Street Railway Bylaw (Part 2) - 1892

On Tuesday, March 8, 1892, the proponents of the Hamilton Electric Street Railway Company held a public meeting in the Palace Rink to further their demand for open competition as regards the awarding of the street railway franchise, and to protest the recommendation of the Special Street Railway Committee to accept the offer of the Hamilton Street Railway Company.

          The meeting was described in various ways by the three Hamilton daily newspapers, depending on their particular position on the controversial question.

          The Hamilton Spectator, a paper which favored the recommendation of the Special Street Railway Committee, characterized the meeting as follows:

          “The truth is that it was a packed meeting, got together by the electric light company for the purpose of affecting the action of City Council. Jim Davis was at the door long before the meeting began, and, with the assistance of some others, distributed the ‘boys’ judiciously in the rear of the crowd and through it. He remained to the close, and all through the meeting gave the cue for applause, howls, hisses and interruptions. It was beautifully managed.”¹

¹ “The Rival Company’s Turn : Obtaining an Expression of ‘Public Opinion’ ”  Hamilton Spectator. March 9, 1892.

          The Hamilton Times, which held a somewhat different point of view than the Spectator, called the meeting essentially “a gathering of ratepayers – men of mature years and young men, but nine out of every ten present voters.”²

²  “The Citizens : Decidedly Opposed to the Railway Deal.” Hamilton Times. March 9, 1892

          The Hamilton Herald, which was strongly in favor of open competition for the street railway franchise, opened its article on the meeting in the following way:

          “Whatever may be the views of the business portion of the community on the street railway problem, as expressed in resolution adopted by the Board of Trade, these views certainly are not shared by the other and larger section of the people of Hamilton, who come under the classification of ordinary citizens.

          “It will be charged – indeed, the charge has been made already – that the meeting was packed in the interest of the opponents of the present holders of the franchise, but this charge is only the refuge of those who are seeking an explanation for the aroused public feeling of which they had no suspicion. It would have been easy to pack the comparatively narrow limits of the Board of Trade building, but anyone undertaking such a task in the Palace Rink would have found insurmountable difficulties in his way.”³

³ “A Storm of Opposition : Citizens Speak on the Street Railway Question” Hamilton Herald. March 9, 1892.

          Despite the disagreeable weather, a large crowd turned out to listen to a series of speakers addressing the controversial topic of the street franchise.

          According to the Herald, the majority of the audience was in favor of open competition:

          “Of the opinion of the crowd, there could be no mistake. It was either ominously silent or noisily dissentient when anything was said in favor of closing the deal on the present terms, but was loud-voiced and determined in its support of competition in the sale of the franchise, and equally so for encouraging the Hamilton, Grimsby and Beamsville Electric Railway Company in every way possible.”³

                Mayor Blaicher, too ill to attend the meeting, had asked Alderman Moore to stand in for him. When the alderman called for a vote to elect a chairman for the meeting, he found himself occupying that position.

          Mr. Charlton was the first speaker and he began by assuring his hearers that his company had always done its best to give the citizens of Hamilton the very best service possible, but that it had been determined that the old-fashioned horse car system had to be replaced with an electric traction system:

          “ The company had been greatly influenced in its determination to make this important change by the fact that workingmen had failed to take advantage of the recently-introduced cheap fares, their reason for not doing so being that the horse cars were too slow to carry them long distances with sufficient speed. Electric cars would run one and a half times as fast as the horse cars in the thickly-populated districts, and three times as rapidly where there was little traffic.”¹

          Mr. Charlton stated that the reason his company wanted a renewal of the franchise was that it was in a position to more rapidly introduce the electric system. His company, he claimed, was in a better position to offer better terms with the city because it better understood the steamboat business which worked in connection with the street railway. The company wished to avoid arbitration with the city over the value of the road as the arbitration process in Toronto had cost the city $63,000 and the company $73,000.

