We have thus submitted with candour, and with some confidence in their justness, our views upon this important question. Those who are now administering the Government have a great work to do. In the calamitous and discouraging reverses of the war, the necessity of increasing its efficiency was universally felt, and the statesmen of the day, with the full approbation of the people, adopted measures of which they did not foresee the distant, and we fear, disastrous consequences. During the period of unexampled prosperity-so far, at least, as the agricultural States were concernedwhich followed the war, the same course of policy was pursued with increasing ardour and hope, until all the guide-posts and landmarks of the Constitution were so completely lost sight of, that those who have, within these few years, laboured to restore its pristine simplicity, have spoken a language almost unintelligible to the majority of the people. But a great change is now visibly taking place in public opinion. Every omen is favourable. The recent exercise of the veto did immense good by merely arresting the profligate and demoralizing expendiof the public money, and honestly appropriating it to the payment of the national debt. But it has produced an effect vastly more important than this. It has arrested the attention of the people-it has awakened the minds of men-it has sanctified the past efforts of this and of other Southern States in defence of those principles, upon which, and upon which alone, the success of our great experiment in society depends. Public opinion so studiously deluded and abused for some years past— begins to be enlightened, and every thing encourages us to hope for our country. It is true, that a mighty struggle seems likely to ensue. The advocates of the "System" will undoubtedly exert themselves to the utmost, to overthrow those who have done so much to defeat them, but it is only the more necessary for the friends of moderate counsels, of domestic tranquillity, of true liberty, and of the permanency and perfection of the Constitution, to unite in a vigorous, systematic, determined, but not intemperate prosecution of their holy purposes. For ourselves, we repeat what we said on a former occasion. "We shall never despair of the republic as it stands, so long as a ray of hope is left us. The counsels of a sage patriotism always take it for granted, that the State can be saved without throwing into the sea whatever makes it worth preserving."

APPENDIX.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SOUTHERN REVIEW.

A writer in the Review for May, has made remarks on certain passages in the 'Introduction to the American Dictionary,' which the readers of the Review may think deserving notice by the author. I shall, therefore, make a few observations on some of the writer's assertions; confining myself to the more prominent points.

1. In page 340, the writer charges me with mistaking 'zaviduyu' and two other Russian words, "for the infinitives." But I have made no such mistake. I never wrote, said or thought these words to be infinitives.

2. In the same page he observes, that it will be difficult to find any analogy between the Russian 'ees' and 'so.' But I have said nothing respecting such analogy, as far as orthography is concerned. I have said the Russian ‘so,' as a mark of comparison, answers nearly to the English so or as. Why did the writer mutilate the passage? My remark is correct, as in this sentence. "He is as large as I am." "Il est aussi grand que moi." Here the Russian 'so' would stand for 'as' in English, and 'aussi' in French.

3. To discredit the evidence of the identity of national origin, and languages drawn from the affinity or sameness of words, the writer challenges me to show any two languages in which we shall not be able to point out at least forty or fifty words resembling each other, if not entirely the same in both languages. In return, I challenge him to point out any two languages radically distinct, in which there is one word composed of the same sounds or letters, and signifying the same thing, to be found in both languages.

In the writer's long account of the origin and connexion of nations and languages, there may be some truth, and there is, doubtless, much error. No confidence can be placed in the traditional accounts of migrations of men, anterior to the age of authentic history. The most certain knowledge of the early descent of any tribe or nation from a particular stock, is to be obtained from their language.

The writer (p. 345) observes that the Persian language is original, but has been enriched with Median, Greek, Latin, and even German words. This is all a mistake. The ancient Persian language was one branch or dialect of the original language, and the parent of the Gothic, Teutonic and Celtic. Persia was the seat of the nations or tribes which migrated and brought these languages into Europe. A part of the modern Persian is Arabic; but no person who has examined the Persic from beginning to end, as I have done, can have the slightest hesitation in admitting that the original language of Persia was the source of the Celtic and Teutonic. The Persians have borrowed nothing from Greece, Italy or Germany.

In page 357, the writer speaks of the difference of organs among nations who live in distinct climates and countries. This is the first intimation I have ever had, that men, in different climates, have differVOL. V.-NO. 11. 33

ent organs of speech. If the writer means that men, in different countries, are sometimes accustomed to a different use of their organs in enunciation, I shall not contend with him.

4. In page 378, the writer calls in question my derivation of the Teutonic 'binnan' or 'binnen,' (within) and remarks that the Germans use 'binnen' (within) only in relation to time. But, in my German dictionary, 'binnenland' is rendered 'within land,' which has no reference to time. In Dutch, the same word occurs, in my dictionary, in more than thirty words, in every one of which, ‘binnen' relates to 'place,' and not once to time.' In Saxon also, the word is used in relation to place, in John xi. 30. Such is the evidence of the writer's accuracy!

