Canadian Historic Sites: Occasional Papers in Archaeology and History No. 23
Gaspé, 1760-1867
by David Lee
Part III: The People of Gaspé
The Indians
In the historical period Micmac Indians were reported at various
places along the coast, including Matane, Mont-Louis, Gaspé and
Pointe-St-Pierre,1 but the main concentrations were at the
mouths of the Cascapédia and Restigouche rivers. These rivers were the
best salmon streams on the Gaspé peninsula and salmon was the Micmacs'
most important single dietary staple. In winter the bands normally
dispersed up the river valleys to hunt, but every summer they gathered
at the river mouths, especially at Pointe de la Mission near the mouth
of the Restigouche. Here they had a rough chapel which had been served,
off and on, since the 1730s by French Roman Catholic missionaries. At
one time the village and church had been on the south side of the river,
but they were moved to the north shore in the English period. Two
churches were reported on the river in 1775. A new church, erected at
Pointe de la Mission in 1791, became the focal point for all the Micmacs
of Gaspé.2
The Micmacs had always wanted their own resident priest, but the
missionaries complained that the Indians could not afford even to keep
the church or presbytery in good order. As early as 1798 the government
was providing an annual stipend of £50 to the church for a
"Missionary to the Restigouche Indians." This was a considerable sum at
that time — the government schoolmaster at New Carlisle was
receiving only £25.3 The stipend was increased to
£75 in 1816, but it was not until 1843 that the church sent a
full-time missionary to the Restigouche Indians.4 The
missionaries were habitually more interested in the European population
than in the Indians even though they were paid to serve the Micmacs, and
when they did minister to the Indians they were habitually careful to
serve the government's interests. As Monseigneur Plessis remarked to the
governor, the missionary to the Restigouche Indians was fluent in Micmac
and thus better able to promote religion, morality and fidelity to their
government.5
In 1760 the Micmac population on the Restigouche was estimated at
250, but in the 1765 census only 87 Indians were listed. By 1820 the
figure rose to 194 on the Restigouche and 41 on the Cascapédia; 20 years
later 353 Indians were reported at Pointe de la Mission. In 1858 there
were 473 on the Restigouche reserve and 83 at the Maria reserve on the
Cascapédia.6 The inconsistencies in these figures may have
been due to many Indians being absent hunting and the apparent
population increase later possibly resulted from the Micmacs becoming
sedentary, permanent residents in a village where they could be counted.
Also, in the French period there was some intermarriage between the
Micmacs and the French and some of the offspring of these unions chose
the Indian way of life and were counted as Micmacs.7
Before the Europeans arrived, hunting was almost as important to the
Micmac economy as fishing. At first hunting was promoted because traders
occasionally came to bargain for furs, as Charles Robin did on his early
voyages.8 Later traders brought liquor and some witnesses
claim that the resultant intoxication ruined the fur trade for the
Indians became less willing and less able to go into the woods in the
winter. The Gaspé fur trade was never large and it soon virtually
disappeared. One witness predicted that due to degradation and
intoxication the Indians too would soon disappear.9
Fishing thus became even more important to the Indians both as a
replacement for meat in their diet and as a staple to trade to visiting
merchants. Charles Robin wrote in his 1767 journal that the Indians
fished from their canoes and then dried their fish on flakes like the
Europeans; this fish would have been for their own use. For the trade
they speared salmon, but eventually fishing, especially for salmon,
declined as a result of depletion and government restrictions.
The band was able to subsist through other employment, some of the
men, for example, hiring themselves out for labouring jobs on the Kempt
Road or cutting timber for lumber merchants. Some of the women went to
work as domestics in Dalhousie and Campbelltown. Much was written about
assisting the band to learn agriculture, but the government never acted
on the suggestions; however, most of the Indians kept small gardens and
400 acres were reported under cultivation in 1858. They also kept some
livestock and poultry and continued to make maple sugar in the
spring.10
A commission of inquiry reported in 1858 that the Restigouche
Indians "have been left very much to their own resources, having never
received any presents, and but a scanty share of the Provincial
Parliamentary Grant."11 The grant included such assistance
as salaries for the missionaries and the schoolmaster, and occasional
aid in times of hardship.
