1915-02-24rr

“Detectives are scouring the city for one of the boldest crooks that ever operated in Hamilton.”

Hamilton Spectator.    February 24, 1915.

Crime was certainly not unknown in Hamilton in 1915, and break-ins involving thefts from residences were part of the instances that Hamilton police had to investigate.

However, on Sunday evening, February 21, 1915, a break-in occurred which was very remarkable and very troubling. At first, the police saw fit to keep the robbery out of the public realm in the hopes that they might be able to quickly apprehend the theft. Four days later, the police had been unsuccessful in that effort and decided to publicize the case, perhaps as a result, someone in the community might have information which would be of assistance.

While the occupants of an east end home were away at a Sunday evening religious services, their maid was left alone in the home:

“She had occasion to go to the basement to regulate the furnace and she had just descended the stairs when a man, with a mask over his eyes, sprang at her with a broom.

“The maid eluded his rush and ran back up the stairs. When she gained the ground floor, she turned the lock in the basement door and ran from the house to summon the police.

“Detectives and a squad of men responded with the patrol, but when they reached the house the intruder had disappeared.

“A thorough search revealed the fact that a bottle of beer and a bottle of wine was the extent of the visitor’s loot, but on the dining room table the police found a note giving their official pride a severe shock.

“The note was short, but sweet, and read : ‘This was a hurry call. I’ll be back again. Look out.’¹

¹ “Nervy Thief Promised He Would Return.”

Hamilton Spectator.   February 24, 1915.

The police questioned the maid and were able to get a meagre, vague description of the intruder from her.

Three days later, the police were called again from the very same house:

“The maid, sweeping in the hall in the morning, found a note which had evidently been carefully tucked under the front door. It was in the same handwriting as the one found on Sunday night and read: ‘I’ll be calling again soon, as I warned you.’

“The officers took the note and made careful inquiries in the neighborhood, but no one had seen a strange man lurking in the vicinity.”¹

All the occupants of the house, especially the maid, were very much unnerved by the notes. The police stated that they intended to kep a close watch in the house for some time.

Inspector Campbell was asked by a Spectator reporter from information on the progress of the investigation, and he responded cryptically, “I’ll tell you nothing at all. We have been asked to keep it quiet.”

A little more than two weeks later, the police had not found the culprit and, in fact, were dealing with a number of household intrusions.

A Hamilton Times column which appeared on March 10, 1915 began as follows:

“Hamilton, at the present time, seems to be infested with burglars and second-storey men, who have been going the rounds during the past two or three weeks breaking into houses, binding and gagging victims that come in their way, and so far have been eluding the police, who have received a number of complaints, but refuse to give out anything about the different cases that they have been notified of.”²

² “Boy Gagged By Bold Burglars”

Hamilton Times.   March10, 1915.

One recent case that the Times reporter did learn about involved three men breaking into a house. They found a woman alone in the house at the time. The woman, it was said, was “badly used” by the intruders and was left “in a rather serious condition.”

Another case happened at the Thompkins home, 12 Wood street. Again, three men entered the residence:

“In this particular case , this trio of men failed to get away with any valuables, but at the same time, they bound and gagged a 14-year-old boy, and used him up in such a manner that the victim has still to recover from the shock.

“Mrs. Thompkins, who is a widow, went out in company with her 17-year-old daughter and her younger son. Francis, 14-years-old, who is employed at a store on James street north, was forced to work and was unable to go.

“After finishing his work, he went home, and, picking up a paper, began to read. About 9:45, he was startled by a knock at the front door, and went to open it, but before he could do so, two men forced their way in. On seeing him, they asked if any others were at home.

“The answer they received was in the negative, and on learning this, they grabbed the youngster and handled him very roughly. He screamed for help, and one man immediately gagged him with his hand, while the other pulled down a curtain that was hanging nearby, and with this they bound and gagged him and left him lying on the lounge where they had thrown him.

