Differences in thy prepossessions of your audience and in their knowledge of the subject have, therefore, a direct and practical effect on the planning of your argument. Suppose you are arguing in favor of raising the standard of admission to your college; if your argument is addressed to the faculty you will give little space to explaining what those requirements now are; but if you are sending out an address to the alumni you must give some space to telling them clearly and without technicalities what present conditions are and explaining the changes that you propose. Theoretically an argument should change in form and proportions for every audience which you address. The theory may be pushed too far; but in the practice of real life it will be found nearly true. With different audiences you will unconsciously make different selection of material, and you will vary your emphasis, the place of your refutation, and the distribution of your space.

Notebook. Enter the audience for whom your argument might be written, and note what you think would be their knowledge of the subject, and their prepossessions toward it.

Illustration. The citizens of Wytown. They are convinced that there should be a change in the city government; but they are not yet familiar with the Des Moines plan.

EXERCISES

1. Bring to class editorials from different newspapers on the same local subject, and point out differences of attitude which they assume in the audiences they address.

2. Suggest three different possible audiences for your argument, and show what differences you would make in your argument in addressing each of them.

16. The Burden of Proof. The principle which underlies the responsibility for the burden of proof may be summed up in the adage of the common law, He who asserts must prove.

At the law this principle has been elaborated into a large and abstruse subject; in ordinary arguments where there is no judge to make subtle discriminations, you must interpret it in the broadest way. The average man lacks both the interest and the capacity for making keen distinctions; and when you are writing for him you would make a mistake if you were to stickle for fine points concerning the burden of proof.

In general, the principle as it bears on the arguments of everyday life implies that any argument in favor of a change shall accept the burden of proof. This application of the principle is illustrated in the following extract from an editorial article in The Outlook some years ago, on a proposed change in the law of New York concerning the safeguards of vivisection.

* * * * *

The real question is not as to the merits of vivisection, but as to the proper safeguards with which the law should surround it.

At present the law of New York state applies to experiments upon animals the same principle that it applies to surgical operations upon men, women, and children. It does not attempt to prescribe the conditions under which either experiments or operations should be conducted; but it does prescribe the standards of fitness which every person who may lawfully engage in surgery and which every person who may lawfully engage in animal experimentation must meet. It penalizes with fine or imprisonment or both the unjustifiable injuring, mutilating, or killing of animals; and it confines to regularly incorporated medical colleges and universities of the state the authority under which animal experimentation may be conducted.

The burden of proof rests upon those who would have the state abandon this principle and substitute for it the principle of prescribing the conditions of scientific investigation. It rests upon them to prove, in the first place, that the present law is inadequate. It is not sufficient for them to produce lawyers who give opinions that the law is not efficient. There are lawyers of the highest standing in the state who declare that it is efficient. The only adequate mode of proof would be by the prosecution of an actual abuse. So far as we have been able to learn, only one authentic case of alleged unjustifiable experimentation has been brought forward by the supporters of the bills. This is certainly not proof that the present law is inadequate.

In the second place, the burden of proof rests upon them to show that legal restrictions on the methods of science would not vitiate investigations, and would not, therefore, entail upon human beings greater suffering than would otherwise be inflicted upon animals ...

It is because The Outlook is convinced by overwhelming evidence that the practice of vivisection has not increased suffering but has rather widened immeasurably the merciful ministrations of medicine and surgery that it regards as dangerous unintelligent interference with vivisection, and urges the maintenance of the principle underlying the present New York law.

* * * * *

So with other questions of policy, the burden of proof would be on any one who proposed a change from a policy long established, such as free trade in England, and to a less extent protection in this country, the elective system in many American colleges, the amateur rule in school and college athletics.

Always, one must remember that the burden of proof depends on the prepossessions of the audience, and that on the same question it may change within a moderately small number of years. Ten years ago, on the question of the popular election of senators the burden was clearly on the side of those who advocated a change in the Constitution. By this time (1912) the burden of proof has for a majority of the people of the United States probably swung to the other side. In the state of Maine, where prohibition had been embodied in the state constitution for a generation, the burden of proof was on those who in 1911 argued for its repeal; whereas in Massachusetts, which has done well for many years with local option and high license, the burden would still be on those who should argue for state prohibition. In the discussions of the game of football a few years ago the burden of proof before an audience of athletes would have been on those who declared that the game must be changed; with college faculties and men of like mind the burden of proof would have been on those who defended the old game. In each case that comes up, you cannot place the burden of proof until you know whether the people you are trying to convince have any prepossessions in the matter: if they have, the burden of proof is on him who attempts to change those prepossessions; if they have not, the burden is on him who is proposing to change existing views or existing policies.

In no case, however, with a popular audience is it very safe to depend much on the burden of proof; almost always it is better to jump in and actively build up the argument on your own side. In argument, as in strategy, take the offensive whenever you can.

* * * * *

Notebook. Note whether the burden of proof is with you or against you, taking into account the probable prepossessions of the audience you have selected.

* * * * *

Illustration. In the argument for the introduction of the commission form of government into Wytown the burden of proof is on the affirmative to show that the Des Moines plan of city government will cure the evils of the present government of Wytown. With the audience assumed (see p. 43), there is no burden of proof on the affirmative to establish the need of a change.

EXERCISES

1. In three subjects which you might choose for an argument show where the burden of proof would lie.

2. In the case of one of these arguments show how the burden of proof might change with the argument.

17. The Brief. When you have settled these preliminary questions of the audience you wish to win over to your view, and of the way their prepossessions and knowledge of the subject will affect your responsibilities for the burden of proof, you are ready to begin work on the brief, as the plan for an argument is called. This brief it is better to think of as a statement of the logical framework of the argument, which you are constructing for the purpose of clearing up your own mind on the subject, and especially to help you to see how you can most effectively arrange your material. It differs from the usual brief in a case at law in that the latter is ordinarily a series of compact statements of legal principles, each supported by a list of cases already decided which bear on that principle. The brief you will be making now will consist of an introduction, which states whatever facts and principles are necessary to an understanding of the brief, and the brief itself, which consists of a series of propositions, each supporting your main contention, and each in turn supported by others, which again may each be supported by another series. Such an analysis will thoroughly display the processes of your reasoning, and enable you to criticize them step by step for soundness and coerciveness.

I shall first explain the several steps which go to the making of the introduction to the brief; and then come to the making of the brief itself.

18. The Proposition. The first step in making the introduction to your brief is to formulate the question or proposition (the two terms are interchangeable in practice). Until you have crystallized your view of the subject into a proposition you have nothing to argue about. "Commission form of government" is a subject, but it is not arguable, for it gives you no hold either for affirming or denying. "Commission government should be adopted in Wytown," or "Commission government has improved political conditions in Des Moines," are both propositions which are arguable (though not yet specific enough), for it is possible to maintain either the affirmative or the negative of either of them.

The proposition must be single. If it be double, you have what the lawyers call "a squinting argument," that is, an argument which looks in two directions at the same time. For example, the proposition, "Commission government would be a good thing for Wytown, but the initiative and referendum are wrong in principle," involves two separate and unconnected principles, since commission government as first embodied at Galveston does not include the initiative and referendum. Many people, including those of Galveston and other places in Texas, would accept the first half of the proposition, and disagree with the second half. On the other hand, "Wytown should adopt a commission government on the Des Moines plan," would not be a double proposition, though this plan includes the initiative and referendum; for the proposition makes the issue that the plan should be adopted or rejected as a whole.

In some cases a proposition may be grammatically compound, and yet carry a single assertion. "Municipal government by commission is more economical and efficient than municipal government with a mayor and two chambers," is really a single assertion of the superiority of the commission plan of government. In this case there is no danger of getting into a split argument; but even here it is safer to reduce the proposition to one which is grammatically single, "Municipal government by commission has proved itself superior to municipal government with a mayor and two chambers." A predicate wholly single is a safeguard against meaning two assertions.

The proposition must not be so abstract or vague in terms that you do not know whether you agree or disagree with it. Macaulay summed up this difficulty in one of his speeches in Parliament:

* * * * *

Surely my honorable friend cannot but know that nothing is easier than to write a theme for severity, for clemency, for order, for liberty, for a contemplative life, for an active life, and so on. It was a common exercise in the ancient schools of rhetoric to make an abstract question, and to harangue first on one side and then on the other. The question, Ought popular discontents to be quieted by concession or coercion, would have been a very good subject for oratory of this kind. There is no lack of commonplaces on either side. But when we come to the real business of life, the value of these commonplaces depends entirely on the particular circumstances of the case which we are discussing. Nothing is easier than to write a treatise proving that it is lawful to resist extreme tyranny. Nothing is easier than to write a treatise setting forth the wickedness of wantonly bringing on a great society the miseries inseparable from revolution, the bloodshed, the spoliation, the anarchy. Both treatises may contain much that is true; but neither will enable us to decide whether a particular insurrection is or is not justifiable without a close examination of the facts.[4]

In other words, though the word "insurrection" seems to be plain in meaning, yet when we make it one term of a judgment of which the other term is "justifiable," we find that we do not know whether we agree or not. The terms of the proposition are so vague that there can be no meeting of minds. If we limit the subject to a specific case, insurrection in Venezuela, or insurrection in Cuba, then we have made a beginning toward making the proposition arguable. In these particular cases, however, it would probably be necessary to go further, and specify which insurrection in Venezuela or in Cuba was intended, before the average American would be prepared either to affirm or to deny. Wherever the terms of a proposition are too vague to provoke profitable discussion they must be narrowed down to a specific case which will draw forth affirmation and denial.

