 CHAPTER XVI. PART I. Louis Riel. Executed for treason. Mr. Osler outlined to the jury the story which he proposed to prove by the evidence, and I need to know more than record his closing remarks. I believe the facts as I have opened them to you will be fully and thoroughly sustained by the evidence, and there will be this further matter appear in evidence that the prisoner was not there for the purpose so much of aiding the half-breeds as he was there for the purpose of utilizing the half-breeds for his own selfish ends. You will find throughout the evidence in this case that it was not so much the rights of the half-breeds he was making as the power and benefit of Louis Riel, and money that Louis Riel wanted to extort from the government. It will appear that this so-called patriot, leader of an oppressed people, was willing to leave the country and go wherever the government wanted him, if he got a sum of money from the government. Gentlemen, when he found that the church to which he belonged, to which his principal supporters belonged, was against him in the movement, he had more ground to play upon his material, and, to feed his own vanity and ambition, he had himself named as the leader and prophet of his new religion, the prophet of the Saskatchewan, was the cry under which his poor dupes and many of them should have known better, were supposed to rally, intending by combining religious power to follow on the north Saskatchewan the methods of Eastern leaders. I think you will find the evidence shows that he was utterly careless of his methods, and had but one object, his own power or money, and he did not care whose lives he sacrificed. These statements were, in every instance, fully justified by the evidence which followed. It was shown, beyond doubt, that Riel himself was the head and shoulders of the whole movement. In the camp of Poundmaker, an Indian chief, was found a letter in Riel's writing, signed by himself, dispatched after the duck-lake skirmish wherein nine men were killed, in which he said, Praise God for the success he has given us, capture all the police you possibly can, preserve their arms, take fort battle, but save the provisions, munitions and arms, send a detachment to us of at least one hundred men. In another letter, proved at the trial to be in his handwriting, addressed to the French and English Métis, mixed breeds, from Battle River to Fort Pitt, he said, We will help you to take fort battle and fort Pitt, try and have the news which we send to you conveyed as soon as possible to the Métis and Indians of Fort Pitt, tell them to be on their guard to prepare themselves for anything, take with you the Indians, gather them together everywhere, take all the ammunition you can, in whatever stores they may be, murmur, growl, and threaten, rouse up the Indians. A good many of the Indians whom he talked so lightly of rousing were refugee Sue, who had come into Canada after the Custer massacre and had not gone back with Sitting Bull when he returned to the United States, very undesirable persons to rouse up. Dr. John H. Willoughby deposed that he went from Saskatoon, where he was practicing medicine, to Batush, a distance of about fifty miles, on March 16th, and there saw Riel with about sixty or seventy armed half-breeds. Riel told him that his plans were now mature, and that, as soon as he struck the first blow, he would be joined by half-breeds and Indians, and that the United States were at his back. He intended to divide the country into seven portions, and they were to be given to the Bavarians, Poles, Italians, German, and Irish. There was to be a new Ireland in the North West, and the Irish of the United States were to be given a chance, as well as the inhabitants of the distrustful country. He pointed to his men and said to Dr. Willoughby, You see now I have my police, and one week that little government police will be wiped out of existence. He added that the rebellion of fifteen years ago would not be a patch upon this one. Mr. Charles Nolan had the time of his life. He was a very prominent half-breed who had strongly sympathized with Riel and his aspirations, so long as he kept them within bounds. When Riel told him that he had decided to induce the people to take up arms, Nolan decided that it was time to drop the connection. He did so, and gave evidence to the crown. He said in part, In the beginning of December 1884 he, Riel, began to show a desire to have money. He spoke to me about it first, I think. I think he said he wanted ten thousand dollars, or fifteen thousand dollars. Question. From whom would he get the money? He said that the Canadian government owed him about a hundred thousand, and then the question arose who the persons were whom he would have to talk to the government about the indemnity. Some time after that the prisoner told me that he had an interview with Father Andre, and that he had made peace with the church. He said that he went to the church with Father Andre, and in the presence of another priest and the blessed sacrament he had made peace, and that he would never again do anything against the clergy. Father Andre told him he would use his influence with the government to obtain for him thirty-five thousand dollars. Counsel for the prisoner exploited for all that it was worth the argument that Riel came to Canada at the request of others which was true, and that, having come here, he desired to return to the United States, and would have done so but for the pressure upon him by his friends. This was not true. Witness the evidence of a man who was more in Riel's confidence than anybody else. Charles Nolan. There was a meeting on February 24th when the prisoner was present. Question. What took place at that meeting? Did the prisoners say anything about his departing for the United States? Answer. Yes. Question. What did the prisoner tell you about that? Answer. He told me that it would be well to try and make it appear as if they wanted to stop him going to the States. Five or six persons were appointed to go among the people, and, when Riel's going away was spoken about, the people were to say no, no. Riel never had any intention of leaving the country. Question. Who instructed the people to do that? Answer. Riel suggested that himself. Question. Was that put in practice? Answer. Yes. When did you finally differ from the prisoner in opinion? Answer. About twenty days before they took up arms, I broke with the prisoner and made open war upon him. Question. What happened on the nineteenth? Answer. On March 19th I and the prisoner were to meet to explain the situation. I was taken prisoner by four armed men. Question. Did you have occasion to go to the council after that? Answer. During the night I was brought before the council. Question. Was the prisoner there? Answer. Yes. Question. What did he say? Answer. I was brought before the council about ten o'clock at night. The prisoner made the accusation against me. Question. What did you do? Answer. I defended myself. Question. What did you say in a few words? Answer. I proved to the council that the prisoner had made use of the movement to claim the indemnity for his own pocket. Question. Were you acquitted? Answer. Yes. Question. Were you in the church after that? Answer. The prisoner protested against the decision of the council. Question. Why did you join the movement? Answer. To save my life. Question. You were condemned to death? Answer. Yes. Question. When were you condemned to death? Answer. When I was made a prisoner I had been condemned to death when I was brought to the church. It was during the cross-examination of this witness by Mr. Lemieux that the little rift between the prisoner and his council became apparent. The witness was about to leave the box when the prisoner spoke. Question. Your honour, would you permit me a little while? Answer. Mr. Justice R. Question. In the proper time I will tell you when you may speak to me, not just now though. Question. Prisoner, if there is any way by legal procedure that I should be allowed to say a word I wish you would allow me before this witness leaves the box. Question. Mr. Justice R. Question. I think you should suggest any question you have to your own council. Question. Prisoner. Question. Do you allow me to say I have some observation to make before the court? Question. Mr. Fitzpatrick. Question. I don't think this is the proper time, your honour, that the prisoner should be allowed to say anything on the matter. Question. Mr. Justice R. Question. I should ask him at the close of the case before it goes to the jury. Question. Mr. Fitzpatrick. Question. That is the time to do it. Question. Mr. Justice R. Question. I think you should mention it quietly to your defence, and if they think it proper for your defence they will put it. Question. Mr. Fitzpatrick. Question. I think that the time has now arrived when it is necessary to state to the court that we require that the prisoner at the bar should thoroughly understand that anything that is done in this case must be done through us, and if he wishes anything to be done he must necessarily give us instructions. He should be given to understand that he should give any instructions to us, and he must not be allowed to interfere. He is now endeavouring to withhold instructions. Question. Mr. Justice R. Question. Is there not this difficulty under the statute saying that he shall do so? Question. Mr. Fitzpatrick. Question. I think the statute provides that he may make statements to the jury. Question. Mr. Justice R. Question. The prisoner may defend himself under the statute, personally or by counsel. Question. Mr. Fitzpatrick. Question. Once he has counsel he has no right to interfere. Question. Mr. Robinson. Question. He has the right to address the jury. Question. Mr. Fitzpatrick. Question. I am not aware of any right then. Question. Prisoner. Question. If you will allow me, Your Honor, this case comes to be extraordinary, and while the Crown, with the great talents they have at its service, are trying to show that I am guilty. Question. Of course it is their duty. Question. My counsellors are trying. My good friends and lawyers, who have been sent here by my friends, whom I respect, are trying to show that I am insane. Question. Mr. Justice R. Question. Now you must stop. Question. Prisoner. Question. I will stop and obey your court. Question. Mr. Justice R. Question. I will tell you once more, if you have any questions which you think ought to be put to this witness, and which your advisors have not put, just tell them quietly and they will put it, if they think it proper to do so. Question. Mr. Fitzpatrick. Question. I don't think he ought to be allowed to say any more. Question. For the last two days we have felt ourselves in this position that this man is actually obstructing the proper management of this case for the express purpose