This file is part of the following reference: Freier, Philip L. (1999) Living with the Munpitch: the history of Mitchell River Mission, 1905 - 1967. PhD thesis, James Cook University. Access to this file is available from: http://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/33191/ If you believe that this work constitutes a copyright infringement, please contact Chapter Six The Practice of Protection, 1924-1960: Building a Missionary Pastoral Empire By the time Henry Matthews concluded his superintendentship in 1924 the "protection" of Aborigines associated with the Mission was no longer primarily about refi.ige, but had taken on the meaning that Brock considered typical of the wider Australian context: ["Protecting" Aborigines took on] new connotations of isolation, discrimination, institutionalisation and invisibility. "Protecting" Aborigines meant rernovingthem from the sight and awareness of the general Australian population, restraining them within carefully defined lands, maintainingthem as unproductive, dependent communities which could act as labour pools in times of labour shortage, singling out Aborigines as different from the rest of the population.' Unlike many other missions, Mitchell River Mission could scarcely be considered unproductive since, as will be shown, the cattle enterprise succeeded to the extent that it financed the whole of the Diocese of Carpentaria. Despite this, the appearance of poverty and the image of Aborigines as dependent and unproductive was cultivated by field missionaries, their missionary organisation and the church at large. The missionary hierarchy was convinced that such an image, which complemented racial stereotypes of Aborigines, was central to the success of their efforts to gain financial support from the general public.2 At the same time as this was being fostered, an extremely valuable asset Peggy Brock, Outback Ghettos; A histoty of Aboriginal institutionalisation and survival, Cambridge, 1993, p.2. 2� Newtonto Montgomery, 1 January 1917. folios22O, 221, OM.AV/61/2, JOL. "We have hopes the cattle will produce an income. We have sold some but the proceeds must go to stocking up and other improvements and we have to be careful the opponent of Missions does not have an excuse of attacking 197 ? : 171 - -� -� -.' X 4 - � -� - �?-� I �- -c- +•- - -q )� *-, 1 4 - Mitchell River bullocks ready for the road (late 195 0s) (Source: Doug Sutherland Album) was being developed in the shape of the mission cattle herd. Cattle have been central to the history of reserve Aborigines over the last century. It was on account of cattle that they had first experienced the depredations of the pastoralists; the decision to form a mission herd assumed a willing Aboriginal workforce; and reserve Aborigines were in high demand as workers on the cattle stations away from the Mission as well. Even though work on the cattle stations offered a temporary break from the life and routine of the Mission, it did not offer independence from missionary control as the role of the Mission as a broker of Aboriginal labour increased with greater Aboriginal participation in the station labour force. On both the Mission itself, and through their involvement with the station labour trade, the missionaries were constructing a pastoral empire which only seemed to emphasise the image of dependence of Aborigines on whites. There was little to suggest in 1908, when the cattle herd was established, that a herd of 26 cattle would grow, over time, into an asset worth over £200,000 in 1960.3 Any debate about the direction which the cattle operation might take was settled in 1917, a year in which mission cattle were sold for £405, with Matthews' business sense prevailing over Bishop Henry Newton's humanitarian desire to allow greater Aboriginal benefit from the cattle:' I have advised Mr Matthews to kill more beasts for the station['s] use. He is loth to do so as cattle are a good price, but personally I believe that the gain in letting the Mission as a money making concern! Gilbert White, ABM Review, IS August 1910, p.107. This value is extrapolated from the value of the Native Affairs Department herd of 5,964 which was considered to be worth £140,273. (Annual Report for year ending 30 June 1959.) Newton to Jones, 30 June 1917, folio 178, OM.AV/61/2, JOL. Newton's humanitarianism is based on a recognition that an impoverished diet could lead to neither vigour nor commitment towards the missionary program. Writing to Chapman he observed, "It is good to hear that you can get them to take an interest in farming and if only they get some results into their stomachs they will realize the good of working". Newton to Chapman, 17 April 1917, folio 82. 