Chapter I (3)

The Court have further found, from the evidence adduced before them, that the column under Lieut.-Col. Booker was proceeding in this order and had reached a point on the way leading from Ridgeway to Stevensville, at about two miles from the former point, when the advanced guard became aware that the woods on the right and left fronts of the line of advance were occupied by the enemy; and are further of opinion, that the movements then directed by Lieut.-Col. Booker and the subsequent disposition of the force at his disposal (up to a time to be subsequently mentioned), were in strict accordance with laid down principles, and such as at least to hold an enemy not greatly superior in numbers in check, if not to drive them back--and that the manner in which the movements directed were executed, the advance of the companies of the Queen's Own sent out to strengthen the skirmishers on the left, the advance of the right wing of the Thirteenth Battalion extended on the right of the road, and No. 10 Company of the Queen's Own rather to the right, was highly creditable to the officers and men, particularly as during the whole of these movements the force was under fire from an unseen enemy under cover of the woods, our troops being in open ground and exposed to the effects of such a fire, which fortunately, though well sustained, was not very effective.

The Court is of opinion that to this point the direction of the attack and the position of the attacking force was well and skilfully managed, and the enemy had been forced back to a considerable distance from the position when first encountered.

The Court find that at this time, and when everything looked favorable for the attacking force, there occurred an alarm, of the truth of which a moment's reflection on the part of the men with whom it originated, and who appear to have been some of the advanced skirmishers, would have shown the impossibility. It was to the effect that a force of cavalry was advancing upon our force, and instantly the cry of "Cavalry", spread with electric rapidity from the front to where the Colonel stood in reserve, with which part of the force Lieut.-Col. Booker as commanding officer remained, and thus assuming the cry to have its origin in the fact that that officer gave the order "Look out for cavalry!" squares were formed instantly to meet cavalry, both by the column and by the skirmishers within hearing of that order--a mistake which, being as quickly discovered, Lieut.-Col. Booker endeavored to remedy by the order to "Re-form column."

The Court, with respect to this part of the affair, are of opinion that to adopt the idle rumor that the enemy's force was partly composed of cavalry in a country where such an arm could be of scarcely any value in attack, or to assume, even for a moment, that a mounted corps which he could not see was advancing at such a rate as to render it necessary to give the words of caution which he used, was ill-judged, and was the first act which gave rise to the disorganization of his force, which then followed.

This Court further find that at this moment, and when the officer commanding had, as before mentioned, given the order to "Re-form column," he perceived that the column was rapidly falling back. The attempt to re-form not having been successful, the men became mingled together, and that the effect of the mistake just referred to became so perceptible in the disorganization of the column at a moment when, in the opinion of this Court, to have given the order to advance would have had the best effect in the encouragement of the force, and in a very short period would have effected the rout of the enemy. The officer in command (apparently hesitating as to whether he should advance or retreat) unfortunately gave the order to retire, and the bugles having taken it up at the advanced posts of the attack, our force began to fall back; and notwithstanding the exertions of the officers, who in every case shown in the evidence before the Court behaved in a very steady and energetic manner to rally their broken ranks, the column had retreated too far in the direction of Ridgeway before the advanced parties had all came in to render this possible. This being the state of the force at the time, the officer in command (finding it impossible to rally) with the concurrence of the next senior officer, whom he consulted, decided upon falling back on Port Colborne by the road over which he had advanced.

And the Court lastly finds, that the whole of the wounded and sick were brought with the retreating column, and that it reached Port Colborne suffering much from fatigue and hunger, but without further casualties than those which are already known in the official reports of the affair.

G. T. DENISON,
Colonel. President.

J. SHANLY,
Lieut.-Colonel.

GEO. K. CHISHOLM,
Lieut.-Colonel.

Hamilton. 12th July, 1866.

THE FORT ERIE DISASTER.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT OF INQUIRY APPOINTED TO INVESTIGATE THE CASE OK LIEUT.-COL. J. STOUGHTON DENNIS.

The appointment of a Court of Inquiry to investigate the charges made against Lieut.-Col. J. Stoughton Dennis was granted on the request of that officer himself. From the time that Lieut.-Col. Dennis hastily left his command battling with the Fenians on the streets of Port Erie, the men of the Welland Canal Field Battery knew him no more, as he never came back. Therefore their relations were strained. Most of the men of the Battery and the Dunnville Naval Brigade were pronounced in their denunciation of his conduct during the fight, and freely expressed their minds in this respect.

