Journal of Historical Geography, 21, 4 (1995) 413429

Crown, corporation and church: the role of institutions in the stability of pioneer settlements in the Canadian West, 18701914
John C. Lehr and Yossi Katz

The agricultural settlement of western Canada took place within the framework of a complex socio-economic system produced by Canadian national institutions: the Crown, corporations and churches. The interaction of these Canadian institutions with institutions introduced to western Canada by immigrants played an important role in determining the long-term stability of immigrant rural communities. Whether an immigrant group achieved long-term stability or suered social disintegration depended on the degree to which immigrant and host institutions were congruent or dissonant. The interaction of social and economic institutions is examined through the settlement experiences of ve diverse groups that settled in western Canada before 1914: the Mennonites, Doukhobors, Jews, Mormons and Ukrainians. 1995 Academic Press Limited

The popular image of the pioneer settler on the agricultural frontier of western Canada is often that of a rugged individual tackling the wilderness on his own terms, free of the ties that bound the lives of people in the towns and cities of the urbanized east. This is a heroic image, but one that is false on a number of counts. Across much of the Canadian West it was familiesmen, women, and childrenthat hacked homesteads out of the bush country or cut them from the prairie sod. They seldom did this in isolation for they usually sought out the social comfort of their fellows, friends, family, or those of similar origin. More importantly, settlers operated within the framework of a complex socio-economic system of which they may only have been dimly aware, at least in the early years of settlement. This framework was the product of national institutions: the Crown, corporations and churches and their interaction with the economic, social, and religious institutions brought to the western frontier by the settlers themselves. In general the historiography of western Canadian settlement does not draw attention to the role of institutions and especially to their interaction at all levels in the settlement process. Nevertheless there are some exceptions. In the Canadian Frontiers of Settlement series written in the 1930s the place of social institutions in pioneer life was described by Dawson, Dawson and Young, and Murchie.[1] Specic institutions were also examined by Martin as part of the Canadian Frontiers of Settlement series when he described the system of land disposition in western Canada.[2] Richtik has further examined policies which framed land tenure in the early years of settlement.[3] More recently Holdsworth
03057488/95/040413+17 $12.00/0 413 1995 Academic Press Limited

414

J. C. LEHR AND Y. KATZ

and Everitt have focused attention on the role of commercial enterprises in shaping the townscapes of the West, and Dick in his portrayal of the social and economic development of settlers in the Abernethy district of Saskatchewan describes the transfer of Ontario institutions to the frontier.[4] Loewens examination of the migration of the Mennonite Kleine Gemeinde community to Manitoba and Nebraska stresses the role of Mennonite and North American institutions in the settlement process.[5] In general the eects of the interaction between the settlers and the range of social institutions which they encountered have been implicit rather than explicit. This may be because historians have tended to focus upon the institutions themselves whereas geographers have emphasized the creation of cultural landscapes, the farm, and the patterns of human settlements or economic activity.[6] Geographers have also focused on the decision-making process of settlers in their selection of particular localities or land types and have emphasized the migration process and importance of intragroup or family relationships in determining settlement behaviours and settlement morphology.[7] The neglect of a full consideration of the nature of the interaction between institutions, and between the institutions and the pioneer farmers on the western Canadian frontier, has hindered a full understanding of the complexity of the settlement process and the evolution of economy and society after the passing of the frontier. Studies of the ranching frontier in western Canada have demonstrated the need to consider the regional, national and even international inter-relationships between the western rancher and the institutions and markets which determined the course of the ranching industry in the west.[8] Nevertheless, this approach has not yet penetrated into scholarship dealing with the Canadian frontier of agricultural settlement. Moreover, for some issues in frontier settlement a full appreciation of the realities of the situation can only be achieved through the adoption of a holistic approach which takes account of the interaction of institutions within and between levels and the relationship of those institutions to settlers on the frontier. One such issue, which will be the focus of this paper, is the question of why certain groups appeared to be stable in settlement, remaining on the land on a long-term basis, while other groups either abandoned the land within a short time of initial occupation, or were never able to achieve viable stable communities, eventually being forced to admit defeat as their communities became subject to the forces of attrition. It is easy, for example, to ascribe failure or success in settlement to purely deterministic factors, that is, to blame the failure of a group to retain a presence on the land on bad harvests, poor soil or the general vagaries of the prairie climate. This paper seeks to provide a dierent explanation of settlement failure. It argues that an appreciation of the relationship between the various national institutions involved in the processes of settlement and community development and the less powerful institutions of the immigrant communities themselves, is vital to a full understanding of the nature of settlement and the determination of its success or failure. It contends that whether a group managed to achieve long-term stability or suered social disintegration may be taken as a measure to which the social, economic and religious aims of institutions maintained by the immigrant groups were either dissonant or congruent with the aims of the institutions of the host, or mainstream, society. In other words, social as well as economic power is seen as a crucial factor governing the colonization process of the West and determining the nature of the community structures which emerged in the early years of settlement. After a brief examination of the role of the Crown and some of the principal institutions which aected the settlement process, the ideas presented here are illustrated

CANADIAN WEST, 18701914

415

Figure 1. Areas of western Canada settled by Mennonites, Mormons [Latter-day Saints], Ukrainians, Doukhobors, and Jews before 1914. (Modied from Carlyle, Lehr, and Mills, Plate 17 in Donald Kerr and Deryck W. Holdsworth (Eds), Historical atlas of Canada, Vol. III (Toronto 1990))

with reference to the settlement experiences of ve diverse ethnic groups: Mennonites, Doukhobors, Jews, Mormons and Ukrainians (Figure 1).

The Crown as a frontier institution: lands and ideology

The European settlement of the agricultural lands of western Canada between 18701914 took place within a framework in general dened by the major institutions of British society: the Crown, corporations and church. Each dened a part of the settlement milieu to which all incoming settlers had to adjust. For the foreign non-British or non-English speaking settlers, this settlement milieu was radically dierent from the homeland environment in its geographic framework, economic circumstances and social settings. The Dominion Lands Act of 1872 and its subsequent versions guided the settlement process. It set the size of homesteads, set the pattern of road communications, determined the distribution of farms and made village settlement virtually impossible.[9] As the land was vested in the Crown its disposition was the responsibility of the Federal government not local authorities, hence the administration of the settlement process was directly controlled by the Federal government through its Ottawa bureaucracy. Responsibility for the administration of immigration and settlement fell, at various times, under the jurisdiction of dierent Federal ministriesAgriculture, Immigration, and the Department of the Interior. Their policies determined which settlers were preferred as immigrants, the concessions they received, and what aid, if any, was rendered. The actions of Crown agents in the west eectively helped to create a new social geography as they channelled immigrants into new areas and strove to inject a measure of order into the rather chaotic process of land settlement by thousands of homesteaders.[10] The Dominion Lands Act mandated a highly dispersed, low density settlement pattern across the West. With the exception of some comparatively small areas

