former territorial acquisitions came from certain of our own States; but
this Louisiana country was acquired from a foreign nation. In 1804
Congress gave a territorial organization to that part of it which now
constitutes the State of Louisiana. New Orleans, lying within that part,
was an old and comparatively large city. There were other considerable
towns and settlements and slavery was extensively and thoroughly
intermingled with the people. Congress did not, in the Territorial Act,
prohibit slavery; but they did interfere with it—take control of it—in a
more marked and extensive way than they did in the case of Mississippi.
The substance of the provision therein made in relation to slaves was:
1st. That no slave should be imported into the Territory from foreign
parts.
2d. That no slave should be carried into it who had been imported into
the United States since the first day of May, 1798.
3d. That no slave should be carried into it, except by the owner, and
for his own use as a settler; the penalty in all cases being a fine upon
the violator of the law, and freedom to the slave.
This act also was passed without ayes or nays. In the Congress which
passed it there were two of the “thirty-nine.” They were Abraham Baldwin
and Jonathan Dayton. As stated in the case of Mississippi, it is
probable they both voted for it. They would not have allowed it to pass
without recording their opposition to it if, in their understanding, it
violated either the line properly dividing local from Federal authority,
or any provision of the Constitution.
In 1819–20 came and passed the Missouri question. Many votes were taken,
by yeas and nays, in both branches of Congress, upon the various phases
of the general question. Two of the “thirty-nine”—Rufus King and Charles
Pinckney—were members of that Congress. Mr. King steadily voted for
slavery prohibition and against all compromises, while Mr. Pinckney as
steadily voted against slavery prohibition and against all compromises.
By this, Mr. King showed that, in his understanding, no line dividing
local from Federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, was
violated by Congress prohibiting slavery in Federal territory; while Mr.
Pinckney, by his votes, showed that, in his understanding, there was
some sufficient reason for opposing such prohibition in that case.
The cases I have mentioned are the only acts of the “thirty-nine,” or of
any of them upon the direct issue, which I have been able to discover.
To enumerate the persons who thus acted as being four in 1784, two in
1787, seventeen in 1789, three in 1798, two in 1804, and two in 1819–20,
there would be thirty of them. But this would be counting John Langdon,
Roger Sherman, William Few, Rufus King, and George Read each twice, and
Abraham Baldwin three times. The true number of those of the
“thirty-nine” whom I have shown to have acted upon the question which,
by the text, they understood better than we, is twenty-three, leaving
sixteen not shown to have acted upon it in any way.
Here, then, we have twenty-three out of our thirty-nine fathers “who
framed the government under which we live,” who have, upon their
official responsibility and their corporal oaths, acted upon the very
question which the text affirms they “understood just as well, and even
better, than we do now”; and twenty-one of them—a clear majority of the
whole “thirty-nine”—so acting upon it as to make them guilty of gross
political impropriety and wilful perjury if, in their understanding, any
proper division between local and Federal authority, or anything in the
Constitution they had made themselves, and sworn to support, forbade the
Federal Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Territories.
Thus the twenty-one acted; and, as actions speak louder than words, so
actions under such responsibility speak still louder.
Two of the twenty-three voted against Congressional prohibition of
slavery in the Federal Territories, in the instances in which they acted
upon the question. But for what reasons they so voted is not known. They
may have done so because they thought a proper division of local from
Federal authority, or some provision or principle of the Constitution,
stood in the way; or they may, without any such question, have voted
against the prohibition on what appeared to them to be sufficient
grounds of expediency. No one who has sworn to support the Constitution
can conscientiously vote for what he understands to be an
unconstitutional measure, however expedient he may think it; but one may
and ought to vote against a measure which he deems constitutional if, at
the same time, he deems it inexpedient. It, therefore, would be unsafe
to set down even the two who voted against the prohibition as having
done so because, in their understanding, any proper division of local
from Federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, forbade the
Federal Government to control as to slavery in Federal territory.
The remaining sixteen of the “thirty-nine,” so far as I have discovered,
have left no record of their understanding upon the direct question of
Federal control of slavery in the Federal Territories. But there is much
reason to believe that their understanding upon that question would not
have appeared different from that of their twenty-three compeers, had it
been manifested at all.
For the purpose of adhering rigidly to the text, I have purposely
omitted whatever understanding may have been manifested by any person,
however distinguished, other than the thirty-nine fathers who framed the
original Constitution; and, for the same reason, I have also omitted
whatever understanding may have been manifested by any of the
“thirty-nine” even on any other phase of the general question of
slavery. If we should look into their acts and declarations on those
other phases, as the foreign slave-trade, and the morality and policy of
slavery generally, it would appear to us that on the direct question of
Federal control of slavery in Federal Territories, the sixteen, if they
had acted at all, would probably have acted just as the twenty-three
did. Among that sixteen were several of the most noted anti-slavery men
of those times—as Dr. Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and Gouverneur
Morris—while there was not one now known to have been otherwise, unless
it may be John Rutledge, of South Carolina.
The sum of the whole is that of our thirty-nine fathers who framed the
original Constitution, twenty-one—a clear majority of the
whole—certainly understood that no proper division of local from Federal
Authority, nor any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal
Government to control slavery in the Federal Territories; while all the
rest had probably the same understanding. Such, unquestionably, was the
understanding of our fathers who framed the original Constitution; and
the text affirms that they understood the question “better than we.”
But, so far, I have been considering the understanding of the question
manifested by the framers of the original Constitution. In and by the
original instrument, a mode was provided for amending it; and, as I have
already stated, the present frame of “the government under which we
live” consists of that original, and twelve amendatory articles framed
and adopted since. Those who now insist that Federal control of slavery
in Federal Territories violates the Constitution, point us to the
provisions which they suppose it thus violates; and, as I understand,
they all fix upon provisions in these amendatory articles, and not in
the original instrument. The Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott case,
plant themselves upon the fifth amendment, which provides that no person
shall be deprived of “life, liberty, or property without due process of
law”; while Senator Douglas and his peculiar adherents plant themselves
upon the tenth amendment, providing that “the powers not delegated to
the United States by the Constitution” “are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.”
Now it so happens that these amendments were framed by the first
Congress which sat under the Constitution—the identical Congress which
passed the act, already mentioned, enforcing the prohibition of slavery
in the Northwestern Territory. Not only was it the same Congress, but
they were the identical, same individual men who, at the same session,
and at the same time within the session, had under consideration, and in
progress toward maturity, these constitutional amendments, and this act
prohibiting slavery in all the territory the nation then owned. The
constitutional amendments were introduced before, and passed after the
act enforcing the ordinance of ’87; so that, during the whole pendency
of the act to enforce the ordinance, the constitutional amendments were
also pending.
The seventy-six members of that Congress, including sixteen of the
framers of the original Constitution, as before stated, were
pre-eminently our fathers who framed that part of “the government under
which we live” which is now claimed as forbidding the Federal Government
to control slavery in the Federal Territories.
Is it not a little presumptuous in anyone at this day to affirm that the
two things which that Congress deliberately framed, and carried to
maturity at the same time, are absolutely inconsistent with each other?
And does not such affirmation become impudently absurd when coupled with
the other affirmation, from the same mouth, that those who did the two
things alleged to be inconsistent, understood whether they really were
inconsistent better than we—better than he who affirms that they are
inconsistent?
It is surely safe to assume that the thirty-nine framers of the original
Constitution, and the seventy-six members of the Congress which framed
the amendments thereto, taken together, do certainly include those who
may be fairly called “our fathers who framed the government under which
we live.” And so assuming, I defy any man to show that any one of them
ever, in his whole life, declared that, in his understanding, any proper
division of local from Federal authority, or any part of the
Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in
the Federal Territories. I go a step further. I defy anyone to show that
any living man in the world ever did, prior to the beginning of the
present century (and I might almost say prior to the beginning of the
last half of the present century), declare that, in his understanding,
any proper division of local from Federal authority, or any part of the
Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in
the Federal Territories. To those who now so declare I give not only
“our fathers who framed the government under which we live,” but with
them all other living men within the century in which it was framed,
among whom to search, and they shall not be able to find the evidence of
a single man agreeing with them.
