Читать книгу St. Louis - The Fourth City, Volume 1 - Walter Barlow Stevens - Страница 7

Conditions in the autumn of 1764, Auguste Chouteau wrote, "commenced to give some permanence to St. Louis." Neyon de Villiers and the soldiers had gone south from Fort Chartres. The settlement was growing. Laclede had taken possession of the stone house. The fur trade promised to yield at least 200 per cent, profit. But in the years from 1764 to 1770 the resources, the tact and the courage of the founder were taxed to cany the settlement through a succession of crises.

The first season fully redeemed expectations of the fur trade. The percentage of profit was realized. This prosperity had its complications. The whole community was fascinated with the fur trade. Too many merchants! Too few farmers! From Ste. Genevieve and from other settlements the food supply was drawn. Within three years, Laclede's settlement became known from Montreal to New Orleans as Paincourt which, tradition has it, meant "short loaf." The settlement was short of bread of its own making. Laclede remedied the situation, but the nickname was in use for many years. The English made it Pencur and Pancur. Even in their official reports of the period they so designated the settlement.

Situations more serious than bread shortage presented themselves. Revolution was breeding in New Orleans. Rather than accept Spanish authority, the French habitants there proposed to declare a republic. With Laclede had joined their fortunes the Papins and the Chauvins from Fort Chartres. These were near kinsfolk of the leaders of the revolutionary movement in Lower Louisiana. While commercial fortune smiled on the founder, political uncertainty involved the future of St. Louis. Upon Laclede's mind had grown stronger, as the months went by, the ambition to establish firmly "a settlement which might become very considerable hereafter." The founder of St. Louis came of a creative family. His father and his brother held offices in their province in Southern France which called for constructive talents. They had charge of the forests. They looked after the pastoral interests of their section. They conducted engineering works. Pierre Laclede of Bedous came well by the public spirit which inspired him during the period in which St. Louis was obtaining permanence — 1764-70. With that inspiration the secret treaty giving Louisiana to Spain was vitally related.

The first attempt to enforce Spanish authority at New Orleans was made. At the same time a considerable expedition was undertaken to build forts at the mouth of the Missouri river, above St. Louis. More than that, the instructions to the Spanish government provided for establishing around these forts a colony to absorb St. Louis. Forts and colony were to be the seat of military power, the center of population and of trade for the possessions of Spain from the Mississippi westward.

The cradle of St. Louis was "Laclede's house." In the original plan which he handed to Auguste Chouteau, the founder laid out a public square. He called it Place d'Armes. This square was on the river front, at the first landing. It was bounded on the south, the west and the north by three narrow streets. These streets are today Walnut, Main and Market. Immediately west of the Place d'Armes, upon a square of like dimensions, the founder located the headquarters of Maxent, Laclede and Company. There he built the warehouse for the goods and for the furs. There he constructed the stone building with the high basement and full front gallery which for years was called "Laclede's house." The building was used for office purposes. It served as home for the family of Laclede until another house a block north was built for a dwelling. The square west of Laclede's house was set apart for the church and the burying ground. It is today the site of the old cathedral.

The three squares, extending from the river front westward to Third street composed the nucleus. The settlement grew northward and southward slowly along the narrow streets, somewhat narrower than they are now, paralleling the river.

In Laclede's house St. Louis was nursed. Government was established, not too elaborate, not theoretical, but sufficient to the needs of a community which did not know whether it was under a colonial flag or was to be part of a new nation. When, in 1770, conditions became settled there was nothing that Laclede and his associates had done which required undoing. The community had faced and overcome successive crises.

This narrative does not deal with events at Fort Chartres or New Orleans except in so far as they have direct and important bearing upon St. Louis. Conditions under which St. Ange remained at Fort Chartres, circumstances under which he "established himself" at St. Louis have essential relation to what followed. Civil government was inaugurated. Upon what authority? Land titles of the Fourth City trace back to that beginning. Was it self-government? Was consent of the governed, plain and simple, the basis of the law and order established in this community? If so, a chapter in American history is to be written. The principle of Americanism was born in St. Louis.

The man from Bedous in the Pyrenees is entitled to recognition which has not been accorded him.

Many years ago the late Sylvester Waterhouse, of the faculty of Washington University, gave no little study to the establishment of government at St Louis. Documents of importance to the question, which have since come to light, were not then available. Nevertheless Professor Waterhouse reached definite conclusions. He said:

Under the stress of a felt necessity, and without the sanction of Spanish authority, the people unanimously vested in St. Ange the powers of self-government until the arrival of his legally appointed successor. It was reasonably presumed that Spain would promptly imitate the example of England in taking possession of its newly acquired territory. It was not at all anticipated that years would elapse before the assertion of the Spanish right of sovereignty.

It is a singular incident in the history of St. Louis, that its first form of government, though instituted in a period of rigid imperialism, was distinctly republican in character. The authority under which de Bellorive ruled was conferred by popular action. In its methods of creation this self -constituted government was purely democratic. The King of France could not legally appoint the lieutenant-governor of a province that had ceased to be a part of the French empire. Still less could the vice-regent in New Orleans do an act which his sovereign was not empowered to perform. But though the governor-general could not confirm the action of the St Louis colonists with the full sanction of law, he yet sustained the popular choice by his personal approval — the appointment of officers whose purely ministerial functions did not involve the grant of lands vested in the director-general of Louisiana, until Spain assumed control of its possessions. In the exercise of this right, Governor Aubry completed the organization of the evil government of St. Louis by the appointment of two judges, an attorney general and a notary.

Richard Edwards, painstaking in his searching for historical truth about St. Louis, was in doubt about the conditions under which St. Ange removed to St. Louis. In 1859, after a careful examination of all records accessible to him, Mr. Edwards wrote:

Whether this advent of Louis St. Ange de Bellerive was authorized by M. Aubry, the commandant-general at New Orleans, or whether it is to be attributed to a voluntary act on his part can never, with certainty, be decided; we have only the light of surrounding circumstances from which to form an opinion, and we are inclined to the belief that be had received orders from his superior in New Orleans to remove to St. Louis; for the inhabitants at that time, both of Upper and Lower Louisiana, bad come to the firm conclusion of resisting, to the last extremity any attempt of the Spaniards to enforce their authority in New Orleans or on the west banks of the Mississippi. These hostile intentions, so manifest at the time, probably induced the commandant-general to give St. Ange de Bellerive instructions to remove to St. Louis with the few troops remaining in his charge after the evacuation of Fort de Chart roe. This, of course is only a conjecture, but we would think it was inconsistent with the character of a royal officer 's fame, on his own authority to remove to any post with the troops under his command. He was an officer under the king, and had no room to act, except in obedience to the dictates of his superiors.

But Mr. Edwards concluded that consent of the governed entered into the new government which was established at St. Louis. He wrote: "St. Ange de Bellerive was most popular, both as an officer and a man, and according to the general wish of the inhabitants, he was placed at the head of affairs, and exercised all the functions of a commandant-general."

Two judges, a procurer-general and a notary were appointed to complete the organization of government at St. Louis. Edwards said: "This was done most probably by the commandant-general of New Orleans." He added: "All that Aubry, the commandant-general, of New Orleans could do, he probably did by the appointment of these officers. That it was by his approbation that St. Ange de Bellerive accepted of the authority which the people vested in him, there is no doubt."

John Canon O'Hanlon, who came to St. Louis in 1843 and studied at the Lazarist seminary for the priesthood, devoted no little attention to the early history of the settlement. His conclusion about the status of St. Ange de Bellerive was this:

"By the acclaim of the inhabitants, he was then appointed governor of Upper Louisiana, of which that town (St. Louis) was then regarded as the capital."

"Very liberal arrangements," this writer said, "were made by Captain St. Ange de Bellerive for dividing the lands about St. Louis in favor of the settlers. Allotments with title were inscribed in the 'Livre Terrien,' while choice of quantity and location seemed to have been fairly apportioned. New colonists began to arrive and St. Louis grew apace. Under a mild and patriarchal form of government, simplicity of habits, and happy social relations seemed to warrant a peaceful existence, and a prosperous future for the thrifty settlers."

Elihu H. Shepard, in his early history of St. Louis, described the installation of government, with St. Ange de Bellerive as executive, in these words:

"By their unanimous desire he was vested with the authority of commandant-general, with full power to grant lands and to do all other acts consistent with that office as though he held it by royal authority."

Scharff, the historian, said that St. Ange, in January, 1766, "assumed by general consent the position of lieutenant-governor."

