The British Trade Journal, of June 1, has a savage review of an American work. It complains of a "dangerous looseness " in the use of language, and finally concludes that this " looseness " is intentional, and queries: " Is his entire work to be classed with those (and there are many) written solely for the purpose of throwing dust into the air to obscure the light, that the ignorant and unlearned may accept some lesson which it is to the interests of the author to inculcate?" And presuming that his readers will answer this in the affirmative, he proceeds to say: " We cannot think this; such tactics are only worthy of the octopus or the skunk." Imagine a fish "throwing dust in the air," or a skunk "obscuring the light" by his dreadful odor; and all this in a criticism on the 'dangerous looseness of American language!"