Readings in Texas history for high schools and colleges

Part I Spanish and Mexican Texas, 1528-1836 Part II

Republic and State, 1836-1928

THE SOUTHWEST PRESS DALLAS : : : TEXAS t

Copyright, 1929

BY

THE SOUTHWEST PRESS

Printed in the United States of America

-V

©CIA c)

Preface

Teachers frequently ask me to recommend a textbook in Texas history for advanced study. Unfortunately there is no text covering the whole field of Texas history. There is, however, a vast amount of periodical literature and documentary material suitable for high school and college classes, if only it were accessible.

These Readings in Texas History are designed to meet the evident need for a handy compilation of significant studies and documents. The first Part covers the period during which Texas was subject to Spain and Mexico, including the period of the Texas Revolution. The second Part covers the period of Republic and State.

The selections are chosen and arranged to make a reasonably con¬ tinuous narrative of the history of Texas, but the discriminating teacher will obviously make assignments to meet the needs of a par¬ ticular class, using the selections that are not assigned to the whole class as the basis of special reports. Such a book, judiciously used, has advantages over the organized, consecutive treatment of a com¬ prehensive textbook, for besides giving the varied point of view of the respective writers, it serves as an introduction to the rich stores of Texas history recently made available in special studies. It is hoped that teachers and students may find this volume useful.

Eugene C. Barker.

XVIII. Part I

PAGE

Spanish Texas, 1528-1821. By Eugene C. Barker . 3

La Salle’s Settlement and the First Spanish Mission in Texas,

1. La Salle’s Settlement. 10

2. The First Spanish Mission in Texas. 13

The Location of La Salle’s Colony in Texas . By Herbert E. Bolton . 17

The Spanish Occupation of East Texas. By R. C. Clark. 27

Mission Life.. Translated by Mattie Austin Hatcher. 34

1. Mission San Antonio de Valero... 34

2. Mission Nuestra Senora de los Dolores de la Punta. 38

Texas in 1819-1820. Translated by Mattie Austin Hatcher. 43

The Beginning of the Anglo-American Settlement of Texas

By Eugene C. Barker. 59 Terms of the Mexican Colonization Laws. 73

1. The Federal Colonization Law. 73

2. The Colonization Law of Coahuila and Texas. 75

The Powers and Duties of an Empresario . By Stephen F. Austin. 79 Minor Empresario Contracts for the Colonization of Texas,

1825-1834. By Mary Virginia Henderson. 86

The Government of Texas, 1821-1835. . . .By Eugene C. Barker. 103

1. The Eastern Interior Provinces. 103

2. Early Local Government in Austin’s Colony. 103

3. The Establishment of Constitutional Government. 111

Descriptions of Texas. By Stephen F. Austin. 115

The Character of the Early Texans.

By Thomas White and Stephen F. Austin.

Life in the Early Settlements. By Noah Smithwick.

Stephen F. Austin. By Eugene C. Barker.

The Development of the Texas Revolution. By Eugene C. Barker.

135 140 147 159

188 194 194 199 209

1. Argument against the Law. By Stephen F. Austin.

2. Petition for Repeal. By William H. Wharton.

1. Texan Grievances. By Stephen F. Austin.

2. Defects of the Judiciary System. By David G. Burnet.

On the Necessity for a Consultation. .. .By Stephen F. Austin.

vu

XXVI. Contents

PAGE

The Provisional Government During the Texas Revolution

1. The Battle of Gonzales. By Ethel Z. Rather.

2. The Capture of Goliad

By George W. Collinsworth and Ira Ingrain.

3. The Capture of San Antonio. By Edward Burleson.

4. The Address of Congratulation. By the General Council.

1. Drafting the Declaration. By Janies K. Greer. 234

2. The Declaration. 2 4 2

Framing the Constitution of the Republic of Texas.

