"b79abadd-b07b-4812-8db6-e7179df2c69f"@en . "CONTENTdm"@en . "The disposal of crown lands in British Columbia"@en . "http://resolve.library.ubc.ca/cgi-bin/catsearch?bid=344789"@en . "British Columbia Historical Books Collection"@en . "Cail, Robert E."@en . "2019-08-16"@en . "1974"@en . "\"Bibliography: p[319]-324. Originally presented as M.A. thesis (U.B.C.) under title: Disposal of crown lands in British Columbia, 1871-1913.\"-- Edwards, M. H., Lort, J. C. R., & Carmichael, W. J. (1975). A bibliography of British Columbia: Years of growth, 1900-1950. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria, p. 46."@en . ""@en . "https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/bcbooks/items/1.0380460/source.json"@en . "xv, 333 pages : illustrations ; 24 cm"@en . "application/pdf"@en . " >v Robert ECail\nLANDMAN,\nAND THE LAW\nE^iposjil of Crown Lands\nin Bp|ish Columbia,\nI 1871-1913\n Land, Man, and the Law\nThe Disposal of Crown Lands in\nBritish Columbia, 1871-1913\nRobert E. Cail\nA thorough and unrivalled study of the\ndisposal of crown lands in early British\nColumbia, Land, Man, and the Law\nprovides the background for such topics\nof current debate as timber and mineral\nrights and Indian Land claims.\nDuring the Hudson Bay Company's\nyears, when trapping and trading were\nthe only concerns of the few white\noccupants of British Columbia, land\ntenure was of little interest and few\nprovisions were made for it. With the\narrival of settlers, the officers of the\ncolony were forced to act. An analysis\nof Governor James Douglas's policies,\nmany of them hurriedly established\nwhen he was faced with an influx of\ngold miners, precedes a survey of the\nsituation that existed when British\nColumbia entered Confederation in\n1871.\nEncouraging settlement, forestalling\nspeculation, and securing revenue were\nthe three aims of Colonial and early\nProvincial legislatures. This book examines their success in the face of rapid\nexploitation of natural resources. Conflicts between the dominion and provincial governments and between well-\nknown public personalities were frequent. The successes and failures of the\nmen in office determined the future of\nthe province \u00E2\u0080\u0094 for example, had early\ngovernments not retained rights to timber, forests would now be in private\nhands as most of them are in the United\nStates and the government would not\nbe able to plan changes in the forms of\ntenure as it is now doing.\nThe three chapters in which the author\ntreats aboriginal land claims are essential background for an understanding\nof the present debate.\n Land, Man, and the Law\n LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nThe Disposal of Crown Lands in\nBritish Columbia, 1871-1913\nRobert E. Cail\nUniversity of British Columbia Press\nVancouver\n CONTENTS\nList of Illustrations and Maps vii\nForeword by Margaret A. Ormsby ix\nIntroduction xi\nColonial Land Settlement Policy 1\nProvincial Land Policy to 1880 19\nProvincial Land Policy 1880-1913 36\nLand Surveys 59\nMining Legislation 70\nTimber Legislation 91\nWater Rights 111\nThe Railway Belt to 1884 125\nThe Railway Belt after the Settlement Act 146\nIntraprovincial Railways 153\nImperial Colonial Indian Policy 169\nIndian Land Policy after Confederation 185\nThe Reserve Allotment Commissions 209\n244\nLand Ordinance, 1870 251\nPre-emption Records, 1873-1913 262\nCertificates of Improvement, 1873-1913 264\nCertificates of Purchase, 1873-1913 266\nCrown Grants, 1873-1913 268\nTotal Land Transactions, 1873-1913 269\nLand and Natural Resources Receipts, 1871-1913 270\nPrivate and Government Surveys, 1900-1913 272\nTimber Statistics 273\nTimber Leases Held, 1888 275\nSummary of Data, 1916 Indian Royal Commission\nReport 277\nChapter 1\nChapter 2\nChapter 3\nChapter 4\nChapter 5\nChapter 6\nChapter 7\nChapter 8\nChapter 9\nChapter 10\nChapter 11\nChapter 12\nChapter 13\nConclusion\nAppendix A\nAppendix B\nTable 1\nTable 2\nTable 3\nTable 4\nTable 5\nTable 6\nTable 7\nTable 8\nTable 9\nTable 10\n Appendix C\nItem 1\nItem 2\nAppendix D\nItem 1\nItem 2\nItem 3\nItem 4\nItem 5\nItem 6\nItem 7\nRailway Papers\nDefunct Railway Companies Legislated out of\nExistence, 1927\nRailways Incorporated under Acts of the Legislature of\nBritish Columbia since 1883\nIndian Reserve Papers\nIndian Reserves in the Province of British Columbia, 1871\nLieutenant-Governor Trutch to Prime Minister\nSir John A. Macdonald, October 14, 1872\nIndian Petition to Dr. I. W. Powell, July 14, 1874\nSir James Douglas to Dr. I. W. Powell, Indian\nCommissioner, re: Colonial Indian Lands,\nOctober 14, 1874\n1) McKenna-McBride Agreement, September 24, 1912\n2) Order in Council, November 27, 1912\nExtracts from the Introduction to Report of the Royal\nCommission on Indian Affairs for the Province of\nBritish Columbia, 1916\nStatement of the Allied Indian Tribes of British Columbia,\nfor the Government of British Columbia, 1919\nSelected Bibliography\nIndex\n278\n283\n294\n297\n300\n302\n304\n306\n308\n314\n319\n325\n LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS AND MAPS\nILLUSTRATIONS\nFollowing page 128\nPlate 1. Sketch of the Lower Mainland by Colonel R. C. Moody,\npresumably in 1863\n2. Lord Edward Bulwer Lytton\n3. Colonel R. C. Moody\n4. Sir James Douglas Taking the Oath of Office as Governor of\nBritish Columbia, November 19, 1858\n5. Reputedly the D. L. Clynch, the First Ocean-going Vessel to\nEnter the Fraser River at New Westminster\n6. Sawmill at Chemainus, 1902\n7. C.P.R. Price List for City Lots in the Granville Townsite\n8. The Mint, New Westminster, 1862\n9. The Land Registry Office, New Westminster\n10. D. B. Charleson's Camp near Fraser Mills, 1890\n11. Gold-Washing, 1868\n12. H.M.S. Cormorant in Esquimalt Graving Dock in 1887\n13. Hudson's Bay Company Store at Yale, 1883\n14. Songhees Indian Reserve, Victoria Harbour, Esquimalt and Nanaimo\nRailway Trestle in Background\n15. Testing the Howe Trestle of the Crow's Nest Railway,\nDecember 12, 1897\n16. Arrival of First Transcontinental Train at Vancouver, May 23, 1887\n17. Joseph W. Trutch\n18. Kootenay Indians, Chief Isadore and Council\n19. Okanagan Indians, Goastamana, Son of Chief Kalamalka,\nLong Lake Reserve\n20. Okanagan Indians, Mrs. Josephine Gregoire and Children,\nLong Lake Reserve\n21. Peter O'Reilly\n22. Dr. I. W. Powell\n23. Cartoon of Yale in Construction Days, probably by\nHarry Fairfax, 1883\nMAPS\nThe Canadian Pacific Railway Belt 135\nRailway Belt Boundaries in the Lower Mainland 145\nIndian Reserves in the Okanagan Agency, 1916 236\n PHOTOGRAPHIC CREDITS\nPhotographs appear through the courtesy of the Vancouver City\nArchives, the Provincial Archives of British Columbia, the Victoria\nCity Archives, the New Westminster Public Library Photography Collection, the Vernon Museum and Archives, and Mrs. Louis Marchand.\n FOREWORD\nOf the four western provinces, only British Columbia entered Confederation having control of its public lands. This patrimony had\nbeen managed by Sir James Douglas in such a manner as to encourage an orderly settlement process and curb speculation in lands,\nforests, and mines. Douglas's successors, however, lacked his vision\nand his practicality and, yielding to the pressures of the moment,\noften squandered the province's valuable natural resources.\nIn this study, the late Robert Cail examines the essence of the\npolicies which Douglas forged at the height of the gold rush and\nrecounts the compromises made by those political successors who\nyielded to the insistent demands of their contemporaries for the\nopportunity to exploit the province's natural wealth. The vastness\nof the area contained within provincial boundaries encouraged their\nfeeling that the province's resources were inexhaustible. In the\ncourse of time, however, it became apparent that the amount of\narable land is severely limited and that other natural resources are\nwidely dispersed over a mountainous terrain.\nThe myopic vision of early legislators led to a bitter dispute with\nthe Dominion of Canada over the location and boundaries of the\nrailway lands. More tragically, it strained the harmonious relations\nwith the native peoples, a relationship which Douglas had fostered.\nRobert Cail was a graduate student in History at the University\nof British Columbia when he completed this study in 1955. The\nsubject remains highly relevant to discussions of public policy which\nare taking place today. After taking his M.A. degree, the author\nproceeded to the University of Minnesota to continue his graduate\nwork. He was engaged in writing his Ph.D. dissertation when he\ndied on July 18, 1958 in an automobile collision. Had Robert Cail\nlived he would have returned to his native province, and undoubtedly his work would have further enriched our historical literature.\nMARGARET A. ORMSBY\n INTRODUCTION\nThroughout the last century the most complex and comprehensive\nlegislation in British Columbia was that concerned with public\nlands. There was no precedent readily available to the colony prior\nto entering Confederation, and Governor James Douglas, upon\nwhose shoulders rested the responsibility for devising land policy,\nhad to formulate that policy before the example of the American\nHomestead Act of 1862 was available for guidance. Instructions\nfrom the Colonial Office and his own common sense were his only\nguides. Even had the American example been at hand, it is unlikely\nthat Douglas would have considered granting 160 acres free to\nbona fide settlers.1 Nor was any advice forthcoming from Canada.\nThere had been practically no interchange of ideas between\nCanada and the two Pacific colonies, and not until after the union\nof the two colonies of Vancouver Island and British Columbia in\n1866 was there any appreciable Canadian element on the West\nCoast. Hudson's Bay Company employees had never greatly concerned themselves with the formulation of a land policy providing\nfor the organized settlement of the country, and on his appointment as governor of \"Vancouver's Island\" in 1851, James Douglas\nhad to work out his own procedures. In doing so he devised a\npolicy that was a surprisingly good one.\nCreating a policy for the disposal of public lands in British\nColumbia where ownership had to be reconciled with water, timber,\nand grazing rights, with mining claims, and the urgent need for\nagricultural development, was both complicated and difficult. Until\nafter British Columbia entered Confederation, it was gold, not land,\nthat brought men to the Pacific colony (but of those who came,\nSection 1 of the American Homestead Act, 1862, provided for the preemption of a quarter-section, or less, of unappropriated public lands provided that \"any person owning and residing on land may, under the provisions of this act, enter other lands lying contiguous to his or her said land,\nwhich shall not, with the land so already owned and occupied, exceed in the\naggregate one hundred and sixty acres.\" United States, Statutes at Large,\nvol. 12, p. 392.\n xii INTRODUCTION\nmany remained to settle). It is significant that Douglas's chief\nconcern from 1858, when he severed his connection with the Hudson's Bay Company, until 1864, when he retired from public life,\nwas to draw up regulations governing miners' rights and claims.\nSecond to this was his concern with the disposal of land for settlement. Because placer mining could locate only the surface gold,\nhydraulic developments soon appeared, and for these, water was\nnecessary. Very early then, land legislation had to recognize the\nminers' water requirements, and, in so doing, had to abandon the\nEnglish common law relating to riparian rights in water.2 The fact\nthat much of British Columbia was heavily timbered also influenced\nland legislation. Although the economic significance of timber was\nnot recognized until after 1900, legal provision for the disposal of\ntimbered lands had to be made much earlier. After the union with\nCanada in 1871, both American and Canadian land legislation\nwere taken into account \u00E2\u0080\u0094 often with the inevitable confusion arising from the application of half-understood principles \u00E2\u0080\u0094 but, on\nthe whole, the land acts of British Columbia were in answer to the\nprovince's specific and peculiar needs.\nComplications in administering the land laws, as in framing\nthem, were many. The first difficulty was a result of the vastness\nof the colony. However well-devised the law, it was worse than\nuseless if it could not be administered with some degree of efficiency\nand uniformity. The miners returning from the Cariboo gold fields\nafter i860 were not greatly concerned with niceties of phraseology\nin a land act which they had never read and for which there was\nno administrative agency close at hand. Communication was slow\nand difficult; small wonder that unauthorized homesteads were\nThe civil and criminal laws of England, as the same existed on November 19,\n1858, were declared to have force of law in British Columbia on that date.\n\"Proclamation ... to declare that English law is in force in British Columbia,\" in British Columbia, [Proclamations and Ordinances, 1858-1864 (Victoria, New Westminster, 1858-64)].\nThis proclamation was repealed in 1867, but at the same time it was confirmed that the laws of England, as of November 19, 1858, were applicable\nin_ British Columbia so far as they were not \"from local circumstances inapplicable\" and as \"modified and altered by all past Legislation\" of the two\ncolonies before union. British Columbia, The Laws . . . Consisting of the Acts,\nOrdinances & Proclamations of the Formerly Separated Colonies, Vancouver\nIsland and British Columbia, and of the United Colony of British Columbia,\nby authority compiled and published under the \"Revised Statutes Act, 1871\"\n(Victoria: Printed at the Government Printing Office, 1871), p. 214,\nx867, 30 Vict., no. 70, s. 2.\n INTRODUCTION xiii\ntaken up throughout the Fraser Valley and on Vancouver Island.3\nSuch homesteads had to be legalized later in revisions and amendments.\nIt was also difficult to ensure that lands were taken by genuine\nsettlers and not by speculators. For fifty years the official documents, correspondence, and reports dealing with land were filled\nwith innumerable references to the existence of speculators, or to\nthe fear of their existence. Starting with Douglas and continuing\nto the present, the land acts have tried to make it impossible for\nland to be taken except for beneficial purposes. For many years,\nprovided that the land was to be used in all good faith, unlimited\nquantities might be had for practically nothing. For this reason,\nevery act stipulated that occupation must begin within a specified\nperiod and certain improvements be made by a definite date after\nthe pre-emption was recorded. Failure to comply resulted in\nforfeiture.\nBecause no effective administrative machinery was provided until\nafter 1900, earlier regulatory clauses were often disregarded.\nGovernor Douglas made every effort to see that his proclamations\nwere rigidly enforced, but hampered as he was by a meagre and\nuncertain revenue, he could do little.4 Even when money became\navailable after 1871, only desultory attempts were made to enforce\nthe regulations. For thirty years the prevalent attitude was to be\nthat land was plentiful but most of it useless, and should anyone\nhave enough initiative to pay a nominal price, no hindrance ought\nto be placed in his way.\nIndians did not qualify as settlers, nor, for the first few years,\nwere they considered to be speculators. So long as Douglas remained\ngovernor, little difficulty arose over Indian lands. Douglas left the\ntribes entirely unmolested on any lands already settled or used by\nthem, and he had begun to buy out their beneficial interest in all\nPioneers intending to raise foodstuffs to feed the miners took up isolated,\nunauthorized homesteads wherever they considered the conditions suitable.\nThis led to the Crown granting isolated blocks of land of which the geographic position was not definitely known. British Columbia, Department of\nLands, \"Surveyor-General's Report [1911],\" British Columbia, Legislative\nAssembly, Sessional Papers, 12th Pari., 3d sess., 1912, p. G9.\nAs early as November 14, 1861, Douglas was borrowing money to finance\nroad construction and maintenance. \"Proclamation, no. 13, A.D. 1861,\" in\nB.C., [Proclamations and Ordinances, 1858-1864]. After 1861, such loans\nbecame annual events.\n xiv INTRODUCTION\nlands on Vancouver Island. After Douglas retired in 1864, however,\nIndian reserves became an increasingly troublesome issue in British\nColumbia and, along with the complications stemming from the\nexistence of the Railway Belt within the province, gave rise to the\nstrained relations between Victoria and Ottawa that culminated\nin the Secession Resolution of 1878.5\nThe most troublesome of administrative problems, however, arose\nas a result of the Terms of Union under which the colony entered\nConfederation in 1871. Article 11 specified that in return for railway connection with Canada, British Columbia should convey to\nthe Dominion a strip of land forty miles wide along the line of rail\nwherever it was to be located. Five years were spent in surveying\nand locating the route which, as then planned, was to come through\nthe Rockies by the Yellowhead Pass, through the gap in the Cascades provided by the Thompson River Valley, and through the\nCoast Range by means of the lower Fraser Valley. Then as now,\nthis route was through the most heavily settled portion of the province. The transfer to the Dominion of a forty-mile strip of land\nthrough this heartland created a dual administration in British\nColumbia: one set of regulations administered by the Dominion\nfor what came to be known as the Railway Belt, and another,\nadministered by the province, for the rest of British Columbia. The\nresulting complications required sixty years to disentangle.6 In the\nprocess, British Columbia came close to withdrawing from Confederation; and the dominion government was badgered almost\nbeyond endurance. The wonder is not that British Columbia did\nnot withdraw from Confederation, but rather that Canada did not\n5 On August 30, 1878, the Secession Resolution proposed by Premier George\nA._ Walkem passed the assembly by a vote of fourteen to nine. The motion\nsaid, in part, \"that British Columbia shall thereafter have the right to\nexclusively collect and retain her Customs and Excise duties and to withdraw from the Union.\" In the confusion attendant upon the general election\nin Canada that September, the resolution was \"mislaid\" in Ottawa and did\nnot reach London until January 24, 1879. In the meantime, a much more\nconciliatory attitude had replaced the former hostility and the resolution was\nforgotten both by the Walkem ministry and the newly elected John A. Mac-\ndonald government in Ottawa. British Columbia, Legislative Assembly,\nJournals, 3d Pari., 1st sess., 1878, pp. no, 107; Frederic W. Howay, \"Political History, 1871-1913,\" in Canada and Its Provinces, Adam Shortt and\nArthur Doughty, general eds., 23 vols. (Toronto: Brook, 1914-17),\n21:202-204.\n6 For the genesis and first fifteen years of this problem, see Margaret A.\nOrmsby, \"The Relations between British Columbia and the Dominion of\nCanada, 1871-1885\" (Ph.D. diss., Bryn Mawr, 1937).\n INTRODUCTION\ntry to rid herself of what became the most involved and unpleasant\nproblem in domestic politics for fifty years.\nBut all this was to come in the future. To follow the story of\nthe disposal of public lands in British Columbia from 1871 to 1913,\nit is essential to return to colonial days. Governor Douglas's regulations formed a firm basis for the new province's land legislation\nframed subsequently to 1871.\n CHAPTER 1\nColonial Land Settlement Policy\nWith the revocation of the Hudson's Bay Company licence of exclusive trade west of the Rocky Mountains in 1858, Douglas, as\ngovernor of both Vancouver Island and British Columbia, faced\nthe problem of framing legislation for the disposal of public lands.\nThere was no thought then of railroads and conflicting jurisdictions, nor was there any intimation of the value crown lands were\nlater to acquire. It is all the more remarkable, therefore, that\nDouglas's proclamations covered every major contingency that has\nyet arisen in the land policy of the province. Close study of Douglas's\nordinances and a comparison of them with later land acts lead to\nthe conclusion that had Douglas continued the role of leadership in\nBritish Columbia until after union with Canada, few of the land\nproblems which did plague the province for so many years would\nhave arisen.\nDouglas would no doubt have been a leader in any society, or at\nany period; not necessarily popular, but certainly respected, and\ndeferred to, for his qualities of mind. His capacity for clear and\nconcise thinking is constantly evident in his despatches to the\nColonial Office asking for instructions on land policy, or giving\nanalytical and informed reasons for actions he had already taken.\nThe problem Douglas faced was the need to provide for the systematic alienation of public land in an uncharted wilderness of\nunknown area and unsuspected resources, inhabited by many thousands of Indians and a few thousand transient miners. Douglas\nhad to devise a land system for not only most unaccommodating,\nbut also widely scattered, areas of arable land. He had three\nsources upon which he could draw; the provisions under which the\n 2 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nHudson's Bay Company had allotted lands, the Colonial Office,\nand his own experience.\nUnder the grant made by the Royal Proclamation of January\n13, 1849, the Hudson's Bay Company had been given absolute\nlordship over, and proprietorship of, Vancouver Island, its land\nand its minerals, in perpetuum, subject only to the domination of\nthe British Crown, an annual rent of seven shillings, and agreement to settle a colony of British subjects on the island within five\nyears. It was solely to gain this last condition that the home government had acceded to the Company's request when it was before\nParliament in 1849. The stipulation to which Douglas had first to\ndirect his attention required the Company to dispose of land at\nreasonable prices for purposes of colonization, retaining as a service\ncharge 10 per cent of all money received from the sale of land\nand coal, or other minerals. The remaining 90 per cent was to be\napplied to public improvements and, in particular, to building\nroads. The Company was empowered to reserve such lands as were\nnecessary for improvements, but every two years an accounting was\nto be made to the Colonial Office of these reservations, the number\nof colonists settled on the island, and of the lands sold. The Crown\nreserved the right to recall the grant at the end of five years should\nthe Company fail to effect colonization, and to repossess after ten\nyears on reimbursing the Company for all expenses, civil or military, incurred in its administration of the island. Repossession was\neffected in 1858.\nThe articles of the proclamation that must have interested\nDouglas particularly were those specifying price, size of holdings,\nprovisions for surveying, and rights reserved to the Company. No\ngrant was to contain less than twenty acres; the price was to be\nfixed at one pound per acre; after payment the land was to be held\nin \"free and common socage\"; the island was to be divided into\ndistricts of from five to ten square miles; and all minerals, wherever\nfound, were to belong to the Company and might be mined upon\npayment of adequate compensation for any surface damage.1\nSo long as the colony was held imperium in imperio, Douglas\nhad no quarrel with the terms under which the land had been\ngranted to the Company, although he recognized that these terms\n1 The complete text of the grant may be found in British Columbia, Provincial\nArchives Department, \"Report ... 1913,\" B.C., Sessional Papers, 13th Pari.,\n2d sess., 1914, p. V73-74.\n COLONIAL LAND SETTLEMENT POLICY 3\nwere inimical to colonization. Notwithstanding the high price of\none pound per acre, he himself purchased land, but he stated that\nother Company men were \"scared at the high price charged.\"2 He\nknew that Vancouver Island from 1849 to x^5^ would have been\na favourable field for settlement under other auspices, and that the\nCompany had had sufficient capital to successfully carry out any\nscheme of colonization had it been so inclined. The Company had\nbeen familiar with the country and its resources; its officials had\nunderstood the natives thoroughly and could have conducted trade\nand developed the country in a way not possible to individual\neffort. But Douglas also knew that what had happened had been\njust the reverse. Bancroft, an historian of the Pacific Northwest\nnever too charitable toward the Hudson's Bay Company, remarked\nthat:\nNot alone must the pound per acre for wild, and thus far worthless, land, stolen from the savages, be paid the imperial government, but to the representative of the government as the representative of a crushing monopoly must the settler go for every\nnecessity, every article of comfort or form of requirement, paying\ntherefor often two or three hundred per cent on London cost;\nto this same hydra-head he must carry his produce, and receive\nfor it whatever the company might please to pay. Who among\nnineteenth-century Englishmen would leave his happy English\nhome with all its hallowed memories, and take up his residence\nin this far-away north-west wilderness only to breathe so stifling\nan atmosphere as this? Nobody.8\nAn American himself, Bancroft overlooked the fact that had it\nnot been for the presence of this \"hydra-head\" the territory might\nwell have fallen into American hands by default, but it was true that\nsettlers were conspicuously absent. In 1849 there were no more\nthan twenty and these had been obliged to retire at least ten miles\nfrom Victoria, since the Company had reserved for its own use a\nten-mile radius around the fort \u00E2\u0080\u0094 an area which contained the\n2 Douglas to A. C. Anderson, March 18, 1850, in Frederic W. Howay, \"The\nRaison d'Etre of Forts Yale and Hope,\" Proceedings and Transactions of the\nRoyal Society of Canada, 3d ser., 16 (1922), sec. 2, p. 63.\n3 Hubert Howe Bancroft, History of British Columbia, iygs-i88y, Works of\nHubert Howe Bancroft, vol. 32 (San Francisco: History Company, 1887),\np. 311. For reasons why the grant should not have been made to the Company if colonization were the primary aim, see R. E. Gosnell, \"Colonial\n. History, 1849-1871,\" in Canada and Its Provinces, Shortt and Doughty, eds.,\n21:83-84.\n LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nbest and most easily cleared farm land.4 Douglas was aware of the\nfrustrations experienced by the settlers because the lands at the\nperiphery of the company's reserve were heavily timbered and\ndevoid of adequate communication with the fort. By the end of\n1853, applications had been made for about twenty thousand acres\nand approximately nine thousand pounds had been paid. Between\nJuly 12, 1855 and October 10, 1856, public lands amounting to\n2,137 acres were sold to settlers at one pound per acre.\nDouglas, then, could find little help in the terms under which\nthe Company he had served for thirty-seven years had held the\nland. All that had really been accomplished between 1849 and\n859 was to demonstrate that under more favourable conditions\nthe country might have had possibilities for greater settlement.\nEven before his investiture as governor of the mainland colony on\nNovember 19, 1858, Douglas had transmitted his views on a land\npolicy to the Colonial Office. To this body he now turned for\nguidance. He very well knew that he was without any legal\nauthority to make regulations designed to protect British interests\non the mainland, but as the only official in the region, he felt\nconstrained to do all in his power to reduce to some order the\nchaotic conditions resulting from the influx of the hordes of miners\nand adventurers going up \"Fraser's River\" to the gold fields.5\nBecause he felt that \"the country will be filled with lawless crowds,\nthe public lands unlawfully occupied by squatters of every description, and the authority of the Government will ultimately be set\nat naught,\" he recommended that as \"a measure of obvious necessity\" the whole country should immediately be thrown open for\nsettlement, and that \"the land be surveyed, and sold at a fixed\nrate, not to exceed twenty shillings an acre.\"6 From these measures\n4 The Company did release some of its reserved land to encourage its retired\nservants to become settlers, but this was a special concession and was confined to its employees. Bancroft, History of British Columbia, p. 313.\n5 On November 19, 1858, the day that he was invested as governor of the\nmainland colony of British Columbia, Douglas's previous administrative acts\nwere announced \"to have been valid in Law.\" \"Proclamation ... to indemnify the Governor ... for Acts done before the Establishment of any Legitimate Authority in British Columbia,\" in B.C., [Proclamations and Ordinances, 1858-1864].\n6 Douglas to Edward Henry Stanley, 15th earl of Derby, secretary of state for\nthe colonies, June 10, 1858, no. 2, Great Britain, Colonial Office, Papers\nRelative to the Affairs of British Columbia, presented to both Houses of\nParliament by command of Her Majesty, 1859-1862, 4 pts. (London:\nPrinted by George Edward Eyre and William Spottiswoode ... for Her\nMajesty's Stationery Office, 1859-62), 1:14.\n COLONIAL LAND SETTLEMENT POLICY 5\nhe hoped both to secure order and to acquire a large revenue for\nthe service of the government.\nBefore this despatch of June 10 had reached the Colonial Office,\nSir Edward Bulwer Lytton, colonial secretary, had written cautioning Douglas to make the colony self-supporting as soon as possible\nand suggesting that this could be done by the disposal of public\nlands, especially of town lots, \"for which I am led to believe there\nwill be a great demand.\" Lytton wrote that \"many of our early\nColonial Settlements\" possessed lands which had \"afforded\" them\n\"safe though not very immediate sources of prosperity,\" but he\nbelieved British Columbia possessed \"in a remarkable degree, the\nadvantage of fertile lands, fine timber, adjacent harbours, rivers,\ntogether with rich mineral products.\" These would \"furnish the\nGovernment with the means of raising a Revenue which will at\nonce defray the necessary expenses of an establishment.\"7\nWhen Lytton received Douglas's despatch of June 10, he again\nwarned him that he must manage the colony without any financial\nassistance from the home government. He spoke of the colony's\n\"immense resources\" which gave him confidence that the mother\ncountry would be freed \"from those expenses which are adverse to\nthe policy of all healthful colonization.\"8\nIn a second despatch of August 14, 1858, Lytton laid down five\nprinciples regarding public lands which, had they been followed,\nwould have prevented much speculation and the consequent\nretardation of settlement and dissatisfaction of the settlers. But a\nlack of a sufficient revenue from those \"immense resources\"\nrendered his and Douglas's efforts fruitless.\nIn his despatch, Lytton authorized Douglas to sell land solely\nfor agricultural purposes whenever the demand for it arose. It was\nto be many years before the wisdom of this principle was appreciated in British Columbia. Secondly, he advised that the land be\nsold at an upset price determined by Douglas after taking into\nconsideration the price charged in neighbouring American territories. An upset price of at least one pound per acre was considered\nby Lytton to be necessary if the government were to profit from\nsales and \"mere land jobbing ... be in some degree checked.\"\nWith regard to land for \"town purposes (to which speculation is\nalmost certain to direct itself in the first instance), I cannot caution\nLytton to Douglas, July 31, 1858, no. 6, ibid., p. 45.\nLytton to Douglas, August 14, 1858, no. 8, ibid., p. 48.\n 6 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nyou too strongly against allowing it to be disposed of at too low\na sum.\"\nThirdly, Douglas was directed to open lands for settlement\ngradually, to sell only what was surveyed or ready for immediate\nsurvey, and to prevent, \"as far as in you lies,\" squatting on unsold\nland. Next, he was to keep a separate account of all revenue from\nland sales. These revenues were to be used for the time being for\nthe dual purposes of survey and communication, the first charges\non all land revenue.\nFinally, recognizing the presence in the colony of a great many\naliens, Lytton directed that while foreigners as such were not\nentitled to grants of waste crown lands, \"it is the strong desire of\nHer Majesty's Government to attract to this territory all peaceful\nsettlers, without regard to nation. For this reason, naturalization\nshould first be granted to all who asked for it, and then the right\nto acquire public land be accorded.\"9 This precedent established by\nLytton and incorporated by Douglas into the land ordinances, has\nbeen followed ever since.\nThese were most statesmanlike proposals and Douglas did his\nutmost to follow them. Immediately upon receipt of the despatch,\nDouglas sent Surveyor General Joseph D. Pemberton to lay out\ntownsites at Fort Langley, Fort Hope, and Fort Yale. On October\nii, 1858, he was able to tell Lytton that a public sale of lots at\nFort Langley would be held in the near future, such lots to be 64\nby 120 feet and to be sold at an upset price of \"100 dollars.\"\n(There is no explanation as to why Douglas quoted the price in\ndollars other than that the Americans in Victoria dealt in dollars.\nBritish Columbia used the British system of pounds, shillings, and\npence until 1866.) Douglas permitted himself to hope that the\ndisposal of these lots and the sale of public lands would, besides\nopening the country for settlement, \"prove a prolific source of\nrevenue.\" He took the opportunity to remind the Colonial Office\nthat he had been called upon to act without legal authority while\nat Yale and Hope, although he had doubtless at the time hoped\nthat such actions would be subsequently legalized. He said that the\n9 Lytton to Douglas, August 14, 1858, no. 9, ibid., p. 50. Naturalization was\ngranted by Proclamation, May 14, 1859. B.C., Revised Statutes, Appendix\n. . . 1871, Containing Certain Repealed Colonial Laws Useful for Reference,\nImperial Statutes Affecting British Columbia, Proclamations, Etc. (Victoria,\nB.C.: Printed by Richard Wolfenden ... at the Government Printing Office,\nn.d.), pp. 57-59, 1859, 22 Vict., no. 14.\n COLONIAL LAND SETTLEMENT POLICY 7\nmost urgent appeals had been made to him by potential settlers\nfor the purchase of town lots and that, because of the approaching\nwinter, he had granted continuation of monthly leases with preemption rights until the lands could be legally sold.10 He had\nevidently taken Lytton's advice to charge a high enough price for\nhis losses. He granted them at forty-one shillings a month. At that\nrental, speculators would have been taking a dangerous chance.\nFollowing the first public auction of lands held in British Columbia on November 25, 1858, Douglas could report that the result\nhad been \"highly satisfactory.\" It showed public confidence in the\nresources of the colony and, more important, provided a needed\nsupply of money for defraying current heavy expenses. From the\nsale of a portion of the 3,294 lots at Fort Langley which had been\ncarved from 900 surveyed acres at the townsite, over \u00C2\u00A3 13,000 had\nbeen realized. Although the upset price had been \u00C2\u00A320.16.8 sterling,\nor $100, the keen competition from the large gathering had resulted\nin prices going as high as $725. Ten per cent of the price had to\nbe paid down, while the remainder was to be paid within one\nmonth. Failing this, the lots were to be forfeit and resold.11\nTwo precedents were set here which were to affect land policy\nafter 1871; the first was sale by public auction and the second,\ndeferred payment. These became the subject of Lytton's next despatch. Referring to sale by public auction as opposed to a fixed\nprice, Lytton found two advantages; namely, it formed the best\navailable precaution against disposing of lands at an inadequate\nprice, and secondly, it prevented \"both the occurrence and even\nthe suspicion or imputation of any favouritism or irregularity in\nthe disposal of the public property.\" Lytton need not have concerned himself on that score; throughout all the correspondence\nand official records there is not the slightest evidence that Douglas\never displayed any favouritism towards the Hudson's Bay Company\nalthough there are numerous references to the opportunities that\nhe had to do so. The only objections Lytton could find to the sale\n10 Douglas to Lytton, October 11, 1858, no. 14, Gt. Brit., Papers Relative to\nBritish Columbia, 1:38. After receiving authorization for his actions, Douglas\nissued a proclamation on December 2, 1858, stating that henceforth the\ngovernor could \"grant to any person or persons any Land belonging to the\nCrown\" and that such grants were valid. B.C., Revised Statutes, Appendix,\n187j, p. 53, 1858, 22 Vict., no. 11.\n11 Douglas to Lytton, November 29, 1858, no. 28, Gt. Brit., Papers Relative to\nBritish Columbia, 2:37; Joseph D. Pemberton, acting colonial surveyor, to\nDouglas, November 30, 1858, \"Enclosure 1 in No. 28,\" ibid., p. 38.\n 8 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nby auction were that it might have served to \"discourage enterprise by exposing the discoverer of eligible lands to be outbid at\ntheir sale,\" and that such a method might have caused some delay\nin effecting transfer of title. In summary, however, Lytton found\nthe advantages outweighed the drawbacks by far, particularly as\nauctions afforded \"the inestimable advantage of perfect confidence\nin the purity of the land administration.\" Any objections to auctioning lands could be met by adopting the system common to other\ncolonies and permitting an applicant to purchase country lands at\nthe upset price once the land had been unsuccessfully offered for\nsale. Thus, there would always be an adequate \"common land\nready for appropriation by any settler .. . unwilling to wait for a\nperiodical auction.\"12\nHad such a policy been followed after 1871, thousands of acres\nbought for speculative purposes at the very low prices established\nby statute, might have been retained by the government for purposes of bona fide settlement. Like many governments which came\nafter, Douglas's administration suffered from chronic poverty, and\nnot even he could refrain from letting large acreages go at nominal\nprices in order to secure revenue. Having assumed the responsibility\nfor administering the country from the proceeds of its own resources,\nand having been refused financial aid from England to supplement\nthe very meagre colonial revenue, Douglas had no alternative but\nto abandon the auction system before it was well started. To supply\nthe pressing needs of government, land \u00E2\u0080\u0094 the readiest asset upon\nwhich to draw \u00E2\u0080\u0094 was sold on terms that were the most likely to\nprove attractive to investors. Had the home government seen fit to\nlend its credit to the colony, the land might have been more wisely\nconserved, and settlement more systematically directed, to ensure\ncompact and gradual expansion. In this way, provision might have\nbeen made for improvements that would have been a boon to the\nsettler and a manageable burden to the government. Although\nLytton had a remarkably clear grasp of the numerous problems\ninvolved in developing and settling a new colony, he seems to have\nbeen unduly influenced by reports reaching him of British Columbia's wealth, overlooking the fact that very little of that wealth had\nfound its way into the colonial government's treasury.\nIn the matter of payments, Lytton also gave sound advice, but\nagain he did not recognize the exigencies of colonial life in British\n12 Lytton to Douglas, February 7, 1859, no. 9, ibid., p. 78.\n COLONIAL LAND SETTLEMENT POLICY 9\nColumbia. He wrote that for three reasons he had \"not a doubt\n... that prompt payment is the proper rule.\" It would serve as the\nbest indication of a purchaser's having adequate means to cultivate\nhis land; it would avoid harassing the government with the existence of a whole population of small debtors from whom it would\nbe next to impossible to collect; and, finally, it would maintain \"a\nsounder state of society by not encouraging the premature conversion into petty and impoverished landowners of those who ought\nto be labourers.\"\nWhen he read that two partial payments had been permitted at\nthe auction of the Fort Langley lots, and saw Douglas's Land\nProclamation of February 14, 1859, Lytton again drew Douglas's\nattention to the difficulties which might arise:\nUnder the present rules, if payment of the second moiety should\nbe resisted, it would be extremely difficult to eject persons who\nby the very conditions of the case would have been in occupation\nof their lands for a period of two years. And again, if some of\nthe landowners do pay their obligation, whilst others do not, a\ngrievance arises out of the distinction.\nFor these reasons, Douglas was asked to give further consideration\nto the matter of prompt payments.13\nOn February 19, 1859, Douglas had forwarded to Lytton a copy\nof this first proclamation concerning public lands. The preamble,\nissued five days before, stated that \"it is expedient to publish for\ngeneral information, the method to be pursued with respect to the\nalienation and possession of agricultural lands, and of lands proposed for the sites of towns in British Columbia.\" The first nine of\nthe provisions were as follows:\n1. All the lands of British Columbia, and all the mines and\nminerals therein, belong to the Crown in fee.\n2. The price of lands, not being intended for the sites of towns,\nand not reputed to be mineral lands, shall be ten shillings per\nacre, payable one-half in cash at the time of sale, and the\nother half at the end of two years from such sale. Provided,\nthat under special circumstances, some other price, or some\nother terms of payment, may from time to time be specially\nannounced for particular localities.\n3. It shall be competent to the Executive, at any time, to reserve\nsuch portions of the unoccupied Crown Lands, and for such\npurposes as the Executive shall deem advisable.\n13 Lytton to Douglas, May 7, 1859, no. 24, ibid., p. 86.\n LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nExcept as aforesaid, all the lands in British Columbia will be\nexposed in lots for sale, by public competition, at the upset\nprice above mentioned, as soon as the same shall have been\nsurveyed and made ready for sale. Due notice will be given\nof all such sales. Notice, at the same time, will be given of\nthe upset price and terms of payment when they vary from\nthose above stated, and also of the rights reserved (if any)\nfor public convenience.\nAll lands which shall remain unsold at any such auction\nmay be sold by private contract, at the upset price, and on the\nterms and conditions herein mentioned, on application to the\nChief Commissioner of Lands and Works.\nUnless otherwise specially notified at the time of sale, all such\nsales of Crown Land shall be subject to such public rights of\nway as may at any time after such sale, and to such private\nrights of way, and of leading or using water for animals, and\nfor mining and engineering purposes, as may at the time of\nsuch sale be specified by the Chief Conunissioner of Lands\nand Works.\nUnless otherwise specially announced at the time of sale, the\nconveyance of the land shall include all trees and all mines\nand minerals within and under the same, except mines of\ngold and silver.\nWhen any \"Ditch Privilege\" shall be granted, there shall be\nincluded (unless excluded by express words) the right to lop,\ndress, or fell any trees standing on unoccupied Crown Lands\nwhich, in the opinion of the proprietors of the ditch, might\nby their accidental fall, or otherwise, endanger the safety of\nthe ditch or any part thereof.\nUntil further notice, gold claims and mines shall continue to\nbe worked subject to the existing regulations.\nNo words were wasted in the proclamation; the principles were\nclearly defined. The constitutional right of the Crown to all lands\nand all mines and minerals was stated; lands were to be divided\ninto town, general country, and special settlement, and offered for\nsale by public auction subject to a previously announced upset\nprice. In his covering despatch, Douglas drew Lytton's attention\nto the fact that all known mineral lands, as well as those reputed\nto contain minerals, would be reserved. He expressed his intention\nof also reserving large tracts for roads, churches, schools, and other\npublic purposes, as well as for towns and villages, but not to the\npoint of retarding the progress, improvement, or settlement of the\ncolony. He said that, as a general rule, no land was to be offered\nfor sale without first having been surveyed and mapped under\n COLONIAL LAND SETTLEMENT POLICY 11\ngovernment authority. To calm any fears the Colonial Office may\nhave had about the low upset price established in the proclamation,\nDouglas said that there were many reasons for departing from\nLytton's advice. The first reason (expressed in an oblique manner)\nwas Douglas's distrust of the many Americans within British\nterritory.\nWe think it a matter of the greatest importance to encourage\nemigration from England, in order to supply the want now so\nmuch felt of an English element in the population, a want\nwhich, in fact, lies at the root of all the difficulties which now\nso much embarrass all attempts at legislation for the country.\nWe are, therefore, especially desirous of placing before the English public the attraction of cheap land.\nHe also feared that the establishment of a higher price for land\nwould drive \"the sturdy yeomen expected this year from Canada,\nAustralia, and other British Colonies\" across the frontier \"in hundreds\" to seek homes on American territory where it was the custom\nto grant free land. Finally, however, Douglas hoped that a low\nupset price would \"guard the land operations of the Colony, as\nmuch as in the nature of things is practicable, from the designs of\nspeculators who make purchases of land not for actual settlement\nbut merely for profitable resale.\"\nTo amplify the \"special circumstances\" mentioned in his proclamation (item 2), Douglas explained his plan for a special settlement along the American border. There he proposed to create a\nmilitary reserve on behalf of the Royal Engineers, \"and if possible\nalso otherwise to settle it with a population composed exclusively of\nEnglish subjects.\"14 Douglas had lived through the i84o's in\nOregon, and he would have still remembered the spirit that had\nbeen abroad in a land where the president-elect had chanted with\nconviction: \"Fifty-four forty or fight!\"\nThe last two clauses of the proclamation dealt with laying out\nand selling lands in the colony's capital, New Westminster, the\nname bestowed on the city by the Queen. Three-quarters of the\nlots were to be sold at public auction, but the remaining quarter\nwas to be reserved for purchasers in the United Kingdom and in\nthe British colonies. So objectionable did Lytton find this reservation that no government in British Columbia was to have the\n\"Proclamation, Enclosure in No. 51,\" ibid., p. 65; Douglas to Lytton,\nFebruary 19, 1859, no. 51, ibid., pp. 64-65.\n 12 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\ntemerity to embark on a similar scheme until 1896. Lytton could\nhardly find words strong enough to condemn the measure. Besides\nbeing \"decidedly objectionable,\" it could serve no purpose but to\n\"stimulate the acquisition of property by non-residents.\" Pointing\nto this as one of the worst evils to which any new community could\nbe subjected, he continued, \"the lots [would be] bought by speculators who [would] hold them on a chance of a rise in value, with\nthe effect in the meanwhile of obstructing the progress of the town,\ninterrupting its communications, and creating a nuisance to the\nholders of adjoining lots.\" This objectionable measure was ordered\nto be rescinded at once.15\nDouglas had no alternative in the face of this order but to\nabandon the plan, but he held out temporarily on other points. He\naccepted Lytton's advice of one general upset price and of all sales\nby auction, but he did not give in at once to the requirement of\nall-cash sales. He wished to make it easier for settlers with little\ncapital \u00E2\u0080\u0094 the bulk of the population of that time \u00E2\u0080\u0094 to acquire\nland. He might have abandoned this plan also had he not been in\ndire need of the money which such sales could provide. In order\nto assure a sufficient quantity of surveyed lands for immediate\nrequirements, Pemberton had been sent to \"Fraser's River\" with\ninstructions to survey as quickly as possible all open districts \"so\nthat the Country may be laid out for immediate settlement and\noccupation.\"16\nThe Colonial Office persisted, however, and by the end of the year\nDouglas agreed to require prompt payment for land.17 But the\nattempt was unsuccessful. On January 4, i860, the Land Ordinance for the mainland made provision for payment by instalments,\nand this practice continued for twenty-five years. The new ordinance incorporated all Douglas had learned from experience in the\npast year, his first in land operations. Among other things he had\ndiscovered that the Royal Engineers, sent out by Lytton in 1858\nand charged with surveying among other tasks, could not keep\npace with the demand for land. In addition, the cost of transporting the Engineers to localities where surveys were required would\nhave exceeded the price of the land. Lytton's recommendation that\n15 Lytton to Douglas, May 7, 1859, no. 24, ibid., pp. 86-87.\n16 Douglas to Lytton, May 23, 1859, no. 11, ibid., 3: 12.\n17 Douglas to Henry Pelham Clinton, 5th duke of Newcastle, colonial secretary,\nNovember 10, 1859, no. 27, ibid., p. 69.\n COLONIAL LAND SETTLEMENT POLICY 13\nthe cost of the actual survey be added to the price of the land did\nnot solve the problem of insufficient surveyors.\nIn order to remove \"so pregnant a cause of complaint,\" and to\nhasten settlement by promoting the acquisition of unsurveyed agricultural land, the new ordinance authorized the occupation of such\nland to the extent of 160 acres, with a pre-emptive right, by any\nperson immediately occupying and improving the land, provided\nthe settler paid the price of ten shillings an acre when the survey\nwas completed and when the title was granted. Thus, for the first\ntime in either colony, provision was made for the pre-emption of\ncrown land. At the same time, Douglas provided for the purchase\n\"of larger tracts of unsurveyed country land ... as [might] be\ndesired by persons of larger means, [but] in order to guard against\nthe speculative holding of land ... 5s an acre [was] to be paid\ndown, and the residue at the time of survey.\" As the object of the\nnew ordinance was \"solely to encourage and induce the settlement\nof the country,\" occupation of the land was \"made the test of\ntitle, and no pre-emption title [could] be perfected without compliance with that imperative condition.\"18\nDouglas discussed the land problem with his council in March,\ni860. It was recorded in the minutes that \" 'the council are unanimously of the opinion that a low price ... combined with occupation and improvement, would conduce to the general settlement of\nthe country.' \" From this sound observation it is apparent that\nDouglas and his advisers, although constantly short of money for\nadministrative purposes, had already abandoned the idea of enriching the treasury from the sale of public lands. Instead, the real\nproblem \u00E2\u0080\u0094 that of encouraging settlement \u00E2\u0080\u0094 was squarely met.\nThe council went on record to say that if the price were to be\nreduced, then conditions should be imposed to prevent any large-\nscale alienation of land for speculative purposes prejudicial to\nthose settlers of more limited means who wished to cultivate it;\nthat further provisions should be made for the pre-emption of\nunsurveyed land; that pre-emptions must be limited to 160 acres;\nand, finally, that all waste land should not be tied up in preemptions. Some waste land should be available to the capitalist\nwishing \" 'extensive quantities of land ... for laudable ... purposes,5 \" at a higher price and such a grant should be circumscribed\nDouglas to Newcastle, January 12, i860, no. 35, ibid., p. 90; \"Proclamation,\nEnclosure in no. 35,\" ibid., pp. 91-92.\n I\n14 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nby \" 'conditions that would prevent abuse.' \"lfl In devising this\nlast clause, the council surely must have realized it was trying to\ndo the impossible. Not one of Douglas's later ordinances was to\ncontain any such provision, although every other suggestion was to\nbe enacted by February, 1861.\nParticularly important was a provision giving pre-emptors of 160\nacres the right to acquire further land at the price of ten shillings\nper acre.20 This principle was to be embodied in future land ordinances and proclamations, but neither then, nor at any future date,\ndid such additional purchase exempt the settler from the necessity\nof improving his pre-emption. He was under no obligation to\nimprove his more recently purchased land and might do as he\nwished with it, but, as of January, i860, he had to either better\nhis first claim or forfeit it to another who would put the land to\nbeneficial use. It should be noted in passing that this principle of\n\"beneficial use\" came to be applied to any type of claim \u00E2\u0080\u0094 land,\nmineral, or timber \u00E2\u0080\u0094 and to water rights and coal leases. It was\ndesigned not only to prevent speculation in public lands, but also\nto offer every possible encouragement to the settler, prospector,\nfree miner, or farmer, whose intentions were honest. By holding\nout such inducements, successive governments hoped to settle the\ncountry with people who would develop the natural resources to\nbenefit themselves and to contribute indirectly to the government's\nincome through duties, taxes, and royalties. Had Douglas achieved\nnothing else by 1864, he would still deserve a place of honour in\nBritish Columbia's history for implementing this principle.\nAs will become evident, not all later governments were to insist\nupon strict conformity with the statutory provisions respecting\nimprovements, but the principle had been established and was\nnever to be questioned officially. It would appear, however, that\nfortunes both great and small were made, in defiance of the\nstatute. From the 1860's until at least 1910 there was scarcely a\npublic figure in British Columbia who did not acquire large holdings of agricultural, pastoral, or mineral lands. As far as it is possible to trace transactions through official sources, these acquisitions appear legal, but, undoubtedly, information acquired as a\nmember of the government, or as a confidant of such a member,\nwould have had potential value.\n19 Quoted in Gosnell, \"Colonial History, 1849-1871,\" pp. 109, no.\n20 B.C. Revised Statutes, Appendix, 1871, p. 63, i860, 23 Vict., no. 15, s. 7.\n COLONIAL LAND SETTLEMENT POLICY 15\nIn February, 1861, conditions on Vancouver Island necessitated\na new ordinance to lower the upset price of country lands to four\nshillings and twopence per acre, and to legislate other conditions\nfor the acquiring of land. Douglas had been so preoccupied in\nguiding the development of the mainland colony that he had\nfound little time to consider the state of affairs closer to home/The\n1861 Ordinance was the first to give detailed regulations in either\ncolony for pre-empting crown land. It stipulated that all British\nmale subjects (and aliens who had taken the oath of allegiance)\nover eighteen years of age could pre-empt waste crown land,\nexcepting Indian reserves or settlements, to the extent of 150 acres\nfor a single man, 200 acres for a married man whose wife was\nresident in the colony, and 10 acres for each child under eighteen\nyears. Having selected his land the settler had to record his claim\nwith the surveyor general in Victoria and pay the required fee. If\nthe land were unsurveyed, as it usually was, his application had to\nbe accompanied by the \"best possible description thereof in writing,\" and a map. As soon as the land was surveyed, he had to pay\nthe required four shillings and twopence per acre. Should the\npre-emption be on land already surveyed, however, three years\nwere allowed in which to make full payment. Two years after\nsecuring his certificate of record, and upon the satisfactory evidence\nof third parties that he had continued in permanent occupation\nfor the two years and had effected improvement amounting to two\nshillings per acre, the settler was entitled to a certificate of improvement. The land could not be transferred until this certificate had\nbeen issued. When all requirements had been fulfilled and all payments made, a crown grant was issued, but the right to repossess\nany part of the land for roads or other public purposes and the\nright to work any precious minerals were reserved to the Crown.\nOnce the settler received a crown grant to his pre-emption, he\ncould buy any additional amount of land at the current price. This\nland had to be, of course, surveyed land. The settler was allowed\nto be absent from his claim for only two months; longer than that\nand the claim was forfeit to the surveyor general.21\nFollowing the report of the Select Committee set up in 1863\nby the House of Assembly to investigate the condition of crown\n21 Ibid., pp. 25-28, 1861, 24 Vict., no. 4.\n 16\nLAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nlands,22 it was ruled that the most land a pre-emptor could purchase in addition to his pre-emption was 480 acres at four shillings\nand twopence an acre. Any quantity of land could be leased, however, for agricultural purposes and water could be diverted for the\nsame purpose.23/\nDouglas probably appointed the Select Committee of 1863 as a\nresult of a memorial presented to him in April, 1861, by J. A. R.\nHomer and other citizens of New Westminster. Homer criticized\nthe absence of a land tax, the careless administration of public\nlands, and the failure to establish a Land Registry Office.24 What\nperhaps the memorialists overlooked and what the Colonial Office\nnever seemed to have understood was that Douglas was hampered\nconstantly in his plans for the two colonies by a lack of revenue.\nHis only sources of income on the mainland were land sales, a\ncustoms import of 10 per cent, and liquor and miners' licences. To\nlevy miners' fees and to collect them were two quite different\nmatters. Although millions of dollars in gold were taken from the\nCariboo gold fields, the royalty owed the colonial administration\nwas generally evaded. Thus, rich as some miners became, their\nwealth added little to the colonial treasury other than indirectly\nthrough the volume of general business. To open the country and\nto meet the requirements of the population meant large annual\nexpenditures for public works. Douglas had to ask the Colonial\nOffice for financial relief and cut down drastically on public spending in the two colonies in order to avoid bankruptcy. He referred\nthe complaint that public lands had been wrongly administered to\nColonel Richard Moody, commander of the Royal Engineers and\nchief commissioner of lands and works. Douglas forwarded both\nhis own and Moody's reports on the matter to the Colonial Office\non April 22, 1861.25 No action was taken by the Colonial Office,\n22 Vancouver Island, House of Assembly, Committee on Crown Lands, Vancouver Island, Report, June 14th, 1864, 3d Pari., ist sess., 1863-64, [committee print]; later published with the evidence of witnesses, idem, Minutes\nof Proceedings of a Select Committee of the House of Assembly Appointed\nto^ Inquire into the Present Condition of the Crown Lands of the Colony,\nwith Reference to the Proposal of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the\nColonies Dated 15th June, 1863, to Hand Over the Crown Lands to the\nLegislature (Victoria: Printed by Harries ... for Her Majesty's Government, 1864).\n23 B.C. Revised Statutes, Appendix, 1871, pp. 85-93, 1865, 28 Vict, no. 23.\n24 \"A Memorial from the British Columbian Convention to the Imperial\nGovernment,\" British Columbian (New Westminster), February 28, 1861.\n25 Douglas to Newcastle, April 22, 1861, Great Britain, Colonial Office, \"CO\n60, British Columbia Original Correspondence, 1858-1871: Despatches from\n COLONIAL LAND SETTLEMENT POLICY 17\nbut Douglas did take steps to establish a Registry Office in New\nWestminster.\nJust before his retirement Douglas was forced to confess to the\ncommencing session of the first Legislative Council at Sapperton\nthat the results of his land policy had been disappointing. His\npolicy, he said, had been to advance public works as quickly as\npossible in order to give the waste lands of the colony a value they\nhad not until then possessed. With a view solely to increasing\npopulation by encouraging settlement, he had thrown open the\npublic lands to settlers on the most liberal terms, but the results\nhad not fulfilled his expectations./No doubt Douglas was disappointed at the slow pace development had taken, but he could\nhardly be held responsible. With Lytton's despatches to guide him\nand his own keen sense of what was needed, he had met realistically\nthe requirements of the two colonies, and in so doing he had displayed an advanced and liberal conception of the philosophy necessary to a public land policy in a new country. With 254 pre-emptions\nrecorded between 1858 and 1862 on the mainland and encompassing 50,000 acres, Douglas need not have been so pessimistic.26\nEssentially, it was the legislation formulated by Douglas that was\nstill in effect when the province joined Confederation in 1871.\nThe Land Ordinance of 1870, effective in 1871, closely resembled\nthose written by Douglas before his retirement in 1864. Certain\ndetails, however, were changed. Pre-emptions of unsurveyed land\nwere restricted to 320 acres east of the Cascades and 160 acres\nwest; pre-emptors were forbidden to hold two claims simultaneously; and improvements were to be made to the value of two\ndollars and fifty cents an acre. Under section 16 there was to be\n\"continuous bona fide personal residence of the pre-emptor,\" a\nrestriction added to prevent the practice of constructing a shanty\non the claim and rurming cattle on the land, but living elsewhere.\nThis personal residence clause, however, was to become inoperative\nafter four years of \"continuous occupation,\" presumably on the\nassumption that within that time the government would have sur-\nthe Governors of British Columbia, Draft Replies, Interdepartmental and\nMiscellaneous,\" microfilmed (London: microfilm made on behalf of the\nPublic Archives of Canada from the Public Record Office, London, n.d.),\npp. 168-89, 5 * 66 British Columbia.\nD. Borthwick, \"Settlement in British Columbia,\" Transactions of the Eighth\nBritish Columbia Natural Resources Conference ... 1955 (British Columbia\nNatural Resources Conference, 1955), p. 100.\n 18\nLAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nveyed the claim. After being surveyed, the land might be bought\nat one dollar an acre, payable in four equal annual instalments. A\ncrown grant conveying the land in fee simple was obtainable once\nall payments were made.\nNo restriction was placed on the quantity of surveyed land that\nmight be purchased at the upset price of one dollar an acre. Lands\nreputed to contain minerals, townsites and their suburbs, were\nreserved from sale. Provision was made for the governor to set the\nupset price of town lots as circumstances dictated, a wise stipulation which secured to the government any advance in current land\nprices. The Crown reserved the right to enter any land for the\npurpose of obtaining road-building materials, but, save for this\nprovision or unless otherwise specially announced, all trees, mines,\nand minerals except gold and silver were to be conveyed by the\nterms of sale. The only other reservations made were rights-of-way\nfor leading animals to water, for mining, or for engineering purposes, but only if these reservations were already in existence at the\ntime of sale.\nFor the purpose of pasturing cattle or horses, section 26 permitted\nthe leasing of any amount of un-pre-empted and unsurveyed waste\ncrown land, but only to genuine pre-emptors or buyers in the\nimmediate vicinity and at such rent as the Governor in Council\nmight specify. The only restriction placed on such leases was that\nwithin six months the lessee was required to stock his land with the\nnumber of animals per 100 acres required by the land commissioner. Leased land was subject at any time to pre-emption, government reserve, or purchase. As a benefit to the cattlemen who were\nunlikely to sit idly by while their range land was pre-empted, only\n500 acres of waste land could be leased for cutting hay and, then,\nonly for five years.27\n27 Because this ordinance will be used extensively as the standard by which to\ngauge subsequent progress, it is included as Appendix A.\n CHAPTER 2\nProvincial Land Policy to 1880\nThe land legislation prevailing at the time the united colony of\nVancouver Island and British Columbia entered Confederation in\n1871 has been briefly presented. Since the history of land laws during the next forty years was to be the history of the expansion of\nthe 1870 Ordinance, the principles of this law merit study. Those\nsections pertaining to timber leases, mining claims, free miners'\nprivileges, and water rights are treated in later chapters.\nBy 1871 the first and most important principle underlying land\nlegislation was that of beneficial use. The fact is inescapable that\nthe 1870 Ordinance was unwise legislation despite its restrictions\nbecause it did not recognize that good agricultural land was severely\nlimited. To this day, only 1,600,000 acres in the province have\nbeen developed as agricultural land, although 6,500,000 acres are\nclassified as arable or potentially so. It would have been in the\nbetter interests of both the province and conservation had the agricultural land been surveyed and divided into smaller holdings to\nbenefit a greater number. Douglas had done his utmost to retain\nthe land for the Crown until it had been surveyed, but lack of\nmoney, resulting in the recall of the Royal Engineers in 1863,\nfrustrated his plans. Further, it was to be forty years before systematic surveys of the province were undertaken to determine precisely the extent of cultivable land. Until the results of these surveys\nwere known, the land had appeared to be limitless; to have\nrestricted sales to 160 acres would have seemed miserly indeed.\nThe second principle to be found in the Ordinance of 1870 was\nsale by public auction with a previously established upset price.\nThis principle was based on the premise that arable land would be\n LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\neagerly sought by a confidently expected annual flood of immigrants. When the flood turned out to be a mere trickle, and when\nbuyers realized that it would be foolish to bid one another up at\nauction, it became the practice to wait until after the sale in order\nto obtain the land at the upset price. The provision for sale by\nauction became a dead issue.\nMore realistic was the third principle, that of payment by instalments. Under section 21 pre-emptors were given four years after\ntheir claims had been surveyed within which to make payment.\nBefore 1870, full payment had been required upon survey. Since\ngovernment surveys were frequently delayed, the pre-emptor often\npaid for his own private survey and bought the land in the usual\nway. Only one pre-emption claim could be held at any one time,\nand the residence requirement called for continuous bona fide\npersonal occupation of four-years' duration. Both these last stipulations were designed to prevent speculation.\nFourthly, it was firmly established that no crown grant to any\nland could be secured until the land had been surveyed. This\nrequirement was rigidly enforced, as indeed it had to be, lest Land\nOffice records become hopelessly confused. Finally, the Crown\nreserved to itself certain rights and privileges: namely, the right to\nrepossess a portion of granted lands for public purposes, and the\nrights to gold and silver wherever found, unless these were specifically exempted in the conveyance.\nThese were the principles formulated by Douglas and they have\nbeen altered only slightly by subsequent land acts. On occasion\none or more of these principles was to be dropped, only to be\nshortly reinserted and, today, they still form an integral part of the\nprovincial land legislation./\nBut what of agriculture itself in 1871? It was estimated that\n13,384 acres were being cultivated, almost entirely in the New\nWestminster and Victoria districts. In that year 125,000 bushels\nof potatoes, 140,000 bushels of turnips, and 215,000 bushels of\ngrain, were grown. On pastoral land 28,737 head of cattle were\nrun, and 2,373 tons \u00C2\u00B0f naY were cut. The faith of the settlers in\nthe future of their province was high although they realized that\nuntil the railway connecting them with Canada was built, development must be slow. Until that railway link became a reality in\n1885, the major market for the province's exports had to be found\nin San Francisco. Exports in 1872, confined almost entirely to\ngold, coal, and furs, amounted to $1,792,347; \"miscellaneous\"\n PROVINCIAL LAND POLICY TO 1880 21\nitems, including agricultural produce, amounted to only $59,231.\nThese figures show how extensive was the market within the province itself for farm produce.\nAnd what of population in the year of union? The population\nof 9,092 whites, 459 coloureds and 1,319 Chinese, was found\nchiefly in the Victoria and New Westminster areas, with only\nscattered settlements throughout the interior.1 The future of these\nsettlers \u00E2\u0080\u0094 closely dependent on the land laws \u00E2\u0080\u0094 looked secure and\nprosperous.\nBeyond the 13,000 acres under cultivation, the fort property,\ntown lots, and several thousand acres of farming lands retained by\nthe Hudson's Bay Company around Victoria, there was still a vast\narea to be settled, mining resources to be developed, timber lands\nto be exploited. Consequently, a more specific legal code had to\nbe established. Although by 1871 Hudson's Bay officials, and prospectors, miners, hunters, trappers, and travellers, had explored\nmuch of the province, no one had any idea of the total area of\nthe land surface, much less what proportion was arable. It has\nsince been determined that the province contains a total land area\nof 359,279 square miles and a fresh water area of 6,976 square\nmiles, or a total of approximately 230,000,000 acres of land, of\nwhich about 3 per cent is now considered to be arable agricultural\nland.\nIn his speech from the throne to the second session of the first\nprovincial Legislative Assembly on December 17, 1872, Lieutenant-\nGovernor Joseph Trutch stated:\nA bill will be submitted to you substituting for the existing Land\nLaws a measure on a sounder and more liberal basis, which it\nis believed will be more satisfactory to the Public and more conducive to the speedy settlement of the Province. Provision will\nalso be made for accurate and extensive Surveys of those Districts in the Province most available for settlement.2\nAs chief commissioner of lands and works in the colony from 1864\nto 1871, Trutch must have found it bitter to read the speech written\nfor him on this occasion. Amor De Cosmos no doubt had had a\nhand in this as it was he who had successfully proposed a motion\n1 E.O.S. Scholefield and R. E. Gosnell, A History of British Columbia, 2 pts.\nin 1 vol. (Vancouver: British Columbia Historical Association, 1913),\na: 1, 3.\n2 B.C., Legislative Assembly, Journals, 1st Pari., ad sess., 1873-73, p. a.\n 22\nLAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nat the Yale Convention in 1868 condemning the Land and Works\nDepartment and its land policy. His resolution asking for \"free\ngrants of at least 320 acres to actual settlers upon public lands\"\nwas not to receive consideration, but, doubtless, he had many\nremarks to make in the assembly amplifying his condemnatory\nmotion.\nThat the Office of Lands and Works is maintained at a great\nannual expense, amounting in 1868, for a Chief Commissioner\nand three clerks, to 8,490 dollars, and in former years to a far\nlarger sum. That the greatest ignorance prevails in the department as to the lands in Vancouver Island and on the mainland,\nalthough a land office has been kept open in the former place\n17 years, and in the latter for 10 years. That nothing is done\nby the department to assist in the sale and settlement of the\npublic lands, except recording a few pre-emptions on Vancouver\nIsland, and on the mainland the pre-emptions are recorded by\nthe magistrates. That a few parcels of public lands are leased\nfor the purpose of trade, agriculture, lumbering, and mining,\nand the rents collected for the same. That instalments on lands\nsold or pre-empted are collected. That a few maps are made or\nextended occasionally. That the above includes the total services\nperformed by this department pertaining to land, and could all\nbe transacted by one clerk. That the public works carried on by\nthe department are confined to repairing roads, constructing\nsome small bridges, cutting out or keeping open a trail, or repairing or enlarging a public building, and are either performed by\ncontract or by temporary service. That the entire public works,\nincluding map-making, could be well attended to by one competent civil engineer.3\nSuch a forthright denunciation of the department which he had\nheaded must have incensed Trutch, and the aspersions cast on his\nability as an engineer must have caused him to regard De Cosmos\nand his associates with active hostility. Since De Cosmos headed\nthe second provincial ministry as premier after John Foster\nMcCreight's defeat on December 23, 1872, this personal animosity was to have serious consequences for the province.\n3 [Confederation League], \"Minutes of a Preliminary Meeting of the Delegates, Elected by the Various Districts of British Columbia, Convened at\nYale [September 14-16, 1868], Pursuant to the Following Call: Yale Convention,\" Enclosure i in no. 6, Frederick Seymour to Richard Chandos\nGrenville, 3d duke of Buckingham and Chandos, colonial secretary, November 30,^ 1868, no. 6, in Papers on the Union of British Columbia with the\nDominion of Canada ... ordered by the House of Commons to be printed,\n3 August 1869 (n.p.,n.d.), p. 22, in [Great Britain, Colonial Office], Miscellaneous Papers Relating to British Columbia, 1859-1869, 5 papers in 1 vol.\n([London, 1859-69]).\n PROVINCIAL LAND POLICY TO 1880 23\nLeaving aside temporarily the consideration of free lands as\nproposed by De Cosmos, the assembly gave its attention to other\nchanges which might be made in the 1870 Ordinance. To accomplish these changes, a select committee was appointed in 1872.\nChief among its recommendations were simplification of the process\nof granting pre-emption records, and the easing of the occupation\nrequirement so that it might be met by either the pre-emptor or his\nagent \"provided no such agent shall be an Indian or a Chinaman.\"\nInstead of having to wait until after the land had been surveyed,\na pre-emptor could now secure a certificate of improvement which\nentitled him to a crown grant after four-years' continuous occupation. /To protect pre-emptors of lands located among pastoral\nleases from the wrath of the cattlemen, pre-emptors were granted\n\"the right of passing and re-passing over such leased lands without\nbeing deemed trespassers,\" and the pre-emptor who cultivated at\nleast ten acres of his pre-emption was allowed to run up to fifty\nhead of his stock on a lessee's range during the winter months and\nsubject to an annual payment, finally, under section 16 dealing\nwith the sale of land, no mention of a required survey was made,\na complete reversal of former policy. The provision for the sale of\nlands at public auction was set aside, in a clause reading that land\nwould be auctioned only \"whenever so ordered by the Lieutenant-\nGovernor in Council ... as may be deemed by him expedient.\"4^\nIn the same speech from the throne Trutch intimated that some\nprovision would be made for free grants of land. The select committee recommended in 1873, the following year, that limited free\ngrants of land be made, at the governor's discretion, to any settler\nwho made the requisite improvements, and the grant be issued at\nany time after the improvements had been made.5 Clauses 21 to\n31, inclusive, of the Amendment of February 21, 1873 dealt with\nsuch free grants. Any land suitable for cultivation and settlement,\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0\u00E2\u0096\u00A0 B.C., Legislative Assembly, Select Committee On Land Ordinance, 1870,\n\"Report,\" B.C., Journals, 1st Pari., 2d sess., 1872-73, appendix, Sessional\nPapers; B.C., Statutes, 1873, 36 Vict., no. 1.\n' The Select Committee had, undoubtedly, been greatly influenced by the\ndominion statute which had thrown the prairies open to settlement at one\ndollar an acre with a 640-acre limit, or, for homesteaders, 160 acres free on\nthe sole condition of three-years' occupancy and cultivation, Canada,\nStatutes, 1872, 35 Vict., c. 23. In 1874, the pre-emption of a further quarter-\nsection was allowed. The dominion statutes closely followed the American\nexample and, by this indirect route, British Columbia's land laws were influenced by the American precedent. O. D. Skelton, \"General Economic History,\" in Canada and Its Provinces, Shortt and Doughty, eds., 21: 112.\n 24\nLAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nwhether surveyed or not, could be used for these free grants to a\nmaximum of 250 acres. This was 90 acres in excess of what the\nDominion was granting in the Northwest under its Homestead Act\nof 1872. No one could receive a free grant who had already\nobtained land by any other means. To prevent speculation, any\napplicant for a free grant had to sign an affidavit declaring that\nthe land sought was solely for his personal use for settlement and\ncultivation and not for any other purpose. Provided that twenty\nacres were brought under cultivation within three years of the\napplication, and a habitable house built, a crown grant could be\nsecured. An indication of how anxious the government was to\nobtain settlers and of how willing it was to relax previous attitudes,\nwas the new regulation that the \"locatee\" of such a free grant, who\nwas supposed to reside on his \"location,\" could still be absent more\nthan six months a year \"provided such land be cultivated as aforesaid.\" This provision enabled settlers to work elsewhere part of the\nyear for the cash to finance their land venture. Under section 29\nthese favoured \"locatees\" were guarded against attachment of the\nland for any debt or liability before the initial three-year period\nhad expired. After the crown grant was issued, provided the\noriginal settler and his family still occupied the land and excepting\n\"any debt secured by a valid mortgage ... subsequently to the\nissuing,\" the guarantee was extended for another twenty years.6\nSuch was British Columbia's first tentative venture into the\ncompetitive race to attract immigrants by offering free land. During\nthe session of 1873, a land return was tabled by Robert Beaven,\nthen chief commissioner of land and works, later to be premier,\nshowing that only 8,284 acres of land had been sold by auction at\nan average price of $1.21 49/100 an acre, 20 per cent higher\nthan the upset price of $1.00, for a total of $io,o64.50.7 This\nacreage, in a province the size of British Columbia, was negligible.\nHence the De Cosmos ministry, dissatisfied with the land policy,\ndecided to offer free land to all comers. The United States had\nbeen offering free land since 1862 and Canada had followed suit\nten years later. Now that the railway reserve imposed on all provin-\n6 B.C., Statutes, 1873, 36 Vict., no. 1.\n7 B.C., Department of Lands and Works, \"Return Showing Results of Land\nSales by Auction,\" in \"Report of the Chief Commissioner of Lands and\nWorks ... 1873,\" B.C., Journals, 1st Pari., 3d sess., 1873-74, appendix,\nSessional Papers, p. 64. The reports of the chief commissioner were also\nseparately published during the years covered by this study.\n PROVINCIAL LAND POLICY TO 1880 25\ncial lands under article n of the Terms of Union was about to\nlapse because of the Dominion's failure to begin railway construction, British Columbia was free for the first time to compete with\nCanada and with the United States for Europe's land-hungry\nimmigrants.\nAn illustration of how completely another of Lytton's principles\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094 that of prompt and full payment \u00E2\u0080\u0094 had been abandoned, is\nshown in a further return tabled by Beaven, giving both the number\nof acres sold and the price received for lands on the mainland for\nthe years 1870, 1871, and 1872. This return showed that 75 per\ncent of the land was bought by deferred payment. Of 27,880 acres\nsold, only 6,955 were P^ f\u00C2\u00B0r m ^uu; of the $16,919.82 received,\nonly $1,224.01 or 14 per cent, represented full payment.\nA third conclusion can be drawn from Beaven's returns. Figures\ntabled by him show 11,134 acres sold in the last six months of\n1870, 13,512 acres in 1871, but only 3,234 acres in 1872. Obviously\nthe delay of the railway was beginning to have its effect in\ndemoralizing public business in the province.\nStill another return indicated that the government had placed\nunder reserve 190,857.8 acres throughout the province for purposes\nof Indian settlements, and for schools, parks, military and naval\nestablishments, and townsites; 78,520 acres of coal lands, and\n39,100 acres of timber. Pre-emption claims had been recorded for\n44,827.5 acres, at an average of 210 acres per claim.8\nFinally, Beaven included in his report a list of all the holders of\npastoral leases, showing name of lessee, the district, acreage, rental,\nand a comment indicating that certain leases had not as yet been\nissued. At the rate of 3^ to 6^ an acre charged for the 80,342.9\nacres under lease, the government was to receive $3,393.68 a year\nin rent. Because it reveals the cattle-raising regions of the province,\nand because it gives the names of several men who later became\nfigures of some importance in the province, the complete return is\nreproduced below.\nOn March 2, 1874, the provincial legislature passed the first\nland act since union with Canada, a complete revision of the 1870\nOrdinance and its amendments. Fortunately, the last section provided that the new act should not come into force until published\n\"... Return of Government Reserves,\" B.C. Journals, 1st. Pari., 2d sess.,\n1872-73, appendix, Sessional Papers; \"Return ... of Pre-emptions in ...\nBritish Columbia, from 1st January to 30th November, 1872,\" ibid.\n +* 13 \"O 13 \"\"O\n\u00C2\u00A3 O O O O\n|QQQQ\n3\nI\nJ6666666666666666666666\n'0'aT3',0'a'0'Ord'OT>'O'O'a'aT3'a'0T3T3T3l3T3\nDooo\nc/3 J5\ncsoooooooodoodoodooooo\n> On\n, o\n PROVINCIAL LAND POLICY TO 1880 27\nin the British Columbia Gazette. The second, or interpretation\nclause, defined crown lands as \"all lands of this Province held by\nthe Grown in fee and common socage.\"10 When the act reached\nOttawa, Telesphore Fournier, minister of justice, drew attention to\nthis definition as one which applied only to lands of the Crown\nacquired from some previous owner. Were this definition intentional, he said, it could only mean that the province was recognizing the original Indian sovereignty over its lands and thus the\nGrown as tenant by freehold. Although the province had no intention of giving such recognition, the minister of justice had no\nquarrel with the definition on constitutional grounds. He did find it\nobjectionable that the act made no provision for Indian reservations, and that Indians were not accorded any rights or privileges\nin respect to lands, reserves, or settlements. On the contrary, he\nfound sections 3 and 24 specifically exempted the Indians from any\nrights of recording unsurveyed land or of pre-empting surveyed\nland if they had not previously obtained written permission from\nthe Lieutenant-Governor in Council. Fournier also pointed out that\nthere was no provision in the act for reserving land for railway\npurposes as required under article 11 of the Terms of Union. He\nnoted that the dominion government had not lived up to those\nterms which required construction to begin by 1873, and he drew\nto the cabinet's attention the great embarrassment which might\nresult later should it be found that the provincial government had\nunknowingly granted pre-emptions in the forty-mile strip yet to\nbe definitely located. He recommended disallowance.11 The act\nwas disallowed by an Order in Council, March 16, 1875.\nAfter communication with the British Columbia government, it\nwas agreed that the act should not be proclaimed and that a new\nbill should be introduced at the next provincial legislative session.\nTrutch assented to this new land act on April 22, 1875. There were\nonly two important changes from the 1874 version. The definition\nof crown lands now read, \"all lands of this Province held by the\nCrown in fee simple,\" and section 60, dealing with reserves, was\nadded:\n10 B.C., Statutes, 1874, 37 Vict., no. 2.\n11 William Egerton Hodgins, comp., Correspondence, Reports of the Ministers\nof Justice and Orders in Council upon the Subject of Dominion and Provincial Legislation, i867-[i92o], compiled under the direction of the ...\nminister of justice, 2 vols. (Ottawa: Government Printing Bureau, 1896-1922),\n1:1024, 1028, 1029.\n I\nI\n28 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nThe Lieutenant-Governor shall, at any time, by notice, signed by\nthe Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works, and published in\nthe British Columbia Gazette, reserve any lands not lawfully held\nby record, pre-emption, purchase, lease, or Crown Grant, for the\npurpose of conveying the same to the Dominion Government, in\ntrust, for the use and benefit of the Indians, or for railway purposes, as mentioned in Article 11 of the Terms of Union, or for\nsuch other purposes as may be deemed advisable.\nWhile these two were the most significant additions to the provincial land laws, there were others of a less radical nature. Although\npre-emptions on surveyed land still could not exceed the 320-acre\nlimit east of the Cascades and 160 acres west, the new act did\nprovide for claims of 40, 80, and 120 acres, thereby permitting\npre-emptions where the topography precluded a larger acreage.\nStill only one claim could be held under pre-emption, but in order\nto legalize the existing conditions within the province, section 15\nprovided that any settler could have his claim surveyed at his own\nexpense. Under section 24 settlers, designated now as \"homestead\nsettlers,\" might pre-empt surveyed lands as defined in section 23.\nThis definition of surveyed lands was a departure from past procedure. Since the only surveyed lands in the province were near\nVictoria and New Westminster, surveyed ten years before by the\nRoyal Engineers and long since settled, the provision was largely\nmeaningless. After two years' continuous occupation and permanent improvements of $2.50 an acre, a certificate of improvement\ncould be obtained. Then, upon payment of the five dollar fee, the\nhomestead settler was entitled to a crown grant. Under section 66,\nsuch land was free. Steps in this direction had been previously taken\nby the amendments of 1873, and now, with no restrictions, all land\nunder pre-emption was granted free of charge. For this reason, the\nact of 1875 was known as the \"Free Grant Act.\"\nThe rules governing unlimited pastoral leases and 500-acre hay\nleases were retained. Anyone wishing to buy surveyed land could\ndo so for one dollar an acre, but unsurveyed land could only be\nbought after the land had been surveyed at the buyer's expense.\nLytton's concern that deferred payment would lead to default was\nproving legitimate and section 79 authorized the chief commissioner to give notice in the British Columbia Gazette to those from\nwhom the balance of purchase money was overdue that, unless the\nmoney was paid, their records or agreements would be cancelled.12\n12 B.C., Statutes, 1875, 38 Vict., no. 5.\n PROVINCIAL LAND POLICY TO 1880 29\nA return tabled on April 25, 1876, showed that in the six land\ndivisions established in the province, $56,596.38 was owing.\nTwenty-two persons in New Westminster alone owed $7,906.46.\nAs there were still no specific reservations for Indian lands,\nEdward Blake, now minister of justice in Ottawa, was no more\nsatisfied with this act than his predecessor had been with the act\nof 1874, but because the Indian land problem had been temporarily\nsolved by the agreement to appoint a Joint Reserve Commission,\nand because \"great inconvenience and confusion might result from\nits disallowance,\" he decided to leave the act in operation.13\nIn the session of 1875, returns were tabled listing all lands taken\nup in the New Westminster district between 1872 and April 14,\n1875. These informative records list the name, the location of land,\nthe acreage, the type of land, the price, and the section of the land\nact under which the land was acquired. For instance, there were\n380 pre-emption records, all of which were for 160 acres, plus\n3,860 acres of irregular size, including a claim by Charley Brew, an\nIndian of Langley. Purchased outright were 22,761.5 acres \u00E2\u0080\u0094\nnearly all in 160-acre blocks \u00E2\u0080\u0094 at one dollar an acre, and, purchased by deferred payment, were a further 15,884 acres at fifty\ncents an acre at a public auction on September 30, 1873.14\nIn his report for the year, Beaven assessed the worth of the \"free\ngrant system\" introduced two years before:\n/The liberality of the Province in dealing with its lands far\nexceeds that of any other Province or State on this continent, as\nsettlers now coming in can record 160 acres West of the Cascades and 320 acres East of the same mountain range, in any\npart of the Mainland portion of the Province, and can eventually\nobtain the land as a \"Free Grant\" simply by residence and\nimprovement. The question, therefore, as to whether indiscriminate \"Free Grants\" have a tendency to quickly settle up the\nProvince has had, for the last two years, a practical test. Many\nsettlers, and others who have given the subject consideration, are\nstrongly of the opinion that it would eventually be more beneficial to the Province if the \"Free Grant\" system was confined to\ncertain surveyed Townships, instead of virtually giving away the\nCrown Lands throughout the Province, and having subsequently,\nin all probability, to resort to a direct tax to make up the loss\n13 Hodgins, Dominion and Provincial Legislation, 1:1039.\n14 \"... Return of Lands Taken Up by Purchase, by Pre-emption, by Timber\nLease ... with the Names of Parties Holding or Applying for the Same, in the\nNew Westminster District ... 1872, Inclusive, to the Present Time,\" B.C.,\nJournals, 1st Pari., 4th sess., 1875, appendix, Sessional Papers, pp. 705-23.\n 30\nLAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nto the Provincial revenue. The machinery of the present Land\nAct, in reference to the adjustment and \"proving up\" of claims,\nhas worked admirably, and saved the Province a considerable\nexpenditure in ascertaining the exact locality of the different\nclaimants, who, in many instances, are absent, and the improvements under which they have obtained their certificates, years\nago, having become obliterated.15\nSince the act granting free land had been Beaven's creation, his\nenthusiasm over what he chose to consider its success is pardonable.\nIt is highly doubtful, however, that he had any real conception of\nthe country to which he expected settlers to flock to take up 320-\nacre pre-emptions under the act's inducements. Only in regard\nto the size of the free pre-emptions did the act differ from either\nthe dominion or the American homestead acts.\nDespite free pre-emptions, some settlers continued to buy land\noutright in order to circumvent the residence and improvement\nrequirements for free grants. In 1877, a return gave details of all\nlands sold in the province from July 31, 1871 to December 31,\n1876. A comparison of the following figures with the ones given\nearlier for New Westminster will show that at this time \u00E2\u0080\u0094 as for\nthirty-five years to come \u00E2\u0080\u0094 government statistics were at least two\nyears in arrears, but they are revealing nevertheless. Of the 195\nindividual sales totalling 33,507.49 acres, 78 were on Vancouver\nIsland (7,701.38 acres at a total price of $7,395.38); 71 in New\nWestminster (9,900 acres; $8,465.86); 3 in the Cariboo District\n(acreage not given; $162.00); 11 in Yale (3,087.41 acres;\n$2,897.41); and 32 in Lillooet (12,818.90 acres; $12,875.50).\nThese statistics show that land sales had not been large \u00E2\u0080\u0094 a\nmere 6,700 acres a year, mostly sold at the statutory price of one\ndollar an acre. They indicate that lands on Vancouver Island were\nstill being sold in 100-acre blocks, following the practice established\ntwenty-five years before by the Hudson's Bay Company. In the\nNew Westminster district the average size of each purchase was\n140 acres, suggesting that there was still a good supply of farming\nland available along the Fraser River flats. In the Cariboo, however, assuming the standard price of one dollar per acre, the three\nsales made were more than likely for mineral claims as fifty acres\nwas the size later allowed for such claims, and the law generally\n15 B.C., Department of Lands and Works, \"Report of the Chief Commissioner\nof Lands and Works ... 1875,\" B.C., Sessional Papers, 2d Pari., 1st sess.,\n1876, p. 531.\n PROVINCIAL LAND POLICY TO 1880 31\nfollowed the precedent of established practice. The Yale average\nof 280 acres and the Lillooet of 400 reflect the predominant occupation of the settlers in cattle raising. In Yale District Cornelius\nO'Keefe was able to buy 480 acres at Okanagan Lake in October\n1871 and 162 more the following March, all at one dollar an acre.16\nBy the time the next land returns had been tabled in the Legislature, covering the period from April, 1875, to February, 1878,\nthere were 279 applicants to purchase 86,942.5 acres of unsurveyed\nland. Five of these applications were refused with no reason stated.\nDuring 1877 there were 31,282 acres of every other classification\nsold, and town lots, nearly all in Hastings and Granville,17 were\nsold to 41 buyers. For the same year there were only 127 preemptions recorded for free grants under the 1875 Free Grant Act,\nindicating either that British Columbia's pioneers were an independent breed, or that the lands available to them as free grants\nwere so far removed from the settled districts that few settlers\nwanted them.\nAn 1878 return showing the arrears in rent on pastoral leases\nsince 1870 indicated that few lessees were paying their rent and\nthat the government was not taking action. Twenty-one lessees,\nincluding the Cornwalls and C. A. Semlin, were in arrears to the\nextent of $7,114.63 on land of which the annual rental amounted\nto $2,300.06. A note at the bottom of the return said that \"the\napparently large amounts of rent due are caused by the difficulty\nof collection, on account of the additional charge of Road Tax;\ndisputes respecting boundaries, and pre-emptions, etc.; many of the\nabove Leases, though not formally cancelled, being regarded by\n16 \"Approximate Statement of Land Sold in British Columbia from 31st July,\n1871, to 31st December, 1876 ...,\" B.C., Sessional Papers, 2d Pari., 2d\nsess., 1877, pp. 481-87.\nSee Appendix B, Table 3, \"Certificates of Purchase, 1873-1913, Inclusive,\"\nfor further statistics on land sales in British Columbia. The discrepancy\nbetween the figures given in Table 3 and those given in the text above\ndemonstrates the troublesome fact that statistics taken from different sources\npublished during the province's early years, seldom agree. The 400-acre\naverage purchase in the Lillooet district given in the text is calculated on\nthe basis of the thirty-five individual sales listed for the years 1871-76 (\"Land\nSold 1871-1876,\" pp. 486-87), but the figure for individual sales during the\nsame years based on statistics given in the annual reports of officials of the\nLand Department and compiled in Table 3, is only twenty-three.\n17 \"... Return Showing ... All Applications to Purchase Unsurveyed Lands\nsince 1st April, 1875; All Lands Sold since 31st December, 1876; and All\nTown Lots Sold since 31st December, 1872,\" B.C., Sessional Papers, 2nd\nPari., 3d sess., and 3d Pari., 1st sess., 1878, pp. 581-93.\n !\n32 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nthe Lessees as surrendered.\"18 Probably this explanation meant\nsimply that the lessees had no intention of paying their rent and\nthe government chose to do very little about it. Here is evidence\nthat lack of supervision was already rendering many clauses of the\nland act inoperative.\nBy this year, 1878, the Land Office had brought its records\nslightly more up to date. The returns for lands sold since July 31,\n1871, now showed in Vancouver Island Districts, 17,601.38 acres;\nCariboo District, 3,087.41 acres; and Lillooet District, 12,818.70\nacres. At the 1878 session of the legislature there was a renewed\ndetermination to collect rental or purchase money from those in\narrears. Lytton had warned Douglas about instalment purchases,\nsaying that just such a contingency as that now confronting the\nprovince could arise. An amendment to the act was passed imposing no less than 24 per cent interest per annum on all unpaid\npurchase money for surveyed crown land, and on all arrears in\nrentals for leases. If these payments were not made after a notice\nhad appeared in the British Columbia Gazette, any records or\nagreements were to be cancelled at once.\nWhen the act reached Ottawa, there was a mild flurry in the\nJustice Department. In reporting to the minister of justice, then\nSir John A. Macdonald, Z. A. Lash, deputy minister, opened with\nthe comment that \"the provisions of this statute are of a startling\nnature.\" After outlining the provisions, he said the amendment cast\nupon persons who had purchased or leased crown lands, \"a liability\nnever contemplated by them when the purchases or leases were\nmade.\" He added that had the subject matter of the act been\nentirely within the competence of the province to enact, he would\nfeel some difficulty in recommending disallowance \"merely because\nits provisions did not accord with my views of justice.\" But because\nit dealt with interest, a subject assigned exclusively to the Dominion,\nand because of the difficulty any individual would experience in\ntesting the validity of the act in court, he had no hesitation in\nrecommending its disallowance.19 This was done by Order in Council, August 15, 1879.