by common agreement.

The wording, “Provided that, if any of them dies leaving no child,” plainly makes the transfer conditional upon the absence of a child. Those who divert it from this apparent meaning do so only because the earlier wording conflicts with it. Yet the earlier wording constitutes evidence only if no clause modifying its meaning is attached to it. The reasoning thus becomes circular, and its evidentiary force collapses. For the earlier wording can only be established as requiring succession of one group as a whole to another if it is unconnected to anything modifying that meaning. Here, however, the absence of such a modifying clause cannot be established until it is established that the later wording does not indicate a modification, but conveys another meaning. That other meaning, in turn, cannot be established until the earlier wording is established as evidence for succession of one group as a whole to another. This is circular reasoning and begs the question: he has made the conclusion a premise in proving itself.

Another argument is to ask: Does his phrase “leaving no child” qualify the transfer or not?

If he says, “It does not,” this is an obvious denial of the plain meaning of the language.

If he says, “It does,” he is asked: “May the qualified ruling, then, be affirmed without its qualification?”

If he says, “Yes, on the strength of the earlier evidence,” he is asked: “May the beginning of a statement, then, be used as evidence independently of the qualification placed upon it at its end?”

If he says, “Yes,” his obstinacy becomes evident. If he says, “No,” the point at issue is established. These are indubitable premises, which are not undermined by the fact that the wording serves other purposes as well. Anyone who has examined these premises can only persist in obstinacy or submit to the truth.

Another argument is that, if it is maintained that the endowment suffers an intervening lapse when a beneficiary dies leaving no child, but does not lapse when he dies leaving a child, then this objection would have