416

J. C. LEHR AND Y. KATZ

along the Red, Assiniboine and North Saskatchewan Rivers, already surveyed as river lots for the Selkirk settlers and Metis, all prairie lands were divided using the sectional survey.[11] Any settler over 21 years of age was eligible to obtain a 160 acre homestead for an administration fee of $10.00. Each settler had to reside on the homestead for at least 6 months a year for 3 years and full cultivation and other duties to demonstrate that they were a bona de agricultural settler. When Canadian citizenship was obtained, full patent to the land was granted.[12] Thousands of settlers from Europe, the United States and eastern Canada took land under this system. Some purchased land from the CPR, colonization companies, or earlier settlers, but for most there was little incentive to do so as free land was the lure which brought them to western Canada.[13] Most settlers were economically motivated, pulled into the west by an opportunity for economic betterment. Poor social conditions in their homeland may have pushed them to emigrate but most settlers were pulled rather than pushed into Canada. There were exceptions, and the Mennonites, Jews, Doukhobors and, until 1890, the Mormons, were all refugees from social harassment and religious persecution.[14] Settlement on the prairies was directly administered by the eld ocials of the Department of the Interior who attempted to achieve an orderly occupation of the land. So long as the land had been surveyed, the railways had selected their lands and the area declared to be open for settlement, any settler had the legal right to choose land wherever he wished. The government had no legal right to direct settlers into specic locations although it attempted to channel them towards specic areas.[15] Nevertheless, because chain migration predominated, most independent immigrants who did not arrive as a part of any organized group, sought out the company of kinsfolk, or those of like origin, and created a distinctive ethnic geography across the West.[16] It was a confused pattern. There was much intermixing but general trends became apparent. Mennonites settled in two areas east and west of the Red River in southern Manitoba. Icelanders were found on the banks of Lake Winnipeg and in southwestern Manitoba, Doukhobors in east central Saskatchewan, and Ukrainians settled in blocs lying in a broad arc from Winnipeg to Edmonton. Mormons settled in southwestern Alberta, Hungarians in southern Saskatchewan, Belgians in southern Manitoba, Finns near Red Deer in Alberta, and Jews were scattered across the prairies in small colonies. British and Ontario British, who constituted the majority, were found over most of the settled area.[17] It was not only in the initial stage of settlement that immigrants operated within a world where government action determined their behaviour. Through its economic policy and the setting of taris the government aected markets, commodity prices and the availability of imported goods, and shaped the social and economic geography of the west. The social milieu became as much a product of British imperial thought as a reection of immigrant backgrounds. The Crown determined school curricula and the nature of the education system. The values promulgated in the classroom were those of monarchist Britain and the English Church. Assimilation went hand in hand with educationthe function of one was synonymous with the other.[18] Schools were supported by the Federal government which reserved two sections of every township to be sold, leased or rented so as to raise revenue for the building and maintenance of schools.[19] Again the costs were borne by the settler as the removal of land from homestead settlement eectively lessened the density of the emerging frontier communities.

CANADIAN WEST, 18701914

417

The corporation as a frontier institution: economic frameworks

Second only to the Crown as an institution in setting the parameters of settlement and pioneer society was the corporation. From the outset of European exploration the western interior of Canada was a corporate frontier. The economics of the fur trade and competition between the Northwest and Hudsons Bay companies aected the social and economic structure of the west long before it was opened to European settlement in 1870. As compensation for ceding the huge territory of Ruperts Land to Canada, the Dominion gave the Hudsons Bay Company one-twentieth of the fertile belt of the prairies, over 6.6 million acres of land in the fertile belt, removing one and three quarter sections of land in each township from homestead settlement.[20] Although the Hudsons Bay company attempted to survey and establish a number of town sites across the west it had little success. The Canadian Pacic and other railway companies were far more powerful in determining settlement locations.[21] The fate of established settlements depended on the routings of lines, and the placement of grain loading points. Railway companies were major landowners on the prairies. As payment for building trackage in Ontario, British Columbia and the Prairies, the CPR received 25,000,000 acres of land in the prairies.[22] As the government granted these lands in a checkerboard fashion, giving all available odd numbered sections in a township, the impact upon settlement was dramatic. In a township where the railways had selected lands only 65 of 148 quarters remained open for homestead settlement. For more than a decade the impact of railway land selection was heightened by the railways reluctance to select their lands. Simply having the right to select lands in districts not yet settled was nancially more advantageous than having title to specic lands upon which they had to pay taxes. Only after Cliord Sifton became Minister of the Interior in 1897 were they forced to select lands.[23] Other corporations also played signicant roles in the settlement process. The role of banks has not yet been evaluated but their inuence was clearly crucial in regulating the supply of capital to both individuals and organized groups, and determining the nancing of improvements on farmsteads. For settlers who homesteaded land, the bank was not likely to be a source of capital as homesteads could not be mortgaged until patented. For the independent settler who had no aliation to any sponsoring ethnic, religious or philanthropic institution, the bank was the only source of capital for improvement.[24] At rst many poorer immigrants had to raise capital for homestead development by working in mines, lumber camps, and on railway section gangs across the prairies, in British Columbia, and Ontario. Availability of o-farm work was considered by Colonization Ocers when choosing new districts for settlement.[25] Thus, even settlers with no apparent connection to any corporation, were thoroughly bound to a corporate frontier. Railway companies shipped in necessities and hauled out the surplus and provided one of the most signicant avenues for generation of capital by o-farm work. In 1898, 97 of 179 Ukrainian settlers in the Beaver Hills district of Saskatchewan were listed as working o their farm, as agricultural labourers, railway workers or miners. Thirty-six families also had children working out as domestic servants and farm hands.[26] Settlers of all nationalities relied on o-farm work. Doukhobors, for example, hired on with CPR section crews, seemingly as entire gangs; Icelandic and Jewish settlers in Manitobas Interlake worked out on lumbering operations, while Mormons in southern Alberta laboured on Church sponsored irrigation projects to generate capital.[27] Even

418

J. C. LEHR AND Y. KATZ

settlers who were able to enter immediately into grain production had an unbalanced relationship with grain companies which had a virtual monopoly on the purchase and shipment of grain.[28] Resentment at this one-sided relationship led eventually to the formation of farmer grain co-operatives and the creation of the provincial wheat pools.

