time from 1835. Now we are told that "there are none so blind as those that won't see." I shall not trouble myself in getting letters of proof and of verbal statement only such as correct dates, but I do propose to reiterate my first statement, that in 1836 Coons & Cubbage entered into a partnership for the purpose of trading with the Indians; that during that year they did build a trading-house on the La Crosse Prairie, that the same was burned by the Indians twice. As in my first, I again say that at the time it was supposed to have been instigated by members of the American Fur Company. Mr. Myrick takes exceptions to the supposition, and calls it a fling at the American Fur Company. Now, as to the men who composed the American Fur Company I know nothing, but with permission would suppose that they were average men for honesty, etc., but this I do know, that all of their agents and employes were not angels, and that the same trading-houses and goods were paid for out of the annuities of the Indians. I also reiterate all my other statements, except so much as I shall hereinafter correct. In my first I said Maj. Coons sent Scott and Lear up in 1841 or 1842. Now some of our old citizens, who lived here at the time, among them Mr. George Kinney, well known as a lumberman, tells me that he remembers the circumstance, and says that it was in the fall of 1841, and that these men were sent for the purpose of holding the original claim, and when it was found that they had neglected their trust and they were charged with it, they offered as an excuse the statement that they could not get the timber for building over from the island on the ice.

As to Mr. Myrick's statement that Maj. Coons came there in the early part of the season of 1842, I state positively that he did not locate a claim in 1842, on La Crosse Prairie, or anywhere else; that he was not up the river farther than Prairie du Chien that year, and also that Scott and Lear were not there in 1843, but were there at the times mentioned by me. In regard to the site of the Coons & Cubbage trading-house, I have no knowledge except such as is based upon information given me by one whom I have always understood was not only cotemporary with Mr. Myrick but a partner, and as such would be as much entitled to the honor of first settler"-although in the communication his name is entirely ignored except when quoting from mine. H. J. B. Miller, a Mowkawk Valley man, it was, who pointed out the locality, and who many times said to me, Had your father had the grit to hang on and come and live as I did, you would be an owner in the town site." And it was he who gave strength to the foundations for my "gratuitous fling at Myrick & Miller." Nature made "Scoots" Miller honest, and his word was good in his lifetime, and no honorable man would mistake his words after he had passed beyond the ability to refute them.

I don't wish to do Mr. Myrick or any one injustice. In my letter I gave you what information I could from the recollection of transactions and statements by my father and others.

The Hon. William Hull says that he was there in 1838, and he did not see any settlement or any evidence of one. Well, Mr. Hul might have been up there in 1838; he might have encamped on the prairie one night, and might not have seen a house or the evidence of one, yet I hope Mr. Hull will be honorable enough to admit from an acquaintance that covers forty years, that I have some foundation for my statements if he didn't see any for a house. The La Crosse Prairie is wide and extends some distance up and down the river. A man might encamp on the plains of Egypt for one night and not see the pyramids.

Gen. Sibley's letter recalls to my memory the fact that there were rails laid in piles at the time Coons & Cubbage went there, and that a portion of them were burned by passing steamboats, not all of them. And yet we are told there was no signs of settlements.

In regard to the name, it is still my opinion that it originated from the establishment of a cross by Catholic missionaries, for the reason that, as I understand, the game of la crosse was introduced among the Indians of Canada by the French, and is not a game that belongs to our western tribes. It was only introduced among them by the eastern Indians as they moved west. But I have made my letter longer than I intended, and have not added anything interesting to the "truthful history;" yet I have tried to avoid a complication of dates, denials and admissions. Respectfully, H. B. COONS.

P. S.-Where are those brave Scots-the Douglasses-William, Thomas and Robert? If you "dinna hear their slogan" you might have heard the sound of their axes away back in 1840, hewing out the way to numberless fortunes made since that time in the lumber business. Can't they tell something of the early history of La Crosse ?

C.

Supplementary to the above are the following communications from the office of the Secretary of the Interior, in reply to a letter addressed that department by Mr. King in his endeavor to get at the truth of the matter at issue between Messrs. Coons and Myrick:

WESTERN HISTORICAL COMPANY:

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF INDIAN AFFAIRS,
WASHINGTON, May 28, 1881.

