Each of these would in turn depend upon other reasons, but every proposition will depend for its acceptance on the proof of a few main issues.  Perhaps this point can be made clearer by an illustration.  Suppose we should take hold of one small rod which we see in the framework of a large truss bridge and should say:  “This bridge is strong because this rod is here.”  Our statement would be only partially true.  The rod might be broken, and although the strength of the bridge as a whole might be slightly weakened, it would not fall.  But suppose we should say:  “This bridge really rests on these four great steel beams which run down to the stone abutment.  If I can see that these four steel beams are secure, I can believe in the security of the bridge.”  So a mechanical engineer shows us that certain rods and bars of the framework hold up one beam, and how similar rods and bars sustain a second, and that yet other rods and bars distribute the weight that would press too heavily on a third, and so at last we are convinced that the bridge is safe.  It is not because we have been shown that several of the bolts and braces are strong, but because we have been shown that the four great beams, upon which it rests, are reliable.

Thus it is with everything in which we believe.  We do not believe that taxes are just because the government must have money to pay the president or to buy uniforms for the army officers.  These things must be done, but they are incidentals.  They are facts, but they are like the small braces of the bridge.  We believe that taxation is just, because the government must have money for its work.  Paying the president and buying uniforms are details of this more fundamental reason.

In the same way we might say:  “Athletics should be encouraged in high schools because it will make John Brown, who will participate, more healthy.”  That is a reason, but again only a small supporting reason.  We might rather choose a fundamental reason, which this slight reason would in turn support, and it would be:  “Athletics should be encouraged in high schools because they improve the health of the students that participate.”

In a recent debate between two large high schools on the proposition:  “Resolved, That Contests within High Schools Should Be Substituted for Contests between High Schools,” one of the contesting teams took the following as issues: 

  1.  Contests within high, schools will accomplish the real purpose of
  contests better than will contests between schools.

  2.  Contests within high schools are the more democratic.

  3.  Contests within high schools can be made to work successfully.

When these three facts had been demonstrated, there was little left to urge against the claim.

Recently among the universities of a certain section, this question was discussed:  “Resolved, That the Federal Government Should Levy a Graduated Income Tax.” (Such tax was conceded as constitutional.) One university decided upon these as the issues: