1883-11-23qq

Dogs figured prominently in the Hamilton Police Court Proceedings of  November 22, 1883.
The first case involved a man who had been bitten by a dog :

 “James Taylor, who was bitten by a dog several days ago and came to the Police Court to demand the destruction of the canine, was on hand again today, the case having been adjourned.

“Mr. Taylor was still bent on having the dog’s life. So long as it lived, he dreaded hypothermia. The Magistrate told him that he had no power to order the dog to be killed unless evidence was produced to prove that the dog had bitten somebody else. He advised Taylor to get a lawyer to conduct his case, but Taylor said he did not wish to spend any money in the matter. He showed a disposition to enter into an argument with the Magistrate on the matter of the case, when he was suddenly cut short and ordered to sit down.

“The charge was dismissed and Taylor strode out of court in great indignation, with his hat jammed down over his eyes.” 

 “He Wanted Prosecution ”

Hamilton Times.    November 22, 1883.

 The second case involved the actions of two men who had been hired to enforce a new bylaw requiring all dog owners in Hamilton to purchase tags for  their pets :

“Fred Hurty and Wm. McMillan, professional dogcatchers engaged by Mr. Stafford, Inspector under the dog bylaw, were before the Police Magistrate this morning, on complaint of Mrs. Bain, of Cannon street. She declared that yesterday some men – she knew not whom – had entered her yard, thrown a net over her pet dog, and carried him away. She was so excited over the loss of her poodle that she could not recognize either of the defendants as the man who did the deed. The witnesses produced by Mrs. Bain could not identify the defendants, and the case was accordingly dismissed. Hutty, however, admitted that he had added Mrs. Bain’s dog to his collection of canines, and that it was even at this moment pining in exile near the Crystal Palace. He said the dog did not have a tag on, and he and his mate had been instructed by the inspector to net all dogs which were without tags. The Magistrate told these two enemies of the canine race that they must not go into people’s premises to look after vagrant dogs. They were ordered to give back her pet to Mrs. Bain.”

“Dog Snatchers Snatched ”

Hamilton Times.    November 22, 1883.

1883-12-03iw

After weeks of gossip, and consternation among the residents of Dundas over the arrest of two street preachers, the matter came to a heated conclusion in the Council Chambers of the Town Hall :

“The excitement which has prevailed amongst the good people of the Valley City for some weeks since in consequence of the prosecution of Messrs. Townsend and Mason, the Cecilite preachers, is not likely to have received any serious check by the proceedings at the Town Hall on the occasion of the regular meeting of the Town Fathers last night, where a resolution for the amendment of Bylaw No. 276 was ruled out of order and resolutions for the dismissal of Chief Constable Fitzgerald were introduced and discussed.

“The auditorium was jammed with townspeople and the atmosphere was almost stifling. It would seem as if the Caretakers had done nothing else but fire up all day, so hot was the chamber at 8 o’clock, and in fact at all times throughout the meeting. The crowd was very orderly; it is probable that the rowdy element (of which Dundas like other large towns can boast a large share) were not granted admission.

“After the usual routine business of Council had been disposed of, Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. R. T. Wilson, introduced a resolution amending the obnoxious clauses in Bylaw No. 276 of the Town of Dundas, and making it ‘allowable and permissible for street preachers to hold meetings on the public streets, provided always that they do not interfere with public traffic.’

Mr. McKechnie did not favor the bringing in of a resolution of this kind, as he believed the bylaw was alright as it stood. Street preachers did not come under its provisions, but the disorderly young men who were in the habit of assembling to annoy the preachers and make use of insulting and profane language did, and should be arrested by the town constables.

“The Mayor said the resolution was out of order. It made no difference what motion the council passed, the result would not be influenced. The bylaw was framed under the statute, and as such it must stand. The Mayor went on to say that it was not the fact that certain preachers had been arrested in the town for preaching the gospel. No person was ever locked up in Dundas on account of preaching in the street. The bylaw, as the Councilors were aware, provides that the streets and sidewalks of the town shall not be blocked up and it was in carrying out that provision that the recent arrests had been made by Chief Fitzgerald. He (the Mayor) was sorry that certain people in the place desired to put words in his mouth which were furthest from his mind.

“Mr. McKechnie said that the affair had created a great deal of feeling in the town. He (Councilor McKechnie) had been characterized as an agitator and a stirrer up of strife. Mr. McKechnie then proceeded to detail what he knew of and his action in the case. After Mr. Mason had been taken to the cells on the Sunday, his (Mr. McKechnie’s) son had told him that he had been arrested for preaching the gospel –

“The Mayor – ‘That was the report which was circulated and it was wrong. The preachers had blocked up the thoroughfare so people could not pass.

