1. _An argument should not have an abrupt and jerky ending_. It is not uncommon especially in cla.s.s room debate, to hear a student at the close of his discussion say, "This is my proof; I leave the decision to the judges"; or "Thus you see I have established my proposition." Such an ending can in no way be called a conclusion or a peroration.

2. _A conclusion should contain no new proof_. Violations of this principle brand an arguer as careless, and greatly weaken his argument. Proof is most convincing when arranged in its proper place and in its logical order. Furthermore, the purpose of the conclusion is to review the points that have already been established. If the arguer forgets this fact and mixes proof with summary, the audience is liable to become badly confused and not know what has been established and what has not.

3. _A conclusion should not refer to a point that has not already been established_. A careless writer or debater will sometimes state that he has proved an argument which he has not previously touched upon. Such a procedure smacks of trickery or ignorance, and is sure to be disastrous. Not only will the audience throw out that particular point, but they will be highly prejudiced against both the arguer and his argument. It is permissible for one to maintain that he has proved a point even though the proof be somewhat inadequate, but for one to refer in his conclusion to a point that he then mentions for the first time is unpardonable.

4. _A conclusion must reaffirm the proposition exactly as stated at the beginning_. Sometimes a writer, discovering at the close of his argument that he has not stuck to his subject but has proved something different, or at best has proved only a part of his subject, states as his decision a totally different proposition from that with which he started. To ill.u.s.trate, a student once attempted to argue on the affirmative side of the proposition, "The United States should discontinue its protective tariff policy"; but he gave as his concluding sentence, "These facts, then, prove to you that our present tariff duties are too high." This last sentence embodied the real proposition which he had discussed, and if he had taken as his subject, "Our present tariff duties are too high," his argument would have been successful. As it was, his failure to support the proposition with which he started rendered his whole effort worthless.

A conclusion that is weaker than the proposition is commonly called a "qualifying conclusion." When one has fallen into this error there are two possible ways of removing it: one is to change the whole argument so that the conclusion will affirm the truth or falsity of the proposition; the other is to change the proposition. In a debate, of course, or whenever a subject is a.s.signed, the latter method cannot be followed.

As a final example of what a good peroration should be, consider the following conclusion of Webster's speech, delivered in the United States Senate, on _The Presidential Veto of the United States Bank Bill_. Notice the skillful interweaving of conviction and persuasion, and remember in connection with the principle of proportion that this is the conclusion of a speech containing about 14,000 words.

"Mr. President, we have arrived at a new epoch. We are entering on experiments, with the government and the Const.i.tution of the country, hitherto untried, and of fearful and appalling aspect. This message calls us to the contemplation of a future which little resembles the past. Its principles are at war with all that public opinion has sustained, and all which the experience of the government has sanctioned. It denies first principles; it contradicts truths, hitherto received as indisputable. It denies to the judiciary the interpretation of law, and claims to divide with Congress the power of originating statutes. It extends the grasp of executive pretension over every power of the government. But this is not all. It presents the chief magistrate of the Union in the att.i.tude of arguing away the powers of that government over which he has been chosen to preside; and adopting for this purpose modes of reasoning which, even under the influence of all proper feeling towards high official station, it is difficult to regard as respectable. It appeals to every prejudice which may betray men into a mistaken view of their own interests, and to every pa.s.sion which may lead them to disobey the impulses of their understanding. It urges all the specious topics of State rights and national encroachment against that which a great majority of the States have affirmed to be rightful, and in which all of them have acquiesced. It sows, in an unsparing manner, the seeds of jealousy and ill-will against that government of which its author is the official head. It raises a cry, that liberty is in danger, at the very moment when it puts forth claims to powers heretofore unknown and unheard of.

It affects alarm for the public freedom, when nothing endangers that freedom so much as its own unparalleled pretences. This, even, is not all. It manifestly seeks to inflame the poor against the rich; it wantonly attacks whole cla.s.ses of the people, for the purpose of turning against them the prejudices and the resentment of other cla.s.ses. It is a state paper which finds no topic too exciting for its use, no pa.s.sion to inflammable for its address and its solicitation.

