CHAPTER II

PLANNING THE ARGUMENT

10. Preparations for the Argument. When you have chosen the subject

for your argument there is still much to do before you are ready to

write it out. In the first place, you must find out by search and

reading what is to be said both for and against the view you are

supporting; in the second place, with the facts in mind you must analyze

both them and the question to see just what is the point that you are

arguing; then, in the third place, you must arrange the material you are

going to use so that it will be most effective for your purpose. Each of

these steps I shall consider in turn in this chapter.

As a practical convenience, each student should start a notebook, in

which he can keep together all the notes he makes in the course of his

preparations for writing the argument. Number the pages of the notebook,

and leave the first two pages blank for a table of contents. A box of

cards, such as will be described on page 31, will serve as well as a

notebook, and in some ways is more convenient. From time to time, in the

course of the chapter I shall mention points that should be entered.

For the sake of convenience in exposition I shall use as an example the

preparations for an argument in favor of introducing the commission form

of government into an imaginary city, Wytown; and each of the directions

for the use of the notebook I shall illustrate by entries appropriate

to this argument. The argument, let us suppose, is addressed to the

citizens of the place, who know the general facts relating to the city

and its government. In creating this imaginary city, let us give it

about eight thousand inhabitants, and suppose that it is of small area,

and that the inhabitants are chiefly operatives in a number of large

shoe factories, of American descent, though foreign-born citizens and

their offspring are beginning to gain on the others. And further, let us

suppose that this imaginary city of Wytown now has a city government

with a mayor of limited powers, a small board of aldermen, and a larger

city council. The other necessary facts will appear in the introduction

to the brief.

11. Reading for the Argument. The first step in preparing for an

argument is to find out what has been already written on the general

subject, and what facts are available for your purpose. For this purpose

you must go to the best library that is within convenient reach. Just

how to look for material there I shall discuss a few pages further on;

here I shall make some more general suggestions about reading and taking

notes.

Almost always it pays to give two or three hours to some preliminary

reading that will make you see the general scope of the subject, and the

points on which there is disagreement. An article in a good encyclopedia

or one in a magazine may serve the purpose; or in some cases you can go

to the opening chapter or two of a book. If you have already discussed

the subject with other people this preliminary reading may not be

necessary; but if you start in to read on a new subject without some

general idea of its scope you may waste time through not knowing your

way and so following false leads.

In your reading do not rest satisfied with consulting authorities on

your own side only. We shall presently see how important it is to be

prepared to meet arguments on the other side; and unless you have read

something on that side, you will not know what points you ought to deal

with in your refutation. In that event you may leave undisturbed in the

minds of your readers points which have all the more significance from

your having ignored them. One of the first reasons for wide reading in

preparation for an argument is to assure yourself that you have a

competent knowledge of the other side as well as of your own.

In using your sources keep clearly and constantly in mind the difference

between fact and opinion. The opinions of a great scholar and of a

farseeing statesman may be based on fact; but not being fact they

contain some element of inference, which is never as certain. When we

come to the next chapter we shall consider this difference more closely.

In the meantime it is worth while to urge the importance of cultivating

scruples on the subject and a keen eye for the intrusion of human, and

therefore fallible, opinion into statements of fact. A trustworthy

author states the facts as facts, with the authorities for them

specifically cited; and where he builds his own opinions on the facts he

leaves no doubt as to where fact ends and opinion begins.

The power to estimate a book or an article on a cursory inspection is of

great practical value. The table of contents in a book, and sometimes

the index, will give a good idea of its scope; and samples of a few

pages at a time, especially on critical points, which can be chosen by

means of the index, will show its general attitude and tone. The index,

if properly made, will furnish a sure guide to its relevance for the

purpose in hand. Half an hour spent in this way, with attention

concentrated, will in most cases settle whether the book is worth

reading through. An article can be "sized up" in much the same way:

if it is at all well written the first paragraphs will give a pretty

definite idea of the subject and the scope of the article; and the

beginnings, and often the ends, of the paragraphs will show the course

which the thought follows. Though such skimming cannot be relied on for

a real knowledge of the subject, it is invaluable as a guide for this

preliminary reading.

12. Taking Notes. In reading for your argument, as for all

scholarly reading, form early your habits of taking thorough and

serviceable notes. Nothing is more tantalizing than to remember that you

once ran across a highly important fact and then not be able to recall

the place in which it is to be found.

One of the most convenient ways to take notes for an argument is to

write each fact or quotation on a separate card. Cards convenient for

the purpose can be had at any college stationer or library-supply

bureau. If you use them, have an ample supply of them, so that you will

not have to put more than one fact on each. Leave space for a heading at

the top which will refer to a specific subheading of your brief, when

that is ready. Always add an exact reference to the source--title, name

of author, and, in case of a book, place and date of publication, so

that if you want more material you can find it without loss of time,

and, what is more important, so that you can fortify your use of it by a

reference in a footnote. When you find a passage that you think will be

worth quoting in the original words, quote with scrupulous and literal

accuracy: apart from the authority you gain by so doing, you have no

right to make any one else say words he did not say. If you leave out

part of the passage, show the omission by dots; and in such a case, if

you have to supply words of your own, as for example a noun in place of

a pronoun, use square brackets, thus []. On the following page are

examples of a convenient form of such notes.

* * * * *

RESULTS IN DES MOINES

The streets have been kept cleaner than ever before for $35,000.

The rates for electric lights have been reduced from $90 to $65.

Gas rates have dropped again from $22 to $17.

Water rates have dropped from 30¢ to 20¢ per 1000 gal.

The disreputable district has been cleaned up and bond sharks

driven out of business.

The Des Moines Plan of City Government, _World's Work_, Vol. XVIII,

P. 11533.

PRESIDENT ELIOT'S VIEWS

"Now city business is almost wholly administrative and executive

and very little concerned with large plans and far-reaching legislation.

There is no occasion for two legislative bodies, or even one, in the

government of a city.... Now and then a question arises which the

will of the whole people properly expressed may best settle; but

for the prompt and conclusive expression of that will the initiative

and referendum are now well-recognized means."

C. W. Eliot, City Government by Fewer Men, _World's Work_, Vol. XIV

p. 9419.

* * * * *

In making notes, whether for an argument or for general college work, it

is convenient, unless you know shorthand, to have a system of signs and

abbreviations and of contractions for common words. The simpler

shorthand symbols can be pressed into service; and one can follow the

practice of stenography, which was also that of the ancient Hebrew

writing, of leaving out vowels, for there are few words that cannot be

recognized at a glance from their consonants. If you use this system at

lectures you can soon come surprisingly near to a verbatim report which

will preserve something more than bare facts.

In your reading for material do not cultivate habits of economy or

parsimony. You should always have a considerable amount of good fact

left over, for unless you know a good deal of the region on the

outskirts of your argument you will feel cramped and uncertain within

it. The effect of having something in reserve is a powerful, though an

intangible, asset in an argument; and, on the other hand, the man who

has emptied his magazine is in a risky situation.

13. Sources for Facts. In the main, there are two kinds of sources

for facts, sources in which the facts have already been collected and

digested, and sources where they are still scattered and must be brought

together and grouped by the investigator. Obviously there is no sharp or

permanent distinction between these two classes. Let us first run

through some of the books which are commonly available as sources of

either kind, and then come back to the use of them.

To find material in books and magazines there are certain well-known

guides. To look up books go first to the catalogue of the nearest

library. Here in most cases you will find some sort of subject

catalogue, in which the subjects are arranged alphabetically; and if you

can use the alphabet readily, as by no means all college students can,

you can soon get a list of the books that are there available on the

subject. On many subjects there are bibliographies, or lists of books,

such as those published by the Library of Congress; these will be found

in every large library. For articles in magazines and weekly journals,

which on most current questions have fresh information, besides a great

deal of valuable material on older questions, go to Poole's "Index to

Periodical Literature," which is an index both by title and subject to

the articles in important English and American magazines from 1802 to

1906, and to "The Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature," which began

in 1901 and includes more magazines, and which is brought up to date

every month.

For other material the works listed below will be serviceable; they are

the best known of the reference books, and some of them will be found in

all libraries and all of them in large libraries. The books on this list

by no means exhaust the number of good books of their own kind; they are

good examples, and others will ordinarily be found on the same shelves

with them.

DICTIONARIES

THE NEW ENGLISH DICTIONARY (MURRAY'S) Unfinished: to have ten volumes,

of which nine have now been published. This gives the history of each

word for the last seven hundred years, with copious quotations, dated,

to show the changes in its use.

THE CENTURY DICTIONARY, CYCLOPEDIA OF NAMES, AND ATLAS New edition,

1911, in twelve volumes. This has fuller information about the meanings

of the words than is usually found in a dictionary.

THE NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY (WEBSTER'S) New edition, 1910,

enlarged, with copious and exact etymologies.

ROGET'S THESAURUS OF ENGLISH WORDS AND PHRASES A standard book of

synonyms.

FERNALD, ENGLISH SYNONYMS, ANTONYMS, AND PREPOSITIONS With illustrations

and expositions of the differences in meaning.

ENCYCLOPEDIAS

ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA Very full; highly authoritative; 11th edition,

1910.

NEW INTERNATIONAL ENCYCLOPEDIA Briefer; reedited in 1904.

LA GRANDE ENCYCLOPIDIE; BROCKHAUS, KONVERSATIONS-LEXIKON Both copious

and authoritative.

ALLUSIONS AND QUOTATIONS

CRUDEN'S CONCORDANCE An index to every word in the Bible.

BARTLETT'S CONCORDANCE TO SHAKESPEARE An index to every word in

Shakespeare.

BARTLETT'S FAMILIAR QUOTATIONS An index to a very large number of the

quotations most frequently met with.

BREWER'S DICTIONARY OF PHRASE AND FABLE This explains a great quantity

of common allusions in words and phrases.

DICTIONARIES OF PROPER NAMES

CENTURY CYCLOPEDIA OF NAMES This includes not only names of real

persons, but also those of many famous characters in fiction.

LIPPINCOTT'S UNIVERSAL PRONOUNCING DICTIONARY OF BIOGRAPHY AND MYTHOLOGY

DICTIONARY OF NATIONAL BIOGRAPHY Revised edition. Confined to English

biography, and to persons dead at the dale of publication of Supplement

(1909). The articles are full, and of the highest authority. In the

index and epitome is a convenient summary of dates and facts.

APPLETON'S CYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN BIOGRAPHY Six volumes, 1887-1901; with

supplement (unfinished), bringing it down to date.

WHO'S WHO An annual publication; English, but with some American names;

living persons only.

WHO'S WHO IN AMERICA; WER IST'S; QUI ÊTES-VOUS Corresponding works for

America, Germany, and France.

DEBRETT'S PEERAGE A repository of a great mass of facts concerning

English families of historical distinction.

FOR CURRENT OR HISTORICAL FACTS

THE STATESMAN'S YEAR BOOK Arranged by countries; contains a great mass

of facts; has a bibliography at the end of each country or state.

THE WORLD ALMANAC; THE TRIBUNE ALMANAC Examples of annuals issued by

large newspapers, which contain an enormous mass of facts, chiefly

American.

WHITAKER'S ALMANAC Much miscellaneous information about the British

empire and other countries.

