The official record of the arrest of the Masons at Little Prairie and their trial at New Madrid is still in existence. The whereabouts of this old document has been noted by a few historians who briefly state that “There is in the Mississippi Department of Archives and History a record in French of the trial of Mason for robbery, by the military authorities of New Madrid, dated January, 1803.” But no writer has heretofore penetrated into this manuscript to discover what the trial revealed or how it ended. It was found among the papers belonging to J.F.H. Claiborne, the historian, and is now preserved in Jackson.25

The document covers one hundred and eighty-two pages. Many of the leaves are badly faded. Although the penmanship is far from good, every word, with few exceptions, can be deciphered. It is filled with interesting facts and equally interesting perjury. From the beginning of legislation down through the pioneer days humanity has ever been the same, and facts and fabrications have been paraded together before officials who are to pass judgment on the evidence presented. The Mason trial is no exception to this old practice in courts, but is rather an exaggerated instance of the tendency, as common in the “good old days” as in our own times.

The manuscript gives a complete history not only of the proceedings during the trial, but also of the arrests that preceded it. It begins with the day New Madrid officials were notified that the Masons were seen at Little Prairie, thirty miles down the river. A clerk then, and every day thereafter, carefully noted what action had been taken by the pursuers and what evidence had been gathered against the suspects, and continued the record through all the other proceedings.

The commandant at New Madrid, by whom the pursuit was ordered and before whom the captives were tried, evidently did not understand English, which was the only language spoken by nearly all the persons who appeared before him. Questions and answers were transmitted through an official interpreter.

There were fifteen witnesses. Eight made declarations regarding their knowledge of Mason and his family; the other seven were the prisoners themselves, who testified in their own behalf. Every witness took “an oath on the cross of his sword” to speak the truth. In a few instances “and by the Holy Scriptures” was added. As a witness was being heard the substance of his statements was recorded in French and after he finished, his testimony was read to him, transposed into English, and he, “maintaining it contained the truth to which nothing could be added or unsaid,” signed it as did the presiding officials. Four of these signatures are here reproduced in facsimile.

In the official document many statements and legal phrases are often repeated; they add to its length but throw no new light on the subject. In the following more or less paraphrased condensation the number of words is greatly reduced but the substance of the original is, in the main, retained.

The first entry in the old record is dated January 11, 1803. It shows that one Pierre Dapron, a citizen of New Madrid, appeared in court and made a declaration before three officials: the Commandant, Don Henri Peyroux de la Coudreniere, “Captain of the Army, Civil and Military Commander of the District of New Madrid;” Don Pierre Antoine LaForge, “Commissioner of Police and Officer of the Militia,” and Don Joseph Charpentier, “Interpreter for His Majesty in the English Language.” Dapron explained to these officials that he had returned from Little Prairie and considered it his duty to declare that Ignace Belan had informed him that on his way to New Orleans with a cargo of salt pork he had seen four persons at Little Prairie whom he suspected of being members of the Mason band and although they did not attempt to rob his boat, he felt their presence should be reported.

George Ruddell, a citizen of Little Prairie, appeared before the court the same day and “told us by means of the interpreter that a party of eight men and one woman,” well armed and mounted, had arrived in town about two weeks before and had taken possession of an empty house belonging to an American citizen, Lesieur, who had not been consulted by them nor had they shown any passports. In the meantime, they rented a ten-acre tract from John Ruddell and bought a cow and sundry provisions. Among other things that aroused the suspicion of the neighborhood was the careful manner in which the house was guarded by the occupants. Ruddell expressed the opinion that if this was not the Mason band, then it was probably a part, explaining that “since the Governor of Natchez had the militia on the lookout for these robbers, the original crowd may have separated into smaller groups.” He was inclined to think that although the man called “father” was not the exact size of Samuel Mason, whom he had seen some years before, he nevertheless felt confident that “father” Mason was among the members of this gang. He concluded his declaration by stating that he was acting in behalf of the citizens of Little Prairie who suggested that these suspects be arrested and their effects examined.

The next day, “in view of the above cited declarations,” the Commandant ordered four persons, Joseph Charpentier, LaForge, George Ruddell, and Don Robert McCoy, “Captain of the Militia,” to proceed to Little Prairie—a distance of about thirty miles—and there meet a division of regulars commanded by Corporal Felipo Canot, who had been ordered to the scene. Upon their arrival at the place further investigation convinced the officers that the new suspects were Samuel Mason and some of his followers, and that about half the number had left the Lesieur house and moved over to a house owned by Francois Langlois. Realizing that the pursuing party would soon be scented by the suspects, it was decided to invade the two houses early in the morning.

At six o’clock in the morning George Ruddell informed Captain McCoy that the Masons had their horses saddled and loaded with baggage and were on the point of leaving for New Madrid, but Samuel Mason, known as “Father Mason,” hearing that the interpreter was in town, expressed a desire to see him and explain that he wished to go to New Madrid to “justify himself” and clear himself of the crimes of which he was “falsely accused.” Captain McCoy, George Ruddell, and the interpreter walked to the house occupied by Samuel Mason and suggested to him that, in view of his intention to volunteer a justification, he and those of his people with him would do well to go over to the house occupied by his other associates where he would be given a hearing and could make explanations which would be forwarded to the Commandant at New Madrid. To this Mason consented and by eight o’clock his party, consisting of six men, one woman, and three children, was assembled in the Lesieur house which, unsuspected by the Masons, was guarded by concealed militia. Samuel Mason, turning to Captain McCoy, immediately referred to the “unjust imputations” made against him and his people. The Captain expressed the opinion that his explanation and justification had better be made in person to the Commandant. A signal was given by Captain McCoy, and before the Masons realized it, they were “in handcuffs and chains.”

Then, in the words of the clerk, “We immediately asked said prisoners their names and the father or oldest gave his as Samuel Mason;” those of his four sons, in order of age, were given as Thomas, John, Samuel Jr. (about eighteen years of age) and Magnus Mason (about sixteen years of age). Another man called himself John Taylor (later in the trial known as John Setton). The woman had three children with her and gave her name as Marguerite Douglas, wife of John Mason. Upon being questioned by McCoy and Charpentier, Samuel Mason answered that they had come from Nogales (Vicksburg) and intended to establish themselves in or near Little Prairie, in accordance with a passport given him. When asked to produce a passport issued “by the authorities of the locality from whence he came,” it was discovered he had “none other than the one we ourselves had given, dated New Madrid, March 29th, 1800.” This he surrendered to Captain McCoy, who agreed with the other officials present that it was genuine.

The original passport was inserted between two leaves of the record book where it has ever since remained. The following is a translation:

“New Madrid, March 29th, 1800.

“Whereas Samuel Masson, Esqr. has expressed a wish to settle in this district and wishes to arrange his business affairs, We, Don Henri Peyroux de la Coundreniere, Captain of the Armies of His Majesty, Civil and Military Commander of this Post and District of New Madrid, hereby grant permission to said Samuel Masson to proceed to Natchez per boat, and on his return from there, said Samuel Masson may select a suitable place in this District for himself and family. He, Samuel Masson, having by oath attested his loyalty and fidelity to us, we pray that no hindrance be placed to his proposed journey.

“Henri Peyroux

“Approved and marked with the flourish of our signature.”

“We told them,” continues the record, “in order that none of their effects be lost or strayed an inventory of same would be made at once ... and at two o’clock in the afternoon we proceeded with the above-named inventory.” This work required almost two days. Every item was carefully examined and tabulated. There were eight horses, new and old clothes, many yards of silk, muslin and cotton, old and new pistols and guns, “a field stove,” a box of salt, three horns of powder, six barrels of flour, English cutlery, various other imported goods and more than a hundred other items, and seven thousand dollars in United States money of various denominations, of which the series number and amount of each was noted.

The following morning, while the inventory was being made, Samuel Mason, on behalf of his people, applied for the return of certain utensils and clothing of which his people had immediate need, and asked for “a pro and con settlement” with the citizens of Little Prairie. These requests were granted. On the 16th, the prisoners, with their property and a military guard, arrived at New Madrid. How they were transported is not stated.

The trial began the morning of the 17th. “The Commandant having learned of the conversation Captain McCoy and Charpentier had with the prisoners, called on these two officers to make declarations.”

Captain McCoy, after taking the oath, declared that his duties as captain of the militia threw him in the presence of Samuel Mason much of the time after the arrest, and that the prisoner frequently spoke to him of the coming trial. Mason, continued the witness, repeatedly asserted that he had never done any wrong on the Spanish side of the Mississippi River, and that if time were given him he could and would, in justice to himself, disclose many criminals. On one occasion Mason asked “if a man became informer, with proofs and evidence of crimes committed in the States, could he obtain pardon for those attributed to him?” McCoy casually answered him that if he could give such information it would, in all probability, clear up matters and greatly help him and his people.

Mason stated to Captain McCoy that although it was widely rumored that he was “the man smeared over with black,” who had committed many crimes “along the highway,” he could in each instance prove that he was far from the scene when the robberies occurred. He denied that he was implicated in the highway robbery or the boat robbery of a man named Baker, from whom “some three thousand piasters” were taken. But when he, Captain McCoy, remarked that Baker would appear in a few days, “the prisoner seemed disturbed and asked for particulars relative to his coming.”

Captain McCoy further declared that while the inventory was being taken he asked Mason how he happened to have so many banknotes and the old man who usually stood as spokesman for his crowd, first seemed startled and then pretended not to understand the question. The question was repeated and the prisoners stared at each other for a moment, when John Taylor (alias John Setton) came to the rescue by saying: “The banknotes were found in a bag hanging in a bush, near the road where we happened to be camping.”26

Don Joseph Charpentier was next called upon to make a declaration. The record shows that his statements were practically the same as those made by Captain McCoy, but touched on a few additional subjects. He had heard Samuel Mason say that the only thing for which he could be reproached was having served in prison for debt. Mason, he said, asked him and some of the other officers whether or not they thought the money found in his possession was genuine and all answered, in effect, that they presumed Mason knew. To this the prisoner replied that he had made no attempt to pass any of the bills and that if they were counterfeit, he could not be punished for carrying them. He wanted to know by whose authority he was arrested, and whether it was likely he would be turned over to the Americans. He stated he would rather be deprived of all his property and pass the remainder of his days on Spanish soil than be delivered into the hands of the United States officials.

