had been taught by teachers to change my pronunciation, but I remember once when visiting Harvard College making the observation that the majority of the tutors and under-professors, who came from the rural regions of New England and were not born in Boston, pronounced in conversation the u-sound in such words as "truth," not as oo in "soon," but as a diphthong or glide from the sound of i in "it" to the sound of oo in "foot," just as I did.

In my visit to Suffolk county last summer I learned the reason for it. The people of the rural regions of a country retain from one generation to another, without much change, the pronunciation of their forefathers. Whereas the prevailing English uses a y-sound with an oo-sound following it, pronouncing "due" almost as if it was spelled joo, yet in East Anglia and wherever in America the population is from rural New England this ew-sound of u is preserved, notwithstanding the fight of the teacher against this usage.

I have repeated these trifling circumstances in order to indicate the direction in which the labor of the English philologists who favor spelling reform is of great service in throwing light upon the English speech as it is written and spoken. I always wish to say a word for the great dictionary of Murray, which gives to our scholars, and to the scholars of every remote country where English is spoken, the ability to see as in a mirror the English language in its entire history.

I have gone into these particulars also in order to intimate, in what I trust is a polite and acceptable manner, that those who object to spelling reform from a scholarly standpoint may be justly charged with some defect in their scholarship, and that they do not know the present situation of English philology.

I do not hesitate to repeat on all occasions that I am, and have been, a believer in the desirability of effecting a reform in the spelling of English. But I do not believe that this can be done by the intense zeal of a few individuals, or even of a considerable class of people, such, for instance, as compose this association. I do believe that the unreasonable conservatism which widely prevails among the opponents of spelling reform can be undermined only by a gradual process, and that this association, in adopting a dozen simplified spellings, has taken a wise measure. Once habituated to the idea of reforming or simplifying our spelling, the mass of the population in the next generation will be ready to make radical changes, whereas, if radical changes are attempted now, the conservative people will combine in self-defense, and shut the door against any semblance of change. This is a case where a thin wedge is needed, and where it is wisest to make as little agitation as possible. Hence, when my committee recommended, a couple of years ago, the list of twelve words- which, by the way, I obtained from my friend, Mr. Vaile - we hoped that the changes would be used in the publication of the proceedings of this association, and that as little as possible would be said about it. We did not approve of Secretary Shepard's action in printing the list of words and sending it out to the public press thru the country, because we knew that it would cause a reaction. At the Washington meeting we had a fight in the Board of Directors over the rule, and it was confirmed, as has already been stated here, by a vote of eighteen to seventeen. I shall not be surprised at all if a vote next summer reverses the whole matter by a vote of two to one. We thought, however, that we could hold the thin wedge where it is, if we said as little about it as possible and fought for the retention of the small list of words that we had simplified. The next generation will become familiar with the work of simplifying the alphabet, and will demand and secure radical reforms; at least this is what we hope.

But we must not forget, any of us, that this is a National Educational Association, and that spelling reform, or temperance reform, or religious reform, or moral reform, is not the special object of this association. Our object is reform in school methods, namely, methods of instruction, methods of discipline, methods of organization, and methods of management. If our association becomes a spelling-reform association, another one specially devoted to school reform will become necessary. I am not in

favor even of the thin wedge which we adopted two years ago, if that is to be a cause of new struggles and ever-recurring discussions of the subject.

I have already presented my views in correspondence with my friend, Mr. Vaile, on this point. I honor and respect Mr. Vaile for his unselfish and persistent advocacy of the spelling reform, but I certainly think that his movement is ill-timed and worse than useless as an aid or help to spelling reform. It will produce reaction and stir up feelings and sentiments in the matter where we ought to have only clear reasons and a judicial frame of mind. I am therefore opposed to the resolutions which he offers in detail and as a whole.

