E.B. Borron's 1892 Report

From RSMIN Community Heritage Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

__NOTITLE__

E.B. Borron's 1892 Report


Name of document:

E.B. Borron's 1892 Report

Type of document:

Primary documentation, report, Archives of Ontario

Summary of the data:

This report, authored by E.B. Borron, Stipendiary Magistrate, on December 31st, 1892, outlines the arguments he believes could be made by the Indian Department and the Dominion Government in support of the claims of some individuals to annuities under the Robinson Treaties. He goes on to dispute each argument he thinks will be made in support of each class of persons. There are three classes of persons that Borron identifies as those who are being improperly paid: Métis, First Nations with hunting grounds in unceded territory and those who in 1836 were removed from the territory surrendered by the Robinson Treaties. .

The majority of the report is dedicated to the Métis population who were being paid annuities under the Robinson Treaties. Borron refers to the statement made by Mr. Vankoughnet, Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs during a meeting in Ottawa in 1884, which was that "[h]alf-breeds are by the law of Ontario Indians-as long as they have Indian blood in their veins they are Indians legally" (Borron 3) (See Conference Notes). To dispute this statement Borron describes the definitions put forth in the Report of the Special Commissioners. The Special Commissioners Report includes conflicting definitions, first it states that the word 'Indian' includes "not only all persons of Indian blood, but also those of mixed race, who are recognized members of the any tribe or band resident in Canada, and who claim Indian descent on the father's side [emphasis added by Borron]" (Borron 3). The report also states that "[a]n Indian woman marrying a White loses her rights as a member of the tribe, and the children have no claim on the lands or moneys belonging to their mother's nation" (Borron 3-4). Conversely, the report notes the following classes of persons will be "considered Indians belonging to the tribe or body of Indians interested in suck lands" (Borron 4). First, those of "Indian Blood" and their progeny. Second, "all persons intermarried with any such Indians and residing amongst them and the descendants of all such persons" (Borron 4). Third, people who reside among the First Nations and "whose parents on either side were or are Indians of such body or tribe, or entitled to be considered as such" (Borron 4). Finally, this definition includes those who were adopted by First Nations and their descendants. Borron concedes that perhaps it was the inclusion of these four classes of persons that Mr. Vankoughnet was thinking of when he made his statement.

A second argument that Borron believes may be made by the Indian Department and the Dominion Government is that three Chiefs and principal men who negotiated and signed the treaties with W.B. Robinson were Métis. He notes the names of three men who he believes are Métis, Borron goes on to dispute each claim. First he states that, Nebenaigooching, the Chief of the Batchewanaug Band, was Métis, Borron points out that his father was Aboriginal, which corresponds with the aforementioned definition found in the Report of the Special Commissioners. Also, according to Borron his father was killed fighting for the British and they made him Chief on the spot with no further consideration. Second, he states that Dokis, of the Dokis Band, was Métis; however, Borron contends that Robinson did not know that he was. Finally, John Bell was a principal man on the Robinson-Huron Treaty, 1850 and Borron states that Robinson made an exception to the rule for Bell as he was very influential in the community and an interpreter for the Indian Agents.

Thirdly, the Indian Department and Dominion Government may argue that the Métis were included in the numbers on the treaties (See Robinson's Report Regarding Treaty Negotiations). Borron notes that there is no mention of Métis in the treaties themselves, rather their inclusion is only stated in Robinson's Report. The report states that, the 'half-breeds' in Sault Ste. Marie and in other regions may request to be included in future payments. Robinson responded that he was there to treat with the Chiefs and "they might give as much or as little to that class of claimants as they pleased" (Robinson par. 17). In Borron's report he meticulously picks apart this statement and concludes that neither Robinson nor the signatory Chiefs thought that the Métis were included in the treaty. According to Borron, if it were not for the aforementioned statement this argument would be unanswerable.

It is on this basis that Borron makes the following three statements:

1. "[H]alf breeds had no moral claim or right whatever to be included in the treaties[;]"
2. "...W.B. Robinson distinctly refused to comply with the half breeds' demands to be recognized or included therein[;]"
3. Based on Robinson's Report and "by the evidence of Indians and others who were present, it seems impossible that the Court can hold...that the half breeds were included in the Robinson Treaties and entitled to the full benefits thereof." (Borron 12).

Borron goes on to state that the figures included in the treaty were a mistake made by either Robinson or those who helped (Messrs, Ironside and Keating) him draw up the treaties as there was no distinction made between Métis and Aboriginal. Borron suggests that the original Census Returns or Lists should be examined, he believes that no distinction was made on those lists. Conversely, the early Pay Lists distinguish between Métis and Aboriginal with their distinct headings, 'Indians' and 'Half-Breeds.' The Robinson-Superior Treaty, 1850 states "...should they not at any future period amount to two-thirds of fourteen hundred and twenty-two, then the said annuity shall be diminished in proportion to their actual numbers," according to Borron, this clause was added in haste and believes it was an afterthought ("Treaty No. 60"). It is within this section that the figures are mentioned, and Borron contends that "the error in which has (in my humble opinion) occurred at the very same time, and under precisely the same circumstances" (Borron 16).

