Elemen ts of D ebating

A M anual for Use in H igh Schools

and A cademies

By

LEVERETT S. LYON

of the Department of Civ ic Science in else

yoliet Township School

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESSCHICAGO , ILLINOIS

All Rights Reserved

Publi sh ed October 1913

Second Impression M arch rgr4

Third Impression J anu ary 1915

Composed and Printe d ByThe Un ivers ity ofChicago Press

Chicago. Ill inois.U.S.A.

PREFACE

This book pretends bu t little to originality inmaterial. Its aim is to Offer the old in a form that

shall meet the n eeds of young studen ts who are

beginnin g work in debate . The efiort has beenmade only to presen t the elemen ts of foren sic

work so freed from techni cat that they may beapparen t to the student with the greatest possible

economy of time and the least possible in terpretation by the teacher.

It is hoped that the book may serve not on ly

those schoolswhere debatin g is a part of the regular

course, but also those in stitution s where it is a

supplemen t to the work in Engli sh or is en cour

aged as a super- curriculum ”activity.

Although the gen eral obligation to other writers

is obvious,there is no specific in debtedn ess not

elsewhere acknowledged, except to M r. Arthur

Edward Phillips, whose vi tal prin ciple of$Refer

en ce to Experien ce”has, in a modified form, been

made the test for eviden ce . It is my belief that

the use of this prin ciple , rather than the logical

an d techni cal forms of proof and eviden ce , wi ll

make the training of debate far more applicable

in other forms of public speaking. My special

thanks are due to M iss Charlotte Van Der Veen

and M iss Eliz abeth Barn s,whose aid has added

techn ical exactn ess to almost every page . I wish

PREFACE

to thank alsoMiss Bella Hopper for suggestion s in

preparing the reference list of Appendix I. Most

of all , I am in debted to the studen ts whose in terest

has been a con stan t stimulus, and whose n eeds havebeen to me

,as they are to all who teach , the on e

sure and con stan t guide.

L. S. L .

TABLE OF CONTENTS

WHAT ARGUMENTATION Is

WHAT DEBATE Is

IRE RE$UIREMENTS OF SUCCESSFUL DEEATIN G

DETERIHNING THE ISSUES

How To PROVE THE ISSUES

IRE BRIEF. THE CHOICE AND USE or EVI

DENCE

THE FORENSIC

REFUTATION

MANAGEMENT or THE DEBATE

A SUMMARY AND A DIAGRAM

APPENDICESAPPENDIX

I.

H .

HowANDWHERE ToREAD FORMORE INTORIIA

TION

ILLUSTRATIONS or ANALYSIS To DETERMINE

THE ISSUES or THE $UESTION

A M ICAL COLLEGE FORENSIC

MATERIAL FOR BRIEFING

$UESTIONS WITH SUGGESTED ISSUES AND BRIEFBIBLIOGRAPHY

A LIST OF DEBATABLE PROPOSITIONS

FORMS FOR JUDGES’DECISION

LESSON I

WHAT ARGUMENTATION IS

I. The purpose of discourseII . The forms of discourse

r. Narration

2. Description

When we pause to look about us and to realiz e

what things are really goin g on,we discern that

everyon e is talking and writing. Perhaps we

wonder why thi s is the case . Nature is said tobe economica l . She would hardly have us make

so much effort and u se so much en ergy withoutsome purpose, and some purpose ben eficial to us.

So we determin e that the purpose of using language

is to convey meaning, to give ideas that we have

to someon e else .

As we watch a little more closely, we see that

in talking or writing we are not merely talking

or writing somethin g. We see that everyon e,consciously or un consciously, clearly or dimly

, is

always trying to do some definite thin g. Let us

see what the things are whi ch we may be trying

to do.

If you should tell your father, when you tetumfrom school , how Columbus discovered America

on October 12 , 1492, and should try to make him

ELEMENTS OF DEBATING

see the scen e on shipboard when land was first

sighted as clearly as you see it, you would be de

scribing. That kind of di scourse would be called

description . Its purpose is to make another see

in his min d’s eye the same image or picture tha t

we have in our own .

On the other hand, if you wished to tell him the

story of the discovery of America , you would do

something qui te differen t . You would tell him

not on ly of the first sight of lan d, but of the whole

series of in ciden ts whi ch led up to that even t . If

he could follow you readily,could almost live

through the various happenings that you related ,

you would be telling your story well. That kin d

of discourse is not description but narration .

Suppose, then ,that your father should say

Now tell me this : What is the difieren ce betweenthe di scovery of Ameri ca and the coloniz ation of

America $”You would now have a new task .

You would not care to make him see any particu

lar scen e or live through the even ts of di scovery

but to make him understand somethingwhich yaz’

e

understand . You would Show him that the dis

covery of America mean t merely the fact that

America was found to be here,but that coloni za

tion mean t the coming , not of the explorers, but

of the perman en t settlers . This form of di scourse

which makes clear to someon e else an idea that isalready clear to us is called exposition .

And now suppose your father Should say

Well, you have told me a great deal whi ch I

may say is interesting enough , but it seems to merather useless. What is the purpose of all this

study$ Why have you spen t somuch time learning of this one even tP You would of coursean swer Because the discovery of America wasan even t of great importan ce.He might reply : $

I still do not believe that.

Then you would say :$ I

’ll prove it to you ,

”or,

$I

’ll convin ce you of it . You would then have

undertaken to do what you are now trying to

learn how to do better— to argue. For argumenta

tion is thatform of discourse that we use when we

attemjtt tomake some one else believe as wewish him

to believe.

$Argumen tation is the art of producing

in the mind of someon e else a belief in the ideas

whi ch the speaker or writer wishes the hearer or

reader to accept.

”

You mad e use of argumen tation when you urged

a fri end to take the course in ch emistry in your

school by trying to make him believe it would be

ben eficial to him. You used argumentation when

you urged a friend to join the football squad by

trying to make him believe , as you believe , that

the exercise would do him good . A min ister uses

argumen tation when he tries tomake hi s congrega

tion believe, as he believes, that ten minutes Spen t

in prayer each morn ing will make the day’s work

easier. The salesman uses argumen tation to sell

hi s goods. The chan ce of the merchant to recover

a rebate on a bill of goods that he believes are

l Baker , Prinoiptes of Argumentation.

ELEMENTS OF DEBATIN G

defective depends entirely on his ability to make

the seller believe the same thing. On argumen ta

tion the lawyer bases hi s hOpe ofmaking the jury

believe that his clien t is innocent of crime. All

of us every day of our lives, in ordinary conversa

tion,in our letters, and in more formal talks, are

trying to make others believe as we wish them to

believe . Our success in so doin g depends upon

our skill in the art of argumen tation .

SUGGESTED EXERCISES

1 . Out of your study or reading of the past week, givean illustration of: (I) narration ; (2) description ; (3)

2. During the past week, on what occasions have youpersonally made use of: (I) narration ; (2) description ;(3) exposition ; (4) argumentation $3. Explain carefully the distinction between description

of discourse have you used P4. Define argumentation .

s. Skill in argumentation is a valuable acquisition for(Give three reasons)

LESSON II

WHAT DEBATE IS

I. The forms of argumentationI . Written .

2. Oral .

The forms of oral argumentationI . General discussion .

2 . Debate.

III. The qualities of debateI . Oral .2 . Judges present.3. Prescribed conditions.

4. Decision expected.

Now, sin ce we have decided upon a defini

tion of argumen tation , let us see what we meanby the term $ debate ”

as it will be used in this

work .

We have said that argumen tation is the art of

producing in the mind of someon e a belief insomething in which we wish him to believe.

Now it is Obvious that this can be accomplished

in differen t ways . Perhaps the most common

method of attempting to bring someon e to believe

as we wish is the oral method . On your way to

school you meet a friend and assert your belief that

in the comin g football game the home team will

win . You con tin ue Our team has already

beaten teams that have defeated our Opponen t of

ELEMENTS OF DEBATI'

NG

next Saturday , and , moreover, our team is stronger

than it has been at any time this season .

” When

you fini sh,your friend replies : $ I believe you are

right. We shall win .

You have been carrying on oral argumen tation .

If,when you had finished, your friend had not

agreed with you ,your efiort would have been none

the less argumen tation ,on ly it would have been

un successful . If you had written the same thingto your friend in a letter, your letter would have

been argumen tative.

Suppose your father were runn ing for an office

and should make a public speech . If he tried to

make the audience believe that the best way to

secure lower taxes, better water, and improvedstreets would be through hi s election ,

he would

bemaking use oforal argumen tation . If he shoulddo the same thing through n ewspaper editorials,he would be using written argumen tation .

Argumen tation , then ,may be carried on either

in writing or orally, and may vary from the in for

mal ity of an ordinary conversation or a letter to a

careful address or thoughtful article.

What, then ,is debate as we shall use the word

in this work , and what is the relation of argumen tation to debate $ The term $ debate”

in its generaluse has, of course, many sen ses. You might say$I had a debate with a friend about the coming

football game .

”Or your father might say :

$I

heard the great Lin coln and Douglas debatesbefore the Civil War.

”Although both of you

WHAT DEBATE IS

would be using the term as it is generally used ,

you would not be using it as it will be used in thisbook , or as it is best that a studen t of argumen tation an d debate Should use it.

The term $ debate,” in the sense in whi ch

studen ts of these subjects should use it, mean s

oral argumentation carried on by two opposingteamsunder certain prescribed regulations, and with the

expectation of having a decision rendered by judges

who are presen t. This is$ debate” used

,not

gen erally , as you used it in saying,$ I debated with

a friend,”but technically, as we use it when we

refer to the Yale-Harvard debate or the Northern

Debating League. In order to keep the meaning

of this term clearly in min d , use it on ly when refer

ring to such contests as these. In Speaking of

your argumen tative conversation with your friend

or of the forensic con tests between Lin coln and

Douglas, use the term $ discussion”rather than

$ debate.”

It is true that the con troversy between Lin coln

and Douglas con formed to our defin ition of

$ debate”in being oral ; moreover, at least in

sen se , two teams (of one man each) competed, bu t

there were no judges, and no direct decision was

Sin ce argumentation ,then ,

is the art ofproducing

in the mind of someon e else a belief in the idea or

ideas you wish to convey, and debate is an argu

mentative con test carried on orally un der certain

conditions, it is clear that argumen tation is the

ELEMENTS OF DEBATIN G

broader term of the two and that debate is merely

a specializ ed kind of argumen tation . Football is

exercise , but there is exercise in many other forms.

Debate is argumen tation ,bu t one can also find

argumentation in many other forms.

The following diagram makes clear the work wehave covered thus far. It shows the relation

between argumen tation and debate, and showsthat the Specializ ed term $ debate”

has the samerelation to discourse ”

that$ football has to

exercise .

”

MiscellaneousSwimming

Play SkatingRollinghoop $

Other athletic gamesAthletic games Football

Work

DescriptionKinds of Narrationdiscourse Exposition

Argumentation Written

$Oral $General discussionDebate

SUGGESTED ExERCISEsI . Be prepared to explain orally in class, as though to

someone who did not know, the difierence between $argu

mentation ”and

$debate.

”

2 . Set down three conditions that must exi st before argumentation becomes debate.

3. Have you ever argued Orally In writingP4. Have you ever debated P Did you win

5. Which is the broader term,

$argumen tation ,

debate Why $6. Compose some sentences, illustrating the use of the

terms $ debate ”and

$argumentation .

”

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

ELEMENTS OF DEBATING

It is impossible to prove the issues un til we havefoun d them,

but equally impossible to Show the

audi en ce what the issues are un til we have shown

what the thing is whi ch we wish those issues to

support. First , then , let us see what we mean by

making perfectly clear what you wish to have the

audien ce believe.

Suppose that you should meet a friend who

says to you : I am goin g to argue with you

about examinations.

”You might naturally reply :

$ What examination s $ If he should say ,

$All

examinations : the honor system in all examin ation s

,

”

you might very reasonably still be puz z ledand ask if by all examination s he mean t examin ations of every kind in grade school , high school ,

and college,as well as the civil service examina

tion s,and what was mean t by the honor system.

He would now probably explain to you carefully

how several schools have been experimen tin g with

the idea of giving all examin ations without the

presence of a teacher or moni tor of any sort.

During these examin ations , however, it has been

customary to ask the studen ts themselves to report

any cheating that they may observe . It is also

required that each studen t state in writing , at the

end of hi s paper,upon honor, that he has n either

given nor received aid during the test. $ To thi s

method,” your friend con tinues,

$has been given

the name of the honor system. And I believethat this system should be adopted in all examination s in the Greenburg High School.”

RE$UIREMENTS OF SUCCESSFUL DEBATING I I

He has now stated defini tely what he wishes tomake you believe, and he has done more ; he has

explain ed to you themean ing of the terms that youdid not understan d. These two things make perfectly clear toyou what hewishes you tobelieve, andhe has thus covered the first step in argumen tation .

From this illustration , then , several rules can

be drawn . In the first place your friend statedthat he wished to argue about examination s.

Why could he not begin his argumen t at on ce $

Because he had not yet asked you to believe

anythin g about examination s. He might have

said,$I am going to explain examination s, and

he could then have told you what examination s

were . That would have been exposition . But

he could not argue un til he had made a defini te

assertion about the term $ examination .

”

Rule one would then be : State in the form of a

defin ite assertion the matter to be argued.

In order to be suitable for debating , an assertion

or, as it is often called , proposition , of this kind

should con form to certain conditions

I . It should be one in whi ch both the debaters

and the audien ce are in terested . Failure to

observe this rule has caused many to think debat

ing a dry subject.

2 . It should propose something differen t from

existing conditions. Argumen t Should have an

end in view. Your school has no lun chroom.

Should it have on e Your city is govern ed by a

mayor and a coun cil . Should it be ruled by a

ELEMENTS OF DEBATING

commission $ M erely to debate , as did the men of

the Middle Ages, howmany angels could dan ce on

the poin t of a n eedl e, or, as some more modern

debaters have don e, whether Gran t was a greater

gen eral than Washin gton ,is useless.

The fact that those on the affirmative sidepropose something new places on them what is

called the burden of proof. This means that they

must Show why there is n eed of a change from the

presen t state of things. When they have don e

this, they may proceed to argue in favor of the

particular change whi ch they propose .

3. It should make a single statemen t about a

single thing

(Correct) In public high schools secret societi es

Should be prohibited .

(Incorrect) In public high schools and colleges

secret societies and teaching of the Bible should be

prohibited .

4 . It must be expressed with such definiteness

that both sides can agree on what itmean s.

5. It must be expressed in such a way as to be

fair to both sides.

But you noticed that your friend had not only

to state the question defin itely,but to explain

what the terms of the proposition mean t. He had

to tell you what the$ honor System”

was.

Our second rule, then , for making the questionclear, is : In the proposition as stated

,explain all

terms that may not be en tirely clear to youraudien ce.

RE$UIREMENTS OF SUCCESSFUL DEBATING I3

An d in explaining or defin in g these terms,

there are certain thin gs that you must do. You

must make the defini tion clear, or it will be no

better than the term itself. Thi s is not alwayseasy. In defin ing $ moral force ”

a gen tlemansaid : $ Why , moral force is er—er—moral force .

”

He did not get very far on the way toward making

hi s term clear. Be sure that your defin ition really

explain s the term.

Then on e must be careful not to defin e in a

circle . Let us take,for example

,the assertion

or proposition , The developmen t of labor unions

has been ben eficial to commerce .

”If you should

attempt to defin e developmen t by saying

developmen t mean s growth ,”

you would n ot

have made the meaning of the term much Clearer ;and if in a further attempt to explain it

, you

could on ly add $And growth mean s developmen t,

”

you would be definin g in a circle .

There is still another error to be avoided in

makin g your terms clear to your audien ce . This

error is called begging the question . Thi s occurs

when a term is defin ed in such a way that there

is nothing left to be argued.

Suppose your frien d should say to you : I wish

to make you believe that the honor system should

be used in all examination s in the Greenburg High

School .” You ask him what he mean s by the

honor system.

” He replies : I mean the best

system in the world .

”Is there anything left to

argue Hardly, if hi s defin ition of the term honor

ELEMENTS OF DEBATING

system is correct , for it would be very irrational

in deed to di sagree with the assertion that the best

system in the world should be adopted in the

Greenburg High School .

To summariz e : Define terms carefu lly; make thedefinition clear ; do not defin e in a circle , and do

not beg the question .

As you have already noticed , terms in argumen tation , such as honor system,

”often con

sist of more than one word. They sometimes

con tain several words $A term $as that word is

used in debating and argumen tation] may consistof any number of names

,substan tive or objective,

with the articles,preposition s

,and con jun ction s

required to join them together ; still it is onlyone term if it poin ts out ormakes us think of onlyon e thing or object or class of objects.

”I In such

cases a dictionary is of little use. Take the term$honor system

,

”the meaning of whi ch was not

clear to you . A dictionary offers no help . How

is the studen t who wishes to discuss this question

to decide upon the meaning of the term $ Noticehow your friend made it clear to you . He gave ahistory of the question that he wished to argue.

He showed how the term $honor system” came

into use and what it means where that system of

examinations is in vogue . This, then ,is the on ly

method of makin g sure of the meaning of a term :

to study the hi story of the question and see whatthe term mean s in the light of that history . This

Jevon s, Primer of Logic.

RE$UIREMENTS OF SUCCESSFUL DEBATING 15

method has the added advan tage that a term defin ed in thi s way wi ll not on ly be en tirely clear to

your audien ce , but will also ten d to convin ce them.

A dispute may arise between yourself and an

oppon en t as to the meaning of a term. He maybe relying on a dictionary or the statemen t of a

sin gle writer, while you are familiarwith the hi storyof the question . Un der those circumstan ces it

will be easy for you to show the$

judges and the

audien ce that , although he may be usin g the term

correctly in a gen eral way ,he is quite wrong when

the special question un der discussion is considered .

To make this more clear, let us take a specific

in stan ce . Suppose that you are debating the

proposition ,Football Should Be Abolished in

Thi s High School . Football , as defin ed in the

di ctionary , differs considerably from the game

with which every American boy is fami liar .

Further, the dictionary defin es both the Engli sh

and the American game . If your oppon en t

should take either of these defin ition s, he would

not have much chan ce of convin cin g an American

audien ce that it was correct. Or if he should

define football according to the rul es of the game

as it was played five or ten years ago, he would

be equally in effective .

You , on the other hand, announ ce that in your

discussion you will use the term $ football as

that game is described in Spaulding’s present

year’s rule book for the American game, and that

every referen ce you make to plays allowed or

ELEMENTS OF DEBATING

forbidden will be on the basis of the latest ruling.

You then have a defin ition based on the history

of the question . As you can see, the case for or

again st English football would be difierent from

that of the American game. In the same way the

case for or against football as it was played ten

years ago would be very difieren t from the case

of football as it is played today .

All thi s does’

not mean that defin itions found

in dictionaries or other works of referen ce are

n ever good ; it mean s simply that such defini tions

should not be taken as fin al un til the question

has been carefully reviewed. Try to think out

for yourself the meaning of the question . Decide

what it involves and how it has arisen , or could

arise in real life . Then,when you do outside

reading on the subject, keep this same idea in

mind . Keep asking yourself : $ How did thi s

question arise $ Why is it being discussed $”

You will be surprised to find that when you are

ready to answer that question you will have

most of your reading don e , for you will have read

most of the argumen ts upon it. Then you are

ready tomake it clear to the audien ce .

When you have thus given a clear and con

vin cing defini tion of all the terms, it is a good

plan to restate the whole question in the light of

those defini tion s.

For in stan ce,notice the question of the honor

system.

”The original question might have been

concisely stated : $All Examinations in the Green

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

ELEMENTS OF DEBATING

3) By restating the whole question in the light

of our defin itions.

SUGGESTED EXERCISES

I . State the three processes of successful debating.

2. What are the three necessary steps in the firSt process3. What qualities should a proposition for debate possess4. Give a proposition that you think has thes e qualities.

5. Without reference to books, define all the terms of

this proposition . Follow the rules but make the definitions as brief as possible.

6. Make some propositions in which the following termsshall be used : (I) $

Athletics,”(2)

$This City ,

”(3)

$All

Studies ,”(4)

$ Manual Training,”(5)

$ Domestic Science.

”

7. Point out the weakness in the following propositions(consider propositions always with your class as the audience)

(I) Physics , Chemistry , and Algebra Are Hard

Studies.(2)

$Only Useful Studies Should Be Taught in This

School.

