PRACTICAL ARGUMENTATION

PRACTICAL ARGUMENTATION

BY GEORGE K. PATTEE, A. M. 

Assistant Professor of English and Rhetoricin The Pennsylvania State College

TO FRED LEWIS PATTEE

Preface

The author's aim has been to produce a book that is practical, --practical from the student's standpoint, and practical from theteacher's standpoint. The study of Argumentation has often beencriticized for being purely academic, or for being a mere stepping-stone to the study of law. It has even been said that courses inArgumentation and Debate have been introduced into American collegesand universities for no other purpose than to give the intellectualstudent the opportunity, so long monopolized by his athleticclassmate, to take part in intercollegiate contests. The purpose ofthis book is to teach Argumentation, which is not a science by itselfbut one of the four branches of Rhetoric, in such a way as to removethese criticisms. 

Largely by his choice of illustrative material the author hasendeavored to show that this subject is confined neither to the classroom nor to any one profession. He has drawn his illustrations, forthe most part, from contemporary and popular sources; he has hadrecourse to many current magazines, newspapers, books, and recentspeeches, hoping to show thereby that Argumentation is a practicalsubject. On the other hand, he has carefully avoided taking a majorityof his illustrations either from students' work or from legalpractice, criminal cases especially being seldom used on the groundthat although they afford the easiest examples a writer can give, theyfurnish the least help to the average student, who, unless he studieslaw, will rarely, perhaps never, have occasion to argue upon suchsubjects. 

This book cannot justly be called the effort of a single author. It israther an outgrowth of the work that for many years has been carriedon by the English department at The Pennsylvania State College. Thebook has, in fact, gradually developed in the class room. Every rulethat is given has been tested time and again; every step has beencarefully thought out and taught for several years. 

The author wishes to acknowledge especial indebtedness to ProfessorFred Lewis Pattee, who both inspired the writing of the book andassisted in the work. To Professor A. Howry Espenshade are due manythanks for invaluable suggestions and advice, and for a carefulreading of the greater part of the manuscript. Mr. William S. Dye isalso to be thanked for valuable assistance. As a student the authorstudied Baker's _Principles of Argumentation_; as a teacher hehas taught Laycock and Scales' _Argumentation and Debate_, Alden's _The Art of Debate_, and Foster's _Argumentation andDebating_. The debt he owes to these is beyond estimate. 

STATE COLLEGE, PA. March 17, 1909

Contents

 I. Preliminaries

 II. The Subject

 III. The Introduction--Persuasion

 IV. The Introduction--Conviction

 V. The Introduction--Brief-Drawing

 VI. The Discussion--Conviction and Persuasion

 VII. The Discussion--Brief-Drawing

VIII. Methods of Refutation

 IX. Debate--Some Practical Suggestions

 X. The Conclusion

 APPENDIX. 

A. A Written Argument and its BriefB. A List of Propositions

PRACTICAL ARGUMENTATION

PRACTICAL ARGUMENTATION

CHAPTER I

PRELIMINARIES

Argumentation is the art of presenting truth so that others willaccept it and act in accordance with it. Debate is a special form ofargumentation: it is oral argumentation carried on by opposing sides. 

A consideration of the service which argumentation performs shows thatit is one of the noblest and most useful of arts. By argumentation menoverthrow error and discover truth. Courts of law, deliberativeassemblies, and all bodies of people that engage in discussionrecognize this fact. Argumentation threshes out a problem until thechaff has blown away, when it is easy to see just what kernels oftruth remain and what action ought to be taken. Men of affairs, beforeentering upon any great enterprise, call in advocates of differentsystems, and by becoming familiar with arguments from every point ofview try to discover what is best. This method of procedurepresupposes a difference of opinion and belief among men, and holdsthat when each one tries to establish his ideas, the truth willremain, and that which is false will be swept away. 

The field of argumentation includes every kind of discourse thatattempts to change man's actions or opinions. Exposition isexplanation when only one theory or one interpretation of the facts ispossible; when views of truth or of policy conflict, and one course isexpounded in opposition to another, the process becomes argumentation. This art is used not only by professional speakers, but by men ofevery occupation. The schoolboy pleading for a holiday, the workmanseeking employment, the statesman advocating a principle of governmentare all engaged in some form of argumentation. Everywhere that menmeet together, on the street or in the assembly hall, debate iscertain to arise. Written argument is no less common. Hardly aperiodical is published but contains argumentative writing. The fieryeditorial that urges voters to the polls, the calm and polished essaythat points out the dangers of organized labor, the scientifictreatise that demonstrates the practicability of a sea-level canal onthe Isthmus are attempts to change existing conditions and ideas, andthus come within the field of argumentation. 

The practical benefit to be derived from the study and application ofthe principles of argumentation can hardly be overestimated. The manwho wishes to influence the opinions and actions of others, who wishesto become a leader of men in however great or however humble a sphere, must be familiar with this art. The editor, the lawyer, the merchant, the contractor, the laborer--men in every walk of life--depend fortheir success upon bringing others to believe, in certain instances, as they believe. Everywhere men who can point out what is right andbest, and can bring others to see it and act upon it, win the day. Another benefit to be obtained from the study of argumentation is theability to be convinced intelligently. The good arguer is not likelyto be carried away by specious arguments or fallacious reasoning. Hecan weigh every bit of evidence; he can test the strength and weaknessof every statement; he can separate the essential from theunessential; and he can distinguish between prejudice and reason. Amaster of the art of argumentation can both present his caseconvincingly to others, and discover the truth in a matter that ispresented to him. 

Argumentation can hardly be considered as a distinct art standing byitself; it is rather a composite of several arts, deriving itsfundamentals from them, and depending upon them for its existence. Inthe first place, since argumentation is spoken or written discourse, it belongs to rhetoric, and the rules which govern composition applyto it as strongly as to any other kind of expression. In fact, perhapsrhetorical principles should be observed in argumentation more rigidlythan elsewhere, for in the case of narration, description, orexposition, the reader or hearer, in an endeavor to derive pleasure orprofit, is seeking the author, while in argumentation it is the authorwho is trying to force his ideas upon the audience. Hence an argumentmust contain nothing crude or repulsive, but must be attractive inevery detail. In the second place, any composition that attempts toalter beliefs must deal with reasons, and the science of reasoning islogic. There is no need for the student of argumentation to make anexhaustive study of this science, for the good arguer is not obligedto know all the different ways the mind may work; he must, however, know how it should work in order to produce trustworthy results, andto the extent of teaching correct reasoning, argumentation includeslogic. In the third place, a study of the emotions belongs toargumentation. According to the definition, argumentation aims both atpresenting truth and compelling action. As action depends to a greatextent upon man's emotions, the way to arouse his feelings andpassions is a fundamental principle of this art. Argumentation, then, which is commonly classified as the fourth division of rhetoric, consists of two fundamental elements. The part that is based uponlogic and depends for its effectiveness upon pure reasoning is called_conviction_; the part that consists of an emotional appeal tothe people addressed is called _persuasion_. If the only purposeof argumentation were to demonstrate the truth or falsity of ahypothesis, conviction alone would be sufficient. But its purpose isgreater than this: it aims both (1) to convince men that certain ideasare true, and also (2) to persuade them to act in accordance with thetruth presented. Neither conviction nor persuasion can with safety beomitted. An appeal to the intellect alone may demonstrate principlesthat cannot be refuted; it may prove beyond a doubt that certaintheories are logical and right, and ought to be accepted. But thissort of argument is likely to leave the person addressed cold andunmoved and unwilling to give up his former ideas and practices. Apurely intellectual discourse upon the evils resulting from a hightariff would scarcely cause a life-long protectionist to change hispolitics. If, however, some emotion such as duty, public spirit, orpatriotism were aroused, the desired action might result. Again itfrequently happens that before the arguer can make any appeal to thelogical faculties of those he wishes to influence, he will first haveto use persuasion in order to gain their attention and to arouse theirinterest either in himself or in his subject. On the other hand, persuasion alone is undoubtedly of even less value than convictionalone. A purely persuasive argument can never be trusted to producelasting effects. As soon as the emotions have cooled, if no reasonableconviction remains to guide future thought and action, the plea thatat first seemed so powerful is likely to be forgotten. The preacherwhose sermons are all persuasion may, for a time, have many converts, but it will take something besides emotional ecstasy to keep them "ingood and regular standing. "

The proportion of conviction and persuasion to be used in anyargumentative effort depends entirely upon the attendingcircumstances. If the readers or hearers possess a high degree ofintelligence and education, conviction should predominate; for it is agenerally accepted fact that the higher man rises in the scale ofcivilization, the less he is moved by emotion. A lawyer's argumentbefore a judge contains little except reasoning; before a jurypersuasion plays an important part. In the next place, the arguer mustconsider the attitude of those whom he would move. If they arefavorably disposed, he may devote most of his time to reasoning; ifthey are hostile, he must use more persuasion. Also the correctproportion varies to some extent according to the amount of actiondesired. In an intercollegiate debate where little or no action isexpected to result, persuasion may almost be neglected; but thepolitical speech or editorial that urges men to follow itsinstructions usually contains at least as much persuasion asconviction. 

The aspirant for distinction in argumentation should study and acquirecertain characteristics common to all good arguers. First of all, heshould strive to gain the ability to analyze. No satisfactorydiscussion can ever take place until the contestants have picked thequestion to pieces and discovered just exactly what it means. The manwho does not analyze his subject is likely to seize upon ideas thatare merely connected with it, and fail to find just what is involvedby the question as a whole. The man skillful in argumentation, however, considers each word of the proposition in the light of itsdefinition, and only after much thought and study decides that he hasfound the real meaning of the question. But the work of analysis doesnot end here; every bit of proof connected with the case must beanalyzed that its value and its relation to the matter in hand may bedetermined. Many an argument is filled with what its author thoughtwas proof, but what, upon close inspection, turns out to be mereassertion or fallacious reasoning. This error is surpassed only by thefault of bringing in as proof that which has no direct bearing at allupon the question at issue. Furthermore, the arguer must analyze notonly his own side of the discussion but also the work of his opponent, so that with a full knowledge of what is strong and what is weak hemay make his attack to the best advantage. Next to the ability toanalyze, the most important qualification for an arguer to possess isthe faculty of clearly presenting his case. New ideas, new truths areseldom readily accepted, and it is never safe to assume that thehearer or the reader of an argument will laboriously work his waythrough a mass of obscure reasoning. Absolute clearness of expressionis essential. The method of arriving at a conclusion should be soplain that no one can avoid seeing what is proved and how it isproved. Lincoln's great success as a debater was due largely to hisclearness of presentation. In the third place, the person who wouldcontrol his fellow men must assume qualities of leadership. Remembering that men can be led, but seldom be driven, he must showhis audience how he himself has reached certain conclusions, and thenby leading them along the same paths of reasoning, bring them to thedesired destination. If exhortation, counsel, and encouragement arerequired, they must be at his command. Moreover, a leader who wishesto attract followers must be earnest and enthusiastic. The least touchof insincerity or indifference will ruin all. To analyze ideas, topresent them clearly, and as a leader to enforce them enthusiasticallyand sincerely are necessary qualities for every arguer. 

A debater should possess additional attainments. He ought to be aready thinker. The disputant who depends entirely upon a set speech isgreatly handicapped. Since it is impossible to tell beforehand justwhat arguments an opponent will use and what line of attack he willpursue, the man who cannot mass his forces to meet the requirements ofthe minute is at great disadvantage. Of course all facts and ideasmust be mastered beforehand, but unless one is to be the firstspeaker, he can most effectually determine during the progress of thedebate just what arguments are preferable and what their arrangementshould be. A debater must also have some ability as a speaker. He neednot be graceful or especially fluent, though these accomplishments areof service, but he must be forceful. Not only his words, but also hismanner must reveal the earnestness and enthusiasm he feels. Hisargument, clear, irrefutable, and to the point, should go forth insimple, burning words that enter into the hearts and understanding ofhis hearers. 

CHAPTER II

THE SUBJECT

The subject of an argument must always be a complete statement. Thereason for this requirement lies in the fact that an argument canoccur only when men have conflicting opinions about a certain thought, and try to prove the truth or falsity of this definite idea. Since a_term_--a word, phrase, or other combination of words not acomplete sentence--suggests many ideas, but never stands for oneparticular idea, it is absurd as a subject to be argued. A debatablesubject is always a _proposition_, a statement in which somethingis affirmed or denied. It would be impossible to uphold or attack themere term, "government railroad supervision, " for this expressioncarries with it no specific thought. It may suggest that governmentrailroad supervision has been inadequate in the past; or thatgovernment supervision is at present unnecessary; or that thegovernment is about to assume stricter supervision. The term affordsno common ground on which the contestants would have to meet. If, however, some exact idea were expressed in such a statement as, "Further government railroad supervision is necessary for the bestinterests of the United States, " an argument might well follow. 

Although the subject of an argument must be a complete thought, itdoes not follow that this proposition is always explicitly stated orformulated in words. The same distinction between subject and titlethat exists in other kinds of writing is found also in argumentation;the subject is a statement of the matter about which the controversycenters; the title is the name by which the composition is known. Sometimes the subject serves as the title, and sometimes the subjectis left to be discovered in the body of the work. The title of thespeech delivered by Webster in the Senate, January 26, 1830, is"Webster's Reply to Hayne"; the subject, in the form of a resolution, is found close to the opening sentences:--

_Resolved_, That the Committee on Public Lands be instructed toinquire and report the quantity of public lands remaining unsoldwithin each State and Territory, and whether it be expedient to limitfor a certain period the sales of the public lands to such lands onlyas have heretofore been offered for sale, and are now subject to entryat the minimum price. And, also, whether the office of Surveyor-General, and some of the land offices, may not be abolished withoutdetriment to the public interest; or whether it be expedient to adoptmeasures to hasten the sales and extend more rapidly the surveys ofthe public lands. 

The thirteen resolutions offered by Burke form the subject of theargument known by the title, "Burke's Speech on Conciliation withAmerica. " A recent issue of _The Outlook_ contained an articleentitled "Russian Despotism"; careful reading disclosed that thesubject was this, "The Present Government of Russia has no Right toExist. " In legislative proceedings the subject of argument is found inthe form of a bill, or a motion, or a resolution; in law courts it isembodied in statements called "pleadings, " which "set forth withcertainty and with truth the matters of fact or of law, the truth orfalsity of which must be decided to decide the case. " [Footnote:Laycock and Scales' Argumentation and Debate, page 14. ] In collegedebate it is customary to frame the subject in the form of aresolution, and to use this resolution as the title. The generallyaccepted form is as follows:

_Resolved, _ That the United States army should be permanentlyenlarged. 

Notice the use of italics, of punctuation marks, and of capitalletters. 

In all kinds of argumentation, whether the proposition to be discussedis clearly expressed or not, the arguer must keep his subjectconstantly in mind, that his efforts may all be directed toward adefinite end in view--to convince and persuade his audience. In debatethe speaker should plainly state the subject, and constantly hold itup to the attention of the audience. This procedure renders itimpossible for an opponent to ignore the question and evade the realissue. 

Only those who are debating for practice experience any difficulty inobtaining a subject. In the business world men argue because they areconfronted with some perplexing problem, because some issue arisesthat demands discussion; but the student, generally speaking, chooseshis own topic. Therefore a few suggestions in regard to the choice ofa subject and the wording of a proposition are likely to be ofconsiderable service to him. 

The student should first select some general, popular topic of the dayin which he is interested. He should, for several reasons, not theleast of which is that he will thus gain considerable information thatmay be of value to him outside the class room, select a popular topicrather than one that has been worn out or that is comparativelyunknown. He should, moreover, choose an interesting topic, for thenhis work will be more agreeable and consequently of a higher order. Ofthis general idea he must decide upon some specific phase whichreadily lends itself to discussion. Then he has to express thisspecific idea in the form of a proposition. As it is not always aneasy matter to state a proposition with precision and fairness, hemust take this last step very cautiously. One must always exercisegreat care in choosing words that denote the exact meaning he wishesto convey. Many writers and speakers have found themselves in falsepositions just because, upon examination, it was found that theirsubjects did not express the precise meaning that was intended. 

Moreover, in phrasing the proposition, the debater should so state thesubject that the affirmative side, the side that opens the discussion, is the one to advocate a change in existing conditions or belief. Thismethod obviously corresponds to the way in which business is conductedin practical affairs. No one has reason to defend an establishedcondition until it is first attacked. The law presumes a man to beinnocent until he is proved guilty, and therefore it is theprosecution, the side to affirm guilt, that opens the case. Thequestion about government ownership of railroads should be so wordedthat the affirmative side will advocate the new system, and thenegative will uphold the old. It should be stated thus:"_Resolved_, That all railroads in the United States should beowned and operated by the Federal government. " This obligation ofadducing evidence and reasoning to support one side of a propositionbefore an answer from the other side can be demanded, is called_burden of proof_. The "burden" always rests upon the side thatadvocates a change, and the proposition should be so worded that theaffirmative will have to undertake this duty. 

One more principle must be observed: nothing in the wording of thesubject should give one side any advantage over the other. Argumentcan exist only when reasonable men have a difference of opinion. Ifthe wording of the proposition removes this difference, no discussioncan ensue. For instance, the word "undesirable, " if allowed to standin the following proposition, precludes any debate: "_Resolved, _That all colleges should abolish the undesirable game of football. "

From the preceding suggestions it is seen that the subject of anargument is a definite, restricted thought derived from some generalidea. Whether expressed or not, the subject must be a proposition, nota term. In debate the proposition is usually framed in the form of aresolution. This resolution must always be so worded that the burdenof proof will rest upon the affirmative side. Nothing in the wordingof the proposition should give either side any advantage over theother. These principles have to do with the manner of expression;subjects will next be considered with respect to the ideas theycontain. 

A common and convenient method of classification divides propositionsinto two groups: propositions of policy, and propositions of fact. Thefirst class consists of those propositions that aim to prove the truthof a theory, that indicate a preference for a certain policy, for acertain method of action. The second class comprises thosepropositions that affirm or deny the occurrence of an event, or theexistence of a fact. Propositions of policy usually, though notalways, contain the word _should_ or _ought_; propositionsof fact usually contain some form of the word _to be_. Thefollowing illustrations will make the distinction plainer:--

PROPOSITIONS OF POLICY. 

The United States should adopt a system of bounties and subsidies forthe protection of the American merchant marine. 

State laws prohibiting secular employment on Sunday should berepealed. 

A city furnishes a more desirable location for a college than thecountry. 

The aggressions of England in Africa are justifiable. 

PROPOSITIONS OF FACT. 

Homer wrote the Iliad. 

Nero was guilty of burning Rome. 

Mary, Queen of Scots, murdered her husband. 

The most convenient method of studying propositions to see whatsubjects are desirable for student debates is to consider first thosepropositions that should be avoided. 

1. PROPOSITIONS WITH ONLY ONE SIDE. As argumentation presupposes adifference of opinion about a certain subject, evidently it isimpossible to argue upon a subject on which all are agreed. Sometimessuch propositions as, "_Resolved_, That Napoleon was a greatsoldier, " and "_Resolved_, That railroads should take everyprecaution to protect the lives of their passengers, " are found on theprograms of literary societies and debating clubs. In such cases merecomment, not debate, can follow. Only subjects on which reasonable menactually disagree are suitable for argument. 

2. AMBIGUOUS PROPOSITIONS. If a proposition is capable of severalinterpretations, those who choose it as a subject for an argument areliable not to agree on what it means, and one side will debate inaccordance with one interpretation, and the other side in accordancewith a totally different interpretation. Thus the opponents will nevermeet in conflict except when they explain their subject. For example, in a certain debate on the question, "_Resolved_, That collegesshould abolish all athletic sports, " the affirmative held that onlyinterclass and intercollegiate games were involved; while the negativemaintained that the term "athletic sports" included all forms ofathletic games participated in by college men. Manifestly the debatehinged largely on the definition of this term; but as there was noauthority to settle just what was meant, the debate was a failure. Itis usually desirable, and frequently necessary, to explain what thesubject means, for unless it has some meaning which both sides arebound to accept, the argument becomes a mere controversy over thedefinition of words. Another ambiguous proposition would be, "Republican government in the United States is preferable to anyother. " The word "republican" is open to two legitimate definitions, and since the context does not explain which meaning is intended, adebater is at liberty to accept either definition that he wishes. Afew alterations easily turn this proposition into a debatable subject, "Government by the Republican party in the United States is preferableto any other. "

3. TOO GENERAL PROPOSITIONS. It is never wise for a writer or aspeaker to choose a subject which is so general or so abstract that hecannot handle it with some degree of completeness and facility. Notonly will such work be difficult and distasteful to him, but it willbe equally distasteful and uninteresting to his audience. No studentcan write good themes on such subjects as, "War, " "The Power of thePress, " "Race Prejudice"; nor can he argue well on propositions like, "_Resolved_, That wars are justifiable"; "_Resolved_, Thatthe pen is mightier than the sword"; or "_Resolved_, That raceprejudice is justifiable. " These are entirely beyond his scope. But hecan handle restricted propositions that have to do with one phase ofsome concrete, tangible event or idea. "_Resolved_, That Japanwas justified in waging war against Russia"; "_Resolved_, ThatBacon wrote the plays commonly attributed to Shakespeare";"_Resolved_, That the segregation of Japanese school children inSan Francisco is for the best interests of all concerned, " aresubjects that can be argued with success. 

4. COMBINED PROPOSITIONS. It sometimes happens that severalheterogeneous ideas, each of which by itself would form an excellentsubject for argument, are embodied in a single proposition. Thedifficulty of arguing on this kind of subject is apparent. It is nonetoo easy to establish one idea satisfactorily; but when several ideasmust be upheld and defended, the work is enormous and sometimes opento the charge of inconsistency. Moreover, the principle of Unitydemands that a composition be about a single topic. The proposition, "_Resolved_, That Aaron Burr was guilty of murder and should havebeen put to death, " involves two debatable subjects, each of which isof sufficient importance to stand in a proposition by itself: "WasBurr guilty of murder?" and "Should a murderer be punished by death?"The error of combining in a compound sentence several distinctsubjects for debate is generally detected with ease; but when theerror of combination exists in a simple sentence, it is not always soobvious. In the case of the subject, "_Resolved_, That foreignimmigrants have been unjustly treated by the United States, " thereare, as the same privileges have not been granted all immigrants, several debatable questions. One who attempts to argue on this subjectmust take into consideration the treatment that has been accorded theChinese, the English, the Germans, the Italians, the paupers, thewell-to-do, and others. In one case the laws may be palpably unfair, and in another case, all that can be desired. 

When two ideas, however, are very closely related and are dependentupon each other for interpretation and support, they may and sometimesshould be combined in the same proposition. For example, "Educationshould be compulsory to the age of sixteen, " involves two main issues:"Education should be compulsory, " and "The age of sixteen is theproper limit. " But in this case the one who advocates compulsoryeducation is under obligation to explain some definite system, andthis explanation must include the establishing of some limit. To namethis limit in the proposition renders the argument clearer to anaudience and fairer to an opponent. For similar reasons, theproposition, "The Federal government should own and operate therailroads in the United States, " cannot be condemned on the groundthat it is a proposition with more than one main issue. 

Propositions, then, adapted to class room argument, are those whichgive rise to a conflict of opinion; which contain a definite andunmistakable thought; which are specific and sufficiently restrictedto admit of thorough treatment; and which contain a single idea. 

Furthermore, the student will do well to select subjects that are asnearly as possible like the problems which statesmen, educators, professional and business men meet in practical life. He should try toremove his argument as far as he can from the realm of pure academicexercise, and endeavor to gain some insight into the issues that arenow confronting the makers of modern civilization. The student whotakes this work seriously is sure to gain information, form opinions, and acquire habits of thought that will be of great practical value tohim when he takes his place as a man among men. 

EXERCISES

A. Narrow each of the following terms into good, debatablepropositions:--

Election of Senators; Chinese exclusion; woman suffrage; temperance;compulsory manual training; the honor system; compulsory education;vivisection; reciprocity; an enlarged army; the educational votingtest; strikes; bounties and subsidies; capital punishment; Hamlet'sinsanity; municipal government; permanent copyright; athletics; civilservice; military training; Panama canal; jury system; foreignacquisitions; Monroe Doctrine; forest reserves; protective tariff. 

B. Criticise the following propositions:--

1. The existence and attributes of the Supreme Being can be provedwithout the aid of divine revelation. 

2. More money is spent for luxuries than for necessities. 

3. The growth of large fortunes should be checked by a graduatedincome tax and an inheritance tax. 

4. The Monroe Doctrine should receive the support of every American. 

5. Hard work is the secret of success. 

6. Law is a better profession than medicine. 

7. College football should be abolished and lacrosse adopted in itsplace. 

8. Newspapers exert a powerful influence on modern politics. 

9. The United States postal system should be under the control of theFederal government. 

10. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. 

11. Immigration is detrimental to the United States. 

12. President ----'s foreign policy should be upheld. 

13. Canada should not be annexed to the United States. 

14. The cruel banishment of the Acadians was unjust. 

15. Beauty has practical uses. 

16. The democratic policy of government would be for the bestinterests of the Philippines. 

17. Dickens' novels, which are superior to Scott's, effected reforms. 

18. An unconstitutional income tax should not be levied. 

19. A majority vote of a jury should not convict or acquit. 

20. Edison is a great inventor. 

CHAPTER III

THE INTRODUCTION--PERSUASION

Every complete argument consists of three parts: introduction, discussion, and conclusion. Each of these divisions has definite andspecific duties to perform. The work of the introduction is threefold:(1) to conciliate the audience; (2) to explain the subject; and (3) tooutline the discussion. As the conciliation of the audience isaccomplished by an appeal to the emotions rather than to the reason, it is properly classified under persuasion. Explaining the propositionand outlining the discussion are of an expository nature and will bediscussed under the head of conviction. 

As has been stated in a previous chapter, the amount of persuasion tobe used in any piece of argumentative work depends entirely upon theattending circumstances. The subject, audience, author, occasion, andpurpose of the effort must be taken into consideration. But whetherthe amount used be great or small, practically every argument shouldbegin with conciliation. The conciliation of the _audience_--theword audience is used throughout this book to designate both hearersand readers--consists of gaining the good will of those to beconvinced, of arousing their interest, and of rendering them open toconviction. No argument can be expected to attain any considerabledegree of success so long as anything about its author, or anything inthe subject itself, is peculiarly disagreeable to the people it isdesigned to affect. If the ill will remains too great, it is notlikely that the argument will ever reach those for whom it isintended, much less produce the desired result. In addressing Southernsympathizers at Liverpool, during the Civil War, Beecher had to fighteven for a hearing. The speech of an unpopular Senator frequentlyempties the Senate chamber. Men of one political belief often refuseto read the publications of the opposite party. Obviously, the firstduty of the introduction is to gain the approval of the audience. Inthe next place, interest must be aroused. Active dislike is lessfrequently encountered than indifference. How many times sermons, lectures, books have failed in their object just because no one tookany interest in them! There was no opposition, no hostility; every onewished the cause well; and yet the effort failed to meet with anyattention or response. The argument did not arouse interest--andinterest is a prime cause of attention and of action. In the thirdplace, the conciliatory part of the introduction should induce theaudience to assume an unbiased, judicial attitude, ready to decide thequestion according to the strength of the proof. This result is notalways easy of attainment. Longstanding beliefs, prejudice, stubbornness must be overcome, and a desire for the truth substitutedfor everything else. All this is frequently difficult, but unless anarguer can gain the good will of the people addressed, arouse theirinterest, and render them willing to be convinced, no amount ofreasoning is likely to produce much effect. 

Now the question arises, How is it possible to conciliate theaudience? To this query there is no answer that will positivelyguarantee success. The arguer must always study his audience and suithis discourse to the occasion. What means success in one instance maybring failure in another. The secret of the whole matter isadaptability. Humor, gravity, pathos, even defiance may at times beused to advantage. It is not always possible, however, for the oratoror writer to know beforehand just the kind of people he is to address. In this case it is usually best for him to follow out a few wellestablished principles that most arguers have found to be of benefit. 

MODESTY. Modesty in word and action is indispensable to one who wouldgain the friendship of his audience. Anything that savors of egotismat once creates a feeling of enmity. No one can endure another'sconsciousness of superiority even though the superiority be real. Anappearance of haughtiness, self-esteem, condescension, intolerance ofinferiors, or a desire for personal glory will at once raise barriersof dislike. On the other hand, modesty should never be carried so faras to become affectation; that attitude is equally despicable. Personal unobtrusiveness should exist without being conspicuous. _The arguer should always take the attitude that the cause he isupholding is greater than its advocate_. 

In the following quotations, compare the overbearing arrogance ofBurke's introduction with the simple modesty of Proctor's:--

Mr. Speaker, I rise under some embarrassment occasioned by a feelingof delicacy toward one-half of the house, and of sovereign contemptfor the other half. [Footnote: Edmund Burke, House of Commons, March22, 1775. ]

Mr. President, more importance seems to be attached by others to myrecent visit to Cuba than I had given it, and it has been suggestedthat I make a public statement of what I saw and how the situationimpressed me. This I do on account of the public interest in all thatconcerns Cuba, and to correct some inaccuracies that have, notunnaturally, appeared in reported interviews with me. [Footnote:Redfield Proctor, United States Senate, March 17, 1898. ]

FAIRNESS. Few things will assist an arguer more in securing arespectful hearing from those who do not agree with him, but whom hewould convince, than the quality of fairness. The arguer should takethe position of one seeking the truth regardless of what it may be. Ifhe wishes others to look at the question from his standpoint, he willhave to show that he is willing to consider the question from theirpoint of view. Everything' in the shape of prejudice, everything whichwould tend to indicate that he had formed conclusions prior to hisinvestigation, he must carefully avoid. 

In this connection consider the following:--

I very much regret that it should have been thought necessary tosuggest to you that I am brought here to "hurry you against the lawand beyond the evidence. " I hope I have too much regard for justice, and too much respect for my own character, to attempt either; and wereI to make such attempt, I am sure that in this court nothing can becarried against the law, and that gentlemen, intelligent and just asyou are, are not, by any power, to be hurried beyond the evidence. Though I could well have wished to shun this occasion, I have not feltat liberty to withhold my professional assistance, when it is supposedthat I may be in some degree useful in investigating and discoveringthe truth respecting this most extraordinary murder. It has seemed tobe a duty incumbent on me, as on every other citizen, to do my bestand my utmost to bring to light the perpetrators of this crime. Against the prisoner at the bar, as an individual, I cannot have theslightest prejudice. I would not do him the smallest injury orinjustice. But I do not affect to be indifferent to the discovery andthe punishment of this deep guilt. I cheerfully share in theopprobrium, how great so ever it may be, which is cast on those whofeel and manifest an anxious concern that all who had a part inplanning, or a hand in executing, this deed of midnight assassination, may be brought to answer for their enormous crime at the bar of publicjustice. [Footnote: Works of Daniel Webster, Vol. VI, p. 51. Little, Brown & Co. , Boston, 1857. ]

SINCERITY. Another quality of paramount importance to the arguer issincerity. This he must really possess if he is to be eminentlysuccessful. To feign it is almost impossible; some word or expression, some gesture or inflection of the voice, the very attitude of theinsincere arguer will betray his real feelings. If he tries to arousean emotion that he himself does not feel, his affectation will beapparent and his effort a failure. There are few things that anaudience resents more than being tricked into an expression offeeling. If they even mistrust that a speaker is trying to deceivethem, that he is arguing merely for personal gain or reputation andhas no other interest in the case, no desire to establish the truth, they will not only withhold their confidence, but will also becomeprejudiced against him. It is usually inviting disaster to champion acause in which one is not interested heart and soul. Of course inclass room work the student cannot always avoid taking a falseposition, and the training he receives thereby is excellent, but hecannot make his persuasion of the highest type of effectiveness unlesshe honestly and sincerely believes what he says, and feels theemotions he would arouse. 

AN APPEAL TO SOME EMOTION. One of the strongest forms of conciliationis the direct appeal to a dominant emotion. If an arguer can find somecommon ground on which to meet his audience, some emotion by whichthey may be moved, he can usually obtain a personal hold that willovercome hostility and lack of interest. In deciding what emotion toarouse, he must make as careful and thorough a study of his audienceas he can. In general, the use of conviction need vary but little toproduce the same results on different men; processes of pure reasoningare essentially the same the world around. But with persuasion thecase is different; emotions are varied, and in each separate instancethe arguer must carefully consider the ruling passions and ideals ofhis audience. The hopes and aspirations of a gang of ignorant minerswould differ widely from the desires of an assembly of collegestudents, or of a coterie of metropolitan capitalists. Education, wealth, social standing, politics, religion, race, nationality, everymotive that is likely to have weight with the audience should be takeninto consideration. Remembering that he has to choose between suchdiverse emotions as ambition, fear, hatred, love, patriotism, sense ofduty, honor, justice, self-interest, pleasure, and revenge, thearguer must make his selection with the greatest care, and then drivehome the appeal with all the force and eloquence at his command. Thehigher and nobler the emotion he can arouse, the greater and morepermanent will be the result. If the audience is such that he cansuccessfully arouse no higher feeling than that of self-interest orrevenge, he will, of necessity, have to appeal to these motives; butwhenever he can, he should appeal to the noblest sentiments ofmankind. 

A famous illustration of the effectiveness of this sort ofconciliation is found in Wendell Phillips' oration entitled _TheMurder of Lovejoy_. By appealing to their reverence for the past, he silenced the mob that had come to break up the meeting, and in theend he won over the house that had been packed against him. 

We have met for the freest discussion of these resolutions, and theevents which gave rise to them. I hope I shall be permitted to expressmy surprise at the sentiments of the last speaker, surprise not onlyat such sentiments from such a man, but at the applause they havereceived within these walls. A comparison has been drawn between theevents of the Revolution and the tragedy at Alton. We have heard itasserted here, in Faneuil Hall, that Great Britain had a right to taxthe colonies, and we have heard the mob at Alton, the drunkenmurderers of Lovejoy, compared to those patriot fathers who threw thetea overboard! Fellow citizens, is this Faneuil Hall doctrine?. .. . Sir, when I heard the gentleman lay down principles which place themurderers of Alton side by side with Otis and Hancock, with Quincy andAdams, I thought those pictured lips (pointing to the portraits in theHall) would have broken into voice to rebuke the recreant American--the slanderer of the dead. The gentleman said that he should sink intoinsignificance if he dared to gainsay the principles of theseresolutions. Sir, for the sentiments he has uttered, on soilconsecrated by the prayers of Puritans and the blood of patriots, theearth should have yawned and swallowed him up. [Footnote: AmericanOrations, Vol. II, page 102. G. P. Putnam's Sons. ]

Specific directions for arousing the emotions are hard to give. Theappeal must suit both the audience and the occasion, and until theseare known, suggestions are not particularly helpful. When no betterplan for conciliating an audience seems practicable, speakers andwriters try to arouse _interest_ in the discussion. There areseveral convenient methods for accomplishing this result. 

1. IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT. One of the commonest methods of arousinginterest in an audience apathetic and indifferent is to impress uponthem the importance and gravity of the question at issue. Mattersthought to be trivial are apt to receive scant attention. This fact isso universally recognized that many writers and speakers attempt atthe very outset to show that upon the correct solution of the problemat hand depend serious and far-reaching results. It is seldom enoughmerely to state that a subject is important; its seriousness should bemade apparent. This method is very popular. Whenever one feels itnecessary to open an argument with persuasion, but is at loss to knowhow to do so, he may well resort to this device. While it does not, perhaps, constitute the strongest possible appeal, yet it is eminentlyserviceable, since, if handled properly, it does arouse interest, and, moreover, it applies to many cases. 

Several examples will show how this method is commonly used:--

Mr. President, the question now about to be discussed by this body isin my judgment the most important that has attracted the attention ofCongress or the country since the formation of the Constitution. Itaffects every interest, great and small, from the slightest concern ofthe individual to the largest and most comprehensive interest of thenation. [Footnote: J. P. Jones, United States Senate, May 12, 1890. ]

No city ever had such a problem in passenger transportation to solve, and no city of any pretensions has solved it much worse. London is notin the strict sense a town, but rather a "province of houses. " Thecounty of London, as everybody knows, is only a part of theMetropolis. The four millions and a half of residents enclosed by thelegal ring-fence of the County are supplemented by two millions morewho live in groups of suburbs included within the wide limits of"Greater London"; while even beyond that large tract of southeasternEngland, with its six millions and a half of inhabitants, are manytowns and villages, populous and increasing, which are concerned withthe question of Metropolitan locomotion. [Footnote: The FortnightlyReview, Jan. 1, 1902. ]

2. TIMELINESS OF THE SUBJECT. To show that a subject is timely isanother effective device for arousing interest. As most people wish tokeep pace with the times and face the issues of the day, it is naturaland forceful to introduce an argument by showing that the subject isbeing discussed elsewhere, or by showing how an event or sequence ofevents places the problem before the public. The arguer callsattention to the fact that the question does not belong to the past orto the distant future, but is of immediate interest and must besettled at once. 

As the day of the Cuban Convention for the framing and adoption of aconstitution approaches, the question of Cuban independence assumesgreater, and still greater, proportions, and the eyes of the Americanpeople are beginning to turn anxiously toward the Pearl of theAntilles. By the time this article appears in print, delegates to theconvention will have been elected, and interest in the conventionitself will have become widespread. The task I have set before me isbriefly to review the situation, and to discuss the probable resultsto be expected from a number of causes, remote as well asproximate. [Footnote: Charles Warren Currier. The Forum, October, 1900. ]

The recent objection made in Germany that American prestige mightsuffer should there be diminution in our Berlin Embassy's socialbrilliancy has stirred Congress from apathy regarding Americanrepresentatives abroad. Congressmen are coming to realize that brains, not money, ought to form the first passport to a candidate's favor, agreeable adjunct as the money may be. [Footnote: The Outlook, April18, 1908, p. 844. ]

3. APPEAL FOR ONE'S SELF. The safest method of stirring the emotionsis to make an appeal in behalf of the subject, but occasionally awriter or speaker who is truly sincere, who is contending againstunfortunate circumstances, and is not seeking personal aggrandizement, may arouse interest by making an appeal on his own behalf. He maypresent some personal reason why the audience should be interested andgive him a respectful hearing; he calls attention not primarily to hissubject, but to his connection with it, or to some circumstance in hisown life. This method is hedged about with several pitfalls: it mayexpose one to the charge of egotism, of insincerity, or of falsemodesty; and it may draw the attention of the audience away from thematter in hand. To use this method successfully one should possessconsummate tact and thorough knowledge of human nature. 

The following opening of a speech by Abraham Lincoln at Columbus, Ohio, shows how he used this device to gain the sympathy of theaudience:--

Fellow-citizens of the State of Ohio: I cannot fail to remember that Iappear for the first time before an audience in this now great State, --an audience that is accustomed to hear such speakers as Corwin, andChase, and Wade, and many other renowned men; and remembering this, Ifeel that it will be well for you, as for me, that you should notraise your expectations to that standard to which you would have beenjustified in raising them had one of these distinguished men appearedbefore you. You would perhaps be only preparing a disappointment foryourselves, and, as a consequence of your disappointment, mortification for me. I hope, therefore, that you will commence withvery moderate expectations; and perhaps, if you will give me yourattention, I shall be able to interest you in a moderate degree. [Footnote: Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. I, p. 538. Nicolay& Hay. Century Company. ]

These, then, are the suggestions offered for conciliating an audience:Be modest; be fair; be sincere; and appeal to some strong emotion. Tomake this appeal successfully, study your audience. In case ofinability to arouse any stronger feeling, appeal to the interest ofthe people by showing that the subject is important, or timely, orboth; or show that you have some personal claim upon the audience. 

These directions are far from complete. Anything like an exhaustivetreatment of this subject would in itself constitute a book. Theadvice offered here, however, should be of considerable value to onewho has difficulty in getting a written argument or a debatesuccessfully launched. The student should supplement this chapter withcareful study of the work of proficient writers. If he will notice howthey have gained success in this particular, and if he will imitatethem, he is bound to improve his own compositions. The principaldangers to be avoided consist of going to extremes. The conciliatorypart of the introduction should not be so meager that it will fail toaccomplish its purpose, nor should it be so elaborate and artificialas to hamper the onward movement of the argument. The important thingis to gain the good will and the attention of the audience, and, otherthings being equal, the shorter the introduction the better. Furtherdirections for the spoken argument may be found in the chapterentitled _Debate_. 

EXERCISES

A. Criticise the following introductory passages for persuasiveness, pointing out specifically the methods of conciliation used, and anydefects that may be found:--

1. The building of the Panama Canal is a topic of interest andimportance to every American. Not only do we wish to see our countrybuild the canal successfully, but we also desire to see built the bestcanal that the world has ever known. There is no doubt that the canalis necessary; the great loss of time and money, the annual sacrificeof ships and lives involved in the passage around the "Horn, " not tomention the expense and congestion of the railroad freight systemsacross the continent, plainly show the need of quicker shipcommunication between the two oceans. 

2. I stand here to raise the last voice that ever can be heard thisside the judgment seat of God in behalf of the personal honor andjudicial integrity of this respondent. I fully realize theresponsibilities of my position, and I shall endeavor to meet them asbest I can. I also realize as deeply as any other man can howimportant it is not only to my client but to every American man, woman, and child that justice shall be done and true deliverance made. 

