CONFEDERATION SISTERS
Arranged from studies of the Cartier monument (G.W. Hill) being erected in 1914
In the following year the northwest territories were added to the Dominion, in 1870 Manitoba, in 1871 British Columbia, and in 1873 Prince Edward Island, and in 1905 the new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan were established. Since confederation the history of Canada has been one of continued commercial and social development. The British North American act was the Magna Charta of Canadian nationhood.
Montreal is proud of the share it took in the promotion of Confederation.
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY FOR MONTREAL DISTRICT FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL ACT, 1791 TO CONFEDERATION, 1867
MEMBERS
FOOTNOTES:
1 Sometimes called the “First Baldwin-Lafontaine Government.”
2 See Dent, “The Last Forty Years of Canada,” Vol. II, pp. 180-1.
3 The eight were J.A. Macdonald, George Brown, George Etienne Cartier, A.T. Gault, T. D’Arcy McGee, H.L. Langevin, W. McDougall and Alexander Campbell. Of these fathers of confederation, Montreal records with pride the names of Cartier and McGee, its sometime political representatives. The two especially did much to disarm the strong opposition in certain quarters in the province of Quebec.
THE MUNICIPALITY OF MONTREAL
EARLY EFFORTS TOWARDS MUNICIPAL HOME RULE—1786—1821—1828—THE FIRST MUNICIPAL CHARTER OF 1831—THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF MONTREAL—JACQUES VIGER FIRST MAYOR—THE RETURN TO THE JUSTICES OF THE PEACE—LORD DURHAM’S REPORT AND THE RESUMPTION OF THE CORPORATION IN 1840—CHARTER AMENDMENT, 1851—FIRST MAYOR ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE—CHARTER AMENDMENT OF 1874—THE CITY OF MONTREAL ANNEXATIONS—CIVIC POLITICS—THE NOBLE “13”—1898 CHARTER RECAST, SANCTIONED IN 1899—CIVIC SCANDALS—THE “23”—JUDGE CANNON’S REPORT—THE REFORM PARTY; THE “CITIZENS’ ASSOCIATION”—REDUCTION OF ALDERMEN AND A BOARD OF CONTROL, THE ISSUE—THE WOMEN’S CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS—THE NEW REGIME AND THE BOARD OF CONTROL—FURTHER AMENDMENTS TO CHARTER—THE ELECTIONS OF 1912—ABOLITION OF THE SMALL WARD SYSTEM ADVOCATED—THE ELECTIONS OF 1914—A FORECAST FOR GREATER MONTREAL—SUPPLEMENT: LIST OF MAYORS—CITY REVENUE.
The citizens of Montreal, as already narrated, had had in view for many years under the British rule, the introduction of a responsible form of Home Rule in municipal affairs. As early as 1786, on the invitation of the Superior Council, they had reported in favour of the incorporation by charter of a municipality, but notwithstanding, the system of government by justices of the peace was continued. At a meeting of October 23, 1821, the citizens again agitated for a charter. In 1828 a great meeting was held on December 6th and resolutions were passed to the effect that in the flourishing state of the growth of population and the progress of trade the government by magistrates was not sufficient to provide for municipal advance in the future; that among the evils due to insufficient powers granted to the magistrates was the inefficiency of police regulations and the want of an efficient system of bookkeeping in the appropriation of the revenues of the town; the deplorable state for many years of the water front and the lands adjoining the “little river,” which by their unhealthy condition, had become dangerous to the well being of the great part of the surrounding population; the lack of means and authority for undertaking and executing a preconceived and general plan of improvement, it being left to the individual to put obstacles to the proper growth of the town which narrowness of view and self-interest might suggest to the delay in growth and the increase of avoidable expenses. The citizens concluded by demanding from the legislature the incorporation of the town. The committee formed to present the petition was as follows: For the town, J.B. Rolland, P. McGill, J. Quesnell and A. Laframbroise; for the districts of St. Antoine, St. Ann and the Recollets, John Fry, Father Desautels, John Torrance, Charles de Lorimier, C. Wagner and H. Corse; for St. Lawrence, C.S. Delorme, A. Tullock (Père), A. Tullock (Fils), John Baptiste Castonguay, B. Hall and Louis de Chantal; for the Quebec and St. Louis districts, John Richelieu, Louis Parthenais, Francis Derome and C.S. Rodier.
In 1830 the harbour commission was appointed as a partial remedy.
