1883-12-12wm

“Great excitement prevailed amongst residents on this Beach this forenoon. Just as the train was about to start from the Ocean House for Hamilton, a fishing smack far out on the bosom of the lake was seen to capsize, and the two occupants were thrown into the water.”

Hamilton Times.   December 11, 1883.

A gentleman happened to be on the Beach Strip and was returning to the city when he witnessed the calamity out on the waters of Lake Ontario. When he arrived on the Hamilton and Northwestern train and alighted onto the platform on Ferguson Avenue, he was able to tell a Times reporter what he had seen:

“One of the fishermen was struggling in the water beside the boat and the other had climbed up on the overturned craft. A very heavy sea is running on the lake today, and those who took a good view of the situation through the best of glasses fear that the poor fellows cannot escape

“The fishermen along the beach were soon out like a swarm of bees discussing the best mode of rendering help to their unfortunate comrades, but nothing had been decided when the cars left.

“ ‘It would have been madness for anyone to attempt to go out in such a sea in any ordinary boat,’ said the gentleman who communicated the above facts to a Times representative. The necessity for a life boat at Burlington canal was never more apparent than it was this morning.” ¹

¹ Hamilton Times. December 11, 1883.

Ben Foulds and Edward Holmwood were experienced fisherman. During the morning of December 11, 1883, despite the extremely rough conditions on Lake Ontario, they were determined to head out to retrieve their nets.

Foulds and Holmwood had not got out on the lake very far, indeed they still could be seen from shore, when their small boat was capsized by the large waves.

Holmwood was the stronger of the two and he managed to climb on the overturned boat. Twice he grabbed Foulds and attempted to pull him on the boat as well. The first time Foulds fell back but was reached again. The second time that Foulds fell back, he disappeared under the water and was not seen again.

Mr. Smith, the caretaker of the Ocean House, was the first to notice the peril of the fishermen. About 11 a.m., he ran to the lighthouse to inform Captain Campbell of what he had seen. The lighthouse keeper got out his skiff and then quickly tried to assemble a party of volunteers to help him with the rescue:

“The wind was blowing a gale from the southwest, and as the captain’s boat is a very frail one, it was difficult to get anyone to volunteer. At last, William Partlow, captain of the schooner Bismark and F. Cotter volunteered, and when getting into the boat, Partlow asked Captain Campbell if he had money on him, because he thought that if they escaped drowning themselves, they would likely be driven down to Oakville and the money would be needful to take them home. They started off, having first procured a flask of brandy, and rowed for about a mile and a half, the waves beating over and drenching them.”²

² “Hamilton Spectator.  December 12, 1883.

Captain Campbell, Captain Partlow and Cotter were having tremendous difficulty when they spotted another larger and more substantial boat which had set off towards the upturned boat, so they returned to shore:

“Captain Tommy Armstrong was on the beach and saw the position of the men. He at once proposed that a crew be formed to go to the rescue, and soon John Morrison, Wm. Rollo, Robert Trucker and Mortimer Carey set out in Rollo’s boat on their life-saving mission.

“Armstrong and his crew had many narrow escapes on their way out to the disabled boat, and at times the waves swept Rollo’s craft from stem to stern, washing completely over its heroic occupants.”²

The rescue team took half an hour to plow through the frigid waves to reach the boat:

“Poor Holmwood was startled upon it, and was thoroughly exhausted Captain Campbell put out his hand to assist him to the boat, but it was found that he was unable to raise his arm.”²

They eventually managed to get Holmwood aboard their boat:

“When Holmwood was taken into the boat he was asked, ‘Where is Ben?’ His reply was, ‘Poor Ben is drowned!’ ”²

The rescuers brought Holmwood back to the Crook’s hotel where his body was vigorously rubbed to bring warmth to the outside, while liberal quantities of brandy were provided to bring warmth to the inside.

Ben Foulds was about 45 years of age and was one of the oldest fishermen on the Beach. He drank considerably and was considered to be somewhat reckless:

“Only on Monday, his team ran away with him, and on the morning of the same day (Monday), he was heard to remark to Holmwood, ‘that boat will be your coffin’ having reference to his own boat, which was a comparatively new one. He little thought that the next day he would lose his own life through it.”¹

The Times account of the incident ended as follows:

“Too much praise cannot be given to the brave men who took their lives in their hands, as it were, to save a perishing fellow man.”²

1883-06-23

On a beautiful spring day, June 26, 1883, a famous actor, in Hamilton to appear in a play at the Grand Opera House, was taken on a tour of the city by one of the City Aldermen.

