Open Collections

Delgamuukw Trial Transcripts

[Proceedings of the Supreme Court of British Columbia 1989-05-26] British Columbia. Supreme Court May 26, 1989

Item Metadata

Download

Media
delgamuukw-1.0018393.pdf
Metadata
JSON: delgamuukw-1.0018393.json
JSON-LD: delgamuukw-1.0018393-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): delgamuukw-1.0018393-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: delgamuukw-1.0018393-rdf.json
Turtle: delgamuukw-1.0018393-turtle.txt
N-Triples: delgamuukw-1.0018393-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: delgamuukw-1.0018393-source.json
Full Text
delgamuukw-1.0018393-fulltext.txt
Citation
delgamuukw-1.0018393.ris

Full Text

 16863  Presentation to Sharon Ritchie  1 (PROCEEDINGS RESUMED PURSUANT TO ADJOURNMENT)  2  3 THE REGISTRAR:  Supreme Court of British Columbia this 26th day  4 of May, 1989.  In the matter of Delgamuukw versus her  5 Majesty the Queen at bar, my lord.  6  7 BARBARA LANE, resumed:  8  9 THE REGISTRAR:  May I remind you you are still under oath and  10 would you state your name for the record, please?  11 A   Barbara Lane, L-a-n-e.  12 THE REGISTRAR:  Thank you.  13 MS. RUSSELL:  My lord, before we resume taking evidence today, I  14 wonder if I might have a moment of the court's time.  15 THE COURT:  Certainly.  16 MS. RUSSELL:  This is a ceremonial occasion, and we want to  17 thank Sharon Ritchie for her patience and for the  18 wonderful organizational skills she has from which we  19 have all benefited and occasionally suffered.  We  20 would like to thank you, Sharon.  We will miss you and  21 we will welcome Mrs. Thompson.  We will be thinking of  22 you on your happy retirement, we hope.  We have a  23 couple of tokens for you.  And if you don't think this  24 was hard smuggling this in, you are wrong.  One of the  25 rare occasions on which all counsel agree.  26 THE REGISTRAR:  Oh, I do thank you.  I suppose you think I am  27 going to be at a loss for words.  28 THE COURT:  Well, no one else has been thus far.  29 MS. RUSSELL:  Drink it and celebrate.  Thank you.  30 THE REGISTRAR:  Thank you so much.  You are not finished with me  31 yet.  I am only a phone call away.  And I have said  32 that I will be available, so -- but I do thank you  33 all.  34 THE COURT:  We are all very grateful.  I am sure we all share  35 what Ms. Russell has said and I have -- I haven't, but  36 I now do advise Mrs. Ritchie that she is welcome to  37 sit in front of the bar at any time she is able to  38 j oin us.  39 THE REGISTRAR:  Thank you, my lord.  40 MR. GOLDIE:  My lord, on behalf of the Province, may I join in  41 the felicitious remarks made by Ms. Russell.  Most of  42 these ceremonial occasions are brought about by people  43 being called to the bar.  I am glad to think this is  44 one in which one is crossing the bar.  45 THE COURT:  Thank you, Mr. Goldie.  46 MR. RUSH:  My lord, I would like to rise as well to say that  47 there is yet another gift to come, but like perhaps a 16864  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1 few of the plaintiffs' documents, it's late.  But it  2 will be here.  This gift, like the rendering of many  3 of the others of us in the courtroom, is a rendering  4 by Don Monet who is our caricaturist and we have asked  5 him if he would do a drawing of you and Don is  6 presently completing that drawing.  So when it comes,  7 I'd like to pass it on to you and thank you.  8 THE REGISTRAR:  Thank you so much.  9 THE COURT:  Thank you, Mr. Rush.  Well, I suppose I must declare  10 the ceremony over.  11 THE REGISTRAR:  Thank you, my lord.  12 THE COURT:  Mr. Rush.  13 MR. RUSH:  Thank you.  14  15 EXAMINATION IN CHIEF BY MR. RUSH (Cont'd):  16 Q   Dr. Lane, if I may, I would like to direct your  17 attention back to tab 150.  And it was the last tab to  18 which you made reference on yesterday's date and I  19 would like to direct your attention, please, to the  20 last page of that tab which is page 52 and to the  21 postscript, and I would ask you if that postscript was  22 in the original -- well, which is now the copy of this  2 3 memorandum?  24 A   Yes, it was.  And it noted two other items besides the  25 aboriginal title issue which were being set aside at  26 this time for the purpose of dealing with the other  27 issues that needed to be resolved between the Province  2 8 and the Dominion Government regarding the Indian  29 lands.  30 Q   Okay.  Thank you.  May I direct your attention now to  31 tab 151.  32 A   Yes.  33 Q   Can you identify this document for us, please?  34 A   Yes.  This is the document which is usually referred  35 to as the McKenna McBride agreement.  36 Q   It is dated the 24th of September, 1912?  37 A   Correct.  38 Q   And in what passage would you have his lordship take  39 reference to?  4 0 A  Well, I believe the whole document.  Mr. McKenna was  41 acting as the representative for the Federal  42 Government and Mr. McBride for the Province of British  43 Columbia and the agreement set up the terms in which  44 the Royal Commission on Indian Affairs in British  45 Columbia was going to operate, what they were going to  46 do, and set out that there would be two commissioners  47 for the Province, two for the Federal Government and 16865  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1 those commissioners would select a fifth to be the  2 chief commissioners and these constituted the Royal  3 Commission to investigate Indian Affairs in British  4 Columbia.  5 Q   Okay.  And I draw your attention to the recitation  6 clause beginning:  7  8 "Whereas it is desireable to settle all  9 differences between the governments of the  10 Dominion and the Province respecting Indian lands  11 and Indian Affairs generally in the Province of  12 British Columbia."  13  14 A   Yes.  15 Q   Now, Dr. Lane --  16 A   The language there says:  17  18 "A final adjustment of all matters relating to  19 Indian Affairs,"  20  21 but of course the report that we have just discussed  22 set out several matters that were not going to be  23 considered within in framework by this commission.  24 Q   In that respect I would like to direct your to tab  25 152, and can you identify this document, please.  It's  26 P.C. 1401 at the top, June 10th, 1913.  27 A   I am sorry, you are at tab --?  28 Q   152.  29 A   Yes.  Privy Council 1401 is dated 10 June 1913.  That  30 is the date of approval.  And this discusses a  31 resolution passed by the Royal Commission of Indian  32 Affairs Tuesday, 20th May, 1913 in which its first  33 meeting the commission had asked for instructions  34 specifying the terms of reference under which it was  35 to act and asking for some instructions, because the  36 understanding was that Indian title, for example, and  37 hunting and fishing rights would not be included and  38 undoubtedly the Indians would be inquiring about that  39 matter and the commission wanted to know what they  40 were to say to the Indians and how they were to  41 proceed, whether it was desired that they hear from  42 the Indians on those matters and report back and make  43 suggestions or whether they were simply to advise the  44 Indians that that was outside the frame of reference  45 of the commission.  46 Q   And how does this Order-in-Council address this issue?  47 A  Well, the third paragraph -- well, the second 16866  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1 paragraph reads:  2  3 "The Minister observes that it is clear that the  4 agreement between the representatives of the  5 Province of British Columbia and the Dominion does  6 not contemplate an investigation and settlement of  7 matters appertaining to general Indian policy in  8 British Columbia.  It is confined to matters  9 affecting Indian lands which require adjustment  10 between the parties."  11  12 Q   And do the documents indicate who the parties were?  13 A   Yes.  The parties are the Federal Government, the  14 Dominion Government and the Provincial Government.  15 The Indians were not a party to this -- to the  16 agreement or to the commission in any way.  17 Q   And you were going to direct us to the third  18 paragraph, I think?  19 A   Yes.  The third paragraph sets out that:  20  21 "The Minister is of the opinion that it would be  22 inadvisable to burden the Commission with the  23 investigation of all matters that might be brought  24 to their attention by Indians."  25  26 And the commission is concerned that there should be  27 no misapprehension on the part of the Indians as to  28 what the commission is authorized to deal with.  2 9 Q   All right.  30 A   However, at the close of the document, while the  31 commission is restricted in its action, they would be  32 pleased -- the government would be pleased to hear  33 regarding information that is presented to the  34 commission.  35 Q   All right.  I want to direct you now to tab 153.  36 A   Yes.  37 Q   And this appears to be a typescript of P.C. 751?  38 A   Yes.  39 Q   And did you do the typescript --  4 0 A   I did.  41 Q   — Dr. Lane?  42 A   I did.  43 Q   And where was the original of this housed?  44 A   I believe I typed this from a poor Xerox copy from the  45 report which I believe came from the Public Archives  46 of Canada.  I can't be certain.  47 Q   All right.  And this is over the signature of Mr. 16867  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  Boudreau, Clerk of the Privy Council?  Yes.  And can you direct his lordship's attention to the  significant passage of this, if there is one that you  can identify?  MR. GOLDIE:  Well, this Order-in-Council is a very lengthy  document, my lord.  This one is?  The material here is of one page in length and sets  out that the Privy Council has reviewed a report of  the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs dated  11th March 1914 and an accompanying memorandum and the  committee makes these four recommendations as a result  of that review.  A  Q  THE COURT  A  MR.  RUSH:  Q  A  MR.  A  RUSH:  And what's the document that is the second page of the  tab?  The second page of the tab sets out an agreement.  It's titled "Agreement with Indians of British  Columbia as to Aboriginal Title."  And it was a form  agreement which was to be presented to the Indian  tribes in British Columbia for their signature in  which the burden of what is set out is that if the  aboriginal title issue is put before the Exchequer  Court, which is what the Indians wanted, or rather  they wanted it to go to the King, they wanted it to go  to the Privy Council in England, but the proposal here  was for the Department of Indian Affairs to pay the  legal costs and hire counsel and put the question  before the Exchequer Court in Canada with the right of  appeal to the Privy Council.  But the question was the  aboriginal title issue.  But the agreement also sets  out that if the court -- if the government allows this  to go to the court, the Indians will agree to accept  as final the work of the Royal Commission which has  just been set up, and the Indians declined to accept  those terms.  So this agreement was never put into  force, but this is here to show what it was that the  government was proposing to the Indians.  Dr. Lane, although it's not in this tab, the Privy  Council order makes reference to a report from the  Superintendent General of Indian Affairs dated March  11.  I wonder if you would confirm that that is the  report, please?  Yes, it is.  Thank you.  May that just be placed in the tab  behind the agreement and the witness has the copy. 1686?  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1 Thank you.  2 THE COURT:  This is a report referred to in Privy Council order  3 751?  4 MR. GOLDIE:  Yes.  5 MR. RUSH:  Yes, my lord.  751 at tab 153.  6 THE COURT:  Yes.  7 MR. RUSH:  8 Q   Now, Dr. Lane, the Royal Commission on Indian Affairs  9 for the Province of B.C. did meet and conduct hearings  10 in the province?  11 A   Yes.  Over a period of about four years.  12 MR. RUSH:   All right.  And the transcript of the Babine agency  13 has been placed in evidence before your lordship, my  14 lord, and I'm going to refer Dr. Lane to a passage out  15 of that.  16 THE COURT:  Well, I take it that the commissioners so  17 established have come to be called a Royal Commission,  18 have they?  19 MR. RUSH:  Yes.  20 THE COURT:  Were they a Royal Commission?  21 MR. RUSH:  Yes.  22 MR. GOLDIE:  Yes.  23 THE COURT:  All right.  24 MR. RUSH:  And they are colloquially called the McKenna McBride  25 Commission.  2 6 THE COURT:  Yes.  27 MR. RUSH:  But officially the Royal Commission on Indian Affairs  28 for the Province of British Columbia.  2 9 THE COURT:  All right.  Thank you.  30 MR. RUSH:  I am going to refer the witness' attention to  31 documents placed before Dr. Galois in Volume 6 and in  32 particular the tab 80 which must be 380 and this, my  33 lord, is the transcript of the hearings of the Babine  34 agency of the Royal Commission.  35 Q   Dr. Lane, I am going to ask you, if you will, to turn  36 to page 13 and there is a 13 in the upper right-hand  37 corner.  There are a number of numerals indicating  38 different ways of paginating this document, but I'll  39 ask you to look at the written 13 in the upper  40 right-hand corner.  41 A   Yes.  42 Q   Which is a meeting with the Kitwanga band or tribe of  43 Indians at Kitwanga I. R. on Saturday, April 15, 1915.  44 Do you have that page?  4 5          A   I do.  46 Q   And I direct your attention, please, to Mr.  47 Commissioner Carmichael and his comments at the bottom 16869  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1 of the page.  2 A   Yes.  3 Q   Have you located that?  4 A   I have.  5 Q   And Mr. Commissioner Carmichael, was he one of the  6 five commissioners?  7 A   Yes, he was.  8 Q   And do you know whether he was appointed by the  9 Province or the Federal side?  10 A   I'm sorry, I would need to refresh my memory.  11 Q   All right.  12 THE COURT:  Can counsel agree?  Can counsel agree?  13 MR. GOLDIE:  I can't recall, my lord.  14 MR. RUSH:  Nor can I.  15 MR. GOLDIE:  I would need to prefresh my memory.  16 THE COURT:  All right.  17 MR. RUSH:  As would I.  18 THE COURT:  Thank you.  19 MR. RUSH:  20 Q   Now, Dr. Lane, Mr. Commissioner Carmichael's comments,  21 would you just review those, please, those four lines?  22 A   Yes.  In response to an address by two of the Indians  23 Mr. Carmichael -- at the outset of the meeting Mr.  24 Carmichael said:  25  26 "So as far as this band of Indians is concerned,  27 if this band wants more lands if you will make  28 application for it we will consider it, but we  29 cannot discuss the larger question which is called  30 aboriginal title."  31  32 Q   All right.  Now, have you reviewed the transcript of  33 the Babine agency hearings?  34 A   Yes, I have.  35 Q   All right.  And in respect of comments made by either  36 Commissioner Carmichael or other commissioners at  37 other meetings of Indians, were comments of a similar  38 type, that is to say "but we cannot discuss the larger  39 question which is called aboriginal title claim," made  40 at those other meetings of Indians by commissioners?  41 A   Yes.  I have reviewed all of the hearings of the Royal  42 Commission and all of the commissioners, whether --  43 let me put it this way:  Commissioners both  44 representing the Province and representing the  45 Dominion Government on one or another occasion and  46 very frequently in their travels had occasion to,  47 pursuant to their instructions, explicitly explain to 16870  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1  2  3  4  Q  5  6  7  A  8  9  Q  10  A  11  Q  12  13  14  THE  COURT  15  MR.  RUSH:  16  THE  COURT  17  MR.  RUSH:  18  Q  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  A  26  Q  27  MR.  GOLDI  28  29  30  MR.  RUSH:  31  Q  32  33  A  34  35  36  37  Q  38  A  39  Q  40  41  A  42  Q  43  44  45  46  47  the Indians that they were not empowered to hear or  deal with the aboriginal title issue.  The statement  was made on a number of occasions.  All right.  Now, Dr. Lane, have you reviewed the  transcript of hearings of the the Royal Commission in  agencies other than the Babine agency?  Yes, I have reviewed all of the hearings of the Royal  Commission.  All right.  If you would turn, please, to tab 154.  In this same book?  No, it isn't.  And I will just ask that that be set  aside, thank you.  We are back to your book of  documents at tab 154.  :  That's in Volume 2?  Volume 3.  :  3?  I direct you to the -- an excerpt from the Royal  Commission in the Naas Agency of 1915 and in  particular to the meeting at Port Essington on  September 25, 1915.  And in respect it appears to be  representations made by the Chief Sam Kennedy of  Kitsumkalum and Charles Nelson of Kitsumkalum.  Do you  have that, Dr. Lane?  Yes.  All right.  £:  My lord, I have no reason to doubt the  authenticity, but I wonder if my friend could state  the origin of the document in front of --  Can you assist us, Dr. Lane, in respect of the origin  of the Naas Agency transcript?  Yes.  These transcripts are available on microfilm and  this typescript was made under my direction by a  typist from -- directly from the microfilm, because  the microfilm does not always copy well.  And the microfilm is held at the Provincial --  Provincial Archives of British Columbia in Victoria.  Thank you.  Now, I direct your attention to the  address by Charles Nelson on page one.  Yes.  And my lord, I would ask you to refer to the first --  about 12 lines of Mr. Nelson's address and then Dr.  