THE DISCUSSION--BRIEF-DRAWING
The second division of a brief, corresponding to the second division
of a complete argument, is called the _discussion_. In this part
of his brief the arguer logically arranges all the evidence and
reasoning that he wishes to use in establishing or overthrowing his
proposition. Illustrative material, rhetorical embellishment, and
other forms of persuasion that may enter into the finished argument
are omitted, but the real proof is complete in the brief.
There are two possible systems of arranging proof. For the sake of
convenience they may be called the "because" method and the
"therefore" method. These methods derive their names from the
connectives that are used. When the "because" method is used, the
proof follows the statement being established, and is connected to
this statement with some such word as: _as_, _because_,
_for_, or _since_. To illustrate:--
I. Expenses at a country college are less than at a city college,
_because_
A. At the country college room rent is cheaper.
B. Table board costs less.
C. Amusement places are less numerous.
Under the "therefore" method, the proof precedes the statement being
established; the connectives are _hence_ and _therefore_.
The previous argument arranged in this form would read as follows:--
A. Since room rent is cheaper at the country college than at the
city college, and
B. Since table board costs less, and
C. Since amusement places are less numerous, _therefore_.
I. Expenses at a country college are less than at a city college.
The student should always use the "because" method of arrangement. It
is preferable to the "therefore" method since it affords a much easier
apprehension of the argument advanced. If the reader of the brief has
the conclusion in his mind at the very start, he can test the strength
and adequacy of the proof very quickly, and can, perhaps, the first
time he reads the argument form an opinion as to its worth. But he
will almost always have difficulty in grasping the significance of
evidence and reasoning before he knows what the proof is expected to
prove. The "therefore" method usually obliges a careful reasoner,
after finally reaching the conclusion, to go over the whole proof a
second time.
To assist the student in carrying out the proper arrangement of his
proof, two rules have been formulated. One rule deals with main
headings, the headings marked with the Roman numerals; the other deals
with subordinate headings.
Rule IX. _Phrase each principal statement in the discussion so that
it will read as a reason for the truth or the falsity of the
proposition_.
Rule X. _Phrase each subordinate statement in the discussion so that
it will read as a reason for the truth of the statement to which it is
subordinate. The connectives to be used are: as, because, for, and
since_.
In connection with the first of these rules, notice that principal
headings read as reasons for the truth or the falsity of the
proposition. Obviously they read as reasons for the truth if the brief
is on the affirmative side, and for the falsity if the brief is on the
negative side. Headings and subheadings should always be supported,
not demolished.
The error of making unsupported statements in a complete argument has
already been discussed. Assertion in a brief is equally faulty. To
insure belief, all statements must rest ultimately either upon the
testimony of witnesses or upon statements admitted to be true.
Notice how unconvincing is the following portion of a brief:--
Proposition--American cities should own and operate all street-car
lines within their limits.
I. The present system of operating street-car lines is efficient,
for
A. The street-car service in the United States is the best in
the world.
B. Street-car fare in the United States is remarkably low.
The insertion of testimony, however, to substantiate A and B turns
this bit of brief into excellent proof.
I. The present system of operating street-car lines is efficient,
for
A. The street-car service in the United States is the best in
the world, because
1. It is best in respect to extent, since
a. James W. Garner says that England has less than a
quarter of the street-car facilities found in the
United States. (Dial, Feb. 1908, p. 20.)
b. In 1902, two hundred and ninety-five communities in the
United Kingdom of from 8,000 to 25,000 inhabitants
were without street cars; while in the United States
there were only twenty-one such communities.
(Municipal and Private Operation of Public Utilities,
W. J. Clark, Vol. I, p. 445.)
2. It is best in regard to equipment and accommodation, since
a. The cars are the best equipped in the world. (Ibid.)
b. The cars are run with shorter intervals between them
than anywhere else in the world. (Ibid.)
B. The fare in the United States is remarkably low, because
1. Although the fare in Glasgow, a leading exponent of
municipal ownership, is but twopence, yet it will carry
one only eight miles; but five cents in New York will
carry one fifty miles.
Rule XI. _Make no unsupported statements unless they are generally
admitted to be true_.
