The second division of a brief, corresponding to the second division of a complete argument, is called the discussion. In this part of his brief the arguer logically arranges all the evidence and reasoning that he wishes to use in establishing or overthrowing his proposition. Illustrative material, rhetorical embellishment, and other forms of persuasion that may enter into the finished argument are omitted, but the real proof is complete in the brief.

There are two possible systems of arranging proof. For the sake of convenience they may be called the "because" method and the "therefore" method. These methods derive their names from the connectives that are used. When the "because" method is used, the proof follows the statement being established, and is connected to this statement with some such word as: as, because, for, or since. To illustrate:—

I. Expenses at a country college are less than at a city college, because

A. At the country college room rent is cheaper.

B. Table board costs less.

C. Amusement places are less numerous.

Under the "therefore" method, the proof precedes the statement being established; the connectives are hence and therefore. The previous argument arranged in this form would read as follows:—

A. Since room rent is cheaper at the country college than at the city college, and

B. Since table board costs less, and

C. Since amusement places are less numerous, therefore.

I. Expenses at a country college are less than at a city college.

The student should always use the "because" method of arrangement. It is preferable to the "therefore" method since it affords a much easier apprehension of the argument advanced. If the reader of the brief has the conclusion in his mind at the very start, he can test the strength and adequacy of the proof very quickly, and can, perhaps, the first time he reads the argument form an opinion as to its worth. But he will almost always have difficulty in grasping the significance of evidence and reasoning before he knows what the proof is expected to prove. The "therefore" method usually obliges a careful reasoner, after finally reaching the conclusion, to go over the whole proof a second time.

To assist the student in carrying out the proper arrangement of his proof, two rules have been formulated. One rule deals with main headings, the headings marked with the Roman numerals; the other deals with subordinate headings.

Rule IX. Phrase each principal statement in the discussion so that it will read as a reason for the truth or the falsity of the proposition.

Rule X. Phrase each subordinate statement in the discussion so that it will read as a reason for the truth of the statement to which it is subordinate. The connectives to be used are: as, because, for, and since.

In connection with the first of these rules, notice that principal headings read as reasons for the truth or the falsity of the proposition. Obviously they read as reasons for the truth if the brief is on the affirmative side, and for the falsity if the brief is on the negative side. Headings and subheadings should always be supported, not demolished.

The error of making unsupported statements in a complete argument has already been discussed. Assertion in a brief is equally faulty. To insure belief, all statements must rest ultimately either upon the testimony of witnesses or upon statements admitted to be true.

Notice how unconvincing is the following portion of a brief:—

Proposition—American cities should own and operate all street-car lines within their limits.

I. The present system of operating street-car lines is efficient,
for

A. The street-car service in the United States is the best in
the world.

B. Street-car fare in the United States is remarkably low.

The insertion of testimony, however, to substantiate A and B turns this bit of brief into excellent proof.

I. The present system of operating street-car lines is efficient,
for

A. The street-car service in the United States is the best in
the world, because

1. It is best in respect to extent, since

a. James W. Garner says that England has less than a quarter of the street-car facilities found in the United States. (Dial, Feb. 1908, p. 20.)

b. In 1902, two hundred and ninety-five communities in the United Kingdom of from 8,000 to 25,000 inhabitants were without street cars; while in the United States there were only twenty-one such communities. (Municipal and Private Operation of Public Utilities, W. J. Clark, Vol. I, p. 445.)

2. It is best in regard to equipment and accommodation, since

a. The cars are the best equipped in the world. (Ibid.)

b. The cars are run with shorter intervals between them than anywhere else in the world. (Ibid.)

B. The fare in the United States is remarkably low, because

1. Although the fare in Glasgow, a leading exponent of municipal ownership, is but twopence, yet it will carry one only eight miles; but five cents in New York will carry one fifty miles.

Rule XI. Make no unsupported statements unless they are generally admitted to be true.