Mr. Vaile and Colonel Parker have stated here that this reform is entirely in the line with the regular work of this association, but they do not show how it is related to the work of instruction or the work of discipline, or of organization and management. They certainly would not suppose that the teacher can introduce spelling reform into his school without the permission of his school committee, or that the school committee can do it without the countenance and support of the entire English-speaking people. It cannot, therefore, be a matter which relates directly to education in the schools. It can in no sense be accomplished by a few individuals, or even by a large association. One cannot take up this reform and carry it on alone. simply make himself disagreeable to his fellow-men. he will neglect the concrete and manifold interests of one simple interest, one reform out of an infinite number of possible reforms which ought to be secured. The spelling reform is, therefore, not a reform which can be secured by this National Educational Association, and those who favor the adoption of the resolution in question will, if successful, simply turn the work of the association out of its regular course into that of a spelling-reform association, and will divide the members of our association into two opposing camps on a question which does not relate directly or indirectly to instruction or discipline in the schools.

By attempting to do this he will He will be disagreeable because society and thrust unduly forward

MR. VAILE, in closing the discussion,' regretted that the responsibility of the closing address did not rest on other and abler shoulders, especially as he had to oppose his friend, Dr. Harris, with whom now for the first time in his life he found himself in opposition. He was astonished at Dr. Harris' attitude on the matter under debate. He recognized the doctor's great influence in the association, but he hoped that at least the younger men would be independent and vote according to their own judgment. Then, directly addressing Mr. Thompson, Mr. Vaile said: I understand you, sir, to say in effect that a master of the English language cannot be found in the ranks of spelling reformers. Did I correctly understand you? (The gentleman arose from his seat and admitted that he had so stated.)

MR. VAILE.-Do you admit that Alfred Tennyson was a master of the English language or contributed anything of value to English literature?

MR. THOMPSON.-Why, yes.

MR. VAILE.—Mr. Tennyson was a vice-president of an English spelling-reform association. Do you admit that Charles Darwin was a master of English or contributed anything of value to literature?

MR. THOMPSON.-Yes, to the literature of science.

MR. VAILE. Very well. Mr. Darwin was also a vice-president of an English spellingreform association. Do you admit that William Dean Howells ever contributed anything of value to English literature?

MR. THOMPSON.—I should like to discuss Howells with you.

MR. VAILE.—That is neither here nor there. What do you answer to the question? Mr. Howells is, or at least was a few years ago, a vice-president of a spelling-reform league in the city of New York, and felt inclined to accept a place on the commission I Revised and extended by the author upon receipt of a copy of the foregoing discussion.

named in this petition, but finally decided that he could not. Brander Matthews and Edward Eggleston are, or were, vice-presidents of that same New York spelling-reform society. The gentleman can hardly help allowing some mastery of English to William E. Gladstone, Herbert Spencer, and Charles Sumner. Every one of these men, not to mention others of eminence, is on record as an outspoken believer in spelling reform.

Dr. White wants to know why I and other advocates of phonetic spelling do not adopt it. Look at the unfairness of the argument. I am dependent, like every other publisher or editor, upon my business for my living. I believe thoroly in simplified spelling for the sake of the children and the teachers. I use as much of it now, and have for years, as I dare to in my papers. Is it fair to ask me to run my head against the wall of prejudice on this subject which still exists, and which Dr. White personally exhibits and encourages, and thus to deprive myself and family of bread and butter? Is it just, is it reasonable, for Dr. White to raise such an argument against this movement ? He finds fault with the philologists because they do not push the reform themselves. The philologists are active in supporting the cause of simplified spelling. Max Müller declared his conviction that it is the duty of scholars and philosophers not to shrink from holding and expressing what men of the world call Quixotic opinions on this subject. He says: "I feel convinced that practical reformers should never slumber nor sleep. They should repeat the same thing over and over again, undismayed by indifference, ridicule, contempt, and all the other weapons which the lazy world knows so well how to employ against those who venture to disturb its peace."

The literature of the last thirty years shows that philologists have done their duty in this direction.