By Rupert N. Richardson. 246

1. Members and Organization of the Convention.246

2. The Land Question. 250

3. Work of the Convention: Completing the Constitution. 253

4. Analysis of the Constitution.255

5. The Mystery of the Official Copy. 258

The Fall of the Alamo . Compiled by Eugene C. Barker. 262

1. Travis’s Heroic Letter of Februray 24, 1836. 262

2. Governor Smith’s Call for Reinforcements. 262

3. Why Fannin Failed to Reinforce Travis. 262

4. Travis’s Last Appeal. 264

5. Almonte’s Account of the Siege. 266

6. Santa Anna’s Orders for the Assault. 268

7. Santa Anna’s Report of the Fall of the Alamo. 269

8. Francisco Ruiz’s Report of the Fall of the Alamo.271

1. The Goliad Campaign. By Ruby Cumby Smith. 273

a. The Orders to Retreat. 273

b. The Division of Fannin’s Forces. 275

c. The Retreat from Goliad. 276

d. The Battle of the Coleto. 277

e. The Surrender. 278

/. The Goliad Massacre. 280

2. Letters from Goliad. By John Sowers Brooks. 281

3. General Urrea’s Account of the Goliad Campaign.

Translated by Carlos E. Castaneda. 291 The San Jacinto Campaign . 298

1. Houston’s Retreat, the Battle, and Close of the War.

2. Houston’s Official Report of the Battle of San Jacinto.

Sam Houston. 305

3. Santa Anna’s Report of the Battle.

Translated by Carlos E. Castaneda. 308

4. The ‘‘Runaway Scrape,” the Non-combatants in the Texas Revo¬ lution. By Mrs. Dilue Harris 316

Book List .

Index

For Contents of Part II See pages 343-344

PART I

SPANISH AND MEXICAN TEXAS

Chapter I Spanish Texas, 1528-1821

[This brief chapter is intended as a narrative outline of the Spanish occu¬ pation of Texas. The details of this period have been carefully and somewhat fully presented by the late Professor George P. Garrison in his Texas (Hough¬ ton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1903) and by Professor R. C. Clark, Professor H. E. Bolton, and others in special articles. Articles of particular importance are: Bolton, “The Spanish Occupation of Texas, 1519-1690” (in the South¬ western Historical Quarterly, published by the Texas State Historical Associ¬ ation, XVI, 1-26) ; Clark, “The Beginnings of Texas, 1684-1718” (published as Bulletin No. 98 of the University of Texas) ; Lilia M. Casis, “Discovery of the Bay of Espiritu Santo” (in Quarterly of the Texas State Historical Asso¬ ciation, II, 281-312) ; W. E. Dunn, “The Spanish Search for La Salle’s Colony” (in the Southwestern Historical Quarterly, XIX, 323-370) ; Bolton, “The Loca¬ tion of La Salle’s Colony on the Gulf of Mexico” (Chapter III, below) ; Buckley, “The Aguayo Expedition into Texas and Louisiana, 1719-1722” ( Quarterly of the Texas State Historical Association, XV, 1-65) ; Austin, “The Municipal Government of San Fernando de Bexar, 1730-1800” (Ibid., VIII, 277-352) ; Dunn, “Apache Relations in Texas, 1718-1750” (Ibid., XIV, 198-274) ; and Bolton, “Notes on Clark’s ‘The Beginnings of Texas’” (Ibid. XII, 148-158), “The Native Tribes about the East Texas Missions” (Ibid., XI, 249-276), “The Spanish Abandonment and Reoccupation of East Texas, 1773-1779” (Ibid., IX, 67-137), and “Spanish Activities on the Lower Trinity, 1746^-1771” (South¬ western Historical Quarterly, XVI, 339-377). Professor Bolton’s articles on various tribes of Texas Indians in Handbook of American Indians (published by the Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington) contain also a wealth of information on the Spanish period. Read: Garrison, Texas, Chapters I—VIII; Barker, Potts, and Ramsdell, A School History of Texas, Chapters I—III.]