THE ANNUAL REGISTER; THE NEW INTERNATIONAL YEARBOOK; THE AMERICAN

YEARBOOK These three give information about the events of the preceding

year.

INDEX TO THE LONDON _Times_

MISCELLANEOUS WORKS

LIPPINCOTT'S NEW GAZETTEER A geographical dictionary of the world.

THE CENTURY ATLAS With classified references to places.

THE HANDY REFERENCE ATLAS Small size (octavo); a most useful book for

the desk or library table.

PLOETZ'S EPITOME OF UNIVERSAL HISTORY A very compact epitome of history,

with all the important dates.

NOTES AND QUERIES A periodical devoted to notes and queries on a

multitude of curious and out-of-the-way facts; yearly index volumes are

issued.

BIBLIOGRAPHIES ISSUED BY THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

SONNENSCHEIN'S THE BEST BOOKS A guide to about fifty thousand of the

best available books in a great variety of fields, classified by

subject.

Make yourself familiar with all of these books which are within your

reach. Get into the habit, when you have a few minutes to spare, of

taking them down from the shelves and turning over the pages to see what

they contain. And whenever a question of fact comes up in general talk,

make a mental note of it, or better, one in writing, and the next time

you go to the library hunt it up in one of these reference books. You

will be surprised to see, when once you have made the habit, how short a

time it takes to settle disputes about most facts; and at the same time

you will be extending your general knowledge.

In learning the use of these and other books, do not forget the most

important source of all, the librarian. The one guiding principle of

modern librarianship is to make the books useful; and it gives every

proper librarian active pleasure to show you how to use the books in his

charge.

In using books and magazines scrutinize the character of the source. Is

it impartial or partisan? Is its treatment of the subject exhaustive and

definite, or cursory and superficial? Does the author know the subject

at first hand, or does he rely on other men? On such points the second

book or article will be easier to estimate than the first, and the third

than the second; for with each new source you have the earlier ones as a

basis for comparison. In any case do not trust to a single authority: no

matter how authoritative it is, sooner or later the narrow basis of your

views will betray itself, for an argument which is merely a revamping of

some one else's views is not likely to have much spontaneity.

In many subjects, and especially those of new or local interest, you

will not find the facts gathered and assimilated for you; you must go

out and gather your own straw for the making of your bricks. Such are

most questions of reform or change in school or college systems, in

athletics, in municipal affairs, in short, most of the questions on

which the average man after he leaves college is likely to be making

arguments.

To get decisive facts on such questions as these you must go, in the

case of local subjects, to the newspapers, to city and town reports, or

to documents issued by interested committees; for college questions you

go to the presidents' reports and to annual catalogues or catalogues of

graduates, or perhaps to _Graduates' Bulletins_ or _Weeklies_; for

athletic questions you go to the files of the daily newspapers, or for

records to such works as the _World_ or _Tribune Almanacs_; for school

questions you go to school catalogues, or to school-committee reports.

You will be surprised to find how little time you use to get together

bodies of facts and figures that may make you, in a small way, an

original authority on the subject you are discussing. It does not take

long to count a few hundred names, or to run through the files of a

newspaper for a week or a month; and when you have done such

investigation you get a sense of surety in dealing with your subject

that will strengthen your argument. Here, as in the larger discussions

of later life, the readiness to take the initiative and the ingenuity in

thinking of possible sources are what make you count.

Such sources you can often piece out by personal inquiry from men who

are conversant with the subject--town or city officers, members of

faculties, principals of schools. If you go to such people hoping that

they will do your work for you, you will not be likely to get much

comfort; but if you are keen about your subject yourself, and ready to

work, you will often get not only valuable information and advice, but

sometimes also a chance to go through unpublished records. A young man

who is working hard and intelligently is apt to be an object of interest

to older men who have been doing the same all their lives.

EXERCISES

1. Name those of the sources on pages 34-36, which are available to you.

Report to the class on the scope and character of each of them. (The

report on different sources can be divided among the class.)

2. Name some sources for facts relating to your own school or college;

to your own town or city; to your own state.

3. Report on the following, in not more than one hundred words, naming

the source from which you got your information: the situation and

government of the Fiji Islands; Circe; the author of "A man's a man for

a' that"; Becky Sharp; the age of President Taft and the offices he has

held; the early career of James Madison; the American amateur record in

the half-mile run; the family name of Lord Salisbury, and a brief

account of his career; the salary of the mayor of New York; the island

of Guam: some of the important measures passed by Congress in the

session of 1910-1911. (This exercise a teacher can vary indefinitely by

turning over the pages of reference books which his class can reach; or

the students can be set to making exercises for each other.)

14. Bibliography. Before starting in earnest on the reading for your

argument, begin a bibliography, that is, a list of the books and

articles and speeches which will help you. This bibliography should be

entered in your notebook, and it is convenient to allow space enough

there to keep the different kinds of sources separate. In making your

bibliography you will use some of the sources which have just been

described, especially "Poole's Index," and "The Reader's Guide," and the

subject catalogue of the library. Make your entries so full that you can

go at once to the source; it is poor economy to save a minute on copying

down a title, and then waste ten or fifteen in going back to the source

from which you got it. On large subjects the number of books and

articles is far beyond the possibilities of most courses in

argumentation, and here you must exercise your judgment in choosing the

most important. The name of the author is on the whole a safe guide: if

you find an article or a book by President Eliot on an educational

subject, or one by President Hadley on economics, or one by President

Jordan on zoology, or one by any of them on university policy, you will

know at once that you cannot afford to neglect it. As you go on with

your reading you will soon find who are authorities on special subjects

by noting who are quoted in text and footnotes. If the subject happens

to be one of those on which a bibliography has been issued either by the

Library of Congress or from some other source, the making of your own

bibliography will reduce itself to a selection from this list.

Keep your bibliography as a practical aid to you in a very practical

task. Do not swell it from mere love of accumulation, as you might

collect stamps. The making of exhaustive bibliographies is work for

advanced scholarship or for assistant librarians. For the practical

purposes of making an argument a very moderate number of titles beyond

those you can actually use will give you sufficient background.

Notebook. Enter in your notebook the titles of books, articles, or

speeches which bear on your subject, and which you are likely to be able

to read.

Illustration. Bibliography for an argument on introducing

commission government of the Des Moines type into Wytown.

BOOKS

WOODRUFF, C. R. City Government by Commission. New York, 1911.

Bibliography in appendix.

HAMILTON, J. J. The Dethronement of the City Boss. New York, 1910.

ARTICLES

From Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature, Vol. II (1905-1909).

(There are thirty entries here under the heading, Municipal Government,

and the subheading, Government by Commission. Of these I omit those

dealing with cities in Texas, as not bearing directly on the Des Moines

plan, and select seven of the most recent.)

"Another City for Commission Government," _World's Work_, Vol. XVIII

(June, 1909), p. 11,639.

"City Government." _Outlook_. Vol. XCII (August 14, 1909), pp.

865-866.

BRADFORD, E. S. "Commission Government in American Cities," National

Conference on City Government (1909), pp. 217-228.

PEARSON, P. M. "Commission System of Municipal Government"

(bibliography), Intercollegiate Debates, pp. 461-477.

ALLEN, S. B. "Des Moines Plan," National Conference on City

Government (1907), pp. 156-165.

"Des Moines Plan of City Government," _World's Work_, Vol. XVIII

(May, 1909), p. 11,533.

GOODYEAR, D. "The Example of Haverhill," _Independent_, Vol. LXVI

(January, 1909), p. 194.

From Reader's Guide (1910). (Seven entries, of which I select the

following.)

GOODYEAR, D. "The Experience of Haverhill," _Independent_, Vol.

LXVIII (February, 1910), p. 415.

"Rapid Growth of Commission Government," _Outlook_, Vol. XCIV (April,

1910), p. 822.

TURNER, G. K. "New American City Government," _McClure's_, Vol. XXXV

(May, 1910), pp. 97-108.

"Organization of Municipal Government," American Government and

Politics; pp. 598-602.

15. Planning for a Definite Audience. Before setting to work on the

actual planning of your argument there are still two preliminary

questions you have to consider--the prepossessions of your audience, and

the burden of proof; of these the latter is dependent on the former.

When you get out into active life and have an argument to make, this

question of the audience will force itself on your attention, for you

will not make the argument unless you want to influence views which are

actually held. In a school or college argument you have the difficulty

that your argument will in most cases have no such practical effect.

Nevertheless, even here you can get better practice by fixing on some

body of readers who might be influenced by an argument on your subject,

and addressing yourself specifically to them. You can hardly consider

the burden of proof or lay out the space which you will give to

different points in your argument unless you take into account the

present knowledge and the prepossessions of your audience on the

subject.

Where the question is large and abstract the audience may be so general

as to seem to have no special characteristics; but if you will think of

the differences of tone and attitude of two different newspapers in

treating some local subject you will see that readers always segregate

themselves into types. Even on a larger scale, one can say that the

people of the United States as a whole are optimistic and self-confident

in temper, and in consequence careless as to many minor deficiencies and

blemishes in our national polity. On a good many questions the South,

which is still chiefly agricultural, has different interests and

prepossessions from the North; and the West, being a new country, is

inclined to have less reverence for the vested rights of property as

against the rights of men, than the Eastern states, where wealth has

long been concentrated and inherited.

As one narrows down to the immediate or local questions which make the

best subjects for practice the part played by the audience becomes more

apparent. The reform of the rules of football is a good example: a few

years ago an audience of elderly people would have taken for granted the

brutality of the game, and its tendency to put a premium on unfair play;

the rules committee, made up of believers in the game, had to be

hammered at for several years before they made the changes which have so

greatly improved it. So in matters of local or municipal interest, such

as the location of a new street car line, or the laying out of a park,

it will make a vast difference to you whether you are writing for people

who have land on the proposed line or park, or for the general body of

citizens.

Differences in thy prepossessions of your audience and in their

knowledge of the subject have, therefore, a direct and practical effect

on the planning of your argument. Suppose you are arguing in favor of

raising the standard of admission to your college; if your argument is

addressed to the faculty you will give little space to explaining what

those requirements now are; but if you are sending out an address to the

alumni you must give some space to telling them clearly and without

technicalities what present conditions are and explaining the changes

that you propose. Theoretically an argument should change in form and

proportions for every audience which you address. The theory may be

pushed too far; but in the practice of real life it will be found nearly

true. With different audiences you will unconsciously make different

selection of material, and you will vary your emphasis, the place of

your refutation, and the distribution of your space.

Notebook. Enter the audience for whom your argument might be

written, and note what you think would be their knowledge of the

subject, and their prepossessions toward it.

Illustration. The citizens of Wytown. They are convinced that

there should be a change in the city government; but they are not yet

familiar with the Des Moines plan.

EXERCISES

1. Bring to class editorials from different newspapers on the same local

subject, and point out differences of attitude which they assume in the

audiences they address.

2. Suggest three different possible audiences for your argument, and

show what differences you would make in your argument in addressing each

of them.

16. The Burden of Proof. The principle which underlies the

responsibility for the burden of proof may be summed up in the adage of

the common law, _He who asserts must prove_.

At the law this principle has been elaborated into a large and abstruse

subject; in ordinary arguments where there is no judge to make subtle

discriminations, you must interpret it in the broadest way. The average

man lacks both the interest and the capacity for making keen

distinctions; and when you are writing for him you would make a mistake

if you were to stickle for fine points concerning the burden of proof.

