“The American Philological Association is of the opinion that the best interests of education demand the retention of the full amount of five weekly periods for four years now generally given, throughout the country, by schools that have a four-year course. And it would be glad to see an increase of the number of years devoted to the subject, either through an extension of the high-school course to five or six years, or through the carrying of some of the high-school subjects into the grammar-school curriculum."

The Association recognizes the fact that the prevailing crowding and lack of uniformity in our secondary education in America are serious evils. Accordingly it is in sympathy with the desire of the Committee of Ten to relieve the present congestion of studies and at the same time reach a national programme or series of programmes which might everywhere be adopted; but the Association differs radically from that Committee with regard to the method to be employed. It is of course clear that, under the present circumstances of increasing demands for time on the part of many of the so-called newer subjects, the results desired cannot be obtained unless there is either a general reduction of the time given to each subject or a complete omission of some of the subjects or a relegation of some of them, in whole or in part, to the grammar-school grade. In the judgment of the Philological Association the first method, which was the one proposed by the Committee of Ten, is not the true one. It is not best to relieve an overcrowded programme by reducing studies that are of central importance. It is better in any case to make sure that the few essential things in any programme of study, whether classical or scientific or of any other kind, are given their full weight and effectiveness, than to teach many things incompletely through an insufficient allotment of time.

It is to be clearly understood that the Association is not now concerned with the question whether every one should be required to study Latin, but is simply laying down the proposition that those who do desire to study it should find a sufficient amount of time devoted to it to enable them to gain the best results. In point of fact there seems to have been a general agreement that five periods a year for four years is none too large an amount to assign to the subject. No demand for a reduction from this amount has come from the schools themselves. On the contrary, it seems to be generally recognized that a larger amount of time, rather than a smaller, ought to be given to the subject of Latin. In a number of schools in different parts of the country courses of five or six years have already been developed; and the feeling which led to this movement found formal expression, at the meeting of a large and widely representative Classical Conference held at Ann Arbor in March, 1895, in the passage, without a dissenting vote, of a resolution in favor of a six-year course.

This belief in a longer course, rather than a shorter one, appears most natural to one who studies the problems of education not simply from the point of view of American experiments, but with the knowledge also of the experience of other countries. Our better schools usually provide four years for the study of Latin, with five exercises a week. If to this amount be added the two years of Latin regarded as normal by colleges which prescribe a part of their work, American education has at best a six-year Latin course to present as against the nine-year or ten-year course found in Germany and England. Moreover, the number of weekly exercises given to the subject is smaller in this country than in Europe.

A reduction to a still lower standard, such as is proposed by the Committee of Ten, would be uncalled for and unfortunate. We protest against it, because such a reduction would tend to cripple the study of Latin and other studies which are appreciably affected by its welfare, and because such a reduction would postpone the hopes we entertain that Latin studies will be developed in this country until the opportunities afforded equal the best open to students of the old world. We therefore appeal to our universities, our colleges, and our schools, and to all friends of sound education, in whatever occupation, to see to it that our preparatory Latin, in place of being weakened, is strengthened and developed as soon as practicable into something more substantial than we now possess. To this end we especially ask the co-operation, not only of all classical teachers, but of those who are interested in our own and other modern languages; and in general we ask the support of all men who believe in a well-rounded liberal education, in which literary studies constitute an indispensable part.

WILLIAM W. GOODWIN, Professor of Greek, Harvard University, Chairman. CECIL F. P. BANCROFT, Principal of Phillips Andover Academy.

FRANKLIN CARTER, President of Williams College.

WM. GARDNER HALE, Professor of Latin, University of Chicago.
WILLIAM R. HARPER, President of the University of Chicago.
FRANCIS W. KELSEY, Professor of Latin, University of Michigan.
GEORGE L. KITTREDGE, Professor of English, Harvard University. ·
ABBY LEACH, Professor of Greek, Vassar College.

THOMAS D. SEYMOUR, Professor of Greek, Yale University.
CHARLES F. SMITH, Professor of Greek, University of Wisconsin.
Minton Warren, Professor of Latin, Johns Hopkins University.
ANDREW F. WEST, Professor of Latin, Princeton University.

The undersigned, not members of the American Philological Association, approve the position taken by the Association in the resolution of July 13, 1895, and unite with the Committee in their appeal, as expressed in the final paragraph of the accompanying Report.

