Ernest Epp's Report
__NOTITLE__
Ernest Epp's Report
Name of document:
Aboriginal Rights: the Law and the Politics in the Robinson Superior Area, commonly referred to by RSMIN as Ernest Epp's Report
Type of document:
Report, produced by Ernest Epp for the Red Sky Métis Independent Nation™ , based on Alison Gale's working research.
Summary of the data:
This report, written by Ernest Epp, uses documentation located in Indian Affairs records and was produced for the Red Sky Métis Independent Nation™. The report is divided into three sections that follow a very detailed introduction. Using a number of correspondences between major actors including Hudson’s Bay Company Postmasters, Superintendents of Indian Affairs and Politicians, Epp examines the nature of politics and law during and after the Robinson-Superior Treaty, 1850 negotiations with specific focus on the place of the Métis in the region during this time. Significantly, this report finds that while the law of the Dominion may have excluded children of Aboriginal women and European men from receiving annuity payments under the Robinson-Superior Treaty, 1850, many Métis families continued to be included on the pay lists and subsequently receive annuity payments.
The introduction to the report largely focuses on the period prior to the signing of the Robinson-Superior Treaty, 1850. According to Epp, the need for a treaty arose from the discovery of minerals in the region. Initially, the Canadian government failed to deal with First Nations, which led to unrest in the region. In the fall of 1848, Alan and Angus Macdonell with Chiefs Shingwauk and Bebanaigooching forced the closure of the Quebec Superior Mine at Mica Bay, also known as the Mica Bay Incident. According to Epp, the Robison-Superior Treaty largely followed this event. The inclusion of the Métis was considered throughout the negotiations of the treaty. When confronted with this issue, Robinson told the Chiefs present that they would be given the funds and could distribute them as they saw fit. The Robinson-Superior Treaty, 1850 was signed on September 7, 1850 and included 1240 Indians of which 84 were half-breeds. The initial payment for the use of the land was based on the value of the region to the mining company. According to Epp, it was the preferred choice of Robinson to pay the band half the amount immediately and distribute an annuity payment of £1,000 to the respective bands. An additional stipulation stated that if land resulted in the ability to accrue additional profits, the government would be required to increase the annuity payments. Finally, the treaty allowed the First-Nations to retain their reserves in following locations: one on Garden River; sixteen on Lake Huron; three on Lake Superior - Fort William, Michipicoten and Gull River.
In the first section of the report, Epp explains the events following the signing of the Robinson-Superior Treaty, 1850. The Canadian government was slow to fulfill the terms of the Treaty, creating a great deal of uncertainty in the respective communities. As a result, the Hudson’s Bay Company agreed to distribute annuity payments to those included on the pay lists under the provisions of the Treaty (see letter offering from HBC offering to pay annuities). Of more importance was the establishment of reserves, according to Alan Macdonell, a businessman, the terms of the Treaty provided only a vague definition of the borders of the reserves. Additionally, Macdonell expressed concerns regarding the Métis in Sault Ste. Marie who were not benefiting from annuity payments and were in some cases threatened with the loss of their land (see letter from Alan Macdonell). Conversely, according to Governor Simpson, of the Hudson’s Bay Company, in other regions including Batchewana Bay and Michipicoten, the Métis were included on the pay lists. According to Epp, in 1852 sixteen Métis families (sixty-one persons) in Batchewana Bay and twenty-eight Métis families (eighty-six persons) in Michipicoten received annuity payments. Additionally, the lists produced by DeLaRonde and F. Ermatinger in 1855 for Lake Nipigon and Fort William respectively included both Métis and Aboriginals.
In the 1850s, two pieces of legislation attempted to define an ‘Indian.’ The act that applied to Upper Canada included both Indians and those inter-married with Indians in its legislative decrees. The coinciding act for Lower Canada provided a definition of the groups of persons that would be considered ‘Indians’ belonging to a tribe. Included in these groups was “all persons intermarried with any such Indians and residing amongst them, and the descendants of all such persons” (Epp 18). These definitions remained largely the same until 1857 when the Act to Encourage the Gradual Civilization of the Indian Tribes in this Province was passed. According to Epp, this act was meant to reduce the Aboriginal population by lessening the distinction between “them and Her Majesty’s other subjects” (18). The act served to exclude those in the Treaty area who did not live on a reserve. Epp explains that evidence of the beginnings of exclusionary policies is demonstrated through a letter written from J. Bissett of the Hudson’s Bay Company to the Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs on June 28th 1872. The letter notes that the Agents distributing annuity payments at Lake Superior would be asked to include a “Return of those Indians on each Settlement who are not entitled to and do not share in the annuity” (Epp 20). Despite this, in 1876, sixty-eight Métis persons were paid annuities at Michipicoten. However, in a letter written July 16th 1879 from Amos Wright, Indian Agent at Prince Arthur’s Landing to J.S. Denis, Deputy Superintendent General of Indian affairs Wright notes that half breeds are wrongfully receiving annuity payments under the Robinson Treaty. Wright points to an act in 1869 which states that “Providing always that any Indian woman marrying any other than an Indian, shall cease to be an Indian within the meaning of this Act, nor shall the children issue of such marriage be considered as Indians…” (Epp 22). Even so, L. Vankoughnet, Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, wrote to Wright informing him that the Department had no intentions of removing persons from the list.
