1 | Page 2
[<< Previous]
There is no archival evidence that any overt distinction
was made at the treaty negotiations between surface and
subsurface rights. The closest any of it comes to the
subject is the question raised by the Treaty Three chief
about minerals. While the archival evidence is simply silent
on the point, it is universally mentioned in the Treaty Six
oral testimony. Most of that testimony expresses the view
that subsurface rights were not surrendered. Some
interviewees stated that Morris actually said he was only
buying the surface or enough for farming and indicated by a
gesture how deep this was. In contrast, some few
interviewees said that the distinction between surface and
subsurface rights was not mentioned.
In spite of this variation over the actual historical
event, there is unanimity over the interpretation. The
elders do not believe that the Indians surrendered the
subsurface rights. They believe that their ancestors
understood the treaty as providing for a limited surrender
or sharing of territorial rights. Expected settlement was
agricultural. Farmers used only the surface of the earth.
The Indians had agreed not to molest settlers who came to
farm. When non-Indians began to dig into the subsurface for
minerals, oil, and natural gas, it seemed to them a breach
of the treaty agreement on what it was they had surrendered.
Similarly, commercial use of timber, game, and fish by
non-Indians was seen by some as a breach of the treaty.
There was universal agreement amongst the interviewees that
the animals, birds, and fish were not surrendered. Some
explained that these things would not have been given up
because they were needed in order to live. With regard to
timber, there was a split between those who believed that it
had been surrendered and those who did not. Amongst those
who dealt with water (lakes and rivers) and the mountains,
all said that they had not been given up. Some mentioned the
spiritual significance of the mountains and said that
Indians would never have surrendered them. Many of the
informants said that water and mountains had not been
mentioned at the treaty negotiations. This answer is more
likely to mean that they were not given up than the reverse.
They see the treaty negotiations in terms of certain things
being requested by the commissioners. Only those specific
items were surrendered.
This view is a complete contradiction of the literal
meaning of the treaty text, but it is the understanding of
the elders. There are evidently two divergent views on the
meaning of Treaty Six. One of the elders explained the
difference in this way. "When they [the treaty
commissioners] took the papers back to Ottawa, they made
them so that the government could claim all of Canada. They
did not ask permission here to do that. So now Canada is
owned by the white man as a whole." Whatever historical
basis there might or might not be for this allegation, the
important point about it is that it is an attempt to explain
the existence of widely divergent views concerning what had
been agreed upon at the treaty negotiations.
A notable difference in the Treaty Seven testimony from
that given Treaty Six is that none of the informants saw the
treaty as an instrument land surrender at all. It is most
characteristically viewed as a peace treaty. "On the Peace
Treaty, Tall White Man [David Laird] never mentioned land
deal when he promised to pay twelve dollars every year as
long as the sun shines and rivers flow." "Tall White Man
spoke and every time he spoke he said, 'This is the Queen's
word. Now we sit together to have treaty. We will have no
more fighting-and we will all live in peace.'" (Taylor,
42-44)
|