THE CANADIAN VETERINARYJOURNAL

Volume 20

LA REVUE VETERINAIRECANADIENNE

June-juin 1979

The Adventures ofDr. Duncan McNab McEachranin Western Canada

SANDRA VOKATY*

SUMMARY

Duncan McNab McEachran's early history andinvolvement in the formation of the MontrealVeterinary College as well as in livestock inspec-tion were reviewed. His contribution to thebeginning of the ranching industry in westernCanada was explored in detail. In 1881,McEachran helped to establish the CochraneRanche, which was the first great ranch to bestarted in southern Alberta. He was employed asthe ranch's resident general manager until 1883, inwhich year the Waldrond Ranch was established.McEachran was this ranch's president and generalmanager until approximately 1909. During thistime, he came under considerable criticism fromboth The MacLeod Gazette and The CalgaryHerald. As Dr. McEachran maintained his obliga-tions to the ranches while he was directing theveterinary college in Montreal as well as chiefinspector of livestock for Canada, it was concludedthat this feat alone would rank him as a remarkablehistorical figure.

RtSUMt

Les aventures du Dr Duncan McNab McEachrandans l'ouest canadienL'auteur raconte les premieres annees de la vie deDuncan McNab McEachran, ainsi que son impli-cation dans la fondation du College Veterinaire deMontreal et l'inspection du betail. Elle rapporteaussi en details sa contribution A l'implantation de

l'elevage sur ranchs, dans l'Ouest canadien. En1881, il participa A la fondation du ranch Coch-rane, le premier d'importance A voir le jour au sudde l'Alberta. 11 agit a titre de gerant general de ceranch jusqu'en 1883, annee qui vit naitre le ranchWaldrond. I1 en devint le president et le gerantgeneral, jusqu'aux environs de 1909. Au cours decette periode, il fut la cible de critiques acerbes,tant de la part de la MacLeod Gazette que duCalgary Herald. Comme le Dr McEachran s'ac-quitta de ses obligations A l'endroit des ranchsmentionnes ci-haut, en meme temps qu'il assumaitla direction du College Veterinaire de Montreal etle poste d'inspecteur en chef du betail, au Canada,on en vint a conclure que ce fait permettait a luiseul de le considerer comme un personnagehistorique remarquable.

INTRODUCTION

To most connoisseurs of veterinary history, thename of Duncan McNab McEachran is associatedwith excellence in both veterinary education andlivestock inspection. However, this prominentveterinary surgeon directed his pioneering talentsin a very different direction, one which has notreceived nearly as much attention. It is notgenerally known that Dr. McEachran was instru-mental in the origination of the ranching industryin western Canada.Duncan McNab McEachran was born in Camp-

beltown, Argyllshire, Scotland in 1841. He tookhis early education in that area, and enteredEdinburgh Veterinary College at the age of 17.While attending the College, hie and hiis classmateAndrew Smith studied under the celebrated Pro-fessor Dick.He graduated in 1861, and emigrated to Canada

in the autumn of 1862. He settled first atWoodstock, Ontario where he maintained asuccessful veterinary practice out of a hotel. Hisformer classmate, Andrew Smith, had recentlyopened a veterinary college in Toronto, and heinvited McEachran to lecture at the college.McEachran agreed, and lectured there during thewinters for three years, from 1863 until 1866.

In 1866, Drs. McEachran and Smith had adisagreement about the admissions standards andcurriculum of the college. This sparked a conflict

No. 6

*Veterinary Student, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario NIG 2WI.This study was done while the author was employed as a summer student at the Western College of Veterinary Medicinein 1978.Can. vet. J. 20: 149-156 (June 1979) 149

between these two men wlhiclh was to last for manyyears. The disagreement was part of the cause ofDr. McEachran's relocation to Montreal in 1866.

Dr. McEachran founded the Montreal Veteri-nary College, largely at his own expense, in thesame year. He became its principal and professorof veterinary medicine and surgery. An innovationwas the stipulation that a student had to attendthree sessions in order to graduate. In this respect,the Montreal College was ahead of those inEdinburgh, London and Toronto, all of wllich hadtwo year courses. As of 1877, admissions standardswere made more rigorous than those of its Ontariocounterpart, as students were required to havesenior matriculation to enter.

In 1890. the Montreal Veterinary College be-came tlle Faculty of Comparative Medicine andVeterinary Science of McGill University. Dr.McEaclhran was appointed Dean and Professor ofveterinary medicine and surgery. The Faculty wasclosely associated with the Faculty of Medicine atthat University, where both veterinary and medicalstudents were schooled in tlle basic sciencestogetlher.