In the second section, Epp describes the intense debate in Ontario over the inclusion of Métis in annuity payments, which largely arose from the calls to hold the Ontario government responsible for the annuity payments after 1875. To demonstrate this debate, Epp includes a number of correspondences from E.B. Borron, Stipendiary Magistrate. Borron, who had a few years earlier petitioned for an increase in the annuity payments from $1.00 per annum a head to $4.00 per annum a head (see letters from Borron), argues that W.B. Robinson never intended ‘half-breeds’ to be paid under the Treaty. Borron’s concerns coincided with an unexpected increase in the Aboriginal population, which Borron argues Robinson could not have predicted. Borron blames this increase on the inclusion of half-breeds on the pay lists. For example, he states that of the 5, 231 Indians receiving annuity payments in 1890-91, less than half of them are Indian. According to Epp, Borron argued that the Métis had no legal claim to the annuity payments. Additionally, Borron pointed to what he believed to be the traditional activities of Aboriginal peoples and maintained that the Métis did not participate in the traditional activities including living in wigwams and a dependence on Game and Furbearing. Significantly, Borron’s views may not have been widely accepted. For example, in a letter from Borron to Oliver Mowat, Ontario Premier and Attorney General, Borron notes that Mowat did not seem to agree with his views on ‘half-breeds.’ Additionally, at the Conference of the Dominion, Ontario, and Quebec representatives on October 21st 1894 Vankoughnet states, “Half-breeds by the law in Ontario are Indians. As long as they have Indian blood in them they are legally Indians” (Epp 36).
In the third and final section, Epp explains the events after the decision of the Board of Arbitrators on February 14th 1895. The inclusive ruling stated that “any person intermarried with any such member of any such tribe or band and any lawful descendent of Indian blood of any person so intermarried with any such member of any tribe or band” (Epp 38). This decision was appealed, but the Supreme Court and Chancellor Boyd concluded that, “the descendants of such marriage would be Indians as long as the tribal relation and residence lasted” (Pep 39). Three years later J.A. Macrae, Inspector of Indian Agencies and Reserves, performed an investigation into the annuity entitlements. According to Epp, Macrae recommended that 181 people be removed from the pay lists including the Fort William band, Nipigon band, Pays Plat band, Long Lake band and the Pic band. Half of those recommended were from the same family (the Bouchard family). Epp notes that like Borron, Macrae took on a patriarchal view, arguing that it was the male bloodline that was important for determining if the children were Indian. Macrae found that there was quite a bit of confusion among some communities where there seemed to be no unifying principle for how annuities were granted. Finally, Macrae produced a report on the Maintowaning Superintendency, in which he argued that the definition provided by the Board of Arbitrators should not be viewed “as a sort of charter by which right to the annuity should be determined” (Epp 45). Like Borron, Macrae was not entirely successful in his venture and found it difficult to remove anyone from the pay lists.
Epp concludes that his most significant finding is that both the Hudson’s Bay Company Postmasters and Indian Agents continued to include Métis families on the pay lists. He observes that while E.B. Borron was unrelenting in his argument that the Métis did not have the right to share in the annuity payments, his views were not widely shared in the Ontario government. As a result, in the nineteenth century Métis were recognized as Aboriginal but were entirely excluded in the twentieth century as Aboriginal women who married European men were denied Indian status under the Indian Act .