When Capt. King's wounds permitted his return home to Port Robinson from the hospital at Buffalo, a large number of people assembled to give him a welcome. In replying to their greetings, Capt. King incidentally made mention of the experience of his Battery in the battle at Fort Erie, and during his remarks voiced the sentiments of his men by publicly accusing Lieut.-Col. Dennis of cowardice. This charge came to the ears of Lieut.-Col. Dennis and he demanded a Court of Inquiry to investigate the matter. In the meantime a formula of six separate charges was filed against Lieut.-Col. Dennis, and His Excellency the Commander-in-Chief appointed the following officers as a Court of Inquiry, viz.:--Col. Geo. T. Denison, President; Lieut.-Col. James Shanly, and Lieut.-Col. S. B. Fairbanks.

The Court assembled in the City Hotel at Fort Erie, on the 8th of November, 1866, for the purpose of taking testimony. Among those who were notified to appear as witnesses were a number of men who had been engaged in the fight as members of the Welland Canal Field Battery and the Dunnville Naval Brigade, besides several citizens.

For some reason four members of the Welland Canal Field Battery who had been summoned to testify were not called upon for their evidence, which they considered a very strange proceeding as they were all present for that purpose, and had evidence to offer which would tend to substantiate Capt. King's allegations. Eight or ten witnesses were examined, when the Court proceeded to sum up the evidence and consider the charges _seriatim_. The result was that Lieut.-Col. Dennis was exonerated by the Court, although Col. Geo. T. Denison (the President) differed from his colleagues on several important points stated in the charges.

The following is the official report, published in General Orders, which contains the charges made, the findings and the remarks of His Excellency the Governor-General on the case:--

VOLUNTEER MILITIA. HEADQUARTERS, OTTAWA, 14th December, 1866.

GENERAL ORDERS No. 1.

The Court of Inquiry lately assembled at Fort Erie on application of Lieut.-Colonel Dennis, having presented its report, the Commander-in-Chief directs that the several charges preferred against that officer, with the opinion of the Court of Inquiry thereupon, be published for general information.

CHARGES.

1st Charge.--With having at Fort Erie on the afternoon of the 2nd June last, after having received information that an overwhelming force of the enemy was advancing on and was within a very short distance of that place, evinced an utter disregard for the lives and safety of the officers and men of the Welland Canal Field Battery, and the safekeeping of a large number of Fenian prisoners in charge of that corps and the Dunnville Naval Brigade, in this: that he ordered billets to be prepared for the Battery and told the officer commanding it that he should leave it and the prisoners in Fort Erie and go on himself to Port Colborne with the Dunnville Naval Brigade with the steamer "Robb," then lying at a wharf in Fort Erie.

2nd Charge.--With having at Fort Erie on the afternoon of the 2nd June last, after he had received information that a large and overwhelming force of the enemy was within a very short distance from his command, and that his command was in danger of being destroyed or captured, and after having himself seen that force approaching, recklessly and uselessly landed 5 officers and 68 men of the Welland Canal Field Battery and Dunnville Naval Brigade from the steamer "Robb," marched them along an exposed road, and posted them in a most dangerous position, where they were exposed to a front and flanking fire from the enemy, which course on his part resulted in disaster to his command, the serious wounding and maiming (some of them for life) of an officer and five men, and the capture by the enemy of four officers and thirty-two men of that command.

3rd Charge.--With having at Fort Erie on the afternoon of the 2nd June last, after having placed his command in the dangerous position described in Charge No. 2, and when a force of the enemy greatly superior in numbers to his command was within a very short distance from and advancing upon his left flank, and another force of the enemy far stronger than the one first herein mentioned was within a very short distance of and advancing against his front and preparing to flank his right, the whole force of the enemy being overwhelming and numbering 500 or 600 men, while his command only numbered 5 officers and 68 men, neither ordering a retreat to the steamer "Robb," which there was ample time to effect, and whereby his whole command might have been saved, nor allowing a fire to be opened on the enemy, but on the contrary, neglecting to give orders for a retreat, and directing that no order to fire should be given.

4th Charge.--With having, at Fort Erie, on the afternoon of the 2nd June last, after he had placed his command in the dangerous and exposed position described in the preceding charges, and given the order not to fire as therein mentioned, disgracefully, in the face of the enemy, and in order to secure his personal safety, deserted his command and left it without orders of any kind.

