WANTON] INDIAN TRIBES OF THE LOWER MISSISSIPPI VALLEY 21

he was killed by a Chitimacha war party when on his way to Biloxi.a
For one reason or another no further missionary efforts were made
among the Natchez or Tainsa except incidentally in connection with
white congregations, and it is evident that of all men De Montigny
and St. Cosine, especially the latter, were best fitted to pass upon the
relationship of Natchez to the language of its neighbors. As already
noted, we have the direct or indirect opinion of both of these men on
the question before us, but, what has hitherto not been known, we
have their opinion expressed a second time and in a way to which the
same objections can not be applied as were raised by Gatschet.
 At the Fifteenth Congress of Americanists held in Quebec in 1906,
 M. l'abb6 Amde6e Gosselin, professor in Laval University, presented
 a paper entitled, Les R.,, .,,.;. du Mississipi (1698-1708) d'apres la
 Correspondance des lissionnaires des Missions Etrangeres de Qud-
 bec." I The information contained in this is drawn partly from the
 original documents published by Shea, but in greater part from letters
 which still remain in manuscript, as they were sent by the missionary
 priests to their superior, the Bishop of Quebec. From these most val-
 uable information is adduced regarding the population, languages, re-
 ligion, government, warfare, character, manners, and customs of the
 tribes of that region, much of which will be quoted in this paper.
 The only reference to the language of the Taensa, however, is to the
 effect that "the Tonicas [Tunica], the Tainsa, and the Natchez spoke
 the same language, but it differed from that of the Chicachas
 [Chickasaw] and that of the Akansas [Quapaw]." c As authority
 for this statement the letters of De Montigny of January 2 and
 August 25, 1699, are cited. The coupling of Tunica with the other
 two languages being at variance with statements in De Montigny's
 letter of January 2, and so far as Tunica and Natchez are concerned
 at variance with known facts, the writer supposed that the missionary
 must have expressed different views in his unpublished letter of
 August 25. In order to settle this question, and if possible to elicit
 further information regarding the linguistic position of the tribe
 under discussion, he addressed a letter to Professor Gosselin, calling
 attention to the matter and asking for any excerpts relating to the
 language of the Ta;nsa which the unpublished letters might contain.
 Professor Gosselin very kindly and promptly replied to his request.
 He explained that the erroneous statement was the result of an un-
 fortunate confusion in his own notes and did not exist in the origi-
 nals. In answer to the second query he inclosed several extracts in
 the original which are of the utmost value and contain the decisive
information alluded to. It is to be hoped that the whole of these
 "La Harpe, .our. Iist., 101, 1831.
 S('ompte Rendu (ong. Internat. des Amer., 15th sess., I, 31-51.
 cIbid., 38.