\nAfter this disallowance, a further amendment in the following\nyear insisted on immediate payment for land bought outright;\n18 \".... Return of All Rents Due on Pastoral Leases since 1870,\" B.C.,\nSessional Papers, 2d Pari., 3d sess., and 3d Pari., 1st sess., 1878, p. 628.\n19 Hodgins, Dominion and Provincial Legislation, 1: 1066.\n PROVINCIAL LAND POLICY TO 1880 33\nwiped out the provision for free grant pre-emptions, but extended\nthe time for payment of the dollar an acre now once again to be\ncharged pre-emptors. Prior to the Free Grant Act of 1875, two\nyears had been allowed for these pre-emption payments, but now\nfour years were given to complete payment in equal annual instalments, although the last instalment was not payable on unsurveyed\nland until it had been surveyed. Default on any one of those instalments might result in forfeiture. Section 5 again required public\nauction of all surveyed lands \"which are not the sites of towns or\nthe suburbs thereof, and not Indian settlements\" at the upset price\nof one dollar.20 These provisions clearly indicate that the government hoped to end the former laxity in administration of public\nlands. R. E. Gosnell, an historian of the province's history of this\nperiod, sweepingly denounces the public lands policy both before\nand after union with Canada:\nWithout any system of surveys except those made by the owners\nof land and without practically any conditions attaching to the\nsale, vast areas could be alienated. As a matter of fact, wide\ntracts of the best and most available land were parted with in\nlarge blocks, to the detriment of bona fide settlement, and, consequently, of the development of agriculture.... This unwise\nlegislation appears all the more deplorable when it is considered\nthat arable land was extremely limited, and that it was obviously\nin the best interests of the province that it should be carefully\nconserved and surveyed into small holdings for the benefit of the\ngreatest number.21\nThe reforms of 1879 showed swift results. The number of preemption records dropped from 245 in 1878 to 100 in 1879, while,\nin the same year, the certificates of purchase reached the highest\npoint they were to reach between 1870 and 1884. Victoria residents\nseem to have been the worst offenders in letting payments lapse. In\n1879 the certificates of purchase in Victoria jumped 290 per cent,\nwhereas in New Westminster there was an increase of one purchase\nonly from the previous year's total of 198, a mere .5 per cent.22\nCash received for the year's land transactions doubled, going from\n$21,100 in 1878 to $40,100 in 1879, so there was little doubt the\n20 B.C., Statutes, 1879, 42 Vict, c. 21.\n21 R. E. Gosnell, \"History of Farming,\" in Canada and Its Provinces, Shortt\nand Doughty, eds., 22: 544.\n22 Appendix B, Table 3. Four hundred and four purchases were recorded in\n1879 as compared to 317 in 1878 and 236 in 1880. Ibid.\n 34 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nlegislature was getting results. Having spent two years in the\nOpposition ranks, George A. Walkem was once again premier and\nwas making his strength felt.\nAs part of the general tightening-up process, section 6 of the\n1879 Amendment required every intending purchaser to give two\nmonths' notice of his intention in both the British Columbia Gazette\nand in a local newspaper at his own expense. He was to list his\nname, locality, the boundaries, and the extent of the land applied\nfor, as well as its distance from any mining or mineral claims. The\nnotice was to be dated and a copy of it posted in a conspicuous\nspot on the land itself and in the neighbouring local government\noffice, should there be one. This provision was to prevent the many\nconflicting claims which rendered the work of the local assistant\ncommissioners, as well as that of the head office, exceedingly difficult.\nIn the same section it was specified that land could be neither surveyed nor sold in such a manner as to dispose of less than 160\nacres. Moreover, any application for land still pending could not\nbe given complete title under the statute relevant at the time it\nwas entered. \"Every applicant for land ... to whom a Crown\nGrant has not been issued, shall comply with the provisions of\nSection 6 of this Act.\" Nor could any applicant hope to remain\nanonymous so far as the public was concerned. Any notice of survey inserted in the Gazette on any purchaser's behalf was to contain\nthe applicant's name.23\nIt is interesting to speculate why the free grant system was abandoned so unceremoniously. During the years 1874 to 1879 while\nthe Free Grant Act was in effect, only 437 grants were made under\nits provisions and only 349 certificates of improvement were issued.\nIt was undoubtedly the correspondingly high number of certificates\nof purchase, 1498, that moved the government to cancel free\ngrants. Four out of five persons acquiring land for any purpose,\nwere paying for it outright, and the government reasoned that if\nfour could pay, the fifth could do so also. Walkem was convinced\nthat the free grant system had outlived its usefulness in British\nColumbia although it was still retained both in the Northwest\nTerritories to the east and in Washington Territory to the south.\nFree grants of land to the settlers in British Columbia, except under\nunusual circumstances, were never heard of again.\nThe totals for 1879 indicate that the usefulness of the free home-\n23 B.C. Statutes, 1879, 42 Vict., c. 21.\n PROVINCIAL LAND POLICY TO 1880 35\nstead legislation had, apparently, passed; those for New Westminster indicate it to be the area profiting most from the legislation.24 It should be remembered, however, that New Westminster\ndistrict then included the entire lower Fraser Valley from Hope to\nwhat is now the city of Vancouver.\nHomestead Pre-emptions under the 1874 and 18J5 Land Acts\nYear\n0\n\u00C2\u00A3\nj2\n0\n1\nSI\n0\n0\n6\n0\n3\n0\n0\n0\n1\nTotal\n1874\n5\n5\n1875\n69\n69\n1876\n49\n48\n1877\n1\n5\n11\n110\n127\n1878\n11\n21\n98\n1\n3\n134\n1879\n6\n2\n15\n12\n1\n13\n3\n1\n53\nTotal\n7\n18\n47\n343\n2\n13\n3\n3\n1\n437\n24 Appendix B, Table 3.\n CHAPTER 3\nI\nProvincial Land Policy 1880-1913\nA possible reason that the free grant system was abandoned is that\nthe districts in which land was most sought after by settlers had by\nthen been placed under reserve for railway purposes. By Order in\nCouncil of August 3, 1878, a forty-mile belt of land from the\nYellowhead Pass to tidewater on Burrard Inlet had been reserved,\nas had a similar belt from Esquimalt to Seymour Narrows. Since\nextensive areas had also been withdrawn from settlement for use as\nIndian reserve lands, it seems obvious that insufficient land was\navailable to make the free grant system practicable.\nThe Chinese problem which was causing so much public agitation in the province found its way into a special act concerning\ncrown lands in 1884. The act made it unlawful for any commissioner of lands or any other person \"to issue a pre-emption record\nof any Crown land, or sell any portion thereof, to any Chinese,\n[or] grant authority ... to any Chinese to record or divert any\nwater from the natural channel of any stream, lake or river in this\nProvince.\"1 The secretary of state for Canada, J. A. Chapleau,\nwrote to John Robson, provincial secretary, to say that although the\nact was within the competence of the local legislature, he wondered\nif perhaps such an act, applying as it did to only one segment of\nthe population, was constitutional, but he was willing to let the\ncourts decide the issue should a case arise.2\n1 B.C., Statutes, 1884, 47 Vict., c. 2, s.i.\n2 Chapleau to Robson, April 8, 1885, \"Correspondence Respecting the Acts\nPassed by the Legislature ... British Columbia ... 1884,\" B.C., Sessional\nPapers, 4th Pari., 3d sess., 1885, p. 464.\n PROVINCIAL LAND POLICY 1880-1913 37\nThis same year\u00E2\u0080\u0094 1884 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 saw a new land act. Its major provision raised the price of both surveyed and unsurveyed agricultural\nland from $1.00 to $2.50 an acre. The provision for pastoral leases\nwas removed, but the act provided that \"mountainous tracts of\nland, which are unfit for cultivation and valueless for lumbering\npurposes, may be purchased at the rate of $1 an acre.\" To ensure\nthat it was truly waste land, the applicant had to make a statutory\ndeclaration to that effect. The chief commissioner of lands and\nworks reserved the right to refuse any such application should he\nhave any reason to doubt the declaration. One dollar remained the\nprice of pre-empted land, and the provision for four equal annual\ninstalments also stood, but the first payment was not due for two\nyears from the date of recording. As formerly, the last payment was\nnot due until the land had been surveyed. Of much greater significance was the provision stating that no more than 640 acres of\nunsurveyed land might be bought.\nFortunately for those whose applications were already being processed, section 76 of the 1884 Act provided that titles to land\napplied for under any previous act, although now repealed, could\nbe acquired as if the present act were not passed.3 A return tabled\nMarch 5, 1885, shows that title to 109,959.25 acres was acquired\nunder that clause by 101 applicants. Among these were Thomas\nGreenhow who secured 3,460 acres, F. G. Vernon who obtained\n4>739 acres, T. Harper who profited the most with 12,146 acres,\nand G. B. Wright who acquired 1,800 acres.4 Instead of receiving\nfrom these four, the $55,362 to which the government would have\nbeen entitled under the new rate of $2.50, the treasury was enriched\nonly to the extent of $22,145 at the former rate of $1.00 an acre.\nThe provisions raising the price of good land and limiting the\namount of unsurveyed land that might be purchased show the\ngovernment's realization that agricultural land was not abundant\nand was therefore to be conserved. Land transactions had doubled\nin 1883, largely as a result of the influx of population attendant\nupon the building of the Canadian Pacific and the Esquimalt and\nNanaimo railways. Since the figures issued by the Land Office for\n1884 show that land transactions had again doubled in spite of the\nB.C., Statutes, 1884, 47 Vict., c.16.\n\"Return ... Showing ... All persons Who ... Applied ... to Purchase Lands\n... Prior to the Passing of the Land Act, 1884, ... Section 76 of the Last-\nNamed Act, and the Number of Acres Obtained by Each Person,\" B.C.,\nSessional Papers, 4th Pari., 3d sess., 1885, pp. 573-74.\n 38 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nincreased price per acre, the wisdom of the new statute becomes\nobvious. Total land transactions for the two years had increased\nfrom 436 in 1882, to 1,847 i*1 J 884, and the total amount deeded\nincreased from 23,609 to 146,197 acres.\nThe established statutory price of $2.50 an acre was, of course,\nthe minimum price of good land. Desirable lands were still being\nsold by auction at many times the upset price. For example, a\nreturn in 1885 lists all those persons who had bought town lots at\nauction that November at English Bay. None of the lots was more\nthan one mile from the water; and a total of ninety-eight acres was\nsold at a net price of $145.84 per acre. Sale expenses amounted to\n$805.96, and the cost of the survey was estimated at $3,ooo.5 This\nsale was held on the eve of the completion of the Canadian Pacific\nRailway and this, no doubt, contributed to the advanced price of\nthe lots. Even so, the buyers must have considered a price of $145\nan acre extravagant for heavily timbered lots at least fifteen miles\nfrom the terminus of the railway at Port Moody.\nTwo incidents occurred in 1886 and 1887 which well illustrate\nthe great difficulty involved in satisfying everyone claiming favourably situated lands. In the first case, four different settlers wanted\nto buy the same eighty acres on Lulu Island. Each of these \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Hugh\nYoudall, D. S. Milligan, Hugh Boyd, and James G. Jaques \u00E2\u0080\u0094\nthought he had a prior claim to the land. Numerous situations of\nthis kind undoubtedly arose each year, but because this involved the\nintegrity of John Robson, provincial secretary and minister of finance and agriculture, questions were asked in the House which\nresulted in the tabling of an interesting correspondence. Boyd based\nhis claim on a previous conversation (\"the Lot I was talking to\nyou about\") with his friend, John Robson, in a letter to Robson on\nJuly 8, 1886, in which he also wrote, \"I would ask you as a great\nfavour to try and get it for me.\" Youdall based his claim on prior\nnotice given to the local government agent, C. Warwick, of his\nintention to buy the land as soon as the government reserve on it\nwas removed. His intention, which he had previously discussed with\nWilliam Smithe, both premier and chief commissioner of lands and\nworks, was to settle on the land five or six families of Newfoundland\nfisherfolk. Milligan contended that the land should be his by virtue\n\"Return ... of all Orders in Council and Correspondence Respecting the\nLand at English Bay and Vicinity, Recently Offered for Sale at Auction by\nthe Government ...,\" B.C., Sessional Papers, 4th Pari., 4th sess., 1886, pp.\n449-54-\n PROVINCIAL LAND POLICY 1880-1913 39\nof the letter he had written to Smithe in September making application for the land, adding that \"I am prepared to pay for same at\nonce.\" Jaques, who had been quietly waiting until December i\nwhen the government reserve was cancelled, appeared, money in\nhand, at the government office when it opened at nine that morning. His money was refused. He sent a telegram to Smithe at once.\n\"He [Warwick] refused ... saying land already disposed of, and\ndeclines to say how. Instruct at once, as I am first purchaser, and\nI consider I am alone entitled to Crown Grant of such land.\"\nOn September i, however, W. S. Gore, the surveyor general,\nhad notified Warwick that the next issue of the British Columbia\nGazette would contain a notice cancelling the reserve on the land,\nsubject to the three months' notice required by law, and that after\nDecember i the land would be open to purchase. \"You will, however,\" he added, \"please make a note that a sale is not to be made\nbefore you are more particularly instructed from this office.\" There\nwas no legal basis for Gore's instructions, as Jaques, Youdall, and\nBoyd well know and which led them to the conclusion that here\nwas nepotism at its worst. W. Norman Bole, solicitor for Jaques,\narrived at the same conclusion. It was Bole, elected in 1886 as one\nof the members from New Westminster district, who asked that all\nthe pertinent correspondence be tabled.\nSmithe telegraphed back the same day that he received Jaques's\nwire to say that the land would be sold at public auction in conformity with the statutory requirement. But this was not to be the\neasy way out that Robson and Smithe had hoped. Within a week\nYoudall wrote to Smithe that he could not believe the land was to\nbe auctioned as he was quite prepared to fulfil all the conditions\npreviously agreed upon with regard to his colonization scheme. He\nsaid that he had several Newfoundland fishermen already making\npreparations to come to British Columbia in the spring. With commendable caution he added that \"I have been told \u00E2\u0080\u0094 what truth\nthere is in it I do not know \u00E2\u0080\u0094 that Mr. Robson has been working\ntooth and nail to get this lot put up at auction, so as to fill some\nobligations to a Mr. Milligan, who owns 900 acres adjoining, and\nwho dyked in some 30 acres of the lot and used it for a number\nof years.\"\nA week later Smithe assured Youdall that if indeed he had not\ndropped his plan for bringing out the fishermen, the government\nwould certainly honour its agreement, but warned Youdall that he\n 40 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nwould have to pay Milligan $500 for his improvements.6 Should\nthe Robson papers ever be located, it will be interesting to see if\nthere is not a letter from Robson to Milligan sometime in the week\nof December 7 to 13, 1886, asking Milligan to set a price on his\nimprovements and to withdraw his claim to the land.\nNot to be outmanoeuvered, Bole drew up and presented to\nLieutenant Governor Cornwall on December 28 a petition headed\n\"Let right be done,\" outlining his client's case. But the appeal to\nthe foot of the throne was made in vain. As it was a cash transaction, no further record of the land is found in the Gazette. On\nMarch 8, 1887, Youdall acquired the land. His certificate of purchase was endorsed as follows:\nThis Certificate of Purchase issued pursuant of Mr. Youdall's\nAgreement to settle five or six families of Newfoundland fishermen upon the land (Sec. 4, B 4 N, R 7 W) and upon the express\ncondition that a Crown Grant will not be issued until Mr.\nYoudall's said obligation is fulfilled.\nThat obligation, written into the endorsation on the certificate\nof purchase, was fulfilled. On January 21, 1890, the five fishermen\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094 James Millis, Joshua Parsons, Thomas William Home, Robert\nGordon, and George Waugh \u00E2\u0080\u0094 as well as Youdall himself, wrote\nto the chief commissioner as follows:\nWe the undersigned residents of \"Terra Nova\" being anxious to\nsecure a Title to our respective homes. The same being parts of\nSec. 4, Block 4 North Range Seven West are desirous that a\nCrown grant of the said Section be issued to Mr. Hugh Youdall.\nLess than one month later, the crown grant was issued from the\nLand Office.7\nThe following letter, concerning a similar case shortly afterward,\nillustrates not only the complications which arose continually with\n6 Boyd to Robson, July 8, 1886, \"Return ... for Copies of All Correspondence\n. M Respecting Section 4, Block 4 North, Range 7 West, New Westminster\nDistrict ...,\" B.C., Sessional Papers, 5th Pari, 1st sess., 1887, p. 339; Warwick to Smithe, August 31, 1886, and enclosure, Youdall to Warwick, August\n31, 1886, ibid., pp. 339, 340; Milligan to Smithe, September 24, 1886, ibid.,\np. 340; Jacques, per Bole, to Smithe, December 1, 1.886, ibid., p. 341; Gore\nto Warwick, September 1, 1886, ibid., p. 340; Smithe to Bole, December 1,\n1886, ibid., p. 341; Youdall to Smithe, December 7, 1886, ibid., p. 342;\nSmithe to Youdall, December 13, 1886, ibid.\n7 The information and quotations pursuant to the certificate of purchase and\nthe crown grant (no. 849, dated February 24, 1890) were supplied by the\nprovincial Lands Department, Victoria, to the author.\n PROVINCIAL LAND POLICY 1880-1913 41\nregard to lands, but also something of the spirit in which public\nbusiness was occasionally carried on. Neither of the protagonists in\nthe dispute warrants any sympathy, nor does the client; it must be\nreserved for Warwick, the same government agent from New Westminster whose task it was to administer the land laws in an impartial manner. An error on his part might have led to serious political\ndifficulties, and it is quite likely that errors both of execution and\nof judgment were made throughout the province in those early\nyears. Neither nepotism nor patronage was unknown, as Bole's\nletter to Smithe suggests:\nI beg to call your attention to a most extraordinary circumstance\nwhich occurred, as I am informed by Mr. Kelly, in the Land\nOffice here, today. Mr. Philip Kelly, a client of mine, who has\npre-empted a piece of land on Burrard Inlet, north of Lot 204,\nGroup 1, New Westminster District, inadvertently placed on the\ncounter of the office a document, referring to said land, signed\nby one Stalker, and which Mr. Kelly had no intention of parting\nwith, or using. Mr. Warwick's name appeared in the document,\nand that gentleman seeing the document took it up, and insisted\non keeping it, notwithstanding Mr. Kelly's formal demand for\nthe return thereof; Mr. Warwick further remarking \"that\"\n(referring to the document in question) \"will be sufficient to\nprove Henderson's claim.\" Mr. Kelly is, as you are already aware,\nthe bona fide pre-emptor of the land in question, while Mr.\nHenderson is but a speculative purchaser, representing, probably,\nmuch bigger individuals in a convenient background. May I\ntrust that you, officially entertain as strong a repugnance to\nspeculative land purchasers as Mr. Robson, on behalf of himself\nand his colleagues from his place in the House, when discussing\nthe Jaques' claim, as if that gentleman, which I doubt, honestly\nmeant what he said, his Government now has an opportunity of\nproving their sincerity, and preferring the claim of the bona fide\nsettler to the speculative purchaser. I am, therefore, to request\nthat you will direct Mr. Warwick forthwith to return to me, on\nbehalf of Mr. Kelly, the document above referred to. Your\nrefusal to do so I must deem conclusive evidence that your\nGovernment are siding with Mr. Henderson against Mr. Kelly,\nwho is determined, however, to exhaust every legal remedy before\nhe surrenders his just rights. May I venture the hope that in\nexpecting an answer of some kind to this letter, that I am not\nimposing too severe a strain on your official courtesy.\nNo, Bole could not be counted among Smithe's supporters, nor\nhad he forgiven Robson for having bested him in the Lulu Island\nland affair. If this was the tenor of official correspondence between\none member of the legislature and another, it may well be imagined\n 42 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nthat in the House there were verbal altercations which, had they\nbeen, and were they still, preserved verbatim, would indeed make\ninteresting reading now.\nThree days later Surveyor General Gore wrote to Warwick asking\nfor details of the complaint, and Warwick replied the same day,\nexplaining that he had received three separate applications for the\nland all within a week. On Monday, February 14, J. B. Henderson\nhad applied for the 160 acres in question; by the afternoon mail\nof the same day Hugh Stalker of Moodyville had applied; and on\nFriday, February 18, Kelly had applied in person. \"I, as a matter\nof course, informed Mr. Kelly that there were already two applications in for the land in question, and that his application could\nnot be granted.\" Warwick then explained how at that point Kelly\nhad become \"quite hostile,\" insisting that as he had been occupying and improving the land for the last six months, he was going\nto have it at whatever cost. At this point Kelly drew from his\npocket a letter from Stalker, dated February 7, and addressed to\nWarwick, in which Stalker had abandoned all claim to the land,\nsaying that he had had no idea Kelly had made permanent\nimprovements on the land. (Warwick did not explain how Kelly\nhad come by the letter, but the logical answer would seem to be\nthat Kelly had gone to Stalker, explained the situation, and\nreceived the letter from Stalker for transmission to the government\nagent.) As Kelly was about to leave the Land Office with the letter,\nWarwick said that he asked for it on the grounds that it belonged,\nnot to Kelly, but to the office files. After an argument, Kelly agreed\nto leave it, and Warwick then offered to see Henderson when he\nreturned to town in a few days' time and to ask him to withdraw\nhis application in favour of Kelly. At this, Kelly had seemed satisfied, but in a few minutes he returned to the office accompanied\nby one of Bole's clerks and made an unsuccessful attempt to retrieve\nthe letter. Warwick did, however, permit the clerk to make a copy.\nFinally, Warwick could report to Gore than on the next day he\nhad seen Henderson, who had agreed to withdraw, and that a\nrecord for the land had then been issued to Kelly. This had cleared\nup the entire difficulty to everyone's satisfaction.\nApparently this long and diplomatic letter from Warwick containing all the details had been intended to be the official answer,\nand for that reason confirmed itself to a bare recital of the facts.\nIn a separate letter of the same date, Warwick briefly outlined\nwhat had led to the difficulty:\nI\n PROVINCIAL LAND POLICY 1880-1913 43\nThe whole trouble in connection with the land ... originated in\nMr. Bole's office.\nIt appears Kelly left instructions with Mr. Bole some months\nago to file his application when the land in question came into\nmarket, that is, on the expiration of the timber lease within which\nthe land was situated.\nPrevious to the land coming into market Mr. Kelly had occasion to go up the coast, and on his return, about the 17th inst.,\nfound that his instructions had not received any attention. Hence\nthe trouble.\nArmed with the facts as reported by his official in New Westminster, Smithe answered Bole's letter.\nHaving received the report ... I find that the occurrence to\nwhich you are pleased to allude as a \"most extraordinary circumstance\" consisted simply in Mr. Warwick's most commendable\ndetermination to retain possession of a letter which, though\naddressed to himself, was not his personal property, but belonged\nto the archives of the office of which he is in charge.\nI also find that Mr. Warwick showed very proper courtesy in\nallowing your clerk to take a copy ... in the interest of your\nclient, Mr. Kelly; but it seems to have been convenient to you to\nomit mention of that circumstance when preferring your complaint.\nIn view of the fact that Mr. Warwick did nothing more than\nhis duty in retaining possession of the letter in question, that he\nwent beyond the requirements of official duty and succceeded in\narranging the matter in the interest of your client, I can only\ncharacterize the charge brought by you against that officer as\nfrivolous, if not something worse.\nIt is more difficult to find words in which to convey adequate\ncensure of the tone of discourtesy \u00E2\u0080\u0094 perhaps insolence would be\nthe more appropriate expression \u00E2\u0080\u0094 which pervades your letter;\nand this appears all the more inexcusable in the light of Mr.\nWarwick's explanatory note, to the effect that Mr. Kelly's troubles were the result of your own professional lackes [sic] in not\nhaving attended to his instructions at the proper time.\nThis is not the first time I have received a letter from you of\na character undeserving of a reply; and I have to request that\nin any future correspondence with this Department you will\nendeavour, as far as may be in your power, to observe those\nrules of politeness common among gentlemen.8\n8 Bole to Smithe, February 18, 1887, \"Return ... for ... All Correspondence\n... Having Reference to a Piece of Land on the North Side of Burrard\nInlet and ... North of Lot 204, Group 1, New Westminister District,\" B.C.\nSessional Papers, 5th Pari., 1st sess., 1887, p. 423; Gore to Warwick,\nFebruary 21, 1887, ibid.; Warwick to Gore, February 23, 1887, ibid., p.\n 44 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nA discreet silence should now have fallen over the entire affair,\nbut an election was in the offing. Without awaiting a reply, Smithe\npublished his own letter. This action was later characterized by\nBole as a \"mean and spiteful way by which Mr. Robson, through\nyou, is trying to get even on me for my part in the debate of the\nioth March, 1887, when, in the discharge of my public duty, I had\noccasion to make some severe remarks on the conduct of the Provincial Secretary.\" Bole denied the charge that he had been neglecting\nhis professional duties, and told Smithe that he, as neither a slave nor\nfollower of the government, intended to exercise his own judgment\nas to the best method by which official correspondence should be\nconducted, \"even with so high and mighty an individual as the\nChief Commissioner of Lands and Works,\" because \"whatever\nother claims you may have to distinction, I was unaware that\nyou claimed to be considered the Government Chesterfield.\"9\nWhen the public accounts were submitted to the legislature late\nin the fall of 1887, Bole voted in favour of James Orr's motion of\ncensure against Robson for having dispensed patronage with a\nlavish hand in the New Westminster riding the previous summer.\nThe contention was that, while travelling through the district\nsoliciting votes, Robson had given orders for the expenditure of\nlarge sums on public works, and that while he was provincial\nsecretary, and minister of mines, agriculture, and finance, he had\nacted as if he were also the chief commissioner of lands and works,\nand that the accounts showed his orders had been honoured by the\nLands Department. Robson's accusers appear to have put together\n424; the letter produced by Kelly, Stalker to Warwick, February 7, 1887,\nibid.; Warwick to Gore, February 23, 1887, ibid., p. 425; Smithe to Bole,\nMarch 5, 1887, ibid.\nRobson presented this correspondence to the House, March 15, 1887.\nB.C., Journals, 5th Pari., 1st sess., 1887, p. 46.\n9 Bole to Smithe, March 24, 1887, \"Return to an Order ... Directing the\nChief Commissioner of Lands and Works to Send Down ... a Copy of a\nLetter ... Respecting Philip Kelly's Claim to Certain Land ...,\" B.C.,\nSessional Papers, 5th Pari., 1st sess., 1887, p. 489. (This order was granted\non a motion by W. M. D. Ladner, senior MLA for New Westminster, April\n6, 1887, and Robson complied by presenting the letter to the House that\nsame day. B.C., Journals, 5th Pari., 1st sess., 1887, p. 89.)\nIn this same letter, Bole made the charge that Robson was the real writer\nof the letter of March 5, 1887 (see note 8, Smithe to Bole), although the\nsignature was Smithe's. This may well be the truth as Smithe, re-elected in\nJuly, 1886, was too ill to take his seat during the 1887 session and, indeed,\ndied in March of that year.\nL\n PROVINCIAL LAND POLICY 1880-1913 45\na good case but when the vote was taken, the motion was defeated\nfifteen to eight.10\nHowever much indignation Bole could show at patronage, he\nwas quite willing to avail himself of the liberal land law in order\nto acquire extensive tracts of public land. In 1889 he made application to purchase one block of 8,400 and another of 1,600 acres of\npastoral land in the Osoyoos district.11 Land of this type, providing\nit were \"mountainous\" and unfit either for cultivation or lumbering, could still be had in unlimited quantities for one dollar an\nacre, and there was no requirement other than that it should be\nsurveyed. As chairman of a select committee in 1887 on tne sale\nof timber lands, Bole had introduced some sweeping changes with\nregard to limiting the size of timber leases, but the assembly did\nnot consider it necessary to alter the requirements under which\nsurveyed agricultural or pastoral land could be obtained.\nNo further significant changes were made in the land act until\n1888 when a further amendment was enacted and an extensive\nconsolidation made. Land was now classified as first or second\nclass. The former was land suitable for cultivation, lumbering, or\nhay meadows and was priced as formerly at $2.50 an acre; the\nlatter, land unsuitable for any of these purposes and also priced as\npreviously at $1.00 an acre.\nThe second important change concerned hay leases and indicated\nthe growing importance of the cattle industry. Whereas animals and\nand their produce had not merited inclusion in the export statistics\nof 1872, by 1891 the value of such produce had increased to\n$346,159, third only to mines and fisheries, and ahead of timber\nproducts by $20,000. By 1891 there were 251,367 head of livestock in the province for which 102,146 tons of hay were cut.\nCattle raising in the interior had become big business. The change\nin the land act in 1888 with regard to hay leases was made in order\nto reflect the actual situation. It provided that if there were two or\nmore applicants for the same hay lease, then bids must be tendered\nand the bidder who submitted the highest cash bonus was to receive\nthe lease.12 As amendments to the act were not added until after\ncircumstances had made them necessary, this change reveals clearly\n10 B.C., Journals, 5th Pari., 1st sess., 1887, p. 43.\n11 British Columbia Gazette, January 3, 1887, p. 4.\n12 B.C., Statutes, 1888, 51 Vict., c. 16, s. 9.\n 46 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nthat cattle raising was one of the major industries of the province\nby this time.\nA glance at the application for land in the British Columbia\nGazette for the years 1888 to 1891 shows that it was during this\nperiod that many of the \"landed\" families of the province acquired\nmost of their holdings. Although at the time some of the land was\ngood only for pasturage, subsequent irrigation developments have\nincreased the value of the land many times over. In the 1889\nGazette the name of Judge Bole is not the only one to appear more\nthan once as acquiring surveyed acreages. Cornelius O'Keefe was\napplying for a further 808 acres at the head of Okanagan Lake;\nSamuel L. Robins of the Vancouver Coal Company at Nanaimo\nwas applying for 30,000 acres on the west coast of Vancouver\nIsland, as was also Judge M. W. Tyrwhitt Drake; and J. S. Chase\nand others were asking for 20,480 acres in the Kootenay district.\nThe application for the greatest acreage came from John Irving,\nR. P. Rithet, James A. Laidlaw, and James Carrall, all of Victoria,\nwho together applied for 65,920 acres in Rupert district, in northern\nBritish Columbia. The pages listing these names throughout the\nyear read like a Who's Who for the province. Among others, D. M.\nEberts, J. C. MacLure, Thomas Earle, and John Bryden were, or\nwere to become, prominent in provincial affairs. Certificates of\npurchase for 1889 increased 63 per cent from the year before, and\nthe total acreage deeded increased 42 per cent, but both the number\nof pre-emption records and certificates of improvement decreased.13\nThese figures suggest that in the alienation of public lands, new\nsettlers were running a poor second to established residents bent on\nacquiring more land, possibly for personal use but more probably,\nfor speculative purposes. No doubt many of these shrewd men,\ninfluential in the affairs of the province, foresaw the imminent end\nto unrestricted buying of large acreages at cheap prices.\nRestrictions and price increases came into effect, in fact, in the\nLand Act of 1891. To reduce the amount of speculation, a limit\nwas placed on the amount of surveyed land that might be purchased. Henceforth 640 acres was to be the limit of land that might\nbe bought, whether surveyed or unsurveyed. As was true since 1884,\nno land was to be bought before it had been surveyed and the survey had been approved. From now on, however, the provincial land\nsurveyor was to classify land as first, second, or third class. Agricul-\n13 See Appendix B, Table 5.\n PROVINCIAL LAND POLICY 1880-1913 47\ntural, hay, and timber lands, as before, were to be designated first-\nclass land, but now they were worth five dollars an acre. Agricultural\nlands requiring irrigation or drainage were to be sold as second-\nclass land at $2.50 an acre. \"Mountainous and rocky tracts wholly\nunfit for agricultural purposes\" which could not \"under any reasonable conditions\" be brought under cultivation were now classed as\nthird-class land and still priced at one dollar an acre. Neither second-\nnor third-class land was to contain more than 5,000 feet of timber\nper acre. Only when the chief commissioner of lands and works was\nsatisfied that the land had been correctly classified and the applicant had paid the cost of surveying plus the full purchase price,\nwas the sale to be allowed. Even then, the proceedings were to be\ncancelled if the applicant had not completed all requirements within\nsix months after making his original application accompanied by\n10 per cent of the purchase price. To make doubly sure that\nspeculation was halted, this section specified that no person might\nsecure any other land until he had been in occupation of his first\npurchase for two years and had effected permanent improvements\nthereon of $5.00, $2.50, or $1.00 an acre for first-, second-, and\nthird-class land, respectively. Land which was actually cultivated\nwas to be considered as improved, and it came to be generally\naccepted that the running of a specified number of cattle per acre\non the land constituted improvement.14 Although the increase in\ndeeded acreage appeared to have reached a high point in 1892 \u00E2\u0080\u0094\n309,878 acres \u00E2\u0080\u0094 and was not to be so high again until 1897, this\nfigure was actually a reflection of the fact that many applications\nmade the previous fall under the former act were only then being\nprocessed in Victoria. Not until 1894 did the drastic reductions\neffected in deeded acreage under the Amendment of 1891 show up\nin official records. In 1894 only 47,167 acres were alienated, but\nthis decrease was, in part, also a reflection of the severe depression\nthen prevailing throughout America and Europe. Land sales in\n1894 accounted for only $33,917 of the provincial income, whereas\nin 1890, $244,529 had been received from this source. It seems\nclear from this sharp drop in revenue that the 1891 Amendment\ndid satisfactorily achieve its purpose of reducing speculation.\nBy a further amendment in 1892 pre-emptions of forty- and\neighty-acre lots were once again authorized. This figure was reduced\nagain in 1894 to permit the leasing of twenty-acre lots on land\n14 B.C., Statutes, 1891, 54 Vict., c. 15, s. 4.\n r\n48 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nsurveyed and subdivided for the sole purpose of personal occupation and cultivation. The lease was good for five years, but if the\nannual rental of the value of the land as determined by the chief\ncommissioner were paid regularly for those five years, and if a\nhouse were built on the lot the first year and all other residence\nand improvement qualifications fulfilled, the lessee was then to\nreceive a crown grant to the lot.15\nIn January of 1895 an accounting of all crown grants issued in\nthe province, for whatever reason, from January 1, 1880, to the\nend of 1894, was called for by the Legislative Assembly. It was to\nshow the name of the grantee, the acreage, the method by which\nthe land had been obtained, and the district in which the grant was\nsituated. The reply tabled on February 5 by G. B. Martin, chief\ncommissioner, is interesting:\nThe Return called for covers a period of 15 years, during which\ntime some 5,400 Crown grants have been issued.\nTo prepare such a Return will necessitate repeated reference\nto all the numerous Land Registers in the office of Lands and\nWorks, and will involve considerable expense.\nThe Return will cover over 350 pages of foolscap and will\nform a volume nearly as large as the Sessional Papers.\nIt is not apparent that such a Return is a matter of public\ninterest or value. Any Member wishing for particular information as to the issue of Crown grants can always ascertain what\nhe desires by applying at the Land Office.16\nGetting down to more manageable business, Beaven introduced\nan amendment to the land act in the 1895 session which reduced\nthe size of pre-emptions east of the Cascades from 320 to 160 acres.\nHoping to capitalize on the rapidly increasing activities apparent in\nthe Kootenays, the government now permitted settlers east of the\nCascades to buy 320 acres of waste crown land adjoining their\nlocations at one dollar an acre.17\nIn view of the numerous changes which had been made in the\nland act since its consolidation in 1888, another consolidation was\nmade in 1896, but there was only one important change having to\ndo with agricultural land. As land subsidies were being granted to\nmany of the railway companies who applied for them, the prov-\n15 B.C., Statutes, 1892, 55 Vict., c. 25, s. 2; B.C., Statutes, 1894, 57 Vict., c.\n24, s. 2.\n16 \"Memorandum,\" B.C., Sessional Papers, 7th Pari., 1st sess., 1894-95, P- 667.\n17 B.C., Statutes, 1895, 58 Vict., c. 27, s. 9.\n PROVINCIAL LAND POLICY 1880-1913 49\nince determined to reap some benefit from this development by\nreturning to the principle of reserving one-quarter of the lots in\nany crown-granted land subdivided into town lots. When Douglas\nhad reported a similar procedure to Lytton in connection with lots\nin New Westminster, he had been ordered to rescind the provision\nimmediately. Now, however, the province was to reap a rich harvest\nfrom its share of these town lots. At the same time, the deposit\naccompanying applications to purchase lands was increased to 25\nper cent, and prospective pre-emptors were warned that no preemptions would be granted for other than agricultural purposes\nand that neither certificates of improvement, nor crown grants,\nwould be issued until ten acres, at least, had been brought under\ncultivation.18\nFrom 1896 until the end of the century all types of land transactions showed a marked increase as a result, particularly, of railway construction and mining activity in the Kootenays. Throughout\nthe entire decade preceding 1900, however, the Okanagan Valley\nregularly accounted for from 25 to 50 per cent of all pre-emption\nrecords in the province, and \u00E2\u0080\u0094 an indication of the serious intentions of the residents of the Okanagan \u00E2\u0080\u0094 more certificates of\nimprovement were issued for that area than for any other district\nin the province. In 1900, of the 113 certificates issued, 58 went to\nOsoyoos land district which embraced the whole of the Okanagan\nValley from the border to Enderby. But in the entire province for\nany one of the years during the 1890's, five or six times as many\ncertificates of purchase were issued as were certificates of improvement. The Kootenays showed by far the greatest number both of\ncertificates of purchase and of crown grants. Six hundred and\ntwenty of the 1,101 certificates of purchase issued in 1900 were for\nlands in the Kootenays.\nAlthough an extensive consolidation of the land act was made in\n1897, no significant changes were made until 1908, when a completely new act was written, designed to incorporate changes in\nthe industrial pattern of the province. One such change, for\ninstance, is reflected in a return for 1903 which shows that of the\n10,032,700 acres under government reserve, every tenth acre was\nbeing reserved for applicants for pulp leases.19 Since the 1908 Act\n18 B.C., Statutes, 1896, 59 Vict, c. 28, s. 13.\n19 \"Return ... for ... Every Reserve ... of Provincial Lands Now in Force,\nStating the Purpose for Which Each Reserve is Made ...,\" B.C., Sessional\nPapers, 9th Pari., 4th sess., 1903, p. J23.\n 50\nLAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nfound its way with very few changes into the revised edition of the\nstatutes in 1911, the edition in effect in 1913, its major provisions\nare significant.\nFirst of all, since the work of the chief commissioner of lands\nand works had become exceedingly onerous, a separation of his\nduties was effected. Since 1871, the work of the chief commissioner\nhad increased to the point where he found himself responsible for\nsuch diverse matters as roads, bridges, government buildings, water\nrights, drainage and irrigation works, maps and surveys, and\ngovernment lands \u00E2\u0080\u0094 agricultural, timber, mineral, and coal. On\nall of these he was required to make a yearly report. From 1908\non there were to be both a minister of lands and a minister of\npublic works. Thomas Taylor became the first minister of public\nworks and Price Ellison became the first minister of lands.\nUnder the 1908 Act an innovation to permit the pre-emption of\nsurveyed and subdivided lots not exceeding forty acres for bona\nfide personal occupation and cultivation was introduced.20 This\nprovision was made as a result of repeated complaints from J. H.\nTurner, agent general for British Columbia in London, that he\nhad had to discourage a good many of those intending to emigrate\nwho wanted a smaller allotment than was allowed under the existing pre-emption regulations. In his 1904 report to Premier McBride\nhe had said that:\nA large proportion of the inquirers from the agricultural parts\nof Britain are very desirous for information as to the possibility\nof obtaining small holdings in British Columbia on easy terms,\nand if there was any provision of that nature hundreds would\nemigrate and take advantage of it.21\nApparently the 1894 arrangement for five-year leases of twenty-\nacre lots did not satisfy these would-be immigrants.\nPre-emptions of surveyed or unsurveyed crown land were still\nnot to exceed 160 acres, and were to be obtained at one dollar an\nacre. After two years of continuous personal occupation and after\nmaking improvements of $2.50 an acre, the pre-emptor was to\nreceive his crown grant. The restriction to one claim at one time\nwas still to hold good. In this year, 1908, the category \"third-class\n20 B.C., Statutes, 1908, 8 Edw. 7, c. 30, s. 10.\n21 British Columbia, Office of the Agent General for British Columbia, London,\nEng., \"First and Second Reports ... 1902-03,\" B.C., Sessional Papers, 10th\nPari., 1 st sess., 1903-1904, p. G45.\n PROVINCIAL LAND POLICY 1880-1913 51\nland\" was abolished, but the other two classifications were retained.\nFirst-class land, suitable for agricultural purposes, now cost ten\ndollars an acre \u00E2\u0080\u0094 a doubling of land prices since 1891\u00E2\u0080\u0094and\nsecond-class land, five. In addition, the minister reserved the right\nto increase the price on either class should he so decide.\nTimber lands were now defined as lands containing 5,000 feet\nof milling timber per acre east of the Cascades and 8,000 feet\nwest, and they were no longer for sale for agricultural purposes. No\npurchase of any land might exceed 640 acres nor be below 40\nacres. No second purchase was to be permitted until the previous\none had been completed and improvements to the extent of three\ndollars an acre made. Cultivation constituted improvement. Hay\nleases were still available, and Chinese were still not allowed to\npre-empt or buy land.22\nIn 1908, the year this act was passed, 1,535 pre-emptions were\nfiled, and the surveys amounted to 66,788 acres. The 2,438 certificates of purchase accounted for another 147,980 acres, an average\nof 60 acres per purchase. Only 1,667 crown grants were issued,\nand, as usual, the number of certificates of improvement lagged far\nbehind at 256. Cash received for purchased land, due to go up\n400 per cent in the next two years, amounted to $548,036.23\nA radical departure from established practice was made in 1911\nwhen all unsurveyed lands along the rights of way of the Canadian\nNorthern and Grand Trunk Pacific railroads were reserved but with\nthe requirement that any land taken out of these reserves after it\nhad been surveyed by the government must be disposed of by\npublic auction. In this way the government secured to itself some\nof the increase in price caused by the inflation resulting from railway construction and escaped having to sell the land at the minimum prices provided for in the act. The second reason for the\nreserving of these lands was to make some belated attempt to\nregulate settlement throughout the districts served by the railways.\nBy forcing settlement into those areas already surveyed, it was felt\nthat the new settler could establish himself more easily. For many\nyears the scattered settlements had constituted a grave communications problem for the government. In placing the reservation on\n22 B.C., Statutes, 1908, 8 Edw. 7, c. 30.\n23 B.C., Department of Lands and Works, \"Report of the Chief Commissioner\n... 1907-08,\" B.C., Sessional Papers, nth Pari., 3d sess., 1909, p. H58. The\nfigures relating to acreage surveyed may be found in Appendix B, Table 7.\n 52 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nthese lands, the government realized that temporarily its revenue\nwould drop, but hoped to be able to recoup its losses within a very\nshort time as land within the reserve was surveyed and released for\nsale by auction. It was anticipated that within two years at most,\n1,500,000 acres of reasonably good land would be available for sale.\nIn the same report, hope was derived from the fact that 624\ncertificates of improvement had been issued for 1911, as against\n439 for 1910. The remark that \"these figures are interesting in that\nthey disclose the bona fides of the pre-emptor rather than the issuance of the certificate of pre-emption record\"24 pin-points the weakness of the entire pre-emption system. Without government inspectors it was easy to exploit the land for the two, three, or four years\nallowed and then to acquire it by purchase at the lower pre-emption\nprice without making the required improvements. For the period\n1871 to 1913 there were 34,216 pre-emption records, but only 7,811\ncertificates of improvement were issued.25 Part of the discrepancy\ncan be accounted for by the fact that a good many pre-emptors\nchose to pay for their survey and for the land without waiting the\nfull period allowed under the statute and, in this case they would\nhave received a certificate of purchase, not one of improvement. No\ndoubt a large number of pre-emptions were simply abandoned and\nmany others were never \"proved-up.\"\nTo provide some check on claims, authority was provided at\nthe next legislative session to appoint pre-emption inspectors whose\njob it was to examine, and report on, the compliance of the pre-\nemptors with residence and improvement requirements under the\nland act.26 By 1913 Robert A. Renwick, deputy minister, was able\nto report to William R. Ross, minister of lands, that:\nThe Department has taken up the closer supervision of pre-\nemptors and pre-emptions with a view to securing due performance, on the part of the pre-emptor, of the requirements of the\n24 B.C., Department of Lands, \"Report of the Minister of Lands ... 1911,\"\nB.C., Sessional Papers, 12th Pari., 3d sess., 1912, pp. G5-6. Land sales had\nfallen from 2,000,000 acres in 1910 to 900,000 in 1911 (ibid., p. G5) but\nthis drop is not reflected in Tables 5 and 6, Appendix B, because it is not\npossible to determine what mineral, railway, or coal sales are included in\nthe minister's total figure.\n25 See Appendix B, Tables 1 and 2. Note that statistics for 1871 and 1872 are\nnot given in the tables because they were not presented in sufficient detail to\ntabulate with the more detailed figures of later years, but they are included\nin the totals in the text above.\n26 B.C., Statutes, 1912, 2 Geo. 5, c. 16, s. 12.\n PROVINCIAL LAND POLICY 1880-1913 53\n\"Land Act\" as to residence. On this work, one Inspector of Preemptions was in the field for several months, effecting a fairly\ncomplete examination of the pre-emptions throughout two\nagencies. His reports justify his employment, as in a great number\nof instances it was found pre-emptors were availing themselves\nof the privileges conferred by this part of the \"Land Act\" for the\nsole purpose of securing title by cash payment at the rate of $i.\nper acre with scant regard to the Statute requirement as to\noccupation. It is the intention to have a number of Pre-emption\nInspectors in the field during the present year.27\nAs was to be expected, the innovation was welcomed by those\nwho were honestly trying to comply with the requirements of the\nlaw and whole-heartedly resented by those whose efforts were\ndirected toward holding the land under pre-emption record with\ncomplete disregard for the residence and improvement requirements. H. Cathcart, superintendent of the inspection branch, and\nhis five inspectors visited 1,497 pre-emptions during 1913, of which\n819 were found occupied and in the course of improvement; 660\npre-emptors were notified that they must conform more closely to\nthe statutory provisions, and 222 pre-emptions were cancelled and\nreopened to settlement. The inspections undoubtedly encouraged\nthe genuine settlers and served to convince the delinquents that\nthey must either conform or make way for settlers who were prepared to do so. In his first report, Cathcart expressed the hope that\nby the end of 1914 his branch would have covered the entire province. He was furnishing the department with a formal report on\nevery pre-emption claim in the province in which the details of\noccupation, of improvement or improvements, and the value of\nthese, were to be listed. As each report was to be attached to each\nindividual file, the long-standing confusion over the exact status\nof such pre-emption claims would be terminated. Where inspection\nindicated that the settler was delinquent, he was to be given sixty\ndays in which to show cause why his record should not be cancelled. Failure to do so would result in immediate cancellation of\nthe claim. Whenever it was apparent that the settlers were making\na genuine attempt to live up to the spirit of the law even though\nseeking employment off their claims in order to earn a living,\nCathcart instructed his men to be as lenient as possible by confining\n27 B.C., Department of Lands, \"Report of the Deputy Minister of Lands\n[1912],\" B.C., Sessional Papers, 13th Pari., 1st sess., 1913, p. D8.\n 54 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\ntheir admonitions to a reminder to live up more closely to the contracted obligations.28\nAs a special condition written into the agreement with the railway company gave the province a half interest in many of the\ntownsites being developed along the Grand Trunk Pacific, these\ninspectors were called upon to select the government lots in them.\nSquatters presented their greatest difficulty. In addition to these\ntasks, it also fell to them to clear and dispose of government lots\nby public auction in Point Grey, Kitsilano, and Hastings. After\npaying $380 an acre to have the 9.6 acres in Kitsilano cleared, the\ninspectors sold the 96 lots at an average price of $914. In Hastings,\n59.4 acres were cleared at $225 an acre; for the 128 lots sold, the\naverage price obtained was $1,162. These lots were sold by auction\non May 20, 1913. During the summer, the 122 acres in Point Grey\nbounded by English Bay, Alma Road, Tenth Avenue and Crown\nStreet were cleared, but only 10 blocks of 16 lots each were sold at\nthe auction held November 3. Although the returns were not then\nall in, Cathcart reported that thus far $240,000 had been received\nfrom the sale, indicating that even then a house in Point Grey was\nlikely to prove expensive.\nThe previous year the second sale of government townsite lots\nalong the Grand Trunk Pacific had been held at Prince Rupert.\nA most successful sale it had been, completely vindicating the 1896\ndecision to incorporate in the Land Act provision for the reservation of one-quarter of all such lots to the government. In 1909 at\nthe first sale, 1,346 lots had sold for $765,191, an average of $570\na lot; but at the 1912 sale, at which only 282 lots were sold,\n$1,192,475 was realized, an average price per lot of $4,228.\nWith three railroads being built \u00E2\u0080\u0094 the Grand Trunk Pacific to\nPrince Rupert, the Canadian Northern down from the Yellowhead\nPass to Vancouver, and the Pacific Great Eastern northward to\nQuesnel \u00E2\u0080\u0094 the government might well have taken some comfort\nin contemplation of its holdings of town lots and might have looked\nfor a material increase in the provincial revenue. Unfortunately, a\ndepression intervened in 1913, and the war began the next year.\nLand purchases fell off from a total of over 1,000,000 acres in 1912\nto less than half that amount in 1913, with a decrease in revenue\nfor the same two years of over $1,500,000. But having embarked\n28 B.C., Department of Lands, \"Report of the Inspection Branch [1912],\"\nB.C., Sessional Papers, 13th Pari., 2d sess., 1914, pp. D15-16.\n PROVINCIAL LAND POLICY 1880-1913 55\non an ambitious plan for assisting and directing settlement, the\ngovernment was pleased that, despite falling sales, pre-emptions\nhad increased over 50 per cent for the year. The outstanding\nincrease from 2,383 pre-emptions in 1911 to 3,655 in 1912 was\nlargely accounted for by settlers having been enticed into the areas\nserved by the two new transcontinental railroads, but the government was now fully prepared for these settlers.\nHaving kept abreast of the requirements in the way of adequate\nsurveys of lands previously set aside for pre-emption entry, the\ngovernment was securing data on the adaptability of various sections of the province to different agricultural pursuits. By means\nof pamphlets and adequate maps the Department of Lands could\ninform any settler of the type of land to be found where he proposed\nto locate. For those who wanted to buy land, its average selling\nprice, including the cost of survey, was now $6.00 an acre, which\ncompared very favourably with the average price of $12.68 an\nacre being charged by the Canadian Pacific and by large land-\nholding companies throughout the rest of Canada.29\nFor the final year before the war there was a marked falling off\nin land revenues. Much of the drop was accounted for by the transference of $1,000,000 to the newly established Forestry Department\nin 1912. Because of the \"financial stringency prevailing,\" there was\na noticeable decrease in land activities. Sales fell off rapidly because\nof the department's decision to hold no further auctions during the\nperiod of depression. It was expected that the deficit would be\novercome when the Grand Trunk Pacific was completed later in\nthe year. In the spring lots had been sold in Prince George for\nabout $1,000 cash.80\nThus at the end of 1913 provincial land legislation was such\nthat it had the effect Lytton had envisaged for it in 1858. Town lots\nwere being sold by public auction in order to capitalize on local\nland booms, and at such prices that even if the lots were being\nbought for speculation, the government had no cause for complaint.\nLand for settlement by pre-emptors was being surveyed before it\nwas made available to settlers. Immediate cash payment in full\nwas being required from purchasers. Speculation in country lands\nwas being forestalled by the upper limit of 640 acres placed on sale\n29 \"Report of the Deputy Minister of Lands [1912],\" pp. D7-8.\n30 B.C., Department of Lands, \"Report of the Deputy Minister of Lands\n[I9I3]\u00C2\u00BB\" B.C., Sessional Papers, 13th Pari., 2d sess., 1914, p. D7.\n 56 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nof crown lands. No unreasonable impediment to pre-emption was\nplaced in the way of settlers whose desire to fulfil their pre-emption\nobligations was sincere. Better still, although no systematic classification for agricultural purposes was being made during the survey\nof land held under government reserves, the Department of Lands\nwas now fairly launched on a program of directing settlement into\nareas where the settler would at least have the benefit of railway\noutlets for what produce he might grow.\nFor its programme to have been of maximum benefit, however, the\nDepartment of Lands should have insisted that its surveyors carefully classify the land surveyed with a view to its agricultural potential. Paid as they were on an acreage basis, and in all probability\nnot too well qualified to make such classifications in any event, the\nsurveyors were not inclined to differentiate between good and bad\nfarm land. In British Columbia, where soil conditions are so variable, a much more detailed examination of the land should have\nbeen required by surveyors than was given in any field notes sent\nto the Land Office. The result was that in many instances settlers\ntook up lands totally unsuited for agriculture. Because pre-emptors\nwere usually men of limited financial means and frequently of\nequally limited experience in the selection of lands, it should have\nbeen manifest that it was the government's responsibility to safeguard them from wasting their time, money, and energy on marginal land. The sincere settler who was willing to spend his life in\nturning the wilderness into a productive farm might reasonably\nhave felt entitled at least to good land. Rather than leave the\nchoice of location to the settler himself, with his limited knowledge\nof the country, the government should have accepted the responsibility. But since it did not, anyone who cares to look may find\nthe ruins of hundreds of abandoned homesteads in any one of a\nnumber of valleys in British Columbia, some perched on mountainsides, others on benches, and still others beside small creeks, all\ndeserted because the cost of clearing was excessive, the soil was\nunproductive, or no market was available.\nBetween 1859 and 1913 then, the wheel had gone full circle in\ncertain aspects of land legislation. The pre-emption price of four\nshillings twopence established on Vancouver Island in 1861 by\nDouglas was not far removed from the one dollar per acre charged\npre-emptors from 1870 to 1913. Deferred payments, allowed by\nDouglas, were still allowed in 1913. Douglas, too, had restricted\npre-emptions to 160 acres, a provision to which the provincial\n PROVINCIAL LAND POLICY 1880-1913 57\ngovernment returned in 1908. Thus it can be seen that though\nchanges in the act from i860 to 1913 in regard to pre-emptions\nwere numerous, comparatively few had any significance.\nChanges in the act with respect to purchasing government land\noutright were perhaps more significant. From 1871 an almost\nsteady increase in price per acre is apparent. By 1871 the original\nprice of ten shillings had been reduced to four shillings twopence\nand then to one dollar an acre. But in 1884 it was raised to $2.50\nfor all except \"mountainous tracts,\" which still cost only $1.00. In\n1891 price of first class land became $5.00, with second class at\n$2.50, and third class at $1.00 an acre. Finally in 1908 the best\nland was selling at $10.00, second class at $5.00, and the category\nof third class was abandoned altogether. At this time it was specified that the minister of lands could increase the price of any land\nif he so wished. The many changes in the act from year to year\nchiefly regulated whether payments were to be cash or deferred,\nand whether land must be surveyed or not before payment was\nmade. If the settler had the money, the amount of Crown land\nthat could be bought outright in 1871 was unlimited. In 1884 the\nfirst limits were imposed when the amount of unsurveyed government land that could be bought was limited to 640 acres. In 1891\ncame the one big restriction on outright purchase \u00E2\u0080\u0094 no more than\n640 acres could be purchased, whether surveyed or not, nor could\na second purchase be made until the first had been occupied for\ntwo years and improvements made equal to the original cost of the\nland. These limits were still in effect in 1913.\nCertain motives become clear at each stage of provincial policy\nin the disposal of agricultural lands. When Douglas realized in\ni860 that his ordinance of the previous year dealing only with the\nsale of land could not meet the requirements of miners who had\nbeen unsuccessful in their search for gold, he instituted the preemption system. With minor alterations, the privilege of preemption remained permanently in effect, its purpose being to make\nland readily available at a nominal charge to bona fide settlers.\nThe charge of one dollar an acre was levied in an attempt to forestall speculation only, never as a means of raising revenue.\nBy 1875, when government morale was at its lowest point owing\nto the non-fulfilment of article 11 of the Terms of Union, and\nwhen the province was competing for immigrants with eastern\nCanada and the United States, free grants were instituted, only to\nbe abandoned in 1879 when the actual construction of the Cana-\n 58 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\ndian Pacific was well under way. The year before its completion\nin 1885, when immigrants became more numerous, and there was\na sharp increase in the demand for land, the upset price was raised\nto $2.50, although no change was made in the pre-emption price.\nIn 1891 the further rise in price to five dollars and the 640-acre\nlimitation placed on any type of land that could be bought showed\nthe continuing trend. After the turn of the century, as a result of\nthe promotional activities of the agent general in London, the\nprovincial Bureau of Information in Victoria, and the numerous\nland companies, the demand for public lands rose to its highest\npoint,31 and the price of land was raised again, this time to ten\ndollars for good farming land, and more severe limitations were\nplaced on the quantity that could either be bought or pre-empted.\nBy 1913 the government had realized finally that good farm land\nin British Columbia was not inexhaustible and that it had an obligation to settlers to direct them away from isolated areas and onto\nland which would be served at least by railway communication.\nThus the problem confronting the government by the end of 1913\nwas not the increased alienation of agricultural land, but the\ndevelopment of the lands already granted.\n31 Some indication of the increasing interest in lands in the province can be\ngained from the fact that in 1890 the Department of Lands received 4,168\nletters; by 1900, the figure was 12,943, and in 1910, a total of 37,188\nqueries was received \u00E2\u0080\u0094 an average of 100 letters a day for every day of the\nyear. Appendix B, Table 5.\n CHAPTER 4\nLand Surveys\nMany of the problems of land disposal in British Columbia before\n1913 arose from the ever-present difficulty of having the land surveyed before pre-emption or settlement. Although Douglas's intentions with regard to surveying the vacant lands of the colony were\nof the best, he was unsuccessful in practice. It was his intention \u00E2\u0080\u0094\nindicated in a letter to Lord Stanley of the Colonial Office \u00E2\u0080\u0094 to\nsurvey the land before opening it for settlement. This survey he\nconsidered to be a \"measure of obvious necessity.\"1 To facilitate\nthis operation, Lytton informed Douglas on July 31, 1858, that\nhe was sending out a detachment of the Royal Engineers, whose\nmost important task was \"to survey those parts of the country which\nmay be considered most suitable for settlement.\" At the same time,\nLytton said that it would only be \"reasonable and proper\" to\nexpect private individuals buying land to pay for the cost of survey.2\nThis practice differed from that in other Canadian provinces. In\ndiscussing the most urgent demands upon the public revenue of\nthe colony, Lytton listed police, absolutely necessary officials, public\nworks to facilitate landing and travelling, and, above all, surveying.\nIn citing for Douglas what he considered to be the guiding principles for the disposal of public lands, Lytton emphasized the value\nof not selling land \"beyond the limits of what is either surveyed\nor ready for immediate survey.\"3 Douglas acted upon this principle\n1 Douglas to Stanley, June 10, 1858, no. 2, Gt. Brit, Papers Relative to British\nColumbia, 1:14.\n2 Lytton to Douglas, July 31, 1858, no. 6, ibid., p. 45.\n3 Lytton to Douglas, August 14, 1858, no. 8, ibid., p. 48; Lytton to Douglas,\nAugust 14, 1858, no. 9, ibid., p. 49.\n 60 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nwithout delay by sending the Royal Engineers to the mainland to\nsurvey \"all the open districts of land on Fraser's River, so that the\ncountry may be laid out for immediate settlement and occupation.\"4\nThe theory of requiring lands to be surveyed before sale was\nexcellent. In practice, Douglas soon discovered that it would not\nwork, for development of the colony would have been seriously\nimpeded and squatting on government lands would have become\nwidespread. On January 12, i860, Douglas was compelled to confess to the Colonial Office that since the surveys could not begin to\nkeep pace with the demand for land, he had authorized the preemption of 160 acres of unsurveyed crown land intended for agricultural purposes, subject to a charge of ten shillings an acre at the\ntime of survey.5 The same regulation with regard to surveying was\nin effect in 1913:\nAny pre-emptor of unsurveyed land shall have the land recorded\nby him surveyed at his own expense (subject, however, to a\nrectification of boundaries) within five years from the date of\nthe pre-emption recorded by a surveyor approved of and acting\nunder instructions from the Minister.6\nBy the end of 1858 \"a few thousand acres\" in the immediate\nneighbourhood of Victoria had been surveyed. By the end of i860,\n175,000 acres had been completed and divided into 100-acre lots\non Vancouver Island, and 41,000 acres of valuable delta lands at\nthe mouth of the Fraser River had been laid out in 160-acre\nblocks in conformity with the system adopted in the United States.7\nThe surveys on Vancouver Island were not done by the Royal\nEngineers, and were subsequently found to be very incomplete;\nchecks on those made by the Engineers on the mainland revealed\nthat their work required no corrections of any kind.\nBetween i860 and 1871 only insignificant sums were appropriated by the colonial government for surveys; most of the work\nthat was completed was done on Indian reserves and a few preemption claims. Large tracts of land for timber cutting and pastoral purposes were surveyed, but the cost of these surveys was\nborne entirely by the lessees. The colonial government, with an\nempty treasury, was confronted with the task of surveying an area\n4 Douglas to Lytton, May 23, 1859, no. 11, ibid., 3:12.\n6 Douglas to Newcastle, January 12, i860, no. 35, ibid., p. 90.\n6 B.C., Revised Statutes, 1911, 1 Geo. 5, c. 129, s. 25.\n7 \"Report of the Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works ... 1873,\" pp. 54-55. \"\n LAND SURVEYS 61\nconsiderably larger than any one of the prairie provinces. Moreover, the land was so rugged as to make a systematic survey of\nthe whole practically impossible, particularly as much of it was\ncovered with a growth of timber which rendered the country\nabsolutely inaccessible, even to packhorses. Members of survey\nparties had to pack their own supplies. After the arrival of the\nRoyal Engineers, provision was made for the office of surveyor\ngeneral. Colonel Moody was the first of a succession of surveyors\ngeneral who tried to do what they could with the meagre resources\nat their disposal^ but found that the annual appropriation for the\npurpose was grossly inadequate to meet the demands of the developing province.\nAfter 1871, the importance of surveying the public lands in\nsome uniform way was recognized by every government, but, even\nin 1873, Beaven, then chief commissioner of lands and works, was\ncomplaining that the $10,000 voted in 1872 was \"totally inadequate.\" In addition to a lack of funds, the department was seriously\nhampered in its work by the acute shortage of properly trained\nsurveyors. The provision contained in section 10 of the 1870 Land\nOrdinance permitting the surveyor to survey lands \"by such motes\nand bounds [as] he may think proper\" and the absence of a trained\ncorps of surveyors resulted in the Crown granting isolated blocks of\nland of which the position was only roughly known to the Land\nOffice.\nThe confusion became even greater after 1875 when surveyors\nhired by private individuals were permitted, if necessary, to depart\nfrom the official polyconic, or township, system adopted in 1873\n\"as nearly as circumstances [would] permit\" and even to omit\nconnecting the survey by a tie line with some known point established in a previous survey if it were found impracticable to do so.\nA further difficulty arose after 1871 from the confusion surrounding the location of the land to be granted to the dominion\ngovernment for railway purposes. The appropriation for provincial\nsurveys fell from a peak of $40,000 in 1874 to a low of $500 in\n1879. Beaven said in his report for 1873 tnat tne earty beginning\non a systematic survey was delayed \"from the same causes which\nexisted last year, viz., the restriction placed upon our lands by the\nTerms of Union, and the uncertainty which existed as to what\nlands would be claimed by the Dominion Government for railway\npurposes.\" He even made an attempt to get the Dominion to agree\nto reimburse the province for the cost of any surveys made on lands\n 62 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nsubsequently found to be included within the Railway Belt, but\n\"this, however, was unsuccessful.\"3\nOn July 21, 1873, tne day on wnicn the time limit set for the\nDominion to commence construction of the railroad expired,\nBeaven sent two surveyors into the New Westminster district to\nsubdivide townships into sections of one square mile each. Under\nthis system, which had already been adopted by the dominion\ngovernment and used in Manitoba, and was currently employed in\nthe United States, each township contained thirty-six sections, each\nsection containing one square mile or 640 acres. By placing a post\nin the centre of each section, four quarter-sections of 160 acres\neach could be obtained. It was a simple system which had the\nadvantage of conforming with surveys elsewhere on the continent,\nof making it easy for settlers to locate their lands, and of reducing,\nby its simplicity, the cost of surveying and the possibility of mistakes.\nSince many of the townships surveyed in the New Westminster area\nunder this plan were done on contract, the price varied, but, in\n1873, Township no. 7 was surveyed by W. D. Patterson at a cost of\nnineteen dollars per mile. At this rate, it would have cost $1,596 to\nsurvey the entire township. It was the custom in eastern Canada to\nadopt a fixed survey price per mile for all the different classes and\ngrades of survey, but such a plan was to be found impracticable in\nBritish Columbia. There were not enough surveyors; there were too\nmany conflicting claims which the surveyor had to check; there were\ntoo many old lines of previous surveys that had to be discovered,\ntaken up correctly, and traced through dense timber and underbrush.\nSuch factors rendered a fixed price out of the question for British\nColumbia. Surveyors would not accept it.\nIt was with much pleasure that Beaven could inform the\nAssembly in 1875 not only that the pre-emption claims taken up\nby settlers fifteen years before in the main settlement centres had\nnow been surveyed, but also, that the government had at its disposal, for new settlers, a large area of surveyed land of which \"the\nnature and character . . . are minutely described upon the maps\nin the Land Office, thus enabling intending settlers to obtain as\nmuch reliable information in reference to the lands as it is possible\nto gain without personal inspection.\" And indeed, the survey of\n160,729 acres throughout the Fraser, Thompson, and Nicola\nIbid.\n\u00C2\u00A3*\n LAND SURVEYS 63\nvalleys was a creditable performance.9 But as the gloom deepened\nover the failure of the railway from eastern Canada to materialize,\nthe Walkem government decided in 1876 to reduce the expense of\nsurveying \"until the influx of population and the financial circumstances of the Province warrant the expenditure.\"10 Accordingly,\nthe appropriation was reduced from $8,000 in 1877 to $5>ooo in\n1878, and the next year it went down to a mere token allotment\nof $500. Not until 1907 did the amount of money expended on\nsurveys again begin to reflect the urgent need for extensive government surveys.\nCodification of the survey system to be employed throughout the\nprovince found its way into the land act in 1879 for the first time.\nIt was the township, or polyconic, system, the details of which were\nexactly the same as those found in the dominion Homestead Act of\n1872. At the same time, instructions were given by which surveyors\nwere to be guided in keeping their field notes, certified copies of\nwhich had to be sent to the Land Office in Victoria for approval.\nApproval was to be given only after the notes had been checked\nin detail to see that they agreed with previous surveys and field\nnotes made in the same district. Seventeen different instructions\nwere included for the surveyor's guidance, each of which was to be\nfollowed in detail and in sequence. Beginning with the instructions\nas to the manner in which the pages of his book were to be ruled,\nthe act went on to tell him to place the date as the first entry each\nmorning; to make full notes as to the character of the country and\nits soils, lakes, and timber; to make all entries in pencil and to\nmake no additional entries therein; to keep duplicate copies in ink;\nto construct a plan on the scale of four inches to the mile; to chain\ncorrectly; and to note the direction, width, and volume of all\nrivers or streams crossed; to make a general description of each\ntownship as it was completed; to note carefully the location of all\nbearing trees; to make an especially careful record of the kinds of\ntimber, and the sizes of trees; to locate accurately all Indian villages,\ncabins, and fields; to describe all settlers' cabins and improvements\nand to give the names of the settlers; to locate all roads and trails\ns \"Report of the Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works ... 1875,\" p. 531.\n10 B.C., Department of Lands and Works, \"Report of the Chief Commissioner\nof Lands and Works ... 1876,\" B.C., Sessional Papers, 2d Pari., 2d sess.,\n1877, P- 350.\n 64 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\n\"with their direction whence and whither\"; and then to proceed\nwith the survey.11\nReports submitted by all surveyors were included in the annual\nreport of the Lands and Works Department each year up to 1898,\nbut thereafter they were deleted. Not until G. H. Dawson was\nappointed surveyor general to replace E. B. McKay in 1911 were\nthe reports published again. Under statutes which had been passed\nin 1886 and 1891 to protect surveyors from action for trespassing\nand to regulate the qualifications for admission to practice, the\ngovernment surveyors had been doing what they could within their\nseverely restricted budget to survey timber, mineral, agricultural,\nand coal lands, as well as to make valuable exploratory surveys\nthroughout the province. But not until Dawson took over the surveyor general's office were the reports submitted to the Land Office\nconsidered to be of sufficient interest to the public to warrant their\ninclusion in the Sessional Papers where the public could have\naccess to them. Upon assuming office, Dawson thoroughly overhauled the entire division by increasing the staff, obtaining new and\nincreased office space, and establishing new branches within the\ndepartment.\nDawson soon discovered that the system of surveys in the province, regardless of what the statutory provisions had been, or were,\nwas quite unlike anything he had previously encountered. To begin\nwith, he found that government surveys of crown lands were\nlagging far behind the other western provinces. But it is to be noted\nthat the Dominion had been responsible for the surveying of Manitoba and the Northwest Territory lands, and the surveys carried\nout there are generally considered to be among the best in the\nworld. Dawson recognized these facts. The lack of funds had, of\ncourse, seriously retarded surveys, but so had the terrain with which\nsurveyors had had to contend. In addition, British Columbia had\na far greater variety of natural resources than the other three\nwestern provinces, all of which had to be surveyed before development could proceed. Obviously Dawson had at hand extenuating\ncircumstances for the conditions he found in his department. He\ndid not complain of what he found; indeed, in explaining why\nBritish Columbia could not be compared with any of the other\nwestern regions, he said that \"it is seldom that a country is so\nwonderfully endowed by nature that portions of its Crown lands\n11 B.C., Statutes, 1879, 42 Vict., c. 21, s. 8.\n LAND SURVEYS 65\ncan be sold several times, and made a more or less permanent\nsource of revenue by taxation, under a variety of Statutes, without\nserious inconvenience by the holders of any of the rights covered\nby the grants in question.\"12\nThe work of the Survey Branch involved, among other duties,\nmaking surveys under the Mineral Act and the Coal and Petroleum Act in addition to the Land Act, for no claim could be\ncrown-granted until it had been surveyed. By the Land Act, the\nSurvey Branch was called upon to survey pre-emptions, purchases,\nand leases, and, until the establishment in 1911 of the Forest\nBranch, it was also called upon to survey all timber leases and\nlimits. The Survey Branch was to regulate surveys made under all\nthese acts; the overseeing and regulating were not always done, but\nprovision had been made. Surveys made under the Land Act were\nby far the most numerous; titles given under that act reserved to\nthe Crown all the coal and minerals to which crown grants might\nbe obtained separately under the appropriate acts. As the surveyor\ngeneral pointed out, it was possible, therefore, to have on the maps\nof the department a piece of land to which a crown grant to the\nsurface had been given under the Land Act, another crown grant\nunder the Coal and Petroleum Act, and a third crown grant issued\nunder the Mineral Act. At the same time, the whole area embraced\nwithin these three crown grants might have been included in a\ntimber leasehold granted before 1892. And then, to add to the\nexisting confusion, a fifth record might have been, or still might be,\ngiven to another to partly divert the water contained in any stream\nrunning by or through the property. Such a piece of land would\nhave required surveying at least four separate times, and would\nhave four official designations, all of which would appear on the\ndepartment map. Until 1912, the Survey Branch had little actual\ncontrol over the work of private surveyors who did much of the\nprovincial surveying; any or each of these might have submitted\nnotes that did not agree with those of the others.\nThe annual expenditures on surveys listed in the public accounts\nfor each year show how little was spent on this essential service\nbefore 1909. From 1871 to 1900 inclusive, a total of $466,970 was\nexpended on surveys, an average of $16,102 a year, hardly enough\nto pay for the surveying of the pre-emption claims for which certi-\n12 B.C., Department of Lands, \"Report of the Surveyor-General [1912],\" B.C.,\nSessional Papers, 13th Pari., 1st sess., 1913, p. D230.\n 66 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nficates of improvement had been issued. As late as 1906, only\n$6,987 was being spent on this vital service, but with the general\nreorganization that took place within the Department of Lands and\nWorks in 1909, and with the establishment of a separate Ministry\nof Lands, this sum rose to $190,188 that year, and to $448,885 in\n1911. Expenditures in 1909, 1910, and 1911 were largely to survey\nthe reserved lands along the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway.13 By\nthe end of 1912 the entire portion of the province extending from\nthe Alberta border to Prince Rupert was completed, making it the\nfirst such carefully planned and completely executed survey of its\nkind in British Columbia.\nWhen Dawson took over his new duties in 1911, he found that\nthe plotting and gazetting of lands from the books of field notes\nsent to Victoria had fallen seven months in arrears. So great was\nthe increased land activity throughout the province \u00E2\u0080\u0094 reports of\nwhich had to be funnelled through the Land Department \u00E2\u0080\u0094 that\nthe entire attention of the staff was being devoted to the handling\nof field notes to the exclusion of other work such as plotting the\ntie lines necessary for the compilation of connected plans of surveyed lands which the public was demanding. He was able to\nstate in his annual report for 1911 that because of the increased\nstaff, field notes which required no amending were being dealt\nwith three weeks after their receipt and that the Geographic\nBranch was utilizing the information thus obtained to prepare new\nmaps as quickly as possible.14\nTo convey some idea of the magnitude of the task assigned the\nSurvey Branch, the following table will be helpful:\nWork of the Survey Branch, 1 goj-ig 1315\nYear Books received Lots surveyed Lots gazetted\n1907 1,622 1,830 1,762\n1908 1,862 2,161 2,145\n1909 2,204 3,365 2,942\n13 Ibid., p. D227.\n14 \"Surveyor-General's Report [1911],\" pp. G8, G9.\n15 Compiled from B.C., \"Report of the Surveyor-General [1912],\" p. D231,\nand B.C., Department of Lands, \"Report of the Surveyor-General [1913],\"\nB.C., Sessional Papers, 13th Pari., 2d sess., 1914, p. D313.\nK\u00C2\u00A3^\n LAND\nSURVEYS\n67\n1910\n2,893\n5,098\n3,072\n1911\n5,259\n7,312\n6,737\n1912\n4,791\n6,345\n7,950\n1913\n4,750\n7,378\n6,770\nWhen a government survey of a district was made, all preemption records, applications to purchase, and leases were assigned\nto district lots, or portions of lots, which had been surveyed on a\nregular system, a procedure which meant that the work to be done\nin Victoria was comparatively light. When an isolated pre-emption\nhad to be dealt with, however, the procedure was not always so\nsimple. Upon receipt of a pre-emption record, the settler had his\nland surveyed at his own expense and the surveyor's field notes\nwere sent to Victoria. If the description contained in the original\ncertificate of record was clear, if the boundaries as determined by\nthe private survey agreed with that description, and if the preemption was so situated as to leave no possibility of its conflicting\nwith other pre-emptions or applications, the field notes were then\nchecked and plotted on the official plan and on the master reference map. Then a notice was published in the British Columbia\nGazette indicating that the claim had been surveyed and the survey\nfound to be satisfactory, and the local government agent was supplied with a copy of the official plan of the survey. If a crown grant\nwas applied for within the time specified in the act, two more\ncopies of the plan had to be made. But if the pre-emption was\nlocated in the vicinity of an old crown grant, or of an unsurveyed\ntimber or coal licence, or of any application which predated the\npre-emption record, the department had to be satisfied that there\nwas no interference. To do this meant protracted correspondence\nwith the surveyor, and the process of checking a single set of field\nnotes might drag on for a year. Fortunately for the department\nand for the settler, it would seem that there were not too many\nnegotiations of this kind, as the number of books of field notes and\nthe number of lots gazetted in each year in the chart given above\ncoincide reasonably well.\nBy 1913 the full effect of the reorganization begun in 1911 was\nbeing felt, not only in the office work, but also in surveying throughout the province. There were now seventy-five surveyors working\nin the field, and they were no longer confined to the vicinity of\nthe transcontinental railway lines. One million acres of crown land\n 68 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nhad been surveyed for the government, most of which was subdivided into lots varying in size from 40 to 160 acres; 400 miles\nof district boundaries were run; explorations of the Cassiar and\nPeace River districts were carried out and, in conjunction with\nthe governments of Alberta and the Dominion, a beginning was\nmade on the survey of the Alberta-British Columbia boundary.16\nPrivate surveys for the year covered 1,500,000 acres of land held\nunder special timber licence, an acreage which represented only\nabout 30 per cent of all land held under such licences but still\nunsurveyed at the beginning of the year. In addition, 500,000 acres\nof land held under application to purchase were surveyed privately.\nIn spite of a late beginning, government surveys accounted for\na quarter of all surveys made in the province since the turn of the\ncentury. Altogether, 13,980,360 acres had been surveyed since 1900,\ndistributed fairly evenly among agricultural, mineral, and timber\nlands.17 Much of this surveying had been greatly facilitated by the\n\"Canadian Pacific traverse,\" a base fine established through the\nRailway Belt to Port Moody by the Canadian Pacific Company.\nLines were run from either side of this established base throughout\nthe province. Including the area surveyed in the Railway Belt,\n26,299,689 acres of provincial territory had been surveyed at the\nend of 1913, roughly a ninth of the total land area.\nAs predicted by Tom Kains, surveyor general in 1891, Dawson\nfound that to survey British Columbia in a way that would conform to the survey system uniformly adopted elsewhere in Canada\nwas a task \"attended with enormous expense.\"18 Because of its\nrugged terrain, British Columbia was not at all suited to the township system of surveying. Dawson himself admitted that were the\nsurveying of the province to be started again, it was unlikely that\nthe township system would be used. Of the $1,557,515 spent on\ngovernment surveys to the end of 1911, as listed in the annual\npublic accounts, half had been expended in 1910 and 1911. The\ngreat amount of work involved in connecting all the isolated and\n16 \"Report of the Surveyor-General [1913],\" p. D297; Arthur O. Wheeler,\n\"Boundary Survey between the Provinces of British Columbia and Alberta,\"\nibid., pp. 317-22.\n17 Appendix B, Table 7.\n18 \"Report of the Surveyor-General [1912],\" pp. 228-29. In 1891 the system of\ntriangulation was being used in the Railway Belt. Two surveyors covered 60\nmiles a year at a cost of $2.50 per square mile, or 2^ an acre, \"certainly a\nvery cheap rate considering the character of the country surveyed.\" B.C.,\nSessional Papers, 6th Pari., 2d sess., 1892, pp. 352-53.\nHi\n LAND SURVEYS\n69\nscattered surveys which had been made in the previous fifty years,\nand in making these surveys conform to the township plan, required\nall the money Dawson could persuade the legislature to grant.\nThe main reason, however, why British Columbia's policy\ndeviated from that adopted in the rest of Canada lay in the statutory authority accorded by Douglas's Land Proclamation of i860\nto the practice of alienating crown lands before they were surveyed; a usage which was to be continued through subsequent\nyears. The principle, so well understood by Douglas, that lands\nshould be surveyed before being sold, had had to give way in the\nface of the realities of British Columbia's topography.\nTotal Area Surveyed by 1Q13 Including Land Transferred\nto the Dominion in Connection with the Canadian Pacific,\nand Esquimalt and Nanaimo, Railways19\nIn Area under In Railway Belts,\nProvincial Dom. Govt. &\njurisdiction E. & N.\nTotal\nAREA OF:\nland surveyed\ntimber surveyed\ncoal lands surveyed\nmineral claims\nsurveyed\nAcres\n16,635,000\n4,182,000\nAcres\n2,967,659\n1,581,863\nAcres\n19,602,659\n5,763,863\n546,000\n387,167\n26,299,689\nTaken from \"Report of the Surveyor-General [1913],\" p. D300.\nJ\n CHAPTER 5\nMining Legislation\nIt is sometimes maintained that the people of British Columbia\nhave been \"robbed\" of their heritage of natural wealth. Were the\nnatural resources recklessly exploited? A detailed examination of\npast government policy in handling mineral lands, timber lands,\nand water rights reveals how painstaking were the efforts made to\nencourage enterprising individuals willing to face the hazards of a\nnew country; to discourage those bent only on speculation; and,\nat the same time, obtain sufficient revenue to maintain and develop\nsuch a remote and sparsely populated part of the world. By 1913\nperhaps 500,000 acres of land had been alienated for mining activities and about 8,500,000 acres for timber purposes. Out of British\nColumbia's 230,000,000 acres, this amount does not seem excessive.\nIt is true that once the minerals were extracted they could not be\nrestored and that once the timber was cut it could not be replaced\nfor many years. But the revenue from these activities sustained and\ndeveloped the province during its struggling years so that British\nColumbians, today, are reaping the increasing benefits of its growth.\nA great amount of legislation was enacted to regulate the use of\nthese resources of mine, forest, and water course. Precious mineral\nresources were the first to engage the attention of the early legislators. Much later, base metals and coal were to come in for their\nshare of legislation, but the regulating of gold mining was the major\nproblem confronting the first governor of the colony of British\nColumbia.\nOne hundred years ago when millions of acres of easily cultivated land were available for settlement on the central plains of\nNorth America, settlers would not have been attracted to British\nlib\n MINING LEGISLATION 71\nColumbia for its agricultural lands alone. Until 1858 the Hudson's\nBay Company, interested only in furs, was left in sole possession of\nNew Caledonia and \"Vancouver's Island,\" its activities undisturbed by landseekers. As yet the treeless acres of the interior dry\nbelt were unsettled, and the fur-trade era might have continued\nundisturbed for another generation had not the purser of the Hudson's Bay steamer Otter taken some gold dust to the mint at San\nFrancisco in 1858. Within a year, word had spread among the\nCalifornia mining camps that a rich strike had been made in British\nterritory to the north. The rush to the new gold fields which began\nin 1858 marked the end of one era and the beginning of another\nin British Columbia. Men searching for gold, not land, pushed the\nfur traders from their last stronghold.\nKnowing of the presence of gold on the mainland at least as early\nas 1856, Governor Douglas took steps in 1857 to protect the interests of the Crown. As in the case of California, the mining-frontier\npreceded the settlement-frontier in British Columbia. Laws relating\nto mining were enacted even before provision was made for the\ndisposal of agricultural lands.\nTo regulate the conditions under which gold might be mined by\nthe first swarm of immigrants, Douglas's Proclamation of December\n28, 1857, declared that \"by law all mines of gold,\" whether on\nlands \"of the Queen or any of Her Majesty's subjects,\" belonged\nto the Crown. Anyone disturbing the soil in search of gold without\nauthorization was to be prosecuted. Authorization was granted by\na mining licence, obtainable in Victoria at a cost of ten shillings\na month (later raised to twenty-one shillings). Conveyance of land\ncarried no right to the gold (later, silver was added) under the\nland. Rights to gold had to be obtained by the formal staking of\na claim in accordance with the regulations issued with Douglas's\nproclamation.1 The principle, so early established, that precious\nmetals should remain in the possession of the Crown unless formally\nclaimed under the relevant mining act has not yet been rescinded.\n\"Proclamation [December 28, 1857],\" [Great Britain, Colonial Office],\nCopies or Extracts of Correspondence Relative to the Discovery of Gold in\nthe Eraser's River District in British North America, presented to both\nHouses of Parliament by command of Her Majesty, July 2, 1858 (London:\nPrinted by George Edward Eyre and William Spottiswoode ... for Her\nMajesty's Stationery Office, 1858), p. 9. As was his custom, Douglas enclosed\na copy of this proclamation in a despatch to the Colonial Office. Douglas to\nHenry Labouchere, Baron Taunton, secretary of state for the colonies,\nDecember 29, 1857, ibid., p. 8.\n 72 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nSubsequent legislation was to define how claims were to be\nrecorded and the size and shape they might be. As placer mining\ngave way to more expensive and elaborate hydraulic operations,\nprovisions had to be made to enable the Crown to lease or grant\nmineral lands, but Douglas's omission of such provision was not\nan oversight. The only type of gold mining known to Douglas was\nconfined to the banks of creeks and sandbars of rivers, where the\ngold content was soon exhausted, and, hence, owning the land was\nunnecessary. Even the longer-term hydraulic operations required\ncomparatively small tracts of land.\nTo clarify the situation regarding leases of mineral lands, Lytton\ntold Douglas that surface rights were to be secured to those holding\nleases for base metals and coal, but should gold and silver be\ninvolved, the surface rights were to remain with the Crown.2 Upon\nissuing his first Land Proclamation of February 14, 1859, Douglas\npointed out that all the lands in British Columbia \"and all the\nmines and minerals therein,\" belonged to the Crown. No lands\nreputed to be mineral lands might be bought, but purchase of\nagricultural lands not known to contain minerals would include\nrights to all minerals discovered later, except gold and silver. Until\nfurther notice, gold claims and mines were to be worked under the\n1857 regulations.3\nOn August 31, 1859, Douglas proclaimed the Gold Fields Act.\nIn this important document, miners' rights were jealously guarded.\nAs a class, miners were free from the levy of any direct tax beyond\nthe annual charge of one pound for a miner's certificate, but without this certificate they had no rights whatsoever. Mining leases\nmight b : secured to cover ten acres for as many years on payment\nof twenl /-five pounds. Bar diggings, that part of the creek or river\nbank covered at high water, were to be 25 feet wide; dry diggings,\nnever covered by water, were to be 25 by 30 feet, and quartz claims\nmight extend 100 feet along the seam. Only one claim by preemption might be held by any one miner, although he might purchase any number of claims. The discoverer of a mine, however,\nwas entitled to two pre-emption claims, or if the mine had been\ndiscovered by a party of men, each might hold one and a half\nclaims. Having seen for himself some of the rich claims along the\nLytton to Douglas, February 7, 1859, Gt. Britain, Papers Relative to British\nColumbia, 2:76-79.\n\"Proclamation of February 14, 1859,\" s. 1, 2, 7, 9, ibid., 2:65.\n MINING LEGISLATION 73\ncreeks in the Cariboo, Douglas considered that 25 feet was an\nadequate width for such claims. Since all claims had to be recorded,\nany dispute concerning the ownership of a claim was to be settled\nby the gold commissioner on the basis of prior registration, not\nprior discovery.4\nBetween the time the Gold Fields Act was issued in 1859 and his\nretirement in 1864, Douglas issued seven further mining proclamations, all designed either to regulate gold mining in order to\nprevent troublesome litigation, or to define further the privileges\nof free miners.5 In each land ordinance, the right of free miners to\nenter any waste crown land, or any private land held under preemption or purchase, was upheld, providing that reasonable compensation for any damage done to the surface was paid.\nWhen British Columbia entered Confederation in 1871, mining\nwas regulated by the extensive Gold Mining Ordinance of 1867\nwhich consolidated all the enactments of the previous years. Bench\nclaims to the land located behind the dry diggings which, in turn,\nbacked the bar diggings, were added to the variety of claims that\nmight be staked. These bench claims might be as much as 100 feet\nsquare; bar diggings, extending from high water mark into the\nbed of the stream, 100 feet wide; and dry diggings, 100 feet square.\nIn recognition of the fact that the richer bar and dry diggings\nwere being exhausted, hill claims were also added to provide for\nthose areas where no benches existed above the creeks or rivers.\nThese hill claims were to have a base line of 100 feet, and to extend\nto the tops of the hills on which they were located.