Indirectly Spain began to accumulate information concerning Texas in 1519, when Alvarez de Pineda sailed the Gulf from Florida to Tampico. Ten years later (1528) several survivors of the Narvaez expedition were cast on the shore of Texas, and, after six years of wandering along the coast from Galveston to Corpus Christi, Cabeza de Vaca and four others escaped from the Indians who had enslaved them and made their way to Mexico. De Vaca wrote an account of their experiences, which gives us our earliest source for conditions of the Texas interior. In 1540 members of the De Soto «P ed ^ after the death of their leader, entered East Tc ™ ^ on their way to Mexico and penetrated as far as the Brazos Riv before turning back. The same year Coronado s ex ^ dlt ' 0 "’^ rch ‘ ing for Quivira, traversed a considerable portion of West Texas.

The interior of Texas continued to be penetrated by occasional parties of Spanish explorers for the next hundred and fifty years. Until well past the middle of the seventeenth century these parties advanced eastward from New Mexico, which the Spaniards had early occupied; but at the same time settlement was slowly pushing toward Texas through northern Mexico, and missionaries were already urging the occupation of the Tejas county when news reached the government that a French expedition was headed for the country.

France had begun to occupy Canada at the beginning of the seven¬ teenth century. Fur traders and Jesuit missionaries moved rapidly westward, and in 1673 Louis Joliet and Father Marquette explored the Mississippi River from Wisconsin to Arkansas. Ten years later La Salle followed the Mississippi to its mouth, and then returned to France to beg permission from Louis XIV to settle a colony there. His plan was a strategic one. France already held the St. Lawrence, the Great Lakes, and the Upper Mississippi; and a colony at the mouth of the great river would go far toward securing the possession of the whole valley. Moreover, such a settlement could be made the basis of operations against Mexico, in case France and Spain became involved in war. The king approved, and La Salle was generously fitted out with colonists and supplies.

The colonists included some farmers, artisans, and men of family, but too many of them were undesirable adventurers. In the West Indies one small vessel was captured by Spaniards, but the incident was not then reported to the government and therefore created no alarm in Spain. The remainder of the little fleet lost its bearings, and in February, 1685, entered Matagorda Bay and made a landing. A ves¬ sel was wrecked here—the Aimable, the supply ship—and many pro¬ visions and arms were lost. Beaujeu, the sailing master, returned to France in another ship, leaving La Salle one small vessel. This, too, was later wrecked. It soon became evident that the Mississippi did not enter Matagorda Bay, but La Salle could not believe that it was far away. A fort was built some miles inland on the Garcitas River, and a search for the Mississippi began.

The Indians, malaria, and their own excesses soon brought the party to a desperate state. La Salle was stern, arbitrary, and unsympathetic and incurred the hatred of some of the worst characters, who murdered him in 1687 near the present site of Navasota, 1 while he was making his third expedition in search of the Mississippi. After

1 This approximate location of the murder of La Salle is derived from Professor H. E. Bolton, of the University of California.

SPANISH TEXAS, 1528-1821

La Salle’s death the settlement rapidly went to pieces. Some of the party eventually reached the Mississippi and made their way to Canada and France; many died of disease or were massacred by the Indians. When the Spaniards arrived in search of them in 1689 there were less than half a score of survivors scattered among the Indians.

The Spanish authorities had learned during the fall of 1685 of La Salle’s plan for a settlement on the Gulf, and between 1686 and 1689 five searching parties were sent by sea and four by land to find him. It was only the fourth of the land expeditions that succeeded. Captain Alonso de Leon commanded this expedition in 1689, and with him was Father Damian Massanet, a devoted Franciscan missionary. They found the French settlement (Fort St. Louis) in ruins. Several dead bodies lay unburied on the prairie. Clearly the danger of a French occupation for the present was over.