In 1831 the first act incorporating the city of Montreal was presented on March 31st for the sanction of His Majesty, which was given on April 12, 1832, its publication being by proclamation of the governor general on June 5th following. On the 18th of July, 1833, the city council unanimously adopted the seal of the arms of the city, the Beaver,1 the Rose, the Shamrock and the Thistle, and its motto, “Concordia Salus.” By this act under the name of “The Corporation of the City of Montreal” the city was divided into eight wards, East, West, St. Ann, St. Joseph, St. Antoine, St. Lawrence, St. Louis and St. Mary. Each was to elect two councillors with certain financial qualifications, and these sixteen were to elect from their number one to act as mayor to whom a salary not exceeding four hundred dollars should be granted. The right of citizenship was to be accorded to every man attaining the age of twenty-one years and possessing real estate in the limits of the city and having resided therein for twelve months prior to the election. Every elector became a member of the corporation. The corporation acquired powers to borrow, acquire and possess property, to take action at law, to be in turn liable to legal prosecution and to have a seal. The other powers granted them were similar to those exercised hitherto by the justices of the peace for the government and maintenance of the city. The act was not to remain in force after May 1, 1836.
On the first Monday in May, 1833, the justices of the peace met to appoint the first Monday of June as the day of election of the councillors. These, when elected, met on June 5th in the courthouse for the first séance. Jacques Viger, who acted as secretary, was elected the first mayor, the councillors being John Donegani, William Forbes, Joseph Gauvin, Alexander Lusignan, John McDonell, Robert Nelson, C.S. Rodier, Joseph Roy, John Torrance, Augustin Tullock, John Turney, Guillaume J. Vallée, François Dérome, Mahum Hall, Julien Perrault, and Turton Penn. The secretary appointed was Francis Auger. On the first Monday of June, each year, half of the council had to be replaced or re-elected. The charter required that each regulation of the council before taking effect should be submitted for approbation to the court of King’s Bench after having been published in the newspapers and by town criers.
This charter remained in force till May 1, 1836, when for unaccountable reasons its renewal was refused, and the justices of the peace again ruled the city till August, 1840. These, following the official lists, were: Denis B. Viger, Peter McGill, Pierre de Rocheblave, William Robertson, Lawrence Kidd, James Miller, Austin Cuvillier, James Quesnel, Adam L. McNiver, Joseph Shuter, William Hall, Jos. Ant. Gagnon, Daniel Arnoldi, E.M. Leprohon, George S. Holt, Joseph T. Barrett, Jacob DeWitt, Pierre Lukin, Turton Penn, Thomas Cringan, Joseph Masson, Henry Corse, John Molson, Sidney Bellingham, James Browne, Pierre E. Leclere, John Donegani, Guillaume J. Vallée, Charles Lamontagne, Henri Desrivières, Theophile Dufort, Benjamin Hart, James McGill Desrivières, Charles S. Rodier, John Jones, Charles Tate, Hugh E. Barron, Alexis Laframboise, J. Bte. Castonguay, Patrice Lacombe, Olivier Berthelet, Paul Jos. LaCroix, Thomas B. Wragg, M.J. Hayes, Etienne Guy, Logan Fuller, François P. Bruneau, Pierre Louis Panet, Hugh Brodie, Joseph Baby, Alexander Buchanan, John Dyke and William Evans. The clerks of the justices were Delisle and Delisle, then Delisle and Brehaut.
SEAL OF THE CITY OF MONTREAL
During this period Lord Durham arrived and his report animadverting on the absence of municipal government in Montreal and Quebec, doubtless caused the reintroduction of the municipal council under the name of the mayor, the aldermen and the citizens of the city of Montreal. The governor, Mr. C. Poulett Thomson (afterwards Lord Sydenham) was authorized to name the first council for the first term to end on December 2, 1842. His choice was as follows: Mayor, the Hon. Peter McGill; councillors, Jules Quesnel, Adam Ferrier, C.S. Rodier, J.G. McKenzie, C.S. De Bleury, J.M. Tobin, Olivier Berthelet, F. Bruneau, Hippolyte Guy, John Donegani, Charles Tate, J.W. Dunscomb, Thomas Philipps, Colin Campbell, Stanley Bagg, Archibald Hume, D. Handside and William Molson. On September 12, J.P. Sexton was appointed city clerk and remained in office till 1858.