A common case where the vagueness of the proposition leads to difficulties in the argument is described in the following passage:

* * * * *

An equally common form of argument, closely allied to the argument by analogy, and equally vague, is that which is popularly known as the objection to a thin end of a wedge. We must not do this or that, it is often said, because if we did we should be logically bound to do something else which is plainly absurd or wrong. If we once begin to take a certain course there is no knowing where we shall be able to stop with any show of consistency; there would be no reason for stopping anywhere in particular, and we should be led on, step by step, into action or opinions that we all agree to call undesirable or untrue....

For it must not be forgotten that in all disputes of this kind there are two parties opposed to each other, and that what divides them is precisely their lack of agreement on the question what principle is really involved. Those who see a proposal as a thin end of a wedge always see the principle as a wider, more inclusive one, than those who make the proposal; and what gives them freedom so to see it is merely the fact that it remains indefinite.[5]

As a practical example of this confusion, consider the following extract from a speech in the United States Senate opposing the popular election of senators:

* * * * *

Every intelligent student of the present rapid trend toward popular government must see what would happen when this sentimental bar of the States being represented by two Senators instead of by the people in the United States Senate is thrown down. The initiative, the referendum, and the recall are but symptoms of the times. That the people will have their way, because they, and they alone, are the government, is the underlying spirit of our institutions, of our newest State Constitutions, and of our progressive laws. Skillful agitation seizes upon every pretext and eagerly grasps and enlarges every opportunity for appeal to the passions in an advancement of its purposes. The next cry will necessarily be, "Why not elect the Supreme Court of the United States by popular vote? Why not elect the Federal Judiciary everywhere by popular vote?"[6]

* * * * *

Here the proposition, "That the people will have their way, because they, and they alone, are the government, is the underlying spirit of our institutions, of our newest state constitutions, and of our progressive laws," is not only obscure in terms, but it is wholly vague, for it does not define how far the progressive party propose to carry popular direct government. Until the two sides agree on that point they have nothing definite enough for profitable argument.

It is surprising to notice how often in political debates this fallacy is committed. It is human nature to believe for the time being that the other side will do the worst thing that the circumstances make possible. Fortunately, human nature just as constantly refutes the error.

To make clearer this necessity of having a definite proposition to argue, let us take one of the subjects suggested on page 10 which is not yet in a form for profitable argument, and amend it. "The standard for graduation from this college should be raised," is a subject that can be discussed, but as it stands it would not be a good proposition for an argument, because it is vague. How much should the standard be raised? By what method should it be raised? These and other questions you would have to answer before you would have a proposition definite enough to be argued with profit. The proposition could be made definite enough by such amendments as the following: "The standard for graduation from this college should be raised by requiring one eighth more hours of lecture or recitation in each of the four years"; or, "The standard for graduation from this college should be raised by increasing the pass mark in all courses from fifty per cent to sixty per cent"; or, "The standard for graduation from this college should be raised by allowing no student to have his degree who has fallen below sixty per cent in one fourth of his work, and has not attained eighty per cent in at least one eighth of his college work." In each of these cases the proposition is so definite that you could find exactly how many students would be affected. A proposition which involves a definite body of facts is arguable; one which involves an indefinite and incalculable body of facts is not.

To take another example from the brief we shall be working out in this chapter, the proposition, "Wytown should adopt the commission form of government," is not definite enough, for there are various forms of commission government, such as the Galveston plan, the Des Moines plan, and by this time a considerable variety of others; and citizens who are at all particular in their voting would want to know just which of these was proposed for their approval. The proposition, therefore, would have to be limited to, "Wytown should adopt a commission government after the Des Moines plan."

The exact form of your proposition will not always come to you at the first try. It may easily happen that you will not see the exact issue involved in the argument until you have gone some way with the processes of analysis which we shall be considering in the rest of this chapter. Always hold yourself ready to amend your proposition, if you can thereby come closer to the question.

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

Illustration. Wytown should adopt the commission form of government, in the form now in practice at Des Moines, Iowa.

EXERCISES

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

2. Criticize the following propositions and amend them, if necessary, so that they might be argued with profit:

a. Freshmen should be required to keep reasonable hours.

b. The honor system should be introduced everywhere.

c. This city should do more for its boys.

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

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

f. Intercollegiate football is beneficial.

19. Definition of Terms. Making a proposition definite is chiefly a process of defining terms which are found in it; but when these are defined you may still in your argument use others which also need definition. In general the definition of terms, whether in the proposition or not, implies finding out just what a term means for the present purpose. Almost every common word is used for some variety of purposes. "Commission," for example, even within the field of government, has two very different meanings:

As applied to state and national administration, the term "commission government" is used in connection with the growing practice of delegating to appointed administrative boards or commissions—the Interstate Commerce Commission, state railroad commissions, tax commissions, boards of control, etc.—the administration of certain special or specified executive functions ...From the standpoint of organization, then, "commission government," as applied to the state, connotes decentralization, the delegation and division of authority and responsibility, and the disintegration of popular control ...As applied to city administration, however, commission government has a very different meaning. In striking contrast to its use in connection with the state, it is used to designate the most concentrated and centralized type of organization which has yet appeared in the annals of representative municipal history. Under so-called commission government for cities, the entire administration of the city's affairs is placed in the hands of a small board or council—"commission"—elected at large and responsible directly to the electorate for the government of the city.[7]

Furthermore, even the term "commission government for cities" is not wholly definite, for there are already several recognized types of such government, such as the Galveston type, the Des Moines type, and recent modifications of these. If you are making an argument for introducing a commission government, therefore, you must go still further with your definitions, and specify the distinguishing features of the particular plan which you are urging on the voters, as is done in the definition on page 59. In other words, you must make exactly clear the meaning of the term for the present case.

Your first impulse when you find a term that needs defining may be to go to a dictionary. A little thought will show you that in most cases you will get little comfort if you do. The aim of a dictionary is to give all the meanings which a word has had in reasonable use; what you need in an argument is to know which one of these meanings it has in the present case. If you were writing an argument on the effects or the righteousness of the change wrought in the English constitution by the recent curtailment of the veto power of the House of Lords, and wished to use the word "revolution," and to use it where it was important that your readers should understand precisely what you intended it to convey, you would not burden them with such a definition as the following, from an unabridged dictionary: "Revolution: a fundamental change in political organization, or in a government or constitution; the overthrow or renunciation of one government and the substitution of another, by the governed." Such a definition would merely fill up your space, and leave you no further ahead. A dictionary is studiously general, for it must cover all possible legitimate meanings of the word; in an argument you must be studiously specific, to carry your readers with you in the case under discussion.

Moreover, words are constantly being pressed into new uses, as in the case of "commission" (see p. 54); and others have entirely legitimate local meanings. Only a dictionary which was on the scale of the New English Dictionary and which was reedited every five years could pretend to keep up with these new uses. In an unabridged dictionary dated 1907, for example, the full definition of "amateur" is as follows: "A person attached to a particular pursuit, study or science, as to music or painting; especially one who cultivates any study or art, from taste or attachment, without pursuing it professionally." Of what use would such a definition be to you if you were arguing in favor of strengthening or relaxing the amateur rules in college athletics, in which you had to follow through the intricacies of summer baseball and of reimbursements for training table and traveling expenses? Such a definition hardly comes in sight of the use of the word which is most in the mouths of college students in America. Words mean whatever careful and accepted writers have used them to mean; and the business of a dictionary is so far as possible to record these meanings. But language, being a living and constantly developing growth, is constantly altering them and adding to them.

What a dictionary can do for you, therefore, is merely to tell you whether in the past the word has been used with the signification which you wish to give to it; but there are very few cases in which this will be much help to you, for in an argument your only interest in the meaning of a term is in the meaning of that term for the case under discussion.