Now, and here, let me guard a little against being misunderstood. I do
not mean to say we are bound to follow implicitly in whatever our
fathers did. To do so would be to discard all the lights of current
experience—to reject all progress, all improvement. What I do say is
that if we would supplant the opinions and policy of our fathers in any
case, we should do so upon evidence so conclusive, and argument so
clear, that even their great authority, fairly considered and weighed,
cannot stand; and most surely not in a case whereof we ourselves declare
they understood the question better than we.
If any man at this day sincerely believes that a proper division of
local from Federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbids
the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the Federal
Territories, he is right to say so, and to enforce his position by all
truthful evidence and fair argument which he can. But he has no right to
mislead others, who have less access to history, and less leisure to
study it, into the false belief that “our fathers who framed the
government under which we live” were of the same opinion—thus
substituting falsehood and deception for truthful evidence and fair
argument. If any man at this day sincerely believes “our fathers who
framed the government under which we live” used and applied principles,
in other cases, which ought to have led them to understand that a proper
division of local from Federal authority, or some part of the
Constitution, forbids the Federal Government to control as to slavery in
the Federal Territories, he is right to say so. But he should, at the
same time, brave the responsibility of declaring that, in his opinion,
he understands their principles better than they did themselves; and
especially should he not shirk that responsibility by asserting that
they “understood the question just as well, and even better, than we do
now.”
But enough! Let all who believe that “our fathers who framed the
government under which we live understood this question just as well,
and even better, than we do now,” speak as they spoke, and act as they
acted upon it. This is all Republicans ask—all Republicans desire—in
relation to slavery. As those fathers marked it, so let it be again
marked, as an evil not to be extended, but to be tolerated and protected
only because of and so far as its actual presence amongst us makes that
toleration and protection a necessity. Let all the guaranties those
fathers gave it be not grudgingly, but fully and fairly maintained. For
this Republicans contend, and with this, so far as I know or believe,
they will be content.
And now, if they would listen—as I suppose they will not—I would address
a few words to the Southern people.
I would say to them: You consider yourselves a reasonable and a just
people; and I consider that in the general qualities of reason and
justice you are not inferior to any other people. Still, when you speak
of us Republicans, you do so only to denounce us as reptiles, or, at the
best, as no better than outlaws. You will grant a hearing to pirates or
murderers, but nothing like it to “Black Republicans.” In all your
contentions with one another, each of you deems an unconditional
condemnation of “Black Republicanism,” as the first thing to be attended
to. Indeed, such condemnation of us seems to be an indispensable
prerequisite—license, so to speak—among you to be admitted or permitted
to speak at all. Now can you or not be prevailed upon to pause and to
consider whether this is quite just to us, or even to yourselves? Bring
forward your charges and specifications, and then be patient long enough
to hear us deny or justify.
You say we are sectional. We deny it. That makes an issue; and the
burden of proof is upon you. You produce your proof; and what is it?
Why, that our party has no existence in your section—gets no votes in
your section. The fact is substantially true; but does it prove the
issue? If it does, then in case we should, without change of principle,
begin to get votes in your section, we should thereby cease to be
sectional. You cannot escape this conclusion; and yet, are you willing
to abide by it? If you are, you will probably soon find that we have
ceased to be sectional, for we shall get votes in your section this very
year. You will then begin to discover, as the truth plainly is, that
your proof does not touch the issue. The fact that we get no votes in
your section is a fact of your making, and not of ours. And if there be
fault in that fact, that fault is primarily yours, and remains so until
you show that we repel you by some wrong principle or practice. If we do
repel you by any wrong principle or practice, the fault is ours; but
this brings you to where you ought to have started—to a discussion of
the right or wrong of our principle. If our principle, put in practice,
would wrong your section for the benefit of ours, or for any other
object, then our principle, and we with it, are sectional, and are
justly opposed and denounced as such. Meet us, then, on the question of
whether our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section; and so
meet us as if it were possible that something may be said on your side.
Do you accept the challenge? No! Then you really believe that the
principle which “our fathers who framed the government under which we
live” thought so clearly right as to adopt it, and indorse it again and
again, upon their official oaths, is in fact so clearly wrong as to
demand your condemnation without a moment’s consideration.
Some of you delight to flaunt in our faces the warning against sectional
parties given by Washington in his Farewell Address. Less than eight
years before Washington gave that warning, he had, as President of the
United States, approved and signed an act of Congress enforcing the
prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory, which act embodied
the policy of the government upon that subject up to and at the very
moment he penned that warning; and about one year after he penned it, he
wrote Lafayette that he considered that prohibition a wise measure,
expressing in the same connection his hope that we should at some time
have a confederacy of free States.
Bearing this in mind, and seeing that sectionalism has since arisen upon
this same subject, is that warning a weapon in your hands against us, or
in our hands against you? Could Washington himself speak, would he cast
the blame of that sectionalism upon us, who sustain his policy, or upon
you, who repudiate it? We respect that warning of Washington, and we
commend it to you, together with his example pointing to the right
application of it.
But you say you are conservative—eminently conservative—while we are
revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is
conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new
and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the
point in controversy which was adopted by “our fathers who framed the
government under which we live”; while you with one accord reject, and
scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting
something new. True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that
substitute shall be. You are divided on new propositions and plans, but
you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the
fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave-trade; some for
a Congressional slave code for the Territories; some for Congress
forbidding the Territories to prohibit slavery within their limits; some
for maintaining slavery in the Territories through the judiciary; some
for the “gur-reat pur-rinciple” that “if one man would enslave another,
no third man should object,” fantastically called “popular sovereignty,”
but never a man among you is in favor of Federal prohibition of slavery
in Federal Territories, according to the practice of “our fathers who
framed the government under which we live.” Not one of all your various
plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which
our government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of
conservatism for yourselves, and your charge of destructiveness against
us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations.
Again, you say we have made the slavery question more prominent than it
formerly was. We deny it. We admit that it is more prominent, but we
deny that we made it so. It was not we, but you, who discarded the old
policy of the fathers. We resisted, and still resist, your innovation;
and thence comes the greater prominence of the question. Would you have
that question reduced to its former proportions? Go back to that old
policy. What has been will be again, under the same conditions. If you
would have the peace of the old times, re-adopt the precepts and policy
of the old times.
You charge that we stir up insurrections among your slaves. We deny it;
and what is your proof? Harper’s Ferry! John Brown!! John Brown was no
Republican; and you have failed to implicate a single Republican in his
Harper’s Ferry enterprise. If any member of our party is guilty in that
matter, you know it or you do not know it. If you do know it, you are
inexcusable for not designating the man and proving the fact. If you do
not know it, you are inexcusable for asserting it, and especially for
persisting in the assertion after you have tried and failed to make the
proof. You need not be told that persisting in a charge which one does
not know to be true, is simply malicious slander.
Some of you admit that no Republican designedly aided or encouraged the
Harper’s Ferry affair, but still insist that our doctrines and
declarations necessarily lead to such results. We do not believe it. We
know we hold no doctrine, and make no declaration, which were not held
to and made by “our fathers who framed the government under which we
live.” You never dealt fairly by us in relation to this affair. When it
occurred, some important State elections were near at hand, and you were
in evident glee with the belief that, by charging the blame upon us, you
could get an advantage of us in those elections. The elections came, and
your expectations were not quite fulfilled. Every Republican man knew
that, as to himself at least, your charge was a slander, and he was not
much inclined by it to cast his vote in your favor. Republican doctrines
and declarations are accompanied with a continual protest against any
interference whatever with your slaves, or with you about your slaves.
Surely, this does not encourage them to revolt. True, we do, in common
with “our fathers who framed the government under which we live,”
declare our belief that slavery is wrong; but the slaves do not hear us
declare even this. For anything we say or do, the slaves would scarcely
know there is a Republican party. I believe they would not, in fact,
generally know it but for your misrepresentations of us in their
hearing. In your political contests among yourselves each faction
charges the other with sympathy with Black Republicanism; and then, to
give point to the charge, defines Black Republicanism to simply be
insurrection, blood, and thunder among the slaves.
