Year: 1871

self as my opponent3 few weeks since,


showed certain literary expertness in
the formation and arrangement of his


sentences but, in his arguments, he


gave himself over to the most ruinous


exposure. In fact, his production


throughout holds what is but little bet
ter than meaningless distractions show


ing an attempted environment of for


midable out-works. Of what avail are


unnamed guns behino The parapet? In


the outset he burned a little incense to


Logic, as preliminary measure to pay


ing laundering devotion He COM


menced with the evident intent of max


ing himself surprising among all Aristo-


telian and Baconian gymnasts But,
alas his sentiments overcame him: he
forgot his Logic, and was borne away by


the inevitable current that flows from
the heart. So, in his accusations against


me Of "bare assertions" he unwarily


puts himself into the predicament Of the


woodman who cut off the very limb he
stood upon. Indeed, I was surprised at
the gentleman's views of logic. Now,
logic itself is But peculiar relation Of


assertions. 1t is an insult to the higher


understanding to go through with the
toll of establishing premises which are


already admitted. It is a waste of labor
to do over that which is already suffi-
GENTLY done. Yet notwithstanding his


pretentions to practicability the critic
requires just this thing. There is dan
ger of being too recitative, and thus


making cultured people clap their hands
to their noses and hasten away. To be
logical it is not necessary to have your
premises and conclusions all numbered.


A writer would thus exhibit the stilted
weakness of a perpetual school-boy.


Arguments may be made sickly by too
much corsetting. Further still, it does net
pay to sacrifice philosophic magnitudes
to microscopic formalties. Logicians
should give heed lest they become like
some dry sermonizers who with their
everlasting firstly and secondly shovel
super-heated dust upon the fire. bald
pates Of tedium-str audiences. Cur
critic in this respect is like that class Of
reasoners that resemble the old. Persian
general who determined the number of
soldiers in his army by filing successive
ly yard Of measured limits. Strong
logic is not confined to yards In other
words, the gentleman would have us un.
derstand that he viii find "Moses in the
buii-rushes' Of an innumerable series of
majors and minors But the pity is that
after edging up to excessive art, he does
not even avail himself OF It's narrow eff /
fects, but almost Invariably butts against
his own non seQuiturs.


Logic demands wholencss. But what
does the correspondent do? lie asserts !
that in housework there are some things
of greater drudgery than the drudgery
of some things in politics. Here he
tries to substitute a part for whole.
He tears from whole part whose sep
aration reason denounces, and with this
part does violence 10 the remainder of
the whole, and so kills his own logic |
with a double counter. All thinkers know
that when a whole consisting Of many
parts is dealt with, practical conclusions
are drawn from the whole and not from
a single part. In other words, the law
of average determines the practicability
Of measure. Every kind of perma-
nent business is based on this law of av-
erage. Statesmen work upon this law
to secure permanence and avoid the
mischievous influence Of political patch
work. All know that the average of
household duties is feminine all know
that the average Of political duties is
masculine. believe this to be logical
answer to his part argument: and my
belief is based On this principle, that
permanence is requisite of good gov
ernment, and permanence certainly
depends more upon the continuity of
right lines than upon the deviations Of
moral is sotherms.


The crt;e ike others Of his school ig-
nores the law OF eAradiency. Now, any
one knows that expediency must be CON
suited to make any government possible
1t is clear that abstract right misapplied
is abstract nonsense, and it is usually evil
denced by and immense spread Of stump-t
speeches, combustible glerifcation and
political super heated pyrotechnics. Who
would deny the abstract right Of an iu-
telligent boy of ten years to vote equally
with dull adult And yet who would
not deny the expediency Of such a meas
ure? Indeed, in view Of that drudgery
idea Of the writer, there are quite as
many things in politics that could be
done equally well by boys from ten to
twenty one years of age as by the wom
en- above that age. On this part argu-
ment of the critic, why not then relieve
infants from the curse of minority, re-
lieve them from the tyranny Of papas
and mamas, and set them on a. career of
political glory? So it seems that the
full application Of the reasoning of the
gentleman would end in slough Of in-
practicability. These writer's forget the
old maxim that the safety Of the Repub-
lie is the highest law.


Supposing the ballot should be given
to woman and she should choose to exer-
else her right, then would be created a