A/tf. tEXNO, If you and your brother-editors can find room for the following remarks, amflng your political disquisi tions, you may forward the work of improvements in literature, and by Jhaking the throne of prejudice and fa/fe philosophy, you may bring about a revolution in favor of common sense. THKRE is not a subject in literature so ge nerally defpil'ed as Grammar ; yet there is not a I'ubject of more consequence. The reason why it is lo odious to every body but schoolmasters, may perhaps be this. The authors who have trea ted ol' this fubjedt, however eminent for erudi tion, have been wholly ignorant of the origin and conftrudtion of the Engliih language ; and have, by falfe arbitrary rules, attempted to dis card the idioms of the language, and introduce iomething different frt>m common practice. Now real Grammar is nothing but common practice ; and when a man rises up and tells a nation, they are all blockheads, and their language incorredt, and vulgar, it is but jult that they in return Ihould call him a pedant, and despise his rules. This has been the fate of the three molt celebrated philologersofthe Engliih nation, Johnl'on, Lowth, and Harris. These writers, great indeed in Greek and Latin, but knowing nothing of the true prin ciples of English, have labored to prove their na tive language full of errors and defects, and to correct the one and supply the other by foreign rules. The authority of their names has had an unhappy effect upon the language—it has pcr fuaded the learned to resign the true idioms of the language and introduce many corruptions in to books ; while the body of the nation, govern ed by habit, retain their former practice. Hence the difference between the language of books and con verfation—a difference generally illfound ed, and improper. To lheW how I'uperficially some of these great men, as they are called, have conlidered the fubjeit, letme request my readers to attend to the following examples. Lowth tells us, that the phrase I am mijlaket:, means I am mif underjlood. Strange indeed that so great a man Ihould be so mijlakeu. Let me ask what is it that conltitutes the meaning of a word ? Every ration al man will reply, the sense which a whole nation itnnex to it in praaiee. If I fay, /am mijlaken, does not every man, woman and child understand me to mean, lam wrong, or in an error' my ft If? This cannot be denied. This common under/landing then conltitutes the truefignitication of the phrase, and no man, not even a Right Reverend Father in God, has a right to fay it is not the meaning. The truth is, when applied to persons, miflaken is al ways used in this sense, and in no other. It has loft its participial meaning; in the fame manner as fraught and drunken, tlio derived from freight and drink have loft all idea of action and become mere adjectives ; so that it is improper to use them in the participial manner ; he has fraught a vsjfsl, a man has drunken. Yet as adjectives de noting a quality, the one denoting very full, the other a Jlate of intoxication, they are both correct andexprelfive ; a man fraught with mifchief, a drunk en man. Lowth fays likewise adje«£tives are improperly used for adverbs ; as extreme cold. Why did the good Bilhop overlook the phrases full sweet, very cold ! Will any man deny the latter to be good Engliih ? It will be laid very is an adverb. Not at all: The adverb is verily. Very is always an adjective, as, this is the very man : It is limply the Fiench vrai, true ; formerly written in Engliih veray, and in modern times, very. The truth is, it is an idiom of the language, co-eval with its formation, that one adjective may qualify another: and the idipm of the language is not only one, but the only ground of grammatical rules. Yet this idiom has always been overlooked. .Another example. Dr. Samuel Johnson writes " he needs not be very carefulinltead of the common phrase, he need not. How surprizing it is that a whole nation Ihould overlook the real'on why need, in the usual practice offpeaking, iscor rect Engliih, without the personal termination ! Need when used alone and followed by an object, is regular; he needs support. But when followed by another verb, it is considered as a helper, 1 as well as will, can or may ; and he needs not go, is as bad Engliih as he wills not go, or cans not go. This diftindtion has been observed in will, he will not go, he wills it, and why it Ihould have been overlooked in need and dare, when it is strictly observed in practice from the prince to the wajher-womati, is really surprizing. Lowth, with his head full of Latin rules, re commends averse from instead of averse to ; and many American writers have adopted it. From is a noun fignifying beginning and to, a noun lig nifying end. " A man goes from New-York to Bolton; "That is, "he goes beginaing NewYork,?W Bollon. This conltruition is not more curious than true ; as modern discoveries have clearly proved, that rude nations talk firft by names on ly ; and that all our particles, are old Gothic nouns and verbs. lam averse from war, therefore is simply this, lam averse beginning war. This is not the meaning ; for averse denotes a quality or state of the mind, beginning in my own brealt, and directed to the object, war. Hence the old phrase averse to is correct, and will ltand the test of all the criticism in the nation. I will not multiply examples. Horne Tooke has made some valuable discoveries, which will be the bads of the firlt English Grammar ever pub lished. The philological writers in America, have not the authority of a Right Rtverend, a D. D. or a L. L. D. to give weight to their opin ions ; but their attempts to correct the taste of our youths, by ftrippiug the learningof thi3 coun try of its pedantry, will finally prevail over pre judice, and call back the lludentto the principles of common sense. SKETCH OF PROCEEDINGS OF CONGRESS. In the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES of the UNITED STATES, WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 12, lj8<). THE engrolled bill, providing for the expell ees which may attend negociations, and treating with the Indian tribes—and for appointing com lnilliofiers to superintend the fame, was read, when the House proceeded to fill up the blanks.— It was moved that thefum of forty one thousand dollars be inferred in the firft blank. This mo tion was oppoled by Mr. Sumpter, Mr. Gerry, and Mr. Livermore—lt was said, that a previ ous estimate of the expences neceflary to be incur ed, ought firft to be exhibited to the house—that great frauds and abuses had been complained of in tliefe negociations—t'lat the whole amount of the revenue would fall short of the neceflary ex pences of the current year, and therefore it was incumbent 011 the House to grant monies with due caution and deliberation—That it could not be contended that so large a sum was requifitp, but 011 the supposition of a very large number of In dians' attending, and presents being provided for thein —It was urged that the treaties would be as efficacious without collecting a whole nation to gether—and the custom of giving presents was reprobated by some of the members, as a mea sure fraught with useless expence, much milchief, and inconvenience. Mr. Jackson, Mr. Hartley, Mr. Clymer, and Mr. Baldwin supported the motion—The latter gentleman produced a statement of the ex pences which would arise from holding a treaty with the Creek nation only, of which it was ex ped;ed that 1 500 would attend—lt was observed that the sum moved for was to defray the expen ces of treating with the Indian tribes in general —more particularly with the Wabafh nation, aiid with the tribes to the southward of the Ohio— That agreeably to the estimate, which was laid on the table, the whole sum moved for would be necefliiry ; but if the house chose to have the treaties conducted upon different principles from what has been customary, they can make such al terations as they may fee proper. The motion for 41000 being put, it parted in the negative. Mr. Madison then moved that the blank should be filled with 40000 —this was like wise opposed—and the will Hand upon as good a foundation as 11 , parts of the Constitution—and will be fa"