A journal, of a young man of Massachusetts, late a surgeon on board an American privateer, who was captured at sea by the British in May, eighteen hundred and thirteen and was confined first, at Melville Island, Halifax, then at Chatham, in England, and last at Dartmoor prison

by Benjamin Waterhouse

That there was any provocation given to the soldiers to justify their subsequent brutal conduct, the commissioners themselves seem to find it very difficult to trace any evidence, although they say, it appears, that there was some resistance made to the turnkeys in shutting the prison, and that stones were thrown at the military. Had they examined the prisoners sufficiently, they would have been convinced that no resistance was made to the turnkeys in shutting the doors. As to throwing stones at the military, while they were chasing them from corner to corner, and firing at them in every place where they had taken shelter from the balls, could it be expected but they would seize on something for self defence, when they saw the soldiers running at them with their bayonets, and having no possible means of escape, as it has been before stated, all the doors in the prisons had been previously closed except one, and that one perhaps, the length of the prison from him. Is there a man, in such a situation, but would seize on the first weapon that offered itself, and sell his life as dear as possible. How can they, then, make that the slightest justification for such outrageous conduct on the part of Shortland or the military?

As to most of the officers being absent is erroneous; it could have been proved that there was an officer in every yard, and in one instance where he was heard to give the order to fire on a party of prisoners close by the door, and running and making every exertion to enter the prison.

As to Captain Shortland being busy in the square with the turnkeys, receiving and taking care of the wounded, certainly shows the commissioners' want of correct information, for it is already before the public, in affidavit, the cruel manner in which the wounded were treated by him, and of his abuse to the prisoners who were bearing the wounded to the hospital gate. That part of the report which relates that the time and commencement of this transaction was the officers' dinner hour, is too ridiculous for a comment. We do not believe that there was a prisoner in the depot that knew when or where the officers dined, and therefore, can be no ground for an argument, that the prisoners were taking this opportunity to escape.

The report goes on to state, "the cross fire, which was kept up from several of the platforms on the walls round the prison, and directed against straggling parties of prisoners, running about the yard, endeavoring to enter the prison by the door which the turnkey left open, according to their usual practice, does seem to have been without object or excuse, and to have been a wanton attack upon the lives of defenceless, and, at the same time, unoffending individuals." In answer to this paragraph, we shall only reply, that had the commissioners examined ALL the American evidence, and attached the same credit to it, which it appears they have done to ALL the English evidence, similar expressions would have been made use of against Shortland's conduct throughout the whole of their report.

It appears to us, after an attentive examination of this report, that the commissioners meant to justify Shortland in commencing his murderous attack upon the prisoners, and to condemn the soldiers for continuing it. Singular as this idea appears, it is no less strange to us, how it can be possible they could reconcile it to their feelings to make up a report containing such a direct contradiction to reason; for surely if Shortland could be justified in using coercive measures in the first instance, the military certainly should be acquitted for the subsequent massacre, as the whole was conducted under his immediate command;—and if he had A RIGHT to kill one, on the same ground he might have extended it to a thousand. And, on the other hand, if any part of the transaction is to be condemned, Shortland should answer for the whole; for what necessity could there be made to attempt identifying any of the soldiers? Surely the commissioners could not think of bringing them to punishment, as they acted by the direct orders of Shortland and his officers!—and if any one could or ought to be made to answer for the outrage, it should be Shortland.

In addition to the contradictions contained in the commissioners' joint report, Mr. King, in his letter to his excellency J. Q. Adams, almost denies the ground on which they have, in part, founded Shortland's justification, when he says (alluding to have heard several Americans swear, positively, that Shortland did give the order to fire, and an officer of the guard thinking that he did not, as he should have heard him) "perhaps the bias of my mind was, that Shortland did give that order; and wishing the report to go forth under our joint signatures, I forbore to press some of the points so far as otherwise I MIGHT have done."

If, then, any part has been neglected, or passed over for accommodation, or any other purpose (and one there certainly has, in not paying the same attention to the American as was done to the English evidence) it is to be regretted that Mr. King should so far forget the sacred duties attached to the appointment of a commissioner to enquire into the murder of his countrymen, as to pass over any points which might have brought to light the means of punishment for the murder, or obtained in some measure an indemnity for the surviving unhappy sufferers.

Will not the shades of the departed victims haunt him in his midnight slumbers, and, pointing to their lacerated bodies, say, these still remain unavenged? Will not the unhappy survivors show the stumps of their amputated limbs, and say, these wounds fester, and still remain unatoned? Will not the widow and the helpless orphan raise their innocent hands to heaven, and cry, why was justice denied us? Why was the heart so callous to our sufferings? And why was the bosom shut to sympathy? Let Mr. King point out some means to appease these bitter complaints, and we shall be satisfied.

We shall now close these unpleasant remarks, by noticing another unaccountable error in Mr. King's letter to Mr. Adams, where he mentions, speaking of Shortland, "and his general conduct, previous to this occurrence, as far as I could with propriety enter into such details, appears to have been characterized with great fairness, and even kindness, in the relation in which he stood towards the prisoners."—We shall not pretend to ask Mr. King where he obtained the evidence on which he grounds this assertion; we are sure it was not from the prisoners, who ought to have been the best judges of that circumstance; but, instead of all that, all the Americans who were permitted to express an opinion on that subject, at the examination, declared, without reserve, as would all the prisoners in the depot, had they been asked the question, that Shortland's conduct, from the commencement of his appointment to that station, had been cruel, oppressive, and overbearing; and, instead of taking measures to alleviate the distresses of the wretched objects under him, as a feeling man would have done, he seemed to take a pleasure in harrassing them whenever he could find the slightest pretext for so doing.

W. Colton, Joseph Swain, Arch'd Taylor, David Ingalls, Reuben Sherman, Arch'd I. Mackay, Philip Black, Homer Hall, James B. Mansfield, Abr'm M'Intire, Wm. Cochran, Henry Dolliver, John Jones, B. Weeks, Wm. Demerell, Thomas Ward, William K. White.