Intent...Problem...Solution

In June of 2016, Lisa Dobbins sent me, by email, the transcript for the 2014 land claim information meeting held in Sauble Beach. The meeting was first recorded and the transcription was taken from that recording. It is fortunate that Lisa had the foresight to take such an action so we know exactly what was presented and what was not.

At the meeting, Gary Penner, lawyer for Canada, discussed the obligation of a trial judge when making a decision involving a Native treaty. This is what he said:

"What the Supreme Court of Canada felt that in the field of Aboriginal Law, and they've said this over and over again in approaching these treaty cases and in interpreting a treaty, that it's critically important, and there are many different principles to the interpretation that have to be applied, but the fundamental principle is that (it) is the understanding and intention of the party at the time the treaty was entered into that is on the basis of the interpretation, not what somebody thinks what it was supposed to mean some 100 years later or 150 years later. 

So, what they're telling judges, trial judges, to do, you've got to look to the treaty and all the events surrounding it and you have to come to a conclusion and forfeit the understanding of dissension of the parties at the time the treaty was entered into in 1854."

This posting reviews and summarizes a lot of what I have presented throughout this blog, but I wanted to demonstrate how it holds up to the statement Mr. Penner provided.

If what Mr. Penner is saying is true, that is, the trial judges are obligated to, and I quote, "look to the treaty and all the events surrounding it" to come to their conclusion, my interpretation would have to be considered correct, since it matches all terms of the treaty to the final map submitted by Charles Rankin in 1856. The Copway Road Amendment is an event surrounding the treaty that is required to make the treaty instructions correct. Mr. Penner also goes on to say, it is "not what somebody thinks it, (the Treaty and the events surrounding it) was supposed to mean some 100 years later or 150 years later."

INAC, today, thinks the interpretation should be that the shoreline boundary of the Saugeen Reserve should end at the NE < Ind. Res. notation at midpoint lot 31, found on the 1855 draft map. This interpretation does not match the terms of the treaty and would result in a shoreline measurement of 11 miles rather than 9 1/2 miles. Their entire argument is built on assumptions and what they think the Treaty and surrounding events are supposed to mean.

For this particular case, Mr. Penner is saying: The trial judge is obligated to first look to the treaty instructions for the intent of the treaty. He must then look to Charles Rankin's final map, submitted to and accepted by Indian Affairs in 1856, and the events surrounding the creation of the map to determine what led to Rankin's final interpretation of the reserve boundary. The trial judge must then compare these events to see if it correctly interprets the treaty instructions. 

Treaty 72 promised the Saugeen Band a 9 1/2 mile shoreline boundary and that is what they received. Charles Rankin stated "the Copway Road Amendment would not alter the terms of the treaty in any way" and it didn't. What did change, was the location of the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve boundary from midpoint lot 31 to its new location of lot 25/26 (Main Street). The terms of Treaty 72 from 1854 and the terms of the Copway Road amendment of 1855 compared to what the Saugeen Band received, match their reserve boundaries found on Charles Rankin's final map in every detail and are still in place today.

To illustrate the "intent" of the events surrounding Treaty 72 and the Saugeen Reserve boundaries, we can look to the Treaty instructions, the maps Rankin produced, and the events following the treaty signing. First, the treaty instructions:

"For the benefit of the Saugeen Indians we reserve 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; on the south by the aforesaid northern limit of the lately surrendered strip; on the east by a line drawn from a spot upon the coast at a distance of about (9 ½ ) nine miles and a half from the western boundary aforesaid, and running parallel thereto until it touches the aforementioned northern limits of the recently surrendered strip;

Although the treaty instructions are ambiguous as to how and where a measurement of 9 1/2 miles from the Western boundary was to be conducted, the shoreline measurement is the most conclusive. It equals, almost exactly, 9 1/2 miles when measured from the NW position of the original western boundary to midpoint lot 31. Expert reports I have read confirm this. 

