1883 March - 3

The airing of the Brotherly Union dispute in the Hamilton Police court took place during the morning of Thursday March 8, 1883.
          It was certainly a memorable morning in the Police Court and reporters had trouble keeping up with the confused proceedings, as evidenced by the Time report reprinted in full as follows :
          “It is not the intention of the TIMES to give a full report of what transpired at the Police Court this morning in connection with the dispute amongst the membership of the Brotherly Union for the simple reason that it would fill a couple of pages of the paper. An epitome of the proceedings doubtless will satisfy all concerned.
          “The inquiry into the misunderstanding which occurred on Monday night last about the society’s fund occupied the attention of Police Magistrate Cahill from 10 a.m. until nearly 2 p.m.

“The facts are : At the meeting in question, after the reading of the minutes, as was the usual custom, the President-elect, Mr. Alex Doston was requested to take his seat. Mr. Dublin and Mr. Dowden objected to this on the ground that there were certain charges to be presented against him, namely, that of having induced the society to make a loan or advance to one T. J. Derrick upon pretensions or false representations. Dublin and Dowden rushed up to prevent him taking his seat. The marshal, Richard Hammond, demanded that they should keep order, but order by this time was out of the question, as all the members appeared to be talking all at once, and many of them apparently ready for more than mere talk. Dublin pushed Hammond back, and Hammond grabbed him by the collar. Dowden seconded Dublin’s efforts to eject Doston from the chair. Elizes Allans and John Johnson grabbed Dublin to prevent him doing something desperate. In the scuffle, the whole three fell on top of Allan, who grabbed Dublin by the legs and pulled him down. George Staunton then took a hand. He lifted Dublin up from on top of Allans, and declared that he had no intention of doing him injury. The Vice-President, Parry Helpsley, was watching Dowden, and felt it to be his duty to throttle him when he when he saw that his efforts to keep Dodson out of his position looked successful. Nobody was very much hurt, but the proceedings were not exactly according to the rules of the society.

“The first legal move in the matter was taken by Richard Hammond, the marshal, who had a charge laid against Dublin and Dowden for assaulting him. Then counter summons were issued against Staunton, Helmsley, Allens and Hammond. Mr. Crerar appeared for Hammond and Mr. Dodson, the President of the Society. Mr. Carscallen defended Dublin. Ten witnesses on one side and five on the other were examined, and the testimony was of a somewhat contradictory nature.

“The Magistrate decided to reserve his decision until Saturday morning. Mr. Cahill was heard to remark that the members should not have raised objection to Mr. Dotson taking his seat, as he had been duly electd President by a majority of the society. Any little differences they might have about funds could easily have been adjusted.

“The court room was filled with colored people all day, and the utmost interest was taken in the investigation.”¹

¹ “The Brotherly Union : An Extended Inquiry by the P. M. into the Working of the Order – How the Dispute Arose” Hamilton Times. March 8, 1883.

The reporter for the Spectator also had to sit through the nearly 4 hour police court sitting regarding the Brotherly Union matter. His report covered mostly the same ground but did include the following heated interaction between Henry Carscallen, the lawyer defending one of the assailants, Dublin and Alex. Dotson, the president of the society who was prevented from taking his seat.

“ ‘I understand, Mr. Dotson, that you are the Mucky-Mucky of the Brotherly Union of Hamilton.’

Witness (excitedly) – ‘I want you to understand that I ain’t a monkey.’

Mr. Carscallen – ‘I didn’t insinuate that you were a monkey.’

Witness – ‘Yes you did!’

Mr. Carscallen – ‘I simply asked if you were not High Mucky-Mucky – meaning thereby High Chief; president, in fact.’

Witness – ‘Why didn’t you say so? Yes, I was elected president.’¹

²“Brotherly Union : A Name That Does Not Fit a Society Worth a Cent”

Spectator. March 8, 1883.

On March 8, 1883, the Hamilton Times published a lengthy telegram from Montreal sent by one of its reporters who had accompanied a deputation of local municipal politicians to that city. The purpose of the deputation lengthy trip was to meet with General Manager Hickson of the Grand Trunk Railway on the subject of the possible enlargement of the company’s works in Hamilton.

The deputation was led by Charles Stiff, the manager of the Great Western division of the Grand Trunk Railway and as noted in the Times left “nothing undone that could be done for the comfort and conveniences of the city representatives, not while they were en route, but also during their brief sojourn in Montreal. Representatives of the Times and Spectator also accompanied the party.”³

³ “The G.T.R. Shops : Proposed Large Extension and Erection of New Yorks : Locomotive Works Promised : Conditions Laid Down by General Manager Hickson : H. & N.W.R. To Remain Neutral”

Hamilton Times   March 8, 1883

The Times reporter accompanied the delegation into the private office of General Manager Hickson and took down the following presentation by Hickson to the Hamilton gentlemen:

“He said : ‘It has been found necessary to secure additional facilities for building, repairing and rebuilding engines at some points west of Toronto. A number of the officers of the road, after giving the subject careful consideration, have agreed that some other western point would be the most available place for the establishment of these works. Hamilton, however, has the advantage of already having works located there, and I am quite willing to tell you frankly that I would rather extend the present shops than remove them to some other place – that is, provided the city is willing to deal with us in the liberal manner that we have a right to expect from it.”³

Hamilton Mayor Magill assured the G.T.R. General Manager that he and his council, as well as the citizens of Hamilton generally, had fond regard towards the railway and were willing to deal liberally with the company in order that there be no relocation.

