The Copway Road Theory vs. Some of the Truth, Some of the Whole Truth, and Nothing but Some of the Truth

There have been many revelations regarding this land claim over the years, however, it appears the Copway Road Amendment Theory is the final argument on the subject. In my opinion, along with the information in this posting and the "About" Nine and a Half Miles posting  the Copway Road Theory is now the best and most complete argument to explain what happened and why it happened from start to finish.

There is no documentation that I am aware of and I am not aware of anyone else, including INAC, who can establish the shoreline as the definite, without a doubt, 100% sure, method for measuring the "about 9 1/2 miles" distance. The INAC/Saugeen Band theory is 100% dependant on the 9 ½ mile shoreline measurement and 100% dependant that the NE < Ind. Res. notation means North East Angle Indian Reserve for their theory to make any sort of sense. The Copway Amendment Theory is not 100% dependent on the shoreline measurement; however, it makes the most sense to the theory. Neither is the Copway Road Amendment Theory dependent on the NE < Ind. Res. notation to mean North East Angle Indian Reserve. That being said, even if both of these things are true, the Copway Road Amendment Theory explains why both of these things are irrelevant to the INAC/SB Theory. 

These are the chain of events combining what was previously known and what I have found in the last 10 years which eventually led to the Copway Road Amendment Theory.

• October, 1854 - Rankin traversed the shore of Lake Huron between the Saugeen and Sauble River
  
  
• November, 1854 - Rankin surveyed the west boundary of the Saugeen reserve. (significant because it establishes the True North line and also how the eastern boundary must run)
  
  
• January, 1855 - The Grey/Bruce map shows that Rankin new that the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve would terminate in the vicinity of Lot 25/26 (Main Street) as early as January, 1855. (Western boundary is on this map, yet Rankin doesn't draw it in 10 months later on the draft map???)
  
  
• May, 1855 - Rankin and George Gould (Rankin's assistant) begin surveying the Southampton town plot to the west of the Saugeen reserve western boundary. The Saugeen Band is so upset by the positioning of the Saugeen reserve's western boundary that it caused an uprising to the extent that Gould was forced to stop surveying the town plot. It is quite possible since the western boundary was surveyed in November of the previous year, with winter having set in, May, 1855 was the first opportunity the Saugeen Band had to observe where the Western boundary was positioned.  
  
  
• July 1855 Allenford Pow-Wow – “In July, 1855, at nearby "Floodwood Crossing" (now Allenford), representatives of the Ojibwa Indians conferred with government officials at a meeting later called the "Allenford Pow-Wow". The conference resolved a boundary dispute which had arisen over the terms of the Saugeen treaty of 1854. The Ojibwa interpretation of this treaty held "Copway's Road", an Indian pathway from Saugeen village to Lake Huron, to be the boundary of the land ceded by them on the north side of the Saugeen River. Lord Bury, Superintendent General of Indian Affairs and the government's principal representative, accepted this interpretation which granted the Indians increased frontage on Lake Huron and removed a major source of friction.” (From plaque in Allenford to commemorate the event)
  
  
• August 11, 1855 - Rankin recommended having the NW boundary relocated to Copway Road.
  
  
• September 4, 1855 - Surveying of the eastern boundary begins and the 9 1/2 mile "spot on the coast" intersects exactly at Lot 25/26 (Main Street) if measured from the amended NW position of the western boundary that Rankin has recommended.
  
  The amended NW position of the western boundary does not change the fact that the eastern boundary runs parallel to the western boundary. The amended boundary runs straight on the True North line for 0.32 miles from its origin where it is entered by a ravine at the Saugeen River to the SE conclusion of Copway Road. Either way, the NE corner of the reserve ultimately would have ended at Lot 25/26 (Main Street) which is the most likely reason the Saugeen band was so upset with the original position of the western boundary.
  
  
• September 27, 1855 - The Copway Road amendment was approved placing the NW boundary 1.4 miles south along the shoreline from its original position. This allowed an increase in frontage.
  
