suffrage in the United States. Now, the presumption is quite as strong in the opposite direction. Other presumptions that have changed with the progress of time are those against the use of bicycles for business purposes, the use of electricity as a source of light, as a motor, and as a heating agent, and the success of aerial navigation. In Mr. Gladstone's mind,1 «The fact of existence carries with it the presumption of its continuance; which presumption holds good till rebutted by adverse presumption or proof." In Mr. Goldwin Smith's mind this presumption is not so strong. The presumption as to the beneficial effect of free silver upon the material prosperity of the country, would be different in the mind of a Montana silver mine owner, and in that of a New York banker. Possession of the private property of a murdered person is criminative evidence of a high degree, without reference to what the law says; but if he who has the property cannot satisfactorily explain how he came by it, the law presumes that it was taken in the perpetration and execution of the murder. The deliberate publication of calumny which the publisher either knows be untrue or has no reason to believe to be true, raises a strong presumption of malice: the law makes this presumption conclusive proof. The shrewd debater will take advantage of the presumption when possible. On matters of speculation or mere theory, however, as well as on matters where there is no common established opinion, and on many matters of expediency, there will be no presumption. That the pleasures of hope Cases of No 1 North American Review, clxii. are greater than the pleasures of memory;' That Lincoln was a greater statesman than Washington;'That man has an intuitive belief in the true God;' That there is transmigration of souls,'—are propositions of this kind. Man's knowledge, wishes, preferences and prejudices, do not amount to a presumption. In such cases the burden of proof lies on him who affirms either side. In Debate. In a debate it becomes a matter of agreement as to which side shall be affirmative and which negative. "It naturally devolves on the one who opens the debate, after clearing the ground by stating the question in full, with all necessary amplification, exposition of terms and proposed limitations, to adduce arguments, constructive and positive, and of such force that some of them will be unanswerable." Of course, he is at liberty to anticipate counter arguments, objections and refutations. Such a course will tend to weaken the force of those arguments when they are brought forward by an opponent. On the other hand, there is the risk that it may be only so much wasted energy;1 for an opponent may choose not to advance the argument or objection at all, though if he does this simply because he feels that its force has been already weakened, the energy can hardly be considered wasted. The negative will be victorious if it meets all the arguments of the affirmative. This is practically the meaning of burden of proof and presumption in debate. It is to the advantage of him against whom the presumption lies, to change this at the beginning of 1 Page 207. Shifting the his discourse, or as early as possible. A very little evidence may suffice to raise a counter-presumption, or strong evidence may be required, according to the strength of the presumption to be overcome. The presumption in favor of a protective tariff may be overcome by showing the abuses to which it leads, or the greater advantages of a modified tariff; or it may be shown that the prosperity of the country attributed to the tariff, is due to several other causes; or that another country, in other respects like this, is just as prosperous under a system of free trade. The presumption against woman suffrage may be overcome by evidence that where she has voted, the political air has been purified, more equitable laws have been enacted, and the moral tone of society has been elevated. This counter-presumption, again, may be changed by showing that the purification of politics, the enacting of better laws and the moral elevation of society, are due to other influences. Thus in any debate the presumption may shift from side to side with the progress of the dis cussion. Removing a prejudice is often equivalent to overcoming a presumption. Individuals and communities usually have preferences and prejudices amounting to presumptions in favor of the opinions, poRemoving litical, social, religious and industrial, with Prejudice. which they have grown up, not knowing or understanding others. Enlightenment as to other opinions may change this prejudice, or overcome the presumption. III. EVIDENCE. Evidence Defined. Evidence is the general name for whatever is brought forward to substantiate a fact or establish a proposition. It may be a material object, an action, a quality or a condition, actually presented to those who are to be convinced. It may be a public document, an official seal, or the oral or written testimony of witnesses. It may be such a combination of related facts and circumstances as will admit of but a single reasonable explanation. It may be an opinion or interpretation of facts by one, who, having given this kind of matter careful examination, is specially competent to testify. Evidence is not necessarily proof; but it may be so presented, either alone or combined with other evidence, as to afford conclusive proof. Best Evidence. Knowledge at first hand, the evidence of one's own senses or consciousness, is the most convincing. One who witnesses a murder has little doubt as to the fact or the method of killing. According to the Bible account, Jesus convinced the disciples of his resurrection by actually appearing to them. Thomas was convinced of the Saviour's identity by an examination of his wounds. A man who on account of long absence is supposed to be dead, disproves the supposition by appearing alive to his family. "By exhibiting facts Ex-Governor Flower shows that the collapse and ruin which have overtaken the country in the last twenty-five years are a mere figment of the fancy. This fancy is based upon and appeals to the universal human tendency to think of the remote past as 'good old times,' and to long for a return to them. The only way to dissipate it is to appeal to the actual facts. To the Watertownians, just beginning to dream of the good old times of 1870, when they were all so rich and happy, Mr. Flower speaks as follows: You now have 800 men employed in the manufacture of wagons. Did you have a single wagon factory in 1870? No. You have now 300 men engaged in manufacturing car-brakes. Did you have a brake company then? No. You then had two paper mills. How many have you now? Twenty-seven. At that time your population was 10,000; it is now 20,000. Were your wages higher? Not so high. Were your streets paved and sewered? No.' And the audience recognized the voice of truth in the facts actually presented to them."1 Huxley was convinced of the successive steps in the evolution of the horse by seeing the fossil remains at different stages of development. Rarity of Such Evidence. Very little proof, however, comes from knowledge at first hand, or the evidence of one's own senses. Juries seldom see the crime committed, or are even favored with the testimony of witnesses to a crime. The jury were convinced of Frank Knapp's complicity in the White murder, by the testimony of witnesses, not to the fact of the killing, but to circumstances bearing on the fact. We believe in the facts of history because of our faith in human testimony. The present generation knows there was a Civil War from the testimony of those engaged in it. The guilt or innocence of most persons accused of crime is established by what is called circumstantial evidence,2 for most crimes are not witnessed in detail. Scientific hypotheses are necessarily established in this way, as Huxley explains in the Lectures on Evolution. |