The writer then says, that baynan' in Arabic, signifies distinctly, clearly, evidently, and nothing else; and is derived from 'ayin,' the eye. Both these affirmations are incorrect and groundless. Any person looking into Castle's Lexicon, will see that the Arabic word does signify something besides 'clearly' or 'evidently.' That 'baynan' is from 'ayin,' the eye, is not true. The sense of clearly,' 'evidently,' is probably never, certainly not in this case, from the name of 'eye.' It is from 'opening,' 'expanding,' a sense often connected with separating, and these are the primary sources of the verb. So in Scripture, "Did not our hearts burn within us, while he opened to us the Scriptures." To‘open,' in this case, is to explain, to make clear or evident; and this is reason or common sense, that runs through all the languages I have examined.

The formation of baynan' from 'ayin,' is wholly arbitrary; there is not the slightest ground for thinking the word compound, and no such mode of formation has occurred to my researches, which have embraced more than twenty languages. It is an hypothesis just as absurd, not to say ridiculous, as to suppose 'cart' formed from 'art,' with c prefixed: a 'charm' from 'arm,' or 'stable' from 'able.'

5. The writer, in the same page, writes that 'ge' in German, is no preposition, and has by itself no signification at all. And what is this

to the purpose? Have I said any thing to that effect?

But, says the writer, in the German, 'glaube,' faith, belief, the g belongs to the root, for 'laube' alone is a 'bower,' which can have no connexion with belief;' consequently, the g is no preformative particle. How hastily men write before they understand their subject! And how rashly they run into contradictions! The writer admits that the German 'glaube' is the same as the Saxon 'geleaf,' with the change of ƒ into b. This admission contradicts the assertion, that g belongs to the root; for a moment's inspection of a Saxon Lexicon shows, demonstrably, that 'gelcaf' is a compound of the prefix 'ge,' with leaf, from the root of 'leave.'

The word 'laube' in German, is rendered a 'bower' or 'arbour;' but how could the writer overlook the fact, that the word, in this sense, is from ‘laub,' a ‘leaf;' a bower or arbour being thus named from its foliage. This by the way.

But the German 'glaube' and Saxon 'geleaf' are more directly connected with the English leave,' permission;' the same verb in Saxon, signifying to believe,' to 'leave,' and 'to permit.' If the writer had embraced the whole subject, he would have known that although the the simple word 'laub,' does not occur in German in the sense of 'be

lief' or of 'leave,' yet it does occur in the compound 'ur-laub,' 'leave,' a furlow, that is, leave of absence.

To show how carelessly and rashly men make assertions, I will here set down this word and some of its affinities, in several dialects.

Gothic. Ga-laubyan,' to believe; 'Us-laubyan,' to give leave, [us is out.]

Saxon.-Ge-leafan,' to believe, to permit, to leave; 'Ge-leaf,' belief, faith, leave, license: Læfan,' to leave; 'lefan,' to believe, to permit ; 'Leaf,' leave, license; a leaf [of a tree.]

6

Dutch.-Ge-loof,' belief; Ge-looven,' to believe; 'Verlof,' leave, permission. Eng. furlow.'

Swedish.-' Orlof,' leave. Danish, 'Orlov.' English, ‘furlow,' [ƒ is lost, as w is in 'ord,' word.]

German.-Ur-laub,' leave, furlow.

It is certain then that the German glaube,' belief, is contracted from 'gelaube,' and that g does not belong to the root. The same contraction occurs in 'gleich' and 'gelyth,' even; Eng. like; and in 'gluch' and 'geluch;' Eng. luck.

Let the reader notice that the first syllable of 'furlow,' is our vulgar 'fur,' used for 'far,' 'distant.' This in Dutch is 'ver,' in 'verlof;' 'fur,' 'far' and 'ver' being mere dialectical variations of the same word. Let him notice also, that the last letter of 'furlow,' in the continental languages, is a labial; b, for v. This shows the common spelling 'furlough,' with gh, guttural or palatal letters, to be an egregious blunder.

6. The writer remarks, p. 380, that we should never confound a preposition with a mere particle, however similar they may appear. For example, the German particle 'ver,' which has no meaning at all, except when prefixed to a verb, ought not to be confounded with the preposition 'vor,' which has a distinct meaning of its own, and does not stand in any etymological connexion with the particle 'ver.'