  
• October 12th, 1855 - The infamous draft map is either completed or abandoned. Dated, but not signed. (Neither the original western boundary nor the amended western boundary are included)
  
  
• 1856 - Rankin's final map is submitted to and accepted by the Superintendent of Indian Affairs.
  
  *Bearing notations all refer to True North;
  
  *neither markings nor notation exist at midpoint lot 31; 
  
  *original NW treaty boundary is marked by dotted line. No dotted line exists between Lot 25/26 (Main Street) and Lot 31 to denote an original treaty location for the NE boundary 
  
  *amended NW boundary is marked as solid line although much of it is covered by a piece of tape; 
  
  *Saugeen reserve NE boundary position is clearly and firmly established as terminating at Lot 25/26 (Main Street)
  
  *Map is signed and dated by Charles Rankin
  
  
• 1856 - Lot 31 Post found by engineering firm and reported to say "NE Angle of Saugeen Reserve according to treaty boundary running south." The notation on the post as provided by the firm is open to interpretation and analysis considering the Copway Road amendment.
  
  
• 1883 - The Saugeen Band Council records in their minutes that they would like for John Creighton, their Indian Agent, to ask the department to give back the Sauble Fishing Station to the Band. (This is documented proof that the Saugeen Band, at this date, believes that they neither have nor should have possession or ownership of any land along the shoreline between Lot 25/26 and the Sauble River. This area is also known as the Sauble Fishery Station. There is no documentation to suggest that this land had ever been taken other than by surrender almost 30 years before this date.)
  
  
• 1910 Indian Agent Ferguson Letter - The first indisputable evidence we have that INAC had been advertising the lots as extending to the waters edge when they were selling them.
• 1932 - Livingston Huff writes a letter to INAC describing his belief that there is Indian Reserve land in front of his property at Lot 26. INAC sends a reply letter to Huff denying his belief and goes on to say that the lot does in fact go to the waters edge and any accretion would also go to the owner of the lot.
  
  

The Copway Road Theory explains how all of the above points are true. However, I am sure for some of you, as pointed out by one of my sounding boards, the definition of "increased frontage" most likely will be the biggest cause of disagreement. You will insist it is in addition to the 9 1/2 mile measurement making the shoreline frontage 11 miles, but consider this:

·  The measurement from the amended NW position of the western boundary to Lot 25/26 (Main Street) is almost exactly 9 1/2 miles or "about 9 1/2 miles" exactly as laid out in the treaty. This is either a miraculous coincidence or it was by design. By design. Rankin said the amendment would not alter the treaty instructions.

·  We know that Rankin surveyed the western boundary of the Saugeen Reserve in November of 1854 and then showed the position of the boundary on the Grey/Bruce map in January of 1855. We also know Rankin showed the position of the eastern boundary of the Saugeen reserve to terminate at Lot 25/26 (Main Street) on the very same Grey/Bruce map.  If the 9 1/2 mile measurement, as described in the treaty, was to run along the shoreline of Lake Huron, Rankin gave more weight to the treaty instruction that the Saugeen reserve's eastern boundary was to run parallel to the western boundary. Meaning, in order to establish where the NE corner would terminate, he considered the eastern boundary running parallel to the True North line of the western boundary more important than the 9 1/2 mile measurement as can be verified by the Grey/Bruce map. Under these circumstances, the only way to make both of the treaty instructions true would be to deviate the eastern boundary from the True North line in a NE direction to include some of the shoreline. We know this is not the case.

·  The above explanation also shows that any increase in "frontage", if by distance, was in addition to 8.1 miles, not 9.5 miles since the NE corner has already been established in January 1855, although not yet surveyed, five months before the time of the Saugeen Band's uprising in May, 1855. Since Rankin knew that the NE corner terminated at Lot 25/26 (Main Street) when he recommended the Copway amendment, he was obviously referring to an increase based on 8.1 miles and not 9.5 miles.

Rankin's report to Superintendent Bury said this about the Copway Road Amendment:

"there would be no harm gratifying them and allowing them the use of it which of course can be done without either resurrendering it to them, or in any way altering the terms of the treaty."