Slave insurrections are no more common now than they were before the
Republican party was organized. What induced the Southampton
insurrection, twenty-eight years ago, in which at least three times as
many lives were lost as at Harper’s Ferry? You can scarcely stretch your
very elastic fancy to the conclusion that Southampton was “got up by
Black Republicanism.” In the present state of things in the United
States, I do not think a general, or even a very extensive, slave
insurrection is possible. The indispensable concert of action cannot be
attained. The slaves have no means of rapid communication; nor can
incendiary freemen, black or white, supply it. The explosive materials
are everywhere in parcels; but there neither are, nor can be supplied,
the indispensable connecting trains.
Much is said by Southern people about the affection of slaves for their
masters and mistresses; and a part of it, at least, is true. A plot for
an uprising could scarcely be devised and communicated to twenty
individuals before some one of them, to save the life of a favorite
master or mistress, would divulge it. This is the rule; and the slave
revolution in Hayti was not an exception to it, but a case occurring
under peculiar circumstances. The gunpowder plot of British history,
though not connected with slaves, was more in point. In that case, only
about twenty were admitted to the secret; and yet one of them, in his
anxiety to save a friend betrayed the plot to that friend, and, by
consequence, averted the calamity. Occasional poisonings from the
kitchen, and open or stealthy assassinations in the field, and local
revolts extending to a score or so, will continue to occur as the
natural results of slavery; but no general insurrection of slaves, as I
think, can happen in this country for a long time. Whoever much fears,
or much hopes, for such an event, will be alike disappointed.
In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, “It is still
in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation
peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off
insensibly; and their places be, pari passu, filled up by free white
laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human
nature must shudder at the prospect held up.”
Mr. Jefferson did not mean to say, nor do I, that the power of
emancipation is in the Federal Government. He spoke of Virginia; and, as
to the power of emancipation, I speak of the slaveholding States only.
The Federal Government, however, as we insist, has the power of
restraining the extension of the institution—the power to insure that a
slave insurrection shall never occur on any American soil which is now
free from slavery.
John Brown’s effort was peculiar. It was not a slave insurrection. It
was an attempt by white men to get up a revolt among slaves, in which
the slaves refused to participate. In fact, it was so absurd that the
slaves, with all their ignorance, saw plainly enough it could not
succeed. That affair, in its philosophy, corresponds with the many
attempts, related in history, at the assassination of kings and
emperors. An enthusiast broods over the oppression of a people till he
fancies himself commissioned by Heaven to liberate them. He ventures the
attempt which ends in little else than his own execution. Orsini’s
attempt on Louis Napoleon, and John Brown’s attempt at Harper’s Ferry,
were, in their philosophy, precisely the same. The eagerness to cast
blame on old England in the one case, and on New England in the other,
does not disprove the sameness of the two things.
And how much would it avail you, if you could by the use of John Brown,
Helper’s book, and the like, break up the Republican organization? Human
action can be modified to some extent, but human nature cannot be
changed. There is a judgment and a feeling against slavery in this
nation, which cast at least a million and a half of votes. You cannot
destroy that judgment and feeling—that sentiment—by breaking up the
political organization which rallies around it. You can scarcely scatter
and disperse an army which has been formed into order in the face of
your heaviest fire; but if you could, how much would you gain by forcing
the sentiment which created it out of the peaceful channel of the
ballot-box into some other channel? What would that other channel
probably be? Would the number of John Browns be lessened or enlarged by
the operation?
But you will break up the Union rather than submit to a denial of your
constitutional rights.
That has a somewhat reckless sound; but it would be palliated, if not
fully justified, were we proposing, by the mere force of numbers, to
deprive you of some right plainly written down in the Constitution. But
we are proposing no such thing.
When you make these declarations you have a specific and well-understood
allusion to an assumed constitutional right of yours to take slaves into
the Federal Territories, and to hold them there as property. But no such
right is specially written in the Constitution. That instrument is
literally silent about any such right. We, on the contrary, deny that
such a right has any existence in the Constitution, even by implication.
Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the
government, unless you be allowed to construe and force the Constitution
as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will
rule or ruin in all events.
This, plainly stated, is your language. Perhaps you will say the Supreme
Court has decided the disputed constitutional question in your favor.
Not quite so. But waiving the lawyer’s distinction between dictum and
decision the court has decided the question for you in a sort of way.
The court has substantially said, it is your constitutional right to
take slaves into the Federal Territories, and to hold them there as
property. When I say the decision was made in a sort of way, I mean it
was made in a divided court, by a bare majority of the judges, and they
not quite agreeing with one another in the reasons for making it; that
it is so made as that its avowed supporters disagree with one another
about its meaning, and that it was mainly based upon a mistaken
statement of fact—the statement in the opinion that “the right of
property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the
Constitution.”
An inspection of the Constitution will show that the right of property
in a slave is not “distinctly and expressly affirmed” in it. Bear in
mind, the judges do not pledge their judicial opinion that such right is
impliedly affirmed in the Constitution; but they pledge their veracity
that it is “distinctly and expressly” affirmed there—“distinctly,” that
is, not mingled with anything else—“expressly,” that is in words meaning
just that, without the aid of any inference, and susceptible of no other
meaning.
If they had only pledged their judicial opinion that such right is
affirmed in the instrument by implication, it would be open to others to
show that neither the word “slave” nor “slavery” is to be found in the
Constitution, nor the word “property” even, in any connection with
language alluding to the thing slave, or slavery; and that wherever in
that instrument the slave is alluded to, he is called a “person”; and
wherever his master’s legal right in relation to him is alluded to, it
is spoken of as “service or labor which may be due”—as a debt payable in
service or labor. Also it would be open to show, by contemporaneous
history, that this mode of alluding to slaves and slavery, instead of
speaking of them, was employed on purpose to exclude from the
Constitution the idea that there could be property in man.
To show all this is easy and certain.
When this obvious mistake of the judges shall be brought to their
notice, is it not reasonable to expect that they will withdraw the
mistaken statement, and reconsider the conclusion based upon it?
And then it is to be remembered that “our fathers who framed
the government under which we live”—the men who made the
Constitution—decided this same constitutional question in our favor long
ago; decided it without division among themselves when making the
decision; without division among themselves about the meaning of it
after it was made, and, so far as any evidence is left, without basing
it upon any mistaken statement of facts.
Under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves justified
to break up this government unless such a court decision as yours is
shall be at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule of
political action? But you will not abide the election of a Republican
president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union;
and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon
us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters
through his teeth, “Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you
will be a murderer!”
To be sure, what the robber demanded of me—my money—was my own; and I
had a clear right to keep it; but it was no more my own than my vote is
my own; and the threat of death to me, to extort my money, and the
threat of destruction to the Union, to extort my vote, can scarcely be
distinguished in principle.
A few words now to Republicans. It is exceedingly desirable that all
parts of this great Confederacy shall be at peace, and in harmony one
with another. Let us Republicans do our part to have it so. Even though
much provoked, let us do nothing through passion and ill temper. Even
though the Southern people will not so much as listen to us, let us
calmly consider their demands, and yield to them if, in our deliberate
view of our duty, we possibly can. Judging by all they say and do, and
by the subject and nature of their controversy with us, let us
determine, if we can, what will satisfy them.
Will they be satisfied if the Territories be unconditionally surrendered
to them? We know they will not. In all their present complaints against
us, the Territories are scarcely mentioned. Invasions and insurrections
are the rage now. Will it satisfy them if, in the future, we have
nothing to do with invasions and insurrections? We know it will not. We
so know, because we know we never had anything to do with invasions and
insurrections; and yet this total abstaining does not exempt us from the
charge and the denunciation.
The question recurs, What will satisfy them? Simply this: we must not
only let them alone, but we must somehow convince them that we do let
them alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task. We have been
so trying to convince them from the very beginning of our organization,
but with no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have
constantly protested our purpose to let them alone; but this has had no
tendency to convince them. Alike unavailing to convince them is the fact
that they have never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb
them.
These natural and apparently adequate means all failing, what will
convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and
join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly—done in
acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated—we must place
ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas’s new sedition law must be
enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is
wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private.
We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We
must pull down our free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must
be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will
cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us.
I am quite aware they do not state their case precisely in this way.
Most of them would probably say to us, “Let us alone; do nothing to us,
and say what you please about slavery.” But we do let them alone—have
never disturbed them—so that, after all, it is what we say which
dissatisfies them. They will continue to accuse us of doing, until we
cease saying.
