diff options
| author | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-15 04:43:40 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-15 04:43:40 -0700 |
| commit | 57b0fc24cb7af341fae1a8e24ac94f4089ed66a4 (patch) | |
| tree | f3c25d47250f11d252f20ab7b0c90dcc27f4d468 | |
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 3 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 14090-0.txt | 5041 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 14090-h/14090-h.htm | 4820 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 14090-h/images/img01.png | bin | 0 -> 25695 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/14090-h.zip | bin | 0 -> 117393 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/14090-h/14090-h.htm | 5223 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/14090-h/images/img01.png | bin | 0 -> 25695 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/14090.txt | 5431 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/14090.zip | bin | 0 -> 89866 bytes |
11 files changed, 20531 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6833f05 --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +* text=auto +*.txt text +*.md text diff --git a/14090-0.txt b/14090-0.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..449d943 --- /dev/null +++ b/14090-0.txt @@ -0,0 +1,5041 @@ +*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 14090 *** + +ELEMENTS OF DEBATING + +A Manual for Use in High Schools and Academies + +By + +LEVERETT S. LYON + +Head of the Department of Civic Science in the Joliet Township High School + +1919 + + + + + + + +PREFACE + + +This book pretends but little to originality in material. Its aim is +to offer the old in a form that shall meet the needs of young students +who are beginning work in debate. The effort has been made only to +present the elements of forensic work so freed from technicality that +they may be apparent to the student with the greatest possible economy +of time and the least possible interpretation by the teacher. + +It is hoped that the book may serve not only those schools where +debating is a part of the regular course, but also those institutions +where it is a supplement to the work in English or is encouraged as a +"super-curriculum" activity. + +Although the general obligation to other writers is obvious, there is +no specific indebtedness not elsewhere acknowledged, except to Mr. +Arthur Edward Phillips, whose vital principle of "Reference to +Experience" has, in a modified form, been made the test for evidence. +It is my belief that the use of this principle, rather than the +logical and technical forms of proof and evidence, will make the +training of debate far more applicable in other forms of public +speaking. My special thanks are due to Miss Charlotte Van Der Veen and +Miss Elizabeth Barns, whose aid has added technical exactness to +almost every page. I wish to thank also Miss Bella Hopper for +suggestions in preparing the reference list of Appendix I. Most of +all, I am indebted to the students whose interest has been a constant +stimulus, and whose needs have been to me, as they are to all who +teach, the one sure and constant guide. + +L.S.L. + + + + +TABLE OF CONTENTS + +LESSONS + + I. WHAT ARGUMENTATION IS + + II. WHAT DEBATE IS + + III. THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUCCESSFUL DEBATING + + IV. DETERMINING THE ISSUES + + V. HOW TO PROVE THE ISSUES + + VI. THE BRIEF. THE CHOICE AND USE OF EVIDENCE + + VII. THE FORENSIC + + VIII. REFUTATION + + IX. MANAGEMENT OF THE DEBATE + + X. A SUMMARY AND A DIAGRAM + + +APPENDICES + + I. HOW AND WHERE TO READ FOR MORE INFORMATION + + II. ILLUSTRATIONS OF ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE THE ISSUES OF THE QUESTION + + III. A TYPICAL COLLEGE FORENSIC + + IV. MATERIAL TOR BRIEFING + + V. QUESTIONS WITH SUGGESTED ISSUES AND BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY + + VI. A LIST OF DEBATABLE PROPOSITIONS + + VII. FORMS FOR JUDGES' DECISION + + + + +LESSON I + +WHAT ARGUMENTATION IS + + I. The purpose of discourse + + II. The forms of discourse: + 1. Narration + 2. Description + 3. Exposition + 4. Argumentation + +When we pause to look about us and to realize what things are really +going on, we discern that everyone is talking and writing. Perhaps we +wonder why this is the case. Nature is said to be economical. She +would hardly have us make so much effort and use so much energy +without some purpose, and some purpose beneficial to us. So we +determine that the purpose of using language is to convey meaning, to +give ideas that we have to someone else. + +As we watch a little more closely, we see that in talking or writing +we are not merely talking or writing something. We see that everyone, +consciously or unconsciously, clearly or dimly, is always trying to do +some definite thing. Let us see what the things are which we may be +trying to do. + +If you should tell your father, when you return from school, how +Columbus discovered America on October 12, 1492, and should try to +make him see the scene on shipboard when land was first sighted as +clearly as you see it, you would be describing. That kind of discourse +would be called description. Its purpose is to make another see in his +mind's eye the same image or picture that we have in our own. + +On the other hand, if you wished to tell him the story of the +discovery of America, you would do something quite different. You +would tell him not only of the first sight of land, but of the whole +series of incidents which led up to that event. If he could follow you +readily, could almost live through the various happenings that you +related, you would be telling your story well. That kind of discourse +is not description but narration. + +Suppose, then, that your father should say: "Now tell me this: What is +the difference between the discovery of America and the colonization +of America?" You would now have a new task. You would not care to make +him see any particular scene or live through the events of discovery +but to make him _understand something which you understand_. You would +show him that the discovery of America meant merely the fact that +America was found to be here, but that colonization meant the coming, +not of the explorers, but of the permanent settlers. This form of +discourse which makes clear to someone else an idea that is already +clear to us is called exposition. + +And now suppose your father should say: "Well, you have told me a +great deal which I may say is interesting enough, but it seems to me +rather useless. What is the purpose of all this study? Why have you +spent so much time learning of this one event?" You would of course +answer: "Because the discovery of America was an event of great +importance." + +He might reply: "I still do not believe that." Then you would say: +"I'll prove it to you," or, "I'll convince you of it." You would then +have undertaken to do what you are now trying to learn how to do +better--to argue. _For argumentation is that form of discourse that we +use when we attempt to make some one else believe as we wish him to +believe._ "Argumentation is the art of producing in the mind of +someone else a belief in the ideas which the speaker or writer wishes +the hearer or reader to accept."[1] + +You made use of argumentation when you urged a friend to take the +course in chemistry in your school by trying to make him believe it +would be beneficial to him. You used argumentation when you urged a +friend to join the football squad by trying to make him believe, as +you believe, that the exercise would do him good. A minister uses +argumentation when he tries to make his congregation believe, as he +believes, that ten minutes spent in prayer each morning will make the +day's work easier. The salesman uses argumentation to sell his goods. +The chance of the merchant to recover a rebate on a bill of goods that +he believes are defective depends entirely on his ability to make the +seller believe the same thing. On argumentation the lawyer bases his +hope of making the jury believe that his client is innocent of crime. +All of us every day of our lives, in ordinary conversation, in our +letters, and in more formal talks, are trying to make others believe +as we wish them to believe. Our success in so doing depends upon our +skill in the art of argumentation. + +SUGGESTED EXERCISES + +1. Out of your study or reading of the past week, give an illustration +of: (1) narration; (2) description; (3) exposition; (4) argumentation. + +2. During the past week, on what occasions have you personally made +use of: (1) narration; (2) description; (3) exposition; (4) +argumentation? + +3. Explain carefully the distinction between description and +exposition. In explaining this distinction, what form of discourse +have you used? + +4. Define argumentation. + +5. Skill in argumentation is a valuable acquisition for: + +(Give three reasons). + +(1)__________________________________________________ + +(2)__________________________________________________ + +(3)__________________________________________________ + + + + +LESSON II + +WHAT DEBATE IS + + + I. The forms of argumentation: + 1. Written. + 2. Oral. + + II. The forms of oral argumentation: + 1. General discussion. + 2. Debate. + + III. The qualities of debate: + 1. Oral. + 2. Judges present. + 3. Prescribed conditions. + 4. Decision expected. + +Now, since we have decided upon a definition of argumentation, let us +see what we mean by the term "debate" as it will be used in this work. + +We have said that argumentation is the art of producing in the mind of +someone a belief in something in which we wish him to believe. + +Now it is obvious that this can be accomplished in different ways. +Perhaps the most common method of attempting to bring someone to +believe as we wish is the oral method. On your way to school you meet +a friend and assert your belief that in the coming football game the +home team will win. You continue: "Our team has already beaten teams +that have defeated our opponent of next Saturday, and, moreover, our +team is stronger than it has been at any time this season." When you +finish, your friend replies: "I believe you are right. We shall win." + +You have been carrying on oral argumentation. + +If, when you had finished, your friend had not agreed with you, your +effort would have been none the less argumentation, only it would have +been unsuccessful. If you had written the same thing to your friend in +a letter, your letter would have been argumentative. + +Suppose your father were running for an office and should make a +public speech. If he tried to make the audience believe that the best +way to secure lower taxes, better water, and improved streets would be +through his election, he would be making use of oral argumentation. If +he should do the same thing through newspaper editorials, he would be +using written argumentation. + +Argumentation, then, may be carried on either in writing or orally, +and may vary from the informality of an ordinary conversation or a +letter to a careful address or thoughtful article. + +What, then, is debate as we shall use the word in this work, and what +is the relation of argumentation to debate? The term "debate" in its +general use has, of course, many senses. You might say: "I had a +debate with a friend about the coming football game." Or your father +might say: "I heard the great Lincoln and Douglas debates before the +Civil War." Although both of you would be using the term as it is +generally used, you would not be using it as it will be used in this +book, or as it is best that a student of argumentation and debate +should use it. + +The term "debate," in the sense in which students of these subjects +should use it, means _oral argumentation carried on by two opposing +teams under certain prescribed regulations, and with the expectation +of having a decision rendered by judges who are present_. This is +"debate" used, not generally, as you used it in saying, "I debated +with a friend," but technically, as we use it when we refer to the +Yale-Harvard debate or the Northern Debating League. In order to keep +the meaning of this term clearly in mind, use it only when referring +to such contests as these. In speaking of your argumentative +conversation with your friend or of the forensic contests between +Lincoln and Douglas, use the term "discussion" rather than "debate." + +It is true that the controversy between Lincoln and Douglas conformed +to our definition of "debate" in being oral; moreover, at least in +sense, two teams (of one man each) competed, but there were no judges, +and no direct decision was rendered. + +Since argumentation, then, is the art of producing in the mind of +someone else a belief in the idea or ideas you wish to convey, and +debate is an argumentative contest carried on orally under certain +conditions, it is clear that argumentation is the broader term of the +two and that debate is merely a specialized kind of argumentation. +Football is exercise, but there is exercise in many other forms. +Debate is argumentation, but one can also find argumentation in many +other forms. + +The following diagram makes clear the work we have covered thus far. +It shows the relation between argumentation and debate, and shows that +the specialized term "debate" has the same relation to "discourse" +that "football" has to "exercise." + + / Miscellaneous + | Swimming + / Play | Skating + Kinds of | | Rolling hoop / Other athletic games + exercise | \ Athletic games \ Football + | + | + \ Work + + + + + / Description + Kinds of | Narration + discourse | Exposition + \ Argumentation / Written + \ Oral / General discussion + \ Debate + + +SUGGESTED EXERCISES + +1. Be prepared to explain orally in class, as though to _someone who +did not know_, the difference between "argumentation" and "debate." + +2. Set down three conditions that must exist before argumentation +becomes debate. + +3. Have you ever argued? Orally? In writing? + +4. Have you ever debated? Did you win? + +5. Which is the broader term, "argumentation," or "debate?" Why? + +6. Compose some sentences, illustrating the use of the terms "debate" +and "argumentation." + + + + +LESSON III + +THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUCCESSFUL DEBATING + + + I. The three requirements stated. + + II. How to make clear to the audience what one wishes + them to believe, by: + + 1. Stating the idea which one wishes to have accepted + in the form of a definite assertion, which is: + + (1) Interesting. + + (2) Definite and concise. + + (3) Single in form. + + (4) Fair to both sides. + + 2. Defining the "terms of the question" so that they + will be: + + (1) Clear. + + (2) Convincing. + + (3) Consistent with the origin and history of the + question. + + 3. Restating the whole question in the light of the + definitions. + +To debate successfully it is necessary to do three things: + +1. To make perfectly clear to your audience what you wish them to +believe. + +2. To show them why the proof of certain points (called issues) should +make them believe the thing you wish them to believe. + +3. To prove the issues. + +Each of these three things is a distinct process, involving several +steps. One is as important as another. + +It is impossible to prove the issues until we have found them, but +equally impossible to show the audience what the issues are until we +have shown what the thing is which we wish those issues to support. +First, then, let us see what we mean by making perfectly clear what +you wish to have the audience believe. + +Suppose that you should meet a friend who says to you: "I am going to +argue with you about examinations." You might naturally reply: "What +examinations?" If he should say, "All examinations: the honor system +in all examinations," you might very reasonably still be puzzled and +ask if by all examinations he meant examinations of every kind in +grade school, high school, and college, as well as the civil service +examinations, and what was meant by the honor system. + +He would now probably explain to you carefully how several schools +have been experimenting with the idea of giving all examinations +without the presence of a teacher or monitor of any sort. During these +examinations, however, it has been customary to ask the students +themselves to report any cheating that they may observe. It is also +required that each student state in writing, at the end of his paper, +upon honor, that he has neither given nor received aid during the +test. "To this method," your friend continues, "has been given the +name of the honor system. And I believe that this system should be +adopted in all examinations in the Greenburg High School." + +He has now stated definitely what he wishes to make you believe, and +he has done more; he has explained to you the meaning of the terms +that you did not understand. These two things make perfectly clear to +you what he wishes you to believe, and he has thus covered the first +step in argumentation. + +From this illustration, then, several rules can be drawn. In the first +place your friend stated that he wished to argue about examinations. +Why could he not begin his argument at once? Because he had not yet +asked you to believe anything about examinations. He might have said, +"I am going to explain examinations," and he could then have told you +what examinations were. That would have been exposition. But he could +not _argue_ until he had made a definite assertion about the term +"examination." + +Rule one would then be: State in the form of a definite assertion the +matter to be argued. + +In order to be suitable for debating, an assertion or, as it is often +called, proposition, of this kind should conform to certain +conditions: + +1. It should be one in which both the debaters and the audience are +interested. Failure to observe this rule has caused many to think +debating a dry subject. + +2. It should propose something different from existing conditions. +Argument should have an end in view. Your school has no lunchroom. +Should it have one? Your city is governed by a mayor and a council. +Should it be ruled by a commission? Merely to debate, as did the men +of the Middle Ages, how many angels could dance on the point of a +needle, or, as some more modern debaters have done, whether Grant was +a greater general than Washington, is useless. + +The fact that those on the affirmative side propose something new +places on them what is called the _burden of proof_. This means that +they must show why there is _need_ of a change from the present state +of things. When they have done this, they may proceed to argue in +favor of the _particular change_ which they propose. + +3. It should make a single statement about a single thing: + +(Correct) In public high schools secret societies should be +prohibited. + +(Incorrect) In public high schools and colleges secret societies and +teaching of the Bible should be prohibited. + +4. It must be expressed with such definiteness that both sides can +agree on what it means. + +5. It must be expressed in such a way as to be fair to both sides. + +But you noticed that your friend had not only to state the question +definitely, but to explain what the terms of the proposition meant. He +had to tell you what the "honor system" was. + +Our second rule, then, for making the question clear, is: In the +proposition as stated, explain all terms that may not be entirely +clear to your audience. + +And in explaining or defining these terms, there are certain things +that you must do. You must make the definition clear, or it will be no +better than the term itself. This is not always easy. In defining +"moral force" a gentleman said: "Why, moral force is er--er--moral +force." He did not get very far on the way toward making his term +clear. Be sure that your definition really explains the term. + +Then one must be careful not to define in a circle. Let us take, for +example, the assertion or proposition, "The development of labor +unions has been beneficial to commerce." If you should attempt to +define "development" by saying "development means growth," you would +not have made the meaning of the term much clearer; and if in a +further attempt to explain it, you could only add "And growth means +development," you would be defining in a circle. + +There is still another error to be avoided in making your terms clear +to your audience. This error is called begging the question. This +occurs when a term is defined in such a way that there is nothing left +to be argued. + +Suppose your friend should say to you: "I wish to make you believe +that the honor system should be used in all examinations in the +Greenburg High School." You ask him what he means by the "honor +system." He replies: "I mean the best system in the world." Is there +anything left to argue? Hardly, if his definition of the term honor +system is correct, for it would be very irrational indeed to disagree +with the assertion that the best system in the world should be adopted +in the Greenburg High School. + +To summarize: _Define terms carefully;_ make the definition clear; do +not define in a circle, and do not beg the question. + +As you have already noticed, terms in argumentation, such as "honor +system," often consist of more than one word. They sometimes contain +several words. "A term [as that word is used in debating and +argumentation] may consist of any number of names, substantive or +objective, with the articles, prepositions, and conjunctions required +to join them together; still it is only one term if it points out or +makes us think of only one thing or object or class of objects."[2] In +such cases a dictionary is of little use. Take the term "honor +system," the meaning of which was not clear to you. A dictionary +offers no help. How is the student who wishes to discuss this question +to decide upon the meaning of the term? Notice how your friend made it +clear to you. He gave a history of the question that he wished to +argue. He showed how the term "honor system" came into use and what it +means where that system of examinations is in vogue. This, then, is +the only method of making sure of the meaning of a term: to study the +history of the question and see what the term means in the light of +that history. This method has the added advantage that a term defined +in this way will not only be entirely clear to your audience, but will +also tend to convince them. + +A dispute may arise between yourself and an opponent as to the meaning +of a term. He may be relying on a dictionary or the statement of a +single writer, while you are familiar with the history of the +question. Under those circumstances it will be easy for you to show +the judges and the audience that, although he may be using the term +correctly in a general way, he is quite wrong when the special +question under discussion is considered. + +To make this more clear, let us take a specific instance. Suppose that +you are debating the proposition, "Football Should Be Abolished in +This High School." Football, as defined in the dictionary, differs +considerably from the game with which every American boy is familiar. +Further, the dictionary defines both the English and the American +game. If your opponent should take either of these definitions, he +would not have much chance of convincing an American audience that it +was correct. Or if he should define football according to the rules of +the game as it was played five or ten years ago, he would be equally +ineffective. + +You, on the other hand, announce that in your discussion you will use +the term "football" as that game is described in _Spaulding's present +year's rule book for the American game_, and that every reference you +make to plays allowed or forbidden will be on the basis of the latest +ruling. You then have a definition based on the history of the +question. As you can see, the case for or against English football +would be different from that of the American game. In the same way the +case for or against football as it was played ten years ago would be +very different from the case of football as it is played today. + +All this does not mean that definitions found in dictionaries or other +works of reference are never good; it means simply that such +definitions should not be taken as final until the question has been +carefully reviewed. Try to think out for yourself the meaning of the +question. Decide what it involves and how it has arisen, or could +arise in real life. Then, when you do outside reading on the subject, +keep this same idea in mind. Keep asking yourself: "How did this +question arise? Why is it being discussed?" You will be surprised to +find that when you are ready to answer that question you will have +most of your reading done, for you will have read most of the +arguments upon it. Then you are ready to make it clear to the +audience. + +When you have thus given a clear and convincing definition of all the +terms, it is a good plan to restate the whole question in the light of +those definitions. + +For instance, notice the question of the "honor system." The original +question might have been concisely stated: "All Examinations in the +Greenburg High School Should Be Conducted under the Honor System." + +After you have made clear what you mean by the "honor system," you +will be ready to restate the question as follows: "The question then +is this: No Teacher Shall Be Present during Any Examination in the +Greenburg High School, and Every Student Shall Be Required to State on +Honor That He Has Neither Given Nor Received Aid in the Examinations." + +Your hearers will now see clearly what you wish them to believe. + +Thus far, then, we have seen that to debate well we should have a +question which is of interest to ourselves and to the audience. The +first step toward success is to make clear to our hearers the +proposition presented for their acceptance. This may be done: + +1) By stating the idea that we wish them to accept in the form of an +assertion, which should be: + + a) interesting + + b) definite and concise + + c) single in form + + d) fair to both sides + +2) By defining the "terms of the question" so that they will be: + + a) clear + + b) convincing + + c) consistent with the origin and history of the question + +3) By restating the whole question in the light of our definitions. + + +SUGGESTED EXERCISES + +1. State the three processes of successful debating. + +2. What are the three necessary steps in the first process? + +3. What qualities should a proposition for debate possess? + +4. Give a proposition that you think has these qualities. + +5. Without reference to books, define all the terms of this +proposition. Follow the rules but make the definitions as brief as +possible. + +6. Make some propositions in which the following terms shall be used: +(1) "Athletics," (2) "This City," (3) "All Studies," (4) "Manual +Training," (5) "Domestic Science." + +7. Point out the weakness in the following propositions (consider +propositions always with your class as the audience): (1) "Physics, +Chemistry, and Algebra Are Hard Studies." (2) "Only Useful Studies +Should Be Taught in This School." (3) "All Women Should Be Allowed to +Vote and Should Be Compelled by Law to Remove Their Hats in Church." +(4) "Agricultural Conditions in Abyssinia Are Superior to Those in +Burma." + +8. Compare the dictionary definition of the following terms with the +meaning which the history of the question has given them in actual +usage: + + (1) Domestic science. + + (2) Aeroplane exhibitions. + + (3) The international Olympic games. + + (4) Township high schools. + + (5) National conventions of political parties. + + + + +LESSON IV + +DETERMINING THE ISSUES + + I. What the "issues" are. + + II. How to determine the issues. + + III. The value of correct issues. + + +When you have made perfectly clear to your hearers what you wish them +to believe, the next step is to show them why they should believe it. +The first step in this process, as we saw at the beginning of Lesson +III, is to see what points, if proved, will make them believe it. + +These points, as we call them, are better known as "issues." The +issues are really questions, the basic questions on which your side +and the other disagree. The negative would answer "No" to these +issues, the affirmative would say "Yes." + +The issues when stated in declarative sentences are the fundamental +reasons why the affirmative believes its proposition should be +believed. + +A student might be arguing with himself whether he would study law or +medicine. He would say to himself: "These are the issues: For which am +I the better adapted? Which requires the more study? Which offers the +better promise of reward? In which can I do the more good?" + +Should he argue with a friend in order to induce him to give up law +and to study medicine, he would use similar issues. He would feel +that if he could settle these questions he could convince his friend. +Now, however, he would state them as declarative sentences and say: +"You are more adapted to the profession of medicine; you can do more +good in this field," etc. If the friend should open the question, he +would be in the position of a man on the negative side of a debate. He +would state the issues negatively as his reasons. He would say: "I am +not so well adapted to the study of medicine; it offers less promise +of reward," etc. + +Each of these would in turn depend upon other reasons, but every +proposition will depend for its acceptance on the proof of a few main +issues. Perhaps this point can be made clearer by an illustration. +Suppose we should take hold of one small rod which we see in the +framework of a large truss bridge and should say: "This bridge is +strong because this rod is here." Our statement would be only +partially true. The rod might be broken, and although the strength of +the bridge as a whole might be slightly weakened, it would not fall. +But suppose we should say: "This bridge really rests on these four +great steel beams which run down to the stone abutment. If I can see +that these four steel beams are secure, I can believe in the security +of the bridge." So a mechanical engineer shows us that certain rods +and bars of the framework hold up one beam, and how similar rods and +bars sustain a second, and that yet other rods and bars distribute the +weight that would press too heavily on a third, and so at last we are +convinced that the bridge is safe. It is not because we have been +shown that several of the bolts and braces are strong, but because we +have been shown that the four great beams, upon which it rests, are +reliable. + +Thus it is with everything in which we believe. We do not believe that +taxes are just because the government must have money to pay the +president or to buy uniforms for the army officers. These things must +be done, but they are incidentals. They are facts, but they are like +the small braces of the bridge. We believe that taxation is just, +because the government must have money for its work. Paying the +president and buying uniforms are details of this more fundamental +reason. + +In the same way we might say: "Athletics should be encouraged in high +schools because it will make John Brown, who will participate, more +healthy." That is a reason, but again only a small supporting reason. +We might rather choose a fundamental reason, which this slight reason +would in turn support, and it would be: "Athletics should be +encouraged in high schools because they improve the health of the +students that participate." + +In a recent debate between two large high schools on the proposition: +"_Resolved_, That Contests within High Schools Should Be Substituted +for Contests between High Schools," one of the contesting teams took +the following as issues: + + 1. Contests within high, schools will accomplish the real purpose of + contests better than will contests between schools. + + 2. Contests within high schools are the more democratic. + + 3. Contests within high schools can be made to work successfully. + +When these three facts had been demonstrated, there was little left to +urge against the claim. + +Recently among the universities of a certain section, this question +was discussed: "_Resolved_, That the Federal Government Should Levy a +Graduated Income Tax." (Such tax was conceded as constitutional.) One +university decided upon these as the issues: + + 1. Does the government need additional revenue? + + 2. Admitting that additional revenue is needed, is a graduated income + tax the best way of securing the money? + + 3. Could a graduated income tax be successfully collected? + +Here again if the debaters favoring a graduated income could show that +the government does need the money, that the proposed tax is the best +way to get it, and that such a tax would work in practice, they would +make the audience believe their proposition. If the speakers on the +negative side could show that the income of the federal government is +sufficient, that, even if additional revenue is needed, this is a poor +way to obtain it, or that this plan, though good in theory, is +impracticable, they would have a good case. Thus in every question +that is two-sided enough to be a good question for debate, there are +certain fundamental issues upon which the disagreement between the +affirmative and the negative can be shown to rest. When either side +has answered "Yes" or "No" to these issues and has given reasons for +its answer that will find acceptance in the minds of the audience and +of the judges, it has won the debate. It is easy, then, to see why +"determining the issues," and showing the audience what these issues +are, is the second step in successful debating. + +Although there is no fixed rule or touchstone by which an issue can +immediately be determined, there are several rules which will aid in +finding them. + + 1. In all your thinking and reading upon the question, constantly try + to decide: (1) What will the other side admit? (2) Is there anything + that I am thinking of in connection with this question that is not + essential to it? + + 2. Do not try to make a final determination of the issues until you + are sure you understand the question. + + 3. Be always ready to change your issues when you see that they are + not fundamental. + +With these general rules in mind, think the question over carefully. +This process of determing the issues can, and should, go on at the +same time as the process of learning what the question means. One +helps the other. Having decided what will be the issues of the debate, +set those issues down under appropriate heads; such as, "Is +desirable," "Is needed," "Would work well," etc. Whenever you think of +a reason why a thing is not needed, would not work, etc., put that +down in a similar way. Now read more carefully (see "Reading +References," Appendix I) on both sides of the question, and, whenever +you find a reason for or against the proposition, set it down as +above. The best method of doing this is to have a small pack of plain +cards, perhaps two and one-half by four inches. Use one for each +reason that you put down. As you think and read you will determine +many reasons for the truth or falsity of the proposition. Gradually +you will see that a great many of them are not so important as others +and that they do not bear directly on the question, but in reality +support some more important reason that you have set down. As you +begin to notice this, go through your pack of cards and arrange them +in the order of importance. Begin a new pile with every statement that +seems to bear directly upon the proposition and put under it those +statements that seem to support it. You will soon find that you have +all your cards in two or three piles. Now examine the cards which you +have on the top of each pile. See if the proof of these statements +would convince any person that you are right. If so you have probably +found the issues. + +_Always think first, then read, then think again_. + +If you have determined the issues wisely, it will be easy in the +debate itself to show the audience and the judges what those issues +are. You will have a tremendous advantage over your opponent, who in +his haste or laziness may have chosen what are not the real issues of +the question. He may present well the material that he has, but if +that material does not support the _fundamental issues_ of the +question, you are right in calling the attention of the judges to that +fact. + +Few debates are won on the platform. They are won by thoughtful +preparation. Be prepared. + + +SUGGESTED EXERCISES + +1. Give in your own words, as briefly as you can, a definition of the +term "the issues of a question." + +2. Give one illustration of your own of the issues of a question. + +3. What is meant by "determining the issues"? + +4. Will the affirmative and the negative teams always agree on the +issues? + +5. Can a question have two entirely different sets of issues? Why, or +why not? + +6. If there can be only one correct set of issues for a question, and +you believe that you have determined those, what must you do in the +debate if your opponents advance different issues? + +7. Think over carefully and set down what you believe are the issues +of one of the following propositions. Frame the issues as questions. + +(1) a) Football Should Be Abolished in This [your own] School. + +b) Football Should Be Installed as a Regular Branch of Athletics in +This [your own] School. + + (2) a) Manual Training /Should Be Established in This + Domestic Science \ [your own] School. + + b) Manual Training / /Boys /Should Be Made Compulsory + | For| |in This [your own] + Domestic Science \ \Girls \ School. + +8. Are there any terms in any of the above propositions which should +be made more clear to an average audience? Are there any terms on the +meaning of which two opposing teams might disagree? + +9. Define one such term so that it would be clear and convincing to an +audience not connected with the school. + +10. Give two reasons why you believe it is or is not beneficial to +study argumentation and debating. + +11. If you were debating the question, "This [your own school] Should +Establish a School Lunch-Room," would you take as one of the issues, +"All students could obtain a warm meal at noon." Why, or why not? + + + + +LESSON V + +HOW TO PROVE THE ISSUES + + I. What "proof" is. + + II. A consideration of how "proof" of anything is accomplished. + + III. An infallible test of what the audience will believe. + + IV. The material of proof-evidence. + + V. Evidence and proof compared. + + +Having determined what the issues are, and having shown the audience +why the establishment of these issues should logically win belief in +your proposition, all that remains is to prove the issues. + +Now it is clear that neither the audience nor the judges can be led to +agree with us and to accept our issues as proved, by our telling them +that we should like to have them believe in the soundness of our +views. Neither can we succeed in convincing them by telling them that +they ought to believe as we wish. The modern audience is not to be +cajoled or browbeaten into belief. How, then, are we to persuade our +hearers to accept our assertions as true? The only method is to give +them what they demand--reasons. We must tell _why_ every statement is +true. This process of telling why the issues are true so effectively +that the audience and judges believe them to be true is called the +_proof_. + +Naturally, the reasons that we give in support of the issues will be +no better than the issues themselves, unless we know what reasons the +audience will believe. And how are we to know what reasons the +audience will believe? We can best answer that question by determining +why we ourselves believe those things which we accept. Why do we +believe anything? We believe that water is wet; the sky, blue; fire, +hot; and sugar, sweet, because in our _experience_ we have always +found them so. These things we believe because we have _experienced_ +them ourselves. There are other things that we believe in a similar +way. We believe that not every newspaper report is reliable. We +believe that a statement in the _Outlook_, the _Review of Reviews_, or +the _World's Work_ is likely to be more trustworthy than a yellow +headline in the _Morning Bugle_. Our own experience, plus what we have +heard of the experience of others, has led us to this belief. But +there are still other things that we believe although we have not +experienced them at all. We believe that Columbus visited America in +1492, that Grant was a great general, that Washington was our first +president. Directly, these things have never been experienced by us, +but indirectly they have. Others, within whose experience these things +have fallen, have led us to accept them so thoroughly that they have +become our experience second hand. + +If we are told that a man who was in the Iroquois Theater fire was +seriously burned, it seems reasonable to us because our experience +recognizes burning as the result of such a situation. But if we are +told that a man who fell into the water emerged dry, or that a general +who served under Washington was born in 1830, we discredit it because +such statements are not in accord with our experience. We are ready, +then, to answer our question: _"What reasons will those in the +audience believe?" They will believe those statements which harmonize +with their own experience, and will discredit those which are at +variance with their experience._ This experience, as we have seen, may +be first hand, or direct; or it may be indirect, or second hand. + +In every case, the speaker's argument must base every issue upon +reasons that rest on what the hearers believe because of their own +direct or indirect experience. Suppose I assert: "John Quinn was a +dangerous man." Someone says: "Prove that statement." I answer: "He +was a thief." Someone says: "If that is true, he was a bad man, but +can you prove him a thief?" Then I produce a copy of a court record +which states that, on a certain day, a duly constituted court found +John Quinn guilty of robbing a bank. All my hearers now admit, not +only that he was a thief, but also that he was a dangerous person. I +have given them a reason for my statement, and a reason for that +reason, until at last I have shown them that my assertion, that John +Quinn is a dangerous citizen, rests on what they themselves +believe--that a court record is reliable. + +Sometimes an issue cannot be supported by a reason that will come at +once within the experience of the audience. It is then necessary to +support the first by a second reason that does come within its +experience. Remember, then, as the fundamental rule, that the judges +and audience will believe the issues of the proposition, and, as a +result, the proposition itself, only when we show them, by the +standard of their own experience, that we are right. + +The reasons that we give in support of the issues are, in debating, +called _evidence_. Evidence is not proof; evidence is the material out +of which proof is made. Evidence is like the separate stones of a +solid wall: no one alone makes the wall; each one helps make it +strong. Evidence is like the small rods and braces of the truss +bridge: no one alone supports the weight; each helps to sustain the +great beams that are the real support of the bridge. + +Suppose we had the proposition: "The Honor System of Examinations +Should Be Established in the Greenburg High School." We assert: "There +is but one issue: Will the students be honest in the examination?" +Now, what evidence shall we use to show that they will be honest? We +may turn to the experience of other schools. After a careful +investigation we find evidence with which we may support the assertion +in the following way: + +The Honor System should be established in the Greenburg High School, +for: + + I. The student will do honest work under that system, for: + + 1. Experience of similar schools shows this, for: + + (1) This plan was a success in X High School, for: + + a) The principal of that school states [quotation from + principal], for: + + (a) See _School Review_, Mar., 1900. + + (2) This plan is approved by Y High School, for: + + a) Etc. + +Here the statements used in support of the issue are evidence. If the +evidence is strong enough to bring conviction to the audience to which +you are speaking, it is proof. + +But notice here an important point. Why should this tend to make those +in the audience believe that the honor system should be adopted? +Simply because we have shown them that it has worked well elsewhere, +and _their own experience tells them that what has been a benefit in +other schools similar to this will be a benefit here_. + +And in its final analysis this evidence is no stronger than the words +of the men who state that it has worked in schools (X) and (Y). + +_If the experience of the audience_ is that these men are untruthful +or likely to exaggerate, our evidence will not be good evidence. If +the experience of the audience is that these men are capable, honest, +and reliable, this evidence will go far toward gaining acceptance of, +and belief in, our proposition. + +Many attempts have been made to put evidence into different classes +and to give tests of good evidence. There is but one rule that the +debater needs to use: _In judging evidence for a debate consider what +the effect will be on the audience and the judges. Will it be +convincing to them_? In other words, will it make their own experience +quickly and strongly support the issues? + +Time is always limited in a debate. The wise debater will then choose +that evidence which will most quickly make his hearers feel that their +own experience proves him right. When the speaker has done this, he +has chosen the best evidence and has used enough of it. + +In courts of law where witnesses appear in every case and testify as +to circumstances that did or did not occur, it is necessary that the +jury be able to distinguish carefully between what it should and +should not believe. Witnesses often have a keen personal interest in +the verdict and, therefore, are inclined to tell less or more than the +truth. Sometimes witnesses are relatives of persons who would suffer +if the case were decided against them and they have a tendency to give +unfair testimony. + +In order that the jury may decide as fairly as possible what evidence +is sound and what is not, the attorneys on each side of the case make +out a copy of what are called instructions. These are given to the +judge who, provided he approves of them, reads them to the jury. +Usually these instructions urge the jurors to consider four things. +They must consider, first, whether or not the statements of the +witness are probable; that is, are they consistent with human +experience? Do they seem reasonable and natural? A second thing which +the jury is told to bear in mind is the opportunity which the witness +had of observing the facts of which he speaks. Was he in a position to +be familiar with the thing he describes? In this connection, the jury +is sometimes instructed to consider the physical and mental qualities +of the witness. Is he a man who is physically and mentally able to +judge what he observes under such circumstances? A third factor which +the jury must consider is the possibility of prejudice on the part of +the witness. Has he any reason to feel more favorably toward one side +than toward the other? Is the defendant his friend or relative or +employer? A final consideration is what is commonly called "interest +in the case." It is clear that if the witness will be benefited by a +certain verdict, he may be inclined to frame his evidence in such a +way that it will tend toward that verdict. All these considerations +are based on the rule of referring to experience. What a judge really +says in a charge to the jury is this: "Does your experience warn you +that the testimony of some of these witnesses is unsound? Determine +upon that basis in what respects these witnesses have told the whole +truth and in what respects they have not." + +To summarize: The issues of a proposition are proved by being +supported with evidence. Since evidence is the material with which we +build the connection between the issues and the experience of the +audience, that evidence will be best which will receive the quickest +and strongest support from the experience of the hearers.[3] + +SUGGESTED EXERCISES + +1. In the following extract from a speech of Burke, the famous debater +has asserted that it is undesirable to use force upon the American +colonies. State the four main reasons why he thinks so. Under each +principal reason, put the reasons or evidence with which it is +supported. Is this evidence convincing? Why, or why not? + + First, Sir, permit me to observe that the use of force alone is but + temporary. It may subdue for a moment, but it does not remove the + necessity of subduing again; and a nation is not governed which is + perpetually to be conquered. + + My next objection is its uncertainty. Terror is not always the + effect of force, and an armament is not a victory. If you do not + succeed, you are without resource; for, conciliation failing, force + remains; but, force failing, no further hope of reconciliation is + left. Power and authority are sometimes bought by kindness; but they + can never be begged as alms by an impoverished and defeated + violence. + + A further objection to force is that you impair the object by your + very endeavor to preserve it. The thing you fought for is not the + thing which you recover; but depreciated, sunk, wasted, and consumed + in the contest. Nothing less will content me than whole America. I + do not choose to consume its strength along with our own, because in + all parts it is the British strength that I consume. I do not choose + to be caught by a foreign enemy at the end of this exhausting + conflict; and still less in the midst of it. I may escape; but I can + make no insurance against such an event. Let me add that I do not + choose wholly to break the American spirit: because it is the spirit + that has made the country. + + + Lastly, we have no sort of experience in favor of force as an + instrument in the rule of our Colonies. Their growth and their + utility has been owing to methods altogether different. Our ancient + indulgence has been said to be pursued to a fault. It may be so. But + we know, if feeling is evidence, that our fault was more tolerable + than our attempt to mend it; and our sin far more salutary than our + penitence. + +2. Wells's _Geometry_ gives the following proposition: "Two +perpendiculars to the same straight line are parallel." The evidence +given is: "If they are not parallel, they will, if sufficiently +produced, meet at some point, which is impossible, because from a +given point without a straight line but one perpendicular can be +drawn." Is this evidence sufficient to constitute proof? Does it +convince you? Why, or why not? + +3. Set down as much evidence as you can think of in ten minutes, to +convince a business man that a high-school education is an advantage +in business life. + +4. Support the statement that football has benefited or harmed this +school, with five truthful statements that are evidence. Indicate +which ones would be most effective, if you were speaking to the +students, and which would make the strongest impression on the +faculty. + +5. In the following statements of testimony, tell which ones would be +good evidence and which not. Tell why or why not in each case. + + (1) X, a student, was told that unless he should point out the pupil + who had put matches on the floor, he would be expelled. X then said + that Y was guilty. + + (2) James Brown, a teamster, asserts that the use of alcohol is + beneficial to all persons. + + (3) John Burns, a labor leader, declares that labor unions are + beneficial to trade. + + (4) F. W. McCorkle, a large manufacturer, states that labor unions + have proved beneficial to commerce. + + (5) Professor Sheldon, a college president and profound student of + economics, has declared that labor unions help the trade of the + world. + + (6) Henry Hawkins, a student at the Johnstown High School, asserts + that they have the best football team in the state. + + (7) M. Metchnikoff, chief attendant at the Pasteur Institute, says: + "As for myself, I am convinced that alcohol is a poison." M. + Berthelot, member of the Academy of Science and Medicine, states: + "Alcohol is not a food, even though it may be a fuel." + + (8) Lord Chatham, a member of the English Parliament, said, in + speaking of the Revolutionary War: "It is a struggle of free and + virtuous patriots." + +6. On the basis of your answers to 5, state three conditions that +would make a man's speaking or writing weak evidence as testimony; +three that would make a man's testimony strong. + +7. In Exercise 5 is (3), (4), or (5) the strongest testimony in favor +of labor unions. Why? Which is next? + +8. Can you see one danger of relying on testimony alone for evidence? + + + + +LESSON VI + +THE BRIEF. THE CHOICE AND USE OF EVIDENCE + + I. What the brief is. + + II. What the brief does. + + III. Parts of the brief: + + 1. The introduction in which-- + + (1) The end desired is made clear. + + (2) The issues are determined. + + 2. The proof, which states the issues as facts and proves them. + + 3. The conclusion, which is a formal summary of the proof. + + IV. A specimen model brief. + + V. A specimen special brief. + + VI. Rules for briefing. + +When a builder begins the construction of a wall, he must have the +proper material at hand. When an engineer begins the construction of a +steel bridge, he must have metal of the right forms and shapes. +Neither of these men, however, can accomplish the end which he has in +mind unless he takes this material and puts it together in the proper +way. So it is with the debater. He may have plenty of good evidence, +but he will never win unless that evidence is organized, that is, put +together in the most effective manner. + +The builder, if he were building a wall of concrete, would get the +correct form by pouring the concrete into a mold. So also, there is a +mold which the debater should use in shaping his evidence. When the +evidence has been put into this form, the debater is said to have +constructed a _brief_. + +In a previous lesson we saw how we might prove that John Quinn was a +dangerous man by using the evidence of a court record. If we had put +that evidence in brief-form we should have had this: + +John Quinn was a dangerous man, for: + + 1. He was a thief, for: + + (1) The Illinois state courts found him guilty of robbing a bank, + for: + + a) See _Ill. Court Reports_, Vol. X., p. 83. + +The brief, then, is a concise, logical outline of everything that the +speaker wishes to say to the audience. + +Its purpose is to indicate in the most definite form every step +through which the hearers must be taken in order that the proposition +may at last be fully accepted by their experience. + +The brief is for the debater himself. He does not show it to the +audience. It is the framework of his argument. It is the path which, +if carefully marked out, will lead to success. + +Now, as we have seen, there are three principal steps in debating: + +1. Making clear what you wish the audience to believe. + +2. Showing the audience why the establishing of certain issues should +make them believe this. + +3. Proving these issues. + +The first two of these steps constitute what in the brief is called +the _Introduction_. + +The third step, proving the issues, is the largest part of the brief +and is called the _Body_ or the _Proof_. + +In addition to these two divisions of the brief there is a sort of +formal summary at the end called the _Conclusion_. + +The skeleton of a brief then would be as follows: + +INTRODUCTION + +In which: (1) the desired end is made clear; (2) the issues are +determined. + +PROOF + +In which the issues are stated as declarations or assertions and +definite reasons are given why each one should be believed. These +reasons are in turn supported by other reasons until the assertion is +finally brought within the hearers' experience. + +CONCLUSION + +In which the proof is summarized. + +Of course no two briefs are identical, but all must follow this +general plan. Suppose we look at what might be called a model brief. + +MODEL BRIEF + +Statement of proposition. + +INTRODUCTION + + I. Definition of terms. + + II. Restatement of question in light of these terms. + + III. Determination of issues. + + 1. Statement of what both sides admit. + + 2. Statement of what is irrelevant. + + IV. Statement of the issues. + + +PROOF + + I. The first issue is true, for: + + 1. This reason, which is true, for: + + (1) This reason, for: + + a) This reason. + + b) This reason. + + 2. This reason, for: + + (1) This evidence. + + (2) This authority. + + (3) This testimony, for: + + a) See Vol. X, p. --, of report, document, magazine, or + book. + + II. The second issue is true, for: + + 1. This reason, for: + (1) This reason. + + 2. This reason, for: + + (1) This reason. + + (2) This reason. + + III. The third issue is true, for: + + 1. This reason, etc. + + IV. The fourth issue is true, for: + + 1. This reason, etc. + + +CONCLUSION + +Therefore, since we have shown: (1) that the first issue is true by +this evidence, (2) that the second issue is well founded by this +evidence; (3) that the third and fourth, etc.; we conclude that our +proposition is true. + +Now, let us look at a special brief, made out in a high-school debate, +for a special subject. + +The preceding is an affirmative brief and there were four issues. In +the following we have a negative brief, in which there were three +issues. Refutation is introduced near the close of the proof. + +Of this we shall see more in the next lesson. + + +BRIEF FOR NEGATIVE + +INTRA-HIGH-SCHOOL CONTESTS SHOULD BE SUBSTITUTED FOR INTER-HIGH-SCHOOL +CONTESTS IN THE HIGH SCHOOLS OF NORTHERN ILLINOIS + +INTRODUCTION + + I. Definition of terms. + + 1. Contests, ordinary competitions in: + + a) Athletics. + + b) Debating. + + 2. Intra-high-school contests (contests within each school). + + 3. Inter-high-school contests (contests between different high + schools). + + II. Restatement of question in light of these definitions. Contests + within each high school should be substituted for contests + between high schools in Northern Illinois. + + III. Determination of issues. + + 1. It is admitted that: + + a) Inter and intra contests both exist at present in the + high schools of Northern Illinois. + + b) Contest work is a desirable form of training. + + c) Not all contests should be abolished. + + 2. Certain educators have asserted that: + + a) The inter form of contests is open to abuses. + + b) The intra contests would be more democratic. + + c) Intra contests would be practicable. + + 3. Other educators disagree with these assertions. + + 4. The issues, then, are: + + a) Are the inter contests so widely abused in the high + schools of Northern Illinois as to warrant their abolition? + + b) Would the proposed plan be more democratic than the + present system? + + c) Would the proposed plan work out in practice? + +PROOF + + I. Contests between the high schools of Northern + Illinois are not subject to such abuses as will warrant + their abolition, for: + + A. If the abuses alleged against athletic contests ever + existed, they are now extinct, for: + + 1. The alleged danger of injury to players physically + unfit is not an existing danger, for: + + (1) It has been made impossible by the rules + of the schools, for: + + a) This high school requires a physician's + certificate of fitness before participation + in any athletic contest, for: + (a) Extract from athletic rulings of + school board. + + b) Our opponent's high school has a similar + regulation, for: + + (a) Extract from school paper of opponents. + + c) The X High School has the same ruling. + + d) The Y High School has the same requirement. + + 2. The charge that athletic contests between high + schools make the contestants poor students is + without sound basis, for: + + (1) A high standard of scholarship is required of + all inter-high-school athletic contestants, for: + + a) Regulations of Illinois Athletic Association. + + B. The evils charged against inter-high-school debating + cannot be cured by the proposed scheme, for: + + 1. They are due, when they exist, not to the form + of contest, but to improper coaching, for: + + (1) "Too much training," one of the evils + charged, is an example of this. + + (2) Unfair use of evidence, the other evil alleged, + is simply an evil of improper coaching. + + II. The proposed plan would not be so democratic as the present + system, for: + + A. The present plan gives an opportunity to all students, for: + + 1. Its class and other intra contests give a chance to the less + proficient pupils. + + 2. Its inter contests afford an opportunity for the more + proficient pupils. + + B. The proposed plan would deprive the more capable pupils of + desirable contests, for: + + 1. They can find contests strenuous enough to induce development + only by competing with similar students in other schools. + + III. The proposed plan would not be practicable, for: + + A. It is unsound in theory, for: + + 1. No pupil has a strong desire to defeat his close friends. + + 2. There is no desirable method of dividing the students for + competition under the proposed plan, for: + + (1) Class division is unsatisfactory, for: + + a) The more mature and experienced upper classes win + too easily. + + (2) "Group division" is not desirable, for: + + a) If the division is large, the domination of the + mature students will give no opportunity to the younger + students. + + b) If the division is small, it is likely to develop + into a secret society. + + B. Experience opposes the proposed plan, for: + + 1. College experience is against it, for: + + (1) N. University tried this plan without success, for: + + a) Quotation from president of N. + + 2. High-school experience does not indorse it, for: + + (1) It is practically untried in high schools. + +REFUTATION + + I. The argument which the affirmative may advance, that the experience + of Shortridge High School demonstrates the success of this plan, is + without weight, for: + + A. It is not applicable to this question, for: + + 1. The plan at Shortridge is not identical with the proposed + plan, for: + + (1) Shortridge has not entirely abolished inter contests, for: + + a) _School Review_, October, 1911. + + 2. Conditions in Shortridge differ from those in the high schools + of Northern Illinois, for: + + (1) Faculty of that school has unusual efficiency in coaching, + for: + + a) Extract from letter of principal. + + (2) Larger number of students, for: + + a) Extract from letter of principal. + +CONCLUSION + +Since there is no opportunity for serious abuse arising from contests +between schools, and since the adoption of contests within the schools +alone would lessen the democracy of contests as a form of education, +and since the proposed plan is impracticable in theory and has never +been put into successful operation, the negative concludes that the +substitution of intra for inter contests is not desirable in the high +schools of Northern Illinois. + + +From these illustrative briefs we can draw: + + +RULES FOR BRIEFING + +The introduction should contain only such material as both sides will +admit, or, as you can show, should reasonably admit, from the +phrasing of the proposition. + +Scrupulous care should be used in the numbering and lettering of all +statements and substatements. + +Each issue should be a logical reason for the truth of the +proposition. + +Each substatement should be a logical reason for the issue or +statement that it supports. + +Each issue in the proof and each statement that has supporting +statements should be followed by the word "for." + +Each reason given in support of the issues and each subreason should +be no more than a simple, complete, declarative sentence. + +The word "for" should never appear as a connective between a statement +and substatement in the introduction. + +The words "hence" and "therefore" should never appear in the proof of +the brief, but one should be able to read _up_ through the brief and +by substituting the word "therefore" for the word "for" in each case, +arrive at the proposition as a conclusion. + +SUGGESTED EXERCISES + +1. Turn to Exercise 1, in Lesson V, and carefully brief the selection +from Burke. + +2. Is the following extract from a high-school student's brief correct +in form? Criticize it in regard to arrangement of ideas, and correct +it so far as is possible without using new material. + + +SOCCER FOOTBALL SHOULD BE ADOPTED IN THE "A" HIGH +SCHOOL AS A REGULAR BRANCH OF ATHLETIC SPORT + +INTRODUCTION + + I. Recent popularity of soccer. + + 1. In England. + + 2. In America. + + II. Soccer a healthful game, for: + + 1. Develops lungs. + + 2. Develops all the muscles. + + III. Issues. + + 1. Soccer is a beneficial game. + + 2. Would the students of "A" support soccer as a regular + sport? + +PROOF + + I. Soccer is a beneficial sport, for: + + 1. It requires much running, kicking, and dodging, both + in offensive and defensive playing, therefore-- + + (1) It develops muscles. + + (2) It develops lungs. + + 2. It is played out of doors, therefore + + (1) It develops lungs. + + II. Students of "A" would support soccer as a regular sport, for: + + 1. Who has ever heard of students who would not support + soccer, baseball, basket-ball, and all other exciting + games? + +3. The following is the conclusion of an argument by Edmund Burke in +which the speaker maintained that Warren Hastings should be impeached +by the House of Commons. If it had been preceded by a clear +"introduction" and convincing "proof," do you think that it would have +made an effective "conclusion"? + + Therefore, it is with confidence that, ordered by the Commons: + + I impeach Warren Hastings, Esquire, of high crimes and misdemeanors. + + I impeach him in the name of the Commons of Great Britain, in + Parliament assembled, whose parliamentary trust he has betrayed. + + I impeach him in the name of all the Commons of Great Britain, whose + national character he has dishonored. + + I impeach him in the name of the people of India, whose laws, + rights, and liberties he has subverted, whose property he has + destroyed, whose country he has laid waste and desolate. + + I impeach him in the name and by virtue of those eternal laws of + justice which he has violated. + + I impeach him in the name of human nature itself, which he has + cruelly outraged, injured, and oppressed in both sexes, in every + age, rank, situation, and condition of life. + +4. Take any one of the following propositions and without other +material than that of your own ideas, state at least two issues, and, +in correct brief form, proof for belief or unbelief. + +(1) High-School Boys Should Smoke Cigarettes. + +(2) No One Should Play Football without a Physician's Permission. + +(3) Girls Should Participate in Athletic Games While in High School. + +(4) High-School Fraternities Are Desirable. + +(5) Women Should Have the Right to Vote in All Elections. + + + + +LESSON VII + +THE FORENSIC + + + I. What the forensic is. + + II. How the forensic may be developed and delivered: + 1. By writing and reading from manuscript: + (1) Advantages and disadvantages. + 2. By writing and committing to memory: + (1) Advantages and disadvantages. + 3. By oral development from the brief: + (1) Advantages. + III. Style and gestures in the delivery of the forensic. + +When the brief is finished, the material is ready to be put into its +final form. This final form is called the _forensic_. + +As practically all debates are conducted by means of teams, the work +of preparing the forensic is usually divided among the members of the +team. The brief may be divided in any way, but it is desirable that +each member of the team should have one complete, logical division. So +it often happens that each member of the team develops one issue into +its final form. + +The forensic is nothing but a rounding-out of the brief. The brief is +a skeleton: the forensic is that skeleton developed into a complete +literary form. Into this form the oral delivery breathes the spirit of +living ideas. + +No better illustration of the brief expanded into the full forensic +need be given than that in Exercise I, Lesson V. Compare the brief +which you made of this extract from Burke with the forensic itself, a +few paragraphs of which are quoted there. Any student will find that +merely to glance through a part of this speech of Burke's is an +excellent lesson in brief-making and in the production of forensics. +First study the skeleton only--the brief--by reading the opening +sentences of each paragraph. Then see how this skeleton is built into +a forensic by the splendid rhetoric of the great British statesman.[4] + +There are two ways in which the forensic may be developed from the +brief. Both have some advantages, varying with the conditions of the +debate. One is to write out every word of the forensic. When this is +done, the debater may, if he wishes, read from his manuscript to the +audience. If he does so, his chances of making a marked effect are +little better than if he spoke from the bottom of a well. The average +audience will not follow the speaker who is occupied with raveling +ideas from his paper rather than with weaving them into the minds of +his hearers. + +The debater who writes his forensic may, however, learn it and deliver +it from memory. This method has some decided advantages. In every +debate the time is limited; and by writing and rewriting the ideas can +be compressed into their briefest and most definite form. Besides, the +speaker may practice upon this definite forensic to determine the +rapidity with which he must speak in order to finish his argument in +the allotted time. + +At the same time this plan has several unfavorable aspects. When the +debater has prepared himself in this way, forgetting is fatal. He has +memorized words. When the words do not come he has no recourse but to +wait for memory to revive, or to look to his colleagues for help. +Again, the man who has learned his argument can give no variety to his +attack or defense. He is like a general with an immovable battery, +who, though able to hurl a terrific discharge in the one direction in +which his guns point, is powerless if the attack is made ever so +slightly on his flank. Perhaps the greatest disadvantage of this +method is that it does not give the student the best kind of training. +What he needs most in life is the ability to arrange and present ideas +rapidly, not to speak a part by rote. + +It would seem, then, that this plan should be advised only when the +students are working for one formal debate, and are not preparing for +a series of class or local contests that can all be controlled by the +same instructor or critic. With beginners in oral argumentation this +method will usually make the better showing, and may therefore be +considered permissible in the case of those teams which, because of +unfamiliarity with their opponents' methods, can take no chances. This +plan of preparation is in no way harmful or dishonest, but lacks some +of the more permanent advantages of the second method. + +The second method of developing the brief into the forensic is by +_oral composition_. This method demands that the debater shall _speak +extemporaneously_ from his _memorized brief_. This in no way means +that careful preparation, deliberate thought, and precise organization +are omitted. On the contrary, the formation of a brief from which a +winning forensic can be expanded requires the most studious +preparation, the keenest thought, and the most careful organization. +Neither does it mean that, as soon as the brief is formed, the +forensic can be presented. Before that step is taken, the debater who +will be successful will spend much time, not in _written_, but in +_oral_ composition. + +He will study his brief until he sees that it is not merely a +succession of formal statements connected with "for's," but a series +of ideas arranged in that form because they will, if presented in that +order, bring conviction to his hearers. "Learning the brief," then, +becomes not a case of memory, but a matter of seeing--seeing what +comes next because that is the only thing that logically could come +next. When the brief is in mind, the speaker will expand it into a +forensic to an imaginary audience until he finds that he is expressing +the ideas clearly, smoothly, and readily. Pay no attention to the fact +that in the course of repeated deliveries the words will vary. Words +make little difference if the framework of ideas is the same. + +This method of composing the forensic trains the mind of the student +to see the logical relationship of ideas, to acquire a command of +language, and to vary the order of ideas if necessary. In doing these +things, there are developed those qualities that are essential to all +effective speaking. + +A debater's success in giving unity and coherence to his argument +depends chiefly on his method of introducing new ideas in supporting +his issues. These changes from one idea to another, or transitions, as +they are called, should always be made so that the hearer's attention +will be recalled to the assertion which the new idea is intended to +support. Suppose we have made this assertion: "Contests within schools +are more desirable than contests between schools." We are planning to +support this by proving: first, that the contests between schools are +very much abused; second, that the proposed plan will be more +democratic; and third, that the proposed plan will work well in +practice. In supporting these issues, we should, of course, present a +great deal of material. When we are ready to change from the first +supporting idea to the second, we must make that change in such a way +that our hearers will know that we are planning to prove the second +main point of our contention. But this is not enough. We must make +that change so that they will be definitely reminded of what we have +already proved. The same thing will hold true when we change to the +third contention. + +The following illustrates a faulty method of transition: Contests +between schools are so abused that they should be abolished [followed +by all the supporting material]. The proposed plan will be more +democratic than the present [followed by its support]. The proposed +plan would work well in practice [followed by its support]. No matter +how thoroughly we might prove each of these, they would impress the +audience as standing alone; they would show no coherence, no +connection with one another. The following would be a better method: +Contests within schools should be substituted for those between +schools because contests between schools are open to abuses so great +as to warrant their abolition [followed by its support]. We should +then begin to prove the second issue in this way: But not only are +contests between schools so open to abuse that they should be +abolished, but they are less desirable than contests within schools +for they are less democratic. [This will then be followed with the +support of the second issue.] The transition to the third issue should +be made in this way: Now, honorable judges, we have shown you that +contests between schools are not worthy of continuance; we have shown +you that the plan which we propose will be better in its democracy +than the system at present in vogue; we now propose to complete our +argument by showing you that our plan will work well in practice. +[This would then be followed with the proper supporting material.] + +Great speakers have shown that they realized the importance of these +cementing transitions. Take for example Burke's argument that force +will be an undesirable instrument to use against the colonies. He +says: "First, permit me to observe that the use of force shall be +temporary." The next paragraph he begins: "My next observation is its +uncertainty." He follows that with: "A further observation to force is +that you impair the object by your very endeavor to preserve it." And +he concludes: "Lastly, we have no sort of experience in favor of force +as an instrument in the rule of our colonies." He used this principle +to perhaps even greater advantage when he argued that "a fierce spirit +of liberty had grown up in the colonies." He supports this with claims +which are introduced as follows: + +"First, the people of the colonies are descendants of Englishmen." + +"They were further confirmed in this pleasing error [their spirit of +liberty] by the form of their provincial legislative assemblies." + +"If anything were wanting to this necessary operation of the form of +government, religion would have given it a complete effect." + +"There is, in the South, a circumstance attending these colonies +which, in my opinion, fully counterbalances this difference, and makes +the spirit of liberty still more high and haughty than in those to the +northward. It is that in Virginia and the Carolinas, they have a vast +multitude of slaves." + +"Permit me, Sir, to add another circumstance in our colonies, which +contributes no mean part towards the growth and effect of this +untractable spirit. I mean their education." + +"The last cause of this disobedient spirit in the colonies is hardly +less powerful than the rest as it is not merely moral, but laid deep +in the natural constitution of things. Three thousand miles of ocean +lie between you and them." + +He finally summarizes these in this way, which further ties them +together. + +"Then, Sir, from these six capital sources; of descent; of form of +government; of religion in the northern provinces; of manners in the +southern; of education; of the remoteness of situation from the first +mover of government; from all these causes a fierce spirit of liberty +has grown up." + +It may be well also to point out more clearly the somewhat special +nature of the first speeches on each side. The first speech of the +affirmative must, of course, make clear to the judges and the audience +what you wish them to believe. This will involve all the steps which +have already been pointed out as necessary to accomplish that result. +The first speaker can gain a great deal for his side by presenting +this material not only with great clearness, but in a manner which +will win the goodwill of the audience toward himself, his team, and +his side of the subject. To do this, he must be genial, honest, +modest, and fair. He must make his hearers feel that he is not giving +a narrow or prejudiced analysis of the question; he must make them +feel that his treatment is open and fair to both sides, and that he +finally reaches the issues not at all because he _wishes_ to find +those issues, but because a thorough analysis of the question will +allow him to reach no others. + +The first speaker on the negative side may have much the same work to +do. If, however, he agrees with what the first speaker of the +affirmative has said, he will save time merely by stating that fact +and by summarizing in a sentence or two the steps leading to the +issues. If he does not agree with the interpretation which the +affirmative has given to the question, it will be necessary for him to +interpret the question himself. He must make clear to the judges why +his analysis is correct and that of his opponent faulty. + +In presenting the forensic to the judges and audience forget, so far +as possible, that you are debating. You have a proposition in which +you believe and which you want them to accept. Your purpose is not to +make your hearers say: "How well he does it." You want them to say: +"He is right." + +Do not rant. Speak clearly, that you may be understood; and with +enough force that you may be heard, but in the same manner that you +use in conversation. + +_Good gestures help. Good gestures_ are those that come naturally in +support of your ideas. While practicing alone notice what gestures you +put in involuntarily. They are right. Do not ape anyone in gesture. +Your oral work will be more effective without use of your hands than +it will be with an ineffective use of them. The most ineffective use +is the making of motions that are so violent or extravagant that they +attract the listeners' attention to themselves and away from your +ideas. Remember that the expression of your face is most important of +all gestures. Earnest interest, pleasantness, fairness, and vigor +expressed in the speaker's face at the right times have done more to +win debates than other gestures have ever accomplished. + + + + +LESSON VIII + +REFUTATION + + I. Refutation explained. + + II. Refutation may be carried on: + 1. By overwhelming constructive argument. + 2. By showing the weakness of opponents' argument. + + III. The time for refutation: + 1. Allotted time. + 2. Special times. + + IV. The right spirit in refutation. + +Our work up to this point has dealt with what is called the +_constructive argument_, i.e., the building up of the proof. But to +make the judges believe as you wish, you must not merely support your +contentions; you must destroy the proof which your opponents are +trying to construct. + +As with the successful athletic team and the successful general, so +with the successful debater, it is necessary, not only to attack, but +also to repulse; not only to carry out the plan of your own side, but +to meet and defeat the plan which the other side has developed. In +debating, this repulse, this destruction of the arguments of the +opposition, is called _refutation_ or _rebuttal_. + +There are two principal ways in which the refutation of the opponent's +argument can be accomplished. The first is _to destroy it with your +own constructive argument_. The second is _to show that his argument, +even though it is not destroyed by yours, is faulty in itself, and +therefore useless_. + +Although only one of them is labeled "Refutation" in the model brief +in the sixth lesson, both types are illustrated there. + +There the negative, believing that the first argument of the +affirmative would be, "Inter contests are open to abuse," makes its +first point a counter-assertion. It uses as the first issue: "Contests +between the high schools of northern Illinois are not subject to such +abuses as will warrant their abolition." Which side would gain this +point in the minds of the judges would depend on which side supported +its assertion with the better evidence. + +If one side wished to raise this question again in the refutation +speeches, which close the debate, it could do no better than to repeat +and re-emphasize the same material which it used in its construction +argument. + +The second method of refuting, i.e., showing an argument to be faulty, +is also illustrated in the brief in the sixth lesson. It is marked +"Refutation." This material was introduced because the negative felt +sure that the affirmative would attempt to use the experience of +Shortridge High School as evidence of the successful working of this +plan. It was shown to be faulty in that the experience of this school +would not apply to the question here debated. + +The student's study of what makes good evidence for his own case will +enable him to see the weakness of his opponents' arguments. Apply the +_same_ tests to your opponents' evidence that you apply to your own. +What is there about the evidence introduced that should make the +audience hesitate to accept it? Point these things out to the +audience. It may be that prejudiced, dishonest, or ignorant testimony +has been given. It may be that not enough evidence has been given to +carry weight. Whatever the flaw, point out to the audience that, upon +a critical examination, experience shows the evidence to be weak. + +In every debate there is a regular time allowed for rebuttal. This is, +however, not the only time at which it may be introduced. In the +debate, put in refutation wherever it is needed. One of the best plans +is, if possible, to refute with a few sentences at the opening of each +speech what the previous speaker of the opposition has said. + +In all refutation, _state clearly what you aim to disprove._ When +quoting the statement of an opponent, be sure to be accurate. + +Something like the following is a good form for stating refutation: + +Our opponents, in arguing that labor unions have been harmful to the +commerce of America, have stated that they would use as support the +testimony of prominent men. In so doing, they have quoted from X, Y, +and Z. This testimony is without strength. X, as a large employer of +labor, would be open to prejudice; Y, as a non-union laborer, is both +prejudiced and ignorant. The testimony of Z, as an Englishman is +applicable to labor unions as they have affected, not the commerce of +America, but the trade of England. + +A similar form is shown in the brief on inter-and intra-high-school +contests in refuting the experience of Shortridge High School. + +In all refutation, keep close to the fundamental principles of the +question. Do not be led astray into minute details upon which you +differ. Never tire of recalling attention to the issues of the +question. Show why those are the issues, and you will see that the +strongest refutation almost always consists in pointing out wherein +you have proved these issues, while your opponents have failed to do +so. + +In order to be fully prepared, however, it is a good plan to put upon +cards all the points that your opponents may use and that you have not +answered in your constructive argument. Adopt a method similar to +this: + +Shortridge argument + + I. Will not apply for: + (1) Not this plan. + (2) Conditions differ, for: + _a) School Review_, October, 1911. + +Then if your opponents advance arguments that are not met in your +speech, merely lay out these cards while they speak, and use them as +references in your refutation. + +The closing rebuttal speech is always a critical one. Here the speaker +should again point out every mistake which his opponents have made. +If their interpretation of the question has been wrong, he should, +while avoiding details, emphasize the chief flaws in their arguments. +On the other hand, he should summarize the argument of his own side +from beginning to end; he should make the support of each of the +issues stand clearly before the judges in its complete, logical form. + +In these closing speeches, as in the opening of the debate, much may +be gained by an attitude which will win the favor of the hearers +toward the speaker and his ideas. An attitude of petty criticism, of +narrowness of view, is undesirable at any stage of the debate. The +debater who is inclined to belittle his opponents will only belittle +himself. To the judges it will appear that the speaker who has time to +ridicule his adversaries must be a little short of arguments. +Insinuations of dishonesty and attempts to be sarcastic should be +carefully avoided. These weapons are sharp but they are two-edged and +are more likely to injure the speaker than his opponent. + +The right attitude for a debater is always one of fairness. Give your +opponents all possible credit. When you have then refuted their +arguments, your own contentions seem of double strength. It is said +that Lincoln used this method with splendid effect: He would often +restate the argument of his opponent with great force and clearness; +he would make it seem irrefutable. Then, when he began his attack and +caused his opponent's argument to collapse, its fall seemed to be +utter and complete, while his arguments, which had proved themselves +capable of effecting this destruction, appeared all the more powerful. + +In your desire to do well in refutation, do not be led to depend upon +that alone. There is no older and better rule than, "Know the other +side as well as you know your own." Do not believe that this is in +order that you may be ready with a clever answer for every point made +by the other side. The most important reason why you should know the +other side of the question is the necessity of your determining the +issues correctly, and thus building a constructive argument that is +overwhelming and impregnable. Many a debate has been lost because the +debaters worked up their own constructive argument first, and only +later, in order to prepare refutation, considered what their opponents +would say. Had they proceeded correctly, they would have destroyed the +proof of their adversaries while they built up their own. + +A clever retort in refutation often wins the applause of the +galleries, but an analysis of the question so keen that the real +issues are determined, supported by an organization of evidence so +strong that it sweeps away all opposition as it grows, is more likely +to gain the favorable decision of the judges. + +SUGGESTED EXERCISES + +1. What is the purpose of refutation? 2. What two principal methods +may be followed? + +3. What must one do to refute correctly and well? + +4. Do you think it better in refutation to assail the minor points of +your opponent or to attack the main issues? + +5. A fellow-student in chemistry said to you: "The chemical symbol for +water is H_{4}0; two of our classmates told me so." You replied: "The +correct symbol, according to our instructor, is H_{2}O." Did you +refute his assertion? How? + +6. A classmate makes an argument which could be briefed thus: + +Cigarettes are good for high-school boys, for: + + I. They aid health of body, for: + (1) Many athletes smoke them, for: + a) X smokes them. + b) Y smokes them. + c) Z smokes them. + +If you disagree with this assertion, do not believe they aid health, +and know X does not smoke cigarettes, how would you refute his +contention? + +7. If your opponents in a debate quote opinions of others in support +of their views, in what two ways can they be refuted? + +8. In a recent campaign, the administration candidate used this +argument: "I should be re-elected, for: Times are good, work is +plentiful, crops are excellent, and products demand a high price." +Show any weakness in this argument. + +9. Show the weakness of proof in this argument: Harvard is better at +football than Princeton I. They defeated Princeton in 1912. + +10. What general rule can you make from 9 concerning a statement +supported by particular cases? + + + + +LESSON IX + +MANAGEMENT OF THE DEBATE + + +_Teams_.--The opposing teams in a debate usually consist of three +persons each. A larger or smaller number is permissible. + +_Time of Speaking_.--Each speaker is ordinarily allowed one +constructive speech and one rebuttal speech. The constructive speech +is usually about twice the length of the refutation. Twelve and six, +ten and five, and eight and four minutes are all frequent time-limits +for debates. Many debaters make shorter speeches. + +_Order of speaking_.--The debate is opened by the affirmative. The +first speaker is followed by a negative debater, who, in turn, is +followed by a member of the affirmative team, and so on until the +entire constructive argument is presented. A member of the negative +team opens the refutation. Speakers then alternate until the debate is +closed by the affirmative. The order of speakers on each team is often +different in refutation than in constructive argument. + +_Presiding chairman_.--Every debate should be presided over by a +chairman. His duties are to state the question to the audience, +introduce each speaker, and announce the decision of the judges. He +sometimes also acts as timekeeper. + +_Timekeepers_.--A timekeeper representing each of the competing +organizations should note the moment when each speaker begins and +notify the chair when the allotted time has been consumed. It is +customary to give each speaker as many minutes of warning before his +time expires as he may desire. + +_Salutation_.--Good form in debating requires that each speaker shall +begin with a salutation to the various personages whom he addresses. +The most common salutation is: "Mr. Chairman, worthy opponents, +honorable judges, ladies and gentlemen." + +_Reference to other speakers_.--In referring to members of the +opposing team never say, "he said," "she said," or "they said." Always +speak of your opponents in the third person in some such way as, "my +honorable opponents," "the first speaker of the negative," "the +gentlemen of the affirmative," or "the gentlemen from X." + +In referring to other members of your own team say, "my colleagues," +or "my colleague, the first speaker," etc. + +_The judges_.--There are generally three judges. Where it is +practicable, a larger number is desirable because their opinion is +more nearly the opinion of the audience as a whole. Needless to say +they should be competent and wholly without prejudice as to teams or +question. + +_The decision_.--The decision of each judge should be written on a +slip and sealed in an envelope provided for that purpose (see +Appendix IX, "Forms for Judges' Decision"). These should be opened by +the chairman in view of the audience, and the decision announced. + + + + +LESSON X + +A SUMMARY AND A DIAGRAM + + +We have now completed our study of debating. We saw first that all +talking and writing is discourse, and that one great division of +discourse--that which aims to gain belief--is argumentation. +Argumentation we divided into spoken and written argumentation. We +found that it varies in formality but that, when carried on orally +under prescribed conditions and with the expectation of having a +decision rendered, it is called debating. + +Successful debating we found to require three steps: showing the +hearers what belief is desired; showing them upon what issues belief +depends; and supporting these issues with evidence until we have +established proof. + +We learned that the first of these steps could be taken by stating the +question in the form of a definite, single proposition; defining the +terms of this proposition; and then restating the whole matter. We +found that the second step required that the material that both sides +admit, together with all other material that is really not pertinent +to the question, should be first removed, and that the fundamentals of +the question should be stated as the issues. The last step, proving +the issues, we found to involve two processes. It was necessary, +first, to find and select evidence, and, second, to arrange that +evidence in logical order--the brief-form. + +[Illustration] + +The accompanying diagram is one that has helped many students to +visualize more clearly what is attempted in a debate and to see how +the debate may be made successful. + +The doubt that the audience very reasonably has of the new idea +proposed is bridged over by the proposition. But this proposition will +not be strong enough to cause the minds of the listeners to pass from +unbelief to belief unless it is well supported. The whole proposition +is therefore placed upon one or two or three great capitals--the +issues, under each of which is a pillar of proof. These pillars are +composed of evidence of every sort. The intelligent debater has, +however, before placing a single piece of this evidence in the proof, +tested it carefully. He has tested it with the question: "Will it help +bring conviction to the audience; how will it affect my hearers?" +Moreover, not satisfied with this scrupulous choice of evidence, he +has been careful not to pile it in regardless of position, but to +place each piece in the position where it will lend the strongest +support to the entire structure. + +When this has been done, the bridge of proof is built solidly upon the +experience of the hearers, and, almost without their knowledge, their +minds have gone from unbelief to belief. + +FOOTNOTES: + +[Footnote 1: Baker, _Principles of Argumentation_.] + +[Footnote 2: Jevons, _Primer of Logic._] + +[Footnote 3: For a thorough discussion of the principle of reference +to experience, see Arthur E. Phillips, _Effective Speaking_, chap. +iii.] + +[Footnote 4: Edmund Burke, _On Conciliation with the Colonies_.] + + + + +APPENDICES + + + + +APPENDIX I + +HOW AND WHERE TO READ FOR MORE + +INFORMATION + + +Practically every subject that is interesting enough to be a good +subject for debate has been written about by other people. Every good +library contains the books on the following list, and with a little +experience the student can handle them easily. A general treatment of +every important subject can be found in any of the following +encyclopedias: _Americana, New International, Twentieth Century, +Britannica_. + +Everything that has been written upon every subject in all general, +technical, and school magazines, can be found by looking up the +desired topic in: _The Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature_, or +_Poole's Index_. + +If the matter being studied deals with civics, economics, or +sociology, look in: Bliss, _Encyclopaedia of Social Reform,_ etc.; +Lalor, _Cyclopaedia of Political Science_, etc.; Larned, _History of +Ready Reference and Topical Reading_; Bowker and lies, _Reader's Guide +in Economics_, etc. + +What Congress is doing and has done is often important. This can be +found in full in: _The Congressional Record_. + +Jones's _Finding List_ tells where to look for any topic in various +government publications. + +In studying many subjects the need of definite and reliable statistics +will be felt. These may be found on almost any question in the +following publications: _Statesman's Yearbook, Whitaker's Almanac, +World Almanac, Chicago Daily News Almanac, Hazell's Almanac, U.S. +Census Reports_. + +Never consider your reading completed until you have looked for any +special book that may be written upon your subject in the Card +Catalogue of your Library. + +Make out a Bibliography or Reading List (as illustrated briefly in +Appendix V) before you proceed to actual reading. + + + + +APPENDIX II + +ILLUSTRATIONS OF ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE THE ISSUES OF THE QUESTION + +The two specimens that immediately follow are analyses of the same +question by students of the same university. The first is a selection +from the speech made by Mr. Raymond S. Pruitt in the Towle Debate of +Northwestern University Law School in 1911. The second is the +introduction to the speech made by Mr. Charles Watson of the +Northwestern University Law School in the 1911 debate with the Law +School of the University of Southern California. Students should +observe how the two speakers determine somewhat different issues. + +_Resolved_, That in actions against an employer for death or injury of +an employee sustained in the course of an industrial employment the +fellow-servant rule and the rule of the assumption of risk as defined +and interpreted by the common law, should be abolished. + +Mr. Pruitt, speaking for the affirmative: + + The question which we discuss tonight is partly economic and partly + legal. By that I mean that viewing it from the standpoint of legal + liability, we possibly can agree with the gentlemen of the Negative + that the employer should respond in damages to his injured employee, + only when the injury has been caused by the employer's own fault. + But, on the other hand, viewing the same problem from an economic + standpoint, you cannot deny, that, when through no fault of his own, + a worker is injured in the course of an industrial employment, that + industry should compensate him for the loss. + + Here then is the issue--the world-old-problem--established + principles of law in conflict with changing social and economic + conditions; and, as history shows, there can in such cases be but + one solution. The decision of the court, the statute of the + legislature, yes, even the constitution of the nation, must in turn + yield to the march of progress and adapt itself to changing + conditions until once more it shall reflect the sense of public + justice in its own time. Hence, I say that in our discussion this + evening, there can be no confusion of issues. The Affirmative, + according to the wording of the question, are to advocate a change + in our common law, while the Negative in duty bound are to oppose + the proposition for change, and to defend as the Negative always + defend, the order of things as they are. + + The Affirmative are to advocate such a change, the abolition of the + common-law defenses of the employer. For the purposes of this + debate, it is immaterial to us whether this change is brought about + by a simple extension of the employer's liability, or whether it is + accompanied, as in many of our states, by a system of workman's + compensation. Likewise, it is a consideration extraneous to the + issues of this debate, whether the employer shoulder this risk + himself, whether he insure it in a private insurance company, or + whether he be compelled to insure it in a company managed by the + state. At all events, and under any of these plans, the proposition + of the Affirmative will be maintained, the employer will be deprived + of his defenses at common law, and the employee will recover his + damages regardless of questions of fault. + + Assuming then the full burden of proof, the Affirmative propose to + demonstrate that the assumption of risk and the fellow-servant rule + as defined and interpreted by the common law should be abolished, + first, because whatever reasons may have justified these doctrines + in years gone by they have no application to industrial conditions + in our day; and, secondly, because the abolition of these common law + defenses will but place the burden of industrial loss, as in justice + it should be placed, upon the ultimate consumer of the product of + the industry. + +Mr. Watson, speaking for the Negative: + + The proposed abolition of these two common-law defenses, like every + change of law or any suggested reform, is brought to our attention + by certain existing evils. The advocates of this reform have a + definite proposition in mind and that proposition is definitely and + clearly stated in the question. It is a question in which people in + every walk of life are concerned. Since it is of such widespread + interest, let us lift it from a plane of mere debating tactics, in + which a question of this kind is so often placed, and where a great + deal of time is spent in arguing what the Affirmative or the + Negative may stand for according to the interpretation of the + question, let us lift it from that plane, and consider it as + practical men and women who are interested in the outcome of this + great problem. It is, then, in its larger sense, a legal question + and must be considered from the standpoints of justice and of + expediency. + + It is not enough for the Affirmative to point out evils that exist + under these two common-law rules, for there is bound to be some evil + in the administration of all law; so they must further show that + these evils which they have named are inherent in these two laws, + and that the proposed change will remedy the existing evils. Now the + Negative maintain that the evils complained of are not inherent in + these laws, and we believe that the Affirmative plan is not the + proper solution of the problem. + + I will show you that these common-law rules are founded on + principles of justice and that their removal would be unjust to the + employer; second that it would discriminate against the smaller + tradesmen, and third that the proposed remedy does not strike at the + root of the evil, since it would affect only a small percentage of + industrial accidents. + +CARL SCHURZ ON GENERAL AMNESTY + +(A bill being before Congress proposing to restore to leading +Southerners many of the privileges which had been denied them +following the war, Mr. Schurz determined the issue as follows:) + + _Mr. President_: When this debate commenced before the holidays, I + refrained from taking part in it, and from expressing my opinions on + some of the provisions of the bill now before us; hoping as I did + that the measure could be passed without difficulty, and that a + great many of those who now labor under political disabilities would + be immediately relieved. This expectation was disappointed. An + amendment to the bill was adopted. It will have to go back to the + House of Representatives now unless by some parliamentary means we + get rid of the amendment, and there being no inducement left to + waive what criticism we might feel inclined to bring forward, we may + consider the whole question open. + + I beg leave to say that I am in favor of general, or, as this word + is considered more expressive, universal amnesty, believing, as I + do, that the reasons make it desirable that the amnesty should be + universal. The senator from South Carolina has already given notice + that he will move to strike out the exceptions from the operation of + this act of relief for which the bill provides. If he had not + declared his intention to that effect, I would do so. In any event, + whenever he offers his amendment I shall most heartily support it. + + In the course of this debate we have listened to some senators, as + they conjured up before our eyes once more all the horrors of the + Rebellion, the wickedness of its conception, how terrible its + incidents were, and how harrowing its consequences. Sir, I admit it + all; I will not combat the correctness of the picture; and yet if I + differ with the gentlemen who drew it, it is because, had the + conception of the Rebellion been still more wicked, had its + incidents been still more terrible, its consequences still more + harrowing, I could not permit myself to forget that in dealing with + the question now before us we have to deal not alone with the past, + but with the present and future of this republic. + + What do we want to accomplish as good citizens and patriots? Do we + mean only to inflict upon the late rebels pain, degradation, + mortification, annoyance, for its own sake; to torture their + feelings without any ulterior purpose? Certainly such a purpose + could not by any possibility animate high-minded men. I presume, + therefore, that those who still favor the continuance of some of the + disabilities imposed by the Fourteenth Amendment do so because they + have some higher object of public usefulness in view, an object of + public usefulness sufficient to justify, in their minds at least, + the denial of rights to others which we ourselves enjoy. + + What can those objects of public usefulness be? Let me assume that, + if we differ as to the means to be employed, we are agreed as to the + supreme end and aim to be reached. That end and aim of our endeavors + can be no other than to secure to all the States the blessings of + good and free government and the highest degree of prosperity and + well-being they can attain, and to revive in all citizens of this + republic that love for the Union and its institutions, and that + inspiring consciousness of a common nationality, which, after all, + must bind all Americans together. + + What are the best means for the attainment of that end? This, Sir, + as I conceive it, is the only legitimate question we have to decide. + + + + +APPENDIX III + +A TYPICAL COLLEGE FORENSIC + + +The forensic which follows is the one which was used by the State +University of Iowa in its debates with the University of Wisconsin and +the University of Minnesota in 1908. In the form in which it appears +here it was given in a home contest a few evenings before the +Inter-State Debate. It is quoted here with the permission of the +Forensic League of the State University of Iowa. + +_Resolved_, That American Cities Should Adopt a Commission Form of +Government. + +Mr. Clarence Coulter, the first speaker on the Affirmative, said: + + It is not my purpose to picture the shame of American cities; that + is well known; but I am to consider only those evils due to the + present form of municipal government, an organization based on the + separation of the powers into the legislative, executive, and + judicial departments. The proper remedy for these evils will be + secured only by adopting a form which concentrates the entire + authority of city government in one definite and responsible body. + + It is a significant fact, that during the last quarter of a century, + the tendency in municipal organization has been toward concentration + of powers. Certain of our cities have recognized the wisdom of such + action, but have unwisely attempted to concentrate only the + executive power whereas the real solution lies in concentrating all + governmental authority in one definite and responsible body. + + New York City tried such a plan and it has failed; failed because + its separate legislative department has proved an obstruction to + effective action. Consequently, there has been a continual tendency + to deprive the council of all power, until today its only function + is to vote on franchises and issue certain licenses. So evident is + the imperative need of concentrating the legislative and + administrative powers in one body, that there is now a charter + revision committee meeting in New York whose great object is to + consider the advisability of entirely eliminating the separate + council, and creating in its place a small commission possessing + both legislative and administrative authority. Practically the same + condition obtains in the city of Boston. + + What is true of New York and Boston is equally true of scores of + other cities. Memphis tried for years to reform her government with + an isolated council. Today she is clamoring at the doors of her + legislature for a commission charter. Within the past two years more + than a dozen states have provided for a commission form of + government, while within the past year more than a dozen cities have + actually thrown away their old forms and assumed the commission + system. + + The success of a separate legislative body in state and national + government is the only excuse for its retention in our cities, yet + the failure, for over a century in all its different forms and + variations, proves that such a government is unsuited to them. There + are several important and fundamental characteristics of the city + that demand a different form of government and show conclusively + that there is no need of a separate legislative body. In the first + place, the city is not a sovereign government, but is subordinate to + state and nation. There is no reason for a distinct legislature to + determine the broad matters of policy, for they are determined for + the citizens of the city as well as those of the country, by the + state and national legislatures, in which both the city and country + are represented. In the second place, the work of a city is largely + administrative and of a business character, as my colleagues will + show, and there is no necessity for a separate council to legislate + when a commissioner is better able, as we shall show, to pass the + kind of legislation characteristic of the city. + + In the third place, we do not find, as in the state, the necessity + of a large and separate body to represent the various localities. + The city has a large population living in a restricted territory; in + the state it is scattered. The city is unified by means of its rapid + communication and transportation facilities, and its interests are + common. These, Honorable Judges, are some general reasons why there + is no necessity for trying to maintain a separate legislative body + at the expense of efficiency in administration and the fixing of + individual responsibility. + + But let us now examine as to wherein this principle of separation + fails to meet modern municipal conditions. In the first place we + find that this system has failed to produce efficiency, because, in + actual practice, it has been impossible to keep the legislative and + administrative branches within their proper spheres of action. To be + sure, such difficulty does not exist in state and national + governments where the work is naturally divided. But in city + government, where the work is of a peculiar kind, where it is + unified in character and is largely administrative and of a business + nature, it has been found impossible to maintain a separation. It is + not at all surprising to find that in some cities, the mayor is the + dominating factor in both legislation and administration. He is the + presiding officer of the council with the deciding vote, and, in + addition, is clothed with the veto power. On the other hand, there + are scores of instances where the council assumes administrative + functions. It names all appointments to office, and it creates and + controls all the departments of city government. Under such + circumstances the administrative department is subordinate to the + council, because its officers can be both appointed and removed by + that body and because it can carry on no work without the council's + authority. Thus there is an inevitable tendency to concentrate the + powers in one of the two branches, yet, at the same time, diffusing + responsibility between them. Such a condition only goes to show that + city government is gradually but surely working its way toward + concentration in one body. But the trouble lies in the fact that the + present system makes possible concentration of power, without a + corresponding concentration of responsibility. From such a condition + have grown two grave and inherent evils. First, it has entirely + eliminated the system of checks and balances, which is a fundamental + doctrine of the division of power. Secondly, it has utterly + destroyed all effective responsibility. It is apparent at once, that + when one branch of the government dominates, the checks and balances + between the departments are immediately lost, and facts bear out + what theory shows to be logically true. The system of checks and + balances failed absolutely in New York, where the mayor is supreme, + and where the city has been plundered of sums estimated at 7 per + cent of the total valuation of real estate. It has failed in St. + Louis, where the council dominated, and where "Boss Butler" paid + that body $250,000 to pass a street railway franchise. Neither did + it work in Philadelphia, which has been plundered of an amount equal + to 10 per cent of her real estate valuation; nor in San Francisco + under the disgraceful regime of Mayor Schmitz. So overwhelming is + the evidence on this point that it is needless to dwell further upon + it. + + In the second place, this domination of one branch over the other + has resulted in a lack of responsibility and of co-ordination in + city affairs. These two elements are indispensable where the work to + be performed is of a local and business nature. We find that under + the present system, no matter which branch of government dominates, + there is always a notorious lack of responsibility. If the council + makes a blunder in legislation, it immediately lays the blame upon + the administrative officials, maintaining that it passed the measure + upon recommendation of the administrative branch, or that branch + failed to carry out its policy. If the administrative officials are + neglectful, they shift the blame onto the council, and insist that + the difficulty lies in insufficient legislation. Under such + conditions, the average citizen has no way of telling where the + blame really lies. + + At present, there is no attempt at co-ordination between the + legislative, executive, and judicial departments. On the other hand, + there is often open rupture between them. For years before the + commission form of government was adopted in Galveston, there was + open warfare between the legislative and executive departments, + which saddled upon the city a bonded debt of many thousands of + dollars. In our state, there is a municipality in which the two + departments of government are defying each other. Both are + exercising legislative and administrative authority until the + citizens of that place are at a loss to know which is right. This is + admittedly a deplorable state of affairs, yet it is the logical + result of forcing upon the city a form of government entirely + unsuited for its needs. Moreover, this lack of co-ordination and + responsibility has resulted in the confusion of powers and the + creation of needless boards and committees. A recent investigation + in Philadelphia showed that it had four boards with power to tear up + the streets at will, but none to see that they were properly relaid. + Chicago finds herself possessed of eight different tax levying + bodies, while in New York City there are eighty different boards or + individuals who have power to create debt. Is it any wonder that + inefficiency and graft infest such a maze of boards, councils and + committees? We see, then, that the present system of separation of + powers produces inefficiency through a confusion of functions; it + does away completely with the system of checks and balances and + results in utter lack of responsibility and co-ordination of + departments. + + Honorable Judges, if we are ever to arrive at a solution of our + municipal problem, we must concentrate municipal authority; we must + co-ordinate departments, eliminate useless boards and committees and + fix absolutely and completely individual responsibility. This, we + propose to do by establishing a commission form of government, where + all governmental authority is vested in one small body of men, who + individually act as the heads of administrative departments, but who + collectively pass the needed legislation. Thus, instead of a council + with restricted powers and divided authority, we have a few men + assuming positions of genuine responsibility, as regards both the + originating and enforcing of laws. My colleagues will show that such + a concentration of powers in one small body is necessary and + desirable, both from the legislative and administrative point of + view. + + Such a concentration is desirable, since it is accompanied by a + corresponding concentration of personal responsibility. This is + secured in the commission system. Responsibility in administration + is secured, because each commissioner is at the head of a + department, for the efficient and honest conduct of which he alone + is held personally responsible. Responsibility in legislation is + secured, because, first, the body of legislators is comparatively + small. Second, the very fact that each commissioner possesses + information essential to intelligent action, places upon the + commission itself absolute responsibility. Such a system makes it + impossible to shift responsibility from one branch to the other, and + guarantees to us better and more efficient administration of our + municipal affairs for it eliminates all useless boards and + committees and fixes absolutely and completely individual + responsibility. + +Mr. Earl Stewart, the first speaker on the Negative, said: + + We wish it understood at the outset that no one deplores the useless + boards and complicated machinery in many of our American cities more + than do the Negative. + + Before going a step farther let us get right as to what we mean by a + commission form. The gentlemen state that they are standing for a + concentration of all power in one small body. Honorable Judges, they + are standing for something different. It is possible to concentrate + all authority in one body and yet have the different functions + performed by separately constituted bodies. For example, the cabinet + system of Germany, where all governing power is vested in the + legislative body which in turn delegates all administrative + functions to the cabinet. Thus the legislative body is directly + responsible, having ultimate authority, yet the actual exercise of + power is done by distinct bodies. Now how is it with the commission? + There, not only does one body have ultimate authority, but it + actually conducts administration as well as legislation. Quoting + from Sec. 7 of the Des Moines charter, which is typical of every + commission form charter in this regard, it says: "All legislative, + executive, and judicial functions of the city shall be placed in the + hands of the commissioners who shall exercise those functions." The + Affirmative, then, are standing for fusion of functions, and not + concentration of powers. + + The Negative do not defend the evils of present city organization. + The Negative believe that far-reaching reforms must be instituted + before we shall enjoy municipal success. The issue then is, does the + commission form, or do the reforms proposed by the Negative, offer + the more satisfactory solution of our municipal problems? + + The Negative propose, first, that the form of organization shall + embody a proper correlation or departments. + + In the early council system the functions of the legislative and + executive departments so overlapped that there was continual + conflict of authority. Under the board system the two departments + were almost disconnected, so that the legislative department could + not hold the executive accountable to the will of the people. In + many forms today, as the gentlemen have depicted, the relations + between the departments are such that responsibility cannot be + fixed. + + But, Honorable Judges, these instances of failure do not show that + it is impossible to preserve a proper division of functions, for + every conspicuous example of municipal success in the world is based + upon the proper correlation between the legislative and + administrative departments. Municipal success in Europe is an + established fact. There we find the cabinet form. A similar form is + in vogue in Toronto, Canada, which Mayor Coatswain says is most + gratifying to the public. Says Rear Admiral Chadwick: "The city of + Newport, Rhode Island, has now a form of government that awakens the + interest of the citizens, keeps that interest awake, and conducts + its affairs in obedience to the wishes of the majority." Charleston, + S. C., Elmira, New York, Los Angeles, Cal., are but a few of the + typical American cities which have successfully adopted the ordinary + mayor and council form. Says Mayor Rhett, of Charleston: "I am the + executive of a city that has been under a mayor and council for over + one hundred years. It is quite as capable of prompt action on any + matter as any business corporation." The National Municipal League, + composed of such men as Albert Shaw, of New York City, and Professor + Rowe of the University of Pennsylvania, appointed a committee to + formulate a definite program of reform. This committee did not even + consider the abandoning of distinct legislative and administrative + bodies, but, after three years of unremitting effort, presented a + working system, embodying, in the words of the committee itself, the + "essential principle of all successful government," namely, the + proper correlation between the legislative and administrative + departments. That program has left marked traces in the constitution + of Virginia, Alabama, Colorado, New York, Wisconsin, Michigan, and + Delaware. + + Proper correlation between departments is best facilitated in the + cabinet form, because all governing power is vested in the + legislative body, which in turn delegates all administrative + functions to the cabinet. However, many cities have properly + correlated mayor and council by utilizing the model charter of the + National Municipal League. The