|Logic, argument and Adlai Stevenson's cat bill veto
A classic in Illinois history and a very good example of argumentative writing is Governor Adlai Stevenson's veto in 1949 of a bill that would have allowed trapping stray cats. Stevenson, who went on to run for president twice in the 1950s, is still remembered for the dry sense of humor he shows in this veto message when he sent the bill back to the state legislature. His veto of the "cat bill" is a model of how to argue a veto message -- or anything else, for that matter. Here's why: If a governor explains his veto convincingly enough, the legislature may let it stand; if he doesn't, he -- or she -- may have an extra fight as lawmakers try to override the veto. So good argumentation is basically good pyschology.
It's good logic, too. Stevenson states his thesis or makes his claim toward the end, when he says, "In my opinion, the State of Illinois and its local governing bodies already have enough to do without trying to control feline delinquency." He grounds his opinion in fact by stating reasons the bill could not be enforced. And he backs up his claim with the unstated general assumption, or warrant, held by most Americans that the best government is the one that governs least. The terms claim, support and warrant come from a philosopher named Stephen Toulmin. Arguments are most convincing, according to Toulmin, when the claim is grounded in fact and backed by a warrant that many people would share.
Stevenson's cat bill veto message is a model of good organization, too. Note the order in which he states: (1) his main point, that he's vetoing the bill; (2) background on what the bill would do, "impose fines …," etc., and its legislative history; (3) an argument giving detailed support for his side of the argument, "It is in the nature of cats …," etc.; (4) a brief concession to the other side, "That cats destroy some birds, I well know," followed by his answer to it; and (5) a conclusion restating his main point (which Toulmin would call his claim) in light of his reasoning. While the cat bill veto is more than 50 years old, some things don't change much -- including the nature of cats, legislators and argumentation. It's still a good model.
STATE OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD, April 23, 1949.
To the Honorable, the Members of the Senate of the Sixth-sixth General Assembly:
I herewith return, without my approval, Senate Bill No. 93, entitled, "An Act to Provide Protection to Insectivorous Birds by Restraining Cats." This is the so-called "Cat Bill." I veto and withhold my approval from this Bill for the following reasons:
It would impose fines on owners or keepers who permitted their cats to run at large off their premises. It would permit any person to capture or call upon the police to pick up and imprison, cats at large. It would permit the use of traps. The bill would have statewide application -- on farms, in villages, and in metropolitan centers.
This legislation has been introduced in the past several sessions of the Legislature, and it has, over the years, been the source of much comment -- not all of which has been in a serious vein. It may be that the General Assembly has now seen fit to refer it to one who can view it with a fresh outlook. Whatever the reasons for passage at this session, I cannot believe there is a widespread public demand for this law or that it could, as a practical matter, be enforced.
Furthermore, I cannot agree that it should be the declared public policy of Illinois that a cat visiting a neighbor's yard or crossing the highway is a public nuisance. It is in the nature of cats to do a certain amount of unescorted roaming. Many live with their owners in apartments or other restricted premises, and I doubt if we want to make their every brief foray an opportunity for a small game hunt by zealous citizens -- with traps or otherwise. I am afraid this Bill could only create discord, recrimination and enmity. Also consider the owner's dilemma: To escort a cat abroad on a leash is against the nature of the cat, and to permit it to venture forth for exercise unattended into a night of new dangers is against the nature of the owner. Moreover, cats perform useful service, particularly in rural areas, in combating rodents -- work they necessarily perform alone and without regard for property lines.
We are all interested in protecting certain varieties of birds. That cats destroy some birds, I well know, but I believe this legislation would further but little the worthy cause to with its proponents give such unselfish effort. The problem of cat versus bird is as old as time. If we attempt to resolve it by legislation why knows but what we may be called upon to take sides as well in the age old problems of dog versus cat, bird versus bird, or even bird versus worm. In my opinion, the State of Illinois and its local governing bodies already have enough to do without trying to control feline delinquency.
For these reasons, and not because I love birds the less or cats the more, I veto and withhold my approval from Senate Bill No. 93.
ADLAI E. STEVENSON, Governor
Veto Messages of Adlai E. Stevenson, Governor of Illinois, on Senate and House Bills Passed by the 66th General Assembly of Illinois. Springfield: State of Illinois, 1949.