3. The opening of the racing season in New York, at the Aqueduct trackon Long Island, gives a fresh opportunity for observation of theconditions under which horse-racing, and more especially gambling onhorse races, is carried on. The announcement of the racing managersthat certain "reforms" had been inaugurated in the control of thegambling makes the opportunity of especial interest. 

4. I approach the discussion of this bill and the kindred bills andamendments pending in the two Houses with unaffected diffidence. Noproblem is submitted to us of equal importance and difficulty. Ouraction will affect the value of all the property of all the people ofthe United States, and the wages of labor of every kind, and our tradeand commerce with all the world. In the consideration of such aquestion we should not be controlled by previous opinions or bound bylocal interests, but with the light of experience and full knowledgeof all the complicated facts involved, give to the subject the bestjudgment which imperfect human nature allows. 

5. Each generation has the power to shape its own destinies; and hadWashington and his fellow patriots been governed by warnings against adeparture from traditions, our present form of government would neverhave been established, the Constitution would have been rejected bythe States, and untold evils would have resulted. Madison, whenarguing for the adoption of the Constitution, met arguments very liketo those now being made in favor of political isolation. 

6. As a race they have withered from the land. Their arrows are brokenand their springs are dried up; their cabins are in the dust. Theircouncil fire has long since gone out on the shore, and their war cryis fast dying out to the untrodden West. Slowly and sadly they climbthe mountains and read their doom in the setting sun. They areshrinking before the mighty tide which is pressing them away; theymust soon hear the roar of the last wave, which will settle over themforever. Ages hence the inquisitive white man, as he stands by somegrowing city, will ponder on the structure of their disturbed remainsand wonder to what manner of person they belonged. They will live onlyin the songs and chronicles of their exterminators. Let these befaithful to their rude virtues as men, and pay due tribute to theirunhappy fate as a people. 

7. (During the Civil War England largely favored the South. Tocounteract this feeling Henry Ward Beecher spoke in many of theprincipal cities in behalf of Northern interests. In Liverpool he metan audience that was extremely hostile. The following is theintroduction to his speech. ) For more than twenty-five years I havebeen made perfectly familiar with popular assemblies in all parts ofmy country except the extreme South. There has not been for the wholeof that time a single day of my life when it would have been safe forme to go south of Mason and Dixon's line in my own country, and allfor one reason: my solemn, earnest, persistent testimony against thatwhich I consider to be the most atrocious thing under the sun--thesystem of American slavery in a great free republic. (Cheers. ) I havepassed through that early period when right of free speech was deniedme. Again and again I have attempted to address audiences that, for noother crime than that of free speech, visited me with all manner ofcontumelious epithets; and now since I have been in England, althoughI have met with greater kindness and courtesy on the part of most thanI deserved, yet, on the other hand, I perceive that the Southerninfluence prevails to some extent in England. (Applause and uproar. )It is my old acquaintance; I understand it perfectly-(laughter)-and Ihave always held it to be an unfailing truth that where a man had acause that would bear examination he was perfectly willing to have itspoken about. (Applause. ) And when in Manchester I saw those hugeplacards, "Who is Henry Ward Beecher?" (laughter, cries of "Quiteright, " and applause), and when in Liverpool I was told that therewere those blood-red placards, purporting to say what Henry Ward Beecherhas said, and calling upon Englishmen to suppress free speech, I tellyou what I thought. I thought simply this, "I am glad of it. "(Laughter. ) Why? Because if they had felt perfectly secure, that youare the minions of the South and the slaves of slavery, they wouldhave been perfectly still. (Applause and uproar. ) And, therefore, whenI saw so much nervous apprehension that, if I were permitted to speak--(hisses and applause)--when I found they were afraid to have mespeak--(hisses, laughter, and "No, no!")--when I found that theyconsidered my speaking damaging to their cause--(applause)--when Ifound that they appealed from facts and reasonings to mob law--(applause and uproar)--I said, no man need tell me what the heart andsecret counsel of these men are. They tremble and are afraid. (Applause, laughter, hisses, "No, no!" and a voice, "New York mob. ")Now, personally, it is of very little consequence to me whether Ispeak here to-night or not. (Laughter and cheers. ) But one thing isvery certain, if you do permit me to speak here tonight, you will hearvery plain talking. (Applause and hisses. ) You will not find a man--(interruption)--you will not find me to be a man that dared to speakabout Great Britain three thousand miles off, and then is afraid tospeak to Great Britain when he stands on her shores. (Immense applauseand hisses. ) And if I do not mistake the tone and temper ofEnglishmen, they had rather have a man who opposes them in a manlyway--(applause from all parts of the hall)--than a sneak that agreeswith them in an unmanly way. (Applause and "Bravo!") Now, if I cancarry you with me by sound convictions, I shall be immensely glad(applause); but if I cannot carry you with me by facts and soundarguments, I do not wish you to go with me at all; and all that I askis simply FAIR PLAY. (Applause, and a voice, "You shall have it, too. ")

Those of you who are kind enough to wish to favor my speaking, --andyou will observe that my voice is slightly husky from having spokenalmost every night in succession for some time past, --those who wishto hear me will do me the kindness simply to sit still; and I and myfriends the Secessionists will make all the noise. (Laughter. )

B. On the affirmative side of the following propositions, writeconciliatory introductions, of about two hundred words each, suited tothe audiences indicated:--

AN AUDIENCE OF COLLEGE STUDENTS. 

1. All colleges should abolish hazing. 2. Fraternities tend to destroy college spirit. 3. A classical education is not worth while. 4. All colleges should abolish secret class societies. 5. Intercollegiate athletic contests are harmful to a college. 

AN AUDIENCE OF WORKINGMEN. 

6. Strikes are barren of profitable results. 7. Unions are detrimental to the laboring man. 8. The concentration of great wealth in the hands of a few menbenefits industrial conditions. 

CHAPTER IV

THE INTRODUCTION--CONVICTION

As soon as the persuasive portion of an introduction has rendered theaudience friendly, attentive, and open to conviction, the process ofreasoning should begin. First of all, it is the duty of the arguer tosee that the meaning of the proposition is perfectly clear both tohimself and to all the people whom he wishes to reach. If the arguerdoes not thoroughly comprehend his subject, he is likely to produceonly a jumble of facts and reasoning, or at best he may establish atotally different proposition from the one that confronts him; if theaudience fails to understand just what is being proved, they remainuninfluenced. The amount of explanation required to show what theproposition means varies according to the intelligence of the peopleaddressed and their familiarity with the subject. 

DEFINITION. 

To begin with, if there are any unfamiliar words in the proposition, any terms or expressions that are liable to be misunderstood or notcomprehended instantly, they must be defined. At this point the arguerhas to exercise considerable judgment both in determining what wordsto define and in choosing a definition that is accurate and clear. Synonyms are almost always untrustworthy or as incomprehensible as theoriginal word, and other dictionary definitions are usually framedeither in too technical language to be easily grasped or in toogeneral language to apply inevitably to the case at hand. 

DEFINITION BY AUTHORITY. As a rule, the very best definitions that canbe used are _quotations_ from the works of men distinguished fortheir knowledge in the special subject to which the word to be definedbelongs. The eminent economist defines economic terms; the statesman, political terms; the jurist, legal terms; the scientist, scientificterms; the theologian, the meaning of religious phraseology. Topresent these definitions accurately, and to be sure of the author'smeaning, one should take the quotations directly from the author'swork itself. If, however, this source is not at hand, or if time forresearch is lacking, one may often find in legal and economicdictionaries and in encyclopaedias the very quotations that he wishesto use in defining a term. It is always well, in quoting a definition, to tell who the authority is, and in what book, in what volume, and onwhat page the passage occurs. 

Another convenient way of using definition by authority is not toquote the entire definition but to _summarize_ it. Frequently anauthoritative definition is so exhaustive that it covers several pagesor even chapters of a book. In such a case the arguer may wellcondense the definition into his own words, not omitting, however, toname the sources used. The following example is an excellentillustration of this method:--

The bearing of the Monroe Doctrine on all these contentions andcounter contentions is not at once evident to the casual observer. .. . Of course with changing times its meaning has changed also, for no oneattempts to declare it to be as immutable as the law of the Medes andPersians. It is applied in various ways to meet varying conditions. Nevertheless, I may say I believe, after a perusal of the moreimportant works on the subject, that during the forescore years of itsexistence two principles have steadily underlain it: (1) that Europeshall acquire no more territory for permanent occupation upon thiscontinent; (2) that Europe shall affect the destinies of, that isexert influence over, no American state. [Footnote: A. B. Hart, _Foundations of American Foreign Policy_, chap. VII; J. W. Foster, _A Century of American Diplomacy_, chap. XII; J. A. Kasson, _The Evolution of the Constitution of the United States ofAmerica_, pages 221 ff. [Footnote: Nutter, Hersey & Greenough, Specimens of Prose Composition, p. 218. ] ]

DEFINITION BY ILLUSTRATION. Since the purpose of each step in thereasoning portion of the introduction is to convey informationaccurately, quickly, and, above all else, clearly, a particularly goodmethod for defining terms is by illustration. In using this method, one holds up to view a concrete example of the special significance ofthe word that is being explained. He shows how the law, or custom, orprinciple, or whatever is being expounded works in actual practice. For example, if he is advocating the superiority of the large collegeover the small college, he should define each term by giving specificexamples of large colleges and of small colleges. The advantage ofthis method lies in its simplicity and clearness, qualities whichenable the audience to understand the discussion without muchconscious effort on their part. Investigation reveals that thedefinitions of great writers and speakers are replete withillustration. Whenever the student of argumentation has something todefine that is particularly intricate or hard to understand, he shouldillustrate it. If he fails to find already prepared an illustrativedefinition that exactly fits his needs, he will often do well to learnjust what the term means, and then make his own illustration. 

Consider how this method has been used. The Hon. Charles Emory Smithdefines reciprocity as follows:--

Its principle, rightly understood, is axiomatic. Brazil grows coffeeand makes no machinery. We make machinery and grow no coffee. Sheneeds the fabrics of our forges and factories, and we need the fruitof her tropical soil. We agree to concessions for her coffee and sheagrees to concessions for our machinery. That is reciprocity. 

The following is a definition of free silver by The Hon. Edward O. Leech, former Director of the Mint:--

It is important to understand clearly and exactly what the freecoinage of silver under present conditions means. It may be defined asthe right of anyone to deposit silver of any kind at a mint of theUnited States, and have every 371. 25 grains of pure silver (now worthin its uncoined state about 52 cents) stamped, free of charge, "OneDollar, " which dollar shall be a full legal tender at its face valuein the payment of debts and obligations of all kinds, public andprivate, in the United States. 

In upholding his opinion that a majority of the members of the Houseof Representatives have the right to make the rules governingparliamentary procedure in the House, The Hon. Thomas B. Reedcarefully defines the term "rights":--

It is the fault of most discussions which are decided incorrectly thatthey are decided by the misuse of terms. Unfortunately, words havevery little precision, and mean one thing to one man and a differentthing to another. Words are also used with one meaning and quoted withanother. When men speak of the rights of minorities and claim for themthe sacredness of established law, they are correct or incorrectaccording as they interpret the word "rights. "

A man has a right to an estate in fee simple, a right to land, andthere is no right more indisputable under our system. Nothing but thesupreme law can take the estate away, and then only aftercompensation. The same man has a right of passage over land used as ahighway, but his town or county can take that privilege away from himwithout his consent and without compensation. In both cases the manhas rights, but the rights are entirely different, and the differencearises from the nature of things. It is good for the community, or atleast it has been so thought, that a man should have unrestrictedright over his land. On it he can build as high as heaven or dig asdeep as a probable hereafter. This is not because it is pleasant forthe man, but because it is best for the community. Therefore his rightto build or dig is limited by the right of eminent domain--the rightof the whole people to take his property at any time for the commonbenefit on paying its value. 

For the same reason the right of a man to walk over the land of aroadway is an inferior right which may more easily be taken from him;for if it be more convenient for the whole community that nobodyshould walk over that land, each man's right, which is a perfect rightwhile it exists, is taken away from him, and he alone bears the loss. 

It is hardly necessary to multiply examples in order to lay afoundation for the assertion that the rights, so called, of any man orset of men, have their foundation only in the common good. 

EXPLANATION. 

Not only must the arguer define the unfamiliar words that occur in theproposition, but he must also explain the meaning of the proposition_taken as a whole_. Since an audience often has neither theinclination nor the opportunity to give a proposition careful thoughtand study, the disputant himself must make clear the matter indispute, and show exactly where the difference in opinion between theaffirmative and the negative lies. This process is of greatimportance; it removes the subject of dispute from the realm of merewords--words which arranged in a formal statement are to many oftenincomprehensible--and brings out clearly the _idea_ that is to besupported or condemned. 

To discover just what the proposition means, the arguer must weigheach word, carefully noting its meaning and its significance in theproposition. To neglect a single word is disastrous. Anintercollegiate debate was once lost because the affirmative side didnot take into consideration the words "present tendency" in theproposition, "_Resolved_, That the present tendency of laborunions is detrimental to the prosperity of the United States. " Thenegative side admitted everything that the affirmative established, namely, that unions are detrimental; and won by showing that their_tendency_ is beneficial. In another college debate on thesubject, "_Resolved_, That the United States should immediatelydispose of the Philippines, " one side failed to meet the real point atissue because it ignored the word "immediately. " A thoroughexplanation of the proposition would have shown the limitations thatthis word imposed upon the discussion. 

In the next place, the arguer should usually present to the audience abrief history of the matter in dispute. Many debatable subjects are ofsuch a nature that the arguer himself cannot, until he Has studied thehistory of the proposition, fully understand what constitutes theclash in opinion between the affirmative and the negative sides. Tounderstand the debate, the audience must possess this sameinformation. A history of the idea contained in the proposition wouldbe absolutely necessary to render intelligible such subjects as: "Theaggressions of England in the Transvaal are justifiable"; "The UnitedStates should re-establish reciprocity with Canada"; "Football reformis advisable. "

In the last place, the arguer must give his audience all essentialinformation concerning the matter in dispute. For example, if theproposition is, "Naturalization laws in the United States should bemore stringent, " a mere definition of "naturalization laws" is notenough; the disputant must tell just what naturalization laws exist atthe present time, and just how stringent they are to-day. Again, ifthe subject is, "The United States army should be enlarged, " thearguer must tell exactly how large the army is now. If the propositionis, "The right of suffrage should be further limited by an educationaltest, " the arguer must state what limits now exist, and he must alsotell what is meant by "an educational test. " In a debate the work ofthe affirmative and of the negative differ slightly at this point. Since the proposition reads _an educational test_, the advocatefor the affirmative has the privilege of upholding any sort ofeducational test that he wishes to defend, provided only that it comeswithin the limits of "an educational test. " He may say that the testshould consist of a knowledge of the alphabet, or he may advocate anexamination in higher mathematics; _but he is under obligation tooutline carefully and thoroughly some specific system_. Thenegative, on the other hand, must be prepared to overthrow whateversystem is brought forward. If the affirmative fails to outline anysystem, the negative has only to call attention to this fact to putthe affirmative in a very embarrassing position. 

The following quotations are good illustrations of how a propositionmay be explained:--

The supremely significant and instructive fact, in the dealings ofsociety with crime in our day, and one which has not been fullygrasped as yet by the legal profession, not even by those who practicein criminal courts, and who should be familiar with it, is this: Wehave now two classes of institutions fundamentally distinct incharacter and purpose, both of which are designed by society, erectedand conducted at public expense, for the purpose of dealing withcriminals. The most numerous class of these institutions consists ofprisons, in which to confine men for terms specified by the trialcourts as penalties for their offenses. The laws, under whichoffenders are sentenced to these prisons, aim at classifying crimesaccording to the degree of guilt they imply, and assigning to each ofthem the penalty which it deserves. Thus, to these prisons are sentmen sentenced to confinement for two, five, ten, fourteen, or thirtyyears, or for life, according to the name which the law attaches tothe crime proved upon them; and each man, when he has served theprescribed term, is turned loose upon society. The other class ofinstitutions includes what are known as "reformatories. " Thefundamental principle here is that an offender is sent to them not fora term, but for a specified work. It is assumed that his character andhabits unfit him for social life. For reasons to be found in his ownnature, he cannot yet be trusted with freedom and the responsibilitiesof citizenship. But he may possess the capacity to become an honest, industrious, and useful citizen. To the reformatory, then, he is sentto be educated; to be trained to habits of industry; above all, to bedisciplined in the habit of looking forward to the future with theconsciousness that his welfare and happiness to-morrow depend on hisconduct to-day, and that he is constantly shaping his own destiny. Heis expected to remain until it satisfactorily appears that thistraining is effective, and he may then go forth with a prospect ofleading an honest and respectable life. This, in brief, is thedistinction between these two classes of institutions. 

For a generation past, these two kinds of prisons have been standingside by side in New York, Massachusetts, and other States. Each ofthem has received many thousands of criminals under sentence for graveoffenses. Each of them has sent out thousands of inmates into theworld of human society, with whatever impress the life, teachings, andassociations of the institutions could make upon their natures, as apreparation for their after career. What is the result?[Footnote: Charlton T. Lewis, in North American Review, August, 1904. ]

Congress has at last decided that the long-talked-of canal shall bebuilt, and shall be built at Panama. Those issues no longer confrontus. The question now to be decided concerns the kind of canal thatshall be constructed. Two plans have been suggested: the lock-canalplan and the sea-level plan. The advocates of the lock-canal plan aimto build a gigantic dam in the valley of the Chagres River; theenormous artificial lake thus formed being used as part of thepassageway for the vessels. They say that this lake will be at anelevation of about eighty-five feet above mean sea-level; the passageto and from it will be made by means of canals at both ends, eachcanal containing three locks. Thus there will be, if this plan isadopted, six locks in the entire system. The canal will be ofsufficient width and depth to accommodate vessels of such size as maybe expected to be built when the canal is completed. 

If the canal is built at sea-level, it will be of the same depth andwidth as the lock-canal, but it will be at the level of the seathroughout its entire length. Owing to the fact that the Atlantic andthe Pacific have a difference in extreme level of twenty feet, anautomatic tide-lock will have to be installed. A small lake will alsobe built, merely to divert the Chagres and to furnish light and power. 

The question that now confronts us is, "Which plan should be adopted?"

ISSUES. 

Following the discovery of the real meaning of the proposition, comesthe finding of the issues. Whenever a man in business, professional, or political life, or in any circumstances whatsoever, must determineupon some policy or come to some decision regarding theoretical orpractical matters, he formulates his belief and chooses his line ofaction in accordance with the answers that he makes to certainquestions either consciously or unconsciously present in his mind. Forinstance, if he considers the purchase of a certain piece of realestate, he says to himself: "Is the price fair?" "Have I the money toinvest?" "Can I sell or use the property to good advantage?" "How muchpleasure shall I derive from it?" If he answers these questions in oneway, the purchase is likely to be made; if in another, it is not. Again, a board of college trustees may be considering the abolishmentof football. In arriving at a decision, they are confronted with thesequestions: "Is the game beneficial or detrimental to the player?" "Howdoes it affect the college as a whole?" Those who favor the game will, of course, say that it is a benefit to the player and the wholecollege; while those who oppose it will maintain that it is adetriment to all concerned. But evidently the same questions must bemet and answered by both sides. These questions are called_issues_. 

Issues are subdivisions of the subject under discussion, and arealways essentially the same for any given idea. The first requirementfor the issues of any proposition is that they be comprehensive; thatis, the sum of their ideas must equal the main idea expressed in theproposition. To those who are carrying on the discussion and to theaudience, if there be one, it must be perfectly evident that thesequestions cover the entire field of controversy; that if thesequestions are satisfactorily answered in one way or the other, thediscussion is settled and nothing remains to be said. The secondrequirement is that the issues consider only disputed matter. Aquestion that gives rise to no disagreement, that admittedly has butone answer, is never an issue. _Issues, therefore, may be defined asthe questions that must be answered by both the affirmative and thenegative sides of the proposition under discussion and that, ifanswered in one way, establish the proposition, and if answered inanother way, overthrow it_. 

The issues of a proposition exist independently of the side that isbeing upheld. The affirmative will find the same issues as thenegative, but it rarely happens that two men will divide a propositionin exactly the same manner and thus state the issues in precisely thesame language. If, however, the work of both has been fair andcomplete, their issues will not vary in any important particular. Forexample, under the subject, "The Federal government should own andoperate the railroads of the United States, " one person might give asissues:--

1. Has the government the right to take the roads without the consentof the present owners?

2. Is the government financially able to buy the roads?

3. Does the present system contain serious defects?

4. Will the proposed system remove these defects without bringing innew evils equally serious?

Another might state as issues:--

1. Is the proposed plan practicable?

2. Will it benefit the people?

The issues in both instances, however, are essentially the same, asquestions one and two of the first list are equivalent to one of thesecond; and three and four of the first, to two of the second. 

At this point it may be well to mention a common error that must beguarded against. It often happens that a question is stated as anissue which is not a subdivision of the proposition at all, but is theentire proposition itself, framed in slightly different language. Suchwould be the error if the question, "Would the change be desirable?"were used as an issue for the proposition, "All state colleges shouldabolish military drill"

It sometimes happens that one is forced to defend or attack what hasbeen called a "combined proposition, " a proposition that contains twodistinct subjects for argument. Such subjects are to be avoided asmuch as possible, but when they must be met, it is usually necessaryto have two separate sets of issues. An example of such a propositionwould be, "All American colleges and universities should adopt thehonor system. "

The only practicable method of finding the issues of a proposition isto question it from all pertinent points of view, and then toeliminate all questions that have no vital bearing on the subject, orthat are acknowledged to have but one answer. The questions thatremain are the issues. In using this method of analysis, one must becareful to consider the proposition in all its phases and details, andfrom both the affirmative and the negative sides. Neglect to give thesubject thorough consideration often results in one's being suddenlyconfronted with an issue that he has not previously discovered andconsequently cannot meet. Failure to cast aside all questions that arenot real issues may cause equal embarrassment: an arguer never wishesto waste time and effort in establishing proof that is not essentialto the argument, or that is admitted by the other side. 

It is hardly possible even to suggest all the various kinds ofquestions that may be asked about debatable subjects. An arguer mustdepend largely upon his own judgment and common sense in analyzingeach proposition that he meets. He may, however, find the issues ofmany propositions by carefully questioning them from certain importantand comprehensive points of view. The list of standpoints indicatedhere is not exhaustive; only the more important and generalstandpoints are considered. The student should bear in mind that thefollowing instructions are designed to teach him a practical method ofanalysis; they do not constitute a formula that can be applied in allinstances. 

First, the analysis of propositions of policy will be taken up;secondly, the analysis of propositions of fact. 

PROPOSITIONS OF POLICY. 

1. IS THE PLAN PRACTICABLE? Whenever a plan is proposed, first askwhether or not it is practicable. If those who oppose the idea canmaintain that great obstacles exist which will prevent the undertakingof the project or hinder its execution, then the question ofpracticability constitutes an important issue. For instance, one whocontemplates a thorough argument on the proposition, "The UnitedStates navy should be greatly enlarged, " must prove that the plan is, or is not, practicable. Plainly, such hindrances as enormous expense, inadequate facilities for building and repairing battleships, and theincreased demand for officers and sailors render questionable theexpediency of such a measure. This issue, however, is not found inconnection with all propositions; it does not concern propositionsthat merely approve or condemn existing conditions or assert theoccurrence of an event. For example, practicability does not enterinto such subjects as these: "Strikes are justifiable"; "The presentpowers of the Speaker of the House of Representatives are dangerouslygreat"; "Athletics have been excessively developed in Americancolleges and universities. " But all propositions that advocate achange, that propose some new system of operation, usually have thisissue involved. Such subjects are: "American cities should own andoperate public plants for the furnishing of light, heat, and power";"Military drill should be taught in the public schools"; "Porto Ricoshould be given a territorial form of government. "

2. WILL THE PROPOSED PLAN BE A MORAL BENEFIT OR DETRIMENT TO THOSECONCERNED? Not all propositions, by any means, but many, are of such acharacter that they must be considered from the standpoint ofmorality. The arguer must ask whether the idea involved in the subjectis morally right or wrong; whether it is morally beneficial orharmful. This point of view includes more than at first appears. Ittakes into consideration justice, duty, honesty, faithfulness, religion, everything that pertains to what is right or wrong. Underthe proposition, "The treatment of the American Indians by the UnitedStates should be condemned, " appears the moral issue, "What is our_duty_ toward the people of this race?" The proposition, "Publiclibraries, museums, and art galleries should be open on Sunday, "presents this issue, "Is the method of recreation afforded by theopening of these buildings in accordance with the teachings of theChristian religion?" The proposition, "Football is an undesirablecollege game, " must be settled in part by the answer to the question, "Is the game beneficial or harmful to the player's character?"

3. WILL THE PROPOSED PLAN BE A MATERIAL BENEFIT OR DETRIMENT? In thethird place the proposition should be questioned from a material pointof view, to determine whether the plan is, or is likely to be, abenefit or a detriment. In some form this issue will doubtless befound in connection with almost every proposition of policy. In allsystems of government, of business, and even of education, materialbetterment is invariably one of the ultimate objects sought. Thequestion of national expansion presents the issue, "Will such a courseadd to the glory, the prestige, or the wealth of the nation?" When aboy considers going to college, he desires to know whether a collegeeducation is a valuable asset in business, social, or professionallife. An issue which puts to the touch the matter of personal gain issure to involve a substantial portion of the controversy. The arguerwho can decisively settle the question of dollars and cents always hasa strong argument. Usually the issue involving the question ofmaterial benefit or detriment is plain and direct; sometimes, however, it is partially concealed. A man debating on the affirmative side ofthe proposition, "_Resolved_, That United States Senators shouldbe elected by a direct popular vote of the people, " may urge as areason that such a method will result in purer politics. Thisparticular line of argument he may carry no farther, taking it forgranted that everyone will recognize the connection between honestoffice holders and material gain. 

4. WILL THE PROPOSED PLAN BE AN INTELLECTUAL BENEFIT OR DETRIMENT? Allpropositions that deal with education or with other matters thatpertain to man's progress and advancement should be viewed from anintellectual standpoint. No person in discussing a measure bearingupon the welfare of an individual, of a community, or of a nation, canafford to neglect questioning its influence for mental advancement orretrogression. Propositions relating to schools, colleges, and similarinstitutions, and propositions dealing with social and industrialconditions present this issue. Modern theories of government, bothmunicipal and national, are frequently based to some extent upon theidea of teaching the people how to live and how to govern themselves. The policy of the United States in the Philippines and in the WestIndies has been greatly influenced by the query, "How will it affectthe intellectual welfare of the people concerned?"

5. WILL THE PROPOSED PLAN BE A PHYSICAL BENEFIT OR DETTRIMENT? Allsubjects that concern the life, health, strength, or in any way bearupon the physical well-being of man present this issue. An argument ongovernment ownership of railroads would have to answer the question, "Under which system will fewer accidents occur?" All such propositionsas, "Eight hours ought legally to constitute a working day"; "Stateboards of health should compel all persons afflicted with contagiousdiseases to be quarantined"; "Football is an undesirable collegegame, " give rise to the issue of physical welfare. 

6. WILL THE PROPOSED PLAN BE A POLITICAL BENEFIT OR DETRIMENT? If aplan is of such far-reaching significance that its adoption orrejection would affect a whole town, state, or nation, then its meritsusually depend to some extent upon its political significance. Theissue may take some such form as, "How will the system affect thecountry politically?" "Will the system encourage bribery and graft, orwill it tend to do away with these evils?" "What will be its effectupon bossism?"

7. HOW HAS THE PLAN SUCCEEDED WHERE IT HAS BEEN TRIED? This questionfrequently occurs as an issue in connection with all sorts ofpropositions. Its importance and significance are so evident that noexplanation is needed. The value of precedent is known to every one. 

8. DOES THE PRESENT SYSTEM CONTAIN SERIOUS EVILS? The asking of thisquestion is frequently one of the very best ways to get at the heartof a proposition of policy. To be sure, this question overlaps andembraces several other questions that have been suggested, but acomprehensive issue like this is sometimes preferable from thestandpoint both of the arguer and of the audience. It removes from thearguer the necessity of classifying each evil under the head of_moral_, _financial_, _intellectual_, etc. ; and in manycases it results in an argument more easily understood by theaudience. In some form this issue applies to nearly all political, economic, and financial propositions. 

9. IF THE PRESENT SYSTEM DOES CONTAIN SERIOUS EVILS, WILL THE PROPOSEDSYSTEM REMOVE THEM? Equal in importance with the question as towhether the existing system is defective, is the question as towhether the proposed system will remove these defects, without, ofcourse, introducing equally great disadvantages. These two issuesalmost invariably go together; they set the system advocated by theaffirmative and the system advocated by the negative side by side, andcompare and contrast each with the other. 

10. IF THE PRESENT SYSTEM CONTAINS SERIOUS EVILS, IS THE PROPOSEDSYSTEM THE ONLY REMEDY? This last question is very closely connectedwith the two preceding questions. The whole discussion may hinge noton whether evils exist, but on how they shall be remedied. If theargument takes this turn, the advocates of a certain system must showthat their plan is the only one suitable for adoption, or, at least, is the best plan, while the negative must introduce and uphold atotally different scheme. For instance, under the proposition, "TheUnited States army should be greatly enlarged, " the first two issueswould probably be these: "Is the present army adequate to protect thenation?" and "Is the enlargement of the army the _only_ means ofrendering the nation safe from invasion?"

PROPOSITIONS OF FACT. 

1. DOES THE PROPOSITION STATE A POSSIBLE TRUTH? To find the issues ofa proposition of fact, first ask whether the occurrence in questioncould have happened or the condition alleged in the proposition couldpossibly have existed. This question is so important that if it canconclusively be answered in the negative the discussion is ended. Legal proceedings invariably center around some form of a propositionof fact. In the criminal court a man to prove his innocence has onlyto establish an alibi or prove physical inability to commit the crimewith which he is charged. Not always, of course, does the question ofpossibility constitute an issue, since frequently the possibility isadmitted. Such would be the case if the following propositions came upfor discussion: "Joan of Arc was burned at the stake"; "Nero wasguilty of burning Rome. " In these instances possibility gives way toprobability. 

2. DOES THE PROPOSITION STATE A PROBABLE TRUTH? If the question ofpossibility has been answered affirmatively or inconclusively, theissue of probability next arises. In connection with many propositionsof fact this is the most important issue to be encountered. Unless acondition or an event--its possibility being admitted--can be affirmedor denied by reliable witnesses who testify from their own personalknowledge of the matter, the most that any arguer can do is toestablish a balance of probability. Those who believe that Bacon wrotethe plays attributed to Shakespeare try to show how improbable it isthat a man like Shakespeare could have produced such works, and howvery likely it is that Bacon was the real author. Many criminals areconvicted or acquitted on evidence that establishes merely a strongprobability of guilt or of innocence. 

3. IS THERE ANY DIRECT EVIDENCE BEARING ON THE PROPOSITION? In thethird place, a person who is trying to prove or disprove a propositionof fact must consider the direct evidence involved. Indirect evidencetends to establish the possibility or probability that a statement istrue or false, while direct evidence asserts that it is true or false. Direct evidence on the question, "Country roads in New England areinferior to those of the Middle West, " would not be a description ofthe topographical and geographical features of both regions, for thisinformation could at its best establish only a strong probability;direct evidence on this subject would be the testimony of people whohave investigated the roads, and could thus speak from direct personalknowledge. 

This issue of direct evidence has two phases. The arguer must ask, "Isany direct evidence available?" and "If there is any, what is itsvalue?" It is easily seen that not all evidence is equally reliable. Both the man and what he says must be tested: the man for suchqualities as truthfulness, intelligence, and experience; thestatements for consistency and general credibility. The tests ofevidence are given in detail in another chapter. 

TESTS FOR ISSUES. 

After an arguer has secured his list of issues, he should test hiswork by asking the four following questions:--

1. Does each issue really bear upon the proposition?

2. Is each issue a subdivision of the proposition, or is it theproposition itself formulated in different language?

3. Does each issue comprise only disputed matter?

4. Do the issues, taken collectively, consider all phases of theproposition?

Several illustrations will show more plainly just what issues are andhow they are used in connection with other parts of an introduction. 

SHALL GREEK BE TAUGHT IN HIGH SCHOOLS?

In taking up the discussion of Greek in the high schools, I shallconsider these three questions: First, is Greek more valuable thanother studies in training the mind? Second, does the study of Greekacquaint us with the best that has been known and said in the world, and, therefore, with the history of the human spirit? And third, whereshall Greek be taught? [Footnote: W. F. Webster, The Forum, December, 1899, page 459. ]

DOES COLONIZATION PAY?

The points to be considered in determining the somewhat mercenaryquestion, "Does Colonization Pay?" as viewed with regard to theinterests of the colonizing country, are: (1) the market that thecolonies afford for the goods which the colonizing country has tosell; and whether control gives to the mother-country a larger shareof their market than she would have without that control; (2) thesupplies the colonies are able to furnish for use in the mother-country; and whether the purchase of these supplies from the coloniesproves more advantageous to the mother-country than if they should bepurchased from other parts of the world; (3) the advantages, if any, which accrue to the native population of the country controlled. [Footnote: O. P. Austin, The Forum, January, 1900, p. 623. ]

The following passage, taken from Daniel Webster's speech in which, ascounsel for the city of Boston, he argues that a certain piece of landhas not become a public highway, is a good illustration of anintroduction on what was virtually a proposition of fact. Notice withwhat skill he cast aside all irrelevant matter and reduced theproposition to clearly stated and indisputable issues:--

If this street, or land, or whatever it may be, has become and nowis a public highway, it must have become so in one of three ways, andto these points I particularly call your honors' attention. 

1st. It must have either become a highway by having been regularlylaid out according to usage and law; or

2nd. By _dedication_ as such by those having the power todedicate it, and acceptance and adoption so far as they are required;or

3d. As a highway by long user, without the existence of proof of anyoriginal laying out, or dedication. 

It is not pretended by any one that the land in question is a highway, upon the last of these grounds. I shall therefore confine myself tothe consideration of the other two questions: namely. Was there ever aformal and regular laying out of a street here? or was there ever aregular and sufficient dedication and acceptance? [Footnote: The Worksof Daniel Webster, Vol. VI, p. 186. Little, Brown & Co. , Boston, 1857. ]

PARTITION. 

In college debate, though not frequently elsewhere, the issues as arule are immediately followed by a series of statements that show howeach issue is to be answered. These statements constitute what isknown as the _partition_. When a partition is made, eachstatement becomes a main point to be established by proof in thediscussion. The following portion of a student's argument containsboth the issues and the partition:--

In considering, then, whether colleges should adopt the system ofexempting from final examinations all students who have attained anaverage daily grade of eighty-five per cent. Or over, we have only toconsider the effect such a rule would have upon the students, individually and collectively. Would the system raise or lower thestandard of scholarship? Would it assist or retard the growth of otherqualities which a college course should develop? The negative willoppose the adoption of this rule by establishing the three followingpoints:--

1. Such a system will lower the scholarship both of those who areexempted from examinations and of those who are not. 

2. Such a system will foster dishonesty, jealousy, and conceit. 

3. Such a system will deprive those who are exempted from examinationsof valuable discipline in preparing for examinations and in taking theexaminations. 

There are several forms in which the partition may be expressed: itmay consist of a single sentence that indicates how the issues are tobe answered; it may consist of the issues themselves turned intodeclarative sentences so that they read in favor of the side beingupheld; or it may answer each issue by means of several statements. The following will illustrate the several methods:--

Proposition: _Resolved_, That football is an undesirable collegegame. 

Issues:

1. Does football benefit or injure the player?

2. Does football benefit or injure the college as a whole?

Partition (negative):

_First method. _

1. We will establish our side of the argument by proving that in eachcase football is a benefit. 

_Second method. _

1. Football benefits the player. 

2. Football benefits the college as a whole. 

_Third method. _

1. Football benefits the player physically. 

2. Football benefits the player mentally. 

3. Football benefits the player morally. 

4. Football benefits the students who do not participate in the game. 

5. Intercollegiate football games advertise the college. 

The partition is usually found in college debate because in a contestof this sort absolute clearness is a prerequisite for success. As butlittle interest customarily centers around the subject itself, eachdebater knows that if he is to make any impression on the audience hemust so arrange his argument that it will, with a minimum amount ofeffort on the part of the listener, be clear to every one. To onereading an argument, a partition, unless of the simplest kind, willprobably seem superfluous; to one listening to a speech in which he istruly interested, the partition may seem labored. But when the wholeinterest centers in the method of presentation, and in the processesof reasoning rather than in the subject matter, the partition doesincrease the clearness of the argument, and should, therefore, beused. 

By way of summary, then, it may be said that the work of conviction inthe introduction is to show the relation between the proposition andthe proof. The arguer accomplishes this task, first, by defining allwords the meaning of which is not generally comprehended; secondly, byexplaining, in the light of these definitions, the meaning of theproposition taken as a whole; thirdly, by discovering the issuesthrough a careful process of analysis; and fourthly, by making apartition when he is engaged in debate and has reason to think thatthe audience will not see the connection between the issues and thediscussion. 

HOW TO INVESTIGATE A SUBJECT. 

A student will hardly have reached this point in the study ofArgumentation before finding it necessary to search for informationthat will assist him in the construction of his argument. To oneunfamiliar with a library, a search after facts bearing upon a givensubject is likely to prove tedious. For this reason a few words ofadvice concerning the proper way in which to use a library may be ofgreat help to a beginner. Nothing, however, can be given here thatwill even approximate the value of a few hours' instruction by thelibrarian of the college in which the student is enrolled. In theabsence of such instruction, one can seldom do better at the outsetthan to become familiar with indexes to periodical and contemporaryliterature, encyclopaedias, government reports, and the librarycatalogue. 

The best indexes are the _Reader's Guide, Poole's Index, The AnnualLibrary Index, _ and the _Current Events Index_. These givereferences to all articles published in the principal magazines andnewspapers for many years. In these articles one will find almostlimitless material on nearly every popular topic of the day--political, economic, scientific, social, educational. The writers, too, are often of national and even of international reputation, andthe opinions and ideas given here are frequently as weighty andprogressive as can be found. In searching through an index forarticles upon a certain subject, one should invariably look underseveral headings. For example, if one is seeking material in regard tothe abolishment of baseball from the list of college sports, he oughtnot to consult just the one heading _baseball_; he should inaddition look under _athletics_, _college sports_, andsimilar topics. 

Other valuable sources of information are encyclopaedias. They oftengive broad surveys and comprehensive digests that cannot readily befound elsewhere. Although they do not, as a rule, discuss subjectsthat are of mere local or present-day interest, yet the thoroughsearcher after evidence will usually do well to consult at leastseveral. A fact worth bearing in mind is that in connection with thesearticles in encyclopaedias, references are often given to books andarticles that treat the subject very thoroughly. 

In the next place, official publications frequently furnish invaluablehelp in regard to public problems. Both state governments and thenational government constantly publish reports containing statistics, the opinions of experts, and suggestions for economic and politicalchanges. Some of the most valuable of these documents for the purposesof the arguer are Census, Immigration, Education, and InterstateCommerce Commission reports, the messages of the Presidents, and the_Congressional Record_. There are indexes to all these, and onecan easily find out how to use them. 

Furthermore, one should not fail to consult the library catalogue. Tobe sure, if the books are catalogued only according to titles andauthors, one will probably get little assistance from this sourceunless he knows beforehand what particular books or authors to searchfor. If, on the other hand, the books are also catalogued according tothe subjects of which they treat, one can see almost at a glance whatbooks the library has that bear upon the matter under investigation. 

EXERCISES

A. Define the following terms:--monopoly, free trade, railway pooling, income tax, honorary degree, tutorial system of instruction, industrial education, classical education, German university method ofstudy, vivisection, temperance, Indian agency system, yellow peril, graft, sensational, mass play, monarch, civilization, autonomy. 

B. Criticise the issues that are given for the followingpropositions:--

1. _Resolved, _ That in the United States naturalization lawsshould be more stringent. 

 a. Are the present laws satisfactory? b. Have the results of the laws been satisfactory? c. Would a change be wise?

2. _Resolved, _ That in the United States the reformatory systemof imprisonment should be substituted for the punitive. 

 a. Is the reformatory system practicable? b. Does it reform the criminal? c. What has been its success thus far? d. Is it in accordance with modern civilization?

3. _Resolved_, That education in the United States should becompulsory to the age of sixteen. 

 a. Is compulsory education practicable? b. Will compulsory education benefit the child? c. Will compulsory education benefit the public?

4. _Resolved_, That American universities should admit women onequal terms with men. 

 a. Is woman's education as important as man's? b. Is coeducation a benefit to both sexes? c. Is coeducation a benefit to the college? d. Is the desirable system of separate education worth the extra money it costs?

5. _Resolved_, That in the United States there should be aneducational test for voting. 

 a. Is voting a privilege or a natural right? b. Ought illiterates to be excluded from the polls? c. Would the test be unfair to any class of citizens? d. Could such a test be easily incorporated into our laws?

6. _Resolved_, That vivisection should be prohibited. 

 a. Is vivisection of great assistance to medicine? b. Is vivisection humane? c. Is it right for us as human beings to sanction the many forms of needless and excessive cruelty practised by vivisectors?

