The Eastern Boundary Argument Using Rankin's Field Notes

I have examined the events of the eastern boundary survey that occurred on September 4th, 1855 from Rankin's (Gould's) second journal and Rankin's corresponding diary in my previous post. Rankin (or more likely Gould, based on handwriting) also recorded the traverse from the post at midpoint Lot 31 to Lot 25/26 (Main Street) in his field notes and that is the focus of this posting. The record from the field notes offers an even more accurate tracing of Rankin's progress that day and proves the eastern boundary without doubt passed through the water of Lake Huron from Lot 25/26 (Main Street) to Lot 31.

In this posting, I would first like to follow Rankin's traverse according to his field notes. I then would like to show INAC/Saugeen Band's spin on the field notes in order for them to match with their claim. I would also like to recreate the shoreline from 1855 based on accretion using the Ontario mapping tool to help visualize my first illustration of Rankin's traverse. Last, I would like to show the Hydrological map and recreate the eastern boundary extension line by comparing the map to the 1855 draft map. This shows both maps have the eastern boundary extension line running through the water 

Without a detailed satellite representation of what the shoreline looked like in 1855, it was very difficult using the Ontario mapping tool to visualize what Rankin did according to his field notes in relation to the shoreline and the eastern boundary. I had to do two things: 1.) refer to what I know for sure and once I did the traverse based on what I know, 2.) recreate the 1855 shoreline with the mapping tool based on accretion. What I know is: The eastern boundary extension line touches the shore at midpoint Lot 31 according to the original treaty instructions and it is Rankin's practice to plant posts well in from the shoreline to keep them from washing away in rough weather. Considering the hydrographic map shows the mid-Lot 31 post 115 feet inland (by scale), I know Rankin planted the post 115 feet inland east of the eastern boundary extension line for reasons already stated above. (Although the post is positioned inland 115 feet, its intended position is the shoreline, to line up with the eastern boundary extension line.)

Rankin records in the field notes that he traversed 14 chains (924 ft.) from the Lot 31 post before he reaches the edge of the lake. From that point he continues along the edge of the lake for 101 chains (6,666 feet) before he leaves the edge of the lake back inland. 

I did not interpret the field note above on my own, I consulted an experts report which some of you may be familiar with. For the 115 feet reference inland from the shore at mid-Lot 31, see page 15 and for the actual survey, refer to page 18. While the information in this posting has basically already been completed, all we have as reference is textual. I feel to really understand Rankin's survey it is important to illustrate it visually. For those familiar with Sauble Beach, the information really hits home when it becomes visual. I also feel that it is significant to be able to establish Lot 25/26 as where water meets land on the eastern boundary line and connect it to all three journals related to the survey on that particular day, September 4, 1855.

Rankin's Traverse According to Field Notes and What I Know for Sure:

The picture below is a close-up of where Rankin left the edge of the lake in Lot 25 after the 6,666 foot traverse and continued inland from the front half of the Gift Bowl.

INAC/Saugeen Claim

The INAC/Saugeen claim states that where the midpoint Lot 31 post was planted, that is what marks the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve. From that point south, to where the line meets up with the eastern boundary at Lot 25, that is what marks the land boundary from midpoint Lot 31 to Lot 25. That is all well and good if there is no other information, but to support their claim, INAC/Saugeen Band have totally ignored some very real facts.

1. The treaty specifies a "spot on the coast" (we must assume) along the shoreline, not a spot on the coast 115 feet inland from the shoreline.

2.  Rankin actually explained to his superiors that he does not plant posts directly at the shoreline because they wash away. If any of you have seen how rough the lake can be at the shore, how could Rankin's explanation be more logical?

3. Rankin's field notes explain that he walked back in the direction of the lake for 924 feet from the post at lot 31 until he reached the edge of the lake. He did not say he walked in a SW direction until he met the edge of the lake at Lot 25 (Gift Bowl).

4. The eastern boundary is no longer parallel to the western boundary from Lot 25/26 to midpoint Lot 31 once you deviate from the line in a NE direction to match up to the 115 foot inland post.

5. The title page of Rankin's field note for the eastern boundary is explicit: Indian Boundary West Side of Concession D. If Rankin is already at the edge of the lake from midpoint Lot 31 to inside of Lot 25 during his traverse, there is nothing to the west of Concession D except Lake Huron. Land does not exist until he leaves the edge of the lake just inside of Lot 25, where the Gift Bowl is now. The Saugeen Reserve's outline boundary does not include water as is described by Treaty 72: "All that block of land..."

