REM ARKS UPON THE _ • EDUCATION OF DEAF MUTES: IN DEFENCE OF THE DOCTRINES . OK TIIE SECOND ANNUAL REPORT OF THE MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF STATE CHARITIES, AND IN REPLY TO THE CHARGES OF THE REV. COLLINS STONE, Principal ok th« American a-.ylcm at IIartpobd. BOSTON: WALKER, FULLER & CO., PUBLISHERS. 18G6. R EMAKKS UPON TIIE EDUCATION OF DEAF MUTES: IN DEFENCE OF TIIE DOCTRINES OF THE SECOND ANNUAL ltEFORT OF TIIE MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF STATE CHARITIES, AND IN RErLY TO TIIE CHARGES OF TIIE REV. COLLINS STONE, ftnCIFAL or THE AMERICA* ASYLUM AT HARTFORD. BOStON: WALKER, FULLER & CO., PUBLISHERS 18G6. Wright & Totter, Trs., 4 Spring Lane, Boston. P R E F A C E . On reading the last Report of the Principal of the American Asylum for Mutes, it seemed to me that I ought to criticize it publicly, first, in the hope of promoting the true interest of deaf mutes, by calling attention to the subject of their education; second, in order to defend my colleagues of the Massachusetts Board of State Charities from some discreditable imputations ; third, to set forth the real doctrines contained in their Second Report; and lastly, to exculpate myself from certain charges of inconsistency, and insinuations of selfish purposes. I thought to do this in a newspaper article ; but my interest in the subject, or my inability to condense the matter, made it impossible. When the manuscript was finished, it was laid aside ; and the pur- pose of publishing it half abandoned. A recent event has confirmed my first purpose ; but leaves not the time to recast the article. This must explain the tardiness of its appearance, and its being written in the third person. SAMUEL G. IIOWE. Boston, October 21st, 18G6. REMARKS UPON THE EDUCATION OF DEAF MUTES. The American Asylum, for the Education and Instruction of Deaf Mutes, at Hartford, is the oldest establishment of the kind in the United States, and the only one in !New England. It has been of incalculable benefit to the deaf mutes of all the country. It enjoys, and it deserves public confi- dence and esteem. It enjoys moreover the monop- oly of educating the public beneficiaries of all the New England States; a monopoly of which it seems to be very tenacious. Its Annual Reports are widely circulated; and are considered as valuable and reliable. They are read and regarded as entirely sound by most persons interested in the education of deaf mutes. The Institution is strictly conservative. Its Directors are men of high character, pure motives, and eminent gravity. Its system of instruction, adopted fifty years ago, is still adhered to, with few changes; and all proposals to modify it are stoutlv resisted. 6 If pressed, they are repelled with sensitiveness, and sometimes with asperity; as though they were considered impertinent interference; and yet any citizen of Massachusetts, at least, has a right to press them, because about half the pupils of the school are beneficiaries of this State. The late lamented Horace Mann, Secretary of the Massachusetts Board of Education, proposed a great modification of the system of instruction; and brought powerful arguments and stubborn facts to the support of his views. But he failed to effect any material change. The Asylum yielded a little for a time, under his vigorous attacks, but swung back to its old moorings; and, held fast by the anchor of conservatism, breasts the tide of progressive ideas which sweep by it. In France, Dr. Blanchet, connected with the Imperial Institution for Deaf Mutes, has long been advocating still greater changes in the system of educating these unfortunates. His views are inge- nious and plausible, and have found considerable favor. The Minister of Public Instruction, in a very able Circular to the Prefects of all the Departments in France, recommended Dr. Blanchet’s plan to their favorable notice several years ago. Some Departments and Municipalities have voted money, and made arrangements for testing the practicability of the proposed plan. It has been in operation in some parts of France and of Russia. It is radical in its nature, and points to a partial abandonment of central Institutions, and the instruction of mutes in their several towns. This plan seems to us impractical in its full extent; but it certainly has very valuable features, and deserves notice and trial. We shall watch the experiment in France with great interest, and we wish Dr. Blanchet all the success which his zeal and enterprise merit. Meantime, the Massachusetts Board of State Charities, part of whose duty it is to visit the Hartford school and look after the interests of the beneficiaries placed there by the State, suggested, in its Second Annual Report, some important changes in the system of instructing and educating our deaf mutes, which, if carried out, would result in their being educated at home instead of being sent to Connecticut. This seems to alarm the Hartford school; and the Principal devotes almost the whole of his last Report to what purports to be an answer to the suggestions of the Board. He seems fairly roused; but not so much to the importance of the principles in question, as of defending the practices of the Hartford school, and of preserving the patronage of Massachusetts. He has at least two qualifications, which, as Byron 8 says, always make a writer interesting, to wit, "wrath and partiality.” His zeal leads him, not only to overlook facts and reasonings, hut, unconsciously perhaps, to be uncourteous to the Board, and to the Chairman, upon whom he makes a personal attack. He seems to think that if he can convict him of inconsistency, and show that he is ignorant of the best manner of educating mutes, the matter will be put to rest. He therefore avoids discussion of principles, and his Report is mainly an argumentum ad hominem. As such, it would not call for a public reply, because the public do not care whether the Principal or the Chairman of the Board is right in his theories. But our people do desire to have our deaf mutes educated in the best manner; though do not often have the means of knowing much about it. The present, therefore, seems to be a good opportunity of drawing their attention to it; and, as most of them are rather attracted than repelled by the smack of a controversy, we shall yield to the temptation, and without following the example of the Principal, in regard to personalities, we shall assail his positions, and refute his state- ments, so far as propriety and respect for an opponent will permit. Out of such a discussion, conducted with the desire to elicit truth, ought to come, not any scandal to the cause of public charity, but on the contrary, an advance of its best interests. 