Page:Acadiensis Q2.djvu/338

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
268
ACADIENSIS

my object is rather to explain than to dogmatize, and to give such small assistance to the learned as is comprised in scraps of information which I have been able to obtain from various sources.

A tolerable knowledge of the history of Charlotte County and of the province, and an imperfect memory and record of the contents of several letters received from various persons upon the principal subject, are all of some service in furthering my purpose. The letters which were written to assist me in preparing a paper upon the stone, subsequently read before the Natural History Society of New Brunswick an association not now in existence were unfortunately destroyed in the great fire of St. John. The paper itself was preserved, and embodies at least a portion of the contents of the letter. Opinion at the time of the discovery was somewhat divided, both in regard to the nationality of the workman by whom the stone was carved, and also in regard to the object of the work. Three suggestions, one of which is probably correct, were offered by different parties with reference to the workmen: First, that he was a British colonist; secondly, that he was a Frenchman; and, thirdly, that he was an Indian. The discussion of these several propositions naturally suggests, if it does not necessarily involve, in each case a consideration of the motives of the workman. I have little hesitation in dismissing, as highly improbable, the hypothesis that the artist was a British colonist. The appearance and position of the stone when discovered, to which I shall more particularly refer, convince me that it was not carved for the purpose of deceiving scientific investigators, as might be, and I believe has been, charged. For the same reasons I am led to form a strong opinion that the carving was executed long before the date of the British occupation. Irrespective of these reasons, however, I would point to the carving itself as an answer to the theory; and the argument here makes as strongly against the suggestion of