II. Since those who would be disfranchised by such a property qualification should have the privilege of voting;

III. Since a property qualification would produce serious evils; IV. Since the present evils of city government could be better remedied by other means;

Therefore, a property qualification for the exercise of the municipal franchise is undesirable.

a restriction which, because it is no fair test of virtue or civic ability, disfranchises honest men and leaves the present bosses free to continue their corrupt work. The remedy lies not in a plan which is based on the false assumption that only those who pay taxes have a stake in the city government, and on the equally false assumption that the best government can be secured by refusing representation to the poorer classes, - an idea unfair, undemocratic, and un-American. The remedy lies, not in a plan which would retard public improvement by fostering the cupidity of tax-payers; which would take away the educational force of universal suffrage just where it is most needed, - a plan the very nature of which would aggravate the already growing social unrest in our large cities. On the other hand, it seems clear that the most effective methods of municipal reform are those which have been so successful in the cities of England, after the property qualification proved a miserable failure. The crying need of corrupt American city politics is by no means a property qualification, but methods which experience has proved to be efficient and free from the attendant evils of a property qualification. We need, above all, corrupt practices acts, an extension of the Civil Service, and experts at the heads of our city departments.

APPENDIX VIII

SPECIMEN OF FALLACIES

BY JEREMY BENTHAM, AN IMAGINARY SPEECH INVOLVING THE TYPICAL FALLACIES OF THE ANTI-REFORMERS1

WHAT would our ancestors say to this, Sir? How does this measure tally with their institutions? How does it agree with their experience? Are we to put the wisdom of yesterday in competition with the wisdom of centuries? [Hear! Hear!] Is beardless youth to show no respect for the decisions of mature age? [Loud cries of "Hear! Hear!"] If this measure be right, would it have escaped the wisdom of those Saxon progenitors to whom we are indebted for so many of our best political institutions? Would the Dane have passed it over? Would the Norman have rejected it? Would such a notable discovery have been reserved for these modern and degenerate times? Besides, Sir, if the measure itself is good, I ask the honorable gentleman if this is the time for carrying it into execution whether, in fact, a more unfortunate period could have been selected than that which he has chosen? If this were an ordinary measure I should not oppose it with so much vehemence; but, Sir, it calls in question the wisdom of an irrevocable law of a law passed at the memorable period of the Revolution. What right have we, Sir, to break down this firm column on which the great men of that age stamped a character of eternity? Are not all authorities against this measure Pitt, Fox, Cicero, and the Attorney- and Solicitor-General? The proposition is new, Sir; it is the first time it was ever heard in this House. I am not prepared, Sir - this House is not prepared receive it. The measure implies a distrust of his Majesty's Government; their disapproval is sufficient to warrant opposition. Precaution only is requisite where danger is apprehended. Here the high character of the individuals in question is a sufficient guarantee against any ground of alarm. Give not, then, your sanction to this measure; for, whatever be its character, if you do give your sanction to it, the same man by whom this is proposed will propose to you

to

1 For a discussion of these forms of ignoring the question, see Sydney Smith's Fallacies of Anti-Reformers. (In the Harvard Classics.)

others to which it will be impossible to give your consent. I care very little, Sir, for the ostensible measure; but what is there behind? What are the honorable gentleman's future schemes? If we pass this bill, what fresh concessions may he not require? What further degradation is he planning for his country? Talk of evil and inconvenience, Sir! look to other countries study other aggregations and societies of men, and then see whether the laws of this country demand a remedy or deserve a panegyric. Was the honorable gentleman (let me ask him) always of this way of thinking? Do I not remember when he was the advocate, in this House, of very opposite opinions? I not only quarrel with his present sentiments, Sir, but I declare very frankly I do not like the party with which he acts. If his own motives were as pure as possible, they cannot but suffer contamination from those with whom he is politically associated. This measure may be a boon to the Constitution, but I will accept no favor to the Constitution from such hands. [Loud cries of "Hear! Hear!"] I profess myself, Sir, an honest and upright member of the British Parliament, and I am not afraid to profess myself an enemy to all change and all innovation. I am satisfied with things as they are; and it will be my pride and pleasure to hand down this country to my children as I received it from those who preceded me. The honorable gentleman pretends to justify the severity with which he has attacked the noble lord who presides in the Court of Chancery. But I say such attacks are pregnant with mischief to government itself. Oppose ministers, you oppose government; disgrace ministers, you disgrace government; bring ministers into contempt, you bring government into contempt; and anarchy and civil war are the consequences.... Nobody is more conscious than I am of the splendid abilities of the honorable mover, but I tell him at once his scheme is too good to be practicable. It savors of Utopia. It looks well in theory, but it won't do in practice. It will not do, I repeat, Sir, in practice; and as the advocates of the measure will find, if, unfortunately, it should find its way through Parliament. [Cheers.] The source of that corruption to which the honorable member alludes is in the minds of the people; so rank and extensive is that corruption, that no political reform can have any effect in removing it. Instead of reforming others instead of reforming the State, the Constitution, and everything that is most excellent, let each man reform himself! let him look at home, he will find there enough to do without looking abroad and aiming at what is out of his power. [Loud cheers.]

APPENDIX IX

SPECIMEN ARGUMENT: REASONING FROM

CAUSAL RELATION

PROMISE IN COLLEGE AND PERFORMANCE IN LAW

SCHOOL

WHY strive for high rank in college? Why not wait for the more "practical" studies of the professional school? Hundreds of boys the country over declare to-day that it makes little difference whether they win high grades or merely passable grades in the liberal arts, since these courses have no definite bearing on their intended lifework. Almost invariably they are ready to admit that they must settle down to serious effort in the studies of law, medicine, engineering that is to say, in professional schools. Even the sport who makes the grade of mediocrity his highest aim as a college undergraduate, fully intends to strive for high scholarship in his professional studies. Does he often attain that aim? That is the question. And that, fortunately, is a question we may answer with more than opinions.

Most conclusive are the records of the graduates of Harvard College who during a period of twenty years entered the Harvard Law School. Of those who graduated from college with no special honor, only 6 per cent attained distinction in the Law School. Of those who graduated with honor from the college, 22 per cent attained distinction in the Law School; of those who graduated with great honor, 40 per cent; and of those who graduated with highest honor, 60 per cent. Sixty per cent! Bear that figure in mind a moment, while we consider the 340 who entered college "with conditions" that is to say, without having passed all their entrance examinations and graduated from college with plain degrees. Of these men, not 3 per cent won honor degrees in law.

If a college undergraduate is ready to be honest with himself, he must say, "If I am content with mediocre work in college, it is likely that the men in my class who graduate with honor will have three times my chances of success in the Law School, and the men who graduate in my class with highest honor will have nearly ten times