Therefore, initially, the instruction from the treaty would have located the starting point for the 9 1/2 mile measurement at the NW position of the original western boundary. This would have placed the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve exactly where INAC/Saugeen Band argue it should be, at midpoint Lot 31, and if it had been mathematically possible, the shoreline boundary and the western boundary of the Saugeen Reserve would have appeared as I have illustrated by the red lines below on Rankin's final map:

INTENT: of Treaty 72 Instructions

However, it wasn't mathematically possible. You cannot have an eastern boundary that runs parallel to the western boundary in 1855 and a 9 1/2 mile measurement start from the NW position of the original western boundary which would include land from Lot 25/26 (Main Street) to midpoint Lot 31. Just by looking at the map, you can see that the eastern boundary is not going stay within the shoreline from Lot 25/26 to midpoint Lot 31. 

The first map Rankin ever produced that outlined the boundaries of the Saugeen Reserve is the Grey/Bruce map of January, 1855 and it confirms the impossibility. Rankin does not place the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve at midpoint lot 31, but instead, it is positioned at Lot 25/26 (Main Street). The scale of the map proves the NE position of the reserve to be Lot 25/26, but it is easy to confirm this location just by looking at it. It is impossible to know exactly how Rankin realized, this early on, that the Treaty instructions were impossible to achieve, but the illustration of the Saugeen Reserve on the Grey/Bruce map proves he knew it as early as January, 1855. 

It also proves that because of the mathematical impossibility, Rankin's intention moving forward, was to rely on the treaty instruction that the eastern boundary would run parallel to the western boundary to enable him to locate the "spot on the coast" which identifies the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve. He also intended to keep the western boundary in the exact location as described by the treaty. We can only speculate that Rankin concluded that since the eastern  boundary could not include land from Lot 25/26 to midpoint Lot 31 to complete a "block of land" as stated in the treaty, the Saugeen Band were not really giving anything up in form of their reserve boundaries.

PROBLEM: Treaty instructions are mathematically impossible 

The Saugeen Band's response was one of outrage. They contended that they believed they had agreed that the western boundary was to be at, and include, Copway Road and everything north of it. Therefore, their interpretation of what was originally agreed upon wouldn't have placed the NE corner of their reserve at Lot 31, it would have positioned it at Lot 25/26 (Main Street). The fact that they made this contention proves that the Saugeen Band of 1854 never believed that their NE boundary was ever supposed to be located at midpoint Lot 31 since it would make the shoreline boundary 11 miles rather than 9 1/2 miles. Their interpretation of the agreement in 1855 proved to be correct since it allowed both the shoreline measurement of 9 1/2 miles and the eastern boundary parallel to the western boundary to intersect and terminate a "block of land" at the same location. The location is just inside the Lot 25/26 dividing line.

As a result, the Copway Road Amendment was put in place which allowed all terms of the treaty to be honoured without alteration. The final result was and still is what we have observed to be the boundaries of the Saugeen Reserve for over 160 years. Rankin's final map of 1856 outlines it as seen below:

Solution: Copway Road Amendment allows all terms of Treaty 72 to be fulfilled without alteration.

The intent of the survey, based on the surrounding facts, is conclusive when observing Rankin's final map. Each event since the signing of the treaty logically builds to how the boundaries of the Saugeen Reserve that are found on Rankin's final map of 1856 were created, but more importantly, how and why the NE corner of the reserve ended up at Lot 25/26 rather than midpoint Lot 31. The final map shows that the Copway Road Amendment and the first original treaty instruction were merged to read:

...all that block of land bounded on the west by the Indian path called the Copway Road which takes a North Westerly direction from 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

As a result the third instruction was also affected:

on the east by a line drawn from a spot upon the coast at a distance of about 9 1/2 miles from the western boundary aforesaid.

Since the western boundary is no longer bound to Lake Huron by a line heading due north and is instead bound by the Copway Road, the 9 1/2 mile shoreline measurement begins at Copway Road; 1.4 miles south of the original location 

And what about the October 12th, 1855 draft map that INAC/Saugeen Band rely on for their argument? What could a trial judge conclude about the intent of the treaty and the surrounding events from it? The map, on its own, without the surrounding events, raises more questions than answers.

The notation, NE < Ind. Res. presumably marks the location of the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve, yet the NE corner is clearly drawn on the draft map as terminating in the vicinity of Lot 25/26.

