Page:Early western travels, 1748-1846 (1907 Volume 2).djvu/167

1768-1782] said he was gone on the hunt with a chief of the name of Onnemay, or the Sturgeon, whom Mr. Fulton knew, and that he would soon return. One of the Canadians contradicted him by saying that could not be true, as Onnemay left Mr. Fulton's house the day before their return. Janvier then said he might be mistaken in the chief's name, as he was not well acquainted with the Indian language, and Dufresne, for fear of a discovery at that time, changed the conversation in hopes of pleasing Janvier.

Several days elapsed, and St. Ange not returning, Janvier was again questioned, who told them as before, and appealed to Dufresne for the truth of his assertions, which he was obliged to confirm.

Mr. Fulton not being perfectly satisfied, examined them apart; from Janvier he could not get any information, but Dufresne hesitated, and at last said he had sworn not to reveal—but that St. Ange would never return.—Mr. Fulton endeavoured to convince him that the breach of an oath, so imposed, was no crime; and in the end he convinced the Canadian that it was so far from being obligatory in the sight of God, that it would be a sin of the most heinous nature in him to conceal the truth; artfully adding, as an additional argument to induce him to reveal the transaction, that if he had no doubt he was himself perfectly innocent, he could not have any honest motive for secrecy, and that he had no occasion to dread the resentment of Janvier, as he would engage to {124} protect him from all hazard by the discovery. Thus persuaded and encouraged, Dufresne disclosed the whole affair, but requested Mr. Fulton's secrecy, which he promised until the conversation should be renewed, when it was agreed that he should relate every particu