Street Railway Bylaw (Part 5) - 1892

The meeting of Hamilton City Council at which the controversial street railway bylaw was to be discussed had been scheduled to begin at 7:30 p.m., March 14, 1892. Long before that scheduled starting time, scores of Hamiltonians arrived at the Council Chambers to ensure that they would be able to witness the proceedings.

          By 7 o’clock, the aldermen and city officials who sought to enter the chambers found every entrance crowded and they had difficulty reaching their seats:

          “ To such an extent was the public interest that every square foot on the floor of the chamber, in the little retiring rooms on either side, in the cockloft which is miscalled a gallery and out along the corridors and down the broad stairways, was occupied, and no discomfort of position or inconvenience caused by crowding seemed to make any difference in the willingness of the people to stay, so long as the subject they had come to hear discussed, was debated.” ¹

¹ “It Went : The Street Railway Bylaw Read Twice” Hamilton Herald. March 15, 1892.

          Although the Hamilton Herald deemed the crowd which had gathered to be slightly unruly, noting that “the slightest pretext to break out in cheers or groans, as the mood swayed it,”¹ the Hamilton Spectator reporter at the meeting was of the opinion that those who attended the meeting acted in a contemptible manner:

          “It would be indeed humiliating to Hamilton and to Hamilton’s public men, if the howling mob which crowded the gallery and floor of the council chamber could be regarded as ‘the sovereign people.’ It is true that there were scores of intelligent men and good citizens there; but the intelligent men and good citizens were outnumbered by the personal followers of Aldermen Carscallen and Stewart – the scum of the community, who haven’t brains enough to understand the ABC of public business, but just enough to prompt them to howl applause whenever their tin idols speak, and to hoot whenever those who are opposed to them say anything, no matter what it may be. The Great majority of those in the gallery were boys under seventeen years of age, whose shrill soprano screams sounded high above the tumult, and who yelled without knowing why they yelled, except that it seemed to please Stewart and Carscallen.”²

² “Safe Through the Strom: The Street Railway Bylaw Carried Last Night” Hamilton Spectator. March 15, 1892.

          The Spectator termed those who opposed to the street railway bylaw  “ a mob of irresponsible cubs and the unwashed followers of demagogues in office,” concluding that “no such disgraceful exhibition of demagoguism was ever seen in Hamilton.”²

                After the letters and petitions to Council had been disposed of, Alderman Morden introduced the report of the Special Street Railway Committee. When Morden moved adoption of the committee’s report, Alderman Stewart jumped to his feet to feet, asking Morden if he was serious in his intention to ask Council to adopt the Street Railway Bylaw when there was an overwhelming public sentiment against such legislation. An uproar arose and amid a chorus of boos, hisses and catcalls, Ald. Morden assured his questioners that he was indeed serious :

          “ Alderman Stewart received a mingled salvo of howls and cheers, and somebody yelled : ‘How’s your bull pups at the house of refuge?’ ”²

                Alderman Stewart attempted to move an amendment to the report of the Special Street Railway which would, in effect, call for a referendum on the matter:

          “Ald. Stewart expressed the opinion that his amendment met with the approval of the great mass of citizens, and he would support it with but a short address, as it spoke for itself.

          “At this point there was a cyclone of hisses and yells of ‘No! No!’

          “Ald. Stewart – ‘I notice my esteemed friend Mike Nelligan yells, ‘No, no!’ There are thousands of equally or more largely interested citizens who say yes. Continuing, he wanted to know if the city belonged to the citizens or to Ald. Morden.

          “At this point, there was such an uproar that the discussion was temporarily suspended. A man named Cook, who usually makes himself conspicuous when there is any municipal excitement on, began yelling across the room denouncing Fergy Armstrong”²

                When the uproar once again abated, Ald. Stewart concluded his address:

          “ ‘I beg of you, gentlemen,’ said the speaker, addressing the aldermen, ‘to come out and act the manly, honest part. Let the people pronounce on it at the polls, and you will meet them with clearer consciences in the future.’ ”³

                ³ “ They Put It Through : The Special Committee’s Report Endorsed By the Council” Hamilton Times. March 15, 1892.

                Alderman Carscallen began his address by claiming that it was despotism on the part of Council to carry such a bylaw in view of the public meetings which had been held to condemn the measure:

          “ He hankered to see the man who would dare to refuse to allow the citizens to pronounce upon the matter. ‘These meetings,’ he said, ‘ were called together from the body of the people.’

          “A voice – ‘By Jimmy Davis’ (Laughter)³

                After further addresses by Alderman Morris and Moore were heard, a vote was taken on Alderman Stewart’s amendment. It was defeated 13-7.

          Alderman Carscallen once again tried to delay the passage of the bylaw, and tried to get those in support of the bylaw to debate its merits. However, he was unsuccessful.

          As the bylaw was read clause by clause, Aldermen Stewart and Carscallen made numerous attempts to delay its passage, but to no avail :

          “The rest of the clauses were passed without change, though Ald. Carscallen and Stewart amused themselves during the rest of the evening with moving alternative amendments that they were usually the only supporters of.

          “At 1:10 a.m., the committee rose and reported the bylaw carried.”²

                The morning after the stormy council meeting, the City Hall custodians faced a large clean up task:

          “The ‘sovereign’ people wrought havoc in the City Council chamber last night. A hundred dollars would not cover the damage with which they did to their own property. Several of the chairs were broken, a bench was smashed, and several of the benches were defaced by the marks of nails in boots. A large part of the woodwork is damaged in some way.

“The carpet on the floor of the chamber is spotted with tobacco juice, quarts of which are soaked into it and cannot be got out, except by cutting the spots out.

“Before the doors of the council chamber were opened by the caretaker, a band gathered and gained admittance by breaking open the north door.

“This morning, the discarded tobacco quids and cigar stubs that were swept up off the carpet and matting made a pile a foot high.”⁴

^{4  “}The Scene of Battle : How the City Council Chamber Was Used” Hamilton Spectator. March 15, 1892.

The editorial which appeared in the local press the day after the council meeting were wildly divergent in their interpretation of the previous evening’s events.

The Hamilton Herald, took its typical middle-of-the-road position on the question and said:

“It is too late now to bewail the transaction and seeing that what is done cannot be undone, we all may as well make up our minds to make the best of It”⁵

⁵ “A Matter of Days” Hamilton Herald. March 15, 1892.

The Hamilton Times regretted council’s decision :

“We are sorry to see the trolley system, with its forest of poles and network of wires adopted at all in Hamilton. With all it defects, it is better than horse cars, but why should Hamilton out in the trolley system just as others are taking steps to discard it?

“By waiting the two years for the natural expiration of the old franchise, Hamilton would, almost without a doubt, be able to start with the storage battery – an advantage not less important than the addition to the rent which would be thus secured.”⁶

⁶ “The Street Railway Company and the City” Hamilton Times. March 15, 1892.

Finally, the Hamilton Spectator stated its satisfaction with the council decision, feeling that it was in the best interests of the city:

“Work upon the electric plant will begin shortly. Large sums of money will be paid to men who need it. In a few months, we shall have a street railway service worthy of so important a city as Hamilton.

“As one enterprise promotes another, we may reasonably hope that this will be the inauguration of a new era, that more important railway schemes will follow, and that Hamilton will take a new departure in enterprise and prosperity.”⁷

⁷ “The Passing of the Bylaw” Hamilton Spectator. March 15, 1892