On January 18th Samuel Mason appeared before the Commandant, the Commissioner of Police, the Captain of Militia, and the Interpreter. Answering questions, he stated that he was born in Pennsylvania and had lately come from the District of Natchez for the purpose of residing near New Madrid. As to how he made a living he swore he had depended upon his plantation, his “horned cattle,” the labor of his sons and the people he sometimes employed. He explained that his plan was to have his four sons then with him, his wife, his son living on the river Monongahela, Mrs. Thompson (a married daughter) and her husband, another son-in-law, and a few other kinsmen join him in the settlement he proposed to establish. He said that he had recently sold his place near Natchez and the only claim he had on land was located on the Monongahela, to which he had fallen heir through a “brother who died young.”

When asked why he had not made use of the passport the year it was issued to him, he asserted that he had been kept busy settling his business affairs. He added that he had spent much time in the District of Natchez trying to show that the suspicion held against him of being a robber was groundless, but notwithstanding earnest efforts his attempts were in vain.

His attention was called to the fact that since his passport as a settler’s permit had expired, he would be obliged to give new references. He then gave the name of his daughter, Mrs. Thompson, of Cape Girardeau, whose first husband was Mr. Winterington, and General Benjamin Harrison, whose sister married his, Samuel Mason’s, brother, the owner of a kiln on the Monongahela. He was requested to cite, if he could, some local people, and he referred to Dr. Richard Jones Waters, saying he was the man on whose recommendation he had received the passport three years before, but admitted that he had known the gentleman only slightly.

Mason’s answers show that he knew more or less about the robberies that had been referred to, but in each case he managed to explain how and from whom he received the information. For example, when the Owsley boat robbery, in which he said Phillips was implicated, was under discussion, he stated that in May, 1802, two of his sons were coming up the Mississippi River and were overtaken by two men, Wiguens and John Taylor, in a boat, from whom they heard of the robbery. Later, he met Owsley, the owner of the boat, who requested him to investigate the case. This he did, with some assistance by a Mr. Koiret, and in consequence he knew where the booty had been stored and learned many other details.

He more than once asserted he would throw light on a number of robberies, and not only give the names of the guilty parties, but would produce them, “if the Commandant assured him he would spare his life and exonerate him of all misdeeds which rumor had so unjustly attributed to him.” The Commandant replied that “it is customary to spare the lives of such confessors and to show great leniency toward them.” After a somewhat pathetic recital before the officials of how his many efforts ended in failure to “justify” himself, and evidently feeling confident he had impressed the Commandant as an innocent man, and to show that he could produce a guilty man, he informed the court that one of his fellow-prisoners, John Taylor, alias John Setton, alias Wells—“and sometimes going by other names he, Mason, could not recall”—as one of the guilty parties. That prisoner, Mason insinuated, could give much information regarding the robbing of Owsley’s boat and other robberies, for he knew John Taylor was implicated in them.

John Setton, the man of various aliases, was brought before the Commandant to testify. He admitted that he had changed his name to John Taylor, but explained that he did so because Samuel Mason demanded it, and that he suspected Mason had some specific purpose in insisting upon the name of John Taylor. He also admitted (and probably in a triumphant way) that Samuel Mason was correct in his statement that he, “one of Mason’s fellow prisoners, could give much information regarding robberies.” He said that he had been with the Masons since May 14, 1802—eight months.

He swore he was an Irishman and had come to America in 1797, and shortly thereafter enrolled in Major Geyon’s corps but “deserted near the high coast.” Reaching Nogales (Vicksburg) he “worked for three weeks for His Majesty the King of Spain,” and then went down the river in the “row-gally Louisiana” to New Orleans where, during the winter, he found occupation as a carpenter. After this, for a period of about two years, he shifted around in Spanish territory, either working with white people or “hunting with Chaquetaw Indians.” One day while in Arkansas an American officer recognized him as a deserter from the army and asked for his delivery to a Spanish post. He was delivered into the hands of the American authorities and placed in jail. There he met Wiguens, an American soldier, and a month later both escaped. They went back to Arkansas and were shortly afterwards arrested by the Commander of the Arkansas Post, who considered them suspicious characters and kept them in jail twenty-eight days. They then found farm employment for a month with a man named Gibson, who obtained for them a passport to go hunting on White River. They hunted until May, 1802, when they came down the river some distance in a boat and then crossed over the country to “Little Prairie of the St. Francis River,” where they sold their skins to one Fulsom. They continued their trip, for he, Setton, “wished to join his family in Pennsylvania.” When “at the crossing of the Chaquetaws below the river Ares,” they met, by chance, John and Thomas Mason, Gibson, and Wilson, and he had been with the Masons ever since.

