Copway Road Amendment Theory Final Summation

Copway Road Amendment Theory

The Copway Road Amendment Theory states that the 9 ½ mile measurement to locate the “spot on the coast”, as stated in Treaty 72, was measured along the shoreline from the amended NW position of the western boundary rather than the original NW position of the western boundary of the Saugeen Reserve. This interpretation of the amendment meets all terms of the treaty without altering them. If it was measured along the shoreline to midpoint Lot 31 the way INAC/Saugeen claim, the terms of the treaty would have been altered to “about” 11 miles. The eastern boundary would also need to be altered to deviate from True North in a NE direction to allow for any width of shoreline to exist between Lot 25/26 (Main Street) to midpoint Lot 31. Another alteration to the terms of the treaty. I will illustrate the boundary outline using the text from the treaty by following the Copway amendment.

h

The boundary outline that I have illustrated above is exactly what you will find on the final and official map submitted to and accepted by Indian Affairs in 1856. I've included the dotted line to signify the original western boundary location which is also on the 1856 map. The original text of the Treaty confirms the Copway Road amended boundary meets all the requirements for honouring Treaty 72's description of the Saugeen Reserve. 

I have outlined the boundary from the original map below to illustrate that when you put both outlined maps side-by-side, it is easy to see the treaty was honored. The Copway Amendment made it so.

Facts to Support the Copway Road Amendment Theory

1.    It is documented Charles Rankin reported that the Copway Road Amendment would not “in any way alter the terms of the treaty.” By consulting the terms of the treaty and checking them off to be true, we can test this statement.

ü     All that block of land bounded on the west by a straight line running due north from the River Saugeen, at the spot where it is entered by a ravine immediately to the west of the village, and over which a bridge has recently been constructed, to the shore of Lake Huron (The highlighted text is all the amendment changed, however, it didn’t change the fact that the whole portion of the line, from the Saugeen River to the shore of Lake Huron is included in the territory of the amended boundary, making the terms of the treaty unaltered.)

ü     on the south by the aforesaid northern limit of the lately surrendered strip;

ü     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, (Lot 25/26 (Main Street) is “about” 9 ½ miles along the shoreline from the amended western boundary and is the first point of intersection at Lake Huron for the eastern boundary to run parallel to the western boundary. The NE < Ind. Res. notation, however, is “about” 11 miles from the amended western boundary which would alter the terms of the treaty. The eastern boundary would still first intersect Lake Huron at Lot 25/26 (Main Street) regardless of the notation.)

ü      and running parallel thereto until it touches the aforementioned northern limits of the recently surrendered strip;" (After the Copway amendment the eastern boundary still runs parallel to the western boundary for 0.32 miles. The western boundary then turns in a northwest direction along Copway Road.)

2.    The complaint by the Saugeen Band that led to the Copway Road Amendment is documented. They believed they had agreed that the NW boundary was to start at Copway Road and that was what they had signed off to in Treaty 72. This being the case, the Saugeen Band could not have expected the NE corner of the reserve to terminate at midpoint lot 31 since a 9 ½ mile measurement from Copway Road terminates at Lot 25/26 (Main Street). This satisfies their original understanding of the terms of the treaty. Why would the amendment give more than their original expectation?

3.    Rankin knew in January of 1855 that the NE corner of the Saugeen reserve would terminate at Lot 25/26 (Main Street). The Saugeen Band uprising occurred in May of 1855, which led to the Copway Road amendment. This is significant because when Rankin reports there will be an increase of frontage to the Saugeen Reserve shoreline in August 1855, he is basing this on the reserve terminating at Lot 25/26 (Main Street) and at this point, never considered the boundary of the Saugeen Reserve to terminate at midpoint lot 31.

4.    A little over a month after the groundbreaking July, 1855 Allenford Pow-Wow, Rankin surveys the eastern boundary in September 1855 locating the NE corner of the Saugeen reserve at Lot 25/26 (Main Street). This act is accepted by the Saugeen band and does not cause them to create any conflict or disturbance, confirming they were not expecting any additional land past Lot 25/26 (Main Street) to be part of the reserve.

If you follow the logic of INAC/Saugeen Band on this point they would have you believe this: Just one month after the momentous Pow-Wow to discuss a resolution to the western boundary dispute, in which Charles Rankin was an active participant, his very next act is to place the NE corner of the eastern boundary in the wrong position and the Saugeen Band accept it without question. George Gould feared for his safety during the western boundary dispute, yet with a second apparent incorrect location at the NE corner, the Saugeen band is peaceful and accepting.

