1883-12-27 Police Commision

“A meeting of the Police Commissioners was held this morning, at which all three Commissioners were present.”

Hamilton Times.  December 27, 1883. Had three members

The Hamilton Police Commission in the 1880s had three members : the mayor of the city, the Police Magistrate, and the senior judge of the Wentworth County Court.

The Commissioners met monthly on a regular basis, and would, on occasion, have extra meeting should circumstances warrant.

The meeting of the Hamilton Police commission in December 1883 was held on the day after Christmas that year, December 26, 1883:

“There were two applications for cab permits. They were made by William Dryden and Alex. Bain on behalf of their sons, both of whom were underage. The commissioners refused to grant a permit to either, as they can see no reason for making an exception to the provision of the bylaw.”¹

¹  “Police Commissioners : Charges Against  Detective Officers Investigated ”

Hamilton Spectator.   December 27, 1883.

Unusually, the commissioners were faced with accusations of misconduct placed against two members of the force

“The statement that Detective Doyle received $50 from a private individual was investigated. The information  was conveyed to the Commissioners by the Chief of Police, who learned of it through Mr. R.R. Waddell, who was the legal advisor Malcolm, from whom the money, or note, was said to have come. The Chief submitted to the Commissioners a letter he had written to Mr. Waddell, asking that gentleman to formulate a specific charge against Doyle, and Mr. Waddell’s reply, in which he refused to comply with the request, stating that he had no charge to make and that he was not a public prosecutor. Mr. Waddell said that he had given Doyle a note for $50 for certain services to be rendered by the officer, and that he (Waddell), believing it to be a dereliction of duty on the part of any police officer to receive money from those whose cases they are working on, had communicated the fact to the Chief. It was further stated that Detective Doyle had destroyed the note.

“Detective Doyle was heard in reference to the matter. He admitted that he had received from Mr. Malcolm a rough draft of a note for $50. He had at first refused to accept money from Mr. Malcolm, who pressed the note on him. Malcolm wanted him to give information concerning the movements of his wife, who was living apart from him. After receiving the note, he had torn it up.

“The Judge said he thought the affair called for an investigation, and it was decided to defer it until the next meeting, when witnesses will be brought and the whole case gone into.”¹

The second charge had also been placed against a member of the detective force, and it involved an interaction with a newspaper reporter, working for the Hamilton Tribune:

“Charges brought against Detective McKenzie by W.P. Robinson, reporter of the Tribune newspaper, were investigated. The charges were that McKenzie had insulted Mr. Robinson in No. 1 Police Station, and threatened to eject him from the station, and had assaulted him. The Commissioners made a full investigation of the charges. They requested the representatives of the press to withdraw, and discussed the evidence with closed doors. The result of the secret consultation was that the charge of using insulting language was dismissed, and it was decided that the assault charge should be carried to another tribunal.”¹

As there had been a rash of burglaries, some with violence involved in Hamilton recently, the Wentworth County Judge made a statement about the situation, referring specifically to an incident at the toll gate, near the Desjardins canal between the bay and the Dundas marsh:

“The Judge brought to the notice of the Board the great number of burglaries that had recently been committed in and near the city. He referred especially to the recent robbery near the toll gate, and said he thought the police of the city should have taken that matter in hand, as the gate was virtually in the city, and the crime had been committed by ruffians from the city.

“The chief said the police were now working up the case.

Finally, Chief A.D. Stewart brought up a matter which he felt very strongly about:

“Chief Stewart made an appeal to the Commissioners in favor of allowing the police to be armed at night. There are at present over seventy professional thieves and burglars in Hamilton who practiced their nefarious business at night, and usually they were armed. It was not fair to expect a constable to cope with one or two burglars, when he was armed only with his baton and they had revolvers. He averred that Hamilton was the only city in Canada whose police went unarmed at night.

“The Judge thought it was unfair to the force. For their own protection as well as for the better protection of the public, it would be well to allow the men on night duty to carry revolvers. They were discreet men, who knew the use of firearms, and could be trusted.

“The Magistrate did not approve of the carrying of firearms by the police force.

“The Chief was asked to prepare an estimate of the cost of pistols, and submit it at the next meeting.

