Word: americans
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1900-1909
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
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...
...second speaker for the negative, said in part: We, too, would permit the punishment of the South American state, but not by the seizure of land. For 1000 years the history of Europe has been a history of wars and quarrels between neighboring states. The United States, on the other hand, protected from all dangerous neighbors by 3000 miles of ocean, has been free to devote all its energy to making of itself the greatest industrial nation of the world. The resolution of the a affirmative means that the United States shall give up its priceless isolation and allow Europe...
...third speech for the affirmative, R. LuV. Lyman said: We of the affirmative have no desire to abandon the Monroe doctrine; we simply say that when it works injustice it ought to yield. The negative has maintained that the retention of this small section of South American territory would be dangerous to the United States. Ever since its birth as a nation the United States has been surrounded cast, south and north, by the American possessions of European powers, and her interests have not been in danger. The gentleman has wisely overlooked in his argument any danger to our mainland...
...danger which outweighs all others. It is the danger to international arbitration. Once establish the precedent that the awards of arbitrary boards can be interfered with and you deal a death blow to arbitration. The United States has insisted on the power to interpret arbitration of South American disputes. By what right does she now insist upon the power to interpret arbitration awards to suit here own selfish interests? The affirmative has taken its stand because we believe that in the lives of men and of nations, personal, selfish considerations must yield to the call of international honesty and fair...
...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...