In Reavis' "History of the Future Great City of the World," published in 1876, the chapter on the settlement of St. Louis, said to have been the work of David H. MacAdam, a student of St. Louis history, contained the following:

St. Ange, on arriving in St. Louis, at once assumed supreme control of affairs, contrary to the Treaty of Paris. There was indeed no person who could have conferred upon him this authority, but there was none to dispute it. Nearly all of the settlers of St. Louis and other posts in the Valley of the Mississippi were of French nationality or accustomed to the rule of France. In Lower Louisiana the promulgation of the terms of the treaty was received with intense dissatisfaction, which was also the case at St. Louis, when the intelligence was subsequently announced there. The authority of Spain could not at that time be practically enforced and the inhabitants of St. Louis not only submitted to the authority of St. Ange, but appear to have welcomed his arrival with satisfaction. He proved a mild and politic governor, fostering the growth and development of the new settlement and ingratiating himself with the people.

Wilson Primm, a descendant of one of the "first thirty" who came with Auguste Chouteau, wrote as early as 1831 on the settlement of St. Louis. He delivered a lecture before the St. Louis Lyceum which was printed in the Illinois Monthly Magazine in 1832. Therein he wrote that the inhabitants "submitted to the authority of St. Ange without murmur for they had always been accustomed to the mild and liberal policy of the French power." He shed no light upon the controversy as to the character of government at St. Louis from 1764 to 1770.

William F. Switzler, in his "History of Missouri," published in 1876, held to the tradition of some form of popular government at St. Louis before the coming of the Spanish. He said:

After the surrender, in 1765, of Fort Chart res to Captain Sterling by Louis St. Ange de Bellerive, the latter moved his small garrison of troops to St. Louis, the recognized capital of Upper Louisiana. Regarding him as a gentleman of great personal worth, and an officer of sound discretion and justice, the people of St. Louis, in some form of expression, designated him as their governing head. Whence the authority thus to distinguish him, his tenure of office, and duties are unknown; certain it is, however, their confidence was not misplaced, for he administered the responsible trust with wisdom and success. There can also be no doubt that he acted with the approbation of M. Aubry, commandant-general of New Orleans, and that officer delegated to him the authority to make grants of the royal domain, hoping for the retrocession of the country to France, when the grants would be legalized by confirmation.

In an historical review which appeared in the Missouri Republican January 10, 1854, the statement was made that St. Ange "came here in 1765, and was immediately invested with civil and military power over Upper Louisiana, though, of course, without a shadow of right— beyond the acclaim of the in habitants. To such an extent did he exercise the authority thus assumed by, him, that he made numerous grants of land, which were suffered to stand by his Spanish successor and have since been confirmed by the United States."

Billon, the indefatigable collector of data, says in his "Annals of St. Louis in Its Early Days under the French and Spanish Dominations:"

Captain St. Ange, with the unanimous approbation of the inhabitants, was vested with the functions of temporary governor, but not choosing to assume the sole responsibility of making concessions to individuals of lots and lands, now the possession of their new sovereign, Lefebvre, who had been judge on the other side, was associated with him for that purpose in the temporary civil government of the place, and Joseph Labusciere, a man of legal knowledge, who had filled the position of King's attorney was assigned to the position of acting secretary and executed all the official writings of the temporary government.

General Firmin Rozier, of Ste. Genevieve, in his history of the Mississippi. Valley, says:

The French officers who took charge of Upper Louisiana from 1765 to 1779, were regular officers then of the Illinois country under the French allies; hence their authority was recognized willingly by the inhabitants of the west side of the Mississippi.

From Ste. Genevieve also came one of the most interesting contributions on the character of the St. Ange government. It appeared in a biography of Dr. Lewis Fields Linn issued in 1857. Mrs. E. A. Linn and N. Sargent were the authors. Dr. Linn was a half-brother of General Henry Dodge, afterwards senator from Wisconsin. He settled in his youth at Ste. Genevieve, about 1815. He was one of the three commissioners selected by President Jackson to settle the French claims which had come down from colonial times. In 1833 Dr. Linn became a United States senator from Missouri by appointment to the vacancy caused by the death of Colonel Alexander Buckner. He was elected senator by the Missouri legislature three times and died shortly after the third election. Mrs. Linn was a talented woman, a sister of James Relfe, of Washington county, Missouri, who was a member of congress. Dr. and Mrs. Linn were married in 1818. Except for the period when his duties as commissioner to settle the claims of the early French settlers required his residence in St. Louis, Dr. Linn lived in Ste. Genevieve. He was in his day considered the best informed man on Missouri history. Mrs. Linn prefaced her book with the statement that it had been prepared in obedience to what seemed a call from those, the pioneers of the great valley of the Mississippi and their descendants, between whom and Dr. Linn there was during his lifetime, a long subsisting association, a mutual interchange of good offices, which from the beginning became more and more intimate and cordial, until the ties that thus bound them together were severed by the hand of death." Reviewing the explorations and the first settlements of the Mississippi Valley, Mrs. Linn told of the coming of Laclede and of the founding of St. Louis. She emphasized the relation of those events to the transfer of the country east of the Mississippi by the treaty of Paris to the British. She described how the French habitants "evinced great repugnance to dwell under the rule of the arrogant islanders" and "crossed the river in great numbers, joining their relatives on the western bank." She continued her narrative:

They did more; with their western brethren they set up a government of their own, the spontaneous act of all, and St. Ange de Bellerive was the lint governor in America elevated by the living voice of the people, under no commission or charter from any foreign king or government, and without aid or hindrance from any previously contrived machinery. He had been the commandant of the French at Fort Chart res; he crossed the river in 1765; whereupon he was invested with civil and military command over the "Upper Louisiana," and this power be

most beneficently exercised and held with a firm and able hand, though legally he had no right to its sway, save the acclaim of the people. He was "every inch a governor," and no act of his will ever militate against the advocates of popular sovereignty. His name is in benediction; his very name, — if one who has scarce a pretension to the most imperfect knowledge of the elegant language in which it is written can be permitted to say,— "St. Ange de Bellerive " may be rendered as having been the Blessed Angel of the beautiful waterside. He, supported by the unanimous voice of his constituents, did and performed every act and deed deemed necessary and proper for the common weal of all without fear, favor or affection. His numerous grants of land, to their honor be it spoken, were afterwards confirmed by the Spaniards and again reconfirmed by United States commissioners, notwithstanding the efforts of the speculating landsharks who sought to impugn their validity.

The late Pierre Chouteau and Judge Walter B. Douglas made exhaustive investigation of the St. Ange government. Both had access to the most recent discoveries among the archives. They arrived at radically different conclusions and only a few months before Mr. Chouteau's death in 1910, engaged in a good-humored controversy to convince each other. Mr. Chouteau, arguing from records as he interpreted them and from traditions with which, as a descendant of Laclede he was familiar, held to the view that Laclede was the master mind in the government as he had been in the founding of St. Louis. He believed that when St. Ange went beyond the exercise of military authority to protect the habitants and to insure good order, he did so by virtue of the desire of the community expressed through the leading spirits of whom Laclede was chief. Mr. Chouteau summed up his argument, in which he quoted from the treaty, from the order of evacuation, from the diary of Aubry and from various other sources, with these words:

St. Ange was cordially welcomed at St. Louis; he organized the little settlement as a military post, but refused to assume civil authority for fully three months, as the scanty instructions creating the detail in no way provided for the unexpected events which occurred, and the general orders of the evacuation carrying out the stipulation of the Treaty of Paris would have forbidden, had such an act been thought possible. St. Ange hesitated, but after seeing the perplexed state of uncertainty prevailing, with the unanimous call of the inhabitants, proclaimed himself acting governor. Not doubting the wisdom of this act, but wishing to avoid any appearance of rebellion he at once reported to Aubry. If not by commission, at least by written communication, St. Ange 's acts were approved, and authority was granted by Ulloa to continue the civil government he bad formed on Spanish soil under the banner of France. In 1768 Ulloa made provision for the maintenance and pay of the troops and St. Louis was relieved of this burden.

It was the conviction of Mr. Chouteau that the civil government of St. Louis, previous to the coming of the first Spanish governor in 1770, was republican in spirit, if crude in form. The records of the period, as Mr. Chouteau read them, conveyed the impression that while reports were made by the St. Ange government to Aubry at New Orleans, St. Louis was left to manage its own affairs with little or no exercise of authority from New Orleans.

Judge Douglas, on the contrary, believed that St. Ange moved from Fort Chartres bringing with him the officers of the government there and continued to exercise in St. Louis the same functions with the same authority that he did east of the Mississippi previous to the delivery of Fort Chartres to the British. He thought that Louis Houck, in his "History of Missouri," had "reached the only tenable conclusion, which is that the story of St. Ange's election to the governorship had its origin in somebody's imagination and is the baseless fabric of a vision." Judge Douglas said that "a very thorough search has revealed no earlier statement of St. Ange's election by the people than that made in the Missouri Republican on the 10th of January, 1854. Though this newspaper statement cites no authority, and, although no authority has ever been found to support what is there said, the story has been followed with qualification or elaboration by nearly every writer on Missouri history since its publication."

