seven leagues (eighteen to twenty-one miles), to Chatauqua Lake. Another, of about the same length, answers also to their directions, which was afterward the usual route from Erie to French Creek, at Waterford in Pennsylvania. By either of these routes he might have been on the Allegheny, with his goods and canoes, in ten or twelve days, if the weather was good. He would, however, have here been among the Andasterrionons, who were probably the Eries or Errieronons, with whom the Senecas were then at war. These Indians had been represented at “Gannegora” as sure to kill the Frenchmen if they went among them. Gravier has a theory that instead of Onontague or “Gannontague,” mentioned in the memoir of the friend of Galinée, we should read Ganestogue or “Ganahogue,” the ancient name of the Cuyahoga. It is not improbable that the guide of La Salle knew of this route, along which, ascending the Cuyahoga from Cleveland, the party would be enabled to reach the waters of the Muskingum, by a portage of seven miles at Akron, and from thence the Ohio, at Marietta. La Salle states that after he reached the Ohio, according to the anonymous account, but one very large river was passed on the north shore before reaching the falls. If he failed to recognize the Scioto as a very large river, there is only the Great Miami which meets his description. He may also have concluded to spend the winter in Ohio, where game was abundant and beavers numerous, an event to which I have referred in connection with the axe marks. We have no reliable evidence that he was at Montreal between July, 1669, and August, 1672. The records of Villemarie, quoted by Faillon, contain the first solid proof of his presence on the St. Lawrence, after he departed with Galinée and DeCasson. During this period we may be certain he was not idle. It is far from certain how many men he had, but the anonymous relation affirms that he was deserted by twenty-three or twenty-four of them after leaving the Falls of the Ohio. Where did he get these additional recruits? In the absence of historical proof, it is reasonable to infer that, when he left the Sulpitians, he moved southwesterly in accordance with his instructions, and did not turn back to Montreal. His honor, his interest and his ambition all forced him in one direction, toward the country where he was directed to go and to stay, as long as he could subsist. What the Abbé Faillon states in the third volume of his French Colonies (page 312) confirms this supposition. According to this authority, about four months after La Salle’s departure, which would be in November, 1669, a part of his men returned, having refused to follow him. He himself could not have returned at this time without observation and public discredit.