It has already been shown that the arguer must reveal to his audience the sources from which he gathered his evidence. If he gained certain information from magazines, he should state definitely the name, the volume, and the page; if he gained his information elsewhere, he should be equally explicit. Since this knowledge of the source of the evidence is essential to the success of the proof, a statement of the sources is a part of the work of conviction. Accordingly, these sources must be stated in the brief as well as in the expanded argument. Thus the rule:—

Rule XII. After all evidence state in parentheses the source from which it came.

In addition to establishing the side of the proposition which it advocates, a good brief almost invariably refutes the main arguments of the opposite side. The way in which this refutation is expressed is very important. A brief on the affirmative side of the proposition, "Resolved, That the Panama canal should be built at sea-level," would be weak and ludicrous, if, when answering the argument for the negative that the cost of a sea-level canal would be enormous, it should contain the following reasoning:—

The Panama Canal should be built at sea-level,
(for)
I. The cost would not be much greater than for a lock canal.

One might think from this statement that the drawer of the brief considered the contention that the sea-level type would cost a little though not much more than the other type, a positive argument in favor of the sea-level canal. In reality it is nothing of the sort. The arguer is merely trying to destroy his opponent's argument to the effect that expense is an obstacle in the way of the sea-level type. This refutation should be expressed in such a manner as to show that it is refutation and not positive proof. It might well read something like this:—

The Panama Canal should be built at sea-level,
(for)
I. The contention of the negative that a sea-level canal would cost
enormously more than a lock-canal is unsound, since,

A. Etc.

Notice that this form of refutation states clearly the argument to be answered. No doubt can arise from such a statement as to the direction the argument is taking; no confusion can occur between refutation and positive proof. Hence the rule:—

Rule XIII. Phrase refutation so that the argument to be answered is clearly stated.

THE CONCLUSION.

As there is but one rule for brief-drawing that applies to the conclusion, it may well be given at this point. The purpose and the value of this rule are so apparent that no explanation is necessary.

Rule XIV. Put into the conclusion a summary of the essential points established in the discussion.

RULES FOR BRIEF-DRAWING.

GENERAL RULES.

I. Divide the brief into three parts, and mark them respectively,
Introduction, Discussion, and Conclusion.

II. Express each idea in the brief in the form of a complete statement.

III. Make in each statement only a single assertion.

IV. Make each statement as concise as is consistent with clearness.

V. Indicate the relation between statements by indentation and by the use of symbols.

VI. Mark each statement with only one symbol.

RULES FOR THE INTRODUCTION.

VII. Put into the introduction sufficient explanation for a complete understanding of the discussion. This explanation usually involves (a) a definition of terms, (b) an explanation of the meaning of the proposition, (c) a statement of the issues, and (d) the partition.

VIII. Put into the introduction only statements admitted by both sides.

RULES FOR THE DISCUSSION.

IX. Phrase each principal statement in the discussion so that it will read as a reason for the truth or the falsity of the proposition.

X. Phrase each subordinate statement in the discussion so that it will read as a reason for the truth of the statement to which it is subordinate. The connectives to be used are: as, because, for, and since.

XI. Make no unsupported statements unless they are generally admitted to be true.

XII. After all evidence state in parentheses the source from which it came.

XIII. Phrase refutation so that the argument to be answered is clearly stated.

RULE FOR THE CONCLUSION.

XIV. Put into the conclusion a summary of the essential points established in the discussion.

MODEL BRIEF.

Resolved, That immigration to the United States should be further restricted by an educational test.

AFFIRMATIVE BRIEF.

INTRODUCTION.

I. The question of further restricting immigration to the United States by an educational test gains in importance from the alleged impairment of American institutions and standards by immigration.

II. The following explanations will aid in the discussion of the question:—

A. Immigration to the United States means the migrating of people into the United States for the purpose of permanent residence. (Century Dictionary.)

B. The restrictive measures now in force are as follows:—

1. Idiots, insane persons, paupers, convicts, diseased persons, anarchists, polygamists, women for immoral purposes, assisted aliens, contract laborers, and the Chinese are excluded. (Statutes of the United States.)