Later that evening, the actor chatted with a reporter from the Hamilton times:

“ ‘In company with the alderman, I breathed the pure air of your scenic hill today,’ said Mr. Trevillick in the Opera House last night, ‘and I can tell you how I was charmed. I have visited all the principal cities of America, and most of those in the world, and I can truthfully tell you I have never seen such a grand and beautiful panorama spread out before my eyes by bountiful nature. The thought that entered my mind while I was gazing on the delightful and diversified picture was ‘How strange it is that the people of Hamilton, living amid such glorious surroundings, should be content with such filthy and abominable streets!’ I think you have the most beautiful scenery and the worst streets of any city I have yet visited. You ought to make the condition of the city more in harmony with its environment.’ ”¹

^{"Our Streets and Scenery"}

^{Hamilton Times June 27, 1883}

1886-09-21ao

“A ghost story is startling what few superstitious people there are in the east end of the city. The ghost was first seen last Thursday night prowling around the eastern terminus of Jackson street and on Wellington street.”

Hamilton Spectator.   September 21, 1886

Readers of the Spectator who did not live in the immediate neighborhood of the far east end of Jackson Street East or Wellington Street South, south of Main street, might have been startled to read on a Monday morning that a ghost had been seen on streets in east Hamilton during the previous Saturday night.

In the column it was pointed out that police veteran, and holder of Badge #1, Peter Ferris reacted when he heard shots fired, reportedly at the ghost:

“Saturday night it was fired upon, and Constable Ferris, who lives in the vicinity, hearing the reports, went out to arrest the disturber, but could not find him.”¹

¹ “A Ghost Story.”

Hamilton Spectator.   September 21, 1886

      

By the next day, rumors of a ghost haunting the neighborhoods mentioned had spread all over the city:

“Sunday night, hundreds of people walked around in the vicinity until nearly midnight but could see nothing out of the common.

“One young lady, though, became so frightened that she fainted and had to be taken home in a hack.

“If the alleged practical joker who is making a fool of himself by trying to frighten timid women is caught, things will be made uncomfortably warm for him.”¹

It only took a few days before the story behind the ‘haunting’ was discovered and why the’ ghost’ was acting as he did:

 “People in the east end of the city are getting more excited everyday over the ghost story that has been referred to in the Spectator in the last day or two.

“Tuesday night again, several hundred people stood around the corners of Jackson and Wellington, and Jackson and Spring streets. They three stones at the tannery, and shouted and howled around in a supremely idiotic manner. The patrol wagon went down with a posse of seven or eight policemen, and the wagon was followed by a small procession of carriages.

“The ‘ghost’ did not put in an appearance, however, and about 10 o’clock, the crowd dispersed.

“To those who know the real state of affairs, the whole thing is eminently ludicrous, and the free people who are in the swim, are having a quiet laugh at the expense of those who go there expecting to see something mysterious and terrible.

“The fact of the matter simply is that a young person of the female persuasion, who lives in that locality, is sought after by another person of the male persuasion, who happens to be married.

“For various reasons, best known to himself, the married man prefers to keep his identity secret, and when he clandestinely meets the young woman, he disguises himself in a long coat and a slough felt hat. Being very much afraid that people will notice him particularly, he does all he can to attract their attention by walking in a stealthy and mysterious manner, dodging around trees, hiding in alleys and doing other things equally idiotic. Some people saw him, of course, and started the little ghost story which spread and has caused all this trouble.²

² “The East End Ghost : A Romantic Little Tale That Unveils the Mystery”

Hamilton Spectator.    September 23, 1886.

1883-11-19im

The Palladium of Labor, published in Hamilton, was a weekly newspaper, an organ of the activist organization, the Knights of Labor.

On November 19, 1883, the Palladium published a letter written by a young, highly-opinionated and very literate young woman. The letter was prompted by two things, subjects which interacted.

First, was the judgment and sentence rendered in the case of a Toronto man charged and convicted of murder.  Second was the case of Maria McCabe, a Hamilton servant girl, who had given birth out of wedlock and who had subsequently murdered his baby.

The impassioned latter follows :

“To the Editor of the Palladium :

          “Sir, - Girls have nothing to do with the making of the laws by which they are governed, consequently are not expected to criticize them in anyway. However, I cannot help remarking the many inconsistencies of British law as administered in Canada.

