The death of this Indian was subsequently brought before the Grand
Jury, and that body having enquired into the circumstances connected
with it, in its report to the Court makes the following
statement:--"It appears that the deceased came to his death in
consequence of an attack on the party in search of them, and his
subsequent obstinacy, and not desisting when repeatedly menaced by
some of the party for that purpose, and the peculiar situation of the
searching party and their men, was such as to warrant their acting on
the defensive."

Now, taking the foregoing report as given by the leader of the
expedition, and in which there can be no question but that the conduct
of the English party is as favourably represented as it possibly could
be, yet does the statement detailed afford no excuse for the Indian,
and is the word "obstinacy" as applied by the Grand Jury, applicable
to him?

It may not be forgotten that the Indian was surprised in the "heart of
his own country"--treading his own soil--within sight of his
home--that home was invaded by armed men of the same race with those
who had inflicted on his tribe irreparable injuries--his wife was
seized by them--his attempts to release her, which ought to have been
respected, were violently resisted,--and then, maddened by the bonds
and captivity of his wife, he continues, with a courage and devotion
to her which merited a far different fate, singly his conflict with
ten armed men--he is shot, and his death is coldly ascribed to his
"obstinacy." Had the Indian tamely permitted his wife to have been
carried away from him--had he without feeling or emotion witnessed the
separation of the mother from her infant child, then indeed little