5th Charge.--With having, on or about the 4th June last, in a certain report of his proceedings addressed to Colonel Lowry, commanding the Niagara frontier, untruly, and knowing it to be untrue, stated that, having advanced to meet the enemy at Fort Erie on the 2nd June last, he did, in order to save the prisoners then on board the tug "Robb" and prevent the enemy from obtaining possession of that vessel, order the Captain of that vessel to cast off and get into the stream, and ordered his (Colonel Dennis') men (meaning his command, landed as aforesaid) to retreat and do the best they could to get away, each man for himself, when in reality he did not give such orders, and had at the time of which he alleges he gave them, deserted his command.

6th Charge.--That he was guilty of misconduct at Fort Erie on the afternoon of the 2nd June last, in this, that having received information that an overwhelming body of the enemy was then within a very short distance of and advancing against Fort Erie, and in fact seen that body himself, he should and might, instead of placing his command then at Fort Erie in the dangerous position described in Charge No. 2, have embarked it in the steamer "Robb," so protected that vessel with materials at hand that she would have been proof against the fire and weapons of the enemy, and dropping into the stream, held the enemy in check without any casualty to his command, and prevented them from escaping to the United States before the arrival of a force sufficiently strong to capture them.

The Court having proceeded to the examination of the evidence brought forward against the accused, as well as what he has offered in exculpation, and having duly considered the same, are of--

OPINION.

As to the 1st Charge.--That the allegation that Lieut.-Colonel Dennis, after having received information of the near approach of an overwhelming force, made arrangements for billetting his men at Fort Erie, thereby raising the inference that in so acting he evinced disregard for the lives of the officers and men of the party under his command, is not sustained. And that of the part of this charge attributing to Lieut.-Colonel Dennis an expressed intention (with or without such information as he is alleged to have had) of leaving a part of his command at Fort Erie and taking the steamer and remainder of the force to Port Colborne, there is not any evidence whatever in support.

As to 2nd Charge.--That this charge, based on the assertion not only that the accused officer was in possession of certain information, but had actual personal knowledge of the approach of a large and overwhelming force of the enemy, is not sustained by the evidence before the Court. On the contrary, with reference to the alleged knowledge of that fact, the Court is of opinion that the rumors which immediately before his party was disembarked to repel any attack on the village of Fort Erie, were, in so far as regarded the strength of the enemy's force, so much at variance with previously received information of a definite nature, as to be disbelieved not only by Lieut.-Colonel Dennis, but to some extent by the officers who have preferred the charges against him. And it appears to the Court that it was only after he had got his men into position, and after they had come into actual contact with the enemy, that the great superiority in numbers of the attacking force became a matter of certainty.

As to the 3rd Charge.--That this charge, being also grounded upon certain knowledge alleged to have been in the possession of Lieut.-Colonel Dennis at a particular time with respect to the great superiority of the enemy's force, and that whilst possessing that knowledge, and there being time to avail himself of the line of retreat alleged to have been open to him, he neglected to do so, is not sustained by the evidence before the Court. And with reference to the remainder of this charge as to the aforesaid officer not allowing a fire to lie opened upon the enemy, but on the contrary directing that no order to fire should be given, the Court are further of opinion that this part of the charge is not only not sustained, but is refuted by the evidence offered on behalf of Lieut.-Colonel Dennis.

As to the 4th Charge.--That with reference to the grave accusations contained in this charge, the Court are of opinion that throughout the whole of the affair, and up to the moment when he ascertained from personal observation that the enemy was on the point of cutting off his command by an overwhelming force, the dispositions of his party and the orders given by Lieut.-Colonel Dennis were carried out and given in a perfectly collected and regular manner, and that on the retreat of his force his position was not such as to warrant the use of the language in which this charge has been framed, nor did Lieut.-Colonel Dennis, as alleged, leave his force without orders, and that therefore not only is this charge not sustained, but this Court are further of opinion that the imputation contained herein against Lieut.-Colonel Dennis is by no means supported by the evidence.

As to the 5th Charge.--That as to this charge nothing which has transpired in the evidence offered before this Court having varied the report made by Lieut.-Colonel Dennis to Colonel Lowry, the officer commanding on the Niagara frontier, as published in the Gazette of the 23rd of June last, and finding that the statements therein contained are fully supported by evidence before the Court, this Court are further of opinion that this charge is not sustained.

