8 Ten Years of Student Resistance at the Mohawk Institute, 1903–1913
Diana Castillo
Survivors of the Mohawk Institute speak of the importance of resiliency in helping cope with what took place inside the brick walls. Resistance and rebellion in the face of state-sponsored racism, a core part of that resilience, was often the only option available for Indigenous children at the school. The accounts described in this chapter tell of the extraordinary bravery of students at the Mohawk Institute who pushed back against school authorities and were cruelly punished for doing so. The first example occurred in 1903 when several boys between the ages of twelve and sixteen started the first of three fires that would destroy the entire structure of the Mohawk Institute. A police investigation ensued shortly after the third fire and resulted in the young boys being arrested, charged, and convicted. The boys were to serve their sentences at the Mimico Industrial School, a reformatory school known for its extreme corporal punishment, and the Kingston Penitentiary.1 Ten years later, in 1913, two sisters, Ruth and Hazel Miller, ran away from the Mohawk Institute. Upon the girls’ return, they were severely punished by the school principal. The girls were put in a small cell-like room and given minimal food and water rations for three days. Ruth was whipped with a rawhide strap thirteen times on her back. This resulted in Ruth and Hazel’s father suing the school and the principal in court a year later. After a lengthy trial filled with testimony from multiple individuals, the jury awarded Ruth and Hazel damages. This was a unique win in the Canadian legal system, both for the young girls and for Indigenous people as a whole. The case provided a stark contrast with section 141 of the 1927 amended Indian Act, which made it a punishable offence for any legal counsel to receive payment by any First Nation or band.2 As the legacy of residential schools remains in the public eye, accounts such as these remind Canadians that Indigenous children and youth often advocated on their own behalf.
Fire at the Mohawk Institute
On the night of 19 April 1903, the Mohawk Institute was set on fire. By the time the fire was extinguished, only the walls remained standing.3 The extent of the damage meant that the school had to be rebuilt a year later. The estimated cost of the new building was reported to be $30,000.4 On 25 June 1903, Frank Winney, a thirteen-year-old boy from Stony Creek, was arrested on charges connected to the fires.5 Winney pleaded guilty and implicated Roy Wilson in the burning of the barns.6 Shortly after, Wilson, Jesse Debo, Isaiah Antoine, and a fourth boy, Alexander Maracle, from Six Nations, were arrested and charged. They pleaded not guilty through their lawyer, L. F. Hyde. Consequently, all the boys were scheduled for trial.
According to newspaper reports, Isaiah Antoine and Jesse Debo helped Roy Wilson climb into the attic, where he left an old coat stuffed with wood shavings that were saturated with coal oil from a lamp.7 Wilson set fire to the bundle and placed it in the corner of the attic. The boys then returned to their dormitory and stayed there until the fire alarm sounded. There were about eighty students in the building when the fire broke out.8 Fortunately, the fire began on the west side of the building, allowing the children and staff time to escape.9 In addition to the main building and the barn, the barn of Mr. Alexander, whose farm was in “the vicinity of the Mohawk Institute,” was also destroyed. Several students testified that Antoine and Wilson set fire to Mr. Alexander’s barn “to divert suspicion from themselves.”10 They added that this information was known among the students but was kept a secret.11 Mr. Alexander filed a petition with the Indian Department and the New England Company for compensation of his losses.12 He argued that, because the students were not being properly looked after, the Mohawk Institute was liable for his damaged property and that he was owed compensation due to the Company’s negligence.13 His petition was denied.14
Trial and the Law
The boys’ trial was presided by Justice A. D. Hardy, sibling of A. S. Hardy, who had served as premier of Ontario from 1896 to 1899. Justice Hardy served the Brantford area for thirty-eight years, many of them in juvenile court. During the boys’ trial, evidence was presented by both the Crown and defence counsel to determine if the boys had committed all of the essential elements of arson. The Globe reported that the first witness was Sergeant Wallace, who stated that the young boys had confessed to him that they had burned the building.15 Additionally, the newspaper reported that various students were held as material witnesses and testified for both Crown and defence counsel.16
