And this leads up to the question of possessives generally in specific geographic names. Many specific geographic names have the possessive form, while many others do not. Is it advisable to attempt to secure uniformity of usage in this regard? I will frankly avow my own conviction which has resulted from more or less consideration and study of the matter to be, that the use of the possessive form should be discouraged and abandoned as far as practicable. While it seems to me unwise to lay down a hard and fast rule, yet there are a very large number of cases in which the possessive form may be dropped to advantage and without, I think, arousing any general opposition to the practice. When the theory held that the King owned all, and geographic features were named for the royal family or for the nobility, the possessive form was very frequently used indicating possession or ownership, and this in cases where such possessive form has now disappeared from the maps. Why should not the possessive form be used to denote possession only? A pond, a hill, a swamp, lying on Smith's land may be properly designated as it often is, as Smith's pond, Smith's hill, etc. But nobody would think of saying Madison's Place, or Washington's Monument. There appears to be a certain principle involved. Those particular features which are of a public character, such as states, counties, towns, streets, parks, etc., which are named for individuals are almost universally named without the possessive form. And this commends itself as a reasonable practice. Without, therefore, cutting off possessives from all names where usage has now fixed them with considerable firmness, there yet remains a considerable body of geographic names in which the possessive form remains, but which are not strongly intrenched in public usage. In such cases it seems to me we may advantageously drop the possessive form. Let us say Donner Lake, not Donner's Lake, Hudson Bay, not Hudson's Bay, James Bay, not James' Bay, Baffin Bay, not Baffin's Bay, etc., etc. * * * * * MR. THOMPSON: I hardly know how I came to be brought into this discussion. The Secretary caught me in his net unawares and unprepared. I do not propose to trespass long on your time, nor do I suppose I shall add anything to a philosophical discussion of geographic nomenclature. I only wish to call your attention to a few principles that obviously should be followed in the selection of new geographic names and to show some absurdities and difficulties which are liable to occur if the sentiment in favor of Indian nomenclature is allowed full liberty. A geographic name should be short, euphonic, pronounced as spelled, and have a meaning or express some sentiment to help fix it in the memory. Especially should these principles govern when we consider that in childhood, in our school-days, we obtain by far the greater portion of our geographic knowledge.