1915-04-26tt

“The murmurings of city officials against the attitude of Mayor Walters in interfering in department details, which have been quite audible of late, reached a loud and vigorous tone yesterday afternoon.” ”

Hamilton Times.    March 31, 1915.

There’s rarely a dull moment at Hamilton City Hall, especially as regards relations between senior staff and overly-aggressive politicians.

Usually the conflict and hostility were kept beneath a veneer of professionalism on both sides, but on March 30, 1915, City Solicitor Waddell took umbrage to critical remarks made by Mayor Chester Walters:

“The city’s legal representative, whose department is considered most efficient, not only made it plain that uncalled-for criticism would have to stop, but also informed Mayor Walters, in the presence of ten or twelve others, that if His Worship could run the department to better advantage than at present, he was willing to end in his resignation at once.”¹

¹ “Mayor and Official Have Vigorous Clash : City Solicitor Threatens to Resign and Let Chief Magistrate Run His Office.”

Hamilton Times. March 31, 1915.

The issue which prompted the solicitor’s outburst concerned the mayor criticizing the methods which were being used regarding accidents which had to be dealt with at the Claims Committee:

“When His Worship became quite vigorous in condemning this modus operandi, Mr. Waddell took exception to the magisterial utterances, declaring that he would not allow any further interference in the affairs of the legal department, and offering to resign if the Mayor could manage things any better.”

When confronted so forcefully Mayor Walters backed off, claiming that he was not meddling, merely making suggestions. The mayor also stated that he had not meant any offense.

The day following incident, two City Hall department officials spoke to a Times reporter. They asked for anonymity, but indicated that it was their intention to speak to the mayor about his interference into internal staff matters:

“It is claimed that that His Worship entered departments early in the morning and opened letters addressed to various officials on city business.”¹

In the aftermath of the heated meeting in which the mayor and city solicitor clashed, the matter seemed to have been settled, but the article which appeared in the Times prompted the Hamilton Herald to weigh into the matter.

The Herald carried an editorial in which it demanded a formal investigation into the dispute, stating that the matter was too serious to ignore.

The Herald editorial read, in part, “On Wednesday, a local paper said that the city solicitor had threatened to resign on account of the Mayor’s criticism of and interference with the legal department. The City Solicitor gave prompt denial to the story.”²

² Quoted in “The Mayor and Officials”

Hamilton Times.  April 5, 1915.

The Times disputed the solicitor’s denial, standing by its reporting of the meeting regarding that matter:

“Up to the time of going to press, the City Solicitor has not made denial to the Times of the story. In fact, before the Times went to press on Wednesday last, Mr. Waddell sent his deputy over to the Times office to request us not to publish the story. But as the request came too late, we could not, if we would, suppress publication of the matter.”²

As regards the claim that the mayor secretly entered department offices early in the morning and opened departmental mail, the Times admitted that it should not have printed that without firm substantiation of the statements made by the unnamed city officials:

“We confess that it would not have appeared in the Times had we had the opportunity to supervise the copy. But, in the rush of going to press, it slipped through.

“On the day of publication, we conferred with the mayor on the matter, and our explanations were accepted as satisfactory by him.

“The Herald knows as well as we do, the difficulties under which a newspaper labors in gathering its news, and the danger there always is of something getting by the censor. It also knows how unwilling it is itself to give the names of people who may supply it with ‘news’ whether true or false.”²

What irked the Times editorial writer was that the meeting occurred on the previous Wednesday. However, three days later, and two days after the Times had explained the matter regarding the mail opening claim to the mayor, the Herald decided to stir up the seemingly-cooled pot:

“After our explanations, the Mayor was quite willing to let it go at that; in fact, the Mayor called up the Times by telephone and requested that subject be allowed to drop, otherwise we would have explained and apologized before this.

“But as the Herald deems it proper to stir the matter up again, we feel it our duty to express to the Mayor our regret that such a statement should have been made, and our belief that it was a mistake pure and simple.”²