The theory and practice of argumentation and debate
did. Among that sixteen were several of the most noted anti-slavery men
of those times—as Dr. Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and Gouverneur Morris—while there was not one now known to have been otherwise, unless it may be John Rutledge, of South Carolina.
The sum of the whole is that of our thirty-nine fathers who framed the original Constitution, twenty-one—a clear majority of the whole—certainly understood that no proper division of local from Federal Authority, nor any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control slavery in the Federal Territories; while all the rest had probably the same understanding. Such, unquestionably, was the understanding of our fathers who framed the original Constitution; and the text affirms that they understood the question “better than we.”
But, so far, I have been considering the understanding of the question manifested by the framers of the original Constitution. In and by the original instrument, a mode was provided for amending it; and, as I have already stated, the present frame of “the government under which we live” consists of that original, and twelve amendatory articles framed and adopted since. Those who now insist that Federal control of slavery in Federal Territories violates the Constitution, point us to the provisions which they suppose it thus violates; and, as I understand, they all fix upon provisions in these amendatory articles, and not in the original instrument. The Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott case, plant themselves upon the fifth amendment, which provides that no person shall be deprived of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law”; while Senator Douglas and his peculiar adherents plant themselves upon the tenth amendment, providing that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution” “are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Now it so happens that these amendments were framed by the first Congress which sat under the Constitution—the identical Congress which passed the act, already mentioned, enforcing the prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory. Not only was it the same Congress, but they were the identical, same individual men who, at the same session, and at the same time within the session, had under consideration, and in progress toward maturity, these constitutional amendments, and this act prohibiting slavery in all the territory the nation then owned. The constitutional amendments were introduced before, and passed after the act enforcing the ordinance of ’87; so that, during the whole pendency of the act to enforce the ordinance, the constitutional amendments were also pending.
The seventy-six members of that Congress, including sixteen of the framers of the original Constitution, as before stated, were pre-eminently our fathers who framed that part of “the government under which we live” which is now claimed as forbidding the Federal Government to control slavery in the Federal Territories.
Is it not a little presumptuous in anyone at this day to affirm that the two things which that Congress deliberately framed, and carried to maturity at the same time, are absolutely inconsistent with each other? And does not such affirmation become impudently absurd when coupled with the other affirmation, from the same mouth, that those who did the two things alleged to be inconsistent, understood whether they really were inconsistent better than we—better than he who affirms that they are inconsistent?
It is surely safe to assume that the thirty-nine framers of the original Constitution, and the seventy-six members of the Congress which framed the amendments thereto, taken together, do certainly include those who may be fairly called “our fathers who framed the government under which we live.” And so assuming, I defy any man to show that any one of them ever, in his whole life, declared that, in his understanding, any proper division of local from Federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Territories. I go a step further. I defy anyone to show that any living man in the world ever did, prior to the beginning of the present century (and I might almost say prior to the beginning of the last half of the present century), declare that, in his understanding, any proper division of local from Federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Territories. To those who now so declare I give not only “our fathers who framed the government under which we live,” but with them all other living men within the century in which it was framed, among whom to search, and they shall not be able to find the evidence of a single man agreeing with them.
Now, and here, let me guard a little against being misunderstood. I do not mean to say we are bound to follow implicitly in whatever our fathers did. To do so would be to discard all the lights of current experience—to reject all progress, all improvement. What I do say is that if we would supplant the opinions and policy of our fathers in any case, we should do so upon evidence so conclusive, and argument so clear, that even their great authority, fairly considered and weighed, cannot stand; and most surely not in a case whereof we ourselves declare they understood the question better than we.
If any man at this day sincerely believes that a proper division of local from Federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbids the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Territories, he is right to say so, and to enforce his position by all truthful evidence and fair argument which he can. But he has no right to mislead others, who have less access to history, and less leisure to study it, into the false belief that “our fathers who framed the government under which we live” were of the same opinion—thus substituting falsehood and deception for truthful evidence and fair argument. If any man at this day sincerely believes “our fathers who framed the government under which we live” used and applied principles, in other cases, which ought to have led them to understand that a proper division of local from Federal authority, or some part of the Constitution, forbids the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Territories, he is right to say so. But he should, at the same time, brave the responsibility of declaring that, in his opinion, he understands their principles better than they did themselves; and especially should he not shirk that responsibility by asserting that they “understood the question just as well, and even better, than we do now.”
But enough! Let all who believe that “our fathers who framed the government under which we live understood this question just as well, and even better, than we do now,” speak as they spoke, and act as they acted upon it. This is all Republicans ask—all Republicans desire—in relation to slavery. As those fathers marked it, so let it be again marked, as an evil not to be extended, but to be tolerated and protected only because of and so far as its actual presence amongst us makes that toleration and protection a necessity. Let all the guaranties those fathers gave it be not grudgingly, but fully and fairly maintained. For this Republicans contend, and with this, so far as I know or believe, they will be content.
And now, if they would listen—as I suppose they will not—I would address a few words to the Southern people.
I would say to them: You consider yourselves a reasonable and a just people; and I consider that in the general qualities of reason and justice you are not inferior to any other people. Still, when you speak of us Republicans, you do so only to denounce us as reptiles, or, at the best, as no better than outlaws. You will grant a hearing to pirates or murderers, but nothing like it to “Black Republicans.” In all your contentions with one another, each of you deems an unconditional condemnation of “Black Republicanism,” as the first thing to be attended to. Indeed, such condemnation of us seems to be an indispensable prerequisite—license, so to speak—among you to be admitted or permitted to speak at all. Now can you or not be prevailed upon to pause and to consider whether this is quite just to us, or even to yourselves? Bring forward your charges and specifications, and then be patient long enough to hear us deny or justify.
You say we are sectional. We deny it. That makes an issue; and the burden of proof is upon you. You produce your proof; and what is it? Why, that our party has no existence in your section—gets no votes in your section. The fact is substantially true; but does it prove the issue? If it does, then in case we should, without change of principle, begin to get votes in your section, we should thereby cease to be sectional. You cannot escape this conclusion; and yet, are you willing to abide by it? If you are, you will probably soon find that we have ceased to be sectional, for we shall get votes in your section this very year. You will then begin to discover, as the truth plainly is, that your proof does not touch the issue. The fact that we get no votes in your section is a fact of your making, and not of ours. And if there be fault in that fact, that fault is primarily yours, and remains so until you show that we repel you by some wrong principle or practice. If we do repel you by any wrong principle or practice, the fault is ours; but this brings you to where you ought to have started—to a discussion of the right or wrong of our principle. If our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section for the benefit of ours, or for any other object, then our principle, and we with it, are sectional, and are justly opposed and denounced as such. Meet us, then, on the question of whether our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section; and so meet us as if it were possible that something may be said on your side. Do you accept the challenge? No! Then you really believe that the principle which “our fathers who framed the government under which we live” thought so clearly right as to adopt it, and indorse it again and again, upon their official oaths, is in fact so clearly wrong as to demand your condemnation without a moment’s consideration.
Some of you delight to flaunt in our faces the warning against sectional parties given by Washington in his Farewell Address. Less than eight years before Washington gave that warning, he had, as President of the United States, approved and signed an act of Congress enforcing the prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory, which act embodied the policy of the government upon that subject up to and at the very moment he penned that warning; and about one year after he penned it, he wrote Lafayette that he considered that prohibition a wise measure, expressing in the same connection his hope that we should at some time have a confederacy of free States.
