NewmarketToday.ca brings you this weekly feature about our town’s history in partnership with Richard MacLeod, the History Hound, a local historian for more than 40 years. He conducts heritage lectures and walking tours of local interest, as well as leads local oral history interviews. You can contact the History Hound at thehistoryhound@rogers.com.
With the debate over whether Newmarket should or would allow the sale of marijuana from a brick and mortar site being front and center over the past few months, I was reminded of Newmarket’s history with the other major regulated substance in its past, alcohol. When people asked me whether I felt that council would vote in favor of applying to be included in the lottery to perhaps secure one of the prized opportunities, I always answered with a resounding no. In this article, I will tell you why I felt that we would not proceed, based upon our history and the prevailing attitude in Newmarket that our history provides.
After the incorporation of Newmarket as a village, one of the very first petitions that was presented to the new council on Feb. 15, 1858, by a Rev. Thomas Baker, was associated with the supply of alcohol in the community. He approached our council with a seventy-four signatures on a petition laying out the community’s protest against the granting of saloon licenses. Determined to make a stand, he returned soon after with a second petition bearing fifty-two signatures. Our early forefathers, faced with so many signatures, the council felt it could not ignore the petitions and refused to grant any licenses for the period of one year, in order to re-examine the issue more fully
.
In January 1863, the issuing of tavern and shop licenses passed from the control of municipal councils to a licensing commission, but the councils still had to the power to stipulate the fee for an alcohol license. Councils could also not grant a special license or waive the need of said license.
It is recorded that in 1876, William Cane presented a petition to the council on behalf of Mrs. Ashworth, Mrs. Cane, Mrs. Henderson and Mrs. Cook with two hundred and three other signatures petitioning Council to refuse the granting of shop licenses and to suppress public gambling rooms. However, a few years later, on Feb. 12, 1885, Danford Roche and J. J. Pearson, two leading citizens, with one hundred and seventy-four signatures, would appear before the council again, asking that that body pass a by-law before the first day of March, in accordance with Clause 24 of the Liquor License Act, requiring “the shopkeepers to confine their business to the shop solely and exclusively to the keeping and selling of liquor”. On Feb. 19, council responded with a by-law, passed in accordance with the petition. Incredibly, in 1882 alone, over 600 barrels of liquor were imported into Newmarket, an average of two barrels a day.
During the late 1880s and continuing right through the 1890s, efforts were being stepped up to wipe out this diabolical trade, as its detractors called it. Articles appeared in the local press, public lectures were held and committees were formed with the sole intent of keeping a sharp eye out for any infringement of the law. A question of considerable weight was placed before the council concerning the future trade of alcohol within the Town. The local Temperance people were circulating a petition asking that council to reduce tavern licenses and to disallow shop licenses altogether. Let us be clear, prohibition was their aim and a separate ballot was asked to be taken at the next parliamentary election.
Another petition was presented to Council, demanding a by-law which would confine the sale of liquor to only one business. There was a general feeling that a deplorable state of drinking was prevalent throughout the town and a proposal was also made to raise the license fee to $200 (a considerable amount at that time). By 1892, Local Option was being advocated and the entire township of Whitchurch was organized for that very purpose.
It was common for the time that men would ‘come into town and returned loaded with whisky, shouting and singing, lashing their horses unmercifully, and relying only upon their intelligence to take them safely home’. With the advent of the car, which quickly replaced the horse, rather than getting them home, only too often was the instrument of their death. Newmarket’s first murder, at the Dye’s Inn on Eagle street, is still to this day attributed to a drunken man who accidently shot a passerby while intoxicate. We have been left with stories of men, while thoroughly drunk, driving along the tracks ahead of the oncoming train, often singing a solemn hymn, of suicide from despair, of two cronies carrying a pail of grog from the liquor store, of the drunken brawls on Saturday nights when Main Street was turned into a Donnybrook, of blinds across the bar room windows where boys at the beginning of their young manhood took their first secret glass in an effort to become a man. On the other side of the picture that was painted at the time, of the children, shoeless, ragged, and hungry, the women faded and jaded, disillusioned, broken hearted, facing an empty cupboard but bravely striving to keep the home together (propaganda at its best). People spoke of ‘the poor merchant, his books indicating columns of credit granted in charity and the sad employer whose business was going to rack and ruin because of the binges which became all too frequent’. When the Salvation Army arrived in Newmarket in 1883, these were the conditions that they faced according to the accounts of the day. They, to their credit, set out to alleviate these perceived cases of suffering and it was not long before a change in the community began to take shape.
It was believed, at this time, to be in the interests of morality and business to begin a movement to advocate and work for a ‘Local Option’. Since Aurora and Newmarket were both eager participants, they decided to work together an eventually a well attended meeting was held in the Town Hall here in Newmarket in May of 1909.
