THE CONCLUSION
Most arguments have a more or less formal ending. Both writers and
speakers, when seeking to influence the beliefs and acts of others,
have usually deemed it advisable, upon completing their proof, to add
a few summarizing words and to make a final appeal to the emotions.
This part of the argument that comes at the close and that contains no
new proof is called the _conclusion_, or the _peroration_.
In spoken argument, occasionally, the conclusion is wholly ignored. If
at any time, regardless of the point he may have reached, an arguer
clearly perceives that he has won his case, he is wise to stop
immediately and avoid the danger of adding anything that might
possibly detract from his success. Such an experience may frequently
happen to a salesman, a preacher, a lawyer. Arguments, however, that
are written or that are delivered before large audiences cannot be
curtailed in this way. Under such conditions the arguer is unable to
tell when he has won his case: he must use all his proof and make it
emphatic in every way possible. Therefore the student who is arguing
for the sake of practice will do well to disregard exceptions and to
close all his arguments, both written and spoken, with a peroration.
The same two elements--conviction and persuasion--that make up the
introduction and the discussion are ordinarily found also in the
conclusion. The general principles that govern the proportionate
amount of each to be used in the first two divisions of an argument
apply equally to the third division. In every case the relative amount
of space to be devoted to conviction and to persuasion depends upon
the nature of the subject and the attitude of the audience. In some
instances a conclusion should consist wholly of conviction; in other
instances persuasion should predominate; most commonly there should be
a judicious combination of both.
In concluding an argument before the United States Supreme Court on
the question of whether or not a certain law passed in New York was
repugnant to the Constitution or consistent with it, Webster spoke as
follows:--
To recapitulate what has been said, we maintain, first, that the
Constitution, by its grants to Congress and its prohibitions on the
States, has sought to establish one uniform standard of value, or
medium of payment. Second, that, by like means, it has endeavored to
provide for one uniform mode of discharging debts when they are to be
discharged without payment. Third, that these objects are connected,
and that the first loses much of its importance, if the last, also, be
not accomplished. Fourth, that, reading the grant to Congress, and the
prohibition on the States together, the inference is strong that the
Constitution intended to confer exclusive power to pass bankrupt laws
on Congress. Fifth, that the prohibition in the tenth section reaches
to all contracts, existing or future, in the same way that the other
prohibition in the same section extends to all debts existing or
future. Sixth, that, upon any other construction, one great political
object of the Constitution will fail of its accomplishment. [Footnote:
The Case of Ogden and Saunders. Webster's Great Speeches, page 188.
Little, Brown & Co.]
In this conclusion, it will be noticed, there is no persuasion.
Apparently the subject was of such a nature that only clear and
logical reasoning was required. An appeal to the emotions would
undoubtedly have been out of place. In direct contrast to the
preceding method of summarizing a speech a good example of a
persuasive conclusion may be found in _The Dartmouth College
Case_, which Webster argued before this same tribunal, and which
also involved the constitutionality of a State law. In this peroration
Webster's emotional appeal was so strong that, it is said, there was
not a dry eye in the court room.
In writing as well as in speaking one must allow common sense to
decide what shall be the nature of his peroration. The following is a
typical example of a conclusion into which persuasion cannot well
enter. It is taken from the close of a chapter, selected at random, in
Darwin's _Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs_.
It has, I think, been shown in this chapter, that subsidence explains
both the normal structure and the less regular forms of those two
great classes of reefs which have justly excited the astonishment of
all the naturalists who have sailed through the Pacific and Indian
oceans. The necessity, also, that a foundation should have existed at
the proper depth for the growth of the corals over certain large
areas, almost compels us to accept this theory. But further to test
its truth a crowd of questions may be asked.... These several
questions will be considered in the following chapter.
A type of conclusion far more common and usually far more effective is
one that not only refers to the preceding arguments but also contains
considerable persuasion. The peroration marks the final opportunity
for the arguer to move his audience. Here he should make his greatest
effort. Since belief and action ordinarily depend upon both the
intellect and the will, the arguer who would attain success must
appeal to both. Merely to call to mind the proof that he has advanced
is seldom enough: he must arouse the emotions. The peroration of an
argument is like the finish of a race or the last charge in a battle.
In the conclusion the arguer should use his greatest skill, his
strongest eloquence. Here are found the most inspiring passages in the
masterpieces of oratory.
Some of the various ways for reaching the emotions have been pointed
out in the chapter dealing with persuasion in the introduction. These
same suggestions apply equally well to persuasion in the conclusion.
The best advice that can be given, however, is for one to use his
common sense. He must consider his subject, his audience, his ability,
and his own interest in the case--all the circumstances in connection
with his argument--and then depend, not upon some set formula, but
upon his judgment to tell him in what way he can best be persuasive.
