1883-11-21ww

One week into the cabmen’s strike, the Spectator carried the following editorial in which the issues were dissected and an attempt was made to bring a solution to the matter:

“The citizens of Hamilton are suffering some inconvenience for want of cab accommodation, and the cabmen, it is to be supposed, are not wholly satisfied with their self-imposed idleness, during which their horses are ‘eating their heads off’ and rent and interest go on as usual. The matter is not one of life or death to the general public; at the same time, it would be well to have the matter satisfactorily arranged, and the cabbies on duty as usual.

“Citizens feel that proper regulations for the guidance and control of the cabmen are essential, and they feel also that no oppressive or unjust rules should be provided. The police commissioners are reasonable men, and it is quite certain they would not establish a rule which they do not consider demanded by the public interest.

“The first of the regulations to which the cabmen object are those providing for inspection. We think they are unreasonable in this. They are granted an exclusive privilege of some value. In consideration of a license fee, they are granted the exclusive right to carry casual passengers within the city limits. It is only just that the licensing authority shall have power to say that suitable carriages, horses, etc. shall be provided, and that they shall be kept clean and efficient. There is no way to secure but by inspection, supervision and revocation licenses is reserved.

“The requirement to provide carriages with lamps might be safely done away with. The city is supposed to be lighted on dark nights, and the need for lamps is not apparent. The cabmen say the expense to them is considerable. A pair of lamps cost about $40, and last only about two years. This concession might be reasonably be made without inconvenience to the public.

“ So to, it seems something of a hardship that a cab be required to wait so long as ten minutes for a passenger without extra compensation. If the time were reduced to five minutes, and a reasonable charge permitted for detentions beyond that time, only the negligent or dilatory would be compelled to pay.

“The cabmen are unreasonable in objecting to section 43 of the bylaw, which compels them to inform the police of the destination of any passenger when required. Such information will be required when the ends of justice seem to demand it. We are sure the cabmen do not desire to shield criminals, but the stand they are taking on this point puts them in that position. It is true they are not detectives, but it is only reasonable that they should aid the ministers of the law to the extent of their power. All good citizens should do that.

“It is only proper that cabmen should be required to keep their vehicles clean and in good order. But, if the civic authorities call upon a cabman to carry a drunken man or sick person, and his carriage is in consequence damaged or soiled, or if disinfectant is necessary, the city should pay both the expense and for time lost. The city has not more right to cause loss to a cabman than a private person has. The best way to get over this difficulty would be to provide a city ambulance for the conveyance of sick or injured persons to the hospital or their homes, and a common cart is plenty good enough for drunken men.”¹

¹ “The Strike of the Cabbies”

Hamilton Spectator.   November 19, 1883.

  On Tuesday, November 20, 1883, the Spectator reported that a solution to the cabmen`s strike seemed possible as Mayor Magill had issued an order providing for the cabbie to be issued licenses under the terms of the previous bylaw until the current controversy had been solved.

The next morning, several cabmen applied to the city clerk for a license but were told that the licenses to be issued were under the terms of the new bylaw.

A reporter for the Spectator sought out Mayor Magill for an interview:

“ `There is some misunderstanding about the order on the part of the clerk or the Spectator  reporter` the mayor said.

“ ‘Can you tell me what the order was, just as you gave it to the city clerk?’ inquired the reporter.

“ ‘I do not wish to have any more to say about the order ; it is most ridiculous to allow such things to get into the paper,’ replied his worship.

“ ‘Well, did you issue an order at all, Mr. Mayor?’

“ ‘No; I’ve no power to issue such orders. It is dangerous to talk to a Spectator reporter on the subject,’ answered the mayor.

“The reporter retired.”¹

¹ “The Cabmen : No License Yet Taken Out – the New Bylaw to Be Enforced”

Hamilton Spectator.   November 21, 1883.

What had happened during the previous day was that the reporter had heard about a possible solution to the cabmen’s strike and had gone to the city clerk’s office to verify the story.

At the City Hall, the reporter met Mr. Alex. Beasley, who worked in the city clerk’s office:

“ ‘What order have you received from the mayor about the cabmen?’

“ ‘An order to grant licenses under the old conditions.’

“ ‘Does that mean the old bylaw?’

“ ‘Yes,’ said Mr. Beasley’

“Then the cabmen have gained their point?’

“ ‘It seems so.”

Later, the reporter met Alex. Beasley’s father, City Clerk Richard Beasley, who immediately denied his son’s story”

“ ‘You have got that wrong about the cabmen. My son says you misunderstood him. But, in future, I won’t have anything to do with verbal orders.’ ”

It seemed like the cabmen’s strike would soon be over, and new licenses would be issued, but the terms of the settlement were not to be made known to the press.