I am also aware they have not as yet in terms demanded the overthrow of
our free-State constitutions. Yet those constitutions declare the wrong
of slavery, with more solemn emphasis than do all other sayings against
it; and when all these other sayings shall have been silenced, the
overthrow of these constitutions will be demanded, and nothing be left
to resist the demand. It is nothing to the contrary that they do not
demand the whole of this just now. Demanding what they do, and for the
reason they do, they can voluntarily stop nowhere short of this
consummation. Holding, as they do, that slavery is morally right and
socially elevating, they cannot cease to demand a full national
recognition of it as a legal right and a social blessing.
Nor can we justifiably withhold this on any ground save our conviction
that slavery is wrong. If slavery is right, all words, acts, laws, and
constitutions against it are themselves wrong, and should be silenced
and swept away. If it is right, we cannot justly object to its
nationality—its universality; if it is wrong, they cannot justly insist
upon its extension—its enlargement. All they ask we could readily grant,
if we thought slavery right; all we ask they could as readily grant, if
they thought it wrong. Their thinking it right and our thinking it wrong
is the precise fact upon which depends the whole controversy. Thinking
it right, as they do, they are not to blame for desiring its full
recognition as being right; but thinking it wrong, as we do, can we
yield to them? Can we cast our votes with their view, and against our
own? In view of our moral, social, and political responsibilities, can
we do this?
Wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone where it
is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual
presence in the nation; but can we, while our votes will prevent it,
allow it to spread into the national Territories, and to overrun us here
in these free States? If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us
stand by our duty fearlessly and effectively. Let us be diverted by none
of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously
plied and belabored—contrivances such as groping for some middle ground
between the right and the wrong: vain as the search for a man who should
be neither a living man nor a dead man; such as a policy of “don’t care”
on a question about which all true men do care: such as Union appeals
beseeching true Union men to yield to Disunionists, reversing the divine
rule, and calling, not the sinners, but the righteous to repentance;
such as invocations to Washington, imploring men to unsay what
Washington said and undo what Washington did.
Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against
us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the government,
nor of dungeons to ourselves. Let us have faith that right makes might,
and in that faith let us to the end dare to do our duty as we understand
it.
APPENDIX D
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR HIGH SCHOOL DEBATING LEAGUE UNDER THE
DIRECTION OF A COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY
The Bangor High School, the Bar Harbor High School, the Bucksport East
Maine Conference Seminary, and the Foxcroft Academy, do hereby agree to
form an Interscholastic Debating League. The purpose of this League is
to hold debates subject to the following conditions:
I
The executive committee of the League shall consist of the principal of
each of the above-named institutions and of the Debate Coach at the
University of Maine. This committee shall meet once a year at such time
and place as agreed upon by the schools and the University. It shall
have charge of all matters pertaining to the League, subject to the
provisions herein contained.
II
The League shall hold two preliminary debates and one final debate each
year, according to the following plan:
The high schools and academies composing this League shall be divided
into two equal groups. Each group shall hold a preliminary debate as
herein provided. The two winning schools shall then meet in a final
debate to be held at the University of Maine. The executive committee
shall determine at its first meeting the time, place, and method of
rotation to be observed in holding contests for succeeding years.
III
The questions for debate shall be selected in the following manner:
(1) For the preliminary contests. On or before October first, each
school at which a debate is to be held shall submit to the visiting
school a list of three propositions. The visiting school shall thereupon
select one of these propositions and choose the side which it wishes to
defend. On or before October fifteenth, notice of this selection must be
communicated to the school at which the debate is to be held.
(2) For the final contest. Immediately upon the announcement of a
decision in a preliminary contest, the principal of the winning school
shall mail notice of the result to the Debate Coach of the University of
Maine. The Debate Coach shall determine by lot the school which is to
propose the list of propositions to its opponent. Notice of this fact
shall immediately be sent to the school thus designated. This school
shall prepare immediately a list of three propositions and submit them
to its opponent. Within three days the opposing school shall mail to the
other school an announcement of the proposition which it has selected
from the list proposed and shall state the side of the proposition which
it wishes to defend.
IV
The judges for both the preliminary and final contests shall be selected
in the following manner:
Four weeks before the contest, the school which has proposed the list of
propositions shall submit to its opponent, a list of twelve judges. The
opposing school shall select three persons from this list and return
their names to the other school. This school shall immediately attempt
to secure the persons so named to act as judges. If any or all of the
persons selected refuse the invitation to serve, the proposing school
shall ask the visiting school to select substitute judges from the list.
The school making the final selection of judges may require at any time,
a new list of names from the opposing school. No school shall propose as
judge any person who is financially or officially interested in, or a
graduate or former student of, such school.
V
In the preliminary contests the visiting school shall bear all expenses
of its own team. The school at which the contest is held shall bear the
expenses of procuring judges and shall have charge of all local
arrangements.
In the final contest each participating school shall bear the expense of
its own team and one-half the expense of the judges.
VI
Each school shall select for its team three representatives and an
alternate, but no one shall be chosen who is not a _bona fide_ student
of the institution which he represents.
VII
Each debater shall be allowed two speeches, one of ten (10) minutes
duration, the other of five (5) minutes. The first series of speeches
shall be opened by the affirmative, and shall alternate between
affirmative and negative speeches. The second series shall be opened by
the negative, and shall alternate between negative and affirmative
speeches.
VIII
In preparing for any contest, each school is entitled to three visits
from a student of Argumentation and Debate in the University of Maine.
This student Coach will give such assistance as is asked for in the
training of the debaters representing each school. No charge will be
made for this service, but each school must bear the expense of the
student sent to coach its team.
IX
In each contest the judges shall be instructed to award the decision on
the merits of the argument as presented in the debate, and not upon the
merits of the question. It is understood that effectiveness of style and
manner of delivery are to be considered.
X
This agreement may be amended at any time by the unanimous vote of the
executive committee.
XI
At the close of the final contest, the President of the University of
Maine, or some one on his behalf, will present to the winning team the
University of Maine Interscholastic Debating Cup. The name of the
winning school and the year of the contest will be engraved upon the
cup. This cup will be kept in the possession of the winning school until
within one week of the next annual contest. At this time it shall be
returned to the University of Maine to be awarded to the school winning
the final contest for that year.
XII
At the close of the final contest, the President of the University of
Maine, or some one on his behalf, will present to the debater whose work
is regarded by the judges as the most effective, a scholarship to the
value of $30.00 good for one year in the above-named institution.
XIII
This agreement shall be in full force and operation when one of the two
copies herewith submitted to each of the four institutions composing the
League is signed by the principal of the institution and mailed to the
Head of the Department of English at the University of Maine.
APPENDIX E
DEBATING AGREEMENT FOR A LEAGUE COMPOSED OF FIVE INSTITUTIONS
CONSTITUTION OF THE CENTRAL DEBATING CIRCUIT OF AMERICA
ARTICLE I
OBJECT.—The object of this organization shall be to foster interest in
debate by holding an annual contest in December on the Friday evening
one week before the opening of the holiday recess.
ARTICLE II
DEBATING BOARDS.—Each university shall create a debating board a
majority of whose members shall be of the faculty. The members of this
board shall be chosen annually as each university may deem wise. The
debating board shall have general supervision of all debating matters of
the league affecting its university.
ARTICLE III
QUESTIONS.—On April first each university shall submit to each of the
others a question properly stated for debate. On April fifteenth each
university shall send the five questions to each of the others arranged
in the order of its choice. The question ranked highest by all the
universities shall be debated by all the teams. In the case of a tie the
selection from the tying questions shall be made by the President of
Yale University.
ARTICLE IV
TIME AND ORDER OF SPEAKING.—Each speaker shall have seventeen minutes;
twelve minutes for opening and five for rebuttal, but the order of
rebuttal speeches on either side may be changed at the wish of the
speakers on that side. The negative shall lead in the rebuttal. The
visiting team shall support the negative.
ARTICLE V
JUDGES.