Lane, if I may, I'd like to take you to page eight and  if you reviewed this with respect to the comments made  by the commissioners on this point.  Beginning at the  bottom of the page, "THE CHAIRMAN:  Now we have 16871  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1 listened."  2 A   Yes.  The chairman said:  3  4 "Now we have listened to all the Indians about  5 their claim to all the land - this is what is  6 generally known as the Aboriginal Title and we  7 have heard that claim from other Indians in other  8 portions of the Province.  The two Governments,  9 however, have not given us power to deal with that  10 question or claim of yours to all the land in the  11 Province.  But notwithstanding this your  12 statements that you have made here today have been  13 taken down in writing and will be sent to both  14 Governments - the Government at Ottawa and the  15 Government at Victoria; but I think you must know  16 that two or three delegations have gone to Ottawa  17 on this very subject, and the Government at Ottawa  18 has listened very carefully indeed to these  19 delegations, and they have passed an  20 Order-in-Council stating that they will leave that  21 claim of yours to the Exchequeur Court to be  22 decided - and not only that they have agreed in  23 case that Exchequer Court might decide in a way  24 that would not be pleasing to you, that you shall  25 have the right of appeal before the King's Privy  26 Council and before his judges - And they have even  27 gone further than that - In order to fully protect  28 you they have agreed to employ counsel for you  29 and pay those lawyers both in Ottawa and in  30 England to look after your case and that  31 Order-in-Council has been sent to us in order that  32 we might explain it and tell it to you."  33  34 Do you wish me to go on?  35 Q   Yes, please.  36 A  37 "Now, I am sorry to hear that you don't like  38 reserves.  Now I think the reserves are of very  39 great benefit to you in that it gives you that  40 land free from the white men, and the only regret  41 is that a Commission such as this was not  42 appointed eight or ten years ago before all the  43 land had been gobbled up by the white man, and I  44 hope that you will be able to point out to us  45 where there are some additional lands still vacant  46 and if you can do this we shall be pleased to give  47 them to you." 16872  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1  2 Q   Go ahead.  3 A  4 "As I told you before the great majority of the  5 Indians have been glad to get these additional  6 reserves and have taken a great deal of pains to  7 tell us where they are - Now, at one of these  8 places where we went we were speaking to them  9 about the Aboriginal Title and asked them about  10 some additional reserves and some of the Indians  11 in that place told us we don't like to ask for any  12 more land.  If we ask you for more land it looks  13 as if we are giving up claim - if we ask for more  14 land it looks as though we are admitting that our  15 claim is no good.  On hearing argument we  16 reported that to the Dominion Government and they  17 told us to assure the Indians that that would have  18 no effect on the claim that you are making and  19 which will go before the Exchequer Court."  20  21 Q   All right.  Thank you.  Now, I direct your attention  22 next to tab 155 to the meeting of the Royal Commission  23 at Kincolith of the Naas Agency on October 2, 1915 and  24 I would ask you, Dr. Lane, if you would turn to the  25 extract at page ten.  And I'll just refer you to the  26 address of John Wesley and if you look that into  27 account.  2 8 A   I did.  29 Q   All right.  I won't ask you to read from that, Dr.  30 Lane.  And next I'll take you to 156, this is the  31 Royal Commission hearings at Lachkaltsap,  32 L-a-c-h-k-a-1-t-s-a-p, October 5, 1915.  Now, my lord,  33 that is a band on the Nass River in the Naas Agency,  34 and refer you to page two, the extract and the  35 comments of Mr. Commissioner MacDowall on page two.  36 A   Yes.  At the top of the page the commissioner says:  37  38 "We will consider everything that you bring before  39 us most carefully and in the most friendly spirit  40 we possibly can, but this question of the Indian  41 Title, as I told you before it is to be referred  42 to the Courts, and we have absolutely no power to  43 deal with it."  44  45 Q   Thank you.  Now, tab 157, Dr. Lane.  4 6 A   Excuse me.  I might --  47 Q   Yes. 16873  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1  A  2  3  4  5  6  7  Q  8  MR.  GOLDI  9  10  11  12  MR.  RUSH:  13  Q  14  A  15  Q  16  THE  COURT  17  18  MR.  GOLDI  19  20  21  22  23  24  THE  COURT  25  MR.  RUSH:  26  Q  27  28  29  30  31  32  A  33  Q  34  THE  COURT  35  MR.  RUSH:  36  THE  COURT  37  A  38  MR.  RUSH:  39  Q  40  A  41  Q  42  43  44  A  45  46  47  -- point out at the later words of Mr. MacDowall on  that page, which is page 2 at the top and 96 at the  bottom.  He notes that the Order-in-Council which was  passed which allowed for that title question to go  before the court is connected with the Nishga petition  that was taken to Ottawa.  All right.  Thank you.  £:  With respect, my lord, I am not -- I wouldn't want  my silence to indicate agreement with that  interpretation that the -- I think he's referring to  the Order-in-Council establishing the commission.  You've placed this in a certain context, Dr. Lane?  Yes.  And —  :  The distinction being one setting up the Commission  and --  H:  Well, the Order-in-Council 751 is the 1914  Order-in-Council which established a means of a  reference to the Exchequer Court, but then there is an  Order-in-Council setting up the Royal Commission which  was to be a final resolution of matters between the  parties.  :  Yes.  All right.  That will be a matter of argument.  Dr. Lane, I just -- in terms of your  contexturalization of that comment, I draw your  attention to the document that you have referred us to  earlier at tab 148, which appears to be the Doherty to  Roche letter with regard to the petition of the Nishga  Indians of British Columbia December 17, 1913.  I am sorry.  What tab are you?  148.  :  Same book.  It's in the same.  :  It's 48.  Back?  If you go back it's 48.  Yes.  Back in 48.  Yes, I have it now.  I just ask you if you took that letter into account in  the contexturalization in the comments of Commissioner  MacDowall?  Yes.  I did.  If I may refer you to the bottom of the  first page the paragraph begins:  "I may remind you that it was the declared policy 16874  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1 of our predecessors in office to submit to the  2 courts for decision the question of the aboriginal  3 title which is the subject of this petition and  4 has been for some years."  5  6 And then I have nothing more on this page.  It didn't  7 copy.  And then at the top of the next page:  8  9 "Questions with that object in view were framed  10 for reference to the Supreme Court of Canada, but  11 the proposed reference fell through because the  12 Government of British Columbia would not agree to  13 the submission."  14  15 And then it goes on to the alterations that were made  16 to the Indian Act in 1910 and 1911 and then:  17  18 "By the provisions of this enactment it is  19 competent to His Majesty to proceed in the  20 Exchequer Court or in the Supreme Court of British  21 Columbia to recover possession of lands for the  22 benefit of the Indians, and the enactment was  23 devised to provide a means or convenient procedure  24 for the determination by the courts of the  25 questions which are raised by this petition."  26  27 And I believe the petition which is referred to here  28 is the Nishga petition.  29 Q   All right.  Thank you.  May I ask you now to turn  30 ahead.  31 A   It then goes on --  32 THE COURT:  I am sorry, where is the reference to the petition?  33 A  At the end of the first paragraph on the second page  34 of the document  35 THE COURT:  Oh, yes.  All right.  3 6    MR. RUSH:   And —  37 MR. GOLDIE:  Well, your lordship will see the difficulties we  38 get into when we have conceptualization being a handy  39 word for interpretation.  Mr. MacDowall says in 1915.  40  41 "The Nishga Indians went down to Ottawa to  42 interview the Superintendent General of Indian  43 Affairs this summer,"  44  45 And Mr. Doherty, which is the Minister of Justice, was  46 writing in 1913.  It's all going to come clear because  47 all of these documents are going to have to be before 16875  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1  2  3  THE  COURT  4  MR.  RUSH:  5  Q  6  7  8  A  9  Q  10  THE  COURT  11  MR.  RUSH:  12  THE  COURT  13  MR.  RUSH:  14  Q  15  A  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Q  26  A  27  28  29  30  31  Q  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  A  40  41  Q  42  A  43  44  45  46  47  your lordship and they will include the petitions and  there were more than one.  :  Yes.  All right.  So that, Dr. Lane, deals with the Nishga petition and  I think you can set that aside with -- the tab 148 you  can set aside.  Would you turn to 157, please.  Yes.  Turn ahead.  Can you just identify what's here for us?  :  I will am sorry, one --  157.  :  Thank you.  If you will turn to page 787.  Yes.  These are extracts of Debates, the Official  Report of the Debates of the House of Commons of the  Dominion of Canada in 1920 published in 1920, and the  extracts here relate to debates over what was then, I  believe, probably Bill 13, which was finally enacted  into law and it was the matter of settlement of  differences concerning Indian lands.  That heading  under British Columbia Indians at the right-hand  column on the first page of the extract is the subject  matter.  All right.  And the Mr. Meighen, who was the Minister of the  Interior and Superintendent General of Indian Affairs,  M-e-i-g-h-e-n, was putting the bill forward for  discussion and there were debates about the  advisability of enacting it into law.  Thank you.  And if I direct your attention to 791,  please, and 792 in the right-hand column.  About the  third of the way down Mr. Mackenzie King's address:  "Are the Indians themselves satisfied with the  settlement that is proposed here?"  And Mr. Meighen makes this comment.  Yes.  You mean the comment beginning "That is a pretty  large order"?  Yes.  "I do not know that they are.  I believe the  Indians of British Columbia, at least some people  who represent them, claim that they want to go to  the foot of the Throne on the whole question of  Indian title in British Columbia, but that is 16876  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1 another question.  They claim that the old Indian  2 title has never been extinguished in British  3 Columbia, but I do not think there will be any  4 object served in getting into a discussion of that  5 subject; it has to do with the state of mind of  6 the Indians, and I do not think I would be  7 justified in saying that all the Indians of  8 British Columbia are satisfied, because I do not  9 think they are and I do not think they ever will  10 be."  11  12 Q   And I direct your attention to Mr. Bureau's speech  13 following Mr. -- well, Mr. Bureau then spoke, followed  14 by Mr. Meighen and then Mr. Bureau again?  15 A   Yes.  16 Q   And I direct your attention to that and to your  17 lordship's attention and over to 792, Dr. Lane, Mr.  18 Meighen's speech on the left-hand column?  19 A   Yes.  20 Q   And would draw again your attention to Mr. Peck's  21 speech in the right-hand column?  22 A   Yes.  Mr. Peck was the member for Skeena and he spoke  23 here with these words:  24  25 "While I have no desire to see this Bill hurried  26 through, I desire to say a word or two in regard  27 to the advisability of proceeding.  There are more  28 Indians in the constituency of Skeena than perhaps  29 in any other riding in Canada, and I am the very  30 last man who would wish to do an injustice to  31 them.  I have the very greatest respect for the  32 Indian tribes in my riding, especially the more  33 advanced tribe of Tsimpshian; but I have known of  34 this controversy for a long time, and I do not see  35 that we shall get anywhere unless we empower the  36 minister to deal with the Government of British  37 Columbia.  There are in British Columbia a lot of  38 reserves that have been held up for years, such  39 for instance as the Gitsalt Reserve.  I may say  40 that there is a good deal of mining up in the  41 mountains and in the valley, and the whole  42 development of the district is held up because the  43 reserve cannot be dealt with.  If this Bill passes  44 it will be possible, I understand, for that  45 reserves to revert immediately to the province of  46 British Columbia, and development of the country  47 will be proceeded with.  I should like to know who 16877  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  are the Indians agitators that come from British  Columbia.  Some representatives of the Indians may  be all right, but I may mention a man named  O'Meara — "  And it cuts off at that point.  Q   All right.  Now, Dr. Lane, if I can direct your  attention to tab 158.  THE COURT:  I suppose that's Mr. Richard Peck's grandfather, is  it?  MR. GOLDIE:  Yes.  Mr. Cy Peck.  THE COURT:  Yes.  We won't go into that.  MR.  RUSH:  Q  A  Q  A  Q  A  Dr. Lane, would you please turn to tab 158, the  Debates of the Senate of the Dominion of Canada of  June 2, 1920 and to the speech of the Honourable Sir  James Lougheed which appears on page 475?  Yes.  And I direct you to a portion about a little over  halfway down beginning "the Royal Commission,  representing both Governments."  Do you have that?  Yes, I have that.  And it's on 475, my lord.  Yes.  Quoting Mr. Lougheed:  "The Royal Commission, representing both  Governments, and extending over some three years  of continuous labour, paid the closest attention  to the different questions submitted by the  Indians, with the result that they have arrived at  the report already submitted to Parliament to  which I have referred, and to which it is proposed  to give effect by the legislation before us.  The  province of British Columbia passed almost  precisely similar legislation to that which we  have before us.  This is an enabling Act to permit  both Governments to come together, and to give  effect to the findings contained in the report.  I  might say further, honourable gentlemen, that we  do not propose to exclude the claims of the  Indians.  It will be manifest to every honourable  gentleman that if the Indians have claims anterior  to Confederation, or anterior to the creation of  the two Crown colonies in the province of British  Columbia, they could be adjusted or settled by the  Imperial authorities.  Those claims are still  valid.  If the claim be a valid one which is being 16878  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Q  15  A  16  Q  17  THE  COURT  18  19  MR.  RUSH:  20  21  THE  COURT  22  MR.  RUSH:  23  THE  COURT  24  25  MR.  RUSH:  26  27  THE  COURT  28  MR.  RUSH:  29  THE  COURT  30  MR.  RUSH:  31  Q  32  33  A  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  Q  41  42  43  A  44  45  46  Q  47  THE  COURT  advanced by this gentleman and those associated  with him as to the Indian tribes of British  Columbia being entitled to the whole of the lands  in British Columbia, this Government cannot  disturb that claim.  That claim can still be  asserted in the future.  But whatever differences  exist between this Government and the Government  of British Columbia, it is very desirable that  they should be settled, and that both Governments  should unite in a mutual and co-operative plan for  the purpose of doing what is in the best interests  of the Indians in that province."  Now, the Senate approved the legislation, Dr. Lane?  That's correct.  Would you turn to tab 159.  :  I am sorry, Mr. Rush, I am not at this moment now  clear what the legislation was for.  The British Columbia Indian Land Settlement Act was  the —  :  B.C. -- British Columbia Indian --  Indian Land Settlement Act.  :  And it did that, confirm the report of the Royal  Commission on --  The recommendations of the commission, that's  correct.  :  All right.  Recommendation on reserves?  That's correct.  :  Yes.  All right.  Thank you.  Now, turning to tab 159, Dr. Lane, would you just  identify this document for us, please?  Yes.  This is entitled "Memorandum of Agreement  Arrived at Between Dr. Duncan C. Scott and Mr. W.E.  Ditchburn on Behalf of the Dominion Government and Mr.  Henry Cathcart and Mr. O.C. Bass on Behalf of the  Provincial Government."  And it's colloquially  frequently referred to as the Scott-Cathcart  Agreement.  And I won't ask you to interpret this document, but  would you just summarize what the document says,  please?  Yes.  This dealt with the manner in which Indian  reserves would be treated that fell within lands known  as the Railway Belt and the Peace River Block.  All right.  :  Indian reserves within the Railway Belt and the 16879  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1  2  A  3  4  5  6  7  THE COURT  8  A  9  MR. RUSH:  10  Q  11  A  12  Q  13  14  A  15  Q  16  A  17  18  Q  19  A  20  Q  21  22  A  23  24  25  26  Q  27  A  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  Q  41  42  A  43  Q  44  A  45  46  Q  47  Peace River Block?  The Railway Belt and the -- yes.  