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