0M.AV/61/2. JOL. the people see that they get direct return and benefit from their work with the cattle more than compensates for any pecuniary loss - also the Aborigine is a meat eater and gets tired of a bread or rice or vegetable diet.6 1918 and The use of the cattle herd as a food source was grudging in the period between when Trubanaman and Kowanyama were both operating, with a beast being killed 1920, on alternate weeks at each place. By the 1950s with a resident population at Kowanyama people, a beast was killed on alternate days. Certainly, mission consumption of around 700 of beef did little to limit the gro'ith of the herd. Herd numbers continued to increase well beyond the demise of mission administration in 1967: Year Number of Cattle Developments 1908 26 Establishment of herd 1910 45 1912 180 Cattle fund contributes £36 to Mission budget in 1913 1917 500 100 head donated to Mission by� neighbouring� cattle stations 1923 1,200 1928 2,421 Second set of cattle yards built at "Red Lily" in 1931 1934 4,381 Alec MacLeod becomes cattle manager in 1932 1940 5,101 450 head given to establish Lockhart River Mission herd 1959 8,000 Co-operative cattle scheme proposed 1977 16,759 (Ten years after Government takeover of Mission) 6 Gilbert White, "Mitchell River Mission" (no date, follows letter of 4 January 1917), folio 248, OM.AV/6 112, JOL. Compiled from Annual Reports. 199 IMI -, 4v Ronnie Smiler with mission horses at Kowanyama For the children swimming in the lagoon the presence of cattle, horses and stock workers was part of growing up. (Late 1 950s) (Source: Doug Sutherland Album) Apart from the steady, if meagre, supply of beef that was dispensed as part of rations on the Mission and the growing need for work amongst the cattle, there was little other evidence of prosperity commensurate with the growth of the cattle herd. The Bishop of Carpentaria and the Chief Protector acted as co-trustees of the mission reserve,' an arrangement that continued until the regazettal of the reserve in 1958 when the Director of Native Affairs was proclaimed sole trustee.9 When a question of agistment of Rutland Plains cattle on the reserve arose in 1923, Chief Protector Bleakley considered that trusteeship conferred the power to enter into such financial arrangements and to decide how these funds were disposed of.'° With the operational responsibility of the reserve falling to the Bishop and his missionaries, and with the church being the larger financial stakeholder until the 1 950s, the Church through the bishop had a control over the improvements on the reserve, including the cattle, that was for most practical purposes the same as ownership." Like their Lutheran contemporaries at Koonibba in South Australia, it soon became clear that when the Diocese ofCarpentaria used thelanguage of self sufficiency for mission Aborigines it was not Aboriginal self sufficiency that was their concern but the solvency of diocesan operations.'2 A mission superintendent, whilst exercising authority in the daily operations of the mission and empowered to do so under the Act, carried out these duties Even though both Bishop and Chief Protector were trustees ex-officio they held personal appointments. When the government was seeking to extinguish the Weipa reserve to facilitate bauxite mining in 1957 it first had to secure the resignation of Bleakley, the former Chief Protectorwho had concluded his duties in 194 1,from his trusteeship of the reserve. (Acting Director ofNative Affairs to Under Secretary, Dep't of Health and Home Affairs, 31 January 1957, Administration Kowanyama Reserve (Boundaries etc), 17A-3, DFSAIA, Interim Transfer R254, QSA). Queensland Government Gazette, 5 July 1958, pp.1788-89. Bleakley to Matthews, 5 September 1923,23:4904, Chief Protector's Conespondence, OF 46, DFSAIA. O'Leary to Matthews, 17 October 1961, Administration Kowanyama Reserve (Boundaries etc), 17A-3, DFSAIA, Interim Transfer R254, QSA. "The Church is protected for any investment made on these Reserves and has the full authority and administration of them under the 'Aboriginals Preservation and Protection Acts". Peggy Brock, Outback Ghettos, p.90. modified by the theocratic character of the mission structure. Superintendents acted to implement the decisions of the Bishop and Diocesan Council in matters to do with the cattle.' The policy on the management of the cattle and the application of cattle profits was clearly stated by Bishop Henry Newton to Jones, the ABM chainnan, in 1917. for some time all the money from the sale of cattle should be used to develop the Reserve in any way that will increase the herd and make the herd more productive - buying stock, fencing etc. But we reserved the right to