Search Details

Word: claiming (lookup in dictionary) (lookup stats)
Dates: during 1900-1909
Sort By: most recent first (reverse)


Usage:

...affirmative because it is a radical departure from our policy of the past three quarters of a century. The strength of the Monroe Doctrine lies in the fact that we have allowed no exception, no opening 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...

Author: NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED | Title: HARVARD WINS THE DEBATE. | 3/24/1903 | See Source »

...abandon it now when there is no necessity of so doing; why abandon the policy of Washington and Jefferson, of Webster and Lincoln, of Cleveland and Roosevelt; the one great policy for which the United States has stood for 80 years? Why do all this for a paltry claim of money...

Author: NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED | Title: HARVARD WINS THE DEBATE. | 3/24/1903 | See Source »

...defaulted claim might be satisfied by ways other than seizure of land. It might be satisfied by seizing ships in reprisal as, in 1862-3, England seized Brazilian ships to satisfy an unpaid claim. Another way to enforce the money award is suggested by the question itself. By the terms of this question simply the conditions at the time of the default are given. But, if we are to make this a practical debate, evidently the fact that there is no tariff at the time of default does not prevent the creditor nation from levying a tariff. This tariff might...

Author: NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED | Title: HARVARD WINS THE DEBATE. | 3/24/1903 | See Source »

...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...

Author: NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED | Title: HARVARD WINS THE DEBATE. | 3/24/1903 | See Source »

...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...

Author: NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED | Title: HARVARD WINS THE DEBATE. | 3/24/1903 | See Source »

Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | Next