But the only difference between what the writer here calls a particle and a preposition, is that one is always used in composition and the other is not. Ver' is used only in composition; vor' is used both in composition and by itself. The consequence of this doctrine is, that 'vor' is sometimes a particle and sometimes a preposition. Such are the mischiefs of names ill applied; of distinctions ill understood, and of misapprehending differences, by supposing them radical, when they are merely accidental.

'Ver' is the English 'fur,' as any person may know by looking into a Dutch dictionary, or indeed, into a German dictionary, and seeing its uses in composition. Vor' is the English 'fore,' ‘før.' These words

are differently applied, but are undoubtedly from one root. The orthography is varied just as it is in other cases. 'Far' is the German and Dutch 'ver,' and our vulgar 'fur;' but the latter in 'furlow,' is not vulgar. Just so we have, and use indifferently, 'farther' and 'further,' dialectical forms of the same word. These words are from one source: in Saxon, 'faran,' 'to go,' 'or pass,' 'to fare;' in Dutch, 'vaaren ;' in German, fahren; in Swedish, fara;' in Danish, 'farer.' Now, beyond all question, these are the same words as the Greekopsuw.' The first vowel is varied in the different dialects; 'far' corresponds with fare,'

'faran;' and 'vor' corresponds with 'opsuw.' In like manner are varied 'ver,' 'fur,' 'fore.' The sense of 'fore' is taken from 'advancing;' so is 'far.' Hence the use of 'ver to denote 'completion,' that is, a great or the utmost advance; just like 'per' in Latin, in 'perdoctus,' and for the same reason.

That 'ver' and the English 'fore,' 'for,' are from one root, is evident from the compounds-German, 'vergessen,' to 'forget;'verbieten,' to 'forbid;' vergeben,' to 'forgive; Dutch, vergeeten,' 'verbieden, vergeeven.' Here 'ver' and 'for' are, doubtless, dialectical forms of the same word.

7. The writer says also, that the Greek ‘avri,' when used as a preposition, indicates no opposition or contrariety. This is so far from the truth, that opposition is its principal sense, and the source of all its applications. It is the same word as the Latin 'ante,' differently applied. Ante' is before;' that is, in front, but without the sense of opposing; 'avri' has its sense of opposition from the same circumstance, being in front. Hence, it is easy to deduce all its applications.

เ

In Genesis xlvii. 17, we read that Joseph gave bread for horses, aprovg avrí TWV ITπWV. Septuagint. Here the sense is in opposition or contrariety. Joseph gave bread against horses—that is, as an equivalent in exchange; as we say, 'to set one thing against another.' So in French, "de les changer contre les plus tresors." Pelloretier. So in sales, we say, 'to sell goods for money;' that is, literally, to sell goods against money;' in Saxon, 'to give or deliver against money.'

But what can be said in favour of a writer, who gravely derives 'avri from the Arabic ‘anta,' thou; and 'anah,' to answer, from 'ano,' the pronoun I? I really have not patience to refute such idle conjectures.

8. The writer charges me with confounding the German adverb 'nahe,' near, with the preposition nach,' after, and says, perhaps, 'nachbar,' neighbour, was originally spelled 'nahbar.' To this I reply, perhaps, it was not; and now we are equal in conjecture.

The truth is, 'nahe,' adjective, adverb and noun, is from 'nach,' nigh; a word which, in Saxon, is written neah,' 'neahg,' neh, 'nich,' 'nih,' and in composition, 'nea.' In Dutch it is abbreviated to 'na.' In Saxon, 'neighbour' is written neahgebur,' 'neahbur,' 'nehbur,' 'nehhe-bur,' 'neh-gebur,' and in other ways. But whatever is the spelling, the original word is 'nach.' This, in German, signifies to, by, upon, at, according, as well as after. The ship is bound nach Hamburg,' to or for Hamburg'-'to strike at one,' nach einem schlagen' according to the Scriptures,' nech der schreft.'

So in Russ, 'na' is rendered in German by 'auf' 'nach,' 'zu,' 'fur;' in French, ‘sur,' ‘au,' ‘a,' ‘pour,' 'en.' In Russ, 'na primir,' 'after or according to a model,' is rendered in German, 'nach dem muster ;' in French, selon le modele.'

The primary sense of 'nach' is 'pressed,' 'made close,' from some root signifying 'to go,' 'move,' or 'drive.' Hence are easily deducible all its senses, expressing nearness, imitation, proceeding towards, or following.

9. There are other passages of the reviewer's observations equally erroneous; but I shall omit further reply, except to the sweeping sentence in page 340, that "similar errors have been committed by our