The Commandant asked Setton whether or not he was acquainted with “the man Harpe” and he answered that he had met a man by that name in Cumberland who had since been killed, but had left a brother, whose whereabouts was unknown to him. Setton further stated, upon being questioned, that he did not know whether or not Harpe and any of the Masons ever had any dealings together or had ever met, but he felt confident that Harpe had not been around since he had had the misfortune to fall into Mason’s hands.27 Setton, continuing his account, swore that John and Thomas Mason took possession of all his belongings, and encouraged him to stay by promising him land on to which he could later move his family and by giving him a contract “to go after Mother Mason,” who apparently had some time before refused to live any longer with her outlaw husband and sons. Setton declared that from the very day he met the Masons they had kept him like a prisoner. The promised land had never materialized and the trip for their mother was never attempted, but he was obliged to linger with them because he found no opportunity to escape, and the Masons never allowed him more than two rounds of powder at a time.

He asserted that since he had been with the Masons they had committed no crimes in his presence. They did not demand that he steal horses, but apparently expected him to do so. A number of horses had been brought in and taken away, but he asked no questions and as he heard no comments made regarding them, he had no idea how they came or where they went. He knew, however, that there was an agreement between the Masons and one Burton, of Little Bay Prairie, who bought at twenty dollars all the horses the Masons could supply, provided the animals were such that they could be sold for about sixty dollars.

The Masons occasionally left home “to repair a chimney” and if they remained a few days they invariably accounted for their prolonged absence by saying they “could not cross the water,” “lost their repairing tools,” “were hindered by bad weather,” or “visited friends,” but in no instance had they given the name of the friend they claimed to have seen.

Setton related that when he and the Masons were in Nogales, at the residence of Charles Colin, a Mr. Koiret, an American citizen, chanced to stop in the house. Koiret impressed the Masons as a prospective victim, and he (Setton) being permitted to chat freely with Koiret, soon proved himself “an interesting conversationalist.” But when Koiret incidentally remarked that he was simply passing by on his way looking for outlaws who had committed crimes along the Natchez Trace and the Mississippi River, John Mason, on a pretext, lured him (Setton) away from the officer, and, in the meantime, other Masons tactfully managed to “speed the parting guest.” Turning a corner of the house, he (Setton) unexpectedly ran into Samuel Mason, who, with drawn dagger, commanded “silence.” John Mason seized him and the father and son immediately gagged him, bound his hands and feet, and dragged him into the house where they held him down on the floor for about three hours. Feeling that Koiret had got far beyond hearing distance, they ungagged and untied him, but continued to guard him closely until the next day.

Setton swore that shortly after he had received this brutal treatment Samuel Mason prepared a written statement in which he, under the assumed name of John Taylor, made a declaration that he, Phillips, Fulsom, Gibson, Wiguens, Bassett, and others were implicated in one or more of three robberies—the Baker, the Owsley, and the Campbell and Glass robberies—and in it further declared that the Masons were in no way connected with any of these depredations.

After the statement had been prepared the Masons explained to him that they were going to conduct him to a justice of the peace and they furthermore convinced him that should he fail to swear to this written confession and declaration of the three robberies, they would kill him before he had a chance to inform the officers that the statements were false and not his own. He related how John and Thomas Mason, armed with guns, and Samuel Mason, who bore no weapon at all, forced him to the residence of William Downs, a justice living below Vicksburg, and that, with seeming calmness, he went through the form required by the law and the outlaws. He realized that while he and Samuel Mason were in the house, the two sons were outside in hiding, prepared to shoot him should the prearranged signal be given.

The first of the three robberies detailed in the false affidavit, continued Setton, was the robbery of Baker on the Natchez Trace, from whom the Masons took “twenty-five hundred piasters in gold, silver and banknotes.” For this John Mason had been imprisoned, but by the aid of his brother Thomas and others, made his escape. The object of the confession was to show that he (as John Taylor) and others were the guilty men and that Mason was absolutely innocent of the crime. Notwithstanding his purported statement, he could prove an alibi, for ten days before the robbery took place, he had been committed to the Arkansas prison. He suspected that part of the money found on the Masons by the officials who arrested them was a part of the booty obtained in the Baker robbery. The explanation that the money they had was found “in a bag hanging on a bush near the road” was suggested by Samuel Mason a few hours before the arrest, saying at the time, “accounting for it in that way won’t do any harm.”

“The second crime,” resumed Setton, “was the one committed on the Mississippi at the crossing of the Chaquetaws below the river Ares,” where the Masons robbed a merchant boat belonging to Owsley. The Masons tried to show that he and Phillips took the lead in this affair. He swore he was not connected with the robbery and stated that he understood Phillips had done nothing more than purchase two guns from the boatman and was in no way involved with the men who later bought all the guns that were on the boat, and, with the newly purchased guns attacked the boat and robbed it.