(3) All Women Should Be Allowed to Vote and

Should Be Compelled by Law to Remove Their Hats inChurch(4) Agricultural Conditions in Abyssin ia Are Superior

to Those in Burma .

”

8. Compare the dictionary definition of the followingterms with the meaning which the history of the questionhas given them in actual usage(I) Domestic science.

(2) Aeroplane exhibitions.

(3) The in ternational Olympic games.

(4) Township high schools.

(5) National conven tions of political parties.

LESSON IV

DETERMINING THE ISSUES

I. What the $issues are.

11. How to determine the issues.

III. The value of correct issues.

When you have made perfectly clear to yourhearers what you wish them to believe

, the n extstep is to show them why they should believe

it. The first step in this process, as we sawat the

beginning of Lesson HI, is to see what poin ts, ifproved, will make them believe it.

These poin ts , as we call them, are better knownas

$ issues.

” The issues are really questions, thebasic question s on which your side and the other

disagree. The n egative would answer $No

”to

these issues, the affirmative woul d say Yes .

The issues when stated in declarative senten ces

are the fun damen tal reason s why the afirmative

believes its proposition should be believed.

A studentmight be arguing with himself whether

he would study law or medi cin e . He would say

to himself : $ These are the issues : For whi ch am

I the better adapted Whi ch requires the more

studyP Whi ch ofiers the better promise of t e

ward $ In whi ch can I do the more good $”

Should he argue wi th a friend in order to in duce

him to give up law an d to studymedi cin e, he would

ELEMENTS OF DEBATING

use similar issues. He would feel that if he could

settle these questions he could convin ce his frien d.

Now,however, he would state them as declarative

sen ten ces and say :$You are more adapted to

the profession ofmedicine ; you can do more good

in thi s field ,”etc . If the friend should open the

question ,he would be in the position of a man on

the n egative side of a debate. He would state the

issues n egatively as his reasons. He would say$I am not sowell adapted to the study ofmedicin e ;it ofiers less promise of reward,

”etc .

Each Of these would in turn depend upon other

reasons, but every proposition wi ll depend for its

acceptan ce on the proof of a few main issues.

Perhaps this poin t can be made clearer by an illus

tration . Suppose we should take hold of on e small

rod which we see in the framework of a large truss

bridge and should say$Thi s bridge 15 strong

because this rod is here .

’ Our statemen t wouldbe only partially true. The rod might be broken ,

and although the strength of the bridge as a whole

might be slightly weaken ed, it would not fall . But

suppose we should say :$Thi s bridge really rests

on these four great steel beams whi ch run downto the stone abutmen t. If I can see that these

four steel beams are secure , I can believe in the

security of the bridge.

”So a mechani cal engin eer

shows us that certain rods and bars of the frame

work hold up one beam, and how similar rods andbars sustain a second

,and that yet other rods and

bars distribute the weight that would press too

DETERM INING THE ISSUES

heavily on a third, and so at last we are convincedthat the bri dge is safe. It is not because we have

been shown that several of the bolts and bracesare strong , but because we have been shown that

the four great beams, upon whi ch it rests,are

reliable.

Thus it is with everything in whi ch we believe.

We do not believe that taxes are just because thegovernmen tmust have mon ey to pay the presiden tor to buy uni forms for the army officers. Thesethings must be don e

,but they are in ciden tals .

They are facts,but they are like the sma ll

braces of the bridge. We beli eve that taxation isjust because the governmen t must have mon ey

for Its work . Paying the presiden t and buying

uniforms are details of this more fun damen talreason .

In the same way we might say Athleti cs

should be en couraged in high schools because itwill make J ohn Brown , who will participate, more

healthy.

” That is a reason ,bu t again only a small

supporting reason . We might rather choose a

fun damen tal reason ,whi ch thi s slight reason would

in turn support, an d it would be :$Athletics should

be en couraged in high schools because they im

prove the health of the studen ts that participate .

”

In a recen t debate between two large high schools

on the proposition $ Resolved , That Con tests

Within High Schools Should Be Substituted for

Con tests between High Schools,”on e of the con

testing teams took the following as issues :

ELEMENTS OF DEBATING

I . Con tests within high schools will accomplish

the real purpose of con tests better than will con

tests between schools.

2. Contests within high schools are the more

democratic.

3. Contests within high schools can be made to

When these three facts had been demonstrated,there was little left to urge again st the claim.

Recently among the un iversities of a certain

section , this question was discussed :$Resolved,

That the Federal Governmen t Should Levy a

Graduated In come Tax (Such taxwas con cededas constitutional .) On e university decided upon

these as the issuesI . Does the government n eed additional reve

nue $

2. Admi ttin g that addi tional revenue is n eeded,is a graduated in come tax the best way of securingthemon ey

3. Could a graduated in come tax be successfullycollectedP

Here again if the debaters favoring a graduatedin come could Show that the governmen t does n eed

the money , that the proposed tax is the best wayto get it, and that such a tax would work in practice, they would make the audien ce believe their

proposition . If the speakers on the negative side

could show that the in come of the federal government is sufficien t

,that , even if addi tional revenue

is needed , thi s is a poor way to obtain it, or that

DETERMINING THE ISSUES

this plan , though good in theory , is impracticable ,they would have a good case . Thus in every question that is two-Sided enough to be a good questionfor debate

,there are certain fundamen tal issues

upon whi ch the disagreemen t between the amrmative an d the n egative can be shown to rest. Wheneither side has an swered $

Y es”or

$NO

”to these

issues and has given reason s for its an swer that

will find acceptan ce in the min ds of the audien ce

and of the judges, it haswon the debate . It is easy,then ,

to see why determining the issues,”and

showing the audien ce what these issues are,is

the secon d step in successful debating.

Although there is no fixed rule or touchston e

by whi ch an issue can immediately be determined ,there are several rules which will aid in fin ding

them.

I . In all your thin king and reading upon the

question ,con stan tly try to decide : (I ) What will

the other side admit $ (2) Is there anything that

I am thinking of in conn ection with this question

that is not essen tial to it $

2 . Do not try to make a fin al determination of

the issues un til you are sure you un derstan d the

question .

3.Be always ready to change your issues when

you see that they are not fun damen tal .

With these gen eral rules in min d, think the

question over carefully. This process of deter

ming the issues can ,and should , go on at the same

time as the process of learn ing what the question

ELEMENTS OF DEBATIN G

means. One helps the other. Having decided

what will be the issues of the debate , set those

issues down under appropriate heads ; such as,

$ Is desirable,” $

Is n eeded,” $ Would work well ,

”

etc . When ever you think of a reason why a

thing is not n eeded, would not work, etc. put

that down in a Similar way . Now read more

carefufly (see$Readin g Referen ces,

”Appendix I)

on both sides of the question ,and , when ever you

find a reason for or against the proposition , set

it down as above . The best method of doing this

is to have a small pack of plain cards, perhaps

two and one-half by four in ches. Use one for

each reason that you put down . As you think

and read you will determin e many reasons for the

truth or falsity of the proposition . Gradually

you will see that a great many of them are not so

importan t as others and that they do not bear

directly on the question ,but in reality support

some more important reason that you have set

down . As you begin to noti ce this, go through

your pack of cardS and arrange them in the order of

importan ce. Begin a new pile with every state

ment that seems to bear directly upon the proposition and put un der it those statemen ts that seemto support it. You will soon find that you haveall your cards In two or three piles. Now examin ethe cards which you have on the top of each pile.See if the proof of these statemen ts would convinceany person that you are right . If so you haveprobably found the issues .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

ELEMENTS OF DEBATING

(2) a) M anual Training$Should Be Established in This

Domestic Science $your own ] School .b) M anual Train ing

For$Boys$Should Be Made Com

Domestic Science Girls pulsory in This $yourown ] School .

8. Are there any terms in any of the above propositionswhich should be made more clear to an average audience $Are there any terms on the mean ingof which two Opposingteams might disagree $

9. Defin e one such term so that it would be clear and

convincing to an audience not conn ected with the school.10 . Give two reasonswhy you believe it is or is not bene

ficial to study argumen tation and debating.

I I . If you were debating the question, This $your

own school] Should Establish a School Lunch-Room,

”

would you take as one of the issues,$All studen ts could

obtain a warm meal at noon .

” Why , or why not $

LESSON V

HOW TO PROVE THE ISSUES

What $

proof is.

A consideration of how proof of anythingis aecom

E

li -i

s

An infallible test of what the audience will believe.IV. Thematerial of proof-evidence .

V. Evidence and proof compared.

Having determin ed what the issues are, and

having shown the audien ce why the establishmen t of these issues should logically win beliefin your proposition , all that remain s is to provethe issues.

Now it is clear that n either the audience nor thejudges can be led to agree with us and to accept

our issues as proved , by our telling them that we

Should like to have them believe in the soun dness

of our vi ews . N either can we succeed in convin

cing themby telling them that they ought tobelieve

as we wish. The modern audien ce is not to be

cajoled or browbeaten in to beli ef. How, then ,

are we to persuade our hearers to accept our asser

tions as true The only method is to give them

what they demand— reasons. We must tell whyevery statemen t is true. This process of telling

why the issues are true so effectively that the audien ce and judges believe them to be true is called

the proof.

ELEMENTS OF DEBATING

Naturally, the reason s that we give in support

of the issues will be no better than the issues them

selves, un less we know what reasons the audien cewill believe. And how are we to know what

reasons the audi en ce will beli eve We can best

an swer that question by determining why we

ourselves believe those things whi ch we accept.

Why do we believe anything $ We believe that

water is wet; the Sky , blue ; fire, hot ; and sugar,sweet, because in our experi ence we have always

foun d them so. These things we believe because

we have experienced them ourselves. There are

other things that we believe in a similar way .

We believe that not every n ewspaper report is

reliable . We believe that a statement in the Out

look, the Review of Revi ews, or the World’s Work

is likely to be more trustworthy than a yellow

headlin e in the Morn ingBugle . Our own experi

en ce,pluswhat we have heard of the experien ce of

others, has led us to thi s belief. But there are still

other things that we believe although we have notexperien ced them at all . We believe that Columbus visited America in 1492 , that Grantwas a greatgen eral , that Washington was our first presiden t .

Directly, these things have n ever been experienced

by us, but indirectly they have . Others, within

whose experien ce these things have fallen , have ledus to accept them so thoroughly that they have

become our experien ce secon d hand.

Ifwe are told that aman whowas in the IroquoisTheater fire was seriously burn ed

, it seems reason .

HOW TO PROVE THE ISSUES

able to us because our experien ce recogniz es.burning as the result of such a situation . But if

we are told that a man who fell in to the wateremerged dry , or that a gen eral who served underWashington was born in 1830, we di scredi t itbecause such statemen ts are not in accord with ourexperien ce We are ready, then ,

to an swer our

question : What reason s wi ll those in the audiencebelieve They will believe those statemen ts which

harmon i ze with their own experience,and wi ll dis

credit those which are at varian ce with their experi

ence. This experien ce, as we have seen ,may be

first hand , or direct ; or it may be indirect, or

secon d han d .

In every case,the speaker’

s argumen t must

base every issue upon reason s that rest on what

the hearers believe because of their own direct

or indirect experien ce . Suppose I assert : $

J ohn

$ uinn was a dangerous man Someon e says :$ Prove that statemen t .

”I answer : $ He was

a thi ef . Someon e says : If that is true , he

was a bad man ,but can you prove him a thief $”

Then I produce a copy of a court record which

states that,on a certain day , a duly con sti

tuted court foun d J ohn $ uinn guilty of robbing

a bank . All my hearers n ow admi t , not on ly

that he was a thief , but also that he was a

dangerous person . I have given them a reason

for my statemen t, and a reason for that reason ,

until at last I have shown them that my asser

tion ,that J ohn $ uinn is a dangerous ci tiz en ,

rests

ELEMENTS OF DEBATING

on what they themselves believe— that a court

record is reliable .

Sometimes an issue cann ot be supported by a

reason that will come at on ce within the experi

en ce of the audien ce. It is then n ecessary to

support the first by a second reason that does

come within its experien ce . Remember, then ,as

the fundamen tal rule , that the judges and audien ce

will believe the issues of the proposition ,and , as

a result,the proposition itself , on ly when we show

them,by the standard of their own experien ce,

that we are right .

The reasons that we give in support of the issues

are,in debating , called evidence. Eviden ce is not

proof ; eviden ce is the material out of whi ch proofismade . Eviden ce is like the separate ston es of asolid wall : no on e alon e makes the wall ; each one

helps make it strong . Eviden ce is like the small

rods and braces of the truss bridge : no one alonesupports the weight ; each helps to sustain the

great beams that are the real support of the bridge.

Suppose we had the proposition : $ The Honor

System of Examination s Should Be Establishedin the Greenburg High School . We assert :$There is but on e issue : Will the studen ts behon est in the examination Now,

what evi

den ce shall we use to show that they will be hon est $We may turn to the experien ce of other schools.

After a careful investigation we find eviden ce

with whi ch we may support the assertion in the

following way

HOW TO PROVE THE ISSUES

The Honor System should be established in the GreenburgHigh School, forI. The studentwill do honestwork under that system, for

I . Experience of similar schools shows this, for:(I) This plan was a succes s in X High School, for

a) The principal of that school states $quotation

(a) See School Review, Main, 1900.

(2) This plan is approved by Y High School , fora) Etc.

Here the statemen ts used in support of the issue

are eviden ce . If the eviden ce is strong enoughto brin g conviction to the audien ce to which you

are speaking, it is proof.

But notice here an important poin t. Whyshould this tend to make those in the audien ce

believe that the honor system should be adopted $

Simply because we have Shown them that it has

worked well elsewhere, and their own experiencetells them thatwhat has been a benefit in other schools

similar to this will be a benefit here.

And in its final analysis this eviden ce is no

stronger than the words of the men who state that

it has worked in schools (X) and (Y) .

If the experience of the audien ce is that thesemen

are un truthful or likely to exaggerate, our eviden ce

will not be good eviden ce. If the experien ce of the

audien ce is that these men are capable , hon est, and

reliable, this eviden ce will go far toward gaining

acceptan ce of, and belief in , our proposition .

Man y attempts have been made to put eviden ce

in to difieren t classes and to give tests of good

ELEMENTS OF DEBATING

eviden ce. There is but one rule that the debater

n eeds to use : In judging evidence for a debate con

sider what the efleet wi ll be on the audience and the

judges. Will it be convincing to them In other

words,will it make their own experien ce quickly

and strongly support the issues $

Time is always limi ted in a debate . The wise

debater will then choose that eviden ce which willmost qui ckly make his hearers feel that their own

experience proves him right. When the speaker

has don e this, he has chosen the best eviden ce and

has used enough of it.

In courts of lawwhere witn esses appear in every

case and testify as to circumstan ces that did or did

not occur,it is n ecessary that the jury be able

to distin guish carefully between what it should and

should not believe . Witn esses often have a keen

personal in terest in the verdi ct and , therefore , are

inclin ed to tell less ormore than the truth . Sometimes witn esses are relatives of persons who wouldsuffer if the case were decided again st them and

they have a tendency to give un fair testimony.

In order that the jury may decide as fairly as

possible what eviden ce is soun d and what is not ,

the attorn eys on each side of the case make out

a copy of what are called in struction s. Theseare given to the judge who

,provided he approves

of them,reads them to the jury . Usually these

in struction s urge the jurors to consider four things.

Theymust consider,

first,whether or not the state

men ts of the witn ess are probable ; that is,are

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

ELEMENTS OF DEBATING

of the audien ce, that eviden ce will be best which

will receive the quickest and strongest support

from the experien ce of the hearers.

x

SUGGESTED Em crses

1. In the following extract from a speech of Burke, the

famous debater has asserted that i t is undesirable to use

force upon the American colonies. State the four mainreasons why he thinks so. Under each principal reason ,

put the reasons or evidence with which it is supported. Is

this evidence convincing Why , or why not

First, Sir, permi t me to observe that the use of force alone isbut temporary. It may subdue for a momen t, but it does notremove the necessity of subduing again ; and a nation is not

governed which is perpetually to be conquered.

My next objection is its uncertainty. Terror is not always thecfiect of force , and an armamen t is not a victory. If you do not

succeed , you are without resource; for, conciliation failing, forcerema ins ; but, force failing, no further hope of reconciliation isleft. Power and authority are sometimes bought by kindness ;but they can never be begged as aims by an impoverished anddefeated violence.

A further objection to force is that you impair the object byyour very endeavor to preserve it. The thing you fought foris not the thingwhich you recover ; but depreciated , sunk, wasted ,

and consumed in the con test. Nothing less will con ten tme thanwhole America. I do not choose to con sume its strength al ongwith our own , because in all parts it is the British strength thatI con sume. I do not choose to be caught by a foreign enemy atthe end of this exhausting conflict ; and still les s in themidst ofit. Imay escape ; but I can make no insurance against such aneven t. Let me add that I do not choose wholly to break the

American Spirit : because it is the spirit that hasmade the country.

Lastly, we have no sort of experience in favor of force as aninstrumen t in the rule of our Colonies. Their growth and theirutility has been owing to methods altogether difierent. Our

For a thorough discussion of the principle of reference toexperience, see ArthurE. Phillips, Ej ect/lire Speaking, chap. iii.

HOW TO PROVE THE ISSUES

ancien t indulgen ce has been said to be pursued to a fault. Itmaybe so. Butwe kn ow, if feeling is evidence, that our fault wasmoretolerable than our attempt to mend it ; and our sin far moresalutary than our pen itence.

a. Wells’s Geometry gives the following proposition

Two perpendiculars to the same straight line are parallel.”

The evidence given is : If they are not parallel , they wil l,if sufficiently produced , meet at some point, which is impossible, because from a given poin t without a straight line

but one perpendicular can be drawn .

”Is this evidence

sufficien t to constitute proof $ Does it convince you

Why , or why not $

3. Set down as much eviden ce as you can think of inten minutes , to con vin ce a business man that a high- schooleducation is an advantage in business life.

4. Support the statement that football has ben efited or

harmed this school , with five truthful statements that areevidence. Indicate which ones would be most effective,if you were speakingto the students, and which would makethe strongest impression on the faculty.

5. In the following statements of testimony , tell whichones would be good evidence and which not. Tell why

or why not in each case.

(r) X,a studen t , was told that unless he should poin t out the

pupil who had put matches on the floor, he would be expelled .

X then said that Y was guilty.

(2) James Brown ,a teamster, asserts that the use of alcohol

is beneficial to all person s.(3) John Burn s, a labor leader, declares that labor union s are

beneficial to trade.

(4) F. W. M ccorkle, a large manufacturer, states that laborun ion s have proved beneficial to commerce.

5) Professor Sheldon ,a college presiden t and profound stu

den t oi economics , has declared that labor un ion s help the tradeof the world .

(6) Henry Hawkin s, a studen t at the John stown High School ,asserts that they have the best football team in the state.

ELEMENTS OF DEBATmG

(7) M . M etchn ikofl , chief attendant at the Pasteur In stitute,says : $ As for myself, I am convin ced that alcohol is a poison .

”

M . Berthelot, member of the Academy of Science and Medicine,state s : $ Alcohol is not a food , even though it may be a in(8) Lord Chatham,

amember of the English Parliamen t, said ,in speaking of the Revolutionary War : It is a struggle of freeand virtuous patriots .”

6. On the basis of your an swers to 5, state three conditions that would make a man ’

s speaking or writing weakevidence as testimony ; three that woul d make a man ’

s

testimony strong.

7. In Exercise 5 is or 5) the stronges t testimonyin favor of labor unions . Why Which is next8. Can you see one danger of relyingon testimony alone

for evidence

LESSON VI

THE BRIEF. THE CHOICE AND USE OFEVIDENCE

What the brief is.

What the brief does.

Parts of the briefr. The introduction in which(I) The end desired is made clear.

(2) The issues are determin ed .

a. The proof, which states the issues as

3. The conclusion , which is a formal summary of

the proof.IV. A specimen model brief.V. A specimen special brief.VI. Rules for briefing.

When a bui lder begins the con struction of a

wall, he must have the proper material at hand.

When an engin eer begin s the construction of a

steel bridge, hemust have metal of the right formsan d shapes. N either of these men

,however, can

accomplish the end which he has in mind unlesshe takes this material and puts it together in theproper way . So it is with the debater. He mayhave plenty of good eviden ce, but he will n ever

win unl ess that eviden ce is organiz ed, that is, put

together in themost efiective mann er.