When the Restigouche Indians inquired in 1796 why they received no
presents like the other Indians, they were told that, unlike the others,
they would have to come to Quebec.12 In 1841 or 1842 three
members of the band council went to England to see the queen about an
internal wrangle in the council and about getting a grant for the
construction of a new church. As a result of their visit, the governor
general sent them £30 for the church.13
The school on the Restigouche reserve was opened in 1856. The
government paid $200 annually for the schoolmaster's salary but,
according to the 1858 report, the schoolhouse was "built principally by
the Indians." A school was established on the Maria reserve on the
Cascapédia River in 1864, the teacher there being paid $220 per annum.
The children were taught in English. Although Micmac was certainly still
the Indians' first language, many of them spoke English and a few spoke
French.14
The government policy towards the Indians of Gaspé was not one of
"benign neglect"; it was simple lack of interest. Two issues which
particularly vexed the Micmacs of Gaspé were the government's handling
of the disputes between Indians and Europeans over land claims, and the
salmon fisheries.
The Indian Land Question
After the British troops left Chaleur Bay in the autumn of 1760, the
commanding officer of Fort Cumberland on the Chignecto Isthmus, Captain
Roderick Mackenzie, received a letter from Joseph Glaude, chief of the
Restigouche Micmacs. The letter, delivered by the chief's son and
nephew, was dated 7 January 1761. Mackenzie found it very difficult to
understand because of its strange grammar. It was written in French, but
there is no indication whether Chief Glaude wrote it himself or had
someone else write it for him.
The letter indicates that the Indians realised that the British had
replaced the French as the political masters of the area. They asked for
British assistance in the form of provisions and protection from the
Acadians whom they said were trespassing on their hunting and fishing
grounds. They also claimed that the Acadians in the area were
constructing new boats with the intention of working as pirates raiding
shipping in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. This claim was exaggerated, but it
indicates that the bad feeling between Acadians and Micmacs dates from
very early. When the Acadians wrote Mackenzie a little later, they
advised him not to listen to the Indians for they could not be
trusted.
On 23 February 1761 Captain Mackenzie sent the two young Micmacs back
to the Restigouche with an answer that they should be assured that "the
great King, George, is willing to receive you into his Protection and
Friendship; otherwise I would not write an answer to your letter, as I
do." Mackenzie said he was "well pleased with the information you sent
me as to the vessels the Acadians are building, and you may be assured
that you will be well Rewarded for any services you do to the English."
He promised them that English ships would be sent to destroy the Acadian
ships and to prevent them from interfering in the Micmacs' hunting and
fishing. Mackenzie's superior officer in Halifax approved the reply to
the Indians and in the autumn MacKenzie visited Nepisiguit (now
Bathurst, New Brunswick), Caraquet and Shippegan with an armed force and
removed some Acadians from this southern shore of Chaleur Bay. He did
not visit the Restigouche or the north shore of the bay because of the
lateness of the season nor did he fulfill his promise of
protection.15
On 7 October 1763 the king issued his proclamation concerning the
future administration of his new territories recently acquired from the
French. The proclamation created the new colony of Quebec and provided
for a governor and council. The new colony was
bounded on the Labrador Coast by the River St. John, and from
thence by a Line drawn from the Head of that River through the Lake St.
John, to the South end of the Lake Nipissim; from whence the said Line,
crossing the River St. Lawrence, and the Lake Champlain, in 45. Degrees
of North Latitude, passes along the High Lands which divide the Rivers
that empty themselves into the said River St. Lawrence from those which
fall into the Sea; and also along the North Coast of the Baye des
Chaleurs, and the Coast of the Gulph of St. Lawrence to Cape Rosieres,
and from thence crossing the Mouth of the River St. Lawrence by the West
End of the Island of Anticosti, terminates at the aforesaid River St.
