The Art of Public Speaking by Dale Carnegie - HTML preview

PLEASE NOTE: This is an HTML preview only and some elements such as links or page numbers may be incorrect.
Download the book in PDF, ePub, Kindle for a complete version.

Advertisers have long utilized this principle. "The machine you will eventually buy," "Ask the man who owns one," "Has the strength of Gibraltar," are publicity slogans so full of confidence that they give birth to confidence in the mind of the reader.

It should--but may not!--go without saying that confidence must have a solid ground of merit or there will be a ridiculous crash. It is all very well for the "spellbinder" to claim all the precincts--the official count is just ahead. The reaction against over-confidence and over-suggestion ought to warn those whose chief asset is mere bluff.

A short time ago a speaker arose in a public-speaking club and asserted that grass would spring from wood-ashes sprinkled over the soil, without the aid of seed. This idea was greeted with a laugh, but the speaker was so sure of his position that he reiterated the statement forcefully several times and cited his own personal experience as proof. One of the most intelligent men in the audience, who at first had derided the idea, at length came to believe in it. When asked the reason for his sudden change of attitude, he replied:

"Because the speaker is so confident." In fact, he was so confident that it took a letter from the U.S.

Department of Agriculture to dislodge his error.

If by a speaker's confidence, intelligent men can be made to believe such preposterous theories as this where will the power of self-reliance cease when plausible propositions are under consideration, advanced with all the power of convincing speech?

Note the utter assurance in these selections:

I know not what course others may take, but as for me give me liberty or give me death.


I ne'er will ask ye quarter, and I ne'er will be your slave; But I'll swim the sea of slaughter, till I sink beneath its wave.


Come one, come all. This rock shall fly From its firm base as soon as I.





Out of the night that covers me, Black as the pit from pole to pole, I thank whatever Gods may be For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance I have not winced nor cried aloud; Under the bludgeonings of chance My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears Looms but the Horror of the shade, And yet the menace of the years Finds and shall find me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate, How charged with punishments the scroll, I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul.


Authority is a factor in suggestion. We generally accept as truth, and without criticism, the words of an authority. When he speaks, contradictory ideas rarely arise in the mind to inhibit the action he suggests. A judge of the Supreme Court has the power of his words multiplied by the virtue of his position. The ideas of the U.S. Commissioner of Immigration on his subject are much more effective and powerful than those of a soap manufacturer, though the latter may be an able economist.

This principle also has been used in advertising. We are told that the physicians to two Kings have recommended Sanatogen. We are informed that the largest bank in America, Tiffany and Co., and The State, War, and Navy Departments, all use the Encyclopedia Britannica. The shrewd promoter gives stock in his company to influential bankers or business men in the community in order that he may use their examples as a selling argument.

If you wish to influence your audience through suggestion, if you would have your statements accepted without criticism or argument, you should appear in the light of an authority--and be one. Ignorance and credulity will remain unchanged unless the suggestion of authority be followed promptly by facts. Don't claim authority unless you carry your license in your pocket. Let reason support the position that suggestion has assumed.

Advertising will help to establish your reputation--it is "up to you" to maintain it. One speaker found that his reputation as a magazine writer was a splendid asset as a speaker. Mr. Bryan's publicity, gained by three nominations for the presidency and his position as Secretary of State, helps him to command large sums as a speaker. But--back of it all, he is a great speaker. Newspaper announcements, all kinds of advertising, formality, impressive introductions, all have a capital effect on the attitude of the audience. But how ridiculous are all these if a toy pistol is advertised as a sixteen-inch gun!

Note how authority is used in the following to support the strength of the speaker's appeal: Professor Alfred Russell Wallace has just celebrated his 90th birthday. Sharing with Charles Darwin the honor of discovering evolution, Professor Wallace has lately received many and signal honors from scientific societies. At the dinner given him in London his address was largely made up of reminiscences. He reviewed the progress of civilization during the last century and made a series of brilliant and startling contrasts between the England of 1813 and the world of 1913. He affirmed that our progress is only seeming and not real. Professor Wallace insists that the painters, the sculptors, the architects of Athens and Rome were so superior to the modern men that the very fragments of their marbles and temples are the despair of the present day artists. He tells us that man has improved his telescope and spectacles, but that he is losing his eyesight; that man is improving his looms, but stiffening his fingers; improving his automobile and his locomotive, but CHAPTER XXII


losing his legs; improving his foods, but losing his digestion. He adds that the modern white slave traffic, orphan asylums, and tenement house life in factory towns, make a black page in the history of the twentieth century.