The third robbery Mason wished to throw upon the shoulders of Phillips and others by inserting it in the false affidavit, was the one that occurred on “the road from Kentucky to Natchez,” in which Campbell and Glass were deprived of several horses, saddles, and some money. Near the site of this robbery there later was discovered a sign on a tree, reading “Done by Mason of the Woods.” The Commandant asked Setton whether or not he thought Mason was guilty of this hold-up and he answered that he did not know but, in his opinion, the stratagem fitted Mason, who, if guilty, could cite it as an instance of the “workings of his enemies” and would be prepared to prove “that he was elsewhere when the robbery occurred.” Anthony Glass, the witness thought, was a party to the deception, for he had been a poor man in Nogales until he came in contact with the Masons.

On one occasion Mason proposed to Setton that they capture a certain store boat, drown the owner, rob the boat, and then sell the goods to Glass, who would pay cash for half its actual value and never betray them. He asserted that he refused to participate in the proposed venture, but he suspected that the program was carried out during one of the “chimney repairing” trips and that some of the booty could be located by Glass.

He also declared that the pistol the Masons showed Downs and claimed to be Setton’s had never belonged to him. It was one the Masons had taken during the Baker robbery and had originally belonged to Sheriff William Nicholson, whose initials had been inlaid with silver thread in the handle but had been removed by the Masons, who were not aware that he (Setton) saw them make the change. This very pistol, he said, was now among the goods the officials had taken possession of and was the same one that Samuel Mason carried to Downs, expecting to use it as evidence against him when the case came to trial.

Setton explained that two of the saddle bags now in possession of the Masons were originally tan “and had large tacks fastened at their corners” and that the tacks were broken off by Samuel Mason and the leather dyed black. He also stated that the original color of the trunk they had was red and had been blackened in his presence by Thomas and John Mason.

Setton, in his comments on the Mason family, remarked that every member treated him equally bad, except Thomas, who at times seemed somewhat human. From the conversations of the Masons he inferred that “the father had been a thief and a rascal for more than forty years.” On one occasion, Samuel Mason, “after taking three measures,” boasted to him that he was “one of the boldest soldiers in the Revolutionary War” and that “there was no greater robber and no better capturer of negroes and horses than himself.”

On another occasion, after he began to feel his liquor, he pointed with pride to the fact that he had two partners, Barret and Brown, who did some killing as a side line and always shared the spoils with him in consideration of the advice and powder he furnished them. Setton also stated that Mason had related to him that when Mason’s eldest daughter was married, he had arranged with Barret, Brown, and others to steal as many of the horses of the guests as they could while the guests were feasting at the bridal celebration, and that when the discovery of the theft became known, no man displayed more eagerness to pursue the horse thieves than Samuel Mason himself. A few days later some of the men who had taken the horses were captured and accused Mason of being the promoter of the theft, but because of the absurdity of the accusation Mason experienced no difficulty in proving his “innocence.”

In his comments on John Mason’s wife, Setton said more than once she pretended to be sick and requested her husband to send for Dr. Wales, whom she knew well, but it was his opinion that the woman simply wished “to chat with the physician” and also “to force the family cooking upon some one else.”

Setton cited another instance of Mrs. John Mason’s nature. He related that one day in his presence and in the presence of two or three of the Masons, Barret, who had lately shown signs of being dissatisfied with the treatment he received, declared he would denounce the whole family. Mrs. Mason, hearing this, immediately jumped up in a rage, knocked Barret’s hat off his head and shouted: “Monster, you are not going to denounce me or any of us!” She was about to plunge a long knife into Barret’s heart, when Thomas interfered, saying: “It is better to part as friends than to part after a fight,” and peace was restored.

After Setton’s testimony had been heard, the Commandant on the following day, January 20, ordered Samuel Mason to appear again. Mason admitted that he had, in a way, detained Setton, but did so in justice to himself and his sons. The Owsley boat, he swore in his explanation, had been robbed in April, 1802, and immediately thereafter the rumor had become current that the Masons were the guilty men. Mason declared that Owsley did not know by whom he and his five boatmen had been robbed, but in recounting the affair Owsley referred to two incidents which in themselves were sufficient to distinguish this robbery from any other. The first was that after the boat had been plundered, one of the three robbers returned five dollars to one of Owsley’s boatmen who had been seriously wounded during the short battle that took place before the boat was captured. The other incident was that after the robbery the outlaws placed a sign on a tree, reading, “Done by Samuel Mason of the Woods.” John and Thomas had heard this account a number of times and every version had it that Samuel Mason was accused of the work.

When his two sons first met Setton and Wiguens, who were strangers to them, Setton told them the details of the Owsley robbery, including these two incidents, and a few hours later, after the brothers had made a more favorable impression, Setton confided in them, saying he and Wiguens and also Gibson were among the perpetrators of the robbery. John and Thomas Mason, then recognizing in the two men the outlaws who had committed at least one of the robberies of which their father was being accused, decided to entice Setton and Wiguens to join them and in the meantime seek an opportunity to force them into a public declaration of their guilt and thus vindicate the Mason family. They succeeded in detaining Setton, admitted Samuel Mason, but Wiguens escaped.

