1895 - Debating

                             

“There will be a debate next Thursday evening at St. Paul’s A.M.E. Church on ‘Art and Nature.’ The debaters will be Prof. Gant, Prof. Williams, Mr. Wm. Holland and Mr. John Hammond.”

Hamilton Times. January 26, 1895

It was only a short announcement in the Tea Table Gossip column in the Hamilton Times but the item did attract attention.

The day before the debate was to be held, another Tea Table Gossip reference to the Art Versus Nature debate was made, informing readers that if they wanted to witness the debate an early arrival at the church would be necessary.

On Thursday evening, January 31, 1895, a large audience had indeed filled the John Street North church to capacity, if not beyond.

It was a remarkable event, and the Times reporter on hand was challenged to be able to describe what happened fully. His column, appearing in the next day’s Times follows in full :

“There was a debate in the St. Paul’s A.M.E. last evening. It was not a common, easy-going debate, such as take place at the meetings of literary societies; in fact, it was more than a debate. It was what a dramatic critic might term an oratorical-realistic extravaganza – realism was depicted extravagantly. It was a great success from every point of view and hearing and reflected great credit on all who took part, excepting the judges.

“The self-appointed master of ceremonies, ‘Prof.’ Gant announced that the subject was ; ‘ Resolved, that nature is more attractive to the eye than art,’ and that the affirmative speakers were himself and Mr. John Hammond, and the negative speakers ‘Prof.’ Williams and Mr. William Holland. Rev. Mr. Porter was appointed Chairman, and Mr. George Morton, timekeeper. Messrs. M. Beasley, M. Young, and T. Van Bradt were appointed judges by the affirmative; and Messrs. H.B. Whipple, W.A. Kerr, and P. McKay were selected by the negative to act for them on the bench. Mr. Harry Maxey was chosen as independent judge.

“With these selections being made, the audience grew rapidly and became noisy, and by the time all preliminaries were arranged, the auditorium was crowded and the noise almost deafening.

“It was arranged to allow each speaker to speak for five minutes the first time, and fifteen minutes the second round.

“The applause was thunderous as Mr. Hammond stepped forward to open the debate. He was noticeably nervous and was exceedingly cautious. He soke very generally and appeared to be on the defensive. Before he succeeded in making any points, the bell was rung and the first speaker for the negative was Mr. Holland, started in. He launched right into his subject and said he would take the vegetable kingdom first, (Laughter.) Take wheat, for instance, he said, is that not more attractive to the eye when, by the art of man, it is made into flour, and then by the art of woman, made into pies, tarts and cakes? (Cries of ‘first blood’ and ‘point one.!’ Then take cotton. Is it not more beautiful and attractive when made into ladies’ and men’s garments than it is in the natural state? The curtain was rung down and the negative was a long way in the lead.

“Prof. Gant, the hero of the night, then advanced, bowed, removed his top hat, adjusted his gold-rimmed glasses and began : ‘I protest against my opponents hypnotizing this audience. (A voice, ‘Is flying a kite an art?) The flour which is on the inside of the outside of the wheat is attractive and is nature, and that is a point for us. Is there anything more beautiful than to see the sun kissing the earth good night, to arise again in the evening – I mean in the morning. (Laughter.) It was evident that the professor was holding back for the final innings and he did not allow himself any further freedom of fancy.

“With the air of a man who knows whereof he spoke then entered upon a fifteen-minute flight of oratory flight of oratory which was freely punctuated with applause and laughter. He said: ‘Mr. Chairmanladiesgentlemenandworthy (breath) judges, Look at  ‘Prof.’ Gant’s diamonds, which are a work of art, and then look at Gant – which is the most attractive? (Cries of point! Point!) If the diamonds and gold which adorn his person are not more beautiful than he is I’ll – (he was interrupted here and could not continue for some minutes) Take the beautiful edifice – St. Paul’s Church – is not art true to it? Ain’t the lumber and timbers in it more beautiful now than they were in in their natural state. He spoke for some time and made some very funny statements. Mr. Hammond briefly reviewed the arguments of his opponents and said that hundreds of men were attracted to the bay to cut ice which was part of nature. He was rather timid and not making very good progress, he resigned a portion of his ‘time’ to his colleague. “It not the ice that the men go after,’ said Hr. Holland, arising to reply, ‘but the money, the work of art – which they get for cutting it.’ He advanced many good arguments for his side, and with the encouragement of the house, flew higher and higher amd saving his best (?) argument, ‘Take beautiful women – the ladies – are they not more beautiful when dressed – (Cries of no! no!! no!!!) and adorned with purple and fine linen.’ (Loud laughter and cheers.)

“His time being up, a small, choir sang a chorus, during which ‘Prof.’ Williams went over to the judges’ benches and spoke to one of the judges.

“The audience was very restless and called ‘Gant! Gant!!.’ The professor said some extra time was due him, but he would not speak after he got through. (Laughter.) In a confidential tone, he asked, ‘What would you rather have, a photograph of a woman or the woman herself? I’ll put it another way. If a picture of your  wife and your wife fell into the bay, which would you jump after? I have some pictures here (Voices – are they living pictures?) – and I prize them very much. The professor, amid many interruptions soke ‘of the beauty of heaven, the earth, the sun, the son (Oscar), the moon, the stars, and many other things of beauty and joy forever.

“ ‘Prof.’ Williams made another popular speech and won the favor of the audience. He was cheered and cheered again, and was assured by the audience that he was ‘a sure winner.’

“The Chairman then instructed the judges to retire and bring in their verdict as soon as possible. While the judges were out, Mr. B. Wallace, a mild tenor, sang two selections with organ accompaniment.

“The judges returned and announced that one of their number was in conversation with one of the speakers and had been disqualified. There were three for each side, and he suggested that the verdict be rendered by the audience.

“ ‘Prof.’ Gant objected to this, and the disqualified judge said that his decision was in favor of the negative. Another judge asked the members of the audience to vote, and he gave a verdict for the affirmative.

“The audience then became boisterous, and the meeting broke up in disorder, leaving the question unsettled. Both sides claimed a victory, and instructed the reporters that they would enter a protest if the ‘other’ side was declared victorious.”¹

² Hamilton Times. February 1, 1895.

The lack of a chosen winner and the remarkable number of people who attended combined in Prof. Gant’s mind. He would see possible profit to be made. In another Tea Table Gossip item, he was referred to again:  

“ “Prof.’ Gant has received several requests to have the debate which took place at St. Paul’s A.M.E. Church last night repeated. He has taken them into his serious consideration. The ‘Prof.’ says he has taken part in 95 debates and has been on the losing side only five times.”