But it has been asserted that while a large percentage (practically all)
of the deaf _can_, by a great amount of painstaking and practice, become
speech readers in some small degree, a relative degree of facility in
articulation is not nearly so attainable. As to the accuracy of this
view, the writer cannot venture an opinion. Judging from the average
congenital deaf-mute who has had special instruction in speech, it can
safely be asserted that their speech is laborious, and far, very far,
from being accurate enough for practical use beyond a limited number of
common expressions. This being the case, it is not surprising that as an
unaided means of instruction it cannot be a success, for English neither
understood when spoken, nor spoken by the pupil, cannot but remain a
foreign language, requiring to pass through some other form of
translation before it becomes intelligible.

There are the same obstacles in the use of the written or printed word
as have been mentioned in connection with dactylology, namely, lack of
rapidity in conveying impressions through the medium of the English
sentence.

I have thus hastily reviewed the several means which teachers generally
are employing to impart the use of English to deaf pupils, for the
purpose of showing a common difficulty. The many virtues of each have
been left unnoticed, as of no pertinence to this article.

The device suggested at the beginning of this paper, claiming to be
nothing more than a school room appliance intended to supplement the
existing means for giving a knowledge and practice of English to the
deaf, employs as its interpreter a different sense from the one
universally used. The sense of sight is the sole dependence of the deaf
child. Signs, dactylology, speech reading, and the written and printed
word are all dependent upon the eye for their value as educational
instruments. It is evident that of the two senses, sight and touch, if
but one could be employed, the choice of sight as the one best adapted
for the greatest number of purposes is an intelligent one; but, as the
choice is not limited, the question arises whether, in recognizing the
superior adaptability to our purpose of the one, we do not lose sight of
a possibly important, though secondary, function in the other. If sight
were all-sufficient, there would be no need of a combination. But it
cannot be maintained that such is the case. The plan by which we acquire
our vernacular is of divine