But our main objection lies against the “possessive case.”  We regard it as a false and unnecessary distinction.  What is the possessive case?  Murray defines it as “expressing the relation of property or possession; as, my father’s house.”  His rule of syntax is, “one substantive governs another, signifying a different thing, in the possessive or genitive case; as, my father’s house.”  I desire you to understand the definition and use as here given.  Read it over again, and be careful that you know the meaning of property, possession, and government.  Now let a scholar parse correctly the example given. “Father’s” is a common noun, third person, singular number, masculine gender, and governed by house:”  Rule, “One noun governs another,” &c.  Then my father does not govern his own house, but his house him!  What must be the conduct and condition of the family, if they have usurped the government of their head?  “John Jones, hatter, keeps constantly for sale all kinds of boy’s hats.  Parse boy’s.  It is a noun, possessive case, governed by hats.”  What is the possessive case?  It “signifies the relation of property or possession.”  Do the hats belong to the boys?  Oh no.  Are they the property or in the possession of the boys?  Certainly not.  Then what relation is there of property or possession?  None at all.  They belong to John Jones, were made by him, are his property, and by him are advertised for sale.  He has used the word boy’s to distinguish their size, quality, and fitness for boy’s use.

“The master’s slave.”  Master’s is in the possessive case, and governed by slave!  If grammars are true there can be no need of abolition societies, unless it is to look after the master and see that he is not abused.  The rider’s horse; the captain’s ship; the general’s army; the governor’s cat; the king’s subject.  How false it would be to teach scholars the idea of property and government in such cases.  The teacher’s scholars should never learn that by virtue of their grammars, or the apostrophe and letter s, they have a right to govern their teachers; nor the mother’s son, to govern his mother.  Our merchants would dislike exceedingly to have the ladies understand them to signify by their advertisements that the “ladies’ merino shawls, the ladies’s bonnets and lace wrought veils, the ladies’ gloves and elegant Thibet, silk and challa dresses, were the property of the ladies; for in that case they might claim or possess themselves of their property, and no longer trouble the merchant with the care of it.