\nFree miners' certificates were issued to either men or women over\nthe age of sixteen, at a cost of five dollars a year. The record to\neach claim held under these certificates had to be renewed each\nyear. A free miner was allowed to hold any number of claims by\npurchase as formerly, but now he was also permitted to hold two\npre-emption claims in the same locality provided one were a quartz\n4 Douglas to Newcastle, September 13, 1859, no. 1, ibid., 3:58-65.\n5 A listing of these may be found in B.C., Consolidated Statutes [1877I, pp.\ny-xxxviii, nos. 152, 188, 191, 197, 200. \"Rules and Regulations for the Working of Gold Mines,\" January 6, i860; \"Ditches. Rules and Regulations ...,\"\nSeptember 29, 1862; \"Rules and Regulations ...,\" February 24, 1863,\n\"Proclamation, no. 4, A.D. 1863,\" March 25, 1863; \"Proclamation, no. 7,\nA.D. 1863,\" May 27, 1863; \"An Ordinance to promote the Drainage of\nMines,\" February 1, 1864; \"An Ordinance to extend and improve the Laws\nrelating to Gold Mining,\" February 26, 1864, are found in [Proclamations\nand Ordinances, 1858-1864]. They were superseded March 28, 1865, by \"An\nOrdinance to amend and consolidate the Gold Mining Laws,\" ibid.\n 74 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nclaim. This provision meant that he might have one claim near\nthe water and another, 1,500 by 400 feet, along a lode or vein.\nIn addition, he might hold two further claims, provided that one\nwas near the water and the other along a lode, and neither of them\non the same hill, creek, ravine, or bench as his first claims. The\ninterest in each claim was held to be a chattel interest, equivalent\nto a lease, but valid only as long as he worked each claim regularly\nand renewed his certificate of record annually.\nThe 1867 Ordinance made the first provisions for the operation\nof mining companies. As placer mining along the creek beds was\nno longer yielding the sizable returns secured ten years before, it\nbecame necessary to dig down to bedrock. Lying on top of the\nbedrock was a rich layer of gold, but the labour and expense\ninvolved in washing away the surface soil was beyond the resources\nof the individual miner. As a means to overcome these obstacles,\nthe ordinance provided for the formation of bedrock flume companies by any three or more miners.\nOn payment of $125, such a company was entitled to construct\na flume to convey the water necessary to wash away the surface\nsoil. Permission was granted not only to divert into the flume water\nfrom any nearby stream, but also to build the flume over any free\nminer's claim. The water record, however, was subject to the limitations imposed by any previous water record, and the free miner's\nrights were safeguarded by granting him the right to use as much\nwater from the flume as he needed, provided he returned the\nwater to the flume after it had served his purpose.\nSubject to the governor's approval, leases might be secured for\nten acres of dry diggings, half a mile of new bar diggings, and a\nmile and a half of abandoned bar diggings and quartz reefs. These\nleases might not be obtained where such land was either being, or\nlikely to be, worked by free miners, and in any case, might only be\nsecured \"for the miner-like working thereof.\" Operations had to\nbegin within a specified time and all rights were to be cancelled\nshould these operations cease for more than seventy-two hours. In\nthis way, beneficial use of the lease was assured, and the holding of\nmineral lands for speculative purposes was thwarted.6\nThe temporary and transient nature of the mining operations in\n6 Ordinances Passed by the Legislative Council of British Columbia ... 1867\n(New Westminster: Government Printing Office, n.d.), 1867, 30 Vict.,\nNo. 34.\n MINING LEGISLATION 75\nthe two colonies up to 1866 is indicated by the omission from the\n1867 Ordinance of any mention of crown grants to free miners for\nthe lands held by them as mining claims. Leases were provided and\nthe miners were secured in all rights to their claims other than\nsurface rights, but there was no authority by which a miner could\nobtain a crown grant to his pre-emption. By 1869, however, mining\noperations had altered from easy panning in creek beds to more\ntedious prospecting in the hills. Recognition of this change prompted\nthe Mineral Ordinance of 1869. The new regulations introduced\na prospector's licence for coal and base metals, provided for purchase of coal lands, and arranged for crown grants to mineral\nclaims.\nThe prospecting licence, an innovation designed to encourage\nthe search for silver and base metals, entitled a free miner to seek\nfor and mine all minerals, except coal, on all lands, but coal on\nvacant crown lands only. Should the prospector discover a mine of\nsilver, copper, lead, iron, or cinnabar, he was authorized to work\nit regardless of location. The free miner with a gold claim had a\nsecure right to all the gold in the claim, but from now on the\nprospector might pursue his search for any mineral other than\ngold on or under the free miner's claim. Occasionally the latter\nhad uncovered less valuable mineral deposits in his search for gold\nand disregarded them. When such a deposit was uncovered by the\nprospector, he might work it for two years under the authority\nprovided by the newly created licence and at the end of the two\nyears, he might select half an acre of land for purchase. The price\nwas high at $50 the half acre plus the cost of surveying, but this\nwas waived if $1,000, at least, had been expended on the mine\nwithin the time covered by the prospecting licence.\nThe prospector's licence entitled the holder to seek and mine\ncoal on all waste crown lands. Thus coal mining, which gave the\nearliest impetus to permanent mining development under the aegis\nof the Hudson's Bay Company at Fort Rupert, received legislative\nattention in the 1869 Mineral Ordinance. For the first time, coal\nlands could be purchased. A crown grant conveying outright ownership to 1,000 acres could be secured by a company of at least ten\npersons at the rate of five dollars an acre. Again, the purchase price\nwas waived if at least $10,000 had been expended on the development of the property prior to the expiry of the company's licence.\nBefore the grant could be secured, conclusive proof was required\n 76 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nby the gold commissioner that the mine had been worked continuously for the preceding two years.7\nWhen British Columbia entered Confederation in 1871, placer\nmining for gold was the only mining of any consequence in the\nprovince. According to the mining returns for 1879 there were 505\ncompanies authorized to work mining claims, 31 of which were bar\nclaims, 236 creek claims, 42 bench claims, 109 hill claims, and 3\nquartz claims.8 If the same proportion held true for individuals'\nclaims, the creeks of the province were obviously still the scene of\nthe most mining activity. Although it is true that mining laws regulated lode and coal mining as well as placer mining, no annual\nreturns on lode mining appeared until 1887, and coal output was\nslight until the 1880's. By 1871, the Fraser and Cariboo diggings\nhad been followed by discoveries at Granite and Rock Creeks, at\nWild Horse Creek in the East Kootenay, and at the Big Bend on\nthe Columbia River. The Cariboo fields remained the most important and permanent, but the other discoveries created minor rushes.\nIn 1871 the Omineca mines were discovered and following this\nrush, came the Cassiar discoveries. After these, a comparative lull\nin placer mining followed until the Atlin strike of 1898.\nOnly spasmodic returns concerning the number of free miners'\ncertificates were available during the early years of the province,\nbut in 1872 Peter O'Reilly, the local gold commissioner, reported\nthat he had issued such certificates to the value of $4,672.50 for\nthe Omineca district alone. At the fee of five dollars per certificate, it\ncan be assumed that approximately 900 such certificates were issued\nin Omineca in the peak year. Lost certificates could be replaced\nfor $2.50, which would account for the uneven multiple in\nO'Reilly's returns. Mining licences required by prospectors\naccounted for $2,645 of the total revenue of $14,707.32 collected\nby O'Reilly for the same year.9 Again, at five dollars each, that would\nhave meant that 529 prospectors were searching for minerals in\nhis district alone.\n7 Ordinances Passed by the Legislative Council of British Columbia ...\n1868-9 (Victoria: Government Printing Office, n.d.), 1869, 32 Vict., no. 22.\n8 B.C., Department of Mines, \"Report of the Minister ... 1879,\" B.C.,\nSessional Papers, 3d Pari., 3d sess., 1880, chart preceding p. 235. These\nclaims, 100 feet long, were to extend from base to base of the hill, or bench,\non each side of the creek. B.C., Statutes, 1872, 35 Vict., no. 4, s. 2.\n9 \"... Report from the Gold Commissioner on the Omineca District ...\n1872,\" B.C., Journals, 1st Pari., 1st sess., 1872, appendix, Sessional Papers,\np. 86.\nJb\n MINING LEGISLATION 77\nBy the end of 1873, rnining exports at $1,224,362 accounted\nfor 70 per cent of the total exports of the province.10 To take\ncharge of the expanding mining activities, the office of minister of\nmines was added to the Executive Council in 1874, but its duties\nwere assigned to one of the existing ministers at no additional\nsalary. John Ash, provincial secretary, assumed the new portfolio.\nIn his first report as minister of mines he indicated that the income\nfor the first year from free miners' licences, including renewals and\n1,841 new licences, amounted to $11,232.50; that 470 claims had\nbeen staked and recorded, and that 67 water records had been\nissued. Sometime between the issuing of this report and the preparation of the next, Ash must have realized the discrepancy\nbetween the number of claims recorded and those actually worked.\nHence the second report made clear that although 1,117 claims\nhad been recorded, only 293 were being worked.11 The prospector\nwas a gambling man who staked to the limit of the law, but in\nmost areas found that little more than a quarter of what he had\nstaked was worth working.\nOwing to its ephemeral nature, placer mining did not result in\nany appreciable alienation of crown lands. Although diggings\nabandoned after the initial strikes were often reworked by Chinese\nminers and other prospectors content with a small return for their\nlabour, there was little reason for acquiring permanent title to the\nland on which the claims were located. Because of the remoteness\nof the placer camps, the anticipated boom in the Cariboo and\nOmineca diggings failed to materialize even when hydraulic\nmethods were introduced.\nIn fact, until the completion of the Canadian Pacific Railway\nin 1885, mining activities were relatively slow. The speculation\nconsequent to the rich strikes of the 1860's did not indicate real\nprosperity, even though the excitement did bring a population\nwhich sought new employment as the original incentive was lost.\nMany of the thousands who went to the Cariboo took up land and\nformed a nucleus of an agricultural settlement. Others who had\nbeen lured into British territory by the stories of fabulous strikes\n1 \"Returns of Imports and Exports for the Year Ending June 30, 1873,\" p,\n14, B.C., Journals, 1st Pari., 3d sess., 1873-74, appendix, Sessional Papers.\nB.C., Department of Mines, \"... Report of the Minister of Mines\n1874,\" B.C., Journals, 1st Pari., 4th sess., 1875, appendix, Sessional Papers\nchart preceding p. 545; idem, \"Mining Statistics for the Year 1875,\" B.C..\nSessional Papers, 2d Pari., 1st sess., 1876, chart following p. 596.\n 78 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nturned to trading, lumbering, fishing, transportation, and shipping.\nThe population of the interior in 1871 was scattered and sparse,\nbut the origins of the present commercial and industrial pursuits\nof the province were laid as a result of the gold strikes.\nPlacer mining for gold, then, contributed indirectly to the disposal of large tracts of crown land for agricultural and industrial\npurposes, particularly before Confederation, but its activities\nrequired no permanent acreage. Lode mining and coal mining, on\nthe other hand, required holdings of a more permanent nature, but\nthe total acreage alienated, either directly as mining property or\nindirectly for settlement, formed a negligible amount of British\nColumbia's vast area.\nAlthough the output from placer mines was decreasing in the\n1870's and that from lode mines and collieries was comparatively\nslight until the 1890's when the Kootenay and Nanaimo developments came into serious production, the government still continued\nto regulate mining procedures conscientiously with frequent amendments and revisions of the mining laws.\nIn the years after 1871, regulations for obtaining a crown grant\nto mining pre-emptions were often changed. In 1873, in conformity\nwith the free grant policy initiated that year by the legislature, the\nland in which the mineral claim was situated was given to the\nminer. The dollar an acre charged was looked upon merely as the\nfee for recording the claim. If the miner improved his holding\nwithin the next two years to the extent of ten dollars an acre, the\nland was his. In 1877, under the Walkem administration, the size\nof a mining claim was enlarged to 1,500 by 660 feet, or 20.6 acres.\nA crown grant to it could be obtained by paying five dollars an\nacre and the cost of surveying. This arrangement which did not\nrequire \"proving up\" must have been popular since the number\nof crown grants doubled in 1878.12 The next year, however, requirements were raised, with $5,000 expenditure in money or labour\nrequired before the crown grant was issued. At this time a company\nwas required to pay a tax of five cents an acre on a claim that\nwas being worked, and fifty cents a lineal foot on an unworked\nclaim, amounting to $750 a year on a regulation 1,500-foot claim.\nPerhaps these regulations were found to be too rigorous, or\nperhaps the initial stages of the Canadian Pacific Railway's con-\n12 B.C., Statutes, 1873, 36 Vict., no. 4, s. 2, 5; ibid., 1877, 40 Vict., no. 14,\ns. 2, 8. See Appendix B, Table 4.\n MINING LEGISLATION 79\nstruction were luring miners elsewhere. At any rate, in 1879 the\nrevenue derived from free miners' certificates dropped from nearly\n$12,000 to $4,600, and general mining receipts from $8,500 to\n$2,6oo.13 Four years later, in 1883, requirements for obtaining the\ncrown grant were made easier through another amendment to the\nmineral act. Now only $1,000 had to be expended in money or\nlabour in \"proving up\" the mining pre-emption. Also under this\nsame amendment a miner could be absent from his claim for six\nmonths instead of for the seventy-two hour limit previously in\neffect.\nIn 1884, still another amendment, designed no doubt to close\nthe ever-present gap between the number of mineral claims recorded\nand those being worked, provided that the miner applying for a\ncrown grant had to swear that a vein or lode had actually been\nfound, that he was in undisputed possession, that the survey had\nbeen accurate, and that $500 had been expended in money or\nlabour. In 1892 the size of the claim was again increased, making\nit 1,500 feet square, or nearly 52 acres, as it is still. By 1898 the\nexpenditure on a mining claim had only to be $100 a year, but\nthis amount had to be maintained for five years before obtaining\nthe crown grant. This regulation was still in effect in 1913.\nAs was the case with agricultural lands, ownership of mineral\nclaims through outright purchase of the crown land was always\npossible for anyone having the money and wishing to bypass the\n\"proving up\" process of the pre-emption system. In 1869 a half\nacre had cost $50 plus the cost of survey; in 1883 a full acre could\nbe bought for the same amount. In 1886 the price was lowered to\n$25 an acre, but in the 1898 peak of mining activity the cost of\none acre rose to $500.\"\nAs with placer mining, no figures are available on the total\namount of crown land alienated for mineral claims up to 1913, but\na table of government surveys of the years 1900 to 1913 gives some\nbasis for an opinion. During these years, a total of 265,871 acres\nwere surveyed for mining claims, excluding coal claims. In comparison with over 10,000,000 acres surveyed during the same period\nfor disposal in other ways this acreage is small and suggests, in the\n\" Appendix B, Table 6.\n14 B.C., Statutes, 1883, 46 Vict., c. 19, s. 4; ibid., 1884, 47 Vict, c. 10, s. 68;\nibid., 1892, 55 Vict., c. 32, s. 5; ibid., 1886, 49 Vict., c. 14, s. 10; ibid.,\n1898, 61 Vict., c. 33, s. 6.\n 80 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nabsence of more exact figures, that the amount of land permanently alienated for mineral purposes was not great.15\nBecause coal deposits usually cover a much larger area than do\nother mineral deposits, special regulations were enacted as early\nas 1869. These were changed through the years as circumstances\ndictated. The 1,000 acres which a company could obtain at five\ndollars an acre in 1869 was reduced in 1873 to 640 acres at one\ndollar an acre. In 1883, the Act to Encourage Coal Mining provided for the sale of coal land at ten dollars an acre east of the\nCascades and five dollars west of the Cascades. In 1892 an amendment to the Coal Mines Act provided for the right to purchase up\nto 640 acres of coal lands at five dollars an acre, but the prospective buyer had first to lease the land for five years at ten cents an\nacre, pay for the surveying, and pay a royalty of five cents per ton\non all coal and one cent per barrel on all petroleum that was\ntaken out.16\nBy 1913, coal-prospecting licences still allowed holders to buy\n640 acres, and the compulsory five-year lease remained in effect.\nThe price was now fifteen cents an acre annually for the lease,\nand the purchase price had risen to fifteen dollars an acre. Before\nleasing, the miner had to pay the survey charges as formerly, spend\na fixed sum on development, and prove that coal existed. After\n1899, all the provisions with respect to coal also applied to petroleum, but petroleum reserves to the Crown were not to provide\nany revenue to the provincial government for another half century.\nBy 1913, 546,000 acres of coal-bearing land had been surveyed,\nbut this did not mean, necessarily, that the land had been alienated.\nIt meant only that it might now be leased at the current price.17\nUnless a coal mine was proving lucrative, the lessee was better\nadvised to work his mine on a lease as long as he could, and pay\nthe annual rental rather than apply for a crown grant. Between\n1884 and 1900, coal-prospecting licences were taken out at the\nrate of 15 a year; between 1900 and 1913, an average number of\n859 were issued annually, reaching a peak of 2,223 in 19u.18 No\n15 Appendix B, Table 7.\n16 B.C., Statutes, 1873, 36 Vict., no. 3, s. 3; ibid., 1883, 46 Vict., c. 3, s. 13;\nibid., 1892, 55 Vict, c. 31, s. 5.\n17 B.C., Statutes, 1913, 3 Geo. 5, c. 44, s. 9.\n18 Averaged from figures given in the annual reports of officials of the Lands\nDepartment, 1886 to 1911, and in those of the Minister of Mines, 1912 and\n1913. B.C., Sessional Papers, 1885-1914.\n MINING LEGISLATION 81\nlicence was given until the prospector swore under oath that his\nland contained coal or petroleum, and the lease was not granted\nuntil the land had been surveyed and coal proven to exist by actual\nproduction.\nPredictions were being made that coal mining would become\none of the major activities of the province, but just as progress in\nthe Cariboo, Cassiar, and Atlin gold fields needed the development\nof hydraulic mining, the real advance in coal mining had to await\nadequate and cheaper transportation facilities. By 1910 only 32\nmillion of the 40-billion-ton provincial coal reserves had been\nmined. The comment in 1912 of R. A. Renwick, deputy minister\nof lands, that a \"remarkable stimulus\" had been given to prospecting for coal by the completion of the railway lines of the\nsouthern interior is supported by the peak issue of 2,223 coa^\"\nprospecting licences in 1911.19 Speaking of coal lands along the\nGrand Trunk Pacific Railway, Renwick predicted that coal mining\nwould \"doubtless contribute greatly [to] providing a market for\nthe farmers ... and tonnage for the railway.\"20\nAlthough Renwick's prediction that coal mining would become\na major mining activity of the province was not fulfilled, in 1913\nthere were 697,000 acres of coal lands held under 1,090 coal\nlicences and 114,307 acres held under leases. Since 864,640 acres\nof coal lands were known to exist, this leaves about 53,000 acres\nof coal lands that must have been alienated by 1913.21\nThe matter of overlapping mineral rights in crown grants is an\ninteresting and often tortuous subject. Under the laws in force by\n1873, it was possible for one piece of land to be crown-granted\nthree separate times for mining purposes \u00E2\u0080\u0094 once for gold only,\nagain for minerals other than coal, and, yet a third time, for coal.\nFurther, there was nothing to prevent any free miner or prospector\nfrom entering coal lands to seek for gold or other minerals; in\nfact, every encouragement was given him to do so.\nIn 1878, one source of confusion was removed when rights to\nprecious metals and to base metals were included in the same\nmineral claim. Henceforth, whatever minerals with the exception\n10 \"Report of the Minister of Lands, 1911,\" p. G6.\n20 Ibid.\n21 B.C., Department of Lands, \"Report of Office Statistics,\" B.C., Sessional\nPapers, 13th Pari., 2d sess., 1914, p. Dio. The dominion coal reserve in the\nCrow's Nest Pass amounted to 50,000 acres, and the Dunsmuir acreage at\nNanaimo accounted for most of the remainder.\n 82 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nof coal that a miner encountered in his diggings were lawfully and\nsolely his. But farmers and holders of coal lands had no right to any\nprecious metals found on their crown-granted property, and a free\nminer could still prospect there at will. Gold and silver continued\nto be reserved whenever crown land was granted, sold, or leased\nfor purposes other than mining.\nCoal rights followed a less straightforward pattern, although it\nwas recognized generally that coal lands carried rights to coal only\nand that other lands carried no coal rights unless it was specified\notherwise. In the mineral acts of 1878 and 1882, coal was reserved\nto the Crown when a mineral claim was granted, and in the Land\nAct of 1882 coal was added to gold and silver as a mineral reserved\nto the Crown on the disposal of agricultural lands. In the Coal\nProspecting Act of 1883, however, it was specified that an owner of\nagricultural land who found coal on his property could purchase the\ncoal rights at nine dollars an acre. In the land act of the next year,\nit was decided to include coal rights in future crown grants to non-\nmineral lands, and, retroactively, in all such grants already issued,\nprovided that the owner paid a royalty of five cents a ton if he\nmined the coal. By 1891 this policy was reversed and coal was once\nmore reserved to the Crown. Again in 1899 coal and petroleum\nwere expressly reserved from all crown-granted land, and in 1913\nnatural gas was similarly reserved.22\nAs the judges' bench books in the Provincial Archives attest,\nthese shifting mining laws were a prolific source of litigation. And\nas if sufficient ground for dispute were not provided by the mining\nlaws, a further complication was added in 1871, with the introduction of provision for the Railway Belt.\nThe confusion arising from the defeat of Sir John A. Mac-\ndonald's government in 1873 and from the many delays in deciding the actual route of the railway through the mountains, prevented the setting up of the expected dominion administrative\nmachinery. Crown lands in British Columbia were placed under\nreserve in accordance with the Terms of Union, but when construction of the railway failed to begin within the prescribed two\nyears, the provincial government proceded to administer these lands\nin all matters, but especially with regard to minerals, as if they\n22 B.C., Statutes, 1878, 41 Vict., c. 13; ibid., 1882, 45 Vict., c. 8; ibid., 1882, 45\nVict., c. 6, s. 5, 6; ibid., 1883, 46 Vict, c. 3, s. 14; ibid., 1884, 47 Vict., c.\n16, s. 72, 73; ibid., 1891, 54 Vict., c. 15, s. 11; B.C., Revised Statutes, 1924,\n15 Geo. 5, c. 131, s. 119, 120.\nm\n MINING LEGISLATION 83\nwere, once again, the province's. Thirteen years later, the formal\ntransfer of the land to dominion control was completed by the\nprovincial Settlement Act, ratified by the Dominion on April 19,\n1884. The Dominion provided for the disposition of the land in\nthese words:\nThe lands granted ... shall be placed upon the market at the\nearliest date possible, and shall be offered for sale on liberal\nterms to actual settlers ....\nThe Governor in Council may, from time to time, regulate the\nmanner in which and terms and conditions on which the said\nlands shall be surveyed, laid out, administered, dealt with and\ndisposed of.23\nThis was sparse and cryptic language in which to legislate for\nthe transfer of so large and vital a strip through the heartland of\nthe province. Misunderstanding and litigation between the two\ngovernments resulted from the ambiguity of the administrative\njurisdiction within the belt. One of the questions to be answered\nwas whether the grant carried only surface rights or, also, included\nrights to the minerals beneath the surface.\nThe years immediately following the Settlement Act were the\nworst possible ones for the dominion government to be taking\nissue. British Columbia was in no mood for temporizing, for these\nwere also the years in which endless difficulties were arising between\nVictoria and Ottawa over Indian lands. When A. W. Vowell, the\nprovincial gold commissioner in the Kootenays, reported in the\nsummer of 1884 to the provincial Executive Council through the\nMinister of Mines, John Robson, that he had been accused by A.\nM. Burgess, deputy minister of the interior, of issuing gold miners'\nlicences illegally, the Executive Council issued a minute which was\ntransmitted at once to Ottawa. The minute minced no words in\nlaying claim to the right to the precious metals within the Railway\nBelt.\nThe Committee ... desire to call [to] the attention of the\nDominion . . . that the right to the precious metals within the\ntwenty-mile belt is not in the Dominion but in the Province, and\nthat the Province has the right, under the \"Mineral Act, 1884\"\n... to grant free mining licences and to authorize the entry by\nfree miners upon lands within the belt, for the purpose of mining\nfor the precious metals \u00E2\u0080\u0094 subject to the provisions of section 23\nof such statute, and section 64 of the \"Land Act, 1884.\"\n23 Canada, Statutes, 1884, 47 Vict., c. 6, s. 11.\n 84 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nThere is nothing to indicate that in the granting of these lands\nit was intended to part with the sovereignty of the Crown, as\nrepresented by the Province, or that any greater right to the\nDominion was conferred than the right of sale for railway purposes, or that the province intended to part with those rights of\nthe Crown which, without being expressly mentioned, would not\npass. If these lands had been separated from the Province, if\nthey had become part of the territory of the Dominion, then, it\nis conceded, the right to the precious metals would not have\nremained in the Province. But as there has been no such separation, and as the Crown as represented by the Dominion is not\npossessed of the sovereignty of these lands, all prerogative rights\nremain in the Crown as represented by the Province.\nAn opposite conclusion would go far towards withdrawing the\nlands from the operation of the Provincial Statutes relative to\nthe acquisition of rights of way and water, and the like for public\nand private purposes.24\nThe dominion government's failure to issue any regulations\ngoverning mining affairs within the Railway Belt lent weight to the\nprovince's argument. The province contended that had the\nDominion really believed it had such rights under the Settlement\nAct, it would have issued regulations immediately. The Dominion's\nLand Act of 1883 did include sections dealing with \"mining and\nmining lands,\" but section 42 said that \"Lands containing coal or\nother minerals ... shall be disposed of in such manner and on such\nterms and conditions as may, from time to time, be fixed by the\nGovernor in Council by regulations to be made in that behalf.\"25\nThese regulations had not as yet been issued for British Columbia.\nOn February 17, 1885, the Dominion requested British Columbia to provide a test case for the courts. Having given the matter\nstudy, A. E. B. Davie recommended to the Executive Council that,\nas a test case would undoubtedly be appealed from the Exchequer\nCourt to the Supreme Court, and from there to the Privy Council,\nno arguments should be presented to the first two courts in order\nto save time. In addition, he advised the council to seek permission from the Dominion to continue the administration of mineral\n24 \"Papers Relating to the Ownership of the Precious Metals within the Railway Belt,\" B.C., Sessional Papers, 4th Pari., 4th sess., 1886, p. 361. Section 23\nof the 1884 Mineral Act provided for compensation to be paid by a free miner\nto the occupant or owner for any loss or damages, provided the occupant or\nowner were in lawful possession of the land. Section 64 of the 1884 Land\nAct gave free miners the right to enter any lands in the province to search\nfor and work mineral lands, provided security were given any previous lawful\noccupant. B.C., Statutes, 1884, 47 Vict, c. 10 and c. 16.\n25 Canada, Statutes, 1883, 46 Vict., c. 17.\n MINING LEGISLATION 85\nlands under provincial statutes. On April 27, 1885, Davie's recommendations were incorporated in a Minute in Council and forwarded to Ottawa.26\nMeanwhile, a week earlier, on April 20, 1885, the Dominion\nhad belatedly issued a series of regulations for the disposal of\ndominion lands within the railway belt in the province of British\nColumbia. To these regulations the province took immediate and\nviolent exception:\nThe committee regret to observe that these \"Regulations\" by\nreason of cumbersome and vexatious provisions and excessive\nimposts, are altogether unsuited to the wants and conditions of\nthis Province; ... and it is believed that any attempt to enforce\nthem would be prejudicial to the best interests, if not dangerous\nto the peace, of the community.\nThe Executive Council felt that section 27 which reserved all\nminerals, in particular, could not be carried out. Since British\nColumbia reserved only gold and silver, the committee desired\n\"respectfully but most emphatically, to protest against any innovation so inconsistent with the principles of justice and common law.\"\nIt was also felt that the charge of $100 for a crown grant to a\nmining claim within the Railway Belt, as laid down by the\ndominion regulations, was excessive. At this time the province was\ncharging nothing, although it was requiring expenditure on the\nclaim of at least $500. After roundly declaring each of the remaining regulations to be also detrimental to the best interests of the\nprovince, the minute concluded:\nIt is respectfully submitted that the people of British Columbia\nare the best judges of what is calculated to promote internal\nprosperity and well-being, and the simple circumstance of their\nown Legislature in dealing with the Provincial Lands, imposing\nregulations immeasurably less onerous and charges less than one-\nfourth of those under review may fairly be accepted as a very\nconclusive argument in support of the contention that the\nDominion Land Regulations are illiberal and burdensome....\nThe Committee most respectfully submit that the true interests\nof the country, both Dominion and Provincial, would be best\npromoted by having the lands within the railway belt administered on terms similar or approximating to those governing\ncontiguous Provincial lands.27\n2\u00C2\u00AB \"Precious Metals within the Railway Belt,\" p. 363.\n27 \"Papers Relating to Dominion Lands within the Province,\" B.C., Sessional\nPapers, 4th Pari., 4th sess., 1886, p. 368.\n 86\nLAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nAfter considering these emphatic communications, the Dominion\nundertook to clear the way for appeal to the Privy Council, and\nat the same time permitted mineral lands in the belt to continue to\nbe under provincial jurisdiction. This permission was in no way to\nbe considered as waiving dominion claims. Should the case be\ndecided in favour of the Dominion, British Columbia was to be\nheld to a strict accounting of all money collected.28\nIn 1887 while the case to decide the ownership of the precious\nmetals within the Railway Belt was still before the courts, the\nDominion issued a new set of regulations governing the disposal of\nmineral lands within the belt, but excepting gold and silver in\nBritish Columbia, until the case should be settled. These regulations\nconformed exactly to those in effect in British Columbia.\nAmong other clauses, these regulations provided that a free miner\ncould explore vacant unreserved dominion lands with a view to\nobtaining a mining location, but no location or mining claim was\nto be granted until the actual discovery of a mine had been made.\nHaving discovered a mineral deposit, the miner could secure his\nmining location by suitably marking it, by filing an affidavit with\nthe dominion land agent within sixty days of having uncovered\nmineral, and by paying the five dollar fee. The receipt issued to\nthe miner entitled him to entry to his location for five years, provided he renewed it annually during that period. These renewals\nwould only be granted if he expended $100 each year on his location. Having fulfilled these requirements, he was permitted to\nremove and sell any minerals. Once he had expended a total of\n$500 on his location, he was permitted to buy it for cash at five\ndollars an acre. First, however, he had to deposit fifty dollars with\nthe land agent to cover the cost of survey. Not until the survey was\ncomplete might a patent be issued.\nAs in the provincial mining law, priority of right was determined not by priority of discovery, but by fulfillment of all obligations entailed in securing a receipt. The miner was restricted to one\nlocation \u00E2\u0080\u0094 not to exceed 1,500 by 600 feet \u00E2\u0080\u0094 on any one vein or\nlode. No surface rights were conveyed, but the right was granted to\nuse any water flowing through or upon the claim. With the consent\nof the minister of the interior the right to divert any other water\nfrom streams or lakes was granted for five years. The water so\ndiverted had to be put to beneficial use and might be neither\n\u00C2\u00BB8 Ibid., p. 362.\n MINING LEGISLATION 87\nwasted nor sold.29 Precisely the same regulations were enacted on\nOctober i, 1887 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 expanded in May of the following year \u00E2\u0080\u0094 to\nbe applied to obtaining mining locations on abandoned and surrendered Indian lands. A forty-acre location could now be secured.30\nOn April 3, 1889, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council\nrendered its decision in what has subsequently become known as\nthe Precious Metals Case. The Judicial Committee supported the\nview of the province that the jurisdiction over precious metals\nwithin the Railway Belt lay with the provincial government. In\ndelivering the judgment, Lord Watson passed some general remarks\non the nature of the transfer of the belt which were later to cause\na great deal of discussion:\nLeaving the previous metals out of view for the present, it seems\nclear that the only \"conveyance\" contemplated was a transfer to\nthe Dominion of the provincial right to manage and settle the\nlands, and to appropriate their revenues. It was neither intended\nthat the lands should be taken out of the Province, nor that the\nDominion Government should occupy the position of a freeholder within the Province. The object of the Dominion Government was to recoup the cost of constructing the railway by selling\nthe lands to settlers. Whenever land is so disposed of, the interest\nof the Dominion comes to an end. The land then ceases to be\npublic land, and reverts to the same position as if it had been\nsettled by the Provincial Government in the ordinary course of\nits administration. That was apparently the consideration which\nled to the insertion, in the agreement of 1883, of the condition\nthat the Government of Canada should offer the land for sale,\non liberal terms, with all convenient speed.31\nWith the province's claim maintained, the dominion government passed an Order in Council agreeing to make no further\nleases or other dispositions of any minerals in the Railway Belt,\nexcepting coal, other than by outright sale of the lands wherein\n\"Regulations Governing the Disposal of Dominion Lands Containing\nMinerals,\" in The Consolidated Orders in Council of Canada under the\nAuthority and Direction of His Excellency the Governor-General in Council,\ncompiled by Harris H. Bligh (Ottawa: Printed by Brown Chamberlain,\nPrinter to the Queen ..., 1889), pp. 871-901.\n\"Indian Lands, Mining Regulations,\" in Bligh, Consolidated Orders in\nCouncil, pp. 182-209.\nAttorney-General of B.C. v. Attorney-General of Canada (1889) 14 App.\nCas. 295 at 301. The case is also reported in R. A. Olmstead, Decisions of\nthe Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Relating to the British North\nAmerica Act, 1867 and the Canadian Constitution 1867-1954, 3 vols.\n(Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1954), 1: 251-63.\n 88 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nsuch minerals lay. This agreement was all that was necessary.\nThere never had been any dispute concerning the province's right\nto administer lands in the belt once they had been permanently\nalienated by crown grant from the Dominion. The Order in Council added that thereafter all minerals in the belt (again, excepting\ncoal) should be administered under the local government's regulations and that any dominion lands which might be for sale from\ntime to time within the belt containing minerals within the meaning of the provincial Mineral Act, \"not being Indian reserves or\nsettlements or portions thereof, and not being under licence or\nlease from the Dominion Government,\" should be open to purchase by the province at the price of five dollars an acre.32\nLieutenant-Governor Nelson conveyed to Ottawa the province's\nacceptance of the Dominion's conciliatory Order in Council, on\nMarch 13, 1890.33\nNow that the Precious Metals Case was decided, the government\nin British Columbia enacted legislation in 1890 stating that no\nrailway chartered locally was to have any rights in any mines of\niron, slate, or other minerals on lands purchased by it unless such\nrights were expressly stated and the minerals named in the conveyance. Any miner who wanted to continue working his mine at\na distance of forty yards or less from the line of the railway was\nentitled to do so. Should the railway company consider the mining\noperations detrimental, it might buy out the owner of the mine, at\na price to be determined by arbitration if this were necessary.34\nSo that the dominion regulations would conform with the provincial laws governing the mining of coal, a dominion Order in Council of 1895 authorized the minister of the interior to permit settlers\nin the Railway Belt to mine a certain quality of coal for domestic\npurposes only upon payment of the royalty in advance. The royalty\nwas nominal, consisting of twenty cents a ton for anthracite, fifteen\ncents for bituminous, and ten cents for lignite. In 1899 the price\nto the provincial government of all lands within the belt containing\nminerals was reduced to one dollar an acre. However, when\nPremier Dunsmuir, on his mission to secure better terms in 1901,\nasked the Dominion that the province be permitted to administer\n32 Canada Gazette, February n, 1890, p. 353.\n33 \"Administration of Mineral Lands in the Railway Belt,\" B.C., Sessional\nPapers, 5th Pari., 4th sess., p. 461.\n34 B.C., Statutes, 1890, 53 Vict., c. 39, ss. 21 and 22.\n MINING LEGISLATION 89\nthe base minerals under Indian reserves \u00E2\u0080\u0094 half the royalties going\nas payment to the province for administrative costs \u00E2\u0080\u0094 his request\nwas not granted. At the same time Dunsmuir stated that gold and\nsilver on Indian lands were \"clearly within the right of the Province.\"35 On this score the Dominion remained discreetly silent. The\nDepartment of the Interior had no intention of admitting any such\nclaim, but, rather than begin another dispute, it kept silent on the\nwhole matter of mineral rights under Indian lands. Minerals so\nlocated had until this time been administered for the benefit of the\nIndians, and they continued to be so administered.\nThroughout the whole period from 1871 to 1913, the large\nmineral resources of the province were developed under laws\nadapted to the circumstances of the province. These laws seem to\nhave been both wise and liberal. During the decade after 1903 the\ngovernment gave a great deal of care and attention to the framing\nof laws regulating the mining of coal, both in regard to the nature\nof the claims and to the manner in which it should be mined. The\nCoal Mining Act of 1913 seems to have met with the approval\nof both the owners and the miners. Since mineral claims other than\ncoal had been restricted to 51.6 acres since 1891, and as much of\nthe coal mining (apart from the Dunsmuir operations at Nanaimo\nand the Crow's Nest Pass Company in the East Kootenay) had\nbeen done on leases, only a small acreage of provincial crown lands\nhad been alienated for mining purposes. By nature the placer\nmines were of temporary value, and, as a rule, only those miners\nengaged in lode or hydraulic operations were interested in crown\ngrants.\nBy iqi3j a total of 387,167 acres of mineral claims exclusive of\ncoal had been surveyed. This figure indicates the highest possible\nacreage that could have been alienated from the Crown for mineral\npurposes, since no patent was allowed until the survey had been\nmade. The true figure, however, must have been considerably less.\nFor the majority of miners, there was little advantage in buying\nthe land when they might hold it from year to year simply by\nrerecording the claim and renewing their free miners' certificates.\nClaims were undoubtedly, and intentionally, allowed to revert to\nthe Crown once the mineral had been exhausted.\nBut even if 387,167 acres had, indeed, been permanently alien-\n35 James Dunsmuir to Clifford Sifton, minister of the interior, February 2, 1901,\nB.C., Sessional Papers, 9th Pari., 2d sess., 1901, p. 582.\n 90 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nated for mining purposes by 1913, it would still have been a\nnegligible acreage in contrast with British Columbia's 230,000,000\nacres. The revenue derived from mining was equally insignificant.\nTotal government revenue from all sources in the forty-three years\nfrom 1871 to 1913 amounted to $93,560,441. Of this amount,\nonly $7,642,678, roughly 8 per cent, was derived from mining\nsources.36 This seems to be small revenue from British Columbia's\nrich deposits of gold, base minerals, and coal, but it must be\nremembered that the risks to the individual miner were great and\nthe rewards often small. If the frequent changes in the mineral\nacts are considered, it becomes apparent that British Columbia's\nlegislators did their best not only to provide for maximum revenue\nbut also to render mining sufficiently profitable to attract the adventurous spirits who pioneered the development of this remote and\nrugged province.\n1 See Appendix B, Table 6. Free miners' certificates, mineral tax, general mining receipts, and royalty and tax on coal account for this figure. In Table 6,\nrevenue from the sale of mineral land is included under the general heading\nof land sales.\n CHAPTER 6\nTimber Legislation\nAs in the case of the alienation of agricultural and mineral lands,\nBritish Columbia evolved unique legislation to deal with its forests.\nIn spite of the failure of provincial governments for years to recognize the value of timber resources, a surprisingly small area of\nforested land was permanently alienated by 1913. The outstanding\nprinciple incorporated into the timber legislation by 1913 was to\nseparate the disposal of timber and land. In addition, the government retained the right to vary from year to year its royalty and\nrental of the timber granted under the differing forms of tenure.\nThus, by 1913 the government had become a \"sleeping partner\"\nin forest exploitation and a sharer in the profits of the lumber\nindustry.\nAlthough British Columbia was spared the wholesale alienation\nof forest land which took place in the United States where four-\nfifths of the public forests were acquired by speculators and \"timber-\nbarons\" under the Timber and Stone Act,1 the earliest forest legislation cannot be given the credit. Only the lack of interest in British\nColumbia's timber during the years when forest lands were being\nalienated in huge acreages in the United States saved the province's\nforests from falling into private hands. Not until the economic life\nof the province had surged forward as a result of the railway link\nwith Canada did the provincial government become aware of its\npotential forest wealth. In the 1880's this realization resulted in\nA. C. Flumerfelt, \"Forest Resources,\" in Canada and Its Provinces, Shortt\nand Doughty, eds., 22:491.\n 92 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nthe first systematic legislation, and by 1900 the basis of a sound\nforest policy had be laid.\nFrom the colonial period to the First World War, timber lands\nwere disposed of in four ways. The first method, inaugurated by\nDouglas as early as 1859, was outright sale of the land on which\nthe timber stood. The second method, initiated in 1870, was a\nlease on the land; the third, introduced in 1884 and found the\nmost satisfactory of the first three, was a system of timber licenses.\nIn 1912 the best method yet devised was introduced, the sale of\nthe timber by auction with the land being retained for the Crown.\nBy 1913 approximately 1,000,000 acres of forests had been alienated\nunder the first two methods, while licensing had alienated 7,500,-\n000 acres, more or less in perpetuity.\nThroughout the colonial period in British Columbia timber lands\ncould be acquired by purchase and crown grant in the same way\nas any other land and at the same price. Douglas's Land Proclamation of February 14, 1859, laid the basis for this policy by declaring\nthat \"unless otherwise specially announced at the time of sale, the\nconveyance of the land shall include all trees.\"2 Thus, crown grants\nto land carried all timber rights without any reservation or royalty.\nValuable although not extensive tracts were acquired under this\nproclamation at the nominal charge of ten shillings per acre,\nlowered on Vancouver Island in 1861 to four shillings twopence.\nThe magnificent timber stands of the coast were looked upon by\nthe early settlers more as a nuisance and an obstacle to progress\nthan as an economic asset. Of so little worth did Douglas consider\ntimber lands that he did not even mention them in the proclamation issued in 1851 dealing with country lands on Vancouver\nIsland. It is ironic that the same proclamation did reserve the\nprecious metals to the Crown, for the forests of Vancouver Island\nhave produced far greater wealth than have all the precious metals\nyet found there.\nAt Confederation in 1871 timber lands were still available for\npurchase at the current rate of one dollar an acre. Section 47 of the\n1870 Land Ordinance retained the earlier clause stating that the\nconveyance of land included all trees, and there was no limit on\nthe acreage that could be bought. As early as 1884, however, the\nlaw did forbid the sale of timber lands. In the absence of any\n2 \"Proclamation, Enclosure in no. 51,\" Douglas to Lytton, February 19, 1859,\nno. 51, Gt. Brit., Papers Relative to British Columbia, 2:65-66.\n TIMBER LEGISLATION 93\nadministrative staff to enforce compliance and in the face of the\npublic's attitude that standing timber was of no value, the law\nbecame a dead letter for twenty years. Indeed, until 1906 timber\nlands were sold like any other lands. Throughout these twenty\nyears a legend persisted that the provincial timber lands amounted\nto at least 182,000,000 acres, and they were consequently regarded\nas inexhaustible.3\nThe Land Act of 1884 clearly intended only the lease of timber\nland.4 Its provisions were reinforced in the Act of 1887 where it\nwas stated that \"none of such of the public lands of the Province\nas are chiefly valuable for timber shall be disposed of by public\nor private sale.\" An applicant for the purchase of land, by the\n1887 Act called \"patented land,\" was required to make a declaration before a Justice of the Peace that the land for which he\nsought a crown grant was not chiefly valuable for its timber.5\nThe language of the 1884 and 1887 Acts seems to have been\nclear enough. But the comprehensive Land Act of 1888 reveals\neither the existence of pressure applied to members of the government to leave a loop-hole in the law, or some very muddled thinking in regard to the legislation. It was still stated that timber lands\nwere not for sale, and for the first time provision was made to\ncollect revenues on lands containing timber but not classified\nprimarily as timber land. The royalty, amounting to fifty cents per\nthousand board feet on \"all timber suitable for spars, piles, saw\nlogs, or railroad ties,\"6 was to be levied on all timber cut on any\nsubsequently granted lands. In effect, the provision meant that\ntimber was no longer to be given away, but was henceforth to be\nsold. Yet, under the land classification system begun by the same\nact, no restrictions of any kind were imposed on the purchase of\ncrown land by the ordinary methods.\nThis Land Act of 1888, curiously described as the first \"coherent\n3 \"Final Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Timber and Forestry,\n1909-1910,\" B.C., Sessional Papers, 12th Pari., 2d sess., 1911, pp. D14-15.\n4 B.C., Statutes, 1884, 47 Vict., c. 16, s. 35.\n5 B.C., Statutes, 1887, 50 Vict., c. 17, ss. 1 and 2. The owners of these\npatented lands, as well as pre-emptors who had not proved up, were required\nby this act to obtain licences to cut timber on their land if the timber were\nfor other than domestic or farm use or for clearing and improving. These\nlicences permitted owners to cut timber for manufacture of lumber. The\nlicences cost 25 cents per thousand board feet for the amount of timber\napplied for in the application.\n6 B.C., Statutes, 1888, 51 Vict., c. 16, s. 21.\n 94 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nlegislation\"7 dealing with timber, dwelt at length with the classification and sale of crown lands. All unsurveyed land could be bought\nfor $2.50 an acre, and surveyed lands were divided into two classes.\nFirst class lands included those suitable not only for cultivation but\nalso for lumbering and sold at $2.50 an acre. Second class lands,\npriced at one dollar an acre, were the marginal lands valuable neither\nfor cultivation nor for lumbering. How this statute could be called\n\"coherent\" in the face of the two contradictory clauses dealing\nwith the sale of timber lands is difficult to understand. On the one\nhand, no lands chiefly valuable for timber were to be sold; on the\nother, first class lands suitable for lumbering could be purchased\nin the usual manner. Whatever the intent of the act may have\nbeen, timber lands continued to be sold.\nThe difficulty probably lay in the failure of the act to define\ntimber lands. But even after this omission was rectified by section\n4 of the 1891 Act,8 timber lands continued to be sold as usual. By\nthe 1891 Act, lands fit for lumbering, still first class lands but now\nworth five dollars an acre, were loosely defined as those containing\n5,000 board feet per acre on each 160 acres. This was the first\nattempt to define timber lands, and it was the first time an upward\nlimit of 640 acres had been placed on purchases. By placing the\nsquare mile limit and by requiring improvements to the original\nvalue of the land, an attempt was being made to limit the sale of\ntimber and to encourage agricultural development.\nNot until 1896 was timber land more carefully defined as land\nhaving 8,000 board feet per acre west of the Cascades and 5,000\nfeet per acre east of the summit.9 This was still the statutory\ndescription of timber lands in the province in 1913. By the 1896\nAct, such lands were removed from the classification of first class\nlands and reserved from sale. In spite of the repeated attempts\nmade to reserve timber lands from sale, lack of inspection forestalled the clear intent of the various acts. It would be reasonable\nenough to assume, too, that the definition of timber lands could in\nmany cases have been liberally interpreted by such government\ntimber cruisers as were available from the Lands Department.\nDifficult as it was to enforce, the 1896 Act did, however, establish\nthe principle of the public ownership of all timber lands and pro-\n7 Flumerfelt, 'Torest Resources,\" p. 492.\ns B.C., Statutes, 1891, 54 Vict., c. 15, s. 4(2).\n9 B.C., Statutes, 1896, 59 Vict., c. 28, s. 12 (2a).\n TIMBER LEGISLATION 95\nvide a form of licensing tenure by which only the timber could be\ndisposed of. In 1905 the modifications to the licensing system made\nthat method of holding timber land so desirable that purchase was\nno longer attractive. It is generally agreed that by 1906 there was\nno longer any outright sale of timber lands.\nThe government also showed concern over timber resources in\nits taxation policy in 1905. A tax of four per cent was levied on\nall wild land. All unimproved land, including timber land, was\nclassified as wild land for taxation purposes. But the act permitted\nall private holdings of timber lands to be taxed at half the wild\nland rate. Had the higher tax been retained on private holdings,\nthe holders of these crown-granted lands would have resorted to\nwasteful logging methods in their haste to get the timber off and\nlet the land revert to the Crown.10\nThe low value attached to crown-granted timber lands is indicated by the lowering of the assessed value of certain stands on\nVancouver Island known to contain 50,000 board feet measure\nper acre from six to four dollars an acre in 1901. Although the\nassessed value of timber lands in private ownership was to rise\nmeasurably before 1913, their value was set at only $1,907,546 in\n1906, and the revenue to the Crown derived from the two per\ncent tax was only $38,i50.1:L By 1913, there were 922,949 acres of\nprivately held timber land, all acquired by outright sale.12\nLeasing, the second method adopted for disposing of timber\nland, ran concurrently for thirty five years with the outright sale\nof the land and the timber on it. The issuing of timber leases goes\nback to the Land Ordinance of 1870. Section 28 permitted the\nleasing of unlimited areas of crown land \"for the purpose of cutting\nspars, timber, or lumber.\" The only stipulation was that before a\nlease was granted the lessee had to be in the lumber business. Once\nagain, as in the case of agricultural and mineral lands, the principle\nof beneficial use was re-affirmed. So well had Lytton in 1859\nimpressed upon the administrators of the colony the need to prevent\nspeculation in its public lands that, however little attention may\nhave been paid to the regulations at times, the actual use of the\nland for its stated purpose was always incorporated into the regula-\n10 Flumerfelt, \"Forest Resources,\" p. 504.\n11 \"Royal Commission on Timber and Forestry,\" pp. D16 and D22.\n12 See Appendix B, Table 8, \"Timber Statistics,\" Part 2. (Compiled from\nforestry inspectors' reports in the reports of the chief commissioners of lands\nand works, 1883-1911, inclusive.)\n 96\nLAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\ntions governing its disposal. Equally important, however, could\nhave been the recognition of the need for some form of tenure\n\"distinct from the ownership of the land.\" As a result of the introduction of this principle, British Columbia \"has retained an interest\nin and control over by far the greater part of its forest resources,\"18\na unique situation in North America.\nThe timber lease clause enacted in 1870 was re-enacted in the\nLand Acts of 1875 and 1884 and remained unchanged until 1888.\nThe yearly rent was from one to ten cents per acre, and the royalty\nwas set at twenty to twenty-five cents per thousand feet.\nTimber-cutting Leases, 18J3\nLessee\nDistrict\nAcreage\nDate\nRate\nW. P. Sayward\nChemainus\n1,370\nJune 23, 1868\n2# per acre\nper annum\nMichael and John Muir\nSooke\n3,316\nJan. 13,1872\n1^ per acre\nper annum\nGeorge Askew\nChemainus\n519\nDec. 8, 1870\n2^ per acre\nper annum\nR. P. Rithet\nCoast District\n15,000\nFeb. 22, 1873\n1# per acre\nper annum\nHastings Saw Mill Co.\nNew\nWestminster\n18,559\nNov. 30, 1865\n1^ per acre\nper annum\nMoody, Dietz and\nNelson\nNew\nWestminster\n2,634\nJan. 31, 1866\n1# per acre\nper annum\nMoody, Dietz and\nNelson\nNew\nWestminster\n11,110.58\nJan. 1, 1870\n1# per acre\nper annum\nW. T. Collinson\nNew\nWestminster\n365\nFeb. 25, 1870\n$15 per\nannum\nJeremiah Rogers\nNew\nWestminster\n780\nNov. 30, 1868\n$40 per\nannum\nWalker, Bowes, and\nRobertson\nOmineca\n425\nMarch 5, 1872\n1^ per acre\nper annum\n54,078.58\n$603.23\n13 Canada, Commission of Conservation, Committee on Forests, Forests of\nBritish Columbia, by H. N. Whitford and R. D. Craig (Ottawa, 1918).\n TIMBER LEGISLATION 97\nThe first indication of the area of timber lands taken up under\nlease was contained in the 1873 reP\u00C2\u00B0rt of Robert Beaven, chief\ncommissioner of lands and works. Beaven's report listed the names\nof ten lessees who had been granted a total of 54,078.58 acres.14\nAs most of these leases had been granted for a period of twenty-\none years, the annual charge can only be regarded as a holding\ncharge and not as a source of revenue. To the lumberman of\ntoday, the rental of one cent an acre charged the Moody Sawmill\nowners in the 1870's on their seventeen square miles of virgin\ncoastal timber at the head of Burrard Inlet must seem incredible.\nIn the early 1870's, however, the provincial government was only\ntoo glad to grant timber leases to individuals or companies actually\nengaged in sawmill operations in order to ensure a supply of\nlumber for purely local needs. Until this time much of the lumber\nused in the colony had been imported from San Francisco. One\nproof that speculators were discouraged was the refusal of the\napplications of William Sutton and W. A. Robertson in 1875 for\nleases of 27,000 acres in the Cowichan district because they did\nnot operate sawmills in the neighbourhood of the lands specified.15\nThe second list of leases tabled in 1876 includes an application for\na lease at Quatsino for 15,769 acres.16 A comparison with the first list\nmakes it obvious that the major attack on the forests had begun in\nthe most accessible and most heavily timbered areas of the province.\nThe timber lands secured by lease in the early years were in the\nregions of New Westniinster, Chemainus, and northern Vancouver\nIsland.\nThe first of many such Select Committees was appointed in the\n1875-76 session of the legislature to study the efficacy of the timber\nlease clause within the Land Act. The brief report of the Committee is interesting because it reflects the casual attitude of the\ngovernment towards its timber resources. The single recommendation in the report called for the easing of the regulations to permit\nthe granting of more extensive leases.17 It is difficult to see how the\nregulations could have been eased except by permitting speculators\nwho did not operate sawmills to acquire leases. As it was, leases\n\"Report of the Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works ... 1873,\" p. 66.\n\"Return ... of timber cutting leases,\" B.C., Sessional Papers, 2d Pari,, 1st\nsess., 1876, p. 707.\nIbid., p. 706.\n\"Report of the Select Committee upon the Method of Granting Leases,\"\nibid., p. 739.\n 98 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nwere being granted for \"any extent\" of unalienated crown land at\na nominal rental and for twenty-one years.\nThat timber leases were not an important source of revenue is\nevident from the fact that in 1876, the year the Select Committee\nrecommended easing restrictions, rental of $52.27 on 4,686 acres\nheld in two leases was the sole income received from this source.\nThe four holders of the remaining 24,727 acres of leased timber\nland paid no rental that year, and there is no indication that the\ngovernment felt any concern about the situation. Lumbermen took\ntheir cue from official laxity, and by 1878 there was not a single\nholder of a large lease paying rent. William Sutton, who had finally\nsecured a 187-acre lease, was the only one to pay rent, the sum\nof $i75-83.18\nBy 1888 the provincial government had begun to realize that\nsome revenue might be derived from leases, and the 1888 Land\nAct levied a rental of five cents an acre on all leases granted between\n1879 and 1888. Future leases were to be granted for a term not to\nexceed thirty years at an annual rent of ten cents per acre and a\nroyalty of fifty cents per thousand. The royalty was also applied to\nthe leases granted since 1879. The annual charge of ten cents an\nacre gave owners of sawmills, or those who would undertake to\nbuild a mill with a capacity of 1,000 board feet per day for each\n400 acres leased, exclusive cutting rights over an unlimited forest\narea. By establishing a reasonably low rental, the government\ndemonstrated its desire to encourage the lumber industry, but low\nthough the rental was, it served as a brake on the indiscriminate\nalienation of the province's best timber lands.\nIn 1891, leases good for thirty years were authorized for cutting\nhemlock bark for tanning purposes,19 but this section of the Land\nAct was not used until 1905-06, \"when 32,252 acres were leased\nat a rental of two cents per acre for the first five years and five\ncents per acre thereafter.\"20 Before one of these hemlock leases was\ngranted, the applicant had to prove that he operated a tannery.\nAll the leases of this type granted in 1905 and 1906 were still being\nheld in 1913.\n18 \"... Return of all moneys received from leases of Timber Lands,\" B.C.,\nSessional Papers, 2d Pari., 3d sess. and 3d Pari., 1st sess., 1878, p. 627;\nand B.C., Sessional Papers, 3d Pari., 2d sess., 1879, p. 393.\n19 B.C., Statutes, 1891, 54 Vict, c. 15, s. 13.\n20 Forests of B.C., p. 86.\n TIMBER LEGISLATION 99\nIn 1901, ten years after hemlock leases were granted, the government authorized the granting of still another form of lease \u00E2\u0080\u0094 a\nlease for cutting pulp-wood. These leases were granted for twenty-\none years, a term decided upon in 1895, at an annual rental of\ntwo cents an acre and a royalty of twenty-five cents per cord on\nall pulp-wood cut. Again to forestall speculators, leaseholders were\nrequired to build a pulp-mill in the province with a capacity of\none ton of pulp or a half-ton of paper per day for every square\nmile of land leased. Before such leases were abolished in 1903, four\nof them comprising 354,399 acres of choice merchantable timber\nhad been granted, and a further 1,300,480 acres had been placed\nunder reserve for similar pulp leases.21\nIn 1901, as a means of securing greater revenue from leases, the\ngovernment tried offering perpetual renewal of their leases in\nconsecutive periods of twenty-one years at new and increased rentals\nto all leaseholders who would surrender their leases within one year.\nNot only would the government be able to impose the new rates\nset in 1898 of fifteen cents per acre per annum plus a royalty of\nfifty cents per thousand, but also the leaseholder would know that\nby surrendering the lease and taking it up again under the new\nrates he would be assured the right to the timber as long as he\nwished. By promising to renew these leases at the end of twenty-\none years at the then existing rates, the government hoped to secure\nto itself a fairer share of the appreciation in timber value.\nEven so, it had become obvious by 1905 that leases were no\nlonger in the best interests of the province. Too often leases had\nbeen granted to speculators, particularly since the operation of a\nsawmill ceased to be required in 1897. When a return tabled in\nthat year showed that between July 1, 1903, and February 21,\n1905, eleven leases totalling 109,228 acres of first-rate timber land\nhad been granted for twenty-one year periods,22 the government\nbecame convinced that to leave the rental and stumpage fixed on\nthese acreages, in addition to all the older leases, for twenty-one\nyears, was shortsighted. Because so little was definitely known concerning the extent of British Columbia's timber and because there\n\"... Return showing the agreements ... for the manufacture of pulp ...,\"\nB.C., Sessional Papers, 9th Pari., 3d sess., 1902, pp. 791-92; and \"... Return\n... of every reserve (of not less than 25,000 acres) of Provincial lands ...,\"\nB.C., Sessional Papers, 9th Pari., 4th sess., 1903, p. J23.\n\"... Return showing the number of timber leases ...,\" B.C., Sessional\nPapers, 10th Pari., 2d sess., 1905, p. F35.\n 100\nLAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nwas the probability of a sharp increase in the demand for that\ntimber with the immense new market opening on the prairies, the\nMcBride government felt that to tie up extensive acreages for\ntwenty-one years at a nominal holding charge was a poor way of\ndrawing immediate profit from a substantial portion of the best\ntimber areas. Therefore, all granting of timber leases was abolished.\nAnd although the low revenue derived from the leasehold system\nwas the final reason for its abolition, the fact that it was such a\nwasteful system weighed heavily against it. No provision required\nthat a single lease be in one large block. It could contain ten or\nmore lots scattered over a wide area within the same forest district.\nSome of these lots were as small as 150 acres. As the Royal Commission on Timber and Forestry pointed out in its report in 1910,\nthe system resulted in the culling of the finest stands. The intervening, less valuable, stands, irregular in shape, were left as unproductive crown land.23 Therefore, no new leases were granted after 1905,\nalthough those previously granted were still renewable if they\ncontained merchantable timber. By 1913, timber leases, exclusive\nof those for pulp and hemlock bark, covered 613,000 acres, of\nwhich, 386,458 acres were renewable.\nThe third method by which the Crown disposed of its timber\nwas by licence, a refinement of the policy of disposing of timber\napart from the land under it. From 1884 to 1913 the conditions\nunder which licences were granted altered greatly. The original\npurpose of the licence, in 1884 called a \"general\" licence, was to\nmake timber available to the small, independent operator who\ncould not afford to own a sawmill, a condition required of all\nleaseholders. For an annual rental of ten dollars, the holder of the\nlicence obtained cutting rights to 1,000 acres of timber land. The\nterm of tenure was four years; the licence was not transferable; it\ncould be cancelled if the holder did not \"continuously proceed to\ncut and manufacture the timber\" within the specified limits.24 To\nsecure additional revenue from these licences, the holder was\nrequired to pay fifteen cents a tree royalty and twenty cents per\nthousand on the timber cut.\nIn 1888 the \"general\" licence became a \"special\" licence and\n23 \"Royal Commission on Timber and Forestry,\" p. D15.\n24 B.C., Statutes, 1884, 47 Vict., c. 32. This act is of interest because it is the\nfirst of its kind in the province to deal with the disposal of timber apart\nfrom the Land Act.\n TIMBER LEGISLATION 101\nthe term was reduced from four years to one, although the chief\ncommissioner of lands and works could renew it. Each holder was\nhenceforth limited to one licence, and his rental was increased from\nten to fifty dollars. Royalty on timber cut under any former tenure\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094 crown lands, patented lands, leaseholds, as well as timber limits or\nlicences \u00E2\u0080\u0094 was increased to fifty cents per thousand. Indicative of\nan awakening interest in an export market was the provision in\nsection 22 of the act for rebating half the royalty if the lumber\nwere exported from the province.25 In the first six months of its\noperation, 25 per cent of the royalty collected by the government\non all timber handled by the twenty-five sawmills in operation in\n1888 was rebated. Of the total royalty of $12,675.59 paid on the\n31,868,384 board feet of timber going through the mills, $3,051.40\nwas rebated.26\nThe licensing system was soon to become popular. At the end of\n1888 there were seventy-eight general licences still in force, and\nthirty-six of the new special licences had been issued. R. J. Skinner,\nthe first forestry inspector, predicted a rapid expansion in the provincial timber business, but at the same time he sounded a note of\nwarning on the need for much closer supervision of the growing\nindustry:\nIt is satisfactory to note that as far as can be judged from present\nappearances and circumstances, there is a prospect of a very considerable increase in the timber business of this Province taking\nplace in the immediate future. Eastern as well as local capital is\nnow being directed to and invested in that industry....\nThe revenue which will accrue ... from the Crown Lands and\nTimber Limits of the Province, judging from the increased number of General and Special Licenses now, and soon to be, issued\npromises to be much greater than it has been in former years.\nThe increase in the number of licenses and the more extended\noperations carried on by them will render it necessary that a\nclose and careful supervision should be kept, and will at the\nsame time considerably increase the difficulties (now sufficiently\napparent) there are in making such a supervision thoroughly\neffective over the very large scope of country in which the lumbering industries of the Province are distributed.27\n25 B.C., Statutes, 1888, 51 Vict., c. 16.\n26 B.C., Sessional Papers, 5th Pari., 3d sess., 1889, p. 151. These statistics are\nfrom the first \"Forestry Inspector's Report\" to be issued by the chief commissioner of lands and works.\n27 Ibid., p. 152.\n 102\nLAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nBefore the licence system was completely abandoned, a total of\n65,180 special licences had been issued.28 Skinner's warning was\nnone too soon. Even though the area of timber which could be\nheld under licence was reduced from 1,000 acres to 640 in 1901,\nand the fees increased to $100 in 1901 and then to $140 west and\n$115 east of the Cascades in 1903,29 these areas comprised by far\nthe largest timber holdings in the province by 1913. Licensees held\n8,600 square miles (5,504,000 acres) west of the Cascades\nand 6,400 square miles (4,096,000 acres) in the interior of the\nprovince.30\nAlthough the licences were renewable, their holders were placed\nat a distinct disadvantage to lease holders who had their acreages\nat the original rental and royalty for a twenty-one- or thirty-year\nperiod. In 1903, therefore, the period for which a licence was valid\nwas raised from one year to five. As a result, the number of licences\nissued jumped from 129 in 1901 to 1,307 in 1903.31 Even so, the\ngrowth of the lumber industry required a more stable supply of\ntimber than a five-year licence provided so that the licence holder\ncould secure financial support for his enterprise. His chief asset, an\nassured supply of timber, he did not have under his licence.\nWhen the McBride government wiped out the leasing system\nentirely in 1905, it also stopped issue of limited, non-transferable\nlicences. A completely new principle of disposing of timber was\nadopted. First, transferable licences good for twenty-one years on a\nspecified square mile of forest were issued, and existing licences were\nextended for sixteen years.32 What made British Columbia's timber\npolicy unique on the continent, however, was the reservation of the\ngovernment's share in the increasing value of standing timber as it\nshould accrue. It was left entirely to the government to fix the\npayments, both rental and royalty, that would be charged for\nrenewal of the option each year. The method was attractive as well\nas unique, since the operator, for a small outlay, was able to stake\n28 Compiled from forestry inspectors' reports for the years 1888-1910, inclusive,\nin the Sessional Papers for those years. Appendix B, Table 8, Part 1, lists\n81,132 licences up to 1911 but that total contains all the older general as\nas well as the newer special licences.\n29 B.C., Statutes, 1901, 1 Ed. 7, c. 30, s. 8, and B.C., Statutes, 1903-4, 3 & 4\nEdw. 7, c. 30, s. 8.\n30 Flumerfelt, \"Forest Resources,\" pp. 505-06.\n31 See Appendix B, Table 8, Part 1.\n32 Forests of B.C., p. 89.\n TIMBER LEGISLATION 103\na timber claim without waiting for survey. The claim was his for\ntwenty-one years so long as he renewed his licence each year.\nThe effect of the new legislation was immediate and startling.\nWriting about it thirteen years later, the Committee on Forests\nof the Dominion Commission of Conservation said:\nComing at a time when speculation was rife in land and timber,\nand when the conservation propaganda in the United States was\ncalling attention to the failing timber supplies in that country,\nthis legislation, permitting the acquiring of timber with such small\ninitial expense, resulted in a real timber boom, and the number\nof licenses increased from 1,451 in 1904 to over 15,000 in 1907.\nIncluding the cost of locating, which probably averaged $50 per\nlicense, and advertising, about $15, the average claim cost the\nstakers about $205 on the coast and $180 in the interior. This\ngave them the right to cut anywhere from 5,000,000 to 40,000,-\n000 feet, depending on the timber staked. By the end of 1907,\nthere was little accessible timber not staked and much, with\nslight prospect of ever being exploited by means then known,\nhad been taken up. As surveys were not required, except as the\nland was to be logged, much confusion has resulted from the\noverlapping of claims, and considerable additional revenue has\naccrued to the Government as a result. As one example of what\nhas happened, the case may be cited of six different licensees\nwho, for several years, paid fees on the same block of 400 acres\nof timber. The failure of many licensees to locate their limits\naccurately also resulted in the unnecessary inclusion of non-\ntimbered lands, such as burns, areas above timber-line, etc., with\nconsequent loss to themselves.33\nIn 1908, the peak year, the fees alone from the 17,700 licences\nissued accounted for $2,301,449.47, or 90 per cent of the total\nrevenue from forests.34 The major objective of the new policy had\nbeen to increase revenue from forests materially. In accomplishing\nits objective, the policy was an immediate success. By the end of\n1907 when more than 9,000,000 acres were held under licence,\nsome uneasiness was being felt at the \"insatiable nature of the\ncontinental demand for standing timber.\"35 The new policy pleased\nthe timber interests, many of whom were American, and resulted\nin an astonishing increase in revenue, but it also jeopardized the\nfuture welfare of the province.\n33 Ibid., p. 90.\n34 \"Timber Inspector's Report [1908],\" B.C., Sessional Papers, nth Pari., 3d\nsess., 1909, p. H49.\n35 \"Royal Commission on Timber and Forestry,\" p. D16.\n 104 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nHaving given the matter serious consideration, the government\nissued an Order in Council on December 27, 1907, withdrawing\nall unalienated timber lands from all forms of alienation.36 The\n15,000 licences then held by operators were still valid, as were the\nrights to 792,295 acres held under lease,37 but the market then in\nsight could not absorb in twenty-one years all the timber held under\nlease or licences.\nBetween 1905 and 1908, the holders of licences made a concerted effort to persuade the government to grant them the same\nprivilege of unlimited tenure as was enjoyed by lease holders. All\nthey had under the present regulations were cutting rights for\ntwenty-one years. To settle the complicated matter of timber land\ntenure, the government appointed a Timber and Forestry Commission in July, 1909. As a result of its recommendations, in 1910\nthe government permitted licensees to convert their licences. The\nnew regulations required licence holders to surrender the twenty-\none year licence within two years in return for a new, transferable\nlicence, renewable annually so long as merchantable timber\nremained on the land. The new licence thereby became to all\nintents and purposes perpetual.38 The result has been the more\nor less permanent alienation of some 7,500,000 acres of valuable\ntimber stands under the 12,850 licences converted by their holders.\nThe Timber and Forestry Commission's final report estimated the\nacreage held under licence to represent 60 per cent of the merchantable timber acreage in the province. The report also stated\nthat the largest number of licences known to be in the possession\nof a single holder was 375 and that there were a number of\nlicensees who held between one and two hundred.39\nThe following table shows how the lumber industry had spread\nthrough the province by 1915.\nLocation of Licences\nEast of Cascades: 7,046\nWest of Cascades: 6,70140\n36 Ibid.\n37 \"Timber Inspector's Report [1907],\" B.C., Sessional Papers, nth Pari., 2d\nsess., 1908, p. H46.\n38 Forests of B.C., pp. 90-91.\n39 \"Royal Commission on Timber and Forestry,\" p. D27.\n40 Forests of B.C., p. 93.\n TIMBER LEGISLATION 105\nForest District Number of Licences\nCranbrook 908\nHazelton 560\nKamloops 1,672\nLillooet 53\nNelson 1,306\nPrince Rupert 1,248\nFort George 962\nTete Jaune 1,001\nVernon 328\nVancouver 3,352\nVancouver Island 2,357\nTotal 13,747\nAlthough all unalienated timber land had been summarily placed\nunder reserve in 1907 by an alarmed government, it was impossible\nto arrive at even a rough estimate of the acreage under reserve\nuntil every timber limit had been surveyed. By August, 1910, only\n1,466 of the 15,000 licences had been surveyed and located on a\nmap,41 a total of 869,585 acres. An informed guess set the reserve\nat 3,750,000 acres, one-quarter of the merchantable timber, estimated to be 15,000,000 acres.42\nWhatever the exact acreage may have been, it remained under\nreserve until the passage of the Forest Act in 1912. This major\nitem of legislation provided for a fourth method of timber disposal,\nthat of timber sales, the only method by which Crown timber was\ndisposed of from 1912 until the introduction of tree farm licences\nand public sustained yield units. The Forest Branch examined,\ncruised, and surveyed the area, and set an upset stumpage price.\nIf it were considered in the public interest to do so, the standing\ntimber was then sold to the highest bidder. The highest bidder was\n41 \"Royal Commission on Timber and Forestry,\" p. D28.\n42 Ibid., p. D17.\n 106 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nthe operator who submitted the highest cash bonus per thousand\nfeet of merchantable timber. Rentals and royalty were paid as the\ntimber was cut on the same scale as that charged holders of licences.\nThe distinguishing feature of the sale system was that the fair\nmarket value of the timber, or more if the bidding exceeds the\nupset price, went into the public treasury. The timber was sold for\na much higher price than the land would bring, and the land still\nbelonged to the Crown. As the land was logged, it was released\nfor settlement.\nThe introduction of the sale system marked an end to the former\nexploitation and the beginning of a modern, enlightened forest\npolicy in British Columbia. The early systems of granting leases\nand licences to cut timber while retaining the land underneath and\nthe later method of reserving all unalienated timber lands and\nselling only the timber crop left the province in control of all but\n4 per cent of its forested area.\nFrom 1871 to 1913, then, British Columbia disposed of its\ntimber in four ways \u00E2\u0080\u0094 by outright sale of the timber along with\nthe land, by leasing timber land, by issuing a licence to cut timber,\nand by sale of the timber apart from the land. In addition, the\ngovernment disposed of some of its timber lands indirectly as part\nof subsidies to railway companies. In 1883 the dominion government was granted the forty-mile Railway Belt through the centre\nof the province and a 2,000,000-acre block on Vancouver Island.\nLater, provincially incorporated railway companies were granted\nmore than 6,000,000 acres in southeastern British Columbia, also\nas subsidy lands. By 1913 some of this land had been sold by the\ncompanies into private hands and permanently alienated. However\n4,065,076 acres were repurchased by the government from the\nColumbia and Western and the British Columbia Southern.\nReports from the companies stated in 1910 that practically none\nof the remaining land could be classified as timber land.43 No\nstatistics concerning timber in the Canadian Pacific Railway Belt\nwere available other than the estimate of a dominion forester who\nsaid that 1,280,000 acres in the Belt were under licence and permit\nin 19 io.44\n43 Ibid., p. D23.\n44 Ibid., p. D17, n. 6.\n TIMBER LEGISLATION 107\nIn the case of the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway lands, however, there was no doubt as to the existence of valuable timber\nstands. The subsidy lands for this railway had been given by the\nprovince to the Dominion in 1883; the Dominion in turn gave the\nlands to the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Company to construct the Island portion of the Canadian Pacific.\nAn interesting court case developed in 1948 over the taxing of\nsome of the timber on these lands. For three decades, the 375,000\nacres of valuable unsold timber stands still in the possession of the\nEsquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Company had caused provincial\ngovernments concern because they yielded neither royalty nor tax.45\nIn 1945, while conducting an enquiry into the provincial forest\nresources, Chief Justice Sloan, acting as a commissioner under the\nPublic Inquiries Act of British Columbia, was struck by the fact\nthat these timber lands were yielding no revenue to the province.\nIn his report, Sloan suggested that the province should be collecting\na tax on this timber and, in addition, might also assess the Island\nRailway Belt lands for the fire protection tax levied on all timber\nlands since 1912.46\nThe Lieutenant-Governor in Council, acting under the Constitutional Questions Determination Act,47 referred a number of questions to the British Columbia Court of Appeal for hearing and\nconsideration. The Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Company\nargued that the imposition of a tax on the company's timber lands\nin the Island Railway Belt would be contrary to the contract\nentered into between the Dominion and the railway company on\nAugust 20, 1883, subject to the provisions of section 22 of the\nSettlement Act of 1883:\nThe lands to be acquired by the company from the Dominion\nGovernment for the construction of the Railway shall not be\nsubject to taxation unless and until the same are used by the\ncompany for other than railroad purposes, or leased, occupied,\nsold, or alienated.48\nThe Province contended that there was no existing contract\nbetween the Province and the company, regardless of any contractual relationship between the Dominion and the company. The\n45 Forests of B.C., pp. 85-86.\n46 B.C., Statutes, 1912, 2 Geo. 5, c. 17, ss. 125-133.\n47 B.C., Revised Statutes, 1936, c. 50.\n48 B.C., Statutes, 1883, 46 Vict., c. 14, s. 22.\n 108 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\ncompany also argued that the imposition of a tax, being a fixed\nsum per thousand feet board measure of the timber cut, would be\nultra-vires the Province. The Court of Appeal held that there was\nno contract between the Province and the company but that the\nimposition of the tax would be ultra-vires.\nOn appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada49 it was held that\nthere was a contract between the Province and the company and\nalso that the imposition of the tax would be ultra-vires. On further\nappeal to the Privy Council,50 the Judicial Committee held that\nthere was no contract and did not consider the constitutional\nvalidity of a provincial tax based on the quantity of timber cut.\nHowever, the Committee agreed with the decision of the Supreme\nCourt of Canada in regard to the imposition of the six cents an\nacre charge levied on unalienated timber land held by the company\nunder the clauses of the act authorizing a forest protection charge.\nAuthority for this tax, it was stated, was derived directly from\nsection 22 of the Settlement Act which exempted the unalienated\nlands of the company from taxation, and therefore it could not be\nimposed.51 Thus the company was forced to pay the provincial\ngovernment the timber taxes but not the forest protection tax.\nMr. H. R. MacMillan, British Columbia's first chief forester,\nestimated in 1913 that over 100,000,000 acres of provincial land\nwere timbered, of which about 65,000,000 acres held merchantable\ntimber. According to one tabulation made in that year, only\n16,000,000 acres of first class timber, a small fraction of the total\npotential, had been accounted for, under the following forms of\ntenure:\nTimber Land Acreage\nAcreage Average\nStand per\nacre ft.\nVancouver Island crown grant timber 344,000 35,000\n49 Esquimalt and Nanaimo Rly. Co. v. Attorney-General of British Columbia\n(1948) S.C.R. 403.\n50 Attorney-General of British Columbia v. Esquimalt and Nanaimo Rly. Co.\n(1950) A.C. 87.\nsi Ibid., p. 88.\n TIMBER LEGISLATION\n109\nMainland crown grant timber 484,000\n10,000\nEsquimalt & Nanaimo Railway Co. 350,000\n14,500\nCanadian Pacific Railway (unpublished\nconjecture) 822,000\nTimber leaseholds 613,000\n26,000\nSpecial licence timber 9,000,000 12,000\nMill timber on pulp leaseholds 387,000 13,000\n12,000,000\nReserve timber land (conjecture) 43000,0005:\n16,000,000\nIn the final report of the 1909-1910 Commission, the commissioners predicted that \"the value of standing timber in British\nColumbia is destined to rise to heights that general opinion would\nconsider incredible today.\" Evidence before them showed that\nBritish Columbia contained half the stand in Canada, that the\nprovince faced a rising market east, west, and south, that over 90\nper cent of that timber was crown property, and, above all, that\ngovernment policy had made the province \"a sharer in the profits\nfrom the lumbering industry.\" It is not surprising that the commissioners concluded by stating that, as a result of its income from\ntimber, British Columbia should become \"that phenomenon of\nstatecraft and good fortune \u00E2\u0080\u0094 a country of 'semi-independent\nmeans.' \"58\nThe policy formulated in 1905 and 1907 has been instrumental\nin retaining for the public in British Columbia an equity in forests\nwhich has become the envy of other countries. That the acreage of\n52 Flumerfelt, \"Forest Resources,\" p. 508. Statistics given in \"Report of the\nMinister of Lands,\" B.C., Sessional Papers, 13th Pari., 2d sess., 1914, p. D17,\ndo not correspond exactly with these. The total acreage listed in the\nSessional Papers as alienated timber land is 11,074,190 acres.\n53 \"Royal Commission on Timber and Forestry,\" p. D20. The three commissioners were F. J. Fulton, K.C., chief commissioner of lands and works and\nacting attorney general; A. S. Goodeve, M.P., Rossland; and A. C. Flumerfelt, J. P., Victoria.\n 110\nLAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\npermanently alienated forest land is such a small fraction of the\ntotal productive forested area is largely a direct result of the principle of beneficial use applied to the forests, as it was to agricultural\nand mineral lands and, as will be shown, to water rights.\n CHAPTER 7\nWater Rights\nIf lack of interest in forests resulted in casual timber legislation in\nthe early days of the colony, the opposite was true in the case of\nwater courses. Mining, the earliest profitable activity, required the\nextensive use of water, and early legislation provided detailed\ninstructions for recording water rights. Had these been adhered to,\nfew of the later difficulties would have arisen. But because water\nin British Columbia was in abundant supply and because water\nrights produced no revenues for the government, the recording procedure was lax and led inevitably to confusion. As with surveying,\nthe fault lay not with the regulations but with the administration.\nThe division of authority arising from the creation of the Railway\nBelt added to the chaos. Not until 1913, in fact, was the problem\nsatisfactorily settled.\nUnder English common law the principle existed that the public\nand those living on the banks of streams had the right, called\n\"riparian proprietorship,\" to have the waters of streams flowing\nthrough or by their property left undisturbed.1 Since any diversion\nof the water was considered damage to the adjoining property, the\nowner was protected against such diversion. Adherence to this\nprinciple in British Columbia would have been impossible in the\nface of the placer miners' needs, and hence it would have been\ndirectly opposed to the best interests of the colony.\nIn a proclamation in 1859 Governor Douglas recognized the need\n1 H. W. Grunsky, \"Water Legislation and Administration in British Columbia,\"\nin B.C., Department of Lands, \"Report of the Minister of Lands [1912],\"\nB.C., Sessional Papers, 13th Pari., 1st sess., 1913, p. D117.\n 112 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nto depart from the principle of riparian ownership. The rules he\nissued to regulate gold mining provided that:\nAny person desiring any exclusive ditch or water privilege shall\nmake application to the Gold Commissioner ... stating the\nname of every applicant, the proposed ditch head and quantity\nof water, the proposed locality of distribution, and if such water\nshall be for sale, the price at which it is proposed to sell the\nsame, the general nature of the work to be done, and the time\nwithin which such work shall be completed; and the Gold Commissioner shall enter a note of all such matters as of record.2\nThe Land Proclamation of February the same year made provision\nalso for the granting of a \"Ditch privilege\" to any holder of crown\nlands.3 The Land Ordinance of 1870 not only extended the privilege of diverting any water from streams flowing over or adjacent\nto any land held under pre-emption or purchase, but went so far\nas to state that no one had any exclusive right to the water in any\nstream until he had recorded such quantity of water as might be\nconsidered necessary. The water so recorded could be diverted across\nadjoining land, whether held by the Crown, pre-empted, or purchased, upon payment to the lawful owner of reasonable compensation for damage; but the owner of those adjoining lands could not\nprevent the diversion of the water over his land however extensive\nthe damage or troublesome the ditch. To ensure beneficial use of\nthe water, section 37 required the owner of a ditch or water privilege to \"take all reasonable means of utilizing the water taken by\nhim; and if he shall willfully waste any unreasonable quantity of\nwater,\" the rights to it could be cancelled.\nBy 1871 it had become firmly established in law that no rights\nto any water passed with the rights to the land. Water rights had\nto be secured by means of a water record. As in the case of mining\nclaims, priority of record established priority of right. However\ndisconcerting it may have been to the new settler to discover that\nthe creek or stream on his property was not necessarily his to use\nas he chose, the exigencies of mining development and of the later\nirrigation needs dictated the abandonment of the old world principle of riparian ownership. It had already been decided for the\n2 \"Rules and Regulations for the Working of Gold Mines,\" s. 7, B.C. [Proclamations and Ordinances, 1858-1864].\n3 Ibid. Douglas issued this proclamation on February 14, 1859, in order \"to\npublish for general information the method to be pursued with respect to the\nalienation and possession of lands ... in British Columbia.\"\n WATER RIGHTS 113\nfuture that there would be no such expansion of the riparian rights\ndoctrine as had taken place in some of the western American states\nin which \"the courts, without the aid of Statutes, had expanded\nthe old common law natural right ... until it [had] included the\nright to irrigate large bodies of arid land.\"4\nBecause the water record was automatically transferred with the\ntransfer of the land or mining claim,5 it should have been provided\nthat the land on which the water was to be used be specifically\ndesignated in all water records. This oversight was later to cause\n\"terrible confusion and endless trouble,\"6 and the benefits to be\nderived from the transfer of water records were nullified in practice.\nAlthough all water resources were not declared to be in the\nCrown until 1892,7 the government proceeded to act as though\nsuch were the case. Where some access had been granted to the\nwater for the purposes of watering stock previous to the granting\nof lands under any form of tenure, such access was preserved in\nthe conveyance of the land. These access rights are explicitly preserved in all land acts.\nUntil 1892 the only classes of persons mentioned specifically in\nthe sections of the land and mineral acts dealing with water were\nfarmers and miners, and it was further provided that to secure a\nwater privilege the farmer had to be in lawful occupation of his\nland and actually cultivating it.\nEvery person lawfully entitled to hold land under this Act, or\nunder any former Act, Ordinance, or Proclamation, and lawfully occupying and bona fide cultivating lands, may record and\ndivert so much and no more of any unrecorded and unappropriated water from the natural channel of any stream, lake or\nriver adjacent to or passing through such land, for agricultural\nor other purposes, as may be reasonably necessary for such\npurposes.8\n4 Grunsky, \"Water Legislation,\" p. D118.\n5 B.C., Statutes, 1886, 49 Vict., c. 10, s. 1.\n6 P. A. Carson, Railway Belt Hydrographic Survey for 1911-12, in Canada,\nDepartment of the Interior, Water Power Branch, Water Resources Paper\nNo. 1 (Ottawa: Government Printing Bureau, 1914), p. 29. Also in Canada,\nParliament, Sessional Papers, 12th Pari., 3d sess., 1914, no. 25f.\n7 For full discussion, see Grunsky, \"Water Legislation,\" p. D119. While declar-\nin the Crown's control over all unrecorded water and providing a method by\nwhich persons and companies holding water records could gain entry upon\nland not their own, the act neglected to enumerate the classes of persons\nentitled to procure water privileges.\n8 B.C., Statutes, 1884, 47 Vict., c. 16, s. 43. The wording is almost identical\nwith that of section 30 of the 1870 Land Ordinance.\n 114 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nIn neither case, however, did any section require that the land or\nclaim on which the water was to be used should be specified.\nThe Water Clauses Consolidation Act, 1897, rectified the oversight. The land upon which the water was to be used had henceforth\nto be defined exactly. This was the first act in the province dealing\nentirely with water, and in it the Crown's right to all unrecorded\nand unappropriated water was declared, \"save in the exercise of\nany legal right existing at the time ... or except in the exercise of\nthe general right of all persons to use water for domestic and\nstock supply.\" All riparian rights acquired by long usage were\ndenied; every owner of land could secure the right to divert\nunrecorded water for agricultural, domestic, mechanical, or industrial purposes; every owner of a mine could secure water for milling, concentrating, or any general mining purposes. Section 18\nrecognized the fact that water records for far more water than\ncould be used had been granted for the past thirty years. Thus it\nprovided that, should existing records of water on his land preclude\nthe obtaining of water by a farmer or miner, he could apply for a\nrecord. With his application he was to submit evidence that the\nprevious records had granted excessive quantities of water. The gold\nor land commissioner was then to adjudicate the needs of the prior\nrecord holders and render a decision.9 The only omission from the\nact was the listing of the classes of persons entitled to water privileges, and the most serious weakness of the act was it left to the\ndiscretion of the already overburdened chief commissioner of lands\nand works the amount of water to be granted in any record.\nAs early as 1886 the government was aware of the complications\nresulting from the inaccurate and incomplete book-keeping. The\nLand Amendment Act of that year stated that:\nAnd whereas many records of water rights and privileges have in\npast times been honestly, but imperfectly, made, and it is desirable\nthat such records should have legal recognition therefore: it is\ndeclared and enacted that in all cases where the validity of any\nwater record heretofore made may be called in question, and the\nCourt or Judge before whom the case is pending shall be of the\nopinion that such record was bona fide made, the same shall be\nheld to be good and valid so far as the making and entry thereof\nis concerned, and effect shall be given thereto according to the\nintent thereof.10\n9 B.C., Revised Statutes, 1898, 61 Vict., c. 190.\n10 B.C., Statutes, 1886, 49 Vict., c. 10, s. 3.\n WATER RIGHTS 115\nBut as there were no regular offices established for the purpose\nof recording these water rights even after 1886, the confusion was\ncompounded rather than clarified.\nEach land office in the province performed the duties pertinent\nto water records after its own fashion. Until 1897 the records were\nmade out in longhand in blank registers at the different government offices, the applicant asking for and receiving without question\nthe right to use any quantity of water from 100 to 1,000 miners'\ninches with no real consideration of his needs or knowledge of\nwhether the stream could actually supply the quantity of water\ncalled for in the record. Regardless of the quantity of water sought,\nthe recording fee of two dollars was the same. If the owner needed\n100 inches11 for the irrigation of his homestead, he almost invariably\ntook out a record for 500 or 1,000 inches. Many pioneers had\nrecords for \"all the water in the stream.\"12 No track was kept of\nthe records from the same water course and many streams were\nrecorded ten times beyond their available supply.