Bearing this in mind, and seeing that sectionalism has since arisen upon this same subject, is that warning a weapon in your hands against us, or in our hands against you? Could Washington himself speak, would he cast the blame of that sectionalism upon us, who sustain his policy, or upon you, who repudiate it? We respect that warning of Washington, and we commend it to you, together with his example pointing to the right application of it.
But you say you are conservative—eminently conservative—while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by “our fathers who framed the government under which we live”; while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. You are divided on new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave-trade; some for a Congressional slave code for the Territories; some for Congress forbidding the Territories to prohibit slavery within their limits; some for maintaining slavery in the Territories through the judiciary; some for the “gur-reat pur-rinciple” that “if one man would enslave another, no third man should object,” fantastically called “popular sovereignty,” but never a man among you is in favor of Federal prohibition of slavery in Federal Territories, according to the practice of “our fathers who framed the government under which we live.” Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and your charge of destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations.
Again, you say we have made the slavery question more prominent than it formerly was. We deny it. We admit that it is more prominent, but we deny that we made it so. It was not we, but you, who discarded the old policy of the fathers. We resisted, and still resist, your innovation; and thence comes the greater prominence of the question. Would you have that question reduced to its former proportions? Go back to that old policy. What has been will be again, under the same conditions. If you would have the peace of the old times, re-adopt the precepts and policy of the old times.
You charge that we stir up insurrections among your slaves. We deny it; and what is your proof? Harper’s Ferry! John Brown!! John Brown was no Republican; and you have failed to implicate a single Republican in his Harper’s Ferry enterprise. If any member of our party is guilty in that matter, you know it or you do not know it. If you do know it, you are inexcusable for not designating the man and proving the fact. If you do not know it, you are inexcusable for asserting it, and especially for persisting in the assertion after you have tried and failed to make the proof. You need not be told that persisting in a charge which one does not know to be true, is simply malicious slander.
Some of you admit that no Republican designedly aided or encouraged the Harper’s Ferry affair, but still insist that our doctrines and declarations necessarily lead to such results. We do not believe it. We know we hold no doctrine, and make no declaration, which were not held to and made by “our fathers who framed the government under which we live.” You never dealt fairly by us in relation to this affair. When it occurred, some important State elections were near at hand, and you were in evident glee with the belief that, by charging the blame upon us, you could get an advantage of us in those elections. The elections came, and your expectations were not quite fulfilled. Every Republican man knew that, as to himself at least, your charge was a slander, and he was not much inclined by it to cast his vote in your favor. Republican doctrines and declarations are accompanied with a continual protest against any interference whatever with your slaves, or with you about your slaves. Surely, this does not encourage them to revolt. True, we do, in common with “our fathers who framed the government under which we live,” declare our belief that slavery is wrong; but the slaves do not hear us declare even this. For anything we say or do, the slaves would scarcely know there is a Republican party. I believe they would not, in fact, generally know it but for your misrepresentations of us in their hearing. In your political contests among yourselves each faction charges the other with sympathy with Black Republicanism; and then, to give point to the charge, defines Black Republicanism to simply be insurrection, blood, and thunder among the slaves.
Slave insurrections are no more common now than they were before the Republican party was organized. What induced the Southampton insurrection, twenty-eight years ago, in which at least three times as many lives were lost as at Harper’s Ferry? You can scarcely stretch your very elastic fancy to the conclusion that Southampton was “got up by Black Republicanism.” In the present state of things in the United States, I do not think a general, or even a very extensive, slave insurrection is possible. The indispensable concert of action cannot be attained. The slaves have no means of rapid communication; nor can incendiary freemen, black or white, supply it. The explosive materials are everywhere in parcels; but there neither are, nor can be supplied, the indispensable connecting trains.
Much is said by Southern people about the affection of slaves for their masters and mistresses; and a part of it, at least, is true. A plot for an uprising could scarcely be devised and communicated to twenty individuals before some one of them, to save the life of a favorite master or mistress, would divulge it. This is the rule; and the slave revolution in Hayti was not an exception to it, but a case occurring under peculiar circumstances. The gunpowder plot of British history, though not connected with slaves, was more in point. In that case, only about twenty were admitted to the secret; and yet one of them, in his anxiety to save a friend betrayed the plot to that friend, and, by consequence, averted the calamity. Occasional poisonings from the kitchen, and open or stealthy assassinations in the field, and local revolts extending to a score or so, will continue to occur as the natural results of slavery; but no general insurrection of slaves, as I think, can happen in this country for a long time. Whoever much fears, or much hopes, for such an event, will be alike disappointed.
In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, “It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and their places be, pari passu, filled up by free white laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up.”
Mr. Jefferson did not mean to say, nor do I, that the power of emancipation is in the Federal Government. He spoke of Virginia; and, as to the power of emancipation, I speak of the slaveholding States only. The Federal Government, however, as we insist, has the power of restraining the extension of the institution—the power to insure that a slave insurrection shall never occur on any American soil which is now free from slavery.
John Brown’s effort was peculiar. It was not a slave insurrection. It was an attempt by white men to get up a revolt among slaves, in which the slaves refused to participate. In fact, it was so absurd that the slaves, with all their ignorance, saw plainly enough it could not succeed. That affair, in its philosophy, corresponds with the many attempts, related in history, at the assassination of kings and emperors. An enthusiast broods over the oppression of a people till he fancies himself commissioned by Heaven to liberate them. He ventures the attempt which ends in little else than his own execution. Orsini’s attempt on Louis Napoleon, and John Brown’s attempt at Harper’s Ferry, were, in their philosophy, precisely the same. The eagerness to cast blame on old England in the one case, and on New England in the other, does not disprove the sameness of the two things.
And how much would it avail you, if you could by the use of John Brown, Helper’s book, and the like, break up the Republican organization? Human action can be modified to some extent, but human nature cannot be changed. There is a judgment and a feeling against slavery in this nation, which cast at least a million and a half of votes. You cannot destroy that judgment and feeling—that sentiment—by breaking up the political organization which rallies around it. You can scarcely scatter and disperse an army which has been formed into order in the face of your heaviest fire; but if you could, how much would you gain by forcing the sentiment which created it out of the peaceful channel of the ballot-box into some other channel? What would that other channel probably be? Would the number of John Browns be lessened or enlarged by the operation?
But you will break up the Union rather than submit to a denial of your constitutional rights.
That has a somewhat reckless sound; but it would be palliated, if not fully justified, were we proposing, by the mere force of numbers, to deprive you of some right plainly written down in the Constitution. But we are proposing no such thing.
When you make these declarations you have a specific and well-understood allusion to an assumed constitutional right of yours to take slaves into the Federal Territories, and to hold them there as property. But no such right is specially written in the Constitution. That instrument is literally silent about any such right. We, on the contrary, deny that such a right has any existence in the Constitution, even by implication.
Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the government, unless you be allowed to construe and force the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events.
