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