A Political Dog Fight in Greenwood
BY: BG EDITOR
Mayoral Politics
Feb 23 2019 — GREENWOOD, BC (BG)
Today we look back at a tumultuous political saga that took place in Greenwood in 1899 and 1900. The young city found itself throttling down rough roads, with the reins in the hands of a mayor who apparently had little regard for propriety or protocol.
January 1899 saw the election of a new mayor and city council in Greenwood. Thomas Jackson Hardy would take the mayor's seat being vacated by townsite founder, Robert Wood. As we read in this first Boundary Creek Times report[1], the election campaign had itself been somewhat rough… and that was but a taste of things to come.
"After taking the oath of office Mayor Hardy briefly addressed the council. He paid a compliment to Mayor Wood and declared his intention of supporting any measure of public interest, irrespective of whether it was introduced by an alderman supporting his election or not. He would endeavor to the best of his ability to give satisfaction. He hoped that all would be as good friends as they were a few months ago. Considerable warm feeling was engendered during the election, and he hoped some people who feel sore would see the error of their ways, regain their senses and work in the best interests of the city. He thought that there would be no business to bring before the council to-night.
Alderman Naden felt that he was classed by the mayor among those who should regain their senses. He never knew he lost his. He intended to do his duty in the interests of the city without regard to the election campaign. Alderman Galloway did not think he lost his senses and did not expect that the mayor would act other than in an impartial manner.
… [A] unanimous vote of thanks was tendered the retiring mayor. Ex-Mayor Wood thanked the council for its unanimous expression of good will. He hoped that Mayor Hardy would have as pleasant a time in the chair as he had and that greater success would attend the work of the new council."
Alderman Naden felt that he was classed by the mayor among those who should regain their senses. He never knew he lost his. He intended to do his duty in the interests of the city without regard to the election campaign. Alderman Galloway did not think he lost his senses and did not expect that the mayor would act other than in an impartial manner.
… [A] unanimous vote of thanks was tendered the retiring mayor. Ex-Mayor Wood thanked the council for its unanimous expression of good will. He hoped that Mayor Hardy would have as pleasant a time in the chair as he had and that greater success would attend the work of the new council."
The Times also reported on this day that Mayor Hardy had been named to the Executive committee of the Greenwood Mining and Commercial Association. In fact, well before his election as mayor, Thomas Hardy was a central figure in the Greenwood business community. Around 1898, T. J. Hardy became the business partner of another of Greenwood's pioneers, James Russell. The two carried on business as the Russell Hardware company.[2] In 1901, their firm merged with two other large mercantiles in the city to become the Russell-Law-Caulfield company.
Beyond the subtle signs of campaign difficulties noted above, the following Times report would mark the start of three solid years of political wrangling in early Greenwood.[3] Well before the situation had deteriorated to the lawsuits that were to come, the mess was adjudicated in the court of public opinion thanks to the dogged determination of Times editor, Duncan Ross and his staff.
THE SPOILS SYSTEM
ELECTION GOODS DELIVERED
Andrew Leamy, a Hardy Supporter, Appointed City Solicitor — The Waterworks Question — The Year's Work Outlined and Discussed by the New Council.
"During the recent municipal campaign it was freely mooted that promises were made to certain electors in the city in order to secure their votes and influence. Color was lent to this view by the action of certain aldermen whose highest conception of municipal duty is to act as automatons and allow the mayor to press the button.
Without any previous notice and with Alderman Naden absent from the city, Alderman Sutherland moved that Mr. Andrew Leamy be appointed city solicitor. The motion brought Alderman Galloway to his feet with an indignant protest against a practice which he characterized as vicious and pernicious and against the best interests of the city. He denounced the introduction of the "spoils" system into municipal affairs. Absolutely no reason was advanced why the change should be made."
ELECTION GOODS DELIVERED
Andrew Leamy, a Hardy Supporter, Appointed City Solicitor — The Waterworks Question — The Year's Work Outlined and Discussed by the New Council.