(_Contests for 1906–1907 and 1910–1911_)
_Contesting states._ │_Place of contest._ │_Residence of Judge._
Minnesota │Iowa City │Illinois
Iowa │ „ │Nebraska
Nebraska │Urbana │Iowa
Illinois │ „ │Wisconsin
Iowa │Madison │Illinois
Wisconsin │ „ │Minnesota
Illinois │Minneapolis │Iowa
Minnesota │ „ │Wisconsin
Wisconsin │Lincoln │Iowa
Nebraska │ „ │ „
(_Contests for 1907–1908 and 1911–1912_)
Illinois │Iowa City │Minnesota
Iowa │ „ │Nebraska
Wisconsin │Urbana │Iowa
Illinois │ „ │ „
Minnesota │Madison │Illinois
Wisconsin │ „ │Iowa
Nebraska │Minneapolis │Wisconsin
Minnesota │ „ │ „
Iowa │Lincoln │Minnesota
Nebraska │ „ │ „
(_Contests for 1908–1909 and 1912–1913_)
Wisconsin │Iowa City │Illinois
Iowa │ „ │Nebraska
Minnesota │Urbana │Wisconsin
Illinois │ „ │Iowa
Nebraska │Madison │Illinois
Wisconsin │ „ │Minnesota
Iowa │Minneapolis │Wisconsin
Minnesota │ „ │Nebraska
Illinois │Lincoln │Iowa
Nebraska │ „ │ „
(_Contests for 1909–1910 and 1913–1914_)
Nebraska │Iowa City │Minnesota
Iowa │ „ │Illinois
Iowa │Urbana │Wisconsin
Illinois │ „ │
Illinois │Madison │Minnesota
Wisconsin │ „ │
Wisconsin │Minneapolis │Nebraska
Minnesota │ „ │Iowa
Minnesota │Lincoln │Iowa
Nebraska │ „ │ „
On April first each university shall submit judges according to the
above schedule.
When a single state furnishes the judges for any contest it shall submit
a list of 24 names to each of the two competing universities. These
lists shall be duplicates.
When two states furnish the judges they shall each submit a list of 12
names.
When a state furnishes judges for two or more contests it shall make up
its several lists as impartially as possible with reference to the
distribution of able men.
Convenience and economy for the attending judges shall be a factor in
their nomination in so far as may be consistent with the choice of able
men.
Not later than the first of October preceding the contest the visiting
university shall send to the entertaining university a list of six
candidates for judges chosen from the proper rolls. Not later than the
same date the entertaining university shall send to its opponent a list
of twelve judges chosen from the proper rolls. Each university shall
arrange the opponent’s list of candidates in the order of its choice.
Each university shall have the right to challenge any or all of the
number of the candidates submitted by its opponent on presentation of
good and sufficient reason. The challenge list, together with
objections, shall be returned at once to the sender. The list shall be
completed and re-submitted not later than October twentieth.
It is further understood that any person recommended for judge who is a
relative, actual or prospective, of any contestant, or who is an alumnus
of either university, or who holds or has held, any official relation
with either university may be rejected.
The secretary of the entertaining university shall notify the judges by
a joint note, the form of which shall be as follows;
The state universities of (name) and (name) will hold a joint debate at
(place) on (date). The specific wording of the proposition for debate
is, “Resolved, that &c—
We shall consider ourselves especially favored if you can be with us at
(place) to hear and judge this contest. (Insert a sentence here stating
the names of the other judges who have been invited or who consented to
serve.)
We shall of course meet your entire expense. Trusting that we may have
an early and favorable reply, we remain,
Respectfully yours,
A. B., University of ————
C. D., University of ————
The entertaining university shall sign the names of both secretaries to
the letter and shall enclose a stamped envelop addressed to each for the
reply.
Before the contest the judges shall be entertained at a hotel and every
semblance of an effort to influence them will be regarded as
dishonorable conduct.
The secretary will secure two judges from the list of the entertaining
university and one from the list of the opponent adhering strictly to
the order recommended by the respective universities. But if any name or
names should be found on both lists they shall be first invited to
serve.
The university submitting a list of names shall always report on the
qualifications of the judges in the following respects; I. Occupation.
II. Where educated. III. Politics. IV. Religion. V. Official relations
with any university of the league at any time.
ARTICLE VI
INSTRUCTIONS TO JUDGES.—Each judge shall be instructed to decide for
himself what constitutes effective debate, except that he shall consider
both thought and delivery. Without consultation he shall vote
affirmative or negative on the merits of the debate, _not on the merits
of the question_. He shall sign, seal and deliver his vote to the
presiding officer who shall open the votes and announce the decision.
ARTICLE VII
EXPENSES.—Each university shall pay all the expenses of its own
debaters. All other expenses of the contest shall be paid by the
entertaining university.
ARTICLE VIII
CONDUCT OF THE DEBATES.—In the contests of this league all communication
with the debaters, by prompting or otherwise, is forbidden; also the
introduction of both private correspondence and charts is debarred.
ARTICLE IX
AMENDMENTS.—This constitution may be amended by the authorized
representatives of the universities at any special meeting or by
correspondence providing twenty days notice be given of the changes
desired.
ARTICLE X
SCHEDULE.—The schedule for debates shall be as follows:
_First Year_ Minnesota shall send a team to Iowa City
Nebraska “ “ “ “ “ Urbana
Iowa “ “ “ “ “ Madison
Illinois “ “ “ “ “ Minneapolis
Wisconsin “ “ “ “ “ Lincoln
_Second Year_ Minnesota “ “ “ “ “ Madison
Nebraska “ “ “ “ “ Minneapolis
Iowa “ “ “ “ “ Lincoln
Illinois “ “ “ “ “ Iowa City
Wisconsin “ “ “ “ “ Urbana
_Third Year_ Minnesota “ “ “ “ “ Urbana
Nebraska “ “ “ “ “ Madison
Iowa “ “ “ “ “ Minneapolis
Illinois “ “ “ “ “ Lincoln
Wisconsin “ “ “ “ “ Iowa City
_Fourth Year_ Minnesota “ “ “ “ “ Lincoln
Nebraska “ “ “ “ “ Iowa City
Iowa “ “ “ “ “ Urbana
Illinois “ “ “ “ “ Madison
Wisconsin “ “ “ “ “ Minneapolis
APPENDIX F
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR A TRIANGULAR DEBATING LEAGUE
Debating Agreement between Indiana University, Ohio State University,
and the University of Illinois
(Adopted by the representatives of the three institutions at Columbus,
June 17, 1905)
ARTICLE 1.—This organization shall consist of the Indiana University,
Ohio State University, and the University of Illinois, and shall be
known as the State University Debating League.
ARTICLE 2.—Its affairs shall be conducted by an executive committee
consisting of one member of the Faculty of each institution, to be
selected by that institution.
(a) One of these shall act as President, one as Vice President, and one
as Secretary and Treasurer, each holding office for one year.
(b) The three offices shall be filled by the representatives of the
three institutions in rotation in the following order: 1905–1906
Presidency, Ohio State University, Vice Presidency, Indiana University,
Secretary and Treasurership, University of Illinois; 1906–1907
Presidency, Indiana University, Vice Presidency, University of Illinois,
Secretary and Treasurership, Ohio State University; 1907–1908
Presidency, University of Illinois, Vice Presidency, Ohio State
University, Secretary and Treasurership, Indiana University; and
thereafter in the same rotation.
ARTICLE 3.—The debates shall be held on the second Friday in March—one
at Bloomington, Indiana, one at Columbus, Ohio, and one at Urbana,
Illinois. In the year 1905–1906 the teams shall come together as
follows: University of Illinois and Indiana University at Bloomington;
Indiana University and Ohio State University at Columbus; Ohio State
University and University of Illinois at Urbana. In the year 1906–1907
Ohio State University and Indiana University at Bloomington; University
of Illinois and Ohio State University at Columbus; Indiana University
and University of Illinois at Urbana; and thereafter in the same
biennial rotation.
ARTICLE 4.—(a) A question shall be proposed by each institution not
later than the 5th of October preceding the debates.
(b) The Secretary shall at once send the three questions to the three
institutions, and they shall reply not later than the 25th of October,
each institution indicating its ranking of the three questions as first
choice, second choice, third choice.
(c) The Secretary shall report the result of this vote not later than
the 30th of October, and the question ranked highest in the vote shall
be debated by all teams. In case of a tie in the ranking the selection
from the three questions shall be made by the President of the
University of Minnesota.
(d) After the question has been chosen no modification shall be made in
its wording and no definition permitted.
ARTICLE 5.—The home team shall support the affirmative of the question
and the visiting team the negative.