2. A head tax of four dollars is imposed. (Ibid.)

C. The proposed restrictive measure is as follows:—

1. Every immigrant to the United States between the ages of fifteen and fifty must be able to read and write a few sentences of some language. (Congressional Record, Vol. XXVIII, page 5421.).

III. The points to be determined seem to be:—

A. Is there a need for further restriction of immigration?

B. If there is such a need, would the educational test accomplish this further restriction in a proper manner?

DISCUSSION.

I. There is great need for further restriction of immigration,
because

A. The character of the immigrants since 1880 has greatly changed
for the worse, for

1. Before 1880 most of the immigrants were earnest, energetic
people from northern and western Europe. (International
Encyclopaedia, under Immigration.)

2. At the present time seventy and one-half per cent. of the
total number of immigrants are from the unenergetic
people of southern and eastern Europe. (Ibid.)

3. More immigrants have become paupers than was formerly the
case, for

a. Prior to 1880 there were comparatively few paupers among the immigrants. (Ibid.)

b. At present the percentage of pauperism among the foreigners here is four times as great as among the natives. (Ibid.)

4. While the Germans, English, and other immigrants from northern Europe who came here before 1880 were moral and upright, the present immigrants from southern Europe have a low code of morals, for

a. The moral degeneracy of the races of southern Europe is well known. (Henry Rood, Forum, Vol. XIV, page 116.)

5. Crime among foreigners in this country has increased immensely, for

a. In 1905 twenty-eight per cent, of our criminals were of foreign birth. (Report of the Commissioner-General of Immigration for 1905.)

6. Illiteracy among immigrants has greatly increased, for

a. In 1905 the percentage of illiterates of foreign birth was twenty-six. (Ibid.)

b. Many of the present immigrants are illiterates from southern Italy. (S. E. Moffett, Review of Reviews, Vol. 28, page 55.)

B. The condition of the cities and especially of their slum
districts is alarming, for

1. The number of immigrants is increasing astonishingly, inasmuch as,

a. 8,385 immigrants arrived in 1820.

b. 788,992 immigrants arrived in 1882.

c. 1,026,499 immigrants arrived in 1905. (Report of Commissioner-General of Immigration, 1905. page 42.)

2. Two-thirds of the total number of immigrants in 1902 settled in the cities. (Editorial in Outlook, Vol. LXXI, page 154.)

3. These congested districts foster unsanitary conditions, physical degeneration, and crime. (Deputy Clerk of Children's Court, New York City, North American Review, Vol. CLXXIX, page 731.)

4. Charitable organizations are unable to cope with the problems in congested districts, for

a. The number of immigrants is increasing too rapidly.
(Report of Commissioner-General of Immigration, 1905.)

C. The present immigration is politically harmful, for

1. Immigrants of the kind that are now coming in do not make good citizens, because

a. They are indifferent to civic manners, for

1'. They cannot appreciate the spirit of American government, as has previously been shown.

b. They are easily influenced in all political affairs by pecuniary persuasion, for

1'. Their sole object in this country is to acquire wealth. (Prescott F. Hall, Secretary of the Immigration Restriction League, Annals of American Academy, Vol. XXIV, page 172.)

D. The number of immigrants is too great to be assimilated properly, since

1. Most of the immigrants are extremely clannish, for

a. "Little Italies," "Little Hungaries," and "Ghettos," exist in great numbers and size throughout the United States. (Henry Rood, Forum, Vol. XIV, page 114.)

2. Most of the immigrants never try to learn the English language, for

a. They have no need for it, since

1'. They seldom come in contact with English-speaking people. (Ibid.)

3. Their tendency is not to become citizens, for

a. Thirty-one per cent. of the immigrants return home after having been here a few years. (Report of the Commissioner-General of Immigration, 1905.)

b. Those who remain cannot for the most part appreciate our government, for

1'. They have been continually trodden upon in their home countries.

2'. They have had no opportunity to interest themselves
in government. (N. S. Shaler, Atlantic Monthly,
Vol. LXXI, page 646.)