“The two men then started to ransack the house, while the third party remained on the outside and kept his eye open for the police.”²

After pulling every drawer in the house and finding nothing of value, the intruders left, but not before warning Francis that if he said anything about the matter, they would return and “get him.”

Mrs. Thompkins and her daughter returned home about 10:30 and found Francis on the lounge in a semi-dazed condition. They immediately summoned a doctor, who was able to bring the young man back to full consciousness. He was then able to tell the story of what had happened, and, despite the intruders’ warning, the police were called.

The police tried to reassure the public that they were following up a clue they had found, and were assembling evidence against the intruders whose identity they knew very well.

Before any arrests were made, the suspected burglars had disappeared. Presumably, they had left the city, as the rash of break-ins came to an end.

 

 

 

 

1915-04-15tt

The retail business in downtown Hamilton was extremely competitive in 1915. In close proximity, mainly located on James Street and King street, were a large number of large department and clothing stores which competed mightily for the business of shoppers.

Clever newspaper advertisements and innovative promotional schemes were employed to catch the potential customer’s attention and attract him or him to the store.

In April, 1915, the Begg & Shannon Store, a popular clothing firm on James street north unveiled an unusual promotion with an eye-catching ad in the local press.

The idea involved the placement of a small automobile in the store, and invite potential customers to come to the store to see the vehicle and to learn how a boy or girl might win it.

The automobile was called “the Lad’s Car” and was in almost every way was the same as any other automobile be driven at the time, except for its size.

Here is the copy which accompanied an illustration of the auto read as follows:

“BOYS ! Work for this car. PARENTS, enter your son in this contest.

This is a real, live automobile that will run about fifty miles on one gallon of gasoline, and can attain a speed of about twenty miles an hour or more. It will make the heart of any boy glad beyond description, and is a practical means of locomotion

EVERY CENT PURCHASED FROM THE UNDERSIGNED MERCHANTS COUNTS ONE VOTE IN DENOMINATIONS OF TEN CENTS OR MORE. THE CAR WILL BE GIVEN ABOSLUTELY FREE TO THE BOY OR GIRL RECEIVING THE MOST VOTES BY MAY 26, 1915.

 

BOYS ! Look up all your friends – families that have no children – and have them buy all the merchandise that they need from the undersigned merchants and save the coupons for you. Tell them about this wonderful opportunity to obtain this automobile and they will be glad to help you win. See big announcement cards in all the undersigned merchant’s windows.”

The Begg and Shannon Store owners had canvassed Hamilton, visiting a large number of firms seeking those wishing to get involved with the promotion.

The final, carefully-selected thirteen firms were selected, with no two firms involved in the same line of business:

BEGG & Shannon. Clothing, Men’s Furnishings, Hats, Shoes.

The FRANK E. WALKER CO. LTD. Furniture, Carpets, Stoves, Hoosier Cabinets.

KENT, GARVIN & CO. Hardware.

CULLEY & BREAY. Electric Fixtures, Lamps, Irons, Toasters, etc.

PEEBLES, HOBSON & CO. Groceries, Meats, Liquors, etc.

JOHN LENNOX & CO. Trunks, Dress Suit Cases and Leather Goods.

HAMILTON GASOLINE & OIL CO. Gasoline and Oils.

HARRY RUSSELL. Millinery and Ready-to-Wear.

F.W.SCHWARZ. Cigar Store and Royal Hotel Cigar Stand.

J.W. NELSON. Sporting Goods and Bicycle Supplies.

EAST END GARAGE. General Repairs, Cadillac and Dodge Cars.

IDEAL TIRE REPAIR CO. Auto Tires and Accessories.

H.C. LINKERT BROS. Bread and Rolls.

 

The ad ended with the following invitation:

This Wonderful Automobile is Now on Exhibition at The Begg & Shannon Store.

COME AND SEE IT.

 

 

 

1915-03-20oo

“A badly decomposed body, believed to be that of Frank J. Howard, 22 Rebecca street, was found embedded in the ice in the bay near the Valley Inn bridge yesterday afternoon.”

