REBUTTAL.

Hill, who spoke first in rebuttal for Princeton, asked the affirmative to reconcile the peaceful effect of the Owen's claims with the conditions existing at the present day. England not only laid claims to suzerainty, but took action in accordance with these claims, when she refused to accept arbitration, alleging that she had suzerainty. The Boers acceded to England's demands on Aug. 19-21, on condition that England merely kept her promises, made in the convention of 1884. The Boers would have acceded to the English claims, which the affirmative maintain, would have brought peace and prosperity to South Africa, on condition that England should give up her claims to suzerainty, according to the treaty of 1884, and their terms, had they been accepted, would have effectually prevented any war.

Bruce, instead of Mayer, as was expected, opened the rebuttal for Harvard. He said that England did not bring on the war, since the Transvaal issued an ultimatum which no nation could stand, and since the condition of two-thirds of the people in the Transvaal was such as to bring on war in any case. There is no probability of a more peaceful attitude toward the Uitlanders in future, because the younger Boers are more hostile to them than the older men. The change was bound to come, and would have come by a revolution, if England had not interfered.

Jones in rebuttal stated that England's claims of five years' residence in the Transvaal for naturalization, are inconsistent with the rule of six years in England. There should not be a condition in the Transvaal thus different from that in England.

The South African Republic did not force this war unjustly, for England already had her hands at the throat of the Transvaal.

Suzerainty was the basis of the English claims, and the arguments before introduced by Princeton on this point had not been met or refuted.

Mayer, the next on rebuttal for Harvard, called attention to the fact that during the whole debate the negative had not even defined suzerainty. As for this suzerainty, England has claimed no more than any other nation, that of protection to her subjects in a foreign land. The negative has not attempted to deny the presence of a civilizing power in the Transvaal, resulting from the presence of the English; and what is more, they admit that the grievances against the English are many. The people of the Transvaal, though they recognized the value of the English and invited them to their country, yet did not give them even ordinary protection.

Weston opened by defining suzerainty as the general right of one nation to interfere in the internal affairs of another nation over which the right exists. In this controversy, the negotiations hinged on suzerainty and not on international law. England refused to accept specific reforms and the question came down to one of franchise. The Transvaal asked England to stand by her statesmen and courts, whose opinions were that suzerainty did not exist. England's magnanimity had been tried and found warning. She never claimed that the conventions have been broken nor would she accept the remedies of grievances because she claimed the right of suzerainty. Finally, discord has been made by England and harmony was not aimed at, as the Harvard speakers insist.

Morse, who made the final rebuttal speech of the evening, summed up the preceding speeches of both sides. The claim that the condition of affairs in the Transvaal was intolerable, stood untouched by the negative. International law gave England the right to interfere for the protection of her subjects and even of the natives--a right promised by the Boers in the negotiations regarding the conventions. But conventions aside, England had the general right to protect her citizens, and Princeton did not deny this. The South African troubles had to be faced by England, but, in facing them, she did not demand government control. Wherever English subjects were maltreated, there harmony could never exist