"During the recent municipal campaign it was freely mooted that promises were made to certain electors in the city in order to secure their votes and influence. Color was lent to this view by the action of certain aldermen whose highest conception of municipal duty is to act as automatons and allow the mayor to press the button.
Without any previous notice and with Alderman Naden absent from the city, Alderman Sutherland moved that Mr. Andrew Leamy be appointed city solicitor. The motion brought Alderman Galloway to his feet with an indignant protest against a practice which he characterized as vicious and pernicious and against the best interests of the city. He denounced the introduction of the "spoils" system into municipal affairs. Absolutely no reason was advanced why the change should be made."
Although Alderman Galloway had denounced the political wranglings as "vicious in the extreme", the resolution was pushed and the Mayor's man was put in as city solicitor. The Times editorialist offered this preview:
"There are other election goods to deliver, other pre-election promises to fulfill. In a young and growing Canadian city, enjoying self-government but a short time, the people have elected a council, the majority of whom, in order to secure office, made promises that were distinctly in violation of the Municipal Elections act, and are now introducing in the most barefaced manner a spoils system as vicious as any which has disgraced municipal politics in a country where the introduction of the spoils system is a common practice."
In other words, it was politics as usual…
As we will read in this and the segment to follow, one of the standard practices employed by both the major and council members was to simply absent themselves from meetings and community appearances. While council usually made its quorum for monthly meetings, there was certainly a pattern of well placed absences that generally mired the works of city government.
The first interesting absence was in the early days of February, just weeks after the election, when the Times reported:[4]
"Mayor Hardy, Ald. J. W. Nelson, ex-Ald. Phelan and ex-ald. Kerr were all confined to their homes with la grippe this week."
One can imagine an atmosphere surcharged with political intrigue.
February also saw the start of a regular shuffling of councilmen. There were numerous resignations, threats of resignation, threats of punishing those who threatened resignations, and all-around squabbling about how vacancies should be filled. This was caused, in part, by municipal laws that required a certain period of residency and/or property ownership for one qualified to serve on council. The rest appears to have been simple political in-fighting.
Alderman Jakes put in his resignation, followed by Ald. Naden, who said the provincial secretary had advised it was inexpedient for him to hold both position of alderman and license commissioner. The Mayor wanted to fine Naden $50 for resigning.[5] A few days later, Ald. Naden withdrew his resignation because Council had refused to accept it.
At the next meeting,[6] there was a debate about whether or not to call an election, presumably to replace Dr. Jakes. The city solicitor recommended an election, but Mayor Hardy said he didn't want to have taxpayers spend the money it would cost. It was proposed that Mr. Phelan be appointed to fill the vacancy, even though Ald. Galloway warned this action would result in a lawsuit, and even more expense than just holding the election. The Mayor prevailed, and Phelan was appointed to Council that night.
The actions of the strong-willed Mayor Hardy and his supporters on council were being carefully watched by the Times editor-in-chief, Duncan Ross, who regularly offered his critical commentary[7]. His advice is as true today as it was then. In fact, the entire mayoral drama of 1899-1900 tells us much about what is and isn't right and good in municipal governance.
THE PEOPLE'S RIGHTS
"The principle of responsible government which has been violated by the appointment of M. J. Phelan to the vacant aldermanic seat is more important than the appointment itself. In the good old days when the people were struggling to establish the right to elect their own representatives, men were gibbeted for a less serious violation of those rights than that perpetrated by Mayor Hardy and his supporters at Monday night's meeting.
It is unfortunate that the representatives elected by the people should be so ignorant of the rights of the people as to make a barefaced attempt to usurp those rights; but when this is the case strong measures are needed. It would be discreditable to the people to allow a bold invasion of their rights to go unchallenged. The electors who are more anxious to maintain these rights than they are to see Mayor Hardy with a working majority of his own creation, may rest assured that civilized methods will be adopted in lieu of the sterner measures of bygone days and that no boorish autocrat who mistakes obstinacy for stern intelligence will be allowed to foist an alderman of his own making upon the electors.
