Canadian Historic Sites: Occasional Papers in Archaeology and History No. 16

The Cochrane Ranch

by William Naftel

The Government Presence

Grazing Regulations

The 1872 Dominion Lands Act, the first of many during the process of settling the West, contained no provision for ranching as a separate industry, but only as an adjunct to the operations of the bona fide homesteader. No security of tenure existed for all the land was open for homesteading and a grazing lease might be cancelled at any time on six months' notice.¹ Obviously at the time these provisions were drawn up there was no idea of encouraging any form of settlement other than that based on the quarter-section homestead.

By 1876, however, the suitability of parts of the Northwest for stock raising, as distinct from farming, was becoming apparent and an amendment to the Dominion Lands Act in that year made provision for the granting of leases on a large scale to non-residents of the territories. The land so leased was not necessarily to be opened to settlement, but if it were required for that purpose by the minister of the Interior, the lease might be cancelled on two years' notice. While provisions were much more attractive to the potential stock raiser, the grazing corridor was at that time unsurveyed and unsettled, and it would appear that few of the early stockmen bothered with the formality of a lease nor were they given much encouragement to do so.

In 1881 this easy-going approach disappeared. With the railway just over the horizon and the example of the unregulated American frontier just across the border, it was decided to impose law on the frontier before, not after, the white men arrived. Cochrane's influence on the legislation is detailed in "The Cochrane Lease" and "Influence" below. Accordingly, in May 1881 J. S. Dennis, deputy minister of the Interior, drew up a confidential memorandum in which he outlined his recommendations for the policy to be followed with respect to ranching in the Northwest. From this memorandum the government drew the inspiration for the policy toward ranching and grazing lands that it instituted in the spring of 1881 and followed, with decreasing fidelity, for approximately three years. For a start, the Dominion Lands Act was modified to place this important matter more directly under the control of the cabinet as befitted an arm of the National Policy. Previously, the disposal of grazing leases had been an internal matter for the Department of the Interior.²

The details of the regulations were published by order in council of 20 May 1881, authorizing a form of draft lease to which important amendments were made the following December.³

The most important clause in the draft lease from the point of view of the stockman was that which authorized leases for a term of 21 years. Though still subject to cancellation on two years' notice "in the Public Interest," it gave ranchers at least a moral commitment from the government for a much longer term. In return for the substantial capital investment required, they could feel assured of a long enough period of occupation to recoup their investment plus make a profit.

As other clauses of the lease make clear, the government was interested in attracting large companies with capital rather than encouraging the small independent rancher. Up to 100,000 acres might be acquired in one lease at a nominal rental of one cent per acre and while the lessee was required to place one head of stock on every ten acres, he was given three years to accomplish it.

Additional important provisions of the May order in council, and of Dennis's recommendations, included the right to purchase a percentage of the leasehold as a home farm and corral, and the proposal to dispose of the leases by auction. Both were abandoned in December. The latter was by then a dead issue, virtually all the leases having been promised well beforehand.

Though various revisions were made in the terms of the lease over the next few years, the most important were those which culminated in the virtual abandonment by 1896 of the 1881 leasing system. The first leases granted, under which the Cochrane ranch was held, provided, as has been noted, that the lease or a portion of it could only be cancelled after two years' notice. Any agricultural settler must wait that length of time provided he was able to convince the Department of the Interior that he should be allowed to settle there or unless he received the permission of the leaseholder to settle. Within but a few years the pressure from homesteaders wishing to settle on the leases, however unsuited for the purpose, persuaded the department to make concessions. The turning point in the government's attitude came in 1885 when the Department of the Interior determined that the ranching industry must stand on its own and so raised the rent on the leased lands. In addition, the lease form was so amended that leases granted thenceforth were to be "open to homestead and preemption entry, or to be purchased from the Government at the cash price of not less than $2.50 per acre upon application being made therefor" without the consent of the lessee being required.⁴ This did not affect the original, and most desirable, leases granted under the terms of 1881 which remained unchanged, but it was a sign of the times.

With the completion of the railway, the pressure became intense and in 1889 an entirely new lease form was introduced which left leases granted thenceforth wide open for settlers. While it did not immediately supersede the existing leases, the implication was that the new lease form would eventually be applied retroactively. Such a step might have been foreseen, for the minister of the Interior from 1888 to 1892 was Edgar Dewdney, former lieutenant governor of the North-West Territories and a firm believer in the desirability of rapid settlement. It ought not, therefore, to have come as a surprise when his department contacted the holders of the old leases, notifying them of the government's intention to cancel their leases and replace them with a new form. In a letter dated 21 September 1891, the ranchers were invited to send a delegation to Ottawa to discuss the proposal with the minister. The order in council which followed the meeting in October 1892⁵ was essentially that outlined in the circular letter.

