together. One may strengthen the other and even point the way to its discovery. VI. SELECTION OF EVIDENCE Not all that is relevant is of sufficient importance to be used. The time-limit in formal debate and the natural limit of human patience and attention make selection of evidence a matter of great importance. In attempting to prove, for example, that a certain man committed a theft in Boston at a certain time, it is relevant to prove that he was in Boston at that time. Yet that fact in itself makes a case against him which is only as one against five hundred thousand, since there were in Boston at the time fully five hundred thousand people. The debater cannot afford to spend his limited time in matters which advance his case in so slight a degree. Suppose, however, in the above instance, the defense had established a preponderance of proof that the man was not in Boston at the time of the theft. Then the evidence to prove that the man was in Boston would become at once of the greatest importance. Indeed, the case against him could not proceed until that presumption of his innocence had been overthrown. This illustrates the fact that evidence must be selected and weighed with constant reference to the arguments of the other side. The selection of evidence must be made with fairness. The advocate of a protective tariff who confined his remarks to the beneficent effect of the tariff on "shot, barb-wire, and putty" left his audience convinced that he must have had difficulty in finding commodities on the tariff schedule which favored his contention. It is easy to make a selection of evidence which will leave a false impression, but it is contemptible work. No man worthy of the name will pick his material with a view to deceit. Particular care must be used in the selection of statistics, for selections may be artfully made or even invented, which appear to prove widely different conclusions. For a speaker to assert as true that which he does not know to be true is as bad as to present as true that which he knows to be false. To do either is ultimately ineffective as well as ethically wrong. Among the many pieces of evidence that may honestly be used to good effect, a few may be used to great effect. If a speaker employs the first evidence that comes to hand, his work surely will be weak. He should read, read, read. He should think, think, think. And all the time he should be judiciously selecting, weighing, comparing, rejecting. He should collect a mass of material and finally throw away most of it. Let all the good pieces of evidence struggle for places in the argument: the law of selection must be the survival of the fittest. VII. USE OF EVIDENCE Do not overestimate the strength of your evidence. Do not break its back by loading upon it more work than it is able to do. Evidence may prove possibility, probability, or actuality. If, as is often the case, your evidence proves only the possibility of the truth of your contention, do not infer or proceed on the assumption that it proves more. No matter how strong your evidence may be on a really debatable proposition, it seldom proves more than a high degree of probability. Do not allow your conclusions to surpass your evidence. Those who detect the exaggeration will be forced to conclude, either that you are trying to deceive them as to the weight of the evidence, or that you are yourself deceived. In either case, they will regard all your evi dence with suspicion. Your own exaggeration in one instance will raise a presumption against all the evidence you present. As we have said in connection with direct evidence, a person who asserts that he has proved his proposition "beyond the shadow of a doubt” reveals a carelessness of judgment or of language, for "everything relating to human affairs, and depending upon moral evidence, is open to some possible or imaginary doubt." "1 VIII. TAKING NOTES OF EVIDENCE In taking notes of evidence, it is advisable to observe the following rules: 1. Use cards or sheets of paper of uniform size, and write only on one side. 2. Place on one card or one sheet of paper only evidence relating to a single sub-topic. 3. Quote from the original source unless you are forced to use a second-hand source. 4. Take few notes until you have defined the question, and secured a general idea of the controversy and a tentative set of issues. 5. Select those words which bear most cogently and 6. Always make an exact reference to the source at 10. Indicate at the top of each card the main subject or issue to which the evidence relates, and the sub-topic. 1 Chief Justice Shaw. (Bemis's Webster Case, 190.) 11. In making note of material for refutation, state exactly the argument to be refuted. 12. Employ a definite system in arranging your evidence. The following cards were prepared by men who were collecting evidence on the question, "Should secret societies in public high schools be prohibited?" The use of these cards in constructing the outline of the argument and in debating will be treated later in connection with those subjects. INFLUENCE ON SCHOLARSHIP. Report of N. E. A. Committee of the National Education Association, G. B. Morrison, of St. Louis, Chairman, resolved, – "that we condemn these secret organizations because . . . Source: Proceedings of the N. E. A., 1905, p. 451. SOCIAL INFLUENCE. Testimony of E. G. Cooley. Superintendent Cooley, of Chicago, says: "I sought an individual expression from 15 principals and Source: Sixty-Ninth Annual Report of the Board of Education, Massachusetts, 1904-1905, p. 193. LEGALITY. Following Cases quoted: State v. Hine, 59 Conn. 50. Summary of Court Decisions. Fertich v. Michener, 111 Indiana, 472. Jones v. Cody, 62 L. R. A. 160 (Detroit, Mich.). Deskins v. Gose, 85 Mo. 485. King v. The Jefferson City School District, 71 Mo. 628. Above cases all bear on general question of control of school over child. Source: Education, January, 1908. "The Nature and Scope of Control over School Children by School Authorities," by F. L. Pugsley, Melrose, Mass. AUTHORITIES. Superintendent of Schools, Chicago, since 1900. E. G. Cooley. Principal of High School, La Grange, Ill., 1893-1900. President, Department of Superintendence, N. E. A., 1904. Elected President N. E. A. following active campaign Sources: Who's Who in America, 1906-1907. School Review, September, 1906. IX. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE Almost as soon as the proposition is phrased, the question arises, "Where can I find material on this subject?" The first reply may well be this: examine carefully the content of your own mind to ascertain your beliefs and the grounds for your beliefs, to determine to what extent your ideas are founded on fact and to what extent they are merely vague impressions, and thus to differentiate what you know from what you do not |