As was made very apparent during the western boundary dispute, the Saugeen Band were aware of what they considered the proper placement of their reserve boundaries and what they agreed to in Treaty 72. It is a little difficult to believe, if they considered Lot 25/26 the wrong location to mark the NE corner of the reserve, they wouldn’t have disputed it as they did the western boundary.

5.    Rankin’s location of the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve at Lot 25/26 (Main Street) never wavered on two separate and distinct occasions. First, as early as January, 1855 before the Copway Road amendment when he based the location on being parallel to the western boundary. Second, after he was aware of the Copway Road amendment in September, 1855 when he physically surveyed the eastern boundary.

6.    If you physically measure the distance between the amended NW boundary to Lot 25/26 (Main Street), it equals almost exactly 9 ½ miles. Coincidence?

Reasonable Supporting Assumptions

1.    If the NE < Ind. Res. Notation was written on the map to establish the initial location of the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve, it was most likely done so in October, 1854 when Rankin traversed the shoreline of Lake Huron between the Saugeen and Sauble River. It would be reasonable to assume Rankin might be marking preliminary boundary locations and noting them on a draft map unaware of eventual problems of the positioning of those locations.

2.    If the NE < Ind. Res. Notation was written on the map any time after May, 1855, it is most likely a reference marker of a previously anticipated location. Similarities in annotations on a sketch map regarding the Copway Road amendment compared to the annotation on the actual Lot 31 post as described by the engineering firm make it seem more likely that the notation was to mark an initial location in anticipation of a relocation of that position. This would seem reasonable since Rankin knew, at this time, the exact location of the original western boundary and therefore knew the 9 ½ mile location using the NW boundary as a starting point. However, he did not have official confirmation of the amended western boundary until September 27, 1855, which was not shown on the October 12^th, 1855 draft map. It would also be reasonable to assume if the notation was to mark the actual NE corner of the Saugeen reserve; the western boundary would also be included to show where the 9 ½ mile measurement originated from.

Take into consideration, a) the engineering firm apparently viewed the actual Lot 31 post annotation and it stated, “North East Angle of Saugeen Reserve according to treaty boundary running south” and not simply NE < Ind. Res. as written on the draft map b) the NE corner is already clearly established as terminating at Lot 25/26 (Main Street) on the draft map and c) both the original western boundary and the amended western boundary are glaringly absent on the draft map.

3.    Conflicting methods of identifying Indian Reserve boundary markers on the same draft map leads one to believe the NE < Ind. Res. notation is referring to something else other than a reserve boundary position. The word “Post” is used to identify the undeniable boundary position of Chief’s Point eastern boundary. Today’s INAC/Saugeen Band's assumed location of the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve at midpoint Lot 31 is marked with a dubious notation.

4.    After the Copway Road Amendment, Rankin identified the original western boundary on the official 1856 final map with a dotted line. It is reasonable to assume that since no such dotted line exists between Lot 25/26 (Main Street) and midpoint Lot 31 on the same map, Rankin never considered this area as part of the Saugeen reserve during his survey or any other time.

5.    It is impossible to say whether the “Res.” portion of NE < Ind. Res. labeled on the draft map was written by the same person leaving further speculation to its authenticity. Is it enough to change the meaning INAC/Saugeen band has assigned to the notation? No one can say for sure, but, not to make unwarranted accusations; it does leave a sense of suspicion to explain why the handwriting is different or what else the notation could mean without it.

6.    The extension line from Lot 25/26 to midpoint Lot 31 on the draft map is obviously not a boundary line and according to reasonable supporting evidence, its purpose is to pinpoint the location for a True North bearing reading of Chief’s Point eastern boundary considering the line extends all the way to the Sauble River.

INAC/Saugeen Band Theory

Consider the INAC/Saugeen Band Theory. These are 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 ½ miles."

• There is a notation on the October 12th, 1855 draft map that reads NE < Ind. Res.; interpreted to mean North East Angle Indian Reserve.

• There was a post found at midpoint Lot 31 by an engineering firm in 1856. On the post is written: "North East 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 and the shore at Lot 26 that ran all the way to the Sauble River.
  
