The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-08-17

Before we consent to admit Canada 10
our family its good name should be placed
beyond all question All OF the United
States can give satisfactory account CT
tternseives--wifh ono excepiion-hut the
origin of Canada has never been satisfac-
toriiy explained. North Of Us is vast
territory added 70 the worlds known pos
sessions only a comparatively short time
ago, yet nobody seems TO know whether
IL is entitled or not 10 the name It bears.
The French. who were the first 10 land
upon fits shores. although some accounts
credit the spaniards with having touched
at some points on the coast. have left us
no clue 10 the name. The French named
what Is now supposed TO be the tribe OF
Nasquapes Indians the Canadaquois. as
they named the FIVE nations Iroquois, but
that brings us no nearer the mark.
Trench, in his book ION the study OF
words" says:
zone might suppose tina. a name like
Canada, given. and within historic times,
to a vast territory. would be accounted
for. but II Is not" ]. wiifred Pearce. of
New York, recently wrote that he had
found in a book at Toronto the following
explanation.
The origin of the name Canada is Curl
Gus enough. The spanisrds visited the
country previous to the French, and made
particular searches for gold and silver.
and finding none, they often said 'squi
NADIA cthere is nothing here1. After the
departure of the Spaniards the French ar
rived: and the Indians. who wanted none
OF their company. supposing they were
also Spaniards come on the same errand.
and were anxious TO inform them that
their labor was lost by tarrying in that
country, necessarily repeated the Spanish
phrase. aqui NADIA The French. who
knew as little of Spanish as the Indians.
supposed this constantly recurring sound
was the name OF the country and gave 1t
the name OF Canada. which IL has borne
ever since"
The Spaniards who would search for
gold and silver at the mouth OF the ST.
Lawrence are Of very doubtful authentic
ity. and the story may be dismissed as
apocryphai.
There are several Indian names, which
being imperfectly sounded. and being re-
produced by the French with their own
peculiar and probably iiliterate pronunci-
alton, may have afforded a basis.
caughawagas Is suggestive OF Iroquis.
but o-nei-das. with an aspirate before 1t.
is not unlike "Canadas.' the name by
which the new land was long known.
onandagas IL rather moro remote, and
against all these hypothesis IL the fact
that they were located chiefly on the
south side of the St. Lawrence. This is
offset by the fact that these tribes were
we'll known at an early day to the French,
and that the names of the tribes on the
north side were much more difficult for
the French TO pronounce. and bore no re-
semblance TO the sound Canada"
Another point in favor of the theory
that the word is not compound of Span
fish or French Is that so many Indian
names are in harmony with IT, One of
The greatest among the early Indians was
chief named Ganeodiyo. and though he
lived long after the discovery of Jacques
Cartier OF the mainland. the similarity Of
sound running through the local names
lends some FEASIBILITY TO the suggestion.
1t Is as near almost as Sealth is to Sc
attic
The one state which fails to establish
its parentage is Texas. whose origin Is In
doubt. 1t is said 10 come from "tekkas."
welcome. bat the explanation is fanciful
and improbable. There was in ancient
times town in Mexico named Tezeuco.
where Montezums had magnificent pal
ace. and 1t Is not improbable that the
name OF a famous place was afterward
transferred vaguely TO the Lone Star
state. 1t is very singular. as Dean Trench
remarks OF Canada. that within two or
three hundred years great territories
could acquire names universally applied
whose origin is so completely enveloped
IN mystery.