To include anything north of Lot 25/26 (Main Street) in the amendment, based on a shoreline measurement, would mean altering the terms of the treaty since a shoreline measurement would now equal 11 miles instead of 9 1/2 miles. 

·  We have verified that Rankin indisputably positioned the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve at the dividing line of Lot 25/26 (Main Street) when he surveyed it just one month after the Saugeen Band’s uprising in regard to the positioning of the western boundary. Yet strangely, the positioning of the eastern boundary does not cause a similar uprising or dispute by the Saugeen Band. If the Saugeen reserve is somehow supposed to be 11 miles along the shoreline to include land from Lot 25/26 (Main Street) to Lot 31, why, in 1856, is the Saugeen band not upset that it terminates at Lot 25/26 (Main Street)?

·  Also consider the amount of increased area (frontage) from the original western boundary to the shoreline as opposed to nothing, I repeat, nothing, from land to shoreline from lot 25/26 (Main Street) to Lot 31.

·  Consider that since "frontage" does not exist between Lot 25/26 (Main Street) to Lot 31 "according to the treaty boundary", and if the amendment was referring to an increase in distance, as stated above, it still could only apply to an increase in distance based on the Saugeen reserve's NE corner being located at Lot 25/26 (Main Street). Meaning the increase was 1.4 miles of frontage in addition to the 8.1 miles of frontage from Lot 25/26 (Main Street) to the original NW boundary. There is no other way to achieve an increase in frontage using distance as the definition in this scenario since frontage does not exist. The Saugeen reserve eastern boundary line simply cannot exist on land between Lot 25/26 (Main Street) to the midpoint Lot 31 to create frontage. It is mathematically impossible since the line is all in the water. Therefore, frontage does not exist. Cannot exist. Logic would dictate that one of the main reasons for the Copway Road amendment was because of this fact.

·  Finally, examine item 2 of the amendment contained in my previous posting:

"That the Southwestern boundary of the Cape Croker Reserve now formed by a line drawn from the bottom of Nochemowenaing Bay to the mouth of Sucher River start instead from the South shore of Hope Bay at a small point about a mile from its head, and strike Lake Huron two miles south of Sucher River as shown by the plan. This change would cut off from the Indians one mile of frontage on Hope Bay, giving them in compensation two mile extra frontage on the Georgian Bay" 

You will notice the change in instructions of this example are very specific and explain how it will affect frontage (which appears to be referring to distance in this example). Simple deduction would indicate that the 9 1/2 mile distance for the Saugeen Reserve is to be measured from the amended NW position of the western boundary. There is no mention of that being changed in the amendment.

Considering the detailed description of item 2, you would expect it to say "the spot on the coast will now be about 11 miles from the aforementioned western boundary giving the Saugeen band a 1.4 mile increase in frontage", but it does not. When you compare the two descriptions, they are not consistent if you insist the shoreline measurement now equals "about 11 miles." Without this stated in the amendment, the distance is to remain 9 1/2 miles to be consistent. In other words, the NW boundary location has changed and that is all. All other instructions contained in the treaty remain the same.

The NE < Ind. Res notation is the one element that remains, and will always remain somewhat of a mystery. Although, with everything I have learned it makes a lot more sense why it is there and its possible meaning. It could be the way AM describes, it could be the way INAC describes, but it also could be the way the engineering firm describes which is somewhat different from the way INAC describes. Whichever one is right, we can be 100% certain it ultimately did not mark the final intended position for the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve. All evidence reveals unequivocally that the NE corner, if not initially, eventually had to terminate at Lot 25/26 (Main Street).

In my mind, the notation meant something else to Rankin and his men other than the final location of the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve. If you examine the 1855 draft map at Chief’s Point reserve, you will notice that the southern corner of the eastern boundary is identified only with the word “Post”. To remain consistent, you would expect there to be a similar notation to that of the notation at Lot 31 or that the position at Lot 31 would only have the word “Post” if it were to mark the NE corner of the Saugeen reserve. Surveying is a precise and consistent profession. Considering this, I would deduce the more elaborate notation has a significance or different meaning than the word “Post” does. We know that where the word “Post” appears at Chief’s Point, it is without a doubt where the southern point of Chief’s Point eastern boundary begins.

