ANOTHER VICTORY.

For the sixth consecutive time Harvard defeated Princeton in the annual debate in Sanders Theatre last night, on the question: "Resolved, That the English claims in the controversy with the South African Republic are justifiable." Harvard supported the affirmative and Princeton the negative. The presiding officer was the Hon. Samuel J. Elder.

The Harvard debaters excelled in form and in the manner of presenting their arguments, but the Princeton men were equally strong in the arguments themselves. The Harvard men were uniformly superior in delivery, language and all the points of form, and their arguments fitted well together and developed more smoothly than those of the Princeton speakers. Bruce began rebuttal work in his first speech, the second on the Harvard side, whereas the first two Princeton speeches were entirely set and made no attempt to meet the affirmative's arguments. The Harvard stand was that the conditions justified interference, that England had the right to interfere and that her methods of interference were justifiable. But Princeton showed conclusively from the blue-books that the conditions which were attached to the franchise offered the Uitlanders were not such as to warrant hostilities between England and the Transvaal. In the rebuttals, the teams showed equal strength.

E. Mayer '00 was the first speaker for Harvard. He said in part:

The question under discussion is a political, not a sentimental one. It is an acknowledged fact that the Transvaal is the weaker state, but weakness of itself has never argued righteousness. Is the Briton or the Boer right? To decide it we must dismiss our sentiment and fall back upon our judgment.

England in this controversy claims first that the condition of affairs in South Africa is intolerable and demands a remedy. Second, as a nation she has a right to secure the remedy. Third, the best remedy is a reasonable franchise grant to the Uitlanders. Regarding the first of these, that the condition of affairs in the Transvaal demanded a remedy, he cited cases to prove that there was no representation in equality before the law, grievous economic burdens and insecurity of life and property. He then went on to show that grievances in South Africa are wide spread and deep rooted.

Such is the condition of affairs in the Transvaal. Such are the outrages which the Uitlanders had to endure. Is it to be wondered at that England should demand redress, or to be deplored that she should ask an equitable treatment of her citizens? She demanded for the Uitlander justice. She did not demand that he be given control of the government or even an equal share in its administration, but she asked that he be given a voice in the expenditure of taxes, and that measure of protection which every civilized power grants to foreign residents within its territory.

Weston, the first Princeton speaker, first referred to the official despatches made in the blue books; that any alien, resident for five years in the Transvaal should have full political rights; that Johannesburg should be admitted to the legislature, and that the English language as well as the Dutch should be used in the legislature. Consular representation between the Transvaal and the European states gave the Transvaal the status of an independent state. At the convention at London in 1884 the word "suzerainty" was omitted and thus it became a known fact that the Transvaal was independent. The drafter of the constitution admitted that he had purposely left the word out. In January Lord Chamberlain himself declared the Transvaal a foreign state and said that it would be immoral to interfere in internal affairs in South Africa. He asserted that the Boers were independent except for the articles which had been stipulated in the London convention of 1884. However, in 1897, Secretary Chamberlain revived the claim of suzerainty. The Volksraad then met and acquiesced to all of England's demands, provided she would in some way protect her from the harsh conditions of the London convention. The Boers suggested that the suzerainty be dropped. England did not listen to her demands, but requested Kruger to yield unconditionally. Kruger refused and war resulted.

Bruce opened his speech by refuting Weston's three main arguments. To his first statement that England should have accepted the Boer proposals of the nineteenth and twenty-first of August, Bruce replied by saying that the acceptance of these proposals would have meant the giving up of all future international rights. In the convention at Pretoria suzerainty and independent local government were granted together. The Transvaal was not entirely independent, because England had power to make treaties and England was justified in interfering, because the articles stipulated in the convention of 1884 had been broken.

British colored citizens were maltreated, and in the law British subjects received unfair treatment. These two facts gave England the right to interfere. Even setting aside the special justification of England's claim, there still remains the broader, the firmer, the higher ground of the supreme law of mankind, the inalienable right of any international state to protect its citizens from injustice in a foreign land.

England was justified in interfering on two grounds. First, upon the relations of Great Britain and the Transvaal, and second, upon the general principles of international law. Dealing with the relations of the parties he pointed out that in 1877 England's sovereignty over the Transvaal was complete beyond question. Not until the conventions of 1881 and 1884 was home rule given to the Transvaal. He went on to show that these conventions were given upon certain specific conditions and that the Transvaal had repeatedly broken these conditions. From these facts there can be but one conclusion, that by its own act, by the failure to keep the conditions of the grants, the Transvaal has sacrificed the protection of these grants. Great Britain is released from the obligations imposed by her conditional promise not to interfere. Then passing to the second justification he pointed out that since British subjects have been maltreated by the administrative agents of the Transvaal, and the means of obtaining legal redress have been exhausted in vain, since British subjects have suffered from the unfair administration of the laws, and since the laws themselves have constituted grievous oppression, the general principles of international law sanctioned England's claim to a right to interfere.

J. H. Hill, the second speaker for Princeton, opened his debate by stating that Bruce had not quoted Weston rightly. Weston had declared that the Transvaal was independent only in internal affairs, whereas Bruce said it was entirely independent. Up to 1884 it was England's policy to prevent the Transvaal from having even a moderate self-government, and after that year the Boers became entirely unaccustomed to independent government. The Jameson raid was the real cause of the present disturbance, which was greatly increased by the pressure of England's claims to suzerainty. If Great Britain had thrown aside these claims she would have come to peaceable conclusions. Gold was discovered and the land formerly belonging to the government was acquired by the Uitlanders on the understanding that the government was to receive royalties on it. The continual flow of capital into the Transvaal gives proof that the mining interests were not injured by the government. A counterpetition, signed by more men than had signed the petition to the Queen, declared that the signers were satisfied with the condition of affairs in the Transvaal. Finally, a peaceable solution would have resulted without the interference of England.