6. The Copway Road Amendment has already dealt with the Saugeen boundary dispute on September 27, 1855 and has corrected it to allow for a 9 1/2 mile Saugeen Reserve shoreline which ends at Lot 25/26.

The picture below illustrates the INAC/Saugeen Band claim.

No matter how many reports or arguments are put forth, INAC/Saugeen Band will never be able to erase the extension line of the Saugeen eastern boundary from Lot 25/26 (Main Street) to Lot 31 that is clearly running through the water of Lake Huron on the 1855 draft map. No matter how much one would like to buy into the Saugeen Band's argument this is one of their major stumbling blocks followed by the Copway Road Amendment Theory which makes all discussion about Lot 25/26 to midpoint Lot 31 being part of the Saugeen Reserve irrelevant.

Recreating the 1855 Shoreline Based on Accretion

To recreate the shoreline, I measured the distance from the eastern boundary extension at midpoint Lot 31 to the shore using the Ontario Mapping Tool and moved the eastern boundary line to the west the same distance at it's origin in the south to make it parallel. I am not claiming this is 100% accurate science by any means, but I think that it gives us the best idea of what the shoreline looked like in 1855 in relation to the eastern boundary using modern technology. To be clear, I am not suggesting the eastern boundary moves to the west, I am just establishing the same straight line the east boundary represents at the shore. See illustration below.

The most notable mistake with this attempt to recreate the 1855 shoreline using todays technology, is Rankin would have crossed back from the edge of the lake inland 334 feet south from where he actually did in 1855. However, this margin of error is fairly minimal and the shore representation is very close to accurate. See illustration below.

From this outcome, I decided to create an even more accurate representation of the eastern boundary extension line in relation to the shoreline. I moved the eastern boundary extension line more to the east to line it up with where Rankin crossed from the edge of the lake back inland at the south end. See illustration below.

It is hard to deny the result. It is impressive to see that if you follow Rankin's traverse 160 years later at the shoreline today, all of the eastern boundary extension line would still be in the water from midpoint Lot 31 to inside of Lot 25. I would suggest that the eastern boundary extension line was quite close to the shore for the first 924 feet of Rankin's traverse. Probably not as close as what is shown here, but this is not an exact science. It makes sense that Rankin would cross to the edge of the lake at its closest point from the Lot 31 post on his first 924 feet to establish the line. In this example, to show how the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve was established, I also continued the next 13 chains (858 feet) of Rankin's traverse from where he returned inland at the Gift Bowl. The northern part of the Saugeen Reserve is quite obvious. 

The Hydrographic Survey Map Comparison

By comparing the 1856 Hydrographic Survey map to the 1855 draft map, I was able to add the eastern boundary extension line by locating where it ends at the Sauble River and then running it through at the shore to the west of the post at Lot 31. I rotated the hydrograpic map to a closer orientation that we are used to seeing when viewing a map of Sauble Beach, however, it is still on a bit of an angle. If the map was to continue, it is obvious that the eastern boundary line would enter Lake Huron directly west of the Lot 31 post at the shore. These are two different surveys by two different surveyors from the years 1855 and 1856. They both show the eastern boundary extension line following the same path through the water from midpoint Lot 31 south. I added the eastern boundary extension line on the Hydrographic Survey Map, but once there, it is identical to Rankin's 1855 draft map.

If you followed my previous post, I showed the 177 chains they traversed from the Sauble River that Gould recorded on September 4th which left them at the front awning of the Gift Bowl at the end of the day. The record from this posting from Rankin's field notes, leaves them just a few more feet back on the Gift Bowl. Given that there will be a margin of error in my location of the post for Rankin's notes and the starting point at the Sauble River for Gould's notes, I would say that somewhere in the front portion of the Gift Bowl is where they located the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve. This was most likely extended the approximate 100 feet further north to Main Street to make for clean boundary lines and access to the road. 

The significance of Rankin's field notes and the Hydrographic Survey/Rankin 1855 draft map comparison, is that it proves the eastern boundary extension line from Lot 25/26 (Main Street) to Lot 31 is most definitely in the water. It also shows that both Gould's and Rankin's records are in sync with how the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve was located; just a few feet south of the north border of Lot 25 at the Gift Bowl. 

