American methods is the United Charities. This agency, though still in its infancy, is the real basis for the solving of our poverty problem without resort to a plan not in conformity to our American ideas and customs, a medium having for its aim the better conditions of the poor and for its basis the solving of social diseases by trained students of such conditions. Whatever its faults may be, there will be remedies in the future, for the American laborer is vitallv inter- ested in this question. The purpose of the American mediums is to allow individual responsibility, to furnish the motive for encouraging the laborer to provide for his future welfare, and when he fails, to extend to him the needed aid. But aside from the gigantic social forces which, when estab- lished, will alleviate our old-age problem in accordance with our local conditions and industries, there are certain fundamental objections to the expediency of the proposed measure. The opposi- tion wish to impose this Federal system without regard to our diverse interests and different economic conditions. France, Den- mark, Australia, England and other nations have adopted forms of old-age insurance, but did they adopt the insurance policy which Germany administers? No, they have adopted policies peculiar to their own economic conditions and industrial labor. Germany, a manufacturing nation, adopted her insurance to meet the needs of such a class of workmen. Denmark, a dairying cen- ter, has conformed her insurance to meet the needs of this class; Australia, an agricultural country, has adopted a svstem to pro- vide for this principal class of laborers; England a manufacturing and commercial nation, has provided a medium to meet the needs of that larger class of workmen. Those nations with mining as a principal industry must conform their insurance to meet that 14 University of Texas Debates particular class of employees. Texas represents a greater diversity of interests and conditions than all Germany. New Jersey is closely allied to Denmark in the conditions of its labor problem; Kentucky or any of our agricultural and stock-raising states pre- sents economic conditions of labor much resembling those of Aus- tralia; the New England States presents the manufacturing and commercial interests that are to be found in Great Britain. Yet the opposition propose a Federal system operating uniformly in the agricultural, manufacturing, the dairying and the mining sections of the United States! They suggest a scheme which proposes to unite the labor conditions of Germany, Denmark, Australia and England all of which exist in the United States under one iron-clad system of insurance, while each of these countries has found it expedient to adopt that insurance policy best suited to their labor interests. But the greatest evils of the Federal compulsory old-age insur- ance system are not that it is unnecessary, nor that it is incapable of adapting itself to varying economic social conditions, but its greatest objection is to be found in the complexity which is inher- ent in the administration of such a law, Germany, after a practi- cal experiment of twenty-five years under the most favorable condi- tions, is confronted with these three indictments by Mr. Frieden- burg, an organizer of the system, and for years President of the Imperial Commission. He says, first, that the state insurance, specifically designed to replace pauperism and charity, is itself merely pauperism under another form ; second, that the system has fostered to an incredible extent the German evil of Bureaucratic formation, for, seemingly sound in theory, it has become a burden to the German nation on account of its complex and intricate administrative machinery; and third, that the whole system has become a hot-bed of fraud and corruption, and, therefore, a source of demoralizing influences. Compare, if you p]ease, the facilities for administering such a law in Germany with the facilities that exist in this country, and yon can not help but see that the evils which have developed in that military nation, used to the rule of an iron hand, would be augmented in this country one hundred fold. Consider for a moment the fact of a Federal system of commilsory insurance reaching out over forty-eight states of which Texas alone has more varied economic conditions and a wider range of industries and population than the entire German Empire. Consider the vast amount of clerical work required for the weekly assessment Compulsory Old Age Insurance 15 scheme; the hoard of collectors, inspectors, committees, bureaus, and courts required for the administration of the plan. Consider the opportunity offered for political pull, for the corruption of officials, and I believe that you will realize the expediency of rejecting such a measure as is proposed. On the dockets of the German Courts to-night there are four hundred thousand insurance cases demanding .adjudication, and although the assessments against the employers have constantly increased, the cry of the masses on the one hand is still heard that "Capital is the oppressor of labor. We demand a fair division of the profits of industry." On the other hand, we hear the quiet warning voice of the ?tudent of political economy, and the admonition of the patriot, that "The moral fibre of the people is weakening, and the spirit of class hatred is becoming more intense." So great has become the complexity of the