INAC's "Fact Sheet" Part 1

Fact or Fiction or a Little of Both?
Powerpoint Presentation of 2014 Meetings in Sauble and Wiarton

Sorry the link above has been removed. If I find a copy of the presentation, I will post it.

First Line of Fact Sheet:

• "Treaty 72 describes the north-east corner of the Saugeen reserve as a spot upon the coast located about nine and a half miles from where the western boundary of the reserve meets Lake Huron."
  
  This is a manipulation of the facts. Look closely at how INAC adds the phrase "nine and a half miles from where the western boundary of the reserve meets Lake Huron." The actual wording is: “at the spot where it is entered by a ravine…to the shore of Lake Huron; on the south by the aforesaid northern limit of the lately surrendered strip; on the east by a line drawn from a spot upon the coast at a distance of about (9 ½ ) nine miles and a half from the western boundary aforesaid…”
  
  Do you see anything that mentions "from where the western boundary of the reserve meets Lake Huron" in reference to the 9 1/2 mile measurement? What they don't mention is the Copway Road Amendment. Nine and a half miles from where Copway Road meets Lake Huron is Lot 25/26 (Main Street); exactly where the NE corner of the Saugeen reserve is today.

Second Line of Fact Sheet:

• Charles Rankin, a Provincial Land Surveyor, was a witness to the signing of Treaty 72 in 1854 and undertook a survey of Amabel Township in the following year.
  
  If Charles Rankin was present as a witness at the signing of Treaty 72, why did he mark the division line of lot 25/26 as the northern boundary of the Saugeen reserve on every map he produced if it should have been at midpoint lot 31? How does INAC/Saugeen Band see Charles Rankin's presence at the signing of the treaty as an advantage to their claim?

Third Line of Fact Sheet:

• Rankin's original 1855 survey map shows a point on the coast in the middle of Lot 31 (approximately 6th Street) that is identified as the northeast angle of the Indian reserve. A more detailed map prepared the following year by an engineering firm shows a post in the middle of Lot 31 marked "North East Angle of Saugeen Reserve according to Treaty Boundary running south". This post is located approximately nine and a half miles from where the western boundary of the reserve meets Lake Huron, as set out in the terms of the Treaty.
  
  INAC is deceiving people by referring to the October 12th, 1855 draft map as the "original 1855 survey map." As if it holds some official importance. It was no more than a working draft to Rankin which he didn't even submit to Indian Affairs. INAC fails to mention that while there is a notation at midpoint Lot 31, the actual NE boundary is shown to be at Lot 25/26 (Main Street) on the draft map.
  
  INAC is assuming that the notation marks the final "spot on the coast" as set out in the treaty, but they have totally dismissed the reality that the Treaty instructions are mathematically impossible. It is impossible to have a 9 1/2 mile measurement from the original NW boundary of the Saugeen Reserve and an eastern boundary that runs parallel to the western boundary. If INAC had given more attention to the Copway Road amendment, they would have realized that it is possible to have a 9 1/2 mile measurement from the amended NW boundary at Copway Road and an eastern boundary that is parallel to the western boundary. All evidence suggests that this is exactly what happened.
  
  As for the engineering firm:
  
  
  Once the western boundary dispute was resolved, Rankin began surveying the eastern boundary of the Saugeen Reserve. It is likely that Rankin marked midpoint Lot 31 with a post as a reference marker only. This makes sense since Rankin began surveying the True North line at lot 31 rather than traversing 9 1/2 miles from Copway Road.  It would be easier to use midpoint Lot 31 as the first reference point to establish the line before leaving the shore where True North meets at the edge of the lake to establish the "spot on the coast" at Lot 25/26.
  
