Acadie and the Acadians-by Roth, D. Luther- 1891 - these remarks concerning the people of this nationality in the settlement-class which has been swallowed up by admixture with the Native American Indians, kind of a miscegenation. Paul Laurent- Chief of the Indians on La Have, 
who was in all probability a half-breed French-Indian.
Just like my uncle who signed the 1761 treaty, he was also a French-Indian half-breed and also was the chief of the La Have Indians. You know, that was one of the treaties used in the Marshall case.
Just like my uncle who signed the 1761 treaty, he was also a French-Indian half-breed and also was the chief of the La Have Indians. You know, that was one of the treaties used in the Marshall case.
It's also interesting that another of my great grandfathers brother signed the ratified 1725 Treaty, which treaty is the one the rest all flow from. He too was a French-Indian half-breed. Mathew Mius. Canadian native law cases- - by Slattery, Brian 1980 - R V Syliboy.
Canadian native law cases- with comprehensive subject index- by Slattery, Brian 1980 - R V Syliboy, it says in 1752, that was not in reality a treaty. Cape Breton was not part of Nova Scotia, when it was signed, it belonged to the French. Must be why they switched to the treaty
in 1760/1761 that my family signed. Francis Muis - Chief of La Have - The Mi'kmaq Nation and the Embodiment of Political Ideologies - SMU website .
Francis Muis - novascotia.ca - Francis Muis for myself the Tribe of La Heve Indians of what I am chief.
Canadian native law cases- with comprehensive subject index- by Slattery, Brian 1980 - R V Syliboy3.png
my family signed. / " The treaty we are discussing was not made with the signatories alone but "with their heirs, and the heirs of their heirs forever." Which seems to me to bring that portion of it giving to one of the contracting parties the right to hunt within Woolsey's
exception. " Which if it was ratified by the Parliament before becoming effective, and would be invalid until such ratification." It is a fair inference I think that after parliament had been assembled and began to legislate, this treaty should have been ratified otherwise it
would lose it's validity. It was not very long after Parliament assumed its functions that a statute was passed which ignored the Treaty and treated it as non-existent.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
