instruments. It is evident that of the two senses, sight and touch, if
but one could be employed, the choice of sight as the one best adapted
for the greatest number of purposes is an intelligent one; but, as the
choice is not limited, the question arises whether, in recognizing the
superior adaptability to our purpose of the one, we do not lose sight of
a possibly important, though secondary, function in the other. If sight
were all-sufficient, there would be no need of a combination. But it
cannot be maintained that such is the case. The plan by which we acquire
our vernacular is of divine, and not of human, origin, and the senses
designed for special purposes are not interchangeable without loss. The
theory that the loss of a certain sense is nearly, if not quite,
compensated for by increased acuteness of the remaining ones has been
exploded. Such a theory accuses, in substance, the Maker of creating
something needless, and is repugnant to the conceptions we have of the
Supreme Being. When one sense is absent, the remaining senses, in order
to equalize the loss, have imposed upon them an unusual amount of
activity, from which arises skill and dexterity, and by which the loss
of the other sense is in some measure alleviated, but not supplied. No
_additional_ power is given to the eye after the loss of the sense of
hearing other than it might have acquired with the same amount of
practice while both faculties were active. The fact, however, that the
senses, in performing their proper functions, are not overtaxed, and are
therefore, in cases of emergency, capable of being extended so as to
perform, in various degrees, additional service, is one of the wise
providences of God, and to this fact is due the possibility of whatever
of success is attained in the work of educating the deaf, as well as the
blind.

In the case of the blind, the sense of touch is called into increased
activity by the absence of the lost sense; while in the case of the