Without the court transcripts, it is difficult to ascertain what other evidence was presented by the Crown counsel to prove their case. The Globe, however, reported that Wilson confessed only to the first fire and implicated another student, Alexander Maracle.17 The newspaper also reported that Debo and Antoine testified that they helped Wilson climb into the attic, but that they did not know what he intended to do.18
In the end, the boys (Wilson, Winney, Debo, and Antoine) were found guilty of arson and were sentenced by Justice Hardy. Wilson was sentenced to five years at Mimico Industrial School, a reformatory school located at what is today the location of the Toronto South Detention Centre. This sentence was especially harsh given that at twelve years of age Wilson should have been exempt from criminal responsibility. Jesse Debo and Frank Winney were both sentenced to three years at the Mimico Industrial School.19 Due to his age (sixteen), Isaiah Antoine was sentenced to three years at the Kingston Penitentiary, where teenagers served their sentences alongside adult men.20 Prior to the Juvenile Delinquents Act, 1908, it was possible for children and adults to serve their sentences together.21 Alexander Maracle was let off on a suspended sentence.22
It is important to recognize that systemic racism has been prevalent in the Canadian legal system since its establishment and likely contributed to the boys’ severe sentences. Government officials also recognized that the deliberate burning down of school property was a form of protest.23 This likely meant that the severity of the boys’ sentences was also aimed at deterring other students from participating in similar acts of rebellion. This is especially concerning given that in 1875, the Canadian government passed An Act to Amend the Act Respecting Procedure in Criminal Cases and Other Matters Related to Criminal Law, which determined that juvenile offenders were to be sentenced to a reformatory for terms of no less than two years and not more than five.24 In other words, there were legal grounds for giving each of the young boys leaner sentences.
Reformation School or Jail?
The Mimico Industrial School promised to reform young boys through an education program that centred on drills, industrial training, farming, education, religion, and athletics.25 Similar to the Mohawk Institute, inmates at the Mimico Industrial School suffered from violent and capricious penalties as well as calculated psychological manipulation.26 Bryan Hogeveen has documented that punishments and penalties experienced by boys at the Mimico Industrial School exceeded what can reasonably be grouped under the notion of corporal punishment, institutional grouping, or force.27 It is likely that Wilson, Maracle, and Debo suffered this fate during their stay.
While the historical record is incomplete regarding what happened to these young boys, there is evidence that their families tried to retrieve them from the school. Jesse Debo’s father, Mathew Debo, wrote a letter to the deputy superintendent of Indian Affairs on 7 April 1906.28 This letter was written after his son had not been allowed to depart the school even though he had served his three-year sentence. Debo requested that the department use its influence and power to return his son to him. He added that his son had “been punished enough” and that he was able to look after him.29 While it is unknown if Debo and his father were reunited, there exists an internal letter from Superintendent Chester Ferrier of the Mimico Industrial School in which he confirmed that Jesse Debo had been working with a gentleman for three months.30 Mr. Ferrier added that Jesse was extremely anxious to take the position and that it would be in his best interests to allow him to continue working with the gentleman, who he was providing him with work and good wages. Mr. Ferrier added, “I think the father should not be allowed to interfere with the boy.”31
The stories of Wilson, Antoine, Maracle, and Debo are not unique. During the residential school era, children and youth deliberately set fires to schools across Canada as a form of resistance. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission indicated that at least twenty-five school fires were either suspected or proven to have been deliberately set by students.32 In the aftermath of the fires at the Mohawk Institute, Indian Affairs official Martin Benson concluded that the fires in 1903 were evidence of an underlying failure in the system.33 He would later write, “even an Indian will not set fire to buildings, destroy valuable property and endanger life from pure cussedness. There must have been some real or imaginary grievance which led some boys to commit incendiarism.”34 Despite these comments, there was more interest in punishing these children than finding the underlying cause that led them to burn down the Mohawk Institute.
The Great Escape from the “Mush Hole”
Resistance to the horrors of the Mohawk Institute did not only take the form of fires. In fact, ten years after the 1903 fire, four brave girls took legal action against their principal for his severe abuse.