9 It will be necessary, however, first to consider some general principles which are apt to be forgot- ten in the organization of Institutions, and of methods for educating deaf mutes, and similar classes of defectives. We can at the same time show the grounds upon which the Massachusetts Board of State Charities placed its suggestions for a change in our present system, and which called forth the displeasure of the Principal. The multitude of unfortunates into whose condi- tion the Board was to inquire, and over which the law gives it general supervision, was divided into the Dependent class, the Destructive class, and the Criminal class. The first comprised destitute orphans; abandoned children; vagrant and vicious children, and youth; the blind, the deaf and dumb; the insane, the idiots, the confirmed drunkards, State paupers, and the like; making nearly twenty thousand persons in Massachusetts alone. The general principles to be followed in the care and direction of these unfortunates were thus set forth:— 1st. “ That it is better to separate and diffuse the dependent classes than to congregate them. 2d. “ That we ought to avail ourselves as much as possi- ble of those remedial agencies which exist in society,—the family, social influences, industrial occupations, and the like. 10 3d. “ That we should enlist not only the greatest possible amount of popular sympathy, but the greatest number of individuals and of families, in the care and treatment of the dependent. 4tli. “ That we should avail ourselves of responsible socie- ties and organizations which aim to reform, support, or help any class of dependents, thus lessening the direct agency of the State, and enlarging that of the people themselves. 5th. “ That we should build up public institutions only in the last resort. 6th. “ That these should be kept as small as is consistent with wise economy, and arranged so as to turn the strength and faculties of the inmates to the best account. 7th. “That we should not retain the inmates any longer than is manifestly for their good, irrespective of their usefulness in the institution.” The three last propositions seem sound, but they are unwelcome to those who are wedded to public institutions, and who believe in the doctrine of teaching, improving, or supporting children and adults in masses. The Board says:— “ Our people have rather a passion for institutions ; but they have also a vague idea that great piles of brick and mortar are essential to their existence and potency. They want to see them at once, and in the concrete. Hence, we sometimes have follies of the people as well as of indi- viduals—many stories high, too—and so strongly built, and richly endowed, that they cannot be got rid of easily.” In support of their principle the Board said:— 11 “ The hideous evils growing out of the old system of keeping men in prisons, shut up without separation, and without occupation, arc too well known to need mention here ; but it is not enough considered that the chief evils arose, not from the men being especially vicious or criminal, but from the fact of their being congregated so closely together. “ Let us sec how it affects the pauper class. “ Most of those belonging to the first division mentioned above, to wit, those in whom dependence is inherent, and, of course, permanent, are infirm mentally, morally, or physically, perhaps in all these respects. Neither can those in the other class be in a normal and vigorous condition, else they would not be dependent. There exists in them, indeed, the innate disposition or capacity for recovering the normal state, but as yet it is in abeyance. Now, out of unsound and abnormal conditions there must, of course, grow certain mental and moral tendencies, which, to say the least, arc unwholesome. And it is a natural consequence, (though disregarded in practice,) that if an individual with these tendencies lives in close association with others like himself, all his peculiarities and tendencies are intensified by the intercourse. The greater the majority of unsound persons in his community, the greater the intensification of his abnormal tendencies. Each acts upon all; and the characteristics of class, or caste, arc rapidly developed. Nothing is more contagious than evil.” This principle is further illustrated by reference to special classes as of the deaf mutes, and ol the blind,— 12 “ The lack of an important sense not only prevents the entire and harmonious development of mind and character, but it tends to give morbid growth in certain directions, as a plant checked in its direct upward growth grows askew. It would be a waste of words to prove this, because a denial of it would be a denial of the importance of the great senses. “ The morbid tendencies, however, are not strong—cer- tainly not irresistible—at least with the blind. They are educable, like all tendencies and dispositions, and by skilful management may be turned to advantage. Certainly, how- ever, they ought to be lessened, not strengthened, by educa- tion. Now, they are lessened, and their morbid effects corrected in each individual by intimate intercourse with persons of sound and normal condition—that is, by general society; while they are strengthened by associating closely and persistently with others having the like infirmity. “ Guided by this principle, we should, in providing for the instruction and training of these persons, have the associa- tion among them as little as is possible, and counteract its tendencies by encouraging association and intimacy with common society. They should be kept together no more closely and no longer than is necessary for their special instruction ; and there should be no attempts to build up permanent asylums for them, or to favor the establishment of communities composed wholly, or mainly, of persons subject to a common infirmity. “ Special educational influences, to counteract these special morbid tendencies, should begin with the beginning of life and continue to its end; and they should be more uniform and persistent with mutes than with blind. “ The constant object should be to fashion them into the likeness of common men by subjecting them to common 13 social influences, and to check the tendency to isolation and to intensification of the peculiarities which grow out of their infirmity. “ A consideration of the principles imperfectly set forth above, will show that when we gather mutes and blind into institutions for the purpose of instruction, we are in danger of sowing, with sound wheat, some tares that may bring forth evil fruit. The mere instruction may be excellent, but other parts of the education tend to isolate them from common social influences, and to intensify their peculiarities, and this is bad.” These rather novel doctrines have attracted atten- tion among thoughtful persons. They have been praised by high authorities; pronounced too radical by others; and have been assailed by a few who fear that the importance and usefulness of long established institutions, to which they themselves are honestly wedded for life, may be impaired if such doctrines should be accepted. The Board, after carefully setting forth the prin- ciples upon which all methods of treating special classes should be based, went on to apply them to the case of the deaf mutes of Massachusetts. The present method is to send these unfortunates, at the expense of the State, to Hartford, there to reside with many others of the same class, in a great asylum, and be kept closely together during the most impressible years of their lives, deprived almost entirely of family and social relations, except 14 with each other. They have not even the advantage of family relations with their teachers, who naturally show their preference for domestic life over asylum life, by dwelling in their own houses. This arrangement, however saving of labor, and sparing of money, violates the principle so strenu- ously urged by the Board of