These were two  pieces of land that were exchanged between the Federal  Government and the Provincial Government at various  times and the question was the status of Indian  reserves within those particular two --  :  Thank you.  -- kinds of land.  Now, I would like you, please, to go to tab 160.  Yes.  And if you could identify the author of this document.  It seems to be six pages in length.  Ashdown Green, the surveyor.  And the recipient of this letter --  It is addressed to the Secretary, Department of Indian  Affairs, Ottawa.  And the date appears to be?  September 6, 1910.  All right.  And what does this letter address, Dr.  Lane?  This addresses passive resistance which Mr. Surveyor  Ashdown Green encountered when he attempted to go up  to the Kispiox and Kitwancool area to survey Indian  reserves.  Okay.  And that appears from paragraph two, does it?  Yes.  He begins at paragraph two much of the  communication deals with it.  It says:  "Although I did not know it at the time, I here  encountered at the hands of the Indians, a passive  obstruction to my work that continued until I  left.  I had been told that I could easily obtain  the three horses I required, but I found the  greatest difficulty in obtaining any, as those  brought in were mostly unfit for work, and the few  that were accepted invariably broke their ropes in  unaccountable ways and got away."  This is dealing with the visit he made to the  Kitwancool Valley?  Yes.  And I direct your --  He was securing horses for his transport to  Kitwancool.  Yes.  I want to direct your attention to page two of  this letter, please. 16880  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1  A  2  Q  3  4  A  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  Q  34  35  36  A  37  Q  38  39  A  40  41  42  43  44  THE COURT  45  46  A  47  THE COURT  Yes.  Seems to be describing at the top of that page the  visit to the Village at Kitwancool?  Yes.  "On the 10th August I arrived at Kitwancool and  at once called the meetings of the Indians, and  explained to them the object of my visit.  They  informed me at first that they did not want me,  that the whole country belonged to them, and  that they had been advised by a Toronto lawyer  named Clarke, not to accept reserves until their  in 'petition' had been answered.  This answer they  expected before the snow came.  When their claims  were settled the white men could come in.  I told them that if they did not want  reserves the Government would not survey any for  them.  I also showed them how within the last two  years white settlement had increased and how land  that was really necessary for them had been  surveyed and in some instances sold and that if  action was delayed Crown Grants would be issued  and only poor lands would be left from which to  define reserves.  Should this occur they would  only have themselves the to blame.  I told them  that as they did not want reserves the best thing  to do was to ask the Provincial authorities to  make Government reserves of the lands and  fisheries they occupied, and not to sell them, and  they agreed that pending the result of their  'lawsuit' this would be the best plan."  All right.  Now, Dr. Lane, I want to ask you if you  have reviewed the documents that are contained at  tab — at tabs 161 through to tab 194?  Yes, I have.  And in a general way can you tell us what these  documents contained in these tabs refer to?  Yes.  These are primarily, if not entirely,  correspondence, letters between the Indian Affiars  Department in Ottawa and representatives of the Indian  Affiars Department whether agents or surveyors or  others in British Columbia and I believe --  :  Representatives of the same department in British  Columbia?  Yes.  :  Yes. 16881  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1  A  2  3  THE  COURT:  4  5  MR.  RUSH:  6  7  A  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Q  15  A  16  17  1  18  Q  19  20  A  21  22  23  24  1  25  26  27  28  MR.  RUSH:  29  1  30  31  1  32  THE  COURT:  33  34  35  36  MR.  RUSH:  37  THE  COURT:  38  MR.  RUSH:  39  40  41  ]  42  43  THE  COURT:  44  45  MR.  GOLDIE  46  47  Either the local agent or the surveyor working to  survey Indian reserves in British Columbia.  And these extend, do they, Mr. Rush, from 61 to  what?  161, my lord.  Although it is a 61 it is the next  series.  Tabs 161 to 194.  There are also some R.C.M.P. police reports with  respect to resistance by primarily Kitwancool Indians  but also others I believe in this set obstructing  surveys in the Kitwancool Valley and newspaper  articles such as at tab 183 referring to jail  sentences given to Indians for obstructing Dominion  surveyors.  And these --  And letters from Indians, I believe.  In particular,  several chiefs to the Department of Indian Affairs in  Ottawa respecting these matters.  And these matters pertaining to Kitwancool Indians in  the Kitwancool Valley?  That's right.  Until the question has been dealt with.  And these letters span from the 1910 through the  1930's.  I see there is even one or two letters in  here.  One to Mr. Arneil who is the Indian  Commissioner for B. C.  That's at tab 191 and the date  is 1957.  I see further, I guess at tab 193 there is  something dated 1960 to Mr. Frank Howard M. P., House  of Commons, Ottawa.  All right.  My lord, I don't intend to refer to the  documents seriatim.  I simply intend to leave Dr.  Lane's summary description of the content of the  documents as she has indicated.  Yes.  Well, at some time we have to talk about a  number for all this and you are saying, are you, that  you want this to stand as the collection of documents  that you want to have considered as part of the --  Yes.  -- matrix of evidence in this case?  Yes.  If there is any difficulty with that, I will  ask Dr. Lane to go through them in a hurried fashion  to identify them, if that need be, but I thought this  might be a way -- I don't intend to refer further to  this question.  Do you have any submission in that, Mr. Goldie, Miss  Koenigsberg?  :  Well, I am assuming that at some point my friend is  going to indicate what he wants done.  In my view  nothing turns on whether Dr. Lane reads them or not. 16882  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1  THE  COURT:  2  3  4  5  MS.  KOENIG  6  7  8  THE  COURT:  9  MR.  RUSH:  10  11  1  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  THE  COURT:  20  MR.  RUSH:  21  1  22  THE  COURT:  23  MR.  RUSH:  24  25  26  THE  COURT:  27  28  29  MR.  RUSH:  30  THE  COURT:  31  ]  32  MR.  RUSH:  33  THE  COURT:  34  MR.  RUSH:  35  36  THE  COURT:  37  MR.  RUSH:  38  39  1  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  MR.  GOLDIE  No.  I think it's helpful if there is something  significant that she points out, but I am happy to  leave it as Mr. Rush is suggesting.  I'd like to hear  from counsel.  SBERG:  Well, I have no objection.  I think it's a  helpful way to deal with it, a large number of --  apparently a broad variety types of documents.  Yes.  All right.  Well, I should tell -- I should state my position on  the documents.  I will be asking that each one of the  document books for Dr. Lane be marked as a book, but  that as a separate exhibit and that the tabs that have  been referred to by Dr. Lane be separately identified  within that exhibit.  We followed this practice on  earlier exhibits.  So, for example, I would ask that  Exhibit 1 or Volume 1 of Dr. Lane's books be the next  exhibit and so on through.  I intended to do that all  at the end of her direct-examination.  All right.  Well, you don't wish to do that now.  No, I don't wish to do it now.  I will finish the  direct and proceed to then.  All right.  Now, I am going to direct Dr. Lane's attention to  the next document book which is document book number  four.  Well, just before you do that, it seems to me that I  was told that this collection extended from 161 to  194, but that doesn't take us to the end of the book.  No.  And a number of the documents have been --  Oh wait a minute.  Maybe they have already been  mentioned, have they?  Yes, they have.  All right.  All but I believe two, but -- and I will be dealing  with those shortly.  All right.  Thank you.  Now, I handed up a Volume 4 which is the last of the  four volumes of Dr. Lane's.  And this volume contains  documents, my lord, that deal with Dr. Lane's opinion  on the land transfers and Indians preemptions in the  Bulkley Valley which was the second of two summaries  of opinion disclosed to my learned friends, and I  intend now to take her to the opinions contained in  that statement and will ask her to address the her  opinion in connection with the documents which are  contained in Volume 4.  :  Well, I have raised an objection to that, my lord, 16?  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  THE COURT  MR. RUSH  MR.  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  and I do not understand my objection to have been  overruled.  In my submission Dr. Lane is not entitled  to pass opinions with respect to matters which are  being derived from documents.  Well, is there anything different you are proposing  for this one, Mr. Rush, from what we have been  enjoying for the last two or three days?  There is in the sense that there are ethnographic and  anthropological opinions which in part weave their way  through some of the documents, and my understanding of  your lordship's view of the treatment of the documents  by Dr. Lane in terms of the Indian title opinion was  not that she couldn't express ethnographic or  anthropological views where appropriate, and in fact I  had the impression that throughout the leading of her  evidence that there wasn't an objection where those  issues arose.  But I don't propose really in terms of  any of the documents to, despite my wish to do so, to  ask Dr. Lane to comment on the content of the document  or to really go beyond what we have established as a  practice up to this point.  Doesn't mean to say that  what the basis of the introduction of this material  was, namely that it was an opinion, and that we seek  to elicit that opinion, but I am, of course, mindful  of your lordship's ruling on that.  Well, I don't think I want to make a blanket ruling  on a hundred and seventy-eight documents.  I think I  have to deal with them as we go along, and if there  are problems I will do my best to give counsel a  ruling with respect to it.  Now, if we proceed as we  have, I think we have an understanding of what Dr.  Lane is permitted to do and what she isn't.  When you  depart from that, Mr. Rush, it seems to me you are  going to have to make that clear and I'll have to deal  with it.  RUSH:  All right.  Thank you.  GOLDIE:  I didn't intend to ask your lordship for a blanket  ruling.  COURT:  No.  GOLDIE:  What I arose to was my friend saying I am going to  an opinion and I am going to elicit an opinion.  Yes.  Well, we'll see what we can --  All right.  Then, my lord, perhaps I can advise you  that Volume 4 runs in its tab chronology from one  through to 78.  So for the sake of the record it  should be clear that I am not running the sequence of  tabs --  THE COURT  COURT  RUSH: 16884  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1  THE COURT  2  MR. RUSH:  3  4  5  6  THE COURT  7  MR. RUSH:  8  Q  9  A  10  Q  11  12  A  13  14  15  16  17  Q  18  A  19  20  Q  21  22  A  23  Q  24  25  A  26  Q  27  28  29  A  30  31  32  33  34  35  Q  36  37  A  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  :  No.  -- continuously through from two and three into four.  Volume 4 contains documents particularly relating to  the question land transfers and Indian preemptions in  the Bulkley Valley.  :  Yes.  Thank you.  Now, do you have Volume 4 in front of you Dr. Lane?  Yes, I do.  Now, would you turn, please, to tab one.  Would you  identify tab one for us?  Yes.  Tab one is a Statute of the Province of British  Columbia entitled "An Act to authorise Grants of Land  to British Columbia Volunteers serving in the South  African War."  It's frequently referred to as the  South African War Land Grant Act.  And —  It was passed May 11, 1901 and enacted into law on  that date.  And section 3 indicates the authority of the  lieutenant governor to make grants?  Yes.  Providing for 160 acres of land in various parts of  the province for persons who served in the war?  That's correct.  Okay.  Tabs two, three and four, Dr. Lane, can you  just move through these and identify these for us  as --  Yes.  Tabs two, three and four are subsequent  amendments to the original Act made in 1902, 1903 and  1904, and the amendments address and enlarge the  categories of persons who may benefit under the South  African War Land Grant Act and amend certain of the  conditions under which such land grants may be made.  Thank you.  And tab five, can you identify that for  us, please?  Yes.  This is a sample provided here just for  information as to the form under which the land script  was issued under that Act of 1901.  However, this is  the only sample of the script offered here.  I do not  believe it was the original form.  There is no date on  this form, but I would point out that it mentions  amending Acts, so it would have to be sometime  subsequent to January 1903, because the second  amendment was made in the year 1903 and this -- the  language in this Act contains a parenthetical phrase  which apparently must not have been in the earlier 16885  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1 form.  I would direct your attention to the language  2 here:  3  4 "This is to certify that (blank), his heirs and  5 assigns, is entitled, under the provisions of the  6 South African War Land Grant Act, 1901, and  7 amending Acts, to one hundred and sixty acres of  8 unoccupied, unclaimed and unreserved Crown land"  9  10 And then there is an open parenthesis:  11  12 "(excepting timber lands within the meaning of the  13 Land Act) in the Province of British Columbia."  14  15 Etc. etc.  And I believe that the parenthetical phrase  16 specifically exempting timber lands under the  17 definition of the Land Act was added later in these  18 forms.  19 Q   All right.  Turn you to tab 6, please.  Can you  20 identify what's at tab 6?  21 A   Yes.  Tab 6 is a typed transcript of handwritten  22 information which is contained in -- it's a very large  23 over-size handwritten registers deposited of the lands  24 department deposited in the Provincial Archives of  25 British Columbia, and these registers purport to  26 contain all records of all of the lands in British  27 Columbia which were Crown granted through use of the  28 South Africa War Script.  29 Q   Is this —  30 A   I am sorry, this section contains only the material  31 relating to a land district in British Columbia called  32 the Coast district.  33 Q   In terms of the arrangement of the information as you  34 show it on the first page of tab 6, how does it  35 compare with what appears in the register volumes?  36 A   This replicates the way the material is arranged in  37 the register.  38 Q   And who prepared this typescript?  39 A   I did.  4 0    THE COURT:  And can you tell me what comprises the Coast  41 district?  42 A   Yes.  If you would like to look at the next tab, the  43 last page, the next tab deals with the Cassiar  44 district and the final page there is a map of the day  45 which shows the division of land districts and you  46 will see that the Cassiar district covers a large area  47 in the north running somewhat south of Hazelton which 16?  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  MR.  RUSH:  Q  A  Q  A  Q  THE COURT  MR. RUSH:  Q  A  can be seen right in the centre of the lower part of  the Cassiar district.  I think you can read the name  Hazelton there and the Coast Range 5 which is  immediately south of the Cassiar district, the  intersection, the border between the northern part of  Coast Range 5 and the southern part of the Cassiar  district is about midway between the towns of Smithers  and Hazelton, so that part of the Bulkley Valley falls  into the Cassiar district and part into Coast Range 5,  and so the materials that have been extracted from the  registrar -- registers are in the first tab 6, the  Coast district and in the second tab 7, the material  from the Cassiar district.  And at tab 6, the Coast district is Coast district  Range 5?  Yes.  That can be seen by looking at the middle column  on the page.  Yes.  Where the district is identified.  Would you help us now, Dr. Lane, to help us explain  each -- every one of the columns.  Beginning with the  folio --  :  Which one are you looking at, Coast Range.  Coast district at tab five.  Looking at the first page of that material in tab  five, on the left-hand side the column headed "Folio"  has an identifying number next to each entry, and I  take that to be the original filing system in the Land  and Works Department from which the material in this  register was copied.  The second column says "Name of  Applicant," and in some cases there is only one name,  but in most cases, almost all of them, there are a  number of names.  The first name is the name of the  South African War veteran who was entitled to apply  for the script.  The subsequent names are assignees of  that veteran, usually people who purchased the script  for money for cash, and the final name listed is the  one to whom the Crown grant was issued.  