  (Huff’s description matches exactly the description of the Special Fishery License of 1874 in which the Saugeen band paid ten dollars annually)

• At the time Lot 26 was issued in 1896, a strip of Indian Reserve was recognized as existing between the patented lots located north of Lot 25 (north of Main Street) and the Lake Huron shoreline. Evidence suggests that the Saugeen fished from the sand beaches on this strip of land, using nets dragged along the shallow waters of Lake Huron.
  
  (I am not sure what evidence they are basing this on considering they do not even mention a source. It is documented the Saugeen Band paid ten dollars annually between 1874 and 1883 by way of a Special Fishery License to fish in this area. There is other evidence that suggests that after 1883 a 66-foot shore reserve (not to be confused with reserve territory) was proposed for the sole purpose to allow the Saugeen Band to fish but to not deny access to Lake Huron by settlers. There is no evidence that the shore reserve was ever put in place and further evidence from 1910 shows that INAC was advertising and selling the lots from 26 to 31 as abutting Lake Huron. The Crown Patents issued to Lot owners also have no mention of any such reserve in front of their lots at the shoreline.) 

• · Since the 1890’s, the Saugeen First Nation has continued to assert its claim to this portion of the beach on the basis that it is reserve land.
  
  (It is difficult for me to establish a relevance to this statement considering the Copway Road Amendment Theory. Perhaps this is based on oral history, but based on 1883 Saugeen band recorded history we know they acknowledge that they do not have ownership past Main Street at Lot 25/26)

• Correspondence between local landowners (e.g. Livingston Huff) and the Government of Canada has been exchanged over the years, but has not impacted the evidence upon which the federal position is based.
  
  (Correct me if I am wrong, but I read this statement to mean that the correspondence of local landowners, regardless of content, is irrelevant to support the INAC/Saugeen claim. Why is this listed if it has no relevance?)

Facts to Support the INAC/Saugeen Band Theory

1.    A measurement from the original NW position of the western boundary to the NE < Ind. Res. notation equals “about” 9 ½ miles.
(The terms of the treaty, however, would be altered to “about” 11 miles along the shoreline with the Copway Road Amendment.)

Reasonable Supporting Assumptions

1.    The NE < Ind. Res. notation’s meaning is North East Angle Indian Reserve. (This is, if not conflicting, somewhat different to what the engineering firm reported the notation to mean leaving it open to interpretation)

2.    Livingston Huff, owner of Lot 26, reported that it was his belief there was Indian Reserve territory in front of his lot to the west. (Listed only because on the surface, before examination, it seems reasonable)

Conclusion: 

As always, an opposing interpretation of Rankin’s thoughts will be offered. Some will interpret Rankin’s comment “without altering the terms of the treaty in any way” to mean this: Since the entire original western boundary is enveloped by the territory included in the amendment, the 9 ½ mile measurement would still be taken from the original NW boundary location and the Copway Road amendment would be in addition to the 9 ½ mile measurement. While this interpretation could be made, it would be impossible to support since it would mean completely ignoring the following concrete evidence:

·      There are three existing Rankin maps starting from January, 1855 to 1856 that all distinctively place the NE corner of the Saugeen reserve at Lot 25/26 (Main Street). Included in the list of three maps, is the map INAC/Saugeen band rely on to support their claim. There is no map in existence that physically displays the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve at midpoint Lot 31.

Based on this fact alone is a testament to the limited understanding of this case by the public, the media, and even the defense. It is also a testament to the amount of consideration Native concerns are given when they may not be warranted. What I mean by this is; comparing the concrete facts that exist in this case to the assumed reasoning of INAC/Saugeen Band, a more factual basis is needed to warrant a lawsuit. An ambiguous notation on an unsubmitted draft map should not “win the day” in court with so much on the line. Especially when an official and final map exists that contradicts the INAC/Saugeen Band evidence and claim. Which map should hold more weight? The challenge, before initiating a lawsuit, should require an explanation as to why one map would have an unclear message when another most definitely does not. Now, the defense is forced to take on this challenge and without a reasonable explanation such as the one I am offering, would most likely lose in court. It is yet to be seen whether even a logical, valid explanation will win the day.

·      Based on the terms of the treaty, it is impossible for land to exist between lot 25/26 (Main Street) and midpoint lot 31 even if you follow the shoreline for the 9 ½ mile measurement. This cannot be emphasized enough.