Mr. Houck sums up his estimate of Laclede's character and reviews his activities in these words:

That he was a man of enterprise, of courage, of resolution and tenacity of purpose is certain; that be was far seeing and not devoid of imagination is shown in the selection he made of the site where is now located his great city, and whose glory and magnificence he could even then see in the dim future. The fact alone that he, of all the Frenchmen locating trading posts at that early day in the Mississippi Valley, did select, not by chance but evidently upon mature consideration, location for a great city, which has been ratified by all men since as eminently wise, impresses upon us his great intellectual forethought. That be was full of energy is shown by his frequent journeys to New Orleans; for it was then no easy task for travelers to go a thousand miles up and down a great lonely river, enduring every privation, beset by every danger. That he also traveled through the interior of our state; that the paddles of his canoe dipped the waters of the Missouri, the Osage, the Gasconade, and even the Platte, we feel certain. That be was a man of liberal spirit is shown by the fact that, without hesitation, he invited his countrymen to his own trading post, when they became agitated about the cession east of the Mississippi to England, thus bringing competitors to his own door. That when an emergency arose he was capable of decided original action, is shown by the fact that, although his firm only had a concession to trade with the Indians, and no land grant, he nevertheless assigned to all new immigrants landed locations, exercising a power not delegated or granted, and at that period, both under French and Spanish rule, requiring more than ordinary self-reliance. That he was wise is shown by the fact that he induced St. Ange to remove the seat of his government from Fort de Chartres to his trading poet rather than to Ste. Genevieve, the nearest, oldest and most important settlement on the west side of the river, and then caused St. Ange to expressly grant the lots assigned by him to the first settlers, opening a record of land grants, and in this way placing upon a firm basis his work. All these characteristic we can infer from what he did, but no more.

The chain of events, the official record, can be given in brief but complete form.

On the 30th of January, 1764, D'Abbadie, the representative of France in Louisiana, forwarded orders to Neyon de Villiers, commandant of the Illinois, to evacuate the posts and the territory and to report at New Orleans with his troops and with as many of the settlers as chose to come with him. The order was comprehensive. It applied to the west side as well as to the east side of the Mississippi. While concentrating the troops from the several posts on both sides of the river, and as far as Vincennes, Neyon received a second order telling him to leave a garrison of forty men under St. Ange at Fort Chartres to remain until the arrival of the English garrison. The second order was sent at the request of Robert Farmer, British commandant, to whom the French had shortly before turned over Mobile under the treaty of cession to England.

Farmer had intended to have British garrisons take possession of the posts in the Illinois as Neyon de Villiers evacuated them. He started Major Loftus with an expedition up the Mississippi in 1764. The British were fired on by the Tunica Indians in ambush not far above New Orleans and returned down the river. To Farmer was brought the disquieting news that Pontiac was organizing the Indian tribes to prevent British occupation of the posts in the Illinois country. Then it was that Farmer asked that a detail be left at Fort Chartres to hold the place until the British could get there. To this the representative of France assented. The order to Neyon to leave St. Ange with a garrison of forty men was forwarded. St. Ange became temporary commandant of Fort Chartres. Neyon de Villiers completed his arrangements and sailed from Fort Chartres for New Orleans June 15th, 1764.

The second British movement to occupy Fort Chartres was from Canada. Again an expedition turned back. Pontiac's force was deemed too strong to venture hostilities. The third attempt to send troops to Fort Chartres was made by way of Pittsburg and the Ohio river. A force of Highlanders, one hundred strong, reached the fort. St. Ange made delivery on October 10th, 1765. He had remained fifteen months after the departure of Neyon de Villiers. In the meantime the death of D'Abbadie had occurred. Aubry, next in command, was the French representative at New Orleans. He was waiting only to receive the Spanish and to put Spain formally in possession of the isle of Orleans and of the territory west of the Mississippi. France had ceded; Spain had accepted the territory, but had not occupied it. Aubry kept a journal. He recorded in minute detail the progress of events in the chaotic period between the receipt of the letter directing that Spain be put in possession of Louisiana and the consummation of the delivery — a period of five years, from 1764 to 1769. The tenor of Aubry 's journal seems to show that France formally retired from the Illinois with the withdrawal of Neyon de Villiers and that St. Ange remained only to garrison the fort until the British arrived.

Friction attended the delivery of Fort Chartres. Aubry mentions this. "The same difficulty as at Mobile," he wrote in his journal, "occurred at the Illinois. The English claimed the cannon and implements of the fort, but they secured only seven little cannon of which four were damaged, precaution having been taken to remove the rest to the other side of the river. After having protested, St. Ange passed to the other side with two officers and thirty-five men."

At this point, in his journal, Aubry makes the only mention of the action taken by St. Ange which proved of such importance to St. Louis.

"He established himself at Paincourt, near Ste. Genevieve, and returned to me fifteen men because of lack of flour left him by the English."

Aubry comments on the ingratitude of the English as shown at Fort Chartres:

"It was only on the incessant prayers of Mr. Farmer that Mr. D'Abbadie left in Fort Chartres a garrison and cannon instead of evacuating it. It does not seem just that the English in taking possession of the fort which we had guarded for them only from kindness should oppose us in taking the effects of the king."

From the journal it seems that there can be no misunderstanding of the status of St. Ange and of the garrison of forty following the withdrawal from the Illinois of Neyon de Villiers, the soldiers and the settlers. A reason existed for the choice of St. Ange to guard the fort until the English came. Of all the officers who were evacuating French posts in the Illinois, St. Ange had the most influence with Pontiac. He was a very brave soldier. As soon as if was known to the Indians that France had ceded the Illinois to England the warriors began to assemble in the vicinity of Fort Chartres and to threaten that the English should never be allowed to occupy it. All of St. Ange's influence and power of persuasion were required to prevent actual hostilities.

St. Ange marched up the river, fifty miles, to St. Louis. He was received in Laclede's house. His soldiers were quartered nearby. The garrison remained year after year. As he had done from Fort Chartres, St. Ange continued to send reports from St. Louis to Aubry, upon conditions, especially as to the Indians. It does not appear that he received specific orders from Aubry. It does appear that Aubry knew what was going on at St. Louis and that he did not disapprove. Was St. Ange given latitude to act upon a general understanding that he might be useful in the Illinois for the "security of the habitants who remained?" Had he come under the spell of Laclede's personality as had so many of the settlers on the east side of the river? St. Ange never left St. Louis. When he retired from active service, on the coming of the first Spanish lieutenant-governor, he continued to reside in Laclede's family. When he died, he entrusted the disposition of his estate to Laclede.

Until the coming of St. Ange and the soldiers, Laclede had governed St. Louis by the force of his personality. Up to this time he had been supreme in all matters. The settlement was growing rapidly. It was reaching out for the fur trade of the Missouri country. It was assuming important relations with the Indian nations.

The first great day in the history of St. Louis was when the boy, Auguste Chouteau, arrived "with the first thirty" and felled the first tree. The second great day was when St. Ange de Bellerive marched in at the head of his

soldiers. Gladly Laclede welcomed the garrison. Military authority was established, so far as seemed necessary to insure tranquility. French settlers on the east side, who had delayed departure so long as the French flag floated over Fort Chartres, followed the garrison to St. Louis.

St. Ange assumed no civil functions upon his arrival. When he delivered Fort Chartres to the English he referred to himself as "captain of infantry commanding for the king." Had he succeeded Neyon de Villiers he would have added, probably, to the designation of himself, "commandant of the Illinois." Sterling, the English officer, receipted to St. Ange for the fort. He made no mention of anything beyond that.

Three months St. Ange continued in military authority at St Louis before he began to exercise civil functions. He was a soldier. He expected orders. He stood ready to obey them. No orders came. St. Ange was willing to act in some minor matters not strictly military, but he was not willing to perform duties which partook of judicial character. Not until January, 1766, did St. Ange began to yield to the public pressure and to the arguments of the strong men of the community.

The civil government for St. Louis was planned in Laclede's house. To the new settlement came from the east side of the river Joseph Labusciere and Joseph Lefebvre. Perhaps the names should be reversed. At the time of coming Lefebvre was the most important person. But Labusciere soon became the most prominent of the two in St. Louis. Both were educated, shrewd men. They had been strongly attracted by Laclede's personality. They caught his confidence in the future of St. Louis. They were among the foremost to accept Laclede's leadership rather than Neyon's advice.

"Judge" Lefebvre, he was at Fort Chartres. In 1743 he came from France bringing his wife and son to Louisiana. He must have had influential friends. A year after his arrival in New Orleans Lefebvre was given a grant of the exclusive privilege to trade with the Indians of the Illinois district for five years. He settled at Fort Chartres and remained after his privilege expired. He became the judge of the district.