Charities, that defective children should be associated together as little as is possible; and with ordinary persons as much as is possible. The Board suggested that instead of this plan, the deaf mutes of Massachusetts (who are quite numerous enough to form one school as large as a school ought to be,) should be educated at home, that is, wiflim the State. The plan did not contem- plate an asylum, but simply one or more schools, to which mutes could go for instruction, as other chil- dren go to common schools; and during the rest of the time be subjected to the ordinary family and social influences,—not of a great deaf mute family, but of common life. The plan certainly had many important features. The method proposed was in accordance with the principles set forth by the Board, the soundness of which has not been disproved. It avoided, as much as is possible, the acknowledged evils of congregat- ing persons of common infirmity closely together. It involved no great expense. It was in the nature of an experiment; and could be abandoned with 15 little loss, if it should fail. Til fine, it seemed to present a happy mean between the old system of the Hartford school and the system urged by Blanchet, which begins to find so much favor in France and other European countries. It incorporated the admitted advantages, and avoided the acknowledged evils of each. But it also involved the loss to the Hartford asylum of almost one-half its pupils, who are maintained there by the State of Massachusetts. It is conceivable, therefore, that it should be opposed, both directly and indirectly. Accordingly, the Principal of the American Asylum at Hartford, opposes it in his way, which is the indirect way. lie devotes almost the whole of his last Report to this matter. First, he makes a false issue with the Report of the Board of Chari- ties; second, lie makes a personal attack upon the Chairman. He raises a false issue, by devoting a large part of his Report to the subject of teaching mutes articulation, as if that had been urged by the Board, lie sets forth forcibly and fully the advantages of the French method of instruction used with some modifications at Hartford, and the disadvantages of the German method used in the German, and many other European schools. If there was room to go into the matter here, it could be shown, that, with the exception of a single sentence, which should be qualified, all that is urged 16 in the Report of the Board of Charities in favor of articulation, is sound, and cannot be gainsaid. "We quote from pp. 51-55 of their Report:— “ The inherent differences between children who are blind or mute and ordinary children, arc not so great as to form characteristics of a class, or to remove them from the effect of common educational influences. We arc not, therefore, to modify these influences to suit their condition, but rather modify their condition to suit them. We must, however, modify our method of instruction somewhat to suit the blind, and a great deal to suit the deaf mutes. “ It is not the purpose, now, to speak of special instruction, further than to say that, other things being equal, the method is best which approaches most closely the approved methods used with ordinary children. “ But in speaking of education in a more general sense, that is of the influences which are brought to bear upon the development of character, a few words may be appropriate upon the subject under consideration, to wit,— “ Intensification of Peculiarities Growing out of an Infirmity. “ It is to be borne in mind always, that the infirmities which characterize these classes of mutes and blind do, in spite of certain compensations, entail certain undesirable consequences, which have unfavorable effects upon body and mind both. “ The lack of an important sense not only prevents the entire and harmonious development of mind and character, but it tends to give morbid growth in certain directions, as a plant checked in its direct upward growth grows askew. It would be a waste of words to prove this, because a 17 denial of it would be a denial of the importance of the great senses. “ The morbid tendencies, however, are not strong— certainly not irresistible—at least with the blind. They are educable, like all tendencies and dispositions, and by skilful management may be turned to advantage. Certainly, how- ever, they ought to be lessened, not strengthened, by educa- tion. Now, they are lessened, and their morbid effects corrected in each individual, by intimate intercourse with persons of sound and normal condition—that is, by general society ; while they are strengthened by associating closely and persistently with others having the like infirmity. They, themselves, seem to have an instinctive perception of this, and the most delicate of them feel the morbid tendency which may segregate them from ordinary people, and put them in a special class. Some of them struggle against it in a touching manner, as the fabled nymph resisted meta- morphosis into a lower form of life. “They seem to cling to ordinary persons, as if*fearing segregation, and strive to conform themselves to their habits, manners, and even appearance. They wish to look, to act, to be, as much like others as is possible, and to be con- sidered as belonging to ordinary society, and not to a special class. “ It is generally supposed that this feeling, especially in the blind, arises only from the fact that blindness and poverty are associated together, and that poverty calls forth contempt, lightened, in their case, by pity. But the feeling has a deeper source. It is very strong in those of delicate and sensitive natures, and it ought always to be respected and encouraged. Our principle in treating them should be that of separation and diffusion, not congregation. We are 18 to educate them for society of those who hear and who see; and the earlier we begin the better. “We violate this principle when we gather them into institutions; but we do so in view of certain advantages of instruction in common, which arc not to be had in any other feasible method; as we bear with an inferior common school rather than have none. A man of wealth might, indeed— and if he were wise, would—allow his mute or blind child to spend a certain time in a well-regulated institution for like children; but it would be only a short one. “ Guided by this principle we should, in providing for the instruction and training of these persons, have the associa- tion among them as little as is possible, and counteract its tendencies by encouraging association and intimacy with common society. They should be kept together no more closely and no longer than is necessary for their special instruction ; and there should be no attempts to build up permanent asylums for them, or to favor the establishment of communities composed wholly or mainly of persons subject to a common infirmity. “ This is far more important with the mutes than with the blind, because of their speechlessness. Language, in its largest sense, is the most important instrument of thought, feeling, and emotion ; and especially of social intercourse. Blindness, in so far as it prevents knowledge of and partici- pation in the rudimentary part of language, to wit, panto- mime, or signs, gestures, and expression of features and face, tends to isolation : but the higher and