Chapter VI: The Discussion--Conviction (2)

What is the cause of this drift toward prohibition in the South? The obvious cause, and the one most often given in explanation, is the presence of the negro. It is said that the vote for prohibition in the South represents exactly the same reasoning which excludes liquor from Indian reservations, shuts it out by international agreement from the islands of the Pacific, and excludes it from great areas in Africa under the British flag; and that, wherever there is an undeveloped race, the reasons for restrictions upon the liquor traffic become convincing. [Footnote: Atlantic Monthly, May, 1908, p. 632.]

The strength of this kind of reasoning depends upon the closeness of the connection between the effect and the assigned cause. In testing argument from sign, one should ask:--

(1) _Is the cause assigned adequate to produce the observed effect?_

This test is precisely the same as the test of adequacy for antecedent probability. One could not maintain that the productiveness of a certain piece of ground was due entirely to the kind of fertilizer used on it, nor that a national financial upheaval was caused by the failure of a single unimportant bank. In each of these cases the cause suggested may have assisted in producing the result, but obviously it was not of itself adequate to be the sole cause.

(2) _Could the observed effect have resulted from any other cause than the one assigned?_

If several possible causes exist, then it is necessary to consider them all, and show that all the causes except the assigned cause did not produce the observed effect. If an employer who has been robbed discovers that one of his clerks has suddenly come into possession of a large sum of money, he may surmise that his clerk is a thief. This argument is valueless, however, unless he can show that his employee did not receive his newly acquired wealth through inheritance, fortunate investment, or some other reasonable method. But if no other reason than burglary or embezzlement can explain the presence of this money, the argument is very strong.

One might greatly weaken the argument (quoted earlier) which assigned the cause of the recent prohibition movement in the South to the presence of the negro by showing that this action was not the result of the assigned cause, but largely of another cause. He might prove that during the debate in the Georgia Legislature upon the pending prohibitory bill, the negro was not once mentioned as a reason for the enactment of prohibition; and that the chief arguments in favor of prohibition were based upon the fact that the saloon element had formed a political ring in the South and were controlling the election of sheriffs, mayors, aldermen, and legislators.

ARGUMENT FROM EFFECT TO EFFECT. Argument from sign also includes the process of reasoning from effect to effect through a common cause. This method consists of combining the process just described with the argument from antecedent probability. A reduction of wages in one cotton mill is a sign that there may be a reduction in other cotton mills. Here the reasoning goes from effect to effect, passing, however, though perhaps the reasoner is not aware that the process is so complex, through a cause common to both effects. In full, the reasoning would be: a reduction in the first mill is the result of the cause "hard times"; it is then antecedently probable that this cause will produce a similar reduction of wages in other mills.

This method may be represented by the following figure:--

Cause
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
Effect Effect

Only one effect is known; the other effect is inferred, first, by a process of reasoning from a known effect to an unknown cause, and secondly, by the process of reasoning from this assumed cause to an unknown effect.

This method of reasoning is sound and legitimate when both effects have the same cause. Its weakness lies in the fact that it may be attacked on two sides: on the reasoning from effect to cause, and on the reasoning from cause to effect. If the connection can be broken in either process, the argument is overthrown. The tests to be used have already been given.

3. ARGUMENT FROM EXAMPLE.

Argument from example is the name given to the process by which one reasons that what has been true under certain circumstances will again be true under the same or similar circumstances. In using this method of reasoning one argues that whenever several persons or things or conditions are alike in some respects, any given cause operating upon them will in each case produce the same effect; any line of action adopted by them will in each case have the same result.

There are two divisions of argument from example. When the resemblance between the things compared is close, the process is called argument by generalization; when the resemblance is so slight that there can be no direct comparison, but only a comparison of functions, the process is called argument from analogy.

ARGUMENT BY GENERALIZATION. If one finds that a certain mastiff becomes with training an excellent watch dog, he may reasonably take it for granted that training will produce the same result in another dog of the same breed. If a college student with certain pronounced physical and mental characteristics is known to be an exceptionally good football player, the athletic trainer is sure to reason by generalization that another student with these same characteristics would be a valuable addition to the team. Burke in his _Speech on Conciliation_ uses this kind of reasoning when he says that just as Turkey and Spain have found it necessary to govern their distant possessions with a loose rein, so, too, England will be obliged to govern the American Colonies leniently.