Like the setting of fires, running away from the Mohawk Institute was a common occurrence. The historical record shows that children at the Institute were often fed meals without enough sustenance. In fact, the Mohawk Institute earned its nickname, the “Mush Hole,” after years where children were fed oatmeal porridge for breakfast and cornmeal porridge for supper.35 On more than one occasion, students were served spoiled food, even food with worms in it.36 This is why, on the evening of 7 August 1913, four girls decided to run away. Tired and hungry due to the lack of nutritious food at the Mohawk Institute, Ruth Miller, her sister Hazel, and their two family friends, Emma and Edith Isaac, planned their escape. Ruth, who was only thirteen, sewed clothes out of white bedsheets for the four girls so that they would not be recognized in their school uniforms out in public after their escape.37 The girls then waited until midnight to jump out of a window and then walked for three hours before reaching their home in Ohsweken. Though the girls reached home safely, their father, Chief George Miller, drove them back to the school the very next morning.38 The girls’ mother had passed away years before, and as a result, Chief Miller likely felt that he had no choice but to return the girls to the school. Chief Miller was close with his daughters, but his work hours prevented him from taking care of them full-time. Chief Miller himself had been a student at the school decades before.
Punished Like Criminals
The Mohawk Institute was known for its harsh discipline, which many students likened to the treatment of prisoners.39 On the girls’ return, Principal A. Nelles Ashton ordered that Ruth be whipped with rawhide on her bare back thirteen times. After that punishment, she was placed in a small cell, three feet by six feet, for a minimum of twenty-four hours.40 The Brantford Expositor subsequently reported on Ruth’s testimony at trial: “There was no light, no bed, and no chair. In this, she remained for three days, getting bread and water on Sunday. Her hair was cut off on Monday. She was put on the blacklist, having to walk in a ring in place of playing and not allowed to talk to the other girls.”41 The rest of the girls who had run away were put in a small room and were given minimal food and water rations for three days. To make matters worse, all the girls’ hair was cut short to humiliate them.42
The punishment the girls received was so severe that, upon telling their parents, Chief George Miller and Jefferson D. Isaac made a complaint to the Six Nations Council (SNC). Concerned about the welfare of Indigenous children at the Mohawk Institute, the SNC asked the New England Company to hold an impartial investigation into the matter.43 Principal Ashton expelled Ruth and Hazel from the school in response to the request for an investigation. The SNC sent a letter to Education Superintendent Duncan Campbell Scott requesting a reason for the girls’ dismissal.44 It would take more than four months for the girls and the SNC to receive an answer.
An Informal Investigation of the Mohawk Institute
While the girls’ punishment was severe, their resistance led to an informal investigation of the Mohawk Institute by Deputy Superintendent General Duncan Campbell Scott. Scott reported that the children were given separated milk, that there had once been worms in their oatmeal, and that they were often served boiled meat. With respect to discipline, Scott found that the rules regarding disciplinary action were antiquated, but he said a formal investigation was not warranted and that there was a lengthy waiting list of eighty parents who sought to send their children to the Mohawk Institute and who were waiting due to a lack of vacancies.45
The Trial
Following a long wait and no response from the government or the Mohawk Institute regarding their claim, the families pursued legal action against Principal Ashton. Ruth, Hazel, and Chief Miller sued Principal Ashton for $5,000, alleging several forms of mistreatment.46 They filed a civil suit, which was heard on 1 April 1914 at the High Court of Brantford.
The trial lasted for twelve hours, ending at one in the morning. The court heard testimony from all the parties, including Principal Ashton, the four girls, Chief Miller, and other staff and students. Ruth and Hazel gave clear testimony demonstrating the school’s abuse of power and maltreatment of the students.47 Justice Hugh Thomas Kelly, who presided over the case, noted that, “someone should receive praise for the brightness shown by the school children giving their evidence.”48 Justice Kelly advised the jury that although the school principal “had the power to punish the child in a reasonable way, the institution was not a penal institution.”49 In addition, the all-white male jury (standard at the time) were instructed to consider whether the school had been legally entitled to cut the girls’ hair, whether Ruth was whipped too severely, and whether the girls were fed spoiled food.50
Ultimately, the jury dismissed the claim regarding the girls’ humiliation from having their hair cut off. It was dismissed because it had been a customary practice for many years to cut students’ hair short when they misbehaved.51 The jury also dismissed the claim for damages for the risk to the girls’ health posed by the Mohawk Institute’s food. It was admitted by Principal Ashton that the students were served spoiled food and separated milk. Both Ruth and Hazel expressed in their testimony that it was their main reason for running away.52 This dismissal is demonstrative of how concerns raised by Indigenous children and youth were ignored by a justice system that was supposed to protect them. Out of the four girls, Ruth was the only one whose harsh treatment was deemed worthy of compensation. Her father was awarded $300 for her being whipped with rawhide and $100 for her being locked up in a cell.53
The SNC initially agreed to provide funds to cover the legal fees on behalf of Ruth and Hazel; however, by the end, Ottawa officially disapproved of the SNC’s decision to fully support the litigation and refused to release band funds to cover the grant the council had authorized for legal expenses.54 The family was left to pay the lawyer on their own. It is important to note that only thirteen years later, in 1927, an amendment to the Indian Act would subsequently make it an offence for First Nations people to raise money to hire legal counsel. Without legal representation, it would have been impossible for Ruth and Hazel to have their claim heard in court.