C. Make a brief introduction to each of the following propositions, defining all words that require definition, explaining the meaning ofthe proposition, stating the issues, and making the partition:--

1. All colleges should debar freshmen from participation inintercollegiate athletic contests. 

2. Playing baseball with organizations not under the nationalagreement should not render athletes ineligible for college teams. 

3. ---- College should adopt the honor system of holding examinations. 

4. All colleges should abolish hazing. 

5. The climate of our country is changing. 

6. Macbeth's wife was the cause of his ruin. 

7. The Rhodes scholarships for the United States will accomplish theobjects of its founder. 

8. National expositions are a benefit to the country. 

CHAPTER V

THE INTRODUCTION--BRIEF-DRAWING

Preceding chapters have dwelt on the essential characteristics of theintroduction and have shown what it should be like when completed. Noone but an expert writer, however, can hope that his argument, ineither introduction, discussion, or conclusion, will attain anyconsiderable completeness and excellence without first passing througha preliminary form known as the _brief_. 

A brief is a special kind of outline: _it is an outline that setsforth in specific language all the ideas to be used in that portion ofthe argument known as conviction, and that shows the exact relationthese ideas bear to each other and to the proposition_. An outlinein narrative, descriptive, or expository composition is invariablymade up of general suggestions, which seldom indicate the same ideasto different persons; it is inexact and incomplete. A brief, on thecontrary, fails in its purpose unless it conveys accurate information. The material composing it is always in the form of complete sentences;the ideas are expressed in as exact and specific language as thewriter is capable of using. A good brief means as much to the one whoreads it as to the one who draws it. It is, too, a complete work initself. It does not deal with persuasion; with this exception, however, it contains in condensed form all the material to be used inthe finished argument. 

There are many reasons why an arguer should first cast his material inthe form of a brief. To begin with, this device enables him to grasp, almost at a glance, all the material used for the purpose ofconviction; it keeps constantly before him the points that he mustexplain, and shows him instantly just how far he has progressed withthe proof of each statement. Furthermore, a brief renders the arguerinvaluable assistance in preserving the fundamental principles ofcomposition, especially those of Unity, Coherence, Proportion, andEmphasis. It greatly simplifies his task of assorting material andassigning each part its proper place and function. It exhibits soclearly every particle of evidence and every process of reasoningemployed that it affords great convenience for testing both thequality and the quantity of the proof. In fact, a good brief is soessential a part of a good argument that a student who neglects todraw the first is bound to meet failure in the second. 

The rules governing brief-drawing logically divide themselves intofour classes: those which apply to the brief as a whole constitute thefirst class and are called General Rules; those rules which apply toeach of the main divisions of a brief constitute the three remainingclasses and are called Rules for the Introduction, Rules for theDiscussion, and Rules for the Conclusion. 

GENERAL RULES. 

In drawing a brief, the student should first divide his material intothree groups, corresponding to the three divisions of the completeargument: the Introduction, Discussion, and Conclusion. Moreover, since absolute clearness in every particular is the prime requisitefor a good brief, he should label each of these parts with its propername, so that there may never be the slightest doubt or confusion asto where one part ends and another begins. Hence the first rule forbrief-drawing is:--

Rule I. _Divide the brief into three parts, and mark themrespectively, Introduction, Discussion, and Conclusion_. 

A brief, as has been explained, is an outline that contains all thereasoning to be found in the finished argument. Reasoning processesare carried on, not with vague ideas and general suggestions, but withspecific facts and exact thoughts. For this reason, only completestatements are of value in a brief. Mere terms must be avoided. Astatement, it should be remembered, is a declarative sentence; a termis a word or any combination of words other than a sentence. 

The following examples of terms plainly show that no reasoning processcan exist without the use of complete statements:--

Strikes during the past twenty-five years. 

Percentage of strikes conducted by labor organizations. 

Building trades and strikes. 

Since such expressions as these give no information, they aremanifestly out of place in a brief. Each term may call to mind any oneof several ideas. No one but the author knows whether the first termis intended to indicate that strikes have been of frequent or ofinfrequent occurrence, beneficial or detrimental. The second term doesnot indicate whether the percentage of strikes conducted by labororganizations has been great or small, increasing or decreasing. Thethird term is equally indefinite. Notice, however, that as soon asthese terms are turned into complete sentences, they may well serve asexplanation or as proof:--

During the twenty-five year period ending in 1905 there occurred inthe United States 36, 757 strikes. 

Labor organizations directed about two-thirds of these strikes. 

The building trades have had more strikes than has any other industry. This explanation gives rise to the following rule:--

Rule II. _Express each idea in the brief in the form of a completestatement_. 

Moreover, each sentence should contain only one idea. Every thoughtexpressed has some specific work to do, and it can do it far moreeffectively if it stands by itself as a unit. The awkwardness andimpracticability of proving the truth or falsity of a statement thatmakes several assertions has been treated under the head of CombinedPropositions. Obviously, there are unwarrantable difficulties ingrouping explanation or proof about such a statement as, "Municipalownership has failed in Philadelphia, has succeeded in Edinburgh, andis likely to meet with indifferent success in New Orleans. "Furthermore, a sentence that contains several distinct thoughts isvery ineffective as proof for some other statement. Since one part ofthe sentence may be accepted as true and another part rejected, theresulting confusion is very great. To avoid all errors of this kind, the student should use, as far as possible, only _simple_sentences. 

Rule III. _Make in each statement only a single assertion_. 

In the next place, one who draws a brief should take pains to frameall his statements in as concise a form as he can. If he is able tostate an idea in six words, he should not use seven. This principledoes not mean that small words like _a, an_, and _the_should be left out, or that an obvious subject may be omitted; it doesnot mean that the "diary" style of writing is permissible. It meanssimply that one should always state his ideas as briefly as possiblewithout violating any of the rules of Composition. Quotations shouldrarely appear in a brief, never unless they are very short. When anarguer wishes to make use of another writer's material, he shouldcondense it into his own language, and state from what source hederived his information. In an expanded argument the full quotationmay appear. The ability to express ideas both concisely and, at thesame time, clearly, is attained only by considerable labor, yet adeparture from the principle of brevity is a serious violation of goodbrief-drawing. Hence the rule:--

Rule IV. _Make each statement as concise as is consistent withclearness_. 

Every brief is primarily a process of explanation. From this fact itis evident that clearness must be sought above all other qualities. Not only must the idea expressed be understood, but the _relationbetween_ ideas, must be perfectly plain and evident. The readershould be able to see at a glance what material is of co-ordinate rankand what is of subordinate rank. This perspicuity is especiallynecessary in the discussion, where each statement is either beingproved by subordinate statements or is serving as proof for some otherstatement. The device ordinarily adopted for exhibiting at a glancethe relation between the ideas in a brief consists of two parts:first, all subordinate statements are indented farther than moreimportant statements; and second, numbers and letters are used toindicate what statements are of co-ordinate importance and what are ofsecondary rank. The system of marking most generally adopted is asfollows:--

I. A. 1. A. 1'. A'. B. 1. A. 

II. A. Etc. 

Thus the fifth rule is:--

Rule V. _Indicate the relation between statements by indentation andby the use of symbols_. 

In indicating the relation between ideas, a writer should never putmore than one symbol before a statement. It seems almost superfluousto mention an error so apparent as the double use of symbols, but themistake is frequently made and much confusion results. The numeral Ibefore a heading indicates that the statement is of primaryimportance; the letter A indicates that it is of secondary importance. If a statement is marked IA, apparently it is both primary andsecondary, clearly an impossibility. 

Rule VI. _Mark each statement with only one symbol_. 

RULES FOR THE INTRODUCTION. 

It has been seen that a brief is a complete composition in itself, embodying all the material for conviction that will later be found inthe expanded argument. The introduction, therefore, must containsufficient information to make the proof of the proposition perfectlyclear. This portion of the brief serves as a connecting link betweenthe proposition and the discussion; it must explain the nature of theproposition and then show how the proof which is to follow applies toit. The exact work that the introduction to a brief must perform isstated in the following rule:--

Rule VII. _Put into the introduction sufficient explanation for acomplete understanding of the discussion. This explanation usuallyinvolves:-- (a) a definition of terms, (b) an explanation of the meaning of the proposition, (c) a statement of the issues, and (d) the partition. _

Neither an introduction to a brief nor an introduction to a completeargument should contain any statements not admitted by both sides. Allideas that savor of controversy or prejudice have no place in anintroduction. The sole purpose of the introduction is to prepare theway for the discussion; if it contains anything in the nature ofproof, anything which is not admittedly true, it is no longer pureintroduction, but becomes in part discussion. If explanation and proofare thus thrown together indiscriminately, confusion will result. Accordingly the following rule is of great importance:--

Rule VIII. _Put into the introduction only statements admitted byboth sides_. 

The following introductions to briefs may well serve as models forstudent's work:--

FIRST MODEL. 

_Resolved_, That England should permanently retain control ofEgypt. 

NEGATIVE BRIEF. 

INTRODUCTION. 

 I. Because of the recent rapid development of Egypt, the question of the retention of this country is becoming important. 

 II. The following explanations will aid in the discussion of the problem:--

 A. Egypt is that strip of country in the northeastern part of Africa, drained by the Nile and its tributaries. 

 B. England has an army of occupation in Egypt, and governs it nominally through the Khedive. 

 C. England has never suggested annexation. 

 D. England has shut out the interference of France and other European nations. 

 E. England has practically ruled Egypt as a dependency. 

III. The following facts are agreed upon:--

 A. Some nation had to take charge of Egypt, for

 1. The country was heavily in debt. 

 2. The people were starving. 

 B. It is for the advantage of England to retain control of the country. 

 IV. The conflicting arguments on the question are as follows:--

 A. Those who favor the control of Egypt by England have certain beliefs:--

 1. They believe that the control of Egypt by England is the only practical solution of the problem. 

 2. They believe that the present status of affairs is beneficial to Egypt and to the whole world. 

 B. Those opposed to the control of Egypt by England maintain the following:--

 1. They maintain that England rules in a selfish manner. 

 2. They maintain that Turkey and not England should have control of Egypt. 

 V. From this conflict of opinion it appears that the points to be determined are:--

 A. Is Egypt benefited by the control of England?

 B. Is the suzerainty of England over Egypt the only practical solution of the problem?

 C. Is the control of Egypt by England a benefit to the whole world?

 VI. The negative will attempt to prove that England should not permanently retain Egypt for the following reasons:

 A. English control is harmful to Egypt. 

 B. English control is not the only solution to the Egyptian problem. 

 C. English control is harmful to other nations. 

SECOND MODEL. 

_Resolved_, That the President of the United States should beelected by direct popular vote. 

AFFIRMATIVE BRIEF. 

INTRODUCTION. 

 I. The present method of electing the President of the United States has been both praised and condemned ever since the adoption of the Constitution. 

 A. Two methods of electing the President are under consideration: the present system whereby the President is elected by the electoral college, and the proposed system whereby the President would be elected by a direct popular vote. 

 II. These two systems may be described as follows:--

 A. The present system has the following characteristics:--

 1. Each state elects a number of electors equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the state is entitled in Congress. 

 2. These electors are chosen as the Legislature of each state may direct. 

 3. The electors meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for the President. 

 4. Since the year 1800 the electors have always voted for the candidate nominated by the national party which elected them, though the Constitution does not make this requirement. 

 5. The ballots are sent in sealed packages to the President of the Senate, who counts them and declares the candidate receiving a majority vote elected. 

 6. If the electors fail to elect, the House of Representatives chooses a President from the three candidates that receive the greatest number of electoral votes. 

 B. The proposed system has the following characteristics:--

 1. The people vote directly for the President, the candidate receiving a majority of the votes being elected. 

 2. If there be no majority, the President is elected as under the present system when the electors fail to elect. 

III. The real question to be answered is, Should the direct method be substituted for the present method?

 A. The comparative value of each method must be judged by the following standards:--

 1. Which would be the more practicable?

 2. Which would give the voter fuller enjoyment of his right of suffrage?

 3. Which method would have the better effect upon the general welfare of the nation?

 IV. The affirmative will uphold its side of the proposition by establishing the three following facts:--

 A. The direct popular vote system would be more practicable. 

 B. The direct popular vote system would be more democratic. 

 C. The direct popular vote system would be better for the general welfare of the nation. 

EXERCISES. 

A. (1) Criticise the following Introduction to a brief, and (2) Write a suitable Introduction to a brief on this subject. 

 City Location for College. 

 Introduction. 

 A. This question is important. 

 I. The following explanation will aid--

 (a) In the understanding, and

 (b) In the discussion of the question. 

 1. Primarily men come to college to study. 

 2. Men can study better in the country. 

 3. But is this really the case?

 B. A college is an institution of learning higher in rank than a high school or an academy. 

 C. The issues of the question are the following:

 I. Which college location is more favorable to health and intellectual development?

 II. Is the student able to enter athletics?

 III. Does the student in the lonely country college form more lasting friendships?

 IV. Which is the cheaper? Which is the better location?

B. Put into brief form the Introduction found above, Chapter 3, Exercise #7, dealing with Henry Ward Beecher. 

C. Put the following Introductions into brief form:--

(1) HOW TRUSTS AFFECT PRICES. 

Perhaps no subject in connection with the Industrial Combinations ofthe last few years has been more discussed than that of theirinfluence upon prices. Opinions have differed widely, the opponents ofthe Combinations usually believing that they have increased pricesmaterially, their defenders claiming with equal positiveness that theyhave reduced prices. Differences of opinion have probably originatedlargely from the fact that the subject has been approached fromdifferent points of view; and mistakes have also, in many cases, beenmade through lack of a careful interpretation of available facts. Itby no means follows that the Trusts have lowered prices because priceshave fallen within a few years after their formation; nor, on theother hand, that Trusts have raised prices because prices have beenincreased. Neither does it follow that, because the IndustrialCombinations might through their economies lower prices, they have, asa matter of fact, actually done so; nor again that, with the possibleability to increase prices through the exercise of monopolistic power, they have not found it advisable under certain circumstances really tolower them. Any careful discussion of the subject will involve, first, what the influence of combination would enable the Trusts to doregarding prices; second, what the Combinations actually have done;and, third, what effects upon society may be anticipated from anychanges in prices made by Industrial Combinations. [Footnote: JeremiahW. Jenks, North American Review for June, 1901, p. 906. ]

(2) Mr. Chairman: This bill (H. R. 17019) which I shall ask this Houseto pass to-day is one of that general class usually called "privatebills"; and while the usage of this House might catalogue it underthat head, it is in reality a "public bill, " because it has to do withthe interests of many people--indeed, an entire city of 75, 000population. 

This bill provides that the legal title to a certain tract of landsituated near the city of Tacoma, the title to which is now in theUnited States Government, shall be transferred to the city of Tacoma. 

However, I wish to assure this House that as a matter of fact theGovernment practically loses nothing by the passage of this bill. Irealize that these two statements placed side by side seem to involvea contradiction. Therefore I will make a brief explanation of thismatter. 

Since the year of 1866 the Government has owned a tract of landadjoining what is now the city of Tacoma; this tract of land contains637. 9 acres. In the year of 1888 the Government gave the city ofTacoma a right or license to use and occupy this land as a city park, but retained the legal title in the Government, because it was thoughtthat at some future time the Government might need to use and occupythis land for military purposes. Therefore you will observe that thepresent condition of the title to this land is that the legal title isin the Government, with the right in the city to use and occupy thesame. This bill, if it shall pass, will simply reverse and place thelegal title to this land in the city of Tacoma, with the rightremaining in the Government for all time to come to take possession oruse and occupy any or all of this land that it might need formilitary, naval, or lighthouse purposes. 

I wish to explain briefly to this House why the passage of this billand this change in the title is not only fair and just, but thefailure to pass this bill would, in my judgment, be very unfair to the75, 000 people in the city of Tacoma. [Footnote: Speech of Hon. FrancisW. Cushman of Washington, in the House of Representatives, Feb. 28, 1905. ]

(3) GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT OF INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES. [Footnote: A. T. Hadley, _Economics_, pp. 390-393. ]

By far the most important part of consumers' co-operation isexemplified in government management of industrial enterprises. Thisdiffers in two important particulars from the co-operative agenciesalready described. In the first place the choice of managers of agovernment business enterprise is connected with the general politicalmachinery of the country, and regulated by constitutional law insteadof by statutes of incorporation. In the second place, these managersare likely to fall back on the taxing powers of the Government to makeup any deficit which may arise in the operations of a public businessenterprise; or in the converse case to devote any surplus aboveexpenses to the relief of tax burdens elsewhere. A governmententerprise is managed by the people who represent, or are supposed torepresent, the consumers; but the good or bad economy of itsmanagement does not necessarily redound to the profit or loss of thosewho most use it. 

In the beginning of history, the government is the power that controlsthe army. When tribes were in a state of warfare with one anotherdefense against foreign enemies was a matter of primary importance. Noman could let his private convenience stand in the way of effectivemilitary operations. The discipline and subordination necessary towage successful war were all-important; and all the powers necessaryto maintain such discipline were entrusted to the leaders of the army. 

Somewhat later the military authorities undertook the work ofmaintaining discipline in time of peace as well as war, and ofdefining and enforcing the rights of members of the tribe against oneanother, no less than against foreign enemies. This function was notaccorded to them without a struggle. The priests, under whose tutelagethe religious sanction for tribal customs had grown up, tried to keepin their own hands the responsibility of upholding these customs andthe physical power connected with it. In some races they succeeded, but among European peoples the military authorities took the work ofenforcing and defining laws out of the hands of the priests, and madeit a function of the state as distinct from the Church. As securityfrom foreign enemies increased, this law-making power became more andmore important. The Government was less exclusively identified withthe army, and more occupied with the courts, the legislatures, and theinternal police. Its judicial and legislative functions assumed aprominence at least as great as its military function. 

The growth of private property was also coincident with thedevelopment of these domestic functions of government. In fact, thetwo things reinforced one another. The production and accumulation ofcapital, to which private property gave so vigorous an impulse, placedthe strong men of the community in a position where they had less togain by war and more by peace. It put them on the side of internaltranquility. It thus made the government more powerful, and this inturn still further increased the accumulations of capital. But alongwith this mutual help, which strong domestic government and strongproperty right rendered one another, there was an element of mutualantagonism. The very fulfillment of those functions which made theaccumulation of capital possible, rendered it impossible for thegovernment to do its work except at the expense of the capitalists. Itwas no longer possible to support armies by booty, or courts by finesand forfeitures. The expense of maintaining order had to be paid byits friends instead of by its enemies. The growth of private propertywas followed by the development of a system of taxation, which, intheory at any rate, involved the power to destroy such property. 

The existence of such a system of taxation, with the machinery forcollecting money in this way, allows the government more freedom ofindustrial action than any private individual can command. It can makeup a deficit by compulsory payments; and this gives it a wider rangeof power in deciding what services it will undertake and what pricesit will charge--a power which affords almost unlimited opportunity forgood or bad use, according to the degree of skill and integrity withwhich it is exercised. 

Every extension of government activity into new fields restrictsprivate enterprise in two ways: first by limiting the field forinvestment of private capital, and second, by possibly, if notprobably, appropriating through taxation a part of the returns fromprivate enterprise in all other fields. The question whether agovernment should manage an industry reduces itself to this: Are thedeficiencies or evils connected with private management such that itis wise to give government officials the taxing power whichconstitutes the distinctive feature of public industrial management?

D. Draw an Introduction to a brief on each of the propositions given on page 82. 

CHAPTER VI

THE DISCUSSION--CONVICTION

It has been seen that one who wishes to establish the truth or thefalsity of a proposition must answer certain vital questions that arebound to arise in connection with it. Then, as different persons mayanswer these questions in different ways, it becomes necessary for himto convince his audience that his answers are correct. He must alwaysbeware of assertiveness. This defect occurs whenever a speaker orwriter makes a statement but does not establish its truth. As simpledenial is always sufficient answer to mere assertion, an unsupportedstatement is worthless. No one can hope to win in debate or changeanother's belief unless he can prove that what he says is true; hemust substantiate with proof every statement that he makes, and showthat no possibility for error or deceit can exist. _In argumentationevery statement not commonly accented as true must be proved_. 

The following passage is a highly assertive bit of argument; itsworthlessness is apparent. 

The decision of Congress to increase still further our alreadyenormous navy is an injustice to every individual who contributes tothe support of the national government. It is a crime to squandermillions of money on a fleet that we do not need. Our navy to-day ismore than the equal of any foreign armament that floats. Thoughsecond in number of ships, it ranks first in efficiency among allthe navies of the world. No other country can boast of suchmarksmanship as our gunners display; no other country can boast ofsuch armor plate as is to be found on our first-class battleships;not even England can successfully compete with us in seamanship andin general efficiency. 

Proof is "anything which serves either immediately or mediately toconvince the mind of the truth or the falsehood of a fact orproposition. " [Footnote: On Evidence, Best, p. 45. ] Belief in aspecific statement is induced by a presentation of pertinent facts, and usually by a process of reasoning whereby from the existence ofthese known facts, the conclusion, hitherto unaccepted, is reached. Those facts that have to do with the proposition under discussion areknown as _evidence_. The process of combining facts and derivingan inference from them is known as _reasoning_. Evidence may bemade up of the testimony of witnesses, the opinion of experts, knowledge derived from experience, the testimony of documents, orcircumstances that are generally known to have existed. Reasoning isthe process by which men form opinions, render judgments, explainevents, or in any way seek new truths from established facts. 

In the following bit of proof, notice the facts that are stated, andsee how, by a process of reasoning, they go to substantiate the ideathat they are intended to prove:--

New York hires two policemen where Nashville hires one, and paysthem double the salary; yet Nashville is as peaceable and orderly asNew York. In Nashville any child of school age can have a seat in thepublic schools all through the year; in New York there has been ashortage of seats for many years. Nashville has a filtered watersupply; New York is going to have one as soon as the $12, 000, 000filtration plant can be built at Jerome Park. Street car fares arefive cents in both cities; in Nashville one can always get a seat; inNew York one has to scramble for standing room. The southern citymaintains hospitals, parks, food inspectors, and all other thingscommon to New York and other large cities. Apparently, Nashville isgiving as much to its inhabitants for six dollars per capita as NewYork for thirty-one. These facts can point to but one conclusion--thatNashville has a superior system of government. 

Since the first step in the generation of proof is the discovery offacts, the arguer should at the very outset become sufficientlyfamiliar with the various kinds of evidence to estimate the value andstrength of each idea that has a bearing upon the subject. 

I. EVIDENCE. 

There are two kinds of evidence: (a) direct, and (b) indirect orcircumstantial. If a man sees a gang of strikers set fire to thebuildings of their former employer, his evidence is direct. If, however, he only sees them stealthily leaving the buildings justbefore the fire breaks out, his evidence is indirect. In the lattercase the man's testimony is direct evidence that the men were in thevicinity of the fire when it started, but it is indirect evidence thatthey perpetrated the crime. If a student who has failed to do goodwork throughout the term, and who has had little or no opportunity forspecial preparation, passes in a perfect paper at the close of anexamination, the presumption is that he has received aid. The evidenceon which this supposition rests is entirely circumstantial. But ifsome one saw the student obtaining aid, that fact would be directevidence against him. 

Direct evidence, as a rule, is considered more valuable than indirect, but each kind is frequently sufficient to induce belief. The bestpossible kind of evidence, the kind that is least liable to containerror or falsehood, is a combination of both direct and indirect. Either one by itself may be untrustworthy. The unreliability ofevidence given by eyewitnesses is shown by the conflicting storiesthey frequently tell concerning the same incident even when they arehonestly attempting to relate the facts as they occurred. Also, it isalways possible that the inferences drawn from a combination ofcircumstances may be entirely wrong. When, however, both kinds ofevidence are available, each confirming the other and leading up tothe same conclusion, then the possibility of error is reduced to aminimum. 

The opportunity of the college student for obtaining evidence in hisargumentative work is limited. A lawyer before entering upon animportant case often spends weeks and months in investigation;scientists sometimes devote a whole lifetime in trying to establish asingle hypothesis. But the college student in preparing an argumentmust obtain his evidence in a few days. There are several sources athis disposal. The first available source is his fund of generalknowledge and experience. If a man can establish a statement by sayingthat he personally knows it to be true, he has valuable proof. Thenthe people with whom the student comes in contact constitute anothersource of evidence. Anyone who can give information on a subject thatis being investigated is a valuable witness. Especially in discussionson questions which pertain to college life, the opinions andexperiences of college men and of prominent educators are unsurpassedas evidence. But the greatest source of evidence for the student ofargumentation is the library. Here he may consult the best thought ofall time in every branch of activity. He may review the opinions ofstatesmen, economists, educators, and scientists, and introduce asevidence their experiences and the results of their investigations. Here he may familiarize himself with the current events of the world, and draw his own conclusions as to their significance. In fact, a wellequipped library treats of all subjects, however broad or narrow theymay be, and furnishes evidence for all sorts of debatable questions. 

As not all evidence is equally valuable, a large part of the work ofargumentation consists in applying tests to the evidence at hand forthe sake of determining what facts are irrefutable, what are doubtful, and what are worthless. Moreover, one engaged in argumentation musttest not only his own evidence but also that of the other side. Nobetter method of refuting an opponent's argument exists than to showthat the facts on which it rests are untrustworthy. Tests of evidencemay be divided into two classes: tests of the source from which itcomes, and tests of the quality of the evidence itself. 

A. TESTS OF THE SOURCE OF EVIDENCE. 

Since in courts of law, in college debate, and in all kinds ofargumentation, facts are established by the testimony of witnesses, the sources of evidence are the witnesses who give it. The debater andthe argumentative writer have not the opportunity, as has the lawyer, of producing the witnesses and permitting them to tell their ownstories to the audience. He must himself relate the evidence; and, inorder that it may be believed, he must tell whence it comes. Thesources of evidence may be common rumor, newspapers, magazines, official documents, private citizens, or public officials. The extentto which these witnesses are accepted as trustworthy by the peoplebefore whom they are quoted determines in a large measure whether ornot the evidence will be believed. Tests for determining thetrustworthiness of witnesses will next be given. 

The first test of the source of evidence should be:--

(1) _Is the witness competent to give a trustworthy account of thematter under consideration?_

To answer this question, first determine whether the facts to beestablished are such that any ordinary person can speak concerningthem with reasonable accuracy, or whether they can be understood onlyby persons who have received special training. A landsman could welltestify that a naval battle had occurred, but only a man with nauticaltraining could accurately describe the maneuvers of the ships and telljust how the engagement progressed. A coal heaver's description of asurgical operation would establish nothing, except perhaps theidentity of the people and a few other general matters; only a personwith a medical education could accurately describe the procedure. Thetestimony of any one but a naturalist would not even tend to prove theexistence of an hitherto unknown species of animal life. A witnesswithout technical knowledge cannot give reliable evidence on mattersof a technical nature. 

Then, if it is found that the witness does possess the necessarytechnical training, or that no previous training is necessary, stillfurther test his ability to give reliable evidence by asking whetherhe has had ample opportunity for investigating the facts to theexistence of which he testifies. For even a skilled player sitting inthe first base bleachers at a baseball game to criticise an umpire'sdecisions on balls and strikes is absurd; the opinion of a transientvisitor to Panama on the methods used in digging the canal is notvaluable; a traveler who has spent a single month in Japan cannot drawreliable conclusions on the merits and defects of its politicalstructure. In not one of these cases has the opportunity forinvestigation been sufficient to render the witness able to givereliable evidence. 

A current magazine in discussing the weakness of testimony that comesfrom incompetent witnesses says:--

Generalizations about the tastes and interests of the age are soeasy that all except the most wary fall into them, and the world isfull of off-hand opinions touching the condition of society and thestate of the world, which are far more conspicuous for courage thanfor discretion. There are very few men or women in any particularperiod who know it intimately enough, and with sufficient insight andsympathy, to pass judgment upon it. One hears almost every daysweeping judgments about Americans, English, French, Germans, Chinese, and Japanese which are entirely valueless, unless they are based on avery broad and intimate knowledge of these various peoples, aknowledge which, in the nature of things, few people possess. Thecharming American girl who declared that, since gloves are cheaper inParis, American civilization is a failure, may stand for a type ofinteresting and piquant oracles, to be heard with attention, but underno circumstances to be followed. Americans are so familiar with theEuropean traveler who arrives and makes up his opinion over night inregard to men, morals, and manners in the Western world and have sooften been the victim of this self-confident critic, that they oughtnot to repeat the same blunder in dealing with other peoples. [Footnote: The Outlook, July 20, 1907. ]

In the court room, where witnesses are present and can be carefullyexamined by the lawyers on both sides, it is customary to apply bothmental and physical tests. The witness who testifies to knowledge ofsome event that occurred a long time before is given a memory test;the senses, also, through which occurrences are perceived arefrequently examined. But as writers and debaters in general seldomhave the opportunity to apply tests of this sort to their sources ofinformation, and as these tests are seldom important outside of thelaw courts, they are not taken up in detail in this book. 

The second test of the source of evidence should be:--

(2) _Is the witness willing to give an accurate account of thematter?_

One important influence that may cause a witness to give falseevidence is _self-interest_. Not only individuals, but social andindustrial organizations, political parties, communities, and statesare frequently swayed by this emotion to the extent of deliberatelyperverting the truth. The evidence found in newspapers and otherpublications is often false, or at least misleading, because it hasbeen tampered with by those who put their selfish interests before allelse. The owner of an industry protected by a high tariff wouldscarcely be considered a reliable witness in matters affecting tariffreform. The opinion of a railroad magnate on the subject of acompulsory two-cent rate law would not be considered as unbiased. Nodisinterested seeker after truth would accept the politicalconclusions of a newspaper owned by a politician or recognized as theorgan of a certain party. In all such cases, self-interest may promptthe witness to make statements not in strict accordance with thetruth. Perjury in the court room is not uncommon; falsehood elsewheremust be guarded against. The arguer should always carefully scrutinizethe testimony of a witness that has any special interest in the matterfor which evidence is being sought. Though the self-interest isstrong, the witness may be willing to state the matter accurately;but, as long as human nature remains as it is, this willingnessshould not be taken for granted. 

The third test of the source of evidence should be:--

(3) _Is the witness prejudiced?_

Another emotion that frequently keeps a witness from telling the exacttruth is _prejudice_. Every one is familiar with instances of howthis passion warps men's morals and corrupts their judgment. If a manis prejudiced for or against a person or a system, he cannot beaccepted as a trustworthy witness in matters where his prejudice comesinto play. Should an economist known to favor socialism write atreatise advocating municipal ownership of public utilities, hisevidence and his reasoning would not be convincing; it would be takenfor granted that he looked at the subject through socialisticspectacles. A person who sets out with the expectation and intentionof finding flaws in anything usually succeeds. Though he is willing totell the exact truth, yet because of his prejudice he is sure to seeonly that which will coincide with his preconceived opinions. For thisreason, political speeches and intensely partisan books and papers areinvariably unreliable sources of evidence even though they are notintentionally dishonest. 

The fourth test of the source of evidence is:--

(4) _Does the witness have a good reputation for honesty andaccuracy?_

The human conscience is so constituted that many people deviate fromthe truth for no apparent reason whatever. Some are given toexaggeration; some habitually pretend to know that of which they areentirely ignorant; others are so inaccurate that everything they sayis open to grave suspicion. If a witness is known to have beenrepeatedly dishonest or inaccurate in the past, little reliance shouldbe placed in his testimony. "Yellow journalism, " which is largely thereflection of common rumor, affords constant examples of witnessesthat give questionable evidence. 

Ability and willingness to give exact evidence, an unprejudicedattitude, and a good reputation for honesty and accuracy are thequalities that should characterize the sources of evidence. If awriter or speaker is securing testimony from friends or acquaintances, the application of these tests is not difficult. If, however, thesources are books and periodicals, his work is harder; but to besuccessful, he must not shirk it. When one procures evidence frombooks, he should investigate the character and standing of the author. When one obtains it from signed articles in papers and magazines, hemust consider both the author and the character of the publication. Inthe case of newspaper "stories" and editorials, one should find out onwhat general policy and principles the paper is conducted. A cautiousarguer will always avoid, as far as he can, the use of evidence thatcomes from a doubtful source. If one finds that an opponent has usedthe testimony of questionable witnesses, he can, by exposing the fact, easily refute the argument. 

NECESSITY OF STATING SOURCES. It sometimes happens that an arguerfails to state the source of his evidence. This omission is usuallyfatal to success. No one is likely to put much confidence instatements that are introduced by such flimsy preambles as, "A certainstatesman has declared"; "I have read somewhere"; "An acquaintancetold me. " Not only must evidence come from sources that seem good tothe writer, but those sources must be satisfactory to the audience. Inthe last analysis the audience is the judge of what is credible andwhat is not. Moreover, if the evidence is of great importance, or isliable to be disputed, the arguer should show in a few words why thewitness is especially reliable. 

B. INTERNAL TESTS OF EVIDENCE

(1) _Is the evidence consistent with (a) other evidence in the sameargument; (b) known facts; (c) human experience?_

The requirement that every separate bit of evidence in an argumentshall be consistent with every other bit of evidence in the sameargument is too well understood to need explanation. One familiar withcourts of law knows that a witness who contradicts himself is notbelieved. Furthermore, if the testimony of several witnesses for thesame side is inconsistent, the case for that side is materiallyweakened. So it is in general debate: the arguer who wishes to succeedmust not use evidence that is self-contradictory. His proof must "hangtogether"; his facts must all go to establish the same conclusion. 

A flagrant violation of this principle once occurred in a class-roomdebate. The speaker for the negative on the proposition, "_Resolved_, That freshmen should be ineligible for collegeteams, " said that such a rule would deprive the freshmen of much-needed physical exercise. Later on, he said that just as many freshmenwould receive injuries under this rule as without it, since they wouldtake part in equally dangerous contests as members of freshmen teams. This contradiction ruined his argument. 

In the next place, evidence to be of any value whatever, must beconsistent with what is known about the case. If an arguer is socareless as to make statements contradictory either to well-established facts or to facts easily proved, he cannot hope to attainthe slightest measure of success. Only one guilty of gross neglect orabsolute falsehood is likely to fall into such an error. At one timethe story was circulated that, during his early life, Lincoln had beeninsane. In the following passage Ida M. Tarbell shows that thetestimony on which this belief was founded is inconsistent with theknown facts of the case, and is, therefore, palpably untrue:--

"Mr. Thornton went on to say that he knew beyond a doubt that thesensational account of Lincoln's insanity was untrue, and he quotedfrom the House journal to show how it was impossible that, as Lamonsays, using Herndon's notes, 'Lincoln went crazy as a loon, and didnot attend the legislature in 1841-1842, for this reason'; or, asHerndon says, that he had to be watched constantly. According to therecord taken from the journals of the House by Mr. Thornton, whichhave been verified in Springfield, Mr. Lincoln was in his seat in theHouse on that 'fatal first of January' when he is asserted to havebeen groping in the shadow of madness, and he was also there on thefollowing day. "

Lincoln himself was an expert at detecting inconsistency wherever itexisted. He won many of his lawsuits by the straightforward method ofshowing that the one or two vital statements on which the whole caseof the opposition rested were false, inasmuch as they wereinconsistent with well-established and incontrovertible facts. Aninstance of this sort is here described:--

The most damaging evidence was that of one Allen, who swore that hehad seen Armstrong strike Metzker about ten or eleven o'clock in theevening. When asked how he could see, he answered that the moon shonebrightly. Under Lincoln's questioning he repeated the statement untilit was impossible that the jury should forget it. With Allen'stestimony unimpeached, conviction seemed certain. 

Lincoln's address to the jury was full of pathos. It was not as ahired attorney that he was there, he said, but to discharge a debt offriendship. .. . But Lincoln was not relying on sympathy alone to winhis case. In closing he reviewed the evidence, showing that alldepended on Allen's testimony, and this he said he could prove to befalse. Allen never saw Armstrong strike Metzker by the light of themoon, for at the hour when he said he saw the fight, between ten andeleven o'clock, the moon was not in the heavens. Then procuring analmanac, he passed it to the judge and jury. The moon, which was onthat night only in its first quarter, had set before midnight. [Footnote: The Life of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. I, p. 272. Ida M. Tarbell. The Doubleday & McClure Co. ]

An arguer should also be extremely careful to use evidence that on itsface appears reasonable. Only an extremely credulous audience willaccept ideas that run counter to human belief and experience. Toattribute the occurrence of an event to supernatural causes wouldbring a smile of derision to any but a most ignorant and superstitiousperson. To attribute to men qualities and characteristics that humanexperience has shown they do not possess will bring equal discredit. No one is likely to accept evidence that contradicts his habits ofthinking, that is contrary to what his life and experience have taughthim is true. For this reason savage people are slow to believe theteachings of the Christian religion. For this reason it is difficultto make an audience believe that any one will deliberately andconsistently work against his own interests, or follow any otherunusual line of action. Evidence contrary to human experience may betrue, but unless the exigencies of the argument demand its use, thearguer will do well to omit it entirely. If he is obliged to use it, he should make it appear as reasonable as he can, and alsosubstantiate it with careful proof. 

Huxley appreciated the fact that evidence, to be believed, must be inaccordance with man's experience when he wrote the following:--

If any one were to try to persuade you that an oyster shell (whichis also chiefly composed of carbonate of lime) had crystallized out ofsea-water, I suppose you would laugh at the absurdity. Your laughterwould be justified by the fact that all experience tends to show thatoyster-shells are formed by the agency of oysters, and in no otherway. 

The ease with which an argument that does not satisfy this requirementmay be overthrown is clearly shown in the following extract from astudent's forensic:--

To say that the Cuban reconcentrados sunk the _Maine_ in aneffort to embroil the United States in a conflict with Spain is theveriest foolishness. There is not one scrap of documentary evidence toshow that such was the case. Moreover, such an act would beunparalleled in the annals of history. It is unreasonable, contrary toall experience, that those oppressed people should have broughtdisaster, involving the destruction of property and the loss of manylives, upon the very nation that they were looking to for assistance. 

(2) _Is the evidence first-hand or hearsay evidence?_

It is universally recognized that hearsay evidence is unreliable. Anarrative is sure to become so garbled by passing from mouth to mouththat unless a witness can testify to a fact from his own personalknowledge the evidence he gives is worthy of little credence. There issufficient chance for error when the person who witnessed the eventrelates the account himself; if the story is told by a second, andperhaps by a third person, it is likely to reflect but little of whatreally happened. Every one is familiar with the exaggerations ofcommon rumor; it distorts facts so that they are unrecognizable. Theworks of Herodotus are untrustworthy because he frequently believedhearsay evidence. Since second-hand evidence both fails to establishanything worth while, if allowed to stand, and is easily overthrowneven by a very little first-hand evidence, an arguer will do well tofollow the custom of the law courts, and, as a rule, exclude italtogether. 

(3) _Can the evidence be considered as especially valuable?_

(a) _Hurtful admissions_ constitute an especially valuable kindof evidence. Since men are not wont to give evidence detrimental totheir personal interest unless impelled to do so by conscientiousscruples, any testimony damaging to the one who gives it is in allprobability not only truthful, but also the result of carefulinvestigation. When a practising physician admits that half theailments of mankind are imaginary or so trivial as to need no medicalattention, he is making a statement that is likely to injure hisbusiness; for this reason he is probably stating the result of hisexperience truthfully. If a railroad president says that in hisopinion government supervision of railroads will benefit the public inthe matter of rates and service, it may be taken for granted that hehas given his honest belief, and that his natural reluctance tosurrender any authority of his own has kept him from speakingcarelessly. If a member of the United States Senate admits that thatbody is corrupt, and selfish, and untrustworthy, he is lowering hisown rank; therefore it is reasonable to believe that he is speakingthe truth according to his honest belief. 

The following is an example of this kind of evidence:--

It was stated during the Manchurian campaign that the Jewishsoldiers, of whom Kuropatkin had about 35, 000, not only failed to holdtheir ground under fire, but by their timidity threw their comradesinto panic. But good evidence can be cited from the correspondents ofthe _Novoye Vremya_, an Anti-Semitic organ, to the effect thatamong the Jews were found many "intrepid and intelligent soldiers, "and that a number of them were awarded the St. George's cross forgallantry. [Footnote: The Nation, June 11, 1908. ]

It is hardly necessary to add that one who places especial reliance onthis kind of evidence must be sure that the admission is _really_and not merely _apparently_ contrary to the interest of the onewho gives it. 

(b) Another particularly valuable kind of evidence is _negativeevidence_, or the _evidence of silence_. Whenever a witnessfails to mention an event which, if it had occurred, would have beenof such interest to him that he might reasonably have been expected tohave mentioned it, his silence upon the matter becomes negativeevidence that the event did not occur. For many years no one suggestedthat Bacon wrote the Shakespearean plays; this absence of testimony tothe belief that Bacon wrote them is strong evidence that such beliefdid not exist until recently, a fact that tends to discredit theBaconian theory of authorship. The fact that in the writings ofDickens and Thackeray no mention is made of the bicycle is negativeevidence that the bicycle had not then come into use. That Mosesnowhere in his writings speaks of life after death is negativeevidence that the Hebrews did not believe in the immortality of thesoul. If admittedly capable and impartial officials do not inflictpenalties for foul playing during a football game, there is strongpresumption that little or no foul playing occurred. 