Gentlemen:-Replying to your letter under date of the 20th inst., in which you state that you are employed in gathering material and writing a history of La Crosse County, Wisconsin, and ask for information in order to confirm a statement made to you that one Col. Cubbage built a trading post at La Crosse (then Prairie du la Crosse) in 1836, which was twice burned by the Winnebago Indians, and that the losses resulting therefrom were deducted and paid from the annuities of the Indians, I have to state that a careful search has been made of the records and files of this office, which show that a letter from George Cubbage, dated Burlington, Wis., May 24, 1838, addressed to Hon. George W. Jones, on the subject of his claim for losses for the destruction of said post, was by the latter referred to this office, and replied to under date of June 9, 1838 (copy herewith), from which you will perceive that payment was delayed for the reasons therein stated.

I have further to remark that it does not appear that the required proof was subsequently furnished.
Very respectfully,
H. PRICE, Commissioner,

HON G. W. JONES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

DOCUMENT ENCLOSED.

(Copy.)

OFFICE INDIAN AFFAIRS, June 9, 1838.

Sir-In answer to the letter of Gen. Cubbage, of the 24th May, referred by you to this departmeet, I have the honor to state that the admission of his claim must be delayed because there has been no evidence adduced to show the value of the property destroyed by the Indians, or proof to contradict the allegation of the Indians that Gen. Cubbage was trading among them without a license. When evidence of the above facts is furnished, the claim will immediately be attended to. Very respectfully, CARRY A. HARRIS, Commissioner.

WESTERN HISTORICAL COMPANY:

ence.

COL. MYRICK'S FINAL ANSWER.

ST. PAUL, June 11, 1881.

Gentlemen :-I have read the second letter of Mr. H. B. Coons to you, touching the subject of your correspondHe devotes much the larger portion of his letter to his own ideas, not history; and as the ideas of Mr H. B. Coons are not a part of the history of La Crosse, and of no possible interest to me, he can indulge them to his own satisfaction.

His second letter is a fit companion for his first. It is altogether hearsay, and inadmissable under the rules of evidence. He tells what he has heard others say. He confessedly knows nothing of his own knowledge, therefore what weight is to be attached to his story? While attempting to ridicule any sensibility on my part over reminis cences of friends, and trials and early experience, he is anxious that the public should know who H. B. Coons is, his ideas about matters generally, particularly that he has no sentiment, and in a vain attempt to write history, boldly announces that he "shall not trouble himself in getting letters of proof and of vital statements," and then demands that the public should believe his hearsay, reiterated statements. These statements personally reflect on myself and others, and have no foundation in fact and truth.

I have written what I know, what I saw-of what I was a part. Mr. Coons does not deny that I settled on Barron's Island in 1841 and on the mainland in 1842. What earthly object could I now have in stating that there was no building or evidence of a building on the prairie of La Crosse at that time, if there had been? Coons reiterates his statement that there was. Does he produce any proof? Why was not the proof produced before the Depart ment at Washington? There is no doubt but that the claim for damages was made by George Cubbage in May, 1838, for burning his post, but it was not allowed. It was not allowed because George Cubbage had no proof, and probably could produce no proof that there ever was any building there or any that had been burnt. What George Cubbage could not do then, Mr. H. B. Coons, after forty-three years, is trying to do now, and with a similar result. He has absolutely no proof-not a particle-for his statements; on the contrary, the records at Washington, in their present condition, show that Coons & Cubbage were trading with the Indians without a license, in violation of the law of the United States, and that they preferred a claim for damages, and were unable to furnish any or sufficient proof. It is respectfully submitted, whether any one representing such a transaction as this is in a situation to indulge any personal flings, or to ask that mere hearsay statements shall be believed.

H. J. B. Miller was my partner, and a man of truth, and he never could have told Mr. Coons the story he relates. Mr. Coons does not give the time, nor place, nor any particulars of that conversation, so as to entitle it to credence. It is evidently a mistake. Mr. Miller could never have made such a mistake. Mr. Coons reiterates that Major Coons sent Scott and Lear up in 1841 or 1842, for the purpose of holding the original claim, and that a Mr. George Kinney says it was in the fall of 1841." Scott and Lear might have been there that year before the 9th of November and went away without making any claim, in consequence of the scarcity of timber, as alleged by Mr. Coons, but I know that they were not there after the 9th day of November of that year, for I was there at that time. I do certainly know that Scott and Lear were there either in the fall of 1842 or spring of 1843, and went away without building on the island, as Mr. Coons stated in his first letter, or anywhere else in the vicinity of Prairie La Crosse. Mr. Coons says: 66 A man might encamp on the plains of Egypt for one night and not see the Pyramids." Perhaps so, under some circumstances; but Prairie La Crosse is not the plains of Egypt, nor Coons' imaginary house the Pyramids. Prairie La Crosse is only about three-fourths of a mile along the river, running back to the blufis, and some four or five miles long under the bluffs, and there was nothing to prevent any one camping on the river bank from. seeing the house, had any such been there near the river. I have stated what I saw and know. I was there severa. months before my friend Miller came. I have given corroborative proof. I now refer you to the accompanying statements of John H. Folsom and Ira H. Brunson, old settlers. I refer also to Thomas Savage, at Prairie du Chien, whe says he came in 1836 and hunted on the Chippewa River, and was back and forth once or twice every year for several years, and never saw a house at La Crosse Prairie except on the islands, before the one I built there.