"Such is this message. It remains now for the people of the United States to choose between the principles here avowed and their government. These cannot subsist together. The one or the other must be rejected. If the sentiments of the message shall receive general approbation, the Const.i.tution will have perished even earlier than the moment which its enemies originally allowed for the termination of its existence. It will not have survived to its fiftieth year." [Footnote: Webster's Great Speeches, page 338.]

APPENDICES.

APPENDIX A

A WRITTEN ARGUMENT AND ITS BRIEF.

SHOULD IMMIGRATION BE RESTRICTED? [Footnote: The North American Review, May, 1897, page 526.]

SIMON GREENLEAF CROSWELL

During recent years there has been a growing interest in plans for further checking or limiting the tide of immigration whose waves sweep in upon the United States almost daily in constantly increasing volume. Several restrictive measures are already in force: paupers, idiots, contract laborers, the Chinese, and several other cla.s.ses of people are prohibited from entering our ports. The subject has been discussed in legislatures, in political meetings, from pulpits, in reform clubs, and among individuals on every hand. The reason for the interest which the subject now excites is easily found in the recent enormous increase of immigration.

The problem divides itself at the outset into two distinct questions: First, is it for the advantage of the United States that immigration be further checked or limited? Second, if so, in what way should the check or limit be applied?

It is evident that these questions cover two distinct fields of inquiry, the industrial and the political. Nor can the two fields be examined simultaneously, for the reasons, if there are any, from a political point of view, why immigration should be limited, would not apply to the questions viewed on its industrial side, and _vice versa_.

Taking up first the industrial question, we may a.s.sume that the entrance of the swarms of immigrants into our country represents the introduction of just so much laboring power into the country, and we may also a.s.sume as a self-evident proposition that the introduction of laboring power into an undeveloped or partially developed country is advantageous until the point is reached at which all the laborers whom the country can support have been introduced. Adam Smith says that labor is the wealth of nations. If this is true, the laborer is the direct and only primary means of acquiring wealth. The facts of the history of our country bear out this view. Beginning with the clearing of the forests, the settlements of the villages, the cultivation of farms, proceeding to the establishment of the lumber industries, the cultivation of vast wheat and corn fields, the production of cotton, the working of the coal and oil fields of Pennsylvania, the development of the mining districts of the West, culminating in the varied and extensive manufactures of the Eastern and Central States, the laborer has been the Midas whose touch has turned all things to gold.

There is, however, a limitation to the principle that the introduction of laborers into a partially developed country is advantageous. A point is finally reached which may be called the saturation point of the country; that is, it has as many inhabitants as it can supply with reasonably good food and clothing. This saturation point may be reached many times in the history of a country, for the ratio between the food and clothing products and the population is constantly varying. New modes of cultivation, and the use of machinery, as well as natural causes affecting the fertility of land, which are as yet obscure, render a country at one time capable of supporting a much larger number of inhabitants than at another time. Still, there is a broad and general truth that, time and place and kind of people being considered, some countries are over-populated, and some are under- populated.

We are accustomed to say that some of the countries of Europe are over-populated, and there are among us some who are beginning to say that the United States has reached the same point. This is far from being the case, and a single glance at the comparative average density of population of the princ.i.p.al European nations and of the United States will be sufficient to drive this idea out of any fair-minded person's head.

The most thickly settled country of modern Europe is the Netherlands, which had, in the year 1890, the very large average of three hundred and fifty-nine inhabitants per square mile of territory. Great Britain came next, with the almost equally large average of three hundred and eleven inhabitants per square mile of territory. Germany had two hundred and thirty-four and France one hundred and eighty-seven.