“I could mention scores of cases disposed of in Ontario with the past few years, but I will refer only to two at present. The first is that of the Queen vs. Andrews, tried at the York Assizes last week. A man named Andrews deliberately shot and killed on named Maroney, the evidence shows that it was a clear case of willful murder, and so thought the jury, but when they returned their verdict of willful murder with a recommendation to mercy attached, the court would not accept it, but sent them back to their room where they immediately discovered that the accused was not guilty of murder but of manslaughter, and he, Andrews, was sentenced to four years in the Penitentiary. He was then tried for shooting at a policeman with intent. Found guilty and sentenced to one year in the Penitentiary, the second term to run concurrent with the first, which means if I mistake not, four years for the two offences., the second trial being only a farce or a few yards of red tape, for although found guilty and sentenced to twelve months, it did not add a single moment to his term of imprisonment. There is a man who kills another and attempts a second without any cause or provocation whatever and all he receives is four years confinement.

“The other case is that of the unfortunate Maria McCabe, which is attracting so much attention at the present time. She stood accused of willful murder, acknowledged her guilt and was sentenced to be hanged by the neck, etc.

“Now, sir, there is something very inconsistent about those cases; in the Toronto one, the man who committed the foul deed is a lazy, gambling hoodlum, his victim was an industrious young man, the only support of a widowed mother, and three or four small brothers and sisters, and the cowardly villain who murdered him in cold blood receives the same punishment for the awful crime that was the other day inflicted on a man for stealing a calf.

“Unlike Andrews, Maria McCabe, after suffering untold agonies of body and mind, destroys her babe and is doomed for death – for whether she is reprieved or not – she will, to all intents and purposes, be consigned to the tomb, for a helpless young girl of eighteen, without friends to intercede for her, might, in a sense, as well be laid in the grave as locked in the prison cell, for she is dead to the world in either case, and death, I should think, would turn to her a happy relief. But God forbid that she should die on the scaffold – unnatural as her crime is, she has already suffered ten times the punishment inflicted on Maroney’s murderer – a man without a single redeeming quality or the shadow of an excuse for his crime, while she has every excuse that could be offered under the circumstance.

“Perishing with cold and hunger in the streets, without friend home or habitation; laughed and jeered at by the unnatural scoundrel, father of her infant; told by our unfeeling and charitable Chief Magistrate to look to that father for support; and finally thrust on the street with her babe in her arms in the dead of night by the woman, Foster, under such circumstances, it is a disgrace to civilization to hold her accountable for her actions, but Mayor Magill and the woman Foster ought to be held out accountable for theirs. If the latter has any respect for her reputation, she certainly ought not object to give her reasons, first for preventing the removal of the child to St. Joseph’s Convent when the sisters had agreed to take it; second, why did she turn the mother and child out of her house at midnight; and third, why did she swear at the Coroner’s Inquest that she wanted to adopt the baby, but the mother wouldn’t give it to her, when her conduct clearly shows that she did not want to do anything of the kind. Answers to these questions are in order, and I hope Mrs. Foster will attend to it. The Mayor should also be called on for an explanation, respecting the part he played in the tragedy if he could do nothing for the girl. What, I ask, is the House of Refuge for; to my knowledge, many women in Maria McCabe’s condition have found shelter in it, then why, I pray, was she excluded? Her destitute and helpless condition would have been sufficient passport to admit her if the Mayor was what all Mayors ought to be, white-souled, generous-hearted gentlemen, instead of heartless, attenuated, fossil remnant, which his conduct in her case has shown him to be.

“When I commenced to write, I intended to say something about the father, but I guess he is hardly worth speaking of, he certainly is not a man, and it would be a libel on the brute creation to rank him as one of their number, for he lacks the necessary instinct to provide for his offspring, and is disqualified in consequence.

“If I ever write to you again, I will show you wherein organization would benefit the girls, not only respecting remuneration for their labor, but for cases of sickness and destitution. Do you doubt but that Maria McCabe would have been provided for if the girls of this city had been properly organized? I don’t; for I am certain she would have been cared for whether she was a member or not.

“Now Mr. Editor, in concluding, perhaps I ought to apologize, as it may seem to some of your readers very naughty of a girl to call things by their proper names, but if it is hereafter to be one law for men and another for women, I think it is high time that the latter raise their voices to the highest pitch, and, as the saying goes, ‘call a spade a spade.’

                                      Yours, etc.

                                                A Canadian Girl.

November 16, 1883.¹

¹“Correspondence : Law and Justice : To the Editor of the Palladium”

Palladium of Labor.    November 19, 1883.