far more impor- tant part of language, speech, is fully open to them. Then their sense of dependence strengthens their social desires; increases their knowledge and command of speech, and makes that compensate very nearly, if not quite, for igno- 19 ranee of other parts of language. The blind, if left to ordinary social influences, are in no danger of isolation. It is when we bring them together in considerable numbers that the tendency to segregation manifests itself; and this is rather from necessity than from choice, for the social cravings become more intense with them than wdtli us. “ With mutes it is not so. Speech is essential for human development. Without it full social communion is impossi- ble ; since there can be no effectual substitute for it. The rudimentary and lower parts of language, or pantomime, is open to mutes; but the higher and finer part, that is, speech, is forever closed ; and any substitute for it is, at best, imperfect. This begets a tendency to isolation; which not being so effectually checked during youth, as it is with the blind, by a sense of dependence, becomes more formidable. To be mute, therefore, implies tendency to isolation. The blind need little special instruction; the mutes a great deal. “ An attempt to consider different modes of instructing mutes would lead into a wide field of discussion ; but it may be remarked that in the plenitude of arguments and disputes about the comparative merit of the various systems of sign language, it has not been enough considered that, by teach- ing a mute to articulate, wre bring him to closer association with us by using our vernacular in our way, than by teach- ing him the finger language, which can never become our vernacular. The special method tends more to segregate him and his fellows from ordinary society. In the first case one party adheres to the natural and ordinary method of speech, and the other party strives to imitate it; in the second, both nsc a purely arbitrary and conventional method. 20 “ The favorite- motto of the adherents of the method of dactylology betrays this fault,— ‘ Lingua vicaria manus ; ’ for the very vicariousness is objectionable, and ought to be lessened as much as is possible. “ Without pretending to metaphysical precision, it may be said that by means of the senses we come into conscious relations with external nature—with men and things. Sen- sation and perception are the roots of knowledge. The wider the circle of sensuous relations, the more rapid the acquirement of knowledge. By action and reaction between our internal nature and external nature, character is devel- oped. But in order that there may be harmonious and entire development of human character, there must be the ordinary organs of human sense : no more and no less. “ The result, then, of the lack of any one organ of sense must be twofold ; first, limitation of the circle of sensuous relations ; second, inharmonious development of character. “ In the education of the deaf mutes and of the blind we are to counteract the limitation by special instruction given through the remaining senses ; and we are to counteract the tendency to inharmonious development by special influences, both social and moral. “ Special educational influences, to counteract these special morbid tendencies, should begin with the beginning of life and continue to its end ; and they should be more uniform and persistent with mutes than with the blind. “ The constant object should be to fashion them into the likeness of common men by subjecting them to common social influences, and to check the tendency to isolation and to intensification of the peculiarities which grow out of their infirmity. 21 “ A consideration of the principles imperfectly set forth above, will show that when we gather mutes and blind into institutions for the purpose of instruction, we are in danger of sowing, with sound wheat, some tares that may bring forth evil fruit. The mere instruction may be excellent, but other parts of the education tend to isolate them from common social influences, and to intensify their peculiarities, and this is bad.” It will be seen that the Board does not commit itself to the system of articulation. Nay! the Report says expressly, (p. lviii.,) " that while some of the members believe that articulation should be taught, others, without pretending to decide upon the com- parative merits of dilferent systems of instruction, believe that many benefits would arise from having the wards of the State taught within her borders. They would, therefore, suggest a plan for a change in our system of educating deaf mutes.” In this plan, the Board do not recommend that articulation should be taught. This is the false issue which the Principal makes. Next, he tries to divert attention from the reason- ing of the Board, by attacking the Chairman, and disparaging the value of his opinion. lie singles him out by name; rudely insinu- ates that he is given to riding hobby horses, and to changing them frequently; and that moreover he might have some personal end to gratify; and say- ing for himself, with much complacency,—” We are 22 not specially sensitive in this matter, we have no hobbies to ride, and no personal end whatever to gratify!” (p. 38.) Considering that the Report of the Board of Charities alluded to the Directors and officers of the Hartford Asylum very courteously; and admitted that the deaf mutes of Massachusetts ” have received fair and kind treatment at their hands, and been taught by a corps of able and accomplished teachers; ”* such language by one of those officers, sanctioned by those Directors, and printed in their Annual Report, appears uncourteous and strange, to say the least! Again, considering that no one charged the Rev- erend Principal with being sensitive, dr hobby liorsical, his language certainly shows neither lack of sensitiveness nor abundance of Christian charity; but it does suggest the French proverb,—" qui s’ excuse s’ accuse ; ” — " who needlessly excuses himself, accuses himself.” And yet agaiii, considering that the Reverend Principal is not sensitive, and declares (p. 29,) that the objections urged against the Hartford system have been repeatedly met, to the satisfaction of committees of the Massachusetts Legislature, it is strange he should say, ” It may be proper to give them a passing notice: ” stranger still, that this " passing notice ” should occupy almost the whole of his Report. * Report, p. 57. 