          Mr. Charlton felt that rival company which was competing for the street railway franchise was really under the full control of the Hamilton Electric Light Company:

          “If Mr. Kennedy’s street railway company were to get the franchise of the street railway, it would not be long before the Hamilton electric light works, the Hamilton street railway and the Hamilton and Dundas railway would all be merged under one control – that of the present electric light company.”¹

            Mr. Charlton also stated his opposition to the construction of the Hamilton Grimsby and Beamsville electric railway if it were to try to run a suburban line to Bartonville as well as through trains to Grimsby and Beamsville:

          “ ‘Through my spectacles I see,’ said he, ‘an amalgamation of the H. G. & B., and the Hamilton and Dundas road in the future, and a local line from the southwest to the east end of the city.”²

² “The Citizens : Decidedly Opposed to the Railway Deal” Hamilton Times  March 9, 1892

Mr. Charlton then made reference to the street railway employees and their hours of work. Instead of 55 men, 108 would be employed. The cars would be run from 6:30 a.m. until 11 p.m. with each man working a 10 hour day:

“When he said ‘our men work very many hours everyday and we are sorry for it,’ there was a laugh throughout the entire audience, and someone asked ‘How much are you going to pay them?’ which Mr. Charlton evidently did not hear” ¹

Mr. Charlton concluded by saying that when his company made an offer to the city for the franchise, the rival company did not:

“The previous night, however, the company had come up with an offer which they considered a bomb, but the bomb had fallen in the soup and would hurt no one but themselves.”¹

The next speaker to take the stage was Mr. Adam Rutherford, of the Hamilton, Grimsby and Beamsville electric railway company:

“At the outset, he was annoyed by a persistent interrupter, who sought to rattle him with more or less relevant questions, and was shut off only by the appeal of the audience not to permit disorder, and by the appeal of the chairman for a fair hearing for the speaker.”¹

Mr. Rutherford dwelt upon the advantages that Hamilton would reap from the Hamilton, Grimsby and Beamsville line which would tap a section of the country for the city’s commerce:

“In picturing the manifest advantages of his road, Mr. Rutherford was evidently in accord with the sentiments of the gathering for he was compelled often to stop until the applause subsided.”³

Mr. Rutherford argued that if his company were only allowed to run through trains, the results would be disastrous:

“Mr. Charlton had been looking through his spectacles (Laughter) and had seen the H. G. & B. built only to Bartonville and doing only a local business. If that is what Mr. Charlton sees through his spectacles, I would advise him to go to Davis and McCulloch or Thomas Lees and get a new pair (Long and loud laughter and applause).

“The Hamilton Electric Street Railway company in their offer to the city made no objections to the H. G. & B. That company evidently did not look through spectacles (Laughter), but it made an offer to the city that was $5,000 a year better than the offer made by the Hamilton Street Railway company.”¹

J. V. Teetzel, Q.C., the provisional secretary of the Hamilton Electric Street Railway company spoke energetically on behalf of free competition for Hamilton’s street railway franchise:

“He said that by far the most important question before the people was ‘How shall you dispose of your most valued street railway franchise? Shall it be sold to the first bidder, or shall it be sold in a business-like way?’ ”¹

Mr. Teetzel said that Mr. Charlton had made a candid confession when he said that the directors of the Street Railway had not anticipated that, in two years’ time when its franchise expired, there would be two or three companies willing to bid for it.

In a show of philanthropy for their poor employees and horses, Mr. Charlton wished to secure the franchise renewal immediately. Instead of rushing into a bad deal, the matter should be delayed until the current franchise expired. Mr. Teetzel thought that it would be especially desirable if the matter were at least delayed until after the Chicago World’s Fair in order to ascertain whether a better electric system than the trolley was not obtainable.

Ex-Alderman Tom Brick was then called for, and in the humorous and forceful style for which he was noted, the speaker called for open competition for the street railway franchise with its current owner:

“ He said, ‘ Ye see aldermen of this city goin’ round these days all doubled up – afraid to you look you in the face. What are they ashamed of? They’re ashamed because they’re sellin’ the vallyble franchise of the street railway. What right have they to sell this vallyble franchise? I don’t believe in any monopolies. Suppose Tom Brick went up to the City council and offered $50 for the privilege of doin’ all the city cartin’ ? What would be thought of me?”

“A voice – ‘You ought to be in the asylum.’

