 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
Canadian Historic Sites: Occasional Papers in Archaeology and History No. 16
by William Naftel The British American Ranche CompanyRegrouping Cochrane had reserves and an alternative plan and as soon as it be came apparent that disaster had struck for the second winter in succession, he began to deploy the resources he had been husbanding. On 21 March 1883 Cochrane was assigned the leases of the Eastern Townships Ranche Company and the Rocky Mountain Cattle Company held by his political confrères, Brooks and Colby.1 In addition, lease No. 26 held by Gagne, Pratt and Company and totalling 64,000 acres was assigned to James Cochrane. These three assignments received cabinet approval on 17 April and provided the Cochrane ranch with 170,500 acres of grazing land running southwest from Fort MacLeod between the Peigan and Blood Indian reserves, and between the Belly and Waterton rivers to a line of latitude just south of the present town of Cardston and close to the international boundary. This actually did not effect the possession of the company's lease of 100,000 acres or so of grazing land along the Bow River and it is a commentary on the senator's determination that although he claimed to have personally lost over $100,000 on his Canadian ranching operations,2 there seems to have been no question of abandoning the leases. With $15 to $20 thousand tied up in fencing and buildings alone, he had no intention of writing it off.3 All that was therefore required was an about-face on the subject of sheep ranching to which he had been so firmly opposed two years before and this switch was accomplished without much trouble. As early as March it had become evident to Cochrane that the Bow River leases were "better adopted for a hardier animal like the sheep," and examples in Montana could be quoted to show that if the technique known as "close herding" were adopted, flocks of sheep might graze in cattle lands without the anticipated damage occurring.4 Again the forces were marshalled and Colby, who had previously protested strongly against the grazing of sheep, was persuaded to state that there was ample room in the Northwest for both cattle and sheep ranchers,5 This conversion prompted a few cynical remarks from David Lewis Macpherson the new minister of the Interior, and Macdonald.6 The prime minister, moreover, was getting a little edgy on the subject of ranching companies. Some
Cochrane, however, was immune to difficulties. They could be swept away in no time. He wanted to raise sheep, he wanted to do it with no restrictions on numbers, and if Sir Joseph Pope, the prime minister's secretary, would kindly arrange a meeting with Macdonald, all could be arranged in a very few minutes.8 Though it took nearly four months of continual nagging from the end of March until the beginning of July, the Department of the Interior finally gave in and on 11 July the company was informed that they might graze sheep on the Bow River leases on condition that they place five head of sheep for every ten acres.9 There seems, however, to have been a quid pro quo involved, in that this concession was seized upon as justification for finally rejecting Cochrane's claim that the company should be allowed to purchase five per cent of its leasehold, which claim he had been pressing vigorously up to this point. However much of an non sequitur the comment may seem, Macpherson observed that, in view of Cochrane's desire to withdraw his cattle and replace them with sheep, the company had therefore lost all claim to purchase five per cent of the leasehold.10 The senator may have accepted this as part of a bargain; certainly the flow of letters on the subject from himself or his agents stopped once he received permission to graze sheep. This, however, did not solve the entire sheep-versus-cattle question and the matter was the subject of much debate in the grazing country where a number of persons were expressing keen interest in sheep raising. Petitions pro and con were forwarded to Ottawa: the South Western Stock Association of Fort MacLeod urged that sheep not be permitted in its territory: 124 residents of the Sheep Creek and High River areas asked that sheep not be banned from their district.11 During a visit to the Northwest in the summer of 1884 the deputy minister of the Interior, Burgess, discussed the subject with various interested parties and the result was the formulation of a new policy. Henceforth sheep were free to graze without permit in the territory north of the Highwood and Bow rivers, while south of that line the grass was reserved for cattle alone.12 Unlike the American situation, the bitterness between sheepmen and cattlemen never developed to any great extent although it was certainly there and from available evidence it would seem that the boundary arrived at was mutually satisfactory The decision is perhaps most interesting for the purposes of this paper insofar as it reflects the decline in favour of the Bow River district in the eyes of cattlemen. In 1881 it had been considered the prime cattle grazing country by experts and investors. After two disastrous winters for the Cochrane stock, its abandonment to sheep raised scarcely a murmur from the big ranchers whose centre was now Fort MacLeod.
