Debate of May 10, 1894.Question: "Resolved, That the policy pursued by the United States of late years toward maintaining a large and powerful navy is sound.

Brief for the Affirmative.J. F. Twombly and J. T. Nichols.

Best general references: Debate in House, Cong. Rec., vol. 24, Feb. 20, 1893; Series of articles in Quarterly Review, vol. 174, p. 534; Forum, 1890, p. 323.

I. For the maintenance (1) of national pride, interest and traditions; and (2) of the respect of other nations.

II. For purposes of defence. (1) Our extensive seaboard and inadequate coast defences. (2) Interests in Alaska. (3) Continually increasing commerce.

III. For purposes of offence. (1) Prevention of European interference with the Western Hemisphere. (2) Necessary in case of war.

IV. The present the proper time. (1) Several years required for the building and equipment of a modern war vessel. (2) Cost of building very low at present.

V. The only other feasible alternative-reliance on coast defences,- unsatisfactory. (1) Inadequate for the defensive. (2) Useless for the offensive.

Brief for the Negative.C. M. Reade and H. L. Prescott.

Best general references: Nation, vol. 57, p. 341; vol. 58, pp. 114, 225, 285; Public Opinion, vol. 15, p. 76; North Am. Rev., July, 1893.

I. Our present policy is to build a navy such as to rival that of any European power.

II. The political and economic conditions of European nations require large and powerful navies, especially in the case of England.

III. The United States does not need a large navy because the prospect of war is remote by (a) isolated position; (b) economic conditions; (c) freedom from colonial complications; (d) pacific foreign policy.

IV. To build a navy beyond the needs of ordinary official and police service is bad policy, because it would require a needless expense (a) for original cost; (b) for continual remodelling on account of rapid changes in naval architecture.

V. Adequate coast defence can be provided without a powerful navy for

(Continued on third page.)