It has already been shown that the arguer must reveal to his audience
the sources from which he gathered his evidence. If he gained certain
information from magazines, he should state definitely the name, the
volume, and the page; if he gained his information elsewhere, he
should be equally explicit. Since this knowledge of the source of the
evidence is essential to the success of the proof, a statement of the
sources is a part of the work of conviction. Accordingly, these
sources must be stated in the brief as well as in the expanded
argument. Thus the rule:--
Rule XII. _After all evidence state in parentheses the source from
which it came_.
In addition to establishing the side of the proposition which it
advocates, a good brief almost invariably refutes the main arguments
of the opposite side. The way in which this refutation is expressed is
very important. A brief on the affirmative side of the proposition,
"_Resolved_, That the Panama canal should be built at sea-level,"
would be weak and ludicrous, if, when answering the argument for the
negative that the cost of a sea-level canal would be enormous, it
should contain the following reasoning:--
The Panama Canal should be built at sea-level,
(for)
I. The cost would not be much greater than for a lock canal.
One might think from this statement that the drawer of the brief
considered the contention that the sea-level type would cost a little
though not much more than the other type, a positive argument in favor
of the sea-level canal. In reality it is nothing of the sort. The
arguer is merely trying to destroy his opponent's argument to the
effect that expense is an obstacle in the way of the sea-level type.
This refutation should be expressed in such a manner as to show that
it is refutation and not positive proof. It might well read something
like this:--
The Panama Canal should be built at sea-level,
(for)
I. The contention of the negative that a sea-level canal would cost
enormously more than a lock-canal is unsound, since,
A. Etc.
Notice that this form of refutation states clearly the argument to be
answered. No doubt can arise from such a statement as to the direction
the argument is taking; no confusion can occur between refutation and
positive proof. Hence the rule:--
Rule XIII. _Phrase refutation so that the argument to be answered is
clearly stated_.
THE CONCLUSION.
As there is but one rule for brief-drawing that applies to the
conclusion, it may well be given at this point. The purpose and the
value of this rule are so apparent that no explanation is necessary.
Rule XIV. _Put into the conclusion a summary of the essential points
established in the discussion_.
RULES FOR BRIEF-DRAWING.
GENERAL RULES.
I. _Divide the brief into three parts, and mark them respectively,
Introduction, Discussion, and Conclusion_.
II. _Express each idea in the brief in the form of a complete
statement_.
III. _Make in each statement only a single assertion_.
IV. _Make each statement as concise as is consistent with
clearness_.
V. _Indicate the relation between statements by indentation and by
the use of symbols_.
VI. _Mark each statement with only one symbol_.
RULES FOR THE INTRODUCTION.
VII. _Put into the introduction sufficient explanation for a
complete understanding of the discussion. This explanation usually
involves (a) a definition of terms, (b) an explanation of the meaning
of the proposition, (c) a statement of the issues, and (d) the
partition_.
VIII. _Put into the introduction only statements admitted by both
sides_.
RULES FOR THE DISCUSSION.
IX. _Phrase each principal statement in the discussion so that it
will read as a reason for the truth or the falsity of the
proposition_.
X. _Phrase each subordinate statement in the discussion so that it
will read as a reason for the truth of the statement to which it is
subordinate. The connectives to be used are: as, because, for, and
since_.
XI. _Make no unsupported statements unless they are generally
admitted to be true_.
XII. _After all evidence state in parentheses the source from which
it came_.
XIII. _Phrase refutation so that the argument to be answered is
clearly stated_.
RULE FOR THE CONCLUSION.
XIV. _Put into the conclusion a summary of the essential points
established in the discussion_.
MODEL BRIEF.
_Resolved_, That immigration to the United States should be
further restricted by an educational test.
AFFIRMATIVE BRIEF.
INTRODUCTION.
I. The question of further restricting immigration to the United
States by an educational test gains in importance from the
alleged impairment of American institutions and standards by
immigration.
II. The following explanations will aid in the discussion of the
question:--
A. Immigration to the United States means the migrating of people
into the United States for the purpose of permanent
residence. (Century Dictionary.)
B. The restrictive measures now in force are as follows:--
1. Idiots, insane persons, paupers, convicts, diseased
persons, anarchists, polygamists, women for immoral
purposes, assisted aliens, contract laborers, and the
Chinese are excluded. (Statutes of the United States.)