Neither the original western boundary or the amended western boundary is marked on the map to show a starting point for the 9 1/2 mile measurement. How could a judge confirm intent of the 9 1/2 mile measurement without either western boundary drawn on the map?

There is an extension line from Lot 26 that intersects the post, drawn on the map, at midpoint Lot 31 and then extends beyond. This line clearly shows that it is impossible for the eastern boundary to remain within the confines of land from Lot 26 to Lot 31. The intention of the line is most likely to intersect with the extension line from Chief's Point to allow a True North bearing reading of Chief's Point eastern boundary. It is most definitely not a boundary line of any kind. How could a judge determine it was the final intent of the survey or the treaty to include land from Lot 25/26 to Lot 31 when it is mathematically impossible to do so?


Regardless of whether the treaty instructions were recorded incorrectly or mutually misinterpreted, the initial intention was to create a 9 1/2 mile shoreline boundary for the Saugeen Band that extended from the NW position of the original western boundary to midpoint Lot 31

INTENT

The treaty instructions for the Saugeen Reserve were found to be impossible to achieve and a shoreline boundary of 8.1 miles instead of 9 1/2 was the result. This upset the Saugeen Band.

PROBLEM

The Saugeen Band recognized the treaty instructions were misinterpreted from what was initially agreed upon. As a result, the western boundary was moved south 1.4 miles to include Copway Road (a dirt path that led from the Saugeen village to Lake Huron) and the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve was moved south 1.4 miles to Lot 25/26. The result was a Saugeen Reserve boundary that met all terms of the treaty which can be confirmed on Rankin's final map of 1856.

SOLUTION

What you see illustrated in the three maps above is basically all any trial judge or anyone needs to know about the Treaty 72 survey of the Saugeen Reserve to come to a logical determination.

Is the argument I have provided throughout this blog irrefutable? For the most part, yes. 

There are other weak arguments built on assumption that can spin another tale. However, what is irrefutable, my argument matches the terms of Treaty 72 regarding the boundaries of the Saugeen Reserve to Rankin's final map of 1856 in every way. No other argument, including the INAC/Saugeen Band argument, can make the same claim. There is no other documentation more valuable to making a final determination of intent than the treaty terms and the final map that interprets those terms. What other possible conclusion could you come to? 

Do the events surrounding the signing of the Treaty support my conclusion? Yes.

Very little of what I have presented is built on assumption. Many of the surrounding events of the treaty factually support my conclusions. Some of my interpretations show there is other considerations to be made compared to how INAC/Saugeen Band present the same information.

I ask you: How could a trial judge rule in favour of the Saugeen Band based on the obligation that they are required to "look to the treaty and events surrounding the treaty" to decipher intent to allow for the presiding judge to come to a proper interpretation? Based on the facts, the determination has to be that the Saugeen Band did surrender all land north of lot 25/26 (Main Street) to midpoint lot 31. Therefore, the INAC/Saugeen Band argument is irrelevant.

The Crowd Inn, My Blog, My Research, Me

Below is a picture of The Crowd Inn; my restaurant and property since 1983. I was officially named in the Saugeen Native land claim in 1995 because the Saugeen Band contend that they never surrendered the parcel of land that makes up my property. My uncle Harold and my dad, Ross, bought the property from J.K. Davidson, a former town treasurer, in 1948 and started the Crowd Inn, a Sauble landmark and fry-shack icon. J.K. Davidson purchased the property from Livingston Huff, the son of John Wesley Huff who purchased the lot by way of Crown Patent in 1896. The lot was originally patented earlier in the 1870's, but the lot was not fully paid for by the purchaser, so the sale fell through. The information I describe above can be verified at the Ontario Land Registry Office in Walkerton, Ontario. My deed is registered and can be traced to the original Crown Patent.  

While researching this land claim, I wasn’t limited by a timeline. I have had many years to consider and contemplate the evidence and explore new evidence that had been missed or ignored. This land claim is quite simple once you become familiar with the fundamentals. However, when I first heard of the claim over twenty-five years ago it seemed like I was listening to a different language. Mostly, the information was not explained well and, without any visual aid, what was explained, seemed complex. When doing my research, I was determined to represent any explanations I had to offer with as much visual aid as possible. 

