Word: award
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1900-1909
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...Ewell, the first speaker for the negative said: We agree with the affirmative that the creditor nation should have justice. But by seizing land they would not be carrying out the award of a Hague tribunal for a money payment. Our first objection to the proposition of the affirmative is that it is too broad and sweeping. Its conditions could never exist by themselves. There would inevitably be other conditions, and as these other conditions vary, the case outlined in the resolution will very in most important particulars. This resolution of the affirmative denies that the United States...
...moment of final default, the award of the Hague tribunal must stand as a judgment. It means immediate satisfaction at that time, and anything less would be an overthrow of the judgment. A nation should have the same right of recoupment out of a debtor's property that a judgment creditor has at common law. In international law seizure of land is recognized as a legal means. In the case tonight the creditor has chosen this immediate means of obtaining satisfaction under the award, and, between the two countries involved, this will be a just proceeding...
...wedge. There is many a better pretext for taking land than an unpaid claim. For the principle of seizing land in payment of money claims is absolutely unjustified by the precedents of civilized nations. In the cases the affirmative have cited land was seized by war, not by the award of an arbitration of tribunal. If we allow the seizure of land in the case of an unpaid debt, we throw open to Europe a continent that has been closed for eighty years, and our policy becomes wavering, indefinite, and inconsistent...
...from Yale would attach more presuppositions to the question. We must discuss a normal case, The gentlemen have suggested no means of collecting the debt other than seizing territory. By the terms of the question the European power could not seize territory exceeding in value the amount of the award. Our opponents have argued that to allow seizure of territory would be to abandon the Monroe Doctrine. We of the affirmative believe that wherever the Monroe Doctrine conflicts with justice and right, wherever it operates to destroy legal claims, wherever it prevents carrying out an arbitration award, the doctrine must...
...threatening them with the loss of part of their territory as punishment for their laxity, we should teach them national responsibility. We should teach them, moreover, to respect the principles of arbitration, and they will learn that to consent to arbitration implies an obligation to abide by the award...