ment has never yet become so prostrate under the heel of the slave-owner as to consent to the reopening of the slave-trade. Therefore, the southern planter was in this unfortunate position: he could not tempt, perhaps he did not want, free laborers from the North; he could not tempt, perhaps he did not want, free laborers from Europe; and if he did want, he was not permitted to fetch slave labor from Africa. Well, that being so, we arrived at this conclusion-that whilst the cultivation of cotton was performed by slave labor, you were shut up for your hope of increased growth to the small increase that was possible with the increase of two and one-half per cent per annum in the population of the slaves, about one million in number that have been regularly employed in the cultivation of cotton. Then, if the growth was thus insufficient,-and I as one connected with the trade can speak very clearly upon that point I ask you whether the production and the supply were not necessarily insecure by reason of the institution of slavery?

"It was perilous within the Union. In this country we made one mistake in our forecast of this question: we did not believe that the South would commit suicide; we thought it possible that the slaves might revolt. They might revolt, but their subjugation was inevitable, because the whole power of the Union was pledged to the

maintenance of order in every part of its dominions.

"But if there be men who think that the cotton trade would be safer if the South were an independent state, with slavery established there in permanence, they greatly mistake; because, whatever was the danger of revolt in the southern states whilst the Union was complete, the possibility of revolt and the possibility of success would surely be greatly increased if the North were separated from the South, and the negro had only his southern master, and not the northern power, to contend against.'

C. CLEARNESS

The third fundamental of a good style of speaking is clearness. It is not enough to concentrate on one topic and to proceed coherently; each thought unit must be clear. That clearness of thought is essential to clearness of expression has frequently been pointed out. But it is a truth which cannot be over-emphasized. If we wish to convey an idea to others, we must first grasp it without a suspicion of vagueness. The explanation of most of the vague, self-contradictory, or fatuous discussions which one so frequently hears lies in muddled thinking rather than in poor speaking. Any uncertainty as to the significance of a fact, the aptness of an illustration, or the

relationship of thoughts is an index of confusion, and is almost sure to result in unclear expression. On the other hand, a clear perception of such matters conduces to clarity of expression. It remains then only to present one's thoughts with simplicity and directness.

I. Simplicity

66

It would be an error, of course, to underestimate the attention which these two qualities require before they become habitual with the speaker. But the task is greatly lightened by getting the right idea from the start, and thus escaping the pitfalls which yawn for those who set out with a false sense of values. An ability to use big words and high sounding phrases, for example, is sometimes deliberately and unfortunately cultivated. The use of such words as "ratiocination," " "postprandial," and "ebullient," when "thinking,' "after-dinner," and "lively," would express the ideas, may inspire awe in the "unskillful" but "it cannot but make the judicious grieve." Not that the principle of clearness requires the avoidance of all large or unusual words. If a polysyllabic word of Latin origin, like "circumvallation," a technical term, such as "electrolysis," or even a foreign expression, like "denouement," or "zeitgeist," is requisite to express the speaker's exact idea, he should feel free to employ it-with

such explanation as may be necessary. But to seek such words, or to strain for "elegance" by turning every "big fire" into a "disastrous conflagration," every "funny reply" into a "titillating rejoinder" is a great mistake. In a word, the speaker should aim to use the simplest, most easily understood language consistent with adequate expression of his thoughts. And that simple language is ordinarily adequate to convey the beauty, strength and emotion of even the most profound thoughts is shown in such a speech as Lincoln's "Gettysburg Address." This immortal utterance so finely illustrates how simplicity of expression is consistent with impressiveness that I venture to quote it entire.

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

"Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

"But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicatewe cannot consecrate-we cannot hallow-this

ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far beyond our poor power to add or to detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us, the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us-that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave their last full measure of devotion; that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

II. Directness

Closely akin to simplicity as an aid to clearness is directness. This comprises brevity and straightforwardness of construction. It means the avoidance of intricate, wordy, clumsy or stilted sentences. Such sentences call to mind the following specimen from Benjamin Franklin's proposal to revise the Book of Job. As a sample of improvement, he advocated that the sentence, "Doth Job fear God for naught?" be changed to, "Does your majesty imagine that Job's good conduct is