Liquor Trade Investigation - 1893

In 1893, the Canadian federal government, under considerable pressure from temperance organizations, set up a Royal Commission mandated to investigate the liquor traffic in Canada, and to make recommendations regarding the possibility of prohibiting the sale of liquor nationwide.

          In October, 1893, members of that Royal Commission came to Hamilton as part of their tour of the nation to gather evidence on the matter. The hearings in Hamilton were conducted in the mayor’s office at City Hall.

          Chaired by Judge McDonald, of Brockville, Ontario, the other two commissioners were Rev. Dr. McLeod, of Fredericton, New Brunswick and E. F. Clarke, a member of the Ontario legislature, from Toronto. Accompanying the commissioners were the commission’s secretary, P. Monaghan and its stenographer, S. A. Abbott. Two other gentlemen travelled with the commission to monitor the proceedings – L. P. Kribs, representing the Brewers’ and Distillers’ Association and J. H. Carson, representing the Dominion Temperance Alliance.

          The first witness called in Hamilton was Mayor Peter Blaicher. The mayor testified that, in his opinion, Hamilton had a good reputation for sobriety, even though the Scott Act, which would have prohibited the sale of liquor within the city boundaries had recently been defeated.

          Mayor Blaicher felt that the defeat of the Scott Act was due “to a strong British sentiment” within the city. Hamiltonians, the mayor suggested, felt that forcible prohibition of the liquor trade would be a serious infringement of personal liberty.

          The mayor stated that he would not favor a national law prohibiting the sale of liquor, but if that were to happen, there would be a benefit to the poorer classes of the city, as they spent too much of their income on liquor.

          If prohibition did come into effect, the mayor favored exceptions to be made for sacramental and medicinal purposes. He also felt that the brewers and distillers would have to be compensated for their loss of income.

          Under cross-examination, the mayor testified that, under the Scott Act, prohibition would provoke secret indulgence in drink. The mayor felt that there were few what he termed “slinking drinkers” in Hamilton. Those who wanted to drink went openly to hotels.

          The license system then in place was working to the mayor’s satisfaction in the city’s hotels, but he favored the revocation of licenses granted to saloons. The mayor also stated that, in his view, any license holders who had received two convictions for license violations should have their license removed.

          Rev. McLeod concluded the questioning  by asking the mayor the following :

          “Do you think it would be a good thing for Hamilton if the drink traffic were wiped out?”

          “Yes,” the mayor replied, “I think it would.”

          The next witness to be called before the commission was Police Magistrate Jelfs who agreed with the mayor in giving Hamilton a good name as regards sobriety, despite the fact Hamilton was one of the places through which the tramp community from the United States passed in large numbers.

          The police magistrate was of the opinion that prohibitory laws would be an infringement on personal liberties and would be impossible to effectively enforce. In fact, Magistrate Jelfs do a very radical view in that he was in favor of removing all restrictions as regards the sale of liquor.

          Police Chief McKinnon, the next witness, testified that statistics showed a substantial decrease in the number of arrests and convictions related to alcohol over the last seven years. He attributed this decline to “a growing sentiment against intemperate drinking,” and a reluctance of employers in the city to hire or retain workmen addicted to liquor.

          As regards the relationship of liquor and crime, the police chief felt that petty crimes, such as disorderly conduct, were the result of over-indulgence in liquor. The same applied to the abuse of wives and children, but more serious crimes such as burglary, forgery and arson were c9ommitted by those who did not drink.

          Chief McKinnon did not agree with Police Magistrate Jelfs’ advocacy of unrestricted sale of liquor. He refused to say whether liquor licenses were granted to individuals on the basis of political favoritism.

          The police chief also felt strongly that short terms of imprisonment were not appropriate for confirmed drinkers. Rather, he proposed, sanatoriums for the treatment of alcohol addiction should be established.

          “Such places to be maintained at public expense?” asked Rev Dr. McLeod.

          “At government expense,” answered the chief.

          “That is,” Dr. McLeod sarcastically concluded, “the government which affords an opportunity to get in a certain condition should establish institutes to get them out of that condition.”

Thomas Beasley, who acted as the city clerk and clerk of the police court, was the next witness to be called. He substantiated Chief McKinnon’s testimony that crime had decreased in the city as evidenced by the decrease in the amount of fine levied at the police court.

Beasley was not sure of the exact cause for the decrease, but he did say:

“Long ago when all our sewing machine factories were in operation, people were able to pay their fines, now they can’t pay them.”

The city clerk also stated his strong opposition to any legislative statutes which would dictate to individuals what they should or should not drink 

Hamilton License Inspector John McKenzie felt that the existing licensing act was perfect. In his experience, it was the sale of impure liquor rather than license violation that was the real problem.

In his view, McKenzie stated his opinion that public opinion in favor of temperance was rapidly growing. He gave some figures to prove his point. In 1874, there were 93 licenses allocated to grocery stores which permitted the sale of liquor. In 1893, there were only 30 such licenses. In 1874, the city of Hamilton granted 223 tavern licenses, or one for every 140 of the population. In 1893, there were only 93 licenses in effect, or, one for every 535 of the population.

“Why has the number of licenses been reduced in Hamilton? Asked Dr. McLeod.

“To make it better for the license holders so that they can keep their houses in better condition,” replied the inspector.

“Do you believe that the smaller the number of licenses , the less liquor will be consumed?”

“Yes, down to a certain limit. But men who are determined to drink will go a long way to get their liquor.”   

“Do you believe the license system really regulates the traffic?”

“Yes, certainly.”

“Does it have the effect of weeding out all objectionable persons from the business?”

“To a large extent, yes.”

“Do most of the license holders observe the law perfectly then?”