Learning that four Frenchmen were living among the Tejas In¬ dians in East Texas, De Leon wrote to them inviting them to accom¬ pany him to Mexico. Two of them joined him, and with them came a chief of the Tejas. Missionaries and explorers had long been wish¬ ing to get in touch with these Indians, and Father Massanet exerted himself especially to win the friendship of this chief. He was suc¬ cessful, and parted from him with a promise to return the next year and establish a mission among the Tejas, the chief assuring him that the Spaniards would be welcome.

Spurred by the fear of French encroachment, the viceroyal gov¬ ernment of Mexico approved the proposal of De Leon and Massa¬ net for the establishment of a settlement among the Tejas, and in the spring of 1690 De Leon led a second expedition to the country. Marching first to La Salle’s deserted settlement he destroyed it, so that it might not harbor other intruders, and then proceeded north¬ ward to the Tejas. On a small stream some ten miles west of the Neches and northeast of the present town of Crockett he built a rude log chapel and left three priests and three soldiers to win the region to Christianity and to Spain. A few months later the priests established a second mission (Santa Maria) on the Neches. At first the Tejas were peaceful and friendly, but pestilence and bad crops followed and they became ill-humored and troublesome. Next year priests and soldiers were reinforced from an expedition led by Gov¬ ernor Teran de los Rios, but in 1693 they abandoned Texas, and Spain made no further attempts to occupy the province until fear of the French again arose in 1716.

In 1699 a French settlement was founded at Mobile Bay, and in 1712 a French merchant, Antoine Crozat, received from the French government a monopoly of the trade of Louisiana, which was regarded as including all the territory drained by the Mississippi and its tribu¬ taries. But this field was too restricted for Crozat’s ambition. He wished also to trade with the Spaniards in northern and northwestern Mexico. In view of the exclusive commercial policy of Spain, th s could be done only by a system of smuggling with the connivance of the Spanish colonial authorities. A man of ability and address was needed to approach the Spanish officials, and Governor Cadillac of Louisiana selected Louis Juchereau de St. Denis, an experienced Indian trader and explorer. St. Denis led a party up Red River to the present site of Natchitoches, where he established headquarters for trade with the Hasinai or Tejas confederation of Indians in East Texas, and then pressed on across Texas to the Spanish presidio a short distance southeast of the present Eagle Pass. .In 1714 this post was commanded by Captain Diego Ramon. To him St. Denis un¬ folded his proposal for trade, but the captain referred the matter to the viceroy at Mexico and held St. Denis a prisoner.

An interesting romance has woven itself around the young French¬ man’s sojourn here, but the thrilling details presented by Gayarre and Brown seem to have no other foundation than the fact that St. Denis later married Captain Ramon’s granddaughter. The viceroy was con¬ siderably alarmed by the French advances, and ordered St. Denis sent to the capital.

As the result of personal conferences with St. Denis, the viceroy decided to reoccupy East Texas, a measure to which the missionaries had been urging him for years. St. Denis agreed to guide an expe¬ dition, and this, with priests, soldiers, and settlers, got under way in 1716, commanded by Captain Domingo Ramon. The Spaniards were welcomed by the Tejas Indians, who had missed the small gifts with which the missionaries had been in the habit of cultivating their friendship; and during the next few years a group of missions was established around the present towns of Nacogdoches and San Au¬ gustine. In 1718 San Antonio was founded and became the important Spanish stronghold in this outlying frontier province.

In the meantime, the French post at Natchitoches grew stronger and in 1719 compelled the Spaniards to flee to San Antonio for pro¬ tection. Two years later, however, the Marquis De Aguayo re¬ established the Spanish settlements and strengthened the presidios; and further relations between the French and Spanish on this fron¬ tier were marked by little friction. In 1762 Louis XV ceded Louisi¬ ana to Spam, and the international boundary moved eastward to the Mississippi, across which faced the aggressive English instead of the easy-going French.

