224 
^yORK OF THE BOARD ON GEOGRAPHIC NAMES 
matters. On the contrary, its fundamental principle, as before 
stated — a principle which has controlled many hundreds of its 
decisions — is that local usage, the prevalent usage of the people 
living in the neighborhood, should be followed. By this it is 
not meant that local usage has absolutely controlled in all cases. 
Departures have been made whenever, for other reasons, such a 
course seemed wise, but this principle has controlled the de- 
cisions of the board in nine cases out of ten. I have already 
touched on its validity. Concerning its expediency, I may say 
that unless the decisions of the board are adopted by the peoi)le 
and generally followed its work will be a hiilure. It was con- 
stituted not to restore corrui)ted forms to so-called pure forms, 
but to secure uniformity of usage. There is not force enough 
in any government, at least not enough in the government of 
the United States, to make the people do what they do not Avish 
to do. To fly in the face of the community is like attempting 
to dam uj) a river and force it to flow up hill. 
To adopt as the “ first and foremost ” j)rinciple the one formu- 
lated by Dr Egli, that the original forms of names be restored, 
Avould lead to some startling results, results Avbicb he surely does 
not full}" appreciate. Geograi)hic names in the United States 
have been modified, changed, distorted, corrupted, if you will, 
to an astonishing extent. To throAV aside these corrupted but 
Avell established names and replace them by old and forgotten 
forms would involve wholesale changes, such as would find no 
following among the peoi)le of the United States. The name 
Avhich was accepted fifty or a hundred years ago is not the name 
in use at i)resent; today the people accei>t something else. 
An example of corru[)tion is seen in the name Bol)ruly, ap- 
plied to a creek in Missouri. The original Avill. of course, be 
recognized as Bois Brule. Again, Rum river, Wisconsin, AA'as 
originally the St. Esprit, which, translated, became S[)irit river, 
and thence, by some pundit, rendered in its ])resent form. For 
a Avhole century Wisconsin Avas spelled Ouisconsing. Would 
there be any right or propriety in reverting to that spelling and 
requiring the citizens of the Badger State to adopt it in place of 
the present form ? Shall Ave attempt to revive the nasne Illinois 
or Illinovacks in place of Michigan for one of the Great Lakes. 
Ouabash for Wabash, and apjjly it to the Ohio river, or call it 
La Belle Riviere? Should Ave substitute Kichi Gummi, Grand 
Lac, Tracy, Conde, or Algona for Lake Superior, and lhankton 
for Yankton? Shall Ave call the Mississippi the St. Francis, the 
