Dr. Read, of Missouri, related the fact that one of the last letters that Geo. Washington ever wrote was upon this same subject. A noted General at one time said to him, (the speaker), that it would be better that the whole army be disbanded than that the Academy at West Point should be disorganized. A country without a military people is indeed in a deplorable condition.

Maj. Rollins, of Missouri-The views of Lieut. Schenck should be endorsed by every enlightened member of the Association. We should unite in the work of encouraging instruction in the military art. The sentiment of the paper should be that of the common people. I am proud that the essay is to be embodied in our official report.

Prof. Campbell would not object to military schools, but thought there was only a slight claim that military instruction should be embraced in the curriculum of our colleges. Some of the best work in our late war was done by volunteers. We must not make military exercises predominant. They cannot be made compulsory in a college proper. Military discipline is not a happy combination with intellectual development. A voluntary military department in a university is all that we ever should have. The spirit of military discipline is in direct opposition to that of a manly independence on the part of the student.

Lieut. Gov. Coleman, of Missouri, thought that we must have a sound mind in a sound body. The student who expends so much time on his studies that he cannot bear the physical exercise incident to the drill, is sowing the seeds of dissolution. The body must have discipline, military drill is discipline to both mind and body. I hold that the matter should not be an optional one.

Prof. Clapp, of the Jacksonville, Ill., College, held similar views with the last speaker. The spirit of discipline which military drill affords is exactly what we want.

Prof. Sawyer, of Wisconsin, believed that we could teach both obedience and independence, and proceeded to discuss the subject, but was interrupted, as the hour for adjournment (in order to take the excursion train to the falls of Minnehaha) had arrived.

Third Day's Proceedings.

THURSDAY, AUG. 5, 1875.

The Department met at 2 P. M. Pres. D. C. Gilman, who was to speak on the plan of the Johns Hopkins University, of Baltimore, not being present, W. C. Sawyer, of Lawrence University, Appleton, Wis., read the following brief paper on

COMPARATIVE ORTHOEPY.

Teachers of modern languages make general complaint on account of the difficulty of teaching the exact pronunciation of the English to the conti

nental students, or of the continental languages to English students. The defects are not well defined, and the teacher can rarely do more than correct the grosser errors, and indicate the words in which still lurk the more conspicuous traces of the brogue. This helplessness clearly proceeds from ignorance of the exact elements of the languages in question, together with a general dullness of phonetic sense, which fails to detect the disturbing cause in a mispronounced word. The progress of philological science ought to bring speedy relief from both these embarrassments. Phonology as a science has slumbered far into the philological day, but it is now awaking with great surprise that it could sleep so long. The alphabet of the civilized world is found to be a product of barbarism, without system or definite significance. It has naturally led to orthoepic and orthographic confusion almost inextricable. At last the elements of speech are receiving critical attention. The effect is like suddenly admitting light to an old chamber kept dark for ages. The decay and disorder had never been imagined. Among our phonetic surprises we discover that several English vowels have drifted entirely away, both from their brothers in other languages and from their common parents. Regarding these contrasts between kindred letters as most fruitful of embarrassment in learning one language from the basis of another with dissimilar elements, I will make a few brief comparisons, hoping they may serve to draw some attention to the general subject of the relative powers of corresponding letters in the various languages. I select for examination the four vowels which were originally simple and so remain in the continental languages, but which have become double, or diphthongal, in English. They are a, i, o, and u.

The so-called "long" sound of a has undergone complete transmutation. Its proper power is the a of father, which it retains in all the continental languages. In place of this we have substituted two quite different sounds -the first being the short e of end, a little prolonged, and the other being our long e, or the i of pique, which is pronounced short, and constitutes a sort of vanish to the first and principal sound. This first sound is the original, and in other languages the usual sound of the fifth letter of the alphabet. By the force of habit, however, American and English students almost invariably add the i-vanish to this sound in all languages, though it is entirely out of place, and sounds as badly to the ear of any foreigner as does the foreigner's pronunciation, to us, of our "long a," with the i-vanish omitted. It may be remarked that the French word pays contains both the sounds of our "long a."

The English i is produced by prefixing to the i of pique, which is its proper power, the a of father. The two sounds are closely joined and in about equal proportions, as far as I am able to test it. This parity of force in the two elements of i is exceptional, as compared with the other double vowels under consideration. "Long a" requires the principal stress upon its first element-" long o upon the first, and "long u" upon the second. The Germans combine a and i to produce about the same effect as our "long i" in their name of one of the months-Mai. Our "long o begins with its proper sound, as found in most languages, but adds an oo-vanish, which constitutes a distinction easily overlooked, but not to be ignored by students who wish to pronounce the modern languages correctly.

