ing, will-ing, etc. The Standard goes farther and refuses to divide such words as "expressive," "progressive," etc., on the first s; at the same time it departs from the etymological rule adopted for the dissection of the word "active" by dividing expensive, defensive, etc., on the n, running the sive over. To give one curious example of the lack of phonetic method in this new candidate for the printer's favor, let me cite the words formative and formation the former it divides on the m, the latter on the r. Perhaps no less remarkable is this contrast: serv-ile, servility; we are not surprised at Ser-vian and serv-ice. Evidently the effort of the Standard compilers has been to make the division give a clue to the meaning of the word, as its two divisions of the word former show: for-mer, before; form-er, one who forms. This last example exhibits the rule in its best light; but when it is sought to apply it universally it comes in frequent and deadly conflict with another and (to my thinking) more important rule, namely: Where a consonant at the end of an accented syllable is followed by another consonant without necessarily forming one sound, let the hyphen come between, as in ar-mor, har-bor, normal; according to the etymological rule of the Standard, both armor and normal should be divided on the m, though as a matter of fact that authority divides both on the r. Division between consonants is illustrated in hundreds of cases: Ar-tifice, bar-ter, car-pet, doc-tor, elec-tuary, fastidious, glan-dular, hor-ticulture, investiture, jus-ticiary, ker-chief, lis-ten, myrtle, nes-tle, os-tracize, par-ticle, etc., to the end of the alphabet. The Standard is not able altogether to resist the attraction of this law; it occasionally sacrifices etymology for the sake of it, as in the words ar-mor and nor-mal above quoted, and perhaps not quite so glaringly in moun-tain and foun-tain. Why does it not make the practice uniform?

There seems to be, however, necessary exceptions to this rule. Many of us feel

that we are doing no wrong by dividing "artist" on the t, although we make "artistic" thus: ar-tis-tic; and think it proper to place the hyphen after the d in "defendant," "superintendant," and words of that class, and in general to turn over the endings ing, er, ish, and ed, rather than to make the turn-over begin with the second letter of the preceding double consonants, as in star-ting, twis-ter, roundish, etc. I think we have about exhausted the list right here, for while we turn over the "ily" in heartily and seem to sanction a few other terminations in violation of the rule, it will be generally if not always found that we do so because the second letter of the double consonants is necessary in order to decide the sound of the vowel "hear" does not spell har until we add the t to it, consequently this division is no violation of the rule, which is only applicable, as I have already said, when the two consonants are actually separated in sound, or can be so separated without marring the pronunciation of the word. The reason for turning over ing is obvious; words so ending are merely the participle forms of other words; not only is mend-ing proper, but so are illus trat-ing, mat-ing, hom-ing, etc., though here again we come in conflict with the Standard. As to the ending er, this sometimes means one who does-as, reader, one who reads; starter, one who starts; and sometimes it does not, as in the word "former," above alluded to as signifying before; center, canter, master, are other examples. For the sake of differentiation, then, when the er means one who does, it should not carry the preceding letter of the word with it in the division; if the e of the er is a part of the original word, as in "meter," we should not divide at this point at all. This is no concession to the Standard's form-ative, which requires no differentiation from for-mation, as regards the meaning of the words. It is only where confusion is liable to arise in the reader's mind that the division of a word should have anything to do with

the meaning of the word. Of course the er and est of comparative forms, as in "richer," "grandest," etc., go over unaccompanied by a consonant. But how are we to distinguish between "ish" and "ive"? If we write "small-ish," why may we not write "express-ive"? Simply because "ish" is a natural and complete termination, with a distinct meaning which qualifies the preceding portion of the word—a sort of compound-word-ending-while "ive" is never the complete termination; you will always find it "sive" or "tive," even though the s or the has to be supplied, as in "extensive," "conservative," "explosive," "destructive." We must pay some respect to the terminations, as well as to what is left in the line above; and by keeping these in mind, as tion, sion, ture, ing, ish, tive, sive, ed, the rule to divide between double consonants becomes pretty well clarified, and it will be unnecessary to make so many pilgrimages to the dictionary to help us out of our tight places-this is all the more important as we find the dictionaries do not always help us out.

With regard to the words "artist," "absorbent," "defendant," "superintendent," etc., I would apply the rule and divide on the r or the n. This is not in itself a matter of importance, however, but I think the best rules are those that have the fewest exceptions. The Standard sanctions such divisions as practi-cal, politic-al, cervi-cal, methodic-al, radi-cal, medic-al. This is almost too fine for the ordinary intelligent compositor. If any rule were necessary in such cases, a simple one to turn over the ending "cal" would produce just as good work as resort to the Standard Dictionary, and in my opinion much better.