Establishment As soon as matters were well in hand on the new range at Fort MacLeod, attention was turned once more to the Bow River leases and in February 1884 a new company, the British American Ranche Company, was incorporated to handle them. The new company did not arrive in a very happy atmosphere for the collapse of cattle ranching at Big Hill after two costly years had led to strains in shareholder relationships and management in both the East and the West. At Big Hill the capable Kerfoot had threatened to resign in January 1884, probably over disagreements with Montreal. In Montreal the annual meeting of the shareholders of the Cochrane Ranche Company in February 1884 was characterized by some bitter in-fighting. McEachran at one point accused White, Browning and Cochrane of holding private meetings on company business behind his back, while Browning and Cochrane accused McEachran of doing all he could in his power to ruin the credit of the company and by his conceit and pomposity hindering his own advancement.13 The meeting was generally an unpleasant one and one of its accomplishments was a surreptitious move to dismiss White. This came to nothing when McEachran refused to co-operate.14 In the end it was left to Cochrane to remark tactfully while he was out West in July that the directors would be glad if White would relieve them of the expense of management as soon as he could do so without loss to himself.15 The implication seems to be that White was a scapegoat for the company's difficulties. He had already been replaced as treasurer that spring by A. E. Cross. On a more constructive level, this particular meeting made arrangements to dispose of the Cochrane ranch holdings to its new corporate entity, the British American Ranche Company.16 The new company may have been formed more from the necessity of preserving the government from embarrassment than any other reason for under the terms of its charter the Cochrane Ranche Company could have raised sheep and horses without the necessity of another incorporation. In strictly legal terms, the statutory limit of 100,000 acres per lessee was not encroached upon as the over one-quarter million acres controlled by the Cochrane Ranche Company around Calgary and around Fort MacLeod was held in the name of a variety of separate individuals and corporate entities. Nevertheless, perhaps for political reasons or possibly as a means of raising new capital, the company was established which had the effect of whittling the acreage down to a size more in keeping with the spirit of the law. On 19 January 1884 Cochrane, Hugh MacKay, William V. Lawrence, William Cassils, Charles Cassils and William Ewing, all but Cochrane residents of Montreal, submitted a petition for Letters Patent of Incorporation for the purposes of "breeding and rearing of horses, mules, sheep, cattle and swine" in the North-West Territories. The proposed capital was $200,000 to be divided into 2,000 shares of $100 each of which 1,030 were subscribed by the petitioners. The largest shareholder was William Cassils with 420 shares, but 400 of these were held in trust. The senator held 300 and his son-in-law, Charles Cassils, held 50.17 The required letters patent were granted on 5 February and two weeks later on 19 February the new company bought the Bow River leases from the Cochrane Ranche Company for $55,000.18 The way was not all clear yet for the Department of the Interior of 1884 was not the relatively compliant institution of 1881. In March 1885, following the example of the parent company, the British American Ranche Company filed assignments for leases totalling 189,000 acres. This covered the 100,000 acres of the original Cochrane lease, the 55,000 acres of ranch No. 44 originally leased to Baynes and in December 1882 assigned by him to Browning and the 33,000 acres of ranch No. 43 leased to A. W. Ogilvie and assigned by him to the Cochrane Ranche Company in June 1884.19 Once these assignments were filed, the department consulted the Department of Justice on the legality of registering them. The Justice Department replied that whatever the original intent of the legislation, nothing specifically forbade the assignment of leases.20 Accordingly, approval was given on 26 May 1885. Horses The British American Ranche Company had been incorporated for nearly a year before it took possession of the leases. In the interim, between the time the cattle left and the British American Ranche Company became an active operation, Kerfoot introduced an aspect which had hitherto played a minor role — horse ranching. By June 1883 about 490 horses were on the range south of the Bow21 and over the next few years these were built into a good-sized herd: 550 head in May 1885 and 609 by September of that year. In November 1886 after the purchase of the "Harper Band,"22 one of the finest herds in the West and probably from the Gang ranch in British Columbia, the horses, now legally part of the British American Ranche Company, reached their peak in numbers — 1,013. A year later there were 964 horses and at the time of the sale of the assets and transfer of part of the lease to the Bow River horse ranch in August 1888 there were 920 horses.23 The number of pure-bred stallions imported to raise the quality of the stock began with four, two thoroughbreds and two Clydesdales. This was increased in 1885 by four half-bred Percherons and then, with the addition of the Harper band in 1886, to a total of eight thoroughbreds and six half-breds, with an emphasis on the Clydesdales and Percherons. At the time of the sale there were nine thoroughbreds and one half-bred.
