In the next place, a speaker must beware of falling into ludicrous and disgusting habits of deportment. Nervousness will often cause one in the presence of an audience to keep making an unsightly gesture, a peculiar twitch or step that will absolutely ruin his whole speech. Some speakers have been known to change their weight from one foot to the other as often as twenty or thirty times a minute. Other speakers have adopted a peculiar jerk of the head or a constant shrugging of the shoulders that is most disagreeable to see. Still others keep constantly opening and shutting their hands. For years one speaker of some small prominence spent the greater part of his time while on the platform in tugging at his coat, apparently in an effort to make it fit better around the collar. All such actions as these are to be carefully guarded against.

A debater, however, is not expected to stand perfectly still: he should use considerable interpretative and emphatic action. To begin with, he ought not to stand all the time in exactly the same spot. Monotony of position is to be avoided as well as monotony of action or of voice. He will rest himself and his audience if he will occasionally move about, taking two or three steps at a time. In doing this he must never go backward; he must never retreat. If, for any reason, he began his speech while standing near the rear or the centre of the stage, he should move forward; if he cannot go forward, he may move back and forth near the edge of the platform. The best time for one to change his position is at the conclusion of a paragraph. A paragraph division, it will be remembered, indicates a change in thought. If a debater, therefore, makes a longer pause than usual at this point, and in addition alters his position slightly, he helps interpret his argument. He does for the hearer exactly what indentation does for the reader.

GESTURES. So much has been said and written about gestures that a student is often puzzled to know whose advice to follow and what to do. Some writers say that no gestures at all are desirable; others deem them necessary, but declare that they should never be made unless they are spontaneous and natural. In the light of such conflicting advice, what will determine the proper course for a student to follow? The answer to this question lies in a consideration of the ultimate object of a course in debating. If it is to give students some facility in expressing their thoughts before an audience, if it is to train students for practical work in business and professional life, then those men who are recognized as the polished and powerful speakers of the day should be taken as models. Most of these, it will be found, use gestures. There is but one reasonable course, then, for the student to follow: he should make gestures. They may be crude and awkward at first, but only by practice can he ever hope to improve them.

The best method of procedure, undoubtedly, is for the beginner to become familiar with two or three of the most common gestures, learning how to make them and just what they signify. He should then use them. They may seem mechanical and ungainly at first, but constant practice both in private and before a class will soon enable him to make them with considerable emphasis and ease. From this point on, the road is clear. The knowledge that he can use his hands to good advantage, even in a limited way, will soon cause him to make gestures spontaneously. Nor will he be limited to the few with which he started. In the midst of an explanation and in the heat of an impassioned plea, he will find himself using gestures that he had not thought of before. The awkward and premeditated gesture with which he began will have become forceful and spontaneous.

The gestures that a student should first learn to use must be illustrated to him by his instructor. To see a gesture made several times gives one a better idea of how to make it and of what it means than could a dozen pages in a text-book. The choice of gestures, too, may rest with the instructor. It makes no particular difference with what ones a debater begins, provided that they are simple in execution and are such as he will wish to use in practically every debate into which he enters. Ordinarily, the best ones for a beginner to practice on are those indicating emphasis. If he wishes for a wider field, he might also try to use gestures indicating magnitude and contrast. When he has finished with these, he should hesitate before deliberately introducing many others. A debate is not a dramatic production, and it should in no wise savor of melodrama.

VOICE. Correct position and forceful gestures are very important, but upon no one thing does the success of a debater, aside from his argument, depend so much as upon his voice. One may move his audience in spite of an awkward posture and in the absence of all intelligent gestures, but unless his voice meets certain requirements, his case is almost hopeless. Above all else a speaker's voice must be distinct.

Distinctness depends upon several things. First, the voice must be loud enough to be heard without difficulty in every part of the room. To produce this result, one should speak especially to those in the rear, carefully watching to see whether he holds their attention; at the same time he must be careful not to shout in a manner unpleasant to those sitting nearer him. The stress laid by public speakers upon the matter of loudness is well illustrated by a story told of one of the foremost orators of the day. It is said that he invariably stations some one in the back of the audience to signal to him when his voice is either too low or unnecessarily loud.

In the next place, distinctness depends upon enunciation. The debater who drops off final syllables, slurs consonants, runs words together, or talks without using his lips and without opening his mouth is hard to understand. It often requires considerable conscious effort to pronounce each syllable in a word distinctly, but the resulting clearness is worth a strenuous attempt. One great cause of poor enunciation is too rapid talking. A fairly slow delivery is preferable not only because the words can be more easily understood, but also because it gives a debater the appearance of being more careful and accurate in his reasoning. Great rapidity in speech may be due to nervousness or inexperience; whatever its cause, it is usually fatal to distinctness.

A pleasing tone of voice is not of so great moment as distinctness of utterance, yet its cultivation is by no means to be neglected. Harsh, rasping sounds and nasal twangs are disagreeable to hear, and no speaker can afford to offend his audience in this way. An unpleasant voice may be the result of some physical defect; more often it is caused by sheer carelessness. In most cases a little practice will produce a wonderful change. A very common breach of elegance in speaking is the habit of drawling out an er sound between words. The constant repetition of this is exceedingly annoying. It is usually caused by an attempt to fill in a gap while the speaker is groping about for the next word. The best way to correct this blunder is to be so familiar with what one is going to say that there will be no gap to fill in; but in case one does have to hunt for words, it is a thousand times preferable to leave the gap unfilled. Each word should stand out by itself, even though there is a pause of many seconds. To offend the ears of an audience with a crude tone of voice or with meaningless sounds is a bad violation of propriety.