Samuel Mason, in his comments on the Baker boat robbery, stated that a few days after the boat had been pillaged, Colonel Baker and a number of other men came to the Mason home near Natchez. The moment Baker saw John he ordered his arrest, saying, “I could pick him out of a thousand.” The father proceeded to explain to the Commandant that Baker’s mistake could be easily explained, as John Mason and Wiguens resembled each other very much, and added that shortly after Wiguens and Setton first met his two sons, Wiguens told John confidentially that he, Setton, Bassett, Gibson, Fulsom, Phillips, and others were in the Baker robbery.

Going into details, Mason explained that, according to Setton’s version, Bassett, Fulsom and Phillips were the men who bought for cash all the guns Baker had on hand and left the boatmen under the impression that these arms were to be used in a search for the Mason gang. Setton then told him confidentially that he and the other members of their band, by prearrangement, appeared shortly thereafter and robbed Baker of all his money and as much of the goods as they could carry. Fulsom, in order to inspire courage in the raiders, assured them they need not fear any pursuing party which Baker might organize, for he (Fulsom) could on very short notice, muster and command five hundred Chacquetaw Indians who would easily annihilate the revenge-seeking Baker. Setton, in concluding his account to the Masons, laughingly remarked that it was strange that two men looking so much alike should be “involved” in the same robbery, and that the guilty man should not be suspected and the innocent one be accused. Shortly after this Wiguens suddenly disappeared, very much to the disappointment of the Masons, who now realized the necessity of guarding Setton more closely.

Samuel Mason (digressing to another Baker robbery) asserted that after Baker had been robbed on the Natchez Trace, Baker and the officers came to arrest John. John submitted immediately, feeling confident that his innocence would be speedily proven. He could have vindicated himself had not some of Bassett’s friends refused to declare that they saw John many miles from the scene of the robbery when it occurred. After he had been in prison about two months “he was liberated by men who did not make themselves known to him.”

The Baker highway robbery having taken place on the American side and the Owsley robbery on the Spanish side, John, fearing he would be arrested on either side of the river, took his family and hid in the woods for a number of weeks. He hoped that in the meantime his innocence would become established by the guilty parties being brought to justice. But, instead, suspicion against him and against the entire Mason family grew stronger day by day.

Samuel Mason admitted that he had brought John Setton before a magistrate. He further stated that a number of things found in their possession the day of the arrest in Little Prairie were taken by them from Setton and held as evidence of his connection with some of the robberies of which the Masons were accused.

He asserted that after he had urgently requested Setton to declare his (Setton’s) crime before a magistrate, and thus, perhaps, receive clemency, “he consented to do so.” He and Setton then went “about twelve miles below Nogales” to the office of William Downs, a magistrate. Mason carried with him a pistol Setton told him he had procured as a part of his booty from the raid on the Owsley boat. William Downs “received Setton’s confession but was not able to take his oath, as he had no sheriff on guard with him.” Mason then, without informing Setton, went in search of Anthony Glass, who, it was rumored, was part owner of the Owsley boat, to have him serve as a witness to the affidavit. Mrs. Glass implored her husband not to act, for she feared his doing so might lead to the exposure of her brother, one Bassett, who had participated in various robberies. Glass, however, pacified his wife by telling her that since Setton was a deserter any sworn statement he might make would necessarily be ignored, and then insisted that he would go to Downs and there denounce Setton as a deserter and have him placed in the hands of the military authorities.

When the two men arrived at the magistrate’s house “they discovered that Setton, suspecting some trickery, had left.” A few weeks later, Mason swore, Setton again joined the Masons and had been with them ever since. After finishing his testimony Mason suggested that “If Setton told the truth in the testimony he gave in this trial, our statements must agree.”

The next morning, January 21, John Mason appeared before the Commandant. The prisoner evidently did not know the contents of his father’s and Setton’s testimony, but he undoubtedly had some idea of how his father intended to answer many questions should they be asked. Most of his testimony agreed, in the main, with his father’s. He tried to show the Commandant that he had long attempted to “vindicate” and “establish” himself and to live “a decent life.” He said he had escaped from prison because he realized that the defense of his name required his personal attention. He swore that practically all he knew about the various robberies regarding which he was questioned, was through reports he had heard from John Setton, alias John Taylor alias Wells, and from Druck Smith, alias Smith Gibson. He insisted he had never seen Phillips, Fulsom, and the other Gibson referred to.

The question of how the Masons came into possession of the eight horses had not been asked before. John Mason accounted for each by giving the details of a purchase or trade. He was asked why “he pursued the two Frenchmen in a boat until they had reached a safe harbor.” His explanation was that he, Thomas, and Setton were on the river and followed these men, suspecting them to be robbers involved in some of the acts of which the Masons were accused. He hoped that if they were he would succeed in having them verify Setton’s declaration of his own guilt. When the two men reached Nogales his boat was on the point of overtaking them. He then discovered that they were French officials and the pursuit was dropped without giving the men any reasons for the chase.

He swore that most of the notes and paper money found in their possession belonged to Setton, who claimed he had “found it in a bag hanging on a bush near the road,” and who on one occasion remarked that since then he had more money than he could use. John Mason added that this statement convinced him that Setton had stolen the money.

