Chafing Against Board of Health - December 9, 1918

After the second consecutive ‘churchless’ Sunday, December 8, 1918, the resistance to the Hamilton Board of Health’s ban on public gatherings was becoming ever more strident.

As well as irate clergy and congregations being unable worship in public, the merchants of Hamilton, both large and small, were chafing at the restrictions which had been placed on the hours stores were allowed to be open.

In conversation with reporters, stories of compliance, and non-compliance with the board of health regulations were provided:

“Board of health officials asserted that though there were complaints of the drastic regulations, the public was complying generally with the restrictions. Inspectors, who were on the streets Saturday afternoon and evening, discovered many minor, and one or two serious, infractions. Summonses will be issued for the appearance in court of those who deliberately ignored the ban.

“The Athens Candy company, which, it was said, retained several employees after 4 o’clock on Saturday will be called upon to explain to the magistrate.

“ ‘There are some merchants who are apparently willing to pay a fine of $20, figuring that they can make more than that by staying open,’ said Dr. Roberts. ‘Twenty dollars is the minimum fine, the maximum being $500.’

“Officials further stated that many of the infractions were unintentional, the ban breakers having been advised by those without authority, who did not know what they were talking about. It was stated that Mayor Booker had, several days ago, informed the proprietor of a confectionary store that it was permissible for his wife and daughter to assist him after 4 p.m. This was erroneous information, which won for the proprietor a warning.”¹

¹  “Influenza Abating, Ban to Be Modified : Joint Conference Tomorrow of Health Board and Medical Association : Only 193 Cases Were Reported Over Saturday and Sunday”

Hamilton Spectator.    December 09, 1918.

As for the potential for disobedience regarding the ban on church services, there need not have been any concerns:

“So far as could be learned there were no religious gatherings yesterday, all pastors complying with the proclamation.”

However, there was an extraordinary series of events reported, a situation involving a pastor, some Sunday school teachers, an irate landlady :

“On Friday evening, Inspector Gompff dispersed a ‘history class’ which was being conducted by a clergyman in a Bold street boarding house. A woman who lived in the neighborhood complained to Dr. Roberts about the meeting, saying she was opposed to any infractions of the ban. Five Sunday school teachers and students were in the class, which was told to disperse.

“Dr. Roberts, referring to this case today, said that, while gatherings were prohibited, visiting could not be stopped.”¹

However, there was a more nuanced and detailed story to be told concerning what happened with Board of Health Inspector Gompff, the inferring lady and the unidentified clergymen and Sunday school teachers :

“To the Editor : That an Englishman’s house is no longer his castle, at any rate in Hamilton, seems abundantly evident from the following incident which took place on Friday evening.

“The assistant at a city church who lives in an apartment house had invited three of his Sunday school teachers for a chat on church history in his study. It so happened that the caretaker of the establishment had got out of bed the wrong way that morning and with the approach of night her temper had not improved. She accordingly informed the curate that he was breaking the law as interpreted and administered by the Hamilton board of health. The interrupted dominie not unnaturally suggested that she might be better occupied in minding her own business, whereupon the irate lady from the security of her own premises proceeded to ring up the health department and lodge a complaint. An inspector proceeded hot haste to the scene and instructed the quartet that they must immediately disperse. Hearing a piano playing gaily in an adjoining apartment, he asked what it meant and was told in answer to go and see for himself. Investigation discovered to him seven people – the number was subsequently increased to nine – having an evening with music and cards. On being informed that it was just a social gathering, this representative of Bumbledom gave it his official benediction and pronounced it all o.k. He insisted, however, the Sunday school teachers must depart, and after leaving the house, returned in half an hour in company with a policeman whose assistance he had bespoke to see that his instructions had been carried out.

“The ordinary citizen will naturally ask, Are we living in Hamilton, Canada, or in Prussia, under the Kaiser? How much further is this sort of thing to go, and how much longer is it going to last? Are domiciliary visits to be the order of the day and are interfering landladies to find sympathetic coadjutors in the paid officials of a democratic community?

“Furthermore, it may be asked, Why should a distinction be made between seven or nine persons engaged in social intercourse and three or four who have met together for study and the pursuit of knowledge? Has this any bearing on the action of the board of health in closing the schools and churches and leaving barrooms open? These are questions which the board should be requested to answer.

                                                          A LOVER OF JUSTICE”¹

Board Of Health Ban on Gatherings Opposed - December 1918

Placed on the front page of the December 5, 1918 edition of the Hamilton Spectator, at the top of a central column, the following was published under a headline reading, ‘Police Are Prepared to Prevent Services:

“If services are held in any of the local churches next Sunday, or any Sunday while the health board’s proclamation is in effect, they will be stopped, and the edifice or edifices closed up by the police. This was announced definitely at pole headquarters this morning.

“When asked by the Spectator reporter whether the law would be at their back in doing so, the Health act was produced, and the following sections were read.

