them the Oregon, Oregan, or Origan. Nothing is said by Carver of the meaning or origin of the word. It is doubtful whether Carver understood the natives, or whether they made such a statement, though there may have been some sound or symbol by which or from which to coin the word. There could have been no object, apparent to us, for him to misrepresent; he could never have dreamed that this probably meaningless sound, caught up from the wind by his too attentive ear, should ever be applied to the designation of a great progressive state. From his standpoint, it was as much to his credit to report a great river to which there was no name, as one to which there was a name; or he may have preferred to manufacture a name. We cannot tell. But if so, he did it in a most foolish and bungling manner, in evidence of which I will further explain.
As a rule, the aboriginals of America have no name for their rivers, and mountains, and lakes. It is not necessary they should have; they can live by but one river at one time, and that to them is 'the river.' Or they may apply to it, as to other natural objects, general, local, or descriptive terms; it is common for the town, country, river, and tribe to be designated by the name of the chief, which name changing, changes all the rest. According to Blanchet in Historical Magazine, ii. 335, the lower Chinooks called the Columbia yakaitl-wimakl, 'great river,' purely a general and descriptive term, and no name at all. Chief Factor Tolmie, of the Hudson's Bay Company, writes: 'Indians have names only for particular localities, and not for rivers. The white people gave the name Walamet to the whole Wallamet valley and river.' When Clarke, of the Lewis and Clarke expedition, visited the coast about Tillamook Head, he understood the Indians to say that they procured wapato roots by trading with the Indians over on the Shocatilcum or Columbia River. There can be no doubt of Clarke's misapprehension of the meaning of his informant, for the word was never heard of afterward, and it certainly bears no resemblance to the one whose origin we are seeking. With reference to this case I made special inquiry of an intelligent chief of one of the most intelligent tribes of the region of the upper Columbia, the Nez Percés, living on one of its tributaries, whether it was possible for that stream ever to have had a distinctive appellation by which it was known to any peoples upon it, or about it, or about the head-waters of the Mississippi, or Missouri, or any other stream; and he assured me, what I knew before, that it was not possible. It is very certain that the word Oregon does not belong to any of the several dialects of the territory drained by the Columbia River. In looking for traces of it among those of the country which was travelled over by Carver, in which the r sound is wanting, words must be looked for with the cognate l or other consonant. In the Iroquois language the word gwegon, meaning 'all,' is closely related to 'great,' as in kwan and kowanea of the Oneida and Cayuga dialects. It is to be noted here that the Iroquois travelled far and wide with the fur-traders. In the Algonquin tongue ouni-gam, according to Mackenzie, signifies 'portage;' while again in Iroquois, according to Schoolcraft, ti-ar-o-ga means 'a place of water rocks,' ti being 'water,' oga 'a place,' and or an abbreviation of tar, 'rock.' Gan, in Algonquin, Knisteneaux, Ojibwa, Snake, and other Indian tongues, is a common ending. In Algonquin, gan signifies 'lake,' being usually, however, combined with other words, as in Sagayigan, the Knisten-