Now, there,  of course, were subsequent transfers of these lands  after the Crown grant was issued, but the Provincial  Government register here only goes up to the point at  which the land is alienated by the Province.  Subsequent transfers, of course, have to be followed  in another source.  All right.  Now, this third column -- 16887  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1  A  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  THE  COURT  10  A  11  THE  COURT  12  A  13  THE  COURT  14  A  15  16  17  18  19  20  MR.  GOLDI  21  22  23  A  24  25  MR.  GOLDI  26  MR.  RUSH:  27  Q  28  A  29  Q  30  A  31  Q  32  THE  COURT  33  34  35  MR.  RUSH:  36  Q  37  A  38  39  40  41  THE  COURT  42  A  43  44  45  46  MR.  RUSH:  47  Q  Third column is the application number and that refers  to the application for the South African War grant  script.  And the number on top is the application  number as such and then there is a horizontal bar and  the two digit number below indicates the year in which  the application was made.  Zero one being 1901 and  these go on chronologically to 1902, three, four and  five.  :  What are the first numbers, 4144?  That is the application number for the script.  :  Oh, I see.  I believe.  :  And the 01?  The 01 is definitely the year.  And then if you look  at the next column, it's dated date application  received and you have, for example, 9 July 1901 and so  on.  The next column location is usually not filled  in, but occasionally there is an indication as to the  geographic location of the land.  The third column --  £:  Excuse me.  I wonder if the witness could assist.  Is every location then that is in the folio found here  or just a selection of them?  No.  I believe every time there was an entry I have  reproduced it here.  £:  Thank you.  You reproduced what was in the register?  Yes.  As it appears in the register?  Yes.  All right.  : I hope there is another Tulameen River in British  Columbia. The one I know is in the Okanagan. I am  sure there is another one.  Order-in-Council --  Yes.  The next column gives the Order-in-Council  number under the provisions of the South African War  Land Grant Act.  The applicants had to be passed on by  Order-in-Council.  :  That was to get the script, was it?  Yes, to get the script, and usually the  Order-in-Council will take care of a number of such  applications at one time and simply list the names of  the approved applicants.  And the date approved and date notified, is that the 16?  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  THE  MR.  THE  THE  THE  THE  A  Q  A  Q  A  Q  A  Q  A  date of the Order-in-Council in the next column?  A   Yes.  Those are six digit numbers.  The first two  being the day, the second two being the month and the  last two indicating the last two digits of the year.  Q   All right.  And the district I think you've explained  was Coast Range district?  Yes.  And then the heading "Surveyed Designation"?  Yes.  And this gives either a designation by section  or quarter section, as the case may be, or whatever,  and the lot number if the land has been so designated.  All right.  And the column for acreage?  Is generally 160 acres, which was the maximum that was  allowed under the Act.  Occasionally it's a lesser  amount if the land was bordered on a lake or water of  some kind that cut down the acreage.  And just carrying on right across, Dr. Lane.  The date gazetted is the time that the matter was  formally published in the Government Gazette.  And the Crown?  The Crown grant number, again these are two numbers,  one above and one below a vertical bar.  The figures,  I think, refer the uppermost to the Crown grant number  and the lower one to the volume in the lands  department in which the entry is made.  The volume  number.  Q   And the Crown grant date, of course, issuance of the  Crown grant?  A   Yes.  Q   All right.  And the remark column?  A  Again, there are not often entries in the remarks  column, but sometimes there are.  Some of them contain  the initials LI, which you see on the first page there  in the last line, simply meaning letters inward and  sometimes LO, letters outward, and this refers to  explanatory correspondence in the lands department  about the particular land in question.  COURT:  Should we take the morning adjournment?  RUSH:  Yes, my lord, but before we do, if I may just present  Mrs. Ritchie with the copy of the caricature that we  have for you.  Thank you.  REGISTRAR:  Well, I think that could hang in the halls of  justice.  COURT:  Oh.  We would know her anywhere.  REGISTRAR:  Thank you.  COURT:  All right.  Thank you. 16889  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED PURSUANT TO MORNING BREAK)  2  3 I hereby certify the foregoing to be  4 a true and accurate transcript of the  5 proceedings herein to the best of my  6 skill and ability.  7  8  9  10  11  12 Laara Yardley, Official Reporter,  13 United Reporting Service Ltd.  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47 16890  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Rush  THE REGISTRAR:  THE COURT:  MR. RUSH:  Q  Mr.  (PROCEEDINGS RESUMED AT 11:30)  Order in court.  Rush.  A  Q  A  A  Thank you.  Now, Dr. Lane, if I may turn you to tab 7.  This is entitled the "Cassiar District", and would you  explain if the procedure of transferring the  information from the register that you used for the  Coast District was used as well for the Cassiar  District?  Yes , it was.  All right.  And the information that is contained in  this table, is that replicated from the register as it  appeared from the register?  Yes.  I perhaps should have mentioned in connection  both with the material in this tab and the preceding  one, this is my best effort at exact replication of  what is in the handwritten register, and I have tried  to proof read this several times, and every time I  proof read it I discover one or two typographical  errors that slipped by, so I have to say it's subject  to that caveat, and also subject to a more important  one, because I think the typographical errors are  obvious, but in a few cases I believe the same name is  entered but looks as if it is spelled differently, an  N in one case, a W in another, where it's difficult to  be sure of the handwriting.  I have not silently  corrected these, even when I am sure that they're the  same name, but have left them exactly as they appear  in the original.  All right, thank you.  Now, from the information  that's contained in the register and which you have  placed in tab 6 and 7, by what means do you, if you  do, relate the information to the land?  Well, when a particular piece of land in the Bulkley  Valley came to my attention, because there was  correspondence or other documentation relating to a  problem of Indians being displaced from that land, I  then directed my attention to other information in the  correspondence which would help me to locate the piece  of land here.  Often the land was specifically  delineated as land that had been taken with South  African War Script.  Sometimes the name of the white  settler with whom the Indian was in contention is  mentioned, and so I scanned these registers for  whatever clues would tie them together, either the 16891  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Rush  1  2  3  4  Q  5  A  6  Q  7  8  9  10  A  11  Q  12  13  14  15  A  16  Q  17  A  18  Q  19  A  20  21  22  23  24  25  Q  26  27  28  A  29  Q  30  A  31  MR.  RUSH:  32  33  THE  COURT  34  MR.  RUSH:  35  36  THE  COURT  37  A  38  39  40  MR.  RUSH:  41  THE  COURT  42  MR.  RUSH:  43  Q  44  A  45  MR.  RUSH:  46  THE  COURT  47  MR.  RUSH:  name of the holder of the South African War Script, or  the name of his assignee, or the description of the  land.  All right.  Either by lot number or section number.  Now, if I can take you please to tab 8.  Perhaps just  before I do, the tab 6, the Coast District Range 5  runs pages 1 to 41.  Are those all of the Script  Grants for the Bulkley for the Coast District Range 5?  Yes.  And similarly with respect to the document contained  at tab 7, which runs pages 1 through to -- perhaps you  can just assist us there, Dr. Lane.  Perhaps there are  two page 41's.  You've identified the document?  It would appear that way.  At page 7?  At tab 7 .  At tab 7, thank you.  Yes.  I believe that -- well, the Cassiar material  runs through page 5, and I don't know -- I don't  recall whether there was page 6 that inadvertently is  not here and a second page 41 from the end of the  Coast District.  I could at the break perhaps  determine that.  All right.  In my copy, Dr. Lane, I have a page 41  which apparently was taken from the back of the  previous tab?  Yes, that's correct.  And that shouldn't appear there?  That's correct, that should be removed.  And I don't know, in your lordship's copy it would  just be before the map.  :  Mm-hmm.  But page 41 shouldn't be there and pages 1 through 5  representing the Cassiar District Script.  :  Yes.  I will attempt to check this during the lunch break.  There may be a final page beyond page 5, it should be  with the Cassiar set.  Would you direct your attention now to --  :  Sorry, I think I've made --  You should have five pages, numbers 1 to 5?  Page 41, is that the same page as 41 on the --  Yes, that's right.  :  So it doesn't belong here.  It doesn't belong there, it should be taken out. 16892  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Rush  1 THE COURT:  Yes, all right.  2 THE REGISTRAR:  Do you want it removed from the —  3 MR. RUSH:  4 Q   It's not necessary to have it.  Now, that's fine, just  5 leave it there, Dr. Lane.  Tab 8, please.  Now, can  6 you identify this for us, Dr. Lane?  7 A   Yes.  This is a type script which I made, and there is  8 an error in it which I will draw your attention to.  9 Q   This is a type script of what?  10 A   This is an article, a news article which appeared in  11 the Vancouver Daily Province, and I have omitted the  12 word "Province" in the last line of the second page  13 below the bar where I was giving the source of the  14 article.  15 Q   And this is your type script?  16 A   Yes, it is.  17 Q   And the source of the document?  18 A   The Vancouver Daily Province.  I did this from a  19 microfilm at the Victoria Public Library, I believe.  20 Q   Now, I direct your attention to the first paragraph.  21 A   Yes.  22 Q   Reference is made to:  23  24 "The Honourable W.C. Wells, Chief Commissioner of  25 Lands and Works in the present Government, and so  26 stated to the Province today."  27  28 A   Yes.  29 Q   And what would you direct our attention to here?  30 A  Well, the next paragraph describes the situation.  31 People are attempting to purchase and assemble Script  32 under the South African War Land Grant Act in order to  33 take up holdings of timber land, and the Chief  34 Commissioner of Lands and Works is asserting that the  35 province will not permit this to go on.  And the last  36 paragraph sets out some of the remarks of Mr. Wells,  37 who was the Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works.  He  38 says:  39  40 "The Scrip does not apply to timber lands at all.  41 The grant was given to the men who went from  42 British Columbia to fight, as a token of British  43 Columbia's appreciation of their heroism.  The Act  44 stated that the Scrip which was issued will be  45 accepted in payment of pre-emption arrears to the  46 amount of one dollar per acre.  Sufficient  47 scrip was granted to pay for 160 acres.  Nearly 16893  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Rush  1 all of this scrip has since changed hands, and  2 speculators now cry out because the government  3 will not accept it for timber lands.  The  4 government is not going to give one of the most  5 valuable assets of the province for one dollar an  6 acre, and the sooner the holders of the scrip  7 know it the better.  8 'It was only the other day that we withdrew  9 timber lands for sale at three dollars per acre',  10 continued, Mr. Wells, 'and it is safe to say that  11 every man who has purchased the scrip was aware  12 of the fact.  I believe that knowing that, they  13 thought they could get around the matter by  14 picking up $160 worth of scrip at discount  15 prices.'  16 'The Land Act expressly states what lands  17 may be pre-empted, and what are timber lands.  18 Timber lands, as defined in the Act, are lands  19 carrying over 1,000 feet of timber to the acre.  20 The other may be pre-empted.  As I said before,  21 the Government is determined upon this point, and  22 it may save these people trouble to let them  23 know that no wails or cries for sympathy will have  24 any effect upon us.'"  25  26 Q   That was a letter of January the 7th, 1903?  27 A   Yes.  This was in 1903.  28 MR. GOLDIE:  I wonder if the witness has a copy of the microfilm  29 transcript it was made from.  If so, I would request  30 that it be produced.  31 MR. RUSH:  32 Q   We can certainly provide that, that's no difficulty,  33 and if it's provideable, presumably if it's a  34 difficult matter to provide by copying -- well, we'll  35 see.  Dr. Lane, tab 9, please.  This is your type  36 script of an article taken from the Vancouver --  37 excuse me -- Victoria Daily Colonist of July 2nd,  38 1905?  39 A   That's correct.  And this is simply a notice that the  40 African Script had lapsed.  41 Q   And as at what date?  42 A   1905.  43 Q   1905, yes?  44 A   Yes.  It ran to July 1, 1905.  The article points out  45 at the closing part that:  46  47 "Two months ago the scrip was selling as high as 16894  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Rush  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  THE COURT  MR. RUSH:  Q  $260 for a quarter section, but during the  past sixty days has been gradually dropping until  at the close it was offered in some cases as low  as $100.  Not much of the land taken up was  located by the men who actually earned the scrip  by their bravery."  Sounds like the Vancouver Stock Exchange.  MR.  MR.  Now, in terms of that last comment in the Colonist,  Dr. Lane, by review of your -- of the register, what  can you say if anything about that?  A   I was able to verify that that allegation or  description contained in the newspaper article was in  fact born out by inspection of the register books.  There are a very small number of entries which  indicate that the Crown grant went to the initial  applicant for the Script.  GOLDIE:  I take it, my lord, that the witness is referring  to the registers for all of British Columbia then, or  is she referring just to the registers under tab 7,  which appears to be for only part of the Province.  RUSH:  Q  A  Q  Lane, were they restricted to the  -- or the information contained at  A  Your comments, Dr.  tabs contained at  tab 6 and 7?  No.  They are not.  Now, I refer you to tab 10.  Can you identify the  article that's contained here, please?  Yes.  This is taken from the Victoria Daily Times,  October 22, 1915, and it is a news report entitled  "Work For Returned Soldiers Discussed", and this is of  course with reference to soldiers returning from World  War I.  But in the course of the article the speaker,  Mr. Thomson, discusses and makes reference to the  South African War Land Grants that were made for  returning volunteers from the South African war, and  points out at the paragraph which begins the last  paragraph on the first page of the material at tab 10  and continues on the material at the second page in  tab 10:  "Mr. Thomson said it was desirable to avoid what  occurred after the South African war, when  soldiers were given scrip representing 160 acres  of land in B.C.  The greater part of this land was  used for speculation, and was not taken up by the 16895  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Rush  1  2  3  4  5  Q  6  7  A  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Q  15  16  17  18  19  A  20  21  22  23  24  25  Q  26  27  A  28  29  Q  30  31  A  32  Q  33  34  A  35  Q  36  A  37  THE COURT  38  A  39  THE COURT  40  MR. RUSH:  41  Q  42  A  43  44  45  46  47  soldiers, as the government had hoped."  And then he goes on to discuss how his present  proposal would differ.  Now, was that article referred to by a Mr. Dobie at  tab 11?  Yes, it was.  The following day the newspaper  contained a letter to the editor by Mr. Dobie, who had  been one of those returned soldiers from the Boer War  who took exception to Mr. Thomson's comment, and  explained his view of the situation regarding the  South African Land War Script and why the returned  soldiers had not been able to use it by and large.  Your type script appears at -- in front of the divider  at tab 11, and behind the divider appears an extract  from the newspaper.  Would you just help us in terms  of relating the two pages of the extract from the  newspaper?  Yes.  The article which I transcribed on the  typewriter for easier reading is the one entitled  "Land For Soldiers" in the left-hand -- well, the  second column on the first page of the Xerographic  copy, and then is continued in the third column on the  second page.  So you run down the second column on the first page  and go over?  Right.  It appears over the name M.H. Dobie, October  22, is the end of that letter to the editor.  Right.  And that's what you transcribed in the first  part of this tab?  That's correct.  And can you direct our attention to the relevant  portion of this?  Yes.  By reference to the typed script?  Yes.  :  Well, this tab 11?  Tab 11, yes.  :  I read that.  All right.  