“Mr. R. T. Wilson said he was very sorry that this affair had taken place. He had always considered the Mayor’s decisions had been impartial. A great many stories were going the rounds of the town, and one of them, he thought, might well be spoken of at once. The next day after the arrest of Messrs. Townsend and Mason, he (Mr. W.) had met Mr. James Somerville, and, naturally enough, they talked of the matter. In the course of the conversation, Mr. Somerville said, referring to the prosecution of the street preachers, ‘It was that that drove my brother out of the town!’ It was charged that the Mayor had sent a notice to him to quit preaching on the streets. If there ever was a true Christian, that man was Thomas Somerville, and it was a pity if Dundas lost him as a citizen on such an account as stated. He would ask the Mayor if any such order had been made against Mr. Somerville?

“The Mayor replied that no order had ever been sent to Mr. Somerville to give up preaching on the streets. Mr. Somerville used to stand too close to the sidewalk and attracted crowds who impeded traffic. Mr. Somerville was merely ordered not to block up the sidewalks – precisely the same order which recently had been transgressed and enforced in the cases of Messrs. Mason and Townsend.

“Mr. Blachford, sarcastically – ‘Was it not a wonder that when such a good man as Mr. Thomas Somerville had been driven out of the town that his friends should have allowed two years to elapse before they commenced to give reasons for his expatriation?’

“The Mayor repeated that he wanted it to be emphatically understood it was not for preaching the gospel that the arrests had been made. The newspapers of the town had so stated it, and certain gentlemen had busied themselves in spreading this report. During his incumbency of the mayor’s chair he had done his very best to preserve the peace of the town. He had been neither a bigot nor a tyrant (hear, hear) and he could just tell them right there that if they objected to the course he had pursued, they had the remedy in their own hands, and could apply it next January. He had now decided to be a candidate for the Mayoralty. He did intend the public to believe that he was afraid to face them and fully defend the action he had taken in endeavoring, as the Chief Magistrate of the town, to enforce its laws.

“Dr. Walker was of the opinion that the arrest of the street preachers was not justifiable. They surely did not come under the head of ‘idlers’ named in the bylaw. He thought it would be more reasonable if the crowds of toughs who annoyed the preachers were locked up, than to interfere with the preachers themselves. The town authorities should have sworn in half a dozen special constables, and thus put down the disorderly proceedings on the public streets.

“After some further discussion, the Mayor reiterated his former ruling that Mr. Hall’s motion was out of order, and it was thrown on the floor.

          CHIEF FITZGERALD

“Mr. Dickson then rose and said that he had expected that the member of the Council who had been talking about the matter for such a long time would have had a resolution to bring forward that night with regard to Chief Fitzgerald. In consequence of Mr. Wilson’s inaction, he (Mr. Dickson) would move that Chief Fitzgerald be dismissed on the 1^st of January next. The resolution was seconded by Mr. Carmer.

“The Mayor – ‘Go on gentlemen. That’s another slap at me.’

“Mr. Wilson complained that the resolution did not give the officer a longer time to secure another situation.

“Mr. Dickson repudiated the idea expressed by the Mayor that the resolution was brought in to slap the Mayor over Fitzgerald’s shoulders. The Councilors all knew that such a course was talked of long ago, but had been put off from one cause and another from month to month.

“Mr. McKechnie supported the resolution. He considered that Fitzgerald was not capable of performing the duties of the position. The Council knew it and the taxpayers knew it. Mr. (Mr. McK.) didn’t think that the man who let his coattails be pulled off him by a crowd of little boys was the proper  man to fill the position of constable; nor was the man who retold private slanders against members of his Council the right man for the place. He advocated the discharge of Chief Fitzgerald on account of his general inefficiency. The town wants an active man, who will do his duty fearlessly.

“Mr. Coote didn’t believe it was right to give the chief such short notice.

“Dr. Walker believed that the corporation never had a good man. While alive, he was abused, maligned and adversely criticized. It was not until he died that he was appreciated by the people, and they saw how hard it was to replace him. He urged the Council to let the matter drop. They should determine to smooth over the past unpleasantness, and enter upon the Christmas season in a different spirit than at present appeared to prevail.

“Mr. Dickson then, by consent withdrew his resolution, and Mr. R. T. Wilson, seconded by Mr. Coote, moved that Chief Fitzgerald be given three months’ notice from the 1^st of November to resign his position in the town, otherwise his services will be dispensed with at that date.

“Mayor Wardell then said he had been in a better position to judge of Chief Fitzgerald’s qualifications than any other member of the Council. He had always found the Chief doing his best to discharge the duties of his position. It was true that he was not as efficient as Chief McDonough had been, but Fitzgerald had always carried orders. He had never failed in this particular. He had preserved the peace of the town as well as any one man could do it, and the Mayor was of the opinion that one man could not accomplish the task. He (the Mayor) believed that the resolution for his dismissal had been introduced because the Chief had carried out an order issued by him (the Mayor) for the arrest of Messrs. Townsend and Mason.

“A pretty heated discussion then ensued, in which some of the members repudiated the motives attributed to them by the Mayor, and the resolution was carried. The yeas and nays were recorded, and nearly all the Councilors got up to explain their votes. Mayor Wardell sat back in his chair quite indignantly, and stood by Chief Fitzgerald to the last. In the course of the discussion, the Mayor leaned heavily on the Dundas papers for the manner in which they had reported his case before the court, and paid the TIMES the compliment of having the best report.

