CONSTRUCTING THE BRIEF
The construction of a brief is a most interesting task, for the bringing
of order out of chaos always gives a thrill of satisfaction to the
active thinker. It indicates the mastery of the human mind over material
facts and conditions. In this as in all other spheres of endeavor the
joy of victory possesses him who overcomes.
The work of constructing a brief is usually looked upon by the
uninitiated with considerable apprehension. It is regarded as a most
difficult task, and so it is. But the difficulty of the task is greatly
overshadowed by the pleasure which may be derived from it, providing the
preliminary work has been done thoroughly. Every step in the
argumentative process up to this point must have been taken with
diligence. If this work has been well done the student finds himself in
the possession of a large amount of evidence. The analysis of the
proposition and the collecting of the evidence have given the student a
broad outlook over the field to be covered by the brief. Now, to get the
most comprehensive view of this field, he must look at it from the
standpoint of the Purpose of the Brief.
I. The purpose of the brief.
The purpose of the brief is to furnish a solid framework for the
argument. It indicates definitely the path which the argument is to
follow. It maps out a continuous course of procedure ending at the
conclusion which it is the purpose of the argument to establish. To
develop one of the above figures of speech still further, we may regard
the brief as the framework of the vehicle which carries the argument
along the straight road which leads to persuasion.
The brief enables the writer or speaker to present his arguments in
logical order, to indicate the relation which the evidence bears to the
arguments, and to give unity and coherence to the finished product.
Without a well constructed brief an argument will inevitably be more or
less rambling and incoherent; with a well constructed brief each piece
of evidence can be utilized in the place where it will do the most good.
The facts of evidence can be arranged in climactic order and the proper
proportion given to the completed structure. By keeping these objects in
mind the work of building a brief out of the evidence collected may be
intelligently begun.
II. Method of constructing the brief.
The work of constructing the brief should be begun with all the
evidence, which has been collected and recorded on cards or slips of
paper, ready at hand. By this time the investigator has probably
determined whether he wishes to make any alteration in his original
analysis. If any alterations seem advisable they should be made before
proceeding.
The analysis of the question reveals the main issues. In order to make
the work of construction as simple as possible let us suppose that the
evidence has been collected on the affirmative of the following
proposition: “Resolved, that all cities in the United States having a
population of over 5000 should adopt the commission form of city
government.” The analysis of the question has shown that in order to
establish the truth of this proposition it is necessary to prove these
three main issues: (1) That the proposed plan is necessary, (2) That the
proposed plan is good in theory, and (3) That the proposed plan works
well in practice. Each of these three main issues should be written on a
separate piece of paper, an extra slip of paper should be marked
“Introduction,” and still another “Refutation.” These five slips of
paper should be spread out on a table and the work of classifying the
cards begun. All cards containing facts or opinions which show the
necessity for the plan should be placed on the paper marked “The
proposed plan is necessary,” those dealing with theory should be placed
on the paper marked “The proposed plan is good in theory,” and those
dealing with the practical side of the question should be placed on the
paper marked “The proposed plan works well in practice.” To be more
concrete, suppose we have one card which contains a statement from the
mayor of Galveston, Texas, in which he says that the commission form of
city government has worked successfully in that city; another card on
which are statistics showing that the practical operation of the
commission plan in Des Moines, Iowa, has resulted in reducing the
governmental expenses of that city; and still another card which shows
that Grand Rapids, Michigan, has successfully used the commission form
of city government for ten years. All of these cards would, of course,
be placed under the heading “The proposed plan works well in practice.”
Cards treating the origin, history, and other matters discussed in the
analysis of the question should be placed under “Introduction,” while
cards containing material for refutation should be placed under
“Refutation.”
Sometimes there will arise a question as to which of two heads most
properly includes the material on a particular card. In such a case the
student must use his best judgment. If the point is very important and
the doubt great, a duplicate card may be made out and one card placed
under each heading. Then when the brief is being written out a more
intelligent decision can be made. Such difficulties as this, however,
are infrequent, providing proper care has been taken in making the
analysis of the question. The main issues should be distinct from each
other and the line of demarcation between them should be clear cut. If
this requirement is complied with, the classification of the cards in
the manner above described is a comparatively simple matter.