In general, the principle as it bears on the arguments of everyday life

implies that any argument in favor of a change shall accept the burden

of proof. This application of the principle is illustrated in the

following extract from an editorial article in _The Outlook_ some years

ago, on a proposed change in the law of New York concerning the

safeguards of vivisection.

* * * * *

The real question is not as to the merits of vivisection, but as to the

proper safeguards with which the law should surround it.

At present the law of New York state applies to experiments upon animals

the same principle that it applies to surgical operations upon men,

women, and children. It does not attempt to prescribe the conditions

under which either experiments or operations should be conducted; but it

does prescribe the standards of fitness which every person who may

lawfully engage in surgery and which every person who may lawfully

engage in animal experimentation must meet. It penalizes with fine or

imprisonment or both the unjustifiable injuring, mutilating, or killing

of animals; and it confines to regularly incorporated medical colleges

and universities of the state the authority under which animal

experimentation may be conducted.

The burden of proof rests upon those who would have the state abandon

this principle and substitute for it the principle of prescribing the

conditions of scientific investigation. It rests upon them to prove, in

the first place, that the present law is inadequate. It is not

sufficient for them to produce lawyers who give opinions that the law

is not efficient. There are lawyers of the highest standing in the state

who declare that it is efficient. The only adequate mode of proof would

be by the prosecution of an actual abuse. So far as we have been able to

learn, only one authentic case of alleged unjustifiable experimentation

has been brought forward by the supporters of the bills. This is

certainly not proof that the present law is inadequate.

In the second place, the burden of proof rests upon them to show that

legal restrictions on the methods of science would not vitiate

investigations, and would not, therefore, entail upon human beings

greater suffering than would otherwise be inflicted upon animals ...

It is because _The Outlook_ is convinced by overwhelming evidence that

the practice of vivisection has not increased suffering but has rather

widened immeasurably the merciful ministrations of medicine and surgery

that it regards as dangerous unintelligent interference with

vivisection, and urges the maintenance of the principle underlying the

present New York law.

* * * * *

So with other questions of policy, the burden of proof would be on any

one who proposed a change from a policy long established, such as free

trade in England, and to a less extent protection in this country, the

elective system in many American colleges, the amateur rule in school

and college athletics.

Always, one must remember that the burden of proof depends on the

prepossessions of the audience, and that on the same question it may

change within a moderately small number of years. Ten years ago, on the

question of the popular election of senators the burden was clearly on

the side of those who advocated a change in the Constitution. By this

time (1912) the burden of proof has for a majority of the people of the

United States probably swung to the other side. In the state of Maine,

where prohibition had been embodied in the state constitution for a

generation, the burden of proof was on those who in 1911 argued for its

repeal; whereas in Massachusetts, which has done well for many years

with local option and high license, the burden would still be on those

who should argue for state prohibition. In the discussions of the game

of football a few years ago the burden of proof before an audience of

athletes would have been on those who declared that the game must be

changed; with college faculties and men of like mind the burden of proof

would have been on those who defended the old game. In each case that

comes up, you cannot place the burden of proof until you know whether

the people you are trying to convince have any prepossessions in the

matter: if they have, the burden of proof is on him who attempts to

change those prepossessions; if they have not, the burden is on him who

is proposing to change existing views or existing policies.

In no case, however, with a popular audience is it very safe to depend

much on the burden of proof; almost always it is better to jump in and

actively build up the argument on your own side. In argument, as in

strategy, take the offensive whenever you can.

* * * * *

Notebook. Note whether the burden of proof is with you or against

you, taking into account the probable prepossessions of the audience you

have selected.

* * * * *

Illustration. In the argument for the introduction of the

commission form of government into Wytown the burden of proof is on the

affirmative to show that the Des Moines plan of city government will

cure the evils of the present government of Wytown. With the audience

assumed (see p. 43), there is no burden of proof on the affirmative to

establish the need of a change.

EXERCISES

1. In three subjects which you might choose for an argument show where

the burden of proof would lie.

2. In the case of one of these arguments show how the burden of proof

might change with the argument.

17. The Brief. When you have settled these preliminary questions of

the audience you wish to win over to your view, and of the way their

prepossessions and knowledge of the subject will affect your

responsibilities for the burden of proof, you are ready to begin work on

the brief, as the plan for an argument is called. This brief it is

better to think of as a statement of the logical framework of the

argument, which you are constructing for the purpose of clearing up your

own mind on the subject, and especially to help you to see how you can

most effectively arrange your material. It differs from the usual brief

in a case at law in that the latter is ordinarily a series of compact

statements of legal principles, each supported by a list of cases

already decided which bear on that principle. The brief you will be

making now will consist of an _introduction_, which states whatever

facts and principles are necessary to an understanding of the brief, and

the _brief_ itself, which consists of a series of propositions, each

supporting your main contention, and each in turn supported by others,

which again may each be supported by another series. Such an analysis

will thoroughly display the processes of your reasoning, and enable you

to criticize them step by step for soundness and coerciveness.

I shall first explain the several steps which go to the making of the

introduction to the brief; and then come to the making of the brief

itself.

18. The Proposition. The first step in making the introduction to your

brief is to formulate the question or proposition (the two terms are

interchangeable in practice). Until you have crystallized your view of

the subject into a proposition you have nothing to argue about.

"Commission form of government" is a subject, but it is not arguable,

for it gives you no hold either for affirming or denying. "Commission

government should be adopted in Wytown," or "Commission government has

improved political conditions in Des Moines," are both propositions

which are arguable (though not yet specific enough), for it is possible

to maintain either the affirmative or the negative of either of them.

The proposition must be single. If it be double, you have what the

lawyers call "a squinting argument," that is, an argument which looks in

two directions at the same time. For example, the proposition,

"Commission government would be a good thing for Wytown, but the

initiative and referendum are wrong in principle," involves two separate

and unconnected principles, since commission government as first

embodied at Galveston does not include the initiative and referendum.

Many people, including those of Galveston and other places in Texas,

would accept the first half of the proposition, and disagree with the

second half. On the other hand, "Wytown should adopt a commission

government on the Des Moines plan," would not be a double proposition,

though this plan includes the initiative and referendum; for the

proposition makes the issue that the plan should be adopted or rejected

as a whole.

In some cases a proposition may be grammatically compound, and yet carry

a single assertion. "Municipal government by commission is more

economical and efficient than municipal government with a mayor and two

chambers," is really a single assertion of the superiority of the

commission plan of government. In this case there is no danger of

getting into a split argument; but even here it is safer to reduce the

proposition to one which is grammatically single, "Municipal government

by commission has proved itself superior to municipal government with a

mayor and two chambers." A predicate wholly single is a safeguard

against meaning two assertions.

The proposition must not be so abstract or vague in terms that you do

not know whether you agree or disagree with it. Macaulay summed up this

difficulty in one of his speeches in Parliament:

* * * * *

Surely my honorable friend cannot but know that nothing is easier than

to write a theme for severity, for clemency, for order, for liberty, for

a contemplative life, for an active life, and so on. It was a common

exercise in the ancient schools of rhetoric to make an abstract

question, and to harangue first on one side and then on the other. The

question, Ought popular discontents to be quieted by concession or

coercion, would have been a very good subject for oratory of this kind.

There is no lack of commonplaces on either side. But when we come to the

real business of life, the value of these commonplaces depends entirely

on the particular circumstances of the case which we are discussing.

Nothing is easier than to write a treatise proving that it is lawful to

resist extreme tyranny. Nothing is easier than to write a treatise

setting forth the wickedness of wantonly bringing on a great society the

miseries inseparable from revolution, the bloodshed, the spoliation, the

anarchy. Both treatises may contain much that is true; but neither will

enable us to decide whether a particular insurrection is or is not

justifiable without a close examination of the facts.[4]

In other words, though the word "insurrection" seems to be plain in

meaning, yet when we make it one term of a judgment of which the other

term is "justifiable," we find that we do not know whether we agree or

not. The terms of the proposition are so vague that there can be no

meeting of minds. If we limit the subject to a specific case,

insurrection in Venezuela, or insurrection in Cuba, then we have made a

beginning toward making the proposition arguable. In these particular

cases, however, it would probably be necessary to go further, and

specify which insurrection in Venezuela or in Cuba was intended, before

the average American would be prepared either to affirm or to deny.

Wherever the terms of a proposition are too vague to provoke profitable

discussion they must be narrowed down to a specific case which will draw

forth affirmation and denial.

A common case where the vagueness of the proposition leads to

difficulties in the argument is described in the following passage:

* * * * *

An equally common form of argument, closely allied to the argument by

analogy, and equally vague, is that which is popularly known as the

objection to a thin end of a wedge. We must not do this or that, it is

often said, because if we did we should be logically bound to do

something else which is plainly absurd or wrong. If we once begin to

take a certain course there is no knowing where we shall be able to stop

with any show of consistency; there would be no reason for stopping

anywhere in particular, and we should be led on, step by step, into

action or opinions that we all agree to call undesirable or untrue....

For it must not be forgotten that in all disputes of this kind there are

two parties opposed to each other, and that what divides them is

precisely their lack of agreement on the question what principle is

really involved. Those who see a proposal as a thin end of a wedge

always see the principle as a wider, more inclusive one, than those who

make the proposal; and what gives them freedom so to see it is merely

the fact that it remains indefinite.[5]

As a practical example of this confusion, consider the following extract

from a speech in the United States Senate opposing the popular election

of senators:

* * * * *

Every intelligent student of the present rapid trend toward popular

government must see what would happen when this sentimental bar of the

States being represented by two Senators instead of by the people in the

United States Senate is thrown down. The initiative, the referendum, and

the recall are but symptoms of the times. That the people will have

their way, because they, and they alone, are the government, is the

underlying spirit of our institutions, of our newest State

Constitutions, and of our progressive laws. Skillful agitation seizes

upon every pretext and eagerly grasps and enlarges every opportunity for

appeal to the passions in an advancement of its purposes. The next cry

will necessarily be, "Why not elect the Supreme Court of the United

States by popular vote? Why not elect the Federal Judiciary everywhere

by popular vote?"[6]

* * * * *

Here the proposition, "That the people will have their way, because

they, and they alone, are the government, is the underlying spirit of

our institutions, of our newest state constitutions, and of our

progressive laws," is not only obscure in terms, but it is wholly vague,

for it does not define how far the progressive party propose to carry

popular direct government. Until the two sides agree on that point they

have nothing definite enough for profitable argument.

It is surprising to notice how often in political debates this fallacy

is committed. It is human nature to believe for the time being that the

other side will do the worst thing that the circumstances make possible.

Fortunately, human nature just as constantly refutes the error.

To make clearer this necessity of having a definite proposition to

argue, let us take one of the subjects suggested on page 10 which is not

yet in a form for profitable argument, and amend it. "The standard for

graduation from this college should be raised," is a subject that can be

discussed, but as it stands it would not be a good proposition for an

argument, because it is vague. How much should the standard be raised?