Professor Wallace's views are reinforced by the report of the commission of Parliament on the causes of the deterioration of the factory-class people. In our own country Professor Jordan warns us against war, intemperance, overworking, underfeeding of poor children, and disturbs our contentment with his "Harvest of Blood." Professor Jenks is more pessimistic. He thinks that the pace, the climate, and the stress of city life, have broken down the Puritan stock, that in another century our old families will be extinct, and that the flood of immigration means a Niagara of muddy waters fouling the pure springs of American life. In his address in New Haven Professor Kellogg calls the roll of the signs of race degeneracy and tells us that this deterioration even indicates a trend toward race extinction.


From every side come warnings to the American people. Our medical journals are filled with danger signals; new books and magazines, fresh from the press, tell us plainly that our people are fronting a social crisis. Mr.

Jefferson, who was once regarded as good Democratic authority, seems to have differed in opinion from the gentleman who has addressed us on the part of the minority. Those who are opposed to this proposition tell us that the issue of paper money is a function of the bank, and that the government ought to go out of the banking business. I stand with Jefferson rather than with them, and tell them, as he did, that the issue of money is a function of government, and that the banks ought to go out of the governing business.


Authority is the great weapon against doubt, but even its force can rarely prevail against prejudice and persistent wrong-headedness. If any speaker has been able to forge a sword that is warranted to piece such armor, let him bless humanity by sharing his secret with his platform brethren everywhere, for thus far he is alone in his glory.

There is a middle-ground between the suggestion of authority and the confession of weakness that offers a wide range for tact in the speaker. No one can advise you when to throw your "hat in the ring" and say defiantly at the outstart, "Gentlemen, I am here to fight!" Theodore Roosevelt can do that--Beecher would have been mobbed if he had begun in that style at Liverpool. It is for your own tact to decide whether you will use the disarming grace of Henry W. Grady's introduction just quoted (even the time-worn joke was ingenuous and seemed to say, "Gentlemen, I come to you with no carefully-palmed coins"), or whether the solemn gravity of Mr. Bryan before the Convention will prove to be more effective. Only be sure that your opening attitude is well thought out, and if it change as you warm up to your subject, let not the change lay you open to a revulsion of feeling in your audience.

Example is a powerful means of suggestion. As we saw while thinking of environment in its effects on an audience, we do, without the usual amount of hesitation and criticism, what others are doing. Paris wears certain hats and gowns; the rest of the world imitates. The child mimics the actions, accents and intonations of the parent. Were a child never to hear anyone speak, he would never acquire the power of speech, unless under most arduous training, and even then only imperfectly. One of the biggest department stores in the United States spends fortunes on one advertising slogan: "Everybody is going to the big store." That makes everybody want to go.

You can reinforce the power of your message by showing that it has been widely accepted. Political organizations subsidize applause to create the impression that their speakers' ideas are warmly received and approved by the audience. The advocates of the commission-form of government of cities, the champions of votes for women, reserve as their strongest arguments the fact that a number of cities and states have already CHAPTER XXII


successfully accepted their plans. Advertisements use the testimonial for its power of suggestion.

Observe how this principle has been applied in the following selections, and utilize it on every occasion possible in your attempts to influence through suggestion:

The war is actually begun. The next gale that sweeps from the North will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms. Our brethren are already in the field. Why stand ye here idle?


With a zeal approaching the zeal which inspired the Crusaders who followed Peter the Hermit, our silver Democrats went forth from victory unto victory until they are now assembled, not to discuss, not to debate, but to enter up the judgment already rendered by the plain people of this country. In this contest brother has been arrayed against brother, father against son. The warmest ties of love, acquaintance, and association have been disregarded; old leaders have been cast aside when they refused to give expression to the sentiments of those whom they would lead, and new leaders have sprung up to give direction to this cause of truth. Thus has the contest been waged, and we have assembled here under as binding and solemn instructions as were ever imposed upon representatives of the people.


Figurative and indirect language has suggestive force, because it does not make statements that can be directly disputed. It arouses no contradictory ideas in the minds of the audience, thereby fulfilling one of the basic requisites of suggestion. By implying a conclusion in indirect or figurative language it is often asserted most forcefully.