of having a chance to interfere in this case, and he must be given to understand immediately that he won't be allowed to interfere in it, or else it will be absolutely useless for us to endeavor to continue any further in it. Question. Mr. Justice R. Question. Is that a matter that I ought to interfere in? Isn't that a matter entirely between yourself and your client? Suppose you cannot go on, and my ruling was called in question, and the question was raised, and the court allowed such and such a thing to be done. Mr. Fitzpatrick. I don't pretend to argue with the court. It is not my practice. It is not my custom. I have stated to the court what I think of this case. I think the court here is bound by the ordinary rules of law, and so long as the prisoner is represented by counsel, it is his duty to give such instructions to his counsel as to enable him to do his duty to his case. Mr. Justice R. I admit he ought to do so, but suppose he does not, and suppose counsel think fit to throw up their brief. Mr. Fitzpatrick. We are entirely free to do that, and that is a matter of our consideration at the present moment. If the prisoner is allowed to interfere, of course I have to take the ruling of the court. Mr. Justice R. I don't like to dictate to you, but it strikes me that now an opportunity should be taken of ascertaining whether there is really anything that has not been put to this witness that ought to have been put. Mr. Fitzpatrick. We have very little desire to have questions put, which we, in our case, have done. What has this court to do with theories about inspiration and the division of lands, further than we have gone into it? However, I, of course, have to accept the ruling of the court as it is given, and then it will be for the counsel, for the defense to consider the position. Mr. Robinson. It must be quite understood that no rulings of the court are given with the desire, or at all, to do in the shape of interference. We must not be drawn into the position that there is a ruling of the court on a question of that kind. I think it would probably be right for the court to ask the prisoner whether the case is, or is not, fully in the hands of the counsel. It is for the prisoner to say. Mr. Fitzpatrick. We accept that suggestion. Mr. Justice R. Please, is your case in the hands of counsel? Prisoner. Partly my case is partly in their hands. Mr. Justice R. Now stop. Are you defended by counsel or not? Have you advisers? Prisoner. I don't wish to leave them aside. I want them. I want their services. But I want my cause, Your Honor, to be defended to the best, which circumstances allow. Then you must leave it in their hands. Prisoner. I will, if you please, say this reason. My counsel comes from Quebec, from a far province. They have to put questions to men, with whom they are not acquainted on circumstances which they don't know. And although I am willing to give them all the information that I can, they cannot follow the thread of all the questions that can be put in the hands of the good opportunities of making good answers. Not because they are not able. They are learned. They are talented. But the circumstances are such that they cannot put all the questions. If I would be allowed, as it was suggested, this case is extraordinary. Mr. Justice R. You have told me your case is in the hands of the prison. I will give you an opportunity of speaking to the court at the proper time. Prisoner. The witnesses are passing and the opportunities. Mr. Justice R. Tell your counsel. Prisoner. I cannot all. I have much to say. Mr. Justice R. If there is any question not put to this witness, which you think ought to be put, tell it to your counsel Mr. Justice R. Prisoner. I have, on cross-examination, two hundred questions. Mr. Robinson. We had better understand this. Counsel for the Crown are taking no part. Our inclination is, if Counsel for the Prisoner agreed to it, to let the Prisoner put any question he pleases to the witness. We don't wish to interfere in any way between the Prisoner and his counsel. Mr. Justice R. I was going to suggest that you should take a little time and that the Prisoner should go with you. An enjurement here took place and on the court reassembling the conversation was resumed along the original lines. The conference had produced no practical result. Mr. Lemieux explained that although he and his conferees have done their very best to help the prisoner, he is not very well pleased. Or it appears he thinks we did not put all the questions to the witnesses that we should have put. Mr. Robinson interjected. If the Prisoner, under the special circumstances of this case, desires to join his counsel in conducting the examination or across examination of witnesses, the Crown do not object to it. But the Prisoner's counsel upon putting questions to the witnesses we object to it and we moreover say that we will not continue to act in the case as counsel. We think, however, it is too late for him to now disavow or refuse. It was a hopeless impasse. The Prisoner would not discharge his counsel. He would not confide to them the questions that he desired to ask. They would not concede to him the right to ask him. Here I have to defend myself against the accusation of high treason or I have to consent to the animal life of an asylum. I don't care much about animal life if I am not allowed to carry with it the moral existence of an intellectual being. Mr. Justice R., now stop. Prisoner, yes, your honor, I will. Mr. Justice R., I think I shall have to tell you that you are in your mind if you and they cannot agree, then will come another question whether the court will not further interfere and say counsel must go on. The examination of Charles Nolan was then continued, and the witness said that the counsel that condemned him to death was one that was called exo-vide. He said that the prisoner had separated entirely from the clergy that the half-breeds were a great influence on their mind. Asked if without religion the prisoner would have succeeded in bringing the half-breeds with him, the witness answered, no, it would never have succeeded. If the prisoner had not made himself appear as a prophet he would never have succeeded in bringing the half-breeds with him. Mr. Lemieux, recross examined the witness after this. The witness was asked the fact that he lost the influence of the clergy, and he replied that at the time the prisoner gained influence by working against the clergy and by making himself as priest. Asked if he meant the people did not have confidence in their clergy, he said, no, but they were ignorant, and advantage was being taken of their ignorance and simplicity. Prisoner, I wish to put a question myself to the minister justice are. If your counsel see fit to put it they will put it, and if not the witness is discharged. Mr. Lemieux, I asked the prisoner if he had any questions to put to the witness through me, and he said he had none, that he would only put questions by himself. Some little further conversation continued along the same lines, and another witness was called. Bearing the signature, Louis David Riel, ExoVid. One was a demand addressed to Major Crozier, commander of the police forts, Carlton and Battelford, calling upon him to surrender his forts to the provisional government of the Saskatchewan. Another was addressed to Massures, Charles Nolan, and Maxime Lapine, who were instructed to deliver the first mentioned a third was addressed to Major General Middleton, and dated May 15. In order to explain the meaning of the word, ExoVid, I have to refer to the testimony of Captain George Young of the Winnipeg Field Battery, who received Riel from General Middleton on the evening of May 15, and remained in charge of him until he delivered him to me at Regina on May 23. This witness said, into Aaliyah, during the term of eight or nine days that I was living with him, Riel, entirely, there was an immense amount of conversation. We conversed almost constantly and very freely. He conversed on almost every subject connected with the rebellion. When we found the books and papers in the council room we found the word ExoVid. This bothered us a great deal, and one of the first things I asked the prisoner was what it meant. From two Latin words, Ex, which means from, an Ovid flock, that word I made use of to convey that I was assuming no authority at all, and the advisors of the movement took also that title instead of counsellors or representatives, and their purpose for doing so was exactly the same as mine, no assumption of authority, so that was the purpose of the letter. No assumption of authority. Several times it is true, we made use of the words representative members of the council, but we had to do it until the word ExoVid was understood, and it would begin to become useful amongst even the men of the movement. So the council itself is not a council being composed of ExoVids, we have called the ExoVidate. In examination in chief this witness was asked by Mr. Robinson, question. From first to last of these conversations with you did you observe anything to arouse a suspicion, or indicate that he was of unsound mind? Answer. Not at all, certainly not. I found that I had a mind against my own, and fully equal to it, better educated and much more clever than I was myself. He would stop and evade answering questions with the best possible Mr. Greenshield's, the witness acknowledged that he had had no experience in dealing with people of unsound mind, nor had he received a medical education. Question. Do you not consider yourself in a position to give an opinion as to sanity? Answer. I could not give a medical opinion, but I consider that during the nine days I was living with him, I would know if I was living with a lunatic. The next witness box of this court, of reminiscences, is Dr. James M. Wallace, who told Mr. Osler that for about nine years he had been in charge of the asylum for the insane at Hamilton, Ontario, but had studied insanity for more years than that. He had been present during the sitting of the court, had heard the evidence, had interviewed the prisoner alone for about half an hour, and had discovered no indication of insanity. He thought the prisoner was of sound mind and capable of distinguishing right from wrong. In answer to Mr. Fitzpatrick the doctor said he had heard of the particular form of mental disease known as megalomania, a term which was scarcely ever used, and that only by one writer. Note. The reader must remember that this was thirty years ago. And note. Question. You are aware that this particular form of insanity is characterised, among other things, by extreme irritability on the part of the patient. Answer. Not megalomania, megalomania simply applies to grandiose ideas. It can have no other definition than that. And these ideas allow me to explain are delusions. They are delusions, such