Word: nationale
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1900-1909
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
Scott, for Princeton, followed Daniels in rebuttal, and said that it was for the public good that the President should have the proposed power, both in the case of violation of national laws and violation of State laws, when the State cannot deal with such violation. It then is necessary...
Daniels was the second speaker for the negative. To justify the radical and far-reaching departure they are proposing, the affirmative, he said, must show an overwhelming necessity. The negative contend that they cannot show such a necessity because the existing means of suppressing domestic violence have proved fully adequate...
The main contention of Hornblower, the third speaker for Princeton, was that the power of national interference can be vested in no one but the President. He showed that the federal courts are judicial, whereas the proposed power requires executive force. Nor can the power, he said, be given to...
Catchings closed the main debate for Harvard. He said that to make a radical change in our government when unnecessary is bad enough, but to make that change when it means serious practical evils is far worse. These are two of the specific evils of the change advocated by the...
For the national government to interfere also undermines the political development of the people. We have developed political intelligence further than any other people. In the South reconstruction from without was an utter failure--from within it was a success. Hence the negative opposes the position of the affirmative because...