Much in the same way has the word _inundation_ been abused. This word is generally taken in a bad sense; and it is certainly of frequent occurrence for inundations to ruin fields and sweep away harvests. But if, as is the case in the inundations of the Nile, they were to leave upon the soil a superior value to that which they carried away, we ought, like the Egyptians, to bless and deify them. Would it not be well, before declaiming against the _inundations_ of foreign produce, and checking them with expensive and embarrassing obstacles, to certify ourselves whether these inundations are of the number which desolate, or of those which fertilize a country? What would we think of Mehemet Ali, if, instead of constructing, at great expense, dams across the Nile to increase the extent of its inundations, he were to scatter his piasters in attempts to deepen its bed, that he might rescue Egypt from the defilement of the _foreign_ mud which is swept down upon it from the mountains of the Moon? Exactly such a degree of wisdom do we exhibit, when at the expense of millions, we strive to preserve our country.... From what? From the blessings with which Nature has gifted other climates. Among the _metaphors_ which sometimes conceal, each in itself, a whole theory of evil, there is none more common than that which is presented under the words _tribute_ and _tributary_. These words are so frequently employed as synonyms of _purchase_ and _purchaser_, that the terms are now used almost indifferently. And yet there is as distinct a difference between a _tribute_, and a _purchase_, as between a _robbery_ and an _exchange_. It appears to me that it would be quite as correct to say, Cartouche has broken open my strong-box, and, has _bought_ a thousand crowns from me, as to state, as I have heard done to our honorable deputies, We have paid in _tribute_ to Germany the value of a thousand horses which she has sold us. The action of Cartouche was not a _purchase_, because he did not put, and with my consent, into my strong box an equivalent value to that which he took out. Neither could the purchase-money paid to Germany be _tribute_, because it was not on our part a forced payment, gratuitously received on hers, but a willing compensation from us for a thousand horses, which we ourselves judged to be worth 500,000 francs. Is it necessary then seriously to criticise such abuses of language? Yes, for very seriously are they put forth in our books and journals. Nor can we flatter ourselves that they are the careless expressions of uneducated writers, ignorant even of the terms of their own language. They are current with a vast majority, and among the most distinguished of our writers. We find them in the mouths of our d'Argouts, Dupins, Villeles; of peers, deputies and ministers; men whose words become laws, and whose influence might establish the most revolting Sophisms, as the basis of the administration of their country.