Religious institutions: religious infrastructure

Almost every settler who came into the Canadian West had some aliation, even if only nominally, with a religious institution of some type. Most were Christian. Less than 3000 Jews took up land before 1915, and although Taoist Chinese were found in the urban areas of Western Canada, they did not take up land.[29] Usually religion correlated with ethnicity: French and Polish were Catholic, Icelanders were Protestant, Germans were Lutheran or Catholic and Ukrainians were Greek Catholic [Uniate] if from Galicia or Russian Orthodox if from Bukovyna. Other groups were essentially ethno-religious, where it was dicult to separate religion from ethnicity, as with the Mennonites, Jews, Doukhobors, Mormons and, later, the Hutterites. Religion played a vital role in pioneer society. For the Mennonites, Jews, and Ukrainians, who had no political state as a homeland, religious institutions functioned as the guardians of ethnic identity, setting social boundaries and preserving culture, language and faith. The role of the religious institutions of the English-speaking settlers was quite dierent. Canadian churches fullled a spiritual role and provided the social networks which bound the community together, but they had a role beyond the connes of their own congregation. Three denominations, the Methodists, Presbyterians, and Baptists, relishing their newly acquired status as national institutions, accepted the responsibility of Christianizing in Canadas newest region and assimilating its foreign citizens. They were concerned in part by the needs of the immigrants, but they were also motivated by a concern for the fate of the nation.[30] To Canadian eyes the churches of the Eastern European immigrantsthe GreekCatholic and Greek-Orthodox churches, fostered idolatry, servility, and superstition. Other settlers came under the inuence of the Roman Catholic Church which the Protestant majority saw as long on ceremony and hierarchy, short on free thought and inter-faith co-operation.[31] Anglo-Canadianand to a lesser degree French-Canadianpenetration of immigrant societies was achieved by establishing medical missions, schools, student residencies and settlement houses, which exposed the foreign settler to the social ideology, religious beliefs and patterns of worship of the proselyting church, in the case of the Catholics, as well as the host society in the case of the Protestants.[32] These missions undoubtedly saw their aim as primarily philanthropic, but for the Protestants inculcation of British imperialist values was also an objective. Protestantism was viewed, and portrayed, as modern, progressive and enlightened and, above all, as patriotic and Canadian. The immigrant religions were seen as bastions of superstition and ignorance, espousing anti-democratic ideals and being of questionable loyalty to the governing British institutions.[33] Not surprisingly the social and political inuence of religious institutions in the West reected the degree to which they espoused the social and political creed of the Canadian and British governments. The Mormon Church had little diculty in gaining acceptance as a bona de responsible religious institution, despite the fact that most of the early Mormon settlers in the west were polygamists seeking refuge from prosecution by the United States government.[34] In contrast, the Ukrainian churches, both Greek Catholic

CANADIAN WEST, 18701914

419

and Greek Orthodox, were scarcely regarded as legitimate Christian institutions by many Canadian protestants. They feared that the ecclesiastical machinery of the so called foreign [Ukrainian] churches is harnessed for the task of maintaining the[ir] national characteristics and racial unity . . . in western Canada.[35] Far less threatening were the Mormons, who were American, British, or at least of northwest European stock, English-speaking, closely aliated to Protestantism and regarded as an industrious progressive people tting easily into Canadian society. The degree of congruency in the social and political objectives of religious institutions was crucial in determining the social, if not political, progress of an ethnic group. The relationship between settlers and the government was often a reection of eectiveness of the advocacy role played by the immigrants secular and religious institutions.

Understanding stability: settlers and institutional relationships

Not all settlers achieved the same success in their ability to maintain a long-term presence in the areas which they settled. There was a striking contrast in the settlement stability of the Mormons and the Jews but other groups showed dierences in their ability to establish and maintain social cohesion and a long-term presence in the locality of their rst settlement.[36] This bore little relationship to the length of time that individual settlers stayed on their homestead. Settlers belonging to ethnic groups whose settlements are regarded as stable did not necessarily remain on their homestead for long after patent to the land was granted. For example, less than half of Ukrainian families who settled in the Stuartburn district of Manitoba before 1901 were still on the same quarter in 1923.[37] Despite its uidity, this settlement can be considered stable as those Ukrainians who moved had their land taken up by other Ukrainians, and almost all who moved remained within the district, thus maintaining a constant presence and community identity. Whether groups achieved long-term group stability or underwent social dissolution was largely dependent upon the extent to which its own institutions were congruent with those of the institutions of the host or mainstream society. Although it is impractical to examine the relationships between the various institutions and every ethnic group which settled in the west, the basic hypothesis that the ability of each group to chart its own course in settlement and to achieve its socio-economic objectives was dependent upon its ability to negotiate from a position of relative equality may be illustrated by use of selected examples: Mennonites, Doukhobors, Mormons, Jews, and Ukrainians.

Mennonites
In 1873 a delegation of Mennonites from Czarist Russia approached the United States and Canadian governments enquiring about the potential for settlement in their respective countries. They were able to extract from the Canadian government a number of concessions as inducements to settle in western Canada: a block of land set aside for their exclusive settlement, a block, furthermore, in which the railways would not be able to select lands. They were also granted exemption from the requirement of the Dominion Lands Act that each settler full the residency requirement for a homestead. In order that the Mennonites could replicate their village form of settlement they were granted the hamlet clause which allowed them to full their homestead duties without actually living on, or cultivating, a specic quarter section.[38] On the other hand the government refused to allow the Mennonites to hold land in common. After patent

420

J. C. LEHR AND Y. KATZ

was granted each settler held title to a specic quarter-section. The government regarded subsequent land use or disposition as the aair of the Mennonites themselves. The lack of a foundation in Canadian law for the traditional Mennonite system of agriculture and settlement ultimately proved to be antithetical to its survival, as it denied the church power in matters of land tenure. At rst the Mennonites voluntarily established farm villages as they had in Russia. Land was pooled and worked in open elds, each settler having a number of strips (kagel) scattered throughout each eld (gewann). Stock was herded in common. This system proved to be ideal for settlement on the prairie grasslands west of the Red River but was soon perceived by some of the more progressive Mennonite farmers to be inecient and restrictive.[39] If a farmer wished to break from the open eld system and to maximize economic benets by cultivating his or her own homestead as a single contiguous unit, he or she could legally do so. The removal of one portion of the open eld system meant the complete realignment of the village land-holdings, and often, the fragmentation of the village as other farmers also moved out on to their individual homesteads. Thus, because of the cohesiveness of their institutions and since the Canadian government in 1874 was in the position of a supplicant, anxious to obtain immigrants of proven ability, the Mennonites were able to obtain special privileges in the form of land reserves. The government was therefore prepared to negotiate with the Mennonites on something approaching a condition of parity. Nevertheless, the Mennonites failure to induce the government to remove completely all the restrictions of the Dominion Lands Act was fatal to their intention of replicating their traditional society in the west. As the Mennonites had transplanted an internal hierarchy of well-to-do temporal leaders and rmly established church elders, which oversaw the adaptations that community institutions had to make in new environments their social structures were able to overcome the restrictions placed on their physical organization.[40]

