Question: Resolved, That Cabinet ministers ought to have seats and the right to speak in Congress."

Brief for the Affirmative.

FRITZ V. BRIESEN and E. JAMES.Best general references: Gam. Braford "Cabinet and the Congress," in Ann. Am. Acad. II, 289-299 (Nov. 1891), IV, 404-424 (Nov. 1893); Nation xvi, 233; xxviii, 243; xxxii, 107 (Feb. 17, 1881): N. A. Review cxi, 330 (Oct. 1870): Atlantic Mo. L, 95 (July 1882).

I. The measure would be constitutional. - (a) Nothing against it in the constitution. - (b) First Congress did not regard it as unconstitutional in the Hamilton Debate.

II. It would facilitate the transaction of business by Congress. - (a) It would remove the necessity of requiring written answers from heads of departments. - (b) It would save time, because a programme of action could be made out before Congress meets. - (c) It would ensure the pursuit of a definite policy. - (d) It would provide discussion by Cabinet ministers who are specialists.

III. It would ensure national legislation instead of sectional legislation: Ann. Am. Acad. Nov. '93. - (a) Prevents log rolling. - (b) Applies national instead of sectional touchstone: Ann. Am. Acad. Nov. 1893, p. 8.

IV. It would fix the responsibility of the legislation. - (a) On the Cabinet if it is successful. - (b) On the leaders of the opposition if it is not.

V. It would ensure free discussion. - (a) A secretary's motion would not be referred to a committee, for - (1) his motion is already, as it were, the report of a committee. - (2) Both Houses would adopt rules against doing it. - (b) A secretary's speech in the open House would be reported, whereas his speech before a committee is not reported.

VI. It would ensure impartial and unprejudiced carrying out of the platform for which the people have declared themselves. - (a) Responsibility of carrying out party platforms is fixed on Cabinet ministers.

Brief for the Negative.

E. B. CONANT and F. S. ELLIOT.Best general references: A. L. Lowell's Essays on Government, Cabinet Responsibility; Nation, XVI, 234-235; Speeches of Morrill, Cox, and Thayer, Cong. Globe, 38 Cong., 2 Sess., 420-24, 437-444, 446-448; Speech of Sen. Morrill, Cong. Record, 46 Cong. 1 Sess., 971-74; Freeman Snow, Cabinet Government in U. S.

I. The change is unnecessary. - (a) Defects of present system not inherent. - (b) Less violent means the better remedy. - (c) Congressional legislation has on the whole been effective Snow's Cabinet Govt., 125.

II. The change would be ineffective - (a) Would not secure the best features of parliamentary govt. - (1) No change of administration on a defeat of policy. - (2) Cabinet ministers not responsible to Congress: Nation, April 3, 1873, 233. - (b) Parliamentary govt. no more of a success. - (1) Home Rule Bill in England. - (2) Experience of Italy, France and Germany. - (c) Administrative work no improvement. - (1) Written reports as good as speeches: Morrill, p. 422. - (2) Members of Cabinet can not answer detailed questions offhand. - (3) Business still controlled' by committees: Nation, XVI, 235.

III. The change would be harmful. - (a) Members of the Cabinet have enough to do in their departments. - (b) Too many members in Congress now for speedy transaction of business. - (c) Executive should not have too much influence on Congress. - (d) Would give opportunity for personal attacks on the administration: Morrill's speech, p. 422.

IV. Such a system is contrary to the American spirit of government. - (a) Departments intended to be kept separate: U. S. Constitution. - (b) Cabinet an advisory board in Exec. department and not a party machine to control legislation: Von Holst, Constitutional Law, 91. - (c) Executive department a check on legislation and not intended to take the initiative: Hare, Constitutional Law, I, 180.