Much of the physical evidence that was discussed with the private landowners named in the lawsuit early on was never presented. We were told about it. The Special Fishery License for example, was discussed but never did we see the actual document. I didn’t see the 1855 draft map with the NE < Ind. Res. notation until 2014; nineteen years after I was officially named as a defendant. It never really occurred to me that it was available to me. How could we have been led down such a dark path? I wanted to correct this problem, so I collected as much of the authentic physical documentation as possible. What I found was that much of the physical documentation for this claim was not analyzed properly by Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada or was simply ignored. The Huff letter, for example, gave actual calculable numbers of what Livingston Huff was describing, but they were never used until I examined the letter and made the calculations. Huff also described the Reserve as terminating at the Sauble River, which did not match with the INAC/Saugeen Band’s argument of midpoint Lot 31. Obvious documents easily found in the archives that do not support the INAC/Saugeen claim were suspiciously overlooked and never presented as evidence. Along with the Special Fishery License and the response to Livingston Huff’s letter from Indian Affairs, many documents were never even acknowledged by INAC/Saugeen Band.

To allow for a smoother mediation process, it appears we were never meant to fully understand what we were up against. Until 2006, there was only one authority on the subject and that was Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada. Our limited understanding of the case led us to believe that what we once held to be undeniable truths regarding our property, were invalid. We were being duped. Even though in the beginning it seemed the INAC/Saugeen claim was indisputable, it still begged the question: How could we have been granted Crown Patents that were registered in the Land Registry office of Ontario if this land had never been surrendered? There had to be a mistake, but all that mattered to the investigation was the evidence gathered for the Saugeen Band. There was no research being done on behalf of the defense. As a named defendant, Canada was not doing its due diligence to represent non-Aboriginal people in this case.

Finally, in 2005, an expert report was commissioned to answer whether the Saugeen claim was valid. The conclusion was that the INAC/Saugeen claim was unfounded and therefore invalid. For the most part, the expert report was ignored. The expert's conclusion was unexpected. 

At the time, the expert report was difficult to comprehend, but we at least now had evidence that refuted the INAC/Saugeen claim. As I became more familiar with the report and studied the geography it described, I realized that there were significant holes in the argument of INAC/Saugeen Band. However, as much as I respect the expert report and without it, my research would have never happened, I felt that it did not definitively answer three significant questions that needed to be answered:

1. How can the distance from the original NW position of the western boundary to the NE < Ind. Res. notation equal 9 ½ miles and still not be the Saugeen Reserve’s NE corner? (Note: The expert report does offer a correct answer to this question, but I contend there is more to it than he provided)

The distance from the original NW boundary to the
NE < Ind. Res. notation at midpoint Lot 31 = 9 1/2 miles

2. What is the meaning of the NE < Ind. Res. notation located at midpoint Lot 31 on the 1855 draft map and why is it there?

3. How can the notation on the physical post found at midpoint Lot 31 “NE angle of Saugeen Reserve according to treaty boundary running south” not be considered corroboration of the INAC/Saugeen Band argument?

A hydrographic survey team of 1856 claim on their drawing
 the above notation was carved into the physical post.

Regardless of what seemed to be strong evidence to support the INAC/Saugeen Band, the expert report revealed the impossibilities of the claim and that is what became my focus. My experience researching the Huff letter made me realize that INAC/Saugeen Band were taking liberties with the evidence to strengthen their argument. I felt there had to be something that had been overlooked; that there was more to be considered. Much of my time between 2006 and 2014 was spent following other claims such as Caledonia and Ipperwash. It became more and more apparent that the federal and provincial governments were not entirely interested in the truth when it came to Native issues. If it furthered the ever increasingly popular, "politically correct" policies to empower the Native people of the country, the liberties of non-Aboriginal people were overlooked or denied. If you are familiar with the Caledonia dispute, you know what I am talking about. 

From my own experience, I knew this was the case. I hold a registered deed in the Ontario Land Registry Office that can be traced to the original Crown Patent, yet I am forced to defend my title. A registered deed is supposed to be supported and defended by Ontario under the Land Titles Assurance Fund. My Crown Patent was issued after confederation in 1896, so it confuses me why INAC and the Canadian government see themselves as blameless just because the treaty was signed before confederation. Regardless, either Ontario or Canada should be defending the Crown Patent.

