A pamphlet recently issucd offers Borne uBefaQ suggestions for thc detóotiou o f counterícits. ïlie grocnbnrks and national-bank notes are printed from platos whieh hnvo n common eharaoteristic ; every píate haa four notes, i which only differ frota each otlier in being designated by tUe letters A, B, O, of D. TvSeB the cottñteffeitsr ilíakes a note, it lias onl.y one of these letters upon it. Consequently, if tlie note A has been oounterfeited, tlie notes F, C, and D can be safely taken ; if O lins been counteri'eited, A, B, and D are Rtill good. Henee, with a list of counterfoíts at liand that raentions the letter of the spurious notes, the number f notes tliat tliere is a risk about is ireduced by tliree-fourtlis. Even g perfect knowlcdge of engraving, whioh , would enable a pel'son to ascertain, lipón merely looking at a note, as to h sther it was or was not a contiterfeit, may not ! confer immunity agaihst loss without ' examiniilg the list of fraiiduleiit notos. Por it happens that there are notes ' graved from genuine platea, whieb hmp beeu stolen. Such notes hare every appearance of genuineness exoept that the signatures are forged. The Governmeut will not redeem theni for fear of encouraging such stealing in future. A loser by such a note would probably flnd in it an argument against the Government performing the whole work of printing and engraving at Washingtoii, for it is not alleged that any fiteíflii oi notes or plates took place when the business of manufacturmg the currency was (lividcd among the bank-note companies, and they were held responsible for tlie honesty of their performance.