1883-11-24rv

It was an incident that brought out all sorts of controversy, starting with how it was reported in the two Hamilton daily newspapers.

The Hamilton Spectator coverage, which follows, was seemingly based on interviews with participants :

 “About 8 o’clock last evening, a disgraceful row occurred on King street, the participants being some of the Salvation Army soldiers and a gang of small boys, who follow them to the barracks nightly. The army was marching down King street in front of Copp’s block, the captain walking backwards, shouting and throwing his arms in his usual jumping-jack-style, when a lad named Fred Crowley happened to get in his way.

“According to the story of the boy himself, and a number of others who happened to be near, the captain turned around, and pushed the boy off the sidewalk, holding him there until he became quite faint and asked to be let go. While the captain was thus engaged, one of the soldiers got into a dispute with a young man and a general free fight, and in a few minutes the street was blocked.

“The small boys established themselves as near the Army as possible, and showed their feelings by pelting mud at the captain, and occasionally throwing something harder. How long the affair would have lasted cannot be imagined, had not the police arrived at the scene and put a stop to the fun

“The boy Crowley was arrested by constable Miller and taken to the cells, followed by a gang of several hundred people, men, women and children, the latter shouting and yelling and singing snatches of Salvation songs.

“At the King William street, Mr. R. J. Duggan appeared and gave bail for the lad who was immediately set free, amid the deafening cheers of the crowd.”¹

¹ “A Hallelujah Riot : The Salvation Army Pelted With Mud on King Street”

Hamilton Spectator.   November  22, 1883.

The account of the matter as it appeared in the Hamilton Times was written somewhat later, and had some details different that the Spectator account:

“Another collision between the Salvation Army and city roughs occurred last night on King street east, in front of Copp`s Block. It is difficult to say how the row commenced, but there is little doubt that it was brought on by the determined and vicious assaults of boys and young men on members of the Army.

“The procession was proceeding down King street at the usual hour, shortly before 8 o`clock. All the way from Tuckett`s factory to Copp`s Block it was followed and surrounded by a hooting crowd, which occasionally endeavored to jostle the singing soldiers off the sidewalk. The members of the Army bore the insults patiently until the procession arrived at Copp`s Block where an effort was evidently made by the crowd to bring it to a stop.

“One of the soldiers named Benjamin Hunt was struck with a stone and severely kicked – according to his own story – by a youth named Fred. Crowley. Hunt took hold of Crowley and put him aside. This appears to have been the signal for a general attack all along the line, and kicks, blows and mud throwing went on for several minutes. Several members of the Army profess to have been hurt and the lasses were roughly hustled about. Constable Miller arrived on the scene opportunely and arrested the lad Crowley, who was pointed out to him as ringleader of the attacking gang.

“The constable and his prisoner marched down to the King William Street Station, followed by a noisy crowd, but no demonstration more serious than noise was made. Mr. R. J. Duggan happened to be near the spot when the boys was arrested, and he, thinking that the arrest was unjust, went bail for Crowley’s appearance this morning.

“The case came up before the Police Magistrate today. Some fifteen or twenty Salvationists, male and female, were present, and several of them testified to the gross manner in which they had been molested by the crowd. Hunt swore that Crowley had struck him with a stone and kicked him severely. Crowley denied the charge. Mr. Duggan applied for adjournment on behalf of the defendant, and the Magistrate adjourned the case till Saturday. Before doing so, he advised the Salvationists to choose a more private street than King for their parades. There was no doubt that the procession was an annoyance to ordinary pedestrians, though, of course, the annoyance could not justify any attack on the processionists.”²

²“Salvationists and Sinners : A Lively Scuffle on King Street Last Night”

Hamilton Times.   November  22, 1883.

The following Saturday morning, the Hamilton Police Court was the scene of conflicting testimony, and slightly differing accounts of the proceedings in the two newspapers.

The Spectator account which would have hit the streets just hours after follows:

“Nearly one hundred members of the Salvation Army crowded into the police court this morning to see what would be done with the little boy who dared to insult them by throwing mud at their captain.

“Benjamin Hunt said he was leading the army last Thursday night, and was annoyed by the little boy Crowley from Tuckett’s factory down to King street. He told the boy to desist, but he took no notice, so he threw him off the sidewalk. He said the defendant was throwing mud and stones at him. Several other members of the army were called, and testified to the truth of what Hunter said.