Under this new system, all leased grazing lands were opened for homestead applications on the even sections and for railway grants on the odd sections (the old lease had specified only the CPR). However, the old leases were allowed to remain in force for another four years until 31 January 1896. Further, the ranchers were to be permitted to purchase up to ten per cent of their leasehold at $2.00 per acre, a sum later reduced by the new minister, T. M. Daly, to $1.25 per acre. From the objections to the new policy, which centred around the cost of purchasing the land, it is apparent that most ranchers were resigned to the disappearance of the days of ranching on leased land. Most seem to have accepted the fact that if they carried on, it would be with what they were able to buy; hence it was important that the land be as cheap as possible.⁶

These new regulations, coming only a decade after the inauguration of the ranching industry, marked the effective end of officially encouraged large-scale operation on cheap grazing lands. Henceforth, if he depended on leased lands, the stockman could never be certain of his grazing acreage and therefore the number of cattle he might stock from one year to the next. Those who had by 1896 proved their economic viability through sound management bought as much land as possible so as to be free of incessant wrangles with squatters and hence with the Department of the Interior, and were able to continue on a grand scale for almost a generation longer. Those which had been under-capitalized and/or poorly managed did not long survive the shock, and their leases were either homesteaded or taken over in bits and pieces by small ranchers or farmers running a few head of stock on the side. In 1893, 159 lessees occupied 1,579,285 acres; four years later in 1897, 375 lessees occupied 248,984 acres.⁷ Plainly, the day of the 100,000-acre spread was over.

Government regulation effectively created the Canadian ranching industry and as effectively destroyed it as originally conceived. There were, however, other less traumatic but nonetheless important administrative developments during the short period of the ranching industry's first flowering. As noted, 1885 was the turning point and some of the easy conditions which had prevailed since 1881 in order to encourage capital investment were now tightened up. It was in this spirit that the regulation was revised that governed the placing of cattle on the leased land. Thenceforth one-third of the required number of cattle must be placed on the land in each of the three years whereas hitherto the lessee had been allowed to stock the lease at leisure at any time during the three-year period, a practice which had led to much abuse.⁸ At the same time the rental was doubled from one cent per acre to two cents per acre. The amount might seem nominal, but there was much soul-searching and bitter complaint, not least from the CPR which feared the potential effect on the through cattle trade.

Government regulation was also used occasionally to smooth the path for the ranchers. So it was in 1884 when, in order to avoid the calamitous range wars which disfigured the history of the western United States, the cattle ranchers and the sheep ranchers were entirely separated. Acting on petitions received from the South Western Stock Association of Fort MacLeod and other interested parties, the deputy minister of the Interior investigated the problem during his western tour that year. The result came in October with the publication of an order restricting sheep grazing to an area north of the line of the Highwood River and its north fork, the Bow River, and thence to the eastern boundary of the District of Alberta. South of this line sheep grazing was forbidden.⁹

The government also tried, by juggling the leasing regulations, to settle the vexing question of settler versus rancher. In April 1887 it was ruled that from then on all new leases would be open to public competition in order to obviate the entirely justified criticism that favouritism had hitherto played a part in their award. At the same time, in an effort to forestall those homesteaders who were going into small-scale ranching simply by appropriating the necessary grazing land from the large leases, the minister was given authority to issue grazing leases of up to four sections contiguous with an applicant's homestead.¹⁰

The amendments mentioned above do not represent all those made to the leasing regulations, but they do reflect the main trends in official thought. Regrettably, during the 15-year life of the large-scale ranching industry, there were five ministers of the Interior, Sir John A. Macdonald (1878-83), Sir David Lewis Macpherson (1883-85), Thomas White (1885-88), Edgar Dewdney (1888-92) and Thomas Mayne Daly (1892-96). With each minister there was, if not a definite policy change which required new regulations, a change in emphasis, especially as it involved the rancher-settler relationship. This in turn resulted in different interpretations of existing regulations. Hence so far as the ranchers were concerned, despite the existence of their leases which set forth the obligations of both parties quite clearly, the ground was continually shifting beneath their feet. Often it must have seemed to the rancher that the Department of the Interior was as uncertain a factor as the climate or the market.

Import and Quarantine Regulations

Two other departments of government were involved in the regulation of the ranching environment: customs, through rules affecting the import of cattle, and agriculture, through quarantine restrictions.