Wilbur Morse '00, for the affirmative, reiterated the grievances cited by Mayer and then emphasized the fact his colleague had brought out, that interference was necessary in the Transvaal and that it was England's right to interfere. The affirmative believed that the best method to settle the so-called grievances was the grant of an adequate franchise to the Uitlanders. Such a franchise meant security, strength and prosperity for the South African Republic itself. The grievances of the Uitlanders might well be summed up in the phrase "in equality of rights." Examples of this subversion of all interests in favor of the Boers were that only Boer children were allowed in the schools and that all trials were controlled solely by Boers. The claims of the British were, not to take away the independence of the Transvaal, but to secure justice for all people. Let the Uitlander have rights as well as the Boer and let both know that the protection of the South African Republic is for their welfare equally.

In conclusion, Morse pointed out that a continuation of the subtle hatred among the peoples of the Transvaal would threaten English interests in all South Africa; and that the only way to secure the desired harmony between the Dutch and the English was to grant to the Uitlanders full rights in the South African republic.

J. A. Jones '00, the last speaker for Princeton, said that the negative did not undertake to defend any actions of the present war, but did claim that England's interference was not justifiable. The policy of England in South Africa is tending to tear the races asunder, to destroy all relations that ever existed between England and the Boers. Furthermore, the few instances cited by the affirmative show no more proof of a state of mob law in the Transvaal than our 127 lynchings last year prove that the United States is in a state of riot.

The suzerainty of England over the Transvaal, which is in accordance with the treaty of 1884, exists only by inference. The treaty practically gave no suzerainty to England; it only enlarged the powers of self-government in the Transvaal: therefore Harvard's argument that suzerainty goes with self-government, falls through. The deputation that went to London in 1884 from the Transvaal went with the avowed purpose of getting rid of suzerainty; and the English have sanctioned this idea in the minds of the Boers for the last thirteen years. The policy of the Transvaal, bad as it is made out by the affirmative to be, has not endangered the interests of the English in South Africa. Mr. Bryce states that the Dutch of the Cape Colony were not disloyal to the English. He also states that if the people of the Transvaal acceded to the claims of the English, the country would sink to the level of a regular English colony. In conclusion, Jones said that if the Transvaal yielded to the demands of their oppressors, in future no limit would be placed on the demands of the English.

REBUTTAL.

Hill, who spoke first in rebuttal for Princeton, asked the affirmative to reconcile the peaceful effect of the Owen's claims with the conditions existing at the present day. England not only laid claims to suzerainty, but took action in accordance with these claims, when she refused to accept arbitration, alleging that she had suzerainty. The Boers acceded to England's demands on Aug. 19-21, on condition that England merely kept her promises, made in the convention of 1884. The Boers would have acceded to the English claims, which the affirmative maintain, would have brought peace and prosperity to South Africa, on condition that England should give up her claims to suzerainty, according to the treaty of 1884, and their terms, had they been accepted, would have effectually prevented any war.

Bruce, instead of Mayer, as was expected, opened the rebuttal for Harvard. He said that England did not bring on the war, since the Transvaal issued an ultimatum which no nation could stand, and since the condition of two-thirds of the people in the Transvaal was such as to bring on war in any case. There is no probability of a more peaceful attitude toward the Uitlanders in future, because the younger Boers are more hostile to them than the older men. The change was bound to come, and would have come by a revolution, if England had not interfered.

Jones in rebuttal stated that England's claims of five years' residence in the Transvaal for naturalization, are inconsistent with the rule of six years in England. There should not be a condition in the Transvaal thus different from that in England.

The South African Republic did not force this war unjustly, for England already had her hands at the throat of the Transvaal.

Suzerainty was the basis of the English claims, and the arguments before introduced by Princeton on this point had not been met or refuted.

Mayer, the next on rebuttal for Harvard, called attention to the fact that during the whole debate the negative had not even defined suzerainty. As for this suzerainty, England has claimed no more than any other nation, that of protection to her subjects in a foreign land. The negative has not attempted to deny the presence of a civilizing power in the Transvaal, resulting from the presence of the English; and what is more, they admit that the grievances against the English are many. The people of the Transvaal, though they recognized the value of the English and invited them to their country, yet did not give them even ordinary protection.

Weston opened by defining suzerainty as the general right of one nation to interfere in the internal affairs of another nation over which the right exists. In this controversy, the negotiations hinged on suzerainty and not on international law. England refused to accept specific reforms and the question came down to one of franchise. The Transvaal asked England to stand by her statesmen and courts, whose opinions were that suzerainty did not exist. England's magnanimity had been tried and found warning. She never claimed that the conventions have been broken nor would she accept the remedies of grievances because she claimed the right of suzerainty. Finally, discord has been made by England and harmony was not aimed at, as the Harvard speakers insist.

Morse, who made the final rebuttal speech of the evening, summed up the preceding speeches of both sides. The claim that the condition of affairs in the Transvaal was intolerable, stood untouched by the negative. International law gave England the right to interfere for the protection of her subjects and even of the natives--a right promised by the Boers in the negotiations regarding the conventions. But conventions aside, England had the general right to protect her citizens, and Princeton did not deny this. The South African troubles had to be faced by England, but, in facing them, she did not demand government control. Wherever English subjects were maltreated, there harmony could never exist