“The boy Crowley was then called, and gave his side of the affair. He said that he and several other boys were in front of the army, and that Hunt, while walking backwards, and not looking where he was going, stepped on him. He asked Hunt what he did that for, when the acting captain took him by the collar and threw him against a post., holding him there till he was faint, and would have fallen but for being held. While he was in that position, several members of the army struck him about the body and face as they passed.

“The boy’s mouth was swollen, which indicated he had been struck by some one. As the boy had no witnesses, the magistrate decided in favor of the complainant, and fined the boy $10. The father of the defendant, not feeling able to pay that amount, asked the magistrate, if he would not make it less, but, instead of doing that, his worship put on the costs. Much indignation was expressed at this, but more so when the magistrate refused to give Crowley any time in which to procure the money. The boy was sent to jail.

“Another case arising out of this one was a charge brought by Alfred Perkins against Mr. R. Duggan, barrister. Perkins swore that during the row, Mr. Duggan came up and struck him over the head with his umbrella.

“Several other witnesses, members of the army, were called and swore that they saw Mr. Duggan striking right and left, with his umbrella, and when that broke, he went in with his fists.

“Mr. Duggan indignantly denied the charge, stating that he was standing away from the crowd with Mr. Kerr during the time the row took place. Mr. Kerr corroborated the evidence of Mr. Duggan, who offered to produce a dozen highly respectable citizens to prove what he said was true. The magistrate, however, said the evidence already given was quite sufficient and dismissed the charge.”³

³ “The Salvation Army : Elated Over a Victory in the Police Court”

Hamilton Spectator.   November  24, 1883.

The Times’ report on the Police Court proceedings contained, more or less the same facts, but was more detailed in recounting much of the testimony:

“The cause celebre at this morning’s Police Court was the investigation of the charges brought by members of the Salvation Army against those whom they declare to have assaulted them on Wednesday night last.

“There was a new development in the case. Mr. R. J. Duggan was charged by one of the Salvationists – A. Perkins by name – with striking him and others over the head with his umbrella with such force as to break it. Perkins swore positively that he was struck by Mr. Duggan.

“The defendant conducted his own case. He cross-examined the complainant at some length, and a lively little scene occurred. ‘What do you do for a living?’ asked Mr. Duggan. ‘I work in a wood-yard,’ replied the witness. ‘Where did you live before you came here?’ ‘What’s that got to do with the matter/’ ‘It has a great deal to do with it. When a man stands up in open court and perjures himself, one naturally wishes to know something about his antecedents.’ The question was repeated. ‘I came from Toronto,’ said the witness. ‘Ever in jail?’ ‘No, never.’ ‘What did you do for a living in Toronto?’ ‘Whatever odd jobs I could find to do.’ ‘No, you swear positively that I was the person who struck you over the head with an umbrella, do you?’ ‘Yes, I swear it. You are the man.’ ‘Wasn’t it pretty dark at the time?’ ‘It wasn’t so dark that I couldn’t see you.’

“Benjamin Hunt, a smiling Salvationist, also swore that he saw the defendant strike Perkins. Other members of the Army were called, but they could not identify Mr. Duggan. The defendant took the box, and, being sworn, gave an emphatic denial to the charge. He was with a friend, Mr. Murray Kerr, on King street, when the row occurred on Wednesday night. They went over together to see what was the matter. He saw that a boy was being rather unjustly used, but did not interfere at the time. He went down to the police station after the boy was arrested and taken there, however, and bailed him out. It was out of revenge for this act, he claimed, that the Salvationists were endeavoring to fasten on him a charge of assault. Mr. Duggan produced the umbrella – a light silk one – that he carried on the night in question. It was neither broken nor injured in any way.

“Mr. Murray Kerr was called and corroborated the evidence of the defendant. He was with Mr. Duggan throughout the whole scene, and he stated positively that he did not strike anyone. The case was dismissed.

“The original charge – that against the lad Fred. Crowley – was then taken up. Mr. Duggan defended the boy. Several witnesses were produced who swore that Crowley did not strike any member of the Army. Further than that, several of the witnesses for the defense stated that one of the officers of the Army, who was walking backwards, when he stumbled against a small boy would grasp the unlucky youngster and push him off the sidewalk.

“ ‘I was walking along the sidewalk quietly,’ said one of the witnesses, a boy of about 14 years of age, ‘and the man who pounds the big drum told me if I didn’t get out of the way he’d hit me over the head with the drumstick.’ Another said : ‘You bet, they don’t hit big fellows, it’s only little one’s like us that they knock about.’