By what method should it be raised? These and other questions you would

have to answer before you would have a proposition definite enough to be

argued with profit. The proposition could be made definite enough by

such amendments as the following: "The standard for graduation from this

college should be raised by requiring one eighth more hours of lecture

or recitation in each of the four years"; or, "The standard for

graduation from this college should be raised by increasing the pass

mark in all courses from fifty per cent to sixty per cent"; or, "The

standard for graduation from this college should be raised by allowing

no student to have his degree who has fallen below sixty per cent in one

fourth of his work, and has not attained eighty per cent in at least one

eighth of his college work." In each of these cases the proposition is

so definite that you could find exactly how many students would be

affected. A proposition which involves a definite body of facts is

arguable; one which involves an indefinite and incalculable body of

facts is not.

To take another example from the brief we shall be working out in this

chapter, the proposition, "Wytown should adopt the commission form of

government," is not definite enough, for there are various forms of

commission government, such as the Galveston plan, the Des Moines plan,

and by this time a considerable variety of others; and citizens who are

at all particular in their voting would want to know just which of these

was proposed for their approval. The proposition, therefore, would have

to be limited to, "Wytown should adopt a commission government after the

Des Moines plan."

The exact form of your proposition will not always come to you at the

first try. It may easily happen that you will not see the exact issue

involved in the argument until you have gone some way with the processes

of analysis which we shall be considering in the rest of this chapter.

Always hold yourself ready to amend your proposition, if you can thereby

come closer to the question.

Notebook. Enter the exact proposition which you are to argue.

Illustration. Wytown should adopt the commission form of

government, in the form now in practice at Des Moines, Iowa.

EXERCISES

1. Make three arguable propositions on the subject, "Entrance

examinations for college."

2. Criticize the following propositions and amend them, if necessary, so

that they might be argued with profit:

a. Freshmen should be required to keep reasonable hours.

b. The honor system should be introduced everywhere.

c. This city should do more for its boys.

d. The street railway companies in this city should be better

regulated.

e. The amateur rules for college athletes are too stringent.

f. Intercollegiate football is beneficial.

19. Definition of Terms. Making a proposition definite is chiefly

a process of defining terms which are found in it; but when these are

defined you may still in your argument use others which also need

definition. In general the definition of terms, whether in the

proposition or not, implies finding out just what a term means for the

present purpose. Almost every common word is used for some variety of

purposes. "Commission," for example, even within the field of

government, has two very different meanings:

As applied to state and national administration, the term "commission

government" is used in connection with the growing practice of

delegating to appointed administrative boards or commissions--the

Interstate Commerce Commission, state railroad commissions, tax

commissions, boards of control, etc.--the administration of certain

special or specified executive functions ...From the standpoint of

organization, then, "commission government," as applied to the state,

connotes decentralization, the delegation and division of authority and

responsibility, and the disintegration of popular control ...As applied

to city administration, however, commission government has a very

different meaning. In striking contrast to its use in connection with

the state, it is used to designate the most concentrated and centralized

type of organization which has yet appeared in the annals of

representative municipal history. Under so-called commission government

for cities, the entire administration of the city's affairs is placed in

the hands of a small board or council--"commission"--elected at large

and responsible directly to the electorate for the government of the

city.[7]

Furthermore, even the term "commission government for cities" is not

wholly definite, for there are already several recognized types of such

government, such as the Galveston type, the Des Moines type, and recent

modifications of these. If you are making an argument for introducing a

commission government, therefore, you must go still further with your

definitions, and specify the distinguishing features of the particular

plan which you are urging on the voters, as is done in the definition on

page 59. In other words, you must make exactly clear the meaning of the

term for the present case.

Your first impulse when you find a term that needs defining may be to go

to a dictionary. A little thought will show you that in most cases you

will get little comfort if you do. The aim of a dictionary is to give

all the meanings which a word has had in reasonable use; what you need

in an argument is to know which one of these meanings it has in the

present case. If you were writing an argument on the effects or the

righteousness of the change wrought in the English constitution by the

recent curtailment of the veto power of the House of Lords, and wished

to use the word "revolution," and to use it where it was important that

your readers should understand precisely what you intended it to convey,

you would not burden them with such a definition as the following, from

an unabridged dictionary: "Revolution: a fundamental change in political

organization, or in a government or constitution; the overthrow or

renunciation of one government and the substitution of another, by the

governed." Such a definition would merely fill up your space, and leave

you no further ahead. A dictionary is studiously general, for it must

cover all possible legitimate meanings of the word; in an argument you

must be studiously specific, to carry your readers with you in the case

under discussion.

Moreover, words are constantly being pressed into new uses, as in the

case of "commission" (see p. 54); and others have entirely legitimate

local meanings. Only a dictionary which was on the scale of the New

English Dictionary and which was reedited every five years could pretend

to keep up with these new uses. In an unabridged dictionary dated 1907,

for example, the full definition of "amateur" is as follows: "A person

attached to a particular pursuit, study or science, as to music or

painting; especially one who cultivates any study or art, from taste or

attachment, without pursuing it professionally." Of what use would such

a definition be to you if you were arguing in favor of strengthening or

relaxing the amateur rules in college athletics, in which you had to

follow through the intricacies of summer baseball and of reimbursements

for training table and traveling expenses? Such a definition hardly

comes in sight of the use of the word which is most in the mouths of

college students in America. Words mean whatever careful and accepted

writers have used them to mean; and the business of a dictionary is so

far as possible to record these meanings. But language, being a living

and constantly developing growth, is constantly altering them and adding

to them.

What a dictionary can do for you, therefore, is merely to tell you

whether in the past the word has been used with the signification which

you wish to give to it; but there are very few cases in which this will

be much help to you, for in an argument your only interest in the

meaning of a term is in the meaning of that term for the case under

discussion.

There are two quite different kinds of difficulty in putting the right

interpretation on a statement, and a dictionary can only remove one of

these, and by far the less important one. When you meet with a statement

containing an unfamiliar word--say, the word "parallax," or

"phanerogamous," or "brigantine"--and when you understand all the rest

of the statement except that word, then as a general rule the dictionary

will help to make the meaning clear. But when the difficulty is caused,

not by a word being unfamiliar, but by its being used in a certain

context, then the best dictionary in the world is, for your purpose, of

no use at all. The nature of every dictionary is necessarily such that

it entirely leaves out of account all doubts about meaning which are of

this second kind. The most that a dictionary can do is to tell us the

meaning of a word in those cases where the context in which it is used

is _not_ such as to make the meaning doubtful.[8]

In practice the words which most often need definition are those which

are, as it were, shorthand symbols for perhaps a very extensive meaning.

Unless the limits of this extended meaning are clearly marked out you

cannot tell whether the minds of your readers are, as the lawyers say,

running on all fours with your own or not. This extended meaning may be

of various sorts: for example, it may be a large general principle, as

in the case of "evolution" or "culture"; or it may be a general system

or practice, as in the case of "commission government," "honor system,"

or "high standards for graduation"; or it may be a general class of

things, persons, or events, as in the case of "secondary school,"

"professional coach," or "murder." When you use any such term in an

argument, it is essential that your readers shall have the same set of

details, ramifications, or instances in mind as you have yourself. For

this purpose you must define the term; or, in other words, you must lay

out or display the ramifications and limitations of the principle, the

details of the system or practice, or the exact kinds of things,

persons, or events, which you have in mind when you use the term. A few

examples will make this practical meaning of defining clear.

Sometimes the definition proceeds by careful and specific limitation of

the general signification of a word, as in the following example from

Bagchot:

I should say that except where it is explained to the contrary, I

use the word "toleration" to mean toleration by law. Toleration by

society of matters not subject to legal penalty is a kindred

subject, on which if I have room I will add a few words; but in the

main I propose to deal with the simpler subject, toleration by law.

And by toleration, too, I mean, when it is not otherwise said,

toleration in the public expression of opinions; toleration of acts

and practices is another allied subject, on which I can, in a paper

like this, but barely hope to indicate what seems to me to be the

truth, and I should add that I deal only with the discussion of

impersonal doctrines: the law of libel, which deals with accusations

of living persons, is a topic requiring consideration by itself.[9]

Sometimes the definition is rather an unfolding and displaying of the

implications (from the Latin, _implicare_, to fold in) of the term.

Huxley, near the beginning of his three "Lectures on Evolution," made

sure by the following definition that his hearers should have a precise

idea of what he meant by the term "evolution":

The third hypothesis, or the hypothesis of evolution, supposes

that, at any comparatively late period of past time, our imaginary

spectator would meet with a state of things very similar to that

which now obtains; but that the likeness of the past to the present

would gradually become less and less, in proportion to the remoteness

of his period of observation from the present day; that

the existing distribution of mountains and plains, of rivers and

seas, would show itself to be the product of a slow process of

natural change operating upon more and more widely different

antecedent conditions of the mineral framework of the earth;

until, at length, in place of that framework, he would behold only

a vast nebulous mass, representing the constituents of the sun and

of the planetary bodies. Preceding the forms of life which now

exist our observer would see animals and plants not identical with

them, but like them; increasing their differences with their antiquity

and, at the same time, becoming simpler and simpler; until,

finally, the world of life would present nothing but that undifferentiated

protoplasmic matter, which, so far as our present knowledge

goes, is the common foundation of all vital activity.

The hypothesis of evolution supposes that in all this vast progression

there would be no breach of continuity, no point at which

we could say, "This is a natural process," and "This is not a

natural process," but that the whole might be compared to that

wonderful process of development which may be seen going on

every day under our eyes, in virtue of which there arises, out of

the semifluid, comparatively homogeneous substance which we

call an egg, the complicated organization of one of the higher

animals. That, in a few words, is what is meant by the hypothesis

of evolution.[10]

Here Huxley has laid out, in compact form the principal ramifications of

the great principle of evolution, giving his hearers something like an

outline map of it with its limits and principal divisions.

Where you have a practice or system to define, you will be more likely

to do it by specifying the chief and essential details of the system, as

in the following definition of commission government for cities. It will

be noticed that this narrows down the meaning of the term to something

like the Des Moines system, as distinguished from the Galveston plan.

A straight commission form of municipal government, in the judgment of

Dr. Charles W. Eliot, one of its most active advocates, requires a

commission composed of five members elected at large, one of whom is

called the mayor, acting as chairman of the commission, but with no

veto power, or any other special power not shared by the other members

of the commission.

The commission so elected is the source of all authority in the city,

makes all ordinances, appoints all officials, collects taxes, and makes

all appropriations. As set forth by its advocates, the significant

features of the plan, in addition to those already mentioned, are:

Assignment of the important divisions of the city government to

individual members of the commission, or their election thereto by the

voters, each being directly responsible for the conduct of his

particular department; adequate compensation to the commissioners for

their time and labor, the city employing all the commissioners at living

salaries, thus elevating the dignity of municipal service and making it

a public career, and not a mere avocation; regularity, frequency, and

publicity of the meetings of the commissioners; all employees above the

class of day laborers selected from eligible lists based on

examinations, oral and written, carefully devised to develop merit and

fitness; recommendations after examination by an independent civil

service commission; provision for the retention in office of all

employees so appointed during good behavior; the power to initiate

legislation reserved to the people, this right being known as the

initiative; the power to call for a public vote on any measure adopted

by the commission before being given effect as law reserved to the

people, this being known as the referendum; the power at any time to

make any member of the commission stand for reelection reserved to the

people, this being known as the recall; the granting of public franchise

always to be submitted to the approval of the electors.