23 lie then proceeds, not to consider the arguments and considerations urged against the Hartford system, but to demolish them by lessening whatever weight they might derive from the character of the members of the Massachusetts Board of State Charities, in whose Report they are found. That Board consists of seven members, six, at least, of whom are gentlemen of character, and some of them eminent scholars and teachers. They all sign the Report ; and all endorse the principles which it advocates, and the application of those principles to the education of mutes; although they admit they are not all of them, competent to decide whether mutes should be taught articulation or not. But the Principal regards them as mere men of straw, who signed what they did not understand or believe! lie says (p. 35,) with regard to the question of teaching articulation, " On the side of educating mutes by signs, we find every teacher in this coun- try, and in the British Isles, with the exceptions above named, and several of these have spent nearly forty years in the work of practical instruc- tion; on the side of teaching articulation, we find Dr. S. G. Howe!” And so with all the arguments and considera- tions urged in the Report of the Board. It is, "Dr. Ilowe objects;” "Dr. Ilowe urges;” "Dr. 24 Howe complains; ” ” Dr. Howe suggests.” Dr. Howe is everywhere, the Board nowhere! Having deprived the principles advanced in the Report of whatever moral support the names of the doctor’s colleagues might give, he next tries to demolish whatever they might get from the name of the doctor alone. He quotes some of his opinions, expressed many years ago, and shows that they differ from those put forth in the recent Report of the Board of Charities, and then remarks,— “ It is pleasant to notice, that as Dr. Howe’s views with regard to the best arrangements for deaf mutes have not been entirely settled in the past, there is reason to hope he may come out right yet.” Amen! but he will never come out right, if he is afraid of inconsistency with former opinions; or clings to doctrines because he once professed belief in them. The doctor indeed says, in one of his Reports, that the result of many years’ experience and observation, both of blind and of mutes, con- vince him that he made mistakes in organizing the Institution for the Blind, more than thirty years ago. There was then no school for the blind in the country, and he copied existing establishments, among others the asylum at Hartford, merely modifying it to meet the special condition of the blind. 25 lie found, in a few years, that lie had incorpora- ted some fundamental errors in the plan of organi- zation; and in his Twentieth Report lie states, that having been called upon by a committee from another State to recommend a plan for an institution for the blind, he did recommend one differing in important points from the Perkins’ Institution. lie would have no "commons,” no central boarding- house,—only a school-house. lie would thus avoid the error of making them board, and lodge, and live so much together; because he finds that it encourages a spirit of caste, and intensifies the peculiarities growing out of their infirmity. lie would have them associate with each other less, and with ordinary persons more, than is now done. lie would now follow out this idea in the pro- posed school for mutes in Massachusetts. He did, indeed, follow it out in establishing the workshop for the blind many years ago; and the most satisfactory results have been obtained. There arc some thirty blind persons who come together in the morning to learn trades, and to work at them on wages, and go away to their several boarding places in the neighborhood. This establishment is under the general direction of the Institution; but the inmates (some of them young,) are not brought together except for instruction, or for work, and not even for work in large numbers; because the plan is to furnish work 26 at their several homes whenever it is possible. They are thus subjected to ordinary family and social influences, and are trained to live in and take part with ordinary society, and not trained to become members of a special class or caste. The establish- ment is successful; and blind persons who have been familiar with both modes of living,—asylum life and common life,—prefer the latter. It would doubtless be so with mutes if the exper- iment were fairly tried; for all the reasons and con- siderations in favor of such a system apply with even more force to them than to the blind. The first direct charge which the Principal brings against Dr. Howe is, that he makes "an offensive classification ” of deaf mutes. "AVe object to Dr. Ilowe’s placing, as he does, the four hundred deaf mutes of Massachusetts among the dependent classes.” (Rep. p. 29.) And again, (p. 30,) " This offensive classification pervades the whole Report,” &c. He would be blameworthy indeed who should, eve n by careless use of language, give just cause of offence to a class of unfortunates who need all our sympathy and kindness. But we shall show that by no fair construction of the Report can such a charge be sustained; and moreover, that if the language of the Directors of the Hartford school, and of the Principal himself, were construed as he 27 construes the language of the Board, then they and lie are open to the charge of very " offensive classification.” So far from anything w offensive ” to the mutes pervading the Report of the Board, they are spoken of not only respectfully, but with tender interest. Indeed, special care even is taken to combat the common opinion, (winch is really offensive to the mutes,) that they form a sj>ecial class, and must always do so; an opinion, by the way, which the Reports of asylums for deaf mutes, and even those of the Principal himself, often tend, inadver- tently, to strengthen. The Board of Charities says, (p. 50,) “ It may bo permitted, however, to draw a further illustra- tion of the principle under consideration from some persons, (neither vicious nor criminal,) the similarity of whose defect or infirmity causes them to be classed together, such as the deaf mutes and the blind. It may not bo improper, at the same time, to make some remarks and suggestions upon the mode of treating such of these classes as are at the charge of the State. “ It is common to regard deaf mutes and the blind as forming special classes, though speaking strictly no such classes exist in nature. “ They spring up sporadically among the people, from the existence of abnormal conditions of parentage, which produce a pretty equal average number of cases in every generation, among any given population. 28 “ They abound more in some localities and some neighbor- hoods than in others; owing, probably, to ill-assorted marriages. “ The important points, however, are that these abnormal conditions of parentage are not inherent and essential ones ; that some of them are cognizable; that with wider diffusion of popular knowledge more of them may be known; and that, by avoiding them, the consequences may cease, and the classes themselves gradually diminish and finally disappear. “We have no deaf or blind domestic animals; and the generations of men need not be forever burdened with blind and deaf offspring.” The idea which pervades the Report is, that the mutes and the blind, if left without special instruc- tion and training, tend to fall into the class of dependents. If this gives just cause of offence, then must the Report of all the institutions for deaf mutes in the country be offensive; for they do constantly express the idea that deaf mutes must be a burden to their friends and to society, unless they receive special instruction. Out of the abundance of such expression we select a few. The directors of the Hartford school say: ” The translation indeed of one of the inferior orders of creation to the human species, would be only in a degree more wonderful than we have in several instances witnessed in our scholars.” The Principal quotes this language approvingly, in his able paper, in the American Annals, (p. 3.) 