It wasn’t until 2014, when I had my first opportunity to view the actual 1855 draft map and the 1856 final map, did I have anything more than the Huff letter to begin my own evidential research. It made me realize these documents are real, accessible, not just textual references. What else might be out there?

2014 marked the year that INAC came to Sauble Beach and Wiarton, represented by Gary Penner, to present their evidence to the residents of South Bruce Peninsula. INAC did this in the hope that the residents would be convinced that the Saugeen Band had an irrefutable case and therefore give their approval to a dubious mediation proposal. These two meetings revealed the true intentions of INAC. The Saugeen Band’s case was all that was discussed. The reply letter to Livingston Huff was never revealed, the 1855 draft map was described as the original and final map, and Charles Rankin’s 1856 final map, submitted to and approved by Indian Affairs, was not even mentioned. What was worse, the representative for the commissioned expert report that denied the Saugeen claim, sat through both presentations without a word about it. From day one we were advised to never discuss anything to anyone in connection to this claim or there would be reprisals, yet here was the very entity who made the demand stretching the truth, even lying, in a public forum.

INAC could come to the Town of South Bruce Peninsula and impede the legal process by withholding evidence and furnishing false information. Yet, when a Superior court judge with property in the area advised the Town the Saugeen case was not that strong, his colleagues and profession ostracized him while the Indigenous Bar Association demanded severe disciplinary action taken against him. The judge took the brunt of all of this because INAC would not accept their responsibility to present all the information so the whole story could be heard. It is shocking that a review of the public meeting was not held with disciplinary actions taken against INAC.

My resolve was reinforced by the 2014 presentations that I had to strengthen my own position. Considering obvious biases were being tolerated within the legal system in favour of the Saugeen Band, it seemed I would need Charles Rankin himself as a witness. I didn’t know it then, but I was trying to find answers to the three problematic questions. I began by finding authentic documentation including:

· The Special Fishery License

· a certified copy of my own Crown Patent for lot 26

· the Huff letter and response

· a list of the Crown Patent histories from lot 26 to 31

· the actual treaty text

· the 1883 Saugeen Band council minutes

· Mr. Plummer’s letter regarding a shoreline reserve

· Indian agent Ferguson’s letter stating the north portion of lot 31 abuts Lake Huron

In January 2016, I found the Grey/Bruce map. I didn’t know what I had for sure, but I knew that it predated the 1855 draft map and that it showed the north eastern boundary of the Saugeen Reserve terminating at Lot 25/26. Although you could tell where the boundary was located visually, I had to prove it with calculations and the result was undeniable. I now knew for sure that the NE corner was in the correct location today as the expert report had contended. I still wasn’t sure why. (Note: Even without calculations, if you can visually accept the original western boundary as being in the proper location on the Grey/Bruce map, it is just as easy to visually accept the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve as being located at Lot 25/26, Main Street)

Grey Bruce Map January 1855

Close-up of Saugeen Reserve from GB Map

At one point, before I discovered the Copway Road Amendment Theory, I thought that I had found the exact explanation for the NE < Ind. Res. notation. I thought that it related to Chief’s Point not the Saugeen Reserve. This turned out to be a bit of a bump in the road, but it led to a meeting with a cartographer who gave me a comprehensive education in the fundamentals of surveying methods. He was intrigued by my analysis of the notation in relation to Chief’s Point but pointed out that it was incorrect. However, there was merit to the theory and he offered another theory relating to Chief’s Point, once again, based on the notation. This theory was a little more complex and it stated that the NE part of the notation was identifying the angle True North took in relation to Magnetic North. This theory was impressive because Rankin did need the True North line of the eastern boundary to extend to the extension line of Chief Point’s eastern boundary to enable a True North bearing reading for the final map. The theory could also be backed up by information relating to bearing readings in connection with construction lines and actual boundary lines found on the draft map that still make it a theory impossible to disprove. Having someone to discuss this claim with who was knowledgeable and had a common interest helped me immensely moving forward.