\nBy 1907 clarification of the water rights throughout the province\ncould no longer be neglected. The government appointed a Commission of Investigation and, after receiving its report, passed the\nWater Act of 1909, the principal feature of which was the creation\nof a Board of Investigation. Since no system of numbering or registering by districts was carried out, the Board discovered that any\nrecord in the interior might be located at Yale, Lytton, Nicola,\nAshcroft, Clinton, or Kamloops, depending upon where the original\napplicant had happened to be when he had made his application.13\nThey also discovered that in many cases the original record holder\nhad never received a copy of his record. When all records were\ncalled in for examination, the holders of the records had great\ndifficulty in establishing their claims to the use of the water. In\nsome records the quantity of water was not specified; in others, the\npurpose was not mentioned. Sometimes the land on which the water\n11 Under B.C. Statutes, 1882, 45 Vict., c. 6, s. 4, a miner's inch was defined\nas that quantity of water measured at the sluice head in a trough which\nwould go through an opening two inches high and one inch wide with a\nconstant head of seven inches above it.\n12 H. W. Grunsky, \"Water Rights in the British Columbia Railway Belt,\" in\nCanada, Department of the Interior, Dominion Water Power Branch,\nAnnual Report 1915-16 (Ottawa: n.p., 1917), p. 180.\n13 B.C., Department of Lands, \"Report of the Water Rights Branch [1912],\"\nB.C., Sessional Papers, 13th Pari., 1st sess., 1913, p. D108.\n 116 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nwas to be used was not listed. In still other cases the source of\nsupply was either unnamed or impossible to identify.\nThe basic duties of the Board of Investigation were to hold sittings and to hear claims of all persons holding or claiming to hold\nwater records or other water rights, to determine the priorities of\nthe claimants, to lay down terms upon which new licences should\nbe granted, and to cancel old records.14 The theory was that every\nwater user in the province should have his right clearly determined\nand specified. The new licences were to be issued as fast as the\nBoard could determine the validity of existing claims.\nBefore holding a sitting in any district to adjudicate the claims\nto water rights on any stream, the Board inserted a notice in the\nBritish Columbia Gazette and the local paper requiring the filing\nof all claims before a certain date. As the notice commanded but\nslight attention, each present record holder was served with individual notification of the date of the sitting. But as holders had\nnot been asked to come supplied with the necessary documents to\nsupport their claims, and as many holders did not possess such\ndocuments, the Board instituted a search of the books in the Department of Lands to discover what land, if any, the grantee named in\nthe record had occupied lawfully at the time the record had been\nissued. These findings were placed at the disposal of the claimants.\nIn this way the problem of dealing with the previous unsatisfactory records was met squarely for the first time. The aim was\nto erase all past mistakes and to start afresh in water administration. The 1909 Act was an excellent beginning, but after it had\nbeen in operation for two years, it was discovered that some of its\nprovisions were unworkable and that there had been serious oversights. For example, there was no mention of irrigation companies\nwhose projects might have saved the individual land owner from\nembarking upon extensive systems of his own. Nor was there any\nmention of the inspection of dams or the restraining of waste water.\nMore serious still, the determination of the proper use of water\nwas left in the hands of the local government agent, already too\nbusy with other office duties and quite inexperienced in the management of water resources.\nBefore these shortcomings could be remedied another and more\nurgent water rights problem had been thrust upon the province.\nThis problem, like the Precious Metals Case of 1889, was a direct\n14 B.C., Revised Statutes, 1911, 2 Geo. 5, Parts III, IV, and V.\n WATER RIGHTS 117\noutcome of Article 11 of the Terms of Union. One of the many\nquestions which arose after the transfer of the Railway Belt lands\nin 1884 was whether the province was to continue to administer\nthe waters.\nAssuming its legal right to do so and noting the absence of any\ndominion regulations concerning the waters within the Belt, the\nprovince continued to administer water rights as it had done since\n1871. The Privy Council decision of 1889 which gave the province\nthe right to the precious metals in the Railway Belt strengthened\nthe province's contention that it should also administer the water\nrights. Since no one within the province realized that the right to\nthe waters might be vested in the Dominion, the settlers on the\nrailway lands after 1884 continued to apply to the provincial\nauthorities for water records. Very few of the settlers were either\nfar-sighted enough or sufficiently versed in law to have applied to\nthe Dominion for their record or for confirmation of provincial\nones.\nThe question of jurisdiction did not become acute until 1906\nwhen several holders of dominion timber licences on Lillooet Lake\nprotested to Ottawa the granting to the Burrard Power Company\nby the province of a water grant of some 25,000 miners' inches\nfrom the lake for water power development. The timber licensees\ncontended that the water grant would render the Lillooet River\nflowing out of the lake useless for their lumbering operations, and,\nas holders of dominion licences, not unnaturally asked that the\nDominion protect their interests by causing the grant to be\nwithdrawn.\nThe dominion government decided on a test case to clarify\npermanently all the water rights problems in the Railway Belt.\nDuring the next four years the Burrard Power Case proceeded\nthrough the Exchequer Court and the Supreme Court of Canada\nto the Judicial Committtee of the Privy Council, where judgment\nwas rendered on November 1, 19 io.16 The judgment included a\nconcise outline of the entire problem of the divided jurisdiction\ncreated by the grant of the Railway Belt in 1884. While the question decided by the Judicial Committee was in itself a most important one for British Columbia, the judgment had an even wider\nsignificance. From it undoubtedly arose the province's offer, made\nby Premier McBride in 1911, to purchase outright the dominion\n15 Burrard Power v. The King (1911) A.C. 87.\n 118 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\ninterest in both the Railway Belt and the Peace River Block.16 For\nthese reasons the judgment delivered by Lord Mersey is quoted\nin full.\nThis is an appeal, by special leave, from the judgment of the\nSupreme Court of Canada, affirming a judgment of the\nExchequer Court of Canada rendered on May io, 1909.\nThe only question raised upon the appeal is whether certain\nwater rights in the Railway Belt of British Columbia are vested\nin the Dominion Government so as to preclude the provincial\nLegislature from dealing with them. The circumstances in which\nthe dispute has arisen are shortly as follows. The Province of\nBritish Columbia was admitted into the Dominion of Canada in\nthe year 1871 under the provisions of the British North America\nAct, 1867. The admission was subject to the provisions of that\nAct and also to certain Articles of Union duly sanctioned by the\nParliament of Canada and by the Legislature of British Columbia. The nth of these articles stipulated that the Dominion\nGovernment should secure the construction of railway communication between the railway system of Canada and the seaboard of British Columbia, and that the Government of British\nColumbia should convey to the Dominion Government, \"in\ntrust to be appropriated in such manner as the Dominion Government may deem advisable in the furtherance of the construction\nof the said railway,\" certain public lands along the line of railway throughout its entire length in British Columbia. In consideration of the land to be so conveyed in aid of the construction of the said railway the Dominion Government agreed to\npay to British Columbia from the date of the union the sum of\n$100,000 per annum. The conveyance contemplated by this part\nof the nth article was effected by subsequent statutes of the\nLegislature of the Province, and the land so conveyed is known\nas the \"Railway Belt.\" The railway has now been built.\nBy the Water Clauses Consolidation Act, 1897 (61 Vict. c.\n190, Revised Statutes of British Columbia), s. 4, the right to\nthe use of the unrecorded water in any river, lake, or stream\nwas declared to be vested in the Crown in the right of the\nProvince, and it was enacted that save in the exercise of any\nlegal right existing at the time of such diversions or appropriation no person should divert or appropriate any water from any\nriver, watercourse, lake, or stream, excepting under the provisions\nof the Act. By s. 5 it was provided that no right to the exclusive\nuse of such water should be acquired by any person by length of\nuse or otherwise than as might be acquired or conferred under\nthe provisions of the Act or of some existing or future Act. By\n16 McBride to Borden, November 6, 1911. B.C., Sessional Papers, 12th Pari., 2d\nsess., 1911, p. N2.\n WATER RIGHTS 119\ns. 2 \"water\" was declared to mean all rivers and water power\nnot being waters under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada, and \"unrecorded water\" was declared to mean\nall water not held under a record under the Act or under certain\nrepealed Acts or under special grant by public or private Act and\nshould include all water for the time being unappropriated or\nunoccupied or not used for a beneficial purpose.\nOn April 7, 1906, the Water Commissioners for the district of\nNew Westminster, British Columbia, purporting to act under the\nprovisions of this Act, granted to the appellants, the Burrard\nPower Company, Limited, at an annual rental of $566, a water\nrecord for 25,000 inches of waters out of the Lillooet Lakes and\nthe Lillooet River to be used for generating electricity. These\nwaters are within the Railway Belt.\nOn December 26, 1906, the Attorney-General for the Dominion\nof Canada filed an information in the Exchequer Court of\nCanada against the Power Company, claiming a declaration that\nthe record was invalid and conveyed no interest to the defendant\ncompany, and asking that the same should be cancelled. The\ninformation alleged that the works of the Power Company if\ncarried out would have the effect of diverting the water of the\nriver, thereby interfering with its navigation, and would otherwise materially diminish the value of the lands of the Dominion\nGovernment in the Railway Belt. In support of the claim reliance\nwas placed on the agreement contained in the Terms of Union,\nand on the provisions of the Acts of the provincial Legislature\npassed for the purpose of giving effect to that agreement.\nReliance was also placed on the provisions of s. 91 of the British\nNorth America Act, 1867, which declares that the exclusive\nlegislative authority of the Parliament of Canada shall extend\nto all matters coming within certain classes of subjects, including\nthe public debt and property and navigation. It was further\nsubmitted that, having regard to sub-s. 2 of s. 131 of the Water\nClauses Consolidation Act, 1897, the grant of the record by the\nCommissioners was not authorized by the Water Clauses Act.\nAfter the filing of the information the Attorney-General of\nBritish Columbia was added as a party to represent the interests\nof the Province.\nOn December 23, 1907, the determination of the issue of fact\nwas referred for inquiry and report to Archer Martin J., who\nfound the facts to be in accordance with the allegations of the\nDominion Government, and reported accordingly. Thereupon\nthe Attorney-General of Canada prayed judgment as asked by\nthe information. On April 13, 1909, the case came on for argument before Cassels J., and on May 10, 1909, that learned judge\ndeclared that the grant of the record of water in question was\ninvalid and conveyed no interest to the defendant company.\nThe judgment proceeded on three grounds: first, that the grant\nwas an interference with property subject to the exclusive\n 120 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nauthority of the Dominion of Canada; secondly, that the diversion of water intended to be authorized thereunder would be a\nvery serious interference with the navigability of the river; and\nthirdly, that the record was not authorized by the provisions of\nthe Water Clauses Act under which it had been granted. From\nthis judgment an appeal was brought to the Supreme Court of\nCanada. The appeal was dismissed on February 15, 1910.\nTheir Lordships are of opinion that the judgments of the\nCourts below are right. The grant by the Province of British\nColumbia of \"public lands\" to the Dominion Government\nundoubtedly passed the water rights incidental to those lands.\nIn the argument addressed to their Lordships this was not really\nquestioned. But it was said that though the proprietary rights\nof the Province in the land and in the waters belonging thereto\nwere transferred to the Dominion Government, the legislative\npowers of the Province over the same neither were nor could be\nparted with, and that therefore it was competent for the provincial Legislature to enact the Water Clauses Act of 1897 under\nwhich the record was granted. In support of this contention a\npassage was cited from the judgment of Lord Watson in\nAttorney-General of British Columbia v. Attorney-General of\nCanada. Their Lordships are of opinion that the contention is\nwrong, and that the passage in Lord Watson's judgment affords\nno kind of support for it. The object of article 11 of the Terms\nof Union was on the one hand to secure the construction of the\nrailway for the benefit of the Province and on the other hand\nto afford the Dominion a means of recouping itself in respect\nof the liabilities which it might incur in connection with the\nconstruction by sales to settlers of the land transferred. To hold\nthat the Province after the making of such an agreement\nremained at liberty to legislate in the sense contended for would\nbe to defeat the whole object of the agreement, for if the Province could by legislation take away the water from the land it\ncould also by legislation resume possession of the land itself, and\nthereby so derogate from its own grant as to utterly destroy it.\nLord Watson's reference in the Precious Metals Case to the nth\narticle, so far from supporting the appellants' contention, is\nagainst it. He says \"the conveyance contemplated was a transfer\nto the Dominion of the provincial right to manage and settle\nthe lands and to appropriate their revenues.\" The grant of the\nwater record in the case now under consideration is an attempt\non the part of the Province to appropriate the revenues to itself,\nand would if carried into effect violate the terms of the contract\nas interpreted by Lord Watson. It is true that Lord Watson adds\nthat the land is not by the transfer taken out of the Province,\nand that once it is \"settled\" by the Dominion it ceases to be\npublic land, and \"reverts to the same position as if it had been\nsettled by the provincial Government in the ordinary course of\nits administration.\" But this also is against the appellants' con-\n WATER RIGHTS 121\ntention, for it implies that until settled by the Dominion it\nremains public land under the Dominion's control.\nTheir Lordships are of opinion that the lands in question so\nlong as they remain unsettled are \"public property\" within the\nmeaning of s. 91 of the British North America Act, 1867, and\nas such are under the exclusive legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada by virtue of the Act of Parliament. Before the\ntransfer they were public lands, the proprietary rights in which\nwere held by the Crown in right of the Province. After the transfer they were still public lands, but the proprietary rights were\nheld by the Crown in right of the Dominion, and for a public\npurpose, namely, the construction of the railway. This being so,\nno Act of the provincial Legislature could affect the water upon\nthe lands. Nor, in their Lordships' opinion, does the Water\nClauses Act of 1897 purport or intend to affect them; for, by\nclause 2, the Act expressly excludes from its operation waters\nunder the exclusive jurisdiction of the Dominion Parliament.\nThe Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal\nshould be dismissed with costs.17\nThe situation in the Railway Belt, which had been merely confusing and troublesome prior to this judgment, now became alarming in its implications. The holders of provincial water records in\nthe Belt were, or thought they were, protected by law. When news\nspread that the hundreds of records within the Belt had no legal\nstanding, each interested party began looking out for himself and\nwater-grabbing became the order of the day.18 Rivalry, formerly\nkeen, became bitter in its intensity. The situation was further\naggravated by the extreme dryness of the 1911 and 1912 seasons.\nThe newly created Board of Investigation could do nothing in\nthe face of the decision transferring water administration in the\nBelt to dominion authorities. The inheritance of the Dominion was\nnot enviable, for, unlike land grants, each water grant is entirely\ndependent upon all previous grants. The chief stumbling block to\ndominion regulation was that it had had no control over the granting of water records prior to 1884.19 The early records granted by\n17 The Exchequer Court of Canada gave the initial judgment on May 10\n(1909) 12 Ex. C.R. 295, in favour of the Dominion. British Columbia\nappealed the case to the Supreme Court of Canada, which gave its judgment dismissing the appeal on February 15 [(1910) 43 S.C.R. 27].\n18 Carson, Railway Belt Hydrographic Survey, p. 29.\n19 Grants made by the province prior to April 19, 1884, were declared valid\nby the Court of Appeal in British Columbia on November 5, 1912, in George\nv. Mitchell (1912) 17 B.C.R. 531. This was just one of the many court\ncases arising from the confusion after 1910.\n 122\nLAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nthe province would practically control the situation throughout the\nRailway Belt in view of the accepted principle \"first in time, first\nin right\" applicable to all water records granted in British Columbia\nsince 1859. Dominion-provincial co-operation in solving the\ndilemma was essential, particularly as no new water licence, however\ncarefully defined, could remain anything but indefinite until all\nprior rights had been assessed for their validity, and this the\nDominion had no authority to do.\nBefore the matter was finally settled in 1916 it was discovered\nthat ten different kinds of water rights had been in existence in the\nRailway Belt, the legality of each of which had to be determined.\nThere were first those records which had been granted prior to\n1884 by the province; then records granted after the transfer of\nthe Belt but appertaining to old provincial lands; records granted\nfrom 1884 to 1909 on lands formerly belonging to the Dominion\nbut for one reason or another transferred back to the province;\nrecords granted by the province to unpatented dominion lands;\nrecords granted by the Indian Reserve Commissioners for Indian\nreserves; records granted for Indians reserves by the province;\nrights to the use of or affecting the use of water granted by the\nDominion; incompleted water power projects under contract with\nthe Dominion to which water rights were clearly incidental; rights\ngranted by the Dominion to timber interests; and finally, indefinite\nand unestablished riparian rights.20\nA further embarrassment arose from the realization that streams\nhaving their source in the province and flowing into the Belt, and\nvice versa, could not be dealt with by one government without\naffecting the rights and interests of the other. Nor could water\nrights be administered independently of the land, since power rights\nrequired land for power sites and reservoirs, and irrigation rights\nrequired land as rights of way for canals and storage facilities.\nBecause of these insurmountable difficulties and because the\nestablishing of an entirely different administrative procedure for\nthe Railway Belt would have been a cumbersome and needless\nduplication of effort, the dominion government passed an Order\nin Council on December 20, 1911, transferring the administration\nof water rights in the Belt to the province pending such action as\n20 Carson, Railway Belt Hydrographic Survey, p. 30.\n WATER RIGHTS 123\nthe Dominion might take later, and without prejudice to any\nexisting rights.21\nOn April i, 1912, the Dominion passed the Railway Belt Water\nAct,22 which vested all ungranted water rights in the Crown and\nput a stop to any further riparian privileges accruing as a result of\nthe purchase of land. The legislation was helpful, but it provided\nno machinery for adjusting the numerous conflicting claims within\nthe Belt. It did not supply any system under which these claims\ncould be settled by the Dominion; neither did it transfer the\nadjudication of the existing rights and claims to the provincial\nauthorities. It left the holders of the numerous grants made by the\nprovince since 1884 and of the riparian interest of certain\ndominion grants without any procedure by which they could have\ntheir claims validated or rescinded. This oversight left the provincial\nBoard of Investigation with nothing to do but assess the rights of\nwater record holders outside the Railway Belt and those who held\nvalid provincial records obtained before 1884 within the Belt.\nSince records held by residents in the Lower Fraser Valley and the\nSouth Thompson area, both in the Railway Belt, were the most\ncontentious records in the province, the usefulness of the Board was\nseriously impaired.\nSection 5 of the dominion act dealt with future or pending applications and was phrased as follows:\nThe water so vested and reserved to the Crown ... shall, during\nthe pleasure of the Governor-in-Council, be administered under\nand in accordance with the provisions of the \"Water Act, 1909\"\nof British Columbia.\nThe only difficulty was that the provincial Water Act had already\nbeen repealed. The dominion legislation did apply to any provincial\nact to come into effect after the passing of its own act, but this\nauthority did not extend to any provincial act passed between 1909\nand 1912. The result was that the only act then in force in British\nColumbia, the Consolidated Act of 1911, could not apply to the\n21 H. W. Grunsky, \"Water Rights in the Railway Belt,\" p. 181. The Order\nin Council was a direct and immediate outcome of the mission to Ottawa of\nPremier McBride, W. J. Bowser, and W. R. Ross, in November 1911. They\nhad made urgent representations to the Dominion for transfer of the water\nrights' administration to the province. (See B.C., Sessional Papers, 12th\nPari., 2d sess., 1912, p. N7.)\n22 Canada, Statutes, 1912, 2 Geo. V, c. 47.\n 124 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nRailway Belt, which would have to be administered under a statute\nno longer in force.\nThe difficulty was resolved the next year by the enactment of the\nnew dominion Railway Belt Water Act of 1913.23 Under section 5,\nall waters within the Railway Belt were to be administered by\nBritish Columbia and all records issued by the province were to\nbe regarded as valid grants. Section 6 stated that all provincial\nwater acts were to apply to the Railway Belt even though they had\nbeen enacted for the provincial lands alone. In this way, subject\nonly to grants made by Canada during the period, all records issued\nby the province within the Belt since 1884 were held to be as valid\nas though they had been issued for territory outside the Railway\nBelt, and the provincial Water Consolidation Act of 1911, with its\namendments, was to apply to all land in the province irrespective\nof where it was located. Consistency of administration was now\npossible.\nAfter 1913 a further adjustment was made between the two\ngovernments to permit landowners to co-operate in the construction and operation of water systems, but the major difficulties had\nbeen resolved. Although the dominion government reserved the\nright to abrogate the agreement at any time, for all intents the\nprovincial government had become guardian or trustee of the\nDominion's interest in the water within the Railway Belt. The\nDominion continued to exercise a careful check on activities within\nthe Belt by virtue of its control of the lands, since it had to protect\nthe extensive timber interests within the Belt. The lands were controlled and administered under the Railway Belt Act of 190624\nand under section 9 of the 1930 Water Act, which expressly\nreserved to the Dominion control over all its land.\nSettlement of the dispute served to strengthen the authority of\nthe Board of Investigation by permitting it to proceed with its\ninterrupted investigation of every record, regardless of when issued\nor by whom. The Board set June 1, 1916, as the final date for the\nfiling of riparian owners' claims. Once they were settled, the entire\nprovince was again to be covered by the record or licence system\nof diverting water for beneficial use begun in 1859 by Governor\nDouglas.\n23 Canada, Statutes, 1913, 3-4 Geo. V., c. 45.\n24 Canada, Revised Statutes, 1906, c. 59.\n CHAPTER 8\nThe Railway Belt to 1884\nThe promise to link British Columbia with Canada by a railway\nwas made during the Confederation negotiations in Ottawa, and\nArticle n of the Terms of Union provided in part that:\nThe Government of the Dominion undertake to secure the commencement simultaneously, within two years from the date of\nUnion, of the construction of a railway from the Pacific towards\nthe Rocky Mountains, and from such point as may be selected,\nEast of the Rocky Mountains towards the Pacific, to connect the\nseaboard of British Columbia with the railway system of Canada;\nand further, to secure the completion of such railway within ten\nyears from the date of the Union.1\nBecause optimism prevailed and because it was believed that British\nColumbia would not be interested in Union without provision for\na transportation link, little concern was felt about the practicality\nof implementing this clause, either in Victoria or in Ottawa. And\nwhen, in addition, public thinking about the completion of this\ngrandiose scheme was crystallized by the dominion government\nitself as of:\nvast importance, not only to the political and commercial interests of Canada, as tending to the closer union of its several\nProvinces, but also to the British Empire at large, as affording\nrapid and direct communication through British Territory with\nher Australian and Asiatic possessions .. .2\n1 Canada, Statutes, 1872, 35 Vict., p. xcii.\n2 From the preamble to the original act of incorporation of the Canadian\nPacific Railway, ibid., c. 73.\n 126 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nit was fully expected that if the financial burden were to prove\nexcessive for Canada's meagre resources, British assistance would be\nforthcoming.\nBefore he left Washington in May of 1871 after maintaining his\nwatching brief on the writing of the Treaty of Washington, Sir\nJohn A. Macdonald was reasonably sure of obtaining this aid. He\nhad discovered that Britain had no intention of compensating\nCanada, nor of pressing the American government to do so, for the\nlosses suffered from the Fenian raids. When it was intimated to him\nthat Britain would proffer some unofficial balm to Canada's\nwounded pride, Macdonald is said to have \"stiffly refused,\" and to\nhave suggested how much more convenient for Canada it would be,\nand how distinctly more compatible with national dignity, were the\nBritish government to guarantee a large loan for the construction\nof the transcontinental railway.3\nThe aid was given as Macdonald expected. When the loan of\n\u00C2\u00A32,500,000 was being discussed in the British House of Commons\non June 24, 1873, it was suggested that it was in the form of a\nbribe for Canada's concessions in regard to the fisheries clause of\nthe Treaty of Washington, but Prime Minister Gladstone hotly\ndenied the accusation, saying that the money had no connection\nwith the treaty. Its object, he explained, was not to give Canada a\ncertain amount of hush-money, but simply to recognize her just\ndemands on England on account of the Fenian raids.4\nLulled by the buoyant spirit of the day, it was ten years before\nthe dominion government fully realized what a tremendous obligation had been assumed. Difficulties over the building of the line\nbrought down Macdonald's government within a year of the passing\nof his first Canadian Pacific Railway Company Act. The same\ndifficulties led to very strained relations between the provincial and\nthe federal governments, as well as between the mainland and\nisland sections within the province. Before all problems were\nresolved and the railway an actuality, three Governors General had\ncome to British Columbia in connection with railway matters \u00E2\u0080\u0094\nEarl Dufferin, the Marquis of Lome, and the Marquis of Lans-\ndowne. Had the federal authorities not realized that railroad union\nalone could make the political union a fact, and that the transcontinental line would be a vital link in the \"all-red route\" between\n3 J. B. Brebner, North Atlantic Triangle (Toronto: Ryerson, 1945), p. 193.\n4 Great Britain, Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, 3d ser. (1873), 1326-27.\n THE RAILWAY BELT TO 1884 127\nBritain and the Orient and Antipodes, British Columbia might have\nremained a British colony.\nThe construction of the line, however, was not a provincial problem. That was up to the federal government. All that was required\nof the province was to fulfil the bargain contained in the remaining\nportions of section 11:\nAnd the Government of British Columbia agree to convey to the\nDominion Government, in trust, to be appropriated in such\nmanner as the Dominion Government may deem advisable in the\nfurtherance of the construction of the said railway, a similar\nextent of public lands along the line of the Railway, throughout\nits entire length in British Columbia, not to exceed, however,\nTwenty (20) Miles on each side of the said line, as may be\nappropriated for the same purpose by the Dominion Government\nfrom the public lands in the North-West Territories and the\nProvince of Manitoba. Provided, that the quantity of lands which\nmay be held under pre-emption right or Crown grant within the\nlimits of the tract of land in British Columbia shall be made good\nto the Dominion from contiguous public lands; and, provided,\nthat until the commencement within two years, as aforesaid, from\nthe date of the Union, of the construction of the said Railway,\nthe Government of British Columbia shall not sell or alienate any\nfurther portions of the public lands of British Columbia in any\nother way than under right of pre-emption, requiring actual residence of the pre-emptor on the land claimed by him.\nThe government members in Ottawa were pressed closely for an\nexplanation of how they proposed to pay for a railroad through\nsuch a \"sea of mountains\" as British Columbia was reported to be\nif reliance had to be placed on a strip of land, however wide, in\nsuch a wilderness. The financial details were gone over in the House\nevery day the matter came up for discussion, and on every occasion\nthe government sought to impress upon doubtful members the fact\nthat the utmost cost would be a mere $100,000,000, all of which\nwould be paid out of the land grant. Sir George E. Cartier, government leader in the absence of Macdonald, said that:\nWhile this clause was under discussion between the delegates and\nthe Government it was proposed by the Dominion that the\ncolony should hand over a forty mile strip of land towards the\nconstruction of the railway. That would be 24,000 square miles\nof land, or 50,360,000 acres of land, not merely agricultural land,\nbut mineral land. Placing that land at $1.00 per acre it would\n 128 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nequal a grant of $50,360,000 towards the construction of the\nrailway.5\nCartier assured the House not only that the cost would be a manageable one for the country, but also that there would be no\nincrease in taxation. Although this announcement was greeted with\ncheers, it was all the ministry could do to scrape by on several\nmotions put during the debate.6 When questioned concerning the\nvalue of the lands to be conveyed by the province, Alexander\nMorris, minister of inland revenue, said that:\nHe could state on the undisputable authority of Mr. Trutch, the\nSurveyor General of British Columbia, that taking the whole of\nBritish Columbia and Vancouvers Island fully one third, or about\n50,000,000 acres was good farming land, while the whole acreage\nof Ontario was 77,000,000 acres.7\nIn view of the amazing amount of misinformation that came out\nin the debate concerning British Columbia, and in view of the\nmagnitude of the task ahead of the federal government, it is not\nsurprising that to many disinterested persons in 1871, the agreement seemed almost impossible to fulfil. The fate of the resolution\nmight have been very different had the government not agreed that\nthe undertaking should be carried out by private enterprise not the\ndominion government and that it should be assisted by such liberal\ngrants of land and such subsidy in money or other aid, without\nincreasing the rate of taxation, as Parliament should determine.8\nWhatever the opposition in Ottawa may have been to the terms,\nthey were accepted in good faith in British Columbia. The statutory\nauthority under which British Columbia had been able to make\nthe contract was to be found in section 49 of the Land Ordinance,\n1870, the \"Free Grants\" section:\n5 Canada, Parliamentary Debates (1871), 662. The 50,360,000 acre figure,\nalthough quoted twice, must surely have been a clerical error. The figure\nshould read 15,360,000.\n6 Although the government usually could rely on a three-to-one majority, one\nmotion against acceptance of the Terms was lost by only ten votes. The\nnumbers were seventy-five to eighty-five. Eighteen regular supporters of the\nministry voted for the motion of non-acceptance and many other declined to\nvote. (See: Canada, Parliament, House of Commons, Journals, ist Pari., 4th\nsess., 1871, pp. 161-67.)\n7 Canada, Parliamentary Debates, 26 (1871), 714. This was not to be the only\ninstance in which either through ignorance or design Trutch was to mislead\nthe federal government. See chapters 11 to 13 for his role in the disposition\nof Indian reserves.\n8 Canada, Journals, ist Pari., 4th sess., 1871, pp. 264-65.\n Plate 2. Lord Edward Bulwer Lytton. Plate 3. Colonel R. C. Moody.\nPlate 4. Sir James Douglas Taking the Oath of Office as Governor of British Columbia,\nNovember 19, 1858.\n?p!5f^ #. w*m\nBR l^i^i\nI i3j-jdftj\nit^H IsL-Mr ^L.j\u00C2\u00A39Ih\nfcfeS^*- . a|<|i\nH p^ iH\ni!f^? f%^H\ni\u00C2\u00A3fl[ &to, **\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 --#^9\n Plate 5. Reputedly the D. L. Clynch, the First Ocean-going Vessel to Enter the Fraser\nRiver at New Westminster.\nPlate 6. Sawmill at Chemainus, 1902.\n Canadian pacific 1Raiiwa\u00C2\u00A3 Company\nCITY OF VANCOUVER\n- PRiGE M87 0F G*7\u00C2\u00A5 L0T8 |\nIN LOT 541, FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE GRANVILLE TOWN SITE\nGranville Street, Corners, (North of Nelson St.), $1250 : Others,\n(South of Nelson St.), 1000\n1250\nHastings\nCordova\nPender\nDunsmuir\nGeorgia\nRobson\nSmithe\nNelson\nHelmcken\nDavie\nDrake\nPacific\n$750 ;\n75o\n.750\n75o\n600\n600\nfxx>\n500\n400\n1250 \u00E2\u0096\u00A0 \t\n1000 \" \t\n, between Dunsmuir and Lane ..\nGeorgia and Dunsmuir\n\" Robson and Georgia . .\nSmith and Robson . .\nv< Nelson and Smith\n\" Helmcken and Nelson\nDavie and Helmcken | .\n\" Drake and Davie\nPacific and Drake\nCONDITIONS OF SALE\n$1000\n750\nlOOO\nIOOO\n750\n500\n500\n500\n500\n400\n400\n400\n250\nnonths,\nth\nPayments one-third cash, one-third in six months, and one-third in twcl\ninterest at 6 per cent, per annum.\nA discount from the purchase price will be allowed if buildings are erected by the\npurchaser within one year as follows:\nFor buildings on each lot, worth $2000 or over, 20 per cent.\nFor buildings on each lot worth $5000 or over, 30 per cent.\nRebates to be deducted from the payment first succeeding the completion of the buildings;\nbut in case two or more lots are taken, only the lot or lots actually built upon shall be entitled\nto the rebate.\nParties erecting permanent buildings-to the satisfaction of the Agent of the Trustees, will\nbe accorded an extension of time on the second and third payments at his discretion, but not\nexceeding two years.\nFor lots that have been cleared by the Company the purchaser will be required to pay\nthe net cost of clearing in addition to the list price.\nThe Agent of the Trustees claims the right to depart at any time from this schedule of\nprices and conditions of sale.\nH. ABBOTT\nVancouver, June ist, 1886. Agent for Trustees\nPlate 7. C.P.R. Price List for City Lots in the Granville Townsite.\n Plate 8. The Mint, New Westminster, 1862.\nPlate 9. The Land Registry Office, New Westminster.\n Plate 10. D. B. Charleson's Camp near Fraser Mills, 1890.\nSfeJlil Plate 11.\n$*SJg Gold-Washing, 18\nLI\n I\nMn\nPlate 12. H.M.S. Cormorant in Esquimalt Graving Dock in 1887.\nPlate 13. Hudson's Bay Company Store at Yale, 1883.\nm^m&ak\n Plate 14. Songhees Indian Reserve, Victoria Harbour, Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway\nTrestle in Background.\nPlate 15. Testing of the Howe Trestle of the Crow's Nest Railway, December 12, 1897.\nUi\n Plate 16. Arrival of First Transcontinental Train at Vancouver, May 23, 1887.\nPlate 17. Joseph W. Trutch.\n Plate 18. Kootenay Indians, Chief Isadore and Council.\nPlate 19. Okanagan Indians,\nGoastamana, Son of Chief Kala- Plate 20. Okanagan Indians, Mrs. Josephine\nmalka, Long Lake Reserve. Gregoire and Children, Long Lake Reserve.\n*fei\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0#\nw*m\n11\nM\nL\n Plate 21. Peter O'Reilly.\nPlate 22. Dr. I. W. Powell.\n m\n THE RAILWAY BELT TO 1884 129\nIt shall be lawful for the Governor in Council to make such\nspecial free or partially free grants of the unoccupied and unappropriated Crown lands of the Colony, for the encouragement\nof immigration or other purposes of public advantage.\nNot without some justification, the dominion government considered this clause to be inadequate authority for a grant as extensive as that proposed. Hence the 1875 Land Act authorized the\nreserve of any lands not otherwise lawfully held \"for the purpose of\nconveying the same to the Dominion Government, in trust, for ...\nrailway purposes, as mentioned in Article 11 of the Terms of\nUnion.\"9 To facilitate the progress of provincially incorporated\nlines, an additional clause in 1891 authorized the grant of a right\nof way not to exceed 100 feet in width, through crown lands, to\nany railway company incorporated within the province. Any land\nneeded for terminal purposes, stations, sidings, wharves, warehouses,\nbridges, culverts, drains and other works could also be granted to\nthe company.10\nEven before the Dominion questioned the authority under which\nthe province could undertake to convey lands, and two years before\nthe province authorized the grant of the Island Railway Belt from\nEsquimalt to Nanaimo,11 trouble arose between the two governments over the projected land grant. The first session of the British\nColumbia legislature had appointed a select committee to investigate the legality of certain land sales made since 1870.12 Section\n20 of the 1865 Land Ordinance had permitted any owner of 160\nacres to pre-empt a further 480 acres of waste crown land contiguous to his own land at the reduced price of two shillings, one penny\nan acre. The second section of the 1870 Ordinance repealed this\nclause, but it stated that \"such repeal shall not prejudice or affect\nany rights acquired or payments due . .. prior to the passing of this\nOrdinance.\"13 Subsequently, several assistant land commissioners\nhad permitted holders of 160-acre settlements to purchase the additional acreage at fifty cents an acre. On July 2, 1872, Premier\n9 B.C., Statutes, 1875, 38 Vict, no. 5, s. 60.\n10 B.C., Statutes, 1891, 54 Vict., c. 15, s. 17.\n11 B.C., Statutes, 1875, 38 Vict, no. 13. This grant was repealed by B.C.,\nStatutes, 1882, 45 Vict., c. 16.\n12 \"Report of a Select Committee ... in respect to legalizing Sales of Land in\nthe Province, since 1870,\" B.C., Journals, ist Pari., 2d sess., 1872-73, appendix, Sessional Papers.\n13 See Appendix A, s. 2.\n 130 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nand Attorney-General J. F. McCreight gave his opinion that these\nrecent acquisitions were illegal. The government immediately notified all purchasers that their lands must be surrendered and that\ntheir money would be returned. McCreight suggested an appeal to\nthe legislature, but A. Rocke Robertson, chairman of the select\ncommittee, said that \"the Provincial Government holds itself disabled by the nth Article of the Terms of Union to pass an Act\nlegalizing the purchases made under the circumstances above set\nforth.\"14\nThis was the first concrete instance of the problems which\ndeveloped in British Columbia as a result of the reservation placed\non its lands. Lieutenant-Governor Trutch's speech from the throne\nto the second session of the legislature which opened on December\n17, 1872, pin-pointed the difficulty.\nIn consequence of the Railway clause of the terms of union\npreventing free grants of lands and other equally insuperable\ndifficulties, no practical result in the way of introducing new\nsettlers into the Province has been attained.15\nBut hopes were still high in the new province that with the promise\nof a railway immigration would increase, business would prosper,\nand labour would be in great demand. So convinced of this was the\nprovince that on February 21, 1873, the legislature passed an act\nimposing a tax of four cents an acre on all wild land in the province.\nWilliam Smithe, one of the two members for Cowichan, had introduced the bill in the first session early in 1872. In moving the bill,\nhe said that the tax should be imposed on \"unoccupied and uncultivated Country Lands, with a view to preventing speculation therein.\"16 However, McCreight, a good lawyer if not a first-rate rough-\nand-tumble politician, reserved the bill for the consideration of the\nGovernor General on the grounds that it could apply to \"land\nhereafter appropriated for Railway purposes.\"17\nSir John A. Macdonald, as minister of justice, disallowed the act\nwhen it reached Ottawa. Although the tax did not apply to lands\nvested in or held in trust for the Crown or for public uses of the\n14 \"Report of a Select Committee ... [on] Sales of Land,\" s. 6.\n15 B.C., Journals, ist Pari., 2d sess., 1872-73, p. 2.\n16 B.C., Journals, ist Pari., ist sess., 1872, p. 17.\n17 \"Return ... relative to the four Acts of last Session which were reserved\n...,\" B.C., Journals, ist Pari., 2d sess., 1872-73 appendix, Sessional Papers.\n THE RAILWAY BELT TO 1884 131\nprovince, Macdonald felt that the act would tend to discourage\nprivate capital on which he depended for the building of the railway. He said:\nThe Government of Canada are taking active steps to endeavour\nto induce capitalists to engage in the great undertaking of constructing a Railway to connect the two Oceans.\nThe chief inducement to such capitalists, is the promise of a\nlarge grant of Land in aid of the enterprise, and the imposition of\nsuch a Tax upon these Railway Lands, would greatly diminish the\nprospect of a Company being formed.18\nA new act was passed in 1873 levying the same rate of tax on\nlands of non-residents, but exempting all property then or later to\nbe held as railway lands.19 The looked-for rush of settlers did not\ndevelop, and in spite of the somewhat meagre returns to the Treasury from the Wild Land tax, the government increased the tax in\n1876 to five cents an acre on top of the rate levied on all land. The\ncollapse of the railway negotiations in the mid-seventies, the depression that settled on the province, and the serious financial problems\nwhich the government had to face made any source of revenue,\nhowever small, highly desirable. In spite of road expenditures\namounting to 57 per cent of the total cost of government in 1875,20\nthe interior remained almost empty. Some of the blame for this\nstagnant condition was laid on the dominion government for not\nhaving begun the railway construction. In an effort to lighten the\nburden of road construction, the government had been levying a\ntoll on all goods entering the mining and cattle regions over the\nCariboo road. The free grant policy appeared of dubious value to\nthe settler if the taxation on his land had to be sufficiently heavy\nto carry the building costs of roads in such a territory as the Fraser\nCanyon. Although the federal government pointed out in 1876\nthat the collection of the half cent a pound on all goods entering\nthe Fraser Canyon was infringing on its prerogative of regulating\ntrade and commerce, Edward Blake, the minister of justice,\nrefrained from disallowing the legislation. He was too well aware\nof the hostility already prevalent in British Columbia toward the\nM Ibid, p. 8.\n19 B.C., Statutes, 1873, 36 Vict., no. 11. Railway land was not specifically\nnamed until the new act of 1876.\n20 Total government expenditure in 1875 was $833,396.79; of this, road maintenance and construction was allotted $413,160. (See \"Report of the Chief\nCommissioner of Lands and Works ... 1875.\")\n 132 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nMackenzie government's railway policy. He contented himself with\npointing out that, in effect, the toll charge was placing the chief\nburden of constructing the public roads of the province upon consumers of imported goods.21\nIt was a different matter, however, when the provincial government proposed to raise the toll charge to one cent a pound in\n1878.22 The correspondence between the Canadian Pacific officials,\nthe dominion government, and the provincial government which\npreceded the passing of the act reflected the atmosphere surrounding the building of the railway so long as Walkem was premier\nof British Columbia and Mackenzie prime minister of Canada.\nThe province, implacable in its demands to have the railway built\non schedule and determined that the contractors should contribute\nhandsomely to help pay for the roads to the interior made necessary\nby the non-existence of a railroad, adopted what proved to be\nboth an untenable and a short-sighted policy.\nFrom his reading of the Victoria Colonist in the spring of 1878\nwhile the bill was being discussed in the legislature, John Robson,\nthen paymaster and surveyor for the Port Moody to Kamloops\nsection of the Canadian Pacific, knew that the proposed road tolls\nwere large enough to cripple the railway construction. On August\n9 he wrote to Premier Walkem that the imposition of such a toll\nas proposed by the bill would not fail to impede seriously, \"if, indeed,\nit would not render . .. practically impossible,\" work to begin next\nspring just beyond the toll gate. He asked for an exemption on all\nrailway material.23\nWalkem's reply two days later was hardly reassuring:\nIn reply to your letter of the 9th inst., recommending the inconvenience of applying the Road Tolls Act to railway plant, or\nmaterial passing the Yale toll gate, I have to assure you that\nwhenever construction is commenced, the government will afford\nevery facility for its being carried on expeditiously, and so far as\nthey are concerned, as cheaply as possible, arrangements just to\nthe Dominion and province, can then be made.24\nRobson felt that Walkem's conception of justice in this case would\n21 Hodgins, Dominion and Provincial Legislation, 1:1040-41.\n22 The charge was raised to one cent per pound under authority of the Cariboo\nWaggon Road Tolls Amendment Act, B.C., Statutes, 1878, 41 Vict., c. 37,\ns. 2.\n23 Hodgins, Dominion and Provincial Legislation, 1:1069-70.\n24 Ibid., 1070.\nUi\n THE RAILWAY BELT TO 1884 133\nnot be to his liking. He had read the speech from the throne,\nwritten by Walkem, for the opening of the legislature on July 29,\n1878, which had said \"I would remind you that the time has come\nwhen delay in the construction of the work, both on the mainland\nand the island, can no longer be justified,\" and that the time had\ncome \"to take measures much more decisive than the mere entry\nof protest\" which had been \"systematically disregarded\" by the\nDominion. Robson had also read Walkem's lengthy address to the\nQueen in which, after outlining the injurious effects which the constant delays were having, he had moved the secession resolution.25\nIn his reply, Robson pointed out as diplomatically as he could\nthat Walkem's assurances were not \"altogether satisfactory.\"\nBecause, he said, the Yale section was to be placed under contract\nthe next spring, the one cent per pound toll would exert a \"most\nserious influence upon tenders,\" since the contractors would make\nallowances for the toll charges, charges which \"it seems hardly\nnecessary to add .. . must amount to something enormous\" on all\nrailway plant and supplies. Warming to his subject, he continued:\nI beg, therefore, most respectfully to submit that however willing\nyour government might be to meet the Dominion government in\na fair and liberal spirit \"whenever construction is commenced,\"\nthe remedy would have come too late, as the tenders would have\nbeen sent in and the contract awarded at the greatly increased\nprice, or what is far more likely to happen, the tenders would\nbe rejected on account of undue appreciation in prices thus\noccasioned, and instead of the province \"making a haul\" out of\nthe Dominion, its interests and revenues would suffer on account\nof consequent delay in railway construction.26\nFor these reasons, Robson asked for the insertion of a clause exempting railway supplies and materials.\nConvinced that he could look for no remedy from the province\nin the mood then prevailing, Robson forwarded all correspondence\nto the federal Department of Public Works on August 17. That\ndepartment lost no time in bringing Walkem to task. On September\n4, Robson was able to report that a partial concession had been\nmade and that the bill had been sent back to the House for the\ninsertion of an exemption clause. He pointed out, however, that\nthe exemptions were only on \"plant and material\" used by the\n25 B.C., Journals, 2d Pari., 3d sess., and 3d Pari., ist sess., 1878, pp. 105-7.\n26 August 13, 1878, in Hodgins, Dominion and Provincial Legislation, 1:1070.\n 134 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nrailway company itself, that the exemption did not apply to supplies\nemployed or consumed in construction, and that the modicum of\nrelief offered was made dependent on a revocable Minute of the\nExecutive, \"rather insecure ground it is to be apprehended for contractors to go upon in tendering for the work.\" The charge of\ntwenty dollars a ton on all contractors' supplies to be used \"within\nthe shadow of the toll gate\" he considered not only enormous but\nunjust.27 Because he had reason to suspect that the measure was a\ndeliberate attempt to operate prejudicially against construction at\nYale, Robson asked that the measure be disallowed two days after\nit had passed the provincial House on September 2, 1878.\nThe Minister of Justice, James Macdonald, disallowed the bill\nnot only because it imposed unfair charges on the dominion\nexchequer, but also because it interfered with trade and commerce.28\nWhen Robson was asked to give reasons for his suspicions that the\nTolls Act was a deliberate attempt to frustrate construction of the\nrailway, he explained that he had definite proof that the words\n\"and supplies\" had been erased from the exemption clause when it\nhad come before the legislature, and that a full discussion had taken\nplace in the House as to whether supplies should have been\nincluded or not. However, the imposition of such a tax on the\ncontractors' supplies had almost become a point of honour with\nWalkem. Exactly the same bill which had been disallowed once\nwas re-introduced and passed through the House a second time on\nMay 8, 1880.29 Moreover, a second act was passed setting the toll\non all rice carried over the road at two cents, double the levy on\nall other goods.30 Both acts were disallowed.31 It is only fair to add\nthat Walkem had not begun the agitation against the Chinese and\nthat, although the heavy toll placed on rice was aimed directly at\nthe Chinese labourers imported by the Canadian Pacific Company,\nhe was simply giving expression to the general attitude toward\nChinese.\nStill unwilling to let the dominion government proceed unmolested, Walkem continued. He registered protests over the failure of\n27 Robson to Department of Public Works, September 4, 1878, ibid., 1:1071.\n28 Canada Gazette, October 4, 1879, p. 471.\n29 Cariboo Waggon Road Tolls Amendment Act, B.C., Statutes, 1880, 43 Vict.,\nc. 28.\n30 An Act respecting Tolls on the Cariboo Waggon Road, ibid., c. 29.\n31 Canada Gazette, July 29, 1881, p. 143.\n THE RAILWAY BELT TO 1884\n135\n 136 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nthe Dominion to open the lands in the Railway Belt to settlement.\nThese lands had been reserved by the province since August 3,\n1878; since their transfer to the Dominion in 1880, no regulations\nhad been issued to facilitate their settlement. The failure to do so,\nWalkem protested, had resulted in great injury to provincial\ndevelopment. Both in 1881 and 1882 he complained bitterly to\nOttawa about the situation, and asked that the Belt be opened\nimmediately to settlement.32 Finally with the selection of the Kicking Horse Pass route in 1882 and the establishment of Port Moody\n32 B.C., Sessional Papers, 3d Pari., 4th sess., 1881, p. 146, and B.C., Sessional\nPapers, 4th Pari., ist sess., 1883, p. 349. Typical of the complications which\narose from the Dominion's delay in constructing the railway was a dispute\nover reclaimed lands in the lower Fraser Valley. On April 10, 1878, four\nmonths before the reserve was replaced on the railway lands on the mainland,\nthe provincial government authorized E. L. Derby, an engineer from California, to construct a line of dykes in the Chilliwack-Sumas-Matsqui area\nto reclaim some 50,000 acres of land subject to periodic overflow from the\nFraser River. As a statute in effect since 1873 empowered the government to\ngrant crown lands to anyone willing to undertake a reclamation scheme (The\nDrainage, Dyking, and Irrigation Act. B.C., Statutes, 1873, 36 Vict., no.\n10.), the 1878 act was simply to stipulate the amount of land Derby should\nreceive in return for his dyking. Providing he should 'Veil and effectually\ndyke all the said Lands\" by July 1, 1880, he was to be given 45,000 acres\nin the Chilliwack-Sumas region, including Sumas Lake, and 6,000 acres at\nMatsqui. (Sumas Dyking Act. B.C., Statutes, 1878, 41 Vict., c. 6.) Derby\ndid not meet his commitments, and the Matsqui section, the only one on\nwhich any work was done, gave way each spring. Finally, in 1881, Derby\nassigned his entire interest to G. B. Sword, who later in the year received a\ncrown grant of the 6,000 acres at Matsqui. When Derby failed to dyke the\neastern portions of the land, a group of twelve men, including such public\nfigures as C. A. Vernon, B. W. Pearse, J. R. Hett, R. G. Tatlow, J. D.\nPemberton, and C. E. Pooley, requested authority to undertake the reclamation of the land they described as \"cranberry marsh, continually flooded, and\nworthless until reclaimed.\" (See B.C., Sessional Papers, 5th Pari., ist sess.,\n1887, pp. 365-66, for the correspondence.) The syndicate asked for and\nreceived permission to buy all the land they reclaimed at one dollar an acre.\nWithout any authority from the dominion government, the province had\nsanctioned the grant of 45,037 acres of dominion lands in the lower Fraser\nValley in 1878 to Derby. It was argued, of course, that the original agreement had been made before the railway reserve had been gazetted. But by a\nnew act in 1885 (An Act to amend the Sumas Dyking Act of 1878, B.C.,\nStatutes, 1885, 48 Vict., c. 9.), the province had cancelled the Derby agreement and offered the lands for sale to anyone willing to undertake the\nproject. The minister of justice in Ottawa promptly disallowed it, arguing\nthat when the act had been passed on March 5, 1885, the lands were described as crown land. But these lands automatically become dominion property the moment the Derby agreement was rescinded, since the Settlement\nAct of_ 1884 had transferred all public lands in the Railway Belt to the\nDominion. The provincial act was disallowed on March 16, 1886. But\nRobson, provincial secretary and minister of finance and agriculture,\nmanaged to get around the disallowance by persuading the Dominion to\nreconvey the disputed acreage to the province \"to make valid certain titles\nand interests which the province had undertaken to create therein\" (An\nAct to provide for the conveyance of certain lands in British Columbia,\nCanada, Statutes, 1889, 52 Vict, c. 7).\n THE RAILWAY BELT TO 1884 137\nas the terminus, British Columbia was called upon to convey to the\nDominion the Railway Belt. This conveyance had been made in\n1880, but as the route chosen at that time was through the Yellow-\nhead Pass, a new instrument of transfer became necessary.33 By\nthe time the route across the mountains had definitely been selected,\na further complication had developed as the result of Prime\nMinister Mackenzie's Railway Act of 1874.34 The findings of the\npreliminary surveys made by dominion surveyors had led to the\ninclusion in the act of a clause stating that the lands to be conveyed must be of \"fair average quality.\" It had been ascertained\nby then that not so much of the province was good land as members\nof the Macdonald government had led the House to suppose.\nTo settle all the questions which \"have so long agitated the public\nmind, and have tended to embitter the relations existing between\nthe two Governments,\"35 the newly elected Smithe government\nattempted early in 1883 to adjust all difficulties connected with the\nIsland Railway, the Esquimalt Graving Dock, the railway lands on\nthe mainland, and compensation for delay in the building of the\nCanadian Pacific Railway. Walkem's elevation to the bench as a\njudge of the Supreme Court in May of 1882 ended the provincial\npolicy of \"fighting Canada\" and cleared the way for settlement of\ndominion-provincial differences. In May, 1883,tne Smithe ministry\npassed \"An Act relating to the Island Railway, the Graving Dock,\nand Railway Lands of the Province.\"36 In their rush to settle all\nproblems left by the Walkem regime, members of the Smithe\ngovernment drew up the act too hastily. After a visit from Sir\nAlexander Campbell, minister of justice, the act was re-drafted and\npassed by the provincial legislature on December 19, 1883.37\n33 The Railway Belt through the Yellowhead Pass was conveyed by An Act to\ngrant Public Lands on the Mainland to the Dominion in aid of the Canadian\nPacific Railway (B.C., Statutes, 1880, 43 Vict., c. 11). The lands along the\nroute finally chosen were conveyed by an Act relating to the Island Railway,\nthe Graving Dock, and Railway Lands of the Province (B.C., Statutes, 1884,\n47 Vict., c. 14), known as the Settlement Act. For the history of the route\nchanges, see F. G. Roe, \"An Unsolved Problem of Canadian History,\" in\nCanadian Historical Association, Annual Report (1936), 65-77. For reasons\nwhy it had not been located farther south, see W. K. Lamb, \"A Bent Twig\nin British Columbia History,\" ibid. (1948), pp. 86-92.\n34 Canada, Statutes, 1874, 37 Vict., c. 14, s. 8(4). See Chapter 12, n. 23.\n35 \"Papers relating to the Island Railway, the Graving Dock, and Railway\nLands,\" B.C., Sessional Papers, 4th Pari., ist sess., 1883, p. 459.\n36 B.C., Statutes, 1883, 46 Vict., c. 14.\n37 B.C., Statutes, 1884, 47 Vict., c. 14.\n 138 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nThis act came to be known later as the Settlement Act. The\nforty-mile strip containing 10,976,000 acres was conveyed to the\nDominion for the third time together with a block of land of\n3,500,000 acres38 in the Peace River area. In addition 1,900,000\nacres on Vancouver Island39 was conveyed to the Dominion, to be\nturned over to some company which would undertake to build the\nline from Esquimalt to Nanaimo.40 The Dominion was also to pay\n$750,000 in cash to this company. Further, the Dominion was to\ntake over and complete the partly-built Esquimalt Graving Dock\nand to pay the province $250,000 for expenses already incurred on\nthat project.\nWhen the act came up for discussion in the federal House, it was\nably defended by Sir Charles Tupper, minister of railways and\ncanals, supported by the members from Victoria, Noah Shakespeare and E. Crowe Baker. It is probable that Sir Charles expected\nlittle debate on his bill, since Smithe himself, who was in Ottawa,\nhad assured him that his government was as anxious to clear up\nthe whole problem as was the federal government. Also the provincial administration had already passed the province's version of the\nbill. Two mainland members J. A. R. Homer of New Westminster\nand D. W. Gordon of Vancouver, objected strenuously to the terms\nby which the Dominion government would receive such large and\nvaluable tracts of British Columbia land. Sir Charles Tupper opened\nthe debate, discussing at length the Railway Belt and the \"in\nlieu of\" lands in the peace River.\nIt was found, owing to the location of the land by the the gorges\nof the Fraser, that a question arose as to whether the land was\nto be horizontal or perpendicular, as in many cases you would\npass a mile or a long distance from the railway without reaching\nany land available for cultivation. Those questions were presented and made the subject of discussion between Mr. Trutch,\nthe agent of the Dominion Government, and the Government of\nBritish Columbia, and that Government finally made a proposal\nto the Government of Canada for the solution of these various\n38 The selection of the lands in the Peace River block was not made until 1907.\n39 See Vancouver Land and Railway Company Act, B.C., Statutes, 1882, 45\nVict., c. 15, s. 18, for the legal description of the land.\n40 On the advice of Victoria, \"His Excellency the Governor-General was\npleased\" to name Robert Dunsmuir, John Bryden, James Dunsmuir, Charles\nCrocker, Charles F. Crocker, Leland Stanford, and Collis P. Huntington as\na \"body corporate and politic,\" under the name of the \"Esquimalt and\nNanaimo Railway Company\" to construct the line. (See Canada, Statutes,\n1884, 47 Vict., c. 6, Schedule, pp. 63-68.)\n THE RAILWAY BELT TO 1884 139\nquestions. That was in 1883, and the result of those proposals\nwas that a new Act was passed, again appropriating the land in\nthe twenty mile belt on each side of the line, on a new arrangement.\nTurning to the problem of the Island railway, Sir Charles continued:\n... I am sure we all recognize the great importance of the\nconstruction of a railway between Nanaimo and Esquimalt. It\nis well known that although it is somewhat rocky and precipitous,\nand, to a considerable extent, barren country, there are valuable\ncoal mines contained within that area; and I have been told by\nsome of our friends from British Columbia that they have\nobjected to the terms of this proposal because it was handing over\nto a company the development of these mines. But it must not\nbe forgotten that, valuable as are these coal areas in Vancouver\nIsland, they have lain for a long time in a comparatively\nundeveloped state. With the exception of Mr. Dunsmuir's mine,\nand another one which has not been very successful, I believe\nthat up to this moment, practically, very little has been done in\ndeveloping those coal areas. We have reason to believe \u00E2\u0080\u0094 in fact\nI am informed by the able Premier of British Columbia, who is\nnow here, that he has applications for large tracts of coal mining\nareas believed to possess very valuable coal mines outside the\nsection that is covered by these resolutions.41\nTupper's speech was answered by J. A. R. Homer of New\nWestminster. Undoubtedly both Homer and Gordon knew that\ntheir opposition would not delay the bill for more than an hour or\nso, but it was characteristic of both men to oppose what they felt\nto be wrong. Homer said:\nIt is with regret, Mr. Speaker, that, owing to the conditions contained in the agreement on which the resolution is based, I cannot give it my support. It was supposed that after twelve months'\ndeliberation on the negotiation between the Dominion Government\nand the Government of British Columbia, the result would have\nbeen some compensation to that Province for the delay which\nhas occurred in carrying out the terms of Union. But, Sir, instead\nof that Province receiving any compensation according to this\nagreement, it is being relieved of property consisting of lands,\ntimber, coal, and other minerals to the value of $20,000,000, for\nwhich the Province is to receive a railway, seventy miles in\nlength, involving a cost of above $2,250,000.... With regard to\nthis railway to which we are asked to give 2,000,000 acres of land\non Vancouver Island, including 450 square miles of coal land, it\n41 Canada, House of Commons, Debates, 1884, pp. 1024-25, March 21, 1884.\n 140 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nis true that a small portion of these lands have been alienated,\nbut the greater portion of that which has been alienated is owned\nby one of the members of the present Company, thus creating the\ngreatest coal monopoly in existence. They do not expect to\nrealize their money from the railway, but out of the coal mines;\nand in addition to the Dominion Government granting this\nenormous monopoly, they are to receive $750,000.... With\nregard to the 3,500,000 acres of land on the Peace River,\naccording to the terms of Union, the Government of the\nDominion of Canada will receive from the Government of British\nColumbia a belt of land 20 miles wide on each side of the line,\nor in all, a belt forty miles wide along the entire line running\nthrough British Columbia, and for all the lands which were\nalienated from that belt previous to its being reserved, they are\nto receive other lands contiguous thereto. Now, it has been stated\nby the Minister of Railways that there are 800,000 acres of land\nalienated, but I think the honourable gentleman is under the\nmark. I think I am nearer correct when I say, that there are\n1,000,000 acres of land alienated, previous to the reserve being\nplaced on it, so that, as I contend, they are receiving 2,500,000\nacres more than they were entitled to under the terms of the\nUnion, thereby enabling them to subsidize this company with\n$750,ooo.42\nIn support of Homer's objections, Gordon of Vancouver informed\nthe House that the Dominion geological surveyor had computed\nproductive coal measures to amount to 300 square miles in the\nComox area alone, containing an estimated 4,800,000,000 tons of\ncoal.48 He felt this to be entirely too lavish a grant, particularly\nwhen considered along with the other clauses of the bill, notably the\nclause granting the acreage in the Peace River.\nGordon was then castigated by Noah Shakespeare of Victoria\nfor his opposition to the bill.\nIn almost every instance, when any large question has come\nbefore this Parliament, if it has been on the Island, the Mainland\nhas opposed it; if it has been on the Mainland the Island, has\nopposed it.44\nShakespeare had ample grounds for his exasperation, since the\npetty bickering between island and mainland was a frequent impediment to the progress of provincial affairs. Victoria members,\n42 Ibid., pp. 1026-27.\n48 Ibid., p. 1027.\n44 Ibid., p. 1029.\n THE RAILWAY BELT TO 1884 141\nintensely aware of the islanders' almost fanatic determination to\nhave a railway, could not be expected to see the whole problem as\nobjectively as could those from the mainland.\nSpeaking in support of the bill, E. C. Baker, also of Victoria,\nsuggested that as this bill had already passed the provincial legislature by a vote of fifteen out of twenty-five, he could see little reason\nfor lengthy discussion in Ottawa. He reported that he had been in\nthe local legislature when the vote had been taken and noticed that\nonly seven members voted against the bill, that two \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Dunsmuir\nand the member from Cassiar \u00E2\u0080\u0094 abstained, and that the twenty-fifth\nperson was the Speaker. In an attempt to help the Dominion recoup\nthe $750,000 which it was going to have to pay the new company,\nhe suggested that the Peace River block could readily be sold to a\n\"colonization scheme,\" the directors of which would gladly pay fifty\ncents an acre.45\nStill feeling it his duty as a member from Vancouver Island to convince the House that the Dominion would be losing nothing were\nthe measure to be passed, Baker pointed out the probable value to\nthe company of the lands they would receive for building the line\non the island. From the grant of 2,000,000 acres, the company\ncould derive $4,631,100; coal lands, $2,160,000; timber lands,\n$1,346,100; agricultural lands, $1,125,000. As the line from Esquimalt to Nanaimo would be seventy miles long, Baker drew the\nattention of the House to the fact that the company would receive\nforty square miles of land per mile of railway, or 25,600 acres,\nwhich, based on his calculation of one dollar per acre for timber land\nand five dollars per acre for agricultural land, was tantamount to a\ncash subsidy of $61,000 per mile.\nHomer, well aware of the extreme generosity of the dominion's\ngrant to the company for building the Island line, concluded the\ndebate with a word of prophecy:\nAs I said before ... the Government should hesitate before they\ngive away all this valuable property, as they will find in five or\nten years that the Local Government will have to come back to\nthem for assistance, instead of being able to open up various\nresources of the country.46\nShortly thereafter the vote was called and the Settlement Act\nbecame law.\n45 Ibid., p. 1034.\n46 Ibid., p. 1038.\n 142 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nWith its passage the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Company\nreceived not only a substantial land grant and the $750,000; it\nalso received all the coal, coal oil, ores, stones, clay, marble, slate,\nmines, minerals, and \"substances whatsoever in, or under the lands\nso to be granted\"; the foreshore rights in all its lands; the privilege\nof mining under the foreshore and the sea opposite and of retaining for their own use all coal and minerals under the foreshore;\nall the timber; and exemption from taxation on all property until\nalienated. Homer and Gordon's speeches show clearly that, even\nbefore it became law, some British Columbians realized the prodigality of the terms of the Settlement Act.\nIt would seem that Trutch, by now the dominion's confidential\nagent in British Columbia, was solely responsible for the inclusion\nof the Peace River block. Since the provincial government had\nalienated approximately 900,000 acres of Railway Belt lands\nbetween 1871 and 1883,47 it was reasonable that it should be\nexpected to make substitution elsewhere. But the dominion government went well beyond a reasonable expectation when it insisted\nthat since much of the land within the Belt was not of \"fair average\nquality,\" British Columbia must convey an equivalent in good\nlands elsewhere. R. E. Gosnell, the originator of the Better Terms\nmovement in British Columbia and the man who worked for over\ntwenty-five years to have the Railway Belt lands returned to the province, says that Trutch raised \"an issue never heard of before, namely,\nthat as the Railway Belt was largely useless, or unfit, for agricultural\npurposes, it should be supplemented by fertile lands elsewhere.\"48\nThis was indeed strange behaviour for the man who had assured\nthe dominion government in 1870 that at least 50,000,000 acres\nof land in British Columbia was good agricultural land and who,\nacting as though much of this acreage would be included in the\nRailway Belt, had written every word contained in article 11 of\nthe Terms of Union himself.49 Trutch's assurance had allayed any\nfears as to the quality of British Columbia land, so much so that\n47 This is the figure Gosnell used in 1913 in A History of British Columbia,\n2:125; writing in 1927, he lowered the figure to 800,000. (See R. E. Gosnell, Memorandum for the Hon. Mr. Justice Martin, Commissioner in re\nRailway Lands of British Columbia, Re Conveyance of Railway Belt and\nPeace River Lands to British Columbia [Ottawa, 1927], p. 19.)\n48 Gosnell, Memorandum for Mr. Justice Martin, p. 11.\n49 Ibid.\n THE RAILWAY BELT TO 1884 143\nCartier in 1871 had spoken not only of agricultural land for the\nsettlers who would be enticed into the province, but also of mineral\nland as an added inducement to immigrants. The quality of land\nin the Railway Belt had not been a consideration at the time of\nUnion, and the province was in no way bound to supplement it by\nland of a better quality.\nWherever responsibility lay for the terms of the Settlement Act,\nthe opinion held in British Columbia twenty years later was summed\nup by Premier McBride:\nBy the terms of the \"Settlement Act\" the Province, tired of\ndelays and wearied with fruitless negotiations, agreed to transfer\n3,500,000 [acres] of the best land in the Peace River District in\nlieu of expenditures on the part of the Dominion, amounting in\nall to about $1,100,000. These lands, worth now, at the lowest\nvaluation, $17,500,000, were parted with to secure a railway\nfrom Esquimalt to Nanaimo, costing less than $3,000,000, which,\nunder the Carnarvon Terms, the Dominion Government had\npledged itself to build without cost to the Province. The value\nof such concession was not then foreseen. The Treaty of 1871,\nas revised in 1884, was made in misapprehension of the possibilities of British Columbia and the development to accrue from the\nbuilding of the Canadian Pacific Railway.50\nBut these second thoughts lay in the future. Now that the long-\nnegotiated Settlement Act had finally been passed, the Smithe\ngovernment determined to do what it could to make up for the\ndelays of the past decade. Its first action was to remove the reserve\nwhich had remained since 1873 on crown lands in the province.\nOn May 9, 1884, the Dominion relinquished all claim to the land\nwest of Port Moody; the next day, a provincial Minute in Council\ncancelled the reserve which had been still in effect on these lands\nand threw them open for sale and pre-emption.51\nBut these lands west of Port Moody did not remain open long,\nfor it soon became obvious that the eastern end of Burrard Inlet\nwas not a satisfactory terminus for the Canadian Pacific Railway.\n\"Memorandum Re British Columbia's Claims for Special Consideration,\" in\n\"Report on Mission to Ottawa,\" B.C., Sessional Papers, 12th Pari., 3d sess.,\n1912, p. N9.\n\"Return to an Address for ... all correspondence between the Provincial\nand Dominion Governments ... relating to the reversion of the lands and\ntownsite of Granville,\" B.C., Sessional Papers, 5th Pari., ist sess., 1887, pp.\n325-6.\n 144 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nA government reserve was placed on the lands on August 7. With\nmore liberality than good sense, the Smithe government readily\nagreed on February 23, 1885, to grant an additional 6,000 acres\nwest of Port Moody to the Canadian Pacific Railway,52 plus a\nnumber of sizeable lots in Granville, for the extension of its line\ninto Coal Harbour, or Vancouver, as it was then being called. In\naddition, the company received from private owners a gift of one-\nthird of their holdings.53 For this twelve-mile extension of a line\nwhich, in its own interest, the Canadian Pacific Company would\nhave to construct anyway within a year or so, the gift of these 6,275\nacres by the Smithe government of what shortly became valuable\nland, was indeed a liberal gesture and one to which this same government was subsequently held to very strict account. These lots, previously held under timber lease by the Hastings Sawmill Company,\nsoon comprised the most valuable acreage in Vancouver. In all\njustice to Smithe and his colleagues, however, it should be explained\nthat they had ample precedent, and that these acres, like all other\nlands in the province, not only had been reserved from sale since\n1878, but also had been reserved specifically for railway purposes,\nand even tentatively had been transferred to the Dominion to this\nend. In the next year\u00E2\u0080\u00941886 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 the government continued its\ngenerous policy toward the Canadian Pacific Railway by granting\nit a bonus of $75,000 and a free right of way to construct its nine-\n52 For the full text of the agreement between the province and the C.P.R., see\nB.C., Sessional Papers, 5th Pari., 2d sess., 1888, pp. 545-46. Under section 2\nof the agreement the extension was to be completed by December 31, 1886;\nif not, the province could claim $250,000 from the company. The line was\nnot finished on time; on January 13, 1887, the province asked for the surrender of the bond. C. Drinkwater, secretary of the C.P.R., admitted that\nthe line had not been completed on schedule, but charged that this was so\n\"solely in consequence of the active interference of the judiciary of the\nProvince.\" The case was taken before Chief Justice Begbie of the B.C.\nSupreme Court, who gave his decision in favour of the province, (ibid.,\npp. 549-51). It is not without interest that only five days before the Minute\nin Council had been passed asking for the forfeiture of the $250,000 bond,\nH. Abbott, general superintendent of the C.P.R., had had to ask the provincial legislature for the $37,500 bonus promised by the government for the\ncompletion of the New Westminster branch line. A Minute in Council of\n21 st April, 1886, had agreed to pay the bonus, but the C.P.R. never received\nthe money.\n53 E. O. S. Scholefield and F. W. Howay, British Columbia, from the Earliest\nTimes to the Present (Vancouver: S. J. Clarke Publishing Co., [1914]),\n2:431. It was not long before litigation arose over the ownership of many\nlots in the Granville townsite. The C.P.R. protested that certain lots were\nbeing held by squatters, but in vain. (For the evidence regarding ownership,\nsee B.C., Sessional Papers, 6th Pari., 4th sess., 1894, 1143-48.)\n THE RAILWAY BELT TO 1884\nmile branch line from Vancouver to New Westminster.54 In law,\nthe extension from Port Moody into Vancouver and the line to\nNew Westminster are still branch lines.\n54 \"Return ... for ... all ... correspondence . .. between the Government of\nBritish Columbia . . . and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company [1887],\"\np. 321.\nRailway Belt Boundaries in the Lower Mainland\n CHAPTER 9\nThe Railway Belt after the Settlement Act\nOnce the Settlement Act had been passed, British Columbia anxiously awaited the advent of the railroad and settlers. Expecting that\nmost settlers would take up land near the railway, British Columbia's representatives had insisted on the insertion of a clause in the\nact by which the Dominion undertook \"with all convenient speed\"\nto offer for sale on liberal terms the land within its Railway Belt on\nthe mainland. As time passed the dominion government required\nconstant prodding, and there is no doubt that its failure to fulfil\nthis clause did retard settlement. The Dominion now owned outright much of what would then have been considered the most\ndesirable acreage in the province. The situation proved to be somewhat analogous to that of the Clergy Reserves in Upper Canada.\nSettlers had their choice of squatting on dominion land in the vain\nhope of having their claims to the land dealt with expeditiously,\nor of literally taking to the hills.\nThe problem became so acute that in the spring session of Parliament in 1886 Noah Shakespeare, M.P. for Victoria, moved the\ntabling of all correspondence between the British Columbia and\ndominion governments concerning the opening of the lands in the\nRailway Belt to settlement. He complained that although British\nColumbia had lived up to its obligations under the Settlement Act\n\"to the very letter,\" the dominion government had done \"little or\nnothing\" to carry out its obligations.\nThe lands referred to are practically withheld from settlement,\nand actual settlers, who have located, some of them, on these\nlands in good faith, are still unable to obtain the patents to\nwhich they are justly entitled. I am informed that some 3,000\n THE RAILWAY BELT AFTER THE SETTLEMENT ACT 147\napplications are on record in the office of the Agent of the\nDominion Government in British Columbia, and not one, that I\nam aware of, has received any satisfaction.... Nothing has\ntended to retard settlement in that Province more than the withholding of the patents to these lands from people who have\nlocated upon them. Many of these people became so discouraged\nthat they left the Province.1\nThomas White, the minister of the interior, did his best to extricate the government from an uncomfortable position. He regretted\n\"as much as the hon. gentleman does the delays that have taken\nplace,\" and promised to rectify matters by moving the agent, J. W.\nTrutch, and his assistant from New Westminster to Victoria, \"where\nhe would be of more easy access to settlers who desired to get their\npatents.\"2\nJ. A. R. Homer of New Westminster followed this conciliatory\nstatement with a few remarks which clearly demonstrated the\ninevitable divergence of opinion between island and mainland members. Though he did not deny Shakespeare's allegations, he\ndefended the Dominion's slowness to act on the grounds that such\na policy had prevented speculation in land, a problem which was\nsoon to become a very real one.\nThe policy pursued by the Government in relation to land in the\nrailway belt of British Columbia has been, although one of delay,\nthe means of placing those lands in the hands of actual settlers.\n... If a different policy, or a more hasty policy had been pursued by which those lands would have been put on the market\nfor sale, the probability is they would now have been in the hands\nof a few speculators, and that result would have proved very\ndetrimental to the settlement of the Province. No doubt there\nare some grievances ... but, whatever those grievances are, I\nfeel confident that under the energetic administration of the\nMinister of the Interior they will be speedily removed.3\nThree weeks later White moved leave to introduce Bill 120,\nwhose object was to bring the lands in the Railway Belt under the\njurisdiction of the Dominion Lands Board. Until now, he explained,\nthese lands had been administered by Trutch, the dominion government's agent, \"but, as he will cease to hold that office after the\n1 Canada, House of Commons, Debates, 1886, p.\n2 Ibid.\n3 Ibid., p. 497.\n 148 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nend of this year,4 and we now have railway communication which\nwill enable us to reach British Columbia easily,\" the lands should\nbe administered by the Dominion Lands Board. To facilitate\nmatters for settlers wishing to obtain patents on their land, he had\nalready ordered Trutch's assistant, Aikman, to move to New Westminster. Having questioned White closely regarding Trutch's fate,\nEdward Blake, leader of the opposition, made sure of the area to\nbe administered by the dominion board. \"This will include,\" he\nasked, \"in addition to the 40-mile railway belt, the lands given\nin the Peace River district?\" White replied that it would embrace\nall lands of the Dominion in British Columbia.5\nIn spite of the new administration promised for the Railway Belt\nlands, troubles continued to develop. In February of 1885 the dispute over jurisdiction of minerals in the Belt had led to a test case\nbeing taken to the courts.6 In April, the province complained\nbitterly of the Dominion's regulations for disposing of Railway Belt\nland, since these regulations differed in so many respects from those\n4 During the discussion on the bill, some interesting comments were made concerning Trutch. Peter Mitchell, former premier of New Brunswick (1865),\nand an ex-senator from that province (1867-74) wno had resigned his\nsenatorship so he could enter the House of Commons (1874-78, 1882-96),\ninsinuated that the whole dominion land administration policy in the Railway Belt was being subverted by Trutch. When the bill was introduced, he\nexpressed his delight at Trutch's removal and tendered his congratulations\nto White, saying, \"and so will all who know the circumstances connected\nwith the management of lands in British Columbia and the administration\nof Mr. Trutch. I am sure the change will be a great improvement,\" (ibid.,\np. 912). When the bill came up for second reading on May 11, 1886, White\nrepeated that \"Mr. Trutch's services are to be dispensed with.\" Edward\nBlake, leader of the Liberal opposition, then asked, \"What is to become of\nMr. Trutch, because I believe his services are very dear to the people of\nthat Province, as we know they have been to the country. Is he to be superseded altogether?\" With White's answer that he would require notice of that\nquestion, Blake was content, but not Mitchell. \"I should like to ask the\nMinister of the Interior,\" said Mitchell, \"whether there is any provision in\nthe Bill for the pet of the Administration . .. because I think it would be\nvery unfair, after he has been petted and pampered by the Government so\nlong, that he should not be provided for.\" Blake interjected, \"He will be,\"\nand Mitchell added, \"No doubt.\" White said nothing (ibid., p. 1202). As\nthe minister of marine and fisheries in Macdonald's government during the\nvisit of the B.C. Confederation Delegation in 1869, Mitchell may have met\nTrutch and formed a dislike of him, and it may be that, as a private member\nin 1886, he could voice opinions White, as a member of the cabinet, could not.\n5 Ibid., p. 1202. This is the first positive indication in the debates following\nthe Settlement Act that the federal government had retained all the unalienated portion of the Railway Belt in spite of having received the \"in lieu\nof\" lands in the Peace River.\n6 See p. 84.\n THE RAILWAY BELT AFTER THE SETTLEMENT ACT 149\nin force on contiguous provincial land.7 In 1887 the problem of\ndefining the northern and southern boundaries of the Belt throughout the width of the province arose. The first method to be used\nwas outlined by the Dominion in an Order in Council of May 27.\nA second one was proposed by British Columbia in its Minute in\nCouncil of August 24.* But by December of 1887, the local government had had enough of the endless complications arising from\ndominion jurisdiction over the most thickly settled strip of land in\nthe province. The Executive Council passed the following Minute:\nThe Committee ... submit that, apart from the impracticality\nof establishing satisfactory boundary lines, very great inconvenience and ever-recurring complications will arise from the\nadministration by the Dominion Government of a narrow and\nextremely irregular strip of land extending through the entire\nmainland part of the Province, while the whole of the public\ndomain, with the exception of said strip, is administered by the\nProvincial Government.\nThe Committee believe that it would be for the convenience\nof both Governments, as well as in the general interests of the\ncountry, that the belt along the line of railway should be\nexchanged for such an area of the public lands of the Province\n... as might be considered equivalent in value.9\nIt was suggested that 15,000,000 acres be accepted in lieu of the\nexisting Railway Belt.\nThe Minute was referred to Edgar Dewdney, now the minister\nof the interior in the dominion cabinet, for consideration and report.\nDewdney recommended that the question should not be considered\nat that time; \"It does not appear that such consideration would\nserve any useful purpose so long as the right to the minerals in the\nRailway Belt is still unsettled.\"10 When the Precious Metals Case\nwas settled in favour of the province in 1889, nothing further was\nheard of the proposal for exchanging land.\nOne problem at least was settled when the northern and southern\nboundaries of the Belt were determined in 1895.11 ^n tne same year\n7 See pp. 85-87. For the Orders in Council, correspondence with British Columbia or with Trutch, the Dominion's agent, as well as for a summary of lands\nappropriated in the Railway Belt from June 30, 1873 - October 25, 1880, see\nCanada, Sessional Papers, 4th Pari., 3d sess., 1880-81, no. 21 (k), pp. 23-51.\n8 These are listed in the preamble to the Railway Belt Act, B.C., Statutes,\n1895, 58 Vict., c. 18.\n9 B.C., Sessional Papers, 5th Pari., 4th sess., 1890, p. 401.\n10 B.C., Sessional Papers, 5th Pari., 3d sess., 1889, p. 165.\n11 B.C., Revised Statutes, 1911, 2 Geo. 5, c. 195.\n 150 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nprovincial legislation made it possible for pre-emptors and purchasers of land in the Belt to secure titles to their land which could\nbe registered under the provincial Registry Act.12 Since the\nDominion could not register any titles to land within the Belt, residents on these lands had been unable to obtain their patents.\nThough some problems had been settled, others took their place.\nIn 1906 the water rights case developed over the province's granting of a water record in the Railway Belt to the Burrard Power\nCompany at Lillooet Lake. And by the time it was settled in the\nprovince's favour in 1910 new problems had appeared.\nThe McBride ministry forwarded a resolution to Ottawa pointing out the \"urgent necessity of some action being taken looking to\nthe better settlement of lands in the Dominion Railway Belt\nthroughout the Province.\" The reply stated that although it had\nbeen found necessary to place a reserve on the lands in the\nColumbia Valley and Shuswap Lake areas in 1909, these lands\nwould soon be released once more for settlement. Meanwhile, it\nwas pointed out, all other lands were open.13\nFinally in 1906 the western boundary of the Railway Belt was\ndrawn. In terms comprehensible to surveyors only, the sinuosities\nof the boundary were outlined in detail. One more vexatious and\ncontentious issue was laid to rest.14\nThen later in 1911 came a near settlement of all the problems.\nThough Robson's offer in 1887 to exchange the Belt for 15,000,000\nacres in the Peace River had proved abortive, the province still\nsought a definitive solution to the steadily increasing problems. The\npublicity programme carried on through the office of the agent\ngeneral in London, combined with the efforts of the provincial\nbureau of information in Victoria, had resulted in the arrival of\nthousands of settlers. As population increased, so did the complications of divided land jurisdiction. On a mission to Ottawa with\nthe Attorney-General, W. J. Bowser, and the Minister of Lands,\nW. R. Ross, Premier McBride offered to purchase the Railway Belt\nand the Peace River lands. McBride's note to Prime Minister\nBorden on November 6, 1911, said:\n12 Railway Belt Act, B.C., Statutes, 1895, 58 Vict., c. 18.\n13 \"Reply ... to ... a respectful Address ... [on] the urgent necessity of some\naction being taken ... to the better settlement of lands in the Dominion\nRailway Belt ...,\" B.C., Sessional Papers, 12th Pari., 2d sess., 1911, p. M29.\n14 Railway Belt Definition Act., B.C., Statutes, 1906, 6 Edw. 7, c. 37.\n THE RAILWAY BELT AFTER THE SETTLEMENT ACT 151\nAs the settlement of British Columbia proceeds, it becomes more\nand more patent, we submit, that the development of the interests\nheld by the Dominion Government in these districts, in the way\nof settlement and occupation, can best be forwarded by administration through the local authorities. We are prepared, on behalf\nof British Columbia, to purchase outright the rights of the\nDominion in these properties. Pending a final settlement, the\nProvince will undertake to administer the lands under local laws\nand to account for all moneys received, less cost of administration,\nto the Federal Government.15\nHad the war not intervened, the case would have been settled by\na royal commission.\nIn 1927, Mr. Justice Martin of the Quebec Supreme Court was\nappointed Royal Commissioner to investigate the merit of the case\nMcBride had presented in 1911. In his brief to Martin, R. E.\nGosnell frankly admitted that \"from the strictly legal point of view,\nthe Province has not a leg to stand on, because whatever legal\nstatus she possessed prior to 1884, the Act of Settlement of that\nyear places British Columbia definitely out of court.\" He added,\nhowever, that it was \"not a question of law but of equity, the\nundoing of a constitutional injustice.\"16 To lend weight to the\nargument, Gosnell presented statistics to show that from 1871 to\n1926, the dominion revenue for homesteads, sales of land, parks,\nand timber in the Belt had amounted to $5,798,205. The expenditures for the same period for administrators' salaries, surveys,\nforestry, parks, and water power investigations had amounted to\n$7,637,826.17 Here was proof indeed that the province did not\nwant the lands for the sake of their revenue but merely to remove\nadministrative complications. In 1930 the Dominion turned the\nunalienated portions of the Railway Belt and Peace River block\nlands back to the province.18 Of the total area of 10,976,000 acres\nin the Belt, the Dominion had disposed of 4,920,500 acres; hence\nthe province received back 6,055,500 acres together with the Peace\nRiver lands.\" It is ironic that nearly fifty years of inconvenience,\ndispute, and litigation had to precede this simple solution.\n15 B.C., Sessional Papers, 12th Pari., 3d sess., 1912, p. N2.\n16 \"Memorandum for Mr. Justice Martin,\" p. 1.\n!7 Ibid., p. 16.\n18 The Railway Belt and Peace River Block Act, Canada, Statutes, 1930, 20-21\nGeo. 5, c. 37.\n19 The acreage alienated within the Belt had been disposed of as follows:\nHomesteads 732,400 acres\n 152 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nEven if the C.P.R. lands had been the only ones granted, opposition in the province could still hardly be blamed for deploring what\nit termed the \"give-away\" policy of the government. During the\nelection campaign of 1886 it did so vociferously. But the voters so\nheartily endorsed that policy that they returned the government\nwith nineteen out of twenty-seven members. Obviously the male\nproperty owners of British Columbia considered it good business to\nconstruct rail lines by subsidizing them with crown land. It was,\napparently, a matter of no concern that by 1886, as the opposition\ncharged, the government had given away the Graving Dock, 3,500,-\n000 acres in the Peace River, 1,900,000 acres on Vancouver Island,\n750,000 acres including the mineral rights to the Columbia and\nKootenay Railway Company,20 60,000 acres for a useless road,21\n78,000 acres for a worse than useless canal,22 and 6,000 acres for an\nextension which the Canadian Pacific would have been obliged to\nmake for its own protection.\nSo far, however, none of these land grants could truthfully be\nsaid to have been made to companies whose motives were purely\nspeculative. Certainly the invitation was there and was soon to be\naccepted by dozens of companies with their government's blessing.\nSales (including mining lands) 171,800 acres\nParks 747,500 acres\nTimber berths 1,057,300 acres\nGrazing leases ~ 325,200 acres\nForest reserves 1,713,700 acres\nIndian reserves 172,600 acres\nTotal 4,920,500 acres\n(See Gosnell, Memorandum for Mr. Justice Martin, p. 15.)\n20 Columbia and Kootenay Railway and Transportation Company Act, B.C.,\nStatutes, 1883, 46 Vict., c. 25.\n21 Granted to G. B. Wright, 1883, in the Yale and Kootenay Districts, for\nbuilding the Eagle Pass Wagon Road, a twelve-foot road from Shuswap Lake\nto the Columbia River to aid in the construction of the C.P.R. in the\nColumbia region.\n22 Built by W. A. Baillie-Grohman, 1883-1888, across Canal Flat to turn the\nKootenay River into the Columbia, thereby reclaiming land which was under\nwater every spring. To build the canal, which was to be 45 feet wide and\n6,700 feet long, Baillie-Grohman was granted 48,000 acres of rich alluvial\nsoil lying along the Kootenay River. Fearful of danger to the C.P.R., the\nfederal government required the insertion on the canal of a lock. For the\nextra work and expense, 30,000 acres of picked land in the upper Kootenay\nValley were granted. To climax the absurdity of the project, within twelve\nmonths of its completion, the local government voted Baillie-Groman $2,500\nto have his canal closed. (See: \"Lease. Kootenay Reclamation and Colonization,\" B.C., Sessional Papers, 5th Pari., ist sess., 1887, pp. 315-19.)\n CHAPTER 10\nIntraprovincial Railways\nAll that any enterprising group of men had to do to form an incorporated company was to subscribe their names to a printed memorandum of association, name the termini of their line \u00E2\u0080\u0094 which had\nto be within the province \u00E2\u0080\u0094 and indicate the location of their\nregistered office. Only one man's name had to appear in the Act\nof Incorporation.1\nIt was as simple as that. The liability of the company was limited\nto the amount, if any, \"unpaid on shares respectively subscribed for\nand held by them,\" i.e. the subscribers to the memorandum of\nassociation. Shares were regularly $100. In order to persuade the\npublic in British Columbia, eastern Canada, or abroad of the\ncompany's sincerity, each director usually bought a block of\nshares, although he was not required to do so. No doubt if the\ncompany intended to proceed with its undertaking, each director\nwould buy a sizeable number of shares in the expectation of reaping rich rewards from the completed line. The directors of those\ncompanies whose sole interest lay in speculation in public lands or\npublic money perhaps bought equally heavily of their own stocks,\nbut only to convince the public of their good intentions. How many\nmillions of dollars went into the pockets of directors of stillborn\nrailway companies cannot be known, but the capitalization of such\ndefunct companies in British Columbia amounted to the huge sum\nB.C., Revised Statutes, 1911, 2 Geo. 5, c. 194, part 2, s. 8. Though the act\nto incorporate railway companies received minor emendations from time to\ntime, the 1911 act was little different from those of the previous thirty years.\n 154 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nof $343,715,000 for Canadian and $4,400,000 for English companies.2\nUsually two separate acts were required to get a line underway.\nThe Act of Incorporation, introduced by a private member, constituted the company under the private acts of the session, and a\nSubsidy Act, introduced by one of the ministers, stipulated the\nnumber of acres the government would grant to the company under\nthe public acts of the legislature. Each subsidy act ensured the\nprotection of the rights of pre-emptors. Once the government had\nset aside a reserve of land from which the company could choose\nits portion, no further sections could be alienated from the reserve.