The charge has been made that reformed spelling is losing ground; that reversion to former spellings is taking place. That is a mistake. A few publishers are so eager to cultivate a market for their books in Canada and England that they ignore the American public and American preference in this matter, and cater to British prejudice. Think of it! The irony of it! Dr. Harris, a devoted and lifelong advocate of simplified spelling, is compelled by the publishers of the excellent "International Education" series, of which he is the editor, to put the long-discarded u back into "color," "favor," etc. There is no reaction against simplifying our spelling. It is only the work of two American publishers who are willing for a very slight and doubtful compensation to take a backward step at the expense, so far as their influence goes, of the American people and of American children.

Dr. Harris maintains that this is not a proper matter for this department or for the National Educational Association to take hold of; that it is not an educational question; that it is merely a side issue. If the removal of obstacles and hindrances from the pathway of the children in learning to read is not an educational question in the broad sense, what is it? If it does not tend “to promote the cause of popular education"— the very purpose of the National Educational Association, as declared in its constitutionwhat would promote that end? For Dr. Harris to take such a position is inexplicable. He holds the office of Commissioner of Education of the United States. As such he disburses a certain amount of the nation's money, and for what purpose? What is the object of his office? Clearly it is to promote popular education, the same as the declared object of this association. Has Dr. Harris the right to use his office or the money of his bureau for any other purpose? Clearly he has not. And yet, among the Circulars of Information" which he issues as Commissioner of Education is a large and most excellent pamphlet on reformed spelling. If the simplifying of spelling is not an educational question, if in itself it does not promote popular education, what right has Dr. Harris to spend the money of his bureau in getting out such a pamphlet? I might just as fairly censure him for abusing his office and misusing public funds as for him to stand on this platform and condemn my proposition as an illegitimate matter for this organization to take hold of and encourage.

Nobody wants to see this association become a spelling-reform society, and there is no danger of its becoming such. But this association owes it to itself and to the children of this and all coming generations to do what it can consistently to encourage and promote the simplification of our spelling. In the way I propose it can exert its powerful influence and not divert itself in the least from its true function.

Dr. Harris digs deep, in his usual way, to find in the peculiarities of Anglo-Saxon character a powerful reason why prejudice against changing and simplifying our spelling must be respected. He overlooks two important points: (1) While the Anglo-Saxon is conservative, he respects consistency and right; he is resolute and determined when his face is once set, whether toward reform or any other goal; he is quick to adjust himself to new conditions when he sees their advantage. The progress and improvements of the century are due to the Anglo-Saxon. It is amazing that he has not yet waked up to the need of progress and improvement in his written speech. (2) The doctor takes no account of the influence of English spelling on English character. His philosophy can hardly deny that the inconsistencies which are so indelibly impressed on the child in his early school years serve to weaken his appreciation and reverence for logic and reason. Max Müller forcibly reverses Dr. Harris in this way:

What, however, is even more serious than all this is not the great waste of time in learning to read, and the almost complete failure in national education, but the actual mischief done by subjecting young minds to the illogical and tedious drudgery of learning to read English as spelled at present. Everything they have to learn in reading (or pronunciation) and spelling is irrational; one rule contradicts the other, and each statement has to be accepted simply on authority, and with a complete disregard of all those rational instincts which lie dormant in the child and which ought to be awakened by every kind of healthy exercise. I know there are persons who can defend anything, and who hold that it is due to this very discipline that the English character is what it is; that it retains respect for authority; that it does not require a reason for everything; and that it does not admit that what is inconceivable is therefore impossible. Even English orthodoxy has been traced back to that hidden source, because a child accustomed to believe that t-h-o-u-g-h is tho, and that t-h-r-o-u-g-h is throo, would afterwards believe anything. It may be so; still I doubt whether even such objects would justify such means.