The first step to be taken in the cultivation of a distinct and pleasing voice is to acquire the habit of standing correctly. Under the subject of position it was stated that the body should be kept erect, the head thrown back, and the shoulders rolled back and down. This posture is the best not only because it is the most graceful but because it gives the speaker the greatest command of his vocal organs. Stooping shoulders and a bowed trunk contract the lungs and diminish the supply of breath, and a bent neck renders the cords of the neck less controllable. After taking the proper position, one should next endeavor to breathe as deeply as he can. The louder he has to speak, the deeper should be his breathing. Remembering that he does not wish to talk fast, he will do well to fill his lungs at the close of each sentence, always inhaling, in order not to make an unpleasant gasping noise, through the nose. While speaking, he should control his supply of breath not by contracting the chest but by elevating the diaphragm. This procedure will give his voice a richness and a resonance that it otherwise could not have. Breathing merely from the top of the lungs means squeakiness of tone and poor control. One who breathes incorrectly will find it necessary to shout to make himself heard at a distance; one who breathes correctly can usually be heard under the same conditions by merely talking. The superiority of the round, deep tone over the shout is too obvious to need comment. In the next place, a speaker must think about this voice. Thought and study are as essential in the training of a voice as in the mastery of any art. A natural voice is not usually pleasing; it becomes so only through cultivation. Much of this training can be done by the speaker unaided. Few people are so insensible to qualities of sound that they cannot detect harshness and impurities even in their own utterance, provided that they will give the matter their attention. It is not enough, however, for one to watch his voice only while he is debating or while he is repeating his arguments in preparation for a debate; he must carry constant watchfulness even into his daily conversation. The services of a good instructor are invaluable, but at best they can be only auxiliary. All improvement must come through the efforts of the speaker himself.

ATTITUDE TOWARD OPPONENTS. If one will bear in mind that the fundamental purpose of argument—whether written or spoken—is to present truth in such a way as to influence belief, he will at once understand that a debater should always maintain toward his opponents the attitude of one who is trying to change another's belief, the attitude of friendship, fairness, and respect. Such a point of view precludes the use of satire, invective, or harsh epithets. These never carry conviction; in fact, they invariably destroy the effect that an otherwise good argument might produce. Ridicule and bluster may please those who already agree with the speaker, but with these people he should be little concerned; a debater worthy of the name seeks to change the opinions of those who disagree with him. For this reason he is diplomatic, courteous, and urbane.

A debater should, moreover, keep to this same attitude even though his opponent introduce objectionable personalities. One will find it for his own best interest to do so. Good humor makes a far better impression than anger; it suggests strength and superiority, while anger, as everyone knows, is often the result of chagrin, and is used to cover up weaknesses. Besides, an audience always sympathizes with the man who is first attacked. All this does not mean that a debater should calmly submit to unfairness and vilification. On the contrary, he should defend himself spiritedly; but he should not meet abuse with abuse. To do so would be to throw away an invaluable opportunity. He should remain dignified, self-controlled, and good-humored; then by treating his opponent as one who has inadvertently fallen into error, and by pointing out the mistakes, the unfairness, and the way in which the real question has been ignored, he can gain an inestimable advantage.

The following quotations show what attitude a debater should maintain toward his opponents:—

As I do not precisely agree in opinion with any gentleman who has spoken, I shall take the liberty of detaining the committee for a few moments while I offer to their attention some observations. I am highly gratified with the temper and ability with which the discussion has hitherto been conducted. It is honorable to the House, and, I trust, will continue to be manifested on many future occasions. (Henry Clay.)

Mr. President, I had occasion a few days ago to expose the utter groundlessness of the personal charges made by the Senator from Illinois against myself and the other signers of the Independent Democratic Appeal. I now move to strike from this bill a statement which I will to-day demonstrate to be without any foundation in fact or history. I intend afterwards to move to strike out the whole clause annulling the Missouri prohibition.

I enter into this debate, Mr. President, in no spirit of personal unkindness. The issue is too grave and too momentous for the indulgence of such feelings. I see the great question before me, and that question only. (Salmon P. Chase.)

Compare the attitude of Mr. Naylor in the following quotation with the attitude of Mr. Lincoln in his debates with Senator Douglas. It is needless to point out which must have had the better effect upon the audience.

The gentleman has misconceived the spirit and tendency of Northern institutions. He is ignorant of Northern character. He has forgotten the history of his country. Preach insurrection to the Northern laborers! Preach insurrection to me! Who are the Northern laborers? The history of your country is their history. (Charles Naylor.)

My Fellow-Citizens: When a man hears himself somewhat misrepresented, it provokes him—at least, I find it so with myself; but when misrepresentation becomes very gross and palpable, it is more apt to amuse him. The first thing I see fit to notice is the fact that Judge Douglas alleges, after running through the history of the old Democratic and the old Whig parties, that Judge Trumbull and myself made an arrangement in 1854 by which I was to have the place of General Shields in the United States Senate, and Judge Trumbull was to have the place of Judge Douglas. Now all I have to say upon that subject is that I think no man—not even Judge Douglas—can prove it, because it is not true. I have no doubt he is "conscientious" in saying it. As to those resolutions that he took such a length of time to read, as being the platform of the Republican party in 1854, I say I never had anything to do with them, and I think Trumbull never had. (Abraham Lincoln in the Ottawa Joint Debate.)

Judge Douglas has told me that he heard my speeches north and my speeches south—that he heard me at Ottawa and at Freeport in the north, and recently at Jonesboro in the south, and that there was a very different cast of sentiment in the speeches made at the different points. I will not charge upon Judge Douglas that he willfully misrepresents me, but I call upon every fair-minded man to take those speeches and read them, and I dare him to point out any difference between my speeches north and south. (Lincoln in the Charleston Joint Debate.)

HOW TO JUDGE A DEBATE.

Three judges usually award the decision in a debating contest. Their sole duty is to determine which side had the better of the argument. Sometimes the method that they shall follow in arriving at a decision is marked out for them; they are given printed slips indicating the relative importance of evidence, reasoning, delivery, and the other points that must be considered. Most commonly, however, each judge is instructed to decide for himself what constitutes excellence in debate. According to the rules governing any particular debate, the judges may cast their ballots with or without previous consultation with each other.

The following outline gives in condensed form the main points that a judge should consider. It will be of service not only to the judges of a debate but to the contestants, as it gives a comprehensive view of just what is expected of a debater.