There are two quite different kinds of difficulty in putting the right interpretation on a statement, and a dictionary can only remove one of these, and by far the less important one. When you meet with a statement containing an unfamiliar word—say, the word "parallax," or "phanerogamous," or "brigantine"—and when you understand all the rest of the statement except that word, then as a general rule the dictionary will help to make the meaning clear. But when the difficulty is caused, not by a word being unfamiliar, but by its being used in a certain context, then the best dictionary in the world is, for your purpose, of no use at all. The nature of every dictionary is necessarily such that it entirely leaves out of account all doubts about meaning which are of this second kind. The most that a dictionary can do is to tell us the meaning of a word in those cases where the context in which it is used is not such as to make the meaning doubtful.[8]

In practice the words which most often need definition are those which are, as it were, shorthand symbols for perhaps a very extensive meaning. Unless the limits of this extended meaning are clearly marked out you cannot tell whether the minds of your readers are, as the lawyers say, running on all fours with your own or not. This extended meaning may be of various sorts: for example, it may be a large general principle, as in the case of "evolution" or "culture"; or it may be a general system or practice, as in the case of "commission government," "honor system," or "high standards for graduation"; or it may be a general class of things, persons, or events, as in the case of "secondary school," "professional coach," or "murder." When you use any such term in an argument, it is essential that your readers shall have the same set of details, ramifications, or instances in mind as you have yourself. For this purpose you must define the term; or, in other words, you must lay out or display the ramifications and limitations of the principle, the details of the system or practice, or the exact kinds of things, persons, or events, which you have in mind when you use the term. A few examples will make this practical meaning of defining clear.

Sometimes the definition proceeds by careful and specific limitation of the general signification of a word, as in the following example from Bagchot:

I should say that except where it is explained to the contrary, I use the word "toleration" to mean toleration by law. Toleration by society of matters not subject to legal penalty is a kindred subject, on which if I have room I will add a few words; but in the main I propose to deal with the simpler subject, toleration by law. And by toleration, too, I mean, when it is not otherwise said, toleration in the public expression of opinions; toleration of acts and practices is another allied subject, on which I can, in a paper like this, but barely hope to indicate what seems to me to be the truth, and I should add that I deal only with the discussion of impersonal doctrines: the law of libel, which deals with accusations of living persons, is a topic requiring consideration by itself.[9]

Sometimes the definition is rather an unfolding and displaying of the implications (from the Latin, implicare, to fold in) of the term. Huxley, near the beginning of his three "Lectures on Evolution," made sure by the following definition that his hearers should have a precise idea of what he meant by the term "evolution":

The third hypothesis, or the hypothesis of evolution, supposes that, at any comparatively late period of past time, our imaginary spectator would meet with a state of things very similar to that which now obtains; but that the likeness of the past to the present would gradually become less and less, in proportion to the remoteness of his period of observation from the present day; that the existing distribution of mountains and plains, of rivers and seas, would show itself to be the product of a slow process of natural change operating upon more and more widely different antecedent conditions of the mineral framework of the earth; until, at length, in place of that framework, he would behold only a vast nebulous mass, representing the constituents of the sun and of the planetary bodies. Preceding the forms of life which now exist our observer would see animals and plants not identical with them, but like them; increasing their differences with their antiquity and, at the same time, becoming simpler and simpler; until, finally, the world of life would present nothing but that undifferentiated protoplasmic matter, which, so far as our present knowledge goes, is the common foundation of all vital activity.

The hypothesis of evolution supposes that in all this vast progression there would be no breach of continuity, no point at which we could say, "This is a natural process," and "This is not a natural process," but that the whole might be compared to that wonderful process of development which may be seen going on every day under our eyes, in virtue of which there arises, out of the semifluid, comparatively homogeneous substance which we call an egg, the complicated organization of one of the higher animals. That, in a few words, is what is meant by the hypothesis of evolution.[10]

Here Huxley has laid out, in compact form the principal ramifications of the great principle of evolution, giving his hearers something like an outline map of it with its limits and principal divisions.

Where you have a practice or system to define, you will be more likely to do it by specifying the chief and essential details of the system, as in the following definition of commission government for cities. It will be noticed that this narrows down the meaning of the term to something like the Des Moines system, as distinguished from the Galveston plan.

A straight commission form of municipal government, in the judgment of Dr. Charles W. Eliot, one of its most active advocates, requires a commission composed of five members elected at large, one of whom is called the mayor, acting as chairman of the commission, but with no veto power, or any other special power not shared by the other members of the commission.

The commission so elected is the source of all authority in the city, makes all ordinances, appoints all officials, collects taxes, and makes all appropriations. As set forth by its advocates, the significant features of the plan, in addition to those already mentioned, are:

Assignment of the important divisions of the city government to individual members of the commission, or their election thereto by the voters, each being directly responsible for the conduct of his particular department; adequate compensation to the commissioners for their time and labor, the city employing all the commissioners at living salaries, thus elevating the dignity of municipal service and making it a public career, and not a mere avocation; regularity, frequency, and publicity of the meetings of the commissioners; all employees above the class of day laborers selected from eligible lists based on examinations, oral and written, carefully devised to develop merit and fitness; recommendations after examination by an independent civil service commission; provision for the retention in office of all employees so appointed during good behavior; the power to initiate legislation reserved to the people, this right being known as the initiative; the power to call for a public vote on any measure adopted by the commission before being given effect as law reserved to the people, this being known as the referendum; the power at any time to make any member of the commission stand for reelection reserved to the people, this being known as the recall; the granting of public franchise always to be submitted to the approval of the electors.

There are two other important features: the introduction of the principle of the short ballot and the elimination of ward lines. In the matured judgment of municipal students these are considered, together with the concentration of authority, as the most effective features of the system.[11]

Here is a pretty complete display of all the essential details of the system which the author of this definition intended to mean by the term "commission government for cities."

Where the term which is to be defined is the name of a general class, whether of persons, things, or events, the definition must show just what persons, things, or events are to be included under the term for the present purpose. Lincoln gave a famous example of this sort of definition in the opening of his address at Cooper Institute, February 27, 1860. He took for the text of the first part of his speech a statement of Senator Douglas.

In his speech last autumn at Columbus, Ohio, as reported in the New York Times, Senator Douglas said, "Our fathers, when they framed the government under which we live, understood this question just as well, and even better, than we do now."

I fully indorse this, and I adopt it as a text for this discourse. I so adopt it because it furnishes a precise and an agreed starting point for a discussion between Republicans and that wing of the Democracy headed by Senator Douglas. It simply leaves the inquiry: What was the understanding those fathers had of the question mentioned?

What is the frame of government under which we live? The answer must be, "The Constitution of the United States." That Constitution consists of the original, framed in 1787, and under which the present government first went into operation, and twelve subsequently framed amendments, the first ten of which were framed in 1789.

Who were our fathers that framed the Constitution? I suppose the "thirty-nine" who signed the original instrument may be fairly called our fathers who framed that part of the present government. It is almost exactly true to say they framed it, and it is altogether true to say they fairly represented the opinion and sentiment of the whole nation at that time. Their names being familiar to nearly all, and accessible to quite all, need not now be repeated. I take these "thirty-nine," for the present, as being "our fathers who framed the government under which we live." What is the question which, according to the text, those fathers understood "just as well, and even better, than we do now"? It is this: Does the proper division of local from Federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, forbid our Federal Government to control as to slavery in our Federal Territories?

Upon this, Senator Douglas holds the affirmative, and Republicans the negative. This affirmation and denial form an issue; and this issue—this question—is precisely what the text declares our fathers understood "better than we."

Let us now inquire whether the "thirty-nine," or any of them, ever acted upon this question; and if they did, how they acted upon it—how they expressed that better understanding.

Here as will be seen, Lincoln took every important word and phrase, and showed exactly what persons and things were included under them. Then he went ahead with his argument with the assurance that his audience and he were treading the same path.

Somewhat similar are the definitions in many cases at law, where the issue is whether the agreed facts in a case come under a certain term or not. The Constitution of the United States provides that "direct taxes" shall be apportioned among the states in proportion to their population, but makes no such restriction on the levying of "duties," "imposts," and "taxes." When Congress establishes a new form of tax, therefore, such as the income tax or the corporation tax, the Supreme Court is pretty sure to be called on to decide under which of these large constitutional classes it falls. In such cases as the Income Tax cases, which decided that the income tax laid in the Act of 1904 was unconstitutional, and in the Corporation Tax cases, which upheld the Act of 1909, both the arguments of counsel and the decision of the court deal wholly with the definition of the term "direct tax." Here the definition takes the form of an examination of previous cases which involved the term, to see whether the present case is like those that have been held to be within it, or like those which have been held to fall outside it. From this comparison of the two sets of cases the essential characteristics of the direct tax are brought to the surface.

A good example of the careful distinctions which must be made in defining a legal term is found in Daniel Webster's famous argument in the White Murder Case, of which an extract will be found below. The question here is just how far the term "murder" shall be extended.