Now that the cards have been divided, each pile can be more easily
studied than could the large original pile. A half-hour spent in
arranging and rearranging the cards and in reading them over in various
connections will yield more information regarding the way in which the
argument should be put together than a whole day spent in unaided
pondering.
The cards should be examined with the object in view of making a
subdivision of the material under each main issue. To illustrate, an
examination of the cards under the first main issue above discussed,
viz. “That the proposed plan of city government is necessary,” reveals
the fact that this main issue “necessity” may be discussed under three
heads: (1) Political necessity, (2) Social necessity, (3) Financial
necessity. Now we proceed to divide the pack of cards on necessity into
three parts, corresponding to the above division. This is done in the
same manner in which the original pack was divided into five packs. Each
of these smaller packs should then be carefully examined in order to
determine whether a further subdivision is advisable. The process should
be continued until all the recorded evidence is classified. Then each
pack of cards should be carefully labelled with the name of the
subdivision to which it belongs, and kept, with its fellows of the same
subdivision, under the division to which they belong, and all the
members of each division should be kept under the main issue to which
they belong. The student must in the same way make himself familiar
with, and classify, the cards under the headings of “Introduction” and
“Refutation.” Next comes the task of arranging these groups of cards in
their proper order. In making this arrangement two principles should be
kept constantly in mind. In the first place the order of arrangement
must be logical; in the second place the divisions should be arranged in
climactic order wherever possible. The strongest argument should be put
last unless there is an important logical objection to putting it in
that position. In arranging the order of the main issues above
discussed, “necessity” should be placed first, because the necessity for
a thing paves the way for its adoption. It is the logical beginning.
Theory should be placed second, and last of all the argument “practice,”
because nothing can constitute a stronger argument in favor of the
adoption of a plan than to show that it has already worked well in many
instances. This arrangement is not only the climactic order, but from
the psychological standpoint it makes the strongest impression. The
process of arranging groups in their logical order should be carried on
until the cards comprising the smallest group are placed in what appears
to be the order dictated by logical sequence and climactic effect.
After the evidence has been duly arranged in accordance with the method
just explained, the task of writing out the brief formally may be
commenced.
III. Rules for constructing a brief.
_1. A brief should be composed of three parts: Introduction, Proof, and
Conclusion._
The three parts of the brief, Introduction, Proof, and Conclusion,
should bear a well regulated proportion to each other. The tendency of
the beginner is to make the introduction too long: a two page
introduction to a three page brief is absurd. The proof should occupy by
far the greater part of the brief, the introduction should be as compact
as is consistent with its purpose, and the conclusion should be shorter
than the introduction.
_2. Each statement in a brief should be a single complete sentence._
The sentences of the brief must be grammatically correct. Each idea
should be carefully thought out and presented in a short, simple,
direct, and comprehensive sentence, for long and complicated sentences
lead to ambiguity. Moreover, the sentence must contain but one central
idea, which must be stated completely. Mere topics are not sufficient.
The word “Practicable” should not be made to represent the entire
statement that “The commission form of city government is practicable,”
but the complete statement should be written out.
_3. The relation which the different statements in a brief bear to each
other should be indicated by symbols and indentations._
Every statement in the brief must stand either directly or indirectly as
a reason for the truth of the proposition. If a statement stands as
direct proof of the proposition, this fact must be indicated; if as
indirect, this fact must also be indicated. The statements which stand
as direct proof should be marked with the same kind of symbols and
indented in the same way. This enables the reader to glance over the
brief and see the main issues standing out distinctly from the
subordinate statements.
The system of symbols used is immaterial, providing they serve the
purpose above indicated. For the sake of uniformity, however, it is
suggested that the student adhere to the following plan:
This proposition is true, for
I................................, for
A.............................., for
1............................, for
a.........................., for
(1)......................, for
(a)...................., for
(x).................., for
(y).................., for
B.............................., for
1.. etc.