The following paragraph, taken from a current magazine, shows how thiskind of evidence may be handled very effectively:--

A sharp controversy has been raging in the European press over thequestion whether Gambetta secretly visited Bismarck in 1878. FrancisLaur, Gambetta's literary executor, has published an article assertingthat he did, and giving details (rather vague, it must be admitted) ofthe conversation between the two statesmen. But he offers not a scrapof documentary proof. He is not even sure whether the interview tookplace at Friedrichsruh or at Varzin. This is rather disconcerting, especially in view of the fact that Bismarck never made the slightestreference in his reminiscences or letters to the visit of Gambetta, ifit occurred, and that the minute Busch never mentioned it. [Footnote:The Nation, September 5, 1907]

ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY. 

There is a particular kind of evidence frequently available fordebaters and argumentative writers known as _argument fromauthority. _ This evidence consists of the opinions and decisions ofmen who are recognized, to some extent at least, as authorities on thesubjects of which they speak. An eminent scientist might explain withunquestioned certainty the operation of certain natural phenomena. Abusiness man of wide experience and with well recognized insight intonational conditions might speak authoritatively on the causes ofbusiness depressions. In religious matters the Bible is the highestauthority for orthodox Christians; the Koran, for Mohammedans. Inlegal affairs the highest authorities are court decisions, opinions ofeminent jurists, and the Constitution. If a certain college presidentis considered an authority in the matter of college discipline, then aquotation from him on the evils of hazing becomes valuable evidencefor the affirmative of the proposition, "Hazing should be abolished inall colleges. " If the arguer wishes to strengthen his evidence, he maydo so by giving the president's reasons for condemning hazing; but hethen departs from pure argument from authority. Pure argument fromauthority does not consist of a statement of the reasons involved; itasserts that something is true because some one who is acknowledged tobe an authority on that subject says it is true. 

Argument from authority differs from other evidence in that itinvolves not merely investigation but also the exercise of a highdegree of judgment. The statement that in 1902, in the United Kingdom, two hundred and ninety-five communities of from 8, 000 to 25, 000inhabitants were without street-car lines is not argument fromauthority; the discovery of this truth involved merely investigation. On the other hand, if some reputable statesman or business man shouldsay that street-car facilities in the United States excelled those ofEngland, this evidence would be argument from authority; only throughboth investigation and judgment could such a statement be evolved. 

This kind of evidence is very strong when those addressed haveconfidence in the integrity, ability, and judgment of the personquoted. If, however, they do not know him, or if they do not considerhim reliable, the evidence is of little value. Therefore, the testthat an arguer should apply before using this kind of evidence is asfollows:--

_Is the witness an acknowledged authority on the subject about whichhe speaks?_

Sometimes a short statement showing why the witness quoted is able tospeak wisely and conclusively will render the evidence more valuablein the eyes of the audience. In the following example, notice howJudge James H. Blount used "authority" in proving that the Filipinosdesired self-government:--

Senator Dubois, of Idaho, who was a member of the Congressionalparty that visited the Philippines, has since said in the New York"Independent": All the Filipinos, with the exception of those who wereholding positions under and drawing salaries from our Government, favor a government of their own. There is scarcely an exception amongthem. .. . There is nobody in the islands, no organization of anykind or description, which favors the policy of our Government towardthem. 

Senator Newlands, of Nevada, also a member of the Congressional partyaforesaid, has declared, in the number of this Review for December, 1905, that practically the whole people desire independence. Congressman Parsons, also a member of the same party, has since said:"There is no question that all the Filipino parties are now in favorof independence. "

Captain J. A. Moss, of the Twenty-fourth Infantry, a member of GeneralCorbin's staff, is quoted by Mr. Bryan, in the "Commoner" of April27th, 1906, as saying in an article published in a Manila paper whileMr. Bryan was in the islands, with reference to the wishes of "thegreat majority" of Filipinos, that "to please them, we cannot get outof the islands too soon. " [Footnote: North American Review, Vol. CLXXXIV, p. 136. ]

II. REASONING. 

As has been said, proof consists of evidence and reasoning. Evidencehas been considered first because this order corresponds to the way inwhich proof is usually generated; obviously, the discovery of factsprecedes the process of reasoning which shows their significance. Insome instances, however, this order is reversed: a man may form atheory and then hunt for the facts on which to base it; but ingeneral, facts precede inferences. 

Since all people when they reason do not reach the same conclusion, itis very essential for a student to investigate the various processesof reasoning. Given exactly the same evidence, some men will draw oneconclusion, some another. A current periodical recognizes this factwhen it says:--

How widely divergent may be conclusions drawn from the same sourcecan be judged by contrasting these two statements: Messrs. Clark andEdgar declare that "where municipal ownership has been removed fromthe realm of philosophic discussion and put to the test of actualexperience it has failed ingloriously"; Professor Parsons and Mr. Bemis on the contrary assert, to use Professor Parsons' words, "it isnot public ownership, but private ownership, that is responsible forour periodic crisis and the ruin of our industries, " and "it is notimpossible that the elimination of the public service corporationsthrough public ownership is one of the things that would do more tohelp along the process of making our cities fit. " [Footnote:Outlook, July 27, 1907. ]

Because of the divergencies in the results produced by reasoning, astudent should study with considerable care the various processes ofarriving at a conclusion, so that he may be able to tell what methodsare strong, what are weak, and what are fallacious. 

According to a common classification, there are two methods ofreasoning: the inductive process, and the deductive process. 

1. INDUCTIVE REASONING. When one carefully investigates his reasonsfor believing as he does, he often finds that he accepts a certainstatement as true because he is familiar with many specific instancesthat tend to establish its truth. The belief that prussic acid ispoisonous is based upon the large number of instances in which itsdeadly effect has been apparent. The fact that railroad men areexposed to injury is unquestioned because every one is familiar withthe many accidents that occur each year. The statement that waterfreezes at thirty-two degrees Fahrenheit has been proved true byinnumerable tests. This process of reasoning by which, from manyspecific instances, the truth of a general statement is established, is called _induction. _

An example of inductive reasoning is found in the following passage:--

Does the closing of the saloons affect appreciably the amount ofdrunkenness in the community? A comparison of the same town or city insuccessive years--one year under one system, and the next year underthe other--furnishes a basis for accurate judgment. Evidence of thissort is all one way, and it seems to be conclusive. 

The tables prepared by the Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics ofLabor, in 1905, under special instructions from the legislature, showthat in Haverhill the average number of arrests per month underlicense was 81. 63, under no-license, 26. 50; in Lynn, under license, 315, under no-license, 117. 63; in Medford, under license, 20. 12, under no-license, 13. 25; in Pittsfield, under license, 93. 25, underno-license, 36. 75; and in Salem, under license, 140. 50, underno-license, 29. 63. Such comparisons might be multiplied, but it isunnecessary. There is no escaping the conclusion that the closing ofthe saloons, under the Local Option system, does sensibly diminish thevolume of drunkenness. [Footnote: Atlantic Monthly, Vol. XC, p. 437. ]

In using inductive reasoning, one must always be on his guard againstdrawing conclusions too hastily. It is never correct to conclude froma consideration of only a few instances that a general truth has beendiscovered. Further examination may show that the opinion first formedwill not hold. Some people call all men dishonest because severalacquaintances have not kept faith with them. Others are ready tobelieve that because they have made money in the stock market all cando likewise. Most superstitions arise through generalization from toofew instances: those who have several times met misfortune on thethirteenth day of the month are apt to say that the thirteenth isalways an unlucky day. Such reasoning as this shows the weakness ofinductive argument: a conclusion is worthless if it is drawn from toofew examples. 

Professor Fred Lewis Pattee, in writing on _Errors in Reasoning_, says:--

Children and even adults often generalize from a single experience. A little boy cautioned me at one time to keep away from a certainhorse, for "white horses always kick. " An old Pennsylvania farmer laiddown the law that shingles laid during the increase of the moon alwayscurl up. He had tried it once and found out. A friend will advise youto take Blank's Bitters: "I took a bottle one spring and felt muchbetter; they always cure. " Physicians base their knowledge ofmedicines upon the observations of thousands of trained observersthrough many years, and not upon a single experience. Most people areprone to judge their neighbors from too slight acquaintance. If a manis late at an appointment twice in succession, someone is sure to say:"Oh, he's always late. " This is poor thinking because it is badjudgment. Judgments should be made with care and from fullness ofexperience. [Footnote: The Adult Bible Class and Teacher TrainingMonthly, May, 1908, page 295. ]

The following quotation illustrates how often hasty generalizationscreate prejudice and sway public judgment:--

There is an impression shared by many that the relation between thewhite and black races in this country is becoming less amicable andmore and more surcharged with injustice. The basis for this impressionis to be found in certain dramatic and sensational events, inparticular the riots in Springfield, Illinois, and in Atlanta, Georgia. The memory of those events is becoming faint in many minds;but the impression they created remains. A dramatic event will have aneffect upon public opinion which statistics, more significant but lesspicturesque, will altogether fail to produce. In the horror at thebrief work of a mob the diminution in the annual number of lynchingsis forgotten. 

The fundamental mistake in this is in the picking out of a startlingepisode or a reckless utterance and regarding it as typical. We do notarrive at the truth in that way. The Black Hand assassin does notfurnish a true index to the Italian character. Aaron Burr is not anexhibit of the product of American Puritanism. So, if we wish to findout what American democracy has done with the negro, we do not search, if we are wise, into the chain-gang of Georgia or into the slums ofNew York. [Footnote: The Outlook, April 4, 1908. ]

The value of inductive reasoning depends upon the number of instancesobserved. Very seldom is it possible to investigate every case of theclass under discussion. Of course this can sometimes be done. Forinstance, one may be able to state that all his brothers are collegegraduates, since he can speak authoritatively concerning each one ofthem. But usually an examination of every instance is out of thequestion, and whenever induction is based on less than all existingcases, it establishes only _probable_ truth. 

From the foregoing it is seen that the tests for induction are two:--

(1) _Have enough instances of the class under consideration beeninvestigated to establish the existence of a general law?_

(2) _Have enough instances been investigated to establish theprobable existence of a general law?_

2. DEDUCTIVE REASONING. Deductive reasoning is the method ofdemonstrating the truth of a particular statement by showing that somegeneral principle, which has previously been established or which isadmitted to be true, applies to it. A stranger on coming to the UnitedStates might ask whether our postal system is a success. The answerwould perhaps be, "Yes, certainly it is, for it is maintained by thegovernment, and all our government enterprises are successful. " Whenthe metal thurium was discovered, a query doubtless arose as towhether it was fusible. It was then reasoned that since all metalshitherto known were fusible, and since thurium was a metal, undoubtedly it was fusible. Stated in clearer form, the reasoning ineach case would be:--

A. All our government enterprises are successful. 

B. The United States postal system is a government enterprise. 

C. Therefore the United States postal system is successful. 

A. All metals are fusible. 

B. Thurium is a metal. 

C. Therefore thurium is fusible. 

Such a series of statements is called a syllogism. A syllogism alwaysconsists of a major premise (A), a minor premise (B), and a conclusion(C). The major premise always states a general law; the minor premiseshows that the general law applies to the particular case underconsideration; and the conclusion is, in the light of the twopremises, an established truth. 

The strength of deductive argument depends on two things: the truth ofthe premises and the framing of the syllogism. The syllogism mustalways be so stated that a conclusion is derived from the applicationof a general law to some specific instance to which the law obviouslyapplies. In the next place, the premises must be true. If they areonly probably correct, the conclusion is a mere presumption; if eitherone is false, the conclusion is probably false. But if the syllogismis correctly framed, and if both premises are true, the conclusion isirrefutable. As premises are facts that have first been established byinduction, the relation between inductive and deductive reasoning isvery close. In fact, deduction depends on induction for its veryexistence. To overthrow a deductive argument all that is necessary isto show the error in the inductive process that built up either one orboth of the premises. 

The tests for deduction are:--

(1) _Are both premises true?_

(2) _Is the fact stated in the minor premise an instance of thegeneral law expressed in the major premise?_

In practical argumentation it is not always necessary or desirable toexpress a deductive argument in full syllogistic form. One premise isfrequently omitted; the syllogism thus shortened is called an_enthymeme_. The reasoning then takes some such form as, "Thisman will fail in business because he is incompetent. " The majorpremise, "All incompetent men fail in business, " is understood, but isnot expressed. The enthymeme constitutes as strong and forceful anargument as the syllogism, provided the suppressed premise is a well-established fact; but whenever this premise is not accepted as true, it must be stated and proved. The argument will then consist of thefull syllogistic process. 

The following outline illustrates the chief difference betweeninduction and deduction:--

The game of football benefits the players physically, because

(Induction. )

1. Football is known to have benefited Henry Harvey. 2. Football is known to have benefited Frank Barrs. 3. Football is known to have benefited Penn Armstrong. 

(Deduction. )

1. The game affords the players regular exercise. 2. The game takes them out in the open air. 3. The game develops the lungs. 

The deductive reasoning expressed in full would be:--

(1) A. All games that afford the players regular exercise benefit them physically. B. Football affords the players regular exercise. C. Therefore football benefits the players physically. 

The reasoning given in (2) and (3) may be expressed in similarsyllogisms. 

To test the inductive part of this argument, one should determine howwell the three examples show the existence of a general law. To testthe deductive part, he should ask whether the premises, both thosestated and those suppressed, are admitted facts, or whether they needto be proved. 

If all reasoning were purely inductive or purely deductive, and if italways appeared in as simple a form as in the preceding illustration, one would have little difficulty in classifying and testing it. Butfrequently the two kinds appear in such obscure form and in suchvaried combinations that only an expert logician can separate andclassify them. Because of this difficulty, it is worth while to know asecond method of classification, one which is often of greaterpractical service than the method already discussed in assisting thearguer to determine what methods of reasoning are strong and what areweak. A knowledge of this classification is also very helpful to onewho is searching for ways in which to generate proof. This methodconsiders proof from the standpoint of its use in practical argument;it teaches not so much the different ways in which the mind may work, as the ways in which it must work to arrive at a sound conclusion. 

1. ARGUMENT FROM ANTECEDENT PROBABILITY. 

_The process of reasoning from cause to effect is known as theargument from antecedent probability. _ Whenever a thinking man isasked to believe a statement, he is much readier to accept it as trueif some reasonable _cause_ is assigned for the existence of thefact that is being established. The argument from antecedentprobability supplies this cause. The reasoning may be from the pasttoward the present, or from the present toward the future. If aninspector condemns a bridge as unsafe, the question arises, "What hasmade it so?" If some one prophesies a rise in the price of railroadbonds, he is not likely to be believed unless he can show an adequatecause for the increase. In itself, the establishment of a cause provesnothing. A bridge may have been subjected to great strain and still beunimpaired. Though at present there may be ample cause for a futurerise in the securities market, some other condition may intervene andprevent its operation. The assignment of a cause can at best establishmerely a _probability_, and yet the laws of cause and effect areso fundamental that man is usually loath to believe that a conditionexists or will exist, until he knows what has brought it about or whatwill bring it about. A course of reasoning which argues that aproposition is true because the fact affirmed is the logical result ofsome adequate cause is called _argument from antecedentprobability_. 

Simple examples of this kind of reasoning are found in the followingsentences: "It will rain because an east wind is blowing"; "As most ofour officers in the standing army have been West Point graduates, theUnited States military system has reached a high standard ofefficiency. " The following are more extended illustrations:--

It appears to have been fully established that, in certainindustries, various economies in production--such as eliminating crossfreights, concentrating the superintending force, running best plantsto full capacity, etc. --can be made from production on a large scale, or, in other instances, through the combination of differentestablishments favorably located in different sections of the country. It is, of course, not to be expected that any one source of savingwill be found applicable in all industries, nor that the importance ofany will be the same in different industries; but in many industriesenough sources of saving will be found to make combination profitable. This statement does not ignore the fact that there may be, in manyinstances, disadvantages enough to offset the benefits; but experiencedoes seem to show that, in many cases, at least, the cost ofmanufacture, and distribution is materially lessened. 

Granting that these savings can be made, it is evident that theinfluence of Industrial Combinations might readily be to lower pricesto consumers. [Footnote: Jeremiah W. Jenks, North American Review, June, 1901, page 907. ]

In attempting to prove that operas can be successfully produced inEnglish, Francis Rogers says:--

We have a poetic literature of marvelous richness. Only the Germanscan lay claim to a lyric wealth as great as ours. The language weinherit is an extraordinarily rich one. A German authority credits itwith a vocabulary three times as large as that of France, the poorest, in number of words, of all the great languages. With such an enormousfund of words to choose from it seems as if we should be able toexpress our thoughts not only with unparalleled exactness andsubtlety, but also with unequalled variety of sound. Further it isprobable that English surpasses the other three great languages ofsong, German, Italian, and French, in number of distinguishable vowelsounds, but in questions of ear authorities usually differ, and it ishazardous to claim in this an indubitable supremacy. It seems certain, however, that English has rather more than twice as many vowel soundsas Italian (the poorest language in this respect), which has onlyseven or eight. [Footnote: Scribner's, January, 1909, p. 42. ]

Since reasoning from antecedent probability can at best establish onlya strong presumption, and since it is often not of sufficient weightto accomplish even this, an arguer, to be successful, must know thetests that determine how strong and how weak an argument of this sortis. He may apply these tests both to his own reasoning and to thereasoning of others. The first test is:--

(1) _Is the assigned cause of sufficient strength to produce thealleged effect?_

The significance of this question is at once apparent. In the case ofa criminal prosecution, it asks whether the accused had sufficientmotive for performing the deed. In connection with political andeconomic propositions that advocate a change in existing conditions, this test asks whether the new method proposed is sufficiently virileand far-reaching actually to produce the excellent resultsanticipated. A few years ago the advocates of free silver weremaintaining that "sixteen to one" would be a sure cure for all povertyand financial distress. A careful application of this test would havematerially weakened such an argument. Believers in reformatory ratherthan punitive methods of imprisonment say it is antecedently probablethat kind treatment, healthful surroundings, and instruction invarious directions will reclaim most criminals to an honest life. Before accepting or rejecting this argument, one should decide in hisown mind whether or not such treatment is adequate to make a releasedconvict give up his former criminal practices. 

If the argument stands the first test, the next question to ask is:--

(2) _May some other cause intervene and prevent the action of theassigned cause?_

During the spring of 1908 it was generally known that the ErieRailroad had no money with which to pay the interest that was aboutdue on its outstanding bonds. Wall Street prophesied that the roadwould go into a receiver's hands. This result was extremely probable. Mr. Harriman, however, president of the Union Pacific, stepped in andby arranging for the payment of the interest saved the road frombankruptcy. This was an example of how an intervening cause preventedthe action of the assigned cause. When Congress passed the FifteenthAmendment to the Constitution, many people said that this legislationwould inevitably cause the social, political, and financial ruin ofthe whole South. Since they did not take into consideration theintervening action of another cause, namely, drastic measures fornegro disfranchisement by the white inhabitants of the South, theirreasoning from antecedent probability was entirely erroneous. 

2. ARGUMENT FROM SIGN. 

ARGUMENT FROM EFFECT TO CAUSE. The process of reasoning from effect tocause is called argument from sign. Since every circumstance must bethe result of some preceding circumstance, the arguer tries to findthe cause of some fact that is known to exist, and thereby toestablish the existence of a hitherto unknown fact. For instance, whenone sees a pond frozen over, he is likely to reason back to the causeof this condition and decide that there has been a fall intemperature, a fact that he may not have known before. The sight ofsmoke indicates the presence of fire. Human footprints in the snow areundoubted proof that someone has been present. 

In the following quotation, the recent prohibition movement in theSouth is said to be a sign that the voters wish to keep liquor awayfrom the negro:--

What is the cause of this drift toward prohibition in the South? Theobvious cause, and the one most often given in explanation, is thepresence of the negro. It is said that the vote for prohibition in theSouth represents exactly the same reasoning which excludes liquor fromIndian reservations, shuts it out by international agreement from theislands of the Pacific, and excludes it from great areas in Africaunder the British flag; and that, wherever there is an undevelopedrace, the reasons for restrictions upon the liquor traffic becomeconvincing. [Footnote: Atlantic Monthly, May, 1908, p. 632. ]

The strength of this kind of reasoning depends upon the closeness ofthe connection between the effect and the assigned cause. In testingargument from sign, one should ask:--

(1) _Is the cause assigned adequate to produce the observedeffect?_

This test is precisely the same as the test of adequacy for antecedentprobability. One could not maintain that the productiveness of acertain piece of ground was due entirely to the kind of fertilizerused on it, nor that a national financial upheaval was caused by thefailure of a single unimportant bank. In each of these cases the causesuggested may have assisted in producing the result, but obviously itwas not of itself adequate to be the sole cause. 

(2) _Could the observed effect have resulted from any other causethan the one assigned?_

If several possible causes exist, then it is necessary to considerthem all, and show that all the causes except the assigned cause didnot produce the observed effect. If an employer who has been robbeddiscovers that one of his clerks has suddenly come into possession ofa large sum of money, he may surmise that his clerk is a thief. Thisargument is valueless, however, unless he can show that his employeedid not receive his newly acquired wealth through inheritance, fortunate investment, or some other reasonable method. But if no otherreason than burglary or embezzlement can explain the presence of thismoney, the argument is very strong. 

One might greatly weaken the argument (quoted earlier) which assignedthe cause of the recent prohibition movement in the South to thepresence of the negro by showing that this action was not the resultof the assigned cause, but largely of another cause. He might provethat during the debate in the Georgia Legislature upon the pendingprohibitory bill, the negro was not once mentioned as a reason for theenactment of prohibition; and that the chief arguments in favor ofprohibition were based upon the fact that the saloon element hadformed a political ring in the South and were controlling the electionof sheriffs, mayors, aldermen, and legislators. 

ARGUMENT FROM EFFECT TO EFFECT. Argument from sign also includes theprocess of reasoning from effect to effect through a common cause. This method consists of combining the process just described with theargument from antecedent probability. A reduction of wages in onecotton mill is a sign that there may be a reduction in other cottonmills. Here the reasoning goes from effect to effect, passing, however, though perhaps the reasoner is not aware that the process isso complex, through a cause common to both effects. In full, thereasoning would be: a reduction in the first mill is the result of thecause "hard times"; it is then antecedently probable that this causewill produce a similar reduction of wages in other mills. 

This method may be represented by the following figure:--

 Cause / \ / \ / \ / \ Effect Effect

Only one effect is known; the other effect is inferred, first, by aprocess of reasoning from a known effect to an unknown cause, andsecondly, by the process of reasoning from this assumed cause to anunknown effect. 

This method of reasoning is sound and legitimate when both effectshave the same cause. Its weakness lies in the fact that it may beattacked on two sides: on the reasoning from effect to cause, and onthe reasoning from cause to effect. If the connection can be broken ineither process, the argument is overthrown. The tests to be used havealready been given. 

3. ARGUMENT FROM EXAMPLE. 

Argument from example is the name given to the process by which onereasons that what has been true under certain circumstances will againbe true under the same or similar circumstances. In using this methodof reasoning one argues that whenever several persons or things orconditions are alike in some respects, any given cause operating uponthem will in each case produce the same effect; any line of actionadopted by them will in each case have the same result. 

There are two divisions of argument from example. When the resemblancebetween the things compared is close, the process is called argumentby generalization; when the resemblance is so slight that there can beno direct comparison, but only a comparison of functions, the processis called argument from analogy. 

ARGUMENT BY GENERALIZATION. If one finds that a certain mastiffbecomes with training an excellent watch dog, he may reasonably takeit for granted that training will produce the same result in anotherdog of the same breed. If a college student with certain pronouncedphysical and mental characteristics is known to be an exceptionallygood football player, the athletic trainer is sure to reason bygeneralization that another student with these same characteristicswould be a valuable addition to the team. Burke in his _Speech onConciliation_ uses this kind of reasoning when he says that just asTurkey and Spain have found it necessary to govern their distantpossessions with a loose rein, so, too, England will be obliged togovern the American Colonies leniently. 

Benjamin Harrison used this method of argument in the followingquotation:--

That we give back to Porto Rico all the revenue derived from thecustoms we levy, does not seem to me to soften our dealings with herpeople. Our fathers were not mollified by the suggestion that the teaand stamp taxes would be expended wholly for the benefit of thecolonies. It is to say: We do not need this money; it is only leviedto show that your country is no part of the United States, and thatyou are not citizens of the United States, save at our pleasure. [Footnote: North American Review, January, 1901, p. 17. ]

Argument by generalization very rarely constitutes absolute proof. Indealing with things, it may do so in rare cases; in dealing with humanactions, almost never. The reason why it can establish only a strongprobability lies in a weakness in the process of reasoning. 

Notice that while this kind of argument apparently reasons directlyfrom the example cited to the case in hand, there is in reality anintermediate step. This step is a general truth of which both theknown fact and the fact to be proved must be instances. When it isargued that since one mastiff makes a good watch dog another mastiffwill also make a good watch dog, the reasoning passes through thegeneral statement, "All mastiffs make good watch dogs. "

Graphically the process might be represented thus:--

 General Law /\ / \ / \ / \ Known Fact Fact to be Proved

This method is very much like the method of reasoning from effect toeffect, except that here the intermediate step does not _cause_, but merely accounts for the facts. In the illustration taken fromBurke, the known fact is that neither Turkey nor Spain can governtheir distant provinces despotically. The general law is that nocountry can govern a distant dependency harshly. The fact proved isthat England cannot play the despot with the American Colonies. 

The weakness of this sort of reasoning is now easily seen. In thefirst place, there are few general laws governing human action thatalways hold true. In the second place, unless there is a very strongresemblance between the cases compared, unless they are alike in allessential particulars, they will not both be examples of the workingof one general law. 

The following quotation points out an error that might be made fromtoo hasty reasoning by example:--

On August 23d the Southern Railway, which since 1902 had been paying5 per cent. Annual dividends on its preferred stock, voted to reducethose dividends from a 5 per cent. Annual rate to one of 3. Five dayslater, on August 28th, the Erie Railroad, which had been paying 4 percent . .. Announced that it would pay no cash dividend this time, butwould issue to the amount of the usual 4 per cent. Dividend, what itcalled dividend warrants, which were practically notes at 4 per cent. Redeemable in cash in 1907. 

It was natural that this action regarding dividends should haveawakened much uneasiness. .. . To predict a similar cutting of dividendsby other railway companies would, however, be unwarranted. The case ofthe Southern Railway and the Erie was peculiar. Each had been classedamong the financially weak railways of the country. Both werereorganized from absolute railway wrecks, and in each the new schemeof capitalization was proposed to the markets at a time when recoveryfrom the depression of 1893 had not made such progress as it hadachieved when the greater companies, like the Union Pacific, werereorganized. The result was that, with both these railways, provisionsof working capital and adjustment of liabilities to the possible needsof an active industrial future were inadequately made. [Footnote:Alexander D. Noyes, The Forum, October-December, 1907, p. 198. ]

An excellent illustration of how to refute argument by generalizationis found in the following quotation. It has been said that sinceEngland finds free trade beneficial, the United States should adoptthe same policy. Mr. Reed, a leading advocate of protection, pointsout the weakness of this argument. 

According to the usual story that is told, England had been engagedwith a long and vain struggle with the demon of protection, and hadbeen year after year sinking farther into the depths, until at amoment when she was in her distress and saddest plight, hermanufacturing system broke down, "protection, having destroyed hometrade by reducing, " as Mr. Atkinson says, "the entire population tobeggary, destitution, and want. " Mr. Cobden and his friendsprovidentially appeared, and after a hard struggle established aprinciple for all time and for all the world, and straightway Englandenjoyed the sum of human happiness. Hence all good nations should doas England has done and be happy ever after. 

Suppose England, instead of being a little island in the sea, had beenthe half of a great continent full of raw material, capable of aninternal commerce which would rival the commerce of all the rest ofthe world. 

Suppose every year new millions were flocking to her shores, and everyone of those new millions in a few years, as soon as they tasted thedelights of a broader life, would become as great a consumer as anyone of her own people. 

Suppose that these millions, and the 70, 000, 000 already gathered underthe folds of her flag, were every year demanding and receiving ahigher wage and therefore broadening her market as fast as hermachinery could furnish production. Suppose she had produced cheapfood beyond all her wants, and that her laborers spent so much moneythat whether wheat was sixty cents a bushel or twice that sum hardlyentered the thoughts of one of them except when some democratic tariffbill was paralyzing his business. 

Suppose that she was not only but a cannon shot from France, but thatevery country in Europe had been brought as near to her as Baltimoreis to Washington--for that is what cheap ocean freights mean betweenus and European producers. Suppose all those countries had hermachinery, her skilled workmen, her industrial system, and labor fortyper cent. Cheaper. Suppose under that state of facts, with all hermanufactures proclaiming against it, frantic in their disapproval, England had been called upon by Cobden to make the plunge into freetrade, would she have done it? Not if Cobden had been backed by theangelic host. History gives England credit for great sense. [Footnote:Thomas B. Reed, Speech in House of Representatives, Feb. 1, 1904. ]

ARGUMENT FROM ANALOGY. When two instances of objects which are_unlike in themselves_, but which _perform similar functions orhave similar relations_, are compared for the sake of showing thatwhat is true in one case is true in the other, the process is called_argument from analogy_. The following quotation is a goodillustration of this kind of argument:--

"Mr. Pinchot compared our present consumption of wood to the case ofa man in an open boat at sea, cut adrift from some shipwreck and withbut a few days' supply of water on board. He drinks all the water thefirst day, simply because he is thirsty, though he knows that thewater will not last long. The American people know that their woodsupply will last but a few decades. Yet they shut their eyes to thefacts. "

Water and wood are not alike in themselves; they cannot be directlycompared, but they are alike in the relations they bear to othercircumstances. 

When President Lincoln refused to change generals at a certain timeduring the Civil War, saying that it was not wise to "swap horseswhile crossing a stream, " he reasoned from analogy. Since the horse intaking its master across the stream and the general in conducting acampaign are totally unlike in themselves but have similar relations, the argument is from analogy and not from generalization. 

It is easy to see that such reasoning never constitutes indubitableproof. If argument from generalization, where the objects compareddiffer from each other in only a few respects, is weak, plainly, argument from analogy is much weaker, since the objects are alikemerely in the relations they bear. 

Though argument from analogy does not constitute proof, yet it isoften valuable as a means of illustration. Truths frequently needillumination more than verification, and in such cases this sort ofcomparison may be very useful. Many proverbs are condensed argumentsfrom analogy, their strength depending upon the similarity between theknown case and the case in hand. It is not hard to find the analogy inthese expressions: "Lightning never strikes twice in the same place";"Don't count your chickens before they are hatched"; "A fool and hismoney are soon parted. "

The student who has carefully read this chapter up to this pointshould have a fairly clear idea of the nature of proof; he should knowthat proof consists of evidence and reasoning; he should know thetests for each of these; and he should be able to distinguish betweenstrong and weak arguments. The next step for him to take will be toapply these instructions in generating proof for any statement that hewishes to establish. 

A common fault in argumentation is the failure to support importantpoints with sufficient proof. One or two points well established willgo farther toward inducing belief in a proposition than a dozen pointsthat are but weakly substantiated. A statement should be proved notonly by inductive reasoning, but, if possible, by deductive. If oneuses argument from antecedent probability in establishing a statement, he should not rest content with this one method of proof, but heshould try also to use argument from sign, and argument from example, and, whenever he can, he should quote authority. 

Notice that in the following outline three kinds of proof are used. The amount of proof here given is by no means sufficient to establishthe truth of the proposition being upheld; the outline, however, doesillustrate the proper method of building up the proof of aproposition. 

The present condition of the United States Senate is deplorable. 

ANTECEDENT PROBABILITY. 

 I. The present method of electing Senators is ample cause for such a condition, since

 A. Senators are not responsible to any one, as

 1. They are not responsible to the people, for

 a. The people do not elect them. 

 2. They are not responsible to the legislature, for

 a. The legislature changes inside of six years. 

SIGN. 

 II. There is ample evidence to prove that the condition is deplorable. 

 A. States are often unrepresented in the Senate. (Haynes' _Election of Senators_, page 158. )

 B. Many Senators have fallen into disrepute, for

 1. One out of every ten members of the Fifty-eighth Congress had been before the courts on criminal charges. (Harper's Weekly, Vol. XLIV, page 113. )

 C. Many Senators have engaged in fist fights on the floor of the Senate Chamber. 

AUTHORITY. 

III. Prominent men testify to its deplorable condition. (A. M. Low, North American Review, Vol. CLXXIV, page 231; D. G. Phillips, Cosmopolitan, Vol. XL, page 487. )

PERSUASION. 

Though it has been stated in a previous chapter that the persuasiveportions of an argument should be found for the most part in theintroduction and the conclusion, still persuasion in the discussion isextremely important. It is true that the real work of the discussionis to prove the proposition; but if conviction alone be used, there isgreat danger, in most cases, that the arguer will weary his audience, lose their attention, and thus fail to drive home the ideas that hewishes them to adopt. Since everything depends upon how the arguer hasalready treated his subject, and how it has been received by theaudience, specific directions for persuasion in the discussion cannotpossibly be given. Suggestions in regard to this matter must be evenmore abstract and general than were the directions for persuasion inthe introduction. 

To begin with, persuasion in the discussion should usually be of asupplementary nature. Unless the arguer has won the attention and, tosome extent at least, the good will of his audience before hecommences upon his proof, he may as well confess failure and proceedno farther. If, however, the persuasiveness of his introduction hasaccomplished the purpose for which it exists, he may introduce hisproof without hesitation, taking care all the time to interweaveenough persuasion to maintain the favorable impression that he hasalready made. 

In general, the directions for doing this are the same as those forsecuring persuasion in the introduction. In both divisions_modesty_, _fairness_, and _sincerity_, are the characteristics that makefor success. The same conditions that demand these qualities in one placerequire their use throughout the whole argument. Then, too, it is ofteneffective to make occasionally an appeal to some strong emotion. As arule, the attitude of the modern audience is essentially one ofindifference, of so great indifference that special effort must be madefirst to gain, then to hold, their attention. The direct emotional appeal, when the subject, the occasion, and the audience are such thatthere is no danger of its being ludicrous, will usually accomplish thisresult. If such a method, however, is manifestly out of place, other meansmust be sought for producing a similar effect. 

One of the very commonest devices for gaining attention is to relate ashort anecdote. Everybody enjoys a good story, and if it is chosenwith proper regard for its illustrative value, the argument is sure tobe strengthened. On the whole, humorous stories are best. They oftenrelieve the tedium of an otherwise dry speech, and not only serve aspersuasion, but drive home a point with greater emphasis than couldthe most elaborate course of reasoning. This method is so familiar toevery one that detailed explanation is unnecessary. Owing to thelimited amount of time at their command, student debaters can, as arule, use only the very shortest stories, and these should be chosenfor their illustrative rather than for their persuasive value; inwritten arguments greater latitude is possible. 

Another method that often finds favor in both written and spokenarguments is the introduction of a paragraph showing the importance ofthe topic under consideration. Oftentimes the arguer can show thatthis particular phase of the subject is of wider significance than atfirst appears. Perhaps he can draw a picture that will turn aseemingly uninteresting and commonplace subject into one that isteeming with romance and wonderment. For example, consider thefollowing extract from Burke's speech on _Conciliation with theAmerican Colonies_:--

This is the relative proportion of the importance of the colonies atthese two periods: and all reasoning concerning our mode of treatingthem must have this proportion as its basis; or it is a reasoningweak, rotten and sophistical. 

Mr. Speaker, I cannot prevail on myself to hurry over this greatconsideration. It is good for us to be here. We stand where we have animmense view of what is, and what is passed. Clouds, indeed, anddarkness rest upon the future. Let us, however, before we descend fromthis noble eminence, reflect that this growth of our nationalprosperity has happened within the short period of the life of man. Ithas happened within sixty-eight years. There are those alive whosememory might touch the two extremities. For instance, my Lord Bathurstmight remember all the stages of the progress. He was in 1704 of anage at least to be made to comprehend such things. He was then oldenough _acta parentum jam legere, et quae sit poterit cognoscerevirtus_. Suppose, sir, that the angel of this auspicious youth, foreseeingthe many virtues which made him one of the most amiable, as he is oneof the most fortunate, men of his age, had opened to him in vision, thatwhen in the fourth generation the third prince of the House ofBrunswick had sat twelve years on the throne of that nation which (bythe happy issue of moderate and healing counsels) was to be madeGreat Britain, he should see his son, Lord Chancellor of England, turnback the current of hereditary dignity to its fountain and raise him to anhigher rank of peerage, whilst he enriched the family with a new one;--if, amidst these bright and happy scenes of domestic honor andprosperity, that angel should have drawn up the curtain and unfoldedthe rising glories of his country, and, whilst he was gazing withadmiration on the then commercial grandeur of England, the geniusshould point out to him a little speck, scarcely visible in the mass ofthe national interests, a small seminal principle rather than a formedbody, and should tell him, --"Young man, there is America, which at thisday serves for little more than to amuse you with stories of savage menand uncouth manners; yet shall, before you taste of death, show itselfequal to the whole of that commerce which now attracts the envy ofthe world. Whatever England has been growing to by a progressiveincrease of improvement, brought in by varieties of people, bysuccession of civilizing conquests and civilizing settlements in a seriesof seventeen hundred years, you shall see as much added to her byAmerica in the course of a single life!" If this state of his country hadbeen foretold to him, would it not require all the sanguine credulity ofyouth and all the fervid glow of enthusiasm to make him believe it?Fortunate man, he has lived to see it! Fortunate indeed, if he lives tosee nothing that shall vary the prospect and cloud the setting of his day!

Excuse me, sir, if, turning from such thoughts, I resume thiscomparative view once more. [Footnote: Speech in House of Commons, March 22, 1775. ]

These devices an arguer will often find helpful for bringing anelement of persuasion into his proof, but he should aim at a type ofpersuasion much more effective, yet much harder to attain, than is theresult of any mere device. Proof is the strongest when each separatebit of it appeals both to the reason and the emotions. If an arguercan connect his subject with the feelings of his audience and thenintroduce reasoning processes that will at the same time both convincethem and play upon their feelings, he is certain to attain a largemeasure of success. Although not all subjects readily lend themselvesto this method of treatment, yet if the debater will go to the verybottom of his subject and consider the real significance of thequestion he is arguing upon, he can usually succeed in making hisconviction persuasive and his persuasion convincing. Undoubtedly thebest way for a student to train himself in this respect is to studygreat arguments. The following quotation from Beecher's speech inLiverpool, delivered before an audience composed mostly of menengaged in manufacturing, is an excellent example of persuasiveproof:--

The things required for prosperous labor, prosperous manufactures, and prosperous commerce are three: first, liberty; secondly, liberty;thirdly, liberty--but these are not merely the same liberty, as Ishall show you. 

First, there must be liberty to follow those laws of business whichexperience has developed, without imposts or restrictions, orgovernmental intrusions. Business simply wants to be let alone. 

Then, secondly, there must be liberty to distribute and exchangeproducts of industry in any market without burdensome tariffs, withoutimposts, and without vexatious regulations. There must be these twoliberties--liberty to create wealth, as the makers of it think bestaccording to the light and experience which business has given them;and then liberty to distribute what they have created withoutunnecessary vexatious burdens. The comprehensive law of the idealindustrial condition of the world is free manufacture and free trade. 

I have said there were three elements of liberty. The third is thenecessity of an intelligent and free race of customers. There must befreedom among producers; there must be freedom among the distributors;there must be freedom among the customers. It may not have occurred toyou that it makes any difference what one's customers are; but itdoes, in all regular and prolonged business. The condition of thecustomer determines how much he will buy, determines of what sort hewill buy. Poor and ignorant people buy little and that of the poorestkind. The richest and the intelligent, having the more means to buy, buy the most, and always buy the best. 

Here, then, are the three liberties: liberty of the producer, liberty of the distributor, and liberty of the consumer. The first twoneed no discussion--they have been long, thoroughly, and brilliantlyillustrated by the political economists of Great Britain, and by hereminent statesmen; but it seems to me that enough attention has notbeen directed to the third, and, with your patience, I will dwell onthat for a moment, before proceeding to other topics. 

It is a necessity of every manufacturing and commercial people thattheir customers should be very wealthy and intelligent. Let us put thesubject before you in the familiar light of your own local experience. To whom do the tradesmen of Liverpool sell the most goods at thehighest profit? To the ignorant and poor, or to the educated andprosperous? The poor man buys simply for his body; he buys food, hebuys clothing, he buys fuel, he buys lodging. His rule is to buy theleast and the cheapest that he can. He goes to the store as seldom ashe can, --he brings away as little as he can--and he buys for the leasthe can. Poverty is not a misfortune to the poor only who suffer it, but it is more or less a misfortune to all with whom they deal. 

On the other hand, a man well off--how is it with him? He buys in fargreater quantity. He can afford to do it; he has the money to pay forit. He buys in far greater variety, because he seeks to gratify notmerely physical wants, but also mental wants. He buys for thesatisfaction of sentiment and taste, as well as of sense. He buyssilk, wool, flax, cotton; he buys all metals--iron, silver, gold, platinum; in short, he buys for all necessities and of all substances. But that is not all. He buys a better quality of goods. He buys richersilks, finer cottons, higher grained wools. Now, a rich silk means somuch skill and care of somebody's that has been expended upon it tomake it finer and richer; and so of cotton, and so of wool. That is, the price of the finer goods runs back to the very beginning, andremunerates the workman as well as the merchant. Indeed, the wholelaboring community is as much interested and profited as the meremerchant, in this buying and selling of the higher grades in thegreater varieties and quantities. 