  
  On this same point we are aware that Rankin noted on the actual physical “post” found at midpoint lot 31: “NE angle of Saugeen Reserve according to Treaty Boundary running south” as attested to by a Hydrographic survey team in 1856. Expert surveyors from today say that no such elaborate notation would ever be put on a post in Rankin’s time. Under normal circumstances this seems reasonable but since we know that Rankin did not consider the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve to be at midpoint Lot 31, he was making it clear that this location was initially the NE angle by the Treaty boundary, and is NOT the location by the amended boundary. To verify this, we only need look at how Rankin identified a known boundary location such as the eastern boundary of Chief’s Point located ½ mile east of the mouth of the Sauble River. He marks it simply as “POST” without any notation whatsoever. Further evidence to support this is by Rankin’s notations in relation to the amended Copway Road western boundary. On sample drawings of the amended boundary, Rankin notes the original NW boundary as “boundary by treaty” and at Copway Road he notes “boundary desired by Alexander.” (Pg. 41 BBR)
  
  
  The notation on the Lot 31 post implies that this location is no longer relevant since “according to Treaty Boundary” leads one to believe there is something else to consider such as the amendment. There would be no need for the phrase “according to Treaty Boundary” in the notation and the notation would more likely simply be “POST” as it is at Chief’s Point. This becomes even more apparent when we are conscious that Rankin, at the time of the “post” notation, is fully aware of the Copway Road amendment. Couple this with the way he notes the Copway Road Boundary (“desired by Alexander”) and the original western boundary (“by Treaty boundary”), the evidence is quite compelling. Rankin uses “boundary by Treaty” and "according to Treaty boundary" both when referencing the original western boundary and when referencing midpoint Lot 31.
• 
  The NE < Ind. Res. post is located "about" 9 1/2 miles from the original NW boundary if you follow the shoreline. Where the actual Saugeen NE boundary was located in 1855 and is located today is also "about" 9 1/2 miles from the amended NW boundary where Copway Road meets Lake Huron. Again, INAC makes the assumption the original NW boundary was supposed to be used for the measurement. In a later posting about the 9 1/2 mile measurement and the Copway Road amendment I make this more clear.

Fourth Line of Fact Sheet:

• In his survey field notes, Rankin describes laying out the road allowance between Lots 30 and 31. Rankin notes that he placed a post 10 chains, 66 links "south of the post of the Indian Reserve". This is consistent with the post that identifies the north-east corner of the Indian Reserve as being in the middle of Lot 31 (at 6th Street)
  
  To be clear, the field notes do not say "south of "the" post of "the" Indian Reserve", it says "S. of post of Ind. reserve." This may seem like a small detail, but adding "the" is manipulating the wording to indicate this wording is a direct identifier of the location of the Saugeen reserve. It says no such thing. It is identifying a post only, not "the" Indian Reserve. What the post is and what it was used for is not indicated in this particular section of the field notes. The post was used as a starting point to find the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve. For Gould to refer to it as post of Ind. Res. is not corroboration of the reserve location.
  
  Yes, there is a post at mid-point of lot 31 already identified on the map as NE < Ind. Res.; a starting point used to help determine the True North line to find the NE corner of the Indian Reserve at Lot 25/26. If it is the way INAC suggests why does Rankin place the north boundary of the Saugeen Reserve at lot 25/26 on the map instead of mid lot 31? Remember, he was at the signing of the treaty, he is the chief surveyor of the project, surely he knows where the northern boundary is supposed to be. More likely, the notation was marked on the map when Rankin did his initial traverse from the Saugeen River along the Lake Huron shore to the Sauble River. Early on, he would have believed that midpoint Lot 31 would be the location of the NE corner, but would soon come to realize that it was impossible.
  
  Below is the actual reproduction of the map INAC uses for its primary evidence as seen on their website "fact sheet". They have supersized it to allow you to see the NE < Ind. Res. notation and the lot number 31. It is most likely that Rankin used the original position "by Treaty boundary" of the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve as a reference marker to aid in running the True North line from midpoint Lot 31 to the northern boundary of the recently surrendered strip. Referencing the post at lot 31 as post of Indian reserve is a general reference, since that point was used as a starting point to locate the actual position of the Saugeen eastern boundary at lot 25/26. We can also deduce it was a general reference since midpoint Lot 31 was initially considered the original NE corner "according to treaty" and not the final NE corner due to a mathematical impossibility. 

I invite your comments or arguments, but please, let's be respectful of one another. I understand that this is a heated debate, but derogatory remarks toward anyone are not welcome


Thank you.