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)

1883-11-15gg

          There was an unusual prisoner in the dock at the morning session of the Hamilton Police Court, Thursday November 15, 1883.

          Mr. A. Scott Cruickshank, headmaster of the Hess Street School, was charged with excessively flogging one of the boys, William Ashley. Ashley, who was about 12 years old, was a pupil in Miss Logan’s class.

          “Miss Logan claimed that the misbehaving pupil would not hold out his hand to receive the strap. Ashley claimed that the headmaster thrashed him unmercifully, and even kicked him after he fell on the floor.

          Miss Logan testified on behalf of the headmaster:

          “The boy, Ashley, was in her class, and a very stubborn member of it too. On Tuesday, he refused to take his lesson book home. As this was a punishable offense, Miss Logan called him out to strap him. He, however, did not seem to relish this treatment, and picked up a slate to hurl at his teacher.”¹

                ¹“Corporal Punishment :  A Prominent Schoolmaster Charged With Overflogging a Boy”

Hamilton Spectator     November 15, 1883.

Miss Logan then called in the headmaster to deal with the boy:

“The boy refused to hold out his hand when told to do so by the headmaster, who thereupon used the strap on his body. Being still too obstinate to take his punishment reasonably, he knelt on the floor, and, being then in a good position, Mr. Cruickshank gave him the remainder of his punishment.”¹

Mr. Cruickshank was asked if he didn’t think the punishment too severe. The headmaster thought not, and claimed that no one could give a boy a severe thrashing without leaving bruises.

A teacher from the Central School, G. W. Washington, testified that no teacher in the local schools could punish a child with the cool or deliberately thorough manner that Mr. Cruickshank employed.

The case was then dismissed.

1883-11-15tt

On November 15, 1883, the Spectator carried an account of what work was like, in the local office for the telephone operators, also commonly called the ‘hello girls.’ A visit to the room where the switchboards were located to observe the work, followed by an interview with the local manager of the telephone company :

          “The work of a telephone operator is not, as some suppose, mere play. It has advantages, of course, but it has disadvantages as well.
          “A case is reported of Miss Bessie Goslyn having recently lost her voice completely through constant use of the vocal organs. Cases have also been known where lady operators have had their hearing more or less affected.
          “Of late, however, the effect has not been noticeable, owing, no doubt, to the improvements of the instruments, and the introduction of the transmitter.
          “Manager Dunston, of the Hamilton branch, says that, although the operators in his office are kept busy pretty much all day, they suffer no in convenience. Two operators have been in the office for three years, and the only noticeable effect that the work has had is to quicken their hearing. This is demonstrated by the fact that a message by one not used to the instruments can be easily taken by an operator.
          “The operators speak in a tone below the ordinary pitch used in conversation, and so close to the transmitter, as to every word being distinctly heard at the other of the wires. The farther the distance has to travel, the louder the operator has to speak in order to be distinctly heard, but still the pitch never raises as high as that used in ordinary conversation.
          “The number of messages which an operator receives during a day cannot easily be estimated, but there are always enough, except between 12 and 1o’clock, and after 4 o’clock, to keep the operator from novel reading in which they are supposed to indulge.”^{1
                1} “Telephone  Operating : The Effect It Has Upon the Speech and Hearing of the Operator”

Hamilton Spectator     November 15, 1884.

1883-10-25tt

The follwing is what was published in the Hamilton Spectator of October 25, 1883:

“It will be remembered that recently a stenographer of the High Court of Justice took down a statement from Maria McCabe’s lips as to her crime.

“It is given in substance below, Her story is a particularly sad one, and it is no wonder that, taking everything in consideration, so much sympathy is expressed for the unfortunate girl.

“She said : ‘I was born in Dublin, my father was a blacksmith; there were nine children of us; when I was nine years old, my mother died of heart disease, father being sick at the time with rheumatism;

“ ‘After my mother’s death, he was sledging some iron one day when a scale of iron flew into his eyes, in consequence of which he underwent three operations, losing his eyesight totally under the last one.