In 1843 the second council was elected by the people from six wards only, viz., East, Center, West, Queen, St. Lawrence and St. Mary. These councillors, two for each ward, elected the mayor from among themselves, as well as six other citizens under the title of aldermen who all composed the council as follows: Mayor, Joseph Bourret; aldermen, Joseph Masson, Benjamin Holmes, William Molson, Joseph Roy, Joseph Redpath, C.S. De Bleury; councillors, James Ferrier, Pierre Jodoin, Peter Dunn, William Lunn, William Watson, Olivier Frechette, Pierre Beaubien, P.A. Gagnon, François Trudeau, François Perrin, and John Mathewson. The six wards into which the city was divided were: East, Center, West, Queen, St. Lawrence and St. Mary. In 1845 the city was divided into nine wards, the city wards being East, Center and West and having each three representatives in the council, the other six, called the suburban wards, only having two councillors each. Thus the whole council had twenty-one members.
This system obtained till 1852,2 when by the statute Victoria, 14, 15, chapter 128, passed in 1851, the election of the mayor passed from the council to the people at large. The first thus elected was the Hon. Charles Wilson. The number of the aldermen was raised to nine and each of the suburban wards received the same rights as the city wards to three representatives. This brought the council up to twenty-seven members. The statute of 1851 only imposed four quarterly sessions of the council, but the mayor had the right, however, to call special meetings. As an instance of the parochial measures then engaging the thoughts of our municipal rulers, we may quote the following relating to the breaking of a monopoly:
“Mayor Wolfred Nelson, in his address to the Council in 1854, after alluding to the pestilence which had visited the city and the poverty which followed, said: ‘The misery in which we have been involved would have been immeasurably greater had not the Council adopted energetic measures having the effect of breaking down a cursed monopoly—that of firewood—by purchasing several hundred cords of firewood and selling it in small lots at cost price; as well as of arresting the most extraordinary practice of converting our greatest thoroughfares, the wharves, into wood yards by speculators and monopolists, who prevented the purchase of wood in small quantities from the boats. The adoption of these measures in one week reduced the price of fuel over one quarter, at a period when it had been boasted that it would be worth ten or twelve dollars a cord during the winter. Instead of this exhorbitant rate the best wood can now be obtained for $6 a cord.’”
In 1859 Charles Glackmeyer was appointed city clerk and remained in office till 1892, when he was succeeded by L.O. David till today.
In 1874 (Victoria 37, Chapter 41) the charter was amended and the name of the corporation was changed to that of “The City of Montreal.” The distinction between aldermen and councillors was abolished, the title for all being that of aldermen, who were all elected by the people.
The history of Greater Montreal now begins in the annexation of the rural municipalities. In 1883 the new Hochelaga ward added three aldermen; in 1886 that of St. Jean Baptiste three others; in 1887 St. Gabriel ward also added three.
Commenting on the state of civic politics under this charter a contemporary has the following chatty appreciation:3
“For many years the English-speaking element had dominated in civic affairs by virtue of a very small majority in the City Council, and there was just a little tendency among the city fathers forming that majority, not only to dominate but to domineer. They were not disposed to be unjust to the citizens who formed the majority of the electorate, but they showed a lack of tact amounting at times to a want of delicacy in dealing with and speaking of the diverse elements of the population. The French-Canadians had the good sense to elect their ablest men. To be quite frank there was a long period during which the English-speaking people seemed to think that almost anybody was good enough to make an alderman. The result was inevitable. Each ward was represented by three aldermen, one retiring each year and the English-speaking majority in the Center Ward was in 1880 only a little one. It took just three years of good electioneering work to replace three English-speaking aldermen by three French-Canadians. The latter element now dominated the Council and to prevent accident Hochelaga was annexed in 1883. This not only brought in three more French-Canadian aldermen on December 1, 1883, but it brought in Raymond Préfontaine, who was a host in himself, and who almost immediately became the ruling spirit in civic affairs. Of course, most of the English-speaking aldermen did not take kindly to the new régime and Raymond Préfontaine got his full share of their hot shot and it hurt him as much as water hurts a duck’s back. The attitude of most of the English journalists (including the writer) must have been consoling to the Council minority, on account of the sweet sympathy expressed. ‘The Honest Minority,’ the ‘Noble Thirteen,’ the ‘Faithful Anti-Monopolists’ were among the compliments lavished by a discriminating press; and were taken not only seriously but appreciatively by the recipients, some of whom were in the habit of discussing on the floor of the Council their own sterling qualities with a frankness which left nothing to be desired. One of the noblest Romans of them all could seldom speak of his own honesty (and he had no false delicacy about introducing the subject), without shedding tears and sobbing. Strangers might have imagined he was crying over his lost opportunities, but he wasn’t; it was just his way.
