Relation of Material to the Purpose of the Speech.  A few examples will show the wide application of this principle.  A boy who has explained to his father the scholarship rules of his school concerning athletes will discard a great deal of that material when he addresses a student gathering.  A speaker on child labor in a state where women have voted for a long time will discard much of the material presented in a neighboring state where general franchise has just been granted.  If in a series of remarks you want to emphasize the thrilling experience you have had with a large fish which jerked you out of a boat, you would not include such material as the trip on the train to the lake where you had your adventure.  Why not?

These are humble instances, but the principle of selection is the same for all speeches.

A man who was asked to lecture on Mark Twain knew the contents of the thirty published volumes written by him, all the biographies, practically every article written about him; he had conversed with people who had known him; he had visited scenes of his life; yet when he planned to talk for an hour he had to reject everything except two striking periods of his life with their effects upon his writing.

Burke, in one great effort, declared he had no intention of dealing with the right of taxation; he confined himself merely to the expediency of Great Britain’s revenue laws for America.  Other great speakers have—­in their finished speeches—­just as clearly indicated the plans they have decided to follow.  Such definite announcements determine the material of many introductions.

    My task will be divided under three different heads:  first,
    The Crime Against Kansas, in its origin and extent; secondly,
    The Apologies for the Crime; and, thirdly, The True Remedy.

    CHARLES SUMNER:  The Crime against Kansas, 1856

    Mr. President and Fellow Citizens of New York: 

The facts with which I shall deal this evening are mainly old and familiar; nor is there anything new in the general use I shall make of them.  If there shall be any novelty, it will be in the mode of presenting the facts, and the inferences and observations following that presentation.  In his speech last autumn at Columbus, Ohio, as reported in the New York Times, Senator Douglas said:  “Our fathers, when they framed the government under which we live, understood this question just as well, and even better, than we do now.”

I fully indorse this, and I adopt it as a text for this discourse.  I so adopt it because it furnishes a precise and an agreed starting-point for a discussion between Republicans and that wing of the Democracy headed by Senator Douglas.  It simply leaves the inquiry:  What was the understanding those fathers had of the question mentioned?

    ABRAHAM LINCOLN:  Cooper Union Speech, 1860