1914-11-28sty

“Judge Snider’s findings in the civic investigation appear in other columns of today’s Times. The public has been somewhat prepared for any criticism the Judge may make, and the people may not be startled by the charges he makes, but they are certainly strong enough to make us all wonder how such a state of affairs could have existed in the Board of Works for so many years. Gross neglect of duty is charged .”

Hamilton Times.  July 11, 1914.

It was a formal investigation that had begun many months before, but the subject of the investigation, corruption in the Hamilton Board of Works had been suspected informally for many years.

It took one municipal politician to confront the situation directly and publicly make sensational charges against  Hamilton Works department employees; managers and front line workers alike.

Alderman Chester Walters was relatively new to Hamilton City Council but his persistence and fearlessness lead a formal inquiry into the state of affairs in the Board of Works.

For months, there had been open sessions of the inquiry, where, after being put under oath, Hamilton Works department employees had to answer specific questions about perceived fraud, corruption and mismanagement in the municipality’s largest department with the largest budget.

The inquiry had been front page news in all three Hamilton daily newspapers and public sentiment was decidedly aghast at what was been revealed.

Finally ion November 28, 1914, Judge Snider, who conducted the celebrated and closely followed civic inquiry, handed his final report to Hamilton City Council.

The report was voluminous, covering 55 typewritten pages. Although far too lengthy for the newspapers to reprint in full on short notice, nonetheless the main findings were presented to Hamilton citizens using bold headlines in the Herald, the Spectator and the Times.

The Hamilton Times put a summation of 11 major conclusions reached by Judge Snider in a box near the top of its front page under the headline, “Points Brought Out in the Judge’s Report’ :

“Petty theft by some of city’s officials of city materials and city money prevailed.

“This theft and dishonesty was due to a large extent to the gross neglect of duty by the heads of the department by heads of the department in which it occurred.

“No doubt these same criminal practices would prevail still were it not that the suspicions of some members of your body were aroused, and that Alderman Chester Walters, or someone else as capable and energetic as he has been, took the matter in hand.

“From the head of the Works Department down, no one even made the least effort or enquiry to see that the system, such as it was, was being carried out; neglect and confusion prevailed.

“No audit of any use ever made during 1910 to 1914.

“Further than these matters I have mentioned, there is no wrongdoing established against W. C. Brennan, excepting the neglect of supervision and attention to the affairs of the city in the Works Department, which neglect contributed largely to the downfall of those who have stolen the city’s money and property.

“C. S. Faulknor – Charges established beyond a doubt.

“John Anderson – Charge supported; dishonesty of them apparent.

“H. R. Hanna – Committed fraud by which he obtained city money fraudulently.

“John Jess – Is proved to have obtained large sums of money by false and false pretenses – in fact it was theft of city money.

Crescent Oil Company - asphalt transactions ,suggest dishonesty. Oil transactions, dealings of J. B. H. Smith is characterized by deceit and underhanded work, and an attempt to hide dishonest transactions.”¹

¹ Theft and Dishonesty Were Found Among the Employees : Judge Snider Points Out Transactions Which He Considers Criminal – Lack of Supervision Made Employees Careless and Led to Irregularities”

Hamilton Times.   November 28, 1914.

In an editorial headlined “Gross Carelessness in City Business” the editor of the Hamilton Times summarized Judge Snider’s report and lambasted the operations of the Hamilton Works Department pointedly:

“ ‘No effort, the judge,’ the Judge says, ‘ was made by anyone, from head of the department down, to see that the proper vouchers or books of the immense quantities of material purchased was ever had or kept. No one knew or tried to ascertain where these valuable materials went, nor that there was delivered the full quantity.’

“So gross was the neglect or carelessness that the Judge declares the ‘the most simple-minded could help himself, without fear of discovery, by the head of the department, or the secretary, or any one under them for it was well known that no one over them ever took the trouble to see that this city was protected from dishonest persons.”²

² “Gross Carelessness in City Business”

Hamilton Times.  November 28, 1914.

The Times editorial agree that there was a system, of sorts at Hamilton City Hall, with book-keeping vouchers, etc. However,  Judge Snider pointed out that ‘no one ever made the least effort  to see that the system, such as it was, was being carried out; neglect and confusion reigned. The city’s business could not have been more carelessly done than it was.’  Could a stronger indictment be brought against any body of men?”²

City employees and politicians not directly connected with the Works department were not absolved of any blame in Judge Snider’s report. The lack of a proper, well-supervised, annual audit of Hamilton’s finances was a major problem:

“ ‘It is quite clear that no audit which was of any practical use to the city has been had during the years covered by this investigation. The Works Department, the greatest spending department of the city, was not inspected or audited by the auditors at all.’ ” ²

Judge Snider noted that the auditors hired by the City of Hamilton were mistaken as to what they were supposed to do, and that the petty theft and dishonesty would have been caught much earlier if the auditors had carried of their responsibilities as was required.

In conclusion the Times editorial brought his final finger point of blame directly at the aldermen, the members of the Board of Control and the mayor for overlooking “the muddle and mess” in the Hamilton Works Department.

There was one exception in the group of Hamilton’s municipal politicians would chose not to ignore the situation in the Works Department, and who, despite ongoing criticism and impediments, managed to get the problems publicized and a formal investigation put in place.

That alderman was one of the youngest members of Hamilton City Council. Chester Walters would take advantage of the positive notoriety he had received because of the Works Department by choosing to run for the mayor in the upcoming civic election.

Chester Walters would be handily elected as Hamilton’s mayor for 1915.