The record of this sworn statement made by John Mason is abruptly followed by “And the prisoner being asked by the interpreter whether he had anything further to say or anything to unsay, he answered ‘No,’ but requested, as his father had done before him, that we do not hand him over to the United States Government, and after his declaration was read to him, he persisted that it was true.”

Thomas Mason followed his brother John and, like him, gave evidence that agreed, in the main, with his father’s. He swore his occupation was “farming and harvesting” and “bringing down flour and whiskey” in boats. He admitted that he had heard of the Baker and Owsley robberies but claimed he knew none of the details except those told to him by Setton, and these he repeated.

When he was asked about Setton’s appearance before the magistrate, he answered that he had accompanied him to Downs’ but did not force him to make an affidavit. He added that John Mason had received a message from the Governor of Natchez to the effect that if he produced a witness who would turn state’s evidence it would “tend to clear him of his guilt;” hence, their anxiety to have Setton make a declaration.

After hearing Thomas Mason’s version of the subjects that had been discussed by the preceding witnesses, the Commandant, who evidently had been informed that day that the Masons had also maneuvered further north, asked him whether or not he knew a man named Mosique and the two Duff brothers while in Illinois. He answered he had heard of them and understood that one of the brothers had been killed by Indians. His answers to other questions were to the effect that he knew nothing of the robbing of a negro in St. Louis, of a man named Lecompte, and of a stolen negro woman who had been sold to a priest named Manuel. The officer then asked him whether or not he was aware that the Masons were accused of these crimes, “but the witness continued to profess he had never heard of them.”

The fifth prisoner was Marguerite Douglas, wife of John Mason. She swore she had been married eight years. She answered that to her “keen regret” she had heard of the robberies of which her husband and the other Masons were “so falsely accused.” Her knowledge of these acts, she swore, was based solely on hearsay. Among other things, she said Setton told her that robbing the Baker boat proved as easy “as robbing some old woman.” She also swore she knew nothing about the paper money found in their possession and could not account for the money and goods discovered among her personal belongings other than by suggesting that in packing up so hurriedly she may have placed some of Setton’s personal property in her bag.

Samuel Mason Jr., in his testimony stated that he was eighteen years old and that he had lived with his parents all the time until about three months previous. He said his father and brothers had left his mother at Bayou Pierre—between Natchez and Vicksburg—and were away for the purpose of establishing a new home, and that she was now ill and living with her daughter, Mrs. Philip Briscoe. The Commandant remarked to him: “You ought to speak the truth for you have a mother, who, it is reported, is a good and honorable woman, and you ought not to be mixed up in the wickedness of your father and brothers, who, it is said, are guilty of many thefts and robberies.” The answers he gave to the few questions asked him agreed with those given by his father.

Magnus Mason, the last of the prisoners, was called upon January 24. He stated he was about sixteen years old and was born “in Kentucky on the south side of Green River.” (The others had claimed Pennsylvania as their native state.) In answer to questions he stated that he had lived “part of his time with his father in Kentucky and part with his mother in Bayou Pierre near Natchez.” He declared his father had spent practically all of the past two years away from home trying “to discover men who were committing the robberies.”28

The next witness was Dr. Richard Jones Waters, the man on whose recommendation the passport had been granted to Samuel Mason. Dr. Waters said he first met Mason in 1791 or 1792 at “Red Banks on the Ohio,” (now Henderson, Kentucky) which was after he (Dr. Waters) had settled in New Madrid. He had been traveling in America and on his return, coming to the Ohio River, engaged Charles Lafond, a merchant, and two other men who were on their way to New Orleans, to take him down as far as New Madrid. When the boat reached the Falls of the Ohio (Louisville) Lafond, hearing that he intended to remain there a few days, asked permission to let the boat proceed to Red Banks, where Lafond expected to dispose of some of the goods on board. The permission was granted on condition that Lafond, without fail, wait for him there. In due time he (Dr. Waters) reached Red Banks and then met Samuel Mason for the first time. Mason claimed that Lafond had gone fishing a few days before and, in the meantime, started his boat south. He (Dr. Waters) did not know whether or not Lafond and his boat ever reached New Orleans, and not until recently, had he suspected foul play. A year after this, continued Dr. Waters, he was traveling down the Ohio River, stopped at Red Banks and, to his surprise, met Samuel Mason again. Mason asked him to come to the house to prescribe for Mrs. Mason who was sick in bed. The doctor complied and the result was a trade in which Mason bought seventy dollars worth of medicine and merchandise, paying forty dollars in meat and giving him a demand note for thirty dollars on Felic Concer, of New Madrid. But when he arrived at New Madrid he learned that Concer had left for parts unknown. In 1798, however, Mason paid the note. He then saw nothing more of Mason until March, 1800, when he met him and his son Thomas and a man by the name of Smith who said they had come to New Madrid for drugs. They purchased some medicine from him for Mrs. John Mason and other members of the family and paid for it with merchandise which they claimed they had bought from a store boat. A few days later Samuel Mason called again, not to buy medicine but to ask his assistance in procuring a passport for land on Spanish territory. This he was, at first, unwilling to give, for, although he knew nothing unfavorable concerning the family, he was not assured of their character. After the old man had pleaded with him and declared that although rumor had done all the Masons great injustice he would never regret the endorsement of his character, he procured a passport, giving to the clerk at the time a history of his acquaintance with Mason. A few days afterward Thomas Mason informed him that he was obliged to go to Kentucky to straighten out some business affairs before he settled on the land that would be granted them. He entrusted Thomas Mason with “some valuable papers for delivery at the Falls of the Ohio.” These papers reached their destination but much later than Thomas had promised. No explanation of the delay was offered or demanded.