2. A head tax of four dollars is imposed. (Ibid.)
C. The proposed restrictive measure is as follows:--
1. Every immigrant to the United States between the ages of
fifteen and fifty must be able to read and write a few
sentences of some language. (Congressional Record, Vol.
XXVIII, page 5421.).
III. The points to be determined seem to be:--
A. Is there a need for further restriction of immigration?
B. If there is such a need, would the educational test accomplish
this further restriction in a proper manner?
DISCUSSION.
I. There is great need for further restriction of immigration,
because
A. The character of the immigrants since 1880 has greatly changed
for the worse, for
1. Before 1880 most of the immigrants were earnest, energetic
people from northern and western Europe. (International
Encyclopaedia, under Immigration.)
2. At the present time seventy and one-half per cent. of the
total number of immigrants are from the unenergetic
people of southern and eastern Europe. (Ibid.)
3. More immigrants have become paupers than was formerly the
case, for
a. Prior to 1880 there were comparatively few paupers among
the immigrants. (Ibid.)
b. At present the percentage of pauperism among the
foreigners here is four times as great as among the
natives. (Ibid.)
4. While the Germans, English, and other immigrants from
northern Europe who came here before 1880 were moral and
upright, the present immigrants from southern Europe have
a low code of morals, for
a. The moral degeneracy of the races of southern Europe is
well known. (Henry Rood, Forum, Vol. XIV, page 116.)
5. Crime among foreigners in this country has increased
immensely, for
a. In 1905 twenty-eight per cent, of our criminals were of
foreign birth. (Report of the Commissioner-General of
Immigration for 1905.)
6. Illiteracy among immigrants has greatly increased, for
a. In 1905 the percentage of illiterates of foreign birth
was twenty-six. (Ibid.)
b. Many of the present immigrants are illiterates from
southern Italy. (S. E. Moffett, Review of Reviews,
Vol. 28, page 55.)
B. The condition of the cities and especially of their slum
districts is alarming, for
1. The number of immigrants is increasing astonishingly,
inasmuch as,
a. 8,385 immigrants arrived in 1820.
b. 788,992 immigrants arrived in 1882.
c. 1,026,499 immigrants arrived in 1905. (Report of
Commissioner-General of Immigration, 1905. page 42.)
2. Two-thirds of the total number of immigrants in 1902
settled in the cities. (Editorial in Outlook, Vol. LXXI,
page 154.)
3. These congested districts foster unsanitary conditions,
physical degeneration, and crime. (Deputy Clerk of
Children's Court, New York City, North American Review,
Vol. CLXXIX, page 731.)
4. Charitable organizations are unable to cope with the
problems in congested districts, for
a. The number of immigrants is increasing too rapidly.
(Report of Commissioner-General of Immigration, 1905.)
C. The present immigration is politically harmful, for
1. Immigrants of the kind that are now coming in do not make
good citizens, because
a. They are indifferent to civic manners, for
1'. They cannot appreciate the spirit of American
government, as has previously been shown.
b. They are easily influenced in all political affairs by
pecuniary persuasion, for
1'. Their sole object in this country is to acquire
wealth. (Prescott F. Hall, Secretary of the
Immigration Restriction League, Annals of American
Academy, Vol. XXIV, page 172.)
D. The number of immigrants is too great to be assimilated
properly, since
1. Most of the immigrants are extremely clannish, for
a. "Little Italies," "Little Hungaries," and "Ghettos,"
exist in great numbers and size throughout the United
States. (Henry Rood, Forum, Vol. XIV, page 114.)
2. Most of the immigrants never try to learn the English
language, for
a. They have no need for it, since
1'. They seldom come in contact with English-speaking
people. (Ibid.)
3. Their tendency is not to become citizens, for
a. Thirty-one per cent. of the immigrants return home after
having been here a few years. (Report of the
Commissioner-General of Immigration, 1905.)
b. Those who remain cannot for the most part appreciate our
government, for
1'. They have been continually trodden upon in their
home countries.
2'. They have had no opportunity to interest themselves
in government. (N. S. Shaler, Atlantic Monthly,
Vol. LXXI, page 646.)