The following illustrations will give some idea of how successful
writers and speakers have concluded their arguments with persuasion.
Notice the patriotic appeal in the first quotation:--
Whether we have or have not degenerated compared with (say) fifty or a
hundred years ago may be a question difficult to settle, but it is
quite clear that we are pitifully, disastrously below the normal
standard of manhood and womanhood which a great nation should set
itself.
Adequate nourishment for our children, immunity from exhausting and
mechanical employments at the most critical period of adolescence, an
extension of educational influences--can there be any objects of
expenditures more likely than these to repay themselves a thousandfold
in the improved vigor and intelligence which form the only sure basis
of a nation's greatness? [Footnote: Frances E. Warwick, Fortnightly
Review, Vol. LXXIX, p. 515.]
In the following the speaker points out the awful responsibility
resting upon the jury and exhorts them to render justice:--
Let me, therefore, remind you, that though the day may soon come when
our ashes shall be scattered before the winds of heaven, the memory of
what you do cannot die. It will carry down to your posterity your
honor or your shame. In the presence, and in the name of that
everliving God, I do therefore conjure you to reflect that you have
your characters, your consciences, that you have also the character,
perhaps the ultimate destiny, of your country in your hands. In that
awful name I do conjure you to have mercy upon your country and upon
yourselves, and so to judge now as you will hereafter be judged; and I
do now submit the fate of my client, and of that country which we have
yet in common to your disposal. [Footnote: John Philpot Curran, On the
Liberty of the Press.]
In the following extract from the conclusion of Webster's plea in
_The Dartmouth College Case_ consider how he showed the magnitude
of the question that was at issue:--
The case before the court is not of ordinary importance, nor of
everyday occurrence. It affects not this college only, but every
college, and all the literary institutions of the country. They have
flourished hitherto, and have become in a high degree respectable and
useful to the community. They have all a common principle of
existence, the inviolability of their charters. It will be a
dangerous, a most dangerous experiment, to hold these institutions
subject to the rise and fall of popular parties, and the fluctuation
of political opinions. If the franchise may at any time be taken away,
or impaired, the property also may be taken away, or impaired, or its
use perverted. Benefactors will have no certainty of effecting the
object of their bounty; and learned men will be deterred from devoting
themselves to the service of such institutions, from the precarious
title of their offices. Colleges and halls will be deserted by all
better spirits, and become a theatre for the contentions of politics.
Party and faction will be cherished in the places consecrated to piety
and learning. These consequences are neither remote nor possible only.
They are certain and immediate. [Footnote: Webster's Great Speeches,
p. 23.]
As a rule, most of the criticisms that can be made of any conclusion
pertain to matters of taste and judgment. A writer or speaker may have
made too detailed or too brief a summary; he may have erred in
choosing the best method of persuasion; he may have injured his
argument in almost countless other ways. In these matters a text-book
can give only general and rather vague instruction. Each argument must
be suited to the particular case in hand. There are several common
errors in students' work, however, that should always be avoided and
that can definitely be pointed out.
1. _An argument should not have an abrupt and jerky ending_. It
is not uncommon especially in class room debate, to hear a student at
the close of his discussion say, "This is my proof; I leave the
decision to the judges"; or "Thus you see I have established my
proposition." Such an ending can in no way be called a conclusion or a
peroration.
2. _A conclusion should contain no new proof_. Violations of this
principle brand an arguer as careless, and greatly weaken his
argument. Proof is most convincing when arranged in its proper place
and in its logical order. Furthermore, the purpose of the conclusion
is to review the points that have already been established. If the
arguer forgets this fact and mixes proof with summary, the audience is
liable to become badly confused and not know what has been established
and what has not.
3. _A conclusion should not refer to a point that has not already
been established_. A careless writer or debater will sometimes
state that he has proved an argument which he has not previously
touched upon. Such a procedure smacks of trickery or ignorance, and is
sure to be disastrous. Not only will the audience throw out that
particular point, but they will be highly prejudiced against both the
arguer and his argument. It is permissible for one to maintain that he
has proved a point even though the proof be somewhat inadequate, but
for one to refer in his conclusion to a point that he then mentions
for the first time is unpardonable.
4. _A conclusion must reaffirm the proposition exactly as stated at
the beginning_. Sometimes a writer, discovering at the close of his
argument that he has not stuck to his subject but has proved something
different, or at best has proved only a part of his subject, states as
his decision a totally different proposition from that with which he
started. To illustrate, a student once attempted to argue on the
affirmative side of the proposition, "The United States should
discontinue its protective tariff policy"; but he gave as his
concluding sentence, "These facts, then, prove to you that our present
tariff duties are too high." This last sentence embodied the real
proposition which he had discussed, and if he had taken as his
subject, "Our present tariff duties are too high," his argument would
have been successful. As it was, his failure to support the
proposition with which he started rendered his whole effort worthless.