\nAll these provisions, the model for which was article 11, became\nstandard practice in the provincial subsidy acts.\nOnce a road was built and running to the satisfaction of the\nLieutenant-Governor in Council,3 the lands selected by the company\nwere conveyed to it. Only then was the unused portion of the\ngovernment reserve opened again for pre-emption. Since many\ncompanies petitioned the legislature for at least one, if not more,\ntime extensions,4 there were further delays in freeing land from\nreserve. With the passage each year of more acts to incorporate\nrailway companies, more and more land was reserved from\nsettlement.\nAlthough Premier James Dunsmuir abandoned the land grant\n2 These figures were compiled from all the provincial acts incorporating railroads which were never built. The capitalization may not be too significant,\nas it meant only that the directors were authorized by statute to issue shares\nup to the figure specified in their act of incorporation, and not that they did\nso or that they had that amount available. It is more than likely that many\nof these companies sold very few shares and, conversely, that some sold\nshares up to the statutory limit. In the latter case, it is doubtful that any\nmoney was ever returned to subscribers. (For the list of all the defunct companies, their names, capitalization, and date of incorporation, see Appendix\nC, Item 1.)\n3 This was done by having a government engineer inspect the line and submit\na detailed report on it to the chief commissioner of lands and works. If the\nengineer approved the line, the chief commissioner notified the company\nthat it could begin operations and that its subsidy lands would be released\ntoit. After 1900, the plan of releasing a certain fraction of subsidy lands per\nmile of construction was adopted. The engineers' reports appeared annually\nduring the 1890's. The Trail-Robson section of the Columbia and Western,\nfor example, was reported on by H. B. Smith to G. B. Martin on October\n12, 1897. Smith gave the 19.3 miles in the division his approval. (See B.C.,\nSessional Papers, 7th Pari., 4th sess., 1898, pp. 411-17.)\n4 See Appendix C, Item 2, \"Railways Incorporated under Acts of the Legislature of British Columbia since 1883,\" in which there are listed numerous\ncompanies whose original charters were amended. Invariably, the amendment\nextended the date for beginning construction.\n INTRAPROVINCIAL RAILWAYS 155\npolicy in favour of cash subsidies after 1900,5 discouraged immigrants still complained bitterly of the extensive land reservations.\nThe fact that at this time land in the Railway Belt was not readily\navailable for settlement because of administrative and jurisdictional\ndifficulties did not help the situation.6 The most potent weapon of\nthe opposition in the legislature continued to be loud denunciation\nof the government's \"give-away\" land policy.\nIn 1883 the Smithe government began the policy of granting\npublic land to aid the construction of railways and other public\nworks. Up to 1889 this policy expanded almost annually. With\n\"An Act to authorize the granting of a certain Land Subsidy for\nand in aid of the Canadian Western Central Railway\" of that year,7\nthe A. E. B. Davie Ministry reached the height of the land grant\nspree. This company, incorporated on April 6, 1889,8 was to begin\nconstruction within six months after filing its plan on a line \"from\na convenient point near the eastern boundary of the Province to\nthe northernmost terminus of the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway.\"9 For the railroad, beginning no one knew where and ending\nat a similar destination, the company was to receive a grant of\nland extending thirty-two miles on each side of the proposed railway, or approximately 14,000,000 acres of British Columbia's\npublic domain. The only stipulation in the act, other than the usual\ntime limit for beginning construction, was that the line \"shall be\ncontinuously prosecuted to completion with reasonable diligence.\"\nAs work progressed, the land was to be conveyed to the company in\nalternate blocks of 20,000 acres on each side of the line. Moreover,\nthe lands, once conveyed, were not to be taxed until the company\nhad used them for other than railway purposes. All stock and property was to be free from provincial and municipal taxation for\nten years.10\n5 B.C., Journals, 8th Pari., 2d sess., 1900, p. 2.\n6 As late as 1910, the provincial government was still urging the Dominion to\ntake action \"looking to the better settlement of the lands in the Dominion\nRailway Belt throughout the Province.\" (See B.C., Sessional Papers, 12th\nPari., 2d sess., 1911, p. M29.)\n7 B.C., Statutes, 1889, 52 Vict., c. 20. The line was to use the old Yellowhead\nroute and connect with the Esquimalt and Nanaimo and, through some contortion, to pass through Barkerville.\n8 Ibid., c. 34. See Appendix C, Item 2, nos. 39 and 40.\n9 Ibid., c. 20, preamble.\n10 The general attitude toward railway building at the expense of crown lands\nmay be gauged from the fact that the bill to incorporate this company passed\n 156 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nIn view of this liberal but customary treatment accorded a company, it is interesting to note the names of the six directors, who\ncapitalized their company at $50,000,000. They were Robert Pater-\nson Rithet and Thomas Earle, both merchants of Victoria; Frank\nStillman Barnard and Edward Gawler Prior, both Members of\nParliament; Henry Purdom Bell, a civil engineer; and James Reid,\na senator. It was not in any way unusual for them to receive a land\ngrant for the construction of their railway, telegraph, and telephone\nlines. But it was somewhat beyond the ordinary, even in that age\nof grandiose schemes, for the legislature to incorporate a railroad\ncompany with so few specifications in the act concerning its termini\nand other details. Nor was it customary to grant so much land \u00E2\u0080\u0094\nas much in this case as in the Railway Belt and the Peace River\nblock combined. Perhaps it is significant that each of the men seems\nto have been on intimate terms with Davie himself. Fortunately\nfor British Columbia the line, designed to go where the Canadian\nPacific Railway had originally been intended to go and where the\nCanadian Northern twenty-five years later did go, was never built.\nThe Canadian Northern received no such princely grant.\nIn justice to the governments of British Columbia in the eighties\nand nineties, it must be remembered that in an era of annual\ndeficits, land was the only asset the province had to grant as a\nbonus. Their only alternative would have been to borrow money\nto give such companies. Before 1900 neither Ottawa nor Victoria\never seemed to question the need for lines they approved or the\nability of the directors to carry out construction. It is significant\nthat the largest subsidies in cash or lands or both were granted to\nwell-known public figures,11 but all who asked, received.\nThe attitude of the Dominion, which was shared by the province,\nwas that the granting of a subsidy was not to be considered as\nthe House without a division. (See B.C., Journals, 5th Pari., 3d sess., 1889,\npp. 76-78.) The act to incorporate the line entailed no obligation, but every\nmember would have been aware of the land subsidy bill about to be presented. Lobbying was keen.\n11 There is ample evidence that even cabinet ministers were involved in land\ngrants. In 1903, Premier Prior requested and received the resignations of W.\nC. Wells, chief commissioner of lands and works, and D. M. Eberts, attorney-\ngeneral, who were involved in the provincial land grant to the Columbia\nand Western. These lands contained valuable coal deposits. The evidence\ngathered by the investigating committee indicated that the complicated situation extended back over several years and implicated members of four preceding administrations. (See: Scholefield and Gosnell, A History of British\nColumbia, 2: 154-55.)\n INTRAPROVINCIAL RAILWAYS 157\nthe expression of an official opinion with reference to the probable success of the railway.12\nThe reckless granting of aid did hurt Canadian credit, since the\nbondholder, often English, naturally regarded the government\nwhich was granting the subsidy as a \"partner in the enterprise, not\nas a careless distributor of largesse.\"13\nBetween the years 1890 and 1900 eighty-seven railway companies\nwere incorporated in British Columbia. By 1890 a number of promising mineral strikes had been made in the Okanagan and in the\nKootenays, and the mining promoters were anxious to secure railway communication with the outside world. They cared little\nwhether the railway they sought would be economically sound or\nwhether the outlets arrived from Vancouver or from the United\nStates, but the Robson government, constituted in August, 1889,\nfollowing the death of A. E. B. Davie, cared a great deal. Attempting to forestall American interests, the Robson ministry instituted\nthe policy or bonusing railways begun and completed on time to\nthe extent of 20,000 acres per mile.14\nThe province continued to realize that it should give its assistance\nto lines which would keep industrial products at home rather than\nforce them across the international boundary. To this end in 1897\nthe government voted $2,500,000 \"for the purpose of aiding the\nconstruction of Railways and other Public Works.\" The preamble\nto the act stated in part that:\nWhereas the existence of extraordinary mineral wealth has been\nsubstantiated in many parts of the Province, and there are valid\nreasons for believing that there are numerous districts in the\nProvince as yet unprospected, which will also prove rich in\nmineral wealth, and that an extensive immigration and increase\nof population may be anticipated if means of communication are\nafforded by railways, roads, and other works for developing the\nnatural wealth which exists both in minerals, timber and farming land:\n12 S. J. McLean, \"National Highways Overland,\" in Canada and its Provinces,\nShortt and Doughty, eds., 10: 448.\n\" Ibid.\n14 B.C., Statutes, 1890, 53 Vict., c. 40. This was an act called \"An Act in aid\nof certain Railways.\" The preamble to the act stated that the construction\nof these lines \"would materially advance the welfare of the Province, and it\nis expedient to offer inducements for the construction of such lines.\" There\nis nowhere a clearer statement than this of the government's attitude toward\ngranting substantial land subsidies to railway companies.\n 158 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nAnd whereas it is expedient that the Trade and Commerce of\nBritish Columbia accompanying such development and increase\nin population should, as far as possible, be retained in the\nDominion of Canada, which will be best effected by the early\nconstruction of such railways, roads and public works.15\nThese clauses demonstrate clearly the prevailing optimism in\nBritish Columbia at the turn of the century. Mineral, timber, and\nfarming lands were present in abundance in the province if only\nthey could be made available to immigrants, and railways provided\nthe only practical transportation for settlers and their goods. But\nthe lavish land grants, reserving extensive acreage, soon constituted\na serious obstacle to the rapid settlement of the interior of the province. A return tabled in 1898, for example, showed that by then\n2,719,087 acres had already been conveyed and a further 9,656,040\nacres were under government reserve for railway grants to provincial companies.16 Settlement, with its resulting revenue to the\ngovernment, was imperative if the government was to pay cash\nsubsidies to railways. But since railroad lands were generally tax-\nexempt for from five to ten years, the more land that had been\npromised to railroad promoters, the less was available immediately\nfor taxation purposes. In the valleys of British Columbia distant\nfrom the main line of the Canadian Pacific the best land was not\navailable. It was a serious dilemma. Immigrants needed railroads,\nbut they also needed the land tied up by subsidies to railroads. It is\nobvious why the government abandoned its land subsidy policy in\nthe late 1890's in favour of cash subsidies, which it in turn abandoned for bond guarantees after 1903.\nThe land settlement problem in the remoter valleys of the province would have been less serious if lands along the main line of the\nCanadian Pacific had been readily available to settlers. But for a\nmultitude of reasons lands in the Railway Belt were difficult to\nacquire, as the local government discovered soon after the passing\nof the Settlement Act in 1884. A series of unforeseen complications\ndeveloped, until British Columbia was thoroughly weary of its Railway Belt bargain and determined to trade the Belt for other land.\n15 British Columbia, Provincial Bureau of Information. Manual of Provincial\nInformation: Province of British Columbia 1930 (Victoria: King's Printer,\n!93o)3 p. 181.\n16 British Columbia Public Works Loan Act, B.C., Statutes, 1897, 60 Vict.,\nc. 24.\n INTRAPROVINCIAL RAILWAYS 159\nOf the eighty-seven lines promoted, thirty-four were to have been\nconstructed in the Kootenays. The Canadian Pacific, which was\nlater to lease in perpetuity the lines which were eventually built,\nwould have built them in the first place. It was prevented from\ndoing so owing to the widespread fear of creating a monopoly in\nwestern Canada similar to those formed among railway promoters\nin the United States. Voters in British Columbia wanted either\nindependent or government lines. Whether the government was as\nsensitive to the people's wishes as it pretended is doubtful, since a\ngood many public men were directors of companies incorporated\nby the government to build lines in the Kootenays and since all\nthose companies received sizeable land grants. During the 1890's\nfive railway companies received grants as follows: 580,783 acres\nto the Nelson and Fort Sheppard in 1891; 250,022 acres to the\nKaslo and Slocan in 1892; 188,593 acres to tne Columbia and\nKootenay in the same year; 3,755,733 acres to the British Columbia\nSouthern in 1893, and 1,348,225 acres to the Columbia and\nWestern in 1896.17\nBecause the promoters of these fines were practically assured of\nrich rewards from their lines, every one was built. No better proof\nexists in all the complications of British Columbia's railroad history\nthat the development of mining provided the stimulus for the building of the railroads. The directors of those lines, among whom were\nF. Augustus Heinze and his brother Arthur P., F. W. Aylmer,\nLieutenant-Governor Edgar Dewdney, William Fernie, and Robert\nG. Tatlow, seem to have assessed remarkably well the permanent\nnature of the Kootenay mining operations.\nF. A. Heinze, builder of the first smelter at Trail, is a classic\nexample of a promoter who built his line entirely from loans and\nshares acquired by using his land and cash subsidies as security. In\n1897 h^ ^t) the Columbia and Western, was built from Rossland\nto Trail and thence to Robson. It was leased to the C.P.R. in 1898\nand used by the C.P.R. to carry ore to the smelter and minerals\nand fertilizer back to the Kettle Valley line at Castlegar. The line\nno longer carries passengers. Elsewhere in British Columbia many\ncompanies were failing to act upon their charters.\nTo carry on generally the business of an exploration company,\nand for that purpose to organize and maintain from time to time\n\"Return for ... 5. Number of acres set apart for subsidizing railways within\nthe Province,\" B.C., Sessional Papers, 7th Pari., 4th sess., 1898, p. uoi.\n 160 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nparties of surveyors, engineers or scientific men, and to do all\nthings necessary or conducive to the comfort and success of such\nexpeditions.18\nIn the lands acquired, the company was not to have any mineral\nrights.\nIn not building their lines, these two colonization companies were\nby no means unique. When the provincial legislature finally enacted\nout of existence all the defunct railway companies, 127 were dissolved as legal entities.19 Of the 210 railway companies incorporated\nin the province up to 1913, only 34 built their lines, and only 5\nearned their land grants.20\nAlthough the land grant policy was not officially terminated\nuntil 1900, it became an accepted rule after 1897 under the Turner\nministry to grant no further lands.21 Between 1894 and 1898 the\npublic debt had increased from $2,398,767 to $4,845,414, so that\nthe opposition's cry of waste could not go unheeded by any government. And when this charge was coupled with that of squandering\npublic lands, Premier Turner concluded that he could no longer\nafford to make grants, particularly of the type made to lines in the\nKootenays. The ministry was subjected to very severe attacks in the\nlegislature as a result of the 10,240 acres of land per mile made in\n1896 in aid of construction of the Columbia and Western. Turner\nwas attacked even more vigorously for the unconditional extension\nof time awarded the British Columbia Southern, a branch of the\nCanadian Pacific, in which to earn its subsidy of 20,000 acres per\n1S B.C., Statutes, 1898, 61 Vict., c. 63, s. 8(7).\n19 B.C., Statutes, 1926-1927, 17 Geo. 5, c. 55. For the complete list, see Appendix C, Item 1.\n20 Although incorporated in British Columbia, the Esquimalt and Nanaimo\nRailway Company received its land grant from the Dominion. It is not\nincluded, therefore, as one of the five companies receiving land grants from\nthe province.\n21 Land grants were made hereafter to transcontinental lines holding federal\ncharters, but of inconsequential amounts. On March 10, 1905, Premier\nMcBride granted 10,000 acres at Kaien Island to the Grand Trunk Pacific\nfor its terminus. For papers dealing with the land grant from part of the\nIndian reserve at Prince Rupert, see B.C., Sessional Papers, nth Pari., ist\nsess., 1907, pp. F33-43. The letters appear in \"Return ... of all correspondence .. . between the Government and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway\nCo.,\" B.C., Sessional Papers, nth Pari., 3d sess., 1909, pp. G51-58. McBride's\n1909 agreement with the Canadian Northern included free right of way\nthrough crown lands as well as the grant of certain areas for townsite\npurposes.\n INTRAPROVINCIAL RAILWAYS 161\nmile in the coal fields of the Crow's Nest Pass.22 Further, the aid\namounting to 700,000 acres promised to the Cassiar Central in\n189723 caused no little dissension among the government's own\nsupporters. In 1898, shortly before the legislature was dissolved, D.\nW. Higgins, speaker of the house since 1890, handed in his resignation as a protest against this prodigality.\nIn the late 1890's the provincial government adopted the\ndominion policy of granting cash instead of land subsidies to railway companies. Having been persuaded in 1882 that land was not\nsufficient inducement to railway promoters, Sir John A. Mac-\ndonald's government had begun giving cash subsidies of $3,200 per\nmile, the cost of the 100 tons of steel at $32.00 a ton needed for\neach mile of track. By 1894 the Dominion had altogether abandoned its policy of making land grants, since these grants hindered\nrapid settlement and caused taxation difficulties. The provincial\ngovernment followed suit a few year later and adopted the cash\nsubsidy system which, however, it had already been using to a\ncertain extent along with or instead of land subsidies. Unfortunately,\nit also adopted the Dominion's practice of granting these subsidies\nindiscriminately to any group which made application.\nThe following statistics24 show the land grants for railway purposes by provincial governments and by the Dominion, and the\ncash subsidies paid by British Columbia and by all the provinces.\nThey provide a basis for comparison of the situation in British\nColumbia with that elsewhere in Canada.\n22 See B.C., Statutes, 1894, 57 Vict, c. 39 and c. 53; 1896, 59 Vict., c. 4 and\nc- 53 5 !897, 60 Vict., c. 33. These were all acts to extend the time-limit in\nwhich the subsidy could be earned. When it was completed, the 202-mile line\nfrom Nelson to the Crow's Nest Pass was leased in perpetuity to the C.P.R.,\nbut before the line was completed the company had granted 50,000 acres of\nvaluable coal lands to the dominion government in return for a cash subsidy\nof $10,000 per mile. The matter of the provincial land grant of 3,755,733\nacres was protested by the province when the C.P.R. leased the line and the\ncase was eventually taken to the Privy Council. (For the report on the case,\nsee B.C., Sessional Papers, 9th Pari., ist sess., 1900, pp. 439-62.)\n23 B.C., Statutes, 1897, 60 Vict, c. 52.\n24 Canada, Department of Railways and Canals, Railway Statistics of the\nDominion of Canada, for the year ended June 30, 1917, pp. xii-xiii. This also\nappears in Canada, Sessional Papers, 13th Pari., ist sess., 1918, no. 206.\n LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nLand Grants to Railways\n*By the Dominion Government\nBy Quebec\n**By British Columbia\nBy New Brunswick\nBy Nova Scotia\nBy Ontario\nTotal acreage\n31,864,074 acres\n1,681,690 acres\n8,119,221 acres\n1,647,772 acres\n160,000 acres\n624,232 acres\n44,096,989 acres\n* 18,206,986 acres of this went to the Canadian Pacific for its main line.\n** This figure includes the acreage granted the Dominion for transfer to\nthe Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Company.\nCash Subsidies Paid\nYear\nBy British Columbia\nAll Provinces\n1893\n$ 37,500\n$23,460,507.70\n1899\n37,500\n28,039,412.31\n1905\n37,500\n32,304,304.61\n1911\n798,209\n36,506,695.04\n1915\n1,284,572\n37,437,895.16\nAlthough an insignificant amount of land was received by railway companies in British Columbia after 1900, the results of\nPremier Dunsmuir's cash assistance policy may be seen from the\n1915 figure given above. The requirement that the lines had to be\nbuilt and approved before the subsidy was paid explains why no\nappreciable amount of money was paid out under this policy before\n1911. By 1900, however, most intraprovincial roads receiving land\nsubsidies had been constructed.\nMeanwhile promoters had discovered the dominion government\nto be another source of ready cash assistance to intraprovincial\nlines. The Federal Railway Act of 1883 stated that all main lines\nwere \"works for the general advantage of Canada,\" and that any\nbranch line of these main lines, the Intercolonial and the Canadian\n INTRAPROVINCIAL RAILWAYS 163\nPacific, \"connecting with or crossing them ... is a work for the\ngeneral advantage of Canada\"; and that any branch lines to be\nbuilt in the future should also come under the act. Section 6 argued\nthat this dominion jurisdiction would lead to \"better and more\nuniform government of all such works,\" and would result in \"greater\nsafety, convenience and advantage of the public.\"25 In reality, the\nact provided justification for subsidies which the Dominion had\nalready given to various intraprovincial railways. Although Ontario\nand Nova Scotia objected that the Dominion was infringing on their\nrights, British Columbia did not. More and more roads in British\nColumbia sought dominion charters,26 partly because of their desire\nfor financial assistance from the federal treasury and partly because\nof the better status such a charter would give them in disposing\nof their bonds. Indeed, in 1887 there is the unusual spectacle of\nthe British Columbia ministry itself petitioning the Dominion for\na subsidy for the Shuswap and Okanagan line, already incorporated\nunder a federal charter.27 The argument British Columbia used was\nthat not only would the line be of advantage to the provincial mining interests, but also that it would be of advantage to Canada in\nthe event of war!28\nTo eliminate the ambiguity in the 1883 Federal Railway Act\nunder which arose the jurisdictional conflict, the federal government clarified its position in 1903 by enacting that:\nWhere any railway, the construction or operation of which is\nauthorized by a Special Act passed by the Legislature of any\nprovince, is declared, by any Special Act of the Parliament of\nCanada, to be a work for the general advantage of Canada, this\nAct shall apply to such railway, and to the company constructing or operating the same, to the exclusion of such of the provisions of the Special Act of the Provincial Legislature as are\n25 Canada, Statutes, 1883, 46 Vict, c. 24.\n26 The five companies which completed their lines and received their land\ngrants also received cash subsidies from the Dominion. The Columbia and\nKootenay, the Nelson and Fort Sheppard, the Kaslo and Slocan, and the\nColumbia and Western received $3,200 per mile. The B.C. Southern received\n$10,000 per mile, but only because it gave the Dominion 50,000 acres of\ncoal land.\n27 Not only did the line receive a federal cash subsidy; it also received $200,000\nfrom the province. This cash subsidy was later changed to a guarantee of\ninterest at 4 per cent for twenty-five years on $1,250,000. (See B.C., Statutes,\n1890, 53 Vict., c. 42, s. 4.)\n28 McLean, \"National Highways Overland,\" p. 446.\n 164 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\ninconsistent with this Act, and in lieu of any General Railway\nAct of this province.29\nLand speculators in British Columbia did not miss the potentialities\nfor personal gain under this act. As there was nothing to prevent\nany company from seeking a federal charter, thirty-two British\nColumbia companies had done so by 1913. Seventeen of them were\nbuilt, a considerably higher percentage than prevailed among the\nprovincially incorporated companies.\nAfter 1903 a new development of the cash subsidy policy across\nCanada was the guaranteeing of interest on bonds rather than the\nmaking of an outright gift. In this matter, as in so many others,\nthe provinces followed the example set by the Dominion. The bond\nguarantees made by the Dominion and the provinces up to 1913\nwere as follows:30\nBond Guarantees\nDominion $ 91,983,553\nManitoba 20,899,660\nAlberta 55,489,000\nSaskatchewan 32,500,000\nOntario 7,860,000\nBritish Columbia 38,946,832\nNew Brunswick 1,893,000\nQuebec 476,000\nNova Scotia 5,022,000\nTotal $245,070,045\nThese bond guarantees representing contingent liabilities had a\nmuch wider appeal among the electorate after 1900 than did the\nformer subsidy policy. Bond guarantees did not sound quite so\nprodigal as the outright subsidies, and if the government were ever\ncalled upon to redeem the bonds, it did not need to enact a special\nstatute with all its attendant publicity. Moreover, the burden of the\nredemption of those guarantees would become the heritage of a\nlater administration.\nDuring the railway building spree, successive British Columbia\ngovernments were considerably less reckless in granting mineral\nrights to the companies than they were in making grants of land or\n29 Canada, Statutes, 1903, 3 Edw. 7, c. 58, s. 6.\n30 McLean, \"National Highways Overland,\" p. 469.\n INTRAPROVINCIAL RAILWAYS 165\ncash. Though the grant of 750,000 acres to the Columbia and\nKootenay in 1883 had included \"all mines, minerals, and substances of whatever kind,\"31 it proved to be a temporary lapse\nfrom long established policy. Later land grants to railway companies in the 1880's included a separate clause specifically reserving\nmineral rights on subsidy lands to the Crown. Then in 1890 the\nBritish Columbia Railway Act excepted all mines of iron, slate or\nminerals under any land purchased by railway companies \"except\nonly such parts thereof as shall be necessary to be dug or carried\naway, or used in the construction of the works, unless the same\nshall have been expressly purchased; and all such mines, excepting\nas aforesaid, shall be deemed to be excepted out of the conveyance\nof such lands, unless they shall have been expressly named therein\nand conveyed thereby.\"32 In reserving mineral rights from land\ngrants to railway companies, the British Columbia government\ndeparted from the Dominion example, which it otherwise followed\nso closely in the matter of land and cash subsidies and bond\nguarantees to railways.33\nDuring the thirty years of railway promotion and construction\nup to 1913, British Columbia seems to have been concerned chiefly\nwith incorporating railroads which were never built and granting\ngenerous land and cash subsidies to those that were. To a degree,\nthis was true. Once the main line of the Canadian Pacific to the\nseaboard had been built, the problem was to provide outlets from\nremote corners of the province to join it. But unfortunately the\nproblem was not seen in this light until the Great Northern and the\nB.C., Statutes, 1883, 46 Vict., c. 25, s. 17. The land grant to this company,\nwhose line was to run from Nelson to Castlegar, covered the rich silver-\nbearing veins of the Slocan and Nelson districts. Fortunately the company\nfailed, its grant lapsed, and its $25,000 deposit was forfeited. Interest in the\nline revived U11889. (See B.C., Statutes, 1889, c. 21 and c. 35; and 1890, c.\n41.) The new company was to receive 200,000 acres. It finally got 188,593\nacres.\nB.C., Statutes, 1890, 53 Vict., c. 39, s. 21.\nLike most policies, that of reserving minerals to the Crown from railway\nlands had its exception, although in this case it was a minor one. Under\nsection 13 of B.C., Statutes, 1890, 53 Vict., c. 40, An Act to aid certain\nRailways, four lines \u00E2\u0080\u0094 the Canadian Western Central, the Crow's Nest and\nKootenay Lake, the Ashcroft and Cariboo, and the Okanagan and Kootenay,\nnone of which was built\u00E2\u0080\u0094 were to receive the right for twenty-five years\nafter their completion to exact and collect a royalty of 5 per cent on all gold\nand silver subsequently found on their lands. Kootenay miners were not slow\nto protest this royalty levied on all ores shipped from mines in these railway\nlands. (See \"Petition,\" B.C., Sessional Papers, 5th Pari., 4th sess., 1890,\np. 465.)\n F\n166 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nSpokane Falls and Northern for a few years drew the trade of the\nKootenays away from Canadian outlets.\nThe railway history of the Kootenay region was largely a struggle for control between the American interests and the Canadian\nPacific, both of which were anxious to secure control of traffic from\nthe mining regions. The competition provided by James J. Hill's\nGreat Northern became severe, and when D.C. Corbin of the\nSpokane Falls and Northern began securing not only charters but\nalso land subsidies, the Canadian Pacific was nearly forced out.\nCorbin's company, the Columbia and Kootenay Railway and\nTransportation Company,34 was to receive 750,000 acres of tax-\nfree land along its right of way from Nelson to Castlegar, as well\nas along its steamboat route up the Arrow Lakes, but the federal\ngovernment disallowed the act. This action was taken ostensibly\non the strength of a vigorously worded protest from the citizens of\nVictoria, who objected to the act on the grounds that it was giving\nAmerican lines control of the trade in the most valuable areas of the\nprovince; that it was unfair to the Canadian Pacific; that it would\nestablish a \"mischievous monopoly\"; and above all, that it would\n\"convey to three Americans 750,000 acres of the best land in the\nProvince.\"35 How much of this opposition was spearheaded by the\nCanadian Pacific officials is open to question. Instead of Corbin, it\nwas Harry Abbott, a director of the Canadian Pacific, who in 1890\nwas one of the successful petitioners for a charter to build the\nColumbia and Kootenay line. Later in the year the Canadian\nPacific leased the road for 999 years. Within the next ten years the\nCanadian Pacific acquired all the major lines in the Kootenays\nincluding, along with the Columbia and Kootenay, the Columbia\nand Western in 1898, the British Columbia Southern in 1898 and\n1901, and the Kettle Valley in 1913. That the Canadian Pacific\nfinally achieved supremacy in the Kootenays is owing in some measure to the resolution passed by the provincial government in\nMarch, 1898, requesting the Dominion to grant no further railway\ncharters having for their object the diversion of traffic into the\nUnited States.36 Along with the leases of the Kootenay lines, the\n34 Incorporated originally by B.C., Statutes, 1883, 46 Vict., c. 25.\n35 F. W. Howay, W. N. Sage, and H. F. Angus, British Columbia and the\nUnited States, ed. H. F. Angus (Toronto: Ryerson, 1942) p. 250.\n36 B.C., Journals, 7th Pari., 4th sess., 1898, pp. 75-76.\n INTRAPROVINCIAL RAILWAYS\n167\nCanadian Pacific acquired the land grants amounting to 5,292,551\nacres.\nBut as the situation stood in 1913,\nthe province had alienated\nmore crown land for railway purposes than for mining, forestry, and\nagricultural activities combined. The\nfollowing\ntabulation shows\nhow these railway lands were alienatec\nGrants to Provincially Incorporated Railways\nEsquimalt and Nanaimo\n2,110,054\nacres\nNelson and Fort Sheppard\n580,783\nacres\nBritish Columbia Southern\n3,755,733\nacres\nColumbia and Western\n1,348,225\nacres\nKaslo and Slocan\n250,022\nacres\nColumbia and Kootenay\nTotal\n188,593\nacres\n8,233,410\nacres\nRepurchased 1912 from Columbia and Western\nand British Columbia Southern\nPermanently alienated for intraprovincial lines\n4,065,076\nacres\n4,168,334\nacres\nGrants to Dominion for\nRailway Purposes\nRailway Belt\n10,976,000\nacres\nPeace River block\n3,500,000\nacres\nCrow's Nest Pass Coal Lands\nTotal\n50,000\nacres\n14,526,000\nacres\nTotal lands alienated for railway purposes 18,694,334 acres\nAs indicated, 8,233,410 acres were granted in aid of intraprovincial lines, including the Esquimalt and Nanaimo. This total represents the land actually alienated. The total acreage granted at one\ntime or another by the legislature as subsidies to railway companies\namounted to at least four times this figure. That only slightly more\nthan 8,000,000 acres were taken up was no fault of the legislature.\nEither its members knew with a fair degree of certainty that many\nof the lines to which they had made a land grant were entirely\nspeculative or, more damning still, they did not care. Fortunately\nfor the province, however, as part of his railway policy Premier\n 168 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nMcBride was able to repurchase 4,065,076 acres from the Columbia\nand Western and the British Columbia Southern though he had\nfailed in his larger plan of buying back the lands in the Railway\nBelt.37 This action left 4,168,334 acres permanently alienated for\nlines within the province which, with the 14,526,000 acres granted\nto the Dominion, made a total of 18,694,334 acres alienated for\nrailway purposes.\nOf British Columbia's 234,000,000 acres, approximately 6,500,-\n000 acres, is classified as arable or as potentially arable land.\nSince the railway companies were permitted to select their subsidy\nlands from within the much larger land area reserved by the government for them, it is reasonable to assume that the best land in the\nreserve was selected by the companies. Had all the companies\nreceiving land subsidies built their roads, there can be little doubt\nthat every acre of arable land in the province would have been\npermanently alienated as the price of securing railway communication. As matters stood, the 18,694,334 acres alienated by 1913\nmust have included most of the arable land within the province.\nIt is still debatable whether the people of British Columbia\nreceived a fair return for their lands. Transportation was vital to\nthe development of the province within the framework of Confederation, but the price was high.\n37 The repurchase, authorized by An Act respecting the Repurchase by the\nCrown of certain Railway Subsidy Lands (B.C., Statutes, 1912, 2 Geo. 5, c.\n37), permitted the government to buy the unalienated subsidy lands of the\ntwo lines at forty cents an acre.\n CHAPTER 11\nImperial Colonial Indian Policy\nFrom the time of the first settlement in the New England colonies,\nthe English Crown always reserved to itself the right to deal directly\nwith the Indians for the surrender of their lands. Moreover, the\naboriginal title of the Indians to the lands they occupied was conceded, and in Ontario and the Northwest compensation was granted\nfor the surrender of their hunting grounds. Pursuing this policy after\nthe conquest of Canada, the formulators of the \"Articles of Capitulation of Montreal 1760\" provided in Article XL that \"The savages\nor Indian allies of his most Christian Majesty, shall be maintained\nin the lands they inhabit, if they chuse to remain there.\"1\nThis policy respecting the Indians and their lands was reaffirmed\nin the \"Royal Proclamation, 7 October, 1763,\" the latter part of\nwhich reveals the constitutional authority on which the Dominion\npolicy was to be based and which at the time of the Union the\nDominion naturally assumed had also been followed in British\nColumbia:\nAnd whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to our\nInterests, and the Security of our Colonies, that the several\nNations or Tribes of Indians with whom We are connected, and\nwho live under our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of our Dominions and\nTerritories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are\nreserved to them, or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds. \u00E2\u0080\u0094\nWe do therefore, with the Advice of our Privy Council, declare\nit to be our Royal Will and Pleasure, that no Governor or Com-\nW. P. M. Kennedy, Statutes, Treaties and Documents of the Canadian\nConstitution (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1930), p. 29.\n LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nmander in Chief in any of our Colonies of Quebec, East Florida,\nor West Florida, do presume, upon any Pretence whatever, to\ngrant Warrants of Survey, or pass any Patents for Lands beyond\nthe Bounds of their respective Governments, as described in their\nCommissions; as also that no Governor, or Commander in Chief\nin any of our other Colonies or Plantations in America do presume for the present, and until our further Pleasure be known,\nto grant Warrants of Survey, or pass Patents for any Lands\nbeyond the Heads or Sources of any of the Rivers which fall\ninto the Atlantic Ocean from the West and North West, or\nupon any Lands whatever, which, not having been ceded to or\npurchased by Us as aforesaid, are reserved to the said Indians,\nor any of them.\nAnd We do further declare it to be Our Royal Will and\nPleasure, for the present as aforesaid, to reserve under our\nSovereignty, Protection and Dominion, for the use of the said\nIndians, all the Lands and Territories not included within the\nLimits of Our said Three new Governments, or within the Limits\nof the Territory granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, as also\nall the Lands and Territories lying to the Westward of the\nSources of the Rivers which fall into the Sea from the West and\nNorth West as aforesaid;\nAnd We do hereby strictly forbid, on Pain of our Displeasure,\nall our loving subjects from making any Purchases or Settlements\nwhatever, or taking Possession of any of the Lands above reserved,\nwithout our especial leave and Licence for that purpose first\nobtained.\nAnd, we do further strictly enjoin and require all Persons\nwhatever who have either wilfully or inadvertently seated themselves upon any Lands ... which, not having been ceded to or\npurchased by Us, are still reserved to the said Indians as aforesaid, forthwith to remove themselves from such settlements.\nAnd whereas great Frauds and Abuses have been committed\nin purchasing Lands of the Indians to the great Prejudice of our\nInterests and to the great Dissatisfaction of the said Indians; in\norder therefore, to prevent such Irregularities for the future, and\nto the end that the Indians may be convinced of our Justice and\ndetermined Resolution to remove all reasonable Cause of Discontent, We do, with the advice of our Privy Council, strictly\nenjoin and require, that no private Person do presume to make\nany Purchase from the said Indians of any Lands reserved to\nthe said Indians, within those parts of our Colonies where, We\nhave thought proper to allow Settlement; but that, if at any Time\nany of the said Indians should be inclined to dispose of the said\nLands, the same shall be purchased only for Us in our Name, at\nsome public Meeting or Assembly of the said Indians, to be held\nfor that purpose by the Governor or Commander in Chief of\nour Colony respectively within which they shall lie; and in case\nthey shall lie within the limits of any Proprietary Government,\n IMPERIAL COLONIAL INDIAN POLICY 171\nthey shall be purchased only for the Use and in the name of such\nProprietaries, conformable to such Directions and Instruction as\nwe or they shall think proper to give for that Purpose.2\nThe explicit language of this document permitted no misinterpretation, and from it derived the entire dominion treaty policy\nwith the Indians living on dominion crown land. The essential elements of the policy have always been the recognition of Indian\ntitle and of the need to secure its cession in return for adequate\ncompensation. It was natural enough for Ottawa to assume in 1871\nthat British Columbia had followed the word and spirit of this\nproclamation. In fact, however, between Douglas's retirement and\nBritish Columbia's union with Canada colonial officials both spoke\nand acted in direct opposition to these principles. The failure of the\nDominion to appreciate the wide difference in British Columbia\nand Imperial policies at the time of union and the intransigence of\nthe provincial government in the face of Indian and dominion\nefforts to secure permanent settlement of aboriginal claims in the\nforty years following Confederation have led to the still inconclusive\nposition.\nDuring Douglas's tenure, there was little deviation from Imperial\npolicy in British Columbia, and treaties might well have been\nsecured had he been able to continue the Indian policy he had\nbegun in 1850 in his role as chief factor and governor of \"Vancouver's Island.\" The insistence of the British government on colonial self-sufficiency made it impossible for him to do so. Between\n1850 and 1854, Douglas made the fourteen agreements with various\ntribes of Indians inhabiting the southern portion of Vancouver\nIsland which remain the only treaties made with B.C. Indians. In\nconsideration of money payments made to them at once, the Indians\nrelinquished their \"possessory rights\" to the area about Fort Victoria.\nThe payments averaged \u00C2\u00A32.10.0 per head of a family for the\nsouthern 100 square miles of the Island.3\nThe first of these agreements was made with the Teechamitsa\n2 Ibid., p. 37. Italics added.\n8 Douglas to Newcastle, March 25, 1861, in \"Papers Connected with the\nIndian Land Question,\" B.C., Sessional Papers, 2d Pari., ist sess., 1876, p.\n179. These papers were also separately published with different pagination\n(Victoria: Richard Wolfenden, Government Printer, 1875). See: Wilson\nDuff, \"The Fort Victoria Treaties,\" B.C. Studies, 3 (Fall 1969), 3-57.\nIndians in the Peace River area did sign treaties with the dominion government in the early years of this century. See p. 237.\nmm\n 172 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nTribe on April 29, 1850, for all lands lying between Esquimalt and\nPoint Albert. It read as follows:\nKnow all men, we, the chiefs and people of the Teechamitsa\nTribe, who have signed our names and made our marks to this\ndeed on the twenty-ninth day of April, One thousand eight\nhundred and fifty, do consent to surrender, entirely and forever,\nto James Douglas, the agent of the Hudson's Bay Company in\nVancouver Island, that is to say, for the Governor, Deputy\nGovernor, and Committee of the same, the whole of the lands\nsituate and lying between Esquimalt Harbour and Point Albert,\nincluding the latter, on the Straits of Juan de Fuca, and extending backwards from thence to the range of mountains on the\nSaanich Arm, about ten miles distant.\nThe condition of or understanding of this sale is this, that our\nvillage sites and enclosed fields are to be kept for our own use,\nfor the use of our children, and for those who may follow after\nus; and the lands shall be properly surveyed hereafter. It is understood, however, that the land itself, with these small exceptions,\nbecomes the entire property of the white people forever; it is also\nunderstood that we are at liberty to hunt over the unoccupied\nland, and to carry on our fisheries as formerly.\nWe have received, as payment, Twenty-seven pounds, ten\nshillings sterling.\nIn token whereof, we have signed our names and made our\nmarks, at Fort Victoria, 29th April, 1850.4\nAltogether, during his incumbency, 358 square miles on Vancouver\nIsland were ceded by the Indians to Douglas.\nHad the Colonial Office granted the request in 1861 for a loan\nof \u00C2\u00A3 3,000 to complete the extinction of the Indian title to the 1,600\nsquare miles of public lands remaining on Vancouver Island, the\ncost would have been approximately one dollar per square mile. In\nhis despatch asking for the loan Douglas stated that he had \"made it\na practice up to the year 1859, to purchase the native rights in the\nland, in every case, prior to the settlement of any district,\" but that,\nowing to lack of funds, he had not been able to continue. He wrote\nthat the Indians \"have distinct ideas of property in land, and\nmutually recognize their several exclusive possessory rights in certain\ndistricts,\" and would, he believed, feel a sense of injury were white\nsettlers to occupy lands where the Indian title had not been extinguished. Since all settled districts with the exception of the Cowi-\n4 \"Papers Connected with the Indian Land Question,\" p. 165. The other\ntreaties appear pp. 166-71 inclusive.\n IMPERIAL COLONIAL INDIAN POLICY 173\nchan, Chemainus, and Barclay Sound areas had already been bought\nout, he felt justified in asking for the loan, particularly as he offered\nto repay it from the sale of public lands, the price of which had only\ntwo months previously been reduced from ten to four shillings twopence per acre.5 Unfortunately for the plans both of Douglas and\nof his Legislative Assembly, Newcastle was not receptive and replied\nthat \"the acquisition of the title is a purely colonial interest.\"6\nIn the course of time, Douglas gave blankets, trade goods, and\neven cash payments to tribes in other sections of Vancouver Island.\nLater, Joseph W. Trutch was convinced, or at least he was to argue,\nthat all these presents were made for the purpose of securing the\nfriendship of the Indians to the Company and not in acknowledgment of any general title of the Indians to the lands occupied by\nthem.7 Whatever Douglas's intent was,8 it is now evident that the\nIndians never really understood what was happening. To them, the\nlegal concept of individual ownership in land was meaningless. As\nDouglas suggested, they did understand the principle of usufruct,\nand the rival chieftains thought they were yielding to the white\ninterlopers only the right to use the land, not the right to anything\ncalled \"exclusive private ownership.\" It was this misunderstanding\nwhich gave rise to the request from the Indians throughout the\nprovince as years went by for an increase in the size of their\nreservations.\nPartly in the interests of humanity, partly because it was good\nbusiness, and partly because he had been instructed to do so by the\nColonial Office, Douglas regarded the Indians as the special wards\nof the Crown. In his Address to the first Legislative Assembly on\nVancouver Island on August 12, 1856, he said that he proposed to\n5 \"Proclamation, no. 1, A.D. 1861,\" in B.C., [Proclamations and Ordinances,\n1858-1864].\n6 Newcastle to Douglas, October 19, 1861. \"Papers Connected with the Indian\nLand Question,\" p. 180.\n7 \"Report of the Government of British Columbia on the Subject of Indian\nReserves,\" B.C., Sessional Papers, 2d Pari., ist sess., 1876, p. 67. This report\nalso appears in Canada, Sessional Papers, 3d Pari., 3d sess., 1876, no. 9.\n8 The Hudson's Bay Company account against the colony presented to Governor Blanshard in 1851 included the assertion \"that they have expended\n$2,735, of which $2,130 are for goods paid to Indians to extinguish their\ntitle to the land about Victoria and Soke harbours.\" Blanshard signed the\naccount \"with protest.\" See: Vancouver Island, Governor, Despatches:\nGovernor Blanshard to the Secretary of State, 26th December 1849, to 30th\nAugust, 1851 (New Westminster: Printed at the Government Printing Office,\nn.d.), no. 8, February 12, 1851.\n 174 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\ntreat the Indians \"with justice and forbearance, and by rigidly\nprotecting their civil and agrarian rights; many cogent reasons of\nhumanity and sound policy recommend that course to our attention.\" He went on to remind the Assembly of the benefits to be\nderived from the friendship of the Indians, \"while it is no less\ncertain that their enmity may become more disastrous than any\nother calamity to which the colony is directly exposed.\"9\nIn 1858 in response to a despatch from Lytton enjoining him to\n\"consider the best and most humane means of dealing with the\nNative Indians\" and to see that \"in all bargains or treaties with the\nnatives for the cession of lands possessed by them, that subsistence\nshould be supplied to them in some other shape,\" Douglas outlined\nhis policy in full. He envisioned the settlement of Indians on reserves\nwhere, among other benefits, they would be secure against the\nencroachment of white settlers, and the possibility of \"having the\nnative Tribes arrayed in vindictive warfare against the white settlement\" would be lessened. Any land on the reserve not being utilized\nby the Indians was to be leased to the highest bidder, the proceeds\nof the lease to be applied to the exclusive benefit of the Indians.10\nWhere land was valuable, Douglas assured Lytton this arrangement\nwould relieve the colony of any financial burden arising from the\ncare and maintenance of the natives; where the land was of no\nvalue, the Indians could be left to pursue their course unmolested.\nOn the reserves, each family was to have a distinct portion for its\nown use, but Indians were to be denied the power to sell or alienate\nthe land. With this project in mind, reserves were to be made for\nthe benefit and support of the tribes in all districts of British\nColumbia inhabited by natives. \"Those reserves should in all cases\ninclude their cultivated fields and village sites, for which from habit\nand association they invariably conceive a strong attachment, and\nprize more, for that reason, than for the extent or value of the\nland.\"11\nBancroft, History of British Columbia, pp. 322-23, n.n.\nLytton to Douglas, July 31, 1858, no. 6, Gt. Brit., Papers Relative to British\nColumbia, 1: 44-46. Douglas actually began this procedure. A return tabled\nby Robert Beaven on January 13, 1873, showed that 13.94 acres of the\nSonghees reserve in the middle of Victoria were being leased at a rental of\n$222 by five people, among them George Hills, bishop of Columbia, who\nleased lot 51 for a mission School. B.C., Journals, ist Pari., 2d sess., 1872-73,\nappendix, Sessional Papers, appendix 1, p. 4.\nDouglas to Lytton, March 14, 1859, \"Papers Connected with the Indian\nLand Question,\" pp. 176-77.\n IMPERIAL COLONIAL INDIAN POLICY 175\nThe procedure outlined by Douglas was more or less adhered to\nby the colonial government throughout the next twelve years and\nremained in effect at Confederation. In assigning reserves, Douglas\nand his officials followed no consistent pattern other than that of\nincluding within a larger reserve, if possible, all Indian settlements,\ngraveyards, gardens, hunting lodges, berry patches, or fishing stations, or of making one or all of them separate smaller reserves. The\nonly principle adopted was to placate the Indians and keep them\nout of the way of incoming settlers by granting each tribe a definite\nreservation of land. In his Address to the newly elected first Legislative Council of British Columbia at New Westminster on January\n21, 1864, Douglas said:\nThe Native Tribes are quiet and well-disposed. The plan of\nforming Reserves of land embracing the village sites, cultivated\nfields, and favorite places of resort of the several Tribes, and\nthus securing them against the encroachment of settlers, and\nforever removing the fertile cause of agrarian disturbance, has\nbeen productive of the happiest effects on the minds of the\nnatives.\nThe areas thus partially defined and set apart in no case exceed\nthe proportion of ten acres for each family concerned, and are to\nbe held as the joint and common property of the several tribes,\nbeing intended for their exclusive use and benefit, and especially\nas a provision for the aged, the helpless, and the infirm.12\nThis was no hastily conceived scheme, for Douglas had three\nyears before requested Moody, the chief commissioner of lands and\nworks, to mark out distinctly the sites of all proposed towns and\nIndian reserves throughout the mainland colony. He further directed\nthat such reserves were to be defined exactly as the Indians themselves pointed them out.13 Despite Douglas's directions and his own\nefforts, however, there was no codified system for the reservation of\nlands for the use and benefit of the various tribes at the time of his\nretirement. The rights of the Indians to hold lands were totally\nundefined, although the 1865 Land Ordinance specifically withheld\n12 B.C., Legislative Council, Journals, ist Pari., ist sess., 1864, p. 2.\n13 Douglas to Moody, March 5, 1861, \"Papers Connected with the Indian Land\nQuestion,\" p. 181. After 1864, tne British Columbia government chose to\ninterpret the \"ten acres for each family\" statement as policy. But when\nDouglas put his views in writing in 1874, he said there had never been an\nofficial limitation. (See Appendix D, Item 4.)\n 176 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nfrom pre-emption all Indian reserves or settlements, as Douglas\nhimself had wished.14\nIn order to prevent anyone from buying land directly from the\nIndians and in keeping with the Proclamation of 1763, Douglas\ninserted a notice in the Victoria Gazette in 1859 stating that land\nwas the property of the Crown and that the Indians were incapable\nof conveying a legal title.15 But no reserves of land intended as\nIndian reservations were made by official notice in the Gazette until\n1866,16 after Douglas had retired and after Trutch had become\ncommissioner of lands and works. Even then, only half the existing\nsurveyed reserves were gazetted. Trutch reported in 1867 that since\nhe was unable to find any written directions on the subject in the\ncorrespondence in his office,17 most of the reserves made before 1865\nmust have been made in furtherance of verbal instructions from\nDouglas. It would appear that in many cases lands which Douglas\nintended to be appropriated for reserve purposes were set apart and\nmade over to the Indians on the ground by Douglas personally.\nThese \"on-the-spot\" reservations were for the most part small, comprising usually a potato garden adjoining a village, a burial ground,\nor a berry patch. Few reserves had been staked off or in any way\npractically defined. After a thorough search through his office\n14 Every subsequent land law in British Columbia has contained such a clause,\nbut none has ever defined an \"Indian settlement.\" Had the Indians wished,\nthey could have been most difficult about this point, but the only complaint\nuncovered during this study was that of William Smithe to the Indian\nSuperintendent, Dr. I. W. Powell, in a letter of November 24, 1884. Powell\nhad requested the provincial government to reserve 100 acres for fifty-four\nIndians on the west shore of Okanagan Lake opposite the present city of\nKelowna, even though reserves of nearly 50,000 acres had been established at\nthe north end of the lake. Already furious at the size of the main Okanagan\nreserves, Smithe remarked that \"No doubt families of Indians were found\nscattered over the district, and when the Commissioners appeared they\ngathered in detachments from far and near to swell the number applying for\na tribal reserve,\" and went on to imply that the Indians then scattered and\nasked \"for additional and independent reserves at their nomadic homes or\nplaces of temporary abode\" (B.C., Sessional Papers, 4th Pari., 3d sess., 1885,\np. xiv, following p. 410). On December 9, 1884 Powell replied that until he\nhad read Smithe's letter he had never heard of such a thing happening and\nadded that \"nor does it appear reasonable that vague reports, or rumors of\nsuch deception, should control or influence the action of the Government in\nwithholding for so many years their final approval and confirmation of Indian\nlands which have been so long in a state of uncertainty,\" (ibid., pp. xx-xxi).\n15 Douglas to Lytton, February 9, 1859, \"Papers Connected with the Indian\nLand Question,\" p. 175.\n16 Ibid., pp. 324-27.\n17 Trutch to Acting Colonial Secretary, August 28, 1867, ibid., pp. 201-203.\n IMPERIAL COLONIAL INDIAN POLICY 177\nTrutch could find a record of only nine: three lots at the mouth of\nthe north arm of the Fraser River, an island at the mouth of the\nCoquitlam River, two lots on its banks, one lot opposite New Westminster, and two lots at Keatsie (Hatzic). It is possible that Douglas\navoided committing his decisions to paper because he was too busy;\nit is also possible that he thought no such formal procedure necessary\nat that stage in the development of the colonies. What is more likely,\nhowever, is that he was constantly mindful of a despatch from\nCarnarvon in May, 1859, cautioning him against laying out and\ndefining reserves in those localities where they might impede progress of white colonists in the future.18 Genuine as its solicitude for\nthe natives undoubtedly was, the Colonial Office in London was also\nacutely aware that British Columbia, like all other colonies, must\nfinance itself, and that it could do so provided the immigrants pouring into the colony could be induced to remain as settlers after the\ngold fever had abated.\nBefore Douglas retired, two interesting incidents involving Indians\nand lands occurred which were to be the genesis of the still unresolved aboriginal title disputes. Both incidents suggest that even\nat that early date the Indians were not completely satisfied with\ntheir reserve allotments.\nAt a public sale of lots in New Westminster held in May, 1862,\nColonel Moody, who was conducting the sale, was so perturbed\nwhen an Indian named Snat Strouten wanted to buy a lot just as\nthe white settlers were doing that he felt it necessary to write\nWilliam A. G. Young, the colonial secretary, for instructions. After\npondering Strouten's unusual request and consulting with the\ngovernor, Young wrote back three weeks later to say that \"there\ncan be no objection.\" Strouten was probably unaware that when\nhe received his lot he was setting a precedent. Douglas had long\nsince declared that the Indians were \"rational beings, capable of\nacting and thinking for themselves,\" but when it came to acknowledging the fact in practice, three weeks' cogitation was required.19\nIn June of the same year Moody encountered another problem,\nsomewhat more serious and not so simple of solution. The i860\nLand Ordinance reserved Indian settlements from pre-emption, but\n18 Carnarvon to Douglas, May 20, 1859, ibid., p. 178.\n19 Moody to Young, May 27, 1862, ibid., p. 183; Young to Moody, June 8,\n1862, ibid., p. 184; Douglas to Lytton, March 14, ibid., p. 177.\n 178 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nit did not forbid Indians to pre-empt.20 Moody said he \"understood\"\nthat all along the Fraser River up to Hope, Indians were pre-empting \"precisely as a white man could\" and were doing so to a considerable extent, and he observed that the practice was likely to\nincrease rapidly.21 Moody referred the problem to Young and was\ntold that legislation containing a provision permitting Indians to\npre-empt under certain conditions22 was being drawn up to deal with\njust such a contingency. The clause presaged by Young was passed\nin 1865 and stipulated that Indians could pre-empt only with the\nprior consent of the governor.23 When an Indian finally did succeed\nin obtaining permission to pre-empt, a Minute in Council was\nrequired to authorize the transaction.24\nThe action of the Indians along the Fraser River was no doubt\nprompted by a reasonable desire to secure as large tracts of land\nas possible before it was all pre-empted in 160-acre blocks by white\nsettlers. In addition, such a location along the river was ideal for\ntheir purposes, since it provided hay meadows for their horses and\ncattle and suitable fishing sites. However there is no record of their\never having received crown grants to any of these lands. Even had\nthe reserves been allotted to them and had they been large enough,\nit is unlikely that the Indians would have fully realized what ownership of land meant. The failure to allot reserves officially, the ten-\nacre restriction imposed after 1864, and the fact that land was only\nof value to the Indians for what use could be made of it at the\nmoment were all factors boding ill for the future.\nDouglas's own generous attitude is reflected in one other instance\nthe year before his retirement. When he received information early\nin 1863 that the Indians of the Coquitlam River reserve were dissatisfied with their fifty acres of land, he wrote personally to Colonel\nMoody in peremptory fashion. After outlining the Indians' complaint, he said:\n20 \"Proclamation,\" of January 4, i860 in B.C., [Proclamations and Ordinances,\n1858-1864].\n21 Moody to Young, June 11, 1862, \"Papers Connected with the Indian Land\nQuestion,\" p. 185.\n22 Young to Moody, July 2, 1862, ibid.\n23 B.C., Legislative Council, Ordinances Passed by the Legislative Council of\nBritish Columbia during the Session from January to April, 1865, no. 27,\nApril 11, 1865.\n24 \"Report on Indian Reserves,\" Appendix A, p. 65.\n IMPERIAL COLONIAL INDIAN POLICY 179\nI beg that you will, therefore, immediately cause the existing\nreserve to be extended in conformity with the wishes of the\nNatives, and to include therein an area so large as to remove\nfrom their minds all causes of dissatisfaction.\nNotwithstanding my particular instructions to you, that in\nlaying out Indian Reserves the wishes of the Natives themselves,\nwith respect to boundaries, should in all cases be complied with,\nI hear very general complaints of the smallness of the areas set\napart for their use.\nI beg that you will take instant measures to inquire into such\ncomplaints, and to enlarge all the Indian Reserves between New\nWestminster and the mouth of the Harrison River, before the\ncontiguous lands are occupied by other persons.25\nThe subsequent correspondence indicates that Moody was not as\nnegligent as Douglas's letter suggests, but the letter does emphasize\nthe policy that prevailed so long as Douglas was governor. The\ncorrespondence reveals also that the Indians were not slow to learn\nthe white man's methods in obtaining the desired ends. They too\ncould play both ends against the middle and they did so admirably\nin this instance.26 Moody suggested that the missionaries were showing the Indians how to take advantage of gaps in the legislation\npertaining to pre-emption. Referring to assistance the Indians were\nreceiving from Roman Catholic priests, Moody said, \"It is a growing question that will have to be met.\"27 Moody's objection reveals\nthat his sympathies did not lie entirely with the Indians in their\nclaims for larger reserves, nor with Douglas in his policy of permitting the Indians to designate the size of their reserves.\nActions of the government officials shortly after Douglas's retirement illustrate clearly that Moody's attitude was not unique in the\ncolony. So long as Douglas was governor, the Indians had only to\nask to receive additional land; once he was safely retired, a concerted effort was made to reduce the larger Indian allotments,\nparticularly in Kamloops-Shuswap and Lower Fraser River areas.\nThe most outstanding case of this kind involved reserves marked\nout in 1864 by a surveyor named McColl who, acting on instructions from the Surveyor General Brew, proceeded to the Fraser\n25 Douglas to Moody, April 27, 1863, \"Papers Connected with the Indian\nLand Question,\" p. 187.\n26 On more than one occasion Trutch or the surveyors in his department\nsuspected that the Indians had altered the location of the boundary stakes\non the reserves. (See ibid., p. 192.)\n27 Moody to Douglas, April 28, 1863, ibid., pp. 187-88.\n 180 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nRiver, where he marked out the reserves from New Westminster to\nHarrison River. Before leaving Victoria, McColl received additional verbal instructions from Douglas that all lands claimed by\nIndians were to be included in their reserves, that the Indians were\nto have as much land as they wished, and that in no case should\nany reserve contain less than ioo acres.28 According to Trutch's\ncomment on the incident three years later when the successful\nattempt to reduce these reserves was being made, McColl had proceeded to act on the \"indefinite authority\" given him by Douglas,\nrather than on his written instructions from Brew which had specified\nwhat the new administration called the \"ten-acre per family\" rule.29\nThe surveyor then \"marked out reserves of most unreasonable\nextent, amounting, as estimated by himself, to 50, 60, 69, 109, and\neven to as much in one case as 200 acres for each grown man in\nthe tribe.\" As the surveyor general in 1866, Trutch was aghast that\nMcColl seemed merely to have walked over the ground, putting in\nposts where directed to do so by the Indians and estimated the\nacreage. Because these lands were not all being used by the Indians\nand because they contained rich pastures or readily cultivable\nportions, \"greatly desired for immediate settlement,\" and, at the\nmoment, were \"utterly unprofitable to the public interest,\" Trutch\nbelieved that in almost every case these reserves should be \"materially reduced.\"\nThe two suggestions Trutch made for regaining these lands for\npublic purposes demonstrate the colonial Indian land policy which\nthe dominion government fell heir to in 1871. Trutch recommended to A. N. Birch, colonial secretary and administrator of the\ngovernment during the absence of Governor Seymour, that McColl's\nauthority could be absolutely disavowed in view of the \"extravagant\nextent\" of the reserves laid out by him in defiance of the ten-acre\nrule. The surveys could be made anew. Alternatively, negotiations\ncould be undertaken with the Indians with a view to securing a\nsurrender of the greater portion of the area. The latter procedure,\nhe made clear, would be tantamount to buying the lands back from\nthe Indians. Negotiations with the Indians Trutch found repugnant,\nasserting that the tribes \"have really no right to the lands they claim\n... and I cannot see why they should either retain these lands to the\nprejudice of the general interests of the Colony, or be allowed to\n28 McColl to Chartres Brew, May 16, 1864, ibid., p. 203.\n29 Brew to McColl, April 6, 1864, ibid.\n IMPERIAL COLONIAL INDIAN POLICY 181\nmake a market of them either to Government or to individuals.\"\u00E2\u0084\u00A2\nTrutch seems temporarily to have forgotten that the sale of any\nportion of their reserves by the Indians to any agency other than\nthe Crown had never been countenanced in the colony,31 although\nit was debatable whether there was any legal barrier to such sale.\nTrutch suggested that disavowing McColl's authority was the more\njudicious course. There was good precedent. Only the year before,\nin 1866, similar negotiations had been undertaken over the tract of\nland extending more than forty miles along the South Thompson\nRiver which Douglas had granted to the Kamloops and Shuswap\nIndians. By notice in the Gazette of October 5, 1866, Trutch proclaimed that the claims of the Kamloops and Shuswap Indians\n\"have been adjusted.\" The adjustment made it possible to open by\nfar the greater portion of the river-bottom lands to pre-emption on\nJanuary 1, 1867.32\nIn recommending a similar course with respect to the reserves on\nthe Lower Fraser River, Trutch advised caution; in his words, \"very\ncareful management of the dispositions of the Indian claimants\nwould be requisite to prevent serious dissatisfaction; firmness and\ndiscretion are equally essential ... to convince the Indians that the\nGovernment intend only to deal fairly with them and the whites\nwho desire to settle on and cultivate the lands which they (the\nIndians) have really no right to and no use for.\"33\nIn his reply to Trutch, the colonial secretary enunciated another\naspect of the colony's Indian land policy which was to be of considerable interest and import after 1871. He agreed with Trutch\nthat the reservations should certainly be \"amply sufficient\" for the\nactual requirements or wants of the Indians but that in no case\nshould the allotment \"be of such extent as to engender the feeling\nin the mind of the Indian that the land is of no use to him, and\nthat it will be to his benefit to part with it.\" With this consideration\nin mind, Trutch was instructed to effect a severe reduction in the\nacreage of the reserves. \"'The Indians have no right to any land\n30 Trutch to Acting Colonial Secretary, August 28, 1867, ibid., pp. 201-203.\nFor a recent survey of Trutch's role see: Robin Fisher, \"Joseph Trutch and\nIndian Land Policy,\" B.C. Studies, 12 (Winter 1971-72), 3-33.\n81 William A. G. Young, colonial secretary, was soon to remind him. See \"Papers\nConnected with the Indian Land Question,\" p. 205.\n32 Ibid., p. 324. Birch personally undertook this mission. For details of the\nsettlement with the Indians, see ibid., pp. 189-99.\n33 Ibid., p. 202.\n 182 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nbeyond ... their actual requirements,\" said Young, nor \"for they\nreally have never actually possessed it,\" can they have any \"claim\nwhatever to any compensation.\"34\nTo bring about the surrender, Trutch visited the tribes, telling\nthem that since McColl had acted under improper authority, his\ndecisions were extra-legal. The disclosure did not discomfit the\nIndians. They only complained bitterly of the intrusion of white\nsettlers on land they considered to be their own, \"evidently,\"\nreported Trutch, \"regarding such settlements as unauthorized intrusions on their rights.\"35 When Stipendiary Magistrate Ball surveyed\nthe new reserves the next summer he wrote that the Indians\nappeared perfectly satisfied with the procedure.36\nAt the very time Ball was making the surveys, the delegates to\nthe Yale Convention were condemning the government's Indian\npolicy. Having resolved that \"religion, humanity, and public\nopinion demand that due and proper consideration be paid to the\nIndian population, with a view to their preservation, and the\nimprovement of their moral, intellectual, and material condition,\"\nthe delegates, led by Amor De Cosmos, berated the government for\nhaving done nothing for the Indians \"beyond making reservations\nof land.\" These reservations, the resolution stated, were of large\nand valuable tracts of agricultural land which were not being\nutilized by the Indians and were in districts where settlers would\ncultivate them. The resolution concluded by demanding that the\ngovernment \"establish such regulations as would utilize the Indian\nreserves, and appropriate the proceeds to the benefit of the\nIndians.\"37 The delegates, however, were not critical either of the\nsize or of the quality of the reserves. Their criticism was simply that\nthese lands were lying in an unproductive state.\nThese outright refusals by the new Legislative Council to recognize any aboriginal title to the land, as specified in the 1763 Proclamation, are attested by numerous statements, the earliest official one\nbeing that of Trutch in a memorandum included by Governor\nMusgrave to Earl Granville, then secretary of state for the colonies,\n34 Young to Trutch, November 6, 1867, ibid., p. 205.\n35 Trutch to Young, November 19, 1867, ibid., p. 206.\n36 Ball to Governor Seymour, October 17, 1868, ibid., p. 212.\n37 Resolution XXXI, Papers on the Union of British Columbia with the\nDominion of Canada, p. 25, in [Gt. Brit.], Miscellaneous Papers Relating to\nBritish Columbia.\n IMPERIAL COLONIAL INDIAN POLICY 183\nin a despatch of January 29, 1870. Trutch's memorandum was\nintended to answer criticism of the colony's Indian policy, and in\nit he outlined the position of the colonial government in British\nColumbia:\nIt is not true ... that in this Colony we have no \"Indian Policy\nwhatever;\" that \"there are no Indian Agents;\" and that \"the\nonly friends the Indians have in the Colony are the Missionaries.\"\nOn the contrary, for the past ten years at least, during which I\nhave resided in this Colony, the Government appears to me to\nhave striven to the extent of its power to protect and befriend the\nNative race, and its declared policy has been that the Aborigines\nshould, in all material respects, be on the same footing in the eye\nof the law as people of European descent, and that they should\nbe encouraged to live amongst the white settlers in the country,\nand so, by their example, be induced to adopt habits of civilization. ...\nThis policy towards the Indians has been consistently carried\nout so far as I am aware, by successive Governors....\nThe Magistrates, too, throughout the Colony, are the especially\nconstituted protectors of the Indians against injustice. They are,\nin fact \"Indian Agents\" in all but the name, and I am confident\nthat they have so performed this well-understood branch of their\nduty, that as full a measure of protection and general advantage\nhas been bestowed on the Indians through their agency by\nGovernment, out of the pecuniary means at its disposal for this\npurpose, as could have been afforded to them through the\nmedium of a special Indian Department.\nThe Indians have, in fact, been held to be the special wards of\nthe Crown, and in the exercise of this guardianship Government\nhas, in all cases where it has been desirable for the interests of\nthe Indians, set apart such portions of the Crown lands as were\ndeemed proportionate to, and amply sufficient for, the requirements of each Tribe; and these Indian Reserves are held by\nGovernment, in trust, for the exclusive use and benefit of the\nIndians resident thereon.38\nTrutch's defence of his Indian policy, written especially for the\nColonial Office, may have served to allay any fears Granville had,\nbut it would not have met with the approval of the Indians. Trutch\nknew that the Indians were not necessarily content with \"such\nportions of the Crown lands as were deemed proportionate to, and\namply sufficient for, the requirements of each Tribe.\" A clear indication of British Columbia governmental policy towards Indians\n38 Trutch to Musgrave, January 28, 1870, \"Report on Indian Reserves,\" pp.\n67-68.\n 184\nLAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nand land at the time of Confederation is found later in the\nmemorandum:\nthe title of the Indians in the fee of the public land, or of any\nportion thereof, has never been acknowledged by Government,\nbut, on the contrary, is distinctly denied. In no case has special\nagreement been made with any of the Tribes of the Mainland\nfor the extinction of their claims of possession; but these claims\nhave been held to have been fully satisfied by securing to each\ntribe, as the progress of the settlement of the country seemed to\nrequire, the use of sufficient tracts of land for their wants for\nagricultural and pastoral purposes.3\u00C2\u00AE\n39 Ibid., pp. 66-69.\n CHAPTER 12\nIndian Land Policy after Confederation\nIn drafting article 13 of the Terms of Union, it is possible that\nneither the dominion nor the provincial negotiators intended to be\nanything less than candid. Certainly Trutch, Carrall, and Helmcken,\nthe delegates from British Columbia, had full knowledge of the\nDominion's Indian policy in the reservation of land. In the light of\nsubsequent difficulties and disclosures, it is doubtful whether the\nCommittee of the Privy Council acting on behalf of Canada\npossessed equally accurate information concerning the Indian policy\nof the colonial government in British Columbia. Trutch certainly\ncould have given a complete summary of that policy. He had been\nchief commissioner of lands and works in the colony since 1864, and\nmore recently surveyor general as well. In both functions he had\nbeen responsible for severely altering Douglas's principles. Less than\nthree years after Union, the Dominion was to discover that the\nmeaning which it abstracted from article 13 was the opposite of that\nread into it by the province. The clause reads as follows:\nThe charge of the Indians, and the trusteeship and management\nof the lands reserved for their use and benefit, shall be assumed\nby the Dominion Government, and a policy as liberal as that\nhitherto pursued by the British Columbia Government shall be\ncontinued by the Dominion Government after the Union.\nTo carry out such policy, tracts of land of such extent as it has\nhitherto been the practice of the British Columbia Government\nto appropriate for that purpose, shall from time to time be conveyed by the Local Government to the Dominion Government in\ntrust for the use and benefit of the Indians, on application of\nthe Dominion Government; and in case of disagreement between\nthe two Governments respecting the quantity of such tracts of\n 186 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nland to be so granted, the matter shall be referred for the decision\nof the Secretary of State for the Colonies.\nThe wording is reminiscent of Trutch's 1870 memorandum and\nsuggests that he had much, if not everything, to do with the framing\nof article 13. The evidence leads to the conclusion that he deliberately put in those two contentious and ambiguous phrases, \"a policy\nas liberal as that hitherto pursued by the Government of British\nColumbia,\" and \"tracts of land of such extent as it has hitherto\nbeen the practice of the British Columbia Government to appropriate.\" It seems likely that these two vague clauses were not discussed in Ottawa in 1870, for Sir George E. Cartier found it\nunnecessary to amplify them when he was introducing the Terms\nof Union into the House of Commons.1 The assumption by the\nDominion of responsibility for Indian affairs was merely a re-statement of the duty already assumed under Article 91, section 24 of\nthe British North America Act. Since responsible government was\nnot in operation in the colony, it at first appeared that there was\nno need to include this article in the Terms of Union. In his despatch of August 14, 1869, to Governor Musgrave, Earl Granville,\nsecretary of state for the colonies, stated that \"the Constitution of\nBritish Columbia will oblige the Governor to enter personally upon\nmany questions \u00E2\u0080\u0094 as the condition of the Indian tribes ... with\nwhich, in the case of a negotiation between two Responsible Governments, he would not be found to concern himself.\"2 Acting on his\ninstructions, Governor Musgrave \"purposely omitted any mention\nof [Indians] in the terms proposed to the Legislative Council\" in\n1870.3 Musgrave felt the subject should be handled either by himself under direction of the secretary of state for the colonies, or by\n1 If Trutch wrote this clause without making a full explanation of his government's denial of Douglas's policy of permitting the Indians to designate their\nown reserves, and if he made no mention of the recent successful attempts\nof his government to reduce drastically in size such large reserves as had\nbeen defined and gazetted, he was guilty of duplicity, and, as will be seen,\nof doing his colony-province a grave disservice.\n2 Granville to Musgrave, August 14, 1869, \"Despatches from the Secretary of\nState, No. 6,\" Papers on the Union of British Columbia with the Dominion\nof Canada, pp. 30-31.\n3 Musgrave to Sir John Young, governor general, February 20, 1870, Canada,\nSenate, Journals, 16th Pari., ist sess., 1926-27, appendix, Special Joint Committee . . . [on] Claims of Allied Indian Tribes of British Columbia, Report\nand Evidence, (Ottawa: F. A. Acland, 1927) pp. 4-5.\n INDIAN LAND POLICY AFTER CONFEDERATION 187\nthe latter officer in direct negotiation with the government of\nCanada.\nFor this reason, no mention of Indians appears in the original\nunion resolutions of the British Columbia Legislature. Article 13\nwas added later in what proved to be a vain attempt to effect a\nsatisfactory division of responsibility between the two governments,\nand the Imperial Government acquiesced to this section on May\n16, 1871.4\nIn attempting to honour its obligations, the dominion government\nsoon discovered that the Indian land policy \"as it has hitherto been\nthe practice of the British Columbia Government\" was not \"as\nliberal as\" the dominion policy pursued in Manitoba and the Northwest Territories, nor \"as liberal as\" the centuries-old policy pursued\nby England in her other colonies in North America. As a result, the\nsetting aside of reserves in British Columbia by the officers of the\ndominion government appointed for that purpose became a difficult\nand contentious matter, and over the years gave rise to a further\nproblem which has become known as the \"reversionary interest\" in\nlands abandoned by the Indians. Out of these two problems came\na still unresolved third, that of \"aboriginal title.\"\nThe British North America Act itself was the source of some of\nthese problems. Under Article 146, provision was made in 1867\nfor the possible entry of, inter alia, British Columbia \"into the\nUnion\"; under Article 10 of the Terms of Union, the remaining\nportions of the British North America Act became operative. Article\n109 of the British North America Act reads:\nAll Lands, Mines, Minerals, and Royalties belonging to the\nseveral Provinces .. . and all Sums then due or payable for such\nLands, Mines, Minerals, or Royalties, shall belong to the several\nProvinces ... in which the same are situate or arise, subject to\nany trusts existing in respect thereof, and to any interest other\nthan that of the Province in the same.5\n4 The report of the debate in the House of Commons occupies 57 pages, and\nthe report of the discussion of the Senate occupies 128 pages. Yet, so completely unaware were the members of any possible difficulty with reference\nto article 13 that a single sentence sufficed to dispose of the subject. In\nintroducing the whole matter of the Terms of Union in the House, Sir\nGeorge E. Cartier said: \"A certain portion of the public lands had been\nreserved for the Indians, and the only guarantee that is necessary for the\nfuture good treatment of the Aborigines was the manner in which they had\nbeen treated in the past.\" Canada, Parliamentary Debates (1871), 663.\n5 Kennedy, Documents of the Canadian Constitution, p. 629.\n 188 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nThe application of this article, by which all crown lands and their\nnatural resources became the property of the Crown in the right of\nthe government of British Columbia, placed British Columbia in a\nunique position among the newly acquired areas of the federation.\nUnder authority of the 1868 Rupert's Land Act, the Dominion\nhad been empowered \"to accept a Surrender of all or any of the\nLands, Territories, Rights,\" of government in the entire area previously controlled by the Hudson's Bay Company. The surrender\nwas accepted by an Imperial Order in Council on June 23, 1870\nwhich formally transferred Rupert's Land and the Northwest Territories to Canada. With the acquisition of the title to the Hudson's\nBay Company's preserve, the Dominion also applied to it the\nIndian land policy followed since 1760 in British North America.\nWhen Manitoba became a province in 1870, aU ungranted lands\nwere vested in the Crown for dominion purposes. Section 31 of the\nManitoba Act of 1870 specifically stated that in order to extinguish\nthe Indian title to the lands of the province, the province was to\nselect 1,400,000 acres of land for division among the native population of Manitoba \"on such conditions ... as the Governor General\nin Council shall from time to time determine.\"6\nThe failure of the dominion government to make equivalent provision in the case of British Columbia reinforces the belief that they\nwere ignorant of the actual situation. One contemporary at least\ntried to warn them that British Columbia's Indian land policy was\nnot all it might be. Immediately prior to the colony's entry into\nConfederation, the Bishop of Columbia, George Hills, registered a\nstrong protest with Joseph Howe, the secretary of state, urging immediate reform.7 After union, his complaint was passed on to\nTrutch. In his new capacity as Lieutenant-Governor, Trutch summarized in general terms once again the policy hitherto pursued by\nthe colony. Admitting that the policy was not based on any written\ncode, he assured Howe that the government's policy had nonetheless been both \" 'definite and tangible,5 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 a well considered system\nably devised by experienced men specially interested in favour of\nthe Indians .. . consistently carried out so far as the pecuniary\nmeans at command would admit of.\" As proof, Trutch stated that\nthe colony had been remarkably free from Indian disturbances,\nIbid., p. 643.\nRev. George Hills, bishop of Columbia, to Howe, May 27, 1871, B.C.,\n\"Papers Connected with the Indian Land Question,\" pp. 257-58.\n INDIAN LAND POLICY AFTER CONFEDERATION 189\nscattered as was the meagre white population over \"this immense\nterritory\" among some 50,000 Indians. If the colonial government\nhad not done all it should in defining and gazetting reservations,\nits inaction was not to be attributed to callousness or indifference,\nbut rather to lack of funds \"to take charge of, and apportion out\nunder careful regulation, the lands which have been or may be set\napart as Indian Reserves.\"\nThese tasks were now the responsibility of the dominion government, and in answer to Howe's request for specific information on\nthe number of reserves that were surveyed, their area and location,\nand the title under which they were held, Trutch could answer that\nthe governor had, by virtue of the authority conferred on him by\nhis commission and the royal instructions, and later by the land\nordinances, caused notices to be inserted in the Government Gazette,\n\"or in such manner as was held to be sufficient advertisement of\nsuch notice previous to the establishment of the Government\nGazette.\"8 B. W. Pearse, the first chief commissioner of lands and\nworks, was asked for a report on the subject, and this was forwarded\nto Howe.\nPearse's letter supported Trutch's contention that there were\nmany reserves throughout the province which had been assigned to\nthe Indians but never surveyed because of the government's policy\nof making surveys only when settlers reached the area. This system,\nobserved Pearse, had been found effective and far less costly than\nthat of surveying the reserves altogether, since they were \"naturally\nscattered and often at great distances apart.\" As it was necessary to\nkeep expenditures on surveys to a minimum and the price of land\nlow, many reserves had never been gazetted, and numerous areas\nin the province which were remote from any settlement had never\nbeen visited in order that reserves might be made. This was true of\nthe entire west coast of Vancouver Island, the east coast of the\nisland above Comox, and the whole coast of the mainland above\nBurrard Inlet, as well as the interior of the province north of the\nFraser River. Finally, Pearse stated that the area of those reserves\nwhich had been surveyed amounted to 28,437 acres and that the\nIndians had at no time been issued titles. Furthermore, the policy\nhad been to prevent the Indians from alienating any portion of\ntheir reserves.9\n8 Trutch to Howe, November 3, 1871, ibid., pp. 259-62.\n9 Pearse to Trutch, October 16, 1871, ibid., pp. 262-63.\nMS\n 190 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nThe list of reserves prepared by Pearse and submitted to Howe\nby Trutch indicated that there were in 1871 a total of seventy-six\nreserves of which official notice could be taken.10 These comprised\nthe hardly liberal area of less than one acre per Indian. Of the\nreserves, fifteen were on Vancouver Island, twenty-one were in the\nNew Westminster area, one was near Lytton, and thirty-seven,\nrepresenting much the largest acreage of 19,561.5 acres, were in\nYale district.\nAfter receipt of this information, the Dominion took no further\nstep toward assuming its obligation to the Indians of British Columbia until the appointment in November, 1872 of Lieutenant-Colonel\nI. W. Powell, M.D., a strong proponent of Confederation, as\nsuperintendent of Indian affairs in the province.11 Trutch, who had\noriginally opposed Confederation, protested strongly to Sir John A.\nMacdonald when Powell's name was proposed for the position and\nintimated that the support of the navy, hitherto enlisted from time\nto time to aid the civil authorities in the suppression of what Trutch\ncalled \"outrageous crime\" committed by \"utter savages living along\nthe coast,\" would be given only reluctantly to \"one having no\nexperience among them.\" Nor did Trutch content himself with this\ntirade concerning Powell's unfitness for the new position. He went\non to castigate the entire plan outlined by Macdonald. \"I may tell\nyou that I am of opinion, and that very strongly, that for some\n10 Not all of these had been gazetted. On October 5, 1866, the large reserve at\nKamloops and the two at Shuswap had appeared in the Gazette; on July 4,\n1867, the Cowichan reserves appeared, and those at Chemainus the day\nbefore; on December 18, 1868, those at Lytton were listed; and on November\n25, 1869, three reserves were gazetted for the New Westminster district. (See\nibid., appendix, \"Gazette Notices of Indian Reserves,\" pp. 324-27.)\n11 The action was not taken until after an Address from the Legislative\nAssembly in British Columbia had been received in Ottawa, praying the\nDominion to move immediately to establish an \"Indian policy for this Province, and a proper adjustment of Indian reserves.\" (See B.C., Journals, ist\nPari., ist sess., 1872, p. 27.) Powell's father had been a Tory member of\nparliament prior to Confederation. Dr. Powell, the son, came to British\nColumbia in 1862 after graduating from McGill. He soon entered politics,\nbecoming a member of the Legislative Assembly in September, 1863, where\nhe continued until he and De Cosmos were defeated on the Confederation\nissue by J. S. Helmcken and M. T. Drake in August, 1866. After 1871, Sir\nJohn A. Macdonald offered Powell first the position of first Lieutenant-\nGovernor of the new province, and then a place in the Senate. Powell\nrefused both. The position of Indian superintendent must also have been\nregarded as a rich political \"plum,\" and it is probable that there were others\nin the province who would have liked the office, which may in part account\nfor the un-co-operative attitude Powell encountered early in his incumbency.\n(See: B. A. McKelvie, \"Lieutenant-Colonel Israel Wood Powell, M.D.,\nC.M.,\" British Columbia Historical Quarterly, 9 (1947), 33-54-\n INDIAN LAND POLICY AFTER CONFEDERATION 191\ntime to come at least the general charge and direction of all Indian\naffairs in British Columbia should be vested in the Lt. Governor\n. .. and that instead of one there should be three Indian Agents,\none for Vancouver Island, one for the Northwest coast and the third\nfor the interior of the mainland.\"12\nIf the Indians were as satisfied with government policy as Trutch\nhad led both Granville and Howe to believe, there seems little reason\nwhy the details and subsequent implementation of this policy could\nnot have been conveyed to Powell with a modicum of disturbance\namong the Indians. The evidence does not prove that Trutch himself was not convinced that the Indian policy of the province was\nanything but in the best interests of both the Indians and the white\nsettlers, but it does suggest that he was not anxious to have the\ndetails of that policy known to the dominion authorities.\nHowever, Powell had been appointed before Trutch's views\nreached Macdonald. He acted alone in the province until a second\nsuperintendent, James Lenihan, was appointed a year later for the\nNew Westminster area. The second appointment temporarily vindicated Trutch's view that not one but several agents should have\nbeen appointed. The Indian Board established by the dominion\ngovernment in 1874 consisting of Trutch and the two Indian superintendents was, however, soon discovered to be impracticable. No\nless an authority on Indian affairs in the province than William\nDuncan, a lay missionary whose work since 1857 with the Tshim-\nshian Indians of the Port Simpson area had been praised all over\nthe continent, recommended the abolition of the Board as being \"so\npalpably defective and misdirected\" in its labours as to be useless.13\nPartly on the strength of Duncan's criticism, the Annual Report of\nthe Department of the Interior for 1875 admitted the failure of the\nBoard, largely because the Lieutenant-Governor now regarded his\nposition on it as placing him in an anomalous situation.14 The\nReport for 1876 announced that after February 1, 1876, the Indian\n12 For the complete text of the letter see Appendix D, Item 2. Its content\nthrows considerable light on subsequent developments.\n13 Duncan to David Laird, minister of the interior, May, 1875, \"Report on\nIndian Reserves,\" appendix C, p. 69.\n14 Canada, Sessional Papers, 3d Pari., 2d sess., 1875, no- 8, p. 7. Trutch's feeling can be understood, for as lieutenant-governor he was constitutionally\nbound to uphold the policies of his government, which were unalterably\nopposed to the policies of the Indian Affairs Branch of the Department of\nthe Interior. For evidence of Trutch's attempts to disrupt the workings of the\nBoard, see Fisher, \"Joseph Trutch,\" pp. 25-26.\nmm\n m\n192\nLAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nBoards in both British Columbia and the Northwest Territories were\nto be abolished. For them would be substituted the superintendents\nand agencies which had proved so successful in Ontario.15 British\nColumbia was to have two superintendents, Dr. Powell in Victoria\nto assume charge of the coast Indians and James Lenihan at New\nWestminster to assume charge of the interior tribes. Further\nreorganization was carried out in 1880 with the appointment of\ndistrict agents who were to live among the Indians and be accessible\nto them. The agents were to serve under a single superintendent\nresponsible to the minister of the interior.16 By Order in Council of\nApril 3, 1881, six local agents were appointed, three for Vancouver\nIsland and one each for the Lower Fraser River, Kamloops (Henry\nCornwall), and \"O'Kanagan\" (A. E. Howse) areas.17 Powell\nthroughout retained his position as superintendent in spite of\nTrutch's disapproval.\nIt was not an easy task Powell assumed. Immediately he was the\nvictim of antagonism, since members of the provincial ministry held\ndiffering views as to the meaning of article 13 of the Terms of\nUnion. From the beginning Powell found his activities obstructed\non all sides by the local government. Not having been supplied by\nOttawa with anything other than notification of his appointment,\nhe directed letters to G. A. Walkem, chief commissioner of lands\nand works in the last days of the McCreight government, and to\nA. R. Robertson, provincial secretary, asking for a statement of\nprevious Indian policy and a list of all reserves. Both men replied\nthat the necessary information had been forwarded to Howe by\nTrutch the previous January. Finally, Powell requested and received\ncopies from Trutch.\nNo sooner had Powell been appointed than he was besieged with\nrequests from Walkem and his successor as chief commissioner,\nRobert Beaven, to proceed at once to the Chilcotin country to define\nthe Indian reserves there. Trouble was brewing, Walkem said,\nbecause white settlers were ignoring the government reserves on the\nland and pre-empting land which the Indians held to be their own\n15 Canada, Sessional Papers, 3d Pari., 3d sess., 1876, no 9, p. xiii.\n16 Canada, Department of the Interior, \"Report of the Department of the\nInterior,\" Canada, Sessional Papers, 4th Pari., 2d sess., 1880, no. 4, p. xiv.\n17 Canada, Department of Indian Affairs, \"Report of the Department of\nIndian Affairs,\" Canada, Sessional Papers, 4th Pari., 4th sess., 1882, no. 6,\np. xi.\n INDIAN LAND POLICY AFTER CONFEDERATION 193\nterritory.18 Powell did what he could, which was little enough. He\nhad still not received instruction concerning the active duties of his\noffice. Having no idea of how many acres to allot per family on\neach reservation, his hands were tied; yet Beaven kept urging that,\nsince the settlers were entering the Cariboo, Alberni, and Cowichan\nregions, the Indians lands must be set aside at once. The \"agrarian\ndiscontent\" foreseen nine years before by Governor Douglas had\nmaterialized. Finally Beaven wrote to Powell explaining the necessity for immediate action:\nI have the honour to inform you that constant complaints are\nbeing made to me by parties desirous of pre-empting land at\nAlberni, that the Indians in that locality claim the lands as their\nproperty, and threaten to molest parties occupying said land.\nNow it is almost impossible to prevent some parties going in\nthere, and I have therefore to call your attention to the imperative necessity of at once having all Indian land claims settled,\nnot only in Alberni, but in other parts of the Province. There\nare at present numerous parties desirous of settling in British\nColumbia, but the fact of the Indians being located in almost\nevery District where white settlers would wish to locate is preventing many from doing so, and is consequently retarding the\nsettlement of the Province. I must, therefore, most respectfully\nbut urgently, request your earliest attention to this subject, as\ndelay at this juncture may be a very serious matter to this\nProvince.19\nAs it was now nearly two years since the Dominion had assumed\ncontrol of Indian affairs in the province, Beaven had every right to\nurge action. Settlers were arriving, although not in the numbers\nBeaven implied. With the prospect of a railroad and the hopes its\ncompletion aroused, no doubt every member of the De Cosmos-\nWalkem ministry foresaw clashes over land between the Indians and\nthe incoming settlers. But Powell was still powerless, anxious to help\nas he might have been. He had to content himself with continuing\nhis search for all available data pertinent to his position and sending\nhis findings on to Ottawa as he proceeded. He was not missing very\nmuch. In the copies of the letters Trutch sent him containing both\nTrutch's and Pearse's memoranda, Powell noticed that Pearse had\nmentioned $1,984.82 deposited in the Treasury to the credit of the\n18 This correspondence may be found in \"Papers Connected with the Indian\nLand Question,\" pp. 267 ff.\n19 Beaven to Powell, April 16, 1873, ibid., p. 273.