Mr. Hickson then showed the delegation a mayor some plans showing what would had happen if the G. T. R. were to remain in Hamilton. In the plan, the company proposes to take in all the land embraced bounded by Hess, Eliza, Stuart and Queen streets. That area was at the time occupied by the Hamilton Iron Forging Works and Thompson’s lumber yard.

General Manager Hickson advised that the city of Hamilton should buy the land, close the streets named and turn it over to the Grand Trunk railway.  In addition, it was felt that the company should not have to pay any property taxes for a number of years.

At this point in the discussion, General Manager Hickson adamantly refused a suggestion that, if the city of Hamilton approved all the concessions being requested, that the railway company would, in turn, commit to employing a certain number of men at the new shops.

As noted by the Spectator listening to the negotiations, Hickson said that the number of men needed would vary from time to time:

“From 200 to 300 hands would be given employment. The company does not usually put up buildings and machinery without using them. But he (Hickson) would be willing to bind the company, that if they went out of the buildings, not only should the exemption cease, but the money should be paid back to the city.”⁴

⁴ “Home Again : The Civic Delegation Returns from Montreal”

Hamilton Spectator. March 9, 1883

A complication in the Grand Trunk Railway’s view of Hamilton as a location for the new shops for building, renovating and repairing locomotives was a situation concerning the Hamilton North and Northwestern Railway which had the potential falling into the ownership of the Canadian Pacific railway, a situation which would prevent the G.T.R. from using the H. N & N. W. tracks.

The civic delegation from Hamilton was then given a tour of the Grand Trunk Railway head offices in Montreal, and as they proceeded through the building renewed acquaintances with several gentlemen who formerly worked with the company in Hamilton.

A few of the aldermen returned home on the night train from Montreal, but the rail lines were so blocked that their progress was slow. They arrived in Hamilton only slightly before the rest of the deputation which came in on the official Grand Trunk Railway train which had left in the morning:

“After leaving Toronto, Mayor Magill, on behalf of the deputation, thanked Mr. Charles Stiff most heartily for his kindness and attention to the party, and the Mayor’s sentiments were endorsed by all. The deputation was probably the largest and most influential civic deputation that ever left Hamilton, and it is expected that the trip will result in benefits to the city”⁴

          After the dust had settled with the mayor and aldermen back in the city after their trip to the Grand Trunk Railway company headquarters in Montreal, both Hamilton daily newspapers published editorials with somewhat differing views regarding the retention and expansion of the railway locomotive shops.

          The Hamilton Times editorial began be reviewing the demands which the G.T.R. wanted met in order for their shops to stay and expand in Hamilton.

          The Times made its view on that matter very clear:

          “The Times does not approve of exemptions from taxation, nor of bonuses to manufacturers. When the Council has had under consideration the granting of such favors, the Times has taken the negative side of the argument.”

⁵ “Hamilton and the Grand Trunk” Hamilton Times. March 8, 1883.

          While the Times, in principle, opposes any financial bonuses, direct or indirect, to the Grand Trunk Railway, it would support the issue being placed before the Hamilton taxpayers, and if a majority of Hamiltonians favored such accommodations in this case, the Times would support that decision.

The Times editorial then referred to the matter of the relationship between the Grand Trunk Railway and the Hamilton & Northwestern railway.

          Although G.T.R. General Manager had made no specific demands from the city of Hamilton in the matter, he clearly showed concern that the G.T.R.’s main rival, the Canada Pacific would buy the Hamilton & Northwestern railway.

          The Times editorial noted that the city of Hamilton’s best position would be to not favor either company:

          “However distasteful it may be to individuals, it is certain that the general interests of Hamilton require the maintenance the independence of the Northwestern road, so that both the Canada Pacific and the Grand Trunk may have running powers over it.”⁵

                The Hamilton Spectator’s editorial arising out of the Montreal deputation began with a focus on the workers who would e needed in expanded locomotive shops in Hamilton:

          “Mr. Hickson expressed his desire to enlarge and extend the railway shops in this city, and he believed 200 or 300 additional men would then be employed. It will be borne in mind that mechanics of the class referred to are the most valuable citizens we could have amongst us. They earn good wages. Their occupation demands that they shall be above the average in intelligence and skill, and the rules of the company require that they shall be steady, sober men.”⁶

⁶ “The Grand Trunk Shops” Hamilton Spectator. March 9, 1883

          The Spectator felt that most the new employees would be married and most having children so that about 1000 new Hamiltonians would result if the shops expanded locally:

          “To secure so desirable a result, it will pay the city to deal with the railway company in a liberal spirit. It may be as well to wait awhile and learn officially what Mr. Hickson’s request was before discussing particular projects; but we may say unreservedly that if a free grant of the necessary land and some exemption from taxation will meet Mr. Hickson’s views and secure the extension of the shops, the city authorities will act wisely in making the concession.”⁶

                The Spectator editorial went on to argue that Hamilton had much to gain by accommodating the G.T.R. conditions, the city also had much to lose by denying them:

          “If inducements are not held out to extend the shops, some other place may be selected, and we may lose the force, or part of it, now employed here. It is unlikely that the company will maintain two considerable establishments west of Toronto for the repair and construction of locomotives, and if we do not take such steps as we are able to take to secure the one establishment in Hamilton, we may have the mortification of seeing the men and machinery now here removed to Stratford or London.”⁶

                The Spectator concluded its editorial by indicating its doubt that the G.T.R. would demand the placing of the Hamilton & Northwestern railway under its control as part of its requirements regarding the locomotive shops.

          The city of Hamilton in early 1883 held the balance of power as regards the stock of the Hamilton & Northwestern railway, and the Spectator  felt that it would be in the best interests of the city, as well as the two competing major railways to have the line remain independent and open to all railway companies desiring to send traffic over it.