The builder, if he were building a wall of concrete, would get the correct form by pouring thecon crete in to a mold. So also

,there is a mold

37

ELEMENTS OF DEBATING

whi ch the debater should use in shaping his

eviden ce . When the eviden ce has been put in to

this form,the debater is said to have con structed

a brief.

In a previous lesson we sawhowwe might prove

that J ohn $ uinn was a dangerous man by usingthe eviden ce of a court record. If we had put

that eviden ce in brief- form we should have had

John $ uinn was a dangerousman , for

1 . He was a thief, for:(r) The Il linois state courts found himguilty of robbing

a bank, for

a) See Ill. CourtReports, Vol . X., p. 83.

The brief,then

,is a con cise, logical outlin e of

everything that the speaker wishes to say to the

audien ce.

Its purpose is to indicate in the most defini te

form every step through whi ch the hearers must

be taken in order that the proposition may at

last be fully accepted by their experi en ce .

The brief is for the debater himself. He doesnot show it to the audience . It is the framework

of his argumen t. It is the path whi ch,if carefully

marked out, will lead to success.

Now, as we have seen ,there are three principal

steps in debating

1 . Making clear what you wish the audien ce tobelieve .

2 . Showing the audien ce why the establishin g ofcertain issues should make them beli eve thi s.

THE BRIEF

3. Provin g these issues.

The first two of these steps constitute what in

the brief is called the In troduction .

The third step,proving the issues

,is the largest

part of the brief and is called the Body or the Proof.

In addition to these two division s of the brief

there is a sort of formal summary at the end

called the Conclusion .

The skeleton ofa brief then would be as follows

INTRODUCTION

In which : (I ) the desired end is made clear ; (2) theissues are determined .

PROOF

In which the issues are stated as declarations or asser $

tions and defin i te reasons are given why each one shouldbe believed . These reasons are in turn supported byother reasons un til the assertion is finally brought withinthe hearers

’experien ce.

CONCLUSION

In which the proof is summarized.

Of course no two briefs are iden tical , but all

must follow this gen eral plan . Suppose we look

at what might be ca lled a model brief.

MODEL BRIEF

Statement of proposition .

INTRODUCTION

Defini tion of terms.

Restatemen t of question in light of these terms .Determin ation of issues .

1 . Statement of what both sides admit.

2. Statement of what is irrelevan t.Statement of the issues.

ELEMENTS OF DEBATING

PROOF

The first issue is true, forr. This reason , which is true, for

(r) This reason , fora) This reason .

b) This reason .

2. This reason , for:

(r) This evidence.

(2) This authority.

(3) This testimony , fora) See Vol . X,

p . of report, document,magaz ine, or book.

The second issue is true, for:r. This reason , for :(I) This reason .

2. This reason , for

(r) This reason .

(2) This reason .

The third issue is true, forr. This reason , etc.

The fourth issue is true, forr . This reason , etc.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, since we have shown (1) that the first issueis true by this evidence ; (2) that the second issue is wellfounded by this evidence ; (3) that the third and fourth ,etc. ; we conclude that our proposition is true.

Now,let us look at a special brief , made out in

a high- school debate,for a special subject.

The preceding is an affirmative brief and there

were four issues. In the following we have a

n egative brief , in which there were three issues.

Refutation is in troduced n ear the close of the proof .

Of this we shall see more in the n ext lesson .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

ELEMENTS OF DEBATING

PROOF

Contests between the high schools of Northern

Il linois are not subject to such abuses as will warranttheir abolition , for:A. If the abu ses alleged against athletic contests ever

en'

sted, they are now extin ct, for :r. The alleged danger of injury to players physi

cally unfit is not an existingdanger, for :

(I) It has been made impossible by the rulesof the schools, for:

a) This high school requires a physician ’s

certificate of fitness before participationin any athletic contest , for(0) Extract from athletic rulings of

school board .

6) Our opponent’s high school has a simi

lar regulation , for(a) Extract from school paper of Oppo

neuts.c) The X High School has the same ruling.

d) TheY High School has the same requirement.

2. The charge that athletic contes ts between highschools make the contestants poor studen ts iswithout sound basis, for:

(r) A high standard ofscholarship is required ofall inter-high-school athletic contestants, for:

0) Regul ations of Ill inois Athletic Asso

ciation .

B. The evils charged against inter-high-school debating cannot be cured by the proposed scheme, for1 . They are due, when they exist , not to the form

of contest, but to improper coaching, for(1)

$Too much training,

”one of the evil s

charged , is an example of this.

(2) Unfair use ofevidence, the other evil alleged,is simply an evil of improper coaching.

THE BRIEF

The proposed plan would not be so democratic as thepresen t system, for

A. The presen t plan gives an opportun ity to all

studen ts, for1 . Its class and other intra con tests give a chanceto the less proficient pupils.

2. Its inter con tests afiord an Opportunity forthe more proficien t pupils.

B. The proposed plan would deprive the more

capable pupils of desirable contests, for1 . They can find contests strenuous enough to

induce development only by competing withsimilar studen ts in other schools.

The proposed plan would not be practicable, for

A. It is unsound in theory , for :I . No pupil has a strong desire to defeat his closefriends.

2 . There is no desirable method of dividing the

studen ts for competiti on under the proposedplan , for(1) Class division is unsatisfactory , for

a) The moremature and experienced upperclasses win too easily .

(2) Group division ” is not desirable, fora) If the divi sion is large , the domin ation

Of the mature studen ts wil l give no

Opportunity to the younger studen ts.b) If the division is small , it is likely todevelop into a secret society .

B. Experience Opposes the proposed plan , for

1 .College experience is again st it, for

(I) N . University tried this plan withoutsuccess, fora) $ uotation from president of N .

ELEMENTS OF DEBATING

2. High-school experience does not indorse it, for

(1) It is practically untried in high schools .

REFUTATION

The argument whi ch the affirmative may advance ,that the experience of Shortridge High School demonstrates the success of this plan , is without weight, for

A. It is not applicable to this question , forr. The plan at Shortridge is not identical with

the proposed plan , for

(r) Shortridge has not entirely abolished intercontests, for:

a) School Review, October, 191 r.

2. Conditions in Shortridge differ from those in

the high schools of Northern Illinois, for :(1) Faculty of that school has unusual efiiciency

in coaching, for :a) Extract from letter of principal .

(2) Larger number of studen ts , for0) Extract from letter of prin cipal .

CONCLUSION

Since there is no Opportunity for serious abuse arising

from con test s between schools, and Since the adoption Of

contests within the schools alone would lessen the democracy oi contests as a form of education , and since the

proposed plan is impracticable in theory and has neverbeen put into successful operation , the negative concludesthat the substitution Of in tra for in ter contests is not

desirable in the high schools of Northern Ill inois.

From these illustrative briefs we can draw

RULES FOR BRIEFING

The in troduction should con tain on ly suchmaterial as both Sides will admit

, or, as you can

THE BRIEF

Show, should reasonably admit,from the phrasing

of the proposition .

Scrupulous care should be used in the numbering and lettering of all statemen ts and substate

men ts.

Each issue Should be a logical reason for the

truth of the proposition .

Each substatemen t should be a logical reason forthe issue or statement that it supports.

Each issue in the proof and each statemen t thathas supporting statemen ts should be followed by

the word $ for.

”

Each reason given in support of the issues andeach subreason should be no more than a simple,complete, declarative sen ten ce.

The word for”should n ever appear as a con

n ective between a statemen t and substatemen t

in the introduction .

The words $ hen ce and therefore should

n ever appear in the proof of the brief, but on e

Should be able to read up through the brief andby substituting the word $

therefore ” for the word

for”in each case, arrive at the proposition as a

con clusion .

SUGGESTED EXERCISES

1 . Turn to Exercise 1,in Lesson V, and careft brief

the selection fromBurke.

2 . Is the following extract from a high-school studen t’s

brief correct in form$ Criticiz e it in regard to arrange

men t of ideas, and correct it so far as is possible withoutusingnewmaterial .

ELEMENTS OF DEBATING

SOCCER FOOTBALL SHOULD BE ADOPTED IN THE$ A” HIGH

SCHOOL As A REGULAR BRANCH or ATHLETIC SPORT

INTRODUCTION

I. Recen t popularity of soccer.I . In England .

2. In America.

II. Soccer a healthful game, forr. Develops lungs.2. Develops all the muscles.

III. Issues.I . Soccer is a beneficial game.

2. Would the studen ts of $ A” support soccer as a regularsport

PROOF

I. Soccer is a beneficial sport , forI . It requires much runn ing, kicking, and dodging, bothin ofiensive and defen sive playing, therefore(I ) It develops muscles.(2) It develops lungs.

2. It is played out of doors , therefore(I ) It develops lungs.

II. Studen ts of $ A would support soccer as a regular sport, forI . Who has ever heard of studen ts who would not supportsoccer, baseball , basket-ball , and all other excitinggames

3. The following is the conclusion of an argument byEdmund Burke in which the Speaker main tain ed thatWarren Hastings Should be impeached by the House of

Commons. If it had been preceded by a clear$intro

duction ”an d convincing

$ proof,”do you think that it

would have made an efiective$conclusion ”

P

Therefore , it is with confiden ce that , ordered by the Common sI impeach Warren Hastings, Esquire, of high crimes and

misdemeanors.I impeach him in the name of the Common s of Great Britain

,

in Parliamen t assembled , whose parliamen tary trust he has

betrayed.

THE BRIEF

I impeach him in the name of all the Common s of GreatBrita in , whose national character he has dishonored .

I impeach him in the name of the people of India, whoselaws , rights, and liberties he has subverted , whose property hehas destroyed , whose coun try he has laid waste and desolate.

I impeach him in the n ame and by virtue of those eternal

laws of justi ce which he has violated.

I impeach him in the name of human nature itself, .which he

has cruelly outraged , in jured , and Oppressed in both sexes, inevery age, rank, situation , and condition of life.

4. Take any one of the following propositions and without other material than that of your own ideas , state at

least two issues , and , in correct brief form, proof for belief

(I) High-School Boys Should Smoke Cigarettes.(2) No One Should Play Football without a Physician’s

Permission .

(3) Girls Should Participate in Athletic Games While in

High School.(4) High-School Fraternities Are Desirable.

(5) Women Should Have the Right to Vote in All Elections.

LESSON VII

THE FORENSIC

What the forensic is.

II. Howthe forensic may be developed and deliveredI . By writing and reading frommanuscript :

(I) Advantages and disadvan tages.

2. By writingand committing to memory

r$

3. By oral developmen t from the brief

(I) Advantages.

III. Style and gestures in the delivery of the forensic.

When the brief is fini shed , the material is ready

to be put in to its fin al form. Thi s fin al form is

called theforensic.

As practically all debates are conducted by

means Of teams,the work of preparing the forensic

is usually divided among themembers Of the team.

The brief may be divided in any way , but it is

desirable that each member Of the team Should

have one complete, logical division . So it often

happens that each member of the team develops

one issue in to its final form.

The forensic is nothing but a roun ding-out of

the brief . The brief is a skeleton : the foren sic is

that skeleton developed in to a complete literary

form. In to thi s form the oral delivery breathes

the Spiri t of living ideas.

NO better illustration of the brief expanded in tothe full forensic n eed be given than that in Exercise

48

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

ELEMENTS OF DEBATING

in order to fini sh his argumen t in the allotted

At the same time this plan has several un favor

able aspects. When the debater has prepared

himself in thi s way , forgetting is fatal. He has

memoriz ed words . When the words do not come

he has no recourse but to wait for memory to

revive,or to look to his colleagues for help . Again ,

the man who has learn ed his argumen t can give

no variety to hi s attack or defense . He is like a

general with an immovable battery, who, though

able to hurl a terrific di scharge in the one direction

in whi ch his gun s poin t , is powerless if the attackismade ever SO slightly on his flank . Perhaps the

greatest disadvan tage Of this method is that it

does not give the studen t the best kin d of training,

What he n eeds most in life is the abili ty to arrange

andpresen t ideasrapidly, not to speak a part byrote.

It would seem,then ,

that thi s plan Should beadvised on ly when the studen ts are working forone formal debate, and are not preparing for a

series of class or local con tests that can all be

con trolled by the same in structor or critic. Withbeginn ers in oral argumen tation thi s method willusually make the better showing

,an d may there

fore be con sidered permissible in the case of thoseteams whi ch , because of unfamiliarity with theiroppon en ts’ methods, can take no chan ces. This

plan of preparation is in no way harmful or di shon est, but lacks some of the more perman entadvan tages of the second method .

THE FORENSIC

The second method of developing the brief in tothe foren sic is by oral composition . This method

demands that the debater shall speak extemporaucously from his memorized brief. Thi s in no

way means that careful preparation,deliberate

thought, and precise organiz ation are omitted .

On the con trary, the formation of a brief fromwhi ch a winnin g foren sic can be expan ded requiresthemost studious preparation

, the keen est thought ,and the most careful organiz ation . N either doesit mean that, as soon as the brief is formed, theforensic can be presen ted. Before that step is

taken , the debater who will be successful willSpend much time, not in wri tten ,

but in oral

composition .

He will study his brief un til he sees that it is

not merely a succession of formal statements

conn ected with but a series of ideas

arranged in that form because they will,if pre

sen ted in that order, bring conviction to his

hearers. Learning the brief,”then , becomes not

a ease of memory, but a matter of seeing— seeingwhat comes n ext because that is the only thing

that logically could come n ext. When the brief

is in mind, the speaker will expand it in to a foren sic

to an imagin ary audien ce un til he finds that he

is expressing the ideas clearly, smoothly, and

readily. Pay no atten tion to the fact that in the

course of repeated deliveries the words will vary .

Words make li ttle differen ce if the framework of

ideas is the same .

ELEMENTS OF DEBATING

This method of composing the foren sic train s

the min d of the studen t to see the logical relation

ship of ideas, to acquire a comman d of language ,and to vary the order of ideas if n ecessary. In

doing these things,there are developed those

qualities that are essen tial to all efiective speaking .

A debater’s success in giving un ity an d coheren ce

to his argumen t depends chi efly on his method of

in troducing new ideas in supporting his issues.

These changes from on e idea to another, or tran si

tion s, as they are called, should always be made so

thatJ

the hearer’s atten tion will be recalled to the

assertion which the n ew idea is in tended to support.

Suppose we have made thi s assertion : Con testswithin schools are more desirable t han con tests

between schools.

” We are planning to supportthi s by proving : first, that the con tests between

schools are very much abused ; second,that the

proposed plan will be more democratic ; and third,that the proposed plan will work well in practice .

In supporting these issues, we should,of course ,

presen t a great deal of material . When we are

ready to change from the first supporting ideato the second , we must make that change in sucha way that our hearers will know that we are

plannin g to prove the secon d main poin t of our

con ten tion . But this is not enough . We mustmake that change SO that they will be definitelyreminded of what we have already proved . The

same thin g will hold true when we change to thethird con ten tion .

THE FORENSIC

The following illustrates a faulty method of

tran sition : Con tests between Schools are SO

abused that they Should be abolished $followed byall the supportin g material] . The proposed plan

will be more democratic than the presen t $followedby its support] . The proposed plan would work

well in practice $followed by its support] . No

matter how thoroughly we might prove each of

these,they would impress the audi en ce as stand

ing alon e ; they woul d show no coheren ce,no

conn ection with on e another. The followin g

would be a bettermethod : Con tests within schools

should be substituted for those between schools

because con tests between schools are open to abuses

so great as to warran t their abolition $followed by

its support] . We should then begin to prove the

second issue in thi s way : But not on ly are con

tests between schools so open to abuse that they

should be abolished , but they are less desirable

than con tests within schools for they are less

democratic . $This will then be followed with the

support of the second issue ] The tran sition to

the third issue Should be made in thi s way : N OW ,

honorable judges, we have shown you that con

tests between schools are not worthy of con

tinuan ce ; we have shown you that the plan whi ch

we propose will be better in its democracy than

the system at presen t in vogue ; we nowpropose to

complete our argumen t by showin g you that our

plan will work well in practice . $This would then

be followed with the proper supporting material ]

ELEMENTS OF DEBATING

Great speakers have Shown that they realiz ed

the importan ce of these Cementing tran sitions.

Take for example Burke’s argumen t that force will

be an un desirable in strumen t to use again st the

colonies. He says : $ First , permit me to Observe

that the use of force shall be temporary .

”The

next paragraph he begin s : $ My n ext Objection

is its un certain ty. He follows that with : $A

further objection to force is that you impair

the Object by your very endeavor to preserve it.”

An d he con cludes : $ Lastly, we have no sort of

experien ce in favor of forceas an in strumen t in the

rule of our colonies. He used this principle to

perhaps even greater advan tage when he arguedthat

$a fierce spirit of liberty had grown up in

the colonies.

” He supports this with claims

whi ch are in troduced as follows

First , the people of the colonies are descendan ts ofEnglishmen .

”

$They were further confirmed in this pleasing error

$their Spirit of liberty] by the form of their provinciallegislative assemblies.

”

$If anything were wanting to this necessary operation

of the form of government, religion would have given it acomplete effect .

”

$There is, in the South , a circumstance attending these

colonies which , in my Opinion , fully coun terbalances thisdifference, and makes the spirit of liberty still more highand haughty than in those to the northward. It is that in

Virginia and the Carolinas, they have a vast multitude ofslaves.

”

$

Permit me, Sir, to add another circumstance in our

colonies, which con tributes no mean part towards the

THE FORENSIC

growth an d efiect of this untractable spirit. I mean theireducation .

$The last cause of this disobed ient Spirit in the colonies

is hardly less powerful than the rest as it is not merelymoral

, but laid deep in the natural constitution of things.

Three thousan d miles of ocean lie between you and them.

”

He fin ally summariz es these in this way , whi ch

further ties them together.

$Then , Sir, from these six capital sources ; of descen t

Of formOfgovernmen t ; Of religion in the northern provinces ;ofmann ers in the southern ; Of education ; of the remotenessof situation from the first mover of government ; from all

these causes a fierce Spirit of liberty has grown up .

Itmay be well also to poin t out more clearly the

somewhat special n ature Of the first speeches on

each Side . The first speech of the affirmative

must, Of course , make clear to the judges an d the

audien ce what you wish them to believe. This

will in volve all the steps whi ch have already been

poin ted out as n ecessary to accomplish that result.

The first speaker can gain a great deal for hi s side

by presen ting this material not only wi th great

clearn ess, but in a mann er which will win the good

will Of the audien ce toward himself, his team , and

hi s Side of the subject. To do this,he must be

genial , hon est, modest , and fair. He must make

his hearers feel that he is not giving a narrow or

prejudiced an alysis of the question ; he must

make them feel that hi s treatmen t is open and

fair to both sides, an d that he fin ally reaches the

issues not at all because he wishes to fin d those

ELEMENTS OF DEBATING

issues , but because a thorough an alysis of the

question will allow him to reach no others .

The first Speaker on the n egative side may have

much the same work to do. If, however, he agrees

with what the first speaker Of the affirmative has

said,he will save time merely by statin g that

fact and by summariz in g in a sen ten ce or two the

steps leading to the issues. If he does not agreewith the in terpretation whi ch the affirmative has

given to the question , it will be n ecessary for himto in terpret the question himself . He must makeclear to the judges why hi s analysis is correct andthat of his Oppon en t faulty.

In presenting the forensic to the judges an d

audien ce forget, so far as possible , that you are

debating. You have a proposition in whi ch youbelieve and whi ch you wan t them to accept.Your purpose is not to make your hearers say$ How well he does it You wan t them to say

He is right.”

Do not rant. Speak clearly, that you may be

understood ; and with enough force that you maybe heard, but in the same mann er that you use

in conversation .

Good gestures help . Good gestures are those thatcome naturally in support Of your ideas. Whil epracticing alon e notice what gestures you put ininvolun tarily. They are right. Do not ape anyone in gesture. Your

$

oral work will be moreefi

'

ective without use of your hands than it willbe with an inefiective use of them. The most

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

LESSON VIII

REFUTATION

Refutation explained.

Refutation may be carried onI . By overwhelming constructive argumen t .2. By showing the weakness of opponents’

argu

men t.

The time for refutationI . Allotted tirne.

2 . Special times.

The right spirit in refutation .

Our work up to this poin t has dealt with what

is called the constructive argumen t, i .e . , the build

ingup of the proof . But tomake the judges believe

as you wish , you must not merely support your

conten tion s ; you must destroy the proof whi ch

your oppon en ts are trying to construct.