Taking in for purposes of comparison, though not of much force in the argument, China, we find there an average population of two hundred and ninety-five inhabitants per square mile of territory. It is a question of some difficulty to decide in any specific case whether a country has reached the point of over-population. We may admit that Great Britain, with its average of three hundred and eleven inhabitants per mile, is over-populated, though the conditions of life do not seem to be wholly intolerable, even to the lowest cla.s.ses there. If Great Britain is over-populated, _a fortiori_ are the Netherlands, and we may even go so far as to admit that Germany, with its average of two hundred and thirty-four inhabitants per square mile, is over-populated. But when we come to France, with its one hundred and eighty-seven inhabitants per square mile, we may pause and see what are the conditions of the French people. So far as it is possible to judge of a people in the lump, it would seem that the population of France is not excessive for the area. The land holdings are divided up into very small lots, but are held by a great number of people. Mackenzie, in his history of the nineteenth century, says that nearly two-thirds of the French householders are landowners, while only one British householder in every four is an owner of land. This condition results partly from the difference in the system of inheritance of land in the two countries, but would be impossible if the country were over-populated. Moreover, there are five millions of people in France whose possessions in land are under six acres each.

Taking, then, the population of France, averaging 187 per square mile, as being at least not above the normal rate of population, what do we find in comparing it with the population of the United States?

We find over here vast tracts of country, amounting to nearly one- third by actual measurement, of the whole area of the United States, and including all the States west of the Missouri and Mississippi valleys (except a portion of California), having a population of less than six individuals per square mile. It would seem as if the mere statement of this fact were alone sufficient to disprove any proposition which a.s.serts that the saturation point of population has been reached in the United States. While that immense expanse of country averages only six individuals to the square mile, there can be no reason for saying that this country is over-populated. Coming now to the more thickly settled portions of the United States, we find a large area spread out over various parts of the States having a population between seven and forty-five individuals per square mile.

In a very few States, New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana, the population of the whole State averages over forty-five and under ninety individuals per square mile, and the same average holds in parts of Ma.s.sachusetts, Connecticut, Illinois, Kentucky, and isolated spots in the South. In a small territory, made up of parts of Ma.s.sachusetts, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, the population averages over ninety per square mile.

The contrast between these averages of population in various portions of the United States, the highest of which is about ninety individuals per mile (and that over very small portions of the area of the United States) and the average densities of the European countries, previously examined, shows how very far the United States is from complete population. This appears still more clearly when the average population of the United States taken as a whole, is considered, which is the extraordinary low figure of twenty individuals per square mile of territory What a striking contrast! Can the most ardent advocate of the Malthusian doctrine claim that the United States already has too many inhabitants, or is in danger of having too many in the immediate future? Do we not rather need to encourage immigration, to fling wide open the gates of our country and secure as large an addition to our working force as possible?

When we come to the political aspect of the problem, however, a wholly different series of considerations present themselves. The question now is not how many citizens, but what sort of citizens. The theory of our government is not limited to any number of people. It provides for expansion in the number of representatives in Congress in proportion to the increase in population, and increases the number of Senators as new States are formed and added to the Union. Similarly each State government has elastic provisions which enable it to cover a population of 400,000 as well as a population of 40,000. But the one critical test in determining whether or not our immigration should be limited for political reasons is the character of the people whom we are admitting to the privilege of citizenship in the United States.

In order to investigate successfully the political effect of the immigration, it is necessary, at the outset, to divide it into its const.i.tuent nationalities, so that taking up each nationality in turn, we may see what fitness it has from its previous political training in its native country for undertaking the duties of American citizenship.

The disintegration of the tide of immigration into these const.i.tuent parts affords some interesting information which will be seen to have a bearing, in several directions, on the questions under consideration in this article. Taking the statistics of the year 1891 as a typical year of recent immigration, the tide of immigration amounted in round numbers to 500,000 individuals.

The largest feeder of this enormous stream came from Germany, which sent, roughly speaking, 100,000. But a noticeable point about this nationality is the great decrease in the number of immigrants it has sent us in the last fifteen years. In the year 1882 the total German immigration into the United States amounted to no less than 250,000, but in 1883 and 1884 there was a great decrease, and since then the average has remained in the neighborhood of 100,000. We shall see later that on the other hand, the immigration from the Latin and Slav nations of Europe, particularly Italy, Poland, and Austria, shows an enormous rate of increase in the same period, although, of course, the absolute amounts are much less than those of the German immigration.

