DEBATE OF DECEMBER 5.Question: "Resolved, That the dismissal of Lord Sackville by the administration was reprehensible."

Brief for the Affirmative.O. M. Anderson and C. A. Bunker.

Best general reference: Wharton's Digest of International Law, I, 610-612.

1. The British Government should have been allowed time to examine and consider the evidence promised by Mr. Phelps. The Sackville correspondence Boston Transcript, Nov. 7, 1888.

2. The hasty action of the U. S. government was contrary to the rules of diplomacy, which provide, (a) that sufficient reasons should always be given.- Pradier Fodere, Cours de Droit Diplomatic, II. 533; (b) that a minister should be dismissed only for very grave reasons.- Calvo, Dictionaries de Driot International II, 160.

3. The action was contrary to the practice and professions of the United States in previous cases. (a) Genet case.- Message of the president, Dec. 5, 1793; (b) Pussin case.- National Intelligence, Sept. 22, 1849; (c) Crampton case.- Annual Register, 1856, 277; (d) Catacazy case.- Sen. Ex. Doc. 42 Cong. 2d Sess., vol. I, Doc. 5.

4. The motive of the action of the administration was to make political capital.- Nation, Nov. 8, 1888.

5. The action was ungenerous and not in keeping with the dignity of the nation.- Spectator, Nov. 3, 1888; The American, Nov. 10, 1888.

Brief for the Negative.G. H. Black and W. L. Monro.

Best general references: Bayard's report in Boston Herald of Oct. 31, 1888; Public Opinion, Nov. 4, 1888.

1. The reply to the Murchison letter is an affront to the people of the United States. (a) It implies insincerity on the part of the administration, by saying that the party in power knows it would lose popularity in power knows it would lose popularity if it openly favored the mother country.- Murchison correspondence in Public Opinion; (b) It passes strictures on the government by saying, "allowance must be made for the political situation.- Ibid; (c) It impugns the motives of the senate in the rejection of the treaty, by saying that the Canadian question was reopened by the republican majority in the senate.- Ibid; (d) It is a case of foreign interference in American politics; (e) The above offences were aggravated by the newspaper interview.- N. Y. Tribune, Oct. 23, 1888.

2. The action of the administration was justifiable. (a) Criticism of the action of our government in international affairs by a minister to this country is not permissible.- Jackson case, in Foreign Relations of U. S., Vol. III, p. 299. (b) Imputations on the honor of a country by a minister accredited to that country are inconsistent with international comity.- Poussin case in National Intelligence of Sept. 22, 1849. (c) Foreign interference between a people and its government is not to be tolerated.- Genet case in Hildereth's U. S., IV, 415. (d) All ministers accredited to a country must be persona grata to that country.- Wharton's Digest, I, p. 84.

3. Every government can terminate at will, all interiors with a minter who becomes yersona non grata.- Ibed.