Question: "Resolved. That it will be the duty of the next Congress to build additional new ships for the navy."

Brief for the Affirmative.

F. VON BRIESEN and R. WALCOTT.Best general references: Cong. Record, vol. 24 (Feb. 20, 1893); (Pendleton) vol. 27, p. 2543 (1895); (Adams) vol. 27, p. 2575; (Lodge) vol. 27, p. 2709; (Higgins) vol. 27, p.2573, (Chandler); vol. 27, p. 3583; Forum, 1890, p. 323; N. A. Rev., vol. 149, pp. 54-65, and July 1893; Overland Monthly, xiii (April 1889), xxiv (Oct. 1894) (Lieut. E. Gualtrough); Statesman's Year Book 1894, pp. 1080-1084; Report of Naval Committee of House, Cong. Rec. vol. 27, p. 2484; Naval Register for 1894; Report of Sec. Herbert in Abridged Documents (H. C. 2000) 424-429; Mahan's Sea Power, 1-89.

I. It is desirable for the maintenance of national respect: Mahan's Sea Power; Pres. Cleveland's message, Dec. 1885. - (a) To protect Americans abroad. - (1) Madagascar. - (2) Blue fields. - (3) Colombia. - (b) To add weight to demands. - (c) To prevent insults. - (1) Case of Allianca.

II. It is necessary for purposes of defense. - (a) Extensive seaboard 16,000 miles and Alaska. - (b) Increasing commerce: U. S. Report on Commerce, 1894. - (c) Inadequate coast defenses: Gualtrough. - (d) International complications can not be avoided. - (1) Chile. - (2) Samoa. - (3) Hawaii. - (4) Nicaragua. - (5) Great Britain as to Behring Sea. - (6) Spain as to Cuba. - (e) Monroe Doctrine should be enforced.

III. It is necessary for purposes of offense. - (a) Prevention of European interference with America. - (b) Necessary in case of war: Comparison of Navies in Herbert's Report.

IV. Coast defenses alone are inadequate: Bartlett in Cong. Rec. vol. 27, p. 2547.

V. Cessation of building would be an abrupt break in the policy adhered to since 1886: Herbert, p. 424. - (a) Additional ships should be ordered by next Congress for - (1) Usual time for building a battle-ship is 5 years. - (2) Cramp can not construct the best in less than 2 1/2 years: Higgins in Cong. Rec. Vol. 27, p. 3576. - (b) Provision for - (1) Sudden shipwreck, cf. Reina Regente. - (2) Ordinary wear and tear. - (3) Filling place of older ships made nearly useless by modern improvements.

Brief for the Negative.

M. A. ALDRICH and J. W. WORTHINGTON.Best general references: Nation, vol. 54, p. 41; vol. 59, p. 230; vol 60, p. 138; A. B. Hart, The Chilean Controversy, in Practical Essays; Cong. Rec. 1894-5, pp. 2504, 2546, 3577; Senate Rep. No. 174, 51st Cong., 1st Session; House Exec. Doc. 49th Cong. 1st Session, No. 28.

I. The policy of the U. S. is opposed to a large navy. - (a) Not pugnacious. - (b) No entangling alliances: Century, vol. 37, p. 951 (Apr. '89).

II. An increase is unnecessary. - (a) Navy is already considerable: Rep. Sec. of Navy for 1894, p. 6. - (b) More ships are authorized: Boston Herald, Mar. 5, 1895. - (c) No analogy with European navies - (1) Small commerce. - (2) No colonies. - (3) Isolation. - (d) War is not probable. - (1) No strong neighbors. - (2) European nations desire peace with U. S. - (w) Respect our neutrality. - (x) War with U. S. would precipitate general European war. - (y) Great foreign investments in U. S. - (z) Arbitration probable.

III. An increase is undesirable. - (a) We already have a deficit. - (b) Navy expensive: Cong. Rec. 1894-5, p. 2492. - (c) Promotes jingoism. - (1) Barrundia and Chile: A. B. Hart, above.

IV. Money may be better spent. - (a) Encouragement of commerce. - (b) Better diplomatic service. - (c) Reserves of ordnance: Rep. Sec. Navy, 1894, p. 16. - (d) Adequate coast defence: Cong. Rec. 1894-5, p. 2546.