Fourthly, Borron believes the Indian Department and Dominion Government may argue that although the Métis were not explicitly included in the treaty the fact that they were paid for many years under the treaty grants them rights therein. According to Borron, "it does not follow that these payments have been made in terms of the treaties [emphasis added by Borron]" (Borron 20). According to Borron, it was a known fact in 1850 that the Métis had great influence over the Aboriginal Bands in the region. Borron goes on to state that the Métis were "not only the instigators and advisors" in the Mica Bay Incident (see Letter from R. Bruce to W.B. Robinson for more information about the Mica Bay Incident) "but were also the chief actors in the attack upon and seizure of the mines question" (Borron 20). Borron provides this as evidence that the Métis believed they would profit from a treaty, Robinson was aware of the influence that the Métis had in the community and therefore knew if he made no concessions to them there would be no treaty at all. Therefore, Robinson came up with what Borron calls an "evasive" and "diplomatic" response (Borron 21). The response Borron is referring to is the following: he was there to treat with the Chiefs and "they might give as much or as little to that class claimants as they pleased" (Robinson par. 17). When the funds were distributed Borron believes that eighty-four Métis were indeed paid annuities under the Robinson-Superior Treaty, 1850, however, he contends that this was not done under Robinson's authority but rather at the request of the Chiefs. As already stated in his 1891 Report, there were no pay lists found at the time for 1851; however, all of the pay lists can be found today (see Pay Lists page). He concedes here that it can be assumed that many of the Métis and their descendants were paid annuities under the Robinson Treaties. Conversely, he argues that "hundreds of persons of all sorts never included in the Robinson Treaties or never intended to be included have been thus paid annuity money for a considerable number of years, and that their names appear in the vouchers and on the pay-lists of the Indian Agents failed entirely to establish a practical recognition of the claims of these people even on the part of the Indian Agents" (Borron 33).

According to Borron, even though many Métis were paid annuities under the Robinson Treaties from 1850 to 1892 they are not legally entitled to such payments. To make this argument Borron draws on the debate over the distribution of presents by the British government to First Nations communities. After the Union of the Province of Upper and Lower Canada the Imperial Government decided to terminate this practice. Both the Aboriginal Bands and Indian Agents were uneasy with this decision. Borron concludes that during the debate Richard T. Pennefather concluded that "we do not for a moment assert that the English Government should be bound by unauthorized promises made by Indian Agents" (Borron 36). This quote is used by E.B. Borron to argue for the removal of Métis from the pay lists, as their inclusion, according to him, was done by unauthorized Indian Agents.

The report goes on to outline arguments that Borron believes the Indian Department and Dominion Government will make regarding other 'classes of claimants.' In the section pertaining to the 'right of adoption' Borron concedes that adoption in to Bands was customary at the time and many Métis and 'non-treaty Indians' were adopted into various bands. According to Borron; however, this does not give them the legal right to annuities under the Robinson-Treaties.

Important dates mentioned in the document:

December 31, 1892: Date of report

Important people discussed in the document:

E.B. Borron
William Benjamin Robinson
Richard T. Pennefather
Messrs
Captain Ironside
F.W. Keating

Specific location(s) mentioned in the document (if applicable):

Penetanguishene, Ontario
Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario
Manitoulin Island, Ontario
Batchawana Bay, Ontario

Non-specific location(s) mentioned in the document (if applicable):

Lake Superior, Ontario-Minnesota-Wisconsin-Michigan
Lake Huron, Ontario
Pigeon River, Minnesota–Ontario
Ontario
Quebec
Upper Canada
Lower Canada
French River, Ontario
Lake Nipissing, Ontario

Specific event(s) identified in the document (if applicable):

Robinson-Superior Treaty, 1850 (September 7, 1850)
Robison-Huron Treaty, 1850 (September 9, 1850)

Relevant citations:

Archives of Ontario. F1027-1-2, "E.B. Borron's 1892 Report," 31 December 1892, MU 1465, Box 27, Item 27/32/08 (2).

Canada (Province of, 1841-1866) Indian Affairs, Special Commissioners to investigate. Report of the Special Commissioners appointed on the 8th September, 1856, to investigate Indian Affairs in Canada. Toronto: Stewart Derbyshire & George Desbarats, Printer to the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, 1858. Print.

Library and Archives Canada, W.B. Robinson, RG. 10, "Treaty No. 60," volume 1963, 7 September 1850, file 5045-2, microfilm reel C-11122.

Library and Archives Canada, W.B. Robinson, RG. 10, "W.B. Robinson Report to R. Bruce," volume 191, 24 September 1850, nos. 5401-5500, no. 5451, microfilm reel C-11513.

Was the information found online (yes/no)?:

No.

Document links and URLs (if applicable):

N/A

Date of access:

N/A

Webmaster if identified (for online documents only):

N/A


If you would like to contribute to this page or have more information please see How to Submit Changes and New Stories.