Labusciere came from Canada to Fort Chartres before Laclede founded St. Louis. He was a lawyer, skilled in the drawing of official papers. He married in the village of St. Phillippe, four miles above Fort Chartres and became the leading citizen of that community. St. Phillippe was the settlement from which the entire population, with the exception of the miller, moved to St. Louis. It is not difficult to infer that Labusciere was the leader in the migration. That he was regarded as a person of importance by the founder is seen in the fact that Labusciere was allotted an entire block of ground in St. Louis. He received the verbal assignment of the block bounded by Main and the river, Vine and Washington avenue. At Fort Chartres, Labusciere had performed notarial functions. He had been called deputy for the king's attorney. When the form of grant or title to real estate was agreed upon at Laclede's house, Labusciere 's lot was one of the earliest, if not the first to be entered in the register or livre terrien.

On his arrival in 1765, about the time of St. Ange's coming with the troops, Lefebvre was given by Laclede a half block of ground. He built a house of posts at the corner of Main and Locust. Their course indicated a complete understanding on the part of Lefebvre and Labusciere with Laclede arrived at before the coming of Captain Sterling and the Highlanders to Fort Chartres. The judge and the notary had decided not to follow Neyon down the river. They had agreed together to join their fortunes with Laclede. The year 1765 found them permanently settled in St. Louis.

Judge Lefebvre strongly supported Laclede's views in favor of the establishment of civil government. Labusciere contended that, without systematic recording of public events and official acts, in time all matters would become confused. Many things would be forgotten. There would ensue much trouble. The weeks went by with the almost daily conferences until at last St. Ange yielded. The plan of government was agreed upon. Lefebvre and Labusciere were to assist. Both of these men, as already stated, had been prominent in affairs of government on the east side of the river before the cession. Their willingness to act with the old soldier doubtless had its influence to bring about his reluctant consent. The settlers in St. Louis were summoned to Laclede's house. Announcement was made that St. Ange, assisted by Lefebvre, would administer public affairs. The announcement met with the approval of the settlers. And thus, what might be called acting independent government was established and became effective at St. Louis. A tablet, erected by the Wednesday Club, on Main street just north of Walnut, bears this inscription:

On this site

January 21, 1766,

in the house of

Maxent, Laclede & Co.

civil government was first

established in St. Louis,

by Capt.

Louis St. Ange de Bellerive.

Died Dec. 27, 1774,

Military Commandant

and Acting Governor of

Upper Louisiana.

Thus a third great day was entered upon the calendar of St. Louis. True to his character as a soldier, St. Ange made a full report of the conditions which had led to the establishment of government extraordinary in form for those times. Promptly the report was sent to New Orleans. At St. Louis it was known that the land was Spain's; that had been formerly announced at New Orleans in October, 1764. d'Abbadie had died in February, 1765, Aubry was in command only until the Spanish arrived to take possession. It was known that a condition of great uncertainty prevailed at New Orleans, with a movement gathering head to proclaim a republic rather than to accept Spanish domination.

To Aubry was conveyed the report of the radical steps taken at St. Louis. The records are silent as to the identity of the person who carried the report of St. Ange, but it is not unreasonable to suppose that Laclede made the horseback journey in midwinter and presented in person the account of what had taken place. Aubry was expecting Ulloa, the Spanish governor, by every sailing. A revolution was impending. It bore such close relation to St. Louis that the story of it, briefly told, is not out of place.

"Without liberty there are few virtues. Despotism breeds pusillanimity and deepens the abyss of vices."

So read the first American Declaration of Independence. It was proclaimed against the King of Spain, not the King of England. The initial stand of this hemisphere for republican principles was made on the bank of the Mississippi.

For freedom of conscience men laid down their lives in the Province of Louisiana before they did in the Colony of Massachusetts. The protest against monarchy blazed from the musket's mouth at New Orleans earlier than it did at Lexington. Years before the taxed tea was thrown overboard in Boston harbor, the revolution in Louisiana had sent about his business the Spanish Governor who came to rule over the people of that Province. In the decree of expulsion it was declared:

Without population there can be no commerce and without commerce no population. Both are fed by liberty and competition which are the nursing mother of the State; of which the spirit of monopoly is the tyrant and stepmother. Where is the liberty of our planters, of our merchants, of all our inhabitants t Protection and benevolence hare given way to despotism. A single authority seeks to absorb and annihilate everything. Without running the risk of being taxed with guilt, no man of any class can longer do anything but tremble; bow his neck and kiss the ground.

These were bold words. They were pronounced with all of the authority of an organized movement at New Orleans nearly ten years before Thomas Jefferson put pen on paper to write "When in the course of human events" — They were uttered with all the formality by the superior council of Louisiana, a body which had taken the place of royal authority to govern.

In the histories of the United States there is but brief mention of the first revolution on American soil against absolutism. And yet the 28th of October, 1768, is entitled to a red letter place in the American calendar of patriotic days. The name of Lefreniere deserves rank with those of foremost American patriots.

This movement for independence in America began when Louis XV. in 1764 sent a letter to d'Abbadie in New Orleans, telling him that France had withdrawn her sovereignty from all parts of North America and had divided her colonies there between England and Spain. The King of France commanded d'Abbadie to deliver the Province to Spanish authority. d'Abbadie communicated the letter to the superior council which shared with him the administration of government in the Province. At the head of the council, with the title of King's Attorney, was Nicholas Chauvin de Lafreniere. He became the head of the movement to found a Republic on American soil. George Washington was then in his early twenties, passing through some interesting lovemaking experiences. Patrick Henry was a student and had not thought of "Give me Liberty, or give me Death." Lafreniere was a native of the Province of Louisiana, the son of a Canadian woodsman. His father had followed Bienville, the explorer, to Louisiana. He had acquired sufficient means to send Nicholas to France to be educated. Returning to the Province the young man had risen until he had become the orator and lawyer of the Colony. He had received the appointment of King's Attorney in the superior council and was the recognized popular leader of Louisiana. His talents and following fitted him to be the head of the revolutionary movement.

In the house of Madame Pradel, retired from the street and surrounded by a large garden, where magnolias of luxurious foliage defended them from observation, Lafreniere, the King's Attorney, and his associates, met night after night to plan the Republic of Louisiana. Among these patriots were Chevalier Masan, Captain and Lieutenant Bienville, nephews of the great explorer; Jean and Joseph Milhet, Commander Villare, Hardy dc Boisblanc, Marquis, Cariss, Petit, and several others.

The influential merchants and planters were in sympathy with the movement. Lafreniere retained his place in the superior council, which body the patriots controlled. There was no disposition to move rapidly or prematurely.

In the midsummer of 1765 a letter received at New Orleans prompted the first public act of the revolutionary movement. It was from Don Antonio de Ulloa, who wrote from Havana that he had been appointed by the King of Spain to take possession of Louisiana Province and was on the way to do so.

Following the publication of this letter from Ulloa, a popular convention of the Province of Louisiana was called. It was the first of its kind on American soil. It was composed of delegates from the parishes. In that convention the leaders of the movement came into public view. Lafreniere was the dominant spirit. This convention appointed Jean Milhet, the richest business man in the colony, to go to France and to urge that Government to recede from the treaty with Spain and to retain possession of Louisiana.

Just at the time the Acadians, expelled by England from Nova Scotia upon the cession of that province by France, were arriving in Louisiana. The sufferings of the exiles served to intensify the feeling of hostility at New Orleans toward Spain. Milhet went upon his mission.

Ulloa arrived in New Orleans in the spring of 1766. He had two companies of Spanish regulars. He learned quickly that it would be useless to attempt to take control. He induced Aubry, the French officer, who had succeeded d'Abbadie, to remain temporarily to administer government in the name of France. He postponed the raising of the Spanish flag. In September of that year Ulloa sent a squad of his soldiers through the streets and, with the beating of a drum to command attention, announced a decree. This proclamation ordered all ship owners, on arrival in New Orleans, to appear before Ulloa that he might fix the prices at which their cargoes must be sold. The penalty of refusal was that they would not be allowed to sell in the colony. The decree further ordered that the depreciated paper money must be accepted. It sought to regulate outgoing cargoes so that the government could control the exports.

The shipping interests at once allied themselves with the people on the side of Lafreniere and the patriot leaders. Ulloa left the city and went down to the mouth of the river to spend the winter.

Milhet came back from France. He had been unable to accomplish the thing desired. The King of France considered Spain already in possession of Louisiana.

Milhet reported the failure of his mission. The revolutionists agreed that the time had come. They were in control of the superior council, which, by the failure of Spain to assume sovereignty, was the highest authority in the Province.

In the dead of night, October 28, 1768, preceding the day on which a meeting of the superior council had been called, a band of patriots gathered about the cannon at the Tchoupitoulas gate of the city and spiked them. At daybreak Captain Noyan, who had held a commission with the French regulars, marched in at the head of a body of Acadian exiles. About the same time the German colonists came in from the east, under command of Villare. The planters from the south forced their way through the gates on that side. New Orleans was in possession of the revolutionary army of the Republic of Louisiana. The description of the forces recalls the conditions at Lexington a few years later. The revolutionists were armed with all manner of improvised weapons, but they were enthusiastic. Aubry, the French representative, protested, but offered no resistance. A few persons loyal to the Spanish authority went to Ulloa 's house, barricaded and prepared for siege. There was no assault. Sentiment was all one way, but not disposed to violence. The superior council was in session the 28th and 29th of October. It adopted the Declaration of Independence, the sentiments of which have been given. It decreed that Ulloa, as the representative of Spain, must leave and gave him three days in which to take his departure. Before the decree was made public, Ulloa had betaken himself to a frigate in the river. On the 31st day of October, without waiting for his days of grace, he sailed away. Aubry again protested in the name of the King of France. The superior council proceeded to govern the province and to prepare papers for the establishment of the Republic of Louisiana with Lafreniere as "Protector." The patriot leaders worked upon a republican constitution and they sent throughout the province republican documents.