Important dates mentioned in the document:
| Date | Significance |
|---|---|
| 1845 | Prospecting of the North Shore of Lake Superior begins. |
| August 1848 | Captain T.G. Anderson expresses need for Treaty with Lake Superior region First Nations. |
| August 4, 1848 | T.G. Anderson and Alexander Vidal tour First-Nations territory to gather information regarding the expectations of First-Nations for the negotiation of a Treaty. Click here to see a copy of the order to investigate First-Nations land claims. |
| Fall 1848 | Alan and Angus Macdonell with Chiefs Shingwauk and Bebanaigooching force the closure of the Quebec Superior Mine at Mica Bay. |
| December 1848 | The Quebec Superior Mine at Mica Bay is surrendered. |
| December 5, 1848 | Anderson and Vidal release report of their findings during their tour of First-Nations territory. |
| January 11, 1850 | Negotiations of Robinson-Superior Treaties begin. |
| August 21, 1850 | Letter from Hudson's Bay Company Postmaster, John Swantson to Governor of the Company, George Simpson questions whether half-breeds will be included in the payments. |
| August 1850 | Act for the Protection of Indians in Upper Canada from Imposition, and the Property Occupied or Enjoyed by them from Trespass and Injury passed. |
| September 7, 1850 | Signing of the Robinson-Superior Treaty, 1850. |
| October 15, 1850 | The Hudson's Bay Company agrees to distribute annuity payments to those included under the terms of the Robinson-Superior Treaty, 1850. |
| 1850 | Lower Canada Act defines and recognizes half-breeds as Indian. |
| June 30, 1852 | Governor Simpson writes a letter to his Postmaster at Michipicoten indicating that the Indians on the pay lists at Fort William will be paid as planned, including half-breeds. |
| 1855 | De La Ronde lists both half-breeds and Indians as receiving annuity payments. |
| 1857 | Act to Encourage the Gradual Civilization of of the Indian Tribes in this Province and to Amend the Laws Respecting Indians passes. This act aims to reduce the First-Nations population across Canada. |
| 1860 | Executive Council of the Province of Canada accepts responsibility for Indian Affairs. |
| 1860 | Act Respecting Indians and Indian Lands passes. |
| 1867 | British North America Act passes in the Imperial Parliament. |
| 1869 | An Act for the Gradual Enfranchisement of Indians, the Better Management of Indians, the Better Management of Indian Affairs and to Extend the Provisions of the Act 31 Victoria Cap 42 passes. The Act states that "any Indian woman marrying any other than an Indian, shall cease to be an Indian within the meaning of this Act, nor shall the children issue of such marriage be considered as Indians" (Epp 22) This Act is a departure from earlier legislation which was free from discrimination of intermarriage between Europeans and Indians. |
| 1872 | J. Bissett's letter to the Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs demonstrates the beginnings of exclusionary policies. |
| 1874 | Census of Nipigon district proves that a number of Métis families continue to be included on the pay lists. |
| November 28, 1874 | E.B. Borron sends a letter to David Laird, Minister of Interior and Superintendent General of Indian Affairs indicating that an increase in annuity payments from $1.00 a head to $4.00 a head is necessary to fulfill the Robinson-Superior Treaty, 1850 provisions. |
| 1876 | Pay list for Tootoominai's band at Gros Cap indicates that each member of the Lake Superior First-Nation received an annuity of $4.00 or more. 68 half-breeds at Michipicoten were included on the pay list. |
| 1876 | Pay lists at Fort William and Lake Nipigon do not distinguish between Indians and half-breeds. |
| July 16, 1879 | Amos Wright, Indian Agent at Prince Arthur's Landing writes a letter to J.S. Dennis, Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs. In the letter, Wright notes the statute of 1869 as justification for his refusal to pay annuities to half-breeds. |
| August 1, 1879 | Lawrence Vankougnet, the Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, responds to Wright by saying that while the existing law does indicate that if an Indian woman marries European man, she and her children are no longer entitled to annuity payments, the government has no plans to interfere with those names that are already on the pay list. |
| 1880s | The pay lists produced by J.P. Donnelly, the Indian Agent at Port Arthur and Amos Wright continue to include Métis families. |
| 1889 | Payment of annuities to Métis becomes controversial in Ontario. |
| May 28 1889 | J.P. Donnelly writes to the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs that he believes there a number of children of White men married to Indian Women that are not entitled to annuity payments under the Robinson-Superior Treaty, 1850. |
| June 7 1889 | Donnelly is advised that he should send the particulars of those in question and the Department will decide if those indicated are entitled to annuity payments or not. |