4. The argument that because we were able to assimilate the
immigrants in the past we shall be able to do so in the
future, is unsound, for
a. The character of the present immigrants has changed, as
shown previously.
b. In the future we may expect a much larger immigration.
(Prescott F. Hall, Annals of American Academy, Vol.
XXIV, page 172.)
E. Immigrants lower the standards of American labor, because
1. They create harmful competition, since
a. More immigrants are coming now than we really need, for
I'. In 1906 at least 200,000 aliens came here who were
of no use whatever. (Commissioner of Immigration
for New York, Popular Science Monthly, Vol. LXVI,
page 175.)
b. They work for lower wages than do Americans, for
1'. They are able to live more cheaply. (Henry Rood,
Ibid.)
2'. They place a lower value on their labor. (T. V.
Powderly, North American Review, Vol. CXLVII, page
165.)
2. They tend to destroy the independence of the American
laborer, for
a. They work under conditions that no American laborer will
tolerate, for
1'. They create degrading forms of employment. (W. H.
Wilkins, Nineteenth Century, Vol. XXX, page 588.)
b. Their selfish desires keep them from organizing with
American laborers for protection.
II. The educational test would accomplish the further restriction of
immigration in a proper manner, for
A. It would change the character of the immigrants for the
better, since
1. It would keep out the unenergetic races of southern and
eastern Europe, because
a. Ninety-three per cent, of illiterates come from southern
and eastern Europe. (International Encyclopaedia,
under Immigration.)
2. It would decrease the amount of pauperism, for
a. The southern Italians, who are the most illiterate,
produce the most pauperism. (Ibid.)
3. It would raise the standard of morality, since
a. Ignorance is closely coupled with immorality, for
1'. The southern Italians have a very low standard of
living in the United States. (Henry Rood, Forum,
Vol. XIV, page 116.)
b. The educational test would exclude such people.
4. It would decrease the amount of crime, for
a. It would keep out most of the immigrants from southern
Europe, for
1'. Ninety-three per cent, of the illiterates come from
this source.
b. The criminal tendencies of people from southern Europe
are well known. (Henry Rood, Ibid.)
B. The educational test would improve the condition of the
cities, for
1. They would be more sanitary and less criminal, since
a. These evils are due largely to congestion.
b. Under this test the cities would be less congested, for
1'. Immigration would be reduced twenty-two and six
tenths per cent.
2'. Educated immigrants are not likely to settle in the
slums.
c. If the cities were less congested, charitable societies
could remove more evils from the slums, and in time
even eliminate the slums.
C. The educational test would aid the country politically, for
1. We should receive only those immigrants who are
intellectually capable of becoming good citizens, for
a. Education enables a man to become interested in the
government in which he lives.
2. Bribery would cease, for
a. Greed for small amounts of money is not so strong among
the intelligent. (Prescott F. Hall, Ibid.)
D. The educational test would aid the work of assimilation, for
1. It would bar to a great extent the clannish immigrants, as
a. Clannishness is largely a result of superstition and
ignorance. (Henry Rood, Ibid.)
2. It would practically force the immigrants to learn the
English language, for
a. Their clans broken up, they would naturally come in
contact more and more with English-speaking people.
3. It would produce among the foreign-born element of the
United States a wider interest in civic affairs, for
a. Those who have some education can better appreciate our
government than those who are illiterate.
b. It would admit only those who, by reason of their
education, small though it may be, have had the
chance to study somewhat their home governments. (N.
S. Shaler, Ibid.)
E. The educational test would tend to raise the standards of
American labor, for
1. It would cut down competition, since
a. It would shut out many laborers, for
1'. Most of those affected by this test would be
common laborers.
b. It would tend to equalize the rate of wages, because
1'. Immigrants would not be willing to work for lower
wages, for
a'. The slums being gone, they would need more
money for existence.
2. It would aid the independence of American labor, for
a. Immigrants would no longer be so reluctant to cooperate
with American laborers for protection, for
1'. It is well known that, as a rule, only the most
ignorant classes refuse to join unions.
b. The low industrial competition would be removed, as
previously shown.
F. The educational test would be practical, for
1. It is not a test depending upon the representations of
immigrants or the decisions of inspectors. (Prescott F.
Hall, Forum, Vol. XXX, page 564.)