After the founding of San Antonio in 1718, Spanish governors and missionaries made energetic efforts to colonize Texas and civilize the Indians. Aguayo established a post near the site of La Salle’s hort St. Louis in 1721, which after being twice moved was finally fixed in 1749 at modern Goliad. The great mission buildings near San Antonio, which constitute one of the most impressive historical

SPANISH TEXAS, 1528-1821 and architectural monuments of the Southwest, were constructed (1720-1730) ; and others of less pretentious character were scattered from Refugio and Liberty, near the coast, as far west as San Saba and Rockdale.

Following the French cession of Louisiana, the settlements in East Texas were abandoned, but many of the settlers who had known no other home were ill at ease in San Antonio, whither they were moved, and in 1779 Gil Ibarbo led a number of them back and founded Nacogdoches on the site of the old mission of Our Lady of Guada¬ lupe.

The permanent results of Spanish activities in Texas to the close of the eighteenth century were pitifully small, but it must be remem¬ bered in extenuation that the province was very remote and that the Indians were peculiarly untractable. When measured by the results later achieved by the United States with convenient bases and incom¬ parably greater resources, Spain’s failure to civilize the Indians affords little cause for criticism or surprise.

On October 1, 1800, Spain receded to France “the Colony or Province of Louisiana with the same extent that it now has in the hands of Spain, and that it had when France possessed it.” On April 30, 1803—as the treaty is dated—France sold Louisiana, with the same limits, to the United States. What were the boundaries of Louisiana thus vaguely described? Napoleon had instructed General Victor to take possession to the Rio Grande, and on that ground, chiefly, President Jefferson and other prominent statesmen were in¬ clined to claim Texas. But they were much more anxious to extend the eastern boundary over West Florida, a narrow strip along the coast from the Mississippi to the Perdido River, and expected to play the Texas claim against this coveted region. Historians are agreed that the claim to West Florida was baseless, but despite the accidental, temporary character of La Salle’s settlement and the de¬ liberate, permanent occupation of the province by Spain from 1716 onward, the Texas question has not been so easily settled. In 1819 the United States surrendered by treaty all claims west of the Sabine, but many patriotic citizens believed that the government exceeded its constitutional power in alienating territory to which its title was good. It was this belief that made possible the demand for the “re¬ annexation” of Texas in the national Democratic platform of 1844.

Before the acquisition of Louisiana by the United States Anglo- Americans had already begun to penetrate Texas. For years Philip Nolan, a protege of General James Wilkinson, had been making occa¬ sional trips to San Antonio. In 1800 he led a small party into the province for the ostensible purpose of capturing wild horses. Whether that was his sole object is even yet not clear. Toward the end of March, 1801, he was overtaken by Spanish soldiers near the present city of Waco, and in the ensuing battle Nolan was killed. His men then surrendered, expecting to be sent home from Nacogdoches, but on the contrary they were marched to Mexico, where in the course of time all except Peter Ellis Bean elude the historical vision. Bean joined the revolutionists in 1810, and when Mexico gained its mdependence he was a colonel in the patriot army. During 1826-1835 he was stationed at Nacogdoches as a sort of Indian agent.

In 1812 Bernardo Gutierrez and Augustus Magee, lately a lieu¬ tenant in the United States army, invaded Texas with a considerable force of American adventurers, Spaniards, and Indians. They took Nacogdoches in August and Goliad in October. Here Magee died. In the spring of 1813 the invaders advanced on San Antonio, and, after defeating the Spanish governor in a terrible battle, entered the town on April 1. Gutierrez’s brutality to the prisoners alienated many of the Americans, who now abandoned him. The others were decoyed into an ambush by General Arredondo near the Medina River in June and badly defeated.

The avowed object of Gutierrez and Magee was to win Texas for the revolutionary party in Mexico. They undoubtedly expected to turn success to their personal profit, but in just what way does not clearly appear.

