VOL. I.

CHICAGO, JULY, 1890.

HI, COME to my arms," the stenographer said,
With quivering voice and a tear ladened eye;
"Come lay on this breast your madonna-like head,
And, in talking of love, let the glad moments fiy.
My true, loving wife I entreat you to be:
Oh, make me the happiest, proudest of men,
And from sorrow and trouble you'll ever be free,
And never will wish you were single again.
Silks, satins and jewels for you I'll provide;
Slaves to obey you, and horses to ride.
Let me clasp in my arms

Those endearing young charms,

And call you my darling, my beautiful bride."

Though this maiden, a festive grass-widow was not,

Yet she lived in Chicago, and knew what was what;

She knew all about this stenographer lad,

That his two front teeth held all the gold that he had:

That he claimed to write shorthand, and had lots of cheek,

But he didn't earn more than twelve dollars a week.

He thought she was wealthy,

Knew she was pretty;

Considered her healthy

Forgot she was witty.

He had an idea she was awful green

Such an innocent Miss he scarce ever had seen;

And he laughed in his sleeve as he plctured the haste

With which she would come, to be warmly embraced;

And he thought of the bliss

Of a coy girlish kiss,

With her head on his breast and his arm around her waist.

"My parents," said she, "say their object in life

Is to have me become a stenographer's wife.
They say that his money comes easy and oft;
That the jobs which he has are exceeding soft:
That he never says cuss-words and never gets blue:
That he pays all his debts long before they are due.
That his head,

Nor his neck,

No. 7.

REPLY TO "M." AND "H."

The stand you take, as expressed by your articles in the May number of "The National Stenographer," afforded me immense satisfaction. I have frequently waxed wrathy over the seemingly universal notion that,whenever there is a difference of opinion between the employer and his stenographer, the latter is of course the one in error; that, when dissatisfaction occurs, it is always due to some deficiency in the mental make-up of the stenographer; that he need have but a good knowledge of shorthand and type-writing, added to an ordinary education and an average amount of brains, to enable him to entirely free his professional pathway from thorns and trials, because his employer is never inconsistent; never errs; is never trying in any way.

For years this subject has been thus one-sidedly discussed, and it seems that the thread-bare state of this side of the question would indicate that it might not be amiss to give the much berated stenographer an opportunity to digest and assimilate some of the much really excellent advice which has been literally heaped upon him without cessation during these years, after having separated the same from that of an inferior quality. It would appear that the time must be fully ripe for leaving off sympathizing with the employer; and suppose, for the sake of variety, if nothing else, we, for a short time, consider him under a dfferent light.

In regard to writing out dictations, some employers want Chinese copies of what they say, whether the same is well worded or not. For example, an employer one day used the expression "new fresh" in describing an article. I took the liberty of leaving out one of the modifying words. The letter was returned to me with the omitted word written in with a pen for me to copy. I thereupon concluded that he wished me to write just what he said, whether superfluous or not.

Again, I contend that dictators are sometimes absent-minded and do not know exactly what they do dictate, and, when they come to see the transcription, they are quite sure the stenographer has tripped in reading the notes. This is a very bad habit, and the employer should be broken of it at as early a date as possible. Would suggest calling his attention to the doubtful expression as the words pass his lips. This method of treatment will eventually prove effectual, though, if the trouble be a chronic one, some time may be required to thoroughly eradicate it from his system.

Then you have of course to be governed by the temperament of the man; some dislike to have their train of thoughts interrupted; others do not mind. However, you should pleasantly persevere, because, as soon as you can convince him that it is just barely possible that once in a g-r-e-a-t while he may misspeak himself, he will be more reasonable with your mistakes in understanding or transcribing; and where is the stenographer who is always accurate in this respect?

To illustrate my statement that dictators are sometimes absent-minded, would say: I was once startled in the midst of taking a letter to hear my dictator use the expression "exceedingly impossible." I stopped him and repeated the words, saying "Do you mean to say that?" "Yes," he said in a dreamy sort of a way, "I have found it exceedingly impossible --" transcribed the letter verbatum, and on taking it to him said: "Mr.- -I think you said something in this letter you did not mean," stating what it - was. "Did I say that?" "Yes, sir, you did, and I stopped you at the time and repeated the words after you; but you still insisted on using the expresPerhaps you meant to say "exceedingly difficult." He laughed heartily over his blunder, and told me he intended to say "utterly impos sible."

sion.

A dictator once told me that he might forget and repeat the same statement in a letter, and, if he did he, wished me to tell him. I accordingly did so, whereupon he remarked; "I want to say it again." After that I let him repeat and I wrote the same as many times as he said it, and he made no criticism. If he had, I should have respectfully cited the above instance. I do not consider in necessary to accept such rebukes in silence when fully justified in your course. The fact that he is your employer does not prove that he is always consistent.

In regard to spelling, time was when I should have been much more mortified to be caught tripping in this respect than at present. Now, I spell largely by sight; if a word looks queer, investigation generally proves it to have been spelled incorrectly. My sight in one particular instance being somewhat uncertain, I referred to the office dictionary, and spelled the word accordingly. I was promptly taken to task by my employer, and, upon showing him that the dictionary agreed with my spelling, he said: "That's very strange, and not right. If you had looked in the directory you would have found the word spelled the way I say. Somewhat amused by the advice, I replied: "That may be so, but you know it is perfectly. natural in such cases to refer to the dictionary rather than the directory." You may say that my words were a little disrespectful. I'll confess I was somewhat naughty to speak thus; but this employer usually bore down so hard on me when I did make a mistake, that, when I had grounds for justification, I generally made use of them. I had spelled the word according to