There are two other important features: the introduction of the

principle of the short ballot and the elimination of ward lines. In the

matured judgment of municipal students these are considered, together

with the concentration of authority, as the most effective features of

the system.[11]

Here is a pretty complete display of all the essential details of the

system which the author of this definition intended to mean by the term

"commission government for cities."

Where the term which is to be defined is the name of a general class,

whether of persons, things, or events, the definition must show just

what persons, things, or events are to be included under the term for

the present purpose. Lincoln gave a famous example of this sort of

definition in the opening of his address at Cooper Institute, February

27, 1860. He took for the text of the first part of his speech a

statement of Senator Douglas.

In his speech last autumn at Columbus, Ohio, as reported in the New York

_Times_, Senator Douglas said, "Our fathers, when they framed the

government under which we live, understood this question just as well,

and even better, than we do now."

I fully indorse this, and I adopt it as a text for this discourse. I so

adopt it because it furnishes a precise and an agreed starting point for

a discussion between Republicans and that wing of the Democracy headed

by Senator Douglas. It simply leaves the inquiry: What was the

understanding those fathers had of the question mentioned?

What is the frame of government under which we live? The answer must be,

"The Constitution of the United States." That Constitution consists of

the original, framed in 1787, and under which the present government

first went into operation, and twelve subsequently framed amendments,

the first ten of which were framed in 1789.

Who were our fathers that framed the Constitution? I suppose the

"thirty-nine" who signed the original instrument may be fairly called

our fathers who framed that part of the present government. It is almost

exactly true to say they framed it, and it is altogether true to say

they fairly represented the opinion and sentiment of the whole nation at

that time. Their names being familiar to nearly all, and accessible to

quite all, need not now be repeated. I take these "thirty-nine," for

the present, as being "our fathers who framed the government under which

we live." What is the question which, according to the text, those

fathers understood "just as well, and even better, than we do now"?

It is this: Does the proper division of local from Federal authority, or

anything in the Constitution, forbid our Federal Government to control

as to slavery in our Federal Territories?

Upon this, Senator Douglas holds the affirmative, and Republicans the

negative. This affirmation and denial form an issue; and this

issue--this question--is precisely what the text declares our fathers

understood "better than we."

Let us now inquire whether the "thirty-nine," or any of them, ever acted

upon this question; and if they did, how they acted upon it--how they

expressed that better understanding.

Here as will be seen, Lincoln took every important word and phrase, and

showed exactly what persons and things were included under them. Then he

went ahead with his argument with the assurance that his audience and he

were treading the same path.

Somewhat similar are the definitions in many cases at law, where the

issue is whether the agreed facts in a case come under a certain term or

not. The Constitution of the United States provides that "direct taxes"

shall be apportioned among the states in proportion to their population,

but makes no such restriction on the levying of "duties," "imposts," and

"taxes." When Congress establishes a new form of tax, therefore, such as

the income tax or the corporation tax, the Supreme Court is pretty sure

to be called on to decide under which of these large constitutional

classes it falls. In such cases as the Income Tax cases, which decided

that the income tax laid in the Act of 1904 was unconstitutional, and in

the Corporation Tax cases, which upheld the Act of 1909, both the

arguments of counsel and the decision of the court deal wholly with the

definition of the term "direct tax." Here the definition takes the form

of an examination of previous cases which involved the term, to see

whether the present case is like those that have been held to be within

it, or like those which have been held to fall outside it. From this

comparison of the two sets of cases the essential characteristics of the

direct tax are brought to the surface.

A good example of the careful distinctions which must be made in

defining a legal term is found in Daniel Webster's famous argument in

the White Murder Case, of which an extract will be found below. The

question here is just how far the term "murder" shall be extended.

There are two sorts of murder; the distinction between them it is of

essential importance to bear in mind: (1) murder in an affray, or upon

sudden and unexpected provocation; (2) murder secretly, with a

deliberate, predetermined intention to commit the crime. Under the first

class, the question usually is, whether the offense he murder or

manslaughter, in the person who commits the deed. Under the second

class, it is often a question whether others than he who actually did

the deed were present, aiding and assisting therein. Offenses of this

kind ordinarily happen when there is nobody present except those who go

on the same design. If a riot should happen in the court-house, and one

should kill another, this may be murder, or it may not, according to the

intention with which it was done; which is always matter of fact, to be

collected from the circumstances at the time. But in secret murders,

premeditated and determined on, there can be no doubt of the murderous

intention; there can be no doubt if a person be present, knowing a

murder is to be done, of his concurring in the act. His being there is a

proof of his intent to aid and abet; else, why is he there?

It has been contended, that proof must be given that the person accused

did actually afford aid, did lend a hand in the murder itself; and

without this proof, although he may be near by, he may be presumed to be

there for an innocent purpose; he may have crept silently there to hear

the news, or from mere curiosity to see what was going on. Preposterous,

absurd! Such an idea shocks all common sense. A man is found to be a

conspirator to commit a murder; he has planned it; he has assisted in

arranging the time, the place, and the means; and he is found in the

place, and at the time, and yet it is suggested that he might have been

there, not for cooperation and concurrence, but from curiosity! Such an

argument deserves no answer. It would be difficult to give it one, in

decorous terms. Is it not to be taken for granted, that a man seeks to

accomplish his own purposes? When he has planned a murder, and is

present at its execution, is he there to forward or to thwart his own

design? Is he there to assist, or there to prevent? But "curiosity"! He

may be there from mere "curiosity"! Curiosity to witness the success of

the execution of his own plan of murder! The very walls of a court-house

ought not to stand, the plowshare should run through the ground it

stands on, where such an argument could find toleration.

It is not necessary that the abettor should actually lend a hand, that

he should take a part in the act itself; if he be present ready to

assist, that is assisting.... The law is, that being ready to assist is

assisting, if the party has the power to assist, in case of need. It is

so stated by Foster, who is a high authority. "If A happeneth to be

present at a murder, for instance, and taketh no part in it, nor

endeavoreth to prevent it, nor apprehendeth the murderer, nor levyeth

hue and cry after him, this strange behavior of his, though highly

criminal, will not of itself render him either principal or accessory."

"But if a fact amounting to murder should be committed in prosecution of

some unlawful purpose, though it were but a bare trespass, to which A in

the case last stated had consented, and he had gone in order to give

assistance, if need were, for carrying it into execution, this would

have amounted to murder in him, and in every person present and joining

with him." "If the fact was committed in prosecution of the original

purpose which was unlawful, the whole party will be involved in the

guilt of him who gave the blow. For in combinations of this kind, the

mortal stroke, though given by one of the party, is considered in the

eye of the law, and of sound reason too, as given by every individual

present and abetting. The person actually giving the stroke is no more

than the hand or instrument by which the others strike." The author, in

speaking of being present, means actual presence; not actual in

opposition to constructive, for the law knows no such distinction. There

is but one presence, and this is the situation from which aid, or

supposed aid, may be rendered. The law does not say where the person is

to go, or how near he is to go, but that he must be where he may give

assistance, or where the perpetrator may believe that he may be assisted

by him. Suppose that he is acquainted with the design of the murderer,

and has a knowledge of the time when it is to be carried into effect,

and goes out with a view to render assistance, if need be; why, then,

even though the murderer does not know of this, the person so going out

will be an abettor in the murder.

20. Definition through the History of the Case. In some cases the

easiest way to put before your readers the precise details or

limitations implied in a term is through a brief review of the history

of the question. In the Lincoln-Douglas debates Lincoln was constantly

showing that Douglas's use of the term "popular sovereignty" must be

understood in the light of the whole history of the slavery question;

that it meant one thing--what Douglas intended it to mean--if the

history of the question before 1850 were left out of sight; but that it

meant a wholly different thing if the steady encroachment of the slave

power from the Missouri Compromise of 1820 on were taken into account.

And Lincoln showed that in reality "popular sovereignty" had come to

mean a power oh the part of the people of a territory to introduce

slavery, but not to exclude it.[12] In our own day "progressive" has a

different meaning when applied to a Republican from Kansas and to one

from Massachusetts or New York.

To know just what is involved by applying the term to any given public

man, one must go back to the recent history of his party in his own

state, and to the speeches he has made. In political discussions popular

phrases are constantly thus blurred in meaning through being used as

party catchwords; and to use them with any certainty in an argument one

must thus go back to their origin, and then dissect out, as it were, the

ambiguous implications which have grown into them.

If you were arguing any question concerning the elective system or the

entrance requirements for your own college, you would often do well to

sketch the history of the present system as a means of defining it,

before you go on to urge that it be changed or kept as it is. So if you

were arguing for a further change in the football rules, your best

definition of the present game for your purpose would be a sketch of the

way in which the game has been changed in the past few years, at the

urgent demand of public opinion. Such a sketch you could easily get by

running through the back numbers of such a magazine as _Outing_, or the

sporting columns of some of the larger weeklies. Or again, if you were

arguing that the street railway systems of your city should be allowed

to combine, your best description or definition of the present situation

might well be a sketch of the successive steps by which it came to be

what it is. Here you would go for your material to the files of local

newspapers, or, if you could get at them, to sets of the reports of the

railway companies.

The definition of terms through the history of the question has the

advantage that, besides helping your readers to see why the terms you

use have the meaning you give them for the present case, it also makes

them better judges of the question by giving them a full background.

Ambiguous definitions, which do not distinguish between two or more

meanings of a term for the case under discussion, are usually avoided by

going back to the history of the case. In Chapter III we shall consider

more fully the fallacies which spring from ambiguous use of words. Here

I shall insist briefly on the necessity of searching into the way terms

have come to be used in specific discussions.

The first of these is the danger which arises when a word in general use

takes on a special, almost technical meaning in connection with a

particular subject. Here you must take some pains to see that your

readers understand it in the special sense, and not in the popular one.

A crass instance, in which there is little real possibility of

confusion, is the use of words like "democratic" or "republican" as the

names of political parties; even with these words stump speakers

sometimes try to play on the feelings of an uneducated audience by

importing the association of the original use of the word into its later

use. There are a good many words used in the scientific study of

government which are also used loosely in general talk. "Federal" has a

precise meaning when used to distinguish the form of government of the

United States from that which usually binds together the counties in a

state; but we constantly use it in a sense hardly distinguishable from

that of "National." The following extract from an editorial on the

Philippine question is a good illustration of this precise and

semitechnical use of words, and the loose, not very accurate use of

everyday speech:

On the other hand, it is said that this policy of the United States

toward its dependencies is insincere; that it is a covert plan of

exploitation; that, as it is practiced, it is a denial in act of a mere

promise to the ear; and that if it were genuine the United States would

bestow self-government upon its dependencies by granting independence.

This criticism is obviously based on a confusion of independence with

self-government. Russia, is independent, but in only a very slight

degree are its people self-governing. Turkey has long been independent,

but until the recent revolution the people of Turkey were self-governing

in no sense at all. On the other hand, Canada, though not independent,

is self-governing.[13]

Many an argument goes to wreck through carelessness in the use of words

of this sort. Wherever the subject under discussion has grown into the

partial possession of a special field, but still uses words drawn from

everyday life, you must be careful that not only you, but your audience

also, understand your terms in the more precise way.