| May 26, 1891 | E.B. Borron writes to the Premier and Attorney General of Ontario, Oliver Mowat, to argue that half-breeds are not entitled to the annuity payments under the Robinson-Superior Treaty, 1850. |
| December 1891 | E.B. Borron's first report. This report includes four justifications for Borron's argument. |
| 1892 | E.B. Borron's second report. In this report, Borron expresses his patriarchal worldview by arguing that if the father of the family is White (where the mother of the family is Aboriginal) then the children must not be entitled to annuity payments. |
| February 11, 1893 | E.B. Borron writes a letter to Oliver Mowat which indicates that the Premier might not be convinced by Borron's arguments. Additionally, in his letter he writes that those receiving annuity payments totalled 5,231 in 1890-91 but Borron believed that less than half of them (i.e. 2,337) are 'Indians.' |
| 1893 | E.B. Borron's third report. In this report, Borron provides a definition of half-breed, which excludes Indian women who marry White men and their children from annuity payments. |
| October 21, 1894 | Conference of the Dominion and Quebec Representatives. At the Conference Vankougnet states that "Half-breeds are by law of Ontario Indians-as long they have Indian blood in their veins they are Indians legally" (Epp 36). |
| February 14, 1895 | Board of Arbitrators hands down their decision, which establishes Ontario's obligation to pay annuities. The ruling included that half-breeds are to be considered Indian, and therefore should receive annuity payments. The decision of the Board was appealed; however, the Supreme Court ruled that the law would "include among Indians those of other blood, who are not only married to Indians but were adopted by a tribe" (Epp 39). |
| February 9, 1898 | J.A. Macrae, Inspector of Indian Agencies and Reserves, produces a report of his assessment of the pay lists. Macrae's report recommends that 181 people be removed from the pay list. In spite of this, no deletions actually occurred. |
| February 18, 1899 | J.A. Macrae produces a second report which recommends that those persons in dispute on the pay lists may remain on the list or removed "according to the conditions under which they live and as kind and fair policy dictates" (Epp 46). |
| August 29, 1916 | F.G. Paget, Account of the Department writes to D.C. Scott, Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs to inform him of the complaints of those names who are on the non-transmissible list and are not paid for their children. Paget suggests that those identified should be paid in the future. |
| September 27, 1916 | Scott responds to the letter from Paget informing him that the Minister has approved the change to pay annuity to the children of those on the non-transmissible list. |
Important people discussed in the document:
William Benjamin Robinson (1797-1873)
Chief Shingwauk (1773-1854)
Chief Bebanaigooching (?)
Captain T.G. Anderson (?)
John Strachan (1778-1867)
Alan Macdonell (?)
Angus Macdonell (?)
Alexander Vidal (1819-1906)
Jesuit Father Frémiot (?)
Chief Joseph Peau de Chat (?)
Chief Justice Beverly Robinson (?)
Magistrate E.B. Borron (1820-1915)
John Swantson (?)
Sir George Simpson (?-1860)
De La Ronde (?)
F. Ermatinger (?)
James Bisset (1831-?)
David Laird (1833-1914)
Amos Wright (1809-1886)
J.S. Denis (?)
Lawrence Vankougnet (?)
J.P. Donnelly (?)
Oliver Mowat (1820-1903)
Chancellor Boyd (1837-1916)
J.A. Macrae (?)
F.G. Paget
D.C. (Duncan Campbell) Scott
Louis Bouchard
Specific location(s) mentioned in the document (if applicable):
Fort William, Ontario
Garden River, Ontario
St. Mary's River, Michigan-Ontario
Mica Bay, Ontario
Pointe aux Pines, Michigan
Manitowaining, Ontario
Michipicoten, Ontario
Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario
Batchawana Bay, Ontario
Fort Nipigon, Ontario
Gros Cap, Ontario
Prince Arthur's Landing, Ontario
Manitoulin Island, Ontario
Non-specific location(s) mentioned in the document (if applicable):
North Shore of Lake Superior
Lake Huron, Ontario
Lake Superior, Ontario-Minnesota-Wisconsin-Michigan
Northern and Northeastern side of Lake Huron and Lake Superior, Ontario
Gull River (Lake Nipigon), Ontario
Pigeon River, Minnesota-Ontario
Kaministiquia River, Ontario
Upper Canada
Lower Canada
Specific event(s) identified in the document (if applicable):
Signing of the Robinson-Superior Treaty, 1850 (September 7, 1850)
Forced closure of the Quebec Superior Mine at Mica Bay (Fall 1848)
Conference of the Dominion and Quebec Representatives (October 21, 1894)
Board of Arbitrators decision (February 14, 1895)
For more information regarding these events please see the Important Dates Mentioned in the Document section.
Relevant citations:
Epp, Ernest. "Aboriginal Rights the Law and the Politics in the Robinson Superior Area." (1998). Print.
Was the information found online (yes/no)?:
No
Document links and URLs (if applicable):
Date of access:
N/A
Webmaster if identified (for online documents only):
N/A
If you would like to contribute to this page or have more information please see How to Submit Changes and New Stories.