not use that word. In the number of elements of a sentence, in the first, he has five identical with Mr. Greene's. In the second, he adds a sixth, called the connective, and yet in his analysis he hardly uses it as such. I do not recollect any other points.

To the thirteenth direct interrogatory he saith:
I should think not.

To the fourteenth direct interrogatory he saith:

I have just stated two things in which there is a difference. I am not prepared to state any other points at present. The difference is chiefly in phraseology. The alterations render the second edition certainly not more valuable. They render it in my opinion less valuable. I speak only in reference to the points, respecting which I have testified.

To the fifteenth direct interrogatory he saith:

I think it evident upon a cursory examination. My impressions of the similarity were strengthened by the more careful examination.

To the sixteenth direct interrogatory he saith:

con

I will analyze the simple sentence, "Children play." "Children play." First by Mr. Greene's method. I will analyze it by the principles, without referring to the pages of the book. Mr. Greene would say that that is a proposition, because it is a combination of a subject and predicate. He frequently, however, uses the term " tains," because it contains a subject and predicate. "Children," is the subject, because it is that of which something is affirmed. "Play," is the predicate, because it is that which is affirmed of the subject. He also uses the term "it is said," instead of "affirmed," in respect to subject and predicate. Mr. Covell would analyze the same sentence by saying that a proposition contains a subject and predicate, and the phrase "it is said, " rather than "affirmed" in respect to both subject and predicate. The difference between their methods of analysis I deem to be rather verbal than real. I think the results are similar.

The technical words used in both books are sometimes the same; sometimes similar and sometimes dissimilar. There is, however, a general similarity.

The results might be nearly the same in reference to so simple a sentence as that, if analyzed by the methods set forth in other books.

In the analysis of a more complex sentence, the terms differ from those used in any other work with which I am acquainted. I think I should be likely to have known it, if these results or technical words were to be found in any other work.

CROSS-EXAMINATION.

To the first cross-interrogatory he saith:

I have been acquainted with Mr. Greene many years, about eighteen years. My relations with him have been intimate for a portion of this time, for the last four or five years.

To the second cross-interrogatory he saith:

I have not.

To the third cross-interrogatory he saith:

I had none.

1

To the fourth cross-interrogatory he saith:

It was not at the complainant's request, but in the discharge of my professional duties about four years since, unsolicited by either publisher or author, for the purpose of introducing it, if I was satisfied with it, into my school.

To the fifth cross-interrogatory he saith:

I examined it in my professional capacity. A copy was placed in my hands some three months since. I examined it for the reason that I glance at every new school book. It was not then at the complainant's request. Subsequently, at his request, I gave it a more careful examination upon the points I have before referred to. I have not read it entirely through.

To the sixth cross-interrogatory he saith:

I have never been consulted by Mr. Greene in reference to this suit. I have just said that at his request I gave it an examination. About ten days since he made the request. I am not able to state any further circumstances.

To the seventh cross-interrogatory he saith:

Murray's series of Grammars, Smith's, Brown's, Bullion's, Chandler's, Wells's, and others, whose name is legion, and which I do not now particularly recall. I cannot state which of them I have read through, or when I first read them, except that Murray's were the first I read.

To the eighth cross-interrogatory he saith:

The first thought which I stated in that answer, pervades the book. Pages 70th and 73d of Greene's Analysis, edition of 1854, is the answer to the second specification of originality, in respect to complex subject and predicate. On the 10th page will be found the specification in regard to elements. On page 183d will be found the specification in regard to words, phrases and clauses. I have already specified the precise, novel and original points, to which I have referred. I do not mean to state that they are the only ones in the book.

To the ninth cross-interrogatory he saith:

I have not been acquainted with any teachers who practiced analysis similar to Mr. Greene's, nor those who have used modes of analysis in the strict sense in which Mr. Greene uses the term.

To the tenth cross-interrogatory he saith:

A partial method of my own,- an unpublished method.

To the eleventh cross-interrogatory he saith:

I am not aware that there were.

To the twelfth cross-interrogatory he saith:

I should think not.

To the thirteenth cross-interrogatory he saith:

I have not known any until since the publication of his Analysis.

To the fourteenth cross-interrogatory he saith:

I refer to my answers to those several interrogatories.

To the fifteenth cross-interrogatory he saith:

I have, from the best authors in Latin, Greek, French and Spanish, to an extent to enable me, or which ought to prepare me for giving instruction in all those languages, in the works of the authors usually selected for that purpose.

9

To the sixteenth cross-interrogatory he saith:

I learned from Greene's Analysis my present mode of analyzing language, applied to the several languages. I have already stated in my specifications what portion of the knowledge was then new to me.

[Adjourned to half-past 3, P. M., May 4. May 4, Examination continued.]

To the seventeenth cross-interrogatory he saith:

I have examined those named in my answer to the seventh cross-interrogatory, many others which I cannot recall.

and

To the eighteenth cross-interrogatory he saith:

Not excepting in connection with my school and college education.

To the nineteenth cross-interrogatory he saith:

My answer to this question will be found in my answer to the 10th, 11th, 12th direct interrogatories.