However, as much faith as I had in this theory, I still felt it didn’t answer the questions that I pointed out were missing in the expert report and therefore just wasn’t enough. Yes, it gave a new reason and explanation for the notation, but the original NW position of the western boundary to the NE < notation still equaled 9 ½ miles and the hydrographic survey still seemed to corroborate this fact. These two things made the INAC/Saugeen argument the more conceptually pleasing argument, regardless of its mathematical impossibility. Couple this with the fact it is the politically preferred argument, more research was required. Not that I thought there could possibly be anything more to find.

In February of 2017, I thought that I should go back and reanalyze the key to the INAC/Saugeen argument regarding the 9 ½ mile measurement and the notation. The fact that the SW position of the western boundary to Lot 25/26 straight line measurement was at least in the ballpark of 9 ½ miles and the fact the NE corner is physically located at Lot 25/26 on all maps, became my focus. 

Popular belief initially among the defense was that the SW boundary to Lot 25/26
was the method of measurement used by Charles Rankin to find the NE corner.

The conclusions that I came to from that research left me puzzled: Considering the eastern boundary would run through the water of Lake Huron from Lot 25/26 to midpoint Lot 31 I knew it was impossible for the NE corner to terminate at midpoint Lot 31. Therefore, how could the closest measurement to 9 ½ miles be along the shoreline from the original NW boundary to the NE < Ind. Res. notation at midpoint lot 31? The conclusions derived from the research of INAC/SFN in support of the SFN claim just didn't make sense, but seemed undeniable at the same time. Two experts that I knew of had stated that to find the 9 ½ mile measurement, it would most logically be along the shoreline. This bothered me to no end considering the original NW boundary to the NE < notation was very close to 9 ½ miles or, more accurately, “about” 9 ½ miles as stated in the Treaty. I decided to physically visualize the measurements using the scale of the final map to show why the INAC/Saugeen Band theory is mathematically impossible. This was a serendipitous decision as I was eventually directed to the Ontario Topographic Mapping Tool, allowing me to make measurements of the disputed area using today's technologically advanced methods. Eventually, with this tool, I would recreate the survey.

In the summer of 2017, I had been in conversation with an OLS. Having not a lot of background evidence regarding the Saugeen claim to work with, he made a computer measurement of the Saugeen Reserve’s shoreline boundary using Google Maps. He assumed the measurement should originate from the western boundary at Copway Road; a shocking, yet reasonable assumption considering it is where the western boundary has been located since 1855. Consider for a moment: for the first time, we have an expert interpreting the NW position of the western boundary at Copway Road as the location the 9 ½ mile measurement should have been taken without being influenced by other experts past reports to bring him to this conclusion. His answer came to 9.38 miles. His measurement result turned a light on in my head, however I was still under the influence of past assumptions that the 9 ½ mile measurement should originate from the original NW position of the western boundary as stated in the original wording of the Treaty. By way of slight interpretations by previous experts, we had all been brainwashed for almost 30 years to believe the original NW position of the western boundary was the correct starting point. It took a fresh set of eyes, unencumbered by previous beliefs and notions, to allow consideration from a different perspective to initiate a proper understanding of this issue. This is what kick started my research into the Copway Road Amendment.

The result of the OLS measurement continued to intrigue me since it was so close to 9 ½ miles. In November, 2017 I tried the Copway Road measurement several times and consistently got results closer to 9 ½ miles than the OLS did. In this report, it was 9.59 miles, but I have had results as close as 9.48 miles. The results, equaling 9 ½ miles, or “about 9 ½ miles” could not be a coincidence. I consulted the expert report where I found Rankin’s declaration that the Copway Road Amendment would not change the terms of the treaty in any way. It was at this point I had the epiphany that the Copway Road Amendment was the key to explaining how the terms of the treaty had been fulfilled. This was the missing piece to the puzzle that should tip the playing field in favour of the defense. Questions that were once very difficult to answer had been illuminated dramatically. It began a domino effect and opened many doors to understanding Rankin’s survey; particularly in relation to the NE boundary. (Note: the same variances in answers are true regarding INAC/SFN's 9 ½ mile measurement research using the original NW position of the western boundary to the NE < notation. My first attempt using their research was 9.78 miles, but I have since had consistent measurements of 9.6 miles.)