A conclusion that is weaker than the proposition is commonly called a
"qualifying conclusion." When one has fallen into this error there are
two possible ways of removing it: one is to change the whole argument
so that the conclusion will affirm the truth or falsity of the
proposition; the other is to change the proposition. In a debate, of
course, or whenever a subject is assigned, the latter method cannot be
followed.
As a final example of what a good peroration should be, consider the
following conclusion of Webster's speech, delivered in the United
States Senate, on _The Presidential Veto of the United States Bank
Bill_. Notice the skillful interweaving of conviction and
persuasion, and remember in connection with the principle of
proportion that this is the conclusion of a speech containing about
14,000 words.
"Mr. President, we have arrived at a new epoch. We are entering on
experiments, with the government and the Constitution of the country,
hitherto untried, and of fearful and appalling aspect. This message
calls us to the contemplation of a future which little resembles the
past. Its principles are at war with all that public opinion has
sustained, and all which the experience of the government has
sanctioned. It denies first principles; it contradicts truths,
hitherto received as indisputable. It denies to the judiciary the
interpretation of law, and claims to divide with Congress the power of
originating statutes. It extends the grasp of executive pretension
over every power of the government. But this is not all. It presents
the chief magistrate of the Union in the attitude of arguing away the
powers of that government over which he has been chosen to preside;
and adopting for this purpose modes of reasoning which, even under the
influence of all proper feeling towards high official station, it is
difficult to regard as respectable. It appeals to every prejudice
which may betray men into a mistaken view of their own interests, and
to every passion which may lead them to disobey the impulses of their
understanding. It urges all the specious topics of State rights and
national encroachment against that which a great majority of the
States have affirmed to be rightful, and in which all of them have
acquiesced. It sows, in an unsparing manner, the seeds of jealousy and
ill-will against that government of which its author is the official
head. It raises a cry, that liberty is in danger, at the very moment
when it puts forth claims to powers heretofore unknown and unheard of.
It affects alarm for the public freedom, when nothing endangers that
freedom so much as its own unparalleled pretences. This, even, is not
all. It manifestly seeks to inflame the poor against the rich; it
wantonly attacks whole classes of the people, for the purpose of
turning against them the prejudices and the resentment of other
classes. It is a state paper which finds no topic too exciting for its
use, no passion to inflammable for its address and its solicitation.
"Such is this message. It remains now for the people of the United
States to choose between the principles here avowed and their
government. These cannot subsist together. The one or the other must
be rejected. If the sentiments of the message shall receive general
approbation, the Constitution will have perished even earlier than the
moment which its enemies originally allowed for the termination of its
existence. It will not have survived to its fiftieth year." [Footnote:
Webster's Great Speeches, page 338.]
APPENDICES.
APPENDIX A
A WRITTEN ARGUMENT AND ITS BRIEF.
SHOULD IMMIGRATION BE RESTRICTED? [Footnote: The North American
Review, May, 1897, page 526.]
SIMON GREENLEAF CROSWELL
During recent years there has been a growing interest in plans for
further checking or limiting the tide of immigration whose waves sweep
in upon the United States almost daily in constantly increasing
volume. Several restrictive measures are already in force: paupers,
idiots, contract laborers, the Chinese, and several other classes of
people are prohibited from entering our ports. The subject has been
discussed in legislatures, in political meetings, from pulpits, in
reform clubs, and among individuals on every hand. The reason for the
interest which the subject now excites is easily found in the recent
enormous increase of immigration.
The problem divides itself at the outset into two distinct questions:
First, is it for the advantage of the United States that immigration
be further checked or limited? Second, if so, in what way should the
check or limit be applied?
It is evident that these questions cover two distinct fields of
inquiry, the industrial and the political. Nor can the two fields be
examined simultaneously, for the reasons, if there are any, from a
political point of view, why immigration should be limited, would not
apply to the questions viewed on its industrial side, and _vice
versa_.
Taking up first the industrial question, we may assume that the
entrance of the swarms of immigrants into our country represents the
introduction of just so much laboring power into the country, and we
may also assume as a self-evident proposition that the introduction of
laboring power into an undeveloped or partially developed country is
advantageous until the point is reached at which all the laborers whom
the country can support have been introduced. Adam Smith says that
labor is the wealth of nations. If this is true, the laborer is the
direct and only primary means of acquiring wealth. The facts of the
history of our country bear out this view. Beginning with the clearing
of the forests, the settlements of the villages, the cultivation of
farms, proceeding to the establishment of the lumber industries, the
cultivation of vast wheat and corn fields, the production of cotton,
the working of the coal and oil fields of Pennsylvania, the
development of the mining districts of the West, culminating in the
varied and extensive manufactures of the Eastern and Central States,
the laborer has been the Midas whose touch has turned all things to
gold.