Negative, therefore, is here to + promulgate no specific form for all American cities: conditions in + Boston may require a different mechanism from that in San Francisco, + but whatever form, the underlying principle of a proper division of + functions must be embodied. The Affirmative must admit that proper + correlation of departments has brought about municipal success, as + far as mere organization can do so, yet, notwithstanding that, after + fifteen years of misrule under the commission form in Sacramento the + freeholders by unanimous choice again adopted distinct legislative + and administrative bodies; and that the commission form has lately + operated but a few years in a few small cities, amid aroused civic + interest. The Affirmative would abolish at one blow the working + principle of successful city organization in France, Germany, + England, Canada, and unnumbered cities in the United States. + + In the second place, evils in our cities are due to bad social and + economic conditions. Harrisburg, Pa., was notoriously corrupt. A + spirit of reform aroused the citizens, and Harrisburg stands today + as a remarkable example of efficient government, yet the form of + organization has been unchanged. + + In many of our large cities there is a feeble civic spirit, due, in + part, to undesirable immigrants, the prey to the boss, and utterly + lacking in inherited traditions so essential to the capacity of + self-government. Another instance: the mutual taxing system has + fostered public extravagance and loss of interest on the part of the + taxpayer. Again, favor-seeking corporations have continually + employed corrupt methods. James Bryce says that in the development + of a stronger sense of civic duty rather than any change in the form + of government lies the ultimate hope of municipal reform. + + A third cause of municipal ills is that of poor business methods. + First, unjust election laws and lack of proper primaries have + permitted the corrupt arts of the caucus politician. Second, lack of + a uniform system of accounting has served only to conceal the facts, + resulting in apathy on the part of the people, diffusion of + responsibility, and widespread corruption among officials. Third, + lack of publicity of proceedings has protected graft. Fourth, lack + of civil service has perpetuated the spoils system. + + All these can and are being remedied. The Bureau of Municipal + Research shows plainly that it is not necessary to change + fundamental principles to secure business efficiency. It reorganized + the Real Estate Bureau of New York that eluded all graft charges and + made 100 per cent profits. The Department of Finance, heretofore + unable to tell whether taxes were collected, is reorganized from top + to bottom. Through the glaring light of publicity, the bureau + collected more than a million dollars for paving done at the + public's expense between the street-car company's rails. The old + conditions, where examination of the books of any department + involved weeks of labor, have given way to a uniform system of + public accounting. In the words of the Springfield, Mass., + _Republican_, "The work of the Bureau of Public Research is far more + fundamental than the question of substituting city organization with + a commission." + + A fourth cause of evils is that of state interference in purely + local affairs. + + In the United States the city may not act except where authorized + expressly and especially by the state. In Europe the city may do + anything it is not forbidden to do, and municipal success there is + based on this greater freedom. The European city, though subject to + general state law, makes its own local laws, not in conflict with, + but in addition to, state law. But in the United States the state + legislature, accustomed to interfere in matters of interest to the + state government, failed to distinguish between such matters and + those of exclusive interest to the cities themselves. To illustrate: + The Cleveland Municipal Association reported in 1900 that + legislators from an outside county had introduced radical changes in + almost every department of their city government. In Massachusetts + the police, water works, and park systems are directly under the + state, and the only part the cities have is to pay the bills. In + Pennsylvania for thirty-one years the state kept upon the statute + books an act imposing upon Philadelphia a self-perpetuating + commission, appointed without reference to the city's wishes, and + with all power to erect a city hall and levy taxes to collect the + twenty-million-dollar cost. + + State and national political parties, controlling the legislature, + have meddled in the private affairs of the city, resulting in the + decay of the city council and the destruction of the local autonomy. + Professor Goodnow says that under these conditions a scientific + solution of the vexed question of municipal organization has been + impossible. + + The remedy lies in restoring to the city its proper field of + legislation. Already thirty states have passed constitutional + amendments granting greater legislative powers to the cities. Five + states now allow cities to amend their own charters. But in direct + opposition to this movement for municipal home rule, the commission + form takes the last step in the destruction of the city's + legislative body and fosters continued state interference. President + Eliot says that the functions of the commissioners will be defined + and enumerated by the state. + + Now, Honorable Judges, the basic principle of city government the + world over is division of functions. It is the principle that the + commission form attempts to annihilate. But we have pointed out the + real causes of municipal evils and have shown they are to be + remedied without tampering with the fundamental principles which + time and experience have shown to be correct in every instance of + successful city organization. The Affirmative say: change the + fundamental principle; all changes in form and other remedies are + insufficient. The Negative say: retain the principle of distinct + legislative and administrative bodies, but observe a proper + correlation between them which is done in countless instances as we + have shown. We would remedy bad social and economic conditions, + introduce better business methods, and, most important of all, give + the city greater freedom in powers of local self-government. + +Mr. Clyde Robbins, the second speaker of the Affirmative, said: + + It should be understood at the outset that the Affirmative desire + all the local self-government for American cities that the Negative + can induce the state legislatures to give them. But just what is + home rule for cities? It is simply granting additional functions to + the city by the state legislature. The only possible way home rule + can affect the question under discussion is a consideration of which + form of government is best suited to perform additional functions + granted by the government. We maintain that the commission form can + do this better because, first, it furnishes superior legislation, + and second, it furnishes superior administration. + + The gentleman blandly assumes that the commission form is + fundamentally wrong, because it fails to provide a separate + legislative body as do the governments of the state and nation. An + isolated legislative body is desirable for state and national + governments. Is that a reason for applying it to city government? + Here, social, economic, and political conditions are entirely + different from those of either state or nation. The city is not a + sovereign body. Its powers are exclusively those delegated to it by + the state legislature. They are confined wholly to matters of local + concern. Furthermore, we do not deny the legislative functions of + the city, nor does the plan we advocate contemplate the destruction + of the city's legislative body. It simply means that in place of the + present notoriously inefficient, isolated council, we establish a + commission council composed of the heads of the various + administrative departments. The question at issue is not whether we + shall have a city council, either system provides for that; but + whether a commission council, or an isolated council will furnish + better ordinances. We are contending that the commission council + must furnish superior measures, because in the making of city + ordinances there are at least three great essentials for which this + commission council alone makes adequate provision. + + First the legislative and administrative work of the city must be + unalterably connected; + + Second, the councilmen must have a direct and technical knowledge of + the city affairs; + + Third, the councilman must be representative of the whole city. + + Consider, first, how the legislative and administrative work are + connected. State and national legislation are general in their + nature and scope. The extent of territory, and the variety in local + needs have naturally created a separate law-making body. But in the + city such conditions do not exist. The legislative acts of the + council are specific in their nature. The very name reveals their + distinctive character. They are ordinances as distinguished from + other laws, and are designed to meet a particular kind of + administration. The specific act and the particular administration + of it go hand in hand. Hence, satisfactory measures can be enacted + only when they come from the hands of a commission council. + + President Eliot recognized this fact when he said that the work of + the city council is not concerned with far-reaching policies of + legislation. There is no occasion for two or even one separate + legislative body. Dr. Albert Shaw writes, that so indistinguishably + blended are the legislative and administrative departments of the + city, that it is impossible to separate one from the other. + + Second, a commission council is more effective because it furnishes + a direct and technical knowledge of city affairs. An investigation + in Des Moines showed that out of 370 acts performed by the council, + 32 were granting of saloon licenses and similar permits; 338 + concerned matters demanding technical knowledge. To have a street + paved, shall one body legislate; a second group administer; and a + third pass upon the validity of the whole thing? Rather the + councilmen should know good paving; they should know how to draw up + and enforce a business contract. These are the vital necessities. + + The commission council secures such results. Its membership is + comparatively small. Its sessions are held daily. Its members have a + direct knowledge of the city's needs for each one serves as the head + of a department. Satisfactory legislation then becomes a mere + business proposition. It is but carrying forward the work of each + commissioner, for successful administration is impossible without + competent legislation. Hence, a city commissioner would no more + think of passing improper legislation than a bank director would + think of advising unsound loans. + + The Cedar Rapids commission met to legislate on replacing an old + bridge. The commissioner of public safety told in what respects the + old structure was unsafe. The commissioner of public property knew + how much land the city owned abutting the bridge. The commissioner + of streets explained what alterations should be made in the + approaches, and the commissioner of finance knew in just what way + the city could best pay for the improvement. Honorable Judges, such + men are in a position to legislate with thoroughness. They are a + commission council, the very nature of which makes it inevitable + that they act with intelligence and efficiency. + + Contrast now, the commission council with the isolated council. Here + we find positively no co-ordination between the legislative and + administrative branches, while a century of experience with the + scheme of checks and balances has proved conclusively that it can + not prevent municipal corruption. Moreover, legislation by the + isolated council is not only chaotic in form but it is + irresponsible, while in the case of the commission council the very + fact that the head of each department possesses necessary + information not only secures adequate legislation but fixes with + certainty the entire responsibility. + + The isolated council is a large and unwieldy body. Each member of it + has his own private occupation. Without special preparation of any + kind he attends council not oftener than once a week. Intelligent + action under such conditions is simply impossible. The only way this + council has of securing reliable information is from the heads of + the administrative departments. But even then responsibility is + still divided between the legislative and administrative branches. + This deplorable state of affairs has been synchronous with the + growth of the isolated council in America. + + Is it any wonder that the old Des Moines council voted to construct + a bridge only to find when the work was completed that the city did + not even own the approaches, or that the old Cedar Rapids council + let a similar contract at an exorbitantly high price, only to find, + when the work was completed, that the contract called for no + protecting wings or abutments, and the city was compelled to spend + many thousands of dollars additional in order to make the structure + safe? Such nonsensical legislation is a direct result of the + isolated council. It fails to provide information essential to + intelligent action. It does not permit a proper co-ordination of + departments so vitally necessary in successful city government. + + Lastly, city legislation demands unbiased representation. In this + respect a commission council is superior to an isolated council. + + In the commission council each member represents the entire city. + Hence, there is no incentive to favor one ward at the expense of + another. In fact, any such an attempt could result only in disaster + to the commissioner himself. Furthermore, each commissioner is held + individually responsible for his department. Consequently he is + forced to insist upon an impartial representation of the entire + city. This is well illustrated by the present situation in New York + City. The Bureau of Municipal Research, admittedly the most + practical organization of its kind in the country, is conducting its + work along the line of effective competency in city departments. As + a result of its investigations, the citizens of New York have been + forced to the conclusion to which my colleague has already referred, + namely, that the ultimate solution of their municipal difficulties + will be reached only when they have disposed of their present + inefficient and useless ward council and created in its place a + commission council. + + Under the isolated council a member is elected to represent a + certain section of the city. He must do this, no matter what may be + the effect upon the rest of the city. For example, in legislating on + the annual budget, each ward boss brings pressure to bear upon his + own councilman to have certain levies reduced, and to secure + stipulated appropriations for his own ward. In New York City last + spring, Bird S. Coler, representing a part of Brooklyn, blocked + every appropriation until he secured certain selfish measures for + his own district. What is true of New York is an annual occurrence + in practically every other ward-ruled American city. + + Furthermore, councilmen from one ward are shamefully unresponsive to + the needs and desires of citizens in other wards. Just this summer + the council of Duluth, Minn., granted saloon licenses for a ward in + which 90 per cent of its citizens signed a written protest against + such action. The councilmen representing that district were helpless + to prevent the legislation and the citizens themselves had no + recourse whatsoever. The grand jury in St. Louis reported that the + wards of that city were an actual menace to decency and good + government. + + With these instances before us it is well to remember that the + scheme of ward representation is a necessary part of the practical + operation of the separation of powers in government. This is + exemplified in our national, state, and city organizations. In fact, + the principal reason for an isolated legislative body is that the + sentiments of the different localities may be expressed in + legislation. The practical result is that 95 per cent of our city + governments are based upon ward representation, nor can an instance + be cited in all American political theory which shows the creation + of a successful political organization based upon an isolated + legislative body in which there has not been an accompanying + representation by territorial districts. This principle is always + the same no matter whether it be a congressional district of the + national government or a ward of the city government. Hence, it is + for this principle that the gentlemen must contend if they wish to + argue for an isolated council in city government. + + In conclusion, Honorable Judges, a commission council is superior to + an isolated council, because the work of city legislation and + administration must be unalterably connected; because the councilmen + must have a direct and technical knowledge of city affairs; and, + because the councilmen must be representative of the whole city. + +Mr. Vincent Starzinger, the second speaker on the Negative, said: + + The Affirmative continue to direct their attack against the "old + form." Yet my colleague has suggested substantial changes in present + city organization, changes which have brought about success + wherever tried. Moreover, we wish to make it clear that we are not + necessarily standing for a division of power. There may be + separately constituted departments of government, one primarily for + administration, the other primarily for legislation, yet a + concentration of authority in one of them, as in the case under the + cabinet system of Europe. The gentlemen of the opposition are + advocating not only a concentration of power, but a fusion of + functions as well. Their commission is at once the executive cabinet + and the legislative body. + + We have heard much about the practical working of the new plan. Upon + this matter, the Negative shall have a few words to say before the + close of the debate. But granting for the sake of argument that the + commission form has operated with some degree of success in a few + small towns, especially when compared with the admitted inefficient + machinery of government in vogue before its adoption and when + favored by an aroused civic interest, nevertheless, it does not + follow that it is adapted to the needs of the typical American city. + There, administration is a matter of great complexity and of vital + importance. Boston has pay-rolls including 12,000 and annual + expenditure of $40,000,000. Successful administration under such + conditions has necessitated the growth of city departments. The + heads of the various departments constitute an executive cabinet. + Under the commission form, this cabinet is established by popular + election and made the single governmental body for the performance + of both the legislative and the administrative functions. + + Such a fusion of functions must necessarily result: in poor + administration; in the sacrifice of legislation; and in the ultimate + destruction of local self-government. + + Consider the problem of administration. + + An efficient cabinet cannot, as a rule, be secured by popular + election. Men who possess the ability to direct a city department + acquire such capacity only after years of preparation, and such men + will not endure the uncertainties of a career dependent upon the + favor of the public. The commissioner of finance who understands the + intricate problems of accounting will not coddle the people to + insure his election. Popular judgment, no matter how enlightened, + cannot be entrusted with the selection of such men. The old board + system proves this conclusively. Here, the choosing of the heads of + the important city departments was placed in the hands of the + people. The system stands condemned. + + A commission form makes the additional blunder of uniting completely + the two functions of legislation and administration in the same + body. This makes the commissioners representative in character. But + this condition is disastrous to successful administration. Whenever + the people desire even the slightest change in their local policy, + the stability and continuity of the city departments must be upset. + Representation is secured at the expense of efficiency. + Administration becomes saturated with politics. + + Again, Honorable Judges, the management of a city should be + subjected to the criticism and control of a reviewing body. Both the + welfare of the people and the interests of good administration + demand it. Administrators, no matter how valuable their technical + knowledge, make poor legislators. Being interested in their work, + they very naturally exalt and magnify their departments. Just a few + years ago, the city of Cleveland found it necessary to take even the + preparation of the budget from the heads of the departments + concerned and to place it with a board which could view with + impartiality the demands of the various department chiefs. Think of + turning over all the functions of a city like St. Louis to an + executive cabinet without even the oversight or criticism of an + impartial body. + + And, Honorable Judges, the whole experience of government proves the + absolute necessity for a separate legislative department. Look where + you will, and in each case there is an executive cabinet, based upon + appointment, untrammelled by the burdens of legislation, and + subjected to the criticism and control of a reviewing body. In + Europe, the city councils are elected by the people, and the + administrative departments are made up through a process of + selection and appointment, together with the assurance of reasonable + permanence of tenure, responsibility, and adequate support. Likewise + in America, the larger cities are already organizing their cabinets + upon a somewhat similar basis. The six largest cities of New York, + all of the cities of Indiana, Boston, Chicago, Baltimore, and many + others are securing their important administrative officials through + appointment by the mayor. This is the general plan advocated by the + National Municipal League. It centers responsibility for the + administration in one man. On the other hand, some of the cities of + Canada follow more closely to the German system. There the cabinet + is selected by a representative council. In practically all of these + instances, men of special ability have been obtained, the + departments of administration have been properly correlated, + responsibility has been concentrated, and the general principle, + that successful administration depends upon a separately constituted + legislative body, has been firmly established. + + It is plain then that a commission form violates the fundamental + principles of successful administration. It first attempts to secure + a cabinet by popular vote. It then upsets the stability of the city + departments by completely uniting both the legislative and the + administrative functions. Finally, it destroys the responsibility of + that prime essential of successful administration, namely, a proper + reviewing body. + + In the second place, Honorable Judges, the permanent adoption of a + commission form must necessarily mean a sacrifice of legislation and + the ultimate destruction of local self-government. Even though the + city may be subordinate to the state, nevertheless, it has a broad + field of independent action. Otherwise, why give it a separate + personality and a separate organization? Cities are permitted to + exercise vast powers of police and of taxation. It is idle to say + that a few commissioners can give satisfactory legislation. They + cannot represent community interests. Their executive functions will + naturally bias their judgment. Moreover, each commissioner, knowing + little of the needs of the other departments, will naturally take + the word of its administrative head, especially since he desires the + same freedom. This was actually the case in Sacramento, Cal., where + the commission plan was tried for fifteen years and given up as an + abject failure. Says the Hon. Clinton White of that city: "In almost + every instance, the board soon came to the understanding that each + man was to be let alone in the management of the department assigned + to him. This resulted in there being in fact no tribunals exercising + a supervisory power over the executive of a particular department." + Honorable Judges, a reviewing and legislative body is indispensable + in city government and a commission makes no such provision. Weak in + administration, wholly lacking in matters of legislation, dangerous + as a theory of government, it cannot help but result in the complete + subjection of local government to the state. The inevitable result + of its permanent adoption will be that the important local + legislative functions will become a mere administrative board with + discretionary power as in the case of Washington, D.C. In the words + of Professor Goodnow: "The destruction of the city council has not + destroyed council government. It has simply made local policy a + matter of state legislative determination." If we wish to destroy + the life of the city, make it impotent to discharge the functions + for which it was organized, then, and then only, it might be + feasible to place over it a commission. + + But, Honorable Judges, authorities are agreed that cities must be + allowed greater freedom of action in local affairs, that municipal + home rule is indispensable. The governments of our large cities have + been dominated to such an extent by the state legislatures, usually + partisan and irresponsible to the locality concerned, that in many + cases self-government has become a term, hollow and without meaning. + + The gentlemen condemn the city council, yet they pass over the real + cause for its decay. Restore to the city its proper legislative + powers, confine the work of the council to legislation instead of + allowing it to go into details of administration, reduce the number + of councilmen, if necessary, adjust the method of representation, + introduce needed electoral and primary reform, establish + responsibility by means of uniform municipal accounting and + publicity of proceedings, and we ask the gentlemen in all + earnestness why American city councils will not take on new life + just as the city councils of every other country have done in the + past. + + The two great problems of American city government are: first, + administration; secondly, municipal home rule. The solution of both + depends upon the existence of two separately constituted departments + of government. This principle is being emphasized by the leading + scholars of political science, as illustrated by the program of the + National Municipal League. In fact, Honorable Judges, every + deep-seated reform in our large cities for the past quarter of a + century has tended toward this cardinal doctrine of municipal + success. The Ohio Municipal Code Commission, after two years of + careful study and observation, presented a bill based upon the + principles which we defend tonight, namely, a separation of + administration from legislation, and secondly, municipal home rule. + + In direct opposition to this, the gentlemen present and advocate as + a permanent scheme for the organization of American cities, both + large and small, a commission form, a quasi-legislative and + administrative board patterned to give mediocrity in the performance + of both functions, success in neither; a form which destroys forever + the possibility of developing an efficient executive cabinet and is + entirely out of harmony with the advancing idea of municipal home + rule. + +Mr. George Luxford, the third speaker on the Affirmative, said: + + It has been made very clear by my colleagues that the present + shameful condition of many of our American cities is due in large + measure to the peculiar form of the government patterned after a + scheme which is adapted to a sovereign government like the state or + nation. The Negative demand an isolation which history shows, so far + as our American cities are concerned, leads to a complete confusion + of functions, with a consequent loss of responsibility. Knowing the + inadequacy of the scheme they then demanded municipal home rule; but + we have shown that the Affirmative are thoroughly committed to + municipal home rule which under the commission form alone can be + safely intrusted to cities. State interference in city government is + the child of the form of government for which our friends of the + Negative are sponsors. Thus far the gentlemen have failed to + disprove the points which we have presented that the theory of + checks and balances when applied to American cities has failed; that + the plan of concentrating municipal authority under one head as + advocated by the commission plan is in complete harmony with modern + industrial and social development, and that the plan is superior + from a legislative standpoint. It shall be my purpose to show that + it is superior from the standpoint of administration. We believe + this because the commission lends itself to the application of + business methods. The plan provides for a comparatively small body + of men who meet in daily session and who give their whole time to + the work of governing the city. At present, too often the real + business of the officials is anything else. They give their spare + time to the city and we have seen the results. Honorable judges, we + claim that there is a special virtue in the very smallness of the + number inasmuch as they are properly paid, devote all their time to + their work, and are made in fact governors of the city. They have a + great deal of work to do and they do it, while under our present + systems the councilmen have comparatively little to do and they fail + to do that little efficiently. + + The reason why this small body can administer with dispatch and + efficiency is seen at a glance. Each commissioner is the head of a + department for which he is personally responsible. He is not + hindered as is the executive at present by an inefficient and + meddling council which has more power, often, than the executive + himself. He knows the laws for he has helped to make them. It is his + business to see that they are executed, and if they are not, he + cannot escape blame. He cannot plead ignorance, lack of + responsibility, or lack of power as do present administrative + officers. + + Moreover, this body is admirably constituted for effective carrying + out of city business. It is larger than the single headed executive + and possesses, therefore, a division of work which makes the + administration far more effective. At the same time it is smaller + than the old council and for that reason is more efficient in + enacting the city's peculiar kind of legislation. In actual + practice, and that seems to be the real test of city government, + both administration and legislation are accomplished with accuracy + and dispatch. For instance, every spring for the last decade + carloads of "dagoes" with their dirt and disease have come to Cedar + Rapids. Every year protests have gone up to both mayor and council, + but without result. Cedar Rapids has adopted a commission form of + government. Last spring when the "dagoes" came the same complaints + went up as usual, that because of their insanitary methods these + people carried with them filth and disease. But the petitioners did + not go to the city council which met once in two weeks, nor were + they referred to a committee which met less often. They went + directly to the commissioners who had charge of the city health and + in less than twenty-four hours the "dagoes" had been notified to + either clean up or leave, and they left the city. But, say the + opponents of this plan, this could have been done under the old + system. To be sure, but the burning fact remains that in spite of + the protests of the people, it was not done. + + In Houston the government was both inefficient and dishonest. For + years the annual expenditures had exceeded the income a hundred + thousand dollars. The city adopted a commission form and a four + hundred thousand dollar floating debt was paid off in one year out + of the ordinary income of the city. At the same time the city's + taxes were reduced ten per cent. In the health department alone + there is a saving of from $100 to $150 per month, while a + combination in the operation of the garbage crematory and pumping + station saves the city $6,000 annually. These results have been + accomplished under a commission plan by the application of common, + everyday business principles. + + Galveston adopted a commission plan, and although its taxable values + were reduced twenty-five per cent by the storm of 1900, yet within + six years its commissioners not only put the city on a cash basis, + made improvements costing $1,000,000 annually, but actually paid off + a debt of $394,000 which had been incurred by the old council, and + all this was accomplished without borrowing a dollar, issuing a + bond, or increasing the rate of taxation. Other cities which have + adopted a commission plan are accomplishing equally as beneficial + results. Hence, we maintain that the commission form of city + government is superior from the standpoint of efficiency in + administration. + + The commission plan is superior in administration for it is adapted + to the city's financial problem. The same body of men are held + responsible for the levying and collecting of taxes and for the + spending of the money. This is desirable because the administrative + body which is to spend money knows, accurately, the city's need of + revenue. They are in a position to know; it is their business. A + legislative body, whether council or a board, cannot know the city's + needs for money without getting the facts from the administrative + body. F.R. Clow says the council does not pretend to know the city's + revenue problem and they adopt the recommendation of the + administrative departments. The Negative's system of division of + powers simply divides the responsibility between the legislative and + administrative departments for the thing which in fact has been done + by the administrative department itself. Since the administrative + department really dictates the budget, it should be held directly + responsible for it. Therefore, we contend that the commissioners, + knowing best what the budget should contain because as + administrators they know the city's need for money, are the body of + men preeminently fitted to handle the city's budget. + + The commission plan is adapted to the city's financial problem + because it fosters economy. Economy is the result of understanding. + The commissioners knowing the city's government, not from the + administrative side alone, but from the legislative side as well, + are in a position to economize and in practice they have done so. + The running expenses of Galveston under the commission plan have + been reduced one-third. In Houston it costs $12,800 a year less to + run the water and light plants than formerly, while by a combination + of work in the different departments there is a saving of $9,000 + annually. In Cedar Rapids, since the adoption of the commission + plan, there has been a reduction in the paving contracts let of ten + and one-fifth per cent, in sewerage contracts, fourteen and + two-sevenths per cent, and in water contracts, twenty per cent. + Immediately after the adoption of the commission plan in Des Moines + the annual cost of each arc-light was reduced five dollars. Reports + from all the cities using the commission plan show that by the use + of business principles the commissioners have economized in the + administration of the city's government. + + The commission plan is adapted to the city's finances because it + provides a superior safeguard. Legislative bodies in our cities have + been depended upon to represent the citizens' best interest. In + practice, as we have pointed out, they have not done so. Never in + the history of our municipal affairs, says Henry D.F. Baldwin, has a + legislative body stood out as the representatives of the people + against the administrative department. Why then continue a + representative body which does not in fact represent? Instead of the + withered form of a council or legislative body standing between the + citizen and his government the commission plan simply removes this + useless obstacle and allows the citizen to participate directly in + the government. This is directly in harmony with the + well-established economic principle that the self-interest of the + taxpayer will control where responsibility is fixed. + +Mr. Charles Briggs, the third speaker on the Negative, said: + + It will be well while the matter is fresh in our minds, Honorable + Judges, to make a brief examination of one matter of which the + Affirmative are making a feature, that the commission form affords + unusual safeguards for the financial and economic interests of the + city. Now, in all fairness to the scheme which is doing quite well + in a very few of our smaller cities, the question ought to be raised + as to what other form of city government could be devised which + would provide greater opportunities for graft and corruption. A + little group of autocrats is the ideal form for which the ardent + corruptionists might pray. They have it in the commission form. + Exemplary men in office or a constant civic interest, may prevent + the commissioners from becoming a band of robbers; but are these two + preventives likely always to exist? Human experience says "No." The + history of New Orleans and Sacramento confirm that decision. Civic + interest is bound to subside; corrupt men are sure to become + commissioners. Then the oligarchy advocated by the Affirmative + becomes not a "safeguard" but a band of raiders equipped by the very + form of government to loot the treasury. We must insist, at this + point, that our opponents have failed in their assault upon our main + contention: + + First, that the evils in American city government are not + attributable to the fundamental principles of that government; + second, that the principles underlying the proposed form are in + themselves wrong and are not consonant generally with American + ideals. It remains to be shown that the commission form is + impracticable as a general scheme for the government of all American + cities. + + We can very well agree that where the commission form of government + has been tried it has been productive of some good results, and + further, that in certain homogeneous communities of high culture and + intelligence it might work with considerable success; but that the + result obtained in cities where the commission form has been tried + would warrant the universal adoption of it by American cities we + must deny. + + We deny the wisdom of adopting the commission form for it results in + inadequate responsibility; third, it could never work in the vast + majority of American cities. These reasons are apparent from + examinations of the commission form where it has been and is being + tried, and are inherent in the plan itself. + + The tremendous centralization of power under this form of city + government cannot escape a critical observer. A small body of men + have absolute sway over the destiny of the city. They make all laws + from the minutely specified contract for a water system to all + important school legislation. All franchises are engineered by + them. All contracts, great and small, are let by them. The city's + bonded debt is in their hands; by them the city is taxed and + incumbered. Parks, police, streets, education, public buildings, + engineering, finance--everything from the smallest administrative + duty to the all-engrossing functions of legislation devolves upon + this commission. They can vacate any office, can create any office, + and without limit fix any salary they choose. The entire + officialdom, outside of the commission itself, and all the employes + and the servants of the city are by law made the agents, servants, + and dependents of the council. The possibilities for machine power + with this autocratic centralization of authority are without + condition. We can demonstrate this best by giving practical + illustrations taken from the active operation of the commission + form. We may preface these by saying that there is nothing inherent + in the commission form or any of its attributes which can insure the + selection of better men for office. The members of the commission + will be about the same kind of men as the ordinary city official. + Minneapolis by an election at large placed in the mayor's chair its + most notorious grafter. This is proved by the personnel of the + commissions where the system is being tried. The investigating + committee appointed by the city of Des Moines, quoting their exact + words, say that in Houston, where the commissioners are required to + stay in the city hall every day, business men do not hold those + positions, although the salaries are higher than the proposed + salaries of the Des Moines commissioners. One commissioner was + formerly a city scavenger, another a blacksmith, justice of the + peace and alderman, a third a railway conductor, fourth a dry-goods + merchant, and the mayor, a retired capitalist. Mr. Pollock of Kansas + City says of the Des Moines commission, "The commission as elected + consists of a former police judge and justice of the peace who is + mayor-commissioner at the salary of $3,500; a coal miner, deputy + sheriff; the former city assessor, whose greatest success has been + in public office; a union painter of undoubted honesty and + integrity, but far from a $3,000 man; an ex-mayor and politician, + who is perhaps the most valuable member of the new form of + government, but whose record does not disclose any great business + capacity aside from that displayed in public office." The Des Moines + committee says of the Galveston commission: "This is a perpetual + body, a potentially perfect machine." There has been no change in + the membership of the Galveston commission since it was organized. + The extensive power of the commissioners have enabled them to + control all political factions and to completely crush the + opposition. The commissioners' faction is in complete control and + even goes so far as to dictate nominations for the legislature and + the national congress. In Des Moines we find evidences of this + machine power in the very first session of the commission. Mr. Hume + was appointed chief of police because he had delivered the labor + vote to Mr. Mathis. The _Daily News_, the only Des Moines paper that + supported the plan, was rewarded by having three of its staff + appointed to responsible positions. Mr. Lyman was appointed + secretary to Commissioner Hammery, Neil Jones secretary to Mayor + Mathis. Another man was appointed to an important technical + position. A brakeman was appointed street commissioner because he + delivered the vote of the Federation of Labor. + + These are but a few of the instances where this great centralization + of power has shown itself in practice to be a system permitting of + unrestricted machine power and political grafting. New Orleans tried + the system and abandoned it over 20 years ago because of this very + reason. The inhabitants were afraid of this tremendous + centralization of power. + + The friends of the commission idea claim for it the advantage of + centered responsibility; but practice has proved that this form of + city government is actually formulated to defeat responsibility. By + the construction of this governing body each commissioner is held + responsible for his respective department. But regulation for each + department is made not by the commission as a whole but by the whole + commission. This results in a confusion of powers. Thus in the city + of Des Moines, Mr. Hume, the personal enemy of Commissioner Hammery + was made chief of police by three other members of the commission + for political reasons. + + Who is responsible for the mistakes of Mr. Hume? The people say + Hammery. But Hammery says: "I had nothing to do with his + appointment." It has actually happened time and again at the + commission table in Des Moines that regulations for the financial + department were made by the police commission, the street + commissioner and the commissioner of parks and public buildings; + that the police commissioner would have the deciding vote on some + important school legislation; or the commissioner of education + control the appointment of policemen. This defect has given rise to + log-rolling. Bridges have been built as a personal favor to one + commissioner whose vote is needed to construct a new schoolhouse. + Large paving and building contracts are let simply because the + police commissioner wanted to oust some unfaithful political + dependent. In this way each commissioner gains great favor with the + voters and at the same time can escape personal responsibility for + technical mistakes by shouldering the blame onto the whole + commission where his identity is lost. This department trading has + found its way into the Galveston commission, claimed to have the + best commission of any city under this form of government. Here we + find that at the same time the prosecutor of the city cases in the + police court is allowed the right to collect a fee of $10 for every + criminal, drunk, or vagrant convicted, and $5 for every one who + pleads guilty; a 50-year franchise is granted to the Galveston + Street Railway Co. without a vote of the people, the city not to + receive one cent of tax and no compensation. + + So, Honorable Judges, we must consider that, while the commission + form may be a temporary success in a few small cities, its permanent + success there is in grave doubt. Under these conditions we do not + ask that it be abolished, but that under no circumstances its + application be made general in this country where other forms of + city government are in practice more successful and in theory more + correct. + +REBUTTAL + +Mr. Earl Stewart opened for the Negative: + + The gentlemen contend that the work of the city is almost wholly of + a business nature. Honorable Judges, if the city does not have + important legislative duties, what do we mean by local + self-government? The courts have held again and again that the work + of the city is primarily governmental. Says Judge Dillon: "The city + is essentially public and political in character." Not a business + corporation in this country could place vast sums of money in the + hands of four of five men without the safeguard of some supervising + body. Yet New York City has an annual expenditure of $150,000,000, + equaled by the aggregate of seven other American cities of 400,000 + population; more than that of nations; three times that of the + Argentine Republic; four times that of Sweden and Norway combined. + Honorable Judges, the American people are too business-like ever to + place the entire raising, appropriating, and extending of such vast + sums of money, or the half, or the quarter, or the tenth of such, in + the hands of five men without the adequate check and safeguard of + some supervising and reviewing body, call it congress, legislature, + or council. + + The gentlemen condemn divisions of powers because the city's + functions are of such a mixed nature and no strict line of + separation can be drawn. Granted. We have emphasized repeatedly that + we are not standing for division of powers; we are standing for + separately constituted bodies, which shall co-operate. We are + defending no system of disconnected committees which the gentlemen + have spent a whole speech in attacking, and we have shown, + furthermore, that the evils are only augmented by going to the other + extreme and completely confusing the functions in one small body. + The gentlemen see no difference between principles of government and + the form or mechanism which embodies, adequately or inadequately, + those principles. They forget that the National Municipal League + debated for three years over detail of form, never once disagreeing + as to the essential principle of distinct bodies for legislation and + administration. They forget that the model charter, which is + efficient because it has a proper co-ordination of departments, is + based upon the same principle of separately constituted bodies as + the old board system with its disconnected departments and + complicated machinery. Because the machinery has been inadequate, + owing to causes which the gentlemen have ignored, they would abolish + the working principle which is proved correct in every instance of + successful city organization, wherever found. + + Just a word on this over-worked argument of centering + responsibility. Accountability means that a man charged with the + performance of a task shall be held undividedly responsible for it. + Now the commissioners collectively legislate. They can not do this + without constantly and seriously intruding upon the work of the + several departments. The moment this is done, responsibility is + diffused. The Hume incident, mentioned by my colleague, is abundant + illustration of the way responsibility is fixed under a commission + form. Says Professor F.I. Herriot, head of the department of + political science in Drake University and statistician of the Iowa + board of control: "A commission form cuts at the very roots of + official accountability and responsibility and, strange enough, it + is because its friends believe that it enhances fixing of + responsibility that they propose it." This from a scholar who has + watched the plan in operation. A commission form does not fix + responsibility, but even granting for the sake of argument that it + does, are we to sacrifice representative government for the sake of + fixing responsibility? If so, then why not make it still more + definite and establish one-man power? Honorable Judges, we have + shown that responsibility is more effectively centered by + establishing uniform accounting and publicity. + + The affirmative contend that the commissioners will furnish superior + legislation. Now we do not say that knowledge of administration is + of no benefit in legislation. But the necessary information can be + secured without confusing the functions in a small executive + cabinet. In Europe it is done by making the cabinet responsible to + the council. In the United States, for example, Baltimore, it is + done by having the cabinet meet and co-operate with the council. + Nothing can be done by withholding the information, and as a matter + of fact, the city secures all the benefit of the technical training + of its administrators without the disadvantage of confusion of + functions. + +Mr. Clarence Coulter opened for the Affirmative: + + It has been argued by the Negative that the success of the + commission form of government is based upon the assumption of + electing good men to office, and as an illustration, that the Des + Moines commissioners are inefficient members of the old city hall + gang. As it happens, however, one of the commissioners is a man with + a national reputation as a municipal expert, a man whose honesty and + integrity have never once been questioned. The commissioner of + public safety has been trained for his position by long experience + in municipal affairs and is a college graduate. Admitting, however, + for the sake of argument, that the gentleman's contention is true; + yet the unquestioned success of the Des Moines government proves the + wisdom of the commission plan, for it so centralizes individual + responsibility as to require honest and efficient performance of + duty on the part of each commissioner. + + Now as to securing good men. In the first place, the negative did + not, and cannot, cite a single city in which the commission plan + has failed to secure good men. Better men are elected under the + commission plan, for the number of elective offices is greatly + decreased, while the responsibility and honor of the position is + relatively increased. Moreover, the government is put on a business + basis and the commissioners are given steady employment at a good + salary. They have an opportunity to make a genuine record for + themselves, as well as to serve the best interests of the city. On + the other hand, the fact that responsibility is definitely centered + on each commissioner will, in itself, prevent men of no ability or + grafting politicians from seeking office. Political parties no + longer have any opportunity of putting men of little ability into + office, but instead, competent men with a genuine interest in the + city affairs and with no party affiliations whatever, so far as + municipal affairs are concerned, will be attracted to the position + of commissioner. + + The opposition go further and charge that, even though efficient men + may be elected to office, the commission plan makes impossible the + fixing of responsibility. They failed, however, to point out a + single instance in commission-governed cities to prove their point + and made no attempt to show how responsibility could be better fixed + under the present system. As a matter of fact, Honorable Judges, the + fixing of individual responsibility, under the present system, is + utterly impossible, as we have already shown, while it is the + strongest virtue of the commission plan. In matters of pure + administration it is absolutely impossible for the commissioner to + escape individual responsibility, for he has full charge of the + administration of his own department. In matters of legislation, + where the majority vote of the commission may determine a policy + affecting a certain commissioner, responsibility is not lost but is + fixed upon those few who voted for such policy. + + It has been contended that the commission form of government is + unpopular and that this plan has been rejected in both Sioux City + and Davenport. That these cities rejected it is true. But why? Sioux + City turned it down because the constitutionality of the plan had + not, at that time, been determined. Davenport refused to accept it + because the grafting politicians and the political ring so dominated + the city's politics that they were able to defeat the new plan and + retain the old, which was best suited to the furtherance of their + own ends. + + The gentlemen of the opposition have argued that the present + inefficiency of city government is due to the interference of the + state legislatures and contend that the ultimate solution of the + difficulty lies in greater municipal home rule. They are correct, + Honorable Judges! The state legislature has interfered. But why? + Simply because the city council has proved itself inefficient. New + York City's council was in full possession of its powers when the + state legislature began to interfere. Legislation by somebody was + necessary. The council failed, and now the negative say, give back + to the city its powers and let the council try again. + + According to the gentlemen themselves, the end to be achieved is + less interference of state legislatures and more home rule. It is + obvious, however, that this can be accomplished only when the city + itself can put forth a capable and efficient legislative body. + Honorable Judges, in our second speech we proved to you, that the + commission provides a small but efficient legislative body, far + superior to that of an isolated council. If you want municipal home + rule, establish a form of government which makes it possible. + +Mr. Charles Briggs replied for the Negative: + + My colleague has proved that whatever the form of government, there + must be a body capable of wise legislation, in fact, that there must + be a body that is primarily legislative in character no matter what + its connection or relation with the other departments of government. + That a small commission, burdened with administrative and judicial + functions, is not a proper legislative body is at once apparent. My + colleague has demonstrated that this confusion of powers must result + in inefficiency. But further than this, it is our contention that a + body such as is the commission, without respect to the confusion of + powers, without regard to the administrative duties weighing upon + it, that this commission, of itself, is not suited to legislation. + + There is no more reason for placing the legislation of the city of + Chicago in the hands of five men than that the state legislature of + Minnesota should be reduced to five members. It is true that, in + many respects, the legislation of a city differs from that of a + state, but it is, nevertheless, legislation, and in the larger + cities particularly it is necessary that there be a representative + legislative body. Five men no more constitute a proper legislative + body for 800,000 or a million people of a city than for that many + people outside the city. It is contrary to the fundamental + conception of a legislative body that it be composed of a few. In no + country of free institutions is a legislative body so constituted. + My colleague has proved, and it cannot be successfully controverted, + that in the city, as well as in the state, there is a large field + for legislation. Why, then, should there not be a legislative body + to perform the work of legislation? Why place the work in the hands + of a body that is primarily administrative in character? + + This objection alone must forever prevent the larger cities of the + United States from adopting the commission plan. Or, if adopted, it + must, for this reason alone, prove itself a failure. + +Mr. Robbins replied for the Affirmative: + + The Negative argue that the mechanisms of government in Boston may + differ from those of San Francisco. This is not a discussion of the + mechanisms of government. It involves deep and fundamental + principles relative to a given form of city organization. The + gentlemen have not, nor cannot, cite one iota of evidence that the + underlying principles of organization in the governments of Boston + and San Francisco should be different. The allusion to changing + mechanisms is no excuse for their failure to set in operation a + definite and positive form of organization. Yet the gentlemen have + ingeniously endeavored to evade this duty. Why have they done so? + Because every system of municipal organization based upon the + separation of powers--for which the gentlemen are contending--has + proved an admitted failure. + + Do not the citizens of Brooklyn and San Francisco, as the citizens + of every American city, like to drink pure water? Don't they desire + good transportation facilities, and aren't they glad when they have + clean streets and honest administration? Why, then, don't the + gentlemen come forward, as the Affirmative has done, with a specific + form of organization which provides for the successful + administration of the underlying features of city government? + Instead, the gentlemen seem to delight in wandering across the seas, + telling what might happen if we would be indulgent enough to pattern + our form of organization after that of France, Germany, or Bohemia. + Yet they glibly refuse to consider that the city problem of this + country is distinctly American and is due to conditions peculiar to + America. + + As a matter of fact, the gentlemen have held before us the salient + features of a half dozen opposing forms of organization, none of + which have succeeded individually, and the combined features of + which can make nothing more than a conglomeration of theories and + dogmas. Yes, the gentlemen have been painfully careful not to put + their scheme into practical operation. + + They talk blandly of more home rule, when it is evident that such a + matter is actually beside the question at issue. In the same way + they speak at length of the cabinet system of England, forgetting + that the form the Affirmative is advocating involves the underlying + features of the cabinet system altered to meet conditions peculiar + to America. The commission form, Honorable Judges, is an evolution + of the cabinet form. + + Likewise they have talked much of the need for a separate reviewing + body, citing the insurance scandals of New York state legislature to + prove their contention. Why don't they give instances where a + municipal reviewing body has checked fraud? The reason is obvious. + As Henry Baldwin writes, "Never has there been an instance in + American municipal history where the council has stood out against + the corruption of the administrative department." Rather these + so-called "reviewing bodies" are hand in hand with graft. Look at + the shameful conditions of the "reviewing bodies" of Philadelphia, + St. Louis, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh, with their hands in the city + treasury up to their elbows, and we realize something of the + absurdity of the argument for a separate reviewing body to preserve + efficiency and honesty in the city government. The people should be + the reviewing body of their government. Its organization should be + so simple, yet so complete, that every citizen from the educated + theorist to the humblest day laborer, can review its facts with ease + and understanding. This is the kind of government the commission + form supplies. Why don't the gentlemen come forward with an + organization equally as simple and complete? + + Then the gentlemen go on to tell how they will compel the + administrative officials to confer with their isolated "reviewing + body," and thus secure a proper co-ordination that has failed for a + century. Automatic mechanism in government can never take the place + of simplicity and responsibility. Such schemes are futile. The men + who can make mechanisms can break them. What we must have is a + government that compels efficiency and honesty, not one which + attempts to produce such results through theoretical contrivances. + + Finally, the gentlemen claim that the commission form has failed in + New Orleans and Sacramento. Will the gentlemen give their authority + for the statement that these cities had a commission government? + Every authority upon the subject which the affirmative has found + points to the conclusion, that the form of government employed by + these cities was not a commission form. + +Mr. Starzinger closed for the Negative and said: + + The Affirmative have mentioned our authority. What we have said in + regard to Sacramento, Cal., is based upon excerpts from an article + by the Hon. Clinton White, published in the Cedar Rapids _Evening + Times_. Most of our facts concerning the southern cities which + adopted the new plan are taken from the reports of the Des Moines + investigation committee, headed by the Hon. W.N. Jordan. We would be + glad to submit these pamphlets to the gentlemen for examination. The + mere fact that Des Moines adopted the commission form does not + disprove the integrity of the authorities. + + It is claimed that our stand is indefinite. True, we have not + offered a panacea for all municipal ills. But we have advocated + numerous reforms and have pointed out countless instances of + municipal success under various forms, yet all based upon the same + fundamental principle, that there be separately constituted + departments of government. One of the fatal objections to the + gentlemen's proposition is that they are attempting to blanket the + whole country with one arbitrary form, regardless of differing + conditions. They have completely ignored our cases of successful + city government. We demand that they explain them. + + The gentlemen have said that state interference has been + precipitated by the decay of the city council. Yet they advocate its + complete destruction. Nothing could be more incorrect than to say + that special legislation was brought on as a result of an inherent + weakness in council government. Under the early council system, + there was practically no state interference. About the middle of the + last century, the board system was introduced and the councils were + shorn of their dignity and much of their legislative power. Right + there state dominion in local affairs began. These are the unbiased + facts as given by Professor Goodnow in his book on city government. + + In conclusion, Honorable Judges, the solution of the American city + problem will be best promoted by a program of reform which strikes + at the real causes of the evils, instead of the universal + overturning of all traditions and theories of government in the hope + of finding a short-cut road to municipal success. Give the city a + proper sphere of local autonomy. Co-ordinate the departments of + government, so as to establish responsibility and secure harmonious + action. Simplify present city organization without destroying the + two branches of government. Introduce new and improving methods, + such as non-partisan primaries, civil service, uniform municipal + accounting, and publicity of proceedings. Remedy bad social and + economic conditions. Arouse civic interest. Do this, and there is no + necessity for such a radical and revolutionary change as the + universal adoption of a commission form. + + The new plan means, not alone a change in the form of government, + but a positive overturning of the working principle of successful + city organization the world over. Its experience has been in the + small towns for a short time, under unusual conditions, amid aroused + public sentiment. Even here it has shown fatal weaknesses which the + gentlemen have not satisfactorily explained. It was abandoned by the + only large city that ever tried it; and cast aside as an abject + failure by Sacramento, Cal., after fifteen years of operation. In + the face of these facts, the gentlemen would have all American + cities turn to this form as the final goal of municipal success; a + form which attempts to revive the old board system of selecting + administrative heads by popular vote; which, in addition, centers + the whole government of a city in a small executive cabinet, without + review or oversight; a form which, in the words of Professor + Fairlie, of the University of Michigan, "is in direct opposition to + the advancing idea of municipal home rule." + +Mr. Luxford closed the debate for the Affirmative, and said: + + The case for the Negative is now closed. It has been indefinite from + start to finish. They acknowledge the success of the commission form + but refuse to accept it as the proper form toward which American + cities should work. They have none to offer except a form which is + completely unknown in American cities and successful alone in Europe + under totally dissimilar conditions. We have shown that every vital + move for city improvement today is toward a commission form, both in + practice and theory. The gentlemen have sought to overthrow the + argument for the commission form, and yet suggest no possible + American substitute. + + But the position is not only indefinite, but it is inconsistent. At + one time they say, "the commission form is working well in small + cities." In another they declare that the commission form ignores + the only principles which are at the basis of successful city + government the world over. Putting these statements together we must + conclude that the gentlemen who made the second statement failed to + hear the gentlemen who made the first. If they grant that the + commission form is successful anywhere in the world how can it be + that it is ignoring the only principles of successful city + government the world over? + + But we would not be unjust to the gentlemen. They are not perhaps + altogether indefinite. They would keep the old mayor and council + plan but would have non-partisan primaries, uniform municipal + accounting, and publicity of proceedings. Non-partisan primaries and + publicity of proceedings they have stolen bodily from the + commission. We are grateful to the gentlemen for this hearty + indorsement of the material features of the commission form. As to + uniform municipal accounting, while it is just as possible under the + commission as under any other form of city government, its advocacy + by the gentlemen is inconsistent with their insistent demand for + municipal home rule. Who but the state can supervise a uniform + accounting of all cities? And the gentlemen have deplored state + interference. + + Not only that, but the commission plan provides the necessary + responsibility whereby the citizens may know and participate in the + city government. In the first place the publication of monthly + itemized statements of all the proceedings is required. Every + ordinance appropriating money or ordering any street improvements, + or sewer, or the making of any contract shall remain on file for + public inspection at least one week before final passage. Franchises + are granted not by any legislative body but by direct vote of the + people. Similarly the citizens retain the right to reject any + ordinance passed, or to require the passage of any needed + ordinance. And finally, the citizens by direct vote may remove any + commissioner at any time. + + Thus we see that the commissioners know both the legislative and + administrative side of the city's work, and the responsibility of + doing both is fixed upon them. + + Lastly, Honorable Judges, the Affirmative rest their cases upon + these fundamental arguments: that the whole tendency in American + city government is toward centralization of power in one body; where + this concentration has been partial, city government has failed. + This failure is due largely to the fact that, while power has + centered, responsibility has been diffused. This unfortunate + condition has been obviated by the adoption of the commission form + which is found to be a success because it awakens civic interest, + secures competent officials, and provides in the best possible + manner for the legislative and administrative work of the city, + centering power and responsibility in one small body of men. + + + + +APPENDIX IV + +MATERIAL FOR BRIEFING + +REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT + +SPEECH OF HON. CHARLES F. SCOTT, OF KANSAS, IN THE HOUSE OF +REPRESENTATIVES, THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 1911 + + +(The House having under consideration the bill [S. 7031] to codify, +revise, and amend the laws relating to the judiciary.--From the +_Congressional Record_, March 3, 1911.) + +_Mr. Speaker_: In the ten years of my membership in this House I have +seldom taken advantage of the latitude afforded by general debate to +discuss any question not immediately before the House. But there is a +question now before the country, particularly before the people of the +state I have the honor to represent in part upon this floor, upon +which I entertain very positive convictions, and which, I believe, is +a proper subject for discussion at this time and in this place. That +question, bluntly stated, is this: Is representative government a +failure? We are being asked now to answer that question in the +affirmative. A new school of statesmen has arisen, wiser than +Washington and Hamilton and Franklin and Madison, wiser than Webster +and Clay and Calhoun and Benton, wiser than Lincoln and Sumner and +Stevens and Chase, wiser than Garfield and Elaine and McKinley and +Taft, knowing more in their day than all the people have learned in +all the days of the years since the Republic was founded. + +And they tell us that representative government is a failure. They do +not put this declaration into so many words--part of them because they +do not know enough about the science of government to understand that +the doctrines they advocate are revolutionary, and the rest of them +because they lack the courage to openly declare that it is their +intention to change our form of government, to subvert the system upon +which our institutions are founded. But that is in effect what they +propose to do. + +Every school boy knows that in a pure democracy the people themselves +perform directly all the functions of government, enacting laws +without the intervention of a legislature, and trying causes that +arise under those laws without the intervention of judge or jury; +while in a republic, on the other hand, the people govern themselves, +not by each citizen exercising directly all the functions of +government, but by delegating that power to certain ones among them +whom they choose to represent them in the legislatures, in the courts +of justice, and in the various executive offices. + +It follows, therefore, that to substitute the methods of a democracy +for the methods of a republic touching any one of the three branches +of government is to that extent to declare that representative +government is a failure, is to that extent subversive and +revolutionary. + +Now, it does not follow by any means that because a proposed change is +revolutionary it is therefore unwise. Taking it by and large, wherever +the word "revolution" has come into human history it has been only +another word for progress. Because a nation has pursued certain +methods for a long time it does not at all follow that those methods +are the best, although when a nation like the United States, so bold +and alert, so little hampered by tradition, so ready to try +experiments, has clung to the same methods of government for 130 +years, a strong presumption has certainly been established that these +methods are the best, at least for that particular nation. + +But is the new system wiser than the old--in the matter of making +laws, for example? The old system vests the law-making power in a +legislative body composed of men elected by the people and supposed to +be peculiarly fitted by reason of character, education, and training +for the performance of that duty. These men come together and give +their entire time through a period of some weeks or months to the +consideration of proposed legislation, and the laws they enact go into +immediate effect, and remain in force until set aside by the courts as +unconstitutional or until repealed by the same authority that enacted +them. + +The new system--taking the Oregon law, for example, and it is commonly +cited as a model--provides that 8 per cent of the voters of a state +may submit a measure directly to the people, and if a majority of +those voting upon it give it their support it shall become a law +without reference to the legislature or to the governor. That is the +initiative. And it provides that if 5 per cent of the voters are +opposed to a law which the legislature has passed, upon signing the +proper petition the law shall be suspended until the next general +election, when the people shall be given an opportunity to pass upon +it. That is the referendum. + +Now, there are several things about this plan which I believe the +people of this country, when they come really to consider it, will +scrutinize with a good deal of care and possibly with some suspicion. + +It is to be noted, in the first place, that a very few of the people +can put all the people to the trouble and expense of a vote upon any +measure, and the inquiry may well arise whether the cause of settled +and orderly government will be promoted by vesting power in the +minority thus to harass and annoy the majority. In my own state, for +example, who can doubt that the prohibitory amendment, or some one of +the statutes enacted for its enforcement, would have been resubmitted +again and again if the initiative had been in force there these past +twenty-five years. + +Again, it will be observed that still fewer of the people have it in +their power to suspend a law which a legislature may have passed in +plain obedience to the mandate of a majority of the people, or which +may be essential to the prompt and orderly conduct of public affairs, +and when they come to think about it the people may wonder if the +referendum might not make it possible for a small, malevolent, and +mischievous minority to obstruct the machinery of government and for a +time at least to nullify the will of the majority. + +In the third place, it is to be remarked that a measure submitted +either by the initiative or the referendum cannot be amended, but must +be accepted or rejected as a whole, and we may well inquire whether +this might not afford "the interests" quite as good an opportunity as +they would have in a legislature to "initiate" some measure which on +its face was wholesome and beneficent but within which was concealed +some little "joker" that would either nullify the good features of the +law or make it actively vicious, and which, through lack of +discussion, would not be discovered. Every day we have new and +incontestable proof that "in the multitude of counselors there is +wisdom." But that wisdom can never be had under a system of +legislation which lays before the people the work of one man's mind +to be accepted in whole or rejected altogether. + +Once more let us observe that under this system, no matter how few +votes are cast upon a given measure, if there are more for it than +against it, it becomes a law, so that the possibility is always +present that laws may be enacted which represent the judgment or the +interest of the minority rather than the majority of the people. +Indeed, experience would seem to show that this is a probability +rather than a possibility, for in the last Oregon election not one of +the nine propositions enacted into law received as much as 50 per cent +of the total vote cast, while some of them received but little more +than 30 per cent of the total vote. + +And finally and chiefly, without in the least impeaching the +intelligence of the people, remembering the slight and casual +attention the average citizen gives to the details of public +questions, we may well inquire whether the average vote cast upon +these proposed measures of legislation will really represent an +informed and well-considered judgment. In his thoughtful work on +democracy, discussing this very question, Dr. Hyslop, of Columbia +University, says: + + People occupied with their private affairs, domestic and social, + demanding all their resources and attention, as a rule have little + time to solve the complex problems of national life. The referendum + is a call to perform all the duties of the profoundest + statesmanship, in addition to private obligations, which are even + much more than the average man can fulfil with any success or + intelligence at all, and hence it can hardly produce anything better + than the Athenian assembly, which terminated in anarchy. It will not + secure dispatch except at the expense of civilization, nor + deliberation except at the expense of intelligence. Very few + questions can be safely left to its councils, and these only of the + most general kind. A tribunal that can be so easily deceived as the + electorate can be in common elections cannot be trusted to decide + intelligently the graver and more complicated questions of public + finance or private property, of administration, and of justice. It + may be honest and mean well, as I believe it would be; but such an + institution can not govern. + +That is the conclusion reached a priori by a profound student of men +and of institutions; and there is not a man who hears me or who may +read what I am now saying but knows the conclusion is sound. + +But, fortunately for the states which have not yet adopted the +innovation, we are not obliged to rely upon academic, a priori +reasoning, in order to reach a conclusion as to the wisdom of the +initiative and referendum, for the step has already been taken in +other states and we have their experience to guide us. + +There is South Dakota, for example, where under the initiative the +ballot which I hold in my hand was submitted to the people at the +recent election. This ballot is 7 feet long and 14 inches wide, and it +is crowded with reading matter set in nonpareil type. Upon this ballot +there are submitted for the consideration of the people six +legislative propositions. Four of them are short and comparatively +simple. But here is one referring to the people a law which has been +passed at the preceding session of the legislature dividing the state +into congressional districts. How many of the voters of South Dakota +do you suppose got down their maps and their census reports and +carefully worked out the details of that law to satisfy themselves +whether or not it provided for a fair and honest districting of the +state? They could not amend it, remember, they had to take it as it +was or vote it down. In point of fact, they voted it down; but who +will say that in doing this they expressed an enlightened judgment or +merely followed the natural conservative instinct to vote "no" on a +proposition they did not understand? And here is a law to provide for +the organization, maintenance, equipment, and regulation of the +National Guard of the state. This bill contains 76 sections. It +occupies 4 feet 4 inches of this 7-foot ballot. It would fill two +pages of an ordinary newspaper. + +And here is a copy of the Oregon ballot, from which it appears that +the stricken people of that commonwealth were called upon at the late +election to consider 32 legislative propositions. Small wonder that it +was well onto a month after election before the returns were all in. + +And here is another constitutional amendment in which the people are +asked to pass judgment on such simple propositions as providing for +verdict by three-fourths of jury in civil cases, authorizing grand +juries to be summoned separately from the trial jury, permitting +change of judicial system by statute prohibiting retrial where there +is any evidence to support the verdict, providing for affirmance of +judgment on appeal notwithstanding error committed in lower court and +directing the Supreme Court to enter such judgment as should have been +entered in the lower court, fixing terms of Supreme Court, providing +that judges of all courts be elected for six years, subject to recall, +and increasing the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Is it any wonder +that with questions such as those thrust at them so large a percentage +of the voters took to the "continuous woods where rolls the Oregon" +and refused to express a judgment one way or the other? Now, with all +possible deference to the intelligence and the diligence of the good +people of Oregon, is it conceivable that any considerable proportion +of the voters of that commonwealth went to the polls with even a +cursory knowledge of all the measures submitted for their +determination? + +As to the practical working of the referendum, I have seen it stated +in the public prints that four years ago nearly every appropriation +bill passed by the Oregon legislature was referred to the people for +their approval or rejection before it could go into effect. As a +result, the appropriations being unavailable until the election could +be held, the state was compelled to stamp its warrants "not paid for +want of funds," and to pay interest thereon, although the money was in +the treasury. The university and other state institutions were +hampered and embarrassed, and the whole machinery of government was in +large measure paralyzed. In other words, under the Oregon law a +pitiful minority of the people was able to obstruct and embarrass the +usual and orderly processes of government, and for a time at least to +absolutely thwart the will of an overwhelming majority of the people. + +A system of government under which such a thing as that is not only +possible, but has actually occurred, may be "the best system ever +devised by the wit of man," as we have been vociferously assured, but +some of us may take the liberty of doubting it. + +But the initiative and referendum, subversive as they are of the +representative principle, do not compare in importance or in possible +power for evil with the recall. The statutes of every state in this +Union provide a way by which a recreant official may be ousted from +his office or otherwise punished. That way is by process of law, where +charges must be specific, the testimony clear, and the judgment +impartial. But what are we to think of a procedure under which an +official is to be tried, not in a court by a jury of his peers and +upon the testimony of witnesses sworn to tell the truth, but in the +newspapers, on the street corners, and at political meetings? Can you +conceive of a wider departure from the fundamental principles of +justice that are written not only into the constitution of every +civilized nation on the face of the earth, but upon the heart of every +normal human being, the principle that every man accused of a crime +has a right to confront his accusers, to examine them under oath, to +rebut their evidence, and to have the judgment finally of men sworn to +render a just and lawful verdict. + +Small wonder that the argument oftenest heard in support of a +proposition so abhorrent to the most primitive instincts of justice is +that it will be seldom invoked and therefore cannot do very much harm. +I leave you to characterize as it deserves a law whose chief merit +must lie in the rarity of its enforcement. + +But will it do no harm, even if seldom enforced? It is urged that its +presence on the statute books and the knowledge that it can be invoked +will frighten public officials into good behavior. Passing by the very +obvious suggestion that an official who needs to be scared into proper +conduct ought never to have been elected in the first place, we may +well inquire whether the real effect would not be to frighten men into +demagogy--and thus to work immeasurably greater harm to the common +weal than would ever be inflicted through the transgressions of +deliberately bad men. + +We have demagogues enough now, heaven knows, when election to an +office assures the tenure of it for two or four or six years. But if +that tenure were only from hour to hour, if it were held at the whim +of a powerful and unscrupulous newspaper, for example, or if it could +be put in jeopardy by an affront which in the line of duty ought, we +will say, to be given to some organization or faction or cabal, what +could we expect? Is it not inevitable that such a system would drive +out of our public life the men of real character and courage and leave +us only cowards and trimmers and time servers? May we not well +hesitate to introduce into our political system a device which, had it +been in vogue in the past, would have made it possible for the Tories +to have recalled Washington, the copperheads to have recalled Lincoln, +and the jingoes to have recalled McKinley? + +In all the literature of the age-long struggle for freedom and justice +there is no phrase that occurs oftener than "the independence of the +judiciary." Not one man could be found now among all our ninety +millions to declare that our Constitution should be changed so as to +permit the President in the White House or the Congress in the Capitol +to dictate to our judges what their decisions should be. And yet it is +seriously proposed that this power of dictation shall be given to the +crowd on the street. That is what the recall means if applied to the +judiciary; and it means the destruction of its independence as +completely as if in set terms it were made subject to the President or +the Congress. + +Do you answer, "Oh, the recall will never be invoked except in an +extreme case of obvious and flagrant injustice"? I reply, "How do you +know?" It is the theory of the initiative that it will never be invoked +except to pass a good law, and of the referendum that it will never be +resorted to except to defeat a bad law; but we have already seen how +easily a bad law might be initiated and a good law referred. And so it +is the theory that the recall will be invoked only for the protection +of the people from a bad judge. What guaranty can you give that it +will not be called into being to harrass and intimidate a good judge? +There never yet was a two-edged sword that would not cut both ways. + +Mr. Chairman, I should be the last to assert that our present system +of government has always brought ideally perfect results. Now and then +the people have made mistakes in the selection of their +representatives. Corrupt men have been put into places of trust, small +men have been sent where large men were needed, ignorant men have been +charged with duties which only men of learning could fitly perform. +But does it follow that because the people make mistakes in so simple +a matter as the selection of their agents, they would be infallible in +the incomparably more complex and difficult task of the enactment and +interpretation of laws? There was never a more glaring non sequitur, +and yet it is the very cornerstone upon which rests the whole +structure of the new philosophy. "The people cannot be trusted with +few things," runs this singular logic, "therefore let us put all +things into their hands." + +With one breath we are asked to renounce the old system because the +people make mistakes, and with the next breath we are solemnly assured +that if we adopt the new system the people will not make mistakes. I +confess I am not mentally alert enough to follow that sort of logic. +It is too much like the road which was so crooked that the traveler +who entered upon it had only proceeded a few steps when he met himself +coming back. You cannot change the nature of men, Mr. Chairman, by +changing their system of government. The limitations of human judgment +and knowledge and conscience which render perfection in representative +government unattainable will still abide even after that form of +government is swept away, and the ideal will still be far distant. + +Let it not be said or imagined, Mr. Speaker, that because I protest +against converting this Republic into a democracy therefore I lack +confidence in the people. No man has greater faith, sir, than I have +in the intelligence, the integrity, the patriotism, and the +fundamental common sense of the average American citizen. But I am for +representative rather than for direct government, because I have +greater confidence in the second thought of the people than I have in +their first thought. And that, in the last analysis, is the +difference, and the only difference, so far as results are concerned +between the new system and that which it seeks to supplant; it is the +fundamental difference between a democracy and a republic. In either +form of government the people have their way. The difference is that +in a democracy the people have their way in the beginning, whereas in +a republic the people have their way in the end--and the end is +usually enough wiser than the beginning to be worth waiting for. + +We count ourselves the fittest people in the world for +self-government, and we probably are. But fit as we are we sometimes +make mistakes. We sometimes form the most violent and erroneous +opinions upon impulse, without full information or thoughtful +consideration. With complete information and longer study, we swing +around to the right side, but it is our second thought and not our +first that brings us there. Our intentions are always right, and we +usually get right in the end; but it often happens that we are not +right in the beginning. It behooves us to consider long and well +before we pluck out of the delicately adjusted mechanism by which we +govern ourselves the checks and brakes and balance wheels which our +forefathers placed there, and the wisdom of which our history attests +innumerable times. + +The simple and primitive life of civilization's frontier has given +way to the most stupendous and complex industrial and commercial +structure the world has ever known. Incredible expansion, social, +political, industrial, commercial--but representative government all +the way. At not one step in the long and shining pathway of the +Nation's progress has representative government failed to respond to +the Nation's need. Every emergency that 130 years of momentous history +has developed--the terrible strain of war, the harrassing problems of +peace--representative government has been equal to them all. Not once +has it broken down. Not one issue has it failed to solve. And long +after the shallow substitutes that are now proposed for it shall have +been forgotten, representative government "will be doing business at +the old stand," will be solving the problems of the future as it met +the issues of the past, with courage and wisdom and justice, giving to +the great Republic that government "of the people, for the people, and +by the people" which is the assurance that it "shall not perish from +the earth." + + + + +APPENDIX V + +QUESTIONS WITH SUGGESTED ISSUES AND + +BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY + + +Below are several questions with issues suggested which should bring +about a "head on" debate. They should be useful at the beginning of +debating work or when time for preparation is somewhat limited. A +brief bibliography is in each case appended. + +"THE RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE SHOULD BE GRANTED TO WOMAN" + +_Affirmative_ + + I. Woman wants the ballot. + + II. Woman is capable of using the ballot wisely. + + III. Where woman has had the ballot, the results have been beneficial + to the state. + +_Negative_ + + I. A majority of women do not want the ballot. + + II. Woman is incapable of using the ballot wisely. + + III. A benefit has not resulted in those states which have given woman + the right to vote. + +BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY + +"Success of Woman's Suffrage," _Independent_, LXXIII, 334-35 (August +8, 1912). + +"Suffrage Danger," _Living Age_, CCLXXIV, 330-35 (August 10, 1912). + +"Teaching Violence to Women," _Century_, LXXXIV, 151-53 (May, 1912). + +"Violence in Woman's Suffrage Movement: A Disapproval of the Militant +Policy," _Century_, LXXXV, 148-49 (November, 1912). + +"Violence and Votes," _Independent_, LXXII, 1416-19 (June 27 1912). + +"Votes for Women," _Harper's Weekly_, LVI, 6 (September 21, 1912). + +"Votes for Women," _Harper's Bazaar_ XLVI, 47, 148 (January, March, +1912). + +"Votes for Women and Other Votes," _Survey_, XXVIII, 367-78 (June 1, +10.12). + +"What Is the Truth about Woman's Suffrage?" _Ladies' Home Journal_, +XXIX, 24 (October, 1912). + +"Why I Want Woman's Suffrage," _Collier's,_ XLVIII, 18 (March 16, +1912). + +"Why I Went into Suffrage Work," _Harper's Bazaar_, XLVI, 440 +(September, 1912). + +"Woman and the State," _Forum_, XLVIII, 394-408 (October 1912). + +"Woman and the Suffrage," _Harper's Weekly_, LVI, 6 (August 17, 1912). + +"Woman's Rights," _Outlook_, _C_, 262-66 (February 3, 1912). + +"Woman's Rights," _Outlook_, _C_, 302-4 (February 10, 1912). + +"Concerning Some of the Anti-Suffrage Leaders," _Good House-keeping_, +LV, 80-82 (July, 1912). + +"Expansion of Equality," _Independent_, LXXIII, 1143-45 (November 14, +1912). + +"Marching for Equal Suffrage," _Hearst's Magazine_, XXI, 2497-501 +(June, 1912). + +"Woman and the California Primaries," _Independent_, LXXII, 1316-18 +(June 13, 1912). + +"Woman Suffrage Victory," _Literary Digest_, XLV, 841-43 (November 23, +1912). + +"Woman's Demonstration; How They Won and Used the Votes in +California," _Collier's_, XLVIII, 17-18 (January 6, 1912). + +"Recent Strides of Woman's Suffrage," _World's Work_, XXII, 14733-45 +(August, 1911). + +"Woman's Suffrage in Six States," _Independent_, LXXI, 967-20 +(November 2, 1911). + +"Women Did It in Colorado," _Hampton's Magazine_, XXVI, 426. + +"Woman's Victory in Washington" (state), _Collier's,_ XLVI, 25. + +"Are Women Ready for the Franchise?" _Westminster_, CLXII, 255-61 +(September, 1904). + +"Argument against Woman's Suffrage," _Outlook_, LXIV, 573-74 (March +10, 1900). + +"Check to Woman's Suffrage in the United States," _Nineteenth +Century_, LVI, 833-41 (November, 1904). + +"Female Suffrage in the United States," _Harper's Weekly_, XLIV, +949-50 (October 6, 1900). + +"Ought Women to Vote?" _Outlook_, LVIII, 353-55 (June 8, 1901). + +"Outlook for Woman's Suffrage," _Cosmopolitan_, XXVIII, 621-23 (April, +1900). + +"Woman's Suffrage in the West," _Outlook_, LXV, 430-31 (June 23, +1900). + +"Movement for Woman's Suffrage," _Outlook_, XCIII, 265-67 (October 2, +1909). + +"Why?" _Everybody's_, XXI, 723-38. + +"Woman's Rights," _Twentieth-Century Encyclopedia_. + + +"THE AMERICAN NAVY SHOULD BE ENLARGED SO AS TO COMPARE IN FIGHTING +STRENGTH WITH ANY IN THE WORLD" + +_Affirmative_ + + I. The scattered possessions of the United States demand the + protection of a large navy. + + II. The expense of the proposed navy would be a judicious investment. + + III. The proposed enlargement of the navy would be a step toward + universal peace. + +_Negative_ + + I. The geographical situation of the United States makes a large navy + unnecessary. + + II. The expense entailed, if the proposed plan were put into practice, + would embarrass the United States. + + III. To carry out the proposed plan would be to increase the chances + of war. + +BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY + +"Relative Sea Strength of the United States," _Scientific American_ +CVII, 174 (August 31, 1912). + +"For an Adequate Navy in the United States," _Scientific American_, +CV, 512 (December 9, 1911). + +"Humble Opinions of a Flat-Foot; Frank Criticism and Intimate Picture +of Our Navy, by a Blue-Jacketed Gob," _Collier's_ L, 14-15; P., XIX, +22-23 (December 7, 1912). + +"Importance of the Command of the Sea," _Scientific American,_ CV, 512 +(December 9, 1911). + +"The United States Fleet and Its Readiness for Service," _Scientific +American,_ CV, 514 (December 9, 1911). + +"Battle-ship Fleet in Each Ocean," _Scientific American_, CII, 354 +(April 30, 1910). + +"Naval Madness," _Independent_, LXVIII, 489 (March 3, 1910). + +"Our Naval Waste," _Nation_, XCI, 158 (August 25, 1910). + +"Our Navy As a National Insurance," _Scientific American_, CII, 414 +(May 21, 1910). + +"American Naval Policy," _Forum_, XLV, 529 (May, 1911). + +"If We Had to Fight," _Cottier's_, XLVIII, 18 (November 18 1911). + +"Panama Canal and the Sea Power in the Pacific," _Century,_ LXXXII, +240 (January, 1911). + + +"LOCAL OPTION IS THE BEST METHOD OR DEALING WITH THE LIQUOR PROBLEM" + +_Affirmative_ + + I. Other methods of dealing with the liquor problem have failed. + + II. Local option is consistent with American ideas of government. + + III. Local option is a proved success. + +_Negative_ + + I. Local option is undesirable in theory. + + II. Local option has not succeeded where tried. + + III. There is a better method of dealing with this problem. + +BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY + +"Local Option; A Study of Massachusetts," _Atlantic_, XC, 433-40. + +"Principle of Local Option," _Independent_, LIII, 3032-33 (December +19, 1901). + +"When Prohibition Fails and Why," _Outlook_, CI, 639-43 (July 20, +1912). + +"To Dam the Interstate Flow of Drink," _Literary Digest_, XLIV, 106-7 +(January 20, 1912). + +"Psychology of Drink," _American Journal of Sociology_, XVIII, 21-32 +(July, 1912). + +"World-Wide Fight against Alcohol," _Review of Reviews_, XLV, 374. + +"Drink and the Joy of Life," _Westminster_, CLXXVI, 620-24 (December, +1911). + +"Drink Traffic," _Missionary Review_, XXXII, 337-39 (May, 1909). + +"Efforts to Promote Temperance since 1883," in L. B. Paton, _Recent +Christian Progress_, 446-71. + +"Fight against Alcohol," _Cosmopolitan_, XLIV, 492-96, 549-54 (April, +May, 1908); _Harper's Weekly_, LII, 6-7 (April 25, 1908). + +"Foreign Anti-Liquor Movements," _Nation_, LXXXVI, 230 (March 12, +1908). + +"March of Temperance," _Arena_, XL, 325-30 (October, 1908). + +"Social Conditions and the Liquor Problem," _Arena_, XXVI, 275-77 +(September, 1006). + +"Temperance Question," _Canadian M._, XXXII, 282-84 (January, 1909). + +"Local Option Movement," _Annals of the American Academy_, XXXII, +471-5 (November, 1908). + +"Results of a Dry Year in Worcester, Mass.," _Map Survey_, XXII, 301-2 +(May 29, 1909). + +"Local Option and After," _North American_, CXC, 628-41 (November, +1909). + + +"CAPITAL PUNISHMENT SHOULD BE ABOLISHED" + +_Affirmative_ + + I. Capital punishment does not accomplish the purpose for which it is + intended. + + II. Capital punishment is inconsistent with the teachings of modern + criminology. + + III. There are other methods of punishment far more beneficial than + the death penalty. + + +_Negative_ + + I. Capital punishment decreases crime. + + II. The cruelty of capital punishment has been greatly exaggerated. + + III. Society has found no crime deterrent so powerful as the death + penalty. + +BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY + +"Does Capital Punishment Prevent Convictions?" _Review of Reviews_, +XL, 219-20 (August, 1909). + +"Does Capital Punishment Tend to Diminish Capital Crime?" _Harper's +Weekly_, L, 1028-29; _Review of Reviews_, XXXIV, 368-69 (1909). + +"Meaning of Capital Punishment," _Harper's Weekly_, L, 1289 (September +8, 1906). + +"Plato on Capital Punishment," _Harper's Weekly_, L, 1903 (December +29, 1906). + +"Should Capital Punishment Be Abolished?" _Harper's Weekly_, LIII, 8 +(July 3, 1909). + +"Whitely Case and Death Penalty," _Nation_, LXXXIV, 376-77 (April 25, +1907). + +"Death Penalty and Homicide," _American Journal of Sociology_, XVI, +88-116 (July, 1910); _Nation_, VIII, 166; _North American_, CXVI, 138; +_ibid._, LXII, 40; _ibid._, CXXXIII, 534; _Forum_, III, 503; _Arena_, +II, 513. + +"Capital Punishment and Imprisonment for Life," _Nation_, XVI, 193. + +"Capital Punishment Anecdotes from Blue Book," _Ecl. M._, LXVI, 677. + +"Capital Punishment Arguments Against," _Nation_, XVI, 213. + +"Capital Punishment by Electricity," _North American_, CXLVI, 219. + +"Capital Punishment: Case Against," _Fortnightly Review_, LII, 322; +same article in _Eclectic Magazine_, CXIII, 518. + +"The Crime of Capital Punishment," _Arena_, I, 175. + +"Failure of Capital Punishment," _Arena_, XXI, 469. + +"Why Have a Hangman?" _Fortnightly Review_, XL, 581. + +"Punishment of Crimes," _North American_, X, 235. + + + + +APPENDIX VI + +A LIST OF DEBATABLE PROPOSITIONS + + +SCHOOL QUESTIONS + +Many of these, because of their local application, will be found +useful for class practice where time for preparation is necessarily +limited. + +1. Coeducation in colleges is more desirable than segregation. + +2. Textbooks should be furnished at public expense to students in +public schools. + +3. The adoption of the honor system in examinations would be desirable +in American colleges. + +4. Final examinations as a test of knowledge should be discontinued in +X---- High School (or college). + +5. All American universities and colleges should admit men and women +on equal terms. + +6. The national government should establish a university near the +center of population. + +7. The X---- College (or High School) should adopt courses which more +definitely fit students for practical careers. + +8. Intercollegiate football does not promote the best interests of +competing schools. + +9. Intracollegiate athletic contests would be a desirable substitute +for intercollegiate athletics. + +10. Secret societies should be prohibited in public high schools. + +11. National fraternities do not promote the best interests of +American-colleges and universities. + +12. A college commons would be a desirable addition to X---- College. + +13. A lunchroom should be established in the X---- High School. + +14. Athletic regulations should not debar a student from playing +summer baseball. + +15. No student in an American college should be eligible to compete in +intercollegiate athletics until he has begun his second year's work. + +16. All studies in the X--- College (or High School) above those of +the Freshman should be entirely elective. + +17. In all public high schools training in military tactics should be +required. + +18. Public high schools should be under state supervision. + +19. Admission to American colleges should be allowed only upon +examination. + +20. Academic degrees should be given only upon state examinations. + +21. The library of X--- College (or High School, or city) should be +open on Sunday. + +22. A plan of self-government should be adopted for the X--- College (or +High School). + +23. The terms "successful" and "failed" as the only indication of +grade work should be adopted by the X--- School in place of the +present plan or working. + +24. Gymnasium work should be required in X--- School. + +25. Training in domestic science should be required of all girls at +X--- School. + +26. Manual training should be a requirement of all boys at X--- +School. + + +SOCIAL QUESTIONS + +27. The influence of the five-cent theater is beneficial. + +28. A state board with power to forbid public exhibition should +exercise stage censorship. + +29. Children under sixteen years of age should be prohibited from +working in confining industries. + +30. Children under fourteen years of age should be prohibited from +appearing on the stage. + +31. A minimum wage for women employees of department stores should be +enacted by the state of X---. + +32. Public ownership of saloons would be a desirable method of dealing +with the liquor problem. + +33. The English system of old-age pensions should be adopted by the +United States government. + +34. Vivisection should be prohibited by law. + +35. The publication of court proceedings in criminal and divorce cases +should be subject to a board of censorship. + +36. Education under the direction of a state board, should be required +in the state prisons of X---. + +37. The laws of marriage and divorce should be uniform throughout the +United States (constitutionality conceded). + +38. Local option is the best method of dealing with the liquor +question. + +39. The army canteen is desirable. + +40. A system of compulsory industrial insurance should be adopted by +the state of X---. + +41. An eight-hour law for all women workers should be enacted by the +state of X---. + +42. Immigration should be restricted according to the provisions of +the Dillingham-Burnett bill. + +43. Free employment bureaus should be established by the city of X---. + +44. Free employment bureaus should be established by the state of +X---. + + +POLITICAL QUESTIONS + +45. A permanent national tariff commission should be established. + +46. The constitution should be so amended as to make more easy the +passing of amendments. + +47. The restrictions on Mongolian immigration should be removed. + +48. The President of the United States should serve one term of six +years. + +49. Complete public reports of all contributions to political +campaign funds should be required by law. + +50. The Monroe Doctrine as a part of American foreign policy should be +discontinued. + +51. The interests of labor can best be represented by a separate +political party. + +52. The naturalization laws of the United States should be made more +stringent. + +53. Aliens should be forbidden the ballot in every state. + +54. The state of California is justified in her stand against land +ownership by aliens. + +55. Permanent retention of the Philippine Islands by the United States +is not advisable. + +56. The United States navy should be maintained at a fighting strength +equal to any in the world. + +57. Direct presidential primaries should be a substitute for the +present method of presidential nomination. + +58. Corporations engaged in interstate business should be compelled to +operate under a national charter. + +59. The Panama Canal should be fortified. + +60. The initiative and referendum in matters of state legislation +would be desirable in the state of X----. + +61. From the standpoint of the United States the annexation of Cuba +would be desirable. + +62. The fifteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States +should be repealed. + +63. The President should be elected by the direct vote of the people +of the United States. + +64. Proportional representation should be adopted in the state of +X----. + +65. The plan of proportional representation in present vogue in the +state of X---- should be abolished. + +66. The use of voting machines should be required in all elections in +cities having a population of more than 10,000. + +67. Public interest is best served when national party lines are +discarded in municipal elections. + +68. Suffrage should be limited to persons who can read and write. + +69. Ex-Presidents of the United States should become senators-at-large +for life. + +70. Ex-Presidents of the United States should be pensioned for life at +full salary. + +71. The United States should adopt a plan of compulsory voting. + +72. The national government should purchase and operate the express +systems in connection with the parcel post. + +73. Federal judges should be elected by direct vote of the people. + +74. Two-thirds of a jury should be competent to render a verdict in +jury trials in the state of X---. + +75. The state of X--- should adopt a plan for recall of state judges. + +76. The state of X--- should adopt a plan allowing a referendum of +judicial decisions. + +77. The appointment of United States consuls should be under the merit +system. + +78. American vessels engaged in coastwise trade should be permitted +the use of the Panama Canal without the payment of tolls. + +79. All postmasters should be elected by popular vote. + +80. The bill requiring ----, which is at present before the X--- city +council (X--- state legislature, or Congress) should be defeated. + + +ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS + +81. The Underwood tariff bill of 1913 would be a desirable law. + +82. The federal government should undertake at once the construction +of an inland waterway from the Great Lakes to the Gulf (or from X to +Y). + +83. All raw materials should be admitted to the United States free of +duty. + +84. A state law should prohibit prison contract labor in the state of +X---. + +85. Federal government control of all natural resources would be +desirable. + +86. Municipal ownership of street railways would be an advantage to +cities. + +87. The Henry George system of single tax would be practicable in the +United States. + +88. A graduated income tax would be a desirable addition to the +federal taxing system. + +89. The boycott is a justifiable weapon in labor strikes. + +90. The federal government should enact a progressive inheritance tax. + +91. The coal mines of the United States should be under federal +control. + +92. Employers of labor are justified in demanding the "open shop." + +93. Irrigation projects to reclaim the arid lands of the West should +be undertaken by the United States government. + +94. Courts for the compulsory settlement of controversies between +labor and capital should be created by Congress. + +95. Industrial combinations commonly known as "trusts" are an +economical benefit to the United States. + +96. The United States should establish and maintain a system of +subsidies for the American merchant marine. + +97. No tax should be levied on the issue of state banks. + +98. Permanent copyrights should be extended by the national +government. + +99. The judicial injunction as an instrument in labor controversies +should be made illegal. + +100. A law gradually lowering the present tariff, so that in ten years +the United States will be committed to a policy of free trade, would +be economically desirable for the United States. + + + + +APPENDIX VII + + +FORMS FOR JUDGES' DECISION + + +The first of the two following forms is a simple and commonly used +one; the second is more formal and is desirable when the schools wish +to point out carefully the principles upon which the decision is to be +based. A form such as the first, which allows the judge entire +freedom, is becoming the more popular. + + +I. + + +In my opinion, the better debating has been done by the +____________________ team. + + +II + + +JUDGES' DECISION + +[In rendering a decision, the judges are asked to act without +reference to their own opinion on the merits of the question. They are +not to consider that either contesting party necessarily represents +the actual attitude of themselves or of their school. They are to act +without consultation. A decision is desired based solely on the +quality of debating. + +In determining the quality of debating, the judges are asked to +consider both matter and form. Grasp of the question, accuracy of +analysis, selection of evidence, and order and cogency of arguments +should be considered in judging matter. Bearing, voice, directness, +earnestness, emphasis, enunciation, and gesture should be considered +in judging form.] + +DECISION + + +Considering the above instructions, I cast my ballot for the +_________________________. + +*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 14090 *** diff --git a/14090-h/14090-h.htm b/14090-h/14090-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..486be18 --- /dev/null +++ b/14090-h/14090-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,4820 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> +<html> +<head> +<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /> +<title>The Project Gutenberg eBook of Elements of Debating, by Leverett S. Lyon</title> +<style type="text/css"> +/*<![CDATA[ XML blockout */ +<!-- + p { margin-top: .75em; + text-align: justify; + margin-bottom: .75em; + } + h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 { + text-align: center; /* all headings centered */ + clear: both; + } + hr { width: 33%; + margin-top: 2em; + margin-bottom: 2em; + margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto; + clear: both; + } + ul {list-style: none;} + table {margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;} + li {margin-top: .5em;} + + body{margin-left: 10%; + margin-right: 10%; + } + + .linenum {position: absolute; top: auto; left: 4%;} /* poetry number */ + .blockquot{margin-left: 5%; margin-right: 10%;} + .pagenum {position: absolute; left: 92%; font-size: smaller; text-align: right;} /* page numbers */ + .sidenote {width: 20%; padding-bottom: .5em; padding-top: .5em; + padding-left: .5em; padding-right: .5em; margin-left: 1em; + float: right; clear: right; margin-top: 1em; + font-size: smaller; background: #eeeeee; border: dashed 1px;} + + .bb {border-bottom: solid 2px;} + .bl {border-left: solid 2px;} + .bt {border-top: solid 2px;} + .br {border-right: solid 2px;} + .bbox {border: solid 2px;} + + .center {text-align: center;} + .smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} + + .figcenter {margin: auto; text-align: center;} + + .figleft {float: left; clear: left; margin-left: 0; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: + 1em; margin-right: 1em; padding: 0; text-align: center;} + + .figright {float: right; clear: right; margin-left: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; + margin-top: 1em; margin-right: 0; padding: 0; text-align: center;} + + .footnotes {border: dashed 1px;} + .footnote {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;} + .footnote .label {position: absolute; right: 83%; text-align: right;} + .fnanchor {vertical-align: super; font-size: .8em; text-decoration: none;} + + .poem {margin-left:10%; margin-right:10%; text-align: left;} + .poem br {display: none;} + .poem .stanza {margin: 1em 0em 1em 0em;} + .poem span {display: block; margin: 0; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;} + .poem span.i2 {display: block; margin-left: 2em;} + .poem span.i4 {display: block; margin-left: 4em;} + hr.full { width: 100%; } + a:link {color:#0000ff; + text-decoration:none} + link {color:#0000ff; + text-decoration:none} + a:visited {color:#0000ff; + text-decoration:none} + a:hover {color:#ff0000} + pre.pg {font-size: 8pt;} + // --> + /* XML end ]]>*/ +</style> +</head> +<body> +<div>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 14090 ***</div> +<h1>The Project Gutenberg eBook, Elements of Debating, by Leverett S. Lyon</h1> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<hr class="full" /> +<p> </p> +<h1>ELEMENTS OF DEBATING</h1> +<p class="center">A Manual for Use in High Schools and +Academies</p> +<p class="center"><i>By</i></p> +<h2>LEVERETT S. LYON</h2> +<p class="center"><i>Head of the Department of Civic Science in the +Joliet Township High School</i></p> +<p class="center">1919</p> +<h3>PREFACE</h3> +<p>This book pretends but little to originality in material. Its +aim is to offer the old in a form that shall meet the needs of +young students who are beginning work in debate. The effort has +been made only to present the elements of forensic work so freed +from technicality that they may be apparent to the student with the +greatest possible economy of time and the least possible +interpretation by the teacher.</p> +<p>It is hoped that the book may serve not only those schools where +debating is a part of the regular course, but also those +institutions where it is a supplement to the work in English or is +encouraged as a "super-curriculum" activity.</p> +<p>Although the general obligation to other writers is obvious, +there is no specific indebtedness not elsewhere acknowledged, +except to Mr. Arthur Edward Phillips, whose vital principle of +"Reference to Experience" has, in a modified form, been made the +test for evidence. It is my belief that the use of this principle, +rather than the logical and technical forms of proof and evidence, +will make the training of debate far more applicable in other forms +of public speaking. My special thanks are due to Miss Charlotte Van +Der Veen and Miss Elizabeth Barns, whose aid has added technical +exactness to almost every page. I wish to thank also Miss Bella +Hopper for suggestions in preparing the reference list of Appendix +I. Most of all, I am indebted to the students whose interest has +been a constant stimulus, and whose needs have been to me, as they +are to all who teach, the one sure and constant guide.</p> +<p style="text-align: right; margin-right: 10%;">L.S.L.</p> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>TABLE OF CONTENTS</h2> +<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary=""> +<tr> +<td> +<p><a href="#LESSON_I"><b>LESSONS</b></a><br /></p> +<div style="margin-left: 2em;"><a href="#LESSON_I"><b>LESSON I. +WHAT ARGUMENTATION IS</b></a><br /> +<a href="#LESSON_II"><b>LESSON II. WHAT DEBATE IS</b></a><br /> +<a href="#LESSON_III"><b>LESSON III. THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUCCESSFUL +DEBATING</b></a><br /> +<a href="#LESSON_IV"><b>LESSON IV. DETERMINING THE +ISSUES</b></a><br /> +<a href="#LESSON_V"><b>LESSON V. HOW TO PROVE THE +ISSUES</b></a><br /> +<a href="#LESSON_VI"><b>LESSON VI. THE BRIEF. THE CHOICE AND USE OF +EVIDENCE</b></a><br /> +<a href="#LESSON_VII"><b>LESSON VII. THE FORENSIC</b></a><br /> +<a href="#LESSON_VIII"><b>LESSON VIII. REFUTATION</b></a><br /> +<a href="#LESSON_IX"><b>LESSON IX. MANAGEMENT OF THE +DEBATE</b></a><br /> +<a href="#LESSON_X"><b>LESSON X. A SUMMARY AND A +DIAGRAM</b></a><br /></div> +<p><a href="#APPENDICES"><b>APPENDICES</b></a><br /></p> +<div style="margin-left: 2em;"><a href="#APPENDIX_I"><b>APPENDIX I. +HOW AND WHERE TO READ FOR MORE INFORMATION</b></a><br /> +<a href="#APPENDIX_II"><b>APPENDIX II. ILLUSTRATIONS OF ANALYSIS TO +DETERMINE THE ISSUES OF THE QUESTION</b></a><br /> +<a href="#APPENDIX_III"><b>APPENDIX III. A TYPICAL COLLEGE +FORENSIC</b></a><br /> +<a href="#APPENDIX_IV"><b>APPENDIX IV. MATERIAL TOR +BRIEFING</b></a><br /> +<a href="#APPENDIX_V"><b>APPENDIX V. QUESTIONS WITH SUGGESTED +ISSUES AND BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY</b></a><br /> +<a href="#APPENDIX_VI"><b>APPENDIX VI. A LIST OF DEBATABLE +PROPOSITIONS</b></a><br /> +<a href="#APPENDIX_VII"><b>APPENDIX VII. FORMS FOR JUDGES' +DECISION</b></a><br /></div> +</td> +</tr> +</table> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2><a name="LESSON_I" id="LESSON_I"></a>LESSON I</h2> +<h3>WHAT ARGUMENTATION IS</h3> +<ul> +<li>I. The purpose of discourse</li> +<li>II. The forms of discourse:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. Narration</li> +<li>2. Description</li> +<li>3. Exposition</li> +<li>4. Argumentation</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +<p>When we pause to look about us and to realize what things are +really going on, we discern that everyone is talking and writing. +Perhaps we wonder why this is the case. Nature is said to be +economical. She would hardly have us make so much effort and use so +much energy without some purpose, and some purpose beneficial to +us. So we determine that the purpose of using language is to convey +meaning, to give ideas that we have to someone else.</p> +<p>As we watch a little more closely, we see that in talking or +writing we are not merely talking or writing something. We see that +everyone, consciously or unconsciously, clearly or dimly, is always +trying to do some definite thing. Let us see what the things are +which we may be trying to do.</p> +<p>If you should tell your father, when you return from school, how +Columbus discovered America on October 12, 1492, and should try to +make him see the scene on shipboard when land was first sighted as +clearly as you see it, you would be describing. That kind of +discourse would be called description. Its purpose is to make +another see in his mind's eye the same image or picture that we +have in our own.</p> +<p>On the other hand, if you wished to tell him the story of the +discovery of America, you would do something quite different. You +would tell him not only of the first sight of land, but of the +whole series of incidents which led up to that event. If he could +follow you readily, could almost live through the various +happenings that you related, you would be telling your story well. +That kind of discourse is not description but narration.</p> +<p>Suppose, then, that your father should say: "Now tell me this: +What is the difference between the discovery of America and the +colonization of America?" You would now have a new task. You would +not care to make him see any particular scene or live through the +events of discovery but to make him <i>understand something which +you understand</i>. You would show him that the discovery of +America meant merely the fact that America was found to be here, +but that colonization meant the coming, not of the explorers, but +of the permanent settlers. This form of discourse which makes clear +to someone else an idea that is already clear to us is called +exposition.</p> +<p>And now suppose your father should say: "Well, you have told me +a great deal which I may say is interesting enough, but it seems to +me rather useless. What is the purpose of all this study? Why have +you spent so much time learning of this one event?" You would of +course answer: "Because the discovery of America was an event of +great importance."</p> +<p>He might reply: "I still do not believe that." Then you would +say: "I'll prove it to you," or, "I'll convince you of it." You +would then have undertaken to do what you are now trying to learn +how to do better—to argue. <i>For argumentation is that form +of discourse that we use when we attempt to make some one else +believe as we wish him to believe.