Horse ranching became a major part of the British American Ranche Company's operations and to handle it the lease was in effect divided in half. Buildings and corrals were erected on the south bank of the Bow River where Jumpingpound Creek debouches. This involved the expenditure of a fair amount of capital so it is evident that a good return was expected. The demand it was intended to supply was a mixed one. It is evident from the proportion of heavy draught animals among the stallions that much of the market was expected to be homesteaders looking for farm animals to pull plows and wagons. Cowboys' interest was expected and great hopes were placed in the need of the North-West Mounted Police for remounts. However, none of these markets developed to any great extent. Settlement lagged even after the completion of the CPR and the expected population explosion simply did not occur for another decade. Cowboys were a limited market and initially it proved exceedingly difficult to persuade the Mounted Police to buy their horses locally rather than from eastern breeders. The effort was hardly worthwhile. The decision to dispose of the Bow River properties was taken in late 1887 and the buildings, implements, lease and lands of the horse-ranching operation south of the Bow River were sold to the Bow River Horse Ranche Company.24 Sheep In stocking the new sheep ranch, the same procedure was followed as had been used for starting a cattle herd: foundation stock was imported from the western United States, mostly Montana and Wyoming, and purebred rams were brought in to gradually raise the quality through careful breeding. The American stock was mostly Merino and Rambouillet in background, crossed with Shropshires or Oxfordshires.25 In April 1884, along with the announcement of the purchase of the Bow River operations, the British American Ranche Company also stated its intention of importing some 6,000 sheep.26 The actual number imported, however, may have been rather more, somewhere between 7,000 and 8,000 depending on which of the available figures are used.27 The purebred stock consisted of some 2,000 Shropshire rams which arrived on the ranch in mid-October.28 The usual jinx seemed to be operating when the arrival of the sheep was signalled by a heavy snowstorm, but then the situation began to improve. For one thing, the sheep had been driven slowly and were in good shape — "fat as butter" was one comment.29 For another, despite the early snowstorm, the winter of 1884-85 was the kind that the publicists wrote about — mild and open — so the sheep were able to forage on their own, requiring no hay until February. By mid-February the snow had vanished, the streams and springs were reopening, and the sheep had come through splendidly. Thus far the operation gave every prospect of bearing out the hopes of its promoters and of the deputy minister of the Interior, Burgess, who felt that is was bound to become a valuable industry within a very short time.30
With all this cheerful outlook after the successful wintering of the herd had become a matter for public comment, disaster struck when a prairie fire caught some of the sheep and 400 died in the flames.31 It was a bitter blow and Kerfoot stated publicly that the fire had been deliberately set in order to damage the stock. Nothing more was heard of this charge, but it was an indication that the emotions which sparked bitter range wars in the United States were not entirely absent from the Canadian experience. Nor was this the last misfortune. L. V. Kelly records that a corral into which had been herded a large flock of sheep was drifted in during a late snowstorm, allowing the sheep to wander off over the fence. Driven by the storm, they headed across country until they come to a deep slough three miles