Some influence has compounded the English u by prefixing to its original

sound, which we represent by oo, the same insinuating element as appears in the vanish of a and i. This prefix can easily be left off by English students, since their native language contains the uncompounded vowel in many words-moon, food, etc. Foreigners will find this combination new to their tongues, but not difficult to master. The sound given this letter in German is its regular oo power. The u umlaut of the German is the same as the usual French sound of the letter, and is produced by extending and rounding the lips, and at the same time using the tongue and voice as in uttering "long e."

A single general rule will be a sufficient guide in the use of the vowels here considered: Analyze carefully the compound vowel, and put it together again by pronouncing its elements more and more rapidly till the natural English effect is produced. This practice will readily educate the the mind, the ear, and the tongue so that they can use the elements, at will, singly or combined, as appropriate to the language desired.

The following meagre account of the discussion of this paper is taken from a newspaper report:

Prof. Shepherd, of Baltimore, found in the essay many attractive thoughts, which suggested many things to him. We have attained in our English very many of the phonetic values of the Latin. Our alphabet is far behind the sounds which it attempts to represent. In many of our English colleges we are taught to assimilate our pronounciation, and to prove this assertion the speaker gave several illustrations. He continued at length with the discussion of the subject, and at the close received hearty applause.

W. D. Henkle, of Ohio, spoke of the aid that may be derived from the study of phonology in the teaching of modern languages, and gave an illustration of the difference between the Spanish and English pronunciation of Latin. This department some time since adopted the Roman pronunciation of Latin. He gave an illustration of the different English pronunciations of the word “cars,” and spoke of the changes and peculiarities of pronunciation in different sections of the country.

Prof. Campbell did not hear all of the paper, but proceeded to discuss the subject in an able manner. He thought we were approaching an agreement as to the true pronunciation of the Latin. As to the vowel sounds, there could be but one opinion. The main discussion was on the sounds of the consonants, particularly "c." He traced the history of the written character and the sound of this letter, both before and after the days of Cicero, and showed that in all probability, the name of the great orator was pronounced not Keekaro, but almost as we pronounce the name.

Dr. Read, and others, continued the discussion of the subject of the paper, Prof. Sawyer closing with a few timely remarks.

On motion of Dr. Magoun, Profs. Sawyer, Shepherd, and Henkle were appointed a committee upon "Comparative Philology," to report at the next annual session, on the present condition and prospects of phonetic science, and co-operating as far as possible with a similar committee of the American Philological Association.

Dr. Tappan, of the committee on nomination of officers for this department for the ensuing year, made the following report:

President-Noah Porter, of Yale College.

Vice President-Chas. S. Venable, of the University of Virginia.
Secretary-H. E. Shepherd, of Baltimore.

The report was adopted, and the gentlemen duly elected. They were also according to custom, duly constituted the Executive Committee, to lay out the work for the ensuing year.

NORMAL DEPARTMENT.

First Day's Proceedings.

TUESDAY, AUG. 3, 1875.

The Normal Department was called to order at 2:15 P. M., by Prof. W. F. Phelps, of Minnesota, who read a note from the President-elect, J. C. Greenough, stating that the officers of the department would probably fail to be in attendance.

On motion, Prof. Phelps of Winona, was elected President, and Prest. S. Albee, of Oshkosh, Wis., Secretary.

First of the regular exercises was the reading of the following paper, by Miss Delia A. Lathrop, of Cincinnati, Ohio, on

THE PROFESSIONAL TRAINING OF TEACHERS.

The subject assigned me by your committee is a land of such broad acres that in the time at my command, it would be possible, were I so disposed, to take but the most general survey of the whole of it. Were time mine without limitation, much of it has been so thoroughly traversed, and its capabilities so carefully reported, that I am confident I could add nothing to your knowledge of it.

If we look back over the way our own generation has come we find abundant cause for encouragement. Our first Normal School has been established within our own day. The members of the first teachers' institute are of our own number. The notion of exalting teaching to a place among the learned professions is of the present. The general discussion of philosophical methods of primary teaching has sprung up within the last decade, and to attain to a systematic philosophy of education is the ambition of a multitude of men and women in our midst.

Those who read the report of the proceedings of the National Social Science Association, held in Detroit, in May last, were no doubt, surprised at the statement of Hon. David A. Wells, of Conn., the President of the Association, concerning the extreme slowness of the accumulation of capital in the country. He states that during the 250 years of civilized life in this country, there has been, according to the census of 1870, an accumulation of 25,000,000,000 of dollars in capital. "This he says," represents the surplus of all the labor, skill, and thought exerted, and all the capital earned and saved or brought into the country for the last 250 years, or ever since the country became practically the home of civilized man." But large as this seems to be, he goes on to show that "after 250 years of