The Icelandic Canadian - 01.03.2004, Blaðsíða 20

114
THE ICELANDIC CANADIAN
Vol. 58 #3
It is difficult to determine the exact
timing of events. It would appear that the
three Icelandic families arrived at Icelandic
River before the Sandy Bar-White Mud
River people travelled to Dog Head Point.
Given how the negotiations went, one can
see the basis for Ramsay’s anger. Any
power to determine their own future had
been denied his people in an arbitrary man-
ner. To make matters worse, within a few
months, most of their band, including
Ramsay’s wife and four of his five children,
were dead from smallpox. No wonder,
then, that John Ramsay prevailed upon Dr
Lynch to tell Provencher, the Indian com-
missioner, of his grievances.
Ramsay’s Land Claim
On 16 April 1877, Provencher for-
warded a copy of Dr Lynch’s account to
the Minister of the Interior in Ottawa. In
his cover letter, he comments:
I beg to draw your attention particu-
larly on the hardships that these families
settled at Sandy Bar had to suffer from the
arrival of the Icelanders among them.
Some reports of the same character had
before reached this office, but if not precise
enough to allow any special means of
redress, though more than sufficient to
show the necessity of some general mea-
sure of protection.12
Provencher refers to a letter he wrote
on 9 September 1876 to the Minister, which
included a memorandum from Justice
McKeagney, then an administrator for the
province, concerning complaints and
Atkins&Pearce
Canada
HUGH HOLM
Plant Manager
P.O. Box 101 Bldg. 66, Portage road
Southport, Manitoba Canada ROH 1N0
(204) 428-5452 FAX: (204) 428-5451
demands from Icelanders on the same land
question.
The Deputy of the Minister of the
Interior, Meredith, referred Provencher’s
letter to the Surveyor General for a report
on 2 May 1877. In his reply, the Surveyor
General begins cautiously, but concludes
clearly on the side of Ramsay:
On the reference the undersigned begs
to remark that there are no data in his office
by which he can throw any light upon the
alleged occupation of land on the north
side of the river in the vicinity of Sandy Bar
on the west shore of Lake Winnipeg by the
Indian Ramsay.
Assuming, however, the statement
made by Dr. Lynch to be correct, it would
appear to the undersigned that by the pro-
visions of the Indian Act, Ramsay has full
right to retain possession of his house and
of the land tilled by him. It is quite clear
that in setting apart lands for the Icelanders
to settle on, it was never contemplated to
interfere with any rights which Indians or
others, under the law may have possessed.
The Icelanders, therefore, have no
claim to Ramsay’s land or his house, and
the undersigned respectfully recommends
that Mr Taylor should be requested to turn
the present occupants out of it accordingly
and restore possession to the com-
plainant.13
Meredith must have sought advice
from the Deputy Superintendent of the
Indian Affairs Department, Lawrence Van
Koughnet, since a memorandum dated 18
May 1877 is included in the Public
Archives. Van Koughnet writes:
I think Mr Provencher should be
requested to place himself in communica-
tion with Mr Taylor, the Icelandic agent at
Gimli, informing him that by the 70th sec-
tion (a) of the Indian Act 1876, the Indian
Ramsay would appear to be entitled to
undisturbed occupation of the land and
premises referred to in Dr Lynch’s letter,
and requesting him to cause the Icelanders
who have taken illegal possession to restore
the same to the Indians’ claimant.14
In June 1877, John Ramsay laid before
Morris a grievance against the Icelanders
about his land. Morris advised him to join
the Norway House band, which had been