Note that in the following Mr. Bryan did not say that Mr. McKinley would be defeated. He implied it in a much more effective manner:

Mr. McKinley was nominated at St. Louis upon a platform which declared for the maintenance of the gold standard until it can be changed into bimetallism by international agreement. Mr. McKinley was the most popular man among the Republicans, and three months ago everybody in the Republican party prophesied his election. How is it today? Why, the man who was once pleased to think that he looked like Napoleon--that man shudders today when he remembers that he was nominated on the anniversary of the battle of Waterloo.

Not only that, but as he listens he can hear with ever-increasing distinctness the sound of the waves as they beat upon the lonely shores of St. Helena.

Had Thomas Carlyle said: "A false man cannot found a religion," his words would have been neither so suggestive nor so powerful, nor so long remembered as his implication in these striking words: A false man found a religion? Why, a false man cannot build a brick house! If he does not know and follow truly the properties of mortar, burnt clay, and what else he works in, it is no house that he makes, but a rubbish heap. It will not stand for twelve centuries, to lodge a hundred and eighty millions; it will fall straightway. A man must conform himself to Nature's laws, be verily in communion with Nature and the truth of things, or Nature will answer him, No, not at all!

Observe how the picture that Webster draws here is much more emphatic and forceful than any mere assertion could be:

Sir, I know not how others may feel, but as for myself when I see my alma mater surrounded, like Cæsar in the senate house, by those who are reiterating stab after stab, I would not for this right hand have her turn to me and say, "And thou, too, my son!"




A speech should be built on sound logical foundations, and no man should dare to speak in behalf of a fallacy.

Arguing a subject, however, will necessarily arouse contradictory ideas in the mind of your audience. When immediate action or persuasion is desired, suggestion is more efficacious than argument--when both are judiciously mixed, the effect is irresistible.


1. Make an outline, or brief, of the contents of this chapter.

2. Revise the introduction to any of your written addresses, with the teachings of this chapter in mind.

3. Give two original examples of the power of suggestion as you have observed it in each of these fields: ( a) advertising; (=b=) politics; ( c) public sentiment.

4. Give original examples of suggestive speech, illustrating two of the principles set forth in this chapter.

5. What reasons can you give that disprove the general contention of this chapter?

6. What reasons not already given seem to you to support it?

7. What effect do his own suggestions have on the speaker himself?

8. Can suggestion arise from the audience? If so, show how.

9. Select two instances of suggestion in the speeches found in the Appendix.

10. Change any two passages in the same, or other, speeches so as to use suggestion more effectively.

11. Deliver those passages in the revised form.

12. Choosing your own subject, prepare and deliver a short speech largely in the suggestive style.





Common sense is the common sense of mankind. It is the product of common observation and experience. It is modest, plain, and unsophisticated. It sees with everybody's eyes, and hears with everybody's ears. It has no capricious distinctions, no perplexities, and no mysteries. It never equivocates, and never trifles. Its language is always intelligible. It is known by clearness of speech and singleness of purpose.

--GEORGE JACOB HOLYOAKE, Public Speaking and Debate.

The very name of logic is awesome to most young speakers, but so soon as they come to realize that its processes, even when most intricate, are merely technical statements of the truths enforced by common sense, it will lose its terrors. In fact, logic[25] is a fascinating subject, well worth the public speaker's study, for it explains the principles that govern the use of argument and proof.

Argumentation is the process of producing conviction by means of reasoning. Other ways of producing conviction there are, notably suggestion, as we have just shown, but no means is so high, so worthy of respect, as the adducing of sound reasons in support of a contention.

Since more than one side of a subject must be considered before we can claim to have deliberated upon it fairly, we ought to think of argumentation under two aspects: building up an argument, and tearing down an argument; that is, you must not only examine into the stability of your structure of argument so that it may both support the proposition you intend to probe and yet be so sound that it cannot be overthrown by opponents, but you must also be so keen to detect defects in argument that you will be able to demolish the weaker arguments of those who argue against you.

We can consider argumentation only generally, leaving minute and technical discussions to such excellent works as George P. Baker's "The Principles of Argumentation," and George Jacob Holyoake's "Public Speaking and Debate." Any good college rhetoric also will give help on the subject, especially the works of John Franklin Genung and Adams Sherman Hill. The student is urged to familiarize himself with at least one of these texts.

The following series of questions will, it is hoped, serve a triple purpose: that of suggesting the forms of proof together with the ways in which they may be used; that of helping the speaker to test the strength of his arguments; and that of enabling the speaker to attack his opponent's arguments with both keenness and justice.



