1915-04-15tt

At the April 15, 1915 meeting of the Property committee at Hamilton City Hall, there was made a motion passed, calling for an immediate,  thorough inspection of all Chinese laundries, and  Chinese restaurants in the city.

During the discussion on the motion Alderman Newsland declared “that there was no doubt there were undesirable conditions among the Celestials, particularly those running cafes.”¹

¹ Going After Chinese Cafes and Laundries”

Hamilton Spectator.  April 15, 1915.

Committee member, Alderman Glendow said, “If anything immoral is going on, the policemen on the beat should know it. They should inform the Commission so that the licenses can be taken away. If a policeman doesn’t do his duty, he should be let out.”¹

Controller Morris weighed into the discussion :

“I am told that it is for the protection of our young men and women that these places should be strictly supervised. In these Chinese cafes, I am informed that at three or four o’clock in the morning, young girls and men congregate. The policemen I have talked to tell me that in the interests of decency and morality, these places should be closed.”¹

Alderman McIntosh suggested that the Police Commission be instructed to close all restaurants in Hamilton at 1 a.m. The City Solicitor then informed the commitment that if he were to prepare such an instruction, a time to permit reopening should be decided upon.

In response to a question from Alderman McQuesten who wondered how such immorality in city restaurants had been allowed to happen, Alderman McIntosh explained the situation as he had ascertained:

“I was told by the mothers of young men that their sons are kept downtown all night by the attraction of these places. The police say that if they are closed, they can send the boys home, but that as long as they are sheltered in Chinese cafes, they cannot interfere.”¹

Alderman Peter Nichol voiced opposition to the proposed closing time of 1 a.m., thinking that 2 or 3 a.m. might be preferable:

“He knew a lot of railway men, newspaper men, telegraph operators, etc. who needed refreshments after the hour originally suggested.”¹

In response to Alderman Nichol’s concerns, Alderman McQuesten suggested that the whole problem could be solved by banning all women from restaurants after midnight.

Alderman Garson was adamant that something had to be done immediately to address the problem:

“We must save our young men and women. They stay out all night by frequenting these places. They engage a side room for the evening, and we know that they are not doing anything in the interests of morality.”¹

          The following day, the Spectator reported that the idea of the Property Committee to close all restaurants at 1 a.m. had met strong opposition. Internally, city officials, including the City Solicitor, would recommend that the suggestion be thrown, although perhaps it could be narrowed to only apply to Chinese or other cafes.

          Gordon Noble, proprietor of a lunch room was delegated as the spokesman for the restaurant owners:

“As far as lunch rooms are concerned, we have no side-rooms, we are open to police or other inspection any hour of the day or night, and are not only willing but anxious that the license of any place should be taken away if wrongdoing exists.

“It is absurd to talk of not opening until six in the morning. In the summer, half our business is done before that hour. Grocers, gardeners, farmers and others, including street railway men, who have to be out by 5:15, secure their breakfasts by or before that hour.

“The farmer today does not bring his meal along with him, as he formerly did. He comes in, puts his horse in the stable and has breakfast, sometimes before 5:30.

“The owners of restaurants, which are a public necessity, need encouragement today, if anything. Although we are paying two dollars more per hundred for sugar than a year ago, and despite the fact that practically all supplies have been materially boosted, we cannot charge more. We are consumers and must pay the dealers the increased prices, but have to bear the expense ourselves.

“If this goes through, it will mean the discharge of help which we want to keep, and in a dozen other ways, it will be hardship.”¹

The Chinese restaurateurs signed a petition asking that the changes suggested not got through. Fong Young, operator of a Chinese restaurant on King William street, declared firmly that no undesirable conditions exist in connection with his establishment, and that he was unaware of anything wrong with any other Chinese restaurant or café.

Ultimately, the suggested closing hour idea was dropped, although a request that the police increase inspections of all overnight restaurants and cafes be increased.