[figure description] Page 187.[end figure description]

HOW shall we account for this eternal babbling in
our public bodies, which delays and confuses business?
Can it be French influence? No. I have no idea that
Bonaparte ever expended a single sous for the purpose
of inculcating this tediousness, or loquacity. The French
themselves are far from being a taciturn people; nevertheless
I do not find reason to believe that it is from an
imitation of the French orators, that this prolixity occurs.
There was no great length of time taken up by
the member of the constituent, or national assembly,
when he ascended the Tribune.

Some have thought that it was a proof of the hypothesis
of Darwin, that men have been once magpies, and parrots.
I am of opinion that it resolves itself into one of
two natural causes, want of self-denial, or want of sense.
I know there are babbling schools at the present time,
as there were at a former period; debating societies among
the manufacturers in towns and villages, as there
is in Great Britain. In some of the New-England seminaries,
I am told, debating and discussing questions
is made a part of the academic exercises. Of this I do
not approve, if the students are to take, one, one side,
and another a contrary, to whet their wits; and to say
what ingenuity prompts, without a reference to the truth,
and a just decision of the question. It would vary the
exercise, at least that, of the class each should propound
a question in his turn on the science which makes the
subject of his studies; and the one who explains best,
and forms the soundest judgment on the question, and
with the greatest brevity expressed, should take the
prize. I would commend brevity and truth, not the diffuse
harangue, with sophism and errors. This would
lay a foundation of eloquence for a legislature. Something
ought to be done to correct this logomachy, or war
of words, and nothing else. The vox, et preterea nihil is
at all times abominable. If those of this class will speak,
let them pronounce the word whippor-will a reasonable
length of time, and that may suffice. Whippor-will;
whippor-will; whippor-will; imitating the sound of that
bird, for a quarter of an hour, might pass for a speech.

[figure description] Page 188.[end figure description]

O, how I have wished for a gag or a muzzle, when I
have seen four or five columns of a newspaper taken up
with verbosity. I would take it off only on condition of
giving a good instead of these. The fact is, an amendment
of the constitution would be the reducing the ratio
of the representation; fewer to speak, there would be
less said. Many hands make light work; but this applies
to bodily labour only, where a certain object is to
be accomplished; such as the removing a fence, or cutting
down a wood. Fewer members would do more in
a short time; and perhaps would do it better; for though
in a multitude of counsellors there is safety; yet if all
speak there is delay. Could we not give a power to the
chairman, or president of a deliberative body, to knock
down a member, when he had seemed to trespass on the
patience of the house. At any rate, he might be permitted
to give him a wink, or a nod, which it should be understood
as a hint to have done. But there is great difficulty
in breaking bad habits; and there are some whose
tongues, according to the expression of the poet, speaking
of a stream,

“Which runs, and runs, and ever will run on.”

Things have come to such a pass, that I generally
take it for granted, that the man who gives his vote, and
says nothing, is the man of sense. Adonizabee, in the
scripture, “had three score and ten kings, having their
thumbs cut off.” Why did he cut off their thumbs?
It must have been to keep them from writing out their
speeches. At least I have been led to think that it would
be a gain to our republic if Adonizabee had our members
of Congress in hands a while.