At Madrid, the Spanish capital, the character of this movement in the Province of Louisiana was not misunderstood; the importance was not mistaken. After Ulloa, the Spanish Governor, had been expelled by the revolution, the King of Spain called on his ministers to advise. Aranda was then the leading statesman of Spain. He counseled the prompt suppression of the revolution no matter at what cost. His reason was given in plain words. Spain could not afford to have an American Republic on the Gulf of Mexico and in the Mississippi Valley, endangering her other possessions on the east and on the west. For it must be remembered that at this time Spain claimed sovereignty over the Floridas, parts of Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi. State papers of Spain tell of the serious estimate put upon this revolution at New Orleans and its possible consequences. Aranda submitted to the Royal Council at Madrid March 22nd, 1769, this statement:

The insurrection at New Orleans see ma to be an object of the greatest importance, not only for the reasons which have been expressed above bat on account of its consequences. Its situation on the Gulf of Mexico— it being already as it were, a European town, by its population, and it being converted into a free port which no doubt would be the ease, — would attract thither Urge numbers from Europe. A republic in Louisiana would be independent of all European powers. It would then become the interest of all to keep on terms of amity with her, and to support her existence. The favorable position in which Louisiana would then be placed, would not only increase her population, but also enlarge her limits, and transform her into a rich, flourishing and free State in sight of our provinces which would present the melancholy contrast of exhaustion and want of cultivation. From the example under their eyes the inhabitants of our vast Mexican domains would be led to consider their utter want of commerce, the extortions of their different governors, the little esteem in which they are held, the few offices which they are permitted to fill. These things will weigh the great inducements which they have to hate still more the Spanish domination and to think they can brave it with more security, when they shall see that a province, weak when compared with their extensive and populous country, can make good her position with impunity and secure her prosperity.

From October, 1768 to July, 1769, the condition continued in Louisiana while in the Thirteen Colonies the discontent with English rule was growing apparent. When General Gage at Boston was calling in the British red coats from outlying western posts and getting ready to suppress revolt against the stamp taxes of King George the Third, the Count O'Reilly sailed up the Mississippi with a powerful Spanish fleet to suppress the Republic of Louisiana. O'Reilly had been given by King Charles a fleet of twenty-four vessels and 2,600 men to put down the revolution and to establish Spanish dominion. There were 1,398 men able to bear arms on the part of the republic. But they were not all willing. There were royalists who, if they could not have France, preferred Spain to the dangers of an infant republic. There were others who urged the uselessness of a struggle in which it was evident Spain, France and England would be arrayed against them.

Marquis, the Commander-in-Chief of the Republican forces, made a final appeal to his troops to rally and resist the Spanish army. The number that responded was insufficient to justify defense. The odds were pitiful.

The leaders of the revolution conferred with Aubry, the retiring French official. Aubry undertook to act as the medium of communication with O'Reilly. He encouraged the belief that terms might be arranged and suggested general amnesty. As the result of negotiations Lafreniere, Marquis, Milhet and other leaders were induced to go aboard the flagship and meet O'Reilly. They were invited to dine and were treated with great apparent consideration. The Spanish troops landed without any show of resistance. O'Reilly immediately ordered the arrest of all the leading patriots. Villare, the commander of the German colonists in the army of the republic, was bayonetted by the Spanish soldiers who went to take him and died in prison. Nevertheless his memory was tried by military court and condemned with the others to infamous death.

The sentence was pronounced by Count O'Reilly in these words:

I have to condemn and I do condemn the aforesaid Nicholas Chauvin de Lafreniere, Jean Baptiste Noyan, Pierre Carisse, Pierre Marquis and Joseph Milhet as chiefs and principal movers of the conspiracy aforesaid to the ordinary pain of the gallows which they have deserved by the infamy of their conduct and ipso jure by their participation in so horrible a crime; and to be led to the place of execution, mounted on asses and each one with a rope around his neck, to be then and there hanged until death ensues and to remain suspended on the gallows until further orders, it being hereby understood that anyone having the temerity to carry away their bodies without leave, or contravening in whole or in part the execution of the said sentence shall suffer death. And as it results from the said trial and from the declarations of the aforesaid attorney general, that the late Joseph Villare stands convicted likewise of having been one of the most obstinate promoters of the aforesaid conspiracy, I condemn in the like manner his to be held forever infamous; and doing equal justice to the other accused after having into consideration the enormity of their crime as proved at the trial, I condemn the said Petit to perpetual imprisonment in such castle or fortress as it may please his Majesty to designate; the aforesaid Balthasar Masan and Julien Jerome Doucet to ten years' imprisonment; and Pierre Hardy de Boisblanc, Jean Milhet and Pierre Poupet to six years' imprisonment with the understanding that none of them shall ever be permitted to live in any dominions of His Catholic Majesty, reserving to myself the care to have every one of these sentences provisionally executed and to cause to be gathered up together and burnt by the hand of the common hangman all the printed copies of the document entitled "Memorial of the Planters, Merchants and other Inhabitants of Louisiana on the event of the 28th of October, 1868," and all other publications relative to said conspiracy to be dealt with in the same manner; and I have further to declare and I do decree in conformity with the same laws that the property of every one of the accused be confiscated to the profit of the King's Treasury.

The common hangman refused to carry out the sentence. The united voice of the people of Louisiana Province cried out in protest. No one could be found to conduct the execution. O'Reilly changed the sentence to death by shooting. Noyan was young and just married. Friends planned for him an escape, to which O'Reilly consented. The young patriot refused it and declared he would die with his friends.

On the 25th of October, 1769, Lafreniere, Noyan and Milhet were led out to the Place d'Armes and shot to death by a file of Spanish soldiers. The others were sent to prison. On the day following the execution the Spanish troops were drawn up on the Market Place. The Declaration of Independence and all documents relating to the Republic of Louisiana were burned by the common hangman. But the words of Lafreniere still lived — "Without liberty there are few virtues — Despotism breeds pusillanimity and deepens the abyss of vices."

While revolution ran its unsuccessful course at New Orleans, the government established at St. Louis still lived. Lefebvre, as assistant to the commandant, relieved him of much of the detail of civil affairs, for which St. Ange had no liking. Labusciere, the scrivener, was secretary to the government. He kept the records. He wrote marriage contracts, deeds, inventories, wills, leases, affidavits. He signed papers as "Labusciere, notary."

In the summer of 1766, Lefebvre was appointed by St. Ange keeper of the king's warehouse. Before the removal from Fort Chartres took place, a variety of military stores not included in the cession was taken to St. Louis. Of these Lefebvre remained the custodian until his death. The inventory then taken, 1767, showed guns, tomahawks, powder, ball, uniforms, tools, trinkets for Indians and a miscellaneous lot of not very valuable junk which might have accumulated in a military storehouse through a long series of years. When Lefebvre became keeper of the king's warehouse, Labusciere succeeded him as assistant to St. Ange in the exercise of the civil functions. He continued to keep the records. He wrote the titles which St. Ange signed. He did all that a notary might do. The community wanted government. Laclede, St. Ange, Lefebvre and Labusciere filled the want. The community accepted. Among the successful experiments in organization and maintenance of government of pioneer communities on the American continent there is none better than that offered by Laclede's settlement.

When he took the inventory of property in the King's warehouse after Lefebvre's death in 1767, Labusciere signed it as "deputy of the attorney general of the king in Illinois, acting as judge in the place of Judge Lefebvre, deceased." This designated official position about as well as anything else could. The government was "acting." To this might have been added "with the consent of the governed" but universal acquiescence made that unnecessary.

Labusciere was a model secretary. He was painstaking. He wrote legibly. He preserved with scrupulous fidelity every document. When the first Spanish governor came to St. Louis in 1770 Labusciere delivered to him a collection of papers neatly arranged with a summary showing the number and character under this caption:

"Statements of the deeds, contracts and other papers executed before Joseph Labusciere, former attorney for the king and notary public under the. French government in the Illinois, from April 21, 1766, to 20th May, 1770."

This collection of papers was the beginning, of records of St. Louis. It was accepted as official. It was handed down by One Spanish governor to another. Each governor added his own records. At the time of American occupation, in 1804, there had accumulated 3,000 of these documents. An American official had the sheets stitched and deposited them with the recorder. Many of the documents were not strictly public records. They were agreements between persons, acknowledged before government officials. Apparently they were left with the government for safe keeping; that custom seems to have had its beginning in the confidence reposed in Labusciere.

