Street Railway Bylaw (Part 4) - 1892

As the time approached for the Hamilton City Council to vote on the street railway bylaw question, public interest in the matter was at a fever pitch.

          On Saturday, March 12, 1892, yet another public meeting was held to discuss the recommendation of the Special Street Railway Committee. This time, the Palace Rink was used in order to accommodate the large number of interested citizens. Between 1,600 and 1,800 people filled the auditorium when the meeting began at 8 p.m.

Ex-Mayor William Doran once again occupied the chair :

“All seats were occupied, and hundreds stood up wherever they could find space. The audience was largely, although not unanimously, in favor of delaying the completion of the deal, and expressed its views so loudly as to annoy quite seriously the speakers who differed with them.”¹

¹ “Filed a Final Protest : Citizens in Mass Meeting Condemn the Bargain” Hamilton Herald. March 14, 1892

The Spectator felt that the meeting was not conducted in a completely fair manner, and that the audience had been packed with people who had been hired to drown out any speakers who supported renewing the franchise with the Hamilton Street Railway Company :

“ It was plain that there was a premeditated and prearranged attempt to prevent the speakers in favor of the bylaw from getting a fair hearing, for they spoke amid continual interruptions and frequently were obliged to stop speaking until the howlers grew tired. As an indication of the genuine, intelligent opinion of the citizens of Hamilton, the meeting was a palpable failure.”²

² “ Faced the Enemy’s Friends : Aldermen Moore and Van Allen at the Rink”  Hamilton Spectator. March 14, 1892.

Chairman Doran told the gathering that each speaker would be limited to half an hour, and then proceeded to introduce Alderman Elijah Van Allen.

After reviewing the history of the negotiations which had led to the drawing up of the proposed bylaw, Alderman Van Allen claimed that the arrangement was the best that the city could obtain, and that the new rival in the field had not made a bona fide offer.

At this point, Alderman Van Allen was obliged to stop speaking as a din of howls and derisive remarks rose from the audience, particularly from Mr. F.N. Farmer, a bricklayer named Fred Moore and Mr. John Hunter, all three of whom occupied front seats.

When Alderman Van Allen could continue, he said:

“If the bylaw is not carried, we cannot get the H. G. & B. road, for the Barton and Saltfleet Road company will not allow two tracks on Main street east, and the street car company has a right-of-way there.”²

There was another uproar in the audience over this remark with one person shouting, “Then get another street,” and another yelling we can give them Ida street.”

The speaker concluded by solemnly denying that any alderman had been illegitimately approached by members of the Hamilton Street Railway company:

“ ‘The men in the subcommittee were large ratepayers whose interests were all in Hamilton – not men who could skip out to some other place tomorrow without suffering any personal loss. They had lived here for many years; their characters were well-known, and he asked if they were going to betray the city’s interests.’

“ Bricklayer Moore – ‘But you get boodle.’

“Old John Hunter – ‘Don’t you get your taxes free for being an alderman?’ ”²

The second speaker of the meeting was Mr. R. R. Waddell, the man who had drawn up the original street railway charter back in 1873. Despite the fact that Mr. Waddell was decidedly opposed to the renewal of the franchise with the Hamilton Street Railway company, he found himself subjected to some abuse from members of the audience:

“R. R. Waddell wasn’t as good-humored as Ald. Van Allen was. When he began to speak, one man from the rear asked why he hadn’t drawn up the bylaw better. At this, Mr. Waddell drew a chair over and said peevishly, ‘I’ll sit down until you get through. I appeal for British fair play.’

“The good and garrulous gentleman was granted a patient hearing.”²

Mr. Waddell, in a somewhat rambling discourse, tried to explain clause 15 or the original street railway charter, which covered the means by which the value of the street railway would be determined if the franchise holder was denied a renewal. He then finished his oration with a discussion of the coverage of the street railway controversy by the local newspapers:

“He dropped a metaphorical tear over the inconsistency of the poor old Spec, which, he said, had not long also encouraged the aldermen to make haste slowly, and now was in favor of pushing the railway deal through. The Herald was on the fence and wouldn’t come off. The Times was the only paper which had stood firm in opposing the arrangement. Mr. Waddell smacked his lips with great satisfaction as he paid what he intended as a compliment to the paper of which one of the directors of the electric light company is proprietor.”²

In characterizing the reception accorded the next speaker, Alderman. A. H. Moore, the three Hamilton daily newspapers differed radically according to their position on the question.