1. Is it clearly stated?

( a) Do the terms of statement mean the same to each disputant? (For example, the meaning of the term

"gentleman" may not be mutually agreed upon.)

( b) Is confusion likely to arise as to its purpose?

2. Is it fairly stated?

( a) Does it include enough?



( b) Does it include too much?

( c) Is it stated so as to contain a trap?

3. Is it a debatable question?

4. What is the pivotal point in the whole question?

5. What are the subordinate points?


1. The witnesses as to facts

( a) Is each witness impartial? What is his relation to the subject at issue?

( b) Is he mentally competent?

( c) Is he morally credible?

( d) Is he in a position to know the facts? Is he an eye-witness?

( e) Is he a willing witness?

( f) Is his testimony contradicted?

( g) Is his testimony corroborated?

( h) Is his testimony contrary to well-known facts or general principles?

( i) Is it probable?

2. The authorities cited as evidence

( a) Is the authority well-recognized as such?

( b) What constitutes him an authority?

( c) Is his interest in the case an impartial one?

( d) Does he state his opinion positively and clearly?

( e) Are the non-personal authorities cited (books, etc.) reliable and unprejudiced?

3. The facts adduced as evidence

( a) Are they sufficient in number to constitute proof?

( b) Are they weighty enough in character?

( c) Are they in harmony with reason?



( d) Are they mutually harmonious or contradictory?

( e) Are they admitted, doubted, or disputed?

4. The principles adduced as evidence

( a) Are they axiomatic?

( b) Are they truths of general experience?

( c) Are they truths of special experience?

( d) Are they truths arrived at by experiment? Were such experiments special or general? Were the experiments authoritative and conclusive?


1. Inductions

( a) Are the facts numerous enough to warrant accepting the generalization as being conclusive?

( b) Do the facts agree only when considered in the light of this explanation as a conclusion?

( c) Have you overlooked any contradictory facts?

( d) Are the contradictory facts sufficiently explained when this inference is accepted as true?

( e) Are all contrary positions shown to be relatively untenable?

( f) Have you accepted mere opinions as facts?

2. Deductions

( a) Is the law or general principle a well-established one?

( b) Does the law or principle clearly include the fact you wish to deduce from it, or have you strained the inference?

( c) Does the importance of the law or principle warrant so important an inference?

( d) Can the deduction be shown to prove too much?

3. Parallel cases

( a) Are the cases parallel at enough points to warrant an inference of similar cause or effect?

( b) Are the cases parallel at the vital point at issue?

( c) Has the parallelism been strained?

( d) Are there no other parallels that would point to a stronger contrary conclusion?



4. Inferences

( a) Are the antecedent conditions such as would make the allegation probable? (Character and opportunities of the accused, for example.)

( b) Are the signs that point to the inference either clear or numerous enough to warrant its acceptance as fact?

( c) Are the signs cumulative, and agreeable one with the other?

( d) Could the signs be made to point to a contrary conclusion?

5. Syllogisms

( a) Have any steps been omitted in the syllogisms? (Such as in a syllogism in enthymeme.) If so, test any such by filling out the syllogisms.

( b) Have you been guilty of stating a conclusion that really does not follow? (A non sequitur.) ( c) Can your syllogism be reduced to an absurdity? ( Reductio ad absurdum. ) QUESTIONS AND EXERCISES

1. Show why an unsupported assertion is not an argument.

2. Illustrate how an irrelevant fact may be made to seem to support an argument.

3. What inferences may justly be made from the following?

During the Boer War it was found that the average Englishman did not measure up to the standards of recruiting and the average soldier in the field manifested a low plane of vitality and endurance. Parliament, alarmed by the disastrous consequences, instituted an investigation. The commission appointed brought in a finding that alcoholic poisoning was the great cause of the national degeneracy. The investigations of the commission have been supplemented by investigations of scientific bodies and individual scientists, all arriving at the same conclusion. As a consequence, the British Government has placarded the streets of a hundred cities with billboards setting forth the destructive and degenerating nature of alcohol and appealing to the people in the name of the nation to desist from drinking alcoholic beverages. Under efforts directed by the Government the British Army is fast becoming an army of total abstainers.

The Governments of continental Europe followed the lead of the British Government. The French Government has placarded France with appeals to the people, attributing the decline of the birth rate and increase in the death rate to the widespread use of alcoholic beverages. The experience of the German Government has been the same. The German Emperor has clearly stated that leadership in war and in peace will be held by the nation that roots out alcohol. He has undertaken to eliminate even the drinking of beer, so far as possible, from the German Army and Navy.