\n 194 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nSonghees Reserve lease fund.20 To retrieve the money for present\nuses, he asked John Ash, the provincial secretary, for an accounting.\nOne can see Ash's delight at being able to reply that the money had\nbeen so deposited in the Treasury to form part of the assets of the\ncolony at Confederation, and therefore it had been taken over by\nthe Dominion in 1871.21\nAs isolated incidents, none of these petty annoyances was significant; as part of a series, they seemed a conspiracy to frustrate the\nactivities of the new superintendent. But if Powell found these incidents annoying, they were nothing compared to the storm which\nbroke around him following his letter to Beaven on April 17, 1873.22\nIn his letter he included the operative sections of a dominion Order\nin Council of March 21, 1873, outlining at last the action Powell\nwas to take in British Columbia.\nHaving studied Powell's correspondence to the Department of\nIndian Affairs in which he had cited several instances of attempted\npre-emption of Indian lands by white settlers, the dominion government was now of the opinion that action as recommended by Powell\nwas imperative. Accordingly, the following instructions were issued\nand sent to Powell. He, in turn, informed the provincial government.\nThe Deputy Superintendent General accordingly suggests that\neach family be assigned a location of 80 acres of land of average\nquality, which shall remain permanently the property of the\nfamily for whose benefit it is alloted.\nThat it is a matter of urgent importance to convince the Indians of that Province that the Dominion Government will do\nfull justice to the rights of the Indian population, and thus\nremove any spirit of discontent which in various quarters appears\nto prevail.\nThat authority be at once given to Mr. Powell to confer with\nthe Local Government in regard to Indian Reserves already set\napart, which may require to be extended and the outlines marked\nout in survey, also for setting apart such additional reserves, as\nin his judgment he may deem to be important, for the purpose\nof fulfilling the just expectations of those Indians.23\n20 Pearse to Trutch, October 16, 1871, ibid., p. 262.\n21 Powell to Ash, February 4, 1873; Ash to Powell, February 5, 1873, ibid.,\nP. 272.\n22 Powell to Beaven, April 17, 1873, ibid., p. 274.\n23 The presence of the phrase \"of average quality\" in this Order in Council\npassed by the Macdonald Ministry on March 17, 1873, disproves the frequent\nstatement that it was first introduced into legislation by the Mackenzie\nministry over the Railway Belt difficulties stemming from the Terms of\n INDIAN LAND POLICY AFTER CONFEDERATION 195\nThe contents of this Order in Council took the local government\nby surprise. In order to stall for time, Beaven asked Powell the next\nday to supply him with statistics concerning each individual in\nevery Indian family in all tribes in the province, as well as \"specifying also the name and locality of all Indian Reservations, and the\nacreage of such reservation claimed by you on behalf of the various\ntribes; distinguishing (in the manner requested above) Indians\nwhose present abode is on land other than known Indian Reservations, and the acreage desired for them.\"24\nAll Powell could do in reply was to state what Beaven already\nknew\u00E2\u0080\u0094that he had no possible way of knowing any of this information. The only figure he could give was for the total Indian population, which he had estimated to be 28,500.25 On April 30, Beaven\ninformed Powell that the ministry \"consider that 80 acres is far too\nlarge an average for each family,\" and that, using Powell's own\nestimate of the Indian population and the acreage of the then established reserves, the present average per family was six acres. As this\nwas not an official statement of the government's views, Powell\ncould do nothing other than try to reach the ear of the ministry\nuntil such a statement was forthcoming. That he did so is reflected\nin the Executive Council Minute of July 25, 1873, setting forth the\nstand taken by the local government. It stated that, in the opinion\nof the government, eighty acres was \"greatly in excess of the grants\nconsidered sufficient by previous governments of British Columbia,\nand recommend that throughout the province Indian Reserves\nshould not exceed a quantity of twenty acres of land for each head\nof a family of five persons.\"26 With his success in raising the amount\nfrom ten to twenty acres Powell had to be content, and so he advised\nhis superiors in Ottawa.27 He had little choice. The July 25 Minute\nhad pointed out that twenty acres, being a larger amount than had\nbeen previously granted to the Indians of British Columbia, was,\ntherefore, more than the government was bound to consent to under\narticle 13.\nUnion, article 11. It does appear in the Canadian Pacific Railway Act of\n1874, \"the said lands to be of fair average quality\" (Canada, Statutes, 1874,\n37 Vict., c. 14, s. 8 [4]), but it is not original there.\n24 Beaven to Powell, April 18, 1873, B.C., Sessional Papers, 2d Pari., ist sess.,\n1876, p. 274.\n25 Powell to Beaven, April 19, 1873, ibid., p. 275.\n26 B.C., Sessional Papers, ist Pari., 4th sess., 1875, p. 666.\n27 \"Papers Connected with the Indian Land Question,\" p. 290.\n1*3\n 196 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nTo resolve the difference so that reserves might be assigned at\nonce and generally to lessen tension which was characterized in\n1927 as great enough to have disrupted Confederation,28 David\nLaird, minister of the interior in the Mackenzie government, submitted a memorandum to the federal cabinet on March 1, 1874,\nadvising the lowering of the acreage from eighty to twenty. At the\nsame time, he took the opportunity to deplore the attitude being\nadopted in British Columbia and suggested that in view of the\nprovision in the 1870 Land Ordinance permitting white settlers\neast of the Cascades to pre-empt 320 acres, Powell should try to\npersuade the local government to permit Indians in that area to\nhave forty acres.29\nHad the question of acreage been the only point at issue,\ninnumerable additional difficulties might have been avoided and\nthere probably would not have arisen the serious threat of an Indian\nwar. Although the province persisted throughout the next ten years\nin maintaining that at Confederation the Indians were perfectly\nsatisfied with such reservations as had been assigned for their use\nand benefit,30 the fact that Powell was besieged by urgent requests\nfrom the government as soon as he had been appointed to move\nquickly to assign additional reserves suggests that all was not as well\nas the government stated. The Indians, in fact, had been complaining for several years that the lands upon which they had settled and\nwhich they had cultivated had been taken from them without\ncompensation and pre-empted by white settlers. In some cases, they\nsaid, even their burial grounds had been pre-empted. In addition,\nthere were numerous complaints that white settlers took advantage\nof the law in reference to pastoral land to drive cattle and horses\nbelonging to the Indians from the open range country and obtain\nlarge pastoral leases for themselves.31\n28 Special Joint Committee, Report and Evidence, p. 148.\n29 B.C., Sessional Papers, ist Pari., 2d sess., 1875, p. 672.\n30 C. F. Cornwall, a British Columbia senator, remarked in the Senate in 1878\nthat at Confederation \"there was not the slightest ill-feeling in any Indian\nbreast in that country ... but since Confederation, from some cause or other\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094 I should say from the unwise interference and meddling of the Dominion\nGovernment \u00E2\u0080\u0094 irritation has sprung up.\" He went on to say that as another\nresult of the unfitness of the present government for its position \"there has\nbeen a change and British Columbia has been put to considerable expense\nand no little alarm has been caused by the slack, procrastinating and injudicious policy of this government\" (Canada, Senate, Debates, 3d Pari., 5th\nsess., 1878, p. 547).\n31 Powell drew one case to Walkem's attention in which an Indian at Cache\n INDIAN LAND POLICY AFTER CONFEDERATION 197\nThe Indians were feeling for the first time the inconvenience of\nbeing hemmed in by white settlers and losing the land for pastoral\npurposes. They were learning what white men meant by ownership\nof land. Also, the Indians were beginning to understand the value\nof agriculture and to desire land for cultivation. The Indians of\nBritish Columbia had also learned of the liberal land policy recently\nextended by the dominion government to the natives in the Northwest Territories. Three treaties, No. i of August 3, 1871; No. 2\nof August 21, 1871; and No. 3 of October 3, 1873, reserved to the\nIndians tracts of land ranging in size from 160 to 640 acres for each\nfamily of five and granted each Indian an annuity of from three to\nfive dollars.32 In view of these circumstances, it should have required\nconsiderably more patience than the Indians of British Columbia\npossessed to be anything but restless.\nThat the government of British Columbia had little interest in\nsettling the Indian land question in accordance with dominion\npolicy was made apparent in the new Land Act of 1874.33 When\nthe act reached Ottawa the Minister of Justice, Telesphore Fournier, disallowed it. The consternation in Victoria must have been\ngreat when, in the course of his remarks on the act, Fournier\npointed out that the act had defined \" 'Crown lands' \" as being\n\"all lands of this Province held by the Crown in free and common\nsocage.\"34 Such definition implies freehold under grant from the\nCrown, and could therefore have meant that if the Crown were\nindeed tenant by freehold, the British Columbia legislature was\nadmitting by its own statute the Indian sovereignty to all lands of\nthe province. Doubtless what had been meant was \"in fee simple,\"\nand \"in free and common socage\" had been an inadvertent slip;\nCreek had been assessed damages in court \"for alleged trespass upon lands\nwhich were not fenced, but held under a lease from the Government for\npastoral purposes\" (Powell to Walkem, January 12, 1874, B.C., Sessional\nPapers, ist Pari., 4th sess., 1875, p. 670). Walkem assured Powell that the\naction was perfectly legal. Under s. 30 of the 1870 Land Ordinance the\nlessee had the right to \"maintain ejectment or trespass in the same manner\nas if he were the owner.\" In addition, under English Common Law, in effect\nin British Columbia, owners did not have to fence their property, but the\nowners of animals were bound to keep them off private property (Walkem to\nPowell, January 13, 1874, ibid., p. 671).\n32 Canada, Department of Indian Affairs, \"Report of the Deputy Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs,\" Canada, Sessional Papers, 14th Pari., 2d\nsess., 1923, no. 14, pp. 11-12.\n33 B.C., Statutes, 1874, 37 Vict, no. 2, s. 86.\n34 Ibid., s. 2.\n 198 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nbut the significance of the error becomes apparent when it is seen\nhow strongly opposed the provincial government was at all times to\nadmitting any title whatever held by the Indians, equitable or legal,\nand how reluctant the province was to part with a single acre more\nthan was absolutely necessary for the use of the Indians.\nBut it was not on the basis of its definition of crown lands that\nthe act was disallowed. In truth, nothing would have pleased the\ndominion government more than to have had British Columbia\nrecognize the Indian title by statute. The act was disallowed because\nit made no provision for any Indian reservations nor of lands for\nthat purpose; nor were the Indians accorded in it any rights or\nprivileges in respect to land \u00E2\u0080\u0094 neither could they pre-empt nor\npurchase land except by applying to the Lieutenant-Governor in\nCouncil for a special dispensation to permit them to do so.\nAlthough Fournier said he did not wish to become involved in the\nmerits of the aboriginal title claim, he did feel it his duty to call\nattention to the legal position of the public lands in British Columbia, particularly in view of what he termed the\nknown, existing, and increasing dissatisfaction of the Indian tribes\nof British Columbia at the absence of adequate reservation of\nlands for their use, and at the liberal appropriation for those in\nother parts of Canada upon surrender by treaty of their territorial\nrights, and the difficulties, which may arise from the not improbable assertion of that dissatisfaction by hostilities on their part.\nTo substantiate his statement that \"there is not a shadow of a\ndoubt, that from the earliest times, England has always felt it\nimperative to meet the Indians in council, and to obtain surrender\nof tracts of Canada, as from time to time were required for the\npurposes of settlement,\" Fournier quoted sections of the 1763\nProclamation. He also noted the presence of the phrase \"Indian\nterritories\" used in the Imperial act of 1849 providing for the\nadministration of the colony of Vancouver Island. Because there\nhad never been a cession of the Indian title in British Columbia,\nbecause the Indians had already expressed themselves as greatly\ndissatisfied with the reserves assigned them arbitrarily by the province and were \"not averse to hostilities in order to enforce rights\nwhich it is impossible to deny them,\" and because of the express\ndenial to the Indians in the act of any land rights, the minister of\njustice felt he had no choice but to recommend that the 1874 act\nbe disallowed. British Columbia, he held, was attempting to legislate with respect to the public lands as though those lands were its\n INDIAN LAND POLICY AFTER CONFEDERATION 199\nabsolute property, an assumption ignoring the honour and good\nfaith always shown the Indians elsewhere in Canada since 1763.\nFournier also noted that Article 109 of the British North America\nAct, 1867, conveyed the public lands to the province \"subject to\nany trust existing in respect thereof, and to any interest other than\nthat of the province, in the same.\" He felt that what was ordinarily\nspoken of as the \"Indian title\" must, of necessity, have consisted of\nsome species of interest in the public lands of the province, and that\nif it were not a freehold in the soil, it surely must have been a\nusufruct, a right of occupation or possession for the Indians' use.\nIn that case, if the land of the province were not subject to a \"trust\nexisting in respect thereof,\" at least it was subject \"to an interest\nother than that of the province alone.\"35 Founder's decision was\nused repeatedly over the years by the Indians and their advisers in\ntheir attempts to demonstrate to the province the legal basis of\ntheir claims to a beneficial interest to all the land of the province.\nThe unrest evident among the Indians was also noted by the\nMinister of the Interior, David Laird, in a memorandum of November 2, 1874. In it he outlined the policy of his department toward\nthe British Columbia Indians:\nIn laying the foundation of an Indian policy in that Province, on\nthe same permanent and satisfactory basis as in other portions\nof the Dominion, the Government of the Dominion feel they\nwould not be justified in limiting their efforts to what, under the\nstrict letter of the Terms of Union, they were called upon to do.\nThey feel that a great national question like this, a question\ninvolving possibly in the near future an Indian War with all its\nhorrors, should be approached in a very different spirit, and\ndealt with upon other and higher grounds. Actuated by these\nfeelings, the Government of the Dominion in its dealings with the\nIndians of British Columbia has acted ... in a spirit of liberality\nfar beyond what the strict terms of the agreement required at its\nhands; and they confidently trust that on a calm review of the\nwhole subject in all its important bearings, the Government of\nthat Province will be prepared to meet them in a spirit of equal\nliberality.36\nThe threat of war was echoed by Father C. J. Grandidier of\nOkanagan Mission, by the Roman Catholic Bishop of British\n35 Hodgins, Dominion and Provincial Legislation, 1:1025.\n36 B.C., Sessional Papers, ist Pari., 4th sess., 1875, pp. 684-81\n 200 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nColumbia, Rev. L. J. d'Herbomez, by Powell,37 and even by Walkem.\nBut Walkem did not attribute the disturbance to any unrest caused\nby the failure to settle reservations. He drew Powell's attention to\nthe fact that the Indians at Cache Creek \"had assumed a hostile\nattitude,\" but blamed this solely on Powell's failure to visit them,\nmaking them \"feel they have been neglected by the Indian Department.\"38\nPowell was less concerned with the Indians' feelings than with a\nrestriction placed upon the local government's offer of twenty acres\nper family. He had received a letter oji July 28, 1873, three days\nafter the receipt of an Order in Council outlining policy for the\nprovince, which informed him that \"all future reserves for Indians\nwill be adjusted on the basis of twenty acres of land for each head\nof a family of five persons.\"39 At first Powell had no intimation of\nthe significance of the word \"future.\" In the three days intervening\nbetween the passing of the Order and Ash's sending the letter to\nPowell, Walkem and his colleagues had realized that as their\nMinute stood, Powell could increase all present reserves to the limit\nof twenty acres per family of five. Acting on the authority vested\nin him under the Order in Council of March 21, 1873, Powell had\nsent survey crews into the province to begin surveying present\nreserves as well as to define new reserves.\nOne of the crews had gone to the Musqueam reserve at the\nmouth of the north arm of the Fraser River. Here it was discovered\nthat in order to allot twenty acres to each family,40 1,197 additional\nacres would be required for the seventy families, since the present\nreserves contained only 314 acres, of which 114 were quite useless.\nOn July 31, 1874, Powell applied to Beaven, chief commissioner\nof lands and works, for the additional acreage.41\n37 Ibid., pp. 680-81, 679, 673.\n38 Walkem to Powell, December 26, 1873, ibid., pp. 667-68. A telegram from\nClinton on January 9, 1874, however, informed the government that in a\nCouncil of Chiefs, seven were for war and only two for peace. The message\nadded that Father Grandidier, a confidant of the Indians, \"gave it as his\nopinion that the Indians were liable to commence hostilities at any moment\"\n(\"Papers Connected with the Indian Land Question,\" p. 286).\n39 Ash to Powell, July 28, 1873, \"Papers Connected with the Indian Land\nQuestion,\" p. 279.\n40 By repeated representations to Walkem, Powell had persuaded the government to alter its Order in Council of July 25, 1873, to read \"twenty acres of\nland to each head of a family\" instead of to each head of a family of five\npersons (enclosure in Ash to Powell, July 21, 1874, ibid., p. 293).\n41 Ibid., p. 294.\n INDIAN LAND POLICY AFTER CONFEDERATION 201\nAfter much correspondence, it became apparent to Powell that\nhis worst fears were being confirmed. To determine precisely the\ninterpretation that the local government was placing on the Order\nin Council of July 25, 1873, he sent the following letter:\nAs many of the present reserves do not contain five acres of land\nto each head of a family, the injustice with which Indians having\nsuch reserves would be treated in case they were not extended,\nand the serious complications which would at once be consequent\nupon such treatment are so great, that I sincerely trust the interpretation seemingly conveyed by the Honourable Chief Commissioner's letter, of confining the grant to new reserves, is not that\nintended by the Government in lieu of all reserves containing\ntwenty acres to every head of a native family.42\nBut it was. Pending official notification, Powell discharged the survey parties, warned the government again of the serious consequences attendant upon such a policy, and drew to their attention\nthe fact that the action was a gross breach of good faith. On\nSeptember 28, Powell was informed that the operation of the\nMinute of July, 1873, was \"altogether confined to cases in which,\nat the time of Confederation, aboriginal tribes or communities were\nnot provided with lands set apart for their separate and exclusive\nuse.\"43\nBy now Lenihan, the New Westminster superintendent, had also\nregistered his protest and pointed out in two letters that since the\nprovince was deriving some considerable financial advantage each\nyear in the form of annual subsidies based on population, it might\nwell adopt a more liberal attitude toward Indian land grants.44 In\nanswer to his first letter, Lenihan was informed by the provincial\nsecretary that the province was being quite \"reasonable and just\"\nin honouring its obligations under the Terms of Union.45\nA voluminous correspondence was now carried on between Powell\nand the local government, and between the local government and\nthe Dominion \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \"an awful amount of correspondence,\" as Andy\nPaull said when he presented his evidence before the Special Joint\nCommittee in 1927.46 The conclusion is inescapable that the prov-\n42 Powell to Ash, August 15, 1874, ibid., p. 299.\n43 Ash to Powell, September 28, 1874, ibid., p. 303.\n44 Lenihan to Ash, October 15, 1874, ibid., pp. 148-50.\n45 Ash to Lenihan, October 12, 1874, ibid., p. 305.\n46 Special Joint Committee, Report and Evidence, p. 95.\n 202 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nince was carrying over into its dealings with the officers of the\nfederal Indian department much of the frustration and bitterness\nengendered by the railway problem. Powell as an appointee of the\nDominion and the Indians as its wards were suffering from the\n\"fight Canada\" attitude. No other explanation for the obstructionist\ntactics offers itself. If the dominion government was bending every\neffort to dishonour certain provisions of the railway clause, then the\nprovincial government would retaliate by exerting all its resources\nto adhere as closely as possible to the letter of the law under the\nIndian clause. Scarcity of land could hardly have weighed heavily\nas a factor at that time, although in a lengthy memorandum to the\nDominion on August 18, 1875, Walkem did object to the stipulation that the Indians' land should be of \"average quality.\" To\nbuttress his argument that British Columbia could ill afford the\nextensive acreages of arable lands requested by the Dominion,\nWalkem presented the following table which he based on an\nassumed Indian population of 40,000:\nist. \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Terms of Union\u00E2\u0080\u0094 10 acres to each Indian\nfamily 80,000 acres\n2nd.\u00E2\u0080\u00942ist March, 1873 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Request by Dominion\nfor 80 acres of average quality for each\nfamily of five persons, and old Reserves to\nbe regulated accordingly, equal to 640,000 acres\n3rd. \u00E2\u0080\u0094 In reply the Province offered 20 acres to\neach head of a family of five persons, which\nthe Indian Department was authorized by\nthe Dominion Authorities to accept, equal\nto 160,000 acres\n4th.\u00E2\u0080\u0094 15th May, 1874. \u00E2\u0080\u0094 In lieu of the above, a\nfurther request was made for 20 acres to\neach head of a family or, as understood, for\neach Indian adult, (the adults being about\nthree-tenths of the Indian population),\nequal to 240,000 acres\nThis was assented to in the case of future Reserves; but the\nProvincial Government declined to include past Reserves in this\nagreement. They, however, offered to consider any special claim\nwhich might arise in respect of the latter.\nNote: From each of the above quantities, the acreage of the\nold Reserves must, of course, be deducted. The amount cannot\nbe stated with accuracy in the absence of complete surveys. It,\nhowever, represents but a very small fraction of the quantities\nstated.47\n47 \"Report on Indians Reserves,\" p. 62.\n INDIAN LAND POLICY AFTER CONFEDERATION 203\nWalkem went on to state that in dealing with large tracts of agricultural land which were vitally needed for settlement purposes, his\ngovernment felt \"fully justified in hesitating to accede to propositions which might not only retard the future settlement of the\nProvince but prove to be both ill-judged and ill-timed, in the interests\nof the present settlers and of the Indians themselves.\" In presenting\nwhat was a well reasoned argument, he said the request from the\nDominion \"for any reasonable and discriminating acreage of cultivable land for the use of the Indians\" would not have been refused,\nif for no other reason than the very practical one that \"as large\nconsumers and as labourers\" the Indians were entitled to \"kind and\nliberal treatment.\" His government, he continued, had granted the\nrequest for twenty acres for each family, which was more than they\nwere obliged to do, but felt they could not agree that this should\napply to present reserves. \"With great reluctance,\" he added, his\ngovernment \"felt compelled to differ in opinion from the Dominion\nGovernment.\" He considered, however, that the local government\ncould not justly be held responsible for the impasse now reached.\n\"The real causes of this failure are attributable to the want of\nproper information on the part of the Dominion Government of the\nphysical structure of this country and of the habits of the Indians.\"48\nIn this statement there was much truth. The Dominion planned\nto follow the procedure which had been so successful on the extensive prairie lands of the Territories. The way of life of the Indians\nof British Columbia differed essentially from that of the prairie\nIndians. But because of the animosity existing between Victoria and\nOttawa, the local government did not at any time convey this\ninformation to Ottawa.\nWith the aid of arguments supplied by William Duncan of the\nMetlakatla colony,49 Walkem then proceeded in his memorandum\nto demonstrate effectively that his government was not merely being\ndifficult. He incorporated Duncan's suggestions \"in order that\nerroneous impressions may be removed, unnecessary complications\nbe avoided, a practical land scheme be devised, and the Indian\nquestion finally settled to the mutual satisfaction of both Governments.\"50\n4\u00C2\u00BB Ibid., p. 61.\n49 Ibid., appendix C, pp.\n50 Ibid., p. 65.\n 204 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nAll these views were attached to a Minute of the Executive Council of British Columbia on August 18, 1875, and forwarded to\nOttawa. The Indian department gave the Minute close study. On\nNovember 10, an Order in Council was passed outlining the views\nof R. W. Scott, acting minister of the interior during Laird's absence\nin British Columbia. He recommended that with a view to the\nprompt and final settlement of the Indian lands question, an Allotment Commission of three men be appointed, one by each government and the third jointly, \"to visit, with all convenient speed, ...\neach Indian nation ... in British Columbia, and, after a full enquiry\non the spot into all matters affecting the question, to fix and determine for each nation, separately, the number, extent, and locality\nof the Reserve or Reserves to be allowed to it.\"51\nThe remaining clauses of the Order in Council incorporated the\nrecommendations contained in Walkem's memorandum which, in\nturn, had been based entirely upon Duncan's suggestions. Duncan's\ninfluence becomes apparent from a close reading of the last sentence\nin clause 5 from which originated the vexatious problem of the\nreversionary interest in Indian lands.\nThat each Reserve shall be held in trust for the use and benefit\nof the nation of Indians to which it has been allotted, and, in the\nevent of any material increase or decrease hereafter of the numbers of a nation occupying a Reserve, such Reserve shall be\nenlarged or diminished, as the case may be, so that it shall bear\na fair proportion to the members of the nation occupying it.\nThe extra land required for any Reserve shall be allotted from\nCrown Lands, and any land taken off a Reserve shall revert to\nthe Province.\nIn conclusion, Scott recommended that each commissioner be\npaid by the government appointing him, and that the expenses and\nsalary of the joint commissioner, who was to be allowed ten dollars a\nday, should be borne jointly.52 Even the method of paying the joint\ncommissioner was to have unpleasant repercussions.\nMeanwhile, increasing unrest was apparent among the Indians\nthroughout the province. This unrest, in turn, caused a growing\nfear among the white settlers that an Indian war was a distinct and\nimmediate possibility. When the surveys had been discontinued in\n51 \"Papers Connected with the Indian Land Question,\" pp. 220-23.\n52 Ibid., pp. 320-23.\n INDIAN LAND POLICY AFTER CONFEDERATION 205\nthe summer of 1874, the discontent and alarm among the Indians\nwere greatly aggravated. That there had been no war that year,\nPowell attributed solely to the lack of unity among the Indians and\nnot in any way to the absence of sufficient provocation.53 Powell\nwas not being alarmist; some white settlers and missionaries shared\nhis views. Until the land grievances were settled, no money grants\nor presents would have placated the Indians. Powell stated that the\nNicola and Okanagan Indians, the most seriously disaffected, refused\nto accept his customary gifts, fearing that by taking any they might\nbe thought to be waiving their claim for compensation for the\ninjustice they felt was being done them.\nThe Indians along the Lower Fraser River, equally aggrieved,\nadopted the white man's procedure and on July 14, 1874, presented a petition to the government through the medium of Dr.\nPowell.54 The Indians were chagrined at the recalcitrance of the\nprovincial government in denying them eighty acres per family and\nannoyed at the pre-empting of their pastures by white settlers. The\npetitioners were quite aware that the government had to record the\npre-emptions. They were also aware that under the 1870 Land\nOrdinance they themselves were at liberty to pre-empt large\nacreages after obtaining the written permission of the Lieutenant-\nGovernor in Council. However, they also knew that the provincial\ngovernment was not granting such permission, and had not been\nsince 1872, pending location of the railway lands.55 Even if this had\nnot been the case, they had a shrewd suspicion of the probable\nresult if the chief commissioner of lands and works received many\napplications for pre-emptions from Indians. Further, unless an\nIndian had money to purchase provisions and implements and to\nsustain himself over a long period of time, it is doubtful that he\ncould have fulfilled the pre-emption residence requirements of ten\nmonths annually on the claim. In all likelihood, he would have\nfound it necessary to work elsewhere to finance his holding. But he\ncould not arrange for another Indian to live on his claim, since\n53 As reported by David Laird, minister of the interior, in his \"Memorandum,\"\nNovember 2, 1874, Canada, Sessional Papers, 3d Pari., 3d sess., 1876, no.\n9, pp. xli-xlv.\n54 See Appendix D, Item 3, for the complete text.\n55 This was one reason given by the British Columbia government. The other\none voiced by Walkem was that the practice of permitting Indians to preempt had been discontinued \"lest it should interfere with the Dominion policy\nof concentrating the Indians upon Reserves,\" a policy he was to denounce\nseverely. (See: \"Report on Indian Reserves,\" p. 59.)\n 206 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nunder the 1873 Land Amendment Act no one could engage an\nIndian to live on a pre-emption while he himself was absent.56\nWith all these facts in mind, it is remarkable that the petitioners\nrefrained from adding anything other than the veiled threat that\n\"we cannot say what will be the consequence\" if what they sought\nwere not granted, and soon. Such moderation was no doubt advised\nby the missionaries active among the tribes, but the note of warning\nwas not lost on Powell or the dominion officials. The easterners had\nnot forgotten the rebellion at Red River three years before, the\norigin of which had been a set of_ circumstances very similar to\nthose now developing in British Columbia.\nThe two governments exchanged thinly disguised accusations.\nEach was certain that its position was correct. The Dominion took\nthe position that when the framers of the Terms of Union had\ninserted the provisions requiring the Dominion to pursue a policy\nas liberal toward the Indians as that which British Columbia had\nfollowed until 1871, they could hardly have been aware of the\nmarked contrast between the Indian policy which had always been\npursued in Canada and the policy being enforced in British Columbia. The ten-acre grant, or even the twenty, could hardly compare\nwith the Canadian allotment of eighty acres, and the same contrast\nprevailed in regard to schools and agricultural assistance. Laird was\nmoved to declare that under such circumstances \"the insertion of\na policy as liberal as was pursued by the local government seems\nlittle short of a mockery\" of the Indian claim.57 The provincial\ngovernment struck what it considered a telling blow by pointing out\nthat the very fact of Powell's acknowledgement that many of the\nexisting reserves did not allow of twenty acres per family was conclusive proof that the province, in agreeing to furnish twenty acres\nin the future, was being more liberal than required under the Terms\nof Union.58\n56 British Columbia, Land Laws of British Columbia: together with Land\nOffice Forms and Regulations (Victoria: R. Wolfenden, 1873), p. 8. Both\nIndians and Chinese were forbidden to act as \"occupiers\" for anyone preempting the land. Because of the stringent regulations of section 16 of the\n1870 Ordinance requiring \"continuous bona fide personal residence of the pre-\nemptor on his pre-emption claim,\" the 1873 Amendment permitted an\n\"agent.\" Section 16 was aimed directly at speculators, or those whose appetite\nfor land was larger than their ability to use it all.\n57 Canada, Sessional Papers, 3d Pari., 3d sess., 1876, pp. xli-xlv.\n58 Beaven to Powell, August 10, 1874, B.C., Sessional Papers, ist Pari., 4th\nsess., 1875, p. 676.\n INDIAN LAND POLICY AFTER CONFEDERATION 207\nOut of this duel-by-letter was nurtured, if not born, the problem\nof aboriginal title, even before the Allotment Commission had gone\ninto the field. The Indians and their sympathizers were not slow to\nappreciate that the federal Indian policy, based on Imperial policy,\noffered the perfect basis for their claim to all lands in the province.\nNo official action was taken for many years in the formal presentation of this claim, but it was to be troublesome to the Allotment\nCommission among the Tshimshian tribe of the Skeena and Nass\nregions. On the first visits of the Commission this tribe refused\nto permit any reserves to be set aside, fearing that, by accepting\nthem, they would be foregoing their larger claim.59 These, however,\nwere problems for the future. The more immediate task was to set\napart reserves. The way was cleared on January 8, 1876, when the\nprovincial government agreed to the formation of the Joint Allotment Commission, as recommended by dominion Order in Council\nof November 10, 1875. ^n tneu~ Minute accepting all the terms the\nlocal government pointed out that \"strictly speaking, the Province\nshould not be responsible for any portion of the expenses connected\nwith the charge or management of Indian Affairs which are entrusted by the Terms of Union to the Dominion Government.\"60\nIn May, 1876, the Dominion appointed Alexander C. Anderson of\nNorth Saanich as its representative. British Columbia took no action\nuntil August, at which time it appointed Archibald McKinlay of\nLac la Hache, and recommended Gilbert Malcolm Sproat as the\njoint commissioner. On August 15, Sproat's appointment was confirmed.61 In the instructions sent to Anderson and Sproat on August\n23, they were told to assure the Indians of the dominion government's anxious desire to deal with them \"justly and liberally\"; to\ndo nothing that would militate against the existing friendly relations\nbetween the Dominion and the Indians; to refrain from disturbing\nthe Indians in the possession of their villages, fishing stations, fur-\ntrading posts, settlements, or clearings; to confer in all matters with\nthe two superintendents, Powell and Lenihan; and to work as\nrapidly as possible. By a proclamation of December 23, 1876, three\nCanada, Department of Indian Affairs, \"Report of the Superintendent-\nGeneral of Indian Affairs,\" Canada, Sessional Papers, 6th Pari., ist sess.,\n1887, No. 6, pp. x-xi.\n\"Papers Connected with the Indian Land Question,\" pp. 328A-328B.\nCanada, Department of the Interior, \"Report of the Department of the\nInterior,\" Canada, Sessional Papers, 3d Pari., 4th sess., 1877, no. 11, p. xvi.\n 208\nLAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nmonths after the commissioners had entered upon their formidable\ntask, they were empowered to deal absolutely and at once with any\nquestion that might arise without reference to either government.\nTo indicate that the dominion government was cognizant of the\nnative title claim and was not disposed to deny it, the Order in\nCouncil establishing the Commission concluded by stating that the\nquestion of the rights of the Indians in all lands in British Columbia\nwhere those rights had not been extinguished by treaties was still\nunsettled.\n CHAPTER 13\nThe Reserve Allotment Commissions\nThe work of the commissioners was necessarily slow, and it was not\nspeeded when they were forced to discharge their secretary after\nobjections from Victoria to the expense. Beginning at the mouth\nof the Fraser River, the commissioners visited each existing reserve.\nThey went on to Burrard Inlet, up the coast to Jervis Inlet, across\nto Comox, and down to Victoria the first winter, 1876-1877. In\neach area they were required to establish accurately the population\nof the tribe or band for which the reserve was to be either confirmed, created, or extended. At Burrard Inlet, for instance, they\ndiscovered that no further land could be allotted because of settlement on all sides and the presence of sawmills. As the commissioners\nfor the Dominion had been especially instructed not to disturb existing settlement, it was necessary to look elsewhere for land. Because\nthe Squamish tribe living on Burrard Inlet had fishing stations on\nHowe Sound and because it was desirable to set aside as large tracts\nas possible in unsettled areas with a view to having the Indians\nsettle permanently, the commissioners eventually went to Howe\nSound. After alloting two reserves, one of 2,000 acres and a second\nof 14,000 acres, \"the highest satisfaction at the result of our proceedings was expressed by the Chiefs.\"1 At Comox a reserve of fourteen\nacres was allotted to include \"scattered graves.\"2 At Cowichan,\n\"Report of Alexander C. Anderson, Dominion Commission Indian Reserves,\"\nCanada, Sessional Papers, 3d Pari., 5th sess., 1878, no. 10, special appendix\nD, pp. li-lxiv.\nIn his report for the year, Powell noted when the Comox chief came down\nto Victoria to report on the activities of the Allotment Commission, the chief\nexpressed approval of all that had been done but wondered \"when I thought\nmm\n 210 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nAnderson reported that the large reserves given by Douglas3 had\nbeen cut down by successive governors, \"(especially ... by the late\nGovernor Seymour),\" but in accord with his instructions, Anderson\n\"informed the Indians at the outset that, while the Dominion\nGovernment in unison with the Provincial Government, were solicitous to promote the interest of the Indians, and to satisfy them in\nevery reasonable way, no interference with the vested interests of\nthe White settlers could be permitted.\"4\nThe commissioners' problems on the coast were nothing in comparison with those encountered in the interior, where they went in\nJune, 1877. The coast Indians could and did hire themselves out as\nlabourers. Hence their land was not as economically important to\nthem as to those tribes who relied almost exclusively upon their cattle and horses for livelihood. After working in the southern interior\nin the neighbourhood of Osoyoos and up Lake Okanagan for three\nmonths, Sproat expressed alarm at the feeling among the Indians.\nHe found that the action of the colonial government in cutting\ndown their former extensive reserves, the unextinguished title to all\nlands, the delay since 1871 in attending to their complaints, and the\npresence of an Indian outbreak immediately south of the border\nhad all contributed to a situation in which any unusual event, even\na rough quarrel between an Indian and a white man, might have\n\"an unusually bad effect.\" To his knowledge, he reported, messengers were being sent constantly back and forth across the border.\nThe two bands were of the same tribe, separated by a political line\nwhich was meaningless to them. He said there was valid evidence\nthat the interior tribes, the \"O'Kanagans\" and the Shuswaps, had\nagreed to settle their land claims in their own way, and that they\nwere plentifully supplied with ammunition.5\nit likely they would be paid for their title to all other land in Comox occupied by white people?\" (Powell to David Mills, minister of the interior,\nOctober 18, 1877, ibid., p. 47). In a return tabled April 24, 1901, the\nsmallest reserve listed is one of 3/100 of an acre for a graveyard at Sooke,\nallotted by the Reserve Commission June 11, 1877 (B.C., Sessional Papers,\n9th Pari., 2d sess., 1901, pp. 589-601).\nAfter seeking legal advice, Sproat reported that he had been assured the\nreserves established by Douglas were perfectly legal (Sproat to Sir John A.\nMacdonald, November 11, 1879, Canada, Sessional Papers, 4th Pari., 2d sess.,\n1880, no. 4, pp. 142-45).\nCanada, Sessional Papers, 3d Pari., 5th sess., 1878, no. 10, special appendix\nD, p. 1.\nSproat to Mills, December 1, 1877, ibid., special appendix E, pp. lxv-lxxvi.\nMill's report to the Governor General, Lord Dufferin, on this critical situation\nis found, ibid., p. xix.\n THE RESERVE ALLOTMENT COMMISSIONS 211\nSproat was so disturbed by the effect on the Indians of newspaper\nstories criticizing the excessive acreage the commissioners were\nrumoured to be granting that he wrote to the Colonist on October\n20, 1877. He pointed out that \"the Indian question overshadows\nevery other practical question which we have to deal with at the\npresent time.\" He added that there could be no substantial railway\nprogress in British Columbia until the Indian land question had\nbeen finally and completely settled. The commissioners, he said,\nwere attempting to give the Indians enough, but not too much,\nland; and it was to the credit of the province generally that the\ncommissioners were finding that where there had been any trespassing, the Indian was usually the offender. Finally, he wrote, they\nwere instructing the Indians everywhere to withdraw any extravagant claims to supposed prior grants made by the colonial government.6\nThe general alarm gradually subsided as the commissioners made\ntheir visits. It is clear, however, that the white settlers' fears of a\ngeneral war were not unfounded. In June it was discovered that the\nShuswaps had decided to call a great general meeting at Okanagan\nLake. Such a large meeting spelled trouble. Moreover, the interior\ntribes were in constant communication with Chief Joseph and his\ntribe in Washington Territory, who were currently engaged in a\nbloody battle against troops of the United States' Army. While the\nIndians were meeting at Okanagan Lake, the reserve commissioners\nwere detained in Victoria awaiting the outcome of another disagreement between the two governments. As soon as dominion officials\nlearned of the critical situation, they directed the commissioners to\nproceed at once to the scene of the expected trouble. It is possible\nthat without the timely arrival of the commissioners on the spot to\nadjust reserves, British Columbia might have found itself engaged\nin an Indian war.\nOn the surface, it seemed to the Indians that the local government was directly responsible for the crises that arose both in 1874\nand in 1877. There could be no doubt that the colonial government, at the very least, was careless in its handling of Indian reserves\nbefore 1871, since it had made little effort to survey the reserves that\nhad been assigned. To the Indian the terms \"colonial\" and \"provincial\" were indistinguishable. Further, agents of the dominion\ngovernment, acting under a misapprehension but with all good\n6 Quoted ibid., special appendix E, p. Ixxv-lxxvi.\n 212 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nintentions, had promised the Indians eighty acres of land as well\nas further considerations.7 And when news reached the Indians\nof the liberal treatment of the prairie tribes through dominion\ntreaties, they had no doubt as to which government was their\nbenefactor.\nThe provincial government would not accept the proposition\nthat the Royal Proclamation of 1763 applied to any territory west\nof the Rockies. Hence it felt under no obligation to secure the\ncession of the Indian title by treaty. Since three-quarters of the\nIndian population lived along the coast in the 1870's, the British\ngovernment felt that the treaty system should not be used in a\ncountry where a fishing economy was so predominant among the\nIndians.8\nPremier Smithe expressed the same opinion to Prime Minister\nMacdonald in 1884. After noting that \"the administration of Indian\naffairs is in anything but a satisfactory condition,\" and suggesting\nradical changes in the treatment of the Indians in his province, he\nlaid the entire blame on the Indian Act, which he said was \"framed\nespecially to provide for the protection and government of the\nnative race in Eastern Canada and the North-West Territories,\nwhere the habits and customs, and character of the people are\nentirely dissimilar to those found among the tribes of British\nColumbia,\" and therefore \"would appear to be, in many respects,\nquite inapplicable to the Indians in the Pacific Province.\"9\nTrutch had made the further telling point in 1872 that should the\ndominion government now attempt to buy out the Indian title to\nthe land in British Columbia \"you would go back of all that had\nbeen done here for 30 years past and would be equitably bound to\ncompensate the tribes who inhabited the districts now settled farmed\nIn complaining about this matter, Premier Walkem probably had Powell in\nmind, for Powell's actions had undoubtedly placed the province in an embarrassing position. (See: \"Report on Indian Reserves,\" p. 61.)\nWalkem put the number of Indians gaining their livelihood from fishing and\nhunting along the coast at 30,000. He added that, should the treaty system\nof placing Indians on large tracts of land, as in Ontario, be adopted in\nBritish Columbia, \"a serious injury will be inflicted upon the Indians and\nthe Province,\" and that such a system would be '\"fraught with mischief for\nthe Province at large.\" As an alternative, he suggested that no uniform\nacreage be decided upon, but rather that each tribe should be assigned land\nas its circumstances dictated \u00E2\u0080\u0094 fishing stations, hunting areas, settlements,\nand fanning areas. This was another of William Duncan's suggestions. (See:\nDuncan to Laird, May, 1875, \"Report on Indian Reserves,\" pp. 69-71.)\n1 Smithe to Macdonald, March 7, 1884, B.C., Sessional Papers, 4th Pari., 3d\nsess., 1885, pp. 1-2.\n THE RESERVE ALLOTMENT COMMISSIONS 213\n[sic] by white people equally with those in more remote and uncultivated portions. Our Indians are sufficiently satisfied and had\nbetter be left alone as far as a new system towards them is concerned.\"10\nThe Allotment Commissioners discovered that the Indians were\nnot as aware of the satisfaction between themselves and the local\ngovernment as Trutch.11 Wherever there was dissatisfaction, however, the visit of the commissioners to assign lands generally met\nwith the approval of the Indians. Notification of the exact size and\nlocation of the allotted land was forwarded to the chief commissioner of lands and works in Victoria. Notice then was to have\nappeared in the Gazette to indicate the government's official confirmation of the reserve.\nIn fact, however, no such notice ever did appear in the Gazette\nfor reserves assigned by the Joint Allotment Commission. In spite\nof Smithe's protestations that \"the British Columbia Government\nare anxious to deal justly and generously with the Indians of the\nProvince,\" and that \"the Province is ready to give such areas of\nCrown land for Indian Reserves as are necessary and reasonable,\"12\nhe labelled the Joint Commissioners as \"notoriously prodigal\" in\ntheir allotment of land and castigated them for having set apart\nreserves \"with such reckless extravagance.\"13 Smithe became so\nvitriolic when Powell begged him in his capacity of chief commissioner of lands and works to have the reserves gazetted \u00E2\u0080\u0094 something\nSmithe had no intention of doing \u00E2\u0080\u0094 that he accused the Allotment\nCommissioners of setting themselves above the law and of encouraging the Indians to do likewise.\n10 See Appendix D, Item 2.\n11 Cornelius O'Keefe's holdings exemplified the kind of delicate problem they\ncould encounter. They discovered that on April 29, 1873, O'Keefe had preempted 320 acres of an Indian settlement and that he had done so before\nreceiving a crown grant for a previous 480-acre pre-emption which had been\nrecorded in 1871. Both actions were illegal under the Land Ordinances of\n1865 and 1870. After discussing the case at some length in his report, Sproat\nadded, \"Mr. Keefe is not a poor ignorant settler, but a wealthy intelligent\ncattle farmer, already in possession of 640 acres.\" O'Keefe discovered that\nhe had urgent business to attend to in England immediately prior to the\nvisit of the commissioners. He left his assistant, Mr. Greenhow, in charge.\n(See: B.C., Sessional Papers, 2d Pari., 3d sess., and 3d Pari., ist sess., 1878,\npp. 715-28 for the full correspondence.)\n12 Smithe to Deputy Superintendent-General Vankoughnet, April 11, 1884,\nB.C., Sessional Papers, 4th Pari., 3d sess., 1885, p. 13.\n13 Smithe to Powell, November 24, 1884, ibid., p. xiv, following p. 410, and\nSmithe to O'Reilly, November 29, 1884, ibid., p. xvi.\n 214 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nThe Commissioners would undoubtedly have done service to all\nconcerned in the good government of the country if they had\ntaught the Indians that they were entirely subject to the law of\nthe land, and not superior to it; by explaining that they themselves were subject to the law and could not grant rights and\nprivileges to water or anything else in the teeth of the express\nprovisions of the Act upon the subject.14\nPowell's repeated requests to the government to recognize the\nreserves set aside by the Allotment Commissioners were in vain, and\nthe province continued to dishonour its obligations under the 1875-\n1876 Agreement. Powell said that the delay was very unfortunate\n\"as tending to unsettle the minds of the Indians in the good faith\nof the Government after they have been informed that the Commissioners were regularly authorized Chiefs, whose decisions were\nto be final, and after these lands have been duly pointed out to the\nnatives by the Commission as permanent reservations.\" Moreover,\nthe white settlers were beginning to disregard any Indian reservation and to pre-empt such lands at a rapid rate.15 Smithe's only\nanswer was that, after seeing such reserves as the two at the north\nend of Okanagan Lake \u00E2\u0080\u0094 one of 24,742 acres (including the Commonage above Vernon) and the other of 29,392 acres (including\nthe range west of Vernon), \"separated from the first by a narrow\nstrip of water only,\" and both \"lying in a wild, waste condition\nwithout any attempt being made to improve it\" \u00E2\u0080\u0094 he felt\nan almost criminal wrong had been done in withdrawing from\nsettlement so large a tract of fertile land. A wrong, particularly\napparent at this time, when there is such a demand for the land\nby white settlers, who are entering the country in search of homes.\nConstantly applications are being made to me for just such lands\nas are locked up in these reserves by men who would invest large\nmeans in their development, and make them productive of wealth\nto the state.16\nThis was more than Powell could accept, particularly as Smithe\nhad accused the Department of Indian Affairs of gross dereliction\nof duty in not teaching the Indians to use their lands to better\nadvantage. Powell pointed out to Smithe that, although in all those\n50,000 acres there was much grazing land on the Commonage, it\n14 Smithe to Powell, December 5, 1884, ibid., p. xviii, following p. 410.\n15 Powell to Smithe, November 11, 1884, ibid., p. viii, following p. 410.\n16 Smithe to Powell, November 24, 1884, ibid., p. xiii, following p. 410.\n THE RESERVE ALLOTMENT COMMISSIONS 215\nwas \"common ground\" on which white settlers pastured twenty\ntimes as many cattle as did the Indians, and that there was very\nlittle cultivable land. He continued:\nYou will pardon me for stating that your impression as to \"the\nimmense area of land lying in a wild, waste condition\" is, in my\nopinion, calculated to mislead in a correct consideration of this\nmatter. Nor can I understand, under such circumstances, the\njustice of your reflections upon this department in the settlement\n\"that no effort is being made to train Indians to utilize the broad\nacres set apart for them\" \u00E2\u0080\u0094 lands which the Provincial Government have refused to confirm as reserves, notwithstanding the\nlength of time which has elapsed since they were set apart by a\nCommission whose decisions were, by agreement between the two\nGovernments, to have been final.\nIt is also important to remember that great doubt and uncertainty have been caused as to the intentions of the Provincial\nGovernment with regard to all reserves of the interior, on\naccount of their action in alienating and receiving moneys for\nreserve lands which were gravely promised and given to the\nIndians by the Joint Reserve Commission.17\nAlthough on many of the reserves the Indians were left in undisputed possession, it was only because the lands were not being\nsought by settlers. Not a single reserve set aside by the Joint Commission was ever accepted by the provincial government.\nAt first the commissioners had no intimation of any such complications. They were not permitted, however, to proceed far before\nobjection was voiced in the local legislature to the \"time and expense\ninvolved over many years if the present Joint Commission were to\ncontinue its work.\" A. C. Elliott, premier and provincial secretary,\nthe instigator of the motion, recommended to his Executive Council\non January 27, 1877, that because of the expense, the commission\nshould restrict its activities \"to places where the whites and natives\nare living in close proximity\" as well as to those areas where dissatisfaction was being voiced. Expressing an opinion the opposite\nof that used earlier by Walkem in an effort to speed up surveys,\nElliott said that throughout the greater portion of the province \"the\nIndians are, and will be for many years to come, completely isolated,\nhaving little or no intercourse with the whites; and in these remote\nplaces no difficulties are likely to be experienced.\" With this in\n17 Powell to Smithe, December 9, 1884, ibid., pp. xx-xxi, following p. 410, No. 2.\n 216 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nmind, he advised the dissolution of the Joint Commission in favour\nof a single commissioner at the end of 1877, ana^ did so with the\nfull approval of Powell.18 The reduction was reluctantly concurred\nin by the Dominion, and an Order in Council to that effect was\npassed on February 23, 1877.19\nA return tabled in 1878 indicated that the cost to the province of\nthe Joint Commission from its inception in 1876 to the end of 1877\nwas $i2,024.68.20 At this period of disenchantment over the railway and of mounting deficits, this sum seemed an unreasonable\namount, particularly if it were to continue indefinitely. Especially\nirksome to the local government, of course, was the fact that Indian\naffairs were legally the responsibility of the Dominion, as had been\ncarefully noted in the Minute accepting the Allotment Commission.\nBy Order in Council of March 8, 1878, Sproat became the single\ncommissioner. In the course of his first year's work, he reported to\nSir John A. Macdonald that rather than objecting to the reduction\nin size of the commission, the Indians appeared better pleased to\nbe dealing with \"one white chief than with three, the respective\nduties and positions of whom ... they did not understand.\"21 He\ntook up his duties in the Lower Fraser River area, where he found\nthe greatest problem to be squatters on Indian lands in the Railway\nBelt, but he reported that he had exhausted every effort to provide\nfor the Indians without unnecessarily disturbing any of those settlers.\nHaving allotted all the reserves along the proposed railway line to a\ndistance fifty miles up the North Thompson from Kamloops, he\nmoved his operations to the northern end of Vancouver Island.\nWhen his plans became known to the provincial authorities, he discovered that the government was attempting to prevent the investi-\n18 Elliot to Laird, January 27, 1877, B.C., Sessional Papers, 2d Pari., 2d sess.,\n1877, pp. 433-34.\nI Ibid.\n20 \"Return of Expenditures on Account of Indian Commission for the year\n1876 to 31st December, 1877,\" B.C., Sessional Papers, 2d Pari., 3d sess., and\n3d Pari., ist sess., 1878, p. 499. The figure represents the province's share\nonly. Each year the Reserve Commission was costing the dominion government close to $50,000. (Canada, Sessional Papers, 4th Pari., 2d sess., 1880,\nno. 4, p. 249.) In 1877 provincial expenditures exceeded receipts by $175,-\n466, and in 1878 the deficit increased to $191,213 (\"Table of Expenditures\nand Receipts, 1872-1901,\" B.C., Sessional Papers, 9th Pari., 2d sess., 1901,\np. 566).\n21 \"Annual Report of the Department of the Interior,\" Canada, Sessional\nPapers, 4th Pari., ist sess., 1879, no. 7, pp. ix-x.\n THE RESERVE ALLOTMENT COMMISSIONS 217\ngation and adjustment of reserves in that district, \"for reasons which\nI cannot surmise.\"22\nSproat went ahead with his plans, but at the price of his job.\nHe found the conditions among the Indians so deplorable that he\nfelt constrained to report directly to Dr. Powell in Victoria what\nhe had found, in order to give Powell the opportunity to advance\nany contrary views before Sproat's report was submitted to the\ndepartment in Ottawa. In his letter to Powell, which was subsequently included in his annual report, he said that the \"pot-lach\"\ncustom had increased, that sick Indians had to travel all the way to\nVictoria for care, that cannibalism was not extinct, that prostitution\nwas unchecked, that drinking was as bad as ever, and that he could\nnot find that \"any particular remedy has been applied.\"23\nHaving been so outspoken about his findings so close to Powell's\nheadquarters, and having ignored the veiled threat from the provincial government that it would be \"impolitic\" for him to visit the\nnorthern end of the island, Sproat could hardly have expected commendation. Powell and Sir John A. Macdonald were personal\nfriends, and Sproat was probably asked for resignation. At any rate,\nhe tendered it in March, 1880.\nIn his place Peter O'Reilly, a judge of the county court and a\nstipendiary magistrate, was appointed. As a judge, he was unable\nto take up the duties of his new office until he could be relieved of\nhis other duties in the autumn. The work of surveying, however,\nwent on all summer, since the two survey parties had never been\nable to keep up with the commissioners, or even with the single\ncommissioner.24 Since Elliott's memorandum in 1877 dealing with\nthe expense of the commission, the provincial government had\nscrutinized more closely the commissioner's reports and insisted that\nthe allotments be approved not only by the chief commissioner of\nlands and works but also by the Executive Council. Until then, no\nnotice could appear in the Gazette.\nFor the next eighteen years O'Reilly went up and down the province, first to complete the work of allotting reserves where none had\nexisted before and then to go back to certain reserves to enlarge\n22 Sproat to Vankoughnet, November 24, 1879, Canada, Sessional Papers, 4th\nPari., 2d sess., 1880, no. 4, pp. 141-44.\n28 Sproat to Powell, November 11, 1879, ibid., pp. 146-48.\n24 Powell to Macdonald, November 15, 1880, Canada, Sessional Papers, 4th\nPari., 3d sess., 1880-81, no. 14, pp. 118-20.\n 218 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nthem or to settle some difficulty which had arisen with white\nsettlers. The latter problem was not common, although he did\nencounter serious trouble in the Cariboo and Kootenay districts. In\n1884 he visited the Indians around Soda Creek, Canoe Creek and\nAlkali Lake, none of whom had ever had any reserves but who now\nasked the provincial government to provide land \u00E2\u0080\u0094 somehow, someplace. All land in the vicinity had been pre-empted. In view of its\nresponsibility for seeing that every Indian band in the province was\nsupplied with enough land for its purposes, the local government\nwas asked to locate a satisfactory area of land previously reserved\nby the government.25 This request had repercussions in the legislature. In a motion designed to remove Indians from their valuable\nagricultural and timber lands, G. B. Martin and C. A. Semlin\nsought also to censure the Smithe ministry for acceding to the\nrequest of the reserve commissioner for such large tracts of land.\nThey succeeded neither in having the Indians transferred to \"wild\nland equally suitable for the purpose for which they require them,\"\nnor in censuring the government.26 Though the motion failed, it\ndid start ugly rumours circulating among the Indians. These\nrumours persisted for years and O'Reilly found them exceedingly\ntroublesome.\nThe provincial government refused to provide the necessary land\nat Soda Creek and Alkali Lake. It was partly to discuss the injustice\nfelt in British Columbia over this and other Indian matters that\nSmithe made a special trip to Ottawa in the spring of 1884, just\na year after he had become premier. While in Ottawa he expressed\nhis views on the subject of Indians and their lands as follows:\nThe Indians at Alkali Lake, as well as at Soda and Canoe Creeks,\ncertainly would seem to have urgent claims for relief at the hands\nof the Dominion Government; and I cannot but think that that\nGovernment have not fully realized their responsibilities in respect\nof the Indians who are in their charge. It is manifestly wrong\nthat the Indians, whose guardianship the Federal Government\nassumed at Confederation, should be left, in some instances, to\nstarve, simply because the Provincial Government cannot afford\nto do that which never ought to have been expected, never asked\nfor at their hands, that is, to purchase improved property at high\nprices, and give it to the Dominion Government for Indian pur-\n25 \"Annual Report of the Department of Indian Affairs,\" Canada, Sessional\nPapers, 5th Pari., 3d sess., 1885, no. 3, p. lv.\n26 B.C., Journals, 4th Pari., 2d sess., 1884, p. 31.\n THE RESERVE ALLOTMENT COMMISSIONS 219\nposes. The Indians are a heavy burden to the Province as it is.\nIt would not be an exaggeration to say that the cost of administration of justice is doubled to the Province on Indian account,\nand yet as wards of the Dominion they contribute nothing to the\nProvincial Treasury. It is quite different however with the Federal\nGovernment in that regard. The Indians are large consumers of\ngoods upon which heavy duties are paid to the Dominion; and if\nthere were no other or better reason, the fact that the Indians\ncontribute more to the Exchequer of the Dominion than is\nexpended on their behalf, ought to be sufficient to induce the\nDominion Government to make such expenditure in the interest\nof their Indian wards as the circumstances demand ... it is not\nfair to expect that [the Province] can take of its small and inadequate revenue and purchase improved farms for either the\nIndians or the Dominion Government.27\nRather than attempt to force the issue, Powell purchased for the\nIndians a tract of i ,464 acres from the estate of A. S. Bates. From\nthis land the Indians obtained \"a large supply of both hay and\ngrain.\"28\nThe rumours which circulated as a result of the defeated motion\nof 1884, coupled with the fact that O'Reilly was incapacitated for\nsome months in 1885 by a serious accident, gave rise to a much\nmore alarming situation in the Kootenays. As early as 1883 A. S.\nFarwell, a special agent for the provincial government, had warned\nVictoria that for years the Kootenay Indians had been anxiously\nawaiting the arrival of the commissioner to define their reserves and\nso put a stop to the extensive encroachment of pre-emptors on lands\nthe Indians conceived to be their own. He warned that because\nthese Indians were constantly moving back and forth across the\nborder and were consequently aware of the \"vast extent\" of the\nAmerican Indian reservations, the commissioner would probably\nmeet with more difficulty than he would anywhere else in the province. A week later, on January 7, 1884, a similar warning was\nreceived from G. M. Sproat, now a provincial land surveyor.29\nThe trouble came in the summer of 1887. It was of sufficient\nmagnitude to prompt the British Columbia government to send\nseventy-five North West Mounted Police under Major Steele to\n27 Smithe to Vankoughnet, April n, 1884, B.C., Sessional Papers, 4th Pari., 3d\nsess., 1885, p. 13.\n28 Powell to Smithe, December 9, 1884, ibid., p. xxi.\n29 A. S. Farwell, B.C., Sessional Papers, 4th Pari., 3d sess., 1884, pp. 325-27;\nG. M. Sproat, ibid., p. 323.\n 220 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nquell the disorder.30 The A. E. B. Davie government was so alarmed\nthat it set up a special commission consisting of F. G. Vernon, chief\ncommissioner of lands and works, Judge O'Reilly, and Dr. Powell.\nWhen further lands were allotted to the Indians the alarm subsided.31\nIn many cases the Indians seemed perfectly satisfied with the\nmanner in which O'Reilly had treated them, and he generally\nexperienced no difficulty in having his allotments confirmed by the\nExecutive Council.32 But this was not because the local government was in any way relaxing its vigilance. Sir John A. Macdonald\ncomplained in 1886 that, to add to \"the existing complications in\nconnection with Indian management in this Province,\" the province\nwas now refusing to allow Indian Agents acting in their capacity\nas magistrates, the use of courthouses, jails, and services of constables.33 The provincial government had taken this action because the\nagents had refused to pay over to it fines imposed and collected from\nIndians for infractions of the Indian Act.\nThe matter of law enforcement among the Indians had been discussed at length by Smithe on his mission to Ottawa in 1884. On\nbehalf of the British Church Missionary Society, Bishop Ridley had\ndismissed William Duncan of Metlakatla for his failure to teach\n30 \"Annual Report of the Department of Indian Affairs,\" Canada, Sessional\nPapers, 6th Pari., 2d sess., 1888, no. 15, p. x.\n31 For report of the Special Commission, see ibid., pp. xci-xcvii.\n32 Not even for the reserve of 8,552 acres, all of Hope Island in the Queen\nCharlottes, which he allotted September 17, 1886, and which the government confirmed May 18, 1889. (See: B.C., Sessional Papers, 9th Pari., 2d\nsess., 1901, pp. 589-601.) An exception was the Kootenays, where he encountered opposition first from the Indians and later from the government.\nOn November 29, 1884, Smithe wrote to O'Reilly saying that \"since you\nhave assumed the work of laying out reserves, I am bound to say that a\nmuch fairer and more accurate appreciation of the duties and responsibilities\nof the office has been displayed,\" but he added that \"in the Kootenay you\nhave over-estimated the requirements of the Indians and under-estimated\nthose of the whites\" (B.C., Sessional Papers, 4th Pari., 3d sess., 1885, p.\nxvi, following p. 410). O'Reilly had set aside 38,630 acres on four reserves\nfor 441 Indians, a per capita allotment of 87.6 acres (ibid., p. 410). In his\nreply to Smithe on December 10, 1884, O'Reilly justified the size of the\nreserves by saying that \"I had the utmost difficulty in persuading the Kootenays to agree to the boundaries fixed on by me, and which they looked upon\nas meagre in the extreme, compared with the millions of acres set apart by\nthe United States Government for American Indians, a few miles south of\nthe line. Moreover, I think it important, for Provincial and International\nreasons, that Indians living on the frontier should have no reasonable ground\nof complaint, and in this view I feel sure you will concur\" (ibid., p. xxi,\nfollowing p. 410).\n33 Canada, Sessional Papers, 5th Pari., 4th sess., 1886, no. 4, p. lvi.\n THE RESERVE ALLOTMENT COMMISSIONS 221\northodox Anglican rites to the Indians in 1881. Disturbances so\nthreatening that the province found it necessary to swear in special\nconstables to preserve order followed. Since the Indians were wards\nof the Dominion, Smithe maintained that the Dominion should\nnever have allowed the disturbances, as he said:\nto continue to the extent of seriously jeopardizing the interests of\nthe white community or of imposing upon the Provincial Authorities the necessity of incurring heavy expenditure for the administration of justice and the maintenance of law and order among\na people who contribute nothing to the Provincial revenue. The\nDominion Government have taken the management of Indians\non the reserves into their own hands, and I submit that there\nmust be something radically wrong when a number of refractory\nwards, openly and avowedly resisting Federal authority, are\nallowed to flaunt with bravado before other tribes their successful defiance of the Indian Office.34\nSmithe then requested Ottawa to pay the salary of a stipendiary\nmagistrate at Metlakatla. Macdonald agreed but said he would\nhave to consider the matter of turning all Indian fines over to the\nlocal government.35 On this point Smithe argued that \"it is most\ndesirable that a change should be made in the Act in order to\nremove the present unfair and anomalous condition of things under\nwhich fines are required to be paid to the Dominion, but when not\npaid by those who have violated the Act the expense of their conveyance to, and maintenance while in, gaol is required to be borne\nby the Province.5'36\nBecause the province had refused to sanction Sproat's allotments\non the grounds of their improvidence,37 O'Reilly had spent part of\nthe summer of 1885 re-allotting reservations on Vancouver Island\nand on the southern mainland. During the year the first provincial\nstatistics were tabled in the legislature showing what work the Joint\nAllotment Commissioners and the single reserve commissioners, first\nSproat and then O'Reilly, had been doing. The return, tabled by\nSmithe as chief commissioner of lands and works on February 20,\n34 Smithe to Macdonald, March 7, 1884, B.C., Sessional Papers, 4th Pari., 3d\nsess., 1885, p. 2.\n35 Macdonald to Smithe, April 10, 1884, ibid., p. 10.\n36 Smithe to Vankoughnet, April 11, 1884, ibid., pp. 13-14.\n37 \"Annual Report of the Department of Indian Affairs,\" Canada, Sessional\nPapers, 6th Pari., ist sess., 1887, no. 6, p. lix.\n 222 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\n1885, showed all lands set apart for the Indians subsequent to the\nlist tabled on January 13, 1873.38\nIt was a most comprehensive tabulation, as it not only indicated\nthe names of the tribes and the number of Indians for whom each\nreserve had been made, but also listed all the reserves to which the\nchief commissioner had refused his assent. In addition, it listed the\nlocation of the tribes, the date on which the reserve commissioner's\ndecisions had been received, and the date on which the Executive\nCouncil had given its approval. It also indicated whether the reserve\nhad been surveyed, anything unusual about the reserve, and the\nacreage. Nothing was overlooked which might have been of interest\nto the legislature, and it is certain that the list was subjected to the\nseverest scrutiny, particularly from Smithe himself, as well as from\nthe other members of his ministry \u00E2\u0080\u0094 A. E. B. Davie, John Robson,\nand M. W. T. Drake. The return showed that by 1877 when the\nJoint Commissioners were released they had set aside 145 reserves\nfor 5,158 Indians and had allotted 186,704.99 acres, a per capita\ngrant of 36.19 acres.39\nIn allotting the reserves the commissioners had faced many complications such as the one in connection with the reserve of 33,600\nacres at Osoyoos.40 A settler's bad faith and a clerk's error combined\nto cause loss of lands to the Indians and much correspondence for\nthe officials. In 1875, J. C. Haynes had applied to purchase 4,245\nacres known to be used by the Indians but not at that time officially\nreserved to them. Owing to several delays, Haynes's final survey\nwas not completed until 1877, immediately prior to the arrival of\nthe Allotment Commissioners. The commissioners duly allotted most\nof the land in Townships 50 and 51 to the Indians, although it\nincluded the acreage Haynes wanted. In transcribing the commission's Minute of decision, however, a clerk carelessly entered Townships 5 and 6 as reserved, instead of 50 and 51. Meanwhile Haynes\nhad gone ahead with his claim for a crown grant in Townships 50\nand 51. When the surveyors' notes were checked and found correct,\na notice was inserted in the Gazette and the newspapers, advising\nthat anyone with prior claim to the land should submit the claim\n38 See Appendix D, Item 1, for the 1873 list.\n39 \"Return ... of all lands set apart for Indians . .. subsequent to the return\n... on 13th January, 1873 ...,\" B.C., Sessional Papers, 4th Pari., 3d sess.,\n1885, pp. 392-95-\n40 Ibid., p. 395.\n THE RESERVE ALLOTMENT COMMISSIONS 223\nin writing. Since none was presented, Walkem accepted Haynes's\npurchase money and issued him a crown grant.41\nIn drawing the whole matter to Smithe's attention on November\nii, 1884, Powell quoted from a letter written by Sproat when he\nwas reserve commissioner, to Walkem, then chief commissioner of\nlands and works, stating that \"Mr. Haynes was perfectly aware that\nthe land purchased by him had been reserved for the Indians\" and\nimplied that Haynes, aware of the clerk's blunder, had taken advantage of it.42 Powell then asked for Smithe's serious and sympathetic\nconsideration of the needs of the Indians at Osoyoos, particularly as\nthe circumstances in the district were such that they could lead to\na troubled situation if the obvious injustice was not rectified.\nAfter outlining for Powell what appeared to him to be the facts\nof the case, Smithe concluded:\nEverything having been done in this office in strict accordance\nwith the law, it would be quite impossible now to attempt to\ndisposses Mr. Haynes of the land, to which he has got a Crown\ngrant in perfectly regular manner. Whatever fault there is in\nconnection with the affair seems to attach to the Indian Commissioners.43\nPowell must have known the futility of argument, but he was not\none to give in until all avenues of settlement had been explored. In\nthis case he was not slow to point out to Smithe that \"In attaching\nblame to the Indian Commission, it should be observed that one of\nits members was a paid officer of the Province, and the Local\nGovernment paid a moiety of the expense in maintaining the Commission, and, if a mistake was made, it was in a great measure due\nto its own agent.\"44\nNo further correspondence occurred on the subject, and as the\nreturn discloses no further allotments in the Osoyoos area, presumably the Indians had to manage with the 29,000 acres of bench\nlands remaining. Powell had to deal with this type of problem constantly, and that he could do so for eighteen years without once\ndisplaying any bitterness or animosity in his official correspondence\nis indeed a tribute to his patience and understanding.\n41 Smithe to Powell, December 4, 1884, ibid., p. x, following p. 410.\n42 Ibid., p. viii, following p. 410.\n43 December 4, 1884, ibid., p. x, following p. 410.\n44 December 10, 1884, ibid., p. xix, following p. 410.\n 224 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nUnder the column headed \"Date of Approval by C.C.L. & W.\"\nin the return on the work of the Joint Allotment Commission there\nis not a single entry. Sproat's reserves as sole commissioner fared\nequally badly.45 None of his 257 reserves was approved. In addition,\nthe thirty-one reserves of 81,500 acres he had alloted for 522\nIndians in the Nicola Valley were noted as \"Not accepted, April\n10, '80.\" Apart from these reserves, he had allotted only 23,962.38\nacres on 226 reserves to 3,044 Indians located on the Fraser River\nand along the northern coast of Vancouver Island.\nWith O'Reilly it was a different matter. His allotments of 216,-\n840.90 acres on 239 reserves to 8,634 Indians were all accepted by\nthe government, including those 38,630 acres in the Kootenays to\nwhich Smithe had objected.46 His per capita grant of 25.1 acres\napparently did not alarm the government. Yet O'Reilly did not\nescape his share of condemnation. On several occasions Smithe\naccused him of an unwarranted assumption of authority, and he\nwas once reprimanded for making reserves on his own.47\nBy 1885, then, 621 reserves had been allotted. Of these, only 239\nhad been approved by the local government and only 477 had been\nsurveyed. The area allotted to the 17,358 Indians visited by commissioners was 427,608.27 acres, exclusive of the acreage not\naccepted in Victoria.\nO'Reilly's most persistent difficulty was the demands made by\nthe northern tribes for more land than their already extensive\nreserves contained. The Tsimshian tribe laid claim to all land, not\nonly that contained in their reserves. As in the Kootenay trouble\nof the year before, rumours stemming from the motion put by\nMartin and Semlin and defeated in 1884 played their part. The\nIndians feared that they were to be herded back into the hills,\ncharged for the wood they cut, and forbidden to fish.48 When, in\nFebruary, 1887, an Indian delegation waited upon the government\n45 Ibid., pp. 396-402.\n46 Ibid., pp. 402-12.\n47 Smithe to Vankoughnet, April 11, 1884, ibid., pp. 12-14; Smithe to O'Reilly,\nDecember 3, 1884, ibid., pp. xvii-xviii, following p. 410.\n48 There is no doubt that William Duncan of Metlakatla was behind a good\ndeal of this agitation. (See Sir John A. Macdonald's letter to Senator Macdonald, pp. 239-40.) The provincial government established a Royal Commission to investigate the disturbances on October 28, 1884, with A. E. B.\nDavie, H. M. Ball, and A. C. Elliott as Commissioners. Their report is found\nibid., pp. 131-36 and pp. i-lxxxii, and all the correspondence on the subject\nis found ibid., pp. 277-91 and pp. 317-21.\n THE RESERVE ALLOTMENT COMMISSIONS 225\nin Victoria, Smithe tried to allay their fears as best he could.49 Still\nthe trouble persisted. Finally a joint dominion-provincial commission was set up to investigate.\nClement F. Cornwall acted for the Dominion and J. B. Planta,\nstipendiary magistrate of Nanaimo for the province.50 Having made\na thorough investigation on the spot, the commission assured the\nIndians once again that no one would disturb them in possession\nof their land or customary rights and privileges. The commissioners\ndiscovered that William Duncan was the prime mover behind the\ndisturbance. But the Indians, not to be put off so easily, persisted\nin stating that unless a treaty were made extinguishing their title\nin return for a lump sum payment or the privilege of selecting 160\nacres of their own choice, they would go on talking about their\ntitle until a treaty was made.\nIn 1891, Edgar Dewdney, now superintendent general of Indian\nAffairs in Ottawa, reported that the aboriginal title agitation,\n\"one time so strong ... appears to have subsided.\" Dewdney\nchose his verb well. The Indians, he wrote, \"had been falsely\ninformed by unprincipled, and probably self-interested parties.\"51\nThis information had been conveyed to him by A. W. Vowell, the\nnew Indian superintendent in British Columbia who had been\nappointed in 1890 after Dr. Powell retired.52 By 1894 the funds\nprovided by the dominion government for surveying reserves were\nexhausted. With numerous allotments still to be defined, O'Reilly\nhad to discharge the survey crews.53\nThere was still work for O'Reilly to do throughout the province\neven without surveys to oversee. Owing to the awakening of the\nIndians to the value of agricultural pursuits, their increasing herds\nof cattle, their growing reliance on irrigation, and the presence of\nso many Chinese labourers in fields formerly occupied by them,\n49 \"Report of Conferences ... 3rd and 8th February, 1887,\" B.C., Sessional\nPapers, 5th Pari., ist sess., 1887, pp. 253-72.\n60 Their report appears in Canada, Sessional Papers, 6th Pari., 2d sess., 1888,\nno. 15, pp. xcviii-cvii. Their report and the papers connected with the commission may also be found in British Columbia, Papers Relating to the Commission Appointed to Enquire into the Condition of the Indians of the\nNorth-West Coast (Victoria: Richard Wolfenden, Government Printer, 1888).\n51 \"Annual Report of the Department of Indian Affairs,\" Canada, Sessional\nPapers, 7th Pari., ist sess., 1891, no. 18, p. xxxi.\n52 Vowell to Dewdney, November 5, 1890, ibid., p. 187.\n53 O'Reilly to T. Mayne Daly, superintendent general, September 24, 1894,\nCanada, Sessional Papers, 7th Pari., 6th sess., 1896, no. 14, pp. 206-207.\n 226\nLAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\ninterior and coast tribes were requesting additional land. Where\ngood agricultural land was available, O'Reilly gave it to them. He\ntried always to do so in sections where ultimate conflict with white\nsettlers might be avoided.\nAfter Clifford Sifton took charge of Indian affairs in the Laurier\ngovernment in 1897, the first dominion figures for twenty years on\nthe work of the Reserve Commission appeared. For the nine Indian\nagencies by then established in British Columbia, Sifton tabled the\nfollowing information:54\nAgency\nArea of Reserve\nArea Under Cultivation\nCowichan\n19,634 acres\n2,496 acres\nKwawkewlth\n17,052 acres\n10.5 acres\nWest Coast\n4,288 acres\n4 acres\nNorth-West Coast\n149,347 acres\n147.5 acres\nFraser\n47,492 acres\n3,705 acres\nKamloops-Okanagan\n319,998 acres\n2,552 acres\nKootenay\n42,061 acres\n350 acres\nWilliams Lake\n74,065 acres\n1,265 acres\nBabine\n44,631 acres\n718,568 acres\n197 acres\nTotal\n10,727 acres\nThe total acreage was a vast increase on the 28,437 acres which\nthe Indians had at Union. It had taken a quarter-century of struggle\nand misunderstanding to get so far but at last the Indians, by and\nlarge, appeared to be satisfied. The 10,727 acres under cultivation\nmay have been only a small fraction of their lands, but a comparable percentage for land cultivated by white settlers contrasted\nwith that under pre-emption would not have shown a higher figure.\nThe wonder is not that the area cultivated was so small; rather it\nwas that it had increased so much in twenty-five years. Their\nacceptance of the settler's ways, however, had very serious effects\non their mortality rate. A steady decline in the total native population was noticed for years. Within twenty years the population had\nCompiled from \"Annual Report of the Department of Indian Affairs,\"\nCanada, Sessional Papers, 8th Pari., 2d sess., 1897, no. 14, pp. 68-83.\n THE RESERVE ALLOTMENT COMMISSIONS 227\nbeen reduced to exactly half what it had been estimated at in 1871,\n23,62o.55 If the white man's ways were civilized, his diseases and\nassorted vices proved anything but civilizing.\nAfter eighteen years as Indian Reserve Commissioner, Judge\nO'Reilly retired on February 28, 1898. He was succeeded by Vowell,\nwho now assumed this role in addition to that of Indian superintendent.56 Until 1908 Vowell's activities were confined to re-defining\npresent reserves and allotting small areas as fishing stations, hay\nmeadows, and gardens.\nIn 1908 the work of the reserve commissioner was brought to an\nabrupt halt on orders from R. G. Tatlow, chief commissioner of\nlands and works in the McBride government. In a statement to\nVowell, Tatlow said that \"Owing to the unsatisfactory state of affairs\nbetween the Dominion and the Province in relation to the question\nof Indian Reserves, the Executive considers it inadvisable in the\nmeantime to make further allotments, but will be prepared to consider any application by the Department for purchase, or deal with\nsuitable exchanges.\"57\nWhen Vowell received this message, the three strands of the\nIndian lands problem in British Columbia became inextricably\ntangled. Tatlow's statement brought into the open the legal battle\nbeing waged between the local and the federal governments over\nthe question of reversionary interest in Indian lands. Since the\nprovincial government had arrested all further allotments, a decision as to the reversionary interest had to be sought first. While the\nlitigation was on, the Indians availed themselves of the confusion\nto push their aboriginal title claim. Doubtless they or their \"rascally\nadvisers\" hoped that in the chaos they might possibly get someone\nin authority to listen to their claim. And indeed they might have\nhad they asked for anything less than what they did \u00E2\u0080\u0094 recognition\nof their beneficial interest in all the land in the province.\nWhat the province sought was somewhat less ambitious but\nnonetheless of great importance. It was attempting to establish its\n55 \"Annual Report of the Department of Indian Affairs,\" Canada, Sessional\nPapers, 7th Pari., ist sess., 1891, no. 18, p. xl.\n56 Vowell to Sifton, November 5, 1898, Canada, Sessional Papers, 8th Pari., 4th\nsess., 1899, no. 14, pp. 248-49.\n57 Quoted in Vowell to Frank Pedley, deputy superintendent-general of Indian\nAffairs, April 3, 1908, Canada, Sessional Papers, nth Pari., ist sess., 1909,\nno. 27, p. 273.\n 228 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nright of reversionary interest in reserve lands abandoned by the\nIndians.\nIn 1904 E. V. Bodwell of Victoria, on behalf of an unnamed\nclient known to be the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company,\nhad written to R. F. Green, chief commissioner of lands and works,\nto ask if the government would give consideration to selling him,\non behalf of his client, 10,000 acres of reserved crown land on the\nside of Tuck Inlet opposite the Tshimshian Indian reserve. Bodwell\npointed out that under section 32 of the Land Act, the government\nwould retain one-quarter interest in this land if it were designated\na townsite. If his client chose the other side of the Inlet, the side on\nwhich the Indian reserve was located, he reminded Green that his\nclient would be dealing directly with the dominion government. In\nthat case, he said, \"no direct benefit will be obtained by the Province.\"58 By Minute of Council of May 4, 1904, the provincial\ngovernment accepted the offer, settling on one dollar an acre as the\nprice.59\nRequiring a portion of the Indian reserve also, Bodwell the\nfollowing spring asked Green what price the government would set\non its reversionary interest should his client be able to make suitable\narrangements with the dominion government first.60 In reply\nMcBride reminded Bodwell that if his client considered acquiring\na portion of the Tshimshian Indian reserve on Kaien Island for\nrailway purposes, action could not be taken unless and until the\nDominion removed the Indians from all parts of the reserve. He\nindicated his government's willingness to deal with the company\nupon a satisfactory termination of its dealings with the Department\nof Indian Affairs.61\nOn April 2, 1906, a dominion Minute in Council asked the province to waive its reversionary interest. The request was promptly\nrefused.62 The province based its refusal on the statement in the\nOrder in Council of November 10, 1875, recommending the Allotment Commission, that \"any land taken off a Reserve shall revert\n58 January 19, 1904, B.C., Sessional Papers, 10th Pari., 3d sess., 1906, p. F20.\n89 Ibid., pp. F13-14. For a copy of the Indenture, see p. F15.\n60 February 21, 1905, ibid., p. F19.\n61 McBride to Frank W. Morse, vice-president and general manager, Grand\nTrunk Pacific Railway, March 17, 1905, ibid.\n62 The two minutes are found in B.C., Sessional Papers, nth Pari., ist sess.,\n1907, pp. F33-34.\n THE RESERVE ALLOTMENT COMMISSIONS 229\nto the Province.\" British Columbia had acceded to this Order by\nMinute in Council of January 8, 1876. The two together had\nbecome known as the 1875-76 Agreement. The province took strong\nobjection to the assumption by the Dominion of the right to surrender portions of the Tshimshian reserve, as it had done on September 21, 1906, by Order in Council, to facilitate construction of\nthe terminus and wharf accommodation for the Grand Trunk\nPacific, a railway project to which the Laurier government had lent\nboth moral and financial support. A provincial Minute in Council\nof March 11, 1907, pointed out that the moment the Dominion\nassumed to surrender part of the Indian reserve, the property then\nbecame the Crown's in the right of British Columbia.63 That was all\nthere was to the matter so far as the province was concerned, but\nthe Department of Indian Affairs asked an opinion of the Department of Justice.\nBefore it was obtained British Columbia proceeded under section\n80 of its Land Act to alienate various portions of its reversionary\ninterest in Indian reserves.64 This alienation was possible by virtue\nof certain amendments to the Land Act, the first of which had been\neffected in 1899 in anticipation of just such a contingency as was\narising at Kaien Island. To the provision which had empowered\nthe government to reserve lands for conveyance to the Dominion in\ntrust for the use and benefit of the Indians was added a sentence\nauthorizing the government \"in trust to re-convey the same to the\nProvincial Government in case such lands at any time cease to be\nused by such Indians.\"65 This clause became section 80 of the Consolidated Land Act of 1908. In 1911 a further proviso was added\nto the effect that the Executive Council should always be at liberty\n63 Attorney General F. J. Fulton to James Dunsmuir, lieutenant-governor,\nMarch 9, 1907, B.C., Sessional Papers, nth Pari., 2d sess., 1908, p. D47.\n64 In 1909 three people bought 161 acres at the rate of $2.50 per acre, for all\nof which crown grants were issued. One of these areas was Long Lake Reserve\nNo. 5, containing 128 acres, sold to John Kennedy. A crown grant was\nreported to have been issued February 8, 1909 (B.C., Sessional Papers, 12th\nPari., ist sess., 1910, p. H49), but there is no trace of this grant in the\nGazette. The commissioners who visited this area in 1915, known as Lot 3,\n888 of Osoyoos district, were completely unaware of Kennedy's purchase or\ncrown grant, and proceeded to deal with it as any other reserve. Fortunately\nfor Kennedy, this was one of the reserves classified as of no further use to\nthe Indians, and hence it could be sold by the province. In 1921, 5.48 acres\nof this reserve were sold for $458 (\"Annual Report of the Department of\nIndian Affairs,\" Canada, Sessional Papers, 13th Pari., 5th sess., 1921, no.\n27, p. 74).\n65 B.C., Statutes, 1899, 62 Vict., c. 38, s. 72.\n 230 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nto dispose in any way of its interest, \"reversionary or otherwise,\" in\nany Indian reserve or portion thereof. A return of all such transactions was to be submitted at the next sitting of the legislature\nwithin fifteen days of its opening.66\nThe presence of this legislation still further complicated the situation. The reversionary interest created by the 1875-76 Agreement\nhad established a joint ownership which made it impossible for the\nDominion to dispose of any agricultural or timber lands reserved\nfor but not required by the Indians without the concurrence of the\nprovince. As a result, no excess Indian lands had ever been sold in\nBritish Columbia. Elsewhere throughout Canada excess lands were\nbeing sold annually.\nThe incident involving the Grand Trunk Pacific terminus created\nan impossible situation, particularly after the announcement by the\nIndian Department in 1908 that the policy in connection with the\nsale of agricultural and timber lands, where such lands were beyond\nthe possible requirements of the Indians, would be relaxed. The\ndepartment had always firmly opposed such sale so long as no\nparticular harm or inconvenience arose from the Indians' holding\nof vacant lands beyond their requirements, and so long as no profitable disposition of the land was possible. But now, because of the\nlarge influx of settlers into the western provinces, the department felt\nsome relaxation of its policy was in order. In addition, excess Indian\nlands would fetch a price sufficiently high to reduce materially the\ncosts of administration of Indian affairs.67 Under the Indian Act,\nhowever, the consent of the Indians themselves was necessary before\nany lands could be sold.\nConcurrently with the development of the reversionary interest\ndispute there once again emerged in British Columbia the old problem of the size and extent of reserves. The first official intimation\nthe Dominion received that the provincial government wanted\nreserves cut down came in 1901 when Premier James Dunsmuir\npresented the claim of his government for \"Better Terms.\" A section\nof his memorandum asked that some step be taken to re-assess\nIndian holdings. Dunsmuir's suggestion was that many of the\nreserves in British Columbia should be cut down, since \"very valuable agricultural lands are held by a very small number of In-\nB.C., Revised Statutes, 1911, 2 Geo. 5, c. 129, s. 127.\n\"Annual Report of the Department of Indian Affairs,\" Canada, Sessional\nPapers, nth Pari., ist sess., 1909, no. 27, p. xxxv.\n THE RESERVE ALLOTMENT COMMISSIONS 231\ndians.\"68 After the many years spent both in securing adequate\nreserves and in extending to British Columbia the benefits of an\nIndian policy prevailing east of the Rockies in regions where there\nhad been a cession of the Indian title, the Department of Indian\nAffairs was chagrined.\nNo action was taken by the department in the next ten years to\nhonour Dunsmuir's request. Following the presentation of a similar\nrequest by McBride in 1912, this time more strongly worded, action\nbecame imperative, since McBride's memorandum associated the\ntwo problems of reversionary interest and excessive acreage in the\nsame message. McBride wrote as follows:\nThe title of the Crown in the right of the Province to Indian\nreserve lands in British Columbia was never questioned until\nwithin the past few years.... We still maintain that the reversionary interest ... is the property of the Province, and that it is\nessential in the public interest that the attitude of the Province be\nmaintained. It may be well, in this connection, to refer to the\nlarge excess acreage held on account of Indian reserves in British\nColumbia, and to the necessity, in view of the rapid increase in\nwhite population, of having an immediate readjustment of all\nreserves, so that the excess acreage may be released to the\nProvince.69\nAnd to add to these difficulties the third problem \u00E2\u0080\u0094 aboriginal\ntitle \u00E2\u0080\u0094 became a live issue. By 1912 the Indians, by no means\ninactive on their own behalf, had secured reinforcements through\nan organization formed in Victoria in March, 1910, called the\nConference of Friends of the Indians of British Columbia. They had\nalso obtained the support of a Toronto group called the Moral and\nSocial Reform Council of Canada, and to advance their cause and\nconsolidate their support they had secured Rev. A. E. O'Meara as\na full-time legal advisor.70\nKing Edward VII had been interviewed by a deputation of\nIndians in 1906, a petition had been presented to His Majesty's\nGovernment in 1909, and a \"Statement of Facts and Claims\" had\nDunsmuir to Sifton, February 2, 1901, B.C., Sessional Papers, 9th Pari., 2d\nsess., 1901, p. 581.\nBritish Columbia Mission (Sir Richard McBride, premier, W. J. Bowser,\nattorney general, W. R. Ross, minister of lands) to Prime Minister Borden,\nNovember 6, 1911, B.C., Sessional Papers, 12th Pari., 3d sess., 1912, p. N2.\nSpecial Joint Committee, Report and Evidence, p. 53. Between 1886 and his\nordination as priest of the Church of England in 1906, O'Meara practised\nlaw in Toronto.\n 232 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nbeen forwarded to the federal Department of Justice in January,\n191 o.71 Meanwhile, the petition to England had been referred back\nto Canada. The Department of Justice recommended that judicial\ndecision should be sought for the claims of the Indians. To facilitate\na decision from the courts, the Dominion began negotiations with\nBritish Columbia. The dominion and Imperial governments, both\nsympathetic to the Indian claim, were perfectly willing that the case\nshould go before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.72\nSince this procedure was precisely what the Indians wanted, they\nseemed well on their way to having their forty-year old claim adjudicated by a court which had hitherto, under similar^ circumstances,\nrendered decisions in favour of natives.\nIn May, 1910, the chief civil law officers of Canada and British\nColumbia met in Ottawa and drew up a list of ten questions for\nsubmission to the Supreme Court of Canada. The intention was\nthat the questions should then be presented to the Privy Council.\nThe first three dealt with the matter of Indian title, and the other\nseven were concerned with the size of reserves. The Indian claim\nwas that many of the reserves were grossly inadequate for their\nneeds. All the questions received the approval of the deputy\nattorney-general of Canada, counsel for the province of British\nColumbia, and of O'Meara for the Indian tribes.73\nThe questions were then submitted to Sir Richard McBride. His\nanswer was a categorical no if the first three questions were to be\nincluded. So far as he was concerned and so long as he headed the\ngovernment of the province, the Indians had no title to the public\nlands of British Columbia. The Laurier government was by now\nfully aware that should a case be contrived which could be taken\nto court, the province of British Columbia would be the defendant.74\n71 Ibid., pp. 133, 52, 53.\n72 Ibid., pp. io-n.\n1 Ibid., p. 53.