II..............................., for
A...........
etc.
B..........
etc.
The above symbols with their appropriate indentations are sufficient in
variety for almost any brief. To make this plan more concrete let us
suppose that the proposition is held to be true for two reasons. These
reasons then are the main issues, and are coördinate so far as
subject-matter is concerned; therefore they are placed with the symbols
I and II, which are next to the left hand margin of the paper. There are
two main reasons for I, and these are marked A and B, with a greater
indentation from the left hand margin than I. There is one reason for A
and it is marked 1 with a slightly greater indentation from the margin
than A. If there were two reasons the second one would be marked 2 with
the same indentation as 1. That is, the same arrangement applies
throughout the entire system that applies to I and II, and A and B.
There is one reason for 1 and it is marked a with a slightly greater
indentation; the reason for a is marked (1), and the reason for (1) is
marked (a). There are two facts which prove the truth of (a) and they
are marked (x) and (y). In this way the entire brief, whether long or
short, is worked out and the relation existing between all its parts
clearly shown.
_4. The introduction should contain the main issues, together with a
brief statement of the process of analysis by which they were found._
As previously stated, in making the analysis of a proposition an
unprejudiced standpoint must be taken. This is true because the object
is to find the statements which if proved will establish the truth of
the proposition. Since it is the object of the introduction to set forth
the main issues it must contain nothing but the process of analysis by
which these issues were derived. There must be no statements which
require proof and none which indicate a prejudice in favor of one side
or the other.
A long introduction must be avoided, because it is almost sure to
contain irrelevant matter. Furthermore, a reader or hearer is not going
to keep in mind all the history, conditions, definitions, and
limitations which a long introduction may properly include, unless they
are briefly expressed and lead straight to the heart of the controversy.
Again, a long introduction is tiresome. The writer once heard a
prominent United States Senator say, after acting as judge of a college
debate: “Boil down your introduction. The men who pass on what you have
to say, whether in business, politics, or education, want to know what
you believe and why you believe it. Get at the ‘because’ part of your
speech without delay.”
The process of analysis may have been long and laborious, but once the
main issues have been found it is easy to point out the way to them. In
the Lincoln-Douglas Debates, which are masterpieces of this kind of
work, the introductions are exceedingly short as compared with the
length of the speeches. No time is wasted in getting to the points at
issue. A carefully worked out analysis may be presented briefly for it
is seldom necessary to an understanding of the question to discuss its
origin, its history, the admitted matter and the contentions of both
sides. Seldom is it important to discuss more than two of these topics.
Those phases of analysis which afford the shortest route to the main
issues should be chosen. While some brief writers prefer to give the
whole process of analysis, this makes the brief unnecessarily long.
Suppose that you went into the forest for the purpose of finding a
certain tree. You began a systematic search in which you traveled back
and forth through the forest for three days. At last you found the tree.
It is but a half-hour’s walk from the edge of the forest. Would you take
those to whom you wish to show the tree over the path which you traveled
in the three days’ search, or would you lead them directly to it? The
answer is obvious. Why, then, should we weary the reader or hearer with
a long introduction in which all the steps taken in search of the main
issues are set forth, when we can state one or two of these steps and
arrive at the main issues without delay?
Lincoln, in his first inaugural address, shows the virtue of a brief
introduction. He might have dwelt long upon the origin of the question
which he feared would sever the Union; he might have given extensively
the history of slavery and the controversies resulting from it; he might
have compounded definitions based upon the highest authorities; and all
of this would have been relevant matter for the introduction of his
speech. Moreover, there is no doubt that all of these matters had been
considered by him in his analysis of the question. But when he wished to
lead his hearers to the main issues which his analysis revealed, he
chose the simplest and most direct route. After a brief introductory
sentence he employed the process of elimination to cut away all
extraneous matter by saying:
“I do not consider it necessary at present for me to discuss those
matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or
excitement.”
Then he at once took up the subjects of slavery and secession, to which
his elimination of extraneous material had narrowed the question.