“Time is apt to and ought to modify our judgments of our fellowmen. Let it be said for Raymond Préfontaine by one who generally disagreed with his plans and disapproved of his public actions that among his qualities were some decidedly good ones. He was a man of his word and a man of ideas and infinite resource. He was the first public man to set about systematic modernizing and development of Montreal. When he talked about electric cars and electric lighting, he was laughed to scorn by the ‘Noble Minority’ in the Council and the rest of the nobility outside the Council. He went in for street widening and permanent paving (no doubt at an expensive rate) and he added to the size of the debt as well as to the size of the city. He was, in fact, Montreal’s Baron Haussmann. The Baron was ‘fired’ by the Olivier government for his financial extravagance; he only borrowed a hundred million dollars, from 1865 to 1869; but he made the modern Paris.
“The Noble Thirteen and their admirers, like the coloured troops in the American Civil war fought nobly against Mr. Préfontaine’s schemes and predicted unmerciful disaster if the City Passenger Railway were electrified. To the plea that electric railways were a success elsewhere the opposition replied triumphantly and without fear of contradiction ‘but New York isn’t Montreal’—and neither Alderman Préfontaine nor any of his followers ever dared to take up the challenge and prove that New York was Montreal.
“Then the Noble Thirteen had its own troubles. One, at least, lost his patent of nobility by voting wrong on the gas question; another was laid out on the City Passenger Railway Monopoly; a third was promoted to the retired list because his popularity threatened to make him a dangerous rival to another nobleman in a parliamentary election. Strenuous opponents of ‘monopoly’ in street railways became first lukewarm, then indifferent, then apologetic, and finally strenuous supporters of Monopoly with the biggest ‘M’ in the printer’s upper case. Most of the Noble Thirteen have gone to a better world, which is a good thing for them, because if they were still in the Council, they would miss the old admiration dreadfully.”
The city charter was recast in 1898 and the work was confided to the mayor, Raymond Préfontaine, Aldermen Rainville, Beausoleil, Martineau, Laporte, McBride, Ames and Archambault, aided by the city law officers and the heads of departments. This commission revised and examined clause by clause the preliminary draft prepared by Messrs. Choquette and Weir, appointed revising advocates in conjunction with the city clerk and the city attorneys. The new charter, a progressive document, was sanctioned on the 10th of March, 1899. By it Montreal was divided into seventeen wards called respectively East, Center, West, St. Ann, St. Antoine South, St. Antoine West, St. Antoine East, St. Lawrence, St. Louis, St. James South, St. James North, St. Mary West, St. Mary East, Hochelaga, St. Jean Baptiste, St. Gabriel and St. Denis. In 1903 Duvernay Ward was formed with a part of St. Jean Baptiste Ward. Among the clauses of this charter was one giving power to the council to extend the limits of the city and to annex municipalities. The elections now began to take place every two years instead of annually. The mayor’s qualifications required that he should possess real estate in the city under his own name to the value of $10,000. His yearly salary was not to exceed four thousand dollars. The property qualification for an alderman was fixed at $2,000 and his yearly indemnity at $600, with an additional sum of $200 for every chairman of a permanent committee. These permanent committees were appointed at the first monthly meeting in February for the year and apportioned the general superintendents and administration of the various city departments among themselves. These were supplemented by an occasional special committee. The council assembled once a month, on the second Monday, but the mayor could convoke a special meeting on notice given to each alderman. Five members of the council could also call a special meeting. The mayor could only cast his vote when there was an equality of votes.
The fault of the civic administration under this charter was in the ever-growing abuses arising from the system of standing committees of aldermen conflicting with one another, delaying the course of business. Towards its close corruption and inefficiency were rampant under the monopoly of a few who became stigmatized in the mouths of the citizens as the “23.” In 1909 a royal commission was appointed to examine into the malversations under the late administration. On December 12, 1909, Mr. Justice Cannon presented his report, in which he named twenty-three of the aldermen as guilty of malpractices. Twenty-two of these were not returned in the subsequent elections. The following general conclusion may be taken as a summary of his recommendations and findings:
1. The administration of the affairs of the city of Montreal by its Council has, since 1892, been saturated with corruption arising especially from the patronage plague.
2. The majority of the aldermen have administered the committees and the council in such a manner as to favor the private interests of their relatives and friends, to whom contracts and positions were distributed to the detriment of the general interests of the city and of the taxpayers.
3. As a result of this administration, the annual revenue of $5,000,000 has been spent as follows: 25 per cent in bribes and malversation of all kinds; as for the balance, the greater part has been employed in works of which the permanence has very often been ephemeral.