I have now given you more proofs, and shall close with an apology for having written so much in reply to a claim which is no more susceptible of proof now than when it was first made before the Department at Washington in May, 1838, and even if there had been any foundation for the same then, it by no means follows that the house was on the mainland and not on the island; and I reiterate and have proven that I built the first house on the prairie at La Crosse, and was the first settler on the town site. No one has denied or can successfully deny this history. NATHAN MYRICK.

MR. FOLSOM'S TESTIMONY.

I came to Prairie du Chien in the fall of 1836. I went to La Crosse in January, 1838, in the employ of Moore & Street, for the purpose of trade with the Indians at that place, and to make a claim on a quarter section on Prairie La Crosse. Their location was near the upper part of the island, opposite the city of La Crosse and on the east side.

and in a house built by Col. Cubbage, which was then in charge of a Mr. St. John for him. The Fur Company had a trading house on the island west of the Cubbage house. There was no building on Prairie La Crosse at that time, but La Batte's trading house was about six miles below La

I think there was some hewed pine timber lying there.
Crosse, on the east side of the Mississippi River.

Don't know as to the burning of the Cubbage house, but think I heard of it.

JOHN H. FOLSOM.

BRUNSON'S RECOLLECTION.

I came to Prairie du Chien in 1836. In 1837, was in company with H. L. Dousman, B. W. Brisbois, François La Batte, and probably H. H. Sibley, in the purchase of hewn pine timber for building a house at La Crosse, which was left there, but no house was built. IRA B. BRUNson.

The following communications on the same subject are also submitted:

"Who was the earliest settler in La Crosse?" J. Irwin Smith, in a letter to the La Crosse Republican Leader of July 15, 1876, asks this question, saying that the Hon. Charles Seymour, in his historical address, mentioned Nathan Myrick as the first settler on this prairie, and November 7, 1841, as the date of his arrival; but adds: "I am inclined to believe, from satisfactory testimony, that this date is too late by several years, for the actual possession here by white men, and that several others preceded Nathan Myrick."

A gentleman resides in the family of his daughter, who is the wife of Judge Mitchell, in Winona, and whose name I am unable to recall at this writing, but who will be recalled by some of the pioneer traders of our city. Deacon S. T. Smith sold him lots here at an early day, and a son of Capt. Smith, the pioneer steamboat man, married his daughter, and resided at Winona.

The gentleman referred to has traversed the Northwest for fifty years, and so belongs to that class having vivid impressions of dates, events and personages. He is a gentleman of the finest culture-of wonderful intelligence relative to all the conditions and changes transpiring throughout this territory. For a number of years, including those following 1832. I think, he was a merchant doing business at Galena, and furnishing supplies to up-river traders; such a man, especially doing credit business, is not likely to be mistaken greatly respecting dates and names of his

customers.

Now his statement touching this question is very positive and distinct. He affirms that four or five years previous to Nathan Myrick's coming, whom he knows well, that is in 1836-37, two young men, as partners, had seized and occupied this prairie with their cabin, holding it in anticipation for pre-emption as town site. He says the name of one of them was John R. Stoltz, that of the other he was unable to recall at the time he gave me this recital in April last, that the names of both these men are on his books, with date of purchases, as they came twice a year to Galena for supplies, and bought of hin pork, beef, clothing and groceries. He had not at the time visited this place himself; but he often talked freely with these men about their location, agreeing with their representations that there must ultimately be a town on this site; but these men were tired of waiting year after year for its beginning. One winter they were so weary of the loneliness that one or both of them left, hiring a man to hold their claim till their return; and, that in the end, about 1840, he thinks these two gave up, and sold out their title to a second party, who also preceded Myrick.

In face of such statements, which can readily be verified or successfully refuted, I judge our date for the settlement, and the credit of priority should be revised. We owe it to the satisfaction of history to be correct. I suggest that reference to the records of Myrick's title would afford light. Who will furnish additional particulars, and tell coming generations unquestionably who settled La Crosse?

J. IRWIN SMITH.

The following statement from a pioneer settler of La Crosse bearing directly on Mr. Smith's letter, was published in the Winona Republican of July 24, 1876.