The same brevity and directness characterizes Lincoln’s introduction to
his Cooper Institute speech. Here a statement of admitted matter forms
the means by which the point at issue is reached. This offers an
introduction which is impartial, since both sides indorsed it, and the
main issues arose out of the different interpretation which the
Lincoln-Republicans and the Douglas-Democrats placed upon it. The
crucial part of the introduction is as follows:
“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?”
It is seen that these statements bring us directly to the point at issue
through the statement of admitted matter. The adoption of this admitted
matter makes necessary some definitions. Lincoln gives these with
clearness and exactness. “The frame of government under which we live,”
is the Constitution of the United States. “The fathers” that framed this
constitution were the thirty-nine men who signed the original
instrument. The “question” which these fathers understood, “just as
well, and even better, than we do now,” was: “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?” Then Lincoln continues: “Upon this, Senator Douglas holds
the affirmative, and the 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.” Thus Lincoln brings his hearers to the proof
of his argument—to the point where it introduces evidence to show that
the great majority of these men answered the question by voting for the
prohibition of slavery.
Now let us write out a formal brief of this introduction and thus
determine just what matters it really includes.
NEGATIVE BRIEF
PROPOSITION: Resolved, that the proper division of local from Federal
authority or the Constitution, forbids our Federal
Government to control as to slavery in our Federal
territories.
INTRODUCTION
I. Statement of admitted matter.
A. The framers of the Constitution understood this question better
than we do.
II. Definition of terms.
A. “The frame of government under which we live” is the
Constitution of the United States.
1. The original Constitution.
2. The amendments.
B. “The fathers” were the thirty-nine men who signed the original
document.
C. The “question” which these fathers understood “just as well,
and even better, than we do now,” is: “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?
III. The question is, therefore, “Did the framers of the constitution
understand that the Federal Government is prohibited from
controlling slavery in the territories?”
The affirmative answers The negative answers No,
Yes, for: for:
1. their words and actions 1. their words and actions
prove that the Federal prove that the Federal
Government is prohibited Government is given
from controlling slavery power to control slavery
in the territories. in the territories.
2. The first Congress framed 2. The first Congress which
annulments which deny contained sixteen of the
this power. “thirty-nine” exercised
this power.
IV. The special issues resulting from this clash of opinion are:
1. Did the words and actions of the framers of the Constitution
show that the Federal Government is prohibited from controlling
slavery in the territories?
2. Did the First Congress, which contained a part of these framers
and which understood their intentions, show that it believed
the Federal Government to be prohibited from controlling
slavery in the territories?
The foregoing introduction shows well the brevity and directness which
should characterize the first division of a brief. The subject-matter
indicates the impartial manner in which the subject is discussed
throughout the introduction. Nothing is stated which requires proof. The
speaker selects common ground upon which both parties to the controversy
have agreed to stand. From this position he leads his opponents by
logical steps to the arguments which he advances. When the student has
once found the main issues he should eliminate all useless steps in the
analysis and present with clearness and force the necessary parts of the
process which lead directly to the proof.
_5. The main statements in the proof should correspond to the main
issues set forth in the introduction, and should read as reasons for the
truth of the proposition._
The object of the introduction to the brief is to set forth the main
issues. In like manner the object of the proof is to set forth the
evidence which supports these main issues. Therefore the main issues
constitute the main headings of the second division of the brief.
Moreover, these main issues must all read directly as reasons for the
truth of the proposition. To illustrate this rule, let us consider the
following example.
BRIEF
PROPOSITION: Resolved, that the policy of protection should be abandoned
by the United States.
INTRODUCTION
I. }
} (First part of introduction omitted)
II. }
III. The clash of opinion reveals the following issues:
A. Is protection sound in theory?
B. Is protection sound in practice?
PROOF
I. Protection is unsound in theory, for
A. ...
B. ..., etc.
II. Protection is unsound in practice, for
A. ...
B. ..., etc.
The above example sets forth the form in which these main issues appear
in the proof of the brief. The validity of the reasoning which connects
the main issues with the proposition may be tested by putting the word
“because” or “for” after the proposition and reading it in connection
with each main issue; thus:
A. The policy of protection should be abandoned by the United States
because (or for) protection is unsound in theory.