away and there 300 drowned. Another heavy loss is said to have occurred at lambing when "hundreds and hundreds" of ewes died giving birth.32 Possibly because of these misfortunes, Browning qualified the company's commitment to stock the range with the statement that the sheep had been placed on the range, "with a view to testing the fitness of that . . . section for sheep grazing."33 Late spring saw the company with about 8,000 sheep which may or may not represent an increase as two sets of figures are available for the number of sheep actually imported. Even after the main lambing season was well over, the size of the flock had increased to only 8,200. The sheep ranching operations of the British American Ranche Company never developed beyond this stage. In late 1866 there were 7,525 sheep on the ranch, the following year, 7,439, and in 1888 8,570.34 Proposals to erect a woollen mill near Calgary did not come to fruition until long after they were first made in 188335 and the wool clip, which in the first season amounted to 50,000 pounds, was sent to Montreal for disposal.36 Though the British American operations, both sheep and horse, never suffered the major setbacks of its predecessor on the site, there was never any of that run of good fortune so necessary in the initial years of a new operation. Management troubles persisted and in 1887 Kerfoot resigned. It appears to have been the same old story of conflicts between an eastern-based management and a western operation and many disagreements arose when directors' decisions had unhappy results for which Kerfoot received the blame. Kerfoot's resignation was a stormy one and he eventually sued the company successfully for the remainder of the salary due on his five-year contract.37 Nevertheless, he remained bitter over what he considered his bad treatment by the management. He went into ranching in partnership with his father-in-law, W. Bell Irving, just west of the British American ranch lease, and prospered. He died in 1910 in the parade of the Spring Stock Show in Calgary when his horse fell and crushed him.38 His replacement as manager was Ernest Cochrane, the senator's youngest son, who might be expected to be more amenable than his predecessors to direction from Montreal.
There were other problems. L. V Kelly mentions such things as disease, bad water, unfortunate accidents, thieves and storms.39 One major difficulty was presented by wolves which, deprived of the buffalo, found a welcome substitute in the herds of cattle and sheep which replaced them. The company kept a pack of wolfhounds which proved useful in controlling the wolves, but losses remained high.40 Possibly of more moment than the various handicaps imposed by nature were those imposed by man, of which two, rental and markets, will be noted briefly and the third, instability of the leases, discussed in some detail. In 1885 the rental of the leased lands had been doubled from one cent to two cents per acre. When dealing in tens of thousands of acres, such a rise was not insignificant although even by the standards of the day the rental still seems a bargain.41 Though it roused the protests of George Stephen, president of the CPR, who saw one of the few prospects of long-haul freight diminishing before his railway had scarcely got up steam, the Department of the Interior stood firm. As far as markets were concerned, the company had the misfortune to enter the field just as Australia was rapidly developing into the leading wool and mutton producer in the world. Between 1881 and 1891 the number of sheep in Australia increased from 78 million to 125 million and concurrently the price of wool dropped to a level that made life difficult for Canadian producers.42 William Pearce summed up the situation in Alberta as it stood in 1889.