The law of price is the skill; and the amount of skill expended in thework is as much for the market as are the goods. A man comes to themarket and says, "I have a pair of hands"; and he obtains the lowestwages. Another man comes and says, "I have something more than a pairof hands--I have truth and fidelity"; he gets a higher price. Anotherman comes and says, "I have something more; I have hands and strength, and fidelity, and skill. " He gets more than either of the others. Thenext man comes and says, "I have got hands and strength, and skill, and fidelity; but my hands work more than that. They know how tocreate things for the fancy, for the affections, for the moralsentiments"; and he gets more than any of the others. The last mancomes and says, "I have all these qualities, and have them so highlythat it is a peculiar genius"; and genius carries the whole market andgets the highest price. So that both the workman and the merchant areprofited by having purchasers that demand quality, variety, andquantity. 

Now, if this be so in the town or the city, it can only be so becauseit is a law. This is the specific development of a general oruniversal law, and therefore we should expect to find it as true of anation as of a city like Liverpool. I know it is so, and you know thatit is true of all the world; and it is just as important to havecustomers educated, intelligent, moral, and rich, out of Liverpool asit is in Liverpool. They are able to buy; they want variety; they wantthe very best; and those are the customers you want. That nation isthe best customer that is freest, because freedom works prosperity, industry, and wealth. Great Britain, then, aside from moralconsiderations, has a direct commercial and pecuniary interest in theliberty, civilization, and wealth of every people and every nation onthe globe. 

You have also an interest in this, because you are a moral and areligious people. You desire it from the highest motives, andgodliness is profitable in all things, having the promise of the lifethat is, as well as of that which is to come; but if there were nohereafter, and if man had no progress in this life, and if there wereno question of moral growth at all, it would be worth your while toprotect civilization and liberty, merely as a commercial speculation. To evangelize has more than a moral and religious import--it comesback to temporal relations. Wherever a nation that is crushed, cramped, degraded under despotism, is struggling to be free, you, Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester, Paisley, all have an interest that thatnation should be free. When depressed and backward people demand thatthey may have a chance to rise--Hungary, Italy, Poland--it is a dutyfor humanity's sake, it is a duty for the highest moral motives, tosympathize with them; but beside all these there is a material and aninterested reason why you should sympathize with them. Pounds andpence join with conscience and with honor in this design. [Footnote:The World's Famous Orations, Vol. X, p. 12. Funk and WagnallsCompany. ]

EXERCISES

A. In the following passage point out all assertions that are made, note whether the source of the evidence is definitely stated, and testthe witnesses that give the evidence. 

Reciprocity is the only remedy for the commercial antagonism whichis fast separating Canada and the United States. Canada has longwaited in vain for the culmination of treaties whereby she can tradewith us on equal terms. Now, angered by our long evasion of thequestion, she is, according to prominent Canadian statesmen, contemplating the passage of high protective tariff laws, which willeffectually close the doors of Canadian trade to us. Canada is young, but she is growing fast. The value of her imports is steadily growinglarger, and if we do not make some concession to her we shall losethis vast trade. She makes and sells many things of which we do nothave a home supply. Why not then open our doors to her and admit herproducts? Would it not be of distinct advantage to us?

The American Press is almost unanimous in declaring that the sum ofthe advantages attending this step would far offset any disadvantages. For instance, the supply of lumber in the United States is fastbecoming exhausted; experts say that in fifteen years we shall have alumber famine. If we turn to Canada, however, we see her mountainslopes green with trees and her wooded valleys covered with millionsof feet of lumber. Why, then, not get our lumber from Canada andpreserve what few forests we do have? Because of the exorbitant tariffon imported lumber. Lumber at its present high prices is even cheapcompared with the price of imported lumber. Moreover, lumber is notthe only article that is expensive here, though it is cheap justacross the line in Canada. The World's Work, Vol. V, page 2979, saysthat reciprocity with Canada would cheapen many articles that are nowcostly. 

B. Point out the kind of reasoning found in each of the followingarguments:--

1. The wholesale destruction of the forests in many States portendsthe loss of our whole timber supply. 

2. His faithful performance of every duty assures him an earlypromotion. 

3. Since he succeeded well in his college work, it is an assured factthat he will make a brilliant reputation for himself in business. 

4. Caesar had his Brutus, Charles I his Cromwell, and George III--mayprofit by their example. 

5. The well-tilled fields, the carefully-trimmed hedges, and the sleekappearance of the stock bespoke a thrifty and industrious farmer. 

6. You tried in Wales to raise a revenue which the people thoughtexcessive and unjust: the attempt ended in oppression, resistance, rebellion, and loss to yourselves. You tried in the Duchy of Lancasterto raise a revenue which the people believed unjust: this effort endedin oppression, rebellion, vexation, and loss to yourselves. You arenow trying to raise in America a revenue which the Colonistsdisapprove. What must be the result?

7. Then, sir, from these six capital sources: of descent; of form ofgovernment; of religion in the northern provinces; of manners in thesouthern; of education; of the remoteness of situation from the firstmover of government--from all these causes a fierce spirit of libertyhas grown up. 

8. Collective bargaining is an advantage to working men; it tends togive them some share in the control of the industry to which theycontribute. 

9. That a free labor union is not the impractical dream of an idealistis to be found in the fact that some of the greatest and mostsuccessful of the labor organizations have always adhered to theprinciple of the open shop. In the Pennsylvania coal-mines union andnon-union miners labored together in the same mine and reaped the samebenefits from the collective bargaining carried on for them by JohnMitchell. In the recent anarchy in Colorado, the one mine which wenton with its work peacefully, prosperously, and without disturbance, until it was closed by military orders, was a mine which maintainedthe principle of the open shop, and in which union and non-union menworked peacefully together. 

10. Suppose that all the property you were worth was in gold, and youhad put it in the hands of Blondin, the famous rope-walker, to carryacross the Niagara Falls on a tight rope. Would you shake the ropewhile he was passing over it, or keep shouting to him, "Blondin, stoopa little more! Go a little faster!" No, I am sure you would not. Youwould hold your breath as well as your tongue, and keep your hand offuntil he was safely over. Now the government is in the same situation. It is carrying an immense weight across a stormy ocean. Untoldtreasures are in its hands. It is doing the best it can. Don't badgerit! Just keep still and it will get you safely over. 

C. Prove or disprove the following statements, using, wherever it ispossible, argument from antecedent probability, sign, example, andauthority. Give references for all evidence except generally admittedfacts. 

1. The negro is not prepared to receive the same kind of educationthat the white man receives. 

2. Railway pooling lowers freight rates. 

3. The election of Senators by State Legislatures is undemocratic. 

4. The present commercial relations between Canada and the UnitedStates are detrimental to the industries of the United States. 

5. The influence of labor unions has greatly diminished child labor inthe United States. 

6. Woman suffrage would purify politics. 

7. Egypt is benefited by the control of England. 

8. Strikes benefit the working man. 

9. The municipal ownership of street railways is a financial failure. 

10. Lumber companies threaten the extermination of the forests in theUnited States. 

CHAPTER VII

THE DISCUSSION--BRIEF-DRAWING

The second division of a brief, corresponding to the second divisionof a complete argument, is called the _discussion_. In this partof his brief the arguer logically arranges all the evidence andreasoning that he wishes to use in establishing or overthrowing hisproposition. Illustrative material, rhetorical embellishment, andother forms of persuasion that may enter into the finished argumentare omitted, but the real proof is complete in the brief. 

There are two possible systems of arranging proof. For the sake ofconvenience they may be called the "because" method and the"therefore" method. These methods derive their names from theconnectives that are used. When the "because" method is used, theproof follows the statement being established, and is connected tothis statement with some such word as: _as_, _because_, _for_, or _since_. To illustrate:--

 I. Expenses at a country college are less than at a city college, _because_

 A. At the country college room rent is cheaper. 

 B. Table board costs less. 

 C. Amusement places are less numerous. 

Under the "therefore" method, the proof precedes the statement beingestablished; the connectives are _hence_ and _therefore_. The previous argument arranged in this form would read as follows:--

 A. Since room rent is cheaper at the country college than at the city college, and

 B. Since table board costs less, and

 C. Since amusement places are less numerous, _therefore_. 

 I. Expenses at a country college are less than at a city college. 

The student should always use the "because" method of arrangement. Itis preferable to the "therefore" method since it affords a much easierapprehension of the argument advanced. If the reader of the brief hasthe conclusion in his mind at the very start, he can test the strengthand adequacy of the proof very quickly, and can, perhaps, the firsttime he reads the argument form an opinion as to its worth. But hewill almost always have difficulty in grasping the significance ofevidence and reasoning before he knows what the proof is expected toprove. The "therefore" method usually obliges a careful reasoner, after finally reaching the conclusion, to go over the whole proof asecond time. 

To assist the student in carrying out the proper arrangement of hisproof, two rules have been formulated. One rule deals with mainheadings, the headings marked with the Roman numerals; the other dealswith subordinate headings. 

Rule IX. _Phrase each principal statement in the discussion so thatit will read as a reason for the truth or the falsity of theproposition_. 

Rule X. _Phrase each subordinate statement in the discussion so thatit will read as a reason for the truth of the statement to which it issubordinate. The connectives to be used are: as, because, for, andsince_. 

In connection with the first of these rules, notice that principalheadings read as reasons for the truth or the falsity of theproposition. Obviously they read as reasons for the truth if the briefis on the affirmative side, and for the falsity if the brief is on thenegative side. Headings and subheadings should always be supported, not demolished. 

The error of making unsupported statements in a complete argument hasalready been discussed. Assertion in a brief is equally faulty. Toinsure belief, all statements must rest ultimately either upon thetestimony of witnesses or upon statements admitted to be true. 

Notice how unconvincing is the following portion of a brief:--

Proposition--American cities should own and operate all street-carlines within their limits. 

 I. The present system of operating street-car lines is efficient, for

 A. The street-car service in the United States is the best in the world. 

 B. Street-car fare in the United States is remarkably low. 

The insertion of testimony, however, to substantiate A and B turnsthis bit of brief into excellent proof. 

 I. The present system of operating street-car lines is efficient, for

 A. The street-car service in the United States is the best in the world, because

 1. It is best in respect to extent, since

 a. James W. Garner says that England has less than a quarter of the street-car facilities found in the United States. (Dial, Feb. 1908, p. 20. )

 b. In 1902, two hundred and ninety-five communities in the United Kingdom of from 8, 000 to 25, 000 inhabitants were without street cars; while in the United States there were only twenty-one such communities. (Municipal and Private Operation of Public Utilities, W. J. Clark, Vol. I, p. 445. )

 2. It is best in regard to equipment and accommodation, since

 a. The cars are the best equipped in the world. (Ibid. )

 b. The cars are run with shorter intervals between them than anywhere else in the world. (Ibid. )

 B. The fare in the United States is remarkably low, because

 1. Although the fare in Glasgow, a leading exponent of municipal ownership, is but twopence, yet it will carry one only eight miles; but five cents in New York will carry one fifty miles. 

Rule XI. _Make no unsupported statements unless they are generallyadmitted to be true_. 

It has already been shown that the arguer must reveal to his audiencethe sources from which he gathered his evidence. If he gained certaininformation from magazines, he should state definitely the name, thevolume, and the page; if he gained his information elsewhere, heshould be equally explicit. Since this knowledge of the source of theevidence is essential to the success of the proof, a statement of thesources is a part of the work of conviction. Accordingly, thesesources must be stated in the brief as well as in the expandedargument. Thus the rule:--

Rule XII. _After all evidence state in parentheses the source fromwhich it came_. 

In addition to establishing the side of the proposition which itadvocates, a good brief almost invariably refutes the main argumentsof the opposite side. The way in which this refutation is expressed isvery important. A brief on the affirmative side of the proposition, "_Resolved_, That the Panama canal should be built at sea-level, "would be weak and ludicrous, if, when answering the argument for thenegative that the cost of a sea-level canal would be enormous, itshould contain the following reasoning:--

The Panama Canal should be built at sea-level, (for) I. The cost would not be much greater than for a lock canal. 

One might think from this statement that the drawer of the briefconsidered the contention that the sea-level type would cost a littlethough not much more than the other type, a positive argument in favorof the sea-level canal. In reality it is nothing of the sort. Thearguer is merely trying to destroy his opponent's argument to theeffect that expense is an obstacle in the way of the sea-level type. This refutation should be expressed in such a manner as to show thatit is refutation and not positive proof. It might well read somethinglike this:--

The Panama Canal should be built at sea-level, (for) I. The contention of the negative that a sea-level canal would cost enormously more than a lock-canal is unsound, since, A. Etc. 

Notice that this form of refutation states clearly the argument to beanswered. No doubt can arise from such a statement as to the directionthe argument is taking; no confusion can occur between refutation andpositive proof. Hence the rule:--

Rule XIII. _Phrase refutation so that the argument to be answered isclearly stated_. 

THE CONCLUSION. 

As there is but one rule for brief-drawing that applies to theconclusion, it may well be given at this point. The purpose and thevalue of this rule are so apparent that no explanation is necessary. 

Rule XIV. _Put into the conclusion a summary of the essential pointsestablished in the discussion_. 

RULES FOR BRIEF-DRAWING. 

GENERAL RULES. 

I. _Divide the brief into three parts, and mark them respectively, Introduction, Discussion, and Conclusion_. 

II. _Express each idea in the brief in the form of a completestatement_. 

III. _Make in each statement only a single assertion_. 

IV. _Make each statement as concise as is consistent withclearness_. 

V. _Indicate the relation between statements by indentation and bythe use of symbols_. 

VI. _Mark each statement with only one symbol_. 

RULES FOR THE INTRODUCTION. 

VII. _Put into the introduction sufficient explanation for acomplete understanding of the discussion. This explanation usuallyinvolves (a) a definition of terms, (b) an explanation of the meaningof the proposition, (c) a statement of the issues, and (d) thepartition_. 

VIII. _Put into the introduction only statements admitted by bothsides_. 

RULES FOR THE DISCUSSION. 

IX. _Phrase each principal statement in the discussion so that itwill read as a reason for the truth or the falsity of theproposition_. 

X. _Phrase each subordinate statement in the discussion so that itwill read as a reason for the truth of the statement to which it issubordinate. The connectives to be used are: as, because, for, andsince_. 

XI. _Make no unsupported statements unless they are generallyadmitted to be true_. 

XII. _After all evidence state in parentheses the source from whichit came_. 

XIII. _Phrase refutation so that the argument to be answered isclearly stated_. 

RULE FOR THE CONCLUSION. 

XIV. _Put into the conclusion a summary of the essential pointsestablished in the discussion_. 

MODEL BRIEF. 

_Resolved_, That immigration to the United States should befurther restricted by an educational test. 

AFFIRMATIVE BRIEF. 

INTRODUCTION. 

 I. The question of further restricting immigration to the United States by an educational test gains in importance from the alleged impairment of American institutions and standards by immigration. 

 II. The following explanations will aid in the discussion of the question:--

 A. Immigration to the United States means the migrating of people into the United States for the purpose of permanent residence. (Century Dictionary. )

 B. The restrictive measures now in force are as follows:--

 1. Idiots, insane persons, paupers, convicts, diseased persons, anarchists, polygamists, women for immoral purposes, assisted aliens, contract laborers, and the Chinese are excluded. (Statutes of the United States. )

 2. A head tax of four dollars is imposed. (Ibid. )

 C. The proposed restrictive measure is as follows:--

 1. Every immigrant to the United States between the ages of fifteen and fifty must be able to read and write a few sentences of some language. (Congressional Record, Vol. XXVIII, page 5421. ). 

III. The points to be determined seem to be:--

 A. Is there a need for further restriction of immigration?

 B. If there is such a need, would the educational test accomplish this further restriction in a proper manner?

DISCUSSION. 

 I. There is great need for further restriction of immigration, because

 A. The character of the immigrants since 1880 has greatly changed for the worse, for

 1. Before 1880 most of the immigrants were earnest, energetic people from northern and western Europe. (International Encyclopaedia, under Immigration. )

 2. At the present time seventy and one-half per cent. Of the total number of immigrants are from the unenergetic people of southern and eastern Europe. (Ibid. )

 3. More immigrants have become paupers than was formerly the case, for

 a. Prior to 1880 there were comparatively few paupers among the immigrants. (Ibid. )

 b. At present the percentage of pauperism among the foreigners here is four times as great as among the natives. (Ibid. )

 4. While the Germans, English, and other immigrants from northern Europe who came here before 1880 were moral and upright, the present immigrants from southern Europe have a low code of morals, for

 a. The moral degeneracy of the races of southern Europe is well known. (Henry Rood, Forum, Vol. XIV, page 116. )

 5. Crime among foreigners in this country has increased immensely, for

 a. In 1905 twenty-eight per cent, of our criminals were of foreign birth. (Report of the Commissioner-General of Immigration for 1905. )

 6. Illiteracy among immigrants has greatly increased, for

 a. In 1905 the percentage of illiterates of foreign birth was twenty-six. (Ibid. )

 b. Many of the present immigrants are illiterates from southern Italy. (S. E. Moffett, Review of Reviews, Vol. 28, page 55. )

 B. The condition of the cities and especially of their slum districts is alarming, for

 1. The number of immigrants is increasing astonishingly, inasmuch as, a. 8, 385 immigrants arrived in 1820. 

 b. 788, 992 immigrants arrived in 1882. 

 c. 1, 026, 499 immigrants arrived in 1905. (Report of Commissioner-General of Immigration, 1905. Page 42. )

 2. Two-thirds of the total number of immigrants in 1902 settled in the cities. (Editorial in Outlook, Vol. LXXI, page 154. )

 3. These congested districts foster unsanitary conditions, physical degeneration, and crime. (Deputy Clerk of Children's Court, New York City, North American Review, Vol. CLXXIX, page 731. )

 4. Charitable organizations are unable to cope with the problems in congested districts, for

 a. The number of immigrants is increasing too rapidly. (Report of Commissioner-General of Immigration, 1905. )

 C. The present immigration is politically harmful, for

 1. Immigrants of the kind that are now coming in do not make good citizens, because

 a. They are indifferent to civic manners, for

 1'. They cannot appreciate the spirit of American government, as has previously been shown. 

 b. They are easily influenced in all political affairs by pecuniary persuasion, for

 1'. Their sole object in this country is to acquire wealth. (Prescott F. Hall, Secretary of the Immigration Restriction League, Annals of American Academy, Vol. XXIV, page 172. )

 D. The number of immigrants is too great to be assimilated properly, since

 1. Most of the immigrants are extremely clannish, for

 a. "Little Italies, " "Little Hungaries, " and "Ghettos, " exist in great numbers and size throughout the United States. (Henry Rood, Forum, Vol. XIV, page 114. )

 2. Most of the immigrants never try to learn the English language, for

 a. They have no need for it, since

 1'. They seldom come in contact with English-speaking people. (Ibid. )

 3. Their tendency is not to become citizens, for

 a. Thirty-one per cent. Of the immigrants return home after having been here a few years. (Report of the Commissioner-General of Immigration, 1905. )

 b. Those who remain cannot for the most part appreciate our government, for

 1'. They have been continually trodden upon in their home countries. 

 2'. They have had no opportunity to interest themselves in government. (N. S. Shaler, Atlantic Monthly, Vol. LXXI, page 646. )

 4. The argument that because we were able to assimilate the immigrants in the past we shall be able to do so in the future, is unsound, for

 a. The character of the present immigrants has changed, as shown previously. 

 b. In the future we may expect a much larger immigration. (Prescott F. Hall, Annals of American Academy, Vol. XXIV, page 172. )

 E. Immigrants lower the standards of American labor, because

 1. They create harmful competition, since

 a. More immigrants are coming now than we really need, for

 I'. In 1906 at least 200, 000 aliens came here who were of no use whatever. (Commissioner of Immigration for New York, Popular Science Monthly, Vol. LXVI, page 175. )

 b. They work for lower wages than do Americans, for

 1'. They are able to live more cheaply. (Henry Rood, Ibid. )

 2'. They place a lower value on their labor. (T. V. Powderly, North American Review, Vol. CXLVII, page 165. )

 2. They tend to destroy the independence of the American laborer, for

 a. They work under conditions that no American laborer will tolerate, for

 1'. They create degrading forms of employment. (W. H. Wilkins, Nineteenth Century, Vol. XXX, page 588. )

 b. Their selfish desires keep them from organizing with American laborers for protection. 

 II. The educational test would accomplish the further restriction of immigration in a proper manner, for

 A. It would change the character of the immigrants for the better, since

 1. It would keep out the unenergetic races of southern and eastern Europe, because

 a. Ninety-three per cent, of illiterates come from southern and eastern Europe. (International Encyclopaedia, under Immigration. )

 2. It would decrease the amount of pauperism, for

 a. The southern Italians, who are the most illiterate, produce the most pauperism. (Ibid. )

 3. It would raise the standard of morality, since

 a. Ignorance is closely coupled with immorality, for

 1'. The southern Italians have a very low standard of living in the United States. (Henry Rood, Forum, Vol. XIV, page 116. )

 b. The educational test would exclude such people. 

 4. It would decrease the amount of crime, for

 a. It would keep out most of the immigrants from southern Europe, for

 1'. Ninety-three per cent, of the illiterates come from this source. 

 b. The criminal tendencies of people from southern Europe are well known. (Henry Rood, Ibid. )

 B. The educational test would improve the condition of the cities, for

 1. They would be more sanitary and less criminal, since

 a. These evils are due largely to congestion. 

 b. Under this test the cities would be less congested, for

 1'. Immigration would be reduced twenty-two and six tenths per cent. 

 2'. Educated immigrants are not likely to settle in the slums. 

 c. If the cities were less congested, charitable societies could remove more evils from the slums, and in time even eliminate the slums. 

 C. The educational test would aid the country politically, for

 1. We should receive only those immigrants who are intellectually capable of becoming good citizens, for

 a. Education enables a man to become interested in the government in which he lives. 

 2. Bribery would cease, for

 a. Greed for small amounts of money is not so strong among the intelligent. (Prescott F. Hall, Ibid. )

 D. The educational test would aid the work of assimilation, for

 1. It would bar to a great extent the clannish immigrants, as

 a. Clannishness is largely a result of superstition and ignorance. (Henry Rood, Ibid. )

 2. It would practically force the immigrants to learn the English language, for

 a. Their clans broken up, they would naturally come in contact more and more with English-speaking people. 

 3. It would produce among the foreign-born element of the United States a wider interest in civic affairs, for

 a. Those who have some education can better appreciate our government than those who are illiterate. 

 b. It would admit only those who, by reason of their education, small though it may be, have had the chance to study somewhat their home governments. (N. S. Shaler, Ibid. )

 E. The educational test would tend to raise the standards of American labor, for

 1. It would cut down competition, since

 a. It would shut out many laborers, for

 1'. Most of those affected by this test would be common laborers. 

 b. It would tend to equalize the rate of wages, because

 1'. Immigrants would not be willing to work for lower wages, for

 a'. The slums being gone, they would need more money for existence. 

 2. It would aid the independence of American labor, for

 a. Immigrants would no longer be so reluctant to cooperate with American laborers for protection, for

 1'. It is well known that, as a rule, only the most ignorant classes refuse to join unions. 

 b. The low industrial competition would be removed, as previously shown. 

 F. The educational test would be practical, for

 1. It is not a test depending upon the representations of immigrants or the decisions of inspectors. (Prescott F. Hall, Forum, Vol. XXX, page 564. )

 2. The educational test has worked well in Australia. (Professor Frank Parsons, Annals of American Academy, Vol. XXIV, page 215. )

 G. It would lessen the burden of education for the government, for

 1. It would force prospective immigrants to get their elementary education in Europe. 

 2. The immigrants would have some education as a foundation for more. 

CONCLUSION. 

The affirmative has proved the following:--

I. There is great need for further restriction of immigration. 

II. The educational test would accomplish the further restriction ofimmigration in a proper manner. 

Therefore, immigration to the United States should be furtherrestricted by an educational test. 

EXERCISES

State the propositions upheld in the following arguments, and put thematerial into brief form:--

1. At all events, this is clear: that throughout those six months thegovernment knew perfectly well the danger in which General Gordon wasplaced. It has been said that General Gordon did not ask for troops. Well, I am surprised at that defense. One of the characteristics ofGeneral Gordon was the extreme abnegation of his nature. It was not tobe expected that he should send home a telegram to say, "I am in greatdanger, therefore send me troops. " He would probably have cut off hisright hand before he would have sent such a telegram. But he did senda telegram that the people of Khartum were in danger, and that theMahdi must win unless military succor was sent forward, and distinctlytelling the government--and this is the main point--that unless theywould consent to his views the supremacy of the Mahdi was assured. 

My lords, is it conceivable that after that--two months after that--inMay, the prime minister should have said that the government waswaiting to have reasonable proof that Gordon was in danger? By thattime Khartum was surrounded, and the governor of Berber had announcedthat his case was desperate, which was too surely proved by themassacre which took place in June. 

And yet in May Mr. Gladstone was waiting for reasonable proof thatthey were in danger. Apparently he did not get that proof till August. 

A general sent forward on a dangerous expedition does not like to gowhining for assistance, unless he is pressed by absolute peril. Allthose great qualities which go to make men heroes are such as areabsolutely incompatible with such a course, and lead them to shrink asfrom a great disgrace from any unnecessary appeal for exertion fortheir protection. It was the business of the government not tointerpret General Gordon's telegrams as if they had been statutorydeclarations, but to judge for themselves of the circumstances of thecase, and to see that those who were surrounded, who were the onlythree Englishmen among this vast body of Mohammedans, who were alreadycut off from all communication with the civilized world by theoccupation of every important town upon the river, were in realdanger. 

I do not know any other instance in which a man has been sent tomaintain such a position without a certain number of British troops. If the British troops had been there treachery would have beenimpossible; but sending Gordon by himself to rely on the fidelity ofAfricans and Egyptians was an act of extreme rashness, and if thegovernment succeed in proving, which I do not think they can, thattreachery was inevitable, they only pile up an additional reason fortheir condemnation. I confess it is very difficult to separate thisquestion from the personal matters involved. It is very difficult toargue it on purely abstract grounds without turning for a moment tothe character of the man who was engaged and the terrible position inwhich he was placed. 

When we consider all that he underwent, all that he sacrificed inorder to save the government in a moment of extreme exigency, there issomething infinitely pathetic in reflecting on his feelings, as dayafter day, week after week, month after month passed by--as he sparedno exertions, no personal sacrifice, to perform the duties that wereplaced upon him--as he lengthened out the siege by inconceivableprodigies of ingenuity, of activity, of resource--and as, in spite ofit all, in spite of the deep devotion to his country, which hadprompted him to this great risk and undertaking, the convictiongradually grew upon him that his country had abandoned him. 

It is terrible to think what he must have suffered when at last, as adesperate measure to save those he loved, he parted with the only twoEnglishmen with whom during those long months he had any converse, andsent Stewart and Power down the river to escape from the fate whichhad become inevitable to himself. It is very painful to think of thereproaches to his country and to his country's government that musthave passed through the mind of that devoted man during those monthsof unmerited desertion. In Gordon's letter of the fourteenth ofDecember he said: "All is up. I expect the catastrophe in ten days'time; it would not have been so if our people had kept me betterinformed as to their intentions. "

They had no intentions to inform him of. They were merely acting fromhand to mouth to avert the parliamentary censure with which they werethreatened. They had no plan, they had no intentions to carry out. Ifthey could have known their intentions, a great hero would have beensaved to the British army, a great disgrace would not have fallen onthe English government. [Footnote: On the Desertion of Gordon inEgypt, Lord Salisbury, The World's Famous Orations. Funk & Wagnalls, Vol. V, p. 111. ]

2. For any State to make sex a qualification that must ever result inthe disfranchisement of one entire half of the people is to pass abill of attainder, or an _ex post facto_ law, and is therefore aviolation of the supreme law of the land. By it the blessings ofliberty are forever withheld from women and their female posterity. Tothem this government has no just powers derived from the consent ofthe governed. To them this government is not a democracy. It is not arepublic. It is an odious aristocracy; a hateful oligarchy of sex; themost hateful aristocracy ever established on the face of the globe; anoligarchy of wealth, where the rich govern the poor. An oligarchy oflearning, where the educated govern the ignorant, or even an oligarchyof race where the Saxon rules the African, might be endured; but thisoligarchy of sex, which makes father, brothers, husband, sons, theoligarchs over the mother and sisters, the wife and daughters of everyhousehold--which ordains all men sovereigns, all women subjects, carries dissension, discord and rebellion into every home of thenation. 

Webster, Worcester and Bouvier all define a citizen to be a person inthe United States, entitled to vote and hold office. 

The only question left to be settled now is: Are women persons? And Ihardly believe any of our opponents will have the hardihood to saythey are not. Being persons, then, women are citizens; and no Statehas a right to make any law, or to enforce any old law, that shallabridge their privileges or immunities. Hence, every discriminationagainst women in the constitutions and laws of the several States isto-day null and void. [Footnote: On Woman's Right to the Suffrage, Susan B. Anthony. The World's Famous Orations. Funk & Wagnalls, Vol. X, p. 59. ]

3. The "Legal Intelligencer" prints the full text of the recentdecision of Judge Sulzberger in the case of Claus & Basher _vs_. The Rapid Transit Company, which deals with a phase of the questionconcerning the use of the streets in obstructing public travel. TheJudge, in denying the plaintiffs a rule for a new trial, put thematter under review into his customary concise logic, as follows:

The plaintiff contends that the direction for defendant was erroneous, because the jury should have been given the opportunity to pass uponthe question whether he was or was not negligent in placing his wagonin such a position that it encroached three or four feet upon thetransit company's track, without which encroachment the accident couldnot have happened. 

His reasons are as follows:

1. That a driver, for the purpose of watering his horses, has theright to encroach on the trolley track. 

2. That even if he has not, it is negligence for a motor-man not tostop his car in time to prevent a collision in broad daylight with aconspicuous obstacle like a wagon in front of him. 

As to the first point:

An obstruction of the highway which is temporary and partial may bejustified in cases of plain, evident necessity, but not where thatnecessity is argumentative and supposititious: Com. _vs_. Passmore, 1 S. & R. 217; Rex v. Russell, 6 East. 427. There was nonecessity on the plaintiff to water his horses in the way he did. Twoother ways, both perfectly safe, were open to him. He chose theeasiest and the riskiest. 

But if there had not been two safe ways open for him, he would stillhave been guilty of negligence in drawing his wagon across a trolleytrack, on a busy city street, on which cars were running every minuteor two. The primary use of the car track is for public travel, not forwatering horses. A permanent watering-trough on a sidewalk, soconstructed as not to be usable without stopping the running of thecars, would be a nuisance. The supposed analogy to the right of anabutter to load and unload a necessary article fails entirely. Apassing driver is not in the position of an abutter, thereasonableness of whose action is determined by the degree ofmomentary necessity, and the limit of whose right is that hisobstruction must be temporary. Here, however, the watering-trough andnot the driver is in the abutter's position. The watering-trough is apublic utility, which every one may use. On a warm day, in a busy citystreet, hundreds of vehicles may stop there, and the quantity ofobstruction is not the time occupied by each, but the sum of the timesoccupied by all. The effect must necessarily be a serious hindrance topublic travel, which might sometimes result in complete stoppage. 

To use the thought of Mr. Justice Dean, in Com. _vs. _ Forrest, 170 Pa. 47, the law would soon be invoked to decide whether the cartrack was for the cars or for vehicles stopped thereon for the purposeof watering horses; whether the driver of such vehicles was in theexercise of a lawful right or was a usurper of the rights of others. 

In the case of Attorney-General _vs. _ the Sheffield GasConsumers' Company, 19 Eng. Law & Eq. 639, Lord Chancellor Cranworth, considering a similar question, used this illustration: "No doubt thatit would be a nuisance, and a very serious nuisance, if a person witha barrel organ, or the bagpipes, were to come and station himselfunder a person's window all day. But when he is going through a city, you know that he will stop ten minutes at one place and ten minutes atanother, and you know he will so go on during the day. " The watering-trough, however, is stationary. 

As to the second point:

The general rule in Pennsylvania is that contributory negligenceprevents recovery. This rule, it is true, does not apply where thedefendant is guilty of "negligence so wanton and gross as to beevidence of voluntary injury"; Wynn _vs_. Allord, 5 W. & S. 525;McKnight _vs_. Ratcliff, 44 Pa. 156. There is, however, nothingin the testimony to indicate that the defendant's motorman didanything wanton. Coming down a steep hill, he failed for a moment tosee an obstacle which he had a right to expect would not be on thetrack. No one says that he did not do his best to prevent thecollision after he had seen the wagon. 

The question at bottom is one of public policy. Should the motormananticipate that persons of mature age will station their wagons acrossthe tracks? If the rights of the traveling public are to be preserved, the answer must be in the negative. 

4. Aside from the money question, the most serious problem thatconfronts the people of America to-day is that of rescuing theircities, their States and the federal government, including the federaljudiciary, from absolute control of corporate monopoly. How to restorethe voice of the citizen in the government of his country; and how toput an end to those proceedings in some of the higher courts which arefarce and mockery on one side, and a criminal usurpation andoppression on the other. .. . 

In as much as no government can endure in which corrupt greed not onlymakes the laws, but decides who shall construe them, many of our bestcitizens are beginning to despair of the republic. Others urge that weshould remove the bribe-givers--that is, destroy this overwhelmingtemptation by having the government take all these monopolies itselfand furnish the service which they now furnish, and thus not only saveour institutions, but have the great profits which now go into thepockets of private corporations turned into the public treasury. .. . 

Let us see what civilized man is doing elsewhere. Take the cities ofGreat Britain first, for they have the same power of self-governmentthat American cities have. In all that pertains to the comfort andenterprise of the individual we are far in the lead; but in thegovernment of cities we are far behind. Glasgow has to-day nearly onemillion inhabitants and is one of the great manufacturing andcommercial cities of the world. Thirty years ago there was scarcely acity that was in a worse condition. Private corporations furnished ita poor quality of water, taken from the Clyde River, and they chargedhigh rates for it. The city drained into the Clyde, and it becamehorribly filthy. Private corporations furnished a poor quality of gas, at a high price; and private companies operated the street railroads. Private companies had the same grip on the people there that they havein most American cities. Owing to the development of greatshipbuilding and other industries in the valley of the Clyde, thelaboring population of Glasgow became very dense and the means ofhousing the people were miserable. Poorly lighted, poorly ventilated, filthy houses brought high rents. In many cases two families lived inone room. Cleanliness was impossible, the sanitary conditions werefrightful and the death rate was high. As for educational facilities, there were none worth mentioning for these people. The condition ofthe laboring classes was one of degradation and misery; children weregrowing up mentally, morally and physically diseased; a generation wascoming which threatened to be an expense and a menace to the country. It was a great slum city. 

But patriotic and public-spirited men came to the front and gave thecity the benefit of their services free. In fact, none of the highcity officials in Great Britain received any pay other than the wellbeing of humanity and the good opinions of their country. The city riditself of the private companies by buying them and then brought freshwater from the highlands, a distance of sixty miles. It doubled thequantity of water furnished the inhabitants, and reduced the cost toconsumers by one-half. And yet the department now yields over twohundred thousand dollars a year net income over all fixed charges. 

The municipality, after much difficulty, bought the gas plants andgradually reduced the price of gas from $1. 14 to 58 cents, and it nowilluminates not only the streets and public places, but allpassageways and stairways in flat buildings, experience having shownthat a good lamp is almost as useful as a policeman. The total debt ofthe city for plants, extensions, etc. , to illumine perfectly all thecity had reached nearly five and a half millions of dollars. Notwithstanding the low price at which gas is sold, this sum hasgradually been reduced to less than two and a half millions of dollarsout of the earnings of the system, and it will soon be wiped out andthe entire revenue go into the city treasury. 

The street railways were owned by the city, but, until 1894, they wereleased out under an arrangement which paid the city full cost ofconstruction, with interest, besides a yearly income of $750 perstreet mile. In 1894 the city began to operate the lines itself. Thefares were reduced 33 per cent. , besides special tickets to laborers, so that the average is under two cents, and over one-third of allfares are one cent each. 

The private company had worked its men twelve and fourteen hours a dayand paid irregular and unsatisfactory wages. The city at once reducedthe number of hours to ten, and fixed a satisfactory scale of wages. And, compared with what it formerly was, the service has been greatlyimproved. In spite of all these acts for the benefit of the public, the roads which had cost the city nothing, now net over all chargesfor improvements, etc. , one-fourth of a million annually. In 1892 thecity bought out a private electric light company, and now has themonopoly of furnishing electric light and power. This promises to be asource of enormous revenue for the city. .. . 

Manchester has within its narrow limits only a little over half amillion people, but within a radius of twenty miles from her city hallthere are over three million inhabitants. These have to be consideredin discussing Manchester, which is essentially a manufacturing andcommercial city. Its history is in many respects a parallel of that ofGlasgow. It seemed to be a great city of slums, degradation andmisery, and was in the grip of private monopolies. 

To-day the city furnishes all the service that is furnished here byprivate corporations, and does it at about one-half cost. It furnishesgas at fifty-six cents a thousand, and after deducting all that isused to illuminate perfectly the streets and after applying $200, 000 ayear on the original cost of plants, etc. , it still turns $300, 000 ayear into the public treasury, altho the aim in nearly all Englishcities is not to make money, but to serve the public. The cityconstructed an aqueduct ninety miles to secure pure water andfurnishes this for a little more than half what the private companyhad charged for a poor quality of water. It owns street railways, andbesides giving greatly reduced rates and giving half-fare tickets toworkingmen, the city derives a large revenue from this source. LikeGlasgow and Birmingham, the city owns large cemeteries in which thereare separate sections for the different religious denominations, andprices are so arranged that while those who desire to do so can getlots costing from ten to thirty dollars, yet "a decent burial withinscription on stone over a grave can be had at about four dollars foradults and three dollars for children. This charge includes allcemetery fees and expenses. "

The city owns the markets and slaughter houses. It has provided parksand swimming baths and, like Birmingham and Glasgow, it maintainslarge technical schools in which thousands of young men are instructedin the industrial arts and sciences, so as to be able to maintainManchester's greatness. 

Birmingham has over half a million of people, and its experienceresembles that of Glasgow and Manchester. Formerly privatecorporations controlled almost everything and charged very high ratesfor very poor service, and the sanitary conditions were frightful. Buthere again municipal statesmen came to the front, the most prominentamong whom was The Honorable Joseph Chamberlain, who has since been inthe British government. 

Not going further into detail, let me say there are at present in theUnited Kingdom 185 municipalities that supply their inhabitants withwater, with gas and electric light, and one-third of the streetrailway mileage of Great Britain is owned by the municipalities. Leaving out London it amounts to two-thirds. And in most instances inwhich they do not own the street railways, they have compelled thecompanies to grant low fares and divide profits. 

Every business reason applicable to the municipalities and governmentsof Europe is applicable here. We want as pure water, as good drainage, as cheap service as they have, and we want the same privilege ofsupplying ourselves as they exercise; and when it is apparent that, byacting collectively, we can do business more successfully, can serveourselves better in every way, and can secure for the public treasurythese millions which now go into the pockets of grasping individuals, have we not a right to do it? If we find that, in this manner, we cangive steadiness to labor, and can elevate its standards and improvethe conditions of our people, dare we not do it? Every one of thereforms carried out in England and on the continent met with fierceopposition from the same classes that oppose them here, but thebusiness sense and patriotic impulse of the people prevailed, and Ibelieve, will prevail here. [Footnote: On Municipal and GovernmentOwnership, Altgeld The World's Famous Orations. Funk & Wagnalls Co. , Vol. X, p. 208. ]

5. Draw a brief of Beecher's speech found on page 166. 

CHAPTER VIII

METHODS OF REFUTATION

A complete argument consists of two kinds of proof: constructive proofand refutation. Constructive proof is that part of an argument whichsets forth direct reasons for belief in a certain proposition;refutation is that part which destroys the reasons for belief in theopposite side. 

In general, each of these divisions is of about equal importance, attimes the value of one predominating and at times the value of theother. If one is addressing an audience unacquainted with his views orhostile towards them, he is not likely to make much progress ingetting his own beliefs accepted until he has, at least in part, shattered the opinion already existing. If, however, the audience ispredisposed or even willing to accept the doctrine advocated, verylittle but constructive proof may be necessary. 

In debate, the side that has the burden of proof will usually havemore use for constructive argument, and the opposite side will havemore use for refutation. This statement will not always hold true, however, for the rule will vary under different circumstances; adebater must, therefore, hold himself in readiness to meet whatevercontingencies arise. Debate may be likened to the play of two boysbuilding houses with blocks; each boy builds the best house he can, and at times attempts to overthrow the work of his playmate. The onethat has the better structure when the game ends comes off victorious. Thus it is in debate; each debater must do his best both to build uphis own argument and to destroy his opponent's. 