At the end of tlle 1902-1903 academic session,thle Faculty was closed for financial and otlherreasons, and Dr. McEaclhran tendered hlis resigna-tion. In 1905, McGill University appointedMcEachran Professor Emeritus in recognition ofpast services.

In 1876, partly due to McEachran's urging, theFederal government created a quarantine stationat Point Levis, Quebec. This was the first quaran-tine station in the western hemisplhere. In tlle sameyear, Dr. McEachran was appointed the chief

inspector of livestock for Canada, a position whichihe held until 1902. In this capacity, he wassuccessful in keeping Canada almost disease-free,despite epidemics plaguing cattle in the UnitedStates, England and Europe during those years.

In 1881, Dr. McEachran and Senator M.H.Cochrane made an expedition on horseback to thefoothills of Alberta. The purpose of their voyagewas to survey the country and find a suitable pieceof land to establish a ranching operation.

In 1876, in an effort to promote the develop-ment of western Canada, the Dominion govern-ment had passed an act permitting anyone to leasea tract of land up to 100,000 acres in size at the rateof one cent per acre per year. No doubt this new acthad induced Senator Cochrane to invest capital inthat part of the country.Senator Cochrane already had established his

reputation as a successful breeder of livestock. Hebegan his career in Quebec by importing out-standing Shorthorn cattle from England, begin-ning in 1867. He was undoubtedly one of the mostshrewd and successful dealers of Shorthorns of histime. He later gave up this breed to apply histalents to the breeding and importing of Aberdeen-Angus and Hereford cattle, Southdown, Cots-wold, Leicester and Lincoln sheep, as well asSuffolk horses and Berkshire pigs.At the time of McEachran and Cochranes'

expedition, the "Northwest Territories" were wildand largely uninhabited by the white man. AsMcEachran related in a published account of thistrip:"The white population from the Boundary Lineto Calgary did not number one hundredexclusive of Mounted Police and Governmentofficials and surveyors.The Indians on the other hand, nomadic tribesof savages, constituting a dangerous armedmob, numbering in the district named about8,000, consisting of Blackfoot, Bloods, Peigans,and Sarcees were a source of danger and wellgrounded anxiety from their restless habits andunreliable dispositions and as they had not yetrealized the fact that now that the Buffalo wasgone, they were entirely dependant on thegovernment for food." (3)The party set out across the plains from Fort

Benton, Montana. They camped at night, takingturns as "niglht watch" to prevent the loose horsesfrom straying, and the stallions tied to the wagonwheels from injuring themselves. During the day,they were plagued by a multitude of mosquitoes, aswell as another winged menace, the "bulldog fly."As McEacliran recounts:

"It is larger than a bee, and is furnished withpowerful mandibles and sucker. It makes alarge hole in the skin and the blood flows freelyfrom it. These flies are very pertinacious, andthe poor horses become frantic under theirtorment." (4)

150

They endured these hardships, as well asstampedes of their horses at night, horses stum-bling into gopher holes and throwing their riders,and the culinary products of their cook, Frank, ofwhom McEachran said, "Of cooking he knewliterally nothing, but for eating he could beat anyglutton who ever entered into competition in thatline". (4)

Eventually, they reached Fort McLeod andFort Calgarry and then drove out to a small ranchon the Elbow River. In their travels, they selectedthe range they wanted for their own ranch.McEachran was very impressed with the country-side when he wrote:

"Here we had an excellent view of the rangewhich we have selected for the stock-raisingpurposes of the Company. It is situated oneither side of the Bow River at the confluence ofJumping Pond Creek. The land is rolling,consisting of numerous grass hills, plateaux andbottom lands, intersected here and there bystreams of considerable size issuing from never-failing springs . . . The grasses are mostluxuriant, especially what is known as 'bunchgrass,' which resembles the English rye grass,but grows stronger and higher. . . These grassesgrow in many places from one to two feet high,and cover the ground like a thick mat. Nowhereelse has the writer seen such abundance of feedfor cattle." (4)

On the way back to Fort Benton, the party metMajor Crozier, who had known the war chiefSitting Bull. The Major presented each of themwith a souvenir of Sitting Bull, McEachran receivinghis riding whip and a pair of beaded mocassins.The group returned to the east, and the Cochane

Ranche Company (Limited) was incorporated bythe Dominion Government on May 14, 1881. Itwas the first of many great ranching companies,owned by English or eastern Canadian capitalists,which were to be established in southern Alberta.Senator M.H. Cochrane was president and his son,W. F. Cochrane, was manager. Dr. McEachranwas resident general manager and Major JamesWalker, a former North-West Mounted Policeinspector, was appointed local manager.The Cochrane Ranche, which started out with

such bright prospects for the future, was to be theill-fated victim of misfortune and managementdifficulties which would lead to its gradual demise.