CHARLES KENDALL ADAMS, President of the University of Wisconsin.
GEORGE B. AITON, Inspector of State High Schools, Minnesota.

HARLAN P. AMEN, Principal of Phillips Exeter Academy.

JAMES W. BASHFORD, President of Ohio Wesleyan University.

JOHN BINNEY, Professor of Hebrew, etc., in the Berkeley Divinity School, Middletown, Conn.

J. J. Blaisdell, Professor of Philosophy, Beloit College.

RICHARD G. BOONE, Principal of Michigan State Normal School, Ypsilanti.

C. F. BRACKETT, Professor of Physics, Princeton University.

JAMES DAVIE BUTLER, LL.D., Madison, Wisconsin.

WILLIAM H. BUTTS, Principal of the Michigan Military Academy, Orchard

Lake, Michigan.

FRANCIS J. CHILD, Professor of English, Harvard University.

JOSEPH H. COIT, Rector of St. Paul's School, Concord, N. H.

WILLIAM C. COLLAR, Head Master of Roxbury Latin School.

EUGENE C. COULTER, Head Master of the University School, Chicago.

E. W. Coy, Principal of Hughes High School, Cincinnati.

T. F. CRANE, Professor of Romance Languages, Cornell University.

NEWTON C. DOUGHERTY, Superintendent of Schools, Peoria, Ill.; President of the National Educational Association.

TIMOTHY DWIGHT, President of Yale University.

EDWARD D. EATON, President of Beloit College.

WILSON FARRAND, Associate Master, Newark Academy.

JOSEPH W. FAIRBANKS, Principal of Smith Academy, Washington University, St. Louis.

J. H. FREEMAN, Superintendent of East-side Schools, Aurora, Ill.

GEORGE S. FULLERTON, Vice-Provost of the University of Pennsylvania.

JOHN C. GRANT, Principal of the Harvard School, Chicago.

FRANCIS B. GUMMERE, Professor of English, Haverford College.

JOHN J. HALSEY, Acting-President and Professor of Political and Social Science, Lake Forest University.

EDWARD L. HARRIS, Principal of the Central High School, Cleveland; President of the Department of Secondary Education, National Educational Association.

THOMAS S. HASTINGS, President of Union Theological Seminary, New York. DAVID J. HILL, President of the University of Rochester.

B. A. HINSDALE, Professor of the Science and Art of Teaching, University of Michigan.

ANNIE B. HYDE, University of Denver.

WILLIAM DEWITT HYDE, President of Bowdoin College.

JULIA J. IRVINE, President of Wellesley College.

JOHN J. KEANE, Rector of the Catholic University of America, Washington, D. C. CHARLES H. KEYES, President of Throop Institute, Pasadena, Cal.

GEORGE TRUMBULL LADD, Professor of Philosophy, Yale University.

ALBERT G. LANE, Superintendent of Schools, Chicago.

W. K. MALONE, Principal of the Salt Lake City High School.
MOSES MERRILL, Head Master of Public Latin School, Boston.
HUBERT A. NEWTON, Professor of Mathematics, Yale University.
A. F. NIGHTINGALE, Superintendent of High Schools, Chicago.
FRANCIS L. PATTON, President of Princeton University.

HENRY R. PATTENGILL, Superintendent of Public Instruction of the State of
Michigan.

OSCAR D. ROBINSON, Principal of High School, Albany; a member of the "Committee of Ten."

NATHAN C. SCHAEFFER, Superintendent of Public Instruction of the State of Pennsylvania.

AUSTIN SCOTT, President of Rutgers College.

WILLIAM H. SMILEY, Principal of High School, Denver.

EGBERT C. SMYTH, Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Andover.

WILLIAM GREENOUGH THAYER, Head Master of St. Mark's School, Southborough, Mass.

CHARLES S. THORNTON, Member of the Illinois State Board of Education.

C. H. THURBER, of the Department of Pedagogy, University of Chicago; Dean of Morgan Park Academy, Morgan Park, Ill.

CHARLES F. THWING, President of Western Reserve University.

OLIVER S. WESTCOTT, Principal of North Division High School, Chicago.

C. O. WHITMAN, Head Professor of Zöölogy, University of Chicago.

TALCOTT WILLIAMS, Editor of "The Press," Philadelphia.