Hamilton Spectator.    March 20, 1915.

As Bert Kennedy, 232 Macnab street north, along with three friends, was en route by foot from Hamilton to Aldershot, he was shocked with what he saw as the group was crossing the Valley Inn bridge:

“Kennedy’s attention was attracted by the hand which protruded above the ice. With his companions he ran out on the ice and attempted to extricate the body, by jumping on the surface, and in attempting to do so almost lost his own life for the ice broke and he was precipitated into the water.

“Kennedy’s companions pulled him back to safety, but it was found impossible the body, which was firmly frozen in the ice. The young men telephoned into the city and notified the police, Constables Mackie and Berryman responding.

“It was nearly two hours later before the body was taken from the ice. The features were almost totally unrecognizable, but the tattered clothing yielded up two small trunk keys, tied to a tag on which was written : F. J. Howard, 22 Rebecca Street.”¹

¹ “Body of Frank Howard Found Frozen in Ice : Gruesome Discovery Made by Men Near Valley Inn.”

Hamilton Spectator. March 20, 1915.

Back in November, 1914, Frank Howard’s mother notified the police that her son was missing. She told them that Frank had been acting “queerly” for some time. The police instituted a search but no trace of the young man was found.

Finding the tags on the body found the frozen body, the police went to Mrs. Howard to tell her of the find and ask her to come to the morgue:

“She viewed the remains but would not positive identify the body as that of her boy.

“Three friends of Howard viewed the body at the city morgue this morning. They told Inspector Campbell that they would not swear positively that the remains were that of Howard.”¹

The police then took the two small trunk keys to the Howard’s boarding house, and were able to a trunk found in his room with them. Other than the keys, the only things found on the body were a pearl pen-knife and $6.04 in money.

A coroner’s jury was hastily assembled and they were taken to the morgue to view the body.

The coroner’s inquest would not take place until five days later, March 25, 1915.

Among the witnesses were Kennedy and his friends, J. H. Rosenberg, Tom Moore, and Roley Boker, who provided the facts regarding the discovery of the body.

Another witness was Dr. John Locheed, a Hamilton dentist who, five years before, had placed four gold fillings in the teeth of Frank J. Howard:

“Identification of the body was only made possible because of the filling in the teeth.

“Dr. Locheed at the inquest last night swore positively that the body was that of Howard.

“Positive identification was most important because of the fact that Howard carried considerable life insurance and was the owner of property.”²

² “Identified By Gold Fillings : Only Means of Identification of Howard’s Body.”

Hamilton Spectator.    March 26, 1915.

Mrs. Howard was called to testify at the inquest. She could only venture her view that there was absolutely no reason that her son would take his life, and that his business was in good condition. She firmly believed that her son’s death was accidental.

The final witness was Dr. Ward who had conducted the post-mortem examination of the body found in the ice. He said that the body was in such an advanced state of decomposition that it was impossible to definitively identify the cause of death.

The jury returned a verdict which read : “We find that the body found in the bay near the Valley Inn last Sunday was that of Frank J. Howard. We do not know the cause of death.”

 

1915-04-05tt

On Monday, April 5, 1915, the Hamilton Spectator carried a letter from Robin Richards, a Hamilton soldier who had been seriously in combat. The letter was accompanied by a photograph of him taken in the Red Cross hospital located in Hove, England.

Robin Richards’ parents, Mr. and Mrs. Edward Richards, resided on Mountain Avenue in Hamilton’s southwest district.

Robin Richard had been on the firing line in Western Europe, serving with the first Canadian Expeditionary force. He wounded in a bayonet charge, when a burly German soldier rammed him the stomach with his Mauser. Richard’s injuries included suffering from a displaced abdominal muscles, dysentery and ptomaine poisoning.

While recovering the English hospital, Richards sent the following letter, along with the photograph to his parents:

Red Cross Hospital, Third Avenue,

Hove, Eng.   March 19, 1915.

Dear Father – Pleasant change to be able to write without having one’s letters read.

