In the introduction of the speech I shall become expansive upon the term Dialectic, and try to impress my hearers (if there are any) with my thorough acquaintance with all things which the term suggests.  If I continue expatiating upon the word long enough they may come to think that I actually coined the word, for I shall not emphasize Doctor Durell especially—­just enough to keep my soul untarnished.  In a review of this book one man translates the first word “luck.”  I don’t like his word and for two reasons:  In the first place, it is a short word, and everybody knows that long words are better for speechmaking purposes.  If he had used the word “accidental” or “incidental” I’d think more of his translation and of his review.  I’m going to use my word as if Doctor Durell had said Incidental.

So much for the introduction; now for the speech.  From this point forward I shall draw largely upon the book but shall so turn and twist what the doctor says as to make it seem my own.  With something of a flourish, I shall tell how in the year 1856 a young chemist, named Perkin, while trying to produce quinine synthetically, hit upon the process of producing aniline dyes.  His incidental discovery led to the establishment of the artificial-dye industry, and we have here an example of dialectic efficiency.  This must impress my intelligent and cultured auditors, and they will be wondering if I can produce another illustration equally good.  I can, of course, for this book is rich in illustrations.  I can see, as it were, the old fellow on the third seat, who has been sitting there as stiff and straight as a ramrod, limber up just a mite, and with my next point I hope to induce him to lean forward an inch, at least, out of the perpendicular.

Then I shall proceed to recount to them how Christopher Columbus, in an effort to circumnavigate the globe and reach the eastern coast of Asia, failed in this undertaking, but made a far greater achievement in the discovery of America.  If, at this point, the old man is leaning forward two or three inches instead of one, I may ask, in dramatic style, where we should all be to-day if Columbus had reached Asia instead of America—­in other words, if this principle of dialectic efficiency had not been in full force.  Just here, to give opportunity for possible applause, I shall take the handkerchief from my pocket with much deliberation, unfold it carefully, and wipe my face and forehead as an evidence that dispensing second-hand thoughts is a sweat-producing process.

Then, in a sort of sublimated frenzy, I shall fairly deluge them with illustrations, telling how the establishment of rural mail-routes led to improved roads and these, in turn, to consolidated schools and better conditions of living in the country; how the potato-beetle, which seems at first to be a scourge, was really a blessing in disguise in that it set farmers to studying improved methods resulting in largely increased crops, and how the scale has done a like service for fruit-growers; how a friend of mine was drilling for oil and found water instead, and now has an artesian well that supplies water in great abundance, and how one Mr. Hellriegel, back in 1886, made the incidental discovery that leguminous plants fixate nitrogen, and, hence, our fields of clover, alfalfa, cow-peas, and soybeans.