I fear that there can not be any day-school established in the land that will educate the deaf and dumb, as they should be educated in every department. They can not organize and maintain a labor department in the day-school, and it is as important to educate the hands as it is to educate the heads of those who are deaf and dumb. If we send them forth educated in head only, and not in hand, they will be wards of the State in county jails and poor-houses all their lifetime; and the question for the State to consider is not a question for a few years, but for many years-for the lifetime of these pupils. We all know the predisposition of deaf-mutes to vagrancy. We have not been able to remedy it yet. I think the remedy is going to be found in a well ordered institution, having the proper attention given to the industrial department. I think, then, that it is a matter of economy for the State to continue and enlarge her schools as they exist, in preference to those that are mere dayschools. Facts are stubborn things. If I was called upon to state here what gives me more trouble about the admission of children into our school than anything else, I would say it was this: that the parents of our pupils, living near the institution, are so solicitous about getting admission for them, when we have not room for them in our boarding department. I advise the parents to come there from other parts of the State, and settle in close proximity to the institution, so as to be able to keep their children at home, and send them to school during the day. I remember one family where there are three deaf-mutes, and there has not been a term in the last five or six years that their mother has not come to me saying, "You must let my children board in the institution: the children love the institution, and they want its companionship."

Another point; these day-schools must be, necessarily, confined to cities. They are not practicable any where else. I would also add that caste, which we have not in our general schools, could not be excluded from the day-schools.

G. O. FAY.-I would like to have a statement, from Dr. Brown, as to the condition of the pupils of the day-school, out of school hours. There are many children in every large place, for instance in Cincinnati, under ten years of age, and whom, therefore, I can not legally admit into our Institution; and I believe that in that city children of that age do suffer materially from the various temptations of city life. They learn various vices there with that readiness and facility which springs from the peculiar stimulus that

always affects children. They stay in Cincinnati until they are ten years of age, and then come to us. Now, would it be worse for these children thus situated between the ages of six years and ten, when they can come to the institution, to go to a day-school and return home through the streets of Cincinnati every evening than to spend their whole time in roaming the streets? It seems to me, that with good teachers, their condition certainly could not be any worse than it is, and that it certainly might be much better.. The subject changes entirely in its aspect, when the child reaches age of ten years. Then there is some room for difference of opinion among intelligent educators. But it would surely be well for those who have the care of the education of these children, to take some steps toward the looking after those between the ages of six and ten years. It is not true, in Ohio, that we do not know where these children are, or that the parents do not wish to get them into school. We have not that to contend with, to any great degree.

the

I would like to hear a statement from Dr. Brown as to whether these children, out of school hours, are miserable and wretched, or otherwise.

DR. BROWN.-I believe the majority of the pupils prefer being at school to being at home; I know, at least, that when our vacation occurred the pupils did not want it. And the reason is plain: when they were at home they were isolated; they had no companionship at home. We have had children in the school that we could not keep there, but it was because we had not kept them there long enough for them to develop any social feeling with those who were there.

THOMAS GALLAUDET.-We should do all we can to make the State institutions just what they should be. I do not believe in asking any person to say whether he is able to send his child to a deafmute institution or not. If the parents are able, and take pleasure in paying the expenses of the education of their children, let them do it; but do not ask any such question as that of the parent of a deaf-mute child. I believe we should enter now and at once upon some course of action, with a view to have the education of the deaf and dumb perfectly free, so that we can reach out our hand of benevolence and put it upon every deaf-mute in the State, without putting families to the mortification of going before a magistrate and saying they are not able to pay for the education

of opinion from members whose experience and opportunities of observation will give value to their judgment, I will briefly present a few considerations upon this subject.

