St. Louis - The Fourth City, Volume 1. Walter Barlow Stevens

tomahawks, powder, ball, uniforms, tools, trinkets for Indians and a miscellaneous lot of not very valuable junk which might have accumulated in a military storehouse through a long series of years. When Lefebvre became keeper of the king's warehouse, Labusciere succeeded him as assistant to St. Ange in the exercise of the civil functions. He continued to keep the records. He wrote the titles which St. Ange signed. He did all that a notary might do. The community wanted government. Laclede, St. Ange, Lefebvre and Labusciere filled the want. The community accepted. Among the successful experiments in organization and maintenance of government of pioneer communities on the American continent there is none better than that offered by Laclede's settlement.

      When he took the inventory of property in the King's warehouse after Lefebvre's death in 1767, Labusciere signed it as "deputy of the attorney general of the king in Illinois, acting as judge in the place of Judge Lefebvre, deceased." This designated official position about as well as anything else could. The government was "acting." To this might have been added "with the consent of the governed" but universal acquiescence made that unnecessary.

      Labusciere was a model secretary. He was painstaking. He wrote legibly. He preserved with scrupulous fidelity every document. When the first Spanish governor came to St. Louis in 1770 Labusciere delivered to him a collection of papers neatly arranged with a summary showing the number and character under this caption:

      "Statements of the deeds, contracts and other papers executed before Joseph Labusciere, former attorney for the king and notary public under the. French government in the Illinois, from April 21, 1766, to 20th May, 1770."

      This collection of papers was the beginning, of records of St. Louis. It was accepted as official. It was handed down by One Spanish governor to another. Each governor added his own records. At the time of American occupation, in 1804, there had accumulated 3,000 of these documents. An American official had the sheets stitched and deposited them with the recorder. Many of the documents were not strictly public records. They were agreements between persons, acknowledged before government officials. Apparently they were left with the government for safe keeping; that custom seems to have had its beginning in the confidence reposed in Labusciere.

      Laclede's house was the seat of government. It had been so from the day the founder moved into it in the early fall of 1764. It continued to be so after St. Ange came and took up headquarters there. After January 21, 1766, when civil government went into operation with the duties divided among St. Ange, Lefebvre and Labusciere, Laclede's house was still the government house. The firm of Maxent, Laclede & Company furnished quarters rent free to the officials. The firm must have met the small expenses of government which were not covered by fees. Behind St. Ange and his associates in office was the master spirit of this government, Laclede. And thus in a well-ordered way government was administered at St. Louis, while at New Orleans there was political turmoil, revolution, bloodshed.

      At one time it seemed as if the government at St. Louis was in serious danger. Early in 1767 Ulloa sent an expedition to St. Louis. New Orleans had refused to accept Spanish authority. Ulloa, as an act of prudence had gone down to Belize at the mouth of the Mississippi. Spending the winter there, he planned the movement to St. Louis. Rui, or Rios, as sometimes printed, was chosen to command. Elaborate instructions were drafted by Ulloa. They were in two divisions. One set of instructions was for the guidance of the command on the journey and after arrival at St. Louis. The other was sealed. It was sent to St. Ange to deliver to Rui on his arrival. It had to do with relations between Spain and England. It was to guide the Spanish commandant if trouble arose through British trespass on the west side of the Mississippi. It provided for strong fortifications of the mouth of the Missouri to control that river, both the north and the south side of it, for Spain. The secret instructions showed the Spanish apprehension that the British would push west of the Mississippi.

      The histories tell briefly that Rui, with a Spanish force ascended the river to St. Louis in 1767. It is of record that he made considerable progress with a fort on the south side of the Missouri near the mouth. But Rui did not assert Spanish authority at St. Louis. He remained here several months. He went down the river in 1768. Some of the people who came with him remained in St. Louis. The government formed with St. Ange as the executive head, and with French soldiers as the military power, continued as it was before the coming of Rui.

      Ulloa's instructions, both sets, remained buried in the archives at Seville. Copies came into possession of the Missouri Historical Society for the first time in 1907. The secret instructions, bearing the signature of Antonio Ulloa, were dated January 7, 1767. They explained that "for the best success of this important matter the intended purpose will not be given publicity before the plan is carried out."

      St. Louis was not mentioned in the instructions but was referred to as "Pencur" or Illinois. The commander was told that "it will be advisable to carry from Ste. Genevieve or Pencur in Illinois all that will be needed in the way of supplies."

      "At the mouth of the river Missouri two forts must be built, one on one side, the other opposite. The one on the northern side, the upper side, must be the largest."

      The instructions even provided the names for the forts, the one on the north side of the river was to be "Fort King Charles III." The one on the south side was to be named "Fort Charles, Prince of Asturias."

      The officers put in charge of the two forts were told that they must remember they were defending the dominions of His Majesty, the king of Spain and the frontiers of Mexico.

      "The Missouri river belongs entirely to the Dominion of His Majesty as it has been stipulated in the last treaties between France and England. Up to this date the mouth of the Missouri has been without any population or defense. Therefore the English people have introduced themselves through this river. Going farther into the country they have made treaties with the savages. This must be stopped."

      The instructions anticipated that as soon as the fort building began the British would become troublesome. At the first attempt of the British traders to pass up the Missouri, the commandant was to send a sergeant to the British commander at Fort Chartres with the request that he compel his people to remain out of the Missouri. The refusal of the British commander to observe the terms of the treaty provided for in the instructions might follow. In that event the Spanish commandant was to collect testimony showing violation of the treaty in order that protest might be made and the matter might go to the governments at home.

      If the controversy came to force, if the British insisted that work stop on the forts at the mouth of the Missouri, "we must fight with all of the zeal and energy that honor demands. To give up territory which has been occupied and which belongs to the king is a very shameful thing."

      The French at St. Louis were to be asked to send all of the men and provisions they could spare for the defense against the British if the attack was made against the fortifications at the mouth of the Missouri. One reason given for keeping these instructions secret was the fear that if the possibility of fighting with the British was known there might be strong disinclination on the part of the Spanish force to go up to the mouth of the Missouri.

      When Ulloa sent Rui up the Mississippi in 1767 he had in mind much more than the establishment of Spanish authority at the mouth of the Missouri. He intended to build two forts. He intended to form a colony which would be "of the greatest importance." Upon one fort was to be placed five cannon and on the other three. Houses were to be built for colonists. The savages were to be given presents and informed of the intention to fortify the mouth of the Missouri so that they might not be taken by surprise. Then followed a significant paragraph. The people of St. Louis were not to be informed of the purpose of Spain to establish the colony and the government at the mouth of the Missouri. They were to be told only of the purpose to build forts. They were not to learn that it was the plan to make the new settlement at the mouth of the Missouri the principal one in Louisiana Province, overshadowing Laclede's.

      "Mr. St. Ange, as an experienced man in handling the savages, will give his advice as to what shall be done with them. As he does not know the object of this establishment, and as there is no need for him to know it, he may suggest that the forts be established in the Illinois (St. Louis) instead of at the mouth of the Missouri. His views in this matter must not be considered or let