To you, who so stoutly maintain that the regulations of etiquette are necessary to order, it may be surprising to learn with how little of preparation the functionaries of this government get through the ceremonials of their offices. Just so far as etiquette is of use in facilitating intercourse, is it rational; but these people very rightly believe, that their institutions enable them to move on with far less than is practised in Europe. We will seize a moment to discuss the matter in some of its general bearings.

In point of style there is none whatever practised in addressing any one officer of the government. The naked appellation of the office is used in conversation sometimes, and commonly, though not always, in notes and letters. The tone can be taken best from the incumbents themselves. An invitation to dine at the “White House;” always runs, “The president requests the pleasure,” &c. A secretary commonly says, “Mr.————requests, &c.” Now, the best style, and that which is expected, is to reply in the same form. Thus a note should be addressed “To Mr.——,” to “the president,” “To Mr. Adams, (the secretary of state,)” or “to Mr. Southard (the secretary of the navy).”

The use of honourable to either, or indeed to any one else, is not deemed bon ton. It is done, however, quite frequently by those who are ignorant of the tone of the place.