Practical Argumentation Part 18

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 a.s.sured.

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 ma.s.sacre 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 a.s.sistance, 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 circ.u.mstances 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 pa.s.sed 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 pa.s.sed 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 s.e.x a qualification that must ever result in the disfranchis.e.m.e.nt of one entire half of the people is to pa.s.s 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 s.e.x; 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 s.e.x, 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, ent.i.tled 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 const.i.tutions 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 pa.s.s 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 supposit.i.tious: Com. _vs_.

Pa.s.smore, 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 a.n.a.logy to the right of an ab.u.t.ter to load and unload a necessary article fails entirely. A pa.s.sing driver is not in the position of an ab.u.t.ter, 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 ab.u.t.ter'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 quant.i.ty 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 ill.u.s.tration: "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 antic.i.p.ate 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 inst.i.tutions, 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 s.h.i.+pbuilding 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 cla.s.ses 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 quant.i.ty 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 munic.i.p.ality, 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 pa.s.sageways 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 furnis.h.i.+ng 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 munic.i.p.al 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 munic.i.p.alities 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 munic.i.p.alities.

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 munic.i.p.alities 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 cla.s.ses that oppose them here, but the business sense and patriotic impulse of the people prevailed, and I believe, will prevail here. [Footnote: On Munic.i.p.al and Government Owners.h.i.+p, 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.

CHAPTER VIII

METHODS OF REFUTATION

A complete argument consists of two kinds of proof: constructive proof and refutation. Constructive proof is that part of an argument which sets forth direct reasons for belief in a certain proposition; refutation is that part which destroys the reasons for belief in the opposite side.

In general, each of these divisions is of about equal importance, at times the value of one predominating and at times the value of the other. If one is addressing an audience unacquainted with his views or hostile towards them, he is not likely to make much progress in getting his own beliefs accepted until he has, at least in part, shattered the opinion already existing. If, however, the audience is predisposed or even willing to accept the doctrine advocated, very little but constructive proof may be necessary.

In debate, the side that has the burden of proof will usually have more use for constructive argument, and the opposite side will have more use for refutation. This statement will not always hold true, however, for the rule will vary under different circ.u.mstances; a debater must, therefore, hold himself in readiness to meet whatever contingencies arise. Debate may be likened to the play of two boys building houses with blocks; each boy builds the best house he can, and at times attempts to overthrow the work of his playmate. The one that has the better structure when the game ends comes off victorious.