The copper era., 1906-11-22
The Carnssie-pOOseyeIt Spelling.
BY CHARLES H. cocHRARANE. in CmitbfS MaCazipe

BY CHARLES H. cocHRARANE.
 From Smiths Magazine.
 The ignorance of the newspaper press of two centuries has been widely displayed in the last few weeks, as result of the accession of Theodore Roosevelt to the ranks of spelling reform. This is the more singular because newspaper-writers and editors above all other men should be we'll informed in regard to the history and character of the Ian guage they use-and so frequently abuse.
 In issuing the now famous order to the government printer to use the three hundred spellings of the Sim plified Spelling Board (which is SUD- ported mainly thru the financial aid of Andrew Carnegie), MT. Roosevelt simply followed in the footsteps of President Harrison, who on Septem- Der 4, 1890, issued an executive order, establishing the United States Board of Geogra phical names, and direct ing that their spelling should be fol lowed.
 Tho the work of this geographical board has been much criticised, it has succeeded in bringing some sort of order out of chaos; and we no longer see Klondike spelled in four ways, TOT need any one who has postal guide be in doubt as to the proper spelling of any of the seventy-fve thousand offices in Uncle Sans do- main.
 What Benjamin Harrison thus ac7 complished for our geography, Presi- dent Roosevelt may hope in some de- gree to do for our orthography; but the great difficulty in advancing the movement for resormed spelling comes from the ignorance of the public. Dr. Samuel Johnson com piled the first English dictionary of any importance about 1795, and had he been less set in his individual opinions regarding the English lan- guage, he would not have recorded such bad forms as comptroller, when controller was in established use: nor sovereign, when sovrain was written by Milton; nor debt and doubt where det and dout had been used by better scholars. He put a Latin p in receipt, but left it out of deceit; he changed Shakespeare $ illnd to island; and while he gave disdain properly, he has made us waite deign ever since; he stuck the h into aghast, and muddled delite into delight; while our akes he changed to aches, and so on with hundreds of other good spellings, that should have been retained in the simpler forms.
 What Johnson did in his dogma tism has been perpetuated by hum dreds of millions of copyists; and by such means has English-which as first put into written form was an at tempt to render the sounds of words onetically-become a tumble of in- consistent spellings that requires many months of wasteful study by all the children of this age, and all ages that follow, until simpler 10 dONCpICO.
 It is because English is destined to be the world language, and because a continuance of irrational spellings will foist millions of years of useless study on millions yet unborn, that this question of simpler spelling rises to the height of a great reform. For those of us who have become habituated to such senseless combin- ations of letters, it is easier to go on in the old way, just as it is easier for Chinaman to go on with his heath enish method of sign-writing, and cumbersome manner of figuring with an abacus. But for our children's and grandchildren's sakes we should seriously consider the advantages of the simpler spelling.
 It is very little that the spelling reformers ask. The. list of three hundred words comprises one hum dred and fifty to one hundred and seventy forms that are already used by a majority of. Americans. By common consent nearly all of us now write ax not axe, bun not bum, check not Checque, cue not queue, ether no aether, jail not gaol, parlor not par lour, and the like. Hence where ie the hardship in writing bur for burr. clue for clew, coquet for coquette, distil for distill, draft for draught, dram for drachm, eolian for aeolian, gage for gauge, mama for mamma. wo for woe, and so on.
 Few object to these last-named forms, because they are more or less established, and therefore familiar. The real antagonism seems to be aroused by the use of for ed, as in kist, wisht, prest, etc, and in the case of the twelve common words that have been arbitrarily shortened; viz, altho, catalog, decalog, dema- gOg, pedagog, prolog, program, tho, thoro, thorofare, thru, turnout.
 Let us see whether these are in any way objectionable. The use of for ed WAS common with such writers as Shakespeare, Milton, Dryden, Pope,