There is, however, a limitation to the principle that the introduction
of laborers into a partially developed country is advantageous. A
point is finally reached which may be called the saturation point of
the country; that is, it has as many inhabitants as it can supply with
reasonably good food and clothing. This saturation point may be
reached many times in the history of a country, for the ratio between
the food and clothing products and the population is constantly
varying. New modes of cultivation, and the use of machinery, as well
as natural causes affecting the fertility of land, which are as yet
obscure, render a country at one time capable of supporting a much
larger number of inhabitants than at another time. Still, there is a
broad and general truth that, time and place and kind of people being
considered, some countries are over-populated, and some are under-
populated.
We are accustomed to say that some of the countries of Europe are
over-populated, and there are among us some who are beginning to say
that the United States has reached the same point. This is far from
being the case, and a single glance at the comparative average density
of population of the principal European nations and of the United
States will be sufficient to drive this idea out of any fair-minded
person's head.
The most thickly settled country of modern Europe is the Netherlands,
which had, in the year 1890, the very large average of three hundred
and fifty-nine inhabitants per square mile of territory. Great Britain
came next, with the almost equally large average of three hundred and
eleven inhabitants per square mile of territory. Germany had two
hundred and thirty-four and France one hundred and eighty-seven.
Taking in for purposes of comparison, though not of much force in the
argument, China, we find there an average population of two hundred
and ninety-five inhabitants per square mile of territory. It is a
question of some difficulty to decide in any specific case whether a
country has reached the point of over-population. We may admit that
Great Britain, with its average of three hundred and eleven
inhabitants per mile, is over-populated, though the conditions of life
do not seem to be wholly intolerable, even to the lowest classes
there. If Great Britain is over-populated, _a fortiori_ are the
Netherlands, and we may even go so far as to admit that Germany, with
its average of two hundred and thirty-four inhabitants per square
mile, is over-populated. But when we come to France, with its one
hundred and eighty-seven inhabitants per square mile, we may pause and
see what are the conditions of the French people. So far as it is
possible to judge of a people in the lump, it would seem that the
population of France is not excessive for the area. The land holdings
are divided up into very small lots, but are held by a great number of
people. Mackenzie, in his history of the nineteenth century, says that
nearly two-thirds of the French householders are landowners, while
only one British householder in every four is an owner of land. This
condition results partly from the difference in the system of
inheritance of land in the two countries, but would be impossible if
the country were over-populated. Moreover, there are five millions of
people in France whose possessions in land are under six acres each.
Taking, then, the population of France, averaging 187 per square
mile, as being at least not above the normal rate of population, what
do we find in comparing it with the population of the United States?
We find over here vast tracts of country, amounting to nearly one-
third by actual measurement, of the whole area of the United States,
and including all the States west of the Missouri and Mississippi
valleys (except a portion of California), having a population of less
than six individuals per square mile. It would seem as if the mere
statement of this fact were alone sufficient to disprove any
proposition which asserts that the saturation point of population has
been reached in the United States. While that immense expanse of
country averages only six individuals to the square mile, there can be
no reason for saying that this country is over-populated. Coming now
to the more thickly settled portions of the United States, we find a
large area spread out over various parts of the States having a
population between seven and forty-five individuals per square mile.
In a very few States, New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, and
Indiana, the population of the whole State averages over forty-five
and under ninety individuals per square mile, and the same average
holds in parts of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Illinois, Kentucky, and
isolated spots in the South. In a small territory, made up of parts of
Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, the population averages
over ninety per square mile.
The contrast between these averages of population in various portions
of the United States, the highest of which is about ninety individuals
per mile (and that over very small portions of the area of the United
States) and the average densities of the European countries,
previously examined, shows how very far the United States is from
complete population. This appears still more clearly when the average
population of the United States taken as a whole, is considered, which
is the extraordinary low figure of twenty individuals per square mile
of territory What a striking contrast! Can the most ardent advocate of
the Malthusian doctrine claim that the United States already has too
many inhabitants, or is in danger of having too many in the immediate
future? Do we not rather need to encourage immigration, to fling wide
open the gates of our country and secure as large an addition to our
working force as possible?
When we come to the political aspect of the problem, however, a wholly
different series of considerations present themselves. The question
now is not how many citizens, but what sort of citizens. The theory of
our government is not limited to any number of people. It provides for
expansion in the number of representatives in Congress in proportion
to the increase in population, and increases the number of Senators as
new States are formed and added to the Union. Similarly each State
government has elastic provisions which enable it to cover a
population of 400,000 as well as a population of 40,000. But the one
critical test in determining whether or not our immigration should be
limited for political reasons is the character of the people whom we
are admitting to the privilege of citizenship in the United States.