Closely related to this kind of ambiguity, and in practice still more

insidious, is the ambiguity which arises from the connotation or

emotional implications of words. The use of "republican" and "democrat"

cited above runs over into this kind of confusion. In collegiate

athletics "professional" has come to have almost an implication of

moral inferiority, when it is often dependent on pretty technical

considerations of expediency. In politics, to one class of temperaments

"conservative," to another "radical," or at any rate "liberal" or

"progressive," carries the implication of the salvation or the ruin of

the country. All such words introduce a sure element of obscurity and

confusion into an argument. If a word stirs your feelings in one way and

those of some of your readers in another, you cannot use that word

safely; in spite of the most careful definitions and disclaimers the

emotional bias will creep in and twist the effect of your words in the

minds of some of your audience. This emotional ambiguity is the most

insidious of all ambiguities in the use of words. The danger from it is

so real that I shall return to it at greater length (see p. 158).

In a good many cases the necessity of defining the terms to be used,

whether in the proposition itself, or in the argument, changes with the

audience. If you begin a movement to introduce a commission form of

government into the town or the city in which you live, at first you

will have to repeat the definition of commission government a good many

times, in order that most of the voters may know exactly what you want

them to do. If the town once wakes up, however, and gets interested, you

and every one else will be using such technicalities as "Galveston

plan," "Des Moines plan," "recall," "initiative," and the like with no

danger of leaving darkness where there should be light.

So even more obviously with school and college questions: if you are

sending memorials urging the introduction of the honor system or of

student self-government, one to the trustees of your college, and

another to the faculty, and at the same time addressing an appeal to

your fellow students through a college paper, in each of the three cases

your definitions might differ. You could probably assume that both

students and faculty would be more or less familiar with the question,

so that your definitions would be of the nature of precise

specifications of the plan you were urging. With the trustees your

definitions would probably have to be longer and your explanations more

detailed, for such a body would start with only a vague knowledge of the

situation.

As in all other steps in making an argument, so in defining, there is

no formula for all cases. In each case your knowledge of your audience

must guide you, and your own sagacity. Unnecessary definitions will make

them think you a prig; insufficient definition will let them stray away

from your meaning.

Notebook. Enter any terms which need definition for the

audience you are addressing.

Illustration. Commission form of government after the Des Mouses

plan. The essential features of this plan are as follows: The entire

affairs of the city are conducted by a mayor and four councilors,

elected at large for two years; they are nominated at a primary

election; at neither primary nor final election are party designations

allowed on the ballot; these officers are subject to the recall; the

mayor is chairman of the council, but has no power of veto; the

executive and administrative powers are divided into five departments,

each under the charge of a member of the council--(1) public affairs

(under the charge of the mayor), (2) accounts and finances, (3)public

safety,(4) streets and public improvements, (5) parks and public

property; all other offices are filled and their duties prescribed by

majority vote of the council; recall; grants of franchises must be

approved by popular vote; initiative and referendum; a summary of city

affairs must be published and distributed once a month.

Recall, On petition of twenty-five per cent of the voters at the last

election the mayor or any of the councilmen must stand for reelection at

a special election.

Referendum. On petition of twenty-five per cent of the voters any

ordinance must be submitted to popular vote at a special election; no

ordinance goes into effect until ten days after being passed by the

council.

Initiative. On petition of twenty-five per cent of the voters a

proposed measure must either be passed by the council or else submitted

to popular vote.

FINDING THE ISSUES

EXERCISES

1. Write definitions of the system for choice of studies by

undergraduates which is in force at your college; of the terms for

admission to college; of the requirements for the degree.

2. Write a compact description or definition of the form of city

government in your own city or town, like that of the Des Moines plan of

commission government on page 70.

3. Write a definition of the requirements for entrance in English,

according to those set forth by the Conference on Uniform Entrance

Requirements in English.

4. Write a definition of the present system of college societies in your

own college, using the history of their development, for your fellow

students; for an article in a popular magazine.

5. Write a definition of "summer baseball" for an audience of

undergraduates; for the trustees of your college.

6. Write a definition of "professional coach."

7. Write a definition of "squatter sovereignty," as used by Lincoln.

8. Write a definition of "the mutation theory."

9. Write a definition of "the English system of government."

10. Write a definition of "the romantic spirit in literature."

21. Finding the Issues. Your preparation for your argument should now

have given you a clear idea of the interests and prepossessions of your

readers, it should have left you with a definite proposition to support

or oppose, and it should have made you sure of the meaning of all the

terms you are to use, whether in the proposition or in your argument.

The next step in working out the introduction to your brief is to note

down the chief points that can be urged on the two sides of the

question, as direct preparation for the final step, which will be to

find the main issues. These main issues are the points on which the

decision of the whole question will turn. They will vary in number with

the case, and to some extent with the space which you have for your

argument. In a question of fact, which turns on circumstantial evidence,

there may be a number of them. In the White Murder Case, in which as we

have already seen, Webster was the chief counsel for the prosecution, he

summed up the main issues in the following passage. The essential facts

needed to understand the case are that the defendant was Franklin Knapp,

that his sister-in-law, Mrs. Joseph Knapp, was the niece of Captain

White, that by removing and destroying the will of Captain White the

defendant and his brother Joseph supposed that they had made sure that

she would inherit from him a large sum of money, that Richard

Crowninshield, the actual perpetrator of the murder, had killed himself

in prison. To convince the jury of the guilt of the prisoner, Webster

had to carry them with him on the following seven main issues:

Gentlemen, I have gone through with the evidence in this case, and

have endeavored to state it plainly and fairly before you. I think

there are conclusions to be drawn from it, the accuracy of which you

cannot doubt.

I think you cannot doubt that there was a conspiracy formed fur the

purpose of committing this murder, and who the conspirators were:

That you cannot doubt that the Crowninshields and the Knapps were

the parties in this conspiracy:

That you cannot doubt that the prisoner at the bar knew that the

murder was to be done on the night of the 6th of April:

That you cannot doubt that the murderers of Captain White were the

suspicious persons seen in and about Brown Street on that night:

That you cannot doubt that Richard Crowninshield was the perpetrator

of that crime:

That you cannot doubt that the prisoner at the bar was in Brown

Street on that night.

If there, then it must be by agreement, to countenance, to aid the

perpetrator. And if so, then he is guilty as "Principal."

Similarly, in most arguments of policy there are a number of

considerations that converge in favor of or against the proposed policy.

If you were writing an argument in favor of keeping the study of Latin

in the commercial course of a high school, you would probably urge that

Latin is essential for an effective knowledge of English, that it is the

foundation of Spanish and French, languages which will be of constantly

increasing importance to American business men in the future, and that

young men and women who go into business have an even stronger right to

studies which will enlarge their horizons and open their minds to purely

cultivating influences than those who go on to college. Indeed, in very

few questions of policy which are doubtful enough to need argument is

there any single consideration on which the whole case will turn. Human

affairs are much complicated by cross interests, and many influences

modify even one's everyday decisions.

To find the main issues--which are really the critical ones on which

your audience will make up their minds--is a matter largely of native

sagacity and penetration; but thorough knowledge of your whole subject

is essential if you are to strike unerringly to the heart of the subject

and pick out these pivotal points.

A simple and very practical device for getting at the main issues is to

put down on paper the chief points which might be made on the two sides.

Then with these before you, you can soon, by stating them and

rearranging them, simmer down your case into arguable form.

In the argument on introducing a commission form of government into

Wytown this noting down of the chief points which might be urged on the

two sides would be about as follows:

Contentions on the Two Sides. On the affirmative the following points

might be urged:

1. The plan would make the individuals who hold the power directly

responsible at all times to the citizens.

2. It would make the responsibility for all municipal action easy to

trace.

3. It would get abler men to serve the city.

4. It would take municipal government out of politics.

5. It would hold municipal administration up to the same standards

of honesty and efficiency as private business.

6. It would make it difficult to elect representatives of corrupt

interests.

7. It would make possible advantageous dealings with public-service

corporations.

8. It would make possible the immediate removal of an unfaithful

official.

9. It would tend to interest the citizens intelligently in municipal

affairs.

10. It has worked well wherever it has been tried.

On the negative side the following points might be urged:

1. The plan is a complete departure from the traditional American

theory of government.

2. It throws away a chance for training in public affairs for a

considerable body of young men.

3. It might put very great power in the hands of unworthy men.

4. Corrupt interests, having a larger stake, would work harder to

control the city.

5. Past experience gives no reason to expect the constant interest

on the part of citizens which is necessary to make so great

concentration of power safe.

6. With further increase in the foreign population of the city there

will be danger from race and religious clannishness.

7. A return to the old-fashioned town government, or some such

modification of it as has been tried at Newport, would enlist the

active interest of more citizens.

8. The system is still an experiment.

9. The present success of the plan in various places is largely to

be ascribed to its novelty.

10. The present system has in the past given good government.

11. The liability to recall will keep public officials from

initiating advantageous policies if they would be detrimental to

part of the city, or if they were unpopular because of novelty.

In most cases, as here, you will get too many points to argue out in the

space which is at your disposal. Fifteen hundred or two thousand words

are very soon eaten up when you begin to state evidence in any detail,

and arguments written in school or college can rarely be longer. You

must look forward, therefore, to not more than four or five main issues.

In going over and comparing the points which you have jotted down in

this preliminary statement you must consequently be prepared to throw

out all that are not obviously important. Even when you have done this

you will usually have more than enough points left to fill your space,

and must make some close decisions before you get at those which you

finally decide to argue out.

You must also be prepared to rephrase and remold some of the points in

order to get at the most important aspects of the case. This noting down

of the points which might be urged you should therefore regard entirely

as a preliminary step, and not as fixing the points in the form in which

you will argue them out.

In the main issues for the argument on introducing commission government

into Wytown, as they are worked out below, it will be seen that main

issue 4 for the affirmative is derived in part from the points marked

1, 2, 6, and 8 of those for the affirmative, and those marked 3, 4, and

5 for the negative.

Furthermore, it is obvious that the main issues you choose will vary

somewhat with the side of the question which you are arguing. You will

almost surely have to leave out some of the points which might be urged,

and there is no sense in letting the other side choose your ground for

you. Points which from one side may be of no great consequence, or not

very practicable to argue, may on the other be highly effective; and in

arguing you should always take what advantage can fairly be gained from

position.

The phrasing of the main issues, too, will vary with the side on which

you are arguing them. Here, again, you must take every fair advantage

that is to be gained from position. In the main issues of the question I

have been using for an example, as they are stated below, it will be

seen that main issue 1 on the affirmative and main issue 3 on the

negative cover very nearly the same ground; but if you were arguing on

the affirmative you would direct attention to the shortcomings inherent

in the system of government, if on the negative, to the temporary and

removable causes of them. Whichever side you were arguing on there is no

reason that you should lose the advantage of so phrasing the issue that

you can go directly to your work of establishing your contention.

In the argument on introducing commission government into Wytown the

main issues might be as follows:

The main issues as chosen by the affirmative:

1. Is the admitted inefficiency of the city government at present

due to the system of government?

2. Will the adoption of the plan result in more economical

administration?

3. Will the adoption of the plan result in more efficient service

to the city?

4. Will the direct responsibility of the mayor and councilors to the

citizens be a sufficient safeguard for the increased power given to

them?