I. Which side has the better analysis?

II. Which side has the stronger proof?

A. Consider the preponderance of the evidence.

B. Consider the quality of the evidence.

C. Consider the skill used in reasoning.

III. Which side offers the better refutation?

A. See which side has the more main points left standing after the refutation has been given.

IV. Which side has the better delivery?

A. Consider general bearing, voice, and language.



CHAPTER X

THE CONCLUSION

Most arguments have a more or less formal ending. Both writers and speakers, when seeking to influence the beliefs and acts of others, have usually deemed it advisable, upon completing their proof, to add a few summarizing words and to make a final appeal to the emotions. This part of the argument that comes at the close and that contains no new proof is called the conclusion, or the peroration. In spoken argument, occasionally, the conclusion is wholly ignored. If at any time, regardless of the point he may have reached, an arguer clearly perceives that he has won his case, he is wise to stop immediately and avoid the danger of adding anything that might possibly detract from his success. Such an experience may frequently happen to a salesman, a preacher, a lawyer. Arguments, however, that are written or that are delivered before large audiences cannot be curtailed in this way. Under such conditions the arguer is unable to tell when he has won his case: he must use all his proof and make it emphatic in every way possible. Therefore the student who is arguing for the sake of practice will do well to disregard exceptions and to close all his arguments, both written and spoken, with a peroration.

The same two elements—conviction and persuasion—that make up the introduction and the discussion are ordinarily found also in the conclusion. The general principles that govern the proportionate amount of each to be used in the first two divisions of an argument apply equally to the third division. In every case the relative amount of space to be devoted to conviction and to persuasion depends upon the nature of the subject and the attitude of the audience. In some instances a conclusion should consist wholly of conviction; in other instances persuasion should predominate; most commonly there should be a judicious combination of both.

In concluding an argument before the United States Supreme Court on the question of whether or not a certain law passed in New York was repugnant to the Constitution or consistent with it, Webster spoke as follows:—

To recapitulate what has been said, we maintain, first, that the Constitution, by its grants to Congress and its prohibitions on the States, has sought to establish one uniform standard of value, or medium of payment. Second, that, by like means, it has endeavored to provide for one uniform mode of discharging debts when they are to be discharged without payment. Third, that these objects are connected, and that the first loses much of its importance, if the last, also, be not accomplished. Fourth, that, reading the grant to Congress, and the prohibition on the States together, the inference is strong that the Constitution intended to confer exclusive power to pass bankrupt laws on Congress. Fifth, that the prohibition in the tenth section reaches to all contracts, existing or future, in the same way that the other prohibition in the same section extends to all debts existing or future. Sixth, that, upon any other construction, one great political object of the Constitution will fail of its accomplishment. [Footnote: The Case of Ogden and Saunders. Webster's Great Speeches, page 188. Little, Brown & Co.]

In this conclusion, it will be noticed, there is no persuasion. Apparently the subject was of such a nature that only clear and logical reasoning was required. An appeal to the emotions would undoubtedly have been out of place. In direct contrast to the preceding method of summarizing a speech a good example of a persuasive conclusion may be found in The Dartmouth College Case, which Webster argued before this same tribunal, and which also involved the constitutionality of a State law. In this peroration Webster's emotional appeal was so strong that, it is said, there was not a dry eye in the court room.

In writing as well as in speaking one must allow common sense to decide what shall be the nature of his peroration. The following is a typical example of a conclusion into which persuasion cannot well enter. It is taken from the close of a chapter, selected at random, in Darwin's Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs.

It has, I think, been shown in this chapter, that subsidence explains both the normal structure and the less regular forms of those two great classes of reefs which have justly excited the astonishment of all the naturalists who have sailed through the Pacific and Indian oceans. The necessity, also, that a foundation should have existed at the proper depth for the growth of the corals over certain large areas, almost compels us to accept this theory. But further to test its truth a crowd of questions may be asked.... These several questions will be considered in the following chapter.

A type of conclusion far more common and usually far more effective is one that not only refers to the preceding arguments but also contains considerable persuasion. The peroration marks the final opportunity for the arguer to move his audience. Here he should make his greatest effort. Since belief and action ordinarily depend upon both the intellect and the will, the arguer who would attain success must appeal to both. Merely to call to mind the proof that he has advanced is seldom enough: he must arouse the emotions. The peroration of an argument is like the finish of a race or the last charge in a battle. In the conclusion the arguer should use his greatest skill, his strongest eloquence. Here are found the most inspiring passages in the masterpieces of oratory.

Some of the various ways for reaching the emotions have been pointed out in the chapter dealing with persuasion in the introduction. These same suggestions apply equally well to persuasion in the conclusion. The best advice that can be given, however, is for one to use his common sense. He must consider his subject, his audience, his ability, and his own interest in the case—all the circumstances in connection with his argument—and then depend, not upon some set formula, but upon his judgment to tell him in what way he can best be persuasive. The following illustrations will give some idea of how successful writers and speakers have concluded their arguments with persuasion. Notice the patriotic appeal in the first quotation:—

Whether we have or have not degenerated compared with (say) fifty or a hundred years ago may be a question difficult to settle, but it is quite clear that we are pitifully, disastrously below the normal standard of manhood and womanhood which a great nation should set itself.

Adequate nourishment for our children, immunity from exhausting and mechanical employments at the most critical period of adolescence, an extension of educational influences—can there be any objects of expenditures more likely than these to repay themselves a thousandfold in the improved vigor and intelligence which form the only sure basis of a nation's greatness? [Footnote: Frances E. Warwick, Fortnightly Review, Vol. LXXIX, p. 515.]

In the following the speaker points out the awful responsibility resting upon the jury and exhorts them to render justice:—

Let me, therefore, remind you, that though the day may soon come when our ashes shall be scattered before the winds of heaven, the memory of what you do cannot die. It will carry down to your posterity your honor or your shame. In the presence, and in the name of that everliving God, I do therefore conjure you to reflect that you have your characters, your consciences, that you have also the character, perhaps the ultimate destiny, of your country in your hands. In that awful name I do conjure you to have mercy upon your country and upon yourselves, and so to judge now as you will hereafter be judged; and I do now submit the fate of my client, and of that country which we have yet in common to your disposal. [Footnote: John Philpot Curran, On the Liberty of the Press.]

