Sydney R. Wrightington '97, opened the debate for Harvard, showing how Cabinet government will tend to destroy our present system of checks and balances, and thus expose our Government to hasty and impulsive legislation. He said in part:

The keynote of the responsible Cabinet system is the immediate expression of the will of the majority. The vital votes on which the life of the ministry depends will therefore tend inevitably to occur in the House more directly responsible to the people. This means the ultimate destruction of the federation principle in our Constitution.

We have today three independent judgments on our legislation. The proposed change would attack the independence of the President's veto as well. The idea of Cabinet government is concentrated in leadership. It is a contradiction in terms that leadership should be concentrated in different places, and we have examples in England, France and Canada.

Mr. Wrightington went on to outline the President's part in legislation, citing from the history of the United States many instances where his power of veto and of convening of extra sessions had played an important part.

Judging from our own and the experience of other nations, it is inevitable that the conspicuously good points of our own system-the checks, the Senate, the President and the Supreme Court-would be gradually eaten away. In our cooler moments we have imposed constitutional restraints on possible hasty and inconsiderate action. The Cabinet system emphasizes the present will of the people; our written Constitution is the embodiment of the past will of the people.

We do not deny that exceptional cases may arise, but we ask our opponents to answer this question: Where in the Cabinet system is there opportunity equal to that given by the Congressional system for the sober second thought of the people to assert itself?