THOMAS E. JACKSON sworn:
Examined by MR. OSLER:
Q. Do you live at Prince Albert, Mr. Jackson? A. I do.
Q. You are a druggist? A. I am.
Q. You have been there for some years? A. Some six years.
Q. Your brother, William Henry Jackson, I believe, was one of the prisoners?
A. He was.
Q. And he had been in the company of Riel immediately prior to these
troubles and during the troubles? A. For some time previous to them.
Q. You had known of the movement and the agitation that was in the
country? A. Oh, yes, and I sympathised with it.
Q. Did you know of the prisoner being in the country? A. Yes, I knew
of his coming to the country. I heard he was coming shortly before he came
back.
Q. You knew of him after he came to the country? A. Yes.
Q. I believe you have seen him write? A. Yes.
Q. Do you know his handwriting? A. I know his handwriting.
Q. You went over, I believe, on an occasion shortly after the Duck
Lake fight for the bodies of those who were slain? A. I did. I was one
of those who went.
Q. How many days after? A. Three days after. It was the Sunday after
the fight.
Q. How did you come to go? Under what circumstances did you take that
journey? A. Mr. Sanderson, who had been a prisoner of Riel, was released
by him to carry a message to Major Crozier to remove the dead bodies, and
Crozier had taken him prisoner at Carlton, and then took him to Prince
Albert. I interviewed Sanderson, and asked him about my brother, and he
told me he was insane.
Q. You were inquiring about your brother from Sanderson? A. Yes.
Q. It was arranged Sanderson should go? A. Yes, Sanderson said he was
going and I offered to go with him.
Q. And who else went with you? A. William Drain.
Q. You started, I think, on the 31st? A. Sunday the 29th, the Sunday
after the fight.
Q. You went to Duck Lake? A. Yes.
Q. Did you see the prisoner there? A. I did.
Q. What passed between you? A. General conversation.
Q. Give us the material part of it? A. He spoke of having taken up
arms, that they had done it in self-defence; and in talking about the Duck
Lake fight he said he had gone there in person, that after Major Crozier
had fired the first volley, he replied and urged his men to fire, first,
in the name of God the Father; secondly, in the name of God the Son; and
thirdly, in the name of God the Holy Ghost; and repeated his commands in
that manner through out the battle.
Q. That is what he told you about the engagement? A. Yes.
Q. What else did he say? A. He spoke of the people in the town and
of the settlers generally. He said he had no desire to molest them, that
this quarrel was with the Government and the police and the Hudson Bay
Company. He wished the settlers to hold aloof from taking arms in opposition
to him, and he said if they held aloof he would prevent the Indians from
joining them. If they kept aloof he was to oppose the police himself.
Q. Did he ask you to do anything in reference to that? A. He gave me
a letter to the people generally, stating so.
Q. What have you done with that letter? A. I have destroyed it.
Q. It is not now in existence? A. No.
Q. Did you read the letter? A. Yes.
Q. What was in it? What was the purport of it? A. To the effect that
if the people would hold aloof and remain neutral, that he would not bring
in the Indians, and also to the effect that the last part of it, that if
they did hold aloof he believed they would celebrate the 24th of May; but
that if they did not, the Indians would come in, and parties from across
the boundary, and the result would be they would celebrate the 4th of July,
or something like that.
Q. What was he going to do with Prince Albert? A. He said he would
give them a week to decide whether they would accept his terms or not.
Q. And in the event of their not accepting his terms? A. Then he would
take the place. He said Prince Albert was the key of the position, and
that he must attack it. He said that if the settlers did not stay at home,
but kept in town with the police, he would attack them all.
Q. Whom did you arrange with to get the bodies of the slain? A. We
requested first some assistance from him, that some of the half breeds
would go with us to remove them, but there was some discussion about it,
and when they learned Major Crozier was suspicious of them, he refused
assistance, and the French half-breeds also he refused to let go. In fact,
I believe the suggestion came through some of them in the first place,
and in consequence we had to go and remove them ourselves.
Q. Who was in charge there? Who were you taking orders from at Duck
Lake? A. Mr. Riel.
Q. Who was giving orders? A. Riel.
Q. Anybody else? A. Nobody else.
Q. Then you went to get the bodies? A. Yes.
Q. I believe he showed you the bodies that had been slain on their
side? A. Yes, he did, just as we were leaving.
