Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

trast, or cause and effect; it will appear together with those wherever possible.

Overlapping Topics.

14. One caution is necessary. The topics in a plan should not overlap. The following plan of a pupil's essay on Prejudices against High School Athletics shows an unusual amount of this overlapping :

1. Prejudices of those who think that only a few benefit by athletics. 2. Prejudice of the "grinds." 3. Prejudice of those who fear that athletics will interfere with studies. 4. Prejudice of the ignorant. 5. Prejudice of the parents. 6. Prejudice of those who think too much time is spent in athletics. 7. Prejudice of some teachers.

In this plan (to mention only the clearest cases) topics 1 and 2 overlap, and so do topics 2 and 3, 3 and 4, 3 and 5, 6 and 7, as well as several pairs of topics. Since some prejudices against high school athletics are shared by parents, teachers, and pupils, it will not do to divide the subject into topics on that basis. Topics 2, 4, 5, and 7 will have to be dropped, and the principle of topics 1, 3, and 6, which name specific prejudices, will have to be continued, if there are other specific prejudices represented by topics 2, 4, 5, and 7. We see then that the way to prevent overlapping is to adopt but one principle of division in stating the main topics.

Summary.

In grouping topics observe these four principles:

1. Plan what you mean to write, before you write it.

2. Arrange the facts in a natural order according to some principle such as association, contrast, or cause and effect.

3. Secure climax by putting the more important facts after the less important.

4. Avoid overlapping topics.

15.

Assignments on Grouping Topics.

A. In the following discover the plan and write it out fully. What principle of grouping is most often employed? Can you find cases of cause and effect? Of contrast and antithesis? Upon the same plan write a narrative of some experience of your own or of an acquaintance.

I was once walking in the streets of a large city, in which I was a stranger, looking around for some striking exhibitions of human character or effort, when I saw several persons, of apparently low rank in life, standing before the door of what was apparently some public building. I thought it was probably a court-house, and that these were the men who had been called as witnesses, and that they were waiting for their turn to testify. As courts are always open to the public, I concluded to go in and hear some of the causes. I walked up the steps and entered a spacious hall, and at the foot of a flight of stairs saw a little painted sign, saying that the court-room was above. I passed up and pushed open the light baize door, which admitted me to the room itself.

At the end at which I entered there were two rows of seats, one row on each side of an aisle which led up through the centre. These seats seemed to be for spectators; for those on one side were nearly filled with women, and those on the other by men. I advanced up the aisle until I nearly reached the centre of the room, and then took my seat among the spectators, where I could distinctly hear and see all that passed. Before me, at the farther end of the room, sat the judge, in a sort of desk on an elevated platform, and in front of him was another desk, lower, which was occupied by the clerk, whose business it was to make a record of all the causes that were tried. There was an area in front of the judge, in which were seats for the various

lawyers; and in boxes at the sides were seats for the jury, who were to hear the evidence, and decide what facts were proved. On one side of the room was a door made of iron grating, with sharp points upon the top, which led, I supposed, to an apartment where the prisoners were kept.

Not long after I had taken my seat, the clerk said that the next cause was the trial of O. B. for housebreaking. The judge commanded an officer to bring the prisoner into court. The officer went to the iron door I have described, unlocked it, and brought out of the room into which it opened, a prisoner; he looked guilty and ashamed; his face was pale not as though he was afraid, but as if his constitution had been impaired by vice. They brought him into the middle of the room, and placed him in a sort of pew with high sides, and shut him in. He leaned against the front of it, looked at the judge, and began to listen to his trial.

The clerk read the accusation. It was, that he had broken open an unoccupied house once or twice, and taken from it articles belonging to the owner of the house. The judge asked him if he pleaded guilty, or not guilty. He said, not guilty. The judge then asked the jury at the side to listen to the evidence, so that they might be prepared to decide whether this man did break open the house or not.

Men not accustomed to speak in public assemblies, could not easily give their testimony in such a case, so that it would be fully understood on all the important points. In fact, very few know fully what the important points are. Hence it is proper that there should be lawyers present, who can ask questions, and thus examine the witnesses in such a manner as to bring out fully all the facts in the case. There is one lawyer appointed by the government, whose business it is to bring to view all the facts which indicate

the prisoner's guilt; and another appointed by the prisoner, who takes care that nothing is omitted or lost sight of which tends to show his innocence. When the prisoner has not appointed any counsel, the judge appoints some one for him; this was done in the case before us.

The first witness called was the owner of the house. It is necessary that each witness should be a man of good character, and that he should testify only to what he saw or heard. No one is permitted to tell what some one else told him; for stories are very likely to be altered in repetition; so that, even in a complicated case, each man goes only so far as his own personal knowledge extends. And, in order to be sure that the jury shall have his own story, he is obliged to come personally into court, and tell the story in presence of all. The owner of this house was probably a man of business; and a great deal of valuable time would have been saved if he had been permitted to write down his account and send it in. But no: every witness, where it is possible, must actually come into court and present his evidence with his own voice. This remark it is important to remember, as the principle will come to view when we consider the other case.

The witness testified that he owned a certain house; that he moved out of it, and locked it up, leaving some articles in an upper chamber; that one day he went in and found that the house had been entered, I believe by a window, and that the chamber-door had been broken open, and some of the articles taken away. He said that he then employed a watchman to sleep in the house, and to try to catch the thief.

Here he had to stop; for, although he knew how the watchman succeeded, he was not permitted to tell, for he did not see it. No man testifies except to what he has seen or heard.

The watchman was next called. The lawyer for the government asked him :

"Were you employed by the owner of this house to watch for a thief in it?"

"Yes, sir."

"What did he tell you when he engaged you?

"He told me that his house had been broken open, and he wished me to watch for the thief."

"Did you do it?

"Yes, sir."

"Well, relate to the jury what occurred that night." "I watched several nights.

For some nights nothing

occurred. All was quiet till morning."

"In what room did you stay?"

"In the room under the chamber from which the articles had been stolen."

"Well, go on with your account."

"At last, on the 15th of June, as I was then watching, about three o'clock in the morning I heard a noise. Some one was coming softly upstairs. He went up into the room over my head, and after remaining a few minutes there, he began to come down. I immediately went out into the entry and seized him, and took him to the watch-house. The next morning he was put in prison."

The lawyer then pointed to the prisoner at the bar, and asked if that was the man. The witness said it was.

The judge then asked the counsel for the prisoner if he had any questions to ask, and he did ask one or two, but they were not material. The jury then consulted together, and all agreed that the prisoner was proved guilty; and the judge ordered him to be sent back to prison till he should determine what punishment must be assigned.

This is substantially the way in which all trials are conducted. - J. ABBOTT.

[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »