very term, which was repeated by the Senate in their reply. Yet, in order to narrow the ground between the Senator and myself as much as possible, I will accommodate myself to this strange antipathy against the two unfortunate words, by striking them out of the resolution and substituting in their place those very words which the Senator himself has designated as constitutional phrases. In the place of that abhorred adjective 'constitutional,' I will insert the very noun substantive, 'Constitution,' and in the place of the word 'accede' I will insert the word 'ratify,' which he designated as 'the proper term to be used.""

This brief extract will show the necessity, nay, the vital importance, of a correct knowledge of single words, especially in dea ing with questions arising under a republican form of government with a written Constitution. As a written instrument or document forms the basis of the government, each word carries with it a potential meaning, far beyond what it would have in an ordinary contract. So long as all are agreed on one view of its interpretation, everything goes on in harmony, but as soon as ideas begin to conflict, there is no arbiter but that of arms to decide the controversy. This, it is unfortunate to state, has been the outcome of this very controversy between Daniel Webster and John C. Calhoun, begun in 1833 and not ended till 1865, after millions of treasure had been expended and hecatombs of bodies strewed the fair fields of the South, to solve the simple question whether our ancestors formed a government or made a compact.

In the choice of words, some attention should be paid to the assembly or audience to be addressed. A promiscuous meeting manifestly would not require equal elegance of expression as a Senate or a judicial tribunal. The same criterion in such cases might be followed in the use of language as in that of dress, comfortable and unostentatious in the former, and neat, precise, and formal in the latter. Good English words should be used in all cases, but new ones are being constantly coined and thrown into circulation. With these latter the orator should be familiar and able to employ them to advantage when required. At the same time care should be taken not to descend too far in such matters. Every speaker is in a position to give circulation to some phrase or word which may not prove, to be beneficial to the language or to his reputation.

The speeches of Lincoln and Douglas are very valuable as models of good, every-day English. They seldom used a word or expression which could not be understood by any one. This would naturally result from the circumstances of the debate. It took place before the most promiscuous assemblage that could be collected. Men of all grades of society were in the audience. Yet scarcely a misapplied, misfitting word or expression can be found in the entire series of discussions, the report of which would fill a good-sized volume. This speaks well for the skill and ability of the contestants.

Any intelligent reader can enjoy the debate as

well to-day as when it took place, and it will always remain, for this reason as well as many others, one of the classics in forensic literature; a free public American debate on the most interesting and vital questions of modern times, conducted with a good temper, a degree of patience and intelligence, and in a vein of language as pure and strong as it is possible to convey the ideas of the speakers to audiences so many-sided and so keenly sensitive on the subjects discussed. In some of the addresses of Judge Douglas there is a slight tendency to use very vigorous language in speaking of his political opponents, but when we consider the angry feelings excited in those times, the country being on the eve of one of the most gigantic conflicts of modern times, we can readily and should excuse what sometimes seems to go beyond the demands of correct taste.

In the Webster-Hayne contest, we have an example somewhat different from the one just noticed. This took place in the Senate of the United States, before the Senators only, and such other listeners as might be drawn there from curiosity. Every one present was, no doubt, a person of more than average intelligence and information, and by far the larger part of the auditory were men of marked distinction and wide reputation. We would expect, therefore, and so find, a very close adherence to refinement of phrase and elegance of expression. It abounds in measured sentences and sounding periods. It was a contest between swordsmen rather than athletes,

There is no feature of language that deserves more careful attention than the synonym. This term is applied to words of similar meaning; for example, abbreviate, abridge; confound, confuse; bestow, confer; bias, prejudice; sick, ill, etc. The necessity which is imposed upon the speaker of keeping up a continuous discourse, compels him to put his arguments in different forms of expression, so as to reach intellects of various degrees of culture. He has, therefore, to grasp for a new word when he has employed another too often; to expand and elaborate a good thought or idea, so as to emphasize and amplify the strong points of his address. None of these objects could be attained without a close acquaintance with synonymous words and expressions. The neglect of this subject would produce tautology, the too frequent recurrence of the same word. Thus, in enumerating successive propositions in a chain of argument, the orator would say, "In the first place, I maintain;" coming to the next position, his language would be, "I also contend;" approaching the third, he would say, "I further hold;" or, "My next point is," etc. In this manner, by slightly changing the expression, he gives variety to his speech, thereby relieving the strain upon the endurance of his audience. In the midst of an exciting debate he has no time to consult a dictionary, and no matter how important and interesting the occasion may be, he will be allowed but little immunity from the strict rules of the "set

phrase of peace." Like the sun in a stormy sky, this and other excellencies will appear with all the greater brilliancy.

Care should be taken not to adopt too freely the language of other arts. These have forms peculiar to themselves, addressed to and understood only by those who are acquainted with them. The entire effort of the speaker should be directed to enlighten the understanding and thereby sway the judgment of the average hearer and reader. The cultivated listener too frequently has prejudices and passions of his own, which he prefers rather to nurse than to have removed, and not unusually arms himself to resist linguistic arts. With the man of average intelligence the case is usually the reverse. If not readily yielding his preconceived notions to oratorical blows, he is not, on the other hand, so well prepared to withstand the insinuating address of a skillful speaker. What is really an art and device of speech he takes for the canons of truth and sound reasoning. The speaker's aim should be to adapt himself to this grade of intelligence, and he does so by studying the language usually employed by it.

In many respects, for example, there is a parallel between eloquence and poetry. Both require strong imaginative power, full expression, large vocabulary, and accurate use of words and figures. Yet the language of poetry is not that of oratory and it should not be so employed. There are unusual