Doukhobors
Doukhobors also succeeded in obtaining special privileges in settlement. They were able to do this not because of their social cohesion but because their plight as a persecuted group in Czarist Russia had attracted world-wide attention and their cause was adopted by the inuential writer, Count Leo Tolstoi, and the Society of Friends (the Quakers) of America. The Doukhobors were a protestant group from southern Russia who had established a communistic society based on an internalized church and lands worked communally. Persecuted by the Czarist authorities for their refusal to serve in the Russian army or to embrace the Russian Orthodox Church they sought emigration as a solution to their problems.[41] The Quakers and Tolstoi, moved by the Doukhobors suering under Russian persecution, took up their cause. In negotiations with Cliord Sifton, the Canadian Minister of the Interior, they vouched for them as protestant Christians, good farmers, prepared to be loyal to the British Crown, who would constitute a most desirable class of immigrants. Sifton was anxious to attract agricultural settlers and granted them special privileges, similar to those earlier given to Mennonites: reserves of land for group settlement, exemption from military service on grounds of conscience, and application of the hamlet clause allowing settlement in villages. From January until June 1899, 7400 Doukhobors arrived in Canada, destined for three blocs of land reserved for them in Saskatchewan. There they established 63 strassendorf villages, 19 in the North Reserve, 33 on the South Reserve and 11 on the Prince Albert Reserve. On the North and South Reserves especially, communal life was

CANADIAN WEST, 18701914

421

practised. Land was worked in common, and village activity was founded on communal barns and storage houses.[42] The Doukhobors were not ineectual farmers. The decline of their villages occurred when their own ideals and institutionthe communal villagecame into conict with the regulations of the Dominion Lands Act and the Department of the Interior. In rejecting the concept of land ownership, refusing to pay for homestead entry or to swear allegiance to the Crown, and insisting on fullling their homestead duties communally by cultivating only the ground immediately around the village, not on their specic homesteads, the Doukhobors set the stage for a major institutional clash. It was one they could not hope to win. Anti-Doukhobor sentiment ran high in Anglophone western Canada. Other settlers resented what the special privileges given to Doukhobors, saw untilled Doukhobor lands as vacant and demanded they be opened to settlement. When Frank Oliver replaced Cliord Sifton as Minister of the Interior in 1905, Doukhobors were given an ultimatum: perform cultivation duties on each individual quarter section or entry for uncultivated homesteads would be cancelled. Even Emily Murphy, a fairly sympathetic observer who extolled the virtues of the Doukhobor system, thought that The Government is wholly justied. . . . It is neither wise nor fair to leave a large area of the country fallow and unproductive while other people need it.[43] Nevertheless, Murphy recognized the consequences of institutional homogeny for the Doukhobors: Their beautiful ideals will be whittled down by the jack-knife of all-pervading expediency. Their little Arcadias will be broken up. . . . The pity of it![44] On 1 May 1907, 1386 Doukhobor entries were cancelled, although the Doukhobors were granted all homesteads within a 3 mile radius of each village, and 15 acres were given to each family with a cancelled entry.[45] Peter Verigin, the Doukhobor leader, realized that his communitys dream of communal life could never be realized within the institutional framework established by the Canadian government. He led his followers to British Columbia, where they were able to establish their own society on blocs of land purchased privately. There, they became free of the immediate problem of conict with Canadian institutions.

Jews
Unlike the Doukhobors and Mennonites, Jewish settlers who settled in western Canada from 1882 onwards were not socially cohesive as a group. They possessed a common religion and left Europe for much the same reasonanti-semitic harassment and a poor economic situation there. Like other immigrants they were pulled to western Canada (as they were pulled to the U.S.A. and Latin America) by the assumption of an improved social milieu and better economic prospects. Although Jewish agricultural immigrants entered Canada as groups, they did not receive any special privileges from the government, and they settled as did the majority of settlers, as individuals subject to all the provisions of the Dominion Lands Act.[46] The Jews were aided in their settlement by a number of North American and international Jewish philanthropic organizations: the Mansion House Committee of London, England, the Jewish Agricultural and Industrial Society of New York, the Montreal Young Hebrew Mens Benevolent Association, and the Paris-based international Jewish aid associationthe Jewish Colonization Association (JCA).[47] Despite this seeming plethora of organizations representing Jewish interests, the Jews never succeeded in coordinating their eorts, and never possessed a unied institution to negotiate on their behalf.

422

J. C. LEHR AND Y. KATZ

The Jewish Colonization Association failed to represent eectively Jewish interests in settlement. Its eorts on behalf of Jewslargely in terms of providing nancial assistancewere dispersed across numerous widely scattered small settlements in the three provinces. As an international Jewish agency its focus was not only on Canada as its mandate was to aid Jews wherever they were attempting to settle the land, in South America, eastern Europe, Palestine or Canada. As a secular organization the JCA never appreciated the importance of nucleated settlement for the survival of Jewish religious life. Its strategy in Canada, as in Argentina, was to render economic assistance rather than to acquire land in blocs to facilitate the creation of the nucleated settlement which would foster Jewish community growth and permit the establishment of social and religious institutions.[48] Without village settlement it was virtually impossible to practise religious observance which required the assembly of a quorum of 10 adult males for worship, the presence of a rabbi, a ritual slaughterer (shohet), and the maintenance of ritual baths (miqveh). It was dicult to establish parochial schools to teach Yiddish or Hebrew without a sizable and concentrated Jewish population to attend and nance them. Similarly, it was dicult to maintain marriage within the faith without a community of sucient size to oer a selection of marriage partners of the same belief. In short, without nucleated settlement Jewish community life was, and still is, impossible. As it failed to appreciate this the JCA did not eectively advocate the Jewish cause in its dealings with the Canadian government, for it is clear that the government was not disposed to oer voluntarily special concessions to any immigrants.[49] The very nature of the charitable Jewish institutions which became engaged in the administration of aid provided to Jewish settlers in the prairie colonies may have played a critical role in determining the success of Jewish settlement. Sussman argues that Jewish philanthropic organizations such as the Young Mens Hebrew Benevolent Society of Montreal which directed aid to the Hersch colony in Saskatchewan, had embraced Victorian concepts of welfare so that the traditional forms of Zedakah [charity rendered according to need] was replaced with scientic charity or the principle of the less relief the better.[50] In the view of the Jewish philanthropic agencies in North America the colonies were seen as short-term relief projects to be helped as briey as possible at the lowest possible cost. Consequently, Jewish institutions were authoritarian in their dealings with the colonists. By their superior attitude and their parsimonious distribution of doles they created a dependency class unable to succeed on the agricultural frontier. Even though Jewish settlers in some colonies established a range of local institutions to enrich their lives, these could never compensate for the fundamental inadequacies of Jewish life in a settlement framework serving the interests of the government rather than those of the Jewish settler. This dissonance between the requirements of Jewish religious observance and the legal framework of settlement established by the Canadian government did not result in any immediate and controversial conict as it did in the case of the Doukhobors celebrated quarrel with the government. Rather it was manifested in the gradual drift of the Jewish settlers from their farms into the larger urban centres where they could achieve their basic religious and community needs.[51]