Q. Then you made another visit within the rebel lines? A. Yes, about
a week later.
Q. What was the occasion of that visit? A. I heard from a half-breed
named Toussant Lussier that Albert Monkman and fifteen men were in charge
of the prisoners at Fort Carlton and that my brother was with them and
they left them across the south branch to attack General Middleton, and
I thought it would be a good opportunity to get my brother away. I knew
Monkman and I thought he would give him up. I obtained a pass from Irvine
and went after my brother.
Q. What did you find when you got there? A. I went to Carlton first
and then to Duck Lake. I found Carlton was burned down and I found Duck
Lake in ashes. I went to Batoche and arrived there on the Tuesday after.
Q. What is the date? A. About the 1st of April - no, about the 4th
of April probably.
Q. You reached Batoche when? A. That was the time, on the Tuesday.
Q. When had you left Prince Albert? A. On the Saturday.
Q. That was the 4th of April? A. I reached Batoche on the 4th April,
on the Tuesday following.
Q. That would be the 7th of April? A. Yes, I suppose so.
Q. Then did you see the prisoner after you got there? A. Yes, I did.
Q. Had you any conversation with him? A. I had.
Q. This was where? A. On the south side of the river.
Q. The day you got there was the day of the fight? A. The day I got
there.
Q. You had a talk with him about your brother? A. Yes.
Q. Did he say what was the matter with your brother? A. He said he
was sick; he said his mind was affected. He said it was a judgment on him
for opposing him.
Q. He seemed to know his mind was affected? A. Oh yes.
Q. Did you find his mind was affected? A. I did.
Q. How were they considering him, as a sane or insane man? A. Allowing
him his own way, but they had a guard over him.
Q. Did Riel speak as to what was best to do with him or what they were
doing with him? A. Yes, he thought he would improve there, but I applied
for permission to get him away. Riel said he was getting along very nicely
there and that he would recover.
Q. He did not let you take him away? A. No, he refused to do so.
Q. Then did you make any formal application to get him away? A. I did
to the council.
Q. And it was refused, I believe? A. Yes, it was refused.
Q. What kept you in the camp? A. They refused to let me go or my brother
either.
Q. Giving any reason? A. Yes, I heard a discussion. I was upstairs
in the council room and I had spoken to Albert Monkman to speak in my favor
and I heard them discussing the matter. Of course they spoke in French
and I did not understand, but Monkman was speaking in Cree. Riel came down
to the room and commenced to eat, and while he was eating Monkman kept
on talking, and he rushed up stairs and attacked Monkman and in the course
of his remarks he accused him of not doing his duty with the English half-breeds,
that he had not brought them up with the twenty men he had sent for them.
Monkman defended himself and there was a discussion about. Monkman said
the reason he did not bring them was because one man said he would go if
another would, and Riel told him he had given him these twenty armed men
to bring the leading men of the English half-breeds by force.
Q. And what Riel was complaining about was that the orders had not
been obeyed? A. Yes.
Q. And Monkman was excusing himself? A. Yes.
Q. Did you hear any discussion after you arrived there as to what they
should do, as to any places that should be attacked? A. They talked about
attacking Prince Albert, but I believe they were waiting for the Indians
to join them in greater numbers.
Q. Had they Indians there? A. They had Indians there.
Q. At this time, about the 8th of April, could you form any idea as
to the number of men under arms? A. I could not say. I was told, when I
first arrived there, they had 1,800, but I did not believe it. They said
they were in houses near by. Afterwards I was told by English half-breeds
that there was only about 700.
Q. Then, do you remember an occasion of a false alarm - do you remember
anything being done by Riel on that occasion? A. On one occasion I remember
he rushed to the church and brought down the crucifix, and ran around among
the houses calling out the men, and insisting all should come, and I saw
him go out and choose the ground upon which to defend themselves, expecting
an attack from the Humboldt trail.
Q. He went out and arranged the ground and warned the men? A. Yes,
and urged them all to fight, and made preparations for the defence.
Q. Did he ask you to do anything for him? A. Yes; the first night I
was there he intimated he would like me to write some letters to the papers,
and place a good construction on his acts.
Q. Wanting you to write to the eastern papers? A. Yes; to place a favorable
construction on his action in taking up arms.
