Election for 1896 Hamilton Mayor - December 30, 1895

Hamilton municipal politics, never for the faint of heart, were particularly intense during the mayoral election for the 1896 Mayor’s office.

 Alexander Stewart was the incumbent mayor facing re-election. Stewart was a controversial figure, to say the least. His time in office, in 1895, had been marked with his fighting with the Roman Catholic Church joining forces with a Mrs. Sheppard. He also led the charge to have Police Chief McKinnon fired after that man was caught cheating on his wife. It was rumored that Stewart, who had once been Hamilton’s Police Chief but had lost it in a dispute with the mayor of the day, was trying to become police chief again.

          Alex. Stewart was a well-know “sport” – a term which in the day meant, mainly that he gambled, drank in hotels, and was a denizen of the Star Theatre, a place which had been condemned from the pulpit for having scandalous performances. Stewart himself had received condemnation from the pulpit of many churches for going to the Star Theatre where risqué jokes and dancing by young ladies was the norm.

          It was rumored that, despite being Mayor, he was facing serious financial problems. In an attempt to get some money from his mother he went all the way to Italy to make his case for help directly. Although a Scotsman through and through, Stewart had actually been born in Italy before going to Scotland, although his mother had remained in Italy.

          The Hamilton Times, one of three Hamilton daily newspapers in Hamilton, published two scathing attacks on Stewart on December 30, 1895, just days before election day. The first was the following editorial, quoted in part :

          “The speech delivered by A. D. Stewart in the Opera House on Saturday night was the speech of a demagogue – an attempt to set class against class, the poor against the rich – and it was not surprising that the actor overdid his part. When he did not ignore the truth entirely, he was obliged to twist it very hard in order to make his points. In Stewart’s opinion, he is a much more capable man than Mr. Tuckett to fill the Mayor’s chair, by reason of greater experience; the latter, indeed, having only three years of service as an alderman, and that not very recently, could not do the work according to the Stewart ideal. That sounds all right by itself, but when it is put alongside of the fact that only a few months ago – just before his departure for Italy – Mr. Stewart voluntarily promised that, if Mr. Morris would be a candidate, he (Stewart) would take off his coat and work hard to elect him Mayor, what can one think of his sincerity? Did Stewart then intend to help elect a Mayor whom he regarded as incompetent? If not, he must have said what he did not believe last Saturday night.

          “The prospect is not pleasant for any man who has either a large or a small stake in Hamilton, however indifferent he can afford to be who has no stake at all. But it is right there that A. D. Stewart worked his masterstroke. He called upon the poor to elect him so that he could tax the rich for their benefit. That was the burden of his song. He would take it out of the Woods and the Tucketts and the Sanfords, and would make work and wages plentiful for the poor man. He suggested that he might have been rich too, if he had been willing to steal, and he had oceans of fun with the Tuckett Christmas distribution of turkeys, money and building lots. To the latter, he professed to find a string attachment. He sneered at the idea of Mr. Tuckett requiring that the recipient of a free lot should built a house worth more than $225 before he received the cash bonus of $225 to help pay for the house, and he was terribly suspicious of Mr. Tuckett’s offer to lend an employee at 6 per cent, the rest of the money required to build his house. Now, to the mind of an unprejudiced man, not wanting to be Mayor for the sake of the salary, the whole scheme appears to be a good one, calculated in the interests of the employees as well as in the interest of the employer – such a scheme would make Hamilton a city of small and happy freeholders if other employers would follow Mr. Tuckett’s example with such modifications and improvements as experience woud suggest. Moreover, the Tuckett scheme was not taken up with any view to this election, but has been in operation for several years past. What encouragement is it to any employer to do the right thing, if his efforts are to be held up to scorn by a man who has been Chief Magistrate of the city? Is he the workingman’s friend who goes on a public platform to ridicule and disparage profit-sharing?

“It is not worthwhile to follow Mr. Stewart through his long explanation about the Star Theatre, not to dwell at any length upon his professed desire to rearrange the Waterworks and Market Committees, and to place hospital management upon a new footing. All these things, if found desirable, can be done as well with Mr. Tuckett as with Mr. Stewart in the Mayor’s chair.  They would all be done in due course if A. D. Stewart had succeeded in collaring Hugh McKinnon’s job as Chief of Police for himself. Hamilton’s business was managed with some skill before A. D. Stewart first ran for public office, or ever saw this city. Its welfare in the future does not depend upon him or any other man – least of all upon one who sets class against class and resorts to the arts of the demagogue to get a chance to earn a public salary. A. D. Stewart is a smart enough man to get his bread and butter without being mean, if his will only matched his ability. He need not be an object of charity or sympathy, and he could, if he chose, lift himself up without pulling others down.

          “We do not think Mr. Stewart’s speech on Saturday night could do him any good. Hamilton men, as a rule, have too much sense to be deceived by such sophistry They know Tuckett, they know Stewart. They know which has been the more useful citizen, which the better business man, which the more steadfast and reliable. They know which of the candidates can afford to sacrifice selfish for public interests, and which one must ever be on the lookout for No. 1. The contrast is plain enough, and as between the two men, George E. Tuckett would easily pull a majority of 1,200 over A. D. Stewart. It remains for the thoughtful voters to see to it that the Morris diversion does not do too much mischief and thus allow the worst candidate of the three to obtain first place.”¹

                ¹ “A Bold Bid for a Job”

          Hamilton Times. December 30, 1895.