“ ‘Section 38 of the Health act,’ said one of the officials, ‘says, ‘The medical health officer shall be the executive officer of the local board of health, and, with that local board, shall be responsible for the carrying out of the provisions of this act, and the regulations and bylaws of the municipality.

“ ‘Section 109 says : Whenever a local board of health, or a member thereof, or a sanitary inspector is required or empowered by this act, or any other act, or by the regulations, or by a municipal bylaw, to do or to prevent or to direct or enforce the doing of any anything, such a board, or member, or officer, or inspector, may use such force or employ such assistance as is necessary to accomplish what is required. When obstructed in doing so, he may call for the assistance of any constable, or other person, and it shall be the duty of every constables so called upon to render such assistance.’

“When asked whether the police would take action on Sunday if services were held in any of the churches, it was announced that they ‘most certainly would if called upon.’ ”¹

“Police Are Prepared to Prevent Services.”

Hamilton Spectator. December 5, 1918.

The Hamilton Board of Health’s second round of banning public gatherings was generally unpopular with many in Hamilton, particularly the merchants and the clergy. The statistics seemed to indicate a lowering of the rate of deaths and cases reported but the ban remained.

The merchants held a meeting among themselves to discuss the matter:

“A meeting of the retail section of the board of trade was held this morning to discuss the board of health regulations in relation to retail stores. R.A. Robertson presided, and extended an invitation to Norman Clark, chairman of the health board, to address the gathering. Mr. Clark explained that the drastic actions had been taken on the demands of medical doctors, but so far as he was concerned would be relaxed as soon as he was satisfied that there was a strong sentiment among the leading citizens that the regulations should be modified. A lengthy discussion followed, after which a resolution was passed expressing confidence in the board and asking that the regulations be modified on Saturdays – that the shopping hours be extended in the evening on that day. A copy of the resolution will be presented to the board of health at this afternoon’s conference by George C. Martin, the board of trade representative at the joint meetings of the health board.”²

² “Shall Services Be Permitted Sunday : Protestant Clergy Make an Appeal to the Health Authorities to Modify Order : Merchants Also Request That Shopping Hours Be Extended on Saturday.”

Hamilton Spectator.    December 09, 1918.

As for the clergy, a few representing a variety of denominations got together and forwarded the following letter to the board of health:

‘To the Medical Health Officer:

Dear Sir – Arising out of a conversation with you this morning, we submit the following statement of our views as to terms upon which we feel the ban on churches might be lifted and the rights of public worship restored. It is hardly necessary to say that no body of public servants is more fully alive to the gravity of the present than the clergy, who are in frequent attendance upon the sick, both in the hospitals and private houses. It is in no spirit of ignorance or indifference to the public welfare that we ask for a modification of the regulations regarding churches, but in conscientious conviction that through the maintenance of public worship, we render our highest service both to God and man.

We do not base our claim for open churches upon special privilege, but upon the democratic principles of freedom of conscience and equal justice for all. The regulations as they stand, seem to us to discriminate unfairly against churches for two reasons:

1.   Street cars are permitted to carry five passengers over their full seating capacity. If this be consonant with the safeguarding of the public health; it cannot be reasonably maintained that a congregation, however small, in a church, however large, is a menace.

2.   That the board of health has extended to factories the principle of self-regulation, the right to make their own arrangements for the good both of the public and their employees.

Our request is that the churches be treated on the same principle. While we believe it to be the general consensus of medical opinion that the churches might safely be omitted from the closing order, we are prepared, if this cannot be conceded, to limit our congregations to half their original size. Of course, every clergyman must make his own arrangements to provide for this. Some of us would arrange that a certain portion of the members of the congregation should attend only in the morning and others only in the evening. Other clergymen will prefer to double the number of services and halve the congregations.

We believe that such permission will go far towards allaying the widespread discontent that is only too apparent; that it would be in the interests both of public health and civic peace.

The earliest possible consideration of our proposal will be much appreciated.

                                  (Signed) S. DAW

                                                 W.B. TIGHE

                                                  C.L. McIRVINE

                                                   W.H. SEDGEWICK

Note – The clergymen whose signatures are attached are representative of the Anglican, Baptists, Methodist and Presbyterian bodies. As it has not been possible to consult all their brethren, they do not claim to speak for anyone but themselves. Yet, they have reason to believe that the arrangement proposed would be acceptable to all.

                                           W.P. ROBERSTON

                                           (Acting as secretary)

              18 West avenue south, December 5, 1918.

                        (TO BE CONTINUED)                   

Radial Accident - December 1918

It was seemingly to be a normal trip to Hamilton from Brantford along the electric radial railway line that connected the two communities. After the train had left the Ancaster stop on the line, there were thirty people on board.