I took the trouble, by the way, to check Mr. Dobie's  statements by reference to the material I extracted  from the registers to find where the land was that he  was describing that he held the Script for originally,  and I find that it is the present site of the town of  Telkwa, I believe. 16896  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Rush  1 Q   And the other matter I would like to direct you to in  2 terms of the letter, Dr. --  3 A   Yes.  4 Q   In the middle of the letter, approximately parallel to  5 the middle punch, there's a question mark after the  6 word "all".  Is that your addition?  7 A   No.  The parentheses with the question mark inside are  8 in the original, they were inserted by the writer, I  9 assume, to mean to inform.  "I was informed that all",  10 each volunteer, I assume for emphasis, given the  11 context of the statement.  12 Q   All right.  13 A   I read it as a question mark.  It can be seen on the  14 Xerographic copy, I think it's a question mark there  15 rather than an exclamation point.  16 Q   Now, Dr. Lane, let me direct your attention to tab 12.  17 And the author of this letter is a Mr. Tyson?  18 A   That's correct.  19 Q   And he was the Inspector of Indian Agencies?  20 A   For British Columbia.  21 Q   And to whom is this directed?  22 A   To the Secretary, Department of Indian Affairs,  23 Ottawa.  24 Q   And the date, I'm having difficulty making out the  25 date?  26 A   The date is December 30, 1913.  27 Q   Now, he makes reference to a visit to the Indian  28 village of Hagwellgate, and he says:  29  30 "An Indian brought to my notice an injustice  31 done to his brother, Round Lake Tommy."  32  33 Are you familiar with the name Round Lake Tommy?  34 A   Yes, I am.  35 Q   And who do you understand him to be?  36 A   Round Lake --  37 Q   To have been, rather?  38 A   Round Lake Tommy was one of the chiefs of the Dene  39 Indians who live in the Bulkley Valley.  There's a  40 very fine picture of him in his ceremonial regalia in  41 the recently issued "Handbook of North American  42 Indians", volume devoted to the Northwest Coast, one  43 of a series of anthropological volumes issued by the  44 Smithsonian Institution.  45 Q   All right.  I want to direct your attention to the  46 next paragraph.  Mr. Tyson reports, and I quote:  47 16897  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Rush  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  A  14  Q  15  1  16  A  17  Q  18  19  A  20  21  22  23  24  25  MR.  RUSH:  26  MR.  GOLDIE  27  28  A  29  MR.  GOLDIE  30  A  31  32  33  MR.  RUSH:  34  Q  35  36  37  38  1  39  40  41  A  42  Q  43  44  45  46  A  47  MR.  GOLDIE  "Two or three years ago a man who was staking land  in that vicinity, either as premention or  purchase, included the four acres claimed by  Round Lake Tommy, and in the course of events has  come into the possession of John Bekkie.  Now, I  understand that Round Lake Tommy had been driven  off without any compensation, and I might also  add that there are a number of other similar cases  in the northern Inspectorate, which have created a  gread deal of mistrust among the Indians."  Now, are you familiar with the name of Mr. Bekkie?  Only through correspondence relating to this matter.  All right.  Now, have you come to understand from the  documents what piece of lands has been discussed?  Yes, I have.  Can I refer you, please, to tab 13.  Can you identify  this for us, Dr. Lane?  Yes.  This is a typed transcript of evidence taken  before the Royal Commission on Indian affairs for the  Province of British Columbia.  This particular section  relates to the evidence given by Indians in the Babine  Agency, and it was again a typed transcription from  the microfilm record of those hearings.  All right.  :  I wonder if the witness could state the date, just  for the record, my lord?  The date of the particular hearings here?  :  Yes.  Yes.  It was in 1915, and I noticed myself that the  first page, which would have contained the exact month  and day, is not here.  If I can just refer you, Dr. Lane, to the transcript  of the hearings of the Babine Agency, which is found  in the document books of Dr. Galois at volume 4 -- I'm  sorry, at volume 6.  And I think this would be  document number 380.  I'm directing your attention,  Dr. Lane, to the Commission's hearings on April the  26th, 1915 at Moricetown?  Yes.  And I would just ask you if you would run through to  page 17 and confirm for us that we're talking about  the same date, and it is the same proceedings that are  being spoken of there?  You will have to give me a moment to check that.  :  We're agreed on that, we have the transcript. 16898  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Rush  1  ]  MR. RUSH  2  Q  3  4  A  5  Q  6  A  7  Q  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  A  22  Q  23  24  25  A  26  Q  27  A  28  29  30  31  Q  32  33  A  34  Q  35  36  37  38  39  40  A  41  Q  42  43  44  45  46  47  Very good, thank you.  Now, Dr. Lane, just referring  to tab 13 page 17, the passage of Round Lake Tommy?  Yes.  And does your lordship have that?  Yes.  That's 17 and 18.  Now, it says here, Dr. Lane, and  beginning "Round Lake Tommy is called and sworn", I'm  quoting from the transcript of the proceedings:  "Q     Now show me on the map where your piece  of land is?  A     It is lot 782 marked "a,b,c,d" on  blueprint."  Now, I want to just ask at this juncture, Dr. Lane, if  you can read the reference to lot 782, which is  contained in the transcript of the proceedings to your  own table of the register of Script grants, which is  at tab 6?  Yes.  I believe I was able to do that.  All right.  I would ask you to turn to page 15, and if  you could show us by reference to page 15 where it  appears here, if it does, to reference to lot 782?  I'm sorry, could you remind me which tab?  Tab 6?  Tab 6, yes.  About midway down the column that's  marked "Surveyed Designation", lot 782 appears  under -- well, it was -- the original applicant for  the script was A. Webb.  And by earlier evidence, the assignees would be Mr.  Alta and Mr. Brown?  If they were both "Mr.", yes.  I don't know.  All right.  Now, if I could just direct your attention  again to tab 13 back to the transcript of the  proceedings, and I just ask your lordship to take  notice of the comments attributed to Round Lake Tommy  that I started with over to the page 18.  And then Dr.  Lane, are you with me here?  Yes.  All right.  To Mr. Commissioner Carmichael's comments  beginning at the bottom of 18.  He says, and I quote:  "Q     How long is it since you worked on that  piece of land?  A     We were kicked off in 1912.  Q     So it is only three years ago since you were 16899  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Rush  1 kicked off the land?  2 A Yes.  3 Q Who turned you off the land?  4 A John Bekki.  He wanted to send me away.  5 Mr. Loring sent me a letter to get off that  6 land and we moved off right away.  I have  7 five children and one child was very sick  8 and the night was very cold and after one  9 and a half day's sickness the child died."  10  11 And then attributed to Indian Agent Loring:  12  13 "This statement is not correct as I gave the  14 witness fully six months's notice to leave the  15 place."  16  17 I'm just going to pause there, Dr. Lane.  The  18 reference to John Bekki, is there any reference to Mr.  19 Bekki in the register that you have referred us to?  20 A   No.  There is not.  21 Q   And can you --  22 A  At least not with respect to that land.  23 Q   All right.  24 A  And I don't believe I saw his name anywhere else on  25 any of the other registers.  26 Q   Okay.  I just want to turn you to the next page, to  27 page 19.  Continuing on where it's attributed to Mr.  28 Commissioner MacDowall, and I quote:  29  30 "Q Can you show me where you are living just  31 now?  32 A I'm living on a lot marked 766 and we are  33 living in a tent.  34 Q Has anyone interfered with you there?  35 A A Justice of the Peace named Gail he wants  36 to send me off that land again.  37 Q Do you know who surveyed this land for  38 Bekki?  39 A J.H. Gray.  40 Q When did he survey that?  41 A About the same time that he surveyed all the  42 land around here."  43  44 And then in parentheses:  45  46 "(Note:  This land has been sold twice, and it was  47 covered by a South African Script)." 16900  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Rush  1 Now, that note, Dr. Lane, is that note in the copy of  2 the proceedings of the transcript that you reviewed?  3 A   Yes.  This typed script is simply a replication of the  4 original.  5 Q   Now, have you seen further references to Mr. Bekki and  6 how he features into all of this?  7 A   Yes.  The dispossession of Round Lake Tommy and others  8 of his family from their traditional homes around  9 Round Lake were the subject of much correspondence,  10 and the -- each of these cases generated a great deal  11 of correspondence back and forth between the people in  12 Indian Affairs in Ottawa and British Columbia and  13 between the federal government and the provincial  14 government, and in a number of those letters the name  15 of Mr. Bekki comes up.  16 Q   Let me refer you to tab 14, please.  Can you assist us  17 here, Dr. Lane; this is apparently a letter dated  18 November the 27th, 1920?  19 A   That's correct.  20 Q   And the Chief Inspector of Indian Agencies; who was  21 that at this time?  22 A   It may still have been Mr. Tyson.  I can't trust my  23 memory as to that.  This is an unsigned carbon that  24 we're looking at.  25 Q   And the addressee is Mr. Loring?  26 A   Yes.  The Indian agent at Hazelton.  27 Q   All right.  And what portion of this can you direct us  28 to, Dr. Lane?  29 A  Well, the entire letter, but I would direct your  30 attention particularly to the third paragraph.  31 Q   And can you assist us?  32 A   Yes.  I'll just read it:  "Application No. 53" —  33 these are dealing with applications that were made in  34 the course of the hearings of the Royal Commission on  35 Indian Affairs, a transcript of which we were just  36 noting a few moments ago, and this letter is written  37 some years after the Commission completed its report.  38 This is 1920 and it's an assessment of where things  39 are in 1920 with regard to certain specific  40 applications.  The third paragraph deals with a number  41 of outstanding matters regarding Indians in the  42 Bulkley Valley who were dispossessed of their lands  43 through the use of South African Script:  44  45 "Application No. 53 deals with a general  46 enlargement of reserve lands; No. 54 was allowed  47 with 640 acres; No. 55 is Crown Granted by Indian 16901  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Rush  1 Tyee David."  2  3 Q   No.  Just under -- ask you to stop there.  4 A   Yes.  5 Q   Do you have knowledge of Indian Tyee David?  6 A   Yes.  7 Q   And what is that?  8 A   Tyee is simply the Chinook jargon word for chief, and  9 this Chief David is also referred to in the letters as  10 David Francis, and he was described in at least one of  11 the records as the second highest Hagwilget chief in  12 the Bulkley, chief -- of any chief in the Bulkley  13 Valley.  14 Q   All right.  15 A  16 "Nos. 56 and 61 both deals with the case of Indians  17 at Canyon Creek; lots 1196 and 1197; no. 59 is  18 land applied for by Jean Baptiste."  19  20 Q   And do you understand him to have been a Wet'suwet'en  21 Indian at that period?  22 A   He was another chief of the Wet'suwet'en, yes.  23 Q   All right.  And lot —  24 A   "Lot 882", I believe that is:  25  26 "No. 60 is land applied for by Tyee Lake Abraham."  27  28 I should perhaps explain there.  Tyee Lake, the Tyee  29 here does not mean Chief Lake Abraham, but rather  30 refers to a lake called Tyee Lake in the Bulkley  31 Valley on lot 795.  32 Q   And Tyee Lake Abraham, do you understand him to have  33 been a Wet'suwet'en person?  34 A   He was another Wet'suwet'en chief, I believe.  35 Q   Yes.  Carrying on on that letter.  36 A  37 "No. 62 for Round Lake Tommy on lot 782, No. 65  38 for Indian Peter Michel; No. 66 for Lame Michel;  39 No. 70 for Mooseskin Johnny near Moricetown,  40 allowed 600 acres, and No. 70 deals with the  41 proposed enlargement of the Coryatsaqua Reserve  42 No. 2."  43  44 Q   All right.  Now, with regard to Peter Michel, Lame  45 Michel and Mooseskin Johnny; do you understand those  46 persons --  47 A   Those were all leading Wet'suwet'en men. 16902  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Rush  1  THE  COURT  2  3  4  A  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  THE  COURT  12  13  A  14  15  THE  COURT  16  MR.  RUSH:  17  18  19  THE  COURT  20  MR.  RUSH:  21  Q  22  23  A  24  Q  25  A  26  27  28  29  Q  30  31  32  A  33  Q  34  35  36  A  37  38  39  40  41  Q  42  43  A  44  Q  45  A  46  47  Q  :  I take it some of these applications were for  individuals and some were for larger reserves, or were  they all for reserves?  No.  Those that were for reserves are so indicated in  the language here.  I don't think it is a proper  assumption to conclude that because individual chiefs  are named as the applicants for the other lands that  they were attended -- intended as individual  applications.  I believe those chiefs were applying on  behalf of their bands, their constituents.  :  That's not the way it looks for Round Lake Tommy, is  it?  Yes.  Also for Round Lake Tommy, which I think will  appear in other evidence.  :  All right.  All right.  And, my lord, I just ask you to take into  account the next paragraph as well, just make a note  of that, please.  :  Yes.  Yes, thank you.  Dr. Lane, would you proceed to the  next tab?  Yes.  This is Ditchburn to Hyde, it appears?  Yes.  I think that answers the question that you asked  me about the preceding matter.  I believe in 1920 as  well it was Mr. Ditchburn who was Chief Inspector of  Indian Agencies.  And in this letter of the 27th of June, 1921 reference  is made to the Indian Baptiste in the first paragraph.  And who do you understand that to have been?  That is Jean Baptiste.  And in the next paragraph reference is made to  Baptiste again, and then to William Leo in the third  line of that second paragraph?  Yes.  William Leo was one of those Indians that was  alluded to in the previous papers.  He's sometimes  called William Leo, sometimes called Canyon Creek  William, and he was one of a small band of Indians  that lived on Canyon Creek.  All right.  And Round Lake Tommy is there referred to,  and Jack Joseph?  Yes.  And what do you understand Jack Joseph's --  I would have to refresh my memory by referring to  notes as to Jack Joseph.  All right. 16903  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Rush  1 A   He is another Bulkley Valley Indian, but I don't  2 remember details about him at the moment.  3 Q   All right.  And -- yes.  There's further discussion  4 about certain lots in this -- and I'll be coming to  5 Jean Baptiste in a moment, my lord, if you take note  6 of the whole of the letter there.  Now, Dr. Lane,  7 would you turn to tab 16, a letter of Mr. Dougall,  8 D-O-U-G-A-L-L, April 22nd, 1925.  Would you place this  9 in some kind of context for us.  Who was Mr. Dougall,  10 and if you can say why he was writing, if you know?  11 A   Yes.  The -- there are a series of letters from Mr.  12 J.D. Dougall.  He was, among other things, a realtor,  13 business letter-head Montreal Witness and Canadian  14 Homestead, and his slogan "Make Canada a land to  15 love", appear at the top of the stationery, and his --  16 MR. GOLDIE:  This, I take it, is going to be submitted for the  17 truth of the matter of the contents stated.  18 MR. RUSH:  19 Q   Yes.  I think we'll certainly put that forward.  20 A  And the letter is addressed to the Commissioner of  21 Indian affairs in Victoria.  Mr. Dougall is in  22 Montreal, his business is in Montreal, and he calls to  23 the attention of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs,  24 as he so designates him in Victoria, that he has a  25 problem with some land he's been trying to market  26 because Round Lake Tommy is located on that land and  27 it's interfered with the marketability of the  28 property.  And the gist of the letter is what can be  29 done to remove the Indian so that prospective buyers  30 will not be put off by the Indian being located there.  31 Q   Now, Dr. Lane, the lot that is referred to as -- by  32 Round Lake Tommy as being his piece of land in the  33 transcript of the Royal Commission proceedings is lot  34 782.  And I want to ask you if this is the same lot  35 that is being referred to here?  36 A   No.  I think not.  I think by this time Round Lake  37 Tommy has been removed from lot 782 and is now on the  38 adjoining lot, and I would direct your attention to  39 the third paragraph in this letter of Mr. Dougall's in  40 which he says:  41  42 "But he found that there was an incumbrance on the  43 property in that an Indian "Round Lake Tommy" with  44 his two squaws and family have been occupying the  45 house and considered it his place by squatter's  46 rights, a place to which he was much attached in  47 that it overlooked, on a neighbouring property, 16904  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Rush  1 his father's grave.  Some people thought that the  2 property belonged to the Indian, others reported  3 the latter as saying that it would not be healthy  4 for anyone who disputed his occupancy of it."  5  6 MR. RUSH:  All right.  