ARTICLE 6.—Each speaker shall be allowed twelve minutes for a principal
speech and five minutes for a rebuttal speech. No time may be
transferred from one speaker to another, but the order of rebuttal
speeches on either side may be changed at the wish of the speakers on
that side. “The negative shall lead in rebuttal.”
ARTICLE 7.—(a) The visiting institution shall not later than the 15th of
January nominate a list of twenty names of persons living within two
hundred and fifty miles of the place of the debate, no one of whom shall
be or shall have been connected with any of the three institutions
concerned either as officer, teacher or student. The home institution
shall have the right of veto for cause to be explicitly stated to the
other institution within two weeks thereafter, and the visiting
institution shall submit other names equal in number to those vetoed.
The home institution shall choose three persons from this list to act as
judges.
(b) Each judge shall be provided with written instructions in the
following form:
Date..................
In rendering your decision, you are asked to consider the merits of
the _debate_ and not the merits of the question. You are the sole
judges of what constitutes effective debating, remembering that both
thought and delivery are to be considered.
In my opinion the ......... team has done the most effective
debating.
...................... Judge
(c) At the close of the debate each judge shall be permitted to
withdraw, and within 15 minutes shall present to the chairman in a
sealed envelope his individual decision, reached without conference with
his colleagues.
ARTICLE 8.—Each institution shall pay the expenses of its debaters. All
other expenses of each debate shall be paid by the entertaining
institution.
APPENDIX G
PROPOSITIONS
POLITICAL
_A. Legislative._
1. Any further centralization of power in the Federal Government of
the United States should be condemned.
2. United States senators should be elected by popular vote.
3. The House of Representatives should elect its standing committees.
4. The state of should adopt the legislative referendum.
5. An amendment of the Federal Constitution should be adopted
convening the first session of Congress within a few months after
the election and compelling the second session to adjourn several
days before the following election.
6. The number of representatives to Congress should be reduced.
7. All members of the Senate and House of Representatives should be
required to be present during the discussion of all proposed
legislation, unless prevented by illness.
8. The United States should adopt the Swiss referendum.
9. The Constitution should be so amended as to make the passing of
amendments easier.
10. The United States Senate should adopt a closure rule.
11. Lobbying in Congress and in the state legislatures should be
prohibited by law.
12. Direct legislation by means of the initiative and referendum is
desirable for our states and their subdivisions.
13. The initiative and referendum offer a desirable relief from the
evils arising from the dominance of special interests in our states
and their municipalities.
_B. Executive._
14. The President of the United States should be elected for one term
of seven years, and be ineligible for reëlection.
15. The President of the United States should be elected by direct
vote of the people.
16. The President should be allowed to veto items in appropriation
bills.
17. The President of the United States is justified in calling out the
militia to subdue local disturbances, without consent or request of
state authorities.
18. Counties in which a lynching occurs should be placed under martial
law until they give evidence of capacity to exercise effective
local government, not exceeding a term of one year.
19. For the better protection of life, liberty, and property in rural
districts a state constabulary is necessary.
_C. Judicial._
20. The recall of state and local judges by popular vote is desirable.
21. A two-thirds vote of the jury should constitute a verdict in
criminal cases.
22. A two-thirds vote of the jury should constitute a verdict in civil
cases.
23. Federal judges should be elected by popular vote.
24. The jury system should be abolished.
25. The courts should be forbidden by law to issue “blanket”
injunctions in labor disputes.
26. The detention of innocent witnesses, pending the trial of cases in
court, without adequate compensation and without proof of its
necessity should be prohibited by law.
27. State judges should be appointed by the governor to hold office
during life or good behavior.
28. The law governing judicial process should be so amended as to
provide for the more speedy conduct of criminal cases, and fewer
opportunities for delay in the execution of the sentences imposed.
29. It would be desirable to elect justices of the United States
Supreme Court by popular vote.
_D. Franchise._
30. The right of suffrage should be limited to persons who can read
and write.
31. There should be an educational test as a qualification for voting.
32. The white citizens of the South are justified in using all
peaceable means to secure political supremacy.
33. Men and women should have equal suffrage.
34. The admission to citizenship into the United States should be
granted under stricter requirements as to a working knowledge of
rights and duties of the privileges conferred.
35. Admission of aliens to the privileges of citizenship should be
granted on more restrictive conditions.
36. The admission of native-born and foreign-born citizens to the
privilege of voting should be granted only upon evidence of due
qualifications both as to knowledge of the rights and obligations
and also of respect for the institutions and ideals of our national
life.
_E. Immigration._
37. The immigration restrictions which now apply to the Chinese should
be extended so as to apply to the Japanese.
38. The United States should make no discrimination between the
immigrants from China and those from other countries.
39. Admission of further immigration to the United States, so long as
the congestion of alien groups persist in our large cities, should
be subject to Federal control of such arrivals for a definite
period of years for purposes of better distribution with regard to
the requirements of the different sections of the country.
40. The immigration of all Japanese and Chinese laborers to the United
States should be prohibited by law.
_F. Miscellaneous._
41. Party lines should be disregarded in all elections.
42. Public advocacy of violent means for the subversion of government
should be suppressed by law in the United States.
43. The United States should have exclusive jurisdiction over Behring
Sea.
44. The sharing of public funds for purposes which ignore the
constitutional separation of church and state is a menace to our
Federal, State, and Municipal institutions and should be abandoned
wherever inaugurated and prevented wherever existing or proposed.
45. The short ballot should be adopted in State and Municipal
governments.
46. The tendency of political platform making is to overburden the
Federal government with proposals whose nature and accomplishment
are better adapted to State, Municipal, and other local
governmental agencies.
47. Congress should provide for uniform Federal marriage and divorce
laws. Constitutionality conceded.
48. All cities in the United States of over 5,000 inhabitants should
adopt the commission form of government.
49. The “Galveston Plan” of city government by a board of directors
insures increase of efficiency combined with a decrease of
corruption in city affairs.
50. There should be a large and immediate increase in the United
States Navy.
51. A political reformation in the United States looking to the
formation of two new political parties is desirable.
52. The states should adopt the recall for all state and local
officers except members of the judiciary.
53. A commission form of government is preferable to a mayor and
council plan.
ECONOMIC
_A. Tariff._
54. Commercial reciprocity with Canada would be for the best interest
of the United States.
55. The tariff on goods imported into the United States should be
fixed by a bi-partisan commission.
56. The United States should impose a tariff on imports from the
Philippines. Constitutionality conceded.
57. The protective tariff should be removed from trust-made products.
58. Raw materials should be admitted to the United States free of
duty.
59. The tariff on raw materials is justified on the ground of the
protection of American industry against foreign competition.
60. Sugar should be admitted to the United States free of duty.
61. Commercial reciprocity between the United States and South America
would be for the best interests of the United States.
62. The United States should adopt the policy of tariff for revenue
only.
63. Steel should be admitted to the United States free of duty.
64. All goods, the price of which is controlled by a single capitalist
or combination of capitalists, should be admitted to the United
States free of duty.
_B. Taxation._
65. The growth of large fortunes should be checked by means of
national progressive income and inheritance taxes.
66. The Federal government should levy a progressive inheritance tax.
Granted, that such tax would be held constitutional.
67. The Federal government should levy a progressive income tax.
Constitutionality conceded.
68. The single tax as advocated by Henry George, would be an
improvement over our present system of taxation.
69. The tax on the issue of state banks should be repealed.
70. That a graduated income tax would be a desirable addition to the
Federal system of taxation.
71. A Federal graduated income tax with an exemption of all incomes
below $5000 per annum would be a desirable modification of the
system of Federal taxation.
_C. Corporations._
72. Congress should pass laws prohibiting corporate contributions to
political campaign funds.
73. The regulating power of Congress should be extended over all
corporations doing an interstate business. Constitutionality
conceded.
74. All corporations engaged in interstate commerce should be required
to take out a Federal license.
75. Physical valuation of the property of a corporation is the best
basis for fixing the rate of taxation.
76. Railroad pooling is economically advantageous to the public.
77. The price of “trust-made” products should be regulated by law.
78. The National Bureau of Corporations should have control of
industrial and commercial corporations doing interstate business,
similar to the control which the Interstate Commerce Commission has
over railroads.