make a special grant for the upkeep [of the Mission] if we thought it necessary at any time)4 To Matthews, Newton was giving even clearer signals that he should not look at the cattle as a source of operational funds, "We do not say we will not use the money for general upkeep of the station but we do not want to encourage a hope of that, at least for some time".'5 Newton and his successors in office seemed to have no trouble in resisting the temptation of encouraging the hope that people at Kowanyama might see some direct benefits from the cattle that were run on their traditional lands. Even in the general operations of the Mission, there was early evidence of a trend towards the pauperisation of Mitchell River so that other aspects of the operations of the Diocese could be funded. Newton's successor, Stephen Davies, found that he was able to operate Mitchell River in financial surplus during 1924 and successfully sought approval from the Diocese's primary church funding body, the Australian Board of Missions (ABM), to apply the surplus of The first management committee to run the cattle concern at Mitchell River was formed in 1917 and consisted of Bishop Henry Newton, Tom May and Francis Slade, the dean of the Cathedral on Thursday Island. (Newton to Jones, 30 June 1917, folio 171, OM.AV/61/2, JOL) A separate cattle account was opened with the management committee as signatories. (Newton to Matthews, 30 June 1917, folio 181, OM.AV/61/2, JOL) '� Newton to Jones, 30 June 1917, folio 171, OM.AV/61/2, JOL. Newton to Matthews, 30 June 1917, folio 182, Bishop's outward correspondence, OM.AV/61/2, JOL. 201 £150 to the Tones Straits Mission.16 In 1921 ABM, in an attempt to keep some control over the operation of the Mission, claimed ownership of the cattle when it ruled "that all capital and plant for industrial purposes is the property of the Board".'7 By a decision of the Board in 1932 this rule was overturned and ABM released the Diocese of Carpentaria frbm the obligation to consult with the Board in how it arranged its internal finances, a decision which opened the way for the Mitchell River cattle to be administered as a purely diocesan concern.'8 By 1937, the transfer of 250 head of cattle to Lockhart River Mission showed that the cattle herd was treated as a solely diocesan asset, to be used for the general purposes of the Diocese rather than for the exclusive or even particular benefit of the Mitchell River cattle operations or the Mitchell River people themselves.'9 The establishment of missions at Lockhart River in 1924 and Edward River in 1939 was undoubtedly important in hastening Diocesan control of the Mitchell River cattle as it added extra burdens of cost to the diocesan budget. Edward River Mission was an extension of the influence of the Mission to th& north of the Mitchell River. Joseph Chapman's interest in the Edward River area went back as early as 1923 when he planted bananas and cassava there, an interest wholly supported by Matthews who was keen to purchase a small boat to assist Chapman moving between Kowanyama and Edward River.20 Chapman's agitation to establish a mission station at Edward River in 1928 was part of his 6 "Organisation Committee Report, August 1924 Meeting", 20-21 August 1924, ABM Board Minutes, vol.2, M4, Box 3, ABM Sydney. " "Mitchell River Cattle', internal memorandum, no date but probably 1956, 5/6, ABM Chairman's correspondence, Series 5, Box 2, Folder 9, ML MSS 4503, Add On 1822. IS� "Report of the Australian Board of Missions to General Synod, October 1932", ABM Board Minutes, vol.5, Box 6, series M4, 29-30 June 1932. ABM Sydney. The only proviso was that, "due regard [be shown] to the particular purposes for which such [cattle and] other possessions were acquired". '9 ABMReview. 1 November 1937, p.184. 20� Matthews to Chief Protector, 10 August 1923,23:04904, Chief Protector ofAboriginals Correspondence, OF 46, DFSAIA. The boat, a motor launch, was eventually purchased the following year. (Stephen Davies, enny for 3 March 1924, Bishop's diaiy, OM.AV/1 14/1, JOL) 202 al of 96 deal of e 'Tritt" )oat-slips, rugs and t serious g so low. of flu, o deaths. has not )Us small say we tives has here has in their D get the fl ; they roaming ujit four' ot their tatoes as s in the red, and een built :s df the ABORIGINAL ECONOMY. Missionaries were not ashamed to depict pauperised Aborigines as this illustration from the ABMReview shows. This woman from Mitchell River wears a dress made from a flour bag - an economy encouraging missionary supporters, themselves emerging from the Great Depression, that their support was being treated frugally. Original caption: "Aboriginal Economy" (Source: ABMReview, 1 August 1938, p.144) 45