B. The policy of protection should be abandoned by the United States
because (or for) protection is unsound in practice.
Each main issue should be tested in the manner suggested above. This
will show whether the proper logical relation exists between the main
issues and the proposition. A further test may be applied by inverting
the order of the main issues and the proposition and joining the two by
the word “therefore,” as follows: A. Protection is unsound in theory;
therefore the policy of protection should be abandoned by the United
States. B. Protection is unsound in practice; therefore the policy of
protection should be abandoned by the United States. But the words
“hence” or “therefore,” should never be used in a brief, because they
reverse the natural order and make the main statements subordinate.
After making sure that each main issue is stated so that it reads as a
reason for the truth of the proposition, the arguer must next amass the
evidence, which has been classified, in support of each of the main
issues.
_6. Every statement in the proof must read as a reason for the statement
to which it is subordinate._
In the same way in which the main issues must read as reasons for the
truth of the proposition, every statement in the proof, down to the
smallest subdivision, must read as a reason for the statement of the
next higher order. There must be no break in this firm logical
structure. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. If any break
or weakness shows in the chain of argument, reaching from the detailed
facts up to the proposition itself, the whole argument must be discarded
and a new one built in its place. To illustrate this rule clearly, let
us take a section from the proof of the following proposition:
Resolved, that all combinations of capital intended to monopolize
industries should be prohibited by the Federal Government.
INTRODUCTION
(Omitted)
PROOF
I. Combinations of capital are unnecessary, for
A. The concentration of capital is possible without them, for
1. Many individuals and partnerships have enough capital to
produce commodities in the most economical units.
2. Trades are sufficiently large to admit many great
competitors.
B. Combinations of capital are not necessary to resist labor
organizations, for
1. Labor unions do not have a complete monopoly of labor,
for
a. Strikes are often a failure, for
(1) (Here cite specific instances from your personal
knowledge in which strikes have failed.)
2. Associations for the purpose of resisting labor unions
are possible without combinations of capital.
II. Combinations of capital are a social evil, for
A. They encourage gambling and speculation, for
1. They practice “watering stock,” for
a. (Cite a number of specific instances.)
2. They inflate or depress the value of stocks at will.
B. They concentrate wealth in the hands of a few men, for
1. John D. Rockefeller gained his immense wealth from the
Standard Oil monopoly.
2. (Cite several other specific examples like the above.)
C. They discourage individual enterprise, for
1. Independent producers are driven out of business.
2. An individual cannot build up a business for himself.
III. Combinations of capital are an economic evil, for
A. They limit natural production.
B. They destroy competition, for
1. They absorb large producers.
2. They crush small producers.
C. They raise prices, for
1. They gain control of the market for this purpose.
IV. The prohibition of combinations of capital by the Federal
Government is practicable, for
A. The power is given to the Federal Government by the
Constitution, for
1. Congress is given power to regulate interstate commerce,
for
a. Art. 1, Sec. 8 grants this power.
2. The United States courts have jurisdiction over these
matters, for
a. Art. 1, Sec. 8 confers this power upon them.
In the above section taken from a completed brief enough evidence is
introduced to show clearly the relation which must exist between each
statement. Numbers I, II, III, and IV indicate the main issues. Under I,
A and B read as reasons for the truth of I. Under A, 1 and 2 read as
reasons for the truth of A and so on throughout the brief. Each
statement is connected with the preceding statement, to which it is
subordinate, by means of the conjunction “for.” These statements must
make complete sense and show their logical relation when connected by
this conjunction: as in II. Combinations of capital are a social evil,
for
A. They encourage gambling and speculation.
The rule stated at the beginning of this section is one of the most
important guides to correct brief making and every part of the proof
should be thoroughly tested by reference to it.