The ‘neutral’ Hamilton Herald said that Ald. Moore started in well and caught the attention of the crowd. The Spectator claimed that Ald Moore “was greeted with applause and for a time received a fair hearing,” while the Times said that “upon coming forward, (Ald. Moore) was greeted with applause, hisses and sundry military expressions.”³

³ “8 for, !,000 Against : The Way Saturday’s Meeting Voted on the Railway Question.” Hamilton Times. March 14, 1892.

Alderman Moore told the audience that it had taken the special committee three to four weeks to thoroughly inspect the financial offer of the Hamilton Street Railway company. He considered it foolish to think that a new company could, at a hastily called meeting, in an hour or two, prepare a bona fide offer for the franchise of a business, which they knew nothing about, and which would not only run for twenty-five years, but would continue to develop in volume and value – and circumstances they could only guess at.”²

Alderman Moore pointed out what he considered the two main advantages of an immediate conversion to electricity on the local street railway system which were :

“The impetus it would give to trade, and the employment the conversion would give to many Hamiltonians in need of work. The speaker also emphasized that if the offer of the Hamilton Street Railway company were rejected, it would mean a delay in the construction of the H. G. & B. railway, as the Street Railway company had control of the entrance to the city via Main street east.”²

At this point, low cries of “Boodle” rose from the audience, seemingly accusing the speaker of corruption in his support of the Street Railway company’s desire to have its franchise renewed before it expired:

“ ‘I have lived long enough in Hamilton,’ said Ald. Moore with dignity, ‘and I am sufficiently well known here to enable me to meet such a charge as that only with contempt. I dare any man in this audience, or in this city, to come upon this or any other platform and make such a charge to my face. My only motive in this matter is a regard for the interests of the city. When I know I am right, I am going to do right, whether I am returned to the council or not. I am not going to be coerced by loud voices. If it can be proved by argument to my satisfaction that the city’s interest would be better served by delaying this matter, I will submit, but not otherwise. Who are those that are opposing this bylaw? They are precisely the same men who fought so hard for the T.H.&B. and made such large promises that were never fulfilled. Now they ask you to put the city’s interests in the hands of a company not yet incorporated.”²

Major Moore’s remarks evoked a storm of howls from the audience:

“In the midst of it, Mr. John Dickenson, ex-Warden of the county, mounted a chair and shouted: ‘It was a star-chamber committee that kept that road out of Hamilton.’ Mr. Dickenson’s remark was applauded.

“Major Moore, continuing, made the remark that it was strange that Mr. Waddell and the ex-Warden of the county of Wentworth should take so much interest in the street railway business.

“Mr. Dickenson immediately left his chair in the audience and mounted the platform amid applause. Major Moore retired to his seat and, in a little while, left the building.”³

Mr. John Crerar, Q. C. was next to address the crowd, and he did so in a manner which the Herald described as “the vigorous and humorous style of which he is so much a master.”¹

Mr. Crerar declared that the aldermen were duty-bound to follow the wishes of the electorate. If the citizens desired something which an alderman could not, in all conscience, vote for, he should resign on the spot:

“He concluded by advising his hearers to put from them all miserable political feeling in matters municipal – whereat Mr. Crerar’s political friends, who know him best, lay back in their seats and quaked with an ecstasy of internal laughter.”²

Alderman A. D. Stewart was next on the speaker’s list. He proceeded to deliver one of the most inflammatory speeches of the evening.

Ald. Stewart claimed that the directors of the Street Railway Company had no desire to benefit the city by converting to electricity; rather, they simply wanted their franchise extended at terms favorable to the company. The alderman expressed his concern that, once the electric street cars were in use, the electorate would forget the dishonest methods of the aldermen who supported the early renewal of the street railway franchise:

“ ‘It is a disheartening thing,’ said Ald. Stewart, ‘that people forget the iniquities worked by public men and elect them year after year.’ He wanted to know who owned the city anyway.

“ A voice – ‘Lawyer Waddell.’