4. The argument that because we were able to assimilate the immigrants in the past we shall be able to do so in the future, is unsound, for

a. The character of the present immigrants has changed, as shown previously.

b. In the future we may expect a much larger immigration.
(Prescott F. Hall, Annals of American Academy, Vol.
XXIV, page 172.)

E. Immigrants lower the standards of American labor, because

1. They create harmful competition, since

a. More immigrants are coming now than we really need, for

I'. In 1906 at least 200,000 aliens came here who were of no use whatever. (Commissioner of Immigration for New York, Popular Science Monthly, Vol. LXVI, page 175.)

b. They work for lower wages than do Americans, for

1'. They are able to live more cheaply. (Henry Rood, Ibid.)

2'. They place a lower value on their labor. (T. V. Powderly, North American Review, Vol. CXLVII, page 165.)

2. They tend to destroy the independence of the American laborer, for

a. They work under conditions that no American laborer will
tolerate, for

1'. They create degrading forms of employment. (W. H.
Wilkins, Nineteenth Century, Vol. XXX, page 588.)

b. Their selfish desires keep them from organizing with
American laborers for protection.

II. The educational test would accomplish the further restriction of
immigration in a proper manner, for

A. It would change the character of the immigrants for the
better, since

1. It would keep out the unenergetic races of southern and
eastern Europe, because

a. Ninety-three per cent, of illiterates come from southern and eastern Europe. (International Encyclopaedia, under Immigration.)

2. It would decrease the amount of pauperism, for

a. The southern Italians, who are the most illiterate, produce the most pauperism. (Ibid.)

3. It would raise the standard of morality, since

a. Ignorance is closely coupled with immorality, for

1'. The southern Italians have a very low standard of living in the United States. (Henry Rood, Forum, Vol. XIV, page 116.)

b. The educational test would exclude such people.

4. It would decrease the amount of crime, for

a. It would keep out most of the immigrants from southern
Europe, for

1'. Ninety-three per cent, of the illiterates come from
this source.

b. The criminal tendencies of people from southern Europe
are well known. (Henry Rood, Ibid.)

B. The educational test would improve the condition of the
cities, for

1. They would be more sanitary and less criminal, since

a. These evils are due largely to congestion.

b. Under this test the cities would be less congested, for

1'. Immigration would be reduced twenty-two and six
tenths per cent.

2'. Educated immigrants are not likely to settle in the
slums.

c. If the cities were less congested, charitable societies could remove more evils from the slums, and in time even eliminate the slums.

C. The educational test would aid the country politically, for

1. We should receive only those immigrants who are intellectually capable of becoming good citizens, for

a. Education enables a man to become interested in the government in which he lives.

2. Bribery would cease, for

a. Greed for small amounts of money is not so strong among the intelligent. (Prescott F. Hall, Ibid.)

D. The educational test would aid the work of assimilation, for

1. It would bar to a great extent the clannish immigrants, as

a. Clannishness is largely a result of superstition and ignorance. (Henry Rood, Ibid.)

2. It would practically force the immigrants to learn the
English language, for

a. Their clans broken up, they would naturally come in
contact more and more with English-speaking people.

3. It would produce among the foreign-born element of the
United States a wider interest in civic affairs, for

a. Those who have some education can better appreciate our
government than those who are illiterate.

b. It would admit only those who, by reason of their
education, small though it may be, have had the
chance to study somewhat their home governments. (N.
S. Shaler, Ibid.)

E. The educational test would tend to raise the standards of
American labor, for

1. It would cut down competition, since

a. It would shut out many laborers, for

1'. Most of those affected by this test would be common laborers.

b. It would tend to equalize the rate of wages, because

1'. Immigrants would not be willing to work for lower wages, for

a'. The slums being gone, they would need more money for existence.

2. It would aid the independence of American labor, for

a. Immigrants would no longer be so reluctant to cooperate with American laborers for protection, for

1'. It is well known that, as a rule, only the most
ignorant classes refuse to join unions.

b. The low industrial competition would be removed, as previously shown.

F. The educational test would be practical, for

1. It is not a test depending upon the representations of
immigrants or the decisions of inspectors. (Prescott F.
Hall, Forum, Vol. XXX, page 564.)