German system, so numerous the evils arising under the administration of the law, that students have been led to character- ize this scheme as "the cancer which is destroying the vitals of our country." Now, ladies and gentlemen, if there exists in the United States to-day these great remedial agencies to which your attention has been directed, and which promise to effect a desirable solution of this problem in the future, in conformity with American methods and customs, then the plan of the affirmative is wholly unnecessary. That the plan of a compulsory old-age insurance system in this country is inexpedient may readily be seen when one takes into con- sideration our diverse interests and varied economic conditions, our different standards of living and wages paid to American laborers, and finally, the plan is inexpedient because of its com- plexity of administration and its effect upon individual character. If my colleague can show that it is both impracticable in admin- istration and undesirable in its effects upon the individual and upon our citizenship in general, then we ask you to reject a system which is not onlv incompatible with our varied economic conditions, but foreign to the social tendencies of our country, to the charac- teristics of our citizenship, and to the policies of our government. S-ECOND AFFIRMATIVE SPEECH. BY DOUGLAS TOMLINSON", OF HILLSBORO, TEXAS. The most accurate insurance statistics show that for everv one thousand persons living at the age of twentv, five hundred will be living at the age of sixty- five, and two hundred of these will be 16 University of Texas Debates in poverty and want. There are in this country to-day 1/250,000 human beings with human flesh and blood and hearts who are suffering the miseries of old-age poverty, too old to work any more, begging or dependent. My colleague has shown in dollars and cents that these aged poor can be cared for under our plan without additional cost what- ever, because our plan replaces the present unorganized wasteful- ness with an efficient system. Our plan will solve the problem. All other plans are admitted make-shifts. No other plan in the history of the world has ever pretended to solve the problem of old- age dependency. In the history of mankind, only three other gen- eral plans have ever been offered : first, pensions or insurance by pri- vate corporations like the Steel Trust; second, Free Government Pensions; and third, Voluntary instead of Compulsory Govern- ment Insurance. Of these three plans, pensions for aged employees by private cor- porations is the worst, because many corporations use the scheme not so much to provide for their aged employees as to add to the company's profit. For example, the Cambria Steel Company makes a profit of $11,822 a year from their philanthropic old-age pension department. Further, old-age insurance for employees by private corporations prevents mobility of labor. The laborer must stay with his one company continuously for from fifteen to forty years in order to get his insurance; he must stay with his company no matter if labor is little needed there and great indus- tries are crippled for lack of labor elsewhere; if the laborer is dis- charged or quits he loses his old-age pension forever; he is tied to the one company, regardless of sanitary conditions, regardless of the kind of work to which he may be shifted ; he becomes a kind of chattel of the company, especially during his declining years, because if he leaves their service he can never hope for an old-age pension. In brief, insurance or pensions for a^ed emplovees by private corporations would tend to reduce free American laborers to the position of the serfs of the Middle A,ges. Old-age pensions by private corporations adds to the profits of the corporations, but from a social standpoint this plan is a bitter failure. Free Government Pensions is the second plan. In this country we know what a pension system means; it means freelv voting money out of the government treasury into the individual pocket. To relieve old-age dependency we would have to give a free pension to every needy and deserving old person of the nation. Our oppo- nents can not defend such a system for this country because the cost would be prohibitive, and because our experience with military pen- Compulsory Old Age Insurance 17 sions shows, to speak plainly,, that many congressmen buy vote with pension money. Fifty years removed from any serious war, we are spending more than $158,000,000 a year in pensioning mostly "old soldiers" who never .smelled gunpowder. Why? Because they vote for the man who will vote them the money. Xow, adopt the universal policy of voting monev out of the gov- ernment treasury into the individual pockets of all aged persons, and there is before each politician and each party the constant temptation to attract votes by offering larger pensions to each per- son, and by lowering the age limit offering free pensions to larger numbers of people. The fact that many congressmen do not vote against excessive military pensions when only the old soldier vote is involved shows the danger of beginning the universal pension policy involving all voters. Our opponents will not defend such a system unless,like drowning men, they catch at a straw. Our plan of insurance guards against this danger by making each person help to pay through early life for the annuity he is to get in old age; thus there is no