As with the successful athletic team and the

successful gen eral , SO wi th the successful debater,it is n ecessary , not on ly to attack ,

bu t also to

repulse ; not on ly to carry ou t the plan of your

own side,but to meet and defeat the plan whi ch

the other side has developed . In debating,thi s

repulse,thi s destruction Of the argumen ts of the

Opposition,is called refutation or rebuttal .

There are two prin cipal ways in whi ch the reiutation Of the oppon en t’

s argumen t can be accom

pli shed . The first is to destroy it with your own

58

REFUTATION

constructive argumen t. The second is to show that

his argumen t, even though it is not destroyed by

yours , is faulty in itself, and therefore useless.

Although on ly on e of them is labeled $Refuta

tion” in the model brief in the sixth lesson ,

bothtypes are illustrated there .

There the n egative,believing that the first

argumen t of the aflirmative would be,

$In ter

con tests are open to abuse,

” makes its first poin t

a coun ter-assertion . It uses as the first issue :Con tests between the high schools of northern

Illin ois are not subject to such abuses as willwarran t their abolition .

” Whi ch side wouldgain this poin t in the min ds of the judges would

depen d on whi ch side supported its assertion with

the better eviden ce .

If on e side wished to rai se thi s question again in

the refutation speeches, whi ch close the debate, it

could do no better than to repeat and re-emphasiz e

the same material which it used in its construction

argumen t.

The secon d method of refutin g, i .e ., Showing an

argumen t to be faul ty , is also illustrated in the

brief in the Sixth lesson . It is marked $Refuta

tion .

” This material was in troduced because the

n egative felt sure that the affirmative would

attempt to use the experien ce of Shortridge High

School as eviden ce of the successful working of thi s

plan . Itwas shown to be faulty in that the experi

en ce Of this school would not apply to the ques

tion here debated .

ELEMENTS OF DEBATING

The studen t’

s study of what makes good evi

den ce for his own case will en able him to see the

weakn ess of hi s oppon en ts’argumen ts. Apply

the same tests to y our oppon en ts’ eviden ce that

you apply to your own . What is there about the

eviden ce in troduced that Shouldmake the audien cehesitate to accept it $ Poin t these things out to

the audi en ce. It may be that prejudiced, dis

hon est , or ignoran t testimony has been given .

Itmay be that not enough eviden ce has been given

to carry weight. Whatever the flaw,poin t out

to the audi en ce that,upon a cri ti cal examin ation ,

experien ce shows the eviden ce to be weak .

In every debate there is a regular time allowedfor rebuttal . This is, however, not the on ly timeat whi ch it may be in troduced. In the debate ,

put in refutation wherever it is n eeded. One of

the best plans is, if possible , to refute with a fewsen ten ces at the Open in g of each speech whatthe previous Speaker of the opposition has sai d.

In all refutation ,state clearly what you aim to

disprove. Wh en quoting the statemen t of an

oppon en t, be sure to be accurate.Something like the following is a good form for

stating refutationOur opponents, in arguing that labor un ions have been

harmful to the commerce ofAmerica, have stated that theywould use as support the testimony of prominen t men .

In so doing, they have quoted from X,Y

, and Z. This

testimony is without strength . X, as a large employer oflabor, would be open to prejudice ; Y, as a non

-union laborer,is both prejudiced and ignorant. The testimony Of Z,

REFUTATION

as an Englishman is applicable to labor un ion s as they haveafiected

,not the commerce of America , but the trade of

England.

A Similar form is shown in the brief on in terand in tra- high—school con tests in refuting the

experien ce of Shortridge High School .

In all refuta tion,keep close to the fun damen tal

prin ciples of the question . Do not be led astray

in tomin ute detai ls upon whi ch you difier. N ever

tire of recallin g atten tion to the issues of the ques

tion . Show why those are the issues, an d you

will see that the stron gest refutation almost always

con sists in poin ting out wherein you have proved

these issues , while your oppon en ts have failed to

do so.

In order to be fully prepared , however, it is a

good plan to put upon cards all the poin ts that your

oppon en tsmay use an d that you have not an swered

in your constructive argumen t. Adopt a method

Similar to this :

Shortridge argumentI . Will not apply for

(I) Not thi s plan .

(2) Condi tions differ, fora) School Review, October, 1911 .

Then if your oppon en ts advan ce argumen ts that

are not met in your speech ,merely lay ou t these

cards while they speak , and use them as referen ces

in your refutation .

The closing rebuttal speech is always a critical

on e . Here the speaker should again poin t out

every mistake which his Oppon en ts have made .

ELEMENTS OF DEBATING

If their in terpretation of the question has been

wrong,he should, whi le avoidin g details, empha

siz e the chi ef flaws in their argumen ts. On the

other hand,he should summariz e the argumen t

of his own Side from beginn ing to end ; he should

make the support of each ofthe issues stand clearly

before the judges in its complete , logical form.

In these closing speeches, as in the Opening of

the debate, much may be gain ed by an attitude

whi ch will win the favor of the hearers towardthe speaker and his ideas. An attitude of petty

criticism, of narrown ess of view,is un desirable

at any stage of the debate. The debater who isin clin ed to belittle hi s Oppon en ts will only belittlehimself . TO the judges it will appear that thespeaker who has time to ridicule hi s adversariesmust be a little Short of argumen ts. In sinuationsof dishon esty and attempts to be sarcastic should

be carefully avoided . These weapons are sharpbut they are two- edged and are more likely to

in jure the speaker than his Oppon en t.

The right attitude for a debater is always one offairn ess. Give your oppon en ts all possible credit.

When you have then refuted their argumen ts, yourown con ten tions seem of double strength . It is

sai d that Lin coln used this method with Splendidefiect : He would often restate the argumen t of hisopponen t with great force and Clearn ess ; he wouldmake it seem irrefutable . Then

,when he began

his attack and caused his oppon en t’s argumen t to

collapse , its fall seemed to be utter and complete,

REFUTATION

while his arguments, whi ch had proved themselvescapable of effecting this destruction

,appeared

all the more powerful .In your desire to do well in refutation

,do not

be led to depen d upon that alon e . There is no

older and better rule than,

$Kn ow the other side

as well as you know your own .

”Do not believe

that thi s is in order that you may be ready with

a clever an swer for every poin t made by the other

side . The most importan t reason why you

should kn ow the other side of the question is then ecessity of your determining the issues correctly ,

an d thus building a con structive argumen t that

is overwhelming an d impregn able . Many a de

bate has been lost because the debaters worked

up their own con structive argumen t first , and on ly

later,in order to prepare refutation

,con sidered

what their Oppon en ts would say . Had they

proceeded correctly, they would have destroyed

the proof Of their adversaries while they built

up their own .

A clever retort in refutation often win s the ap

plause of the galleries, but an analysis of the ques

tion so keen that the real issues are determin ed,supported by an organiz ation of evi den ce so strong

that it sweeps away all opposition as it grows, is

more likely to gain the favorable decision of the

judges.

SUGGESTED EXERCISES

I . What is the purpose of refutation $2. What two principal methods may be followed $

ELEMENTS OF DEBATING

3. What must one do to refute correctly and well4. Do you think it better in refutation to assail theminor

points of your opponent or to attack the main issues $

5. A fellow- student in chemistry said to you : The

chemical symbol for water is H4O ; two of our classmatestold me so.

”You replied : $

The correct symbol , according to our in structor, is H’O. Did you refute his assertion How$

6. A classmatemakes an argumentwhich could be briefedthus

Cigarettes are good for high- school boys, forI . They aid health of body, for :(I) Many athletes smoke them, for

a) X smokes them.

6) Y smokes them.

0) Z smokes them.

If you disagree with this assertion , do not believe theyaid health , and know X does not smoke cigarettes, howwould you refute his contention $7 . If your opponents in a debate quote opin ions ofothers

in support of their views, in what two ways can they berefuted8. In a recen t campaign , the administration candidate

used this argument :$I should be re elected , for : Times

are good, work i s plentiful , c rops are excellen t, and pro

ducts demand a high price.

”Show any weakness in this

argumen t.9. Show the weakness of proof in this argumentHarvard is better at football than PrincetonI . They defeated Prin ceton in 1912.

10. What general rule can you make from 9 concerninga statement supported by particular cases

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

ELEMENTS OF DEBATING

Timekeepers .-A timekeeper represen ting each

of the competing organiz ations Should note the

momen t when each speaker begin s and notify the

chair when the allotted time has been con sumed.

It is customary to give each speaker as many

minutes of warning before hi s time expires as he

may desire .

Salutation — Good form in debating requires that

each speaker shall begin with a salutation to the

various personages whom he addresses. The

most common salutation is M r. Chai rman ,

worthy oppon en ts, honorable judges, ladies and

gen tlemen .

Reference to other speakers — In referring tomem

bers Of the opposing team n ever say ,

$he said,

”

she said,

”or

$they said .

”Always Speak of

your oppon en ts in the thi rd person in some such

way as,

$ my honorable oppon en ts,” $

the first

Speaker of the n egative,

” $the gen tlemen of the

affirmative,”or

$the gen tlemen from X .

”

In referring to other members of your own teamsay ,

$ my colleagues,”or

$ my colleague , the first

speaker, etc .

The judges — There are gen erally three judges.

Where it is practicable a larger number is desirable

because their opmron IS more n early the Opin ionof the audien ce as a whole . Needless to say theyshould be competen t an d wholly without prejudi ceas to teams or question .

The decision — The deci sion of each judge shouldbe written on a slip and sealed in an envelope

MANAGEMENT OF THE DEBATE

provided for that purpose (see Appendix VII,Forms for J udges

’Decision These should be

Open ed by the chairman in view of the audience,and the decision ann oun ced .

LESSON X

A SUMMARY AND A DIAGRAM

We have now completed our study of debatin g.

We saw first that all talking and writing is dis

course,and that on e great division of discourse

that which aims to gain belief— is argumen tation .

Argumen tation we divided in to Spoken and written

argumen tation . We foun d that it varies in

formality but that , when carried on orally un der

prescribed condi tions and with the expectation of

having a decision rendered,it is called debating .

Successful debatin g we found to require three

steps : Showing the hearers what belief is desired ;Showing them upon what issues belief depends ; and

supporting these issues with eviden ce un til we have

established proof.

We learn ed that the first of these steps could betaken by stating the question in the form Of a

defin ite,single proposition ; defin ing the terms of

this proposition ; and then restating the wholematter. We found that the secon d step requiredthat the material that both sides admit

,together

with all other material that is really not pertin en tto the question , should be first removed, and thatthe fun damen tals of the question Should be statedas the issues . The last step ,

proving the issues,

we foun d to involve two processes. It was meces68

A SUMMARY AND A DIAGRAM 69

sary , first,to fin d an d select eviden ce

, and , second ,to arrange that eviden ce in logical order— the briefform.

The accompanying diagram is on e that has

helped many studen ts to visualiz e more clearly

what is attempted in a debate an d to see how the

debate may be made successful .The doubt that the audi en ce very reasonably

has of the n ew idea proposed is bridged over by theproposition . But thi s proposition will not bestrong enough to cause the min ds of the listen ersto pass from un belief to belief unl ess it is well

supported . The whole proposition is therefore

placed upon on e or two or three great capitals

the issues, un der each of whi ch is a pillar of proof.

These pillars are composed of eviden ce of every

sort. The in telligen t debater has, however, be

fore placin g a single piece of this eviden ce in the

proof , tested it carefully. He has tested it with

the question : $ Will it help bring conviction to the

audien ce ; howwill it affect my hearers $” More

over, not satisfied with this Scrupulous choice of

eviden ce , he has been careful not to pile it in regard

less Oi position ,but to place each piece in the posi

tion where it will lend the strongest support to the

en tire structure .

When this has been don e, the bridge of proof isbuilt solidly upon the experien ce of the hearers, and ,

almost wi thout their knowledge , their minds have

gon e from unbelief to belief .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

APPENDIX I

HOW AND WHERE TO READ FOR MORE

INFORMATION

Practically every subject that is interes ting enough to

be a good subject for debate has been Written about byother people. Every good library contains the books on

the following list, and with a little experience the studen tcan handle them easily. A general treatment of everyimportan t subject can be found in any of the followingencyclopedias : Americana , N ew International, Twentieth

Everything that has been written upon every subjectin all general , technical , and school magaz ines , can be foundby looking up the desired topic in : The Reader’

s Guide to

Periodical Literature, or Poole’s Index.

If the matter beingstudied deals with civics, economics,or sociology , look in : Bliss, Encyclopaedia ofSocial Reform,

etc ; Lalor, Cyclopaedia of Political Science, etc. ; Larned ,History of Ready Referen ce and Topical Reading; Bowkerand Iles , Reader

’s Guide in Economics, etc.

What Congres s is doing and has done is often important.This can be found in full in : The Congressional Record.

Jones’s FindingList tells where to look for any topic in

various governmen t publication s.In studyingmany subjects the need ofdefinite and reliable

statistics will be felt. These may be found on almost anyquestion in the followingpublications: Statesman ’

s Yearbook,

Whitaker’s Almanac, World Almanac, Chicago Daily N ews

Almanac, Hasell’s A lmanac, U.8 . Census Reports.

Never consider your reading completed until you havelooked for any special book that may be written upon yoursubject in the Card Catalogue of your Library .

Make out a Bibliography or ReadingList (as illustratedbriefly in Appendix V) before you proceed to actual reading.

73

APPENDIX II

ILLUSTRATIONS OF ANALYSIS TO DETERMINETHE ISSUES OF THE $UESTION

The two specimens that immediately follow are analyses

of the same ques tion by studen ts of the same university.

The first is a selection from the speech made by Mr. Raymond S. Pruitt in the Towle Debate of Northwes ternUniversity Law School in 1911 . The second is the intro

duction to the speech made by Mr. Charles Watson of the

Northwestern University Law School in the 191 1 debatewith the Law School of the University of Southern California. Students should observe how the two speakersdetermine somewhat diflerent issues.

Resolved , That in actions against an employer for deathor injury of an employee sustained in the course of an

industrial employment the fellow-servan t rule and the ruleof the assumption of risk as defined and in terpreted by thecommon law, should be aboli shed .

Mr. Pruitt, Speaking for the aflirmative

The question which we discuss ton ight is partly economicand partly legal. By that I mean that viewing it from the

standpoint oflegal liability, we possibly can agree with thegentlemen oi theN egative that the employer should respond in damagesto his injured employee, only when the injury has been causedby the employer’s own fault. But, on the other hand , viewingthe same problem from an economic standpoint, you cannotdeny, that, when through no fault of his own , a worker is injuredin the course of an industrial employmen t, that industry shouldcompen sate him for the loss.

Here then is the issue— the world-old-problem— e stablishedprinciples of law in conflict with changing social and economicconditions ; and , as history Shows

,there can in such cases be

but one solution . The decision of the court, the statute of thelegislature, yes, even the con stitution of the nation , must inturn yield to the march of progress and adapt itself to changing

74

APPENDICES 75

conditions un til once more it shall reflect the sense of publicjustice in its own time. Hen ce, I say that in our discussionthis evening, there can be no con fusion of issues. The Afi rmative, according to the wording of the question , are to advocatea change in our common law, while the N egati ve in duty boundare to oppose the proposition for change , and to defend as theNegative always defend , the order of things as they are.

The Afi rmative are to advocate such a change, the abolitionof the common -law defen se s of the employer. For the purposesof th is debate, it is immaterial to us whether this change is broughtabout by a simple exten sion of the employer’s liability, or whetherit is accompan ied , as in man y of our sta tes, by a system of workman ’s compen sati on . Likewise , it is a consideration extraneousto the issues of this debate, whether the employer shoulder thi srisk himself, whether he insure it in a private in surance company,or whether he be compelled to insure it in a company managedby the state. At all even ts, and under any of these plan s, theproposition of the Afi rmative will be main tained, the employerwill be deprived of his defen ses at common law, and the employeewill recover his damages regardless of question s of fault.Assuming then the full burden of proof

, the Afirmativepropose to demon strate that the assumption of risk and the

fellow- servan t rule as defined and in terpreted by the common lawshould be abolished , first, because whatever reason s may havejustified these doctrines in years gone by they have no application to industrial condition s in our day ; and, secondly, becausethe abolition of these common law defen se s will but place theburden of industrial loss , as in justice it should be placed, uponthe ultimate consumer of the product of the industry.

Mr.Watson , speaking for the N egativeThe proposed aboli tion of these two common - law defen ses ,

like every change of law or any suggested reform, is brought toour attention by certain existing evils. The advocates of th isreform have a defin ite proposition in mind and that proposi tionis definitely and clearly stated in the question . It is a questionin which people in every walk of life are con cerned. Sin ce it isof such widespread in terest, let us l ift it from a plane of meredebating tactics, in which a. question of thi s kind is so oftenplaced, and where a great deal of time is spen t in arguing whatthe Afi rmative or the N egative may stand for accord ing to the

76 ELEMENTS OF DEBATING

in terpretation of the question , let us li ft it from that plane, andcon sider it as practical men and women who are in terested inthe outcome of this great problem. It is, then ,

in its largersen se

,a legal question and must be con sidered from the stand

points of justice and of expediency.

It is not enough for the Afirmative to poin t out evils thatexist under these two common - law rules

,for there is boun d to

be some evil in the admin istration of all law; so they mustfurther show that these evils which they have named are inheren tin these two laws, and that the proposed change wil l remedy theexisting evils. Now the Negative main tain that the evils complain ed of are not inheren t in these laws, and we believe thatthe Afi rmative plan is not the proper solution of the problem.

I will show you that these common - law rules are founded on

prin ciples of justice and that their removal would be un just tothe employer ; second that it would discrimi nate again st thesmaller tradesmen ; and third that the proposed remedy doesnot strike at the root of the evil , sin ce it would affect only asmall percen tage of industrial acciden ts.

CARL SCHURZ ON GENERAL AMZNESTY

(A bill being before Congress proposing to restore to

leading Southerners many of the privileges whi ch had beendenied them foll owing the war, Mr. Schurz determin ed theissue as followsM 7 . President: When this debate commenced before the

holidays, I refrained from taking part in it, and from expressingmy opin ion s on some of the provision s of the bill now before us ;hoping as I did that the measure could be passed without difficulty , and that a great many of those who now labor un derpolitical disabil ities would be immediately relieved. Thisexpectation was disappoin ted . An amendmen t to the bill wasadopted. It will have to go back to theHouse of Representativesnow unless by some parliamen tary means we get rid of theamendmen t, and there being no inducemen t left to waive whatcritic ism we might feel incl ined to bring forward , we may con

sider the whole question open .

I beg leave to say that I am in favor of general , or, as thisword is con sidered more expressive, un iversal amnesty, believing,as I do, that the reason s make it desirable that the amnesty

APPENDICES 77

should be un iversal . The senator from South Carolina hasal ready given notice that hewill move to strike out the exception sfrom the operation of this act of relief for which the bill provides.If he had not declared his in ten tion to that eflect, I would do so.

In an y even t, whenever he offers his amendmen t I shall most

In the course of this debate we have li stened to some senators ,as they con jured up before our eyes once more all the hon orsof the Rebellion , the wickedn ess of its conception , how terribleits in ciden ts were, and how harrowing its con sequences. Sir

,

I admit it all ; I will not combat the correctness of the picture ;an d yet if I difler with the gen tlemen who drew it, it is because ,had the con ception of the Rebellion been still more wicked , hadits inciden ts been still more terrible, its consequences still moreharrowing, I could not permit myself to forget that in dealingwith the question now before us we have to deal not alone withthe past, but with the presen t and future of this republic .

What dowe wan t to accompli sh as good citizen s and patriots $Do we mean only to inflict upon the late rebels pain , degradation ,

mortification , annoyance for its own sake ; to torture theirfeelings without any ulterior purpose $ Certainly such a purposecould not by any possibility an imate high-minded men . I

presume, therefore, that those who still favor the con tinuanceof some of the d isabili ties imposed by the Fourteen th Amendmen t do so because they have some higher object of publicusefuln ess in view, an object of public usefulness sufficien t tojustify

, in their minds at least, the denial of rights to otherswhich we ourselves en joy.

What can those objects of public usefulness be $ Let me

assume that, if we difier as to the mean s to be employed , we areagreed as to the supreme end and aim to be reached. That endand aim of our endeavors can be no other than to secure to all

the States the blessings of good and free governmen t and thehighest degree of prosperity and well-being they can attain , and

to revive in all citizen s of this republic that love for the Un ionan d its in stitution s, and that in spiringcon sciousness of a commonnation ality, which, after all , must bind all American s together.Wh at are the best mean s for the attainmen t of that end $

This, Sir, as I conceive it, is the only legitimate question we haveto decide.