</i> "Argumentation is the art of +producing in the mind of someone else a belief in the ideas which +the speaker or writer wishes the hearer or reader to +accept."<a name="FNanchor_1_1" id="FNanchor_1_1"></a><a href= +"#Footnote_1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a></p> +<p>You made use of argumentation when you urged a friend to take +the course in chemistry in your school by trying to make him +believe it would be beneficial to him. You used argumentation when +you urged a friend to join the football squad by trying to make him +believe, as you believe, that the exercise would do him good. A +minister uses argumentation when he tries to make his congregation +believe, as he believes, that ten minutes spent in prayer each +morning will make the day's work easier. The salesman uses +argumentation to sell his goods. The chance of the merchant to +recover a rebate on a bill of goods that he believes are defective +depends entirely on his ability to make the seller believe the same +thing. On argumentation the lawyer bases his hope of making the +jury believe that his client is innocent of crime. All of us every +day of our lives, in ordinary conversation, in our letters, and in +more formal talks, are trying to make others believe as we wish +them to believe. Our success in so doing depends upon our skill in +the art of argumentation.</p> +<h4>SUGGESTED EXERCISES</h4> +<p>1. Out of your study or reading of the past week, give an +illustration of: (1) narration; (2) description; (3) exposition; +(4) argumentation.</p> +<p>2. During the past week, on what occasions have you personally +made use of: (1) narration; (2) description; (3) exposition; (4) +argumentation?</p> +<p>3. Explain carefully the distinction between description and +exposition. In explaining this distinction, what form of discourse +have you used?</p> +<p>4. Define argumentation.</p> +<p>5. Skill in argumentation is a valuable acquisition for:</p> +<p>(Give three reasons).<br /> +(1)__________________________________________________<br /> +<br /> +(2)__________________________________________________<br /> +<br /> +(3)__________________________________________________<br /></p> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2><a name="LESSON_II" id="LESSON_II"></a>LESSON II</h2> +<h3>WHAT DEBATE IS</h3> +<ul> +<li>I. The forms of argumentation:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. Written.</li> +<li>2. Oral.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>II. The forms of oral argumentation:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. General discussion.</li> +<li>2. Debate.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>III. The qualities of debate:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. Oral.</li> +<li>2. Judges present.</li> +<li>3. Prescribed conditions.</li> +<li>4. Decision expected.</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +<p>Now, since we have decided upon a definition of argumentation, +let us see what we mean by the term "debate" as it will be used in +this work.</p> +<p>We have said that argumentation is the art of producing in the +mind of someone a belief in something in which we wish him to +believe.</p> +<p>Now it is obvious that this can be accomplished in different +ways. Perhaps the most common method of attempting to bring someone +to believe as we wish is the oral method. On your way to school you +meet a friend and assert your belief that in the coming football +game the home team will win. You continue: "Our team has already +beaten teams that have defeated our opponent of next Saturday, and, +moreover, our team is stronger than it has been at any time this +season." When you finish, your friend replies: "I believe you are +right. We shall win."</p> +<p>You have been carrying on oral argumentation.</p> +<p>If, when you had finished, your friend had not agreed with you, +your effort would have been none the less argumentation, only it +would have been unsuccessful. If you had written the same thing to +your friend in a letter, your letter would have been +argumentative.</p> +<p>Suppose your father were running for an office and should make a +public speech. If he tried to make the audience believe that the +best way to secure lower taxes, better water, and improved streets +would be through his election, he would be making use of oral +argumentation. If he should do the same thing through newspaper +editorials, he would be using written argumentation.</p> +<p>Argumentation, then, may be carried on either in writing or +orally, and may vary from the informality of an ordinary +conversation or a letter to a careful address or thoughtful +article.</p> +<p>What, then, is debate as we shall use the word in this work, and +what is the relation of argumentation to debate? The term "debate" +in its general use has, of course, many senses. You might say: "I +had a debate with a friend about the coming football game." Or your +father might say: "I heard the great Lincoln and Douglas debates +before the Civil War." Although both of you would be using the term +as it is generally used, you would not be using it as it will be +used in this book, or as it is best that a student of argumentation +and debate should use it.</p> +<p>The term "debate," in the sense in which students of these +subjects should use it, means <i>oral argumentation carried on by +two opposing teams under certain prescribed regulations, and with +the expectation of having a decision rendered by judges who are +present</i>. This is "debate" used, not generally, as you used it +in saying, "I debated with a friend," but technically, as we use it +when we refer to the Yale-Harvard debate or the Northern Debating +League. In order to keep the meaning of this term clearly in mind, +use it only when referring to such contests as these. In speaking +of your argumentative conversation with your friend or of the +forensic contests between Lincoln and Douglas, use the term +"discussion" rather than "debate."</p> +<p>It is true that the controversy between Lincoln and Douglas +conformed to our definition of "debate" in being oral; moreover, at +least in sense, two teams (of one man each) competed, but there +were no judges, and no direct decision was rendered.</p> +<p>Since argumentation, then, is the art of producing in the mind +of someone else a belief in the idea or ideas you wish to convey, +and debate is an argumentative contest carried on orally under +certain conditions, it is clear that argumentation is the broader +term of the two and that debate is merely a specialized kind of +argumentation. Football is exercise, but there is exercise in many +other forms. Debate is argumentation, but one can also find +argumentation in many other forms.</p> +<p>The following diagram makes clear the work we have covered thus +far. It shows the relation between argumentation and debate, and +shows that the specialized term "debate" has the same relation to +"discourse" that "football" has to "exercise."</p> +<pre> + / Miscellaneous + | Swimming + / Play | Skating +Kinds of | | Rolling hoop / Other athletic games +exercise | \ Athletic games \ Football + | + | + \ Work + + + + + / Description +Kinds of | Narration +discourse | Exposition + \ Argumentation / Written + \ Oral / General discussion + \ Debate +</pre> +<h4>SUGGESTED EXERCISES</h4> +<p>1. Be prepared to explain orally in class, as though to +<i>someone who did not know</i>, the difference between +"argumentation" and "debate."</p> +<p>2. Set down three conditions that must exist before +argumentation becomes debate.</p> +<p>3. Have you ever argued? Orally? In writing?</p> +<p>4. Have you ever debated? Did you win?</p> +<p>5. Which is the broader term, "argumentation," or "debate?" +Why?</p> +<p>6. Compose some sentences, illustrating the use of the terms +"debate" and "argumentation."</p> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2><a name="LESSON_III" id="LESSON_III"></a>LESSON III</h2> +<h3>THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUCCESSFUL DEBATING</h3> +<ul> +<li>I. The three requirements stated.</li> +<li>II. How to make clear to the audience what one wishes them to +believe, by:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. Stating the idea which one wishes to have accepted in the +form of a definite assertion, which is:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) Interesting.</li> +<li>(2) Definite and concise.</li> +<li>(3) Single in form.</li> +<li>(4) Fair to both sides.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>2. Defining the "terms of the question" so that they will +be:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) Clear.</li> +<li>(2) Convincing.</li> +<li>(3) Consistent with the origin and history of the +question.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>3. Restating the whole question in the light of the +definitions.</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +<p>To debate successfully it is necessary to do three things:</p> +<ul> +<li>1. To make perfectly clear to your audience what you wish them +to believe.</li> +<li>2. To show them why the proof of certain points (called issues) +should make them believe the thing you wish them to believe.</li> +<li>3. To prove the issues.</li> +</ul> +<p>Each of these three things is a distinct process, involving +several steps. One is as important as another.</p> +<p>It is impossible to prove the issues until we have found them, +but equally impossible to show the audience what the issues are +until we have shown what the thing is which we wish those issues to +support. First, then, let us see what we mean by making perfectly +clear what you wish to have the audience believe.</p> +<p>Suppose that you should meet a friend who says to you: "I am +going to argue with you about examinations." You might naturally +reply: "What examinations?" If he should say, "All examinations: +the honor system in all examinations," you might very reasonably +still be puzzled and ask if by all examinations he meant +examinations of every kind in grade school, high school, and +college, as well as the civil service examinations, and what was +meant by the honor system.</p> +<p>He would now probably explain to you carefully how several +schools have been experimenting with the idea of giving all +examinations without the presence of a teacher or monitor of any +sort. During these examinations, however, it has been customary to +ask the students themselves to report any cheating that they may +observe. It is also required that each student state in writing, at +the end of his paper, upon honor, that he has neither given nor +received aid during the test. "To this method," your friend +continues, "has been given the name of the honor system. And I +believe that this system should be adopted in all examinations in +the Greenburg High School."</p> +<p>He has now stated definitely what he wishes to make you believe, +and he has done more; he has explained to you the meaning of the +terms that you did not understand. These two things make perfectly +clear to you what he wishes you to believe, and he has thus covered +the first step in argumentation.</p> +<p>From this illustration, then, several rules can be drawn. In the +first place your friend stated that he wished to argue about +examinations. Why could he not begin his argument at once? Because +he had not yet asked you to believe anything about examinations. He +might have said, "I am going to explain examinations," and he could +then have told you what examinations were. That would have been +exposition. But he could not <i>argue</i> until he had made a +definite assertion about the term "examination."</p> +<p>Rule one would then be: State in the form of a definite +assertion the matter to be argued.</p> +<p>In order to be suitable for debating, an assertion or, as it is +often called, proposition, of this kind should conform to certain +conditions:</p> +<ul> +<li>1. It should be one in which both the debaters and the audience +are interested. Failure to observe this rule has caused many to +think debating a dry subject.</li> +<li>2. It should propose something different from existing +conditions. Argument should have an end in view. Your school has no +lunchroom. Should it have one? Your city is governed by a mayor and +a council. Should it be ruled by a commission? Merely to debate, as +did the men of the Middle Ages, how many angels could dance on the +point of a needle, or, as some more modern debaters have done, +whether Grant was a greater general than Washington, is +useless.</li> +<li>The fact that those on the affirmative side propose something +new places on them what is called the<i>burden of proof</i>. This +means that they must show why there is<i>need</i> of a change from +the present state of things. When they have done this, they may +proceed to argue in favor of the<i>particular change</i> which they +propose.</li> +<li>3. It should make a single statement about a single thing:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(Correct) In public high schools secret societies should be +prohibited.</li> +<li>(Incorrect) In public high schools and colleges secret +societies and teaching of the Bible should be prohibited.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>4. It must be expressed with such definiteness that both sides +can agree on what it means.</li> +<li>5. It must be expressed in such a way as to be fair to both +sides.</li> +</ul> +<p>But you noticed that your friend had not only to state the +question definitely, but to explain what the terms of the +proposition meant. He had to tell you what the "honor system" +was.</p> +<p>Our second rule, then, for making the question clear, is: In the +proposition as stated, explain all terms that may not be entirely +clear to your audience.</p> +<p>And in explaining or defining these terms, there are certain +things that you must do. You must make the definition clear, or it +will be no better than the term itself. This is not always easy. In +defining "moral force" a gentleman said: "Why, moral force is +er—er—moral force." He did not get very far on the way +toward making his term clear. Be sure that your definition really +explains the term.</p> +<p>Then one must be careful not to define in a circle. Let us take, +for example, the assertion or proposition, "The development of +labor unions has been beneficial to commerce." If you should +attempt to define "development" by saying "development means +growth," you would not have made the meaning of the term much +clearer; and if in a further attempt to explain it, you could only +add "And growth means development," you would be defining in a +circle.</p> +<p>There is still another error to be avoided in making your terms +clear to your audience. This error is called begging the question. +This occurs when a term is defined in such a way that there is +nothing left to be argued.</p> +<p>Suppose your friend should say to you: "I wish to make you +believe that the honor system should be used in all examinations in +the Greenburg High School." You ask him what he means by the "honor +system." He replies: "I mean the best system in the world." Is +there anything left to argue? Hardly, if his definition of the term +honor system is correct, for it would be very irrational indeed to +disagree with the assertion that the best system in the world +should be adopted in the Greenburg High School.</p> +<p>To summarize: <i>Define terms carefully;</i> make the definition +clear; do not define in a circle, and do not beg the question.</p> +<p>As you have already noticed, terms in argumentation, such as +"honor system," often consist of more than one word. They sometimes +contain several words. "A term [as that word is used in debating +and argumentation] may consist of any number of names, substantive +or objective, with the articles, prepositions, and conjunctions +required to join them together; still it is only one term if it +points out or makes us think of only one thing or object or class +of objects."<a name="FNanchor_2_2" id="FNanchor_2_2"></a><a href= +"#Footnote_2_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> In such cases a dictionary +is of little use. Take the term "honor system," the meaning of +which was not clear to you. A dictionary offers no help. How is the +student who wishes to discuss this question to decide upon the +meaning of the term? Notice how your friend made it clear to you. +He gave a history of the question that he wished to argue. He +showed how the term "honor system" came into use and what it means +where that system of examinations is in vogue. This, then, is the +only method of making sure of the meaning of a term: to study the +history of the question and see what the term means in the light of +that history. This method has the added advantage that a term +defined in this way will not only be entirely clear to your +audience, but will also tend to convince them.</p> +<p>A dispute may arise between yourself and an opponent as to the +meaning of a term. He may be relying on a dictionary or the +statement of a single writer, while you are familiar with the +history of the question. Under those circumstances it will be easy +for you to show the judges and the audience that, although he may +be using the term correctly in a general way, he is quite wrong +when the special question under discussion is considered.</p> +<p>To make this more clear, let us take a specific instance. +Suppose that you are debating the proposition, "Football Should Be +Abolished in This High School." Football, as defined in the +dictionary, differs considerably from the game with which every +American boy is familiar. Further, the dictionary defines both the +English and the American game. If your opponent should take either +of these definitions, he would not have much chance of convincing +an American audience that it was correct. Or if he should define +football according to the rules of the game as it was played five +or ten years ago, he would be equally ineffective.</p> +<p>You, on the other hand, announce that in your discussion you +will use the term "football" as that game is described in +<i>Spaulding's present year's rule book for the American game</i>, +and that every reference you make to plays allowed or forbidden +will be on the basis of the latest ruling. You then have a +definition based on the history of the question. As you can see, +the case for or against English football would be different from +that of the American game. In the same way the case for or against +football as it was played ten years ago would be very different +from the case of football as it is played today.</p> +<p>All this does not mean that definitions found in dictionaries or +other works of reference are never good; it means simply that such +definitions should not be taken as final until the question has +been carefully reviewed. Try to think out for yourself the meaning +of the question. Decide what it involves and how it has arisen, or +could arise in real life. Then, when you do outside reading on the +subject, keep this same idea in mind. Keep asking yourself: "How +did this question arise? Why is it being discussed?" You will be +surprised to find that when you are ready to answer that question +you will have most of your reading done, for you will have read +most of the arguments upon it. Then you are ready to make it clear +to the audience.</p> +<p>When you have thus given a clear and convincing definition of +all the terms, it is a good plan to restate the whole question in +the light of those definitions.</p> +<p>For instance, notice the question of the "honor system." The +original question might have been concisely stated: "All +Examinations in the Greenburg High School Should Be Conducted under +the Honor System."</p> +<p>After you have made clear what you mean by the "honor system," +you will be ready to restate the question as follows: "The question +then is this: No Teacher Shall Be Present during Any Examination in +the Greenburg High School, and Every Student Shall Be Required to +State on Honor That He Has Neither Given Nor Received Aid in the +Examinations."</p> +<p>Your hearers will now see clearly what you wish them to +believe.</p> +<p>Thus far, then, we have seen that to debate well we should have +a question which is of interest to ourselves and to the audience. +The first step toward success is to make clear to our hearers the +proposition presented for their acceptance. This may be done:</p> +<ul> +<li>1) By stating the idea that we wish them to accept in the form +of an assertion, which should be:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li><i>a</i>) interesting</li> +<li><i>b</i>) definite and concise</li> +<li><i>c</i>) single in form</li> +<li><i>d</i>) fair to both sides</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>2) By defining the "terms of the question" so that they will +be:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li><i>a</i>) clear</li> +<li><i>b</i>) convincing</li> +<li><i>c</i>) consistent with the origin and history of the +question</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>3) By restating the whole question in the light of our +definitions.</li> +</ul> +<h4>SUGGESTED EXERCISES</h4> +<ul> +<li>1. State the three processes of successful debating.</li> +<li>2. What are the three necessary steps in the first +process?</li> +<li>3. What qualities should a proposition for debate possess?</li> +<li>4. Give a proposition that you think has these qualities.</li> +<li>5. Without reference to books, define all the terms of this +proposition. Follow the rules but make the definitions as brief as +possible.</li> +<li>6. Make some propositions in which the following terms shall be +used:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) "Athletics,"</li> +<li>(2) "This City,"</li> +<li>(3) "All Studies,"</li> +<li>(4) "Manual Training,"</li> +<li>(5) "Domestic Science."</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>7. Point out the weakness in the following propositions +(consider propositions always with your class as the +audience):</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) "Physics, Chemistry, and Algebra Are Hard Studies."</li> +<li>(2) "Only Useful Studies Should Be Taught in This School."</li> +<li>(3) "All Women Should Be Allowed to Vote and Should Be +Compelled by Law to Remove Their Hats in Church."</li> +<li>(4) "Agricultural Conditions in Abyssinia Are Superior to Those +in Burma."</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>8. Compare the dictionary definition of the following terms +with the meaning which the history of the question has given them +in actual usage:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) Domestic science.</li> +<li>(2) Aeroplane exhibitions.</li> +<li>(3) The international Olympic games.</li> +<li>(4) Township high schools.</li> +<li>(5) National conventions of political parties.</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2><a name="LESSON_IV" id="LESSON_IV"></a>LESSON IV</h2> +<h3>DETERMINING THE ISSUES</h3> +<ul> +<li>I. What the "issues" are.</li> +<li>II. How to determine the issues.</li> +<li>III. The value of correct issues.</li> +</ul> +<p>When you have made perfectly clear to your hearers what you wish +them to believe, the next step is to show them why they should +believe it. The first step in this process, as we saw at the +beginning of Lesson III, is to see what points, if proved, will +make them believe it.</p> +<p>These points, as we call them, are better known as "issues." The +issues are really questions, the basic questions on which your side +and the other disagree. The negative would answer "No" to these +issues, the affirmative would say "Yes."</p> +<p>The issues when stated in declarative sentences are the +fundamental reasons why the affirmative believes its proposition +should be believed.</p> +<p>A student might be arguing with himself whether he would study +law or medicine. He would say to himself: "These are the issues: +For which am I the better adapted? Which requires the more study? +Which offers the better promise of reward? In which can I do the +more good?"</p> +<p>Should he argue with a friend in order to induce him to give up +law and to study medicine, he would use similar issues. He would +feel that if he could settle these questions he could convince his +friend. Now, however, he would state them as declarative sentences +and say: "You are more adapted to the profession of medicine; you +can do more good in this field," etc. If the friend should open the +question, he would be in the position of a man on the negative side +of a debate. He would state the issues negatively as his reasons. +He would say: "I am not so well adapted to the study of medicine; +it offers less promise of reward," etc.</p> +<p>Each of these would in turn depend upon other reasons, but every +proposition will depend for its acceptance on the proof of a few +main issues. Perhaps this point can be made clearer by an +illustration. Suppose we should take hold of one small rod which we +see in the framework of a large truss bridge and should say: "This +bridge is strong because this rod is here." Our statement would be +only partially true. The rod might be broken, and although the +strength of the bridge as a whole might be slightly weakened, it +would not fall. But suppose we should say: "This bridge really +rests on these four great steel beams which run down to the stone +abutment. If I can see that these four steel beams are secure, I +can believe in the security of the bridge." So a mechanical +engineer shows us that certain rods and bars of the framework hold +up one beam, and how similar rods and bars sustain a second, and +that yet other rods and bars distribute the weight that would press +too heavily on a third, and so at last we are convinced that the +bridge is safe. It is not because we have been shown that several +of the bolts and braces are strong, but because we have been shown +that the four great beams, upon which it rests, are reliable.</p> +<p>Thus it is with everything in which we believe. We do not +believe that taxes are just because the government must have money +to pay the president or to buy uniforms for the army officers. +These things must be done, but they are incidentals. They are +facts, but they are like the small braces of the bridge. We believe +that taxation is just, because the government must have money for +its work. Paying the president and buying uniforms are details of +this more fundamental reason.</p> +<p>In the same way we might say: "Athletics should be encouraged in +high schools because it will make John Brown, who will participate, +more healthy." That is a reason, but again only a small supporting +reason. We might rather choose a fundamental reason, which this +slight reason would in turn support, and it would be: "Athletics +should be encouraged in high schools because they improve the +health of the students that participate."</p> +<p>In a recent debate between two large high schools on the +proposition: "<i>Resolved</i>, That Contests within High Schools +Should Be Substituted for Contests between High Schools," one of +the contesting teams took the following as issues:</p> +<ul> +<li>1. Contests within high, schools will accomplish the real +purpose of contests better than will contests between schools.</li> +<li>2. Contests within high schools are the more democratic.</li> +<li>3. Contests within high schools can be made to work +successfully.</li> +</ul> +<p>When these three facts had been demonstrated, there was little +left to urge against the claim.</p> +<p>Recently among the universities of a certain section, this +question was discussed: "<i>Resolved</i>, That the Federal +Government Should Levy a Graduated Income Tax." (Such tax was +conceded as constitutional.) One university decided upon these as +the issues:</p> +<ul> +<li>1. Does the government need additional revenue?</li> +<li>2. Admitting that additional revenue is needed, is a graduated +income tax the best way of securing the money?</li> +<li>3. Could a graduated income tax be successfully collected?</li> +</ul> +<p>Here again if the debaters favoring a graduated income could +show that the government does need the money, that the proposed tax +is the best way to get it, and that such a tax would work in +practice, they would make the audience believe their proposition. +If the speakers on the negative side could show that the income of +the federal government is sufficient, that, even if additional +revenue is needed, this is a poor way to obtain it, or that this +plan, though good in theory, is impracticable, they would have a +good case. Thus in every question that is two-sided enough to be a +good question for debate, there are certain fundamental issues upon +which the disagreement between the affirmative and the negative can +be shown to rest. When either side has answered "Yes" or "No" to +these issues and has given reasons for its answer that will find +acceptance in the minds of the audience and of the judges, it has +won the debate. It is easy, then, to see why "determining the +issues," and showing the audience what these issues are, is the +second step in successful debating.</p> +<p>Although there is no fixed rule or touchstone by which an issue +can immediately be determined, there are several rules which will +aid in finding them.</p> +<ul> +<li>1. In all your thinking and reading upon the question, +constantly try to decide: (1) What will the other side admit? (2) +Is there anything that I am thinking of in connection with this +question that is not essential to it?</li> +<li>2. Do not try to make a final determination of the issues until +you are sure you understand the question.</li> +<li>3. Be always ready to change your issues when you see that they +are not fundamental.</li> +</ul> +<p>With these general rules in mind, think the question over +carefully. This process of determing the issues can, and should, go +on at the same time as the process of learning what the question +means. One helps the other. Having decided what will be the issues +of the debate, set those issues down under appropriate heads; such +as, "Is desirable," "Is needed," "Would work well," etc. Whenever +you think of a reason why a thing is not needed, would not work, +etc., put that down in a similar way. Now read more carefully (see +"Reading References," Appendix I) on both sides of the question, +and, whenever you find a reason for or against the proposition, set +it down as above. The best method of doing this is to have a small +pack of plain cards, perhaps two and one-half by four inches. Use +one for each reason that you put down. As you think and read you +will determine many reasons for the truth or falsity of the +proposition. Gradually you will see that a great many of them are +not so important as others and that they do not bear directly on +the question, but in reality support some more important reason +that you have set down. As you begin to notice this, go through +your pack of cards and arrange them in the order of importance. +Begin a new pile with every statement that seems to bear directly +upon the proposition and put under it those statements that seem to +support it. You will soon find that you have all your cards in two +or three piles. Now examine the cards which you have on the top of +each pile. See if the proof of these statements would convince any +person that you are right. If so you have probably found the +issues.</p> +<p><i>Always think first, then read, then think again</i>.</p> +<p>If you have determined the issues wisely, it will be easy in the +debate itself to show the audience and the judges what those issues +are. You will have a tremendous advantage over your opponent, who +in his haste or laziness may have chosen what are not the real +issues of the question. He may present well the material that he +has, but if that material does not support the <i>fundamental +issues</i> of the question, you are right in calling the attention +of the judges to that fact.</p> +<p>Few debates are won on the platform. They are won by thoughtful +preparation. Be prepared.</p> +<h4>SUGGESTED EXERCISES</h4> +<ul> +<li>1. Give in your own words, as briefly as you can, a definition +of the term "the issues of a question."</li> +<li>2. Give one illustration of your own of the issues of a +question.</li> +<li>3. What is meant by "determining the issues"?</li> +<li>4. Will the affirmative and the negative teams always agree on +the issues?</li> +<li>5. Can a question have two entirely different sets of issues? +Why, or why not?</li> +<li>6. If there can be only one correct set of issues for a +question, and you believe that you have determined those, what must +you do in the debate if your opponents advance different +issues?</li> +<li>7. Think over carefully and set down what you believe are the +issues of one of the following propositions. Frame the issues as +questions.</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1)</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>a) Football Should Be Abolished in This [your own] School.</li> +<li>b) Football Should Be Installed as a Regular Branch of +Athletics in This [your own] School.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>(2)</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li> +<pre> +a) Manual Training /Should Be Established in This + Domestic Science \ [your own] School. +</pre></li> +<li> +<pre> +b) Manual Training / /Boys /Should Be Made Compulsory + | For| |in This [your own] + Domestic Science \ \Girls \ School. + +</pre></li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>8. Are there any terms in any of the above propositions which +should be made more clear to an average audience? Are there any +terms on the meaning of which two opposing teams might +disagree?</li> +<li>9. Define one such term so that it would be clear and +convincing to an audience not connected with the school.</li> +<li>10. Give two reasons why you believe it is or is not beneficial +to study argumentation and debating.</li> +<li>11. If you were debating the question, "This [your own school] +Should Establish a School Lunch-Room," would you take as one of the +issues, "All students could obtain a warm meal at noon." Why, or +why not?</li> +</ul> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2><a name="LESSON_V" id="LESSON_V"></a>LESSON V</h2> +<h3>HOW TO PROVE THE ISSUES</h3> +<ul> +<li>I. What "proof" is.</li> +<li>II. A consideration of how "proof" of anything is +accomplished.</li> +<li>III. An infallible test of what the audience will believe.</li> +<li>IV. The material of proof-evidence.</li> +<li>V. Evidence and proof compared.</li> +</ul> +<p>Having determined what the issues are, and having shown the +audience why the establishment of these issues should logically win +belief in your proposition, all that remains is to prove the +issues.</p> +<p>Now it is clear that neither the audience nor the judges can be +led to agree with us and to accept our issues as proved, by our +telling them that we should like to have them believe in the +soundness of our views. Neither can we succeed in convincing them +by telling them that they ought to believe as we wish. The modern +audience is not to be cajoled or browbeaten into belief. How, then, +are we to persuade our hearers to accept our assertions as true? +The only method is to give them what they demand—reasons. We +must tell <i>why</i> every statement is true. This process of +telling why the issues are true so effectively that the audience +and judges believe them to be true is called the <i>proof</i>.</p> +<p>Naturally, the reasons that we give in support of the issues +will be no better than the issues themselves, unless we know what +reasons the audience will believe. And how are we to know what +reasons the audience will believe? We can best answer that question +by determining why we ourselves believe those things which we +accept. Why do we believe anything? We believe that water is wet; +the sky, blue; fire, hot; and sugar, sweet, because in our +<i>experience</i> we have always found them so. These things we +believe because we have <i>experienced</i> them ourselves. There +are other things that we believe in a similar way. We believe that +not every newspaper report is reliable. We believe that a statement +in the <i>Outlook</i>, the <i>Review of Reviews</i>, or the +<i>World's Work</i> is likely to be more trustworthy than a yellow +headline in the <i>Morning Bugle</i>. Our own experience, plus what +we have heard of the experience of others, has led us to this +belief. But there are still other things that we believe although +we have not experienced them at all. We believe that Columbus +visited America in 1492, that Grant was a great general, that +Washington was our first president. Directly, these things have +never been experienced by us, but indirectly they have. Others, +within whose experience these things have fallen, have led us to +accept them so thoroughly that they have become our experience +second hand.</p> +<p>If we are told that a man who was in the Iroquois Theater fire +was seriously burned, it seems reasonable to us because our +experience recognizes burning as the result of such a situation. +But if we are told that a man who fell into the water emerged dry, +or that a general who served under Washington was born in 1830, we +discredit it because such statements are not in accord with our +experience. We are ready, then, to answer our question: <i>"What +reasons will those in the audience believe?" They will believe +those statements which harmonize with their own experience, and +will discredit those which are at variance with their +experience.</i> This experience, as we have seen, may be first +hand, or direct; or it may be indirect, or second hand.</p> +<p>In every case, the speaker's argument must base every issue upon +reasons that rest on what the hearers believe because of their own +direct or indirect experience. Suppose I assert: "John Quinn was a +dangerous man." Someone says: "Prove that statement." I answer: "He +was a thief." Someone says: "If that is true, he was a bad man, but +can you prove him a thief?" Then I produce a copy of a court record +which states that, on a certain day, a duly constituted court found +John Quinn guilty of robbing a bank. All my hearers now admit, not +only that he was a thief, but also that he was a dangerous person. +I have given them a reason for my statement, and a reason for that +reason, until at last I have shown them that my assertion, that +John Quinn is a dangerous citizen, rests on what they themselves +believe—that a court record is reliable.</p> +<p>Sometimes an issue cannot be supported by a reason that will +come at once within the experience of the audience. It is then +necessary to support the first by a second reason that does come +within its experience. Remember, then, as the fundamental rule, +that the judges and audience will believe the issues of the +proposition, and, as a result, the proposition itself, only when we +show them, by the standard of their own experience, that we are +right.</p> +<p>The reasons that we give in support of the issues are, in +debating, called <i>evidence</i>. Evidence is not proof; evidence +is the material out of which proof is made. Evidence is like the +separate stones of a solid wall: no one alone makes the wall; each +one helps make it strong. Evidence is like the small rods and +braces of the truss bridge: no one alone supports the weight; each +helps to sustain the great beams that are the real support of the +bridge.</p> +<p>Suppose we had the proposition: "The Honor System of +Examinations Should Be Established in the Greenburg High School." +We assert: "There is but one issue: Will the students be honest in +the examination?" Now, what evidence shall we use to show that they +will be honest? We may turn to the experience of other schools. +After a careful investigation we find evidence with which we may +support the assertion in the following way:</p> +<p>The Honor System should be established in the Greenburg High +School, for:</p> +<ul> +<li>I. The student will do honest work under that system, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. Experience of similar schools shows this, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) This plan was a success in X High School, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li><i>a</i>) The principal of that school states [quotation from +principal], for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li><i>(a)</i> See <i>School Review</i>, Mar., 1900.</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>(2) This plan is approved by Y High School, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li><i>a</i>) Etc.</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +<p>Here the statements used in support of the issue are evidence. +If the evidence is strong enough to bring conviction to the +audience to which you are speaking, it is proof.</p> +<p>But notice here an important point. Why should this tend to make +those in the audience believe that the honor system should be +adopted? Simply because we have shown them that it has worked well +elsewhere, and <i>their own experience tells them that what has +been a benefit in other schools similar to this will be a benefit +here</i>.</p> +<p>And in its final analysis this evidence is no stronger than the +words of the men who state that it has worked in schools (X) and +(Y).</p> +<p><i>If the experience of the audience</i> is that these men are +untruthful or likely to exaggerate, our evidence will not be good +evidence. If the experience of the audience is that these men are +capable, honest, and reliable, this evidence will go far toward +gaining acceptance of, and belief in, our proposition.</p> +<p>Many attempts have been made to put evidence into different +classes and to give tests of good evidence. There is but one rule +that the debater needs to use: <i>In judging evidence for a debate +consider what the effect will be on the audience and the judges. +Will it be convincing to them</i>? In other words, will it make +their own experience quickly and strongly support the issues?</p> +<p>Time is always limited in a debate. The wise debater will then +choose that evidence which will most quickly make his hearers feel +that their own experience proves him right. When the speaker has +done this, he has chosen the best evidence and has used enough of +it.</p> +<p>In courts of law where witnesses appear in every case and +testify as to circumstances that did or did not occur, it is +necessary that the jury be able to distinguish carefully between +what it should and should not believe. Witnesses often have a keen +personal interest in the verdict and, therefore, are inclined to +tell less or more than the truth. Sometimes witnesses are relatives +of persons who would suffer if the case were decided against them +and they have a tendency to give unfair testimony.</p> +<p>In order that the jury may decide as fairly as possible what +evidence is sound and what is not, the attorneys on each side of +the case make out a copy of what are called instructions. These are +given to the judge who, provided he approves of them, reads them to +the jury. Usually these instructions urge the jurors to consider +four things. They must consider, first, whether or not the +statements of the witness are probable; that is, are they +consistent with human experience? Do they seem reasonable and +natural? A second thing which the jury is told to bear in mind is +the opportunity which the witness had of observing the facts of +which he speaks. Was he in a position to be familiar with the thing +he describes? In this connection, the jury is sometimes instructed +to consider the physical and mental qualities of the witness. Is he +a man who is physically and mentally able to judge what he observes +under such circumstances? A third factor which the jury must +consider is the possibility of prejudice on the part of the +witness. Has he any reason to feel more favorably toward one side +than toward the other? Is the defendant his friend or relative or +employer? A final consideration is what is commonly called +"interest in the case." It is clear that if the witness will be +benefited by a certain verdict, he may be inclined to frame his +evidence in such a way that it will tend toward that verdict. All +these considerations are based on the rule of referring to +experience. What a judge really says in a charge to the jury is +this: "Does your experience warn you that the testimony of some of +these witnesses is unsound? Determine upon that basis in what +respects these witnesses have told the whole truth and in what +respects they have not."</p> +<p>To summarize: The issues of a proposition are proved by being +supported with evidence. Since evidence is the material with which +we build the connection between the issues and the experience of +the audience, that evidence will be best which will receive the +quickest and strongest support from the experience of the +hearers.<a name="FNanchor_3_3" id="FNanchor_3_3"></a><a href= +"#Footnote_3_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a></p> +<h4>SUGGESTED EXERCISES</h4> +<p>1. In the following extract from a speech of Burke, the famous +debater has asserted that it is undesirable to use force upon the +American colonies. State the four main reasons why he thinks so. +Under each principal reason, put the reasons or evidence with which +it is supported. Is this evidence convincing? Why, or why not?</p> +<div class="blockquot"> +<p>First, Sir, permit me to observe that the use of force alone is +but temporary. It may subdue for a moment, but it does not remove +the necessity of subduing again; and a nation is not governed which +is perpetually to be conquered.</p> +<p>My next objection is its uncertainty. Terror is not always the +effect of force, and an armament is not a victory. If you do not +succeed, you are without resource; for, conciliation failing, force +remains; but, force failing, no further hope of reconciliation is +left. Power and authority are sometimes bought by kindness; but +they can never be begged as alms by an impoverished and defeated +violence.</p> +<p>A further objection to force is that you impair the object by +your very endeavor to preserve it. The thing you fought for is not +the thing which you recover; but depreciated, sunk, wasted, and +consumed in the contest. Nothing less will content me than whole +America. I do not choose to consume its strength along with our +own, because in all parts it is the British strength that I +consume. I do not choose to be caught by a foreign enemy at the end +of this exhausting conflict; and still less in the midst of it. I +may escape; but I can make no insurance against such an event. Let +me add that I do not choose wholly to break the American spirit: +because it is the spirit that has made the country.</p> +<p>Lastly, we have no sort of experience in favor of force as an +instrument in the rule of our Colonies. Their growth and their +utility has been owing to methods altogether different. Our ancient +indulgence has been said to be pursued to a fault. It may be so. +But we know, if feeling is evidence, that our fault was more +tolerable than our attempt to mend it; and our sin far more +salutary than our penitence.</p> +</div> +<p>2. Wells's <i>Geometry</i> gives the following proposition: "Two +perpendiculars to the same straight line are parallel." The +evidence given is: "If they are not parallel, they will, if +sufficiently produced, meet at some point, which is impossible, +because from a given point without a straight line but one +perpendicular can be drawn." Is this evidence sufficient to +constitute proof? Does it convince you? Why, or why not?</p> +<p>3. Set down as much evidence as you can think of in ten minutes, +to convince a business man that a high-school education is an +advantage in business life.</p> +<p>4. Support the statement that football has benefited or harmed +this school, with five truthful statements that are evidence. +Indicate which ones would be most effective, if you were speaking +to the students, and which would make the strongest impression on +the faculty.</p> +<p>5. In the following statements of testimony, tell which ones +would be good evidence and which not. Tell why or why not in each +case.</p> +<div class="blockquot"> +<p>(1) X, a student, was told that unless he should point out the +pupil who had put matches on the floor, he would be expelled. X +then said that Y was guilty.</p> +<p>(2) James Brown, a teamster, asserts that the use of alcohol is +beneficial to all persons.</p> +<p>(3) John Burns, a labor leader, declares that labor unions are +beneficial to trade.</p> +<p>(4) F. W. McCorkle, a large manufacturer, states that labor +unions have proved beneficial to commerce.</p> +<p>(5) Professor Sheldon, a college president and profound student +of economics, has declared that labor unions help the trade of the +world.</p> +<p>(6) Henry Hawkins, a student at the Johnstown High School, +asserts that they have the best football team in the state.</p> +<p>(7) M. Metchnikoff, chief attendant at the Pasteur Institute, +says: "As for myself, I am convinced that alcohol is a poison." M. +Berthelot, member of the Academy of Science and Medicine, states: +"Alcohol is not a food, even though it may be a fuel."</p> +<p>(8) Lord Chatham, a member of the English Parliament, said, in +speaking of the Revolutionary War: "It is a struggle of free and +virtuous patriots."</p> +</div> +<p>6. On the basis of your answers to 5, state three conditions +that would make a man's speaking or writing weak evidence as +testimony; three that would make a man's testimony strong.</p> +<p>7. In Exercise 5 is (3), (4), or (5) the strongest testimony in +favor of labor unions. Why? Which is next?</p> +<p>8. Can you see one danger of relying on testimony alone for +evidence?</p> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2><a name="LESSON_VI" id="LESSON_VI"></a>LESSON VI</h2> +<h4>THE BRIEF. THE CHOICE AND USE OF EVIDENCE</h4> +<ul> +<li>I. What the brief is.</li> +<li>II. What the brief does.</li> +<li>III. Parts of the brief:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. The introduction in which—</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) The end desired is made clear.</li> +<li>(2) The issues are determined.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>2. The proof, which states the issues as facts and proves +them.</li> +<li>3. The conclusion, which is a formal summary of the proof.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>IV. A specimen model brief.</li> +<li>V. A specimen special brief.</li> +<li>VI. Rules for briefing.</li> +</ul> +<p>When a builder begins the construction of a wall, he must have +the proper material at hand. When an engineer begins the +construction of a steel bridge, he must have metal of the right +forms and shapes. Neither of these men, however, can accomplish the +end which he has in mind unless he takes this material and puts it +together in the proper way. So it is with the debater. He may have +plenty of good evidence, but he will never win unless that evidence +is organized, that is, put together in the most effective +manner.</p> +<p>The builder, if he were building a wall of concrete, would get +the correct form by pouring the concrete into a mold. So also, +there is a mold which the debater should use in shaping his +evidence. When the evidence has been put into this form, the +debater is said to have constructed a <i>brief</i>.</p> +<p>In a previous lesson we saw how we might prove that John Quinn +was a dangerous man by using the evidence of a court record. If we +had put that evidence in brief-form we should have had this:</p> +<ul> +<li>John Quinn was a dangerous man, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. He was a thief, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) The Illinois state courts found him guilty of robbing a +bank, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li><i>a</i>) See <i>Ill. Court Reports</i>, Vol. X., p. 83.</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +<p>The brief, then, is a concise, logical outline of everything +that the speaker wishes to say to the audience.</p> +<p>Its purpose is to indicate in the most definite form every step +through which the hearers must be taken in order that the +proposition may at last be fully accepted by their experience.</p> +<p>The brief is for the debater himself. He does not show it to the +audience. It is the framework of his argument. It is the path +which, if carefully marked out, will lead to success.</p> +<p>Now, as we have seen, there are three principal steps in +debating:</p> +<ul> +<li>1. Making clear what you wish the audience to believe.</li> +<li>2. Showing the audience why the establishing of certain issues +should make them believe this.</li> +<li>3. Proving these issues.</li> +</ul> +<p>The first two of these steps constitute what in the brief is +called the <i>Introduction</i>.</p> +<p>The third step, proving the issues, is the largest part of the +brief and is called the <i>Body</i> or the <i>Proof</i>.</p> +<p>In addition to these two divisions of the brief there is a sort +of formal summary at the end called the <i>Conclusion</i>.</p> +<p>The skeleton of a brief then would be as follows:</p> +<p><b>INTRODUCTION</b></p> +<p>In which: (1) the desired end is made clear; (2) the issues are +determined.</p> +<p><b>PROOF</b></p> +<p>In which the issues are stated as declarations or assertions and +definite reasons are given why each one should be believed. These +reasons are in turn supported by other reasons until the assertion +is finally brought within the hearers' experience.</p> +<p><b>CONCLUSION</b></p> +<p>In which the proof is summarized.</p> +<p>Of course no two briefs are identical, but all must follow this +general plan. Suppose we look at what might be called a model +brief.</p> +<p><b>MODEL BRIEF</b></p> +<p>Statement of proposition.</p> +<p><b>INTRODUCTION</b></p> +<ul> +<li>I. Definition of terms.</li> +<li>II. Restatement of question in light of these terms.</li> +<li>III. Determination of issues.</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. Statement of what both sides admit.</li> +<li>2. Statement of what is irrelevant.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>IV. Statement of the issues.</li> +</ul> +<p><b>PROOF</b></p> +<ul> +<li>I. The first issue is true, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. This reason, which is true, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) This reason, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li><i>a</i>) This reason.</li> +<li><i>b</i>) This reason.</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>2. This reason, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) This evidence.</li> +<li>(2) This authority.</li> +<li>(3) This testimony, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li><i>a</i>) See Vol. X, p. —, of report, document, +magazine, or book.</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>II. The second issue is true, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. This reason, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) This reason.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>2. This reason, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) This reason.</li> +<li>(2) This reason.</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>III. The third issue is true, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. This reason, etc.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>IV. The fourth issue is true, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. This reason, etc.</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +<p><b>CONCLUSION</b></p> +<p>Therefore, since we have shown: (1) that the first issue is true +by this evidence, (2) that the second issue is well founded by this +evidence; (3) that the third and fourth, etc.; we conclude that our +proposition is true.</p> +<p>Now, let us look at a special brief, made out in a high-school +debate, for a special subject.</p> +<p>The preceding is an affirmative brief and there were four +issues. In the following we have a negative brief, in which there +were three issues. Refutation is introduced near the close of the +proof.</p> +<p>Of this we shall see more in the next lesson.</p> +<p><b>BRIEF FOR NEGATIVE</b></p> +<p>INTRA-HIGH-SCHOOL CONTESTS SHOULD BE SUBSTITUTED FOR +INTER-HIGH-SCHOOL CONTESTS IN THE HIGH SCHOOLS OF NORTHERN +ILLINOIS</p> +<p><b>INTRODUCTION</b></p> +<ul> +<li>I. Definition of terms.</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. Contests, ordinary competitions in:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li><i>a</i>) Athletics.</li> +<li><i>b</i>) Debating.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>2. Intra-high-school contests (contests within each +school).</li> +<li>3. Inter-high-school contests (contests between different high +schools).</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>II. Restatement of question in light of these definitions. +Contests within each high school should be substituted for contests +between high schools in Northern Illinois.</li> +<li>III. Determination of issues.</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. It is admitted that:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li><i>a</i>) Inter and intra contests both exist at present in the +high schools of Northern Illinois.</li> +<li><i>b</i>) Contest work is a desirable form of training.</li> +<li><i>c</i>) Not all contests should be abolished.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>2. Certain educators have asserted that:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li><i>a</i>) The inter form of contests is open to abuses.</li> +<li><i>b</i>) The intra contests would be more democratic.</li> +<li><i>c</i>) Intra contests would be practicable.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>3. Other educators disagree with these assertions.</li> +<li>4. The issues, then, are:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li><i>a</i>) Are the inter contests so widely abused in the high +schools of Northern Illinois as to warrant their abolition?</li> +<li><i>b</i>) Would the proposed plan be more democratic than the +present system?</li> +<li><i>c</i>) Would the proposed plan work out in practice?</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +<p><b>PROOF</b></p> +<ul> +<li>I. Contests between the high schools of Northern Illinois are +not subject to such abuses as will warrant their abolition, +for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>A. If the abuses alleged against athletic contests ever +existed, they are now extinct, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. The alleged danger of injury to players physically unfit is +not an existing danger, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) It has been made impossible by the rules >of the +schools, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li><i>a</i>) This high school requires a physician's certificate +of fitness before participation in any athletic contest, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(<i>a</i>) Extract from athletic rulings of school board.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li><i>b</i>) Our opponent's high school has a similar regulation, +for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(<i>a</i>) Extract from school paper of opponents.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li><i>c</i>) The X High School has the same ruling.</li> +<li><i>d</i>) The Y High School has the same requirement.</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>2. The charge that athletic contests between high schools make +the contestants poor students is without sound basis, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) A high standard of scholarship is required of all +inter-high-school athletic contestants, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li><i>a</i>) Regulations of Illinois Athletic Association.</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>B. The evils charged against inter-high-school debating cannot +be cured by the proposed scheme, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. They are due, when they exist, not to the form of contest, +but to improper coaching, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) "Too much training," one of the evils charged, is an +example of this.</li> +<li>(2) Unfair use of evidence, the other evil alleged, is simply +an evil of improper coaching.</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>II. The proposed plan would not be so democratic as the present +system, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>A. The present plan gives an opportunity to all students, +for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. Its class and other intra contests give a chance to the less +proficient pupils.</li> +<li>2. Its inter contests afford an opportunity for the more +proficient pupils.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>B. The proposed plan would deprive the more capable pupils of +desirable contests, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. They can find contests strenuous enough to induce +development only by competing with similar students in other +schools.</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>III. The proposed plan would not be practicable, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>A. It is unsound in theory, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. No pupil has a strong desire to defeat his close +friends.</li> +<li>2. There is no desirable method of dividing the students for +competition under the proposed plan, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) Class division is unsatisfactory, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li><i>a</i>) The more mature and experienced upper classes win too +easily.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>(2) "Group division" is not desirable, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li><i>a</i>) If the division is large, the domination of the +mature students will give no opportunity to the younger +>students.</li> +<li><i>b</i>) If the division is small, it is likely to develop +into a secret society.</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>B. Experience opposes the proposed plan, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. College experience is against it, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) N. University tried this plan without success, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li><i>a</i>) Quotation from president of N.</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>2. High-school experience does not indorse it, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) It is practically untried in high schools.</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +<p><b>REFUTATION</b></p> +<ul> +<li>I. The argument which the affirmative may advance, that the +experience of Shortridge High School demonstrates the success of +this plan, is without weight, for:</li> +<li>A. It is not applicable to this question, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. The plan at Shortridge is not identical with the proposed +plan, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) Shortridge has not entirely abolished inter contests, +for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li><i>a</i>) <i>School Review</i>, October, 1911.</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>2. Conditions in Shortridge differ from those in the high +schools of Northern Illinois, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) Faculty of that school has unusual efficiency in coaching, +for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li><i>a</i>) Extract from letter of principal.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>(2) Larger number of students, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li><i>a</i>) Extract from letter of principal.</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +<p><b>CONCLUSION</b></p> +<p>Since there is no opportunity for serious abuse arising from +contests between schools, and since the adoption of contests within +the schools alone would lessen the democracy of contests as a form +of education, and since the proposed plan is impracticable in +theory and has never been put into successful operation, the +negative concludes that the substitution of intra for inter +contests is not desirable in the high schools of Northern +Illinois.</p> +<hr /> +<p>From these illustrative briefs we can draw:</p> +<p><b>RULES FOR BRIEFING</b></p> +<p>The introduction should contain only such material as both sides +will admit, or, as you can show, should reasonably admit, from the +phrasing of the proposition.</p> +<p>Scrupulous care should be used in the numbering and lettering of +all statements and substatements.</p> +<p>Each issue should be a logical reason for the truth of the +proposition.</p> +<p>Each substatement should be a logical reason for the issue or +statement that it supports.</p> +<p>Each issue in the proof and each statement that has supporting +statements should be followed by the word "for."</p> +<p>Each reason given in support of the issues and each subreason +should be no more than a simple, complete, declarative +sentence.</p> +<p>The word "for" should never appear as a connective between a +statement and substatement in the introduction.</p> +<p>The words "hence" and "therefore" should never appear in the +proof of the brief, but one should be able to read <i>up</i> +through the brief and by substituting the word "therefore" for the +word "for" in each case, arrive at the proposition as a +conclusion.</p> +<h4>SUGGESTED EXERCISES</h4> +<p>1. Turn to Exercise 1, in Lesson V, and carefully brief the +selection from Burke.</p> +<p>2. Is the following extract from a high-school student's brief +correct in form? Criticize it in regard to arrangement of ideas, +and correct it so far as is possible without using new +material.</p> +<p>SOCCER FOOTBALL SHOULD BE ADOPTED IN THE "A" HIGH SCHOOL AS A +REGULAR BRANCH OF ATHLETIC SPORT</p> +<p><b>INTRODUCTION</b></p> +<ul> +<li>I. Recent popularity of soccer.</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. In England.</li> +<li>2. In America.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>II. Soccer a healthful game, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. Develops lungs.</li> +<li>2. Develops all the muscles.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>III. Issues.</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. Soccer is a beneficial game.</li> +<li>2. Would the students of "A" support soccer as a regular +sport?</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +<p><b>PROOF</b></p> +<ul> +<li>I. Soccer is a beneficial sport, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. It requires much running, kicking, and dodging, both in +offensive and defensive playing, therefore—</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) It develops muscles.</li> +<li>(2) It develops lungs.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>2. It is played out of doors, therefore</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) It develops lungs.</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>II. Students of "A" would support soccer as a regular sport, +for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. Who has ever heard of students who would not support soccer, +baseball, basket-ball, and all other exciting games?</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +<p>3. The following is the conclusion of an argument by Edmund +Burke in which the speaker maintained that Warren Hastings should +be impeached by the House of Commons. If it had been preceded by a +clear "introduction" and convincing "proof," do you think that it +would have made an effective "conclusion"?</p> +<div class="blockquot"> +<p>Therefore, it is with confidence that, ordered by the +Commons:</p> +<p>I impeach Warren Hastings, Esquire, of high crimes and +misdemeanors.</p> +<p>I impeach him in the name of the Commons of Great Britain, in +Parliament assembled, whose parliamentary trust he has +betrayed.</p> +<p>I impeach him in the name of all the Commons of Great Britain, +whose national character he has dishonored.</p> +<p>I impeach him in the name of the people of India, whose laws, +rights, and liberties he has subverted, whose property he has +destroyed, whose country he has laid waste and desolate.</p> +<p>I impeach him in the name and by virtue of those eternal laws of +justice which he has violated.</p> +<p>I impeach him in the name of human nature itself, which he has +cruelly outraged, injured, and oppressed in both sexes, in every +age, rank, situation, and condition of life.</p> +</div> +<p>4. Take any one of the following propositions and without other +material than that of your own ideas, state at least two issues, +and, in correct brief form, proof for belief or unbelief.</p> +<ul> +<li>(1) High-School Boys Should Smoke Cigarettes.</li> +<li>(2) No One Should Play Football without a Physician's +Permission.</li> +<li>(3) Girls Should Participate in Athletic Games While in High +School.</li> +<li>(4) High-School Fraternities Are Desirable.</li> +<li>(5) Women Should Have the Right to Vote in All Elections.</li> +</ul> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2><a name="LESSON_VII" id="LESSON_VII"></a>LESSON VII</h2> +<h3>THE FORENSIC</h3> +<ul> +<li>I. What the forensic is.</li> +<li>II. How the forensic may be developed and delivered:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. By writing and reading from manuscript:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) Advantages and disadvantages.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>2. By writing and committing to memory:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) Advantages and disadvantages.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>3. By oral development from the brief:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) Advantages.</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>III. Style and gestures in the delivery of the forensic.</li> +</ul> +<p>When the brief is finished, the material is ready to be put into +its final form. This final form is called the <i>forensic</i>.</p> +<p>As practically all debates are conducted by means of teams, the +work of preparing the forensic is usually divided among the members +of the team. The brief may be divided in any way, but it is +desirable that each member of the team should have one complete, +logical division. So it often happens that each member of the team +develops one issue into its final form.</p> +<p>The forensic is nothing but a rounding-out of the brief. The +brief is a skeleton: the forensic is that skeleton developed into a +complete literary form. Into this form the oral delivery breathes +the spirit of living ideas.</p> +<p>No better illustration of the brief expanded into the full +forensic need be given than that in Exercise I, Lesson V. Compare +the brief which you made of this extract from Burke with the +forensic itself, a few paragraphs of which are quoted there. Any +student will find that merely to glance through a part of this +speech of Burke's is an excellent lesson in brief-making and in the +production of forensics. First study the skeleton only—the +brief—by reading the opening sentences of each paragraph. +Then see how this skeleton is built into a forensic by the splendid +rhetoric of the great British statesman.<a name="FNanchor_4_4" id= +"FNanchor_4_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_4" class= +"fnanchor">[4]</a></p> +<p>There are two ways in which the forensic may be developed from +the brief. Both have some advantages, varying with the conditions +of the debate. One is to write out every word of the forensic. When +this is done, the debater may, if he wishes, read from his +manuscript to the audience. If he does so, his chances of making a +marked effect are little better than if he spoke from the bottom of +a well. The average audience will not follow the speaker who is +occupied with raveling ideas from his paper rather than with +weaving them into the minds of his hearers.</p> +<p>The debater who writes his forensic may, however, learn it and +deliver it from memory. This method has some decided advantages. In +every debate the time is limited; and by writing and rewriting the +ideas can be compressed into their briefest and most definite form. +Besides, the speaker may practice upon this definite forensic to +determine the rapidity with which he must speak in order to finish +his argument in the allotted time.</p> +<p>At the same time this plan has several unfavorable aspects. When +the debater has prepared himself in this way, forgetting is fatal. +He has memorized words. When the words do not come he has no +recourse but to wait for memory to revive, or to look to his +colleagues for help. Again, the man who has learned his argument +can give no variety to his attack or defense. He is like a general +with an immovable battery, who, though able to hurl a terrific +discharge in the one direction in which his guns point, is +powerless if the attack is made ever so slightly on his flank. +Perhaps the greatest disadvantage of this method is that it does +not give the student the best kind of training. What he needs most +in life is the ability to arrange and present ideas rapidly, not to +speak a part by rote.</p> +<p>It would seem, then, that this plan should be advised only when +the students are working for one formal debate, and are not +preparing for a series of class or local contests that can all be +controlled by the same instructor or critic. With beginners in oral +argumentation this method will usually make the better showing, and +may therefore be considered permissible in the case of those teams +which, because of unfamiliarity with their opponents' methods, can +take no chances. This plan of preparation is in no way harmful or +dishonest, but lacks some of the more permanent advantages of the +second method.</p> +<p>The second method of developing the brief into the forensic is +by <i>oral composition</i>. This method demands that the debater +shall <i>speak extemporaneously</i> from his <i>memorized +brief</i>. This in no way means that careful preparation, +deliberate thought, and precise organization are omitted. On the +contrary, the formation of a brief from which a winning forensic +can be expanded requires the most studious preparation, the keenest +thought, and the most careful organization. Neither does it mean +that, as soon as the brief is formed, the forensic can be +presented. Before that step is taken, the debater who will be +successful will spend much time, not in <i>written</i>, but in +<i>oral</i> composition.</p> +<p>He will study his brief until he sees that it is not merely a +succession of formal statements connected with "for's," but a +series of ideas arranged in that form because they will, if +presented in that order, bring conviction to his hearers. "Learning +the brief," then, becomes not a case of memory, but a matter of +seeing—seeing what comes next because that is the only thing +that logically could come next. When the brief is in mind, the +speaker will expand it into a forensic to an imaginary audience +until he finds that he is expressing the ideas clearly, smoothly, +and readily. Pay no attention to the fact that in the course of +repeated deliveries the words will vary. Words make little +difference if the framework of ideas is the same.</p> +<p>This method of composing the forensic trains the mind of the +student to see the logical relationship of ideas, to acquire a +command of language, and to vary the order of ideas if necessary. +In doing these things, there are developed those qualities that are +essential to all effective speaking.</p> +<p>A debater's success in giving unity and coherence to his +argument depends chiefly on his method of introducing new ideas in +supporting his issues. These changes from one idea to another, or +transitions, as they are called, should always be made so that the +hearer's attention will be recalled to the assertion which the new +idea is intended to support. Suppose we have made this assertion: +"Contests within schools are more desirable than contests between +schools." We are planning to support this by proving: first, that +the contests between schools are very much abused; second, that the +proposed plan will be more democratic; and third, that the proposed +plan will work well in practice. In supporting these issues, we +should, of course, present a great deal of material. When we are +ready to change from the first supporting idea to the second, we +must make that change in such a way that our hearers will know that +we are planning to prove the second main point of our contention. +But this is not enough. We must make that change so that they will +be definitely reminded of what we have already proved. The same +thing will hold true when we change to the third contention.</p> +<p>The following illustrates a faulty method of transition: +Contests between schools are so abused that they should be +abolished [followed by all the supporting material]. The proposed +plan will be more democratic than the present [followed by its +support]. The proposed plan would work well in practice [followed +by its support]. No matter how thoroughly we might prove each of +these, they would impress the audience as standing alone; they +would show no coherence, no connection with one another. The +following would be a better method: Contests within schools should +be substituted for those between schools because contests between +schools are open to abuses so great as to warrant their abolition +[followed by its support]. We should then begin to prove the second +issue in this way: But not only are contests between schools so +open to abuse that they should be abolished, but they are less +desirable than contests within schools for they are less +democratic. [This will then be followed with the support of the +second issue.] The transition to the third issue should be made in +this way: Now, honorable judges, we have shown you that contests +between schools are not worthy of continuance; we have shown you +that the plan which we propose will be better in its democracy than +the system at present in vogue; we now propose to complete our +argument by showing you that our plan will work well in practice. +[This would then be followed with the proper supporting +material.]</p> +<p>Great speakers have shown that they realized the importance of +these cementing transitions. Take for example Burke's argument that +force will be an undesirable instrument to use against the +colonies. He says: "First, permit me to observe that the use of +force shall be temporary." The next paragraph he begins: "My next +observation is its uncertainty." He follows that with: "A further +observation to force is that you impair the object by your very +endeavor to preserve it." And he concludes: "Lastly, we have no +sort of experience in favor of force as an instrument in the rule +of our colonies." He used this principle to perhaps even greater +advantage when he argued that "a fierce spirit of liberty had grown +up in the colonies." He supports this with claims which are +introduced as follows:</p> +<p>"First, the people of the colonies are descendants of +Englishmen."</p> +<p>"They were further confirmed in this pleasing error [their +spirit of liberty] by the form of their provincial legislative +assemblies."</p> +<p>"If anything were wanting to this necessary operation of the +form of government, religion would have given it a complete +effect."</p> +<p>"There is, in the South, a circumstance attending these colonies +which, in my opinion, fully counterbalances this difference, and +makes the spirit of liberty still more high and haughty than in +those to the northward. It is that in Virginia and the Carolinas, +they have a vast multitude of slaves."</p> +<p>"Permit me, Sir, to add another circumstance in our colonies, +which contributes no mean part towards the growth and effect of +this untractable spirit. I mean their education."</p> +<p>"The last cause of this disobedient spirit in the colonies is +hardly less powerful than the rest as it is not merely moral, but +laid deep in the natural constitution of things. Three thousand +miles of ocean lie between you and them."</p> +<p>He finally summarizes these in this way, which further ties them +together.</p> +<p>"Then, Sir, from these six capital sources; of descent; of form +of government; of religion in the northern provinces; of manners in +the southern; of education; of the remoteness of situation from the +first mover of government; from all these causes a fierce spirit of +liberty has grown up."</p> +<p>It may be well also to point out more clearly the somewhat +special nature of the first speeches on each side. The first speech +of the affirmative must, of course, make clear to the judges and +the audience what you wish them to believe. This will involve all +the steps which have already been pointed out as necessary to +accomplish that result. The first speaker can gain a great deal for +his side by presenting this material not only with great clearness, +but in a manner which will win the goodwill of the audience toward +himself, his team, and his side of the subject. To do this, he must +be genial, honest, modest, and fair. He must make his hearers feel +that he is not giving a narrow or prejudiced analysis of the +question; he must make them feel that his treatment is open and +fair to both sides, and that he finally reaches the issues not at +all because he <i>wishes</i> to find those issues, but because a +thorough analysis of the question will allow him to reach no +others.</p> +<p>The first speaker on the negative side may have much the same +work to do. If, however, he agrees with what the first speaker of +the affirmative has said, he will save time merely by stating that +fact and by summarizing in a sentence or two the steps leading to +the issues. If he does not agree with the interpretation which the +affirmative has given to the question, it will be necessary for him +to interpret the question himself. He must make clear to the judges +why his analysis is correct and that of his opponent faulty.</p> +<p>In presenting the forensic to the judges and audience forget, so +far as possible, that you are debating. You have a proposition in +which you believe and which you want them to accept. Your purpose +is not to make your hearers say: "How well he does it." You want +them to say: "He is right."</p> +<p>Do not rant. Speak clearly, that you may be understood; and with +enough force that you may be heard, but in the same manner that you +use in conversation.</p> +<p><i>Good gestures help. Good gestures</i> are those that come +naturally in support of your ideas. While practicing alone notice +what gestures you put in involuntarily. They are right. Do not ape +anyone in gesture. Your oral work will be more effective without +use of your hands than it will be with an ineffective use of them. +The most ineffective use is the making of motions that are so +violent or extravagant that they attract the listeners' attention +to themselves and away from your ideas. Remember that the +expression of your face is most important of all gestures. Earnest +interest, pleasantness, fairness, and vigor expressed in the +speaker's face at the right times have done more to win debates +than other gestures have ever accomplished.</p> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2><a name="LESSON_VIII" id="LESSON_VIII"></a>LESSON VIII</h2> +<h3>REFUTATION</h3> +<ul> +<li>I. Refutation explained.</li> +<li>II. Refutation may be carried on:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. By overwhelming constructive argument.</li> +<li>2. By showing the weakness of opponents' argument.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>III. The time for refutation:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. Allotted time.</li> +<li>2. Special times.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>IV. The right spirit in refutation.</li> +</ul> +<p>Our work up to this point has dealt with what is called the +<i>constructive argument</i>, i.e., the building up of the proof. +But to make the judges believe as you wish, you must not merely +support your contentions; you must destroy the proof which your +opponents are trying to construct.</p> +<p>As with the successful athletic team and the successful general, +so with the successful debater, it is necessary, not only to +attack, but also to repulse; not only to carry out the plan of your +own side, but to meet and defeat the plan which the other side has +developed. In debating, this repulse, this destruction of the +arguments of the opposition, is called <i>refutation</i> or +<i>rebuttal</i>.</p> +<p>There are two principal ways in which the refutation of the +opponent's argument can be accomplished. The first is <i>to destroy +it with your own constructive argument</i>. The second is <i>to +show that his argument, even though it is not destroyed by yours, +is faulty in itself, and therefore useless</i>.</p> +<p>Although only one of them is labeled "Refutation" in the model +brief in the sixth lesson, both types are illustrated there.</p> +<p>There the negative, believing that the first argument of the +affirmative would be, "Inter contests are open to abuse," makes its +first point a counter-assertion. It uses as the first issue: +"Contests between the high schools of northern Illinois are not +subject to such abuses as will warrant their abolition." Which side +would gain this point in the minds of the judges would depend on +which side supported its assertion with the better evidence.</p> +<p>If one side wished to raise this question again in the +refutation speeches, which close the debate, it could do no better +than to repeat and re-emphasize the same material which it used in +its construction argument.</p> +<p>The second method of refuting, i.e., showing an argument to be +faulty, is also illustrated in the brief in the sixth lesson. It is +marked "Refutation." This material was introduced because the +negative felt sure that the affirmative would attempt to use the +experience of Shortridge High School as evidence of the successful +working of this plan. It was shown to be faulty in that the +experience of this school would not apply to the question here +debated.</p> +<p>The student's study of what makes good evidence for his own case +will enable him to see the weakness of his opponents' arguments. +Apply the <i>same</i> tests to your opponents' evidence that you +apply to your own. What is there about the evidence introduced that +should make the audience hesitate to accept it? Point these things +out to the audience. It may be that prejudiced, dishonest, or +ignorant testimony has been given. It may be that not enough +evidence has been given to carry weight. Whatever the flaw, point +out to the audience that, upon a critical examination, experience +shows the evidence to be weak.</p> +<p>In every debate there is a regular time allowed for rebuttal. +This is, however, not the only time at which it may be introduced. +In the debate, put in refutation wherever it is needed. One of the +best plans is, if possible, to refute with a few sentences at the +opening of each speech what the previous speaker of the opposition +has said.</p> +<p>In all refutation, <i>state clearly what you aim to +disprove.</i> When quoting the statement of an opponent, be sure to +be accurate.</p> +<p>Something like the following is a good form for stating +refutation:</p> +<p>Our opponents, in arguing that labor unions have been harmful to +the commerce of America, have stated that they would use as support +the testimony of prominent men. In so doing, they have quoted from +X, Y, and Z. This testimony is without strength. X, as a large +employer of labor, would be open to prejudice; Y, as a non-union +laborer, is both prejudiced and ignorant. The testimony of Z, as an +Englishman is applicable to labor unions as they have affected, not +the commerce of America, but the trade of England.</p> +<p>A similar form is shown in the brief on inter-and +intra-high-school contests in refuting the experience of Shortridge +High School.</p> +<p>In all refutation, keep close to the fundamental principles of +the question. Do not be led astray into minute details upon which +you differ. Never tire of recalling attention to the issues of the +question. Show why those are the issues, and you will see that the +strongest refutation almost always consists in pointing out wherein +you have proved these issues, while your opponents have failed to +do so.</p> +<p>In order to be fully prepared, however, it is a good plan to put +upon cards all the points that your opponents may use and that you +have not answered in your constructive argument. Adopt a method +similar to this:</p> +<p>Shortridge argument</p> +<ul> +<li>I. Will not apply for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) Not this plan.</li> +<li>(2) Conditions differ, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li><i>a) School Review</i>, October, 1911.</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +<p>Then if your opponents advance arguments that are not met in +your speech, merely lay out these cards while they speak, and use +them as references in your refutation.</p> +<p>The closing rebuttal speech is always a critical one. Here the +speaker should again point out every mistake which his opponents +have made. If their interpretation of the question has been wrong, +he should, while avoiding details, emphasize the chief flaws in +their arguments. On the other hand, he should summarize the +argument of his own side from beginning to end; he should make the +support of each of the issues stand clearly before the judges in +its complete, logical form.</p> +<p>In these closing speeches, as in the opening of the debate, much +may be gained by an attitude which will win the favor of the +hearers toward the speaker and his ideas. An attitude of petty +criticism, of narrowness of view, is undesirable at any stage of +the debate. The debater who is inclined to belittle his opponents +will only belittle himself. To the judges it will appear that the +speaker who has time to ridicule his adversaries must be a little +short of arguments. Insinuations of dishonesty and attempts to be +sarcastic should be carefully avoided. These weapons are sharp but +they are two-edged and are more likely to injure the speaker than +his opponent.</p> +<p>The right attitude for a debater is always one of fairness. Give +your opponents all possible credit. When you have then refuted +their arguments, your own contentions seem of double strength. It +is said that Lincoln used this method with splendid effect: He +would often restate the argument of his opponent with great force +and clearness; he would make it seem irrefutable. Then, when he +began his attack and caused his opponent's argument to collapse, +its fall seemed to be utter and complete, while his arguments, +which had proved themselves capable of effecting this destruction, +appeared all the more powerful.</p> +<p>In your desire to do well in refutation, do not be led to depend +upon that alone. There is no older and better rule than, "Know the +other side as well as you know your own." Do not believe that this +is in order that you may be ready with a clever answer for every +point made by the other side. The most important reason why you +should know the other side of the question is the necessity of your +determining the issues correctly, and thus building a constructive +argument that is overwhelming and impregnable. Many a debate has +been lost because the debaters worked up their own constructive +argument first, and only later, in order to prepare refutation, +considered what their opponents would say. Had they proceeded +correctly, they would have destroyed the proof of their adversaries +while they built up their own.</p> +<p>A clever retort in refutation often wins the applause of the +galleries, but an analysis of the question so keen that the real +issues are determined, supported by an organization of evidence so +strong that it sweeps away all opposition as it grows, is more +likely to gain the favorable decision of the judges.</p> +<h4>SUGGESTED EXERCISES</h4> +<p>1. What is the purpose of refutation? 2. What two principal +methods may be followed?</p> +<p>3. What must one do to refute correctly and well?</p> +<p>4. Do you think it better in refutation to assail the minor +points of your opponent or to attack the main issues?</p> +<p>5. A fellow-student in chemistry said to you: "The chemical +symbol for water is H<sub>4</sub>0; two of our classmates told me +so." You replied: "The correct symbol, according to our instructor, +is H<sub>2</sub>O." Did you refute his assertion? How?</p> +<p>6. A classmate makes an argument which could be briefed +thus:</p> +<p>Cigarettes are good for high-school boys, for:</p> +<ul> +<li>I. They aid health of body, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) Many athletes smoke them, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li><i>a</i>) X smokes them.</li> +<li><i>b</i>) Y smokes them.</li> +<li><i>c</i>) Z smokes them.</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +<p>If you disagree with this assertion, do not believe they aid +health, and know X does not smoke cigarettes, how would you refute +his contention?</p> +<p>7. If your opponents in a debate quote opinions of others in +support of their views, in what two ways can they be refuted?</p> +<p>8. In a recent campaign, the administration candidate used this +argument: "I should be re-elected, for: Times are good, work is +plentiful, crops are excellent, and products demand a high price." +Show any weakness in this argument.</p> +<p>9. Show the weakness of proof in this argument: Harvard is +better at football than Princeton I. They defeated Princeton in +1912.</p> +<p>10. What general rule can you make from 9 concerning a statement +supported by particular cases?</p> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2><a name="LESSON_IX" id="LESSON_IX"></a>LESSON IX</h2> +<h3>MANAGEMENT OF THE DEBATE</h3> +<p><i>Teams</i>.—The opposing teams in a debate usually +consist of three persons each. A larger or smaller number is +permissible.</p> +<p><i>Time of Speaking</i>.—Each speaker is ordinarily +allowed one constructive speech and one rebuttal speech. The +constructive speech is usually about twice the length of the +refutation. Twelve and six, ten and five, and eight and four +minutes are all frequent time-limits for debates. Many debaters +make shorter speeches.</p> +<p><i>Order of speaking</i>.—The debate is opened by the +affirmative. The first speaker is followed by a negative debater, +who, in turn, is followed by a member of the affirmative team, and +so on until the entire constructive argument is presented. A member +of the negative team opens the refutation. Speakers then alternate +until the debate is closed by the affirmative. The order of +speakers on each team is often different in refutation than in +constructive argument.</p> +<p><i>Presiding chairman</i>.—Every debate should be presided +over by a chairman. His duties are to state the question to the +audience, introduce each speaker, and announce the decision of the +judges. He sometimes also acts as timekeeper.</p> +<p><i>Timekeepers</i>.—A timekeeper representing each of the +competing organizations should note the moment when each speaker +begins and notify the chair when the allotted time has been +consumed. It is customary to give each speaker as many minutes of +warning before his time expires as he may desire.</p> +<p><i>Salutation</i>.—Good form in debating requires that +each speaker shall begin with a salutation to the various +personages whom he addresses. The most common salutation is: "Mr. +Chairman, worthy opponents, honorable judges, ladies and +gentlemen."</p> +<p><i>Reference to other speakers</i>.—In referring to +members of the opposing team never say, "he said," "she said," or +"they said." Always speak of your opponents in the third person in +some such way as, "my honorable opponents," "the first speaker of +the negative," "the gentlemen of the affirmative," or "the +gentlemen from X."</p> +<p>In referring to other members of your own team say, "my +colleagues," or "my colleague, the first speaker," etc.</p> +<p><i>The judges</i>.—There are generally three judges. Where +it is practicable, a larger number is desirable because their +opinion is more nearly the opinion of the audience as a whole. +Needless to say they should be competent and wholly without +prejudice as to teams or question.</p> +<p><i>The decision</i>.—The decision of each judge should be +written on a slip and sealed in an envelope provided for that +purpose (see Appendix IX, "Forms for Judges' Decision"). These +should be opened by the chairman in view of the audience, and the +decision announced.</p> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2><a name="LESSON_X" id="LESSON_X"></a>LESSON X</h2> +<h3>A SUMMARY AND A DIAGRAM</h3> +<p>We have now completed our study of debating. We saw first that +all talking and writing is discourse, and that one great division +of discourse—that which aims to gain belief—is +argumentation. Argumentation we divided into spoken and written +argumentation. We found that it varies in formality but that, when +carried on orally under prescribed conditions and with the +expectation of having a decision rendered, it is called +debating.</p> +<p>Successful debating we found to require three steps: showing the +hearers what belief is desired; showing them upon what issues +belief depends; and supporting these issues with evidence until we +have established proof.</p> +<p>We learned that the first of these steps could be taken by +stating the question in the form of a definite, single proposition; +defining the terms of this proposition; and then restating the +whole matter. We found that the second step required that the +material that both sides admit, together with all other material +that is really not pertinent to the question, should be first +removed, and that the fundamentals of the question should be stated +as the issues. The last step, proving the issues, we found to +involve two processes. It was necessary, first, to find and select +evidence, and, second, to arrange that evidence in logical +order—the brief-form.</p> +<div class="figcenter" style="width: 600px;"><img src= +"images/img01.png" width="600" height="486" alt= +"The Bridge of Proof" title="" /> <b>The Bridge of Proof</b></div> +<p>The accompanying diagram is one that has helped many students to +visualize more clearly what is attempted in a debate and to see how +the debate may be made successful.</p> +<p>The doubt that the audience very reasonably has of the new idea +proposed is bridged over by the proposition. But this proposition +will not be strong enough to cause the minds of the listeners to +pass from unbelief to belief unless it is well supported. The whole +proposition is therefore placed upon one or two or three great +capitals—the issues, under each of which is a pillar of +proof. These pillars are composed of evidence of every sort. The +intelligent debater has, however, before placing a single piece of +this evidence in the proof, tested it carefully. He has tested it +with the question: "Will it help bring conviction to the audience; +how will it affect my hearers?" Moreover, not satisfied with this +scrupulous choice of evidence, he has been careful not to pile it +in regardless of position, but to place each piece in the position +where it will lend the strongest support to the entire +structure.</p> +<p>When this has been done, the bridge of proof is built solidly +upon the experience of the hearers, and, almost without their +knowledge, their minds have gone from unbelief to belief.</p> +<div class="footnotes"> +<p class="center"><b>FOOTNOTES:</b></p> +<div class="footnote"> +<p><a name="Footnote_1_1" id="Footnote_1_1"></a><a href= +"#FNanchor_1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> Baker, +<i>Principles of Argumentation</i>.</p> +</div> +<div class="footnote"> +<p><a name="Footnote_2_2" id="Footnote_2_2"></a><a href= +"#FNanchor_2_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> Jevons, +<i>Primer of Logic.</i></p> +</div> +<div class="footnote"> +<p><a name="Footnote_3_3" id="Footnote_3_3"></a><a href= +"#FNanchor_3_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> For a thorough +discussion of the principle of reference<br /> +to experience, see Arthur E. Phillips, <i>Effective Speaking</i>, +chap. iii.</p> +</div> +<div class="footnote"> +<p><a name="Footnote_4_4" id="Footnote_4_4"></a><a href= +"#FNanchor_4_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> Edmund Burke, +<i>On Conciliation with the Colonies</i>.</p> +</div> +</div> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h1><a name="APPENDICES" id="APPENDICES"></a>APPENDICES</h1> +<h2><a name="APPENDIX_I" id="APPENDIX_I"></a>APPENDIX I</h2> +<h3>HOW AND WHERE TO READ FOR MORE INFORMATION</h3> +<p>Practically every subject that is interesting enough to be a +good subject for debate has been written about by other people. +Every good library contains the books on the following list, and +with a little experience the student can handle them easily. A +general treatment of every important subject can be found in any of +the following encyclopedias: <i>Americana, New International, +Twentieth Century, Britannica</i>.</p> +<p>Everything that has been written upon every subject in all +general, technical, and school magazines, can be found by looking +up the desired topic in: <i>The Reader's Guide to Periodical +Literature</i>, or <i>Poole's Index</i>.</p> +<p>If the matter being studied deals with civics, economics, or +sociology, look in: Bliss, <i>Encyclopaedia of Social Reform,</i> +etc.; Lalor, <i>Cyclopaedia of Political Science</i>, etc.; Larned, +<i>History of Ready Reference and Topical Reading</i>; Bowker and +lies, <i>Reader's Guide in Economics</i>, etc.</p> +<p>What Congress is doing and has done is often important. This can +be found in full in: <i>The Congressional Record</i>.</p> +<p>Jones's <i>Finding List</i> tells where to look for any topic in +various government publications.</p> +<p>In studying many subjects the need of definite and reliable +statistics will be felt. These may be found on almost any question +in the following publications: <i>Statesman's Yearbook, Whitaker's +Almanac, World Almanac, Chicago Daily News Almanac, Hazell's +Almanac, U.S. Census Reports</i>.</p> +<p>Never consider your reading completed until you have looked for +any special book that may be written upon your subject in the Card +Catalogue of your Library.</p> +<p>Make out a Bibliography or Reading List (as illustrated briefly +in Appendix V) before you proceed to actual reading.</p> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2><a name="APPENDIX_II" id="APPENDIX_II"></a>APPENDIX II</h2> +<h3>ILLUSTRATIONS OF ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE THE ISSUES OF THE +QUESTION</h3> +<p>The two specimens that immediately follow are analyses of the +same question by students of the same university. The first is a +selection from the speech made by Mr. Raymond S. Pruitt in the +Towle Debate of Northwestern University Law School in 1911. The +second is the introduction to the speech made by Mr. Charles Watson +of the Northwestern University Law School in the 1911 debate with +the Law School of the University of Southern California. Students +should observe how the two speakers determine somewhat different +issues.</p> +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That in actions against an employer for death +or injury of an employee sustained in the course of an industrial +employment the fellow-servant rule and the rule of the assumption +of risk as defined and interpreted by the common law, should be +abolished.</p> +<p>Mr. Pruitt, speaking for the affirmative:</p> +<div class="blockquot"> +<p>The question which we discuss tonight is partly economic and +partly legal. By that I mean that viewing it from the standpoint of +legal liability, we possibly can agree with the gentlemen of the +Negative that the employer should respond in damages to his injured +employee, only when the injury has been caused by the employer's +own fault. But, on the other hand, viewing the same problem from an +economic standpoint, you cannot deny, that, when through no fault +of his own, a worker is injured in the course of an industrial +employment, that industry should compensate him for the loss.</p> +<p>Here then is the issue—the +world-old-problem—established principles of law in conflict +with changing social and economic conditions; and, as history +shows, there can in such cases be but one solution. The decision of +the court, the statute of the legislature, yes, even the +constitution of the nation, must in turn yield to the march of +progress and adapt itself to changing conditions until once more it +shall reflect the sense of public justice in its own time. Hence, I +say that in our discussion this evening, there can be no confusion +of issues. The Affirmative, according to the wording of the +question, are to advocate a change in our common law, while the +Negative in duty bound are to oppose the proposition for change, +and to defend as the Negative always defend, the order of things as +they are.</p> +<p>The Affirmative are to advocate such a change, the abolition of +the common-law defenses of the employer. For the purposes of this +debate, it is immaterial to us whether this change is brought about +by a simple extension of the employer's liability, or whether it is +accompanied, as in many of our states, by a system of workman's +compensation. Likewise, it is a consideration extraneous to the +issues of this debate, whether the employer shoulder this risk +himself, whether he insure it in a private insurance company, or +whether he be compelled to insure it in a company managed by the +state. At all events, and under any of these plans, the proposition +of the Affirmative will be maintained, the employer will be +deprived of his defenses at common law, and the employee will +recover his damages regardless of questions of fault.</p> +<p>Assuming then the full burden of proof, the Affirmative propose +to demonstrate that the assumption of risk and the fellow-servant +rule as defined and interpreted by the common law should be +abolished, first, because whatever reasons may have justified these +doctrines in years gone by they have no application to industrial +conditions in our day; and, secondly, because the abolition of +these common law defenses will but place the burden of industrial +loss, as in justice it should be placed, upon the ultimate consumer +of the product of the industry.</p> +</div> +<p>Mr. Watson, speaking for the Negative:</p> +<div class="blockquot"> +<p>The proposed abolition of these two common-law defenses, like +every change of law or any suggested reform, is brought to our +attention by certain existing evils. The advocates of this reform +have a definite proposition in mind and that proposition is +definitely and clearly stated in the question. It is a question in +which people in every walk of life are concerned. Since it is of +such widespread interest, let us lift it from a plane of mere +debating tactics, in which a question of this kind is so often +placed, and where a great deal of time is spent in arguing what the +Affirmative or the Negative may stand for according to the +interpretation of the question, let us lift it from that plane, and +consider it as practical men and women who are interested in the +outcome of this great problem. It is, then, in its larger sense, a +legal question and must be considered from the standpoints of +justice and of expediency.</p> +<p>It is not enough for the Affirmative to point out evils that +exist under these two common-law rules, for there is bound to be +some evil in the administration of all law; so they must further +show that these evils which they have named are inherent in these +two laws, and that the proposed change will remedy the existing +evils. Now the Negative maintain that the evils complained of are +not inherent in these laws, and we believe that the Affirmative +plan is not the proper solution of the problem.</p> +<p>I will show you that these common-law rules are founded on +principles of justice and that their removal would be unjust to the +employer; second that it would discriminate against the smaller +tradesmen, and third that the proposed remedy does not strike at +the root of the evil, since it would affect only a small percentage +of industrial accidents.</p> +</div> +<p>CARL SCHURZ ON GENERAL AMNESTY</p> +<p>(A bill being before Congress proposing to restore to leading +Southerners many of the privileges which had been denied them +following the war, Mr. Schurz determined the issue as follows:)</p> +<div class="blockquot"> +<p><i>Mr. President</i>: When this debate commenced before the +holidays, I refrained from taking part in it, and from expressing +my opinions on some of the provisions of the bill now before us; +hoping as I did that the measure could be passed without +difficulty, and that a great many of those who now labor under +political disabilities would be immediately relieved. This +expectation was disappointed. An amendment to the bill was adopted. +It will have to go back to the House of Representatives now unless +by some parliamentary means we get rid of the amendment, and there +being no inducement left to waive what criticism we might feel +inclined to bring forward, we may consider the whole question +open.</p> +<p>I beg leave to say that I am in favor of general, or, as this +word is considered more expressive, universal amnesty, believing, +as I do, that the reasons make it desirable that the amnesty should +be universal. The senator from South Carolina has already given +notice that he will move to strike out the exceptions from the +operation of this act of relief for which the bill provides. If he +had not declared his intention to that effect, I would do so. In +any event, whenever he offers his amendment I shall most heartily +support it.</p> +<p>In the course of this debate we have listened to some senators, +as they conjured up before our eyes once more all the horrors of +the Rebellion, the wickedness of its conception, how terrible its +incidents were, and how harrowing its consequences. Sir, I admit it +all; I will not combat the correctness of the picture; and yet if I +differ with the gentlemen who drew it, it is because, had the +conception of the Rebellion been still more wicked, had its +incidents been still more terrible, its consequences still more +harrowing, I could not permit myself to forget that in dealing with +the question now before us we have to deal not alone with the past, +but with the present and future of this republic.</p> +<p>What do we want to accomplish as good citizens and patriots? Do +we mean only to inflict upon the late rebels pain, degradation, +mortification, annoyance, for its own sake; to torture their +feelings without any ulterior purpose? Certainly such a purpose +could not by any possibility animate high-minded men. I presume, +therefore, that those who still favor the continuance of some of +the disabilities imposed by the Fourteenth Amendment do so because +they have some higher object of public usefulness in view, an +object of public usefulness sufficient to justify, in their minds +at least, the denial of rights to others which we ourselves +enjoy.</p> +<p>What can those objects of public usefulness be? Let me assume +that, if we differ as to the means to be employed, we are agreed as +to the supreme end and aim to be reached. That end and aim of our +endeavors can be no other than to secure to all the States the +blessings of good and free government and the highest degree of +prosperity and well-being they can attain, and to revive in all +citizens of this republic that love for the Union and its +institutions, and that inspiring consciousness of a common +nationality, which, after all, must bind all Americans +together.</p> +<p>What are the best means for the attainment of that end? This, +Sir, as I conceive it, is the only legitimate question we have to +decide.</p> +</div> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2><a name="APPENDIX_III" id="APPENDIX_III"></a>APPENDIX III</h2> +<h3>A TYPICAL COLLEGE FORENSIC</h3> +<p>The forensic which follows is the one which was used by the +State University of Iowa in its debates with the University of +Wisconsin and the University of Minnesota in 1908. In the form in +which it appears here it was given in a home contest a few evenings +before the Inter-State Debate. It is quoted here with the +permission of the Forensic League of the State University of +Iowa.</p> +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That American Cities Should Adopt a Commission +Form of Government.</p> +<p>Mr. Clarence Coulter, the first speaker on the Affirmative, +said:</p> +<div class="blockquot"> +<p>It is not my purpose to picture the shame of American cities; +that is well known; but I am to consider only those evils due to +the present form of municipal government, an organization based on +the separation of the powers into the legislative, executive, and +judicial departments. The proper remedy for these evils will be +secured only by adopting a form which concentrates the entire +authority of city government in one definite and responsible +body.</p> +<p>It is a significant fact, that during the last quarter of a +century, the tendency in municipal organization has been toward +concentration of powers. Certain of our cities have recognized the +wisdom of such action, but have unwisely attempted to concentrate +only the executive power whereas the real solution lies in +concentrating all governmental authority in one definite and +responsible body.</p> +<p>New York City tried such a plan and it has failed; failed +because its separate legislative department has proved an +obstruction to effective action. Consequently, there has been a +continual tendency to deprive the council of all power, until today +its only function is to vote on franchises and issue certain +licenses. So evident is the imperative need of concentrating the +legislative and administrative powers in one body, that there is +now a charter revision committee meeting in New York whose great +object is to consider the advisability of entirely eliminating the +separate council, and creating in its place a small commission +possessing both legislative and administrative authority. +Practically the same condition obtains in the city of Boston.</p> +<p>What is true of New York and Boston is equally true of scores of +other cities. Memphis tried for years to reform her government with +an isolated council. Today she is clamoring at the doors of her +legislature for a commission charter. Within the past two years +more than a dozen states have provided for a commission form of +government, while within the past year more than a dozen cities +have actually thrown away their old forms and assumed the +commission system.</p> +<p>The success of a separate legislative body in state and national +government is the only excuse for its retention in our cities, yet +the failure, for over a century in all its different forms and +variations, proves that such a government is unsuited to them. +There are several important and fundamental characteristics of the +city that demand a different form of government and show +conclusively that there is no need of a separate legislative body. +In the first place, the city is not a sovereign government, but is +subordinate to state and nation. There is no reason for a distinct +legislature to determine the broad matters of policy, for they are +determined for the citizens of the city as well as those of the +country, by the state and national legislatures, in which both the +city and country are represented. In the second place, the work of +a city is largely administrative and of a business character, as my +colleagues will show, and there is no necessity for a separate +council to legislate when a commissioner is better able, as we +shall show, to pass the kind of legislation characteristic of the +city.</p> +<p>In the third place, we do not find, as in the state, the +necessity of a large and separate body to represent the various +localities. The city has a large population living in a restricted +territory; in the state it is scattered. The city is unified by +means of its rapid communication and transportation facilities, and +its interests are common. These, Honorable Judges, are some general +reasons why there is no necessity for trying to maintain a separate +legislative body at the expense of efficiency in administration and +the fixing of individual responsibility.</p> +<p>But let us now examine as to wherein this principle of +separation fails to meet modern municipal conditions. In the first +place we find that this system has failed to produce efficiency, +because, in actual practice, it has been impossible to keep the +legislative and administrative branches within their proper spheres +of action. To be sure, such difficulty does not exist in state and +national governments where the work is naturally divided. But in +city government, where the work is of a peculiar kind, where it is +unified in character and is largely administrative and of a +business nature, it has been found impossible to maintain a +separation. It is not at all surprising to find that in some +cities, the mayor is the dominating factor in both legislation and +administration. He is the presiding officer of the council with the +deciding vote, and, in addition, is clothed with the veto power. On +the other hand, there are scores of instances where the council +assumes administrative functions. It names all appointments to +office, and it creates and controls all the departments of city +government. Under such circumstances the administrative department +is subordinate to the council, because its officers can be both +appointed and removed by that body and because it can carry on no +work without the council's authority. Thus there is an inevitable +tendency to concentrate the powers in one of the two branches, yet, +at the same time, diffusing responsibility between them. Such a +condition only goes to show that city government is gradually but +surely working its way toward concentration in one body. But the +trouble lies in the fact that the present system makes possible +concentration of power, without a corresponding concentration of +responsibility. From such a condition have grown two grave and +inherent evils. First, it has entirely eliminated the system of +checks and balances, which is a fundamental doctrine of the +division of power. Secondly, it has utterly destroyed all effective +responsibility. It is apparent at once, that when one branch of the +government dominates, the checks and balances between the +departments are immediately lost, and facts bear out what theory +shows to be logically true. The system of checks and balances +failed absolutely in New York, where the mayor is supreme, and +where the city has been plundered of sums estimated at 7 per cent +of the total valuation of real estate. It has failed in St. Louis, +where the council dominated, and where "Boss Butler" paid that body +$250,000 to pass a street railway franchise. Neither did it work in +Philadelphia, which has been plundered of an amount equal to 10 per +cent of her real estate valuation; nor in San Francisco under the +disgraceful regime of Mayor Schmitz. So overwhelming is the +evidence on this point that it is needless to dwell further upon +it.</p> +<p>In the second place, this domination of one branch over the +other has resulted in a lack of responsibility and of co-ordination +in city affairs. These two elements are indispensable where the +work to be performed is of a local and business nature. We find +that under the present system, no matter which branch of government +dominates, there is always a notorious lack of responsibility. If +the council makes a blunder in legislation, it immediately lays the +blame upon the administrative officials, maintaining that it passed +the measure upon recommendation of the administrative branch, or +that branch failed to carry out its policy. If the administrative +officials are neglectful, they shift the blame onto the council, +and insist that the difficulty lies in insufficient legislation. +Under such conditions, the average citizen has no way of telling +where the blame really lies.</p> +<p>At present, there is no attempt at co-ordination between the +legislative, executive, and judicial departments. On the other +hand, there is often open rupture between them. For years before +the commission form of government was adopted in Galveston, there +was open warfare between the legislative and executive departments, +which saddled upon the city a bonded debt of many thousands of +dollars. In our state, there is a municipality in which the two +departments of government are defying each other. Both are +exercising legislative and administrative authority until the +citizens of that place are at a loss to know which is right. This +is admittedly a deplorable state of affairs, yet it is the logical +result of forcing upon the city a form of government entirely +unsuited for its needs. Moreover, this lack of co-ordination and +responsibility has resulted in the confusion of powers and the +creation of needless boards and committees. A recent investigation +in Philadelphia showed that it had four boards with power to tear +up the streets at will, but none to see that they were properly +relaid. Chicago finds herself possessed of eight different tax +levying bodies, while in New York City there are eighty different +boards or individuals who have power to create debt. Is it any +wonder that inefficiency and graft infest such a maze of boards, +councils and committees? We see, then, that the present system of +separation of powers produces inefficiency through a confusion of +functions; it does away completely with the system of checks and +balances and results in utter lack of responsibility and +co-ordination of departments.</p> +<p>Honorable Judges, if we are ever to arrive at a solution of our +municipal problem, we must concentrate municipal authority; we must +co-ordinate departments, eliminate useless boards and committees +and fix absolutely and completely individual responsibility. This, +we propose to do by establishing a commission form of government, +where all governmental authority is vested in one small body of +men, who individually act as the heads of administrative +departments, but who collectively pass the needed legislation. +Thus, instead of a council with restricted powers and divided +authority, we have a few men assuming positions of genuine +responsibility, as regards both the originating and enforcing of +laws. My colleagues will show that such a concentration of powers +in one small body is necessary and desirable, both from the +legislative and administrative point of view.