as a person holding or believing himself to be king, or possessed of immense wealth, and that the world is at his feet. Question. But you are quite sure that the character of irritability is not one of the characteristics of this malady? Answer. It is not a malady, it is merely a symptom, commonly found in paralytic insanity. Question. Where the disease exists is the idea, the result of disease, fixed and constant. Answer. It is the result of the disease. Question. But is it fixed or intermittent? Answer. In those cases it is fixed. Question. So that, when a queen has taken herself to be a queen, she remains a queen? Answer. She usually dies a queen? Question. In her own idea? Answer. Yes. Question. Not sometimes a queen, and sometimes otherwise? Answer. No. The witness to be called upon to tell his recollections was father Alexis André Oblate, who had lived with the half-breeds of the Saskatchewan for about twenty-five years. He was one of the witnesses who were brought from Prince Albert at the expense of the crown, to give evidence in Riel's favour, and Mr. Lemieux tried to extract from him an opinion adverse to the sanity of the prisoner. Question. You have had a good deal of experience with people, and you have known persons who were afflicted with mania? Answer. Before answering that I want to state a fact to the court regarding the prisoner. You know the life of that man affected us during a certain time. Question. In what way? Answer. He was a fervent Catholic, attending the church and attending to his religious duties frequently, and his state of mind was the cause of great anxiety. In conversation on politics and on the rebellion and on religion he stated things which frightened the priests. I am obliged to visit every month the father's priests of the district. Once all of the priests met together and they put the question is it possible to allow that man to continue in his religious duties? And they unanimously decided that on this question he was not responsible, that he was completely a fool on this question, and that he could not suffer any contradiction. On the question of religion and politics we considered that he was completely a fool. Mr. Lemieux, rather incontinently dropped this witness, who was taken in hand by Mr. Cascrain for the crown. Question. I believe in the month of December 1884 you had an interview with Riel and Nolan with regard to a certain sum of money which the prisoner claimed from the federal government. Answer. Not with Nolan, he was not present. Question. The prisoner was there? Answer. Yes. Question. Will you please state what the prisoner asked from the federal government? Answer. I had two interviews with the prisoner on that subject. When he made his claim I was there with another gentleman and he asked from the government $100,000. We thought that was exorbitant and the prisoner said wait a little, I will take at once $35,000 cash. Question. And on that condition the prisoner was allowed to leave the country if the government gave him the $35,000. Answer. Yes, that was the condition he put. Footnote. As we now learn from the late Lord Strathcona's biographer that that nobleman himself, when he was plain Donald A. Smith, at the request of Governor Archibald, paid Riel $3,000 to leave the country for the time being after the rebellion of 1870, and after he had perpetrated the cold-blooded murder of Thomas Scott, and as we learn from the same authority that Archbishop Tashé declared that the government authorized him to promise Riel an amnesty, it is quite evident that there was more method in poor Louise's madness than any of us at that time had any idea of. The same biographer tells us that when the liberal party came into power after the expose of the Pacific scandal in 1873, Louise Riel was elected for provincial, and actually traveled to Ottawa for the purpose of being sworn in a member of the House of Commons. At this time he was a fugitive from justice. He succeeded in taking the oath and in writing his name in the book. In the hurry and confusion of the moment he was allowed to slip away from the house undetected. No one seemed to bother about him greatly, and he was permanently permitted to escape. It would have meant the saving of a little blood and a good deal of treasure, but the development of the great lone land would have been delayed for at least a generation. End footnote. Question. When was this? Answer. On December 23, 1884. Question. There was also another interview between you and the prisoner? Answer. There have been about interviews between us? Question. He was always after you to ask you to use your influence with the federal government to obtain this indemnity? Answer. The first time he spoke of it was on December 12. He had never spoken a word about it before, and on December 23 he spoke about it again. Question. Is it not true that the prisoner told you he himself was the half-breed question? Answer. He did not say so in his last terms, but he conveyed that idea. He said, if I am satisfied the half-breeds will be. I must explain this. This objection was made to him that even if the government granted him the thirty-five thousand dollars the half-breed question would remain the same and he said in answer to that if I am satisfied the half-breeds will be. Question. Is it not a fact that he told you he would even accept a less sum than the half-breed question? Answer. Yes, he said, use all the influence you can you may get all that but get all that you can and if you get less we will see. End of Chapter 16 Part 2 Chapter 16 Part 3 of Mounted Police Life in Canada This is a LibriVox recording all LibriVox recordings are in the public domain for more information or to volunteer please visit the LibriVox.org Mounted Police Life in Canada by Captain Burton Dean Chapter 16 Part 3 Louis Riel executed for treason Mr. Osler's cross-examination of the next witness was of absorbing interest. Dr. François Roy was one of the prisoners witnesses from Quebec whose expenses were paid by the government. He told Mr. Fitzpatrick that for more than fifteen years he had been medically superintendent of the Lunatic Asylum at Beauport in Quebec and it had been his duty to visit the principal asylums in the United States and see how the patients were treated there. He had made a special study of diseases of the brain. He said that the prisoner was an inmate of the asylum for about nineteen months prior to January 1878 suffering from megalomania causing under the name of La Rochelle. He was placed therein by the provincial government of Quebec. In reply to Mr. Fitzpatrick the doctor said I am perfectly certain that when the prisoner was under our care he was not of sound mind but he became cured before he left more or less but from what I heard here today I am ready to say that I believe on these occasions his mind was unsound and that he was laboring under the disease so well described by Dagonaut. In cross examination Mr. Osler elicited from the witness that he was one of two proprietors of a private asylum having an average of from 800 to 900 inmates. He said they had a medical superintendent and a treasurer. Question. The proprietors only have a general supervision? Answer. More than that Specialist. The doctor admitted that he had brought no books or papers. Before starting he had looked into the register to refresh his memory as to the date of La Rochelle's discharge and for the rest said I thought they would ask me my opinion of the case. Having satisfied his legitimate curiosity on matters in general connected with the conduct of the institution Mr. Osler came at length to the disease characteristics in this wise. Question. You say the main feature of this disease is what? What is the leading feature of this disease do you say? Do you say that it is a fixed idea incapable of change? Answer. That is one thing I may say. Question. Will you answer the question? Do you say that the leading feature of the disease is a fixed idea incapable of a change by reason? Question. I ask you is that the leading feature of the disease? Answer. That is one of the features. Question. Is it the leading feature? Answer. It is one of them. It is one of the characteristic features. Question. A fixed idea with a special ambition incapable of change by reasoning? Answer. Well that fixed idea is beyond his control? Answer. I would not be prepared to say entirely. Question. If it is beyond his control he is an insane man? Answer. Yes. Question. Is not this fixed idea beyond his control? Answer. Yes. Question. He may have had intermissions in which he understood his condition. Question. It is subject to control. It is not a fixed idea. That is what we have agreed upon as the leading characteristic do you understand? Answer. I do not know what you are after. Question. If this idea is subject to control then this man is sane? Answer. There may be intermissions but the insanity disappears. Question. And then there is a lucid interval? Answer. Yes. Question. During the period of the insanity the idea possesses the man and it is not controllable? Answer. No. Question. Is that the leading feature of the disease? Answer. Can you give me any other leading feature of the disease? Answer. I have no other feature to give. Question. That is the only one you can describe? Answer. I gave you the features and characteristics of the disease well enough. Question. I am going to keep you to that unless you want to enlarge upon it. I am going to build my theory upon that. You can enlarge it as much as you like now upon me afterwards. Is there any other leading feature of the disease? Answer. I have given you the principal characteristics of his disease. Question. I want to get the particular characteristics of this form of mania. Answer. They have intermissions sometimes for months and sometimes for days. The least contradiction excites them. Question. There is a class of healthy intermissions in spear and sometimes whisky. I want to get the characteristics that distinguish him from a healthy man, not those that we have in common with the insane. Answer. We always answer reasonably, but when a man comes and pretends to know everything and talks nonsense we suspect that, to a certain extent he has lost his reason. Question. We want to get at the leading characteristic. You have given us one feature. Is it really the one feature? If there are any other features say so. Answer. I won't give you any. Question. Will you stick to it? Answer. Yes. Question. Then what leading idea, not subject to change by reason, is it that you have fixed upon in the evidence yesterday and today bringing you to the conclusion tell me the symptoms that bring you to the conclusion that this man is within the rule you have laid down. Tell me the facts that bring him within that rule. Answer. The facts are that he has always kept that characteristic. Question. Answer that