Benjamin Harrison used this method of argument in the following quotation:--

That we give back to Porto Rico all the revenue derived from the customs we levy, does not seem to me to soften our dealings with her people. Our fathers were not mollified by the suggestion that the tea and stamp taxes would be expended wholly for the benefit of the colonies. It is to say: We do not need this money; it is only levied to show that your country is no part of the United States, and that you are not citizens of the United States, save at our pleasure. [Footnote: North American Review, January, 1901, p. 17.]

Argument by generalization very rarely constitutes absolute proof. In dealing with things, it may do so in rare cases; in dealing with human actions, almost never. The reason why it can establish only a strong probability lies in a weakness in the process of reasoning.

Notice that while this kind of argument apparently reasons directly from the example cited to the case in hand, there is in reality an intermediate step. This step is a general truth of which both the known fact and the fact to be proved must be instances. When it is argued that since one mastiff makes a good watch dog another mastiff will also make a good watch dog, the reasoning passes through the general statement, "All mastiffs make good watch dogs."

Graphically the process might be represented thus:--

General Law
/\
/ \
/ \
/ \
Known Fact Fact to be Proved

This method is very much like the method of reasoning from effect to effect, except that here the intermediate step does not _cause_, but merely accounts for the facts. In the illustration taken from Burke, the known fact is that neither Turkey nor Spain can govern their distant provinces despotically. The general law is that no country can govern a distant dependency harshly. The fact proved is that England cannot play the despot with the American Colonies.

The weakness of this sort of reasoning is now easily seen. In the first place, there are few general laws governing human action that always hold true. In the second place, unless there is a very strong resemblance between the cases compared, unless they are alike in all essential particulars, they will not both be examples of the working of one general law.

The following quotation points out an error that might be made from too hasty reasoning by example:--

On August 23d the Southern Railway, which since 1902 had been paying 5 per cent. annual dividends on its preferred stock, voted to reduce those dividends from a 5 per cent. annual rate to one of 3. Five days later, on August 28th, the Erie Railroad, which had been paying 4 per cent ... announced that it would pay no cash dividend this time, but would issue to the amount of the usual 4 per cent. dividend, what it called dividend warrants, which were practically notes at 4 per cent. redeemable in cash in 1907.

It was natural that this action regarding dividends should have awakened much uneasiness.... To predict a similar cutting of dividends by other railway companies would, however, be unwarranted. The case of the Southern Railway and the Erie was peculiar. Each had been classed among the financially weak railways of the country. Both were reorganized from absolute railway wrecks, and in each the new scheme of capitalization was proposed to the markets at a time when recovery from the depression of 1893 had not made such progress as it had achieved when the greater companies, like the Union Pacific, were reorganized. The result was that, with both these railways, provisions of working capital and adjustment of liabilities to the possible needs of an active industrial future were inadequately made. [Footnote: Alexander D. Noyes, The Forum, October-December, 1907, p.198.]

An excellent illustration of how to refute argument by generalization is found in the following quotation. It has been said that since England finds free trade beneficial, the United States should adopt the same policy. Mr. Reed, a leading advocate of protection, points out the weakness of this argument.

According to the usual story that is told, England had been engaged with a long and vain struggle with the demon of protection, and had been year after year sinking farther into the depths, until at a moment when she was in her distress and saddest plight, her manufacturing system broke down, "protection, having destroyed home trade by reducing," as Mr. Atkinson says, "the entire population to beggary, destitution, and want." Mr. Cobden and his friends providentially appeared, and after a hard struggle established a principle for all time and for all the world, and straightway England enjoyed the sum of human happiness. Hence all good nations should do as England has done and be happy ever after.

Suppose England, instead of being a little island in the sea, had been the half of a great continent full of raw material, capable of an internal commerce which would rival the commerce of all the rest of the world.