In order to investigate successfully the political effect of the
immigration, it is necessary, at the outset, to divide it into its
constituent nationalities, so that taking up each nationality in turn,
we may see what fitness it has from its previous political training in
its native country for undertaking the duties of American citizenship.
The disintegration of the tide of immigration into these constituent
parts affords some interesting information which will be seen to have
a bearing, in several directions, on the questions under consideration
in this article. Taking the statistics of the year 1891 as a typical
year of recent immigration, the tide of immigration amounted in round
numbers to 500,000 individuals.
The largest feeder of this enormous stream came from Germany, which
sent, roughly speaking, 100,000. But a noticeable point about this
nationality is the great decrease in the number of immigrants it has
sent us in the last fifteen years. In the year 1882 the total German
immigration into the United States amounted to no less than 250,000,
but in 1883 and 1884 there was a great decrease, and since then the
average has remained in the neighborhood of 100,000. We shall see
later that on the other hand, the immigration from the Latin and Slav
nations of Europe, particularly Italy, Poland, and Austria, shows an
enormous rate of increase in the same period, although, of course, the
absolute amounts are much less than those of the German immigration.
The next largest feeder to our stream of immigration in the year 1891,
the typical year of our examination, was Italy, which contributed
76,000 immigrants to our population. It is noteworthy to remark, in
this connection, that Italy has more than doubled her annual rate of
contributions to our people in the ten years under consideration, the
immigration from her shores in 1882 being only 32,000.
The next largest contributor is Austria, which in 1891 furnished
71,000 new members of our community. Austria, too, has doubled her
rate of contribution, sending us in 1882 only 32,000. Next come, side
by side, in their offerings to our population, England and Ireland,
each of which countries sends us about 50,000 new inhabitants each
year, and has continued to do so for the last fifteen years. Russia,
exclusive of Poland, sent 47,000 in 1891, this being three times the
number which she sent in 1882, a large increase. Sweden came next with
36,000 immigrants and that country shows a woeful falling-off of
nearly one-half in the ten years under consideration, for in the year
1882 it sent 64,000. Poland in 1891 sent us 27,000 immigrants, showing
an enormous increase of nearly sevenfold over its contribution of
4,000 in 1882. Scotland and Norway and Denmark all send about the same
number, that is, about 12,000 each; Norway showing a diminution in the
decade ending 1891, from 29,000 in 1882, but the other two remaining
about stationary. Switzerland in 1891 sent 6,000, a diminution from
10,000 in 1882. The Netherlands sent 5,000 in 1891, a decrease from
9,000 in 1882. France sent 6,000 and Belgium 3,000, these figures
being about the same during all the years covered by our
investigation. I have left out of account the only other important
factor in our immigration in the ten years considered, namely, China,
because the door was shut in its face with considerable emphasis in
1883, and the immigration from China to the Western States, which in
1882 amounted to 40,000 fell in 1883 to 8,000, and in 1884 to 279
individuals, and may, therefore, be neglected at the present time.
Now, an examination of the political institutions in the countries
from which these immigrants come would show that in almost no case,
that of Russia and Poland alone excepted, are the elements of
representative government wholly unknown to the common people. In most
of these countries, some form of popular government has, either wholly
or partially, gained a footing, with the inevitable result of
accustoming people more or less to representative institutions. Yet
the short time that this has been the case in many of the countries
which pour half or over of the total flood of immigration into the
United States, and the long centuries of despotism which preceded this
partial and recent enlightenment, make it painfully evident that there
can be, in the large part of our immigrants, little knowledge of the
republican form of government, and little inherited aptitude for such
government. It would at first seem as if the results of such
immigration must be disastrous to our country.
And yet the situation is not so hopeless. There is nothing mysterious,
or even very complicated, about republican institutions. A little
time, a little study, a little experience with the practical workings
of elections, is sufficient to convey to any person of ordinary
intelligence as much familiarity with these matters as is necessary
for the intelligent appreciation of their objects and purposes. Nor is
the material out of which the prospective citizen is to be made wholly
unfitted for its purpose. To be sure, the Latin races, the Slavs,
Hungarians, Poles, and others have no inherited aptitude, nor if we
may judge from the history of the races, any inherent capacity for
self-government and free institutions, but, as I have before said, in
almost every case they have had in their own country a partial
training in the forms of representative government. All that is needed
is to amalgamate this heterogeneous mass, to fuse its elements in the
heat and glow of our national life, until, formed in the mould of
everyday experience, each one shall possess the characteristic
features of what we believe to be the highest type of human
development which the world has seen, the American citizen.
The process of acquiring American citizenship is regulated by acts of
Congress. It is a simple process. Practically all that is required is
a continuous residence of five years in the States, and one year in
the special State in which citizenship is applied for, and the
declaration of intention to become a citizen may be made immediately
upon landing. This last point will be seen later to be very important.