--RICHMOND PEARSON HOBSON, Before the U.S. Congress.

4. Since the burden of proof lies on him who attacks a position, or argues for a change in affairs, how would his opponent be likely to conduct his own part of a debate?

5. Define ( a) syllogism; ( b) rebuttal; ( c) "begging the question;" ( d) premise; ( e) rejoinder; ( f) sur-rejoinder; ( g) dilemma; ( h) induction; ( i) deduction; ( j) a priori; ( k) a posteriori; ( l) inference.



6. Criticise this reasoning:

Men ought not to smoke tobacco, because to do so is contrary to best medical opinion. My physician has expressly condemned the practise, and is a medical authority in this country.

7. Criticise this reasoning:

Men ought not to swear profanely, because it is wrong. It is wrong for the reason that it is contrary to the Moral Law, and it is contrary to the Moral Law because it is contrary to the Scriptures. It is contrary to the Scriptures because it is contrary to the will of God, and we know it is contrary to God's will because it is wrong.

8. Criticise this syllogism:

MAJOR PREMISE: All men who have no cares are happy. MINOR PREMISE: Slovenly men are careless.

CONCLUSION: Therefore, slovenly men are happy.

9. Criticise the following major, or foundation, premises:

All is not gold that glitters.

All cold may be expelled by fire.

10. Criticise the following fallacy ( non sequitur):

MAJOR PREMISE: All strong men admire strength. MINOR PREMISE: This man is not strong.

CONCLUSION: Therefore this man does not admire strength.

11. Criticise these statements:

Sleep is beneficial on account of its soporific qualities.

Fiske's histories are authentic because they contain accurate accounts of American history, and we know that they are true accounts for otherwise they would not be contained in these authentic works.

12. What do you understand from the terms "reasoning from effect to cause" and "from cause to effect?" Give examples.

13. What principle did Richmond Pearson Hobson employ in the following?

What is the police power of the States? The police power of the Federal Government or the State--any sovereign State--has been defined. Take the definition given by Blackstone, which is: The due regulation and domestic order of the Kingdom, whereby the inhabitants of a State, like members of a well-governed family, are bound to conform their general behavior to the rules of propriety, of neighborhood and good manners, and to be decent, industrious, and inoffensive in their respective stations.

Would this amendment interfere with any State carrying on the promotion of its domestic order?

Or you can take the definition in another form, in which it is given by Mr. Tiedeman, when he says: The object of government is to impose that degree of restraint upon human actions which is necessary to a CHAPTER XXIII


uniform, reasonable enjoyment of private rights. The power of the government to impose this restraint is called the police power.

Judge Cooley says of the liquor traffic:

The business of manufacturing and selling liquor is one that affects the public interests in many ways and leads to many disorders. It has a tendency to increase pauperism and crime. It renders a large force of peace officers essential, and it adds to the expense of the courts and of nearly all branches of civil administration.

Justice Bradley, of the United States Supreme Court, says:

Licenses may be properly required in the pursuit of many professions and avocations, which require peculiar skill and training or supervision for the public welfare. The profession or avocation is open to all alike who will prepare themselves with the requisite qualifications or give the requisite security for preserving public order. This is in harmony with the general proposition that the ordinary pursuits of life, forming the greater per cent of the industrial pursuits, are and ought to be free and open to all, subject only to such general regulations, applying equally to all, as the general good may demand.

All such regulations are entirely competent for the legislature to make and are in no sense an abridgment of the equal rights of citizens. But a license to do that which is odious and against common right is necessarily an outrage upon the equal rights of citizens.

14. What method did Jesus employ in the following:

Ye are the salt of the earth; but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.

Behold the fowls of the air; for they sow not, neither do they reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field; how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin; And yet I say unto you, that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?

Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

15. Make five original syllogisms[26] on the following models:

MAJOR PREMISE: He who administers arsenic gives poison. MINOR PREMISE: The prisoner administered arsenic to the victim. CONCLUSION: Therefore the prisoner is a poisoner.

MAJOR PREMISE: All dogs are quadrupeds. MINOR PREMISE: This animal is a biped. CONCLUSION: Therefore this animal is not a dog.

16. Prepare either the positive or the negative side of the following question for debate: The recall of judges should be adopted as a national principle.