The Eastern and Southern Boundary Survey

Rankin’s second journal are notes written by George Gould and part of it details his survey of the eastern and southern boundaries of the Saugeen Reserve. By reading his journal and following his chronology, the journal is further evidence that he positioned the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve at Lot 25/26 (Main Street). Gould noted how many chains he surveyed each day over the nine days it took him to survey both boundaries. He also made notes to enable us to follow his progress.

The following two pictures below are copies of two pages of Rankin’s (Gould’s) journal when he was surveying the eastern and southern boundaries of the Saugeen Reserve. The third page is a recopy of the second so I could make notes to coordinate his journal date that has the number of chains surveyed, with the diary notes describing what he did.

The first entry is the most important since it marks the distance they traversed from the mouth of the Sauble River to get to the Indian Boundary. Charles Rankin was present on the first day. Significant for two reasons:

1. Gould previously ran into considerable trouble from the Saugeen Band in relation to the western boundary and had to call on Rankin that time to come and put an end to the dispute. Rankin most likely realized he should be present this time.

2. Once Lot 25/26 (Main Street) is located, Rankin feels he no longer needs to stay to supervise the survey of the eastern boundary and leaves it to Gould.

I used the Ontario Topographic mapping tool to follow Gould’s survey each of the nine days. The mouth of the river was not as far west in 1855, so I adjusted it accordingly to match the October 12th, 1855 draft map. The first day, September 4th, he and Rankin traversed 177 chains as seen below. My first measurement was off by 1/100th of a mile or 52 feet.

What is most remarkable about the first day is that they finished their survey at Lot 25/26 (Main Street). We cannot be led to believe that this is just another coincidence in connection with Lot 25/26 (Main Street). Amazing! According to INAC/Saugeen Band, Lot 25/26 has nothing to do with the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve, yet this is the third separate and distinct time, we can connect it to that point from historical documents.

One might ask: Why would Rankin begin his survey of the eastern boundary from the Sauble River if midpoint Lot 31 does not mark the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve? The answer to this is the key to why there is a notation at midpoint Lot 31 that reads NE < Ind. Res. The BBR provides the rationale, but it doesn't definitively explain why Rankin began at the Sauble River and how this influenced the creation of the NE < Ind. Res. notation. 

To begin, we must remember that Rankin traversed the shoreline from the mouth of the Saugeen River to the mouth of the Sauble River in October of 1855. During this time, he measures distances in 61 straight line segments in which three significant locations and distances can be identified: Saugeen to Sauble River, Saugeen River to original NW position of the western boundary, and he already knows the amount of distance for the Saugeen Reserve shoreline boundary from the treaty instructions.   

Using his knowledge of distances from the Saugeen to Sauble River traverse, he is able to establish the True North line easier from the Sauble River. It is a shorter distance to locate the True North line and the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve at Lot 25 from the originally believed position of the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve. From his calculations, all he has to do is travel 0.68 miles from the mouth of the Sauble River to midpoint lot 31 along level sandy beach. He then establishes the True North line (most likely 924 feet from midpoint Lot 31) and follows the line through the water to where it meets land at Lot 25 to identify the NE corner.  

Otherwise he would have to travel 9 1/2 miles from the original NW position of the western boundary to midpoint lot 31 and then back down to Lot 25/26 again to locate the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve. Much of the first half of that distance is over difficult bluffs and rocky terrain along the shoreline. In other words he can either choose to travel a short, direct, level and straight line from the Sauble River to Lot 25/26 or a long, curving, rocky, bluff-filled, line from the original position of the NW boundary to midpoint Lot 31 and then turn and come back down to Lot 25/26. The reason, therefore, to start the eastern boundary survey of the Saugeen Reserve at the Sauble River to locate the NE corner at Lot 25/26 is: it is a shorter, easier distance which is more efficient; 2.2 miles as opposed to 11 miles. Pg. 51 BBR  

It would have been just as difficult to traverse the 9 1/2 miles from the amended boundary at Copway Road to locate the NE corner and he most likely didn't know the Saugeen River to Copway Road distance to allow a calculation from the Sauble River. The Copway Road Amendment also was not yet official on September 4th and wouldn't be until September 27th. The eastern boundary had to be found from where the True North line first made contact with water to establish the "spot on the coast."  Midpoint lot 31 was the obvious choice since it was a calculable starting point. From that point, Rankin could establish the True North line which ultimately led to Lot 25 as the "spot on the coast." 

