A Political Dog Fight in Greenwood, Part Three
BY: BG EDITOR
The Worshipful Mayor
Mar 09, 2019 — GREENWOOD, BC (BG)
The Greenwood city council elected in January 1899 got off to a rocky start, making some headway and many waves over the course of the year. The brash Mayor, Thomas J. Hardy began making political enemies before the election ever took place. Throughout the year he was at the center of many contentious debates, several of which came to a sharp head in 1900. Still, there was much progress happening in the young city.
In February 1900, the Boundary Creek Times reported on the joint efforts of council and the Board of Trade to secure the B.C. Supreme Court registry for Greenwood.[1] Mayor Hardy and BOT president Scott Galloway were asked to be the delegates taking the request to Victoria.
With the mayor temporarily out of town on business, Alderman Sutherland took over as Acting Mayor. He allowed open discussion in council of one of the hot topics on their agenda: the ongoing dispute with the Greenwood Trading Company.[2] Under Mayor Hardy's hand this argument had turned into a legal action against the city, and Alderman Galloway suggested "that the sins of the father" (Mayor Hardy) were now being visited upon the children (the present council).
By June, Mayor Hardy was back in his seat, and council was working on a plan for annexing Greenwood and Anaconda.[3] Much of the pressing work before council during this time had to do with the grading of streets and managing water runoff. How and where streets were to be graded, and what fortunate businesses and residences would be first in line to enjoy the benefits of a proper job of it, was a major concern. Likewise, how much confidence was to be placed in the city engineer's and council's decisions on the placement of water pipes, culverts and gullies was a hot topic — and one that would come to a painful conclusion for the taxpayers.
These discussions were punctuated by other charged topics put before council. In July 1900, a large group gathered to discuss "the Mongolian question", which was a point of social concern throughout the Boundary. On a hot day in Greenwood, a crowd filled Miller's Hall to hear from the local pandits, and as usual, Mayor Hardy and Times editor Duncan Ross found themselves at loggerheads:[4]
"Mayor Hardy … suggested a boycott of business houses that would sell goods to Chinamen and discussed the question from several standpoints. Duncan Ross heard the Chinese question discussed for the last twelve years in the province, but it appeared to be as serious today as it was twelve years ago. There was always those who would talk strongly enough against Chinese, but were weak in carrying out any practical scheme for their discouragement. He suggested that the city council avail itself of the power granted by the Municipal Clauses Act to regulate laundries and could thereby close all the Chinese laundries in the city. He also advised those present to go home with the determination to no longer patronize Chinese.
Mayor Hardy was quite indignant that "his friend Ross" should suggest the council had power to regulate laundries. He didn't know what he was talking about and was only anxious to get a slap at Hardy. Ross and his friends were pinheads any way and some one (name not mentioned) had strings on him. …
J. W. Grier said that the Hardy and anti-Hardy difficulties always crept in to public discussions in Greenwood. As a laboring man he was not going to worry himself about the Chinese question, he did that for 15 years and was getting tired of it. The people who were most interested were the business men and until they joined with the workingmen in the movement it was useless attempting to do anything."
Mayor Hardy was quite indignant that "his friend Ross" should suggest the council had power to regulate laundries. He didn't know what he was talking about and was only anxious to get a slap at Hardy. Ross and his friends were pinheads any way and some one (name not mentioned) had strings on him. …
J. W. Grier said that the Hardy and anti-Hardy difficulties always crept in to public discussions in Greenwood. As a laboring man he was not going to worry himself about the Chinese question, he did that for 15 years and was getting tired of it. The people who were most interested were the business men and until they joined with the workingmen in the movement it was useless attempting to do anything."
Duncan Ross piled on a few more editorial comments, taking the Mayor to task for his vulgar and abusive language (billingsgate):
THE MAYOR OF GREENWOOD
"His Worship Mayor Hardy was neither by nature nor education intended for a gentleman, but a respect for the dignity of the position he holds should restrain him from making a public display of bad manners. Mayor Hardy appears to hold Mr. Ross responsible for his own ignorance of municipal law and becomes abusive when powers which the council possess are pointed out.