79. All corporations engaged in interstate commerce should be required
to take out Federal charters; it being conceded that such a
requirement would be constitutional and that Federal license shall
not be available as an alternative plan.
80. The policy of regulating industrial corporations is preferable to
the policy of dissolving them.
_D. Labor._
81. The New Zealand system of compulsory arbitration should be adopted
in the United States.
82. A system of compulsory arbitration should be adopted in the United
States.
83. Employers and employees of all public service corporations such as
railroads, street railways, etc., should be compelled to arbitrate
labor disputes.
84. Members of trades-unions are justified in refusing to work with
non-union men.
85. State boards of arbitration, with compulsory powers, should be
established to settle all disputes between employers and employees.
86. Employers are justified in refusing recognition to labor unions.
87. The history of trades-unions for the past ten years shows a
tendency detrimental to the industrial development of the United
States.
88. The boycott is a legitimate means of enforcing the demands of
organized labor.
89. The growth of labor unions is a menace to liberties of the working
man.
90. The closed “shop” is justifiable.
91. Employers should be prohibited from setting up contributory
negligence or negligence of a fellow servant as a bar to recovery
of adequate compensation by an injured employee.
92. The right to strike on the part of public employees should always
be subject to referendum on the part of the community immediately
concerned.
93. It would be advisable to legalize the strike and the boycott.
94. The movement of organized labor for the closed shop should receive
the support of public opinion.
95. The best interests of the laboring classes would be advanced by
the development of a separate labor party.
_E. Public Ownership._
96. The Federal government should buy and operate the telegraph
systems.
97. Municipalities in the United States of over 10,000 inhabitants
should own and operate their systems for lighting and local
transportation.
98. The United States should own and operate the coal mines within its
borders.
99. The forests of the United States should be owned and operated by
the Federal government.
_F. Miscellaneous._
100. The powers of the Interstate Commerce Commission should be
enlarged.
101. The United States should subsidize our merchant marine.
102. It is economically advantageous to the United States to own
territory in the tropics.
103. The amount of property transferable by inheritance should be
limited by statute.
104. The existing systems of commercial distribution between producers
and consumers is chiefly responsible for the high cost of living.
105. The national debt should be paid as rapidly as possible.
106. Mail order stores are a benefit to the public.
107. Prison-made products should be excluded from the open market.
108. The labor of prisoners in the state penitentiary should be
utilized in improving the highways of the state.
109. The American coastwise traffic should pass through the Panama
Canal toll free.
110. Congress should be given the power by constitutional amendment to
regulate manufactures and industry.
111. The Federal government should establish a bank of the United
States.
112. The Aldrich plan of a National Reserve Association should be
adopted by the Federal government.
113. The Federal government should regulate and supervise all fire and
life insurance companies doing an interstate business.
114. The Federal government should grant financial aid to ships
engaged in our foreign trade and owned by citizens of the United
States.
115. There should be some legislation providing for the guarantee of
bank deposits.
116. The Federal government should develop the waterway from the Great
Lakes to the Gulf.
117. A system of compulsory industrial insurance covering accident,
sickness, and old age should be adopted in the United States.
Constitutionality conceded.
118. The inland waterways of the United States should be extensively
improved by the Federal government.
119. The United States should adopt a double monetary standard.
SOCIAL
_A. The Liquor Problem._
120. The elimination of private profits offers the best solution of
the liquor problem.
121. Prohibition of the liquor traffic is preferable to any system of
license, wherever public opinion will sanction the passage and
enforcement of such a law.
122. The United States army should reëstablish the use of the canteen.
123. The Carolina Dispensary System for controlling the use and sale
of intoxicating liquors should be adopted in the state of .
124. State prohibition has failed wherever it has been adopted.
125. Prohibition is more conducive to temperance than high license.
_B. International Peace._
126. The United States should at once announce and carry out a policy
of total disarmament.
127. The present growth of armaments should be checked by mutual
agreement between the nations.
128. The United States should immediately provide for an increase in
its navy.
129. International peace is best promoted by extensive warlike
preparations.
_C. Insurance and Pensions._
130. The German system of compulsory insurance should be adopted in
the United States.
131. The Federal government should control all life insurance
companies.
132. A system of compulsory industrial insurance should be adopted in
the United States.
133. The United States government should grant uniform pensions to all
citizens over sixty years of age.
134. The Federal government should grant old-age pensions.
_D. The Church._
135. All church property should be taxed.
136. The modern church should maintain more rigid rules regarding the
personal conduct of its members.
137. A union of all Christian churches in the United States would
further the cause of Christianity.
_E. Miscellaneous._
138. Sunday baseball should be prohibited.
139. Public libraries, museums, and art galleries should be open on
Sunday.
140. Lavish social entertainments should be condemned.
141. In times of business depression the states and municipalities
should furnish employment to the unemployed.
142. Capital punishment should be abolished.
143. All cities of over 25,000 population should establish free public
employment bureaus.
144. State institutions should be established providing for the care
and training of homeless children.
145. The growth of monopolies shows a tendency toward Socialism.
146. Congress should enact laws providing for the censorship of the
stage.
147. Moving picture shows should be compelled to exhibit only such
pictures as can be shown to have an educational or cultural value.
148. The United States is moving toward Socialism.
149. The tendency of the population of the United States to
concentrate in the cities is detrimental to the best interest of
the people.
150. Children under sixteen years of age should be prohibited by
Federal law from working in factories.
151. A maximum eight hour working day for all occupations should be
established by state law.
152. Vivisection should be prohibited by law.
153. Arctic and Antarctic expeditions should be looked upon with
disfavor by the public.
154. The United States government should grant permanent copyright.
155. Automobiles should be prohibited from running more than fifteen
miles an hour.
156. Railroads should be required by Federal and state law to adopt
all devices such as block signals, steel passenger coaches, etc.,
which minimize the danger from wreck.
157. Greater security should be given by law to wills and bequests.
158. The negro is not fitted to exercise the right of suffrage.
159. There should be a state censorship of the stage.
160. Letter postage should be reduced to one cent.
161. Male citizens should be compelled to serve two years in the
United States army.
162. Popular literature shows a decline in public morals.
163. Social settlement organizations offer the best means of
conducting charitable work.
164. The plea of insanity shall not be available as a bar to
punishment for crime.
165. Newspapers should be prohibited from publishing matter which has
a tendency to corrupt the public morals.
EDUCATIONAL
_A. Common School._
166. The Bible should be taught in the public schools.
167. Free text-books should be furnished to all pupils below the high
school grade.
168. The state should prescribe uniform text-books for the public
schools.
169. Public funds should not be appropriated to aid private or
sectarian schools.
170. No prizes should be offered in public schools.
_B. High School._
171. Every high school should be compelled to maintain courses in
manual training and domestic science.
172. Secret societies should be prohibited in public high schools.
173. High school courses should be revised so as to furnish more
practical educational training.
174. The high school course as at present given by almost all high
schools is of no practical value to the pupil who does not go to
college.
175. Military drill should be compulsory in all public high schools of
the United States.
_C. College._
176. The honor system of examinations should be adopted by all
American colleges.
177. Freshmen at should not be permitted to engage in
intercollegiate athletics.
178. All college courses should be completely elective.
179. Athletics, as now conducted, are a detriment to American
colleges.
180. No college should be located near a large city.
181. Denominational colleges should not receive financial aid from the
state.
182. For the average student the small college is preferable to the
large college.
183. Admission to American colleges should be by examination only.
184. Intercollegiate football should be abolished.
185. Segregation of sexes in American colleges and universities is
preferable to coëducation.
186. Students in college courses who attain the rank of ninety per
cent or higher in daily work should be excused from examinations.
187. Two years of college work should be required for admission to any
course in law or medicine.
188. Written term examinations should be abolished.
189. The class rushes at the beginning of the college year should be
prohibited.
190. Chapel attendance at the University of should be
compulsory.
191. Student government should be established at the University
of .
192. The Oxford type of university should be adopted in the United
States.
193. For the average man a college education is an aid to business
success.
194. The colleges of the state of should be combined into one
centrally located university.
_D. Miscellaneous._
195. A National University should be established at Washington.
196. Novels should not be placed in circulation by public libraries
until two years after publication.
197. The number of subjects taught in high schools and colleges should
be greatly reduced.
198. The recommendations of the simplified spelling board should be
adopted throughout the United States.