In the following extract from the conclusion of Webster's plea in The Dartmouth College Case consider how he showed the magnitude of the question that was at issue:—

The case before the court is not of ordinary importance, nor of everyday occurrence. It affects not this college only, but every college, and all the literary institutions of the country. They have flourished hitherto, and have become in a high degree respectable and useful to the community. They have all a common principle of existence, the inviolability of their charters. It will be a dangerous, a most dangerous experiment, to hold these institutions subject to the rise and fall of popular parties, and the fluctuation of political opinions. If the franchise may at any time be taken away, or impaired, the property also may be taken away, or impaired, or its use perverted. Benefactors will have no certainty of effecting the object of their bounty; and learned men will be deterred from devoting themselves to the service of such institutions, from the precarious title of their offices. Colleges and halls will be deserted by all better spirits, and become a theatre for the contentions of politics. Party and faction will be cherished in the places consecrated to piety and learning. These consequences are neither remote nor possible only. They are certain and immediate. [Footnote: Webster's Great Speeches, p. 23.]

As a rule, most of the criticisms that can be made of any conclusion pertain to matters of taste and judgment. A writer or speaker may have made too detailed or too brief a summary; he may have erred in choosing the best method of persuasion; he may have injured his argument in almost countless other ways. In these matters a text-book can give only general and rather vague instruction. Each argument must be suited to the particular case in hand. There are several common errors in students' work, however, that should always be avoided and that can definitely be pointed out.

1. An argument should not have an abrupt and jerky ending. It is not uncommon especially in class room debate, to hear a student at the close of his discussion say, "This is my proof; I leave the decision to the judges"; or "Thus you see I have established my proposition." Such an ending can in no way be called a conclusion or a peroration.

2. A conclusion should contain no new proof. Violations of this principle brand an arguer as careless, and greatly weaken his argument. Proof is most convincing when arranged in its proper place and in its logical order. Furthermore, the purpose of the conclusion is to review the points that have already been established. If the arguer forgets this fact and mixes proof with summary, the audience is liable to become badly confused and not know what has been established and what has not.

3. A conclusion should not refer to a point that has not already been established. A careless writer or debater will sometimes state that he has proved an argument which he has not previously touched upon. Such a procedure smacks of trickery or ignorance, and is sure to be disastrous. Not only will the audience throw out that particular point, but they will be highly prejudiced against both the arguer and his argument. It is permissible for one to maintain that he has proved a point even though the proof be somewhat inadequate, but for one to refer in his conclusion to a point that he then mentions for the first time is unpardonable.

4. A conclusion must reaffirm the proposition exactly as stated at the beginning. Sometimes a writer, discovering at the close of his argument that he has not stuck to his subject but has proved something different, or at best has proved only a part of his subject, states as his decision a totally different proposition from that with which he started. To illustrate, a student once attempted to argue on the affirmative side of the proposition, "The United States should discontinue its protective tariff policy"; but he gave as his concluding sentence, "These facts, then, prove to you that our present tariff duties are too high." This last sentence embodied the real proposition which he had discussed, and if he had taken as his subject, "Our present tariff duties are too high," his argument would have been successful. As it was, his failure to support the proposition with which he started rendered his whole effort worthless.

A conclusion that is weaker than the proposition is commonly called a "qualifying conclusion." When one has fallen into this error there are two possible ways of removing it: one is to change the whole argument so that the conclusion will affirm the truth or falsity of the proposition; the other is to change the proposition. In a debate, of course, or whenever a subject is assigned, the latter method cannot be followed.

As a final example of what a good peroration should be, consider the following conclusion of Webster's speech, delivered in the United States Senate, on The Presidential Veto of the United States Bank Bill. Notice the skillful interweaving of conviction and persuasion, and remember in connection with the principle of proportion that this is the conclusion of a speech containing about 14,000 words.

"Mr. President, we have arrived at a new epoch. We are entering on experiments, with the government and the Constitution of the country, hitherto untried, and of fearful and appalling aspect. This message calls us to the contemplation of a future which little resembles the past. Its principles are at war with all that public opinion has sustained, and all which the experience of the government has sanctioned. It denies first principles; it contradicts truths, hitherto received as indisputable. It denies to the judiciary the interpretation of law, and claims to divide with Congress the power of originating statutes. It extends the grasp of executive pretension over every power of the government. But this is not all. It presents the chief magistrate of the Union in the attitude of arguing away the powers of that government over which he has been chosen to preside; and adopting for this purpose modes of reasoning which, even under the influence of all proper feeling towards high official station, it is difficult to regard as respectable. It appeals to every prejudice which may betray men into a mistaken view of their own interests, and to every passion which may lead them to disobey the impulses of their understanding. It urges all the specious topics of State rights and national encroachment against that which a great majority of the States have affirmed to be rightful, and in which all of them have acquiesced. It sows, in an unsparing manner, the seeds of jealousy and ill-will against that government of which its author is the official head. It raises a cry, that liberty is in danger, at the very moment when it puts forth claims to powers heretofore unknown and unheard of. It affects alarm for the public freedom, when nothing endangers that freedom so much as its own unparalleled pretences. This, even, is not all. It manifestly seeks to inflame the poor against the rich; it wantonly attacks whole classes of the people, for the purpose of turning against them the prejudices and the resentment of other classes. It is a state paper which finds no topic too exciting for its use, no passion to inflammable for its address and its solicitation.

"Such is this message. It remains now for the people of the United States to choose between the principles here avowed and their government. These cannot subsist together. The one or the other must be rejected. If the sentiments of the message shall receive general approbation, the Constitution will have perished even earlier than the moment which its enemies originally allowed for the termination of its existence. It will not have survived to its fiftieth year." [Footnote: Webster's Great Speeches, page 338.]



APPENDICES.

APPENDIX A

A WRITTEN ARGUMENT AND ITS BRIEF.

SHOULD IMMIGRATION BE RESTRICTED? [Footnote: The North American Review, May, 1897, page 526.]