If no action were taken because Mr. Phelan has made a good alderman there is no saying where the evil would end. There is the strongest probability that Mr. Nelson will be unseated by the courts, or that he will voluntarily resign. Mr. Hardy and his subservient followers in the council have made for themselves a precedent under which they can disregard the rights of the people of the South ward and appoint a man of their own choosing to fill the vacant seat.
It is time Mr. Hardy called a halt. He is ignorant of the law which regulates the affairs of the city and his supporters who are as spineless as any two men who ever sat at a council board are still more ignorant. Instead of retaining or appointing a solicitor who would insist upon the affairs of the city being conducted in a legal manner they have appointed a man who advises to meet the wishes of those to whom he owes his appointment.
We feel sure that Mr. Leamy has too much respect for his standing as a lawyer to maintain that the advice he gave the council relative to filling the vacancy in the North ward was sound. Any one outside of Mr. Hardy and Aldermen Sutherland and Campbell and those who are entirely ignorant of the fixed principles upon which all governments in free countries are based recognize the fact that the law will tolerate the mayor, and two aldermen representing, one ward electing an alderman for another ward.
The people who are to conduct the business of the city must be armed with proper credentials from the people and not take their seats under an ukase issue by a mayor who is laboring under the hallucination that he is endowed with sufficient ability to properly conduct municipal affairs.
Unless the conduct of the affairs of the city is to be made a travesty on municipal government, unless the credit city is to be forever viewed by illegal acts, unless the progress of the city is to be retarded on the threshold of what should be the brightest period in its history, these irregularities must cease."
"The principle of responsible government which has been violated by the appointment of M. J. Phelan to the vacant aldermanic seat is more important than the appointment itself. In the good old days when the people were struggling to establish the right to elect their own representatives, men were gibbeted for a less serious violation of those rights than that perpetrated by Mayor Hardy and his supporters at Monday night's meeting.
It is unfortunate that the representatives elected by the people should be so ignorant of the rights of the people as to make a barefaced attempt to usurp those rights; but when this is the case strong measures are needed. It would be discreditable to the people to allow a bold invasion of their rights to go unchallenged. The electors who are more anxious to maintain these rights than they are to see Mayor Hardy with a working majority of his own creation, may rest assured that civilized methods will be adopted in lieu of the sterner measures of bygone days and that no boorish autocrat who mistakes obstinacy for stern intelligence will be allowed to foist an alderman of his own making upon the electors.
If no action were taken because Mr. Phelan has made a good alderman there is no saying where the evil would end. There is the strongest probability that Mr. Nelson will be unseated by the courts, or that he will voluntarily resign. Mr. Hardy and his subservient followers in the council have made for themselves a precedent under which they can disregard the rights of the people of the South ward and appoint a man of their own choosing to fill the vacant seat.
It is time Mr. Hardy called a halt. He is ignorant of the law which regulates the affairs of the city and his supporters who are as spineless as any two men who ever sat at a council board are still more ignorant. Instead of retaining or appointing a solicitor who would insist upon the affairs of the city being conducted in a legal manner they have appointed a man who advises to meet the wishes of those to whom he owes his appointment.
We feel sure that Mr. Leamy has too much respect for his standing as a lawyer to maintain that the advice he gave the council relative to filling the vacancy in the North ward was sound. Any one outside of Mr. Hardy and Aldermen Sutherland and Campbell and those who are entirely ignorant of the fixed principles upon which all governments in free countries are based recognize the fact that the law will tolerate the mayor, and two aldermen representing, one ward electing an alderman for another ward.
The people who are to conduct the business of the city must be armed with proper credentials from the people and not take their seats under an ukase issue by a mayor who is laboring under the hallucination that he is endowed with sufficient ability to properly conduct municipal affairs.
Unless the conduct of the affairs of the city is to be made a travesty on municipal government, unless the credit city is to be forever viewed by illegal acts, unless the progress of the city is to be retarded on the threshold of what should be the brightest period in its history, these irregularities must cease."