Suppose every year new millions were flocking to her shores, and every one of those new millions in a few years, as soon as they tasted the delights of a broader life, would become as great a consumer as any one of her own people.

Suppose that these millions, and the 70,000,000 already gathered under the folds of her flag, were every year demanding and receiving a higher wage and therefore broadening her market as fast as her machinery could furnish production. Suppose she had produced cheap food beyond all her wants, and that her laborers spent so much money that whether wheat was sixty cents a bushel or twice that sum hardly entered the thoughts of one of them except when some democratic tariff bill was paralyzing his business.

Suppose that she was not only but a cannon shot from France, but that every country in Europe had been brought as near to her as Baltimore is to Washington--for that is what cheap ocean freights mean between us and European producers. Suppose all those countries had her machinery, her skilled workmen, her industrial system, and labor forty per cent. cheaper. Suppose under that state of facts, with all her manufactures proclaiming against it, frantic in their disapproval, England had been called upon by Cobden to make the plunge into free trade, would she have done it? Not if Cobden had been backed by the angelic host. History gives England credit for great sense. [Footnote: Thomas B. Reed, Speech in House of Representatives, Feb. 1, 1904.]

ARGUMENT FROM ANALOGY. When two instances of objects which are _unlike in themselves_, but which _perform similar functions or have similar relations_, are compared for the sake of showing that what is true in one case is true in the other, the process is called _argument from analogy_. The following quotation is a good illustration of this kind of argument:--

"Mr. Pinchot compared our present consumption of wood to the case of a man in an open boat at sea, cut adrift from some shipwreck and with but a few days' supply of water on board. He drinks all the water the first day, simply because he is thirsty, though he knows that the water will not last long. The American people know that their wood supply will last but a few decades. Yet they shut their eyes to the facts."

Water and wood are not alike in themselves; they cannot be directly compared, but they are alike in the relations they bear to other circumstances.

When President Lincoln refused to change generals at a certain time during the Civil War, saying that it was not wise to "swap horses while crossing a stream," he reasoned from analogy. Since the horse in taking its master across the stream and the general in conducting a campaign are totally unlike in themselves but have similar relations, the argument is from analogy and not from generalization.

It is easy to see that such reasoning never constitutes indubitable proof. If argument from generalization, where the objects compared differ from each other in only a few respects, is weak, plainly, argument from analogy is much weaker, since the objects are alike merely in the relations they bear.

Though argument from analogy does not constitute proof, yet it is often valuable as a means of illustration. Truths frequently need illumination more than verification, and in such cases this sort of comparison may be very useful. Many proverbs are condensed arguments from analogy, their strength depending upon the similarity between the known case and the case in hand. It is not hard to find the analogy in these expressions: "Lightning never strikes twice in the same place"; "Don't count your chickens before they are hatched"; "A fool and his money are soon parted."

The student who has carefully read this chapter up to this point should have a fairly clear idea of the nature of proof; he should know that proof consists of evidence and reasoning; he should know the tests for each of these; and he should be able to distinguish between strong and weak arguments. The next step for him to take will be to apply these instructions in generating proof for any statement that he wishes to establish.

A common fault in argumentation is the failure to support important points with sufficient proof. One or two points well established will go farther toward inducing belief in a proposition than a dozen points that are but weakly substantiated. A statement should be proved not only by inductive reasoning, but, if possible, by deductive. If one uses argument from antecedent probability in establishing a statement, he should not rest content with this one method of proof, but he should try also to use argument from sign, and argument from example, and, whenever he can, he should quote authority.

Notice that in the following outline three kinds of proof are used. The amount of proof here given is by no means sufficient to establish the truth of the proposition being upheld; the outline, however, does illustrate the proper method of building up the proof of a proposition.

The present condition of the United States Senate is deplorable.

ANTECEDENT PROBABILITY.

I. The present method of electing Senators is ample cause for such a
condition, since

A. Senators are not responsible to any one, as

1. They are not responsible to the people, for

a. The people do not elect them.

2. They are not responsible to the legislature, for

a. The legislature changes inside of six years.

SIGN.

