1915-04-02ef

“On Thursday afternoon an official, at the east end police station, called up the residence of Sergeant Hawkins and imparted the information to a member of the household need not report for duty that night.”

Hamilton Spectator.   April 2, 1915.

For the member of Police Sergeant William Hawkins’ family, it was a surprise to hear that he was being told not to report for his upcoming shift at the police station.

It would turn that Sergeant Hawkins’ connection with the Hamilton Police department was over.

The news of what had happened was soon widely known. The city as a whole learned what had happened when the Spectator published a fiery reaction to the situation.

The article, appearing on April 2, 1915, began with an overview of just who “Bill” Hawkins was and what he had contributed to the Hamilton police force :

“Sergeant Hawkins is one of the best-equipped police officers that the city has ever had. A man of wide experience, of excellent judgment; in the prime of health; fit and capable in every way, one would suppose that it was in the best interests of the citizens and the police force itself to retain a man of that type as long as possible.

“Sergeant Hawkins joined the force thirty-two years ago next July. He has had fourteen years on the desk of the central station, and, since 1896, has been in charge of the patrol system, a service requiring a knowledge of electrical matters which the sergeant specially qualified himself at his own expense years ago.”¹

¹ “Red Tape”

Hamilton Spectator.   April 2, 1915.

It was not a case of dereliction of duty or of conduct unbecoming a member of the police force that prompted Hawkins’ sudden removal from active duty. It was the follow up to a conversation at a recent meeting of the police commissioners , reported in the local press, about Sergeant Hawkins’ status:

“Under the present rules of the police force, a man who has served at least thirty years, must retire at the age of 60 years. Sergeant Hawkins is the first victim of this foolish and arbitrary enactment.

“The regulation, by the way, does apply to the chief, to the deputy chief or to the inspectors, there is no limit for them. The manliness of police sergeants ceases automatically, under this arrangement, at 60 years, but not so with their superior officers, who can hang on until public opinion pries them from their jobs.”¹

There had been some speculation that Sergeant Hawkins’ time on the force could be extended, or some arrangement might be made whereby he might work in some clerical capacity with the force and at the same time be available to maintain and repair the patrol system as required.

Not only was the Spectator opposed to the enforced retirement of William Hawkins, there was hostility expressed as to how he was informed of his fate:

“His family was curtly notified by telephone that his 22 years’ valuable service was summarily ended. In plain English, he was ‘kicked out.’ He didn’t even have the satisfaction of a note from Sam Kent, the secretary of the police commissioners, that his term of office had expired.

“Such is the reward of faithful service as meted out by the Hamilton police commissioners.”¹

The Spectator ended its report of the retirement of Sergeant Hawkins by noing that as of April 1915, the Hamilton Police Force was the only one in Canada or the United States that had a regulation forcing retirement on members of the police force at the age of 60, excepting, of course, chiefs, deputy chiefs and inspectors.

About a week later, the Spectator was able to report that arrangements were being made to retain Bill Hawkins on the force. He was to have a desk position at the central station where he would continue to be in charge of the patrol system, plus some other unspecified duties.

The Hamilton Police commission was a three man board, comprise of the mayor, the Wentworth County judge and the police magistrate.

Hamilton Mayor Chester Walters publicly stated his position that Sergeant Hawkins was too valuable a member of the force to be placed on the pension list. Wentworth County Judge Snider expressed his agreement with the mayor and said that he was working with the mayor to resolve the matter.

It was Police Magistrate George Jelfs who was the cog in the wheel as he emphatically clung to the notion that a strict interpretation of the rules in place must be followed, with no exceptions.

In a related matter, there was a mad scramble to fill the position that Sergeant Hawkins once held, knowing that were he to remain on the force, it would be with a different status than he had previously had.

At least two of the current patrol sergeants were known to be interested in receiving a promotion. Also the police chief and the deputy chief were to be asked for their recommendations as to Hawkins’ successor.

Police Magistrate Jelfs, although a strict interpreter of the retirement regulation, questionably involved himself personally in the promotions resulting from the enforced retirement of Sergeant Hawkins:

Several members of the force had been actively canvassing for support in their efforts to be promoted

“Some old-fashioned wire-pulling is being done. All this is being done in spite of the fact that one of the rules of the department is that there is to be no solicitation for promotion by any of the men. Those who do solicit promotion are not to be considered, according to the rules.”²

² “Mad Scramble for a Vacant Police Post”

Hamilton Spectator.   April 8, 1915