propose to deny. A critically correct use of language is essential to the proper statement and enforcement of truth.

34. Discussions nevertheless possible, with a clear understanding of Terms. Some questions are answered by strict definition, but there are many questions upon which a diversity of opinion exists, and upon which there may be profitable discussion even though both parties understand the terms in the same

sense.

35. Example. Suppose, for instance, the question arises, as it often has before legislative, and judicial, and military bodies: Shall duelling be regarded as murder? It is necessary first to define duelling accurately, so as to distinguish it from ordinary quarrelling, even though with an intention to kill; from assault and battery; from a malicious plotting secretly to take the life of another; and the element of the voluntary exposure of both parties to death must not be left out of account. Then murder must be defined

with equal care. If both parties can agree on the definitions, it is well; if not, each party must endeavor to show that his view of the meaning of the question is correct, and carry conviction on that point to his hearers, if possible. Should an agreement exist on the meaning of the terms, there would still be room, : on this subject, for a discussion that would involve many nice and profound investigations in morals, politics, and religion.

It is the province of logic, not of rhetoric, to classify the kinds of argumentation. To find or invent

RULES TO BE OBSERVED.

335

arguments, no rule can be given. It is the product of pure thought. An understanding of the subject implies their existence.

36. The Second Rule in Discussions. The second rule in discussion is to endeavor to survey, as widely and thoroughly as possible, all the arguments you can command on the question, both for and against the proposition which you intend to maintain, before you construct your own brief, or order of argumentation.

Feeble reasoners plunge into a discussion before they have surveyed the other side. The consequence is that they are often surprised and confounded and overwhelmed by opposition, which, if they had anticipated it and thoroughly surveyed it, might easily have been removed. It would be well even to make out an outline of the arguments on both sides of the question, and then espouse and defend what you know to be right.

37. The Third Rule. It is proper to take advantage of passions, temperaments, circumstances, and even prejudices, to conciliate the favor of opponents, and to enlist the attention of the audience, provided that no falsehood be maintained.

Arguments, therefore, should be skillfully and artistically arranged. If there is some one consideration that, though true and weighty, your audience will not listen to, or duly examine, keep it back till you have conciliated their approval. If there is a feeble argument that nevertheless has here superior influence, bring it into the foreground.

In the general, strong arguments should be used

first, and the very strongest perhaps last, to leave a profound impression upon the mind.

If questionable arguments are to be employed, let it be distinctly understood that the conclusion is not to be based on them, so that, if refuted, the cause is not lost.

38. The Burden of Proof. In all practical discussions it is well primarily to determine with which side "the burden of proof" lies. If a change in action is advocated, the burden of proof, or the necessity of making out his case, lies with the affirmative; the contestant has nothing to prove but the falsity or weakness of the arguments adduced in favor of change. Every man is to be esteemed innocent till shown to be guilty. The burden of proof is with the complainant. No one should allow himself to be required to prove what need not be proved to sustain his cause.

39. Allowance to Opponents.—In refutation, a truly strong reasoner, who is confident of right, and confident of a mastery of his subject, can afford to allow all that is undeniably true in the statements of his opponent; but he will carefully separate the true from the false, and show that the acknowledgment of the one does not carry with it the other.

40. Personal Abuse.-The personal abuse of an opponent, however common in feeble reasoners, and however many examples of it may be found even of a high character, should not be resorted to. It almost always betrays a want of confidence in the righteousness of a cause, and seldom aids in producing conviction. The habit of offensive personalities in debate

EXAMPLE.

337

almost invariably weakens the influence of an ora

tor.

41. Example of Invention in Discussion.-To show how the mind works in inventing argumentation let us look at an actual instance, instead of undertaking a description of the theory. In 1829 a debate arose in the United States Senate, on a subject upon which opinions seemed to be nearly equally divided, and which was postponed without decision, after calling forth several able speeches. Let us notice briefly how the senators "invented" or formed and arranged their arguments on this occasion. The question in dispute was, whether a committee should "inquire into the expediency of limiting for a period the sales of public lands to such as had already been offered for sale, and of abolishing the office of surveyor-general." Although nearly half of the members participated in the discussion, and many days were spent upon it, the chief interest centres in the speeches of Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina, and Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts. Mr. Hayne advocated the proposed resolution by asserting, (1.) The importance of the public land question—it deserved investigation; (2.) There were two great parties in the country on the subject-one favoring giving lands to actual settlers, and the other desiring to make money by their sale, and this party oppressed actual settlers; (3.) The nation had been too niggardly and oppressive to settlers hitherto, and especially the Northern States were open to this charge; (4.) Obtaining a fund by the sale of lands would lead to extravagance and corruption; (5.)

P

Selling the public lands would consolidate the States too much and destroy the independence of the sepa mte States; (6.) Finally, some way should be ascertained to arrest threatened evils.

These propositions were expanded into an impressive speech of more than an hour.

Mr. Webster, in reply, was aided in his invention of arguments by the course already pursued, as it was his purpose to weaken the effect of Mr. Hayne's arguments. An abstract of his speech may thus be drawn up: (1.) A denial of the importance of the inquiry, because all who needed land could purchase it cheaply. (2.) A denial that any party had advocated an oppression of new settlers. (3.) An assertion that the nation asked for its lands only enough to pay for the actual expense of surveying them and protecting the settlers. (4.) An assertion that the present system led to the rapid growth of new and prosperous States. (5.) That there was an actual compact entered into by which the proceeds of lands sold were to be devoted to the payment of the national debt. (6.) It was necessary that the nation should be consolidated. (7.) A defense of the course pursued by the Northern States with reference to the West.

These arguments were expanded into an eloquent speech of about two hours in length.

To this Mr. Hayne rejoined in a speech that was thought at the time to be overwhelming and unanswerable. Much of a personal character was mingled with the debate, but the leading propositions of the speech were as follows: