Oct. 23d.  C.C.  Trowbridge, Esq., sends me a copy of “Guess’ Cherokee Alphabet.”  It is, with a few exceptions, syllabic.  Eighty-four characters express the whole language, but will express no other Indian language.

Maj.  John Biddle communicates the result of the delegate election.  By throwing out the vote of Sault Ste. Marie, the election was awarded by the canvassers to Mr. Wing.

New views of Indian philology.  “You know,” says a literary friend, “I began with a design to refute the calumnies of the Quarterly respecting our treatment of the Indians, and our conduct during the recent war.  This is precisely what I have not done.  My stock of materials for this purpose was most ample, and the most of the labor performed.  But I found the whole could not be inserted in one number, and no other part but this could be omitted without breaking the continuity of the discussion.  I concluded, therefore, it would be better to save it for another article, and hereafter remodel it.”

28th.  Mr. C. writes that he has completed his review, and transmits, for my perusal, some of the new parts of it.  “I also transmit my rough draft of those parts of the review which relate to Hunter, to Adelang’s survey, and to ——.  These may amuse an idle hour.  The remarks on ——­ are, as you will perceive, materially altered.  The alteration was rendered necessary by an examination of the work.  The ‘survey’ is a new item, and I think, you will consider, the occasion of it, with me, a precious specimen of Dutch impudence and ignorance.  Bad as it is, it is bepraised and bedaubed by that quack D. as though it were written with the judgment of a Charlevoix.”

This article utters a species of criticism in America which we have long wanted.

It breaks the ice on new ground—­the ground of independent philosophical thought and inquiry.  Truth to tell, we have known very little on the philosophy of the Indian languages, and that little has been the re-echo of foreign continental opinions.  It has been written without a knowledge of the Indian character and history.  Its allusions have mixed up the tribes in double confusion.  Mere synonyms have been taken for different tribes, and their history and language has been criss-crossed as if the facts had been heaped together with a pitchfork.  Mr. C. has made a bold stroke to lay the foundation of a better and truer philological basis, which must at last prevail.  It is true the prestige of respected names will rise up to oppose the new views, which, I confess, to be sustained in their main features by my own views and researches here on the ground and in the midst of the Indians, and men will rise to sustain the old views—­the original literary mummery and philological hocus-pocus based on the papers and letters and blunders of Heckewelder.  There was a great predisposition to admire and overrate everything relative to Indian history and language,