There are two sorts of murder; the distinction between them it is of essential importance to bear in mind: (1) murder in an affray, or upon sudden and unexpected provocation; (2) murder secretly, with a deliberate, predetermined intention to commit the crime. Under the first class, the question usually is, whether the offense he murder or manslaughter, in the person who commits the deed. Under the second class, it is often a question whether others than he who actually did the deed were present, aiding and assisting therein. Offenses of this kind ordinarily happen when there is nobody present except those who go on the same design. If a riot should happen in the court-house, and one should kill another, this may be murder, or it may not, according to the intention with which it was done; which is always matter of fact, to be collected from the circumstances at the time. But in secret murders, premeditated and determined on, there can be no doubt of the murderous intention; there can be no doubt if a person be present, knowing a murder is to be done, of his concurring in the act. His being there is a proof of his intent to aid and abet; else, why is he there?

It has been contended, that proof must be given that the person accused did actually afford aid, did lend a hand in the murder itself; and without this proof, although he may be near by, he may be presumed to be there for an innocent purpose; he may have crept silently there to hear the news, or from mere curiosity to see what was going on. Preposterous, absurd! Such an idea shocks all common sense. A man is found to be a conspirator to commit a murder; he has planned it; he has assisted in arranging the time, the place, and the means; and he is found in the place, and at the time, and yet it is suggested that he might have been there, not for cooperation and concurrence, but from curiosity! Such an argument deserves no answer. It would be difficult to give it one, in decorous terms. Is it not to be taken for granted, that a man seeks to accomplish his own purposes? When he has planned a murder, and is present at its execution, is he there to forward or to thwart his own design? Is he there to assist, or there to prevent? But "curiosity"! He may be there from mere "curiosity"! Curiosity to witness the success of the execution of his own plan of murder! The very walls of a court-house ought not to stand, the plowshare should run through the ground it stands on, where such an argument could find toleration.

It is not necessary that the abettor should actually lend a hand, that he should take a part in the act itself; if he be present ready to assist, that is assisting.... The law is, that being ready to assist is assisting, if the party has the power to assist, in case of need. It is so stated by Foster, who is a high authority. "If A happeneth to be present at a murder, for instance, and taketh no part in it, nor endeavoreth to prevent it, nor apprehendeth the murderer, nor levyeth hue and cry after him, this strange behavior of his, though highly criminal, will not of itself render him either principal or accessory." "But if a fact amounting to murder should be committed in prosecution of some unlawful purpose, though it were but a bare trespass, to which A in the case last stated had consented, and he had gone in order to give assistance, if need were, for carrying it into execution, this would have amounted to murder in him, and in every person present and joining with him." "If the fact was committed in prosecution of the original purpose which was unlawful, the whole party will be involved in the guilt of him who gave the blow. For in combinations of this kind, the mortal stroke, though given by one of the party, is considered in the eye of the law, and of sound reason too, as given by every individual present and abetting. The person actually giving the stroke is no more than the hand or instrument by which the others strike." The author, in speaking of being present, means actual presence; not actual in opposition to constructive, for the law knows no such distinction. There is but one presence, and this is the situation from which aid, or supposed aid, may be rendered. The law does not say where the person is to go, or how near he is to go, but that he must be where he may give assistance, or where the perpetrator may believe that he may be assisted by him. Suppose that he is acquainted with the design of the murderer, and has a knowledge of the time when it is to be carried into effect, and goes out with a view to render assistance, if need be; why, then, even though the murderer does not know of this, the person so going out will be an abettor in the murder.

20. Definition through the History of the Case. In some cases the easiest way to put before your readers the precise details or limitations implied in a term is through a brief review of the history of the question. In the Lincoln-Douglas debates Lincoln was constantly showing that Douglas's use of the term "popular sovereignty" must be understood in the light of the whole history of the slavery question; that it meant one thing—what Douglas intended it to mean—if the history of the question before 1850 were left out of sight; but that it meant a wholly different thing if the steady encroachment of the slave power from the Missouri Compromise of 1820 on were taken into account. And Lincoln showed that in reality "popular sovereignty" had come to mean a power oh the part of the people of a territory to introduce slavery, but not to exclude it.[12] In our own day "progressive" has a different meaning when applied to a Republican from Kansas and to one from Massachusetts or New York.

To know just what is involved by applying the term to any given public man, one must go back to the recent history of his party in his own state, and to the speeches he has made. In political discussions popular phrases are constantly thus blurred in meaning through being used as party catchwords; and to use them with any certainty in an argument one must thus go back to their origin, and then dissect out, as it were, the ambiguous implications which have grown into them.

If you were arguing any question concerning the elective system or the entrance requirements for your own college, you would often do well to sketch the history of the present system as a means of defining it, before you go on to urge that it be changed or kept as it is. So if you were arguing for a further change in the football rules, your best definition of the present game for your purpose would be a sketch of the way in which the game has been changed in the past few years, at the urgent demand of public opinion. Such a sketch you could easily get by running through the back numbers of such a magazine as Outing, or the sporting columns of some of the larger weeklies. Or again, if you were arguing that the street railway systems of your city should be allowed to combine, your best description or definition of the present situation might well be a sketch of the successive steps by which it came to be what it is. Here you would go for your material to the files of local newspapers, or, if you could get at them, to sets of the reports of the railway companies.

The definition of terms through the history of the question has the advantage that, besides helping your readers to see why the terms you use have the meaning you give them for the present case, it also makes them better judges of the question by giving them a full background.

Ambiguous definitions, which do not distinguish between two or more meanings of a term for the case under discussion, are usually avoided by going back to the history of the case. In Chapter III we shall consider more fully the fallacies which spring from ambiguous use of words. Here I shall insist briefly on the necessity of searching into the way terms have come to be used in specific discussions.

The first of these is the danger which arises when a word in general use takes on a special, almost technical meaning in connection with a particular subject. Here you must take some pains to see that your readers understand it in the special sense, and not in the popular one. A crass instance, in which there is little real possibility of confusion, is the use of words like "democratic" or "republican" as the names of political parties; even with these words stump speakers sometimes try to play on the feelings of an uneducated audience by importing the association of the original use of the word into its later use. There are a good many words used in the scientific study of government which are also used loosely in general talk. "Federal" has a precise meaning when used to distinguish the form of government of the United States from that which usually binds together the counties in a state; but we constantly use it in a sense hardly distinguishable from that of "National." The following extract from an editorial on the Philippine question is a good illustration of this precise and semitechnical use of words, and the loose, not very accurate use of everyday speech:

On the other hand, it is said that this policy of the United States toward its dependencies is insincere; that it is a covert plan of exploitation; that, as it is practiced, it is a denial in act of a mere promise to the ear; and that if it were genuine the United States would bestow self-government upon its dependencies by granting independence.

This criticism is obviously based on a confusion of independence with self-government. Russia, is independent, but in only a very slight degree are its people self-governing. Turkey has long been independent, but until the recent revolution the people of Turkey were self-governing in no sense at all. On the other hand, Canada, though not independent, is self-governing.[13]

Many an argument goes to wreck through carelessness in the use of words of this sort. Wherever the subject under discussion has grown into the partial possession of a special field, but still uses words drawn from everyday life, you must be careful that not only you, but your audience also, understand your terms in the more precise way.

Closely related to this kind of ambiguity, and in practice still more insidious, is the ambiguity which arises from the connotation or emotional implications of words. The use of "republican" and "democrat" cited above runs over into this kind of confusion. In collegiate athletics "professional" has come to have almost an implication of moral inferiority, when it is often dependent on pretty technical considerations of expediency. In politics, to one class of temperaments "conservative," to another "radical," or at any rate "liberal" or "progressive," carries the implication of the salvation or the ruin of the country. All such words introduce a sure element of obscurity and confusion into an argument. If a word stirs your feelings in one way and those of some of your readers in another, you cannot use that word safely; in spite of the most careful definitions and disclaimers the emotional bias will creep in and twist the effect of your words in the minds of some of your audience. This emotional ambiguity is the most insidious of all ambiguities in the use of words. The danger from it is so real that I shall return to it at greater length (see p. 158).

In a good many cases the necessity of defining the terms to be used, whether in the proposition itself, or in the argument, changes with the audience. If you begin a movement to introduce a commission form of government into the town or the city in which you live, at first you will have to repeat the definition of commission government a good many times, in order that most of the voters may know exactly what you want them to do. If the town once wakes up, however, and gets interested, you and every one else will be using such technicalities as "Galveston plan," "Des Moines plan," "recall," "initiative," and the like with no danger of leaving darkness where there should be light.

So even more obviously with school and college questions: if you are sending memorials urging the introduction of the honor system or of student self-government, one to the trustees of your college, and another to the faculty, and at the same time addressing an appeal to your fellow students through a college paper, in each of the three cases your definitions might differ. You could probably assume that both students and faculty would be more or less familiar with the question, so that your definitions would be of the nature of precise specifications of the plan you were urging. With the trustees your definitions would probably have to be longer and your explanations more detailed, for such a body would start with only a vague knowledge of the situation.

