Library Collections: Document: Full Text

l6th. I sent for Mr. Lee, the Second Auditor of the Treasury, and spoke with him of the question upon the settlement of the accounts of Simeon Knight, heretofore a paymaster in the army. He claims pay till January, 1822, four years from the date of his commission, upon the ground that he was not dismissed from his office; but Mr. Lee says he believes he was, and that another was appointed in his place. I told Mr. Lee that in that event the allowance of his pay could not be made. It appears that the practice has constantly been of leaving the dismission of officers by the President of the United States without record signed by him. The order has been verbally given, and notified to the individual dismissed by letter from the head of the Department under which he served; sometimes, as in the case of Satterlee Clark, only from a subaltern, and, if Lee's belief is correct, in this case of Simeon Knight not at all. The only evidence of his dismission will be the appointment of another paymaster, without even saying "in his place." Mr. Lee brought with him and showed me a statement made at his office to be exhibited to the Retrenchment Committee, showing the multiplicity of business with which it has been and is charged. All the offices are equally occupied.

This day at one o'clock had been appointed for the Cabinet meeting upon the letter from the Governor of Georgia with the Cherokee Constitution. But the House of Representatives adjourned over from yesterday till next Monday, to allow the use of the hall this day for the exhibition of the deaf and dumb teachers and pupils. I learnt the fact this morning from Mr. John Taliaferro, whom I fell in with on my walk, accompanying his brother to Brown's Hotel, whence he was going to take passage in the steam boat for Virginia. I met also in this walk Mr. Barney and Mr. Dorsey, members of the House from Maryland. I shortened this walk, and at noon walked to the Capitol, leaving directions at home that if the members of the Administration should come at one, to ask them to wait a short time for my return from the Capitol, and ordered my carriage to be there for me at one. I found at the Capitol Mr. Weld delivering in the House of Representatives an address recommendatory of the institutions for the instruction of the deaf and dumb, which he soon closed, and then began the performances of his three pupils. Their language of gesticulation is twofold: one consists of spelling words, each letter of the alphabet being marked by the sign of a distinct collocation of the fingers; the other is by motion of the arms and hands, and of the whole body, and by significant expressions of the countenance; it is altogether pantomimic. By spelling the letters they read and write, and thus they identify words. But it is through the pantomime only that they understand the meaning of their discourse, and two of them in writing a sentence occasionally used different words. Their writing is, in this respect, a translation of the discourse delivered by gesticulation, and different translators use different words to convey the same thought. Besides the examination which they underwent from their teacher, Mr. Weld, and from Mr. Gallaudet, principal of the original institution at Hartford, Connecticut, several of the spectators, at the request of Mr. Weld, joined in the examination and put questions to the pupils, which they answered with as much acuteness and propriety as could be expected from youths of their age possessed of all their senses. But, as the questions put by the spectators were upon objects not within the ordinary routine of their studies, there was not quite the same promptitude or accuracy in their answers to them as when responding to their own instructors.

Vice-President Calhoun asked them what was the difference between power and right. They gave definitions, but without point. They did not suspect what was running in Mr. Calhoun's head when he put the question. They had not read the debate on the rules of the Senate, and did not know that right was a President of a deliberative assembly without power to call to order for words spoken in debate. Mr. Speaker Stevenson asked them who had given the world the greatest example of true glory. Only one of them attempted to answer this question, and he was sadly perplexed. He first answered, God, by giving the gospel. He was told the question referred to human beings; he then wrote, Moses. Finding this did not yet answer, he successively wrote, perhaps Bonaparte, perhaps Washington. This name without the perhaps was that which I suppose the Speaker had intended to elicit. Mr. Weld, to illustrate the method of teaching them abstract words and ideas, wrote the word irrefragable, the use of which, he said, was unknown to them, and which, upon his enquiring of them, they signified that they did not understand. He taught them the meaning of it, so that they wrote sentences in which the word was properly introduced. I asked Mr. Gallaudet if he could make them understand the difference between irrefragable and incontrovertible. He said he could not immediately discern the distinction between them himself. I said irrefragable was that which could not be refuted; incontrovertible was that which could not even be contested. He then taught them the difference between the words, of which they wrote distinct definitions. I desired the question to be put to them if they knew the figure over the clock in the hall; but they did not. Afterwards I enquired if they could tell the name of the Muse of History. One of them said he had forgotten it; but the question still did not suggest to him that it was the figure over the clock. I asked Mr. Weld if he could make them write the line,