The desideratum still exists of an increased percentage of pupils
leaving our schools for the deaf, possessing a facility of expression in
English vernacular. This want has been long felt, and endeavoring to
find a reason for the confessedly low percentage, the sign-language has
been too often unjustly accused. It is only when the sign-language is
abused that its merit as a means of instruction degenerates. The most
ardent admirers of a proper use of signs are free to admit that any
excessive use by the pupils, which takes away all opportunities to
express themselves in English, is detrimental to rapid progress in
English expression.

II. To the general public, dactylology or finger spelling is the
sign-language, or the basis of that language, but to the profession
there is no relation between the two methods of communication.
Dactylology has the advantage of putting language before the eye in
conformity with English syntax, and it has always held its place as one
of the elements of the American or eclectic method. This advantage,
however, is not of so great importance as to outweigh the disadvantages
when, as has honestly been attempted, it asserts its independence of
other methods. Very few persons indeed, even after long practice, become
sufficiently skillful in spelling on the fingers to approximate the
rapidity of speech. But were it possible for all to become rapid
spellers, another very important requisite is necessary before the
system could be a perfect one, that is, the ability to _read_ rapid
spelling. The number of persons capable of reading the fingers beyond a
moderate degree of rapidity is still less than the number able to spell
rapidly. While it is physically possible to follow rapid spelling for
twenty or thirty minutes, it can scarcely be followed longer than that.
So long as this is true, dactylology can hardly claim to be more than
one of the _elements_ of a system of instruction for the deaf.