Citizenship in the United States, however, under the act of Congress,
does not carry with it the right to vote. This right is entirely a
matter of State regulation, and the Constitution or statutes of each
State settle who shall have the right to vote in its elections. The
underlying idea of the whole system is universal male suffrage, and
the franchise is granted (after a certain residence, which will be
discussed later) with only certain general limitations of obvious
utility, such as that the voter must be twenty-one years of age, that
he must not be an idiot or insane, and generally, that he must not
have been convicted of any felony or infamous crime, although in many
States a pardon, or the serving of a sentence, will restore a felon to
his civil rights. In a few of the States paupers are also excluded
from voting. With the question of woman suffrage we have nothing to
do, as its settlement, one way or the other, does not affect the
subject we are discussing.
The important qualification, however, in relation to the subjects
which we are discussing, is that which requires residence in the State
previous to the exercise of the franchise. And on this point the
States may be divided into two great classes. One class allows no one
to vote who is not, under the laws of Congress, a citizen of the
United States, either native or naturalized. As we have seen that five
years' residence is a requisite to United States citizenship, these
States, therefore, require five years' residence as a prerequisite to
acquiring the right to vote. These States are California, Connecticut,
Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and
Washington. This requirement is admirably calculated to secure that
preliminary training in the practical working of our institutions
which must be necessary to most of the immigrants before they can
intelligently exercise the rights which are conferred upon them by
American citizenship and we cannot but admire the sagacity and
judiciousness of those who framed our naturalization laws in selecting
this period of time for the pupilage of the intending citizen. The
period is long enough even for one who is engrossed in the cares of
earning a support for himself and his family, amid all the excitement
and novelty of a changed residence, to acquire in the five succeeding
annual elections a sufficient knowledge of republican government for
all practical purpose. To delay him longer in the exercise of his
political rights would be an injustice; to admit him to them sooner
would be an imprudence.
There are in a few States other qualifications required of a voter.
The most important of these is the educational qualification, which
exists only in Connecticut and Massachusetts. In neither of these is
it very severe. In Connecticut the voter must be able to read any
article in the State Constitution, and any section of the statutes. In
Massachusetts he must be able to read the Constitution and to write
his name. Too much praise can hardly be given to these requirements.
The whole edifice of our national life is founded upon education, and
to this potent factor must we look for many of the improvements
necessary to the proper development of our national life.
In quite a number of States a pecuniary qualification exists in the
shape of the payment of some tax, generally a poll tax, within two
years previous to the date of the election. This requirement does not
seem to be so germane to the spirit of our institutions as the other.
The great present danger of our country is the danger of becoming a
plutocracy, and while there is no doubt that a widespread interest in
property develops stability of institutions, yet there is also great
danger of capital obtaining so firm and strong a hold upon political
institutions as to crush out the life of free government and to
convert the national government into a species of close corporation,
in which the relative wealth of the parties alone controls. This
qualification is found in Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi,
Nevada, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas.
We have now examined with some thoroughness the component parts of the
tide of immigration as it arrives at our shores; we have seen what
nationalities go to make up the grand total and what previous training
they have had in the political institutions of their native countries
to fit them for American citizenship, and what additional requirements
are imposed upon them by our statutes before they can participate in
voting and government in this country. What are the conclusions to
which the view of these facts brings us? They seem to me to be these:
first, that the growth of immigration is a desirable thing for this
country from an industrial point of view; second, that the immigrants
who arrive at our shores are for the most part good material out of
which to make American citizens. Applying these conclusions to the
questions which were stated at the outset of this article; first, is
it for the advantage of the United States that immigration should be
checked or limited? second, if so, in what way should the check or
limit be applied? the answer would be that no further check or limit
should be applied, but that a check should be placed upon the exercise
of the franchise by immigrants in all States by requiring a residence
of five years in this country before they can vote, and by also
requiring some moderate educational test.
With these safeguards established we might look without any serious
apprehension upon the increase of our population. The founders of our
state moulded the outlines of its form in large and noble lines. The
skeleton has grown and clothed itself with flesh with almost
incredible rapidity in the hundred years of its existence. But it is
still young. We should avoid any measures which would stunt or deform
its growth and should allow it to develop freely and generously till
the full-grown American nation stands forth pre-eminent among the
nations of the earth, in size, as well as in character and
organization, and man's last experiment in government is clearly seen
to be an unequivocal success.
ARGUMENT AND BRIEF
SHOULD IMMIGRATION BE RESTRICTED?
NEGATIVE BRIEF.
INTRODUCTION.
I. The enormous increase in immigration gives rise to a growing
interest in some plan for further limiting the number of
immigrants coming to the United States.
