I went to my room, locked the door, placed the Bible before me on a mantel, opened it at random, and then on whatever passage my eye chanced to rest, proceeded to deliver a discourse of ten minutes.... At first I found it very difficult to speak so long right to the point. But then if I could n't talk on the subject, I would talk about it, making good remarks and moral reflections, - being careful to keep up the flow, and say something to the end of the term allotted for the exercise.

This advice is pernicious. The ground work of all good speaking is and must be sustained and vigorous thinking. No devices of elocution, no training in loquacity, can take its place. Elocution does very well as far as it goes; but "it is a mighty bloodless substitute for life." And thinking is the life of public speaking. The very reason why we hesitate to trust ourselves to the mercies of orators is that so many do "keep up the flow" even when they cannot "talk on the subject." Such practice may produce what Tacitus calls a "lean and bloodless, sickly race of orators, without sinew, color, or proportion," but it cannot produce sound reasoners.

It may be true of after-dinner speaking, as Colonel Higginson said, that the best things are almost always the sudden flashes and the thoughts not dreamed of before. "The best hope that any orator can have," said he, " is to rise at favored moments to some height of enthusiasm that shall make all his previous structure of preparation superfluous; as the ship in launching glides from the ways, and scatters cradle timbers and wedges upon the waters." 1 The simile is a good one, for a previous structure of preparation from which to launch is as essential in public speaking as in shipbuilding. Speakers usually find that the "sudden flashes "do not respond to what is called the inspiration of the moment. The main reliance must always be the solid structure of preparation.

1 Hints on Writing and Speech-Making, by Colonel T. W. Higginson, p. 70. (Lee & Shepard, Boston, 1887.)

After a person has thought long and hard on one subject for debate, has done his best to get at the bottom of it, and has met worthy opponents in a well-fought contest, he begins to see the shallowness of his knowledge on other subjects. Ever after he is inclined to be dissatisfied with work half done, and he does not call every flimsy discussion a debate. He has set up a standard of achievement, the value of which it is difficult to overestimate. A person, on the other hand, without the training of sustained and vigorous thinking, is prone to give snap judgments.

Any one who substitutes a little reading for a lot of thinking, or relies on fluency and the inspiration of the occasion, is like Gratiano: He "speaks an infinite deal of nothing. . . . His reasons are as two grains of wheat hid in two bushels of chaff: you shall seek all day ere you find them, and when you have them, they are not worth the search." The master in the art of debate is not known by his assurance and fluency, not primarily by his cleverness, not even by his learning, but rather by his breadth of view, scientific method, thoroughness of preparation, precision of statement, hatred of superficiality, in short, by his habit of mind.

The first speech for the affirmative. The opening speech should present all the steps in analysis which are necessary for an understanding of the debate and no more.

The Introduction should be unprejudiced. Objectionable in this respect are the opening speeches of an inter-university debate held a few years ago. The first speaker for the affirmative began as follows:

For years the Southern problem has been before the nation. Other issues have at times taken the foreground, have been decided, have passed away, and the Southern problem has always remained. But a movement was begun about fourteen years ago, which in its fair and legal application restricted the negro vote. This movement in a legal way is solving the problem. This is the movement that we are considering to-night, viz.: "The changes in the constitutions of the Southern States since 1889, by which the

negro vote in such States has been restricted, are, on the whole, to be commended."

The first speaker for the negative began as follows:

Since the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment, there has been a faction of Southern political leaders who have never been satisfied with this provision, because it conferred upon the negro the right of exemption from discrimination, in the exercise of the elective franchise, on account of his race, color, or previous condition of servitude. This class of men, through their fraudulent and cunning devices, have succeeded in disfranchising the negro in six of the Southern States, by incorporating into their constitutions suffrage clauses which practically eliminate from the body politic negroes, both literate and illiterate. We who live in the North do not realize, at first glance, the magnitude of injustice caused by the workings of these suffrage clauses.

Both speeches thus begged the whole question at the very outset, without presenting any of the definitions, admitted matters, origin and history of the question, necessary for an understanding of the argument. If the unsupported assertions of either of these first speakers were true, there would be no need to proceed with the debate.

