Let us now consider the practical difficulties and serious consequences of such a seizure. In what part of the country is the land to be seized? Who is to determine its value? It the interested party to determine its value? Suppose two European creditors wish the same land? In every case this land would be taken along the seacoast and must include a harbor for otherwise it would not be accessible. In this debate it has been, shown that the genera law of the affirmative is too broad to be statesman like; that it means an abandonment of a policy which we have shown a right to maintain; that it would subvert rather than further the cause of arbitration; that it would involve injustice and oppression toward the South American republics; that in every case it means actual war. It has been further shown that the very money award may be collected without actual war; that no nation should take this expensive method of satisfying a debt unless the land were desired for an entering wedge and lastly that the practical difficulties and serious consequences would be so great as to threaten the very existence of the South American republics and inevitably to draw the United States into conflict with European governments.

The Rebuttal Speeches.

Fox, in opening the rebuttal for the negative, said that we have interfered in the past. Would any nation risk a war to collect a few paltry dollars which it could collect in many other ways? In replay to the isolation of the territory seized, we say that not only England but all the European powers would obtain footholds and we would soon see the extinction of the republics. If one nation retains land others will; and so the land in South America will all be acquired by European nations with danger to the United States.

In opening the rebuttal speeches for the affirmative, Lyman stated that before there can be any seizure of land, the Hague tribunal must decide upon the claims. It is a decision of this tribunal, taken after due consideration of all circumstances, that we are discussing. Moreover, it has given ample time for payment and if the money is not forth-coming as agreed, the European government has the right by international law to seize and hold land. If the negative objects to this just claim, then they strike at the very heart of arbitration.

Replying in rebuttal for the negative, Lockwood pointed out that the debt could be collected in other ways than by the seizure of land; namely, by seizure of ships, by the collection of the internal revenues or by temporary holding. Considering love of freedom, South American republics would not allow their lands to be taken away without struggles. If the seizure is allowed in this case, it will establish a precedent which will allow seizures in all cases where there has been an award. In this way the European powers will acquire more territory than is due, and therefore we must look to the future as did President Monroe in the past. To protect the republics from oppression we must act in the old way. Once let in, the European governments will stay and grow stronger.

Answering for Harvard, Wagner said that the affirmative rested its case on the absolute right of a European nation to have a decision of the Hague tribunal enforced, since the tribunal has considered all the circumstances of the case. The wedge, which the negative fears, will be split, because the South American republics will become aroused to national responsibilities. Replying to the proposal of temporary holding, he cited England's occupation in Egypt which has resulted practically in permanent control. They say it would be a chance for Germany to get a basis for military operations, but presented to Americans in this light the case does not apply. Where is Cervera's fleet today? The time has come when the advantages or disadvantages such as Napoleon considered in his tactics must not rule the world but must give way to the higher power of international justice and arbitration.

Ewell closed the debate for Yale. Our first considerations should be in the interests of the United States and if we take the policy of the affirmative, our interests would surely be endangered. We should never abandon the policy which has served us so well for centuries. We agree with the affirmative that justice should be done; no nation in the past had trouble in collecting just debts in South America. We should permit punishment by other methods and resources, but never by the seizure of land which is the vital part of every country's existence. If one specific claim is allowed under these six conditions, no line can be drawn; other claims will be exacted and it will end in European aggrandizement to the detriment of the United States.

Grossman delivered the final speech of the debate. The position of the negative may be summed up in the quotation--"our first consideration should be the interest of the United States;" the position of the affirmative on the other hand is expressed in the quotation--"our first consideration should be the welfare of the world at large." The United states cannot say to a foreign nation that it shall not collect a just claim. If it does, then it is sacrificing the recognized principles of justice between nations for petty considerations of temporary advantages. This is sure to result in war. On account of revolutions the method of collecting internal revenues is uncertain; the method of temporary occupation results in permanent occupation. If the South American republics are to take their places among the national of the world, it is time that they assume the responsibilities of national respect and honor. Therefore in the interests of South America and in the interests of justice in the world at large, the affirmative believe that the United States should permit the permanent seizure of territory