I see the troops are still seesawing around Ypres and the village, or, rather, brick pile of St. Elio, about three miles southwest, where we spent most of our time.

Think I know every broken brick and place of possible cover in the bug. Had some real strenuous hand-to-hand fighting there just before I got knocked out, just like old pictures of the Franco-Russian war – German shells dropping indiscriminately on the mob. Casualties were heavy. I was devilishly lucky.

Trenches around St. Eloi are in terribly bad shape, so smashed by shell fire and mines that they seem mere aimless holes in the ground, connected by shallow ditches. The lack of proper parapet and depth cause a very heavy casualty list.

There are two motorbuses by the side of the road leading to the village, which were abandoned on the retreat from Mons. Interesting reading the ads for Nestle’s milk and baby food under the green paint while taking cover behind ‘em.

Don’t know which is most pleasant – waiting six hours after being told to get ready for a bayonet charge or dying in some d----d trench listening to les Allemands sapping underneath you. Looks as if the devil had ben scrambling eggs after a mine has exploded under a crowded trench.

Fighting around there seems terribly foolish. We cannot hold the German trench when wew’ve got it, and they can’t hold ours. WE made a charge around the beginning of March that I think I told you about in my previous letter. I got slugged in the stomach with the butt of a Mauser, handled by a burly 27^th Bavarian Foot Guard, while climbing a parapet. It wasn’t much of a wallop, but what with dysentery and ptomaine poisoning, I went to the mat for fair. Other fellows took the trench and blew it up. Then the Germans came back and chased us out, charged ours and drove us out.

Some of the abdominal muscles have been displaced, which makes recovery a devil of a long job. However, just a question of time, I guess. Then I should get a couple of weeks furlough before rejoining the battalion.

I managed to get over to Ypres a couple of months ago. Nice old town, some fine old buildings – particularly the Cloth Hall. The latter was not damaged at that time except for the beautiful stained glass windows smashed. Fierce job trying to repair these old trenches around this district. Two feet of mud, blood and filth, then dad Frenchmen, next ammunition, etc., equipment, next level more dead Frenchmen, broken rifles, then a layer of decomposed Germans, and, apparently, about ten feet deep you still find remains of human occupation.

I remember what you about ‘spoila optima’ Had rather a choice collection, a couple of quadrangular French bayonets and a German helmet, which really belonged to me according to medieval customs, but lost all my baggage at Batlent. I was somewhat dazed and had to be toted around on a stretcher and I guess someone pinched.

Best love to everybody,

          ROBIN RICHARDS ¹

¹ Devil’s Scramble As Trenches Are Mined : Hamilton Man Sends Graphic Story From Front”

Hamilton Spectator.     April 5, 1915  

 

 

1915-04-17oo

“The soldiers are marching to a tune, the orchestra and bands are ringing out a melody, and the young folks are singing the air of a new song which has come into the Dominion like the balmy breath of spring from the lakes.”

Hamilton Spectator.    April 17, 1915.

Spring had fully arrived in Hamilton by mid-April, 1915.

 Despite the warming temperatures, leaves coming out on trees all across the city, and the grass everywhere being green once again, there was a spirit of foreboding as it was widely known known that Hamilton soldiers were about to be deployed in the battlefields of Western Europe.

Spirits were lifted in the city, as were spirits being lifted all over, by a new song, a song which was becoming more popular every day.

The song, entitled, “When You Wore a Tulip and I Wore a Big Red Rose,” had been written by American composers, Percy Wenwich (music) and Jack Mahoney (words). It had quickly become a hit in many cities in the United States.

The song’s popularity was rapidly spreading across Canada, and even to the war zones in Europe in the month of April, 1915.

So popular had it become, the Spectator called it “a universal Hit:”

“The song, while containing no high notes, possesses certain harmonies which produce a remarkable entrancing effect when sung, and is also being used as a one-step and a waltz.