</p> +<p>Such a concentration is desirable, since it is accompanied by a +corresponding concentration of personal responsibility. This is +secured in the commission system. Responsibility in administration +is secured, because each commissioner is at the head of a +department, for the efficient and honest conduct of which he alone +is held personally responsible. Responsibility in legislation is +secured, because, first, the body of legislators is comparatively +small. Second, the very fact that each commissioner possesses +information essential to intelligent action, places upon the +commission itself absolute responsibility. Such a system makes it +impossible to shift responsibility from one branch to the other, +and guarantees to us better and more efficient administration of +our municipal affairs for it eliminates all useless boards and +committees and fixes absolutely and completely individual +responsibility.</p> +</div> +<p>Mr. Earl Stewart, the first speaker on the Negative, said:</p> +<div class="blockquot"> +<p>We wish it understood at the outset that no one deplores the +useless boards and complicated machinery in many of our American +cities more than do the Negative.</p> +<p>Before going a step farther let us get right as to what we mean +by a commission form. The gentlemen state that they are standing +for a concentration of all power in one small body. Honorable +Judges, they are standing for something different. It is possible +to concentrate all authority in one body and yet have the different +functions performed by separately constituted bodies. For example, +the cabinet system of Germany, where all governing power is vested +in the legislative body which in turn delegates all administrative +functions to the cabinet. Thus the legislative body is directly +responsible, having ultimate authority, yet the actual exercise of +power is done by distinct bodies. Now how is it with the +commission? There, not only does one body have ultimate authority, +but it actually conducts administration as well as legislation. +Quoting from Sec. 7 of the Des Moines charter, which is typical of +every commission form charter in this regard, it says: "All +legislative, executive, and judicial functions of the city shall be +placed in the hands of the commissioners who shall exercise those +functions." The Affirmative, then, are standing for fusion of +functions, and not concentration of powers.</p> +<p>The Negative do not defend the evils of present city +organization. The Negative believe that far-reaching reforms must +be instituted before we shall enjoy municipal success. The issue +then is, does the commission form, or do the reforms proposed by +the Negative, offer the more satisfactory solution of our municipal +problems?</p> +<p>The Negative propose, first, that the form of organization shall +embody a proper correlation or departments.</p> +<p>In the early council system the functions of the legislative and +executive departments so overlapped that there was continual +conflict of authority. Under the board system the two departments +were almost disconnected, so that the legislative department could +not hold the executive accountable to the will of the people. In +many forms today, as the gentlemen have depicted, the relations +between the departments are such that responsibility cannot be +fixed.</p> +<p>But, Honorable Judges, these instances of failure do not show +that it is impossible to preserve a proper division of functions, +for every conspicuous example of municipal success in the world is +based upon the proper correlation between the legislative and +administrative departments. Municipal success in Europe is an +established fact. There we find the cabinet form. A similar form is +in vogue in Toronto, Canada, which Mayor Coatswain says is most +gratifying to the public. Says Rear Admiral Chadwick: "The city of +Newport, Rhode Island, has now a form of government that awakens +the interest of the citizens, keeps that interest awake, and +conducts its affairs in obedience to the wishes of the majority." +Charleston, S. C., Elmira, New York, Los Angeles, Cal., are but a +few of the typical American cities which have successfully adopted +the ordinary mayor and council form. Says Mayor Rhett, of +Charleston: "I am the executive of a city that has been under a +mayor and council for over one hundred years. It is quite as +capable of prompt action on any matter as any business +corporation." The National Municipal League, composed of such men +as Albert Shaw, of New York City, and Professor Rowe of the +University of Pennsylvania, appointed a committee to formulate a +definite program of reform. This committee did not even consider +the abandoning of distinct legislative and administrative bodies, +but, after three years of unremitting effort, presented a working +system, embodying, in the words of the committee itself, the +"essential principle of all successful government," namely, the +proper correlation between the legislative and administrative +departments. That program has left marked traces in the +constitution of Virginia, Alabama, Colorado, New York, Wisconsin, +Michigan, and Delaware.</p> +<p>Proper correlation between departments is best facilitated in +the cabinet form, because all governing power is vested in the +legislative body, which in turn delegates all administrative +functions to the cabinet. However, many cities have properly +correlated mayor and council by utilizing the model charter of the +National Municipal League. The Negative, therefore, is here to +promulgate no specific form for all American cities: conditions in +Boston may require a different mechanism from that in San +Francisco, but whatever form, the underlying principle of a proper +division of functions must be embodied. The Affirmative must admit +that proper correlation of departments has brought about municipal +success, as far as mere organization can do so, yet, +notwithstanding that, after fifteen years of misrule under the +commission form in Sacramento the freeholders by unanimous choice +again adopted distinct legislative and administrative bodies; and +that the commission form has lately operated but a few years in a +few small cities, amid aroused civic interest. The Affirmative +would abolish at one blow the working principle of successful city +organization in France, Germany, England, Canada, and unnumbered +cities in the United States.</p> +<p>In the second place, evils in our cities are due to bad social +and economic conditions. Harrisburg, Pa., was notoriously corrupt. +A spirit of reform aroused the citizens, and Harrisburg stands +today as a remarkable example of efficient government, yet the form +of organization has been unchanged.</p> +<p>In many of our large cities there is a feeble civic spirit, due, +in part, to undesirable immigrants, the prey to the boss, and +utterly lacking in inherited traditions so essential to the +capacity of self-government. Another instance: the mutual taxing +system has fostered public extravagance and loss of interest on the +part of the taxpayer. Again, favor-seeking corporations have +continually employed corrupt methods. James Bryce says that in the +development of a stronger sense of civic duty rather than any +change in the form of government lies the ultimate hope of +municipal reform.</p> +<p>A third cause of municipal ills is that of poor business +methods. First, unjust election laws and lack of proper primaries +have permitted the corrupt arts of the caucus politician. Second, +lack of a uniform system of accounting has served only to conceal +the facts, resulting in apathy on the part of the people, diffusion +of responsibility, and widespread corruption among officials. +Third, lack of publicity of proceedings has protected graft. +Fourth, lack of civil service has perpetuated the spoils +system.</p> +<p>All these can and are being remedied. The Bureau of Municipal +Research shows plainly that it is not necessary to change +fundamental principles to secure business efficiency. It +reorganized the Real Estate Bureau of New York that eluded all +graft charges and made 100 per cent profits. The Department of +Finance, heretofore unable to tell whether taxes were collected, is +reorganized from top to bottom. Through the glaring light of +publicity, the bureau collected more than a million dollars for +paving done at the public's expense between the street-car +company's rails. The old conditions, where examination of the books +of any department involved weeks of labor, have given way to a +uniform system of public accounting. In the words of the +Springfield, Mass., <i>Republican</i>, "The work of the Bureau of +Public Research is far more fundamental than the question of +substituting city organization with a commission."</p> +<p>A fourth cause of evils is that of state interference in purely +local affairs.</p> +<p>In the United States the city may not act except where +authorized expressly and especially by the state. In Europe the +city may do anything it is not forbidden to do, and municipal +success there is based on this greater freedom. The European city, +though subject to general state law, makes its own local laws, not +in conflict with, but in addition to, state law. But in the United +States the state legislature, accustomed to interfere in matters of +interest to the state government, failed to distinguish between +such matters and those of exclusive interest to the cities +themselves. To illustrate: The Cleveland Municipal Association +reported in 1900 that legislators from an outside county had +introduced radical changes in almost every department of their city +government. In Massachusetts the police, water works, and park +systems are directly under the state, and the only part the cities +have is to pay the bills. In Pennsylvania for thirty-one years the +state kept upon the statute books an act imposing upon Philadelphia +a self-perpetuating commission, appointed without reference to the +city's wishes, and with all power to erect a city hall and levy +taxes to collect the twenty-million-dollar cost.</p> +<p>State and national political parties, controlling the +legislature, have meddled in the private affairs of the city, +resulting in the decay of the city council and the destruction of +the local autonomy. Professor Goodnow says that under these +conditions a scientific solution of the vexed question of municipal +organization has been impossible.</p> +<p>The remedy lies in restoring to the city its proper field of +legislation. Already thirty states have passed constitutional +amendments granting greater legislative powers to the cities. Five +states now allow cities to amend their own charters. But in direct +opposition to this movement for municipal home rule, the commission +form takes the last step in the destruction of the city's +legislative body and fosters continued state interference. +President Eliot says that the functions of the commissioners will +be defined and enumerated by the state.</p> +<p>Now, Honorable Judges, the basic principle of city government +the world over is division of functions. It is the principle that +the commission form attempts to annihilate. But we have pointed out +the real causes of municipal evils and have shown they are to be +remedied without tampering with the fundamental principles which +time and experience have shown to be correct in every instance of +successful city organization. The Affirmative say: change the +fundamental principle; all changes in form and other remedies are +insufficient. The Negative say: retain the principle of distinct +legislative and administrative bodies, but observe a proper +correlation between them which is done in countless instances as we +have shown. We would remedy bad social and economic conditions, +introduce better business methods, and, most important of all, give +the city greater freedom in powers of local self-government.</p> +</div> +<p>Mr. Clyde Robbins, the second speaker of the Affirmative, +said:</p> +<div class="blockquot"> +<p>It should be understood at the outset that the Affirmative +desire all the local self-government for American cities that the +Negative can induce the state legislatures to give them. But just +what is home rule for cities? It is simply granting additional +functions to the city by the state legislature. The only possible +way home rule can affect the question under discussion is a +consideration of which form of government is best suited to perform +additional functions granted by the government. We maintain that +the commission form can do this better because, first, it furnishes +superior legislation, and second, it furnishes superior +administration.</p> +<p>The gentleman blandly assumes that the commission form is +fundamentally wrong, because it fails to provide a separate +legislative body as do the governments of the state and nation. An +isolated legislative body is desirable for state and national +governments. Is that a reason for applying it to city government? +Here, social, economic, and political conditions are entirely +different from those of either state or nation. The city is not a +sovereign body. Its powers are exclusively those delegated to it by +the state legislature. They are confined wholly to matters of local +concern. Furthermore, we do not deny the legislative functions of +the city, nor does the plan we advocate contemplate the destruction +of the city's legislative body. It simply means that in place of +the present notoriously inefficient, isolated council, we establish +a commission council composed of the heads of the various +administrative departments. The question at issue is not whether we +shall have a city council, either system provides for that; but +whether a commission council, or an isolated council will furnish +better ordinances. We are contending that the commission council +must furnish superior measures, because in the making of city +ordinances there are at least three great essentials for which this +commission council alone makes adequate provision.</p> +<p>First the legislative and administrative work of the city must +be unalterably connected;</p> +<p>Second, the councilmen must have a direct and technical +knowledge of the city affairs;</p> +<p>Third, the councilman must be representative of the whole +city.</p> +<p>Consider, first, how the legislative and administrative work are +connected. State and national legislation are general in their +nature and scope. The extent of territory, and the variety in local +needs have naturally created a separate law-making body. But in the +city such conditions do not exist. The legislative acts of the +council are specific in their nature. The very name reveals their +distinctive character. They are ordinances as distinguished from +other laws, and are designed to meet a particular kind of +administration. The specific act and the particular administration +of it go hand in hand. Hence, satisfactory measures can be enacted +only when they come from the hands of a commission council.</p> +<p>President Eliot recognized this fact when he said that the work +of the city council is not concerned with far-reaching policies of +legislation. There is no occasion for two or even one separate +legislative body. Dr. Albert Shaw writes, that so indistinguishably +blended are the legislative and administrative departments of the +city, that it is impossible to separate one from the other.</p> +<p>Second, a commission council is more effective because it +furnishes a direct and technical knowledge of city affairs. An +investigation in Des Moines showed that out of 370 acts performed +by the council, 32 were granting of saloon licenses and similar +permits; 338 concerned matters demanding technical knowledge. To +have a street paved, shall one body legislate; a second group +administer; and a third pass upon the validity of the whole thing? +Rather the councilmen should know good paving; they should know how +to draw up and enforce a business contract. These are the vital +necessities.</p> +<p>The commission council secures such results. Its membership is +comparatively small. Its sessions are held daily. Its members have +a direct knowledge of the city's needs for each one serves as the +head of a department. Satisfactory legislation then becomes a mere +business proposition. It is but carrying forward the work of each +commissioner, for successful administration is impossible without +competent legislation. Hence, a city commissioner would no more +think of passing improper legislation than a bank director would +think of advising unsound loans.</p> +<p>The Cedar Rapids commission met to legislate on replacing an old +bridge. The commissioner of public safety told in what respects the +old structure was unsafe. The commissioner of public property knew +how much land the city owned abutting the bridge. The commissioner +of streets explained what alterations should be made in the +approaches, and the commissioner of finance knew in just what way +the city could best pay for the improvement. Honorable Judges, such +men are in a position to legislate with thoroughness. They are a +commission council, the very nature of which makes it inevitable +that they act with intelligence and efficiency.</p> +<p>Contrast now, the commission council with the isolated council. +Here we find positively no co-ordination between the legislative +and administrative branches, while a century of experience with the +scheme of checks and balances has proved conclusively that it can +not prevent municipal corruption. Moreover, legislation by the +isolated council is not only chaotic in form but it is +irresponsible, while in the case of the commission council the very +fact that the head of each department possesses necessary +information not only secures adequate legislation but fixes with +certainty the entire responsibility.</p> +<p>The isolated council is a large and unwieldy body. Each member +of it has his own private occupation. Without special preparation +of any kind he attends council not oftener than once a week. +Intelligent action under such conditions is simply impossible. The +only way this council has of securing reliable information is from +the heads of the administrative departments. But even then +responsibility is still divided between the legislative and +administrative branches. This deplorable state of affairs has been +synchronous with the growth of the isolated council in America.</p> +<p>Is it any wonder that the old Des Moines council voted to +construct a bridge only to find when the work was completed that +the city did not even own the approaches, or that the old Cedar +Rapids council let a similar contract at an exorbitantly high +price, only to find, when the work was completed, that the contract +called for no protecting wings or abutments, and the city was +compelled to spend many thousands of dollars additional in order to +make the structure safe? Such nonsensical legislation is a direct +result of the isolated council. It fails to provide information +essential to intelligent action. It does not permit a proper +co-ordination of departments so vitally necessary in successful +city government.</p> +<p>Lastly, city legislation demands unbiased representation. In +this respect a commission council is superior to an isolated +council.</p> +<p>In the commission council each member represents the entire +city. Hence, there is no incentive to favor one ward at the expense +of another. In fact, any such an attempt could result only in +disaster to the commissioner himself. Furthermore, each +commissioner is held individually responsible for his department. +Consequently he is forced to insist upon an impartial +representation of the entire city. This is well illustrated by the +present situation in New York City. The Bureau of Municipal +Research, admittedly the most practical organization of its kind in +the country, is conducting its work along the line of effective +competency in city departments. As a result of its investigations, +the citizens of New York have been forced to the conclusion to +which my colleague has already referred, namely, that the ultimate +solution of their municipal difficulties will be reached only when +they have disposed of their present inefficient and useless ward +council and created in its place a commission council.</p> +<p>Under the isolated council a member is elected to represent a +certain section of the city. He must do this, no matter what may be +the effect upon the rest of the city. For example, in legislating +on the annual budget, each ward boss brings pressure to bear upon +his own councilman to have certain levies reduced, and to secure +stipulated appropriations for his own ward. In New York City last +spring, Bird S. Coler, representing a part of Brooklyn, blocked +every appropriation until he secured certain selfish measures for +his own district. What is true of New York is an annual occurrence +in practically every other ward-ruled American city.</p> +<p>Furthermore, councilmen from one ward are shamefully +unresponsive to the needs and desires of citizens in other wards. +Just this summer the council of Duluth, Minn., granted saloon +licenses for a ward in which 90 per cent of its citizens signed a +written protest against such action. The councilmen representing +that district were helpless to prevent the legislation and the +citizens themselves had no recourse whatsoever. The grand jury in +St. Louis reported that the wards of that city were an actual +menace to decency and good government.</p> +<p>With these instances before us it is well to remember that the +scheme of ward representation is a necessary part of the practical +operation of the separation of powers in government. This is +exemplified in our national, state, and city organizations. In +fact, the principal reason for an isolated legislative body is that +the sentiments of the different localities may be expressed in +legislation. The practical result is that 95 per cent of our city +governments are based upon ward representation, nor can an instance +be cited in all American political theory which shows the creation +of a successful political organization based upon an isolated +legislative body in which there has not been an accompanying +representation by territorial districts. This principle is always +the same no matter whether it be a congressional district of the +national government or a ward of the city government. Hence, it is +for this principle that the gentlemen must contend if they wish to +argue for an isolated council in city government.</p> +<p>In conclusion, Honorable Judges, a commission council is +superior to an isolated council, because the work of city +legislation and administration must be unalterably connected; +because the councilmen must have a direct and technical knowledge +of city affairs; and, because the councilmen must be representative +of the whole city.</p> +</div> +<p>Mr. Vincent Starzinger, the second speaker on the Negative, +said:</p> +<div class="blockquot"> +<p>The Affirmative continue to direct their attack against the "old +form." Yet my colleague has suggested substantial changes in +present city organization, changes which have brought about success +wherever tried. Moreover, we wish to make it clear that we are not +necessarily standing for a division of power. There may be +separately constituted departments of government, one primarily for +administration, the other primarily for legislation, yet a +concentration of authority in one of them, as in the case under the +cabinet system of Europe. The gentlemen of the opposition are +advocating not only a concentration of power, but a fusion of +functions as well. Their commission is at once the executive +cabinet and the legislative body.</p> +<p>We have heard much about the practical working of the new plan. +Upon this matter, the Negative shall have a few words to say before +the close of the debate. But granting for the sake of argument that +the commission form has operated with some degree of success in a +few small towns, especially when compared with the admitted +inefficient machinery of government in vogue before its adoption +and when favored by an aroused civic interest, nevertheless, it +does not follow that it is adapted to the needs of the typical +American city. There, administration is a matter of great +complexity and of vital importance. Boston has pay-rolls including +12,000 and annual expenditure of $40,000,000. Successful +administration under such conditions has necessitated the growth of +city departments. The heads of the various departments constitute +an executive cabinet. Under the commission form, this cabinet is +established by popular election and made the single governmental +body for the performance of both the legislative and the +administrative functions.</p> +<p>Such a fusion of functions must necessarily result: in poor +administration; in the sacrifice of legislation; and in the +ultimate destruction of local self-government.</p> +<p>Consider the problem of administration.</p> +<p>An efficient cabinet cannot, as a rule, be secured by popular +election. Men who possess the ability to direct a city department +acquire such capacity only after years of preparation, and such men +will not endure the uncertainties of a career dependent upon the +favor of the public. The commissioner of finance who understands +the intricate problems of accounting will not coddle the people to +insure his election. Popular judgment, no matter how enlightened, +cannot be entrusted with the selection of such men. The old board +system proves this conclusively. Here, the choosing of the heads of +the important city departments was placed in the hands of the +people. The system stands condemned.</p> +<p>A commission form makes the additional blunder of uniting +completely the two functions of legislation and administration in +the same body. This makes the commissioners representative in +character. But this condition is disastrous to successful +administration. Whenever the people desire even the slightest +change in their local policy, the stability and continuity of the +city departments must be upset. Representation is secured at the +expense of efficiency. Administration becomes saturated with +politics.</p> +<p>Again, Honorable Judges, the management of a city should be +subjected to the criticism and control of a reviewing body. Both +the welfare of the people and the interests of good administration +demand it. Administrators, no matter how valuable their technical +knowledge, make poor legislators. Being interested in their work, +they very naturally exalt and magnify their departments. Just a few +years ago, the city of Cleveland found it necessary to take even +the preparation of the budget from the heads of the departments +concerned and to place it with a board which could view with +impartiality the demands of the various department chiefs. Think of +turning over all the functions of a city like St. Louis to an +executive cabinet without even the oversight or criticism of an +impartial body.</p> +<p>And, Honorable Judges, the whole experience of government proves +the absolute necessity for a separate legislative department. Look +where you will, and in each case there is an executive cabinet, +based upon appointment, untrammelled by the burdens of legislation, +and subjected to the criticism and control of a reviewing body. In +Europe, the city councils are elected by the people, and the +administrative departments are made up through a process of +selection and appointment, together with the assurance of +reasonable permanence of tenure, responsibility, and adequate +support. Likewise in America, the larger cities are already +organizing their cabinets upon a somewhat similar basis. The six +largest cities of New York, all of the cities of Indiana, Boston, +Chicago, Baltimore, and many others are securing their important +administrative officials through appointment by the mayor. This is +the general plan advocated by the National Municipal League. It +centers responsibility for the administration in one man. On the +other hand, some of the cities of Canada follow more closely to the +German system. There the cabinet is selected by a representative +council. In practically all of these instances, men of special +ability have been obtained, the departments of administration have +been properly correlated, responsibility has been concentrated, and +the general principle, that successful administration depends upon +a separately constituted legislative body, has been firmly +established.</p> +<p>It is plain then that a commission form violates the fundamental +principles of successful administration. It first attempts to +secure a cabinet by popular vote. It then upsets the stability of +the city departments by completely uniting both the legislative and +the administrative functions. Finally, it destroys the +responsibility of that prime essential of successful +administration, namely, a proper reviewing body.</p> +<p>In the second place, Honorable Judges, the permanent adoption of +a commission form must necessarily mean a sacrifice of legislation +and the ultimate destruction of local self-government. Even though +the city may be subordinate to the state, nevertheless, it has a +broad field of independent action. Otherwise, why give it a +separate personality and a separate organization? Cities are +permitted to exercise vast powers of police and of taxation. It is +idle to say that a few commissioners can give satisfactory +legislation. They cannot represent community interests. Their +executive functions will naturally bias their judgment. Moreover, +each commissioner, knowing little of the needs of the other +departments, will naturally take the word of its administrative +head, especially since he desires the same freedom. This was +actually the case in Sacramento, Cal., where the commission plan +was tried for fifteen years and given up as an abject failure. Says +the Hon. Clinton White of that city: "In almost every instance, the +board soon came to the understanding that each man was to be let +alone in the management of the department assigned to him. This +resulted in there being in fact no tribunals exercising a +supervisory power over the executive of a particular department." +Honorable Judges, a reviewing and legislative body is indispensable +in city government and a commission makes no such provision. Weak +in administration, wholly lacking in matters of legislation, +dangerous as a theory of government, it cannot help but result in +the complete subjection of local government to the state. The +inevitable result of its permanent adoption will be that the +important local legislative functions will become a mere +administrative board with discretionary power as in the case of +Washington, D.C. In the words of Professor Goodnow: "The +destruction of the city council has not destroyed council +government. It has simply made local policy a matter of state +legislative determination." If we wish to destroy the life of the +city, make it impotent to discharge the functions for which it was +organized, then, and then only, it might be feasible to place over +it a commission.</p> +<p>But, Honorable Judges, authorities are agreed that cities must +be allowed greater freedom of action in local affairs, that +municipal home rule is indispensable. The governments of our large +cities have been dominated to such an extent by the state +legislatures, usually partisan and irresponsible to the locality +concerned, that in many cases self-government has become a term, +hollow and without meaning.</p> +<p>The gentlemen condemn the city council, yet they pass over the +real cause for its decay. Restore to the city its proper +legislative powers, confine the work of the council to legislation +instead of allowing it to go into details of administration, reduce +the number of councilmen, if necessary, adjust the method of +representation, introduce needed electoral and primary reform, +establish responsibility by means of uniform municipal accounting +and publicity of proceedings, and we ask the gentlemen in all +earnestness why American city councils will not take on new life +just as the city councils of every other country have done in the +past.</p> +<p>The two great problems of American city government are: first, +administration; secondly, municipal home rule. The solution of both +depends upon the existence of two separately constituted +departments of government. This principle is being emphasized by +the leading scholars of political science, as illustrated by the +program of the National Municipal League. In fact, Honorable +Judges, every deep-seated reform in our large cities for the past +quarter of a century has tended toward this cardinal doctrine of +municipal success. The Ohio Municipal Code Commission, after two +years of careful study and observation, presented a bill based upon +the principles which we defend tonight, namely, a separation of +administration from legislation, and secondly, municipal home +rule.</p> +<p>In direct opposition to this, the gentlemen present and advocate +as a permanent scheme for the organization of American cities, both +large and small, a commission form, a quasi-legislative and +administrative board patterned to give mediocrity in the +performance of both functions, success in neither; a form which +destroys forever the possibility of developing an efficient +executive cabinet and is entirely out of harmony with the advancing +idea of municipal home rule.</p> +</div> +<p>Mr. George Luxford, the third speaker on the Affirmative, +said:</p> +<div class="blockquot"> +<p>It has been made very clear by my colleagues that the present +shameful condition of many of our American cities is due in large +measure to the peculiar form of the government patterned after a +scheme which is adapted to a sovereign government like the state or +nation. The Negative demand an isolation which history shows, so +far as our American cities are concerned, leads to a complete +confusion of functions, with a consequent loss of responsibility. +Knowing the inadequacy of the scheme they then demanded municipal +home rule; but we have shown that the Affirmative are thoroughly +committed to municipal home rule which under the commission form +alone can be safely intrusted to cities. State interference in city +government is the child of the form of government for which our +friends of the Negative are sponsors. Thus far the gentlemen have +failed to disprove the points which we have presented that the +theory of checks and balances when applied to American cities has +failed; that the plan of concentrating municipal authority under +one head as advocated by the commission plan is in complete harmony +with modern industrial and social development, and that the plan is +superior from a legislative standpoint. It shall be my purpose to +show that it is superior from the standpoint of administration. We +believe this because the commission lends itself to the application +of business methods. The plan provides for a comparatively small +body of men who meet in daily session and who give their whole time +to the work of governing the city. At present, too often the real +business of the officials is anything else. They give their spare +time to the city and we have seen the results. Honorable judges, we +claim that there is a special virtue in the very smallness of the +number inasmuch as they are properly paid, devote all their time to +their work, and are made in fact governors of the city. They have a +great deal of work to do and they do it, while under our present +systems the councilmen have comparatively little to do and they +fail to do that little efficiently.</p> +<p>The reason why this small body can administer with dispatch and +efficiency is seen at a glance. Each commissioner is the head of a +department for which he is personally responsible. He is not +hindered as is the executive at present by an inefficient and +meddling council which has more power, often, than the executive +himself. He knows the laws for he has helped to make them. It is +his business to see that they are executed, and if they are not, he +cannot escape blame. He cannot plead ignorance, lack of +responsibility, or lack of power as do present administrative +officers.</p> +<p>Moreover, this body is admirably constituted for effective +carrying out of city business. It is larger than the single headed +executive and possesses, therefore, a division of work which makes +the administration far more effective. At the same time it is +smaller than the old council and for that reason is more efficient +in enacting the city's peculiar kind of legislation. In actual +practice, and that seems to be the real test of city government, +both administration and legislation are accomplished with accuracy +and dispatch. For instance, every spring for the last decade +carloads of "dagoes" with their dirt and disease have come to Cedar +Rapids. Every year protests have gone up to both mayor and council, +but without result. Cedar Rapids has adopted a commission form of +government. Last spring when the "dagoes" came the same complaints +went up as usual, that because of their insanitary methods these +people carried with them filth and disease. But the petitioners did +not go to the city council which met once in two weeks, nor were +they referred to a committee which met less often. They went +directly to the commissioners who had charge of the city health and +in less than twenty-four hours the "dagoes" had been notified to +either clean up or leave, and they left the city. But, say the +opponents of this plan, this could have been done under the old +system. To be sure, but the burning fact remains that in spite of +the protests of the people, it was not done.</p> +<p>In Houston the government was both inefficient and dishonest. +For years the annual expenditures had exceeded the income a hundred +thousand dollars. The city adopted a commission form and a four +hundred thousand dollar floating debt was paid off in one year out +of the ordinary income of the city. At the same time the city's +taxes were reduced ten per cent. In the health department alone +there is a saving of from $100 to $150 per month, while a +combination in the operation of the garbage crematory and pumping +station saves the city $6,000 annually. These results have been +accomplished under a commission plan by the application of common, +everyday business principles.</p> +<p>Galveston adopted a commission plan, and although its taxable +values were reduced twenty-five per cent by the storm of 1900, yet +within six years its commissioners not only put the city on a cash +basis, made improvements costing $1,000,000 annually, but actually +paid off a debt of $394,000 which had been incurred by the old +council, and all this was accomplished without borrowing a dollar, +issuing a bond, or increasing the rate of taxation. Other cities +which have adopted a commission plan are accomplishing equally as +beneficial results. Hence, we maintain that the commission form of +city government is superior from the standpoint of efficiency in +administration.</p> +<p>The commission plan is superior in administration for it is +adapted to the city's financial problem. The same body of men are +held responsible for the levying and collecting of taxes and for +the spending of the money. This is desirable because the +administrative body which is to spend money knows, accurately, the +city's need of revenue. They are in a position to know; it is their +business. A legislative body, whether council or a board, cannot +know the city's needs for money without getting the facts from the +administrative body. F.R. Clow says the council does not pretend to +know the city's revenue problem and they adopt the recommendation +of the administrative departments. The Negative's system of +division of powers simply divides the responsibility between the +legislative and administrative departments for the thing which in +fact has been done by the administrative department itself. Since +the administrative department really dictates the budget, it should +be held directly responsible for it. Therefore, we contend that the +commissioners, knowing best what the budget should contain because +as administrators they know the city's need for money, are the body +of men preeminently fitted to handle the city's budget.</p> +<p>The commission plan is adapted to the city's financial problem +because it fosters economy. Economy is the result of understanding. +The commissioners knowing the city's government, not from the +administrative side alone, but from the legislative side as well, +are in a position to economize and in practice they have done so. +The running expenses of Galveston under the commission plan have +been reduced one-third. In Houston it costs $12,800 a year less to +run the water and light plants than formerly, while by a +combination of work in the different departments there is a saving +of $9,000 annually. In Cedar Rapids, since the adoption of the +commission plan, there has been a reduction in the paving contracts +let of ten and one-fifth per cent, in sewerage contracts, fourteen +and two-sevenths per cent, and in water contracts, twenty per cent. +Immediately after the adoption of the commission plan in Des Moines +the annual cost of each arc-light was reduced five dollars. Reports +from all the cities using the commission plan show that by the use +of business principles the commissioners have economized in the +administration of the city's government.</p> +<p>The commission plan is adapted to the city's finances because it +provides a superior safeguard. Legislative bodies in our cities +have been depended upon to represent the citizens' best interest. +In practice, as we have pointed out, they have not done so. Never +in the history of our municipal affairs, says Henry D.F. Baldwin, +has a legislative body stood out as the representatives of the +people against the administrative department. Why then continue a +representative body which does not in fact represent? Instead of +the withered form of a council or legislative body standing between +the citizen and his government the commission plan simply removes +this useless obstacle and allows the citizen to participate +directly in the government. This is directly in harmony with the +well-established economic principle that the self-interest of the +taxpayer will control where responsibility is fixed.</p> +</div> +<p>Mr. Charles Briggs, the third speaker on the Negative, said:</p> +<div class="blockquot"> +<p>It will be well while the matter is fresh in our minds, +Honorable Judges, to make a brief examination of one matter of +which the Affirmative are making a feature, that the commission +form affords unusual safeguards for the financial and economic +interests of the city. Now, in all fairness to the scheme which is +doing quite well in a very few of our smaller cities, the question +ought to be raised as to what other form of city government could +be devised which would provide greater opportunities for graft and +corruption. A little group of autocrats is the ideal form for which +the ardent corruptionists might pray. They have it in the +commission form. Exemplary men in office or a constant civic +interest, may prevent the commissioners from becoming a band of +robbers; but are these two preventives likely always to exist? +Human experience says "No." The history of New Orleans and +Sacramento confirm that decision. Civic interest is bound to +subside; corrupt men are sure to become commissioners. Then the +oligarchy advocated by the Affirmative becomes not a "safeguard" +but a band of raiders equipped by the very form of government to +loot the treasury. We must insist, at this point, that our +opponents have failed in their assault upon our main +contention:</p> +<p>First, that the evils in American city government are not +attributable to the fundamental principles of that government; +second, that the principles underlying the proposed form are in +themselves wrong and are not consonant generally with American +ideals. It remains to be shown that the commission form is +impracticable as a general scheme for the government of all +American cities.</p> +<p>We can very well agree that where the commission form of +government has been tried it has been productive of some good +results, and further, that in certain homogeneous communities of +high culture and intelligence it might work with considerable +success; but that the result obtained in cities where the +commission form has been tried would warrant the universal adoption +of it by American cities we must deny.</p> +<p>We deny the wisdom of adopting the commission form for it +results in inadequate responsibility; third, it could never work in +the vast majority of American cities. These reasons are apparent +from examinations of the commission form where it has been and is +being tried, and are inherent in the plan itself.</p> +<p>The tremendous centralization of power under this form of city +government cannot escape a critical observer. A small body of men +have absolute sway over the destiny of the city. They make all laws +from the minutely specified contract for a water system to all +important school legislation. All franchises are engineered by +them. All contracts, great and small, are let by them. The city's +bonded debt is in their hands; by them the city is taxed and +incumbered. Parks, police, streets, education, public buildings, +engineering, finance—everything from the smallest +administrative duty to the all-engrossing functions of legislation +devolves upon this commission. They can vacate any office, can +create any office, and without limit fix any salary they choose. +The entire officialdom, outside of the commission itself, and all +the employes and the servants of the city are by law made the +agents, servants, and dependents of the council. The possibilities +for machine power with this autocratic centralization of authority +are without condition. We can demonstrate this best by giving +practical illustrations taken from the active operation of the +commission form. We may preface these by saying that there is +nothing inherent in the commission form or any of its attributes +which can insure the selection of better men for office. The +members of the commission will be about the same kind of men as the +ordinary city official. Minneapolis by an election at large placed +in the mayor's chair its most notorious grafter. This is proved by +the personnel of the commissions where the system is being tried. +The investigating committee appointed by the city of Des Moines, +quoting their exact words, say that in Houston, where the +commissioners are required to stay in the city hall every day, +business men do not hold those positions, although the salaries are +higher than the proposed salaries of the Des Moines commissioners. +One commissioner was formerly a city scavenger, another a +blacksmith, justice of the peace and alderman, a third a railway +conductor, fourth a dry-goods merchant, and the mayor, a retired +capitalist. Mr. Pollock of Kansas City says of the Des Moines +commission, "The commission as elected consists of a former police +judge and justice of the peace who is mayor-commissioner at the +salary of $3,500; a coal miner, deputy sheriff; the former city +assessor, whose greatest success has been in public office; a union +painter of undoubted honesty and integrity, but far from a $3,000 +man; an ex-mayor and politician, who is perhaps the most valuable +member of the new form of government, but whose record does not +disclose any great business capacity aside from that displayed in +public office." The Des Moines committee says of the Galveston +commission: "This is a perpetual body, a potentially perfect +machine." There has been no change in the membership of the +Galveston commission since it was organized. The extensive power of +the commissioners have enabled them to control all political +factions and to completely crush the opposition. The commissioners' +faction is in complete control and even goes so far as to dictate +nominations for the legislature and the national congress. In Des +Moines we find evidences of this machine power in the very first +session of the commission. Mr. Hume was appointed chief of police +because he had delivered the labor vote to Mr. Mathis. The <i>Daily +News</i>, the only Des Moines paper that supported the plan, was +rewarded by having three of its staff appointed to responsible +positions. Mr. Lyman was appointed secretary to Commissioner +Hammery, Neil Jones secretary to Mayor Mathis. Another man was +appointed to an important technical position. A brakeman was +appointed street commissioner because he delivered the vote of the +Federation of Labor.</p> +<p>These are but a few of the instances where this great +centralization of power has shown itself in practice to be a system +permitting of unrestricted machine power and political grafting. +New Orleans tried the system and abandoned it over 20 years ago +because of this very reason. The inhabitants were afraid of this +tremendous centralization of power.</p> +<p>The friends of the commission idea claim for it the advantage of +centered responsibility; but practice has proved that this form of +city government is actually formulated to defeat responsibility. By +the construction of this governing body each commissioner is held +responsible for his respective department. But regulation for each +department is made not by the commission as a whole but by the +whole commission. This results in a confusion of powers. Thus in +the city of Des Moines, Mr. Hume, the personal enemy of +Commissioner Hammery was made chief of police by three other +members of the commission for political reasons.</p> +<p>Who is responsible for the mistakes of Mr. Hume? The people say +Hammery. But Hammery says: "I had nothing to do with his +appointment." It has actually happened time and again at the +commission table in Des Moines that regulations for the financial +department were made by the police commission, the street +commissioner and the commissioner of parks and public buildings; +that the police commissioner would have the deciding vote on some +important school legislation; or the commissioner of education +control the appointment of policemen. This defect has given rise to +log-rolling. Bridges have been built as a personal favor to one +commissioner whose vote is needed to construct a new schoolhouse. +Large paving and building contracts are let simply because the +police commissioner wanted to oust some unfaithful political +dependent. In this way each commissioner gains great favor with the +voters and at the same time can escape personal responsibility for +technical mistakes by shouldering the blame onto the whole +commission where his identity is lost. This department trading has +found its way into the Galveston commission, claimed to have the +best commission of any city under this form of government. Here we +find that at the same time the prosecutor of the city cases in the +police court is allowed the right to collect a fee of $10 for every +criminal, drunk, or vagrant convicted, and $5 for every one who +pleads guilty; a 50-year franchise is granted to the Galveston +Street Railway Co. without a vote of the people, the city not to +receive one cent of tax and no compensation.</p> +<p>So, Honorable Judges, we must consider that, while the +commission form may be a temporary success in a few small cities, +its permanent success there is in grave doubt. Under these +conditions we do not ask that it be abolished, but that under no +circumstances its application be made general in this country where +other forms of city government are in practice more successful and +in theory more correct.</p> +</div> +<p>REBUTTAL</p> +<p>Mr. Earl Stewart opened for the Negative:</p> +<div class="blockquot"> +<p>The gentlemen contend that the work of the city is almost wholly +of a business nature. Honorable Judges, if the city does not have +important legislative duties, what do we mean by local +self-government? The courts have held again and again that the work +of the city is primarily governmental. Says Judge Dillon: "The city +is essentially public and political in character." Not a business +corporation in this country could place vast sums of money in the +hands of four of five men without the safeguard of some supervising +body. Yet New York City has an annual expenditure of $150,000,000, +equaled by the aggregate of seven other American cities of 400,000 +population; more than that of nations; three times that of the +Argentine Republic; four times that of Sweden and Norway combined. +Honorable Judges, the American people are too business-like ever to +place the entire raising, appropriating, and extending of such vast +sums of money, or the half, or the quarter, or the tenth of such, +in the hands of five men without the adequate check and safeguard +of some supervising and reviewing body, call it congress, +legislature, or council.</p> +<p>The gentlemen condemn divisions of powers because the city's +functions are of such a mixed nature and no strict line of +separation can be drawn. Granted. We have emphasized repeatedly +that we are not standing for division of powers; we are standing +for separately constituted bodies, which shall co-operate. We are +defending no system of disconnected committees which the gentlemen +have spent a whole speech in attacking, and we have shown, +furthermore, that the evils are only augmented by going to the +other extreme and completely confusing the functions in one small +body. The gentlemen see no difference between principles of +government and the form or mechanism which embodies, adequately or +inadequately, those principles. They forget that the National +Municipal League debated for three years over detail of form, never +once disagreeing as to the essential principle of distinct bodies +for legislation and administration. They forget that the model +charter, which is efficient because it has a proper co-ordination +of departments, is based upon the same principle of separately +constituted bodies as the old board system with its disconnected +departments and complicated machinery. Because the machinery has +been inadequate, owing to causes which the gentlemen have ignored, +they would abolish the working principle which is proved correct in +every instance of successful city organization, wherever found.</p> +<p>Just a word on this over-worked argument of centering +responsibility. Accountability means that a man charged with the +performance of a task shall be held undividedly responsible for it. +Now the commissioners collectively legislate. They can not do this +without constantly and seriously intruding upon the work of the +several departments. The moment this is done, responsibility is +diffused. The Hume incident, mentioned by my colleague, is abundant +illustration of the way responsibility is fixed under a commission +form. Says Professor F.I. Herriot, head of the department of +political science in Drake University and statistician of the Iowa +board of control: "A commission form cuts at the very roots of +official accountability and responsibility and, strange enough, it +is because its friends believe that it enhances fixing of +responsibility that they propose it." This from a scholar who has +watched the plan in operation. A commission form does not fix +responsibility, but even granting for the sake of argument that it +does, are we to sacrifice representative government for the sake of +fixing responsibility? If so, then why not make it still more +definite and establish one-man power? Honorable Judges, we have +shown that responsibility is more effectively centered by +establishing uniform accounting and publicity.</p> +<p>The affirmative contend that the commissioners will furnish +superior legislation. Now we do not say that knowledge of +administration is of no benefit in legislation. But the necessary +information can be secured without confusing the functions in a +small executive cabinet. In Europe it is done by making the cabinet +responsible to the council. In the United States, for example, +Baltimore, it is done by having the cabinet meet and co-operate +with the council. Nothing can be done by withholding the +information, and as a matter of fact, the city secures all the +benefit of the technical training of its administrators without the +disadvantage of confusion of functions.</p> +</div> +<p>Mr. Clarence Coulter opened for the Affirmative:</p> +<div class="blockquot"> +<p>It has been argued by the Negative that the success of the +commission form of government is based upon the assumption of +electing good men to office, and as an illustration, that the Des +Moines commissioners are inefficient members of the old city hall +gang. As it happens, however, one of the commissioners is a man +with a national reputation as a municipal expert, a man whose +honesty and integrity have never once been questioned. The +commissioner of public safety has been trained for his position by +long experience in municipal affairs and is a college graduate. +Admitting, however, for the sake of argument, that the gentleman's +contention is true; yet the unquestioned success of the Des Moines +government proves the wisdom of the commission plan, for it so +centralizes individual responsibility as to require honest and +efficient performance of duty on the part of each commissioner.</p> +<p>Now as to securing good men. In the first place, the negative +did not, and cannot, cite a single city in which the commission +plan has failed to secure good men. Better men are elected under +the commission plan, for the number of elective offices is greatly +decreased, while the responsibility and honor of the position is +relatively increased. Moreover, the government is put on a business +basis and the commissioners are given steady employment at a good +salary. They have an opportunity to make a genuine record for +themselves, as well as to serve the best interests of the city. On +the other hand, the fact that responsibility is definitely centered +on each commissioner will, in itself, prevent men of no ability or +grafting politicians from seeking office. Political parties no +longer have any opportunity of putting men of little ability into +office, but instead, competent men with a genuine interest in the +city affairs and with no party affiliations whatever, so far as +municipal affairs are concerned, will be attracted to the position +of commissioner.</p> +<p>The opposition go further and charge that, even though efficient +men may be elected to office, the commission plan makes impossible +the fixing of responsibility. They failed, however, to point out a +single instance in commission-governed cities to prove their point +and made no attempt to show how responsibility could be better +fixed under the present system. As a matter of fact, Honorable +Judges, the fixing of individual responsibility, under the present +system, is utterly impossible, as we have already shown, while it +is the strongest virtue of the commission plan. In matters of pure +administration it is absolutely impossible for the commissioner to +escape individual responsibility, for he has full charge of the +administration of his own department. In matters of legislation, +where the majority vote of the commission may determine a policy +affecting a certain commissioner, responsibility is not lost but is +fixed upon those few who voted for such policy.</p> +<p>It has been contended that the commission form of government is +unpopular and that this plan has been rejected in both Sioux City +and Davenport. That these cities rejected it is true. But why? +Sioux City turned it down because the constitutionality of the plan +had not, at that time, been determined. Davenport refused to accept +it because the grafting politicians and the political ring so +dominated the city's politics that they were able to defeat the new +plan and retain the old, which was best suited to the furtherance +of their own ends.</p> +<p>The gentlemen of the opposition have argued that the present +inefficiency of city government is due to the interference of the +state legislatures and contend that the ultimate solution of the +difficulty lies in greater municipal home rule. They are correct, +Honorable Judges! The state legislature has interfered. But why? +Simply because the city council has proved itself inefficient. New +York City's council was in full possession of its powers when the +state legislature began to interfere. Legislation by somebody was +necessary. The council failed, and now the negative say, give back +to the city its powers and let the council try again.</p> +<p>According to the gentlemen themselves, the end to be achieved is +less interference of state legislatures and more home rule. It is +obvious, however, that this can be accomplished only when the city +itself can put forth a capable and efficient legislative body. +Honorable Judges, in our second speech we proved to you, that the +commission provides a small but efficient legislative body, far +superior to that of an isolated council. If you want municipal home +rule, establish a form of government which makes it possible.</p> +</div> +<p>Mr. Charles Briggs replied for the Negative:</p> +<div class="blockquot"> +<p>My colleague has proved that whatever the form of government, +there must be a body capable of wise legislation, in fact, that +there must be a body that is primarily legislative in character no +matter what its connection or relation with the other departments +of government. That a small commission, burdened with +administrative and judicial functions, is not a proper legislative +body is at once apparent. My colleague has demonstrated that this +confusion of powers must result in inefficiency. But further than +this, it is our contention that a body such as is the commission, +without respect to the confusion of powers, without regard to the +administrative duties weighing upon it, that this commission, of +itself, is not suited to legislation.</p> +<p>There is no more reason for placing the legislation of the city +of Chicago in the hands of five men than that the state legislature +of Minnesota should be reduced to five members. It is true that, in +many respects, the legislation of a city differs from that of a +state, but it is, nevertheless, legislation, and in the larger +cities particularly it is necessary that there be a representative +legislative body. Five men no more constitute a proper legislative +body for 800,000 or a million people of a city than for that many +people outside the city. It is contrary to the fundamental +conception of a legislative body that it be composed of a few. In +no country of free institutions is a legislative body so +constituted. My colleague has proved, and it cannot be successfully +controverted, that in the city, as well as in the state, there is a +large field for legislation. Why, then, should there not be a +legislative body to perform the work of legislation? Why place the +work in the hands of a body that is primarily administrative in +character?</p> +<p>This objection alone must forever prevent the larger cities of +the United States from adopting the commission plan. Or, if +adopted, it must, for this reason alone, prove itself a +failure.</p> +</div> +<p>Mr. Robbins replied for the Affirmative:</p> +<div class="blockquot"> +<p>The Negative argue that the mechanisms of government in Boston +may differ from those of San Francisco. This is not a discussion of +the mechanisms of government. It involves deep and fundamental +principles relative to a given form of city organization. The +gentlemen have not, nor cannot, cite one iota of evidence that the +underlying principles of organization in the governments of Boston +and San Francisco should be different. The allusion to changing +mechanisms is no excuse for their failure to set in operation a +definite and positive form of organization. Yet the gentlemen have +ingeniously endeavored to evade this duty. Why have they done so? +Because every system of municipal organization based upon the +separation of powers—for which the gentlemen are +contending—has proved an admitted failure.</p> +<p>Do not the citizens of Brooklyn and San Francisco, as the +citizens of every American city, like to drink pure water? Don't +they desire good transportation facilities, and aren't they glad +when they have clean streets and honest administration? Why, then, +don't the gentlemen come forward, as the Affirmative has done, with +a specific form of organization which provides for the successful +administration of the underlying features of city government? +Instead, the gentlemen seem to delight in wandering across the +seas, telling what might happen if we would be indulgent enough to +pattern our form of organization after that of France, Germany, or +Bohemia. Yet they glibly refuse to consider that the city problem +of this country is distinctly American and is due to conditions +peculiar to America.</p> +<p>As a matter of fact, the gentlemen have held before us the +salient features of a half dozen opposing forms of organization, +none of which have succeeded individually, and the combined +features of which can make nothing more than a conglomeration of +theories and dogmas. Yes, the gentlemen have been painfully careful +not to put their scheme into practical operation.</p> +<p>They talk blandly of more home rule, when it is evident that +such a matter is actually beside the question at issue. In the same +way they speak at length of the cabinet system of England, +forgetting that the form the Affirmative is advocating involves the +underlying features of the cabinet system altered to meet +conditions peculiar to America. The commission form, Honorable +Judges, is an evolution of the cabinet form.</p> +<p>Likewise they have talked much of the need for a separate +reviewing body, citing the insurance scandals of New York state +legislature to prove their contention. Why don't they give +instances where a municipal reviewing body has checked fraud? The +reason is obvious. As Henry Baldwin writes, "Never has there been +an instance in American municipal history where the council has +stood out against the corruption of the administrative department." +Rather these so-called "reviewing bodies" are hand in hand with +graft. Look at the shameful conditions of the "reviewing bodies" of +Philadelphia, St. Louis, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh, with their +hands in the city treasury up to their elbows, and we realize +something of the absurdity of the argument for a separate reviewing +body to preserve efficiency and honesty in the city government. The +people should be the reviewing body of their government. Its +organization should be so simple, yet so complete, that every +citizen from the educated theorist to the humblest day laborer, can +review its facts with ease and understanding. This is the kind of +government the commission form supplies. Why don't the gentlemen +come forward with an organization equally as simple and +complete?</p> +<p>Then the gentlemen go on to tell how they will compel the +administrative officials to confer with their isolated "reviewing +body," and thus secure a proper co-ordination that has failed for a +century. Automatic mechanism in government can never take the place +of simplicity and responsibility. Such schemes are futile. The men +who can make mechanisms can break them. What we must have is a +government that compels efficiency and honesty, not one which +attempts to produce such results through theoretical +contrivances.</p> +<p>Finally, the gentlemen claim that the commission form has failed +in New Orleans and Sacramento. Will the gentlemen give their +authority for the statement that these cities had a commission +government? Every authority upon the subject which the affirmative +has found points to the conclusion, that the form of government +employed by these cities was not a commission form.</p> +</div> +<p>Mr. Starzinger closed for the Negative and said:</p> +<div class="blockquot"> +<p>The Affirmative have mentioned our authority. What we have said +in regard to Sacramento, Cal., is based upon excerpts from an +article by the Hon. Clinton White, published in the Cedar Rapids +<i>Evening Times</i>. Most of our facts concerning the southern +cities which adopted the new plan are taken from the reports of the +Des Moines investigation committee, headed by the Hon. W.N. Jordan. +We would be glad to submit these pamphlets to the gentlemen for +examination. The mere fact that Des Moines adopted the commission +form does not disprove the integrity of the authorities.</p> +<p>It is claimed that our stand is indefinite. True, we have not +offered a panacea for all municipal ills. But we have advocated +numerous reforms and have pointed out countless instances of +municipal success under various forms, yet all based upon the same +fundamental principle, that there be separately constituted +departments of government. One of the fatal objections to the +gentlemen's proposition is that they are attempting to blanket the +whole country with one arbitrary form, regardless of differing +conditions. They have completely ignored our cases of successful +city government. We demand that they explain them.</p> +<p>The gentlemen have said that state interference has been +precipitated by the decay of the city council. Yet they advocate +its complete destruction. Nothing could be more incorrect than to +say that special legislation was brought on as a result of an +inherent weakness in council government. Under the early council +system, there was practically no state interference. About the +middle of the last century, the board system was introduced and the +councils were shorn of their dignity and much of their legislative +power. Right there state dominion in local affairs began. These are +the unbiased facts as given by Professor Goodnow in his book on +city government.</p> +<p>In conclusion, Honorable Judges, the solution of the American +city problem will be best promoted by a program of reform which +strikes at the real causes of the evils, instead of the universal +overturning of all traditions and theories of government in the +hope of finding a short-cut road to municipal success. Give the +city a proper sphere of local autonomy. Co-ordinate the departments +of government, so as to establish responsibility and secure +harmonious action. Simplify present city organization without +destroying the two branches of government. Introduce new and +improving methods, such as non-partisan primaries, civil service, +uniform municipal accounting, and publicity of proceedings. Remedy +bad social and economic conditions. Arouse civic interest. Do this, +and there is no necessity for such a radical and revolutionary +change as the universal adoption of a commission form.</p> +<p>The new plan means, not alone a change in the form of +government, but a positive overturning of the working principle of +successful city organization the world over. Its experience has +been in the small towns for a short time, under unusual conditions, +amid aroused public sentiment. Even here it has shown fatal +weaknesses which the gentlemen have not satisfactorily explained. +It was abandoned by the only large city that ever tried it; and +cast aside as an abject failure by Sacramento, Cal., after fifteen +years of operation. In the face of these facts, the gentlemen would +have all American cities turn to this form as the final goal of +municipal success; a form which attempts to revive the old board +system of selecting administrative heads by popular vote; which, in +addition, centers the whole government of a city in a small +executive cabinet, without review or oversight; a form which, in +the words of Professor Fairlie, of the University of Michigan, "is +in direct opposition to the advancing idea of municipal home +rule."</p> +</div> +<p>Mr. Luxford closed the debate for the Affirmative, and said:</p> +<div class="blockquot"> +<p>The case for the Negative is now closed. It has been indefinite +from start to finish. They acknowledge the success of the +commission form but refuse to accept it as the proper form toward +which American cities should work. They have none to offer except a +form which is completely unknown in American cities and successful +alone in Europe under totally dissimilar conditions. We have shown +that every vital move for city improvement today is toward a +commission form, both in practice and theory. The gentlemen have +sought to overthrow the argument for the commission form, and yet +suggest no possible American substitute.</p> +<p>But the position is not only indefinite, but it is inconsistent. +At one time they say, "the commission form is working well in small +cities." In another they declare that the commission form ignores +the only principles which are at the basis of successful city +government the world over. Putting these statements together we +must conclude that the gentlemen who made the second statement +failed to hear the gentlemen who made the first. If they grant that +the commission form is successful anywhere in the world how can it +be that it is ignoring the only principles of successful city +government the world over?</p> +<p>But we would not be unjust to the gentlemen. They are not +perhaps altogether indefinite. They would keep the old mayor and +council plan but would have non-partisan primaries, uniform +municipal accounting, and publicity of proceedings. Non-partisan +primaries and publicity of proceedings they have stolen bodily from +the commission. We are grateful to the gentlemen for this hearty +indorsement of the material features of the commission form. As to +uniform municipal accounting, while it is just as possible under +the commission as under any other form of city government, its +advocacy by the gentlemen is inconsistent with their insistent +demand for municipal home rule. Who but the state can supervise a +uniform accounting of all cities? And the gentlemen have deplored +state interference.</p> +<p>Not only that, but the commission plan provides the necessary +responsibility whereby the citizens may know and participate in the +city government. In the first place the publication of monthly +itemized statements of all the proceedings is required. Every +ordinance appropriating money or ordering any street improvements, +or sewer, or the making of any contract shall remain on file for +public inspection at least one week before final passage. +Franchises are granted not by any legislative body but by direct +vote of the people. Similarly the citizens retain the right to +reject any ordinance passed, or to require the passage of any +needed ordinance. And finally, the citizens by direct vote may +remove any commissioner at any time.</p> +<p>Thus we see that the commissioners know both the legislative and +administrative side of the city's work, and the responsibility of +doing both is fixed upon them.</p> +<p>Lastly, Honorable Judges, the Affirmative rest their cases upon +these fundamental arguments: that the whole tendency in American +city government is toward centralization of power in one body; +where this concentration has been partial, city government has +failed. This failure is due largely to the fact that, while power +has centered, responsibility has been diffused. This unfortunate +condition has been obviated by the adoption of the commission form +which is found to be a success because it awakens civic interest, +secures competent officials, and provides in the best possible +manner for the legislative and administrative work of the city, +centering power and responsibility in one small body of men.</p> +</div> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2><a name="APPENDIX_IV" id="APPENDIX_IV"></a>APPENDIX IV</h2> +<h3>MATERIAL FOR BRIEFING</h3> +<h3>REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT</h3> +<h4>SPEECH OF HON. CHARLES F. SCOTT, OF KANSAS, IN THE HOUSE OF +REPRESENTATIVES, THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 1911</h4> +<p>(The House having under consideration the bill [S. 7031] to +codify, revise, and amend the laws relating to the +judiciary.—From the <i>Congressional Record</i>, March 3, +1911.)</p> +<p><i>Mr. Speaker</i>: In the ten years of my membership in this +House I have seldom taken advantage of the latitude afforded by +general debate to discuss any question not immediately before the +House. But there is a question now before the country, particularly +before the people of the state I have the honor to represent in +part upon this floor, upon which I entertain very positive +convictions, and which, I believe, is a proper subject for +discussion at this time and in this place. That question, bluntly +stated, is this: Is representative government a failure? We are +being asked now to answer that question in the affirmative. A new +school of statesmen has arisen, wiser than Washington and Hamilton +and Franklin and Madison, wiser than Webster and Clay and Calhoun +and Benton, wiser than Lincoln and Sumner and Stevens and Chase, +wiser than Garfield and Elaine and McKinley and Taft, knowing more +in their day than all the people have learned in all the days of +the years since the Republic was founded.</p> +<p>And they tell us that representative government is a failure. +They do not put this declaration into so many words—part of +them because they do not know enough about the science of +government to understand that the doctrines they advocate are +revolutionary, and the rest of them because they lack the courage +to openly declare that it is their intention to change our form of +government, to subvert the system upon which our institutions are +founded. But that is in effect what they propose to do.</p> +<p>Every school boy knows that in a pure democracy the people +themselves perform directly all the functions of government, +enacting laws without the intervention of a legislature, and trying +causes that arise under those laws without the intervention of +judge or jury; while in a republic, on the other hand, the people +govern themselves, not by each citizen exercising directly all the +functions of government, but by delegating that power to certain +ones among them whom they choose to represent them in the +legislatures, in the courts of justice, and in the various +executive offices.</p> +<p>It follows, therefore, that to substitute the methods of a +democracy for the methods of a republic touching any one of the +three branches of government is to that extent to declare that +representative government is a failure, is to that extent +subversive and revolutionary.</p> +<p>Now, it does not follow by any means that because a proposed +change is revolutionary it is therefore unwise. Taking it by and +large, wherever the word "revolution" has come into human history +it has been only another word for progress. Because a nation has +pursued certain methods for a long time it does not at all follow +that those methods are the best, although when a nation like the +United States, so bold and alert, so little hampered by tradition, +so ready to try experiments, has clung to the same methods of +government for 130 years, a strong presumption has certainly been +established that these methods are the best, at least for that +particular nation.</p> +<p>But is the new system wiser than the old—in the matter of +making laws, for example? The old system vests the law-making power +in a legislative body composed of men elected by the people and +supposed to be peculiarly fitted by reason of character, education, +and training for the performance of that duty. These men come +together and give their entire time through a period of some weeks +or months to the consideration of proposed legislation, and the +laws they enact go into immediate effect, and remain in force until +set aside by the courts as unconstitutional or until repealed by +the same authority that enacted them.</p> +<p>The new system—taking the Oregon law, for example, and it +is commonly cited as a model—provides that 8 per cent of the +voters of a state may submit a measure directly to the people, and +if a majority of those voting upon it give it their support it +shall become a law without reference to the legislature or to the +governor. That is the initiative. And it provides that if 5 per +cent of the voters are opposed to a law which the legislature has +passed, upon signing the proper petition the law shall be suspended +until the next general election, when the people shall be given an +opportunity to pass upon it. That is the referendum.</p> +<p>Now, there are several things about this plan which I believe +the people of this country, when they come really to consider it, +will scrutinize with a good deal of care and possibly with some +suspicion.</p> +<p>It is to be noted, in the first place, that a very few of the +people can put all the people to the trouble and expense of a vote +upon any measure, and the inquiry may well arise whether the cause +of settled and orderly government will be promoted by vesting power +in the minority thus to harass and annoy the majority. In my own +state, for example, who can doubt that the prohibitory amendment, +or some one of the statutes enacted for its enforcement, would have +been resubmitted again and again if the initiative had been in +force there these past twenty-five years.</p> +<p>Again, it will be observed that still fewer of the people have +it in their power to suspend a law which a legislature may have +passed in plain obedience to the mandate of a majority of the +people, or which may be essential to the prompt and orderly conduct +of public affairs, and when they come to think about it the people +may wonder if the referendum might not make it possible for a +small, malevolent, and mischievous minority to obstruct the +machinery of government and for a time at least to nullify the will +of the majority.</p> +<p>In the third place, it is to be remarked that a measure +submitted either by the initiative or the referendum cannot be +amended, but must be accepted or rejected as a whole, and we may +well inquire whether this might not afford "the interests" quite as +good an opportunity as they would have in a legislature to +"initiate" some measure which on its face was wholesome and +beneficent but within which was concealed some little "joker" that +would either nullify the good features of the law or make it +actively vicious, and which, through lack of discussion, would not +be discovered. Every day we have new and incontestable proof that +"in the multitude of counselors there is wisdom." But that wisdom +can never be had under a system of legislation which lays before +the people the work of one man's mind to be accepted in whole or +rejected altogether.</p> +<p>Once more let us observe that under this system, no matter how +few votes are cast upon a given measure, if there are more for it +than against it, it becomes a law, so that the possibility is +always present that laws may be enacted which represent the +judgment or the interest of the minority rather than the majority +of the people. Indeed, experience would seem to show that this is a +probability rather than a possibility, for in the last Oregon +election not one of the nine propositions enacted into law received +as much as 50 per cent of the total vote cast, while some of them +received but little more than 30 per cent of the total vote.</p> +<p>And finally and chiefly, without in the the least impeaching the +intelligence of the people, remembering the slight and casual +attention the average citizen gives to the details of public +questions, we may well inquire whether the average vote cast upon +these proposed measures of legislation will really represent an +informed and well-considered judgment. In his thoughtful work on +democracy, discussing this very question, Dr. Hyslop, of Columbia +University, says:</p> +<div class="blockquot"> +<p>People occupied with their private affairs, domestic and social, +demanding all their resources and attention, as a rule have little +time to solve the complex problems of national life. The referendum +is a call to perform all the duties of the profoundest +statesmanship, in addition to private obligations, which are even +much more than the average man can fulfil with any success or +intelligence at all, and hence it can hardly produce anything +better than the Athenian assembly, which terminated in anarchy. It +will not secure dispatch except at the expense of civilization, nor +deliberation except at the expense of intelligence. Very few +questions can be safely left to its councils, and these only of the +most general kind. A tribunal that can be so easily deceived as the +electorate can be in common elections cannot be trusted to decide +intelligently the graver and more complicated questions of public +finance or private property, of administration, and of justice. It +may be honest and mean well, as I believe it would be; but such an +institution can not govern.</p> +</div> +<p>That is the conclusion reached a priori by a profound student of +men and of institutions; and there is not a man who hears me or who +may read what I am now saying but knows the conclusion is +sound.</p> +<p>But, fortunately for the states which have not yet adopted the +innovation, we are not obliged to rely upon academic, a priori +reasoning, in order to reach a conclusion as to the wisdom of the +initiative and referendum, for the step has already been taken in +other states and we have their experience to guide us.</p> +<p>There is South Dakota, for example, where under the initiative +the ballot which I hold in my hand was submitted to the people at +the recent election. This ballot is 7 feet long and 14 inches wide, +and it is crowded with reading matter set in nonpareil type. Upon +this ballot there are submitted for the consideration of the people +six legislative propositions. Four of them are short and +comparatively simple. But here is one referring to the people a law +which has been passed at the preceding session of the legislature +dividing the state into congressional districts. How many of the +voters of South Dakota do you suppose got down their maps and their +census reports and carefully worked out the details of that law to +satisfy themselves whether or not it provided for a fair and honest +districting of the state? They could not amend it, remember, they +had to take it as it was or vote it down. In point of fact, they +voted it down; but who will say that in doing this they expressed +an enlightened judgment or merely followed the natural conservative +instinct to vote "no" on a proposition they did not understand? And +here is a law to provide for the organization, maintenance, +equipment, and regulation of the National Guard of the state. This +bill contains 76 sections. It occupies 4 feet 4 inches of this +7-foot ballot. It would fill two pages of an ordinary +newspaper.</p> +<p>And here is a copy of the Oregon ballot, from which it appears +that the stricken people of that commonwealth were called upon at +the late election to consider 32 legislative propositions. Small +wonder that it was well onto a month after election before the +returns were all in.</p> +<p>And here is another constitutional amendment in which the people +are asked to pass judgment on such simple propositions as providing +for verdict by three-fourths of jury in civil cases, authorizing +grand juries to be summoned separately from the trial jury, +permitting change of judicial system by statute prohibiting retrial +where there is any evidence to support the verdict, providing for +affirmance of judgment on appeal notwithstanding error committed in +lower court and directing the Supreme Court to enter such judgment +as should have been entered in the lower court, fixing terms of +Supreme Court, providing that judges of all courts be elected for +six years, subject to recall, and increasing the jurisdiction of +the Supreme Court. Is it any wonder that with questions such as +those thrust at them so large a percentage of the voters took to +the "continuous woods where rolls the Oregon" and refused to +express a judgment one way or the other? Now, with all possible +deference to the intelligence and the diligence of the good people +of Oregon, is it conceivable that any considerable proportion of +the voters of that commonwealth went to the polls with even a +cursory knowledge of all the measures submitted for their +determination?</p> +<p>As to the practical working of the referendum, I have seen it +stated in the public prints that four years ago nearly every +appropriation bill passed by the Oregon legislature was referred to +the people for their approval or rejection before it could go into +effect. As a result, the appropriations being unavailable until the +election could be held, the state was compelled to stamp its +warrants "not paid for want of funds," and to pay interest thereon, +although the money was in the treasury. The university and other +state institutions were hampered and embarrassed, and the whole +machinery of government was in large measure paralyzed. In other +words, under the Oregon law a pitiful minority of the people was +able to obstruct and embarrass the usual and orderly processes of +government, and for a time at least to absolutely thwart the will +of an overwhelming majority of the people.</p> +<p>A system of government under which such a thing as that is not +only possible, but has actually occurred, may be "the best system +ever devised by the wit of man," as we have been vociferously +assured, but some of us may take the liberty of doubting it.</p> +<p>But the initiative and referendum, subversive as they are of the +representative principle, do not compare in importance or in +possible power for evil with the recall. The statutes of every +state in this Union provide a way by which a recreant official may +be ousted from his office or otherwise punished. That way is by +process of law, where charges must be specific, the testimony +clear, and the judgment impartial. But what are we to think of a +procedure under which an official is to be tried, not in a court by +a jury of his peers and upon the testimony of witnesses sworn to +tell the truth, but in the newspapers, on the street corners, and +at political meetings? Can you conceive of a wider departure from +the fundamental principles of justice that are written not only +into the constitution of every civilized nation on the face of the +earth, but upon the heart of every normal human being, the +principle that every man accused of a crime has a right to confront +his accusers, to examine them under oath, to rebut their evidence, +and to have the judgment finally of men sworn to render a just and +lawful verdict.</p> +<p>Small wonder that the argument oftenest heard in support of a +proposition so abhorrent to the most primitive instincts of justice +is that it will be seldom invoked and therefore cannot do very much +harm. I leave you to characterize as it deserves a law whose chief +merit must lie in the rarity of its enforcement.</p> +<p>But will it do no harm, even if seldom enforced? It is urged +that its presence on the statute books and the knowledge that it +can be invoked will frighten public officials into good behavior. +Passing by the very obvious suggestion that an official who needs +to be scared into proper conduct ought never to have been elected +in the first place, we may well inquire whether the real effect +would not be to frighten men into demagogy—and thus to work +immeasurably greater harm to the common weal than would ever be +inflicted through the transgressions of deliberately bad men.</p> +<p>We have demagogues enough now, heaven knows, when election to an +office assures the tenure of it for two or four or six years. But +if that tenure were only from hour to hour, if it were held at the +whim of a powerful and unscrupulous newspaper, for example, or if +it could be put in jeopardy by an affront which in the line of duty +ought, we will say, to be given to some organization or faction or +cabal, what could we expect? Is it not inevitable that such a +system would drive out of our public life the men of real character +and courage and leave us only cowards and trimmers and time +servers? May we not well hesitate to introduce into our political +system a device which, had it been in vogue in the past, would have +made it possible for the Tories to have recalled Washington, the +copperheads to have recalled Lincoln, and the jingoes to have +recalled McKinley?</p> +<p>In all the literature of the age-long struggle for freedom and +justice there is no phrase that occurs oftener than "the +independence of the judiciary." Not one man could be found now +among all our ninety millions to declare that our Constitution +should be changed so as to permit the President in the White House +or the Congress in the Capitol to dictate to our judges what their +decisions should be. And yet it is seriously proposed that this +power of dictation shall be given to the crowd on the street. That +is what the recall means if applied to the judiciary; and it means +the destruction of its independence as completely as if in set +terms it were made subject to the President or the Congress.</p> +<p>Do you answer, "Oh, the recall will never be invoked except in +an extreme case of obvious and flagrant injustice"? I reply, "How +do you know?" It is the theory of the initiative that it will never +be invoked except to pass a good law, and of the referendum that it +will never be resorted to except to defeat a bad law; but we have +already seen how easily a bad law might be initiated and a good law +referred. And so it is the theory that the recall will be invoked +only for the protection of the people from a bad judge. What +guaranty can you give that it will not be called into being to +harrass and intimidate a good judge? There never yet was a +two-edged sword that would not cut both ways.</p> +<p>Mr. Chairman, I should be the last to assert that our present +system of government has always brought ideally perfect results. +Now and then the people have made mistakes in the selection of +their representatives. Corrupt men have been put into places of +trust, small men have been sent where large men were needed, +ignorant men have been charged with duties which only men of +learning could fitly perform. But does it follow that because the +people make mistakes in so simple a matter as the selection of +their agents, they would be infallible in the incomparably more +complex and difficult task of the enactment and interpretation of +laws? There was never a more glaring non sequitur, and yet it is +the very cornerstone upon which rests the whole structure of the +new philosophy. "The people cannot be trusted with few things," +runs this singular logic, "therefore let us put all things into +their hands."</p> +<p>With one breath we are asked to renounce the old system because +the people make mistakes, and with the next breath we are solemnly +assured that if we adopt the new system the people will not make +mistakes. I confess I am not mentally alert enough to follow that +sort of logic. It is too much like the road which was so crooked +that the traveler who entered upon it had only proceeded a few +steps when he met himself coming back. You cannot change the nature +of men, Mr. Chairman, by changing their system of government. The +limitations of human judgment and knowledge and conscience which +render perfection in representative government unattainable will +still abide even after that form of government is swept away, and +the ideal will still be far distant.</p> +<p>Let it not be said or imagined, Mr. Speaker, that because I +protest against converting this Republic into a democracy therefore +I lack confidence in the people. No man has greater faith, sir, +than I have in the intelligence, the integrity, the patriotism, and +the fundamental common sense of the average American citizen. But I +am for representative rather than for direct government, because I +have greater confidence in the second thought of the people than I +have in their first thought. And that, in the last analysis, is the +difference, and the only difference, so far as results are +concerned between the new system and that which it seeks to +supplant; it is the fundamental difference between a democracy and +a republic. In either form of government the people have their way. +The difference is that in a democracy the people have their way in +the beginning, whereas in a republic the people have their way in +the end—and the end is usually enough wiser than the +beginning to be worth waiting for.</p> +<p>We count ourselves the fittest people in the world for +self-government, and we probably are. But fit as we are we +sometimes make mistakes. We sometimes form the most violent and +erroneous opinions upon impulse, without full information or +thoughtful consideration. With complete information and longer +study, we swing around to the right side, but it is our second +thought and not our first that brings us there. Our intentions are +always right, and we usually get right in the end; but it often +happens that we are not right in the beginning. It behooves us to +consider long and well before we pluck out of the delicately +adjusted mechanism by which we govern ourselves the checks and +brakes and balance wheels which our forefathers placed there, and +the wisdom of which our history attests innumerable times.</p> +<p>The simple and primitive life of civilization's frontier has +given way to the most stupendous and complex industrial and +commercial structure the world has ever known. Incredible +expansion, social, political, industrial, commercial—but +representative government all the way. At not one step in the long +and shining pathway of the Nation's progress has representative +government failed to respond to the Nation's need. Every emergency +that 130 years of momentous history has developed—the +terrible strain of war, the harrassing problems of +peace—representative government has been equal to them all. +Not once has it broken down. Not one issue has it failed to solve. +And long after the shallow substitutes that are now proposed for it +shall have been forgotten, representative government "will be doing +business at the old stand," will be solving the problems of the +future as it met the issues of the past, with courage and wisdom +and justice, giving to the great Republic that government "of the +people, for the people, and by the people" which is the assurance +that it "shall not perish from the earth."</p> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2><a name="APPENDIX_V" id="APPENDIX_V"></a>APPENDIX V</h2> +<h3>QUESTIONS WITH SUGGESTED ISSUES AND BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY</h3> +<p>Below are several questions with issues suggested which should +bring about a "head on" debate. They should be useful at the +beginning of debating work or when time for preparation is somewhat +limited. A brief bibliography is in each case appended.</p> +<h4>"THE RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE SHOULD BE GRANTED TO WOMAN"</h4> +<p><i>Affirmative</i></p> +<ul> +<li>I. Woman wants the ballot.</li> +<li>II. Woman is capable of using the ballot wisely.</li> +<li>III. Where woman has had the ballot, the results have been +beneficial to the state.</li> +</ul> +<p><i>Negative</i></p> +<ul> +<li>I. A majority of women do not want the ballot.</li> +<li>II. Woman is incapable of using the ballot wisely.</li> +<li>III. A benefit has not resulted in those states which have +given woman the right to vote.</li> +</ul> +<p>BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY</p> +<p>"Success of Woman's Suffrage," <i>Independent</i>, LXXIII, +334-35 (August 8, 1912).</p> +<p>"Suffrage Danger," <i>Living Age</i>, CCLXXIV, 330-35 (August +10, 1912).</p> +<p>"Teaching Violence to Women," <i>Century</i>, LXXXIV, 151-53 +(May, 1912).</p> +<p>"Violence in Woman's Suffrage Movement: A Disapproval of the +Militant Policy," <i>Century</i>, LXXXV, 148-49 (November, +1912).</p> +<p>"Violence and Votes," <i>Independent</i>, LXXII, 1416-19 (June +27 1912).</p> +<p>"Votes for Women," <i>Harper's Weekly</i>, LVI, 6 (September 21, +1912).</p> +<p>"Votes for Women," <i>Harper's Bazaar</i> XLVI, 47, 148 +(January, March, 1912).</p> +<p>"Votes for Women and Other Votes," <i>Survey</i>, XXVIII, 367-78 +(June 1, 10.12).</p> +<p>"What Is the Truth about Woman's Suffrage?" <i>Ladies' Home +Journal</i>, XXIX, 24 (October, 1912).</p> +<p>"Why I Want Woman's Suffrage," <i>Collier's,</i> XLVIII, 18 +(March 16, 1912).</p> +<p>"Why I Went into Suffrage Work," <i>Harper's Bazaar</i>, XLVI, +440 (September, 1912).</p> +<p>"Woman and the State," <i>Forum</i>, XLVIII, 394-408 (October +1912).</p> +<p>"Woman and the Suffrage," <i>Harper's Weekly</i>, LVI, 6 (August +17, 1912).</p> +<p>"Woman's Rights," <i>Outlook</i>, <i>C</i>, 262-66 (February 3, +1912).</p> +<p>"Woman's Rights," <i>Outlook</i>, <i>C</i>, 302-4 (February 10, +1912).</p> +<p>"Concerning Some of the Anti-Suffrage Leaders," <i>Good +House-keeping</i>, LV, 80-82 (July, 1912).</p> +<p>"Expansion of Equality," <i>Independent</i>, LXXIII, 1143-45 +(November 14, 1912).</p> +<p>"Marching for Equal Suffrage," <i>Hearst's Magazine</i>, XXI, +2497-501 (June, 1912).</p> +<p>"Woman and the California Primaries," <i>Independent</i>, LXXII, +1316-18 (June 13, 1912).</p> +<p>"Woman Suffrage Victory," <i>Literary Digest</i>, XLV, 841-43 +(November 23, 1912).</p> +<p>"Woman's Demonstration; How They Won and Used the Votes in +California," <i>Collier's</i>, XLVIII, 17-18 (January 6, 1912).</p> +<p>"Recent Strides of Woman's Suffrage," <i>World's Work</i>, XXII, +14733-45 (August, 1911).</p> +<p>"Woman's Suffrage in Six States," <i>Independent</i>, LXXI, +967-20 (November 2, 1911).</p> +<p>"Women Did It in Colorado," <i>Hampton's Magazine</i>, XXVI, +426.</p> +<p>"Woman's Victory in Washington" (state), <i>Collier's,</i> XLVI, +25.</p> +<p>"Are Women Ready for the Franchise?" <i>Westminster</i>, CLXII, +255-61 (September, 1904).</p> +<p>"Argument against Woman's Suffrage," <i>Outlook</i>, LXIV, +573-74 (March 10, 1900).</p> +<p>"Check to Woman's Suffrage in the United States," <i>Nineteenth +Century</i>, LVI, 833-41 (November, 1904).</p> +<p>"Female Suffrage in the United States," <i>Harper's Weekly</i>, +XLIV, 949-50 (October 6, 1900).</p> +<p>"Ought Women to Vote?" <i>Outlook</i>, LVIII, 353-55 (June 8, +1901).</p> +<p>"Outlook for Woman's Suffrage," <i>Cosmopolitan</i>, XXVIII, +621-23 (April, 1900).</p> +<p>"Woman's Suffrage in the West," <i>Outlook</i>, LXV, 430-31 +(June 23, 1900).</p> +<p>"Movement for Woman's Suffrage," <i>Outlook</i>, XCIII, 265-67 +(October 2, 1909).</p> +<p>"Why?" <i>Everybody's</i>, XXI, 723-38.</p> +<p>"Woman's Rights," <i>Twentieth-Century Encyclopedia</i>.</p> +<h4>"THE AMERICAN NAVY SHOULD BE ENLARGED SO AS TO COMPARE IN +FIGHTING STRENGTH WITH ANY IN THE WORLD"</h4> +<p><i>Affirmative</i></p> +<ul> +<li>I. The scattered possessions of the United States demand the +protection of a large navy.</li> +<li>II. The expense of the proposed navy would be a judicious +investment.</li> +<li>III. The proposed enlargement of the navy would be a step +toward universal peace.</li> +</ul> +<p><i>Negative</i></p> +<ul> +<li>I. The geographical situation of the United States makes a +large navy unnecessary.</li> +<li>II. The expense entailed, if the proposed plan were put into +practice, would embarrass the United States.</li> +<li>III. To carry out the proposed plan would be to increase the +chances of war.</li> +</ul> +<p>BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY</p> +<p>"Relative Sea Strength of the United States," <i>Scientific +American</i> CVII, 174 (August 31, 1912).</p> +<p>"For an Adequate Navy in the United States," <i>Scientific +American</i>, CV, 512 (December 9, 1911).</p> +<p>"Humble Opinions of a Flat-Foot; Frank Criticism and Intimate +Picture of Our Navy, by a Blue-Jacketed Gob," <i>Collier's</i> L, +14-15; P., XIX, 22-23 (December 7, 1912).</p> +<p>"Importance of the Command of the Sea," <i>Scientific +American,</i> CV, 512 (December 9, 1911).</p> +<p>"The United States Fleet and Its Readiness for Service," +<i>Scientific American,</i> CV, 514 (December 9, 1911).</p> +<p>"Battle-ship Fleet in Each Ocean," <i>Scientific American</i>, +CII, 354 (April 30, 1910).</p> +<p>"Naval Madness," <i>Independent</i>, LXVIII, 489 (March 3, +1910).</p> +<p>"Our Naval Waste," <i>Nation</i>, XCI, 158 (August 25, +1910).</p> +<p>"Our Navy As a National Insurance," <i>Scientific American</i>, +CII, 414 (May 21, 1910).</p> +<p>"American Naval Policy," <i>Forum</i>, XLV, 529 (May, 1911).</p> +<p>"If We Had to Fight," <i>Cottier's</i>, XLVIII, 18 (November 18 +1911).</p> +<p>"Panama Canal and the Sea Power in the Pacific," <i>Century,</i> +LXXXII, 240 (January, 1911).</p> +<h4>"LOCAL OPTION IS THE BEST METHOD OR DEALING WITH THE LIQUOR +PROBLEM"</h4> +<p><i>Affirmative</i></p> +<ul> +<li>I. Other methods of dealing with the liquor problem have +failed.</li> +<li>II. Local option is consistent with American ideas of +government.</li> +<li>III. Local option is a proved success.</li> +</ul> +<p><i>Negative</i></p> +<ul> +<li>I. Local option is undesirable in theory.</li> +<li>II. Local option has not succeeded where tried.</li> +<li>III. There is a better method of dealing with this +problem.</li> +</ul> +<p>BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY</p> +<p>"Local Option; A Study of Massachusetts," <i>Atlantic</i>, XC, +433-40.</p> +<p>"Principle of Local Option," <i>Independent</i>, LIII, 3032-33 +(December 19, 1901).</p> +<p>"When Prohibition Fails and Why," <i>Outlook</i>, CI, 639-43 +(July 20, 1912).</p> +<p>"To Dam the Interstate Flow of Drink," <i>Literary Digest</i>, +XLIV, 106-7 (January 20, 1912).</p> +<p>"Psychology of Drink," <i>American Journal of Sociology</i>, +XVIII, 21-32 (July, 1912).</p> +<p>"World-Wide Fight against Alcohol," <i>Review of Reviews</i>, +XLV, 374.</p> +<p>"Drink and the Joy of Life," <i>Westminster</i>, CLXXVI, 620-24 +(December, 1911).</p> +<p>"Drink Traffic," <i>Missionary Review</i>, XXXII, 337-39 (May, +1909).</p> +<p>"Efforts to Promote Temperance since 1883," in L. B. Paton, +<i>Recent Christian Progress</i>, 446-71.</p> +<p>"Fight against Alcohol," <i>Cosmopolitan</i>, XLIV, 492-96, +549-54 (April, May, 1908); <i>Harper's Weekly</i>, LII, 6-7 (April +25, 1908).</p> +<p>"Foreign Anti-Liquor Movements," <i>Nation</i>, LXXXVI, 230 +(March 12, 1908).</p> +<p>"March of Temperance," <i>Arena</i>, XL, 325-30 (October, +1908).</p> +<p>"Social Conditions and the Liquor Problem," <i>Arena</i>, XXVI, +275-77 (September, 1006).</p> +<p>"Temperance Question," <i>Canadian M.</i>, XXXII, 282-84 +(January, 1909).</p> +<p>"Local Option Movement," <i>Annals of the American Academy</i>, +XXXII, 471-5 (November, 1908).</p> +<p>"Results of a Dry Year in Worcester, Mass.," <i>Map Survey</i>, +XXII, 301-2 (May 29, 1909).</p> +<p>"Local Option and After," <i>North American</i>, CXC, 628-41 +(November, 1909).</p> +<h4>"CAPITAL PUNISHMENT SHOULD BE ABOLISHED"</h4> +<p><i>Affirmative</i></p> +<ul> +<li>I. Capital punishment does not accomplish the purpose for which +it is intended.</li> +<li>II. Capital punishment is inconsistent with the teachings of +modern criminology.</li> +<li>III. There are other methods of punishment far more beneficial +than the death penalty.</li> +</ul> +<p><i>Negative</i></p> +<ul> +<li>I. Capital punishment decreases crime.</li> +<li>II. The cruelty of capital punishment has been greatly +exaggerated.</li> +<li>III. Society has found no crime deterrent so powerful as the +death penalty.</li> +</ul> +<p>BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY</p> +<p>"Does Capital Punishment Prevent Convictions?" <i>Review of +Reviews</i>, XL, 219-20 (August, 1909).</p> +<p>"Does Capital Punishment Tend to Diminish Capital Crime?" +<i>Harper's Weekly</i>, L, 1028-29; <i>Review of Reviews</i>, +XXXIV, 368-69 (1909).</p> +<p>"Meaning of Capital Punishment," <i>Harper's Weekly</i>, L, 1289 +(September 8, 1906).</p> +<p>"Plato on Capital Punishment," <i>Harper's Weekly</i>, L, 1903 +(December 29, 1906).</p> +<p>"Should Capital Punishment Be Abolished?" <i>Harper's +Weekly</i>, LIII, 8 (July 3, 1909).</p> +<p>"Whitely Case and Death Penalty," <i>Nation</i>, LXXXIV, 376-77 +(April 25, 1907).</p> +<p>"Death Penalty and Homicide," <i>American Journal of +Sociology</i>, XVI, 88-116 (July, 1910); <i>Nation</i>, VIII, 166; +<i>North American</i>, CXVI, 138; <i>ibid.</i>, LXII, 40; +<i>ibid.</i>, CXXXIII, 534; <i>Forum</i>, III, 503; <i>Arena</i>, +II, 513.</p> +<p>"Capital Punishment and Imprisonment for Life," <i>Nation</i>, +XVI, 193.</p> +<p>"Capital Punishment Anecdotes from Blue Book," <i>Ecl. M.</i>, +LXVI, 677.</p> +<p>"Capital Punishment Arguments Against," <i>Nation</i>, XVI, +213.</p> +<p>"Capital Punishment by Electricity," <i>North American</i>, +CXLVI, 219.</p> +<p>"Capital Punishment: Case Against," <i>Fortnightly Review</i>, +LII, 322; same article in <i>Eclectic Magazine</i>, CXIII, 518.</p> +<p>"The Crime of Capital Punishment," <i>Arena</i>, I, 175.</p> +<p>"Failure of Capital Punishment," <i>Arena</i>, XXI, 469.</p> +<p>"Why Have a Hangman?" <i>Fortnightly Review</i>, XL, 581.</p> +<p>"Punishment of Crimes," <i>North American</i>, X, 235.</p> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2><a name="APPENDIX_VI" id="APPENDIX_VI"></a>APPENDIX VI</h2> +<h3>A LIST OF DEBATABLE PROPOSITIONS</h3> +<p><b>SCHOOL QUESTIONS</b></p> +<p>Many of these, because of their local application, will be found +useful for class practice where time for preparation is necessarily +limited.</p> +<p>1. Coeducation in colleges is more desirable than +segregation.</p> +<p>2. Textbooks should be furnished at public expense to students +in public schools.</p> +<p>3. The adoption of the honor system in examinations would be +desirable in American colleges.</p> +<p>4. Final examinations as a test of knowledge should be +discontinued in X—— High School (or college).</p> +<p>5. All American universities and colleges should admit men and +women on equal terms.</p> +<p>6. The national government should establish a university near +the center of population.</p> +<p>7. The X—— College (or High School) should adopt +courses which more definitely fit students for practical +careers.</p> +<p>8. Intercollegiate football does not promote the best interests +of competing schools.</p> +<p>9. Intracollegiate athletic contests would be a desirable +substitute for intercollegiate athletics.</p> +<p>10. Secret societies should be prohibited in public high +schools.</p> +<p>11. National fraternities do not promote the best interests of +American-colleges and universities.</p> +<p>12. A college commons would be a desirable addition to +X—— College.</p> +<p>13. A lunchroom should be established in the X—— +High School.</p> +<p>14. Athletic regulations should not debar a student from playing +summer baseball.</p> +<p>15. No student in an American college should be eligible to +compete in intercollegiate athletics until he has begun his second +year's work.</p> +<p>16. All studies in the X—— College (or High School) +above those of the Freshman should be entirely elective.</p> +<p>17. In all public high schools training in military tactics +should be required.</p> +<p>18. Public high schools should be under state supervision.</p> +<p>19. Admission to American colleges should be allowed only upon +examination.</p> +<p>20. Academic degrees should be given only upon state +examinations.</p> +<p>21. The library of X—— College (or High School, or +city) should be open on Sunday.</p> +<p>22. A plan of self-government should be adopted for the +X—— College (or High School).</p> +<p>23. The terms "successful" and "failed" as the only indication +of grade work should be adopted by the X—— School in +place of the present plan or working.</p> +<p>24. Gymnasium work should be required in X—— +School.</p> +<p>25. Training in domestic science should be required of all girls +at X—— School.</p> +<p>26. Manual training should be a requirement of all boys at +X—— School.</p> +<p><b>SOCIAL QUESTIONS</b></p> +<p>27. The influence of the five-cent theater is beneficial.</p> +<p>28. A state board with power to forbid public exhibition should +exercise stage censorship.</p> +<p>29. Children under sixteen years of age should be prohibited +from working in confining industries.</p> +<p>30. Children under fourteen years of age should be prohibited +from appearing on the stage.</p> +<p>31. A minimum wage for women employees of department stores +should be enacted by the state of X——.</p> +<p>32. Public ownership of saloons would be a desirable method of +dealing with the liquor problem.</p> +<p>33. The English system of old-age pensions should be adopted by +the United States government.</p> +<p>34. Vivisection should be prohibited by law.</p> +<p>35. The publication of court proceedings in criminal and divorce +cases should be subject to a board of censorship.</p> +<p>36. Education under the direction of a state board, should be +required in the state prisons of X——.</p> +<p>37. The laws of marriage and divorce should be uniform +throughout the United States (constitutionality conceded).</p> +<p>38. Local option is the best method of dealing with the liquor +question.</p> +<p>39. The army canteen is desirable.</p> +<p>40. A system of compulsory industrial insurance should be +adopted by the state of X——.</p> +<p>41. An eight-hour law for all women workers should be enacted by +the state of X——.</p> +<p>42. Immigration should be restricted according to the provisions +of the Dillingham-Burnett bill.</p> +<p>43. Free employment bureaus should be established by the city of +X——.</p> +<p>44. Free employment bureaus should be established by the state +of X——.</p> +<p><b>POLITICAL QUESTIONS</b></p> +<p>45. A permanent national tariff commission should be +established.</p> +<p>46. The constitution should be so amended as to make more easy +the passing of amendments.</p> +<p>47. The restrictions on Mongolian immigration should be +removed.</p> +<p>48. The President of the United States should serve one term of +six years.</p> +<p>49. Complete public reports of all contributions to political +campaign funds should be required by law.</p> +<p>50. The Monroe Doctrine as a part of American foreign policy +should be discontinued.</p> +<p>51. The interests of labor can best be represented by a separate +political party.</p> +<p>52. The naturalization laws of the United States should be made +more stringent.</p> +<p>53. Aliens should be forbidden the ballot in every state.</p> +<p>54. The state of California is justified in her stand against +land ownership by aliens.</p> +<p>55. Permanent retention of the Philippine Islands by the United +States is not advisable.</p> +<p>56. The United States navy should be maintained at a fighting +strength equal to any in the world.</p> +<p>57. Direct presidential primaries should be a substitute for the +present method of presidential nomination.</p> +<p>58. Corporations engaged in interstate business should be +compelled to operate under a national charter.</p> +<p>59. The Panama Canal should be fortified.</p> +<p>60. The initiative and referendum in matters of state +legislation would be desirable in the state of X——.</p> +<p>61. From the standpoint of the United States the annexation of +Cuba would be desirable.</p> +<p>62. The fifteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United +States should be repealed.</p> +<p>63. The President should be elected by the direct vote of the +people of the United States.</p> +<p>64. Proportional representation should be adopted in the state +of X——.</p> +<p>65. The plan of proportional representation in present vogue in +the state of X—— should be abolished.</p> +<p>66. The use of voting machines should be required in all +elections in cities having a population of more than 10,000.</p> +<p>67. Public interest is best served when national party lines are +discarded in municipal elections.</p> +<p>68. Suffrage should be limited to persons who can read and +write.</p> +<p>69. Ex-Presidents of the United States should become +senators-at-large for life.</p> +<p>70. Ex-Presidents of the United States should be pensioned for +life at full salary.</p> +<p>71. The United States should adopt a plan of compulsory +voting.</p> +<p>72. The national government should purchase and operate the +express systems in connection with the parcel post.</p> +<p>73. Federal judges should be elected by direct vote of the +people.</p> +<p>74. Two-thirds of a jury should be competent to render a verdict +in jury trials in the state of X——.</p> +<p>75. The state of X—— should adopt a plan for recall +of state judges.</p> +<p>76. The state of X—— should adopt a plan allowing a +referendum of judicial decisions.</p> +<p>77. The appointment of United States consuls should be under the +merit system.</p> +<p>78. American vessels engaged in coastwise trade should be +permitted the use of the Panama Canal without the payment of +tolls.</p> +<p>79. All postmasters should be elected by popular vote.</p> +<p>80. The bill requiring ——, which is at present +before the X—— city council (X—— state +legislature, or Congress) should be defeated.</p> +<p><b>ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS</b></p> +<p>81. The Underwood tariff bill of 1913 would be a desirable +law.</p> +<p>82. The federal government should undertake at once the +construction of an inland waterway from the Great Lakes to the Gulf +(or from X to Y).</p> +<p>83. All raw materials should be admitted to the United States +free of duty.</p> +<p>84. A state law should prohibit prison contract labor in the +state of X——.</p> +<p>85. Federal government control of all natural resources would be +desirable.</p> +<p>86. Municipal ownership of street railways would be an advantage +to cities.</p> +<p>87. The Henry George system of single tax would be practicable +in the United States.</p> +<p>88. A graduated income tax would be a desirable addition to the +federal taxing system.</p> +<p>89. The boycott is a justifiable weapon in labor strikes.</p> +<p>90. The federal government should enact a progressive +inheritance tax.</p> +<p>91. The coal mines of the United States should be under federal +control.</p> +<p>92. Employers of labor are justified in demanding the "open +shop."</p> +<p>93. Irrigation projects to reclaim the arid lands of the West +should be undertaken by the United States government.</p> +<p>94. Courts for the compulsory settlement of controversies +between labor and capital should be created by Congress.</p> +<p>95. Industrial combinations commonly known as "trusts" are an +economical benefit to the United States.</p> +<p>96. The United States should establish and maintain a system of +subsidies for the American merchant marine.</p> +<p>97. No tax should be levied on the issue of state banks.</p> +<p>98. Permanent copyrights should be extended by the national +government.</p> +<p>99. The judicial injunction as an instrument in labor +controversies should be made illegal.</p> +<p>100. A law gradually lowering the present tariff, so that in ten +years the United States will be committed to a policy of free +trade, would be economically desirable for the United States.</p> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2><a name="APPENDIX_VII" id="APPENDIX_VII"></a>APPENDIX VII</h2> +<h3>FORMS FOR JUDGES' DECISION</h3> +<p>The first of the two following forms is a simple and commonly +used one; the second is more formal and is desirable when the +schools wish to point out carefully the principles upon which the +decision is to be based. A form such as the first, which allows the +judge entire freedom, is becoming the more popular.</p> +<p>I.</p> +<p>In my opinion, the better debating has been done by the<br /> +____________________________________________ team.</p> +<p>II</p> +<p>JUDGES' DECISION</p> +<p>[In rendering a decision, the judges are asked to act without +reference to their own opinion on the merits of the question. They +are not to consider that either contesting party necessarily +represents the actual attitude of themselves or of their school. +They are to act without consultation. A decision is desired based +solely on the quality of debating.</p> +<p>In determining the quality of debating, the judges are asked to +consider both matter and form. Grasp of the question, accuracy of +analysis, selection of evidence, and order and cogency of arguments +should be considered in judging matter. Bearing, voice, directness, +earnestness, emphasis, enunciation, and gesture should be +considered in judging form.]</p> +<p>DECISION</p> +<p>Considering the above instructions, I cast my ballot for the<br /> +_____________________________________________.</p> + +<p> </p> +<div>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 14090 ***</div> +</body> +</html> diff --git a/14090-h/images/img01.png b/14090-h/images/img01.png Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..d477618 --- /dev/null +++ b/14090-h/images/img01.png diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..8a28f4b --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #14090 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14090) diff --git a/old/14090-h.zip b/old/14090-h.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..51a6674 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/14090-h.zip diff --git a/old/14090-h/14090-h.htm b/old/14090-h/14090-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b9dbf98 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/14090-h/14090-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,5223 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> +<html> +<head> +<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" /> +<title>The Project Gutenberg eBook of Elements of Debating, by Leverett S. Lyon</title> +<style type="text/css"> +/*<![CDATA[ XML blockout */ +<!-- + p { margin-top: .75em; + text-align: justify; + margin-bottom: .75em; + } + h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 { + text-align: center; /* all headings centered */ + clear: both; + } + hr { width: 33%; + margin-top: 2em; + margin-bottom: 2em; + margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto; + clear: both; + } + ul {list-style: none;} + table {margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;} + li {margin-top: .5em;} + + body{margin-left: 10%; + margin-right: 10%; + } + + .linenum {position: absolute; top: auto; left: 4%;} /* poetry number */ + .blockquot{margin-left: 5%; margin-right: 10%;} + .pagenum {position: absolute; left: 92%; font-size: smaller; text-align: right;} /* page numbers */ + .sidenote {width: 20%; padding-bottom: .5em; padding-top: .5em; + padding-left: .5em; padding-right: .5em; margin-left: 1em; + float: right; clear: right; margin-top: 1em; + font-size: smaller; background: #eeeeee; border: dashed 1px;} + + .bb {border-bottom: solid 2px;} + .bl {border-left: solid 2px;} + .bt {border-top: solid 2px;} + .br {border-right: solid 2px;} + .bbox {border: solid 2px;} + + .center {text-align: center;} + .smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} + + .figcenter {margin: auto; text-align: center;} + + .figleft {float: left; clear: left; margin-left: 0; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: + 1em; margin-right: 1em; padding: 0; text-align: center;} + + .figright {float: right; clear: right; margin-left: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; + margin-top: 1em; margin-right: 0; padding: 0; text-align: center;} + + .footnotes {border: dashed 1px;} + .footnote {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;} + .footnote .label {position: absolute; right: 83%; text-align: right;} + .fnanchor {vertical-align: super; font-size: .8em; text-decoration: none;} + + .poem {margin-left:10%; margin-right:10%; text-align: left;} + .poem br {display: none;} + .poem .stanza {margin: 1em 0em 1em 0em;} + .poem span {display: block; margin: 0; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;} + .poem span.i2 {display: block; margin-left: 2em;} + .poem span.i4 {display: block; margin-left: 4em;} + hr.full { width: 100%; } + a:link {color:#0000ff; + text-decoration:none} + link {color:#0000ff; + text-decoration:none} + a:visited {color:#0000ff; + text-decoration:none} + a:hover {color:#ff0000} + pre.pg {font-size: 8pt;} + // --> + /* XML end ]]>*/ +</style> +</head> +<body> +<h1>The Project Gutenberg eBook, Elements of Debating, by Leverett S. Lyon</h1> +<pre class="pg"> +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at <a href = "https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a></pre> +<p>Title: Elements of Debating</p> +<p>Author: Leverett S. Lyon</p> +<p>Release Date: November 19, 2004 [eBook #14090]</p> +<p>Language: English</p> +<p>Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1</p> +<p>***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ELEMENTS OF DEBATING***</p> +<p> </p> +<h3>E-text prepared by Stephen Schulze<br /> + and the Project Gutenberg Online Distributed Proofreading Team</h3> +<p> </p> +<hr class="full" /> +<p> </p> +<h1>ELEMENTS OF DEBATING</h1> +<p class="center">A Manual for Use in High Schools and +Academies</p> +<p class="center"><i>By</i></p> +<h2>LEVERETT S. LYON</h2> +<p class="center"><i>Head of the Department of Civic Science in the +Joliet Township High School</i></p> +<p class="center">1919</p> +<h3>PREFACE</h3> +<p>This book pretends but little to originality in material. Its +aim is to offer the old in a form that shall meet the needs of +young students who are beginning work in debate. The effort has +been made only to present the elements of forensic work so freed +from technicality that they may be apparent to the student with the +greatest possible economy of time and the least possible +interpretation by the teacher.</p> +<p>It is hoped that the book may serve not only those schools where +debating is a part of the regular course, but also those +institutions where it is a supplement to the work in English or is +encouraged as a "super-curriculum" activity.</p> +<p>Although the general obligation to other writers is obvious, +there is no specific indebtedness not elsewhere acknowledged, +except to Mr. Arthur Edward Phillips, whose vital principle of +"Reference to Experience" has, in a modified form, been made the +test for evidence. It is my belief that the use of this principle, +rather than the logical and technical forms of proof and evidence, +will make the training of debate far more applicable in other forms +of public speaking. My special thanks are due to Miss Charlotte Van +Der Veen and Miss Elizabeth Barns, whose aid has added technical +exactness to almost every page. I wish to thank also Miss Bella +Hopper for suggestions in preparing the reference list of Appendix +I. Most of all, I am indebted to the students whose interest has +been a constant stimulus, and whose needs have been to me, as they +are to all who teach, the one sure and constant guide.</p> +<p style="text-align: right; margin-right: 10%;">L.S.L.</p> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>TABLE OF CONTENTS</h2> +<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary=""> +<tr> +<td> +<p><a href="#LESSON_I"><b>LESSONS</b></a><br /></p> +<div style="margin-left: 2em;"><a href="#LESSON_I"><b>LESSON I. +WHAT ARGUMENTATION IS</b></a><br /> +<a href="#LESSON_II"><b>LESSON II. WHAT DEBATE IS</b></a><br /> +<a href="#LESSON_III"><b>LESSON III. THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUCCESSFUL +DEBATING</b></a><br /> +<a href="#LESSON_IV"><b>LESSON IV. DETERMINING THE +ISSUES</b></a><br /> +<a href="#LESSON_V"><b>LESSON V. HOW TO PROVE THE +ISSUES</b></a><br /> +<a href="#LESSON_VI"><b>LESSON VI. THE BRIEF. THE CHOICE AND USE OF +EVIDENCE</b></a><br /> +<a href="#LESSON_VII"><b>LESSON VII. THE FORENSIC</b></a><br /> +<a href="#LESSON_VIII"><b>LESSON VIII. REFUTATION</b></a><br /> +<a href="#LESSON_IX"><b>LESSON IX. MANAGEMENT OF THE +DEBATE</b></a><br /> +<a href="#LESSON_X"><b>LESSON X. A SUMMARY AND A +DIAGRAM</b></a><br /></div> +<p><a href="#APPENDICES"><b>APPENDICES</b></a><br /></p> +<div style="margin-left: 2em;"><a href="#APPENDIX_I"><b>APPENDIX I. +HOW AND WHERE TO READ FOR MORE INFORMATION</b></a><br /> +<a href="#APPENDIX_II"><b>APPENDIX II. ILLUSTRATIONS OF ANALYSIS TO +DETERMINE THE ISSUES OF THE QUESTION</b></a><br /> +<a href="#APPENDIX_III"><b>APPENDIX III. A TYPICAL COLLEGE +FORENSIC</b></a><br /> +<a href="#APPENDIX_IV"><b>APPENDIX IV. MATERIAL TOR +BRIEFING</b></a><br /> +<a href="#APPENDIX_V"><b>APPENDIX V. QUESTIONS WITH SUGGESTED +ISSUES AND BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY</b></a><br /> +<a href="#APPENDIX_VI"><b>APPENDIX VI. A LIST OF DEBATABLE +PROPOSITIONS</b></a><br /> +<a href="#APPENDIX_VII"><b>APPENDIX VII. FORMS FOR JUDGES' +DECISION</b></a><br /></div> +</td> +</tr> +</table> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2><a name="LESSON_I" id="LESSON_I"></a>LESSON I</h2> +<h3>WHAT ARGUMENTATION IS</h3> +<ul> +<li>I. The purpose of discourse</li> +<li>II. The forms of discourse:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. Narration</li> +<li>2. Description</li> +<li>3. Exposition</li> +<li>4. Argumentation</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +<p>When we pause to look about us and to realize what things are +really going on, we discern that everyone is talking and writing. +Perhaps we wonder why this is the case. Nature is said to be +economical. She would hardly have us make so much effort and use so +much energy without some purpose, and some purpose beneficial to +us. So we determine that the purpose of using language is to convey +meaning, to give ideas that we have to someone else.</p> +<p>As we watch a little more closely, we see that in talking or +writing we are not merely talking or writing something. We see that +everyone, consciously or unconsciously, clearly or dimly, is always +trying to do some definite thing. Let us see what the things are +which we may be trying to do.</p> +<p>If you should tell your father, when you return from school, how +Columbus discovered America on October 12, 1492, and should try to +make him see the scene on shipboard when land was first sighted as +clearly as you see it, you would be describing. That kind of +discourse would be called description. Its purpose is to make +another see in his mind's eye the same image or picture that we +have in our own.</p> +<p>On the other hand, if you wished to tell him the story of the +discovery of America, you would do something quite different. You +would tell him not only of the first sight of land, but of the +whole series of incidents which led up to that event. If he could +follow you readily, could almost live through the various +happenings that you related, you would be telling your story well. +That kind of discourse is not description but narration.</p> +<p>Suppose, then, that your father should say: "Now tell me this: +What is the difference between the discovery of America and the +colonization of America?" You would now have a new task. You would +not care to make him see any particular scene or live through the +events of discovery but to make him <i>understand something which +you understand</i>. You would show him that the discovery of +America meant merely the fact that America was found to be here, +but that colonization meant the coming, not of the explorers, but +of the permanent settlers. This form of discourse which makes clear +to someone else an idea that is already clear to us is called +exposition.</p> +<p>And now suppose your father should say: "Well, you have told me +a great deal which I may say is interesting enough, but it seems to +me rather useless. What is the purpose of all this study? Why have +you spent so much time learning of this one event?" You would of +course answer: "Because the discovery of America was an event of +great importance."</p> +<p>He might reply: "I still do not believe that." Then you would +say: "I'll prove it to you," or, "I'll convince you of it." You +would then have undertaken to do what you are now trying to learn +how to do better—to argue. <i>For argumentation is that form +of discourse that we use when we attempt to make some one else +believe as we wish him to believe.</i> "Argumentation is the art of +producing in the mind of someone else a belief in the ideas which +the speaker or writer wishes the hearer or reader to +accept."<a name="FNanchor_1_1" id="FNanchor_1_1"></a><a href= +"#Footnote_1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a></p> +<p>You made use of argumentation when you urged a friend to take +the course in chemistry in your school by trying to make him +believe it would be beneficial to him. You used argumentation when +you urged a friend to join the football squad by trying to make him +believe, as you believe, that the exercise would do him good. A +minister uses argumentation when he tries to make his congregation +believe, as he believes, that ten minutes spent in prayer each +morning will make the day's work easier. The salesman uses +argumentation to sell his goods. The chance of the merchant to +recover a rebate on a bill of goods that he believes are defective +depends entirely on his ability to make the seller believe the same +thing. On argumentation the lawyer bases his hope of making the +jury believe that his client is innocent of crime. All of us every +day of our lives, in ordinary conversation, in our letters, and in +more formal talks, are trying to make others believe as we wish +them to believe. Our success in so doing depends upon our skill in +the art of argumentation.</p> +<h4>SUGGESTED EXERCISES</h4> +<p>1. Out of your study or reading of the past week, give an +illustration of: (1) narration; (2) description; (3) exposition; +(4) argumentation.</p> +<p>2. During the past week, on what occasions have you personally +made use of: (1) narration; (2) description; (3) exposition; (4) +argumentation?</p> +<p>3. Explain carefully the distinction between description and +exposition. In explaining this distinction, what form of discourse +have you used?</p> +<p>4. Define argumentation.</p> +<p>5. Skill in argumentation is a valuable acquisition for:</p> +<p>(Give three reasons).<br /> +(1)__________________________________________________<br /> +<br /> +(2)__________________________________________________<br /> +<br /> +(3)__________________________________________________<br /></p> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2><a name="LESSON_II" id="LESSON_II"></a>LESSON II</h2> +<h3>WHAT DEBATE IS</h3> +<ul> +<li>I. The forms of argumentation:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. Written.</li> +<li>2. Oral.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>II. The forms of oral argumentation:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. General discussion.</li> +<li>2. Debate.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>III. The qualities of debate:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. Oral.</li> +<li>2. Judges present.</li> +<li>3. Prescribed conditions.</li> +<li>4. Decision expected.</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +<p>Now, since we have decided upon a definition of argumentation, +let us see what we mean by the term "debate" as it will be used in +this work.</p> +<p>We have said that argumentation is the art of producing in the +mind of someone a belief in something in which we wish him to +believe.</p> +<p>Now it is obvious that this can be accomplished in different +ways. Perhaps the most common method of attempting to bring someone +to believe as we wish is the oral method. On your way to school you +meet a friend and assert your belief that in the coming football +game the home team will win. You continue: "Our team has already +beaten teams that have defeated our opponent of next Saturday, and, +moreover, our team is stronger than it has been at any time this +season." When you finish, your friend replies: "I believe you are +right. We shall win."</p> +<p>You have been carrying on oral argumentation.</p> +<p>If, when you had finished, your friend had not agreed with you, +your effort would have been none the less argumentation, only it +would have been unsuccessful. If you had written the same thing to +your friend in a letter, your letter would have been +argumentative.</p> +<p>Suppose your father were running for an office and should make a +public speech. If he tried to make the audience believe that the +best way to secure lower taxes, better water, and improved streets +would be through his election, he would be making use of oral +argumentation. If he should do the same thing through newspaper +editorials, he would be using written argumentation.</p> +<p>Argumentation, then, may be carried on either in writing or +orally, and may vary from the informality of an ordinary +conversation or a letter to a careful address or thoughtful +article.</p> +<p>What, then, is debate as we shall use the word in this work, and +what is the relation of argumentation to debate? The term "debate" +in its general use has, of course, many senses. You might say: "I +had a debate with a friend about the coming football game." Or your +father might say: "I heard the great Lincoln and Douglas debates +before the Civil War." Although both of you would be using the term +as it is generally used, you would not be using it as it will be +used in this book, or as it is best that a student of argumentation +and debate should use it.</p> +<p>The term "debate," in the sense in which students of these +subjects should use it, means <i>oral argumentation carried on by +two opposing teams under certain prescribed regulations, and with +the expectation of having a decision rendered by judges who are +present</i>. This is "debate" used, not generally, as you used it +in saying, "I debated with a friend," but technically, as we use it +when we refer to the Yale-Harvard debate or the Northern Debating +League. In order to keep the meaning of this term clearly in mind, +use it only when referring to such contests as these. In speaking +of your argumentative conversation with your friend or of the +forensic contests between Lincoln and Douglas, use the term +"discussion" rather than "debate."</p> +<p>It is true that the controversy between Lincoln and Douglas +conformed to our definition of "debate" in being oral; moreover, at +least in sense, two teams (of one man each) competed, but there +were no judges, and no direct decision was rendered.</p> +<p>Since argumentation, then, is the art of producing in the mind +of someone else a belief in the idea or ideas you wish to convey, +and debate is an argumentative contest carried on orally under +certain conditions, it is clear that argumentation is the broader +term of the two and that debate is merely a specialized kind of +argumentation. Football is exercise, but there is exercise in many +other forms. Debate is argumentation, but one can also find +argumentation in many other forms.</p> +<p>The following diagram makes clear the work we have covered thus +far. It shows the relation between argumentation and debate, and +shows that the specialized term "debate" has the same relation to +"discourse" that "football" has to "exercise."</p> +<pre> + / Miscellaneous + | Swimming + / Play | Skating +Kinds of | | Rolling hoop / Other athletic games +exercise | \ Athletic games \ Football + | + | + \ Work + + + + + / Description +Kinds of | Narration +discourse | Exposition + \ Argumentation / Written + \ Oral / General discussion + \ Debate +</pre> +<h4>SUGGESTED EXERCISES</h4> +<p>1. Be prepared to explain orally in class, as though to +<i>someone who did not know</i>, the difference between +"argumentation" and "debate."</p> +<p>2. Set down three conditions that must exist before +argumentation becomes debate.</p> +<p>3. Have you ever argued? Orally? In writing?</p> +<p>4. Have you ever debated? Did you win?</p> +<p>5. Which is the broader term, "argumentation," or "debate?" +Why?</p> +<p>6. Compose some sentences, illustrating the use of the terms +"debate" and "argumentation."</p> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2><a name="LESSON_III" id="LESSON_III"></a>LESSON III</h2> +<h3>THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUCCESSFUL DEBATING</h3> +<ul> +<li>I. The three requirements stated.</li> +<li>II. How to make clear to the audience what one wishes them to +believe, by:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. Stating the idea which one wishes to have accepted in the +form of a definite assertion, which is:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) Interesting.</li> +<li>(2) Definite and concise.</li> +<li>(3) Single in form.</li> +<li>(4) Fair to both sides.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>2. Defining the "terms of the question" so that they will +be:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) Clear.</li> +<li>(2) Convincing.</li> +<li>(3) Consistent with the origin and history of the +question.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>3. Restating the whole question in the light of the +definitions.</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +<p>To debate successfully it is necessary to do three things:</p> +<ul> +<li>1. To make perfectly clear to your audience what you wish them +to believe.</li> +<li>2. To show them why the proof of certain points (called issues) +should make them believe the thing you wish them to believe.</li> +<li>3. To prove the issues.</li> +</ul> +<p>Each of these three things is a distinct process, involving +several steps. One is as important as another.</p> +<p>It is impossible to prove the issues until we have found them, +but equally impossible to show the audience what the issues are +until we have shown what the thing is which we wish those issues to +support. First, then, let us see what we mean by making perfectly +clear what you wish to have the audience believe.</p> +<p>Suppose that you should meet a friend who says to you: "I am +going to argue with you about examinations." You might naturally +reply: "What examinations?" If he should say, "All examinations: +the honor system in all examinations," you might very reasonably +still be puzzled and ask if by all examinations he meant +examinations of every kind in grade school, high school, and +college, as well as the civil service examinations, and what was +meant by the honor system.</p> +<p>He would now probably explain to you carefully how several +schools have been experimenting with the idea of giving all +examinations without the presence of a teacher or monitor of any +sort. During these examinations, however, it has been customary to +ask the students themselves to report any cheating that they may +observe. It is also required that each student state in writing, at +the end of his paper, upon honor, that he has neither given nor +received aid during the test. "To this method," your friend +continues, "has been given the name of the honor system. And I +believe that this system should be adopted in all examinations in +the Greenburg High School."</p> +<p>He has now stated definitely what he wishes to make you believe, +and he has done more; he has explained to you the meaning of the +terms that you did not understand. These two things make perfectly +clear to you what he wishes you to believe, and he has thus covered +the first step in argumentation.</p> +<p>From this illustration, then, several rules can be drawn. In the +first place your friend stated that he wished to argue about +examinations. Why could he not begin his argument at once? Because +he had not yet asked you to believe anything about examinations. He +might have said, "I am going to explain examinations," and he could +then have told you what examinations were. That would have been +exposition. But he could not <i>argue</i> until he had made a +definite assertion about the term "examination."</p> +<p>Rule one would then be: State in the form of a definite +assertion the matter to be argued.</p> +<p>In order to be suitable for debating, an assertion or, as it is +often called, proposition, of this kind should conform to certain +conditions:</p> +<ul> +<li>1. It should be one in which both the debaters and the audience +are interested. Failure to observe this rule has caused many to +think debating a dry subject.</li> +<li>2. It should propose something different from existing +conditions. Argument should have an end in view. Your school has no +lunchroom. Should it have one? Your city is governed by a mayor and +a council. Should it be ruled by a commission? Merely to debate, as +did the men of the Middle Ages, how many angels could dance on the +point of a needle, or, as some more modern debaters have done, +whether Grant was a greater general than Washington, is +useless.</li> +<li>The fact that those on the affirmative side propose something +new places on them what is called the<i>burden of proof</i>. This +means that they must show why there is<i>need</i> of a change from +the present state of things. When they have done this, they may +proceed to argue in favor of the<i>particular change</i> which they +propose.</li> +<li>3. It should make a single statement about a single thing:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(Correct) In public high schools secret societies should be +prohibited.</li> +<li>(Incorrect) In public high schools and colleges secret +societies and teaching of the Bible should be prohibited.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>4. It must be expressed with such definiteness that both sides +can agree on what it means.</li> +<li>5. It must be expressed in such a way as to be fair to both +sides.</li> +</ul> +<p>But you noticed that your friend had not only to state the +question definitely, but to explain what the terms of the +proposition meant. He had to tell you what the "honor system" +was.</p> +<p>Our second rule, then, for making the question clear, is: In the +proposition as stated, explain all terms that may not be entirely +clear to your audience.</p> +<p>And in explaining or defining these terms, there are certain +things that you must do. You must make the definition clear, or it +will be no better than the term itself. This is not always easy. In +defining "moral force" a gentleman said: "Why, moral force is +er—er—moral force." He did not get very far on the way +toward making his term clear. Be sure that your definition really +explains the term.</p> +<p>Then one must be careful not to define in a circle. Let us take, +for example, the assertion or proposition, "The development of +labor unions has been beneficial to commerce." If you should +attempt to define "development" by saying "development means +growth," you would not have made the meaning of the term much +clearer; and if in a further attempt to explain it, you could only +add "And growth means development," you would be defining in a +circle.</p> +<p>There is still another error to be avoided in making your terms +clear to your audience. This error is called begging the question. +This occurs when a term is defined in such a way that there is +nothing left to be argued.</p> +<p>Suppose your friend should say to you: "I wish to make you +believe that the honor system should be used in all examinations in +the Greenburg High School." You ask him what he means by the "honor +system." He replies: "I mean the best system in the world." Is +there anything left to argue? Hardly, if his definition of the term +honor system is correct, for it would be very irrational indeed to +disagree with the assertion that the best system in the world +should be adopted in the Greenburg High School.</p> +<p>To summarize: <i>Define terms carefully;</i> make the definition +clear; do not define in a circle, and do not beg the question.</p> +<p>As you have already noticed, terms in argumentation, such as +"honor system," often consist of more than one word. They sometimes +contain several words. "A term [as that word is used in debating +and argumentation] may consist of any number of names, substantive +or objective, with the articles, prepositions, and conjunctions +required to join them together; still it is only one term if it +points out or makes us think of only one thing or object or class +of objects."<a name="FNanchor_2_2" id="FNanchor_2_2"></a><a href= +"#Footnote_2_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> In such cases a dictionary +is of little use. Take the term "honor system," the meaning of +which was not clear to you. A dictionary offers no help. How is the +student who wishes to discuss this question to decide upon the +meaning of the term? Notice how your friend made it clear to you. +He gave a history of the question that he wished to argue. He +showed how the term "honor system" came into use and what it means +where that system of examinations is in vogue. This, then, is the +only method of making sure of the meaning of a term: to study the +history of the question and see what the term means in the light of +that history. This method has the added advantage that a term +defined in this way will not only be entirely clear to your +audience, but will also tend to convince them.</p> +<p>A dispute may arise between yourself and an opponent as to the +meaning of a term. He may be relying on a dictionary or the +statement of a single writer, while you are familiar with the +history of the question. Under those circumstances it will be easy +for you to show the judges and the audience that, although he may +be using the term correctly in a general way, he is quite wrong +when the special question under discussion is considered.</p> +<p>To make this more clear, let us take a specific instance. +Suppose that you are debating the proposition, "Football Should Be +Abolished in This High School." Football, as defined in the +dictionary, differs considerably from the game with which every +American boy is familiar. Further, the dictionary defines both the +English and the American game. If your opponent should take either +of these definitions, he would not have much chance of convincing +an American audience that it was correct. Or if he should define +football according to the rules of the game as it was played five +or ten years ago, he would be equally ineffective.</p> +<p>You, on the other hand, announce that in your discussion you +will use the term "football" as that game is described in +<i>Spaulding's present year's rule book for the American game</i>, +and that every reference you make to plays allowed or forbidden +will be on the basis of the latest ruling. You then have a +definition based on the history of the question. As you can see, +the case for or against English football would be different from +that of the American game. In the same way the case for or against +football as it was played ten years ago would be very different +from the case of football as it is played today.</p> +<p>All this does not mean that definitions found in dictionaries or +other works of reference are never good; it means simply that such +definitions should not be taken as final until the question has +been carefully reviewed. Try to think out for yourself the meaning +of the question. Decide what it involves and how it has arisen, or +could arise in real life. Then, when you do outside reading on the +subject, keep this same idea in mind. Keep asking yourself: "How +did this question arise? Why is it being discussed?" You will be +surprised to find that when you are ready to answer that question +you will have most of your reading done, for you will have read +most of the arguments upon it. Then you are ready to make it clear +to the audience.</p> +<p>When you have thus given a clear and convincing definition of +all the terms, it is a good plan to restate the whole question in +the light of those definitions.</p> +<p>For instance, notice the question of the "honor system." The +original question might have been concisely stated: "All +Examinations in the Greenburg High School Should Be Conducted under +the Honor System."</p> +<p>After you have made clear what you mean by the "honor system," +you will be ready to restate the question as follows: "The question +then is this: No Teacher Shall Be Present during Any Examination in +the Greenburg High School, and Every Student Shall Be Required to +State on Honor That He Has Neither Given Nor Received Aid in the +Examinations."</p> +<p>Your hearers will now see clearly what you wish them to +believe.</p> +<p>Thus far, then, we have seen that to debate well we should have +a question which is of interest to ourselves and to the audience. +The first step toward success is to make clear to our hearers the +proposition presented for their acceptance. This may be done:</p> +<ul> +<li>1) By stating the idea that we wish them to accept in the form +of an assertion, which should be:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li><i>a</i>) interesting</li> +<li><i>b</i>) definite and concise</li> +<li><i>c</i>) single in form</li> +<li><i>d</i>) fair to both sides</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>2) By defining the "terms of the question" so that they will +be:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li><i>a</i>) clear</li> +<li><i>b</i>) convincing</li> +<li><i>c</i>) consistent with the origin and history of the +question</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>3) By restating the whole question in the light of our +definitions.</li> +</ul> +<h4>SUGGESTED EXERCISES</h4> +<ul> +<li>1. State the three processes of successful debating.</li> +<li>2. What are the three necessary steps in the first +process?</li> +<li>3. What qualities should a proposition for debate possess?</li> +<li>4. Give a proposition that you think has these qualities.</li> +<li>5. Without reference to books, define all the terms of this +proposition. Follow the rules but make the definitions as brief as +possible.</li> +<li>6. Make some propositions in which the following terms shall be +used:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) "Athletics,"</li> +<li>(2) "This City,"</li> +<li>(3) "All Studies,"</li> +<li>(4) "Manual Training,"</li> +<li>(5) "Domestic Science."</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>7. Point out the weakness in the following propositions +(consider propositions always with your class as the +audience):</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) "Physics, Chemistry, and Algebra Are Hard Studies."</li> +<li>(2) "Only Useful Studies Should Be Taught in This School."</li> +<li>(3) "All Women Should Be Allowed to Vote and Should Be +Compelled by Law to Remove Their Hats in Church."</li> +<li>(4) "Agricultural Conditions in Abyssinia Are Superior to Those +in Burma."</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>8. Compare the dictionary definition of the following terms +with the meaning which the history of the question has given them +in actual usage:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) Domestic science.</li> +<li>(2) Aeroplane exhibitions.</li> +<li>(3) The international Olympic games.</li> +<li>(4) Township high schools.</li> +<li>(5) National conventions of political parties.</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2><a name="LESSON_IV" id="LESSON_IV"></a>LESSON IV</h2> +<h3>DETERMINING THE ISSUES</h3> +<ul> +<li>I. What the "issues" are.</li> +<li>II. How to determine the issues.</li> +<li>III. The value of correct issues.</li> +</ul> +<p>When you have made perfectly clear to your hearers what you wish +them to believe, the next step is to show them why they should +believe it. The first step in this process, as we saw at the +beginning of Lesson III, is to see what points, if proved, will +make them believe it.</p> +<p>These points, as we call them, are better known as "issues." The +issues are really questions, the basic questions on which your side +and the other disagree. The negative would answer "No" to these +issues, the affirmative would say "Yes."</p> +<p>The issues when stated in declarative sentences are the +fundamental reasons why the affirmative believes its proposition +should be believed.</p> +<p>A student might be arguing with himself whether he would study +law or medicine. He would say to himself: "These are the issues: +For which am I the better adapted? Which requires the more study? +Which offers the better promise of reward? In which can I do the +more good?"</p> +<p>Should he argue with a friend in order to induce him to give up +law and to study medicine, he would use similar issues. He would +feel that if he could settle these questions he could convince his +friend. Now, however, he would state them as declarative sentences +and say: "You are more adapted to the profession of medicine; you +can do more good in this field," etc. If the friend should open the +question, he would be in the position of a man on the negative side +of a debate. He would state the issues negatively as his reasons. +He would say: "I am not so well adapted to the study of medicine; +it offers less promise of reward," etc.</p> +<p>Each of these would in turn depend upon other reasons, but every +proposition will depend for its acceptance on the proof of a few +main issues. Perhaps this point can be made clearer by an +illustration. Suppose we should take hold of one small rod which we +see in the framework of a large truss bridge and should say: "This +bridge is strong because this rod is here." Our statement would be +only partially true. The rod might be broken, and although the +strength of the bridge as a whole might be slightly weakened, it +would not fall. But suppose we should say: "This bridge really +rests on these four great steel beams which run down to the stone +abutment. If I can see that these four steel beams are secure, I +can believe in the security of the bridge." So a mechanical +engineer shows us that certain rods and bars of the framework hold +up one beam, and how similar rods and bars sustain a second, and +that yet other rods and bars distribute the weight that would press +too heavily on a third, and so at last we are convinced that the +bridge is safe. It is not because we have been shown that several +of the bolts and braces are strong, but because we have been shown +that the four great beams, upon which it rests, are reliable.</p> +<p>Thus it is with everything in which we believe. We do not +believe that taxes are just because the government must have money +to pay the president or to buy uniforms for the army officers. +These things must be done, but they are incidentals. They are +facts, but they are like the small braces of the bridge. We believe +that taxation is just, because the government must have money for +its work. Paying the president and buying uniforms are details of +this more fundamental reason.</p> +<p>In the same way we might say: "Athletics should be encouraged in +high schools because it will make John Brown, who will participate, +more healthy." That is a reason, but again only a small supporting +reason. We might rather choose a fundamental reason, which this +slight reason would in turn support, and it would be: "Athletics +should be encouraged in high schools because they improve the +health of the students that participate."</p> +<p>In a recent debate between two large high schools on the +proposition: "<i>Resolved</i>, That Contests within High Schools +Should Be Substituted for Contests between High Schools," one of +the contesting teams took the following as issues:</p> +<ul> +<li>1. Contests within high, schools will accomplish the real +purpose of contests better than will contests between schools.</li> +<li>2. Contests within high schools are the more democratic.</li> +<li>3. Contests within high schools can be made to work +successfully.</li> +</ul> +<p>When these three facts had been demonstrated, there was little +left to urge against the claim.</p> +<p>Recently among the universities of a certain section, this +question was discussed: "<i>Resolved</i>, That the Federal +Government Should Levy a Graduated Income Tax." (Such tax was +conceded as constitutional.) One university decided upon these as +the issues:</p> +<ul> +<li>1. Does the government need additional revenue?</li> +<li>2. Admitting that additional revenue is needed, is a graduated +income tax the best way of securing the money?</li> +<li>3. Could a graduated income tax be successfully collected?</li> +</ul> +<p>Here again if the debaters favoring a graduated income could +show that the government does need the money, that the proposed tax +is the best way to get it, and that such a tax would work in +practice, they would make the audience believe their proposition. +If the speakers on the negative side could show that the income of +the federal government is sufficient, that, even if additional +revenue is needed, this is a poor way to obtain it, or that this +plan, though good in theory, is impracticable, they would have a +good case. Thus in every question that is two-sided enough to be a +good question for debate, there are certain fundamental issues upon +which the disagreement between the affirmative and the negative can +be shown to rest. When either side has answered "Yes" or "No" to +these issues and has given reasons for its answer that will find +acceptance in the minds of the audience and of the judges, it has +won the debate. It is easy, then, to see why "determining the +issues," and showing the audience what these issues are, is the +second step in successful debating.</p> +<p>Although there is no fixed rule or touchstone by which an issue +can immediately be determined, there are several rules which will +aid in finding them.</p> +<ul> +<li>1. In all your thinking and reading upon the question, +constantly try to decide: (1) What will the other side admit? (2) +Is there anything that I am thinking of in connection with this +question that is not essential to it?</li> +<li>2. Do not try to make a final determination of the issues until +you are sure you understand the question.</li> +<li>3. Be always ready to change your issues when you see that they +are not fundamental.</li> +</ul> +<p>With these general rules in mind, think the question over +carefully. This process of determing the issues can, and should, go +on at the same time as the process of learning what the question +means. One helps the other. Having decided what will be the issues +of the debate, set those issues down under appropriate heads; such +as, "Is desirable," "Is needed," "Would work well," etc. Whenever +you think of a reason why a thing is not needed, would not work, +etc., put that down in a similar way. Now read more carefully (see +"Reading References," Appendix I) on both sides of the question, +and, whenever you find a reason for or against the proposition, set +it down as above. The best method of doing this is to have a small +pack of plain cards, perhaps two and one-half by four inches. Use +one for each reason that you put down. As you think and read you +will determine many reasons for the truth or falsity of the +proposition. Gradually you will see that a great many of them are +not so important as others and that they do not bear directly on +the question, but in reality support some more important reason +that you have set down. As you begin to notice this, go through +your pack of cards and arrange them in the order of importance. +Begin a new pile with every statement that seems to bear directly +upon the proposition and put under it those statements that seem to +support it. You will soon find that you have all your cards in two +or three piles. Now examine the cards which you have on the top of +each pile. See if the proof of these statements would convince any +person that you are right. If so you have probably found the +issues.</p> +<p><i>Always think first, then read, then think again</i>.</p> +<p>If you have determined the issues wisely, it will be easy in the +debate itself to show the audience and the judges what those issues +are. You will have a tremendous advantage over your opponent, who +in his haste or laziness may have chosen what are not the real +issues of the question. He may present well the material that he +has, but if that material does not support the <i>fundamental +issues</i> of the question, you are right in calling the attention +of the judges to that fact.</p> +<p>Few debates are won on the platform. They are won by thoughtful +preparation. Be prepared.</p> +<h4>SUGGESTED EXERCISES</h4> +<ul> +<li>1. Give in your own words, as briefly as you can, a definition +of the term "the issues of a question."</li> +<li>2. Give one illustration of your own of the issues of a +question.</li> +<li>3. What is meant by "determining the issues"?</li> +<li>4. Will the affirmative and the negative teams always agree on +the issues?</li> +<li>5. Can a question have two entirely different sets of issues? +Why, or why not?</li> +<li>6. If there can be only one correct set of issues for a +question, and you believe that you have determined those, what must +you do in the debate if your opponents advance different +issues?</li> +<li>7. Think over carefully and set down what you believe are the +issues of one of the following propositions. Frame the issues as +questions.</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1)</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>a) Football Should Be Abolished in This [your own] School.</li> +<li>b) Football Should Be Installed as a Regular Branch of +Athletics in This [your own] School.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>(2)</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li> +<pre> +a) Manual Training /Should Be Established in This + Domestic Science \ [your own] School. +</pre></li> +<li> +<pre> +b) Manual Training / /Boys /Should Be Made Compulsory + | For| |in This [your own] + Domestic Science \ \Girls \ School. + +</pre></li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>8. Are there any terms in any of the above propositions which +should be made more clear to an average audience? Are there any +terms on the meaning of which two opposing teams might +disagree?</li> +<li>9. Define one such term so that it would be clear and +convincing to an audience not connected with the school.</li> +<li>10. Give two reasons why you believe it is or is not beneficial +to study argumentation and debating.</li> +<li>11. If you were debating the question, "This [your own school] +Should Establish a School Lunch-Room," would you take as one of the +issues, "All students could obtain a warm meal at noon." Why, or +why not?</li> +</ul> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2><a name="LESSON_V" id="LESSON_V"></a>LESSON V</h2> +<h3>HOW TO PROVE THE ISSUES</h3> +<ul> +<li>I. What "proof" is.</li> +<li>II. A consideration of how "proof" of anything is +accomplished.</li> +<li>III. An infallible test of what the audience will believe.</li> +<li>IV. The material of proof-evidence.</li> +<li>V. Evidence and proof compared.</li> +</ul> +<p>Having determined what the issues are, and having shown the +audience why the establishment of these issues should logically win +belief in your proposition, all that remains is to prove the +issues.</p> +<p>Now it is clear that neither the audience nor the judges can be +led to agree with us and to accept our issues as proved, by our +telling them that we should like to have them believe in the +soundness of our views. Neither can we succeed in convincing them +by telling them that they ought to believe as we wish. The modern +audience is not to be cajoled or browbeaten into belief. How, then, +are we to persuade our hearers to accept our assertions as true? +The only method is to give them what they demand—reasons. We +must tell <i>why</i> every statement is true. This process of +telling why the issues are true so effectively that the audience +and judges believe them to be true is called the <i>proof</i>.</p> +<p>Naturally, the reasons that we give in support of the issues +will be no better than the issues themselves, unless we know what +reasons the audience will believe. And how are we to know what +reasons the audience will believe? We can best answer that question +by determining why we ourselves believe those things which we +accept. Why do we believe anything? We believe that water is wet; +the sky, blue; fire, hot; and sugar, sweet, because in our +<i>experience</i> we have always found them so. These things we +believe because we have <i>experienced</i> them ourselves. There +are other things that we believe in a similar way. We believe that +not every newspaper report is reliable. We believe that a statement +in the <i>Outlook</i>, the <i>Review of Reviews</i>, or the +<i>World's Work</i> is likely to be more trustworthy than a yellow +headline in the <i>Morning Bugle</i>. Our own experience, plus what +we have heard of the experience of others, has led us to this +belief. But there are still other things that we believe although +we have not experienced them at all. We believe that Columbus +visited America in 1492, that Grant was a great general, that +Washington was our first president. Directly, these things have +never been experienced by us, but indirectly they have. Others, +within whose experience these things have fallen, have led us to +accept them so thoroughly that they have become our experience +second hand.</p> +<p>If we are told that a man who was in the Iroquois Theater fire +was seriously burned, it seems reasonable to us because our +experience recognizes burning as the result of such a situation. +But if we are told that a man who fell into the water emerged dry, +or that a general who served under Washington was born in 1830, we +discredit it because such statements are not in accord with our +experience. We are ready, then, to answer our question: <i>"What +reasons will those in the audience believe?" They will believe +those statements which harmonize with their own experience, and +will discredit those which are at variance with their +experience.</i> This experience, as we have seen, may be first +hand, or direct; or it may be indirect, or second hand.</p> +<p>In every case, the speaker's argument must base every issue upon +reasons that rest on what the hearers believe because of their own +direct or indirect experience. Suppose I assert: "John Quinn was a +dangerous man." Someone says: "Prove that statement." I answer: "He +was a thief." Someone says: "If that is true, he was a bad man, but +can you prove him a thief?" Then I produce a copy of a court record +which states that, on a certain day, a duly constituted court found +John Quinn guilty of robbing a bank. All my hearers now admit, not +only that he was a thief, but also that he was a dangerous person. +I have given them a reason for my statement, and a reason for that +reason, until at last I have shown them that my assertion, that +John Quinn is a dangerous citizen, rests on what they themselves +believe—that a court record is reliable.</p> +<p>Sometimes an issue cannot be supported by a reason that will +come at once within the experience of the audience. It is then +necessary to support the first by a second reason that does come +within its experience. Remember, then, as the fundamental rule, +that the judges and audience will believe the issues of the +proposition, and, as a result, the proposition itself, only when we +show them, by the standard of their own experience, that we are +right.</p> +<p>The reasons that we give in support of the issues are, in +debating, called <i>evidence</i>. Evidence is not proof; evidence +is the material out of which proof is made. Evidence is like the +separate stones of a solid wall: no one alone makes the wall; each +one helps make it strong. Evidence is like the small rods and +braces of the truss bridge: no one alone supports the weight; each +helps to sustain the great beams that are the real support of the +bridge.</p> +<p>Suppose we had the proposition: "The Honor System of +Examinations Should Be Established in the Greenburg High School." +We assert: "There is but one issue: Will the students be honest in +the examination?" Now, what evidence shall we use to show that they +will be honest? We may turn to the experience of other schools. +After a careful investigation we find evidence with which we may +support the assertion in the following way:</p> +<p>The Honor System should be established in the Greenburg High +School, for:</p> +<ul> +<li>I. The student will do honest work under that system, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. Experience of similar schools shows this, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) This plan was a success in X High School, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li><i>a</i>) The principal of that school states [quotation from +principal], for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li><i>(a)</i> See <i>School Review</i>, Mar., 1900.</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>(2) This plan is approved by Y High School, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li><i>a</i>) Etc.</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +<p>Here the statements used in support of the issue are evidence. +If the evidence is strong enough to bring conviction to the +audience to which you are speaking, it is proof.</p> +<p>But notice here an important point. Why should this tend to make +those in the audience believe that the honor system should be +adopted? Simply because we have shown them that it has worked well +elsewhere, and <i>their own experience tells them that what has +been a benefit in other schools similar to this will be a benefit +here</i>.</p> +<p>And in its final analysis this evidence is no stronger than the +words of the men who state that it has worked in schools (X) and +(Y).</p> +<p><i>If the experience of the audience</i> is that these men are +untruthful or likely to exaggerate, our evidence will not be good +evidence. If the experience of the audience is that these men are +capable, honest, and reliable, this evidence will go far toward +gaining acceptance of, and belief in, our proposition.</p> +<p>Many attempts have been made to put evidence into different +classes and to give tests of good evidence. There is but one rule +that the debater needs to use: <i>In judging evidence for a debate +consider what the effect will be on the audience and the judges. +Will it be convincing to them</i>? In other words, will it make +their own experience quickly and strongly support the issues?</p> +<p>Time is always limited in a debate. The wise debater will then +choose that evidence which will most quickly make his hearers feel +that their own experience proves him right. When the speaker has +done this, he has chosen the best evidence and has used enough of +it.</p> +<p>In courts of law where witnesses appear in every case and +testify as to circumstances that did or did not occur, it is +necessary that the jury be able to distinguish carefully between +what it should and should not believe. Witnesses often have a keen +personal interest in the verdict and, therefore, are inclined to +tell less or more than the truth. Sometimes witnesses are relatives +of persons who would suffer if the case were decided against them +and they have a tendency to give unfair testimony.</p> +<p>In order that the jury may decide as fairly as possible what +evidence is sound and what is not, the attorneys on each side of +the case make out a copy of what are called instructions. These are +given to the judge who, provided he approves of them, reads them to +the jury. Usually these instructions urge the jurors to consider +four things. They must consider, first, whether or not the +statements of the witness are probable; that is, are they +consistent with human experience? Do they seem reasonable and +natural? A second thing which the jury is told to bear in mind is +the opportunity which the witness had of observing the facts of +which he speaks. Was he in a position to be familiar with the thing +he describes? In this connection, the jury is sometimes instructed +to consider the physical and mental qualities of the witness. Is he +a man who is physically and mentally able to judge what he observes +under such circumstances? A third factor which the jury must +consider is the possibility of prejudice on the part of the +witness. Has he any reason to feel more favorably toward one side +than toward the other? Is the defendant his friend or relative or +employer? A final consideration is what is commonly called +"interest in the case." It is clear that if the witness will be +benefited by a certain verdict, he may be inclined to frame his +evidence in such a way that it will tend toward that verdict. All +these considerations are based on the rule of referring to +experience. What a judge really says in a charge to the jury is +this: "Does your experience warn you that the testimony of some of +these witnesses is unsound? Determine upon that basis in what +respects these witnesses have told the whole truth and in what +respects they have not."</p> +<p>To summarize: The issues of a proposition are proved by being +supported with evidence. Since evidence is the material with which +we build the connection between the issues and the experience of +the audience, that evidence will be best which will receive the +quickest and strongest support from the experience of the +hearers.<a name="FNanchor_3_3" id="FNanchor_3_3"></a><a href= +"#Footnote_3_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a></p> +<h4>SUGGESTED EXERCISES</h4> +<p>1. In the following extract from a speech of Burke, the famous +debater has asserted that it is undesirable to use force upon the +American colonies. State the four main reasons why he thinks so. +Under each principal reason, put the reasons or evidence with which +it is supported. Is this evidence convincing? Why, or why not?</p> +<div class="blockquot"> +<p>First, Sir, permit me to observe that the use of force alone is +but temporary. It may subdue for a moment, but it does not remove +the necessity of subduing again; and a nation is not governed which +is perpetually to be conquered.</p> +<p>My next objection is its uncertainty. Terror is not always the +effect of force, and an armament is not a victory. If you do not +succeed, you are without resource; for, conciliation failing, force +remains; but, force failing, no further hope of reconciliation is +left. Power and authority are sometimes bought by kindness; but +they can never be begged as alms by an impoverished and defeated +violence.</p> +<p>A further objection to force is that you impair the object by +your very endeavor to preserve it. The thing you fought for is not +the thing which you recover; but depreciated, sunk, wasted, and +consumed in the contest. Nothing less will content me than whole +America. I do not choose to consume its strength along with our +own, because in all parts it is the British strength that I +consume. I do not choose to be caught by a foreign enemy at the end +of this exhausting conflict; and still less in the midst of it. I +may escape; but I can make no insurance against such an event. Let +me add that I do not choose wholly to break the American spirit: +because it is the spirit that has made the country.</p> +<p>Lastly, we have no sort of experience in favor of force as an +instrument in the rule of our Colonies. Their growth and their +utility has been owing to methods altogether different. Our ancient +indulgence has been said to be pursued to a fault. It may be so. +But we know, if feeling is evidence, that our fault was more +tolerable than our attempt to mend it; and our sin far more +salutary than our penitence.</p> +</div> +<p>2. Wells's <i>Geometry</i> gives the following proposition: "Two +perpendiculars to the same straight line are parallel." The +evidence given is: "If they are not parallel, they will, if +sufficiently produced, meet at some point, which is impossible, +because from a given point without a straight line but one +perpendicular can be drawn." Is this evidence sufficient to +constitute proof? Does it convince you? Why, or why not?</p> +<p>3. Set down as much evidence as you can think of in ten minutes, +to convince a business man that a high-school education is an +advantage in business life.</p> +<p>4. Support the statement that football has benefited or harmed +this school, with five truthful statements that are evidence. +Indicate which ones would be most effective, if you were speaking +to the students, and which would make the strongest impression on +the faculty.</p> +<p>5. In the following statements of testimony, tell which ones +would be good evidence and which not. Tell why or why not in each +case.</p> +<div class="blockquot"> +<p>(1) X, a student, was told that unless he should point out the +pupil who had put matches on the floor, he would be expelled. X +then said that Y was guilty.</p> +<p>(2) James Brown, a teamster, asserts that the use of alcohol is +beneficial to all persons.</p> +<p>(3) John Burns, a labor leader, declares that labor unions are +beneficial to trade.</p> +<p>(4) F. W. McCorkle, a large manufacturer, states that labor +unions have proved beneficial to commerce.</p> +<p>(5) Professor Sheldon, a college president and profound student +of economics, has declared that labor unions help the trade of the +world.</p> +<p>(6) Henry Hawkins, a student at the Johnstown High School, +asserts that they have the best football team in the state.</p> +<p>(7) M. Metchnikoff, chief attendant at the Pasteur Institute, +says: "As for myself, I am convinced that alcohol is a poison." M. +Berthelot, member of the Academy of Science and Medicine, states: +"Alcohol is not a food, even though it may be a fuel."</p> +<p>(8) Lord Chatham, a member of the English Parliament, said, in +speaking of the Revolutionary War: "It is a struggle of free and +virtuous patriots."</p> +</div> +<p>6. On the basis of your answers to 5, state three conditions +that would make a man's speaking or writing weak evidence as +testimony; three that would make a man's testimony strong.</p> +<p>7. In Exercise 5 is (3), (4), or (5) the strongest testimony in +favor of labor unions. Why? Which is next?</p> +<p>8. Can you see one danger of relying on testimony alone for +evidence?</p> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2><a name="LESSON_VI" id="LESSON_VI"></a>LESSON VI</h2> +<h4>THE BRIEF. THE CHOICE AND USE OF EVIDENCE</h4> +<ul> +<li>I. What the brief is.</li> +<li>II. What the brief does.</li> +<li>III. Parts of the brief:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. The introduction in which—</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) The end desired is made clear.</li> +<li>(2) The issues are determined.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>2. The proof, which states the issues as facts and proves +them.</li> +<li>3. The conclusion, which is a formal summary of the proof.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>IV. A specimen model brief.</li> +<li>V. A specimen special brief.</li> +<li>VI. Rules for briefing.</li> +</ul> +<p>When a builder begins the construction of a wall, he must have +the proper material at hand. When an engineer begins the +construction of a steel bridge, he must have metal of the right +forms and shapes. Neither of these men, however, can accomplish the +end which he has in mind unless he takes this material and puts it +together in the proper way. So it is with the debater. He may have +plenty of good evidence, but he will never win unless that evidence +is organized, that is, put together in the most effective +manner.</p> +<p>The builder, if he were building a wall of concrete, would get +the correct form by pouring the concrete into a mold. So also, +there is a mold which the debater should use in shaping his +evidence. When the evidence has been put into this form, the +debater is said to have constructed a <i>brief</i>.</p> +<p>In a previous lesson we saw how we might prove that John Quinn +was a dangerous man by using the evidence of a court record. If we +had put that evidence in brief-form we should have had this:</p> +<ul> +<li>John Quinn was a dangerous man, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. He was a thief, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) The Illinois state courts found him guilty of robbing a +bank, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li><i>a</i>) See <i>Ill. Court Reports</i>, Vol. X., p. 83.</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +<p>The brief, then, is a concise, logical outline of everything +that the speaker wishes to say to the audience.</p> +<p>Its purpose is to indicate in the most definite form every step +through which the hearers must be taken in order that the +proposition may at last be fully accepted by their experience.</p> +<p>The brief is for the debater himself. He does not show it to the +audience. It is the framework of his argument. It is the path +which, if carefully marked out, will lead to success.</p> +<p>Now, as we have seen, there are three principal steps in +debating:</p> +<ul> +<li>1. Making clear what you wish the audience to believe.</li> +<li>2. Showing the audience why the establishing of certain issues +should make them believe this.</li> +<li>3. Proving these issues.</li> +</ul> +<p>The first two of these steps constitute what in the brief is +called the <i>Introduction</i>.</p> +<p>The third step, proving the issues, is the largest part of the +brief and is called the <i>Body</i> or the <i>Proof</i>.</p> +<p>In addition to these two divisions of the brief there is a sort +of formal summary at the end called the <i>Conclusion</i>.</p> +<p>The skeleton of a brief then would be as follows:</p> +<p><b>INTRODUCTION</b></p> +<p>In which: (1) the desired end is made clear; (2) the issues are +determined.</p> +<p><b>PROOF</b></p> +<p>In which the issues are stated as declarations or assertions and +definite reasons are given why each one should be believed. These +reasons are in turn supported by other reasons until the assertion +is finally brought within the hearers' experience.</p> +<p><b>CONCLUSION</b></p> +<p>In which the proof is summarized.</p> +<p>Of course no two briefs are identical, but all must follow this +general plan. Suppose we look at what might be called a model +brief.</p> +<p><b>MODEL BRIEF</b></p> +<p>Statement of proposition.</p> +<p><b>INTRODUCTION</b></p> +<ul> +<li>I. Definition of terms.</li> +<li>II. Restatement of question in light of these terms.</li> +<li>III. Determination of issues.</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. Statement of what both sides admit.</li> +<li>2. Statement of what is irrelevant.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>IV. Statement of the issues.</li> +</ul> +<p><b>PROOF</b></p> +<ul> +<li>I. The first issue is true, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. This reason, which is true, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) This reason, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li><i>a</i>) This reason.</li> +<li><i>b</i>) This reason.</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>2. This reason, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) This evidence.</li> +<li>(2) This authority.</li> +<li>(3) This testimony, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li><i>a</i>) See Vol. X, p. —, of report, document, +magazine, or book.</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>II. The second issue is true, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. This reason, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) This reason.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>2. This reason, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) This reason.</li> +<li>(2) This reason.</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>III. The third issue is true, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. This reason, etc.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>IV. The fourth issue is true, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. This reason, etc.</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +<p><b>CONCLUSION</b></p> +<p>Therefore, since we have shown: (1) that the first issue is true +by this evidence, (2) that the second issue is well founded by this +evidence; (3) that the third and fourth, etc.; we conclude that our +proposition is true.</p> +<p>Now, let us look at a special brief, made out in a high-school +debate, for a special subject.</p> +<p>The preceding is an affirmative brief and there were four +issues. In the following we have a negative brief, in which there +were three issues. Refutation is introduced near the close of the +proof.</p> +<p>Of this we shall see more in the next lesson.</p> +<p><b>BRIEF FOR NEGATIVE</b></p> +<p>INTRA-HIGH-SCHOOL CONTESTS SHOULD BE SUBSTITUTED FOR +INTER-HIGH-SCHOOL CONTESTS IN THE HIGH SCHOOLS OF NORTHERN +ILLINOIS</p> +<p><b>INTRODUCTION</b></p> +<ul> +<li>I. Definition of terms.</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. Contests, ordinary competitions in:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li><i>a</i>) Athletics.</li> +<li><i>b</i>) Debating.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>2. Intra-high-school contests (contests within each +school).</li> +<li>3. Inter-high-school contests (contests between different high +schools).</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>II. Restatement of question in light of these definitions. +Contests within each high school should be substituted for contests +between high schools in Northern Illinois.</li> +<li>III. Determination of issues.</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. It is admitted that:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li><i>a</i>) Inter and intra contests both exist at present in the +high schools of Northern Illinois.</li> +<li><i>b</i>) Contest work is a desirable form of training.</li> +<li><i>c</i>) Not all contests should be abolished.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>2. Certain educators have asserted that:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li><i>a</i>) The inter form of contests is open to abuses.</li> +<li><i>b</i>) The intra contests would be more democratic.</li> +<li><i>c</i>) Intra contests would be practicable.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>3. Other educators disagree with these assertions.</li> +<li>4. The issues, then, are:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li><i>a</i>) Are the inter contests so widely abused in the high +schools of Northern Illinois as to warrant their abolition?</li> +<li><i>b</i>) Would the proposed plan be more democratic than the +present system?</li> +<li><i>c</i>) Would the proposed plan work out in practice?</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +<p><b>PROOF</b></p> +<ul> +<li>I. Contests between the high schools of Northern Illinois are +not subject to such abuses as will warrant their abolition, +for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>A. If the abuses alleged against athletic contests ever +existed, they are now extinct, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. The alleged danger of injury to players physically unfit is +not an existing danger, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) It has been made impossible by the rules >of the +schools, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li><i>a</i>) This high school requires a physician's certificate +of fitness before participation in any athletic contest, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(<i>a</i>) Extract from athletic rulings of school board.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li><i>b</i>) Our opponent's high school has a similar regulation, +for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(<i>a</i>) Extract from school paper of opponents.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li><i>c</i>) The X High School has the same ruling.</li> +<li><i>d</i>) The Y High School has the same requirement.</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>2. The charge that athletic contests between high schools make +the contestants poor students is without sound basis, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) A high standard of scholarship is required of all +inter-high-school athletic contestants, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li><i>a</i>) Regulations of Illinois Athletic Association.</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>B. The evils charged against inter-high-school debating cannot +be cured by the proposed scheme, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. They are due, when they exist, not to the form of contest, +but to improper coaching, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) "Too much training," one of the evils charged, is an +example of this.</li> +<li>(2) Unfair use of evidence, the other evil alleged, is simply +an evil of improper coaching.</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>II. The proposed plan would not be so democratic as the present +system, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>A. The present plan gives an opportunity to all students, +for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. Its class and other intra contests give a chance to the less +proficient pupils.</li> +<li>2. Its inter contests afford an opportunity for the more +proficient pupils.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>B. The proposed plan would deprive the more capable pupils of +desirable contests, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. They can find contests strenuous enough to induce +development only by competing with similar students in other +schools.</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>III. The proposed plan would not be practicable, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>A. It is unsound in theory, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. No pupil has a strong desire to defeat his close +friends.</li> +<li>2. There is no desirable method of dividing the students for +competition under the proposed plan, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) Class division is unsatisfactory, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li><i>a</i>) The more mature and experienced upper classes win too +easily.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>(2) "Group division" is not desirable, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li><i>a</i>) If the division is large, the domination of the +mature students will give no opportunity to the younger +>students.</li> +<li><i>b</i>) If the division is small, it is likely to develop +into a secret society.</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>B. Experience opposes the proposed plan, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. College experience is against it, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) N. University tried this plan without success, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li><i>a</i>) Quotation from president of N.</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>2. High-school experience does not indorse it, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) It is practically untried in high schools.</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +<p><b>REFUTATION</b></p> +<ul> +<li>I. The argument which the affirmative may advance, that the +experience of Shortridge High School demonstrates the success of +this plan, is without weight, for:</li> +<li>A. It is not applicable to this question, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. The plan at Shortridge is not identical with the proposed +plan, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) Shortridge has not entirely abolished inter contests, +for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li><i>a</i>) <i>School Review</i>, October, 1911.</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>2. Conditions in Shortridge differ from those in the high +schools of Northern Illinois, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) Faculty of that school has unusual efficiency in coaching, +for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li><i>a</i>) Extract from letter of principal.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>(2) Larger number of students, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li><i>a</i>) Extract from letter of principal.</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +<p><b>CONCLUSION</b></p> +<p>Since there is no opportunity for serious abuse arising from +contests between schools, and since the adoption of contests within +the schools alone would lessen the democracy of contests as a form +of education, and since the proposed plan is impracticable in +theory and has never been put into successful operation, the +negative concludes that the substitution of intra for inter +contests is not desirable in the high schools of Northern +Illinois.</p> +<hr /> +<p>From these illustrative briefs we can draw:</p> +<p><b>RULES FOR BRIEFING</b></p> +<p>The introduction should contain only such material as both sides +will admit, or, as you can show, should reasonably admit, from the +phrasing of the proposition.</p> +<p>Scrupulous care should be used in the numbering and lettering of +all statements and substatements.</p> +<p>Each issue should be a logical reason for the truth of the +proposition.</p> +<p>Each substatement should be a logical reason for the issue or +statement that it supports.</p> +<p>Each issue in the proof and each statement that has supporting +statements should be followed by the word "for."</p> +<p>Each reason given in support of the issues and each subreason +should be no more than a simple, complete, declarative +sentence.</p> +<p>The word "for" should never appear as a connective between a +statement and substatement in the introduction.</p> +<p>The words "hence" and "therefore" should never appear in the +proof of the brief, but one should be able to read <i>up</i> +through the brief and by substituting the word "therefore" for the +word "for" in each case, arrive at the proposition as a +conclusion.</p> +<h4>SUGGESTED EXERCISES</h4> +<p>1. Turn to Exercise 1, in Lesson V, and carefully brief the +selection from Burke.</p> +<p>2. Is the following extract from a high-school student's brief +correct in form? Criticize it in regard to arrangement of ideas, +and correct it so far as is possible without using new +material.</p> +<p>SOCCER FOOTBALL SHOULD BE ADOPTED IN THE "A" HIGH SCHOOL AS A +REGULAR BRANCH OF ATHLETIC SPORT</p> +<p><b>INTRODUCTION</b></p> +<ul> +<li>I. Recent popularity of soccer.</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. In England.</li> +<li>2. In America.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>II. Soccer a healthful game, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. Develops lungs.</li> +<li>2. Develops all the muscles.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>III. Issues.</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. Soccer is a beneficial game.</li> +<li>2. Would the students of "A" support soccer as a regular +sport?</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +<p><b>PROOF</b></p> +<ul> +<li>I. Soccer is a beneficial sport, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. It requires much running, kicking, and dodging, both in +offensive and defensive playing, therefore—</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) It develops muscles.</li> +<li>(2) It develops lungs.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>2. It is played out of doors, therefore</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) It develops lungs.</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>II. Students of "A" would support soccer as a regular sport, +for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. Who has ever heard of students who would not support soccer, +baseball, basket-ball, and all other exciting games?</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +<p>3. The following is the conclusion of an argument by Edmund +Burke in which the speaker maintained that Warren Hastings should +be impeached by the House of Commons. If it had been preceded by a +clear "introduction" and convincing "proof," do you think that it +would have made an effective "conclusion"?</p> +<div class="blockquot"> +<p>Therefore, it is with confidence that, ordered by the +Commons:</p> +<p>I impeach Warren Hastings, Esquire, of high crimes and +misdemeanors.</p> +<p>I impeach him in the name of the Commons of Great Britain, in +Parliament assembled, whose parliamentary trust he has +betrayed.</p> +<p>I impeach him in the name of all the Commons of Great Britain, +whose national character he has dishonored.</p> +<p>I impeach him in the name of the people of India, whose laws, +rights, and liberties he has subverted, whose property he has +destroyed, whose country he has laid waste and desolate.</p> +<p>I impeach him in the name and by virtue of those eternal laws of +justice which he has violated.</p> +<p>I impeach him in the name of human nature itself, which he has +cruelly outraged, injured, and oppressed in both sexes, in every +age, rank, situation, and condition of life.</p> +</div> +<p>4. Take any one of the following propositions and without other +material than that of your own ideas, state at least two issues, +and, in correct brief form, proof for belief or unbelief.</p> +<ul> +<li>(1) High-School Boys Should Smoke Cigarettes.</li> +<li>(2) No One Should Play Football without a Physician's +Permission.</li> +<li>(3) Girls Should Participate in Athletic Games While in High +School.</li> +<li>(4) High-School Fraternities Are Desirable.</li> +<li>(5) Women Should Have the Right to Vote in All Elections.</li> +</ul> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2><a name="LESSON_VII" id="LESSON_VII"></a>LESSON VII</h2> +<h3>THE FORENSIC</h3> +<ul> +<li>I. What the forensic is.</li> +<li>II. How the forensic may be developed and delivered:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. By writing and reading from manuscript:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) Advantages and disadvantages.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>2. By writing and committing to memory:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) Advantages and disadvantages.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>3. By oral development from the brief:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) Advantages.</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>III. Style and gestures in the delivery of the forensic.</li> +</ul> +<p>When the brief is finished, the material is ready to be put into +its final form. This final form is called the <i>forensic</i>.</p> +<p>As practically all debates are conducted by means of teams, the +work of preparing the forensic is usually divided among the members +of the team. The brief may be divided in any way, but it is +desirable that each member of the team should have one complete, +logical division. So it often happens that each member of the team +develops one issue into its final form.</p> +<p>The forensic is nothing but a rounding-out of the brief. The +brief is a skeleton: the forensic is that skeleton developed into a +complete literary form. Into this form the oral delivery breathes +the spirit of living ideas.</p> +<p>No better illustration of the brief expanded into the full +forensic need be given than that in Exercise I, Lesson V. Compare +the brief which you made of this extract from Burke with the +forensic itself, a few paragraphs of which are quoted there. Any +student will find that merely to glance through a part of this +speech of Burke's is an excellent lesson in brief-making and in the +production of forensics. First study the skeleton only—the +brief—by reading the opening sentences of each paragraph. +Then see how this skeleton is built into a forensic by the splendid +rhetoric of the great British statesman.<a name="FNanchor_4_4" id= +"FNanchor_4_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_4" class= +"fnanchor">[4]</a></p> +<p>There are two ways in which the forensic may be developed from +the brief. Both have some advantages, varying with the conditions +of the debate. One is to write out every word of the forensic. When +this is done, the debater may, if he wishes, read from his +manuscript to the audience. If he does so, his chances of making a +marked effect are little better than if he spoke from the bottom of +a well. The average audience will not follow the speaker who is +occupied with raveling ideas from his paper rather than with +weaving them into the minds of his hearers.</p> +<p>The debater who writes his forensic may, however, learn it and +deliver it from memory. This method has some decided advantages. In +every debate the time is limited; and by writing and rewriting the +ideas can be compressed into their briefest and most definite form. +Besides, the speaker may practice upon this definite forensic to +determine the rapidity with which he must speak in order to finish +his argument in the allotted time.</p> +<p>At the same time this plan has several unfavorable aspects. When +the debater has prepared himself in this way, forgetting is fatal. +He has memorized words. When the words do not come he has no +recourse but to wait for memory to revive, or to look to his +colleagues for help. Again, the man who has learned his argument +can give no variety to his attack or defense. He is like a general +with an immovable battery, who, though able to hurl a terrific +discharge in the one direction in which his guns point, is +powerless if the attack is made ever so slightly on his flank. +Perhaps the greatest disadvantage of this method is that it does +not give the student the best kind of training. What he needs most +in life is the ability to arrange and present ideas rapidly, not to +speak a part by rote.</p> +<p>It would seem, then, that this plan should be advised only when +the students are working for one formal debate, and are not +preparing for a series of class or local contests that can all be +controlled by the same instructor or critic. With beginners in oral +argumentation this method will usually make the better showing, and +may therefore be considered permissible in the case of those teams +which, because of unfamiliarity with their opponents' methods, can +take no chances. This plan of preparation is in no way harmful or +dishonest, but lacks some of the more permanent advantages of the +second method.</p> +<p>The second method of developing the brief into the forensic is +by <i>oral composition</i>. This method demands that the debater +shall <i>speak extemporaneously</i> from his <i>memorized +brief</i>. This in no way means that careful preparation, +deliberate thought, and precise organization are omitted. On the +contrary, the formation of a brief from which a winning forensic +can be expanded requires the most studious preparation, the keenest +thought, and the most careful organization. Neither does it mean +that, as soon as the brief is formed, the forensic can be +presented. Before that step is taken, the debater who will be +successful will spend much time, not in <i>written</i>, but in +<i>oral</i> composition.</p> +<p>He will study his brief until he sees that it is not merely a +succession of formal statements connected with "for's," but a +series of ideas arranged in that form because they will, if +presented in that order, bring conviction to his hearers. "Learning +the brief," then, becomes not a case of memory, but a matter of +seeing—seeing what comes next because that is the only thing +that logically could come next. When the brief is in mind, the +speaker will expand it into a forensic to an imaginary audience +until he finds that he is expressing the ideas clearly, smoothly, +and readily. Pay no attention to the fact that in the course of +repeated deliveries the words will vary. Words make little +difference if the framework of ideas is the same.</p> +<p>This method of composing the forensic trains the mind of the +student to see the logical relationship of ideas, to acquire a +command of language, and to vary the order of ideas if necessary. +In doing these things, there are developed those qualities that are +essential to all effective speaking.</p> +<p>A debater's success in giving unity and coherence to his +argument depends chiefly on his method of introducing new ideas in +supporting his issues. These changes from one idea to another, or +transitions, as they are called, should always be made so that the +hearer's attention will be recalled to the assertion which the new +idea is intended to support. Suppose we have made this assertion: +"Contests within schools are more desirable than contests between +schools." We are planning to support this by proving: first, that +the contests between schools are very much abused; second, that the +proposed plan will be more democratic; and third, that the proposed +plan will work well in practice. In supporting these issues, we +should, of course, present a great deal of material. When we are +ready to change from the first supporting idea to the second, we +must make that change in such a way that our hearers will know that +we are planning to prove the second main point of our contention. +But this is not enough. We must make that change so that they will +be definitely reminded of what we have already proved. The same +thing will hold true when we change to the third contention.</p> +<p>The following illustrates a faulty method of transition: +Contests between schools are so abused that they should be +abolished [followed by all the supporting material]. The proposed +plan will be more democratic than the present [followed by its +support]. The proposed plan would work well in practice [followed +by its support]. No matter how thoroughly we might prove each of +these, they would impress the audience as standing alone; they +would show no coherence, no connection with one another. The +following would be a better method: Contests within schools should +be substituted for those between schools because contests between +schools are open to abuses so great as to warrant their abolition +[followed by its support]. We should then begin to prove the second +issue in this way: But not only are contests between schools so +open to abuse that they should be abolished, but they are less +desirable than contests within schools for they are less +democratic. [This will then be followed with the support of the +second issue.] The transition to the third issue should be made in +this way: Now, honorable judges, we have shown you that contests +between schools are not worthy of continuance; we have shown you +that the plan which we propose will be better in its democracy than +the system at present in vogue; we now propose to complete our +argument by showing you that our plan will work well in practice. +[This would then be followed with the proper supporting +material.]</p> +<p>Great speakers have shown that they realized the importance of +these cementing transitions. Take for example Burke's argument that +force will be an undesirable instrument to use against the +colonies. He says: "First, permit me to observe that the use of +force shall be temporary." The next paragraph he begins: "My next +observation is its uncertainty." He follows that with: "A further +observation to force is that you impair the object by your very +endeavor to preserve it." And he concludes: "Lastly, we have no +sort of experience in favor of force as an instrument in the rule +of our colonies." He used this principle to perhaps even greater +advantage when he argued that "a fierce spirit of liberty had grown +up in the colonies." He supports this with claims which are +introduced as follows:</p> +<p>"First, the people of the colonies are descendants of +Englishmen."</p> +<p>"They were further confirmed in this pleasing error [their +spirit of liberty] by the form of their provincial legislative +assemblies."</p> +<p>"If anything were wanting to this necessary operation of the +form of government, religion would have given it a complete +effect."</p> +<p>"There is, in the South, a circumstance attending these colonies +which, in my opinion, fully counterbalances this difference, and +makes the spirit of liberty still more high and haughty than in +those to the northward. It is that in Virginia and the Carolinas, +they have a vast multitude of slaves."</p> +<p>"Permit me, Sir, to add another circumstance in our colonies, +which contributes no mean part towards the growth and effect of +this untractable spirit. I mean their education."</p> +<p>"The last cause of this disobedient spirit in the colonies is +hardly less powerful than the rest as it is not merely moral, but +laid deep in the natural constitution of things. Three thousand +miles of ocean lie between you and them."</p> +<p>He finally summarizes these in this way, which further ties them +together.</p> +<p>"Then, Sir, from these six capital sources; of descent; of form +of government; of religion in the northern provinces; of manners in +the southern; of education; of the remoteness of situation from the +first mover of government; from all these causes a fierce spirit of +liberty has grown up."</p> +<p>It may be well also to point out more clearly the somewhat +special nature of the first speeches on each side. The first speech +of the affirmative must, of course, make clear to the judges and +the audience what you wish them to believe. This will involve all +the steps which have already been pointed out as necessary to +accomplish that result. The first speaker can gain a great deal for +his side by presenting this material not only with great clearness, +but in a manner which will win the goodwill of the audience toward +himself, his team, and his side of the subject. To do this, he must +be genial, honest, modest, and fair. He must make his hearers feel +that he is not giving a narrow or prejudiced analysis of the +question; he must make them feel that his treatment is open and +fair to both sides, and that he finally reaches the issues not at +all because he <i>wishes</i> to find those issues, but because a +thorough analysis of the question will allow him to reach no +others.</p> +<p>The first speaker on the negative side may have much the same +work to do. If, however, he agrees with what the first speaker of +the affirmative has said, he will save time merely by stating that +fact and by summarizing in a sentence or two the steps leading to +the issues. If he does not agree with the interpretation which the +affirmative has given to the question, it will be necessary for him +to interpret the question himself. He must make clear to the judges +why his analysis is correct and that of his opponent faulty.</p> +<p>In presenting the forensic to the judges and audience forget, so +far as possible, that you are debating. You have a proposition in +which you believe and which you want them to accept. Your purpose +is not to make your hearers say: "How well he does it." You want +them to say: "He is right."</p> +<p>Do not rant. Speak clearly, that you may be understood; and with +enough force that you may be heard, but in the same manner that you +use in conversation.</p> +<p><i>Good gestures help. Good gestures</i> are those that come +naturally in support of your ideas. While practicing alone notice +what gestures you put in involuntarily. They are right. Do not ape +anyone in gesture. Your oral work will be more effective without +use of your hands than it will be with an ineffective use of them. +The most ineffective use is the making of motions that are so +violent or extravagant that they attract the listeners' attention +to themselves and away from your ideas. Remember that the +expression of your face is most important of all gestures. Earnest +interest, pleasantness, fairness, and vigor expressed in the +speaker's face at the right times have done more to win debates +than other gestures have ever accomplished.</p> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2><a name="LESSON_VIII" id="LESSON_VIII"></a>LESSON VIII</h2> +<h3>REFUTATION</h3> +<ul> +<li>I. Refutation explained.</li> +<li>II. Refutation may be carried on:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. By overwhelming constructive argument.</li> +<li>2. By showing the weakness of opponents' argument.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>III. The time for refutation:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>1. Allotted time.</li> +<li>2. Special times.</li> +</ul> +</li> +<li>IV. The right spirit in refutation.</li> +</ul> +<p>Our work up to this point has dealt with what is called the +<i>constructive argument</i>, i.e., the building up of the proof. +But to make the judges believe as you wish, you must not merely +support your contentions; you must destroy the proof which your +opponents are trying to construct.</p> +<p>As with the successful athletic team and the successful general, +so with the successful debater, it is necessary, not only to +attack, but also to repulse; not only to carry out the plan of your +own side, but to meet and defeat the plan which the other side has +developed. In debating, this repulse, this destruction of the +arguments of the opposition, is called <i>refutation</i> or +<i>rebuttal</i>.</p> +<p>There are two principal ways in which the refutation of the +opponent's argument can be accomplished. The first is <i>to destroy +it with your own constructive argument</i>. The second is <i>to +show that his argument, even though it is not destroyed by yours, +is faulty in itself, and therefore useless</i>.</p> +<p>Although only one of them is labeled "Refutation" in the model +brief in the sixth lesson, both types are illustrated there.</p> +<p>There the negative, believing that the first argument of the +affirmative would be, "Inter contests are open to abuse," makes its +first point a counter-assertion. It uses as the first issue: +"Contests between the high schools of northern Illinois are not +subject to such abuses as will warrant their abolition." Which side +would gain this point in the minds of the judges would depend on +which side supported its assertion with the better evidence.</p> +<p>If one side wished to raise this question again in the +refutation speeches, which close the debate, it could do no better +than to repeat and re-emphasize the same material which it used in +its construction argument.</p> +<p>The second method of refuting, i.e., showing an argument to be +faulty, is also illustrated in the brief in the sixth lesson. It is +marked "Refutation." This material was introduced because the +negative felt sure that the affirmative would attempt to use the +experience of Shortridge High School as evidence of the successful +working of this plan. It was shown to be faulty in that the +experience of this school would not apply to the question here +debated.</p> +<p>The student's study of what makes good evidence for his own case +will enable him to see the weakness of his opponents' arguments. +Apply the <i>same</i> tests to your opponents' evidence that you +apply to your own. What is there about the evidence introduced that +should make the audience hesitate to accept it? Point these things +out to the audience. It may be that prejudiced, dishonest, or +ignorant testimony has been given. It may be that not enough +evidence has been given to carry weight. Whatever the flaw, point +out to the audience that, upon a critical examination, experience +shows the evidence to be weak.</p> +<p>In every debate there is a regular time allowed for rebuttal. +This is, however, not the only time at which it may be introduced. +In the debate, put in refutation wherever it is needed. One of the +best plans is, if possible, to refute with a few sentences at the +opening of each speech what the previous speaker of the opposition +has said.</p> +<p>In all refutation, <i>state clearly what you aim to +disprove.</i> When quoting the statement of an opponent, be sure to +be accurate.</p> +<p>Something like the following is a good form for stating +refutation:</p> +<p>Our opponents, in arguing that labor unions have been harmful to +the commerce of America, have stated that they would use as support +the testimony of prominent men. In so doing, they have quoted from +X, Y, and Z. This testimony is without strength. X, as a large +employer of labor, would be open to prejudice; Y, as a non-union +laborer, is both prejudiced and ignorant. The testimony of Z, as an +Englishman is applicable to labor unions as they have affected, not +the commerce of America, but the trade of England.</p> +<p>A similar form is shown in the brief on inter-and +intra-high-school contests in refuting the experience of Shortridge +High School.</p> +<p>In all refutation, keep close to the fundamental principles of +the question. Do not be led astray into minute details upon which +you differ. Never tire of recalling attention to the issues of the +question. Show why those are the issues, and you will see that the +strongest refutation almost always consists in pointing out wherein +you have proved these issues, while your opponents have failed to +do so.</p> +<p>In order to be fully prepared, however, it is a good plan to put +upon cards all the points that your opponents may use and that you +have not answered in your constructive argument. Adopt a method +similar to this:</p> +<p>Shortridge argument</p> +<ul> +<li>I. Will not apply for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) Not this plan.</li> +<li>(2) Conditions differ, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li><i>a) School Review</i>, October, 1911.</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +<p>Then if your opponents advance arguments that are not met in +your speech, merely lay out these cards while they speak, and use +them as references in your refutation.</p> +<p>The closing rebuttal speech is always a critical one. Here the +speaker should again point out every mistake which his opponents +have made. If their interpretation of the question has been wrong, +he should, while avoiding details, emphasize the chief flaws in +their arguments. On the other hand, he should summarize the +argument of his own side from beginning to end; he should make the +support of each of the issues stand clearly before the judges in +its complete, logical form.</p> +<p>In these closing speeches, as in the opening of the debate, much +may be gained by an attitude which will win the favor of the +hearers toward the speaker and his ideas. An attitude of petty +criticism, of narrowness of view, is undesirable at any stage of +the debate. The debater who is inclined to belittle his opponents +will only belittle himself. To the judges it will appear that the +speaker who has time to ridicule his adversaries must be a little +short of arguments. Insinuations of dishonesty and attempts to be +sarcastic should be carefully avoided. These weapons are sharp but +they are two-edged and are more likely to injure the speaker than +his opponent.</p> +<p>The right attitude for a debater is always one of fairness. Give +your opponents all possible credit. When you have then refuted +their arguments, your own contentions seem of double strength. It +is said that Lincoln used this method with splendid effect: He +would often restate the argument of his opponent with great force +and clearness; he would make it seem irrefutable. Then, when he +began his attack and caused his opponent's argument to collapse, +its fall seemed to be utter and complete, while his arguments, +which had proved themselves capable of effecting this destruction, +appeared all the more powerful.</p> +<p>In your desire to do well in refutation, do not be led to depend +upon that alone. There is no older and better rule than, "Know the +other side as well as you know your own." Do not believe that this +is in order that you may be ready with a clever answer for every +point made by the other side. The most important reason why you +should know the other side of the question is the necessity of your +determining the issues correctly, and thus building a constructive +argument that is overwhelming and impregnable. Many a debate has +been lost because the debaters worked up their own constructive +argument first, and only later, in order to prepare refutation, +considered what their opponents would say. Had they proceeded +correctly, they would have destroyed the proof of their adversaries +while they built up their own.</p> +<p>A clever retort in refutation often wins the applause of the +galleries, but an analysis of the question so keen that the real +issues are determined, supported by an organization of evidence so +strong that it sweeps away all opposition as it grows, is more +likely to gain the favorable decision of the judges.</p> +<h4>SUGGESTED EXERCISES</h4> +<p>1. What is the purpose of refutation? 2. What two principal +methods may be followed?</p> +<p>3. What must one do to refute correctly and well?</p> +<p>4. Do you think it better in refutation to assail the minor +points of your opponent or to attack the main issues?</p> +<p>5. A fellow-student in chemistry said to you: "The chemical +symbol for water is H<sub>4</sub>0; two of our classmates told me +so." You replied: "The correct symbol, according to our instructor, +is H<sub>2</sub>O." Did you refute his assertion? How?</p> +<p>6. A classmate makes an argument which could be briefed +thus:</p> +<p>Cigarettes are good for high-school boys, for:</p> +<ul> +<li>I. They aid health of body, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li>(1) Many athletes smoke them, for:</li> +<li> +<ul> +<li><i>a</i>) X smokes them.</li> +<li><i>b</i>) Y smokes them.</li> +<li><i>c</i>) Z smokes them.</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +</li> +</ul> +<p>If you disagree with this assertion, do not believe they aid +health, and know X does not smoke cigarettes, how would you refute +his contention?</p> +<p>7. If your opponents in a debate quote opinions of others in +support of their views, in what two ways can they be refuted?</p> +<p>8. In a recent campaign, the administration candidate used this +argument: "I should be re-elected, for: Times are good, work is +plentiful, crops are excellent, and products demand a high price." +Show any weakness in this argument.</p> +<p>9. Show the weakness of proof in this argument: Harvard is +better at football than Princeton I. They defeated Princeton in +1912.</p> +<p>10. What general rule can you make from 9 concerning a statement +supported by particular cases?</p> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2><a name="LESSON_IX" id="LESSON_IX"></a>LESSON IX</h2> +<h3>MANAGEMENT OF THE DEBATE</h3> +<p><i>Teams</i>.—The opposing teams in a debate usually +consist of three persons each. A larger or smaller number is +permissible.</p> +<p><i>Time of Speaking</i>.—Each speaker is ordinarily +allowed one constructive speech and one rebuttal speech. The +constructive speech is usually about twice the length of the +refutation. Twelve and six, ten and five, and eight and four +minutes are all frequent time-limits for debates. Many debaters +make shorter speeches.</p> +<p><i>Order of speaking</i>.—The debate is opened by the +affirmative. The first speaker is followed by a negative debater, +who, in turn, is followed by a member of the affirmative team, and +so on until the entire constructive argument is presented. A member +of the negative team opens the refutation. Speakers then alternate +until the debate is closed by the affirmative. The order of +speakers on each team is often different in refutation than in +constructive argument.</p> +<p><i>Presiding chairman</i>.—Every debate should be presided +over by a chairman. His duties are to state the question to the +audience, introduce each speaker, and announce the decision of the +judges. He sometimes also acts as timekeeper.</p> +<p><i>Timekeepers</i>.—A timekeeper representing each of the +competing organizations should note the moment when each speaker +begins and notify the chair when the allotted time has been +consumed. It is customary to give each speaker as many minutes of +warning before his time expires as he may desire.</p> +<p><i>Salutation</i>.—Good form in debating requires that +each speaker shall begin with a salutation to the various +personages whom he addresses. The most common salutation is: "Mr. +Chairman, worthy opponents, honorable judges, ladies and +gentlemen."</p> +<p><i>Reference to other speakers</i>.—In referring to +members of the opposing team never say, "he said," "she said," or +"they said." Always speak of your opponents in the third person in +some such way as, "my honorable opponents," "the first speaker of +the negative," "the gentlemen of the affirmative," or "the +gentlemen from X."</p> +<p>In referring to other members of your own team say, "my +colleagues," or "my colleague, the first speaker," etc.</p> +<p><i>The judges</i>.—There are generally three judges. Where +it is practicable, a larger number is desirable because their +opinion is more nearly the opinion of the audience as a whole. +Needless to say they should be competent and wholly without +prejudice as to teams or question.</p> +<p><i>The decision</i>.—The decision of each judge should be +written on a slip and sealed in an envelope provided for that +purpose (see Appendix IX, "Forms for Judges' Decision"). These +should be opened by the chairman in view of the audience, and the +decision announced.</p> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2><a name="LESSON_X" id="LESSON_X"></a>LESSON X</h2> +<h3>A SUMMARY AND A DIAGRAM</h3> +<p>We have now completed our study of debating. We saw first that +all talking and writing is discourse, and that one great division +of discourse—that which aims to gain belief—is +argumentation. Argumentation we divided into spoken and written +argumentation. We found that it varies in formality but that, when +carried on orally under prescribed conditions and with the +expectation of having a decision rendered, it is called +debating.</p> +<p>Successful debating we found to require three steps: showing the +hearers what belief is desired; showing them upon what issues +belief depends; and supporting these issues with evidence until we +have established proof.</p> +<p>We learned that the first of these steps could be taken by +stating the question in the form of a definite, single proposition; +defining the terms of this proposition; and then restating the +whole matter. We found that the second step required that the +material that both sides admit, together with all other material +that is really not pertinent to the question, should be first +removed, and that the fundamentals of the question should be stated +as the issues. The last step, proving the issues, we found to +involve two processes. It was necessary, first, to find and select +evidence, and, second, to arrange that evidence in logical +order—the brief-form.</p> +<div class="figcenter" style="width: 600px;"><img src= +"images/img01.png" width="600" height="486" alt= +"The Bridge of Proof" title="" /> <b>The Bridge of Proof</b></div> +<p>The accompanying diagram is one that has helped many students to +visualize more clearly what is attempted in a debate and to see how +the debate may be made successful.</p> +<p>The doubt that the audience very reasonably has of the new idea +proposed is bridged over by the proposition. But this proposition +will not be strong enough to cause the minds of the listeners to +pass from unbelief to belief unless it is well supported. The whole +proposition is therefore placed upon one or two or three great +capitals—the issues, under each of which is a pillar of +proof. These pillars are composed of evidence of every sort. The +intelligent debater has, however, before placing a single piece of +this evidence in the proof, tested it carefully. He has tested it +with the question: "Will it help bring conviction to the audience; +how will it affect my hearers?" Moreover, not satisfied with this +scrupulous choice of evidence, he has been careful not to pile it +in regardless of position, but to place each piece in the position +where it will lend the strongest support to the entire +structure.</p> +<p>When this has been done, the bridge of proof is built solidly +upon the experience of the hearers, and, almost without their +knowledge, their minds have gone from unbelief to belief.</p> +<div class="footnotes"> +<p class="center"><b>FOOTNOTES:</b></p> +<div class="footnote"> +<p><a name="Footnote_1_1" id="Footnote_1_1"></a><a href= +"#FNanchor_1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> Baker, +<i>Principles of Argumentation</i>.</p> +</div> +<div class="footnote"> +<p><a name="Footnote_2_2" id="Footnote_2_2"></a><a href= +"#FNanchor_2_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> Jevons, +<i>Primer of Logic.</i></p> +</div> +<div class="footnote"> +<p><a name="Footnote_3_3" id="Footnote_3_3"></a><a href= +"#FNanchor_3_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> For a thorough +discussion of the principle of reference<br /> +to experience, see Arthur E. Phillips, <i>Effective Speaking</i>, +chap. iii.</p> +</div> +<div class="footnote"> +<p><a name="Footnote_4_4" id="Footnote_4_4"></a><a href= +"#FNanchor_4_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> Edmund Burke, +<i>On Conciliation with the Colonies</i>.</p> +</div> +</div> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h1><a name="APPENDICES" id="APPENDICES"></a>APPENDICES</h1> +<h2><a name="APPENDIX_I" id="APPENDIX_I"></a>APPENDIX I</h2> +<h3>HOW AND WHERE TO READ FOR MORE INFORMATION</h3> +<p>Practically every subject that is interesting enough to be a +good subject for debate has been written about by other people. +Every good library contains the books on the following list, and +with a little experience the student can handle them easily. A +general treatment of every important subject can be found in any of +the following encyclopedias: <i>Americana, New International, +Twentieth Century, Britannica</i>.</p> +<p>Everything that has been written upon every subject in all +general, technical, and school magazines, can be found by looking +up the desired topic in: <i>The Reader's Guide to Periodical +Literature</i>, or <i>Poole's Index</i>.</p> +<p>If the matter being studied deals with civics, economics, or +sociology, look in: Bliss, <i>Encyclopaedia of Social Reform,</i> +etc.; Lalor, <i>Cyclopaedia of Political Science</i>, etc.; Larned, +<i>History of Ready Reference and Topical Reading</i>; Bowker and +lies, <i>Reader's Guide in Economics</i>, etc.</p> +<p>What Congress is doing and has done is often important. This can +be found in full in: <i>The Congressional Record</i>.</p> +<p>Jones's <i>Finding List</i> tells where to look for any topic in +various government publications.</p> +<p>In studying many subjects the need of definite and reliable +statistics will be felt. These may be found on almost any question +in the following publications: <i>Statesman's Yearbook, Whitaker's +Almanac, World Almanac, Chicago Daily News Almanac, Hazell's +Almanac, U.S. Census Reports</i>.</p> +<p>Never consider your reading completed until you have looked for +any special book that may be written upon your subject in the Card +Catalogue of your Library.</p> +<p>Make out a Bibliography or Reading List (as illustrated briefly +in Appendix V) before you proceed to actual reading.</p> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2><a name="APPENDIX_II" id="APPENDIX_II"></a>APPENDIX II</h2> +<h3>ILLUSTRATIONS OF ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE THE ISSUES OF THE +QUESTION</h3> +<p>The two specimens that immediately follow are analyses of the +same question by students of the same university. The first is a +selection from the speech made by Mr. Raymond S. Pruitt in the +Towle Debate of Northwestern University Law School in 1911. The +second is the introduction to the speech made by Mr. Charles Watson +of the Northwestern University Law School in the 1911 debate with +the Law School of the University of Southern California. Students +should observe how the two speakers determine somewhat different +issues.</p> +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That in actions against an employer for death +or injury of an employee sustained in the course of an industrial +employment the fellow-servant rule and the rule of the assumption +of risk as defined and interpreted by the common law, should be +abolished.</p> +<p>Mr. Pruitt, speaking for the affirmative:</p> +<div class="blockquot"> +<p>The question which we discuss tonight is partly economic and +partly legal. By that I mean that viewing it from the standpoint of +legal liability, we possibly can agree with the gentlemen of the +Negative that the employer should respond in damages to his injured +employee, only when the injury has been caused by the employer's +own fault. But, on the other hand, viewing the same problem from an +economic standpoint, you cannot deny, that, when through no fault +of his own, a worker is injured in the course of an industrial +employment, that industry should compensate him for the loss.</p> +<p>Here then is the issue—the +world-old-problem—established principles of law in conflict +with changing social and economic conditions; and, as history +shows, there can in such cases be but one solution. The decision of +the court, the statute of the legislature, yes, even the +constitution of the nation, must in turn yield to the march of +progress and adapt itself to changing conditions until once more it +shall reflect the sense of public justice in its own time. Hence, I +say that in our discussion this evening, there can be no confusion +of issues. The Affirmative, according to the wording of the +question, are to advocate a change in our common law, while the +Negative in duty bound are to oppose the proposition for change, +and to defend as the Negative always defend, the order of things as +they are.</p> +<p>The Affirmative are to advocate such a change, the abolition of +the common-law defenses of the employer. For the purposes of this +debate, it is immaterial to us whether this change is brought about +by a simple extension of the employer's liability, or whether it is +accompanied, as in many of our states, by a system of workman's +compensation. Likewise, it is a consideration extraneous to the +issues of this debate, whether the employer shoulder this risk +himself, whether he insure it in a private insurance company, or +whether he be compelled to insure it in a company managed by the +state. At all events, and under any of these plans, the proposition +of the Affirmative will be maintained, the employer will be +deprived of his defenses at common law, and the employee will +recover his damages regardless of questions of fault.</p> +<p>Assuming then the full burden of proof, the Affirmative propose +to demonstrate that the assumption of risk and the fellow-servant +rule as defined and interpreted by the common law should be +abolished, first, because whatever reasons may have justified these +doctrines in years gone by they have no application to industrial +conditions in our day; and, secondly, because the abolition of +these common law defenses will but place the burden of industrial +loss, as in justice it should be placed, upon the ultimate consumer +of the product of the industry.</p> +</div> +<p>Mr. Watson, speaking for the Negative:</p> +<div class="blockquot"> +<p>The proposed abolition of these two common-law defenses, like +every change of law or any suggested reform, is brought to our +attention by certain existing evils. The advocates of this reform +have a definite proposition in mind and that proposition is +definitely and clearly stated in the question. It is a question in +which people in every walk of life are concerned. Since it is of +such widespread interest, let us lift it from a plane of mere +debating tactics, in which a question of this kind is so often +placed, and where a great deal of time is spent in arguing what the +Affirmative or the Negative may stand for according to the +interpretation of the question, let us lift it from that plane, and +consider it as practical men and women who are interested in the +outcome of this great problem. It is, then, in its larger sense, a +legal question and must be considered from the standpoints of +justice and of expediency.</p> +<p>It is not enough for the Affirmative to point out evils that +exist under these two common-law rules, for there is bound to be +some evil in the administration of all law; so they must further +show that these evils which they have named are inherent in these +two laws, and that the proposed change will remedy the existing +evils. Now the Negative maintain that the evils complained of are +not inherent in these laws, and we believe that the Affirmative +plan is not the proper solution of the problem.</p> +<p>I will show you that these common-law rules are founded on +principles of justice and that their removal would be unjust to the +employer; second that it would discriminate against the smaller +tradesmen, and third that the proposed remedy does not strike at +the root of the evil, since it would affect only a small percentage +of industrial accidents.</p> +</div> +<p>CARL SCHURZ ON GENERAL AMNESTY</p> +<p>(A bill being before Congress proposing to restore to leading +Southerners many of the privileges which had been denied them +following the war, Mr. Schurz determined the issue as follows:)</p> +<div class="blockquot"> +<p><i>Mr. President</i>: When this debate commenced before the +holidays, I refrained from taking part in it, and from expressing +my opinions on some of the provisions of the bill now before us; +hoping as I did that the measure could be passed without +difficulty, and that a great many of those who now labor under +political disabilities would be immediately relieved. This +expectation was disappointed. An amendment to the bill was adopted. +It will have to go back to the House of Representatives now unless +by some parliamentary means we get rid of the amendment, and there +being no inducement left to waive what criticism we might feel +inclined to bring forward, we may consider the whole question +open.</p> +<p>I beg leave to say that I am in favor of general, or, as this +word is considered more expressive, universal amnesty, believing, +as I do, that the reasons make it desirable that the amnesty should +be universal. The senator from South Carolina has already given +notice that he will move to strike out the exceptions from the +operation of this act of relief for which the bill provides. If he +had not declared his intention to that effect, I would do so. In +any event, whenever he offers his amendment I shall most heartily +support it.</p> +<p>In the course of this debate we have listened to some senators, +as they conjured up before our eyes once more all the horrors of +the Rebellion, the wickedness of its conception, how terrible its +incidents were, and how harrowing its consequences. Sir, I admit it +all; I will not combat the correctness of the picture; and yet if I +differ with the gentlemen who drew it, it is because, had the +conception of the Rebellion been still more wicked, had its +incidents been still more terrible, its consequences still more +harrowing, I could not permit myself to forget that in dealing with +the question now before us we have to deal not alone with the past, +but with the present and future of this republic.</p> +<p>What do we want to accomplish as good citizens and patriots? Do +we mean only to inflict upon the late rebels pain, degradation, +mortification, annoyance, for its own sake; to torture their +feelings without any ulterior purpose? Certainly such a purpose +could not by any possibility animate high-minded men. I presume, +therefore, that those who still favor the continuance of some of +the disabilities imposed by the Fourteenth Amendment do so because +they have some higher object of public usefulness in view, an +object of public usefulness sufficient to justify, in their minds +at least, the denial of rights to others which we ourselves +enjoy.</p> +<p>What can those objects of public usefulness be? Let me assume +that, if we differ as to the means to be employed, we are agreed as +to the supreme end and aim to be reached. That end and aim of our +endeavors can be no other than to secure to all the States the +blessings of good and free government and the highest degree of +prosperity and well-being they can attain, and to revive in all +citizens of this republic that love for the Union and its +institutions, and that inspiring consciousness of a common +nationality, which, after all, must bind all Americans +together.</p> +<p>What are the best means for the attainment of that end? This, +Sir, as I conceive it, is the only legitimate question we have to +decide.</p> +</div> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2><a name="APPENDIX_III" id="APPENDIX_III"></a>APPENDIX III</h2> +<h3>A TYPICAL COLLEGE FORENSIC</h3> +<p>The forensic which follows is the one which was used by the +State University of Iowa in its debates with the University of +Wisconsin and the University of Minnesota in 1908. In the form in +which it appears here it was given in a home contest a few evenings +before the Inter-State Debate. It is quoted here with the +permission of the Forensic League of the State University of +Iowa.</p> +<p><i>Resolved</i>, That American Cities Should Adopt a Commission +Form of Government.</p> +<p>Mr. Clarence Coulter, the first speaker on the Affirmative, +said:</p> +<div class="blockquot"> +<p>It is not my purpose to picture the shame of American cities; +that is well known; but I am to consider only those evils due to +the present form of municipal government, an organization based on +the separation of the powers into the legislative, executive, and +judicial departments. The proper remedy for these evils will be +secured only by adopting a form which concentrates the entire +authority of city government in one definite and responsible +body.</p> +<p>It is a significant fact, that during the last quarter of a +century, the tendency in municipal organization has been toward +concentration of powers. Certain of our cities have recognized the +wisdom of such action, but have unwisely attempted to concentrate +only the executive power whereas the real solution lies in +concentrating all governmental authority in one definite and +responsible body.