A. Paupers, idiots, contract laborers, the Chinese, and several
other classes of people are already excluded.
B. The subject has been discussed in legislatures, in political
meetings, from pulpits, in reform clubs, and among
individuals.
II. The problem divides itself into two distinct questions:--
A. Is it for the advantage of the United States that immigration
be further checked or limited?
B. If so, in what way should the check or limit be applied?
III. These questions must be considered, first, from the industrial
point of view; and, secondly, from the political point of view.
DISCUSSION.
Immigration should not be further restricted, for
I. From an industrial point of view, the United States needs
immigrants, for
A. Without question, immigrants represent laboring power.
B. The United States needs more laboring power, for
1. Admittedly, the introduction of laboring power into an
undeveloped or partially developed country is
advantageous up to the saturation point.
a. Adam Smith says that labor is the wealth of nations.
b. The history of America has borne out this statement, for
1'. The laborer has turned the forests, fields, and
mines into wealth.
2. The United States is still under-populated, for
a. There is a smaller population to the square mile
than in many European countries, for
1'. In 1890 the Netherlands had the average of three
hundred and fifty-nine inhabitants to the square
mile
2'. Great Britain had the average of three hundred and
eleven.
3'. Germany had two hundred and thirty-four.
4'. France had one hundred and eighty-seven.
5'. In about one-third of the whole area of the United
States, the average is less than six.
6'. In certain more thickly settled portions the average
is from seven to forty-five.
7'. In New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, and
Indiana, the average is from forty-five to ninety.
8'. In a small territory made up of parts of
Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, the
average is over ninety.
9'. In the United States as a whole, the average is
twenty.
II. From a political point of view, the immigrants who are arriving
at our shores make good citizens, for
A. Their previous political training has been such as to render
them capable of learning how to perform the duties of
American citizenship, for
1. Of the 500,000 immigrants that arrived in 1891, Germany
sent approximately 100,000.
2. Italy sent 76,000.
3. Austria sent 78,000.
4. England and Ireland sent 50,000 each.
5. Russia, exclusive of Poland, sent 47,000.
6. Sweden sent 36,000.
7. Poland sent 27,000.
8. Scotland, Norway, and Denmark sent 12,000 each.
9. Switzerland sent 6,000.
10. The Netherlands sent 5,000.
11. France sent 6,000.
12. Belgium sent 3,000.
13. Except in Russia and Poland, the elements of representative
government are not wholly unknown to these people, for
a. In most of these countries some form of popular
government has either wholly or partially gained a
footing.
B. The duties of the American citizen are not hard to learn, for
1. Republican institutions are not very complicated.
C. The political ignorance of the immigrant can be remedied, for
1. Before extending immigrants the franchise, States can
insist on requirements that will secure some preliminary
training in free political institutions, since
a. The right to vote is entirely a matter of State
regulation, for
1'. Citizenship, which is regulated by Congress, does
not carry with it the franchise.
b. Already twenty-two States allow no one to vote who has
not been in the United States at least five years.
c. Massachusetts and Connecticut have an educational test.
d. Eight States insist on a pecuniary qualification.
CONCLUSION.
The following points have been proved:--
I. The growth of immigration is a desirable thing for this country
from an industrial point of view.
II. The immigrants who arrive at our shores are for the most part
good material out of which to make American citizens.
Therefore, no further check or limit should be applied to immigration.
APPENDIX B
A LIST OF PROPOSITIONS.
1. The United States army should be greatly enlarged.
2. Japan was justified in waging war against Russia.
3. A formal alliance between the United States and Great Britain for
the protection and advancement of their common interests would be
expedient.
4. Military tactics should be taught in the public schools.
5. The United States navy should be greatly enlarged.
6. The aggressions of England in South Africa are justifiable.
7. The nations of Europe should combine to bring about drastic reforms
in the Congo Free State.
8. Ireland should be granted home rule.
9. Japanese control will promote the political and economic interests
of Corea more than would Russian control.
10. Armed intervention on the part of any nation to collect private
claims against any other nation is not justifiable.
11. The annexation of Canada by treaty with Great Britain would be
economically advantageous to the United States.
12. The United States should establish commercial reciprocity with
Canada.
13. The United States should maintain a system of subsidies for the
protection of American merchant marine.
14. Congress should have decided in favor of a sea-level canal at
Panama.
15. Woman suffrage should be adopted by an amendment to the
Constitution.
16. The practice of relieving financial stringency by temporary
deposits of United States Treasury funds in selected banks should be
discontinued.
17. Labor unions are detrimental to the best interests of the
workingman.
18. Free trade should be established between the United States and the
Philippine Islands.
19. State boards of arbitration, with compulsory powers, should be
appointed to settle disputes between employers and employees.