Laclede's house was the seat of government. It had been so from the day the founder moved into it in the early fall of 1764. It continued to be so after St. Ange came and took up headquarters there. After January 21, 1766, when civil government went into operation with the duties divided among St. Ange, Lefebvre and Labusciere, Laclede's house was still the government house. The firm of Maxent, Laclede & Company furnished quarters rent free to the officials. The firm must have met the small expenses of government which were not covered by fees. Behind St. Ange and his associates in office was the master spirit of this government, Laclede. And thus in a well-ordered way government was administered at St. Louis, while at New Orleans there was political turmoil, revolution, bloodshed.

At one time it seemed as if the government at St. Louis was in serious danger. Early in 1767 Ulloa sent an expedition to St. Louis. New Orleans had refused to accept Spanish authority. Ulloa, as an act of prudence had gone down to Belize at the mouth of the Mississippi. Spending the winter there, he planned the movement to St. Louis. Rui, or Rios, as sometimes printed, was chosen to command. Elaborate instructions were drafted by Ulloa. They were in two divisions. One set of instructions was for the guidance of the command on the journey and after arrival at St. Louis. The other was sealed. It was sent to St. Ange to deliver to Rui on his arrival. It had to do with relations between Spain and England. It was to guide the Spanish commandant if trouble arose through British trespass on the west side of the Mississippi. It provided for strong fortifications of the mouth of the Missouri to control that river, both the north and the south side of it, for Spain. The secret instructions showed the Spanish apprehension that the British would push west of the Mississippi.

The histories tell briefly that Rui, with a Spanish force ascended the river to St. Louis in 1767. It is of record that he made considerable progress with a fort on the south side of the Missouri near the mouth. But Rui did not assert Spanish authority at St. Louis. He remained here several months. He went down the river in 1768. Some of the people who came with him remained in St. Louis. The government formed with St. Ange as the executive head, and with French soldiers as the military power, continued as it was before the coming of Rui.

Ulloa's instructions, both sets, remained buried in the archives at Seville. Copies came into possession of the Missouri Historical Society for the first time in 1907. The secret instructions, bearing the signature of Antonio Ulloa, were dated January 7, 1767. They explained that "for the best success of this important matter the intended purpose will not be given publicity before the plan is carried out."

St. Louis was not mentioned in the instructions but was referred to as "Pencur" or Illinois. The commander was told that "it will be advisable to carry from Ste. Genevieve or Pencur in Illinois all that will be needed in the way of supplies."

"At the mouth of the river Missouri two forts must be built, one on one side, the other opposite. The one on the northern side, the upper side, must be the largest."

The instructions even provided the names for the forts, the one on the north side of the river was to be "Fort King Charles III." The one on the south side was to be named "Fort Charles, Prince of Asturias."

The officers put in charge of the two forts were told that they must remember they were defending the dominions of His Majesty, the king of Spain and the frontiers of Mexico.

"The Missouri river belongs entirely to the Dominion of His Majesty as it has been stipulated in the last treaties between France and England. Up to this date the mouth of the Missouri has been without any population or defense. Therefore the English people have introduced themselves through this river. Going farther into the country they have made treaties with the savages. This must be stopped."

The instructions anticipated that as soon as the fort building began the British would become troublesome. At the first attempt of the British traders to pass up the Missouri, the commandant was to send a sergeant to the British commander at Fort Chartres with the request that he compel his people to remain out of the Missouri. The refusal of the British commander to observe the terms of the treaty provided for in the instructions might follow. In that event the Spanish commandant was to collect testimony showing violation of the treaty in order that protest might be made and the matter might go to the governments at home.

If the controversy came to force, if the British insisted that work stop on the forts at the mouth of the Missouri, "we must fight with all of the zeal and energy that honor demands. To give up territory which has been occupied and which belongs to the king is a very shameful thing."

The French at St. Louis were to be asked to send all of the men and provisions they could spare for the defense against the British if the attack was made against the fortifications at the mouth of the Missouri. One reason given for keeping these instructions secret was the fear that if the possibility of fighting with the British was known there might be strong disinclination on the part of the Spanish force to go up to the mouth of the Missouri.

When Ulloa sent Rui up the Mississippi in 1767 he had in mind much more than the establishment of Spanish authority at the mouth of the Missouri. He intended to build two forts. He intended to form a colony which would be "of the greatest importance." Upon one fort was to be placed five cannon and on the other three. Houses were to be built for colonists. The savages were to be given presents and informed of the intention to fortify the mouth of the Missouri so that they might not be taken by surprise. Then followed a significant paragraph. The people of St. Louis were not to be informed of the purpose of Spain to establish the colony and the government at the mouth of the Missouri. They were to be told only of the purpose to build forts. They were not to learn that it was the plan to make the new settlement at the mouth of the Missouri the principal one in Louisiana Province, overshadowing Laclede's.

"Mr. St. Ange, as an experienced man in handling the savages, will give his advice as to what shall be done with them. As he does not know the object of this establishment, and as there is no need for him to know it, he may suggest that the forts be established in the Illinois (St. Louis) instead of at the mouth of the Missouri. His views in this matter must not be considered or let interfere with this final decision. Therefore the force must stop at the Illinois (St. Louis) only twelve or fifteen days to rest and to take the necessary provisions. If they can shorten this time it will be a great deal better as any delay may prove of great disadvantage to the purpose intended in the erection of these establishments."

To build the forts and to establish the colony at the mouth of the Missouri, which was to overshadow if it did not at once absorb St. Louis, Ulloa sent a military force which exceeded the garrison of St. Ange at St. Louis two to one. He sent a marine composed of ten oarsmen for each boat. Two French officers accompanied the expedition, one of whom was to be the engineer of the colony. A priest, a surgeon, a carpenter, a mason, a stone cutter and

several laborers and apprentices were included. The families of the married soldiers were encouraged to go.

"The workmen brought from Havana must be married and bring their families with them. Steps have been taken so that the marine people will also get married. In order to succeed great care must be taken and everything must be done in favor of the married men. Treat them nicely and prevent them in a prudent way from using much liquor."

To the soldiers unmarried inducements to take wives with them were offered.

"The captain will offer the sergeants and corporals and soldiers a dower if they wish to marry before they go. They can obtain wives among the Acadians. A sergeant will be given fifty dollars, a corporal forty dollars, a soldier thirty dollars to buy whatever furniture is most needed for their homes. They will be allotted some land so they can cultivate it. They will be allowed to work it during the days they are not on duty and when there is nothing urgent for them to do. The married soldier will live with his wife in the house that they build on the land provided he will return on the days when, he is on duty. This dower will be paid upon receipt given by the soldier, signed by the girl. The signature of the priest also must appear."

Even more than the dower, Ulloa's plan to make a city at the mouth of the Missouri provided. Soldiers whose terms expired were to be induced to become settlers:

"They must be persuaded to establish themselves there. Some land will be allotted them. They can take possession of it with the understanding that should they not be married within a year they shall lose the right to the land and will have to leave it."

Merchants, from St. Louis or elsewhere, were to be made welcome in the settlement at the mouth of the Missouri. They were to be given lots on which to establish themselves.

"They must be given to understand that within two years they must marry or else they will have to go away."

Don Antonio was an astute promoter. It occurred to him that such regulations to encourage matrimony might be thwarted by a dearth of the gentler sex. He inserted in his seventy-six rules for the colony at the mouth of the Missouri the following:

"In case people establish themselves there and cannot get married before their terms are over, because there are no women, the government must be advised so that steps will be taken to bring to the colony orphan girls or some Florida girls from Havana where there are plenty of nice girls without means. They are white and of very good morals."

Ulloa held out the hope of almost immediate increase of population. The migration of the Acadians was to be turned to account for the proposed Spanish colonial metropolis at the mouth of the Missouri.

"From news obtained we have learned that families of Acadians are to arrive. As soon as this occurs, these families to the number of thirty or forty, will be sent to increase the population. They are law abiding people

of good morals, meek and religious. At the time of their departure instructions will be given as to the way in which they shall be received. Land will be allotted them in the same manner as to other settlers."

Immediately upon the arrival of the expedition at the mouth of the Missouri the regulations required the planting of a large vegetable garden.

"Corn fields must be sown immediately, large enough for the demands of the place, as everybody must have enough to eat and hunger must not be known there. Later on wheat will be sown."

Ulloa evidently knew something of the region to which he was sending his colony with such elaborate instructions.

"At the beginning of this establishment there is much to be done. But it is a great relief to realize that just by using the gun and powder we can get enough meat to eat; that the lands are fertile and everything can be produced in abundance, the climate is so good and the soil so rich. Also it is a great consolation to know that the climate is healthy and suitable for the people. Measures have been taken so that the largest possible number of families will come in order to have the best results."