2. The educational test has worked well in Australia.
(Professor Frank Parsons, Annals of American Academy,
Vol. XXIV, page 215.)

G. It would lessen the burden of education for the government,
for

1. It would force prospective immigrants to get their
elementary education in Europe.

2. The immigrants would have some education as a foundation
for more.

CONCLUSION.

The affirmative has proved the following:—

I. There is great need for further restriction of immigration.

II. The educational test would accomplish the further restriction of immigration in a proper manner.

Therefore, immigration to the United States should be further restricted by an educational test.

EXERCISES

State the propositions upheld in the following arguments, and put the material into brief form:—

1. At all events, this is clear: that throughout those six months the government knew perfectly well the danger in which General Gordon was placed. It has been said that General Gordon did not ask for troops. Well, I am surprised at that defense. One of the characteristics of General Gordon was the extreme abnegation of his nature. It was not to be expected that he should send home a telegram to say, "I am in great danger, therefore send me troops." He would probably have cut off his right hand before he would have sent such a telegram. But he did send a telegram that the people of Khartum were in danger, and that the Mahdi must win unless military succor was sent forward, and distinctly telling the government—and this is the main point—that unless they would consent to his views the supremacy of the Mahdi was assured.

My lords, is it conceivable that after that—two months after that—in May, the prime minister should have said that the government was waiting to have reasonable proof that Gordon was in danger? By that time Khartum was surrounded, and the governor of Berber had announced that his case was desperate, which was too surely proved by the massacre which took place in June.

And yet in May Mr. Gladstone was waiting for reasonable proof that they were in danger. Apparently he did not get that proof till August.

A general sent forward on a dangerous expedition does not like to go whining for assistance, unless he is pressed by absolute peril. All those great qualities which go to make men heroes are such as are absolutely incompatible with such a course, and lead them to shrink as from a great disgrace from any unnecessary appeal for exertion for their protection. It was the business of the government not to interpret General Gordon's telegrams as if they had been statutory declarations, but to judge for themselves of the circumstances of the case, and to see that those who were surrounded, who were the only three Englishmen among this vast body of Mohammedans, who were already cut off from all communication with the civilized world by the occupation of every important town upon the river, were in real danger.

I do not know any other instance in which a man has been sent to maintain such a position without a certain number of British troops. If the British troops had been there treachery would have been impossible; but sending Gordon by himself to rely on the fidelity of Africans and Egyptians was an act of extreme rashness, and if the government succeed in proving, which I do not think they can, that treachery was inevitable, they only pile up an additional reason for their condemnation. I confess it is very difficult to separate this question from the personal matters involved. It is very difficult to argue it on purely abstract grounds without turning for a moment to the character of the man who was engaged and the terrible position in which he was placed.

When we consider all that he underwent, all that he sacrificed in order to save the government in a moment of extreme exigency, there is something infinitely pathetic in reflecting on his feelings, as day after day, week after week, month after month passed by—as he spared no exertions, no personal sacrifice, to perform the duties that were placed upon him—as he lengthened out the siege by inconceivable prodigies of ingenuity, of activity, of resource—and as, in spite of it all, in spite of the deep devotion to his country, which had prompted him to this great risk and undertaking, the conviction gradually grew upon him that his country had abandoned him.

It is terrible to think what he must have suffered when at last, as a desperate measure to save those he loved, he parted with the only two Englishmen with whom during those long months he had any converse, and sent Stewart and Power down the river to escape from the fate which had become inevitable to himself. It is very painful to think of the reproaches to his country and to his country's government that must have passed through the mind of that devoted man during those months of unmerited desertion. In Gordon's letter of the fourteenth of December he said: "All is up. I expect the catastrophe in ten days' time; it would not have been so if our people had kept me better informed as to their intentions."

They had no intentions to inform him of. They were merely acting from hand to mouth to avert the parliamentary censure with which they were threatened. They had no plan, they had no intentions to carry out. If they could have known their intentions, a great hero would have been saved to the British army, a great disgrace would not have fallen on the English government. [Footnote: On the Desertion of Gordon in Egypt, Lord Salisbury, The World's Famous Orations. Funk & Wagnalls, Vol. V, p. 111.]