Mormons
Like the Jews, Mormon settlers who came to Canada in 1887 were seeking a refuge from persecution. Until 1890 most were polygamists subject to prosecution in the United States.[52] Unlike the Jews whose agricultural settlements were mostly abandoned within a short time after settlement, the Mormons went on to establish a strong vibrant

CANADIAN WEST, 18701914

423

and long-standing community in southern Alberta. In terms of long-term settlement continuity, or stability as it is termed here, the Mormons were far more successful than almost all other groups of settlers, certainly more so than the Doukhobors and Jews and arguably more stable than the Mennonites. The success of the Mormons in settlement may be attributed to a number of factors. They were well led, tightly organized and, above all, they were part of, and were backed by, a wealthy and powerful socio-religious institution: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Unlike JCA the Mormon Church did not provide direct nancial aid to settlers on an individual basis. At that level it encouraged self-help from within the group. The Mormon Churchs role was far more important and eective for it functioned as an institution which was able to approach the Canadian government and major Canadian corporations and nanciers from a position of strength, and in some cases, even of equality.[53] Once polygamy has ceased to be an issue in Mormon settlement after the proclamation of the Woodru Manifesto in 1890, the Mormon Church, the Canadian government, and Canadian corporations interested in immigration and land development in southern Alberta, all shared common interests.[54] The Canadian government sought Anglophone agricultural settlers to populate the West; the railway companies sought to develop their lands in order to enhance their value and to generate trac, and the Mormon Church sought to provide land for Mormon colonists where they could establish nucleated settlements and maintain their social integrity and religious homogamy. The power of the Mormon Church in Canada was seen even before 1890. When Mormon colonists sought permission to practise polygamy legally in Canada, their delegates were received by the Minister of Justice and even Sir John A. Macdonald, the Prime Minister of the day.[55] Their request was politely denied, but it is clear that when the Canadian authorities dealt with the Mormon leaders in Canada the relationship was one between representatives of two powerful institutions. A similar relationship existed between the Mormon Church and major railway companies. In 1898 the Church entered into an agreement with the Alberta Coal and Railway Company to develop jointly a massive tract of land in Alberta for irrigation and settlement. The company undertook to provide the land, the Church undertook to provide the labour for the project. This they could do with assurance since in the event that sucient Mormons were not attracted to the project on economic grounds the church could call church members to Canada, and settle them on project lands as a mission for the church.[56] This co-operation between the Mormon church and the companies promoting irrigation meant that after 1898 most Mormon settlement in Alberta was able to take place on private lands outside the framework of the Dominion Lands Act and so the Mormons could easily establish their preferred form of settlement: the farm village. The Church continued to use its power as a nancial institution even after it concluded its co-operation with the Alberta Coal and Railway Company. In 1908 when Mormon farmers were again seeking land for homesteads in Alberta the church purchased the Cochrane Ranch, partly as a business venture, but mainly to open ranch lands to settlement by Mormon colonists.[57] Thus, the Mormons were again able to settle on a privately purchased block of land and, because of the institutional power of their church, to settle outside of the framework of the Dominion Lands Act. As Mormon settlers were an integral part of a large powerful institution they operated within a corporate frontier. Even when Mormons homesteaded under the terms of the Dominion Lands Act, the social control by the Mormon Church hierarchy was sucient to require Mormon settlers to leave their individual homesteads and to re-group in

424

J. C. LEHR AND Y. KATZ

village settlements once they had obtained full title to their land.[58] The institutional role of the Mormon Church was a crucial element in creating a process and form of settlement which guaranteed the long-term settlement stability and the dominance of the Mormon faith.

Ukrainians
Most settlers who sought land in western Canada did not come as part of a cohesive organized group of settlers. The Finns, Poles, British, Germans, Swedes, Ukrainians and many other ethnic groups immigrated as individuals, and were treated as such by the Canadian government which did not set special areas aside for their exclusive occupation nor did it give any special concessions to them in settlement. The Ukrainians, who settled on the northern fringes of the aspen-parkland country from 1891 until 1914, were such immigrants. Like most immigrants the Ukrainians were pushed out of their homeland by depressing social and economic circumstances.[59] The attraction of Canada was the promise of free land and economic opportunity. They were not united by a common religion as were the Jews, Mennonites, Doukhobors and Mormons, in fact they were divided on the basis of their adherence to Greek Catholicism or Greek Orthodoxy. This division reected patterns of belief in the two provinces from which they came: Galicia and Bukovyna. When they arrived in Canada, most Ukrainians were poor and lacked an inuential leader who could negotiate eectively with the government on their behalf. Since they came from Austrian administered territories they even lacked homeland institutions of any consequence which could eectively advocate their interests in Canada. Their two churches, both Uniate and Orthodox, had no representation in Canada in the crucial early years of settlement and when they established themselves in Ukrainian districts they dissipated their energies in vicious in-ghting, struggling for the control of Canadian-Ukrainian communities in the churches and through the ethnic press. Furthermore, even these institutions were threatened by Anglophone Protestant churches mainly the Presbyterians, Methodists and Baptistsand by the French and Polish Roman Catholics, who all saw an opportunity to proselytize among disorganized groups with poorly organized religious institutions.[60] The diculties of the Ukrainians were compounded by the fact that the objectives of their own religious institutions in Canada were generally directly contrary to those of the Canadian government and Anglophone churches which espoused the philosophy of assimilation into the mainstream of English-speaking protestant Canadian society. Naturally, Ukrainian and other immigrant churches in Canada were concerned with maintaining homeland traditions, preserving their language and protecting the faith. None of these objectives were of interest to an Anglophone population and a government whose central creed was assimilation and acculturation of the foreign settler. Paradoxically, it was the very powerlessness of Ukrainian institutions in Canada which, in the settlement eld at least, prevented serious conicts between Canadian institutions and Ukrainian immigrants. Without a strong voice to agitate for nucleated settlement or even reserves of land for exclusive settlement, Ukrainian settlers were obliged to occupy land under the usual conditions laid down by the Dominion Lands Act.[61] Even though Ukrainians did eventually settle in a number of large blocs (as did some other independent ethnic groups) this was largely because chain migration pulled Ukrainians from certain areas into specic regions and because the Crown agents