John.16
Gaspé was thus part of the new colony of Quebec. The territory
outside Quebec and the other British colonies was set aside as Indian
land.
With regard to Indian policy the proclamation read:
And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to our
Interest, and the Security of our Colonies, that the several Nations or
Tribes of Indians with whom We are connected, and who live under our
protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of
such Parts of our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to
or purchased by Us, are reserved to them, or any of them, as their
Hunting Grounds.17
It has been a matter of debate18 whether this policy was
intended to apply exclusively to the Indian lands outside the
established colonies or if it applied to Quebec as well. In the years
immediately following the issuance of the proclamation, the governor of
Quebec and his council apparently considered that this policy did indeed
apply to Quebec as well, as can be seen in the council's attitude
towards lands in Gaspé.
Shortly after the Conquest there was a small rush by Europeans to
acquire land in Gaspé and among the requests was one by a certain
Marie-Joseph Philibot for 20,000 acres on the Restigouche. Indeed,
Philibot had been granted title to this land on 18 June 1766 by a decree
from the Court of St. James. However, in December of the same year a
committee of the governor's council in Quebec annulled the grant on the
grounds that the land concerned was considered to be the "property of
the Indians and as such by His Majesty's express command as set forth in
his Proclamation in 1763, not within their power to
grant."19
In May 1767 the council again rejected a land application, this time
from "Hugh Finlay, in behalf of certain Acadians for a grant of a Tract
of land upon or near the River Restigouche in the Bay of Chaleur." The
council argued that "the lands mentioned in the Petition are lands
claimed by the Indians whose right has not yet been ascertained —
till it is no grant should be given that may prejudice their claim."
In 1775 the colonial secretary cautioned against challenging Indian
claims on the Restigouche.20
In 1780 the Restigouche band again petitioned the governor at Quebec
to stop the Acadians from trespassing on their hunting grounds. The
petition this time was in English and may have been written by the two
local merchants who signed as witnesses. Their interest in the matter
is accounted for with a remark that the Indians are "very willing" to
trade with any English merchant who visited them, as the two witnesses
could testify. But the principal issue of the petition concerned the
Acadians who persisted in hunting and fishing in Indian territory. The
Indians claimed all the land from the Cascapédia River to the
Restigouche and stated that the governor had granted them these lands and the
Restigouche River itself "as our property for us and our children
forever." In 1765 Chief Glaude had claimed an area including all land
between the Restigouche and Cascapèdia, and since this claim was
officially noted in the Quebec census of 1765, perhaps the Indians
felt that this meant that the governor accepted their
claim.21
In 1780 Governor Haldimand wrote Lieutenant Governor Cox asking for
more information about the case. Haldimand felt that the Indians "must
be supported in whatever Rights or Privileges respecting their Hunting
etc. they are entitled to at Restigouche but at the same Time, by no
means to take any step by which a fair and tree Trader may be
injured."22 But everyone was too busy with the war at the
time and nothing could be done immediately.
By February 1783 the war had subsided somewhat and the Acadians took
the opportunity to petition the governor, complaining that the Indians
had become more aggressive recently. It appears that because of the war
there were no fish exporters operating on Chaleur Bay and a growing
number of Acadians had been forced to turn to hunting and agriculture,
both of which involved the use of lands claimed by the Indians. The
Acadians complained that the Micmacs prevented them from setting traps
in the woods, from cutting marsh hay which was useless to the Indians
and from salmon fishing even though there was enough for
everyone.23
Felix O'Hara, as senior magistrate of the District of Gaspé, was sent
to the Restigouche to investigate, and later reported the feelings of
the Micmacs to Haldimand.