GEORGE E. WOODBERRY, Professor of Literature, Columbia University.
C. A. YOUNG, Professor of Astronomy, Princeton University.

The Report was approved by the Association by a vote of 276 to 4.

At the Joint Meeting of the Departments of Higher and of Secondary Education of the National Educational Association, held at Buffalo, July 9, 1896, copies of the first edition of this Report were distributed. The following resolution was offered by Principal E. W. Coy, of the Hughes High School, Cincinnati, and after remarks by several speakers was carried by a unanimous and hearty vote :

Resolved, That the Report on Latin of the Committee of Twelve of the American Philological Association meets with the cordial approval of the Departments of Higher and of Secondary Education of the National Educational Association. The Report as approved was afterwards ordered printed in the Proceedings of the National Educational Association.

A telegram from the Secretary of the National Educational Association, then in session at Buffalo, was then read, as follows:

The joint committee on college entrance requirements of the departments of higher and secondary education, of the National Educational Association, formally invite the American Philological Association to prepare at its convenience a report on the proper course of secondary instruction in Latin and Greek, for the information and use of our joint committee.

After discussion, it was voted that the Committee of Twelve should prepare such a report, and that, in so doing, they should take into consideration the results reached by the conferences of the College and School Associations of the New England and Middle States.

It was then voted to authorize the Chairman of the Committee of Twelve (Professor W. W. Goodwin, of Harvard University) to fill vacancies in the Committee created by the temporary absence in Europe of two members,- Professor Goodwin, and Professor Warren, of Johns Hopkins University.

In place of Professor Goodwin, Professor Herbert Weir Smyth, of Bryn Mawr College, was appointed; in place of Professor Warren, Professor Clement L. Smith, of Harvard University. At the request of Professor Goodwin, Professor T. D. Seymour, of Yale University, accepted the position of Chairman of the Committee.

Professor Hewitt, of Williams College, then proposed the following vote of thanks, which was carried:

Resolved, That the members of the American Philological Association desire to express their hearty thanks to the Trustees and Faculty of Brown University for the use of their buildings and for their many courteous attentions on the present occasion; to the Local Committee, - of which Professor William C. Poland is Secretary, for their efficient labors in the interests of the session; and also to Dr. and Mrs. Albert Harkness, for the pleasant reception given at their residence on the afternoon of Wednesday, July 8.

Professor F. A. March, of Lafayette College, reported as Chairman of the Committee on Spelling Reform.

The Committee has not been calld on for any official action since the last meeting of the Association. It reports progress.

The "Orthographic Union" of publishers, authors, and the like, with a new Secretary, F. A. Fernald, Morris Heights, N. Y. City, — has been adding to its membership, and preparing a word-list of "such changes only as a considerable number of authors, editors, and educators have exprest willingness to unite in using."

The London Times opend its columns towards the close of 1895 to correspondents who protest against the tyranny of orthodox spelling, especially against examiners in the schools and Civil Service Commissioners, who 'pluck' a lad because he spels 'judgment' with two e's. Professor Earle and Dr. Abbott join the protestants, and the editor of the Times sums up, agreeing with Dr. Abbott that "moderate latitudinarianism would be reasonable." "The present system is wasteful and unprofitable." Professor Earle wrote that "the way to slow but natural reform is to relinquish coercion and let all men spel as they like, trusting that the natural process of survival of the fittest wil in due time bring about improvement."

The practical necessity of uniformity of spelling in a printing establishment has heretofore bard the progress of spelling reform. But varied spellings hav now cum to be recognized in dictionaries and lernd by printers to such an extent that the London Association of Correctors for the Press recognize it as a cause of the loss of so much time and money as to call for action. They hav compiled a list of the most common doutful words, and agreed upon the spelling they wil use.

Mr. Horace Hart, printer to the University of Oxford, has also compiled a set of rules to bring about uniformity in connection with the Clarendon Press. Upon his offer to send copies to those chiefly interested, he receivd letters asking for them from all parts of Britain, Ireland, India, America, and the Colonies.

It seems that the same difficulties which hav led to the appointment of government commissions on the spelling of geographic names ar leading the printers to demand authoritativ regulation of all doutful spelling, and there can be no dout that all regulativ action deliberately taken wil promote orthografic reform.

The action of the United States Board on Geographic Names constituted by President Harrison in 1890 has been cordially accepted by the general public, and embodied in gazetteers and school books. It may be hoped that President