temptation to the laborer to vote for a larger annuity that he needs for his own protection, because he himself has to help pay for it during long years before he can expect the benefits. England tried the old-age pension system for four years and gave it up to adopt our plan of compulsory insurance. The free old-age pension system is a failure. For relieving old-age poverty, only one other plan has been tried in the history of civilization. The third plan is that of voluntary rather than compulsory old-age insurance by the government: offer old-age insurance to all, just as under our plan, but do not require the laborer to take advantage of it; let him take advantage of it voluntarily. This plan looks so good on its face that every nation has tried it first, but each nation has in time abandoned the voluntary plan to accept our compulsory plan. The reason is clear. Under the leadership of Gladstone, England adopted the plan of voluntary old-age insurance by the government in 1864. Prac- tically no one took advantage of it. In 1872 an expert committee was appointed to revise the plan, another expert committee again revised the plan in 1892. England tried every variety of volun- tary old-age insurance, and in all the forty years literally did not write as much insurance as the London Prudential writes in ten days. France and Denmark had the same experience, and dropped voluntary old-age insurance to accept our plan of compulsory insur- ance. Massachusetts has recently inaugurated the voluntary insurance 18 University of Texas Debates system a.nd has issued only fifty-six old-age policies. Wisconsin adopted the voluntary system and, at the last report I could get, so few applications for insurance had come in that their bureau had not even begun to issue policies. Canada tried the voluntary plan, sent broadcast over the Dominion their advertisement bulletin on "Comfort in Old Age." Canada has issued two hundred and forty-four policies. Voluntary old-age insurance is a failure. The system of pensions by private corporations is a failure; the system of free government pensions is a failure ; the system of vol- untary old-age insurance is a failure. On the other hand, our plan of Compulsorv Old-A^e Insurance is succeeding in every great civilized country in the world except our own. Germany adopted it in 1889. Everv laborer whose income was below $476 was required to take out old age insurance, the cost being divided between the laborer, the employer, and the government. This was the experiment of 1889 ; if it had been a failure, the whole scheme would have been repealed long ago; if it had been only a moderate success it might merelv have been con- tinued, in operation without extending its SCOT>P but the nlan of compulsorv old-aere insurance has proven so universallv satisfactory that it has been constantly extended. Tn 1899 it included all labor- ers whose incomes are $1250 a year, almost three times as much as it was at first. The plan we propose is succeeding in Germany. No political party in Germany, no great economist or sociologist in Germany now advocates the repeal of the law. Their management is so efficient that it costs only ?'J per cent for litigation ; the remaining 91-J- per cent goes directly to the benefit of the insured. Dr. Paul Kaufman, President of the German Imperial Insurance Department, says: "The successful handling of the labor prob- lem by means of social insurance is one of the strongest factor? in Germany's constantly growing industrial progress." Dr Spieckler says: "We have secured higher efficiency in our industries due to the increased worker's efficiency, all brought about by reliev- ing our workers from worry and distress" for .the future. Under this plan for increasing the efficiency of their laborers Germany has advanced from fourth to second place in the world's trade; the property of her people has doubled in value; there are 18.000,000 savings banks' accounts; wages have risen on the average for unskilled workmen about twenty-five per cent, for skilled work- men about fifty per cent, and in certain trades even one hundred per cent; there are fewer unemployed in Germany than in any Compulsory Old Age Insurance 19 other nation in the world; the death rate has considerably dimin- ished; the length of life has risen from 38'.1 years to 48.8 .years. Germany is satisfied with the plan we propose. These facts impressed England so strongly that the Trades Con- gress of Great Britain sent a commission to study the German situation. This commission officially reported back that there were literally no slums in Germany. Then England adopted a compulsory old-age insurance system. The law went into effect on July 13, 1912. England's method of administration is simple and efficient. Each laborer is given an insurance card; at the end of the week he carries this card to his employer who affixes to it an 8 cent insurance stamp; the laborer then carries this card to the postoffice, gets his credit, and the postmaster forwards the card to the Central Bureau. England, after studying and experimenting with every known system for relieving old-age poverty, at last adopted the plan of compulsory old-age insurance which we of the affirmative offer to-night. The Liberal party in England passed their compulsory old-age insurance law; the conservative party no longer declares against it; the Labor Party through its leader, Mr. Eamsey Mac- Donald, has officially -declared in favor of it. England is satisfied with the plan we propose. France began experimenting in 1850, and by 1910 reached the goal at which all nations ultimately arrive Compulsory Old-Age Insurance. All whose incomes are $600 a year or less are required to insure, the government paying a liberal part of the cost. The French system has one especially noteworthy provision for encouraging thrift. The laborer may contribute a larger pre- mium than is required, and so by his own foresight and saving pro- vide for himself a larger annuity on reaching the pension period. France is satisfied with the plan we propose. Without going into the detailed system of other countries, it is sufficient to say that the experts of all European nations assem- bled at Rome in 1908 and again at The Hague in 1910, and both conferences declared officially that compulsory insurance was the best and most efficient means of solving the problem of old-age dependency. Germany says compulsory old-age insurance is a good thing: our opponents tell Germany that she is mistaken, that the system is bad. Denmark says compulsory old-age insurance is good; our opponents say it is bad. France says old-age insurance is good; our opponents still insist it is bad. England affirms that compul- sory old-age insurance is good; our opponents waxed mighty in 20 University of Texas Delates stature and wisdom deny it. The experts of all of the nations in Europe in conference twice declare that the combined experience of their .nations has shown that compulsory old-age insurance is the best solution of the problem. Our opponents can escape this overwhelming testimony only bv saying that their theories overturn all of the facts of Europe ; that in the interpretation of these facts they themselves are wiser than the World's congress of experts! That would be mighty hard on these experts, but I guess they could stand it. Our affirmative case rests upon this rock: I have shown that every other plan that has ever been tried has failed; the nations one by one have abandoned them to take up our plan ; our svstem . has never failed anywhere ; no nation having ever adopted old-age insurance has ever abandoned the policy, but on the other hand each has constantly extended the scope of its operations; my colleague has shown that our plan can be adopted in the United States and will care for old-age dependents without adding one penny to the annual $220.000.000 we are at present spending ineffectively for the purpose, because our plan will substitute a system for present unorganized wastefulness. Every other plan has failed ; our plan has alwavs succeeded ; hence our opponents are driven either to accept our proposed commileory old-age insurance or to defend the barbaric policy of making no provision whatever for old-age poverty. Dr. Eeinhart, a mission- ary, discovered one wild heathen tribe in the far interior of Thibet whose custom it was to drive their useless aged from the tents to the wilderness to starve. Are the gentlemen on the negative will- ing to say that society in America should be allowed to cast off its aged poor to starve ? Honorable Judges, upon this Gibraltar we rest our case: every other plan has failed ; our plan of Compulsory Old-A^e Insurance has always succeeded, and it can be adopted in this country with no additional cost, SECOND NEGATIVE SPEECH. BY CHARLES I. FRANCIS, OF DENTON, TEXAS. Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: My colleague has shown that the adoption of a compulsory old- age insurance law by the Federal government is unnecessary and inexpedient; unnecessary, in that there are now at work on the Compulsory Old Age Insurance 21 problem certain gigantic forces which will in the "end effect _a . desirable solution; inexpedient, in that 'our varied economic resources and peculiar Federal form of government preclude an effective administration of the system. He has pointed out that the inherent complexity of the proposed measure will destroy what- ever benefits might theoretically be expected to result from the adoption of the plan; and he has shown that a compulsory insur- ance law is unsuited to the individualistic sentiments and ideals of the American people. The opposition in their constructive argument have said that old-age poverty is due fundamentally to our unfair industrial sys- tem, together with the naturally improvident character of the average workman, and that the only way that this condition can be remedied is through the agency of a compulsory old-age insurance law. Gentlemen, we are constrained to take issue with the affirma- tive in the very premise upon which their entire argument is founded. If the average workman is improvident of the future, can compulsion remedy this defect of character ? Just as the mus- cles of the body are not strengthened but rather weakened bv inac- tivity and idleness, so are self-reliance and independence taught only by the exercise of these qualities. We are, therefore, unable to discern how governmental paternalism can ever instill these quali- ties in the American laborer, of the lack of which the affirmative complain. NOT can we understand how in the face of modern investigation and research, the opposition can contend that poverty is due to the unfairness of our economic system. We contend that it is due primarily to social and not to economic causes. To illustrate my meaning: Prof. Divine of Columbia University says,