“Yes, a few of them do.”

“Then you haven’t succeeded in weeding out most of the lawbreakers out of the business?”
          “Not altogether.”

On the second day of the commission proceedings, the first witness was Hamilton’s Crown Attorney, John Crerar, K.C. He testified that there had only been one prosecution for perjury in a liquor case in recent times. He believed that, in general, Hamilton had no moral wrong in the violation of liquor laws.

“It is similar to anything,” said Mr. Crerar, “a man will buy goods in Buffalo and bring them into this country in his pocket and say his prayers at night with an easy conscience.”

Mr. Crerar was against legislative prohibition of the sale of liquor, believing that the result would be increased price and lower quality of the liquor that he felt would continue to be manufactured and distributed illicitly.

Crear felt that the license law was well-enforced despite the constant criticisms of certain organizations and newspapers whose occupations, he said, “would be gone if they did not have the subject to harp about.”

Crerar also defended the practice of brewers and distillers holding chattel mortgages on hotels. When Rev. Dr. McLeod suggested that the license holders were mere agents of the liquor manufacturers, Crear told the commissioners that brewers were protecting themselves by exacting chattel mortgages from big debtors, insisting “there’s nothing wrong with that!”

Mr. Crerar provoked the ire of the editor of the Hamilton Spectator when he testified that “drinking places should be kept as far as possible from the factories and other places where men habitually congregated.”

In an editorial which appeared in the next day’s Spectator, Crerar’s claim that licenses were not granted near factories was both inaccurate and misleading, “it is a fact that licenses are granted to such houses in spite of the protests of the factory owners.”

The editorial went on to describe the recent granting of a license to a hotel on York street in spite of the objections of residents and factory owners in the area. The factory owners pointed out “the bad influence the place would have on young persons employed in the factories who would see the men going into the place for a drink, some of whom might think it manly to go in and get a glass of beer in company with the others.”

In spite of the protests, the license was granted because, the Spectator argued, “the applicant was a ward politician who had rendered service in previous elections and was able to render valuable service in other elections.”

After Crerar’s testimony, a man with a totally different point of view was called before the Commissioners, Mr. W. W. Buchanan, a strong temperance advocate.

Buchanan felt that not more than 25 out of the 93 hotel license holders actually had any sort of hotel accommodation as required by law. He felt that liquor was easily available outside of the permitted hours of sale from hotel owners. He also declared that liquor was also sold regularly to juveniles and those whose name was on the Indian list.

Buchanan was particularly outraged by the granting of a beer and wine license to the proprietors of Dundurn Park. He had visited the park himself and had witnessed the flagrant sale and open consumption of liquor there.

Mr. Buchanan was asked by Rev. McLeod if he felt that “political influence had anything to do with the failure to properly enforce the liquor license laws in Hamilton.

“In my opinion, it ha,” Mr. Buchanan replied.

“Then you believe that the administration of the law in Hamilton is used as a means to secure political advantage?”

Mr. Buchanan answered in the affirmative.

When asked about the practices of withdrawing a hotel’s license after the second proven violation of the liquor license law, Mr. Buchanan testified that there were never any “second offenses” in Hamilton, because all cases were brought to court as “first offences” due to political pressures.

Mr. John W. Murton, who had served as a member of the local Board of License Commissioners for over twelve years, testified that his former position was a difficult one. Asked by Judge Macdonald if he thought he former position was also a thankless one, Mr. Murton replied “the commissioner does his work conscientiously and to the best of his ability. He gets much abuse, little thanks and no pay.”

Mr. Murton was against a national prohibitory law, saying “I don’t believe it could be made operative in my country unless it were in force all over the world.”

Reverend Thomas Geoghegan was called, and after the commissioners finished their struggle with the spelling and pronunciation of his name, testified that  while a good deal of destitution and misery was caused by liquor, a good deal of it was not. He believed that extravagance in living and imperfect education led to over-indulgence in drinking. Domestic unhappiness, carelessness and inherited tendencies were also contributing factors.

Father Geoghegan also testified that the Church of England could not use any wine that was not fermented for sacramental purposes. He did not believe that people were wiser than the lord, so Father Geoghegan labeled anyone who opposed the use of fermented wine in the Holy Communion service a fanatic.

The first witness on the final day of the commission’s Hamilton hearings was Mr. J. J. Mason, a former mayor of the city. Mr. Mason agreed with Father Geoghegan, feeling that poverty in the city could not be directly or indirectly linked to the sale of liquor. During his two year term as mayor, he personally investigated all cases of poverty that came to his attention. He found that liquor was a factor in less than one out of ten cases, inability to get work being the prime cause of poverty.

The final witness to be called in Hamilton by the commissioners was Mr. C. R. Smith, Secretary of the city’s Board of Trade. Mr. Smith, who came to the hearing armed with a battery of statistics, testified that there were 178 manufacturing establishments in the city employing 13,000 artisans, many of whom owned their own homes, most of whom were sober and law-abiding.

In preparation for his testimony, Smith personally visited 76 of the 93 license holders in Hamilton. These 76 establishments represented realty value of $934,850, and employed 372 people who earned $91,340 annually. Any prohibitory law would mean serious loss of business to the city.

At 6:00 p.m., Saturday, October 7, 1893, the commissioners concluded their hearings in Hamilton. They had examined witnesses representing most classes of the community, with the notable exception of the working class.

Testimony from civic representatives, officers of the law, manufacturers and temperance workers all generally agreed that the license law was generally well-enforced in Hamilton, and that the city was remarkably free from the evils of the unlicensed sale of liquor.

The commissioners then made their way to the Stuart Street railway station to Woodstock, to there continue their hearings regarding the liquor trade in Canada.