Rui came up the river with the troops and colonists of whom Ulloa expected so much. He stopped at St. Louis and then went on to the mouth of the Missouri. Immediately he discovered that the low, flat ground on the north side was no place for a fort. On the south side he selected a site on the rocky bluff some distance above the mouth of the river. There Rui put his force to work building Fort Charles, the Prince. He made no effort to establish a colony. The captain spent most of his time in St. Louis. Valleau, the surgeon of the party, prepared to acquire property and to locate in St. Louis. The Spanish officers were treated courteously by Laclede and St. Ange. They were given quarters. They made no attempt to establish authority in St. Louis but contented themselves with the fort building to the extent that they deemed practicable. They seem to have concluded very soon after their arrival that Laclede had chosen the best location for a settlement and that any attempt to overshadow it with Ulloa 's proposed colony at the mouth of the Missouri would fail.

Ulloa sent Don Pedro Piernas from Natchez to St. Louis in August, 1768. Rui, who had headed the Spanish expedition to establish forts and a colony at the mouth of the Missouri was having trouble. A sergeant, twenty soldiers and the storekeeper had deserted and had gone back down the river that summer. The mission of Piernas was to supersede Rui at the fort. Ulloa had departed from New Orleans; O'Reilly with the fleet and the army was there in force to establish Spanish authority, when Piernas returned from St. Louis and made his report under date of October 31, 1769, addressed to General O'Reilly:

Monsieur de St. Ange, an old French captain, is recognized as commandant of this settlement (St. Louis), and of all the district of the Ylinoeses; but not his authority, for lack of military strength, for he has no troops, and his orders and provisions are frustrated by their non-observance by several transient traders who are absorbing the country by dint of loans and are inspiring the other humble and settled inhabitants with their opposition, although the latter are of a different nature and sufficiently easy to manage with regularity and submission.

The civil and military department is governed by a council composed of four useless habitants and one attorney, a notorious drunkard called Labusciere, who is the substitute of the one who was attorney general in the superior council of this colony. Although the common welfare ought to be the concern of all, they only look after their own individual interests. And although the good-for-nothing Monsieur St. Ange is the one who as first judge presides, whatever is determined by the fancy of the counselors is authorized and executed through the good intention of the latter 's respectable old age.

Piernas was evidently impressed with the independent spirit of the community. His report tends to support the impression that consent of the governed entered largely into such government as existed. While at St. Louis Piernas had a personal experience with the St. Ange government. The details of it he reported to General O'Reilly, expressing his astonishment that the community should assume such an attitude toward the Spanish king. This affair of Piernas had much to do with the formation of his bad opinion of the local government. It is also illuminating as regards existing public sentiment at St. Louis in 1769.

Although Piernas started from Natchez September 4, 1768, he did not reach "San Luis," as he wrote it until the end of February. He was caught by an early winter and a frozen river between Cape Girardeau and Cairo and" had to come the rest of the way overland. On the 6th of March he went to Fort San Carlos at the mouth of the Missouri. On the 10th of March Piernas took charge of the fort, receipting to Rui for the property of Spain. But before he had completed examination of the inventories there came an order from New Orleans to turn over the fort to St. Ange. Having complied with the order Piernas came down to St. Louis. This is what occurred to shock the representative of Spain:

Having remained there a few days for the adjusting of accounts and the preparation of food, there occurred the novelty of the justice or council of that settlement trying to lay an embargo on the effects of the king, and on some of the persons of the Spanish garrison in my charge, at the instance of three or four private resident traders, in order that they might collect the debts contracted by a Spanish storekeeper, who had fled beforehand, for the supplies of food which they had furnished for the sustenance of the fort, and which the above-said storekeeper received on his Majesty 's account and had not satisfied. Their demand having been presented by those persons to the council, the latter determined to execute the embargo.

Piernas says that the St. Ange council ignored the protest that the property belonged to the Spanish king and was proceeding to sell it to pay off the claims held by the St. Louis traders.

It would have been effected had I not opposed it and complained of their sentence to Monsieur St. Ange, as first judge of the council and military superior. I alone recognized him and directed myself to him, so that as such he might protect our right, sustain the right of the Spanish nation and have the respect due the interests of the monarch guarded, of which I made him responsible. Thereupon he suspended the recommendation of the council, and the premeditated embargo ceased and the sale of the effects was permitted on the king's account.

Before effecting my departure the debts contracted by the royal treasury among the habitants who were creditors for the supplies of food and other effects for the sustenance of the troops and employees of the fort, both during the time of the command by my predecessor and that of my own residence were paid.

Notwithstanding his opinion of the government and of the lack of respect shown to Spanish authority, Piernas, in his report, gave St. Louisans a good name for industry and enterprise:

The number of citizens is somewhat greater than that of Misere (Ste. Genevieve), but there are less people in it as there are not so many slaves; for as it is the last settlement that has been formed, they have not yet acquired the means to have slaves. Notwithstanding, its habitants apply themselves industriously to the cultivation of the fields, which are excellent, of vast extent, and produce much wheat. If they continue with the energy that they have hitherto exhibited, they will soon obtain their increase and will make the settlement one of the most populous, extensive, well managed and respectable of all that have been established.

This, it is to be remembered, was written of St. Louis on the 31st of October, 1769. Rui, who had returned to New Orleans and who also made a report to O'Reilly in October, 1769, said:

All the above country is very fertile. It produces with great abundance whatever is planted. In my time (1768) there was a great harvest of wheat and corn, so that if its inhabitants were to bestow all their labor on the soil, I am of the opinion they would have enough flour for the greater part of this place (New Orleans).

Rui, with the help of St. Ange and Lefebvre, reported twenty-eight Indian tribes which as early as 1768 were coming to St. Louis to receive presents and to trade. These Indians were from the Missouri, the Upper Mississippi, the Wabash, the Great Lakes as far north as the Straits of Mackinac, and as far south as the Ohio river. Piernas described the Indian trade as he observed it at St. Louis in the early part of 1769:

The near and distant Indian tribes, both those of the Mississippi and those of the Missouri and its branches, whose names are contained in the enclosed report, gather here. The season for their greatest gathering is during the months of May and June. At that time they descend the rivers in numerous parties with their traders to declare the furs. That is their first object, although it is accompanied with the pretext of visiting the chief and ratifying the friendship that has been established. All the time of their stay provisions are furnished them at the expense of the king, these provisions being reduced to bread and corn, for they provide themselves with meat; and when they depart, one has to make them, as it is the established custom, a present, which is proportional to the number of each tribe. Most of the tribes, with the exception of some remote and distant tribes of the Missouri, are accustomed to the use of brandy and prefer a small portion of it to any other present of merchandise even of four times the value. If the savages are treated with kindness, reasonably, and with consideration, they are reasonable when in their right mind. But when drunk they are importunate, beggars, insatiable, tiresome. Yet the commandant must always be attentive to them, listen to them with patience, compose the differences and discords among the various tribes, sometimes make rulings and mediate in their peaces, with persuasions, sometimes with firmness, and most always with presents.

St. Louis was not two years old when the British tried to secure a considerable part of Laclede's Indian trade. About $50,000 was expended. Mayor Loftus had failed in his expedition up the Mississippi to occupy Fort Chartres in 1764. He had 400 soldiers from Mobile and thought he was strong enough to fight his way through. At Davion's Bluff, the Tunica Indians attacked him, killed five of his men and drove the force back down the river. Major Farmer commanding at Mobile, adopted the trading policy of the French. He assembled at New Orleans a fleet of boats, loaded upon them $20,000 worth of Indian goods and, in the spring of 1765, started Lieutenant John Ross up the river. Farmer's official accounts showed that in outfitting this expedition to the Illinois about $40,000 was expended. The venture got the Mobile governor into trouble with his government. In 1766, Farmer was tried by court martial and one of the charges was "misapplication of 10,000 pounds said to be expended on Indian presents, and on the fortifications." Farmer was acquitted after a long trial. The presents may have aided the British to get into Fort Chartres; they did not prevent the Indian trade from seeking Laclede's settlement.

In October, 1767, Edward Cole, the deputy commissary at Fort Chartres, wrote to his superior at Fort Pitt, now Pittsburg, telling of the arrival of the expedition of Rui at the mouth of the Missouri and his apprehension that the British would lose to St. Louis the entire Indian trade of the Illinois country. He advocated the location of a British post at the mouth of the Illinois river:

"The Arrival of the Spaniards Borne time past, may make a (Treat turn in affairs in this Quarter as I am convinced no pains or Expence will be Stuck at to Ingratiate themselves into the favor of the Savages, they have not only taken possession of the French Settlements but leave them to be commanded as before, and have gone to the Missouri river, to Erect two Forts, on the Points, where it emptys into the Mississippi by which means they will command both Rivers. What will the French not be capable of doing through these advantageous Situations aided and assisted by Spanish dollars, they will not only be able to engross the whole Trade, but Gain the Intire affections of the Indians unless timely prevented by our having a Strong Post at the mouth of the Illinois, a Small distence above them, and until that is done I fear the Indian accounts will be rather higher than Lower."

