DEBATE OF JANUARY 16, 1889.Question: "Resolved, that the United States should complete and control the Panama canal."

Brief for the Affirmative.E. L. Jellinek and C. D. Wetmore.

Best general references: Nation, XXX, 90; Message of President Hayes, March 8, 1880, in Cong. Record 10, 1399; Wharton's Digest of Int. Law, II, 184244.

I. An inter-oceanic canal would be of great advantage.- U. S. Grant in North Am. Rev., vol. 132, p. 107.

II. Such a canal should be controlled by the United States.- Ibid; Nation, XXX, 90; Rodrigue's The Panama Canal, c. 2; President Hayes' Message, March 8, 1880, in Cong. Record 10, p. 1399.

III. The Panama route, under existing circumstances, is the most feasible, and therefore should be completed.- Popular Science Monthly 31, p. 323, and 32, p. 447.

IV. The United States should complete the Panama canal as the best means of getting such control.- The Nineteenth Century, XXIII, 203.

V. The Clayton-Bulwer treaty is no bar to the control of the Panama canal by the United States, as it is voidable at the pleasure of our government.- Wharton's Digest, vol. 2, pp. 238, et seq. (a) The object of the treaty has never been accomplished.- Letter of Frelinghuysen in Foreign Relations of the U. S. for 1882, pp. 271-283; Pomeroy's Int. Law, 357. (b) England has persistently violated the treaty.- Frelinghuysen to Lowell, 5 May, 1883, Foreign Relations of the U. S. for 1883; Wharton's Digest, c. II, 184. (c) The stipulations in the treaty have become inoperative, (a) by surrender, (b) by acknowledgment of no ground of action.- Wharton's Digest, vol. 2, S 150 f. (e) The supplementary treaty stipulated for has never been contracted.

VI. (1) The change of circumstances and conditions justifies the abrogation of the treaty.- Wharton's Digest 2, pp. 238 et seq; Lawrence's Essays in Int. Law, 142; Tucker's Monroe Doctrine, p. 73; Pomeroy's Int. Law, sec. 281, Ortolan, vol. 1, 99; Heffter, sec. 98, p. 221; Bluntschli, 239, 256; Hautefeuille, vol. 1, pp. 8-10; Hall's Int. Law C. X. (2) The welfare of the United States demands the maintenance of the "Monroe Doctrine."- The Inter-Oceanic Canal and the Monroe Doctrine, in House Reports, 3d sess., 46 Cong., 1, p. 224; Pres. Hayes'message, March 8, 1880; Correspondence of Sec'y Blaine, and of Sec'y Frelinghuysen in Foreign Relations of the United States for 1882 and 1883; Tucker's Monroe Doctrine; Wheaton's Int. Law, Dana's note, 97-112.

Brief for the Negative.J. P. Nields and F. W. Thayer.

Best general reference: J. T. Lawrence's essays on Int. Law, 89-162; The Nation, vol. XLVII, 487.

I. Such action is forbidden the United States by treaty.- Lawrence's Essays, 89-142.

II. By the provisions of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, the United States agreed never to exercise "exclusive control over the said canal," "to guarantee the neutrality thereof," and "to invite other states to enter into similar stipulations."- United States Treaties, 377-380.