Later in this posting, I have written down the main arguments of INAC/Saugeen Band. By writing them down, I also recognized something else that is significant concerning the engineering firm’s reporting of the post at Lot 31. It is difficult to prove whether they, themselves, made an interpretation of what they saw written on the Lot 31 post or if what they reported, were the exact words. What we do know is that this is the closest we will ever get to someone from the actual time casting some light on the notation and its meaning. Before the Copway Road Theory and if the engineering report is not their own interpretation, it seemed definitive what was meant by the notation as they reported, but now it is open to interpretation.

According to the engineering firm, the post  found at lot 31 says "NE Angle of Saugeen Reserve according to Treaty boundary running south." If it just said, "NE Angle of Saugeen Reserve according to Treaty" I would have probably dismissed it but by adding the word "boundary" it leads one to believe that there is something else to be considered. Why not simply label the post: North East Angle of Saugeen Reserve? There is nothing ambiguous about that. After all, what else could the Saugeen boundary be in accordance with if it's not the Treaty. Well, there is the Copway Road Amendment boundary relocation.

Rankin was fully aware of the of the Copway Road amendment the whole time he was working on the 1855 draft map. If the notation on the post was worded the way the engineering firm reported, it makes sense. Rankin is simply marking the location where the treaty initially established the Saugeen NE boundary, possibly using this known location to aid in running the True North line. He ran the eastern boundary line in September, 1855, shortly after the July, 1855, Allenford Pow-Wow, the conference which ultimately led to the Copway Road amendment.

In a report Rankin completed regarding the Saugeen Band's concern for the boundary's of their reserve, a sketch was attached which showed two options for the Western boundary. One had the annotation "boundary by treaty" referring to the original western boundary and the other had "boundary desired by Alexander" referring to the Copway Road western boundary. This is significant if we can believe the annotation on the Lot 31 post as reported by the Engineering firm. The annotation on the sketch identifying the western boundary and the annotation on the Lot 31 post are very similar and we know that the sketch annotation is comparing an original boundary to an anticipated relocation. This reinforces the belief that "according to treaty boundary" signifies the original location was relocated. 

This establishes verification that the notation is only a reference marker and not the actual boundary marker which may also explain the reason for a notation and not simply “Post” as used at Chief’s Point. The only possible line for the eastern boundary to exist between lot 25/26 (Main Street) to Lot 31 on the map is still visibly in the water of Lake Huron. This fact will never change. INAC has been aware of this blunder in their theory for 12 years and it is pure obstinance that prevents them from accepting it.

It has also been reported elsewhere that such an extravagant notation is unlikely on a post as was found at Lot 31 because of size, but this could explain why it was necessary. 

Even if you aren't convinced by the Copway Road Amendment Theory, the alternate theories I have found or helped find by way of research challenge the theory of INAC/Saugeen Band almost as well as the Copway Road Theory and even compliment it. The Grey/Bruce map theory is one and the analysis of the Special Fishery License is yet another. These are two very solid theories built on factual documentation.

AM's Theory is another and perhaps is still just as relevant since "surveying posts" used in Rankin's time were to mark the direction of a line and not corners. In other words, the notation of "NE < Ind. Res." at the Lot 31 post is marking the direction of the construction line that extends from the Saugeen Reserve boundary in relation to magnetic north. We know that Rankin needed the line to extend to the Sauble River so he could take a True North bearing reading for the eastern boundary of Chief's Point. This being the case, it is difficult to be 100% sure whether the notation was intended to mark the 9 1/2 mile distance from the original NW boundary or if it was simply marking direction. However, the coincidence that the measurement is very close to 9 1/2 miles is hard to deny, but is still not an admission on my part that this marks the intended position of where the NE boundary was initially supposed to be. As I said before the Copway Road Theory is not dependent on the notation meaning North East Angle Indian Reserve, so AM's theory and the Copway Road Theory can exist together at the same time.

