THE KING'S ENGLISH

While the English language is in an eternal state of change, and is dependent on factors which prevent hide-bound grammatical rules from being constantly applicable, one cannot refrain from taking issue with the radical principles which Miss Center announces as those of her organization, the National Council of Teachers of English. Miss Center would let down the grammatical bars, allowing many colloquialisms which are considered bad usage; she would make it the function of English teachers to "integrate and direct the forces and trends in contemporary American life" by teaching pupils how to listen to radios, how to read newspapers and magazines, how to see movies, how to converse.

Democratization of the language of Sam'l Johnson and Matthew Arnold along the line of popular usage is at best an unwelcome choice of the easiest path. There is some question whether this National Council, headed by Miss Center, is the best arbiter of usage; Miss Center herself unwittingly exposes an ignorance of the etymology of English by branding the phrase "go slow" as traditionally ungrammatical. As for "integrating and directing," even those who dwell in cloistered academic security are able to say that English teachers would have their time pretty well occupied if they attempted to remove the more glaring solecisms and grating mistakes of their charges.

There arises a suspicion that the National Council of English Teachers is avoiding a difficult task when it reasons: "The populace makes mistakes in English; the populace is good; therefore mistakes are good." The American version of the English tongue is fast losing all the pleasant qualities that make the pages of the Spectator and of Dickens mellow and stimulating. It has acquired a raucous tone, journalistic and barbarous. Balanced periods have disappeared even from legislative oratory, the hasty precision of modernity has killed leisurely and reflective style. These faults may be laid at the door of American classrooms, where teachers are inculcating "a feeling of world solidarity," and forgetting that the secret of teaching people to read intelligently is to give them a solid basis of English classics for their judgment; those teachers lose sight of the fact that good writing is dependent, not on "the effective humanization of a child" but on the rigorous exercise of writing in imitation of good authors. When abecedarians begin to speak of "effective humanization of a child" one can understand the distrust which intelligent foreigners so often have of the American public school system.

PENNY WISE, POUND FOOLISH

President Hoover's proposed cut of 700,000,000 dollars in government costs seems to be in accord with the strong sentiment for federal economy throughout the country. Since it would dangerously impair national credit to continue the budget along the lines of 1929, he has chosen this way of reducing it. Apparently there are two reasons for his doing this. First is his opposition to a beer bill (which would be a lucrative source of revenue to the government); and secondly the fact that a sales tax would be unlikely to pass Congress. The budget has to be balanced and rather than impose new taxes he has turned to this method of meeting the situation.

The hand-to-mouth policies of recent administrations, such as Mellon's failure to reduce bonded indebtedness as much as possible at a time when he was able to reduce taxes, have left the present administration with the necessity of cutting costs when fixed charges are higher than ever. While it is an unpopular theme to advance, it might safely be said that, despite waste, this country does not spend enough of its national income on government costs. Although such expenses as the department of commerce or appropriations for harbors or unnecessary veteran expenditures might well be cut, it would be very wrong to slash the department of labor, particularly the childrens' bureau, or invalidate the advances made in civil service. Under the federal policy of the United States, essential costs of government are too much at the mercy of a depression.

The increase in per capita expenses since 1913 is not as out of proportion as many people think, when the great growth of population and wide industrialization of the country since then are taken into consideration. On the whole it may be called reasonable and perhaps too little. The increasing interdependence of the sections of the country has gradually thrown more public services on the hands of the federal government. Nonetheless the bill will go to Congress where portions of it will be accepted because of the strong pressure the various economy leagues are exerting, but also where, because of politics, much of it will be rejected. The resulting reduction will probably not be ample and new methods of raising revenue will have to be adopted. The government is in a dilemma, faced by the necessity of reducing necessary expenditure because it must balance the budget.