The main issues as chosen by the negative:

1. Is there danger in putting such large powers into the hands of so

few men?

2. Will the new plan, if adopted, permanently raise the standard of

public servants?

3. Is the inefficiency of the city government at present due to

temporary and removable causes?

4. Has the plan succeeded in other places largely because of its

novelty?

5. Will the liability to recall keep officials from initiating new

policies for fear of unpopularity?

In some cases it will be hard to reduce the number of issues to a

manageable number; in others, for special reasons, it may be possible to

treat a part of them only at length. In such cases one can always adopt

the device of an imaginary "next chapter" or "to be continued in our

next." In considering how many issues you can deal with satisfactorily,

however, you must not leave out of account contentions on the other side

that must be refuted; and in choosing among the possible main issues you

must always exercise judgment. Many points which might be argued are not

worth the space it would take to deal with them; but not infrequently

you will have to let points that have some weight give place to others

that have more.

It is not to be expected that the points made by the two sides will

always exactly pair off, for the considerations which make for a course

of action may be different in kind from those which make against it.

Sometimes one side will contribute more to the final number of main

issues, sometimes the other. Ordinarily your own side will give you the

larger number of points that you think worth arguing out, for an

affirmative and constructive argument usually makes more impression than

a negative one.

Notebook. Enter the chief points which might be made on the two sides

of your question. Then, after studying them and comparing them, enter

the main issues which you decide to argue out.

(The contentions on the two sides and the main issues for the model

argument will be found on pages 74-77.)

EXERCISE

Take one of the questions on pages 10-12, with which you have some

acquaintance, and obtain the main issues by noting down first the points

which might be urged on the two sides.

NOTE. This exercise is a good one for class work. Let the class suggest

the points, and write them, as they come, on the blackboard. Then call

for criticism and discussion of them, in order to come to the main

issues.

22. The Agreed Statement of Facts. Now that you have compared the points

on which the two sides disagree, you can pick out the points on which

they agree, and decide which of the latter will enter into the

discussion. You are therefore in a position to draw up the agreed

statement of facts, in which you will sum up compactly so much of the

history of the case, of the origin of the present question, and other

relevant facts and necessary definitions, as will be needed to

understand the brief. The style of this statement should be strictly

expository, and there should be nothing in it to which both sides could

not agree. It should be similar to the statements of facts in courts of

law, which are sent up with the briefs when a case is appealed on a

point of legal principle.

Since this agreed statement of facts is not argument, it will make small

use of such conjunctions as "because," "for," "hence," and "therefore."

If you find any of them in your agreed statement, it is better to

rearrange it, so that you will not seem to be giving reasons before you

have begun your argument.

In the making of this preliminary statement and to a certain extent in

the framing of the main issues, it is convenient and advisable,

wherever both sides of the question are to be presented in arguments,

whether in writing or in debate, for the two parties to work together.

In this working together they should aim to agree on as many points as

possible. If they meet in a carping and unyielding temper, the result

will be in the end that the patience of the audience will be tried and

its attention dispersed by lengthy arguments on preliminary details. In

making an argument one should never forget, even in school and college

work, that the aim of all argument is to produce agreement. Few people

have much interest in a contest in smartness; and it is a bad habit to

care too much about the mere beating of an opponent on a question where

there are real and serious issues. Any question which is worth arguing

at all will have far more ground to cover, even when everything possible

has been granted by both sides, than the average student can cover with

any thoroughness.

Notebook. Enter those of the essential facts and definitions in

the case which would be agreed to by both sides, and which are needed

for an understanding of the brief.

Illustration. Agreed Statement of Facts. For many years the tax

rate in Wytown has been high, and in the last ten years has not fallen

below twenty-four dollars on one thousand dollars. The city water supply

is of doubtful purity, and nothing has been done to improve it, chiefly

because the city debt is now close to the limit allowed by law. The

police service has been inadequate, especially in the region known as

South Corner. Though two hundred thousand dollars have been spent on the

streets in the last five years, the main street of the city is still

unpaved, and none of the other streets are macadamized. Though under the

local option law the city has uniformly voted for no license, yet there

is much liquor selling. The city officials have regularly been nominated

at Democratic and republican conventions.

The question has arisen at the present time because of quarrels between

the mayor and aldermen, because of the petition of the city government

to the legislature to issue bonds for new waterworks above the

authorized debt limit, because the tax rate last year was higher than

ever before in the history of the city, and because of the formation of

a citizens' association which has been instrumental in securing from the

legislature a bill authorizing the citizens to vote on the adoption of

the proposed plan.

Points which are not discussed here will be taken up in succeeding

papers.

The definitions on page 70 are to be taken as part of this agreed

statement.

EXERCISES

1. Criticize the following sentences for their fitness as parts of

introductions to briefs:

a. It is agreed that the commission form of government has succeeded

in Des Moines because it is simple and easily controlled by the

people.

b. Summer baseball is to be understood as playing baseball for

money, for a man who is given his board and lodging by a hotel for

playing is taking the equivalent of money.

c. (As one of the contentions for the affirmative on the question

whether a street railroad should be compelled to build a certain new

line, which would not be immediately profitable.) The convenience of

the public should be considered before large dividends, since the

public grants the franchise.

2. Make an agreed statement of facts for an argument on one of the

subjects in the list on pages 10-12.

NOTE. This is a good exercise for class use: let the different members

of the class propose facts to be agreed on, and then put them before the

rest of the class for criticism.

23. Arrangement of Material. For the arrangement of the material in

a brief, it is not possible to give much general advice, since this

arrangement would change with the space allotted to the argument, and

especially with the audience. On this point knowledge of your readers,

of their acquaintance with the subject, and of their prepossessions will

count as much as knowledge of the subject when you come to the arguments

of practical life.

In general, if your audience is likely to be lukewarm or indifferent,

begin with a point which will stir them up. In the argument on the

introduction of commission government into Wytown, for which I have

constructed a brief, I assumed that the citizens were already aroused to

the need of some change, and therefore began by showing that the evils

of the present administration can be traced chiefly to the present

system of government. If I had assumed that the people needed first to

be aroused to believing a change to be necessary, I should have put at

the beginning an exposure of the corruption and inefficiency of the

present city government, with specific cases to establish the point.

Likewise for the close of your argument be sure that you have a strong

and effective point. In the case of commission government for Wytown, by

refuting the objection that too much power is given to the councilmen I

provide a chance to show at the same time how completely the commission

government keeps the control in the hands of the people; and the latter

point is the strongest that can be made for the commission form of

government.

24. The Place of the Refutation. The place of the refutation and

its extent also differ greatly with the audience. Sometimes it may

occupy practically the whole space. A few years ago _The Outlook_

published an editorial opposing a change in the laws of New York

relating to vivisection (for a part of it, see p. 44), in which it

refuted the two arguments urged for the change, and then pointed out

that the burden of proof still rested on the other side. Here the

refutation occupied almost the whole of the argument. Huxley, in his

three "Lectures on Evolution," of which the first is printed on page

233, gave the whole of this first lecture to a refutation of the

alternative theories of the origin of plants and animals; since it was

necessary to dispose of accepted theories before the new theory could

get a hearing, he put his refutation first.

Where there are no such special reasons, it is safe to follow the

principle that you should not draw more attention than necessary to the

arguments on the other side. Refutation of less important statements and

contentions will naturally come at the point of the argument which deals

with that part of the subject. State them fairly always, but do not

magnify their importance by dealing with them at too great length.

It is not often wise to lump the refutation at the end of your argument.

The last impression on your audience is the strongest: it is good

strategy to keep it for your own best points. Sometimes, as in the brief

worked out on page 90, it is possible to combine the refutation with

positive argument which will be effective; but do not forget that

negative argument makes much less impression than that which is positive

and constructive.

25. The Brief Proper. We have seen on page 47 that the brief is in

essence a statement of the logical framework of your argument. Its

purpose is to lay out your reasoning in such a way that you can

scrutinize each link and make sure that each assertion and each group of

assertions is attached to a firm support. For this reason the brief for

a written or spoken argument is best thrown into the form of tabulated

statements marked with a series of numbers and letters which will show

at a glance the exact place of each statement or assertion in the whole

system of reasoning. When you can thus, as it were, strip your argument

to its bones and tendons, you can go ahead with the confidence that your

reasoning is logically coherent.

When you get out into the world you will work out your own way of making

briefs for any arguments that fate imposes on you. The value of practice

now is in being able to get at the work then without wasting time. The

rules below are offered to you as the result of long experiment and

study lay the best authorities. Moreover, if you are working in a class

you should remember that you will get a great deal more out of your

teacher if you save his time by sticking closely to uniformity in

outward form.

I shall first show how a brief is constructed, by following through part

of the process for the argument on the introduction of commission into

Wytown; then I shall give the rules, with some explanation of their

working and of their practical expediency.

We have just seen that the brief is essentially a display of the logical

framework of the argument: it should consist, therefore, of the main

contentions in support of the proposition, with the reasons urged in

support of these contentions, and of the facts and reasons brought

forward in support of these reasons, this successive support of reasons

being carried down to ultimate facts, wherever possible.

When you come to the working out of your brief you start with your main

issues, stated now as assertions. Then for each of them you give one or

more reasons.

In the brief for introducing commission government into Wytown, let us

start with the main issues for the affirmative, transforming them from

questions into assertions. The first main issue would then read:

The admitted inefficiency of the city government at present is

due to the system of government.

The next step is to assign reasons for making this assertion.

Accordingly we should add a "since" or a "for" to the assertion, and

then underneath arrange these reasons in order. Let us suppose that we

put down three reasons:

I. The admitted inefficiency of the city government at present

is due to the system of government; for

A. Partisan politics determine nominations to office;

B. Advantageous contracts cannot be made;

C. The responsibility for expenditures is scattered.

Each of these assertions clearly needs to be supported before it will be

accepted. Let us follow out the support of the first one, and set down

here the reasons and facts which will make it incontestable.

A. Partisan politics determine nominations to office; for

1. The organization of the national parties is permanent.

2. There has been bargaining between parties to reward

political services with city offices.

Of these points the first is an obvious fact; in the argument it will

need only slight development and specification to make its bearing on

the case effective. The second, on the other hand, must be supported by

evidence; and in the brief, accordingly, we should refer to the facts

as stated in newspapers of specified dates from which full quotation

would be made in the argument. Here then, in both cases, though in

different ways, we get down to the bed rock of fact on which the

reasoning is built up. At the same time, each joint in the framework of

the reasoning has been laid bare, so that no weak place can escape

detection. These are always the two main objects of making a brief--to

get down to the facts on which the reasoning is built up, and to display

every essential step in the reasoning.

26. Rules for Briefing. The rules given below are divided into two

groups: those in the first group deal chiefly with the form of the

brief; those in the second go more to the substance; but the distinction

between the two groups is far from being absolute.

I

1. A brief may be divided into three parts: the Introduction, the

Proof, the Conclusion. Of these the Introduction should contain

noncontentious matter, and the Conclusion should be a restatement of the

proposition, with a bare summary of the main issues in affirmative (or

negative) form.

The introduction has already been dealt with at length (see pp. 48-81).

The conclusion brings the main points of the argument together, and

gives an effect of workmanlike completeness to the brief. It should

never introduce new points.