I felt quite confident using the topographic mapping tool, so I decided to begin looking at Rankin’s journals and field notes to see what they revealed. I found that I understood them except for the field notes. I decided to try to recreate Rankin’s survey using the journals and consult the expert report to interpret the field notes. The results of those recreations are self-evident. It is undeniable that the first lag of the traverse identifies the eastern boundary as being in the water of Lake Huron from midpoint Lot 31 to inside Lot 25. It is also undeniable that the intention of that first lag was to find the point where the extension line eventually returned to land just inside Lot 25. Once it was found they ended their work for that day. Rankin, feeling his presence is no longer required, leaves Gould to "proceed with the Saugeen reserve’s eastern boundary" the following day. Add to this a 9 ½ mile measurement from the amended NW position of the western boundary at Copway Road that terminates at Lot 25/26; Plus, the first point of intersection at the waters edge is Lot 25/26 when you run the eastern boundary parallel to the western boundary beginning from the half mile strip, you have a solid argument. Complete this information with the fact that Rankin identifies the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve at Lot 25/26 on every map he produces and it is obvious that the information is conclusive. 

One last lot 25/26 primary historical reference. When the Special Fishery License was issued in 1874 to the Saugeen Band, the description of the area it covered is this:

“The seine ground extending from Chief’s Point on the North side of River au Sable, on the shore of Lake Huron, down to the division line between Lots 26 & 25 in Concession D of the Township of Amabel, with limits extending five miles into the lake in front of said Fishery Station.”

Why would the Saugeen Band need a license to fish from the Sauble River to the dividing line of lot 25/26 if their reserve extends from Lot 25/26 to midpoint Lot 31? They should only need a license to fish from midpoint Lot 31 north to the Sauble River. It had only been 20 years since the signing of the treaty; the location of the NE corner should be fresh in their minds. There it is again…Lot 25/26. How many historical references does it take to realize this is where the Saugeen Reserve’s NE corner terminates?

Yes, on the surface, before the Copway Road amendment, before the visual representation of the eastern boundary survey, and before the re-examination of the meaning of the hydrographic survey and where the eastern boundary line would run using their map, the INAC/Saugeen Band claim seemed to have some credibility. However, ever since the expert report, it was by no means a “slam-dunk” and that is how it has always been presented. Now, with logical answers to the three troubling questions I previously mentioned, it is difficult to understand how support for the INAC/Saugeen claim can continue.

Whether you are prejudiced by my lack of expert qualifications, it is hard to deny that the research I present in this report is logical and accurate and not without expert consultation. I have been employed for the past thirteen years as a qualified Library Technician trained in research techniques. I have been involved in this case for twenty-six years and my research is built on the foundation of the information provided by those who do hold qualified titles. As a preliminary preview, I offer three abbreviated answers for consideration to the three questions I will examine in detail throughout this blog that once seemed impossible to answer:

1. How can the measurement from the original NW position of the western boundary to the NE < Ind. Res. notation equal 9 ½ miles and still not be the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve?

No one ever considered the Copway Road Amendment or took the time to measure the amended NW position of the western boundary at Copway Road to Lot 25/26 to find it also equals 9 ½ miles. Rankin stated that the amendment would not change the terms of the treaty, therefore 9 ½ miles must be measured from the amended boundary, not the original, locating the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve at Lot 25/26. Without the Ontario Topographic Mapping Tool, I wouldn’t have been able to make the measurement.

The distance from the amended NW boundary
to Lot 25/26 (Main Street) equals 9 1/2 miles

2. Why is the NE < Ind. Res. notation marked on the 1855 draft map?

This is the most difficult question to answer definitively, however, it could be one of two explanations. Rankin may have marked the location in October, 1854 on his initial traverse between the Saugeen River and the Sauble River. He would have done this in the belief that this was where the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve would be before he realized the mathematical impossibility. If it was not marked on the draft map at this time, logic dictates it is a reference marker used as a starting point to enable Rankin to connect two points and establish the True North line. Once he has established the line he was able to locate the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve south, just inside of Lot 25 where the edge of the Lake meets land.

3. How can the notation on the physical post at midpoint Lot 31 “NE angle of Saugeen Reserve according to treaty boundary running south” not be considered corroboration of the INAC/Saugeen Band argument?