As to the 6th Charge.--That with reference to the allegation of misconduct on the part of Lieut.-Colonel Dennis contained in this charge, the officers preferring it, having based that assertion on an opinion which they appear to have formed as to the course which ought to have been, but was not adopted by Lieut.-Colonel Dennis with the force at his disposal, the Court are of opinion that although subsequent events and results may have properly led to the conclusion that such a course might have resulted in the manner alleged in the charge, no charge of misconduct in not adopting such a course is sustained, first, because it does not appear from the evidence that at the time when it is alleged that this course might have been successfully adopted, the officer in command had foreseen occasion for it. And also because it is by no means clear to the Court that there was time after he became aware of the vicinity of the enemy to have taken the steps suggested in this charge.

(Signed) GEO. T. DENISON,
Colonel, President.

J. SHANLY,
Lieut.-Colonel.

S. B. FAIRBANKS,
Lieut.-Colonel.

Fort Erie. 8th November, 1866.

Colonel Denison, the President, having been overruled by the majority of the Court, has signed the proceedings as its President, and now desires to express his dissent from the finding of the majority for the following reasons:--

Second Charge.--That as to the first allegation, "that he had received information that a large and overwhelming force of the enemy was within a very short distance from his command, and that his command was in danger of being captured," it appears to be proved by the evidence that this fact is established. The evidence of Drill Instructor McCracken, Lieutenant McDonald, Henry Cole, Thomas Carlisle, Lieutenant Nimmo, and of Lewis Palmer, show clearly that messenger after messenger arrived with this information, that most of the officers and men were aware of it, and that the remonstrances of Capt King and Capt. McCallum show not only their appreciation of the danger, but also afford the strongest presumption that Lieut.-Colonel Dennis must have been aware of it before he marched his command off the dock. This is also further established by the admission of Lieut.-Colonel Dennis in his "Statement of Facts" submitted to the Court, that he himself, after hearing the report, saw at least one hundred and fifty of the enemy before landing his men, and his further statement of his having sent word to the "Robb" to secure the boat and prisoners in case he was overpowered, and his having withdrawn his men from Ramsford's Corner to a position near the "Robb," all prove the evidence of doubts in his mind as to whether he had sufficient strength in his command to successfully resist the force which he was informed was about to attack him. And as to the remainder of the second charge the evidence proves it conclusively.

Third Charge.--Colonel Denison also dissents from the finding of the Court upon the third charge, as he is of opinion that the third charge is proved, with the exception that the allegation that Lieut.-Colonel Dennis did not allow a fire to be opened on the enemy. On this point there is a certain amount of rebutting evidence, although the weight of evidence seems to support the charge.

(Signed) GEO. T. DENISON. Colonel. President.

Fort Erie, 8th November, 1866.

With respect to the foregoing charges and opinion, and to the evidence generally taken by the Court of Inquiry, His Excellency directs the publication of the following remarks:

1. Although the order for the assembly of the Court was general in its terms, the special memorandum of instructions furnished for the guidance of the President and members, stated that the Court was assembled to give Lieut.-Col. Dennis an opportunity of refuting charges which had been "made against his personal conduct on the 2nd June, at Fort Erie," and directed the reception of any evidence which might tend to elucidate the truth.

2. The only one of the above six charges which, strictly speaking, the Court was required to consider, was the 4th, which imputed disgraceful and cowardly conduct to the accused officer.

3. His Excellency approves of the opinion of the Court with respect to the 1st. 3rd. 4th. 5th and 6th charges.

4. With respect to the second charge. His Excellency is of opinion that Lieut.-Col. Dennis committed an error in judgment in removing the small force under his command, from the means of secure retreat afforded by the steamer, before he had ascertained with some degree of certainty the probable force of the enemy, of whose near approach he was informed; but if the accusation made against Lieut.-Col. Dennis in this charge be correct, that he did so remove his force from the shelter of the steamer for the purpose of attacking an enemy, whose numbers he knew to be overwhelming--the proceeding savours rather of rashness than of timidity. Had Lieut.-Col. Dennis been the coward which his accusers would have the public believe, he would in such a case have eagerly availed himself of the remonstrances which it is stated were made to him, to return with the men under his command to the deck of the steamer.

5. The first charge being one of imputed intention only, the fulfilment of which it was not attempted to establish, was not a proper charge for investigation by any Court.

6. The sixth charge is also an improper charge to have preferred or investigated. No Commanding Officer would be safe if his subordinates could be allowed to frame a charge of misconduct against him for not having adopted a particular course, which, judging deliberately after the event, his accusers might think to have been advisable. There is no pretence that the course which Lieut.-Col. Dennis is accused of misconduct for not adopting, was suggested to him and rejected.

END

End of Project Gutenberg's Troublous Times in Canada, by John A. Macdonald