29 Nay! he himself is especially open to the charge of what he calls " offensive classification.” Without meaning to be "offensive,” he often speaks of them in a way which might give pain to sensitive persons. For instance, he says: "We do not believe that another human being can be found, in savage or civilized society, whose mind is so thoroughly imbruted with ignorance and so difficult to reach as that of many a deaf mute who has grown up to maturity in the darkness and neglect consequent upon his misfortune/” * In many other places he speaks of them as entirely dependent upon society for salvation from a low and brutish life. lie does not regard them as dependent in the sense in which ordinary chil- dren and youth are, but specially and necessarily dependent, owing to their natural infirmity; and shows that they can be lifted out of their ignorance and dependence only by special means and costly training. Nay, more! lie not only considers them as a dependent class, but lie sometimes fairly puts them down in the dangerous class. He says, eloquently: “ It is the darkness and gloom of his mental condition that makes him an object of commiseration, and renders him, if uneducated, the most pitiable of all God's creatures. This darkness is as nearly total as can well exist in the midst of * Thirty-Fifth Annual Report Ohio Institution for Deaf and Dumb, p. 9. Report of Rev. Collins Stone, Superintendent. 30 civilized and Christian society. His palsied ear shuts out from his soul, not only the ‘ melody of sweet sounds,’ but also the most familiar facts of common life and experience. “ He knows nothing of the history of mankind, or of the globe on which he lives, or of the immensely important truths connected with his immortality. “He is also excluded by his infirmity from intercourse with his follow-men. He can neither make known to them his own wants, nor understand and conform to their wishes. But while in this uneducated state he is a very ignorant being, he is by no means an innocuous one. His animal nature is fully developed. His passions are fierce and strong, and he knows no reason for their restraint. Revenge, lust, jealousy, may have dominion over him, without the presence of any moral considerations to lead him to repress their promptings. He may thus easily become an uncom- fortable and dangerous member of society ! ” Now, if the classification of these unfortunates among the deserving but dependent members of society is " offensive,” what must be that of the Reverend Principal, who puts them among the dangerous members? But, in reality, neither meant any offence, and none ought to be .taken. The criticism is not worthy of the Principal, whose actions speak louder than his words; whose devotion of his life to the education of mutes would.prove him to be their friend, let his language be what it might; and though he has made more w offensive classifications ” of them than the Board has done. 31 The Principal next makes four several charges against Dr. Ilowe, in one paragraph, as follows: First, that " a few years ago he advocated the plan of educating deaf mutes and blind children in one institution, on the ground that as the blind are intellectually superior, such a union would be especially for the advantage of deaf mutes.” The Principal probably had been looking at the Twelfth Report of the Trustees of the Perkins’ Institution for the Blind, without remarking that it stated that Dr. Ilowe had been in Europe most of the year, and did not write his usual Report. But, no matter; he stands by the Trustees’ report, and still maintains that blind children are usually much superior to mutes in capacity for intellectual attainment, by reason of the gift of hearing, which is the mother of speech; and that it would, on this and on other accounts, be better for a mute child to be asso- ciated, while learning the English language, with a blind child, than with another mute child. His position is not understood by the Principal. He has urged that certain advantages would accrue to deaf mutes by being associated with blind chil- dren, because they would be forced to spell their words upon their fingers, and to form distinct sen- tences, and thus to have constant ]}ractice in the English language. Thinking persons know well that one of the greatest obstacles in the way of deaf mutes learning 32 our language is the strong tendency they have to use pantomime. The attempt to make them use the English lan- guage in their intercourse with each other, is like trying to make our children speak French together. The little mutelings won’t take pains to spell out the words when they can flash forth their meaning with a look or a gesture. They won’t make the letters t-a-i-l-o-r if they can touch their forehead, and imitate the swing of his arm; nor h-o-r-s-e if they can crook their fore- fingers by the side of their forehead to show his ears; nor h-o-r-s-e-m-a-n if they can set two fingers astride the other hand. They won’t restrict them- selves to the use of letters, and words, and sentences in their intercourse with their playmates who can seey hut they would be forced to do so with playmates who are blind. There is hardly a mute graduate of the Hartford school who can spell as well as Laura Bridgman does; and nothing gave her such marvellous accu- racy, and such copious vocabulary, except the necessity of constantly practising the use of words which had been so painfully taught her. It is almost a matter of certainty that she would not have been able to spell so well as she does if she had been merely deaf and mute. Like other mutes she would have been tempted by the facility of addressing signs to the eye to neglect that patient 33 and persistent practice which is necessary to make a good speller. She could see no natural signs, and therefore, persons conversing with her were forced to spell their words; and her answers were necessarily made not by signs, but by letters and words. The Case was a new and anomalous one, and if the Doctor had regarded the "-consistency” of his record, and followed the practice of the " schools,” he would have declined to undertake the charge of a child who did not come within the rules. The passages on which, probably, the Principal founds his first charge, merely set forth certain advantages of the kind of instruction which the blind mutes must have; and its applicability in a certain extent to the instruction of ordinary mutes. The second charge is, that " he has since been understood to favor their education by a new system of dactylology of his own invention.” The Principal has been imposed upon by a pure invention of somebody. But should he allow him- self to be imposed upon? Such a statement was worth publishing, or it was not. If it was, then the Principal should first have inquired if it were true; and a letter of inquiry would have brought the answer by return mail that it was untrue. If it was not worth publishing, then such a statement is unworthy a place in a Keport professing to be a 34 reply to the Report of the Massachusetts Board of State Charities. The third charge is, that ” Dr. Howe once advo- cated removing mute children from home influences and associations at a much earlier period in life than most teachers think judicious.” This is true; but if the Principal had gone on and stated the whole truth, he would have made it appear that Dr. Howe’s heretical views were finally adopted by the Directors of the American Asylum. As he has failed to go into the history of the matter, which is interesting in the history of deaf mute education in Massachusetts, we will do so. In the Twelfth Annual Report of the Institution for the Blind, for 1813, occurs the following:— “ A few words must be said with regard to the two deaf and dumb children who joined our school about a year since, at the early age of seven years. Being too young to be admitted into the Asylum for the deaf mutes at Hartford, they were placed by their parents under our direction, with the hope that they might, at least, gain a knowledge of language at an earlier period than has been usually the case with children in their condition. “ The success which has attended the plan of instructing Laura, by the finger language alone, has induced the instructor of these two deaf mutes to teach them only by the finger process, intentionally avoiding the use of the gesture language, taught at Institutions for the deaf and dumb. And, thus far, the plan, as in Laura’s case, has been satisfactory. 