II. There is ample evidence to prove that the condition is
deplorable.

A. States are often unrepresented in the Senate. (Haynes'
_Election of Senators_, page 158.)

B. Many Senators have fallen into disrepute, for

1. One out of every ten members of the Fifty-eighth
Congress had been before the courts on criminal charges.
(Harper's Weekly, Vol. XLIV, page 113.)

C. Many Senators have engaged in fist fights on the floor of the
Senate Chamber.

AUTHORITY.

III. Prominent men testify to its deplorable condition. (A. M. Low,
North American Review, Vol. CLXXIV, page 231; D. G. Phillips,
Cosmopolitan, Vol. XL, page 487.)

PERSUASION.

Though it has been stated in a previous chapter that the persuasive portions of an argument should be found for the most part in the introduction and the conclusion, still persuasion in the discussion is extremely important. It is true that the real work of the discussion is to prove the proposition; but if conviction alone be used, there is great danger, in most cases, that the arguer will weary his audience, lose their attention, and thus fail to drive home the ideas that he wishes them to adopt. Since everything depends upon how the arguer has already treated his subject, and how it has been received by the audience, specific directions for persuasion in the discussion cannot possibly be given. Suggestions in regard to this matter must be even more abstract and general than were the directions for persuasion in the introduction.

To begin with, persuasion in the discussion should usually be of a supplementary nature. Unless the arguer has won the attention and, to some extent at least, the good will of his audience before he commences upon his proof, he may as well confess failure and proceed no farther. If, however, the persuasiveness of his introduction has accomplished the purpose for which it exists, he may introduce his proof without hesitation, taking care all the time to interweave enough persuasion to maintain the favorable impression that he has already made.

In general, the directions for doing this are the same as those for securing persuasion in the introduction. In both divisions _modesty_, _fairness_, and _sincerity_, are the characteristics that make for success. The same conditions that demand these qualities in one place require their use throughout the whole argument. Then, too, it is often effective to make occasionally an appeal to some strong emotion. As a rule, the attitude of the modern audience is essentially one of indifference, of so great indifference that special effort must be made first to gain, then to hold, their attention. The direct emotional appeal, when the subject, the occasion, and the audience are such that there is no danger of its being ludicrous, will usually accomplish this result. If such a method, however, is manifestly out of place, other means must be sought for producing a similar effect.

One of the very commonest devices for gaining attention is to relate a short anecdote. Everybody enjoys a good story, and if it is chosen with proper regard for its illustrative value, the argument is sure to be strengthened. On the whole, humorous stories are best. They often relieve the tedium of an otherwise dry speech, and not only serve as persuasion, but drive home a point with greater emphasis than could the most elaborate course of reasoning. This method is so familiar to every one that detailed explanation is unnecessary. Owing to the limited amount of time at their command, student debaters can, as a rule, use only the very shortest stories, and these should be chosen for their illustrative rather than for their persuasive value; in written arguments greater latitude is possible.

Another method that often finds favor in both written and spoken arguments is the introduction of a paragraph showing the importance of the topic under consideration. Oftentimes the arguer can show that this particular phase of the subject is of wider significance than at first appears. Perhaps he can draw a picture that will turn a seemingly uninteresting and commonplace subject into one that is teeming with romance and wonderment. For example, consider the following extract from Burke's speech on _Conciliation with the American Colonies_:--