As in all other steps in making an argument, so in defining, there is no formula for all cases. In each case your knowledge of your audience must guide you, and your own sagacity. Unnecessary definitions will make them think you a prig; insufficient definition will let them stray away from your meaning.

Notebook. Enter any terms which need definition for the audience you are addressing.

Illustration. Commission form of government after the Des Mouses plan. The essential features of this plan are as follows: The entire affairs of the city are conducted by a mayor and four councilors, elected at large for two years; they are nominated at a primary election; at neither primary nor final election are party designations allowed on the ballot; these officers are subject to the recall; the mayor is chairman of the council, but has no power of veto; the executive and administrative powers are divided into five departments, each under the charge of a member of the council—(1) public affairs (under the charge of the mayor), (2) accounts and finances, (3)public safety,(4) streets and public improvements, (5) parks and public property; all other offices are filled and their duties prescribed by majority vote of the council; recall; grants of franchises must be approved by popular vote; initiative and referendum; a summary of city affairs must be published and distributed once a month.

Recall, On petition of twenty-five per cent of the voters at the last election the mayor or any of the councilmen must stand for reelection at a special election.

Referendum. On petition of twenty-five per cent of the voters any ordinance must be submitted to popular vote at a special election; no ordinance goes into effect until ten days after being passed by the council.

Initiative. On petition of twenty-five per cent of the voters a proposed measure must either be passed by the council or else submitted to popular vote.

FINDING THE ISSUES

EXERCISES

1. Write definitions of the system for choice of studies by undergraduates which is in force at your college; of the terms for admission to college; of the requirements for the degree.

2. Write a compact description or definition of the form of city government in your own city or town, like that of the Des Moines plan of commission government on page 70.

3. Write a definition of the requirements for entrance in English, according to those set forth by the Conference on Uniform Entrance Requirements in English.

4. Write a definition of the present system of college societies in your own college, using the history of their development, for your fellow students; for an article in a popular magazine.

5. Write a definition of "summer baseball" for an audience of undergraduates; for the trustees of your college.

6. Write a definition of "professional coach."

7. Write a definition of "squatter sovereignty," as used by Lincoln.

8. Write a definition of "the mutation theory."

9. Write a definition of "the English system of government."

10. Write a definition of "the romantic spirit in literature."

21. Finding the Issues. Your preparation for your argument should now have given you a clear idea of the interests and prepossessions of your readers, it should have left you with a definite proposition to support or oppose, and it should have made you sure of the meaning of all the terms you are to use, whether in the proposition or in your argument. The next step in working out the introduction to your brief is to note down the chief points that can be urged on the two sides of the question, as direct preparation for the final step, which will be to find the main issues. These main issues are the points on which the decision of the whole question will turn. They will vary in number with the case, and to some extent with the space which you have for your argument. In a question of fact, which turns on circumstantial evidence, there may be a number of them. In the White Murder Case, in which as we have already seen, Webster was the chief counsel for the prosecution, he summed up the main issues in the following passage. The essential facts needed to understand the case are that the defendant was Franklin Knapp, that his sister-in-law, Mrs. Joseph Knapp, was the niece of Captain White, that by removing and destroying the will of Captain White the defendant and his brother Joseph supposed that they had made sure that she would inherit from him a large sum of money, that Richard Crowninshield, the actual perpetrator of the murder, had killed himself in prison. To convince the jury of the guilt of the prisoner, Webster had to carry them with him on the following seven main issues:

Gentlemen, I have gone through with the evidence in this case, and have endeavored to state it plainly and fairly before you. I think there are conclusions to be drawn from it, the accuracy of which you cannot doubt.

I think you cannot doubt that there was a conspiracy formed fur the purpose of committing this murder, and who the conspirators were:

That you cannot doubt that the Crowninshields and the Knapps were the parties in this conspiracy:

That you cannot doubt that the prisoner at the bar knew that the murder was to be done on the night of the 6th of April:

That you cannot doubt that the murderers of Captain White were the suspicious persons seen in and about Brown Street on that night:

That you cannot doubt that Richard Crowninshield was the perpetrator of that crime:

That you cannot doubt that the prisoner at the bar was in Brown Street on that night.

If there, then it must be by agreement, to countenance, to aid the perpetrator. And if so, then he is guilty as "Principal."

Similarly, in most arguments of policy there are a number of considerations that converge in favor of or against the proposed policy. If you were writing an argument in favor of keeping the study of Latin in the commercial course of a high school, you would probably urge that Latin is essential for an effective knowledge of English, that it is the foundation of Spanish and French, languages which will be of constantly increasing importance to American business men in the future, and that young men and women who go into business have an even stronger right to studies which will enlarge their horizons and open their minds to purely cultivating influences than those who go on to college. Indeed, in very few questions of policy which are doubtful enough to need argument is there any single consideration on which the whole case will turn. Human affairs are much complicated by cross interests, and many influences modify even one's everyday decisions.

To find the main issues—which are really the critical ones on which your audience will make up their minds—is a matter largely of native sagacity and penetration; but thorough knowledge of your whole subject is essential if you are to strike unerringly to the heart of the subject and pick out these pivotal points.

A simple and very practical device for getting at the main issues is to put down on paper the chief points which might be made on the two sides. Then with these before you, you can soon, by stating them and rearranging them, simmer down your case into arguable form.

In the argument on introducing a commission form of government into Wytown this noting down of the chief points which might be urged on the two sides would be about as follows:

Contentions on the Two Sides. On the affirmative the following points might be urged:

1. The plan would make the individuals who hold the power directly responsible at all times to the citizens.

2. It would make the responsibility for all municipal action easy to trace.

3. It would get abler men to serve the city.

4. It would take municipal government out of politics.

5. It would hold municipal administration up to the same standards of honesty and efficiency as private business.

6. It would make it difficult to elect representatives of corrupt interests.

7. It would make possible advantageous dealings with public-service corporations.

8. It would make possible the immediate removal of an unfaithful official.

9. It would tend to interest the citizens intelligently in municipal affairs.

10. It has worked well wherever it has been tried.

On the negative side the following points might be urged:

1. The plan is a complete departure from the traditional American theory of government.

2. It throws away a chance for training in public affairs for a considerable body of young men.

3. It might put very great power in the hands of unworthy men.

4. Corrupt interests, having a larger stake, would work harder to control the city.

5. Past experience gives no reason to expect the constant interest on the part of citizens which is necessary to make so great concentration of power safe.

6. With further increase in the foreign population of the city there will be danger from race and religious clannishness.

7. A return to the old-fashioned town government, or some such modification of it as has been tried at Newport, would enlist the active interest of more citizens.

8. The system is still an experiment.

9. The present success of the plan in various places is largely to be ascribed to its novelty.

10. The present system has in the past given good government.

11. The liability to recall will keep public officials from initiating advantageous policies if they would be detrimental to part of the city, or if they were unpopular because of novelty.

In most cases, as here, you will get too many points to argue out in the space which is at your disposal. Fifteen hundred or two thousand words are very soon eaten up when you begin to state evidence in any detail, and arguments written in school or college can rarely be longer. You must look forward, therefore, to not more than four or five main issues. In going over and comparing the points which you have jotted down in this preliminary statement you must consequently be prepared to throw out all that are not obviously important. Even when you have done this you will usually have more than enough points left to fill your space, and must make some close decisions before you get at those which you finally decide to argue out.

You must also be prepared to rephrase and remold some of the points in order to get at the most important aspects of the case. This noting down of the points which might be urged you should therefore regard entirely as a preliminary step, and not as fixing the points in the form in which you will argue them out.

In the main issues for the argument on introducing commission government into Wytown, as they are worked out below, it will be seen that main issue 4 for the affirmative is derived in part from the points marked 1, 2, 6, and 8 of those for the affirmative, and those marked 3, 4, and 5 for the negative.

Furthermore, it is obvious that the main issues you choose will vary somewhat with the side of the question which you are arguing. You will almost surely have to leave out some of the points which might be urged, and there is no sense in letting the other side choose your ground for you. Points which from one side may be of no great consequence, or not very practicable to argue, may on the other be highly effective; and in arguing you should always take what advantage can fairly be gained from position.

The phrasing of the main issues, too, will vary with the side on which you are arguing them. Here, again, you must take every fair advantage that is to be gained from position. In the main issues of the question I have been using for an example, as they are stated below, it will be seen that main issue 1 on the affirmative and main issue 3 on the negative cover very nearly the same ground; but if you were arguing on the affirmative you would direct attention to the shortcomings inherent in the system of government, if on the negative, to the temporary and removable causes of them. Whichever side you were arguing on there is no reason that you should lose the advantage of so phrasing the issue that you can go directly to your work of establishing your contention.

