MR. OGDEN: It was expected that Professor Mendenhall would be with us this evening to address the society on the subject of Geographic Nomenclature but he is unavoidably absent, having been called to Philadelphia, and has requested me to represent him, and present to you an apology for his absence.
Professor Mendenhall has been greatly interested in this question since he assumed charge of the Coast and Geodetic Survey. Questions of orthography and nomenclature have been before him almost constantly, and the variety of views elicited in response to his inquiries confirmed him in the opinion that the subject is of serious import. He has had, of necessity, to decide a great many cases for publications which were being made: finally a long list relating to Alaska came from the Hydrographic office, which led to a discussion and the suggestion that a board should be formed consisting of representatives from the different departments and bureaus in Washington that were interested in this matter, and that were issuing maps, charts and other publications requiring geographic names. It is too true that the different bureaus are now using the same names spelled in different ways, sometimes different names for the same place, and the same name for different places; indeed, the confusion is so great you may even read publications relating to the same locality and at first not realize the fact.
The object that Professor Mendenhall had in view in organizing a board was to secure harmony; that all might come together; and that when a question arose between different bureaus it might be referred to this board to settle, with the concurrence of all. Such a board would also secure stability, as no bureau would undertake to make changes in names that have been accepted, as may now be the case when a bureau falls under new management, or the determination of the questions is referred to new officers without experience. This board, as proposed, was to be formed by representatives from the Hydrographic Office, Smithsonian Institution, War Department, Geological Survey, Coast and Geodetic Survey, Light-house Board, The National Geographic Society, Post Office Department, and the General Land Office. All these bureaus or departments gave their assent except the Post Office Department and the General Land Office; but we may hope that these departments will eventually be represented, when the practical usefulness of the board has been demonstrated by its decisions.
There are three, perhaps four classes of cases that cause the most trouble in geographic names. In the first class, those cases where we are certain of the name itself—that is, we agree in the pronunciation, but disagree in the orthography; in the second class, where there is no question as to the orthography, but where there is a question as to what name should be used—that is, several names are given to the same point, to the same body of water, or to the same island; in the third class, where there is no question as to the name or the orthography, but a question as to the place to which the name applies—that is, there is no dispute as to the name, but it is applied to different places; this class is sometimes modified by questions as to the geographical limits to which a name applies—that is to say, the area to be indicated by the name; for instance, some body of water or a range of mountains, and may be designated a fourth class.
To cite a few instances of these classes: we have the question of Wood's "Hole" and Wood's "Holl;" for many years it was called Wood's Hole, recently it would seem to be the conclusion that it should be called Wood's Holl; we formerly had "Hurl" Gate, and now "Hell" Gate; "Princess" Bay was at one time spelled "Prince's" Bay, the error arising, doubtless, from the pronunciation; we also have "Body's" Island or "Bodies" Island; we have a peculiar case on the North Carolina coast, "Pamplico" Sound has generally been used, now we have "Pamlico" Sound, legalized by the State legislature; on the coast of Virginia we have the case of "Metomkin," which has frequently been written "Metompkin" and "Matomkin;" in California we have Point Conception, whether it should be spelled with the "c," or with the "t," in the last syllable; we also have "Point Boneta" or "Bonita;" should Yaquina be spelled with one "n" or two ("nn"); Coos Bay, with "k" or "c." This name, I understand, is sometimes pronounced "Co-os," as though it had two syllables; if the spelling of this name was governed by the rules of the Royal Geographical Society the "K" would be used for the hard "C," but "Coos" has been adopted by the State legislature and will probably be retained. One of the most singular perversions is found in "Bering Sea;" the explorer wrote his name "Bering," and yet we find it is customary, almost everywhere, to spell it "Behring."
