434 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences , Arts , and Letters. 
Let accordingly the question and interpretation take their 
places together, as follows: 
“I desire you to tell me him who killed Lincoln,” and 
“Who killed Lincoln ?” 
It is postulated that the three words of the question do in 
some way express the total thought presented by the ten of inter¬ 
pretation. It is required to determine how the duties of the 
ten are divided up among the three. 
My own opinion is that, of the three, the first is made to tell 
the messages entrusted to the first eight of the ten. This opin¬ 
ion—superficially, at least, implausible—will perhaps be ren¬ 
dered somewhat less so by the following considerations. 
It is not extremely difficult for a single word to tell a multiple 
message—to stand for a cluster of ideas—provided the num¬ 
ber and the nature of the messages' be constant. Putting myself 
in the messenger’s place, I had rather be the bearer of half a 
hundred messages the same from day to day, than to tell a single 
message daily, now of one sort, and again of another altogether 
different. I had vastly rather undertake the indicated business 
of “Who?” as agent for the bearers of eight single messages, pro¬ 
vided that the eight-fold duty be the same from day to day, than 
to act as single-message carrier myself, embarrassed with an 
ever-changing message—such a message as, for instance, that 
entrusted to the sore ill-treated “post.” The burden put upon 
that word is only partly indicated in the following sentence: 
“They want some iron posts at the post (military) where my 
brother has his post (station), and I am going to post this letter 
at the post (office), in order to post him post-haste as to prices.” 
I he embarrassment occasioned by such change of message is not 
inflicted on the “Who ?” of a question. It obviously makes no 
difference whether I ask you “Who killed Lincoln?” or “Who 
stole my umbrella ?” or any similar question. The message 
which I claim to be imposed upon the “Who ?” is in every case 
the same. 
Again, if the duty entrusted to the eight words of the interpre¬ 
tation “ 1 I 2 wish 8 you 4 to 5 tell 6 me 7 him 8 who killed Lincoln” shall 
still be done when I restrict myself to the question “Who killed 
Lincoln ?,” I do not see that, in that- duty, any word but “Who ?” 
can share. ISTot only the 1 ideas expressed by “killed” and “Lin¬ 
coln” may be replaced by those expressed by “stole” and “um¬ 
brella,” or a thousand other words, without effect upon the re- 