Now, at page 19 of the Royal Commission  7 hearings it is noted that Round Lake Tommy reported  8 that he was living on a lot marked 766 living in a  9 tent.  This appears to be a reference to 756.  10 MR. GOLDIE:  Well, that's my friend's guess.  I don't — I think  11 it's a reasonable guess, but there's nobody here who  12 can say one way or the other, and we're separated by  13 ten years.  14 MR. RUSH:  15 Q   Well, this is true.  Now, Dr. Lane, is there any other  16 assistance that we can draw from this letter to --  17 with regard to what Round Lake Tommy referred us to in  18 his transcript hearings?  19 A  Well, this is the response of Mr. Ditchburn to Mr.  20 Dougall's letter, and Mr. Ditchburn, the Indian  21 Commissioner --  22 Q   You've now moved to tab 17, have you?  23 A   I'm sorry, yes.  I thought you were directing me to  24 tab 17.  That's where I am.  25 Q   Yes, go ahead?  26 A   Letter dated April 29, 1925.  27 Q   Thank you.  28 A  A Mr. Ditchburn has received a report from the local  29 agent concerning the matter -- or he's at the point  30 where he is writing to ask him to investigate the  31 matter, but in the third paragraph Mr. Ditchburn says:  32  33 "In conclusion I may say that there have been some  34 very regrettable circumstances in connection with  35 the taking up of land occupied by Indians in the  36 Bulkley Valley.  The surveyors who went through  37 the district to lay out these lots for the  38 Government of the Province of British Columbia  39 made no mention on their notes showing that  40 Indians were in possession of certain areas.  A  41 very great number of the lots in this district  42 were taken up under South African Scrip and the  43 lots then disposed of to second or third parties.  44 This you can quite easily understand has  45 worked a very great injustice to a number  46 of Indian families throughout the Bulkley Valley  47 and this Department has gone to considerable 16905  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Rush  1 limits to endeavour to get the various  2 applications straightened out, even going so far  3 as purchasing various pieces of property which the  4 Government of the Dominion should not be called  5 upon to do.  It is possible, however, that Round  6 Lake Tommy may be induced to remove from the land  7 which he is at present occupying, provided he were  8 settled with by payment a reasonable amount for  9 any improvements that he has made, and I would be  10 pleased to hear from you as to what your feelings  11 are on this point."  12  13 Q   Thank you, Dr. Lane.  I just, my lord, direct your  14 attention to paragraph 2, which discusses the question  15 of lot 766 or lot 756, and Mr. Ditchburn notes  16 "However" -- this is beginning the second sentence, I  17 think:  18  19 "However, I have written to the Indian agent of  20 the Babine District asking him to make an  21 investigation and to see what extent Indian Round  22 Lake Tommy has improved the land of which he has  23 been in occupancy for a great number of years,  24 and whether it be lot 766 or lot 756."  25  26 Now, Dr. Lane, to tab 18, please.  27 A   Yes.  This is dated July 29, 1926, and it is the  28 report from the local agent at Hazelton, Mr. Hyde, in  29 response to the requests sent to him by Mr. Ditchburn  30 to investigate the matter that we've been talking  31 about.  And he says:  32  33 "I beg to inform you that early in June I proceeded  34 to Round Lake and the Telkwa District and found  35 that this Indian was not squatting on the above  36 mentioned land.  After some trouble I found that  37 he was engaged clearing land for one of the  38 ranchers and camped with his family on the job.  39 After some conversation I realized he was of the  40 opinion the Department might purchase the Dougall  41 property for him, but I gave him to understand  42 that considerable trouble might occur and he had  43 better make up his mind to look for land which  44 could be pre-empted.  This Indian is somewhat  45 shiftless and will not do much for himself.  The  46 R.C.M.P. at Telkwa tried to help him locate a  47 pre-emption last year, but got disgusted at his 16906  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Rush  1 seeming lack of interest."  2  3 And then it goes on to say that he was again talked to  4 about the need for choosing a pre-emption, and I'll  5 read directly:  6  7 "However, with the help of the forest ranger at  8 Telkwa, who very kindly took Constable Ticchurst  9 and Round Lake Tommy over the road some twenty  10 miles from Telkwa found lot 279 which is situated  11 on the main highway, and a good location for this  12 Indian as it is situated near two other Indians  13 who have pre-emptions."  14  15 And then he goes on to discuss the land in the next  16 paragraph, and notes toward the -- in the last  17 sentence or two of the paragraph:  18  19 "I understand this land has been pre-empted on two  20 previous occasions by whitemen who have abandoned  21 it, a cabin was built by one of them but has been  22 destroyed by fire.  One of these whitemen left on  23 account of the bears being too numerous."  24  25 Q   Now, finally, Dr. Lane, I refer you to tab 19.  26 A   Yes.  27 Q   It appears to deal with the same issue?  28 A   The issue of getting Round Lake Tommy to accept a  29 pre-emption, yes.  30 Q   Yes.  And Mr. Hyde's, letter to Ditchburn?  31 A   Yes.  32 Q   And is this dealing -- this appears to be dealing with  33 the pre-emption of lot 279?  34 A   That is correct.  35  36 "I beg to say that I received instructions from the  37 Department on the 30th December to make  38 application for issuance of a Pre-emption Record  39 to Round Lake Tommy permitting him to pre-empt Lot  40 279, R.5.CD., to the Government Agent at  41 Smithers, B.C., and I am pleased to say that Round  42 Lake Tommy is very pleased.  He has commenced  43 making improvements and I have assisted him with  44 seed.  45 There will be no need for further complaints  46 from Mr. Dougall, unless it be that Tommy goes  47 fishing at Round Lake from the shores of the 16907  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Rush  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  MR.  A  RUSH:  Dougall property which is not fenced and where  whites go to fish from."  Now, Dr. Lane, if you will just go back for a moment  to tab 13, this is the transcript of the hearing  before the Royal Commission, at the bottom of the page  17, and he indicates, there referring to lot 782, at  the bottom:  "Q     Do you make your living off that piece of  land?  A     I did before, but not now.  Q     Did you fish in the lake?  A     Yes.  Q     Was that your food supply?  A     My father has been there for a long time, he  fished, and there are five brothers and we  all do the same."  A  Yes.  Q  And  he  "Q  says  N  A  I  THE COURT  MR. RUSH:  Q  A  Q  Now, what do you want?  I want to get that piece of land."  That runs over to page 18.  Now, Dr. Lane, do you  understand that place, or do you understand from your  search of the records that lot 782 is on Round Lake?  That's correct.  Now, if you will please turn to tab 20, and there's  the face page of the evidence of the Royal Commission  and an extract taken from page 14, and my lord, I can  advise the court and my friends that this similarly is  taken from the hearings of the Commission at  Moricetown on April the 26th, 1915 as part of the same  series from which the --  :  Same as tab 13.  Yes.  And I'm directing the witness' attention now to  another series of correspondence and documents  relating not to Round Lake Tommy but to Jean Baptiste,  and Dr. Lane, you have tab 20 in front of you?  Yes, I do.  Now, it says "Mr. Commissioner MacDowall (To Jean  Baptiste)".  Is that the same Jean Baptiste that has  previously been referred to in correspondence, from  your understanding? 1690?  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Rush  A   Yes.  Q   And my lord, I would have you take into -- direct your  attention to the passage from Mr. Commissioner  MacDowall's comments beginning:  "Q     Can you show me on the map where your  piece of land is?  A     Yes, it is lot 882, marked "C" on  blueprint."  Q     Is anyone on that piece of land besides  yourself?  A     No one lives with me, only my three boys.  Q     Is there any white man occupying this land?  A     No.  Q     How many buildings have you on that lot 882?  A     I have one warehouse, two houses and one  forty-foot barn.  Q     Have you a fence around it?  A     Yes, I have a log fence all around it.  Q     Who surveyed it?  A     Mr. Gray.  Q     When we go back to Victoria we will take  this up with the Government and see what we  can do.  Anything of course, that we do in  the way of getting additional lands it will  not be private property -- it will be added  to the reserve.  Now is Big Pierre here?  A     No, he's not here but his brother David is  here and he will speak for him."  Now, just one other reference here.  On this page, Dr.  Lane, Tyee Lake Abraham is referred to in the comments  of Commissioner MacDowall.  Is that the same Tyee Lake  Abraham that had last been referred to previously by  you in the correspondence?  A   Yes.  And perhaps I can clarify that.  All the people  that are being mentioned here were people who lived  around Tyee Lake:  Jean Baptiste, Big Pierre, Tyee  Lake Abraham.  All right.  Now, my lord, perhaps this might be a  convenient time.  Yes, all right, thank you.  Two o'clock.  Order In court.  This court will adjourn until  p .m.  MR. RUSH:  THE COURT  THE REGISTRAR:  2:00 16909  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Rush  1 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED AT 12:30)  2  3 I hereby certify the foregoing to be  4 a true and accurate transcript of the  5 proceedings herein transcribed to the  6 best of my skill and ability  7  8  9  10  11 Graham D. Parker  12 Official Reporter.  13 United Reporting Service Ltd.  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47 16910  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1 (PROCEEDINGS RESUMED PURSUANT TO LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT)  2  3 THE COURT:  Mr. Rush.  4 MR. RUSH:  Thank you.  I am referring the witness to tab 21 in  5 Volume 4.  6 Q   The first paragraph of this letter, Dr. Lane, refers  7 to the lot 882 of the Cassiar land district, north  8 half.  And then farther down makes reference to the  9 Royal Commission hearings and the application was not  10 entertained by the commission, it says, and in the  11 next sentence:  12  13 "In the evidence taken at Moricetown on 26th  14 April, 1915, I see that it is stated that this  15 Indian, John Baptiste, said that he and his three  16 boys were living on this piece of land and that he  17 had one warehouse, two houses, a 40-foot barn and  18 a log fence around it."  19  20 Now, I want to direct your attention to the next tab,  21 tab 22, a letter to Mr. Ditchburn from Mr. Loring, and  22 in particular in the middle paragraph referring to lot  23 882, Range 5 and it says in the next following  24 paragraph, "Applied for under S.A.W.G." which I take  25 it to be the South African War Grant --  2 6 A   Uh-huh.  27 Q   — Act?  28 A   Yes.  29 Q   "In the year 1904, allowed February 5, 1905."  And  30 then it says:  Crown Grants issued April 26, 1905 to  31 Robert Whittington, 802 over 162 and so on.  803 over  32 162, 1129 over 199.  Now, Dr. Lane, by reference to  33 those Crown grant numbers, are you able to cross-refer  34 to the table of the register which you prepared that  35 are the two tables which are set out in tabs six and  36 seven?  37 A   Yes.  38 Q   All right.  If you can take those numbers, then, and  39 cross-refer, please, to table -- the table of the  40 Coast district, at tab 6.  I direct your attention,  41 please, to page -- well, page 27.  I am wondering if  42 you can assist us in this regard in terms of your  43 cross-reference.  44 A   Yes, your first number, Crown grant number in the  45 letter that is at tab 25 is 802, and if you look to  46 the next but last entry in the Crown grant number  47 column you will see Crown grant 802 listed there and 16911  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1 the land referred to as the southeast quarter of  2 Section 13 in Township 4, simply by going across to  3 the appropriate column.  4 Q   And 112 9?  5 A  Appears just below it on the same page 27, and that  6 deals with the northeast quarter of Section 13  7 Township 4.  And the other number that you have is 803  8 Crown grant number 803, and I believe that's to be  9 found at the top of the column on the next page, page  10 28 under tab 6, and that refers to the southwest  11 quarter of Section 13 in Township 4.  12 Q   Now, in the references that you have given to us, the  13 name of R. Whittington appears in each one of them.  14 Do you have knowledge of who Mr. Whittington or Ms.  15 Whittington was at the time?  16 A   It was Reverend Whittington who was a highly-placed  17 clergyman in the Methodist Church in Vancouver here  18 and he collected South African War script, part of it  19 in the Bulkley Valley, and these three adjacent pieces  20 around the north end of Tyee Lake are part of his  21 holdings purchased with script.  22 MR. GOLDIE:  May have been donated by grateful parishioners for  23 all we know, my lord.  2 4 THE COURT:  Maybe it was.  25 MR. RUSH:  Anything's possible, my lord.  26 THE COURT:  I understand only lawyers can afford to live there  27 now.  I know one classmate of mine does.  2 8 MR. RUSH:  29 Q   Now, Dr. Lane, I want to ask you to pass over tab 23,  30 please, and go to tab 24.  This deals again with John  31 Baptiste's letter dated 24th March, 1920.  32 THE COURT:  I am sorry, 24, is that 24th of March?  Looks like  33 20th of March to me.  34 MR. RUSH:  It's the 24th, my lord, at tab 24.  35 THE COURT:  Oh, I am sorry.  I was at tab 23.  You are quite  36 right.  37 MR. RUSH:  Yes, I —.  38 Q   Now, Dr. Lane, this is with reference to communication  39 from Mr. McTavish.  Do you see that?  40 A   I don't think it's a communication from Mr. McTavish.  41 Perhaps I didn't hear you.  42 Q   It is with respect to communication from Mr. McTavish?  43 A   Yes.  Yes.  44 Q   And Mr. McTavish was -- do you know what he had to do  45 with this land?  46 A   Yes.  He had purchased the north half of lot 882, part  47 of the holdings of Reverend Whittington that we were 16912  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1 just talking about.  2 Q   Perhaps --  3 A   Oh, wait a minute.  I would have to recheck my  4 records.  Either this was part of the parcels of land  5 that Reverend Whittington owned or just adjacent to.  6 I would -- I would want to recheck to refresh my  7 memory on that.  8 Q   All right.  Perhaps I can direct you to tab 25,  9 please.  10 A   Yes.  11 Q   This is a letter Fell to John Baptiste, and if you  12 direct your attention to the first paragraph.  13 A   Yes.  This is a letter that Mr. Fell addressed to John  14 Baptiste, Indian, care of Indian Agent Loring in which  15 he said that his client,  16  17 "Mr. G. S. McTavish is the owner of the above  18 property, and he has received an offer for the  19 purchase of the same from certain parties who  20 stipulate that the land must be clear of squatters  21 before their completing the purchase.  22 Until this stipulation was put forward, my  23 client was absolutely unaware that there was any  24 settlement on, or occupation of these lands, and  25 that information was therefore a great surprise to  26 him.  27 I have searched the records of the Indian  28 Commission of 1915, and find that you made an  29 application to have these lands turned into a  30 reserve and they informed at that time that this  31 was impossible, owing to the lands being already  32 Crown-granted."  33  34 Q   At this time, Dr. Lane, did the records indicate that  35 John Baptiste was residing on the north half of lot  36 882?  37 A  Again, I would not be certain -- there was frequently  38 confusion as to which part of the given lot the Indian  39 was residing on, and I would really want to look at  40 the records to be absolutely certain.  He was either  41 on it or just next to it.  42 Q   All right.  Would you —  43 A   I might be able to tell you if I look at some of these  44 letters.  45 Q   All right.  If I can just ask you to turn to tab 26.  46 A   Yes.  47 Q   Letter of April 7, 1920. 16913  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1 A   Yes.  2 Q   And it apparently says:  3  4 "With reference to our interview recently on the  5 matter of an Indian occupying lot 882,"  6  7 At the bottom of that letter it says:  8  9 "John Baptiste has lived on the land for  10 twenty-one years -- "  11  12 A   Yes.  13 Q  14 " -- which statement, if correct, would go to show  15 that he was in occupation of this land prior to  16 its alienation by the Crown."  17  18 A   Yes.  Well, now, assuming for the moment that this is  19 correctly identified and he was on the north half,  20 yes, that is correct.  21 Q All right.  Let me take you to tab 27.  22 A Yes.  23 Q This is a letter Pitts to Ditchburn?  24 A Correct.  25 Q April 8, 1920?  26 A Yes.  27 Q Refers to a statement --  I can't make it out.  He  28 says:  "I note that -- "  In his second sentence:  29  30 "I note that the Indian, John Baptiste, claims  31 that he has been on the said lands for the last  32 twenty-one years."  