To handle refutation successfully, either in written argument or indebate, one must know what to refute and what to leave alone. Thegeneral rule governing this matter is: _Refute only those argumentswhich are essential to the proof of the other side_. All trivialideas, even all misstatements which if refuted would not destroy anyfundamental process of an opponent's proof, should pass unnoticed. Tomention them means waste of time and effort. It is not uncommon for adebater to make trivial errors intentionally, in the hope that hisopponent will consume valuable time in refuting them and thus allowhis main argument to go unscathed. When this stratagem succeeds, theone who made the mistakes can acknowledge that he was wrong in thoseunimportant details, and yet show that his fundamental arguments havenot been overthrown. While arguing on a political question, anintercollegiate debater once laid considerable stress on an opinionexpressed by Woodrow Wilson, "President, " as he stated, "of HarvardUniversity. " His opponent, of course, might have held this statementup to ridicule, but such an exposure would have been impolitic, inthat it would have in no wise impaired the value of Mr. Wilson'sopinion as evidence. Another debater, not so wise, once spentconsiderable time in correcting an opponent who had said that theSteel Trust was formed in 1891 instead of in 1901, as was the case. Asthese dates had no vital bearing on the question at issue, the errorshould have been allowed to pass. The temptation to point out theflaws that are most obvious is always great, but unless by so doingone can knock out the props on which an opponent's proof rests, suchan attack accomplishes nothing. 

Another common error in refutation consists in "answering one's self. "A person is guilty of this fault whenever he misstates an opponent'sargument, either because he does not understand it or through design, and then refutes this misstatement. The folly of such procedure ismade apparent by merely calling attention to the fact that theoriginal argument has been garbled but in no wise refuted, An opponentcan convict the one who has "answered himself" either of unpardonableignorance about the subject or of downright dishonesty. 

To guard against these errors of refuting unimportant details and of"answering one's self, " it is always well to reduce an opponent'sargument to the form of a brief. If the argument is in print, thistask is comparatively simple; if the argument is oral, the task willbe harder but will still present no serious difficulties to one who isused to drawing briefs. When all the ideas have been arranged in theform of headings and subheadings, and the relation between the ideashas been indicated by means of numbers and letters, then the arguercan quickly decide what points he ought to refute and what ones he canrefute. 

It goes without saying that the headings marked with the Romannumerals contain the most important ideas, and should, therefore, beoverthrown as far as possible. There are three ways of disposing ofthem: one way is to state that the headings are false and then bringon new proof to show their falsity; the second way is to callattention to the subheadings with which the opponent has bolstered upthe main headings, and then, by proving these subheads false, allowthe main heads to fall to the ground; the third way is to admit thatthe subheads are true and then show that the inferences drawn fromthem are unwarranted. 

To illustrate: A part of an argument on the affirmative side of theproposition, "_Resolved_, That students in American collegesshould be excused from final examinations in all subjects in whichthey have attained a daily grade of at least eighty-five per cent. , "might be reduced to the following brief form:--

I. This rule would be of great intellectual benefit to college students, for

 A. They would master their work more thoroughly, because

 1. They would study harder during the term. 

The first method of overthrowing the heading indicated by (I) would beto attack it directly. This attack might consist of opinions ofprominent educators who, on theoretical grounds, do not believe anintellectual benefit would result from the adoption of such a rule; ofthe opinions of educators who have tried the rule and declare that itis an intellectual detriment; and of a course of reasoning which wouldshow that this system would rob the students exempted of the greatintellectual benefit that is derived from the preparation for anexamination and from the taking of an examination. 

The second method would be to show that (1) is not true; therefore (A)would be false, and (I) would be left entirely unsupported. 

Under the third method the arguer would admit the truth of (1), butwould deny that the truth of (A) is established by it; therefore (I)would be unsupported. 

Whenever a subheading is attacked, it is always very essential to showthat the attack is made simply because this subheading serves as afoundation for the main heading. In this particular argument, refutation according to the second and third methods might read aboutas follows: "The contention of the affirmative that the eighty-fiveper cent. Rule should be adopted because it would result in anintellectual improvement among college students, rests on thesupposition that students would study harder during the term, and forthat reason would more thoroughly master their subjects. Thisreasoning is erroneous because, in the first place, as I will show, but very few students, if any, would study harder during the term;and, in the second place, even if they did, those exempted would nothave mastered their work so completely at the end of the year as theywould have if they had taken an examination. "

From the preceding, it is apparent that refutation consists ofdiscrediting evidence and attacking reasoning. The ways to overthrowevidence will be considered first. 

EVIDENCE. 

It is taken for granted that the evidence mustered by the opponent issufficient, if not overthrown, to establish his side of thediscussion. Of course, if enough evidence for this purpose is lacking, one has only to call attention to this fundamental weakness in orderto overthrow the argument then and there. The rules, therefore, fortesting evidence assume that the opponent has cited facts that, if notcombated, will establish his case. 

These tests are the same as those given in Chapter VI; a hasty reviewof them, however, may be serviceable at this point. 

 I. Tests of the sources of evidence. 

 A. Is the witness competent to give a trustworthy account of the matter?

 B. Is the witness willing to give an accurate account?

 1. Does he have any personal interest in the case?

 C. Is the witness prejudiced?

 D. Does the witness have a good reputation for honesty and accuracy?

 II. Internal tests of evidence. 

 A. Is the evidence consistent (a) with itself, (b) with known facts, (c) with human experience?

 B. Is it first-hand evidence?

 C. Can the evidence be classed as especially valuable?

 1. Does it consist of hurtful admissions?

 2. Is it undesigned evidence?

 3. Is it negative evidence?

III. Test of argument from authority. 

 A. Is the witness an acknowledged authority on the subject about which he testifies?

To overthrow or weaken argument from authority, one may eitherdiscredit its source or bring to light some inconsistency in thestatement itself. Usually the former method alone is possible. Toaccomplish this result, one may show that the witness spoke frominsufficient knowledge of the matter, or was prejudiced, or had somepersonal interest in the case. Counter authority will also be ofassistance. The following quotation taken from a college debatefurnishes the student a good example of how to handle this sort ofrefutation. 

"The argument has been advanced that the South does not need theforeign laborer, and this argument has been supported by the words ofMr. Prescott F. Hall. We would call the attention of the audience andthe judges to the fact that since Prescott F. Hall is Secretary of theImmigration Restriction League, it would be to his interest to makethis assertion. Why do not our opponents refer to impartial andunprejudiced men, men like Dr. Allen McLaughlin, a United Statesimmigration official, who makes just the opposite statement?"

REASONING. 

 I. Induction. 

 A. Have enough instances of the class under consideration been investigated to establish the existence of a general law?

 B. Have enough instances been investigated to establish the probable existence of a general law?

 II. Deduction. 

 A. Are both premises true?

 B. Is the fact stated in the minor premise an instance of the general law expressed in the major premise?

III. Antecedent probability. 

 A. Is the assigned cause of sufficient strength to produce the alleged effect?

 B. May some other cause intervene and prevent the action of the assigned cause?

 IV. Sign. 

 A. Argument from effect to cause. 

 1. Is the assigned cause adequate to produce the observed effect?

 2. Could the observed effect have resulted from any other cause than the one assigned?

 B. Argument from effect to effect. 

 1. Do the combined tests of argument from effect to cause and from cause to effect hold?

 V. Example. 

 A. Is there any fundamental difference between the case in hand and the case cited as an example?

FALLACIES. 

A fallacy is an error in reasoning. The preceding part of this chapterhas already suggested tests that will expose many such faults, butthere are a few errors which, because of their frequency or theirinadaptability to other classification, demand separate treatment. This book follows the plan of most other texts on argumentation, andtreats these errors under a separate head marked fallacies. To detecta fallacy in another's argument is to weaken, if not to destroy, hiscase; to avoid making a fallacy in one's own argument means escapefrom humiliation and defeat. Hence, a knowledge of fallacies is one ofthe most essential parts of a debater's equipment. 

The classification given here does not pretend to be exhaustive; itdoes, however, consider the most common and insidious breaches ofreasoning that are likely to occur, and the following pages should bestudied with great care. 

I. BEGGING THE QUESTION. (PETITIO PRINCIPII. )

1. MERE ASSUMPTION. Begging the question means assuming the truth ofthat which needs proof. This fallacy is found in its simplest form inepithets and appellations. The lawyer who speaks of "the criminal ontrial for his life, " begs the question in that he assumes the prisonerto be a criminal before the court has rendered a verdict. Thosewriters who have recently discussed "the brutal game of football"without having first adduced a particle of proof to show that the gameis brutal, fall into the same error. An unpardonable instance ofquestion-begging lies in the following introduction, once given by adebater who was attacking the proposition, "_Resolved_, That thefederal government should own and operate the railroads in the UnitedStates":--

"We of the negative will show that the efficient and highly beneficialsystem of private ownership should be maintained, and that theimpracticable system of government ownership can never succeed in theUnited States or in any similarly governed country. "

Private ownership and government ownership may possess these qualitiesattributed to them, but the debater has no right to make such anassumption; he must _prove_ that they have these qualities. 

2. ASSUMPTION USED AS PROOF. Such barefaced assumptions as thepreceding usually do little damage except to the one who makes them. They are not likely to lead astray an audience of averageintelligence; on the other hand, they do stamp the arguer asprejudiced and illogical. But when assumptions are used as proof, hidden in the midst of quantities of other material, they may producean unwarranted effect upon one who is not a clear thinker, or who isoff his guard. If, without showing that football is brutal, one callsit an extremely brutal game, and then urges its abolishment on theground of its brutality, he has used an assumption as proof, and has, therefore, begged the question. The debater who stated, withoutproving, that vast numbers of unskilled laborers were needed in theUnited States, and then urged this as a reason why no educational testshould be applied to immigrants coming to this country, furnished anexample of the same fallacy. 

3. UNWARRANTED ASSUMPTION OF THE TRUTH OF A SUPPRESSED PREMISE. Thestudent is already familiar with the enthymeme. The enthymemeconstitutes a valid form of reasoning only when the suppressed premiseis recognized as true. Therefore, whenever an arguer makes use of theenthymeme without attempting to establish a suppressed premise whosetruth is not admitted, he has argued fallaciously. This is a thirdmethod of begging the question. To illustrate: In advocating theabolishment of football from the list of college athletic sports, onemight reason, "Football should be abolished because it obviouslyexposes a player to possible injury. " The suppressed premise in thiscase would be: All sports which expose a player to possible injuryshould be abolished. Failure to prove the truth of this unadmittedstatement constitutes the fallacy. 

4. ASSUMPTION EQUIVALENT TO THE PROPOSITION TO BE PROVED. It is notsurprising that a man carried away with excitement or prejudice shouldmake assumptions that he does not even try to substantiate, but thatanyone should assume the truth of the very conclusion that he has setout to establish seems incredible. Such a form of begging thequestion, however, does frequently occur. Sometimes the fallacy is sohidden in a mass of illustration and rhetorical embellishment that atfirst it is not apparent; but stripped of its verbal finery, it standsout very plainly. The following passage written on the affirmativeside of the proposition, "_Resolved_, That the college courseshould be shortened to three years, " will serve as a particularlyflagrant illustration:--

It is a well-known fact that in the world of to-day time is anessential factor in the race for success. No young man can afford todawdle for four long years in acquiring a so-called "higher"education. Three-fourths of that time is, if anything, more thansufficient in which to attain all the graces and culture that theprogressive man needs. 

It is evident that the "argument" in this case consists of nothingmore than a repetition of the proposition. 

5. ARGUING IN A CIRCLE. Another phase of begging the question consistsof using an assumption as proof of a proposition and of then quotingthe proposition as proof of the assumption. Two assertions are made, neither of which is substantiated by any real proof, but each of whichis used to prove the other. This fallacy probably occurs mostfrequently in conversation. Consider the following :--

A. "The proposed system of taxation is an excellent one. "

B. "What makes you think so?"

A. "Because it will be adopted by the legislature. "

B. "How do you know it will?"

A. "Because it is a good system and our legislators are men of sense. "

This fallacy occurs when one proves the authority of the church fromthe testimony of the scriptures, and then establishes the authenticityof the scriptures by the testimony of the church. A similar fallacyhas been pointed out in the works of Plato. In _Phaedo_, hedemonstrates the immortality of the soul from its simplicity, and inthe _Republic_, he demonstrates the simplicity of the soul fromits immortality. The following fragment of a brief argues in acircle:--

 I. This principle is in accordance with the principles of the Democratic party, since

 A. The leader of the Democratic party believes in it, for

 1. As the leader of the party, he naturally believes in Democratic principles. 

II. AMBIGOUS TERMS. (EQUIVOCATION; CONFUSION OF TERMS. )

The fallacy of ambiguous terms consists of using the same term in twodistinct senses in the same argument. Thus if one were to argue that"no designing person ought to be trusted; engravers are by professiondesigners; therefore they ought not to be trusted, " it is quiteapparent that the term "design" means totally different things in thetwo premises. The same fallacy occurs in the argument, "Since theAmerican people believe in a republican form of government, theyshould vote the Republican ticket. " Again:--

"Interference with another man's business is illegal;

"Underselling interferes with another man's business;

"Therefore underselling is illegal. "

J. S. Mill in his _System of Logic_ discusses the fallacy ofambiguous terms with great care. In part he says:--

The mercantile public are frequently led into this fallacy by thephrase "scarcity of money. " In the language of commerce, "money" hastwo meanings: _currency, _ or the circulating medium; and_capital seeking investment, _ especially investment on loan. Inthis last sense, the word is used when the "money market" is spokenof, and when the "value of money" is said to be high or low, the rateof interest being meant. The consequence of this ambiguity is, that assoon as scarcity of money in the latter of these senses begins to befelt, --as soon as there is difficulty of obtaining loans, and the rateof interest is high, --it is concluded that this must arise from causesacting upon the quantity of money in the other and more popular sense;that the circulating medium must have diminished in quantity, or oughtto be increased. I am aware that, independently of the double meaningof the term, there are in the facts themselves some peculiarities, giving an apparent support to this error; but the ambiguity of thelanguage stands on the very threshold of the subject, and interceptsall attempts to throw light upon it. 

As countless words and expressions have several meanings, there isalmost no limit to the confusion which this fallacy can cause. Some ofthe most common terms that are used ambiguously are _right_, _liberty_, _law_, _representative_, _theory_, _church_, _state_, _student_. 

By carefully defining all terms that have more than one meaning and byinsisting on a rigid adherence to the one meaning wherever the term isused, a debater can easily avoid fallacies of this sort in his ownargument and expose those of his opponent. 

III. FALSE CAUSE. 

The fallacy of false cause occurs whenever that which could in no waybring about the effect that is being established is urged as itscause. This fallacy in its most obvious form is found only in thearguments of careless and illogical thinkers. Some college studentsoccasionally draw briefs that contain such reasoning as thefollowing:--

 I. The Panama canal should be of the sea-level rather than of the lock type, because

 A. The Panama canal will do away with the long voyage around the Horn. 

 I. Southerners are justified in keeping the franchise away from the negro, for

 A. Negroes should never have been brought to America. 

 B. The Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution ought not to have been passed. 

The error of such plainly absurd reasoning as occurs in the precedingillustrations needs no explanation. There is one form of the fallacyof false cause, however, that is much more common and insidious andtherefore deserves special treatment. 

POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC. (After this, therefore, on account ofthis. ) This phase of the fallacy consists of the assumption that sincecause precedes effect what has preceded an event has caused it. Themost frequent occurrence of the error is to be found in superstitions. If some one meets with an accident while taking a journey that beganon Friday, many people will argue that the accident is the effect ofthe unlucky day. Some farmers believe their crops will not prosperunless the planting is done when the moon is in a certain quarter;sailors often refuse to embark in a renamed vessel. Because in thepast, one event has been known to follow another, it is argued thatthe first event was the cause of the second, and that the second eventwill invariably follow the first. 

But this fallacy does not find its only expression in superstitions. To _post hoc_ reasoning is due much of the popularity of patentmedicines. Political beliefs, even, are often generated in the sameway; prosperity follows the passing of a certain law, and people jumpto the conclusion that this one law has caused the "good times. " Somedemagogues go so far as to say that education among the Indians isresponsible for the increased death rate of many of the tribes. 

A slightly different phase of the _post hoc_ fallacy consists inattributing the existence of a certain condition to a single precedingevent, when at the most this event could have been only a partialcause of what followed, and may not have been a cause at all. Amedicine that could not have effected a cure may have been of someslight benefit. A law that could not possibly have been the sole causeof "good times" may have had a beneficial effect. To avoid thisfallacy, one must be sure not only that the assigned cause isoperative, but that it is also adequate. 

In the following passage, _Harpers Weekly_, for March 5, 1894, points out the error in the reasoning made by several collegepresidents who, after compiling statistics, stated that a collegeeducation increased a man's chance of success from one in ten thousandto one in forty:--

Not many persons doubt any longer that an American college educationis an advantage to most youths who can get it, but in these attemptsto estimate statistically what college education does for men there isa good deal of confusing of _post hoc_ and _propter hoc_. Define success as you will, a much larger proportion of Americancollege men win it than of men who don't go to college, but how muchcollege training does for those successful men is still debatable. Remember that they are a picked lot, the likeliest children of parentswhose ability or desire to send their children to college is evidenceof better fortune, or at least of higher aspirations than the average. And because their parents are, as a rule, more or less prosperous andwell educated, they get and would get, whether they went to college ornot, a better than average start in life. .. . 

If one boy out of a family of four goes to college, it is the cleverone. The boys who might go to college and don't are commonly the lazyones who won't study. The colleges get nowadays a large proportion ofthe best boys of the strongest families. The best boys of thestrongest families would win far more than their proportionate shareof success even if there were no colleges. 

An exposure of similarly fallacious reasoning is made by Edward M. Shepard in _The Atlantic Monthly_ for October, 1904. 

The Republican argument is that the whole edifice of our prosperitydepends upon high protective or prohibitive duties, and that to themis due our industrial progress. Is it not, indeed, a disparagement ofthe self-depending faculties of the American people thus to affirmthat, in spite of their marvelous advantages, they would have failedin industrial life unless by force of law they could have preventedthe competition with them of other peoples? It is only by thesophistry to which I have referred that this disparagement isjustified. It is that old argument of veritable folly that, becauseevent Z follows event W, as it follows events A and B and many besidesA, therefore W is the sole cause of Z. Theory or no theory, theRepublican says that we have in fact grown rich by protection, becausein our country prosperity and protective duties have existed together. They ignore every inconvenient fact. They would have us forget thateach of the industrial depressions of 1873-78 and 1893-96 followedlong operation of a high protective tariff. They ignore thecontribution of soil and climate to our prosperity, the vast increasewhich modern inventions and improved carrying facilities have, theworld over, brought to the productivity of labor, and here in theUnited States have brought more than anywhere else. They ignore thesuperior skill and alertness of the American workman and the wonderfulextent to which he has been stimulated by the conditions and ideals ofour democracy. They ignore the freedom of trade, which, since 1789, the Federal Constitution has made operative over our entire country, --by far the most important area of free trade ever known, --and whicheveryone to-day knows to be a prime condition of the prosperity of ourforty-five commonwealths. 

From what has been said it is obvious that it is never safe to accountfor an occurrence or a condition by merely referring to something thataccompanies it or precedes it. There must be a connection between thealleged cause and the effect, and this connection must be causal;otherwise, both may be the result of the same cause. The cause mustalso be adequate; and it must, moreover, be evident that the resulthas not been produced, wholly or partially, by some other cause orcauses. 

IV. COMPOSITION AND DIVISION. 

COMPOSITION. The fallacy of composition consists of attributing to awhole that which has been proved only of a part. To condemn or toapprove of a fraternity because of the conduct of only a few of itsmembers, to say that what is advantageous for certain states in theUnion would therefore be beneficial for the United States as a whole, to reason from the existence of a few millionaires that the Englishnation is wealthy, would be to fall into this fallacy. Furthermore, itis fallacious to think that because something is true of each memberof a class taken _distributively_, the same thing holds true ofthe class taken _collectively_. It is not logical to argue thatbecause each member of a jury is very likely to judge erroneously, thejury as a whole is also very likely to judge erroneously. Because eachwitness to an event is liable to give false or incorrect evidence, itis unreasonable to think that no confidence can be placed in theconcurrent testimony of a number of witnesses. 

DIVISION. The fallacy of division is the converse of the fallacy ofcomposition. It consists of attributing to a part that which has beenproved of the whole. For instance, Lancaster county is the mostfertile county in Pennsylvania, but that fact by itself does notwarrant the statement that any one particular farm is exceptionallyfertile. Because the people of a country are suffering from famine, itdoes not follow that one particular person is thus afflicted. Again, it would be fallacious to say: It is admitted that the judges of thecourt of appeal cannot misinterpret the law; Richard Rowe is a judgeof the court of appeal; therefore he cannot misinterpret the law. 

V. IGNORING THE QUESTION. (IGNORATIO ELENCHI. )

An arguer is said to ignore the question, or to argue beside thepoint, whenever he attempts to prove or disprove anything except theproposition under discussion. This fallacy may arise throughcarelessness or trickery. An unskilled debater will oftenunconsciously wander away from his subject; and an unscrupulousdebater, when unable to defend his position, will sometimes cunninglyshift his ground and argue upon a totally new proposition, which is, however, so similar to the original one that in the heat ofcontroversy the change is hardly noticeable. A discussion on thesubject, "The boycott is a legitimate means of securing concessionsfrom employers, " which attempted to show the effectiveness of theboycott, would ignore the question. Likewise, in a discussion on theproposition, "The average college student could do in three years thework now done in four, " any proof showing the desirability of such acrowding together of college work would be _beside the point_. 

In the following passage Macaulay holds up to scorn certain argumentswhich contain this fallacy:--

The advocates of Charles, like the advocates of other malefactorsagainst whom overwhelming evidence is produced, generally decline allcontroversy about facts, and content themselves with calling testimonyto character. 

We charge him with having broken his coronation oath; and we are toldthat he kept his marriage vow! We accuse him of having given up hispeople to the merciless inflictions of the most hot-headed and hard-hearted of prelates; and the defence is, that he took his little sonon his knees and kissed him! We censure him for having violated thearticles of the Petition of Rights, after having, for good andvaluable consideration, promised to obey them; and we are informedthat he was accustomed to hear prayers at six o'clock in the morning!

Whenever an arguer avoids the question at issue and makes an attackupon the character, principles, or former beliefs or personalpeculiarities of his opponent, he commits the special form of thisfallacy known as _argumentum ad hominem_. It is obviouslyfallacious to reason that a principle is unsound because it is upheldby an untrustworthy advocate, or because it is inconsistent with theadvocate's former beliefs and practices. Honesty is a worthyprinciple, even though advocated by a thief. The duty of industry isno less binding because it is advocated by an idler. Lawyers oftencommit this error by seeking to discredit the opposing attorney. Campaign speakers frequently attempt to overthrow the opposing party'splatform by showing that it is inconsistent with the party's previousmeasures and declarations. To bring in such irrelevant matter is toignore the question. 

Closely allied to _argumentum ad hominem_ is another phase ofignoring the question called _argumentum ad populum_. Thisfallacy consists of using before a certain audience statements whichwill strongly appeal to their prejudices and partisan views, but whichare not generally accepted facts and which would undoubtedly meet withstrong opposition elsewhere. A speaker who brings in this kind ofargument makes use neither of reasoning nor of legitimate persuasion. He neglects his proposition and attempts to excite the feelings of hisaudience to such an extent as to render them incapable of forming adispassionate judgment upon the matter in hand. 

In general, it is necessary only to point out a fallacy to weaken anargument. Sometimes, however, the error is so involved and so hiddenthat, though it is apparent to one who is arguing, yet it is noteasily made apparent to the audience. In overcoming this difficulty, arguers often resort to certain peculiar devices of arranging andpresenting the material for refutation. Long experience has shown thatthe two methods given here are of inestimable value. 

VI. REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM. (REDUCING TO AN ABSURDITY. )

The method of refuting an argument by _reductio ad absurdum_consists of showing that the argument to be refuted, if true, provesnot only the conclusion given, but also other conclusions which aremanifestly absurd. For example, a debater once contended that collegesshould not seek to root out professionalism in athletic sports, because, by coming in contact with college life, professional playersreceive considerable benefit. His opponent answered him by showingthat the same argument carried out to its logical conclusion wouldprove that a college should encourage the attendance of criminals anddegenerates on the ground that they will be benefited thereby. Thus hereduced the argument to a manifest absurdity. 

At one time the officers of a national bank permitted theirinstitution to be wrecked by certifying, and thereby practicallyguaranteeing, the checks of a firm of stock-holders when the brokersdid not have the money represented by the checks deposited in thebank. This was distinctly a criminal offense. The brokers failed, and, the bank having closed its doors in consequence, the president of thebank was brought to trial. _The Atlantic Monthly_ reduces to anabsurdity the chief argument used for the defense. 

A jury having been empaneled to try him, he pleaded guilty, hiscounsel urging, as a reason for clemency, that the violation of thisstatute was a habit of the New York banks in the Wall Street district, and that if the wrecked bank had not followed this law-breaking customof its competitors the stock brokers would have withdrawn theiraccount. The plea was successful, and the officer escaped with a smallfine. Imagine a burglar or a pickpocket urging a plea for clemencybased on the general business habits and customs of his criminalconfrères! [Footnote: The Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 94, p. 173. ]

Mr. E. A. Freeman, the historian, once made the statement that Englishliterature cannot be taught. His course of reasoning was to the effectthat it is impossible to teach a subject in which one cannot beexamined; and he maintained that it is impossible to hold satisfactoryexaminations in English literature, since this is a subject which isstudied for the purpose of cultivating the taste, educating thesympathies, and enlarging the mind. If this reasoning proves anything, it has been pointed out, it proves too much. What Mr. Freeman says ofEnglish literature may equally well be said of Latin, Greek, and everyother kind of literature. But as Latin and Greek literature have beensuccessfully taught for hundreds of years, Mr. Freeman's argument isabsurd. 

College students are continually urging as a defense ofprofessionalism in their own athletic teams the argument that sinceother colleges employ professional players it is necessary for them todo likewise. By carrying this argument a step farther, one could show, with equal reason, that since drinking, stealing and cheating areprevalent in other colleges, these same practices should also beindulged in at the college in question. In the same way one may refuteby _reductio ad absurdum_ all such arguments as, "Custom hasrendered the spoils system desirable"; "The prevalency of the highlicense law shows its superiority to prohibition"; and "Since in thepast all college students were required to study Latin and Greek, these subjects should be required at the present time. "

II. THE DILEMMA. 

Another device an arguer will often find useful in refuting anopponent's statement is the _dilemma_. In the dilemma the arguershows that the statement he wishes to disprove can be true onlythrough the truth of at least one of several possibilities. He thenproves that these possibilities are untenable, and therefore theoriginal statement is false. To represent the dilemma with letters:The truth of A rests upon the truth of either x or y; but as x and yare both false, A is false. Once when it was believed in certainquarters that Japan was about to undertake a war against the UnitedStates, many people maintained that if Japan desired to go to war shewas amply able to finance such an undertaking. In reply to thiscontention, a certain newspaper, making use of the dilemma, said thatsince Japan had no money in the treasury she could meet the expensesof war in only three ways: either by contracting a large debt, or byincreasing taxation, or by indemnifying herself at the expense of theenemy. The paper then went on to prove that Japan was not in aposition to float a large loan, that taxes in Japan were already asheavy as the people could bear, and that she could not hope, at leastfor a long time, to secure any indemnity from the enemy. ThereforeJapan was not in a financial position to enter upon a war with theUnited States. 

In attempting to show that municipalities do not have the moral rightto own and operate public utilities, T. Carpenter Smith uses thedilemma. He says:--

"Any commercial business is carried on either at a profit, or at aloss, or in such a way that the expenses equal the income. If the citybusiness of gas or electric lighting is to be carried on at a profit, then those citizens who use gas or electric light will be charged ahigh price for that light, in order to pay the profit, not only tothemselves, but also to those who do not use it. If the works are tobe carried on at a loss, then the citizens who do not use the gas orelectric light will pay taxes to furnish a convenience or economy tothose citizens who do use it. If the works are to be operated exactlyat cost, then the city will carry on a business from which it will getnothing, but in which it will have to take the labor and risk incidentto such a business in order to benefit only some of its citizens, furnishing a commodity not desired by all. "

In conversation and debate, the dilemma is frequently introduced bymeans of a question. The debater, wishing to trap his opponent, askshim a pertinent question which previous investigation has shown canpossibly be answered in only two or three ways, and which the opponentcannot afford to answer at all. A good illustration of this deviceoccurs in the New Testament. 

And it came to pass, on one of the days, as he was teaching the peoplein the temple, and preaching the gospel, there came upon him the chiefpriests and the scribes with the elders; and they spake, saying untohim, Tell us: By what authority doest thou these things? or who is hethat gave thee this authority? And he answered and said unto them, Ialso will ask you a question; and tell me: The baptism of John, was itfrom heaven, or from men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why did ye not believe him?But if we shall say, From men; all the people will stone us: for theybe persuaded that John was a prophet. And they answered, that theyknew not whence _it was_. And Jesus said unto them, Neither tellI you by what authority I do these things. [Footnote: Luke xx, 1-8. ]

During the Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858, when both men were seekingthe United States senatorship from Illinois, Lincoln, wishing eitherto kill Douglas's senatorial prospects or to head him off from thepresidency two years later, asked him a question which put him in adilemma. Ida M. Tarbell describes the question as follows:--

"Can the people of a United States territory in any lawful way, against the wish of any citizen of the United States, exclude slaveryfrom its limits prior to the formation of a State Constitution?"Lincoln had seen the irreconcilableness of Douglas's own measure ofpopular sovereignty, which declared that the people of a territoryshould be left to regulate their domestic concerns in their own waysubject only to the Constitution, and the decision of the SupremeCourt in the Dred Scott case that slaves, being property, could notunder the Constitution be excluded from a territory. He knew that ifDouglas said _no_ to this question, his Illinois constituentswould never return him to the Senate. He believed that if he said_yes, _ the people of the South would never vote for him forPresident of the United States. 

In the last example, Lincoln, by forcing Douglas to answer thisquestion, sought to destroy, and, as history shows, did destroy, thepopular conception of Douglas's fitness for public office. 

Before one can safely use the dilemma he must carefully investigateevery phase of the statement that he wishes to refute. If he is to usethe dilemma directly, he must consider every possibility--commonlycalled the horns of the dilemma--upon which the truth of the statementmay rest. If there is a single possibility which he is not ready tomeet and overthrow, his whole effort is fruitless. For instance, adebater, in attempting to rebut the statement that collegefraternities are harmful, said that his opponent must show thatfraternities are either morally, socially, financially orintellectually detrimental to their members; he then proved as best hecould that in these respects fraternities are beneficial rather thanharmful, and sat down thinking that he had gone a long way towardwinning the debate. His opponent then arose and admitting nearlyeverything that had been said, based his argument on the idea thatfraternities were harmful _to the college as a whole_. The firstspeaker had not considered every alternative. If an arguer is toapproach a dilemma through the medium of a question, he must be surethat he knows every reasonable answer that his opponent can make. Whenone has satisfied these conditions, he can use the dilemma with greateffect. 

By way of summary it may be said that the successful arguer must bothbuild up his own proof and destroy his opponent's. To accomplish thelatter one has to know what to refute and what to leave alone; he mustdistinguish between the important and the unessential, and he musttake care not to "refute himself. " Since proof consists of evidenceand reasoning, the first step for him to take in refuting an argumentis to apply the tests for each, and if possible show where hisopponent has erred. In the next place, he should see whether he candiscover and point out any of the more important fallacies; the onesmentioned here are _begging the question_, _ambiguous terms_, _false cause_, _composition and division_, and _ignoring the question_. Should the arguer find any of these fundamental weaknesses, it isordinarily sufficient merely to call attention to them; for the sakeof emphasis, however, one may make use of two especially effectivemethods of refutation, _reductio ad absurdum_ and the _dilemma_. 

EXERCISES. 

A. Criticize the following arguments and point out the fallacies theycontain:--

1. Four thousand men have taken examinations at Princeton under thehonor system, and only six of these were found guilty of "cribbing. "This record shows conclusively that the honor system restrainsdishonest work in examinations. 

2. Athletics do not injure a man's scholarship; one of the bestplayers on last year's football team attained such a high grade thathe was awarded a fellowship. 

3. During the decade from 1870 to 1880, illiteracy among the negroesdecreased ten per cent. , but the race grew more criminal by twenty-five per cent. ; from 1880 to 1890, illiteracy decreased eighteen percent. , but criminality increased thirty-three and one-third per cent. Who can now say that education does not injure the negro?

4. Since the honor system failed at Franklin and Marshall, it willfail at ---- College. 

5. Frequent athletic games benefit a college because they tend to takethe students' attention away from their studies. 

6. The fixed curriculum of studies is effective in making aspecialist, because the specialist takes up only one kind of work. 

7. Southerners are justified in keeping the franchise from the negro, because the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution ought never tohave been passed. 

8. Since the negro's devotion to the church is as great as that ofmost white people, he is of as high moral standing as the averageunintelligent white. 

9. Ireland is idle and therefore she starves; she starves andtherefore she rebels. 

10. Every one desires virtue, because every one desires happiness. 

11. The present term of four years is so short a time that thePresident does not have opportunity to become acquainted with hisduties, for just as he is becoming acquainted with them he has to stepout of office. 

12. This doctrine cannot be proved from the Gospels, nor from the Actsof the Apostles, nor from the Epistles, nor from the Revelation of St. John; therefore it cannot be proved from the New Testament. 

13. Crime is a violation of the laws of our country; piracy is acrime; this man belongs to a band of lawless men, and this band hasbeen taken in the very deed of piracy. Therefore he has violated thelaws of our country. 

14. Since all presuming men are contemptible, and since this manpresumes to believe his opinions are correct, he is not worthy of ourconsideration. 

15. To prove to you that our standing army should be permanentlyenlarged, I will show that every nation of any prominence whatsoeverkeeps a standing army. 

16. The elective system of studies is preferable to the prescribedsystem, because

 A. The student can elect those studies which will do him the most good, for

 1. He can elect what he pleases. 

17. Strikes benefit the working man, because

 A. They benefit him financially, for

 1. If they did not, he would not strike. 

18. When thirteen sit at table together, one of them always dieswithin the year. 

19. To decide whether or not strikes are justifiable it is necessaryto see if they have for the most part been successful in the past. 

20. All the trees in the park make a thick shade; this is one of them, therefore this tree makes a thick shade. 

21. Italy is a Catholic country and abounds in beggars; France is alsoa Catholic country, and therefore abounds in beggars. 

22. Pitt was not a great and useful minister; for though he would havebeen so had he carried out Adam Smith's doctrines of free trade, hedid not carry out those doctrines. 

23. All criminal actions ought to be punished by law. Prosecutions fortheft are criminal actions, and therefore ought to be punished by law. 

24. Books are a source both of instruction and of amusement; a tableof logarithms is a book; therefore it is a source both of instructionand of amusement. 

B. On each of the following arguments from authority write a paragraphthat will weaken its effect:--

1. "The Senate for more than a century has demonstrated the wisdom ofthe mode of its constitution. " Senator G. F. Hoar. 

2. "Mine disasters are largely due to the intoxication of miners, orto carelessness caused by the after effects of a 'spree, '" says Dr. Jesse K. Johnson, superintendent of one of the largest mines in thePittsburg district. 

3. Both Mark Hanna and Grover Cleveland have stated that a six yearPresidential term would be of great benefit to the United States. 

4. Senator La Follet, who has made a thorough study of many of theprincipal monopolies in the country, states that the Standard Oiltrust charges exorbitant rates. 

5. Mr. Francis Walker, in the Political Science Quarterly, Volumetwenty, page fourteen, says that legislation against trusts hasimproved conditions, and would therefore improve conditions in theUnited States. 

6. President Hadley, of Yale University, has said that the subsidizingof ships on a large scale has been detrimental to France. 

7. "The Indian who is not obliged to labor for his maintenance becomesa lazy vagabond. " Lyman Abbott. 

C. Put the following article into the form of a brief and show exactlywhat methods of refutation are used:--

THE OLD FRIGATE "CONSTITUTION. "

The pretexts for removal of "Old Ironsides" from the waters in whichthat historic ship had her birth are now reduced to two. 

One of these is that the old boat takes up room at the Navy Yard whichis needed for the work of that establishment. 

The other is that since the money expended in the restoration of thefrigate--less than $200, 000--came out of the Federal Treasury, thepeople of distant States ought to have the pleasure of seeing whattheir money paid for without coming to Boston in order to enjoy it. 

As for crowding the Navy Yard, that is an absurdity. His ExcellencyCurtis Guild, Jr. , in his letter to the Navy Department protestingagainst the removal, quoted the officers in command at the Navy Yardas declaring that "the ship in no way interferes with the work of theyard, taking up no space that is needed for other purposes. " TheGovernor would not make such a statement in an official communicationwithout the clearest authority. "Indeed, " he adds as his own opinion, "the strip of wharf occupied is but a trivial portion of the longwater front controlled by the government. "

There is the other pretext, namely, that because the "Constitution"has been repaired at national cost, therefore any special claim thatMassachusetts may have upon this relic of Massachusetts patriotism isremoved. This idea has found crude and unmannerly expression in thewords of one of the committee of Congress looking over our navy yards. "The agitation to keep the ship in Boston seems selfish, " he is quotedas saying. "It was the money of the whole people of the United Statesthat paid for its repair, and the people in other sections are asjustly entitled to see the ship as in Boston. "

Coming from a representative of the State of Kansas, this is almostamusing. His proposition to tow the ship around from place to place, as it may be wanted for a show, suggests the practicability of acanal, say, to Topeka, or to Fort Hayes. 

The alternative proposition, namely, that Massachusetts shall repay tothe general government the cost of the repairs of the "Constitution, "would have some standing were it a commercial affair. Massachusettshas expended many times the cost of the repairs of "Old Ironsides" inpreserving for the nation the revolutionary sites and monuments uponour soil. Payment for the repair and restoration of "Old Ironsides"would be a bagatelle if the people of the United States were to demandthat this monument also shall be purchased by the people ofMassachusetts under threat of its removal. 

But it is not a question of money; that is a contemptible suggestion. Nor is it a question of bureaucracy. It is a simple, reasonable, entirely practical demand of the historic sentiment of patriotismwhich still warms the hearts and inspires the souls of Massachusettsmen. 

CHAPTER IX

DEBATE--SOME PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS

Debate has been defined as the oral presentation of argument underconditions that allow both sides to be heard. In both class room andintercollegiate debating each side usually makes two speeches, a mainspeech and a rebuttal speech. The main speech ordinarily extends overa period of from seven to twelve minutes, according to the rulesgoverning the contest, and is largely constructive in nature. Therebuttal speech, commonly called _the rebuttal_, is usually alittle less than half the length of the main speech, and is for themost part destructive. It is almost superfluous to add that both sidesare allowed exactly the same amount of time in which to present theirarguments; that the affirmative side speaks first, the order being, when there are several debaters, affirmative, negative, affirmative, negative, and so on; and that all the main speeches are given beforeeither side makes a rebuttal speech. If there be only one debater oneach side, it is undoubtedly best for the affirmative to offer thefirst rebuttal; if there be several debaters, the order is usuallyreversed. The debaters on either side may or may not speak in rebuttalin the same order as in the main argument. 

HOW TO PREPARE FOR DEBATE. 

In several ways the work of the debater differs from the work of onewho is preparing a written argument or who is to speak without beingconfronted by an opponent. As far as the completion of the brief, thework in all cases is the same, but at this point the debater has todecide what special preparation he shall make for handling andpresenting to the audience the material that he has collected. He ispuzzled to know whether it will be worth while to expand his brief;and if he does expand it, he is in doubt as to just what he should dowith the expanded argument. 

A debater has his choice of several possible methods of procedure. Thesimplest, though not the most effective method, is to write out theargument in full, and to memorize it word for word. The weakness ofsuch a course lies in the immobility of its attack and defense. Thefirst speaker for the affirmative may decide beforehand exactly whathe will say and the order in which he will say it, but all those whoare to follow should adapt their arguments, to some extent at least, to the exigencies of the debate. They will find it desirable to make achange in one place in order to join their arguments harmoniously tothose of their colleagues; they will wish to make changes in anotherplace for the sake of assailing an obviously weak spot or in order toward off an unexpected attack. This versatility is practicallyimpossible if one is delivering an argument that he has memorized wordfor word. Again, a memorized argument cannot carry with it the forceand the conviction that may be found in an effort of a morespontaneous character. Furthermore, if a debater should be sounfortunate as to forget even a few words of a memorized selection, hewould probably be forced to sit down with his speech only partiallycompleted. 

Another method that some debaters follow is to memorize portions oftheir argument and to extemporize the rest. This is open to two greatobjections: first, it is difficult to join together gracefully thememorized passages and the extemporized; and the second, the verysmoothness with which the memorized passages are delivered betrays thecrudeness and awkwardness of the extemporized parts. 

A third method, and undoubtedly the best one for the student to adopt, is not to expand the brief before he debates, but to memorize thegreater part of it _as a brief_. In this way a debater has hisideas well in hand, and, without being tied down to any particularmanner of expression or obliged to follow any set order of procedure, he can use his material as opportunity requires. His language shouldbe at least partially extemporaneous; he may have a fairly clearconception of how he is to frame his sentences, but he should havenothing learned word for word. Thus his speech may have an element ofspontaneity that will give it a tone of sincerity and earnestnessunattainable when one is repeating a memorized passage. Too much, however, must not be left to the inspiration of the moment; no studentshould ever try to debate without first attempting in his room toexpand his brief orally. He is sure to meet with considerabledifficulty the first time he tries to formulate his ideas in clear, forceful, and elegant language; but several attempts will produce aremarkable change. After a few endeavors he will discover ways ofexpressing himself that he will remember, even though the words varygreatly each time. 