SIMON GREENLEAF CROSWELL

During recent years there has been a growing interest in plans for further checking or limiting the tide of immigration whose waves sweep in upon the United States almost daily in constantly increasing volume. Several restrictive measures are already in force: paupers, idiots, contract laborers, the Chinese, and several other classes of people are prohibited from entering our ports. The subject has been discussed in legislatures, in political meetings, from pulpits, in reform clubs, and among individuals on every hand. The reason for the interest which the subject now excites is easily found in the recent enormous increase of immigration.

The problem divides itself at the outset into two distinct questions: First, is it for the advantage of the United States that immigration be further checked or limited? Second, if so, in what way should the check or limit be applied?

It is evident that these questions cover two distinct fields of inquiry, the industrial and the political. Nor can the two fields be examined simultaneously, for the reasons, if there are any, from a political point of view, why immigration should be limited, would not apply to the questions viewed on its industrial side, and vice versa.

Taking up first the industrial question, we may assume that the entrance of the swarms of immigrants into our country represents the introduction of just so much laboring power into the country, and we may also assume as a self-evident proposition that the introduction of laboring power into an undeveloped or partially developed country is advantageous until the point is reached at which all the laborers whom the country can support have been introduced. Adam Smith says that labor is the wealth of nations. If this is true, the laborer is the direct and only primary means of acquiring wealth. The facts of the history of our country bear out this view. Beginning with the clearing of the forests, the settlements of the villages, the cultivation of farms, proceeding to the establishment of the lumber industries, the cultivation of vast wheat and corn fields, the production of cotton, the working of the coal and oil fields of Pennsylvania, the development of the mining districts of the West, culminating in the varied and extensive manufactures of the Eastern and Central States, the laborer has been the Midas whose touch has turned all things to gold.

There is, however, a limitation to the principle that the introduction of laborers into a partially developed country is advantageous. A point is finally reached which may be called the saturation point of the country; that is, it has as many inhabitants as it can supply with reasonably good food and clothing. This saturation point may be reached many times in the history of a country, for the ratio between the food and clothing products and the population is constantly varying. New modes of cultivation, and the use of machinery, as well as natural causes affecting the fertility of land, which are as yet obscure, render a country at one time capable of supporting a much larger number of inhabitants than at another time. Still, there is a broad and general truth that, time and place and kind of people being considered, some countries are over-populated, and some are under- populated.

We are accustomed to say that some of the countries of Europe are over-populated, and there are among us some who are beginning to say that the United States has reached the same point. This is far from being the case, and a single glance at the comparative average density of population of the principal European nations and of the United States will be sufficient to drive this idea out of any fair-minded person's head.

The most thickly settled country of modern Europe is the Netherlands, which had, in the year 1890, the very large average of three hundred and fifty-nine inhabitants per square mile of territory. Great Britain came next, with the almost equally large average of three hundred and eleven inhabitants per square mile of territory. Germany had two hundred and thirty-four and France one hundred and eighty-seven. Taking in for purposes of comparison, though not of much force in the argument, China, we find there an average population of two hundred and ninety-five inhabitants per square mile of territory. It is a question of some difficulty to decide in any specific case whether a country has reached the point of over-population. We may admit that Great Britain, with its average of three hundred and eleven inhabitants per mile, is over-populated, though the conditions of life do not seem to be wholly intolerable, even to the lowest classes there. If Great Britain is over-populated, a fortiori are the Netherlands, and we may even go so far as to admit that Germany, with its average of two hundred and thirty-four inhabitants per square mile, is over-populated. But when we come to France, with its one hundred and eighty-seven inhabitants per square mile, we may pause and see what are the conditions of the French people. So far as it is possible to judge of a people in the lump, it would seem that the population of France is not excessive for the area. The land holdings are divided up into very small lots, but are held by a great number of people. Mackenzie, in his history of the nineteenth century, says that nearly two-thirds of the French householders are landowners, while only one British householder in every four is an owner of land. This condition results partly from the difference in the system of inheritance of land in the two countries, but would be impossible if the country were over-populated. Moreover, there are five millions of people in France whose possessions in land are under six acres each.

Taking, then, the population of France, averaging 187 per square mile, as being at least not above the normal rate of population, what do we find in comparing it with the population of the United States? We find over here vast tracts of country, amounting to nearly one- third by actual measurement, of the whole area of the United States, and including all the States west of the Missouri and Mississippi valleys (except a portion of California), having a population of less than six individuals per square mile. It would seem as if the mere statement of this fact were alone sufficient to disprove any proposition which asserts that the saturation point of population has been reached in the United States. While that immense expanse of country averages only six individuals to the square mile, there can be no reason for saying that this country is over-populated. Coming now to the more thickly settled portions of the United States, we find a large area spread out over various parts of the States having a population between seven and forty-five individuals per square mile. In a very few States, New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana, the population of the whole State averages over forty-five and under ninety individuals per square mile, and the same average holds in parts of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Illinois, Kentucky, and isolated spots in the South. In a small territory, made up of parts of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, the population averages over ninety per square mile.

The contrast between these averages of population in various portions of the United States, the highest of which is about ninety individuals per mile (and that over very small portions of the area of the United States) and the average densities of the European countries, previously examined, shows how very far the United States is from complete population. This appears still more clearly when the average population of the United States taken as a whole, is considered, which is the extraordinary low figure of twenty individuals per square mile of territory What a striking contrast! Can the most ardent advocate of the Malthusian doctrine claim that the United States already has too many inhabitants, or is in danger of having too many in the immediate future? Do we not rather need to encourage immigration, to fling wide open the gates of our country and secure as large an addition to our working force as possible?

When we come to the political aspect of the problem, however, a wholly different series of considerations present themselves. The question now is not how many citizens, but what sort of citizens. The theory of our government is not limited to any number of people. It provides for expansion in the number of representatives in Congress in proportion to the increase in population, and increases the number of Senators as new States are formed and added to the Union. Similarly each State government has elastic provisions which enable it to cover a population of 400,000 as well as a population of 40,000. But the one critical test in determining whether or not our immigration should be limited for political reasons is the character of the people whom we are admitting to the privilege of citizenship in the United States.

