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?