Somewhat better than these prejudiced and deficient introductions are the following opening words of a debate at New Haven, although even in this speech, the italicized parts are objectionable as introductory matter:

The proposition we have to consider this evening is, Resolved, that further restriction of immigration is undesirable. By "further restriction is meant the application of additional tests with the object of diminishing materially the number of immigrants; but the nature and practicability of such tests are not to be discussed. It is distinctly specified that any further restriction must be with the object of diminishing materially the number of immigrants. Any discussion, then, of the desirability or undesirability of further restriction must evidently be based on the assumption that such restriction is advocated with the distinct object of materially reducing the number of our immigrants. But before discussing the

desirability of any further restriction, let us review briefly the facts of the present situation.

The question of immigration is not a new one. It has been discussed from one end of this country to the other, debated by Congress, and investigated by congressional committees. In 1903 the Industrial Commission, after a most thorough inquiry extending over five years, presented to the consideration of Congress eighteen distinct recommendations dealing with every phase of the subject, and designed to remedy as far as possible any evils in the existing immigration situation. Every one of these recommendations is embodied in the laws of to-day. These laws, then, are not merely theories. They are the outgrowth of years of practical experience, and of the most profound thought, and as such we must have them clearly in mind before there can be any discussion as to the desirability of additional tests. These laws exclude to-day all idiots, insane persons, epileptics, paupers, criminals, convicts, anarchists, polygamists, beggars, and those afflicted with loathsome, dangerous, or contagious diseases. They forbid the entrance, except in certain specified cases, of any who are under any agreement to perform labor in the United States, or whose passage has been prepaid. And, as an additional safeguard, the commissioners have been given further authority to exclude all those who in their opinion are likely to become public charges. Moreover, the laws provide that if any immigrant becomes a public charge, or is discovered to have entered in violation of the law, he may be deported from this country within two years after landing. Consequently, we may be reasonably sure that any immigrant who is admitted under our laws to-day has previously been able to prove, under exacting physical examination, that he is healthy, moral, industrious, free from all crime or disease, and willing and able to earn his living by the sweat of his brow. Now, while the affirmative is perfectly willing to admit that there may be minor defects in our laws to-day, while we readily admit the desirability of any modification or improvement looking to their better enforcement, we consider as distinctly undesirable any further restriction with the object of diminishing materially the number of our immigrants.

Still better than any of the preceding introductions is the opening speech in the Chicago-Michigan debate on the proposition. "Resolved, that corporations doing an interstate business should be required to take out a Federal charter."

The last twenty-five years have witnessed a remarkable increase in the number of our corporations, and a corresponding change in their character and business. The early corporations rarely did business outside the limits of their own States, but to-day nearly every corporation has its customers and stockholders, buys its Supplies and sells its products, in every State of the Union. In the words of Judge Dill, "Our corporations have overleaped the boundaries of the States, until their financial roots extend down into every commonwealth and municipality in this entire land." So true is this, that there has come a demand, voiced by such men as Professor Wilgers, of the University of Michigan, and President Roosevelt, that our corporations be directly chartered and controlled by the national government. It is this proposition that we present to-night.

Our resolution provides that all corporations engaged in interstate commerce must obtain, from the national government, instead of from the States as at present, charters defining their powers and organization. The conditions upon which Congress will grant these charters will reflect the public policy of the entire nation in reference to this subject. And in so far, of course, as the proposed national corporations engage in business confined to the separate States, they will remain subject to state regulation, because Congress cannot, under the Constitution, concern itself with anything except their interstate business.

The affirmative will uphold this proposition upon four grounds: First, that there are evils in our corporations at the present time, serious and national in their scope; Second, that these evils are inherent in the system of incorporation by the various States; Third, that for these evils, Federal incorporation is the only logical and effective remedy; Fourth, that national incorporation would be a wise extension of national activity. In short, in contrast to a system of state control of national corporations, we propose a system of national control.

It is true, as doubtless will be contended by the negative, that some of our corporations are honest and law abiding. But in other corporations there are grave evils, which must be remedied, not for the sake of the public alone, but as much for the sake of the good corporations, which suffer by association. These evils may be roughly grouped under three heads: overcapitalization, interholding of stocks, and dishonesty in promotion and management.

After presenting such introductory matters as the proposition demands, the opening speaker should take up the first