distinction--namely, the difference between what is given as in
dispute, and what is given as incontrovertible fact--was lost; but what
was my amusement to receive letters from all parts of the West all but
challenging me to a duel. One wants to know "how a reputable author
dare" suggest that Radisson's voyages be taken as authentic. There is
no "dare" about it. It is a fact. For any "reputable" historian to
suggest--as two recently have--that Radisson's voyages are a
fabrication, is to stamp that historian as a pretender who has not
investigated a single record contemporaneous with Radisson's life. One
cannot consult documents contemporaneous with his life and not learn
instantly that he was a very live fact of the most troublesome kind the
governments of France and England ever had to accept. That is why it
impresses me as a presumption that is almost comical for any modern
writer to condescend to say that he "accepts" or "rejects" this or that
part of Radisson's record. If he "rejects" Radisson, he also rejects
the _Marine Archives of Paris_, and the _Jesuit Relations_, which are
the recognized sources of our early history.

Another correspondent furiously denounces Radisson as a liar because he
mixes his dates of the 1660 trip. It would be just as reasonable to
call La Salle a liar because there are discrepancies in the dates of
his exploits, as to call Radisson a liar for the slips in his dates.
When the mistakes can be checked from internal evidence, one is hardly
justified in charging falsification.

A third correspondent is troubled by the reference to the Mascoutin
Indians being _beyond_ the Mississippi. State documents establish this
fact. I am not responsible for it; and Radisson could not circle
west-northwest from the Mascoutins to the great encampments of the
Sioux without going far west of the Mississippi. Even if the Jesuits