35 “ It is found these children not only learn to talk rapidly with the fingers, but are able to form a precise idea of a sentence expressed by the finger language, which cannot always be the case in the use of their natural, or gesture language ; and in this important particular does the manual or finger language seems to be of greater value to the deaf mutes than the language of gesture. “ They have made considerable progress, not only in the acquisition of language, but also in writing, numerical cal- culations, and in a knowledge of objects which attract their notice. “ During the last session of our State Legislature, the Committee on Education, appointed by that body, consulted our Board on the subject of admitting the deaf and dumb to enjoy the privileges of our Institution. A consideration of this proposition was urged, and encouraged, by parents of deaf mute children, and also by educated deaf mutes, who were anxious to have the education of their unfortunate brethren commenced at an earlier age than was permitted by the regulations of the American Asylum at Hartford, and at a school nearer than that at Hartford. “ The trustees, acting under Dr. Howe’s advice, expressed a willingness to receive deaf mute pupils of tender years, on the same footing with the blind, believing that it would prove mutually beneficial to the two classes.” The Report goes on to say,— “ Tho question, we understand, was discussed at some length by the committee, in tho presence of a deputation from the Asylum at Hartford, who protested against the pro- posed change, and it finally resulted in the arrangement that the regulations of that Asylum should be so altered as to 36 authorize the admission of our State deaf mute beneficiaries at an earlier age than heretofore ! ” It would appear from this record that most teachers, and doubtless the deputation from Hart- ford, disagreed with Dr. Howe’s views. Neverthe- less, in order to prevent the loss of any Massa- chusetts beneficiaries, they consented to make an " injudicious ” arrangement. At any rate, they so far adopted the plan advo- cated by Dr. Howe, as to change their conditions of admission, and admit pupils at what the Prin- cipal calls " an earlier period of life than most teachers think judicious.” Dr. Howe had long before urged that deaf mute children should begin to learn the English lan- guage as early as possible • and in 1842 he received some young mutes into the Institution for the Blind, partly in order to see if they could not be taught advantageously at an earlier age than that fixed for admission to the Hartford asylum. From the early days of that asylum down to 1841, their Deports state that candidates for admis- sion must be not under ten years of aye nor over thirty. In 1842 they say, w State beneficiaries must be not under twelve nor over twenty-five; other applicants, between ten and thirty This was not only putting the minimum age too low, but making besides an odious distinction between State beneficiaries and private pupils. It 37 was about this time that Dr. Howe was chairman on the part of the Massachusetts House of Repre- sentatives, of the Committee on Public Charitable Institutions, and agitated this matter. It appears also that the Directors of the asylum soon changed their views, and announced that they would receive pupils between the ages of eight and twenty-five, thus admitting State benefi- ciaries four years earlier than they had before done, and abolishing the odious distinction between them and private pupils. Nor have they stopped here; for in a later Report, a committee of their Board says,— “ The opinion is beginning to be quite prevalent, that a longer time than six or eight years is requisite, thoroughly to educate deaf mutes; and that the legislatures of the States to which they belong should extend the term of their instruction. Indeed, there is good reason for believing that these legislatures will do this whenever the subject is fairly laid before them. In that case, the objection to receiving any pupils under ten which has hitherto been felt, would be removed, and the number of pupils actually in the asylum at any one time would be considerably increased, even if the annual admissions should be the same as heretofore. As we were the first to project and carry into effect the high class, by means of which a portion of our pupils are enabled to prosecute their studies much beyond the ordinary limit, we ought also TO SECURE TO T1IE AMERICAN ASYLUM THE CREDIT of taking the first step in the opposite direction, and thus offer the advantages of instruction to such young 38 children as contemplate a thorough and extended course of training.” This report was approved and adopted by the whole Board. Dr. Howe urged the early instruction of mutes, upon the ground that it was very important to them; the Directors seem to have adopted it, first to prevent the loss of the beneficiaries of Massa- chusetts ; next, " to secure to the American Asylum the credit of taking the first step,” &c. Surely, we may fairly quote here the language of the Principal respecting Dr. Howe, as more appli- cable to the Directors of his own institution, and say, ” It is pleasant to notice that as the ” Directors’ "views with regard to the best arrangement for deaf mutes have not been settled in the past, there is reason to hope they may come out right yet.” The Principal charges, fourthly, that Dr. Ilowe " now takes the ground that deaf mutes should not be gathered into institutions at all.” We do not believe that the Principal would pur- posely misrepresent any one, and therefore do not understand how, with the Peport before him, he could make such a statement! That document [which the Principal treats as Dr. Ilowe’s alone,] recommends a change in our sys- tem of educating the deaf mutes of Massachusetts, 39 and gives the outline of a plan for an institution. As this is an interesting matter to all humane peo- ple, and a very important one to deaf mutes, we will sketch this outline. The Governor and Council shall appoint three commissioners for the education of deaf mutes, who shall act without salary, [or they may be mem- bers of the Board of Education.] The commission- ers are to select the children who are to be the beneficiaries of the State. This would certainly be an improvement on the