APPENDIX III

A TYPICAL COLLEGE FORENSIC

The foren sic which follows is the one whi ch was usedby the State University of Iowa in its debates withthe University of Wisconsin and the Un iversity of M innesota in 1908. In the form in which it appears here it wasgiven in a home con test a few evenings before the In terState Debate. It is quoted here with the permission of the

Forensic League of the State Uni versity of Iowa.

Resolved , That American Cities Should Adopt a Commission Form of Government.

Mr. Clarence Coulter, the first speaker on the Aflirma

tive, saidIt is not my purpose to picture the shame of American cities ;

that is well known ; but I am to con sider only those evils due tothe presen t form ofmunicipal governmen t , an organization basedon the separation of the powers in to the legislative , executive, andjudicial departmen ts. The proper remedy for these evils will besecured only by adopting a form which con cen trates the en tireauthority of city governmen t in one defin ite and respon siblebody.

It is a sign ifican t fact, that duringthe last quarter of a cen tury,the tendency in mun icipal organ ization has been toward con

centration of powers. Certain of our cities have recogn ized thewi sdom of such action

,but have unwi sely attempted to concen

trate only the executive power whereas the real solution lies inconcen trating all governmen tal authority in one defin ite and

respon sible body.

NewYork City tried such a plan and it has failed ; failed because its separate legislative departmen t hasproved an obstructionto effective action . Con sequen tly

,there has been a con tinual

tendency to deprive the coun cil of all power, un til today its onlyfun ction is to vote on fran chises and issue certain licen ses. So

eviden t is the imperative need of concen tratingthe legislative andadministrative powers in one body

,that there is now a charter

revision committee meeting in N ewYork whose great object is to

78

APPENDICES 79

con sider the advisabil ity of en tirely eliminatingthe separate council , and creating in its place a small commission possessing bothlegislative and admin istrative authority. Practically the samecondition obtain s in the ci ty of Boston .

What is true of N ewYork and Boston is equally true of scoresof other cities . M emphis tried for years to reform her governmen t with an isolated coun cil . Today she is clamoring at thedoors of her legislature for a commission charter. Within the

past two years more than a dozen states have provided for acommi ssion form of governmen t, while within the past year morethan a dozen cities have actually thrown away their old formsan d assumed the commission system.

The success of a separate legislative body in state and nationalgovernmen t is the only excuse for its reten tion in our cities, yetthe failure

,for over a cen tury in all its difieren t forms an d varia

tion s , proves that such a governmen t is un sui ted to them. Thereare several importan t an d fundamen tal characteristics of the citythat demand a difleren t form of government and show conclusively that there is no need of a separate legislative body. In the

first place , the city is not a sovereign governmen t, but is subordinate to state and nation . There is no rea son for a. di stin ct legislature to determine the broad matters of policy, for they are

determined for the citizen s of the city as well as those of the country

,by the state and national legislatures , in which both the city

and coun try are represen ted. In the second place, the work of acity is largely admin istrative and of a busin ess character, as mycolleagues will Show , and there is no necessity for a separatecoun cil to legislate when a commi ssioner is better able, as we shallShow,

to pass the kind of legislation characteristic of the city.

In the third place, we do not find , as in the state, the necessityof a large an d separate body to represen t the various localities.The ci ty has a large population living in a restricted territory ; inthe state it is sca ttered . The city is un ified by mean s of itsrapid communi cati on and tran sportation facilities, and its interests are common . These , Honorable Judges, are some generalreason swhy there is no necessity for trying tomain tain a separatelegislative body at the expen se of efli cien cy in admin istration andthe fixing of individual respon sibility.

But let us now examine as to wherein this principle of separation fails to meet modern mun icipal conditions . In the first

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

APPENDICES 81

to 10 per cen t of her real estate val uation ; nor in San Franciscoun der the disgraceful r$gime of Mayor Schmitz . So overwhelming is the eviden ce on this poin t that it is needless to dwell furtherupon it.In the second place , this domination of one branch over the

other has resulted in a lack of respon sibili ty and of co—ordinationin city afiairs. These two elemen ts are indispen sable where thework to be performed is of a local and business nature. We fin d

that un der the presen t system, nomatter which branch ofgovernmen t dominates , there is always a notorious lack of respon sibility.

If the coun c il makes a blun der in legislation ,it immediately

lays the blame upon the admini strative oflicials,main tain ing

that it passed the measure upon recommendation of the administrative bran ch , or that branch failed to carry out its policy. If

the admin istrati ve officials are n eglectful , they shift the blameon to the coun cil , and in sist that the difli cul ty lies in in sufi cien t

legislation . Under such condition s , the average citizen has no

way of telling where the blame really lies.At presen t, there is no attempt at co- ordination between the

legislative, executive, and judicial departmen ts. On the otherhan d , there is often open rupture between them. For yearsbefore the commission form of governmen t was adopted inGalveston ,

there was Open warfare between the legislative and

executive departmen ts, which saddled upon the city a bondeddebt ofmany thousands of dollars . In our state, there is amun i$

cipality in which the two departmen ts of governmen t are defyingeach other. Both are exercising legi slative and admin istrativeauthority un til the citizen s of that place are at a loss to knowwhich is right. Th is is admittedly a deplorable state of aflairs,

yet it is the logical resul t of forcingupon the city a form ofgovemmen t en tirely un sui ted for its needs. M oreover, this lack ofco—ordination and respon sibil ity has resulted in the confusion ofpowers and the creation of needless boards and committees. A

recen t in vestigation in Philadelphia showed that it had fourboards with power to tear up the streets at will , but none to seethat they were properly relaid . Chicago finds herself possessedof eight differen t tax levyingbodies, while in N ewYork City thereare eighty differen t boards or individual swhohavepower to createdebt. Is it any wonder that inefficiency and graft in fest such amaz e of boards, coun cils and committees We see, then , that the

82 ELEMENTS OF DEBATING

presen t system of separation of powers produces inefi ciency

through a confusion of fun ction s; it does away completely Withthe system of checks an d balances and results in utter lack of

respon sibility and co-ordination of departmen ts.Honorable Judges, if we are ever to arrive at a solution of our

mun icipal problem,we must concen trate municipal authority ;

we must co-ordinate departmen ts, eliminate useless boards andcommittees and fix absolutely and completely individual respon sibility . This

, we propose to do by establishinga commission formof government, where all governmen tal authority is vested in one

small body of men , who individually act as the heads of administrative departments

,but who collectively pass the needed legis

lation . Thus, in stead of a council with restricted powers anddivided authority, we have a few men assuming position s ofgenuine res ponsibility, as regards both the originating and

enforcing of laws. My colleagues will show that such a concentration of powers in one small body is necessary and desirable,both from the legislative and admin istrative point of view.

Such a concen tration is desirable , Since it is accompan ied by acorresponding concen tration of personal responsibility. This issecured in the commission system. Responsibili ty in admini stration is secured , because each commissioner is at the head of adepartmen t, for the efi cien t and honest conduct of which he aloneis held personally res pon sible . Responsibility in legislation issecured, because, first, the body of legislators is comparativelysmall . Second , the very fact that each commissioner possessesin forma tion essential to in telligent action , places upon the commission itself absolute respon sibility. Such a system makes itimpossible to shift respon sibil ity from one branch to the other,and guaran tees to us better and more efli cien t administration ofour mun ic ipal affairs for it eliminates all useless boards and com$

mittees and fixes absolutely and completely individual responsi

Mr. Earl Stewart, the first speaker on the Negative, sai d

We wish it understood at the outset that no one

.

deplorec the

useless boards and complicated machinery in many of our American c ities more than do the N egative.

Before goinga. step farther let us get right as to what we meanby a commission form. The gen tlemen state that they are stand

APPENDICES 83

ing for a concen tration of all power in one small body. Honorable Judges , they are standing for someth ing difierent. It ispossible to concen trate all authority in one body and yet havethed ifferen t function s performed by separately constituted bodies.For example, the cabinet system of German y, where all govern ingpower is vested in the legislative body which in turn delegates alladministrative function s to the cabinet. Thus the legislativebody is directly respon sible, having ul timate authority, yet theactual exercise of power is done by distinct bodies. Now how

is it with the commission $ There, not only does one body haveultimate authority, but it actually conducts admin istration aswell as legislation . $ uoting from Sec. 7 of the Des Moinescharter, wh ich is typical of every commission form charter in thisregard , it says : $ All legislative, executive, and judicial fun ction sof the city shall be placed in the hands of the commissioners whoshall exercise those function s . TheAffirmative , then , are standing for fusion of fun ction s, and not con cen tration of powers.The N egative do not defend the evils of presen t city organ iza

tion . The N egative believe that far- reaching reforms must bein stituted before we shall en joy mun icipal success. The issuethen is, does the commission form, or do the reforms proposed bythe Negative, ofier themore satisfactory solution of our mun icipalproblems $TheNegative propose, first, that the form of organization shall

embody a proper correlation or departmen ts .In the early council system the function s of the legislative

and executive departmen ts so overlapped that there was con tinualconflict of authority. Under the board system the two departmen ts were almost di sconnected , so that the legislative departmen t could not hold the executive accoun table to the will of thepeople. In many forms today, as the gen tlemen have depicted ,the relation s between the departmen ts are such that respon sibil itycann ot be fixed .

But, Honorable Judges, these in stances of failure do not showthat it is impossible to preserve a proper division of function s, forevery con spicuous example of muni cipal success in the world isbased upon the proper correlation between the legislative andadmin istrative departmen ts. Municipal success in Europe isan established fact. There we find the cabinet form. A similarform is in vogue in Toron to, Canada , which Mayor Coatswain

84 ELEMENTS OF DEBATING

says is most gratifying to the public . Says Rear Admiral Chadwick: $ The city oi Newport, Rhode Island , has now a form ofgovernmen t that awaken s the in terest of the citizen s, keeps thatin terest awake , and conducts its afiairs in obedien ce to the wishesof the majority .

” Charleston , S. C.,Elmira , New York, Los

Angeles, Cal . , are but a few of the typical American cities whichhave successfully adopted the ordinary mayor and coun cil form.

Says M ayor Rhett, of Charleston : $ I am the executive of a citythat has been under a mayor and council for over one hundredyears. It is qui te as capable of prompt action on any matter asany business corporation .

” The National Mun icipal League ,composed of such men as Albert Shaw, of New York City, andProfessor Rowe of the University of Penn sylvania, appoin teda committee to formulate a defin ite program of reform. Thiscommittee did not even con sider the abandon ing of distin ctlegislative and admini strative bodies, but, after three years ofunremittingefiort, presen ted a working system, embodying, in thewords of the committee itself, the $

essen tial principle of allsuccessful governmen t,” namely, the proper correlation betweenthe legislative and admin istrative departmen ts. That programhas left marked traces in the con stitution of Virgin ia, Alabama,Colorado, N ew York, Wiscon sin ,

M ichigan , and Delaware.

Proper correlation between departmen ts is best facilitated inthe cabinet form,

because all govern ing power is vested in the

legi slative body, which in turn delegates all admini strative fun ction s to the cabinet. However

,many cities have properly cor

related mayor and council by utilizing the model charter of theNational Municipal League. The Negative , therefore, is here topromulgate no specific form for all American cities : condition sin Boston may require a differen t mechani sm from that in SanFrancisco, but whatever form, the underlyingprinciple of a properdivision of fun ction s mu st be embodied. The Afi rmative mustadmit that proper correlation of departmen ts has brought aboutmun icipal success, as far as mere organ ization can do so , yet ,notwithstanding that, after fifteen years of misrule under thecommi ssion form in Sacramen to the freeholders by unan imouschoice again adopted distinct legislative and admin istrative bodies ;and that the commission formhas lately operated but a few yearsin a few small cities, amid aroused civic in terest. The Affirma

tive would abolish at one blow the workingprinciple of successful

APPENDICES 85

city organ ization in France , Germany , England , Canada , and

unnumbered cities in the Un ited States.In the second place, evils in our cities are due to bad social and

economic conditions . Harrisburg, Pa. was notoriously corrupt.A spiri t of reform aroused the ci tizen s , and Harrisburg standstoday as a remarkable example of efficien t government, yet theform of organ iz ation has been unchanged.

In many of our large cities there is a feeble civic spirit, due ,in part, to un desirable immigran ts, the prey to the boss, andutterly lacking in inherited tradi tion s so essen tial to the capacityof self-governmen t. Another in stance : the mutual taxing system has fostered public extravagan ce and loss of in terest on thepart of the taxpayer. Again , favor- seeking corporation s havecon tinually employed corrupt methods. James Bryce says thatin the developmen t of a stronger sen se of civic duty rather thanany change in the form of government lies the ultimate hope ofmun icipal reform.

A third cause ofmun icipal ills is that of poor businessmethods .First , un just election laws -an d lack of proper primaries havepermitted the corrupt arts of the caucus poli tician . Second , lackof a un iform system of accoun tinghas served only to conceal thefacts , resulting in apathy on the part of the people, difiusionof responsibility, and widespread corruption among officials .Third , lack of publicity of proceedings has protected graft.Fourth ,

lack of civil service has perpetuated the spoils system.

All these can and are being remedied . The Bureau of Mun icipal Research shows plainly that it is not necessary to changefundamen tal principles to secure business effi ciency. It te

organ ized the Real Estate Bureau of New York that eluded all

graft charges and made 100 per cen t profits. The Departmen tofFin an ce , heretofore unable to tell whether taxes were collected ,is reorganized from top to bottom. Through the glaring lightof publicity , the bureau collected more than a million dollars forpaving done at the public

’s expen se between the street- car com

pany’s rails. The old condi tion s, where examination of the books

of any departmen t involved weeks of labor, have given way to auni form system of public accounting. In the words of the Springfield , M ass. , Republican ,

$The work of the Bureau of Public

Research is far more fundamen tal than the question of substituting city organization with a commission .

”

86 ELEMENTS OF DEBATING

A fourth cause of evil s is that of state in terference in purelylocal afiairs.

In theUnited States the citymay not act except where authorized expressly and especially by the state. In Europe the citymay do anything it is not forbidden to do, and municipal successthere is based on this greater freedom. The European city,though subject to general state law, makes its own local laws,not in conflict with , but in addition to, sta te law. But in the

United Sta tes the sta te legislature, accustomed to interfere inmatters of in terest to the sta te governmen t, failed to distinguishbetween suchmatters and those of exclusive in terest to the citiesthemselves. To illustrate : The Cleveland Municipal Association reported in rgoo that legislators from an outside countyhad introduced radical changes in almost every departmen t oftheir city governmen t. In M assachusetts the police , waterworks, and park systems are directly under the state, and theonly part the cities have is to pay the bill s. In Pennsylvaniafor thirty-one years the state kept upon the statute books an act

imposing upon Philadelphia a self-perpetuating commission ,appointed without reference to the city’s wishes, and with all

power to erect a city hall and levy taxes to collect the twentymillion-dollar cost.State and national political parties , con trolling the legislature,

have meddled in the private afiairs of the city, resulting in thedecay of the city coun cil and the destruction of the local autonomy. Professor Goodnow says that under these conditions ascientific solution of the vexed question ofmun icipal organizationhas been impossible.

The remedy lies in res toring to the city its proper field of legislation . Already thirty sta tes have passed con stitutional amendments granting greater legislative powers to the cities. Fivestates now allow cities to amend their own charters. But in

direct opposition to this movemen t for mun icipal home rule the

commission form takes the last step in the destruction of the ci ty’slegislative body and fosters con tinued state in terference. Presiden t Eliot says that the functions of the commissioners will bedefined and enumerated by the sta te.

Now, Honorable Judges , the basic principle of city governmentthe world over is division of function s. It is the principle thatthe commission form attempts to ann ihilate. But we have

APPENDICES 87

poin ted out the real causes of mun icipal evils and have shownthey are to be remedied without tamperingwith the fundamentalprin ciples which time and experience have shown to be correctin every instance of successful city organ ization . The Affirmative say : change the fundamen tal prin ciple ; all changes in formand other remedies are in sufficien t. The Negative say : retainthe prin ciple of di stinct legislative and admin istrative bodies ,but observe a proper correlation between them which is done incoun tless in stances as we have shown . We would remedy badsocial and economic condition s , in troduce better businessmethods ,and , most importan t of all , give the citygreater freedom in powersof local self-governmen t.

M r. ClydeRobbins, the second speakerof theAffirmative,

It should be understood at the outset that the Affirmativedesire all the local self$ governmen t for American cities that theN egative can induce the state legislatures to give them. But justwhat is home rule for cities It is simply gran ting add itionalfun ction s to the city by the state legislature. The only possibleway home rule can afiect the question under discussion is a consideration of which form of governmen t is best suited to performaddi tional function s gran ted by the government. We main tainthat the commi ssion form can do this better because, first, itfurn ishes superior legislation , and second, it furnishes superior

The gen tleman blandly assumes that the commission form isfun damen tally wrong, because it fails to provide a separate legislative body as do the governmen ts of the state and nation . An

isolated legi slative body is desirable for state and national governmen ts. Is that a reason for applyi ng it to city governmen t $Here , social , economic, and poli tical condition s are en tirelydifieren t from those of either state or nation . The city is nota sovere ign body. Its powers are exclusively those delegatedto it by the state legislature. They are confined wholly to matters of local concern . Furthermore , we do not deny the legislative fun ctions of the city, nor does the plan we advocate con template the destruction of the city ’s legislative body. It simplymeans that in place of the presen t notoriously inefiicien t , isolatedcoun cil , we establish a commission coun cil composed of the heads

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

APPENDICES 89

know how to draw up and enforce a business con tract . Theseare the vital necessities.The commission coun cil secures such results. Its membersh ip

is comparatively small . Its session s are held daily. Itsmembershave a d irect knowledge of the city’s needs for each one serves asthe head of a departmen t. Satisfactory legislation then becomesa mere business proposition . It is but carrying forward the workof each commissioner, for successful admin istration is impossiblewithout competen t legislation . Hence, a city commissionerwould no more think of passing improper legislation than a bankdirector would think of advi sing un sound loan s.The Cedar Rapids commi ssion met to legislate on replacing

an old bridge. The commissioner of publi c safety told in whatrespects the old structure was un safe. The commissioner of

public property kn ew how much land the city owned abuttingthe bridge. The commissioner of streets explain ed what alteration s should be made in the approaches

,and the commis

sioner of fin an ce knew in just what way the city could best payfor the improvemen t. Honorable Judges, such men are in a position to legislate with thoroughness. They are a commissioncouncil , the very n ature of which makes it inevitable that theyact with in telligence and efficiency.

Con trast now,the commission coun cil with the isolated coun cil.

Here we find positively no co- ordin ation between the legi slativeand admin istrative bran ches, while a cen tury of experience withthe scheme of checks and bal an ces has proved conclusively thatit can not preven t mun icipal corruption . M oreover, legislationby the isolated coun cil is not only chaotic in form but it is irrespon sible , while in the case of the commission counc il the veryfact that the head of each departmen t possesses necessary information not only secures adequate legislation but fixes with certain tythe en tire responsibil ity.

The isolated council is a large and unwieldy body. Eachmember of it has his own private occupation . Without specialpreparation of any kind he attends council not often er than on cea week. In telligen t action under such condition s is simplyimpossible. The only way this council has of securing reliableinformation is from the heads of the admin istrative departmen ts.But even then responsibility is still divided between the legislative and admin istrative branches. This deplorable state of

90 ELEMENTS OF DEBATIN G

affairs has been synchronous with the growth of the isolated council in America .

Is it any wonder that the old Des Moines coun cil voted toconstruct a bridge only to find when the work was completed thatthe city did not even own the approaches, or that the old CedarRapids coun c il let a similar con tract at an exorbitan tly highprice, only to find , when the work was completed , that thecon tract called for no protecting wings or abutmen ts , and the

city was compelled to spend many thousands of dollars additionalin order to make the structure safe $ Such non sensical legislation is a direct result of the isolated coun cil . It fails to provideinformation essen tial to in telligen t action . It does not permita proper cc—ord ination of departmen ts so vitally necessary insuccessful city governmen t .Lastly

, city legislation demands unbiased represen tation . In

this respect a commission coun cil is superior to an isolated council .In the commission council each member represen ts the en tire

city. Hen ce,there is no incen tive to favor one ward at the ex

pen se of another. In fact , any such an attempt could result onlyin disaster to the commi ssioner himself. Furthermore , eachcommissioner is held individually respon sible for his departmen t .