question. Mr. Fitzpatrick. The witness has been speaking in English for some time past. If the witness does not understand Mr. Osler, if the man wants to hide himself under the French he can do so. Question. You understand what I mean? Answer. Mr. Osler. It will be for the jury to say whether he is making the change at his own suggestion or at that of the counsel on the other side. Question. Having given a rule to test this insanity what fact is there, disclosed in the evidence which leads you to say that the prisoner comes within the rule? Answer. That part of the evidence given by the clergy today shows in a positive manner that the prisoner has manifested symptoms that we meet with in megalomania. Question. That is no answer to my question. I want the fact on which you bring the prisoner within the rule that you have laid down. I want to take the fact proved by the evidence. Question. Answer. The prisoner gets this theory from the idea that he has a mission. Question. Do you understand that to be the fixed idea not controllable by reason? Answer. I believe so because reason has never so far succeeded in changing the idea that he has. Question. Is that the only reason you have for saying that the prisoner is insane? Answer. Question. Is it consistent with laboring under an idea not controllable by reason that he would abandon that idea for $35,000? Mr. Fitzpatrick. I object to that. That has not been proved. His honour. What is the question? Mr. Osler. Is it consistent with a man having an idea not controllable by reason that he will abandon the idea for $35,000? Let that be a hypothetical question. Mr. Fitzpatrick. I object to the question. His honour. He can put hypothetical questions. Mr. Osler. My learned friend must know that the question is regular and should not interfere at a critical part of the examination so as to give the witness a cue. Mr. Fitzpatrick. I did not have any such intention. We have the right to object and intend to exercise that right. Mr. Osler. You should not exercise it in such a way as to give the witness a cue. That is the second cue that you have given the witness. You gave him a cue in regard to speaking French. It would be unprofitable to follow Dr. Roy's evidence any further. He was hopelessly out of his depth and his counsel had to do something desperate to save his face. When in order to evade answering a question he told Mr. Osler that he was not an expert in insanity. A good many people who heard him wondered what he was doing there at all. Mr. Osler finally dismissed him with a gesture of great contempt and in these words. Well, doctor, if you will not answer the question in French or in English I may as well let you go. You can go. He then turned his broad back upon him and the doctor stepped blithely out of the box as if he were a hero. Father Vitale Formand was another of the prisoner's witnesses brought from Prince Albert at the expense of the Crown. It was he who consulted the other Reverend Fathers as to whether Royale should be allowed to continue in his religious duties. He told Mr. Lemieux that Royale had extraordinary ideas on the subject of the Trinity. The only God was God the Father and God the Son was not God. The Holy Ghost was not God either. The second person of the Trinity was not God and as a consequence of this the Virgin Mary was not the Mother of God but the Mother of the Son of God. Instead of saying Hail Mary Mother of God he said Hail Mary Mother of the Son of God. He did not admit the doctrines of the church of the Divine Presence. As to his political ideas he wanted first to go to Winnipeg and lower Canada and the United States and even France. He said he will take your country even and then he was to go to Italy and overthrow the Pope and then he would choose another Pope of his own making. Mr. Lemieux Have you made up your mind about the prisoner being insane as far as religious matters are concerned? Father F. We were much embarrassed at first because sometimes he looked reasonable and sometimes he looked as a man Finally. Father F. We made up our minds that there was no way to explain his conduct but that he was insane otherwise he would have been too big a criminal. Father Formand gave this evidence on July 30th as a witness for the defense. He was somewhat less guarded on August 7th following when he made an affidavit appealing for mercy on behalf of Philip Carnot Maxime Lafime Pierre Parentenot Emmanuel Champagne and Philip Carnot all of whom I firmly believe so the affidavit runs were kept in the rebel camp through terror of their own lives and for fear of their families being punished should they attempt to escape. The following extracts from the same affidavit To impress the people and to keep them within his power this man, Riel reverted to all kinds of trickery often have I seen him praying aloud prostrating himself in prayer and ordering all the others to do so then he made a deep impression on his poor ignorant dupes and so convinced them of his divine mission that it was impossible to convince them that he was a trickster and would lead them to destruction Riel so played on their ignorance that he made them believe in his power to work miracles they firmly believe this I heard them say that Riel could make it thunder and could cure disease without medicines Riel himself declared that he was once the victim of an incurable disease of the heart but that on May 24 he had cured the disease by his divine power he also declared that if he should be killed it did not matter he would be with them again alive and that would prove to them his divine mission he cried a ghost that speaks who shall dare disbelieve me oh my poor people I could not restrain them they were under the infatuation of this arch trader and trickster till he got them committed by the effusion of blood I heard him say and proclaim death death to anyone who tries to desert and many of the poor people had guns pointed at their hearts by Riel's orders he suspected them of wishing to get away and to complete his terrorism over the poor people he declared it to be his determination to put me, this deponent in the front of the battle this affidavit of which I have quoted a very small part is interesting as showing that a week's further reflection was sufficient to bring the Reverend Father to the conclusion that after all criminality and not insanity it was the first in the scale the insanity plea was ridiculous from the first what did a couple of partisan doctors hurriedly imported from the east after one or two brief interviews know about the prisoner in the state of his mind compared with us who were in daily communication with him it was no uncommon thing for us to have lunatics in our charge and very skillful and sympathetic treatment they used to receive at the hands of Dr. Chukes the senior surgeon of the force he was in daily communication with Louis Riel in the discharge of his duties and never had any reason to suspect him of insanity nor had I nor had Sergeant Peugeot the provost in charge of the prison and we had had the prisoner in custody for over two months I was asked at the trial if I had ever seen anything to indicate that the prisoner was not of sound mind and I replied yes I think so he always gave me the impression of being very shrewd as I left the witness-box to return to my place in court I had to pass the doc and as I did so Riel said to me thank you captain and he meant it he particularly resented the imputation of insanity and did not seem to realize that it was the one hope of saving his life I have no doubt in my own mind that if Father Formont had laid an information before a justice of the peace that Louis Riel was insane and dangerous to be at large and had abduced in corroboration of his complaint some of the evidence which he embodied in his affidavit before mentioned the accused man would have been committed to one of our grand rooms for temporary detention pending inquiry and observation this was not done and as Father Formont and his conferees held their peace the outside world knew nothing of the prisoners eccentricities as alleged if the matter had been brought to the notice of the mounted police they would have been glad of an opportunity to remove this fire-brand and would have attended to it but in truth insanity was never mentioned in connection with Riel's name until his counsel originated the idea at the trial Mr. Fitzpatrick made a long and very able address on behalf of his client and at the close thereof the prisoner was informed by the court that if he had any remarks to make to the jury then was the time to speak this is a special privilege accorded by statute to a person charged with high treason and before Riel opened his mouth Mr. Lemieux told the court that his counsel must not be considered responsible for any declaration he might make Riel made a long, rambling speech from which it is not an easy matter to make extracts the following is, however, material to the question of sanity or otherwise today, when I saw the glorious General Middleton bearing testimony that he thought I was not insane and when Captain Dean proved that I am not insane I felt that God was blessing me with my name the blot resting upon my reputation on account of having been in the lunatic asylum of my good friend Dr. Roy I have been in an asylum but I thank the lawyers for the crown who destroy the testimony of my good friend Dr. Roy because I have always believed that I was put in the asylum without good reason even if I was going to be sentenced by you gentlemen of the jury I have this satisfaction if I die I will not be reputed by all men as insane as a lunatic a good deal has been said by the two Reverend Fathers Andre and Fourmont I cannot call them my friends but they made no false testimony I know that a long time ago they believed me more or less insane as to religion what is my belief what is my insanity about that my insanity your honor gentlemen of the jury I have been in the asylum of Rome aside in as much as it is the cause of division between Catholics and Protestants the nineteenth century is to be treated in certain ways and it is probably for that reason I have found the word exo-vide I prefer to be called one of the flock I am no more than you are I am simply one of the flock equal to the rest if it is any satisfaction to the doctors to know what kind of insanity I have if they are going to call the attention's insanity I say humbly through the grace of God I believe I am the prophet of the new world Mr. Robinson closed the case for the crown in a magnificent speech and freely castigated the counsel of the other side who preceded him I should explain here that we had in the barracks at that time some fifty half-breeds and Indian prisoners including Poundmaker the Indian chief and these men were all awaiting trial for trees and felony Mr. Robinson said, among other things it