Aftermath of the Trial
Ruth, Hazel, Emma, and Edith left their mark on the Canadian legal system because of their courage to speak out against the horrific treatment they and fellow students received from the principal of the Mohawk Institute. Principal Ashton resigned from the school and enlisted in the Canadian Expeditionary Force, as the First World War began months after the trial ended. After being expelled from the Mohawk Institute, Ruth and Hazel attended a day school near their home, like most children at Six Nations. The Miller sisters continued to be trailblazers for the rest of their lives, with Hazel becoming one of the only Indigenous women to work as a missionary.55 In later years, Hazel moved to Toronto and attended the Toronto Bible College. She graduated in 1932, at age twenty-one, and then focused her life on Christian mission work among her own people.56 Hazel eventually started teaching Sunday school out of her father’s home, and later out of her own cottage.57 Hazel’s mission was cut short when she died at the age thirty-six due to bronchial pneumonia.58 However, her work would be commemorated by her siblings, who founded the Bethany Baptist Mission, with Ruth supervising the building. The Bethany Mission Church still stands today.59
Legacy
These are just two stories among many concerning the brave Indigenous children who resisted the very people and policies that were trying to destroy their culture, language, and sense of self. While resistance was expressed in different forms, both stories have something in common: the miscarriage of justice perpetrated by the staff of the Mohawk Institute, the Department of Indian Affairs, and the Canadian government. And, while the students documented in this chapter survived the Mohawk Institute, many did not. While both events were highly publicized at the time, one can only wonder about all the other untold stories of resistance that occurred during Principal Ashton’s eleven-year tenure. It goes without saying that the bravery of these children changed the lives of many. Consequently, this chapter is dedicated to them.
Notes
1 Bryan Hogeveen, “Accounting for Violence at the Victoria Industrial School,” Histoire sociale / Social History 42, no. 83 (2009): 148.
2 Indian Act, S.C. 1926–7, c. 32, and R.S.C. 1927, c. 98, s. 141; repealed by S.C. 1950–1, c. 29 s. 123.
3 “Blaze at Brantford,” The Globe, 20 April 1903, 9; “Mohawk Institute Fire,” The Globe, 11 July 1903, 5.
4 “Brantford,” The Globe, 3 September 1903, 2.
5 “Committed for Trial; Four Indian Boys Charged with Arson,” The Globe, 26 June 1903, 5.
6 “Committed for Trial.”
7 “Boys Started Fires, Indian Lads Arrested at Brantford,” The Globe, 23 June 1903, 1.
8 “Blaze at Brantford.”
9 “Blaze at Brantford.”
10 “Bad Crowd of Boys,” The Globe, 4 July 1903, 22.
11 “Bad Crowd of Boys.”
12 John R. Alexander to Superintendent General of Indian Affairs for the Dominion of Canada, File 154,845, Pt. 11, Vol. 2771, RG 10, LAC. The petition is undated but was completed between 25 July 1903 and 18 September 1903.
13 John R. Alexander to Superintendent General.
14 The Indian Department replied that while they regretted Mr. Alexander’s loss, they were in no way responsible for the destruction of his property, and that there were no funds that could be applied to assisting Mr. Alexander. Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs to C. B. Heyd, 18 September 1903, File 154,845, Pt. 11, Vol. 2771, RG 10, LAC.