In 1881, the Company bought 6,000 head of finerange cattle in Montana at the price of $16 a headdelivered at the Alberta border. Instead of drivingthe cattle to the ranch themselves, they contractedthe job to I.G. Baker and Company at a rate of$2.50 a head, an exorbitant price for that time.Their greatest mistake was the inclusion ofa clausewhereby losses from strays, stolen stock, anddeaths on the trail would be the loss of theCochrane Ranche. The trail boss, Frank Strong,moved the cattle at a very brisk pace, to save the

I.G. Baker Company time and money. Thisresulted in many casualties. The cowboys em-ployed by the outfit also traded the calves forwhisky and other commodities along the way. Thecattle were exhausted when they finally reached theCochrane range. Winter came before they had achance to regain their strength, and the lossessustained that winter were enormous.The ranch had a tandem system of management.

Major Walker, the local manager, ran the ranchunder orders from Dr. McEachran, who was inMontreal. This system had its difficulties, due tothe large distance and poor methods of commu-nication between these two men. There appear tobe two schools of thought as to which of these twomanagers contributed more to the collapse of theranch. The first group (7) feels that Major Walkerwas an unimaginative ex-policeman who wouldfollow orders from his superior without regard tospecial circumstances, or his own judgement. Thesecond group (I) believes that Major Walker wasbasically an efficient manager, but the constantadvice and admonitions from Dr. McEachran andother members of the Company in the eastprevented him from doing the best job he could.Perhaps the following three incidents will shedsome light on the matter.

After losing so many cattle in the winter of 1882,Senator Cochrane restocked the range with anumber of fine Hereford and Polled Angus bulls.Dr. McEachran instructed Walker to brand all theunbranded cattle on the range. Major Walker setout to follow these instructions and a number ofthe local settlers turned out to help with theroundup. One of the settlers noticed a cow and calfwhich belonged to him being herded in forbranding. He alerted Major Walker to the fact thatthe pair was his. Walker replied that he had beenordered to brand everything on the range. Thesettler left in disgust, and word spread quicklythrough the others. They left as well, picking upmany straggling Cochrane cattle on the way anddriving them to their own corrals.

In the summer of 1882, Major Walker travelledsouth to Montana to purchase cattle to restock theCochrane Ranch. He negotiated with rancherscalled Poindexter and Orr, who agreed to sell him4,000 to 5,000 head of cattle. Just before the dealwas finalized, Major Walker received orders fromDr. McEachran in Montreal. He was to travelsome 300 miles to Fort Benton. The I.G. Baker &Company was planning to stock an Alberta ranchand had agreed to buy cattle for the Cochrane atthe same time. When Major Walker reached FortBenton, he discovered that l.G. Baker had changedtheir minds and decided against stocking the ranchin Alberta. When he returned to the Poindexterand Orr ranch, he discovered that the same cattle inwhich he had previously been interested wouldnow cost an additional $25,000. Closing the deal,he resigned in disgust, agreeing to stay only until asuccessor could be found.

151

Poindexter and Orr were contracted to drive theherd to the Cochrane range, at the rate of $2.75 perhead. Poindexter, an experienced cattleman, de-cided to move the herd rapidly to avoid an earlysnowstorm. In spite of his efforts, tlley met with ablizzard at Fish Creek, although it was stillSeptember. He suggested to Walker that thle cattleremain at Fish Creek for a month, as they weretoo tired and weak to make it through the deepsnowdrifts. Walker insisted that hiis orders fromMcEachran were to get the cattle to the Cochranerange as soon as possible. Poindexter did as he wastold. When they arrived at the "Big Hill" of theCochrane ranchl, he is reported to hiave said, "Hyaryour cattle, Major Walker. I've carried out mycontract and delivered at the Big Hill. Now get andcount 'em because halfll be dead tomorrow." (7)

Major Walker left, and Frank White, a railroadman, was hired as treasurer. W.D. Kerfoot, anexperienced ranclher, was employed to take chargeof the livestock. Several disasters followed, and thleranch was moved to the Waterton Lakes area inhiopes of milder winters. Thle Company began topasture hiorses, and to graze sheep. Altlhough thleseenterprises met with slhort-lived success, thle Coch-rane Company continued to operate at a loss. In1888, the sheep and Coclhrane leases soutlh of theBow River were sold. The last of the originalCoclhrane lease was sold in 1894.