2. The educational test has worked well in Australia.
(Professor Frank Parsons, Annals of American Academy,
Vol. XXIV, page 215.)
G. It would lessen the burden of education for the government,
for
1. It would force prospective immigrants to get their
elementary education in Europe.
2. The immigrants would have some education as a foundation
for more.
CONCLUSION.
The affirmative has proved the following:--
I. There is great need for further restriction of immigration.
II. The educational test would accomplish the further restriction of
immigration in a proper manner.
Therefore, immigration to the United States should be further
restricted by an educational test.
EXERCISES
State the propositions upheld in the following arguments, and put the
material into brief form:--
1. At all events, this is clear: that throughout those six months the
government knew perfectly well the danger in which General Gordon was
placed. It has been said that General Gordon did not ask for troops.
Well, I am surprised at that defense. One of the characteristics of
General Gordon was the extreme abnegation of his nature. It was not to
be expected that he should send home a telegram to say, "I am in great
danger, therefore send me troops." He would probably have cut off his
right hand before he would have sent such a telegram. But he did send
a telegram that the people of Khartum were in danger, and that the
Mahdi must win unless military succor was sent forward, and distinctly
telling the government--and this is the main point--that unless they
would consent to his views the supremacy of the Mahdi was assured.
My lords, is it conceivable that after that--two months after that--in
May, the prime minister should have said that the government was
waiting to have reasonable proof that Gordon was in danger? By that
time Khartum was surrounded, and the governor of Berber had announced
that his case was desperate, which was too surely proved by the
massacre which took place in June.
And yet in May Mr. Gladstone was waiting for reasonable proof that
they were in danger. Apparently he did not get that proof till August.
A general sent forward on a dangerous expedition does not like to go
whining for assistance, unless he is pressed by absolute peril. All
those great qualities which go to make men heroes are such as are
absolutely incompatible with such a course, and lead them to shrink as
from a great disgrace from any unnecessary appeal for exertion for
their protection. It was the business of the government not to
interpret General Gordon's telegrams as if they had been statutory
declarations, but to judge for themselves of the circumstances of the
case, and to see that those who were surrounded, who were the only
three Englishmen among this vast body of Mohammedans, who were already
cut off from all communication with the civilized world by the
occupation of every important town upon the river, were in real
danger.
I do not know any other instance in which a man has been sent to
maintain such a position without a certain number of British troops.
If the British troops had been there treachery would have been
impossible; but sending Gordon by himself to rely on the fidelity of
Africans and Egyptians was an act of extreme rashness, and if the
government succeed in proving, which I do not think they can, that
treachery was inevitable, they only pile up an additional reason for
their condemnation. I confess it is very difficult to separate this
question from the personal matters involved. It is very difficult to
argue it on purely abstract grounds without turning for a moment to
the character of the man who was engaged and the terrible position in
which he was placed.
When we consider all that he underwent, all that he sacrificed in
order to save the government in a moment of extreme exigency, there is
something infinitely pathetic in reflecting on his feelings, as day
after day, week after week, month after month passed by--as he spared
no exertions, no personal sacrifice, to perform the duties that were
placed upon him--as he lengthened out the siege by inconceivable
prodigies of ingenuity, of activity, of resource--and as, in spite of
it all, in spite of the deep devotion to his country, which had
prompted him to this great risk and undertaking, the conviction
gradually grew upon him that his country had abandoned him.
It is terrible to think what he must have suffered when at last, as a
desperate measure to save those he loved, he parted with the only two
Englishmen with whom during those long months he had any converse, and
sent Stewart and Power down the river to escape from the fate which
had become inevitable to himself. It is very painful to think of the
reproaches to his country and to his country's government that must
have passed through the mind of that devoted man during those months
of unmerited desertion. In Gordon's letter of the fourteenth of
December he said: "All is up. I expect the catastrophe in ten days'
time; it would not have been so if our people had kept me better
informed as to their intentions."
They had no intentions to inform him of. They were merely acting from
hand to mouth to avert the parliamentary censure with which they were
threatened. They had no plan, they had no intentions to carry out. If
they could have known their intentions, a great hero would have been
saved to the British army, a great disgrace would not have fallen on
the English government. [Footnote: On the Desertion of Gordon in
Egypt, Lord Salisbury, The World's Famous Orations. Funk & Wagnalls,
Vol. V, p. 111.]