20. The United States should discontinue the protective tariff policy.
21. The Federal government should own and operate the interstate
railroads within its borders.
22. Railroad pooling should be legalized.
23. The tax on the issues of state banks should be repealed.
24. The United States should adopt one-cent postage.
25. American municipalities should own and operate their street-car
systems.
26. The President of the United States should be elected for a term of
six years and be ineligible for re-election.
27. The President of the United States should be elected by popular
vote.
28. Ex-Presidents of the United States should be Senators-at-large for
life.
29. United States Senators should be elected by popular vote.
30. The powers of the Speaker of the House of Representatives should
be restricted.
31. The United States should institute a system of responsible cabinet
government.
32. Judges should be elected by direct vote of the people.
33. All cities in the State of ----, having at least ten thousand
inhabitants should adopt the Des Moines plan of government.
34. The right of suffrage should be limited by an educational test.
35. The State of ---- should adopt the initiative and referendum
system of government.
36. Congress should repeal the Fifteenth Amendment.
37. Members of State legislatures should be forbidden by law to accept
free passes on any railroads.
38. Corporations engaged in interstate commerce should be required to
take out a Federal license.
39. Women who pay taxes should be permitted to vote at municipal
elections.
40. The annexation of Cuba to the United States would be for the best
interests of Cuba.
41. The United States should grant full citizenship to the people of
Porto Rico.
42. The United States should establish an old age-pension system
similar to the one in operation in Germany.
43. Political union with Cuba would be for the advantage of the United
States.
44. The United States should permanently retain the Philippines.
45. The House of Representatives should elect its standing committees.
46. The white citizens of the Southern States are justified in
maintaining their political supremacy.
47. Congress should prohibit corporate contributions to political
campaign funds.
48. The present powers of courts to grant injunctions should be
curtailed.
49. In all criminal cases three-fourths of a jury should be competent
to render a verdict.
50. The United States government is treating the Indians unjustly.
51. Capital punishment should be abolished.
52. Education should be compulsory to the age of sixteen.
53. The fully elective system of studies should be introduced into all
colleges.
54. College students receiving an average daily grade of eighty-five
per cent, in a subject should be excused from final examination in
that subject.
55. Class rushes should be abolished at ---- College.
56. Hazing should be abolished at all colleges.
57. Freshmen should be debarred from intercollegiate athletic
contests.
58. Athletics, as conducted at present, are detrimental to ---- College.
59. The Federal government should maintain a college for the education
of men for the diplomatic and consular service.
60. A large city affords a better location for a college than does the
country.
61. The "honor system" should prevail at ---- College.
62. American universities should admit women on equal terms with men.
63. American colleges should admit students only on examination.
64. American colleges should confer the degree of Bachelor of Arts in
three years.
65. Public schools should not furnish free textbooks.
66. Secret societies should not exist in public high schools.
67. The education of the American negro should be industrial rather
than liberal.
68. For the average student, the small college is preferable to the
large college.
69. American colleges should adopt the recommendations of the
Simplified Spelling Board.
70. For the United States, the type of the German university is
preferable to the type of the American university.
71. Fraternities are undesirable in colleges.
72. The United States Army canteen should be restored.
73. There should be national laws governing marriage and divorce.
74. High License is preferable to Prohibition.
75. The Federal government should take action to prevent children
under the age of fourteen from working in mines and factories.
76. The elimination of private profits offers the best solution of the
liquor problem.
77. Employers are justified in refusing recognition to labor unions.
78. The United States should grant permanent copyright.
79. The Chinese should be excluded from the Philippines.
80. States should prohibit vivisection involving great pain.
81. The United States should establish a parcels post.
82. The United States should establish a postal savings bank.
83. The veto power of the House of Lords should be annulled.
84. Abdul Hamid was unjustly deposed.
85. The present laws relating to Chinese immigration should be amended
to include the Japanese.
86. The United States should admit the Chinese on equal terms with
other immigrants.
87. Further centralization in the power of the Federal government is
contrary to the best interests of the United States.
88. The present tendency of government conservation of natural
resources is contrary to the best interests of the United States.
89. Commercial reciprocity between the United States and Brazil would
benefit the United States.
90. At present the United States should maintain no navy yard on the
Gulf Coast.
91. The United States should admit all raw materials free of duty.
92. The United States should admit sugar free of duty.
93. The date of the Presidential inauguration should be changed.
94. Postmasters should be elected by popular vote.
95. All cities in the United States should establish and enforce a
curfew law.
96. The three term system is preferable to the semester
system at ---- College.
97. The products of prison labor should not be allowed to compete in
the open market.
98. New York City should establish a dramatic censorship.
99. Convicts should not be farmed out to private contractors.
100. The State of ---- should establish a property qualification for
voting.
End of Project Gutenberg's Practical Argumentation, by George K. Pattee