2. For any State to make sex a qualification that must ever result in the disfranchisement of one entire half of the people is to pass a bill of attainder, or an ex post facto law, and is therefore a violation of the supreme law of the land. By it the blessings of liberty are forever withheld from women and their female posterity. To them this government has no just powers derived from the consent of the governed. To them this government is not a democracy. It is not a republic. It is an odious aristocracy; a hateful oligarchy of sex; the most hateful aristocracy ever established on the face of the globe; an oligarchy of wealth, where the rich govern the poor. An oligarchy of learning, where the educated govern the ignorant, or even an oligarchy of race where the Saxon rules the African, might be endured; but this oligarchy of sex, which makes father, brothers, husband, sons, the oligarchs over the mother and sisters, the wife and daughters of every household—which ordains all men sovereigns, all women subjects, carries dissension, discord and rebellion into every home of the nation.

Webster, Worcester and Bouvier all define a citizen to be a person in the United States, entitled to vote and hold office.

The only question left to be settled now is: Are women persons? And I hardly believe any of our opponents will have the hardihood to say they are not. Being persons, then, women are citizens; and no State has a right to make any law, or to enforce any old law, that shall abridge their privileges or immunities. Hence, every discrimination against women in the constitutions and laws of the several States is to-day null and void. [Footnote: On Woman's Right to the Suffrage, Susan B. Anthony. The World's Famous Orations. Funk & Wagnalls, Vol. X, p. 59.]

3. The "Legal Intelligencer" prints the full text of the recent decision of Judge Sulzberger in the case of Claus & Basher vs. the Rapid Transit Company, which deals with a phase of the question concerning the use of the streets in obstructing public travel. The Judge, in denying the plaintiffs a rule for a new trial, put the matter under review into his customary concise logic, as follows:

The plaintiff contends that the direction for defendant was erroneous, because the jury should have been given the opportunity to pass upon the question whether he was or was not negligent in placing his wagon in such a position that it encroached three or four feet upon the transit company's track, without which encroachment the accident could not have happened.

His reasons are as follows:

1. That a driver, for the purpose of watering his horses, has the right to encroach on the trolley track.

2. That even if he has not, it is negligence for a motor-man not to stop his car in time to prevent a collision in broad daylight with a conspicuous obstacle like a wagon in front of him.

As to the first point:

An obstruction of the highway which is temporary and partial may be justified in cases of plain, evident necessity, but not where that necessity is argumentative and supposititious: Com. vs. Passmore, 1 S. & R. 217; Rex v. Russell, 6 East. 427. There was no necessity on the plaintiff to water his horses in the way he did. Two other ways, both perfectly safe, were open to him. He chose the easiest and the riskiest.

But if there had not been two safe ways open for him, he would still have been guilty of negligence in drawing his wagon across a trolley track, on a busy city street, on which cars were running every minute or two. The primary use of the car track is for public travel, not for watering horses. A permanent watering-trough on a sidewalk, so constructed as not to be usable without stopping the running of the cars, would be a nuisance. The supposed analogy to the right of an abutter to load and unload a necessary article fails entirely. A passing driver is not in the position of an abutter, the reasonableness of whose action is determined by the degree of momentary necessity, and the limit of whose right is that his obstruction must be temporary. Here, however, the watering-trough and not the driver is in the abutter's position. The watering-trough is a public utility, which every one may use. On a warm day, in a busy city street, hundreds of vehicles may stop there, and the quantity of obstruction is not the time occupied by each, but the sum of the times occupied by all. The effect must necessarily be a serious hindrance to public travel, which might sometimes result in complete stoppage.

To use the thought of Mr. Justice Dean, in Com. vs. Forrest, 170 Pa. 47, the law would soon be invoked to decide whether the car track was for the cars or for vehicles stopped thereon for the purpose of watering horses; whether the driver of such vehicles was in the exercise of a lawful right or was a usurper of the rights of others.