The gentleman referred to by the writer of the foregoing communication to the La Crosse Republican-Leader, is Col. J. D. Merritt, father-in-law of Judge Mitchell, of this city. Having called his attention to the subject at issue, we are informed by him that the statement of Mr. Smith is substantially correct, but subject to modification in one or two particulars. The date of the first settlement of La Crosse, by the two young men alluded to, was 1838. One of them was named John K. Koontz (not Stoltz), but the name of his partner Col. Merritt cannot now recall. Koontz had opened a store at Belmont, Iowa, in 1837, but was induced by a St. Louis firm to go to Prairie La Crosse for the purpose of making a claim in their interest, and accordingly, in 1838, accompanied by another man, he went thither and took possession of the site of the present city of La Crosse, where the two men remained that year and the

next.

Meantime, Koontz was a regular purchaser of provisions and supplies from Col. Merritt, who then kept a general supply store at Potosi, Wis., which at that time ranked with Galena as a center of mining trade. Koontz endeavored to interest Mr. Merritt in the land speculation but failed, and, in the fall of 1837, he and his companion, probably dreading the ordeal of spending another winter in that then bleak and uninteresting locality, and seeing but little prospect of realizing any tangible results from the effort to establish a town, took their departure and abandoned the place forever.

Col. Merritt, whose recollection of the events connected with the early settlement of the Upper Mississippi Valley is very distinct, also informs us that the first saw mill erected in the Black River Valley was in 1841, at Black River Falls, by two brothers named Douglas, who had formerly been employed in Merritt's smelting furnace at Potosi. The same year, Col. Merritt sent a valuable cargo of lead down the Mississippi to St. Louis, which was by accident sunk at the rapids, and became a total loss.

It may be added, in this connection, that Col. Merritt took a prominent part, either as principal or assistant in the removal to their reservations west of the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, of all the Indian tribes in Ohio, ani that his knowledge of Indian character and habits is scarcely excelled by that of any other person now living. In the conversation with him from which these facts were gleaned, Col. Merritt-who is now upward of seventy years of age, though looking much younger-incidentally stated that fifty-two years ago, he was informed by an intelligent Indian, who had recently come from the Yellowstone region, that gold existed in large quantities at the Black Hills. Upon the question of responsibility for Indian outrages, Col. M. is (true to the instinct of his Quaker ancestry), emphatic in the opinion that they are almost entirely due to the bad faith and cupidity of the whites. He says that, during a long period of close intimacy with them, he never knew of a single violation of an agreement on the part of the Indians.

There seems to be no question but that overtures, as it were, had been made in the direction of La Crosse, with a view to settlement there or thereabouts prior to the act itself; why this was not accomplished is a mystery no one seems thus far to have ventured a solution of, but its truth is undeniable.

MINING SETTLEMENTS AND MILITARY POSTS.

The first settlements of Michigan Territory, as is known, were made at a comparatively early day by miners who radiated from more thickly settled sections, attracted by the reports of rich discoveries of mineral, and this, too, notwithstanding the enforcement of rules and regulations formulated by mine Superintendents, and the danger to be apprehended from attacks by Indians. Neither of these embargoes delayed the settlement of La Crosse County at an earlier day, as the absence of mineral, a source of attraction elsewhere, failed to woo the coming of venturesome delvers in mother earth, for the springs of revenue, which in other portions of Wisconsin had been tapped, and bounteous streams gushed forth.

One reason quoted for the comparative delay in effecting a lodgment of settlers about La Crosse at an earlier day than during the forties, was the fact that the Eastern States, whence a large immigration subsequently proceeded, had not become over-crowded, and space by no means so contracted. Another cause of delay is attributed to the further fact that the countries of Europe which now furnish so large a proportion of the population of the more Western States and Territories, had not at that time become familiar with the advantages to be found here, and preferring to suffer the ills to which they had been subjected for generations, rather than to encounter others of which they were ignorant, their coming hither was delayed until a time when necessity or inclination prompted by the glowing accounts of life in the New World, led them to embark their hopes on a tide, which as the sequel in many instances has proved, led on to glory and to fortune.