I think that a lot of people assume that since my discoveries have been written down in this blog, they automatically become evidence. It's not so. For any of this to become credible, someone with the proper credentials needs to be paid an exorbitant amount of money to review the material and then write a report that will contain their opinion. Usually the report contains much of the same material as is already documented. A layman, such as myself, has no voice without such a report.

Since I began this blog I have invited people to prove me wrong. I have invited discussion. I am prepared to accept defeat if my research can be proven wrong. It won't change the fact that I have legal title to my property and have a Crown Patent and a registered deed to prove it. It doesn't change the fact that I have done nothing illegal to obtain my property and by the laws of this land, I was made to be the rightful owner. If mistakes were made, I didn't make them. One of my motivations in this research is in order to put this dispute to bed forever, every argument of the INAC/Saugeen Band has to be answered. Then there should be no hard feelings. Alternately, I think that I should be afforded the same courtesy. 

I was 30 years old in 1992 when this land claim was first brought to my attention. Until 2006, I was unaware of how much work was needed to research this claim and how I needed to become more involved. There have been many obstacles to overcome. The explanation for the 9 1/2 mile measurement along the shoreline for one and how to explain why Livingston Huff believed there was reserve land in front of his lot is another and let's not forget, THE NOTATION. These arguments at one time seemed undeniable and irrefutable, yet with the aid of other information at my disposal, I did discover answers to these questions. I have toiled over some of these topics for months. Just ask my wife. 

My findings will continue to be undervalued unless someone or something that is respected gets behind it and gives it the consideration I believe it deserves. And, until that someone or something publicly acknowledges my findings as being worthy of consideration none of this will be taken seriously resulting in a HUGE waste of time.

As a named defendant, I believe Canada has a responsibility and an obligation to revaluate its position regarding the Sauble Land Claim Lawsuit. Consider the amount of evidence that has been produced since the federal government's one department, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, decided the nations best position is to side with the Saugeen Band. The one and only department that has any say as to how to proceed in these matters. 

There is no doubt that I am frustrated that my information is ignored, and I cannot get an independent study done when the Saugeen Band has an entire department at their disposal. It is, quite simply, an obstruction of justice. The Canadian government and more specifically, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, is impeding the investigation of the Sauble Land Claim by having been named, by Canada, as the only department to investigate a situation that has two separate and distinct entities with conflicting needs: 1) the Saugeen Band 2) non-aboriginal citizens of Canada. INAC is without a doubt a department with a bias for Native peoples. To further their goals, it is evident that INAC distorted the truth and withheld evidence from the public when it was fully aware that said evidence was contrary to their own. There are several hundreds of people, including reporters, who were present at the 2014 meetings held in Sauble Beach and Wiarton who witnessed this and can verify it. 

According to Merriam Webster this is the legal definition of Obstruction of Justice:

the crime or act of willfully interfering with the process of justice and law especially by influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, juror, or judicial or legal officer or by furnishing false information in or otherwise impeding an investigation or legal process

My research and findings is additional evidence that INAC has impeded the investigation by reporting only that which suited their purposes. The same evidence I have uncovered was available to them and they had at their disposal, a team of lawyers, expert investigators, and contracted professional researchers. The Ontario government is equally culpable. 

I sincerely believe that my research along with other reports you may be aware of has cast enough doubt on the Saugeen claim that all parties involved should be required to sit down with the pre-trial judge to determine whether the Saugeen Band still has enough evidence to support their claim. I also think that a charge against INAC and the province for obstructing justice should be considered. Remember how Judge Newbould was crucified simply for correctly questioning the validity of the claim?

Consider the INAC/Saugeen Band Theory. Correct me if I miss anything, but these are basically the main points from the INAC fact sheet and what was presented at the 2014 presentation meetings:

•  Measuring along the shoreline from the original NW boundary to the NE < Ind. Res. notation at the midpoint of Lot 31 equals "about 9 1/2 miles."
  
  
• There was a post found at midpoint Lot 31 by an engineering firm in 1856. On the post is written:  "NE angle of Saugeen Reserve according to Treaty boundary running south."
  