“Ald. Stewart – ‘No. It belongs to the little clique who shut themselves up in the dark and do as they please.’ ”²

Ald. Stewart then announced that when the bylaw came before council, he would object the clause giving the company the power to employ men 10 hours a day:

“ ‘For I believe,’ he said in explanation, ‘that no man should be asked to work longer than eight hours a day.’ Of course, the applause came, and the soul of the thirsty alderman, looking from his eyes proclaimed that it was satisfied. He thanked the meeting for the courteous hearing it had given him, and closed with this remarkable, and significant, sentence – ‘I have the people of Hamilton invariably loving and kind to myself.” ²

In the response to the demands of many in the audience, Alderman Henry Carscallen was called on to once again express his well-known views on the street railway question:

“Like a god breathing in the incense of his worshippers so Ald. Carscallen reveled in the sweet savor of the applause which rolled up at him when he advanced to the front of the platform. He was supremely happy; but the face of his great rival, the noble scion of the Stewart stock, took on a lowering aspect as he looked on and was forced to acknowledge to himself that ‘Cass’ and not he is the people’s pet – or the pet of the people who called themselves the people.”³

Alderman Carscallen argued that the city should take over the street railway as it did with the waterworks system. Failing that, the franchise should be offered for sale by public tender. The speaker also felt that there was something crooked with the books of the street railway company which had been examined by the Special Street Railway Committee. He claimed that the company’s gross earnings were much more than the $67,000 figure which the committee had been told.

Alderman Carscallen was also indignant that his fellow aldermen Van Allen and Moore had left the auditorium before his speech:

“ ‘Oh, I wish Moore and Van Allen were here to hear these things. But I can’t say that I hope to convince them. You can’t convince men who are lost to all sense of shame and dignity.”¹

In conclusion, Alderman Carscallen moved, seconded by ex-Ald. Tom Brick, the following:

“That in the opinion of this meeting, the street railway franchise should be put up to public competition so that the greatest possible revenue may be derived therefrom.

“Resolved therefore that the City Aldermen, as representatives of the people, be requested not to accept any offer from the present street railway company unless that company is prepared to enter the field as a bidder in open competition.”

In seconding the resolution, Tom Brick began by asking if Mr. T. B. Griffith, secretary-treasurer of the Hamilton Street Railway, company, were present. On receiving no response, Brick said that on the previous Tuesday he had been approached at his place on the carters’ stand by Mr. Griffith:

“ ‘He asked me,’ said Mr. Brick, ‘if I would go to the mass meeting in the Palace Rink that night and speak in favor of the company. I told him my conscience wouldn’t let me. Mr. Griffith said to me: ‘We never want a man to do anything for us for nothing. ‘

“ ‘Now, gentlemen, when it comes to me, not a member of council, being approached like that and asked to use my influence, what would they do with those who are members of council?’ ”³

Tom Brick then went on to explain why he refused Mr. Griffith’s offer :

“ ‘Gentlemen,’ said Tom, ‘my conscience is the only religion I believe in. I never yet sold my principle for a few lousy dollars. Some aldermen say they were never approached by those men. Well, they approached me. I believe, after this, that them aldermen dassent vote for that bylaw. Let us have all the foreign capital we can get; what we want is to keep out foreign labor – men who can’t speak our language. Some think the aldermen are above being tampered with by the street railway company; but I tell you the more money some men have, the more they want. Now there’s Morden. I used to see him going around with a Bible under his arm. Of, these Christians – how I love them! I could just take into my arms and hug ‘em. Oh, these deacons of churches! Of course they’re honest. Oh, yes. I’ve great confidence in them all. But many of ‘em would steal the coppers off a dead man’s eyes.” ³

At this point, the speaker went to the back of the stage and pretended to be looking behind the curtains for Aldermen Moore and Van Allen:

“ ‘Major Moore, where are you?’ he called. ‘Are you there hiding Major? Oh, you’re a good soldier, you are, to run away from danger. And Van Allen. Oh, Eli, where are you? Come out o’that Bill Morgan – what are you sneaking behind there for? Come out and look at the people and let them look at you! The man who’s afraid to look at the people in the face isn’t fit to represent the people. Maybe some o’ these fellers will resign this year. Maybe they’ll be able to afford to. There’s lots of money, you know, in the street railway business. Look at the grand houses Griffith built for himself on James street, and compare it with the house Tom Brick has been living in for forty-five years; but I’ve worked as hard as Griffith has in my time.’ ”²

At nearly midnight, the resolution was put to a vote. With three resounding cheers, it was carried unanimously.