1883-10-31oz

On October 31, 1884, the licenses of all the cab drivers in Hamilton expired. A new legislation governing the operation of cabs in the city had been passed by the police commissioners, much to the dismay of the cabmen. The cab drivers were so dissatisfied that they collectively decided to not renew their licenses:

“At a meeting held at Coutt’s hotel last night they went over the bylaw and marked the paragraphs to which they object, and decided that they would strike tonight, put up their vehicles and decline to work unless the police commissioners agree to hold a meeting to discuss their objections, and give them permission to work without a license in the meantime.”¹

¹ “The Cabmen : Dissatisfied With the New Bylaw”

Hamilton Spectator     October 31, 1883.

The bylaw called for Hamilton Police Chief to have absolute control over the cabmen and the vehicles they operated. He would have the right to inspect them at any time. The horses, stables, harnesses and other equipment used by the cabmen must be kept in proper condition, especially in wet or wintry weather.

The cabmen would have to be deemed “fit and proper” persons by the police commissioners before being granted a license. The cabmen, under the new bylaw would be required to transport policemen at any time, the usual fare to be charged, rather than immediately collected. Also, the cabmen would be required to co-operate fully with the police in any criminal investigation which the cabmen may be party to have information about.

Finally, the bylaw gave the policemen power to adjudicate disputes over cab fares, and if the policeman decides that the cabman was attempting to overcharge his customer, the policeman himself would lay a formal charge against the cab driver.

At 6 p.m., during the evening of November 14, 1883, the cabmen of Hamilton collectively withdrew their services to protest aspects of the new cabmen’s bylaw, things which they considered to be oppressive. They particularly objected to the powers invested with the chief of police.

Hamilton Mayor Magill stated that it was his opinion that the cabmen did not have much to complain about, as the bylaw was much less stringent than the cab bylaws used in Toronto or Ottawa.

A Spectator reporter spoke with a cabman who told him that he and his fellow cabmen would not work under the bylaw:

“They could, and would, remain at home rather than be governed by a bylaw which made them subservient to the policemen. The only they were afraid of was that other men would take out licenses and cut them out before matters were straightened.”²

² “The Cabmen’s Holiday : One of the Commissioners Don’t Favor Any Change in the Bylaw.”

Hamilton Spectator.     November 15, 1883.

The cab men, fearing new applicants for licenses, were determined to prevent any pirating drivers who might try to provide transportation:

“Two or three of the cabmen have been keeping watch at the railway stations on the arrivals and departures to see that none of the drivers have taken advantage of the strike to reap a harvest.”²

                Whenever there was any difficulty involving the workingmen of Hamilton, the labor newspaper, the Palladium of Labor was sure to have something to say. And such was the case in the November 17 1883 issue of the paper:

          “Driven to desperation by the unwarrantable interference of the authorities, the cabmen of the city have at last been compelled to refuse their services to the public.

          “For a long time past, these men have been murmuring against the unfair treatment to which they have been subjected by the Police Commissioners. Recently, the Bylaws covering cabs and cab driving were revised, and some changes introduced, which subjected the cabmen, if they would submit to them, to the grossest indignities. They are supposed to throw open the doors of their stables and submit all within to the scrutiny of A. D. Stewart. What could be more insulting  to a man possessed with one iota of self-respect than to be ordered to present his own private property to the scrutiny of any namby-pamby officer that comes along and demands it ?

          “It is difficult to see what Chief Stewart has to do with the kind of cab Mr. A. keeps, or what Mr. B. paid for his new harness. What is it his business? He did not buy them. Every man of common sense knows that it is serving the personal interest of a cabman to keep his cab in good order and clean, for if his cab be not neat and tidy, people will not patronize his vehicle, and yet the police commissioners had not gone so far as to compel the citizens to hire a certain cab and no other.

          “There is not the slightest reason on earth for the Police Commissioners, or any other body of public servants to interfere with the rights of these men in the way they have. The horses, cabs and the harness that these men drive is their own private property, bought independent of the public. It is nobody’s business whether these cabs are good, bad or indifferent. There has been too much of this red tape business in the transaction of public affairs in Hamilton of late years. Just and stringent laws, in the interests of the public should be recognized and upheld, but the introduction of such liquorish nonsense as we find in the revised cab bylaws should be condemned by all.

          “The official injunction that all cabs must be kept constantly clean and dry or the owner or driver thereof will be deprived of his license is contemptibly childish and silly. No man can keep his cab clean and dry in wet, muddy weather. ‘Oh,’ says one of the Commissioners, ‘we don’t mean that literally. We will have to leave the matter to the discretion of the Inspector.’

          “Just so. But suppose that Inspector is not a very discrete man, and he is not at all likely to be so, what then? Simply, that men, who are good and respectable citizens of Hamilton, will be continually subjected to the indignity of being brought before our Police Magistrate as common public nuisances.

          “There is a great number of objectionable clauses in the amended bylaw, but those mentioned above will be sufficient to show the unprejudiced public that the cabmen are justified in their refusal to comply with such officious nonsense.”³

                ³ “The Cabmen’s Troubles  the Men All Strike on Account of the Obnoxious Bylaws.”

          Palladium of Labor.   November 17, 1883.

          (To Be Continued)