If it " spuyt." Inn •• spijt." I .1" iioi know how were the latter, it meant "Spouting Devil." Irving was, Im il could mean nothing else. Ii might have il for "in spl ,-il " his spell sted by an energetic or boiling iiiK i" spijt "I spring in tin vicinity. This would turn en"Spijt" and '•spuyt." in the I) irely on a question of fact. Was t here such a wholl.i : loe 1 spring? See a footnote of Dr. Thomas sorrow, grief, disph isnre, vexation, H. Edsall, ou page 748 of Vol. I. of Scharf's etc. Our English word ' all its History. He suggests that it may have remil. I. t and more intense detinitions, meets ii ferred ton -strong dashing of the tides at cerexactly. tain line- upon the liar at the entrance to the "Spuyt" is very different, our words strait. We do not know on what historic "spout," " -pit " (Lai.. " sputa n "i, meaning facl the name rests, and so we can not know lo throw out or belch forth, are its equiva- whether the original root was "spijt " or lents. "spuyt." Of course, Irving's fun decides In the phrase of which you speak as sus nothing. It may, however, have rested on Kested bj soi no. viz.: "point "f the dov- some tradition which lias not come down to us. lis," the word is confounded with another and Yours as ever, very cordially. -till wholly different Teutonic root, which is neither "spijt " nor "spuyt," bul "spit " or David Col "spits." We have this in our Kn-li-h word Yonkers, February 26, 1900. Of