Thomas Jackson Hardy is at liberty to indulge in billingsgate to his heart's content, but the mayor of Greenwood should make a special effort to observe those amenities that are so necessary and so common when gentlemen discuss public questions on a public platform."
"His Worship Mayor Hardy was neither by nature nor education intended for a gentleman, but a respect for the dignity of the position he holds should restrain him from making a public display of bad manners. Mayor Hardy appears to hold Mr. Ross responsible for his own ignorance of municipal law and becomes abusive when powers which the council possess are pointed out.
Thomas Jackson Hardy is at liberty to indulge in billingsgate to his heart's content, but the mayor of Greenwood should make a special effort to observe those amenities that are so necessary and so common when gentlemen discuss public questions on a public platform."
While the question of "chinamen" taking business away from the locals was a long-standing complaint, other disputes flared up and burned even hotter. One of these was council's decision to move the city's banking business from the Bank of Montreal over to the Canadian Bank of Commerce.
Although the Bank of Montreal had stood behind Robert Wood and the fledgling City of Greenwood, bridging them across the rough financial waters of pioneering the townsite, some members of council were attracted to the juicy cash offerings the Canadian Bank of Commerce was waving before them. There was much discussion and wrangling at a special meeting of council. Mayor Hardy was in favour of sticking with BOM. Canadian Bank of Commerce had offered an enticing package of cash advances and loans to draw the city business away from BOM, who responded by offering to sweeten their terms to suit council. Against the wishes of the mayor, the vote passed and the Canadian Bank of Commerce won the city's business. Having pushed through the vote favouring the Canadian Bank of Commerce at a meeting where one of the key stakeholders was absent, the win had seemed a political victory for the aldermen who were learning to be as strategic as the mayor himself in pulling off fast ones. But Mayor Thomas Hardy did not let the council vote rest. Protocol and municipal law be damned, he attempted to veto the bank decision, over-riding the minutes:[5]
"When the regular meeting of the council was called all the members except Ald. Sutherland were present. The mayor was armed with a copy of the municipal act and the fun began.
The prologue was by George Birkett Taylor, city clerk. He read the minutes of the previous regular meeting and the special meeting of the council. Then the mayor began before his time. Instead of allowing the minutes to pass because they were a faithful record of what did take place he thought that the proper moment had arrived to exercise his vetoing power. Before the adoption of the minutes he would veto, under section 12 of the Municipal Clauses Act, two resolutions: one authorizing the transfer of the city's account from the Bank of Montreal to the Canadian Bank of Commerce and the other appointing a committee to carry out the intent of this resolution.
The mayor stated that he was strongly opposed to the change. If Mr. Finucane had been in the city there would have been no trouble and it was not treating him nor the Bank of Montreal fairly to change the account just on the eve of his return to the city. The Bank of Montreal had been a strong friend of the city in the past and he believed the account should be left there."
The prologue was by George Birkett Taylor, city clerk. He read the minutes of the previous regular meeting and the special meeting of the council. Then the mayor began before his time. Instead of allowing the minutes to pass because they were a faithful record of what did take place he thought that the proper moment had arrived to exercise his vetoing power. Before the adoption of the minutes he would veto, under section 12 of the Municipal Clauses Act, two resolutions: one authorizing the transfer of the city's account from the Bank of Montreal to the Canadian Bank of Commerce and the other appointing a committee to carry out the intent of this resolution.
The mayor stated that he was strongly opposed to the change. If Mr. Finucane had been in the city there would have been no trouble and it was not treating him nor the Bank of Montreal fairly to change the account just on the eve of his return to the city. The Bank of Montreal had been a strong friend of the city in the past and he believed the account should be left there."
Following much debate, the mayor's rogue veto was set aside and the minutes passed. The mayor's concerns would have to be taken up later by council. Still, the decision rankled with many.