Initially, as a means of encouraging the nascent ranching industry, lessees, but not homesteaders, were permitted to import cattle duty-free on condition that they were not sold for three years. This was of vital importance as the geographical isolation of the grazing country before the completion of the railway meant that its only source of breeding stock in the necessary volume was the United States. After five years, however, the government felt that the ranchers had sufficient time to stock their acreage and ought as well to be able to supply any new ranches which might thereafter be started. Therefore as of 1 September 1886 the privilege of free entry was cancelled and the 20-per-cent duty re-imposed.¹¹ Far from being upset, Canadian ranchers were not displeased. According to Moreton Frewen, an Englishman with extensive American ranching interests and brother-in-law of Lady Randolph Churchill, the re-imposition of the duty represented an attempt "to lock up this vast district by a handful of sociable ranchemen settled in one small corner."¹²

There is much truth in this accusation, but not so much because the Alberta rancher feared the competition of the market-place as Frewen contended; rather because the American grazing system had demonstrated the effects of over-grazing. Under that system ranchers were simply charged a rate per head of cattle to graze in common ranges reserved for that purpose and the result had been serious overstocking. The consequent destruction of the American grasslands led many of the ranchers, of whom Frewen was one, to look to the well-preserved grasslands to the north and Alberta cattlemen were anxious to prevent a flood of cattle from overwhelming the Northwest.

The motivating force behind Canada's quarantine regulations was Dr. Duncan McEachran who, in 1875, following two particularly virulent outbreaks of horse influenza in Britain and on the continent in 1872 and 1875, came to the conclusion that unless something was done, Canada, which had remained remarkably free of disease, would very soon be infected by the same plagues as were bedeviling other nations. Three principal diseases were shattering many fine herds — pleuro-pneumonia, foot-and-mouth disease and cattle plague (rinderpest). All three were highly contagious, and while the science of medicine was only beginning to comprehend the mysteries of communicable diseases, it was clear that isolation was one means of preventing their spread. With this in mind and with an acute political sense which he did not always show in his dealings with others, McEachran enlisted the support of three of Canada's principal breeders and importers of stock: Senator Matthew Henry Cochrane, the Honourable George Brown, former Liberal leader and proprietor of Bow Park Farm in western Ontario, and Senator David Christie, Speaker of the Senate and president of the Ontario Board of Agriculture.¹³

Despite these high-powered representatives, the minister of agriculture, the Honourable Luc Letellier de St. Just, could not be persuaded of the gravity of the situation. Undaunted, the four men approached the prime minister, Alexander Mackenzie, with the result that McEachran was asked to institute a system for the protection of Canadian livestock. This was the sort of task that McEachran relished and he set about establishing a quarantine system with a will. Initially facilities were limited and legislation even more so; although an 1869 Act controlled the spread of contagious diseases, it contained no provision for an appointment such as McEachran's. So nervous was the Department of Agriculture about setting off some kind of panic that he was not even given the authority of an order in council and was instructed to limit his efforts to the use of moral suasion when dealing with shippers and importers.

This was an impossible situation and not surprisingly it did not last long. It was soon apparent that if the programme was to be effective and accepted by importers, a proper organization would have to be set up. Accordingly, during 1876 a quarantine station was established at Fort No. 3 in Lévis Quebec, staff was supplied, and to a remarkable degree the Mackenzie government and its successors showed an unusual willingness to support McEachran and those who succeeded him in the application of what were frequently highly unpopular regulations. In 1884 the quarantine service was reorganized, with McEachran as chief veterinary inspector, a post he held until 1902 when he was succeeded by J. G. Rutherford.

The main thrust behind the move to protect Canadian livestock was not so much a concern for the health of animals as it was a desire to protect the developing overseas markets for Canadian livestock. Since the middle years of the century, governments as well as private breeders had been investing a good deal of money in the importation of fine thoroughbred horses, cattle, sheep and swine. This general attempt to raise the quality of Canadian stock had been quite successful and with the rapid improvement in transportation by both rail and steamer, profitable export markets were opening up for Canadian producers.

By the 1870s, however, the rapid spread of diseases as a side effect of the improvement in transportation was alarming importers and exporters in most countries and there was increasing talk of restrictions on the shipping of animals. Canada was one of the first to implement a modern quarantine scheme, but it was not until January 1878, when the Duke of Richmond introduced a bill in the House of Lords to control contagious diseases in animals, that stockmen took fright. The "Richmond Bill" proposed to exclude from Britain live cattle from countries where specified diseases existed or else, as would have been the case with Canada, to place certain countries on a "schedule" which permitted animals to be landed live but required that they be slaughtered within ten days if healthy, or immediately if disease were detected in the herd. The bill became law, but as a result of vigorous protest, Canada was exempted from the schedule. The Act came into effect 1 January 1879, but with the proviso that the schedule would be reapplied if it became apparent that disease was prevalent in Canadian herds.