The superiority of this method is marked. It enables the debater tobecome perfectly familiar with all his material, and it gives him afairly good idea of what language he shall use. He is not, however, bound down to any set speech; he can alter his argument to suit theoccasion. Should he unexpectedly find that his opponent has admitted acertain idea, he can merely call attention to this fact and not wastevaluable time in giving superfluous proof. If he sees that hisopponent has made such a strong argument that some refutation isnecessary at the outset in order to gain the confidence of hisaudience, he can instantly change the order of his proof and beginwith a point that he had, perhaps, intended to use in another part ofhis speech. In fact, this method enables one to _debate_ ratherthan to _declaim_. 

In most debating contests it is permissible for the contestants tomake use of a few notes written on small cards that can be carried ina pocket or held unobtrusively in the hand. Such a practice, if notabused, is commended by some teachers of argumentation. On these cardsthe debater can put down the main headings of his brief, allstatistics that are difficult to remember, and all quotations. _Hehad better not refer to these cards for the headings of his brief ifhe can possibly avoid doing so_. It will be a great stimulus, however, for him to know that he has this help to rely on in case ofnecessity. Statistics and quotations he may read without hesitation. 

One should speak his debate many times by himself, not only for thepurpose of gaining facility in expression, but also for the sake ofcondensing his material to an argument that will approximately occupythe exact time allowed him for debating. It is a deplorable fact thatmany debaters try to say so much that when their allotment of time hasexpired they find themselves in the very midst of their argument. Suchan ending leaves the audience confused and unimpressed. No debatershould ever omit his conclusion. If there is only one contestant oneach side, a conclusion is certainly necessary both for the sake ofclearness and emphasis, and because an unfinished argument is not aunit. If there are several contestants on each side, the fact that theopposing speakers intervene and distract the attention of the audiencemakes it even more necessary that each debater end his argument with aformal conclusion, and by means of it bind his work to that of hiscolleagues. 

REFUTATION. 

As much time, if not more, should be spent in preparing thedestructive as in preparing the constructive portion of an argument. One can determine beforehand almost exactly how he will establish hisside of the proposition, but just what material he will need tooverthrow his opponent's proof will depend upon how that proof isconstructed. Ordinarily one can predict what lines of reasoning anopponent will take; in fact, no one should ever attempt to debateuntil he has studied the proposition so thoroughly that he cananticipate practically all the arguments that will be advanced. Yetuntil he sees on what points the emphasis is placed, what argumentsare ignored, and what evidence is used, he cannot tell for sure whatfacts and what inferences will be most valuable as refutation. Therefore, a debater who wishes to offer good refutation must have awealth of material at his command and be able to select instantly theideas that will be of the greatest value. 

This necessity for an abundance of information precludes the idea, held by some, that good debaters depend for their refutation on theinspiration of the moment. Great speakers often spend incalculabletime in preparing to answer the arguments of the opposition. Webster's_Reply to Hayne_, which is a recognized masterpiece of oratory, and which is almost entirely refutation, was at first thought to havebeen composed over night, but Webster declared that all the materialhe had used had lain in his desk for months. 

Refutation should come for the most part, though not entirely, in therebuttal. Unless one has made a thorough study of both sides of thequestion, and is thus sure of his ground, anticipatory refutation isdangerous. It is sometimes an excellent plan to take the wind out ofan opponent's sails by overthrowing an argument of his before he has achance to present it, but in doing this the debater must use thegreatest caution. To begin with, he must be sure that the argument herefutes is of such a fundamental nature that it is essential to thecase of the other side, for if his opponent fails to use this point, the debater not only has exposed himself to ridicule, but has wastedvaluable time. When one does refute in advance a point that must beupheld by the opposition, a skillful opponent often can, bycalling attention to the fact that even those on the other siderecognize the importance and strength of this argument, destroy muchof the advantage that has been gained. To refute an argument before itis advanced, sometimes brings failure and sometimes brings success. Adebater must exercise judgment. 

One must also exercise a high degree of judgment in deciding where hecan most advantageously answer the arguments that have actually beengiven. Whenever a debater presents so thorough and so strong proofthat the audience is likely to think that he has settled the questionand won the debate, the succeeding speaker on the opposite side willhave great difficulty in making any impression unless he can at thestart at least partially discredit the preceding argument. Theattitude of the audience will compel him to use refutation beforebeginning his constructive work. On the other hand, if the precedingargument has apparently produced but little effect, he may at oncebegin to build his own proof. He should, however, show good reason forpostponing his refutation. To ignore the previous arguments entirely, or arbitrarily to postpone answering them, is likely to give theaudience an unfavorable impression. 

COMMON ERRORS IN REFUTATION. A common error in refutation is thefailure to attack an opponent's main arguments. Students especiallyare wont to neglect fundamental principles, and instead ofoverthrowing the points that count, occupy invaluable time withtrivial matters. To rebut unimportant details, admitted matter, mereillustrations, and errors obviously due to haste in speaking, is afault that every debater should carefully avoid. Such trivialities theaudience immediately forgets, and to bring them up again and refutethem serves no worthy purpose whatever. 

Another serious fault common to refutation in student debates is lackof coherence. The student falls into this error when he rebuts amiscellaneous lot of points without having first ascertained thefunction of each and differentiated the main ideas from thesubordinate ones. Instead of looking at the argument as a whole andattacking it with the concerted strength of all his forces, he firesscattering shots, and does but little damage. In refutation a debatermust first see clearly the relation between each point that he rebutsand the proposition, otherwise his work is wasted. Secondly, he mustmake this relation perfectly plain to the audience. Instead ofoverthrowing isolated statements, a debater should take up hisopponent's case as _a whole_ and weaken it as much as he can. Heshould attack each main point. Coherent refutation adds much to theeffectiveness of a debate. 

AVAILABILITY OF MATERIAL FOR REFUTATION. In offering refutation, everyinexperienced debater has difficulty in laying his hands on just thematerial that he desires to use. Possibly he remembers that he hasseen somewhere an article that proves the insincerity of a man who hasjust been quoted as an authority; but if he can neither produce thisarticle nor state its substance, he might as well not know about it. Perhaps he remembers having seen a table of statistics showing thathis opponent has erred in regard to the death rate in the Spanish-American War; but unless he can produce the table, his knowledge is ofno avail. There is scarcely any time for searching through books orunorganized notes; material to be of use must be instantly available. Some definite system of arranging rebuttal material is absolutelyindispensable. 

One method that has been tried with great success consists of puttingdown on cards of a uniform size all the material that can possibly beof use in refutation. These cards the debater then groups, inalphabetical order, under headings that correspond to the maindivisions of the subject under discussion, and if it seems advisablein any particular instance, he may group them under subdivisions ofthe proposition. To be more explicit, if a debater thinks that theopposition may question the financial success of a plan that he isadvocating, he should write out on as many cards as are necessary, usually putting only one idea on each card, all the material that goesto show why the plan should succeed and where it has succeeded. Furthermore, if the plan has failed anywhere, he should put down, providing he is able, explanations that will account for the failurewithout condemning the system. These cards, then, would naturally bearranged under some such heading as "Finance" or "Success. " If thedebater wishes, he may also arrange his cards under subheadings. Forinstance, those cards that go to show why the plan ought to succeedcould be put under the subheading, "Antecedent Probability"; thosethat show where the plan has succeeded, under "Sign, " and those thataccount for failure of the plan in certain places, under the heading"Failures. " Any one at all familiar with a library card cataloguewill at once see the various possibilities for arranging these cards. 

Cards for rebuttal should be made out about as follows:--

Proposition:--_Resolved, _ That profit-sharing and co-operativemethods generally afford the most promising solution of the laborproblem. (Affirmative. )

PRACTICABILITY

The Union Polishing Metal Plating Company has been successfullyoperated under this method since 1902. (C. H. Quinn, Outlook, Vol. LXXIII, page 452. )

PRACTICABILITY

The great iron works of Evansville, Wis. , are operated underthis method. (G. L. McNutt, Ind. , Vol. LV, page 619. )

The advantages of such a system are obvious. This method gives notonly one debater, but the whole team, almost instant command of allthe material that has been collected. One can find what he wants, andfind it hastily; he is not obliged to spend much valuable time inhunting after needed evidence and thus neglect large portions of thespeech that is being delivered. A debater should begin on theclassification of rebuttal material almost as soon as he begins toread on his subject. In this way he will save all the material that hegathers, and his catalogued information will be of assistance to himin drawing his brief and in constructing his main argument as well asin making refutation at the time of the debate. 

WHAT EACH DEBATER MUST DO. 

THE FIRST SPEAKER FOR THE AFFIRMATIVE. Upon the first speaker for theaffirmative falls the duty of interpreting the proposition. Since thesubject of analysis has already been fully discussed, but fewdirections need be given here. It may be well, however, to emphasizethe qualities of clearness and fairness. A debate, unlike a writtenargument, cannot be studied and re-read time and again. For thisreason, unless the proposition is explained in the very simplestlanguage and by means of the very clearest definitions andillustrations, many people in the audience will not understand whatthe debate is about. Long words and high-sounding phrases have noplace here. The debater must aim to reach not merely those who arefamiliar with the subject, but also those to whom the question isabsolutely new. If, when the first speaker has finished, any attentivelistener of average intelligence fails to understand both the subjectof the debate and the attitude of the affirmative side, the speech hasbeen a failure. 

Then, too, the analysis of the proposition must be fair and just toboth sides. A debater has no right to strain or twist the meaning ofthe proposition so as to gain any advantage for himself. In the firstplace, this practice is dishonest, and an honorable debater does notwish to win by trickery or fraud. Secondly, such an act almost alwaysbrings defeat. The fact that a debate is being held, presupposes asubject about which reasonable men may differ. If a debater interpretsthe proposition so that only one reasonable side exists, manifestly hemust be in error, and upon the exposure of this error he is sure tolose the decision. 

In debate, therefore, clearness and fairness should especiallycharacterize the four steps that are taken in analyzing theproposition: to define terms, to explain the proposition as a whole, to discover the issues, and to make the partition. 

Upon the completion of the introduction, the first debater for theaffirmative proceeds to the discussion, and later, should he be theonly contestant on the affirmative side, to the conclusion. But if, asis usually the case, there be several debaters on each side, he takesup only one or two main points of the proof. In handling this proof hemust be sure so to correlate his work with the work of his colleaguesthat, in the minds of the audience, it will all hang together as aunited whole. To accomplish this object, he may, as he finishes withhis partition, state what points he will discuss himself, and whatpoints will be handled by the affirmative speakers that are to succeedhim; and he must, without fail, when he nears the end of his allottedtime, hastily summarize the proof that he has given, and outline theproof that is to follow. In this way he may keep the interveningspeeches of his opponents from entirely destroying the continuity thatshould exist between his speech and the speeches of his colleagues. 

THE FIRST SPEAKER FOR THE NEGATIVE. It rests with the first speakerfor the negative to determine whether the introduction as presented bythe affirmative is satisfactory, whether the analysis of theproposition is clear, adequate, and fair. If the affirmative has erredin any respect, it is the duty of the first negative debater to supplythe deficiency or make the correction; otherwise he errs equally withthe affirmative. If the affirmative has failed to explain theproposition so that it is generally understood, the negative is sureto win favor with the audience by spending a few moments inelucidating the subject of controversy. If the affirmative debater hasanalyzed the question inadequately or unfairly, the negative debatershould not begin to establish proof until he has set thesepreliminaries straight. In correcting an unfair analysis, it is neverenough that one merely make objections or even give an introduction ofhis own; he must, in brief form--and often a single sentence issufficient--show to the satisfaction of the audience that his opponenthas not interpreted the proposition correctly. On the other hand, ifthe first speaker for the negative considers the introduction given bythe affirmative perfectly fair and satisfactory, he can pass by itwithout comment, and begin his own argument either with refutation orwith a statement of the points that the negative side will establishin attacking the proposition. 

It is thus apparent that a debater who opens a negative argument mustdepend for the beginning of his speech rather on a thoroughunderstanding of the subject in all its details and fundamentalprinciples than on a speech that he has to deliver word for word. Torepeat an introduction that has already been given is absurd; to failto correct an introduction that, as a whole, is obscure or is unfair, is to merit defeat. It may be added, by way of caution, that when adebater supplies any deficiencies in the speech of his predecessor, heshould do this without any appearance of "smartness" or personalantagonism. Even if the affirmative debater has been manifestlyunfair, the negative speaker will do well to correct this unfairnessin a friendly, though in a forceful manner. 

As soon as the introduction is out of the way, the negative speakerproceeds to the discussion. Two courses are open to him: he may atonce refute his predecessor's arguments, or he may proceed to take uphis constructive proof, giving reason for postponing the refutation. As this matter has already been discussed, it is only necessary to saythat the course he should choose depends largely upon the strength ofthe preceding argument. The same directions that have been given tothe affirmative debater for connecting his work to his colleagues'apply equally to the negative. Summaries and outlines aid greatly inbinding the arguments of a debating team into one compact mass. 

THE OTHER SPEAKERS. About the only practical suggestion which can bemade to the other speakers is that they adapt their constructive workto that of their colleagues, and deploy their refutation so as tohammer the principal positions of their opponents. Each debater may ormay not begin his speech with refutation, but he should always beginhis main argument with a terse, clear summary of what has been said onhis side, and in closing he should not only summarize his ownarguments, but he should also give again, in very brief form, the gistof what has been proved by his colleagues. In addition, any speakerexcept the last one on each side, may, if he thinks best, give anoutline of the argument to follow. In making these summaries, adebater must always avoid stating them in so bald and crude a form asto make them monotonous and offensive. He ought rather to use all theingenuity at his command in an attempt to make this repetitionexceedingly forceful. 

It often happens that an inexperienced debater never reaches hisconclusion. While he is still in the midst of his proof, his allotmentof time expires, and he is forced to sit down, leaving his speechhanging in the air. Such an experience is both awkward and disastrous;a skillful debater never allows it to happen. The peroration is themost important part of an argument, and on it the debater shouldlavish his greatest care. To omit it is almost the same as to havemade no speech at all. As soon as the debater perceives that he hasbut a short time left, he should at once bring this main speech to aclose, and even though he may have to omit important ideas, begin atonce on his conclusion. As is pointed out in Chapter X, the conclusionconsists both of a summary and an emotional appeal. What emotion shallbe aroused and how it shall apply to the summarized headings canlargely be determined beforehand. Some debaters go so far as to committhis conclusion to memory. This practice is not recommended except inspecial cases, and yet a debater should be so familiar with hisperoration that he will have no difficulty in putting it into vigorousand pleasing language. 

REBUTTAL SPEECHES. A rebuttal speech usually furnishes an excellenttest of a debater's mastery of his subject. It shows whether or not hecomprehends the fundamental principles that underly the argument. Ifhe does not understand fundamentals, he cannot distinguish betweenwhat is worth answering and what is trivial. If he is not perfectlyfamiliar with the arguments on both sides of the question, hisrefutation will be scattering; that is, he will rebut only a few ofhis opponent's headings, those for which, in his scanty preparation, he has discovered some answer. On the other hand, if he reallyunderstands the subject, he will deal largely with main ideas; and ifhis knowledge of the subject is as extensive as it should be, he willalmost invariably be able to offer some opposition to every mainheading used by the opposition. 

When a debate is held between only two contestants, each one has torefute the whole argument of his opponent. In this case there are nocomplications; but when two teams are debating, the members of eachmust decide among themselves as to how the rebuttal shall be handled. One way is for each member to refute all he can, working independentlyof his colleagues. Much better results are secured, however, when ateam works systematically. In the first place, a team should alwaysresolve the opposing arguments into a hasty brief. The main points ofthe opposition can then be assigned for rebuttal to the variousmembers of the team, and each debater can give thorough treatment tohis assignment. In this way every point is sure to be covered, andthere will be little, if any, duplication of work. 

Such a course presupposes very careful preparation on the part of thedebaters. It means that each member of the team must have sufficientknowledge and material at his command to oppose with credit anyargument that may be advanced. In general, the assignment of headingsfor rebuttal may be such that each debater will refute those points ofwhich he took an opposite view in his main speech, but as it isusually desirable to rebut arguments in the same order in which theywere originally given, no member of the team can afford to shirkmastering each detail that in any way has a vital bearing upon theproposition. 

THE LAST REBUTTAL SPEAKER. The work of the last speaker on each sidediffers somewhat from the work of his colleagues. All the speakers tryto overthrow the opposing arguments, and by means of summaries keeptheir case as a whole before the audience. The last speaker devotesfar less time to pure refutation, gives a more detailed summary, and, in addition, compares and contrasts the arguments of his side with thearguments of the opposition. This last process is called "amplifyingand diminishing. "

It is not always necessary to prove a main heading false in order todestroy its effectiveness. A debater may of necessity have to admitthat the opposition has successfully established the points it set outto prove. In such a case, he cannot do better than to acknowledge thecorrectness of his opponent's proof, and then remembering that anaudience awards a decision by a comparison of the relative weight ofthe proof of each side, amplify the importance of his own arguments, point by point, and diminish the importance of the arguments advancedby the other side. 

For instance, in a debate on the question as to whether immigrationshould be restricted, the affirmative might maintain that unrestrictedimmigration brings serious political evils, and the negative mightshow that the policy of nonrestriction greatly increases the wealth ofthe country. If neither of these contentions be successfully refuted, the favor of the audience will incline towards the affirmative or thenegative, as far as those two points are concerned, according as theythink that political purity or economic prosperity is the moreimportant. Plainly, it would be for the interest of the affirmative toconvince the audience that the preservation of political integrity isof greater moment than any mere material gain. 

In many respects the last rebuttal speeches on each side are the mostconspicuous and decisive parts of a debate. If the last speech ishesitating and weak, it is liable to ruin all preceding efforts, eventhough they were of the highest order; if it is enthusiastic andstrong, it will often cover up preceding defects, and turn defeat intovictory. Because of its importance this portion of the work usuallyfalls to the best debater on the team, and if he is wise he will giveit his greatest thought and care. In this speech he should strive inevery possible way to attain perfection. His delivery should beemphatic and pleasing; his ideas should be logically arranged; and hisknowledge of what he has to say should be so complete that there willbe no hesitation, no groping for words. Furthermore, he shouldintroduce an element of persuasion; to reach both the minds and thehearts of his hearers is essential for the greatest success. All thishas to be done in a short time, yet to be of a high rank even theshortest closing speeches must contain these characteristics. 

SPECIAL FEATURES OF DEBATE. 

An argument, like other kinds of composition, should possess thequalities of style known as Clearness, Force, and Elegance, and shouldin all respects observe the principles of Unity, Selection, Coherence, Proportion, Emphasis, and Variety. Since the student from his study ofRhetoric is already familiar with these matters, it would besuperfluous to dwell upon them in this book. A good written argument, however, does not always make a good debate; limited time forspeaking, lack of opportunity for the audience to grasp ideas and toreflect upon them, the presence of strong opposing arguments that mustbe met and overthrown with still stronger arguments, --these conditionsrender the heightening of certain characteristics indispensable in adebate. 

Above all else the successful debater is forceful. He uses everypossible device for driving home his arguments. He bends every efforttoward making his ideas so plain and so emphatic that the audiencewill understand them and _remember_ them. Realizing that theaudience cannot, like the reader of a written article, peruse theargument a second time, he uses words and expressions that cause histhoughts to stick fast wherever they fall. 

STATISTICS. Statistics improperly used are dry and uninteresting; theyoften spoil an otherwise forceful and persuasive debate. The troubleoften lies, strange to say, in the accuracy with which the figures aregiven. A brain that is already doing its utmost to accept almostinstantaneously a multitude of facts and comprehend theirsignificance, or a brain that is somewhat sluggish and lazy, refusesto be burdened with uninteresting and unimportant details. For thisreason, when a debater speaks of 10, 564, 792 people, the brain becomeswearied with the numbers and in disgust is apt to turn away from thewhole matter. On the other hand, the round sum 10, 000, 000 not onlydoes not burden the brain, but also, under ordinary conditions, givesin a rather forceful manner the information it was intended to convey. "About five hundred" presents a much more vivid picture than "fourhundred and eighty-six" or "five hundred and eighteen"; "fifteen percent. " is stronger than "fifteen and one-tenth per cent. "; theexpression "eighty years" seems to indicate a longer period of timethan "eighty-two years, seven months, and twenty-nine days. "

If one is to quote statistics, he should always, unless thecircumstances be very unusual, use round numbers. Figures themselves, however, are often less emphatic than other methods of expression. Theordinary mind can not grasp the significance of large numbers. Thatthe state of Texas contains over a quarter of a million of squaremiles means little to the average person; he neither remembers theexact area of other states nor can he realize what an immenseterritory these figures stand for. The following quotation gives thearea of Texas in much more vivid and forceful language:--

If you take Texas by the upper corner and swing it on that as a pivot, you will lop off the lower end of California, cut through Idaho, overlap South Dakota, touch Michigan, bisect Ohio, reach WestVirginia, cut through North Carolina and South Carolina, lop off allthe western side of Florida, and blanket the greater part of the Gulfof Mexico. 

To say that the American farmer produced in 1907 a crop worth, at thefarm, seven and one-half billions of dollars, conveys little idea ofthe magnitude of the harvest. A current magazine has couched the sameestimate in less exact but in far more emphatic language:--

Suppose that all of last year's corn had been shipped to Europe; itwould have required over four thousand express steamers of 18, 000 tonsregister to deliver it. Suppose that the year's wheat had all beensent to save the Far East from a great famine: the largest fleet inthe world, with its four hundred vessels of all sizes, would haverequired fifteen round trips to move it. Take tobacco, --such a minorcrop that most people never think of it in connection with farming:--if last year's tobacco crop had been made into cigars, the supplywould have lasted 153, 000 men for fifty years, each man smoking tencigars a day. 

The officials of the forestry service, in speaking of the greatdevastation caused by forest fires, make the startling assertion thata new navy of first-class battle-ships could be built for the sum lostduring a few weeks in the fires that raged from the pines of Maine tothe redwoods of California. 

Figures used in this way are most effective, and yet probably nothingin argumentation is more tedious than too many of these descriptionsof statistics coming close together. If numbers absolutely have tobe indicated a great many times, even figures are likely to be lesstiresome. 

CONCRETENESS. General statements and abstract principles invariablyweary an audience. Theories and generalities are usually toointangible to make much impression. Specific instances and concretecases, however, are usually interesting. A vivid picture of realpersons, things, and events is necessary to arouse the attention of anaudience and cause them both to understand the argument and to give ittheir consideration. The slogan of a recent political campaign wasnot, "Improved economic conditions for the laboring man"; it was, "Thefull dinner pail. " The political orator who is urging the necessityfor a larger navy on the ground that war is imminent does not speak ofpossible antagonists in such general terms as _foreign powers_;he specifies Germany, Japan, and the other nations that he fears. Thepreacher who would really awaken the conscience of his church does notconfine himself to such terms as _original sin_ and _weaknessesof the flesh_; he talks of _lying_, _stealing_, and _swearing_. 

Compare the effectiveness of the following examples:--

People of the same race are more loyal to each other than toforeigners. 

Blood is thicker than water. 

Western farmers are demanding political recognition. 

"No, I am not going to vote a straight ticket this year. If I do, mycandidate must be in favor of some things I want. " That was the dictumof Franklin Taylor, Farmer, on Rural Route No. 12, ten miles from awestern town. He is a type of thousands of other farmers in the West. 

Business streets that were once commodious and impressive are nowsmoky and filthy. 

Business streets that ten years after the great fire promised to bealmost grant in the width and perspective are now mere smoky tunnelsunder the filth-dripping gridirons of the elevated railways. 

The West is becoming more densely populated. 

The center of population, now in Indiana, is traveling straight towardthe middle point of Illinois. The center of manufacturing has reachedonly eastern Ohio, but is marching in a bee-line for Chicago. 

In the following quotation Mr. Crisp, laying aside for the momentabstractions and generalities, and bringing his case down to aspecific instance, gives a concrete illustration of how the protectivetariff affects a single individual:

Will you tell how this protective tariff benefits our agriculturalproducers? I can show you--I think I can demonstrate clearly--how thetariff hurts them; and I defy any of you to show wherein they arebenefited by a protective tariff. 

Suppose a farmer in Minnesota has 5, 000 bushels of wheat and a farmerin Georgia has 100 bales of cotton. That wheat at eighty cents abushel is worth $4, 000, and that cotton at eight cents a pound isworth $4, 000. Let those producers ship their staples abroad. TheMinnesota wheat-grower ships his wheat to Liverpool; whether he shipsit there or not, that is where the price of his wheat is fixed. TheGeorgia cotton-raiser ships his cotton to Liverpool; whether he shipsit there or not, that is where the price of his cotton is fixed. Thewheat and the cotton are sold in that free trade market. The wheat issold for $4, 000; the cotton brings the same amount. The Minnesotafarmer invests the $4, 000 he has received for his wheat in clothing, crockery, iron, steel, dress goods, clothing, --whatever he may needfor his family in Minnesota. The Georgia cotton-raiser invests theproceeds of his cotton in like kind of goods. 

Each of those men ships his goods to this country and they reach theport of New York. When either undertakes to unload them he is met bythe collector of customs, who says, "Let me see your invoice. " Theinvoice is exhibited, and it shows $4, 000 worth of goods. Those goodsrepresent in the one case 5, 000 bushels of wheat, in the other case100 bales of cotton. The collector at the port says to either of thesegentlemen--the man who raises the wheat in Minnesota or him who raisesthe cotton in Georgia, "You cannot bring into this market those goodsfor which you have exchanged your products unless you pay to theUnited States a tariff by the McKinley law--a tax of $2, 000. "

FIGURES OF SPEECH. The use of figurative language is also an aid toclearness and to force. Simile, metaphor, personification, antithesis, balance, climax, rhetorical question, and repetition are all effectiveaids in the presentation of argument. The speeches of great oratorsare replete with expressions of this sort. Burke, in his _Speech onConciliation_, says, "Despotism itself is obliged to truck andhuckster"; "The public, " he said, "would not have patience to see usplay the game out with our adversaries; we must produce our hand";"Men may lose little in property by the act which takes away all theirfreedom. When a man is robbed of a trifle on the highway, it is notthe twopence lost that constitutes the capital outrage. " In speakingof certain provisions of the Constitution, Webster says that they arethe "keystone of the arch. " The following paragraph is taken from his_Reply to Hayne_:--

And, sir, where American liberty raised its first voice, and where itsyouth was nurtured and sustained, there it still lives in the strengthof its manhood and full of its original spirit. If discord anddisunion shall wound it; if party strife and blind ambition shall hawkat and tear it; if folly and madness, if uneasiness under salutary andnecessary restraint, shall succeed to separate it from that Union bywhich alone its existence is made sure; it will stand, in the end, bythe side of that cradle in which its infancy was rocked; it willstretch forth its arm with whatever of vigor it may still retain, overthe friends who gather round it; and it will fall at last, if fall itmust, amidst the proudest monuments of its own glory, and on the veryspot of its origin. 

_The Outlook_, in a recent issue, first states a vital questionin literal and then, to drive home the meaning of the problem, infigurative language:--

Is the Constitution of the United States a series of inflexible ruleswhich can be changed only by the methods which those rules themselvesprescribe, or is it the expression of certain political principles bywhich a living and growing Nation has resolved to guide itself in itslife and growth? Is it an anchor which fastens the ship of state inone place, or a rudder to guide it on its voyage?

Sometimes figures of speech are used to such excess or in suchincongruous combinations that they detract from the effectiveness ofthe debate in which they occur rather than add to it. The distancefrom a forceful figure to an absurd figure is so short that a debaterhas to be on his guard against using expressions that will impress hisaudience as ridiculous or even funny. A mixture of highly figurativelanguage with literal language and commonplace ideas, and a mixture ofseveral figures are especially to be guarded against. As an example ofthe extent to which figures may be mixed the following will serve:--

"I'm up a tree, " admitted the bolting Senator, "but my back is to thewall and I'll die in the last ditch, going down with flags flying, and from the mountain top of Democracy, hurling defiance at the foe, soar on the wings of triumph, regardless of the party lash that barksat my heels. "

DELIVERY. 

To be a successful debater one must understand how to talk and how toact in the presence of an audience. Uncouthness in appearance andawkwardness in speech have often brought defeat. Moreover, it is notenough that a debater refrain from offending his audience; his bearingand his voice should be of positive assistance to him both in pleasingthem and in interpreting to them the ideas that he wishes to convey. First of all, a good delivery is one that assists in making theargument clear. Its next most important function is to make theargument forceful. A speaker should never rest content with being ableto present his argument merely with clearness; he should strive to beinteresting and impressive also. These qualities depend in no smallmeasure upon the way a speech is delivered. The best story or the bestargument will fall flat unless it is full of the fire of enthusiasm, unless the personality of the speaker vivifies it and makes it aliving reality. Unfortunately, this intangible quality in a speaker, often called "personality" or "magnetism, " cannot, to any greatextent, be taught. In the main, one must seek this and develop it forhimself. A text-book can point out what constitutes good form, what ispleasing and impressive to the eye and to the ear, and, in a word, what make up the externals of a good delivery; but beyond thesemechanical directions it cannot go. A student should observe thefollowing fundamental directions as his first step toward becoming asuccessful speaker. Afterwards, he should cultivate earnestness, enthusiasm, perception, a sense of humor, and all other such qualitiesas go to make up a really great speaker. 

POSITION. The best position for a debater to take on the stage is inthe centre well toward the front. He should take the centre because inthat position he can best see the entire audience, and the entireaudience can best see him. He should stand near the front edge of theplatform for several reasons: first, he can make himself more easilyunderstood; his voice need not be so loud in order to be hearddistinctly in every part of the hall. This is no small advantage forone who is not gifted with unusual powers of speech. In the nextplace, if a debater stands close to his audience, he can adopt a moreconversational style of delivery. He can establish a direct personalconnection between himself and his hearers and talk to them as man toman. If the hall is not too large, he need scarcely raise his voicefrom its accustomed tone; he can look his audience in the eye, receiving the stimulus of whatever interest they express; and at thesame time he can let them see in his features the earnestness andsincerity that he feels. To stand near the back of the stage isundoubtedly easier for one who is diffident or inexperienced; perhapshe will then be able partially to forget where he is and to imaginethat he is alone; but such an attitude both severs all personalconnection between speaker and hearer, and shows that the debater doesnot trust himself, that he has no great belief in his subject, andthat he fears his audience. An impression of this sort is a greathandicap even to the strongest case. If one would inspire confidence, he must appear confident; if one would make friends, he must befriendly, avoiding even a suggestion of aloofness. To accomplish thesepurposes as far as is possible by _action, _ a debater should comeclose to his audience, having every appearance of being glad that heis to speak and confident in the strength of the side that he is touphold. 

The next thing for a speaker to learn is how to stand. He should nottake a natural posture, as some writers say, unless that posture isone of strength and, to some degree, of grace. A student withouttraining will usually stand with his head protruding forward, hisshoulders drooping, his body twisted, and his feet far apart, with allhis weight on one leg. Such an attitude is enough to condemn one evenbefore he begins to speak. A slipshod appearance suggests slipshodthinking and reasoning. A speaker should always stand erect, with hishead back, chin in, shoulders rolled back and down; either the feetshould be near together with the weight of the body on both, or onefoot should be slightly in advance of the other with the weight of thebody entirely on the rear foot. In the latter case, the leg on whichthe body rests must form a straight line with the body, there being nounsightly bulging at the hip; and the leg on which the body does notrest must be slightly bent at the knee. This posture is not difficultto attain if one will practise it frequently, endeavoring in hiseveryday life to walk and stand in a soldierly manner. On the otherhand, erectness should not be carried to such an extreme as to becomestiffness. A debater's object is to be forceful and pleasing. Instriving for this end, he should always remember that he can veryeasily err in either of two directions. 

A debater should allow his hands, for the most part, to hang naturallyat his sides. There may be a great temptation for him to put them inhis pockets, but he should resist this for two reasons: such aprocedure is not considered good form, and his hands are lessavailable for instant use in the making of gestures. If one isdelivering a lengthy argument, there is no particular harm in puttingone hand behind the back for a short time, or even in front of thebody along the waist line, provided this can be done in an easy, natural manner; but in the case of a short speech, one will do well tokeep his hands at his sides. They must hang naturally in order not toattract attention, being neither closed tightly nor held rigidly open. If one will follow these directions, his hands and arms may feelawkward, but they will not appear so. 

Another important principle in the matter of position requires that adebater shall keep his eyes fixed on his audience. He must not look atthe floor, at the ceiling, or at the walls. He must look at the peoplehe would convince. Only in this way can he hope to hold theirattention. Only in this way can he win their confidence and reachtheir feelings. To look into space means to debate into space. 

In the next place, a speaker must beware of falling into ludicrous anddisgusting habits of deportment. Nervousness will often cause one inthe presence of an audience to keep making an unsightly gesture, apeculiar twitch or step that will absolutely ruin his whole speech. Some speakers have been known to change their weight from one foot tothe other as often as twenty or thirty times a minute. Other speakershave adopted a peculiar jerk of the head or a constant shrugging ofthe shoulders that is most disagreeable to see. Still others keepconstantly opening and shutting their hands. For years one speaker ofsome small prominence spent the greater part of his time while on theplatform in tugging at his coat, apparently in an effort to make itfit better around the collar. All such actions as these are to becarefully guarded against. 

A debater, however, is not expected to stand perfectly still: heshould use considerable interpretative and emphatic action. To beginwith, he ought not to stand all the time in exactly the same spot. Monotony of position is to be avoided as well as monotony of action orof voice. He will rest himself and his audience if he willoccasionally move about, taking two or three steps at a time. In doingthis he must never go backward; he must never retreat. If, for anyreason, he began his speech while standing near the rear or the centreof the stage, he should move forward; if he cannot go forward, he maymove back and forth near the edge of the platform. The best time forone to change his position is at the conclusion of a paragraph. Aparagraph division, it will be remembered, indicates a change inthought. If a debater, therefore, makes a longer pause than usual atthis point, and in addition alters his position slightly, he helpsinterpret his argument. He does for the hearer exactly whatindentation does for the reader. 

GESTURES. So much has been said and written about gestures that astudent is often puzzled to know whose advice to follow and what todo. Some writers say that no gestures at all are desirable; othersdeem them necessary, but declare that they should never be made unlessthey are spontaneous and natural. In the light of such conflictingadvice, what will determine the proper course for a student to follow?The answer to this question lies in a consideration of the ultimateobject of a course in debating. If it is to give students somefacility in expressing their thoughts before an audience, if it is totrain students for practical work in business and professional life, then those men who are recognized as the polished and powerfulspeakers of the day should be taken as models. Most of these, it willbe found, use gestures. There is but one reasonable course, then, forthe student to follow: he should make gestures. They may be crude andawkward at first, but only by practice can he ever hope to improvethem. 

The best method of procedure, undoubtedly, is for the beginner tobecome familiar with two or three of the most common gestures, learning how to make them and just what they signify. He should thenuse them. They may seem mechanical and ungainly at first, but constantpractice both in private and before a class will soon enable him tomake them with considerable emphasis and ease. From this point on, theroad is clear. The knowledge that he can use his hands to goodadvantage, even in a limited way, will soon cause him to make gesturesspontaneously. Nor will he be limited to the few with which hestarted. In the midst of an explanation and in the heat of animpassioned plea, he will find himself using gestures that he had notthought of before. The awkward and premeditated gesture with which hebegan will have become forceful and spontaneous. 

The gestures that a student should first learn to use must beillustrated to him by his instructor. To see a gesture made severaltimes gives one a better idea of how to make it and of what it meansthan could a dozen pages in a text-book. The choice of gestures, too, may rest with the instructor. It makes no particular difference withwhat ones a debater begins, provided that they are simple in executionand are such as he will wish to use in practically every debate intowhich he enters. Ordinarily, the best ones for a beginner to practiceon are those indicating emphasis. If he wishes for a wider field, hemight also try to use gestures indicating magnitude and contrast. Whenhe has finished with these, he should hesitate before deliberatelyintroducing many others. A debate is not a dramatic production, and itshould in no wise savor of melodrama. 

VOICE. Correct position and forceful gestures are very important, butupon no one thing does the success of a debater, aside from hisargument, depend so much as upon his voice. One may move his audiencein spite of an awkward posture and in the absence of all intelligentgestures, but unless his voice meets certain requirements, his case isalmost hopeless. Above all else a speaker's voice must be distinct. 

Distinctness depends upon several things. First, the voice must beloud enough to be heard without difficulty in every part of the room. To produce this result, one should speak especially to those in therear, carefully watching to see whether he holds their attention; atthe same time he must be careful not to shout in a manner unpleasantto those sitting nearer him. The stress laid by public speakers uponthe matter of loudness is well illustrated by a story told of one ofthe foremost orators of the day. It is said that he invariablystations some one in the back of the audience to signal to him whenhis voice is either too low or unnecessarily loud. 

In the next place, distinctness depends upon enunciation. The debaterwho drops off final syllables, slurs consonants, runs words together, or talks without using his lips and without opening his mouth is hardto understand. It often requires considerable conscious effort topronounce each syllable in a word distinctly, but the resultingclearness is worth a strenuous attempt. One great cause of poorenunciation is too rapid talking. A fairly slow delivery is preferablenot only because the words can be more easily understood, but alsobecause it gives a debater the appearance of being more careful andaccurate in his reasoning. Great rapidity in speech may be due tonervousness or inexperience; whatever its cause, it is usually fatalto distinctness. 

A pleasing tone of voice is not of so great moment as distinctness ofutterance, yet its cultivation is by no means to be neglected. Harsh, rasping sounds and nasal twangs are disagreeable to hear, and nospeaker can afford to offend his audience in this way. An unpleasantvoice may be the result of some physical defect; more often it iscaused by sheer carelessness. In most cases a little practice willproduce a wonderful change. A very common breach of elegance inspeaking is the habit of drawling out an _er_ sound betweenwords. The constant repetition of this is exceedingly annoying. It isusually caused by an attempt to fill in a gap while the speaker isgroping about for the next word. The best way to correct this blunderis to be so familiar with what one is going to say that there will beno gap to fill in; but in case one does have to hunt for words, it isa thousand times preferable to leave the gap unfilled. Each wordshould stand out by itself, even though there is a pause of manyseconds. To offend the ears of an audience with a crude tone of voiceor with meaningless sounds is a bad violation of propriety. 

The first step to be taken in the cultivation of a distinct andpleasing voice is to acquire the habit of standing correctly. Underthe subject of position it was stated that the body should be kepterect, the head thrown back, and the shoulders rolled back and down. This posture is the best not only because it is the most graceful butbecause it gives the speaker the greatest command of his vocal organs. Stooping shoulders and a bowed trunk contract the lungs and diminishthe supply of breath, and a bent neck renders the cords of the neckless controllable. After taking the proper position, one should nextendeavor to breathe as deeply as he can. The louder he has to speak, the deeper should be his breathing. Remembering that he does not wishto talk fast, he will do well to fill his lungs at the close of eachsentence, always inhaling, in order not to make an unpleasant gaspingnoise, through the nose. While speaking, he should control his supplyof breath not by contracting the chest but by elevating the diaphragm. This procedure will give his voice a richness and a resonance that itotherwise could not have. Breathing merely from the top of the lungsmeans squeakiness of tone and poor control. One who breathesincorrectly will find it necessary to shout to make himself heard at adistance; one who breathes correctly can usually be heard under thesame conditions by merely talking. The superiority of the round, deeptone over the shout is too obvious to need comment. In the next place, a speaker must think about this voice. Thought and study are asessential in the training of a voice as in the mastery of any art. Anatural voice is not usually pleasing; it becomes so only throughcultivation. Much of this training can be done by the speaker unaided. Few people are so insensible to qualities of sound that they cannotdetect harshness and impurities even in their own utterance, providedthat they will give the matter their attention. It is not enough, however, for one to watch his voice only while he is debating or whilehe is repeating his arguments in preparation for a debate; he mustcarry constant watchfulness even into his daily conversation. Theservices of a good instructor are invaluable, but at best they can beonly auxiliary. All improvement must come through the efforts of thespeaker himself. 

ATTITUDE TOWARD OPPONENTS. If one will bear in mind that thefundamental purpose of argument--whether written or spoken--is topresent truth in such a way as to influence belief, he will at onceunderstand that a debater should always maintain toward his opponentsthe attitude of one who is trying to change another's belief, theattitude of friendship, fairness, and respect. Such a point of viewprecludes the use of satire, invective, or harsh epithets. Thesenever carry conviction; in fact, they invariably destroy the effectthat an otherwise good argument might produce. Ridicule and blustermay please those who already agree with the speaker, but with thesepeople he should be little concerned; a debater worthy of the nameseeks to change the opinions of those who disagree with him. For thisreason he is diplomatic, courteous, and urbane. 

A debater should, moreover, keep to this same attitude even though hisopponent introduce objectionable personalities. One will find it forhis own best interest to do so. Good humor makes a far betterimpression than anger; it suggests strength and superiority, whileanger, as everyone knows, is often the result of chagrin, and is usedto cover up weaknesses. Besides, an audience always sympathizes withthe man who is first attacked. All this does not mean that a debatershould calmly submit to unfairness and vilification. On the contrary, he should defend himself spiritedly; but he should not meet abuse withabuse. To do so would be to throw away an invaluable opportunity. Heshould remain dignified, self-controlled, and good-humored; then bytreating his opponent as one who has inadvertently fallen into error, and by pointing out the mistakes, the unfairness, and the way in whichthe real question has been ignored, he can gain an inestimableadvantage. 