As the fall of 1900 wore on, there was increasing rancor on the subject of street grades. In particular, Rendell & Co. had sued the city and won a full judgment. In the wake of this legal opinion, City solicitor Leamy recommended that a bylaw be established on how street grades were handled.
At an October council meeting, Alderman Sutherland occupied the president's chair in the absence of Mayor Hardy. A vote was taken to rescind the road tax, and actions on the Rendell & Co. settlement were also reported by the Times:[6]
"Rendell & Co. wrote in reference to their suit, the offer made being agreed to in the following resolution passed by the council, except Rendell & Co. asked for a six months note and the council offers a nine months' note:
Moved by Ald. Galloway, seconded by Ald. Bannerman: "Whereas Geo. Arthur Rendell and Ralph Smailes have recovered judgment against the city of Greenwood for $6,500 and costs and the city of Greenwood has appealed from the said judgment which said appeal is now pending and whereas it has been agreed between the said Rendell and Smailes and the said city that the said city should pay Rendell and Smailes $5,000 in full settlement within nine months from the date hereof with interest at 7 per cent per annum until paid and should discontinue the appeal; be it therefore resolved, that the mayor and city clerk execute a proper agreement under the seal of the corporation with Rendell and Smailes, embodying such agreement and acknowledging such indebtedness of $5,000 and interest and agreeing to pay same within nine months and to such promissory notes as may be deemed advisable as collateral security and that the mayor and city clerk be and they are hereby authorized to sign such notes or any renewal thereof."
The city council also passed a resolution agreeing to not interfere with the sidewalk opposite the Rendell block during their tenure of office."
Moved by Ald. Galloway, seconded by Ald. Bannerman: "Whereas Geo. Arthur Rendell and Ralph Smailes have recovered judgment against the city of Greenwood for $6,500 and costs and the city of Greenwood has appealed from the said judgment which said appeal is now pending and whereas it has been agreed between the said Rendell and Smailes and the said city that the said city should pay Rendell and Smailes $5,000 in full settlement within nine months from the date hereof with interest at 7 per cent per annum until paid and should discontinue the appeal; be it therefore resolved, that the mayor and city clerk execute a proper agreement under the seal of the corporation with Rendell and Smailes, embodying such agreement and acknowledging such indebtedness of $5,000 and interest and agreeing to pay same within nine months and to such promissory notes as may be deemed advisable as collateral security and that the mayor and city clerk be and they are hereby authorized to sign such notes or any renewal thereof."
The city council also passed a resolution agreeing to not interfere with the sidewalk opposite the Rendell block during their tenure of office."
Although Rendell and Smailes had taken a conciliatory posture, agreeing to knock $1,500 off the city's tab if they would drop their appeal and pay up, Mayor Hardy would have none of it. Upon his return to council the following week, we find this report:[7]
A CIVIC DEADLOCK
Mayor Refuses to Sign Agreement Settling Rendell Case
"For two hours and a half the Greenwood council wrangled over the agreement with Rendell & Co. and in that time did not succeed in adopting the minutes of the previous meeting. Mayor Hardy was in the chair and Ald. Galloway, Sutherland and Sullivon were present. The clerk read the minutes and Ald. Galloway moved their adoption. The mayor at once attacked the agreement passed by the council and said that he would never sign the same until Rendell & amp Co. lowered the sidewalk. No one seconded the motion to adopt the minutes and at 10:30 Ald. Galloway, seeing no prospects of any business being done, left the council chamber and the council without a quorum.
The action of the mayor places the council in a peculiar position. By a unanimous vote they decided to give $5,000 to Rendell & amp Co. in settlement of their suit and wired their solicitors on the coast to discontinue the appeal. They also placed on record a resolution setting forth that the sidewalk opposite the Rendell block would not be interfered with during their tenure of office: The agreement pledging the payment of $5,000 was drawn up and signed by all the parties interested except the mayor."