Con sequently he is forced to in sist upon an impartial represen tation of the en tire city. This is well illustrated by the presen tsituation in N ewYork City. The Bureau ofMunicipal Research ,

admittedly themost practica l organization of its kind in the country , is conducting its work along the line of effec tive competencyin city departmen ts . As a result of its investigati on s , the citizen sof NewYork have been forced to the conclusion to which my colleague has al ready referred , namely, that the ul timate solution of

their mun icipal difficulties will be reached only when they havedisposed of their presen t inefficien t and useless ward coun cil andcrea ted in its place a commi ssion coun ci l .Under the isolated coun ci l a member is elected to represen t a

certain sec tion of the city. Hemust do this, nomatter whatmaybe the efiect upon the rest of the ci ty. For example

, in legislatingon the annual budget, each ward boss brings pressure to bearupon his own coun cilman to have certain levies reduced , and tosecure stipulated appropriation s for his own ward. In New

York City last spring, Bird S. Coler, represen tinga part of Brooklyn . blocked every appropriation un til be secured certain selfish

APPENDICES 91

mea sures for his own district. What is true of N ewYork is anannual occurrence in prac tically every other ward- ruled Americancity.

Furth ermore, councilmen from one ward are shameq y uh responsive to the needs and des ires of citizen s in other wards. Justthis summer the council ofDuluth ,

M inn ., granted saloon licensesfor a ward in which go per cen t of its citizen s signed a writtenprotes t again st such action . The councilmen representing thatdistrict were helpless to preven t the legislation and the citizen sthemselves had no recourse whatsoever. The grand jury inSt. Louis reported that the wards of that city were an actualmenace to decency and good governmen t.With thes e instances before us it is well to remember tha t the

scheme of ward repres en tation is a necessary part of the practica loperation of the separation of powers in governmen t. This isexemplified in our national , state , and city organizations. In

fact, the prin cipal reason for an isolated legislative body is thatthe sen timen ts of the difieren t local ities may be expressed inlegislation . The practical res ul t is that 95 per cen t of our citygovernmen ts are based upon ward represen tation , nor can an

in stance be cited in all American political theory which showsthe creation of a successful political organization based upon an

isolated legislative body in which there has not been an aecompanying represen tation by territorial districts. This principleis always the same nomatter whether it be a congres sional distri ctof the nati onal governmen t or a ward of the city governmen t .Hence , it is for this principle that the gen tlemen must con tendif they wish to argue for an isolated coun cil in city governmen t.In con clusion , Honorable Judges, a commission coun cil is

superior to an isolated coun cil , because the work of city legislation and administration must be un alterably connected ; becausethe coun cilmen must have a di rect and techn ical knowledge ofcity afiairs ; and , because the coun cilmen must be represen ta tiveof the whole city .

Mr. Vincent Starz inger, the second speaker on the Nega

The Affirmative con tinue to direct their attack against theold form.

$ Yetmy colleague has suggested substan tial changesin pres en t city organization ,

changes which have brought about

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

APPENDICES 93

placed in the hands of the people. The system stands con

A commission form makes the addi tional blunder of un itingcompletely the two fun ction s of legislation and administration inthe same body. This makes the commi ssioners represen ta tivein ch aracter. But this condition is disastrous to successfuladmin istration . Whenever the people desire even the slightestchange in their local policy, the stability and con tinuity of thecity departmen ts must be upset. Represen tation is secured atthe expen se of efiiciency . Admin istration becomes saturated withpolitics .Again , Honorable Judges , the managemen t of a city should be

subjected to the criticismand con trol of a reviewing body. Boththe welfare of the people and the in terests of good admini strationdemand it. Administrators, no matter how valuable theirtechn ical knowledge, make poor legislators. Being in terestedin their work, they very naturally exalt and magn ify their departmen ts. Just a few years ago, the city of Cleveland found itnecessary to take even the preparation of the budget from the

heads of the departmen ts con cerned and to place it with a boardwhi ch could view with impartiality the demands of the variousdepartmen t chiefs. Think of turn ing over all the function s of acity like St. Louis to an executive cabinet without even the oversight or cri ticism of an impartial body.

And , Honorable Judges, the whole experience of governmen tproves the absolute necessity for a separate legislative departmen t. Look where you will , and in each case there is an execu

tive cabinet, based upon appoin tmen t, un trammelled by the

burden s of legislation , and subjected to the criticism and con trolof a reviewingbody. In Europe, the city coun cils are elected bythe people, and the admin istrative departmen ts are made upthrough a. process of selection and appoin tmen t, together withthe assurance of reasonable permanence of tenure, respon sibility , and adequate support. Likewise in America , the largercities are already organ izing th eir cabinets upon a somewha tsimilar basis. The six largest cities of NewYork, all of the citiesof Indiana, Boston , Chicago , Baltimore, and many others aresecuring their importan t admin istrative ofi cials through appoin tment by the mayor. This is the general plan advocated by theN ational Mun icipal League. It cen ters responsibility for the

94 ELEMENTS or DEBATING

administration in oneman . On the other hand , some of the citiesof Canada followmore closely to the German system. There the

cabinet is selected by a represen tati ve council . In practicallyall of these instances, men of special abil ity have been obtained,the departments of admin istration have been properly correlated,responsibility has been concen trated, and the general principle,that successful admin istration depends upon a separately con

stituted legislative body, has been firmly established.

It is plain then that a commi ssion form violates the fundamental principles of successful administration . It first attemptsto secure a cabinet by popular vote. It then upsets the stabilityof the city departmen ts by completely un iti ng both the legislativeand the admin istrative functions. Finally, it destroys the te

sponsibility of that prime essen tial of successful administration ,namely, a proper reviewing body.

In the second place, Honorable Judges, the permanen t adoptionof a commission formmust necessarily mean a sacrifice of legislation and the ultimate destruction of local self-govemment. Eventhough the city may be subordin ate to the state, nevertheless, ithas a broad field of independen t action . Otherwise, why giveit a separate personality and a separate organization $ Citiesare permitted to exercise vast powers of police and of taxation .

It is idle to say that a few commissioners can give satisfactorylegislation . They cannot represent commun ity interests. Theirexecutive functions will na tural ly bias their judgmen t. Moreover, each commissioner, knowing little of the needs of the otherdepartmen ts, will n aturally take the word of its administrativehead , especially since he desires the same freedom. This wasactually the case in Sacramen to, Cal., where the commissionplan was tried for fifteen years and given up as an abject failure.

Says the Hon . Clin ton Whi te of that city : $ In almost every instance, the board soon came to the understanding that eachman was to be let alone in the managemen t of the departmen tassigned to him. This resulted in there being in fact no tribunalsexercisinga supervisory power over the executive of a particulardepartmen t.” Honorable Judges, a reviewingand legislativebodyis indispen sable in city governmen t and a commission makes nosuch provision . Weak in admini stration

,wholly lacking in

matters of legislation , dangerous as a theory of government, itcannot help but result in the complete subjection of local govern

APPENDICES 95

ment to the state. The in evitable result of its permanent adoption will be that the importan t local legislative functions willbecome a mere admin istrative board with discretionary power asin the case ofWashington , DC . In the words of Professor Goodnow: $ The destruction of the city coun cil has not destroyedcouncil governmen t. It has simply made local policy a matterof state legisla tive determination . If we wish to destroy thelife of the city, make it impoten t to discharge the functions forwhich it was organ ized , then , and then only, itmight be feasibleto place over it a commi ssion .

But, Honorable Judges, authorities are agreed that citiesmustbe allowed greater freedom of action in local afiairs, that mun ieipel home rule is indispen sable . The governments of our largecities have been dominated to such an exten t by the sta te legislatures, usually partisan and irrespon sible to the locality con

cerned, that in many cases self-governmen t has become a term,

hollow and without mean ing.

The gentlemen condemn the city coun cil , yet they pass overthe real cause for its decay. Restore to the city its proper legislative powers, confine the work of the coun cil to legislation in steadof allowing it to go in to details of admin istration , reduce the number of councilmen , if necessary , adjust the method of representation

,in troduce needed electoral and primary reform, establish

respon sibil ity by mean s of un iform municipal accoun ting and

publicity of proceed ings, and we ask the gen tlemen in all earnestness why American c ity coun cil s will not take on new life justas the city coun cil s of every other coun try have done in the past .The two great problems of American city governmen t are

first, administration ; secondly, mun icipal home rule. The solution of both depends upon the existence of two separately constituted departmen ts of governmen t. This principle is beingemphasized by the leading scholars of political science, as illustrated by the program of the N ation al Mun icipal League. In

fact, Honorable Judges, every deep- sea ted reform in our largecities for the past quarter of a cen tu ry has tended toward thiscardinal doctrine ofmun icipal success. TheOhioMunicipal CodeCommission , after two years of careful study and observation ,presen ted a bill based upon the principles which we defendtonight, namely, a separation of administration from legislation ,

and secondly, municipal home rule.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

APPENDICES 97

paid, devote all their time to their work, and are made in fact

governors of the city. They have a great deal of work to doand they do it, while under our presen t systems the coun cilmmhave comparatively little to do and they fail to do that littleefi cien tly .

The reason why this small body can administer with di spatchand efiiciency is seen at a glan ce. Each commissioner is thehead of a departmen t for which he is personally respon sible.

He is not hin dered as is the executive at presen t by an in efficien tand meddl ing coun cil wh ich has more power, often ,

than the

executi ve himself. He kn ows the laws for he has helped tomakethem. It is hi s busin ess to see that they are executed , and if theyare not, he cann ot escape blame. He cannot plead ignorance,lack of respon sibility, or lack of power as do presen t admin istrative ofiicers.

Moreover, this body is admirably con sti tuted for effectivecarryingout of city busin ess . It is larger than the single headedexecu tive and possesses , therefore, a division of work whi ch makesthe admini stration far more efiective. At the same time it issmaller than the old coun cil and for that reason is more efficien tin enacting the city’s pecul iar kin d of legislation . In actualpractice, an d that seems to be the real test of city governmen t ,both admin istration and legislation are accomplished with ac

curacy and dispatch . For in stance, every spring for the lastdecade carloads of dagoes with their dirt and disease have cometo Cedar Rapids . Every yea r protests have gone up to bothmayor and coun cil , but wi thout result. Ceda r Rapids hasadopted a commi ssion form of governmen t. Last spring whenthe

$ dagoes ”came the same complain ts wen t up as usual , that

because of their in san itarymethods these people ca rried with themfil th and disease. Bu t the petitioners did not go to the citycoun cil which met on ce in two weeks, nor were they referred to acommittee which met less often . They wen t directly to thecommi ssioners who had charge of the city health and in less thantwen ty- four hours the $ dagoes ”

had been notified to either cleanup or leave, and they left the city. But , say the oppon en ts of thisplan , thi s could have been done un der the old system. To be

sure , but the burn ing fact remain s that in spite of the protestsof the people , it was not done.

In Houston the governmen t was both inefficien t and di shonest.

98 ELEMENTS OF DEBATING

For years the annual expenditures had exceeded the income ahun dred thousand dollars. The city adopted a commission formand a four hundred thousand dollar floating debt was paid ofi

in one year out of the ordinary income of the city. At the sametime the city’s taxes were reduced ten per cen t. In the healthdepartment alone there is a saving of from $100 to $150 permon th , whi le a combination in the operation of the garbagecrematory and pumping station saves the city annually.

These resul ts have been accomplished under a commi ssion planby the application of common ,

everyday busin ess prin ciples.Galveston adopted a commission plan , and although its taxable

values were reduced twen ty- five per cen t by the storm of 1900 ,yet within six years its commissioners not on ly put the city on acash basis , made improvemen ts costing annually, butactually paid ofi a debt of which had been incurred bythe old council , and all this was accomplished without borrowinga dollar, issuinga bond , or increasing the rate of taxation . Othercities whi ch have adopted a commission plan are accomplishingequally as beneficial results. Hen ce, we main tain that the commission form of city governmen t is superior from the standpoin tof emciency in administration .

The commi ssion plan is superior in admin istration for it isadapted to the city’s finan cial problem. The same body of menare held m onsible for the levying and collecting of taxes andfor the spending of the money. This is desirable because theadmin istrative body which is to spend money knows, accurately,the city ’s need of revenue . They are in a position to know ; itis their business. A legislative body, whether council or a board,cannot know the city’s needs for money withoutgettingthe factsfrom the administrative body. F. R . Clow says the coun cil doesnot pretend to know the city’s revenue problem and they adoptthe recommendation of the admin istrative departmmts. The

Negative’s systemof division of powers simply divides the responsibility between the legislative an d admin istrative departmen tsfor the thingwhich in fact has been done by the administrativedepartmen t itself. Since the admin istrative departmen t real lydictates the budget , it should be held directly respon sible forit. Therefore, we con tend that the commissioners , knowingbest what the budget should con ta in because as admini stratorsthey know the city’s need for money , are the body of men preeminen tly fitted to handle the city’s budget.

APPENDICES 99

The commission plan is adapted to the city’s fin an cial problembecause it fosters economy. Economy is the result of understanding. The commi ssioners knowing the city’s government,not from the admin istrative side alone

,but from the legislative

side as well , are in a position to economize and in practice theyhave done so . The runn ing expen ses of Galveston under thecommission plan have been reduced one- third. In Houston itcosts a year less to run the water and light plan ts thanformerly , while by a combin ation of work in the difieren t departmen ts there is a saving of annually. In Cedar Rapids

,

since the adoption of the commi ssion plan,there has been a reduc

tion in the paving con tracts let of ten and one- fifth per cen t, insewerage con tracts , fourteen and two- seven th s per cen t, and inwater con tracts , twen ty per cen t. Immediately after the adoption of the commission plan in Des M oin es the annual cost ofeach arc- light was reduced five dollars. Reports from all the

ci ties using the commission plan show that by the use of businessprinciples the commissioners have economized in the admin istration of the city’s governmen t .The commission plan is adapted to the city’s fin ances because

it provi des a superior safeguard . Legislative bodies in our citieshave been depended upon to represen t the citizen s’ best in terest.In practice , as we have poin ted out , they have not done so .

N ever in the history of our mun icipal affairs, says Henry D . F.

Bal dwin ,has a legislative body stood out as the represen ta tives

of the people again st the admin istrative departmen t. Why thencontinue a represen tative body whi ch does not in fact represen t $In stead of the wi thered form of a coun cil or legislative bodystanding between the citizen and his governmen t the commissionplan simply removes this useless obstacle an d allows the citizento participate di rectly in the governmen t. This is di rectly inharmony with the well - established economic principle that theself- in terest of the taxpayer will con trol where respon sibility isfixed .

Mr.Charles Briggs, the third speaker on the Nega

tive, saidItwill be well while thematter is fresh in ourminds, Honorable

Judges , to make a brief examination of one matter of which theAffirmative are making a feature, that the commission formafiords unusual safeguards for the financial and economic in ter

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

APPENDICES IO 1

engineered by them. All con tracts, great and small , are let by

them. The city’s bonded debt is in their hands ; by them the

city is taxed and in cumbered . Parks,police

,streets , education ,

public buildings , engineering, finance— everything from the

smal lest administrative duty to the all —engrossing fun ction s oflegislation devolves upon this commission . They can vacateany ofi ce , can create any ofiice , and without limit fix any salarythey choose. The en tire ofi cialdom,

outside of the commi ssionitself, and all the employees and the servants of the city are by lawmade the agen ts, servan ts , and dependen ts of th e coun cil . The

possibilities for machin e power wi th this autocratic cen tralization of authority are without condition . We can demon stratethis best by giving practical illustration s taken from the activeoperation of the commission form. We may preface these bysaying that there is nothing inheren t in the commission form orany of its attributes which can in sure the selection of better menfor office. The members of the commission will be about thesame kind of men as the ordin ary city official . M inn eapolisby an election at large placed in the mayor’s chair its mostnotorious grafter. This is proved by the personn el of the com

mission s where the system is being tried . The investigatingcommittee appointed by the city of Des Moines, quoting theirexact words , say that in Houston , where the commissioners arerequi red to stay in the city hall every day , business men do not

hold those position s, al though the salaries are higher than the

proposed sal aries of the Des Moines commissioners. One com

missioner was formerly a city scavenger, another a blacksmi th ,justice of the peace and alderman , a third a railway conductor,fourth a dry-

goods merchan t, and the mayor, a retired capitali st.M r. Pollock of Kan sas City says of the Des Moin es commission ,

$The commission as elected con sists of a former police judge andjustice of the peace who is mayor- commi ssioner at the salary of$3 ,500 ; a coalmin er, deputy sheriff ; the former city assessor, whosegreatest success has been in public office ; a un ion pain ter of undoubted honesty and in tegrity, but far from a man ; an

ex-mayor and politician ,who is perhaps themost valuablemember

of the new form of governmen t, but whose record does not disclose any grea t busin ess capacity aside from that displayed inpublic oflice.

” The DesM oines committee says of the Galvestoncommission : This is a perpetual body, a poten tially perfect

102 ELEMENTS OF DEBATIN G

machine. There has been no change in the membership of theGalves ton commission since it was organized . The extensivepower of the commissioners have enabled them to con trol al lpolitical factions and to completely crush the Opposition . The

commissioners’ faction is in complete con trol and even goesso far as to dictate nomin ations for the legislature an d the nationalcongress. In DesMoineswe fin d eviden ces of thismachine powerin the very first session of the commission . M r. Hume was appoin ted chief of police because he had delivered the labor voteto M r. M athi s. The Daily N ews , the only Des Moin es paperthat supported the plan ,

was rewarded by having three of itsstaff appoin ted to respon sible position s. M r. Lyman was appoin ted secretary to CommissionerHammery , Neil Jon es secreta ryto M ayor M athis. Another man was appoin ted to an importanttechn ical position . A brakeman was appoin ted street commissioner because he delivered the vote of the Federation of Labor .These are but a fewof the in stan ces where this great cen traliza

tion of power has shown itself in practice to be a system permitting oi un restricted machin e power and political grafting. N ew

Orlean s tried the system and abandoned it over 20 years agobecause of this very reason . The inhabitan ts were afrai d of thi stremendous cen tralization of power.The friends of the commission idea claim for it the advan tage

of centered respon sibility ; but practice has proved that this formof city governmen t is actually formulated to defea t respon sibility .

By the con struction of this govern ing body each commissioner isheld respon sible for his respective departmen t. But regulationfor each department

.

is made not by the commission as a wholebut by the whole commission . This results in a con fusion ofpowers. Thus in the city ofDesMoin es, M r.Hume, the personalenemy of Commi ssioner Hammery was made chi ef of police bythree other members of the commi ssion for political reason s.Who is respon sible for themistakes ofM r.Hume $ The people

say Hammery . But Hammery says : $ I had nothing to do withhis appoin tment .” It has actually happened time and agai nat the commission table in Des Moines that regulations for thefinancial departmen t were made by the police commission , thestreet commissioner , and the commi ssioner of parks and publicbuildings ; that the police commissioner would have the decidingvote on some importan t school legisla tion ; or the commissioner

APPENDICES m3

of education con trol the appoin tment of poli cemen . This defecthasgiven rise to log- rolling. Bridges have been built as a personalfavor to one commissioner whose vote is needed to con struct anew schoolhouse. Large paving and building contracts are letsimply because the police commissioner wan ted to oust someun faithful political dependen t. In this way each . commissionergain s great favor with the voters and at the same time can escapepersonal respon sibility for techn ical mistakes by shouldering theblame onto the whole commission where his iden tity is lost .This departmen t trading has found its way in to the Galvestoncommission , claimed to have the best commission of any city$

un der this form of governmen t. Here we find that at the sametime the prosecutor of the city ca ses in the police court is al lowedthe right to collect a fee of $10 for every criminal , drunk,

orvagran t convicted, and SB5 for every one who pleads gu ilty ; a50

-yea r fran chise is gran ted to the Galveston Street RailwayCo. without a vote of the people, the city not to receive one cen tof tax and no compen sation .

So, Honorable Judges , we must con sider that, while the commission form may be a temporary success in a few small cities ,its permanen t success there is in grave doubt. Under thesecondition s we do not ask that it be abolished , but that under nocircumstan ces its application be made general in this coun trywhere other forms of city governmen t are in practice more suc

cessful and in theory more correct.

REBUTTAL

Mr. Earl Stewart opened for the N egative

The gen tlemen con tend that the work of the city is almostwholly of a business nature. Honorable Judges, if the city doesnot have importan t legislative duties , what do we mean by localself-governmen t $ The courts have held again and again that thework of the city is primarily governmen tal . Says Judge Dillon :$The city is essentially public and political in character.”

