(2) It is an encouragement of rebellion. Riel was guilty of treason. When he refused permission to Mr. Macdougall, a British subject, to enter a British territory, and drove him away by force of arms, he set law at defiance and committed an open act of rebellion. He also knew that Mr. Macdougall had been nominated Governor, knew that he had resigned his seat in the Cabinet, knew he had bid farewell to his constituents; yet he drove him out by force of arms, and when the Queen’s proclamation was issued—for all he knew by the Queen’s authority—he tore it up, scattered the type used in printing it, defied it, and imprisoned, robbed and murdered those whose only crime in his eyes was that they had obeyed it. It may be said that Riel knew that Mr. Macdougall had no authority to issue a proclamation in the Queen’s name; a statement of this kind would lead to the inference that it was the result of secret information and of a conspiracy among some in high positions. This had sometimes been suspected by many, but hitherto has never been believed. An amnesty to Riel and other leaders would be an endorsation of their acts of treason, robbery, and murder, and therefore an encouragement to rebellion.
(3) An amnesty is injudicious, impolitic and dangerous, if it includes the leaders. Some of those who have been robbed and imprisoned, who have seen their comrade and fellow prisoner led out and butchered in cold blood, seeing the law powerless to protect the innocent and punish the guilty, might in that wild spirit of justice, called vengeance, take the life of Riel or some other of the leaders. Should this unfortunately happen the attempt by means of law to punish the avenger would be attended with serious difficulty, and would not receive the support of the loyal people of the Territory, of the Canadian emigrants who will be pouring in, or of the people of the older Provinces. Trouble would arise and further disturbance break out in the Settlement. It would be argued with much force that Riel had murdered a loyal man for no crime but his loyalty and that he was pardoned, and that when a loyal man taking the law into his own hands executed a rebel and a murderer in vengeance for a murder, he would be still more entitled to a pardon, and the result would be that the law could not be carried out. When the enforcement of the law would be an outrage to the sense of justice of the community, the law would be treated with contempt. A full amnesty will produce this result, and bitter feuds and a legacy of internal dissension entailed upon that country for years to come.
(4) It will destroy all confidence in the administration of law and maintenance of order. There could be no feeling of security for life, liberty, or property in a country where treason, murder, robbery and other crimes had been openly perpetrated, and afterwards condoned and pardoned sweepingly by the higher authorities.
(5) The proceedings of the insurgent leaders, previous to the attempt of Mr. Macdougall to enter the Territory, as well as afterwards, led many to suspect that Riel and his associates were in collusion with certain persons holding high official positions. Although suspected, it could not be believed. An amnesty granted now, including everyone, would confirm these suspicions, preclude the possibility of dissipating them, and leave a lasting distrust in the honour and good faith of the Canadian Government.
In respectfully submitting these arguments for Your Excellency’s most favourable consideration, I wish Your Excellency to understand that it is not the object of this protest to stand in the way of an amnesty to the great mass of the rebels, but to provide against the pardon of the ringleaders, those designing men who have inaugurated and kept alive the difficulties and disturbances in the Red River Settlement, and who have led on their innocent dupes from one step to another in the commission of crime by false statements and by appealing to their prejudices and passions.
I have the honour to be,
Your Excellency’s most obe’t humble Serv’t,
James Lynch.
Queen’s Hotel, Toronto,
29th June.
This was also given to the Press and widely published.