“Young Crowley swore, in his own behalf, that he never struck a member of the army or threw a stone on Wednesday night. In spite of the evidence that was produced for the defense, however, the Magistrate considered that a case had been made out against the boy by the testimony of the Salvationists which was given on Thursday. He therefore fined him $10 and costs. Crowley’s father asked for a reasonable time in which to pay the fine, but the request was refused,

“The members of the army, who were present, then filed out of the court-room headed by their Captain, Happy Jack – the faces of all the saints wreathed with smiles of victory.”⁴

⁴“Aggressive Christianity : The Salvation Army Poses Prominently at the Police Court : A Defeat and a Victory”

Hamilton Times.   November  24, 1883.

The Hamilton Times, differed from the Spectator, in that a quickly-written editorial on the matter appeared in the issue of the paper which went to press just hours after the police court session ended:

 “The public will sustain Police Magistrate Cahill in punishing assaults upon or interference with members of the Salvation Army, but the public cannot consent to see the Police Court run as a branch of the Salvation Army.

“Some time ago, a member of the army was convicted by Mr. Cahill on a charge of disorderly conduct, and fined $5. The fine was not paid, the offender declared plainly that he would not pay, and fairly dared the Magistrate to commit him to jail. The Magistrate did not enforce his decision, and the fine has not been paid to this day, nor has the offender gone to jail.

“Today, a boy was fined $10 on a charge of assaulting a member of the Army. There was a conflict of testimony, but the boy was convicted on Army evidence. His father asked time to pay the fine, but the Magistrate refused and sent the lad to jail. On the evidence there was at least a doubt of the guilt of the boy who lies in jail; on the evidence, there was no doubt of the guilt of the Army man who was not sent to jail some time ago, though he bluntly refused to pay the fine imposed by the Magistrate. Is there one law for members of the Salvation Army and another for common citizens?

“The TIMES has no sympathy with boys or men who meddle with the Salvation Army. If the Army br

If the Army breaks the law, there ought to be a legal way of administering punishment. Certainly no citizen has the right to take the law into his own hands. But it must not be forgotten that rowdies and perjurers can find their way into the ranks of the Salvation Army, as such characters have found their way into churches before now.

“The evidence in another column contains sworn charges that members of the Salvation Army assault citizens by pushing them off the sidewalk, and that a member of the Salvation Army has been guilty of perjury. Why, under all the circumstances, should a member, who defied the law, have been unduly favored, as compared with the lad Crowley, who may or may not have broken the law? The Salvationists swore just as distinctly against Mr. Duggan as against the lad Crowley, but the Magistrate by acquitting Duggan declared his lack of belief in their evidence. Is he sure that they were worthy of belief in Crowley’s case ? Justice should not be blind.”⁵

⁵  “The Salvation Army and the Law”

Hamilton Times.   November  24, 1883.

The final word on the “Hallelujah Riot” appeared in the Times. A letter to the editor from someone identified only as Merchant contained his outrage at how the young lad Crowley had been treated, as well as his criticism of the presence of the Salvation Army in Hamilton:

“Sir,- I read your article of ‘Salvation Army Justice’ on Saturday evening, and felt so annoyed at the injustice done to the lad Crowley that I visited the jail Sabbath to pay his fine, and was informed that he had not been sent to jail, but was detained at the police cells until his father released him by paying his fine and costs, amounting to $13.50 – no small amount for a poor, hardworking man to pay in these hard times.

“If Mr. Crowley will send his address to the office of the Evening Times, the writer and other sympathizers will make up the amount. As a merchant doing business on King street and suffering great annoyance from the Salvation Army, I must enter my protest anent their being allowed to march on our sidewalks and carry on in the disgraceful manner they do.

“Last Saturday night, there were several narrow escapes from runaway horses that were tied in front of the stores, and the nuisance is now becoming intolerable.

“I would suggest to His Worship, who is also a Police Commissioner, that he post up the Police Department, and put a stop to this farce. The excessive good nature displayed by the citizens in tolerating the nuisance so long is wonderful, but this last act in the farce, in fining the poor lad after the severe pummeling he received at the hands of these peculiar Christians, is intolerable.

                             -Yours,

                                       MERCHANT. ⁶

⁶ “The Salvation Army : To the Editor of the Times”

Hamilton Times.   November  26, 1883.