Military posts were for years the only habitations to be found on the frontiers, save the wigwams of the savage, and the only inhabitants the soldiers and officers who fraternized with the foe or aided in the efforts employed to accomplish their departure before the advance of a progressive civilization. Wars were carried on as is known from the pages of history; settlers were slain or driven off, and the effects of the Indian occupation were not entirely obliterated for years it might be said after the dusky warrior resigned the contest, and ceded to the whites possession of the territory for which he had so valorously, yet fruitlessly contended. When Mr. Myrick came into the country forty years ago, the Indian was still in the field, equally as treacherous, equally as uncivilized, and fully as savage as during the days when he ran wild in the sunshine, unrestrained by law or the force of arms. The dignity of character which romancers and poets are wont to ascribe to the red man, was nowhere visible, and his capacity for evil was only measured by his opportunities. He absorbed the vices of the whites, without seeking to emulate any of the virtues recorded of the most unconscionable in the book of life. and taken all in all, was by no means a desirable quantity in the body politic, where law and order prevail, and where men are measured by their excellences and not by the absence of them. A fragment of these aboriginal occupants are yet to be seen at occasional intervals in the cities of the Far West, but bear no impress of the position Fiction, rather than Fact, has alloted them in the annals of the past. Indeed, it might be said without trespassing upon the domain of exaggeration or prejudice, that they are the most heterodox samples of departed

greatness to be seen without the pale of barbaric domination-living testimonials of moral and intellectual deformity, and a standing rebuke to the caste of citizens, rapidly becoming extinct, whose felicity in life is augmented in proportion as they can trace their pedigree to the daughter of Powhattan. Their shadow is assimilating with nonenity, so to speak, diminishing in a manner that, in view of the facts in the case, must not be other than gratifying. Many an old settler in the mellow evening of life lives to witness a fruition of hopes of earlier years in the rapid progress of the city and State, had not been spared if his lease of life forty years ago, was contingent upon the humanity of the Indian who greeted his advent here with threats and demands for fire-water.

But he has survived the trials and dangers which attended his coming into the undiscovered land, that to-day teems with the fruit of labors he was instrumental in directing hither, conserved and facilitated through the system of education, he was the medium of establishing. The visitor to the country comprehended within the present limits of La Crosse County as he bowls over the avenues that intersect one another in all directions, or gazes upon the fields of ripening grain ready for the sickle, or views the evidences of thrift, skill, enterprise and accreting capital, which greets his vision whithersoever he may turn in city and county, must not be unmindful of the labors, and the industry which have been utilized to these results. Where once the savage dwelt secure in the fastnesses of the wilderness, churches and schools have been raised up, bringing the fullest fruition of their objects to the county and to the founders of these agencies for the amelioration and improvement of the race of which they were so prominent and disinterested constituents. To these leading spirits who revived discouraged hearts, and checked fading hopes born of disappointments and apprehensions that were by no means retired figures in the days that passed away a third of a century ago, is the present condition of affairs wholly due. Long may they survive and see the perfect realization of works, the foundations of which were laid when the heart of man was almost appalled by the unpromising outlook. A region inhabited by savages, jealous, revengeful and degraded. The nearest place at which supplies could be obtained, or social amenities cultivated, distant a journey of several days. In health it must have been cheerless, in sickness simply desolating.

NATHAN MYRICK'S ARRIVAL.

This was the condition of affairs when Nathan Myrick, the pioneer settler of La Crosse County, landed opposite the foot of Main street, in the present city, on the afternoon of November 9, 1841. The scene was by no means encouraging to the enterprising visitor, who had, before attaining his majority, settled in the West, and, after serving an apprenticeship to B. W. Brisbois, a fur trader at Prairie du Chien, extended his field of observation, and decided to locate at La Crosse. He was confident of the future; no doubt entered his mind of what the harvest would be, yet in spite of his hopes and ambitions, and determinations to realize from substantial foundations, there was little to encourage in the appearance of affairs for the time being. The season of the year, with its solemn, gloomy, melancholy days, the landscape that but a brief period before had rejoiced in an exuberance of flowers and foliage, was now drooping, dying, epitomizing, as it were, the closing scenes in a year that was cycling into the irrevocable past. Mr. Myrick, without companionship, save the presence of Horatio Curtis, Eben Wells, and a man named Reed, who accompanied him, and, while there was much to inspire him to acts, there was much to persuade him to retire whence he came, and idendify his fortune with that of the friends and associates nearer the confines of civilization.

The prompter's bell has rung down the curtain on forty years since that day, in the life of Nathan Myrick. He has lived to see the prairies and bluffs blossom as a rose; to see the narrow Indian trails yield precedence to roads made by the hand of man, to lines of travel connecting with the East and West through the darkness of the night; to see a city created over the ruins of the Indian wigwams, and the mighty river overcome and bridged from shore to shore. The places he knew in those days primeval, have passed into obscurity, and their trials become as a tale that is told. The lives of men to-day are as holidays compared with those of