The daily morning journal and courier., 1903-06-27
ENGLISH AND AMERICAN oRATo-

No one can read MT. James Bryce's latest book, Studies in Contemporary Biography" without noting how much more importance attaches to oratory in English than in American politics, Disraeli secured the leadership of the Tory party through his ability to debate when no other member of the organiza- ton could acquit himself with credit in the House of Commons. His speech at racking Peel upon the introduction of the repeal of the corn laws drove that powerful premier from office and left Disraeli master of the situation.
 Robert Lowe, 2 politician, forgotten in sasiherica but with brilliant prospects thirty years ago, sprang into sudden prominence by virtue of few speeches E in the house against the franchise ex- tension measure of Gladstone. Before making those addresses he was an ob- scure member of the Commons. But they made him Chancellor of the Ex- chequer. Gladstone himself is the great example of the orator in modern British politics. By oratory.'' remarks ' MT. Bryce, he rose to fame and power, as, indeed, by it most English states men have risen, save those to whom wealth and rank and family connec- lions have given a sort of presumptive claim to high office"
 MT. Bryce adds that oratory is 'es- sential to the highest success in Brit < ish politics and that 'ft brings man quickly to the front, though it will not keep him there should he prove to want the other branches of statesmanlike ca- pacity." ~ ..-... It is necessary only to glance over the leading figures in American political s life in recent years to observe how su- country MT. Cleveland and President Roosevelt can speak effectively on oc- casions, but nobody thinks of them as orators. It was the same way with MT. Harrison and MT. Mckinley. Even in s the houses of congress the orator is a subordinate person. Some of the most s influential men in both houses rarely speak from the floor. Speaker Reed was an exceptionally good debater, but ' during the sessions when he was auto crat Of the house he rarely made a speech. 5 l.
 The difference between the status of oratory in England and in America is due largely to the difference in the forms of government Parliament, as the name implies, is still a place for talking, whereas congress does it's busi- ness in private conferences between po- 1itical, leaders. A debate in parliament may change the fate of the measure un- # der consideration, But in congress the Caivinistic doctrine of predestination prevails. The result is determined in advance and no debate can shape it. Furthermore, the British cabinet minis- ters, having seats in parliament, must be ready at all times to defend the course of their departments. Every minister, except a peer, from the pre- X raier down, must be skilled debater. True, he must have executive capacity. j Tut the ability to talk may often be &C., ] 8pted as compensating for deficiencies ] the ability to do things.
 l t makes no difference to President asevelt whether Secretary Hay and j .etary Root are good debaters. But zse great importance to MT. Ba1four
 s, Chamberlain and MT. Wyn<- <, Auld be able to defend their pol
 sle House of Commons. In any
 @son of the relative merits of the
 Wand American systems this dis
 #5l In the place of oratory must x @e overlooked. There are advanta- ! 10 doubt, in having ministers en-
 the country through debate as
 soolicies At the same time, the
 Emphasis upon oratory sets up
 andard of judgment for public
 , United States would have
 sad of the services of some, of
 kaful citizens from Washing
 'erson down to the present
 ess in debate had deter < Ice in public life.---Kan-