1883-12-08uu

The critic of plays and musical performances for the Hamilton Spectator had something to say about audiences in the city, and in December 8, 1883 column, he lets his feelings be known in no uncertain terms :

“Recently a very fine play was presented by a very fine company at the Grand Opera House here. It is safe to say that such a finished performance has not been seen in Hamilton in the history of years.

“Such artists as Sarah Jewett, Annie Russell, Fanny Ten Eyck and Herbert Kelsey took part. And yet the company played to starvation business. The manager went away grumbling, and vowing that Hamilton was one of the worst show towns he had ever struck. It may have been that Divorce was not properly advertised. It may have been that Hamilton people thought the show was a bad one.

“And this is almost invariably the case. Good shows come here, and in nine cases out of ten, they draw poorly. Last season, E. A. McDowell’s company played a week’s engagement at the Grand and dropped money every night. Yet the company was an excellent one, and the plays presented were first class.

“But Charles L. Davis comes along with a miserable affair called Alvin Joslyn, outs up as much paper as a circus does and fills the house. And the people who go to the show laugh at Davis’ inane cackle and chuckle gleefully over the superb idiocy of the play.

“Such a state of affairs as this does say much for the intelligence of Hamiltonians. It will be argues that Davis does not appeal to a higher order of intelligence and that the class of people who go to see him is not the same class that patronize better shows. Perhaps. But this does not do away with the stigmas cast upon the ambitious city by this state of affairs. Hamiltonians are great theatre-goers as a rule. But they seem to prefer mediocre and poor performances to good ones in the majority of cases.”¹

                ¹ “Music and the Drama  : Information Concerning Singers and Players”

Hamilton Spectator.  December  08, 1883.

1883-11-24tt

From the November 24, 1883 issue of the Palladium of Labor:

“There is much truth in the saying that ‘one half of the world does not know how the other half lives’ and there are many evidences of its truth in the city of Hamilton.

“The wealthy, professional man, who has two or three business hours each day, and rests the remainder of the time, or spends it at his palatial residence in the bosom of his happy family, knows little of the hardships and heartaches of the weary laborer, who leaves his family circle at six or seven in the morning to toil all day in a dusty shop and return home late at night worn out by toil and begrimed with dirt.

“The wife of the well-to-do citizen, who has her nurse, cooks, waiting maids and other servants, can sleep and take things easy, and wonder why folks can’t be content with their lot; but the wife of the laboring man must be up long before the mountain tops which o’er shadow our pretty city, are kissed by the rays of the morning sun. She must cook a warm breakfast for him who has no time to come home for dinner.

“The children of wealthy parents may sleep till school time in their comfortable beds, the little sons and daughters of the poor must leave their humble cots at an early hour and go to work, to continue long after the day is past and the lamps are lit again. This pernicious system that compels mere infants to labor twelve and thirteen hours a day is a curse to our land, and a denial to our claim to civilization.

“In this city, there are hundreds of young girls and children working from ten to fourteen hours a day. In the Ontario and the Hamilton Cotton Mills, children as nine and ten years of age are kept at work for twelve hours each day. In many cases, these infants are compelled to stand during the whole of that time. In order to be at work on time, they have to take their breakfast shortly after five o’clock in the morning, and from that time till twelve o’clock, they get neither rest nor food. And this a land of wealthy and plenty !

“Then again, there of the robbing system of ‘fining.’ For instance, all employees of the mills must commence work at six o’clock, but, if by any means, one of them is detained for half an hour, he or she is ‘fined’ a quarter of a dollar, and that amount is kept out of his or her wages. Boys working for $2 a week will have to be punctual and careful that, at the end of the week, they may not come out in their employer’s debt. All accidents to machinery, while in the hands of operatives, are charged to them. If a boy, getting 50 cents per day, steps away from his work a day, he not only loses his day’s wages, but is also ‘fined’ 50 cents.

“Such robbery is disgraceful to a Christian community. That these unfortunate creatures should be compelled to struggle so hard to earn their wages is bad enough, but when the money is extorted from them in this shameful manner, after they have clearly earned it, is a thousand times worse.

“The cotton companies have recently discharged a large number of hands, saying they had no work for them. Would it not have been more humane to have kept their full force on and shortened the day? There is no earthly reason why the cotton mills should not have the same hours of work as other factories.”¹

¹ “Slow Murder : Long Hours and Small Pay”

Palladium of Labor.  November  24, 1883

1883-11-30oo

“Theodore Stafford opened the dog pound at the Crystal Palace yesterday, and in the course of a couple of hours some six canines were in. Two men are doing the city, hunting for tagless brutes.”

“The Diurnal Epitome : What Goeth On In and About the City”

Hamilton Spectator.  November  22, 1883.

The Crystal Palace had been used for many functions since it had been officially opened twenty-three years before, when the Prince of Wales toured the building.

However, by the late fall of 1883, the wood and glass structure had seen better days and was used for a less glamorous purpose.

The City of Hamilton officials were determined that all dogs within the city limits must be tagged, and those untagged were to be captured and taken to the Crystal Palace, and if unclaimed, put down.

The dogs barking in their cages soon had some champions from the neighborhood, ready to help them:

“The enterprising west end tough is never idle. Eternally is he at mischief. He is a very guileless and innocent sort of a personage and his heart must bleed drops of sorrow and his conscience be stricken sore when he does anything wrong, but heart and conscience are both helpless to prevent his wrongdoing, and with a strange disregard for the terrors of the law, he skips gaily and blithely down the broad, pleasant path that leadeth to destruction.

“Sunday morning, there were nineteen yelping curs in the dog pound at the Crystal Palace. Large curs, small curs, medium-sized curs, white curs, black curs and brown; curs of every description almost under the sun, but all endowed with a common idea of making as much noise as possible.

“But Sunday night, the dogs were gone. Through the day sometime, the festive west ender broke open the Crystal Palace gate, smashed in the window in the dog pound and knocked the lock off the door.

“The dogs howled, no doubt, when the gang dropped in upon them unawares, but no notice was taken of the noisy manifestations. The ropes that held the dogs were carefully untied and the captured canines, released from imprisonment, fled as fast as they could.

“One or two of them have since been gathered into the arms of the blest, but the many days’ work of the dog catchers vanished Sunday as the dew drops fade away before the blushing beams of the morning sun.”¹

¹ “The Wicked West : the Locke Street Gang Let Loose the Dogs of War.”

Hamilton Spectator.     November 30, 1883.

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.