VELY, that Captain Shortland gave that order--and many of
the soldiers and the English witnesses heard the word given by
some one, but could not swear it was by Captain Shortland; and
some of them (among whom is the officer commanding the guard)
THINK, if Captain Shortland had given such an order, they must
have heard it, which they did not. Thus, then, stands the
foundation for this part of the report. An English officer THINKS
it is not so, and several Americans SWEAR it is so; and he finds
it very difficult to reconcile their testimony.--The lightness
with which they seem to have passed over this most important point
of that day's transaction, cannot but be deeply regretted by those
who feel for the unhappy sufferers, when they go on to state, "It
may remain a matter of doubt whether the firing first began in the
square by an ORDER, or whether it was a spontaneous act of the
soldiers themselves; it seemed clear it was continued and renewed
both there and elsewhere, without orders--and that on the
platforms and several places about the prison it was _certainly
commenced without any authority_." We must once more request the
attention of the public to the affidavits already published; it is
there sworn by one of the witnesses, that PREVIOUS to the alarm
bell being rung, and while walking in the yard, _a soldier called
to him from the walls_, and _told him to go in_, as they would
soon be fired upon. How, then, can it be possible, that a soldier
on the walls should know that they would soon be fired upon, if
the order had not been previously given to that effect? And had
the bugle-man been examined, he could have stated that, previous
to the ringing of the alarm bell, he received orders to _sound to
fire_; so that when the soldiers took their stations on the walls,
they were charged and prepared for that purpose. With such
information, we conceive the committee to stand fully justified in
stating in their report, the belief of its being a pre-concerted
plan, on the part of Shortland; and if the commissioners had
possessed themselves with a knowledge of these circumstances,
which they could and ought to have done, would they, then,
reported Shortland as justifiable, even in a _military_ point of
view?

The next thing we have to notice in the report is, that very
singular par