News
Garber Announces Advisory Committee for Harvard Law School Dean Search
News
First Harvard Prize Book in Kosovo Established by Harvard Alumni
News
Ryan Murdock ’25 Remembered as Dedicated Advocate and Caring Friend
News
Harvard Faculty Appeal Temporary Suspensions From Widener Library
News
Man Who Managed Clients for High-End Cambridge Brothel Network Pleads Guilty
The debate of yesterday evening was but slimly attended owing doubtless to the rainy weather. After the minutes of the last meeting had been read and a secret ballot taken on the merits of the question for discussion, "Resolved, that the United States should cooperate with other nations in the ferreting out and punishing of violent plotters against the established government," the debate was opened by Mr. Eaton, of the Law School, for the affirmative. Mr. Eaton believed the law of nations should forbid the protection of plotters, dwelling especially upon the difference between political refugees and plotters. The latter, he said ought always to come under the severest penalty of the law. The affair of the Alabama ought to give the United States a lesson on the violation of national law. Mr. Eaton's illustrations were practically good and he was much applauded. Mr. Halbert then made a few remarks and sarcastically said that there was no need of a special treaty regarding such men as O'Rossa, and Ford the dynamite journalists, who always told what they intended to do.
Mr. Waite then read part of the constitution and refuted the argument for the negative, saying, that although it was impossible to prevent plotting, at least an attempt ought to be made to surpress it and restrain it within legitimate bounds. Mr. Hoar for the negative, stated that all the laws passed by foreign governments availed naught in stopping dynamite and murderous outrage, and that if the United States should make such a treaty, it would bring upon itself all the evils that England and Russia are now suffering. Further remarks upon the subject were made by Messrs. Luce, Hobson, Hansen,. Bowen, Saunders, Macavie and Sanford. The regret ballot on the question's merits was announced as 38 in the affirmative and 17 in the negative. The vote for the merits of the speakers was gained by the negative with a majority of 31. The vote on the discussion was, affirmative 17; negative, 48. On the whole, the debate was a most interesting one, and it is to be regretted that it was not better attended.
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.