In order to investigate successfully the political effect of the immigration, it is necessary, at the outset, to divide it into its constituent nationalities, so that taking up each nationality in turn, we may see what fitness it has from its previous political training in its native country for undertaking the duties of American citizenship. The disintegration of the tide of immigration into these constituent parts affords some interesting information which will be seen to have a bearing, in several directions, on the questions under consideration in this article. Taking the statistics of the year 1891 as a typical year of recent immigration, the tide of immigration amounted in round numbers to 500,000 individuals.

The largest feeder of this enormous stream came from Germany, which sent, roughly speaking, 100,000. But a noticeable point about this nationality is the great decrease in the number of immigrants it has sent us in the last fifteen years. In the year 1882 the total German immigration into the United States amounted to no less than 250,000, but in 1883 and 1884 there was a great decrease, and since then the average has remained in the neighborhood of 100,000. We shall see later that on the other hand, the immigration from the Latin and Slav nations of Europe, particularly Italy, Poland, and Austria, shows an enormous rate of increase in the same period, although, of course, the absolute amounts are much less than those of the German immigration.

The next largest feeder to our stream of immigration in the year 1891, the typical year of our examination, was Italy, which contributed 76,000 immigrants to our population. It is noteworthy to remark, in this connection, that Italy has more than doubled her annual rate of contributions to our people in the ten years under consideration, the immigration from her shores in 1882 being only 32,000.

The next largest contributor is Austria, which in 1891 furnished 71,000 new members of our community. Austria, too, has doubled her rate of contribution, sending us in 1882 only 32,000. Next come, side by side, in their offerings to our population, England and Ireland, each of which countries sends us about 50,000 new inhabitants each year, and has continued to do so for the last fifteen years. Russia, exclusive of Poland, sent 47,000 in 1891, this being three times the number which she sent in 1882, a large increase. Sweden came next with 36,000 immigrants and that country shows a woeful falling-off of nearly one-half in the ten years under consideration, for in the year 1882 it sent 64,000. Poland in 1891 sent us 27,000 immigrants, showing an enormous increase of nearly sevenfold over its contribution of 4,000 in 1882. Scotland and Norway and Denmark all send about the same number, that is, about 12,000 each; Norway showing a diminution in the decade ending 1891, from 29,000 in 1882, but the other two remaining about stationary. Switzerland in 1891 sent 6,000, a diminution from 10,000 in 1882. The Netherlands sent 5,000 in 1891, a decrease from 9,000 in 1882. France sent 6,000 and Belgium 3,000, these figures being about the same during all the years covered by our investigation. I have left out of account the only other important factor in our immigration in the ten years considered, namely, China, because the door was shut in its face with considerable emphasis in 1883, and the immigration from China to the Western States, which in 1882 amounted to 40,000 fell in 1883 to 8,000, and in 1884 to 279 individuals, and may, therefore, be neglected at the present time.

Now, an examination of the political institutions in the countries from which these immigrants come would show that in almost no case, that of Russia and Poland alone excepted, are the elements of representative government wholly unknown to the common people. In most of these countries, some form of popular government has, either wholly or partially, gained a footing, with the inevitable result of accustoming people more or less to representative institutions. Yet the short time that this has been the case in many of the countries which pour half or over of the total flood of immigration into the United States, and the long centuries of despotism which preceded this partial and recent enlightenment, make it painfully evident that there can be, in the large part of our immigrants, little knowledge of the republican form of government, and little inherited aptitude for such government. It would at first seem as if the results of such immigration must be disastrous to our country.

And yet the situation is not so hopeless. There is nothing mysterious, or even very complicated, about republican institutions. A little time, a little study, a little experience with the practical workings of elections, is sufficient to convey to any person of ordinary intelligence as much familiarity with these matters as is necessary for the intelligent appreciation of their objects and purposes. Nor is the material out of which the prospective citizen is to be made wholly unfitted for its purpose. To be sure, the Latin races, the Slavs, Hungarians, Poles, and others have no inherited aptitude, nor if we may judge from the history of the races, any inherent capacity for self-government and free institutions, but, as I have before said, in almost every case they have had in their own country a partial training in the forms of representative government. All that is needed is to amalgamate this heterogeneous mass, to fuse its elements in the heat and glow of our national life, until, formed in the mould of everyday experience, each one shall possess the characteristic features of what we believe to be the highest type of human development which the world has seen, the American citizen.

The process of acquiring American citizenship is regulated by acts of Congress. It is a simple process. Practically all that is required is a continuous residence of five years in the States, and one year in the special State in which citizenship is applied for, and the declaration of intention to become a citizen may be made immediately upon landing. This last point will be seen later to be very important.

Citizenship in the United States, however, under the act of Congress, does not carry with it the right to vote. This right is entirely a matter of State regulation, and the Constitution or statutes of each State settle who shall have the right to vote in its elections. The underlying idea of the whole system is universal male suffrage, and the franchise is granted (after a certain residence, which will be discussed later) with only certain general limitations of obvious utility, such as that the voter must be twenty-one years of age, that he must not be an idiot or insane, and generally, that he must not have been convicted of any felony or infamous crime, although in many States a pardon, or the serving of a sentence, will restore a felon to his civil rights. In a few of the States paupers are also excluded from voting. With the question of woman suffrage we have nothing to do, as its settlement, one way or the other, does not affect the subject we are discussing.

The important qualification, however, in relation to the subjects which we are discussing, is that which requires residence in the State previous to the exercise of the franchise. And on this point the States may be divided into two great classes. One class allows no one to vote who is not, under the laws of Congress, a citizen of the United States, either native or naturalized. As we have seen that five years' residence is a requisite to United States citizenship, these States, therefore, require five years' residence as a prerequisite to acquiring the right to vote. These States are California, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington. This requirement is admirably calculated to secure that preliminary training in the practical working of our institutions which must be necessary to most of the immigrants before they can intelligently exercise the rights which are conferred upon them by American citizenship and we cannot but admire the sagacity and judiciousness of those who framed our naturalization laws in selecting this period of time for the pupilage of the intending citizen. The period is long enough even for one who is engrossed in the cares of earning a support for himself and his family, amid all the excitement and novelty of a changed residence, to acquire in the five succeeding annual elections a sufficient knowledge of republican government for all practical purpose. To delay him longer in the exercise of his political rights would be an injustice; to admit him to them sooner would be an imprudence.