This is the relative proportion of the importance of the colonies at these two periods: and all reasoning concerning our mode of treating them must have this proportion as its basis; or it is a reasoning weak, rotten and sophistical.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot prevail on myself to hurry over this great consideration. It is good for us to be here. We stand where we have an immense view of what is, and what is passed. Clouds, indeed, and darkness rest upon the future. Let us, however, before we descend from this noble eminence, reflect that this growth of our national prosperity has happened within the short period of the life of man. It has happened within sixty-eight years. There are those alive whose memory might touch the two extremities. For instance, my Lord Bathurst might remember all the stages of the progress. He was in 1704 of an age at least to be made to comprehend such things. He was then old enough _acta parentum jam legere, et quae sit poterit cognoscere virtus_. Suppose, sir, that the angel of this auspicious youth, foreseeing the many virtues which made him one of the most amiable, as he is one of the most fortunate, men of his age, had opened to him in vision, that when in the fourth generation the third prince of the House of Brunswick had sat twelve years on the throne of that nation which (by the happy issue of moderate and healing counsels) was to be made Great Britain, he should see his son, Lord Chancellor of England, turn back the current of hereditary dignity to its fountain and raise him to an higher rank of peerage, whilst he enriched the family with a new one; --if, amidst these bright and happy scenes of domestic honor and prosperity, that angel should have drawn up the curtain and unfolded the rising glories of his country, and, whilst he was gazing with admiration on the then commercial grandeur of England, the genius should point out to him a little speck, scarcely visible in the mass of the national interests, a small seminal principle rather than a formed body, and should tell him,--"Young man, there is America, which at this day serves for little more than to amuse you with stories of savage men and uncouth manners; yet shall, before you taste of death, show itself equal to the whole of that commerce which now attracts the envy of the world. Whatever England has been growing to by a progressive increase of improvement, brought in by varieties of people, by succession of civilizing conquests and civilizing settlements in a series of seventeen hundred years, you shall see as much added to her by America in the course of a single life!" If this state of his country had been foretold to him, would it not require all the sanguine credulity of youth and all the fervid glow of enthusiasm to make him believe it? Fortunate man, he has lived to see it! Fortunate indeed, if he lives to see nothing that shall vary the prospect and cloud the setting of his day!

Excuse me, sir, if, turning from such thoughts, I resume this comparative view once more. [Footnote: Speech in House of Commons, March 22, 1775.]

These devices an arguer will often find helpful for bringing an element of persuasion into his proof, but he should aim at a type of persuasion much more effective, yet much harder to attain, than is the result of any mere device. Proof is the strongest when each separate bit of it appeals both to the reason and the emotions. If an arguer can connect his subject with the feelings of his audience and then introduce reasoning processes that will at the same time both convince them and play upon their feelings, he is certain to attain a large measure of success. Although not all subjects readily lend themselves to this method of treatment, yet if the debater will go to the very bottom of his subject and consider the real significance of the question he is arguing upon, he can usually succeed in making his conviction persuasive and his persuasion convincing. Undoubtedly the best way for a student to train himself in this respect is to study great arguments. The following quotation from Beecher's speech in Liverpool, delivered before an audience composed mostly of men engaged in manufacturing, is an excellent example of persuasive proof:--

The things required for prosperous labor, prosperous manufactures, and prosperous commerce are three: first, liberty; secondly, liberty; thirdly, liberty--but these are not merely the same liberty, as I shall show you.

First, there must be liberty to follow those laws of business which experience has developed, without imposts or restrictions, or governmental intrusions. Business simply wants to be let alone.

Then, secondly, there must be liberty to distribute and exchange products of industry in any market without burdensome tariffs, without imposts, and without vexatious regulations. There must be these two liberties--liberty to create wealth, as the makers of it think best according to the light and experience which business has given them; and then liberty to distribute what they have created without unnecessary vexatious burdens. The comprehensive law of the ideal industrial condition of the world is free manufacture and free trade.

I have said there were three elements of liberty. The third is the necessity of an intelligent and free race of customers. There must be freedom among producers; there must be freedom among the distributors; there must be freedom among the customers. It may not have occurred to you that it makes any difference what one's customers are; but it does, in all regular and prolonged business. The condition of the customer determines how much he will buy, determines of what sort he will buy. Poor and ignorant people buy little and that of the poorest kind. The richest and the intelligent, having the more means to buy, buy the most, and always buy the best.

Here, then, are the three liberties: liberty of the producer, liberty of the distributor, and liberty of the consumer. The first two need no discussion--they have been long, thoroughly, and brilliantly illustrated by the political economists of Great Britain, and by her eminent statesmen; but it seems to me that enough attention has not been directed to the third, and, with your patience, I will dwell on that for a moment, before proceeding to other topics.