·      Rankin knew the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve ended at Lot 25/26 (Main Street) as early as January, 1855. Possibly earlier. His reference to “increased frontage” in the Copway Road Amendment is based on this fact. It is not based on an addition to land that does not exist between Lot 25/26 (Main Street) and midpoint Lot 31. The argument is nonsensical.

·      The complaint by the Saugeen Band that led to the Copway Road Amendment is documented. They believed they had agreed that the NW boundary was to start at Copway Road and that was what they had signed off to in Treaty 72. This being the case, the Saugeen Band could not have expected the NE corner of the Saugeen reserve to terminate at midpoint lot 31 since a 9 ½ mile measurement from Copway Road terminates at Lot 25/26 (Main Street). This satisfies their original understanding of the terms of the treaty. Why would the amendment change their original expectation?

If there had not been an initial miscommunication of the terms of the treaty between the Saugeen Band and Indian Affairs in 1854, we would not be arguing this land claim today. The reserve would be located exactly as it is now and a notation or a post at midpoint Lot 31 would not exist on the draft map unless it was simply to mark direction.

·      Several other convincing explanations have been established to decipher the meaning of the NE < Ind. Res. notation and why it is on the October 12^th, 1855 draft map. It has also been determined that the engineering firm’s report of the meaning of the notation does not necessarily agree with the INAC/Saugeen Band theory; a piece of evidence they rely on.

·      Once the Copway Road Amendment was in place, it was determined by Rankin that all terms of the treaty were met without altering them. This means the Saugeen Band received the 9 ½ miles as promised in the treaty when measured from the amended boundary along the shoreline and terminating at Lot 25/26 (Main Street). It is impossible to explain away the amended NW boundary to Lot 25/26 (Main Street) measurement equaling 9 ½ miles as being a coincidence in relation to the terms of the treaty.

·      The Saugeen Band accepted Rankin’s location of the NE corner at Lot 25/26 (Main Street) without disturbance or question. However, the location of the western boundary created an uprising by the Band just four months earlier. An uprising in which Rankin’s assistant, George Gould, feared for his safety and which, ultimately led to the Copway Road Amendment.

·      There is no supporting evidence on the official and final Rankin map of 1856 that the area between Lot 25/26 and midpoint Lot 31 was ever considered a part of the Saugeen Reserve. There is evidence on the map to show the position of the original western boundary.

·      In 1883, there is recorded evidence that the Saugeen Band is aware that they have surrendered the area between Lot 25/26 (Main Street).

·      The Saugeen Band paid for the use of the shoreline between Lot 25/26 (Main Street) for as long as ten years and just twenty years after the signing of Treaty 72, beginning in 1874.

·      INAC/Saugeen band can only assume the meaning of the NE < Ind. Res. notation is North East Angle Indian Reserve. Even if it does, based on other evidence, it does not establish that it is the final intended location of the NE corner of the Saugeen reserve. This, simply, cannot be proven.

Today's arguments by the Saugeen Band were addressed almost 160 years ago in 1855 with the Copway Road amendment. All terms of the treaty were satisfied, and the Saugeen Band received everything they were promised including 9 ½ miles of shoreline along Lake Huron.

If you consider all the evidence and the Copway Road Amendment Theory in particular, the evidence INAC/Saugeen Band rely on to support their claim is irrelevant. There is very little that is factual and most of it depends on assumptions that can never be proven. On the other hand, there is an abundance of evidence to suggest that the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve was not intended to terminate at the midpoint of Lot 31 and was intended to terminate at Lot 25/26 (Main Street). Much of it is factual.  Assumptions to support this from other existing evidence are built on logic and are reasonable leaving little doubt that there is a connection to this conclusion. It is also evident the Saugeen Band of 1856 were accepting of the Lot 25/26 (Main Street) location as the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve.

Disclaimer

I have an obvious personal stake in the outcome of this land claim, but that has not clouded my judgement. I have been fair to the evidence presented by INAC/Saugeen Band. If I have left anything out that would help their claim, it is not to my knowledge. I have addressed every argument on their website fact sheet and I have had no undisclosed discussions with lawyers or anyone else that would suggest that I have left important information out of this document. If there are any omissions, it is not intentional. I would suggest that if there were anything else, it would likely not be significant since the aim of the website fact sheet is to convince the public the Saugeen claim is valid.