Chapter II

MISCELLANEOUS ADDRESS—LEGAL—DELIBERATE—POPULAR—CONTROVERSIAL.

The speech adapted to the bench and bar presents some peculiar features. The lawyer deals with facts and living issues. He works for immediate results, and therefore uses the means best adapted to secure them. The use of manuscript, which increases in proportion as we remove from the sphere of passion, finds no place when life and property are at stake. The lawyer who would read his appeal to the jury in an exciting case, would have few others to make. At the bar the penalty for inefficiency is so rapid and certain, that every nerve is strained to avoid it. To argue with a lawyer against the use of written discourses, would be like proving the advantage of commerce to an Englishman. His danger lies in the opposite direction—that of caring too little for polish, and of making the verdict of the jury his only aim.

A lawyer should never contend for what he believes to be wrong. Yet the common estimate of the morality of attorneys is not based on fact. They may have greater temptations than some others, and many of them may fall, but another reason than this accounts for the grave imputations cast on them. In every suit, at least one party must be disappointed, and it is natural that, in his bitterness, he should throw discredit on all the agencies by which his hopes were destroyed. But this is most frequently groundless. The lawyer may be counsel for a man whom he knows to be in the wrong, but he ought never to take his stand on a false position. He may show any weakness in his adversary’s case, and see that all the provisions of the law are faithfully complied with, but must not endeavor to distort the truth. An adherence to this determination will soon give his words a power and influence that will more than counterbalance all disadvantages. Let him seek for the strong points in his own case, and then throw them into the simplest and boldest shape, not forgetting the importance of appealing to the heart, as well as head, of judge and jury.

The judge differs from the advocate in having both sides of the case to present, and in seeking truth rather than victory. As he stands upon the law, and unfolds its dictates, which are obeyed as soon as known, he has no need to appeal to passion, and can give his words with all calmness and certainty.

Under the most absolute monarchy there are always some things that men are left to settle according to their own pleasure, and when a number of persons have equal interest and authority this can only be done by discussion. In our own land the people bear rule, and the field of deliberation is almost infinitely widened. City councils, State and national legislatures, the governing societies of churches, parties, companies, and all organizations, have more or less of power to be exercised. If this were vested in a single will, silent pondering would determine each question, but in assemblies these must be decided by discussion, argument and vote.[1]

Footnote 1:

See rules for these in Appendix.

There is one general peculiarity that marks the speeches addressed to such a body; their main object is to give information. All are about to act, and are supposed to be diligently looking for the best course to be taken. This secures an interest in everything that really throws new light on the subject, while it often renders such an assemblage intolerant of mere declamation. In representative bodies there is also constant reference to the opinions and wishes of those for whom they act.

Such speeches are frequently intended to be read beyond the bounds of the audience where they are delivered, and for this reason are often elaborately prepared, and read at first. If they do truly give information, either in reference to principles or facts, they suffer from this less than any other class of addresses. They may be dry and unattractive in form, but if each concerned, feels that he is obtaining new facts for guidance, he will listen with patience. Yet, even then, a greater impression would be produced if the same accuracy and sureness of statement were embodied in spoken words. Let there first, be broad, statesmanlike views, a clear comprehension of the effects of measures, and perfect confidence in what we advocate, and then all the graces of speech may be added with the certainty that their effect will be that always produced by true eloquence.

A popular address differs from a lecture in having an element of persuasion in it. In fact, this is its principal characteristic. When we desire to incline the hearts of the people to some favorite cause, we assemble them together, and labor by all the arguments we can command, to induce them to adopt our views and enter on the course we recommend. Energy and earnestness are the qualities most uniformly successful. The people care little for the subtile niceties of speech, but they require that the man who addresses them should believe what he says, and feel the power of his own reasoning. A deep, strong, unfaltering conviction is always an element of strength.

Many speakers think it an advantage to flatter the prejudices of the people, but they are mistaken. Temporary applause may be won, but second thoughts are apt to detect the lurking insincerity, even if they do not overthrow the prejudice itself If the speaker be really under the influence of the same misconception as the audience, this is a different matter, for hearty devotion, even to the wrong, is contagious. But calm reasoning and truth are always best. These gave Abraham Lincoln the superiority over Stephen A. Douglas, making him more effective with the people than the latter was, not withstanding his fervid eloquence. The one appealed to the reason of the people, the other to passion.

Humor has a place in the popular address not second to any other quality. A telling anecdote, or a good illustration (the homelier the better, if it be not coarse), will arrest attention and dwell longer on the memory, than the strongest argument.

Controversial oratory partakes of the nature of a battle, but should be something more than strife for victory. There is little danger of languid attention in this species of address, for opposition arouses both speaker and hearer.

The golden rule in all controversies, is to be certain of a solid basis of fact, and follow the guidance of true principles. Then we deserve success. But fair means only should be employed. It is so hard to see an adversary triumph even, when convinced of the correctness of his position, that we can scarcely forbear employing every artifice to prevent such a result. But we should never misrepresent our opponent. Even if he has been unfortunate in his explanations, and leaves the way open for a natural misconception, we should use our best efforts to understand what he really means, and give him the credit of that. We must also allow his reasoning its due force. No just argument ought ever to be weakened. Let us bring forward our views, and, if possible, show that they are truer and more firmly based than his. And if we see that this cannot be done, there is only one manly course left—to surrender at discretion. If we cannot maintain our views by clear proof, we should abandon them, and seek others that need no questionable support.