Not abusiness corporation in this coun try could place vast sums ofmoney in the hands of four of five men without the safeguard of

some supervising body. Yet N ew York City has an annualexpenditure of $1 equaled by the aggregate of sevenother American cities of population ; more than that ofnation s ; three times that of the Argentine Republic ; four times

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

APPENDICES 105

sta tistician of the Iowa board of con trol : $A commission form

cuts at the very roots of official accoun tabili ty and respon sibilityand , strange enough , it is becau se its friends believe that it enhan ces fixing of respon sibility that they propose it .” This froma scholar who has watched the plan in operation . A commissionform does not fix respon sibility, but even gran ting for the sakeof argumen t that it does, are we to sacrifice represen tative governmen t for the sake of fixing respon sibility $ If so

,then why not

make it still more defin ite and establish one-man power $ Honorable Judges , we have shown that respon sibil ity is more efiectivelycentered by establi sh ing un iform accoun ting and publicity.

The affirmative con tend that the commissioners will furnishsuperior legislation . Now we do not say that knowledge of admini stration is of no benefit in legislation . But the necessaryin formation can be secured withou t con fusing the fun ction s in asmall execu tive cabinet. In Europe it is done by making thecabinet respon sible to the council . In the Un ited States , forexample, Baltimore, it is don e by having the cabin et meet andco—operate with the coun cil . N othing can be done by withholding the in formati on ,

and as a matter of fact , the city secures allthe benefit of the techn ical train ing of its admi nistrators withoutthe di sadvan tage of con fusion of fun ction s.

Mr. Clarence Coulter opened for the AffirmativeIt has been argued by the Negative that the success of the

commission form of government is based upon the assumptionof electinggood men to ofii ce , and as an illustration , that the Des

Moin es commissioners are inefficien t members of the old city hall

gang. As it happen s, however , one of the commissioners is aman with a national reputation as amunicipal expert , aman whosehonesty and integrity have never once been questioned . The

commissioner of public safety has been trained for his positionby long experience in mun icipal afiairs and is a college graduate .

Admitting, however , for the sake of argumen t, that the gen tle

man ’s con ten tion is true ; yet the un questioned success of the

Des M oines governmen t proves the wisdom of the commissionplan ,

for it so cen tralizes individual respon sibility as to require

honest and efii cien t performan ce of duty on the part of each com

missioner.Now as to securing good men . In the first place, the nega

tive did not , an d cann ot, cite a single city in whi ch the commission

106 ELEMENTS OF DEBATING

plan has failed to secure good men . Better men are elected underthe commission plan , for the number of elective ofii ces is greatlydecreased , whi le the respon sibili ty and honor of the position isrelatively in crea sed. Moreover, the governmen t is put on abusiness basis and the commissioners are given steady employment at a good salary. They have an opportunity to make agenuin e record for themselves, as well as to serve the best in terestsof the city. On the other hand , the fact that respon sibility isdefin itely centered on each commi ssioner will , in itself, preventmen of no ability or grafting politician s from seeking cmcc .

Political parties no longer have any opportun ity of puttingmenof little ability in to ofii ce, but in stead , competen t men with agenuin e in terest in the city afiairs and with no party affi liationswhatever , so far as mun icipal afiairs are concerned , will beattracted to the position of commissioner.The opposition go further and charge that, even though efi cien t

men may be elected to ofi ce , the commi ssion plan makes impossible the fixing of respon sibility. They failed

,however, to point

out a single in stan ce in commi ssion-

governed cities to prove theirpoin t and made no attempt to show how respon sibility could bebetter fixed under the present system. As a matter of fact ,Honorable Judges, the fixing of individual respon sibility, underthe present system, is utterly impossible, as we have alreadyshown

,while it is the strongest virtue of the commission plan .

In matters of pure administration it is absolutely impossiblefor the commissioner to escape individual respon sibility, for hehas full charge of the admin istration of his own department. In

matters of legislation , where the majority vote of the commissionmay determine a policy afiecting a certain commissioner

,respon

bility is not lost but is fixed upon those fewwho voted for suchpolicy.

It has been contended that the commi ssion form of governmen t is unpopular and that this plan has been rejected in bothSioux City and Davenport. That these cities rejected it istrue. But why $ Sioux City turned it down because the con

stitutionality of the plan had not, at that time, been determined.

Davenport refused to accept it because the grafting politician sand the political ring so dominated the city’s politics that theywere able to defeat the new plan and retain the old , which wasbest suited to the furtheran ce of their own ends.

APPENDICES 107

The gen tlemen of the opposition have argued that the presentinefiicien cy of city governmen t is due to the in terference of thestate legislatures and contend that the ultimate solution of thedifficulty lies in greater muni cipal home rule. They are correct

,

Honorable Judges $ The state legislatu re has in terfered . But

why $ Simply because the city coun cil has proved itself in eficien t. N ewYork City’s coun cil was in full possession of its powers when the state legislature began to in terfere. Legislation bysomebody was necessary . The coun cil failed , and now the negative say, give back to the city its powers and let the coun cil tryagain .

According to the gen tlemen themselves, the end to be achi evedis less in terferen ce of state legislatures and more home rule. It

is obvious, however, that thi s can be accompli shed only when thecity itself can put forth a capable and efficien t legislative body.

Honorable Judges, in our second Speech we proved to you ,that

the commi ssion provides a small but efficien t legislative body, farsuperior to th at of an isolated coun cil . If you wan t mun icipalhome rule, establish a formofgovernmen t whichmakes it possible.

Mr. Charles Briggs replied for the Negative

My colleague has proved that whatever the form of governmen t, there must be a body capable of wise legislation ,

in fact,that there must be a body that is primari ly legislative in character no matter what its connection or relation with the otherdepartmen ts of government. That a small commi ssion , burdenedwith admini strative and judicial fun ction s, is not a proper legislative body is at on ce apparen t. My colleague has demon stratedthat this con fusion of powers must result in ineffi ciency. But

further than thi s, it is our con ten tion that a body such as is thecommi ssion , without respect to the con fusion of powers, withoutregard to the administrative duties weighing upon it, that thiscommission , of itself, is not suited to legislation .

There is no more reason for placing the legislation of the cityof Chi cago in the hands of five men than that the state legislatureofM inn esota should be reduced to fivemembers. It is true that ,in many respects, the legislation of a city differs from that of astate , but it is, nevertheless, legislation , and in the larger citiesparticularly it is necessary that there be a represen tative legislative body. Five men no more con stitute a proper legislative

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

APPENDICES 109

As a matter of fact , the gen tlemen have held before us thesailent features of a half dozen Opposing forms of organ ization ,none of which have succeeded individually

, and the combinedfeatures Of which can make nothingmore than a conglomerationof theories and dogmas. Yes, the gen tlemen have been painfullycareful not to put their scheme in to practical Operation .

They talk blandly of more home rule, when it is evident thatsuch amatter is actually beside the question at issue. In the sameway they Speak at length of the cabinet system of England , forgetting that the form the Affirmative is advocating involves theunderlying features of the cabinet system al tered to meet condition s peculiar to America. The commission form, HonorableJudges, is an evolution of the cabinet form.

Likewise they have talked much Of the need for a separatereviewingbody, citing the in suran ce scandals of N ew York statelegislature to prove their con ten tion . Why don ’t they givein stances where a mun icipal reviewing body has checked fraud $The reason is obvious. As Henry Baldwin writes

,

$Never has

there been an in stan ce in American muni cipal history where thecoun cil has stood out against the corruption of the admin istrativedepartmen t.” Rather these so-called

$ reviewing bodies ”are

hand in hand with graft. Look at the shameful condition s of thereviewing bodies ” of Philadelphia, St. Louis, Cin cinn ati , andPittsburgh , with their hands in the city treasury up to theirelbows, and we realize something of the absurdity of the argumen t for a separate reviewing body to preserve efiiciency and

honesty in the city governmen t . The people should be the re

viewing body of their government . Its organization should beso simple , yet so complete, that every citizen from the educatedtheorist to the humblest day laborer, can review its facts withease and understanding. Thi s is the kind of governmen t thecommi ssion form supplies. Why don ’t the gentlemen come forward with an organization equally as simme and complete $Then the gen tlemen go on to tell how they will compel the

administrative officials to con fer with their isolated $ reviewingbody,” and thus secure a proper co-ordination that has failedfor a cen tury. Automatic mechani sm in governmen t can nevertake the place of simplicity and responsibil ity. Such schemes arefutile. The men who can make mechan isms can break them.

What we must have is a governmen t that compels efi cien cy and

I IO ELEMENTS OF DEBATING

honesty,not one which attempts to produce such results through

theoretica l con trivan ces.Finally, the gen tlemen claim that the commission form has

failed in NewOrlean s and Sacramento. Will the gentlemen givetheir authority for the statemen t that these cities had a commi ssion government Every authority upon the subject which theaflirmative has found poin ts to the con clusion , that the form ofgovernmen t employed by these cities was not a commissionform.

Mr. Starz inger closed for the Negative and said

The Afiirmative have men tioned our authority. What wehave sai d in regard to Sacramen to, Cal ., is based upon excerptsfrom an article by the Hon . Clinton White, published in the

Cedar Rapids Even ingTimes. M ost of our facts concerning thesouthern cities which adopted the new plan are taken from the

reports of the Des Moines investigation committee, headed bythe Hon . W. N . Jordan . We would be glad to submit thesepamphlets to the gen tlemen for examination . The mere fact thatDes M oines adopted the commission form does not disprove thein tegrity of the authorities.It is claimed that our stand is in defin ite. True, we have not

ofiered a panacea for all mun icipal ill s. But we have advocatednumerous reforms and have poin ted out coun tless instances ofmun icipal success under various forms, yet all based upon the

same fundamen tal prin ciple,that there be separately constituted

departmen ts of governmen t . One Of the fatal objection s to thegentlemen ’s proposition is that they are attempting to blanketthe whole coun try with one arbitrary form

,regardless of difier

ing condition s. They have completely ignored our cases Of successful city governmen t. We demand that they explain them.

The gen tlemen have said that state in terference has been precipitated by the decay of the city coun cil . Y et they advocateits complete destruction . Nothing could be more in correctthan to say that special legislation was brought on as a result ofan inheren t weakness in coun cil governmen t. Under the earlycouncil system, there was practically no state in terference.

About themiddle of the last cen tury, the board system was intro

duced and the coun cils were shorn of their dignity and much

of their legislative power . R ight there state dominion in local

APPENDICES I I I

affai rs began . These are the unbiased facts as given by ProfessorGoodn ow in his book on city governmen t.In conclusion , Honorable Judges , the solution of the American

city problem will be best promoted by a program of reform whichstrikes at the real causes of the evils

,in stead of the universal

overturning of all tradi tion s and theories of governmen t in the

hOpe of finding a short- cut road to mun icipal success. Give thecity a proper sphere Of local autonomy. CO-ordi nate the departmen ts of governmen t , so as to establish respon sibility and secureharmonious action . Simplify presen t city organ ization withoutdestroying the two bran ches of government . Introduce n ew and

improvingmethods, such as non -partisan primaries, civil service ,

un iform mun icipal accoun ting, an d publicity of proceedings.Remedy bad social and economic condi tion s. Arouse civic in terest. Do this , and there is no necessity for such a radi cal andrevolution ary change as the un iversal adoption of a commissionform.

The newplan mean s , not alone a change in the form of governmen t, but a positive overturning Of the workingprin ciple of suc$

cessini city organ ization the world over. Its experien ce has beenin the small town s for a short time , under unusual condition s ,amid aroused public sen timen t . Even here it has shown fatalweaknesses whi ch the gen tlemen have not satisfactorily explained .

It was abandoned by the only large city that ever tried it ; andcast aside as an abject failure by Sacramen to , Cal . , after fifteenyears of Operation . In the face Of these facts, the gen tlemenwould have all American cities turn to this form as the final goalof municipal success ; a form whi ch attempts to revive the old

board system of selecting administrative heads by popular vote ;whi ch ,

in addition ,cen ters the whole governmen t of a city in a

small executive cabinet , without review or oversight ; a formwhich , in the words Of Professor Fairlie , of the Un iversity ofM ichigan ,

$ is in direct Opposition to the advan cing idea ofmunicipal home ru le.

Mr. Luxford closed the debate for the Affirmative, andsaid :

The case for the N egative is nowclosed. It has been indefini tefrom start to fini sh . They acknowledge the success of the commi ssion form but refuse to accept it as the proper form toward

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

APPENDICES I I3

passage Of any needed ordinan ce . And finally, the citizen s bydirect vote may remove any commissioner at any time .

Thus we see that the commissioners know both the legislativeand admin istrative side of the city’s work, and the respon sibilityof doing both is fixed upon them.

Lastly, Honorable Judges , the Affi rmati ve rest their cases uponthese fundamen tal arguments : that the whole tendency in American citygovernmen t is toward cen tralization Ofpower in one body ;where this concen tration has been partial , city governmen t hasfai led . This fai lure is due largely to the fact that, while powerhas cen tered , respon sibility has been diffused . This unfortunatecondition has been obviated by the adoption of the commissionform which is found to be a success because it awakens civicin terest, secures competen t ofi cials, and provides in the bestpossible manner for the legi slative and administrative work ofthe city , cen tering power and responsibility in one small body ofmen .

APPENDIX IV

MATERIAL FOR BRIEFING

REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT

SPEECH OF HON . CHARLES E. SCOTT , or KANSAS, IN THE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THURSDAY ,MARCH 2

,191 1

(The House having under con sideration the bill 18. 7031] tocodify, revise, and amend the laws relating to the judiciary.

From the Congressional Record, March 3 ,Mr. Speaker: In the ten years ofmymembership in thisHouse

I have seldom taken advan tage of the latitude afforded by generaldebate to discuss any question not immediately before theHouse.

But there is a question now before the coun try , particularlybefore the people of the state I have the honor to represen t inpart upon this floor

,upon which I enterta in very positive con

victions, and which , I bel ieve, is a proper subject for discussionat th is time and in th is place. That question , blun tly stated,is this : Is represen tative governmen t a failure $ We are beingasked now to an swer that question in the affirmative. A new

school of statesmen has arisen , wiser than Washington and

Hamilton and Frankl in and Madi son,wiser than Webster and

Clay and Calhoun and Ben ton , wiser than Lincoln and Sumnerand Steven s and Chase, wiser than Garfield an d Blaine and

M cKinley and Taft, knowing more in their day than all the

people have learned in all the days of the years since the Republicwas founded .

An d they tell us that represen tative governmen t is a failure .

They do not put this declaration in to so many words— part ofthem because they do not know enough about the scien ce ofgovernmen t to understand that the doctrines they advocate arerevolutionary, and the rest of them because they lack the courageto Openly declare that it is their in ten tion to change our form ofgovernment , to subvert the system upon which our in stitution sare founded . But that is in efiect what they propose to do.

Every school boy knows that in a pure democracy the peoplethemselves perform directly all the function s of governmen t,

1 14

APPENDICES I I5

cting laws without the in terven tion of a legi slature, and tryingcauses that arise under those laws without the in terven tion ofjudge or jury ; while in a republic, on the other hand , the peoplegovern themselves, not by each citizen exercising di rectly all thefunctions of governmen t, but by delegatingthat power to certainones among them whom they choose to represent them in thelegislatures ,

in the courts of justice, and in the various executiveofi ces.

It follows, therefore , that to substitute the methods of ademocracy for the methods of a republic touching any one ofthe three bran ches Of governmen t is to that exten t to declarethat rep resen ta tive governmen t is a failure, is to that exten tsubversive and revolutionary.

Now, it does not follow by any mean s that because a proposed change is revolutionary it is therefore unwise. Taking itby and large, wherever the word $ revolution ”

has come intohuman history it has been only another word for progress.Because a nation has pursued certa in methods for a long th e itdoes not at all follow that those methods are the best, althoughwhen a nation like the Un ited States, so bold and alert , so littlehemm ed by tradi tion , so ready to try experiments

,has clung

to the same methods of governmen t for 130 years , a strongpresumption has certain ly been established that these methods arethe best, at leas t for that particular nation .

But is the new system wiser than the Old— in the matter ofmakinglaws , for example The old system ves ts the lawmakingpower in a legislative body composed of men elected by thepeople and supposed to be pecul iarly fitted by reason of character, education , and training for the performan ce of that duty.

These men come together and give their en tire time through aperiod of some weeks or mon ths to the con sideration of proposedlegislation , and the laws they enact go into immediate effect,and remain in force un til set aside by the courts as un constitutional or un til repealed by the same authority that enacted them.

The new system— taking the Oregon law, for example, andit is commonly cited as a model— provides that 8 per cen t ofthe voters of a state may submit a measure di rectly to the

people, and if a majority of those voting upon it give it theirsupport it shall become a law without referen ce to the legislature or to the governor. That is the in itiative. And it pro

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

APPENDICES I 17

which lays before the people the work of one man’s mind to be

accepted in whole or rejec ted al together.Once more let us observe tha t under this system, no ma tter

how few votes are caSt upon a given measure, if there are morefor it. than against it, it becomes a law, so that the possibil ityis always presen t that laws may be en acted which represen t thejudgmen t or the interest of the minority rather than thema jorityof the people. Indeed , experience would seem to show that thisis a probab ility rather than a possibility, for in the last Oregonelection not one of the n ine proposition s enacted into lawreceivedas much as so per cen t of the total vote cast , while some of themreceived but l ittlemore than 30 per cen t of the total vote.And finally and chiefly, without in the the least impeach ing

the in telligence of the people , remembering the. slight and casualattention the average ci tizen gives to the details of public question s , we may well inquire whether the average vote cast uponthese proposed measures of legislation will really repres en t aninformed and well- con sidered judgmen t. In his thoughtfulwork on democracy , di scussing this very question , Dr. Hyslop ,of Columbia University, saysPeople occupied with their private affairs, domestic and social ,

demandingall their resources and atten tion , as a rule have littletime to solve the complex problems of national life. The referen

dum is a call to perform all the duties of the profoundest statesmanship, in addi tion to private obligations, which are even

$

muchmore than the average man can fulfil with any succes s or in telligen ce at all and hence it can hardly produce anything betterthan the A enian assembly, whi ch terminated in anarchy. It

will not secure dispatch except at the expen se of civiliz ati on , nor

deliberation except at the expen se of in telligence. Very fewquestions can be safely left to its coun cil s, and these only of themost general kind. A tribun al that can be so easily deceivedas the electorate can be in common election s cannot be tru stedto decide in tell igen tly the graver and more complica ted question sof public finance or private property, of admin istration , and of

justice. Itmay be honest andmean well , as I believe it would be ;but such an institution can not govern .

That is the conclusion reached a priori by a profound studen tofmen and Of in stitution s ; an d there is not a man who hears meorwhomay read what I am now sayingbut knows the conclusionis sound.

But,fortunately for the states which have not yet adopted the

innovation , we are not obliged to rely upon academic , a priori

1 18 ELEMENTS OF DEBATING

reasoning, in order to reach a conclusion as to the wisdom of thein itiative and referendum,

for the step has already been takenin other states and we have their experience to guide us.There is South Dakota, for example, where under the ini tia

tive the ballot whi ch I hold in my hand was submitted to thepeople at the recen t election . This ballot is 7 feet long and 14

inches wide, and it is crowded with readingmatter set in non

pareil type. Upon this ballot there are submitted for the con

sideration of the people six'

legislative proposition s. Four ofthem are short and comparatively simple. But here is one

referring to the people a law which has been passed at the preceding session of the legislature dividing the state into con

gressional di stricts. Howmany of the voters of South Dakotado you suppose got down their maps and their cen sus reportsand carefully worked out the details of that law to satisfy themselves whether or not it provided for a fair and honest districtingof the stateP They could not amend it , remember, they hadto take ’

it as it was or vote it down . In poin t of fact,they voted

it down ; but who will say that in doing this they expressed an

enlightened judgmen t or merely followed the natural con servative in stin ct to vote no

”on a proposition they did not under

stand $ And here is a law to provide for the organ ization ,maintenan ce, equipment, and regulation of the National Guardof the state . This bill con tain s 76 section s. It occupies 4feet 4 in ches of this 7- foot ballot. It would fill two pages of anordinary newspaper.And here is a copy of the Oregon ballot, fromwhich it appears

that the stricken people of that commonwealth were called uponat the late election to con sider 32 legislative proposition s. Smallwonder that it was well on to a month after election before thereturn s were all in .