This explains why Rankin locates the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve at Lot 25/26 on all his maps, why there is a notation at midpoint lot 31 on the draft map, why the True North line is shown as a construction line from Lot 25/26 to midpoint Lot 31 on the draft map, and why the actual physical post was marked "according to treaty boundary running south." He marked and used the original treaty location because he had the distances recorded to locate it as a starting point for an easy and much shorter traverse. His intention is not to identify the Saugeen Reserve's NE corner location point. 

What is difficult about the first day, however, is that Gould’s note is ambiguous and hard to decipher. He notes: 

“Continued the traverse from the mouth of the Au Sable to the cont (continuation)? of the Ind. Boundary (&)? contd (continued)? the Boundary.” 

Update March 6: As usual ambiguity turns to clarity once you step away from a problem and let it filter through you without giving it much thought. Although difficult to decipher, most agree that the first part of Gould's entry reads "to the continuation of the Ind. Boundary." I would also agree, but I have been reading it the way everyone else has interpreted it. Meaning the "continuation" is from North to South. Yes, they ran the line north to south, but the continuation is from South to North. Gould is referring to the "continuation" of the Indian Boundary from South to North. "Continuation" meaning "extension" of Indian Boundary which would be paraphrased to "Continued the traverse from the mouth of the Au Sable to the "extension" of the Ind. Boundary. Think of how many times we, ourselves, use the term continuation as a reference to an extension.

Four things support this assessment:

1. The portion of the "continuation" line referenced is represented as a construction line (definition below in next paragraph) on the draft map from Lot 25/26 to midpoint Lot 31.

2. Reference to the "continuation" line stops at Lot 25/26

3. The draft map shows the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve at Lot 25/26.
4. At Lot 25/26, Rankin notes in his journal "leaving Gould to proceed with the Indian Boundary..."

Supporting evidence would dictate, they traversed to midpoint Lot 31, located the original mark for the NE corner, and simply recorded "continued the boundary"  without adding "through the water on the True North line" and assumed "continuation" was clear to mean "extension." This portion of the survey is clearly marked on the Oct 12th, 1855 draft map and the east boundary, without doubt, runs through the water and is sketched as a construction line (a line that doesn't actually exist except for its purpose; in this case to connect midpoint lot 31 to lot 25/26 Main Street) not a boundary line. There is no question it is a construction line because it extends further north from midpoint Lot 31 to the Sauble River. This extension portion of the line also does not exist except for the purpose of connecting the eastern boundary of the Saugeen Reserve with the eastern boundary of Chief's Point. To insist that Gould's notation somehow marks the Indian Reserve boundary in the water from Lot 25/26 to midpoint Lot 31 means that the boundary ends a little east of Chief's Point on the south side of the Sauble River. Considering the engineering firm reported the actual notation on the post to say “NE angle of Saugeen Reserve according to treaty boundary running south” in regard to the "continuation" portion, basically confirms it is a construction line. 

Logic would suggest they stopped at midpoint Lot 31 to line up the True North line with the shore at Lot 25/26. Rankin knew where Lot 25/26 was by drawing it on the Grey/Bruce map in January, 1855, but this was the first time he located it physically in the field. Gould's journal notation would most likely have seemed clear and obvious to them, not realizing the impact it would make 160 years later. I would hazard to guess they would be stunned to learn the amount of speculation that has gone on in relation to this survey.

By examining the notations from September 4th, it appears that Rankin and Gould both refer to the Indian Boundary loosely and referred everything on the True North line or anything done in connection to the east boundary survey that day as the Indian boundary. It is understandable considering the focus of the survey is the eastern boundary of the Indian Reserve and the initial marked location of the NE corner was at midpoint Lot 31. Only 1.4 miles of the 9 miles surveyed on the True North line is not part of the Saugeen eastern boundary during the five day survey, so loose "Indian Boundary" references are not surprising. 

Another example of how they used references loosely during the eastern and southern boundary survey is when Gould commences surveying the southern boundary. Gould first references the southern boundary line as the "Indian Boundary" and the next three references of the line are "the 1/2 mile strip."