Assaults on the Leasehold Probably the most serious and certainly the most interesting of the problems which led to the winding up of the British American Ranche Company were those connected with maintaining the leasehold intact, a problem which remained insurmountable not just for the Cochrane interests, but also for every rancher in the Northwest. Two forces were acting to break up the leases: the corporate interests of the CPR and the Hudson's Bay Company, and the individual interests of the homesteader-squatter. Of the two, the CPR and the Hudson's Bay Company were acceptable because they operated from a statutory basis and acceptance of their land claims was inherent in signing a lease, but the squatter was dangerous because he acted outside the law, considering it of no account in the face of his land hunger. The CPR had been granted 25 million acres of land in the Northwest which its agents were to choose from the odd-numbered sections and the Hudson's Bay Company received, in addition to a cash settlement, 1/20 of the land in the fertile belt. The Cochrane leases stood athwart the main railway line as it was announced in September 1882 and the CPR and the Hudson's Bay Company were well aware of this convenient location. Hence the lands were a prime target and considerable areas were turned over to the two companies. Up to 1 November 1886 this had totalled 37,160 acres and over the next two years the total mounted rapidly until by 1 May 1888, a total of 116,394 acres were withdrawn from the operation of the lease.44 This was not the set-back it might seem for the companies had no intention of disposing of them immediately and were quite content to continue leasing arrangements. Nevertheless over the ranching company's objections,45 they had now to pay rent to at least two different masters, the government and the companies, one of whom might dispose of its holdings at any time with a minimum of notice. Ownership of half of its leasehold by a private corporation, while it does not seem to have hampered the ranching operations in any way, added one more element of insecurity to those which already existed. Of a much more serious nature were the actions of the agricultural squatters who plagued every large ranching outfit in the Northwest. Squatters were living proof of the adage, "The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence." It is difficult to support their actions especially in the early years before the turn of the century. With countless millions of acres of some of the finest agricultural land in the world free for the asking between Winnipeg and the Rockies on fulfilment of minimal conditions, some individuals headed straight across the empty prairies to the reserved grazing leases. There they settled on some spring or stream, declaring that no other spot would do and that anyone who suggested they move elsewhere was a tyrant and a despot.
In resolving this problem, Macdonald's government was of very little help for, though the lease-holders clearly had the law on their side, the towns, which resented any restriction on settlement and hence business, and the settlers represented heavy political pressure. The government learned early that any strong action was interpreted as aiding vested interests in suppressing the "little man." Worse still, in its immigration propaganda it had consistently given the impression that every single acre in the Northwest was available for homesteading. The problem was compounded by the fact that while many of the squatters seem to have been genuinely interested in settlement, others were well aware of their own nuisance value and in many cases they made it clear that they would be willing to move on if they were compensated for their "improvements." The first open challenge to the position of the lessees came early. At a settlers' meeting held in Ellis's billiard hall in Calgary on 10 October 1882, called to discuss the system of reserving land from settlement for ranches, townsite reserves or Indian reserves, a resolution was carried unanimously which stated, among other things.
The most interesting feature of this resolution was the fact that its mover, E. A. Baynes, was Cochrane's son-in-law. While he and Cochrane never got along well,47 it seems unlikely, at least at this early stage when his connection with the Cochrane ranch was close, that Baynes would have moved such a resolution without the senator being in some way aware of what he was doing. Certainly he would be representing the views of the Cochrane ranch when he objected to an amendment to his resolution (which nevertheless received an overwhelming majority) that the ranchers be given two years notice.48 There is a possible explanation for the anomalous position taken by Baynes in moving his resolution. Slightly rephrased, it would in fact approximate the position of the Cochrane ranch and the other working ranches as well. In an 1884 interview Browning stated the company's position at that time.