St. Louis got into print for the first time in 1770. That year Captain Philip Pitman, a British engineer officer, published in London a book on his observations along the Mississippi. He described St. Louis as he saw the settlement in 1767, when it was just three years old. He showed that the judgment Laclede exercised in the location of his settlement was in strong contrast with that of the other town builders. He reported that "Cascasquias is by far the most considerable settlement in the Illinois country." Some of the people of Kaskaskia moved to St. Louis. Others went elsewhere. "The Paris of America," as it was called, and the first capital of Illinois crumbled and went into the river. Cahokia, Pitman described as "the first settlement in the country." In the year of the great waters, "Kaoquias" as Pitman called it, went under to a depth of several feet. Most of the habitants moved to St. Louis. Saint Phillippe was another town upon which the English engineer reported. When Pitman arrived there he found "about sixteen deserted houses and a small church still standing, all having been deserted in 1765, the inhabitants crossing over to the French side (St. Louis), leaving only the captain of the militia, who was compelled to remain, having a grist mill and a saw mill which he could not dispose of." Prairie du Rocher and Fort Chartres village were communities much older than St. Louis, both of them having churches when Pitman reported upon them. The engineer described Fort Chartres as "generally considered the most convenient and best built fort in North America." It slipped into the treacherous river some years later. Even St. Genevieve which looked upon St. Louis as in no sense a rival in Laclede's time failed to vindicate the reputation of its founder. There came in 1784 an unlooked for stage of water which compelled the removal of the town to higher land.

Ste. Genevieve disputed the supremacy of St. Louis. In the spring of 1765, the merchants of the older settlement ignored the exclusive privilege of Laclede. They went after the furs of the Missouri country just as they had done before St. Louis was founded. Joseph Calve started up the Missouri with a boat load of goods to trade to the Indians for furs. He was the clerk for two Ste. Genevieve traders, John Duchurut and Louis Viviat Laclede

sent a posse of his employees after Calve. The boat was seized. The goods were unloaded and stored at St. Louis. Duchurut and Viviat made complaint to the superior council at New Orleans. The council concluded that the seizure of the Ste. Genevieve boat was unjustifiable. Laclede was directed to pay to the merchants the value of the goods but no damages for the detention or loss of the trade. The case was concluded in April, 1767, just two years after the seizure. Appraisers found the value to be 6,485 livres, 8 sols. This was about $1,297.

Two of the thirty men who "came in the first boat with Chouteau" to St. Louis were millers. Their names were Joseph and Roger Taillon. Afterwards the name was spelled as pronounced and was given to Tayon avenue. The Taillons located on the little river. They built a dam across the valley about where Eighth street is. They erected a small wooden mill near what is today Cupples' Station. The plant was wholly inadequate. Laclede bought out the Taillons, obtaining a grant covering about 1,000 acres. He raised the dam and built a larger mill. All of this was done at a cost the founder could not well afford. The investment was not profitable but the people of St. Louis were in a year or two beyond the reproach of being "'short of bread."

The tradition that Paincourt was a nickname of St. Louis, given in reproach, has been handed down through generations with seeming accuracy. It is not altogether consistent with the records of the old cathedral. When the first priest came to take formal charge of church interests at St. Louis he bore credentials naming him to be "cure of the parochial church of St. Louis of the Illinois, post of Paincourt, with all rights and dependencies.". There was a Paincourt in France.

Among the earliest acts of Laclede were the locations of the common fields and the commons. The founder did not wait for the first season to pass before he designated the boundaries. By the united efforts of the settlers the two tracts were fenced and were in use the second summer. The common fields were enclosed in one great tract. The fence of the east side of the common fields was about where Fourth street is now. The southern boundary was near the line of Market street. These common fields extended westward to about Jefferson avenue and northward to about Cass avenue. Within the enclosure were apportioned long, narrow lots to be tilled by the farmers of the settlement. Crops were raised in 1765.

The commons' enclosure was south and west of the settlement. This land had more forest growth than the common fields. It was well watered by springs. There the habitants kept cows and ponies in one large pasture.

Beginning with the issue to Labusciere on April 27, 1766, the St. Ange government issued the title deeds to real estate as circumstances required. That these acts were not forbidden by higher authority at New Orleans seems to have been sufficient for the government of St. Louis. The exercise of this self-constituted right to distribute land went on through the years of 1766, 1767, 1768, 1769 and 1770. In all there were granted by the St. Ange government eighty-one of these titles. They were bestowed upon actual settlers and without price. Therein they form an interesting precedent to the homestead law of the United States which came years afterwards.

In 1770 O'Reilly, who had suppressed the revolution at New Orleans, sent word to St. Louis that the issue of these titles by the St. Ange government must stop until Spanish authority could be established here. These titles issued by the St. Ange government were never disturbed, but were accepted as settling property rights both by Spain and by the United States.

"Under the condition that this land shall be improved within one year and a day," the St. Ange government put into all of the title deeds issued. And thereby the principle of the homestead was further recognized. In each case the title was conceded "upon the demand" of the would be settler. The deed located the land "upon the Spanish part of Illinois." To that extent it recognized the cession of Louisiana to Spain. The French flag, as Aubry reported, was still flying over St. Louis. During the five years of the development and continuance of the land system which Laclede and St. Ange and their associates devised the French flag continued to fly. St. Ange called himself "captain commanding for the king" and Lefebvre identified himself in these deeds as "sub-delegate of the intendant of the governor of Louisiana and justice of the peace." They conceded the land in each instance "by virtue of the power given to us by the governor and intendant of Louisiana." Ulloa, the Spanish governor, arrived in New Orleans, March 5, 1766. He sent Rui to build the forts at the mouth of the Missouri in the summer of 1767 and Rui reached St. Louis August II, 1767. Ulloa was expelled November 1, 1768. The first deed was issued by the St. Ange government April 27, 1766. Twenty-six of the deeds were issued that year. The others were issued during the years following, the last being dated Feb. 7, 1770. Ulloa did not interfere with St. Louis. Presumably he sanctioned the acts of the St. Ange government but the official record of such approval is wanting.

The issuing of titles by the St. Ange government went on while Rui was in St. Louis. At least one deed was issued to a member of the Rui expedition who decided that he wished to reside in St. Louis. The issuing of the deeds went on after the departure of Ulloa and Rui. It continued to the time O'Reilly gave notice to suspend.

Laclede's course during the years of confusion at New Orleans was wise. He shared the feeling of resentment of the Frenchmen of Lower Louisiana when they found the door of their mother country closed. He did not essay the impossible by armed resistance when Rui came with the first Spanish troops in 1767. He made the Spaniard his guest. He preserved an attitude that obtained for St. Louis later the mildest from of Spanish rule. But Laclede sympathized with the movement to establish an American republic. He inspired in his community a sentiment for liberty from European domination which revealed its strength within less than a decade. When George Rogers Dark came in 1778 with his little band of Virginians to take Kaskaskia he drew from Laclede's settlement many of his recruits and his resources to make the campaign against Vincennes. He found in St. Louis and in the French traders and trappers the support of his plans which his own state denied him.

"A trading post" St. Louis has been called by most of the historians. A trading post was what the syndicate of New Orleans merchants contemplated when they formed the company, and when Laclede started up the river with his "considerable armament." But when the flotilla reached Fort Chartres and the situation with respect to change of sovereignty was revealed, Laclede began the active, aggressive planning for a settlement, not a trading post. He laid out the plan of streets and blocks. He invited settlers. He verbally assigned them property the first summer of the existence of the community. Then came the organization of government as has been explained. Immediately thereafter was developed the land system, with permanent titles and property rights. This is not the history of a trading post.

The platting of a townsite, the assigning of lots to settlers on condition of improvement, the giving of written titles — these were departures from what had been the usual methods. Communities had been established but the colonial government did not grant land to the ordinary settler. Land was for the gentry. The communal system prevailed. Around the post or fort gathered the community. There were set apart common fields for cultivation. Families were given ground to cultivate, were allowed ground on which to live, but not to own as individuals. That was the custom in the country of the Illinois. If a grant was made it was to some official or colonist of high birth. The communities of Canada were formed upon much the same plan, with very few individual owners of real estate. In Louisiana, the lower part of the province, were plantations owned by colonists. St. Louis was of its own class. It began without the usual military garrison and Indian contingent. It had no landholding aristocracy and tenantry. It was no haphazard assembling of squatters about a central point. It started with a site mapped. To every family which came to settle was given a lot and the title was confirmed in writing. The joiner, the miller, the blacksmith, the baker were among the first to secure homes 'in fee simple those were words of the deeds which St. Ange signed. More than one clement of Americanism had its beginning in the founding, the self-government and the land system of St. Louis, before 1770. The battle of Lexington was in 1773.