_7. Statements introducing refutation must show clearly the argument to
he refuted._
Refutation may be introduced at any point in the brief where objections
arise in connection with the constructive argument. It should always be
placed in its logical position, which is under the argument to which the
objection is made. Only the strong objections which appear to be obvious
hindrances to logical progress should be considered. Any stubborn
objections which need to be cleared away before the argument can proceed
with safety should be introduced. The argument to be refuted should be
clearly stated, and the refutation should be set forth in the same way
and subject to the same rules as the other parts of the brief.
An example of the proper introduction of refutation in a constructive
argument is shown in the speech of Roscoe Conkling delivered at the
Republican Convention in Chicago in 1880, in which he nominated Ulysses
S. Grant for President of the United States. The chief objection to
Grant’s candidacy was that he had already served two terms as President.
The precedent, set by Washington, that no man should serve more than two
terms as President, had always been followed and had become one of the
well established political customs of the country. Here was certainly a
strong objection to the constructive argument of the speaker. Therefore
the refutation is introduced where the speaker attempts to show that
Grant’s character as a man and his great services to his country entitle
him to the presidency. In brief form a statement of the refutation would
be as follows:
A. _Refutation._ The argument that Grant should not be nominated because
he has already served two terms as President is unsound, for
1. It is absurd to say that because we have tried Grant twice and
found him faithful we ought not to trust him again.
Refutation should always be introduced in the manner which the above
illustration indicates. First the series of symbols under which it
should come should be determined; then the word Refutation should be
placed opposite that symbol, followed by the formal statement that “The
argument that ... is unsound, for.” For a further illustration of the
manner in which refutation ought to appear the student should consult
the completed brief at the end of this chapter.
_8. The conclusion should be a summary of the main arguments just as
they stand in the proof of the brief, and should close with an
affirmation or denial of the proposition in the exact words in which it
is phrased._
A conclusion must be forcible and to the point. It should review the
main issues and show at a glance their relation to the proposition. The
conclusion to the brief given at the end of this chapter is a good
example of the form in which a conclusion should be stated.
SUMMARY OF THE RULES FOR CONSTRUCTING THE BRIEF
1. A brief should be constructed in three parts: Introduction, Proof,
and Conclusion.
2. Each statement in a brief should be a single complete sentence.
3. The relation which the different statements in a brief bear to each
other should be indicated by symbols and indentations.
4. The introduction should contain the main issues together with a
brief statement of the process of analysis by which they were
found.
5. The main statements of the proof should correspond to the main
issues set forth in the introduction and should read as reasons for
the truth of the proposition.
6. Every statement in the proof must read as a reason for the
statement to which it is subordinate.
7. Statements introducing refutation must show clearly the argument to
be refuted.
8. The conclusion should be a summary of the main arguments just as
they stand in the proof of the brief, and should close with an
affirmation or denial of the proposition in the exact words in
which it is phrased.
The following brief written by a student taking his first course in
argumentation shows clearly the application of all the above rules. It
is not given as an example of a perfect brief on the proposition stated
but it furnishes proper suggestions to the person whose experience in
drawing briefs is not extensive. In studying this brief the student
should observe the relation between the statements under each main
topic, the method of building up the structure of the brief so that the
relation of the various parts to the proposition is clear, and the fact
that in each case every statement rests upon a sound foundation. The
citation of good authority and the reliable source from which it was
obtained are given wherever an authority is required. The brief may be
criticised on the ground that too much reliance is placed upon one
source of evidence. As suggested in the chapter on Evidence the exact
reference to authority should always be given in order that its value
may lend weight to the argument. Furthermore, the student is thus
enabled to refer again to his source of evidence for further information
in case it becomes necessary.
In conclusion, the student must not forget that these rules should be
thoroughly mastered and that a conscious application of them must be
made in the actual practice of brief-drawing. It is only by this means
that they can be made a part of the argumentative equipment. After the
brief is drawn it should be carefully examined and tested by the above
rules. If certain parts evince weakness, these should be strengthened by
rearrangement, or by supplying more and stronger evidence. The student
may be compelled to return again and again to his source of evidence in
order to find material of which he has need. If the steps preceding the
construction of the brief have been carefully attended to, he will find
himself so familiar with the subject-matter of the proposition that such
work will be undertaken with the delight and interest which the keen
investigator feels when he is close on the trail of matter which will
prove his conclusions.