“Brick – ‘Oh, there’s sounder men in the asylum than you are.(Laughter.)’ ”

Brick believed that some of the aldermen had pledged themselves to the old company. He did not mean to insinuate that they had been bribed, but many of them, he observed, were going around with a hang-dog look:

“Last year he was in the Council, and he saw aldermen with their knives in the Hamilton Street Railway, and now the same men were doing all they could for the company. There must be something crooked. He did not believe in the city cutting down a hill to oblige the Street Railway company, as had been done a few years ago. He hoped the City Council would never give away the franchise without putting it up for competition” ¹

Mr. W. Fred Walker, Q.C. spoke about the need for open competition as regards the granting of the street railway franchise. He, therefore, moved the following resolution:

“That, in the opinion of this public mas meeting called to discuss the Street Railway competition, it is not in the best interest of the city that the offer of the present Street Car company should be accepted.

“Resolved, therefore, that the members of the City Council be requested, as the representatives of the citizens, to wait until the present charter expires, unless the present company is willing to give up its present lease and come into the field as a public competitor; and be it further resolved that the Hamilton, Grimsby and Beamsville Electric Railroad Company is worthy of all encouragement and should be helped in each and every possible way.”

Alderman Henry Carscallen was loudly called for and when he presented himself on stage, there was an enthusiastic demonstration in his favor:

“Ald. Carscallen, whom the audience had been calling for for some time, now came forward, sweetly smiling at the applause which he received. He spoke with his usual vigor, beginning by charging Mr. Charlton and the street railway company with having sprung the question upon the public after having used their influence to get men at the council board whom they could use. “I am glad that I have been able to rouse my fellow citizens to a sense of the enormity of the present proceedings.”¹

Alderman Carscallen vehemently attacked the Special Street Railway Committee for its secret “hole-and-corner” meetings :

“Although he did not begin his address until almost half-past ten o’clock, and spoke for a full hour, no one seemed weary of listening to his arguments, and scarcely a single individual of the large audience left before he closed. The applause with which his hearers insisted on punctuating his sentences were loud and frequent, showing clearly that he was expressing sentiments with which they were fully in accord.”³

When Alderman Carscallen resumed his seat, both Alderman A. D. Stewart and Thomas Littlehales came forward. The crowd cheered for the former police chief and he spoke for a few minutes, angrily denouncing the actions of the special committee:

“As a matter of course, Ald. Stewart had to see Ald. Carscallen and go him one better; so he declared most emphatically that ‘every alderman who votes for the report of the special railway committee will prove himself a traitor to the city.”³

Mr. Thomas Littlehales attempted to read an amendment to the resolution which had been put forward to the meeting:

“He managed to secure a hearing that lasted just thirty seconds. By that time, the crowd discovered him a friend of the Street Railway company and an opponent of competition, and would have none of him”²

The amendment proposed by Mr. Littlehales was in favor of the recommendation of the Special Street Railway Committee that the franchise be renewed with the current franchise holder.

After Mr. Littlehales was unsuccessful at reading his amendment to the motion, the meeting chairman attempted the same feat, but was loudly accused of being partisan and forcing his personal views on the meeting:

“ ‘I am here,’ explained the chairman, ‘solely for the purpose of presiding over this assembly and preserving order. That I have failed to preserve order is not my fault. I am not here to express my views on the subject under consideration. In the course of the discussion, statements have been made which I disapprove of and opinions expressed which I cannot agree with; but I will probably be enabled to state my own views at the proper time and place – not here.”²

Chairman Moore rose to speak and declared that it was not unusual to have a public meeting where both sides of a question could not be presented:

“And, he added, with suave irony, that he would be very sorry to believe that the meeting had been packed for a purpose.”²

At this point, someone in the audience shouted out, “How about a fair hearing in your ‘do-it-in-the-dark committee?” but Chairman Moore evaded the question and put Thomas Littlehales’ amendment to a vote:

“On a vote being called for on the amendment, there was a grand chorus of ‘No’ followed by three distinct and separate cries of ‘Yes’ from different parts of the hall. When the vote on Mr. Walker’s motion was put the assembly rose in a body, cheered, shouted and waved hats all in its favor. The chairman declared the motion carried amid a renewed demonstration and wound up the meeting by proposing three cheers for the Queen” ¹

(Part 2 of this story – not sure how many more parts to come. 3 maybe !)