1. Is the authority competent?-Whenever another's opinion is quoted to substantiate a statement, it must appear that the person quoted is an authority on the matter in question and the best that can be produced. If the authority used amounts to expert testimony, it must appear that the witness is qualified as an expert. The opinion of a member of the Panama Commission on the subject of the interoceanic canal would be better authority than a statement by a member of Congress. A Government publication is better authority than an irresponsible newspaper report. If Thomas W. Lawson's articles on "Frenzied Finance" were quoted as authority regarding the unjustifiable methods of the Standard Oil Company, it might be urged that he speaks as a partisan. On the other hand, his claims to reliability are thus defended by the Detroit News-Tribune:

Mr. Lawson is many times a millionaire. At least such is the common belief among his countrymen, and it is certain that, in all the outward evidences of the possession of great wealth, he keeps pace with most of our modern Croesuses. A man's possessions are not necessarily indicative of his veracity; but, under particular circumstances, they may become so. In this instance they are at least presumptive proof that he has not yet overstepped the bounds of what he is prepared to establish if haled into court by any of the victims of his scathing and erratic pen. This is true because his financial responsibility is hardly to be questioned, and none of the money-bags who have been squirming under his lash can excuse himself from bringing action against

the offender on the ground that it would be impossible to recover anything like adequate damages. Moreover, there has been ample temptation to shut him off by proceedings under laws of criminal libel, if he has afforded his former associates any hopeful opportunity for such action. Month after month his revelations of criminal doings, apparently brought home to men of prominence and standing in the financial and social worlds, have been permitted to appear without the slightest public effort made to shut off this flood of disclosures. Up to date the general public has accepted Mr. Lawson's literary efforts with a surprise mingled with incredulity. His continued immunity from interference or attempted punishment for statements of the most damning import directed against supposedly selfrespecting men is beginning to influence many to the belief that those whom he attacks are in no position to reply.

2. Is the authority unprejudiced? - Testimony from biased witnesses, as we have seen, is of little value. In like manner a statement from an authority who is prejudiced, though otherwise competent, is unconvincing. Any one who is in any manner interested in the problem under discussion, be it financially, politically, religiously, socially, or otherwise, may be sincere, but seldom trustworthy. "A prejudiced man," says Professor Foster, "sees evidence in a distorted way; he has a keen eye for what supports his own interests or opinions and is inclined to overlook the rest. He evades complete research when he has an instinctive feeling that the results will not be pleasing to him; he carries his arguments only far enough to support his precon

ceived notions, instead of pushing them rigorously to their logical conclusions. His keen desire that such and such should be the truth makes him believe that it is the truth.”

Statements from political speeches, from sectarians, from monopolists, etc., when relating to matters of special interest to them, should be accepted com grano salis unless accompanied by sound proof.

Burke, in his speech to the Electors of Bristol, showed that he was unprejudiced:

I confess to you freely that the sufferings and distress of the people of America, in this cruel war, have at times affected me more deeply than I can express. . . . Yet, the Americans are utter strangers to me; a nation among whom I am not sure that I have a single acquaintance.

3. Is the authority recognized as such by the hearers? -Not only must the authority be good in itself; it must be accepted by the hearers. The final judge as to its fitness in a given case is, not the speaker, but his audience. If the authority is not respected, in matters of opinion it is no authority. In this connection it is well to note the decay of the argument from authority in modern times. It is of more force in legal discussions than in general debate, but even in the courts, so far as "expert testimony" is concerned, juries are now slow to accept the opinions of experts as final. The reasons for this are thus set forth by Wharton in his Law of Evidence (page 425):

...

When expert testimony was first introduced it was regarded with great respect. An expert, when called as a witness, was viewed as the representative of the science of which he was a professor, giving impartially its conclusions. Two conditions have combined to produce a material change in this relation. In the first place, it has been discovered that no expert, no matter how learned and incorrupt, speaks for his science as a whole. Few specialties are so small as not to be torn by factions; and often, the smaller the specialty the bitterer and more inflaming and distorting are the animosities by which these factions are possessed. . . . In the second place, the retaining of experts, by a fee proportioned to the importance of their testimony, is now, in cases in which they are required, as customary as is retaining of lawyers. . . . Hence it is that, apart from the partisan temper more or less common to experts, their utterances, now that they have as a class become the retained agents of parties, have lost all judicial authority, and are entitled only to the weight which a sound and cautious criticism would award to the testimony itself. In adjusting this criticism, a large allowance must be made for the bias necessarily belonging to men retained to advocate a cause, who speak not as to fact, but as to opinion; who are selected on all moot questions, either from their prior advocacy of, or from their readiness to adopt the opinion wanted. In such instances we are inclined to adopt the strong language of Lord Campbell, that "skilled witnesses come with such a bias on their minds to support the cause in which they are embarked that hardly any weight should be given to their evidence."

In general debate, also, many sources once considered authoritative are no longer so. The Ro

man Catholic Church is no longer an authority in law, nor the Bible in science. So, in the discussion of unsettled problems, the opinions of the most eminent men are not authority. They lack the force of general acceptance. If, for example, one is arguing in favor of Government ownership of interstate railroads, the opinions of railway attorneys and officials, of shippers, of members of Congress, of the Interstate Commerce Commission, or of the President of the United States, while they may be used as corroborative of one's argument, are in no sense authoritative. Such an argument might be reduced to this form: "The President of the United States favors this plan, therefore it should be adopted." This is a fallacy frequently noticeable in student debating. If the opinions of men, however prominent, are to be accepted as proof of one's case, there is nothing to debate. You cannot win a debate by a count of hands. In most questions, the average American auditor reserves the right of individual opinion and conscience, and no opinion is accepted as orthodox. The reason for such an opinion must be shown.

On the other hand, whenever a question under discussion concerns matters wherein authorities exist which the opposing side is bound to recognize, the use of the argument from authority still has an important place. Thus, a court constitutes an authority on points of law; the Bible, on religious questions; and a book universally accepted as authoritative on matters within its particular field constitutes an authority in such field-such as the