will not be necessary to go over the evidence in detail for a reason we seldom find in cases of this kind there is no contradiction there is no dispute there is not a single witness whose word has been doubted there is not a single fact proved on the part of the crown which anybody has been called to contradict as an admission and an admission made by counsel for the defense that the case as presented has been made out beyond all question what my learned friend's addresses amount to was practically this they told you in fact that this rebellion was justifiable my learned friend Mr. Greenshields told you that the men responsible for the blood that was shed were the people who had refused the petitions which the half-breeds made under the direction and guidance of the prisoner at the bar in the next breath he told you that this rebellion was directed and carried on by an irresponsible lunatic my learned friends must make their choice between their defenses they cannot claim for the client what is called a niche in the temple of fame and at the same time assert that he is entitled to a place in a lunatic asylum what in reality is the defense which you as sensible men are fixed to find by your verdict you are asked to find that six or seven hundred men may get up an armed rebellion with its consequent loss of life its loss of property that murder and arson and pillage may be committed by that band of armed men and we are to be told that they are all irresponsible lunatics it is my duty to put these facts to you plainly and strongly because it is our duty to protect society and all that I can say is that if such folly as finding this man insane is possible in this country you say in effect to men who desire to come here to live that there is no sufficient protection by law for either life, property or liberty are you prepared to say that because that is the single issue placed before you by the council for the crown disguise it as you like speak of it as you like that is the simple result and the plain consequence my learned friend Mr. Fitzpatrick had forgotten what is due to a prisoner when he charged those who were acting for the crown with some warmth for not having called Poundmaker to prove the receipt of that document note, that is the letter signed by Riel found in Poundmaker's camp he was good enough at the same time to say that those who were conducting the case for the crown were persons who understood fair play it was because we did understand fair play because it would have been improper to have called Poundmaker to swear to that that we did not call him if we had attempted to put Poundmaker in the box to prove the receipt of this document we would have been asking Poundmaker to declare on oath his own complicity in this rebellion and Poundmaker would have said to us I decline to answer your questions and any judge would have said to those who acted for the crown gentlemen you had no business to put a man in that position now that it is our answer on the part of the crown to the charge that we did not call the prisoners to prove their own guilt out of their own mouth those who are guilty of this rebellion and those who have not a proper excuse have taken the step upon their own heads and they must suffer the punishment which the law from all time and which the law for the last five centuries has declared to be punishment of the crime of treason the case was left to the jury in a very full charge and the law as regards the defense of insanity clearly stated in a manner to which no exception was taken either at the trial or in the court of Queen's bench of Manitoba or before the privy council the jury brought in a verdict of guilty with a recommendation to mercy and were discharged the prisoner was asked if he had anything to say why sentence should not be pronounced upon him and made a very long rambling speech after which he was sentenced to be executed at Regina on September 18 an appeal was taken to the court of appeal in Manitoba and also to the privy council but the judgment was affirmed by both courts. Rial after his sentence was not long in attending to his spiritual affairs and was then received once more into the bosom of the church before this could be done however he had to recant his errors which he did in a long manuscript document dated the fourth day of August and of which a translation is as follows renunciation made by Mr. Louis Rial whose name is also David Rial of all his errors in the presence of the Reverend Father Formont Oblate of Mary Immaculate his father confessor the fourth day of August 1885 I the undersigned Louis Rial being in full possession of my faculties and of my free will without any other motive than to ensure my eternal salvation in reconciling myself with the God whom I have offended and to amend the scandals which I have been so unhappy as to cause do solemnly abjure all the errors which I have believed professed and taught contrary to the doctrine of the Holy Apostolic and Roman Church beseeching her in the person of her charitable ministers to bestow upon me her holy absolution for all my crimes and iniquities as I renounce my false mission of profit the prime cause of my errors and of all other backslidings I particularly abjure my sins against the most holy and adorable Trinity against the Divine Motherhood of the August and Immaculate Mother of God against the most holy and adorable Eucharist against the eternal punishment of Hell against the infallibility of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Rome and have her visible head against the Holy Father the Pope against the Authority and Integrity of Divine Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures and of the Catholic Tradition against the Apostolic Institution of the Sabbath Day I believe with all my heart and with my mouth freely and fervently confess that there is one God in three persons consubstantial and perfectly equal in all things that is to say that the Father is God the Son is God like unto the Father begotten by Him from all eternity consubstantial with His Almighty Father eternal, infinitely perfect like unto Himself who, when He, the Divine Son of God abased Himself so as to make Himself like unto us except as to sin took our likeness upon Him in the womb of the blessed and Immaculate Virgin Mary ever a virgin by the operation of the Holy Spirit and consequently Mother of the Person who is God Mother of God according to the Catholic faith solemnly confirmed at the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus I believe therefore that there are two natures in Jesus Christ our Lord the Divine Nature and the Human Nature although He can only be one person the Person of the Son of God He is perfect God and perfect man so that when He says that His Father is greater than Himself it is not the teaching of the Holy Catholic Church it is not Holy Man and Holy God I further believe that the Holy Ghost the Third Person of the Most Holy and Adorable Trinity is God like unto God the Father and the Son proceeding from the Father and the Son being one God with the Father and the Son I believe in the seven sacraments of the Holy Church and more particularly that an ordained priest only can hear the confession of Christians and give them Holy Absolution I believe that the Blessed Eucharist is a sacrament instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ in His Abundant Love for us and that it contains in verity and truth His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity under the Holy Species of Bread and Wine living in that adorable sacrament not only for this mortal and temporal life but more for the glorious and eternal life enjoying in His Body and in His Holy Spirit of His Triumphant Resurrection I believe in the infallibility of the Church and of our Holy Father the Pope speaking ex cathedra and as the lawful successor of Saint Peter in his supremacy over all other bishops of whom he is the one visible head on earth as well as in his authority and jurisdiction over all priests and the faithful believing that to him as to Peter it was said feed my sheep, feed my lambs I believe in the eternity of the pains of hell that they will forever endure and never cease purgatory alone having temporal punishment proportioned to trespasses against divine justice I believe that the Holy Sabbath Day is at least an apostolic institution designed to replace the Sabbath of the ancient law and that consequently the divine obligation to keep it holy is as binding upon us as was the obligation with regards to the ancient Jewish Sabbath abolished by the new dispensation most humbly I solicit pardon from the public at large particularly from the venerable representatives of the Holy Catholic Church from the representatives of the civil power and all my Christian brethren for the scandalous offenses which I have committed against God and His ordinances commending myself to the pity of all men and particularly so to that of the Almighty God whom I have set at naught signed Luis Riel or Luis David Riel witness V. Formand, O. M. I witness L. Kuchen, O. M. I Riel asked to see me one day and handed me the document of which the foregoing purports to be a translation so far as I recollect now recantation in the foregoing form had been presented to him by the priest for acceptance and signature and he stipulated that he should be allowed to make a copy of it this copy he then entrusted to me asking me to keep it why I do not know he did not ask me to publish it or I would not have received it for it was not a time in the country's history when it would have been advisable to add fuel to the fire having explained what the foregoing document was he then handed me another paper which was to be signed in my presence by the two priests Father Formand and Kuchen and was witnessed by myself this document also was to remain in my custody a translation of it reads as follows we, the undersigned certify as witnesses the authenticity of the answers made by Luis David Riel and of his recantation and of the authenticity of the document of his renunciation and we declare ourselves responsible before God and man for the legitimacy of the questions which we have put to him and for the legitimacy of the recantation which we have required from him as ordained priests Regina Prison 7th August 1885 S.D. V. Formand O.M.I S.D. L. Kuchen O.M.I WITNESS 5th August 1885 S.D. V. Formand O.M.I WITNESS O.M.I WITNESS O.M.I O.M.I WITNESS O.M.I O.M.I WITNESS O.M.I WITNESS I never discussed religious subjects with Riel. The only occasion on which he ventured to obtrude his pretensions on me was November 14, 1885, two days before his execution, and long after the recantation of his errors, when he sent me a note by the orderly officer written by himself which purports to be. The narration of a vision as seen this evening, 14 November, 1885, by Louis David