  
• Livingston Huff wrote Indian Affairs in 1931 claiming his belief that there was Indian Reserve between his lot line at Lot 26 to the shoreline that ran all the way to the Sauble River.
  
  

My question is this: If you consider the Copway Road Amendment Theory, is any of their evidence relevant?

The Copway Road Amendment Theory: an "About" Nine and a Half Mile Addendum

I have stated many times that I believe that the NE < Ind. Res. notation is not referring to the intended position of the north east boundary of the Saugeen Reserve. I have not abandoned this belief, but I am not as adamant. I know of at least two experts who believe that the 9 1/2 mile measurement would most likely have followed the shoreline and this cannot be ignored. If this is so, a very weak case for the Saugeen reserve's north boundary to end at the midpoint of lot 31 could be made. Weak since the eastern boundary still runs through the water from Main Street to mid Lot 31 making it impossible for the boundary to end at lot 31 since the eastern boundary was to run parallel and on land to the western boundary. 

Even so, the shoreline measurement belief has bothered me for quite sometime, but an answer to this has also been kicking around in my head for sometime. So, if a weak case can be made for the reserve to extend further north to mid lot 31, a very strong and even more compelling argument can be made for why the reserve boundary was not positioned there even if the NE < Ind. Res. notation was intended to mark the spot on the coast. Let me explain:

Throughout the examination of this case very little mention has been made of the amendment made to Treaty 72 in September of 1855. The amendment is as follows: (Item 1 of the amendment is all that is relevant to the land claim)

With this amendment in mind I started wondering what each shoreline measurement added up to. Using the Ontario Topographic Map website tool, I decided to measure two distances: 1.) the NW position of the original western boundary to the midpoint of lot 31 and 2.) the distance from the beginning position of the  amendment (where Copway Road meets Lake Huron) to Main Street Sauble Beach. I also decided to make these measurements in two different ways 1.) Following every contour and indentation of the shoreline from point A to point B and 2.) just following the shoreline in a reasonable manner to what might be expected from point A to point B. The results are telling. 

Let's assume that everything that INAC and the Saugeen Band have been preaching is the gospel truth. That is, the 9 1/2 mile measurement was initially intended to run from the NW position of the western boundary to the NE < Ind. Res. notation at midpoint lot 31 following the shoreline. Here's how the two measurements look. First the "every contour" example:

Using every contour the distance equals 10.23 miles which isn't even close to 9 1/2 miles. So, I used a less demanding and more reasonable representation of how the shoreline measurement would have probably been conducted and came up with this result. (Let me comment here that I made all these measurements once and didn't tinker with them until I came up with the desired outcome.)

The result is 9.64 miles which is very close to the "about 9 1/2 miles" from the treaty instruction. So, if the 9 1/2 mile measurement was supposed to originate from the NW position of the original western boundary as stated by INAC it is very close to 9 1/2 miles as they have contended.

BUT WAIT!!

With the amendment there is a new position for the NW position of the western boundary where the 9 1/2 mile measurement should be taken from. Rankin stated that the terms of the treaty would not be altered in any way, so the measurement has to begin from the new location.

The same method used to measure distance above look like this using the Amendment to Main Street positions. First the every contour map:

The every contour measurement equals 10.29 miles. So, let's check out what the "reasonable following of the shoreline measurement" comes out to.

The measurement from the amended boundary to Main Street equals 9.59 miles. Using this logic and considering every Rankin map shows the Northern most point of the Saugeen Boundary at Main Street, proves that the 9 1/2 measurement was taken from the amended NW position of the western boundary NOT the original NW position of the western boundary as written in the original text of the treaty. The fact the two distances are almost exactly the same is further proof.

To check my research I measured the distance from the original NW boundary from the Treaty to the amended NW boundary. I then measured the distance from mid point Lot 31 to Main Street. The distances are exactly the same at 1.4 miles. This is not coincidental.