Q. Do you remember anything, any particular matter he wanted inserted?
A. I refused to do so at first, because he had not allowed me my liberty
and had taken my brother away. In my application to the council I said
unless they showed me some consideration they could not expect any consideration
from me in writing letters. After the Fish Creek fight I thought the thing
was going to last all summer, and commenced to write for him.
Q. Then, do you remember Riel's asking you to write any particular
matter with reference to himself? A. Yes. He claimed that he had applied
to the Government for an indemnity through D. H. Macdonald, and in reply
the Government had made use of some expressions.
Q. What indemnity had he applied for through Macdonald? A. For $35,000.
Q. For what? A. For supposed losses through being outlawed and his
property being confiscated.
Q. That was the money he wanted from the Dominion Government? A. Yes.
Q. He did not tell you how he made up the account? A. No. He claimed
in all his claim against the Dominion Government amounted to $100,000.
Q. Did you know from him anything as to his personal motives in taking
up arms? A. Yes. He disclosed his personal motives to me on this occasion.
He became very much excited and angry, and attacked the English and the
English constitution, and exhibited the greatest hatred for the English,
and he showed his motive was one of revenge more than anything else.
Q. Revenge for what? A. For his supposed ill-treatment, his property
being confiscated and he being outlawed.
Q. Did you hear anything about the half-breed struggle? A. Yes, he
spoke of their grievances.
Q. In his communications with you whose grievances were the most prominent?
A. I think his own particular troubles were the most prominent. Of course,
he spoke of the half-breed troubles.
Q. Were you put in close confinement at any time? A. Shortly after
this outburst he placed me in confinement with my brother.
Q. Had you refused to write for him in this way? A. Yes; and it was
in reference to discussing that that he became excited, and it was shortly
after that he placed me in close confinement.
Q. You were kept with the other prisoners? A. No, I was kept by myself
with my brother. They would not allow me to communicate with the other
prisoners.
Q. When you were placed in close confinement had you any conversation
with him? A. He came in on one occasion and accused me of trying to incite
an English half-breed named Bruce to desert. He said I had been seen speaking
with him, and if he could prove I had been inciting him it would go hard
with me.
Q. Any other interview with him while you were in close confinement?
A. Not just then. Shortly after Middleton approached Batoche he placed
us in the cellar; in the cellar of George Fisher's house. The first day
he took me up to attend the wounded, in case there should be any wounded,
and he had some talk then in regard to the wounded, and he asked me if
I would attend to them as well as if nothing had happened between us.
Q. Did you attend to the wounded? A. No; they suspected I was going
to desert and they put me back in the cellar that night.
Q. Did anything material happen until the 12th of May? A. No.
Q. What happened then? A. On the 12th of Maya half-breed opened the
cellar and called out and said Riel was wounded. I came up to the council
room, and presently Riel entered with Astley, and as soon as he came in
he told us Middleton was approaching and if he massacred the families he
would massacre my brother and the rest of the prisoners, and he wished
to send both of us with messages to Middleton.
Q. Were you to deliver the message? A. I was.
Q. Did you see Riel write the message? A. I did.
Q. Is this the message produced? A. I believe that is the message.
Q. By whom was it written? A. Written by Riel. (The message alluded
to is exhibit 2.)
Q. Do you remember what you did with this message? A. I believe I delivered
it to General Middleton.
Q. You don't know? A. I don't remember the fact, but I believe I did.
Q. With that message you left the camp? A. I did.
Q. The rebel camp? A. Yes.
Q. And I believe you did not go back? A. I did not go back. I did not
go directly to Middleton because he changed his mind at the last.
Q. Who changed his mind? A. Riel. He took us down about a mile and
a-half and he ordered me to go to Lepine's house and wave a flag in front
of it.
Q. Just to go back for a moment - did you ever see the prisoner armed?
A. I did on one occasion.
Q. When was that occasion? A. It was some time after the Fish Creek
fight.
Q. Who was in charge at Batoche? A. Riel.
Q. Who instructed the movements of the armed men? A. Well, Gabriel
Dumont instructed them immediately, but Riel was over him.
Q. Do you remember what he did on the occasion of the Fish Creek fight?
A. He went out with 180 men the night before and returned with 20, thinking
there might be an attack on Batoche from Prince Albert or Humboldt or from
the other side of the river, as he knew General Middleton's forces were
divided.