Riel, prophet of the New World, care of Mr. the Inspector Dowling. On the other side of a half-page a false gap was written. Captain R. B. Dean. A little before half-past eight o'clock this evening, as I knelt down to make the way of the cross, my eyes being shut, while I was beginning to pray and being turned towards the west, I saw before me at a distance of about twenty or twenty-five yards a man, dark complexion, black moustache. It struck me that it was the honourable Hector Langevin. While I was considering his face his features changed and reminded me, sick, the decomposed features of the late Sir George E. Carchet, and he disappeared. An instant after my mind was in doubt whether those features were not those of the honourable Minister of Militia. The before mentioned appeals to the Manitoba Court and the Privy Council had necessitated the postponement of the execution, and it was not until November 15 that the Commissioner of Dominion Police brought the death warrant from Ottawa. We had known, of course, that it was on the way, and arrangements had been made for the morning of November 16 at eight o'clock. Riel was informed by Sheriff Chaplot of the arrival of the warrant at about nine p.m. on the fifteenth, and said in reply, I am glad that at last I am to be released from suffering. The strain upon him during the previous three months had been tremendous, and he had become constitutionally weaker, although his mental condition was unchanged. He was attended at the last by Fathers Andre and Mick Williams, and died with the courage of a man and a Christian, and it was not possible to doubt his sanity. He had asked that his body should be given to his friends to be laid at rest in Saint Boniface, the French cemetery, across the Red River from Manitoba, and we handed it over to a Mr. Bonot upon an order from the Lieutenant's Governor for conveyance thither. While the coffin was thus awaiting transfer to Mr. Bonot, it was kept in a corner of the prison-yard, and while there report was made to me that a rumour was in circulation that after the dead man had been cut down from the scaffold a brutal, mounted policeman had, to the accompaniment of a blasphemous oath, stamped his booted foot into the dead man's face as it lay on the ground. It seems now, as I write these words, after the laps of more than a quarter of a century, that it is almost incredible that such an improbable, senseless story should have obtained currency, but it is to be borne in mind that race prejudices and passions were running high, that the neighbourhood was seething with excitement, and that it was impossible to allow the body to pass out of our possession until the falsity of this report had been demonstrated beyond all question. Colonel's Irvine and MacLeod were both in barracks, as were Superintendent Gagnon and Dr. Jukes, and I took them all across to the prison-yard and had the coffin opened. Gagnon was a native of Quebec, so it was very fortunate that he was able to be there. As was expected there was no trace of any disfigurement of any kind. A few locks of hair had been taken from the brow, but this had not been done by any unsympathetic hand, and the lie that had found its way into circulation was killed in its infancy. If this had not been done we should never have heard the end of it. I will close the story of Louis Trielle, so far as his life came into conjunction with mine, by reproducing a poem which he handed to me on July 13th, 1885, and which I believe was his own composition. that all the new France finds near to the free access. Under his admirable crown, under his majestic kingdom, he went to St. Glossaxon to make the Irish happy, that Jesus, the Son of God himself, was crowned on the seas and the lands of the Diodemnes of the Rhine in the universe. Complimentary for my being allowed to write in the Commissioner's office. End of Chapter 16, Part 3. Chapter 17, Part 1 of Mounted Police Life in Canada. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Mounted Police Life in Canada. By Captain Burton Dean. Chapter 17, Part 1. Three Trials for Murder. The Tucker-Peach Murder, 1910. The Benson Murder and Arson, 1913. The Wilson Murder and Robbery, 1914. The Tucker-Peach Murder. On June 29, 1910, a dead body was reported to have been found in the Bow River, not far from the Roman Catholic Industrial School at Durbao. A coroner was notified, and in company with a Mounted Police constable from Octokux, visited the spot the following day. The body had been washed against the trunk of a fallen tree in the river. Part of it, which was out of the water, was very much discolored, and the whole of it was considerably decomposed. When brought to land there was found to be no head on the body. A shirt and undershirt were all the clothing, and these gave no clue to the identity of the man who had come to so untimely an end. No one was known to be missing, and after a somewhat perfunctory examination, the coroner issued his order for burial, and the remains were buried on the river bank by a couple of nearby settlers who volunteered to do the work. It happened that my wife and I were at this time on a month's holiday in British Columbia, and it was not until the month of November following that I first heard of the occurrence. In the course of that month a long-distance telephone message informed me that a skull had been found in the bed of the river just under the tree where the body had been discovered, and that a hole in the forehead indicated foul play. Detective Sergeant Murison was sent to the spot. He found the skull as stated, and close to it, half buried in the sand, a blanket, cow-hide, and two pieces of rope. These were matted together and frozen solid, and it took a long time to thaw them out. The skull had a small, clean hole in the center of the forehead. Such a hole as could only have been made by a bullet. A piece of cotton batting in one of the ears, and a slight dent, apparently the mark of an old injury, received during lifetime some years previously, which extended both ways across the forehead from the center. Obviously the first thing to do was to find a name for the dead man, and to take that as a starting point for further inquiries. Gradually it transpired that one of the earliest settlers in that sparsely settled district, a man who had been settled there for upwards of a quarter of a century, had, earlier in the year, disappeared in a mysterious sort of way, that is to say, he had gone away without saying good-bye to sundry neighbors, who were surprised at his omission to go and see them before he left. It was common talk that he had sold his place and his horses to a young fellow who had taken possession, but this unceremonious departure, without a word, circled in the minds of the neighbors, because there was no reason for it, and they could not understand it. The absentee's name was A. C. Tucker Peach, but he was popularly known as Old Tucker. A few neighbors, those who knew him, said from the first that the skull, with its few iron-grey hairs, its missing teeth and general contour, looked like Old Tucker. One witness subsequently deposed how the deceased man came by the wound on the forehead, when a horse had kicked him in his own stable, many years previously, and how he had helped dress the wound. The same witness said, speaking of the iron-grey hair, many a time I've cut it, with the suspicion of a tear glimmering in his eye. The skull was sent to the provincial bacteriologist at Edmonton for examination, and very masterly treatment it received at the hands of Dr. Ravel. The body which had been buried on the Bow River bank in June was exhumed, but the cleansing and thawing of it for the examination took several days, and nothing was said about it at the inquest which was opened on November 29 at Okutuk's. Dr. Ravel showed the coroner's jury how a bullet had entered the skull at the forehead, and after a somewhat eccentric course had emerged at the inside corner of the left eye. He told the same story to two other juries later on, and they all believed him. The inquest was called for November 29, 1911, and on November 28, our position was this. We believed that we had evidence enough to convince the jury that the body was Tucker Peaches, and that he had been murdered by a bullet wound in the head, but as to how, or by whom the fatal shot had been fired, we were in complete ignorance. We had not, however, been idle since the finding of the skull on November 12. We had been searching high and low for Tucker Peaches, and making inquiries as to his business relations with T. M. Robertson, the young man to whom he was alleged to have sold out. Robertson at that time was working as a breaksman on the Canadian Pacific Railway between Calgary and Medicine Hat, and we found ourselves depending exclusively on him for any intelligence whatever, respecting his deal. Robertson had left word with the postmaster at Gladys to forward to his care at his Calgary address an e-mail that might arrive for Tucker Peaches, and a report had in some manner become circulated that Tucker Peaches had written to him from England, where it was known that he had a sister living. On being served with a summons to attend the inquest, Robertson told us that he had bought the Peaches ranch of a hundred and sixty acres for twenty-six dollars per acre, half down, half payable in twelve months, that after the deal was made Peaches went to car stairs, and from there to England, and that in the month of September Peaches had written to him asking how he would be able to meet the remainder of the payment. Immediately on receipt of this report I sent a non-commissioned officer to car stairs, but no trace of the missing man could be found there. Robertson was interviewed as soon as he returned to Calgary from Medicine Hat, and told a slightly different story. He said now that he had paid one thousand dollars down by a check on the bank of Montreal, Calgary, and that the transfer had been drawn up by Peaches' lawyer. He said that he had received his money by means of a draft from P. Coates and Company, and that Tucker Peaches had written to him from Lancashire where his sister was living. The transfer he said he had left at Medicine Hat, and he did not know the name of the lawyer who had drawn it. We ascertained without difficulty that his account of his monetary transactions was fictitious, but beyond that we had nothing to warrant our depriving him of his liberty, and my men had positive instructions to say nothing which might alarm him at all. The report as to Peaches' whereabouts, namely that he was in Stetler, was investigated and found to be untrue. There was nothing for it but to wait and see what the inquest might bring forth. On the day before the inquest was due to be held, Robertson, duly, started by train for Ocotooks, about thirty miles from Calgary, but instead of stopping