Dr. McEachran resigned as manager of theCochrane in 1883. Thlat year, he hielped to organizethe formation of a new ranch called the Waldrond,located in a valley between the Porcupine Hills andthe Oldman River, in what is now southwesternAlberta. It consisted of between 300,000 and400,000 acres of land, wllich was tlhick with strong,luscious grass.The ranclh was named after Sir Jolhn Waldrond

of Middlesex, England who arranged the financ-ing. The name was usually abbreviated to "Wal-dron" or "WR" whlich was the ranch's brand. Theranch purchased cattle and saddle horses inMontana, and imported tliree or four hiundredClyde and Sllire hiorses. In these endeavors, theywere much more successful than the ill-fatedCoclhrane Ranche.

Dr. McEachran was appointed President andGeneral Manager with headquarters in Montreal. Itis difficult to ascertain exactly how much time hespent at the Waldrond, however it is certain thatmost of his time was spent in Montreal, where hewas still principal of the Montreal VeterinaryCollege, as well as chief livestock inspector for theDominion government. Nonetheless, according tothe diary of Frank White (6), who was treasurer ofthe Cochrane at that time, and weekly gossipcolumns in the MacLeod Gazette, he madefrequent trips to the west, combining his duties aslivestock inspector and manager of the WaldrondRanch.

It seems that he did not completely sever hisconnection with the Cochrane Ranche Co. when

he started the Waldrond. On February 2, 1884,Frank White attended a meeting of the CochraneRanche executive in Montreal. In his diary entryfor that date, he records:

"Dr. McEachran and Lawrence called. Dr.McE followed me into private office andprotested against being excluded from a meet-ing, and against Mr. Browning, Mr. Cochraneand I holding caucus meetings on company'sbusiness. Both Mr. B. and Mr. C. talked plain tohim and told him that they could prove he haddone all in his power to injure the credit of thecompany, and that his conceit and pompositywas standing much in the way of his advance-ment." (6)

From this account, it seems that Dr. McEachranpreserved some interest in the Company, but thereis no record of how long he continued to do so. Theexecutive were clearly bitter about the Cochrane'spoor success, and laid part of the blame on Dr.McEachran.The Waldrond flourished, but not without its

own difficulties. A character called Dave Cochranewho had belonged to the North West MountedPolice moved onto the Waldrond land in 1883. Hespent much of his time at the police barracks atMacLeod, where he managed to pilfer quite a fewarticles, including a new stove. Whenever Dr.McEachran suggested that Cochrane should moveoff the Waldrond land, Cochrane made subtlesuggestions as to how easily a fire could spread onthe range or disease through the cattle. In adesperate effort to be rid of Cochrane, theWaldrond settled for $2,700 in lieu of his "squat-ters rights".

In 1883, another squatter named J.D. O'Neilsettled on what McEachran claimed to be "themost desirable part of the Waldrond lease. . .".Although by law, no homesteader could locate onany lease granted before 1886 without writtenpermission of the lessee (2) O'Neil, in partnershipwith a Mr. Roland, selected a quarter of land, builta two story house, a barn and corrals. Although hewas told to leave by the Waldrond, he went east tocollect his family and some stock and equipment.O'Neil asked Dr. McEachran personally forpermission to homestead, and was refused. Heasked for compensation for his improvements, andwas again refused. These incidents sparked apublic controversy which was reflected in aninterview with McEachran by the Montreal Herald(Nov. 10, 1888) and a letter to the editor fromO'Neil published in the MacLeod Gazette (Nov.29, 1888). Not much seems to have come of it, andO'Neil subsequently homesteaded near Calgary.

By far the most serious problem which Dr.McEachran encountered in the west was the badpublicity which he received in the MacLeodGazette. Its editor, Mr. C.E.D. Wood, a pompous,verbose newspaper man, took every opportunity tocriticize Dr. McEachran's actions. As this publi-

152

cation had a wide circulation among Albertaranchers, this bad publicity did little for Dr.McEachran's popularity among his fellow stock-men.