“ ‘I was 18 in May last; during the time my father was in the hospital, I was put into the Carmelite convent by my sisters, remaining there one year and eleven months; all my sisters are dead but one, who is married and lives in Temple Bar, Dublin; I had no brother; after leaving the convent, I went as nurse girl and stayed three and a half years in one place.

“ ‘I then became sick and went back to the hospital; a month afterwards I went back into the convent again, and remained there until I came to this country.

“I was sick six weeks in the convent when I went back; the girls were all emigrating, and Father O’Toole asked me if I wouldn’t like to go to Canada, and I said ‘Yes; I have been here three years last month; I came straight to Hamilton from Quebec, and got a place with Mr. Maddigan, the police constable; subsequently, I lived nine months with the widow Foster, on Barton street, then at Scott’s hotel one month; then at Yaldon’s, three weeks; I couldn’t get along with the mistress, and I just left.; I was a kitchen girl; the reason I left Mrs. Foster’s was because I got a raise of wages from $5.50 to $6 per month; I was not able for the work at Scott’s hotel; I went to Jones’ saloon from Yaldon’s and was fourteen months there.

“(Her statement as to her seduction and giving her seducer’s name follows here)

“After leaving Jones’ I went to Dillon’s hotel, corner John and King William streets, remaining there two months, this was five months after my mishap; when the two months were up, I left Dillon’s and went to the city hospital, where my child was born; I was there three weeks; after that I went to Mrs. Foster’s, but not the same Mrs. Foster I had been working with before; I had a nurse engaged to take the child, and Mrs. Foster said she would adopt it; I had no written agreement for it, and the child was not a week in the house when she first objected to it and said that Mr. Foster would not allow her to keep it; they had no children of their own; Mrs. Foster would not let the nurse keep the child, and told me I would have to find a place for it; I went to the Mayor and told him my condition and asked him if he would oblige me and give half the baby’s month’s board, saying I would give it back to him when I got into a place and got my first month’s wages; he told me to appeal to the father of my child for the baby’s board, and that he (the mayor) could do nothing; I went to the Roman Catholic palace, and saw Father Heenan, but he could do nothing for me; I took the baby back to Mrs. Foster’s again, and she agreed to let the girl go, keep me until the baby would be twelve months old, and then she would take the baby; she took me and gave me $4 per month;

“ ‘I remained there three months; the baby being at this time about a month old; Mrs. Foster turned me out of doors twice this time; she used to throw things at me; the last time she turned me out it was after washing and ironing; she turned me out about 3 o’clock in the morning with the baby, and I was about an hour waiting until she brought me back in the house again; the next morning, I was turned out before I had time to dress; I went back to Father Heenan and asked him again if he could do anything for me; they were willing to pay half the baby’s board if I would pay the other half; that was about ten o’clock in the morning; I was to go back between 3 and 4 that afternoon to the sisters, and they were to have a nurse there to take the baby; when I went back to Mrs. Foster’s house to get the baby’s things, Mrs. Foster took my child and said it should never leave the house. She took me back but about a week afterwards she turned me out again.

“ ‘It was about 4 o’clock in the afternoon and I walked around with the child until about 9 at night, when I went back to Foster’s again with the baby in my arms, and I said to myself, ‘Well, I will never take the child back into that cistern again; as I went out, I saw the cistern lid off and dropped the baby in; I did it without a second thought; then I went into the house; I told Mrs. Foster that I had given the baby to a nurse; I stayed there three weeks afterwards, then I left; the baby was four months in the cistern before it was discovered.

“ ‘After that I boarded with a woman on Macauley street; I never looked in the cistern after, and I did not hear it cry or make any noise; I did not stand to listen; I had no idea of destroying it before I opened the gate; it has been on my mind ever since.’ ”¹

 

¹“Maria McCabe’s Crime : She Tells All About It to a Shorthand Reporter : Where She Was Born – Her Seduction and Subsequent Crime – Full Details of the Occurrence””

Hamilton Spectator.   September  13, 1883.