The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1900-12-08

pines set up by the Yale speakers We're
| wholly visionary he said, for this coun-
| try is just as capable of governing de-
I Tendencies as England or any other ma
! ton. The constitution does not extend
4 to the islands because the treaty OF
Paris did not so provide. In rebuttal
of the Yale point that the Fllipinos were
capable of self government Mr.. Chand-
! Ter quoted from an original letter from
\ President Schurman to the Harvard
team prior to the debate, which had
/ been placed in the hands of the Yale
team, to prove the incapacity of the
Filipinos. He said that the affirmative
rested on three points-first the advan-
! tages of permanent retention of the is
lands to the United States; second, the
great advantage to the Philippine peo-
pie themselves; and, third and final, 1t
is the duty of the United States to main
tain the islands as a duty to the world
at large.
i Yale's third speaker was C. w. Mer-
riam. of Springfield Mass, of the Theo-
logical school He began his argument
by challenging the validity of the title
of the United States as to the Philip
pines. He cited the bearing of inter-
national law upon the subject, claim
ing that the most recent authorities on
international law say that the consent
of the governed is essential to the
transfer of sovereignty. All authori-
ties, to be sure, are not agreed on this,
but it is the highest standard. Shall
the United States. asks he, chose the
highest or the lowest standard? If we
| choose the highest our title is illegal.
Mr.. Merriam further challenged our
title on the ground of the immortality
Of the claim to title. He asked: Sup
pose England had tried to transfer
title to this country after the battle of
Saratoga, would we have accepted its
moral validity" He challenged the
affirmative to show the moral justiflca-
ton of buying the title of a dispo-
ssessed tyrant, such as Spain was in
Manila.
Mr. Merriam then raised the question
of whether the Flipinos We're justified
in thinking that the United States
would grant them independence. He
said they were justified because of our
well known national principles, because
of the McEnery resolution, because if
our uGCldEdllOu WiEH IbSdiu " SuDd,
and because our military leaders treat
ed the Filipino forces as allies. In view
of these facts Mr.. Merriam asked what
moral justification can there be for
Withholding independence from the
Filipinos. If there is any justification
it must be in one of two facts, either
that the Filipinos are not capable of
self-government or else they do not
want the independence. But both of
these facts have already been previous
ly disputed by the negative.
The debater then proceeded to the
consideration of historical parallels,
saying that by the Monroe doctrine we
have declared against the affirmative
policy of permanent retention, and we
stand ready to fight any nation that
dares attempt to apply the affirmative
policy in any part of the hemisphere.
We took that stand with the French in
Mexico, and with the English in Vene-
zuela. To now attempt permanent re-
tention of an unwilling people in view
of these facts, would be either dis
honorable contradiction or an open
confession that republication is fail
ure.
In conclusion Mr.. Merriam contrasted
the two plans. maintaining that the
negative plan is the only American
plan, judged by the standard of histori-
cal precedent, and it would win the
sympathy Of the better class OF the
Filipinos, who desire independence,
In the rebuttal Harvard logically and
emphatically maintained her case, Mr..
Bruce summing up in a clear and con-
else manner. Mr.. Trowbridge summed
up for Yale, but he INDUCED in too much
scattered rebuttal and the effect was
lost.