33  34 A  35 "-- twenty-one years.  This is contrary to the  36 sworn statement of H. W. Heal -- "  37  38 H-e-a-1.  39  40 " -- who has resided in the Bulkley Valley since  41 1904, and who knew the said Jean Baptiste, and who  42 has sworn to the fact that Jean Baptiste was  43 living with his brother David Francis at the time  44 of Heal's arrival in the district, and lived with  45 said brother for some years subsequent to that  46 time on lot 794-A on the shore of McClure Lake,  47 and that to his (Heal's) personal knowledge the 16914  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1 said Jean Baptiste did not live on lot 882 prior  2 to 190 -- "  3  4 Looks like either an eight or a nine.  I can't read  5 the bottom of the number here.  6 Q   Now, it makes reference to McClure Lake.  At that time  7 did McClure Lake go by another name?  8 A  McClure Lake is the same as Tyee Lake.  9 Q   And the references to the brother David Francis  10 here — ?  11 A   That's Tyee Lake David, the chief that's been referred  12 to earlier.  13 Q   I refer you to tab 28, a letter of Chief Inspector of  14 Indian Agencies to Loring of April 9, 1920, apparently  15 taking into account the affidavit of a Mr. Heal.  16 A   Yes.  He refers to the letter from Mr. Pitts, the  17 legal representative of Mr. McTavish, and says:  18  19 "You will note that apparently a Mr. H. W. Heal  20 has taken an affidavit that the Indian was not in  21 occupation of this land prior to 1908."  22  23 And asks Agent Loring to look into it.  24 Q   All right.  And at tab 29.  25 A   Yes.  26 Q   The Chief Inspector of Indian Agencies on April 20,  27 1920 raises the question of Mr. Heal's affidavit again  28 and he says at the bottom second to last paragraph, I  29 am reading it correctly:  30  31 "The declaration made by Mr. H. W. Heal referred  32 to in my letter of the 9th instant would appear to  33 be strong evidence that Baptiste was not on this  34 land prior to its alienation by the Crown and it  35 would be necessary for Baptiste also to have very  36 strong evidence to disprove Heal's statement."  37  38 A   Yes.  39 Q   All right.  Now, I wish to direct your attention now  40 to tab 30, and this appears to be a letter of a  41 Catholic priest by the name of Godfrey?  42 A   Yes.  This is Father Godfrey.  43 Q   And it's to the Inspector of Indian Agencies dated  44 January 19, 1921, and it refers to Indian Baptiste.  45 It says B-a-t-i-s-t-e of Tyee Lake.  Is that the same  46 as John Baptiste as you understand it, Dr. Lane?  47 A   Yes, it is. 16915  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1 Q   All right.  And what of this apparently five page  2 letter would you direct our attention?  3 A  Well, Father Godfrey reviews the history of the land  4 which is in dispute and John Baptiste's residence  5 there and says that John Baptiste and his family  6 resided on what is now lot 794 and 795 at the north  7 end of Tyee Lake or McClure Lake and that toward the  8 year 1901 or 2 John Baptiste moved about one and a  9 half miles farther to the north and located for  10 himself a special patch of land on what is now lot  11 882; and there in the same year built a house and  12 other buildings, and he discusses his improvements,  13 and then he said:  14  15 "Towards Feb. 1905 this land was staked under  16 South African War Script under the name of Robert  17 Whittington without him knowing anything about it,  18 which matter went on for some years in the same  19 way until towards 1911 in one of my visits to the  20 Local Indian Agent I mentioned the matter to him  21 and asked him to apply to the Department so as to  22 clear the title for Batiste."  23  24 And he goes on to discuss that matter and also  25 pointed out the case of Round Lake Tommy and the case  26 of Bulkley Lake Isaac and the case of the brothers  27 Michel, Maxim and Antoine near Maxim Lake.  And it  28 goes on later about midway on that page:  29  30 "To complicate matters that South African War  31 Script was purchased or came into possession of  32 One Reverend Potts, now dead, whose estate is  33 handled by the National Trust Co. of Toronto.  34 A certain affidavit is apparently shown to  35 prove that Batiste was not on the land at the time  36 mentioned in 1905 when the land was staked.  37 Whoever made that affidavit either did not know  38 what they were doing or else had never gone near  39 the Indian place and so the Surveyor, who in this  40 case as well as in lots of other cases simply  41 forgot the provisions of the Indian and of the  42 Survey Act and simply perjured himself.  This  43 happened in lots of instances in this valley."  44  45 And then he goes on to discuss the visit of the Indian  46 reserve commission.  47 Q   Okay.  Now, if you'll go to tab 31. 16916  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1  A  2  Q  3  4  A  5  Q  6  A  7  MR.  GOLDIE  8  MR.  RUSH:  9  Q  10  A  11  Q  12  13  A  14  Q  15  16  A  17  Q  18  A  19  ]  20  21  22  Q  23  A  24  25  Q  26  i  27  A  28  MR.  GOLDIE  29  MR.  RUSH:  30  Q  31  A  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  THE  COURT:  41  A  42  THE  COURT:  43  A  44  MR.  RUSH:  45  Q  46  A  47  Yes.  Here, this letter is by the Acting Indian Agent by who  at that time appeared to be W. C. Wrinch?  Yes.  February 5, 1921?  Yes.  :  I think it's H. C.  Is that H. C?  That's correct.  Yes, all right.  And the last paragraph refers to Mr.  Baptiste?  Yes.  And refers to a preemption.  Who was W. C. Wrinch or  H. C. Wrinch?  Harold C. Wrinch --  Yes.  -- was a medical doctor, a missionary with the  Methodist Church in the area, and there is, I believe,  at present still a hospital named for him in Hazelton  area.  All right.  He was also a gentleman who came to possess South  African War script in this area.  Does that appear on the records in the Cassiar and the  Coast district records?  That's correct.  :  I am sure it refers to a page.  Just refer back to assist my friend, Dr. Lane, tab 6.  I am at tab 6.  This may take a little while, because  I will have to scan several pieces -- several separate  script.  Well, I found a quicker way.  If you go to  the next tab to the Cassiar district at page 3 of that  list there is one of his pieces.  It's page three, the  second entry, the South African War script was  qualified for by Charles McLean, script number 292,  and then H. C. Wrinch, care of Mr. Flewin who was with  the land office at Port Simpson.  Also on page four?  And also at page four.  I number 89, four, 89?  That's correct.  Those are two of them.  If you look at page 37 as well No. 99 folio?  You are in the Coast district.  I think we were  looking in the Cassiar district. 16917  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1  Q  2  1  3  A  4  1  5  Q  6  A  7  THE  COURT:  8  A  9  THE  COURT:  10  MR.  GOLDIE  11  THE  COURT:  12  MR.  RUSH:  13  Q  14  A  15  Q  16  17  18  19  20  A  21  Q  22  A  23  Q  24  25  26  A   '  27  28  29  30  1  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  Q  Oh I am sorry.  Thank you.  You refer back to the  Coast district.  Yes, if you just give me one moment here.  Coast  district at page -- ?  37.  37.  Yes.  Yet, there is one of folio 99.  Are you satisfied, Mr. Goldie?  :  For the present, thank you, my lord.  Thank you.  Now, Dr. Lane, referring you to tab 33.  Yes.  I am not sure if I referred you to tab 32 or not, but  it is Acting Indian Agent, February 5, 1921 is tab 32.  Just referring again to the selection of a preemption  which appears on the first paragraph, but tab 33, Dr.  Lane?  Yes.  This again is another letter from Father Godfrey?  Yes.  To the Inspector of Indian Agencies regarding Indian  John Baptiste.  To what would you direct our attention  here?  Well, Father Godfrey is again writing about the  problems in the Bulkley Valley and there has been an  effort.  The deceased Methodist missionary, whose  estate was being administered by the National Trust  Company, had issued some sort of a paper of rejectment  against John Baptiste, and Father Godfrey was writing  to alert the Inspector of Indian Agencies that:  "The situation was becoming fast very acute and  might have turned him into a desperado in case the  law decision was carried out without giving him  any relief or help in what he absolutely (and so  99% of the white people) believed and protested to  be his right."  And he refers again to the fact that the surveyor  neglected to note any Indian settlement or improvement  on the land as he was by law bound to do and mentions  that the "fact can be substantiated by witnesses, that  he was on the aforementioned piece of land since at  least 1902."  Now -- 1691?  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1 A  And then goes on at the bottom of the page:  2  3 "not even mentioned in the field notes of the  4 surveyor nor even were such pieces set aside for  5 the Indians.  They were gobbled up by the  6 landshark or the speculator, to make money out of  7 them again or even later to sell them back to the  8 government for the Indians."  9  10 Q   All right.  Dr. Lane, just going down to the bottom of  11 page two:  "In the matter of Tyee Lake Baptiste," is  12 that the same John Baptiste?  13 A   Yes, it is.  14 Q   And he makes a proposal with regard to this particular  15 piece of land, does he?  16 A   Yes.  He suggests that the government should buy that  17 special piece of land for this man at the price that  18 it was offered for.  It says:  19  20 "This would be my first advice.  I know Batiste  21 and he is pretty hard to persuade to another  22 course.  I have put up the idea of the government  23 giving him another preemption so that he would  24 peaceably evacuate his land for some time this  25 summer as I was persuaded that such would be the  26 only logical course for the government to pursue;  27 in answer to this idea he was rather reluctant to  28 believe that pointing out the case of his fellow  29 citizen Round Lake Tommy who was given all kinds  30 of promises (I know this to be true, as the Indian  31 agent appealed to me different times for me to  32 convey same to him) which were never fulfilled.  33 However, he may still be induced to accept this  34 offer."  35  36 Q   All right.  Thank you.  Turn to tab 34, referring you  37 to this letter.  Again it seems to be in reference to  38 Baptiste to find a squatter and preemption for same  39 from H. C. Wrinch to Mr. Ditchburn?  40 A   Yes.  41 Q   This again deals with the suggested alternative of a  42 preemption?  43 A   Yes.  This mentions that writ for ejection by Sheriff  44 Shirley representing the National Trust Company at the  45 third paragraph and then goes on with the discussion  46 with Batiste who  47 16919  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1 "would not consider moving at all, stating that on  2 two previous occasions he had been forced off land  3 somewhere near Telkwa, and also near Round Lake,  4 also that he had spend a great many years of hard  5 work improving his place.  All of which is quite  6 true."  7  8 And then he says on the following page:  9  10 "     He has evidently reached a point of  11 desperation, and is determined to remain where he  12 is regardless of anything that may be done.  13 He has bidden farewell to all his friends in  14 the expectation that if any force is attempted he  15 will defend his position even if necessary at the  16 expense of his life."  17  18 Q   Now, Dr. Lane, at the end of the day what occurred  19 with regard to this piece of land?  20 A   It was eventually made into an Indian reserve known as  21 the John Baptiste Indian Reserve.  22 Q   I direct your attention to tab 35, please.  23 A   Yes.  24 Q   This is a typescript?  25 A   Yes.  26 Q   Prepared by yourself?  27 A   Yes.  28 Q   And the source of the material contained here?  29 A   There is a Xeroxgraphic copy behind.  It comes from  30 microfilm and doesn't print off very well.  31 Q   And this is described as Minutes of Conference at  32 Hazelton, July 19, 1909, with Special Commissioners  33 Messrs. A. W. Vowell, S. Stewart and Hagwilget Indians  34 at the office of the BAbine and Upper Skeena River  35 Agency.  What was the circumstances of this  36 conference?  37 A  Well, this was in 1909, and for some years the lands  38 of these Indians in the Bulkley Valley and environs  39 had been matters of dispute and complaint as we have  40 been reviewing this past while.  So the Department of  41 Indian Affairs sent a special investigator, Mr.  42 Stewart, out with the Superintendent, Mr. Vowell, to  43 meet with the Indians and confer about the problems  44 and see what could be done.  45 Q   All right.  46 A  And this is an account of some of the statements made  47 by the leading chiefs of the day that Indians in the 16920  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1 Bulkley Valley and some neighbouring areas.  2 Q   There are names throughout the minutes?  3 A   Yes.  4 Q   For example, on page one David Francis, Belnay, James  5 Yami, Francis Lake John, David Francis, Round Lake  6 Tommy, Lame Michel and so on.  7 A   Yes.  8 Q   And these names, do you -- what can you say about the  9 names of these people and who they were?  10 A   I can't identify every last one of them, but most of  11 them are readily identifiable as the chiefs of the day  12 that are people in that area.  13 Q   All right.  And I direct your attention to the  14 statement of James Yami, Y-a-m-i, on page two.  15 A   Yes.  16  17 "James Yami says:- The Bulkley river is our river  18 and we get our living therefrom.  On the lakes are  19 located some of our houses.  They are small and  20 crude of pattern, but we cannot do without them.  21 In those houses we have many articles such of  22 hunting, trapping and fishing implements.  A white  23 man comes along and sets fire to the houses, and  24 on remonstration we are told by the settler:- 'You  25 get away from here, I bought this land and if I  26 catch you hear again I will have you jailed.'"  27  28 Q   All right.  Dr. Lane, the reference -- there are  29 references throughout to David Francis, Head Chief.  30 Is that the same Tyee Lake David you have referred us  31 to earlier?  32 A   Yes, it is.  33 Q   All right.  Let me direct your attention now to tab  34 36.  This is a letter of a Mr. Flewin?  35 A   Yes.  F-1-e-w-i-n.  36 Q   To Mr. Gore of July 4, 1950?  37 A   It looks like 7 May 1905 to me.  38 Q   Thank you.  And it appears to be a letter of  39 transmittal?  40 A   Yes.  41 Q   Of a petition signed by settlers in the Bulkley  42 Valley?  43 A   Yes.  That's correct.  44 Q   And is that petition contained as the second page on  45 this tab?  46 A   Yes.  The typescript here is from the Provincial  47 Archives in British Columbia and the records of the 16921  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1 Lands Department.  2 Q   All right.  And the name of David Francis appears  3 here?  4 A   Yes.  Perhaps the quickest is simply to read this.  5  6 "Dear Sir:-  7 We, the undersigned, settlers of Bulkley  8 Valley, beg to have the Indians removed who are  9 living at the present time on Government and  10 preempted land in said valley, as they are a  11 nuisance in many respects.  12 They have threatened the lives of different  13 settlers, delayed improvements, their dogs are  14 running at large, killing fowls and injuring  15 stock.  16 Also (I would like) to call your attention  17 to one Indian, David Francis by name, who is  18 trying to purchase a part of section 2, township  19 4, through the Indian agent at Hazelton.  20 Hoping this request will receive your  21 immediate attention,  22 We are yours respectfully."  23  24 Then there are a number of signatures, including Mr.  25 H. Heal, the author of the affidavit which said that  26 David --  27 MR. GOLDIE:  That's the assumption of the witness, and I am  28 not -- I am not questioning it.  These are reasonable  29 speculations.  3 0    THE COURT:  Yes.  31 MR. RUSH:  32 Q   That name H. Heal, I take it, Dr. Lane, is one you  33 draw a connection to to the previous reference to a  34 Mr. H. Heal?  35 MR. GOLDIE:  Yes.  36 A   That's correct.  37 MR. RUSH:  38 Q   All right.  Turning you to tab 37, this is again  39 Flewin to MacKay, now April 10, '06.  It has to do  40 with applications to purchase lands from a Mr. Robert  41 Tomlinson Jr.?  42 A   Yes.  43 Q   And from the following Indians:  Edward Stewart,  44 Stephen Morgan, Philip Sutton, Amos Williams is it?  45 A   Yes.  4 6 Q   Samuel Bright and Joseph Malwain.  And I'd like you to  47 turn to tab 38, and is this the response to that 16922  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1 application, Dr. Lane?  2 A   No.  The response is contained in the previous tab.  3 Q   Oh.  4 A   In the letter from the Deputy Commissioner, Lands and  5 Works in Victoria to Mr. Flewin, who is the Land Agent  6 at Port Simpson, and the date is April 27, 1906.  This  7 is the second -- this is the tab 38 item and he's  8 referring to the application of Mr. Tomlinson,  9 Methodist missionary's son who is the only white man.  10 The other names are all of Gitksan Indians.  And:  11  12 "In reply I beg to say that the application  13 of Robert Tomlinson has been favourably considered  14 and he will be allowed to purchase the land if  15 upon survey no valid reasons arise to the  16 contrary.  Kindly notify him accordingly and also  17 that the survey must be completed and payment in  18 full made within six months from the date of such  19 notification.  