To the twentieth cross-interrogatory he saith:

I do not. I think the preference would be given Mr. Greene's.

To the twenty-first cross-interrogatory he saith:

I have never.

To the twenty-second cross-interrogatory he saith:

I do not sufficiently recollect to enable me to answer that question.

To the twenty-third cross-interrogatory he saith:

I consider the use of the terms simple, complex and compound, as applied to subject and predicate, and as also applied to forms of sentences and the elements of sentences, whether the elements are words, phrases or clauses.

To the twenty-fourth cross-interrogatory he saith:

I am a private teacher, and have been for nearly thirty years.

To the twenty-fifth cross-interrogatory he saith:

Sworn to and subscribed before me, this fourth day of May, A. D., 1855.

JOSEPH S. PITMAN
Commissioner.

DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND, SS.

On this third day of May, A. D., 1855, personally appeared before me, Joseph S. Pitman, the commissioner named in the annexed commission, Albert A. Gamwell, who being duly sworn according to law to testify the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, gave the following answers to the several interrogatories annexed to the said commission.

To the first direct interrogatory he saith:
My age is thirty-seven. I am a teacher.

To the second direct interrogatory he saith:
I have. I have taught about ten years,

To the third direct interrogatory he saith:

I have used it about seven years. I dont' know that it is quite that length of time, say five years. It was not introduced when I first came here. I call myself familiar with it, being in constant use teaching it.

To the fourth direct interrogatory he saith:

I do consider them to contain original matter. There are many things which are original that I have not seen in any other books, or grammar. First, the division of sentences into form; such as simple, complex, and compound. The division of sentences into different elements, giving five elements which a sentence may contain, two principal, three subordinate.

[At this point an adjournment was had to half-past 4, P. M., May 4th.] May 4th. Examination continued.

These elements are said to be either words, phrases, or clauses. Again, in dividing the properties or attributes of nouns, into three kinds, viz: those denoting class, those denoting qualities and those denoting actions. Another point is in stating that an attribute may be joined to a noun in two ways. First, it may be assumed of it, and second it may be predicated of it. Another point, it is original in the definitions of a proposition, and of a subject and predicate. It is original in the mode of parsing a sentence, and in some of the rules applied to parsing, and in the tenses and their definitions.

To the fifth direct interrogatory he saith:

I think I should have known it.

To the sixth direct interrogatory he saith:

The only resemblance that I recollect between them is that they both speak of a subject and a predicate.

To the seventh direct interrogatory he saith:

Immediately after the first was published. That was about five years ago. Soon after they were published, I suppose, would be a better term than immediately after, used above. I did then form an opinion. The opinion was, that it was original in many particulars. I have made subsequent examinations and studies thereof. My opinion was not changed.

To the eighth direct interrogatory he saith:
I have seen it, and looked it over.

I have examined it.

To the ninth direct interrogatory he saith:
It contains many of them.

To the tenth direct interrogatory he saith:
I do not think he could.

To the eleventh direct interrogatory he saith:

I should say that portion which resembles Mr. Greene's Grammar, though it evidently contains many points very similar to those in Mr. Manderville's Reading Book, but they have little reference to Grammar.

To the twelfth direct interrogatory he saith:

There is an attempt to make the definitions differ more from Mr. Greene's.

To the thirteenth direct interrogatory he saith:

The same resemblance with a slight difference in definitions.

To the fourteenth direct interrogatory he saith:

I think I have stated the difference in my answer to the thirteenth Interrogatory. It is a difference in phraseology. I should say the alterations rendered it less valuable.

To the fifteenth direct interrogatory he saith:

It it very obvious to one acquainted with Greene's Grammar. My impressions of a similarity were strengthened.

To the sixteenth direct Interrogatory he saith:

I will take the sentence, "Paul preached at Athens." First; Analysis by Mr. Greene. It is a sentence because it is a thought expressed in words, page 81, of First Lessons. It is a simple sentence, because it contains but one proposition, page 82. It is a proposition, because it is a combination of a subject and predicate; page 81. "Paul" is the subject, because it is that of which "preached at Athens" is affirmed. "Preached at Athens," is the predicate, because it is that which is affirmed of the subject "Paul." It is the complex or logical predicate, and "preached" is the grammatical predicate: "at Athens" is an adverbial phrase or element, and modifies "preached." Second; by Mr. Covell. It is a sentence, because it is a thought expressed in words, or a complete thought expressed in words. It is a simple sentence, because it is one that contains only one proposition. A proposition contains a subject and predicate. "Paul" is the subject, because it is that of which "preached at Athens" is said, Preached at Athens" is the predicate, because it is that which is said of the subject; see page 92, of Covell's Digest of English Grammar, of the 3d edition, and also in the 1st edition.

66

The results are similar. The technical words used are similar. The result would be dissimilar if this sentence were analyzed by the method set forth in any other book with which I am acquainted.

The same words are not used with the same meaning in any other book with which I am acquainted. I think I should know it if these results or technical words were to be found in any other book.

CROSS-EXAMINATION.

To the first cross-interrogatory he saith:

I have known Mr. Greene about ten or twelve years. My relations have been