“Before the Council adjourned, Chief Fitzgerald was permitted to speak. He spoke of the difficulties he had to contend with in the position; how apathetic the residents had been in assisting to carry out the laws, and dwelt upon the fact that the duties were too much for one man. He placed his resignation in the hands of the Council to take effect on the 1^st of next month.”¹

¹ “Dundas and the Cecilites  : Mayor Wardell Defends His Action Before the Town Fathers : Who Generally Uphold the Preachers : Chief Fitzgerald Asked to Resign His Position and Does It”

Hamilton Times.    December 03, 1883

1883-11-23ii

The True Banner and Wentworth Chronicle was a small newspaper, published in Dundas with news mainly for the citizens of that town and its immediate surrounding community.
In the aftermath of the arrest of two street preachers for proclaiming the Gospel on one of the town's thoroughfares, the Banner published a stinging editorial and a letter to the editor on the matter:

In an editorial, Dundas Mayor Wardell and Dundas Chief Constable Fitzgerald received heavy criticism for their actions as regards the street preaching incident, involving Messrs. Mason and Townsend:

“The wording of Bylaw No. 276 does not, in our humble opinion, bear upon the parties under arrest in anyway whatever. It cannot be said that those who are earnestly engaged in preaching the word of God are ‘idlers’ and it cannot, we think, be held that the reading of the Gospel, the singing of hymns of praise, or speaking the glad tidings to sinful men contained in the Scriptures is making ‘unusual noises’ in this Christian era.

“The arrest of these Gospel Preachers is uncalled for. They make no disturbance. They are our best citizens. They are seeking to do good to their fellow men. They should be upheld in their noble work by the strong arm of the law. If arrests are to be made, our police should arrest the idlers and rowdies who insult and annoy the preachers, and who blaspheme their Maker. Our citizens are deeply interested in this matter of freedom of speech, and will not tolerate anything the savors of injustice. We say, let the preachers preach whenever and wherever they please. And we further say, let our peace officers be instructed to arrest promptly those who are in reality idlers and rowdies. To arrest and let the rowdies go is offering a premium for disorderly conduct.”¹

¹ “Street Preaching”

The True Banner and Wentworth Chronicle.  November 22, 1883.

In the same issue of the True Banner, the following letter concerning the incident appeared:

“Public Opinion – Judging from the opinions freely expressed by citizens in general, the zeal which our authorities are showing in putting down street preaching would be much better applied if directed to stamping out the rowdyism and loaferism which disgrace the town.

“On Saturday evening, the front entrance of the H. and D. R’y Station was hard to get at because of a mob of young blackguards, who made annoying and insulting remarks about passersby.

“On Sunday afternoon, crowds of loafers were at every vantage ground, and one gang actually hooted at some ladies coming home from Sunday School, and misconducted themselves thus on King street, not 20 yards from where our police were arresting respectable citizens for proclaiming the gospel.

“On Sunday night, at the corner of Moore’s Block, when people were going to church, a blackguardly gang occupied the whole walk, and passersby had to wade in the mud in order to pass them, and then listen to their impertinent remarks, and every evening during the week, unchecked rowdyism disgraces the town.

“Our authorities have never shown any burning desire to abate this nuisance, and it is time they did so. If the police force is afraid of the toughs, then let us have a new police force.”²

² “Public Opinion.”

The True Banner and Wentworth Chronicle. November 22, 1883.

1883-12-17if

In an attempt to make order out of time, it was decided by the government to institute an order of standard time for every community. The standard time was to be implemented in November, 1883, requiring an adjustment of twenty minutes to bring its clocks in conformation with the rest of the province.

In Hamilton, the introduction of standard time posed a conundrum for churches across as to when to commence their Sunday services on November 18, 1883.

Rev. Dr. Samuel Lyle of the Central Presbyterian Church stated his intention to start his service using the standard time on that Sunday morning, even though it was not to officially begin at midnight that day.

“On the other hand, Rev. A. Langford of the First Methodist Church chose to start at what would still be the ‘proper time’ that Sunday morning:

“He thought the clocks of the citizens would not be changed till after Sunday, and, consequently it would be advisable to conduct the services in the old time; by the time a week had passed over, the people would become used to the change and there would be no difficulty.”¹

¹ “Church Time : The Old or the New, That is the Question Among Ministers”

Hamilton Spectator.    November 17, 1883.

The Hamilton Spectator pointed out that it would not be pleasant to arrive at church only to discover that one had to wait twenty minutes for it to begin, or, conversely, arrive when the service had  already in progress for twenty minutes:

“The Spectator takes the liberty of advising the minsters to accept the new time, or else retain the old, and which ever they do, let the people know by this evening.”¹

The Spectator’s suggestion was positive in spirit but difficult in put into effect, as other than the daily newspapers, there was no city-wide way of communicating such news in a timely way.

There was indeed some confusion when services began the following day.