After the signature of the Florida treaty of 1819 by which the United States relinquished its claims to Texas, Dr. James Long of Natchez, Mississippi, led an expedition which for a brief time occu¬ pied Nacogdoches and proclaimed the independence of Texas. It is somewhat significant that Long, like Nolan, had a connection with General James Wilkinson of the United States army, his wife being Wilkinson’s niece. At the time of Long’s invasion the royalist power had almost succeeded in stamping out the revolution in Mexico, and Texas was well defended. Troops advanced from San Antonio, and catching Long’s forces in scattered detachments easily defeated and expelled them. Long took advantage of the renewed revolutionary wave in 1820 to return to Texas, but was no more successful than before. In fact, he was taken prisoner and sent to Mexico City, and there a short time later was killed by a Mexican soldier.

In a sense Nolan, Magee, and Long, with the men whom they led, were but the advance couriers of American expansion. In the first twenty years of the nineteenth century the United States pushed its settled frontier westward to the Mississippi, and crossed that line in Louisiana, which became a state in 1812, and in Missouri, which was admitted in 1821. The natural line of advance to further expansion was toward the southwest. That the adventurous pioneers entered Texas in organized bands rather than as peaceful trappers and set¬ tlers was probably due to the revolutionary condition of New Spain from 1810 to 1821, which suggested the pretext of marching in force to the relief of the local patriots. These invasions served the pur¬ poses of spying out the country, and of paving the way for the peace-

SPANISH TEXAS, 1528-1821 ful penetration of Moses and Stephen Austin and the “crowd of expresarios” who followed them.

The opportune attainment of Mexican independence in 1821 un¬ doubtedly furthered the colonization of Texas from the United States by creating a temporary glow of friendship for the republicans of the North, who had gone through much the same experience with England as had the Mexicans with Spain, and whose liberal institutions the Mexicans dreamed of emulating.

Chapter II La Salle’s Settlement And The First Spanish Mission In Texas

By R. C. Clark

[The selections which follow are from Clark’s “Beginnings of Texas,” 13, 18-20, 23-25, 39-42. They describe briefly the La Salle settlement, near the shore of Matagorda Bay, the Spanish discovery of the ruined French settle¬ ment, and the establishment and abandonment of Mission San Francisco de los Tejas, 1690-1693. See Garrison, Texas, 1-33; H. H. Bancroft, North Mexican States and Texas, I, 373-406; Barker, Potts and Ramsdell, A School History of Texas, 1-21.]

I. La Salle’s Settlement

It would be inconsistent with the purpose and limitations of this paper to give more than the briefest outline of the voyage and sub¬ sequent adventures of La Salle. Having received his commission he went to work to enlist his company and equip the expedition. For the transportation of his people to the new world he secured four vessels: The Joli, a ship of the royal navy of thirty-six guns; a storeship called the Aimable; the Belle, a frigate; and a ketch, the St. Francis.

On the 24th of July, 1684, the ill-sorted company, consisting of two hundred and eighty people—seamen, soldiers, priests, artisans, women and children—embarked from the port of Rochelle; and eight months later, about the middle of February, 1685, after many hard¬ ships and misadventures, having missed the mouth of the Mississippi, it passed through the narrow channel between Matagorda Peninsula and Matagorda Island into the bay of Matagorda.

It will be sufficient merely to indicate the events that followed— the landing upon the sandy shore of the bay, which the French called Bay St. Louis; the loss by criminal carelessness of the storeship Aimable with the provisions, arms and supplies that were on her; the departure of Beaujeu with those of the expedition who had be¬ come discouraged or dissatisfied; the settlement of the colony a few miles inland on the La Vaca River; 1 the sickness, accidents, and

1 See Bolton, “The Location of La Salle’s Colony” for later information on this point— Southwestern Historical Quarterly, XXVII, 171-189; below, Chapter

III.

LA SALLE’S SETTLEMENT misfortunes by which the company of two hundred was soon reduced to a few score; and La Salle’s three painful efforts to pass overland to the Mississippi, ending with the tragedy of his murder by his own men. The fate of the unfortunate persons who were left at the village of St. Louis, as it touches the enterprises of the Spaniards, will appear as we proceed. . . .

