Word: powers
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1900-1909
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...effective case. The University team won largely because their case was based on the consideration of the interests of the whole civilized world, while their opponents considered only the interests of the United States. Harvard's contention was that under the conditions presupposed in the question the European power had an unquestionable right to seize territory of the debtor state to the amount of the award. The denial of that right by the United States would be contrary to the interests of South America, the United States and the rest of the civilized world...
...Harvard speakers presented their case with greater clearness and better emphasis than did the Yale men, and argued upon more vital points. The Yale team laid much stress on rather visionary difficulties. Harvard's central claim of absolute justice on the part of the European power they scarcely attempted to meet...
Grossman continued the debate for Harvard and said: The gentlemen 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...
Finally, there is one 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...
...fine critical insight. The value in criticism of a criticism, however, might be questioned. A one act play, "The Ingrate," had better been a story. As it is the excessive detail and labelling of characters detract from the effectiveness of the incident. The ending just misses being of exceptional power. "Everyman," by Laird Bell is an uncommonly sane judgment of the play of that name...