present system, for it is well known that the Gov- ernor and Council cannot attend to this work as carefully as they would do, and as it ought to be done. They have neither time nor means for doing it thoroughly. Besides, it is a work for which per- sons should have some peculiar fitness. Some applicants arc unfit for State beneficiaries, and are rejected after going to the asylum at the State’s charge; some are not entirely deaf; some are idiotic; some partially blind or deranged. How can the Governor and Council examine a deaf mute child and ascertain these things? But more often the applicants are children of parents who have some means, and who ought to pay part, at least, of the cost, and so lessen the charge to the Commonwealth. These commissioners, after selecting candidates, and deciding whether they should be taught wholly 40 or only partly at the expense of the State, may contract with any responsible society or organiza- tion of citizens of Massachusetts, who will under- take to instruct and train indigent deaf mutes belonging to the State, upon a plan of which the following is a vague outline. [it is understood that responsible parties are ready to form an organ- ization, if the State should favor it.] “ The society to provide a suitable building for scliool- liouse, and, if necessary, a workshop, and to employ com- petent teachers. “ The commissioners to designate the beneficiaries, and to allow the society for each one a sum not greater than that now paid for beneficiaries at the Hartford school. Their warrant should be, not for five years, as is now the case, but from one year, and renewed, if, upon examination, the pupil proved worthy. “ The society to instruct and train these beneficiaries gra- tuitously in its school; to board the children of parents who do not live in the neighborhood of the school in respectable families, and pay dollars and cents a week for at least forty weeks in a year. “ They shall, however, if possible, place but one mute in any one family, and never more than three. “ The commissioners should have power to require the parents of beneficiaries to pay a certain part—say one third or quarter—of the cost of the board of their children ; and when they are manifestly unable to do so, then to require the towns where they have a settlement to pay a sum not exceeding one dollar in a week, for forty weeks in a year. 41 “ The commissioners to have general supervision of the school, and of the welfare of such wards of the Common- wealth as live more than two miles from the school. “ The advantages of such a system would be many. “ 1st. The care and oversight of these wards of the Com- monwealth would fall where they really belong—upon our own citizens, a very large number of whom would come into constant relations with them. “ 2d. The children would be taught within the State, and nearer to their homes ; and a large proportion of them might live at home. “ 3d. The relations of family and neighborhood would not be interrupted so much, nor so long. “ The importance of this is very great in all cases, but especially so with those whose natural infirmity or peculiarity tends to isolate them. “ There are innumerable threads uniting us with society, and giving us the unspeakable advantages of home and of familiar neighborhood, many of which are broken in the case of these unfortunates ; and we should strive to strengthen, not to weaken, those that remain to them. “ 4th. The disadvantages and evils arising out of congre- gation of great numbers of persons of like infirmity, would be lessened and counteracted. “ Tho Hartford school is already too largo; and it is con- tinually growing. Living many years in such a congregation strengthens that tendency to isolation which grows out of the infirmity of mutism, and intensifies other morbid tendencies. “ By the new plan all these would be lessened, and tho counteracting tendencies of common social life would be greatly increased. 42 “ The mutes would be together but five or six hours each day. During the rest of the time, instead of being subjected to the artificial restraint and influences of ‘ asylum life,’ which, at best, can be only a poor imitation of family life and influences, they would be subjected to the average influences of social life ; which is the kind of life they are to live in future, and for which, during all the tender years of youth, they should be trained. “ 5th. The whole establishment would be simplified. There would be no need of a great building, with halls, dormitories, kitchen, dining-room and the like ; but only a simple school-house, and perhaps a workshop. There would be no need of superintendent, matron or steward, with their corps of assistants ; no cooks, no domestics, and none of the cumbrous machinery of a great institution. “ 6tli. Part of the burden of supporting the child would fall where part of it (at least,) surely belongs, to wit: upon the parents, and upon the neighborhood, and not all upon the State. Moreover, besides lessening the cost and the responsibility which now fall upon the State, it would divide them among the people. The tendency of this would be to cause our mutes to be educated more nearly as our other children are. Every approach to this is very important to the mutes, because it tends to prevent their social isolation, and makes them to be regarded as members of society in full communion. “ A regular course of intellectual instruction would be given in the school; but advantage might be taken of neigh- boring workshops for teaching some, if not all, the pupils various handicrafts, as other youth are taught. This would give a wider range of choice than can be given in the asylum, where only a few trades are taught. 43 “ Arrangements might be made by •which children of farmers, who can be useful at home in summer, might come to the school in winter. “ Other advantages of such a change might be set forth, besides the consideration that in a new school we might have all the advantages of the long experience of the Hartford school. We might avoid some of the errors which result from its very organization ; which cannot be cured in one generation; and which, perhaps, stand in the way of intro- ducing new and improved systems of instruction.” Now, if an establishment upon this plan is not an institution for deaf mutes, then what constitutes one? Is it eating in a common hall; sleeping in a common dormitory; being subjected to daily chapel devotions; taught a particular creed; and kept cooped up in one building and yard? Arc these things essential to an institution? Then are not the German universities institutions; nor our country academies, nor our common schools, " institutions.” Does not, then, this fourth sentence of the para- graph show, like the three preceding ones, that in his excessive desire to put Dr. Howe in the wrong, the Reverend Principal is led to misunderstand, and then to misstate his views? The conclusion that he does is strengthened by the next paragraph, in which the Principal is led to state what is utterly at variance with known facts, and even with statements in his own Reports. lie says, (p. 35) 44 “ Dr. Howe objects that our school is too large, and that the cost is annually increasing. * * * The annual charge is now $175. * * * The annual charge at the Institution for the Blind is $200 per pupil,