As expressed, this viewpoint was reasonable enough to appeal to the new deputy minister of the Interior, A. N. Burgess, on his first trip to the Northwest during the summer of 1884. While in the grazing district he discussed the question with a number of the lessees and found all but one or two in favour of the location of settlers on the leases. He concluded that despite efforts to create an impression to that effect. no necessary or natural conflict existed between the agricultural settlers and the grazing leaseholder. He illustrated his contention with reference to the problems of the Cochrane herds, suggesting that had there been scattered throughout the lease from 50 to 100 settlers engaged in mixed farming from whom hay could have been purchased, a large proportion of the cattle lost might have been saved. Aside from that, the presence of settlers would mean a ready supply of extra help at round-up time. On the other hand, he noted firmly, those who trespassed on the leases with the idea of going into competition with the lessee, probably using his bulls and stealing a few calves now and then or with the intent of extorting some consideration for leaving, deserved no sympathy.50 So eminently reasonable was this view that Macdonald accepted it. It was absurd, he said, to suppose a great industry which would supply the remainder of the Northwest with their stock cattle could be allowed to be destroyed at the mere caprice of a few squatters. The government would not, he continued, allow its policy in this matter to be impeded by every squatter who chose to come in on these lands when there was plenty of land in other parts of the country.51 Unhappily for the ranchers, this was about as far as government action went and despite the fine words they were left pretty much to deal with the situation as it arose. In these early years the ranchers almost invariably eschewed violence and resorted to legal proceedings or else made the required payment for "improvements." Hence in May 1883 White bargained with a couple of squatters named Heath and Jones who had settled on the southern range. White offered them $800 to get off, but they held out and received $1,000 "for their improvements."52 This attitude, in sharp contrast to the direct action with gun or rope so common in the United States, is at least partly explained by the prevailing philosophy of law and order. At one time rustlers were flourishing in the Pincher Creek area and a group of ranchers met to discuss the menace. The identity of the culprits was suspected and many felt that action should be taken; lynching was one remedy suggested and feeling was running high. At this point one of the leading men, E. W. Godsal, said, "But, gentlemen, the British just don't settle matters in this way." To this there could be no argument: the meeting ended and they all went home.53 As the railway grew closer, however, would-be settlers became more frequent and tempers grew shorter. Whether for blackmail or for farming purposes, the settlers picked the finest locations on springs and river flats. By 1887 25 miles of continuous fence between Fort Kipp and Slide Out on the Belly River shut out the range cattle from the water and the shelter of the valley.54 The attitude of sweet reasonableness which had prevailed did not interest those eager for land. No matter how polite the procedure, an eviction was an eviction and all of those whose title to their land was vague watched with increasing uneasiness as ranchers exerted themselves to maintain their leases inviolate. The resentment of squatters and settlers at the refusal of the government or the ranchers to concede immediately what was considered to be the "right" of homestead entry boiled to the surface in a meeting held at the farm of John Glenn on 5 April 1885 at which was formed the Alberta Settlers Rights Association. In the language of outrage their spokesman, Samuel Livingstone, telegraphed the resolve of the meeting to Sir John A. Macdonald. All the townships about Calgary ought to be immediately thrown open for homestead entry and settlement and settlers therein who had complied with the normal homestead requirements should be granted their patents "immediately." Further, settlers ought to be allowed to import cattle on the same terms as the lessees; that is, free. To reinforce their demands and indicating the depth of feeling over the issue, the meeting concluded by pressing for immediate action "to prevent repetition of the trouble which now unhappily exists in these Territories" and resolved further "that the halfbreeds in these Territories are entitled to and should receive the same privileges as regards lands as have already been conceded to their brethren in Manitoba."55 Coming little more than a week after the confrontation at Duck Lake which heralded the Northwest Rebellion, such language was extreme indeed, though it was more temperate than John Glenn's threat uttered at the meeting to hold his land "with a shot gun."56 In a sense, however, the result was a degree of success for the government made immediate, if discreet, inquiries through local contacts. The information received tended to discount the Alberta Settlers Rights Association as a front for lawyers and merchants,57 but actions of the government thenceforth with regard to the leases indicate that they had recognized the political strength if not the legal validity of the settlers' compliants. The years