\n74 To a deputation on behalf of the Indians which waited on him on April 26,\n1911, Sir Wilfrid Laurier had said, \"The matter for us to immediately\nconsider is whether we can bring the Government of British Columbia into\nCourt with us. We think it is our duty to have the matter enquired into. The\nGovernment of British Columbia may be right or wrong in their assertion\nthat the Indians have no claim whatever. Courts of Law are just for that\npurpose \u00E2\u0080\u0094 where a man asserts a claim and it is denied by another. But we\ndo not know if we can force a Government into Court. If we can find a\nway, I may say we shall surely do so ... . The Indians will continue to believe\nthey have a grievance until it has been settled by the Court that they have a\nclaim, or that they have no claim\" (ibid., p. 11).\n THE RESERVE ALLOTMENT COMMISSIONS 233\nDespite the refusal of British Columbia to consent to a stated case,\nOttawa twice passed enabling legislation altering the Indian Act\nto permit the presentation of such a case to secure a judicial\ndecision.75\nAt the general election in the autumn of 1911 the Laurier government was defeated. Immediately a more conciliatory attitude was\nadopted in Ottawa, and direct negotiation with British Columbia\nwas resumed in an effort to settle all three of the troublesome questions concerning Indian lands. By Order in Council of May 24,\n1912, Dr. J. A. J. McKenna of Winnipeg was appointed as special\ncommissioner \"to investigate claims put forth by and on behalf of\nthe Indians of British Columbia, as to lands and rights, and all\nquestions at issue between the dominion and provincial governments and the Indians in respect thereto, and to represent the\ngovernment of Canada in negotiating with the government of\nBritish Columbia a settlement of such questions.\"76\nThe first problem investigated by Dr. McKenna was the aboriginal title claim. After making an exhaustive study, he presented a\nlengthy memorandum to McBride on July 29, 1912. It said, in part:\nI understand that you will not deviate from the position which\nyou have so clearly taken and frequently defined, i.e., that the\nprovince's title to its lands is unburdened by any Indian title,\nand that your government will not be a party, directly or indirectly, to a reference to the Courts of the claim set up. You take\nit that the public interest, which must be regarded as paramount,\nwould be injuriously affected by such reference in that it would\nthrow doubt upon the validity of titles to land in the province.\nAs stated at our conversations, I agree with you as to the seriousness of now raising the question, and, as far as the present\nnegotiations go, it is dropped.77\nIn this way two politically compatible friends could accomplish\nto their mutual satisfaction in two months what had been dividing\nthe two governments for years. McKenna, however, carefully avoided\nany reference to his own views on the validity of the Indians' claim.\nWith the aboriginal title claim removed from the realm of practical politics, McKenna tackled the problem of reversionary interest.\nHis visits to the Indians throughout British Columbia and his studies\n75 Ibid., p. 12\n7\u00C2\u00AB Ibid., p. 8.\n77 Ibid., p. 9.\n 234 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nof the historical background of the difficulty led him to state in his\nreport of October 26, 1912, that one of the greatest sources of dissatisfaction among the Indians was the provincial interest in their\nlands stemming from the 1875-76 Agreement. As the Indians\nlearned more of the settler's laws they realized that the tenure to\ntheir lands in the right of the Dominion was considerably less secure\nin British Columbia than elsewhere in Canada. In contrasting the\ntreatment they had received by the two governments since 1871, it\nwas apparent to the Indians that British Columbia had displayed\nmuch less sympathy with their claims than had the Dominion. Consequently, the insecurity by which the Dominion held the reserve\nlands distressed them greatly.\nBritish Columbia's position \"was that the title of Indians to lands\nreserved for them was a mere right of use and occupancy; that\nunder [article 13 of the Terms of Union] no beneficial interest in\nsuch lands was to be taken by the Dominion as guardian of the\nIndians; and that, whenever the Indian Right to any such lands\n... became extinguished through surrender, or cessation of use or\noccupation, or diminishment of numbers, the land reverted, unburdened, to the province.\"78 So far as the province was concerned\nreverted Indian lands were in exactly the same position as were\nRailway Belt lands once any portion of them had been alienated by\nthe Dominion.\nMcKenna agreed with the Indians on reversionary interest, and\nhe was quite unable to resolve the difficulty with British Columbia.\nHis decision was that only a Royal Commission comprised of representatives from both governments could settle the two problems of\nreserve acreage and reversionary interest. To this proposal McBride\nwas amenable and the McKenna-McBride Agreement, which laid\ndown the terms of reference for the commission, was drawn up on\nSeptember 24, 1912.79 The location and extent of all reserves was\nto be settled by five commissioners. Where any reserve land was\nfound to be in excess of actual requirements, the land was to be\nsubdivided and sold at public auction by the province, with half\nthe proceeds going to the Department of Indian Affairs. Should\nadditional land be required, or new reserves, the province was to\n\"take all such steps as are necessary to locally reserve the additional\nlands.\" Finally, when the reserves were definitely determined to the\n78 McKenna to Department of Indian Affairs, October 26, 1912, ibid.\n79 See Appendix D, Item 5, Part I.\n THE RESERVE ALLOTMENT COMMISSIONS 235\nsatisfaction of the five commissioners, the lands were all to be conveyed by the province to the Dominion. The federal government was\nto have full power to deal with the lands in any manner, even to\nselling them. The only interest to be retained by the province was\nin the case of a reserve unoccupied because the tribe had become\nextinct. The land in such a case was to revert to the province.\nBoth governments accepted the terms of reference and on April\n23, 1913, the letters patent were issued constituting the Royal Commission.80 By Order in Council of March 31, 1913, N. W. White\nof Nova Scotia and Dr. James A. J. McKenna of Winnipeg were\ndesignated as the dominion appointees; J. P. Shaw, M.L.A. of\nShuswap and D. H. Macdowall of Victoria were appointed for\nBritish Columbia. On April 12, E. L. Wetmore, former chief justice\nof Saskatchewan, was selected as the chairman.\nAs recorded in their final report, the commissioners at once considered how best to settle all outstanding differences between the\ntwo governments. After careful study of all the pertinent documents\nand correspondence, extended visits to reserves throughout the province, and numerous meetings with the Indians and public organizations, the commission presented a massive report in four volumes to\nboth governments on June 30, 1916. During the three years of their\nwork the commissioners submitted ninety-eight interim reports and\nfive progress reports. Their final full report reviewed the whole\nquestion of reserves in detail. Certain specific recommendations,\npreceded by a statistical analysis, were made regarding each of the\n1,103 reserves found in the province.81 In some cases the existing\nreserves were confirmed as previously allotted; in other, reserves\nwere reduced either because the land was not all needed or because\nit was worthless; in still others, reserves were disposed of as being\nno longer required for Indian use and occupancy.\n80 [Canada], [Royal Commission on Indian Affairs], Report of the Royal Commission on Indian Affairs for the Province of British Columbia, 4 vols.\n(Victoria: Acme Press, 1916), 1:8.\n81 No one authority seems to know exactly how many reserves there were in\nthe province. The Geographic Board of Canada stated in 1913 that there\nwere 934; of these, the largest was one of 44,175 acres in the Port Simpson\nreserve, and the smallest one of .15 acres on the Squamish River. The\nGeographic Board's Handbook required twenty-five pages to list the reserves\nin British Columbia, but only nine to list those throughout the rest of the\nDominion. The total number in the rest of the provinces in 1913 was: Nova\nScotia, 35; Prince Edward Island, 2; Ontario, 156; Manitoba, 54; New\nBrunswick, 24; Quebec, 20; Saskatchewan, 80. Canada, Geographic Board,\nHandbook of Indians of Canada (Ottawa: C. H. Parmelee, 1913), pp.\n5i5\"49-\n 236\nLAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nREFERENCE\nI 1 OLD RESERVES CONFIRMED\nI 2 CUT-OFFS OR REDUCTIONS\nI 3 NEW RESERVES\nInternational Boundary\nIndian Reserves in the Okanagan Agency, 1916\n THE RESERVE ALLOTMENT COMMISSIONS 237\nIn 1919 British Columbia passed the enabling legislation necessary for the adoption of the report, and in 1920 the Dominion also\ncleared the way for acceptance.*2 Acting on the authority provided\nby this legislation, the Report of the Royal Commission on Indian\nAffairs for the Province of British Columbia, as revised and\namended since 1916, was adopted by British Columbia in August,\n1923, and by the Dominion the following July.88\nThe joint ratification settled two of the problems which had been\nbedevilling Indian affairs in the province since 1871; namely, size,\nlocation, and nature of the reserves, and the reversionary interest in\nthem. The 1,103 reserves found already in existence by the commissioners were increased by 456, bringing the total to 1,559. The\nacreage was increased from 666,640.25 to 773,642.83. The work of\nthe commissioners gave each Indian on the average an increase of\n3.58 acres, calculating from the Indian population of 21,489 as\ndetermined by the commission.84\nInterim Report No. 91 of February 1, 1916, dealt with lands\nreserved for the Indians in the Peace River district. The Slaves and\nSicanees of the Fort Nelson area had signed an adhesion to Treaty\nNo. 8 with the dominion government on August 15, 19 io.85 This\naction removed 104,400 square miles of territory east of the Rockies\nfrom the jurisdiction of the British Columbia government.86 The\ntreaty allotted one square mile of land to each Indian. The commissioners did not visit the area, but they did stipulate that if the\n75,147 acres in the five existing reserves were found after a\ndominion census to be less than the square mile per head, the\nprovince was to make good the deficiency.87\nSo far as the two governments were concerned, all three problems\nwere now settled, one as a preliminary to the McKenna-McBride\nAgreement of 1912 and two by the 1916 Report. Laying the ghost\n82 The Indian Affairs Settlement Act, B.C., Statutes, 1919, 10 Geo. 5, c. 32,\nand The British Columbia Indian Lands Settlement Act, Canada, Statutes,\n1920, 11 Geo. 5, c. 51.\n83 Special Joint Committee, Report and Evidence, pp. xix-xx.\n84 See Appendix B, Table 10, \"Summary of Data, 1916 Royal Commission on\nIndian Affairs.\"\n85 \"Annual Report of the Department of Indian Affairs,\" Canada, Sessional\nPapers, 14th Pari., 2d sess., 1923, no. 14, pp. 13-14. The Crees, Beavers, and\nChipewayans of what is now northern Alberta signed Treaty No. 8 on June\n21, 1899.\n86 Special Joint Committee, Report and Evidence, p. 3.\n87 Royal Commission on Indian Affairs, 1:126-28.\n 238\nLAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nof reversionary interest was a source of much satisfaction to the two\ngovernments, but it delighted the Indians even more. They now\ncould feel secure on their lands, a security never before possible.\nThe Indian Act had always permitted disposal of reserve land for\npurposes of public necessity in exactly the same manner as that in\nwhich the Land Act authorized the taking of any other land, crown-\ngranted or otherwise. As portions of their lands had increased in\nvalue commensurate with the progress of the province, the Indians\nwere relieved to have their land, some of which was in highly desirable locations for provincial government purposes, transferred irrevocably to the Dominion.\nNow that agreement had been reached between Ottawa and Victoria on all three issues, it is interesting to compare the areas of\nIndian reserves in the various provinces, as well as to note the\nnumber of acres per head, the value of the Indian lands, and the\nnumber of acres under cultivation in each province.\nIndians and Indian Lands in Canada, ig2488\nIndian Total Per Under Value of\nPopula- area of capita cultiva- lands in\nHon Reserves area tion reserves\nProvince\nAcres Acres Acres\nAlberta\n8,990\n1,307,343 145.4 58,543\n$17,368,117\nB.C.\n24,316\n733,891 30.2 29,154\n13,507,881\nManitoba\n11,673\n415,477 35.6 13,018\n2,934,862\nN.B.\n1,606\n34,507 21.5 377\n71,008\nN.W.T.\n4,543\nNo information supplied\nN.S.\n1,827\n21,504 11.8 1,333\n102,409\nOntario\n26,706\n1,045,037 39.1 63,959\n4,946,005\nP.E.I.\n315\n1,527 4.8 397\n20,000\nQuebec\n13,191\n175,220 13.3 9,751\n1,429,020\nSask.\n10,271\n1,195,674 115.9 42,540\n14,344,490\nYukon\n1,456\nNo information supplied\nTotals\n104,894\n4,930,180 219,072\n$54,723,792\n88 Compiled from \"Annual\nReport of the Department of Indian Affairs,\"\n14th Pari., 4th sess., 1925, no. 14, pp. 60-69.\n THE RESERVE ALLOTMENT COMMISSIONS 239\nWith the second largest population, British Columbia Indians in\n1924 had the fourth highest total acreage and per capita allotment\nin Canada. The Indians, however, were anything but pacified by\nthe Royal Commission's Report of 1916. At no time did they accept\nit as a final award and settlement. The agitation which had been\npresent among them since before Union now broke forth in a veritable deluge of petitions, statements, and memoranda directed at\nthe local, federal, and Imperial governments, and guided throughout by O'Meara. He served for sixteen years to keep alive the protest\nfrom the Indians and in this respect was simply carrying on the\nwork begun by William Duncan after his replacement by the\nChurch Missionary Society in 1881. Some harsh words had been\nsaid about Duncan; more were said about O'Meara. As the following letter from Sir John A. Macdonald to Senator Macdonald of\nToronto indicates, there is little doubt that it was really Duncan,\nwhose village had once been the model native colony on the continent, who was behind the agitation of the earlier era.\nAs I learn from the enclosed letter from Mr. Duncan, that you\ntake an interest in his course, I send you some papers concerning\nit, which please read and return. From my personal communications with Mr. Duncan, I have satisfied myself that he is an ambitious man, brooking no control, and refusing to obey the laws of\nthe land. I believe that when first sent to Metlakahtla he did a\ngreat deal of good among the Indians, but afterwards he had\nbecome so accustomed to unrestrained power that he lost his head\naltogether.\nSome years ago I happened to be in England before Mr. Duncan left for Alaska, and I did what I could to bring him and the\nChurch Missionary Society together. I must say that that body\nshowed every desire to act cordially with him. I went so far,\nbeing their Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs, as to offer\nhim the appointment of Indian Agent at Metlakahtla district\nif he would carry into effect as an Agent must do, the statutes\nrelating to Indians and Indian reserves. This offer he declined,\nand did everything he could on his return to the district to\nprevent the carrying of the law into effect. Of this the British\nColumbia government complained again and again, and his conduct in disturbing the minds of the Indians caused so much\ntrouble that the Provincial Government was obliged to appoint a\nstipendiary magistrate for the purpose of seeing the law obeyed\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094 the Dominion Government paying the salary of that functionary. I am convinced that if he had not left the country we should\nhave had armed resistance from some of the Indians of the\n 240 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nMetlakahtla district. I send you these papers for your information\nonly.89\nSince the turn of the century, the Nishga tribe from Duncan's\ndistrict have spear-headed the drive to have the Indian claims\nadjudicated first by the Judicial Committee and now by the\nSupreme Court of Canada. It was they who laid the claim before\nthe Imperial government in March 1909 and placed a \"Statement\nof Facts and Claims\" in the hands of the Justice Department; in\nJanuary, 1910 a memorial was presented to Laurier, and delegations waited on all three governments. In each case their plea was\nfor a ruling on their aboriginal title claim by the Privy Council.90\nNor did the activity abate during the period 1913-1916 while the\nRoyal Commission was active. Indeed, it increased, since the\nMcKenna-McBride Agreement had set aside the whole matter of\naboriginal title. The deputy minister of justice, in answer to the\nrequest for an interpretation of \"final adjustment of all matters\nrelating to Indian Affairs in the Province of British Columbia\" as\ncontained in the McKenna-McBride Agreement, had given as his\nofficial opinion that the words meant precisely what they said and\nwould therefore \"exclude claims by either government for better\nor additional terms.\"91 The Indians were spurred on to greater\nefforts.\nWishing to clear the way for a settlement, the Dominion passed\nan Order in Council in 1914 advising that \"the [Indian] claim be\nreferred to the Exchequer Court of Canada with the right of appeal\nto the Privy Council\" guaranteed, providing that the Indians \"shall,\nby their Chiefs or representatives, in a binding way, agree, if the\nCourt, or on appeal, the Privy Council, decides that they have a\ntitle to lands of the Province, to surrender such title,\" receiving in\nreturn \"benefits ... in accordance with past usage of the Crown.\"92\nO'Meara refused to agree to the surrender asked for in the 1914\nOrder in Council.93\n89 Sir John Pope, ed., Correspondence of Sir John Macdonald: Selections from\nthe Correspondence of the Right Honourable Sir John Alexander Macdonald,\nG.C.B., First Prime Minister of the Dominion of Canada (Toronto: Oxford\nUniversity Press, 1921), p. 459.\n90 Special Joint Committee, Report and Evidence, pp. 52-54, 58-60.\n91 Ibid., p. 10.\n92 Ibid, p. 55.\n93 When he learned of the Indians' refusal and received yet another letter from\nO'Meara on October 26, 1914, stating the desire of the Indians to bypass\n THE RESERVE ALLOTMENT COMMISSIONS 241\nIn November, 1919, in response to a request from the provincial\ngovernment, the Indians presented still another in a long list of\nstatements to the local government. Included in the statement were\ntheir reasons for refusing to accept the findings of the 1916 Commission and a list of twenty \"Conditions proposed as a basis of\nSettlement.\"94 For the next three years, conferences were held\nbetween the executive of the Allied Tribes, an Indian organization\nformed to press their claims, and both governments, including a\nmeeting with the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, Charles\nStewart, and a meeting with D. C. Scott who had come to British\nColumbia to confer on Indian problems. No agreement was\nreached.95\nWhen the estimates for the Indian Department came up in the\nHouse of Commons in 1925, Arthur Meighen wanted to know what\nthe \"present position of this long standing controversy over the title\nto Indian lands\" was. If the Indians wanted to present their case to\nthe Privy Council, he could see no reason why that step should not\nbe permitted.96 Stewart, as minister of the interior and therefore the\nresponsible official, rose to explain that although the McKenna-\nMcBride agreement had been carried out, it had in no way satisfied\nthe Indians, \"but inasmuch as the provincial government were\nthreatening to cancel the arrangement altogether if we did not take\naction,\" that agreement and the ensuing report had had to be\nratified.\nNo better summation of the utter frustration of the dominion\ngovernment is available than Stewart's remarks. With rare candour\nfor a minister of the Crown, he admitted that he had no idea where\nto turn next.\nRegarding the controversy over the aboriginal title, I have been\ntrying for the past three years to find out just what the Indians\nCanadian courts and go directly to the Privy Council, C. J. Doherty, minister\nof justice, included the following sentence in his reply, \"If, therefore, it be\npossible for me to make any statement here which can consistently with the\namenities of official correspondence, impress you with the futility of urging\nupon this government a reference direct to the Judicial Committee, I beg\nyou to consider that statement incorporated in this letter\" (ibid., p. ix).\n94 See Appendix D, Item 7, for these two statements. The Special Joint Committee report discussed each in turn (ibid., pp. xi-xvii).\n95 Ibid., p. 14 and pp. 65-71. See also: Forrest E. LaViolette, The Struggle for\nSurvival (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1961), pp. 136-37, and\nGeorge Edgar Shankel, \"The Development of Indian Policy in British\nColumbia\" (Ph.D. Diss., University of Washington, 1945), p. 152 ff.\n96 Canada, House of Commons, Debates, 14th Pari., 4th sess., 1925, p. 4993.\n 242 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nmean by this. Do they lay claim to all lands in British Columbia\nin view of the fact that in ninety per cent of the cases no treaty\nhad been signed between the tribes and representatives of the\ncrown? After a great deal of discussion I found that they did\nnot lay claim to the land in its entirety, but they do say that\nbefore an adjustment can take place they should have certain\nspecified and unspecified provisions made for them by the\ngovernment of Canada. This is all so vague and difficult of understanding that it is very hard to arrive at any concrete definition\nof what their claims are. On behalf of the government I have\ninformed them that we are prepared to do for them everything\nthat was done for treaty Indians in any other part of Canada.\nAs a matter of fact we are giving them the same consideration\nas we have given every other Indian in Canada. Still that does\nnot seem to be enough; certain claims are made for compensation\nand so on. A gentleman whose name is no doubt known to most\nhon. members, Mr. O'Meara, spends his whole time investigating\nthis very vexed question and preparing briefs for consideration.\nMy hon. friend says, why not send it to the Privy Council?\nMr. Meighen: Why do you not let them take it?\nMr. Stewart: They want the government of Canada to pay\ntheir expenses.\nMr. Meighen: Oh, I see.\nMr. Stewart: I must confess that I do not see very much hope.\nI have joined with me in the investigation the Speaker of the\nSenate and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King, Kootenay)\nin an endeavor to see whether or not we can get on common\nground. We have asked the Indians to prepare a brief and they\nhave done so. Their representatives were here some months ago\nand the deputy superintendent general is now getting ready a\nbrief in reply to theirs. But one of the difficulties we have to meet\nis the vagueness of their demands. I defy anyone to get them\ndown to a concrete basis, as, for example, so much for education,\nso much for relief and so forth. That is one great difficulty and\nit looks hopeless to me. I believe the Privy Council would only\ncome to one decision. They are quite likely to follow precedent\nand to say to the Indians, \"You are entitled to the same consideration as has been given other tribes throughout Canada.\"\nThat the government is prepared to give them, and for the life\nof me I do not know what to recommend. It seems to be an\nunending difficulty, and I do not see that the government would\nbe warranted in paying expenses of representatives of the Indians\nto go over and argue the case before the Privy Council unless we\nhave something very concrete presented to us.97\nA Special Joint Committee of the House and the Senate with\nHewitt Bostock, speaker of the Senate, as chairman, was convened\n THE RESERVE ALLOTMENT COMMISSIONS 243\non March 22, 1927, \"to enquire into the claims of the Allied Indian\nTribes of British Columbia.\" The committee soon discovered that\nthe Indians themselves were not in agreement as to the nature of\ntheir claims. The spokesmen of the interior tribes made no claim to\nany land based on aboriginal title, yet the representatives of the\nAllied Tribes of the coast rested their whole case upon such a title.98\nThrough it they claimed beneficial interest to 251,000 square miles\nof the province, or all but the 358 square miles ceded to Douglas\nin the 1850's, and the 104,000 square miles included in Treaty\nNo. 8.\nIn presenting its report, the Joint Committee took occasion to\ndeplore the \"mischievous\" agitation \"often carried on by designing\nwhite men,\" by which the Indians \"are deceived and led to expect\nbenefits from claims more or less fictitious.\"99 After dealing with\nevery claim, the committee arrived at the conclusion that the\nIndians in British Columbia were receiving benefits in excess of\nthose granted to \"treaty\" Indians elsewhere in Canada. The members were of the unanimous opinion that \"the petitioners have not\nestablished any claim to the lands of British Columbia based on\naboriginal or other title\" and that \"it is the further opinion of your\nCommittee that the matter should now be regarded as finally\nclosed.\"100\nThus ended for nearly 50 years what Trutch in 1872 had had\nthe prescience to label \"the most delicate and presently momentous\nresponsibility of the Dominion Government within the Province.\"101\nThe bitterness engendered between the two governments in the\n1870's over implementing article 11 of the Terms of Union had\nestablished in British Columbia a pattern of thinking towards article\n13 that was never changed. Personal animosities played their part,\nas did political expediency and individual duplicity. But through the\nsixty years of debate over article 13 surveyed here, the Indians of\nthe province, left to themselves, conducted themselves with restraint\nand patience while awaiting a settlement of what they considered\nto be their legitimate grievances. That settlement has yet to come.\n08 It is perhaps significant that O'Meara was counsel for the Allied Tribes but\nthat the interior tribes declined his assistance.\n99 Special Joint Committee, Report and Evidence, p. viii.\n100 Ibid., p. x.\n101 See Appendix D. Item 4, last paragraph. The aboriginal title controversy is\nnot yet closed. For later developments see Douglas Sanders, \"The Nishga\nCase,\" B.C. Studies, 19 (Autumn 1973), 3-20.\n Conclusion\nThe least spectacular phase of the development of British Columbia\nfrom 1871 to 1913, but clearly the most significant, was the evolution of a land policy. Size alone presented numerous problems in\nlegislating for the disposal of public lands, but the rough and mountainous terrain, the presence of minerals, and the existence of vast\ntimber stands complicated the problems enormously. More recently,\nwater resources as a source of hydroelectric power have compounded the difficulties in assuring miners' water rights.\nWhen British Columbia entered Confederation in 1871, the basis\nof land legislation had already been laid. Ordinances and proclamations issued from 1858 until 1864 by Governor Douglas had been\nrevised and amended several times by 1871. The Gold Mining Act\nof 1869 regulated the activities of free miners and the operation of\ntheir claim. The Land Ordinance of 1870 made provision for preemptions, sale of land, both surveyed and unsurveyed, leases for\nvarious purposes, and water rights, but there was no legislation\ncovering timber. With those two acts as the foundation, provincial\ngovernments added to them, altered, and discarded as the occasion\nrequired, and by 1913, separate acts dealt with land itself, minerals,\ntimber, surveys, railways, and water.\nUnder various sections of the acts, British Columbia had alienated\napproximately 31,000,000 acres of crown land by 1913. This figure\nseems insignificant, but for the paucity of arable or potentially\narable land. The acreage alienated was disposed of for the following\npurposes:\nMineral and coal lands 500,000 acres\nIndian reserves 666,240 acres\nAgricultural lands 2,500,000 acres\nTimber lands 8,500,000 acres\nRailway lands 18,694,334 acres\nTotal 30,860,574 acres\n CONCLUSION 245\nThere were three constant factors in framing legislation for disposing of the land; the wish to encourage settlement, the desire to\nprevent speculation in public lands, and the acute need to provide\nan adequate revenue with which to administer such a large territory. Soon after assuming office as governor of British Columbia,\nDouglas was advised by the Colonial Office to make land readily\navailable, even to aliens who indicated their desire to become British\nsubjects. At the same time as he was instructing Douglas to encourage settlement, the Colonial Secretary, Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton,\nspoke strongly of the need to take immediate steps that would prevent speculation in public lands. Finally, Douglas was warned\nrepeatedly that he must so frame his land legislation as to secure to\nthe colony a revenue adequate to provide all the public services that\nwould be demanded in so large and so new a territory.\nThe encouragement of settlers, the prevention of speculation, and\nthe securing of a revenue were provided for in every land act after\n1871. But there was nothing unique about this. What was unusual,\nhowever, was the opportunity to apply these principles in an\nuncharted wilderness, inhabited only by scattered bands of Indians.\nFor that reason, Lytton directed Douglas to embody in his proclamations the further lesser principles of reserving to the Crown certain rights, of providing for the sale of land only by auction, of\nrequiring prompt cash payment for the land, of surveying all land\nbefore sale, and of assuring beneficial use of the land before alienating it for any purpose.\nLytton was giving him the benefit of the long experience the\nColonial Office had had with the disposal of crown lands in other\nterritories. Realizing the value of the advice and having neither\nAmerican nor Canadian example before him, Douglas at once\nimplemented the five policies in his land proclamations. By 1871\nthe policy of beneficial use had been so thoroughly implanted in\nland legislation that it was never thereafter abandoned. Settlers who\npre-empted land were required to \"prove up\" within a specified\ntime; leaseholders, whether of timber, hay, mineral, or coal lands\nwere required to use the land for the purposes stated in the lease;\npurchasers were under the obligation of improving the land before\nthey could buy any more.\nHowever praiseworthy the legislation, it was only as effective as\nthe supervision required to ensure compliance with the law. To\nlimit the amount of land that could be bought to 640 acres until\nimprovements had been made to the original value of the land, as\n w\n246 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nwas done in 1891, was good theory. In practice, however, the law,\nlike so many others, became a dead letter. To require pre-emptors\nunder the law to \"prove up\" within two years, as was done in 1875,\nwas admirably fitted to speed the development of the province, but\nuntil inspection was provided, it too was unenforceable.\nDouglas also had to abandon the practices of sale by auction,\nprompt cash payments, and survey of the land before alienation.\nNeither Douglas nor provincial governments could afford to follow\nthe theory. Settlers early discovered that by waiting until after the\nland auction they could acquire the land at the upset price rather\nthan at an advanced price. And if Douglas wished to retain within\nthe colonies any of the miners who were coming down from the\nCariboo after i860, he had to forego the requirement that they pay\ncash for their land. So far as surveying the land before alienation\nwas concerned, Douglas reluctantly had to admit to the Colonial\nOffice that the expense was too heavy. Fully aware of what was at\nstake, Douglas asked the home government repeatedly for loans\nwith which to cover expenses involved in surveying and providing\ncommunication services, only to be curtly informed that Vancouver\nIsland and British Columbia, like any other colonies, had to be\nfinancially independent. The result was the end of planned settlement throughout the two colonies, the easing of restrictions to the\npoint where agricultural lands were alienated wholesale, and the\ngranting of natural resources to anyone willing to pay the modest\nprice. Had the British government seen fit to underwrite the paltry\nsums Douglas required, the history of land disposal in British\nColumbia might well have been very different.\nIn view of the constant deficits experienced by every provincial\ngovernment down to 1905, British Columbians may be justly thankful that more public lands and natural resources were not permanently alienated than was the case by 1913. Land, being the\nmost readily available asset, was disposed of in large tracts on easy\nterms to all comers for over thirty years. The majestic timber stands\non Vancouver Island and the coast of the mainland were alienated\nwith similar abandon. The only reason the Crown in British Columbia retained all but the approximately 1,000,000 acres which had\nbeen bought outright of the provincial timber lands was that until\n1900 standing timber was looked upon with a jaundiced rather than\na glinting eye. It was a nuisance, a brake on settlement, and a\nhindrance to communication. After 1905, when the timber stands\nof the province were thrown open to licensees, the rush from all\n CONCLUSION 247\nover the continent was so great that the McBride government took\nstock of the situation and decided to place all unalienated timber\nlands under government reserve where they have remained ever\nsince.\nAnother early result of the financial stringency prevailing in\ncolonial days was that Governor Douglas had to abandon his plan\nof buying out the Indian title to all the lands of the colonies. His\npolicy then was to set aside for Indian reserves any lands used by\nthe Indians or requested by them. In 1876 when the Joint Allotment\nCommission took to the field to establish reserves throughout the\nprovince, the railway difficulties had so embittered dominion-provincial relations that the province placed every conceivable obstacle in\nthe path of a quick, equitable, and final settlement of Indian\nreserves. The result has been that the original problem of the size\nof reserves was further confused by the addition of what came to\nbe known as the province's reversionary interest and the Indians'\nclaim of aboriginal title.\nThirdly, lack of money for surveying has meant that British\nColumbia achieved the dubious distinction of being the only Canadian province in which land was alienated prior to survey. Throughout the province there were for years innumerable plots of legally\nacquired land the location of which was not definitely known on\nthe maps in the Lands Office in Victoria. This embarrassing situation arose because private surveyors were hired to do much of the\nsurveying that was done before 1900. Many of these surveys were\nhastily and inadequately done, and while frequently the discovery\nof incorrect surveys is more frustrating and annoying than significant, expensive litigation has sometimes followed. In addition, the\ngovernment's failure to survey led to a wide scattering of settlement\nwith settlers receiving no direction as to where their efforts at farming would be most likely to succeed. With provincial reserves placed\non so much land held for subsidizing railroads after 1883 and with\nno information as to where best to locate, settlers took up marginal\nlands that should not have been pre-empted and where the provision of transportation services became an added burden on the\nprovince.\nBy 1900 settlers were scattered throughout the province with no\nregard for either probable success or communication facilities. Their\nisolation made expenditures for public works even more expensive\nthan would normally have been the case. Beginning with Premier\nDunsmuir in 1901 and continuing to the present, governments in\n 248 LAND, MAN, AND THE LAW\nBritish Columbia have repeatedly appealed to the federal government for special financial consideration. The basis of the argument\nfor \"Better Terms\" has been that provision for public services,\nparticularly transportation services, is more expensive on a per\ncapita basis than elsewhere in Canada. The history of provincial\nsettlement would indicate, however, that the expense has been\nmaterially increased as a result of indiscriminate settlement permitted by former provincial governments.\nTo provide the transportation facilities demanded by miners and\nsettlers, the Smithe ministry began the practice in 1883 of subsidizing railway companies with large blocks of crown lands. The reservation of so much land at one time for railway purposes seriously\nhampered settlement, but by the 1890's provision of railway facilities at any cost was considered of more importance than securing\nsuitable lands to settlers. Protests against locking up this land under\ngovernment reserve came in from various sections of the province,\nbut in vain. With the example of the Railway Belt before them, as\nwell as the American example of granting millions of acres of\npublic lands for railway purposes, the government accorded railway\npromoters preferential treatment. When the heyday of land subsidies to railways had passed, over 4,000,000 acres of subsidy lands\nwere repurchased at forty cents an acre by the McBride government in 1912, and the unalienated portions of the Railway Belt\nlands were returned to the province in 1930. Neither event, however, alters the fact by 1913, a total of 22,759,410 acres of provincial lands had been granted to provide railways.\nBritish Columbia was following the American example, as\nadopted by eastern Canada, by subsidizing railways with large\nacreages of crown lands. British Columbia also adopted the American practice of granting pre-emptions. There, the pre-emption system, had been found to work well as a method of peopling the\nwest. It proved to be satisfactory on the Canadian prairies as well,\nbut in British Columbia, with the exception of the years 1875 to\n1879, land was never free. While homesteads were still available on\nthe prairies, settlers coming to British Columbia discovered that\nthey must either buy the land or pay for it on the installment plan\nby pre-empting.\nFraming legislation for such diverse activities as farming and\nranching, mining and lumbering, as well as for the construction of\nrailways and the allotting of Indian reserves was a monumental task\nfraught with innumerable obstacles and hazards. That the province\n CONCLUSION 249\ncould by 1913 boast of the best mining laws on the continent, timber\nlegislation as enlightened as any to be found in the world, and the\nmost advanced water legislation is a credit to the many pioneer\nlegislators who had a part in the work. More especially is this the\ncase when it is appreciated that to the immensity of the original\ntask was added the further complication of the presence of a forty-\nmile strip of land through the heart of the province granted to the\ndominion government in 1871 in return for rail connections with\neastern Canada. Had either the province or the Dominion had any\nintimation of the frustrations that lay in the future regarding mineral\nrights, water rights, foreshore rights, pre-emption claims and other\njurisdictional conflicts, both governments would have hesitated a\nlong time before sanctioning article 11 of the Terms of Union.\nSorting out rights took sixty years during which appeals were made\nconstantly to the Privy Council. An attitude of dislike and mistrust\narose in British Columbia toward the dominion government that is\neven yet not entirely dispelled.\n Appendix A\nLand Ordinance, 1870\nAn Ordinance to amend and consolidate the Laws affecting\nCrown Lands in British Columbia.\n[June ist, 1870.]\nWHEREAS it is expedient to amend and consolidate the Laws affecting Crown Lands in British Columbia;\nBe it enacted by the Governor of British Columbia, with the advice\nand consent of the Legislative Council thereof, as follows:\nI. In the construction and for the purposes of the Ordinance (if\nnot inconsistent with the context or subject matter), the following\nterms shall have the respective meanings hereinafter assigned to them:\n\"The Governor\" shall mean the Governor of British Columbia, or any\nperson for the time being lawfully exercising the authority of a Governor of British Columbia;\n\"Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works and Surveyor General\"\nshall mean and include the Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works\nand Surveyor General and any person for the time being lawfully acting in that capacity.\n\"Commissioner\" shall mean the Chief Commissioner of Lands and\nWorks and Surveyor General of this Colony, or the person acting as\nsuch for the time being, and shall include every Stipendiary Magistrate\nfor the time being in charge of any District, and every person duly\nauthorized by the Governor to act as and for the Chief Commissioner\nof Lands and Works and Surveyor General, as Assistant Commissioner\nof Lands and Works in any District in which the Land that may be\nreferred to lies, other than that in which the Chief Office of the Lands\nand Works Department is situated, and any other District or Districts\nfor which no such Assistant Commissioner of Lands and Works as\naforesaid has been appointed.\n\"Supreme Court\" shall mean the Supreme Court of British\nColumbia;\n\"The Crown\" shall mean Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors;\n\"Crown Lands\" shall mean all Lands of this Colony held by the\nCrown in fee simple;\n 252 APPENDIX\n\"Act\" shall mean any Proclamation or Ordinance having the force\nof Law in this Colony;\nWords importing the singular number shall include more persons,\nparties, or things than one, and the converse.\nII. The following Acts, Ordinances, and Proclamations relating to\nthe disposal and regulation of the Crown Lands of the Colony are\nhereby repealed:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nAn Act dated February 14th, 1859;\nAn Act dated January 4th, i860;\nAn Act dated January 20th, i860;\nThe \"Pre-emption Amendment Act, 1861;\"\nThe \"Country Land Act, 1861;\"\nThe \"Pre-emption Purchase Act, 1861;\"\nThe \"Pre-emption Consolidation Act, 1861;\"\nThe \"Mining District Act, 1863;\"\nThe \"Land Ordinance, 1865;\"\nThe \"Pre-emption Ordinance, 1866;\"\nThe \"Pre-emption Payment Ordinance, 1869;\" and\nThe \"Vancouver Island Land Proclamation, 1862;\"\nbut such repeal shall not prejudice or affect any rights acquired, or\npayments due, or forfeitures or penalties incurred prior to the passing\nof this Ordinance in respect of any Land in this Colony.\nPRE-EMPTION\nIII. From and after the date of the proclamation in this Colony of\nHer Majesty's assent to this Ordinance, any Male person being a\nBritish Subject, of the age of eighteen years or over, may acquire the\nright to pre-empt any tract of unoccupied, unsurveyed, and unreserved\nCrown Lands (not being an Indian Settlement) not exceeding Three\nHundred and Twenty Acres in extent in that portion of the Colony\nsituated to the Northward and Eastward of the Cascade or Coast\nRange of Mountains, and One Hundred and Sixty Acres in extent in\nthe rest of the Colony. Provided that such right of pre-emption shall\nnot be held to extend to any of the Aborigines of this Continent, except\nto such as shall have obtained the Governor's special permission in\nwriting to that effect.\nIV. Any Chartered or Incorporated Company may acquire such\nright by obtaining a special permission in writing from the Governor\nto that effect, but not otherwise; and the Governor may grant or refuse\nsuch permission at his discretion.\nV. Any person desiring to Pre-empt as aforesaid, shall first apply to\nand obtain from the Commissioner permission in writing to enter upon\nsuch Land, which must be fully described in writing by the applicant,\nand a plan thereof must be deposited with the Commissioner, and such\ndescription and plan shall be in duplication.\nVI. After such permission has been obtained, and within such time,\nnot exceeding thirty days thereafter, as shall be specified by the Commissioner in such permission, such person shall enter into possession\n APPENDIX 253\nof the Land so described, and place at each corner thereof a post\nmarked with his name or other distinguishing sign, and thereupon\nshall apply in writing to the said Commissioner to have his claim\nrecorded to such tract of Land not exceeding Three hundred and\ntwenty Acres or One hundred and sixty Acres, as the case may be, as\nhereinbefore provided.\nVII. If such Land has not been previously recorded, the Commissioner shall, upon the fulfilment by the applicant of the preceding requirements, and upon payment by him of a fee of Two Dollars, record\nsuch Land in his favour as a Pre-emption Claim, and give him a Certificate of such Pre-emption Record, in the Form A. in the Schedule hereto; and such Record shall be made by the Commissioner in triplicate,\nthe original to be handed to the Pre-emptor, a duplicate to be retained\nby the Commissioner for local reference, and the triplicate to be forwarded forthwith to the head office of die Lands and Works Department, to be there examined, and if found in all respects (or if necessary after having been amended by the Chief Commissioner of Lands\nand Works and Surveyor General so as to be) in accordance with the\nprovisions of this Ordinance, to be finally registered in the Land Office\nPre-emption Register.\nVIII. Every piece of Land sought to be acquired as a Pre-emption\nClaim under the provisions of this Ordinance shall, save as hereinafter excepted, be of rectangular shape, and the shortest line thereof\nshall be at least two-thirds of the length of the longest line. Such lines\nshall run as nearly as possible North and South, and East and West.\nIX. Where such Land is in whole or in part bounded by any mountain, rock, lake, river, swamp, or other natural boundary, or by any\npublic highway, or by any pre-empted or surveyed Land, such natural\nboundary, public highway, pre-empted or surveyed Land, may be\nadopted as the boundary of such Land; and it shall be sufficient for\nthe claimant to shew to the Commissioner that the form of the Land\nconforms as nearly as circumstances permit to the provisions of this\nOrdinance.\nX. The Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works and Surveyor\nGeneral may, however, in carrying out any Government Survey, if in\nhis opinion circumstances require it, survey Pre-emption Claims or\nPurchased Lands recorded previous to the date of this Ordinance, by\nsuch metes and bounds as he may think proper; and every survey so\nmade and certified by him in writing shall be binding upon all parties\naffected thereby, and the survey so certified shall be deemed in any\nCourt of this Colony to have been done in compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance.\nXL A Pre-emptor shall be entitled to receive from the Commissioner a Certificate, to be called a \"Certificate of Improvement,\" in\nthe Form B. in the Schedule hereto, upon his proving to the Commissioner, by the declarations in writing of himself and two other persons,\nthat he has been in occupation of his Pre-emption Claim from the date\nof the Record thereof, and has made permanent improvements thereon, to the value of Two Dollars and Fifty Cents per Acre. Such Certi-\n 254 APPENDIX\nficate shall be in triplicate, the original to be handed to the Pre-\nemptor, the duplicate retained by the Commissioner for local reference,\nand the triplicate transmitted forthwith to the head office of the Lands\nand Works Department; and it shall be the duty of the Commissioner\nto note the issue of such Certificate on the original Pre-emption Record,\nwhich must be produced to him at the time of applying for the Certificate by the Pre-emptor, and on the duplicate thereof retained in the\nCommissioner's Office.\nXII. Every such declaration shall be subscribed by the person making the same, and shall be filed with the Commissioner, who is hereby\nfully authorized and empowered to take the same, and such Declaration shall be in the Form C. in the Schedule, and shall be made before\nsuch Commissioner, under and subject to the provisions and penalties\nof the \"Oaths Ordinance, 1869.\"\nXIII. After the grant of the Certificate of Improvement, but not\nbefore, the Pre-emption right to the Land referred to in such Certificate\nmay be transferred to any person entitled to hold a Pre-emption Claim\nunder this Ordinance, subject, however, to the continuance of all the\nprovisions of this Ordinance as to occupation, forfeiture, and payment\nof purchase money due or to become due to the Crown.\nXIV. Every such transfer must be made in writing, signed by the\nperson making the same, or his attorney in fact, in the Form D. in\nthe Schedule, or in words to that effect, and in the presence of the\nCommissioner, and if not so made shall be void; and such transfer\nshall be in triplicate, the original to be retained by the person in whose\nfavour the transfer is made, the duplicate to be retained as a record\nin the Office of the Commissioner, and the triplicate forwarded forthwith to be registered in the head office of the Lands and Works. Upon\nthe examination of such transfer in the manner and form so prescribed,\nand on payment of the fee of Two Dollars the Commissioner shall\ncancel the previous Record of such Pre-emption Right, and Record\nthe same anew in the maner prescribed in Section VII. in the name\nof the person in favour of whom such transfer shall have been made,\nsubject to the completion of the period of occupation required by this\nOrdinance, and to all other the terms and conditions thereof.\nXV. Whenever any Pre-emptor shall permanently cease to occupy\nhis Pre-emption Claim, save as hereinafter provided, the Commissioner\nmay in a summary way, upon being satisfied of such permanent cessation, cancel the claim of the Pre-emptor so permanently ceasing to\noccupy the same, and all Deposits paid, and all Improvements and\nBuildings made and erected on such land, shall be absolutely forfeited to\nthe Crown, and the said land shall be open to Pre-emption and may be\nRecorded anew by the Commissioner as a Pre-emption Claim, in the\nname of any person satisfying the requirements in that behalf of this\nOrdinance.\nXVI. The occupation herein required, shall mean a continuous\nbona fide personal residence of the Pre-emptor on his Pre-emption\nClaim.\nProvided, however, that the requirement of such personal occupation\n 255\nshall cease and determine after a period of Four Years of such continuous occupation shall have been fulfilled.\nXVII. Every holder of a Pre-emption Claim shall be entitled to\nbe absent from his claim for any one period not exceeding Two Months\nduring any One Year. As an ordinary rule he shall be deemed to have\npermanently ceased to occupy his claim when he shall have been\nabsent, continuously, for a longer period than Two Months, unless\nleave of absence have been granted by the Commissioner, as hereinafter provided.\nXVIII. If any Pre-emptor shall show good cause to the satisfaction\nof the Commissioner, such Commissioner may grant to the said Pre-\nemptor leave of absence for any period of time, not exceeding Four\nMonths in any One Year, inclusive of the Two Months' absence from\nhis claim, provided for in Clause XVII. Such leave of absence shall\nbe in the Form E. in the Schedule hereto, and shall be made out in\nduplicate, the original to be handed to the Pre-emptor, and the duplicate to be retained of record in the office of the Commissioner.\nXIX. If any Pre-emptor shall show good cause to the satisfaction of\nthe Commissioner, he may grant him a \"License to Substitute,\" for any\nperiod not exceeding six calendar months, in the Form F. in the\nSchedule hereto, in duplicate, the original to be handed to the Pre-\nemptor, and the duplicate to be retained of record in the Office of the\nCommissioner. The continuous personal residence of the person named\nin such License (such person not being or becoming subsequently to the\ndate of the License a claimant of land under any Law or Proclamation\nregulating the Pre-emption of land within the Colony) shall, during\nthe continuance of the License, and after the record thereof with the\nCommissioner, be as effectual as the continuous personal residence of\nthe claimant himself.\nXX. No person shall be entitled to hold, at the same time, Two\nClaims by Pre-emption; and any person so pre-empting more than One\nClaim shall forfeit all right, title, and interest to the prior claim\nrecorded by him, and to all improvements made and erected thereon,\nand deposits of money paid to Government on account thereof; and\nthe Land included in such prior claim shall be open for Pre-emption.\nXXI. When the Government shall survey the land included in a\nPre-emption Claim, the person in whose name the said claim stands\nregistered in the Pre-emption Register of the Land Office, shall, provided a Certificate of Improvement shall have been issued in respect\nof such land, and that the condition of Four Years occupation required\nby this Ordinance has been duly fulfilled, shall be entitled to purchase\nthe said land at such rate not exceeding One Dollar per acre as may\nbe determined upon by the Governor for the time being, payable by\nfour equal annual instalments, the first instalment to be paid to the\nCommissioner at his office within three calendar months from the date\nof the service on the said Pre-emptor of a notice from the Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works and Surveyor General requiring payment for the said land, or within six calendar months after the insertion\nof a notice to such effect to be published for and during such period\nWA\n 256 APPENDIX\nin the Government Gazette, or in such other newspaper published in\nthe Colony, as the Commissioner may direct.\nIf the purchase money for such land be not paid according to the\nterms of such notice, the Pre-emption Claim over such land may at\nthe discretion of the Commissioner be cancelled, and all such land and\nthe improvements thereon, and any instalments of the purchase money\npaid thereon, may be forfeited absolutely to the Crown.\nXXII. The Crown Grant to a Pre-emption Claim will not be issued\nunless it shall have been proved to the Commissioner that written or\nprinted notices of the intended application for such Grant have been\nposted for a period of Sixty Days prior to such application, upon some\nconspicuous part of the said Pre-emption Claim, and upon the adjacent\nclaims (if any), and upon the Court House of the District wherein\nthe Land lies.\nXXIII. Upon payment of the whole of the purchase money for\nsuch land, and upon production to the Chief Commissioner of Lands\nand Works and Surveyor General of a Certificate in Form G. in the\nSchedule hereto, from the Commissioner of the District in which such\nland is situated, that the notices of intended application for a Crown\nGrant of such land have been duly posted as required in the previous\nSection without any objection to the issue of such grant having been\nsubstantiated, a Crown Grant or Conveyance in the Form H. of the\nSchedule hereto of the fee simple of the said land shall be executed in\nfavor of the purchaser.\nProvided that every such Crown Grant shall be deemed to include\namong the reservations therein contained, a reserve in favor of the\nCrown, its assignees, and licensees, of the right to take from any such\nland without compensation, any gravel, sand, stone, lime, timber, or\nother material which may be required in the construction, maintenance,\nor repair of any Roads, Ferries, Bridges, or other Public Works.\nXXIV. In the event of the death of any Pre-emptor under this\nOrdinance, his heirs or devisees (as the case may be) if resident in\nthe Colony, shall be entitled to a Crown Grant of the Land included\nin such Pre-emption Claim if lawfully held and occupied by such Pre-\nemptor at the time of his decease, but subject to payment of the full\namount of purchase money for such land then due or to become due;\nbut if such heirs or devisees be absent from the Colony at the time of\nsuch decease, the Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works and Surveyor General is hereby authorized and empowered to make such disposition of the Pre-emption Claim, and such provision for the person\n(if any) entitled thereto or interested therein, as he may deem just and\nproper.\nXXV. Every person lawfully occupying a Pre-emption Claim situated to the Northward and Eastward of the Cascade or Coast Range\nof Mountains, at the date of the passing of this Ordinance, if less than\nThree hundred and twenty Acres, may, with the permission of the\nCommissioner, pre-empt Land liable to pre-emption, and immediately\ncontiguous to or abutting on his said existing claim, so as to make up\nthe total amount of his claim to Three Hundred and twenty Acres,\n APPENDIX 257\nand thereupon such total .claim shall be deemed to have been and to\nbe taken up and held under the provisions of this Ordinance.\nXXVI. Leases of any extent of unpre-empted and unsurveyed Land\nmay be granted for pastoral purposes by the Governor in Council, to\nany person or persons whomsoever, being bona fide Pre-emptors or\nPurchasers of Land in the vicinity of Land sought to be leased, at\nsuch Rent as such Governor in Council shall deem expedient. But every\nsuch Lease of Pastoral Land shall, among other things, contain a\ncondition making such Land liable to Pre-emption, Reserve for public\npurposes, and purchase by any persons whomsoever, at any time during the term thereof, without compensation, save by a proportionate\ndeduction of Rent; and to a further condition, that the Lessee shall,\nwithin Six Months from the date of such Lease, stock the property\ndemised in such proportion of animals to the One hundred Acres, as\nshall be specified by the Commissioner.\nXXVII. Leases of unoccupied and unsurveyed Land, not exceeding\nFive hundred Acres in extent, may be granted by the Governor in\nCouncil, for the purpose of cutting Hay thereon, to any person or persons whomsoever, being bona fide Pre-emptors or Purchasers of Land,\nat such Rent as such Governor in Council shall deem expedient. The\nterm of such Lease shall not exceed Five Years; but every such Lease\nshall, among other things, contain a condition making such Land\nliable to Pre-emption, Reserve for public purposes, and purchase by\nany persons whomsoever, at any time during the term thereof, with\nsuch compensation for improvements made thereon, to be paid to the\nLeaseholder, as shall be fixed by the Commissioner of the District.\nXXVIII. Leases of any extent of unpre-empted Crown Lands may\nbe granted by the Governor in Council, to any person, persons, or\ncorporation duly authorized in that behalf, for the purpose of cutting\nspars, timber, or lumber, and actually engaged in those pursuits,\nsubject to such rent, terms, and provisions as shall seem expedient\nto the Governor in Council; provided, however, that any person may\nhereafter acquire a Pre-emption Claim to or upon any part of such\nLeased Land, by complying with the requirements of this Ordinance.\nSuch Pre-emptor shall, however, only be entitled to cut such timber\nas he may require for use upon his claim; and if he cut timber on the\nsaid Land for sale, or for any purpose other than for such use as aforesaid, or for the purpose of clearing the said Land, he shall absolutely\nforfeit all interest in the Land acquired by him, and the Commissioner\nshall cancel his claim thereto.\nXXIX. The application for any such Lease must be in writing, in\nduplicate, addressed to the Commissioner, who shall retain the original\nin his office, and transmit the duplicate through the head office of the\nLands and Works, to the Governor in Council, who shall alone decide\non any such Lease.\n APPENDIX\nXXX. Every person lawfully entitled to hold a Pre-emption under\nthis Ordinance and lawfully occupying and bona fide cultivating Lands,\nmay divert any unrecorded and unappropriated water from the natural\nchannel of any stream, lake, or river adjacent to or passing through\nsuch Land, for agricultural and other purposes, upon obtaining the\nwritten authority of the Commissioner of the District to that effect, and\na record of the same shall be made with him, after due notice as hereinafter mentioned, specifying the name of the applicant, the quantity\nsought to be diverted, the place of diversion, the object thereof, and\nall such other particulars as such Commissioner may require; for every\nsuch record the Commissioner shall charge a fee of Two Dollars; and\nno person shall have any exclusive right to the use of such water,\nwhether the same flow naturally through or over his land, except such\nrecord shall have been made.\nXXXI. Previous to such authority being given, the applicant shall,\nif the parties affected thereby refuse to consent thereto, post up in a\nconspicuous place on each person's Land through which it is proposed\nthat the water should pass, and on the District Court House, notices in\nwriting, stating his intentions to enter such Land, and through and\nover the same to take and carry such water, specifying all particulars\nrelating thereto, including direction, quantity, purpose, and term.\nXXXII. Priority of right to any such water privilege, in case of\ndispute, shall depend on priority of record.\nXXXIII. The right of entry on and through the Lands of other, for\ncarrying water for any lawful purpose upon, over, or under the said\nLand, may be claimed and taken by any person lawfully occupying and\nbona fide cultivating as aforesaid, and (previous to entry) upon paying\nor securing payment of compensation, as aforesaid, for the waste or\ndamage so occasioned, to the person whose Land may be wasted or\ndamaged by such entry or carrying of water.\nXXXIV. In case of dispute, such compensation or any other question connected with such water privilege, entry, or carrying may be\nascertained by the Commissioner of the District in a summary manner,\nwithout a Jury, or if desired by either party, with a Jury of Five men.\nXXXV. Water privileges for mining or other purposes, not otherwise\nlawfully appropriated, may be claimed, and the said water may be\ntaken upon, under, or over any Land so pre-empted or purchased as\naforesaid, by obtaining a Grant or Licence from the Commissioner of\nthe District; and, previous to taking the same, paying reasonable compensation for waste or damage to the person whose Land may be\nwasted or damaged by such water privilege, or carriage of water.\nXXXVI. All Assignments, Transfers, or Conveyances of any Preemption Right, heretofore or hereafter acquired, shall be construed to\nhave conveyed and transferred, and to convey and transfer, any and\nall recorded water privileges in any manner attached to or used in the\nworking of the Land pre-empted.\nXXXVII. Every owner of a ditch or water privilege shall be bound\n APPENDIX 259\nto take all reasonable means for utilizing the water taken by him; and\nif he shall wilfully take and waste any unreasonable quantity of water,\nit shall be lawful for the Commissioner to declare all rights to the\nwater forfeited.\nEJECTMENT\nXXXVIII. Any person lawfully occupying a Pre-emption Claim,\nor holding a Lease under this Ordinance may, in respect thereof,\ninstitute and obtain redress in an action of ejectment or of trespass in\nthe same manner and to the same extent as if he were seised of the\nlegal estate on the Land covered by such claims; but either party\nthereto may refer the cause of action to the Stipendiary Magistrate of\nthe District wherein the Land lies, who is hereby authorized to proceed\nsummarily, and make such order as he shall deem just. Provided, however, that if requested by either party, he shall first summon a Jury of\nFive persons to hear the cause, and their verdict or award on all\nmatters of fact shall be final.\nJURY\nXXXIX. It shall be lawful for any Magistrate, by an order under\nhis hand, to summon a Jury of five persons for any purpose under this\nOrdinance, and in the event of non-attendance of any persons so summoned he shall have the power to impose a fine not exceeding Twenty-\nfive Dollars.\nXL. Any person affected by any decision of a Magistrate or Commissioner under this Ordinance may within One calendar month after\nsuch decision but not afterwards, appeal to the Supreme Court in a\nsummary manner, and such appeal shall be in the form of a petition,\nverified by affidavit, to any Judge of such Court, setting out the points\nrelied upon; and a copy of such petition shall be served upon the\nCommissioner whose decision is appealed from, and such time shall\nbe allowed for his answer to the said petition as to the Judge of the\nSupreme Court may seem advisable; but no such appeal shall be\nallowed except from decisions on points of law.\nXLI. Any person desirous of appealing in manner aforesaid, may\nbe required, before such appeal be heard, to find such security as may\nbe determined by the Commissioner whose decision is appealed from,\nand such appeal shall not be heard until after security to the satisfaction of the Commissioner shall have been given for the due prosecution\nof such appeal and submission thereto.\nSURVEYED LANDS\nXLI I. The Governor shall at any time, and for such purposes as he\nmay deem advisable, Reserve, by notice published in the Government\n \u00C2\u00A5\n260 APPENDIX\nGazette, or in any newspaper of the Colony, any Lands that may not\nhave been either sold or legally pre-empted.\nXLIII. The upset price of Surveyed Lands, not being reserved for\nthe Sites of Towns or the Suburbs thereof, and not being reputed to be\nMineral Lands, shall be One Dollar per Acre; and the upset price of\nTown and Suburban Lots shall be such as the Governor may in each\ncase specially determine.\nXLIV. Except as aforesaid, all the Land in British Columbia will\nbe exposed in lots for sale by public competition, at the upset price\nabove mentioned, after the same shall have been surveyed and made\nready for sale. Due notice shall be given of all such sales; notice at\nthe same time shall be given of the upset price and terms of payment\nwhen they vary from those above stated, and also of the rights specially\nreserved (if any) for public convenience.\nXLV. All Lands which shall remain unsold at any such auction\nmay be sold by private contract at the upset price and on the terms\nand conditions herein mentioned, on application to the Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works and Surveyor General, or other person for\nthe time being duly authorized by the Governor in that behalf.\nXLVI. Unless otherwise specially notified at the time of sale, all\nCrown Lands sold shall be subject to such public rights of way as\nmay at any time after such sale be specified by the Chief Commissioner\nof Lands and Works and Surveyor General, and to the right of the\nCrown to take therefrom, without compensation, any stone, gravel, or\nother material to be used in repairing the public roads, and to such\nprivate rights of way, and of leading or using water for animals, and\nfor mining and engineering purposes, as may at the time of such sale\nbe existing.\nXLVII. Unless otherwise specially announced at the time of sale,\nthe conveyance of the land shall include, except as provided in Section\nXXIII, all trees and all mines and minerals within and under the\nsame (except mines of gold and silver.)\nFREE MINERS' RIGHTS\nXLVII. Nothing herein contained shall exclude Free Miners from\nentering upon any land in this Colony, and searching for and working\nminerals; provided that such Free Miner prior to so doing shall give\nfull satisfaction or adequate security to the satisfaction of the Commissioner, to the Pre-emptor or Tenant in fee simple, for any loss or\ndamage he may sustain by reason thereof. If the amount of compensation (if any) cannot be agreed upon, the Stipendiary Magistrate or\nGold Commissioner of the District wherein the land lies, with the\nassistance, if desired by either party, of a Jury of Five persons to be\nsummoned by him, shall decide the amount thereof, and such decision\nand award shall be final. If there be no such Stipendiary Magistrate or\nGold Commissioner in the said District, the Supreme Count shall have\njurisdiction in the matter.\n APPENDIX 261\nFREE GRANTS\nXLIX. It shall be lawful for the Governor in Council to make such\nspecial Free or partially Free Grants of the unoccupied and unappropriated Crown Lands of the Colony, for the encouragement of Immigration or other purposes of public advantage, with and under such\nprovisions, restrictions, and privileges, as to the Governor in Council\nmay seem most advisable for the encouragement and permanent settlement of Immigrants, or for such other public purposes as aforesaid.\nL. Nothing in this Ordinance contained shall be construed so as to\ninterfere prejudicially with the rights granted to Free Miners under\nthe \"Gold Mining Ordinance, 1867.\"\nLI. The Schedule hereto shall form part of this Ordinance.\nLI I. Each Commissioner appointed under this Ordinance, shall keep\na book or books in which he shall enter the date and particulars of\nevery Pre-emption Record, Certificate of Improvement, License to\nSubstitute, Transfer, or other document relating to or in any manner\naffecting any Pre-emption Claim within his District.\nLIII. All fines and fees payable under this Ordinance shall be\ndeemed to be made payable to the use of the Crown.\nLIV. This Ordinance shall not take effect until Her Majesty's assent\nthereto shall have been proclaimed in the Colony.\nLV. This Ordinance may be cited for all purposes as the \"Land\nOrdinance, 1870.\"\n w\nM\nX\n.,_<\n\"0\nT3\n5h\nO\nfl\nO\n\u00C2\u00B0X I\naSaooQ j-io j\nUOjpZBH\nijouqsy\nBI03!N\nUOUJ3^\\nAWIAJTCjJ j\nuospM\n35(0JS]9A3-y\ntreoots j\nt\u00C2\u00BBPI\u00C2\u00B0D\n^mjq qdtuSapj,\n\u00C2\u00B0ipv\nxoutoq |\njpnimbsa\nJBISSBQ I\nsooXoso\nXBU3JOO-VJ I\nBoauirao\nooqureg\njaooun\nOUITBirejfJ I\nimpiMog\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2BUO}0Iy\\n 263\nWJk\n 264\nAPPENDIX\nIWX\n8KS\nsSjosq noj\nuojiazBH\nvadtvg aouu,|\naHiaja^iEg\nuomno\njjoio^sy\n*I<\u00C2\u00BBJN\nUOUJ3A\nMajA^\nCO\nuospN\najjoispAa'jj\nCO\n00\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0t\u00E2\u0080\u0094i\nUE0O[S\nJjooiqirejg\nuapjoQ\njpaiQ qduiSapx\nest\ni\n\no\nu\nS\nl-H\nuipv\nnuaqiv\nSt-2161) is^D\no\nxoraoQ\njj-euimbsg\nC3\nsooXoso\n1\nn\nsdoopre}!\n2\nSB\nXTO3100-JJ\n*>aunn0\nN1''\nooqireg\njaooim\n3FA\na,.* *\nia)sunn)sa^ Avafj\ns s a\nouimreN\na s -\naeipiMOQ\n*22\n APPENDIX\nWA\n 266 APPENDIX\n3\nPh\n<43\nt!\n?fe\n\u00C2\u00A3$[*\n60\n6\n2\n1\n4\n88\n1878\n12\n21\nfrJI:\n91\n4\n5\n6\n7\n9\n11\n172\n1879\nflP\u00C2\u00A3*\n24\n25\n128\n7\n1\n14\n5\n211\n1880\n11\n12\n16\n70\n7\n3\n3\n2\n5\n3\n132\n1881\n14\n11\n$$'\n56\n2\n1\n3\n1\n7\n4\n111\n1882\n14\nhM.\n66\n5\n3\n1\n1\n13\n6\n3\n3 1\n129\n1883\n40\n23\n12\n64\n4\n5\n7\n1\n28\n42\n23\n7 18\n274\n1884\n77\n32\n16\n114\n5\n19\n1\n5\n29\n68\n22\n2 16\n406\n1885\n29\n21\n19\n124\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0 1! \u00E2\u0080\u00A2\n6\n4\n8\n36\n50\n5\n1 2\n306\n1886\n15\n24\n4\n137\n1\n15\n3\n11\n40\n16\n5\n3\n274\n1887\n12\n25\n15\n92\n' 1\n15\n6\n9\n66\n60\n7\n1 5\n320\n1888\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0: 13\n27\n27\n114\n1\n13\n5\n26\n48\n40\n9\n2 7\n332\n1889\n27\n41\n15\n184\n2\n15\n5\n102\n34\n33\n8\n2 13\n481\n1890\n70\n53\n16\n221\na\n8\n99\n34\n41\n18\n21\n1\n593\n1891\n143\n16\n10\n266\n4\n24\n8\n75\n28\n54\n39\n18\n685\n1892\n243\n24\n16\n225\n3\n41\n11\n104\n^:\n69\n1\n1 35\n4\n828\n1893\n56\n12\n10\n96\n5\n11\n3\n122\n8\n49\n4\n9\n8\n393\n1894\n12\n5\n#||\n17\n%;\u00E2\u0096\u00A0%\n14\n43\n11\n36\nt, %,\n8\n159\n1895\n22\n12\n<&w\u00C2\u00AB\n16\n2\n\u00C2\u00ABiiri&'.\n5\n'',-$i&\n12\n39\ni<\n1\n215\n1896\n29\n20\n6\n16\n2\n13\n19\n228\n14\n57\n*.vj^f_\n1 5\n411\n1897\n28\n\"\"\u00E2\u0080\u00A2'$\n6\n26\n2\n66\n'#\n\u00C2\u00ABC 0\n0 \u00C2\u00AB1\n3 &\na) >n S3\n3*3 \u00C2\u00A7\nv 3\nwm\nucS\n3l\nh!c3\n1873\n441\n69\n142\n42\n694\n2068\n*\n1874\n208\n72\n154\n106\n540\n3252\n*\n1875\n198\n59\n199\n155\n611\n4110\n17,960.5\n1876\n188\n42\n162\n128\n520\n#\n17,984.3\n1877\n320\n65\n261\n88\n734\n*\n9,991\n1878\n245\n*\n317\n172\n734\n*\n31,210\n1879\n100\n58\n404\n211\n773\n*\n46,815\n1880\n64\n54\n236\n132\n486\n1319\n24,115\n1881\n85\n55\n205\n111\n456\n1314\n23,141\n1882\n77\n29\n201\n129\n436\n1617\n23,609\n1883\n200\n60\n328\n274\n862\n2463\n54,637\n1884\n707\n119\n615\n406\n1847\n3357\n146,197\n1885\n638\n163\n340\n306\n1447\n3260\n128,811\n1886\n589\n141\n436\n274\n1440\n3485\n50,472\n1887\n303\n73\n351\n320\n1047\n3079\n73,950\n1888\n548\n157\n355\n332\n1392\n3141\n94,278\n1889\n496\n132\n578\n481\n1687\n3326\n134,169\n1890\n616\n169\n829\n593\n2207\n4168\n99,334\n1891\n988\n260\n863\n685\n2796\n5224\n143,455\n1892\n869\n272\n1000\n828\n2969\n5321\n309,878\n1893\n832\n173\n264\n393\n1662\n4339\n124,634\n1894\n709\n117\n153\n159\n1138\n4018\n47,167\n1895\n630\n123\n334\n215\n1302\n5079\n95,456\n1896\n486\n142\n694\n411\n1733\n6532\n36,821\n1897\n462\n204\n977\n766\n2409\n8034\n609,597\n1898\n467\n144\n765\n951\n2327\n9126\n371,394\n1899\n616\n113\n418\n868\n2015\n10993\n672,148\n1900\n722\n113\n399\n1101\n2335\n12943\n104,724\n1901\n646\n168\n531\n912\n2257\n13306\n4,632,832\n1902\n655\n143\n565\n1059\n2422\n13546\n87,907\n1903\n758\n123\n510\n860\n2251\n14001\n83,699\n1904\n885\n209\n969\n953\n3016\n15141\n107,385\n1905\n955\n189\n1637\n1064\n3845\n16609\n133,184\n1906\n1048\n180\n1550\n1124\n3902\n19661\n336,145\n1907\n936\n262\n3205\n1500\n5903\n29430\n599,420\n1908\n1535\n256\n2438\n1667\n5896\n33629\n253,542\n1909\n1620\n289\n4363\n1714\n7986\n25798\n326,230\n1910\n2049\n439\n9081\n1572\n13141\n37188\n300,588\n1911\n2383\n624\n7139\n2566\n12712\n41946\n524,325\n1912\n3655\n715\n5065\n2757\n12192\n43302\n253,141\n1913\n3855\n962\n3646\n2110\n10573\n31738\n390,036\nTotals\n33,784\n7,737\n52,679\n30,495\n124,695\n446,863\n11,620,383.8\n* No figures available. (Compiled from Tables I, II, III\n, and IV.)\n 270\nAPPENDIX\nCO\n2\n9h\nP4\n*c3 4? 0\n11 If\n(2 R s !\n51 g\n-a\no\n8 S <\nH\u00C2\u00AB(OMCON(MNOOOWOif)'i,iOW\n^ r>\u00C2\u00BB ~h r-* o^ o^ a^ to^ m o\u00C2\u00BB o^ to \u00C2\u00AB5 \u00E2\u0080\u0094* co^ co^ cj\nf to i-T co* o\" o r-T -^T oT co\" <^ to\" rC co\" co\" csT \u00C2\u00BB-T\neONNMO^tOO)^\n(OlOMS(MN(OrHO\nMW^lOCOtONCOir)\n^HOCMomcvmooLoo\nOlNOOmiOCMMNNCO\na> r^.cMco-'fr-^T^ccMCM'-t\nOCOCOCO'HOmOOrH^CMNNOD^CM\n0)lO^,'-*tOlOC0(NT)<(OTHTJH(OTjTortdxirrco'ioioirrr\nCO\nco co m CO ^ CD\nm^ co co^\no^\n-ICOCJICO-HCOCM^CM\no\no\nCO CO o m\nCM\n-< CO CO CO CO *\nen\" rC o\"\nco\"\n^cocom-^cocDom\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0*\nen\nm coco ^\nm\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094< \u00E2\u0080\u0094< CM \"H CM\ntJ< CM rf\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0*\nCMCOCM^COrHNOO)\nN\nm\nco o co co\nen\ngen\no o m o cm -f\nCO CO CO\nm\n+ tNOcoo-HCNeoo)\nm\nHCM^CO\nD ^-<\nco o \u00E2\u0080\u00A2* cm \u00E2\u0080\u00A2* en\ncm r^ co\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0*\nCMCOCOCMCOCOCncOCO\nm\nCO\nn m * io\nCO\nrt I\nt-h i\u00E2\u0080\u00941 i-H CM CO \"*\u00E2\u0096\u00A0\ncm o r-\nen\nO r- ^ \u00E2\u0080\u0094i\u00E2\u0080\u0094'CMOhco\nco\nco o m o\nCM i-H\nCM\nm CO N CM\nd s\no\n1\ncci 2 co\n\"*\u00E2\u0096\u00A0 i\u00E2\u0080\u0094i m t\u00E2\u0080\u0094i co r>\u00C2\u00BB\nCO CO \u00E2\u0080\u0094<\nm\nencD'\u00E2\u0080\u0094i co o co n co o\n<# o <# r^\nm\nCD CNOl o -< ^\nCO CM ^\nOr^^co-^coOOO\nO CO N CO\nen cm co co \u00C2\u00BB-< en\nm \u00E2\u0080\u0094i m\nm^\ncococMcncocMCOcocn\nen\nCO\nO) h CM O\no\n111\nin\" r-T m\" co\" co\" m\"\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0*\" co\" '\u00E2\u0096\u00A0h\"\nr-cncoO^HCM'-H'^Hi^.\nCO\nCD CD 00 CO\nin\n0 rt r\":\nH CMCM m CO CO\nCO CO 't\nco\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0<^-^iTt|inr^T-(00'-<\nen\nCO\ncm co \u00E2\u0096\u00A0*}< m\nen\n\u00C2\u00B0\u00C2\u00B0\u00C2\u00AB\nCM\ni2 ^^\nr? i! CM\ncu \u00E2\u0080\u009Ew\noo en -\u00E2\u0080\u0094i en en r*\u00C2\u00BB\nO CO *\no\nNr^cO'-i^(00Hin\nCO\nco y-i o co\nCO\n^h cm m ^h en \u00E2\u0080\u0094i\nCO O \u00E2\u0080\u0094<\nco\nOCOCOCOCON'HOCO\no\noo co en en\ng\nij^li\nco^ in io in en en\nCO O CM\nCOCMCO^COCMlOCOO\nCO\nco^\n\n^Im\"\ncm t^T co\" co\" en\" co\nm\" \u00E2\u0080\u00A2*\" co\"\n<*\nco co\" co co ^ co i\u00E2\u0080\u0094i en co\nco\"\nco\" ** m\" \u00E2\u0080\u00A2*\nco\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2m # \u00E2\u0080\u00A2<*\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 ^h r^ co\nCM CO CO\no\nr^Ln-*cocO'-<- T* CO\nm\nm\nCO tJ* 00^ CO\n\u00C2\u00B0\u00C2\u00B0n\nCM* CM *-T CM\nco\"\nill\ntf\nCD ~ -* CM CO\n3\n0\nH\n2^-d\nco en en en en en\nen\ncnoooooooo\no\no\nH\u00E2\u0080\u0094Oh\n00 00 CO CO CO CO\nCO CO CO\noo\naocxiCDcDcncncncncn\nen\nen\nen en en cd\n 272\nAPPENDIX\nU 2\n< U\n-+\u00E2\u0080\u00A2\nCM\nCO\nCM\nCO\nCO\noo\nCM\no\nco\n1^.\nen\nN\nTt*'\nen\nCM\n00\no\nCO\nCO\nCM\nCO\nCO\nTf\no\nCO\nCO\n\"^\nen\nCO\nCO\nm\nen\nCO\n\"\"*\nco\nen\nCO\nCO\nCD\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2<+\u00E2\u0080\u00A2\nCO\nCO\n-4r>\no\no\nCO\nCM\nCO\n^\nCM\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2&\nm\n^\n^\nCM\nCO\nco\nCO -^ CM CO\nCO \u00E2\u0096\u00A0* co CO\nm co co co\nco r~ CM cm co\n.-I en y-> o <*\n\u00C2\u00BB-c m co en\n^COCOMOllOCONOOl^OO\nCOCnCMOOOCOCOCOCOCOOCD\ncomoOo^comcoincMoomm\nh cm\" co aT ^ cm in\" in\" co\" co\"\nCM r-t f^\nococMr^i-MOcocococn\n|>.,-i,-hvOCM'-T y-T cT en\" co\" co\" o\" en\" cm*\ncMcnT- '\"\"1* \"\"1, \"\"J, ^ \u00C2\u00B0\neo\"co*r4>co\"cD\"in\"cffcD\"\nCO CO CO \"< CM H ^h\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0*t< en m m\nen\u00E2\u0080\u0094icMi^comcooooiococn'^'CM\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094lOmoocoocoT-HCOCMmococo\nTpi IO o o o. o\n) Ol O i< i1 o\ni rf O rt d CM\n) t-h CM CM f^ CM\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 cm \u00E2\u0080\u0094< cn co\nen co \u00E2\u0096\u00A0* oo\nomTfcocococococo^-oococor^t^cor^coin\nt^r-^cocococooococococococococococococo\ncococococooocococococococococococococo\n.-< ^ co\nOOOCOCOCOOO.\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2c\nP\np\nQ P\nP\nP\np\nP\np\np\nfward District\nast and Sayward Di\nast and N.W. Dis\nP\n|\n\u00C2\u00A3\nfc fc\n&\nCO\nB\ns\n1\n3\nS3\n-s\n1\n1\na e\na\n1\n'\u00C2\u00A3\ng\n1\n1\n1\nP\ns\nP\no\n1\nCO\ntj\n\u00C2\u00A3\n\u00C2\u00A3\n1 1\n1\n1\nP\n1\n1\nc\n!\n^\np\nP\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2s\nfs\n\u00C2\u00A3 \u00C2\u00A3\n\u00C2\u00A3\n\u00C2\u00A3\nft\n;*\ns\n*\na\npj\n5i o o\n\u00C2\u00A3\n\u00C2\u00A3\nfe \u00C2\u00A3\nfc\nfc\nu\nfe\n&\nCJ\nto\n%\nco U U\nCO\nU\nU\nU\n\u00C2\u00A3 8\n 276\nAPPENDIX\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2a rt*\u00C2\u00B0\n(2 11\nlaj\nCO CO \u00C2\u00BB-H CD O \u00E2\u0080\u00A2\nen \u00E2\u0080\u0094I o o\no -* -*\nS S fe fK\n\u00C2\u00AB c; i i\n\u00C2\u00A7P\nII\nCO CO\nooooooooooooo\nooooooooooooo\nOOOOOOOOOOOOO\ns \u00C2\u00AB\n1 3\nd S C^\u00C2\u00AB \u00C2\u00BBt' ffl JJ w ^\nSO^P^^CO^CQbPH\nW 3\nif*\nc la 1\n1 ^ S ;\n 5-i\nUTSS O,\no\n^^\nn\no\no\nm\\n< \nCm\nQ\nc^\na\na\np\nc/3\nH\ns2 g<\no o\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2*\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 O rt\no o o\nI I\nO O \u00E2\u0096\u00A0* O r~\n.a j\u00C2\u00AB -e t\n Appendix C\nItem i\nDefunct Railway Companies Legislated out\nof Existence, 1927\nAn Act respecting certain Defunct Railway Companies.\nB.C., Statutes, 1926-27, 17 Geo. 5, C. 55.\nHIS MAJESTY, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia, enacts as follows: \u00E2\u0080\u0094\n1. This Act may be cited as the \"Defunct Railway Companies Dissolution Act.\"\n2. The corporations named in the first column of Schedule A which\nwere incorporated under the Acts referred to in the second column of\nSchedule A opposite their respective names shall, for all purposes, be\ndeemed to be dissolved; and all powers and franchises held by the said\ncorporations respectively are hereby declared to have wholly ceased.\n3. The dissolution of a corporation under this Act shall not absolve\nthe property of the corporation or any shareholder of the corporation\nfrom any charge, obligation, or liability, or prejudice or impair the\nright of any creditor or person to enforce in any lawful manner whatsoever any claim against the corporation or any shareholder thereof.\n4. The Acts specified in Schedule B are repealed.\nSCHEDULES\nSCHEDULE A.\nCorporations Dissolved\nStatutes of\nBritish\nName Columbia.\nAdams River Railway Company 1903, c. 30.\nAlberni and Cowichan Railway Company 1903-4, c. 59.\nAlice Arm Railway Company, The 1898, c. 46.\nAshcroft and Cariboo Railway Company, The 1896, c. 52.\nArrowhead and Kootenay Railway Company 1898, c. 47.\nAshcroft and Cariboo Railway Company, The 1890, c. 60.\nAshcroft, Barkerville and Fort George Railway Company, The 1906, c. 49.\n APPENDIX\nStatutes of\nBritish\nName Columbia.\nAtlin Short Line Railway and Navigation Company,\nThe 1899, c. 79.\nAtlin Southern Railway Company 1899, c. 80.\nBarkerville, Ashcroft and Kamloops Railway Company, 1897, c. 46.\nBedlington and West Kootenay Railway Company, The 1893, c. 46.\nBella Coola and Fraser Lake Railway Company 1906, c. 50.\nBentinck Arm and Quesnelle Railway Company 1907, c. 48.\nBritish Columbia and Alaska Railway Company 1910, c. 56.\nBritish Columbia Central Railway Company 1906, c. 51.\nBritish Columbia Central Railway Company 1910, c. 57.\nBritish Columbia Northern and Alaska Railway Company 1906, c. 52.\nBritish Columbia Northern and Mackenzie Valley Railway Company 1903, c. 32.\nBurrard Inlet and Fraser Valley Railway Company, The 1891, c. 54.\nBurrard Inlet Railway and Ferry Company, The .. 1891, c. 53.\nCanadian Northern Railway Company, The 1892, c. 48.\nCanadian Western Central Railway Company, The .... 1889, c. 34.\nCanadian Yukon Railway Company, The 1898, c. 50.\nCariboo, Barkerville and Willow River Railway Company 1910, c. 62.\nCariboo Railway Company, The 1894, c. 55.\nCassiar Central Railway Company 1897, c. 52.\nChilkat and Klehini Railway and Navigation Company 1901, c. 68.\nChilliwhack Railway Company, The 1891, c. 55.\nCoast-Kootenay Railway Company, Limited, The 1901, c. 69.\nCoast-Yukon Railway Company, The 1903-4, c. 58.\nColumbia and Carbonate Mountain Railway Company,\nThe 1890, c. 61.\nColumbia and Kootenay Railway and Transportation\nCompany 1883, c. 25.\nComox and Cape Scott Railway Company, The 1901, c. 71.\nCrawford Bay Railway Company, The 1901, c. 72.\nCrow's Nest and Northern Railway Company 1908, c. 58.\nDelta, New Westminster and Eastern Railway Company, The 1894, c. 57.\nDelta Railway Company, The 1887, c. 34.\nDownie Creek Railway Company 1898, c. 52.\nEast Kootenay Railway Company 1897, c. 61.\n Statutes of\nBritish\nName Columbia.\nc.53.\nc. 75.\nc. 33.\nc.52.\nc.63.\nc. 26.\nc.54.\nc. 55.\nc.47.\nc.68.\nc.61.\nc. 77.\nEast Kootenay Valley Railway Company, The 1898,\nFernie and Elk River Railway Company, The 1921\nFlathead Valley Railway Company 1903\nFlathead Valley Railway Company 1909,\nFording Valley Railway Company 1905\nFraser River Railway Company 1883\nGraham Island Railway Company 1909,\nHardy Bay and Quatsino Sound Railway Company .... 1909\nHarrison Hot Springs Tramway Company, Limited, The 1888\nHot Springs and Goat River Tramway Company, The 1891\nHudson Bay Pacific Railway Company 1908\nImperial Pacific Railway Company, The 1901\nIsland Valley Railway Company 1910\nKamloops and Atlin Railway Company 1899\nKamloops and Atlin Railway Company, The 1901\nKamloops and Yellowhead Pass Railway Company 1906.\nKaslo and Lardo-Duncan Railway Company 1897\nKaslo and Slocan Tramway Company, The 1893\nKitimat Railway Company, Limited 1898\nKootenay and Athabasca Railway Company, The 1887\nKootenay and North-west Railway Company, The .... 1898\nKootenay, Cariboo and Pacific Railway Company 1903\nKootenay Development and Tramways Company 1903\nKootenay Lake Shore and Lardo Railway Company,\nThe 1893;\nKootenay Railway and Navigation Company, The 1888\nLake Bennett Railway Company 1901\nLardeau and Kootenay Railway Company, The 1893\nLardeau Railway Company 1897\nLiverpool and Canoe Pass Railway Company, The 1891\nMeadow Creek Railway Company 1909,\nMenzies Bay Railway Company 1910,\nMid-Provincial and Nechako Railway Company 1911\nMidway and Vernon Railway Company, The 1901\nMount Tolmie and Cordova Bay Railway Company,\nThe 1893\nMountain Tramway and Electric Company 1898\nNaas and Skeena Rivers Railway Company 1911\nNanaimo-Alberni Company, The 1897\nc.83.\nc. 78.\nc.58.\nc.58.\nc.52.\nc.54.\nc. 35.\nc.55.\nc. 34.\nc. 36.\nc.53.\nc.46.\nc.80.\nc.54.\nc.64.\nc.57.\nc.56.\nc.69.\nc.68.\nc.81.\nc.55.\nc.56.\nc.69.\nc. 66.\n APPENDIX 281\nStatutes of\nBritish\nName Columbia.\nNanaimo Electric Tramway Company, Limited, The .... 1891, c. 69.\nNelson and Arrow Lake Railway Company, The 1893, c. 57.\nNew Westminster and Port Moody Railway Company,\nThe 1882, c. 14.\nNew Westminster and Vancouver Short Line Railway\nCompany, The 1889, c. 37.\nNew Westminster Southern Railway Company, The .... 1883, c. 27.\nNorth Star and Arrow Lake Railway Company, The 1898, c. 58.\nNorthern Vancouver Island Railway Company 1910, c. 71.\nOkanagan and Kootenay Railway Company, The 1890, c. 64.\nOsoyoos and Okanagan Railway Company, The 1893, c. 59.\nPacific Northern and Eastern Railway Company 1903, c. 39.\nPacific Northern and Omineca Railway Company 1900, c .50.\nPacific Railway Company 1910, c. 73.\nPeace and Naas River Railway Company 1911, c. 73.\nPenticton Railway Company 1910, c. 74.\nPort Moody, Indian River, and Northern Railway Company 1910, c. 75.\nPortland and Stickine Railway Company 1898, c. 59.\nPortland Canal Railway Company 1907, c. 56.\nPrince Rupert and Port Simpson Railway Company .... 1909, c. 60.\nQuatsino Railway Company 1903, c. 42.\nQueen Charlotte Islands Railway Company, The 1901, c. 83.\nQueen Charlotte Islands Railway Company 1905, c. 68.\nQueen Charlotte Railway Company 1910, c. 76.\nRainy Hollow Railway Company 1907, c. 58.\nRevelstoke and Cassiar Railway Company 1898, c. 61.\nRock Bay and Salmon River Railway Company, The .. 1900, c. 51.\nSt. Mary's Valley Railway Company 1906, c. 65.\nSkeena River and Eastern Railway Company 1898, c. 62.\nSkeena River Railway, Colonization, and Exploration\nCompany 1898, c. 63.\nSouth Kootenay Railway Company 1899, c. 88.\nSouth-East Kootenay Railway Company 1898, c. 64.\nSouth-East Kootenay Railway Company 1906, c. 63.\nSouthern Okanagan Railway Company 1906, c. 66.\nStave Valley Railway Company 1905, c. 70.\nStickeen and Teslin Railway, Navigation, and Colonization Company 1897, c. 71.\nip\n 282 APPENDIX\nStatutes of\nBritish\nName Columbia.\nToad Mountain and Nelson Tramway Company, The 1891, c. 70.\nUpper Columbia Navigation and Tramway Company,\nThe 1891, c. 50.\nVancouver and Grand Forks Railway Company, The 1901,c. 84.\nVancouver and Lulu Island Electric Railway and Improvement Company, The 1891, c. 61.\nVancouver and Nicola Valley Railway Company 1908, c. 63.\nVancouver and Northern Railway Company, The 1909, c. 64.\nVancouver and Westminster Railway Company 1900, c. 53.\nVancouver Land and Railway Company, The 1882, c. 15.\nVancouver-Nanaimo Railway Transfer Company 1897, c. 74.\nVancouver, Northern, and Yukon Railway Company .... 1899, c. 89.\nVancouver, Northern, Peace River, and Alaska Railway\nand Navigation Company 1891, c. 62.\nVernon and Okanagan Railway Company, The 1891, c. 63.\nVictoria and Barkley Sound Railway Company, The .... 1909, c. 65.\nVictoria and North American Railway Company, The 1891, c. 64.\nVictoria and Saanich Railway Company, The 1886, c. 29.\nVictoria and Seymour Narrows Railway Company, The 1902, c. 79.\nVictoria, Vancouver, and Westminster Railway Company, The 1894, c. 64.\nYale-Northern Railway Company, The 1901, c. 87.\nSCHEDULE B.\nActs Repealed\nHall Mines Limited Tramway Act, 1894 1894, c. 59.\nNanaimo Railway Act, 1881 1881, c. 25.\nVictoria and Yellowhead Pass Railway Aid Act, 1902 1902, c. 70.\nWellington Collieries Railway Act, 1883 1883, c. 28.\nYukon Mining, Trading and Transportation Company\n(Foreign) Act, 1897 1897, c. 77.\n Item 2\nRailways Incorporated under Acts of the Legislature\nof British Columbia since 1883\n1. Adams River\n2. Alice Arm\n3. Ashcroft and Cariboo\n4. Ashcroft and Cariboo\n5. Ashcroft and Cariboo\n6. Ashcroft and Cariboo\n7. Ashcroft, Barkerville and Fort\nGeorge\n8. Arrowhead and Kootenay\n9. Arrowhead and Kootenay\n10. Atlin Short Line Railway and\nNavigation Co.\n11. Atlin Southern\n12. Barkerville, Ashcroft and\nKamloops\n13. Bedlington and Nelson\n14. Bedlington and West\nKootenay\n15. Bentinck Arm and Quesnel\n16. Bella Coola and Fraser Lake\n17. British Columbia and Alaska\n18. British Columbia and Northern\n19. Mackenzie Valley\n20. British Columbia Central\n21. British Columbia Central\nCap.\nYear\nRemarks\n30\n1903\nLapsed\n46\n1898\nLapsed\n40\n1890\nLapsed\n60\n1890\nLapsed\n52\n1891\nLapsed\n52\n1896\nLapsed\n49\n1906\nLapsed\n47\n1898\nLapsed\n65\n1901\nLapsed\n79\n1899\nLapsed\n80\n1899\nLapsed\n46\n1897\nLapsed\n47\n1897\nDeclared for public\nbenefit, c. 53, 1899\n46\n1893\nLapsed\n48\n1907\nLapsed\n50\n1906\nLapsed\n56\n1910\nLapsed\n32\n1903\nLapsed\n53\n1906\nLapsed\n51\n1906\nLapsed\n57\n1910\nLapsed\n 284 APPENDIX\nCap.\nYear\nRemarks\n22. British Columbia Northern\nand Alaska\n52\n1906\nLapsed\n23. British Columbia Southern\n36\n1893\nAmended, c. 47, 1893;\nrepealed, c. 53, 1894;\nc. 39, 1894; c. 4,\n1896; c. 53, 1896; c.\n33, 1897. Declared for\npublic benefit, c. 36,\n1897\n24. British Columbia Electric\nRailway:\nVancouver Street Railway\n31\n1886\nLapsed\nVancouver Street Railway\n38\n1889\nIncorporation\nVancouver Electric Railway\nand Light Co.\n51\n1890\nAmendment\nNational Electric Tramway\nand Light Co.\n39\n1889\nVictoria Electric Railway and Light Co.,\nc. 63, 1894\nNational Electric Tramway\nand Light Co.\n52\n1890\nAmendment\nWestminster Street Railway\n65\n1890\nWestern and Vancouver\nTramway Co. 67\nBritish Columbia Electric Co. 49\nBritish Columbia Electric Co. 71\nBritish Columbia Electric Co. 51\nConsolidated Railway and\nLight Co. 56\nConsolidated Railway and\nLight Co. 55\nVictoria Electric Railway and\nLight Co. 63\nVictoria and British Columbia\nElectric Railway Co.\nAgreement 81\n1890 Amendment\n1890\n1891 Act to amalgamate\nWestern Street Railway Company and\nWestern and Vancouver Tramway Co.\n1894 Amendment Land\nGrant\n1894 Incorporation\n1896 Amendment\n1894 City of Victoria to\nsupply light and\npower\n1910 Supply electric light\nand power in and\naround City of\nVictoria\n APPENDIX\n285\nCap.\nYear\nRemarks\n25.\nBritish Columbia Yukon\n49\n1897\nOperating\n26.\nBurrard Inlet and Fraser\nValley\n54\n1891\nAmended, c. 48, 1893\nand c. 59, 1895\nLapsed\n27.\nBurrard Inlet Railway and\nFerry Co.\n53\n1891\nLapsed\n28.\nCanadian North-eastern\n74\n1911\nLapsed\n29.\nCanadian Northern\n48\n1892\n30.\nCanadian Northern\n3\n1910\nMain lines \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Agree\n31.\nCanadian Northern Pacific\n4\n1910\nment (a) Yellowhead\nPass to Vancouver\ncompleted (b) Victoria to Barkley Sound\ntime extended to Feb.\n1st, 1917\n32.\nCanadian Northern Pacific\n32\n1912\nBarkley Sound to\nNootka Sound, time\nextended to Feb.\n27th, 1917\n33.\nCanadian Northern Pacific\n57\n1913\nBranch Lines: (a)\nWestminster Bridge\nto Vancouver, time\nextended to Feb. 1st,\n1917; (b) Westminster Bridge to\nSteveston completed;\n(c) Victoria to Patricia Bay, completed\n34.\nCanadian Northern Pacific\n58\n1913\nAmendment to c. 4,\n1910\n35.\nCanadian Northern Pacific\n59\n1913\nTerminals\u00E2\u0080\u0094Port\nMann, New Westminster, Vancouver,\nVictoria, Steveston,\nand Patricia Bay\n36.\nCanadian Northern Pacific\n61\n1914\nFurther aid toward\nconstruction\n37.\nCanadian Northern Pacific\n62\n1914\nAmendment to c. 57,\n1913\n38.\nCanadian Pacific Railway\n11\n1880\nLapsed\n39.\nCanadian Western Central\n20\n1889\nLand subsidy\n 286\nAPPENDIX\nCap.\nYear\nRemarks\n40.\nCanadian Western Central\n34\n1889\nIncorporation.\nAmended c. 40, 1890;\nc. 36, 1892; c. 39,\n1893; c. 4, 1895; c.\n34, 1897. Lapsed\n41.\nCanadian Yukon\n50\n1898\nLapsed\n42.\nCariboo, Barkerville, and\nWillow River\n62\n1910\nLapsed\n43.\nCariboo (Ashcroft and\nCariboo)\n55\n1897\nAmendment, c. 50,\n1897. Lapsed\n44.\nCassiar Central\n35\n1897\nCrown grant\n45.\nCassiar Central\n52\n1897\nIncorporation. Lapsed\n46.\nChilkat and Klehine Railway\nv\nand Navigation Co.\n68\n1901\nLapsed\n47.\nChilliwhack\n55\n1891\nDeclared for public\nbenefit, c. 43, 1893\n48.\nColumbia and Carbonate\nMountain\n61\n1890\nLapsed\n49.\nColumbia and Kootenay\n21\n1889\nLand subsidy\n50.\nColumbia and Kootenay\n62\n1890\nAmended, c. 49, 1892;\nc. 60, 1892. Declared\nfor public benefit, c.\n89, 1890\n51.\nColumbia and Kootenay Rail\nway and Transportation Co.\n25\n1883\nAmended, c. 24,1884;\nc. 21, 1889; c. 41,\n52. Columbia and Western\n53. Columbia and Western\n54. Coast-Kootenay\n55. Coast-Yukon\n56. Comox and Cape Scott\n57. Comox Logging and Railway\nCo.\n1890. Lapsed\n8 1896 Subsidy Act.\nRepealed c. 8, 1903\n54 1896 Incorporation.\nAmended, c. 12,\n1898; c. 14, 1899; c.\n4, 1900; c. 70, 1901;\nc. 8, 1903; c. 9, 1906;\ndeclared for public\nbenefit, c. 61, 1898\n69\n1901\nAmended, c. 9, 1902\ndeclared for public\nbenefit, c. 199, 1903\n58\n1904\nLapsed\n71\n1901\nLapsed\n63\n1910\nOperating\n APPENDIX\n287\nCap.\nYear\nRemarks\n58.\nCowichan, Alberni, and Fort\nRupert\n59\n1904\nAmended, c. 54, 1906.\nLapsed\n59.\nCrawford Bay\n72\n1901\nLapsed\n60.\nCrow's Nest and Kootenay\nLake\n72\n1888\nLand Grant\nIncorporation\n61.\nCrow's Nest and Kootenay\nLake\n44\n1888\nAmended, c. 63, 1890;\nc. 56, 1891. Repealed,\nc. 53, 1894. Lapsed\n62.\nCrow's Nest and Northern\n58\n1908\nAmended, c. 64, 1911.\nLapsed\n63.\nCrow's Nest Southern\n73\n1901\nOperating (Great\nNorthern Railway or\nVancouver, Victoria,\nand Eastern Railway)\n64.\nDelta, New Westminster and\nEastern\n57\n1894\nAmended, c. 54, 1897.\nLapsed\n65.\nDelta\n34\n1887\nLapsed\n66.\nDownie Creek\n52\n1898\nLapsed\n67.\nEast Kootenay Logging\n52\n1907\nOperating\n68.\nEast Kootenay\n61\n1897\nLapsed\n69.\nEast Kootenay Valley\n53\n1898\nLapsed\n70.\nEastern British Columbia\n60\n1908\nOperating\n71.\nEsquimalt and Nanaimo\n13\n1875\nLand Grant.\nRepealed, c. 16, 1882.\nAmended, c. 28, 1888;\nc. 45, 1888\n72.\nEsquimalt and Nanaimo\n26\n1903\nSettlers' Rights Act\n73.\nEsquimalt and Nanaimo\n33\n1912\nAgreement. Amended,\nc. 60, 1913. Declared\nfor public benefit, c.\n90, 1905\n74.\nFlathead Valley\n33\n1903\nLapsed\n75.\nFlathead Valley\n52\n1909\nLapsed\n76.\nFording Valley\n63\n1905\nLapsed\n77.\nFraser River\n26\n1883\nLapsed\n78.\nGraham Island\n54\n1909\nLapsed\n79.\nGraham Island\n65\n1910\nAmendment. Time\nextended to 1918\n p\n288\nAPPENDIX\nCap.\nYear\nRemarks\n80.\nGrand Trunk Pacific\n19\n1908\nCrown Grant,\nAmended, c. 22, 1909;\nc. 34, 1912\n81.\nGrouse Mountain Scenic\nIncline\n16\n1911\nTime extended to\nApr. 1, 1917\n82.\nHall Mines Ltd., Tramway\n59\n1894\nLapsed\n83.\nHardy Bay and Quatsino\nSound\n55\n1909\nLapsed\n84.\nHarrison Hot Springs\nTramway Co.\n47\n1888\nLapsed\n85.\nHot Springs and Goat River\nTramway\n68\n1891\nLapsed\n86.\nHowe Sound, Pemberton\nValley and Northern\n53\n1907\n$5000 deposit with\nMinister of Finance\n87.\nHowe Sound and Northern\n67\n1910\nAmendment to c. 53,\n1907. Amalgamated\nwith the P.G.E.\n88.\nHudson Bay Pacific\n61\n1908\nLapsed\n89.\nImperial Pacific\n77\n1901\nLapsed\n90.\nIsland Valley\n68\n1910\nLapsed\n91.\nKamloops and Atlin\n83\n1899\nLapsed\n92.\nKamloops and Atlin\n48\n1900\nLapsed\n93.\nKamloops and Atlin\n78\n1901\nLapsed\n94.\nKamloops and Yellowhead Pass\n58\n1906\nLapsed\n95.\nKaslo and Lardo-Duncan\n58\n1897\nLapsed\n96.\nKaslo and Slocan\n37\n1892\nLand Grant\n97.\nKaslo and Slocan\n52\n1892\nIncorporation,\nAmended c. 41, 1894;\nc. 61, 1894; c. 36,\n1897. C.P.R. was paid\n$100,000 for reconstructing Kaslo and\nSlocan (c. 37, 1912).\nNow operating\n98.\nKaslo and Slocan Tramway Co.\n52\n1893\nLapsed\n99.\nKettle River Valley\n26\n1910\nAgreement\n100.\nKettle River Valley\n35\n1912\nRatify agreement Jan.\n12th, 1912\n101.\nKettle River Valley\n53\n1912\nBy-law. Operating\n102.\nKitimat\n54.\n1898\nAmended, c. 84, 1899.\nLapsed\n APPENDIX\n289\nCap.\nYear\nRemarks\n103.\nKootenay and North-west\n55\n1898\nAmended, c. 85, 1899.\nLapsed\n104.\nKootenay Lake Shore and\nLardo\n53\n1893\nLapsed\n105.\nKootenay and Athabasca\n25\n1887\nLand Grant. Lapsed\n106.\nKootenay and Athabasca\n35\n1887\nIncorporation. Lapsed\n107.\nKootenay, Cariboo and Pacific\n34\n1903\nLapsed\n108.\nKootenay Central\n79\n1901\nLapsed\n109.\nKootenay Central\n35\n1903\nDeclared for public\nbenefit\n110.\nKootenay Railway and\nNavigation Co.\n29\n1888\nLand Grant. Lapsed\n111.\nKootenay Railway and\nNavigation Co.\n46\n1888\nChange of title.\nLapsed\n112.\nColumbia and Kootenay\nRailway and Navigation Co.\n35\n1889\nLapsed\n113.\nLadysmith Lumber Co. Railwa)\nf 62\n1908\nOperating\n114.\nLake Bennett\n80\n1901\nLapsed\n115.\nLardeau and Kootenay\n54\n1893\nLapsed\n116.\nLardeau\n64\n1897\nLapsed\n117.\nLiverpool and Canoe Pass\n57\n1891\nLapsed\n118.\nMeadow Creek\n56\n1909\nLapsed. $5000\ndeposited with\nMinister of Finance\n119.\nMenzies Bay\n69\n1910\nTime extended to\nMarch 28th, 1917\n120.\nMid-Provincial and Nechako\n68\n1911\nLapsed\n121.\nMidway and Vernon\n81\n1901\nAmended, c. 45, 1902.\nRepealed, c. 45, 1902.\nAmended, c. 36, 1904;\nc. 60, 1906. Lapsed\n122.\nMidway-Penticton\n44\n1899\n123.\nMorrissey, Fernie and Michel\n37\n1903\nLapsed\n124.\nMountain Tramway and\nElectric Co.\n56\n1898\nLapsed\n125.\nMount Tolmie Park and\nCordova Bay\n55\n1893\nLapsed\n126.\nNaas and Skeena Rivers\n69\n1911\nAmended, c. 79, 1916,\nextending time of\ncommencement of\nconstruction 1 year\nfrom date of Act\n 290\nAPPENDIX\nCap.\nYear\nRemarks\n127.\nNakusp and Slocan\n56\n1893\nAmended, c. 43, 1894.\nOperated by C.P.R.\n128.\nNanaimo-Alberni\n66\n1897\nLapsed\n129.\nNanaimo Electric Tramway\n69\n1891\nLapsed\n130.\nNanaimo Railway Act\n25\n1881\nLapsed\n131.\nNelson and Fort Sheppard\n58\n1891\nAmended, c. 42,1894;\nc. 37, 1897\n132.\nNelson and Fort Sheppard\n38\n1892\nLand Grant. Declared\nfor public benefit, c.\n57, 1893\n133.\nNelson and Fort Sheppard\n42\n1894\nAmended, c. 42,1894;\nc. 37, 1897\n134.\nNelson and Arrow Lake\n57\n1893\nLapsed\n135.\nNew Westminster-Port Moody\n14\n1882\nAmended, c. 25, 1884.\nLapsed\n136.\nNew Westminster and\nVancouver Short Line\n37\n1889\nAmended, c. 67,1892;\nc. 60, 1896. Lapsed\n137.\nNew Westminster Southern\n27\n1883\nLapsed\n138.\nNew Westminster Southern\n36\n1887\nAmended, c. 36, 1889.\nOperating. Great\nNorthern Pacific\npurchased from Port\nKells to the Bridge,\nNew Westminster\n139.\nNicola, Kamloops and\nSimilkameen Coal and\nRailway\n47\n1891\nAmended, c. 38, 1903.\nDeclared for public\nbenefit, c. 164, 1903\n140. Nicola Valley 59\n141. Nicola Valley 37\n142. North Star and Arrow Lake 58\n143. Northern Vancouver Island 71\n144. Northern Vancouver Island 70\n145. Okanagan and Kootenay 40\n146. Okanagan and Kootenay 64\n147. Osoyoos and Okanagan 59\n148. Pacific Great Eastern 34\n189 b Declared for public\n1893S benefit, Cap. 50, 1892\n1898 Amended, c. 86, 1899.\nLapsed\n1910\n1911 Time extended to\nMarch 28, 1917.\n$5000 deposited with\nMinister of Finance\n1890 Lapsed\n1890 Lapsed\n1893 Lapsed\n1913 Amended, c. 61, 1913;\nc. 62, 1913; c. 65,\n1914\n APPENDIX\n291\nCap.\nYear\nRemarks\n149.