coming a citizen of the United States misrepresents Lincoln's position: for

A. Lincoln merely mentioned the following decisions of
the Supreme Court in connection with the Dred Scott
decision as indicating a conspiracy for nationalizing
slavery, viz.:

1. That a negro cannot become a citizen: hence
a. Lincoln supposed that this decision had
been rendered in order to prevent the

negro from ever securing the rights of
citizenship.

2. That taking a negro into territory where slavery is prohibited does not make him free.

(4) Double notation should not be prefixed to a statement in a brief.

The symbol prefixed to a statement is for the purpose of showing its coördination with statements of equal rank or its subordination to statements of superior rank. To affix two symbols to a statement would therefore seem to indicate the impossible situation that the proposition in question is coördinate with another proposition and at the same time subordinate to it. For example:

(a)

I. Shortening the college course to three years is unnecessary: for

A. Provision is already made for students who are unable to spend four years in college.

B. 1. One's educational career can be shortened at other points: for

a. It can be shortened in the preparatory school

or in the professional school.

2. Either of these is better than to cut short the college

course.

At the point marked B, the brief-maker evidently was conscious of the logical correlation between the provision already made for students and the possibility of

shortening the college course at various points. But as the matter has been ordered, there is a logical paradox at the statement B. 1. That one's education can be shortened at other points, as shown by the symbol B, is parallel with A, and yet, by the presence of the symbol 1, it is apparently subordinate either to A, or to some point coördinate with A, namely, with itself. Disregarding the assertive character of the argument, which is almost totally lacking in evidence, we may improve the general structure as follows:

(b)

I. To shorten the college course from four to three years is unnecessary: for

A. Provision is already made whereby the college course may be completed in less than four years.

B. Other portions of one's educational career, such as the preparatory school or the professional school, can be cut short with less loss than would result from curtailing the work of the college.

(5) When coördinated statements in a brief stand in contrast to one another, or in any suspended relation, the several related propositions constitute, in reality, a single compound argument, rather than a succession of equivalent contentions. In such cases the relation may be fittingly expressed by the use of the symbols A, A', A"; 1, 1′, 1", etc. For example:

I. The contention that we should not consider the provision of the treaty relating to "equality" as intended to be interpreted literally is untenable: for

A. Although the treaty does not expressly confer upon the United States sovereign rights for the protection of the territory embracing the Canal, yet

A'. The omission of a clause to that effect is easily to be explained: for

1. The fact that neither party to the treaty enjoyed any title to the region to be traversed by the Canal precluded the insertion of such a clause.

In this case it is apparent that A is not complete without A', and vice versa. The advantage of the notation lies in the fact that the coördination and the unity of the two statements are both indicated, and at the same time it is possible to subordinate under either or both of the main statements such proof as may be required. This method of notation, however, should be used with discrimination. The tendency of beginners is always to over-use the A-A' type of ordering and to bind together in this compound relation arguments that are merely simple coördinations. The use of “although . . . yet," "whereas . . . yet,” etc., will always supply a test showing whether the balanced method is properly selected.

(6) Statements presented in proof of a contention should be, in turn, supported by proof whenever possible, or established by the citation of definite authority.

The failure to observe the first part of this rule results in mere assertiveness, and the unsupported ipse dixit of the brief-maker is not likely to carry conviction. The · extent to which the presentation of proof shall be carried must depend on the general character of the argument. In any case, however, the purpose of the brief is defeated when the reader, at the end of a division in the demonstration, still asks," But why is this true?" Consequently it is always desirable, when possible, to carry the demonstration down to the point where the statements become axiomatic in character or may be fairly regarded as admitted matter. The following brief illustrates the case in point:

I. Experimental vivisection has resulted in practical benefit to mankind: for

A. It has brought to light many psychological facts: for 1. All the senses have been analyzed through experiments on living creatures, brute and human: for

a. According to Leffingwell "It is the only way

in which these facts can be ascertained." B. It has proved of great benefit to the medical profession: for

1. It has discovered many needful remedies for otherwise fatal diseases, such as virus and antitoxin.

2. It has revealed to our great physicians the value of the human body.

This brief is characterized by pervasive looseness of reasoning; it would carry little conviction to one opposed to the cause of vivisection. At the point 1, under B, the reader is likely to feel considerable doubt as to how the discovery of virus and anti-toxin has proceeded from the practice in question, a consideration fundamental to the entire argument. Furthermore, the reader will certainly balk at accepting the vague generalization stated in 2, under the same head; even were it clear what is meant by' "the value of the human body," the assertion that its revelation is due to vivisection will need considerable elaboration.

The necessity for detailed proof is often met by the citation of authorities, but this is satisfactory and convincing only in so far as it is acceptable to the reader of the brief. Consequently the citation of an authority must be definite both as to the identification of the authority cited and as to the location of the opinion presented in proof. In the brief just quoted, for example, a judicious reader will give little weight to the statement regarding the analysis of the senses through experiments on living creatures unless he has some definite knowledge regarding Leffingwell, and the source of the statement quoted. Who is Leffingwell? Is he an unprejudiced authority? Is he capable of speaking authoritatively on this matter? Why is he alone cited in support of the argument? Where does he make any such assertion as cited in the brief? Unless the reader is satis

fied on these and similar matters, the citation from Leffingwell might just as well be omitted altogether and the statement regarding the analysis of the senses made on the unsupported authority of the brief-maker.

An interesting example of the unsatisfactory presentation of authorities is contained in the following extract from a brief regarding the advisability of subsidizing our merchant marine:

I. The United States possesses all the manufacturing facilities necessary to establish a successful merchant marine: for A. The United States can sell plates for steel ships at a lower figure than that at which England must buy them, says an English expert: for

1. He shows that the United States can make rails at Pittsburg, ship them across to England, pay railway and ocean freights, and even then undersell the English manufacturer. B. Francis Bowles, recently, in the face of close competition from the leading shipyards of Great Britain and the Continent, was able to secure to the United States a contract of $22,000,000 for two Argentine battleships.

II. The United States has the material for providing efficient seamen to man an efficient merchant marine: for

A. A British marine officer has recently spoken favorably
of our seafaring material: for

1. He has said, "There are hordes of men in the
United States of the calibre of such men as
Peary and those engaged in the 'Frisco and
New Bedford whalers."

2. He has said also, "There must be thousands
of sons of Britishers and Scandinavians in
America who have the 'call of the sea' in their
blood, and who would take to the water like
a duck if they had the scope."

III. The United States has the scientific marine knowledge to handle efficiently her own merchant marine: for

A. In a recent magazine article the following statements are made by an authority on marine matters, .. etc.