Q. You said you knew the hand-writing of the prisoner? A. Yes.
Q. Look at this document dated 8t Anthony, 21st March 1885. In whose
hand-writing is that? A. Louis Riel's. (Document put in, exhibit 5.)
Q. Is all this writing on the 3rd page his? A. Yes, it is all his writing.
Q. These signatures are in Garnot's writing? A. Yes, they seem to be
Garnot's.
Q. In whose hand-writing is this document? A. Louis Riel's. (Document
put in, exhibit 6.)
Q. Is this paper in the writing of Louis Riel? A. Yes, that is his
writing. (Document put in, exhibit 7.)
Q. Are the two papers attached here in Riel's hand-writing? A. Yes.
(Put in, exhibit 8.)
Q. Is this document in Riel's hand-writing? A. It is. (Put in, exhibit
9.)
Q. Perhaps you can tell me the meaning of the word 'exovede'? A. It
means one of the flock.
Q. Is this letter in the hand-writing of Riel? A. It is, with the exception
of a piece of back-hand which appears to be in Garnot's writing. (Document
put in, exhibit 10.)
Q. In whose hand-writing is this? A. Riel's. (Exhibit 11.)
Q. Is exhibit 12 in Riel's writing? A. Yes.
Q. Exhibit 13 and exhibit 14 are both in Riel's hand-writing? A. Yes,
it is all Riel's.
Q. Are these five sheets comprising exhibit 15 in Riel's writing? A.
They are all in the hand-writing of the prisoner.
Q. Exhibit 16 is in the hand-writing of the prisoner? A. Yes.
Q. And exhibit 17 is in his hand-writing? A. Yes.
Q. Exhibit 18. Is this document in his hand-writing? A. It is, all
but the last signatures.
Q. Exhibit 19. Is that in the hand-writing of Riel? A. Yes.
Q. Is it Riel's signature that is to this document? A. Yes. (put in,
exhibit 20.)
Q. The body of the writing, is that Riel's? A. No.
Q. But the signature is? A. Yes.
Examined by MR. FITZPATRICK:
Q. You know nothing more of the documents that have been shown you,
except that you know they are in the hand-writing of Riel? A. That is all
I know.
Q. You don't know if they ever left Riel's possession or not? A. I
don't.
Q. You said, at the beginning of your deposition, that you were aware
of a certain amount of agitation going on in the Saskatchewan district
during last autumn and fall? A. I did.
Q. Will you explain the nature of that agitation? A. That agitation
was for provincial rights principally, also for half-breed claims, and
also against duties and such things as that. We felt the duties onerous.
Q. A purely political agitation? A. Yes.
Q. You were in sympathy with the agitation? A. Yes.
Q. You were aware Riel was brought into the country for the purpose
of taking part in the agitation? A. He was brought to this country on account
of his supposed knowledge of the Manitoba Treaty.
Q. The people of the Saskatchewan district were of opinion Riel could
be useful to them in connection with the agitation? A. Well, he was brought
in principally by the half-breeds. The Canadians knew nothing about it
till he was very nearly here.
Q. Almost the whole of the people in that district had joined together
for the purpose of this agitation? A. They had.
Q. That agitation had been going on for a considerable length of time?
A. For some time.
Q. Can you say for about how long? A. Five or six years or longer.
Q. Did you attend any meetings held by Riel? A. I attended the meeting
in Prince Albert.
Q. You were present during that meeting? A. During the greater part
of it.
Q. You heard what Riel said? A. I did.
Q. What date was that meeting held? A. I could not say exactly, some
time in June or July.
Q. At his first arrival? A. Yes.
Q. He stated he wished the movement to be entirely a constitutional
movement? A. Purely a constitutional movement. He said if they could not
get what they agitated for in five years to agitate for five years more,
that constitutional agitation would get what they wanted.
Q. You knew he continued assisting in the' agitation up to the time
of the difficulty in March? A. He was there as a sort of half-breed adviser
principally. He was not a member of the committee, but he was there in
the capacity of half-breed adviser.
Q. Did you at any time hear that he wished to resort to any means other
than constitutional up to the - March? A. Nothing.
Q. You being an active participator would naturally have heard of any
such intention if it had existed? A. Certainly.
Q. There was no such movement up to that time? A. No.
Q. After the 1st of March when did you first see Riel? A. When I went
to Duck Lake.
Q. When had you seen him previous to that time? A. Sometime in January
he was in the town.
