The mirror. (Stillwater, Minn.) 1894-1925, 1908-07-16
NEGATIVE

~
to maintain that the prehistoric dug
out, with its charred interior, together
with its forerunner the crude lOg-raft
and its successor the woven coracle-
does he mean to sincerely assert that
these strange implements of duck-pon
navigation, employed by primitive
man back in the ages eighty years or
more, when the first dim outline of the
first thought crept to british eyes-I
ask, does he intend us to imply that
this primeval driftwood has in any
practical or substantial manner con-
tributed to the development of the
great nation that owns his allegiance !?
Perhaps l do the gentleman an in
justice by intimating Intentions SO
irrational and inconsistent. But when
we reflect that he has devoted one
third part of his resolution to such
an ambiguous phraseology as "water
crafts of every description" we are
justified in every conjecture that i'm
sgination can suggest, in every con-
clusion that speculation can draw.
Was it rarebit or turtle that generated
that remarkable clause, or was the
affirmative intent on rejuvenating the
category of punt-sckuIls and mud
hensY
Recurring now to the original dec
laration permit me to define it's i'm
port and discuss its restrictions. It is
-rlrsE OF sI necessary 10 expIafn Gn2t
the burden of proof undeniabiy rests
Immediately on the party affirming the
resolution. 1t is absolutely incumbent
on him to so establish conviction in
the minds of these presiding judges
that they may consciously, honestly
and fearlessly, declare the resolution
to be true. It is imperative for this
affirmative to SO maintain his argu-
ment that it shall rise above any
reasonable doubt and remain intact
from the objections, criticisms and
denials of the negative. In this par
ticulsr instance it is altogether unnec-
essary for the denying party to estab-
lish the superiority of the discredited
agent. To defeat, it is enough that
the defense shall cause a shadow of
uncertainty and doubt to fall across
the contentious of this affirmative.
Let us now endeavor to arrive at
complete understanding of the sever
al properties of the resolution con.
tested. Now FIRST of all, it is, in its
most comprehensive sense, and in Its
conclusions, rigid, infiexiLle declafa-
tion. 1 wish you all to understand
that in this discussion, now, l exclude
from consideration that periphrase
"water crafts of every description. -
There is no hypothesis, nor supposi.
tiOn to be associated with the prevail.
ing spirit of the resolution as a whole
1t asserts certain condition of affairs
as existing and as having existed sc
positively and so rigidly that the affirm.
ing party cannot logically explore the
realm of conjecture.
The resolution, which l dispute, has
been ratified by the gentleman who
opposes me, as his firm belief and
opinion. There is, emphatically, no
room in that absolute ratification fol
vague suppositions as to what might
have happened had railroads and water
vessels never been invented. We are
not concerned with what might have
happened If Isabel and Ferdinand had
been hotentots and the venerable Co
lumbus had exhausted centuries in
the form of cheap attic monkey
wrench. Our purpose and our interest
here, today, is real material one
full of hope and love and inspiration
We have come to review the events oI
eighty years that have past. Eighty
years that have lifted nation from
it's feeble youth to q mighty manhood
The whine of pessimists, the lear Of
simpietons, the babble of toad-eaters
have, from time remotest, augmented
the discord Of the miscellaneous rsbblt
that gloat IN detracting from every