“It is rarely that a popular song with such a refreshing jingle and catchy tune has reached Hamilton.:¹

¹ “New Song Hit Sweeping Canada : Yankee Love Ballad Said to Contain Many Catchy Strains.”

Hamilton Spectator.   April 17, 1915.

 

 

1915-01-02rr

It was a heated campaign to become the mayor of Hamilton for the year 1915.

Early in the fall of 1914, several prospective candidates were weighing their options as regards throwing their hats in the ring. The decision was particularly agonizing for those who already held office at City Hall, and would have to give it up on the gamble that they might win, or lose, in the mayoral contest.

For Charles Gardiner, member of the Hamilton Board of Control, he thought his chances of being elected were reasonably good, but wished to see who might be his potential opponents.

Chester Walters was an alderman, a first term alderman, but he had become exceedingly popular because of his investigation into corruption in City Hall administration, notably in the Board of Works.

Controller Gardiner sought out Alderman Walters to ascertain his future intentions, and was assured that the alderman had no intentions of seeking the mayor’s office.

Two or three days before Gardiner was intending to announce his candidacy for mayor, Walters came to the law of Gardiner and Thompson. An employee of the firm overheard Walters say to Gardiner, “Now, Charlie, I want you to come out right away for the mayoralty and declare yourself. If you’ve got in your head that I am going to run for the mayoralty, get it out, because I’m not. I am coming for the board. You pay no attention to what you hear in the newspapers or in what any person tells you. I’m not going to run. That’s my word on it.”

Gardiner did indeed soon declare his intentions to run for mayor, but Walters had a change of heart.

Claiming that he was under intense pressure to use the abilities in exposing the Hamilton City Hall scandals on a wider, continuing basis as mayor, Walters succumbed and declared that he would run for mayor.

A heated campaign resulted and days before the vote, Gardiner went public with his claim that his opponent, Chester Walters, had given his word that he would be running for the Board of Control, not the mayor’s office. To back up his claim, Gardiner filed an affidavit, in which John Richter, the person who overheard the conversation between Walters and Gardiner, swore that Gardiner was correct in his claim.

On December 29, 1914, L.B. Sanders wrote the following letter to the Spectator in defense of Chester Walters:

“Dear Sir:

“A story is going around the city that Ald. Walters visited Controller in the latter store sometime before nomination day, saying that if the controller wished to run that he (Alderman Walters) would not run against him. This I understand was supposed to have occurred previous to Gardiner having announced himself as a mayoral candidate. The story goes that Mr. Walters said if Mr. Gardiner would run for mayor, he would run for board of control, and that he would help Gardiner all he could. Mr. Walters was supposed to have given him his hand and word on this this. Now, Mr. Editor, I think this story should be stopped. Mr. Walters is of too high a character to do any such thing, and I hope you will publish to the citizens that Mr. Walters has never given his word or any such proposal to Mr. Gardiner, and whoever is circulating the story had better stop it at once. The people ought to know that Mr. Walters’ word is as good as his bond, and if he had made any such promise, he would certainly have kept it.”

Chester Walters was supported by the Hamilton Herald in the race for mayor, while the Hamilton Spectator favored Charley Gardiner.

On December 30, 1914, a largely-attended political meeting was held in Farrar’s until the auspices of the Ward 8 Improvement society.

The Herald’s coverage was of course tilted in favor of Walters, starting from the headline which read, “Gave Ald. Walters Great Reception : Efforts Were Made By Organized Clique to Heckle Him, But They were Cried Down by the Big Gathering.”

While the exact attendance at Farrar’s hall was not stated, there were so many present that “the spacious hall was taxed to capacity, over two hundred electors remaining standing from 8 o’clock until midnight.”¹

¹ “Gave Ald. Walters Great Reception”

Hamilton Herald    December 31, 1914.