God, and Nature, they say put them in Possession of Rustiguish,
with all the Lands, Rivers, Lakes etc. Contiguous thereto, and That Them
and theirs has Enjoy'd uninterrupted possession of the same, from Time
Immemorial. . . . I observed to the Chief that I could not see
how the Indians could be sufferers by leting the Acadiens cut the Hay on
each side of the River, as they themselves did not pretend to make use
of the same. He was not long in convincing me that in this I was
mistaken; he sagaciously pointed out that by Cutting away the Grass,
they were deprived of their lurking places, where they could creep to
their Game undiscovered. But now that it's gone Their Game has forsaken
their usual haunts, which often reduces them to extream want. They
seem'd much pleased when I gave them to understand That your Excellency
would see them done Justice to.24
In 1784 Father Bourg, missionary to the Acadians, asked Lieutenant
Governor Cox to mediate the dispute though Bourg himself felt that the
Indians were mostly to blame. His petition includes the first indication
that the Acadians were actually paying a fee to the Indians for the hay
which they cut.25 Cox arrived within ten days, met with both
groups at Tracadigash (Carleton) and imposed his own
solution.26 Cox formalized the tradition that the Acadians
should pay the Indians one dollar per year per cow to cut hay on the
Restigouche marshes. He also confirmed to the Indians the "sole &
usual right of hunting & fishing in & contiguous to the said
River Restigouche." The arrangement, which was to "remain during
pleasure," also appeared to create a buffer zone which both groups could
use for hunting. The zone had as its eastern boundary a line drawn
north-south from the Nouvelle River "to the Island called Islo"; its
western boundary would appear to have been a similar line one league to
the west. It is difficult to pinpoint on a map the island called "Islo,"
but a year later Charles Robin mentioned in his journal having lunched
"at the slots," five hours' march from Pointe de la
Mission.27
Cox's solution was committed to writing and signed by Micmac and
Acadian representatives. In communicating the document to Haldimand, Cox
made it clear that it was intended to serve as only a temporary
arrangement. He noted that "as the Accadians have increased in number,
and [are] now stronger than the Savages, they would soon have forced a
Settlement, for their common conversation is they could soon beat them
out of the Province." He emphasized that a definitive boundary line
would have to be drawn soon. The next year (1785) Judge O'Hara visited
the Indians again, reported on the tense situation and again urged an
early solution.28
It was obvious that the situation was becoming serious for it was at
this time that a third and even more aggressive group, the Loyalists,
was being introduced into this region of unsettled title. As early as
1780 the Mann family had asked for and received 2,000 acres of land on
Chaleur Bay west of the Nouvelle River, which the Indians now claimed as
their eastern limits, and west of the buffer zone Cox was to set aside
four years later. In their petition they had added that they hoped that
"when the Indians remove further from the Western boundary of the Tract,
it may be enlarged by a new grant."29
In his 1783 report on land for Loyalist settlement, Justus Sherwood
mentioned the Nouvelle River, where he found "a large body of good land,
but the Restigouche Indians claim it, as they do all the Meadows up the
Restigouche River, which are the largest and finest that I know of in
the world."30 Haldimand realised that when the Loyalists came
to Gaspé the Indian lands would be under new pressure and directed
Lieutenant Governor Cox to
consider those Indians under your protection, and not permit their
rights to be in any respect invaded, by suffering any persons to
interfere with their Salmon Fishery, or to cut Hay upon their Land,
without first obtaining their consent, and allowing them such
compensation as they shall require.31
By 1786 the Loyalists were settled on Chaleur Bay and the new
governor, Lord Dorchester, made an attempt to resolve the boundary
question definitively. He sent Cox and Deputy Surveyor General John
Collins to meet with three chiefs of the band over a period of three
days between 29 June and 1 July.
The Indians made two claims: all the land from the Nouvelle River to
the Restigouche and the exclusive right to the salmon fishery on that
river. On the third day Cox and Collins reminded the Micmacs that the
French had granted some of this land as a seigneury, but the English
king only wanted to help them so he had recently purchased the land
which "we are persuaded that his representative Sir Guy Carleton [Lord
Dorchester] . . . will give up to accommodate you." In return they hoped
the Indians would "give up a portion of your extensive claims to settle
others of his children the English & Acadians. . . . We have reason
to believe that from our representations you will receive a just
equivalent not less useful to you than what you sacrifice." In return
for renouncing their claims in the area of the Nouvelle River and Pointe
Miguasha, "an extensive tract along the Western Bank of the River
Restigouche to its source will we doubt not be assigned to you for the
purposes of the chase . . . & further that in exchange for this
trifling concession you will receive a gratuity from the British
Government more valuable to you." With respect to the Restigouche salmon
fishery, "we are well assured that [Lord Dorchester] . . . will continue
to protect you in all your ancient rights and privileges." Cox and
Collins reported that the band "consented peaceably to assign for His
Majesty the Great River Nouvelle and Point Macguache."32
Although Cox and Collins said that they came to the Restigouche to
arrange "a final settlement," it must be noted that they could never
make fixed promises for the governor and his council would have had to
approve them; nevertheless, they did give the Indians the impression
that many good things would be done for them.
None of the assurances made by the commissioners was to be
fulfilled:
(1) The truth about the seigneury was far from what Cox and Collins
claimed. In 1786 the government was only thinking about buying the
Deneau and Restigouche seigneuries and it was another ten years before
the purchase was consummated. Besides, the government at this time was
actually planning to use it as land for further Loyalist settlement, not
for Indians. Furthermore, the commissioners exaggerated the extent of
the land involved.33
(2) The "extensive tract" on the west (or south) bank of the
Restigouche River was not even in the Province of Quebec but in New
Brunswick so Cox and Collins had no authority to make such a
promise.
(3) The "valuable" gratuity was never heard of again.
(4) The protection of the Indians' "ancient rights and privileges" in
the Restigouche salmon fishery was quickly forgotten.
In any case, the arrangement appears to have been rejected by the
governor or his council. A report on the matter, written by John
Shoolbred, was read to the council on 2 March 1787. It listed numerous
reasons against granting such a large tract of land to the Micmacs
despite the fact that it acknowledged that "Messrs. Cox and Collins have
. . . given assurances to the Indians that Government here will Confirm
their Right." The basic objection was that it was foolish to grant the
territory "to a Description of Men, who do not know how to improve it."
British settlers would exploit the fisheries more efficiently and
consequently encourage trade, manufacturing and shipping. Besides, the
salmon which the Indians currently bartered to the traders were poorly
preserved and partly spoiled because they were speared rather than
netted; such fish could only be sold in the West Indies for low prices.
As well, if the Indians became too involved in the salmon fishery, the
small fur-trading production of the area would totally disappear.
Instead, the report suggested, the Indians should be given a grant in
the interior with a limited access to the river.34
Isaac Mann had already applied for some of the land and five months
after the report was read the council approved his request. The council
commented,
It is recommended that Lieut. Governor Cox be directed to
send up a statement to His Lordship of such presents as will be
necessary to extinguish the claims of the Indians to the hunting grounds
offered by them to be given up, as mentioned in a Report of Lieut.
Governor Cox and Mr. Collins's, dated the 29th of June, 1st of
July 1786.35
The council simply accepted the Indians' cession of their land
claims, ignored what Cox and Collins had "assured" them in return, and
decided to send some presents instead. There is no evidence to suggest
that the gifts ever arrived.
The Restigouche Indians apparently were not notified of this change
in policy. What happened was that land was simply granted to Loyalists
on both sides of the Indians, leaving them a small tract around their
church at Pointe de la Mission. William Vondenvelden, who surveyed the
area in November 1787, drew a line between the Micmacs and Isaac Mann,
their neighbour to the east, running north 45 degrees west, two chains
past Pointe a la Croix. A subsequent description dated 22 May 1788,
written by Vondenvelden's superior, John Collins, shows this boundary as
bearing north 12 degrees east, which was more natural for it would be
parallel to all the other boundary lines in the area, including the
eastern boundary of Mann's lot. Vondenvelden also drew the western
boundary of the Indian land parallel to north 12 degrees east, with the
result that 200 Indians were left with a triangular lot of 840 acres
"for the purposes of the chase," while the Mann family received 2,000
acres for their farm in addition to their several hundred acres near New
Carlisle. Apparently two minutes were issued by the governor's council,
one ordering a grant on the Vondenvelden lines and the other on the
Collins line. Thus the boundary remained unsettled.