Many of the arguments I have presented seem to have some form of coincidence. I say coincidence since there is no one left alive to prove my logic. I can think of five right off the top of my head:

• Saugeen Band Special Fishery License description = exactly Livingston Huff's description of what he believed to be the Saugeen Reserve from Lot 25/26 to the Sauble River
• Where the extension line of the Saugeen Reserve meets the extension line of Chief's Point eastern boundary on the 1855 draft map a bearing for N 13° W True could be taken. The same bearing reading found on Rankin's 1856 final map.
• From Main Street Sauble Beach to midpoint lot 31 and from the original NW boundary to the amended NW boundary the distance is the exact same at 1.4 miles.
• On the October 12th, 1855 draft map True North bearings are only taken from the physical eastern boundary line of the Saugeen Reserve with one exception; Magnetic North itself. All other bearings use Magnetic North.
• The Saugeen Band actually mention their having given up the position from Lot 31 to Main Street in the Band minutes from 1883 even though they refer to it as the Sauble Fishing Station which ran all the way along the shore from lot 25/26 to the Sauble River.

These arguments are reasonable logic, NOT coincidences?

Since all we can do is speculate on what happened why not use the logic gathered? What seems most likely is this:

The position on the coast for the Saugeen Reserve's NE point possibly was to extend to lot 31. However, when Rankin traversed from the Sauble River to Lot 25/26 he found that it was not possible for the reserve to extend to lot 31 since it would be running through the water of Lake Huron, considering the eastern boundary ran parallel to the western boundary. Rankin documented during discussion of the Copway Amendment that the Saugeen Band believed they agreed that the NW position of the western boundary was to begin at Copway Road which was a dirt path that ran from the shore of Lake Huron to the Native village. Logic dictates that since it was impossible to continue the reserve to lot 31, the northern point of the reserve was located at Lot 25/26 (Main Street) because it is the first intersection where land meets water to identify the "spot on the coast." The Saugeen Band were upset they were losing 1.4 miles of frontage that they thought they had agreed to in the treaty. They disputed this, and the southern portion along the shore of Lake Huron was increased by 1.4 miles which also increased the area of land for the reserve which was also noted in the amendment. (It is notable that this comment was made about increased frontage in the amendment since  frontage could not exist in regard to the Saugeen Reserve boundary from Main Street to midpoint Lot 31.) By following the angle of the Copway Road to the shore of Lake Huron the Saugeen Band actually increased the reserve size rather dramatically compared to receiving nothing since it was impossible to locate the NE corner at lot 31.

As logical as this explanation is there is still one piece of evidence that I intentionally omitted in my list above and it is proof the 9 1/2 mile measurement originated from the NW position of the amended western boundary. The proof is this:

• Rankin's Grey/Bruce map of January 1855 already placed the NE boundary limit of the Saugeen Reserve at the same point, before the western boundary dispute, as Rankin's final map of 1856. The location is Lot 25/26 or more commonly known as Main Street. You may remember that this was established by measuring the distance between the NE boundary limit of the Saugeen Reserve and the mouth of the Sauble River. Both measurements were the same on each map. Since these distances are the same with one predating the Oct. 12th, 1855 draft map and one post dating it, the INAC/Saugeen Band argument doesn't hold up.

The only possible explanation for this which also doesn't help the INAC/Saugeen Band theory is that although the draft map was dated October 12th, 1855 it probably existed well before this date. Perhaps the NE < Ind. Res. notation was one of the first entries made on the map and was entered while discussions were ongoing about the details of the treaty. As I said, Rankin may have made the notation before he realized the True North line would run through the water of Lake Huron from Lot 31 to Lot 25/26. Even if the notation was entered on the map later it may have only be entered as a reference point to what initially was believed to be the reserve limit and not the reserve limit itself. Perhaps to actually show how the lot 31 position is impossible to achieve.

Imagine this: The October 12th, 1855 draft map without the grid of lot lines, revealing only the lines of known physical features such as rivers, lakes, shorelines and other know man-made lines such as the recently surrendered strip. Imagine that the eastern boundary of the Saugeen reserve is not yet on the map. Imagine discussion of where the NE point of the Saugeen reserve might be and making note of it on the map before the True north line is established. Actually measuring out the 9 1/2 mile distance by boat until reaching what would become the midpoint of Lot 31 to mark "the spot on the coast." Then imagine discussion taking place when Rankin discovers that the intended position of the NE boundary limit of the Saugeen Reserve is impossible because of the positioning of the eastern boundary. (Perhaps Rankin realized the error while making the Grey/Bruce map, but did not comment until he verified it in the field)  Imagine a compromise and amendment being made which would include the same amount of shoreline to the south that would make up for the distance to be lost to the north.