The next largest feeder to our stream of immigration in the year 1891, the typical year of our examination, was Italy, which contributed 76,000 immigrants to our population. It is noteworthy to remark, in this connection, that Italy has more than doubled her annual rate of contributions to our people in the ten years under consideration, the immigration from her sh.o.r.es in 1882 being only 32,000.

The next largest contributor is Austria, which in 1891 furnished 71,000 new members of our community. Austria, too, has doubled her rate of contribution, sending us in 1882 only 32,000. Next come, side by side, in their offerings to our population, England and Ireland, each of which countries sends us about 50,000 new inhabitants each year, and has continued to do so for the last fifteen years. Russia, exclusive of Poland, sent 47,000 in 1891, this being three times the number which she sent in 1882, a large increase. Sweden came next with 36,000 immigrants and that country shows a woeful falling-off of nearly one-half in the ten years under consideration, for in the year 1882 it sent 64,000. Poland in 1891 sent us 27,000 immigrants, showing an enormous increase of nearly sevenfold over its contribution of 4,000 in 1882. Scotland and Norway and Denmark all send about the same number, that is, about 12,000 each; Norway showing a diminution in the decade ending 1891, from 29,000 in 1882, but the other two remaining about stationary. Switzerland in 1891 sent 6,000, a diminution from 10,000 in 1882. The Netherlands sent 5,000 in 1891, a decrease from 9,000 in 1882. France sent 6,000 and Belgium 3,000, these figures being about the same during all the years covered by our investigation. I have left out of account the only other important factor in our immigration in the ten years considered, namely, China, because the door was shut in its face with considerable emphasis in 1883, and the immigration from China to the Western States, which in 1882 amounted to 40,000 fell in 1883 to 8,000, and in 1884 to 279 individuals, and may, therefore, be neglected at the present time.

Now, an examination of the political inst.i.tutions in the countries from which these immigrants come would show that in almost no case, that of Russia and Poland alone excepted, are the elements of representative government wholly unknown to the common people. In most of these countries, some form of popular government has, either wholly or partially, gained a footing, with the inevitable result of accustoming people more or less to representative inst.i.tutions. Yet the short time that this has been the case in many of the countries which pour half or over of the total flood of immigration into the United States, and the long centuries of despotism which preceded this partial and recent enlightenment, make it painfully evident that there can be, in the large part of our immigrants, little knowledge of the republican form of government, and little inherited apt.i.tude for such government. It would at first seem as if the results of such immigration must be disastrous to our country.

And yet the situation is not so hopeless. There is nothing mysterious, or even very complicated, about republican inst.i.tutions. A little time, a little study, a little experience with the practical workings of elections, is sufficient to convey to any person of ordinary intelligence as much familiarity with these matters as is necessary for the intelligent appreciation of their objects and purposes. Nor is the material out of which the prospective citizen is to be made wholly unfitted for its purpose. To be sure, the Latin races, the Slavs, Hungarians, Poles, and others have no inherited apt.i.tude, nor if we may judge from the history of the races, any inherent capacity for self-government and free inst.i.tutions, but, as I have before said, in almost every case they have had in their own country a partial training in the forms of representative government. All that is needed is to amalgamate this heterogeneous ma.s.s, to fuse its elements in the heat and glow of our national life, until, formed in the mould of everyday experience, each one shall possess the characteristic features of what we believe to be the highest type of human development which the world has seen, the American citizen.

The process of acquiring American citizenship is regulated by acts of Congress. It is a simple process. Practically all that is required is a continuous residence of five years in the States, and one year in the special State in which citizenship is applied for, and the declaration of intention to become a citizen may be made immediately upon landing. This last point will be seen later to be very important.

Citizenship in the United States, however, under the act of Congress, does not carry with it the right to vote. This right is entirely a matter of State regulation, and the Const.i.tution or statutes of each State settle who shall have the right to vote in its elections. The underlying idea of the whole system is universal male suffrage, and the franchise is granted (after a certain residence, which will be discussed later) with only certain general limitations of obvious utility, such as that the voter must be twenty-one years of age, that he must not be an idiot or insane, and generally, that he must not have been convicted of any felony or infamous crime, although in many States a pardon, or the serving of a sentence, will restore a felon to his civil rights. In a few of the States paupers are also excluded from voting. With the question of woman suffrage we have nothing to do, as its settlement, one way or the other, does not affect the subject we are discussing.