AFFIRMATIVE BRIEF
PROPOSITION: Resolved, that the Federal Government should levy a
progressive income tax.
INTRODUCTION
I. Recently the question of an income tax has aroused great interest.
A. An amendment to the constitution has been proposed recently
which will provide for this tax.
B. The proposed amendment has caused the matter to be considered
carefully by the public.
C. Many eminent men have given opinions regarding the advisability
of adopting the proposed tax.
II. The following definition is adopted,
The progressive income tax is simply a tax levied upon the income
of an individual, the rate of tax increasing as the amount of
the income of the individual increases.
III. The contentions of the affirmative and the negative are as
follows:
Those who advocate the adoption of Those who oppose the adoption of
this income tax support the this income tax support the
following contentions: following contentions:
A. The income tax is A. The income tax is not
necessary. necessary.
B. The income tax is B. The income tax is
practicable. impracticable.
C. The income tax is just. C. The income tax is unjust.
IV. Through this clash of opinions we reach the following issues:
A. Is the income tax necessary?
B. Is the income tax practicable?
C. Is the income tax just?
PROOF
I. The progressive income tax is necessary, for
A. It is necessary in meeting national exigencies, for
1. In case of war the customs duties would cease or be
impaired and the government would be without another source
from which to draw revenue were not the income tax
available. (Norris Brown, U. S. Senator from Neb. in
_Outlook_, 94: 217.)
2. Governor Hughes of New York believes this power (that of
levying the income tax) should be held by the Federal
Government so as to equip it with the means of meeting
national exigencies. (_Outlook_, 94: 110.)
3. Refutation. The argument that the income tax is not
necessary on the grounds that other taxes can be made to
cover all necessities is unsound, for
a. In case of war with a great commercial nation when the
country would be in the greatest need of revenues, the
collection of imposts would cease or be materially
diminished. (Justice Harlan of the U. S. Supreme Court
in his dissenting opinion in the Pollock Case.
_Outlook_, 94:217.)
II. The progressive income tax is practicable, for
A. Experience shows it to be practicable, for
1. During the great Civil War millions of dollars were
collected from this source when the government was in need.
(Norris Brown in _Outlook_, 94:216.)
2. It has proved practicable in England and Italy. “Income
taxation gains in economy and productiveness and wins
increasing approbation as the years go by.” (Professor Ely,
Professor of Economics in the University of Wisconsin, in
_Outlines of Economics_, p. 635.)
III. The progressive income tax is just, for
A. The tax bears upon the individual according to his ability to
pay, for
1. It tends to relieve the poor from taxation and place it
upon the rich who are able to bear it. (Philip S. Post in
_Outlook_, 85:504.)
B. It makes each individual bear his share of taxation, for
1. Income is as good, and perhaps better than any other single
measure of ability to pay and the tax is in accordance with
this idea. (Professor Ely in _Outlines of Economics_, p.
635.)
2. The income tax reaches certain members of the professional
class who under existing laws largely escape taxation
through lack of tangible property. (Philip S. Post in
_Outlook_, 85:594.)
CONCLUSION
I. Since the income tax is necessary in meeting national exigencies
where other revenues fail;
II. Since experience shows that the income tax is practicable;
III. Since the progressive income tax is just because it bears upon the
individual according to his ability to pay;
Therefore, the Federal Government should levy a progressive income tax.
EXERCISES IN CONSTRUCTING THE BRIEF
1. Let each student select some subject in which he is interested and
follow the argumentative process up to and including, the construction
of the brief.
2. Write out a full and complete brief of one of the arguments given in
the appendix.
3. After the briefs have been written out the instructor should have the
students exchange, and give them an opportunity in class to point out
the defects in each other’s work.
4. Without regard to order or form, let the instructor dictate all the
statements in a short brief, and let the student reconstruct a correct
brief out of these statements.