there went on to MacLeod, some eighty miles further south. Arriving at MacLeod in the afternoon he went to a sporting-house where he gradually became maudlin under the influence of liquor, and eventually said that he was escaping from the police, that he had stolen about seventy-five thousand dollars in Alaska, that the police were after him, and that he wanted to catch the spookany flyer that night. The woman of the house wrote a note to the officer commanding the mounted police at MacLeod, and Robertson was gathered into the fold. At the guard room where he was searched the summons to the inquest was found on his person, a coroner's warrant was applied for and issued, and Robertson was presented in custody at Ocotooks next day. He was feeling very much the results of his potations of the previous day, and was in no condition to withstand the grueling examination which he was called upon to undergo. In the witness-box he told a story different from any of his previous stories. He said now that he had bought two quarter sections from Tucker Peach, being three hundred and twenty acres at twenty-six dollars an acre, which price included the twenty horses on the place. This purchase money, to the extent of five thousand dollars, had come to him by bank draft from Scotland to the Bank of Montreal at Calgary, where he cashed it for notes and gold. He did not remember the respective amounts of each, and so the silly story went on, until at last he was informed that the Bank of Montreal officials could and would be called to contradict his statements in detail, and he was asked if he had any explanations to offer as to the conflict of evidence between himself and them. His answer to that was, well, I guess this is not the place to say it, I do not wish to say anything further. Inspector Dufus, the officer who was watching the case for the police, saw that the psychological moment had arrived. He obtained the coroner's permission to speak to the witness, asked the latter if he had anything he would like to say to him privately, and, on an affirmative gesture, took him to another part of the house. There, having given the prisoner the full caution and joint by the criminal code in presence of witnesses, he wrote down Robertson's confession and asked him to sign it, which he did. The confession briefly set forth that on the morning of King Edward's funeral Robertson and one John Fisk had murdered Tucker Peach in his own shack, that they had wrapped the body in the dead man's blanket and cow-hide, and with his own wagon and horses had carried it into the middle of the stream. The jury, of course, brought in a verdict, accordingly, and the question was how to arrest John Fisk before he could be warned by his sympathisers. It happened that he had recently bought a livery stable in a new place called Carbon, about seventy-five miles from Calgary, in a northeasterly direction. It was after ten o'clock, before I had heard and digested the reports made by the returning inquest party, and there was no time to lose. We had a detachment at Carbon, but the wires were down, and we could not communicate with them, in addition to which there was the possibility that both men might be away from home on patrol, so there was only one thing to be done. Soon after midnight of November twenty-ninth, the most powerful motor that I could hire in Calgary containing two non-commissioned officers crept quietly out of the city on its seventy-five miles run to Carbon. The men had positive orders to wait for the opening up of the stable in the morning and to take Fisk while he was engaged in his work, for he was well known to be a desperate man who would not scruple to use firearms if he had a chance. The arrest was affected without difficulty, and the motor discharged its passengers into barracks in Calgary by one p.m. of November thirtieth, thirteen hours at five dollars per hour, paid the motorman's account. Now that the two perpetrators of the murder were secured, there was obviously only one course to pursue in order to convict both men, namely to use Robertson's evidence against Fisk and Robertson's confession against himself. Robertson never weakened in the stand that he had taken. On the contrary, he seemed to be anxious to tell all he knew. A great load seemed to have been lifted off his mind, and he never was dull or dispirited from first to last. He told the cross-examining council at Fisk's preliminary hearing that he was not afraid to meet his god, and even later, ten days before his execution, was due to take place, before the news of his reprieve had been received. A fellow prisoner remarked of him that he was cracking jokes and laughing, and did not seem to realize at all the terrible position in which he was standing. But I am anticipating. Only one person was allowed to talk to him, and that was the officer to whom he confessed at the time of the inquest. To him, after he had been a day or two in the guard-room, he, Robertson, made an amplified statement, and this revealed such an extraordinary state of affairs that I reproduced it as it was given. This was not used in court, of course, and was intended for our guidance in hunting up corroborations of the story of an accomplice. As to the law on that very important point I had many years ago, too wet, in the month of November, 1889, clipped from the weekly times and pasted in one of my textbooks a little nugget of wisdom enunciated by the President of the Parnell Commission on Wednesday, November 13, 1889. There had been a conversation between the President and Sir Henry James as to the principle of law governing the admission of an accomplice's evidence, and the President disposed of it in these words. I rather regard it as a doctrine of expediency and prudence than a principle of law. Juries are strongly recommended not to act upon the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice, but it has never been a rule of law. I may add that the corroboration required is only of the surrounding circumstances so as to lead up to a general presumption as to the truth of the evidence. It would be an absurdity to say, the italics are mine, that no evidence of an accomplice can be received unless corroborated by other independent testimony, because then there would be no need of an accomplice's evidence. Robertson's confession was as follows. The latter end of January 1910 I was working at Bob Beggs at the corner of the bow and high rivers. One day in February Jack Fisk drove down with a team and Bob Slay to Beggs place. Mrs. Beggs, the two children and I were the only ones there. He sold her a washing machine and a couple of patent fasteners for horse-collars. This was the first time I met Jack Fisk. Two or three weeks after this old man Tucker came down to the river at Beggs for water. He said, Jack Fisk's pigs disturbed the water at the top of the hill and he couldn't drink it. He took a barrel of water with him in his wagon. I rode the range for Beggs for about a month looking after the cattle, and one day I rode over to Beggs' gate at the northeast corner of his place where I met Jack Fisk chasing his milk-cows into Beggs' place. I had some conversation with him about some horses and he told me that old man Tucker was getting after him about some horses which he, Tucker, had lost. He said, I'm scared the old man will get me into trouble. And as Tucker had no friends and no relations and no one to take care of him he thought it would be a good thing to get him out of the way. I said, if you have his horses the old man is right and you should get into trouble. He then said to me, if you will help me get Peach out of the way you can have his land and I will take his horses as I want them. I didn't say anything about this as I was scared. He then threatened me and said, if you say anything about this I will put a shot into you. I said nothing to anybody and rode home to Beggs and he went on rolling his fall wheat. I used to meet him nearly every morning after this when I was riding and he would ask me what I thought about it and if I had said anything to anyone. We discussed the thing on and off for about two months until the last Saturday in April. I think it was Saturday when I came into town to see about my job on the Canadian Pacific Railway and stayed at the King Edward while in Calgary. Begg was in town and stopped me at the Dominion. The two of us went home on Monday. This would be the beginning of May. That afternoon the team I was working got up in a bunch and got away from me. Mrs. Begg sent me up to the top to look for them. While I was up on the hill I met Fisk and he began talking about getting rid of old Peach and said that if I helped him I could have the land and he would take the horses. He was to take them at any time he wanted them. I then agreed to help him. Two weeks after this I went into Calgary and started working on the Canadian Pacific Railway as Brakesman. I made a coverlift trip and went out to Fisk's place the following Wednesday. Before going out to Fisk's I hired a rig from Frank Pasak who runs a store at DeWinton and told him that I was going to drive to Tucker Peaches. When I got to Fisk's place he sent me to Tucker's shack about three hundred or four hundred yards away. This was Thursday afternoon. I helped Peach to clean his grain that afternoon and talked to him about selling his place and horses. He made a memorandum on a sheet of paper which is now in medicine-hat in my box. The memorandum showed what he wanted for the horses, land, etc. I went back to Fisk's that night and slept there. Fisk and I agreed that night we would kill Tucker Peach the next morning. He was to fire the first shot and I was to fire the second. He wanted me to fire the first but I wouldn't. The next morning, Friday, the day of King Edward's funeral, about six o'clock, Fisk and I went to Peach's shack and tried to look into the window. We couldn't see anything as it was covered over with a tent. Note, the old man had an instinctive dread of Fisk and on that account always fastened his door and covered his window. He would not have opened his door to Fisk. I knocked at his door and the old man called, who is there. I said I was there, telling him my name. He opened the door. He had his drawers and shirt on. He sat down on his bed, which was on the floor, and started to put on his trousers. Fisk then fired a shot at Peach with a revolver. Blood started to trickle down his face and he fell back. Fisk candid the revolver to me and told me to do the same. I took the revolver, pointed it at Peach and fired. I don't know whether I hit him or not. I was so excited, but I guess I did. Peach never spoke. He was dead after the shot. We both came out of the shack and looked round to see if anyone was there, but there was no one in sight. We then hitched up Tucker's team and drove up to the door, rolled the body in some blankets, and