This, plainly stated, is your language. Perhaps you will say the Supreme Court has decided the disputed constitutional question in your favor. Not quite so. But waiving the lawyer’s distinction between dictum and decision the court has decided the question for you in a sort of way. The court has substantially said, it is your constitutional right to take slaves into the Federal Territories, and to hold them there as property. When I say the decision was made in a sort of way, I mean it was made in a divided court, by a bare majority of the judges, and they not quite agreeing with one another in the reasons for making it; that it is so made as that its avowed supporters disagree with one another about its meaning, and that it was mainly based upon a mistaken statement of fact—the statement in the opinion that “the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution.”
An inspection of the Constitution will show that the right of property in a slave is not “distinctly and expressly affirmed” in it. Bear in mind, the judges do not pledge their judicial opinion that such right is impliedly affirmed in the Constitution; but they pledge their veracity that it is “distinctly and expressly” affirmed there—“distinctly,” that is, not mingled with anything else—“expressly,” that is in words meaning just that, without the aid of any inference, and susceptible of no other meaning.
If they had only pledged their judicial opinion that such right is affirmed in the instrument by implication, it would be open to others to show that neither the word “slave” nor “slavery” is to be found in the Constitution, nor the word “property” even, in any connection with language alluding to the thing slave, or slavery; and that wherever in that instrument the slave is alluded to, he is called a “person”; and wherever his master’s legal right in relation to him is alluded to, it is spoken of as “service or labor which may be due”—as a debt payable in service or labor. Also it would be open to show, by contemporaneous history, that this mode of alluding to slaves and slavery, instead of speaking of them, was employed on purpose to exclude from the Constitution the idea that there could be property in man.
To show all this is easy and certain.
When this obvious mistake of the judges shall be brought to their notice, is it not reasonable to expect that they will withdraw the mistaken statement, and reconsider the conclusion based upon it?
And then it is to be remembered that “our fathers who framed the government under which we live”—the men who made the Constitution—decided this same constitutional question in our favor long ago; decided it without division among themselves when making the decision; without division among themselves about the meaning of it after it was made, and, so far as any evidence is left, without basing it upon any mistaken statement of facts.
Under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves justified to break up this government unless such a court decision as yours is shall be at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule of political action? But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, “Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!”
To be sure, what the robber demanded of me—my money—was my own; and I had a clear right to keep it; but it was no more my own than my vote is my own; and the threat of death to me, to extort my money, and the threat of destruction to the Union, to extort my vote, can scarcely be distinguished in principle.
A few words now to Republicans. It is exceedingly desirable that all parts of this great Confederacy shall be at peace, and in harmony one with another. Let us Republicans do our part to have it so. Even though much provoked, let us do nothing through passion and ill temper. Even though the Southern people will not so much as listen to us, let us calmly consider their demands, and yield to them if, in our deliberate view of our duty, we possibly can. Judging by all they say and do, and by the subject and nature of their controversy with us, let us determine, if we can, what will satisfy them.
Will they be satisfied if the Territories be unconditionally surrendered to them? We know they will not. In all their present complaints against us, the Territories are scarcely mentioned. Invasions and insurrections are the rage now. Will it satisfy them if, in the future, we have nothing to do with invasions and insurrections? We know it will not. We so know, because we know we never had anything to do with invasions and insurrections; and yet this total abstaining does not exempt us from the charge and the denunciation.
The question recurs, What will satisfy them? Simply this: we must not only let them alone, but we must somehow convince them that we do let them alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task. We have been so trying to convince them from the very beginning of our organization, but with no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have constantly protested our purpose to let them alone; but this has had no tendency to convince them. Alike unavailing to convince them is the fact that they have never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them.
These natural and apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly—done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated—we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas’s new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us.
I am quite aware they do not state their case precisely in this way. Most of them would probably say to us, “Let us alone; do nothing to us, and say what you please about slavery.” But we do let them alone—have never disturbed them—so that, after all, it is what we say which dissatisfies them. They will continue to accuse us of doing, until we cease saying.
I am also aware they have not as yet in terms demanded the overthrow of our free-State constitutions. Yet those constitutions declare the wrong of slavery, with more solemn emphasis than do all other sayings against it; and when all these other sayings shall have been silenced, the overthrow of these constitutions will be demanded, and nothing be left to resist the demand. It is nothing to the contrary that they do not demand the whole of this just now. Demanding what they do, and for the reason they do, they can voluntarily stop nowhere short of this consummation. Holding, as they do, that slavery is morally right and socially elevating, they cannot cease to demand a full national recognition of it as a legal right and a social blessing.
Nor can we justifiably withhold this on any ground save our conviction that slavery is wrong. If slavery is right, all words, acts, laws, and constitutions against it are themselves wrong, and should be silenced and swept away. If it is right, we cannot justly object to its nationality—its universality; if it is wrong, they cannot justly insist upon its extension—its enlargement. All they ask we could readily grant, if we thought slavery right; all we ask they could as readily grant, if they thought it wrong. Their thinking it right and our thinking it wrong is the precise fact upon which depends the whole controversy. Thinking it right, as they do, they are not to blame for desiring its full recognition as being right; but thinking it wrong, as we do, can we yield to them? Can we cast our votes with their view, and against our own? In view of our moral, social, and political responsibilities, can we do this?
Wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in the nation; but can we, while our votes will prevent it, allow it to spread into the national Territories, and to overrun us here in these free States? If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand by our duty fearlessly and effectively. Let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and belabored—contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong: vain as the search for a man who should be neither a living man nor a dead man; such as a policy of “don’t care” on a question about which all true men do care: such as Union appeals beseeching true Union men to yield to Disunionists, reversing the divine rule, and calling, not the sinners, but the righteous to repentance; such as invocations to Washington, imploring men to unsay what Washington said and undo what Washington did.
Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the government, nor of dungeons to ourselves. Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith let us to the end dare to do our duty as we understand it.
APPENDIX D MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR HIGH SCHOOL DEBATING LEAGUE UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY
The Bangor High School, the Bar Harbor High School, the Bucksport East Maine Conference Seminary, and the Foxcroft Academy, do hereby agree to form an Interscholastic Debating League. The purpose of this League is to hold debates subject to the following conditions:
I
The executive committee of the League shall consist of the principal of each of the above-named institutions and of the Debate Coach at the University of Maine. This committee shall meet once a year at such time and place as agreed upon by the schools and the University. It shall have charge of all matters pertaining to the League, subject to the provisions herein contained.
II
The League shall hold two preliminary debates and one final debate each year, according to the following plan:
The high schools and academies composing this League shall be divided into two equal groups. Each group shall hold a preliminary debate as herein provided. The two winning schools shall then meet in a final debate to be held at the University of Maine. The executive committee shall determine at its first meeting the time, place, and method of rotation to be observed in holding contests for succeeding years.
III
The questions for debate shall be selected in the following manner:
(1) For the preliminary contests. On or before October first, each school at which a debate is to be held shall submit to the visiting school a list of three propositions. The visiting school shall thereupon select one of these propositions and choose the side which it wishes to defend. On or before October fifteenth, notice of this selection must be communicated to the school at which the debate is to be held.
(2) For the final contest. Immediately upon the announcement of a decision in a preliminary contest, the principal of the winning school shall mail notice of the result to the Debate Coach of the University of Maine. The Debate Coach shall determine by lot the school which is to propose the list of propositions to its opponent. Notice of this fact shall immediately be sent to the school thus designated. This school shall prepare immediately a list of three propositions and submit them to its opponent. Within three days the opposing school shall mail to the other school an announcement of the proposition which it has selected from the list proposed and shall state the side of the proposition which it wishes to defend.