</p> +<p>New York City tried such a plan and it has failed; failed +because its separate legislative department has proved an +obstruction to effective action. Consequently, there has been a +continual tendency to deprive the council of all power, until today +its only function is to vote on franchises and issue certain +licenses. So evident is the imperative need of concentrating the +legislative and administrative powers in one body, that there is +now a charter revision committee meeting in New York whose great +object is to consider the advisability of entirely eliminating the +separate council, and creating in its place a small commission +possessing both legislative and administrative authority. +Practically the same condition obtains in the city of Boston.</p> +<p>What is true of New York and Boston is equally true of scores of +other cities. Memphis tried for years to reform her government with +an isolated council. Today she is clamoring at the doors of her +legislature for a commission charter. Within the past two years +more than a dozen states have provided for a commission form of +government, while within the past year more than a dozen cities +have actually thrown away their old forms and assumed the +commission system.</p> +<p>The success of a separate legislative body in state and national +government is the only excuse for its retention in our cities, yet +the failure, for over a century in all its different forms and +variations, proves that such a government is unsuited to them. +There are several important and fundamental characteristics of the +city that demand a different form of government and show +conclusively that there is no need of a separate legislative body. +In the first place, the city is not a sovereign government, but is +subordinate to state and nation. There is no reason for a distinct +legislature to determine the broad matters of policy, for they are +determined for the citizens of the city as well as those of the +country, by the state and national legislatures, in which both the +city and country are represented. In the second place, the work of +a city is largely administrative and of a business character, as my +colleagues will show, and there is no necessity for a separate +council to legislate when a commissioner is better able, as we +shall show, to pass the kind of legislation characteristic of the +city.</p> +<p>In the third place, we do not find, as in the state, the +necessity of a large and separate body to represent the various +localities. The city has a large population living in a restricted +territory; in the state it is scattered. The city is unified by +means of its rapid communication and transportation facilities, and +its interests are common. These, Honorable Judges, are some general +reasons why there is no necessity for trying to maintain a separate +legislative body at the expense of efficiency in administration and +the fixing of individual responsibility.</p> +<p>But let us now examine as to wherein this principle of +separation fails to meet modern municipal conditions. In the first +place we find that this system has failed to produce efficiency, +because, in actual practice, it has been impossible to keep the +legislative and administrative branches within their proper spheres +of action. To be sure, such difficulty does not exist in state and +national governments where the work is naturally divided. But in +city government, where the work is of a peculiar kind, where it is +unified in character and is largely administrative and of a +business nature, it has been found impossible to maintain a +separation. It is not at all surprising to find that in some +cities, the mayor is the dominating factor in both legislation and +administration. He is the presiding officer of the council with the +deciding vote, and, in addition, is clothed with the veto power. On +the other hand, there are scores of instances where the council +assumes administrative functions. It names all appointments to +office, and it creates and controls all the departments of city +government. Under such circumstances the administrative department +is subordinate to the council, because its officers can be both +appointed and removed by that body and because it can carry on no +work without the council's authority. Thus there is an inevitable +tendency to concentrate the powers in one of the two branches, yet, +at the same time, diffusing responsibility between them. Such a +condition only goes to show that city government is gradually but +surely working its way toward concentration in one body. But the +trouble lies in the fact that the present system makes possible +concentration of power, without a corresponding concentration of +responsibility. From such a condition have grown two grave and +inherent evils. First, it has entirely eliminated the system of +checks and balances, which is a fundamental doctrine of the +division of power. Secondly, it has utterly destroyed all effective +responsibility. It is apparent at once, that when one branch of the +government dominates, the checks and balances between the +departments are immediately lost, and facts bear out what theory +shows to be logically true. The system of checks and balances +failed absolutely in New York, where the mayor is supreme, and +where the city has been plundered of sums estimated at 7 per cent +of the total valuation of real estate. It has failed in St. Louis, +where the council dominated, and where "Boss Butler" paid that body +$250,000 to pass a street railway franchise. Neither did it work in +Philadelphia, which has been plundered of an amount equal to 10 per +cent of her real estate valuation; nor in San Francisco under the +disgraceful regime of Mayor Schmitz. So overwhelming is the +evidence on this point that it is needless to dwell further upon +it.</p> +<p>In the second place, this domination of one branch over the +other has resulted in a lack of responsibility and of co-ordination +in city affairs. These two elements are indispensable where the +work to be performed is of a local and business nature. We find +that under the present system, no matter which branch of government +dominates, there is always a notorious lack of responsibility. If +the council makes a blunder in legislation, it immediately lays the +blame upon the administrative officials, maintaining that it passed +the measure upon recommendation of the administrative branch, or +that branch failed to carry out its policy. If the administrative +officials are neglectful, they shift the blame onto the council, +and insist that the difficulty lies in insufficient legislation. +Under such conditions, the average citizen has no way of telling +where the blame really lies.</p> +<p>At present, there is no attempt at co-ordination between the +legislative, executive, and judicial departments. On the other +hand, there is often open rupture between them. For years before +the commission form of government was adopted in Galveston, there +was open warfare between the legislative and executive departments, +which saddled upon the city a bonded debt of many thousands of +dollars. In our state, there is a municipality in which the two +departments of government are defying each other. Both are +exercising legislative and administrative authority until the +citizens of that place are at a loss to know which is right. This +is admittedly a deplorable state of affairs, yet it is the logical +result of forcing upon the city a form of government entirely +unsuited for its needs. Moreover, this lack of co-ordination and +responsibility has resulted in the confusion of powers and the +creation of needless boards and committees. A recent investigation +in Philadelphia showed that it had four boards with power to tear +up the streets at will, but none to see that they were properly +relaid. Chicago finds herself possessed of eight different tax +levying bodies, while in New York City there are eighty different +boards or individuals who have power to create debt. Is it any +wonder that inefficiency and graft infest such a maze of boards, +councils and committees? We see, then, that the present system of +separation of powers produces inefficiency through a confusion of +functions; it does away completely with the system of checks and +balances and results in utter lack of responsibility and +co-ordination of departments.</p> +<p>Honorable Judges, if we are ever to arrive at a solution of our +municipal problem, we must concentrate municipal authority; we must +co-ordinate departments, eliminate useless boards and committees +and fix absolutely and completely individual responsibility. This, +we propose to do by establishing a commission form of government, +where all governmental authority is vested in one small body of +men, who individually act as the heads of administrative +departments, but who collectively pass the needed legislation. +Thus, instead of a council with restricted powers and divided +authority, we have a few men assuming positions of genuine +responsibility, as regards both the originating and enforcing of +laws. My colleagues will show that such a concentration of powers +in one small body is necessary and desirable, both from the +legislative and administrative point of view.</p> +<p>Such a concentration is desirable, since it is accompanied by a +corresponding concentration of personal responsibility. This is +secured in the commission system. Responsibility in administration +is secured, because each commissioner is at the head of a +department, for the efficient and honest conduct of which he alone +is held personally responsible. Responsibility in legislation is +secured, because, first, the body of legislators is comparatively +small. Second, the very fact that each commissioner possesses +information essential to intelligent action, places upon the +commission itself absolute responsibility. Such a system makes it +impossible to shift responsibility from one branch to the other, +and guarantees to us better and more efficient administration of +our municipal affairs for it eliminates all useless boards and +committees and fixes absolutely and completely individual +responsibility.</p> +</div> +<p>Mr. Earl Stewart, the first speaker on the Negative, said:</p> +<div class="blockquot"> +<p>We wish it understood at the outset that no one deplores the +useless boards and complicated machinery in many of our American +cities more than do the Negative.</p> +<p>Before going a step farther let us get right as to what we mean +by a commission form. The gentlemen state that they are standing +for a concentration of all power in one small body. Honorable +Judges, they are standing for something different. It is possible +to concentrate all authority in one body and yet have the different +functions performed by separately constituted bodies. For example, +the cabinet system of Germany, where all governing power is vested +in the legislative body which in turn delegates all administrative +functions to the cabinet. Thus the legislative body is directly +responsible, having ultimate authority, yet the actual exercise of +power is done by distinct bodies. Now how is it with the +commission? There, not only does one body have ultimate authority, +but it actually conducts administration as well as legislation. +Quoting from Sec. 7 of the Des Moines charter, which is typical of +every commission form charter in this regard, it says: "All +legislative, executive, and judicial functions of the city shall be +placed in the hands of the commissioners who shall exercise those +functions." The Affirmative, then, are standing for fusion of +functions, and not concentration of powers.</p> +<p>The Negative do not defend the evils of present city +organization. The Negative believe that far-reaching reforms must +be instituted before we shall enjoy municipal success. The issue +then is, does the commission form, or do the reforms proposed by +the Negative, offer the more satisfactory solution of our municipal +problems?</p> +<p>The Negative propose, first, that the form of organization shall +embody a proper correlation or departments.</p> +<p>In the early council system the functions of the legislative and +executive departments so overlapped that there was continual +conflict of authority. Under the board system the two departments +were almost disconnected, so that the legislative department could +not hold the executive accountable to the will of the people. In +many forms today, as the gentlemen have depicted, the relations +between the departments are such that responsibility cannot be +fixed.</p> +<p>But, Honorable Judges, these instances of failure do not show +that it is impossible to preserve a proper division of functions, +for every conspicuous example of municipal success in the world is +based upon the proper correlation between the legislative and +administrative departments. Municipal success in Europe is an +established fact. There we find the cabinet form. A similar form is +in vogue in Toronto, Canada, which Mayor Coatswain says is most +gratifying to the public. Says Rear Admiral Chadwick: "The city of +Newport, Rhode Island, has now a form of government that awakens +the interest of the citizens, keeps that interest awake, and +conducts its affairs in obedience to the wishes of the majority." +Charleston, S. C., Elmira, New York, Los Angeles, Cal., are but a +few of the typical American cities which have successfully adopted +the ordinary mayor and council form. Says Mayor Rhett, of +Charleston: "I am the executive of a city that has been under a +mayor and council for over one hundred years. It is quite as +capable of prompt action on any matter as any business +corporation." The National Municipal League, composed of such men +as Albert Shaw, of New York City, and Professor Rowe of the +University of Pennsylvania, appointed a committee to formulate a +definite program of reform. This committee did not even consider +the abandoning of distinct legislative and administrative bodies, +but, after three years of unremitting effort, presented a working +system, embodying, in the words of the committee itself, the +"essential principle of all successful government," namely, the +proper correlation between the legislative and administrative +departments. That program has left marked traces in the +constitution of Virginia, Alabama, Colorado, New York, Wisconsin, +Michigan, and Delaware.</p> +<p>Proper correlation between departments is best facilitated in +the cabinet form, because all governing power is vested in the +legislative body, which in turn delegates all administrative +functions to the cabinet. However, many cities have properly +correlated mayor and council by utilizing the model charter of the +National Municipal League. The Negative, therefore, is here to +promulgate no specific form for all American cities: conditions in +Boston may require a different mechanism from that in San +Francisco, but whatever form, the underlying principle of a proper +division of functions must be embodied. The Affirmative must admit +that proper correlation of departments has brought about municipal +success, as far as mere organization can do so, yet, +notwithstanding that, after fifteen years of misrule under the +commission form in Sacramento the freeholders by unanimous choice +again adopted distinct legislative and administrative bodies; and +that the commission form has lately operated but a few years in a +few small cities, amid aroused civic interest. The Affirmative +would abolish at one blow the working principle of successful city +organization in France, Germany, England, Canada, and unnumbered +cities in the United States.</p> +<p>In the second place, evils in our cities are due to bad social +and economic conditions. Harrisburg, Pa., was notoriously corrupt. +A spirit of reform aroused the citizens, and Harrisburg stands +today as a remarkable example of efficient government, yet the form +of organization has been unchanged.</p> +<p>In many of our large cities there is a feeble civic spirit, due, +in part, to undesirable immigrants, the prey to the boss, and +utterly lacking in inherited traditions so essential to the +capacity of self-government. Another instance: the mutual taxing +system has fostered public extravagance and loss of interest on the +part of the taxpayer. Again, favor-seeking corporations have +continually employed corrupt methods. James Bryce says that in the +development of a stronger sense of civic duty rather than any +change in the form of government lies the ultimate hope of +municipal reform.</p> +<p>A third cause of municipal ills is that of poor business +methods. First, unjust election laws and lack of proper primaries +have permitted the corrupt arts of the caucus politician. Second, +lack of a uniform system of accounting has served only to conceal +the facts, resulting in apathy on the part of the people, diffusion +of responsibility, and widespread corruption among officials. +Third, lack of publicity of proceedings has protected graft. +Fourth, lack of civil service has perpetuated the spoils +system.</p> +<p>All these can and are being remedied. The Bureau of Municipal +Research shows plainly that it is not necessary to change +fundamental principles to secure business efficiency. It +reorganized the Real Estate Bureau of New York that eluded all +graft charges and made 100 per cent profits. The Department of +Finance, heretofore unable to tell whether taxes were collected, is +reorganized from top to bottom. Through the glaring light of +publicity, the bureau collected more than a million dollars for +paving done at the public's expense between the street-car +company's rails. The old conditions, where examination of the books +of any department involved weeks of labor, have given way to a +uniform system of public accounting. In the words of the +Springfield, Mass., <i>Republican</i>, "The work of the Bureau of +Public Research is far more fundamental than the question of +substituting city organization with a commission."</p> +<p>A fourth cause of evils is that of state interference in purely +local affairs.</p> +<p>In the United States the city may not act except where +authorized expressly and especially by the state. In Europe the +city may do anything it is not forbidden to do, and municipal +success there is based on this greater freedom. The European city, +though subject to general state law, makes its own local laws, not +in conflict with, but in addition to, state law. But in the United +States the state legislature, accustomed to interfere in matters of +interest to the state government, failed to distinguish between +such matters and those of exclusive interest to the cities +themselves. To illustrate: The Cleveland Municipal Association +reported in 1900 that legislators from an outside county had +introduced radical changes in almost every department of their city +government. In Massachusetts the police, water works, and park +systems are directly under the state, and the only part the cities +have is to pay the bills. In Pennsylvania for thirty-one years the +state kept upon the statute books an act imposing upon Philadelphia +a self-perpetuating commission, appointed without reference to the +city's wishes, and with all power to erect a city hall and levy +taxes to collect the twenty-million-dollar cost.</p> +<p>State and national political parties, controlling the +legislature, have meddled in the private affairs of the city, +resulting in the decay of the city council and the destruction of +the local autonomy. Professor Goodnow says that under these +conditions a scientific solution of the vexed question of municipal +organization has been impossible.</p> +<p>The remedy lies in restoring to the city its proper field of +legislation. Already thirty states have passed constitutional +amendments granting greater legislative powers to the cities. Five +states now allow cities to amend their own charters. But in direct +opposition to this movement for municipal home rule, the commission +form takes the last step in the destruction of the city's +legislative body and fosters continued state interference. +President Eliot says that the functions of the commissioners will +be defined and enumerated by the state.</p> +<p>Now, Honorable Judges, the basic principle of city government +the world over is division of functions. It is the principle that +the commission form attempts to annihilate. But we have pointed out +the real causes of municipal evils and have shown they are to be +remedied without tampering with the fundamental principles which +time and experience have shown to be correct in every instance of +successful city organization. The Affirmative say: change the +fundamental principle; all changes in form and other remedies are +insufficient. The Negative say: retain the principle of distinct +legislative and administrative bodies, but observe a proper +correlation between them which is done in countless instances as we +have shown. We would remedy bad social and economic conditions, +introduce better business methods, and, most important of all, give +the city greater freedom in powers of local self-government.</p> +</div> +<p>Mr. Clyde Robbins, the second speaker of the Affirmative, +said:</p> +<div class="blockquot"> +<p>It should be understood at the outset that the Affirmative +desire all the local self-government for American cities that the +Negative can induce the state legislatures to give them. But just +what is home rule for cities? It is simply granting additional +functions to the city by the state legislature. The only possible +way home rule can affect the question under discussion is a +consideration of which form of government is best suited to perform +additional functions granted by the government. We maintain that +the commission form can do this better because, first, it furnishes +superior legislation, and second, it furnishes superior +administration.</p> +<p>The gentleman blandly assumes that the commission form is +fundamentally wrong, because it fails to provide a separate +legislative body as do the governments of the state and nation. An +isolated legislative body is desirable for state and national +governments. Is that a reason for applying it to city government? +Here, social, economic, and political conditions are entirely +different from those of either state or nation. The city is not a +sovereign body. Its powers are exclusively those delegated to it by +the state legislature. They are confined wholly to matters of local +concern. Furthermore, we do not deny the legislative functions of +the city, nor does the plan we advocate contemplate the destruction +of the city's legislative body. It simply means that in place of +the present notoriously inefficient, isolated council, we establish +a commission council composed of the heads of the various +administrative departments. The question at issue is not whether we +shall have a city council, either system provides for that; but +whether a commission council, or an isolated council will furnish +better ordinances. We are contending that the commission council +must furnish superior measures, because in the making of city +ordinances there are at least three great essentials for which this +commission council alone makes adequate provision.</p> +<p>First the legislative and administrative work of the city must +be unalterably connected;</p> +<p>Second, the councilmen must have a direct and technical +knowledge of the city affairs;</p> +<p>Third, the councilman must be representative of the whole +city.</p> +<p>Consider, first, how the legislative and administrative work are +connected. State and national legislation are general in their +nature and scope. The extent of territory, and the variety in local +needs have naturally created a separate law-making body. But in the +city such conditions do not exist. The legislative acts of the +council are specific in their nature. The very name reveals their +distinctive character. They are ordinances as distinguished from +other laws, and are designed to meet a particular kind of +administration. The specific act and the particular administration +of it go hand in hand. Hence, satisfactory measures can be enacted +only when they come from the hands of a commission council.</p> +<p>President Eliot recognized this fact when he said that the work +of the city council is not concerned with far-reaching policies of +legislation. There is no occasion for two or even one separate +legislative body. Dr. Albert Shaw writes, that so indistinguishably +blended are the legislative and administrative departments of the +city, that it is impossible to separate one from the other.</p> +<p>Second, a commission council is more effective because it +furnishes a direct and technical knowledge of city affairs. An +investigation in Des Moines showed that out of 370 acts performed +by the council, 32 were granting of saloon licenses and similar +permits; 338 concerned matters demanding technical knowledge. To +have a street paved, shall one body legislate; a second group +administer; and a third pass upon the validity of the whole thing? +Rather the councilmen should know good paving; they should know how +to draw up and enforce a business contract. These are the vital +necessities.</p> +<p>The commission council secures such results. Its membership is +comparatively small. Its sessions are held daily. Its members have +a direct knowledge of the city's needs for each one serves as the +head of a department. Satisfactory legislation then becomes a mere +business proposition. It is but carrying forward the work of each +commissioner, for successful administration is impossible without +competent legislation. Hence, a city commissioner would no more +think of passing improper legislation than a bank director would +think of advising unsound loans.</p> +<p>The Cedar Rapids commission met to legislate on replacing an old +bridge. The commissioner of public safety told in what respects the +old structure was unsafe. The commissioner of public property knew +how much land the city owned abutting the bridge. The commissioner +of streets explained what alterations should be made in the +approaches, and the commissioner of finance knew in just what way +the city could best pay for the improvement. Honorable Judges, such +men are in a position to legislate with thoroughness. They are a +commission council, the very nature of which makes it inevitable +that they act with intelligence and efficiency.</p> +<p>Contrast now, the commission council with the isolated council. +Here we find positively no co-ordination between the legislative +and administrative branches, while a century of experience with the +scheme of checks and balances has proved conclusively that it can +not prevent municipal corruption. Moreover, legislation by the +isolated council is not only chaotic in form but it is +irresponsible, while in the case of the commission council the very +fact that the head of each department possesses necessary +information not only secures adequate legislation but fixes with +certainty the entire responsibility.</p> +<p>The isolated council is a large and unwieldy body. Each member +of it has his own private occupation. Without special preparation +of any kind he attends council not oftener than once a week. +Intelligent action under such conditions is simply impossible. The +only way this council has of securing reliable information is from +the heads of the administrative departments. But even then +responsibility is still divided between the legislative and +administrative branches. This deplorable state of affairs has been +synchronous with the growth of the isolated council in America.</p> +<p>Is it any wonder that the old Des Moines council voted to +construct a bridge only to find when the work was completed that +the city did not even own the approaches, or that the old Cedar +Rapids council let a similar contract at an exorbitantly high +price, only to find, when the work was completed, that the contract +called for no protecting wings or abutments, and the city was +compelled to spend many thousands of dollars additional in order to +make the structure safe? Such nonsensical legislation is a direct +result of the isolated council. It fails to provide information +essential to intelligent action. It does not permit a proper +co-ordination of departments so vitally necessary in successful +city government.</p> +<p>Lastly, city legislation demands unbiased representation. In +this respect a commission council is superior to an isolated +council.</p> +<p>In the commission council each member represents the entire +city. Hence, there is no incentive to favor one ward at the expense +of another. In fact, any such an attempt could result only in +disaster to the commissioner himself. Furthermore, each +commissioner is held individually responsible for his department. +Consequently he is forced to insist upon an impartial +representation of the entire city. This is well illustrated by the +present situation in New York City. The Bureau of Municipal +Research, admittedly the most practical organization of its kind in +the country, is conducting its work along the line of effective +competency in city departments. As a result of its investigations, +the citizens of New York have been forced to the conclusion to +which my colleague has already referred, namely, that the ultimate +solution of their municipal difficulties will be reached only when +they have disposed of their present inefficient and useless ward +council and created in its place a commission council.</p> +<p>Under the isolated council a member is elected to represent a +certain section of the city. He must do this, no matter what may be +the effect upon the rest of the city. For example, in legislating +on the annual budget, each ward boss brings pressure to bear upon +his own councilman to have certain levies reduced, and to secure +stipulated appropriations for his own ward. In New York City last +spring, Bird S. Coler, representing a part of Brooklyn, blocked +every appropriation until he secured certain selfish measures for +his own district. What is true of New York is an annual occurrence +in practically every other ward-ruled American city.</p> +<p>Furthermore, councilmen from one ward are shamefully +unresponsive to the needs and desires of citizens in other wards. +Just this summer the council of Duluth, Minn., granted saloon +licenses for a ward in which 90 per cent of its citizens signed a +written protest against such action. The councilmen representing +that district were helpless to prevent the legislation and the +citizens themselves had no recourse whatsoever. The grand jury in +St. Louis reported that the wards of that city were an actual +menace to decency and good government.</p> +<p>With these instances before us it is well to remember that the +scheme of ward representation is a necessary part of the practical +operation of the separation of powers in government. This is +exemplified in our national, state, and city organizations. In +fact, the principal reason for an isolated legislative body is that +the sentiments of the different localities may be expressed in +legislation. The practical result is that 95 per cent of our city +governments are based upon ward representation, nor can an instance +be cited in all American political theory which shows the creation +of a successful political organization based upon an isolated +legislative body in which there has not been an accompanying +representation by territorial districts. This principle is always +the same no matter whether it be a congressional district of the +national government or a ward of the city government. Hence, it is +for this principle that the gentlemen must contend if they wish to +argue for an isolated council in city government.</p> +<p>In conclusion, Honorable Judges, a commission council is +superior to an isolated council, because the work of city +legislation and administration must be unalterably connected; +because the councilmen must have a direct and technical knowledge +of city affairs; and, because the councilmen must be representative +of the whole city.</p> +</div> +<p>Mr. Vincent Starzinger, the second speaker on the Negative, +said:</p> +<div class="blockquot"> +<p>The Affirmative continue to direct their attack against the "old +form." Yet my colleague has suggested substantial changes in +present city organization, changes which have brought about success +wherever tried. Moreover, we wish to make it clear that we are not +necessarily standing for a division of power. There may be +separately constituted departments of government, one primarily for +administration, the other primarily for legislation, yet a +concentration of authority in one of them, as in the case under the +cabinet system of Europe. The gentlemen of the opposition are +advocating not only a concentration of power, but a fusion of +functions as well. Their commission is at once the executive +cabinet and the legislative body.</p> +<p>We have heard much about the practical working of the new plan. +Upon this matter, the Negative shall have a few words to say before +the close of the debate. But granting for the sake of argument that +the commission form has operated with some degree of success in a +few small towns, especially when compared with the admitted +inefficient machinery of government in vogue before its adoption +and when favored by an aroused civic interest, nevertheless, it +does not follow that it is adapted to the needs of the typical +American city. There, administration is a matter of great +complexity and of vital importance. Boston has pay-rolls including +12,000 and annual expenditure of $40,000,000. Successful +administration under such conditions has necessitated the growth of +city departments. The heads of the various departments constitute +an executive cabinet. Under the commission form, this cabinet is +established by popular election and made the single governmental +body for the performance of both the legislative and the +administrative functions.</p> +<p>Such a fusion of functions must necessarily result: in poor +administration; in the sacrifice of legislation; and in the +ultimate destruction of local self-government.</p> +<p>Consider the problem of administration.</p> +<p>An efficient cabinet cannot, as a rule, be secured by popular +election. Men who possess the ability to direct a city department +acquire such capacity only after years of preparation, and such men +will not endure the uncertainties of a career dependent upon the +favor of the public. The commissioner of finance who understands +the intricate problems of accounting will not coddle the people to +insure his election. Popular judgment, no matter how enlightened, +cannot be entrusted with the selection of such men. The old board +system proves this conclusively. Here, the choosing of the heads of +the important city departments was placed in the hands of the +people. The system stands condemned.</p> +<p>A commission form makes the additional blunder of uniting +completely the two functions of legislation and administration in +the same body. This makes the commissioners representative in +character. But this condition is disastrous to successful +administration. Whenever the people desire even the slightest +change in their local policy, the stability and continuity of the +city departments must be upset. Representation is secured at the +expense of efficiency. Administration becomes saturated with +politics.</p> +<p>Again, Honorable Judges, the management of a city should be +subjected to the criticism and control of a reviewing body. Both +the welfare of the people and the interests of good administration +demand it. Administrators, no matter how valuable their technical +knowledge, make poor legislators. Being interested in their work, +they very naturally exalt and magnify their departments. Just a few +years ago, the city of Cleveland found it necessary to take even +the preparation of the budget from the heads of the departments +concerned and to place it with a board which could view with +impartiality the demands of the various department chiefs. Think of +turning over all the functions of a city like St. Louis to an +executive cabinet without even the oversight or criticism of an +impartial body.</p> +<p>And, Honorable Judges, the whole experience of government proves +the absolute necessity for a separate legislative department. Look +where you will, and in each case there is an executive cabinet, +based upon appointment, untrammelled by the burdens of legislation, +and subjected to the criticism and control of a reviewing body. In +Europe, the city councils are elected by the people, and the +administrative departments are made up through a process of +selection and appointment, together with the assurance of +reasonable permanence of tenure, responsibility, and adequate +support. Likewise in America, the larger cities are already +organizing their cabinets upon a somewhat similar basis. The six +largest cities of New York, all of the cities of Indiana, Boston, +Chicago, Baltimore, and many others are securing their important +administrative officials through appointment by the mayor. This is +the general plan advocated by the National Municipal League. It +centers responsibility for the administration in one man. On the +other hand, some of the cities of Canada follow more closely to the +German system. There the cabinet is selected by a representative +council. In practically all of these instances, men of special +ability have been obtained, the departments of administration have +been properly correlated, responsibility has been concentrated, and +the general principle, that successful administration depends upon +a separately constituted legislative body, has been firmly +established.</p> +<p>It is plain then that a commission form violates the fundamental +principles of successful administration. It first attempts to +secure a cabinet by popular vote. It then upsets the stability of +the city departments by completely uniting both the legislative and +the administrative functions. Finally, it destroys the +responsibility of that prime essential of successful +administration, namely, a proper reviewing body.</p> +<p>In the second place, Honorable Judges, the permanent adoption of +a commission form must necessarily mean a sacrifice of legislation +and the ultimate destruction of local self-government. Even though +the city may be subordinate to the state, nevertheless, it has a +broad field of independent action. Otherwise, why give it a +separate personality and a separate organization? Cities are +permitted to exercise vast powers of police and of taxation. It is +idle to say that a few commissioners can give satisfactory +legislation. They cannot represent community interests. Their +executive functions will naturally bias their judgment. Moreover, +each commissioner, knowing little of the needs of the other +departments, will naturally take the word of its administrative +head, especially since he desires the same freedom. This was +actually the case in Sacramento, Cal., where the commission plan +was tried for fifteen years and given up as an abject failure. Says +the Hon. Clinton White of that city: "In almost every instance, the +board soon came to the understanding that each man was to be let +alone in the management of the department assigned to him. This +resulted in there being in fact no tribunals exercising a +supervisory power over the executive of a particular department." +Honorable Judges, a reviewing and legislative body is indispensable +in city government and a commission makes no such provision. Weak +in administration, wholly lacking in matters of legislation, +dangerous as a theory of government, it cannot help but result in +the complete subjection of local government to the state. The +inevitable result of its permanent adoption will be that the +important local legislative functions will become a mere +administrative board with discretionary power as in the case of +Washington, D.C. In the words of Professor Goodnow: "The +destruction of the city council has not destroyed council +government. It has simply made local policy a matter of state +legislative determination." If we wish to destroy the life of the +city, make it impotent to discharge the functions for which it was +organized, then, and then only, it might be feasible to place over +it a commission.</p> +<p>But, Honorable Judges, authorities are agreed that cities must +be allowed greater freedom of action in local affairs, that +municipal home rule is indispensable. The governments of our large +cities have been dominated to such an extent by the state +legislatures, usually partisan and irresponsible to the locality +concerned, that in many cases self-government has become a term, +hollow and without meaning.</p> +<p>The gentlemen condemn the city council, yet they pass over the +real cause for its decay. Restore to the city its proper +legislative powers, confine the work of the council to legislation +instead of allowing it to go into details of administration, reduce +the number of councilmen, if necessary, adjust the method of +representation, introduce needed electoral and primary reform, +establish responsibility by means of uniform municipal accounting +and publicity of proceedings, and we ask the gentlemen in all +earnestness why American city councils will not take on new life +just as the city councils of every other country have done in the +past.</p> +<p>The two great problems of American city government are: first, +administration; secondly, municipal home rule. The solution of both +depends upon the existence of two separately constituted +departments of government. This principle is being emphasized by +the leading scholars of political science, as illustrated by the +program of the National Municipal League. In fact, Honorable +Judges, every deep-seated reform in our large cities for the past +quarter of a century has tended toward this cardinal doctrine of +municipal success. The Ohio Municipal Code Commission, after two +years of careful study and observation, presented a bill based upon +the principles which we defend tonight, namely, a separation of +administration from legislation, and secondly, municipal home +rule.</p> +<p>In direct opposition to this, the gentlemen present and advocate +as a permanent scheme for the organization of American cities, both +large and small, a commission form, a quasi-legislative and +administrative board patterned to give mediocrity in the +performance of both functions, success in neither; a form which +destroys forever the possibility of developing an efficient +executive cabinet and is entirely out of harmony with the advancing +idea of municipal home rule.</p> +</div> +<p>Mr. George Luxford, the third speaker on the Affirmative, +said:</p> +<div class="blockquot"> +<p>It has been made very clear by my colleagues that the present +shameful condition of many of our American cities is due in large +measure to the peculiar form of the government patterned after a +scheme which is adapted to a sovereign government like the state or +nation. The Negative demand an isolation which history shows, so +far as our American cities are concerned, leads to a complete +confusion of functions, with a consequent loss of responsibility. +Knowing the inadequacy of the scheme they then demanded municipal +home rule; but we have shown that the Affirmative are thoroughly +committed to municipal home rule which under the commission form +alone can be safely intrusted to cities. State interference in city +government is the child of the form of government for which our +friends of the Negative are sponsors. Thus far the gentlemen have +failed to disprove the points which we have presented that the +theory of checks and balances when applied to American cities has +failed; that the plan of concentrating municipal authority under +one head as advocated by the commission plan is in complete harmony +with modern industrial and social development, and that the plan is +superior from a legislative standpoint. It shall be my purpose to +show that it is superior from the standpoint of administration. We +believe this because the commission lends itself to the application +of business methods. The plan provides for a comparatively small +body of men who meet in daily session and who give their whole time +to the work of governing the city. At present, too often the real +business of the officials is anything else. They give their spare +time to the city and we have seen the results. Honorable judges, we +claim that there is a special virtue in the very smallness of the +number inasmuch as they are properly paid, devote all their time to +their work, and are made in fact governors of the city. They have a +great deal of work to do and they do it, while under our present +systems the councilmen have comparatively little to do and they +fail to do that little efficiently.</p> +<p>The reason why this small body can administer with dispatch and +efficiency is seen at a glance. Each commissioner is the head of a +department for which he is personally responsible. He is not +hindered as is the executive at present by an inefficient and +meddling council which has more power, often, than the executive +himself. He knows the laws for he has helped to make them. It is +his business to see that they are executed, and if they are not, he +cannot escape blame. He cannot plead ignorance, lack of +responsibility, or lack of power as do present administrative +officers.</p> +<p>Moreover, this body is admirably constituted for effective +carrying out of city business. It is larger than the single headed +executive and possesses, therefore, a division of work which makes +the administration far more effective. At the same time it is +smaller than the old council and for that reason is more efficient +in enacting the city's peculiar kind of legislation. In actual +practice, and that seems to be the real test of city government, +both administration and legislation are accomplished with accuracy +and dispatch. For instance, every spring for the last decade +carloads of "dagoes" with their dirt and disease have come to Cedar +Rapids. Every year protests have gone up to both mayor and council, +but without result. Cedar Rapids has adopted a commission form of +government. Last spring when the "dagoes" came the same complaints +went up as usual, that because of their insanitary methods these +people carried with them filth and disease. But the petitioners did +not go to the city council which met once in two weeks, nor were +they referred to a committee which met less often. They went +directly to the commissioners who had charge of the city health and +in less than twenty-four hours the "dagoes" had been notified to +either clean up or leave, and they left the city. But, say the +opponents of this plan, this could have been done under the old +system. To be sure, but the burning fact remains that in spite of +the protests of the people, it was not done.</p> +<p>In Houston the government was both inefficient and dishonest. +For years the annual expenditures had exceeded the income a hundred +thousand dollars. The city adopted a commission form and a four +hundred thousand dollar floating debt was paid off in one year out +of the ordinary income of the city. At the same time the city's +taxes were reduced ten per cent. In the health department alone +there is a saving of from $100 to $150 per month, while a +combination in the operation of the garbage crematory and pumping +station saves the city $6,000 annually. These results have been +accomplished under a commission plan by the application of common, +everyday business principles.</p> +<p>Galveston adopted a commission plan, and although its taxable +values were reduced twenty-five per cent by the storm of 1900, yet +within six years its commissioners not only put the city on a cash +basis, made improvements costing $1,000,000 annually, but actually +paid off a debt of $394,000 which had been incurred by the old +council, and all this was accomplished without borrowing a dollar, +issuing a bond, or increasing the rate of taxation. Other cities +which have adopted a commission plan are accomplishing equally as +beneficial results. Hence, we maintain that the commission form of +city government is superior from the standpoint of efficiency in +administration.</p> +<p>The commission plan is superior in administration for it is +adapted to the city's financial problem. The same body of men are +held responsible for the levying and collecting of taxes and for +the spending of the money. This is desirable because the +administrative body which is to spend money knows, accurately, the +city's need of revenue. They are in a position to know; it is their +business. A legislative body, whether council or a board, cannot +know the city's needs for money without getting the facts from the +administrative body. F.R. Clow says the council does not pretend to +know the city's revenue problem and they adopt the recommendation +of the administrative departments. The Negative's system of +division of powers simply divides the responsibility between the +legislative and administrative departments for the thing which in +fact has been done by the administrative department itself. Since +the administrative department really dictates the budget, it should +be held directly responsible for it. Therefore, we contend that the +commissioners, knowing best what the budget should contain because +as administrators they know the city's need for money, are the body +of men preeminently fitted to handle the city's budget.</p> +<p>The commission plan is adapted to the city's financial problem +because it fosters economy. Economy is the result of understanding. +The commissioners knowing the city's government, not from the +administrative side alone, but from the legislative side as well, +are in a position to economize and in practice they have done so. +The running expenses of Galveston under the commission plan have +been reduced one-third. In Houston it costs $12,800 a year less to +run the water and light plants than formerly, while by a +combination of work in the different departments there is a saving +of $9,000 annually. In Cedar Rapids, since the adoption of the +commission plan, there has been a reduction in the paving contracts +let of ten and one-fifth per cent, in sewerage contracts, fourteen +and two-sevenths per cent, and in water contracts, twenty per cent. +Immediately after the adoption of the commission plan in Des Moines +the annual cost of each arc-light was reduced five dollars. Reports +from all the cities using the commission plan show that by the use +of business principles the commissioners have economized in the +administration of the city's government.</p> +<p>The commission plan is adapted to the city's finances because it +provides a superior safeguard. Legislative bodies in our cities +have been depended upon to represent the citizens' best interest. +In practice, as we have pointed out, they have not done so. Never +in the history of our municipal affairs, says Henry D.F. Baldwin, +has a legislative body stood out as the representatives of the +people against the administrative department. Why then continue a +representative body which does not in fact represent? Instead of +the withered form of a council or legislative body standing between +the citizen and his government the commission plan simply removes +this useless obstacle and allows the citizen to participate +directly in the government. This is directly in harmony with the +well-established economic principle that the self-interest of the +taxpayer will control where responsibility is fixed.</p> +</div> +<p>Mr. Charles Briggs, the third speaker on the Negative, said:</p> +<div class="blockquot"> +<p>It will be well while the matter is fresh in our minds, +Honorable Judges, to make a brief examination of one matter of +which the Affirmative are making a feature, that the commission +form affords unusual safeguards for the financial and economic +interests of the city. Now, in all fairness to the scheme which is +doing quite well in a very few of our smaller cities, the question +ought to be raised as to what other form of city government could +be devised which would provide greater opportunities for graft and +corruption. A little group of autocrats is the ideal form for which +the ardent corruptionists might pray. They have it in the +commission form. Exemplary men in office or a constant civic +interest, may prevent the commissioners from becoming a band of +robbers; but are these two preventives likely always to exist? +Human experience says "No." The history of New Orleans and +Sacramento confirm that decision. Civic interest is bound to +subside; corrupt men are sure to become commissioners. Then the +oligarchy advocated by the Affirmative becomes not a "safeguard" +but a band of raiders equipped by the very form of government to +loot the treasury. We must insist, at this point, that our +opponents have failed in their assault upon our main +contention:</p> +<p>First, that the evils in American city government are not +attributable to the fundamental principles of that government; +second, that the principles underlying the proposed form are in +themselves wrong and are not consonant generally with American +ideals. It remains to be shown that the commission form is +impracticable as a general scheme for the government of all +American cities.</p> +<p>We can very well agree that where the commission form of +government has been tried it has been productive of some good +results, and further, that in certain homogeneous communities of +high culture and intelligence it might work with considerable +success; but that the result obtained in cities where the +commission form has been tried would warrant the universal adoption +of it by American cities we must deny.</p> +<p>We deny the wisdom of adopting the commission form for it +results in inadequate responsibility; third, it could never work in +the vast majority of American cities. These reasons are apparent +from examinations of the commission form where it has been and is +being tried, and are inherent in the plan itself.</p> +<p>The tremendous centralization of power under this form of city +government cannot escape a critical observer. A small body of men +have absolute sway over the destiny of the city. They make all laws +from the minutely specified contract for a water system to all +important school legislation. All franchises are engineered by +them. All contracts, great and small, are let by them. The city's +bonded debt is in their hands; by them the city is taxed and +incumbered. Parks, police, streets, education, public buildings, +engineering, finance—everything from the smallest +administrative duty to the all-engrossing functions of legislation +devolves upon this commission. They can vacate any office, can +create any office, and without limit fix any salary they choose. +The entire officialdom, outside of the commission itself, and all +the employes and the servants of the city are by law made the +agents, servants, and dependents of the council. The possibilities +for machine power with this autocratic centralization of authority +are without condition. We can demonstrate this best by giving +practical illustrations taken from the active operation of the +commission form. We may preface these by saying that there is +nothing inherent in the commission form or any of its attributes +which can insure the selection of better men for office. The +members of the commission will be about the same kind of men as the +ordinary city official. Minneapolis by an election at large placed +in the mayor's chair its most notorious grafter. This is proved by +the personnel of the commissions where the system is being tried. +The investigating committee appointed by the city of Des Moines, +quoting their exact words, say that in Houston, where the +commissioners are required to stay in the city hall every day, +business men do not hold those positions, although the salaries are +higher than the proposed salaries of the Des Moines commissioners. +One commissioner was formerly a city scavenger, another a +blacksmith, justice of the peace and alderman, a third a railway +conductor, fourth a dry-goods merchant, and the mayor, a retired +capitalist. Mr. Pollock of Kansas City says of the Des Moines +commission, "The commission as elected consists of a former police +judge and justice of the peace who is mayor-commissioner at the +salary of $3,500; a coal miner, deputy sheriff; the former city +assessor, whose greatest success has been in public office; a union +painter of undoubted honesty and integrity, but far from a $3,000 +man; an ex-mayor and politician, who is perhaps the most valuable +member of the new form of government, but whose record does not +disclose any great business capacity aside from that displayed in +public office." The Des Moines committee says of the Galveston +commission: "This is a perpetual body, a potentially perfect +machine." There has been no change in the membership of the +Galveston commission since it was organized. The extensive power of +the commissioners have enabled them to control all political +factions and to completely crush the opposition. The commissioners' +faction is in complete control and even goes so far as to dictate +nominations for the legislature and the national congress. In Des +Moines we find evidences of this machine power in the very first +session of the commission. Mr. Hume was appointed chief of police +because he had delivered the labor vote to Mr. Mathis. The <i>Daily +News</i>, the only Des Moines paper that supported the plan, was +rewarded by having three of its staff appointed to responsible +positions. Mr. Lyman was appointed secretary to Commissioner +Hammery, Neil Jones secretary to Mayor Mathis. Another man was +appointed to an important technical position. A brakeman was +appointed street commissioner because he delivered the vote of the +Federation of Labor.</p> +<p>These are but a few of the instances where this great +centralization of power has shown itself in practice to be a system +permitting of unrestricted machine power and political grafting. +New Orleans tried the system and abandoned it over 20 years ago +because of this very reason. The inhabitants were afraid of this +tremendous centralization of power.</p> +<p>The friends of the commission idea claim for it the advantage of +centered responsibility; but practice has proved that this form of +city government is actually formulated to defeat responsibility. By +the construction of this governing body each commissioner is held +responsible for his respective department. But regulation for each +department is made not by the commission as a whole but by the +whole commission. This results in a confusion of powers. Thus in +the city of Des Moines, Mr. Hume, the personal enemy of +Commissioner Hammery was made chief of police by three other +members of the commission for political reasons.</p> +<p>Who is responsible for the mistakes of Mr. Hume? The people say +Hammery. But Hammery says: "I had nothing to do with his +appointment." It has actually happened time and again at the +commission table in Des Moines that regulations for the financial +department were made by the police commission, the street +commissioner and the commissioner of parks and public buildings; +that the police commissioner would have the deciding vote on some +important school legislation; or the commissioner of education +control the appointment of policemen. This defect has given rise to +log-rolling. Bridges have been built as a personal favor to one +commissioner whose vote is needed to construct a new schoolhouse. +Large paving and building contracts are let simply because the +police commissioner wanted to oust some unfaithful political +dependent. In this way each commissioner gains great favor with the +voters and at the same time can escape personal responsibility for +technical mistakes by shouldering the blame onto the whole +commission where his identity is lost. This department trading has +found its way into the Galveston commission, claimed to have the +best commission of any city under this form of government. Here we +find that at the same time the prosecutor of the city cases in the +police court is allowed the right to collect a fee of $10 for every +criminal, drunk, or vagrant convicted, and $5 for every one who +pleads guilty; a 50-year franchise is granted to the Galveston +Street Railway Co. without a vote of the people, the city not to +receive one cent of tax and no compensation.</p> +<p>So, Honorable Judges, we must consider that, while the +commission form may be a temporary success in a few small cities, +its permanent success there is in grave doubt. Under these +conditions we do not ask that it be abolished, but that under no +circumstances its application be made general in this country where +other forms of city government are in practice more successful and +in theory more correct.</p> +</div> +<p>REBUTTAL</p> +<p>Mr. Earl Stewart opened for the Negative:</p> +<div class="blockquot"> +<p>The gentlemen contend that the work of the city is almost wholly +of a business nature. Honorable Judges, if the city does not have +important legislative duties, what do we mean by local +self-government? The courts have held again and again that the work +of the city is primarily governmental. Says Judge Dillon: "The city +is essentially public and political in character." Not a business +corporation in this country could place vast sums of money in the +hands of four of five men without the safeguard of some supervising +body. Yet New York City has an annual expenditure of $150,000,000, +equaled by the aggregate of seven other American cities of 400,000 +population; more than that of nations; three times that of the +Argentine Republic; four times that of Sweden and Norway combined. +Honorable Judges, the American people are too business-like ever to +place the entire raising, appropriating, and extending of such vast +sums of money, or the half, or the quarter, or the tenth of such, +in the hands of five men without the adequate check and safeguard +of some supervising and reviewing body, call it congress, +legislature, or council.</p> +<p>The gentlemen condemn divisions of powers because the city's +functions are of such a mixed nature and no strict line of +separation can be drawn. Granted. We have emphasized repeatedly +that we are not standing for division of powers; we are standing +for separately constituted bodies, which shall co-operate. We are +defending no system of disconnected committees which the gentlemen +have spent a whole speech in attacking, and we have shown, +furthermore, that the evils are only augmented by going to the +other extreme and completely confusing the functions in one small +body. The gentlemen see no difference between principles of +government and the form or mechanism which embodies, adequately or +inadequately, those principles. They forget that the National +Municipal League debated for three years over detail of form, never +once disagreeing as to the essential principle of distinct bodies +for legislation and administration. They forget that the model +charter, which is efficient because it has a proper co-ordination +of departments, is based upon the same principle of separately +constituted bodies as the old board system with its disconnected +departments and complicated machinery. Because the machinery has +been inadequate, owing to causes which the gentlemen have ignored, +they would abolish the working principle which is proved correct in +every instance of successful city organization, wherever found.</p> +<p>Just a word on this over-worked argument of centering +responsibility. Accountability means that a man charged with the +performance of a task shall be held undividedly responsible for it. +Now the commissioners collectively legislate. They can not do this +without constantly and seriously intruding upon the work of the +several departments. The moment this is done, responsibility is +diffused. The Hume incident, mentioned by my colleague, is abundant +illustration of the way responsibility is fixed under a commission +form. Says Professor F.I. Herriot, head of the department of +political science in Drake University and statistician of the Iowa +board of control: "A commission form cuts at the very roots of +official accountability and responsibility and, strange enough, it +is because its friends believe that it enhances fixing of +responsibility that they propose it." This from a scholar who has +watched the plan in operation. A commission form does not fix +responsibility, but even granting for the sake of argument that it +does, are we to sacrifice representative government for the sake of +fixing responsibility? If so, then why not make it still more +definite and establish one-man power? Honorable Judges, we have +shown that responsibility is more effectively centered by +establishing uniform accounting and publicity.</p> +<p>The affirmative contend that the commissioners will furnish +superior legislation. Now we do not say that knowledge of +administration is of no benefit in legislation. But the necessary +information can be secured without confusing the functions in a +small executive cabinet. In Europe it is done by making the cabinet +responsible to the council. In the United States, for example, +Baltimore, it is done by having the cabinet meet and co-operate +with the council. Nothing can be done by withholding the +information, and as a matter of fact, the city secures all the +benefit of the technical training of its administrators without the +disadvantage of confusion of functions.</p> +</div> +<p>Mr. Clarence Coulter opened for the Affirmative:</p> +<div class="blockquot"> +<p>It has been argued by the Negative that the success of the +commission form of government is based upon the assumption of +electing good men to office, and as an illustration, that the Des +Moines commissioners are inefficient members of the old city hall +gang. As it happens, however, one of the commissioners is a man +with a national reputation as a municipal expert, a man whose +honesty and integrity have never once been questioned. The +commissioner of public safety has been trained for his position by +long experience in municipal affairs and is a college graduate. +Admitting, however, for the sake of argument, that the gentleman's +contention is true; yet the unquestioned success of the Des Moines +government proves the wisdom of the commission plan, for it so +centralizes individual responsibility as to require honest and +efficient performance of duty on the part of each commissioner.</p> +<p>Now as to securing good men. In the first place, the negative +did not, and cannot, cite a single city in which the commission +plan has failed to secure good men. Better men are elected under +the commission plan, for the number of elective offices is greatly +decreased, while the responsibility and honor of the position is +relatively increased. Moreover, the government is put on a business +basis and the commissioners are given steady employment at a good +salary. They have an opportunity to make a genuine record for +themselves, as well as to serve the best interests of the city. On +the other hand, the fact that responsibility is definitely centered +on each commissioner will, in itself, prevent men of no ability or +grafting politicians from seeking office. Political parties no +longer have any opportunity of putting men of little ability into +office, but instead, competent men with a genuine interest in the +city affairs and with no party affiliations whatever, so far as +municipal affairs are concerned, will be attracted to the position +of commissioner.</p> +<p>The opposition go further and charge that, even though efficient +men may be elected to office, the commission plan makes impossible +the fixing of responsibility. They failed, however, to point out a +single instance in commission-governed cities to prove their point +and made no attempt to show how responsibility could be better +fixed under the present system. As a matter of fact, Honorable +Judges, the fixing of individual responsibility, under the present +system, is utterly impossible, as we have already shown, while it +is the strongest virtue of the commission plan. In matters of pure +administration it is absolutely impossible for the commissioner to +escape individual responsibility, for he has full charge of the +administration of his own department. In matters of legislation, +where the majority vote of the commission may determine a policy +affecting a certain commissioner, responsibility is not lost but is +fixed upon those few who voted for such policy.</p> +<p>It has been contended that the commission form of government is +unpopular and that this plan has been rejected in both Sioux City +and Davenport. That these cities rejected it is true. But why? +Sioux City turned it down because the constitutionality of the plan +had not, at that time, been determined. Davenport refused to accept +it because the grafting politicians and the political ring so +dominated the city's politics that they were able to defeat the new +plan and retain the old, which was best suited to the furtherance +of their own ends.</p> +<p>The gentlemen of the opposition have argued that the present +inefficiency of city government is due to the interference of the +state legislatures and contend that the ultimate solution of the +difficulty lies in greater municipal home rule. They are correct, +Honorable Judges! The state legislature has interfered. But why? +Simply because the city council has proved itself inefficient. New +York City's council was in full possession of its powers when the +state legislature began to interfere. Legislation by somebody was +necessary. The council failed, and now the negative say, give back +to the city its powers and let the council try again.</p> +<p>According to the gentlemen themselves, the end to be achieved is +less interference of state legislatures and more home rule. It is +obvious, however, that this can be accomplished only when the city +itself can put forth a capable and efficient legislative body. +Honorable Judges, in our second speech we proved to you, that the +commission provides a small but efficient legislative body, far +superior to that of an isolated council. If you want municipal home +rule, establish a form of government which makes it possible.</p> +</div> +<p>Mr. Charles Briggs replied for the Negative:</p> +<div class="blockquot"> +<p>My colleague has proved that whatever the form of government, +there must be a body capable of wise legislation, in fact, that +there must be a body that is primarily legislative in character no +matter what its connection or relation with the other departments +of government. That a small commission, burdened with +administrative and judicial functions, is not a proper legislative +body is at once apparent. My colleague has demonstrated that this +confusion of powers must result in inefficiency. But further than +this, it is our contention that a body such as is the commission, +without respect to the confusion of powers, without regard to the +administrative duties weighing upon it, that this commission, of +itself, is not suited to legislation.</p> +<p>There is no more reason for placing the legislation of the city +of Chicago in the hands of five men than that the state legislature +of Minnesota should be reduced to five members. It is true that, in +many respects, the legislation of a city differs from that of a +state, but it is, nevertheless, legislation, and in the larger +cities particularly it is necessary that there be a representative +legislative body. Five men no more constitute a proper legislative +body for 800,000 or a million people of a city than for that many +people outside the city. It is contrary to the fundamental +conception of a legislative body that it be composed of a few. In +no country of free institutions is a legislative body so +constituted. My colleague has proved, and it cannot be successfully +controverted, that in the city, as well as in the state, there is a +large field for legislation. Why, then, should there not be a +legislative body to perform the work of legislation? Why place the +work in the hands of a body that is primarily administrative in +character?</p> +<p>This objection alone must forever prevent the larger cities of +the United States from adopting the commission plan. Or, if +adopted, it must, for this reason alone, prove itself a +failure.</p> +</div> +<p>Mr. Robbins replied for the Affirmative:</p> +<div class="blockquot"> +<p>The Negative argue that the mechanisms of government in Boston +may differ from those of San Francisco. This is not a discussion of +the mechanisms of government. It involves deep and fundamental +principles relative to a given form of city organization. The +gentlemen have not, nor cannot, cite one iota of evidence that the +underlying principles of organization in the governments of Boston +and San Francisco should be different. The allusion to changing +mechanisms is no excuse for their failure to set in operation a +definite and positive form of organization. Yet the gentlemen have +ingeniously endeavored to evade this duty. Why have they done so? +Because every system of municipal organization based upon the +separation of powers—for which the gentlemen are +contending—has proved an admitted failure.</p> +<p>Do not the citizens of Brooklyn and San Francisco, as the +citizens of every American city, like to drink pure water? Don't +they desire good transportation facilities, and aren't they glad +when they have clean streets and honest administration? Why, then, +don't the gentlemen come forward, as the Affirmative has done, with +a specific form of organization which provides for the successful +administration of the underlying features of city government? +Instead, the gentlemen seem to delight in wandering across the +seas, telling what might happen if we would be indulgent enough to +pattern our form of organization after that of France, Germany, or +Bohemia. Yet they glibly refuse to consider that the city problem +of this country is distinctly American and is due to conditions +peculiar to America.</p> +<p>As a matter of fact, the gentlemen have held before us the +salient features of a half dozen opposing forms of organization, +none of which have succeeded individually, and the combined +features of which can make nothing more than a conglomeration of +theories and dogmas. Yes, the gentlemen have been painfully careful +not to put their scheme into practical operation.</p> +<p>They talk blandly of more home rule, when it is evident that +such a matter is actually beside the question at issue. In the same +way they speak at length of the cabinet system of England, +forgetting that the form the Affirmative is advocating involves the +underlying features of the cabinet system altered to meet +conditions peculiar to America. The commission form, Honorable +Judges, is an evolution of the cabinet form.</p> +<p>Likewise they have talked much of the need for a separate +reviewing body, citing the insurance scandals of New York state +legislature to prove their contention. Why don't they give +instances where a municipal reviewing body has checked fraud? The +reason is obvious. As Henry Baldwin writes, "Never has there been +an instance in American municipal history where the council has +stood out against the corruption of the administrative department." +Rather these so-called "reviewing bodies" are hand in hand with +graft. Look at the shameful conditions of the "reviewing bodies" of +Philadelphia, St. Louis, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh, with their +hands in the city treasury up to their elbows, and we realize +something of the absurdity of the argument for a separate reviewing +body to preserve efficiency and honesty in the city government. The +people should be the reviewing body of their government. Its +organization should be so simple, yet so complete, that every +citizen from the educated theorist to the humblest day laborer, can +review its facts with ease and understanding. This is the kind of +government the commission form supplies. Why don't the gentlemen +come forward with an organization equally as simple and +complete?</p> +<p>Then the gentlemen go on to tell how they will compel the +administrative officials to confer with their isolated "reviewing +body," and thus secure a proper co-ordination that has failed for a +century. Automatic mechanism in government can never take the place +of simplicity and responsibility. Such schemes are futile. The men +who can make mechanisms can break them. What we must have is a +government that compels efficiency and honesty, not one which +attempts to produce such results through theoretical +contrivances.</p> +<p>Finally, the gentlemen claim that the commission form has failed +in New Orleans and Sacramento. Will the gentlemen give their +authority for the statement that these cities had a commission +government? Every authority upon the subject which the affirmative +has found points to the conclusion, that the form of government +employed by these cities was not a commission form.</p> +</div> +<p>Mr. Starzinger closed for the Negative and said:</p> +<div class="blockquot"> +<p>The Affirmative have mentioned our authority. What we have said +in regard to Sacramento, Cal., is based upon excerpts from an +article by the Hon. Clinton White, published in the Cedar Rapids +<i>Evening Times</i>. Most of our facts concerning the southern +cities which adopted the new plan are taken from the reports of the +Des Moines investigation committee, headed by the Hon. W.N. Jordan. +We would be glad to submit these pamphlets to the gentlemen for +examination. The mere fact that Des Moines adopted the commission +form does not disprove the integrity of the authorities.</p> +<p>It is claimed that our stand is indefinite. True, we have not +offered a panacea for all municipal ills. But we have advocated +numerous reforms and have pointed out countless instances of +municipal success under various forms, yet all based upon the same +fundamental principle, that there be separately constituted +departments of government. One of the fatal objections to the +gentlemen's proposition is that they are attempting to blanket the +whole country with one arbitrary form, regardless of differing +conditions. They have completely ignored our cases of successful +city government. We demand that they explain them.</p> +<p>The gentlemen have said that state interference has been +precipitated by the decay of the city council. Yet they advocate +its complete destruction. Nothing could be more incorrect than to +say that special legislation was brought on as a result of an +inherent weakness in council government. Under the early council +system, there was practically no state interference. About the +middle of the last century, the board system was introduced and the +councils were shorn of their dignity and much of their legislative +power. Right there state dominion in local affairs began. These are +the unbiased facts as given by Professor Goodnow in his book on +city government.</p> +<p>In conclusion, Honorable Judges, the solution of the American +city problem will be best promoted by a program of reform which +strikes at the real causes of the evils, instead of the universal +overturning of all traditions and theories of government in the +hope of finding a short-cut road to municipal success. Give the +city a proper sphere of local autonomy. Co-ordinate the departments +of government, so as to establish responsibility and secure +harmonious action. Simplify present city organization without +destroying the two branches of government. Introduce new and +improving methods, such as non-partisan primaries, civil service, +uniform municipal accounting, and publicity of proceedings. Remedy +bad social and economic conditions. Arouse civic interest. Do this, +and there is no necessity for such a radical and revolutionary +change as the universal adoption of a commission form.</p> +<p>The new plan means, not alone a change in the form of +government, but a positive overturning of the working principle of +successful city organization the world over. Its experience has +been in the small towns for a short time, under unusual conditions, +amid aroused public sentiment. Even here it has shown fatal +weaknesses which the gentlemen have not satisfactorily explained. +It was abandoned by the only large city that ever tried it; and +cast aside as an abject failure by Sacramento, Cal., after fifteen +years of operation. In the face of these facts, the gentlemen would +have all American cities turn to this form as the final goal of +municipal success; a form which attempts to revive the old board +system of selecting administrative heads by popular vote; which, in +addition, centers the whole government of a city in a small +executive cabinet, without review or oversight; a form which, in +the words of Professor Fairlie, of the University of Michigan, "is +in direct opposition to the advancing idea of municipal home +rule."</p> +</div> +<p>Mr. Luxford closed the debate for the Affirmative, and said:</p> +<div class="blockquot"> +<p>The case for the Negative is now closed. It has been indefinite +from start to finish. They acknowledge the success of the +commission form but refuse to accept it as the proper form toward +which American cities should work. They have none to offer except a +form which is completely unknown in American cities and successful +alone in Europe under totally dissimilar conditions. We have shown +that every vital move for city improvement today is toward a +commission form, both in practice and theory. The gentlemen have +sought to overthrow the argument for the commission form, and yet +suggest no possible American substitute.</p> +<p>But the position is not only indefinite, but it is inconsistent. +At one time they say, "the commission form is working well in small +cities." In another they declare that the commission form ignores +the only principles which are at the basis of successful city +government the world over. Putting these statements together we +must conclude that the gentlemen who made the second statement +failed to hear the gentlemen who made the first. If they grant that +the commission form is successful anywhere in the world how can it +be that it is ignoring the only principles of successful city +government the world over?</p> +<p>But we would not be unjust to the gentlemen. They are not +perhaps altogether indefinite. They would keep the old mayor and +council plan but would have non-partisan primaries, uniform +municipal accounting, and publicity of proceedings. Non-partisan +primaries and publicity of proceedings they have stolen bodily from +the commission. We are grateful to the gentlemen for this hearty +indorsement of the material features of the commission form. As to +uniform municipal accounting, while it is just as possible under +the commission as under any other form of city government, its +advocacy by the gentlemen is inconsistent with their insistent +demand for municipal home rule. Who but the state can supervise a +uniform accounting of all cities? And the gentlemen have deplored +state interference.</p> +<p>Not only that, but the commission plan provides the necessary +responsibility whereby the citizens may know and participate in the +city government. In the first place the publication of monthly +itemized statements of all the proceedings is required. Every +ordinance appropriating money or ordering any street improvements, +or sewer, or the making of any contract shall remain on file for +public inspection at least one week before final passage. +Franchises are granted not by any legislative body but by direct +vote of the people. Similarly the citizens retain the right to +reject any ordinance passed, or to require the passage of any +needed ordinance. And finally, the citizens by direct vote may +remove any commissioner at any time.</p> +<p>Thus we see that the commissioners know both the legislative and +administrative side of the city's work, and the responsibility of +doing both is fixed upon them.</p> +<p>Lastly, Honorable Judges, the Affirmative rest their cases upon +these fundamental arguments: that the whole tendency in American +city government is toward centralization of power in one body; +where this concentration has been partial, city government has +failed. This failure is due largely to the fact that, while power +has centered, responsibility has been diffused. This unfortunate +condition has been obviated by the adoption of the commission form +which is found to be a success because it awakens civic interest, +secures competent officials, and provides in the best possible +manner for the legislative and administrative work of the city, +centering power and responsibility in one small body of men.</p> +</div> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2><a name="APPENDIX_IV" id="APPENDIX_IV"></a>APPENDIX IV</h2> +<h3>MATERIAL FOR BRIEFING</h3> +<h3>REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT</h3> +<h4>SPEECH OF HON. CHARLES F. SCOTT, OF KANSAS, IN THE HOUSE OF +REPRESENTATIVES, THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 1911</h4> +<p>(The House having under consideration the bill [S. 7031] to +codify, revise, and amend the laws relating to the +judiciary.—From the <i>Congressional Record</i>, March 3, +1911.)</p> +<p><i>Mr. Speaker</i>: In the ten years of my membership in this +House I have seldom taken advantage of the latitude afforded by +general debate to discuss any question not immediately before the +House. But there is a question now before the country, particularly +before the people of the state I have the honor to represent in +part upon this floor, upon which I entertain very positive +convictions, and which, I believe, is a proper subject for +discussion at this time and in this place. That question, bluntly +stated, is this: Is representative government a failure? We are +being asked now to answer that question in the affirmative. A new +school of statesmen has arisen, wiser than Washington and Hamilton +and Franklin and Madison, wiser than Webster and Clay and Calhoun +and Benton, wiser than Lincoln and Sumner and Stevens and Chase, +wiser than Garfield and Elaine and McKinley and Taft, knowing more +in their day than all the people have learned in all the days of +the years since the Republic was founded.</p> +<p>And they tell us that representative government is a failure. +They do not put this declaration into so many words—part of +them because they do not know enough about the science of +government to understand that the doctrines they advocate are +revolutionary, and the rest of them because they lack the courage +to openly declare that it is their intention to change our form of +government, to subvert the system upon which our institutions are +founded. But that is in effect what they propose to do.</p> +<p>Every school boy knows that in a pure democracy the people +themselves perform directly all the functions of government, +enacting laws without the intervention of a legislature, and trying +causes that arise under those laws without the intervention of +judge or jury; while in a republic, on the other hand, the people +govern themselves, not by each citizen exercising directly all the +functions of government, but by delegating that power to certain +ones among them whom they choose to represent them in the +legislatures, in the courts of justice, and in the various +executive offices.</p> +<p>It follows, therefore, that to substitute the methods of a +democracy for the methods of a republic touching any one of the +three branches of government is to that extent to declare that +representative government is a failure, is to that extent +subversive and revolutionary.</p> +<p>Now, it does not follow by any means that because a proposed +change is revolutionary it is therefore unwise. Taking it by and +large, wherever the word "revolution" has come into human history +it has been only another word for progress. Because a nation has +pursued certain methods for a long time it does not at all follow +that those methods are the best, although when a nation like the +United States, so bold and alert, so little hampered by tradition, +so ready to try experiments, has clung to the same methods of +government for 130 years, a strong presumption has certainly been +established that these methods are the best, at least for that +particular nation.</p> +<p>But is the new system wiser than the old—in the matter of +making laws, for example? The old system vests the law-making power +in a legislative body composed of men elected by the people and +supposed to be peculiarly fitted by reason of character, education, +and training for the performance of that duty. These men come +together and give their entire time through a period of some weeks +or months to the consideration of proposed legislation, and the +laws they enact go into immediate effect, and remain in force until +set aside by the courts as unconstitutional or until repealed by +the same authority that enacted them.</p> +<p>The new system—taking the Oregon law, for example, and it +is commonly cited as a model—provides that 8 per cent of the +voters of a state may submit a measure directly to the people, and +if a majority of those voting upon it give it their support it +shall become a law without reference to the legislature or to the +governor. That is the initiative. And it provides that if 5 per +cent of the voters are opposed to a law which the legislature has +passed, upon signing the proper petition the law shall be suspended +until the next general election, when the people shall be given an +opportunity to pass upon it. That is the referendum.</p> +<p>Now, there are several things about this plan which I believe +the people of this country, when they come really to consider it, +will scrutinize with a good deal of care and possibly with some +suspicion.</p> +<p>It is to be noted, in the first place, that a very few of the +people can put all the people to the trouble and expense of a vote +upon any measure, and the inquiry may well arise whether the cause +of settled and orderly government will be promoted by vesting power +in the minority thus to harass and annoy the majority. In my own +state, for example, who can doubt that the prohibitory amendment, +or some one of the statutes enacted for its enforcement, would have +been resubmitted again and again if the initiative had been in +force there these past twenty-five years.</p> +<p>Again, it will be observed that still fewer of the people have +it in their power to suspend a law which a legislature may have +passed in plain obedience to the mandate of a majority of the +people, or which may be essential to the prompt and orderly conduct +of public affairs, and when they come to think about it the people +may wonder if the referendum might not make it possible for a +small, malevolent, and mischievous minority to obstruct the +machinery of government and for a time at least to nullify the will +of the majority.</p> +<p>In the third place, it is to be remarked that a measure +submitted either by the initiative or the referendum cannot be +amended, but must be accepted or rejected as a whole, and we may +well inquire whether this might not afford "the interests" quite as +good an opportunity as they would have in a legislature to +"initiate" some measure which on its face was wholesome and +beneficent but within which was concealed some little "joker" that +would either nullify the good features of the law or make it +actively vicious, and which, through lack of discussion, would not +be discovered. Every day we have new and incontestable proof that +"in the multitude of counselors there is wisdom." But that wisdom +can never be had under a system of legislation which lays before +the people the work of one man's mind to be accepted in whole or +rejected altogether.</p> +<p>Once more let us observe that under this system, no matter how +few votes are cast upon a given measure, if there are more for it +than against it, it becomes a law, so that the possibility is +always present that laws may be enacted which represent the +judgment or the interest of the minority rather than the majority +of the people. Indeed, experience would seem to show that this is a +probability rather than a possibility, for in the last Oregon +election not one of the nine propositions enacted into law received +as much as 50 per cent of the total vote cast, while some of them +received but little more than 30 per cent of the total vote.</p> +<p>And finally and chiefly, without in the the least impeaching the +intelligence of the people, remembering the slight and casual +attention the average citizen gives to the details of public +questions, we may well inquire whether the average vote cast upon +these proposed measures of legislation will really represent an +informed and well-considered judgment. In his thoughtful work on +democracy, discussing this very question, Dr. Hyslop, of Columbia +University, says:</p> +<div class="blockquot"> +<p>People occupied with their private affairs, domestic and social, +demanding all their resources and attention, as a rule have little +time to solve the complex problems of national life. The referendum +is a call to perform all the duties of the profoundest +statesmanship, in addition to private obligations, which are even +much more than the average man can fulfil with any success or +intelligence at all, and hence it can hardly produce anything +better than the Athenian assembly, which terminated in anarchy. It +will not secure dispatch except at the expense of civilization, nor +deliberation except at the expense of intelligence. Very few +questions can be safely left to its councils, and these only of the +most general kind. A tribunal that can be so easily deceived as the +electorate can be in common elections cannot be trusted to decide +intelligently the graver and more complicated questions of public +finance or private property, of administration, and of justice. It +may be honest and mean well, as I believe it would be; but such an +institution can not govern.</p> +</div> +<p>That is the conclusion reached a priori by a profound student of +men and of institutions; and there is not a man who hears me or who +may read what I am now saying but knows the conclusion is +sound.</p> +<p>But, fortunately for the states which have not yet adopted the +innovation, we are not obliged to rely upon academic, a priori +reasoning, in order to reach a conclusion as to the wisdom of the +initiative and referendum, for the step has already been taken in +other states and we have their experience to guide us.</p> +<p>There is South Dakota, for example, where under the initiative +the ballot which I hold in my hand was submitted to the people at +the recent election. This ballot is 7 feet long and 14 inches wide, +and it is crowded with reading matter set in nonpareil type. Upon +this ballot there are submitted for the consideration of the people +six legislative propositions. Four of them are short and +comparatively simple. But here is one referring to the people a law +which has been passed at the preceding session of the legislature +dividing the state into congressional districts. How many of the +voters of South Dakota do you suppose got down their maps and their +census reports and carefully worked out the details of that law to +satisfy themselves whether or not it provided for a fair and honest +districting of the state? They could not amend it, remember, they +had to take it as it was or vote it down. In point of fact, they +voted it down; but who will say that in doing this they expressed +an enlightened judgment or merely followed the natural conservative +instinct to vote "no" on a proposition they did not understand? And +here is a law to provide for the organization, maintenance, +equipment, and regulation of the National Guard of the state. This +bill contains 76 sections. It occupies 4 feet 4 inches of this +7-foot ballot. It would fill two pages of an ordinary +newspaper.</p> +<p>And here is a copy of the Oregon ballot, from which it appears +that the stricken people of that commonwealth were called upon at +the late election to consider 32 legislative propositions. Small +wonder that it was well onto a month after election before the +returns were all in.</p> +<p>And here is another constitutional amendment in which the people +are asked to pass judgment on such simple propositions as providing +for verdict by three-fourths of jury in civil cases, authorizing +grand juries to be summoned separately from the trial jury, +permitting change of judicial system by statute prohibiting retrial +where there is any evidence to support the verdict, providing for +affirmance of judgment on appeal notwithstanding error committed in +lower court and directing the Supreme Court to enter such judgment +as should have been entered in the lower court, fixing terms of +Supreme Court, providing that judges of all courts be elected for +six years, subject to recall, and increasing the jurisdiction of +the Supreme Court. Is it any wonder that with questions such as +those thrust at them so large a percentage of the voters took to +the "continuous woods where rolls the Oregon" and refused to +express a judgment one way or the other? Now, with all possible +deference to the intelligence and the diligence of the good people +of Oregon, is it conceivable that any considerable proportion of +the voters of that commonwealth went to the polls with even a +cursory knowledge of all the measures submitted for their +determination?</p> +<p>As to the practical working of the referendum, I have seen it +stated in the public prints that four years ago nearly every +appropriation bill passed by the Oregon legislature was referred to +the people for their approval or rejection before it could go into +effect. As a result, the appropriations being unavailable until the +election could be held, the state was compelled to stamp its +warrants "not paid for want of funds," and to pay interest thereon, +although the money was in the treasury. The university and other +state institutions were hampered and embarrassed, and the whole +machinery of government was in large measure paralyzed. In other +words, under the Oregon law a pitiful minority of the people was +able to obstruct and embarrass the usual and orderly processes of +government, and for a time at least to absolutely thwart the will +of an overwhelming majority of the people.</p> +<p>A system of government under which such a thing as that is not +only possible, but has actually occurred, may be "the best system +ever devised by the wit of man," as we have been vociferously +assured, but some of us may take the liberty of doubting it.</p> +<p>But the initiative and referendum, subversive as they are of the +representative principle, do not compare in importance or in +possible power for evil with the recall. The statutes of every +state in this Union provide a way by which a recreant official may +be ousted from his office or otherwise punished. That way is by +process of law, where charges must be specific, the testimony +clear, and the judgment impartial. But what are we to think of a +procedure under which an official is to be tried, not in a court by +a jury of his peers and upon the testimony of witnesses sworn to +tell the truth, but in the newspapers, on the street corners, and +at political meetings? Can you conceive of a wider departure from +the fundamental principles of justice that are written not only +into the constitution of every civilized nation on the face of the +earth, but upon the heart of every normal human being, the +principle that every man accused of a crime has a right to confront +his accusers, to examine them under oath, to rebut their evidence, +and to have the judgment finally of men sworn to render a just and +lawful verdict.</p> +<p>Small wonder that the argument oftenest heard in support of a +proposition so abhorrent to the most primitive instincts of justice +is that it will be seldom invoked and therefore cannot do very much +harm. I leave you to characterize as it deserves a law whose chief +merit must lie in the rarity of its enforcement.</p> +<p>But will it do no harm, even if seldom enforced? It is urged +that its presence on the statute books and the knowledge that it +can be invoked will frighten public officials into good behavior. +Passing by the very obvious suggestion that an official who needs +to be scared into proper conduct ought never to have been elected +in the first place, we may well inquire whether the real effect +would not be to frighten men into demagogy—and thus to work +immeasurably greater harm to the common weal than would ever be +inflicted through the transgressions of deliberately bad men.</p> +<p>We have demagogues enough now, heaven knows, when election to an +office assures the tenure of it for two or four or six years. But +if that tenure were only from hour to hour, if it were held at the +whim of a powerful and unscrupulous newspaper, for example, or if +it could be put in jeopardy by an affront which in the line of duty +ought, we will say, to be given to some organization or faction or +cabal, what could we expect? Is it not inevitable that such a +system would drive out of our public life the men of real character +and courage and leave us only cowards and trimmers and time +servers? May we not well hesitate to introduce into our political +system a device which, had it been in vogue in the past, would have +made it possible for the Tories to have recalled Washington, the +copperheads to have recalled Lincoln, and the jingoes to have +recalled McKinley?</p> +<p>In all the literature of the age-long struggle for freedom and +justice there is no phrase that occurs oftener than "the +independence of the judiciary." Not one man could be found now +among all our ninety millions to declare that our Constitution +should be changed so as to permit the President in the White House +or the Congress in the Capitol to dictate to our judges what their +decisions should be. And yet it is seriously proposed that this +power of dictation shall be given to the crowd on the street. That +is what the recall means if applied to the judiciary; and it means +the destruction of its independence as completely as if in set +terms it were made subject to the President or the Congress.</p> +<p>Do you answer, "Oh, the recall will never be invoked except in +an extreme case of obvious and flagrant injustice"? I reply, "How +do you know?" It is the theory of the initiative that it will never +be invoked except to pass a good law, and of the referendum that it +will never be resorted to except to defeat a bad law; but we have +already seen how easily a bad law might be initiated and a good law +referred. And so it is the theory that the recall will be invoked +only for the protection of the people from a bad judge. What +guaranty can you give that it will not be called into being to +harrass and intimidate a good judge? There never yet was a +two-edged sword that would not cut both ways.</p> +<p>Mr. Chairman, I should be the last to assert that our present +system of government has always brought ideally perfect results. +Now and then the people have made mistakes in the selection of +their representatives. Corrupt men have been put into places of +trust, small men have been sent where large men were needed, +ignorant men have been charged with duties which only men of +learning could fitly perform. But does it follow that because the +people make mistakes in so simple a matter as the selection of +their agents, they would be infallible in the incomparably more +complex and difficult task of the enactment and interpretation of +laws? There was never a more glaring non sequitur, and yet it is +the very cornerstone upon which rests the whole structure of the +new philosophy. "The people cannot be trusted with few things," +runs this singular logic, "therefore let us put all things into +their hands."</p> +<p>With one breath we are asked to renounce the old system because +the people make mistakes, and with the next breath we are solemnly +assured that if we adopt the new system the people will not make +mistakes. I confess I am not mentally alert enough to follow that +sort of logic. It is too much like the road which was so crooked +that the traveler who entered upon it had only proceeded a few +steps when he met himself coming back. You cannot change the nature +of men, Mr. Chairman, by changing their system of government. The +limitations of human judgment and knowledge and conscience which +render perfection in representative government unattainable will +still abide even after that form of government is swept away, and +the ideal will still be far distant.</p> +<p>Let it not be said or imagined, Mr. Speaker, that because I +protest against converting this Republic into a democracy therefore +I lack confidence in the people. No man has greater faith, sir, +than I have in the intelligence, the integrity, the patriotism, and +the fundamental common sense of the average American citizen. But I +am for representative rather than for direct government, because I +have greater confidence in the second thought of the people than I +have in their first thought. And that, in the last analysis, is the +difference, and the only difference, so far as results are +concerned between the new system and that which it seeks to +supplant; it is the fundamental difference between a democracy and +a republic. In either form of government the people have their way. +The difference is that in a democracy the people have their way in +the beginning, whereas in a republic the people have their way in +the end—and the end is usually enough wiser than the +beginning to be worth waiting for.</p> +<p>We count ourselves the fittest people in the world for +self-government, and we probably are. But fit as we are we +sometimes make mistakes. We sometimes form the most violent and +erroneous opinions upon impulse, without full information or +thoughtful consideration. With complete information and longer +study, we swing around to the right side, but it is our second +thought and not our first that brings us there. Our intentions are +always right, and we usually get right in the end; but it often +happens that we are not right in the beginning. It behooves us to +consider long and well before we pluck out of the delicately +adjusted mechanism by which we govern ourselves the checks and +brakes and balance wheels which our forefathers placed there, and +the wisdom of which our history attests innumerable times.</p> +<p>The simple and primitive life of civilization's frontier has +given way to the most stupendous and complex industrial and +commercial structure the world has ever known. Incredible +expansion, social, political, industrial, commercial—but +representative government all the way. At not one step in the long +and shining pathway of the Nation's progress has representative +government failed to respond to the Nation's need. Every emergency +that 130 years of momentous history has developed—the +terrible strain of war, the harrassing problems of +peace—representative government has been equal to them all. +Not once has it broken down. Not one issue has it failed to solve. +And long after the shallow substitutes that are now proposed for it +shall have been forgotten, representative government "will be doing +business at the old stand," will be solving the problems of the +future as it met the issues of the past, with courage and wisdom +and justice, giving to the great Republic that government "of the +people, for the people, and by the people" which is the assurance +that it "shall not perish from the earth."</p> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2><a name="APPENDIX_V" id="APPENDIX_V"></a>APPENDIX V</h2> +<h3>QUESTIONS WITH SUGGESTED ISSUES AND BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY</h3> +<p>Below are several questions with issues suggested which should +bring about a "head on" debate. They should be useful at the +beginning of debating work or when time for preparation is somewhat +limited. A brief bibliography is in each case appended.</p> +<h4>"THE RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE SHOULD BE GRANTED TO WOMAN"</h4> +<p><i>Affirmative</i></p> +<ul> +<li>I. Woman wants the ballot.</li> +<li>II. Woman is capable of using the ballot wisely.</li> +<li>III. Where woman has had the ballot, the results have been +beneficial to the state.</li> +</ul> +<p><i>Negative</i></p> +<ul> +<li>I. A majority of women do not want the ballot.</li> +<li>II. Woman is incapable of using the ballot wisely.</li> +<li>III. A benefit has not resulted in those states which have +given woman the right to vote.</li> +</ul> +<p>BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY</p> +<p>"Success of Woman's Suffrage," <i>Independent</i>, LXXIII, +334-35 (August 8, 1912).</p> +<p>"Suffrage Danger," <i>Living Age</i>, CCLXXIV, 330-35 (August +10, 1912).</p> +<p>"Teaching Violence to Women," <i>Century</i>, LXXXIV, 151-53 +(May, 1912).</p> +<p>"Violence in Woman's Suffrage Movement: A Disapproval of the +Militant Policy," <i>Century</i>, LXXXV, 148-49 (November, +1912).</p> +<p>"Violence and Votes," <i>Independent</i>, LXXII, 1416-19 (June +27 1912).</p> +<p>"Votes for Women," <i>Harper's Weekly</i>, LVI, 6 (September 21, +1912).</p> +<p>"Votes for Women," <i>Harper's Bazaar</i> XLVI, 47, 148 +(January, March, 1912).</p> +<p>"Votes for Women and Other Votes," <i>Survey</i>, XXVIII, 367-78 +(June 1, 10.12).</p> +<p>"What Is the Truth about Woman's Suffrage?" <i>Ladies' Home +Journal</i>, XXIX, 24 (October, 1912).</p> +<p>"Why I Want Woman's Suffrage," <i>Collier's,</i> XLVIII, 18 +(March 16, 1912).</p> +<p>"Why I Went into Suffrage Work," <i>Harper's Bazaar</i>, XLVI, +440 (September, 1912).</p> +<p>"Woman and the State," <i>Forum</i>, XLVIII, 394-408 (October +1912).</p> +<p>"Woman and the Suffrage," <i>Harper's Weekly</i>, LVI, 6 (August +17, 1912).</p> +<p>"Woman's Rights," <i>Outlook</i>, <i>C</i>, 262-66 (February 3, +1912).</p> +<p>"Woman's Rights," <i>Outlook</i>, <i>C</i>, 302-4 (February 10, +1912).</p> +<p>"Concerning Some of the Anti-Suffrage Leaders," <i>Good +House-keeping</i>, LV, 80-82 (July, 1912).</p> +<p>"Expansion of Equality," <i>Independent</i>, LXXIII, 1143-45 +(November 14, 1912).</p> +<p>"Marching for Equal Suffrage," <i>Hearst's Magazine</i>, XXI, +2497-501 (June, 1912).</p> +<p>"Woman and the California Primaries," <i>Independent</i>, LXXII, +1316-18 (June 13, 1912).</p> +<p>"Woman Suffrage Victory," <i>Literary Digest</i>, XLV, 841-43 +(November 23, 1912).</p> +<p>"Woman's Demonstration; How They Won and Used the Votes in +California," <i>Collier's</i>, XLVIII, 17-18 (January 6, 1912).</p> +<p>"Recent Strides of Woman's Suffrage," <i>World's Work</i>, XXII, +14733-45 (August, 1911).</p> +<p>"Woman's Suffrage in Six States," <i>Independent</i>, LXXI, +967-20 (November 2, 1911).</p> +<p>"Women Did It in Colorado," <i>Hampton's Magazine</i>, XXVI, +426.</p> +<p>"Woman's Victory in Washington" (state), <i>Collier's,</i> XLVI, +25.</p> +<p>"Are Women Ready for the Franchise?" <i>Westminster</i>, CLXII, +255-61 (September, 1904).</p> +<p>"Argument against Woman's Suffrage," <i>Outlook</i>, LXIV, +573-74 (March 10, 1900).</p> +<p>"Check to Woman's Suffrage in the United States," <i>Nineteenth +Century</i>, LVI, 833-41 (November, 1904).</p> +<p>"Female Suffrage in the United States," <i>Harper's Weekly</i>, +XLIV, 949-50 (October 6, 1900).</p> +<p>"Ought Women to Vote?" <i>Outlook</i>, LVIII, 353-55 (June 8, +1901).</p> +<p>"Outlook for Woman's Suffrage," <i>Cosmopolitan</i>, XXVIII, +621-23 (April, 1900).</p> +<p>"Woman's Suffrage in the West," <i>Outlook</i>, LXV, 430-31 +(June 23, 1900).</p> +<p>"Movement for Woman's Suffrage," <i>Outlook</i>, XCIII, 265-67 +(October 2, 1909).</p> +<p>"Why?" <i>Everybody's</i>, XXI, 723-38.</p> +<p>"Woman's Rights," <i>Twentieth-Century Encyclopedia</i>.</p> +<h4>"THE AMERICAN NAVY SHOULD BE ENLARGED SO AS TO COMPARE IN +FIGHTING STRENGTH WITH ANY IN THE WORLD"</h4> +<p><i>Affirmative</i></p> +<ul> +<li>I. The scattered possessions of the United States demand the +protection of a large navy.</li> +<li>II. The expense of the proposed navy would be a judicious +investment.</li> +<li>III. The proposed enlargement of the navy would be a step +toward universal peace.</li> +</ul> +<p><i>Negative</i></p> +<ul> +<li>I. The geographical situation of the United States makes a +large navy unnecessary.</li> +<li>II. The expense entailed, if the proposed plan were put into +practice, would embarrass the United States.</li> +<li>III. To carry out the proposed plan would be to increase the +chances of war.</li> +</ul> +<p>BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY</p> +<p>"Relative Sea Strength of the United States," <i>Scientific +American</i> CVII, 174 (August 31, 1912).</p> +<p>"For an Adequate Navy in the United States," <i>Scientific +American</i>, CV, 512 (December 9, 1911).</p> +<p>"Humble Opinions of a Flat-Foot; Frank Criticism and Intimate +Picture of Our Navy, by a Blue-Jacketed Gob," <i>Collier's</i> L, +14-15; P., XIX, 22-23 (December 7, 1912).</p> +<p>"Importance of the Command of the Sea," <i>Scientific +American,</i> CV, 512 (December 9, 1911).</p> +<p>"The United States Fleet and Its Readiness for Service," +<i>Scientific American,</i> CV, 514 (December 9, 1911).</p> +<p>"Battle-ship Fleet in Each Ocean," <i>Scientific American</i>, +CII, 354 (April 30, 1910).</p> +<p>"Naval Madness," <i>Independent</i>, LXVIII, 489 (March 3, +1910).</p> +<p>"Our Naval Waste," <i>Nation</i>, XCI, 158 (August 25, +1910).</p> +<p>"Our Navy As a National Insurance," <i>Scientific American</i>, +CII, 414 (May 21, 1910).</p> +<p>"American Naval Policy," <i>Forum</i>, XLV, 529 (May, 1911).</p> +<p>"If We Had to Fight," <i>Cottier's</i>, XLVIII, 18 (November 18 +1911).</p> +<p>"Panama Canal and the Sea Power in the Pacific," <i>Century,</i> +LXXXII, 240 (January, 1911).</p> +<h4>"LOCAL OPTION IS THE BEST METHOD OR DEALING WITH THE LIQUOR +PROBLEM"</h4> +<p><i>Affirmative</i></p> +<ul> +<li>I. Other methods of dealing with the liquor problem have +failed.</li> +<li>II. Local option is consistent with American ideas of +government.</li> +<li>III. Local option is a proved success.</li> +</ul> +<p><i>Negative</i></p> +<ul> +<li>I. Local option is undesirable in theory.</li> +<li>II. Local option has not succeeded where tried.</li> +<li>III. There is a better method of dealing with this +problem.</li> +</ul> +<p>BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY</p> +<p>"Local Option; A Study of Massachusetts," <i>Atlantic</i>, XC, +433-40.</p> +<p>"Principle of Local Option," <i>Independent</i>, LIII, 3032-33 +(December 19, 1901).</p> +<p>"When Prohibition Fails and Why," <i>Outlook</i>, CI, 639-43 +(July 20, 1912).</p> +<p>"To Dam the Interstate Flow of Drink," <i>Literary Digest</i>, +XLIV, 106-7 (January 20, 1912).</p> +<p>"Psychology of Drink," <i>American Journal of Sociology</i>, +XVIII, 21-32 (July, 1912).</p> +<p>"World-Wide Fight against Alcohol," <i>Review of Reviews</i>, +XLV, 374.</p> +<p>"Drink and the Joy of Life," <i>Westminster</i>, CLXXVI, 620-24 +(December, 1911).</p> +<p>"Drink Traffic," <i>Missionary Review</i>, XXXII, 337-39 (May, +1909).</p> +<p>"Efforts to Promote Temperance since 1883," in L. B. Paton, +<i>Recent Christian Progress</i>, 446-71.</p> +<p>"Fight against Alcohol," <i>Cosmopolitan</i>, XLIV, 492-96, +549-54 (April, May, 1908); <i>Harper's Weekly</i>, LII, 6-7 (April +25, 1908).</p> +<p>"Foreign Anti-Liquor Movements," <i>Nation</i>, LXXXVI, 230 +(March 12, 1908).</p> +<p>"March of Temperance," <i>Arena</i>, XL, 325-30 (October, +1908).</p> +<p>"Social Conditions and the Liquor Problem," <i>Arena</i>, XXVI, +275-77 (September, 1006).</p> +<p>"Temperance Question," <i>Canadian M.</i>, XXXII, 282-84 +(January, 1909).</p> +<p>"Local Option Movement," <i>Annals of the American Academy</i>, +XXXII, 471-5 (November, 1908).</p> +<p>"Results of a Dry Year in Worcester, Mass.," <i>Map Survey</i>, +XXII, 301-2 (May 29, 1909).</p> +<p>"Local Option and After," <i>North American</i>, CXC, 628-41 +(November, 1909).</p> +<h4>"CAPITAL PUNISHMENT SHOULD BE ABOLISHED"</h4> +<p><i>Affirmative</i></p> +<ul> +<li>I. Capital punishment does not accomplish the purpose for which +it is intended.</li> +<li>II. Capital punishment is inconsistent with the teachings of +modern criminology.</li> +<li>III. There are other methods of punishment far more beneficial +than the death penalty.</li> +</ul> +<p><i>Negative</i></p> +<ul> +<li>I. Capital punishment decreases crime.</li> +<li>II. The cruelty of capital punishment has been greatly +exaggerated.</li> +<li>III. Society has found no crime deterrent so powerful as the +death penalty.</li> +</ul> +<p>BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY</p> +<p>"Does Capital Punishment Prevent Convictions?" <i>Review of +Reviews</i>, XL, 219-20 (August, 1909).</p> +<p>"Does Capital Punishment Tend to Diminish Capital Crime?" +<i>Harper's Weekly</i>, L, 1028-29; <i>Review of Reviews</i>, +XXXIV, 368-69 (1909).</p> +<p>"Meaning of Capital Punishment," <i>Harper's Weekly</i>, L, 1289 +(September 8, 1906).</p> +<p>"Plato on Capital Punishment," <i>Harper's Weekly</i>, L, 1903 +(December 29, 1906).</p> +<p>"Should Capital Punishment Be Abolished?" <i>Harper's +Weekly</i>, LIII, 8 (July 3, 1909).</p> +<p>"Whitely Case and Death Penalty," <i>Nation</i>, LXXXIV, 376-77 +(April 25, 1907).</p> +<p>"Death Penalty and Homicide," <i>American Journal of +Sociology</i>, XVI, 88-116 (July, 1910); <i>Nation</i>, VIII, 166; +<i>North American</i>, CXVI, 138; <i>ibid.</i>, LXII, 40; +<i>ibid.</i>, CXXXIII, 534; <i>Forum</i>, III, 503; <i>Arena</i>, +II, 513.</p> +<p>"Capital Punishment and Imprisonment for Life," <i>Nation</i>, +XVI, 193.</p> +<p>"Capital Punishment Anecdotes from Blue Book," <i>Ecl. M.</i>, +LXVI, 677.</p> +<p>"Capital Punishment Arguments Against," <i>Nation</i>, XVI, +213.</p> +<p>"Capital Punishment by Electricity," <i>North American</i>, +CXLVI, 219.</p> +<p>"Capital Punishment: Case Against," <i>Fortnightly Review</i>, +LII, 322; same article in <i>Eclectic Magazine</i>, CXIII, 518.</p> +<p>"The Crime of Capital Punishment," <i>Arena</i>, I, 175.</p> +<p>"Failure of Capital Punishment," <i>Arena</i>, XXI, 469.</p> +<p>"Why Have a Hangman?" <i>Fortnightly Review</i>, XL, 581.</p> +<p>"Punishment of Crimes," <i>North American</i>, X, 235.</p> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2><a name="APPENDIX_VI" id="APPENDIX_VI"></a>APPENDIX VI</h2> +<h3>A LIST OF DEBATABLE PROPOSITIONS</h3> +<p><b>SCHOOL QUESTIONS</b></p> +<p>Many of these, because of their local application, will be found +useful for class practice where time for preparation is necessarily +limited.</p> +<p>1. Coeducation in colleges is more desirable than +segregation.</p> +<p>2. Textbooks should be furnished at public expense to students +in public schools.</p> +<p>3. The adoption of the honor system in examinations would be +desirable in American colleges.</p> +<p>4. Final examinations as a test of knowledge should be +discontinued in X—— High School (or college).</p> +<p>5. All American universities and colleges should admit men and +women on equal terms.</p> +<p>6. The national government should establish a university near +the center of population.</p> +<p>7. The X—— College (or High School) should adopt +courses which more definitely fit students for practical +careers.</p> +<p>8. Intercollegiate football does not promote the best interests +of competing schools.</p> +<p>9. Intracollegiate athletic contests would be a desirable +substitute for intercollegiate athletics.</p> +<p>10. Secret societies should be prohibited in public high +schools.</p> +<p>11. National fraternities do not promote the best interests of +American-colleges and universities.</p> +<p>12. A college commons would be a desirable addition to +X—— College.</p> +<p>13. A lunchroom should be established in the X—— +High School.</p> +<p>14. Athletic regulations should not debar a student from playing +summer baseball.</p> +<p>15. No student in an American college should be eligible to +compete in intercollegiate athletics until he has begun his second +year's work.</p> +<p>16. All studies in the X—— College (or High School) +above those of the Freshman should be entirely elective.</p> +<p>17. In all public high schools training in military tactics +should be required.</p> +<p>18. Public high schools should be under state supervision.</p> +<p>19. Admission to American colleges should be allowed only upon +examination.</p> +<p>20. Academic degrees should be given only upon state +examinations.</p> +<p>21. The library of X—— College (or High School, or +city) should be open on Sunday.</p> +<p>22. A plan of self-government should be adopted for the +X—— College (or High School).</p> +<p>23. The terms "successful" and "failed" as the only indication +of grade work should be adopted by the X—— School in +place of the present plan or working.</p> +<p>24. Gymnasium work should be required in X—— +School.</p> +<p>25. Training in domestic science should be required of all girls +at X—— School.</p> +<p>26. Manual training should be a requirement of all boys at +X—— School.</p> +<p><b>SOCIAL QUESTIONS</b></p> +<p>27. The influence of the five-cent theater is beneficial.</p> +<p>28. A state board with power to forbid public exhibition should +exercise stage censorship.</p> +<p>29. Children under sixteen years of age should be prohibited +from working in confining industries.</p> +<p>30. Children under fourteen years of age should be prohibited +from appearing on the stage.</p> +<p>31. A minimum wage for women employees of department stores +should be enacted by the state of X——.</p> +<p>32. Public ownership of saloons would be a desirable method of +dealing with the liquor problem.</p> +<p>33. The English system of old-age pensions should be adopted by +the United States government.</p> +<p>34. Vivisection should be prohibited by law.</p> +<p>35. The publication of court proceedings in criminal and divorce +cases should be subject to a board of censorship.</p> +<p>36. Education under the direction of a state board, should be +required in the state prisons of X——.</p> +<p>37. The laws of marriage and divorce should be uniform +throughout the United States (constitutionality conceded).</p> +<p>38. Local option is the best method of dealing with the liquor +question.</p> +<p>39. The army canteen is desirable.</p> +<p>40. A system of compulsory industrial insurance should be +adopted by the state of X——.</p> +<p>41. An eight-hour law for all women workers should be enacted by +the state of X——.</p> +<p>42. Immigration should be restricted according to the provisions +of the Dillingham-Burnett bill.</p> +<p>43. Free employment bureaus should be established by the city of +X——.</p> +<p>44. Free employment bureaus should be established by the state +of X——.</p> +<p><b>POLITICAL QUESTIONS</b></p> +<p>45. A permanent national tariff commission should be +established.</p> +<p>46. The constitution should be so amended as to make more easy +the passing of amendments.</p> +<p>47. The restrictions on Mongolian immigration should be +removed.</p> +<p>48. The President of the United States should serve one term of +six years.</p> +<p>49. Complete public reports of all contributions to political +campaign funds should be required by law.</p> +<p>50. The Monroe Doctrine as a part of American foreign policy +should be discontinued.