Word: landed
(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...
...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...
...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...
...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...
...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...