IV
The judges for both the preliminary and final contests shall be selected in the following manner:
Four weeks before the contest, the school which has proposed the list of propositions shall submit to its opponent, a list of twelve judges. The opposing school shall select three persons from this list and return their names to the other school. This school shall immediately attempt to secure the persons so named to act as judges. If any or all of the persons selected refuse the invitation to serve, the proposing school shall ask the visiting school to select substitute judges from the list. The school making the final selection of judges may require at any time, a new list of names from the opposing school. No school shall propose as judge any person who is financially or officially interested in, or a graduate or former student of, such school.
V
In the preliminary contests the visiting school shall bear all expenses of its own team. The school at which the contest is held shall bear the expenses of procuring judges and shall have charge of all local arrangements.
In the final contest each participating school shall bear the expense of its own team and one-half the expense of the judges.
VI
Each school shall select for its team three representatives and an alternate, but no one shall be chosen who is not a _bona fide_ student of the institution which he represents.
VII
Each debater shall be allowed two speeches, one of ten (10) minutes duration, the other of five (5) minutes. The first series of speeches shall be opened by the affirmative, and shall alternate between affirmative and negative speeches. The second series shall be opened by the negative, and shall alternate between negative and affirmative speeches.
VIII
In preparing for any contest, each school is entitled to three visits from a student of Argumentation and Debate in the University of Maine. This student Coach will give such assistance as is asked for in the training of the debaters representing each school. No charge will be made for this service, but each school must bear the expense of the student sent to coach its team.
IX
In each contest the judges shall be instructed to award the decision on the merits of the argument as presented in the debate, and not upon the merits of the question. It is understood that effectiveness of style and manner of delivery are to be considered.
X
This agreement may be amended at any time by the unanimous vote of the executive committee.
XI
At the close of the final contest, the President of the University of Maine, or some one on his behalf, will present to the winning team the University of Maine Interscholastic Debating Cup. The name of the winning school and the year of the contest will be engraved upon the cup. This cup will be kept in the possession of the winning school until within one week of the next annual contest. At this time it shall be returned to the University of Maine to be awarded to the school winning the final contest for that year.
XII
At the close of the final contest, the President of the University of Maine, or some one on his behalf, will present to the debater whose work is regarded by the judges as the most effective, a scholarship to the value of $30.00 good for one year in the above-named institution.
XIII
This agreement shall be in full force and operation when one of the two copies herewith submitted to each of the four institutions composing the League is signed by the principal of the institution and mailed to the Head of the Department of English at the University of Maine.
APPENDIX E DEBATING AGREEMENT FOR A LEAGUE COMPOSED OF FIVE INSTITUTIONS
CONSTITUTION OF THE CENTRAL DEBATING CIRCUIT OF AMERICA
ARTICLE I
OBJECT.—The object of this organization shall be to foster interest in debate by holding an annual contest in December on the Friday evening one week before the opening of the holiday recess.
ARTICLE II
DEBATING BOARDS.—Each university shall create a debating board a majority of whose members shall be of the faculty. The members of this board shall be chosen annually as each university may deem wise. The debating board shall have general supervision of all debating matters of the league affecting its university.
ARTICLE III
QUESTIONS.—On April first each university shall submit to each of the others a question properly stated for debate. On April fifteenth each university shall send the five questions to each of the others arranged in the order of its choice. The question ranked highest by all the universities shall be debated by all the teams. In the case of a tie the selection from the tying questions shall be made by the President of Yale University.
ARTICLE IV
TIME AND ORDER OF SPEAKING.—Each speaker shall have seventeen minutes; twelve minutes for opening and five for rebuttal, but the order of rebuttal speeches on either side may be changed at the wish of the speakers on that side. The negative shall lead in the rebuttal. The visiting team shall support the negative.
ARTICLE V
JUDGES.
(_Contests for 1906–1907 and 1910–1911_)
_Contesting states._ │_Place of contest._ │_Residence of Judge._
Minnesota │Iowa City │Illinois Iowa │ „ │Nebraska
Nebraska │Urbana │Iowa Illinois │ „ │Wisconsin
Iowa │Madison │Illinois Wisconsin │ „ │Minnesota
Illinois │Minneapolis │Iowa Minnesota │ „ │Wisconsin
Wisconsin │Lincoln │Iowa Nebraska │ „ │ „
(_Contests for 1907–1908 and 1911–1912_)
Illinois │Iowa City │Minnesota Iowa │ „ │Nebraska
Wisconsin │Urbana │Iowa Illinois │ „ │ „
Minnesota │Madison │Illinois Wisconsin │ „ │Iowa
Nebraska │Minneapolis │Wisconsin Minnesota │ „ │ „
Iowa │Lincoln │Minnesota Nebraska │ „ │ „
(_Contests for 1908–1909 and 1912–1913_)
Wisconsin │Iowa City │Illinois Iowa │ „ │Nebraska
Minnesota │Urbana │Wisconsin Illinois │ „ │Iowa
Nebraska │Madison │Illinois Wisconsin │ „ │Minnesota
Iowa │Minneapolis │Wisconsin Minnesota │ „ │Nebraska
Illinois │Lincoln │Iowa Nebraska │ „ │ „
(_Contests for 1909–1910 and 1913–1914_)
Nebraska │Iowa City │Minnesota Iowa │ „ │Illinois
Iowa │Urbana │Wisconsin Illinois │ „ │
Illinois │Madison │Minnesota Wisconsin │ „ │
Wisconsin │Minneapolis │Nebraska Minnesota │ „ │Iowa
Minnesota │Lincoln │Iowa Nebraska │ „ │ „
On April first each university shall submit judges according to the above schedule.
When a single state furnishes the judges for any contest it shall submit a list of 24 names to each of the two competing universities. These lists shall be duplicates.
When two states furnish the judges they shall each submit a list of 12 names.
When a state furnishes judges for two or more contests it shall make up its several lists as impartially as possible with reference to the distribution of able men.
Convenience and economy for the attending judges shall be a factor in their nomination in so far as may be consistent with the choice of able men.
Not later than the first of October preceding the contest the visiting university shall send to the entertaining university a list of six candidates for judges chosen from the proper rolls. Not later than the same date the entertaining university shall send to its opponent a list of twelve judges chosen from the proper rolls. Each university shall arrange the opponent’s list of candidates in the order of its choice.
Each university shall have the right to challenge any or all of the number of the candidates submitted by its opponent on presentation of good and sufficient reason. The challenge list, together with objections, shall be returned at once to the sender. The list shall be completed and re-submitted not later than October twentieth.
It is further understood that any person recommended for judge who is a relative, actual or prospective, of any contestant, or who is an alumnus of either university, or who holds or has held, any official relation with either university may be rejected.
The secretary of the entertaining university shall notify the judges by a joint note, the form of which shall be as follows;
The state universities of (name) and (name) will hold a joint debate at (place) on (date). The specific wording of the proposition for debate is, “Resolved, that &c—
We shall consider ourselves especially favored if you can be with us at (place) to hear and judge this contest. (Insert a sentence here stating the names of the other judges who have been invited or who consented to serve.)
