il la suivit jusqu'a un endroit ou elle tombe de fort haut dans de vastes
marais, a la hauteur de 37 degres, apres avoir ete grossie par une autre
riviere fort large qui vient du nord; et toutes ces eaux se dechargent
selon toutes les apparences dans le Golfe du Mexique."

This "autre riviere," which, it seems, was above the fall, may have been
the Miami or the Scioto. There is but one fall on the river, that of
Louisville, which is not so high as to deserve to be described as "fort
haut," being only a strong rapid. The latitude, as will be seen, is
different in the two accounts, and incorrect in both.] Again, his rival,
Louis Joliet, whose testimony on this point cannot be suspected, made two
maps of the region of the Mississippi and the Great Lakes. The Ohio is
laid down on both of them, with an inscription to the effect that it had
been explored by La Salle. [Footnote: One of these maps is entitled _Carte
de la decouverte du Sieur Joliet_, 1674. Over the lines representing the
Ohio are the words, "Route du sieur de la Salle pour aller dans le
Mexique." The other map of Joliet bears, also written over the Ohio, the
words, "Riviere par ou descendit le sieur de la Salle au sortir du lac
Erie pour aller clans le Mexique." I have also another manuscript map,
made before the voyage of Joliet and Marquette, and apparently in the year
1673, on which the Ohio is represented as far as to a point a little below
Louisville, and over it is written, "Riviere Ohio, ainsy appellee par les
Iroquois a cause de sa beaute, par ou le sieur de la Salle est descendu."
The Mississippi is not represented on this map; but--and this is very
significant, as indicating the extent of La Salle's exploration of the
following year--a small part of the upper Illinois is laid down.] That he
discovered the Ohio may then be regarded as established. That he descended
it to the Mississippi, he himself does not pretend; nor is there reason to
believe that he did so.