drove it down to the Bow River at Tucker's lower place. We drove it into the river along the west fence on the west side of his property and dumped the body into it. The blankets and cowskin which we rolled him in were tied round him. The river, at this point, runs east. From what I heard the body was found about a quarter of a mile from where we dumped it. After this I came into town, having stayed at the Derbow School on Saturday night. I told some of them that I had bought the place. The team I took in were Peaches. I sold them to the Alberta Barn for two hundred dollars and put the money in the savings bank of the Bank of Montreal. I was to give Fisk any money he needed. I gave him two payments. One was fifty dollars and one thirty. The amount show in my past book. I went back to the ranch in about two weeks. I saw Ernest Adams there and he told me that Fisk had been looking after the horses and that four two-year-old horses were missing. Adams said he thought Fisk had stolen them. I didn't say anything. Shortly after this the body was found. Fisk, I think, was living on his place at the time, but shortly after this left for carbon. Shortly before the body was found I brought one of Peaches' horses into town and traded it for one belonging to Mr. Gilmore, the plumber of 827 Fifth Avenue, West Calgary. I sold the horses I got from him to a grocer who had a store east of the post office for eighteen dollars. I gave him a bill of sale. I sold a stud about two weeks ago. My cousin sold it for me. My cousin is E. Davis and is looking after the place for me. He knows nothing about this affair. Fisk threw the revolver we shot Peach with into the middle of the river. Signed. Thomas M. Robertson. With these details to guide us, our next task was, of course, to verify the story. We tried first to find the revolver in the river. I sent Robertson with Inspector Dufus and others in a motor to the spot. The days were short. The distance from Calgary was about twenty-five miles, and nothing but a motor could cover the ground in the hours of daylight. Slush ice was found to be running down the river. The water was very cold up to a man's middle. It transpired that Robertson could not tell within a hundred yards where the pistol had been thrown in, and the party returned without having accomplished anything in the way of corroboration. The headless trunk was at this time lying at an undertaker's place in Ocottooks, and was in process of being cleaned and thawed out. When it was ready Dr. Ravel's services were again called in. He spent several hours with the evil-smelling corpse, and the thoroughness of his examination was manifested when he found the bullet which Robertson had fired tucked away under the skin just over the eighth rib on the left side. In the shirts that were on the body one found there were holes corresponding to the situation of the bullet. Adhering to the thirty-two-caliber bullet were some minute particles of the under-clothing through which it had passed, together with a single red fiber from the blanket, where it had passed through a stripe. The indications were that the bullet had struck the floor and glanced upwards. Robertson had said that his hand was very shaky. In the floor of the shack, close under the bed, which consisted of nothing more than a few gunny sacs filled with hay, we found an indentation made by the bullet in its course. The corroboration of Robertson's story, therefore, in that particular, was complete. We had once before examined the shack in a search for the dead man's money. It was known to have a sum, variously estimated, at from one thousand two hundred dollars to one thousand five hundred dollars, but nobody knew where he kept it. He would not entrust it to a bank, and we were able to place in the witness-box only one man who had ever seen him with a large sum of money in his hand. When we first entered the shack we found that it had been thoroughly ransacked and the money evidently found and carried off. We were utterly unable to place before Fisk's jury any evidence to connect him with the missing currency, but in April 1911, after Fisk's conviction, the one man who could have supplied the missing link, permitted himself to talk to a neighbor, and I soon heard of it. It happened that he met Fisk at a little place called DeWinton, and had supper with him at the Minto House Hotel. He saw Fisk pay for it twenty-five cents upper with a ten dollar bill, drawn from a large roll of bills which he had in his hand. He was surprised to see so much money as Fisk was notoriously impecunious. This incident is a fair sample of the difficulty we experienced in collecting evidence. John Fisk seems to have terrorized the entire neighborhood. It was no uncommon thing to hear a witness say, if Fisk gets off I shall have to quit the country. It was some weeks before I could obtain corroboration of Robertson's story as to the conveying of the body to the river, but it presently transpired that a settler named Robert Jones, who lived between Tucker Peach and the river, was working at a fence on his quarter section with an Indian boy when the funeral cortage passed down the trail. Both he and the boy recognized the Tucker Peach team and wagon. Saw John Fisk in a khaki-colored shirt, sitting on the front seat with the reins in his hand and a person whom they took to be Robertson at the rear of the wagon-box. A bitter controversy raged over this testimony when at length it was given, and desperate attempts were made to discredit it. One witness went the length of swearing that on a particular Sunday after church service he had had a conversation with Robert Jones who had told him that he had not seen the team and wagon on the road to the river. This evidence was offset by a constable of the Mounted Police who deposed that on the Sunday in question he spent the four noon with Robert Jones and that Jones did not go to church at all that day. It came out later, after Fisk had been hanged, that another settler and his daughter had also seen the team and wagon as described by Jones and the Indian boy, but refrained from saying a word about it for fear of Fisk's vengeance in case of his acquittal. Both father and daughter had given valuable testimony but suppressed this important item. After sentence of death had been carried out, as I have said, the father met a juryman at high river and said, your conscience may be quite clear about the verdict you gave, John Fisk was guilty all right. He then intimated in a roundabout way, affected by the denizens of the western states, that he and his daughter had seen the outfit and that what Jones and the boy had said was true. Robertson was mistaken in telling us that the murder was committed on the day of the late king's funeral. It doubtless would have taken place on that day but for the circumstances that, when Fisk looked round in the morning, he saw Ernest Adams, Tucker Peach's nearest neighbor, moving a boat on a hill between their two houses which commanded a view of Peach's shack, and his attention would possibly have been attracted by any shots fired then. Robertson went to visit Tucker Peach that afternoon at Fisk's suggestion, and found him fanning some barley which he had contracted to sell for seed, and to fan which the old man had borrowed Adams' fanning mill. Robertson's evidence was to the effect that, after the barley had been cleaned, he helped Peach to load the mill onto his wagon and he, Peach, returned the mill to its owner at about supper time. Adams, on the other hand, deposed that his mill was returned to him by Peach at dinnertime mid-day. He said he couldn't be mistaken because he asked Tucker to stay to dinner on that occasion, but the old man declined. Fisk was being defended by the most eminent criminal lawyer and K.C. in the province of Alberta, and he was not slowed to make the most of this conflict of evidence. Robertson was in the witness-box for two whole days, and the learned counsel, in effect, said to him, �You have admitted spending with Tucker Peach his last afternoon on earth. You killed the old man then, and now tried to lay the blame on John Fisk.� Herein, to my mind, lay the one chance that Fisk ever had of provoking a disagreement of the jury, and if his counsel had stopped there a reasonable doubt might have been raised, particularly as we were unable to show the money motive on Fisk's part. But the difficulty settled itself. Lord Brampton, in his memoirs, gives an interesting instance of a counsel who did not know when to stop cross-examining, and in consequence lost his case. There was something of the same sort here. Cross-examination, pro-lunged, Úsk ad Naziem, presently elicited the fact that, in the course of the fanning operations, a man with a team in wagon arrived to fetch the seed-barley for the purchaser, and took it away. He had to wait until the work was finished, and his evidence was conclusive proof that Robertson was right, and that Adams was wrong in saying that the mill had been returned to him by mid-day. This, too, disposed of the suggestion that the murder was committed by Robertson that afternoon. This evidence was all news to me. Nobody knew the name of the purchaser of the barley, and we were only able to secure his attendance at the last minute before the trial closed. From him we learned the name of the hired man who had fetched the barley, and after extensive search found him near Montreal. He arrived just in time to give his evidence against Robertson, and deposed that the dead man had told him that he was in the process of selling out to Robertson. The trial of John Fisk began on February 21, 1911, and lasted ten days, forty-one witnesses being examined for the prosecution. The jury brought in a verdict of guilty with a recommendation to mercy. This was to salve the susceptibilities of one of their number who was not in favour of capital punishment, and who required that concession. It had no effect whatever at Ottawa so far as mitigation of the penalty was concerned, and John Fisk was executed in the guard room yard at Calgary on June 27, 1911. A Western politician once remarked in my hearing that he admired the mounted police not so much for what they did, but for what they prevented. I wonder under which category such cases as this would come. Robertson's trial began on May 16, and continued four days. Forty-three witnesses were examined for the crown, and six for the defence. The jury appended a strong recommendation to mercy to their verdict of guilty, and the death sentence was in due course commuted to life imprisonment. There is no ground for any such supposition, but one might very readily believe that Robertson was acting under hypnotic suggestion. Sir Alan Ellsworth, the Minister of Justice, remarked to the Comptroller of the Mounted Police that these murderers... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...