and manner of the gentleman's question forbid me thus to interpret it. I am not at liberty to consider it as nothing more than a civility to his friend. It had an air of taunt and disparagement, a little of the loftiness of asserted superiority, which does not allow me to pass it over without notice. It was put as a question for me to answer, and so put as if it were difficult for me to answer, whether I deem the member from Missouri an overmatch for myself in debate here. It seems to me, sir, that is extraordinary language, and an extraordinary tone for the discussions of this body.

"Matches and overmatches! those terms are more applicable elsewhere than here, and fitter for other assemblies than this. Sir, the gentleman seems to forget where and what we are. This is a Senate; a Senate of equals; of men of individual honor and personal character, and of absolute independence. We know no masters; we acknowledge no dictators. This is a hall of mutual consultation and discussion, not an arena for the exhibition of champions. I offer myself, sir, as a match for no man; I throw the challenge of debate at no man's feet. But then, sir, since the honorable member has put the question in a manner that calls for an answer, I will give him an answer; and I tell him that, holding myself to be the humblest of the members here, I yet know nothing in the arm of his friend from Missouri, either alone or when aided by the arm of his friend from South Carolina, that need deter even me from espousing whatever opinions I may choose to espouse, from debating whenever I may choose to debate, or from speaking whatever I may see fit to say on the floor of the Senate. Sir, when uttered as matter of commendation

or compliment, I should dissent from nothing which the honorable member might say of his friend; still less do I put forth any pretensions of my own; but when put to me as a matter of taunt, I throw it back, and say to the gentleman that he could possibly say nothing less likely than such a comparison to wound my pride of personal character. The anger of its tone rescued the remark from intentional irony, which otherwise, probably, would have been its general acceptation. But, sir, if it be imagined that by this mutual quotation and commendation; if it be supposed that, by casting the characters of the drama, assigning to each his part,-to one the attack, to another the cry of onset,-or, if it be thought that by a loud and empty vaunt of anticipated victory any laurels are to be won here; if it be imagined, especially, that any or all these things will shake any purpose of mine, I can tell the honorable member, once for all, that he is greatly mistaken, and that he is dealing with one of whose temper and character he has yet much to learn. Sir, I shall not allow myself on this occasion-I hope on no occasion-to be betrayed into any loss of temper; but if provoked, as I trust I shall never allow myself to be, into crimination and recrimination, the honorable member may, perhaps, find that in that contest there will be blows to take as well as blows to give; that others can state comparisons as significant, at least, as his own; and that his impunity may, perhaps, demand of him whatever powers of taunt and sarcasm he may possess. I commend him to a prudent husbandry of his resources."

As samples of skill in oratorical fencing these extracts are worthy of study. There was nothing in

the reference to Mr. Benton by Mr. Hayne particularly exceptionable, as we stated before, and as Mr. Webster himself admits, but the offense and the mistake lay in the taunt, that is, drawing attention to one's self or one's friends is foreign to the debate, and lays the offender open to rebuke. As a mere oratorical feint Mr. Webster has the decided advantage. As a matter of fact, he had as much of personal character at stake as Mr. Hayne or Mr. Benton, but, unlike them, he kept it in the background. He pressed the subject to the front, and, by exalting his compeers and alluding to himself as one of the humblest of that distinguished body, he obtained their good-will, although he was doubtless as much bent on leadership as his opponent.

CHAPTER VI.

STATING THE PROPOSITION TO BE DISCUSSED. NECESSITY FOR CLEARNESS AND PRECISION.-INTERROGATION.

In all public speaking, whether religious or secular, the first matter of importance to receive the attention of the orator is to comprehend fully the proposition he is about to advocate, and to state it with clearness, accuracy and precision. When he has done this, his next care should be to adhere to it, to apply himself to its exposition, with fidelity and ability. This latter qualification may be described by using a term borrowed from religious discourses, and that is, "sticking to the text."

The proposition text or theme which the speaker lays down in his opening statement is the guide or finger post which points the way he is about to travel, and if he turns aside from the route thus indicated and follows every by-way not in the direct line of his march, he, among other faults, wastes those efforts which the audience has a right to expect will be devoted to the elucidation of matters upon which they desire to be informed. No orator has a lien on the attention of his hearers. On the other hand, in times of political agitation and commotion, there are certain subjects in which most intelligent

men have an interest and to the proper discussion of which they will lend an attentive ear, subjects upon which they are even eager to be enlightened by those who are able to discourse upon them with intelligence and ability. In deliberative legislative bodies this may be said to be always the case, and the speaker, if well prepared and qualified, will obtain a careful hearing, until he shows himself unfitted to cope with the subject or is overwhelmed by an opposing adversary.

It is of prime importance, therefore, that he should have a clear idea of the subject he wishes to discuss, the cause he desires to advance, and know beforehand what propositions, affecting either foreign or domestic policy, he is prepared to maintain. When he has a clear conception of this subject matter, its statement should be equally so.

There is a wide field here for a discriminating judgment. A speaker may make his language so general as to cover an infinite variety of subjects, thus creating for himself an unbounded license to speak on almost everything. However useful this plan might be in affording him an opportunity to "air his eloquence," as the term is, it is attended with the disadvantage of leaving the minds of his hearers in a confused and uncertain state, with a smattering of a variety of topics without a welldefined notion of any.

The reverse of this is much better, to confine the argument to one well-cut proposition, and bring to