In the case of Attorney-General vs. the Sheffield Gas Consumers' Company, 19 Eng. Law & Eq. 639, Lord Chancellor Cranworth, considering a similar question, used this illustration: "No doubt that it would be a nuisance, and a very serious nuisance, if a person with a barrel organ, or the bagpipes, were to come and station himself under a person's window all day. But when he is going through a city, you know that he will stop ten minutes at one place and ten minutes at another, and you know he will so go on during the day." The watering- trough, however, is stationary.

As to the second point:

The general rule in Pennsylvania is that contributory negligence prevents recovery. This rule, it is true, does not apply where the defendant is guilty of "negligence so wanton and gross as to be evidence of voluntary injury"; Wynn vs. Allord, 5 W. & S. 525; McKnight vs. Ratcliff, 44 Pa. 156. There is, however, nothing in the testimony to indicate that the defendant's motorman did anything wanton. Coming down a steep hill, he failed for a moment to see an obstacle which he had a right to expect would not be on the track. No one says that he did not do his best to prevent the collision after he had seen the wagon.

The question at bottom is one of public policy. Should the motorman anticipate that persons of mature age will station their wagons across the tracks? If the rights of the traveling public are to be preserved, the answer must be in the negative.

4. Aside from the money question, the most serious problem that confronts the people of America to-day is that of rescuing their cities, their States and the federal government, including the federal judiciary, from absolute control of corporate monopoly. How to restore the voice of the citizen in the government of his country; and how to put an end to those proceedings in some of the higher courts which are farce and mockery on one side, and a criminal usurpation and oppression on the other….

In as much as no government can endure in which corrupt greed not only makes the laws, but decides who shall construe them, many of our best citizens are beginning to despair of the republic. Others urge that we should remove the bribe-givers—that is, destroy this overwhelming temptation by having the government take all these monopolies itself and furnish the service which they now furnish, and thus not only save our institutions, but have the great profits which now go into the pockets of private corporations turned into the public treasury….

Let us see what civilized man is doing elsewhere. Take the cities of Great Britain first, for they have the same power of self-government that American cities have. In all that pertains to the comfort and enterprise of the individual we are far in the lead; but in the government of cities we are far behind. Glasgow has to-day nearly one million inhabitants and is one of the great manufacturing and commercial cities of the world. Thirty years ago there was scarcely a city that was in a worse condition. Private corporations furnished it a poor quality of water, taken from the Clyde River, and they charged high rates for it. The city drained into the Clyde, and it became horribly filthy. Private corporations furnished a poor quality of gas, at a high price; and private companies operated the street railroads. Private companies had the same grip on the people there that they have in most American cities. Owing to the development of great shipbuilding and other industries in the valley of the Clyde, the laboring population of Glasgow became very dense and the means of housing the people were miserable. Poorly lighted, poorly ventilated, filthy houses brought high rents. In many cases two families lived in one room. Cleanliness was impossible, the sanitary conditions were frightful and the death rate was high. As for educational facilities, there were none worth mentioning for these people. The condition of the laboring classes was one of degradation and misery; children were growing up mentally, morally and physically diseased; a generation was coming which threatened to be an expense and a menace to the country. It was a great slum city.

But patriotic and public-spirited men came to the front and gave the city the benefit of their services free. In fact, none of the high city officials in Great Britain received any pay other than the well being of humanity and the good opinions of their country. The city rid itself of the private companies by buying them and then brought fresh water from the highlands, a distance of sixty miles. It doubled the quantity of water furnished the inhabitants, and reduced the cost to consumers by one-half. And yet the department now yields over two hundred thousand dollars a year net income over all fixed charges.

The municipality, after much difficulty, bought the gas plants and gradually reduced the price of gas from $1.14 to 58 cents, and it now illuminates not only the streets and public places, but all passageways and stairways in flat buildings, experience having shown that a good lamp is almost as useful as a policeman. The total debt of the city for plants, extensions, etc., to illumine perfectly all the city had reached nearly five and a half millions of dollars. Notwithstanding the low price at which gas is sold, this sum has gradually been reduced to less than two and a half millions of dollars out of the earnings of the system, and it will soon be wiped out and the entire revenue go into the city treasury.