There are certain letters, as we all know, that depend for their sound upon the vowels that follow: c and g at the end of a word are always hard; when followed by e or i they are sometimes soft. Now, to divide a word so that a

cor g with a soft sound comes at the end of a line, compels the reader to go over to the beginning of the next line before he can associate the proper sound with the letter he sees before him; and this is, it seems to me, poor printing. Electric- in the word "electricity" does not spell electris, but electrik, and it is not electrikity we are trying to print, but electrisity. The same with relig- in the word "religious." If we take the other alternative and divide on the i, it may be objected that this depends for its short or long sound upon the letter that follows. Very true; therefore the good compositor will divide the word somewhere else if he can conveniently do so better turn over the "ty" or the "tricity," the "ligious," or possibly the "ous" as Stormonth does. But to come back to the Standard: it has no deadly aversion to ending a line with a short i; it authorizes mali-cious, propitious, etc., and for equally good reasons. should authorize "reli-gious" and "electri-city." tri-city." Whether in either of these cases we choose the i or the consonant that follows as the point of division, we compel the reader to suspend the pronunciation of the word until he glances at the beginning of the next line. vowel is a flowing sound; the speaker simply lets it flow until the consonant shows up. A consonant, on the other hand, is different: you can not begin to say it without finishing-or, if you can allow some consonants to flow a little bit, hard and hard g are not among the number; if you give them the sound which they naturally have at the end of a word or the end of a line, and then find out that they ought to have the other sound because of the vowel that follows, there is no redress but to repeat the word. For this reason the short i should end the line rather than a g or a c with a hard sound.

But a

The Standard Dictionary has many excellences, but I do not think its method of dividing words is one of them.

This is the way I long have sought,
And mourned because I found it not.
-Old Hymn.

Four years have come and gone since the opening of the Home for the reception of inmates, and today it is in successful operation, ministering to the wants of the afflicted and proving a “haven of rest" to aged craftsmen. It is fulfilling the purposes for which it was founded in an eminent degree, and in sheltering a large number who are entirely incapacitated from earning a livelihood or who are even without hope of health sufficient to enable them to provide the means of a meager existence, the Home, as a retreat, is a great blessing. The experiment of a four years' trial has demonstrated that the institution is not a failure in accomplishing a great deal of good, while the experience of the past has gone far toward establishing the feasibility of perpetuating the Home in the future. But it is

not the purpose of this article to discuss the beneficent features of the Home question. Our craft at large is well informed on those points. Neither will it be necessary to reproduce figures explanatory of disbursements in the past, for that would be merely a tautological tabulation heretofore printed in the JOURNAL. The object now is to arouse a sympathetic sentiment favorable to the providing of funds for the future. That is the question now open for discussion, and it is one that will engage the attention of the membership from now until the meeting of the International convention next fall. It may be said that the recipient of a bounty should not suggest the mode of obtaining it, but that objecting argument is easily met with the unique western rejoinder of "he who tooteth not his own

bazoo, the same shall not be tooted." Let that be taken as an apology for what may follow.

The coming meeting of the International will be looked forward to with more than ordinary interest. The interest manifested in the selection and election of delegates at all points is strong evidence that the ensuing convention will have a larger attendance than usual. That our best thinkers and most eloquent orators will be among the delegates present is evident. That the coming congress of typographical statesmen will be a credit to our organization is almost assured. The subjects needing additional legislation will be many, and prominently will be the question of the maintenance of the Home. Many plans will be submitted, and out of many certainly one will be found satisfactory and worthy of the support of the majority. If an assessment for Home purposes of 50 cents per year, less than one cent a week, should be made on each member of the craft under International jurisdiction, and to run for two years, it would produce a fund sufficient to build an annex and finish the upper story of the building, with a good sized reserve left in the treasury of the Home fund. This reserve, with the five cents per month per capita as now collected off the membership, would provide amply for running the Home up to 1900. Close figuring on the assumption that the membership does not fall below 20,000 in the next two years, will sustain this proposition. The building of the needed annex and finishing of the upper story would provide comfortable accommodations for one hundred inmates. Would the assessment of one cent, or a little less, per week, be too heavy a burden, in addition to the

per capita tax now imposed? If this plan should be presented and defeated, some other plan easier of enforcement will probably be presented and adopted. The increase from five cents per month to seven and a half cents per month on the membership might, possibly, provide enough revenue, and that could be done by taking two and a half cents per month off one of the other funds, without increasing the amount of per capita tax at present collected, but it would not provide a sum of money to make any improvements. Other plans will undoubtedly be brought forward, and hence these suggestions are made to open the question up to discussion.

Heretofore the revenues for sustaining the Home have come from inside the International organization. No outside help has been solicited-no outside help has been given. It is true that the generous action of the noble Philadelphia philanthropists, George W. Childs and Anthony J. Drexel, in depositing the $10,000 nest egg, was the starting point toward founding the Home, which was built and has been successfully conducted for four years with money raised through assessments or per capita tax on the whole membership. There may be some of our craft who would not approve of receiving outside aid, but their objections will not hold, for it must be conceded that a beneficent institution like the Home is worthy of any contributions from those whose generous impulses are governed by humanitarian motives. But this phase of the But this phase of the question need not be enlarged upon. So, let us look at something easier of solution. and of immediate benefit, provided the proposition meets with fraternal favor.