It is difficult to determine exactly what triggeredthe animosity between these two men. It may wellhave been an incident which took place in 1888.Although there are two very contradictory ac-counts of what transpired, it appears that Dr.McEachran paid Mr. Wood a visit and asked Mr.Wood, secretary of the Stock Association, to call ameeting of that Association. He mentioned that hewas dissatisfied with the Association for manyreasons, one being that its meetings were held whenranch owners could not be in attendance. He didnot feel that the Waldrond was being properlyrepresented at these meetings. Dr. McEachran saidthat "he would not belong to the Associationunless the membership were confined to lease-holders and that he would send in his resignationthat day." (8)

Mr. Wood apparently became upset at thisthreat, claiming that this issue could divide thecountry, causing a "civil war". From that point on,the gloves were off and the two men sparred, eachtrying to out-insult the other.

In an editorial on July 4, 1888 the Gazettebecame openly malicious, hurling all sorts ofaccusations at Dr. McEachran:

"We hope to have considerable to say about thegovernment official who advises young menwith capital to go to Texas; who has run severalgood settlers out of the country; about the chiefquarantine officer who has locked a band ofcattle in quarantine without a really infectiousdisease, while his own diseased horses are turnedloose on the range. Oh yes, we have plenty ofmaterial, and, what is better, can back it all up."(9)In a counter-attack in the next issue, Dr.

McEachran defended himself by saying:... if the introduction ofabout half a million of

dollars, invested in the best cattle procurable inMontana, the best thoroughbred bulls pro-curable in eastern Canada, over 200 of the bestClyde mares, and five imported heavy draftstallions constitute me an enemy to the district Iplead guilty. If through my efforts most of amillion more should be so invested of bothEnglish and French capital before a year goesby, I show enmity to the district, I again pleadguilty, and as to recommending young men togo to Texas, why you must know the publiceast, west and in England, know that nocountry has ever had so persistent an advocateas a stock country that I have been forAlberta . . ." (5)

Mr. Wood repeatedly accused Dr. McEachranof inspecting only the Waldrond Ranch stock onone of his visits to the west. However, ifone closely

examines a series of editorials which take up thisparticular case, one cannot help but notice Wood'sgradual exaggeration as his malice for McEachrangrew. On August 19, 1888 Wood said: "About theonly 'inspecting' Dr. McEachran did was that ofthe Waldrond Ranche, of which he is manager.While in this district we doubt if he visited half adozen ranches, outside of his own." It should benoted that, from this account, McEachran visitedup to six ranches apart from the Waldrond.On August 30 of the same year, Wood said: "The

doctor's inspection, if that was what it wassupposed to be was confined entirely to theWaldrond Ranche." To the discriminating reader,these two statements give blatantly conflictingaccounts of the same visit. This would lead one towonder how often Mr. Wood used this subtle ployto berate Dr. McEachran.The Gazette continued its personal war by

attacking Dr. McEachran's quarantine of Ameri-can cattle. It cannot be doubted that the purpose ofthe quarantine was to prevent diseases prevalent inthe United States from spreading into Canada.However, in a vicious attack, Mr. Wood accusedDr. McEachran of slapping on a quarantine assoon as he had imported all the cattle he wantedfrom the States (10). In a series of editorials whichgradually grew more incensed, Mr. Wood calledfor the government's abolition of the quarantineagainst the States, claiming that there was nodisease among cattle in Montana, and that Dr.McEachran had initiated the quarantine to meethis own selfish ends (1 1).

In a less than complimentary description of Dr.McEachran, the Gazette said:

"We have heard that, as an obscure and modesthorse doctor, Mr. McEachran was not at all abad sort of fellow, but that, like all such people,he cannot stand prosperity, and that theconsequent swelling of the head has renderedhim oblivious to everything except his own self-importance. We must resist the temptation thatalways comes to us to enlarge on our friendsvirtues whenever we write about him. Hisstrutting reminds one of a peacock . . ." (12)Thus the feud continued, Wood writing scathing

editorials in the Gazette, and Dr. McEachranwriting rebuttals in the Montreal Herald. It mustbe noted that although the Gazette repeatedlyassured its readers that it could back up all of itsstatements, it never actually did so in print. A casein point is that of Dr. McEachran's alleged adviceto a young man with capital to go to Texas. Dr.McEachran repeatedly said that this had been ajoke. Mr. Wood clung to his story, and brought itup every time he had a chance to rake Dr.McEachran over the coals. Dr. McEachran chal-lenged him to produce the name of the Texas man.Mr. Wood refused to do so, replying that "We donot feel called upon to produce any names atpresent."