\nPacific Great Eastern\n36\n1912\nUnder construction\n150.\nPacific Northern and Eastern\n39\n1903\nLapsed\n151.\nPacific Northern and\nOmineca\n50\n1900\nAmended, c. 55,1902;\nc. 77, 1902; c. 40,\n1903; c. 67, 1905; c.\n58, 1909. Lapsed.\nSecurity deposited\nwith Minister of\nFinance\n152.\nPacific Railway\n73\n1910\nLapsed\n153.\nPeace and Naas River\n73\n1911\nLapsed\n154.\nPenticton\n74\n1910\nLapsed\n155.\nPortland and Stickeen\n59\n1898\nLapsed\n156.\nPortland Canal Short Line\n59\n1909\nAmended, c. 74, 1911.\nNow called Northeastern Railway.\nAbandoned\n157.\nPortland Canal\n56\n1907\nLapsed\n158.\nPort Moody, Indian River\nand Northern\n75\n1910\nLapsed\n159.\nPrince Rupert and Port\nSimpson\n60\n1909\nLapsed\n160.\nQuatsino\n42\n1903\nLapsed\n161.\nQueen Charlotte Island\n83\n1901\nAmended, c. 57, 1907\n162.\nQueen Charlotte Island\n63\n1905\nLapsed\n163.\nQueen Charlotte\n76\n1910\nLapsed\n164.\nRainy Hollow\n58\n1907\nLapsed\n165.\nRed Mountain\n61\n1893\nDeclared for public\nbenefit, c. 60, 1895\n166.\nRevelstoke and Cassiar\n61\n1898\nLapsed\n167.\nRock Bay and Salmon River\n51\n1900\nLapsed\n168.\nSaint Mary's and Cherry Creek 64\n1906\n169.\nSaint Mary's Valley\n65\n1906\n170.\nShuswap and Okanagan\n26\n1887\nAmended, c. 30,1888;\nc. 42, 1890; c. 37,\n1891\n171.\nSkeena River and Eastern\n62\n1898\nLapsed\n172.\nSkeena River Railway,\nColonization and Exploration\nCo.\n63\n1898\nLapsed\n173.\nSouth-east Kootenay\n64\n1898\nLapsed\n 292\nAPPENDIX\nCap.\nYear\nRemarks\n174.\nSouth-east Kootenay\n63\n1906\nAmended, c. 61,1909;\ntime extended to Feb.\n17, 1917\n175.\nSouth Kootenay\n88\n1898\nLapsed\n176.\nSouth Okanagan\n66\n1906\nLapsed\n177.\nStave Valley\n70\n1905\nLapsed\n178.\nStickeen and Teslin Railway,\nNavigation and Colonization\nCo.\n71\n1897\nLapsed\n179.\nToad Mountain and Nelson\nTramway Incorporation\n70\n1891\nAmended, c. 44,1898;\nc. 40, 1900\n180.\nToad Mountain and Nelson\nTramway\n185\n1897\nCap. 58, 1901, and\nAct respecting the Incorporation of Tramway Telephone, Telegraph Companies\n181.\nTramway Inspection\n50\n1910\nAmended, c. 51, 1911\n182.\nUpper Columbia Navigation\nand Tramway Co.\n50\n1891\n183.\nVancouver and Grand Forks\n84\n1901\nLapsed\n184.\nVancouver and Lulu Island\nElectric Railway and\nImprovement Co.\n61\n1891\nLapsed\n185.\nVancouver and Lulu Island\n60\n1891\nAmended, c. 73,1897;\nc. 52, 1900. Declared\nfor public benefit, c.\n86, 1901\n186.\nVancouver and Nicola Valley\n63\n1908\nAmended c. 80, 1910.\nLapsed\n187.\nVancouver and Northern\n64\n1909\nLapsed\n188.\nVancouver and Westminster\n53\n1900\nAmended, c. 78, 1902.\n189.\nVancouver Island Hydro-\nElectric Tramway Co.\nIncorporated, joint-\nstock co., Nov. 12,\n1912. Lapsed\n190.\nVancouver Land and Railway\nCo.\n15\n1882\nLapsed\n191.\nVancouver-Nanaimo Railway\nTransfer Co.\n14\n1897\nLapsed\n192.\nVancouver, Northern and\nYukon\n89\n1899\nAmended, c. 55, 1900.\nLapsed\n APPENDIX\n293\nCap.\nYear\nRemarks\n193.\nVancouver Northern, Peace\nRiver and Alaska Railway\nand Navigation Co.\n62\n1891\nLapsed\n194.\nVancouver, Victoria, and\nEastern Railway and\nNavigation Co.\n75\n1897\nDeclared for public\nbenefit, c. 172, 1905\n195.\nVernon and Okanagan\n63\n1891\nLapsed\n196.\nVictoria and Barkley Sound\n65\n1909\nLapsed\n197.\nVictoria and Northern\nAmerica\n64\n1891\nLapsed\n198.\nVictoria and Saanich\n16\n1886\nLapsed\n199.\nVictoria and Saanich\n29\n1886\nLapsed\n200.\nVictoria and Seymour Narrows\n79\n1902\nLapsed\n201.\nVictoria and Sidney\n39\n1892\n*Subsidy\n202.\nVictoria and Sidney\n66\n1892\n* Incorporation\n203.\nVictoria and Yellowhead Pass\nRailway Aid\n70\n1902\nLapsed\n204.\nVictoria Harbour\n44\n1911\nLapsed\n205.\nVictoria Terminal Railway anc\nFerry Co.\n85\n1901\n* Amended, c.54,1905\n206.\nVictoria Terminal Railway\nand Ferry Co.\n86\n1901\n*By-Law\n207.\nVictoria, Vancouver, and\nWestern\n64\n1894\nAmended, c. 76, 1897\nLapsed\n208.\nWellington Colliery\n28\n1883\nLapsed\n209.\nWellington Colliery\n44\n1911\nOperating\n210.\nYale Northern\n87\n1901\nLapsed\n211.\nYukon Mining, Trading, and\nTransportation Co.\n38\n1897\n212.\nYukon Mining, Trading, and\nTransportation Co.\n77\n1897\nLapsed\n* Operated by Great Northern.\n(Source: British Columbia. Legislative\nAssembly. '.\nDepartment of Railways.\nReport of the Department of Railways\nof th\ne Province of British Columbia,\nfrom\n1911 to December 31st, 1916, 1917.)\n Appendix D\nItem i\nIndian Reserves in the Province of British\nColumbia, 1871\nAcreage\nESQUIMALT DISTRICT\nEsquimalt Harbour 47\nSonghees Village, near Victoria City 112\nSOOKE DISTRICT\nSooke River 60\nSAANICH, N. DISTRICT\nUnion Bay 69\nCole Bay 315.02\nSAANICH, S. DISTRICT\nSaanich Inlet 494\nBazan Bay 727\nCOWICHAN AND QUAMICHAN DISTRICTS\nCowichan River 2,675\nSomers Creek 30\nLarge Island, mouth of Chemainus River 139\nChemainus Creek 100\nNANAIMO DISTRICT\nNanaimo Harbour\n40\nNanaimo River, west side\n131\nNanaimo River, east side\nCRANBERRY DISTRICT\nNanaimo River\n273\nNEW WESTMINSTER\nFirst Narrows, Burrard Inlet\n165\nBurrard Inlet\n37\n APPENDIX\n295\nBurrard Inlet\n37.45\nBurrard Inlet\n112.46\nNear New Westminster\n1\nCoquitlam River\n18.4\nCoquitlam River near the Fraser River\n6.5\nMusqueam, north of North Arm of the Fraser River\n342\nChehalis, west bank of Harrison River,\nfour miles from its mouth\n626\nFraser River, 1 y2 miles below the mouth of Harrison River\n658\nWhanock Reserve, on Fraser River\n92\nMatsqui Reserve No. 1, on Fraser River\n96\nMatsqui Reserve No. 2, on Fraser River\n52\nKatzie Reserve on Fraser River\n108\nSumas Reserve, near Chadsey's Slough\n43\nSumas Reserve, Upper Forks of Sumas and Slough\n440\nSumas Reserve No. 1, Fraser River, Nicoamen Slough\n32\nClatwas Reserve, Nicoamen Slough\n86\nScowlitz Reserve, Fraser River, at mouth of Harrison River\n330\nNicoamen Reserve\n109\nSqueeam Reserve\n73\nYALE DISTRICT\nOhaunil Reserve, on Fraser River ten miles below Hope\n488.5\nCheeam Reserve, left bank of Fraser River,\ntwenty miles below Hope\n375\nPopkum Reserve, left bank of Fraser River,\neighteen miles below Hope\n369\nSquatits Reserve, left bank of Fraser River,\nthirteen miles below Hope\n380\nGreenwood Island, opposite Hope\n10\nLytton, mouth of Thompson River\n14\nSouth-east of the town of Lytton\n12\nTwo miles north of the town of Lytton\n18\nNickelpalm Reserve, twenty miles above Lytton\n111\nStryem Reserve\n297\nShoook Reserve, thirty-six miles on Yale and Lytton Road\n204.5\nStan-uja-hamig Reserve, forty-three miles on Yale and\nLytton Road\n40\nMa-coi-yai Reserve, V/z miles below Lytton\n100\nNohomeen Reserve, l/2 miles above Lytton\n30\nSkopah Reserve, on Fraser River\n58\nKopachicken Reserve, 2 x/i miles above Boston Bar\n205\nBoston Bar, twenty-four miles on Yale and Lytton Road\n82\n 296 APPENDIX\nFraser River, seventeen miles on Yale and Lytton Road 81\nl/4 mile below Alexandra Bridge, *4 mile from Fraser River 19\nRight bank of Fraser River, ten miles on Yale and\nLytton Road 110\nTwo miles below Alexandra Bridge, left bank of Fraser River 51\nSimilkameen River, Vermillion Forks, right bank 21\nSimilkameen River, Vermillion Forks, left bank 342\nSimilkameen Reserve, halfway between Princeton and\nKeremeos 1,028\nAlbert Flat, four miles below Yale 163.5\nSkowall Reserve, seven miles below Hope 135\nSpellumcheen Reserve, one mile from Spellumcheen River 200\nSpellumcheen Reserve, left bank of Fraser and\nSpellumcheen Rivers 18.5\nForks of Nicolai and Thompson Rivers 30.5\nNicoamen Reserve, left bank Fraser River, sixty-eight\nmiles on Yale and Lytton Road 61\nDeadman's Creek 575\nNicolai River 918\nBuonaparte Creek 471\nNicolai Lake, east bank 670\nNicolai Lake Lagoon 60\nShuswap Lake 3,112\nShuswap Lake 1,900\nAdam's Lake, east side 1,000\nKamloops River, at the forks of North and South\nThompson Rivers 6,000\n(Adapted from: \"Return of Indian Reserves,\" B.C., Journals, 1st Pari., 2d\nsess., 1872-73, appendix, Sessional Papers.)\n 297\nItem 2\nLieutenant-Governor Trutch to Prime Minister\nSir John A. Macdonald, October 14, 1872\nGovt. House, Victoria, B.C.,\nOct. 14th, 1872.\nMy Dear Sir John,\nI received your letter of the 25th ult. the day before yesterday on\nmy return home from a visit of inspection to the interior of B.C.\nwhere \u00E2\u0080\u0094 at Ashcroft \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Senator Cornwall's place \u00E2\u0080\u0094 I met Mr. Fleming on his arrival from the other side of the Rocky Mountains. As\nyou will of course hear from himself a full account of his trip and of\nhis impressions as to the country, the line of proposed railway and the\ncompeting advantages of the rival Fraser River and Bute Inlet routes,\nI will only say on this subject that he and his party have made the\nquickest journey of which we have record between Fort Garry and\nVictoria \u00E2\u0080\u0094 and yet appear as fresh and hearty as if they had not\ntravelled one hundred miles.\nI am very glad to find that you are pleased at the result of the steps\nI took to secure Sir Francis's selection for Vancouver Dist. and I trust\nthe latter has written to Mr. Bunster through whose withdrawal his\nreturn by acclamation was effected, and that you may think fit to take\nsome notice of Bunster should an opportunity occur. Had I received\nthe news of Sir George's defeat for Montreal two days sooner he would\nhave been returned for Yale District, as well as for Provencher, but\nthe nomination for the last remaining election in B.C. had already\ntaken place ere the result of the Montreal election was reported here.\nI cannot tell you how deeply all here regret the serious indisposition\nwhich withdraws him for a time from public life, and to me specially\nwho have had the privilege of his friendship, his illness, so unexpectedly\nannounced, occasions heartfelt sorrow. I trust he may soon be so\nrestored in health as to be able to resume his duties, for I am sure that\nto you particularly and to the country at large his loss would be a\ngreat calamity.\nAt the same time with your letter under reply in which you ask me\nto write you my private opinion as to Dr. Powell's fitness for the situa-\n APPENDIX\ntion of Indian Agent in this Province I received your telegram of 2nd\ninst. acquainting me of his having been appointed to that office, which\nwould have seemed to render superfluous any further allusion to the\nsubject but that it appears to me a matter of such paramount importance to all interests in this country that I think it my duty to convey\nto you my ideas thereon, and have also taken the opportunity to\nexpress the same views more fully to Mr. Fleming who on his arrival\nat Ottawa will place you in possession thereof, and will also give you\nthe benefit of his own impression as to the Indians of B.C. and their\nmanagement....\nDr. Powell has a very good standing here. He has been in good\npractice in his profession and is reputed to possess business ability, but\nhe is entirely without any special knowledge of Indian matters, has\nhad no experience in managing Indian affairs, has hardly ever been\nout of Victoria during his residence in this Province, and cannot therefore know much of or concerning our Indians and is certainly\nunknown by them. Now whether he is at all fit for the post of Indian\nAgent in B.C. depends on the scope of duties and the extent of\nauthority to be attached to the office; in fact on the manner in which\nthe Indian Department is to be organized here and the system to be\nadopted towards the Indians. Dr. Powell might perform the duties of\nthe office well enough if acting under the immediate direction and\nadvice of some one of more experience here, but I should not certainly\nconsider it otherwise than most likely to result in all sorts of complications and dissatisfactions if the management of our Indians were left\nin his hands altogether.\nWe have in B.C. a population of Indians numbering from 40,000\nto 50,000, by far the larger portion of whom are utter savages living\nalong the coast, frequently committing murder and robbery among\nthemselves, one tribe upon another, and on white people who go\namongst them for purposes of trade, and only restrained from more\noutrageous crime by being always treated with firmness, and by the\nconsistent enforcement of the law amongst them to which end we have\noften to call in aid the services of H.M. ships on the station. I cannot\nsee how the charge of these Indians can be entrusted to one having no\nexperience among them, nor do I think it likely that the assistance of\nthe Navy would be willingly and effectively given to any subordinate\nofficer of the Government. Without further descanting on the matter\nhowever, I may tell you that I am of opinion, and that very strongly,\nthat for some time to come at least the general charge and direction\nof all Indian affairs in B.C. should be vested in the Lt. Governor, if\nthere is no constitutional objection to such arrangement, and that\ninstead of one there should be three Indian Agents, one for Vancouver\nIsland, one for the Northwest Coast and the third for the interior of\nthe mainland of the Province, which latter gentleman might very\nproperly be a Roman Catholic, as the Indians in this section are for\nthe most part under the influence of missionaries of that persuasion.\nThen as to Indian policy I am fully satisfied that for the present the\nwisest course would be to continue the system which has prevailed\n APPENDIX 299\nhitherto, only providing increased means for educating the Indians,\nand generally improving their condition moral and physical. The\nCanadian system, as I understand it will hardly work here. We have\nnever bought out any Indian claims to lands, nor do they expect we\nshould, but we reserve for their use and benefit from time to time\ntracts of sufficient extent to fulfil all their reasonable requirements for\ncultivation or grazing. If you now commence to buy out Indian title\nto the lands of B.C. you would go back of all that has been done here\nfor 30 years past and would be equitably bound to compensate the\ntribes who inhabited the districts now settled farmed by white people\nequally with those in the more remote and uncultivated portions. Our\nIndians are sufficiently satisfied and had better be left alone as far as\na new system towards them is concerned, only give us the means of\neducating them by teachers employed directly by Govt, as well as by\naiding the efforts of the missionaries now working among them.\nTo be rid of all concern with our Indian affairs would of course\nfree me of a very considerable part of the trouble and anxiety I have\nhad for the past year, but, however glad I might be at such a release,\nI have thought it my duty to express to you my conviction that you\nhad better for some time to come continue the general charge of all\nIndian matters in B.C. in the Lt. Governor, divide the Province into\nthree districts and appoint an Agent in each subject to direction from\nthe Lt. Governor. By such a course you would secure through the Lt.\nGovernor the benefit of the experience of those who during the past\n13 or 14 years have managed the Indian affairs of the country, I\nmean the County Court Judges, who would be likely to feel diminished\ninclination to become the assistants of any official of a grade below\ntheir own.\nI believe I have written all I need to on this matter and I fear at\nsuch lengths as to be tedious, but it is one of much importance to this\nProvince, the care of the Indians here being, as I regard it, and have\nintimated to you in former letters the most delicate and presently\nmomentous responsibility of the Dominion Government within the\nProvince.\nFaithfully yours,\nJoseph W. Trutch.\nThe Rt. Honorable\nSir John A. Macdonald, K.C.B.\n(Source: Sir Joseph Pope, Correspondence of Sir John Macdonald: Selections\nfrom the Correspondence of the Right Honourable Sir John Alexander Macdonald, G.C.B., First Prime Minister of the Dominion of Canada. (Toronto:\nOxford University Press, 1921, pp. 183-85.)\n 300\nItem 3\nIndian Petition to Dr. I. W. Powell, July 14, 1874\nThe Petition of the undersigned, Chiefs of Douglas Portage, of\nLower Fraser, and of the other tribes on the seashore of the mainland\nto Bute Inlet, humbly sheweth:-\n1. That your petitioners view with a great anxiety the standing\nquestion of the quantity of land to be reserved for the use of each\nIndian family.\n2. That we are fully aware that the Government of Canada has\nalways taken good care of the Indians, and treated them liberally,\nallowing more than 100 hundred acres per family; and we have been\nat a loss to understand the views of the Local Government of British\nColumbia, in curtailing our land so much as to leave in many instances\nbut few acres of land per family.\n3. Our hearts have been wounded by the arbitrary way the Local\nGovernment of British Columbia have dealt with us in locating and\ndividing our Reserves. Chamiel, ten miles below Hope, is allowed 488\nacres of good land for the use of twenty families; at the rate of 24\nacres per family; Popkum, eighteen miles below Hope, is allowed 369\nacres of good land for the use of four families; at the rate of 90 acres\nper family; Cheam, twenty miles below Hope, is allowed 375 acres of\nbad, dry, and mountainous land for the use of twenty-seven families:\nat the rate of 13 acres per family; Yuk-yuk-y-yoose on Chilli whack\nRiver, with a population of seven families, is allowed 42 acres, 5 acres\nper family; Sumass (at the junction of Sumass River and Fraser) with\na population of seventeen families, is allowed 43 acres of meadow for\ntheir hay, and 32 acres of dry land; Keatsy, numbering more than\none hundred inhabitants, is allowed 108 acres of land. Langley and\nHope have not yet got land secured to them, and white men are\nencroaching on them on all sides.\n4. For many years we have been complaining of the land left us\nbeing too small. We have laid our complaints before Government\nofficials nearest to us: they sent us to some others; so we had no\nredress up to the present; and we have felt like men trampled on, and\n APPENDIX 301\nare commencing to believe that the aim of the white men is to exterminate us as soon as they can, although we have been always quiet,\nobedient, kind, and friendly to the whites.\n5. Discouragement and depression have come upon our people.\nMany of them have given up the cultivation of land, because our\ngardens have not been protected against the encroachments of the\nwhites. Some of our best men have been deprived of the land they\nhave broken and cultivated with long and hard labour, a white man\nenclosing it in his claim, and no compensation given. Some of our\nmost enterprising men have lost a part of their cattle, because white\nmen had taken the place where those cattle were grazing, and no\nother place left but the thickly timbered land, where they die fast.\nSome of our people now are obliged to cut rushes along the bank of\nthe river with their knives during the Winter, to feed their cattle.\n6. We are now obliged to clear heavy timbered land, all prairies\nhaving been taken from us by white men. We see our white neighbors\ncultivate wheat, peas, &c, and raise large stocks of cattle on our\npasture lands, and we are giving them our money to buy the flour\nmanufactured from the wheat they have grown on same prairies.\n7. We are not lazy and roaming-about people as we used to be. We\nhave worked hard and a long time to spare money to buy agricultural\nimplements, cattle, horses, &c, as nobody has given us assistance. We\ncould point out many of our people who have those past years bought\nwith their own money ploughs, harrows, yokes of oxen, and horses;\nand now, with your kind assistance, we have a bright hope to enter\ninto the path of civilization.\n8. We consider that 80 acres per family is absolutely necessary for\nour support, and for the future welfare of our children. We declare\nthat 20 or 30 acres of land per family will not give satisfaction, but\nwill create ill feelings, irritation amongst our people, and we cannot\nsay what will be the consequence.\n9. That, in case you cannot obtain from the Local Government the\nobject of our petition, we humbly pray that this our petition be\nforwarded to the Secretary of State for the Provinces, Ottawa.\nTherefore your petitioners humbly pray that you may take this our\npetition into consideration, and see that justice be done us, and allow\neach family the quantity of land we ask for.\nAnd your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.\nSigned by Peter Ayessik, Chief of Hope, and Alexis, Chief of\nCheam, and by 54 other chiefs of Douglas Portage, Lower Fraser,\nand Coast.\nJuly 14, 1874.\n(\"Return ... for ... all correspondence relating to Indian affairs . .. since the\nbeginning of 1874,\" B.C., Journals, 1st Pari., 4th sess., 1875, appendix,\nSessional Papers, pp. 674-75.)\n APPENDIX\nItem 4\nSir James Douglas to Dr. I. W. Powell, Indian\nCommissioner, re Colonial Indian Lands. October 14, 1874.\nSir:\nThe question presented in your letter of the 9th. Oct., being limited\nto one specific point, hardly affords breadth of scope enough to admit\nof an explicit reply without going more largely into the matter. You\nask if during the period of my Governorship of British Columbia\nthere was any particular basis of acreage used in setting apart Indian\nReserves?\nTo this enquiry I may briefly rejoin, that in laying out Indian\nReserves no specific number of acres was insisted on. The principle\nfollowed in all cases, was to leave the extent & selection of the land\nentirely optional with the Indians who were immediately in the\nReserve; the surveying officers having instructions to meet their wishes\nin every particular & to include in each reserve the permanent Village\nsites, the fishing stations, & Burial grounds, cultivated land & all the\nfavorite resorts of the Tribes, & in short to include every piece of\nground to which they had acquired an equitable title through continuous occupation, tillage or other investment of their labour. This\nwas done with the object of securing to each community their natural\nor acquired rights; of removing all cause for complaint on the ground\nof unjust deprivation of the land indispensable for their convenience\nor support, & to provide against the occurrence of Agrarian disputes\nwith the white settlers.\nBefore my retirement from office several of the Reserves, chiefly in\nthe lower district of Frasers River & Vancouvers Island, were regularly\nsurveyed and marked out with the sanction & approval of the several\ncommunities concerned, & it was found on a comparison of acreages\nwith population that the land reserved, in none of these cases exceded\nthe proportion of 10 acres per family, so moderate were the demands\nof the Natives.\nIt was however never intended that they should be restricted or\nlimited to the possession of 10 acres of land, on the contrary, we were\n APPENDIX 303\nprepared, if such had been their wish to have made for their use much\nmore extensive grants.\nThe Indian Reserves in the Pastoral country east of the Cascades,\nespecially in Lytton & Thompson's River districts where the natives are\nwealthy, having in many instances, large numbers of horses & cattle\nwere, on my retirement from office, only roughly traced out upon the\nground by the gold commissioners of the day. These latter Reserves\nwere necessarily laid out on a large scale, commensurate with the\nwants of these tribes; to allow sufficient space & range for their cattle\nat all seasons.\nSuch is an outline of the policy & motives which influenced my\nGovernment when determining the principle on which these grants of\nland should be made. Moreover, as a safeguard & protection to these\nIndian Communities who might, in their primal state of ignorance &\nnatural improvidence, have made away with the land, it was provided\nthat these Reserves should be the common property of the Tribes, &\nthat the title should remain vested in the Crown, so as to be unalienable by any of their own acts. The policy of the Government was\ncarried even a step beyond this point, in providing for the future.\nContemplating the probable advance of the Aboriginies in knowledge\n& intelligence & assuming that a time would certainly arrive when\nthey might aspire to a higher rank in the social scale, & feel the essential wants of & claims of a better condition, it was determined to\nremove every obstacle from their path, by placing them in a most\nfavourable circumstances for acquiring land in their private & individual capacity, apart from the Tribal Reserves. They were, therefore,\nlegally authorized to acquire property in lands, either by direct purchase at the Government offices, or through the operation of the preemption laws of the Colony, on precisely the same terms & considerations in all respects, as other classes of Her Majesty's subjects.\nThese measures gave universal satisfaction when they were officially\nannounced to the Native Tribes & still satisfy their highest aspirations.\nA departure from the practice then adopted with respect to this\nclass of native rights will give rise to unbounded disaffection, & may\nimperil the vital interests of the province.\nThis letter may be regarded & treated as an official communication.\nI remain\nDear Sir\nYours Sincerely\n(Signed) JAMES DOUGLAS\nLieut.-Col Powell,\nIndian Commissioner.\n(Courtesy Mr. B. A. McKelvie, Victoria.)\n APPENDIX\nItem 5, Part I\nMcKenna-McBride Agreement, September 24, 1912\nMemorandum of an Agreement arrived at between J. A. J. McKenna,\nSpecial Commissioner appointed by the Dominion Government to\nInvestigate the Condition of Indian Affairs in British Columbia, and\nthe Honourable Sir Richard McBride, as Premier of the Province of\nBritish Columbia.\nWhereas it is desirable to settle all differences between the Governments of the Dominion and the Province respecting Indian lands and\nIndian Affairs generally in the Province of British Columbia, therefore the parties above named, have, subject to the approval of the\nGovernments of the Dominion and of the Province, agreed upon the\nfollowing proposals as a final adjustment of all matters relating to\nIndian Affairs in the Province of British Columbia:-\n1. A Commission shall be appointed as follows: Two Commissioners\nshall be named by the Dominion and two by the Province. The four\nCommissioners so named shall select a fifth Commissioner, who shall\nbe the Chairman of the Board.\n2. The Commission so appointed shall have power to adjust the\nacreage of Indian Reserves in British Columbia in the following\nmanner:\n(a) At such places as the Commissioners are satisfied that more\nland is included in any particular Reserve as now defined than is\nreasonably required for the use of the Indians of that tribe or locality,\nthe Reserve shall, with the consent of the Indians, as required by the\nIndian Act, be reduced to such acreage as the Commissioners think\nreasonably sufficient for the purpose of such Indians.\n(b) At any place at which the Commissioners shall determine that\nan insufficient quantity of land has been set aside for the use of the\nIndians of that locality, the Commissioners shall fix the quantity that\nought to be added for the use of such Indians. And they may set aside\nland for any Band of Indians for whom land has not already been\nreserved.\n3. The Province shall take all such steps as are necessary to legally\n APPENDIX 305\nreserve the additional lands which the Commissioners shall apportion\nto any body of Indians in pursuance of the powers above set out.\n4. The lands which the Commissioners shall determine are not\nnecessary for the use of the Indians shall be subdivided and sold by\nthe Province at public auction.\n5. The net proceeds of all such sales shall be divided equally\nbetween the Province and the Dominion, and all moneys received by\nthe Dominion under this Clause shall be held or used by the Dominion\nfor the benefit of the Indians of British Columbia.\n6. All expenses in connection with the Commission shall be shared\nby the Province and Dominion in equal proportions.\n7. The lands comprised in the Reserves as finally fixed by the Commissioners aforesaid shall be conveyed by the Province to the\nDominion to deal with the said lands in such manner as they may\ndeem best suited for the purposes of the Indians, including a right to\nsell the said lands and fund or use the proceeds for the benefit of the\nIndians, subject only to a condition that in the even of any Indian\ntribe or band in British Columbia at some future time becoming\nextinct, then any lands within the territorial boundaries or the Province which have been conveyed to the Dominion as aforesaid for such\ntribe or band, and not sold or disposed of as hereinbefore mentioned,\nor any unexpended funds being the proceeds of any Indian Reserve\nin the Province of British Columbia, shall be conveyed or repaid to\nthe Province.\n8. Until the final report of the Commission is made, the Province\nshall withhold from pre-emption or sale any lands over which they\nhave a disposing power and which have been heretofore applied for\nby the Dominion as additional Indian Reserves or which may during\nthe sitting of the Commission, be specified by the Commissioners as\nlands which should be reserved for Indians. If during the period prior\nto the Commissioners making their final report it shall be ascertained\nby either Government that any lands being part of an Indian Reserve\nare required for right-of-way or other railway purposes, or for any\nDominion or Provincial or Municipal Public Work or purpose, the\nmatter shall be referred to the Commissioners who shall thereupon\ndispose of the question by an Interim Report, and each Government\nshall thereupon do everything necessary to carry the recommendations\nof the Commissioners into effect.\nSigned in duplicate at Victoria, British Columbia, this 24th day of\nSeptember, 1912.\n(Signed) J. A. J. McKenna,\n(Signed) Richard McBride.\nWitness:\n(Signed) E. V. Bodwell.\n([Canada] [Royal Commission on Indian Affairs], Report of the Royal Commission on Indian Affairs for the Province of British Columbia [Victoria: Acme\nPress, 1916], 1:1 o-11.)\n APPENDIX\nItem 5, Part II\nOrder-in-Council of 27th November, 1912\nCertified Copy of a Report of the Committee of the Privy Council\nApproved by His Royal Highness the Governor-General, on the 27th\nNovember, 1912.\nThe Committee of the Privy Council have had under consideration\na Report, dated the 26th October, 1912, from the Superintendent-\nGeneral of Indian Affairs, submitting an Agreement entered into by\nYour Royal Highness' Special Commissioner and the Honourable the\nPrime Minister of British Columbia respecting Indian Reserves in that\nProvince, together with a report of the Commissioner.\nThe Minister of Justice, to whom the said report was referred, observes\nthat the Agreement contemplates the constitution of a Commission\nwith certain powers, and confirmation of the proceedings of the Commission by the two Governments;\nThat the statutory authority of your Royal Highness-in-Council to\nconstitute this Commission is to be found in Part 1 of the Enquiries\nAct, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, Chapter 104, and it appears\nto the Minister that in view of the Statutory provisions the proceedings of the Commission must be subject to approval.\nThe Minister of Justice, therefore, advises that the approval of the\nAgreement should be subject to a further provision which should be\naccepted by the Government of British Columbia before the Agreement can become effective providing that notwithstanding anything in\nthe Agreement contained, the acts and proceedings of the Commission shall be subject to the approval of the two Governments, and that\nthe Governments agree to consider favourably the Reports, whether\nfinal or interim, of the Commission, with a view to give effect, as far\nas reasonably may be, to the acts, proceedings and recommendations\nof the Commission, and to take all such steps and proceedings as may\nbe reasonably necessary with the object of carrying into execution the\nsettlement provided for by the Agreement in accordance with its true\nintent and purpose.\nThe Committee, concurring, advise that a copy hereof approving\n APPENDIX 307\nof the Agreement, subject to the aforesaid modification, be transmitted\nto the Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia for the information\nand approval of his Government.\nThe Committee further advise that, as the British Columbia Indian\nquestion has been the subject of communications from the Colonial\nOffice, Your Royal Highness may be pleased to forward a copy of this\nMinute to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the\nColonies.\nAll of which is respectfully submitted for approval.\n(Signed) Rodolphe Boudreau,\nClerk of the Privy Council.\n([Canada] [Royal Commission on Indian Affairs], Report of the Royal Commission on Indian Affairs for the Province of British Columbia [Victoria: Acme\nPress, 1916], 1:17.)\nm\n 308 APPENDIX\nItem 6\nExtracts from the Introduction to Report of the Royal\nCommission on Indian Affairs for the Province of\nBritish Columbia\nBy Orders-in-Council dated the 27th day of November, 1912, P.C.\n3277, and the 23rd day of April, 1913, Your Royal Highness was\npleased to appoint a Royal Commission to investigate and make\nrecommendations regarding the lands reserved for Indians in the\nProvince of British Columbia and regarding such additional lands as\nmight appear to be required for the necessary use of the Indians of\nthe Province, subject to the terms of the Agreement entered into\nbetween the Governments of Canada and of the Province of British\nColumbia, executed on the 24th day of September, 1912, and signed,\non behalf of the Dominion Government, by its Commissioner, Mr. J.\nA. J. McKenna, and on behalf of the Province by Sir Richard\nMcBride, K.C.M.G., Prime Minister of the Province.\nIn the performance of its duties Your Commission endeavoured to\ninform itself as to the history of the administration of Indian Affairs\nin the Province, and the causes leading to the appointment of your\nCommission.\nIn the years 1850, 1851 and 1852, Sir James Douglas made certain\nagreements with some three or four hundred Indians under which\nthey surrendered their rights to comparatively small portions of Vancouver Island in consideration of a cash payment and the reservation\nto them of their village sites and enclosed fields, \"to be kept for\" their\n\"own use, for the use of\" their \"children\" and \"for those who may\nfollow after.\"\nWhen the first Legislative Assembly of the Colony of Vancouver\nIsland met in the summer of 1856, the Indian question was at once\ngiven prominence. In his inaugural address, Governor Douglas, after\nreferring to the feeling of insecurity engendered by \"the presence of\nlarge bodies of armed savages\" who had visited the Colony from the\nNorth, said: \"I shall, nevertheless, continue to conciliate the good will\nof the native Indian tribes by treating them with justice and forbearance and by rigidly protecting their civil and agrarian rights.\"\nThe Secretary of State for the Colonies in his despatches to\n APPENDIX 309\nGovernor Douglas constantly expressed the solicitude of the Imperial\nGovernment for the welfare of the Indians and the safeguarding of\ntheir rights.\nIn the despatch of the nth April, 1859, Lord Carnarvon wrote\nGovernor Douglas:\n\"I am glad to perceive that you have directed the attention of the\nHouse to that interesting and important subject, the relations of Her\nMajesty's Government and of the Colony to the Indian race. Proofs\nare unhappily still too frequent of the neglect which Indians experience when the white man obtains possession of their country, and\ntheir claims to consideration are forgotten at the moment when equity\nmost demands that the hand of the protector should be extended to\nhelp them. In the case of the Indians of Vancouver Island and\nBritish Columbia, Her Majesty's Government earnestly wish that when\nthe advancing requirements of colonization press upon lands occupied\nby members of that race, measures of liberality and justice may be\nadopted for compensating them for the surrender of the territory\nwhich they have been taught to regard as their own.\"\nAnd on the 20th May, 1859, in acknowledging Governor Douglas'\ndespatch of the 14th of that month on the subject of the policy to be\nobserved towards the Indian tribes and conveying the Governor's\n\"opinion as to the feasibility of locating the Indians in native villages,\nwith a view to their protection and civilization,\" His Lordship wrote:\n\"I am glad to find that your sentiments respecting the treatment\nof the native races are so much in accordance with my own, and I\ntrust your endeavors to conciliate and promote the welfare of the\nIndians will be followed by all persons whom circumstances may bring\ninto contact with them. But whilst making ample provision under the\narrangements proposed for the future sustenance and improvement of\nthe native tribes, you will, I am persuaded, bear in mind the importance of exercising due care in laying out and defining the several\nReserves, so as to avoid checking at a future day the progress of the\nwhite colonists.\"\nOn the 5th March, 1861, the Governor officially directed the Chief\nCommissioner of Lands and Works to ''take measures so soon as practicable, for making out distinctly the Indian Reserves throughout the\nColony.\" He added that \"the extent of the Indian Reserves to be\ndefined\" was to be \"as they may severally be pointed out by the\nnatives themselves.\" And the Chief Commissioner gave directions\naccordingly to the officers in charge of the several districts.\nAccording to Governor Trutch's despatch of the 3rd November,\n1871: \"The authority of the Governor for creating such reservations\nwas based, up to 1865, on the mainland portion of British Columbia,\nand up to 1870, in Vancouver Island, on the power conferred upon\nhim to this effect by his Commission and the Royal instructions, and\nsince those dates on the provisions of the Land Ordinances, 1865 and\n1870, respectively.\"\nIn the report made on the 17th August, 1875, by the late Mr.\nJustice Walkem, when Attorney-General, he described the tracts set\n 310 APPENDIX\naside before the Union for Indians \"as the joint and common property\nof the several tribes, being intended for their exclusive use and benefit,\nand especially as a provision for the aged, the helpless, and the infirm.\"\nBy the Thirteenth Article of the Terms of Union it is provided:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nThat (i) \"the charge of the Indians, and the trusteeship and management of the lands reserved for their use and benefit, shall be assumed\nby the Dominion Government\";\nThat (2) \"a policy as liberal as that hitherto pursued by the British\nColumbia Government shall be continued by the Dominion Government after the Union,\"\nand\nThat (3) \"to carry out such policy, tracts of land of such extent as it\nhas hitherto been the practice of the British Columbia Government to\nappropriate for that purpose shall from time to time be conveyed by\nthe local Government to the Dominion Government, in trust for the\nuse and benefit of the Indians.\"\nThe Terms of Union were sanctioned by the Imperial Government,\nand were given force and effect by an order of Her Majesty in Council\nunder the British North America Act and thereby became as much a\npart of the Act as if they had been embodied in it.\nThe first legislation of the Dominion respecting Indians was enacted\nby Chapter 42 of the Statutes of 1868. It provided that \"all lands\nreserved for Indians \u00E2\u0080\u0094 or held in trust for their benefit, shall be\ndeemed to be reserved and held for the same purposes as before\nthis Act.\"\nAt the time of the entry of British Columbia into the Dominion, the\nFederal Act of 1868 continued in force; and a further enactment,\nChapter 6, of the Statutes of 1869, had been made for the gradual\nenfranchisement of the Indians. It provided (and the law remains with\nvariations) for the subdivision of Reserves into lots, and the holding\nthereof by individual Indians under location tickets, with a view to the\nsubsequent issue of \"Letters Patent\" to the holders of such tickets as\nenfranchised Indians.\nAt the time of the Union there was no definition of Indian Reserves\nin the British Columbia Ordinances. In the Ordinance of 1870 respecting Crown Lands there is a provision exempting from pre-emption\nreserved lands and Indian settlements. But the policy of British\nColumbia as to allotting and holding lands for the use and benefit of\nthe Indians was clearly defined in practice. And a schedule of Indian\nReserves existing at the Union was furnished the Dominion.\nBy the Land Act of 1875 legislative authority was given for setting\napart lands for the purpose of meeting the obligations of the Province\nunder the Thirteenth Article of the Terms of Union. Section 60 of\nthat Act sets forth, as one of the purposes for which land shall be\nreserved, that \"of conveying the same to the Dominion Government in\ntrust for the use and benefit of the Indians.\"\nIn the meantime a difference arose between the two Governments\nas to the basis of acreage of Reserves. The Dominion Government\n APPENDIX 311\nproposed that \"each family be assigned a location of eighty acres of\nland of average quality, which shall remain permanently the property\nof the family for whose benefit it is allotted.\"\nCorrespondence followed, and on the 25th July, 1873, the Provincial\nGovernment formally decided that the Dominion requirement of eighty\nacres per family \"was greatly in excess of the grants considered sufficient by the previous Governments of British Columbia,\" and proposed\nthat \"Indian Reserves should not exceed a quantity of twenty acres\nfor each head of a family of five persons.\"\nThe Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs, Hon. David Laird,\nin a memorandum of ist March, 1874, suggested the allotting of\n\"twenty acres to every Indian being the head of a family, without\nreference to the number in the family.\" The suggestion was concurred\nin by the Province, as per Minute of the Executive Council of the 15th\nJune, 1874, and steps were taken to proceed on that understanding.\nThen the Reverend Mr. Duncan intervened and suggested inter alia\n(1) that no basis of acreage be fixed for Reserves; (2) that each nation\nof Indians be dealt with separately on their respective claims; (3)\nthat for a proper adjustment of such claims the Dominion and Provincial Governments each provide an agent to visit the Indians, investigate conditions and report; and (4) that, in case of any Reserve being\nabandoned, or the Indians on it decreasing so that its extent is disproportionate to the number of occupants, such Reserve or part of a\nReserve might revert to the Provincial Government.\nThe Provincial Government adopted Mr. Duncan's view in so far\nas it dispensed with a basis of acreage and provided for reversion. The\nDominion Government expressed its readiness to adopt his proposal in\nfull, barring his suggested agency of allotment.\nThe Province concurred, and the two Governments then entered\ninto the agreement of 1875-6, under which a joint Commission was\nconstituted to allot Reserves.\nThe agreement set forth that the Commission was \"to fix and determine for each nation separately, the number, extent, and locality of\nthe Reserve or Reserves to be allotted to it\"; that \"no basis of acreage\nbe fixed \u00E2\u0080\u0094 but that each nation of Indians of the same language be\ndealt with separately\"; that \"each Reserve shall be held in trust for\nthe use and benefit of the nation of Indians to which it has been\nallotted\"; that, \"in the event of any material increase or decrease\nhereafter of the numbers of a nation occupying a Reserve, such Reserve\nshall be enlarged or diminished, as the case may be, so that it shall\nbear a fair proportion to the members of the Band occupying it\"; and\nthat \"the extra land required for any Reserve shall be allotted from\nCrown lands, and any land taken off a Reserve shall revert to the\nProvince.\"\nThe reversionary interest thus created proved a stumbling block to\nadministration. A sort of dual ownership was set up which made it\npractically impossible for the Dominion Government to dispose, for\nthe benefit of the Indians, as in other parts of the Dominion, of any\nof the reserved land or the timber or other valuables thereon or therein.\n 312\nAPPENDIX\nThe Land Act of 1875 provided for the conveyance of lands to the\nDominion Government \"in trust for the use and benefit of the\nIndians.\" By Section 9, of Chapter 38 of the Statutes of 1899, an\namendment was made by adding to the provision in the Land Act\nthese words, \"and in trust to reconvey the same to the Provincial\nGovernment in case such lands at any time ceased to be used by such\nIndians.\" In 1911 this enactment was made:\n\"Provided always that it shall be lawful for the Lieutenant-Governor\nin Council to at any time grant, convey, quit claim, sell or dispose of,\non such terms as may be deemed advisable, the interest of the Province, reversionary or otherwise, in any Indian Reserve or any portion\nthereof.\" (vide Section 127, Chapter 129, R.S., B.C., 1911).\nIn the previous year the following had been enacted:\n\"There shall not be registered in any Land Registry Office any title\nderived from His Majesty the King in the right of Canada ... land\nforming part, or that at any time formed part, of an Indian Reserve,\nwithout the sanction of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.\" (Vide\nSection 2, Chapter 27, Statutes 1910, and Section 59, Chapter 127,\nR.S., B.C., 1911).\nTo remove the administrative entanglement thus occasioned, and to\nprovide for the final and complete allotment of lands for Indians in\nBritish Columbia, the Agreement hereinbefore quoted in full was\nentered into by the Governments of the Dominion and the Province,\nand this Commission was appointed thereunder....\nYour Commission was accompanied, when travelling over the\nvarious Agencies, by the District Inspectors of the Department of\nIndian Affairs and the Indian Agents, to all of whom they are much\nindebted for useful local knowledge of persons and places, for which\nthis deserved acknowledgment is made.\nIn fulfilment of the duties of the Commission it was necessary to\nvisit the Indians of all the various tribes and bands and their Reserves,\nto explain the object of the Commission and the restrictions imposed,\nto hear the views of the Indians on all matters connected with the work\nof the Commission, and to examine the Indians under oath on matters\nconnected with the work of the Commission; also to hear the representations of Public bodies \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Municipal Councils, Boards of Trade,\netc.\u00E2\u0080\u0094where friction appeared to exist, or a request for a hearing\nwas made.\nYour Commission found that the 25,000 Indians to be visited were\nscattered all over the Province and along the Coastline, and the\namount of travelling, both by sea and land, would consume a very\nconsiderable length of time. In this connection it may be mentioned\nthat the area of the Province is some 395,000 square miles \u00E2\u0080\u0094 equal\nto one-tenth of the Canadian total area, larger than the States of\nCalifornia, Washington and Oregon combined, or than Italy, Switzerland and France, and three times the size of the United Kingdom, and\nwith a Coastline of 7,000 miles, all of which had to be covered.\nAnother obstacle to expediting work arose from the occupations of\nthe Coast Indians, whose Reserves could only be visited at stated times\n APPENDIX 313\nof the year. All of the Coast Indians are fishermen and leave their\nReserves when the salmon run occurs, and your Commission had\nnumerous letters from these Indians requesting that meetings should\nbe so arranged as to avoid interruption of their work. The managers\nof the salmon canneries also made similar requests. With Indian\nvillages dotted all along the 7,000 miles of Coastline, a considerable\nportion of three Summers was occupied in this work.\nSome 5,655 folios of typewritten evidence and 253 exhibits have\nbeen taken and your Commission, desiring to keep expense of printing\nwithin bounds, and with the consent of the Governments concerned,\narranged a system of tabulation, giving the material of the evidence,\nwhich will appear with maps and conclusions reached, as embodied in\nthe Commission's Minutes of Decision, in a separate chapter for each\nof the fifteen Agencies. Thus it is hoped that a clear and concise\nReport is presented at a minimum of cost. At the same time, the\nextended evidence is sent to both Governments in twenty-seven volumes\nfor future reference....\nIn the course of enquiries, when visiting the various Tribes and\nBands of Indians, it was impressed on your Commission that there\nexisted a very strong feeling regarding proper protection for their\ngraveyards, and steps have been taken in most cases to recommend\nthe reservation of small areas for such purposes. In some instances,\nhowever, the plots required would be so small that it was not deemed\nwise to recommend that reserves should be created involving a large\noutlay for surveys. It is, therefore, recommended that, where such\ncases arise, the Governments of the Dominion and the Province should,\nmutually, arrange for the protection of these graves.\nOn every occasion where meetings were held with the Indians, they\nexpressed their views freely on questions of administration, which are\ndealt with in another Report submitted by Your Commission under\nauthority of an Order of Your Royal Highness-in-Council dated the\n10th day of June 1913\t\n([Canada], [Royal Commission on Indian Affairs], Report of the Royal Commission on Indian Affairs for the Province of British Columbia [Victoria: Acme\nPress, 1916], 1:14-20.)\n APPENDIX\nItem 7\nStatement of the Allied Indian Tribes of British Columbia\nfor the Government of British Columbia\nPart II \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Report of the Royal Commission\nGrounds of Refusal to Accept\nIn addition to the grounds shown by our general introductory\nremarks, we mention the following as the principal grounds upon\nwhich we refuse to accept as a settlement the findings of the Royal\nCommission:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\ni. We think it clear that fundamental matters such as tribal ownership of our territories require to be dealt with, either by concession of\nthe governments, or by decision of the Judicial Committee, before\nsubsidiary matters such as the finding of the Royal Commission can\nbe equitably dealt with.\n2. We are unwilling to be bound by the McKenna-McBride Agreement, under which the findings of the Royal Commission have been\nmade.\n3. The whole work of the Royal Commission has been based upon\nthe assumption that Article 13 of the Terms of Union contains all\nobligations of the two governments towards the Indian Tribes of\nBritish Columbia, which assumption we cannot admit to be correct.\n4. The McKenna-McBride Agreement, and the report of the Royal\nCommission ignore not only our land rights, but also the power conferred by Article 13 upon the Secretary of State for the Colonies.\n5. The additional reserved lands recommended by the report of the\nRoyal Commission, we consider to be utterly inadequate for meeting\nthe present and future requirements of the Tribes.\n6. The Commissioners have wholly failed to adjust the inequalities\nbetween Tribes, in respect of both area and value of reserved lands,\nwhich Special Commissioner McKenna, in his report, pointed out and\nwhich the report of the Royal Commission has proved to exist.\n7. Notwithstanding the assurance contained in the report of Special\nCommissioner McKenna, that \"such further lands as are required will\nbe provided by the Province, in so far as Crown lands are available.\"\n APPENDIX 315\nThe Province, by Act passed in the spring of the year 1916, took back\ntwo million acres of land, no part of which, as we understand, was\nset aside for the Indians by the Commissioners, whose report was soon\nthereafter presented to the government.\n8. The Commissioners have failed to make any adjustment of water-\nrights, which in the case of lands situated within the Dry Belt, is\nindispensable.\n9. We regard as manifestly unfair and wholly unsatisfactory the provisions of the McKenna-McBride Agreement relating to the cutting off\nand reduction of reserved lands, under which one-half of the proceeds\nof sale of any such lands would go to the Province, and the other\nhalf of such proceeds, instead of going into the hands or being held\nfor the benefit of the Tribe, would be held by the Government of\nCanada for the benefit of all the Indians of British Columbia.\nPart III \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Necessary Conditions of Equitable Settlement\nConditions Proposed as Basis of Settlement\nWe beg to present for consideration of the two Governments the\nfollowing which we regard as necessary conditions of equitable settlement:\n1. That the Proclamation issued by King George III in the year 1763\nand the Report presented by the Minister of Justice in the year 1875\nbe accepted by the two Governments and established as the main basis\nof all dealings and all adjustments of Indian land rights and other\nrights which shall be made.\n2. That it be conceded that each Tribe for whose use and benefit\nland is set aside (under Article 13 of the \"Terms of Union\") acquires\nthereby a full, permanent and beneficial title to the land so set aside\ntogether with all natural resources pertaining thereto; and that Section\n127 of the Land Act of British Columbia be amended accordingly.\n3. That all existing reserves not now as parts of the Railway Belt or\notherwise held by Canada be conveyed to Canada for the use and\nbenefit of the various Tribes.\n4. That all foreshores whether tidal or inland be included in the\nreserves with which they are connected, so that the various Tribes\nshall have full permanent and beneficial title to such foreshores.\n5. That adequate additional lands be set aside and that to this end a\nper capita standard of 160 acres of average agricultural land having\nin case of lands situated within the dry belt a supply of water sufficient\nfor irrigation be established. By the word \"standard\" we mean not a\nhard and fast rule, but a general estimate to be used as a guide, and\nto be applied in a reasonable way to the actual requirements of each\ntribe.\n6. That in sections of the Province in case of which the character of\navailable land and the conditions prevailing make it impossible or\nundesirable to carry out fully or at all that standard the Indian Tribes\nconcerned be compensated for such deficiency by grazing lands, by\n r\n316 APPENDIX\ntimber lands, by hunting lands or otherwise, as the particular character\nand conditions of each such section may require.\n7. That all existing inequalities in respect of both acreage and value\nbetween lands set aside for the various Tribes be adjusted.\n8. That for the purpose of enabling the two Governments to set aside\nadequate additional lands and adjust all inequalities there be established a system of obtaining lands including compulsory purchase,\nsimilar to that which is being carried out by the Land Settlement\nBoard of British Columbia.\n9. That if the Governments and the Allied Tribes should not be able\nto agree upon a standard of lands to be reserved that matter and all\nother matters relating to lands to be reserved which cannot be adjusted\nin pursuance of the preceding conditions and by conference between\nthe two governments and the Allied Tribes be referred to the Secretary\nof State for the Colonies to be finally decided by that Minister in\nview of our land rights conceded by the two Governments in accordance with our first conditions and in pursuance of the provisions of\nArticle 13 of the \"Terms of Union\" by such method of procedure as\nshall be decided by the Parliament of Canada.\n10. That the beneficial ownership of all reserves shall belong to the\nTribe for whose use and benefit they are set aside.\n11. That a system of individual title to occupation of particular parts\nof reserved lands be established and brought into operation and\nadministered by each Tribe.\n12. That all sales, leases and other dispositions of land or timber or\nother natural resources be made by the Government of Canada as\ntrustee for the Tribe with the consent of the Tribe and that all who\nmay have rights of occupation affected, and that the proceeds be\ndisposed of in such way and used from time to time for such particular\npurposes as shall be agreed upon between the Government of Canada\nand the Tribe together with all those having rights of occupation.\n13. That the fishing rights, hunting rights, and water rights of the\nIndian Tribes be fully adjusted. Our land rights having first been\nestablished by concession or decision we are willing that our general\nrights shall after full conference between the two Governments and\nthe Tribes be adjusted by enactment of the Parliament of Canada.\n14. That in the connection with the adjustment of our fishing rights\nthe mater of the international treaty recently entered into which very\nseriously conflicts with those rights be adjusted. We do not at present\ndiscuss the matter of fishing for commercial purposes. However, that\nmatter may stand. We claim that we have a clear aboriginal right to\ntake salmon for food. That right the Indian Tribes have continuously\nexercised from time immemorial. Long before the Dominion of Canada\ncame into existence that right was guaranteed by Imperial enactment,\nthe Royal Proclamation issued in the year 1763. We claim that under\nthat Proclamation and another Imperial enactment, Section 109 of\nthe British North America Act, the meaning and effect of which were\nL\n APPENDIX 317\nexplained by the Minister of Justice in the words set out above, all\npower held by the Parliament of Canada for regulating the fisheries\nof British Columbia is subject to our right of fishing. We therefore\nclaim that the regulations contained in the treaty cannot be made\napplicable to the Indian Tribes, and that any attempt to enforce those\nregulations against the Indian Tribes is unlawful, being a breach of\nthe two Imperial enactments mentioned.\n15. That compensation be made in respect of the following particular\nmatters:\n(1) Inequalities of acreage or value or both that may be agreed to\nby any Tribe.\n(2) Inferior quality of reserved lands that may be agreed to by any\nTribe.\n(3) Location of reserved lands other than that required agreed to\nby any Tribe.\n(4) Damages caused to the timber or other natural resources of\nany reserved lands as for example by mining or smelting operations.\n(5) All moneys expended by any Tribe in any way in connection\nwith the Indian land controversy and the adjustment of all matters\noutstanding.\n16. That general compensation for lands to be surrendered be made.\n(1) By establishing and maintaining an adequate system of education, including both day schools and residential industrial schools, etc.\n(2) By establishing and maintaining an adequate system of medical\naid and hospitals.\n17. That all compensation provided for by the two preceding paragraphs and all other compensation claimed by any Tribe so far as\nmay be found necessary be dealt with by enactment of the Parliament\nof Canada and be determined and administered in accordance with\nsuch enactment.\n18. That all restrictions contained in the Land Act and other Statutes\nof the Province be removed.\n19. That the Indian Act be revised and that all amendments of that\nAct required for carrying into full effect these conditions of settlement,\ndealing with the matter of citizenship, and adjusting all outstanding\nmatters relating to the administration of Indian Affairs in British\nColumbia be made.\n20. That all moneys already expended and to be expended by the\nAllied Tribes in connection with the Indian land controversy and the\nadjustment of all matters outstanding be provided by the Governments.\n(Canada, Senate, Journals, 16th Pari., 1st sess., 1926-27, appendix, Special\njoint Committee on Claims of Allied Indian Tribes of British Columbia.\nReport and Evidence, 1927, pp. 33 and 35-36. Extracts from the larger Statement made on November 12, 1919, pp. 31-38.)\n Selected Bibliography\n\"Administration of Mineral Lands in the Railway Belt.\" British\nColumbia. Legislative Assembly. Sessional Papers, 5th Pari., 4th\nsess., 1890.\nAnderson, Alexander C. \"Report.\" Canada. Parliament. Sessional\nPapers, 3d Pari., 5th sess., 1878, no. 10, special appendix D.\nBancroft, H. H. History of British Columbia, iyg2-i88y. Works of\nHubert Howe Bancroft, vol. 32. San Francisco: History Company,\n1887.\nBorthwick, D. \"Settlement in British Columbia.\" Transactions of the\nEighth British Columbia Natural Resources Conference ... 1955.\nBritish Columbia Natural Resources Conference, 1955.\nBrebner, J. B. North Atlantic Triangle. Toronto: Ryerson, 1945.\nBritish Columbia. The Consolidated Statutes of British Columbia,\nConsisting of the Acts, Ordinances & Proclamations of the\nFormerly Separate Colonies of Vancouver Island and British\nColumbia, and of the Provinces since the Union with Canada,\nwith Table of Acts and Alphabetical Index. Published by authority.\nRevised and consolidated by the Commission appointed under the\n\"Consolidated Statutes Act, 1877.\" Victoria: Printed by R. Wolfen-\nden, Gov't. Printer, James Bay, 1877.\n . Land Laws of British Columbia: Together with Land Office\nForms and Regulations. Victoria: R. Wolfenden, 1873.\n . The Laws ... Consisting of the Acts, Ordinances & Proclamations of the Formerly Separated Colonies, Vancouver Island and\nBritish Columbia, and of the United Colony of British Columbia.\nBy authority compiled and published under the \"Revised Statutes\nAct, 1871.\" Victoria, Printed at the Government Printing Office,\n1871.\n . [Proclamations and Ordinances, 1858-1864. Victoria, New\nWestminster, 1858-64.]\n . Revised Statutes, 1911, 1924, 1936.\n . Revised Statutes, Appendix ... 18J1, Containing Certain\nRepealed Colonial Laws Useful for Reference, Imperial Statutes\nAffecting British Columbia. Proclamations, Etc. Victoria, Printed\nby Richard Wolfenden ... at the Government Printing Office, n.d.\n 320\nSELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY\n: . Statutes, 1873-78, 1880, 1882-92, 1894-1901,1903-1904,1904,\n1906, 1908, 1912-13, 1919-20, 1926-27.\nBritish Columbia. Commission on Condition of Indians of the North-\nWest Coast. Papers Relating to the Commission Appointed to\nEnquire into the Condition of the Indians of the North-West\nCoast. Victoria: Richard Wolfenden, Government Printer, 1888.\nBritish Columbia. Department of Lands. Annual reports of officials\nof the department, 1873, 1875, 1876, 1885-1913. British Columbia.\nLegislative Assembly. Sessional Papers, 1873-74, 1876, 1877,\n1886-1914.\nBritish Columbia. Department of Mines. Annual reports of the\nMinister of Mines, 1874, 1879, 1912, 1913. British Columbia.\nLegislative Assembly. Sessional Papers, 1875, 1880, 1913, 1914.\nBritish Columbia. Legislative Assembly. Journals, 1872,1872-73,1878,\n1884, 1887, 1889, 1898, 1900.\n . , 1872, 1872-73, 1873-74, 1875. Appendixes. Sessional\nPapers.\n . Sessional Papers, 1876, 1877, 1878, 1879, 1881, 1883, 1885,\n1886, 1887, 1888, 1889, 1890, 1892, 1894, 1900, 1901, 1902, 1903,\n1905, 1906, 1907, 1908, 1909, 1910, 1911, 1912.\nBritish Columbia. Legislative Assembly. Select Committee ... in\nRespect to Legalizing Sales of Land in the Province since 1870.\n\"Report.\" British Columbia. Legislative Assembly. Journals, ist\nPari., 2d sess., 1872-73. Appendix. Sessional Papers.\nBritish Columbia. Legislative Assembly. Select Committee on Land\nOrdinance, 1870. \"Report.\" British Columbia. Legislative\nAssembly. Journals, ist Pari., 2d sess., 1872-73. Appendix.\nSessional Papers.\nBritish Columbia. Legislative Assembly. Select Committee upon the\nMethod of Granting Leases. \"Report.\" British Columbia. Legislative Assembly. Sessional Papers, 2d Pari., ist sess., 1876.\nBritish Columbia. Legislative Council. Journals, 1864.\n . Ordinances Passed by the Legislative Council of British\nColumbia During the Session from January to April, 1865. New\nWestminster: Government Printing Office, n.d.\n . Ordinances Passed by the Legislative Council of British\nColumbia ... 186J. New Westminster: Government Printing\nOffice, n.d.\n . Ordinances Passed by the Legislative Council of British\nColumbia ... 1868-69. Victoria: Government Printing Office, n.d.\nBritish Columbia. Office of the Agent General for British Columbia,\nLondon, Eng. \"First and Second Reports ... 1902-03.\" British\nColumbia. Legislative Assembly. Sessional Papers, 10th Pari., ist\nsess., 1903-1904.\n SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 321\nBritish Columbia, Provincial Archives Department. \"Report ...\n1913.\" British Columbia. Legislative Assembly. Sessional Papers,\n13th Pari., 2d sess., 1914.\nBritish Columbia. Royal Commission of Inquiry on Timber and\nForestry. \"Final Report... 1909-1910.\" British Columbia. Legislative Assembly. Sessional Papers, 12th Pari., 2d. sess., 1911.\nBritish Columbia Gazette, January 3, 1887.\nCanada. Commission of Conservation. Committee on Forests. Forests\nof British Columbia, by H. N. Whitford and R. D. Craig, under\nthe direction of Clyde Leavitt. Ottawa: 1918.\nCanada. Department of Indian Affairs. Annual reports, 1884, 1886,\n1887, 1890, 1922, 1924. Canada. Parliament. Sessional Papers,\n1885, 1887, 1888, 1891, 1923, 1925.\nCanada. Department of Railways and Canals. Railway Statistics of\nthe Dominion of Canada, for the Year Ended June 50, 1917.\nOttawa: J. de Labroquerie Tache, King's Printer, 1918.\nCanada. Geographic Board. Handbook of Indians of Canada. Published as an appendix to the tenth report of the Geographic Board\nof Canada. Reprinted from Handbook of American Indians North\nof Mexico, published as Bulletin 30, Bureau of American Ethnology. ... Ottawa: Printed by C. H. Parmelee, Printer to the\n[King] ..., 1913.\nCanada. Indian Reserve Commission. [\"Report.\"] Canada. Parliament. Sessional Papers, 6th Pari., 2d sess., 1888, no. 15, special\nappendix, no. 1.\nCanada. Parliament. Parliamentary Debates. 3 vols. Ottawa, 1870-72.\nVol. 2. 1871.\n . Sessional Papers, 1878, 1880, 1886, 1899, 1909, 1921.\nCanada. Parliament. House of Commons. Debates, 1867.\n . Journals, 1871.\n . Official Report of the Debates, 1884, 1886, 1925.\n[Canada.] [Royal Commission on Indian Affairs.] Report of the\nRoyal Commission on Indian Affairs for the Province of British\nColumbia. 4 vols. Victoria: Acme Press, 1916.\nCanada. Parliament. Senate. Journals, 16th Pari., ist sess., 1926-27.\nAppendix to the Journals of the Senate... . Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons Appointed to Inquire\ninto the Claims of the Allied Indian Tribes of British Columbia,\nas Set Forth in Their Petition Submitted to Parliament in June\n1926. Report and Evidence. Printed by order of Parliament.\nOttawa: F. A. Acland, Printer to the [King] ..., 1927.\nCanada Gazette, October 4, 1879; July 29, 1881; February 11, 1890.\nCarson, P. A. Railway Belt Hydrographic Survey for 1911-12. Canada,\nDepartment of the Interior, Water Power Branch, Water Resources\nPaper, no. 1. Ottawa: Government Printing Bureau, 1914.\n 322\nSELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY\nFarwell, A.S. \"Report on the Kootenay Indians.\" British Columbia.\nLegislative Assembly. Sessional Papers, 4th Pari., 3d sess., 1884.\nFisher, Robin. \"Joseph Trutch and Indian Land Policy.\" B.C. Studies,\n12 (Winter 1971-72), pp. 3-33.\nFlumerfelt, A. C. \"Forest Resources.\" In Canada and Its Provinces,\nAdam Shortt and Arthur Doughty, general eds. 23 vols. Toronto:\nBrook, 1914-17. Vol. 22.\nGosnell, R. E. \"Colonial History, 1849-1871.\" In Canada and Its\nProvinces, Adam Shortt and Arthur Doughty, general eds. 23 vols.\nToronto: Brook, 1914-17. Vol. 21.\n . \"History of Farming.\" In Canada and Its Provinces, Adam\nShortt and Arthur Doughty, general eds. 23 vols. Toronto: Brook,\n1914-17. Vol. 22.\nMemorandum for the Hon. Mr. Justice Martin, Commis\nsioner in Re Railway Lands of British Columbia, Re Conveyance\nof Railway Belt and Peace River Lands to British Columbia.\nOttawa: 1927.\nGreat Britain. Colonial Office. \"CO 60, British Columbia Original\nCorrespondence, 1858-1871: Despatches from the Governors of\nBritish Columbia, Draft Replies, Interdepartmental and Miscellaneous.\" Microfilmed. London: microfilm made on behalf of the\nPublic Archives of Canada from the Public Record Office, London, n.d.\n[ .] Copies of Extracts of Correspondence Relative to the Discovery of Gold in the Fraser's River District in British North\nAmerica. Presented to both Houses of Parliament by command of\nHer Majesty, July 2, 1858. London: Printed by George Edward\nEyre and William Spottiswoode ... for Her Majesty's Stationery\nOffice, 1858.\n[ .] Miscellaneous Papers Relating to British Columbia, 1859-\n1869. 5 papers in 1 vol. [London: 1859-69.]\n . Papers Relative to the Affairs of British Columbia. Presented\nto both Houses of Parliament by command of Her Majesty, 1859-\n1862. 4 pts. London: Printed by George Edward Eyre and William\nSpottiswoode . . . for Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1859-62.\nGrunsky, H. W. \"Water Legislation and Administration in British\nColumbia.\" In British Columbia, Department of Lands, \"Report\nof the Minister of Lands.\" British Columbia. Legislative Assembly.\nSessional Papers, 13th Pari., ist sess., 1913.\n . \"Water Rights in the British Columbia Railway Belt.\" In\nCanada, Department of the Interior, Dominion Water Power\nBranch, Annual Report 1915-1916. Ottawa, 1917.\nHodgins, William Egerton, comp. Correspondence, Reports of the\nMinisters of Justice and Orders in Council upon the Subject of\nDominion and Provincial Legislation, 1867-[1020.] Compiled\nunder the direction of the .. . Minister of Justice. 2 vols. Ottawa:\nGovernment Printing Bureau, 1896-1922.\n SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 323\nHoway, F. W. \"Political History, 1871 -1913.\" In Canada and Its\nProvinces, Adam Shortt and Arthur Doughty, general eds. 23 vols.\nToronto: Brook, 1914-17. Vol. 21.\n . \"The Raison d'Etre of Forts Yale and Hope.\" Proceedings\nand Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada, 3d ser., 16\n(1922), sec. 2, pp. 49-64.\nSage, W. N., and Angus, H. F. British Columbia and the\nUnited States, edited by H. F. Angus. Toronto: Ryerson, 1942.\n\"Indian Lands, Mining Regulations.\" In The Consolidated Orders in\nCouncil of Canada under the Authority and Direction of His\nExcellency the Governor-General in Council, compiled by H. H.\nBligh. Ottawa: Printed by Brown Chamberlain, Printer to the\nQueen . . ., 1889.\nKennedy, W. P. M. Statutes, Treaties and Documents of the Canadian Constitution, Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1930.\nLaViolette, Forrest E. The Struggle for Survival. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1961.\nMcKelvie, B. A. \"Lieutenant-Colonel Israel Wood Powell, M.D.,\nCM.\" British Columbia Historical Quarterly, 9 (1947), 33-54.\nMcLean, S. J. \"National Highways Overland.\" In Canada and Its\nProvinces, Adam Shortt and Arthur Doughty, general eds. 23 vols.\nToronto: Brook, 1914-17. Vol. 10.\n\"Memorandum Re British Columbia's Claims for Special Consideration.\" In \"Report on Mission to Ottawa.\" British Columbia.\nLegislative Assembly. Sessional Papers, 12th Pari., 3d sess., 1912.\n\"A Memorial from the British Columbian Convention to the Imperial\nGovernment.\" British Columbian (New Westminster), February\n28, 1861.\nOrmsby, Margaret A. \"The Relations between British Columbia and\nthe Dominion of Canada, 1871-1885.\" Ph.D. dissertation, Bryn\nMawr, 1937.\n\"Papers Connected with the Indian Land Question,\" British Columbia.\nLegislative Assembly. Sessional Papers, 2d Pari., ist sess., 1876.\nPapers on the Union of British Columbia with the Dominion of Canada\n. . . ordered by the House of Commons to be printed, 3 August\n1869. N.p., n.d. In [Great Britain. Colonial Office], Miscellaneous\nPapers Relating to British Columbia, 1859-1869. 5 papers in 1\nvol. [London, 1859-69.]\n\"Papers Relating to Dominion Lands within the Province.\" British\nColumbia. Legislative Assembly. Sessional Papers, 4th Pari., 4th\nsess., 1886.\n\"Papers Relating to the Island Railway, the Graving Dock, and the\nRailway Lands.\" British Columbia. Legislative Assembly. Sessional\nPapers, 4th Pari., ist sess., 1883.\n SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY\n\"Papers Relating to the Ownership of the Precious Metals within the\nRailway Belt.\" British Columbia. Legislative Assembly. Sessional\nPapers, 4th Pari., 4th sess., 1886.\nPope, John, ed. Correspondence of Sir John Macdonald: Selections\nfrom the Correspondence of the Right Honourable Sir John\nAlexander Macdonald, G.C.B., First Prime Minister of the\nDominion of Canada. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1921.\n\"Regulations Governing the Disposal of Dominion Lands Containing\nMinerals.\" In The Consolidated Orders in Council of Canada\nunder the Authority and Direction of His Excellency the Governor-\nGeneral in Council, compiled by H. H. Bligh. Ottawa: Printed by\nBrown Chamberlain, Printer to the Queen ..., 1889.\n\"Report of the Government of British Columbia on the Subject of\nIndian Reserves.\" British Columbia. Legislative Assembly. Sessional\nPapers, 2d Pari., ist sess., 1876.\nSanders, Douglas. \"The Nishga Case.\" B.C. Studies, 19 (Autumn\n1973)^3-20.\nScholefield, E. O. S., and Gosnell, R. E. A History of British Columbia.\n2 pts. in 1 vol. Vancouver: British Columbia Historical Association, 1913.\n , and Howay, F. W. British Columbia from the Earliest Times\nto the Present. 4 vols. Vancouver: S. J. Clarke PubHshing Co.,\n1914-21.\nShankel, George Edgar. \"The Development of Indian Policy in British\nColumbia.\" Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, 1945.\nSkelton, O. D. \"General Economic History.\" In Canada and Its\nProvinces, Adam Shortt and Arthur Doughty, general eds. 23 vols.\nToronto: Brook, 1914-17. Vol. 21.\nSproat, G. M. \"Report on the Kootenay Country.\" British Columbia.\nLegislative Assembly. Sessional Papers, 4th Pari., 3d sess., 1884.\nVancouver Island. Governor. Despatches: Governor Blanshard to the\nSecretary of State, 26th December 184.9, to 30th August, 1851.\nNew Westminster: Printed at the Government Printing Office, n.d.\nVancouver Island. House of Assembly. Committee on Crown Lands,\nVancouver Island. Report, June 14th, 1864. 3rd Pari., ist sess.,\n1863-64. [Committee print] N.p.: n.d.\n Index\nAbbott, Henry, 144n.3 166\nAboriginal title, 169, 187, 198-99, 207,\n225,227,231,233,240-43,\n243n.\nAgriculture, land available for, 19; in\n1871, 20-21. See also Appendix\nB, Table 8(3)\nAikman, H. B. W., 148\nAlberni, 193, 262-63, 264-65, 266-67\nAlkali Lake, 218-19\nAllied Indian Tribes, 241, 243. See also\nAppendix D, Item 7\nAllotment commissions, 204, 207-8,\n209-38. See also Commissions;\nIndian Reserves; Joint Allotment Commission; O'Reilly,\nPeter; Sproat, G. M.\nAnderson, Alexander C, 207, 209-10,\n209n.\nArticle ll,xiv, 25, 27, 28, 57, 117,118,\n120, 125, 127, 129, 130, 142,\n194-95n., 243, 249\nArticle 13, 185-86, 187, 187n., 192,\n195,234,243,310,314,315,\n316\nAsh, John, 77, 194\nAshcroft, 262-63, 264-65,_ 266-67\nAshcroft and Cariboo Railway, 165n.,\n278\nAskew, George, 96\nAtlin, 76, 262-63, 264-65, 266-67\nAttorney-General of British Columbia\nv. Attorney-General of Canada.\nSee Precious Metals Case\nAttorney-General of British Columbia\nv. Esquimalt and Nanaimo Rly.\nCo., 108\nAuctions. See Land, auctions of\nAylmer, F. W., 159\nBaillie-Grohman, W. A., 152n.\nBaker, E. Crowe, 138, 141\nBall,H.M., 182, 224n.\nBancroft, H. H., 3\nBarclay Sound, 173\nBarkerville, 262-63, 264-65, 266-67\nBates, A. S., 219\nBarnard, F. S., 156\nBeaven, Robert, 24, 25, 29-30, 48,\n61-62,97, 174n., 192-93, 194,\n195, 200\nBedrock flume companies, 74\nBegbie, Matthew Baillie, 144n.\nBell, H. P., 156\n\"Beneficial use,\" 14, 19, 112, 245\n\"Better terms,\" 88-89, 142, 230-31,\n248\nBirch, A. N., 180, 18In.\nBlake, Edward, 29, 131-32, 148, 148n.\nBlanshard, Richard, 173n.\nBodwell, E. V., 228\nBole, W. Norman, 39, 40,41, 42-45,\n44n., 46\nBorden, Robert L., 150\nBostock, Hewitt, 242\nBowser, W. J., 150, 23In.\nBoyd, Hugh, 38 39\nBrew, Charley, 29\nBrew, Chartres, 179\nBritish Columbia Gazette, notice of\nland transactions in, 27, 28, 32,\n34,39,46,67, 116, 181, 189,\n213,217,222-23\nBritish Columbia Railway Act, 165\nBritish Columbia Southern Railway,\n106, 159, 160-61, 161n., 163n.,\n166, 167, 168, 284\nBritish North America Act, 119, 121,\n186, 187, 199,316-17\nBryden, John, 46, 138n.\nBurgess, A. M., 83\nBurrard Power Case, 117-21, 150\nCampbell, Alexander, 137\nCanadian Northern Railway, 51, 54,\n156, 160n.\nCanadian Pacific Railway, 68, 125-29,\n137, 143-45, 144n., 159, 160,\n166. See also Land, reserves of;\nRailway Belt; Settlement Act\nbranch lines leased by, 159-60, 16In.,\n166-67\nand Cariboo Tolls Act, 131-34\nextension of, 143-45, 144n., 152\n 326\nand land prices, 37-38, 55-, 57-58\nland grants to, 162\nlands, 69, 142-43, 194-95n.\nand mining, 77\nroute, 136-37, 137n.\nCanadian Pacific Traverse, 68\nCanadian Western Central Railway,\n155, 165n., 279, 285, 286\nCanoe Creek, 218-19\nCariboo, 30, 32, 76, 77,193, 262-63,\n264-65, 266-67, 268; Indian\nreserves, 218-19\nCariboo Tolls acts, 131-34\nCarnarvon, Henry Howard Molyneux,\n4th earl of, 177,309\nCarrall, James, 46, 185\nCartier, George E., 127-28, 143, 186,\n187n.\nCassiar, 68, 76, 262-63, 264-65,\n266-67, 268\nCassiar Central Railway, 161, 279, 286\nCathcart, H., 53-54\nCattle industry, 45-46\nCertificates, of improvement, 15, 23,\n28,49, 51,52, 253-54. See\nalso Appendix B, Tables 2 and\n5; of purchase; see Appendix B,\nTables 3 and 5; of record, 15\nChapleau, J. A., 36\nChase, J. S., 46\nChemainus, 96, 173; Indian reserves,\n190n.\nChief commissioner of lands and works,\n28, 50, 114. See also Beaven,\nRobert; Green, R. F.; Martin,\nG. B.; Smithe, William;\nTatlow, R. G.; Trutch, Joseph\nW.; Vernon, F. G.; Walkem,\nG. A.; Wells, W. C.\nChilcotin Indian reserves, 192-93\nChinese, 21, 23, 36, 51, 77, 134, 206n.,\n225\nChurch Missionary Society, 220-21, 239\nClinton, 262-63, 264-65, 266-67\nCoal and Coal Mining, 78-81, 8In., 87,\n88, 140-41, 160-61. See also\nAppendix B, Tables 6 and 7\nacts, 65, 75, 80, 84, 88, 89\nlands\namount alienated, 81, 8In.\ncost of, 75, 80\ngranted to Dominion, 16In.\nleases of, 80\npurchase of, 75, 80\nroyalties on, 80, 88\nprospecting licence, 75, 80-81\nrights to, 82\nsize of reserves, 81\nCoast district, 262-63, 264-65, 266-67,\n268\nColonization companies, 159-60;\nHudson's Bay Company as, 2-4,\n3n.\nColumbia and Kootenay Railway, 152,\n159, 163n., 165, 165n., 166,\n167, 279, 286\nColumbia and Western Railway, 106,\n154n., 156n., 159, 160, 163n.,\n166, 167, 168,286\nCommissions. See also Select\nCommittees; Special Joint\nCommittee\nto Enquire into the Conditions of\nthe Indians of the North-West\nCoast, 225\non Indian Affairs for the Province of\nBritish Columbia, 1916, 235-37,\n239, 240. See also Appendix D,\nItem 6\nof Investigation into Water Rights,\n115-16, 121, 124\nJoint Allotment, 29, 207-16\nTimber and Forestry, 100, 104\nComox, 140, 209, 262-63, 264-65,\n266-67, 268; Indian reserves,\n209-10n. _\nConference of Friends of the Indians\nof British Columbia, 231\nCoquitlam River Reserve, 177, 178-79\nCorbin, D. C, 166\nCornwall, Clement F., 196n., 225\nCornwall, Henry, 192\nCowichan, 97, 172, 193, 209-10,\n262-63,264-65,266-67,268;\nIndian reserves, 190n., 209-10,\n226\nCranbrook, 262-63, 264-65, 266-67\nCrocker, Charles, 138n.\nCrocker, Charles F., 138n.\nCrown land. See Land\nCrown grants, 15, 18, 23, 24, 28, 34,\n40,48,49,51,65,75,78,85,\n256. See also Appendix B,\nTables 4 and 5\nCrow's Nest Pass, 8In., 160-61\nCrow's Nest and Kootenay Lake\nRailway, 16In., 165n.3 287\nDavie, A. E. B., 84, 155, 156, 157,\n220, 222, 224n.\nDawson, G. H, 64-65, 66, 68, 69\nDe Cosmos, Amor, 21-22, 23, 24, 182,\n190n., 193\nDeferred payments, 7-8, 9, 25, 33. See\nalso Instalment payments\nDerby, E.L., 136n.\nDepression, of 1913, 54-55\nDewdney, Edgar, 149, 159, 225\nDisallowance, 27, 32, 130-31, 134,\n136n., 197-99\nDitch privilege, 10, 112\n Doherty, C. J., 240-4In.\nDominion Homestead Act, 1872, 24, 63\nDominion Land Act, 1883, 84\nDominion Lands Board, 147-48\nDominion Railway Belt Water Act,\n1913, 124\nDouglas, James, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7n., 8, 11,\n56,57,171-79\ngold policy, 4, 71-73, 73n.\nIndian policy, 171-80, 174n., 175n.,\n210^,247,308-9.5^^0\nAppendix D, Item 4\nland policy, 4, 6-7, 9-17, 59-60, 92,\n245-46\nproclamations, 9-10, 13, 71, 72, 73,\n73n., 92,112, 112n.\nwater regulations, 111-12\nDrake, M. W. Tyrwhitt, 46, 190n.,\n222, 224n.\nDrinkwater, C, 144n.\nDuncan, William, 191, 203, 204, 212n.,\n220-21, 224n., 225, 239-40, 311\nDunsmuir, James, 88-89, 138n., 154-55,\n162,230-31\nDunsmuir, Robert, 138n., 139, 141\nDykes and Dyking, at Sumas Lake,\n136n.\nEagle Pass Wagon Road, 152n.\nEarle, Thomas, 46, 156\nEberts, D. M., 46, 156n.\nEdward VII, 231\n1875-1876 Agreement. See Indian land\nand land rights\nElliott, Andrew Charles, 215-16, 217,\n224n.\nEllison, Price, 50\nEnglish Bay, 38\nEsquimalt, 262-63, 264-65, 266-67, 268\nEsquimalt and Nanaimo Railway, 37,\n69, 107-8, 109, 137, 138-41,\n138n., 142, 160n., 167,287\nEsquimalt and Nanaimo Rly. Co. v.\nAttorney-General of British\nColumbia, 108\nEsquimalt Graving Dock, 137, 138, 152\nExecutive Council, 17\nFairview, 262-63, 264-65, 266-67\nFarwell, A. S., 219\nFenian Raids, 126\nFernie, William, 159\nFlumerfelt, A. C, 109n.\nForests and Forestry. See also Timber\nact, 1912, 105\nCommission on, 1907, 104\nDepartment, 55\nSelect Committee on, 1875-1876,\n97-98\nFort George, 262-63, 264-65, 266-67\nFort Langley, 6, 7, 9\nFournier, Telesphore, 27, 197-99\nFraser Valley, survey of, 62-63\nFree grants, 11, 23-25, 23n., 28, 29-30,\n31, 33-35, 36, 78, 261\nFree miners' certificates, 72, 73-74, 76.\nSee also Prospecting licences;\nAppendix B, Table 6\nFulton, F. J., 109n.\nGladstone, William Ewart, 126\nGold and Gold Mining, 4, 10, 16,\n71-74,\nGold Fields Act, 1859,72-73, 111-12\nGold Mining Ordinance, 1867,\n73-75\nGolden, 262-63, 264-65, 266-67\nGoodeve, A. S., 109n.\nGordon, D. W., 138, 139, 140\nGore, W. S., 39, 42\nGosnell, R. E., 33, 142, 151\nGrand Trunk Pacific Railway, 51, 54,\n55,66,81, 160n., 228, 229\nGrandidier, C. J., 199, 200n.\nGranite Creek, 76\nGranville, 31, 144, 144n.\nGranville, George Leveson-Gower, 2nd\nearl, 182-83, 186, 191\nGreat Northern Railway, 165-66\nGreen, R F., 228\nGreenhow, Thomas, 37\nHarper, T., 37\nHastings, 31,54\nHastings Sawmill Company, 144\nHatzic reserve, 177\nHay leases, 28, 45-46, 51, 257\nHaynes, J. C, 222-23\nHazelton, 262-63, 264-65, 266-67\nHeinze, Arthur P., 159\nHeinze, F. Augustus, 159\nHelmcken, J. S., 185, 190n.\nHemlock leases, 98-99\nHenderson, J. B., 41-42\nHerbomez, L. J. d', 199-200\nHett, J. R., 136n.\nHiggins, D. W., 161\nHill, J. J., 166\nHills, George, 174n., 188\nHomer, J. A. R., 16, 138, 139-40, 141,\n147\nHomestead Act, 1862, U.S., xi, xin.\nHope, 6\nHope Island Reserve, 220n.\nHowe, Joseph, 188, 189, 190, 191\nHowse, A. E., 192\nHudson's Bay Company, 1-3, 4n., 173n.\nHuntington, Collis P., 138n.\n 328\nINDEX\nIndian agents and agencies, 191, 192,\n226, 298\nIndian Board, 191-92\nIndian land and land rights, 27. See\nalso Aboriginal title; Appendix\nD, Item 7; Reversionary interest\nin Canada, 235n.; table, 238\ndominion policy, 169-71, 185-88\nDouglas's policy, 171-79\n1875-1876 agreement, 207, 214,\n228-29,230,234,311\nlease of, 174, 174n.\nmineral rights on, 88-89\nrights of occupation, 23, 206n.\nright of pre-emption, 23, 27, 177-78,\n205, 205n.\nsale of excess, 230, 234\ntitle to, 175-76, 189, 198-99, 232,\n316\nTrutch's policy, 173, 176-77, 179n.,\n180-84, 186, 186n., 188-89,\n190-91, 192, 193\nwater rights on, 122\nIndian reserves, 27-28, 29, 36. See also\nCommissions; Appendix D,\nItem 1; Joint Allotment\nCommission; names of\nindividual tribes; Railways,\nland grants to\nallotments of, cease, 227\nattempts to reduce, 179-82, 186n.,\n230-31\non Burrard Inlet, 209\nin the Cariboo, 218-19\nDouglas's policy on, 174-75\ngazetting of, 176, 189, 190n., 213\nin the Kootenays, 219, 220n., 224\non the lower Fraser, 179-81\nnumber of, 190, 222, 224, 235, 235n.,\n237. See also Appendix B,\nTable 10\nat Okanagan Lake, 176n., 214-15\nat Osoyoos, 222-23\nin Railway Belt, 216\nsize of, 194-96, 202-3,^ 226, 232, 237.\nSee also Appendix B, Table 10\non the South Thompson, 181\nsurveying of, 60, 189, 200, 201,\n205-6,211,217,222,224,225\nTrutch's policy, 173, 176-77, 180-82,\n183-84, 188-89\nIndians. See also names of individual\ntribes\nagriculture among, 197, 210, 225-26\nB.C. treaties with, 171-73, 237\nCommission to Enquire into the\nConditions of, 225\nconception of ownership among,\nm 172-73\npetitions'to government, 205-6,\n300-301\npopulation, 188-89, 195, 212n.,\n226-27, 238, 298, 312. See also\nAppendix B, Table 10\nSpecial Joint Committee on claims of\nthe Allied Indian Tribes, 242-43\nthreats of war, 210-11\nInstalment payments, 12, 18, 20, 32,\n33, 37, 255-56. See also\nDeferred payments\nIntraprovincial railways, 23, 106-7,\n129, 153-68. See also names of\nindividual companies\nbond guarantees to, 164\ncapitalization of, 153-54, 154n.\ncash subsidies to, 155, 161\nfederally chartered, 162-64; Federal\nRailway Act, 1883, 162-64\nincorporation of, 153-54. See also\nAppendix C, Item 2\nland grants to, 106-7, 129, 155-59,\n160, 162, 164-65, 167-68\nmineral rights in, reserved, 165,\n165n.\nnumber of, 154n., 157, 160. See also\nAppendix C, Item I\nIrving, John, 46\nJaques, James G., 38-39\nJoint Allotment Commission, 29, 204,\n207-16, 216n., 222-23, 224\nJoseph, Chief, 211\nKaien Island, 160n., 228, 229\nKains, Tom, 68\nKamloops, 262-63, 264-65, 266-67, 268\nKamloops Indians, 181; reserves, 190\nKaslo and Slocan Railway, 159, 163n.,\n167, 280, 288\nKelly, Philip, 41-43\nKennedy, John, 2 29n.\nKettle Valley Railway, 159, 166, 288\nKitsilano, 54\nKootenays, 49, 262-63, 264-65, 266-67,\n268\nKootenay Indians, 219; reserves, 218,\n219, 220n., 224\nLadner, W. M. D., 44n.\nLaidlaw, James A., 46\nLaird, David, 196, 199, 206, 311\nLand. See also Coal lands; Free\ngrants; Indian land and land\nrights; Indian reserves;\nPre-emption; Wild Land Tax\namount alienated, 244\nauctions of, 6-9, 10, 19, 20, 24, 38,\n54,55,177,260\nclassification of, 46-47, 50-51, 57\n cost of, 2-3, 4, 5-6, 7, 9, 13, 14, 15,\n16, 18,24,28,33,37,45,47,\n48,50-51,54,55,57,260\ngrants of, to railways, 106-7, 128-29,\n154, 155, 162, 164-65, 167-68\nimprovement of, 13, 14, 15, 28, 47,\n50, 52-53. See also Certificates\nof improvement\nlimits on purchase of, 2, 37, 46-47,\n78,79,92-94\noutright sale of, 2-3, 4, 5-6, 13-16,\n18,30-31,32,33-34,46-47,48,\n78, 79, 92-94\npatented, 93\nreserves of, 9, 10, 18, 25,49\nby Hudson's Bay Company, 2-4,\n4n.\nfor Indians. See Indian reserves\nlifted, 143\ntown lots, 11-12,49,54\nfor railway purposes, 24-25, 27,\n36,51-52,82-83, 143-44\nrevenue from, 4, 7, 24, 25, 30, 33,\n37, 47, 51, 54. See also\nAppendix B, Table 6\nLand acts, British Columbia\n1874, 25-27, 197-99\n1875, 27-29, 31, 96, 129, 310, 312\n1884, 37, 38, 83, 84n., 92-93, 96, 113\n1888,45,93-94,98\n1908,49-51,228,229\namendments to\n1878, 32\n1879,32-34,63-64\n1886, 114\n1887, 93, 93n.\n1891,46-47,82,94, 129\n1892,47\n1894,47-48,50\n1895,48\n1896, 48-50, 94-95\n1897,49\n1899,229,312\nconsolidations of\n1888, See Land acts, 1888\n1908. See Land acts, 1908\nsummary of changes in, 185 9-1913,\n56-58\nLand ordinances. See also Gold and\nGold Mining\n1860, 12-13,69,177\n1861, 15\n1865, 129, 175-76, 178\n1870, 17-20, 61, 92, 95, 112, 113n.,\n128-29, 196, 196-97n., 205,\n206n., Appendix A, 310\nAmendment Act, 1873, 23-24, 78,\n206, 206n.\nLand Proclamation, 1859, 9-12, 72, 92\nLands Board, Dominion, 147-48\nLand rights. See Indian lands and land\nrights; Land, limits on purchase\nof; Pre-emption\nLash, Z. A., 32\nLaurier, Wilfrid, 226, 229, 232, 232n.,\n233,240\nLeases, 257\ncoal, 80\nhay, 28, 45-46, 51, 257\nhemlock, 98-99\nmining, 72, 74\npastoral, 18, 23, 26, 28, 31-32, 196,\n257\npulp-wood, 49, 99\ntimber, 95-100, 257. See also\nAppendix B, Table 9\nLegislative Council, 17\nLenihan, James, 191, 192, 201, 207\nLicences. See also Free miners'\ncertificates\ncoal-mining, 80-81\ngold-mining, 71\nprospecting, 75\ntimber, 93n., 100-105\nLillooet district, 30, 31, 3In., 32,\n262-63, 264-65, 266-67, 268\nLong Lake Reserve, 229n.\nLulu Island, 38-40\nLytton, Edward Bulwer, 5-6, 7-9,\n11-12,59, 174,245\nLytton reserves, 190n.\nMcBride, Richard, 100, 102, 117-18,\n123n., 143, 150, 160n., 167-68,\n227, 228, 231, 231n., 232, 233,\n234; McKenna-McBride\nAgreement, 234-35, 237, 240,\n241,314,315. See also\nAppendix D, Item 5, Part I\nMcColl, William, 179-81, 182\nMcCreight, John Foster, 22, 130, 192\nMacdonald, James, 134\nMacdonald, John A., 32, 126, 130-31,\n161, 190, 190n., 212,216,217,\n220, 221, 224n., 239-40\nMacdowall, D. H, 235\nMcKay, E. B., 64\nMcKenna, J. A. J., 233-34, 235;\nMcKenna-McBride Agreement,\n234-35, 237, 240, 241, 314, 315.\nSee also Appendix D, Item 5,\nPart I\nMackenzie, Alexander, 132, 137, 191,\n196\nMcKinlay, Archibald, 207\nMacLure, J. C, 46\nMacMillan, H. R, 108\nManitoba, Indian lands in, 187, 188;\nsurveys of, 64\nJ\n Manitoba Act, 1870, 188\nMartin, G.B., 48, 218, 224\nMeighen, Arthur, 241-42\nMetlakatla, 203, 221, 239-40. See also\nWilliam Duncan; Nishga\nIndians\nMilligan, D. S., 38-40\nMinerals, Mines, and Mining, 2, 10,\n70-90, 260. See also Coal and\nCoal Mining; Free miners'\ncertificates; Gold and Gold\nMining; Land acts\nacts, 65, 78, 82, 84, 84n.\namendments to, 78-79\nclaims, 71-74, 78,79,86-87;\nnumber of, 76, 77; surveys of,\nsee Appendix B, Table 7\nland, alienated for, 70, 79-80, 89;\ncost of, 75, 78, 79, 85, 86, 88;\nsurveys of, 89\nleases, 72, 74\nlicences, 71-72, 77\nminer's inch, 115n.\nMines, Ministry of, 77\nOrdinance, 1869, 75-78\nplacer mining, xii, 72, 76-78\nrevenue from, 76, 77, 79, 90. See also\nAppendix B, Table 6\nroyalties, 16\nMitchell, Peter, 148n.\nMoody, R. C, 16, 60, 175, 177-79\nMoody Sawmill, 97\nMoral and Social Reform Council of\nCanada, 231\nMorris, Alexander, 128\nMusgrave, Anthony, 182, 186-87\nMusqueam Reserve, 200-201\nNanaimo, 262-63, 264-65, 266-67, 268\nNatural gas, 82\nNelson, 262-63, 264-65, 266-67\nNelson and Fort Sheppard Railway,\n159, 163n., 167,290\nNewcastle, Henry Pelham Clinton, 5 th\nduke of, 173\nNew Westminster, 11, 144-45, 171,\n177; district, 20, 29, 30, 33, 35,\n62, 97, 262-63, 264-65, 266-67,\n268; Indian reserves, 177, 180\nNicola, 262-63, 264-65, 266-67\nNicola Indians, 205\nNicola Valley, survey of, 62-63\nNishga Indians, 240\nNorth-West Coast Indians, Commission\nto Enquire into the Conditions\nof, 225\nNorthwest Territories, Indian lands in,\n187, 188, 192, 203, 212; surveys\nof, 64\nOkanagan, 49, 210\nOkanagan and Kootenay Railway,\n165n., 281, 290\nOkanagan Indians, 205, 210-11;\nreserves, 176n., 214-15\nO'Keefe, Cornelius, 31, 46, 213n.\nO'Meara, A. E., 231, 23 In., 232, 239,\n240, 240-41n., 242, 243n.\nOmineca, 76, 77, 262-63, 264-65,\n266-67, 268\nO'Reilly, Peter, 76, 217-20, 220n.,\n221,224-26,22/\nOrmsby, Margaret A., ix\nOrr, James, 44\nOsoyoos, 45, 49, 210, 262-63, 264-65,\n266-67, 268; Indian reserve,\n222-23\nPacific Great Eastern Railway, 54,\n290-91\nPastoral leases, 18, 23, 26, 28, 31-32,\n196, 257\nPatterson, W. D., 62\nPaull, Andy, 201\nPayment. See Deferred payments;\nInstalment payments\nPeace River Block, 117-18, 138, 138n.,\n140, 141, 142, 148, 151\nPeace River district, 68\nPeace River Indians, 17In., 237\nPearse, B. W., 136n., 189, 190\nPemberton, Joseph D., 6, 12, 136n.\nPlanta, J. B., 225\nPoint Grey, 54\nPlacer mining, xii, 72, 76-78\nPooley, C. E., 136n.\nPopulation, in 1871, 21. See also\nIndians, population\nPort Moody, 38, 136-37, 143, 144\nPort Simpson, 191; reserve, 235n.\nPowell, I. W., 176n., 190, 190n.,\n191-96, 196-97n., 200-201,\n200n., 202, 205, 206, 207,\n212n., 213, 214-15, 216, 217,\n219, 220, 223, 225, 297-98\nPrecious metals, 10, 15, 18, 20; in\nRailway Belt, 83-88. See also\nGold and Gold Mining\nPrecious Metals Case, 86-88, 120, 149\nPre-emption, 13-20, 28-34, 47-58, 67,\n127, 129, 150,252-57\ncost of, 13, 15,28,33,37\nof Indian land, 192-93, 194, 196,\n205, 213n., 214, 216, 219,\n300-301; reserved from, 177\nby Indians, 178, 205-6\ninspectors of, 52, 53-54\nnumber of, 1858-1862, 17; 1870-\n1872,25; 1875-1878,31; 1879,\n INDEX\n33; 1874-1879,34-35; 1908,\n51; 1911-1912,55; 1871-1913,\n55\nrecords. See Appendix B, Table 1\nrequirements for, 15, 17-18\nsize of, 15, 17,28,47,48,50\nsurveys of. See Appendix B, Table 7\nPrince George, 55\nPrince Rupert, 54, 262-63, 264-65,\n266-67\nPrior, E. G., 156, 156n.\nProclamations\nof 1763, 169-71, 198,212,315,\n316-17\nof January 13, 1849, Hudson's Bay\nCompany, 2, 198\nof December 28, 1857, gold-mining,\n71\nof February 14, 1859, land, 9-12, 72,\n92,112, 112n.\non milling, 72, 73, 73n.\nProspecting licences, 75. See also\nFree miners' certificates\nPulp-mills, 99\nPulp-wood leases, 49, 99\nQuatsino, 97\nRailway Belt, 61-62\nboundaries, 149, 150\ndivided jurisdiction in, xiv, 83-84,\n117,150\nIndian reserves in, 216\nlands, 82-84, 145-51, 148n., 15In.,\n158, 167\nquality of, 127-28, 137, 138-40,\n142, 194-95n.\nsales of, 151\nsettlement of, 51-52, 136, 146-47,\n150-51, 155n.\ntimber, 106\nmineral claims in, 83-89, 164-65\nprecious metals in, 83-88\nprovincial offers to purchase, 117-18,\n150-51\nRailway Belt Act, 1906, 124\nRailway Belt Water Act, 1912, 123;\n1913,124\nwater rights in, 117-23\nRailways. See also Intraprovincial\nRailways; names of individual\ncompanies\nbond guarantees to, 164\ncash subsidies to, 155, 161, 162\nland grants to, 106-7, 128-29, 152,\n155-61, 160n., 162, 164-65,\n167-68, 248. See also Railway\nBelt; Settlement Act\nreserves of land for, 51-52, 127,\n143-45, 154, 158\nReid, James, 156\nRenwick, R. A., 52-53, 81\nReserves of crown lands. See Indian\nreserves; Land, reserves of;\nRailways, reserves of land for\nResidence requirements, 13, 15, 17-18,\n28\nRevelstoke, 262-63, 264-65, 266-67\nReversionary interest, 187, 204, 227,\n228,229,230,231,233-34,\n237-38,311\nRiparian rights, 111-13\nRithet, R. P., 46, 156\nRoads, xiiin., 2, 131, 131n., 152n.\nRobertson, A. Rocke, 130, 192\nRobertson, W. A., 97\nRobins, Samuel L., 46\nRobson, John, 36, 38-40, 41, 43n.,\n44-45, 44n., 83, 132-34, 136n.,\n150, 157,222\nRock Creek, 76\nRoss, William R, 52, 150, 23In.\nRoyal Commissions. See Commissions\nRoyal Engineers, 11, 12, 19, 28, 59,\n60,61\nRupert's Land Act, 188\nScott, D. C, 241\nScott, R. W., 204\nSecession Resolution, xiv, xivn., 133\nSelect Committees. See also\nCommissions\non crown lands, 1863, 15-16\non Land Ordinance, 1870, 23, 23n.\non land sales since 1870, 129-30\non timber leases, 1875-1876, 97-98\non timber sales, 1887, 45\nSemlin, C. A., 31, 218, 224\nSettlement Act, 83, 107-8, 137-43\nSeymour, Frederick, 180, 210\nShakespeare, Noah, 138, 140, 146-47\nShaw, J. P., 235\nShuswap Indians, 181, 210-11;\nreserves, 190n.\nShuswap and Okanagan Railway, 163,\n163n., 291\nSicanee Indians, 237\nSifton, Clifford, 226\nSkinner, R. J., 101\nSlave Indians, 237\nSloan, G. M., 107\nSlocan, 262-63, 264-65, 266-67\nSmithe, William, 38-40, 41, 43, 44,\n44n., 130, 137, 138, 143, 144,\n155, 176n., 212, 213, 214,\n218-19, 220-21, 220n., 223,\n225, 248\nSoda Creek, 218-19\nSonghees Reserve, 193-94\nSooke, 21 On.\n 332\nINDEX\nSpecial Joint Committee on the claims\nof the Allied Indian Tribes,\n242-43\nSpokane Falls and Northern Railway,\n166\nSproat, Gilbert Malcolm, 207, 210,\n210n., 211, 216-17, 219, 221,\n223, 224\nSquamish Indians, 209; reserves, 209,\n235n.\nStalker, Hugh, 42\nStanford, Leland, 138n.\nStanley, Edward Henry, 15th earl of\nDerby, 59\nSteele, Samuel, 219-20\nStewart, Charles, 241-42\nStrouten, Snat, 177\nSumas Lake, 136n.\nSurveys, 6, 10, 11-12, 13, 15, 18, 19,\n20, 23, 33, 34, 56, 59-69, 80,\n247. See also Appendix B,\nTable 7\ncost of, 60-63, 65-66, 68\nof Indian reserves, 189, 211, 214,\n217,224,225\nprivate, 20, 60, 61,65, 67, 68\nSurvey Branch, 65-67\nsystem of, 61, 62, 63-64, 68n.\nSutton, William, 97\nSword, G. B., 136n.\nTatlow, Robert G., 136n., 159, 227\nTaylor, Thomas, 50\nTeechamitsa Indians, 171-72\nTelegraph Creek, 262-63, 264-65,\n266-67\n\"Ten-acres rule,\" 175, 175n., 178, 180,\n202, 206\nTerms of Union. See Article 11;\nArticle 13\nThompson Valley, survey of, 62-63\nTimber, 91-110\nlands\nacreage, 108-9, 109n. See also\nAppendix B, Table 8(3)\ncost of, 92, 94\ndefined, 51\non Indian reserves, 230\noutright sale of, 92-93, 95\nprivately held, 95\nrental on, 96-97, 98, 99, 100, 101\nrevenue from, 95, 98, 101, 103.\nSee also Appendix B, Table 6\nroyalties on, 93, 96, 99, 100, 101\nsurvey of, 60, 105. See also\nAppendix B, Table 7\nvalue of, 95. See also Appendix B,\nTable 8(2)\nleases, 49, 95-100, 257; surveys of,\nsee Appendix B, Table 7. See\nalso Appendix B, Table 9\nlicences, 93n., 100-105; number of,\n101, 102, 103, 105. See also\nAppendix B, Table 8(1)\nsales, 105-6\nSelect Committee on, 1887, 45\nTimber and Forestry Conimission,\n100, 104, 109\nTrail, 159\nTreaties with Indians, 171-73, 197, 237\nTrutch, Joseph W., 21, 22, 23, 27. See\nalso Appendix D, Item 2\nand the Railway Belt, 128, 128n.,\n130, 138, 142-43, 147-48, 148n.\nIndian policy, 173, 176-77, 179n.,\n180-84, 185, 186, 186n., 188-89,\n190-91, 191n., 192, 193,\n212-13,243,309\nTsimshian Indians, 191, 207, 224-25;\nreserves, 228-29\nTupper, Charles, 138-39\nTurner, J. H, 50, 160-61\nVancouver, 31, 38, 54, 144-45, 144n.\nVancouver Island district, 30, 32, 60,\n139-40\nVancouver Island Railway. See\nEsquimalt and Nanaimo\nRailway\nVernon, 214, 262-63, 264-65, 266-67\nVernon, C. A., 136n.\nVernon, F. G., 37, 220\nVictoria, 3, 20, 28, 33, 60, 262-63,\n264-65, 266-67, 268\nVowell, A. W., 83, 225, 227\nWalkem, George A., xivn., 34, 63, 78,\n132 36, 137, 192-93, 196-97n.,\n200, 200n., 202-4, 205n., 212n.,\n215,223,309-10\nWarwick, O, 38-39, 41-43\nWater, 111-24\nacts, 113, 114,115,116,123\nconsolidations of, 114,118-19,\n120, 121, 123-24\ngrants of, 121-22\nminer's inch, 115n.\nrecords of, 112-13, 114, 115, 116,\n121,258\nrights to, 112-13, 122,258\nBoard of Investigation into,\n115-16, 121, 123, 124 ; '\nCommission of Investigation into,\n115\nriparian rights, 111-12, 114\nWells, W. O, 156n.\nWetmore, E. L., 235\nWhite, N. W., 235\n INDEX\nWhite, Thomas, 147-48, 148n. Yale, 6; district, 30, 31, 262-63,\nWild Horse Creek, 76 264-65, 266-67, 268\nWild Land Tax, of 1872, 130; of 1873, Yale Convention, 21-22, 182\n131; of 1905, 95 Youdall, Hugh, 38-40\nWright, G. B., 37, 152n. Young, W. A. G., 177, 178, 181n.\n About the Author\nRobert E. Cail completed this study in\n1955 as a graduate student in History\nat the University of British Columbia.\nWhile working on his Ph.D. dissertation\nat the University of Minnesota, he was\nkilled in an automobile collision. He\nis survived by his wife and a son born\nafter his death. For the continuing\nrelevance of the study, see Margaret\nOrmsby's Foreword.\n "@en . "Includes index.

Other copies: http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1153143"@en . "Books"@en . "KN82 .C334 1974"@en . "III-0577"@en . "10.14288/1.0380460"@en . "English"@en . "Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library"@en . "Vancouver : University of British Columbia Press"@en . "Images provided for research and reference use only. For permission to publish, copy, or otherwise distribute these images please contact\u00A0digital.initiatives@ubc.ca."@en . "Original Format: University of British Columbia. Library. Rare Books and Special Collections. KN82 .C334 1974"@en . "Crown lands--British Columbia"@en . "British Columbia--History"@en . "Land, man, and the law : the disposal of crown lands in British Columbia, 1871-1913"@en . "Text"@en .