6. As for the division and the representation of the city by wards, all agree in condemning this system, which gave rise to patronage and to its abuses. I recommend to the citizens of Montreal, after a serious study of this question, to adopt another system creating a council composed of aldermen representing the entire city and working in unity for its growth and prosperity.
7. The council of today is composed of groups and coteries struggling one with another with such bitterness that they necessarily lose sight of the high interests of the community.
Meanwhile many of the prominent citizens, about 1908, began to prepare for a charter reform. In 1909 the “Citizens’ Association” was formed for governmental reform. Its president was an ex-mayor, Mr. Hormisdas Laporte, and the honorary treasurer was Mr. James Morgan, a prominent merchant and a good citizen, who personally contributed to the funds of the campaign, begun then and carried on for some years, very substantial sums of money and its other adherents, men of solid and approved citizenship. The object of the charter reformers was to remedy the prevalent abuses by a reduction of the number of aldermen to one representative to each ward, making thirty-one in the council, and by a curtailment of their powers, reducing them to a purely legislative body, with no executive power in financial matters. This latter function was to be held by a body of four commissioners or “controllers” and the mayor elected from the city at large. It was hoped that by this adaptation of the “commission” form of government, then obtaining great prominence in muncipal literature in the United States, where the method was being practiced, that the waste of civic energy, time and money would be best secured by a small executive board elected by the people at large and uninfluenced by ward politics. The charter for the Board of Control, (9 Edw. Chap. 82) of 1909, at the request of Farquhar Robertson, Charles Chaput, Victor Morin, S.D. Vallières and others, was accordingly secured from the provincial government after a plebiscite had been previously taken in favour of this great radical change of government, the most important since the original municipal charter in 1831. The new form had already been foreseen by Mayor Wilson Smith in his valedictory address in 1896. He said:
“The question has been frequently discussed, both in the Council and outside of it, as to whether the aldermen should be paid for their services. I have to acknowledge that one result of my experience has been to change my mind on this subject. I am now decidedly of the opinion that not only should the aldermen be remunerated for their services, but that they should be relieved, as far as possible, of attending to purely administrative duties. And it is worthy of serious consideration whether it would not be in the best interests of the city to appoint paid Commissioners to superintend all details, in connection with the civic administration. These Commissioners might have associated with them the heads of the departments, with the Mayor as chairman, who might form an Advisory Board, and submit all matters to the City Council, which would act as a legislative body, but their recommendations should be subject to a veto of a two-thirds vote of the Council. The Commissioners might be three in number, one of whom could be elected by the rate-payers generally, one by the real estate owners, and one by a two-thirds vote of the City Council; said Commissioners to be under the control of the City Council, and subject to dismissal for cause, by a two-thirds vote of the Council.”
In virtue of the recent change in the charter, the new Board of Control was invested with the following powers:
1. To prepare the annual budget and to submit it to the council;
2. To recommend every expense, no expense or matter referring to city finances being able to be adopted unless recommended by the controllers;
3. The council on the report of the controllers to be charged with the granting of franchises and privileges by regulation, resolutions, contracts, by the issue of debentures and contraction of loans;
4. The controllers were further to prepare contracts and plans, to ask for tenders, to decide all formalities relating to the latter, to receive and to open such;
5. To inspect or oversee public works;
6. To employ the money voted by the council for the purpose designed;
7. To nominate and suspend all employees, except those nominated by the council whose nomination, suspension and dismissal should be made by the council on the recommendation of the controllers;
8. No report or recommendation made by the controllers to be executed without the acceptation of the majority of the council;
9. No amendment to a report or recommendation of the controllers to be made without the approbation of two-thirds of the members of the council present at the meeting.
The work now to be given to the Board of Control was that hitherto done by eleven committees of the aldermen of seven members in each.
The Citizens’ Association undertaking the campaign for good government and the conduct of the forthcoming elections formed up in the middle of 1909, and was hailed by all good citizens, receiving the support of all public and volunteer associations having a civic tendency. About this time an important association was formally inaugurated on April 12, 1909, by His Excellency Earl Grey entitled the “City Improvement League,” and lent its aid in the campaign of education on good government and civic progress. Other societies also cooperated. The women associations under the local Council of Women on the English-speaking side, and La Fédération Nationale St. Jean Baptiste on the French, entered more largely than ever before into the movement for civic progress and influenced the women voters for clean government. The choice of the people for the new officers was made on February 1, 1910, when the “whole slate for the board” prepared by the Citizens’ Association was unanimously adopted at the polls as follows: Mayor, J.J. