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.

III. The Clayton-Bulwer treaty is not voidable, but is binding on the United States, and is part of "the supreme law of the land."- Hall's Int. Law, 281-283, 293, 300; Constitution, art. VI, sec. 2.

IV. Even if voidable, there are great obstacles and objections to the purchase and completion of the Panama canal on account of: (a) The expense; (b) the difficulties of construction; (c) the difficulties incident to its situation.- Nation, vol. 47, 487, Forum, vol. 4, 279, Forum, vol. 3, 412; Popular Science Monthly, vol. 32, 447.

V. Any interoceanic canal should be constructed, owned and managed by private individuals and not by the government.

VI. In such construction, the Nicaragua route possesses great advantages over the Panama route in; (a) ease and economy of construction; (b) natural approaches; (c) distance saved, etc.- North Am. Rev., vol. 132, 107; Ninteenth Century, vol. 23, 195.

VII. Governmental control would tend towards a policy of aggrandizement and extension of territory.- Nation, vol. 39, 538.