As I said, the focus of the first five days is the Saugeen eastern boundary. To illustrate loose references further, Rankin makes this notation on September 4th in his own journal:

“Commenced and ran down 2 miles on boundary of Saugeen Indian Reserve and afterwards left the camp together with Claudius Sking to return to the village to give general superintendence to other matters connected with the survey, leaving Gould to proceed with the Indian boundary and other parts of Amabel.”

Either Rankin’s note implies that the full two miles is the Saugeen Boundary or, after they ran down the two miles they were then on the boundary of the Saugeen Reserve. We know that the NE boundary of the Saugeen Reserve does not start at the mouth of the Sauble River and is marked on all maps at Lot 25/26 (Main Street), so that could not be Rankin’s meaning. Whether poorly or loosely worded, the latter makes more sense and is supported by facts. Rankin first says they ran down on the boundary of the Saugeen Reserve, but then implies that the Indian boundary survey has not yet been started. He remarks, “leaving Gould to proceed with the Indian boundary.” In other words, he left Gould to begin the Saugeen boundary. This also makes the most sense since Lot 25/26 (Main Street) is marked as the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve on every Rankin map. It is the third instance it can be established this way from three different sources and starting points and also can be established this way from two different and intersecting points.

1. By the treaty instructions that the eastern boundary runs parallel to the western boundary and first intersects with the water’s edge ("spot on the coast") at Lot 25/26 (Main Street) as illustrated on the Grey/Bruce map of January 1855.

2. The traverse on September 4th, 1855 leaving Gould “to proceed with the Indian boundary” after they ended the survey for that day at Lot 25/26.

3. The measurement from the Copway Road amended NW position of the western boundary to Lot 25/26 equals almost exactly 9 ½ miles as instructed in Treaty 72. 

4. After the Copway Road Amendment, both the eastern boundary being parallel to the western boundary and the 9 1/2 mile measurement from Copway Road meet exactly at Lot 25/26 (Main Street). The amendment is the  only way for the Treaty instructions to be mathematically possible.

Could all four of these mathematically proven instances identifying Lot 25/26 (Main Street) as the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve be pure coincidence? What would be the odds of such a thing? Can an argument this strong be made for the INAC/Saugeen Band claim? 

An argument can be made that midpoint Lot 31 has facts to mark it as the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve, but it only has two, and they both break down under analysis. Not to mention there is no map in existence that marks it that way. All three of Rankin’s maps mark Lot 25/26 (Main Street) as the NE corner. The arguments have been discussed before, but here are the flaws once again.

1. The measurement equaling 9 ½ miles from the original NW position of the western boundary to midpoint Lot 31 is only relevant if the Copway Road Amendment doesn’t exist. It has also been discussed, ad nauseum, that land cannot exist between Lot 25/26 (Main Street) and midpoint Lot 31. In the INAC/Saugeen Band example of the 9 ½ mile measurement, without a width at the shoreline that can match up with the eastern boundary, it is impossible. And, just to make this point crystal clear…

2. While the eastern boundary does contact the shore at midpoint Lot 31, it only does so after it has traveled through the water of Lake Huron between Lot 25/26 and midpoint Lot 31, once again making it impossible for land to exist. The Copway Road Amendment makes the eastern boundary contact with midpoint Lot 31 irrelevant.

It boils down to this: Either the Treaty 72 instructions, the Allenford Pow-Wow to resolve the western boundary dispute, the supporting notes, and all the maps produced that show that the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve is located at Lot 25/26 (Main Street) are somehow wrong,

Or…

The ambiguities of some notations, that can be interpreted to support either argument of the land claim is what is irrelevant. That being said, one thing cannot be ignored: There are absolutely no ambiguities as to boundary limits on Rankin’s 1856 final map and there are also no ambiguities as to how the treaty instructions and the Copway Road amendment support those limits.

To show that the measurements of the eastern boundary and then the southern boundary are accurate as recorded in the journal pages, I continued the survey for the rest of the eight days.

The illustration below is the completed eastern boundary

I then started down the southern boundary to prove I was following the instructions accurately.

This research impressed me. It proved to me, for this exercise, you don’t have to be an expert to correctly interpret what the survey notes mean. Although my result wasn’t 100% exact, it was so close that, after more than 160 years, it left room for a small margin of error and showed that I understood what I was doing.

This is the completed east boundary (beginning at Main Street) and south boundary as a result of following the total nine days from the journal.