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 /14090-h | |
Diffstat (limited to '14090-h')
| -rw-r--r-- | 14090-h/14090-h.htm | 4820 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 14090-h/images/img01.png | bin | 0 -> 25695 bytes |
2 files changed, 4820 insertions, 0 deletions
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 |