2. For any State to make sex a qualification that must ever result in
the disfranchisement of one entire half of the people is to pass a
bill of attainder, or an _ex post facto_ law, and is therefore a
violation of the supreme law of the land. By it the blessings of
liberty are forever withheld from women and their female posterity. To
them this government has no just powers derived from the consent of
the governed. To them this government is not a democracy. It is not a
republic. It is an odious aristocracy; a hateful oligarchy of sex; the
most hateful aristocracy ever established on the face of the globe; an
oligarchy of wealth, where the rich govern the poor. An oligarchy of
learning, where the educated govern the ignorant, or even an oligarchy
of race where the Saxon rules the African, might be endured; but this
oligarchy of sex, which makes father, brothers, husband, sons, the
oligarchs over the mother and sisters, the wife and daughters of every
household--which ordains all men sovereigns, all women subjects,
carries dissension, discord and rebellion into every home of the
nation.
Webster, Worcester and Bouvier all define a citizen to be a person in
the United States, entitled to vote and hold office.
The only question left to be settled now is: Are women persons? And I
hardly believe any of our opponents will have the hardihood to say
they are not. Being persons, then, women are citizens; and no State
has a right to make any law, or to enforce any old law, that shall
abridge their privileges or immunities. Hence, every discrimination
against women in the constitutions and laws of the several States is
to-day null and void. [Footnote: On Woman's Right to the Suffrage,
Susan B. Anthony. The World's Famous Orations. Funk & Wagnalls, Vol.
X, p. 59.]
3. The "Legal Intelligencer" prints the full text of the recent
decision of Judge Sulzberger in the case of Claus & Basher _vs_.
the Rapid Transit Company, which deals with a phase of the question
concerning the use of the streets in obstructing public travel. The
Judge, in denying the plaintiffs a rule for a new trial, put the
matter under review into his customary concise logic, as follows:
The plaintiff contends that the direction for defendant was erroneous,
because the jury should have been given the opportunity to pass upon
the question whether he was or was not negligent in placing his wagon
in such a position that it encroached three or four feet upon the
transit company's track, without which encroachment the accident could
not have happened.
His reasons are as follows:
1. That a driver, for the purpose of watering his horses, has the
right to encroach on the trolley track.
2. That even if he has not, it is negligence for a motor-man not to
stop his car in time to prevent a collision in broad daylight with a
conspicuous obstacle like a wagon in front of him.
As to the first point:
An obstruction of the highway which is temporary and partial may be
justified in cases of plain, evident necessity, but not where that
necessity is argumentative and supposititious: Com. _vs_.
Passmore, 1 S. & R. 217; Rex v. Russell, 6 East. 427. There was no
necessity on the plaintiff to water his horses in the way he did. Two
other ways, both perfectly safe, were open to him. He chose the
easiest and the riskiest.
But if there had not been two safe ways open for him, he would still
have been guilty of negligence in drawing his wagon across a trolley
track, on a busy city street, on which cars were running every minute
or two. The primary use of the car track is for public travel, not for
watering horses. A permanent watering-trough on a sidewalk, so
constructed as not to be usable without stopping the running of the
cars, would be a nuisance. The supposed analogy to the right of an
abutter to load and unload a necessary article fails entirely. A
passing driver is not in the position of an abutter, the
reasonableness of whose action is determined by the degree of
momentary necessity, and the limit of whose right is that his
obstruction must be temporary. Here, however, the watering-trough and
not the driver is in the abutter's position. The watering-trough is a
public utility, which every one may use. On a warm day, in a busy city
street, hundreds of vehicles may stop there, and the quantity of
obstruction is not the time occupied by each, but the sum of the times
occupied by all. The effect must necessarily be a serious hindrance to
public travel, which might sometimes result in complete stoppage.
To use the thought of Mr. Justice Dean, in Com. _vs._ Forrest,
170 Pa. 47, the law would soon be invoked to decide whether the car
track was for the cars or for vehicles stopped thereon for the purpose
of watering horses; whether the driver of such vehicles was in the
exercise of a lawful right or was a usurper of the rights of others.