15 “Fire Loss 1,” The Globe, 11 July 1903, 5.
16 “Boys Started Fires: Indian Lads Arrested at Brantford,” The Globe, 23 June 1903, 1.
17 “Boys Started Fires.”
18 “Boys Started Fires.”
19 “Firebugs Sentenced,” The Globe, 21 July 1903.
20 “Firebugs Sentenced.”
21 Juvenile Delinquents Act, S.C. 1908, c. 40.
22 “Firebugs Sentenced.”
23 Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, vol. 1, Canada’s Residential Schools: The History, Part 1, Origins to 1939 (McGill-Queen’s University Press), 483.
24 An Act to Amend the Act Respecting Procedure in Criminal Cases and Other Matters Relating to Criminal Law, S.C. 1875, c. 43, s. 1.
25 Hogeveen, “Accounting for Violence at the Victoria Industrial School,” 152.
26 Hogeveen, 148.
27 Hogeveen, 148.
28 Mathew Debo to the Deputy Superintendent of Indian Affairs, 7 April 1906, File 154,845, Pt. 11, Vol. 2771, RG 10, LAC.
29 Debo to the Deputy Superintendent.
30 Superintendent Chester Ferrier to R. Ashton, 17 August 1906, File 154,845, Pt. 11, Vol. 2771, RG 10, LAC.
31 Ferrier to Ashton.
32 Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Final Report, 1:483.
33 Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 483.
34 Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 483; Martin Benson to Deputy Superintendent General, Indian Affairs, 24 June 1903, File 154,845, Pt. 11, Vol. 2771, RG 10, LAC.
35 Elizabeth Graham, The Mush Hole: Life at Two Indian Reservation Schools (Heffle Publishing, 1997), 503.
36 “Miller v Ashton Case: Girls Too Severely Punished,” Brantford Expositor, 1 April 1914, File 154,845, Pt. 11, Vol. 2771, RG 10, LAC.
37 Alison Elizabeth Norman, “Race, Gender and Colonialism: Public Life among the Six Nations of Grand River, 1899–1939” (PhD diss., Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, 2010), 143.
38 “Miller v Ashton Case.”
39 Kelly and Porter to the Superintendent of the Department of Indian Affairs, 29 September 1913, File 154,845, Pt. 1, Vol. 2771, RG 10, LAC.
40 “Miller v Ashton Case.”
41 “Miller v Ashton Case.”
42 “Miller v Ashton Case.”
43 Ohsweken Council House Minute Book by Josiah Hill, 3 September 1913, File 154,845, Pt. 1, Vol. 2771, RG 10, LAC.
44 Ohsweken Council House Minute Book by Josiah Hill, 24 September 1913, File 154,845, Pt. 1, Vol. 2771, RG 10, LAC. Scott was appointed deputy superintendent general of Indian Affairs in 1913.
45 Duncan Campbell Scott to Hon. Dr. Roche, 28 October 1913, File 154,845, Pt. 1, Vol. 2771, RG 10, LAC.
46 “Miller v Ashton Case.”
47 “Miller v Ashton Case.”
48 “Miller v Ashton Case.”
49 “Miller v Ashton Case.”
50 “Miller v Ashton Case.”
51 “Miller v Ashton Case.”
52 “Miller v Ashton Case.”
53 “Miller v Ashton Case.”
54 J. R. Miller, Shingwauk’s Vision: A History of Native Residential Schools (University of Toronto Press, 1996), 357.
55 Julia L. Jamieson, The One Hundredth Anniversary of the Ohsweken Baptist Church (n.p., 1940); “Ohsweken Baptist,” File 5, Box 470, Accession 89/55, Sally Weaver Collection, Canadian Museum of History, Ottawa: 11. Thanks to Alison Norman for these sources on the Miller sisters.
56 Jamieson, The One Hundredth Anniversary.
57 Jamieson.
58 Hazel Miller, Tuscarora, Brant County, Province of Ontario Certificate of Registration of Death, 15 March 1938.
59 Ruth “[accumulated] enough money from her savings to pay for all the labour. The mission was built at a cost of $500 and has a seating capacity of eighty-five.” Jamieson, The One Hundredth Anniversary of the Ohsweken Baptist Church, 12.