To classical students and scholars, these two names imply their individual and distinctive meanings. But, it is a singular fact that educated people in general, among whom are actually included some shorthand writers, do not know or are careless of, the difference existing between these two classes of individuals; in fact, do not know that any difference exists. Their avocation, if not the result of their labors, is the same, and people generally conclude them to be identical. From this error arises the mistake, common even among those who know better, of universally applying the name "stenographer" to all shorthand writers. For instance, there is probably not a single case wherein a stenographer is employed in a professional capacity in any of our city, state or national courts. On the other hand, there is scarcely any court of any importance that does not employ at times one or more phono-graphers; and yet, in addressing thorn, the learned judge and counsel use the misnomer of "Mr. Stenographer." This constant acceptation of a wrong term. gives many persons who are about to study shorthand writing, an idea that stenography, not phonography, is the art to learn; "For," they ask, "are there not stenographers employed in our courts?" an idea, which, as above explained, is a dangerously mistaken one. In many instances, phonographers themselves employ the word stenographer in advertising their business, on their sign or card; but that does not alter the fact of their being phonographers, however much it may mislead searchers after the true art. Let them misuse these terms as they may, however, a phonographer, under whatever guise, still remains one who writes by means of signs used to represent the elementary sounds of the human voice, which sounds are the basis of all spoken language; while a stenographer is merely one who writes by means of a horrid conglomeration of arbitrary written characters representing the Roman alphabet, words and phrases, and who, when a word seldom used and which he has never before heard (and consequently never memorized) is spoken, will either have to invent a sign which may or may not conflict withsome other sign in his vocabulary, or run the risk of losing the thread of the discourse while he writes the word in full.

• Note.-The author reported the speech of Mr. Francis Murphy (See Part III.) on the evening of Its delivery, inexactly six minutes by the watch, making an average of over 268 words per minute while, upon special occasions, he has written at a rate of over 300 words a minute.