Keeping Canada off the schedule would not be an easy task for, although it was an era of developing imperial sentiment, such ties were not so strong as those of economic self-interest. The British agriculturalist, who had faced ruin after the repeal of the Corn Laws opened the country to cheap imported grain, saw the entire process being repeated with an influx of imported meat which offered the consumer meat of the same quality as British beef for a price about 25 per cent less than that of British beef. Although the doctrine of free trade was still sacrosanct, the judicious application of quarantine laws, for the good of the country of course, might well be enough to reduce the effect of open competition.

It was, therefore, this threat which prompted Canada to institute its own stiff quarantine rules, under "The Animal Contagious Diseases Act" of 1879, that would ensure that Canadian livestock herds remained healthy and off the British schedule. These rules authorized close supervision which was shortly implemented over stock being exported from Canada. This was extended to cover not only the health of animals, but, through regulation of steamships, their comfort as well so stock might arrive at its destination in as good condition as possible.¹⁴

The 1879 Act provided the basis for Canadian quarantine policy into the 20th century. Yet despite the effort which went into ensuring that it would be a success, what McEachran tactfully described as a "blunder" on the part of the official veterinary advisor to the British government led to the scheduling of Canadian cattle in March 1892 and it was 30 years before the British could be persuaded to remove it.¹⁵ Nevertheless, although this probably lowered the price for Canadian livestock landed in Britain, the trade continued to expand up to 1912, after which time the withdrawal of grazing leases for conversion to agricultural land began to have a telling effect. At the same time, shortly after the British scheduling was made permanent in 1896, dependence on the British market was reduced by the removal of quarantine barriers between the United States and Canada.¹⁶

From its small beginnings as an ad hoc operation of which McEachran was the sole employee, the quarantine service had, by the end of the century, developed into a considerable operation. By that time it employed a pathologist, an assistant pathologist, 26 permanent inspectors and 209 supplementary inspectors authorized to carry out inspections if necessary. There were nine quarantine stations between Halifax and Victoria and innumerable inspection stations, as well as an experimental station and bacteriological department.¹⁷ The quarantine service continued to evolve and expand its operations. For example, in order to maintain the standards of Canadian herds, campaigns were undertaken to eliminate bovine tuberculosis, foot-and-mouth disease, mange, glanders, anthrax and the various other diseases which threatened the health not only of animals but of man. By World War I, Canadian herds were on a par with herds of any country.

In the Northwest, quarantine regulations began to have an effect on the ranchers about 1884. New restrictions brought in during that year prompted charges that McEachran was using his position as chief veterinary inspector to enhance his investments in the Cochrane and Walrond ranches as new ranchers would now find it somewhat more difficult to get stock. The initial reason for the restrictions, however, was real enough. An outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia had occurred among cattle in Illinois and the East whence it was feared that the disease had been transmitted through breeding cattle to the western states, the principal source of basic stock for the Northwest ranches.¹⁸ Accordingly it was ordered that American cattle might only be brought into the country at certain specified points, of which Fort MacLeod was one. At these points of entry, the cattle were to be inspected by an authorized veterinary surgeon who was to declare them free of any suspicion of disease or refuse them entry. The importer was required to produce a certificate of origin for his animals and pay a fee to defray the expenses of the inspection.¹⁹ Three years later, in July 1887, the quarantine regulations were made even stiffer with the introduction of a 90-day quarantine period. For this purpose an area roughly two townships deep stretching the length of the frontier was reserved as grazing land for quarantined cattle. For the District of Alberta, this quarantine ground was territory defined by the curve of the main branch of the Milk River from the point where it entered the North West Territory to the point at which it crossed the frontier, the whole to be known as the "MacLeod Quarantine Station."²⁰

The Macleod Gazette was particularly hostile to the quarantine, stating bluntly that it was but a means of enhancing McEachran's ranching interests. Thomas White, the minister of the Interior, rejected that charge indignantly. He observed that a disease-free cattle industry in Canada added £3 to £4 to the value of every head of cattle exported to England thus giving a substantial difference to the profit margin. To give up the quarantine system, he declared, would be little short of madness.²¹