Does this sound so fantastical? If so, the mystery of the NE < Ind. Res. notation may never be revealed. Was it Rankin that even made the notation? He did not sign the October 12th, 1855 draft map. Examine the notation closely. The NE < Ind. portion of the notation appears to be written by the same hand, but the Res. portion is written in cursive which appears to have been added by someone else. I'm not sure if this is significant, but the Res. part of the notation also appears to be written over top of the lot line indicating the notation was written after the lot line grid was drawn or at least the "Res." portion of the notation was. How can this be explained? Whatever the explanation the "Res." portion is different from the rest of the notation.

The Copway Road Amendment Theory makes sense. It actually tracks a timeline for the treaty from start to finish that is logical. It also may explain why the Band made the comment they did in their Band minutes from 1883: "that John Creighton, our Indian agent be and is hereby requested to ask the Department to have Sauble Beach Fishing Station given back to this Band." Again, how can it be ignored that this statement is recorded in the Band minutes? It fully acknowledges that the Band has surrendered that portion of land. 

The Copway Road Amendment Theory holds very little speculation compared to the theory of INAC/Saugeen Band. Their theory simply states the measurement from the original NW boundary to the NE < Ind. Res. notation is 9 1/2 miles along the shoreline therefore that is where the Reserve is supposed to end. End of story. But that isn't the end of the story. 

One thing that I do know is that the number of coincidences, facts and arguments that counter the one argument made by INAC and the Saugeen Band leave their one argument impossible to prove and the least tangible among all other possible arguments we have available. I contend that if the shoreline measurement is indeed the measurement used, then whereever the amended boundary was relocated, 9 1/2 miles from that point would mark the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve. In other words if the Copway Road had been 3 miles south of the original NW boundary than the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve would have been 9 1/2 miles from that point. It is not a coincidence that 1.4 miles is the distance between Main Street and Lot 31 and that 1.4 miles is the distance between the original NW boundary and the amended NW boundary. It is also not a coincidence that the NW position of the western boundary to Lot 31 and the NW position of the amended western boundary to Lot 25/26 (Main Street) are both 9 1/2 miles. What stands out about the Copway Road Amendment Theory is this:

1. The impossibility of the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve extending to midpoint Lot 31 from Main Street was apparent in 1855. When the Saugeen Band disputed the placement of the original western boundary, it was a "no contest" to honour the 9 1/2 mile measurement commitment made in the treaty by approving the Copway Road amendment.
2. The distance from Main Street to midpoint Lot 31 and the original NW boundary to the amended NW boundary being the same shows that the concerns of the Saugeen Band had been addressed and they were not cheated out of land that they should have had as stated in Treaty 72. It actually increased.
3. The distance between the amended position at Copway Road and Lot 25/26 or Main Street is almost exactly 9 1/2 miles if you make the measurement following the shoreline of Lake Huron. This is what the Saugeen Band claimed they originally agreed to in the first place.

The innumerable scenarios available to examine the facts of this seemingly simple land claim continue to surprise me, but I feel this posting may complete my research. I believe that every other previous discovery within this blog is of equal importance and helped lead to the conclusion of this theory.  There was only one rock left unturned and that was how to explain why the measurement along the shoreline from the NW position of the original western boundary to midpoint Lot 31 is the closest to 9 1/2 miles. It could not be denied that it was, so I felt it was imperative to meet it head on even if it meant conceding, in part, that the INAC theory has some elements of truth. I think the Copway Road Amendment explanation does a fairly concise job of explaining the 9 1/2 mile measurement, perhaps even conclusive. That is, of course, if following the shoreline was indeed how the measurement was conducted.