And here is another con stitutional amendmen t in which thepe0p1e are asked to pass judgmen t on such simple proposition sas providing for verdict by three- fourths of jury in civil cases,authorizing grand juries to be summoned separately from the

trial jury, permitting change of judicial s ystem by statute prohibitingretrial where there is any evidence to support the verdict ,providing for afii rmance of judgment on appeal notwithstandingerror committed in lower court and di recting the Supreme Courtto en ter such judgment as should have been en tered in the lower

APPENDICES r19

court , fixing terms of Supreme Court , providing that judges of allcourts be elected for six years

,subject to recall

, and in creasingthe jurisdiction of the Supreme Court . Is it any wonder thatwith question s such as those thrust at them so large a percen tageof the voters took to the continuous woods where roll s theOregon and refused to express a judgmen t one way or the otherPNow

, with al l possible deference to the in telligen ce and the

diligen ce of the good people of Oregon ,is it con ceivable that any

con siderable proportion of the voters of that commonweal thwen t to the polls with even a cursory knowledge of all the measures submitted for their determinationAs to the practical working of the referendum, I have seen

it stated in the public prin ts that four years ago nearly everyappropriation bill passed by the Oregon legislature was referredto the people for their approval or rejection before it could goin to effect . As a resul t, the appropriation s being unavailableun til the electi on coul d be held , the state was compelled tostamp its warran ts $

not paid for wan t of funds ,”and to pay

in terest thereon ,although the mon ey was in the treasury. The

un iversity and other state in stitution s were hampered and

embarrassed , and the whole machin ery of governmen t was inlarge measure paral yzed . In other words , under the Oregonlaw a piti ful minority of the people was able to obstruct andembarrass the usual and orderly processes of governmen t , andfor a time at least to absolutely thwart the will of an overwhelmingmajority of the people .

A system of governmen t under which such a thing as that isnot only possible , but has actually occurred , may be $

the bestsystem ever devised by the wit of man ,

” as we have been vociferously assured , but some of usmay take the liberty of doubting it.But the in itiative and referendum, subversive as they are of

the representative principle, do not compare in importan ce orin possible power for evil with the recall . The statutes of everystate in this Un ion provide a way by whi ch a recrean t ofii cia]

may be ousted from hi s ofi ce or otherwise pun ished . That wayis by process of law,

where charges must be Specific , the testimony clear, and the judgmen t impartial . But what are we tothink of a procedure un der which an official is to be tried , notin a court by a jury of his peers and upon the testimony of witnesses sworn to tell the truth , but in the newspapers. on the

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

APPENDICES I 2 I

among all our ninety million s to declare that our Con stitutionshould be changed so as to permit the President in the WhiteHouse or the Congress in the Capitol to dictate to our judgeswhat their decisions should be. And yet it is seriously proposedthat this power of dictation shall be given to the crowd on the

street. That is what the recal l mean s if applied to the judiciary ;and it mean s the destruction of its independen ce as completelyas if in set terms it were made subject to the Presiden t or theCongress.Do you answer, $ Oh, the recall will never be invoked except

in an extreme ca se of obvious and flagran t in justice” $ I reply,$How do you know $ It is the theory of the initiative that itwill never be invoked except to pass a good law, and of thereferendum that it will never be resorted to except to defeat abad law; but we have already seen how easily a bad lawmightbe in itiated and a good law referred. And so it is the theorythat the recall will be invoked on ly for the protection of thepeople from a bad judge. What guaran ty can you give tha t itwill not be called in to being to barrass and in timidate a goodjudge $ There never yet was a two- edged sword that would not

cut both ways.Mr. Chairman ,

I should be the last to assert that our presen tsystem ofgovernmen t has always brought ideally perfect resul ts.Now and then the people have made mistakes in the selec tionof their repres en tatives. Corrupt men have been put in toplaces of trust , small men have been sen t where large men wereneeded , ignoran t men have been charged with duties which onlymen of learning could fitly perform. But does it follow thatbecause the people make mistakes in so simple a matter as theselection of their agen ts , they would be in fallible in the incomparably more complex and difficult task of the enactmen t andinterpretation of laws $ There was never a more glaring non

sequitu r, an d yet it is the very corn erstone upon which reststhe whole structure of the new ph ilosophy.

$The people can

not be trusted with few things ,” runs this singular logic , therefore let us put all things in to their hands.”

With one breath we are asked to ren ounce the old systembecause the people make mistakes, and with the next breath weare solemnly assured that if we adopt the new system the peoplewill not make mistakes. I con fess I am not men tally alert

rz z ELEMENTS OF DEBATIN G

enough to follow that sort of log’

c. It is toomuch like the roadwhich was so crooked that the traveler who en tered upon ithad on ly proceeded a few step s when he met himself comingback. You cannot change the nature of men , M r. Chairman , bychangingtheir systemofgovernmen t. The limi tation s of humanjudgmen t and knowledge and con science which render perfectionin represen tative governmen t unatta inable will still abide evenafter that form of governmen t is swep t away, and the ideal

will still be far di stan t.Let it not be said or imagin ed, Mr. Speaker, that because I

protest again st converting this Republic in to a democracytherefore I lack confidence in the people. N0 man has greaterfai th, sir, than I have in the in telligence, the in tegrity, thepatri otism , and the fundamen tal common sense of the averageAmmi can citizen . But I am for represen tative rather thanfor direct governmen t, because I have grea ter confidence in

the second thought of the people than I have in their first thought.And that, in the last analysis, is the difierence, and the onlydifference, so far as results are concerned between the new systemand that which it seeks to supplan t ; it is the fundamen taldifierence between a democracy and a republic . In either formof governmen t the people have their way. The difierence isthat in a democracy the people have their way in the beginn ing,whereas in a republic the people have their way in the end— and

the end is usually enough wiser than the beginn ing to be worth

We coun t ourselves the fittest people in the world for selfgovernment, and we probably are. But fit as we are we sometimes make mistakes. We sometimes form the most violen tand erroneous opin ions upon impulse, without full in formationor thoughtful con sideration . Wi th complete in formation and

longer study, we swing around to the right side, but it is oursecond thought and not our first that brings us there. Our

in tentions are always right, and we usually get right in the

end ; but it often happens tha t we are not right in the beginning.

It behooves us to consider long and well before we pluck out ofthe delica tely adjusted mechan ism by which we govern ourselvesthe checks and brakes and balance wheels which our forefathersplaced there, and the wisdom of which our history attests

APPENDICES 123

The simple and primitive life of civilization ’s fron tier hasgiven way to the most stupendous and complex in dustrial andcommercial structure the world has ever known . In credibleexpan sion , soc ial , political , indu strial , commercial— but repre

sen tative governmen t all the way. At not one step in the longand shin ingpathway of the Nation ’s progress has represen tativegovernmen t failed to respond to the N ation ’s need . Every emergen cy that 130 years of momen tous history has developed— the

terrible strain of war, the harrassing problems of peace— rept esen tative governmen t has been equal to them all . Not on cehas it broken down . Not one issue has it failed to solve. An d

long after the shallow substitutes that are now proposed for itshall have been forgotten ,

represen tative governmen t $ will bedoingbusiness at the old stand ,” will be solving the problems ofthe future as it met the issues of the past , with courage and

wisdom and justice, giving to the great Republic that governmen t$ of the people , for the people , and by the people ” whi ch is theassuran ce that it $ shall not perish from the earth .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

APPENDICES 125

Votes for Women , Harper’s Weekly, LVI, 6 (September 21 ,

Votes forWomen , Harper’s Baz aar XLVI, 47, 148 (January ,

March ,Votes for Women and Other Votes, Survey, XXVIII, 367—

78

(Jun e 1 ,What Is the Truth about Woman ’s Sufirage Ladies

’ HomeJ ournal , XXIX, 24 (October,

Why IWant Woman’s Sufirage,”Collier’

s, XLVIII, 18 (M arch16

,

Why I Wen t into Suffrage Work,” Harper’s Bazaar, XLVI,

440 (September,Woman and the State,” Forum, XLVIII, 394- 408 (October

Woman and the Sufirage, Harper’s Weekly, LVI, 6 (August

17,

Woman ’s Rights ,” Outlook, C ,262—66 (February 3,

Woman ’s R ights,” Outlook, C, 302—4 (February 10

,

Con cerning Some of the An ti-Sufirage Leaders ,” Good Housekeepi ng, LV, 80

- 82 (July,Expan sion of Equality,”

Independent, LXXIII, 1 143

—

45

(N ovember 14,Marching for Equal Sufirage, Hearst

’s Magazine, XXI, 2497

501 (June,Woman and the California Primaries, Independent, LXXII,

1316- 18 (June 13,

Woman Sufirage .Victory,” Literary Digest, XLV, 841

—

43

(N ovember 23,Woman ’s Demon stration ; HowTheyWon and Used the Votesin Californ ia,” Collier’

s , XLV'

III, 1 7— 18 (January 6,

Recen t Strides of Woman ’s Suffrage ,” World’s Work, XXII,

14733-

45 (August. 191 1)Woman’s Suffrage in Six States , Independent, LXXI, 967- 20

(N ovember 2,Women Did It in Colorado, Hampton ’

s Magazine, XXVI, 426.

Woman’s Victory in Washington ”(state) , Collier’

s , XLVI, 25.

AreWomen Ready for the Fran chise Westminster, CLXII,255

—61 (September,Argumen t againstWoman

’s Suff rage,” Outlook, LXIV , 573—74

(March 10,

126 ELEMENTS OF DEBATING

Check to Woman ’s Sufirage in the United States , Nineteen th

Century , LVI, 833—41 (N ovember,

Female Sufirage in the Un ited States,” Harper’s Weekly , XLIV ,

949—

50 (October 6 ,Ought Women to VoteP”

Outlook, LVIII , 353—55 (June 8,

Outlook for Woman ’s Suffrage,” Cosmopolitan , XXVIII, 62123 (April ,

Woman ’s Sufirage in the West, Outlook, LXV, 430-

31 (June23,

Movemen t for Woman ’s Sufirage, Outlook, XCIII, 265—67

(October 2,Why P

”Everybody

’s , XXI, 723

-

38.

Woman ’s Rights,” Twentieth-Cen tury Encyclopedia .

THE AMERICAN NAVY SHOULD BE ENLARGED SO AsTo COMPARE IN FIGHTING STRENGTH WITH

ANY D: THE WORLD ”

Afi rmative

I. The sca ttered possessions of the Uni ted States demandthe protection of a large n avy .

II. The expense of the proposed n avy would be a judiciousin vestmen t .

III. The proposed enlargemen t of the navy would be a

step toward un iversal peace.

Negative

I. The geographical situati on of the United Statesmakes a large n avy unnecessary .

II. The expen se en tailed,if the proposed plan were put

in to practice , would embarrass the Uni ted States.

III. To carry out the proposed plan would be to increasethe chan ces of war .

BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY

RelativeSea StrengthOf theUn ited States, ScientificAmerican ,

CVII , 1 74 (August 31 ,For an Adequate N avy in the Un ited States , Scientific Ameri

can , CV, 51 2 (December 9 ,

APPENDICES 127

Humble Opin ion s of a Flat-Foot ; Frank Criticism and IntimatePicture of Our Navy, by a Blue-Jacketed Gob,” Collier’

s

L,14

— 15; R ,XIX

,22- 23 (December 7, 191 2)

Importan ce of the Command of the Sea,”Scientific American ,

CV, 51 2 (December 9 ,The United States Fleet and Its Readiness for Service, Scien

tific American , CV, 514 (December 9 ,Battle ship Fleet in Each Ocean ,”

Sci entific American , CII ,

354 (April rol e)NavalMadness ,” Independent, LXVIII, 489 (M arch 3,Our NavalWaste,” Nation , XCI, 158 (August 25,Our N avy As a N ational In surance ,” Scientific American ,

CH , 414 (M ay 21 ,

American N aval Policy, ”Forum, XLV , 529 (May ,

IfWe Had to Fight , ”Collier

’s , XLVIII , 18 (N ovember 18,

Panama Canal and the Sea Power in the Pacific,” Cen tury,LXXXII, 240 (January,

LOCAL OPTION Is THE BEST METHOD OF DEALING

WITH THE LI$UOR PROBLEM”

Afi rmative

1. Other methods of dealing with the liquor problemhave failed .

II. Local option is con sistent with American ideas of

governmen t .III. Local option is a proved success.

N egative

I. Local option is undesirable in theory.

H. Local option has not succeeded where tried.

III. There is a bettermethod of dealingwith this problem.

BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY

Local Option ; A Study of Massachusetts ,” Atlantic, XC,

433—40

Principle ofLocal Option , ” Independent, LIII, 3032—33 (Decem

ber 19,

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

APPENDICES I 29

Negative

Capital pun ishmen t decreases crime.

The cruelty of capital punishmen t has been greatlyexaggerated .

Society has found no crime deterren t so powerful asthe death penal ty .

BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY

Does Capital Pun ishment Prevent Conviction sP” Review ofReviews , XL, 219— 20 (August,

Does Capital Pun ishmen t Tend to Dimini sh Capital Crime $Harper

’

s Weekly , L,1028— 29; Review of Reviews, XXXIV ,

368- 69 (1909)

M eaning of Capital Punishmen t, Harper’s Weekly , L, 1 289

(September 8,Plato on Capital Pun ishment , Harper

’s Weekly, L, 1903

(December 29,Should Capital Puni shmen t Be Abolished Harper

’s Weekly ,

LIII, 8 (July 3 ,Whitely Case and Death Penalty, Nation , LXXXIV, 376

—77

(April 25. I907)Dea th Penalty and Homicide,” Ameri can J ournal of Sociology,XVI , 88—1 16 (July, Nation , VIII, 166; NorthAmerican ,

CXVI, 138; ibid .,LXII, 40 ; ibid . , CXXXIII, 534 ; Forum,

III, 503 ; Arena , II, 513.

Capital Pun ishmen t and Imprisonmen t for Life, Nation ,

XVI, 193 .

Capital Punishmen t Anecdotes from Blue Book,” Ecl. M

LXVI, 677.Capital Punishmen t , Argumen ts Again st , Nation , XVI, 213 .

Capital Punishmen t by Electricity ,”North American , CXLVI ,

219.

Capital Pun ishmen t, Case Again st , Fortnightly Review,

LII, 322 ; same article in Eclectic Magaz ine, CXIII, 518.

The Crime of Capital Puni shment ,”Arena , I, 175.

Failure of Capital Puni shment ,” Arena , XXI, 469 .

Why Have a Hangman $”Fortn ightly Review, XL, 581 .

Pun ishment of Crimes,” North American ,X

,235.

APPENDIX VI

A LIST OF DEBATABLE PROPOSITIONS

SCHOOL $UESTIONS

Many of these, because of their local application , willbe found useful for class practice where time for preparation is necessarily limited .

1 . Coeducation in colleges is more desirable thansegregation .

2. Textbooks should be furnished at public expense tostuden ts in public schools.3. The adoption of the honor system in examin ations

would be desirable in American colleges.

4. Final examin ations as a test of knowledge shoul d bedi scon tinued in X High School (or college) .5. All American uni versities and colleges should admit

men and women on equal terms.

6. The n ational governmen t should establish a uni versitynear the cen ter of population .

7. The X College (or High School) should adoptcourses which more definitely fit studen ts for practicalcareers.8. In tercollegiate football does not promote the best

in terests of competing schools.9. Intracollegiate athletic con tests would be a desirable

substitute for in tercollegiate athletics.

10. Secret societies should be prohibited in public highschools.

1 1 . N ational fraternities do not promote the bestin terests of American colleges and un iversities.

1 2. A college common s would be a desirable addition toX College .

13. A lunchroom should be established in the X

High School .

APPENDICES 131

14. Athletic regulations should not debar a studen t fromplaying summer baseball .

15. No student in an Amu ican college should be eligibleto compete in intercollegiate athletics until he has begunhis second year’s work.

16. All studies in the X College (or High School)above those of the Freshman should be en tirely elective .

1 7 . In all publi c high schools training in military tacticsshould be required.

18. Public high schools should be under state supervision .

19. Admission to American colleges should be allowedonly upon examination .

20. Academic degrees should be given only upon state

examinations.

21 . The library of X College (or High School , orcity) should be open on Sunday.

22. A plan of self-governmen t should be adopted forthe X College (or High School) .

23 . The terms successful ”and failed as the only

indication of grade work should be adopted by the XSchool in place of the presen t plan or working.

24. Gymn asium work should be required in X

School .

25. Train ing in domestic science Should be required ofall girls at X School.

26. M anual training should be a requi remen t of all boysat X School .

SOCIAL $UESTION S

27 . The influence of the five—cen t theater is beneficial.28. A state board with power to forbid public exhibition

should exercise stage cen sorship .

29. Children under sixteen years of age should be prohibited from working in confining in dustries.

30 . Children under fourteen years of age should beprohibited from appearingon the stage.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

APPENDICES 133

49. Complete public reports of all contributions to

political campaign funds should be required by law.

50. The Monroe Doctrin e as a part of American foreignpolicy should be discontin ued .

51 . The in terests of labor can best be represen ted by aseparate political party .

52. The naturalization laws of the Uni ted States shouldbe made more stringent.53. Aliens Shoul d be forbidden the ballot in every state.

54. The state of California is justified in her standagain st land ownership by alien s.55. Permanent retention of the Philippin e Islands by the

Uni ted States is not advisable .

56 . The United States n avy Should be maintained at afighting strength equal to any in the world.

57 . D irect presiden tial primaries should be a substitutefor the present method of presiden tial nomination .

58. Corporations engaged in in terstate business shouldbe compelled to operate under a national charter.59. The Panama Canal should be fortified.

60. The initiative and referendum in)matters of state

legislation would be desirable in the state Of61 . From the standpoin t of the United States the

annexation of Cuba would be desirable.

62. The fifteen th amendmen t to the Constitution of theUni ted States shoul d be repealed .

63. The President should be elected by the di rect voteof the people of the Uni ted States.64. Proportional represen tation should be adopted in

the state ofX65. The plan of proportional representation in presen t

vogue in the state ofX should be abolished.

66. The use of voting machines should be required inall elections in cities having a population of more than

67 . Public in terest is best served when national partylines are discarded in municipal elections.

134 ELEMENTS OF DEBATIN G

68. Sufi'

rage should be limited to persons who can read

and write.

69. Ex—Presidents of the Uni ted States should become

senators-at-large for life.

70. Err-Presiden ts of the United States should be pensioned for life at full salary.

71. The United States should adopt a plan of compulsory

72. The national government should purchase and

operate the express systems in conn ection with the parcel

post.

73. Federal judges should be elected by direct vote of

the people.74. Two-thirds of a jury should be competen t to render

a verdict in jury trials in the state ofX75. The state of X should adopt a plan for recal l

of state judges.76. The state of X should adopt a plan allowing a

referendum of judicial decisions.77. The appoin tmen t of United States consuls should be

under the merit system.

78. American vessels engaged in coastwise trade Shouldbe permitted the use of the Panama Canal without thepayment of tolls.79. All postmasters should be elected by popular vote.

80. The bill requiring which is at present beforetheX city council (X state legislature ,

or Congress)should be defeated.

ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRIAL $UESTIONS

81. The Underwood tarifi bill of 1913 would be a desirablelaw.

82. The federal government should undertake at once

the construction of an inland waterway from the Great

Lakes to the Gulf (or from X to Y) .83. All rawmaterials should be admi tted to the United

States free of duty .

APPENDICES 135

84. A state law should prohibit prison contract laborin the state ofX85. Federal government control of all natural resources

would be desirable.

86. M unicipal ownership of street railways would be an

advan tage to cities.

87. The Henry George system of single tax would bepracticable in the Uni ted States.88. A graduated income taxwould be a desirable addition

to the federal taxing system.

89. The boycott is a justifiable weapon in labor strikes .

90. The federal government should enact a progressiveinheritance tax.

91 . The coal min es of the Uni ted States should be underfederal control .

92. Employers of labor are justified in demanding theopen shop .

”

93. Irrigation projects to reclaim the arid lands of the

West should be undertaken by the Un ited States governmen t .

94. Courts for the compulsory settlemen t of controversies between labor and capital should be created byCongress.

95. Industrial combin ation s commonly kn own as

trusts ”are an economical benefit to the United States .

96. The Uni ted States should establish and main taina system of sub sidies for the American merchan t marine .

97. No tax should be levied on the issue of state banks.

98. Permanen t copyrights should be extended by the

n ational government.

99. The judicial in junction as an instrumen t in laborcon troversies should be made illegal .

100. A lawgradually lowering the presen t tarifi, so thatin ten years the United States will be commi tted to a policyof free trade, would be economically desirable for the

United States .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join