CANADIAN WEST, 18701914

425

who were responsible for settling Ukrainians in the West saw the creation of bloc settlement as administratively and politically desirable.[62] Immigrants of the same background who settled together were less dependent upon government advice and assistance in times of crisis, thus the Canadian government was prepared to acquiesce to the natural tendency of incoming Ukrainians to live together, but only because they perceived it to be in the best interests of the government.[63] Many Ukrainians would have preferred to achieve a replication of their former society, including village settlement and control of large areas of territory. This was never articulated, of course, but their actions in settlement reveal a desire to settle together as family members, within a loose socio-spatial framework whereby village, district, and regional grouping were transferred into western Canada. Neither the density of old country settlement nor nucleated village settlement could be achieved within the settlement framework determined by the Dominion Lands Act, but the ethnography of western Ukraine was reected in the prairie landscape through the eects of chain migration.[64] That Ukrainian settlement was not marked by any major conict with the institutions which bound the settlement process is attributable, therefore, not to the fact that the Ukrainian immigrants objectives were totally congruent with those of the host government, but that for dissonance to be readily apparent, there must be eective and vocal immigrant institutions able to unify their community and ready to challenge cultural incursions from the host society. In the pioneer era, Ukrainian secular and religious institutions were too fragmented and divided to do this.

Conclusion
Settlement in western Canada after 1870 took place within a framework dened by national institutions: the Crown, corporations and churches. Most obviously, the system of land survey and the requirements of the Dominion Lands Act were constant reminders of the ubiquitous role of the government. Corporations and the established Canadian churches also played major roles in the settlement of the West. Immigrant groups, themselves often institutions in their own right, also played important roles, especially when they introduced their own social institutions into the West or were assisted by their own philanthropic organizations. Pioneer settlers were soon surrounded by, and functioned within, an institutional network. Even independent settlers who lacked formal ties to any organized group were tied to the institutional fabric of the region. Relationships between the host countrys institutions and those of settlers were crucial to the process of land settlement and the creation of communities on the frontier. Institutional dissonance led to the eventual collapse of agglomerated settlement and community life in the case of the Mennonites and Doukhobors. In contrast, groups such as the Ukrainians, who at the time of their rst settlement lacked strong institutions, were unable even to begin to wrest concessions from the government. Such powerless social groups either adapted to the existing settlement framework or sought alternative options, as did the Jews who drifted into the cities. Some groups experienced institutional congruency. British and Ontario settlers moved into a socio-economic and religious milieu practically the same as the one they had left. Their churches, whether Anglican, Methodist, Congregationalist or Presbyterian, all shared the aims of the Canadian government: assimilation of the foreigners, the inculcation of British protestant values, and loyalty to the Crown. The Mormons were able to implant their distinctive settlement forms into the Canadian West only because

426

J. C. LEHR AND Y. KATZ

their church had economic power, political clout, social cohesion and common economic goals with the Canadian government. Research on the settlement of western Canada has tended to concentrate upon the most basic level of the settlement process: the process of land selection and the struggle against environmental adversity. Nevertheless, the historiography of the pioneer settlement of western Canada is now suciently developed to permit an examination of the settlement process from a more comprehensive standpoint. In this paper we have argued that analysis of institutional decision making and institutional interaction at all levelsfrom national to localin conjunction with environmental conditions, is crucial to a full understanding of the highly complex process of settlement and colonization. Just as no settler on the frontier could operate in a cultural vacuum, even the most independent did not operate in an institutional vacuum. Their actions were bound by institutional forces. This approach, furthermore, could be undertaken at the micro-level. Examination of local institutions such as school boards, farm supply co-operatives and reading associations could well oer insight into the process of community development and social formation in the post-pioneer era. Department of Geography, University of Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9, Canada Department of Geography, Bar-Ilan University, 52900, Ramat-Gan, Israel

Notes
[1] W. A. Mackintosh and W. L. G. Joerg (Eds), Canadian frontiers of settlement (Toronto 193640). See, C. A. Dawson, Group settlement: ethnic communities in western Canada Vol. 7; C. A. Dawson and E. R. Young, Pioneering in the prairie provinces Vol. 8; and R. W. Murchie, Agricultural progress on the prairie frontier Vol. 5 [2] C. Martin, Dominion Lands policy (Toronto 1934) [3] J. M. Richtik, The policy framework for settling the Canadian west Agricultural History 49 (1975) 61328 [4] D. W. Holdsworth and J. C. Everitt, Bank branches and elevators: expansion of big corporations in small prairie towns Prairie Forum 13 (1988) 17390; L. Dick, Farmers making good: the development of the Abernathy district, Saskatchewan, 18801920 (Ottawa 1989) [5] R. K. Loewen, Family, church and market: a Mennonite community in the old and new worlds, 18501930 (Toronto 1993) [6] See, for example, T. D. Regehr, The Canadian Northern: pioneer road of the northern prairies 18951918 (Toronto 1976); H. Schlictmann, Ethnic themes in geographical research on western Canada Canadian Ethnic Studies 10 (1977) 941; G. Friesen, The Canadian prairies: a history (Toronto 1984); J. W. Darlington, The Ukrainian impress on the Canadian West, in L. Y. Luciuk and S. Hryniuk (Eds), Canadas Ukrainians: negotiating an identity (Toronto 1991) 5380; J. C. Everitt, A tragic muddle and a cooperative success: an account of two elevator experiments in Manitoba 19061928 Manitoba History 18 (1989) 1224; idem, The line elevator in Saskatchewan History 44 (1992); idem, The line elevator in Alberta (part 1) Alberta History 40 (1992) 1622; and idem, The line elevator in Alberta (part 2) Alberta History 41 (1993) 2026 [7] For example, W. C. Wonders, Scandinavian homesteaders in central Alberta, in H. Palmer and D. Smith (Eds), The new provinces: Alberta and Saskatchewan 19051980 B.C. Geographical Series No. 30 (Vancouver 1980) 13171; J. C. Lehr, Kinship and society in the Ukrainian pioneer settlement of the Canadian west Canadian Geographer 29 (1985) 20719; J. M. Richtik, Chain migration among Icelandic settlers in Canada to 1891 ScandinavianCanadian Studies 2 (1986) 7388; and C. Douchant and J. M. Richtik, Belgian migration to Manitoba to 1930, in H. J. Selwood and J. C. Lehr (Eds), Reections from the prairies: geographical essays (Winnipeg 1992) 2640