It is a necessity of every manufacturing and commercial people that their customers should be very wealthy and intelligent. Let us put the subject before you in the familiar light of your own local experience. To whom do the tradesmen of Liverpool sell the most goods at the highest profit? To the ignorant and poor, or to the educated and prosperous? The poor man buys simply for his body; he buys food, he buys clothing, he buys fuel, he buys lodging. His rule is to buy the least and the cheapest that he can. He goes to the store as seldom as he can,--he brings away as little as he can--and he buys for the least he can. Poverty is not a misfortune to the poor only who suffer it, but it is more or less a misfortune to all with whom they deal.

On the other hand, a man well off--how is it with him? He buys in far greater quantity. He can afford to do it; he has the money to pay for it. He buys in far greater variety, because he seeks to gratify not merely physical wants, but also mental wants. He buys for the satisfaction of sentiment and taste, as well as of sense. He buys silk, wool, flax, cotton; he buys all metals--iron, silver, gold, platinum; in short, he buys for all necessities and of all substances. But that is not all. He buys a better quality of goods. He buys richer silks, finer cottons, higher grained wools. Now, a rich silk means so much skill and care of somebody's that has been expended upon it to make it finer and richer; and so of cotton, and so of wool. That is, the price of the finer goods runs back to the very beginning, and remunerates the workman as well as the merchant. Indeed, the whole laboring community is as much interested and profited as the mere merchant, in this buying and selling of the higher grades in the greater varieties and quantities.

The law of price is the skill; and the amount of skill expended in the work is as much for the market as are the goods. A man comes to the market and says, "I have a pair of hands"; and he obtains the lowest wages. Another man comes and says, "I have something more than a pair of hands--I have truth and fidelity"; he gets a higher price. Another man comes and says, "I have something more; I have hands and strength, and fidelity, and skill." He gets more than either of the others. The next man comes and says, "I have got hands and strength, and skill, and fidelity; but my hands work more than that. They know how to create things for the fancy, for the affections, for the moral sentiments"; and he gets more than any of the others. The last man comes and says, "I have all these qualities, and have them so highly that it is a peculiar genius"; and genius carries the whole market and gets the highest price. So that both the workman and the merchant are profited by having purchasers that demand quality, variety, and quantity.

Now, if this be so in the town or the city, it can only be so because it is a law. This is the specific development of a general or universal law, and therefore we should expect to find it as true of a nation as of a city like Liverpool. I know it is so, and you know that it is true of all the world; and it is just as important to have customers educated, intelligent, moral, and rich, out of Liverpool as it is in Liverpool. They are able to buy; they want variety; they want the very best; and those are the customers you want. That nation is the best customer that is freest, because freedom works prosperity, industry, and wealth. Great Britain, then, aside from moral considerations, has a direct commercial and pecuniary interest in the liberty, civilization, and wealth of every people and every nation on the globe.

You have also an interest in this, because you are a moral and a religious people. You desire it from the highest motives, and godliness is profitable in all things, having the promise of the life that is, as well as of that which is to come; but if there were no hereafter, and if man had no progress in this life, and if there were no question of moral growth at all, it would be worth your while to protect civilization and liberty, merely as a commercial speculation. To evangelize has more than a moral and religious import--it comes back to temporal relations. Wherever a nation that is crushed, cramped, degraded under despotism, is struggling to be free, you, Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester, Paisley, all have an interest that that nation should be free. When depressed and backward people demand that they may have a chance to rise--Hungary, Italy, Poland--it is a duty for humanity's sake, it is a duty for the highest moral motives, to sympathize with them; but beside all these there is a material and an interested reason why you should sympathize with them. Pounds and pence join with conscience and with honor in this design. [Footnote: The World's Famous Orations, Vol. X, p. 12. Funk and Wagnalls Company.]

EXERCISES

A. In the following passage point out all assertions that are made, note whether the source of the evidence is definitely stated, and test the witnesses that give the evidence.

