News
HMS Is Facing a Deficit. Under Trump, Some Fear It May Get Worse.
News
Cambridge Police Respond to Three Armed Robberies Over Holiday Weekend
News
What’s Next for Harvard’s Legacy of Slavery Initiative?
News
MassDOT Adds Unpopular Train Layover to Allston I-90 Project in Sudden Reversal
News
Denied Winter Campus Housing, International Students Scramble to Find Alternative Options
The question for debate was "Resolved, that President Cleveland, in withholding the documents demanded be the Senate, has grossly transcended his authority." The principal disputants were: affirmative, G. P. Furber, '87, L. B. Stedman '87; negative, H. B. Hutchins, '86, F. B's. Williams, '88. The secretary being one of the principal disputants, J. H. Bronson, Sp., was elected secretary pro tem.
The affirmative argued that the power of the Senate to confirm nominations implies the right to obtain information about them. The Senate, which has a share in the appointing power, must necessarily possess a share in the power of removal. One power implies the other, and documents concerning removal should be submitted to the Senate. The name "private documents" cannot be applied to documents which relate in any way to the execution of the powers of government. Many precedents were cited where the Senate had obtained papers from the President. It was claimed inconsistent that Cleveland, avowedly the Civil Service Reform President, should remove a Republican, and then refuse to give reasons. The removal seemed a political one.
The negative replied that the Constitution gave the Senate the right of concurring in appointments, but it had nothing to do with removals. That was an executive power, and the President had not transcended his authority in refusing documents about removals. The talk about Cleveland and Civil Service Reform has nothing whatever to do with the case. The President has offered documents if the Senate will consider them in open session. Cases were cited where Presidents have not submitted documents at the request of the Senate.
The following gentlemen spoke from the floor: Affirmative, Mahany, '88, Hobson, '86, Thayer, '89; negative, Williams, L. S., Sternburgh, '87, Darling, L. S., W. L. Currier, '87. Robinson, L. S., Reisner, '89, Lee, L. S.
The vote on the merits of the argument of the principle disputants was: Affirmative, 19; negative, 19. On the argument of principle disputants: Affirmative, 14; negative, 25; on the debate as a whole, affirmative, 8; negative, 8.
The question chosen for the next meeting is: "Resolved, That the preservation of constitutional government requires the immediate repeal of the Hoar Presidential Succession Bill."
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.