between 1885 and 1892 were bad ones for the ranchers. The two men who occupied the post of minister of the Interior during that period, Thomas White and Edgar Dewdney, were inclined to favour the settler. One of White's first moves was to revise the terms under which grazing leases were held. This was done, interestingly enough, simply by ministerial order despite, or perhaps because of, its very considerable significance.58 This procedure avoided the requirements to publicly proclaim an order in council or act of parliament. Under its provisions, on leases granted in future, homesteaders were entitled to take up land on the same terms as on Dominion lands and to settle without first receiving permission of the lessees. Furthermore, no more grazing leases would be approved for as long as 21 years and old leases would be cancelled whenever opportunity offered. The old leases, however, were not abrogated unilaterally but remained in force and settlers were still required to seek permission if they wished to settle. This requirement, however, seems to have become increasingly a dead issue, so much so that Dewdney (then lieutenant governor of the North-West Territories) was said to have told those settlers who asked his advice to go ahead and settle on the leases and the ranchers would not attempt to turn them off.59 The British American Ranche Company found itself in an unenviable position with the eastern borders of its lease within a few miles of the mushrooming town of Calgary. The position was made more awkward on account of "many citizens of Calgary being agitators against leaseholders."60 Accordingly under some pressure from the Department of the Interior which in turn was under much pressure from settlers, the British American ranch agreed to give up Township 24, Range 2, the area of the lease closest to Calgary.61 Delay in implementing this agreement, reached in late summer 1886, aroused fierce resentment among settlers "who pinned their faith to the promises of a cabinet minister who is supposed to be an honorable gentleman."62 The minister was asked rhetorically, "how it comes that one company hold [sic] 80,000 acres of leased land, lying waste, with the conditions unfilled, when good settlers are being refused 160 acres each" and it was suggested that Albertans would like to know "which the government desire to have in Alberta, bullocks and wethers, or settlers."63 The minister, however, was hardly neglecting the interests of the settlers for at the end of March 1887 he was pressing Cochrane to relinquish an additional township.64 Cochrane agreed, extracting in return a promise that the department would do its best to protect his rights to the balance of the lease. The minister himself wrote:
He was to have plenty of opportunity to indicate the extent of his power for Browning had just submitted a bitter complaint about the activities and attitudes of the squatters. According to Ernest Cochrane, who was now the manager,
It is unfortunate that at this juncture the company would seem to have overstated their case, or rather had not undertaken to properly document it. That summer Burgess visited the Northwest and made a point of thoroughly investigating the complaints in Browning's letter. In June and in July he paid separate visits to the range in company with Ernest Cochrane and the superintendent of mines, William Pearce. Unhappily for the company's credibility, all that was located, aside from some empty houses which were possibly not even on the range, was one squatter. On speaking to the man, nobody was more surprised than Ernest Cochrane to learn that the man was on an odd-numbered section that he had bought from the CPR after the ranch company had declined to buy it. About all this trip netted the ranch company was the frosty observation from Burgess that "The officers of the Ranche Company should inform themselves, much more definitely in regard to the position of the trespassers they complain of before any action on the part of the Department would be justified."67 Much more damaging from the long-range point of view was Burgess's advice to the minister that it would be difficult to defend warning trespassers to move from even-numbered sections in the more remote and less used portions of the leasehold in the face of the fact that the company had refused to purchase an odd-numbered section in part of the range which was valuable for its hay.68 This was unfortunate for the company and indeed for the future of the big ranches for, as subsequent events make clear, squatters certainly were on the land and were to cause a great deal of trouble. It is not improbable that this incident coloured the department's attitude for some time to come. The Department of the Interior did, however, go so far as to approve a warning to would-be squatters that no claims to land on the British American ranch's lease would be recognized. This notice was drawn up by William Pearce as the result of a meeting between Ernest Cochrane and the minister on 20 August 188769 and widely distributed by the company as well as published in the newspaper. but to no avail. Though Pearce, the department's man on the spot, became increasingly sympathetic,70 in the end it made little difference. By the fall of 1888 some 15 squatters on the lease had openly taken possession of choice portions. A petition in their favour was being circulated in Calgary under the benevolent eye of D. W. Davis, Conservative