153

It must be remembered that during most of theyears he was running the Waldrond, Dr.McEachran could not devote all of his time andenergy to this task, as he was also principal andprofessor of the veterinary college in Montreal aswell as Chief Livestock Inspector for the Domi-nion government. Any one of these three respon-sibilities would certainly have been a full-timecareer to an average man, but Dr. McEachranmanaged to juggle all of them simultaneously forsome years. The ability to cope with this amount ofpressure should rank as one of his foremostachievements.

In 1889, it was discovered that there was anepidemic of blackleg among the young cattle inAlberta. The Department of Agriculture issued acircular, which was published in the Gazette,instructing farmers to move away from watercarcasses of animals that had died suddenly, and toburn them and bury the ashes to prevent the spreadof the disease. Sick animals should be isolatedfrom the rest of the herd (13). These suggestionswere immediately condemned by Mr. Wood asbeing ineffectual.

In 1891, Dr. McEachran became embroiled inanother settlement dispute, which went so far as tobe debated in the House of Commons in Ottawa.In the September 25, 1891 session in the House,Mr. Flint, the Member of Parliament for Yar-mouth, brought up the case of Robert Dunbar vs.the Waldron Ranch.

It seems that Mr. Dunbar had migrated with hisfamily from Ontario to Alberta, settling on landwhich was later leased to a Mr. John Hollis. Histhree sons located on adjacent lots. They set out tobuild a house and plough the land, and madehomestead entries at the land office at Lethbridge.They received entries in 1889.

Mr. Hollis's lease was cancelled in 1888. TheWaldrond Ranch Co. lease being at some distancefrom the lease in question, Dr. McEachranarranged with the authorities an exchange of hisland for the land in question. As a number ofpeople had applied to have his original holdingsthrown open for settlement, the government quitehappily transacted the exchange.When the Waldrond moved onto the new piece

of land, it was discovered that the Dunbar familywas living there. Dr. McEachran gave them noticeof eviction, and ordered them to stop cutting hayon the property. In 1890, Mr. Dunbar's sonsreceived a letter from the government, cancellingtheir entry, and offering them a half section ofDominion land in lieu of the original land. It wasreported that the entry had been granted to his sonsinadvertently.A hue and cry arose about the cruelty and

unfairness of the cancellation of the Dunbars'entries, which would result in separation of thefamily. Dr. McEachran was depicted as thetyrannical capitalist, with the ability to break upfamilies. The case was held up as an example of the

power of the large lease holders over settlers. Thegovernment was at that time under considerablepressure to abolish the lease system and throw theland open to settlers. The Dunbars' eviction wasalso purported to be bad publicity for would-besettlers planning to migrate to Alberta.

In defense of his department, Mr. Dewdney, theMinister of the Interior, said:

"Mr. Pearce was sent to make a report, and hisreport was that Dunbar, Senior had settled onthe land prior to survey, and prior to Hollisgetting his lease. We then gave instructions thata patent should be issued to him for his land.With respect to the two young men, they weresons who lived with the father, who made noclaim outside of the old man's pre-emption, andit was not until representations were made byDr. McEachran that they were endeavoring tosecure the springs, that we came to theconclusion that the sons were not entitled toland, that they were not bonafide settlers, andhad done nothing but a little ploughing and hadnot carried out those extensive improvementsstated by the hon. gentleman opposite, but haddone work to the value only of $50 or $75...With respect to the young men, they received anentry for the land, not on account of the landsbeing opened, because they never were openedas stated in the petition by the hon. member forWellington, but when Mr. Hollis indicated hisintention of giving up this lease, and we werenegotiating with Dr. McEachran, we notifiedour agent not to give entries on the Hollis lease.In the face of that instruction, for someunaccountable reason, entries were given, andthese resulted in rather serious complications.The matter was submitted to the JusticeDepartment, and we received a report statingthat the young Dunbars had not right to theland, and consequently we cancelled theentries." (14)Mr. Dewdney went on to say that when the

matter had been brought to his attention, he hadcontacted Dr. McEachran to convince him toarrange some sort of settlement with the Dunbars.Dr. McEachran had agreed to buy them out andthey were notified of this. As Mr. Dewdney said,

"However, the country appears more favour-able than it has been and although at one timethey were perfectly willing to sell out, theDunbars have now changed their mind andpropose to remain there." (14)Mr. Watson said that he believed the cancel-

lation of the entry was affected by Dr. Mc-Eachran's influence as Dominion veterinary sur-geon.

Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier stepped into thediscussion, stating:

"If an injustice has been done, unwittingly andinvoluntarily, as may happen in the best

154

regulated administration, and if in consequenceof those mistakes either the capitalist or thesettler must suffer, in my humble opinion itshould not be the settler. No one can deny that itis more important, ifwe want to settle the NorthWest rapidly and effectively, that every favourpossible be shown the settlers." (14)The Waldrond Ranche (Limited) was thrown

into voluntary liquidation in 1898, as several of theoriginal shareholders had died, and the money intrust funds had to be divided by the heirs. As thebusiness had been profitable in its fifteen years ofoperation, all of the Directors and most of theshareholders of the old Company subscribed to thenew one, and shares were not put up for public sale.The company was made a Canadian companyunder the joint stock company act of Canada, withits board of directors in Montreal. Dr. McEachranwas retained as general manager, and Dr. DavidWarnock, veterinary surgeon, as local manager.The horse ranching business was discontinued bythe new company. The bulls were all castrated, asonly pedigreed Shorthorn bulls were to be used forbreeding.Mange broke out among Alberta cattle in 1899.

In a circular letter which was reprinted in theMacLeod Gazette of June 2, 1899, Dr. McEachranurged the Stock Association to assume the expenseof building and maintaining a dipping station forthe cattle. The stockmen agreed and the dippingstation was built at Long Bottom on the BellyRiver near Kipp. In addition, a quarantine wasestablished on all the range country in southernAlberta. Surprisingly enough, the Gazette ap-peared to support McEachran in the dipping shuteand quarantine issues (15).When war broke out in South Africa, it was

found that the British had great difficulty againstthe Boer soldiers, who were mounted on rugged,sturdy horses, conditioned to the type of terrainfound in that country. Lord Strathcona appealedto Dr. McEachran for help in the formation of aCanadian mounted regiment.McEachran realised that the cowboys in western

Canada and their horses worked under conditionsnot dissimilar to those in South Africa. Operatingon this premise, he set out in 1900 to organize a unitknown as Lord Strathcona's Horse. The regimentwas a great success, as men hastened to volunteerwith patriotic fervour. McEachran personallyselected the horses, travelling through southernAlberta to purchase them from ranchers.Once again, his actions came under fire, but this

time from a different direction. In a February 15,1900 article, the Calgary Herald claimed thatMcEachran was buying horses of very inferiorquality.

"The animals purchased by Dr. McEachran atCalgary for Strathcona's Horse have beenrenamed McEachran's crocks, the term "crock"being understood to mean an old and uselesshorse ...

Mature years in an animal seemed to be soughtfor rather than otherwise, and the doctor istoday the owner of more than one venerableequine with bones so brittle that if a board ofofficers were to sit on them, they would breaktheir backs."

The problem seemed to stem from the fact thatDr. McEachran would not, or could not, pay morethan $75 per horse. Apparently, this price wouldnot buy a top grade horse.The people of Calgary became incensed, and a

special meeting of the Board ofTrade was called. Itwas considered a public embarrassment that such apoor contingent of horses had been selected torepresent the horse breeders of southern Alberta.In a February 17, 1900 article about the meeting,the Herald said:

"The representative public bodies of the cityhave lost no time in endeavoring to protect thefair fame of this district as a horse breedingcountry from the sneers and jibes of the outsideworld which may form its conclusions from anexamination of the horses recently purchased inthe city for Lord Strathcona's contingent."In the House of Commons, Dr. J.G. Ruther-

ford, the Member of Parliament for MacDonald,Manitoba said: "The prices offered by Dr. Mc-Eachran in the Northwest Territories are such as tomake it quite possible in fact probable, that he willnot be able to secure what he wants."

Support for McEachran came from an unex-pected source. The MacLeod Gazette said that thepurchased horses were a "good, clean serviceablebunch" and that it was to be expected that a few ofthem might not be up to scratch. On March 2, 1900Mr. Wood said,

"They may not be the standard of English armycavalry horse, but Dr. McEachran, we arequite sure, whatever anybody else may havestated, never suggested that he wanted horses ofthat type. What he wanted was a number of theordinary saddle horses, common to the ranch-ing country; horses that may not be paragons ofbeauty but which are tough as they make them;and certainly, in so far as this part of thecountry is concerned, he got what he wanted... The horses taken are for the use of MountedInfantry, a fact that seems to have beenoverlooked by the Doctor's opponents, they arenot intended for a cavalry regiment . . ."The Gazette also pointed out that every person

selling a horse to Dr. McEachran was required tosign a document testifying to the age and generalsoundness of the horse. If it was true that thehorsemen of Calgary had sold McEachran nothingbut old nags, then they had all perpetrated a fraudin signing those documents.