The important qualification, however, in relation to the subjects which we are discussing, is that which requires residence in the State previous to the exercise of the franchise. And on this point the States may be divided into two great cla.s.ses. One cla.s.s allows no one to vote who is not, under the laws of Congress, a citizen of the United States, either native or naturalized. As we have seen that five years' residence is a requisite to United States citizenship, these States, therefore, require five years' residence as a prerequisite to acquiring the right to vote. These States are California, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Ma.s.sachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington. This requirement is admirably calculated to secure that preliminary training in the practical working of our inst.i.tutions which must be necessary to most of the immigrants before they can intelligently exercise the rights which are conferred upon them by American citizenship and we cannot but admire the sagacity and judiciousness of those who framed our naturalization laws in selecting this period of time for the pupilage of the intending citizen. The period is long enough even for one who is engrossed in the cares of earning a support for himself and his family, amid all the excitement and novelty of a changed residence, to acquire in the five succeeding annual elections a sufficient knowledge of republican government for all practical purpose. To delay him longer in the exercise of his political rights would be an injustice; to admit him to them sooner would be an imprudence.

There are in a few States other qualifications required of a voter.

The most important of these is the educational qualification, which exists only in Connecticut and Ma.s.sachusetts. In neither of these is it very severe. In Connecticut the voter must be able to read any article in the State Const.i.tution, and any section of the statutes. In Ma.s.sachusetts he must be able to read the Const.i.tution and to write his name. Too much praise can hardly be given to these requirements.

The whole edifice of our national life is founded upon education, and to this potent factor must we look for many of the improvements necessary to the proper development of our national life.

In quite a number of States a pecuniary qualification exists in the shape of the payment of some tax, generally a poll tax, within two years previous to the date of the election. This requirement does not seem to be so germane to the spirit of our inst.i.tutions as the other.

The great present danger of our country is the danger of becoming a plutocracy, and while there is no doubt that a widespread interest in property develops stability of inst.i.tutions, yet there is also great danger of capital obtaining so firm and strong a hold upon political inst.i.tutions as to crush out the life of free government and to convert the national government into a species of close corporation, in which the relative wealth of the parties alone controls. This qualification is found in Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas.

We have now examined with some thoroughness the component parts of the tide of immigration as it arrives at our sh.o.r.es; we have seen what nationalities go to make up the grand total and what previous training they have had in the political inst.i.tutions of their native countries to fit them for American citizenship, and what additional requirements are imposed upon them by our statutes before they can partic.i.p.ate in voting and government in this country. What are the conclusions to which the view of these facts brings us? They seem to me to be these: first, that the growth of immigration is a desirable thing for this country from an industrial point of view; second, that the immigrants who arrive at our sh.o.r.es are for the most part good material out of which to make American citizens. Applying these conclusions to the questions which were stated at the outset of this article; first, is it for the advantage of the United States that immigration should be checked or limited? second, if so, in what way should the check or limit be applied? the answer would be that no further check or limit should be applied, but that a check should be placed upon the exercise of the franchise by immigrants in all States by requiring a residence of five years in this country before they can vote, and by also requiring some moderate educational test.

With these safeguards established we might look without any serious apprehension upon the increase of our population. The founders of our state moulded the outlines of its form in large and n.o.ble lines. The skeleton has grown and clothed itself with flesh with almost incredible rapidity in the hundred years of its existence. But it is still young. We should avoid any measures which would stunt or deform its growth and should allow it to develop freely and generously till the full-grown American nation stands forth pre-eminent among the nations of the earth, in size, as well as in character and organization, and man's last experiment in government is clearly seen to be an unequivocal success.

ARGUMENT AND BRIEF

SHOULD IMMIGRATION BE RESTRICTED?

NEGATIVE BRIEF.

INTRODUCTION.

I. The enormous increase in immigration gives rise to a growing interest in some plan for further limiting the number of immigrants coming to the United States.