2. In the Introduction keep each step of the analysis by itself, and

indicate the several parts by such headings as "The following terms need

definition," "The following facts are agreed on," "The following points

will be left out of consideration in this argument" "The chief

contentions on the two sides are as follows," "The main issues on which

the argument will be made are as follows."

It is not to be expected that all these steps, with the appropriate

headings, will be necessary in every brief. The only use of a brief is

to aid you to construct a specific argument, and you must consider each

case by itself.

3. Follow a uniform system of numbering throughout, so that each number

or letter used will show whether the statement is one of the main

supports of your case, or in what degree it is subordinated.

In other words, the numbering should show at a glance whether a given

assertion is a main reason, a reason for a reason, or in still more

subordinate degree of support. The system of numbering in the brief on

page 90 is convenient. Whatever system is adopted, it should be followed

by the whole class.

4. The refutation should have a distinct set of symbols.

These symbols may well be uniform with the others, but with the prime

mark to distinguish them (see p. 93).

5. In briefing the refutation always state first the assertion that is

to be refuted, with such connectives as, "Although it is urged ..., yet

the contention is unsound, for ...," "Although the case is cited, ...

yet the case is irrelevant, for ..."

These connectives will vary with the nature of the assertion to be

refuted; the important thing is to state the assertion so clearly that

your critic can judge the relevancy and force of your refutation. (For

examples, see pp. 91-93.)

II

6. A brief in all its parts should be phrased in complete sentences;

mere topics are of no value.

In the brief on page 90, if the headings under I were "A. Party

politics, B. Waste in contracts, C. No responsibility for

expenditures," neither the maker of the brief nor the critic of it could

know with any certainty the course of the reasoning. It is undoubtedly

true that many lawyers and other men of affairs use only topic heads

when they are planning an argument; but it is to be remembered that they

are men who have been training their powers of thought in hard earnest,

and their ability to work out and stick to a train of reasoning with so

little written aid has not much bearing on what is the best practice for

young men who are in the process of gaining this ability. To make a full

outline of the reasoning in a few arguments is the best way to get the

sense for logical and coherent structure.

7. Each heading should contain a single assertion only.

The reason for this rule is obvious: if under each assertion you are

going to set the reasons for that assertion, you will get into trouble

if your assertion is double-headed, since what is a reason for one part

of it may not be a reason for another. If in the brief on page 90

heading I B should read, "Advantageous contracts cannot be made, and

the responsibility for expenditures is scattered," subheading I C 2,

"Accounts are submitted to separate committees of the two boards in

which no members have special responsibility," would have nothing to do

with the making of contracts, and subheading I B 1, "Contracts must be

passed on by both aldermen and common councilmen and the mayor," would

have nothing to do with expenditures.

8. In the body of the brief the assertions should be arranged as

follows: Each main heading should embody one of the main issues as

stated in the Introduction; and each of the subordinate assertions

should stand as a reason for the assertion to which it is subordinate.

The connective between an assertion and one subordinate to it will

therefore be for, since, or because, or the like, not hence or

therefore, or the like.

A brief thus arranged lays out the reasoning in a complete and easily

scrutinized form. Thus in the brief on page 90 for the assertion in the

first main issue, "The admitted inefficiency, of the city government at

present is due to the system of government," three chief reasons are

given: A. "Partisan politics determine nominations to office," B.

"Advantageous contracts cannot be made," and C. "The responsibility for

expenditures is scattered." Then for each of these secondary assertions

reasons in support are adduced; thus for B. "Advantageous contracts

cannot be made," the reasons are I. "Contracts must be passed on

separately by aldermen, common councilmen, and the mayor," and 2.

"Bargains are made between the aldermen representing different wards."

In this case final references are given for each of these subordinate

assertions, so that we get down to the ultimate foundation of verifiable

fact on which the argument is to be built up.

The advantage of this form is that if you have set down several

assertions as reasons for another, and you are doubtful whether they all

belong there, you can test them separately by putting them one by one

after the main assertion they are intended to support with a "for" or a

"since" between.

You put the assertion first and the reason for it afterwards, because

when there is more than one reason in support, if you have the reason

first you must then repeat the assertion with each reason, or run the

risk of confusion. If under I in the brief on page go, for example, you

began with the reason, "In the present system partisan politics

determine nominations to office," and then added the result, "Therefore

the city government is inefficient," you would have to repeat the result

with B and C; and when you came to the third degree of support, the

repetition would be intolerably clumsy and confusing.

9. Headings and subheadings should not have more than one numbering.

The reason for this rule is also obvious: each heading or subheading

marks a step in the argument, and what belongs on one step cannot be on

another at the same time. In the brief on page 90 the assertion that

"Partisan politics determine nominations to office" is stated as a chief

reason for the assertion in the first main issue, that "The admitted

inefficiency of the city government at present is due to the system of

government." It would confuse a reader to mark it A I, as if it wore a

support also in the second degree.

10. The brief should give references to the evidence or authorities

relied on to support assertions.

General references to articles and books which will be constantly

referred to should be put at the beginning of the brief. References to

specific statements of fact or quotations of opinion should be added as

they occur in the brief (see the brief on p. 90).

EXERCISES

1. Criticize the following portion of a brief:

This college should have a longer Christmas vacation, for

I. College life tends to break up family life;

A. Father and son;

B. Younger brothers and sisters;

C. Intimate friends.

2. Criticize the following detached portions of a brief on the

proposition, This city should double its appropriation for the public

library, and amend them if necessary:

a. II. The funds for the purchase of books are insufficient and the

staff is inadequate.

b. B. The reading room is crowded to suffocation, therefore

1. Many people avoid the library.

c. III. Those who oppose the increased appropriation declare that

A. The library is a luxury for the rich; hence

1. The rich should support it; but

2. This is not true, for

a. Most of the borrowers of books are people

of moderate means; therefore

b. The city should support the library.

d. IV. A. The city is able to double the appropriation; for

1. It has spent largely for parks,

a. Which are also for the pleasure and improvement

of the citizens;

b. Hence it can pay for additions to the library.

e. VI. It is not true

A. That the readers want only recent fiction and that they

should buy these books for themselves; for

1. They mostly are not able to buy books; hence

2. They should be encouraged to read other books.

3. Give an example of an argument and an audience where it

would be necessary to put the refutation first; of one

in which it would be necessary to stir up the interest

of readers at the start.

4. Suggest methods for gaining the interest of the readers

in the last case.

SPECIMEN BRIEF

Wytown should adopt a commission government like that of Des Moines,

Iowa.

General references: C.R. Woodruff, City Government by Commission. New

York, 1911; J.J. Hamilton, The Dethronement of the City Boss, New York,

1910; City newspapers of various dates; draft of proposed charter,

published by the Citizens' Association.

(The successive steps of the introduction will be found on pp. 43, 53,

70, 74-75, 76-77, 79-80.)

I. The admitted inefficiency of the city government at present is due to

the system of government; for

A. Partisan politics determine nominations to office; since

1. The organization of the national parties is permanent, and

that of any citizens' movement temporary.

2. There has been bargaining between the parties to reward

political services by city offices. Daily papers, March 12-20,

1909; March 3-15, 1910.

B. Advantageous contracts cannot be made; for

1. Contracts must be passed on separately by aldermen, common

councilmen, and the mayor. Present city charter, sections 19-21.

2. Bargains are made between the aldermen representing different

wards. Daily papers, October 3, 1908; January 25, 1910.

C. The responsibility for expenditures is scattered; for

1. Heads of departments are responsible to the two boards and

not to the mayor. Present city charter, section 15.

2. Accounts are submitted to separate committees of the two

boards in which no members have special responsibility. Present

city charter, sections 22-23.

II. The adoption of the plan will result in important economies; for

A. The administration of city affairs will be made simpler; since

1. The councilmen will both lay out the work and be responsible

for the execution of it. Draft or charter, sections 5 and 13.

2. Plans for work in all departments will be considered together.

3. A small body with full powers can make better bargains than

two larger ones acting independently.

B. The plan has resulted in economies where it has been tried; for

1. In Des Moines, Iowa, the first year under the new charter showed

a relative saving of $182,949.65 as compared with the year

before. C. R. Woodruff, as cited, p. 250.

2. In Haverhill, Massachusetts, in the first year of commission

government a deficit of $79,452 was turned into a surplus of

$36,511, after paying off indebtedness to the extent of

$133,000. C. R. Woodruff, as cited, p. 278.

1'.Though a despatch in a daily paper (April 3, 1911) declares

that the city of Haverhill has been forced to borrow, yet the

report is untrustworthy without further evidence; for

a'. In itself it is contradictory and confused; and b'. It is

known that professional politicians and other enemies

of the plan have often spread false reports about it.

McClure's Magazine, Vol. XXXV, p. 107.

III. The adoption of the plan will result in more efficient service to

the city; for

A. A better class of citizens will be drawn into office;

for

1. City officials can plan and carry out their policies

without petty interference;

2. In Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the commission, employed a civic-service

expert, and carried out his recommendations. J. J. Hamilton,

as cited, p. 180.

3. In Galveston, Texas, citizens of a better grade have taken

office, and the tone of the city administration has been

raised. W. B. Munro, in The Chautauquan, Vol. LI, p. 110.

B. Commission government has resulted in better administration where

it has been tried; for

1. Galveston and Houston, Texas, Des Moines and Cedar Rapids, Iowa,

have all reported better police administration, improvements in

streets and parks, more advantageous dealings with

public-service corporations. C. J. Woodruff, as cited,

pp. 242-287.

2. No city which has tried the plan has yet given it up. C. J.

Woodruff, as cited, p. 310.

1'.Although Chelsea, Massachusetts, is cited as having given up a

commission government, yet the case is not parallel, since

a'. The commission under which the city had lived was appointed

by the governor after a disastrous conflagration; and

b'. The form of government substituted has most of the essential

features of the: commission government except the size of

the council, which has four members elected at large, and

five by district.

IV'. Although it is urged that the corrupt element in politics would

have unlimited power if they should capture the commission, yet the

direct responsibility to the citizens will be a safeguard for the

enlarged power, for

A'. Every act of the city government will be known; since under the

charter--sections 24, 25, 29, 33--

1'. The meetings of the council will be public.

2'. All resolutions are to be in writing and recorded.

3'. All votes are to be recorded.

4'. An itemized statement of receipts and expenditures must

be printed and distributed every month.

5'. Ordinances making contracts or granting franchises must be

published one week before final passage, and on petition may

be referred to the people.

6'. In Des Moines under the new charter the newspapers give much

space to the doings of the city government. _McClure's

Magazine_, Vol. XXXV, p. 101.

B'. The provisions for a recall will be a check on corrupt officials;

for

1'. In Des Moines a chief of police was retired on the suggestion

of a recall for the commissioner who was responsible for his

appointment. _McClure's Magazine_, Vol. XXXV, p. 101.

2'. In Seattle a mayor who made terms with the vicious element,

and was in league with public service corporations, was

recalled. Daily papers, March, 1911.

CONCLUSION.

Wytown should adopt a commission government like that of Des

Moines; since

A. The admitted inefficiency of the city government at present is

due to the system of government;

B. The adoption of the plan will result in important economies;

C. The adoption of the plan will result in more efficient service to

the city; and

D. The direct responsibility of the mayor and councilmen to the

citizens will be a safeguard for the increased power given to them.