20 The applications of the Indians  21 above-mentioned cannot be entertained for the  22 reason that it is not considered to be in the  23 public interest to dispose of lands to Indians in  24 this manner.  You will therefore be good enough to  25 make a refund of the deposits of the purchase  26 money in respect to these applications and advise  27 the Department when you have done so."  28  29 Q   All right.  Thank you.  Dr. Lane, at tabs 39 there  30 appears to be an Order-in-Council 74; tab 40, 903; tab  31 41 Order-in-Council 511; and in relation -- and at tab  32 42 in relation to the previous three, an extract from  33 the Indian Act.  Can you --  34 MR. GOLDIE:  Where is —  35 MR. RUSH:  42, tab 42.  36 Q   Now, I don't wish to have you review each one of these  37 Orders-in-Council, but can you in summary way simply  38 assist us in advising the court as to what they refer  39 to?  40 MR. GOLDIE:  Well, my lord, what's the point of having the  41 witness tell us what Orders-in-Council and Statutes  42 mean?  43 MR. RUSH:  Well, only here, that there is a connection among the  44 three of them, my lord.  That's the point.  45 MR. GOLDIE:  Well, that connection is my friends' connection.  46 THE COURT:  What are the three that we're talking about?  47 MR. RUSH:  39, 40 and 41 in the tabs there. 16923  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  THE COURT:  Well, I think that the Mr. Goldie is quite correct,  but it doesn't really harm for the witness if she can  summarize it and it tells -- why has she has put these  together like this?  What is the connection or the  thread that runs through this?  Do these relate to  lands that we have been seen mentioned in previous  correspondence?  A   The timing is what is the context here.  THE COURT:  Yes.  A   The Orders-in-Council which begin in February of 1907  and continue sequentially and on the part of the  Provincial Government asserting for the first time its  reversionary right claim as against the Dominion  Government if any Indian reserves are used for lease  or sale and the concerns of the Federal Government in  attempting to deal with this matter by their  amendments to the Indian Act in 1910, 1911 simply give  the time frame context of the problems in the Bulkley  Valley and surrounding areas and the concern as to  whether to allow Indians to purchase or preempt land  outside of the reserves.  You need to fit them  together to understand the response of the Provincial  Government in not permitting purchases outside of the  reserves and in not allowing Indians to preempt at  that stage.  GOLDIE:  If the witness is saying this is part of the  quarrel with the Dominion Government, I don't have any  objection to it.  But it's not going to do with the  problems in the Bulkley Valley.  Well, I think the witness indicated that in fact it  was to the timing that was of relevance to the  sequence of the documents which are introduced.  MR. GOLDIE:  Yes, that's right.  The timing, if one's going  to -- that's the important part with it is part of the  quarrel with the Dominion Government.  MR. RUSH:  There is no doubt there was a quarrel on the part of  the Dominion Government which eventually apparently  got referred to the reserve or to the Royal  Commission.  THE COURT:  All right.  But this reversionary right, was the  Provincial Government was claiming --  A   That's right.  THE COURT:  — the lands back, if what, if it wasn't used?  A   If the Federal Government got a release from the  Indians for a part of the land that was reserved to  them in order to sell that land to raise revenue for  the Indians or to lease it for such a person -- for  MR.  MR. RUSH 16924  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1  2  3  4  5  THE COURT  6  A  7  MR. RUSH:  8  Q  9  10  11  A  12  Q  13  14  A  15  16  Q  17  18  19  A  20  Q  21  A  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  Q  33  A  34  Q  35  A  36  Q  37  A  38  Q  39  40  A  41  42  Q  43  44  A  45  Q  46  47  such a purpose.  The Orders-in-Council of the  Provincial Government stated that the moment the  Indian release was received the land reverted totally  to the Province, as I understand it.  :  All right.  Thank you.  And that started in 1907?  Yes.  Now, Dr. Lane, I am going to ask you to pass over tab  43.  This is a document that refers to the document at  tab 47, a letter of June 6, 1908, it appears?  Yes.  Refers to an application by David Francis and Charles  Martin for the purchase of land?  That's correct.  These were two Indians that were  attempting to purchase land.  All right.  Now, tab 44, please.  This is the Indian  agent and appears to be a report of the Indian agent  addressed to officers in the agency December 31, 1908?  Yes.  And what would you direct our attention to on this?  Well, again the agent at Hazelton refers to the unrest  of the Gitksans against the whites recently existing  and it mentions:  "Amongst the Hagwilgets, the change of conditions  brought about by the strong influx of settlers  became such that from an almost unlimited area  they underwent the concentration within the  compass of their reserves."  This is in 1908.  And this is Loring, is it?  This is Loring.  To Vowell?  Yes.  Okay.  Would you please go to tab 45?  Yes.  This is Agent Loring again to now the Honourable Frank  Oliver?  Yes.  Superintendent General of Indian Affairs in  Ottawa.  All right.  And he's reporting on the situation in the  Upper Skeena?  Yes.  And it looks as though this is a copy of a letter that  was referred to you by -- referred by you yesterday,  is that right? 16925  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1 A   It may have been.  I must confess I am not certain.  I  2 am losing track here.  We have been through so many  3 letters.  4 Q   All right.  Let me direct your attention now to tab  5 46.  6 A   Yes.  7 Q   What is this, Dr. Lane?  8 A  Well, this is an internal memorandum in Victoria in  9 the lands office and it's a memorandum prepared for  10 Price Ellison who at that time was the Chief  11 Commissioner of lands and works for the Province.  Re  12 application of Indians for preemptions.  And this is  13 3rd November, 1909.  And the message is quite brief:  14  15 "My personal opinion about these applications of  16 Indians for preemption records is that in view of  17 the present situation with regard to Indian  18 reserves generally it might be unwise to grant  19 them preemption records.  The Province claims that  20 at the present time more land is held as Indian  21 Reserves than is necessary for the requirements of  22 the Indians and it seems to me it would be rather  23 stultifying this claim to allow them to take up  24 preemptions as it would be somewhat in the nature  25 of an admission that they had not sufficient lands  26 in their reserves."  27  28 Q   Thank you.  I refer you to tab 47.  This is a memo  29 over the name of S. Bray?  30 A   Yes.  31 Q   To the Assistant Deputy Minister.  And my lord, that  32 was referred to yesterday.  I don't intend to refer it  33 to the witness again.  Now, Dr. Lane, would you please  34 review tabs 48 through to 53.  These are a series of  35 lettergrams and telegrams and correspondence, I  36 believe, from March 1, 1911 through to March 14, 1911?  37 A   Yes.  To what —  38 Q   And it appears to relate to a Reverend McDougall?  39 A   Yes.  What was the last tab you referred me to.  40 Q   53.  41 A   Oh, I'm sorry.  Yes.  Yes, that's correct.  42 Q   And that is a series --  43 A   Yes, it is.  44 Q   And what's the significance of that?  45 A  Mr. McDougall was in Alberta and had a long experience  46 with the Indian people.  I believe he was involved  47 with the negotiation of some treaties of the number 16926  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1 treaties and he was retained by the -- or asked by the  2 Department of Indian Affairs to go into British  3 Columbia, I believe it was in the summer of 1910, and  4 investigate and report to them about some of the  5 matters of concern in the Upper Skeena area, the  6 Bulkley area and some neighbouring parts of the  7 Province, the Fraser district as I recall.  And he  8 wrote a report, and there was some concern that the  9 report might have been distributed or a copy of the  10 report distributed to other than the Department of  11 Indian Affairs, and the series of night lettergrams  12 and other correspondence has reference to this and his  13 response when asked about it appears at tab 53.  14 Q   Thank you.  15 A  And he says briefly:  16  17 "In answer to yours of the 10th,"  18  19 And gives the number.  20  21 "I did send a copy of the report referred too to  22 Dr. Wrinch of the Hazelton Hospital under pledge  23 of confidence and I feel sure the doctor has  24 respected same - he is not associated with the  25 movement on behalf of Indians in B.C. but is much  26 interested in the whole question and most loyal to  27 the Department.  2 8 When I was in the Babine country and on the  29 Skeena last summer I got some maps and much  30 information and help from Dr. Wrinch and I cannot  31 think for a moment that Dr. Wrinch would show the  32 copy of my report to anyone.  33 I had five copies typed - one is in your  34 file, one went to the Minister, one to the  35 Premier, one is above, and I am in posession of  36 the fifth.  37 The reason I sent one to the Premier was  38 because I found some telegrams from himself in the  39 hands of the Indians on the Skeena and I felt it  40 would be proper to send him a copy.  As to  41 authority for my action I had none other than what  42 I believe to be for the common good."  43  44 Q   Reverend MacDougall's report was referred to you by  45 Dr. Galois.  I refer you now, Dr. Lane, to tab 54.  46 A   Yes.  47 Q   This is a letter of Ashdown Green.  You've directed 16927  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1 our attention to Ashdown Green previously?  2 A   Yes.  3 Q   It's to the Indian office in Victoria, November 2,  4 1911.  To what would you draw our attention on this  5 document --  6 A   Yes.  7 Q   -- of how many pages, ten pages?  8 A  Very briefly, Ashdown Green, the Surveyor, was  9 reporting on a trip he had made to the Upper Skeena  10 and the Kispiox Valley, in particular, to look into  11 problems relating to the fishing stations there and  12 some other places, hunting stations and he makes  13 reference in the second paragraph on the first page  14 to:  15  16 "the right bank of the Kispiox River about seven  17 miles above the village.  Here an Indian named Dan  18 Gowa occupies a log house and cuts a small  19 quantity of swamp hay on Lot 296 Cassiar District  2 0 which is owned by Mr. James McQueen, to whom a  21 Crown grant was issued on the 18th October, 1905.  22 Gowa has also been in the habit of fishing in -- "  23  24 a creek named there,  25  26 " -- a small stream, on lot 297, which is owned by  27 Captain McPhadden, under a South African War  28 grant.  Neither of these lots have been occupied  29 by their owners and they appear to be held for  30 speculative purpose only.  Mr. McQueen's address  31 is 1206 Haro Street, Vancouver and Captain  32 McPhadden is living somewhere on the Upper Skeena  33 near Hazelton.  I did into the see either of these  34 gentlemen."  35  36 And then he goes on discussing the Indian activities  37 in the area and the fishing places and the whites who  38 are coming into the area and mining.  Makes reference  39 to Reverend John MacDougall's report that we were just  40 dealing with, and so on.  This is simply an example of  41 similar things that we have been talking about in the  42 Bulkley Valley and the reference here is to one of  43 such in the Kispiox Valley.  44 Q   All right.  Thank you.  Now —  45 MR. GOLDIE:  Well, if there are any further, my lord, I would  46 like to be notified of them.  I find it unsatisfactory  47 for the witness to say this is one of them. 1692?  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1 A   Yes, certainly you can refer to the tab that has the  2 Cassiar records of the South African War grant.  3 MR. GOLDIE:  Well, if all the witness is referring to is  4 instances of South African War grants, that's fine.  5 A   Yes.  6 THE COURT:  All right.  7 MR. RUSH:  8 Q   Is that what you intended to refer to?  9 A   I was referring to South African War grants script  10 used in the Kispiox Valley which the Indians have been  11 using for fishing stations, yes.  12 MR. GOLDIE:  Well, am I to take it from that that all of the  13 items in tab 7 are fishing stations which were used by  14 Indians and which have been the subject matter of  15 South African War grants?  16 MR. RUSH:  Well, I think, Dr. Lane, you needn't answer that.  17 MR. GOLDIE:  Well —  18 MR. RUSH:  If my friend wishes to pursue it, I think he can in  19 cross-examination.  20 MR. GOLDIE:  My lord, that's not a satisfactory answer with  21 respect.  I think I am entitled to know when a witness  22 gives an answer like that if it isn't here where is  23 it?  If it is here, the witness has been  24 characterizing these things.  25 MR. RUSH:  Well —  26 MR. GOLDIE:  Now, at the present time the record is in this  27 state, that I go to tab 6, I find a number of  28 references which -- some of which I take it are in the  29 Kispiox Valley, some of which are not.  Am I to take  30 it from that that these are all the subject matter of  31 fishing stations?  I think not.  32 THE COURT:  I am sure they are not, are they, doctor?  33 A   No, they are not, and I believe it's tab 7.  It's the  34 Cassiar district.  35 MR. GOLDIE:  Tab 7?  36 A   Yes.  37 THE COURT:  And they are not all fishing stations, are they?  38 A   No, they are not.  Not to my knowledge.  3 9 MR. RUSH:  40 Q   Dr. Lane, the letter that is at tab 54, though, deals  41 with fishing stations, does it not?  42 A   Yes, it does.  43 Q   And those fishing stations are, as I read the letter,  44 set out from page four through to the -- it's unclear.  45 It looks to be page eight, however.  46 MR. GOLDIE:  Well, yes.  And the maps which he refers have been  47 filed as exhibits. 16929  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1  MR.  RUSH:  2  3  THE  COURT  4  MR.  RUSH:  5  6  7  THE  COURT  8  MR.  RUSH:  9  Q  10  A  11  Q  12  13  A  14  Q  15  A  16  THE  COURT  17  MR.  RUSH:  18  Q  19  20  A  21  Q  22  23  A  24  Q  25  26  27  A  28  29  30  31  THE  COURT  32  A  33  34  35  36  37  MR.  RUSH:  38  Q  39  40  41  A  42  MR.  RUSH:  43  44  45  46  47  And I think there has been considerable testimony on  the subject of these fishing stations, my lord.  :  All right.  Tab 56, my lord, was referred to yesterday.  I am  sorry, tab 55 was referred to yesterday.  Tab 56 is a  duplicate copy of tab 12 at this Volume 4.  :  Thank you.  I refer you to tab 57, Dr. Lane.  Yes.  All right.  And this appears to refer to David  Francis?  That's correct.  Now, have you reviewed the tabs from 57 through to 78?  Yes, I have.  :  57 to 78.  Yes.  That's to the end of the tabs in that volume.  And do those documents contained in those tabs make  reference to David Francis?  Yes, they do.  And I think you told us that that person is also known  as Tyee Lake David?  That's correct.  And can you summarize the references that are  contained within those tabs to Dr. -- or to David  Francis?  Yes.  This is a series of letters over the years  starting here in 1954 and finally ending in 1914 of  David Francis' attempt to purchase land near the town  of Aldermere, I believe.  :  I am sorry, where?  Near the town of Aldermere.  Near Tyee Lake, in the  Bulkley Valley in, which he is finally successful.  This is the same David Francis that the settlers were  writing about in their petition as an Indian who was  trying to purchase land in the valley.  And it indicates at tab 78 that apparently a Crown  grant was issued to Mr. David Francis on April 14,  1914?  Yes.  Now, my lord, that concludes my present questions of  Dr. Lane.  And if this matter is going over to the  12th of June, I'd like to keep her direct-examination  open for two reasons.  One, if I have not completely  covered off all the questions I want to ask her, I may  ask her one or two more.  At the moment I don't 16930  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  THE COURT  MR. RUSH:  THE COURT  MR. RUSH:  THE COURT  perceive that.  But secondly, there were some  documents that both the court and I believe my learned  friend had thought would be of useful assistance to  the court and I would like to see if we can get those  and place them in their context and in their binder.  Yes.  All right.  I think that's satisfactory.  Then  we're going to reconvene then on June 5 or we will  start the evidence of Susan Marsden.  Yes.  Yes.  All right.  Is there anything else?  Nothing from me, my lord.  All right.  And I understand that subject to what  you have just said that the cross-examination of Dr.  Lane will be on June 12, 13 and 14.  Yes.  All right.  Thank you.  I wish you a pleasant weekend.  Thank you.  (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED UNTIL MONDAY, JUNE 5, 1989 AT  10:00 A.M.)  I hereby certify the foregoing to be  a true and accurate transcript of the  proceedings herein to the best of my  skill and ability.  Laara Yardley, Official Reporter,  United Reporting Service Ltd.

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/cdm.delgamuukw.1-0018393/manifest

Comment

Related Items