We shall of course meet your entire expense. Trusting that we may have an early and favorable reply, we remain,
Respectfully yours,
A. B., University of ———— C. D., University of ————
The entertaining university shall sign the names of both secretaries to the letter and shall enclose a stamped envelop addressed to each for the reply.
Before the contest the judges shall be entertained at a hotel and every semblance of an effort to influence them will be regarded as dishonorable conduct.
The secretary will secure two judges from the list of the entertaining university and one from the list of the opponent adhering strictly to the order recommended by the respective universities. But if any name or names should be found on both lists they shall be first invited to serve.
The university submitting a list of names shall always report on the qualifications of the judges in the following respects; I. Occupation. II. Where educated. III. Politics. IV. Religion. V. Official relations with any university of the league at any time.
ARTICLE VI
INSTRUCTIONS TO JUDGES.—Each judge shall be instructed to decide for himself what constitutes effective debate, except that he shall consider both thought and delivery. Without consultation he shall vote affirmative or negative on the merits of the debate, _not on the merits of the question_. He shall sign, seal and deliver his vote to the presiding officer who shall open the votes and announce the decision.
ARTICLE VII
EXPENSES.—Each university shall pay all the expenses of its own debaters. All other expenses of the contest shall be paid by the entertaining university.
ARTICLE VIII
CONDUCT OF THE DEBATES.—In the contests of this league all communication with the debaters, by prompting or otherwise, is forbidden; also the introduction of both private correspondence and charts is debarred.
ARTICLE IX
AMENDMENTS.—This constitution may be amended by the authorized representatives of the universities at any special meeting or by correspondence providing twenty days notice be given of the changes desired.
ARTICLE X
SCHEDULE.—The schedule for debates shall be as follows:
_First Year_ Minnesota shall send a team to Iowa City Nebraska “ “ “ “ “ Urbana Iowa “ “ “ “ “ Madison Illinois “ “ “ “ “ Minneapolis Wisconsin “ “ “ “ “ Lincoln
_Second Year_ Minnesota “ “ “ “ “ Madison Nebraska “ “ “ “ “ Minneapolis Iowa “ “ “ “ “ Lincoln Illinois “ “ “ “ “ Iowa City Wisconsin “ “ “ “ “ Urbana
_Third Year_ Minnesota “ “ “ “ “ Urbana Nebraska “ “ “ “ “ Madison Iowa “ “ “ “ “ Minneapolis Illinois “ “ “ “ “ Lincoln Wisconsin “ “ “ “ “ Iowa City
_Fourth Year_ Minnesota “ “ “ “ “ Lincoln Nebraska “ “ “ “ “ Iowa City Iowa “ “ “ “ “ Urbana Illinois “ “ “ “ “ Madison Wisconsin “ “ “ “ “ Minneapolis
APPENDIX F MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR A TRIANGULAR DEBATING LEAGUE
Debating Agreement between Indiana University, Ohio State University, and the University of Illinois
(Adopted by the representatives of the three institutions at Columbus, June 17, 1905)
ARTICLE 1.—This organization shall consist of the Indiana University, Ohio State University, and the University of Illinois, and shall be known as the State University Debating League.
ARTICLE 2.—Its affairs shall be conducted by an executive committee consisting of one member of the Faculty of each institution, to be selected by that institution.
(a) One of these shall act as President, one as Vice President, and one as Secretary and Treasurer, each holding office for one year.
(b) The three offices shall be filled by the representatives of the three institutions in rotation in the following order: 1905–1906 Presidency, Ohio State University, Vice Presidency, Indiana University, Secretary and Treasurership, University of Illinois; 1906–1907 Presidency, Indiana University, Vice Presidency, University of Illinois, Secretary and Treasurership, Ohio State University; 1907–1908 Presidency, University of Illinois, Vice Presidency, Ohio State University, Secretary and Treasurership, Indiana University; and thereafter in the same rotation.
ARTICLE 3.—The debates shall be held on the second Friday in March—one at Bloomington, Indiana, one at Columbus, Ohio, and one at Urbana, Illinois. In the year 1905–1906 the teams shall come together as follows: University of Illinois and Indiana University at Bloomington; Indiana University and Ohio State University at Columbus; Ohio State University and University of Illinois at Urbana. In the year 1906–1907 Ohio State University and Indiana University at Bloomington; University of Illinois and Ohio State University at Columbus; Indiana University and University of Illinois at Urbana; and thereafter in the same biennial rotation.
ARTICLE 4.—(a) A question shall be proposed by each institution not later than the 5th of October preceding the debates.
(b) The Secretary shall at once send the three questions to the three institutions, and they shall reply not later than the 25th of October, each institution indicating its ranking of the three questions as first choice, second choice, third choice.
(c) The Secretary shall report the result of this vote not later than the 30th of October, and the question ranked highest in the vote shall be debated by all teams. In case of a tie in the ranking the selection from the three questions shall be made by the President of the University of Minnesota.
(d) After the question has been chosen no modification shall be made in its wording and no definition permitted.
ARTICLE 5.—The home team shall support the affirmative of the question and the visiting team the negative.
ARTICLE 6.—Each speaker shall be allowed twelve minutes for a principal speech and five minutes for a rebuttal speech. No time may be transferred from one speaker to another, but the order of rebuttal speeches on either side may be changed at the wish of the speakers on that side. “The negative shall lead in rebuttal.”
ARTICLE 7.—(a) The visiting institution shall not later than the 15th of January nominate a list of twenty names of persons living within two hundred and fifty miles of the place of the debate, no one of whom shall be or shall have been connected with any of the three institutions concerned either as officer, teacher or student. The home institution shall have the right of veto for cause to be explicitly stated to the other institution within two weeks thereafter, and the visiting institution shall submit other names equal in number to those vetoed. The home institution shall choose three persons from this list to act as judges.
(b) Each judge shall be provided with written instructions in the following form:
Date..................
In rendering your decision, you are asked to consider the merits of the _debate_ and not the merits of the question. You are the sole judges of what constitutes effective debating, remembering that both thought and delivery are to be considered.
In my opinion the ......... team has done the most effective debating.
...................... Judge
(c) At the close of the debate each judge shall be permitted to withdraw, and within 15 minutes shall present to the chairman in a sealed envelope his individual decision, reached without conference with his colleagues.
ARTICLE 8.—Each institution shall pay the expenses of its debaters. All other expenses of each debate shall be paid by the entertaining institution.
APPENDIX G PROPOSITIONS
POLITICAL
_A. Legislative._
1. Any further centralization of power in the Federal Government of the United States should be condemned.
2. United States senators should be elected by popular vote.
3. The House of Representatives should elect its standing committees.
4. The state of should adopt the legislative referendum.
5. An amendment of the Federal Constitution should be adopted convening the first session of Congress within a few months after the election and compelling the second session to adjourn several days before the following election.
6. The number of representatives to Congress should be reduced.
7. All members of the Senate and House of Representatives should be required to be present during the discussion of all proposed legislation, unless prevented by illness.
8. The United States should adopt the Swiss referendum.
9. The Constitution should be so amended as to make the passing of amendments easier.
10. The United States Senate should adopt a closure rule.
11. Lobbying in Congress and in the state legislatures should be prohibited by law.
12. Direct legislation by means of the initiative and referendum is desirable for our states and their subdivisions.
13. The initiative and referendum offer a desirable relief from the evils arising from the dominance of special interests in our states and their municipalities.