The record of the proceedings shows that January 26 was devoted by the officials to inspecting the belongings of the Masons and approximating their value. The saddles and pistols referred to by Setton were found as described by him. There was also discovered some “twenty twists of human hair of different shades which do not seem to have been cut off voluntarily by those to whom the hair belonged.” These and a number of other evidences were laid aside by the inspectors. The belongings were estimated at about six hundred dollars in value. The silver and paper money amounted to seven thousand dollars, much of which, however, “appears to be counterfeit.”

The next day Francois Derousser, a citizen of New Madrid, came forward, stating that he had an important declaration to make concerning the prisoners. He explained that he was a native of Illinois and that in 1791, when he and his family were coming down the Ohio River and had reached a point near Red Banks, where they happened to make a landing, a man—the one he now recognized among the prisoners as Samuel Mason—stepped up to him and, pushing a gun against his stomach, threatened to shoot him if he did not follow. He was led into a hut, where several persons were sitting. Immediately after entering, Samuel Mason shouted: “This is the man who stole my horses and slaves and sold them to the Indians,” and, looking around for a rope, Mason seemed to be making preparations to hang him at once. He finally convinced Mason that he could not possibly have been guilty of the thefts. After keeping him in chains all night, continued Derousser, Mason permitted him to leave, but while he was making some repairs on his boat to resume his trip, Mason came to him and persuaded him to remain two months and work with the Mason boys. Mason promised him a certain quantity of linen, calico, and bed covers for his services and, needing these badly for his family, he accepted the proposition. At the end of the specified time the promised goods were given to him; but three hours after he had received them and while on his way to his boat, Samuel Mason and a Captain Bradley overtook him and robbed him of all the goods. That night he managed to return to his boat and with the aid of Eustache Peltier succeeded in cutting the ice from around it. He started down the river, and after much suffering from cold and hunger he and his family finally landed at New Madrid, where they had lived ever since.

Eustache Peltier appeared before the Commandant, confirmed the declaration made by Derousser, and added that he had heard that a certain Lafond, “an European merchant with an emporium of goods in New Orleans,” had stopped at the Mason’s house near Red Banks one night about the time he and Derousser made their escape, but neither the merchant nor the boat in which he traveled had been heard from since.

Pierre Billeth, another citizen of New Madrid, declared that he knew some facts bearing on the Masons and felt it his duty to report them. He related to the Commandant that during an excursion in August, 1798, on the Cumberland River, near the mouth, he heard a negro woman belonging to Samuel Mason tell Rees Jones and James Downs that her master had forced her to help dispose of the body of one of his victims. She declared that Mason after stabbing and robbing the man had commanded her to help tie a rope around his neck and drag the body to the Ohio, where they threw it in to the water. This same woman had been stolen by Mason and later sold at public auction by Sheriff James Downs, then of Kaskaskia, to Father Manuel, a priest, who lived near St. Genevieve.

All the witnesses having been examined, and the declarations and proclamations heard, the Commandant January 29, 1803, ordered an itemized account of the cost of the trial, including the expenses incurred in making the arrest at Little Prairie. The account rendered shows that the largest single item was for “the sergeant and nineteen militiamen for seventeen days’ guard and sentinel watch of prisoners, at one piaster per day, three hundred and forty piasters.” Twenty-two men, besides the officers, were employed in making the arrest and bringing the prisoners to New Madrid, for which they received one hundred and seventy-six piasters. Another item reads, “irons and cuffs made for prisoners, eight piasters.” The total expense is given as one thousand fifty-three piasters, or about one thousand dollars.

The last entry is dated January 31, 1803, and, like all the others, is presented in monotonous legal phraseology. It ends with the statement that: “We [the Commandant] hereby direct that the proceedings of this trial, originally set down in writing on ninety-one sheets of paper written on both sides, as well as the pieces of evidence tending to conviction, together with seven thousand piasters in U.S. banknotes, be forwarded to the Honorable Governor General by Don Robert McCoy, Captain of the Militia, whom we have charged to conduct the prisoners, Mason and consorts, to New Orleans with the view of their trial being continued and finished, if it so please the Honorable Governor General.”

And here ends the record of the preliminary trial of the Masons. Captain McCoy, having been appointed to conduct the prisoners to a higher court, made his preparations and in due time started for New Orleans.