17. Is this question debatable? Benedict Arnold was a gentleman. Give reasons for your answer.



18. Criticise any street or dinner-table argument you have heard recently.

19. Test the reasoning of any of the speeches given in this volume.

20. Make a short speech arguing in favor of instruction in public speaking in the public evening schools.

21. ( a) Clip a newspaper editorial in which the reasoning is weak. ( b) Criticise it. ( c) Correct it.

22. Make a list of three subjects for debate, selected from the monthly magazines.

23. Do the same from the newspapers.

24. Choosing your own question and side, prepare a brief suitable for a ten-minute debating argument. The following models of briefs may help you:


RESOLVED: That armed intervention is not justifiable on the part of any nation to collect, on behalf of private individuals, financial claims against any American nation. [27]


First speaker--Chafee

Armed intervention for collection of private claims from any American nation is not justifiable, for 1. It is wrong in principle, because

( a) It violates the fundamental principles of international law for a very slight cause ( b) It is contrary to the proper function of the State, and ( c) It is contrary to justice, since claims are exaggerated.

Second speaker--Hurley

2. It is disastrous in its results, because

( a) It incurs danger of grave international complications

( b) It tends to increase the burden of debt in the South American republics ( c) It encourages a waste of the world's capital, and

( d) It disturbs peace and stability in South America.

Third speaker--Bruce

3. It is unnecessary to collect in this way, because

( a) Peaceful methods have succeeded



( b) If these should fail, claims should be settled by The Hague Tribunal ( c) The fault has always been with European States when force has been used, and ( d) In any case, force should not be used, for it counteracts the movement towards peace.


First speaker--Branch

Armed intervention for the collection of private financial claims against some American States is justifiable, for

1. When other means of collection have failed, armed intervention against any nation is essentially proper, because

( a) Justice should always be secured

( b) Non-enforcement of payment puts a premium on dishonesty ( c) Intervention for this purpose is sanctioned by the best international authority ( d) Danger of undue collection is slight and can be avoided entirely by submission of claims to The Hague Tribunal before intervening.

Second speaker--Stone

2. Armed intervention is necessary to secure justice in tropical America, for ( a) The governments of this section constantly repudiate just debts ( b) They insist that the final decision about claims shall rest with their own corrupt courts ( c) They refuse to arbitrate sometimes.

Third speaker--Dennett

3. Armed intervention is beneficial in its results, because ( a) It inspires responsibility

( b) In administering custom houses it removes temptation to revolutions ( c) It gives confidence to desirable capital.

Among others, the following books were used in the preparation of the arguments: N. "The Monroe Doctrine," by T.B. Edgington. Chapters 22-28.

"Digest of International Law," by J.B. Moore. Report of Penfield of proceedings before Hague Tribunal in 1903.



"Statesman's Year Book" (for statistics).

A. Minister Drago's appeal to the United States, in Foreign Relations of United States, 1903.

President Roosevelt's Message, 1905, pp. 33-37.

And articles in the following magazines (among many others):

"Journal of Political Economy," December, 1906.

"Atlantic Monthly," October, 1906.

"North American Review," Vol. 183, p. 602.

All of these contain material valuable for both sides, except those marked "N" and "A," which are useful only for the negative and affirmative, respectively.

NOTE:--Practise in debating is most helpful to the public speaker, but if possible each debate should be under the supervision of some person whose word will be respected, so that the debaters might show regard for courtesy, accuracy, effective reasoning, and the necessity for careful preparation. The Appendix contains a list of questions for debate.

25. Are the following points well considered?


A. Does not strike at the root of the evil

1. Fortunes not a menace in themselves A fortune of $500,000 may be a greater social evil than one of $500,000,000

2. Danger of wealth depends on its wrong accumulation and use 3. Inheritance tax will not prevent rebates, monopoly, discrimination, bribery, etc.

4. Laws aimed at unjust accumulation and use of wealth furnish the true remedy.

B. It would be evaded

1. Low rates are evaded

2. Rate must be high to result in distribution of great fortunes.

26. Class exercises: Mock Trial for ( a) some serious political offense; ( b) a burlesque offense.


[Footnote 25: McCosh's Logic is a helpful volume, and not too technical for the beginner. A brief digest of logical principles as applied to public speaking is contained in How to Attract and Hold an Audience, by J.

Berg Esenwein.]

[Footnote 26: For those who would make a further study of the syllogism the following rules are given: 1. In a CHAPTER XXIII