In the argument on introducing commission government into Wytown the main issues might be as follows:

The main issues as chosen by the affirmative:

1. Is the admitted inefficiency of the city government at present due to the system of government?

2. Will the adoption of the plan result in more economical administration?

3. Will the adoption of the plan result in more efficient service to the city?

4. Will the direct responsibility of the mayor and councilors to the citizens be a sufficient safeguard for the increased power given to them?

The main issues as chosen by the negative:

1. Is there danger in putting such large powers into the hands of so few men?

2. Will the new plan, if adopted, permanently raise the standard of public servants?

3. Is the inefficiency of the city government at present due to temporary and removable causes?

4. Has the plan succeeded in other places largely because of its novelty?

5. Will the liability to recall keep officials from initiating new policies for fear of unpopularity?

In some cases it will be hard to reduce the number of issues to a manageable number; in others, for special reasons, it may be possible to treat a part of them only at length. In such cases one can always adopt the device of an imaginary "next chapter" or "to be continued in our next." In considering how many issues you can deal with satisfactorily, however, you must not leave out of account contentions on the other side that must be refuted; and in choosing among the possible main issues you must always exercise judgment. Many points which might be argued are not worth the space it would take to deal with them; but not infrequently you will have to let points that have some weight give place to others that have more.

It is not to be expected that the points made by the two sides will always exactly pair off, for the considerations which make for a course of action may be different in kind from those which make against it. Sometimes one side will contribute more to the final number of main issues, sometimes the other. Ordinarily your own side will give you the larger number of points that you think worth arguing out, for an affirmative and constructive argument usually makes more impression than a negative one.

Notebook. Enter the chief points which might be made on the two sides of your question. Then, after studying them and comparing them, enter the main issues which you decide to argue out.

(The contentions on the two sides and the main issues for the model argument will be found on pages 74-77.)

EXERCISE

Take one of the questions on pages 10-12, with which you have some acquaintance, and obtain the main issues by noting down first the points which might be urged on the two sides.

NOTE. This exercise is a good one for class work. Let the class suggest the points, and write them, as they come, on the blackboard. Then call for criticism and discussion of them, in order to come to the main issues.

22. The Agreed Statement of Facts. Now that you have compared the points on which the two sides disagree, you can pick out the points on which they agree, and decide which of the latter will enter into the discussion. You are therefore in a position to draw up the agreed statement of facts, in which you will sum up compactly so much of the history of the case, of the origin of the present question, and other relevant facts and necessary definitions, as will be needed to understand the brief. The style of this statement should be strictly expository, and there should be nothing in it to which both sides could not agree. It should be similar to the statements of facts in courts of law, which are sent up with the briefs when a case is appealed on a point of legal principle.

Since this agreed statement of facts is not argument, it will make small use of such conjunctions as "because," "for," "hence," and "therefore." If you find any of them in your agreed statement, it is better to rearrange it, so that you will not seem to be giving reasons before you have begun your argument.

In the making of this preliminary statement and to a certain extent in the framing of the main issues, it is convenient and advisable, wherever both sides of the question are to be presented in arguments, whether in writing or in debate, for the two parties to work together. In this working together they should aim to agree on as many points as possible. If they meet in a carping and unyielding temper, the result will be in the end that the patience of the audience will be tried and its attention dispersed by lengthy arguments on preliminary details. In making an argument one should never forget, even in school and college work, that the aim of all argument is to produce agreement. Few people have much interest in a contest in smartness; and it is a bad habit to care too much about the mere beating of an opponent on a question where there are real and serious issues. Any question which is worth arguing at all will have far more ground to cover, even when everything possible has been granted by both sides, than the average student can cover with any thoroughness.

Notebook. Enter those of the essential facts and definitions in the case which would be agreed to by both sides, and which are needed for an understanding of the brief.

Illustration. Agreed Statement of Facts. For many years the tax rate in Wytown has been high, and in the last ten years has not fallen below twenty-four dollars on one thousand dollars. The city water supply is of doubtful purity, and nothing has been done to improve it, chiefly because the city debt is now close to the limit allowed by law. The police service has been inadequate, especially in the region known as South Corner. Though two hundred thousand dollars have been spent on the streets in the last five years, the main street of the city is still unpaved, and none of the other streets are macadamized. Though under the local option law the city has uniformly voted for no license, yet there is much liquor selling. The city officials have regularly been nominated at Democratic and republican conventions.

The question has arisen at the present time because of quarrels between the mayor and aldermen, because of the petition of the city government to the legislature to issue bonds for new waterworks above the authorized debt limit, because the tax rate last year was higher than ever before in the history of the city, and because of the formation of a citizens' association which has been instrumental in securing from the legislature a bill authorizing the citizens to vote on the adoption of the proposed plan.

Points which are not discussed here will be taken up in succeeding papers.

The definitions on page 70 are to be taken as part of this agreed statement.

EXERCISES

1. Criticize the following sentences for their fitness as parts of introductions to briefs:

a. It is agreed that the commission form of government has succeeded in Des Moines because it is simple and easily controlled by the people.

b. Summer baseball is to be understood as playing baseball for money, for a man who is given his board and lodging by a hotel for playing is taking the equivalent of money.

c. (As one of the contentions for the affirmative on the question whether a street railroad should be compelled to build a certain new line, which would not be immediately profitable.) The convenience of the public should be considered before large dividends, since the public grants the franchise.

2. Make an agreed statement of facts for an argument on one of the subjects in the list on pages 10-12.

NOTE. This is a good exercise for class use: let the different members of the class propose facts to be agreed on, and then put them before the rest of the class for criticism.

23. Arrangement of Material. For the arrangement of the material in a brief, it is not possible to give much general advice, since this arrangement would change with the space allotted to the argument, and especially with the audience. On this point knowledge of your readers, of their acquaintance with the subject, and of their prepossessions will count as much as knowledge of the subject when you come to the arguments of practical life.

In general, if your audience is likely to be lukewarm or indifferent, begin with a point which will stir them up. In the argument on the introduction of commission government into Wytown, for which I have constructed a brief, I assumed that the citizens were already aroused to the need of some change, and therefore began by showing that the evils of the present administration can be traced chiefly to the present system of government. If I had assumed that the people needed first to be aroused to believing a change to be necessary, I should have put at the beginning an exposure of the corruption and inefficiency of the present city government, with specific cases to establish the point.

Likewise for the close of your argument be sure that you have a strong and effective point. In the case of commission government for Wytown, by refuting the objection that too much power is given to the councilmen I provide a chance to show at the same time how completely the commission government keeps the control in the hands of the people; and the latter point is the strongest that can be made for the commission form of government.

24. The Place of the Refutation. The place of the refutation and its extent also differ greatly with the audience. Sometimes it may occupy practically the whole space. A few years ago The Outlook published an editorial opposing a change in the laws of New York relating to vivisection (for a part of it, see p. 44), in which it refuted the two arguments urged for the change, and then pointed out that the burden of proof still rested on the other side. Here the refutation occupied almost the whole of the argument. Huxley, in his three "Lectures on Evolution," of which the first is printed on page 233, gave the whole of this first lecture to a refutation of the alternative theories of the origin of plants and animals; since it was necessary to dispose of accepted theories before the new theory could get a hearing, he put his refutation first.

Where there are no such special reasons, it is safe to follow the principle that you should not draw more attention than necessary to the arguments on the other side. Refutation of less important statements and contentions will naturally come at the point of the argument which deals with that part of the subject. State them fairly always, but do not magnify their importance by dealing with them at too great length.

It is not often wise to lump the refutation at the end of your argument. The last impression on your audience is the strongest: it is good strategy to keep it for your own best points. Sometimes, as in the brief worked out on page 90, it is possible to combine the refutation with positive argument which will be effective; but do not forget that negative argument makes much less impression than that which is positive and constructive.

25. The Brief Proper. We have seen on page 47 that the brief is in essence a statement of the logical framework of your argument. Its purpose is to lay out your reasoning in such a way that you can scrutinize each link and make sure that each assertion and each group of assertions is attached to a firm support. For this reason the brief for a written or spoken argument is best thrown into the form of tabulated statements marked with a series of numbers and letters which will show at a glance the exact place of each statement or assertion in the whole system of reasoning. When you can thus, as it were, strip your argument to its bones and tendons, you can go ahead with the confidence that your reasoning is logically coherent.

When you get out into the world you will work out your own way of making briefs for any arguments that fate imposes on you. The value of practice now is in being able to get at the work then without wasting time. The rules below are offered to you as the result of long experiment and study lay the best authorities. Moreover, if you are working in a class you should remember that you will get a great deal more out of your teacher if you save his time by sticking closely to uniformity in outward form.

I shall first show how a brief is constructed, by following through part of the process for the argument on the introduction of commission into Wytown; then I shall give the rules, with some explanation of their working and of their practical expediency.

We have just seen that the brief is essentially a display of the logical framework of the argument: it should consist, therefore, of the main contentions in support of the proposition, with the reasons urged in support of these contentions, and of the facts and reasons brought forward in support of these reasons, this successive support of reasons being carried down to ultimate facts, wherever possible.