The street railways were owned by the city, but, until 1894, they were leased out under an arrangement which paid the city full cost of construction, with interest, besides a yearly income of $750 per street mile. In 1894 the city began to operate the lines itself. The fares were reduced 33 per cent., besides special tickets to laborers, so that the average is under two cents, and over one-third of all fares are one cent each.

The private company had worked its men twelve and fourteen hours a day and paid irregular and unsatisfactory wages. The city at once reduced the number of hours to ten, and fixed a satisfactory scale of wages. And, compared with what it formerly was, the service has been greatly improved. In spite of all these acts for the benefit of the public, the roads which had cost the city nothing, now net over all charges for improvements, etc., one-fourth of a million annually. In 1892 the city bought out a private electric light company, and now has the monopoly of furnishing electric light and power. This promises to be a source of enormous revenue for the city….

Manchester has within its narrow limits only a little over half a million people, but within a radius of twenty miles from her city hall there are over three million inhabitants. These have to be considered in discussing Manchester, which is essentially a manufacturing and commercial city. Its history is in many respects a parallel of that of Glasgow. It seemed to be a great city of slums, degradation and misery, and was in the grip of private monopolies.

To-day the city furnishes all the service that is furnished here by private corporations, and does it at about one-half cost. It furnishes gas at fifty-six cents a thousand, and after deducting all that is used to illuminate perfectly the streets and after applying $200,000 a year on the original cost of plants, etc., it still turns $300,000 a year into the public treasury, altho the aim in nearly all English cities is not to make money, but to serve the public. The city constructed an aqueduct ninety miles to secure pure water and furnishes this for a little more than half what the private company had charged for a poor quality of water. It owns street railways, and besides giving greatly reduced rates and giving half-fare tickets to workingmen, the city derives a large revenue from this source. Like Glasgow and Birmingham, the city owns large cemeteries in which there are separate sections for the different religious denominations, and prices are so arranged that while those who desire to do so can get lots costing from ten to thirty dollars, yet "a decent burial with inscription on stone over a grave can be had at about four dollars for adults and three dollars for children. This charge includes all cemetery fees and expenses."

The city owns the markets and slaughter houses. It has provided parks and swimming baths and, like Birmingham and Glasgow, it maintains large technical schools in which thousands of young men are instructed in the industrial arts and sciences, so as to be able to maintain Manchester's greatness.

Birmingham has over half a million of people, and its experience resembles that of Glasgow and Manchester. Formerly private corporations controlled almost everything and charged very high rates for very poor service, and the sanitary conditions were frightful. But here again municipal statesmen came to the front, the most prominent among whom was The Honorable Joseph Chamberlain, who has since been in the British government.

Not going further into detail, let me say there are at present in the United Kingdom 185 municipalities that supply their inhabitants with water, with gas and electric light, and one-third of the street railway mileage of Great Britain is owned by the municipalities. Leaving out London it amounts to two-thirds. And in most instances in which they do not own the street railways, they have compelled the companies to grant low fares and divide profits.

Every business reason applicable to the municipalities and governments of Europe is applicable here. We want as pure water, as good drainage, as cheap service as they have, and we want the same privilege of supplying ourselves as they exercise; and when it is apparent that, by acting collectively, we can do business more successfully, can serve ourselves better in every way, and can secure for the public treasury these millions which now go into the pockets of grasping individuals, have we not a right to do it? If we find that, in this manner, we can give steadiness to labor, and can elevate its standards and improve the conditions of our people, dare we not do it? Every one of the reforms carried out in England and on the continent met with fierce opposition from the same classes that oppose them here, but the business sense and patriotic impulse of the people prevailed, and I believe, will prevail here. [Footnote: On Municipal and Government Ownership, Altgeld The World's Famous Orations. Funk & Wagnalls Co., Vol. X, p. 208.]

5. Draw a brief of Beecher's speech found on page 166.