The following quotations show what attitude a debater should maintaintoward his opponents:--

As I do not precisely agree in opinion with any gentleman who hasspoken, I shall take the liberty of detaining the committee for a fewmoments while I offer to their attention some observations. I amhighly gratified with the temper and ability with which the discussionhas hitherto been conducted. It is honorable to the House, and, Itrust, will continue to be manifested on many future occasions. (HenryClay. )

Mr. President, I had occasion a few days ago to expose the uttergroundlessness of the personal charges made by the Senator fromIllinois against myself and the other signers of the IndependentDemocratic Appeal. I now move to strike from this bill a statementwhich I will to-day demonstrate to be without any foundation in factor history. I intend afterwards to move to strike out the whole clauseannulling the Missouri prohibition. 

I enter into this debate, Mr. President, in no spirit of personalunkindness. The issue is too grave and too momentous for theindulgence of such feelings. I see the great question before me, andthat question only. (Salmon P. Chase. )

Compare the attitude of Mr. Naylor in the following quotation with theattitude of Mr. Lincoln in his debates with Senator Douglas. It isneedless to point out which must have had the better effect upon theaudience. 

The gentleman has misconceived the spirit and tendency of Northerninstitutions. He is ignorant of Northern character. He has forgottenthe history of his country. Preach insurrection to the Northernlaborers! Preach insurrection to _me_! Who are the Northernlaborers? The history of your country is their history. (CharlesNaylor. )

My Fellow-Citizens: When a man hears himself somewhat misrepresented, it provokes him--at least, I find it so with myself; but whenmisrepresentation becomes very gross and palpable, it is more apt toamuse him. The first thing I see fit to notice is the fact that JudgeDouglas alleges, after running through the history of the oldDemocratic and the old Whig parties, that Judge Trumbull and myselfmade an arrangement in 1854 by which I was to have the place ofGeneral Shields in the United States Senate, and Judge Trumbull was tohave the place of Judge Douglas. Now all I have to say upon thatsubject is that I think no man--not even Judge Douglas--can prove it, because it is not true. I have no doubt he is "conscientious" insaying it. As to those resolutions that he took such a length of timeto read, as being the platform of the Republican party in 1854, I sayI never had anything to do with them, and I think Trumbull never had. (Abraham Lincoln in the Ottawa Joint Debate. )

Judge Douglas has told me that he heard my speeches north and myspeeches south--that he heard me at Ottawa and at Freeport in thenorth, and recently at Jonesboro in the south, and that there was avery different cast of sentiment in the speeches made at the differentpoints. I will not charge upon Judge Douglas that he willfullymisrepresents me, but I call upon every fair-minded man to take thosespeeches and read them, and I dare him to point out any differencebetween my speeches north and south. (Lincoln in the Charleston JointDebate. )

HOW TO JUDGE A DEBATE. 

Three judges usually award the decision in a debating contest. Theirsole duty is to determine which side had the better of the argument. Sometimes the method that they shall follow in arriving at a decisionis marked out for them; they are given printed slips indicating therelative importance of evidence, reasoning, delivery, and the otherpoints that must be considered. Most commonly, however, each judge isinstructed to decide for himself what constitutes excellence indebate. According to the rules governing any particular debate, thejudges may cast their ballots with or without previous consultationwith each other. 

The following outline gives in condensed form the main points that ajudge should consider. It will be of service not only to the judges ofa debate but to the contestants, as it gives a comprehensive view ofjust what is expected of a debater. 

 I. Which side has the better analysis?

 II. Which side has the stronger proof?

 A. Consider the preponderance of the evidence. 

 B. Consider the quality of the evidence. 

 C. Consider the skill used in reasoning. 

III. Which side offers the better refutation?

 A. See which side has the more main points left standing after the refutation has been given. 

 IV. Which side has the better delivery?

 A. Consider general bearing, voice, and language. 

CHAPTER X

THE CONCLUSION

Most arguments have a more or less formal ending. Both writers andspeakers, when seeking to influence the beliefs and acts of others, have usually deemed it advisable, upon completing their proof, to adda few summarizing words and to make a final appeal to the emotions. This part of the argument that comes at the close and that contains nonew proof is called the _conclusion_, or the _peroration_. In spoken argument, occasionally, the conclusion is wholly ignored. Ifat any time, regardless of the point he may have reached, an arguerclearly perceives that he has won his case, he is wise to stopimmediately and avoid the danger of adding anything that mightpossibly detract from his success. Such an experience may frequentlyhappen to a salesman, a preacher, a lawyer. Arguments, however, thatare written or that are delivered before large audiences cannot becurtailed in this way. Under such conditions the arguer is unable totell when he has won his case: he must use all his proof and make itemphatic in every way possible. Therefore the student who is arguingfor the sake of practice will do well to disregard exceptions and toclose all his arguments, both written and spoken, with a peroration. 

The same two elements--conviction and persuasion--that make up theintroduction and the discussion are ordinarily found also in theconclusion. The general principles that govern the proportionateamount of each to be used in the first two divisions of an argumentapply equally to the third division. In every case the relative amountof space to be devoted to conviction and to persuasion depends uponthe nature of the subject and the attitude of the audience. In someinstances a conclusion should consist wholly of conviction; in otherinstances persuasion should predominate; most commonly there should bea judicious combination of both. 

In concluding an argument before the United States Supreme Court onthe question of whether or not a certain law passed in New York wasrepugnant to the Constitution or consistent with it, Webster spoke asfollows:--

To recapitulate what has been said, we maintain, first, that theConstitution, by its grants to Congress and its prohibitions on theStates, has sought to establish one uniform standard of value, ormedium of payment. Second, that, by like means, it has endeavored toprovide for one uniform mode of discharging debts when they are to bedischarged without payment. Third, that these objects are connected, and that the first loses much of its importance, if the last, also, benot accomplished. Fourth, that, reading the grant to Congress, and theprohibition on the States together, the inference is strong that theConstitution intended to confer exclusive power to pass bankrupt lawson Congress. Fifth, that the prohibition in the tenth section reachesto all contracts, existing or future, in the same way that the otherprohibition in the same section extends to all debts existing orfuture. Sixth, that, upon any other construction, one great politicalobject of the Constitution will fail of its accomplishment. [Footnote:The Case of Ogden and Saunders. Webster's Great Speeches, page 188. Little, Brown & Co. ]

In this conclusion, it will be noticed, there is no persuasion. Apparently the subject was of such a nature that only clear andlogical reasoning was required. An appeal to the emotions wouldundoubtedly have been out of place. In direct contrast to thepreceding method of summarizing a speech a good example of apersuasive conclusion may be found in _The Dartmouth CollegeCase_, which Webster argued before this same tribunal, and whichalso involved the constitutionality of a State law. In this perorationWebster's emotional appeal was so strong that, it is said, there wasnot a dry eye in the court room. 

In writing as well as in speaking one must allow common sense todecide what shall be the nature of his peroration. The following is atypical example of a conclusion into which persuasion cannot wellenter. It is taken from the close of a chapter, selected at random, inDarwin's _Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs_. 

It has, I think, been shown in this chapter, that subsidence explainsboth the normal structure and the less regular forms of those twogreat classes of reefs which have justly excited the astonishment ofall the naturalists who have sailed through the Pacific and Indianoceans. The necessity, also, that a foundation should have existed atthe proper depth for the growth of the corals over certain largeareas, almost compels us to accept this theory. But further to testits truth a crowd of questions may be asked. .. . These severalquestions will be considered in the following chapter. 

A type of conclusion far more common and usually far more effective isone that not only refers to the preceding arguments but also containsconsiderable persuasion. The peroration marks the final opportunityfor the arguer to move his audience. Here he should make his greatesteffort. Since belief and action ordinarily depend upon both theintellect and the will, the arguer who would attain success mustappeal to both. Merely to call to mind the proof that he has advancedis seldom enough: he must arouse the emotions. The peroration of anargument is like the finish of a race or the last charge in a battle. In the conclusion the arguer should use his greatest skill, hisstrongest eloquence. Here are found the most inspiring passages in themasterpieces of oratory. 

Some of the various ways for reaching the emotions have been pointedout in the chapter dealing with persuasion in the introduction. Thesesame suggestions apply equally well to persuasion in the conclusion. The best advice that can be given, however, is for one to use hiscommon sense. He must consider his subject, his audience, his ability, and his own interest in the case--all the circumstances in connectionwith his argument--and then depend, not upon some set formula, butupon his judgment to tell him in what way he can best be persuasive. The following illustrations will give some idea of how successfulwriters and speakers have concluded their arguments with persuasion. Notice the patriotic appeal in the first quotation:--

Whether we have or have not degenerated compared with (say) fifty or ahundred years ago may be a question difficult to settle, but it isquite clear that we are pitifully, disastrously below the normalstandard of manhood and womanhood which a great nation should setitself. 

Adequate nourishment for our children, immunity from exhausting andmechanical employments at the most critical period of adolescence, anextension of educational influences--can there be any objects ofexpenditures more likely than these to repay themselves a thousandfoldin the improved vigor and intelligence which form the only sure basisof a nation's greatness? [Footnote: Frances E. Warwick, FortnightlyReview, Vol. LXXIX, p. 515. ]

In the following the speaker points out the awful responsibilityresting upon the jury and exhorts them to render justice:--

Let me, therefore, remind you, that though the day may soon come whenour ashes shall be scattered before the winds of heaven, the memory ofwhat you do cannot die. It will carry down to your posterity yourhonor or your shame. In the presence, and in the name of thateverliving God, I do therefore conjure you to reflect that you haveyour characters, your consciences, that you have also the character, perhaps the ultimate destiny, of your country in your hands. In thatawful name I do conjure you to have mercy upon your country and uponyourselves, and so to judge now as you will hereafter be judged; and Ido now submit the fate of my client, and of that country which we haveyet in common to your disposal. [Footnote: John Philpot Curran, On theLiberty of the Press. ]

In the following extract from the conclusion of Webster's plea in_The Dartmouth College Case_ consider how he showed the magnitudeof the question that was at issue:--

The case before the court is not of ordinary importance, nor ofeveryday occurrence. It affects not this college only, but everycollege, and all the literary institutions of the country. They haveflourished hitherto, and have become in a high degree respectable anduseful to the community. They have all a common principle ofexistence, the inviolability of their charters. It will be adangerous, a most dangerous experiment, to hold these institutionssubject to the rise and fall of popular parties, and the fluctuationof political opinions. If the franchise may at any time be taken away, or impaired, the property also may be taken away, or impaired, or itsuse perverted. Benefactors will have no certainty of effecting theobject of their bounty; and learned men will be deterred from devotingthemselves to the service of such institutions, from the precarioustitle of their offices. Colleges and halls will be deserted by allbetter spirits, and become a theatre for the contentions of politics. Party and faction will be cherished in the places consecrated to pietyand learning. These consequences are neither remote nor possible only. They are certain and immediate. [Footnote: Webster's Great Speeches, p. 23. ]

As a rule, most of the criticisms that can be made of any conclusionpertain to matters of taste and judgment. A writer or speaker may havemade too detailed or too brief a summary; he may have erred inchoosing the best method of persuasion; he may have injured hisargument in almost countless other ways. In these matters a text-bookcan give only general and rather vague instruction. Each argument mustbe suited to the particular case in hand. There are several commonerrors in students' work, however, that should always be avoided andthat can definitely be pointed out. 

1. _An argument should not have an abrupt and jerky ending_. Itis not uncommon especially in class room debate, to hear a student atthe close of his discussion say, "This is my proof; I leave thedecision to the judges"; or "Thus you see I have established myproposition. " Such an ending can in no way be called a conclusion or aperoration. 

2. _A conclusion should contain no new proof_. Violations of thisprinciple brand an arguer as careless, and greatly weaken hisargument. Proof is most convincing when arranged in its proper placeand in its logical order. Furthermore, the purpose of the conclusionis to review the points that have already been established. If thearguer forgets this fact and mixes proof with summary, the audience isliable to become badly confused and not know what has been establishedand what has not. 

3. _A conclusion should not refer to a point that has not alreadybeen established_. A careless writer or debater will sometimesstate that he has proved an argument which he has not previouslytouched upon. Such a procedure smacks of trickery or ignorance, and issure to be disastrous. Not only will the audience throw out thatparticular point, but they will be highly prejudiced against both thearguer and his argument. It is permissible for one to maintain that hehas proved a point even though the proof be somewhat inadequate, butfor one to refer in his conclusion to a point that he then mentionsfor the first time is unpardonable. 

4. _A conclusion must reaffirm the proposition exactly as stated atthe beginning_. Sometimes a writer, discovering at the close of hisargument that he has not stuck to his subject but has proved somethingdifferent, or at best has proved only a part of his subject, states ashis decision a totally different proposition from that with which hestarted. To illustrate, a student once attempted to argue on theaffirmative side of the proposition, "The United States shoulddiscontinue its protective tariff policy"; but he gave as hisconcluding sentence, "These facts, then, prove to you that our presenttariff duties are too high. " This last sentence embodied the realproposition which he had discussed, and if he had taken as hissubject, "Our present tariff duties are too high, " his argument wouldhave been successful. As it was, his failure to support theproposition with which he started rendered his whole effort worthless. 

A conclusion that is weaker than the proposition is commonly called a"qualifying conclusion. " When one has fallen into this error there aretwo possible ways of removing it: one is to change the whole argumentso that the conclusion will affirm the truth or falsity of theproposition; the other is to change the proposition. In a debate, ofcourse, or whenever a subject is assigned, the latter method cannot befollowed. 

As a final example of what a good peroration should be, consider thefollowing conclusion of Webster's speech, delivered in the UnitedStates Senate, on _The Presidential Veto of the United States BankBill_. Notice the skillful interweaving of conviction andpersuasion, and remember in connection with the principle ofproportion that this is the conclusion of a speech containing about14, 000 words. 

"Mr. President, we have arrived at a new epoch. We are entering onexperiments, with the government and the Constitution of the country, hitherto untried, and of fearful and appalling aspect. This messagecalls us to the contemplation of a future which little resembles thepast. Its principles are at war with all that public opinion hassustained, and all which the experience of the government hassanctioned. It denies first principles; it contradicts truths, hitherto received as indisputable. It denies to the judiciary theinterpretation of law, and claims to divide with Congress the power oforiginating statutes. It extends the grasp of executive pretensionover every power of the government. But this is not all. It presentsthe chief magistrate of the Union in the attitude of arguing away thepowers of that government over which he has been chosen to preside;and adopting for this purpose modes of reasoning which, even under theinfluence of all proper feeling towards high official station, it isdifficult to regard as respectable. It appeals to every prejudicewhich may betray men into a mistaken view of their own interests, andto every passion which may lead them to disobey the impulses of theirunderstanding. It urges all the specious topics of State rights andnational encroachment against that which a great majority of theStates have affirmed to be rightful, and in which all of them haveacquiesced. It sows, in an unsparing manner, the seeds of jealousy andill-will against that government of which its author is the officialhead. It raises a cry, that liberty is in danger, at the very momentwhen it puts forth claims to powers heretofore unknown and unheard of. It affects alarm for the public freedom, when nothing endangers thatfreedom so much as its own unparalleled pretences. This, even, is notall. It manifestly seeks to inflame the poor against the rich; itwantonly attacks whole classes of the people, for the purpose ofturning against them the prejudices and the resentment of otherclasses. It is a state paper which finds no topic too exciting for itsuse, no passion to inflammable for its address and its solicitation. 

"Such is this message. It remains now for the people of the UnitedStates to choose between the principles here avowed and theirgovernment. These cannot subsist together. The one or the other mustbe rejected. If the sentiments of the message shall receive generalapprobation, the Constitution will have perished even earlier than themoment which its enemies originally allowed for the termination of itsexistence. It will not have survived to its fiftieth year. " [Footnote:Webster's Great Speeches, page 338. ]

APPENDICES. 

APPENDIX A

A WRITTEN ARGUMENT AND ITS BRIEF. 

SHOULD IMMIGRATION BE RESTRICTED? [Footnote: The North AmericanReview, May, 1897, page 526. ]

SIMON GREENLEAF CROSWELL

During recent years there has been a growing interest in plans forfurther checking or limiting the tide of immigration whose waves sweepin upon the United States almost daily in constantly increasingvolume. Several restrictive measures are already in force: paupers, idiots, contract laborers, the Chinese, and several other classes ofpeople are prohibited from entering our ports. The subject has beendiscussed in legislatures, in political meetings, from pulpits, inreform clubs, and among individuals on every hand. The reason for theinterest which the subject now excites is easily found in the recentenormous increase of immigration. 

The problem divides itself at the outset into two distinct questions:First, is it for the advantage of the United States that immigrationbe further checked or limited? Second, if so, in what way should thecheck or limit be applied?

It is evident that these questions cover two distinct fields ofinquiry, the industrial and the political. Nor can the two fields beexamined simultaneously, for the reasons, if there are any, from apolitical point of view, why immigration should be limited, would notapply to the questions viewed on its industrial side, and _viceversa_. 

Taking up first the industrial question, we may assume that theentrance of the swarms of immigrants into our country represents theintroduction of just so much laboring power into the country, and wemay also assume as a self-evident proposition that the introduction oflaboring power into an undeveloped or partially developed country isadvantageous until the point is reached at which all the laborers whomthe country can support have been introduced. Adam Smith says thatlabor is the wealth of nations. If this is true, the laborer is thedirect and only primary means of acquiring wealth. The facts of thehistory of our country bear out this view. Beginning with the clearingof the forests, the settlements of the villages, the cultivation offarms, proceeding to the establishment of the lumber industries, thecultivation of vast wheat and corn fields, the production of cotton, the working of the coal and oil fields of Pennsylvania, thedevelopment of the mining districts of the West, culminating in thevaried and extensive manufactures of the Eastern and Central States, the laborer has been the Midas whose touch has turned all things togold. 

There is, however, a limitation to the principle that the introductionof laborers into a partially developed country is advantageous. Apoint is finally reached which may be called the saturation point ofthe country; that is, it has as many inhabitants as it can supply withreasonably good food and clothing. This saturation point may bereached many times in the history of a country, for the ratio betweenthe food and clothing products and the population is constantlyvarying. New modes of cultivation, and the use of machinery, as wellas natural causes affecting the fertility of land, which are as yetobscure, render a country at one time capable of supporting a muchlarger number of inhabitants than at another time. Still, there is abroad and general truth that, time and place and kind of people beingconsidered, some countries are over-populated, and some are under-populated. 

We are accustomed to say that some of the countries of Europe areover-populated, and there are among us some who are beginning to saythat the United States has reached the same point. This is far frombeing the case, and a single glance at the comparative average densityof population of the principal European nations and of the UnitedStates will be sufficient to drive this idea out of any fair-mindedperson's head. 

The most thickly settled country of modern Europe is the Netherlands, which had, in the year 1890, the very large average of three hundredand fifty-nine inhabitants per square mile of territory. Great Britaincame next, with the almost equally large average of three hundred andeleven inhabitants per square mile of territory. Germany had twohundred and thirty-four and France one hundred and eighty-seven. Taking in for purposes of comparison, though not of much force in theargument, China, we find there an average population of two hundredand ninety-five inhabitants per square mile of territory. It is aquestion of some difficulty to decide in any specific case whether acountry has reached the point of over-population. We may admit thatGreat Britain, with its average of three hundred and eleveninhabitants per mile, is over-populated, though the conditions of lifedo not seem to be wholly intolerable, even to the lowest classesthere. If Great Britain is over-populated, _a fortiori_ are theNetherlands, and we may even go so far as to admit that Germany, withits average of two hundred and thirty-four inhabitants per squaremile, is over-populated. But when we come to France, with its onehundred and eighty-seven inhabitants per square mile, we may pause andsee what are the conditions of the French people. So far as it ispossible to judge of a people in the lump, it would seem that thepopulation of France is not excessive for the area. The land holdingsare divided up into very small lots, but are held by a great number ofpeople. Mackenzie, in his history of the nineteenth century, says thatnearly two-thirds of the French householders are landowners, whileonly one British householder in every four is an owner of land. Thiscondition results partly from the difference in the system ofinheritance of land in the two countries, but would be impossible ifthe country were over-populated. Moreover, there are five millions ofpeople in France whose possessions in land are under six acres each. 

Taking, then, the population of France, averaging 187 per squaremile, as being at least not above the normal rate of population, whatdo we find in comparing it with the population of the United States?We find over here vast tracts of country, amounting to nearly one-third by actual measurement, of the whole area of the United States, and including all the States west of the Missouri and Mississippivalleys (except a portion of California), having a population of lessthan six individuals per square mile. It would seem as if the merestatement of this fact were alone sufficient to disprove anyproposition which asserts that the saturation point of population hasbeen reached in the United States. While that immense expanse ofcountry averages only six individuals to the square mile, there can beno reason for saying that this country is over-populated. Coming nowto the more thickly settled portions of the United States, we find alarge area spread out over various parts of the States having apopulation between seven and forty-five individuals per square mile. In a very few States, New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, andIndiana, the population of the whole State averages over forty-fiveand under ninety individuals per square mile, and the same averageholds in parts of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Illinois, Kentucky, andisolated spots in the South. In a small territory, made up of parts ofMassachusetts, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, the population averagesover ninety per square mile. 

The contrast between these averages of population in various portionsof the United States, the highest of which is about ninety individualsper mile (and that over very small portions of the area of the UnitedStates) and the average densities of the European countries, previously examined, shows how very far the United States is fromcomplete population. This appears still more clearly when the averagepopulation of the United States taken as a whole, is considered, whichis the extraordinary low figure of twenty individuals per square mileof territory What a striking contrast! Can the most ardent advocate ofthe Malthusian doctrine claim that the United States already has toomany inhabitants, or is in danger of having too many in the immediatefuture? Do we not rather need to encourage immigration, to fling wideopen the gates of our country and secure as large an addition to ourworking force as possible?

When we come to the political aspect of the problem, however, a whollydifferent series of considerations present themselves. The questionnow is not how many citizens, but what sort of citizens. The theory ofour government is not limited to any number of people. It provides forexpansion in the number of representatives in Congress in proportionto the increase in population, and increases the number of Senators asnew States are formed and added to the Union. Similarly each Stategovernment has elastic provisions which enable it to cover apopulation of 400, 000 as well as a population of 40, 000. But the onecritical test in determining whether or not our immigration should belimited for political reasons is the character of the people whom weare admitting to the privilege of citizenship in the United States. 

In order to investigate successfully the political effect of theimmigration, it is necessary, at the outset, to divide it into itsconstituent nationalities, so that taking up each nationality in turn, we may see what fitness it has from its previous political training inits native country for undertaking the duties of American citizenship. The disintegration of the tide of immigration into these constituentparts affords some interesting information which will be seen to havea bearing, in several directions, on the questions under considerationin this article. Taking the statistics of the year 1891 as a typicalyear of recent immigration, the tide of immigration amounted in roundnumbers to 500, 000 individuals. 

The largest feeder of this enormous stream came from Germany, whichsent, roughly speaking, 100, 000. But a noticeable point about thisnationality is the great decrease in the number of immigrants it hassent us in the last fifteen years. In the year 1882 the total Germanimmigration into the United States amounted to no less than 250, 000, but in 1883 and 1884 there was a great decrease, and since then theaverage has remained in the neighborhood of 100, 000. We shall seelater that on the other hand, the immigration from the Latin and Slavnations of Europe, particularly Italy, Poland, and Austria, shows anenormous rate of increase in the same period, although, of course, theabsolute amounts are much less than those of the German immigration. 

The next largest feeder to our stream of immigration in the year 1891, the typical year of our examination, was Italy, which contributed76, 000 immigrants to our population. It is noteworthy to remark, inthis connection, that Italy has more than doubled her annual rate ofcontributions to our people in the ten years under consideration, theimmigration from her shores in 1882 being only 32, 000. 

The next largest contributor is Austria, which in 1891 furnished71, 000 new members of our community. Austria, too, has doubled herrate of contribution, sending us in 1882 only 32, 000. Next come, sideby side, in their offerings to our population, England and Ireland, each of which countries sends us about 50, 000 new inhabitants eachyear, and has continued to do so for the last fifteen years. Russia, exclusive of Poland, sent 47, 000 in 1891, this being three times thenumber which she sent in 1882, a large increase. Sweden came next with36, 000 immigrants and that country shows a woeful falling-off ofnearly one-half in the ten years under consideration, for in the year1882 it sent 64, 000. Poland in 1891 sent us 27, 000 immigrants, showingan enormous increase of nearly sevenfold over its contribution of4, 000 in 1882. Scotland and Norway and Denmark all send about the samenumber, that is, about 12, 000 each; Norway showing a diminution in thedecade ending 1891, from 29, 000 in 1882, but the other two remainingabout stationary. Switzerland in 1891 sent 6, 000, a diminution from10, 000 in 1882. The Netherlands sent 5, 000 in 1891, a decrease from9, 000 in 1882. France sent 6, 000 and Belgium 3, 000, these figuresbeing about the same during all the years covered by ourinvestigation. I have left out of account the only other importantfactor in our immigration in the ten years considered, namely, China, because the door was shut in its face with considerable emphasis in1883, and the immigration from China to the Western States, which in1882 amounted to 40, 000 fell in 1883 to 8, 000, and in 1884 to 279individuals, and may, therefore, be neglected at the present time. 

Now, an examination of the political institutions in the countriesfrom which these immigrants come would show that in almost no case, that of Russia and Poland alone excepted, are the elements ofrepresentative government wholly unknown to the common people. In mostof these countries, some form of popular government has, either whollyor partially, gained a footing, with the inevitable result ofaccustoming people more or less to representative institutions. Yetthe short time that this has been the case in many of the countrieswhich pour half or over of the total flood of immigration into theUnited States, and the long centuries of despotism which preceded thispartial and recent enlightenment, make it painfully evident that therecan be, in the large part of our immigrants, little knowledge of therepublican form of government, and little inherited aptitude for suchgovernment. It would at first seem as if the results of suchimmigration must be disastrous to our country. 

And yet the situation is not so hopeless. There is nothing mysterious, or even very complicated, about republican institutions. A littletime, a little study, a little experience with the practical workingsof elections, is sufficient to convey to any person of ordinaryintelligence as much familiarity with these matters as is necessaryfor the intelligent appreciation of their objects and purposes. Nor isthe material out of which the prospective citizen is to be made whollyunfitted for its purpose. To be sure, the Latin races, the Slavs, Hungarians, Poles, and others have no inherited aptitude, nor if wemay judge from the history of the races, any inherent capacity forself-government and free institutions, but, as I have before said, inalmost every case they have had in their own country a partialtraining in the forms of representative government. All that is neededis to amalgamate this heterogeneous mass, to fuse its elements in theheat and glow of our national life, until, formed in the mould ofeveryday experience, each one shall possess the characteristicfeatures of what we believe to be the highest type of humandevelopment which the world has seen, the American citizen. 

The process of acquiring American citizenship is regulated by acts ofCongress. It is a simple process. Practically all that is required isa continuous residence of five years in the States, and one year inthe special State in which citizenship is applied for, and thedeclaration of intention to become a citizen may be made immediatelyupon landing. This last point will be seen later to be very important. 

Citizenship in the United States, however, under the act of Congress, does not carry with it the right to vote. This right is entirely amatter of State regulation, and the Constitution or statutes of eachState settle who shall have the right to vote in its elections. Theunderlying idea of the whole system is universal male suffrage, andthe franchise is granted (after a certain residence, which will bediscussed later) with only certain general limitations of obviousutility, such as that the voter must be twenty-one years of age, thathe must not be an idiot or insane, and generally, that he must nothave been convicted of any felony or infamous crime, although in manyStates a pardon, or the serving of a sentence, will restore a felon tohis civil rights. In a few of the States paupers are also excludedfrom voting. With the question of woman suffrage we have nothing todo, as its settlement, one way or the other, does not affect thesubject we are discussing. 

The important qualification, however, in relation to the subjectswhich we are discussing, is that which requires residence in the Stateprevious to the exercise of the franchise. And on this point theStates may be divided into two great classes. One class allows no oneto vote who is not, under the laws of Congress, a citizen of theUnited States, either native or naturalized. As we have seen that fiveyears' residence is a requisite to United States citizenship, theseStates, therefore, require five years' residence as a prerequisite toacquiring the right to vote. These States are California, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, andWashington. This requirement is admirably calculated to secure thatpreliminary training in the practical working of our institutionswhich must be necessary to most of the immigrants before they canintelligently exercise the rights which are conferred upon them byAmerican citizenship and we cannot but admire the sagacity andjudiciousness of those who framed our naturalization laws in selectingthis period of time for the pupilage of the intending citizen. Theperiod is long enough even for one who is engrossed in the cares ofearning a support for himself and his family, amid all the excitementand novelty of a changed residence, to acquire in the five succeedingannual elections a sufficient knowledge of republican government forall practical purpose. To delay him longer in the exercise of hispolitical rights would be an injustice; to admit him to them soonerwould be an imprudence. 

There are in a few States other qualifications required of a voter. The most important of these is the educational qualification, whichexists only in Connecticut and Massachusetts. In neither of these isit very severe. In Connecticut the voter must be able to read anyarticle in the State Constitution, and any section of the statutes. InMassachusetts he must be able to read the Constitution and to writehis name. Too much praise can hardly be given to these requirements. The whole edifice of our national life is founded upon education, andto this potent factor must we look for many of the improvementsnecessary to the proper development of our national life. 

In quite a number of States a pecuniary qualification exists in theshape of the payment of some tax, generally a poll tax, within twoyears previous to the date of the election. This requirement does notseem to be so germane to the spirit of our institutions as the other. The great present danger of our country is the danger of becoming aplutocracy, and while there is no doubt that a widespread interest inproperty develops stability of institutions, yet there is also greatdanger of capital obtaining so firm and strong a hold upon politicalinstitutions as to crush out the life of free government and toconvert the national government into a species of close corporation, in which the relative wealth of the parties alone controls. Thisqualification is found in Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas. 

We have now examined with some thoroughness the component parts of thetide of immigration as it arrives at our shores; we have seen whatnationalities go to make up the grand total and what previous trainingthey have had in the political institutions of their native countriesto fit them for American citizenship, and what additional requirementsare imposed upon them by our statutes before they can participate invoting and government in this country. What are the conclusions towhich the view of these facts brings us? They seem to me to be these:first, that the growth of immigration is a desirable thing for thiscountry from an industrial point of view; second, that the immigrantswho arrive at our shores are for the most part good material out ofwhich to make American citizens. Applying these conclusions to thequestions which were stated at the outset of this article; first, isit for the advantage of the United States that immigration should bechecked or limited? second, if so, in what way should the check orlimit be applied? the answer would be that no further check or limitshould be applied, but that a check should be placed upon the exerciseof the franchise by immigrants in all States by requiring a residenceof five years in this country before they can vote, and by alsorequiring some moderate educational test. 

With these safeguards established we might look without any seriousapprehension upon the increase of our population. The founders of ourstate moulded the outlines of its form in large and noble lines. Theskeleton has grown and clothed itself with flesh with almostincredible rapidity in the hundred years of its existence. But it isstill young. We should avoid any measures which would stunt or deformits growth and should allow it to develop freely and generously tillthe full-grown American nation stands forth pre-eminent among thenations of the earth, in size, as well as in character andorganization, and man's last experiment in government is clearly seento be an unequivocal success. 

ARGUMENT AND BRIEF

SHOULD IMMIGRATION BE RESTRICTED?

NEGATIVE BRIEF. 

INTRODUCTION. 

 I. The enormous increase in immigration gives rise to a growing interest in some plan for further limiting the number of immigrants coming to the United States. 

 A. Paupers, idiots, contract laborers, the Chinese, and several other classes of people are already excluded. 

 B. The subject has been discussed in legislatures, in political meetings, from pulpits, in reform clubs, and among individuals. 

 II. The problem divides itself into two distinct questions:--

 A. Is it for the advantage of the United States that immigration be further checked or limited?

 B. If so, in what way should the check or limit be applied?

III. These questions must be considered, first, from the industrial point of view; and, secondly, from the political point of view. 

DISCUSSION. 

Immigration should not be further restricted, for

 I. From an industrial point of view, the United States needs immigrants, for

 A. Without question, immigrants represent laboring power. 

 B. The United States needs more laboring power, for

 1. Admittedly, the introduction of laboring power into an undeveloped or partially developed country is advantageous up to the saturation point. 

 a. Adam Smith says that labor is the wealth of nations. 

 b. The history of America has borne out this statement, for

 1'. The laborer has turned the forests, fields, and mines into wealth. 

 2. The United States is still under-populated, for

 a. There is a smaller population to the square mile than in many European countries, for

 1'. In 1890 the Netherlands had the average of three hundred and fifty-nine inhabitants to the square mile

 2'. Great Britain had the average of three hundred and eleven. 

 3'. Germany had two hundred and thirty-four. 

 4'. France had one hundred and eighty-seven. 

 5'. In about one-third of the whole area of the United States, the average is less than six. 

 6'. In certain more thickly settled portions the average is from seven to forty-five. 

 7'. In New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana, the average is from forty-five to ninety. 

 8'. In a small territory made up of parts of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, the average is over ninety. 

 9'. In the United States as a whole, the average is twenty. 

 II. From a political point of view, the immigrants who are arriving at our shores make good citizens, for

 A. Their previous political training has been such as to render them capable of learning how to perform the duties of American citizenship, for

 1. Of the 500, 000 immigrants that arrived in 1891, Germany sent approximately 100, 000. 

 2. Italy sent 76, 000. 

 3. Austria sent 78, 000. 

 4. England and Ireland sent 50, 000 each. 

 5. Russia, exclusive of Poland, sent 47, 000. 

 6. Sweden sent 36, 000. 

 7. Poland sent 27, 000. 

 8. Scotland, Norway, and Denmark sent 12, 000 each. 

 9. Switzerland sent 6, 000. 

 10. The Netherlands sent 5, 000. 

 11. France sent 6, 000. 

 12. Belgium sent 3, 000. 

 13. Except in Russia and Poland, the elements of representative government are not wholly unknown to these people, for

 a. In most of these countries some form of popular government has either wholly or partially gained a footing. 

 B. The duties of the American citizen are not hard to learn, for

 1. Republican institutions are not very complicated. 

 C. The political ignorance of the immigrant can be remedied, for

 1. Before extending immigrants the franchise, States can insist on requirements that will secure some preliminary training in free political institutions, since

 a. The right to vote is entirely a matter of State regulation, for

 1'. Citizenship, which is regulated by Congress, does not carry with it the franchise. 

 b. Already twenty-two States allow no one to vote who has not been in the United States at least five years. 

 c. Massachusetts and Connecticut have an educational test. 

 d. Eight States insist on a pecuniary qualification. 

CONCLUSION. 

The following points have been proved:--

 I. The growth of immigration is a desirable thing for this country from an industrial point of view. 

 II. The immigrants who arrive at our shores are for the most part good material out of which to make American citizens. 

Therefore, no further check or limit should be applied to immigration. 

APPENDIX B

A LIST OF PROPOSITIONS. 

1. The United States army should be greatly enlarged. 

2. Japan was justified in waging war against Russia. 

3. A formal alliance between the United States and Great Britain forthe protection and advancement of their common interests would beexpedient. 

4. Military tactics should be taught in the public schools. 

5. The United States navy should be greatly enlarged. 

6. The aggressions of England in South Africa are justifiable. 

7. The nations of Europe should combine to bring about drastic reformsin the Congo Free State. 

8. Ireland should be granted home rule. 

9. Japanese control will promote the political and economic interestsof Corea more than would Russian control. 

10. Armed intervention on the part of any nation to collect privateclaims against any other nation is not justifiable. 

11. The annexation of Canada by treaty with Great Britain would beeconomically advantageous to the United States. 

12. The United States should establish commercial reciprocity withCanada. 

13. The United States should maintain a system of subsidies for theprotection of American merchant marine. 

14. Congress should have decided in favor of a sea-level canal atPanama. 

15. Woman suffrage should be adopted by an amendment to theConstitution. 

16. The practice of relieving financial stringency by temporarydeposits of United States Treasury funds in selected banks should bediscontinued. 

17. Labor unions are detrimental to the best interests of theworkingman. 

18. Free trade should be established between the United States and thePhilippine Islands. 

19. State boards of arbitration, with compulsory powers, should beappointed to settle disputes between employers and employees. 

20. The United States should discontinue the protective tariff policy. 

21. The Federal government should own and operate the interstaterailroads within its borders. 

22. Railroad pooling should be legalized. 

23. The tax on the issues of state banks should be repealed. 

24. The United States should adopt one-cent postage. 

25. American municipalities should own and operate their street-carsystems. 

26. The President of the United States should be elected for a term ofsix years and be ineligible for re-election. 

27. The President of the United States should be elected by popularvote. 

28. Ex-Presidents of the United States should be Senators-at-large forlife. 

29. United States Senators should be elected by popular vote. 

30. The powers of the Speaker of the House of Representatives shouldbe restricted. 

31. The United States should institute a system of responsible cabinetgovernment. 

32. Judges should be elected by direct vote of the people. 

33. All cities in the State of ----, having at least ten thousandinhabitants should adopt the Des Moines plan of government. 

34. The right of suffrage should be limited by an educational test. 

35. The State of ---- should adopt the initiative and referendumsystem of government. 

36. Congress should repeal the Fifteenth Amendment. 

37. Members of State legislatures should be forbidden by law to acceptfree passes on any railroads. 

38. Corporations engaged in interstate commerce should be required totake out a Federal license. 

39. Women who pay taxes should be permitted to vote at municipalelections. 

40. The annexation of Cuba to the United States would be for the bestinterests of Cuba. 

41. The United States should grant full citizenship to the people ofPorto Rico. 

42. The United States should establish an old age-pension systemsimilar to the one in operation in Germany. 

43. Political union with Cuba would be for the advantage of the UnitedStates. 

44. The United States should permanently retain the Philippines. 

45. The House of Representatives should elect its standing committees. 

46. The white citizens of the Southern States are justified inmaintaining their political supremacy. 

47. Congress should prohibit corporate contributions to politicalcampaign funds. 

48. The present powers of courts to grant injunctions should becurtailed. 

49. In all criminal cases three-fourths of a jury should be competentto render a verdict. 

50. The United States government is treating the Indians unjustly. 

51. Capital punishment should be abolished. 

52. Education should be compulsory to the age of sixteen. 

53. The fully elective system of studies should be introduced into allcolleges. 

54. College students receiving an average daily grade of eighty-fiveper cent, in a subject should be excused from final examination inthat subject. 

55. Class rushes should be abolished at ---- College. 

56. Hazing should be abolished at all colleges. 

57. Freshmen should be debarred from intercollegiate athleticcontests. 

58. Athletics, as conducted at present, are detrimental to ---- College. 

59. The Federal government should maintain a college for the educationof men for the diplomatic and consular service. 

60. A large city affords a better location for a college than does thecountry. 

61. The "honor system" should prevail at ---- College. 

62. American universities should admit women on equal terms with men. 

63. American colleges should admit students only on examination. 

64. American colleges should confer the degree of Bachelor of Arts inthree years. 

65. Public schools should not furnish free textbooks. 

66. Secret societies should not exist in public high schools. 

67. The education of the American negro should be industrial ratherthan liberal. 

68. For the average student, the small college is preferable to thelarge college. 

69. American colleges should adopt the recommendations of theSimplified Spelling Board. 

70. For the United States, the type of the German university ispreferable to the type of the American university. 

71. Fraternities are undesirable in colleges. 

72. The United States Army canteen should be restored. 

73. There should be national laws governing marriage and divorce. 

74. High License is preferable to Prohibition. 

75. The Federal government should take action to prevent childrenunder the age of fourteen from working in mines and factories. 

76. The elimination of private profits offers the best solution of theliquor problem. 

77. Employers are justified in refusing recognition to labor unions. 

78. The United States should grant permanent copyright. 

79. The Chinese should be excluded from the Philippines. 

80. States should prohibit vivisection involving great pain. 

81. The United States should establish a parcels post. 

82. The United States should establish a postal savings bank. 

83. The veto power of the House of Lords should be annulled. 

84. Abdul Hamid was unjustly deposed. 

85. The present laws relating to Chinese immigration should be amendedto include the Japanese. 

86. The United States should admit the Chinese on equal terms withother immigrants. 

87. Further centralization in the power of the Federal government iscontrary to the best interests of the United States. 

88. The present tendency of government conservation of naturalresources is contrary to the best interests of the United States. 

89. Commercial reciprocity between the United States and Brazil wouldbenefit the United States. 

90. At present the United States should maintain no navy yard on theGulf Coast. 

91. The United States should admit all raw materials free of duty. 

92. The United States should admit sugar free of duty. 

93. The date of the Presidential inauguration should be changed. 

94. Postmasters should be elected by popular vote. 

95. All cities in the United States should establish and enforce acurfew law. 

96. The three term system is preferable to the semestersystem at ---- College. 

97. The products of prison labor should not be allowed to compete inthe open market. 

98. New York City should establish a dramatic censorship. 

99. Convicts should not be farmed out to private contractors. 

100. The State of ---- should establish a property qualification forvoting.