There are in a few States other qualifications required of a voter. The most important of these is the educational qualification, which exists only in Connecticut and Massachusetts. In neither of these is it very severe. In Connecticut the voter must be able to read any article in the State Constitution, and any section of the statutes. In Massachusetts he must be able to read the Constitution and to write his name. Too much praise can hardly be given to these requirements. The whole edifice of our national life is founded upon education, and to this potent factor must we look for many of the improvements necessary to the proper development of our national life.

In quite a number of States a pecuniary qualification exists in the shape of the payment of some tax, generally a poll tax, within two years previous to the date of the election. This requirement does not seem to be so germane to the spirit of our institutions as the other. The great present danger of our country is the danger of becoming a plutocracy, and while there is no doubt that a widespread interest in property develops stability of institutions, yet there is also great danger of capital obtaining so firm and strong a hold upon political institutions as to crush out the life of free government and to convert the national government into a species of close corporation, in which the relative wealth of the parties alone controls. This qualification is found in Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas.

We have now examined with some thoroughness the component parts of the tide of immigration as it arrives at our shores; we have seen what nationalities go to make up the grand total and what previous training they have had in the political institutions of their native countries to fit them for American citizenship, and what additional requirements are imposed upon them by our statutes before they can participate in voting and government in this country. What are the conclusions to which the view of these facts brings us? They seem to me to be these: first, that the growth of immigration is a desirable thing for this country from an industrial point of view; second, that the immigrants who arrive at our shores are for the most part good material out of which to make American citizens. Applying these conclusions to the questions which were stated at the outset of this article; first, is it for the advantage of the United States that immigration should be checked or limited? second, if so, in what way should the check or limit be applied? the answer would be that no further check or limit should be applied, but that a check should be placed upon the exercise of the franchise by immigrants in all States by requiring a residence of five years in this country before they can vote, and by also requiring some moderate educational test.

With these safeguards established we might look without any serious apprehension upon the increase of our population. The founders of our state moulded the outlines of its form in large and noble lines. The skeleton has grown and clothed itself with flesh with almost incredible rapidity in the hundred years of its existence. But it is still young. We should avoid any measures which would stunt or deform its growth and should allow it to develop freely and generously till the full-grown American nation stands forth pre-eminent among the nations of the earth, in size, as well as in character and organization, and man's last experiment in government is clearly seen to be an unequivocal success.



ARGUMENT AND BRIEF

SHOULD IMMIGRATION BE RESTRICTED?

NEGATIVE BRIEF.

INTRODUCTION.

I. The enormous increase in immigration gives rise to a growing interest in some plan for further limiting the number of immigrants coming to the United States.

A. Paupers, idiots, contract laborers, the Chinese, and several other classes of people are already excluded.

B. The subject has been discussed in legislatures, in political meetings, from pulpits, in reform clubs, and among individuals.

II. The problem divides itself into two distinct questions:—

A. Is it for the advantage of the United States that immigration be further checked or limited?

B. If so, in what way should the check or limit be applied?

III. These questions must be considered, first, from the industrial point of view; and, secondly, from the political point of view.

DISCUSSION.

Immigration should not be further restricted, for

I. From an industrial point of view, the United States needs immigrants, for

A. Without question, immigrants represent laboring power.

B. The United States needs more laboring power, for

1. Admittedly, the introduction of laboring power into an undeveloped or partially developed country is advantageous up to the saturation point.

a. Adam Smith says that labor is the wealth of nations.

b. The history of America has borne out this statement, for

1'. The laborer has turned the forests, fields, and mines into wealth.

2. The United States is still under-populated, for

a. There is a smaller population to the square mile than in many European countries, for

1'. In 1890 the Netherlands had the average of three hundred and fifty-nine inhabitants to the square mile

2'. Great Britain had the average of three hundred and eleven.

3'. Germany had two hundred and thirty-four.

4'. France had one hundred and eighty-seven.

5'. In about one-third of the whole area of the United States, the average is less than six.

6'. In certain more thickly settled portions the average is from seven to forty-five.

7'. In New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana, the average is from forty-five to ninety.

8'. In a small territory made up of parts of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, the average is over ninety.

9'. In the United States as a whole, the average is twenty.

II. From a political point of view, the immigrants who are arriving at our shores make good citizens, for

A. Their previous political training has been such as to render them capable of learning how to perform the duties of American citizenship, for

1. Of the 500,000 immigrants that arrived in 1891, Germany sent approximately 100,000.

2. Italy sent 76,000.

3. Austria sent 78,000.

4. England and Ireland sent 50,000 each.

5. Russia, exclusive of Poland, sent 47,000.

6. Sweden sent 36,000.

7. Poland sent 27,000.

8. Scotland, Norway, and Denmark sent 12,000 each.

9. Switzerland sent 6,000.

10. The Netherlands sent 5,000.

11. France sent 6,000.

12. Belgium sent 3,000.

13. Except in Russia and Poland, the elements of representative government are not wholly unknown to these people, for

a. In most of these countries some form of popular government has either wholly or partially gained a footing.

B. The duties of the American citizen are not hard to learn, for

1. Republican institutions are not very complicated.

C. The political ignorance of the immigrant can be remedied, for

1. Before extending immigrants the franchise, States can insist on requirements that will secure some preliminary training in free political institutions, since

a. The right to vote is entirely a matter of State regulation, for

1'. Citizenship, which is regulated by Congress, does not carry with it the franchise.

b. Already twenty-two States allow no one to vote who has not been in the United States at least five years.

c. Massachusetts and Connecticut have an educational test.

d. Eight States insist on a pecuniary qualification.

CONCLUSION.