In the second class of cases, where we have different names for the same place, we may cite Bangs Island, at the entrance to Portland harbor; an effort was made not long ago to change this name on the Coast Survey charts to Cushing's Island, the evidence was so strong that an order was issued to effect the change, when the supporters of "Bangs" produced additional evidence and secured the retention of that name. On the coast of Florida we had two Saint Joseph's Bays, and a comparatively modern name, "Anclote Anchorage," was presented to take the place of a part of one of them, which led to designating the rest of the bay "Saint Joseph's Sound," Sound being more appropriate for the locality. We have also some notable instances on the Pacific coast, as "Cape Orford" or "Blanco;" "Cape Gregory" or "Arago;" "South Farallon" or "Southeast Farallon;" and in Alaska there are instances too numerous to mention.
In the third class of cases, the locality to which the name applies, we may cite "Isle-au-Haut" Bay and "East Penobscot" Bay, on the coast of Maine; "Hempstead" Bay, on the coast of Long Island, a bay which is almost filled with small islands, rendering it most difficult to satisfactorily define the limits; "Chincoteague" Bay, on the Jersey coast, is an instance of growth; it was at one time called "Assateague," and although "Assateague" was retained for many years as applicable to the upper part of the bay, it has finally been restricted to a very small cove in Assateague Island. On the Pacific coast there are a great many instances, possibly one of the most difficult relates to the limits of Admiralty Inlet, how far it extends into Puget sound? Again, to the northward, is what for years has been called "Washington" Sound, an effort is being made to change it to "Possession" Sound, the latter name, I believe, was once applied to a portion of the area; perhaps we shall eventually see both names on the chart. The difficulty of defining the limits to which a name applies may be experienced in dealing with "Hampton Roads," or "Tybee Roads;" apparently simple problems, but who will undertake to define the exact limits of these famous roadsteads?
These questions, even when stated in their simplest form, are oftentimes very complex, for several of the general classes I have referred to may be included in one question, and when we attempt to determine that which is best they become very perplexing. In seeking advice we are met with a variety of views; some will maintain that we should take the nick-names given by the fishermen; some prefer names that have been recognized independent of nick-names; some will abhor corruptions, while others prefer the corruptions, if expressive and in general use. The experts are very prone to hunting up the root, or, if necessary, to constructing one, and throwing out everything that will not conform with it. The fact that our country was settled by French, Spanish, and English, and that many names are derived from the Indian dialects, also causes peculiar difficulties in treating some sections. The rules of the Royal Geographical Society can be a great help, so far as they are applicable; they seem to have been used in the modern spelling of "Dakota"—for the man-of-war we had of this name some years ago, it was spelled "Dacotah," but in the name of the States recently admitted to the Union, "k" has been substituted for the hard "c" and the final "h" has been dropped. There is also great disagreement as to the propriety of the use of the possessive case; some will not admit it at all, others would like to drop the apostrophe and retain the "s" in certain cases for euphony: this is a question that requires special consideration in each case, as the omission of the possessive will sometime give the name a descriptive meaning not at all applicable to the locality or feature. The propriety of personal names is also questioned by many, and may lead to continued discussion in Alaskan nomenclature, where explorers and surveyors have been so liberal in bestowing new names on the same places. It would seem to be a good rule in selecting a new name to follow the old Indian custom of describing the place. An opportunity for an expressive nomenclature seems to have been lost in the north-west in transferring so many of our eastern names, instead of selecting new names from the rich native vocabularies.
As different bureaus may be governed by different principles, and may not even be consistent in their own rulings, through new principles that may come in by the frequent change of personnel, it has heretofore been impracticable to secure uniformity, and disputed questions have been carried along for years. The board that has been organized is in the direction of developing uniformity in the practice of all. It is no easy task, but if guided by a generous spirit, willing to yield a little here and there, its object may be successfully accomplished.
We cannot foresee to what extent the board will be called upon. It has not power to take the initiative; but we hope its rulings will prove acceptable; that it may establish a reputation that will be recognized by the people as well as by the departments interested in its organization; and that eventually rules may be recommended for the nomenclature of our own country that may be an acceptable guide in the determination of new names, as well as in the interpretation of those now in question.