Resolved: That armed intervention is not justifiable on the part of any nation to collect, on behalf of private individuals, financial claims against any American nation.[27]
Brief of Affirmative Argument
First speaker—Chafee
Armed intervention for collection of private claims from any American
nation is not justifiable, for
1. It is wrong in principle, because
(a) It violates the fundamental principles of international law for a
very slight cause
(b) It is contrary to the proper function of the State, and
(c) It is contrary to justice, since claims are exaggerated.
Second speaker—Hurley
2. It is disastrous in its results, because
(a) It incurs danger of grave international complications
(b) It tends to increase the burden of debt in the South American
republics
(c) It encourages a waste of the world's capital, and
(d) It disturbs peace and stability in South America.
Third speaker—Bruce
3. It is unnecessary to collect in this way, because
(a) Peaceful methods have succeeded
(b) If these should fail, claims should be settled by The Hague
Tribunal
(c) The fault has always been with European States when force has been
used, and
(d) In any case, force should not be used, for it counteracts the
movement towards peace.
Brief of Negative Argument
First speaker—Branch
Armed intervention for the collection of private financial claims
against some American States is justifiable, for
1. When other means of collection have failed, armed intervention
against any nation is essentially proper, because
(a) Justice should always be secured
(b) Non-enforcement of payment puts a premium on dishonesty
(c) Intervention for this purpose is sanctioned by the best
international authority
(d) Danger of undue collection is slight and can be avoided entirely by
submission of claims to The Hague Tribunal before intervening.
Second speaker—Stone
2. Armed intervention is necessary to secure justice in tropical
America, for
(a) The governments of this section constantly repudiate just debts
(b) They insist that the final decision about claims shall rest with
their own corrupt courts
(c) They refuse to arbitrate sometimes.
Third speaker—Dennett
3. Armed intervention is beneficial in its results, because
(a) It inspires responsibility
(b) In administering custom houses it removes temptation to revolutions
(c) It gives confidence to desirable capital.
Among others, the following books were used in the preparation of the arguments:
N. "The Monroe Doctrine," by T.B. Edgington. Chapters 22-28.
"Digest of International Law," by J.B. Moore. Report of Penfield of
proceedings before Hague Tribunal in 1903.
"Statesman's Year Book" (for statistics).
A. Minister Drago's appeal to the United States, in Foreign
Relations of United States, 1903.
President Roosevelt's Message, 1905, pp. 33-37.
And articles in the following magazines (among many others):
"Journal of Political Economy," December, 1906.
"Atlantic Monthly," October, 1906.
"North American Review," Vol. 183, p. 602.
All of these contain material valuable for both sides, except those marked "N" and "A," which are useful only for the negative and affirmative, respectively.
Note:—Practise in debating is most helpful to the public speaker, but if possible each debate should be under the supervision of some person whose word will be respected, so that the debaters might show regard for courtesy, accuracy, effective reasoning, and the necessity for careful preparation. The Appendix contains a list of questions for debate.
25. Are the following points well considered?
The Inheritance Tax is Not a Good Social Reform Measure
A. Does not strike at the root of the evil
1. Fortunes not a menace in themselves A fortune of $500,000 may
be a greater social evil than one of $500,000,000
2. Danger of wealth depends on its wrong accumulation and use
3. Inheritance tax will not prevent rebates, monopoly,
discrimination, bribery, etc.
4. Laws aimed at unjust accumulation and use of wealth furnish the
true remedy.
B. It would be evaded
1. Low rates are evaded
2. Rate must be high to result in distribution of great fortunes.
26. Class exercises: Mock Trial for (a) some serious political offense; (b) a burlesque offense.