The issue soon gathered support and the hotel keepers in Newmarket soon announced they would shut up their houses and sheds if this ‘Local Option’ was adopted. The business surrounding hotel accommodation was important to our local economy (Newmarket was a regional leader in the quality and diversity of accommodation locations) and hotel accommodation was very important to the farmers who came to town to sell their produce and purchase their supplies, and to the variety of commercial representatives who visited. The Temperance Committee had a score to settle with the liquor traffic and so took prompt action to guarantee that proper hotel accommodation would continue. The following declaration was read by Aubrey Davis on December 15, 1900.
“Having received a petition from the proper number of ratepayers, the council of the Town of Newmarket have decided to submit a Local Option By-Law to be voted upon, Monday, January 3rd, 1910, by those entitled by law to vote on such a By-Law”.
“During the discussions which naturally have arisen among citizens of the town as to the advisability of adopting the aforesaid By-Law, those who are opposed to it have used as their strongest argument the statement that in case the By-Law should pass, there would be no proper public accommodation for farmers and others coming to Newmarket on market and other days”.
“In answer to this, we, the undersigned, make this declaration and promise to the citizens of Newmarket and the people of the surrounding country that, when Local Option is adopted, and the present license holders refuse to furnish accommodation to the public, we shall enter into negotiations with the owner of one of the present hotels for the purchase of the hotel, and shall continue to furnish accommodation sufficient for the requirements of the town and the general public; and in case the hotel keepers refuse to meet us in a fair and equitable manner, in the matter of sale, and also refuse to furnish accommodation to the public, we guarantee to erect without any unnecessary delay and maintain a well equipped modern hotel sufficient for the needs of the town and the travelling public, with proper shed and stable room for the farmers’ horses and rigs”.
“J. A. Cody, L. G. Jackson, Aubrey Davis, H. S. Cane, P. W. Pearson, E. J. Davis, W. H. S. Cane, J. R. Y. Broughton, C. S. McCauley, B. W. Hunter, W. H. Eves, C. H. R. Clark, A. Howard.”
By all accounts, it was certainly a lively campaign in which the whole community took an interest and the public meetings were unusually well attended. IT must be mentioned that prominent businessmen, the clergy of both the Protestant and Roman Catholic churches would contribute their active support, with experienced temperance workers descending from outside points to help the locals organize. Among these ‘outsiders’ were the Rev. Father Minehan of Toronto and Mr. Tudhope of Orillia, both fair famous abolitionists.
.
This ‘Local Option’ was voted upon, January 3, 1910, and was carried by 492 to 252 majority. The bars were slated to be closed the following May. Immediately the ladies’ sitting room was closed and the prices of meals and of the yard and shed accommodation were raised.
The businessmen of Newmarket made good with their promise. Dr. J. H. Wesley, a leader among the pro-temperance men, purchased the old Forsyth Hotel for $8000 and the committee proceeded to sell shares. From the beginning the shareholders were paid six per cent and the balance of the profits were returned in improvements. George Brown and his wife were engaged to take charge and throughout their long management the place maintained a high reputation.
Before I close, let us take a closer look at this ‘Women’s Christian Temperance Union, the WCTU’ which was the organizing force behind this movement that overtook Newmarket in the late 1870’s. They are probably best known today for their project to place a huge people / horse fountain in front of the Methodist (now United) church on Main Street. Built in 1903, it was a reminder to all in Town of how we successfully ‘vanquished the demon rum’ within our community. It was removed in 1953 when Main Street was widened.
The WCTU was formed officially in 1885 to advocate for legal prohibition. Their victory in 1910 was perhaps their crowning glory, but their voice for the ‘morality of our community’ would continue on well beyond their initial victory. They opposed the ‘establishment of wet canteens for our men protecting our country during WW1’, and in the twenties and thirties they took up the fight against such social evils as ‘tobacco, gambling, lotteries, and the disgusting dress of the modern young women of the Town’.
Make no mistake, this organization was a real political and social force in this Town and were a real force to be reckoned with. My grandfather, even in the 1970’s always maintained that their power was ingrained within our Town’s psyche. Throughout our history, distilleries and taverns have been one of the bedrocks of our economy. My walk on February 23, in support of Inn From The Cold’ will feature those inns and taverns that once dotted the Main street and area throughout our history.
As the years passed, the Town seemed to lose its interest in the whole issue of temperance. However, it wasn’t until forty-five years later, in 1957, that the people of Newmarket finally, overwhelmingly, embraced the sale of liquor and spirits in government run outlets.
While the WCTU lost much of its influence after the 1950’s, its last official meeting was held in the 1970’s at York Manor Home for the Aged.
So, when people began to ask me whether I thought that Newmarket’s Council would support the establishment of a bricks and mortar location for the sale of marijuana here in Newmarket, I felt fairly certain that the logical answer would be – no! The ghosts of the WCTU are still walking amongst us even today.
Sources:
The Minutes of Newmarket Council – Newmarket Era
Social Commentary on Newmarket – Newmarket Era
Stories of Newmarket by Robert Terrance Carter
The Temperance Movement in Canada by Peter Oliver
History of the Town of Newmarket by Ethel Trewhella