</p> +<p>51. The interests of labor can best be represented by a separate +political party.</p> +<p>52. The naturalization laws of the United States should be made +more stringent.</p> +<p>53. Aliens should be forbidden the ballot in every state.</p> +<p>54. The state of California is justified in her stand against +land ownership by aliens.</p> +<p>55. Permanent retention of the Philippine Islands by the United +States is not advisable.</p> +<p>56. The United States navy should be maintained at a fighting +strength equal to any in the world.</p> +<p>57. Direct presidential primaries should be a substitute for the +present method of presidential nomination.</p> +<p>58. Corporations engaged in interstate business should be +compelled to operate under a national charter.</p> +<p>59. The Panama Canal should be fortified.</p> +<p>60. The initiative and referendum in matters of state +legislation would be desirable in the state of X——.</p> +<p>61. From the standpoint of the United States the annexation of +Cuba would be desirable.</p> +<p>62. The fifteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United +States should be repealed.</p> +<p>63. The President should be elected by the direct vote of the +people of the United States.</p> +<p>64. Proportional representation should be adopted in the state +of X——.</p> +<p>65. The plan of proportional representation in present vogue in +the state of X—— should be abolished.</p> +<p>66. The use of voting machines should be required in all +elections in cities having a population of more than 10,000.</p> +<p>67. Public interest is best served when national party lines are +discarded in municipal elections.</p> +<p>68. Suffrage should be limited to persons who can read and +write.</p> +<p>69. Ex-Presidents of the United States should become +senators-at-large for life.</p> +<p>70. Ex-Presidents of the United States should be pensioned for +life at full salary.</p> +<p>71. The United States should adopt a plan of compulsory +voting.</p> +<p>72. The national government should purchase and operate the +express systems in connection with the parcel post.</p> +<p>73. Federal judges should be elected by direct vote of the +people.</p> +<p>74. Two-thirds of a jury should be competent to render a verdict +in jury trials in the state of X——.</p> +<p>75. The state of X—— should adopt a plan for recall +of state judges.</p> +<p>76. The state of X—— should adopt a plan allowing a +referendum of judicial decisions.</p> +<p>77. The appointment of United States consuls should be under the +merit system.</p> +<p>78. American vessels engaged in coastwise trade should be +permitted the use of the Panama Canal without the payment of +tolls.</p> +<p>79. All postmasters should be elected by popular vote.</p> +<p>80. The bill requiring ——, which is at present +before the X—— city council (X—— state +legislature, or Congress) should be defeated.</p> +<p><b>ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS</b></p> +<p>81. The Underwood tariff bill of 1913 would be a desirable +law.</p> +<p>82. The federal government should undertake at once the +construction of an inland waterway from the Great Lakes to the Gulf +(or from X to Y).</p> +<p>83. All raw materials should be admitted to the United States +free of duty.</p> +<p>84. A state law should prohibit prison contract labor in the +state of X——.</p> +<p>85. Federal government control of all natural resources would be +desirable.</p> +<p>86. Municipal ownership of street railways would be an advantage +to cities.</p> +<p>87. The Henry George system of single tax would be practicable +in the United States.</p> +<p>88. A graduated income tax would be a desirable addition to the +federal taxing system.</p> +<p>89. The boycott is a justifiable weapon in labor strikes.</p> +<p>90. The federal government should enact a progressive +inheritance tax.</p> +<p>91. The coal mines of the United States should be under federal +control.</p> +<p>92. Employers of labor are justified in demanding the "open +shop."</p> +<p>93. Irrigation projects to reclaim the arid lands of the West +should be undertaken by the United States government.</p> +<p>94. Courts for the compulsory settlement of controversies +between labor and capital should be created by Congress.</p> +<p>95. Industrial combinations commonly known as "trusts" are an +economical benefit to the United States.</p> +<p>96. The United States should establish and maintain a system of +subsidies for the American merchant marine.</p> +<p>97. No tax should be levied on the issue of state banks.</p> +<p>98. Permanent copyrights should be extended by the national +government.</p> +<p>99. The judicial injunction as an instrument in labor +controversies should be made illegal.</p> +<p>100. A law gradually lowering the present tariff, so that in ten +years the United States will be committed to a policy of free +trade, would be economically desirable for the United States.</p> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2><a name="APPENDIX_VII" id="APPENDIX_VII"></a>APPENDIX VII</h2> +<h3>FORMS FOR JUDGES' DECISION</h3> +<p>The first of the two following forms is a simple and commonly +used one; the second is more formal and is desirable when the +schools wish to point out carefully the principles upon which the +decision is to be based. A form such as the first, which allows the +judge entire freedom, is becoming the more popular.</p> +<p>I.</p> +<p>In my opinion, the better debating has been done by the<br /> +____________________________________________ team.</p> +<p>II</p> +<p>JUDGES' DECISION</p> +<p>[In rendering a decision, the judges are asked to act without +reference to their own opinion on the merits of the question. They +are not to consider that either contesting party necessarily +represents the actual attitude of themselves or of their school. +They are to act without consultation. A decision is desired based +solely on the quality of debating.</p> +<p>In determining the quality of debating, the judges are asked to +consider both matter and form. Grasp of the question, accuracy of +analysis, selection of evidence, and order and cogency of arguments +should be considered in judging matter. Bearing, voice, directness, +earnestness, emphasis, enunciation, and gesture should be +considered in judging form.]</p> +<p>DECISION</p> +<p>Considering the above instructions, I cast my ballot for the<br /> +_____________________________________________.</p> + +<p> </p> +<hr class="full" /> +<p>***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ELEMENTS OF DEBATING***</p> +<p>******* This file should be named 14090-h.txt or 14090-h.zip *******</p> +<p>This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:<br /> +<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/1/4/0/9/14090">https://www.gutenberg.org/1/4/0/9/14090</a></p> +<p>Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed.</p> + +<p>Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution.</p> + + + +<pre class="pg"> +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +<a href="https://gutenberg.org/license">https://gutenberg.org/license)</a>. + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS,' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at https://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/pglaf. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at https://www.gutenberg.org/about/contact + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit https://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/pglaf + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including including checks, online payments and credit card +donations. To donate, please visit: +https://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + +Each eBook is in a subdirectory of the same number as the eBook's +eBook number, often in several formats including plain vanilla ASCII, +compressed (zipped), HTML and others. + +Corrected EDITIONS of our eBooks replace the old file and take over +the old filename and etext number. The replaced older file is renamed. +VERSIONS based on separate sources are treated as new eBooks receiving +new filenames and etext numbers. + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + +<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">https://www.gutenberg.org</a> + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + +EBooks posted prior to November 2003, with eBook numbers BELOW #10000, +are filed in directories based on their release date. If you want to +download any of these eBooks directly, rather than using the regular +search system you may utilize the following addresses and just +download by the etext year. + +<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext06/">https://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext06/</a> + + (Or /etext 05, 04, 03, 02, 01, 00, 99, + 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 92, 91 or 90) + +EBooks posted since November 2003, with etext numbers OVER #10000, are +filed in a different way. The year of a release date is no longer part +of the directory path. The path is based on the etext number (which is +identical to the filename). The path to the file is made up of single +digits corresponding to all but the last digit in the filename. For +example an eBook of filename 10234 would be found at: + +https://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/1/0/2/3/10234 + +or filename 24689 would be found at: +https://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/2/4/6/8/24689 + +An alternative method of locating eBooks: +<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/GUTINDEX.ALL">https://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/GUTINDEX.ALL</a> + +*** END: FULL LICENSE *** +</pre> +</body> +</html> diff --git a/old/14090-h/images/img01.png b/old/14090-h/images/img01.png Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..d477618 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/14090-h/images/img01.png diff --git a/old/14090.txt b/old/14090.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..3a991e6 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/14090.txt @@ -0,0 +1,5431 @@ +The Project Gutenberg eBook, Elements of Debating, by Leverett S. Lyon + + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + + + + +Title: Elements of Debating + +Author: Leverett S. Lyon + +Release Date: November 19, 2004 [eBook #14090] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO-646-US (US-ASCII) + + +***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ELEMENTS OF DEBATING*** + + +E-text prepared by Stephen Schulze and the Project Gutenberg Online +Distributed Proofreading Team + + + +ELEMENTS OF DEBATING + +A Manual for Use in High Schools and Academies + +By + +LEVERETT S. LYON + +Head of the Department of Civic Science in the Joliet Township High School + +1919 + + + + + + + +PREFACE + + +This book pretends but little to originality in material. Its aim is +to offer the old in a form that shall meet the needs of young students +who are beginning work in debate. The effort has been made only to +present the elements of forensic work so freed from technicality that +they may be apparent to the student with the greatest possible economy +of time and the least possible interpretation by the teacher. + +It is hoped that the book may serve not only those schools where +debating is a part of the regular course, but also those institutions +where it is a supplement to the work in English or is encouraged as a +"super-curriculum" activity. + +Although the general obligation to other writers is obvious, there is +no specific indebtedness not elsewhere acknowledged, except to Mr. +Arthur Edward Phillips, whose vital principle of "Reference to +Experience" has, in a modified form, been made the test for evidence. +It is my belief that the use of this principle, rather than the +logical and technical forms of proof and evidence, will make the +training of debate far more applicable in other forms of public +speaking. My special thanks are due to Miss Charlotte Van Der Veen and +Miss Elizabeth Barns, whose aid has added technical exactness to +almost every page. I wish to thank also Miss Bella Hopper for +suggestions in preparing the reference list of Appendix I. Most of +all, I am indebted to the students whose interest has been a constant +stimulus, and whose needs have been to me, as they are to all who +teach, the one sure and constant guide. + +L.S.L. + + + + +TABLE OF CONTENTS + +LESSONS + + I. WHAT ARGUMENTATION IS + + II. WHAT DEBATE IS + + III. THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUCCESSFUL DEBATING + + IV. DETERMINING THE ISSUES + + V. HOW TO PROVE THE ISSUES + + VI. THE BRIEF. THE CHOICE AND USE OF EVIDENCE + + VII. THE FORENSIC + + VIII. REFUTATION + + IX. MANAGEMENT OF THE DEBATE + + X. A SUMMARY AND A DIAGRAM + + +APPENDICES + + I. HOW AND WHERE TO READ FOR MORE INFORMATION + + II. ILLUSTRATIONS OF ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE THE ISSUES OF THE QUESTION + + III. A TYPICAL COLLEGE FORENSIC + + IV. MATERIAL TOR BRIEFING + + V. QUESTIONS WITH SUGGESTED ISSUES AND BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY + + VI. A LIST OF DEBATABLE PROPOSITIONS + + VII. FORMS FOR JUDGES' DECISION + + + + +LESSON I + +WHAT ARGUMENTATION IS + + I. The purpose of discourse + + II. The forms of discourse: + 1. Narration + 2. Description + 3. Exposition + 4. Argumentation + +When we pause to look about us and to realize what things are really +going on, we discern that everyone is talking and writing. Perhaps we +wonder why this is the case. Nature is said to be economical. She +would hardly have us make so much effort and use so much energy +without some purpose, and some purpose beneficial to us. So we +determine that the purpose of using language is to convey meaning, to +give ideas that we have to someone else. + +As we watch a little more closely, we see that in talking or writing +we are not merely talking or writing something. We see that everyone, +consciously or unconsciously, clearly or dimly, is always trying to do +some definite thing. Let us see what the things are which we may be +trying to do. + +If you should tell your father, when you return from school, how +Columbus discovered America on October 12, 1492, and should try to +make him see the scene on shipboard when land was first sighted as +clearly as you see it, you would be describing. That kind of discourse +would be called description. Its purpose is to make another see in his +mind's eye the same image or picture that we have in our own. + +On the other hand, if you wished to tell him the story of the +discovery of America, you would do something quite different. You +would tell him not only of the first sight of land, but of the whole +series of incidents which led up to that event. If he could follow you +readily, could almost live through the various happenings that you +related, you would be telling your story well. That kind of discourse +is not description but narration. + +Suppose, then, that your father should say: "Now tell me this: What is +the difference between the discovery of America and the colonization +of America?" You would now have a new task. You would not care to make +him see any particular scene or live through the events of discovery +but to make him _understand something which you understand_. You would +show him that the discovery of America meant merely the fact that +America was found to be here, but that colonization meant the coming, +not of the explorers, but of the permanent settlers. This form of +discourse which makes clear to someone else an idea that is already +clear to us is called exposition. + +And now suppose your father should say: "Well, you have told me a +great deal which I may say is interesting enough, but it seems to me +rather useless. What is the purpose of all this study? Why have you +spent so much time learning of this one event?" You would of course +answer: "Because the discovery of America was an event of great +importance." + +He might reply: "I still do not believe that." Then you would say: +"I'll prove it to you," or, "I'll convince you of it." You would then +have undertaken to do what you are now trying to learn how to do +better--to argue. _For argumentation is that form of discourse that we +use when we attempt to make some one else believe as we wish him to +believe._ "Argumentation is the art of producing in the mind of +someone else a belief in the ideas which the speaker or writer wishes +the hearer or reader to accept."[1] + +You made use of argumentation when you urged a friend to take the +course in chemistry in your school by trying to make him believe it +would be beneficial to him. You used argumentation when you urged a +friend to join the football squad by trying to make him believe, as +you believe, that the exercise would do him good. A minister uses +argumentation when he tries to make his congregation believe, as he +believes, that ten minutes spent in prayer each morning will make the +day's work easier. The salesman uses argumentation to sell his goods. +The chance of the merchant to recover a rebate on a bill of goods that +he believes are defective depends entirely on his ability to make the +seller believe the same thing. On argumentation the lawyer bases his +hope of making the jury believe that his client is innocent of crime. +All of us every day of our lives, in ordinary conversation, in our +letters, and in more formal talks, are trying to make others believe +as we wish them to believe. Our success in so doing depends upon our +skill in the art of argumentation. + +SUGGESTED EXERCISES + +1. Out of your study or reading of the past week, give an illustration +of: (1) narration; (2) description; (3) exposition; (4) argumentation. + +2. During the past week, on what occasions have you personally made +use of: (1) narration; (2) description; (3) exposition; (4) +argumentation? + +3. Explain carefully the distinction between description and +exposition. In explaining this distinction, what form of discourse +have you used? + +4. Define argumentation. + +5. Skill in argumentation is a valuable acquisition for: + +(Give three reasons). + +(1)__________________________________________________ + +(2)__________________________________________________ + +(3)__________________________________________________ + + + + +LESSON II + +WHAT DEBATE IS + + + I. The forms of argumentation: + 1. Written. + 2. Oral. + + II. The forms of oral argumentation: + 1. General discussion. + 2. Debate. + + III. The qualities of debate: + 1. Oral. + 2. Judges present. + 3. Prescribed conditions. + 4. Decision expected. + +Now, since we have decided upon a definition of argumentation, let us +see what we mean by the term "debate" as it will be used in this work. + +We have said that argumentation is the art of producing in the mind of +someone a belief in something in which we wish him to believe. + +Now it is obvious that this can be accomplished in different ways. +Perhaps the most common method of attempting to bring someone to +believe as we wish is the oral method. On your way to school you meet +a friend and assert your belief that in the coming football game the +home team will win. You continue: "Our team has already beaten teams +that have defeated our opponent of next Saturday, and, moreover, our +team is stronger than it has been at any time this season." When you +finish, your friend replies: "I believe you are right. We shall win." + +You have been carrying on oral argumentation. + +If, when you had finished, your friend had not agreed with you, your +effort would have been none the less argumentation, only it would have +been unsuccessful. If you had written the same thing to your friend in +a letter, your letter would have been argumentative. + +Suppose your father were running for an office and should make a +public speech. If he tried to make the audience believe that the best +way to secure lower taxes, better water, and improved streets would be +through his election, he would be making use of oral argumentation. If +he should do the same thing through newspaper editorials, he would be +using written argumentation. + +Argumentation, then, may be carried on either in writing or orally, +and may vary from the informality of an ordinary conversation or a +letter to a careful address or thoughtful article. + +What, then, is debate as we shall use the word in this work, and what +is the relation of argumentation to debate? The term "debate" in its +general use has, of course, many senses. You might say: "I had a +debate with a friend about the coming football game." Or your father +might say: "I heard the great Lincoln and Douglas debates before the +Civil War." Although both of you would be using the term as it is +generally used, you would not be using it as it will be used in this +book, or as it is best that a student of argumentation and debate +should use it. + +The term "debate," in the sense in which students of these subjects +should use it, means _oral argumentation carried on by two opposing +teams under certain prescribed regulations, and with the expectation +of having a decision rendered by judges who are present_. This is +"debate" used, not generally, as you used it in saying, "I debated +with a friend," but technically, as we use it when we refer to the +Yale-Harvard debate or the Northern Debating League. In order to keep +the meaning of this term clearly in mind, use it only when referring +to such contests as these. In speaking of your argumentative +conversation with your friend or of the forensic contests between +Lincoln and Douglas, use the term "discussion" rather than "debate." + +It is true that the controversy between Lincoln and Douglas conformed +to our definition of "debate" in being oral; moreover, at least in +sense, two teams (of one man each) competed, but there were no judges, +and no direct decision was rendered. + +Since argumentation, then, is the art of producing in the mind of +someone else a belief in the idea or ideas you wish to convey, and +debate is an argumentative contest carried on orally under certain +conditions, it is clear that argumentation is the broader term of the +two and that debate is merely a specialized kind of argumentation. +Football is exercise, but there is exercise in many other forms. +Debate is argumentation, but one can also find argumentation in many +other forms. + +The following diagram makes clear the work we have covered thus far. +It shows the relation between argumentation and debate, and shows that +the specialized term "debate" has the same relation to "discourse" +that "football" has to "exercise." + + / Miscellaneous + | Swimming + / Play | Skating + Kinds of | | Rolling hoop / Other athletic games + exercise | \ Athletic games \ Football + | + | + \ Work + + + + + / Description + Kinds of | Narration + discourse | Exposition + \ Argumentation / Written + \ Oral / General discussion + \ Debate + + +SUGGESTED EXERCISES + +1. Be prepared to explain orally in class, as though to _someone who +did not know_, the difference between "argumentation" and "debate." + +2. Set down three conditions that must exist before argumentation +becomes debate. + +3. Have you ever argued? Orally? In writing? + +4. Have you ever debated? Did you win? + +5. Which is the broader term, "argumentation," or "debate?" Why? + +6. Compose some sentences, illustrating the use of the terms "debate" +and "argumentation." + + + + +LESSON III + +THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUCCESSFUL DEBATING + + + I. The three requirements stated. + + II. How to make clear to the audience what one wishes + them to believe, by: + + 1. Stating the idea which one wishes to have accepted + in the form of a definite assertion, which is: + + (1) Interesting. + + (2) Definite and concise. + + (3) Single in form. + + (4) Fair to both sides. + + 2. Defining the "terms of the question" so that they + will be: + + (1) Clear. + + (2) Convincing. + + (3) Consistent with the origin and history of the + question. + + 3. Restating the whole question in the light of the + definitions. + +To debate successfully it is necessary to do three things: + +1. To make perfectly clear to your audience what you wish them to +believe. + +2. To show them why the proof of certain points (called issues) should +make them believe the thing you wish them to believe. + +3. To prove the issues. + +Each of these three things is a distinct process, involving several +steps. One is as important as another. + +It is impossible to prove the issues until we have found them, but +equally impossible to show the audience what the issues are until we +have shown what the thing is which we wish those issues to support. +First, then, let us see what we mean by making perfectly clear what +you wish to have the audience believe. + +Suppose that you should meet a friend who says to you: "I am going to +argue with you about examinations." You might naturally reply: "What +examinations?" If he should say, "All examinations: the honor system +in all examinations," you might very reasonably still be puzzled and +ask if by all examinations he meant examinations of every kind in +grade school, high school, and college, as well as the civil service +examinations, and what was meant by the honor system. + +He would now probably explain to you carefully how several schools +have been experimenting with the idea of giving all examinations +without the presence of a teacher or monitor of any sort. During these +examinations, however, it has been customary to ask the students +themselves to report any cheating that they may observe. It is also +required that each student state in writing, at the end of his paper, +upon honor, that he has neither given nor received aid during the +test. "To this method," your friend continues, "has been given the +name of the honor system. And I believe that this system should be +adopted in all examinations in the Greenburg High School." + +He has now stated definitely what he wishes to make you believe, and +he has done more; he has explained to you the meaning of the terms +that you did not understand. These two things make perfectly clear to +you what he wishes you to believe, and he has thus covered the first +step in argumentation. + +From this illustration, then, several rules can be drawn. In the first +place your friend stated that he wished to argue about examinations. +Why could he not begin his argument at once? Because he had not yet +asked you to believe anything about examinations. He might have said, +"I am going to explain examinations," and he could then have told you +what examinations were. That would have been exposition. But he could +not _argue_ until he had made a definite assertion about the term +"examination." + +Rule one would then be: State in the form of a definite assertion the +matter to be argued. + +In order to be suitable for debating, an assertion or, as it is often +called, proposition, of this kind should conform to certain +conditions: + +1. It should be one in which both the debaters and the audience are +interested. Failure to observe this rule has caused many to think +debating a dry subject. + +2. It should propose something different from existing conditions. +Argument should have an end in view. Your school has no lunchroom. +Should it have one? Your city is governed by a mayor and a council. +Should it be ruled by a commission? Merely to debate, as did the men +of the Middle Ages, how many angels could dance on the point of a +needle, or, as some more modern debaters have done, whether Grant was +a greater general than Washington, is useless. + +The fact that those on the affirmative side propose something new +places on them what is called the _burden of proof_. This means that +they must show why there is _need_ of a change from the present state +of things. When they have done this, they may proceed to argue in +favor of the _particular change_ which they propose. + +3. It should make a single statement about a single thing: + +(Correct) In public high schools secret societies should be +prohibited. + +(Incorrect) In public high schools and colleges secret societies and +teaching of the Bible should be prohibited. + +4. It must be expressed with such definiteness that both sides can +agree on what it means. + +5. It must be expressed in such a way as to be fair to both sides. + +But you noticed that your friend had not only to state the question +definitely, but to explain what the terms of the proposition meant. He +had to tell you what the "honor system" was. + +Our second rule, then, for making the question clear, is: In the +proposition as stated, explain all terms that may not be entirely +clear to your audience. + +And in explaining or defining these terms, there are certain things +that you must do. You must make the definition clear, or it will be no +better than the term itself. This is not always easy. In defining +"moral force" a gentleman said: "Why, moral force is er--er--moral +force." He did not get very far on the way toward making his term +clear. Be sure that your definition really explains the term. + +Then one must be careful not to define in a circle. Let us take, for +example, the assertion or proposition, "The development of labor +unions has been beneficial to commerce." If you should attempt to +define "development" by saying "development means growth," you would +not have made the meaning of the term much clearer; and if in a +further attempt to explain it, you could only add "And growth means +development," you would be defining in a circle. + +There is still another error to be avoided in making your terms clear +to your audience. This error is called begging the question. This +occurs when a term is defined in such a way that there is nothing left +to be argued. + +Suppose your friend should say to you: "I wish to make you believe +that the honor system should be used in all examinations in the +Greenburg High School." You ask him what he means by the "honor +system." He replies: "I mean the best system in the world." Is there +anything left to argue? Hardly, if his definition of the term honor +system is correct, for it would be very irrational indeed to disagree +with the assertion that the best system in the world should be adopted +in the Greenburg High School. + +To summarize: _Define terms carefully;_ make the definition clear; do +not define in a circle, and do not beg the question. + +As you have already noticed, terms in argumentation, such as "honor +system," often consist of more than one word. They sometimes contain +several words. "A term [as that word is used in debating and +argumentation] may consist of any number of names, substantive or +objective, with the articles, prepositions, and conjunctions required +to join them together; still it is only one term if it points out or +makes us think of only one thing or object or class of objects."[2] In +such cases a dictionary is of little use. Take the term "honor +system," the meaning of which was not clear to you. A dictionary +offers no help. How is the student who wishes to discuss this question +to decide upon the meaning of the term? Notice how your friend made it +clear to you. He gave a history of the question that he wished to +argue. He showed how the term "honor system" came into use and what it +means where that system of examinations is in vogue. This, then, is +the only method of making sure of the meaning of a term: to study the +history of the question and see what the term means in the light of +that history. This method has the added advantage that a term defined +in this way will not only be entirely clear to your audience, but will +also tend to convince them. + +A dispute may arise between yourself and an opponent as to the meaning +of a term. He may be relying on a dictionary or the statement of a +single writer, while you are familiar with the history of the +question. Under those circumstances it will be easy for you to show +the judges and the audience that, although he may be using the term +correctly in a general way, he is quite wrong when the special +question under discussion is considered. + +To make this more clear, let us take a specific instance. Suppose that +you are debating the proposition, "Football Should Be Abolished in +This High School." Football, as defined in the dictionary, differs +considerably from the game with which every American boy is familiar. +Further, the dictionary defines both the English and the American +game. If your opponent should take either of these definitions, he +would not have much chance of convincing an American audience that it +was correct. Or if he should define football according to the rules of +the game as it was played five or ten years ago, he would be equally +ineffective. + +You, on the other hand, announce that in your discussion you will use +the term "football" as that game is described in _Spaulding's present +year's rule book for the American game_, and that every reference you +make to plays allowed or forbidden will be on the basis of the latest +ruling. You then have a definition based on the history of the +question. As you can see, the case for or against English football +would be different from that of the American game. In the same way the +case for or against football as it was played ten years ago would be +very different from the case of football as it is played today. + +All this does not mean that definitions found in dictionaries or other +works of reference are never good; it means simply that such +definitions should not be taken as final until the question has been +carefully reviewed. Try to think out for yourself the meaning of the +question. Decide what it involves and how it has arisen, or could +arise in real life. Then, when you do outside reading on the subject, +keep this same idea in mind. Keep asking yourself: "How did this +question arise? Why is it being discussed?" You will be surprised to +find that when you are ready to answer that question you will have +most of your reading done, for you will have read most of the +arguments upon it. Then you are ready to make it clear to the +audience. + +When you have thus given a clear and convincing definition of all the +terms, it is a good plan to restate the whole question in the light of +those definitions. + +For instance, notice the question of the "honor system." The original +question might have been concisely stated: "All Examinations in the +Greenburg High School Should Be Conducted under the Honor System." + +After you have made clear what you mean by the "honor system," you +will be ready to restate the question as follows: "The question then +is this: No Teacher Shall Be Present during Any Examination in the +Greenburg High School, and Every Student Shall Be Required to State on +Honor That He Has Neither Given Nor Received Aid in the Examinations." + +Your hearers will now see clearly what you wish them to believe. + +Thus far, then, we have seen that to debate well we should have a +question which is of interest to ourselves and to the audience. The +first step toward success is to make clear to our hearers the +proposition presented for their acceptance. This may be done: + +1) By stating the idea that we wish them to accept in the form of an +assertion, which should be: + + a) interesting + + b) definite and concise + + c) single in form + + d) fair to both sides + +2) By defining the "terms of the question" so that they will be: + + a) clear + + b) convincing + + c) consistent with the origin and history of the question + +3) By restating the whole question in the light of our definitions. + + +SUGGESTED EXERCISES + +1. State the three processes of successful debating. + +2. What are the three necessary steps in the first process? + +3. What qualities should a proposition for debate possess? + +4. Give a proposition that you think has these qualities. + +5. Without reference to books, define all the terms of this +proposition. Follow the rules but make the definitions as brief as +possible. + +6. Make some propositions in which the following terms shall be used: +(1) "Athletics," (2) "This City," (3) "All Studies," (4) "Manual +Training," (5) "Domestic Science." + +7. Point out the weakness in the following propositions (consider +propositions always with your class as the audience): (1) "Physics, +Chemistry, and Algebra Are Hard Studies." (2) "Only Useful Studies +Should Be Taught in This School." (3) "All Women Should Be Allowed to +Vote and Should Be Compelled by Law to Remove Their Hats in Church." +(4) "Agricultural Conditions in Abyssinia Are Superior to Those in +Burma." + +8. Compare the dictionary definition of the following terms with the +meaning which the history of the question has given them in actual +usage: + + (1) Domestic science. + + (2) Aeroplane exhibitions. + + (3) The international Olympic games. + + (4) Township high schools. + + (5) National conventions of political parties. + + + + +LESSON IV + +DETERMINING THE ISSUES + + I. What the "issues" are. + + II. How to determine the issues. + + III. The value of correct issues. + + +When you have made perfectly clear to your hearers what you wish them +to believe, the next step is to show them why they should believe it. +The first step in this process, as we saw at the beginning of Lesson +III, is to see what points, if proved, will make them believe it. + +These points, as we call them, are better known as "issues." The +issues are really questions, the basic questions on which your side +and the other disagree. The negative would answer "No" to these +issues, the affirmative would say "Yes." + +The issues when stated in declarative sentences are the fundamental +reasons why the affirmative believes its proposition should be +believed. + +A student might be arguing with himself whether he would study law or +medicine. He would say to himself: "These are the issues: For which am +I the better adapted? Which requires the more study? Which offers the +better promise of reward? In which can I do the more good?" + +Should he argue with a friend in order to induce him to give up law +and to study medicine, he would use similar issues. He would feel +that if he could settle these questions he could convince his friend. +Now, however, he would state them as declarative sentences and say: +"You are more adapted to the profession of medicine; you can do more +good in this field," etc. If the friend should open the question, he +would be in the position of a man on the negative side of a debate. He +would state the issues negatively as his reasons. He would say: "I am +not so well adapted to the study of medicine; it offers less promise +of reward," etc. + +Each of these would in turn depend upon other reasons, but every +proposition will depend for its acceptance on the proof of a few main +issues. Perhaps this point can be made clearer by an illustration. +Suppose we should take hold of one small rod which we see in the +framework of a large truss bridge and should say: "This bridge is +strong because this rod is here." Our statement would be only +partially true. The rod might be broken, and although the strength of +the bridge as a whole might be slightly weakened, it would not fall. +But suppose we should say: "This bridge really rests on these four +great steel beams which run down to the stone abutment. If I can see +that these four steel beams are secure, I can believe in the security +of the bridge." So a mechanical engineer shows us that certain rods +and bars of the framework hold up one beam, and how similar rods and +bars sustain a second, and that yet other rods and bars distribute the +weight that would press too heavily on a third, and so at last we are +convinced that the bridge is safe. It is not because we have been +shown that several of the bolts and braces are strong, but because we +have been shown that the four great beams, upon which it rests, are +reliable. + +Thus it is with everything in which we believe. We do not believe that +taxes are just because the government must have money to pay the +president or to buy uniforms for the army officers. These things must +be done, but they are incidentals. They are facts, but they are like +the small braces of the bridge. We believe that taxation is just, +because the government must have money for its work. Paying the +president and buying uniforms are details of this more fundamental +reason. + +In the same way we might say: "Athletics should be encouraged in high +schools because it will make John Brown, who will participate, more +healthy." That is a reason, but again only a small supporting reason. +We might rather choose a fundamental reason, which this slight reason +would in turn support, and it would be: "Athletics should be +encouraged in high schools because they improve the health of the +students that participate." + +In a recent debate between two large high schools on the proposition: +"_Resolved_, That Contests within High Schools Should Be Substituted +for Contests between High Schools," one of the contesting teams took +the following as issues: + + 1. Contests within high, schools will accomplish the real purpose of + contests better than will contests between schools. + + 2. Contests within high schools are the more democratic. + + 3. Contests within high schools can be made to work successfully. + +When these three facts had been demonstrated, there was little left to +urge against the claim. + +Recently among the universities of a certain section, this question +was discussed: "_Resolved_, That the Federal Government Should Levy a +Graduated Income Tax." (Such tax was conceded as constitutional.) One +university decided upon these as the issues: + + 1. Does the government need additional revenue? + + 2. Admitting that additional revenue is needed, is a graduated income + tax the best way of securing the money? + + 3. Could a graduated income tax be successfully collected? + +Here again if the debaters favoring a graduated income could show that +the government does need the money, that the proposed tax is the best +way to get it, and that such a tax would work in practice, they would +make the audience believe their proposition. If the speakers on the +negative side could show that the income of the federal government is +sufficient, that, even if additional revenue is needed, this is a poor +way to obtain it, or that this plan, though good in theory, is +impracticable, they would have a good case. Thus in every question +that is two-sided enough to be a good question for debate, there are +certain fundamental issues upon which the disagreement between the +affirmative and the negative can be shown to rest. When either side +has answered "Yes" or "No" to these issues and has given reasons for +its answer that will find acceptance in the minds of the audience and +of the judges, it has won the debate. It is easy, then, to see why +"determining the issues," and showing the audience what these issues +are, is the second step in successful debating. + +Although there is no fixed rule or touchstone by which an issue can +immediately be determined, there are several rules which will aid in +finding them. + + 1. In all your thinking and reading upon the question, constantly try + to decide: (1) What will the other side admit? (2) Is there anything + that I am thinking of in connection with this question that is not + essential to it? + + 2. Do not try to make a final determination of the issues until you + are sure you understand the question. + + 3. Be always ready to change your issues when you see that they are + not fundamental. + +With these general rules in mind, think the question over carefully. +This process of determing the issues can, and should, go on at the +same time as the process of learning what the question means. One +helps the other. Having decided what will be the issues of the debate, +set those issues down under appropriate heads; such as, "Is +desirable," "Is needed," "Would work well," etc. Whenever you think of +a reason why a thing is not needed, would not work, etc., put that +down in a similar way. Now read more carefully (see "Reading +References," Appendix I) on both sides of the question, and, whenever +you find a reason for or against the proposition, set it down as +above. The best method of doing this is to have a small pack of plain +cards, perhaps two and one-half by four inches. Use one for each +reason that you put down. As you think and read you will determine +many reasons for the truth or falsity of the proposition. Gradually +you will see that a great many of them are not so important as others +and that they do not bear directly on the question, but in reality +support some more important reason that you have set down. As you +begin to notice this, go through your pack of cards and arrange them +in the order of importance. Begin a new pile with every statement that +seems to bear directly upon the proposition and put under it those +statements that seem to support it. You will soon find that you have +all your cards in two or three piles. Now examine the cards which you +have on the top of each pile. See if the proof of these statements +would convince any person that you are right. If so you have probably +found the issues. + +_Always think first, then read, then think again_. + +If you have determined the issues wisely, it will be easy in the +debate itself to show the audience and the judges what those issues +are. You will have a tremendous advantage over your opponent, who in +his haste or laziness may have chosen what are not the real issues of +the question. He may present well the material that he has, but if +that material does not support the _fundamental issues_ of the +question, you are right in calling the attention of the judges to that +fact. + +Few debates are won on the platform. They are won by thoughtful +preparation. Be prepared. + + +SUGGESTED EXERCISES + +1. Give in your own words, as briefly as you can, a definition of the +term "the issues of a question." + +2. Give one illustration of your own of the issues of a question. + +3. What is meant by "determining the issues"? + +4. Will the affirmative and the negative teams always agree on the +issues? + +5. Can a question have two entirely different sets of issues? Why, or +why not? + +6. If there can be only one correct set of issues for a question, and +you believe that you have determined those, what must you do in the +debate if your opponents advance different issues? + +7. Think over carefully and set down what you believe are the issues +of one of the following propositions. Frame the issues as questions. + +(1) a) Football Should Be Abolished in This [your own] School. + +b) Football Should Be Installed as a Regular Branch of Athletics in +This [your own] School. + + (2) a) Manual Training /Should Be Established in This + Domestic Science \ [your own] School. + + b) Manual Training / /Boys /Should Be Made Compulsory + | For| |in This [your own] + Domestic Science \ \Girls \ School. + +8. Are there any terms in any of the above propositions which should +be made more clear to an average audience? Are there any terms on the +meaning of which two opposing teams might disagree? + +9. Define one such term so that it would be clear and convincing to an +audience not connected with the school. + +10. Give two reasons why you believe it is or is not beneficial to +study argumentation and debating. + +11. If you were debating the question, "This [your own school] Should +Establish a School Lunch-Room," would you take as one of the issues, +"All students could obtain a warm meal at noon." Why, or why not? + + + + +LESSON V + +HOW TO PROVE THE ISSUES + + I. What "proof" is. + + II. A consideration of how "proof" of anything is accomplished. + + III. An infallible test of what the audience will believe. + + IV. The material of proof-evidence. + + V. Evidence and proof compared. + + +Having determined what the issues are, and having shown the audience +why the establishment of these issues should logically win belief in +your proposition, all that remains is to prove the issues. + +Now it is clear that neither the audience nor the judges can be led to +agree with us and to accept our issues as proved, by our telling them +that we should like to have them believe in the soundness of our +views. Neither can we succeed in convincing them by telling them that +they ought to believe as we wish. The modern audience is not to be +cajoled or browbeaten into belief. How, then, are we to persuade our +hearers to accept our assertions as true? The only method is to give +them what they demand--reasons. We must tell _why_ every statement is +true. This process of telling why the issues are true so effectively +that the audience and judges believe them to be true is called the +_proof_. + +Naturally, the reasons that we give in support of the issues will be +no better than the issues themselves, unless we know what reasons the +audience will believe. And how are we to know what reasons the +audience will believe? We can best answer that question by determining +why we ourselves believe those things which we accept. Why do we +believe anything? We believe that water is wet; the sky, blue; fire, +hot; and sugar, sweet, because in our _experience_ we have always +found them so. These things we believe because we have _experienced_ +them ourselves. There are other things that we believe in a similar +way. We believe that not every newspaper report is reliable. We +believe that a statement in the _Outlook_, the _Review of Reviews_, or +the _World's Work_ is likely to be more trustworthy than a yellow +headline in the _Morning Bugle_. Our own experience, plus what we have +heard of the experience of others, has led us to this belief. But +there are still other things that we believe although we have not +experienced them at all. We believe that Columbus visited America in +1492, that Grant was a great general, that Washington was our first +president. Directly, these things have never been experienced by us, +but indirectly they have. Others, within whose experience these things +have fallen, have led us to accept them so thoroughly that they have +become our experience second hand. + +If we are told that a man who was in the Iroquois Theater fire was +seriously burned, it seems reasonable to us because our experience +recognizes burning as the result of such a situation. But if we are +told that a man who fell into the water emerged dry, or that a general +who served under Washington was born in 1830, we discredit it because +such statements are not in accord with our experience. We are ready, +then, to answer our question: _"What reasons will those in the +audience believe?" They will believe those statements which harmonize +with their own experience, and will discredit those which are at +variance with their experience._ This experience, as we have seen, may +be first hand, or direct; or it may be indirect, or second hand. + +In every case, the speaker's argument must base every issue upon +reasons that rest on what the hearers believe because of their own +direct or indirect experience. Suppose I assert: "John Quinn was a +dangerous man." Someone says: "Prove that statement." I answer: "He +was a thief." Someone says: "If that is true, he was a bad man, but +can you prove him a thief?" Then I produce a copy of a court record +which states that, on a certain day, a duly constituted court found +John Quinn guilty of robbing a bank. All my hearers now admit, not +only that he was a thief, but also that he was a dangerous person. I +have given them a reason for my statement, and a reason for that +reason, until at last I have shown them that my assertion, that John +Quinn is a dangerous citizen, rests on what they themselves +believe--that a court record is reliable. + +Sometimes an issue cannot be supported by a reason that will come at +once within the experience of the audience. It is then necessary to +support the first by a second reason that does come within its +experience. Remember, then, as the fundamental rule, that the judges +and audience will believe the issues of the proposition, and, as a +result, the proposition itself, only when we show them, by the +standard of their own experience, that we are right. + +The reasons that we give in support of the issues are, in debating, +called _evidence_. Evidence is not proof; evidence is the material out +of which proof is made. Evidence is like the separate stones of a +solid wall: no one alone makes the wall; each one helps make it +strong. Evidence is like the small rods and braces of the truss +bridge: no one alone supports the weight; each helps to sustain the +great beams that are the real support of the bridge. + +Suppose we had the proposition: "The Honor System of Examinations +Should Be Established in the Greenburg High School." We assert: "There +is but one issue: Will the students be honest in the examination?" +Now, what evidence shall we use to show that they will be honest? We +may turn to the experience of other schools. After a careful +investigation we find evidence with which we may support the assertion +in the following way: + +The Honor System should be established in the Greenburg High School, +for: + + I. The student will do honest work under that system, for: + + 1. Experience of similar schools shows this, for: + + (1) This plan was a success in X High School, for: + + a) The principal of that school states [quotation from + principal], for: + + (a) See _School Review_, Mar., 1900. + + (2) This plan is approved by Y High School, for: + + a) Etc. + +Here the statements used in support of the issue are evidence. If the +evidence is strong enough to bring conviction to the audience to which +you are speaking, it is proof. + +But notice here an important point. Why should this tend to make those +in the audience believe that the honor system should be adopted? +Simply because we have shown them that it has worked well elsewhere, +and _their own experience tells them that what has been a benefit in +other schools similar to this will be a benefit here_. + +And in its final analysis this evidence is no stronger than the words +of the men who state that it has worked in schools (X) and (Y). + +_If the experience of the audience_ is that these men are untruthful +or likely to exaggerate, our evidence will not be good evidence. If +the experience of the audience is that these men are capable, honest, +and reliable, this evidence will go far toward gaining acceptance of, +and belief in, our proposition. + +Many attempts have been made to put evidence into different classes +and to give tests of good evidence. There is but one rule that the +debater needs to use: _In judging evidence for a debate consider what +the effect will be on the audience and the judges. Will it be +convincing to them_? In other words, will it make their own experience +quickly and strongly support the issues? + +Time is always limited in a debate. The wise debater will then choose +that evidence which will most quickly make his hearers feel that their +own experience proves him right. When the speaker has done this, he +has chosen the best evidence and has used enough of it. + +In courts of law where witnesses appear in every case and testify as +to circumstances that did or did not occur, it is necessary that the +jury be able to distinguish carefully between what it should and +should not believe. Witnesses often have a keen personal interest in +the verdict and, therefore, are inclined to tell less or more than the +truth. Sometimes witnesses are relatives of persons who would suffer +if the case were decided against them and they have a tendency to give +unfair testimony. + +In order that the jury may decide as fairly as possible what evidence +is sound and what is not, the attorneys on each side of the case make +out a copy of what are called instructions. These are given to the +judge who, provided he approves of them, reads them to the jury. +Usually these instructions urge the jurors to consider four things. +They must consider, first, whether or not the statements of the +witness are probable; that is, are they consistent with human +experience? Do they seem reasonable and natural? A second thing which +the jury is told to bear in mind is the opportunity which the witness +had of observing the facts of which he speaks. Was he in a position to +be familiar with the thing he describes? In this connection, the jury +is sometimes instructed to consider the physical and mental qualities +of the witness. Is he a man who is physically and mentally able to +judge what he observes under such circumstances? A third factor which +the jury must consider is the possibility of prejudice on the part of +the witness. Has he any reason to feel more favorably toward one side +than toward the other? Is the defendant his friend or relative or +employer? A final consideration is what is commonly called "interest +in the case." It is clear that if the witness will be benefited by a +certain verdict, he may be inclined to frame his evidence in such a +way that it will tend toward that verdict. All these considerations +are based on the rule of referring to experience. What a judge really +says in a charge to the jury is this: "Does your experience warn you +that the testimony of some of these witnesses is unsound? Determine +upon that basis in what respects these witnesses have told the whole +truth and in what respects they have not." + +To summarize: The issues of a proposition are proved by being +supported with evidence. Since evidence is the material with which we +build the connection between the issues and the experience of the +audience, that evidence will be best which will receive the quickest +and strongest support from the experience of the hearers.[3] + +SUGGESTED EXERCISES + +1. In the following extract from a speech of Burke, the famous debater +has asserted that it is undesirable to use force upon the American +colonies. State the four main reasons why he thinks so. Under each +principal reason, put the reasons or evidence with which it is +supported. Is this evidence convincing? Why, or why not? + + First, Sir, permit me to observe that the use of force alone is but + temporary. It may subdue for a moment, but it does not remove the + necessity of subduing again; and a nation is not governed which is + perpetually to be conquered. + + My next objection is its uncertainty. Terror is not always the + effect of force, and an armament is not a victory. If you do not + succeed, you are without resource; for, conciliation failing, force + remains; but, force failing, no further hope of reconciliation is + left. Power and authority are sometimes bought by kindness; but they + can never be begged as alms by an impoverished and defeated + violence. + + A further objection to force is that you impair the object by your + very endeavor to preserve it. The thing you fought for is not the + thing which you recover; but depreciated, sunk, wasted, and consumed + in the contest. Nothing less will content me than whole America. I + do not choose to consume its strength along with our own, because in + all parts it is the British strength that I consume. I do not choose + to be caught by a foreign enemy at the end of this exhausting + conflict; and still less in the midst of it. I may escape; but I can + make no insurance against such an event. Let me add that I do not + choose wholly to break the American spirit: because it is the spirit + that has made the country. + + + Lastly, we have no sort of experience in favor of force as an + instrument in the rule of our Colonies. Their growth and their + utility has been owing to methods altogether different. Our ancient + indulgence has been said to be pursued to a fault. It may be so. But + we know, if feeling is evidence, that our fault was more tolerable + than our attempt to mend it; and our sin far more salutary than our + penitence. + +2. Wells's _Geometry_ gives the following proposition: "Two +perpendiculars to the same straight line are parallel." The evidence +given is: "If they are not parallel, they will, if sufficiently +produced, meet at some point, which is impossible, because from a +given point without a straight line but one perpendicular can be +drawn." Is this evidence sufficient to constitute proof? Does it +convince you? Why, or why not? + +3. Set down as much evidence as you can think of in ten minutes, to +convince a business man that a high-school education is an advantage +in business life. + +4. Support the statement that football has benefited or harmed this +school, with five truthful statements that are evidence. Indicate +which ones would be most effective, if you were speaking to the +students, and which would make the strongest impression on the +faculty. + +5. In the following statements of testimony, tell which ones would be +good evidence and which not. Tell why or why not in each case. + + (1) X, a student, was told that unless he should point out the pupil + who had put matches on the floor, he would be expelled. X then said + that Y was guilty. + + (2) James Brown, a teamster, asserts that the use of alcohol is + beneficial to all persons. + + (3) John Burns, a labor leader, declares that labor unions are + beneficial to trade. + + (4) F. W. McCorkle, a large manufacturer, states that labor unions + have proved beneficial to commerce. + + (5) Professor Sheldon, a college president and profound student of + economics, has declared that labor unions help the trade of the + world. + + (6) Henry Hawkins, a student at the Johnstown High School, asserts + that they have the best football team in the state. + + (7) M. Metchnikoff, chief attendant at the Pasteur Institute, says: + "As for myself, I am convinced that alcohol is a poison." M. + Berthelot, member of the Academy of Science and Medicine, states: + "Alcohol is not a food, even though it may be a fuel." + + (8) Lord Chatham, a member of the English Parliament, said, in + speaking of the Revolutionary War: "It is a struggle of free and + virtuous patriots." + +6. On the basis of your answers to 5, state three conditions that +would make a man's speaking or writing weak evidence as testimony; +three that would make a man's testimony strong. + +7. In Exercise 5 is (3), (4), or (5) the strongest testimony in favor +of labor unions. Why? Which is next? + +8. Can you see one danger of relying on testimony alone for evidence? + + + + +LESSON VI + +THE BRIEF. THE CHOICE AND USE OF EVIDENCE + + I. What the brief is. + + II. What the brief does. + + III. Parts of the brief: + + 1. The introduction in which-- + + (1) The end desired is made clear. + + (2) The issues are determined. + + 2. The proof, which states the issues as facts and proves them. + + 3. The conclusion, which is a formal summary of the proof. + + IV. A specimen model brief. + + V. A specimen special brief. + + VI. Rules for briefing. + +When a builder begins the construction of a wall, he must have the +proper material at hand. When an engineer begins the construction of a +steel bridge, he must have metal of the right forms and shapes. +Neither of these men, however, can accomplish the end which he has in +mind unless he takes this material and puts it together in the proper +way. So it is with the debater. He may have plenty of good evidence, +but he will never win unless that evidence is organized, that is, put +together in the most effective manner. + +The builder, if he were building a wall of concrete, would get the +correct form by pouring the concrete into a mold. So also, there is a +mold which the debater should use in shaping his evidence. When the +evidence has been put into this form, the debater is said to have +constructed a _brief_. + +In a previous lesson we saw how we might prove that John Quinn was a +dangerous man by using the evidence of a court record. If we had put +that evidence in brief-form we should have had this: + +John Quinn was a dangerous man, for: + + 1. He was a thief, for: + + (1) The Illinois state courts found him guilty of robbing a bank, + for: + + a) See _Ill. Court Reports_, Vol. X., p. 83. + +The brief, then, is a concise, logical outline of everything that the +speaker wishes to say to the audience. + +Its purpose is to indicate in the most definite form every step +through which the hearers must be taken in order that the proposition +may at last be fully accepted by their experience. + +The brief is for the debater himself. He does not show it to the +audience. It is the framework of his argument. It is the path which, +if carefully marked out, will lead to success. + +Now, as we have seen, there are three principal steps in debating: + +1. Making clear what you wish the audience to believe. + +2. Showing the audience why the establishing of certain issues should +make them believe this. + +3. Proving these issues. + +The first two of these steps constitute what in the brief is called +the _Introduction_. + +The third step, proving the issues, is the largest part of the brief +and is called the _Body_ or the _Proof_. + +In addition to these two divisions of the brief there is a sort of +formal summary at the end called the _Conclusion_. + +The skeleton of a brief then would be as follows: + +INTRODUCTION + +In which: (1) the desired end is made clear; (2) the issues are +determined. + +PROOF + +In which the issues are stated as declarations or assertions and +definite reasons are given why each one should be believed. These +reasons are in turn supported by other reasons until the assertion is +finally brought within the hearers' experience. + +CONCLUSION + +In which the proof is summarized. + +Of course no two briefs are identical, but all must follow this +general plan. Suppose we look at what might be called a model brief. + +MODEL BRIEF + +Statement of proposition. + +INTRODUCTION + + I. Definition of terms. + + II. Restatement of question in light of these terms. + + III. Determination of issues. + + 1. Statement of what both sides admit. + + 2. Statement of what is irrelevant. + + IV. Statement of the issues. + + +PROOF + + I. The first issue is true, for: + + 1. This reason, which is true, for: + + (1) This reason, for: + + a) This reason. + + b) This reason. + + 2. This reason, for: + + (1) This evidence. + + (2) This authority. + + (3) This testimony, for: + + a) See Vol. X, p. --, of report, document, magazine, or + book. + + II. The second issue is true, for: + + 1. This reason, for: + (1) This reason. + + 2. This reason, for: + + (1) This reason. + + (2) This reason. + + III. The third issue is true, for: + + 1. This reason, etc. + + IV. The fourth issue is true, for: + + 1. This reason, etc. + + +CONCLUSION + +Therefore, since we have shown: (1) that the first issue is true by +this evidence, (2) that the second issue is well founded by this +evidence; (3) that the third and fourth, etc.; we conclude that our +proposition is true. + +Now, let us look at a special brief, made out in a high-school debate, +for a special subject. + +The preceding is an affirmative brief and there were four issues. In +the following we have a negative brief, in which there were three +issues. Refutation is introduced near the close of the proof. + +Of this we shall see more in the next lesson. + + +BRIEF FOR NEGATIVE + +INTRA-HIGH-SCHOOL CONTESTS SHOULD BE SUBSTITUTED FOR INTER-HIGH-SCHOOL +CONTESTS IN THE HIGH SCHOOLS OF NORTHERN ILLINOIS + +INTRODUCTION + + I. Definition of terms. + + 1. Contests, ordinary competitions in: + + a) Athletics. + + b) Debating. + + 2. Intra-high-school contests (contests within each school). + + 3. Inter-high-school contests (contests between different high + schools). + + II. Restatement of question in light of these definitions. Contests + within each high school should be substituted for contests + between high schools in Northern Illinois. + + III. Determination of issues. + + 1. It is admitted that: + + a) Inter and intra contests both exist at present in the + high schools of Northern Illinois. + + b) Contest work is a desirable form of training. + + c) Not all contests should be abolished. + + 2. Certain educators have asserted that: + + a) The inter form of contests is open to abuses. + + b) The intra contests would be more democratic. + + c) Intra contests would be practicable. + + 3. Other educators disagree with these assertions. + + 4. The issues, then, are: + + a) Are the inter contests so widely abused in the high + schools of Northern Illinois as to warrant their abolition? + + b) Would the proposed plan be more democratic than the + present system? + + c) Would the proposed plan work out in practice? + +PROOF + + I. Contests between the high schools of Northern + Illinois are not subject to such abuses as will warrant + their abolition, for: + + A. If the abuses alleged against athletic contests ever + existed, they are now extinct, for: + + 1. The alleged danger of injury to players physically + unfit is not an existing danger, for: + + (1) It has been made impossible by the rules + of the schools, for: + + a) This high school requires a physician's + certificate of fitness before participation + in any athletic contest, for: + (a) Extract from athletic rulings of + school board. + + b) Our opponent's high school has a similar + regulation, for: + + (a) Extract from school paper of opponents. + + c) The X High School has the same ruling. + + d) The Y High School has the same requirement. + + 2. The charge that athletic contests between high + schools make the contestants poor students is + without sound basis, for: + + (1) A high standard of scholarship is required of + all inter-high-school athletic contestants, for: + + a) Regulations of Illinois Athletic Association. + + B. The evils charged against inter-high-school debating + cannot be cured by the proposed scheme, for: + + 1. They are due, when they exist, not to the form + of contest, but to improper coaching, for: + + (1) "Too much training," one of the evils + charged, is an example of this. + + (2) Unfair use of evidence, the other evil alleged, + is simply an evil of improper coaching. + + II. The proposed plan would not be so democratic as the present + system, for: + + A. The present plan gives an opportunity to all students, for: + + 1. Its class and other intra contests give a chance to the less + proficient pupils. + + 2. Its inter contests afford an opportunity for the more + proficient pupils. + + B. The proposed plan would deprive the more capable pupils of + desirable contests, for: + + 1. They can find contests strenuous enough to induce development + only by competing with similar students in other schools. + + III. The proposed plan would not be practicable, for: + + A. It is unsound in theory, for: + + 1. No pupil has a strong desire to defeat his close friends. + + 2. There is no desirable method of dividing the students for + competition under the proposed plan, for: + + (1) Class division is unsatisfactory, for: + + a) The more mature and experienced upper classes win + too easily. + + (2) "Group division" is not desirable, for: + + a) If the division is large, the domination of the + mature students will give no opportunity to the younger + students. + + b) If the division is small, it is likely to develop + into a secret society. + + B. Experience opposes the proposed plan, for: + + 1. College experience is against it, for: + + (1) N. University tried this plan without success, for: + + a) Quotation from president of N. + + 2. High-school experience does not indorse it, for: + + (1) It is practically untried in high schools. + +REFUTATION + + I. The argument which the affirmative may advance, that the experience + of Shortridge High School demonstrates the success of this plan, is + without weight, for: + + A. It is not applicable to this question, for: + + 1. The plan at Shortridge is not identical with the proposed + plan, for: + + (1) Shortridge has not entirely abolished inter contests, for: + + a) _School Review_, October, 1911. + + 2. Conditions in Shortridge differ from those in the high schools + of Northern Illinois, for: + + (1) Faculty of that school has unusual efficiency in coaching, + for: + + a) Extract from letter of principal. + + (2) Larger number of students, for: + + a) Extract from letter of principal. + +CONCLUSION + +Since there is no opportunity for serious abuse arising from contests +between schools, and since the adoption of contests within the schools +alone would lessen the democracy of contests as a form of education, +and since the proposed plan is impracticable in theory and has never +been put into successful operation, the negative concludes that the +substitution of intra for inter contests is not desirable in the high +schools of Northern Illinois. + + +From these illustrative briefs we can draw: + + +RULES FOR BRIEFING + +The introduction should contain only such material as both sides will +admit, or, as you can show, should reasonably admit, from the +phrasing of the proposition. + +Scrupulous care should be used in the numbering and lettering of all +statements and substatements. + +Each issue should be a logical reason for the truth of the +proposition. + +Each substatement should be a logical reason for the issue or +statement that it supports. + +Each issue in the proof and each statement that has supporting +statements should be followed by the word "for." + +Each reason given in support of the issues and each subreason should +be no more than a simple, complete, declarative sentence. + +The word "for" should never appear as a connective between a statement +and substatement in the introduction. + +The words "hence" and "therefore" should never appear in the proof of +the brief, but one should be able to read _up_ through the brief and +by substituting the word "therefore" for the word "for" in each case, +arrive at the proposition as a conclusion. + +SUGGESTED EXERCISES + +1. Turn to Exercise 1, in Lesson V, and carefully brief the selection +from Burke. + +2. Is the following extract from a high-school student's brief correct +in form? Criticize it in regard to arrangement of ideas, and correct +it so far as is possible without using new material. + + +SOCCER FOOTBALL SHOULD BE ADOPTED IN THE "A" HIGH +SCHOOL AS A REGULAR BRANCH OF ATHLETIC SPORT + +INTRODUCTION + + I. Recent popularity of soccer. + + 1. In England. + + 2. In America. + + II. Soccer a healthful game, for: + + 1. Develops lungs. + + 2. Develops all the muscles. + + III. Issues. + + 1. Soccer is a beneficial game. + + 2. Would the students of "A" support soccer as a regular + sport? + +PROOF + + I. Soccer is a beneficial sport, for: + + 1. It requires much running, kicking, and dodging, both + in offensive and defensive playing, therefore-- + + (1) It develops muscles. + + (2) It develops lungs. + + 2. It is played out of doors, therefore + + (1) It develops lungs. + + II. Students of "A" would support soccer as a regular sport, for: + + 1. Who has ever heard of students who would not support + soccer, baseball, basket-ball, and all other exciting + games? + +3. The following is the conclusion of an argument by Edmund Burke in +which the speaker maintained that Warren Hastings should be impeached +by the House of Commons. If it had been preceded by a clear +"introduction" and convincing "proof," do you think that it would have +made an effective "conclusion"? + + Therefore, it is with confidence that, ordered by the Commons: + + I impeach Warren Hastings, Esquire, of high crimes and misdemeanors. + + I impeach him in the name of the Commons of Great Britain, in + Parliament assembled, whose parliamentary trust he has betrayed. + + I impeach him in the name of all the Commons of Great Britain, whose + national character he has dishonored. + + I impeach him in the name of the people of India, whose laws, + rights, and liberties he has subverted, whose property he has + destroyed, whose country he has laid waste and desolate. + + I impeach him in the name and by virtue of those eternal laws of + justice which he has violated. + + I impeach him in the name of human nature itself, which he has + cruelly outraged, injured, and oppressed in both sexes, in every + age, rank, situation, and condition of life. + +4. Take any one of the following propositions and without other +material than that of your own ideas, state at least two issues, and, +in correct brief form, proof for belief or unbelief. + +(1) High-School Boys Should Smoke Cigarettes. + +(2) No One Should Play Football without a Physician's Permission. + +(3) Girls Should Participate in Athletic Games While in High School. + +(4) High-School Fraternities Are Desirable. + +(5) Women Should Have the Right to Vote in All Elections. + + + + +LESSON VII + +THE FORENSIC + + + I. What the forensic is. + + II. How the forensic may be developed and delivered: + 1. By writing and reading from manuscript: + (1) Advantages and disadvantages. + 2. By writing and committing to memory: + (1) Advantages and disadvantages. + 3. By oral development from the brief: + (1) Advantages. + III. Style and gestures in the delivery of the forensic. + +When the brief is finished, the material is ready to be put into its +final form. This final form is called the _forensic_. + +As practically all debates are conducted by means of teams, the work +of preparing the forensic is usually divided among the members of the +team. The brief may be divided in any way, but it is desirable that +each member of the team should have one complete, logical division. So +it often happens that each member of the team develops one issue into +its final form. + +The forensic is nothing but a rounding-out of the brief. The brief is +a skeleton: the forensic is that skeleton developed into a complete +literary form. Into this form the oral delivery breathes the spirit of +living ideas. + +No better illustration of the brief expanded into the full forensic +need be given than that in Exercise I, Lesson V. Compare the brief +which you made of this extract from Burke with the forensic itself, a +few paragraphs of which are quoted there. Any student will find that +merely to glance through a part of this speech of Burke's is an +excellent lesson in brief-making and in the production of forensics. +First study the skeleton only--the brief--by reading the opening +sentences of each paragraph. Then see how this skeleton is built into +a forensic by the splendid rhetoric of the great British statesman.[4] + +There are two ways in which the forensic may be developed from the +brief. Both have some advantages, varying with the conditions of the +debate. One is to write out every word of the forensic. When this is +done, the debater may, if he wishes, read from his manuscript to the +audience. If he does so, his chances of making a marked effect are +little better than if he spoke from the bottom of a well. The average +audience will not follow the speaker who is occupied with raveling +ideas from his paper rather than with weaving them into the minds of +his hearers. + +The debater who writes his forensic may, however, learn it and deliver +it from memory. This method has some decided advantages. In every +debate the time is limited; and by writing and rewriting the ideas can +be compressed into their briefest and most definite form. Besides, the +speaker may practice upon this definite forensic to determine the +rapidity with which he must speak in order to finish his argument in +the allotted time. + +At the same time this plan has several unfavorable aspects. When the +debater has prepared himself in this way, forgetting is fatal. He has +memorized words. When the words do not come he has no recourse but to +wait for memory to revive, or to look to his colleagues for help. +Again, the man who has learned his argument can give no variety to his +attack or defense. He is like a general with an immovable battery, +who, though able to hurl a terrific discharge in the one direction in +which his guns point, is powerless if the attack is made ever so +slightly on his flank. Perhaps the greatest disadvantage of this +method is that it does not give the student the best kind of training. +What he needs most in life is the ability to arrange and present ideas +rapidly, not to speak a part by rote. + +It would seem, then, that this plan should be advised only when the +students are working for one formal debate, and are not preparing for +a series of class or local contests that can all be controlled by the +same instructor or critic. With beginners in oral argumentation this +method will usually make the better showing, and may therefore be +considered permissible in the case of those teams which, because of +unfamiliarity with their opponents' methods, can take no chances. This +plan of preparation is in no way harmful or dishonest, but lacks some +of the more permanent advantages of the second method. + +The second method of developing the brief into the forensic is by +_oral composition_. This method demands that the debater shall _speak +extemporaneously_ from his _memorized brief_. This in no way means +that careful preparation, deliberate thought, and precise organization +are omitted. On the contrary, the formation of a brief from which a +winning forensic can be expanded requires the most studious +preparation, the keenest thought, and the most careful organization. +Neither does it mean that, as soon as the brief is formed, the +forensic can be presented. Before that step is taken, the debater who +will be successful will spend much time, not in _written_, but in +_oral_ composition. + +He will study his brief until he sees that it is not merely a +succession of formal statements connected with "for's," but a series +of ideas arranged in that form because they will, if presented in that +order, bring conviction to his hearers. "Learning the brief," then, +becomes not a case of memory, but a matter of seeing--seeing what +comes next because that is the only thing that logically could come +next. When the brief is in mind, the speaker will expand it into a +forensic to an imaginary audience until he finds that he is expressing +the ideas clearly, smoothly, and readily. Pay no attention to the fact +that in the course of repeated deliveries the words will vary. Words +make little difference if the framework of ideas is the same. + +This method of composing the forensic trains the mind of the student +to see the logical relationship of ideas, to acquire a command of +language, and to vary the order of ideas if necessary. In doing these +things, there are developed those qualities that are essential to all +effective speaking. + +A debater's success in giving unity and coherence to his argument +depends chiefly on his method of introducing new ideas in supporting +his issues. These changes from one idea to another, or transitions, as +they are called, should always be made so that the hearer's attention +will be recalled to the assertion which the new idea is intended to +support. Suppose we have made this assertion: "Contests within schools +are more desirable than contests between schools." We are planning to +support this by proving: first, that the contests between schools are +very much abused; second, that the proposed plan will be more +democratic; and third, that the proposed plan will work well in +practice. In supporting these issues, we should, of course, present a +great deal of material. When we are ready to change from the first +supporting idea to the second, we must make that change in such a way +that our hearers will know that we are planning to prove the second +main point of our contention. But this is not enough. We must make +that change so that they will be definitely reminded of what we have +already proved. The same thing will hold true when we change to the +third contention. + +The following illustrates a faulty method of transition: Contests +between schools are so abused that they should be abolished [followed +by all the supporting material]. The proposed plan will be more +democratic than the present [followed by its support]. The proposed +plan would work well in practice [followed by its support]. No matter +how thoroughly we might prove each of these, they would impress the +audience as standing alone; they would show no coherence, no +connection with one another. The following would be a better method: +Contests within schools should be substituted for those between +schools because contests between schools are open to abuses so great +as to warrant their abolition [followed by its support]. We should +then begin to prove the second issue in this way: But not only are +contests between schools so open to abuse that they should be +abolished, but they are less desirable than contests within schools +for they are less democratic. [This will then be followed with the +support of the second issue.] The transition to the third issue should +be made in this way: Now, honorable judges, we have shown you that +contests between schools are not worthy of continuance; we have shown +you that the plan which we propose will be better in its democracy +than the system at present in vogue; we now propose to complete our +argument by showing you that our plan will work well in practice. +[This would then be followed with the proper supporting material.] + +Great speakers have shown that they realized the importance of these +cementing transitions. Take for example Burke's argument that force +will be an undesirable instrument to use against the colonies. He +says: "First, permit me to observe that the use of force shall be +temporary." The next paragraph he begins: "My next observation is its +uncertainty." He follows that with: "A further observation to force is +that you impair the object by your very endeavor to preserve it." And +he concludes: "Lastly, we have no sort of experience in favor of force +as an instrument in the rule of our colonies." He used this principle +to perhaps even greater advantage when he argued that "a fierce spirit +of liberty had grown up in the colonies." He supports this with claims +which are introduced as follows: + +"First, the people of the colonies are descendants of Englishmen." + +"They were further confirmed in this pleasing error [their spirit of +liberty] by the form of their provincial legislative assemblies." + +"If anything were wanting to this necessary operation of the form of +government, religion would have given it a complete effect." + +"There is, in the South, a circumstance attending these colonies +which, in my opinion, fully counterbalances this difference, and makes +the spirit of liberty still more high and haughty than in those to the +northward. It is that in Virginia and the Carolinas, they have a vast +multitude of slaves." + +"Permit me, Sir, to add another circumstance in our colonies, which +contributes no mean part towards the growth and effect of this +untractable spirit. I mean their education." + +"The last cause of this disobedient spirit in the colonies is hardly +less powerful than the rest as it is not merely moral, but laid deep +in the natural constitution of things. Three thousand miles of ocean +lie between you and them." + +He finally summarizes these in this way, which further ties them +together. + +"Then, Sir, from these six capital sources; of descent; of form of +government; of religion in the northern provinces; of manners in the +southern; of education; of the remoteness of situation from the first +mover of government; from all these causes a fierce spirit of liberty +has grown up." + +It may be well also to point out more clearly the somewhat special +nature of the first speeches on each side. The first speech of the +affirmative must, of course, make clear to the judges and the audience +what you wish them to believe. This will involve all the steps which +have already been pointed out as necessary to accomplish that result. +The first speaker can gain a great deal for his side by presenting +this material not only with great clearness, but in a manner which +will win the goodwill of the audience toward himself, his team, and +his side of the subject. To do this, he must be genial, honest, +modest, and fair. He must make his hearers feel that he is not giving +a narrow or prejudiced analysis of the question; he must make them +feel that his treatment is open and fair to both sides, and that he +finally reaches the issues not at all because he _wishes_ to find +those issues, but because a thorough analysis of the question will +allow him to reach no others. + +The first speaker on the negative side may have much the same work to +do. If, however, he agrees with what the first speaker of the +affirmative has said, he will save time merely by stating that fact +and by summarizing in a sentence or two the steps leading to the +issues. If he does not agree with the interpretation which the +affirmative has given to the question, it will be necessary for him to +interpret the question himself. He must make clear to the judges why +his analysis is correct and that of his opponent faulty. + +In presenting the forensic to the judges and audience forget, so far +as possible, that you are debating. You have a proposition in which +you believe and which you want them to accept. Your purpose is not to +make your hearers say: "How well he does it." You want them to say: +"He is right." + +Do not rant. Speak clearly, that you may be understood; and with +enough force that you may be heard, but in the same manner that you +use in conversation. + +_Good gestures help. Good gestures_ are those that come naturally in +support of your ideas. While practicing alone notice what gestures you +put in involuntarily. They are right. Do not ape anyone in gesture. +Your oral work will be more effective without use of your hands than +it will be with an ineffective use of them. The most ineffective use +is the making of motions that are so violent or extravagant that they +attract the listeners' attention to themselves and away from your +ideas. Remember that the expression of your face is most important of +all gestures. Earnest interest, pleasantness, fairness, and vigor +expressed in the speaker's face at the right times have done more to +win debates than other gestures have ever accomplished. + + + + +LESSON VIII + +REFUTATION + + I. Refutation explained. + + II. Refutation may be carried on: + 1. By overwhelming constructive argument. + 2. By showing the weakness of opponents' argument. + + III. The time for refutation: + 1. Allotted time. + 2. Special times. + + IV. The right spirit in refutation. + +Our work up to this point has dealt with what is called the +_constructive argument_, i.e., the building up of the proof. But to +make the judges believe as you wish, you must not merely support your +contentions; you must destroy the proof which your opponents are +trying to construct. + +As with the successful athletic team and the successful general, so +with the successful debater, it is necessary, not only to attack, but +also to repulse; not only to carry out the plan of your own side, but +to meet and defeat the plan which the other side has developed. In +debating, this repulse, this destruction of the arguments of the +opposition, is called _refutation_ or _rebuttal_. + +There are two principal ways in which the refutation of the opponent's +argument can be accomplished. The first is _to destroy it with your +own constructive argument_. The second is _to show that his argument, +even though it is not destroyed by yours, is faulty in itself, and +therefore useless_. + +Although only one of them is labeled "Refutation" in the model brief +in the sixth lesson, both types are illustrated there. + +There the negative, believing that the first argument of the +affirmative would be, "Inter contests are open to abuse," makes its +first point a counter-assertion. It uses as the first issue: "Contests +between the high schools of northern Illinois are not subject to such +abuses as will warrant their abolition." Which side would gain this +point in the minds of the judges would depend on which side supported +its assertion with the better evidence. + +If one side wished to raise this question again in the refutation +speeches, which close the debate, it could do no better than to repeat +and re-emphasize the same material which it used in its construction +argument. + +The second method of refuting, i.e., showing an argument to be faulty, +is also illustrated in the brief in the sixth lesson. It is marked +"Refutation." This material was introduced because the negative felt +sure that the affirmative would attempt to use the experience of +Shortridge High School as evidence of the successful working of this +plan. It was shown to be faulty in that the experience of this school +would not apply to the question here debated. + +The student's study of what makes good evidence for his own case will +enable him to see the weakness of his opponents' arguments. Apply the +_same_ tests to your opponents' evidence that you apply to your own. +What is there about the evidence introduced that should make the +audience hesitate to accept it? Point these things out to the +audience. It may be that prejudiced, dishonest, or ignorant testimony +has been given. It may be that not enough evidence has been given to +carry weight. Whatever the flaw, point out to the audience that, upon +a critical examination, experience shows the evidence to be weak. + +In every debate there is a regular time allowed for rebuttal. This is, +however, not the only time at which it may be introduced. In the +debate, put in refutation wherever it is needed. One of the best plans +is, if possible, to refute with a few sentences at the opening of each +speech what the previous speaker of the opposition has said. + +In all refutation, _state clearly what you aim to disprove._ When +quoting the statement of an opponent, be sure to be accurate. + +Something like the following is a good form for stating refutation: + +Our opponents, in arguing that labor unions have been harmful to the +commerce of America, have stated that they would use as support the +testimony of prominent men. In so doing, they have quoted from X, Y, +and Z. This testimony is without strength. X, as a large employer of +labor, would be open to prejudice; Y, as a non-union laborer, is both +prejudiced and ignorant. The testimony of Z, as an Englishman is +applicable to labor unions as they have affected, not the commerce of +America, but the trade of England. + +A similar form is shown in the brief on inter-and intra-high-school +contests in refuting the experience of Shortridge High School. + +In all refutation, keep close to the fundamental principles of the +question. Do not be led astray into minute details upon which you +differ. Never tire of recalling attention to the issues of the +question. Show why those are the issues, and you will see that the +strongest refutation almost always consists in pointing out wherein +you have proved these issues, while your opponents have failed to do +so. + +In order to be fully prepared, however, it is a good plan to put upon +cards all the points that your opponents may use and that you have not +answered in your constructive argument. Adopt a method similar to +this: + +Shortridge argument + + I. Will not apply for: + (1) Not this plan. + (2) Conditions differ, for: + _a) School Review_, October, 1911. + +Then if your opponents advance arguments that are not met in your +speech, merely lay out these cards while they speak, and use them as +references in your refutation. + +The closing rebuttal speech is always a critical one. Here the speaker +should again point out every mistake which his opponents have made. +If their interpretation of the question has been wrong, he should, +while avoiding details, emphasize the chief flaws in their arguments. +On the other hand, he should summarize the argument of his own side +from beginning to end; he should make the support of each of the +issues stand clearly before the judges in its complete, logical form. + +In these closing speeches, as in the opening of the debate, much may +be gained by an attitude which will win the favor of the hearers +toward the speaker and his ideas. An attitude of petty criticism, of +narrowness of view, is undesirable at any stage of the debate. The +debater who is inclined to belittle his opponents will only belittle +himself. To the judges it will appear that the speaker who has time to +ridicule his adversaries must be a little short of arguments. +Insinuations of dishonesty and attempts to be sarcastic should be +carefully avoided. These weapons are sharp but they are two-edged and +are more likely to injure the speaker than his opponent. + +The right attitude for a debater is always one of fairness. Give your +opponents all possible credit. When you have then refuted their +arguments, your own contentions seem of double strength. It is said +that Lincoln used this method with splendid effect: He would often +restate the argument of his opponent with great force and clearness; +he would make it seem irrefutable. Then, when he began his attack and +caused his opponent's argument to collapse, its fall seemed to be +utter and complete, while his arguments, which had proved themselves +capable of effecting this destruction, appeared all the more powerful. + +In your desire to do well in refutation, do not be led to depend upon +that alone. There is no older and better rule than, "Know the other +side as well as you know your own." Do not believe that this is in +order that you may be ready with a clever answer for every point made +by the other side. The most important reason why you should know the +other side of the question is the necessity of your determining the +issues correctly, and thus building a constructive argument that is +overwhelming and impregnable. Many a debate has been lost because the +debaters worked up their own constructive argument first, and only +later, in order to prepare refutation, considered what their opponents +would say. Had they proceeded correctly, they would have destroyed the +proof of their adversaries while they built up their own. + +A clever retort in refutation often wins the applause of the +galleries, but an analysis of the question so keen that the real +issues are determined, supported by an organization of evidence so +strong that it sweeps away all opposition as it grows, is more likely +to gain the favorable decision of the judges. + +SUGGESTED EXERCISES + +1. What is the purpose of refutation? 2. What two principal methods +may be followed? + +3. What must one do to refute correctly and well? + +4. Do you think it better in refutation to assail the minor points of +your opponent or to attack the main issues? + +5. A fellow-student in chemistry said to you: "The chemical symbol for +water is H_{4}0; two of our classmates told me so." You replied: "The +correct symbol, according to our instructor, is H_{2}O." Did you +refute his assertion? How? + +6. A classmate makes an argument which could be briefed thus: + +Cigarettes are good for high-school boys, for: + + I. They aid health of body, for: + (1) Many athletes smoke them, for: + a) X smokes them. + b) Y smokes them. + c) Z smokes them. + +If you disagree with this assertion, do not believe they aid health, +and know X does not smoke cigarettes, how would you refute his +contention? + +7. If your opponents in a debate quote opinions of others in support +of their views, in what two ways can they be refuted? + +8. In a recent campaign, the administration candidate used this +argument: "I should be re-elected, for: Times are good, work is +plentiful, crops are excellent, and products demand a high price." +Show any weakness in this argument. + +9. Show the weakness of proof in this argument: Harvard is better at +football than Princeton I. They defeated Princeton in 1912. + +10. What general rule can you make from 9 concerning a statement +supported by particular cases? + + + + +LESSON IX + +MANAGEMENT OF THE DEBATE + + +_Teams_.--The opposing teams in a debate usually consist of three +persons each. A larger or smaller number is permissible. + +_Time of Speaking_.--Each speaker is ordinarily allowed one +constructive speech and one rebuttal speech. The constructive speech +is usually about twice the length of the refutation. Twelve and six, +ten and five, and eight and four minutes are all frequent time-limits +for debates. Many debaters make shorter speeches. + +_Order of speaking_.--The debate is opened by the affirmative. The +first speaker is followed by a negative debater, who, in turn, is +followed by a member of the affirmative team, and so on until the +entire constructive argument is presented. A member of the negative +team opens the refutation. Speakers then alternate until the debate is +closed by the affirmative. The order of speakers on each team is often +different in refutation than in constructive argument. + +_Presiding chairman_.--Every debate should be presided over by a +chairman. His duties are to state the question to the audience, +introduce each speaker, and announce the decision of the judges. He +sometimes also acts as timekeeper. + +_Timekeepers_.--A timekeeper representing each of the competing +organizations should note the moment when each speaker begins and +notify the chair when the allotted time has been consumed. It is +customary to give each speaker as many minutes of warning before his +time expires as he may desire. + +_Salutation_.--Good form in debating requires that each speaker shall +begin with a salutation to the various personages whom he addresses. +The most common salutation is: "Mr. Chairman, worthy opponents, +honorable judges, ladies and gentlemen." + +_Reference to other speakers_.--In referring to members of the +opposing team never say, "he said," "she said," or "they said." Always +speak of your opponents in the third person in some such way as, "my +honorable opponents," "the first speaker of the negative," "the +gentlemen of the affirmative," or "the gentlemen from X." + +In referring to other members of your own team say, "my colleagues," +or "my colleague, the first speaker," etc. + +_The judges_.--There are generally three judges. Where it is +practicable, a larger number is desirable because their opinion is +more nearly the opinion of the audience as a whole. Needless to say +they should be competent and wholly without prejudice as to teams or +question. + +_The decision_.--The decision of each judge should be written on a +slip and sealed in an envelope provided for that purpose (see +Appendix IX, "Forms for Judges' Decision"). These should be opened by +the chairman in view of the audience, and the decision announced. + + + + +LESSON X + +A SUMMARY AND A DIAGRAM + + +We have now completed our study of debating. We saw first that all +talking and writing is discourse, and that one great division of +discourse--that which aims to gain belief--is argumentation. +Argumentation we divided into spoken and written argumentation. We +found that it varies in formality but that, when carried on orally +under prescribed conditions and with the expectation of having a +decision rendered, it is called debating. + +Successful debating we found to require three steps: showing the +hearers what belief is desired; showing them upon what issues belief +depends; and supporting these issues with evidence until we have +established proof. + +We learned that the first of these steps could be taken by stating the +question in the form of a definite, single proposition; defining the +terms of this proposition; and then restating the whole matter. We +found that the second step required that the material that both sides +admit, together with all other material that is really not pertinent +to the question, should be first removed, and that the fundamentals of +the question should be stated as the issues. The last step, proving +the issues, we found to involve two processes. It was necessary, +first, to find and select evidence, and, second, to arrange that +evidence in logical order--the brief-form. + +[Illustration] + +The accompanying diagram is one that has helped many students to +visualize more clearly what is attempted in a debate and to see how +the debate may be made successful. + +The doubt that the audience very reasonably has of the new idea +proposed is bridged over by the proposition. But this proposition will +not be strong enough to cause the minds of the listeners to pass from +unbelief to belief unless it is well supported. The whole proposition +is therefore placed upon one or two or three great capitals--the +issues, under each of which is a pillar of proof. These pillars are +composed of evidence of every sort. The intelligent debater has, +however, before placing a single piece of this evidence in the proof, +tested it carefully. He has tested it with the question: "Will it help +bring conviction to the audience; how will it affect my hearers?" +Moreover, not satisfied with this scrupulous choice of evidence, he +has been careful not to pile it in regardless of position, but to +place each piece in the position where it will lend the strongest +support to the entire structure. + +When this has been done, the bridge of proof is built solidly upon the +experience of the hearers, and, almost without their knowledge, their +minds have gone from unbelief to belief. + +FOOTNOTES: + +[Footnote 1: Baker, _Principles of Argumentation_.] + +[Footnote 2: Jevons, _Primer of Logic._] + +[Footnote 3: For a thorough discussion of the principle of reference +to experience, see Arthur E. Phillips, _Effective Speaking_, chap. +iii.] + +[Footnote 4: Edmund Burke, _On Conciliation with the Colonies_.] + + + + +APPENDICES + + + + +APPENDIX I + +HOW AND WHERE TO READ FOR MORE + +INFORMATION + + +Practically every subject that is interesting enough to be a good +subject for debate has been written about by other people. Every good +library contains the books on the following list, and with a little +experience the student can handle them easily. A general treatment of +every important subject can be found in any of the following +encyclopedias: _Americana, New International, Twentieth Century, +Britannica_. + +Everything that has been written upon every subject in all general, +technical, and school magazines, can be found by looking up the +desired topic in: _The Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature_, or +_Poole's Index_. + +If the matter being studied deals with civics, economics, or +sociology, look in: Bliss, _Encyclopaedia of Social Reform,_ etc.; +Lalor, _Cyclopaedia of Political Science_, etc.; Larned, _History of +Ready Reference and Topical Reading_; Bowker and lies, _Reader's Guide +in Economics_, etc. + +What Congress is doing and has done is often important. This can be +found in full in: _The Congressional Record_. + +Jones's _Finding List_ tells where to look for any topic in various +government publications. + +In studying many subjects the need of definite and reliable statistics +will be felt. These may be found on almost any question in the +following publications: _Statesman's Yearbook, Whitaker's Almanac, +World Almanac, Chicago Daily News Almanac, Hazell's Almanac, U.S. +Census Reports_. + +Never consider your reading completed until you have looked for any +special book that may be written upon your subject in the Card +Catalogue of your Library. + +Make out a Bibliography or Reading List (as illustrated briefly in +Appendix V) before you proceed to actual reading. + + + + +APPENDIX II + +ILLUSTRATIONS OF ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE THE ISSUES OF THE QUESTION + +The two specimens that immediately follow are analyses of the same +question by students of the same university. The first is a selection +from the speech made by Mr. Raymond S. Pruitt in the Towle Debate of +Northwestern University Law School in 1911. The second is the +introduction to the speech made by Mr. Charles Watson of the +Northwestern University Law School in the 1911 debate with the Law +School of the University of Southern California. Students should +observe how the two speakers determine somewhat different issues. + +_Resolved_, That in actions against an employer for death or injury of +an employee sustained in the course of an industrial employment the +fellow-servant rule and the rule of the assumption of risk as defined +and interpreted by the common law, should be abolished. + +Mr. Pruitt, speaking for the affirmative: + + The question which we discuss tonight is partly economic and partly + legal. By that I mean that viewing it from the standpoint of legal + liability, we possibly can agree with the gentlemen of the Negative + that the employer should respond in damages to his injured employee, + only when the injury has been caused by the employer's own fault. + But, on the other hand, viewing the same problem from an economic + standpoint, you cannot deny, that, when through no fault of his own, + a worker is injured in the course of an industrial employment, that + industry should compensate him for the loss. + + Here then is the issue--the world-old-problem--established + principles of law in conflict with changing social and economic + conditions; and, as history shows, there can in such cases be but + one solution. The decision of the court, the statute of the + legislature, yes, even the constitution of the nation, must in turn + yield to the march of progress and adapt itself to changing + conditions until once more it shall reflect the sense of public + justice in its own time. Hence, I say that in our discussion this + evening, there can be no confusion of issues. The Affirmative, + according to the wording of the question, are to advocate a change + in our common law, while the Negative in duty bound are to oppose + the proposition for change, and to defend as the Negative always + defend, the order of things as they are. + + The Affirmative are to advocate such a change, the abolition of the + common-law defenses of the employer. For the purposes of this + debate, it is immaterial to us whether this change is brought about + by a simple extension of the employer's liability, or whether it is + accompanied, as in many of our states, by a system of workman's + compensation. Likewise, it is a consideration extraneous to the + issues of this debate, whether the employer shoulder this risk + himself, whether he insure it in a private insurance company, or + whether he be compelled to insure it in a company managed by the + state. At all events, and under any of these plans, the proposition + of the Affirmative will be maintained, the employer will be deprived + of his defenses at common law, and the employee will recover his + damages regardless of questions of fault. + + Assuming then the full burden of proof, the Affirmative propose to + demonstrate that the assumption of risk and the fellow-servant rule + as defined and interpreted by the common law should be abolished, + first, because whatever reasons may have justified these doctrines + in years gone by they have no application to industrial conditions + in our day; and, secondly, because the abolition of these common law + defenses will but place the burden of industrial loss, as in justice + it should be placed, upon the ultimate consumer of the product of + the industry. + +Mr. Watson, speaking for the Negative: + + The proposed abolition of these two common-law defenses, like every + change of law or any suggested reform, is brought to our attention + by certain existing evils. The advocates of this reform have a + definite proposition in mind and that proposition is definitely and + clearly stated in the question. It is a question in which people in + every walk of life are concerned. Since it is of such widespread + interest, let us lift it from a plane of mere debating tactics, in + which a question of this kind is so often placed, and where a great + deal of time is spent in arguing what the Affirmative or the + Negative may stand for according to the interpretation of the + question, let us lift it from that plane, and consider it as + practical men and women who are interested in the outcome of this + great problem. It is, then, in its larger sense, a legal question + and must be considered from the standpoints of justice and of + expediency. + + It is not enough for the Affirmative to point out evils that exist + under these two common-law rules, for there is bound to be some evil + in the administration of all law; so they must further show that + these evils which they have named are inherent in these two laws, + and that the proposed change will remedy the existing evils. Now the + Negative maintain that the evils complained of are not inherent in + these laws, and we believe that the Affirmative plan is not the + proper solution of the problem. + + I will show you that these common-law rules are founded on + principles of justice and that their removal would be unjust to the + employer; second that it would discriminate against the smaller + tradesmen, and third that the proposed remedy does not strike at the + root of the evil, since it would affect only a small percentage of + industrial accidents. + +CARL SCHURZ ON GENERAL AMNESTY + +(A bill being before Congress proposing to restore to leading +Southerners many of the privileges which had been denied them +following the war, Mr. Schurz determined the issue as follows:) + + _Mr. President_: When this debate commenced before the holidays, I + refrained from taking part in it, and from expressing my opinions on + some of the provisions of the bill now before us; hoping as I did + that the measure could be passed without difficulty, and that a + great many of those who now labor under political disabilities would + be immediately relieved. This expectation was disappointed. An + amendment to the bill was adopted. It will have to go back to the + House of Representatives now unless by some parliamentary means we + get rid of the amendment, and there being no inducement left to + waive what criticism we might feel inclined to bring forward, we may + consider the whole question open. + + I beg leave to say that I am in favor of general, or, as this word + is considered more expressive, universal amnesty, believing, as I + do, that the reasons make it desirable that the amnesty should be + universal. The senator from South Carolina has already given notice + that he will move to strike out the exceptions from the operation of + this act of relief for which the bill provides. If he had not + declared his intention to that effect, I would do so. In any event, + whenever he offers his amendment I shall most heartily support it. + + In the course of this debate we have listened to some senators, as + they conjured up before our eyes once more all the horrors of the + Rebellion, the wickedness of its conception, how terrible its + incidents were, and how harrowing its consequences. Sir, I admit it + all; I will not combat the correctness of the picture; and yet if I + differ with the gentlemen who drew it, it is because, had the + conception of the Rebellion been still more wicked, had its + incidents been still more terrible, its consequences still more + harrowing, I could not permit myself to forget that in dealing with + the question now before us we have to deal not alone with the past, + but with the present and future of this republic. + + What do we want to accomplish as good citizens and patriots? Do we + mean only to inflict upon the late rebels pain, degradation, + mortification, annoyance, for its own sake; to torture their + feelings without any ulterior purpose? Certainly such a purpose + could not by any possibility animate high-minded men. I presume, + therefore, that those who still favor the continuance of some of the + disabilities imposed by the Fourteenth Amendment do so because they + have some higher object of public usefulness in view, an object of + public usefulness sufficient to justify, in their minds at least, + the denial of rights to others which we ourselves enjoy. + + What can those objects of public usefulness be? Let me assume that, + if we differ as to the means to be employed, we are agreed as to the + supreme end and aim to be reached. That end and aim of our endeavors + can be no other than to secure to all the States the blessings of + good and free government and the highest degree of prosperity and + well-being they can attain, and to revive in all citizens of this + republic that love for the Union and its institutions, and that + inspiring consciousness of a common nationality, which, after all, + must bind all Americans together. + + What are the best means for the attainment of that end? This, Sir, + as I conceive it, is the only legitimate question we have to decide. + + + + +APPENDIX III + +A TYPICAL COLLEGE FORENSIC + + +The forensic which follows is the one which was used by the State +University of Iowa in its debates with the University of Wisconsin and +the University of Minnesota in 1908. In the form in which it appears +here it was given in a home contest a few evenings before the +Inter-State Debate. It is quoted here with the permission of the +Forensic League of the State University of Iowa. + +_Resolved_, That American Cities Should Adopt a Commission Form of +Government. + +Mr. Clarence Coulter, the first speaker on the Affirmative, said: + + It is not my purpose to picture the shame of American cities; that + is well known; but I am to consider only those evils due to the + present form of municipal government, an organization based on the + separation of the powers into the legislative, executive, and + judicial departments. The proper remedy for these evils will be + secured only by adopting a form which concentrates the entire + authority of city government in one definite and responsible body. + + It is a significant fact, that during the last quarter of a century, + the tendency in municipal organization has been toward concentration + of powers. Certain of our cities have recognized the wisdom of such + action, but have unwisely attempted to concentrate only the + executive power whereas the real solution lies in concentrating all + governmental authority in one definite and responsible body. + + New York City tried such a plan and it has failed; failed because + its separate legislative department has proved an obstruction to + effective action. Consequently, there has been a continual tendency + to deprive the council of all power, until today its only function + is to vote on franchises and issue certain licenses. So evident is + the imperative need of concentrating the legislative and + administrative powers in one body, that there is now a charter + revision committee meeting in New York whose great object is to + consider the advisability of entirely eliminating the separate + council, and creating in its place a small commission possessing + both legislative and administrative authority. Practically the same + condition obtains in the city of Boston. + + What is true of New York and Boston is equally true of scores of + other cities. Memphis tried for years to reform her government with + an isolated council. Today she is clamoring at the doors of her + legislature for a commission charter. Within the past two years more + than a dozen states have provided for a commission form of + government, while within the past year more than a dozen cities have + actually thrown away their old forms and assumed the commission + system. + + The success of a separate legislative body in state and national + government is the only excuse for its retention in our cities, yet + the failure, for over a century in all its different forms and + variations, proves that such a government is unsuited to them. There + are several important and fundamental characteristics of the city + that demand a different form of government and show conclusively + that there is no need of a separate legislative body. In the first + place, the city is not a sovereign government, but is subordinate to + state and nation. There is no reason for a distinct legislature to + determine the broad matters of policy, for they are determined for + the citizens of the city as well as those of the country, by the + state and national legislatures, in which both the city and country + are represented. In the second place, the work of a city is largely + administrative and of a business character, as my colleagues will + show, and there is no necessity for a separate council to legislate + when a commissioner is better able, as we shall show, to pass the + kind of legislation characteristic of the city. + + In the third place, we do not find, as in the state, the necessity + of a large and separate body to represent the various localities. + The city has a large population living in a restricted territory; in + the state it is scattered. The city is unified by means of its rapid + communication and transportation facilities, and its interests are + common. These, Honorable Judges, are some general reasons why there + is no necessity for trying to maintain a separate legislative body + at the expense of efficiency in administration and the fixing of + individual responsibility. + + But let us now examine as to wherein this principle of separation + fails to meet modern municipal conditions. In the first place we + find that this system has failed to produce efficiency, because, in + actual practice, it has been impossible to keep the legislative and + administrative branches within their proper spheres of action. To be + sure, such difficulty does not exist in state and national + governments where the work is naturally divided. But in city + government, where the work is of a peculiar kind, where it is + unified in character and is largely administrative and of a business + nature, it has been found impossible to maintain a separation. It is + not at all surprising to find that in some cities, the mayor is the + dominating factor in both legislation and administration. He is the + presiding officer of the council with the deciding vote, and, in + addition, is clothed with the veto power. On the other hand, there + are scores of instances where the council assumes administrative + functions. It names all appointments to office, and it creates and + controls all the departments of city government. Under such + circumstances the administrative department is subordinate to the + council, because its officers can be both appointed and removed by + that body and because it can carry on no work without the council's + authority. Thus there is an inevitable tendency to concentrate the + powers in one of the two branches, yet, at the same time, diffusing + responsibility between them. Such a condition only goes to show that + city government is gradually but surely working its way toward + concentration in one body. But the trouble lies in the fact that the + present system makes possible concentration of power, without a + corresponding concentration of responsibility. From such a condition + have grown two grave and inherent evils. First, it has entirely + eliminated the system of checks and balances, which is a fundamental + doctrine of the division of power. Secondly, it has utterly + destroyed all effective responsibility. It is apparent at once, that + when one branch of the government dominates, the checks and balances + between the departments are immediately lost, and facts bear out + what theory shows to be logically true. The system of checks and + balances failed absolutely in New York, where the mayor is supreme, + and where the city has been plundered of sums estimated at 7 per + cent of the total valuation of real estate. It has failed in St. + Louis, where the council dominated, and where "Boss Butler" paid + that body $250,000 to pass a street railway franchise. Neither did + it work in Philadelphia, which has been plundered of an amount