[Information of the fact that there was a French expedition in the Gulf headed for the mainland aroused the Spanish authorities in Mexico, and re¬ sulted in the sending out of five expeditions by sea and four by land to search for the French landing. How Captain Alonzo de Leon’s expedition found the ruined settlement in 1689 is told by the next extract.]

Captain Leon resumed his march southward, and on April 22, [1689] reached the village and fort of St. Louis, near the La Vaca River. Ali there was deserted and silent. About the yard were scat¬ tered the contents of plundered houses: broken chests and boxes and barrels; the broken tackle of a ship; a great number of books with leaves torn and scattered, but bearing still the evidences of costly bindings; and broken cutlasses, and the stocks of many arquebuses with locks and barrels gone. On the prairie near by lay three dead bodies, one of which, from the fragment of a dress that still clung to it, appeared to be that of a woman.

The village consisted of five or six small houses of palisades, plastered over with mud, and covered with the skins of buffaloes; a larger house, where apparently animals were kept, and a wooden fort, made from the timbers of a wrecked vessel. The fort had four lower rooms, one of which had served as a chapel, and above these rooms was an upper story which had been used for a storeroom. Scattered about the fort were several swivels and eight small guns of four or six pounds, some upon the floor and some upon their broken car¬ riages. Upon the casing of the principal door of the fort was in¬ scribed the year of its occupation, with other details of the history of the village.

Before setting out upon the return journey Captain Leon de¬ scended to the coast and explored the bay of Espiritu Santo. Skirt¬ ing the shore for many leagues, he saw the shattered spars and broken timbers of a wrecked vessel. On his return to the fort he found that the Indian messenger had arrived, bringing a letter from the French¬ men. They asked the Spaniards to wait for them, saying that they would be on in a few days, that they were waiting for another French¬ man who was with some Indians farther away.

While waiting for them Captain Leon with a party of twenty men set out to the east and discovered the Rio de San Marcos (Colo¬ rado), 1 which he explored almost to its mouth. He then returned to

1 Really the Lavaca. See below, page 26.

the place where his company had gone into camp and found that the Frenchmen still delayed to come; whereupon he determined to go with a few men in search of them, sending the rest of the company on to the Guadalupe to await his return. He accordingly set out with thirty men toward the country of the Tejas. After three days he re¬ joined his company upon the Guadalupe, bringing with him two of the Frenchmen; they were Juan Archbepe (Jean L’Acheveque), a young man from Bayonne and one of the murderers of La Salle, and Santiago Grollet, a sailor, who had deserted La Salle on one of his early journeys in search of the Mississippi. The other two French¬ men, Pedro Muni (Pierre Meusnier) and Pedro Talo (Pierre Talon), distrusting the Spaniards, preferred to remain with the Indians.

From the captives the Spaniards learned more in detail the story of the destruction of the little colony in Fort St. Louis. Before the final catastrophe the smallpox had broken out among the villagers, reducing their number till there were scarcely more than a score left. La Salle had gone away with the ablest bodied of the men on a last toilsome journey in search of “the fatal river.” Day by day the few men, women and children left upon the shore of Bay St. Louis waited while hope slowly failed them. Around them was the unending wilderness, pathless and inhospitable; before them stretched a waste of sand, beyond which spread out the wide, tantalizing expanse of the sea.

Near the first of February, in the year 1689, the end came. They had been on friendly terms with the Indians around them, and sus¬ pected no evil. The savages came and went about the village, bar¬ tering for trinkets and professing friendship. But underneath this amicable pretension was a hatred which had existed since La Salle, soon after landing, had taken from them their canoes; they were biding their time. One day five of them came to the village under the pretext of trading. They stopped at a house apart from the others and began to barter noisily. Soon all the people of the village, willing to accept any diversion to pass the tedious days, came out and gathered around the savages, watching curiously. Other Indians came and joined the boisterous colloquy. When all the white people of the village were in the house or near it, a band of warriors rushed up from the river, where they had lain concealed, set upon the vil¬ lagers, and killed them all except five, who were saved by the Indian women.