“The Board then adjourned.”¹

1883-12-26Election Meeting

“A meeting of the electors of No. 3 ward, called by the Labor Political association, was held last evening at Blaisdall’s cottage, on the corner of Locke and Pine. The little room in which it was held was crowded.”

Hamilton Spectator. December 26, 1883.

With Christmas day, 1883 just passed, the attention of many Hamilltonians was directed intensely on matters related to the soon to take place election for Hamilton aldermen and mayor.

Some political events were large scale, others smaller. A smaller event in terms of space to hold ratepayers and candidates was held on December 26, 1883 :

“The meeting was called to order at 8 o’clock sharp, and Mr. Geo. Collis took the chair. He explained the object of the meeting in a few brief remarks, and said the Labor-Political association was composed of wage-workers who were quite independent of party lines, and who were determined to have a voice in civic affairs, and see that legislation was always for the good of the country.”¹

¹ ”The Municipal Battle : Ward Meetings in Nos. 1 and 3 Last Night : The Candidates Air Themselves on the Free Library Question, the Ward Appropriation plan, Street Pavements, Etc.”

Hamilton Spectator     December 26, 1883.

One of the two aldermanic incumbents, Alderman VanAllen was the first speaker. He lauded his own, and council’s successes during the past term, while voicing his decided opposition to a movement to establish a free public library in Hamilton:

“Ald. VanAllen was then called upon to address the electors. He did so dwelling upon the time he had been in the city, and on the fact that in the early days, he had been a working man himself, and for the past fifteen years an employer. He referred at length to the many improvements made in No. 3 ward during the past three years, for which time he had been one of the representatives of No. 3 ward in the city council., and to the fact that he had warmly supported the new bylaws on wood, coal, etc. In expressing himself on the free bylaw, he said he was proud of the fact that he was one of those who helped vote it down. If the bylaw had passed its second reading and had been submitted to the people, it would have entailed  a cost to the city of $700, and that was one of the principal reasons of his opposing it. The statute was such that the people might be called to pay about $8,000 a year to keep it up, and he thought if the bylaw was passed, it would be one of the worst things for Hamilton that had ever happened. He also explained that Mr. F. C. Bruce was not present to address them because of the sickness of one of his children.”¹

The following speech was from prominent lawyer, seeking election to Hamilton council :

 “Mr. J. V. Teetzel was next called upon. He opened with a brilliant, rhetorical effort upon Ald. VanAllen’s speech, and said it was all very well for that gentleman to say he actively supported the new coal, wood and other bylaws, but the chief credit was due to the workingmen of the city, who had promulgated them, and, by their efforts, had carried them into effect. He expressed himself as being in favor of a free public library, public parks, independence of the Northern and Northwestern railway, and public baths. He also said he was opposed to bonuses being given and exemptions from taxation allowed, and thought that money given as a bonus to any industrial monopoly might be better employed in effecting permanent improvements in the city.

The next candidadte to speak needed no introduction to those gathered. George Elias Tuckett was one of Hamilton’s richest and most prominent citizens, having already had a distinguished career as a local municipal legislator :

 “Mr. George E. Tuckett said that if the reforms clamored for so anxiously just now had been wanted before, the people could have got them, for you can only legislate up to the wishes of the people. He expressed himself strongly in favor of progressive local government, and thought it wrong to keep the Crystal palace gates closed at any time, unless perhaps when the fair was going on. He wanted to be able to go in there whenever he chose to do so. He thought  the electors of each ward  should meet frequently and consult as to what was best for the interests of the ward, and tell their representatives in the council what was wanted.  If it wasn’t done, they could turn their man out. It was unfair to hold one meeting a year, and then blame the old representatives high and low for their work. No man could be expected to have sufficient intelligence to legislate capably for the whole ward.”¹

          There was one more speaker before the proceedings were closed, a speaker who experienced some heckling and intense questioning from those assembled, as had most other speakers:

“Mr. Mills made a brief address. The speakers were frequently interrupted by those present, who asked questions as to what they would do in this or that matter, and the chairman was forced several times to call the meeting to order. One man present was greatly trouble over the fact that there was neither sidewalk no water main on the east end of Herkimer street. He said the residents of that portion of the street had petitioned for both these, and because one man objected, the request was refused.

“At the conclusion of the meeting, a vote of thanks was tendered to the chairman, who made a suitable response, and the meeting adjourned.”¹