At first, the story seemed to be that the air brakes on the car had become inoperable, and the conductor had no control once the car started the steep descent from the top of the escarpment to the lower city. Some of the passengers, not knowing about the problem with the brakes, accused the motorman of driving excessively fast:

“Car 603 left Brantford on time and made the regular stops on the line. Some place between Ancaster and the scene of the accident, the automatic air brakes with which the car is fitted became useless. From Ancaster there is a heavy downward grade, and the motorman, unable to control the car, was forced to allow it to proceed at its own speed. He stated that Queen street was a regular stop, but there were no passengers to be discharged at this point, and had there been he would have been unable to stop. Both the airbrake and the reverse failed to check the speeding car. After leaving Queen street, the line passes through a private right of way to Hess street. There are two curves between the streets and the car made these safely but came to grief as it rounded the curve which brings the line into Hess street.”¹

Once, however unsteadily, the car was on Hess street, the situation went from bad to worse: “After the car left the rails at the curve, it travelled about seventy feet along the roadway, across the sidewalk and onto a lawn before turning on its side. The trucks were disengaged from the body and the forward truck went some distance ahead of the car itself. The inside of the car gave one the impression that a cyclone had swept it. Almost every window was smashed, both the front and rear vestibules were completely demolished, and near the center of the car, the roof and side were crushed in.

“It was very fortunate that no pedestrians were on Hess street where the car struck the sidewalk. It is said that, so great was its speed, it would have been impossible for a passerby to avoid being struck.”¹

The response from both the Hamilton Police, from a doctor who lived nearby and from a Hess street resident were remarkable:

“The city ambulance and the police patrol wagon, with a squad of men under Sergeant Steward, hurried to the scene, and arrived there five minutes after the accident took place. The majority of the passengers were able to extricate themselves, but two women, one who fainted and one who received serious injuries, were carried from the car. The woman who had sustained injuries about her arms was bleeding profusely. It was later learned that she is Mrs. Elizabeth Bryson, 102 Mary street.

 “Officials of the company were soon on the scene and those who had been injured were attended to by the company’s doctor, Dr. Silcox., who resides close to where the accident occurred.

““Mrs. Bryson who was returning to the city from a visit in Brantford, and who sustained very serious injuries, was carried from the car into a nearby house, and later removed to the city hospital, where it was found that her right arm had been severed above the elbow. She was in a very serious condition, and for a time, it was feared that she might succumb to shock, but her condition improved later, and every hope is held for her recovery now. ”¹

Mrs. Bryson was quickly attended to by two passengers after the car had stopped moving :

“Robert Hatch was on his way from Brantford, where he worked to sped the weekend with his family at Guelph. His right arm was crushed and he sustained a bruise over his left eye. He was also shaken up. His club bag was smashed. He sat behind Mrs. Elizabeth Bryson. Mr. Hatch said he perceived something was wrong after the car had crossed Queen street, when the speed of the car was not slackened as it neared the corner of Hess street. Then the car skidded, left the rails, and lurched towards a wooden fence on the east side of Hess street. Mr. Hatch heard a crash of glass in front of him, caused by Mrs. Bryson’s arm being shot through the window with great force. A grinding noise followed, then the car toppled over on its side.

“In front of Mrs. Bryson was Mr. Day, R.R. No. 1, Brantford. He was coming to this city on business. He escaped with bruises and a shaking up. Both Mr. Hatch and Mr. Day were somewhat dazed, but quickly recovering, soon freed themselves, for both were between the seats. Simultaneously, both men noticed the pitiable plight of Mrs. Bryson, lying unconscious with one arm severed. She was held as in a vise between the car window and the smashed seat where she had sat. In a few minutes they had freed her and carried her onto the veranda of Mrs. Booth’s residence, 207 South Hess street. Until the arrival of the police ambulance, everything was done to stop further loss of blood. The severed arm was later picked up by one of the city firemen. Afterwards, Mr. Hatch left to catch the C.P.R. Guelph train, while Mr. Day proceeded cityward.   

The Herald reporter managed to speak to the motorman :                  “Motorman McEwan, who has been in the company’s service for six years, stuck to his post and did his utmost to bring the car to a standstill. He was badly shaken up when a Herald reporter spoke to him after the mishap. From the time of leaving Brantford, until a short distance before reaching the Aberdeen avenue and Queen street intersection, he found no trouble in stopping his car. The greasy state of the rails, due to the thaw, had made him exercise every care during the trip. Mr. McEwan, during his six years’ service, has proved himself a trustworthy and careful employee.¹

¹ “B. & H. Car Jumped Rails on Hess Street : Got Beyond Control and Crashed Into Fence : Mrs. E. Bryson Lost an Arm and Several Others Were Hurt.”

Hamilton Herald.    December 09, 1918.

With the accident occurring at about 3 o’clock Saturday afternoon, and with no Sunday newspapers published, it was not until the following Monday, December 9, 1918 that Hamiltonians learned the details of the accident, and the nature of the injuries suffered in it.