equal + to 10 per cent of her real estate valuation; nor in San Francisco + under the disgraceful regime of Mayor Schmitz. So overwhelming is + the evidence on this point that it is needless to dwell further upon + it. + + In the second place, this domination of one branch over the other + has resulted in a lack of responsibility and of co-ordination in + city affairs. These two elements are indispensable where the work to + be performed is of a local and business nature. We find that under + the present system, no matter which branch of government dominates, + there is always a notorious lack of responsibility. If the council + makes a blunder in legislation, it immediately lays the blame upon + the administrative officials, maintaining that it passed the measure + upon recommendation of the administrative branch, or that branch + failed to carry out its policy. If the administrative officials are + neglectful, they shift the blame onto the council, and insist that + the difficulty lies in insufficient legislation. Under such + conditions, the average citizen has no way of telling where the + blame really lies. + + At present, there is no attempt at co-ordination between the + legislative, executive, and judicial departments. On the other hand, + there is often open rupture between them. For years before the + commission form of government was adopted in Galveston, there was + open warfare between the legislative and executive departments, + which saddled upon the city a bonded debt of many thousands of + dollars. In our state, there is a municipality in which the two + departments of government are defying each other. Both are + exercising legislative and administrative authority until the + citizens of that place are at a loss to know which is right. This is + admittedly a deplorable state of affairs, yet it is the logical + result of forcing upon the city a form of government entirely + unsuited for its needs. Moreover, this lack of co-ordination and + responsibility has resulted in the confusion of powers and the + creation of needless boards and committees. A recent investigation + in Philadelphia showed that it had four boards with power to tear up + the streets at will, but none to see that they were properly relaid. + Chicago finds herself possessed of eight different tax levying + bodies, while in New York City there are eighty different boards or + individuals who have power to create debt. Is it any wonder that + inefficiency and graft infest such a maze of boards, councils and + committees? We see, then, that the present system of separation of + powers produces inefficiency through a confusion of functions; it + does away completely with the system of checks and balances and + results in utter lack of responsibility and co-ordination of + departments. + + Honorable Judges, if we are ever to arrive at a solution of our + municipal problem, we must concentrate municipal authority; we must + co-ordinate departments, eliminate useless boards and committees and + fix absolutely and completely individual responsibility. This, we + propose to do by establishing a commission form of government, where + all governmental authority is vested in one small body of men, who + individually act as the heads of administrative departments, but who + collectively pass the needed legislation. Thus, instead of a council + with restricted powers and divided authority, we have a few men + assuming positions of genuine responsibility, as regards both the + originating and enforcing of laws. My colleagues will show that such + a concentration of powers in one small body is necessary and + desirable, both from the legislative and administrative point of + view. + + Such a concentration is desirable, since it is accompanied by a + corresponding concentration of personal responsibility. This is + secured in the commission system. Responsibility in administration + is secured, because each commissioner is at the head of a + department, for the efficient and honest conduct of which he alone + is held personally responsible. Responsibility in legislation is + secured, because, first, the body of legislators is comparatively + small. Second, the very fact that each commissioner possesses + information essential to intelligent action, places upon the + commission itself absolute responsibility. Such a system makes it + impossible to shift responsibility from one branch to the other, and + guarantees to us better and more efficient administration of our + municipal affairs for it eliminates all useless boards and + committees and fixes absolutely and completely individual + responsibility. + +Mr. Earl Stewart, the first speaker on the Negative, said: + + We wish it understood at the outset that no one deplores the useless + boards and complicated machinery in many of our American cities more + than do the Negative. + + Before going a step farther let us get right as to what we mean by a + commission form. The gentlemen state that they are standing for a + concentration of all power in one small body. Honorable Judges, they + are standing for something different. It is possible to concentrate + all authority in one body and yet have the different functions + performed by separately constituted bodies. For example, the cabinet + system of Germany, where all governing power is vested in the + legislative body which in turn delegates all administrative + functions to the cabinet. Thus the legislative body is directly + responsible, having ultimate authority, yet the actual exercise of + power is done by distinct bodies. Now how is it with the commission? + There, not only does one body have ultimate authority, but it + actually conducts administration as well as legislation. Quoting + from Sec. 7 of the Des Moines charter, which is typical of every + commission form charter in this regard, it says: "All legislative, + executive, and judicial functions of the city shall be placed in the + hands of the commissioners who shall exercise those functions." The + Affirmative, then, are standing for fusion of functions, and not + concentration of powers. + + The Negative do not defend the evils of present city organization. + The Negative believe that far-reaching reforms must be instituted + before we shall enjoy municipal success. The issue then is, does the + commission form, or do the reforms proposed by the Negative, offer + the more satisfactory solution of our municipal problems? + + The Negative propose, first, that the form of organization shall + embody a proper correlation or departments. + + In the early council system the functions of the legislative and + executive departments so overlapped that there was continual + conflict of authority. Under the board system the two departments + were almost disconnected, so that the legislative department could + not hold the executive accountable to the will of the people. In + many forms today, as the gentlemen have depicted, the relations + between the departments are such that responsibility cannot be + fixed. + + But, Honorable Judges, these instances of failure do not show that + it is impossible to preserve a proper division of functions, for + every conspicuous example of municipal success in the world is based + upon the proper correlation between the legislative and + administrative departments. Municipal success in Europe is an + established fact. There we find the cabinet form. A similar form is + in vogue in Toronto, Canada, which Mayor Coatswain says is most + gratifying to the public. Says Rear Admiral Chadwick: "The city of + Newport, Rhode Island, has now a form of government that awakens the + interest of the citizens, keeps that interest awake, and conducts + its affairs in obedience to the wishes of the majority." Charleston, + S. C., Elmira, New York, Los Angeles, Cal., are but a few of the + typical American cities which have successfully adopted the ordinary + mayor and council form. Says Mayor Rhett, of Charleston: "I am the + executive of a city that has been under a mayor and council for over + one hundred years. It is quite as capable of prompt action on any + matter as any business corporation." The National Municipal League, + composed of such men as Albert Shaw, of New York City, and Professor + Rowe of the University of Pennsylvania, appointed a committee to + formulate a definite program of reform. This committee did not even + consider the abandoning of distinct legislative and administrative + bodies, but, after three years of unremitting effort, presented a + working system, embodying, in the words of the committee itself, the + "essential principle of all successful government," namely, the + proper correlation between the legislative and administrative + departments. That program has left marked traces in the constitution + of Virginia, Alabama, Colorado, New York, Wisconsin, Michigan, and + Delaware. + + Proper correlation between departments is best facilitated in the + cabinet form, because all governing power is vested in the + legislative body, which in turn delegates all administrative + functions to the cabinet. However, many cities have properly + correlated mayor and council by utilizing the model charter of the + National Municipal League. The Negative, therefore, is here to + promulgate no specific form for all American cities: conditions in + Boston may require a different mechanism from that in San Francisco, + but whatever form, the underlying principle of a proper division of + functions must be embodied. The Affirmative must admit that proper + correlation of departments has brought about municipal success, as + far as mere organization can do so, yet, notwithstanding that, after + fifteen years of misrule under the commission form in Sacramento the + freeholders by unanimous choice again adopted distinct legislative + and administrative bodies; and that the commission form has lately + operated but a few years in a few small cities, amid aroused civic + interest. The Affirmative would abolish at one blow the working + principle of successful city organization in France, Germany, + England, Canada, and unnumbered cities in the United States. + + In the second place, evils in our cities are due to bad social and + economic conditions. Harrisburg, Pa., was notoriously corrupt. A + spirit of reform aroused the citizens, and Harrisburg stands today + as a remarkable example of efficient government, yet the form of + organization has been unchanged. + + In many of our large cities there is a feeble civic spirit, due, in + part, to undesirable immigrants, the prey to the boss, and utterly + lacking in inherited traditions so essential to the capacity of + self-government. Another instance: the mutual taxing system has + fostered public extravagance and loss of interest on the part of the + taxpayer. Again, favor-seeking corporations have continually + employed corrupt methods. James Bryce says that in the development + of a stronger sense of civic duty rather than any change in the form + of government lies the ultimate hope of municipal reform. + + A third cause of municipal ills is that of poor business methods. + First, unjust election laws and lack of proper primaries have + permitted the corrupt arts of the caucus politician. Second, lack of + a uniform system of accounting has served only to conceal the facts, + resulting in apathy on the part of the people, diffusion of + responsibility, and widespread corruption among officials. Third, + lack of publicity of proceedings has protected graft. Fourth, lack + of civil service has perpetuated the spoils system. + + All these can and are being remedied. The Bureau of Municipal + Research shows plainly that it is not necessary to change + fundamental principles to secure business efficiency. It reorganized + the Real Estate Bureau of New York that eluded all graft charges and + made 100 per cent profits. The Department of Finance, heretofore + unable to tell whether taxes were collected, is reorganized from top + to bottom. Through the glaring light of publicity, the bureau + collected more than a million dollars for paving done at the + public's expense between the street-car company's rails. The old + conditions, where examination of the books of any department + involved weeks of labor, have given way to a uniform system of + public accounting. In the words of the Springfield, Mass., + _Republican_, "The work of the Bureau of Public Research is far more + fundamental than the question of substituting city organization with + a commission." + + A fourth cause of evils is that of state interference in purely + local affairs. + + In the United States the city may not act except where authorized + expressly and especially by the state. In Europe the city may do + anything it is not forbidden to do, and municipal success there is + based on this greater freedom. The European city, though subject to + general state law, makes its own local laws, not in conflict with, + but in addition to, state law. But in the United States the state + legislature, accustomed to interfere in matters of interest to the + state government, failed to distinguish between such matters and + those of exclusive interest to the cities themselves. To illustrate: + The Cleveland Municipal Association reported in 1900 that + legislators from an outside county had introduced radical changes in + almost every department of their city government. In Massachusetts + the police, water works, and park systems are directly under the + state, and the only part the cities have is to pay the bills. In + Pennsylvania for thirty-one years the state kept upon the statute + books an act imposing upon Philadelphia a self-perpetuating + commission, appointed without reference to the city's wishes, and + with all power to erect a city hall and levy taxes to collect the + twenty-million-dollar cost. + + State and national political parties, controlling the legislature, + have meddled in the private affairs of the city, resulting in the + decay of the city council and the destruction of the local autonomy. + Professor Goodnow says that under these conditions a scientific + solution of the vexed question of municipal organization has been + impossible. + + The remedy lies in restoring to the city its proper field of + legislation. Already thirty states have passed constitutional + amendments granting greater legislative powers to the cities. Five + states now allow cities to amend their own charters. But in direct + opposition to this movement for municipal home rule, the commission + form takes the last step in the destruction of the city's + legislative body and fosters continued state interference. President + Eliot says that the functions of the commissioners will be defined + and enumerated by the state. + + Now, Honorable Judges, the basic principle of city government the + world over is division of functions. It is the principle that the + commission form attempts to annihilate. But we have pointed out the + real causes of municipal evils and have shown they are to be + remedied without tampering with the fundamental principles which + time and experience have shown to be correct in every instance of + successful city organization. The Affirmative say: change the + fundamental principle; all changes in form and other remedies are + insufficient. The Negative say: retain the principle of distinct + legislative and administrative bodies, but observe a proper + correlation between them which is done in countless instances as we + have shown. We would remedy bad social and economic conditions, + introduce better business methods, and, most important of all, give + the city greater freedom in powers of local self-government. + +Mr. Clyde Robbins, the second speaker of the Affirmative, said: + + It should be understood at the outset that the Affirmative desire + all the local self-government for American cities that the Negative + can induce the state legislatures to give them. But just what is + home rule for cities? It is simply granting additional functions to + the city by the state legislature. The only possible way home rule + can affect the question under discussion is a consideration of which + form of government is best suited to perform additional functions + granted by the government. We maintain that the commission form can + do this better because, first, it furnishes superior legislation, + and second, it furnishes superior administration. + + The gentleman blandly assumes that the commission form is + fundamentally wrong, because it fails to provide a separate + legislative body as do the governments of the state and nation. An + isolated legislative body is desirable for state and national + governments. Is that a reason for applying it to city government? + Here, social, economic, and political conditions are entirely + different from those of either state or nation. The city is not a + sovereign body. Its powers are exclusively those delegated to it by + the state legislature. They are confined wholly to matters of local + concern. Furthermore, we do not deny the legislative functions of + the city, nor does the plan we advocate contemplate the destruction + of the city's legislative body. It simply means that in place of the + present notoriously inefficient, isolated council, we establish a + commission council composed of the heads of the various + administrative departments. The question at issue is not whether we + shall have a city council, either system provides for that; but + whether a commission council, or an isolated council will furnish + better ordinances. We are contending that the commission council + must furnish superior measures, because in the making of city + ordinances there are at least three great essentials for which this + commission council alone makes adequate provision. + + First the legislative and administrative work of the city must be + unalterably connected; + + Second, the councilmen must have a direct and technical knowledge of + the city affairs; + + Third, the councilman must be representative of the whole city. + + Consider, first, how the legislative and administrative work are + connected. State and national legislation are general in their + nature and scope. The extent of territory, and the variety in local + needs have naturally created a separate law-making body. But in the + city such conditions do not exist. The legislative acts of the + council are specific in their nature. The very name reveals their + distinctive character. They are ordinances as distinguished from + other laws, and are designed to meet a particular kind of + administration. The specific act and the particular administration + of it go hand in hand. Hence, satisfactory measures can be enacted + only when they come from the hands of a commission council. + + President Eliot recognized this fact when he said that the work of + the city council is not concerned with far-reaching policies of + legislation. There is no occasion for two or even one separate + legislative body. Dr. Albert Shaw writes, that so indistinguishably + blended are the legislative and administrative departments of the + city, that it is impossible to separate one from the other. + + Second, a commission council is more effective because it furnishes + a direct and technical knowledge of city affairs. An investigation + in Des Moines showed that out of 370 acts performed by the council, + 32 were granting of saloon licenses and similar permits; 338 + concerned matters demanding technical knowledge. To have a street + paved, shall one body legislate; a second group administer; and a + third pass upon the validity of the whole thing? Rather the + councilmen should know good paving; they should know how to draw up + and enforce a business contract. These are the vital necessities. + + The commission council secures such results. Its membership is + comparatively small. Its sessions are held daily. Its members have a + direct knowledge of the city's needs for each one serves as the head + of a department. Satisfactory legislation then becomes a mere + business proposition. It is but carrying forward the work of each + commissioner, for successful administration is impossible without + competent legislation. Hence, a city commissioner would no more + think of passing improper legislation than a bank director would + think of advising unsound loans. + + The Cedar Rapids commission met to legislate on replacing an old + bridge. The commissioner of public safety told in what respects the + old structure was unsafe. The commissioner of public property knew + how much land the city owned abutting the bridge. The commissioner + of streets explained what alterations should be made in the + approaches, and the commissioner of finance knew in just what way + the city could best pay for the improvement. Honorable Judges, such + men are in a position to legislate with thoroughness. They are a + commission council, the very nature of which makes it inevitable + that they act with intelligence and efficiency. + + Contrast now, the commission council with the isolated council. Here + we find positively no co-ordination between the legislative and + administrative branches, while a century of experience with the + scheme of checks and balances has proved conclusively that it can + not prevent municipal corruption. Moreover, legislation by the + isolated council is not only chaotic in form but it is + irresponsible, while in the case of the commission council the very + fact that the head of each department possesses necessary + information not only secures adequate legislation but fixes with + certainty the entire responsibility. + + The isolated council is a large and unwieldy body. Each member of it + has his own private occupation. Without special preparation of any + kind he attends council not oftener than once a week. Intelligent + action under such conditions is simply impossible. The only way this + council has of securing reliable information is from the heads of + the administrative departments. But even then responsibility is + still divided between the legislative and administrative branches. + This deplorable state of affairs has been synchronous with the + growth of the isolated council in America. + + Is it any wonder that the old Des Moines council voted to construct + a bridge only to find when the work was completed that the city did + not even own the approaches, or that the old Cedar Rapids council + let a similar contract at an exorbitantly high price, only to find, + when the work was completed, that the contract called for no + protecting wings or abutments, and the city was compelled to spend + many thousands of dollars additional in order to make the structure + safe? Such nonsensical legislation is a direct result of the + isolated council. It fails to provide information essential to + intelligent action. It does not permit a proper co-ordination of + departments so vitally necessary in successful city government. + + Lastly, city legislation demands unbiased representation. In this + respect a commission council is superior to an isolated council. + + In the commission council each member represents the entire city. + Hence, there is no incentive to favor one ward at the expense of + another. In fact, any such an attempt could result only in disaster + to the commissioner himself. Furthermore, each commissioner is held + individually responsible for his department. Consequently he is + forced to insist upon an impartial representation of the entire + city. This is well illustrated by the present situation in New York + City. The Bureau of Municipal Research, admittedly the most + practical organization of its kind in the country, is conducting its + work along the line of effective competency in city departments. As + a result of its investigations, the citizens of New York have been + forced to the conclusion to which my colleague has already referred, + namely, that the ultimate solution of their municipal difficulties + will be reached only when they have disposed of their present + inefficient and useless ward council and created in its place a + commission council. + + Under the isolated council a member is elected to represent a + certain section of the city. He must do this, no matter what may be + the effect upon the rest of the city. For example, in legislating on + the annual budget, each ward boss brings pressure to bear upon his + own councilman to have certain levies reduced, and to secure + stipulated appropriations for his own ward. In New York City last + spring, Bird S. Coler, representing a part of Brooklyn, blocked + every appropriation until he secured certain selfish measures for + his own district. What is true of New York is an annual occurrence + in practically every other ward-ruled American city. + + Furthermore, councilmen from one ward are shamefully unresponsive to + the needs and desires of citizens in other wards. Just this summer + the council of Duluth, Minn., granted saloon licenses for a ward in + which 90 per cent of its citizens signed a written protest against + such action. The councilmen representing that district were helpless + to prevent the legislation and the citizens themselves had no + recourse whatsoever. The grand jury in St. Louis reported that the + wards of that city were an actual menace to decency and good + government. + + With these instances before us it is well to remember that the + scheme of ward representation is a necessary part of the practical + operation of the separation of powers in government. This is + exemplified in our national, state, and city organizations. In fact, + the principal reason for an isolated legislative body is that the + sentiments of the different localities may be expressed in + legislation. The practical result is that 95 per cent of our city + governments are based upon ward representation, nor can an instance + be cited in all American political theory which shows the creation + of a successful political organization based upon an isolated + legislative body in which there has not been an accompanying + representation by territorial districts. This principle is always + the same no matter whether it be a congressional district of the + national government or a ward of the city government. Hence, it is + for this principle that the gentlemen must contend if they wish to + argue for an isolated council in city government. + + In conclusion, Honorable Judges, a commission council is superior to + an isolated council, because the work of city legislation and + administration must be unalterably connected; because the councilmen + must have a direct and technical knowledge of city affairs; and, + because the councilmen must be representative of the whole city. + +Mr. Vincent Starzinger, the second speaker on the Negative, said: + + The Affirmative continue to direct their attack against the "old + form." Yet my colleague has suggested substantial changes in present + city organization, changes which have brought about success + wherever tried. Moreover, we wish to make it clear that we are not + necessarily standing for a division of power. There may be + separately constituted departments of government, one primarily for + administration, the other primarily for legislation, yet a + concentration of authority in one of them, as in the case under the + cabinet system of Europe. The gentlemen of the opposition are + advocating not only a concentration of power, but a fusion of + functions as well. Their commission is at once the executive cabinet + and the legislative body. + + We have heard much about the practical working of the new plan. Upon + this matter, the Negative shall have a few words to say before the + close of the debate. But granting for the sake of argument that the + commission form has operated with some degree of success in a few + small towns, especially when compared with the admitted inefficient + machinery of government in vogue before its adoption and when + favored by an aroused civic interest, nevertheless, it does not + follow that it is adapted to the needs of the typical American city. + There, administration is a matter of great complexity and of vital + importance. Boston has pay-rolls including 12,000 and annual + expenditure of $40,000,000. Successful administration under such + conditions has necessitated the growth of city departments. The + heads of the various departments constitute an executive cabinet. + Under the commission form, this cabinet is established by popular + election and made the single governmental body for the performance + of both the legislative and the administrative functions. + + Such a fusion of functions must necessarily result: in poor + administration; in the sacrifice of legislation; and in the ultimate + destruction of local self-government. + + Consider the problem of administration. + + An efficient cabinet cannot, as a rule, be secured by popular + election. Men who possess the ability to direct a city department + acquire such capacity only after years of preparation, and such men + will not endure the uncertainties of a career dependent upon the + favor of the public. The commissioner of finance who understands the + intricate problems of accounting will not coddle the people to + insure his election. Popular judgment, no matter how enlightened, + cannot be entrusted with the selection of such men. The old board + system proves this conclusively. Here, the choosing of the heads of + the important city departments was placed in the hands of the + people. The system stands condemned. + + A commission form makes the additional blunder of uniting completely + the two functions of legislation and administration in the same + body. This makes the commissioners representative in character. But + this condition is disastrous to successful administration. Whenever + the people desire even the slightest change in their local policy, + the stability and continuity of the city departments must be upset. + Representation is secured at the expense of efficiency. + Administration becomes saturated with politics. + + Again, Honorable Judges, the management of a city should be + subjected to the criticism and control of a reviewing body. Both the + welfare of the people and the interests of good administration + demand it. Administrators, no matter how valuable their technical + knowledge, make poor legislators. Being interested in their work, + they very naturally exalt and magnify their departments. Just a few + years ago, the city of Cleveland found it necessary to take even the + preparation of the budget from the heads of the departments + concerned and to place it with a board which could view with + impartiality the demands of the various department chiefs. Think of + turning over all the functions of a city like St. Louis to an + executive cabinet without even the oversight or criticism of an + impartial body. + + And, Honorable Judges, the whole experience of government proves the + absolute necessity for a separate legislative department. Look where + you will, and in each case there is an executive cabinet, based upon + appointment, untrammelled by the burdens of legislation, and + subjected to the criticism and control of a reviewing body. In + Europe, the city councils are elected by the people, and the + administrative departments are made up through a process of + selection and appointment, together with the assurance of reasonable + permanence of tenure, responsibility, and adequate support. Likewise + in America, the larger cities are already organizing their cabinets + upon a somewhat similar basis. The six largest cities of New York, + all of the cities of Indiana, Boston, Chicago, Baltimore, and many + others are securing their important administrative officials through + appointment by the mayor. This is the general plan advocated by the + National Municipal League. It centers responsibility for the + administration in one man. On the other hand, some of the cities of + Canada follow more closely to the German system. There the cabinet + is selected by a representative council. In practically all of these + instances, men of special ability have been obtained, the + departments of administration have been properly correlated, + responsibility has been concentrated, and the general principle, + that successful administration depends upon a separately constituted + legislative body, has been firmly established. + + It is plain then that a commission form violates the fundamental + principles of successful administration. It first attempts to secure + a cabinet by popular vote. It then upsets the stability of the city + departments by completely uniting both the legislative and the + administrative functions. Finally, it destroys the responsibility of + that prime essential of successful administration, namely, a proper + reviewing body. + + In the second place, Honorable Judges, the permanent adoption of a + commission form must necessarily mean a sacrifice of legislation and + the ultimate destruction of local self-government. Even though the + city may be subordinate to the state, nevertheless, it has a broad + field of independent action. Otherwise, why give it a separate + personality and a separate organization? Cities are permitted to + exercise vast powers of police and of taxation. It is idle to say + that a few commissioners can give satisfactory legislation. They + cannot represent community interests. Their executive functions will + naturally bias their judgment. Moreover, each commissioner, knowing + little of the needs of the other departments, will naturally take + the word of its administrative head, especially since he desires the + same freedom. This was actually the case in Sacramento, Cal., where + the commission plan was tried for fifteen years and given up as an + abject failure. Says the Hon. Clinton White of that city: "In almost + every instance, the board soon came to the understanding that each + man was to be let alone in the management of the department assigned + to him. This resulted in there being in fact no tribunals exercising + a supervisory power over the executive of a particular department." + Honorable Judges, a reviewing and legislative body is indispensable + in city government and a commission makes no such provision. Weak in + administration, wholly lacking in matters of legislation, dangerous + as a theory of government, it cannot help but result in the complete + subjection of local government to the state. The inevitable result + of its permanent adoption will be that the important local + legislative functions will become a mere administrative board with + discretionary power as in the case of Washington, D.C. In the words + of Professor Goodnow: "The destruction of the city council has not + destroyed council government. It has simply made local policy a + matter of state legislative determination." If we wish to destroy + the life of the city, make it impotent to discharge the functions + for which it was organized, then, and then only, it might be + feasible to place over it a commission. + + But, Honorable Judges, authorities are agreed that cities must be + allowed greater freedom of action in local affairs, that municipal + home rule is indispensable. The governments of our large cities have + been dominated to such an extent by the state legislatures, usually + partisan and irresponsible to the locality concerned, that in many + cases self-government has become a term, hollow and without meaning. + + The gentlemen condemn the city council, yet they pass over the real + cause for its decay. Restore to the city its proper legislative + powers, confine the work of the council to legislation instead of + allowing it to go into details of administration, reduce the number + of councilmen, if necessary, adjust the method of representation, + introduce needed electoral and primary reform, establish + responsibility by means of uniform municipal accounting and + publicity of proceedings, and we ask the gentlemen in all + earnestness why American city councils will not take on new life + just as the city councils of every other country have done in the + past. + + The two great problems of American city government are: first, + administration; secondly, municipal home rule. The solution of both + depends upon the existence of two separately constituted departments + of government. This principle is being emphasized by the leading + scholars of political science, as illustrated by the program of the + National Municipal League. In fact, Honorable Judges, every + deep-seated reform in our large cities for the past quarter of a + century has tended toward this cardinal doctrine of municipal + success. The Ohio Municipal Code Commission, after two years of + careful study and observation, presented a bill based upon the + principles which we defend tonight, namely, a separation of + administration from legislation, and secondly, municipal home rule. + + In direct opposition to this, the gentlemen present and advocate as + a permanent scheme for the organization of American cities, both + large and small, a commission form, a quasi-legislative and + administrative board patterned to give mediocrity in the performance + of both functions, success in neither; a form which destroys forever + the possibility of developing an efficient executive cabinet and is + entirely out of harmony with the advancing idea of municipal home + rule. + +Mr. George Luxford, the third speaker on the Affirmative, said: + + It has been made very clear by my colleagues that the present + shameful condition of many of our American cities is due in large + measure to the peculiar form of the government patterned after a + scheme which is adapted to a sovereign government like the state or + nation. The Negative demand an isolation which history shows, so far + as our American cities are concerned, leads to a complete confusion + of functions, with a consequent loss of responsibility. Knowing the + inadequacy of the scheme they then demanded municipal home rule; but + we have shown that the Affirmative are thoroughly committed to + municipal home rule which under the commission form alone can be + safely intrusted to cities. State interference in city government is + the child of the form of government for which our friends of the + Negative are sponsors. Thus far the gentlemen have failed to + disprove the points which we have presented that the theory of + checks and balances when applied to American cities has failed; that + the plan of concentrating municipal authority under one head as + advocated by the commission plan is in complete harmony with modern + industrial and social development, and that the plan is superior + from a legislative standpoint. It shall be my purpose to show that + it is superior from the standpoint of administration. We believe + this because the commission lends itself to the application of + business methods. The plan provides for a comparatively small body + of men who meet in daily session and who give their whole time to + the work of governing the city. At present, too often the real + business of the officials is anything else. They give their spare + time to the city and we have seen the results. Honorable judges, we + claim that there is a special virtue in the very smallness of the + number inasmuch as they are properly paid, devote all their time to + their work, and are made in fact governors of the city. They have a + great deal of work to do and they do it, while under our present + systems the councilmen have comparatively little to do and they fail + to do that little efficiently. + + The reason why this small body can administer with dispatch and + efficiency is seen at a glance. Each commissioner is the head of a + department for which he is personally responsible. He is not + hindered as is the executive at present by an inefficient and + meddling council which has more power, often, than the executive + himself. He knows the laws for he has helped to make them. It is his + business to see that they are executed, and if they are not, he + cannot escape blame. He cannot plead ignorance, lack of + responsibility, or lack of power as do present administrative + officers. + + Moreover, this body is admirably constituted for effective carrying + out of city business. It is larger than the single headed executive + and possesses, therefore, a division of work which makes the + administration far more effective. At the same time it is smaller + than the old council and for that reason is more efficient in + enacting the city's peculiar kind of legislation. In actual + practice, and that seems to be the real test of city government, + both administration and legislation are accomplished with accuracy + and dispatch. For instance, every spring for the last decade + carloads of "dagoes" with their dirt and disease have come to Cedar + Rapids. Every year protests have gone up to both mayor and council, + but without result. Cedar Rapids has adopted a commission form of + government. Last spring when the "dagoes" came the same complaints + went up as usual, that because of their insanitary methods these + people carried with them filth and disease. But the petitioners did + not go to the city council which met once in two weeks, nor were + they referred to a committee which met less often. They went + directly to the commissioners who had charge of the city health and + in less than twenty-four hours the "dagoes" had been notified to + either clean up or leave, and they left the city. But, say the + opponents of this plan, this could have been done under the old + system. To be sure, but the burning fact remains that in spite of + the protests of the people, it was not done. + + In Houston the government was both inefficient and dishonest. For + years the annual expenditures had exceeded the income a hundred + thousand dollars. The city adopted a commission form and a four + hundred thousand dollar floating debt was paid off in one year out + of the ordinary income of the city. At the same time the city's + taxes were reduced ten per cent. In the health department alone + there is a saving of from $100 to $150 per month, while a + combination in the operation of the garbage crematory and pumping + station saves the city $6,000 annually. These results have been + accomplished under a commission plan by the application of common, + everyday business principles. + + Galveston adopted a commission plan, and although its taxable values + were reduced twenty-five per cent by the storm of 1900, yet within + six years its commissioners not only put the city on a cash basis, + made improvements costing $1,000,000 annually, but actually paid off + a debt of $394,000 which had been incurred by the old council, and + all this was accomplished without borrowing a dollar, issuing a + bond, or increasing the rate of taxation. Other cities which have + adopted a commission plan are accomplishing equally as beneficial + results. Hence, we maintain that the commission form of city + government is superior from the standpoint of efficiency in + administration. + + The commission plan is superior in administration for it is adapted + to the city's financial problem. The same body of men are held + responsible for the levying and collecting of taxes and for the + spending of the money. This is desirable because the administrative + body which is to spend money knows, accurately, the city's need of + revenue. They are in a position to know; it is their business. A + legislative body, whether council or a board, cannot know the city's + needs for money without getting the facts from the administrative + body. F.R. Clow says the council does not pretend to know the city's + revenue problem and they adopt the recommendation of the + administrative departments. The Negative's system of division of + powers simply divides the responsibility between the legislative and + administrative departments for the thing which in fact has been done + by the administrative department itself. Since the administrative + department really dictates the budget, it should be held directly + responsible for it. Therefore, we contend that the commissioners, + knowing best what the budget should contain because as + administrators they know the city's need for money, are the body of + men preeminently fitted to handle the city's budget. + + The commission plan is adapted to the city's financial problem + because it fosters economy. Economy is the result of understanding. + The commissioners knowing the city's government, not from the + administrative side alone, but from the legislative side as well, + are in a position to economize and in practice they have done so. + The running expenses of Galveston under the commission plan have + been reduced one-third. In Houston it costs $12,800 a year less to + run the water and light plants than formerly, while by a combination + of work in the different departments there is a saving of $9,000 + annually. In Cedar Rapids, since the adoption of the commission + plan, there has been a reduction in the paving contracts let of ten + and one-fifth per cent, in sewerage contracts, fourteen and + two-sevenths per cent, and in water contracts, twenty per cent. + Immediately after the adoption of the commission plan in Des Moines + the annual cost of each arc-light was reduced five dollars. Reports + from all the cities using the commission plan show that by the use + of business principles the commissioners have economized in the + administration of the city's government. + + The commission plan is adapted to the city's finances because it + provides a superior safeguard. Legislative bodies in our cities have + been depended upon to represent the citizens' best interest. In + practice, as we have pointed out, they have not done so. Never in + the history of our municipal affairs, says Henry D.F. Baldwin, has a + legislative body stood out as the representatives of the people + against the administrative department. Why then continue a + representative body which does not in fact represent? Instead of the + withered form of a council or legislative body standing between the + citizen and his government the commission plan simply removes this + useless obstacle and allows the citizen to participate directly in + the government. This is directly in harmony with the + well-established economic principle that the self-interest of the + taxpayer will control where responsibility is fixed. + +Mr. Charles Briggs, the third speaker on the Negative, said: + + It will be well while the matter is fresh in our minds, Honorable + Judges, to make a brief examination of one matter of which the + Affirmative are making a feature, that the commission form affords + unusual safeguards for the financial and economic interests of the + city. Now, in all fairness to the scheme which is doing quite well + in a very few of our smaller cities, the question ought to be raised + as to what other form of city government could be devised which + would provide greater opportunities for graft and corruption. A + little group of autocrats is the ideal form for which the ardent + corruptionists might pray. They have it in the commission form. + Exemplary men in office or a constant civic interest, may prevent + the commissioners from becoming a band of robbers; but are these two + preventives likely always to exist? Human experience says "No." The + history of New Orleans and Sacramento confirm that decision. Civic + interest is bound to subside; corrupt men are sure to become + commissioners. Then the oligarchy advocated by the Affirmative + becomes not a "safeguard" but a band of raiders equipped by the very + form of government to loot the treasury. We must insist, at this + point, that our opponents have failed in their assault upon our main + contention: + + First, that the evils in American city government are not + attributable to the fundamental principles of that government; + second, that the principles underlying the proposed form are in + themselves wrong and are not consonant generally with American + ideals. It remains to be shown that the commission form is + impracticable as a general scheme for the government of all American + cities. + + We can very well agree that where the commission form of government + has been tried it has been productive of some good results, and + further, that in certain homogeneous communities of high culture and + intelligence it might work with considerable success; but that the + result obtained in cities where the commission form has been tried + would warrant the universal adoption of it by American cities we + must deny. + + We deny the wisdom of adopting the commission form for it results in + inadequate responsibility; third, it could never work in the vast + majority of American cities. These reasons are apparent from + examinations of the commission form where it has been and is being + tried, and are inherent in the plan itself. + + The tremendous centralization of power under this form of city + government cannot escape a critical observer. A small body of men + have absolute sway over the destiny of the city. They make all laws + from the minutely specified contract for a water system to all + important school legislation. All franchises are engineered by + them. All contracts, great and small, are let by them. The city's + bonded debt is in their hands; by them the city is taxed and + incumbered. Parks, police, streets, education, public buildings, + engineering, finance--everything from the smallest administrative + duty to the all-engrossing functions of legislation devolves upon + this commission. They can vacate any office, can create any office, + and without limit fix any salary they choose. The entire + officialdom, outside of the commission itself, and all the employes + and the servants of the city are by law made the agents, servants, + and dependents of the council. The possibilities for machine power + with this autocratic centralization of authority are without + condition. We can demonstrate this best by giving practical + illustrations taken from the active operation of the commission + form. We may preface these by saying that there is nothing inherent + in the commission form or any of its attributes which can insure the + selection of better men for office. The members of the commission + will be about the same kind of men as the ordinary city official. + Minneapolis by an election at large placed in the mayor's chair its + most notorious grafter. This is proved by the personnel of the + commissions where the system is being tried. The investigating + committee appointed by the city of Des Moines, quoting their exact + words, say that in Houston, where the commissioners are required to + stay in the city hall every day, business men do not hold those + positions, although the salaries are higher than the proposed + salaries of the Des Moines commissioners. One commissioner was + formerly a city scavenger, another a blacksmith, justice of the + peace and alderman, a third a railway conductor, fourth a dry-goods + merchant, and the mayor, a retired capitalist. Mr. Pollock of Kansas + City says of the Des Moines commission, "The commission as elected + consists of a former police judge and justice of the peace who is + mayor-commissioner at the salary of $3,500; a coal miner, deputy + sheriff; the former city assessor, whose greatest success has been + in public office; a union painter of undoubted honesty and + integrity, but far from a $3,000 man; an ex-mayor and politician, + who is perhaps the most valuable member of the new form of + government, but whose record does not disclose any great business + capacity aside from that displayed in public office." The Des Moines + committee says of the Galveston commission: "This is a perpetual + body, a potentially perfect machine." There has been no change in + the membership of the Galveston commission since it was organized. + The extensive power of the commissioners have enabled them to + control all political factions and to completely crush the + opposition. The commissioners' faction is in complete control and + even goes so far as to dictate nominations for the legislature and + the national congress. In Des Moines we find evidences of this + machine power in the very first session of the commission. Mr. Hume + was appointed chief of police because he had delivered the labor + vote to Mr. Mathis. The _Daily News_, the only Des Moines paper that + supported the plan, was rewarded by having three of its staff + appointed to responsible positions. Mr. Lyman was appointed + secretary to Commissioner Hammery, Neil Jones secretary to Mayor + Mathis. Another man was appointed to an important technical + position. A brakeman was appointed street commissioner because he + delivered the vote of the Federation of Labor. + + These are but a few of the instances where this great centralization + of power has shown itself in practice to be a system permitting of + unrestricted machine power and political grafting. New Orleans tried + the system and abandoned it over 20 years ago because of this very + reason. The inhabitants were afraid of this tremendous + centralization of power. + + The friends of the commission idea claim for it the advantage of + centered responsibility; but practice has proved that this form of + city government is actually formulated to defeat responsibility. By + the construction of this governing body each commissioner is held + responsible for his respective department. But regulation for each + department is made not by the commission as a whole but by the whole + commission. This results in a confusion of powers. Thus in the city + of Des Moines, Mr. Hume, the personal enemy of Commissioner Hammery + was made chief of police by three other members of the commission + for political reasons. + + Who is responsible for the mistakes of Mr. Hume? The people say + Hammery. But Hammery says: "I had nothing to do with his + appointment." It has actually happened time and again at the + commission table in Des Moines that regulations for the financial + department were made by the police commission, the street + commissioner and the commissioner of parks and public buildings; + that the police commissioner would have the deciding vote on some + important school legislation; or the commissioner of education + control the appointment of policemen. This defect has given rise to + log-rolling. Bridges have been built as a personal favor to one + commissioner whose vote is needed to construct a new schoolhouse. + Large paving and building contracts are let simply because the + police commissioner wanted to oust some unfaithful political + dependent. In this way each commissioner gains great favor with the + voters and at the same time can escape personal responsibility for + technical mistakes by shouldering the blame onto the whole + commission where his identity is lost. This department trading has + found its way into the Galveston commission, claimed to have the + best commission of any city under this form of government. Here we + find that at the same time the prosecutor of the city cases in the + police court is allowed the right to collect a fee of $10 for every + criminal, drunk, or vagrant convicted, and $5 for every one who + pleads guilty; a 50-year franchise is granted to the Galveston + Street Railway Co. without a vote of the people, the city not to + receive one cent of tax and no compensation. + + So, Honorable Judges, we must consider that, while the commission + form may be a temporary success in a few small cities, its permanent + success there is in grave doubt. Under these conditions we do not + ask that it be abolished, but that under no circumstances its + application be made general in this country where other forms of + city government are in practice more successful and in theory more + correct. + +REBUTTAL + +Mr. Earl Stewart opened for the Negative: + + The gentlemen contend that the work of the city is almost wholly of + a business nature. Honorable Judges, if the city does not have + important legislative duties, what do we mean by local + self-government? The courts have held again and again that the work + of the city is primarily governmental. Says Judge Dillon: "The city + is essentially public and political in character." Not a business + corporation in this country could place vast sums of money in the + hands of four of five men without the safeguard of some supervising + body. Yet New York City has an annual expenditure of $150,000,000, + equaled by the aggregate of seven other American cities of 400,000 + population; more than that of nations; three times that of the + Argentine Republic; four times that of Sweden and Norway combined. + Honorable Judges, the American people are too business-like ever to + place the entire raising, appropriating, and extending of such vast + sums of money, or the half, or the quarter, or the tenth of such, in + the hands of five men without the adequate check and safeguard of + some supervising and reviewing body, call it congress, legislature, + or council. + + The gentlemen condemn divisions of powers because the city's + functions are of such a mixed nature and no strict line of + separation can be drawn. Granted. We have emphasized repeatedly that + we are not standing for division of powers; we are standing for + separately constituted bodies, which shall co-operate. We are + defending no system of disconnected committees which the gentlemen + have spent a whole speech in attacking, and we have shown, + furthermore, that the evils are only augmented by going to the other + extreme and completely confusing the functions in one small body. + The gentlemen see no difference between principles of government and + the form or mechanism which embodies, adequately or inadequately, + those principles. They forget that the National Municipal League + debated for three years over detail of form, never once disagreeing + as to the essential principle of distinct bodies for legislation and + administration. They forget that the model charter, which is + efficient because it has a proper co-ordination of departments, is + based upon the same principle of separately constituted bodies as + the old board system with its disconnected departments and + complicated machinery. Because the machinery has been inadequate, + owing to causes which the gentlemen have ignored, they would abolish + the working principle which is proved correct in every instance of + successful city organization, wherever found. + + Just a word on this over-worked argument of centering + responsibility. Accountability means that a man charged with the + performance of a task shall be held undividedly responsible for it. + Now the commissioners collectively legislate. They can not do this + without constantly and seriously intruding upon the work of the + several departments. The moment this is done, responsibility is + diffused. The Hume incident, mentioned by my colleague, is abundant + illustration of the way responsibility is fixed under a commission + form. Says Professor F.I. Herriot, head of the department of + political science in Drake University and statistician of the Iowa + board of control: "A commission form cuts at the very roots of + official accountability and responsibility and, strange enough, it + is because its friends believe that it enhances fixing of + responsibility that they propose it." This from a scholar who has + watched the plan in operation. A commission form does not fix + responsibility, but even granting for the sake of argument that it + does, are we to sacrifice representative government for the sake of + fixing responsibility? If so, then why not make it still more + definite and establish one-man power? Honorable Judges, we have + shown that responsibility is more effectively centered by + establishing uniform accounting and publicity. + + The affirmative contend that the commissioners will furnish superior + legislation. Now we do not say that knowledge of administration is + of no benefit in legislation. But the necessary information can be + secured without confusing the functions in a small executive + cabinet. In Europe it is done by making the cabinet responsible to + the council. In the United States, for example, Baltimore, it is + done by having the cabinet meet and co-operate with the council. + Nothing can be done by withholding the information, and as a matter + of fact, the city secures all the benefit of the technical training + of its administrators without the disadvantage of confusion of + functions. + +Mr. Clarence Coulter opened for the Affirmative: + + It has been argued by the Negative that the success of the + commission form of government is based upon the assumption of + electing good men to office, and as an illustration, that the Des + Moines commissioners are inefficient members of the old city hall + gang. As it happens, however, one of the commissioners is a man with + a national reputation as a municipal expert, a man whose honesty and + integrity have never once been questioned. The commissioner of + public safety has been trained for his position by long experience + in municipal affairs and is a college graduate. Admitting, however, + for the sake of argument, that the gentleman's contention is true; + yet the unquestioned success of the Des Moines government proves the + wisdom of the commission plan, for it so centralizes individual + responsibility as to require honest and efficient performance of + duty on the part of each commissioner. + + Now as to securing good men. In the first place, the negative did + not, and cannot, cite a single city in which the commission plan + has failed to secure good men. Better men are elected under the + commission plan, for the number of elective offices is greatly + decreased, while the responsibility and honor of the position is + relatively increased. Moreover, the government is put on a business + basis and the commissioners are given steady employment at a good + salary. They have an opportunity to make a genuine record for + themselves, as well as to serve the best interests of the city. On + the other hand, the fact that responsibility is definitely centered + on each commissioner will, in itself, prevent men of no ability or + grafting politicians from seeking office. Political parties no + longer have any opportunity of putting men of little ability into + office, but instead, competent men with a genuine interest in the + city affairs and with no party affiliations whatever, so far as + municipal affairs are concerned, will be attracted to the position + of commissioner. + + The opposition go further and charge that, even though efficient men + may be elected to office, the commission plan makes impossible the + fixing of responsibility. They failed, however, to point out a + single instance in commission-governed cities to prove their point + and made no attempt to show how responsibility could be better fixed + under the present system. As a matter of fact, Honorable Judges, the + fixing of individual responsibility, under the present system, is + utterly impossible, as we have already shown, while it is the + strongest virtue of the commission plan. In matters of pure + administration it is absolutely impossible for the commissioner to + escape individual responsibility, for he has full charge of the + administration of his own department. In matters of legislation, + where the majority vote of the commission may determine a policy + affecting a certain commissioner, responsibility is not lost but is + fixed upon those few who voted for such policy. + + It has been contended that the commission form of government is + unpopular and that this plan has been rejected in both Sioux City + and Davenport. That these cities rejected it is true. But why? Sioux + City turned it down because the constitutionality of the plan had + not, at that time, been determined. Davenport refused to accept it + because the grafting politicians and the political ring so dominated + the city's politics that they were able to defeat the new plan and + retain the old, which was best suited to the furtherance of their + own ends. + + The gentlemen of the opposition have argued that the present + inefficiency of city government is due to the interference of the + state legislatures and contend that the ultimate solution of the + difficulty lies in greater municipal home rule. They are correct, + Honorable Judges! The state legislature has interfered. But why? + Simply because the city council has proved itself inefficient. New + York City's council was in full possession of its powers when the + state legislature began to interfere. Legislation by somebody was + necessary. The council failed, and now the negative say, give back + to the city its powers and let the council try again. + + According to the gentlemen themselves, the end to be achieved is + less interference of state legislatures and more home rule. It is + obvious, however, that this can be accomplished only when the city + itself can put forth a capable and efficient legislative body. + Honorable Judges, in our second speech we proved to you, that the + commission provides a small but efficient legislative body, far + superior to that of an isolated council. If you want municipal home + rule, establish a form of government which makes it possible. + +Mr. Charles Briggs replied for the Negative: + + My colleague has proved that whatever the form of government, there + must be a body capable of wise legislation, in fact, that there must + be a body that is primarily legislative in character no matter what + its connection or relation with the other departments of government. + That a small commission, burdened with administrative and judicial + functions, is not a proper legislative body is at once apparent. My + colleague has demonstrated that this confusion of powers must result + in inefficiency. But further than this, it is our contention that a + body such as is the commission, without respect to the confusion of + powers, without regard to the administrative duties weighing upon + it, that this commission, of itself, is not suited to legislation. + + There is no more reason for placing the legislation of the city of + Chicago in the hands of five men than that the state legislature of + Minnesota should be reduced to five members. It is true that, in + many respects, the legislation of a city differs from that of a + state, but it is, nevertheless, legislation, and in the larger + cities particularly it is necessary that there be a representative + legislative body. Five men no more constitute a proper legislative + body for 800,000 or a million people of a city than for that many + people outside the city. It is contrary to the fundamental + conception of a legislative body that it be composed of a few. In no + country of free institutions is a legislative body so constituted. + My colleague has proved, and it cannot be successfully controverted, + that in the city, as well as in the state, there is a large field + for legislation. Why, then, should there not be a legislative body + to perform the work of legislation? Why place the work in the hands + of a body that is primarily administrative in character? + + This objection alone must forever prevent the larger cities of the + United States from adopting the commission plan. Or, if adopted, it + must, for this reason alone, prove itself a failure. + +Mr. Robbins replied for the Affirmative: + + The Negative argue that the mechanisms of government in Boston may + differ from those of San Francisco. This is not a discussion of the + mechanisms of government. It involves deep and fundamental + principles relative to a given form of city organization. The + gentlemen have not, nor cannot, cite one iota of evidence that the + underlying principles of organization in the governments of Boston + and San Francisco should be different. The allusion to changing + mechanisms is no excuse for their failure to set in operation a + definite and positive form of organization. Yet the gentlemen have + ingeniously endeavored to evade this duty. Why have they done so? + Because every system of municipal organization based upon the + separation of powers--for which the gentlemen are contending--has + proved an admitted failure. + + Do not the citizens of Brooklyn and San Francisco, as the citizens + of every American city, like to drink pure water? Don't they desire + good transportation facilities, and aren't they glad when they have + clean streets and honest administration? Why, then, don't the + gentlemen come forward, as the Affirmative has done, with a specific + form of organization which provides for the successful + administration of the underlying features of city government? + Instead, the gentlemen seem to delight in wandering across the seas, + telling what might happen if we would be indulgent enough to pattern + our form of organization after that of France, Germany, or Bohemia. + Yet they glibly refuse to consider that the city problem of this + country is distinctly American and is due to conditions peculiar to + America. + + As a matter of fact, the gentlemen have held before us the salient + features of a half dozen opposing forms of organization, none of + which have succeeded individually, and the combined features of + which can make nothing more than a conglomeration of theories and + dogmas. Yes, the gentlemen have been painfully careful not to put + their scheme into practical operation. + + They talk blandly of more home rule, when it is evident that such a + matter is actually beside the question at issue. In the same way + they speak at length of the cabinet system of England, forgetting + that the form the Affirmative is advocating involves the underlying + features of the cabinet system altered to meet conditions peculiar + to America. The commission form, Honorable Judges, is an evolution + of the cabinet form. + + Likewise they have talked much of the need for a separate reviewing + body, citing the insurance scandals of New York state legislature to + prove their contention. Why don't they give instances where a + municipal reviewing body has checked fraud? The reason is obvious. + As Henry Baldwin writes, "Never has there been an instance in + American municipal history where the council has stood out against + the corruption of the administrative department." Rather these + so-called "reviewing bodies" are hand in hand with graft. Look at + the shameful conditions of the "reviewing bodies" of Philadelphia, + St. Louis, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh, with their hands in the city + treasury up to their elbows, and we realize something of the + absurdity of the argument for a separate reviewing body to preserve + efficiency and honesty in the city government. The people should be + the reviewing body of their government. Its organization should be + so simple, yet so complete, that every citizen from the educated + theorist to the humblest day laborer, can review its facts with ease + and understanding. This is the kind of government the commission + form supplies. Why don't the gentlemen come forward with an + organization equally as simple and complete? + + Then the gentlemen go on to tell how they will compel the + administrative officials to confer with their isolated "reviewing + body," and thus secure a proper co-ordination that has failed for a + century. Automatic mechanism in government can never take the place + of simplicity and responsibility. Such schemes are futile. The men + who can make mechanisms can break them. What we must have is a + government that compels efficiency and honesty, not one which + attempts to produce such results through theoretical contrivances. + + Finally, the gentlemen claim that the commission form has failed in + New Orleans and Sacramento. Will the gentlemen give their authority + for the statement that these cities had a commission government? + Every authority upon the subject which the affirmative has found + points to the conclusion, that the form of government employed by + these cities was not a commission form. + +Mr. Starzinger closed for the Negative and said: + + The Affirmative have mentioned our authority. What we have said in + regard to Sacramento, Cal., is based upon excerpts from an article + by the Hon. Clinton White, published in the Cedar Rapids _Evening + Times_. Most of our facts concerning the southern cities which + adopted the new plan are taken from the reports of the Des Moines + investigation committee, headed by the Hon. W.N. Jordan. We would be + glad to submit these pamphlets to the gentlemen for examination. The + mere fact that Des Moines adopted the commission form does not + disprove the integrity of the authorities. + + It is claimed that our stand is indefinite. True, we have not + offered a panacea for all municipal ills. But we have advocated + numerous reforms and have pointed out countless instances of + municipal success under various forms, yet all based upon the same + fundamental principle, that there be separately constituted + departments of government. One of the fatal objections to the + gentlemen's proposition is that they are attempting to blanket the + whole country with one arbitrary form, regardless of differing + conditions. They have completely ignored our cases of successful + city government. We demand that they explain them. + + The gentlemen have said that state interference has been + precipitated by the decay of the city council. Yet they advocate its + complete destruction. Nothing could be more incorrect than to say + that special legislation was brought on as a result of an inherent + weakness in council government. Under the early council system, + there was practically no state interference. About the middle of the + last century, the board system was introduced and the councils were + shorn of their dignity and much of their legislative power. Right + there state dominion in local affairs began. These are the unbiased + facts as given by Professor Goodnow in his book on city government. + + In conclusion, Honorable Judges, the solution of the American city + problem will be best promoted by a program of reform which strikes + at the real causes of the evils, instead of the universal + overturning of all traditions and theories of government in the hope + of finding a short-cut road to municipal success. Give the city a + proper sphere of local autonomy. Co-ordinate the departments of + government, so as to establish responsibility and secure harmonious + action. Simplify present city organization without destroying the + two branches of government. Introduce new and improving methods, + such as non-partisan primaries, civil service, uniform municipal + accounting, and publicity of proceedings. Remedy bad social and + economic conditions. Arouse civic interest. Do this, and there is no + necessity for such a radical and revolutionary change as the + universal adoption of a commission form. + + The new plan means, not alone a change in the form of government, + but a positive overturning of the working principle of successful + city organization the world over. Its experience has been in the + small towns for a short time, under unusual conditions, amid aroused + public sentiment. Even here it has shown fatal weaknesses which the + gentlemen have not satisfactorily explained. It was abandoned by the + only large city that ever tried it; and cast aside as an abject + failure by Sacramento, Cal., after fifteen years of operation. In + the face of these facts, the gentlemen would have all American + cities turn to this form as the final goal of municipal success; a + form which attempts to revive the old board system of selecting + administrative heads by popular vote; which, in addition, centers + the whole government of a city in a small executive cabinet, without + review or oversight; a form which, in the words of Professor + Fairlie, of the University of Michigan, "is in direct opposition to + the advancing idea of municipal home rule." + +Mr. Luxford closed the debate for the Affirmative, and said: + + The case for the Negative is now closed. It has been indefinite from + start to finish. They acknowledge the success of the commission form + but refuse to accept it as the proper form toward which American + cities should work. They have none to offer except a form which is + completely unknown in American cities and successful alone in Europe + under totally dissimilar conditions. We have shown that every vital + move for city improvement today is toward a commission form, both in + practice and theory. The gentlemen have sought to overthrow the + argument for the commission form, and yet suggest no possible + American substitute. + + But the position is not only indefinite, but it is inconsistent. At + one time they say, "the commission form is working well in small + cities." In another they declare that the commission form ignores + the only principles which are at the basis of successful city + government the world over. Putting these statements together we must + conclude that the gentlemen who made the second statement failed to + hear the gentlemen who made the first. If they grant that the + commission form is successful anywhere in the world how can it be + that it is ignoring the only principles of successful city + government the world over? + + But we would not be unjust to the gentlemen. They are not perhaps + altogether indefinite. They would keep the old mayor and council + plan but would have non-partisan primaries, uniform municipal + accounting, and publicity of proceedings. Non-partisan primaries and + publicity of proceedings they have stolen bodily from the + commission. We are grateful to the gentlemen for this hearty + indorsement of the material features of the commission form. As to + uniform municipal accounting, while it is just as possible under the + commission as under any other form of city government, its advocacy + by the gentlemen is inconsistent with their insistent demand for + municipal home rule. Who but the state can supervise a uniform + accounting of all cities? And the gentlemen have deplored state + interference. + + Not only that, but the commission plan provides the necessary + responsibility whereby the citizens may know and participate in the + city government. In the first place the publication of monthly + itemized statements of all the proceedings is required. Every + ordinance appropriating money or ordering any street improvements, + or sewer, or the making of any contract shall remain on file for + public inspection at least one week before final passage. Franchises + are granted not by any legislative body but by direct vote of the + people. Similarly the citizens retain the right to reject any + ordinance passed, or to require the passage of any needed + ordinance. And finally, the citizens by direct vote may remove any + commissioner at any time. + + Thus we see that the commissioners know both the legislative and + administrative side of the city's work, and the responsibility of + doing both is fixed upon them. + + Lastly, Honorable Judges, the Affirmative rest their cases upon + these fundamental arguments: that the whole tendency in American + city government is toward centralization of power in one body; where + this concentration has been partial, city government has failed. + This failure is due largely to the fact that, while power has + centered, responsibility has been diffused. This unfortunate + condition has been obviated by the adoption of the commission form + which is found to be a success because it awakens civic interest, + secures competent officials, and provides in the best possible + manner for the legislative and administrative work of the city, + centering power and responsibility in one small body of men. + + + + +APPENDIX IV + +MATERIAL FOR BRIEFING + +REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT + +SPEECH OF HON. CHARLES F. SCOTT, OF KANSAS, IN THE HOUSE OF +REPRESENTATIVES, THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 1911 + + +(The House having under consideration the bill [S. 7031] to codify, +revise, and amend the laws relating to the judiciary.--From the +_Congressional Record_, March 3, 1911.) + +_Mr. Speaker_: In the ten years of my membership in this House I have +seldom taken advantage of the latitude afforded by general debate to +discuss any question not immediately before the House. But there is a +question now before the country, particularly before the people of the +state I have the honor to represent in part upon this floor, upon +which I entertain very positive convictions, and which, I believe, is +a proper subject for discussion at this time and in this place. That +question, bluntly stated, is this: Is representative government a +failure? We are being asked now to answer that question in the +affirmative. A new school of statesmen has arisen, wiser than +Washington and Hamilton and Franklin and Madison, wiser than Webster +and Clay and Calhoun and Benton, wiser than Lincoln and Sumner and +Stevens and Chase, wiser than Garfield and Elaine and McKinley and +Taft, knowing more in their day than all the people have learned in +all the days of the years since the Republic was founded. + +And they tell us that representative government is a failure. They do +not put this declaration into so many words--part of them because they +do not know enough about the science of government to understand that +the doctrines they advocate are revolutionary, and the rest of them +because they lack the courage to openly declare that it is their +intention to change our form of government, to subvert the system upon +which our institutions are founded. But that is in effect what they +propose to do. + +Every school boy knows that in a pure democracy the people themselves +perform directly all the functions of government, enacting laws +without the intervention of a legislature, and trying causes that +arise under those laws without the intervention of judge or jury; +while in a republic, on the other hand, the people govern themselves, +not by each citizen exercising directly all the functions of +government, but by delegating that power to certain ones among them +whom they choose to represent them in the legislatures, in the courts +of justice, and in the various executive offices. + +It follows, therefore, that to substitute the methods of a democracy +for the methods of a republic touching any one of the three branches +of government is to that extent to declare that representative +government is a failure, is to that extent subversive and +revolutionary. + +Now, it does not follow by any means that because a proposed change is +revolutionary it is therefore unwise. Taking it by and large, wherever +the word "revolution" has come into human history it has been only +another word for progress. Because a nation has pursued certain +methods for a long time it does not at all follow that those methods +are the best, although when a nation like the United States, so bold +and alert, so little hampered by tradition, so ready to try +experiments, has clung to the same methods of government for 130 +years, a strong presumption has certainly been established that these +methods are the best, at least for that particular nation. + +But is the new system wiser than the old--in the matter of making +laws, for example? The old system vests the law-making power in a +legislative body composed of men elected by the people and supposed to +be peculiarly fitted by reason of character, education, and training +for the performance of that duty. These men come together and give +their entire time through a period of some weeks or months to the +consideration of proposed legislation, and the laws they enact go into +immediate effect, and remain in force until set aside by the courts as +unconstitutional or until repealed by the same authority that enacted +them. + +The new system--taking the Oregon law, for example, and it is commonly +cited as a model--provides that 8 per cent of the voters of a state +may submit a measure directly to the people, and if a majority of +those voting upon it give it their support it shall become a law +without reference to the legislature or to the governor. That is the +initiative. And it provides that if 5 per cent of the voters are +opposed to a law which the legislature has passed, upon signing the +proper petition the law shall be suspended until the next general +election, when the people shall be given an opportunity to pass upon +it. That is the referendum. + +Now, there are several things about this plan which I believe the +people of this country, when they come really to consider it, will +scrutinize with a good deal of care and possibly with some suspicion. + +It is to be noted, in the first place, that a very few of the people +can put all the people to the trouble and expense of a vote upon any +measure, and the inquiry may well arise whether the cause of settled +and orderly government will be promoted by vesting power in the +minority thus to harass and annoy the majority. In my own state, for +example, who can doubt that the prohibitory amendment, or some one of +the statutes enacted for its enforcement, would have been resubmitted +again and again if the initiative had been in force there these past +twenty-five years. + +Again, it will be observed that still fewer of the people have it in +their power to suspend a law which a legislature may have passed in +plain obedience to the mandate of a majority of the people, or which +may be essential to the prompt and orderly conduct of public affairs, +and when they come to think about it the people may wonder if the +referendum might not make it possible for a small, malevolent, and +mischievous minority to obstruct the machinery of government and for a +time at least to nullify the will of the majority. + +In the third place, it is to be remarked that a measure submitted +either by the initiative or the referendum cannot be amended, but must +be accepted or rejected as a whole, and we may well inquire whether +this might not afford "the interests" quite as good an opportunity as +they would have in a legislature to "initiate" some measure which on +its face was wholesome and beneficent but within which was concealed +some little "joker" that would either nullify the good features of the +law or make it actively vicious, and which, through lack of +discussion, would not be discovered. Every day we have new and +incontestable proof that "in the multitude of counselors there is +wisdom." But that wisdom can never be had under a system of +legislation which lays before the people the work of one man's mind +to be accepted in whole or rejected altogether. + +Once more let us observe that under this system, no matter how few +votes are cast upon a given measure, if there are more for it than +against it, it becomes a law, so that the possibility is always +present that laws may be enacted which represent the judgment or the +interest of the minority rather than the majority of the people. +Indeed, experience would seem to show that this is a probability +rather than a possibility, for in the last Oregon election not one of +the nine propositions enacted into law received as much as 50 per cent +of the total vote cast, while some of them received but little more +than 30 per cent of the total vote. + +And finally and chiefly, without in the least impeaching the +intelligence of the people, remembering the slight and casual +attention the average citizen gives to the details of public +questions, we may well inquire whether the average vote cast upon +these proposed measures of legislation will really represent an +informed and well-considered judgment. In his thoughtful work on +democracy, discussing this very question, Dr. Hyslop, of Columbia +University, says: + + People occupied with their private affairs, domestic and social, + demanding all their resources and attention, as a rule have little + time to solve the complex problems of national life. The referendum + is a call to perform all the duties of the profoundest + statesmanship, in addition to private obligations, which are even + much more than the average man can fulfil with any success or + intelligence at all, and hence it can hardly produce anything better + than the Athenian assembly, which terminated in anarchy. It will not + secure dispatch except at the expense of civilization, nor + deliberation except at the expense of intelligence. Very few + questions can be safely left to its councils, and these only of the + most general kind. A tribunal that can be so easily deceived as the + electorate can be in common elections cannot be trusted to decide + intelligently the graver and more complicated questions of public + finance or private property, of administration, and of justice. It + may be honest and mean well, as I believe it would be; but such an + institution can not govern. + +That is the conclusion reached a priori by a profound student of men +and of institutions; and there is not a man who hears me or who may +read what I am now saying but knows the conclusion is sound. + +But, fortunately for the states which have not yet adopted the +innovation, we are not obliged to rely upon academic, a priori +reasoning, in order to reach a conclusion as to the wisdom of the +initiative and referendum, for the step has already been taken in +other states and we have their experience to guide us. + +There is South Dakota, for example, where under the initiative the +ballot which I hold in my hand was submitted to the people at the +recent election. This ballot is 7 feet long and 14 inches wide, and it +is crowded with reading matter set in nonpareil type. Upon this ballot +there are submitted for the consideration of the people six +legislative propositions. Four of them are short and comparatively +simple. But here is one referring to the people a law which has been +passed at the preceding session of the legislature dividing the state +into congressional districts. How many of the voters of South Dakota +do you suppose got down their maps and their census reports and +carefully worked out the details of that law to satisfy themselves +whether or not it provided for a fair and honest districting of the +state? They could not amend it, remember, they had to take it as it +was or vote it down. In point of fact, they voted it down; but who +will say that in doing this they expressed an enlightened judgment or +merely followed the natural conservative instinct to vote "no" on a +proposition they did not understand? And here is a law to provide for +the organization, maintenance, equipment, and regulation of the +National Guard of the state. This bill contains 76 sections. It +occupies 4 feet 4 inches of this 7-foot ballot. It would fill two +pages of an ordinary newspaper. + +And here is a copy of the Oregon ballot, from which it appears that +the stricken people of that commonwealth were called upon at the late +election to consider 32 legislative propositions. Small wonder that it +was well onto a month after election before the returns were all in. + +And here is another constitutional amendment in which the people are +asked to pass judgment on such simple propositions as providing for +verdict by three-fourths of jury in civil cases, authorizing grand +juries to be summoned separately from the trial jury, permitting +change of judicial system by statute prohibiting retrial where there +is any evidence to support the verdict, providing for affirmance of +judgment on appeal notwithstanding error committed in lower court and +directing the Supreme Court to enter such judgment as should have been +entered in the lower court, fixing terms of Supreme Court, providing +that judges of all courts be elected for six years, subject to recall, +and increasing the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Is it any wonder +that with questions such as those thrust at them so large a percentage +of the voters took to the "continuous woods where rolls the Oregon" +and refused to express a judgment one way or the other? Now, with all +possible deference to the intelligence and the diligence of the good +people of Oregon, is it conceivable that any considerable proportion +of the voters of that commonwealth went to the polls with even a +cursory knowledge of all the measures submitted for their +determination? + +As to the practical working of the referendum, I have seen it stated +in the public prints that four years ago nearly every appropriation +bill passed by the Oregon legislature was referred to the people for +their approval or rejection before it could go into effect. As a +result, the appropriations being unavailable until the election could +be held, the state was compelled to stamp its warrants "not paid for +want of funds," and to pay interest thereon, although the money was in +the treasury. The university and other state institutions were +hampered and embarrassed, and the whole machinery of government was in +large measure paralyzed. In other words, under the Oregon law a +pitiful minority of the people was able to obstruct and embarrass the +usual and orderly processes of government, and for a time at least to +absolutely thwart the will of an overwhelming majority of the people. + +A system of government under which such a thing as that is not only +possible, but has actually occurred, may be "the best system ever +devised by the wit of man," as we have been vociferously assured, but +some of us may take the liberty of doubting it. + +But the initiative and referendum, subversive as they are of the +representative principle, do not compare in importance or in possible +power for evil with the recall. The statutes of every state in this +Union provide a way by which a recreant official may be ousted from +his office or otherwise punished. That way is by process of law, where +charges must be specific, the testimony clear, and the judgment +impartial. But what are we to think of a procedure under which an +official is to be tried, not in a court by a jury of his peers and +upon the testimony of witnesses sworn to tell the truth, but in the +newspapers, on the street corners, and at political meetings? Can you +conceive of a wider departure from the fundamental principles of +justice that are written not only into the constitution of every +civilized nation on the face of the earth, but upon the heart of every +normal human being, the principle that every man accused of a crime +has a right to confront his accusers, to examine them under oath, to +rebut their evidence, and to have the judgment finally of men sworn to +render a just and lawful verdict. + +Small wonder that the argument oftenest heard in support of a +proposition so abhorrent to the most primitive instincts of justice is +that it will be seldom invoked and therefore cannot do very much harm. +I leave you to characterize as it deserves a law whose chief merit +must lie in the rarity of its enforcement. + +But will it do no harm, even if seldom enforced? It is urged that its +presence on the statute books and the knowledge that it can be invoked +will frighten public officials into good behavior. Passing by the very +obvious suggestion that an official who needs to be scared into proper +conduct ought never to have been elected in the first place, we may +well inquire whether the real effect would not be to frighten men into +demagogy--and thus to work immeasurably greater harm to the common +weal than would ever be inflicted through the transgressions of +deliberately bad men. + +We have demagogues enough now, heaven knows, when election to an +office assures the tenure of it for two or four or six years. But if +that tenure were only from hour to hour, if it were held at the whim +of a powerful and unscrupulous newspaper, for example, or if it could +be put in jeopardy by an affront which in the line of duty ought, we +will say, to be given to some organization or faction or cabal, what +could we expect? Is it not inevitable that such a system would drive +out of our public life the men of real character and courage and leave +us only cowards and trimmers and time servers? May we not well +hesitate to introduce into our political system a device which, had it +been in vogue in the past, would have made it possible for the Tories +to have recalled Washington, the copperheads to have recalled Lincoln, +and the jingoes to have recalled McKinley? + +In all the literature of the age-long struggle for freedom and justice +there is no phrase that occurs oftener than "the independence of the +judiciary." Not one man could be found now among all our ninety +millions to declare that our Constitution should be changed so as to +permit the President in the White House or the Congress in the Capitol +to dictate to our judges what their decisions should be. And yet it is +seriously proposed that this power of dictation shall be given to the +crowd on the street. That is what the recall means if applied to the +judiciary; and it means the destruction of its independence as +completely as if in set terms it were made subject to the President or +the Congress. + +Do you answer, "Oh, the recall will never be invoked except in an +extreme case of obvious and flagrant injustice"? I reply, "How do you +know?" It is the theory of the initiative that it will never be invoked +except to pass a good law, and of the referendum that it will never be +resorted to except to defeat a bad law; but we have already seen how +easily a bad law might be initiated and a good law referred. And so it +is the theory that the recall will be invoked only for the protection +of the people from a bad judge. What guaranty can you give that it +will not be called into being to harrass and intimidate a good judge? +There never yet was a two-edged sword that would not cut both ways. + +Mr. Chairman, I should be the last to assert that our present system +of government has always brought ideally perfect results. Now and then +the people have made mistakes in the selection of their +representatives. Corrupt men have been put into places of trust, small +men have been sent where large men were needed, ignorant men have been +charged with duties which only men of learning could fitly perform. +But does it follow that because the people make mistakes in so simple +a matter as the selection of their agents, they would be infallible in +the incomparably more complex and difficult task of the enactment and +interpretation of laws? There was never a more glaring non sequitur, +and yet it is the very cornerstone upon which rests the whole +structure of the new philosophy. "The people cannot be trusted with +few things," runs this singular logic, "therefore let us put all +things into their hands." + +With one breath we are asked to renounce the old system because the +people make mistakes, and with the next breath we are solemnly assured +that if we adopt the new system the people will not make mistakes. I +confess I am not mentally alert enough to follow that sort of logic. +It is too much like the road which was so crooked that the traveler +who entered upon it had only proceeded a few steps when he met himself +coming back. You cannot change the nature of men, Mr. Chairman, by +changing their system of government. The limitations of human judgment +and knowledge and conscience which render perfection in representative +government unattainable will still abide even after that form of +government is swept away, and the ideal will still be far distant. + +Let it not be said or imagined, Mr. Speaker, that because I protest +against converting this Republic into a democracy therefore I lack +confidence in the people. No man has greater faith, sir, than I have +in the intelligence, the integrity, the patriotism, and the +fundamental common sense of the average American citizen. But I am for +representative rather than for direct government, because I have +greater confidence in the second thought of the people than I have in +their first thought. And that, in the last analysis, is the +difference, and the only difference, so far as results are concerned +between the new system and that which it seeks to supplant; it is the +fundamental difference between a democracy and a republic. In either +form of government the people have their way. The difference is that +in a democracy the people have their way in the beginning, whereas in +a republic the people have their way in the end--and the end is +usually enough wiser than the beginning to be worth waiting for. + +We count ourselves the fittest people in the world for +self-government, and we probably are. But fit as we are we sometimes +make mistakes. We sometimes form the most violent and erroneous +opinions upon impulse, without full information or thoughtful +consideration. With complete information and longer study, we swing +around to the right side, but it is our second thought and not our +first that brings us there. Our intentions are always right, and we +usually get right in the end; but it often happens that we are not +right in the beginning. It behooves us to consider long and well +before we pluck out of the delicately adjusted mechanism by which we +govern ourselves the checks and brakes and balance wheels which our +forefathers placed there, and the wisdom of which our history attests +innumerable times. + +The simple and primitive life of civilization's frontier has given +way to the most stupendous and complex industrial and commercial +structure the world has ever known. Incredible expansion, social, +political, industrial, commercial--but representative government all +the way. At not one step in the long and shining pathway of the +Nation's progress has representative government failed to respond to +the Nation's need. Every emergency that 130 years of momentous history +has developed--the terrible strain of war, the harrassing problems of +peace--representative government has been equal to them all. Not once +has it broken down. Not one issue has it failed to solve. And long +after the shallow substitutes that are now proposed for it shall have +been forgotten, representative government "will be doing business at +the old stand," will be solving the problems of the future as it met +the issues of the past, with courage and wisdom and justice, giving to +the great Republic that government "of the people, for the people, and +by the people" which is the assurance that it "shall not perish from +the earth." + + + + +APPENDIX V + +QUESTIONS WITH SUGGESTED ISSUES AND + +BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY + + +Below are several questions with issues suggested which should bring +about a "head on" debate. They should be useful at the beginning of +debating work or when time for preparation is somewhat limited. A +brief bibliography is in each case appended. + +"THE RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE SHOULD BE GRANTED TO WOMAN" + +_Affirmative_ + + I. Woman wants the ballot. + + II. Woman is capable of using the ballot wisely. + + III. Where woman has had the ballot, the results have been beneficial + to the state. + +_Negative_ + + I. A majority of women do not want the ballot. + + II. Woman is incapable of using the ballot wisely. + + III. A benefit has not resulted in those states which have given woman + the right to vote. + +BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY + +"Success of Woman's Suffrage," _Independent_, LXXIII, 334-35 (August +8, 1912). + +"Suffrage Danger," _Living Age_, CCLXXIV, 330-35 (August 10, 1912). + +"Teaching Violence to Women," _Century_, LXXXIV, 151-53 (May, 1912). + +"Violence in Woman's Suffrage Movement: A Disapproval of the Militant +Policy," _Century_, LXXXV, 148-49 (November, 1912). + +"Violence and Votes," _Independent_, LXXII, 1416-19 (June 27 1912). + +"Votes for Women," _Harper's Weekly_, LVI, 6 (September 21, 1912). + +"Votes for Women," _Harper's Bazaar_ XLVI, 47, 148 (January, March, +1912). + +"Votes for Women and Other Votes," _Survey_, XXVIII, 367-78 (June 1, +10.12). + +"What Is the Truth about Woman's Suffrage?" _Ladies' Home Journal_, +XXIX, 24 (October, 1912). + +"Why I Want Woman's Suffrage," _Collier's,_ XLVIII, 18 (March 16, +1912). + +"Why I Went into Suffrage Work," _Harper's Bazaar_, XLVI, 440 +(September, 1912). + +"Woman and the State," _Forum_, XLVIII, 394-408 (October 1912). + +"Woman and the Suffrage," _Harper's Weekly_, LVI, 6 (August 17, 1912). + +"Woman's Rights," _Outlook_, _C_, 262-66 (February 3, 1912). + +"Woman's Rights," _Outlook_, _C_, 302-4 (February 10, 1912). + +"Concerning Some of the Anti-Suffrage Leaders," _Good House-keeping_, +LV, 80-82 (July, 1912). + +"Expansion of Equality," _Independent_, LXXIII, 1143-45 (November 14, +1912). + +"Marching for Equal Suffrage," _Hearst's Magazine_, XXI, 2497-501 +(June, 1912). + +"Woman and the California Primaries," _Independent_, LXXII, 1316-18 +(June 13, 1912). + +"Woman Suffrage Victory," _Literary Digest_, XLV, 841-43 (November 23, +1912). + +"Woman's Demonstration; How They Won and Used the Votes in +California," _Collier's_, XLVIII, 17-18 (January 6, 1912). + +"Recent Strides of Woman's Suffrage," _World's Work_, XXII, 14733-45 +(August, 1911). + +"Woman's Suffrage in Six States," _Independent_, LXXI, 967-20 +(November 2, 1911). + +"Women Did It in Colorado," _Hampton's Magazine_, XXVI, 426. + +"Woman's Victory in Washington" (state), _Collier's,_ XLVI, 25. + +"Are Women Ready for the Franchise?" _Westminster_, CLXII, 255-61 +(September, 1904). + +"Argument against Woman's Suffrage," _Outlook_, LXIV, 573-74 (March +10, 1900). + +"Check to Woman's Suffrage in the United States," _Nineteenth +Century_, LVI, 833-41 (November, 1904). + +"Female Suffrage in the United States," _Harper's Weekly_, XLIV, +949-50 (October 6, 1900). + +"Ought Women to Vote?" _Outlook_, LVIII, 353-55 (June 8, 1901). + +"Outlook for Woman's Suffrage," _Cosmopolitan_, XXVIII, 621-23 (April, +1900). + +"Woman's Suffrage in the West," _Outlook_, LXV, 430-31 (June 23, +1900). + +"Movement for Woman's Suffrage," _Outlook_, XCIII, 265-67 (October 2, +1909). + +"Why?" _Everybody's_, XXI, 723-38. + +"Woman's Rights," _Twentieth-Century Encyclopedia_. + + +"THE AMERICAN NAVY SHOULD BE ENLARGED SO AS TO COMPARE IN FIGHTING +STRENGTH WITH ANY IN THE WORLD" + +_Affirmative_ + + I. The scattered possessions of the United States demand the + protection of a large navy. + + II. The expense of the proposed navy would be a judicious investment. + + III. The proposed enlargement of the navy would be a step toward + universal peace. + +_Negative_ + + I. The geographical situation of the United States makes a large navy + unnecessary. + + II. The expense entailed, if the proposed plan were put into practice, + would embarrass the United States. + + III. To carry out the proposed plan would be to increase the chances + of war. + +BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY + +"Relative Sea Strength of the United States," _Scientific American_ +CVII, 174 (August 31, 1912). + +"For an Adequate Navy in the United States," _Scientific American_, +CV, 512 (December 9, 1911). + +"Humble Opinions of a Flat-Foot; Frank Criticism and Intimate Picture +of Our Navy, by a Blue-Jacketed Gob," _Collier's_ L, 14-15; P., XIX, +22-23 (December 7, 1912). + +"Importance of the Command of the Sea," _Scientific American,_ CV, 512 +(December 9, 1911). + +"The United States Fleet and Its Readiness for Service," _Scientific +American,_ CV, 514 (December 9, 1911). + +"Battle-ship Fleet in Each Ocean," _Scientific American_, CII, 354 +(April 30, 1910). + +"Naval Madness," _Independent_, LXVIII, 489 (March 3, 1910). + +"Our Naval Waste," _Nation_, XCI, 158 (August 25, 1910). + +"Our Navy As a National Insurance," _Scientific American_, CII, 414 +(May 21, 1910). + +"American Naval Policy," _Forum_, XLV, 529 (May, 1911). + +"If We Had to Fight," _Cottier's_, XLVIII, 18 (November 18 1911). + +"Panama Canal and the Sea Power in the Pacific," _Century,_ LXXXII, +240 (January, 1911). + + +"LOCAL OPTION IS THE BEST METHOD OR DEALING WITH THE LIQUOR PROBLEM" + +_Affirmative_ + + I. Other methods of dealing with the liquor problem have failed. + + II. Local option is consistent with American ideas of government. + + III. Local option is a proved success. + +_Negative_ + + I. Local option is undesirable in theory. + + II. Local option has not succeeded where tried. + + III. There is a better method of dealing with this problem. + +BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY + +"Local Option; A Study of Massachusetts," _Atlantic_, XC, 433-40. + +"Principle of Local Option," _Independent_, LIII, 3032-33 (December +19, 1901). + +"When Prohibition Fails and Why," _Outlook_, CI, 639-43 (July 20, +1912). + +"To Dam the Interstate Flow of Drink," _Literary Digest_, XLIV, 106-7 +(January 20, 1912). + +"Psychology of Drink," _American Journal of Sociology_, XVIII, 21-32 +(July, 1912). + +"World-Wide Fight against Alcohol," _Review of Reviews_, XLV, 374. + +"Drink and the Joy of Life," _Westminster_, CLXXVI, 620-24 (December, +1911). + +"Drink Traffic," _Missionary Review_, XXXII, 337-39 (May, 1909). + +"Efforts to Promote Temperance since 1883," in L. B. Paton, _Recent +Christian Progress_, 446-71. + +"Fight against Alcohol," _Cosmopolitan_, XLIV, 492-96, 549-54 (April, +May, 1908); _Harper's Weekly_, LII, 6-7 (April 25, 1908). + +"Foreign Anti-Liquor Movements," _Nation_, LXXXVI, 230 (March 12, +1908). + +"March of Temperance," _Arena_, XL, 325-30 (October, 1908). + +"Social Conditions and the Liquor Problem," _Arena_, XXVI, 275-77 +(September, 1006). + +"Temperance Question," _Canadian M._, XXXII, 282-84 (January, 1909). + +"Local Option Movement," _Annals of the American Academy_, XXXII, +471-5 (November, 1908). + +"Results of a Dry Year in Worcester, Mass.," _Map Survey_, XXII, 301-2 +(May 29, 1909). + +"Local Option and After," _North American_, CXC, 628-41 (November, +1909). + + +"CAPITAL PUNISHMENT SHOULD BE ABOLISHED" + +_Affirmative_ + + I. Capital punishment does not accomplish the purpose for which it is + intended. + + II. Capital punishment is inconsistent with the teachings of modern + criminology. + + III. There are other methods of punishment far more beneficial than + the death penalty. + + +_Negative_ + + I. Capital punishment decreases crime. + + II. The cruelty of capital punishment has been greatly exaggerated. + + III. Society has found no crime deterrent so powerful as the death + penalty. + +BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY + +"Does Capital Punishment Prevent Convictions?" _Review of Reviews_, +XL, 219-20 (August, 1909). + +"Does Capital Punishment Tend to Diminish Capital Crime?" _Harper's +Weekly_, L, 1028-29; _Review of Reviews_, XXXIV, 368-69 (1909). + +"Meaning of Capital Punishment," _Harper's Weekly_, L, 1289 (September +8, 1906). + +"Plato on Capital Punishment," _Harper's Weekly_, L, 1903 (December +29, 1906). + +"Should Capital Punishment Be Abolished?" _Harper's Weekly_, LIII, 8 +(July 3, 1909). + +"Whitely Case and Death Penalty," _Nation_, LXXXIV, 376-77 (April 25, +1907). + +"Death Penalty and Homicide," _American Journal of Sociology_, XVI, +88-116 (July, 1910); _Nation_, VIII, 166; _North American_, CXVI, 138; +_ibid._, LXII, 40; _ibid._, CXXXIII, 534; _Forum_, III, 503; _Arena_, +II, 513. + +"Capital Punishment and Imprisonment for Life," _Nation_, XVI, 193. + +"Capital Punishment Anecdotes from Blue Book," _Ecl. M._, LXVI, 677. + +"Capital Punishment Arguments Against," _Nation_, XVI, 213. + +"Capital Punishment by Electricity," _North American_, CXLVI, 219. + +"Capital Punishment: Case Against," _Fortnightly Review_, LII, 322; +same article in _Eclectic Magazine_, CXIII, 518. + +"The Crime of Capital Punishment," _Arena_, I, 175. + +"Failure of Capital Punishment," _Arena_, XXI, 469. + +"Why Have a Hangman?" _Fortnightly Review_, XL, 581. + +"Punishment of Crimes," _North American_, X, 235. + + + + +APPENDIX VI + +A LIST OF DEBATABLE PROPOSITIONS + + +SCHOOL QUESTIONS + +Many of these, because of their local application, will be found +useful for class practice where time for preparation is necessarily +limited. + +1. Coeducation in colleges is more desirable than segregation. + +2. Textbooks should be furnished at public expense to students in +public schools. + +3. The adoption of the honor system in examinations would be desirable +in American colleges. + +4. Final examinations as a test of knowledge should be discontinued in +X---- High School (or college). + +5. All American universities and colleges should admit men and women +on equal terms. + +6. The national government should establish a university near the +center of population. + +7. The X---- College (or High School) should adopt courses which more +definitely fit students for practical careers. + +8. Intercollegiate football does not promote the best interests of +competing schools. + +9. Intracollegiate athletic contests would be a desirable substitute +for intercollegiate athletics. + +10. Secret societies should be prohibited in public high schools. + +11. National fraternities do not promote the best interests of +American-colleges and universities. + +12. A college commons would be a desirable addition to X---- College. + +13. A lunchroom should be established in the X---- High School. + +14. Athletic regulations should not debar a student from playing +summer baseball. + +15. No student in an American college should be eligible to compete in +intercollegiate athletics until he has begun his second year's work. + +16. All studies in the X--- College (or High School) above those of +the Freshman should be entirely elective. + +17. In all public high schools training in military tactics should be +required. + +18. Public high schools should be under state supervision. + +19. Admission to American colleges should be allowed only upon +examination. + +20. Academic degrees should be given only upon state examinations. + +21. The library of X--- College (or High School, or city) should be +open on Sunday. + +22. A plan of self-government should be adopted for the X--- College (or +High School). + +23. The terms "successful" and "failed" as the only indication of +grade work should be adopted by the X--- School in place of the +present plan or working. + +24. Gymnasium work should be required in X--- School. + +25. Training in domestic science should be required of all girls at +X--- School. + +26. Manual training should be a requirement of all boys at X--- +School. + + +SOCIAL QUESTIONS + +27. The influence of the five-cent theater is beneficial. + +28. A state board with power to forbid public exhibition should +exercise stage censorship. + +29. Children under sixteen years of age should be prohibited from +working in confining industries. + +30. Children under fourteen years of age should be prohibited from +appearing on the stage. + +31. A minimum wage for women employees of department stores should be +enacted by the state of X---. + +32. Public ownership of saloons would be a desirable method of dealing +with the liquor problem. + +33. The English system of old-age pensions should be adopted by the +United States government. + +34. Vivisection should be prohibited by law. + +35. The publication of court proceedings in criminal and divorce cases +should be subject to a board of censorship. + +36. Education under the direction of a state board, should be required +in the state prisons of X---. + +37. The laws of marriage and divorce should be uniform throughout the +United States (constitutionality conceded). + +38. Local option is the best method of dealing with the liquor +question. + +39. The army canteen is desirable. + +40. A system of compulsory industrial insurance should be adopted by +the state of X---. + +41. An eight-hour law for all women workers should be enacted by the +state of X---. + +42. Immigration should be restricted according to the provisions of +the Dillingham-Burnett bill. + +43. Free employment bureaus should be established by the city of X---. + +44. Free employment bureaus should be established by the state of +X---. + + +POLITICAL QUESTIONS + +45. A permanent national tariff commission should be established. + +46. The constitution should be so amended as to make more easy the +passing of amendments. + +47. The restrictions on Mongolian immigration should be removed. + +48. The President of the United States should serve one term of six +years. + +49. Complete public reports of all contributions to political +campaign funds should be required by law. + +50. The Monroe Doctrine as a part of American foreign policy should be +discontinued. + +51. The interests of labor can best be represented by a separate +political party. + +52. The naturalization laws of the United States should be made more +stringent. + +53. Aliens should be forbidden the ballot in every state. + +54. The state of California is justified in her stand against land +ownership by aliens. + +55. Permanent retention of the Philippine Islands by the United States +is not advisable. + +56. The United States navy should be maintained at a fighting strength +equal to any in the world. + +57. Direct presidential primaries should be a substitute for the +present method of presidential nomination. + +58. Corporations engaged in interstate business should be compelled to +operate under a national charter. + +59. The Panama Canal should be fortified. + +60. The initiative and referendum in matters of state legislation +would be desirable in the state of X----. + +61. From the standpoint of the United States the annexation of Cuba +would be desirable. + +62. The fifteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States +should be repealed. + +63. The President should be elected by the direct vote of the people +of the United States. + +64. Proportional representation should be adopted in the state of +X----. + +65. The plan of proportional representation in present vogue in the +state of X---- should be abolished. + +66. The use of voting machines should be required in all elections in +cities having a population of more than 10,000. + +67. Public interest is best served when national party lines are +discarded in municipal elections. + +68. Suffrage should be limited to persons who can read and write. + +69. Ex-Presidents of the United States should become senators-at-large +for life. + +70. Ex-Presidents of the United States should be pensioned for life at +full salary. + +71. The United States should adopt a plan of compulsory voting. + +72. The national government should purchase and operate the express +systems in connection with the parcel post. + +73. Federal judges should be elected by direct vote of the people. + +74. Two-thirds of a jury should be competent to render a verdict in +jury trials in the state of X---. + +75. The state of X--- should adopt a plan for recall of state judges. + +76. The state of X--- should adopt a plan allowing a referendum of +judicial decisions. + +77. The appointment of United States consuls should be under the merit +system. + +78. American vessels engaged in coastwise trade should be permitted +the use of the Panama Canal without the payment of tolls. + +79. All postmasters should be elected by popular vote. + +80. The bill requiring ----, which is at present before the X--- city +council (X--- state legislature, or Congress) should be defeated. + + +ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRIAL QUESTIONS + +81. The Underwood tariff bill of 1913 would be a desirable law. + +82. The federal government should undertake at once the construction +of an inland waterway from the Great Lakes to the Gulf (or from X to +Y). + +83. All raw materials should be admitted to the United States free of +duty. + +84. A state law should prohibit prison contract labor in the state of +X---. + +85. Federal government control of all natural resources would be +desirable. + +86. Municipal ownership of street railways would be an advantage to +cities. + +87. The Henry George system of single tax would be practicable in the +United States. + +88. A graduated income tax would be a desirable addition to the +federal taxing system. + +89. The boycott is a justifiable weapon in labor strikes. + +90. The federal government should enact a progressive inheritance tax. + +91. The coal mines of the United States should be under federal +control. + +92. Employers of labor are justified in demanding the "open shop." + +93. Irrigation projects to reclaim the arid lands of the West should +be undertaken by the United States government. + +94. Courts for the compulsory settlement of controversies between +labor and capital should be created by Congress. + +95. Industrial combinations commonly known as "trusts" are an +economical benefit to the United States. + +96. The United States should establish and maintain a system of +subsidies for the American merchant marine. + +97. No tax should be levied on the issue of state banks. + +98. Permanent copyrights should be extended by the national +government. + +99. The judicial injunction as an instrument in labor controversies +should be made illegal. + +100. A law gradually lowering the present tariff, so that in ten years +the United States will be committed to a policy of free trade, would +be economically desirable for the United States. + + + + +APPENDIX VII + + +FORMS FOR JUDGES' DECISION + + +The first of the two following forms is a simple and commonly used +one; the second is more formal and is desirable when the schools wish +to point out carefully the principles upon which the decision is to be +based. A form such as the first, which allows the judge entire +freedom, is becoming the more popular. + + +I. + + +In my opinion, the better debating has been done by the +____________________ team. + + +II + + +JUDGES' DECISION + +[In rendering a decision, the judges are asked to act without +reference to their own opinion on the merits of the question. They are +not to consider that either contesting party necessarily represents +the actual attitude of themselves or of their school. They are to act +without consultation. A decision is desired based solely on the +quality of debating. + +In determining the quality of debating, the judges are asked to +consider both matter and form. Grasp of the question, accuracy of +analysis, selection of evidence, and order and cogency of arguments +should be considered in judging matter. Bearing, voice, directness, +earnestness, emphasis, enunciation, and gesture should be considered +in judging form.] + +DECISION + + +Considering the above instructions, I cast my ballot for the +_________________________. + + + +***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ELEMENTS OF DEBATING*** + + +******* This file should be named 14090.txt or 14090.zip ******* + + +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: +https://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/1/4/0/9/14090 + + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +https://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at https://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/pglaf. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at https://www.gutenberg.org/about/contact + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit https://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/donate + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including including checks, online payments and credit card +donations. To donate, please visit: +https://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + https://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + diff --git a/old/14090.zip b/old/14090.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..c241f55 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/14090.zip |