Without the details of the Copway Road Amendment, this does indeed seem like corroboration. However, considering elaborate notations of this nature were not the norm on posts in Rankin’s time, it would seem this particular post is communicating something special. The SE angle of Chief Point’s eastern boundary is simply marked “Post” on the draft map. Adding to the confusion, the notation on the map at midpoint Lot 31 doesn’t match the physical post notation found at midpoint Lot 31. If this is indeed the location of the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve, there is no need to add the phrase “according to treaty boundary running south” on the physical post. It implies that there is something else to consider other than the treaty boundary location. With the Copway Road amendment in mind it is logical that the physical post is communicating that midpoint Lot 31 was the originally believed NE corner location of the Saugeen Reserve according to the original treaty text, but due to the Copway Road amendment and other mathematical problems, this is no longer the case. Similar notation communications regarding the western boundary relocation corroborate this explanation.

With my extensive knowledge of the geography of the Sauble Beach and Saugeen Reserve area, the Ontario topographic mapping tool allowed me to make logical conclusions based on the publicly available facts from the expert reports. I have been involved in this land claim for 26 years to date. Since 2006, I have studied and researched previously available evidence and undiscovered evidence I have found on my own. This may not make me an expert by definition, but it has made me an authority on the Sauble Beach land claim in my own right. The expert report provided and organized the information and history I needed to conduct my own investigation. There are few examples of expertise relating to this land claim that require more than a basic understanding of simple math and geometry, the ability to read, and a comprehensive understanding of the geographical area that is involved.

The importance the online Ontario topographic mapping tool became to the rest of my research moving forward was crucial. It allowed me to follow and make sense of the logic of expert reports. Experts are not very good at explaining what is obvious to them, so I found opportunity to simplify what seems to be overwhelming. Illustrating textual explanations with a map is a key part of understanding this claim.

From incorrect conclusions comes the inspiration that lead to correct ones; that is the research process. Considering there are two conflicting expert reports, at least one of the experts’ conclusion’s is wrong. It doesn’t come down to who is the expert, it comes down to who is right. My research is built, in part, on the publicly available information from the expert report I consider to be correct. None of the answers above are inventive reasoning and what they do require in the way of assumption is minimal. They are built on facts, they make sense according to recorded history, and they are mathematically proven. These three answers convincingly refute the argument INAC/Saugeen Band have put forth and supported for the last thirty years. My research is the first and only that can accurately match all terms of the Treaty to the Saugeen Reserve boundary outlined on the final map Charles Rankin submitted to Indian Affairs in 1856. This is not the case in any of the “expert” reports.

In this blog, I include the 9 ½ mile research that I did in February of 2017. I include this information to show how puzzling the results were and to help understand why the SW boundary to Main Street measurement seemed like the most logical conclusion. Most logical considering the Grey/Bruce map proves that it was known the NE corner would be located at Lot 25/26 before the dispute of the western boundary location by the Saugeen Band. Even without the discovery of the Copway Road Amendment Theory, considering there is no documentation to confirm the 9 ½ mile measurement was to follow the shoreline, SW to Main Street is still a more logical argument than that of INAC/Saugeen Band.

The 9 ½ mile research reinforced the reasons why it was impossible for the Saugeen reserve to extend beyond Lot 25/26 (Main Street). However, with so much emphasis put on the wording of the treaty, research was derailed from considering the history of the Copway Road amendment. The focus was always on the western boundary as it was originally intended which clouded what turns out to be a very simple answer to why the Saugeen claim is unfounded. The Copway Road Amendment honoured the promise of 9 1/2 miles of shoreline for the Saugeen Band. The dispute we are having today was rectified over 160 years ago.

The most important information in this blog are the posts that discuss the Copway Road Amendment and the eastern boundary survey. If you read nothing else please at least consider the following posts:

https://saublelandclaim.blogspot.com/2018/09/intentproblemsolution.html

http://saublelandclaim.blogspot.com/2017/12/copway-road-amendment-theory-final.html

http://saublelandclaim.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-eastern-and-southern-boundary-survey.html

http://saublelandclaim.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-eastern-boundary-argument-using.html