The Icelandic Canadian - 01.03.2004, Blaðsíða 23

Vol. 58 #3
THE ICELANDIC CANADIAN
117
they would remove to a Reserve at
Doghead further north.
And I was further instructed by his
Honor in October 1875 that said Treaty
had been presented (unclear) and that I
should locate the Icelanders on said lands
which was accordingly done.
And further that in the following year
1876 I laid before Col Provencher the
claims of J. Ramsay and other Indians and
was informed by him that said Indians had
no rights to said lands. (This suggests that
Provencher was the anonymous Dominion
Indian Agent referred to in Fridrik
Sveinsson’s account.)
I would therefore submit that having
signed the Treaty with Lieut Governor
Morris, and previous claims to these lands
had such existed (unclear), were extin-
guished by their own act, with full knowl-
edge and understanding of the same.
And further that having acted under
the instructions of the Lieut Governor, the
government is responsible for the conse-
quences resulting from such actions and
compensation for any damages must be
demanded from the Government and not
from the Icelander who was (word unintel-
ligible) settled on said lands according to
above instructions.
In his letter to me of 9th June 1877, the
Acting Indian Superintendent refers to the
lands at Sandy Bar but in the declaration
made by John Ramsay he claims other
lands, 3 or 4 miles distant at White Mud
River.
In 1875 when I applied for the lands
now contained in the Icelandic Reserve,
there were a few small houses at Sandy Bar,
say 3, but none were at White Mud River.
These must have been created subsequent-
iy-
All the houses at White Mud River
were purchased and paid for by the
Icelanders, John Ramsay himself receiving
payment for one. The house timber
referred to was lying on the river bank for
a long period, and the Icelander who occu-
pied the lot was on the most friendly terms
with Ramsay. As this Icelander has sold
out his improvements to another very
deserving and respectable man and has
gone to the States it is difficult to say
whether the said timber (if used at all as
stated) was illegally taken or arranged for
between the parties.
I am sure that no Icelander wishes to
defraud John Ramsay and he will be paid
whatever he is fairly entitled to for his
house timber, which was of little value.
In conclusion I would remark that no
resident here knows anything of the said 40
acres of land claimed by Ramsay. A small
cultivated plot of less than one acre, not
fenced, was formerly used by him before
the Treaty.
I have invariably impressed on the set-
tlers here that they should cultivate a good
understanding with the Indians, and I feel
assured that the best feeling has always
existed here. The result of further inquiry
will be duly communicated.18
It is possible Taylor did not receive
Provencher’s letter, since New Iceland was
under quarantine in the spring of 1877
when the letter was sent, and there were
postal disruptions (Kristjanson). Taylor’s
arguments that the Saulteaux willingly
signed away all rights to the land and that
responsibility for compensation lay with
the government are mutually exclusive,
since one assumes the legality of the land
transfer while the other implies a breach in
need of redress. Further, the arguments are
based in moral rather than legal terms. The
argument that the land was barely used
does not take into consideration the legal
provisions of the Indian Act concerning the
rights to occupancy of lands already in use
by Aboriginal Peoples. As well, another
logic prevails: whether occupancy is in a
tent or cabin does not change the claim’s
legal status.
Taylor challenges Ramsay’s credibility
by contradicting Ramsay’s account of his
house, the value of the timber and the size
of garden plot. He states that Ramsay has
already been paid, then says that Olafur
Olafsson’s departure makes it impossible
to know the legality of the transaction,
then concludes that Ramsay would be
compensated, but under what conditions of
“fair entitlement” Taylor doesn’t say.
Taylor first raises doubts about whether
Ramsay’s timber was used, then casts
doubt on its value. If it was usable, it pre-