The Gaspé Land Commission, which was created to adjudicate boundary
disputes in the early 1820s, ruled in favour of the Mann family and the
Vondenvelden survey. The Indians could have appealed the ruling but,
according to their missionary, did not know that they could do so. When
they did protest in the 1830s, the government again favoured the
Vondenvelden survey. The explanation given was that Collins, working in
Quebec, had simply used a line parallel to the others, while Vondenvelden,
working in the field, knew the local situation better and gave Mann
an extra portion of land which he needed for his farm. Collins, of
course, had been well acquainted with the local situation: after all, he
had been one of the agents who had met the Indians in 1786 and he had
been surveying in Gaspé since at least 1765.36
In any case, it is evident that the Micmacs of the Restigouche did
abandon their claims to the territory around the Nouvelle River and
Pointe Miguasha. They did not get the hunting grounds assured them by
Cox and Collins, nor the gratuity, nor the new lands on the New
Brunswick side of the river, nor the exclusive rights to salmon fishing
in the Restigouche. With the arrival of the Loyalists and the prevalence
of large Acadian families, the European population of the area quickly
surpassed that of the Indians and the latter became quite passive for a
generation.
It was the Acadians who disputed the large grant given to Isaac Mann.
In 1790 they sent two petitions to the governor complaining that for
many years they had been accustomed to paying the Indians an annual fee
to cut hay on this land and therefore felt that they had some claim to
it. (A copy of one rental agreement between the Indian chief and an
Acadian is in the archives of the Restigouche Indian
mission.37) In an appearance before the land committee of the
governor's council, Mann pointed out that since the Acadians paid rent
to the Indians, it was clear that they had no title to the hay marshes.
He also noted that the government had cleared all Indian claims to the
land before granting it to him. The committee accepted Mann's argument
and Mann said he would allow the Acadians to rent from him;38
however, it must be noted that Mann was in an advantageous position for
he had been a local justice of the peace since November 1788 and a
member of the land board of the District of Gaspé since March 1789. As
well, his son Isaac Junior was a judge of the local Court of Common
Pleas and another son, Thomas, was the sheriff of the entire Gaspé
district.39 In 1819 the Acadians again complained to the
governor general that Isaac Mann Junior was "all powerful in those
remote places." As a justice of the peace he imprisoned them "and with
his tyrannical Dominion" over the Indians he induced the latter to be
hostile to the Acadians.40
In 1812 Monseigneur Plessis visited the Restigouche Indian mission
and reported on the apathy of the Indians. The Europeans tricked them
out of their land, cut their hay and used their fishing grounds but they
offered no resistance. Plessis recognized Mann as "un de leurs
spoliateurs et assurément le plus subtil," but when Mann invited him to
dinner he accepted gladly for the meal was sure to better than what the
Indians had been feeding him. He reported that "la soirée se passa
fort agréablement."41 The Gaspé Land Commission
(1819-25) affirmed the 840-acre triangular lot and the matter of
native land rights on Chaleur Bay was considered settled. As Robert
Christie, a member of the commission, stated in 1826, any relief given
the Indians should not be based on legal merit but on the governor
general's pleasure or charity.42 When Governor General Lord
Dalhousie visited Gaspé in 1826, he offered the Indians £600 and
twice as much land on Lake Matapédia if they would resign their title,
but they refused to leave the land of their forefathers.43
Christie soon became actively involved in the issue for he bought the
Mann family's lands by sheriff's sale. Perhaps it was due to the
insecurity of his elected position in the legislative assembly that he
became desirous of selling some of his land to the government for the
Indians.