The two great advantages offered by the day-schools, seem to be, that in our large cities, where a sufficient number of resident deafmutes can be found to make the organization of a school possible, the scholars may reside at their own homes, under home influence, and that thus the expense, to the community, of their education, is considerably less than in boarding-schools. We are accustomed to place so high a value upon the influence of home, in the years of childhood, that, at first glance, the first argument seems a very weighty one; but in the case of the deaf and dumb, there are peculiar circumstances, which greatly modify, if they do not wholly destroy, its force. The majority of deaf-mutes, especially in the cities, come from the poorest and lowest classes; the very cause of their deafness may too often be traced, if not to the cruelty, at least to the carelessness or neglect of their parents. No one who has not had the opportunity of personal observation, can realize from what a terrible home the deaf-mute child of one of our large cities, is often rescued, when he is placed in an institution. In the garret or cellar, which is the only home he has ever known, or in the streets, where he is subject to the ridicule and abuse of his associates, and where he is easily taught, by the actions and gestures of his vile companions, all that is debasing, while he is shut out by his deafness from all that is ennobling, every influence that surrounds him is evil, with no intermingling of good. And, with the deaf-mute children of parents who are able and willing to provide for all their wants, home is not the same happy place, and does not exert the same benign influence, as with hearing children. A mistaken tenderness and compassion for the deaf-mute child's misfortune, often leads to his being petted and indulged, to his own injury, while from his playmates and youthful companions, he suffers the other extreme, of undue teasing and annoyance. His parents and friends can communicate with him only to a very limited extent. In most of the childish games of his brothers and sisters, he is unable to join on equal terms. It is almost the universal rule, that the deaf and dumb children are happier in the institution than in their own homes. While, then, no one can place a higher estimate than the writer, upon the happy influence of a well-ordered home, he believes that in the case of the deaf and dumb, this influence, is to

a great degree, nullified by the peculiar circumstances of their condition; and that the same influence can be best exercised through the institutions where they receive their education, which ought, in all cases, to be arranged with special reference to this. The type and model of every institution for the deaf and dumb, should be the family; and in the number and classification of the pupils, the selection of the officers, and all the domestic arrangements, the family idea should predominate. If this is lost sight of, the most important element in the education of the individual is neglected, and the complaint against boarding institutions is well founded. The writer believes it need not be lost sight of, and that for the reasons which have been given, the home and family influence, with the great majority of deaf and dumb children, may be exerted in an institution better than in their own homes.

With regard to the physical well-being of the pupils, beyond all question, it is much better cared for in an institution than in the great majority of the homes from which they come. Those in large cities, who have comfortable and pleasant homes, form the exception and not the rule. And with them it is not a mere question of the comforts and pleasures of life, but of health, and in many cases of life itself. The same causes that produce deafness, often affect the whole physical organization, so that the deaf and dumb have generally, especially in childhood, a more delicate physique, requiring more careful treatment, in every way, than their hearing and speaking fellows. The healthy and vigorous plant may grow and thrive even in an uncongenial soil; but the delicate and feeble one, which has been blighted in its infancy, can be made to live and come to maturity only by the utmost care, and under the most favorable conditions. If disregard of the laws of health in no case goes unpunished, it is visited with double retribution upon the frail and susceptible organism of the deaf-mute child. Good air and good food, so desirable for all, are necessities for him, and these, which the circumstances of his parents and friends generally deny him at home, are carefully provided for in the institution by every means which benevolence, aided by science, has been able to devise. The high, well-ventilated rooms, the ample play-ground, the gymnasium, the work-shop, the regular hours, the abundant and substantial food, chosen with special reference to the wants of childhood, are all adapted to the preservation of health, and the development of strength. Then if, in

THE NOBILITY, DIGNITY, AND ANTIQUITY

OF THE

SIGN LANGUAGE.

BY J. C. COVELL, A. M.

To restore to the language of signs its title to nobility, to show that it is divine by the same title as speech, and that it has been necessary to the development of spoken language itself, would be a task at once pleasant and profitable, and one not difficult of achievement.

But, confining myself within brief limits, it must suffice merely to suggest a few thoughts as to the nobility, dignity, and antiquity of signs, sustaining these by references to authors of known repute.

It has been confidently asserted by some writers on this subject that deaf-mute language is neither an original endowment of man nor the gift of God, but purely a human invention. If this assertion were true, we should, for the sake of consistency, speak only of arbitrary, and never again of natural signs. We should gaze with more than ordinary admiration upon the wonderful and unconscious little inventor in the nurse's arms; we should be struck with awe at the swiftly invented gestures of our native backwoods orators-gestures at once emphatic, powerful, swaying the multitude to and fro, whilst but feebly aided by a flow of utterances, which, if stripped of every gesture, would be suggestive of an endowment which the owner had found difficult of development. The origin of language is a question naturally suggested in all such discussions. That the faculty of speech was a gift of God in the beginning, as are all our other endowments, both of soul and body, few will deny; but that this faculty was to seek its own development in each individual, in the midst of circumstances peculiar to the individual, and this by pains and labor, it is not difficult to affirm, in view of the analogy and growth of languages