WORK OF THE B6ARD ON GEOORA PHIC NAMES 225 
Colbert, the Conception, or the St. Louis ; shall we change Mis- 
souri into Missouries or St. Phillip, and Iowa into loway? 
M"e might go on and quote thousands of names that have 
been changed to a greater or less extent, but these few will 
suffice to illustrate the matter. Examination of old maps of 
the United States shows that a majority of the geographic names 
now in use have been changed since the}^ were first applied ; 
consequently it Avould be utterl}'’ impracticable to ignore the 
forms to which the people are now accustomed, even if there 
were no impropriety in so doing. In short, it is impossible, 
even were it desirable, to restore the original forms of names. 
The principle above enunciated is a far-reaching one, and it 
will be well, before entering upon a discussion of the exceptions 
which the board makes to it, to follow it and see to what it leads 
us. The names of many features in foreign countries have from 
time out of mind been known to English-speaking i)eople by 
names other than those ajiplied by their inhabitants. The Ger- 
mans call their country Deutschland, the Italians call theii’s 
Italia, the Spaniards Espana. The citizens of certain places in 
Italia call their cities Livorno, Roma, Venecia, but we call them 
1)3’- other names in a way that is utterly unwarranted. Eveiy 
American resents having a Frenchman call our countiy Les Etats 
Unis, and properly, for it is not its name. There is no more 
sense in translating a geographic name than a person’s name. 
A name is not a common noun, that it should be translated. The 
time is ap})arentl_y not ripe for ado})ting the home names of all 
foreign geographic features, but, speaking for myself, I have no 
doubt that it will soon be feasible to institute this reform. In- 
deed, in almost every individual case of this sort that has been 
lu'ought before the board the decision has been rendered in favor 
of the home name. 
The universal adoj)tion of this principle would, however, lead to 
many inconsistencies. For instance, in many cases what is plainly 
the same name a]»pears in different ))arts of the United States 
as a designation of different features, with different spellings. 
In such cases should these different spellings be unified? The 
tendency of the board (hnibtless is in that direction, l)iit in nianv 
cases they not old}' rim against strong local usage but against 
legal anthorit}' as well. Wichita, Washita, and Ouachita are the 
same word ; so with \\'\’andot, Wyandotte, and (Jnyandot. All 
are familiar with the name Allegheny, Iimiji, (iin/, applied to 
counties in New York, I’ennsylyania, \firgiida. West \'irginia, 