_B. Executive._
14. The President of the United States should be elected for one term of seven years, and be ineligible for reëlection.
15. The President of the United States should be elected by direct vote of the people.
16. The President should be allowed to veto items in appropriation bills.
17. The President of the United States is justified in calling out the militia to subdue local disturbances, without consent or request of state authorities.
18. Counties in which a lynching occurs should be placed under martial law until they give evidence of capacity to exercise effective local government, not exceeding a term of one year.
19. For the better protection of life, liberty, and property in rural districts a state constabulary is necessary.
_C. Judicial._
20. The recall of state and local judges by popular vote is desirable.
21. A two-thirds vote of the jury should constitute a verdict in criminal cases.
22. A two-thirds vote of the jury should constitute a verdict in civil cases.
23. Federal judges should be elected by popular vote.
24. The jury system should be abolished.
25. The courts should be forbidden by law to issue “blanket” injunctions in labor disputes.
26. The detention of innocent witnesses, pending the trial of cases in court, without adequate compensation and without proof of its necessity should be prohibited by law.
27. State judges should be appointed by the governor to hold office during life or good behavior.
28. The law governing judicial process should be so amended as to provide for the more speedy conduct of criminal cases, and fewer opportunities for delay in the execution of the sentences imposed.
29. It would be desirable to elect justices of the United States Supreme Court by popular vote.
_D. Franchise._
30. The right of suffrage should be limited to persons who can read and write.
31. There should be an educational test as a qualification for voting.
32. The white citizens of the South are justified in using all peaceable means to secure political supremacy.
33. Men and women should have equal suffrage.
34. The admission to citizenship into the United States should be granted under stricter requirements as to a working knowledge of rights and duties of the privileges conferred.
35. Admission of aliens to the privileges of citizenship should be granted on more restrictive conditions.
36. The admission of native-born and foreign-born citizens to the privilege of voting should be granted only upon evidence of due qualifications both as to knowledge of the rights and obligations and also of respect for the institutions and ideals of our national life.
_E. Immigration._
37. The immigration restrictions which now apply to the Chinese should be extended so as to apply to the Japanese.
38. The United States should make no discrimination between the immigrants from China and those from other countries.
39. Admission of further immigration to the United States, so long as the congestion of alien groups persist in our large cities, should be subject to Federal control of such arrivals for a definite period of years for purposes of better distribution with regard to the requirements of the different sections of the country.
40. The immigration of all Japanese and Chinese laborers to the United States should be prohibited by law.
_F. Miscellaneous._
41. Party lines should be disregarded in all elections.
42. Public advocacy of violent means for the subversion of government should be suppressed by law in the United States.
43. The United States should have exclusive jurisdiction over Behring Sea.
44. The sharing of public funds for purposes which ignore the constitutional separation of church and state is a menace to our Federal, State, and Municipal institutions and should be abandoned wherever inaugurated and prevented wherever existing or proposed.
45. The short ballot should be adopted in State and Municipal governments.
46. The tendency of political platform making is to overburden the Federal government with proposals whose nature and accomplishment are better adapted to State, Municipal, and other local governmental agencies.
47. Congress should provide for uniform Federal marriage and divorce laws. Constitutionality conceded.
48. All cities in the United States of over 5,000 inhabitants should adopt the commission form of government.
49. The “Galveston Plan” of city government by a board of directors insures increase of efficiency combined with a decrease of corruption in city affairs.
50. There should be a large and immediate increase in the United States Navy.
51. A political reformation in the United States looking to the formation of two new political parties is desirable.
52. The states should adopt the recall for all state and local officers except members of the judiciary.
53. A commission form of government is preferable to a mayor and council plan.
ECONOMIC
_A. Tariff._
54. Commercial reciprocity with Canada would be for the best interest of the United States.
55. The tariff on goods imported into the United States should be fixed by a bi-partisan commission.
56. The United States should impose a tariff on imports from the Philippines. Constitutionality conceded.
57. The protective tariff should be removed from trust-made products.
58. Raw materials should be admitted to the United States free of duty.
59. The tariff on raw materials is justified on the ground of the protection of American industry against foreign competition.
60. Sugar should be admitted to the United States free of duty.
61. Commercial reciprocity between the United States and South America would be for the best interests of the United States.
62. The United States should adopt the policy of tariff for revenue only.
63. Steel should be admitted to the United States free of duty.
64. All goods, the price of which is controlled by a single capitalist or combination of capitalists, should be admitted to the United States free of duty.
_B. Taxation._
65. The growth of large fortunes should be checked by means of national progressive income and inheritance taxes.
66. The Federal government should levy a progressive inheritance tax. Granted, that such tax would be held constitutional.
67. The Federal government should levy a progressive income tax. Constitutionality conceded.
68. The single tax as advocated by Henry George, would be an improvement over our present system of taxation.
69. The tax on the issue of state banks should be repealed.
70. That a graduated income tax would be a desirable addition to the Federal system of taxation.
71. A Federal graduated income tax with an exemption of all incomes below $5000 per annum would be a desirable modification of the system of Federal taxation.
_C. Corporations._
72. Congress should pass laws prohibiting corporate contributions to political campaign funds.
73. The regulating power of Congress should be extended over all corporations doing an interstate business. Constitutionality conceded.
74. All corporations engaged in interstate commerce should be required to take out a Federal license.
75. Physical valuation of the property of a corporation is the best basis for fixing the rate of taxation.
76. Railroad pooling is economically advantageous to the public.
77. The price of “trust-made” products should be regulated by law.
78. The National Bureau of Corporations should have control of industrial and commercial corporations doing interstate business, similar to the control which the Interstate Commerce Commission has over railroads.
79. All corporations engaged in interstate commerce should be required to take out Federal charters; it being conceded that such a requirement would be constitutional and that Federal license shall not be available as an alternative plan.
80. The policy of regulating industrial corporations is preferable to the policy of dissolving them.
_D. Labor._
81. The New Zealand system of compulsory arbitration should be adopted in the United States.
82. A system of compulsory arbitration should be adopted in the United States.
83. Employers and employees of all public service corporations such as railroads, street railways, etc., should be compelled to arbitrate labor disputes.
84. Members of trades-unions are justified in refusing to work with non-union men.
85. State boards of arbitration, with compulsory powers, should be established to settle all disputes between employers and employees.
86. Employers are justified in refusing recognition to labor unions.
87. The history of trades-unions for the past ten years shows a tendency detrimental to the industrial development of the United States.
88. The boycott is a legitimate means of enforcing the demands of organized labor.
89. The growth of labor unions is a menace to liberties of the working man.
90. The closed “shop” is justifiable.
91. Employers should be prohibited from setting up contributory negligence or negligence of a fellow servant as a bar to recovery of adequate compensation by an injured employee.
92. The right to strike on the part of public employees should always be subject to referendum on the part of the community immediately concerned.
93. It would be advisable to legalize the strike and the boycott.
94. The movement of organized labor for the closed shop should receive the support of public opinion.
95. The best interests of the laboring classes would be advanced by the development of a separate labor party.
_E. Public Ownership._
96. The Federal government should buy and operate the telegraph systems.
97. Municipalities in the United States of over 10,000 inhabitants should own and operate their systems for lighting and local transportation.