Dr. Harris does not believe that a reform in spelling can be effected by the intense zeal of a few persons or of a large organization. Who does believe it? Is not the whole tenor of my address in perfect accord with his opinion? This whole effort is to control and harness intense zeal and help it to work along moderate and sensible lines. Does anyone discover any "intense zeal" in the personnel of the commission as named ? It may be that two or three of them might come under that description, but certainly wise moderation and good sense characterize every person named in that list. Not one of them would think of proposing radical changes now. But while even this association cannot of itself establish simplified spelling, it can do an immense deal toward spreading information and developing sentiment favorable to it. That is the purpose of this commission. In spite of all denials and explanations, Dr. Harris unaccountably persists in seeing in this commission only an agent for offensive and aggressive agitation. He does injustice to the men who have consented to act upon it. They all believe in the thin wedge just as much as he does. But of what service is even a thin wedge if no force whatever is applied to it? One object of this commission, its great object, will be to watch the wedge and to apply force in just such degree and time as may be clearly wise. In that is there any danger of provoking reaction and stirring up resentful feelings among us? It seems to me that the doctor has gone too far in his loss of faith in the common-sense of the people and in his timidity on this question. Some sinister influence seems to have hold of him. Twenty years ago he did not talk this way.

One of the great results, if not the greatest, to be gained by the appointment of this commission would be the publishing of the important fact that Dr. Harris, the eminent, revered United States Commissioner of Education, and a host of scholars and educators with him, are in favor of simplifying our spelling. What proportion of our people today, outside of school circles, know that Dr. Harris is a spelling reformer? The number is very small indeed. I wonder if a large proportion of this audience was not surprised

when they read the list of persons consenting to act on this commission. Information like this is potent in breaking down prejudice and in vitalizing reform sentiment. But this information cannot be spread by suppressing it. I believe thoroly in discretion, and I feel that my proposition is wise and discreet. Am I mistaken? The people need light on this subject and encouragement. How shall we get it to them without arousing antagonism? Is not the plan under consideration a good one? What bitterness could be created by any action which a majority of such a body of men would take?

It does not seem to me possible that the Board of Directors can take any such step next summer as the doctor seems to anticipate. Nothing has been done to warrant it. It is clear that such action can prevail only by Dr. Harris' encouragement and support. Some superintendents and some school boards have allowed their schools the option of using the long or the short form in the spelling of the twelve words. Is there anything harmful or unreasonable in this? I sincerely trust the doctor will not encourage any movement to reverse a step which has already produced such good results.

I earnestly hope that this petition will be approved and sent to the Board of Directors. Its purpose is to remove this question wholly from the arena of debate in this body and put it where it will be wisely and purposefully cared for, and where the directing and promoting power of the educators of the land will be unequivocally behind it. It is the sacred duty of the educational body to take hold of this matter. I move the adoption of the resolution.

THE PAST AND THE FUTURE WORK OF THE DEPART MENT OF SUPERINTENDENCE

JAMES M. GREENWOOD, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, KANSAS CITY, MO.

The National Superintendents' Department was organized in 1865, and it is the oldest of the eighteen departments, but it was followed. immediately by the organization of the Normal Department. Prior to 1870 all educational topics presented in these two departments were discussed before the whole association. From 1857 to 1870 the name of the general association as an educational body was the National Teachers' Association. At the Cleveland meeting in 1870 it was changed to the National Educational Association. As at first constituted, it was an ironclad organization.

The first constitution of the National Teachers' Association, Art. II— Membership, reads as follows:

Any gentleman who is regularly occupied in teaching in a public or private elementary school, college, or university, or who is regularly employed as private tutor, as an editor of an educational journal, or as superintendent of schools, shall be eligible to membership. Ladies engaged in teaching may, upon recommendation of the Board of Directors, become honorary members, and shall possess the right to present in the form of written essays (to be read by the Secretary or any other member whom they may select) their views upon the subject assigned for discussion.

In the amended constitution of 1870, Art. III-Membership, sec. 1 begins:

Any person in any way connected with the work of education shall be eligible to membership. Such person may become a member of this association by paying two dollars and signing this constitution.