In the case of Attorney-General _vs._ the Sheffield Gas
Consumers' Company, 19 Eng. Law & Eq. 639, Lord Chancellor Cranworth,
considering a similar question, used this illustration: "No doubt that
it would be a nuisance, and a very serious nuisance, if a person with
a barrel organ, or the bagpipes, were to come and station himself
under a person's window all day. But when he is going through a city,
you know that he will stop ten minutes at one place and ten minutes at
another, and you know he will so go on during the day." The watering-
trough, however, is stationary.
As to the second point:
The general rule in Pennsylvania is that contributory negligence
prevents recovery. This rule, it is true, does not apply where the
defendant is guilty of "negligence so wanton and gross as to be
evidence of voluntary injury"; Wynn _vs_. Allord, 5 W. & S. 525;
McKnight _vs_. Ratcliff, 44 Pa. 156. There is, however, nothing
in the testimony to indicate that the defendant's motorman did
anything wanton. Coming down a steep hill, he failed for a moment to
see an obstacle which he had a right to expect would not be on the
track. No one says that he did not do his best to prevent the
collision after he had seen the wagon.
The question at bottom is one of public policy. Should the motorman
anticipate that persons of mature age will station their wagons across
the tracks? If the rights of the traveling public are to be preserved,
the answer must be in the negative.
4. Aside from the money question, the most serious problem that
confronts the people of America to-day is that of rescuing their
cities, their States and the federal government, including the federal
judiciary, from absolute control of corporate monopoly. How to restore
the voice of the citizen in the government of his country; and how to
put an end to those proceedings in some of the higher courts which are
farce and mockery on one side, and a criminal usurpation and
oppression on the other....
In as much as no government can endure in which corrupt greed not only
makes the laws, but decides who shall construe them, many of our best
citizens are beginning to despair of the republic. Others urge that we
should remove the bribe-givers--that is, destroy this overwhelming
temptation by having the government take all these monopolies itself
and furnish the service which they now furnish, and thus not only save
our institutions, but have the great profits which now go into the
pockets of private corporations turned into the public treasury....
Let us see what civilized man is doing elsewhere. Take the cities of
Great Britain first, for they have the same power of self-government
that American cities have. In all that pertains to the comfort and
enterprise of the individual we are far in the lead; but in the
government of cities we are far behind. Glasgow has to-day nearly one
million inhabitants and is one of the great manufacturing and
commercial cities of the world. Thirty years ago there was scarcely a
city that was in a worse condition. Private corporations furnished it
a poor quality of water, taken from the Clyde River, and they charged
high rates for it. The city drained into the Clyde, and it became
horribly filthy. Private corporations furnished a poor quality of gas,
at a high price; and private companies operated the street railroads.
Private companies had the same grip on the people there that they have
in most American cities. Owing to the development of great
shipbuilding and other industries in the valley of the Clyde, the
laboring population of Glasgow became very dense and the means of
housing the people were miserable. Poorly lighted, poorly ventilated,
filthy houses brought high rents. In many cases two families lived in
one room. Cleanliness was impossible, the sanitary conditions were
frightful and the death rate was high. As for educational facilities,
there were none worth mentioning for these people. The condition of
the laboring classes was one of degradation and misery; children were
growing up mentally, morally and physically diseased; a generation was
coming which threatened to be an expense and a menace to the country.
It was a great slum city.
But patriotic and public-spirited men came to the front and gave the
city the benefit of their services free. In fact, none of the high
city officials in Great Britain received any pay other than the well
being of humanity and the good opinions of their country. The city rid
itself of the private companies by buying them and then brought fresh
water from the highlands, a distance of sixty miles. It doubled the
quantity of water furnished the inhabitants, and reduced the cost to
consumers by one-half. And yet the department now yields over two
hundred thousand dollars a year net income over all fixed charges.
The municipality, after much difficulty, bought the gas plants and
gradually reduced the price of gas from $1.14 to 58 cents, and it now
illuminates not only the streets and public places, but all
passageways and stairways in flat buildings, experience having shown
that a good lamp is almost as useful as a policeman. The total debt of
the city for plants, extensions, etc., to illumine perfectly all the
city had reached nearly five and a half millions of dollars.
