Monday 18 February 2019

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




No comments:

Post a Comment