Dr. McEachran retired from professional life in1909, to import and breed Clydesdale horses on hismodel stock farm at Ormstown, Quebec. He diedthere on October 13, 1924.

155

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to express her gratitude to N.O.Nielsen, Dean, Western College of VeterinaryMedicine, without whose continuing encourage-ment and support this study would not have beenpossible.

REFERENCES

1. BROWN, D.E. The Cochrane Ranch. Alberta HistoricalReview. Vol. 4. No. 4: 3-8. 1956.

2. KELLY, L.V. The Range Men. p. 209. Toronto: Wm.Briggs. 1913.

3. MCEACHRAN, D.M. Impressions of Pioneers, of Al-berta as a Ranching Country, Commencing 1881.Published in booklet form. File, Glenbow-AlbertaInstitute.

4. McEACHRAN, D.M. A Journey Over the Plains, FromFort Benton to Bow River and Back. Reprinted in

booklet form from The Gazette, Montreal. Novem-ber, 1881. File, Glenbow-Alberta Institute.

5. McEACHRAN, D.M. The MacLeod Gazette, July 11,1888.

6. MCTAVISH, A. and C. REILLY. Frank White's Diary.Canadian Cattlemen. Vol. 18. No. 3 and Vol. 18. No.4: 18-21. 1955.

7. ROBERTS, S.L. The Cochrane Ranch. CanadianCattlemen. Vol. 18. No. 3. 1955.

8. WOOD. C.E.D. Our Financial Giant. The MacLeodGazette. July 18, 1888.

9. WOOD, C.E.D. The MacLeod Gazette. July 4, 1888.10. WOOD, C.E.D. The MacLeod Gazette. August 16, 1888.11. WOOD, C.E.D. The Quarantine. The MacLeod Gazette.

November 1, 1888.12. WOOD, C.E.D. Dr. McEachran's Interview. The Mac-

Leod Gazette. November 8, 1888.13. BLACKLEG. Circular from the Department of Agricul-

ture. The MacLeod Gazette. January 17, 1889.14. THE MACLEOD GAZETTE. June 16, 1899.

BOOK REVIEW

Vertebrate Limb and Somite Morphogenesis.Edited by D.A. Ede, J.R. Hinchcliffe and M.Balls. Published by Cambridge University Press,New York. 1977. 498 pages. Price $39.50.

This book contains the Proceedings from theThird Symposium Meeting of the British Societyfor Developmental Biology which was held in theZoology Department of the University ofGlasgowin September 1976. Twenty three of the twentynine chapters are devoted to an exhaustive analysisof limb development; the remainder partiallydescribes the present knowledge on the mechan-isms of development of the axial skeleton.

During the last twenty years embryologists havegreatly increased their knowledge of the mechan-isms by which genes control cell differentiation,but they know much less about how the shape oforgans and structures, their relative sizes and theirspatial organization are controlled during develop-ment. The limb bud appears to be an ideal systemfor the investigation of these interesting problems.Starting as a simple primordium formed by amesodermic core surrounded by a thin ectoderm,the limb is capable of transforming throughautonomous differentiation into a complex or-ganization with numerous skeletal pieces andmuscles arranged in constant patterns. It has beenfound that the primitive limb contains "organi-zing zones" which are capable of controlling, or, atleast influencing, the evolution of the whole limb.Thirteen chapters of this book discuss in detail theexperimental evidence indicating how two of these

organizing zones ("apical ectodermal ridge" and"zone of polarizing activity") are capable ofinfluencing the orientation, spatial distributionand rate of growth of the various limb com-ponents. These chapters are written by members ofdifferent research groups involved in the develop-ment of these fields, and the reader thus cananalyze, side by side, conflicting evidences andpoints of view.A few chapters analyze, although only partially,

the mechanisms controlling cartilage differentia-tion in the limb and there are some contributions tothe field of limb regeneration. The discussions areby no means exhaustive, but they are of interest.Most of the material in the book is based onexperiments performed with the avian limb bud,but a few pages of amphibian and mammalianmaterial help to illustrate that-evidence found inchick embryos is applicable to other vertebrategroups.The research on the mechanisms of differen-

tiation of the axial skeleton is at present compara-tively meagre and is reviewed in the last fivechapters. Although this aspect is only peripherallyconnected to the problem of limb morphogenesis,its inclusion in the book is of interest since reviewson the subject are not available.The book has been very well edited and

researchers and students interested in experi-mental embryology will find great pleasure readingit. The experience will be especially profitable tothose readers who already have some basicknowledge in developmental biology. R. Narbaitz.

156