was larger than seemed necessary, was endangering the par
amountcy of England in this portion of the globe. He also
endeavored to draw 'a parallel between the actions of the
United States in Cuba, and England in the Transvaal, thus
closing the regular debate for the affirmative.
The negative was opened by Mr. Landis, who tried to
prove that England, because of her breaking of treaties by
aiding the natives to the north and by encroachment on terri
tory, could find nothing in international law that justified
her action. International law grants that war may be levied
only after all peaceable means to settle the questions in dis
pute are exhausted. And he claimed for the negative that
England had not used all means possible before the war and
that she did refuse to peacefully endeavor to settle the mat
ter on an impartial basis.
Mr. Taylor for the negative argued that England could
find no justification because of the fact • that England
had not the right of suzerainty with regard to the Trans
vaal Republic, proving that by England's own action she
had forfeited that right. He quoted from the speeches of
Chamberlain in which this Englishman had stated that
England's actions in South Africa were unjust. He proved
that some of the grievances claimed for the Outlanders were
only imaginary.
Mr. Tuholski, for the negative, endeavored to show that
England's real motive for her actions in South Africa was
greed and avarice. In proof he cited the actions of the
Chartered Company in South Africa, the Jameson raid, and
England's action in Alaska and her dealings with Venez
uela.
He showed that her action was a scheme to get control
of the riches of Transvaal and that she was by her own di
plomacy free to move in South Africa as she wished because
of her friendly understandings with Russia, France and
Germany.
The rebuttal of the n4ative embraced the following
Dickinson—. Stale Debate.