Hear once again a needed call;
From trembling hoary age;
In pleading tones the accents fall,
Thy pity to engage.

"Let charity begin at home." In the course of a year, the local unions, under the International jurisdiction, vote sums of money for other organizations and for

different purposes. The liberality of typographical unions in extending aid to labor unions is well known, and at nearly every monthly meeting, in one part of the country or the other, a union votes or donates a sum to some worthy organization struggling to maintain a scale of wages. This is to be commended, not deprecated, by no one who believes in upholding labor objects. But the present depleted condition of the Home fund would seem to call for a suspension for the time being, of such donations, and "let charity begin at home." The Home fund is low now, and it will take close figuring to "make even" on the receipts and expenditures for Home purposes until the meeting of the next convention. It is more than probable that there will be a deficiency before October. It will be "nip and tuck," with the odds in favor of "tuck," i. e., an empty treasury. In that case the officers would have to resort to a "borrowing from Peter to pay Paul" process, by taking from one International fund a sufficient sum to square the deficiency, and then rely on the next convention to indorse their action and sanction the transfer. To prevent such a dilemma is practicable, and hence, the presentation of a proposition for consideration is admissible. There are inside the International jurisdiction, 370 local unions, big and little in membership. Let the smallest unions in membership vote or denote $5 each to the Home fund; the unions of the next class in membership, $10; the next largest, $15; the next class, $25 and the larger class $50 apiece to the fund. Some of the unions, possibly, might not be in a financial condition to respond, but an average of $10 for the 370 local unions would turn into the Home treasury $3,700. That sum would place the Home finances in such shape that when the delegates assembled at Colorado Springs they would not be confronted with inmates fed on economic rations or an institution ready to go into bankruptcy. This method of raising a

temporary and needed Home revenue would not work a hardship on any local union. It would be merely cutting off donations for other purposes and applying such donations to the Home. In other words, it would simply be applying the principle of "letting charity begin at home" in a practical manner. This suggestion is not made as a begging emergency appeal. Far from it. It is presented to the membership for conservative consideration and because its adoption would bring forth a substantial and needed result.

Having presented a few suggestions covering the bright side of the Home question, the black side should be drawn, even if the result should be dismal. In In doing so, however, the case will have to be painted hypothetically, in order to bring a speedy and final collapse of the Home prominently in view. Suppose that the next meeting of the International Union, at Colorado Springs, ends the organization, and that petty organizations spring up out of the disrupted International? One might be the machine operators, another the book and job printers, while a third, independent of the larger city organizations, might dub its order "the country compositors" or "hand typestickers." The disruption of the parent organization having been accomplished, and each branch "going it alone," the Home question would be settled, for the small organizations, jealous and antagonistic in interests, could not be brought together in support of the Home, and for lack of " proper support and nutritious nourishment" the establishment would be closed. The first act in the closing scene

We'll rattle their bones over the stones;

Only paupers, whom nobody owns. It is not unkind to picture the pessimists thus, for that is the role they are playing in. Having disposed of the inmates, the disposal of the Home property would come next. The "white elephant," the "$75,000 prairie palace," the "monument of misspent philanthropy," would be offered for sale, that a dividend might be distributed among the surviving stockholders, i. e., the membership of the late International. If offered for sale as a sanitarium, no purchaser could be found, for it is not located in fashionable quarters, and capitalists do not invest in dead property. The state of Colorado, being provided with public buildings of all kinds, and with revenues inadequate to support its present institutions, could not be induced to buy the premises, even for a reformatory for bad boys. The county in which the Home is situated has hospital and poor-house and would not offer a bid. No speculative investor would touch it, and no dividend on the original investment would be forthcoming. It would stand on the prairie knob abandoned, and the upper stories would fill up with spiders, scorpions and cockroaches, while the basement would become the rendezvous of scampering prairie dogs and Then there long-tailed mountain rats.

would settle around the edifice a glamour of gloom, so dense, so impenetrable, that the bright noon-day rays of God's sun would not penetrate it, and a cold would creep over the deserted structure so intense that an avalanche of ice from the north pole would feel warm in compariThen, methinks, some faithful fol

son.

inmates. This is a wicked old world, and there is a great deal of "man's inhumanity to man" in it. To shut up the Home would delight a few pessimistic growlers, who have been malevolently opposing it from the start, and in scattering the inmates, here and there, to await the time of dissolution, that class could shout with ghoulish glee

"Erected by-and deserted by-the great International Typographical Union of North America."

Your correspondent will come no more. He has accomplished his mission, and the role that knew him once will know him

no more.