THE CHARGES:
The accused
-- Did not sufficiently recognize aboriginal claims to land in B.C., believing that Governor James Douglas's system of reserves and treaties was “disproportionate to the numbers or requirements of Indian Tribes”, and that “good arable and grazing land” was being wasted.
-- Held the opinion that most of the aboriginal people he had met were “lazy”.
-- Kept sentimental ties to Great Britain, its culture and values.
-- Was friendly with other prominent professionals and landowners in the colonies of Vancouver Island and BC
-- Lived a gracious “colonial” and “privileged” lifestyle.
-- Schemed with Governor Musgrave in 1869 get BC into the Canadian Confederation.
-- Supported the Government of Canada's cross-Canada railway project.
-- Transferred lands to the federal government as an enabler of Canadian Pacific Railway in 1880, in a manner resulting from the fact that aboriginal tribes did not have Land Title Offices.
--
Doubted the likely success of James Douglas's policy of
“assimilation” of aboriginal people – although paradoxically
James Douglas is now himself judged guilty for promoting
assimilation.
In
retribution against Lieutenant-Governor Trutch, his views and career,
the Crown asks the Court to change the name of the street named after
him.
DEFENCE COUNSEL'S RESPONSE:
1 Mr. Trutch's enabling of both railways and land-transference amounted to a social good. Today, climate change activists support railways and oppose cars. Ironically, Trutch oversaw completion of the E & N Railway, now the darling of Vancouver Islanders who long for alternatives to car travel.
2 Privacy (from whence also the word and the concept of “privilege”) is not an illegal commodity.
3 Wealth is not an illegal commodity. (The Defence asks: Is this trial about wealth-envy, as bodied forth in land ownership?)
4 As an engineer and surveyor (before later political appointments) the accused favoured values around hard work, and laziness was an evil in his view. (Is it possible that some aboriginal individuals he met were lazy? How can we know now? It is beyond the ability of the Court to judge how many of the people known to Mr. Trutch might have been lazy.)
5 The Court is obliged to respect freedom of opinion. It was the opinion of the accused that “I am satisfied from my own observation that the claims of Indians over tracts of land, on which they assume to exercise ownership, but of which they make no real use, operate very materially to prevent settlement and cultivation.” Are freedom of opinion, observation and speech what's on trial here?
6 Mr. Trutch's wealth rested on effort and ability. It is the opinion of his defenders that his accusers are engaged in slander and character assassination.
7 The career of the accused has benefited the public, who have
inherited the resources, opportunities and civil freedoms provided in early British Columbia: for instance, the Canadian Pacific Railway,
completed in 1885, the E&N Railway and the Esquimalt Graving Dock
-- an enduring source of employment and positive legacy for energetic
tradespeople of any and all races.
THE JUDGE'S RULING:
Mr. Trutch is guilty of being “controversial”. He stands accused and of necessity is convicted of being a colonial official in a then-colony, and afterwards an official in the new province of BC within the Confederation of Canada. He was a product of and shaper of his time.
In
1906 when the Trutch family property (named “Fairfield”) was
subdivided, Trutch Street was named after Mr. (by then Sir Joseph)
Trutch. The district of Fairfield, plus Fairfield Road were named
after the property. It is the Court's finding that changing the name
“Trutch Street” would logically mean also banning “Fairfield
Road” and would lead to the banning of the names of a great many
roads in BC's capital, such as Gonzales, McNeill, Wark, Douglas,
Blanshard, Quadra, Cook, Vancouver, Pemberton ... all named for early
explorers and colonial province-builders.
The Court finds that nothing it says today can change the fact of a Fairfield estate having existed, a life-style having existed, and a parliamentary democracy having emerged from a British colony due partly to the exertions of Lieutenant-Governor Trutch and his colleagues.
It
is the finding of the Court that there is no public benefit in
denying the history of a heritage neighbourhood as recognized in
street names, or denying the historic transformation of a
jurisdiction from a primitocracy to a democracy to a victimocracy over a space of 170 years
SENTENCE: SUSPENDED.