CANADIAN WEST, 18701914

427

[8] S. S. Jameson, The ranching industry of western Canada: its initial epoch, 18731910 Prairie Forum 11 (1986) 22942; S. M. Evans, Canadian beef for Victorian Britain Agricultural History 53 (1979) 74862; and S. M. Evans, The origins of ranching in western Canada, in L. A. Rosenvall and S. M. Evans (Eds), Essays on the historical geography of the Canadian west: regional perspectives on the settlement process (Calgary 1987) [9] K. N. Lambrecht, The administration of Dominion Lands, 18701930 (Regina 1991); Martin, op. cit.; Richtik, Policy framework [10] J. C. Lehr, The government and the immigrant: perspectives on Ukrainian block settlement in the Canadian West Canadian Ethnic Studies 9 (1977) 4252; idem, Government coercion in the settlement of Ukrainian immigrants in western Canada Prairie Forum 8 (1983) 17994 [11] D. W. Moodie, Alberta settlement surveys Alberta Historical Review 12 (1964) 17; R. G. Ironside and E. Tomasky, Development of Victoria Settlement Alberta Historical Review 19 (1971) 209; idem, Agriculture and river lot settlement in western Canada: the case of Pakan (Victoria), Alberta Prairie Forum 1 (1976) 318 [12] Morton, op. cit. Lambrecht, op. cit. [13] J. L. Tyman, By section, township and range: studies in prairie settlement (Brandon 1972) [14] S. Belkin, Through narrow gates (Montreal 1966); H. Palmer, Land of the second chance: a history of ethnic groups in southern Alberta (Lethbridge 1972); F. H. Epp, Mennonites in Canada, 17861920 (Toronto 1974); L. A. Sulerzhitsky, To America with the Doukhobors Canadian Plains Studies 12 (Regina 1981); L. A. Rosenvall, The transfer of Mormon culture to Alberta in L. A. Rosenvall and S. M. Evans (Eds), Essays on the historical geography of the Canadian west: regional perspectives on the settlement process (Calgary 1987) 12244; L. B. Lee, The Mormons come to Canada Pacic Northwest Quarterly 18871902 59 (1968) 14 [15] Lehr, The government and the immigrant, 4252; Lehr, Government coercion in the settlement of Ukrainian immigrants, 17994 [16] A. S. Morton, History of prairie settlement, Vol. 2 in Mackintosh and Joerg, op. cit. 101; Wonders, op. cit. 13171 and Lehr, Kinship and society, 20719 [17] W. J. Carlyle, J. C. Lehr and G. E. Mills, Peopling the prairies in D. Kerr and D. W. Holdsworth (Eds), Historical Atlas of Canada III (Toronto 1990) plate 17; and Dawson, op. cit. On specic groups see E. Van Cleef, Finnish settlement in Canada Geographical Review 42 (1952) 25366; B. G. Vanderhill and D. E. Christensen, The settlement of New Iceland Annals of the Association of American Geographers 53 (1963) 35063; J. Warkentin, Mennonite agricultural settlements of southern Manitoba Geographical Review 49 (1959) 34268; idem, Manitoba settlement patterns Transactions, Historical and Scientic Society of Manitoba Series 3 (1961) 6277; C. J. Tracie, Ethnicity and the prairie environment: patterns of Old Colony Mennonite and Doukhobor settlement, in R. Allen (Ed.), Man and Nature on the Prairies Canadian Plains Studies 6 (Regina 1976) 4665; J. M. Richtik, Hungarian settlements in western Canada in the 1880s Proceedings of the Prairie Division, Canadian Association of Geographers, Sage Hill Convention Centre, Dana, Saskatchewan (Saskatoon 1992) 10317 [18] N. McDonald, Canadian nationalism and North-West schools, 18841905, in A. Chaiton and N. McDonald (Eds), Canadian schools and Canadian identity (Toronto 1977) 656. O. T. Martynowych, Canadianizing the foreigner: Presbyterian missionaries and Ukrainian immigrants in J. Rozumnyj (Ed.), New soilold roots: the Ukrainian experience in Canada (Winnipeg 1983) 3357; and idem, Ukrainians in Canada: the formative period 18911924 (Edmonton 1991) 1623. For a Ukrainian pioneer teachers perspective see W. A. Czumer, Recollections about the life of the rst Ukrainian settlers in Canada (Edmonton 1981) [19] Martin, op. cit. 10015 [20] Martin, op. cit. 5; Friesen, op. cit. 184 [21] H. J. Selwood and E. Baril, The Hudsons Bay Company and prairie town development, 18701888, in A. F. J. Artibise (Ed.), Town and city: aspects of western Canadian urban development Canadian Plains Studies 10 (Regina 1981) 6191; H. J. Selwood, The Hudsons Bay Company at Riding Mountain House (Elphinstone) in H. J. Selwood and J. C. Lehr (Eds) Prairie and northern perspectives: geographical essays (Winnipeg 1989) 7885; H. J. Selwood and J. M. Richtik, Dauphin: emergence of the urban cadastre to 1908, in John Welsted and John Everitt (Eds), Brandon geographical studies (Brandon 1991) 6978 [22] Martin, op. cit. 456 [23] D. J. Hall, Clifford Sifton: the young Napoleon 18611900 (Vancouver 1981) 1713 [24] Y. Katz and J. C. Lehr, Jewish and Mormon agricultural settlement in western Canada: a comparative analysis Canadian Geographer 35 (1991) 12842