At the next council meeting, "Alderman" Phelan was not present.[8]
We close Part One of this story with an important statement from the Times editor,[9] who gives a strong statement on the importance of the free press in society. During a time when journalism was still an honourable profession, watchdogs like this were standing up to political forces, and bravely putting the facts of the matter before the public, despite threats to their own personal safety.
THE POSITION OF AFFAIRS
"Since the beginning of the election campaign, which gave Mayor Hardy and his working majority an opportunity to temporarily mismanage the affairs of the city, The Boundary Creek Times has been a persistent opponent of the methods adopted to secure and retain power.
Strong criticisms usually engender hostility when the unthinking and the ignorant are criticised, but strong criticisms are often necessary in the public interest. The position of The Times has been consistent throughout, and we think that the intelligent electors — those having the best interests of the city at heart — are fully convinced that any criticisms made were necessary and justified by the actions of the few individuals who considered themselves heaven-born municipal legislators.
Mr. Hardy made his first blunder when he started out to secure control of the municipal offices, and his conduct since then has been a series of municipal blunders. He issued his fiat that if he were to be mayor that he must have "his working majority in the house." The Times took the stand that in a small and growing city the electors should choose the best men, irrespective of their party or political predilections; and that no good man should be handicapped at the outset of the municipal campaign by being forcibly brought under the Hardy wing.
The ticket was persisted in with the result that two men disqualified from holding office were placed in nomination. The Times exposed the disqualification, produced records from the land registry office to show that the two nominees referred to were disqualified. They were elected; one refused to take his seat and resigned, and the other took his seat only once, fearing the penalty of illegally serving as alderman.
Then Mayor Hardy and his servile working majority took the next illegal steps. They wilfully violated the fundamental principle of responsible government and foisted an alderman on the people of the North ward without their consent. The Times took the ground that the course was illegal, notwithstanding the legal opinion of their solicitor. This paper maintained that the rights of the people should be respected and strongly criticised the conduct of the men who were guilty of a gross violation of the act and a total disregard for the rights of the people.
Having reached the end of their tether as far as municipal illegalities wore concerned, another course was adopted with a view to stifling public criticism. Alderman Sutherland, the worst offender in the trio of mediocres, made a cowardly assault on the editor of The Times. His object, as he announced, was intimidation, so that public criticism would cease, and he threatened further assaults if the criticisms were continued. The proud boast was made at the time of the election that the hoboes were on top and events since then go to prove that the boast was not an idle one.
While Alderman Sutherland is busy disgracing himself and his position, one of his brilliant confreres is busy proving that the position of The Times was correct from the start. The mayor attempts to make an unholy bargain with a prominent gentleman in the city, that this gentleman and his friends be allowed to nominate an alderman for the North ward and Mr. Hardy an alderman for the South ward, and that these two nominees be allowed their seats by acclamation. Now, if Mr. Phelan was legally appointed, if Mr. Nelson is qualified, where is the necessity for nominations? It is simply a consession that, notwithstanding the advice of the solicitor, they know that their position is untenable, and the brutal violence used by one of their number is because their illegal methods have been exposed.
When the mayor and his supporters show a disposition to do business in a legal way, The Times is prepared to assist them in any possible way, but while they persist in setting the law aside and pursuing a course that will mar the financial standing of the city and retard its progress The Times will be found fighting along the lines pursued since the municipal fight began, and Alderman Sutherland's thug tactics will not intimidate it into a cessation of hostilities."
"Since the beginning of the election campaign, which gave Mayor Hardy and his working majority an opportunity to temporarily mismanage the affairs of the city, The Boundary Creek Times has been a persistent opponent of the methods adopted to secure and retain power.
Strong criticisms usually engender hostility when the unthinking and the ignorant are criticised, but strong criticisms are often necessary in the public interest. The position of The Times has been consistent throughout, and we think that the intelligent electors — those having the best interests of the city at heart — are fully convinced that any criticisms made were necessary and justified by the actions of the few individuals who considered themselves heaven-born municipal legislators.
