Much discussion ensued upon these conscientious scruples, and the offenders were summoned to appear before the Court of Assistants, but decision was deferred for several meetings, "_because the Court could not agree about the thing, whether the ensigns should be laid by, in regard that many refused to follow them_." It was, however, ordered by the Commissioners for military affairs that all the ensigns should in the meantime be laid aside. Endicott was finally tried at a general court held at Newtown, and "_his offence found great; he judging the cross to be a sin, did not content himself to have it reformed at Salem, not taking care that others might be brought out of it; also laying a blemish on the other magistrates, as if they would suffer idolatry, and giving occasion to England to think ill of us_." He was, however, lightly sentenced by suspension for one year of right to hold civil office, because "_he did it out of tenderness of conscience and not of any evil intent_."[84] [84] _Winthrop's Journal_, March, 1635. A suggestion was made that red and white roses should be inserted in the flag, instead of the cross, as being English emblems, and the ministers were "_to write to England and consult the most wise and godly_;" but nothing came of this suggestion. Opinions must have continued strong in the controversy, for at the close of the year the commissioners appointed colours for the military companies, but left out the cross in them all, leaving the space blank, but they ordered that the King's arms were to be inserted in the flag which was to be used on the fort on Castle Island, at Boston.[85] [85] _Winthrop's Journal_, December, 1635. In the following year (1636) much heart-burning was occasioned by the masters of several ships trading to Boston declaring that because the King's colours were not displayed at the fort the colonists were all traitors and rebels. This imputation was most warmly resented by the people, and the captains were promptly tried by the Massachusetts court for this defamation of the loyalty of the colony. The offenders acknowledged their error and made humble apology in open court, but in doing so suggested that the King's colours ought to be shown on the fort. To this answer was made, "_that 'we had not the King's colours'; thereupon two of them did offer them freely to us. We replied that, for our part, we were fully persuaded that the cross in the ensign was idolatrous, and, therefore, might not set it in our ensign, but because the fort was the King's and maintained in his name, we thought that his own colours might be spread there._"[86] [86] _Winthrop's Journal_, March, 1636. The King's own colours would be the two-crossed Jack of James, which Charles I. had, in 1634, declared as His Majesty's Jack to be the "ornament proper for our owne ships." This Jack was ordered to be thereafter displayed at the fort, lest it might again be thought that the colony had abated its allegiance.