Notwithstanding the low price at which gas is sold, this sum has
gradually been reduced to less than two and a half millions of dollars
out of the earnings of the system, and it will soon be wiped out and
the entire revenue go into the city treasury.
The street railways were owned by the city, but, until 1894, they were
leased out under an arrangement which paid the city full cost of
construction, with interest, besides a yearly income of $750 per
street mile. In 1894 the city began to operate the lines itself. The
fares were reduced 33 per cent., besides special tickets to laborers,
so that the average is under two cents, and over one-third of all
fares are one cent each.
The private company had worked its men twelve and fourteen hours a day
and paid irregular and unsatisfactory wages. The city at once reduced
the number of hours to ten, and fixed a satisfactory scale of wages.
And, compared with what it formerly was, the service has been greatly
improved. In spite of all these acts for the benefit of the public,
the roads which had cost the city nothing, now net over all charges
for improvements, etc., one-fourth of a million annually. In 1892 the
city bought out a private electric light company, and now has the
monopoly of furnishing electric light and power. This promises to be a
source of enormous revenue for the city....
Manchester has within its narrow limits only a little over half a
million people, but within a radius of twenty miles from her city hall
there are over three million inhabitants. These have to be considered
in discussing Manchester, which is essentially a manufacturing and
commercial city. Its history is in many respects a parallel of that of
Glasgow. It seemed to be a great city of slums, degradation and
misery, and was in the grip of private monopolies.
To-day the city furnishes all the service that is furnished here by
private corporations, and does it at about one-half cost. It furnishes
gas at fifty-six cents a thousand, and after deducting all that is
used to illuminate perfectly the streets and after applying $200,000 a
year on the original cost of plants, etc., it still turns $300,000 a
year into the public treasury, altho the aim in nearly all English
cities is not to make money, but to serve the public. The city
constructed an aqueduct ninety miles to secure pure water and
furnishes this for a little more than half what the private company
had charged for a poor quality of water. It owns street railways, and
besides giving greatly reduced rates and giving half-fare tickets to
workingmen, the city derives a large revenue from this source. Like
Glasgow and Birmingham, the city owns large cemeteries in which there
are separate sections for the different religious denominations, and
prices are so arranged that while those who desire to do so can get
lots costing from ten to thirty dollars, yet "a decent burial with
inscription on stone over a grave can be had at about four dollars for
adults and three dollars for children. This charge includes all
cemetery fees and expenses."
The city owns the markets and slaughter houses. It has provided parks
and swimming baths and, like Birmingham and Glasgow, it maintains
large technical schools in which thousands of young men are instructed
in the industrial arts and sciences, so as to be able to maintain
Manchester's greatness.
Birmingham has over half a million of people, and its experience
resembles that of Glasgow and Manchester. Formerly private
corporations controlled almost everything and charged very high rates
for very poor service, and the sanitary conditions were frightful. But
here again municipal statesmen came to the front, the most prominent
among whom was The Honorable Joseph Chamberlain, who has since been in
the British government.
Not going further into detail, let me say there are at present in the
United Kingdom 185 municipalities that supply their inhabitants with
water, with gas and electric light, and one-third of the street
railway mileage of Great Britain is owned by the municipalities.
Leaving out London it amounts to two-thirds. And in most instances in
which they do not own the street railways, they have compelled the
companies to grant low fares and divide profits.
Every business reason applicable to the municipalities and governments
of Europe is applicable here. We want as pure water, as good drainage,
as cheap service as they have, and we want the same privilege of
supplying ourselves as they exercise; and when it is apparent that, by
acting collectively, we can do business more successfully, can serve
ourselves better in every way, and can secure for the public treasury
these millions which now go into the pockets of grasping individuals,
have we not a right to do it? If we find that, in this manner, we can
give steadiness to labor, and can elevate its standards and improve
the conditions of our people, dare we not do it? Every one of the
reforms carried out in England and on the continent met with fierce
opposition from the same classes that oppose them here, but the
business sense and patriotic impulse of the people prevailed, and I
believe, will prevail here. [Footnote: On Municipal and Government
Ownership, Altgeld The World's Famous Orations. Funk & Wagnalls Co.,
Vol. X, p. 208.]
5. Draw a brief of Beecher's speech found on page 166.