The following points have been proved:—

I. The growth of immigration is a desirable thing for this country from an industrial point of view.

II. The immigrants who arrive at our shores are for the most part good material out of which to make American citizens.

Therefore, no further check or limit should be applied to immigration.



APPENDIX B

A LIST OF PROPOSITIONS.

1. The United States army should be greatly enlarged.

2. Japan was justified in waging war against Russia.

3. A formal alliance between the United States and Great Britain for the protection and advancement of their common interests would be expedient.

4. Military tactics should be taught in the public schools.

5. The United States navy should be greatly enlarged.

6. The aggressions of England in South Africa are justifiable.

7. The nations of Europe should combine to bring about drastic reforms in the Congo Free State.

8. Ireland should be granted home rule.

9. Japanese control will promote the political and economic interests of Corea more than would Russian control.

10. Armed intervention on the part of any nation to collect private claims against any other nation is not justifiable.

11. The annexation of Canada by treaty with Great Britain would be economically advantageous to the United States.

12. The United States should establish commercial reciprocity with Canada.

13. The United States should maintain a system of subsidies for the protection of American merchant marine.

14. Congress should have decided in favor of a sea-level canal at Panama.

15. Woman suffrage should be adopted by an amendment to the Constitution.

16. The practice of relieving financial stringency by temporary deposits of United States Treasury funds in selected banks should be discontinued.

17. Labor unions are detrimental to the best interests of the workingman.

18. Free trade should be established between the United States and the Philippine Islands.

19. State boards of arbitration, with compulsory powers, should be appointed to settle disputes between employers and employees.

20. The United States should discontinue the protective tariff policy.

21. The Federal government should own and operate the interstate railroads within its borders.

22. Railroad pooling should be legalized.

23. The tax on the issues of state banks should be repealed.

24. The United States should adopt one-cent postage.

25. American municipalities should own and operate their street-car systems.

26. The President of the United States should be elected for a term of six years and be ineligible for re-election.

27. The President of the United States should be elected by popular vote.

28. Ex-Presidents of the United States should be Senators-at-large for life.

29. United States Senators should be elected by popular vote.

30. The powers of the Speaker of the House of Representatives should be restricted.

31. The United States should institute a system of responsible cabinet government.

32. Judges should be elected by direct vote of the people.

33. All cities in the State of ——, having at least ten thousand inhabitants should adopt the Des Moines plan of government.

34. The right of suffrage should be limited by an educational test.

35. The State of —— should adopt the initiative and referendum system of government.

36. Congress should repeal the Fifteenth Amendment.

37. Members of State legislatures should be forbidden by law to accept free passes on any railroads.

38. Corporations engaged in interstate commerce should be required to take out a Federal license.

39. Women who pay taxes should be permitted to vote at municipal elections.

40. The annexation of Cuba to the United States would be for the best interests of Cuba.

41. The United States should grant full citizenship to the people of Porto Rico.

42. The United States should establish an old age-pension system similar to the one in operation in Germany.

43. Political union with Cuba would be for the advantage of the United States.

44. The United States should permanently retain the Philippines.

45. The House of Representatives should elect its standing committees.

46. The white citizens of the Southern States are justified in maintaining their political supremacy.

47. Congress should prohibit corporate contributions to political campaign funds.

48. The present powers of courts to grant injunctions should be curtailed.

49. In all criminal cases three-fourths of a jury should be competent to render a verdict.

50. The United States government is treating the Indians unjustly.

51. Capital punishment should be abolished.

52. Education should be compulsory to the age of sixteen.

53. The fully elective system of studies should be introduced into all colleges.

54. College students receiving an average daily grade of eighty-five per cent, in a subject should be excused from final examination in that subject.

55. Class rushes should be abolished at —— College.

56. Hazing should be abolished at all colleges.

57. Freshmen should be debarred from intercollegiate athletic contests.

58. Athletics, as conducted at present, are detrimental to —— College.

59. The Federal government should maintain a college for the education of men for the diplomatic and consular service.

60. A large city affords a better location for a college than does the country.

61. The "honor system" should prevail at —— College.

62. American universities should admit women on equal terms with men.

63. American colleges should admit students only on examination.

64. American colleges should confer the degree of Bachelor of Arts in three years.

65. Public schools should not furnish free textbooks.

66. Secret societies should not exist in public high schools.

67. The education of the American negro should be industrial rather than liberal.

68. For the average student, the small college is preferable to the large college.

69. American colleges should adopt the recommendations of the Simplified Spelling Board.

70. For the United States, the type of the German university is preferable to the type of the American university.

71. Fraternities are undesirable in colleges.

72. The United States Army canteen should be restored.

73. There should be national laws governing marriage and divorce.

74. High License is preferable to Prohibition.

75. The Federal government should take action to prevent children under the age of fourteen from working in mines and factories.

76. The elimination of private profits offers the best solution of the liquor problem.

77. Employers are justified in refusing recognition to labor unions.

78. The United States should grant permanent copyright.

79. The Chinese should be excluded from the Philippines.

80. States should prohibit vivisection involving great pain.

81. The United States should establish a parcels post.

82. The United States should establish a postal savings bank.

83. The veto power of the House of Lords should be annulled.

84. Abdul Hamid was unjustly deposed.

85. The present laws relating to Chinese immigration should be amended to include the Japanese.

86. The United States should admit the Chinese on equal terms with other immigrants.

87. Further centralization in the power of the Federal government is contrary to the best interests of the United States.

88. The present tendency of government conservation of natural resources is contrary to the best interests of the United States.

89. Commercial reciprocity between the United States and Brazil would benefit the United States.

90. At present the United States should maintain no navy yard on the Gulf Coast.

91. The United States should admit all raw materials free of duty.

92. The United States should admit sugar free of duty.

93. The date of the Presidential inauguration should be changed.

94. Postmasters should be elected by popular vote.

95. All cities in the United States should establish and enforce a curfew law.

96. The three term system is preferable to the semester system at —— College.

97. The products of prison labor should not be allowed to compete in the open market.

98. New York City should establish a dramatic censorship.

99. Convicts should not be farmed out to private contractors.

100. The State of —— should establish a property qualification for voting.

THE END