Mayor Refuses to Sign Agreement Settling Rendell Case
"For two hours and a half the Greenwood council wrangled over the agreement with Rendell & Co. and in that time did not succeed in adopting the minutes of the previous meeting. Mayor Hardy was in the chair and Ald. Galloway, Sutherland and Sullivon were present. The clerk read the minutes and Ald. Galloway moved their adoption. The mayor at once attacked the agreement passed by the council and said that he would never sign the same until Rendell & amp Co. lowered the sidewalk. No one seconded the motion to adopt the minutes and at 10:30 Ald. Galloway, seeing no prospects of any business being done, left the council chamber and the council without a quorum.
The action of the mayor places the council in a peculiar position. By a unanimous vote they decided to give $5,000 to Rendell & amp Co. in settlement of their suit and wired their solicitors on the coast to discontinue the appeal. They also placed on record a resolution setting forth that the sidewalk opposite the Rendell block would not be interfered with during their tenure of office: The agreement pledging the payment of $5,000 was drawn up and signed by all the parties interested except the mayor."
And with this defiant action, Mayor Thomas J. Hardy was just warming up. The following week he dug-in further, refusing to come to settlement in another suit brought by Miller Brothers. Editor Duncan Ross, who had stepped back a bit from his editorial confrontations with the mayor, was again inspired to share his observations:[8]
LITIGATION
Mayor Hardy Is Not Yet Satisfied
BUT WANTS MORE LAW
Is Determined to Fight the Case of Miller Bros. vs. the City
Does Not Want to Sign Rendell Agreement
"The Times has for months refrained from criticizing the official acts of the chief magistrate of this city because the people had at last realized his incompetency and were quite prepared to relegate him to private life when the opportunity presented itself and this article is written, not for the purpose of reopening the sores of municipal mismanagement, but to warn the ratepayers against a course which, if allowed by them, will plunge the city further into debt and litigation.
Last year the Times strongly protested against the actions of the mayor which landed the city in the courts out of which it came with a judgment of S6,500 registered against it. Those members of the council who have the interests of the city at heart, succeeded in securing a fair and reasonable settlement of the Rendell case; they instructed their solicitors to discontinue the appeal, but the mayor childishly hopes to thwart the wishes of the council by refusing to sign the agreement. He is evidently hugging the delusion that now the appeal has been discontinued Rendell & Co. may be able to secure the full amount of the judgment and costs and the city be injured to a greater extent than under the settlement which was affected by the council.
Nor is this all. Miller Bros have a suit pending against the city, a suit which is based upon similar facts to those which gave Rendell & amp Co. their judgment. The council realizing the futility of carrying on further litigation with Rendell & amp Co., sought a settlement and secured a reasonable one. With a similar case against them one would naturally suppose that the council would be anxious to affect a settlement with Miller Bros, before the city is mulcted in damages and heavy costs; but no! Mayor Hardy, who resides at Phoenix, and comes to Greenwood apparently for the purpose of offering opposition to all actions of the council that have for their object the settlement of these disputes that have retarded the growth of the city and endangered its credit in the money market, says that the city must fight Miller Bros., must be put to further cost in endeavoring to prove that municipal wrong doing will be made municipal right-doing by the courts.
Next Friday another case against the city will be tried in Nelson. It is too late to do anything looking towards a settlement in this Waterland case, but surely if the council cannot bring the mayor to reason, the people who elected him ought to do something to put a stop to this endless litigation. The mayor's perversity has already cost the city much and it would be folly to allow him to persist in a course that will only add heavier burdens to those already borne by the ratepayers."
Mayor Hardy Is Not Yet Satisfied
BUT WANTS MORE LAW
Is Determined to Fight the Case of Miller Bros. vs. the City
Does Not Want to Sign Rendell Agreement
"The Times has for months refrained from criticizing the official acts of the chief magistrate of this city because the people had at last realized his incompetency and were quite prepared to relegate him to private life when the opportunity presented itself and this article is written, not for the purpose of reopening the sores of municipal mismanagement, but to warn the ratepayers against a course which, if allowed by them, will plunge the city further into debt and litigation.