MP for Alberta, and it was signed by every leading citizen and merchant;71 the Calgary press had been producing indignant editorials championing the little man versus the big company72 and on 3 August 1888 Dewdney succeeded to the post of minister of the Interior after seven years as lieutenant governor of the Northwest. Dewdney made no secret about his desire to people the Northwest with industrious homesteaders and in his view hundreds of thousands of acres locked up in grazing leases would accomplish nothing toward that end. Publicly the department was as committed as ever to support the legal rights of all parties, but privately the outlook was not good for the lessees. Although the squatters case was legally shaky, they were evidently in his favour. Concerning the petition of the squatters on the British American ranch, Burgess (who invariably reflected the prejudices of his superiors) advised Dewdney, "It is quite clear that if we are to touch this case at all in the interests of the settlers, it must be by way of a compromise."73
Withdrawal By this time, however, the British American Ranche Company and the Cochrane family were well on their way to withdrawing entirely from the Bow River, a decision which had been made by November 1887 if not before. At the annual meeting of the shareholders on the eighth of that month the directors were authorized to sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of the assets of the company and wind up its affairs.74 By June 1888 all the horses and the buildings, implements and lands south of the Bow River had been sold to the Bow River Horse Ranche Company, an outfit financed and managed by a group of English capitalists. The area remaining in this part of the lease amounted to about 23,788 acres and its assignment was approved by the cabinet in January of the following year (Fig. 29).75
In June 1888 the senator had still evidently intended to keep his hand in by some means and he took steps to retain, in the name of the British American ranch, part of the lease north of the Bow, Township 26, Ranges 2 and 3, and Township 25, Range 2, the rest to be given up for settlement. Despite these adjustments in January 1889, the government was still pressing in favour of settlers and Burgess suggested that the company be asked to give up that part of their tract lying nearest Calgary.76 Since they had just given up three townships, this further request, made when Cochrane was in Ottawa for the opening of Parliament, may have been the last straw. Whatever the reason, at a meeting with departmental officials on 11 June, Cochrane agreed to give up the remainder of the lease "in order that there may be no obstacle, so far as the company are concerned to settlers obtaining entry for lands within the leasehold,"77 on condition that the government sell to the company three-quarters of Section 10, Township 26, Range 4 at the going rate of $2.00 per acre and grant Ernest Cochrane homestead entry for the remaining quarter-section. This section was the site of the company's headquarters buildings. Such a settlement was agreeable to all. On 27 September 1890 the sale of the quarter-sections to the company was finalized and Ernest Cochrane obtained his patent for the remainder on 13 April 1892.78 (Ernest Cochrane's patent was cancelled in November 1900 in favour of the Cochrane Ranche Company and in August 1905 the patent was sold outright to Peter Collins.) On 29 August 1888 the Calgary Herald carried an advertisement for the sale of 7,000 head of sheep and 41,000 acres of leasehold.79 Most of the sheep, it is said, were bought by Thomas Ellis, a settler on Jumpingpound Creek who had come with his family from Lanark County, Ontario, in 1886.80 The leasehold was, as noted, returned to the government. However, the company remained in the sheep-ranching business on a reduced scale for a short time as they still had 4,000 sheep on the range in 1889 although officially classed as a non-lease holder:81 evidently it was not possible to dump an entire flock of over 8,000 sheep on the market at once. The company itself maintained a corporate existence for some time. In 1896 it still held title to the three quarter-sections around the ranch headquarters at Cochrane, subject at that point to a writ of fieri facias (a writ employed against the goods of an unsuccessful defendant). This writ, dated 26 February 1896, was issued in the suit of the Cochrane ranch versus the British American ranch, the amount in question being $1,680.33.82 It had evidently proved more difficult than had been foreseen to disentangle the operations of the senator's two companies.
The disappearance of the sheep-ranching operations of the British American ranch was not an isolated incident comparable to the withdrawal of the cattle operations to the south. Despite McEachran's observation in 1887 that the industry was "eminently successful,"83 by 1889 the commissioner of the North West Mounted Police could state that "The large sheep ranches are disappearing and I think the industry will resolve itself into keeping small flocks on homesteads."84 Had the world price for wool remained high, the British American Ranche Company would have fought to stay in business. As it was, the nuisance of squatters and wolves combined with a generally unprofitable world trade situation made it simply not worthwhile to continue in operation.
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||
