C. The "question" which these fathers understood “just as well, and even better, than we do now," is: "Does the proper division of local from Federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, forbid our Federal Government to control as to slavery in our Federal Territories?

III. The question is, therefore, "Did the framers of the constitution understand that the Federal Government is prohibited from controlling slavery in the territories?"

IV. The special issues resulting from this clash of opinion are: 1. Did the words and actions of the framers of the Constitution show that the Federal Government is prohibited from controlling slavery in the territories?

2. Did the First Congress, which contained a part of these framers and which understood their intentions, show that it believed the Federal Government to be prohibited from controlling slavery in the territories?

The foregoing introduction shows well the brevity and directness which should characterize the first division of a brief. The subject-matter indicates the impartial manner in which the subject is discussed throughout the introduction. Nothing is stated which requires proof. The speaker selects common ground upon which both parties to the controversy have agreed to stand. From this position he leads his opponents by logical steps to the arguments which he advances.

When the student has once found the main issues he should eliminate all useless steps in the analysis and present with clearness and force the necessary parts of the process which lead directly to the proof.

5. The main statements in the proof should correspond to the main issues set forth in the introduction, and should read as

reasons for the truth of the proposition.

The object of the introduction to the brief is to set forth the main issues. In like manner the object of the proof is to set forth the evidence which supports these main issues. Therefore the main issues constitute the main headings of the second division of the brief. Moreover, these main issues must all read directly as reasons for the truth of the proposition. To illustrate this rule, let us consider the following example.

BRIEF

PROPOSITION: Resolved, that the policy of protection should be abandoned by the United States.

I.

II.

INTRODUCTION

}(First part of introduction omitted)

III. The clash of opinion reveals the following issues:

A. Is protection sound in theory?

B. Is protection sound in practice?

The above example sets forth the form in which these main issues appear in the proof of the brief. The validity of the reasoning which connects the main issues with the

proposition may be tested by putting the word "because" or "for" after the proposition and reading it in connection with each main issue; thus:

A. The policy of protection should be abandoned by the United States because (or for) protection is unsound in theory.

B. The policy of protection should be abandoned by the United States because (or for) protection is unsound

in practice.

Each main issue should be tested in the manner suggested above. This will show whether the proper logical relation exists between the main issues and the proposition. A further test may be applied by inverting the order of the main issues and the proposition and joining the two by the word "therefore," as follows: A. Protection is unsound in theory; therefore the policy of protection should be abandoned by the United States. B. Protection is unsound in practice; therefore the policy of protection should be abandoned by the United States. But the words "hence" or "therefore," should never be used in a brief, because they reverse the natural order and make the main statements subordinate.

After making sure that each main issue is stated so that it reads as a reason for the truth of the proposition, the arguer must next amass the evidence, which has been classified, in support of each of the main issues.

6. Every statement in the proof must read as a reason for the statement to which it is subordinate.

In the same way in which the main issues must read as reasons for the truth of the proposition, every statement in the proof, down to the smallest subdivision, must read as a reason for the statement of the next higher order. There must be no break in this firm logical structure. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. If any break or weakness

shows in the chain of argument, reaching from the detailed facts up to the proposition itself, the whole argument must be discarded and a new one built in its place. To illustrate this rule clearly, let us take a section from the proof of the following proposition:

Resolved, that all combinations of capital intended to monopolize industries should be prohibited by the Federal Government.

INTRODUCTION
(Omitted)

PROOF

I. Combinations of capital are unnecessary, for

A. The concentration of capital is possible without them, for 1. Many individuals and partnerships have enough capital to produce commodities in the most economical units. 2. Trades are sufficiently large to admit many great com

petitors.

B. Combinations of capital are not necessary to resist labor organizations, for

I. Labor unions do not have a complete monopoly of labor, for

a. Strikes are often a failure, for

(1) (Here cite specific instances from your personal knowledge in which strikes have failed.)

2. Associations for the purpose of resisting labor unions
are possible without combinations of capital.

II. Combinations of capital are a social evil, for
A. They encourage gambling and speculation, for
1. They practice "watering stock," for

a. (Cite a number of specific instances.)

2. They inflate or depress the value of stocks at will. B. They concentrate wealth in the hands of a few men, for 1. John D. Rockefeller gained his immense wealth from the Standard Oil monopoly.

2. (Cite several other specific examples like the above.)
C. They discourage individual enterprise, for

1. Independent producers are driven out of business.
2. An individual cannot build up a business for himself.

III. Combinations of capital are an economic evil, for
A. They limit natural production.

B. They destroy competition, for
1. They absorb large producers.
2. They crush small producers.
C. They raise prices, for

1. They gain control of the market for this purpose. IV. The prohibition of combinations of capital by the Federal Government is practicable, for

A. The power is given to the Federal Government by the Constitution, for

1. Congress is given power to regulate interstate commerce, for

a. Art. 1, Sec. 8 grants this power.

2. The United States courts have jurisdiction over these matters, for

a. Art. 1, Sec. 8 confers this power upon them.

In the above section taken from a completed brief enough evidence is introduced to show clearly the relation which must exist between each statement. Numbers I, II, III, and IV indicate the main issues. Under I, A and B read as reasons for the truth of I. Under A, 1 and 2 read as reasons for the truth of A and so on throughout the brief. Each statement is connected with the preceding statement, to which it is subordinate, by means of the conjunction "for." These statements must make complete sense and show their logical relation when connected by this conjunction: as in II. Combinations of capital are a social evil, for

A. They encourage gambling and speculation.

The rule stated at the beginning of this section is one of the most important guides to correct brief making and every part of the proof should be thoroughly tested by reference to it.

7. Statements introducing refutation must show clearly the argument to be refuted.

Refutation may be introduced at any point in the brief