98. The United States should own and operate the coal mines within its borders.
99. The forests of the United States should be owned and operated by the Federal government.
_F. Miscellaneous._
100. The powers of the Interstate Commerce Commission should be enlarged.
101. The United States should subsidize our merchant marine.
102. It is economically advantageous to the United States to own territory in the tropics.
103. The amount of property transferable by inheritance should be limited by statute.
104. The existing systems of commercial distribution between producers and consumers is chiefly responsible for the high cost of living.
105. The national debt should be paid as rapidly as possible.
106. Mail order stores are a benefit to the public.
107. Prison-made products should be excluded from the open market.
108. The labor of prisoners in the state penitentiary should be utilized in improving the highways of the state.
109. The American coastwise traffic should pass through the Panama Canal toll free.
110. Congress should be given the power by constitutional amendment to regulate manufactures and industry.
111. The Federal government should establish a bank of the United States.
112. The Aldrich plan of a National Reserve Association should be adopted by the Federal government.
113. The Federal government should regulate and supervise all fire and life insurance companies doing an interstate business.
114. The Federal government should grant financial aid to ships engaged in our foreign trade and owned by citizens of the United States.
115. There should be some legislation providing for the guarantee of bank deposits.
116. The Federal government should develop the waterway from the Great Lakes to the Gulf.
117. A system of compulsory industrial insurance covering accident, sickness, and old age should be adopted in the United States. Constitutionality conceded.
118. The inland waterways of the United States should be extensively improved by the Federal government.
119. The United States should adopt a double monetary standard.
SOCIAL
_A. The Liquor Problem._
120. The elimination of private profits offers the best solution of the liquor problem.
121. Prohibition of the liquor traffic is preferable to any system of license, wherever public opinion will sanction the passage and enforcement of such a law.
122. The United States army should reëstablish the use of the canteen.
123. The Carolina Dispensary System for controlling the use and sale of intoxicating liquors should be adopted in the state of .
124. State prohibition has failed wherever it has been adopted.
125. Prohibition is more conducive to temperance than high license.
_B. International Peace._
126. The United States should at once announce and carry out a policy of total disarmament.
127. The present growth of armaments should be checked by mutual agreement between the nations.
128. The United States should immediately provide for an increase in its navy.
129. International peace is best promoted by extensive warlike preparations.
_C. Insurance and Pensions._
130. The German system of compulsory insurance should be adopted in the United States.
131. The Federal government should control all life insurance companies.
132. A system of compulsory industrial insurance should be adopted in the United States.
133. The United States government should grant uniform pensions to all citizens over sixty years of age.
134. The Federal government should grant old-age pensions.
_D. The Church._
135. All church property should be taxed.
136. The modern church should maintain more rigid rules regarding the personal conduct of its members.
137. A union of all Christian churches in the United States would further the cause of Christianity.
_E. Miscellaneous._
138. Sunday baseball should be prohibited.
139. Public libraries, museums, and art galleries should be open on Sunday.
140. Lavish social entertainments should be condemned.
141. In times of business depression the states and municipalities should furnish employment to the unemployed.
142. Capital punishment should be abolished.
143. All cities of over 25,000 population should establish free public employment bureaus.
144. State institutions should be established providing for the care and training of homeless children.
145. The growth of monopolies shows a tendency toward Socialism.
146. Congress should enact laws providing for the censorship of the stage.
147. Moving picture shows should be compelled to exhibit only such pictures as can be shown to have an educational or cultural value.
148. The United States is moving toward Socialism.
149. The tendency of the population of the United States to concentrate in the cities is detrimental to the best interest of the people.
150. Children under sixteen years of age should be prohibited by Federal law from working in factories.
151. A maximum eight hour working day for all occupations should be established by state law.
152. Vivisection should be prohibited by law.
153. Arctic and Antarctic expeditions should be looked upon with disfavor by the public.
154. The United States government should grant permanent copyright.
155. Automobiles should be prohibited from running more than fifteen miles an hour.
156. Railroads should be required by Federal and state law to adopt all devices such as block signals, steel passenger coaches, etc., which minimize the danger from wreck.
157. Greater security should be given by law to wills and bequests.
158. The negro is not fitted to exercise the right of suffrage.
159. There should be a state censorship of the stage.
160. Letter postage should be reduced to one cent.
161. Male citizens should be compelled to serve two years in the United States army.
162. Popular literature shows a decline in public morals.
163. Social settlement organizations offer the best means of conducting charitable work.
164. The plea of insanity shall not be available as a bar to punishment for crime.
165. Newspapers should be prohibited from publishing matter which has a tendency to corrupt the public morals.
EDUCATIONAL
_A. Common School._
166. The Bible should be taught in the public schools.
167. Free text-books should be furnished to all pupils below the high school grade.
168. The state should prescribe uniform text-books for the public schools.
169. Public funds should not be appropriated to aid private or sectarian schools.
170. No prizes should be offered in public schools.
_B. High School._
171. Every high school should be compelled to maintain courses in manual training and domestic science.
172. Secret societies should be prohibited in public high schools.
173. High school courses should be revised so as to furnish more practical educational training.
174. The high school course as at present given by almost all high schools is of no practical value to the pupil who does not go to college.
175. Military drill should be compulsory in all public high schools of the United States.
_C. College._
176. The honor system of examinations should be adopted by all American colleges.
177. Freshmen at should not be permitted to engage in intercollegiate athletics.
178. All college courses should be completely elective.
179. Athletics, as now conducted, are a detriment to American colleges.
180. No college should be located near a large city.
181. Denominational colleges should not receive financial aid from the state.
182. For the average student the small college is preferable to the large college.
183. Admission to American colleges should be by examination only.
184. Intercollegiate football should be abolished.
185. Segregation of sexes in American colleges and universities is preferable to coëducation.
186. Students in college courses who attain the rank of ninety per cent or higher in daily work should be excused from examinations.
187. Two years of college work should be required for admission to any course in law or medicine.
188. Written term examinations should be abolished.
189. The class rushes at the beginning of the college year should be prohibited.
190. Chapel attendance at the University of should be compulsory.
191. Student government should be established at the University of .
192. The Oxford type of university should be adopted in the United States.
193. For the average man a college education is an aid to business success.
194. The colleges of the state of should be combined into one centrally located university.
_D. Miscellaneous._
195. A National University should be established at Washington.
196. Novels should not be placed in circulation by public libraries until two years after publication.
197. The number of subjects taught in high schools and colleges should be greatly reduced.
198. The recommendations of the simplified spelling board should be adopted throughout the United States.
199. Night trade schools should be established as a part of our system of public instruction.
200. Industrial education will solve the negro race problem in the United States.
Printed in the United States of America.
The following pages contain advertisements of a few of the Macmillan books on kindred subjects
Public Speaking Principles and Practice
BY IRVAH LESTER WINTER
Assistant Professor of Public Speaking in Harvard University
_Cloth, 8vo, New Edition_, $2.00
EXTRACTS FROM THE PREFACE
This book is designed to set forth the main principles of effective platform delivery, and to provide a large body of material for student practice. The work laid out may be used to form a separate course of study, or a course of training running parallel with a course in debating or other original speaking. It has been prepared with a view also to that large number who want to speak, or have to speak, but cannot have the advantage of a teacher. Much is therefore said in the way of caution, and untechnical language is used throughout.