          The second article appearing in the Hamilton Times of December was the following letter, dripping plentifully with sarcasm in its devastating portrayal of A. D. Stewart :

“To the Editor of the Times :

          “Sir – In my humble opinion, Mayor Stewart, Hamilton’s great sport and most illustrious citizen, sent to us out of pure love by Toronto the Good, has received scant justice at the hands of the pulpit and of the press. Often this most modest of God’s children has been forced to defend himself from attacks, the base attacks of bad men who are corrupting the morals of the city. How painful it must have been for one so gentle, so unselfish, and of such fine feelings to be thus constrained in the interests of truth and right to speak of himself and his sacrifices for the city, so dear to his heart, as great as it is pure? Have those speaking against our Mayor, and writing against him, lost all sense of justice, not to mention gratitude? Have they no knowledge of his charming life? Are they aware that it is most romantic and, at times, spicy reading? Was he not converted with a great flourish of trumpets at a revival meeting in Toronto? Did he not aid the Churches by his eloquence and his magnetic presence? Did he not labor night and day to undo his wicked past, and build up the walls of Zion – walls he had done so much to pull down? How he frowned on the evils of drink, of gambling, of swearing and of the flesh and devil ! It was most inspiring, most interesting, to hear the good man tell the simple story of God’s grace to one so wicked. And when he did fall – fall once and again – how sincere his repentance. To hear his words at St. Andrew’s Supper was worth living for, worth suffering for, worth dying for, worth a thousand sermons. Then look how often he has repented, on the platform ! Why, he is such a master in the art of public repentance that he can sin and repent in the same breath, can blaspheme God’s name, hold the churches up to scorn, damn good men, and wind up his sentences by telling his audience s how his good deeds, all done in secret, will be rewarded openly, and that by God with whom he is in such familiar terms. In addition to all this, look what he did to hound down Ex-Chief McKinnon, to bring out in first class style, Mrs. Sheppard, to save Protestantism and to bring the right of peace and good will in the city.

          “Had it not been for the distinguished and most disinterested services of this Italian Scotchman, raised up and qualified to do a special work, the Church of Rome might have murdered all the Protestants in the city, taken our goods and refused to give our bones Christian burial. Our Mayor, nobly aided by Mrs. Sheppard, saved us from all this. Then to show us that the Catholic Church was not such a power, he told the Catholics he did not want their votes. If he has gone away to Italy and drawn his pay for work he did not do, he has laid the whip on the back of the aldermen who have followed his example. If he has used the people’s money to put Ald. Less in a false light, he has made amends by objecting to Lees and Morris having the same privileges as he had. Besides, he gave the citizens a cheap night’s entertainment of as high an order as is to be found in any circus, and all for $35 ! If he has betrayed the temperance party, insulted the Catholic Church, he has been equally impartial in his gross rudeness to all the churches, even the church of his father – equally as impartial in his betraying the friend  that did so much for him when he was friendless. Whatever else, Mayor Stewart is guilty of, he is uniformly impartial, and is no fanatic in religion. Except when he needs help, he never looks to the churches. He is most consistent in his declaration of lack of faith in moral reform and moral reformers, and, as his life shows, he has no prejudice in favor of any religion. Of course, the Protestant vote being the larger, he naturally leans to Protestantism of the Sheppard type. But the best of men have their failings, and in this we must be charitable. Mayor Stewart is as free from all prejudice or partiality for religion or for morals as any man., to be human, can well be. In this he is consistent, and a worthy example to all young men. Why, he is the ideal champion of the no church, no religion, no morality party. If any minister for months before the election says anything about bad men, the Mayor and his friends, as Mr. Waldrond did, resent his words as a personal attack on the Chief Magistrate of the city. Indeed, the Mayor is almost the chief of saints in the eyes of all who are in sympathy with the darkness and hate the light. Does this not prove how consistent Stewart is? But to add to what I have said might imply that the Mayor had need of someone to defend him. That he can do for himself. He is the greatest I of the age, can prove that he has reduced our taxes, lessened our debt, improved our morals and made them more elastic, brought the gates of heaven so near that the worst hace as good chance as the best, played the role of the patriot and the Canadian, though born in Italy and in love with the States, as hius frequent visits to Buffalo show, and been the great civic reformer of the century, if not of all time, historic and prehistoric. If Hamilton must have a wonder, here is its man – saint and sinner, revivalist and sport – morally colorless and free from all religious bias, while defending Protestantism and a devout admirer of Mrs. Sheppard and her dark ways – a man able to ride a hundred horses going different ways and gaining applause from the unthinking when he falls in the mud. A man who can flatter the poor that he may feed on them and be rich – a man with wonderful ability, and who is able to live on his wit – a man who can do everything for the public, though failing in all he has touched with his clean hands – a man great in the art of setting church against church, class against class, riding which the rich, and from the platform showing in words profound sympathy with the poor – a man who can do all things but earn his bread by honest toil.

                                                                             Workman.“²

²“A Pen Picture : Of the Man Who Wants Votes on Monday : Is It True to Life?”

Hamilton Times. December 30, 1895