observed. Such confusion and contradiction would only be eliminated if the sign Ian 

 guage were absolutely perfect as well as absolutely universal. Cast-ir.in inflexibility 

 and a<lainantine endurance are certainly not found in any other mode of human utter- 

 ance. It will be an abnormity in the processes of nature if signs do not have their 

 births and deaths, their struggles for existence with survival of the Attest, as well as 

 words, animals, and plants. For our ])urpose the impiiry is not what a sign might, 

 could, would, or should be, or what is the best sign for a particular meaning, but what 

 is any sign actually used for such meaning. If any one sign is honestly invented or 

 adopted by any one man, whether Indian, African, Asiatic, or deaf-mute, it has its 

 value. Its prevalence and special range present considerations of different and greater 

 interest and requiring further evidence. 



The editor takes occasion to declare that — for the good reason that his real study 

 only now commences with the completion of the present paper which renders it practi- 

 cable — he does not hold with tenacity any theory whatever, and particularly one which 

 would deny that the Indian signs come from a common stock. On the contrary, it 

 would be highly interesting to ascertain that the signs of this continent had a generic 

 distinctiveness compared with those of other parts of the world. Such research would 

 be similar to that into the Aryan and Semitic sources to which certain modern languages 

 have been traced backwards from existing varieties, and if there appear to be existing 

 varieties in signs their roots may still be found to be sui (jencris. It is, however, pos- 

 sible that the discre])ancy between signs was formerly greater than at present. There 

 is some evidence that where a sign language is now found among Indian tribes it has 

 become more uniform than ever before, simply because many tribes have been for some- 

 time past forced to dwell near together at peace. The use of signs, though maintained 

 by linguistic diversities, is not coincident with any linguistic boundaries. The tend- 

 ency is to their uniformity among groups of people who from any cause are brought 

 into contact with each other while slill speaking different languages. The longer and 

 closer such contact, while no common tongue is adopted, the greater will be the uni- 

 formity of signs. A collection was obtained last s])ring at Washington from a united 

 delegation of the Kaiowa, Comanche, Apache, and Wichita tribes, which was nearly 

 uniform, but the individuals who gave the signs had actually lived togetiier at or near 

 Anadarko, Indian Territory, for a considerable time, and the resulting uniformity of 

 their signs might eitlier be considered as a jargon or as the natural tendency to a com- 

 promise for mutual understanding — the unitication so often observed in oral speech, 

 coming under many circumstances out of former diiferentiation. It may be found that 

 Other individuals of those same tribes who hav^e from any cause not lived in the union 

 explained may have signs for the same ideas different from those in the collection above 

 mentioned ; but this supposition shoidd be disregarded, except to incite further inquiry, 

 until such inquiry should collect specitic facts to snpi)ort the hypothesis. The whole 

 of this controversy may be disposed of by insisting upon an objective instead of a sub- 

 jective observation anil study. Our duty is to collect the facts as they are, and so soon 

 as possible, as every year will add to the confusion and difticulty. After the facts are 

 established the theories will take care of themselves, and their final enunciation will 

 be in the hands of men more competent than any of us, perhaps than any persons 

 now living. 



A warning seems necessary since the publication of an article in the number of 

 " United Service" for July, 1880, in which the author takes the ground that the descrip- 



