First French Foot- Prints Beyond the Lakes. 141 



M. Suite says : 



Champlain visited himself all the parts of Canada he could reach, and 

 sent all round — especially in the direction of the west — as many young 

 men as he could engage in the enterprise, in order to have them rendered 

 familiar with the language, the habits of the Indian4, and the geography of 

 the country. These efforts of Champlain, from 1609 to 1634, are most re- 

 markable, lie really formed a class of men, usually called interpreters, 

 which is quite different from the one you allude to (the coureurs de hois) and 

 which stood alone with the Jesuits, on the broad field of discoveries up to ■ 

 1660, when the other class (coureurs de iois) began to exist. Thus, you have 

 put together two different periods quite distinct from one another. 



Now, as regards Nicolet's enterprise towards the Wisconsin region. He 

 simply acted under Champlain's orders in this case, the same as he had done 

 since 1618. There can be no two explanations of the motive that determined 

 his trip of 1634. Champlain in this was following his old plan of discovery 

 and alliance with the Indian tribes. 



I wish also to state that the settlers of New France were never chosen from 

 amongst the convicts of old France. Not a solitary case of that nature can be 

 proven. We have the most abundant archives and records on the subject of 

 the origin of the French Canadians that any colony can show. From Louis 

 Hebert, the first settler, who came in 1617, to 1700, when immigration thor- 

 oughly ceased, every man is recorded in full and the descendants of these set- 

 tlers still contine to correspond with the branch of the family remaining in 

 France. If convicts ever came, Ihey must have been hired by the companies 

 who had the monoply of the trade — but I don't believe merchants were ever 

 so foolish as to do that. I defy any one to prove a single case of a convict 

 brought to Canada to settle theie. If you possess any document on the sub- 

 ject, be sure you have something new on hand, — because no such affirmation 

 has yet been maintained with proper authority. It must also be borne in 

 mind that the settlers, or TiahitanU, or French Canadians, as they are called, 

 formed a population separate from the classes engaged in the fur trade or any 

 other trade. It is a great mistake to intermix their history. Settlers had 

 nothing to do with anything else but settling the country; they are the only 

 group of Frenchmen that have resisted all hostile influences up to now, — the 

 others have long disappeared. It is true, the settlers' sons have often turned 

 to be coureurs de bois and engages of the trading companies, but this was to 

 the detriment of the habitant community, i. e., directly the contrary of what 

 so many historians have said about this question. Far from being an ancient 

 vagabond, the settler was incariaUy a farmer that came from France pur- 

 posely to establish his family on a farm in Canada. Unfortunately, the re- 

 cruiting of young men, afterwards, from the country places of Lower Canada, 

 for the purpose ot trading in the west, paralyzed the little colony to a great 

 extent. M. Parkman, whose appreciations are so seldom correct, says that 

 the colony (1685) was living on the trade carried on with the Indians! What 

 a stupid idea! Such trade was reallj' killing the colony. The fields were 