Mr. Hardy made his first blunder when he started out to secure control of the municipal offices, and his conduct since then has been a series of municipal blunders. He issued his fiat that if he were to be mayor that he must have "his working majority in the house." The Times took the stand that in a small and growing city the electors should choose the best men, irrespective of their party or political predilections; and that no good man should be handicapped at the outset of the municipal campaign by being forcibly brought under the Hardy wing.
The ticket was persisted in with the result that two men disqualified from holding office were placed in nomination. The Times exposed the disqualification, produced records from the land registry office to show that the two nominees referred to were disqualified. They were elected; one refused to take his seat and resigned, and the other took his seat only once, fearing the penalty of illegally serving as alderman.
Then Mayor Hardy and his servile working majority took the next illegal steps. They wilfully violated the fundamental principle of responsible government and foisted an alderman on the people of the North ward without their consent. The Times took the ground that the course was illegal, notwithstanding the legal opinion of their solicitor. This paper maintained that the rights of the people should be respected and strongly criticised the conduct of the men who were guilty of a gross violation of the act and a total disregard for the rights of the people.
Having reached the end of their tether as far as municipal illegalities wore concerned, another course was adopted with a view to stifling public criticism. Alderman Sutherland, the worst offender in the trio of mediocres, made a cowardly assault on the editor of The Times. His object, as he announced, was intimidation, so that public criticism would cease, and he threatened further assaults if the criticisms were continued. The proud boast was made at the time of the election that the hoboes were on top and events since then go to prove that the boast was not an idle one.
While Alderman Sutherland is busy disgracing himself and his position, one of his brilliant confreres is busy proving that the position of The Times was correct from the start. The mayor attempts to make an unholy bargain with a prominent gentleman in the city, that this gentleman and his friends be allowed to nominate an alderman for the North ward and Mr. Hardy an alderman for the South ward, and that these two nominees be allowed their seats by acclamation. Now, if Mr. Phelan was legally appointed, if Mr. Nelson is qualified, where is the necessity for nominations? It is simply a consession that, notwithstanding the advice of the solicitor, they know that their position is untenable, and the brutal violence used by one of their number is because their illegal methods have been exposed.
When the mayor and his supporters show a disposition to do business in a legal way, The Times is prepared to assist them in any possible way, but while they persist in setting the law aside and pursuing a course that will mar the financial standing of the city and retard its progress The Times will be found fighting along the lines pursued since the municipal fight began, and Alderman Sutherland's thug tactics will not intimidate it into a cessation of hostilities."
The editor's warning, that the city was on course to see its financial position damaged, was exactly right, as we shall see in the segment to follow. This political dogfight was only just getting started.
FOOTNOTES: only just getting started.
[1] Boundary Creek Times — Jan 21, 1899, pp. 3 & 4
https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/bcnewspapers/xboundarycr/items/1.0170351
[2] Greenwood Weekly Times — Jan 10, 1901, p. 4
https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/bcnewspapers/xboundarycr/items/1.0172821
[3] Boundary Creek Times — Jan 28, 1899, p. 4
https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/bcnewspapers/xboundarycr/items/1.0170340
[4] Boundary Creek Times — Feb 1, 1899, p. 4
https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/bcnewspapers/xboundarycr/items/1.0170262
[5] Boundary Creek Times — Feb 08, 1899, p. 1
https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/bcnewspapers/xboundarycr/items/1.0170315
[6] Boundary Creek Times — Feb 15, 1899, p. 1
https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/bcnewspapers/xboundarycr/items/1.0170263
[7] Boundary Creek Times — Feb 18, 1899, p. 2
https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/bcnewspapers/xboundarycr/items/1.0170265
[8] Boundary Creek Times — Feb 22, 1899, p. 1
https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/bcnewspapers/xboundarycr/items/1.0170269
[9] Boundary Creek Times — Feb 25, 1899, p. 2
https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/bcnewspapers/xboundarycr/items/1.0170312