When you come to the working out of your brief you start with your main issues, stated now as assertions. Then for each of them you give one or more reasons.

In the brief for introducing commission government into Wytown, let us start with the main issues for the affirmative, transforming them from questions into assertions. The first main issue would then read:

The admitted inefficiency of the city government at present is due to the system of government.

The next step is to assign reasons for making this assertion. Accordingly we should add a "since" or a "for" to the assertion, and then underneath arrange these reasons in order. Let us suppose that we put down three reasons:

I. The admitted inefficiency of the city government at present is due to the system of government; for

A. Partisan politics determine nominations to office;

B. Advantageous contracts cannot be made;

C. The responsibility for expenditures is scattered.

Each of these assertions clearly needs to be supported before it will be accepted. Let us follow out the support of the first one, and set down here the reasons and facts which will make it incontestable.

A. Partisan politics determine nominations to office; for

1. The organization of the national parties is permanent.

2. There has been bargaining between parties to reward political services with city offices.

Of these points the first is an obvious fact; in the argument it will need only slight development and specification to make its bearing on the case effective. The second, on the other hand, must be supported by evidence; and in the brief, accordingly, we should refer to the facts as stated in newspapers of specified dates from which full quotation would be made in the argument. Here then, in both cases, though in different ways, we get down to the bed rock of fact on which the reasoning is built up. At the same time, each joint in the framework of the reasoning has been laid bare, so that no weak place can escape detection. These are always the two main objects of making a brief—to get down to the facts on which the reasoning is built up, and to display every essential step in the reasoning.

26. Rules for Briefing. The rules given below are divided into two groups: those in the first group deal chiefly with the form of the brief; those in the second go more to the substance; but the distinction between the two groups is far from being absolute.



I

1. A brief may be divided into three parts: the Introduction, the Proof, the Conclusion. Of these the Introduction should contain noncontentious matter, and the Conclusion should be a restatement of the proposition, with a bare summary of the main issues in affirmative (or negative) form.

The introduction has already been dealt with at length (see pp. 48-81). The conclusion brings the main points of the argument together, and gives an effect of workmanlike completeness to the brief. It should never introduce new points.

2. In the Introduction keep each step of the analysis by itself, and indicate the several parts by such headings as "The following terms need definition," "The following facts are agreed on," "The following points will be left out of consideration in this argument" "The chief contentions on the two sides are as follows," "The main issues on which the argument will be made are as follows."

It is not to be expected that all these steps, with the appropriate headings, will be necessary in every brief. The only use of a brief is to aid you to construct a specific argument, and you must consider each case by itself.

3. Follow a uniform system of numbering throughout, so that each number or letter used will show whether the statement is one of the main supports of your case, or in what degree it is subordinated.

In other words, the numbering should show at a glance whether a given assertion is a main reason, a reason for a reason, or in still more subordinate degree of support. The system of numbering in the brief on page 90 is convenient. Whatever system is adopted, it should be followed by the whole class.

4. The refutation should have a distinct set of symbols.

These symbols may well be uniform with the others, but with the prime mark to distinguish them (see p. 93).

5. In briefing the refutation always state first the assertion that is to be refuted, with such connectives as, "Although it is urged ..., yet the contention is unsound, for ...," "Although the case is cited, ... yet the case is irrelevant, for ..."

These connectives will vary with the nature of the assertion to be refuted; the important thing is to state the assertion so clearly that your critic can judge the relevancy and force of your refutation. (For examples, see pp. 91-93.)

II

6. A brief in all its parts should be phrased in complete sentences; mere topics are of no value.

In the brief on page 90, if the headings under I were "A. Party politics, B. Waste in contracts, C. No responsibility for expenditures," neither the maker of the brief nor the critic of it could know with any certainty the course of the reasoning. It is undoubtedly true that many lawyers and other men of affairs use only topic heads when they are planning an argument; but it is to be remembered that they are men who have been training their powers of thought in hard earnest, and their ability to work out and stick to a train of reasoning with so little written aid has not much bearing on what is the best practice for young men who are in the process of gaining this ability. To make a full outline of the reasoning in a few arguments is the best way to get the sense for logical and coherent structure.

7. Each heading should contain a single assertion only.

The reason for this rule is obvious: if under each assertion you are going to set the reasons for that assertion, you will get into trouble if your assertion is double-headed, since what is a reason for one part of it may not be a reason for another. If in the brief on page 90 heading I B should read, "Advantageous contracts cannot be made, and the responsibility for expenditures is scattered," subheading I C 2, "Accounts are submitted to separate committees of the two boards in which no members have special responsibility," would have nothing to do with the making of contracts, and subheading I B 1, "Contracts must be passed on by both aldermen and common councilmen and the mayor," would have nothing to do with expenditures.

8. In the body of the brief the assertions should be arranged as follows: Each main heading should embody one of the main issues as stated in the Introduction; and each of the subordinate assertions should stand as a reason for the assertion to which it is subordinate. The connective between an assertion and one subordinate to it will therefore be for, since, or because, or the like, not hence or therefore, or the like.

A brief thus arranged lays out the reasoning in a complete and easily scrutinized form. Thus in the brief on page 90 for the assertion in the first main issue, "The admitted inefficiency, of the city government at present is due to the system of government," three chief reasons are given: A. "Partisan politics determine nominations to office," B. "Advantageous contracts cannot be made," and C. "The responsibility for expenditures is scattered." Then for each of these secondary assertions reasons in support are adduced; thus for B. "Advantageous contracts cannot be made," the reasons are I. "Contracts must be passed on separately by aldermen, common councilmen, and the mayor," and 2. "Bargains are made between the aldermen representing different wards." In this case final references are given for each of these subordinate assertions, so that we get down to the ultimate foundation of verifiable fact on which the argument is to be built up.

The advantage of this form is that if you have set down several assertions as reasons for another, and you are doubtful whether they all belong there, you can test them separately by putting them one by one after the main assertion they are intended to support with a "for" or a "since" between.

You put the assertion first and the reason for it afterwards, because when there is more than one reason in support, if you have the reason first you must then repeat the assertion with each reason, or run the risk of confusion. If under I in the brief on page go, for example, you began with the reason, "In the present system partisan politics determine nominations to office," and then added the result, "Therefore the city government is inefficient," you would have to repeat the result with B and C; and when you came to the third degree of support, the repetition would be intolerably clumsy and confusing.

9. Headings and subheadings should not have more than one numbering.

The reason for this rule is also obvious: each heading or subheading marks a step in the argument, and what belongs on one step cannot be on another at the same time. In the brief on page 90 the assertion that "Partisan politics determine nominations to office" is stated as a chief reason for the assertion in the first main issue, that "The admitted inefficiency of the city government at present is due to the system of government." It would confuse a reader to mark it A I, as if it wore a support also in the second degree.

10. The brief should give references to the evidence or authorities relied on to support assertions.

General references to articles and books which will be constantly referred to should be put at the beginning of the brief. References to specific statements of fact or quotations of opinion should be added as they occur in the brief (see the brief on p. 90).

EXERCISES

1. Criticize the following portion of a brief:

This college should have a longer Christmas vacation, for

I. College life tends to break up family life;

A. Father and son;

B. Younger brothers and sisters;

C. Intimate friends.

2. Criticize the following detached portions of a brief on the proposition, This city should double its appropriation for the public library, and amend them if necessary:

a. II. The funds for the purchase of books are insufficient and the staff is inadequate.

b. B. The reading room is crowded to suffocation, therefore 1. Many people avoid the library.

c. III. Those who oppose the increased appropriation declare that A. The library is a luxury for the rich; hence 1. The rich should support it; but 2. This is not true, for a. Most of the borrowers of books are people of moderate means; therefore b. The city should support the library.

d. IV. A. The city is able to double the appropriation; for 1. It has spent largely for parks, a. Which are also for the pleasure and improvement of the citizens; b. Hence it can pay for additions to the library. e. VI. It is not true A. That the readers want only recent fiction and that they should buy these books for themselves; for 1. They mostly are not able to buy books; hence 2. They should be encouraged to read other books. 3. Give an example of an argument and an audience where it would be necessary to put the refutation first; of one in which it would be necessary to stir up the interest of readers at the start. 4. Suggest methods for gaining the interest of the readers in the last case.



SPECIMEN BRIEF

Wytown should adopt a commission government like that of Des Moines, Iowa.

General references: C.R. Woodruff, City Government by Commission. New York, 1911; J.J. Hamilton, The Dethronement of the City Boss, New York, 1910; City newspapers of various dates; draft of proposed charter, published by the Citizens' Association.

(The successive steps of the introduction will be found on pp. 43, 53, 70, 74-75, 76-77, 79-80.)