Reciprocity is the only remedy for the commercial antagonism which is fast separating Canada and the United States. Canada has long waited in vain for the culmination of treaties whereby she can trade with us on equal terms. Now, angered by our long evasion of the question, she is, according to prominent Canadian statesmen, contemplating the passage of high protective tariff laws, which will effectually close the doors of Canadian trade to us. Canada is young, but she is growing fast. The value of her imports is steadily growing larger, and if we do not make some concession to her we shall lose this vast trade. She makes and sells many things of which we do not have a home supply. Why not then open our doors to her and admit her products? Would it not be of distinct advantage to us?

The American Press is almost unanimous in declaring that the sum of the advantages attending this step would far offset any disadvantages. For instance, the supply of lumber in the United States is fast becoming exhausted; experts say that in fifteen years we shall have a lumber famine. If we turn to Canada, however, we see her mountain slopes green with trees and her wooded valleys covered with millions of feet of lumber. Why, then, not get our lumber from Canada and preserve what few forests we do have? Because of the exorbitant tariff on imported lumber. Lumber at its present high prices is even cheap compared with the price of imported lumber. Moreover, lumber is not the only article that is expensive here, though it is cheap just across the line in Canada. The World's Work, Vol. V, page 2979, says that reciprocity with Canada would cheapen many articles that are now costly.

B. Point out the kind of reasoning found in each of the following arguments:--

1. The wholesale destruction of the forests in many States portends the loss of our whole timber supply.

2. His faithful performance of every duty assures him an early promotion.

3. Since he succeeded well in his college work, it is an assured fact that he will make a brilliant reputation for himself in business.

4. Caesar had his Brutus, Charles I his Cromwell, and George III--may profit by their example.

5. The well-tilled fields, the carefully-trimmed hedges, and the sleek appearance of the stock bespoke a thrifty and industrious farmer.

6. You tried in Wales to raise a revenue which the people thought excessive and unjust: the attempt ended in oppression, resistance, rebellion, and loss to yourselves. You tried in the Duchy of Lancaster to raise a revenue which the people believed unjust: this effort ended in oppression, rebellion, vexation, and loss to yourselves. You are now trying to raise in America a revenue which the Colonists disapprove. What must be the result?

7. Then, sir, from these six capital sources: of descent; of form of government; of religion in the northern provinces; of manners in the southern; of education; of the remoteness of situation from the first mover of government--from all these causes a fierce spirit of liberty has grown up.

8. Collective bargaining is an advantage to working men; it tends to give them some share in the control of the industry to which they contribute.

9. That a free labor union is not the impractical dream of an idealist is to be found in the fact that some of the greatest and most successful of the labor organizations have always adhered to the principle of the open shop. In the Pennsylvania coal-mines union and non-union miners labored together in the same mine and reaped the same benefits from the collective bargaining carried on for them by John Mitchell. In the recent anarchy in Colorado, the one mine which went on with its work peacefully, prosperously, and without disturbance, until it was closed by military orders, was a mine which maintained the principle of the open shop, and in which union and non-union men worked peacefully together.

10. Suppose that all the property you were worth was in gold, and you had put it in the hands of Blondin, the famous rope-walker, to carry across the Niagara Falls on a tight rope. Would you shake the rope while he was passing over it, or keep shouting to him, "Blondin, stoop a little more! Go a little faster!" No, I am sure you would not. You would hold your breath as well as your tongue, and keep your hand off until he was safely over. Now the government is in the same situation. It is carrying an immense weight across a stormy ocean. Untold treasures are in its hands. It is doing the best it can. Don't badger it! Just keep still and it will get you safely over.

C. Prove or disprove the following statements, using, wherever it is possible, argument from antecedent probability, sign, example, and authority. Give references for all evidence except generally admitted facts.

1. The negro is not prepared to receive the same kind of education that the white man receives.

2. Railway pooling lowers freight rates.

3. The election of Senators by State Legislatures is undemocratic.

4. The present commercial relations between Canada and the United States are detrimental to the industries of the United States.

5. The influence of labor unions has greatly diminished child labor in the United States.

6. Woman suffrage would purify politics.

7. Egypt is benefited by the control of England.

8. Strikes benefit the working man.

9. The municipal ownership of street railways is a financial failure.

10. Lumber companies threaten the extermination of the forests in the United States.