Preparation. It has been said that the main rules for preparing for a debate are three: "Read. Read much. Read very much." But these rules must be supplemented by three of even greater importance: "Think. Think much. Think very much." The tendency of students is to make reading a substitute for thinking. If they cannot find ready-made arguments, a case worked out for them on the exact proposition, they complain that there is no available material. They expect to prepare for a debate as they do for a declamation. But debaters should consult printed matter mainly for facts to think about. Their reading should enlighten them as to the origin and meaning of the question, furnish the historical basis for the discussion, warn them against untenable positions, reveal the strong and the weak points of the other side, and suggest evidence for them to interpret and employ. Debaters should react on what they read and make it their own. They must expect to work hard, for in all undertakings in which the reward is great, the labor is great in proportion. "All things excellent are as difficult as they are rare.'

A book on oratory recommends the following method of learning to speak, as given by one who had tried it:

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 groundwork of all good speaking is and must be sustained and vigorous thinking. No devices of elocution, no training in loqua

city, 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 of them 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 can never produce sound

reasoners.

It may be true of after-dinner speaking, as Colonel Higginson says, that the best things are "almost always the sudden flashes and the thoughts not dreamed of before. Indeed, the best hope that any orator can have 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 that are henceforth to be her home." 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.

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 stand

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

ard 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. It is hard to convince him that opinions worth anything are not to be picked up on every street corner. Yet his opinions must be of trifling value, off-hand verdicts based on shallow and accidental knowledge of the subject, or of some other subject.

The debater 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, and 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. As the subject of analysis has already been fully discussed, we need add nothing here but a few illustrations from recent debates.

The Introduction should be unprejudiced. Objectionable in this respect are the opening speeches of an interuniversity 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 was no need to proceed with the debate.

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

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