199. Night trade schools should be established as a part of our system
of public instruction.
200. Industrial education will solve the negro race problem in the
United States.
Printed in the United States of America.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following pages contain advertisements of a few of the Macmillan
books on kindred subjects
Public Speaking Principles and Practice
BY IRVAH LESTER WINTER
Assistant Professor of Public Speaking in Harvard University
_Cloth, 8vo, New Edition_, $2.00
EXTRACTS FROM THE PREFACE
This book is designed to set forth the main principles of
effective platform delivery, and to provide a large body of
material for student practice. The work laid out may be used to
form a separate course of study, or a course of training running
parallel with a course in debating or other original speaking. It
has been prepared with a view also to that large number who want
to speak, or have to speak, but cannot have the advantage of a
teacher. Much is therefore said in the way of caution, and
untechnical language is used throughout.
The discussion of principles in Part One is intended as a help
towards the student’s understanding of his task, and also as a
common basis of criticism in the relation between teacher and
pupil. The preliminary fundamental work of Part Two, Technical
Training, deals first with the right formation of tone, the
development of voice as such, the securing of a fixed right vocal
habit. Following comes the adapting of this improved voice to the
varieties of use, or expressional effect, demanded of the public
speaker. After this critical detailed drill, the student is to
take the platform, and apply his acquired technique to continued
discourse, receiving criticism after each entire piece of work.
The question as to what should be the plan and the content of Part
Three, Platform Practice, has been determined simply by asking
what are the distinctly varied conditions under which men most
frequently speak. It is regarded as profitable for the student to
practice, at least to some extent, in all the several kinds of
speech here chosen. In thus cultivating versatility, he will
greatly enlarge his power of expression, and will at length
discover wherein lies his own special capability.
The principal aim in choosing the selections has been to have them
sufficiently alive to be attractive to younger speakers, and not
so heavy as to be unsuited to their powers. Some of them have
proved effective by use; many others are new. In all cases they
are of good quality.
BY CRAVEN LAYCOCK AND ROBERT L. SCALES
Argumentation and Debate
_Cloth, 12mo, $1.10_
In this work the peculiar difficulties which stand in the way of
making a text-book at once teachable, practical, and easily
understood, for use in teaching argumentation and debate, have
been overcome. The treatment of the topics presented—the
proposition, the issues, preliminary reading, evidence, kinds of
arguments, fallacies, brief-drawing, the principles of
presentation, refutation, and debate—is lucid and interesting as
well as highly profitable.
BY EDWIN DUBOIS SHURTER
The Rhetoric of Oratory
_Cloth, 12mo, $1.10_
“An unusually sensible and scientific treatment of the subject, as
helpful to the graduate who is already in the game of life as to
teacher and student in secondary school and college. It deals with
the rhetoric of oratory, rather than the elocution of
oratory.”—_Journal of Education._
BY SAMUEL B. HARDING
Select Orations Illustrating American Political History
_Cloth, 12mo, $1.25_
Every oration in this volume has exerted some great influence on
political action or political opinion and reveals better than
anything else the real spirit of the country at the time when it
was delivered. The essays were selected by Samuel B. Harding,
Professor of History in Indiana University, while John M. Clapp,
Professor of English in Lake Forest University, supplied the
introduction on oratorical style and structure.
BY MILTON PERCIVAL AND R. A. JELLIFFE
Of Oberlin College
Specimens of Exposition and Argument
_Cloth, 12mo_, $0.90
The selections in this volume, chosen from a wide range of
literature, illustrate the different phases of argument such as
persuasion, refutation, and controversy, and the different types
of exposition such as descriptions, explanations, definitions, and
interpretations.
“It is not often that the student is given the opportunity to use
a text-book at once so fascinating and so essentially
practical.”—_Philadelphia Public Ledger._
Edited by EDWIN DUBOIS SHURTER, Associate Professor of Public Speaking
in the University of Texas, New York.
Representative College Orations
_Cloth, 12mo, $1.25_
Intended primarily to furnish selective material for critical
analysis by students in the colleges, the book will be of interest
to the general reader as indicative of what college students of
to-day are thinking and talking about. As the only collection of
college orations which attempts to cover the whole field, the
sixty-three orations here presented will furnish a better
opportunity for comparison and a far greater variety of
illustrative matter than has hitherto been available.
BY G. R. CARPENTER AND W. T. BREWSTER
Modern English Prose
_Cloth, 12mo, $1.10_
“This book will prove of great service to English teachers. The
selections, complete and unabridged as they are, and made with
nice discrimination, will be welcomed by instructors who desire to
place before their pupils some of the best examples of modern
prose writing.”—WILMOT B. MITCHELL, Bowdoin College, Maine.
BY W. T. BREWSTER
Specimens of Modern English Literary Criticism
_Cloth, 12mo $1.00_
This book belongs to the realm of rhetoric rather than of
literature or literary history. It aims to use critical writing
more completely than is done in any text-book of selections as an
agent in rhetorical study and intellectual discipline. The
selections cover Leslie Stephen, Dr. Johnson, Macaulay, Henry
James, Matthew Arnold, Shelley, Coleridge, and others, with many
notes and an excellent and comprehensive introduction.
Studies in Structure and Style
With an Introduction by GEORGE RICE CARPENTER, Professor of
Rhetoric and English Composition in Columbia University
_Cloth, 12mo, $1.10_
The author has used rare discrimination in selecting the essays
which he discusses, insisting that they should be of the highest
class of modern literature and that they should serve as models to
the student. The analysis of structure and style in these volumes
is most able, and the book will be found a most valuable one as a
text in the higher institutions of learning.
BY WILBUR L. CROSS
The Development of the English Novel
_Cloth, 12mo, $1.50_
“This thorough and comprehensive work on English fiction is based
upon sound scholarship. Professor Cross has mastered his material,
and his presentation is not only logical in its general
classifications but entirely adequate in its particulars. For
these reasons it is an admirable text-book, and the student will
find, besides the organic treatment of the whole, a basis for an
exhaustive study of independent periods.”—_The Washington Star._
By HENRY SEIDEL CANBY, Ph.D., FREDERICK ERASTUS PIERCE, Ph.D., HENRY
NOBLE MCCRACKEN, Ph.D., ALFRED ARUNDEL MAY, M.A., THOMAS GODDARD
WRIGHT, M.A., of the Department of English Composition in the
Sheffield Scientific School of Yale University, New York.
English Composition in Theory and Practice
New and revised edition.
_Cloth, 12mo, $1.25_
The authors of this volume have combined in one book a set of
directions for good writing, based upon sound principles and
written, primarily, for the student, with a varied and extensive
collection of examples drawn from all the forms of discourse, and
inclusive of both brief excerpts and complete essays, arguments,
and stories. Additional supplementary material has been added in
the several appendices. The authors have endeavored to give to
each of the four forms of discourse the proportionate space and
the kind of treatment which the average student requires. The
whole composition, the paragraph, the sentence, and the word have
been discussed in their relation to Exposition, because, for the
average student, it is the power to explain clearly which is of
primary importance. Thus Exposition has been given a predominant
space. The chapter on the Sentence goes into minute detail because
the average student, at present, does not understand the structure
of the sentence; the chapter on Narrative deals with constructive
problems mainly, because it is in learning to construct a story
that the Freshman can best make Narrative increase his powers of
expression; the chapter on Description includes literary and
esthetic problems, because one variety of Description can only
thus be taught. An order of succession for these various topics
has been chosen after experiment with many classes. Nevertheless,
except that Exposition must come first, the instructor will find
that the plan of this book permits any arrangement of subjects.
Guided by the results of two years’ remarkably extensive use of
the first edition, the authors revised and rewrote the entire
book. In the new edition, therefore, the defects of the earlier
work do not appear, while the general plan, which proved so
successful, is, of course, retained. Hence the book is now unique
in its effectiveness as a teaching text—one in which the actual
difficulties of the student are clearly realized, only to be met
with practical, definite and concrete means of overcoming them.
PUBLISHED BY
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
Publishers 64–66 Fifth Avenue New York
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
1. Silently corrected typographical errors and variations in
spelling.
2. Archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings retained as
printed.
3. Footnotes have been re-indexed using numbers.
4. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.
5. Enclosed bold font in =equals=.