Adlai Stevenson's Cat Bill

Adlai Stevenson, in his veto of the “Cat Bill” (1949), argues that using the legislative power of the state of Illinois Senate to pass the bill is folly because it “could only create discord, recrimination[,] and enmity.” He supports his argument by incorporating potent sarcastic diction, jocular anecdotal evidence, and the intentional use of a slippery slope fallacy to bolster his argument. Stevenson’s purpose is to convey the absurdity of the bill in order to convince the Legislature not to override his veto. He adopts a tone of false seriousness (“It would impose fines….It would permit any person….It would permit the use of traps. This bill would have statewide implications”) for his audience of the Illinois state legislative body.

Appendix:

Type of evidence/satirical technique: Sarcastic diction
Example(s): “This is the so-called ‘Cat Bill’”

Type of evidence/satirical technique: Anecdotal evidence
Example(s): “This legislation has been introduced in the past several sessions of the Legislature…been the source of much comment….It may be…to refer it to one who can view it with a fresh outlook” (para. 3); “It is in the nature of cats to do a certain amount of unescorted roaming” (para. 6); and “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” (para. 6).
Link to argument: Stevenson’s firsthand evidence creates clarity that this bill is unenforceable due to its ridiculousness and will cause more trouble than it solves. This is powerful because it illustrates the impracticality of the bill. Type of evidence/satirical technique: intentional incorporation of the slippery slope