Q. Had you conversation with him then? A. I had.
Q. Did you speak to him about the movement? A. I daresay I did, but
I cannot remember.
Q. Did he at that time say anything to you that would lead you to believe
he intended to do anything that was not a constitutional agitation? A.
Nothing of the kind. He never referred to anything that was not a constitutional
agitation.
Q. At the discussions you had had with him previous to March last it
always appeared to you that the ordinary means adopted by the settlers
were adopted by him? A. Certainly.
Q. When you saw him at Duck Lake you spoke to him about your brother
and he told you your brother had become insane? A. He did.
Q. He told you he had become insane because he had opposed Riel, and
that he was punished by God for his opposition to Riel? A. That is what
he said.
Q. You never heard such a remark by Riel previous to that time in any
of your other conversations with him? A. No.
Q. Did it strike you as a peculiar remark? A. No, I don't think so.
Q. You thought it was quite natural such a thing should occur? A. I
didn't agree with it, but I thought it was a very nice explanation on his
part to make.
Q. He told you at that time the priests were entirely opposed to him
and the movement and were entirely opposed to the interests of the North-West
settlement? A. No, but he said they were opposed to him.
Q. He gave you then to understand the priests were entirely wrong and
he was entirely right? A. Certainly.
Q. In fact they did not know anything they were talking about and he
knew it all? A. He said they were working only for their own interests.
Q. Did he explain to you what his intentions were as to the division
of the territories, what he intended doing when he succeeded in chasing
the Canadians out of the country? A. Sometimes, probably when I was a prisoner
I heard him talk of dividing the country in sevenths or giving a seventh
of the proceeds to assist the Poles; a seventh to the half-breeds and a
seventh to the Indians.
Q. Some more to the Hungarians? A. Yes, and so on.
Q. You said when you were Riel's prisoner, that it was after the 17th
and 18th of March you heard him discussing the future division which he
intended making of the territories if he got rid of the Canadians? A. Something
to that effect, but I cannot remember exactly what it was.
Q. You heard him talking of dividing the country into different parts?
A. I understood it was one-seventh of the proceeds of the sale of land
and 'takes' would be given to these different people.
Q. Did he then say he expected any assistance from these people? A.
No, it seemed to be a scheme of immigration more than anything else.
Q. His plan as he then unfolded it - did it appear in conformity with
the plans you had heard him discussing at the public meetings at which
you had assisted? A. Oh, no, altogether different.
Q. Would you look at this document called the foreign policy document
and say if you can see anything on it which would bear out that intention
to divide up the country (witness looks at exhibit)? A. Yes.
Q. Do you recognize the hand-writing as that of Louis Riel? A. It is
scribbled so that it is difficult to say.
Q. What is on the other side of the sheet is certainly in his hand-
writing? A. Yes, it certainly is.
Q. And is the ink on the other side not the same as that? A. I think
it is.
Q. And don't you think the hand-writing is also the same? A. I could
not say.
Q. To the best of your knowledge does it not represent Riel's handwriting?
A. I think it is.
Q. Riel explained to you what was meant by the word 'exovede'? A. He
did.
Q. That it was meant to convey that he was simply one of the flock?
A. Yes.
Q. That he had no independent authority but simply acted as one of
the others? A. Yes, it was simply an affectation of humility.
Q. You are aware all the documents signed by him as far as you know
bore the word 'exovede'? A. The most of them.
Q. You had several conversations with Riel after the conversion of
your brother, on religious matters? A. After I was taken prisoner, but
nothing much on religious matters. He used to talk about his new religion,
about leaving the errors of the Church of Rome out and adopting a more
liberal plan.
Q. He explained to you his new religion? A. He explained it as a new
liberal religion, he claimed the Pope had no rights in this country.
Q. Did he condescend to inform you as to the person in whom his authority
should be vested? A. No.
Q. You believed from him there was some person in this country who
would probably take the position of Pope in this country? A. I think very
likely he intended himself to take the position, that the Pope was in his
way.
Q. This took place after you were made a prisoner - this conversation
about the new religion? A. I think so, and he also spoke about it at Duck
Lake.
Q. All the conversations you had with him in reference to this political
movement never in any way referred to this new religion? A. No; he spoke
of religion but merely as ordinary men do.
Q. The first time you heard of this new religion and these new theories
of religious questions was after the rebellion had begun? A. Yes.
|