.ODkw.NTE2Ng

Dear Mrs. Eckstrom, The pros [underlined] and cons [underlined] have been passing so rapidly that continuity has been mixed. I wrote the enclosed letter before I got your later concession to my "[?]" theory, and I send it on, as if nothing had happened, particularly as it calls your attention to an oversight of yours in mixing your two rivers. My very best appreciation for your willingness to see the topographical requisites for grammatical description. There is no doubt that the Agamenticus runs UP to [?] two miles of the largest mountain (?) in that region, but whether it would [help?] to name the tidal stream is a question. It would apply equally to Cape Neddic River which actually begins at the foot of the mountain. I am still wobbling on the word "river" which you keep in your orthography. I seriously question whether an Indian would call that kind of a water course a "river." If he saw the current [rushing?] up [underlined] to the head of it as it does today at flood he wouldn't know whether he was going home or coming back from a clam feast. Then if he saw it running down [underlined] the same day he might wonder if he were going to Norumbega or Piscataqua. I think that natural feature must be held of first importance, I know of no stream like it in western Maine - a tidal "river" unobstructed by falls. The terrain is flat country on either side of its banks, [favoring?]. On either side [?] are the Piscataqua and Cape Neddic Rivers. The Piscataqua is an open roadstead for quite a distance and I suppose it has its rise and fall up to where Salmon Falls blocks it. I do not know the distance between these falls and the actual mouth of the Piscataqua, but I should say about 5 - 7 miles. What I want to know is this - the Indian must have had some specific name for a salt water stream, as differentiated from a fresh water river, that runs only one way. What was it? At least we are nearer to it than "on the other side little river" I should think an Indian would [?] many