In the 1830s the Indians threw off their apathy and occupied 1,200 to
1,500 acres they felt they had been cheated out of by the late Isaac
Mann. Joseph Duchesnay, a government official, tried to enlist the aid
of the missionary to intercede with the Indians on behalf of the
government, but the priest was either unable or unwilling to persuade
the Indians to withdraw. Duchesnay, earlier a member of the Gaspé Land
Commission, reported that the Indians had had 12 months to appeal the
adjudication of the commission, "but they never attempted it, if they
had they could not succeed to have it reversed"; however, he felt that
it was "most desireable & necessary to their wellfare" to allot
them additional land.44
The surveyor whom the government sent to report on Christie's land
concluded that the Indians did not need all they were claiming and
evaluated only about half of it. Christie, dissatisfied with this
decision and the price per acre, called upon locals who were more
familiar with the situation for a re-evaluation which resulted in a
higher price per acre.45 He also supported the Indians' case
that they "no doubt have been neglected and have a strong claim upon
Government from the manner in which they were dealt with at the outset
of the settlement of this River."46
Christie asked two local justices of the peace, long-time residents
of the area, to help the Indians plead their case. The result was a
lengthy petition dated 21 May 1838. According to it, although the
Indians feared that their numbers were diminishing, a large number of
families were still trying to subsist on a very small plot of land. The
land produced only a few potatoes and was now stripped of all firewood
and its hunting and fishing resources were "in a manner exhausted." The
petition includes a copy of the Collins-Cox account of their conference
of 1786.47
In 1840 a government agent was sent to the bay to investigate the
needs of the Restigouche Indians. In his report he recommended they be
given a grant inland from their reserve to provide them with their fuel
requirements, that they be instructed in agriculture and be given a
school for their children. If the government had no money for a teacher,
he suggested that it be taken from the £75 annual grant paid to
the missionary who visited them only rarely.48
In 1843 the government asked A. Russell, superintendent of the Kempt
Road construction project, to look into the matter. He knew the local
Indians well, having employed them in construction work, and found them
"sober, virtuous, quiet and industrious." In his report Russell notes
that the Indians had recently shown an interest in agriculture and
suggested that the government encourage this interest by supplying seeds
and equipment; however, he made no reference to land
requirements.49
In 1845 the government approved, by order in council, the principle
of granting the Micmacs of the Restigouche "the unused Tract of Land of
Ten or Twelve Miles Square as a Reserve from which they may supply
themselves with fuel."50 Three years later the commissioner
of crown lands confirmed that such land was available.51 No
further steps had been taken by 1850, the delay possibly due to
difficulties financing a survey, so the chief of the band wrote the
governor general offering to pay for the undertaking.52 A
large grant of land in the rear of their original grant was finally
awarded the Indians in 1851 by an Act of the provincial
assembly.53 When the band again petitioned the government in
1857 for the long-disputed tract granted Isaac Mann, the government
replied that this claim had been "fairly settled by the appropriation"
of 1851,54 an admission, perhaps, that the Indians had been
right all along. A similar statement is made in the Report of the
Special Commissioners of Indian Affairs of 1858 which also notes
that the reserve was subject to "extensive encroachments" due to the
"cupidity of the neighbouring settlers."55 Although the
Indians protested the trespasses, the offences continued unchecked.
The 1858 report stated that the exact size of the 1851 addition had
not yet been settled. The original grant had been for 9,600 acres but a
few European squatters had occupied some of it. The report recommended
that the Indians be recompensed, for the squatters" rights had been
recognised and now the reserve totalled only 8,916 acres.56
The matter was further confused by a letter dated 24 April 1871 which
said that the additional grant of 1851 had totalled 9,642
acres.57 In 1913 the reserve as a whole was reported to cover
8,869 acres.58
The Salmon Fisheries
The most important dietary staple of the Micmacs of Gaspé was salmon
and, as noted earlier, the two best salmon rivers of Gaspé were the
Restigouche and the Cascapédia. Europeans were established at the mouths
of these rivers as early as the 1760s, trading for salmon and fishing
for themselves. After a few years it became evident that the salmon were
becoming depleted. An estimated 6,000 barrels of salmon were caught in
the Restigouche in 1790 but by 1823 production had fallen to 1,000
barrels. The Indians were blamed for taking salmon before they spawned,
but it was the Europeans who totally blocked some streams with nets and
later with dams built for lumber mills, which, in turn, choked the
rivers with logs, bark and sawdust.