Last year the Times strongly protested against the actions of the mayor which landed the city in the courts out of which it came with a judgment of S6,500 registered against it. Those members of the council who have the interests of the city at heart, succeeded in securing a fair and reasonable settlement of the Rendell case; they instructed their solicitors to discontinue the appeal, but the mayor childishly hopes to thwart the wishes of the council by refusing to sign the agreement. He is evidently hugging the delusion that now the appeal has been discontinued Rendell & Co. may be able to secure the full amount of the judgment and costs and the city be injured to a greater extent than under the settlement which was affected by the council.
Nor is this all. Miller Bros have a suit pending against the city, a suit which is based upon similar facts to those which gave Rendell & amp Co. their judgment. The council realizing the futility of carrying on further litigation with Rendell & amp Co., sought a settlement and secured a reasonable one. With a similar case against them one would naturally suppose that the council would be anxious to affect a settlement with Miller Bros, before the city is mulcted in damages and heavy costs; but no! Mayor Hardy, who resides at Phoenix, and comes to Greenwood apparently for the purpose of offering opposition to all actions of the council that have for their object the settlement of these disputes that have retarded the growth of the city and endangered its credit in the money market, says that the city must fight Miller Bros., must be put to further cost in endeavoring to prove that municipal wrong doing will be made municipal right-doing by the courts.
Next Friday another case against the city will be tried in Nelson. It is too late to do anything looking towards a settlement in this Waterland case, but surely if the council cannot bring the mayor to reason, the people who elected him ought to do something to put a stop to this endless litigation. The mayor's perversity has already cost the city much and it would be folly to allow him to persist in a course that will only add heavier burdens to those already borne by the ratepayers."
Reading the weekly news reports, the pressure being felt by council members was palpable. Only two aldermen joined the mayor at the next meeting, and there being no quorum, no business could be done.
A few days later a special meeting of council was held, and the mayor's actions on this occasion tell us much about the man:[9]
"Mayor Hardy intimated that if the council would rescind the resolution that the sidewalk opposite the Rendell building would not be interfered with, he would sign the agreement settling the Rendell case for $5,000. The council rescinded the resolution and then the mayor refused to sign the agreement until the sidewalk is lowered. There was no regular meeting of the council Monday evening."
Next week, in the final segment, the legal chickens come home to roost. And as Duncan Ross predicted:[10]
"It was a dangerous thing to clothe with authority a gentleman who apparently was anxious to take advantage of the power conferred upon him, by virtue of his office, to satisfy political scores. It is also expensive."
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Greenwood Weekly Times — Feb 10, 1900, p. 4
https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/bcnewspapers/xboundarycr/items/1.0172712
[2] Greenwood Weekly Times — Apr 07, 1900, p. 1
https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/bcnewspapers/xboundarycr/items/1.0172763
[3] Greenwood Weekly Times — Jun 09, 1900, p. 1
https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/bcnewspapers/xboundarycr/items/1.0172776
[4] Greenwood Weekly Times — Jul 25, 1900, p. 2 & 6
https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/bcnewspapers/xboundarycr/items/1.0172808
[5] Greenwood Weekly Times — Aug 22, 1900, p. 6
https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/bcnewspapers/xboundarycr/items/1.0172805
[6] Greenwood Weekly Times — Oct 03, 1900, p. 1
https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/bcnewspapers/xboundarycr/items/1.0172799
[7] Greenwood Weekly Times — Oct 10, 1900, p. 1
https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/bcnewspapers/xboundarycr/items/1.0172811
[8] Greenwood Weekly Times — Oct 17, 1900, p. 1 & 4
https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/bcnewspapers/xboundarycr/items/1.0172815
[9] Greenwood Weekly Times — Oct 24, 1900, p. 1
https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/bcnewspapers/xboundarycr/items/1.0172818
[10] Greenwood Weekly Times — Oct 31, 1900, p. 1 & 4
https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/bcnewspapers/xboundarycr/items/1.0172860