The discussion of principles in Part One is intended as a help towards the student’s understanding of his task, and also as a common basis of criticism in the relation between teacher and pupil. The preliminary fundamental work of Part Two, Technical Training, deals first with the right formation of tone, the development of voice as such, the securing of a fixed right vocal habit. Following comes the adapting of this improved voice to the varieties of use, or expressional effect, demanded of the public speaker. After this critical detailed drill, the student is to take the platform, and apply his acquired technique to continued discourse, receiving criticism after each entire piece of work.
The question as to what should be the plan and the content of Part Three, Platform Practice, has been determined simply by asking what are the distinctly varied conditions under which men most frequently speak. It is regarded as profitable for the student to practice, at least to some extent, in all the several kinds of speech here chosen. In thus cultivating versatility, he will greatly enlarge his power of expression, and will at length discover wherein lies his own special capability.
The principal aim in choosing the selections has been to have them sufficiently alive to be attractive to younger speakers, and not so heavy as to be unsuited to their powers. Some of them have proved effective by use; many others are new. In all cases they are of good quality.
BY CRAVEN LAYCOCK AND ROBERT L. SCALES
Argumentation and Debate
_Cloth, 12mo, $1.10_
In this work the peculiar difficulties which stand in the way of making a text-book at once teachable, practical, and easily understood, for use in teaching argumentation and debate, have been overcome. The treatment of the topics presented—the proposition, the issues, preliminary reading, evidence, kinds of arguments, fallacies, brief-drawing, the principles of presentation, refutation, and debate—is lucid and interesting as well as highly profitable.
BY EDWIN DUBOIS SHURTER
The Rhetoric of Oratory
_Cloth, 12mo, $1.10_
“An unusually sensible and scientific treatment of the subject, as helpful to the graduate who is already in the game of life as to teacher and student in secondary school and college. It deals with the rhetoric of oratory, rather than the elocution of oratory.”—_Journal of Education._
BY SAMUEL B. HARDING
Select Orations Illustrating American Political History
_Cloth, 12mo, $1.25_
Every oration in this volume has exerted some great influence on political action or political opinion and reveals better than anything else the real spirit of the country at the time when it was delivered. The essays were selected by Samuel B. Harding, Professor of History in Indiana University, while John M. Clapp, Professor of English in Lake Forest University, supplied the introduction on oratorical style and structure.
BY MILTON PERCIVAL AND R. A. JELLIFFE
Of Oberlin College
Specimens of Exposition and Argument
_Cloth, 12mo_, $0.90
The selections in this volume, chosen from a wide range of literature, illustrate the different phases of argument such as persuasion, refutation, and controversy, and the different types of exposition such as descriptions, explanations, definitions, and interpretations.
“It is not often that the student is given the opportunity to use a text-book at once so fascinating and so essentially practical.”—_Philadelphia Public Ledger._
Edited by EDWIN DUBOIS SHURTER, Associate Professor of Public Speaking in the University of Texas, New York.
Representative College Orations
_Cloth, 12mo, $1.25_
Intended primarily to furnish selective material for critical analysis by students in the colleges, the book will be of interest to the general reader as indicative of what college students of to-day are thinking and talking about. As the only collection of college orations which attempts to cover the whole field, the sixty-three orations here presented will furnish a better opportunity for comparison and a far greater variety of illustrative matter than has hitherto been available.
BY G. R. CARPENTER AND W. T. BREWSTER
Modern English Prose
_Cloth, 12mo, $1.10_
“This book will prove of great service to English teachers. The selections, complete and unabridged as they are, and made with nice discrimination, will be welcomed by instructors who desire to place before their pupils some of the best examples of modern prose writing.”—WILMOT B. MITCHELL, Bowdoin College, Maine.
BY W. T. BREWSTER
Specimens of Modern English Literary Criticism
_Cloth, 12mo $1.00_
This book belongs to the realm of rhetoric rather than of literature or literary history. It aims to use critical writing more completely than is done in any text-book of selections as an agent in rhetorical study and intellectual discipline. The selections cover Leslie Stephen, Dr. Johnson, Macaulay, Henry James, Matthew Arnold, Shelley, Coleridge, and others, with many notes and an excellent and comprehensive introduction.
Studies in Structure and Style
With an Introduction by GEORGE RICE CARPENTER, Professor of Rhetoric and English Composition in Columbia University
_Cloth, 12mo, $1.10_
The author has used rare discrimination in selecting the essays which he discusses, insisting that they should be of the highest class of modern literature and that they should serve as models to the student. The analysis of structure and style in these volumes is most able, and the book will be found a most valuable one as a text in the higher institutions of learning.
BY WILBUR L. CROSS
The Development of the English Novel
_Cloth, 12mo, $1.50_
“This thorough and comprehensive work on English fiction is based upon sound scholarship. Professor Cross has mastered his material, and his presentation is not only logical in its general classifications but entirely adequate in its particulars. For these reasons it is an admirable text-book, and the student will find, besides the organic treatment of the whole, a basis for an exhaustive study of independent periods.”—_The Washington Star._
By HENRY SEIDEL CANBY, Ph.D., FREDERICK ERASTUS PIERCE, Ph.D., HENRY NOBLE MCCRACKEN, Ph.D., ALFRED ARUNDEL MAY, M.A., THOMAS GODDARD WRIGHT, M.A., of the Department of English Composition in the Sheffield Scientific School of Yale University, New York.
English Composition in Theory and Practice
New and revised edition.
_Cloth, 12mo, $1.25_
The authors of this volume have combined in one book a set of directions for good writing, based upon sound principles and written, primarily, for the student, with a varied and extensive collection of examples drawn from all the forms of discourse, and inclusive of both brief excerpts and complete essays, arguments, and stories. Additional supplementary material has been added in the several appendices. The authors have endeavored to give to each of the four forms of discourse the proportionate space and the kind of treatment which the average student requires. The whole composition, the paragraph, the sentence, and the word have been discussed in their relation to Exposition, because, for the average student, it is the power to explain clearly which is of primary importance. Thus Exposition has been given a predominant space. The chapter on the Sentence goes into minute detail because the average student, at present, does not understand the structure of the sentence; the chapter on Narrative deals with constructive problems mainly, because it is in learning to construct a story that the Freshman can best make Narrative increase his powers of expression; the chapter on Description includes literary and esthetic problems, because one variety of Description can only thus be taught. An order of succession for these various topics has been chosen after experiment with many classes. Nevertheless, except that Exposition must come first, the instructor will find that the plan of this book permits any arrangement of subjects.
Guided by the results of two years’ remarkably extensive use of the first edition, the authors revised and rewrote the entire book. In the new edition, therefore, the defects of the earlier work do not appear, while the general plan, which proved so successful, is, of course, retained. Hence the book is now unique in its effectiveness as a teaching text—one in which the actual difficulties of the student are clearly realized, only to be met with practical, definite and concrete means of overcoming them.
PUBLISHED BY THE MACMILLAN COMPANY Publishers 64–66 Fifth Avenue New York
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
1. Silently corrected typographical errors and variations in spelling. 2. Archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings retained as printed. 3. Footnotes have been re-indexed using numbers. 4. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_. 5. Enclosed bold font in =equals=.