428

J. C. LEHR AND Y. KATZ

[25] National Archives of Canada (hereafter NAC) Department of the Interior, R.G.76, vol. 109, le 21103, E. H. Taylor, 2 May 1896; vol. 144, le 34214, C. W. Speers, 10 June 1899; and vol. 238, le 141288, C. W. Speers, 13 February 1906 [26] NAC Dept. of Interior, R.G.76, vol. 178, le 60868, Report on settlement in the Beaver Hills district 1898 [27] Dawson, op. cit. 214; Vanderhill and Christenson, op. cit. 357; J. C. Lehr, The sequence of Mormon settlement in Alberta Albertan Geographer 10 (1974) 235; J. M. Richtik and D. Hutch, When Jewish settlers farmed in Manitobas Interlake area Canadian Geographical Journal 95 (1977) 325; M. Ewanchuk, Pioneer proles: Ukrainian settlers in Manitoba (Winnipeg 1981) 1689; idem, Pioneer settlers: Ukrainians in the Dauphin area 18861926 (Winnipeg 1988) 612; Richtik, Hungarian settlements in western Canada, 111 [28] Dick, op. cit. 726 [29] Schlictmann, op. cit. Y. Katz and J. C. Lehr, Jewish pioneer agricultural settlements in western Canada Journal of Cultural Geography 14 (1993) 4967 [30] V. Olender, The reaction of the Canadian Methodist church towards Ukrainian immigrants: rural missions as agents of assimilation (unpubl. M.A. thesis, University of Toronto 1976); idem, The reaction of the Canadian Presbyterian church towards Ukrainian immigrants (19001925): rural home missions as agents of assimilation (unpubl. Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto 1984); idem, The cultural implications of protestant missions, in M. R. Lupul (Ed.), Continuity and change: the cultural life of Albertas rst Ukrainians (Edmonton 1988) 22132; F. Swyripa, Nation-building into the 1920s: conicting claims on Ukrainian immigrant women, in M. R. Lupul, op. cit. 12548 [31] Friesen, op. cit. 345 [32] A. Krawchuk, Between a rock and a hard place: Francophone missionaries among Ukrainian Canadians, in Luciuk and Hryniuk, op. cit. 20617; Fr. Boniface, Pioneering in the West (memories of his life and experiences in the West with the Franciscans) (Vancouver 1957) [33] Olender, The reaction of the Canadian Presbyterian church towards Ukrainian immigrants, 11118; Martynowych, op. cit. 161 [34] J. C. Lehr, Polygamy, patrimony and prophesy: the Mormon colonization of Cardston Dialogue: a Journal of Mormon Thought 21 (1988) 11421 [35] United Church of Canada, Victoria University Archives (hereafter UCC Victoria) Methodist Church (Canada) Missionary Society fonds, Board of Home Missions, Box 26 le 2, Address of Rev. J. A. Doyle to the General Board of Missions, 18 October 1921; and Box 4 le 10, Report of Commission on Work Among Non-English Speaking People, 16 July 1917 [36] Katz and Lehr, Jewish and Mormon agricultural settlement in western Canada [37] V. J. Kaye, Dictionary of Ukrainian Canadian pioneer biography: pioneer settlement in Manitoba 18911900 (Toronto 1975) 12098 [38] Warkentin, Mennonite agricultural settlements of southern Manitoba, 344; Lambrecht, op. cit. 11215 [39] Warkentin, Mennonite agricultural settlements of southern Manitoba, 3645; Loewen, op. cit. 6991 [40] Loewen, op. cit. 91 [41] Sulerzhitsky, op. cit. [42] Dawson, op. cit. 2151; D. T. Gale and P. M. Koroscil, Doukhobor settlements: experiments in idealism Canadian Ethnic Studies 9 (1977) 5861 [43] E. Murphy, Janey Canuck in the West (Toronto 1975) 489 [44] Ibid. 49 [45] Gale and Koroscil, Doukhobor settlements, 634 [46] A. Arnold, The Jewish farm settlements of Saskatchewanfrom New Jerusalem to Edenbridge Canadian Jewish Historical Society Journal 4 (1980) 339 [47] L. Rosenberg, Canadas Jews: a social and economic study of the Jews in Canada (Montreal 1950) 207; Belkin, Through narrow gates, 4271; A. A. Chiel, The Jews in Manitoba: a social history (Toronto 1961) 43; Canadian Jewish Congress National Archives, Montreal (hereafter CJCNA) J.C.A. le 48, Jewish settlement in Canada, October 1936 [48] H. Avni, Argentinathe Promised Land (Jerusalem 1973) 198200; J. Laikin-Elkin, Goodnight sweet gaucho: a revisionist view of the Jewish agricultural experiment in Argentina American Jewish Historical Quarterly 67 (1978) 20824 [49] A. Feldman, Sonnenfeld: elements of survival and success of a Jewish farming community on the prairies, 19051939 Canadian Jewish Historical Society Journal 6 (1982) 33; T. Neufeld,

CANADIAN WEST, 18701914

429

[50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62]

[63] [64]

A study of Jewish philanthropic company colonization in Canadas North-West Territories during the late nineteenth century (unpubl. M.A. thesis, University of Saskatchewan, 1982); T. Norman, An outstretched arm: a history of the Jewish Colonization Association (London 1985) 100; Rosenberg, op. cit. 2078; CJCNA, le MBI-A-4128, Letter from J. A. Hart to JCA headquarters, Paris, 12 December 1892; le 48, letter to Norman Black, 13 March 1913; and memorandum, Jews or farmers? 1940 M. Sussman, Relief or colonization: a study of colonization attempts by the Young Mens Hebrew Benevolent Society of Montreal (18631900) (unpubl. M.S.W. thesis, Carlton University 1985) 306 Katz and Lehr, Jewish and Mormon agricultural settlement in western Canada, 13442; idem, Jewish pioneer agricultural settlements in western Canada, 604 D. G. Godfrey and B. Y. Card (Eds), The diaries of Charles Ora Card: the Canadian years 18861903 (Salt Lake City 1993) 3151 Ibid. 649 B. Champion, Mormon polygamy, parliamentary comments 188990 Alberta History 35 (1987) 1017 Godfrey and Card, op. cit. 649 Lehr, The sequence of Mormon settlement in Alberta, 24 Ibid. 24 J. C. Lehr, Mormon Settlement Morphology in Southern Alberta Albertan Geographer 8 (1972) 613 J. P. Himka, The background to emigration: Ukrainians in Galicia and Bukovyna, 18481914, in M. R. Lupul (Ed.), A heritage in transition: essays in the history of Ukrainians in Canada (Toronto 1982) 1131 Boniface, op. cit.; Olender, The reaction of the Canadian Presbyterian church towards Ukrainian immigrants, 86112; Olender, The cultural implications of Protestant missions, 2224; Martynowych, op. cit. 1669; Krawchuk, op. cit. 208 V. J. Kaye, Early Ukrainian settlements in Canada 18951900 (Toronto 1964) 45134; V. J. Kaye and F. Swyripa, Settlement and colonization, in M. R. Lupul (Ed.), A heritage in transition: essays in the history of Ukrainians in Canada (Toronto 1982) 3840 J. C. Lehr and D. W. Moodie, The polemics of pioneer settlement: perspectives on Ukrainian immigration from the Winnipeg press, 18961905 Canadian Ethnic Studies 12 (1980) 88101; J. C. Lehr, Government perceptions of Ukrainian immigrants to western Canada 18961902 Canadian Ethnic Studies 19 (1987) 112; Lehr, Kinship and society in the Ukrainian pioneer settlement of the Canadian west, 21017 Canada, Parliament, Sessional Papers 1899 Report of the Department of the Interior; NAC R.G. 76 le 34214, W. F. McCreary to J. A. Smart 13 May 1898 Lehr, Kinship and society in the Ukrainian pioneer settlement of the Canadian west, 20812