It was a rowdy gathering right from the start:

“It was evident at the outset that a certain clique had attempted to pack the meeting against Ald. Chester Walters, but there were too many thinking men there determined to hear about the municipal politics of the city and they grew so disgusted with the repeated interruptions that they shouted to throw certain well-known Gardiner supporters out of the hall. This silenced the interruptions.”¹

As the speeches were to begin, Charles Gardiner had yet to arrive:

“His workers gave him a fair reception when he arrived at the meeting late, but the reception was nothing to that of Ald. Walters’, and if last night’s meeting was any criterion, the candidate for a clean sheet at City Hall, Ald. Walters, will be successful.”¹

The election day was January 1, 1915, and the following day, the Spectator editorial was grudgingly gracious to the winner:

“There were two contestants in the mayoralty race yesterday. One man with but one year’s experience in the council, the other a man who had served the city for eight years, and during five years of that period in the responsible position as a member of the board of control. The verdict of the people, by a very large vote, was to accept the man with the lesser municipal experience.

“If anyone a year ago had ventured to predict that Chester Walters would be mayor-elect of Hamilton today, he would have been set down as a crank or lunatic, but such has been the course of events.

“Ald. Walters, by taking advantage of opportunities presented to him by older members of council, has been able to lead the civic muck-rake to such a degree that he has been landed in the mayor’s chair.

“If Chester Walters can deliver only one-half of the promises and pledges that have been made by and for him, Hamilton will indeed be fortunate in having such an acquisition.

“The Spectator sincerely hopes he can, and herewith assures him that he will have our cordial support in everything he undertakes for the betterment of local conditions and the uplift of the community in general.”²

² “Yesterday’s Elections”

Hamilton Spectator.  January 2, 1915.

 

 

 

                                               

 

1915-03-15cn

“In the police court this morning, Jacob Miller, a colored man, and his white wife, Annie Miller, were charged with keeping a house of questionable repute at 24 Railway street.”.”

Hamilton Times.    March 15, 1915.

The police court reporters were all over the case involving a reported house of prostitution, with the accused being partners in a mixed race marriage. Readers were sure to be titillated by the case for sure.

Not only were the accused managers of the house of different races, so were the two hookers, one white and the other black. The names they gave the police were Kathleen Wilson and Agnes Wilson

Antonio Delorenzo, Louis Malto and Samuel Capaque were also in court, charged with being frequenters of a house of ill-fame.

Jacob Miller was visibly upset as he stood in the prisoners’ docket:

“Miller, with tears in his eyes, stated that he was in total ignorance of what was going on in his home, but his wife stated that her husband forced her to keep the house, as he did not work.”¹

¹ “Colored Man Blamed All on White Wife”

Hamilton Times. March 15, 1915

On Saturday evening, March 13, 1915, a raid was made on the house at 24 Railway street, with Deputy Police Chief Whatley commanding a squad of Hamilton constables, and all swept up in the raid were confined in cells until the Monday morning session of the police court..

Mr, Miller did provide some humor during his testimony, his words being recorded by the Spectator reporter, who attempted to capture the speech patterns of the accused:

“ ‘I’m away at my paper-hanging all day, judge, and honest tuh goodness, I didn’t know of anything crooked. The women folk jest sit around and gossip and smoke, but further than that I don’t know nothin’ said Jake.

“ ‘Didn’t you have any suspicion there was something wrong,” asked the cadi.

“ ‘Not a suspish – but, judge, y’know what women folks is,’ laughed Jake.”²

² “Another Raid By Morality Squad : Police Clean Out Resort on Railway Street.”

Hamilton Spectator.    March 15, 1915.

In her testimony, Jakes’s wife, Annie, hotly denied her husband’s claims, saying that he knew about it all as he wanted money but did not want to work for it. His paper-hanging efforts were few and far between.

A long line of constables testified that they had been spying on the Miller residence for some time, and had seen many men entering and leaving the home at all hours of the day and night.

The three men caught at the house testified that they were there to see Jake Miller about something else entirely. The judge didn’t believe them for a moment.

The judgement was as follows:

“Jake and his wife were fined $50, with an option of two months’ vacation; the inmates were rapped for $20 each, and the three foreigners, charged with being frequenters, were fined $2.”²