In 1786 Cox and Collins had "assured" the Indians the exclusive right
to the salmon fishery of the Restigouche River, even though half of it
was in New Brunswick. In 1807 the government took its first legislative
steps to try to conserve the salmon resources of the area. Salmon
fishing was forbidden between 15 August and 1 December except by the
Indians for their own use, and nets and seines were prohibited above the
first rapids of both the Restigouche and Cascapédia
rivers.59
In 1824 a new Gaspé Fisheries Act imposed further restrictions. The
off season was lengthened; everyone, including the Indians, was
forbidden to fish for salmon after 1 August. The Indians were not to use
weirs to catch salmon nor to fish at night by means of torches at any
time of the year. No one was allowed to trade for or buy salmon from the
Indians at any time on any river in Gaspé.60
Although these laws were often difficult to administer, they still
proved a hardship to the Micmacs. The 1824 law was particularly so and
the government realised it. The Indians suffered the very first
summer61 and when Dalhousie visited Gaspé in 1826 he gave
them some special gifts "in consideration of their destitute state this
year, arising out of the hardships occasioned by the Act of the
Provincial Parliament, for the protection and regulation of the salmon
fisheries."62 By 1828 the Indians were in such poor straits
that they were apparently ready to rise up and drive all the European
residents from the area. Father Faucher, their priest, succeeded in
calming them with the assurance that the law would be changed the next
year.63 Faucher knew that the 1824 Act was due to expire in
1829 and, indeed, a new Act in 1829 did drop many of the restrictions
which were particularly harmful to the Indians.64 By 1839 the
legislature had enacted a new law restoring all the old restrictions and
shortening the fishing season to the period before 20 July;65
however, many of these restrictions were dropped again by the
legislature of the new United Province of Canada in 1841.66
In dealing with the Indians of the Cascapdia the government was more
straightforward; it gave them no assurances of exclusive fishing rights.
When the Indians had met with Lieutenant Governor Cox in 1784 and
claimed all the land from the Restigouche to the Nouvelle River and the
Cascapédia River as well, there were only four or five Indian families
permanently living on the Cascapédia.67 At that time Cox felt
that the Indian claim was "unreasonable" and the Cascapédia Micmacs
never gained exclusive rights to the fishery on that river; however,
their occupation of the west bank was tolerated and eventually
accepted.
By 1840 there were 18 families (71 people) reported on the
Cascapédia, cultivating 12 acres of land.68 In 1858 the
special commissioners on Indian Affairs reported "83 persons divided
among 18 families, who support themselves principally by fishing. It
would be desireable to concentrate these Stragglers in the Reserve at
Mission Point."69 The Cascapédia Indians were also accustomed
to using Ile du Cheval (Horse Isle) for maple sugaring. This island in
the Cascapédia River covered an area about equal to the present reserve.
In 1846 they complained to the superintendent of Indian Affairs that the
land commissioner had sold the island to an European. The superintendent
replied that he regretted the sale but that nothing could be done about
it now. The Indians submitted another complaint in 1896, but were told
that they had been granted land on the Cascapédia as a reserve "in
satisfaction of their claims to other lands."70 The reserve
was called Maria, taking its name from the township wherein it is
located and which was named for Maria Carleton, wife of Governor
Carleton. The reserve now covers 416 acres, its title based on Indian
occupancy "from time immemorial."71
Not occupying a strategic area, the Micmacs of Gaspé were of little
importance to the government and consequently received little attention.
The few times the Indians dealt with the government gave them every
reason to distrust it for it usually appeared to side with the European
settlers of Gaspé. Intermarriage between the Europeans and Indians did
not result in an integrated society and, indeed, relations between the
two groups before 1867 were often hostile. The Indians of Gaspé
certainly felt no affinity towards the rest of the population of Gaspé
or towards the Province of Canada and its government.
|