I. The admitted inefficiency of the city government at present is due to the system of government; for A. Partisan politics determine nominations to office; since 1. The organization of the national parties is permanent, and that of any citizens' movement temporary. 2. There has been bargaining between the parties to reward political services by city offices. Daily papers, March 12-20, 1909; March 3-15, 1910. B. Advantageous contracts cannot be made; for 1. Contracts must be passed on separately by aldermen, common councilmen, and the mayor. Present city charter, sections 19-21. 2. Bargains are made between the aldermen representing different wards. Daily papers, October 3, 1908; January 25, 1910. C. The responsibility for expenditures is scattered; for 1. Heads of departments are responsible to the two boards and not to the mayor. Present city charter, section 15. 2. Accounts are submitted to separate committees of the two boards in which no members have special responsibility. Present city charter, sections 22-23.

II. The adoption of the plan will result in important economies; for A. The administration of city affairs will be made simpler; since 1. The councilmen will both lay out the work and be responsible for the execution of it. Draft or charter, sections 5 and 13. 2. Plans for work in all departments will be considered together. 3. A small body with full powers can make better bargains than two larger ones acting independently. B. The plan has resulted in economies where it has been tried; for 1. In Des Moines, Iowa, the first year under the new charter showed a relative saving of $182,949.65 as compared with the year before. C. R. Woodruff, as cited, p. 250. 2. In Haverhill, Massachusetts, in the first year of commission government a deficit of $79,452 was turned into a surplus of $36,511, after paying off indebtedness to the extent of $133,000. C. R. Woodruff, as cited, p. 278. 1'.Though a despatch in a daily paper (April 3, 1911) declares that the city of Haverhill has been forced to borrow, yet the report is untrustworthy without further evidence; for a'. In itself it is contradictory and confused; and b'. It is known that professional politicians and other enemies of the plan have often spread false reports about it. McClure's Magazine, Vol. XXXV, p. 107.

III. The adoption of the plan will result in more efficient service to the city; for A. A better class of citizens will be drawn into office; for 1. City officials can plan and carry out their policies without petty interference; 2. In Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the commission, employed a civic-service expert, and carried out his recommendations. J. J. Hamilton, as cited, p. 180. 3. In Galveston, Texas, citizens of a better grade have taken office, and the tone of the city administration has been raised. W. B. Munro, in The Chautauquan, Vol. LI, p. 110. B. Commission government has resulted in better administration where it has been tried; for 1. Galveston and Houston, Texas, Des Moines and Cedar Rapids, Iowa, have all reported better police administration, improvements in streets and parks, more advantageous dealings with public-service corporations. C. J. Woodruff, as cited, pp. 242-287. 2. No city which has tried the plan has yet given it up. C. J. Woodruff, as cited, p. 310. 1'.Although Chelsea, Massachusetts, is cited as having given up a commission government, yet the case is not parallel, since a'. The commission under which the city had lived was appointed by the governor after a disastrous conflagration; and b'. The form of government substituted has most of the essential features of the: commission government except the size of the council, which has four members elected at large, and five by district.

IV'. Although it is urged that the corrupt element in politics would have unlimited power if they should capture the commission, yet the direct responsibility to the citizens will be a safeguard for the enlarged power, for A'. Every act of the city government will be known; since under the charter—sections 24, 25, 29, 33— 1'. The meetings of the council will be public. 2'. All resolutions are to be in writing and recorded. 3'. All votes are to be recorded. 4'. An itemized statement of receipts and expenditures must be printed and distributed every month. 5'. Ordinances making contracts or granting franchises must be published one week before final passage, and on petition may be referred to the people. 6'. In Des Moines under the new charter the newspapers give much space to the doings of the city government. McClure's Magazine, Vol. XXXV, p. 101. B'. The provisions for a recall will be a check on corrupt officials; for 1'. In Des Moines a chief of police was retired on the suggestion of a recall for the commissioner who was responsible for his appointment. McClure's Magazine, Vol. XXXV, p. 101. 2'. In Seattle a mayor who made terms with the vicious element, and was in league with public service corporations, was recalled. Daily papers, March, 1911.

CONCLUSION.

Wytown should adopt a commission government like that of Des Moines; since

A. The admitted inefficiency of the city government at present is due to the system of government;

B. The adoption of the plan will result in important economies;

C. The adoption of the plan will result in more efficient service to the city; and

D. The direct responsibility of the mayor and councilmen to the citizens will be a safeguard for the increased power given to them.



CHAPTER III

EVIDENCE AND REASONING

27. Evidence and Reasoning. We have seen in the last chapter that the chief value of making a brief is that in the first place it lays out your reasoning so that you can scrutinize it in detail; and that in the second place it displays the foundations of your reasoning on facts which cannot be contested. In this chapter we shall consider what grounds give validity to evidence and to reasoning.

Where the facts which you bring forward come from persons with first-hand knowledge of them, they are direct evidence; where you must establish them by reasoning from other facts they are indirect evidence, and in the latter case reasoning is an essential part of establishing the facts. In this chapter, therefore, I shall speak first of direct evidence, then of indirect, and then pass on to consider a few of the simpler principles which govern reasoning.

In ordinary usage the word "evidence" is pretty vague, and means anything that will help to establish one side or another of any question, whether of fact or of policy. The word, however, comes ultimately from the law, where it is used for the testimony, either oral or written or material, which is brought in to establish the truth of assertions about fact: evidence is set before the jury, which under the common law decides questions of fact. In almost any argument of policy, however, we use facts as reasons for or against the policy which is in question, and therefore inmost cases we must use evidence to establish these facts; in many cases, when the facts are established there is no further disagreement about the policy. For example, in arguments for and against state prohibition of the liquor trade, it is an essential fact to determine whether in status where prohibition has been tried it has failed or succeeded, and another essential fact whether under similar conditions a combination of high license and local option has or has not produced less drunkenness. Both are extremely complicated and difficult facts to decide; but if clear evidence can be brought forward to establish them, reasonable-minded people would generally hold as settled the question of the policy which should be adopted. Similarly, an argument for the popular election of senators would undoubtedly make large use of the alleged fact that, in elections by the legislatures, there has been much undue interference by special interests and rich corporations; and the assertion of this fact would have to be supported by evidence. If this fact were thus clearly established, it would be recognized as a strong reason for a change in our present policy. In the interest of clearness of thought it is worth while to remember this distinction; for, as we shall see, it is only by so doing that we can determine when the ordinary rules of logic do and when they do not apply to the processes of reasoning on which argument is based. I shall speak here, therefore, of the evidence for facts, and of the reasons for or against a policy.

It may be said in passing that the highly complicated rules of evidence at the common law have practically nothing to do with our present subject, for they spring from very special conditions, and have been molded by very special purposes. Their object is to establish, so far as is possible, principles which will apply to all cases of a like nature; and they therefore rule out many facts and much evidence which outside the court we all use without hesitation in making up our minds. The jury system has had a curious and interesting history: and judges have built up hedges around juries which seem to the layman merely technical, and unnecessary for the ends of justice.[14] Yet though the sweeping away of many of these rules from time to time shows that there has been and perhaps still is justice in this view, one must remember that the whole common law is based on the application of principles already established by earlier cases to new cases of like character; and that great care must therefore be used not to establish principles which may interfere with the even distribution of justice in the long run (see on this point S.R. Gardiner, p. 103). Even if in single cases the rule of evidence that forbids hearsay evidence works an injustice, yet in the long run it is obvious both that, if hearsay were allowed, litigants would take less trouble to get original evidence, and that much hearsay is thoroughly untrustworthy.

Another reason why the rules of evidence at the common law have little bearing on the arguments of everyday life is like that which makes it unwise to dwell much on the burden of proof: there is no one either competent or interested to enforce the exclusion. Assertion and rumor must be more than palpably vague before the ordinary man will of his own initiative take the trouble to scrutinize it; and even in refuting such material you must make its untrustworthiness very patent if you expect to make ordinary readers distrust it seriously.

28. Direct and Indirect Evidence. When we come now to consider how we establish facts, whether single or complex, we find that, both to aid our own judgment and to convince other people, we rely on evidence. We have seen that evidence falls roughly into two classes: either it comes from persons who testify out of their own observation and experience, or it comes indirectly through reasoning from facts and principles already established or granted. The two kinds of evidence run into each other, and the terms commonly used to describe them vary: "direct evidence" is not infrequently, as in Huxley's argument (see p. 240), called "testimonial," and "indirect evidence," as in the same argument and in the opinion of Chief Justice Shaw, quoted below, is called "circumstantial." On the whole, however, the opposition between the two classes, so far as it is of practical importance, may best be indicated by the terms "direct evidence" and "indirect evidence." The distinction between the two classes is made clear in the following extract from the opinion of Chief Justice Shaw of the Massachusetts Supreme Court. It will be noticed that it is the same doctrine as that laid down by Huxley (see p. 240).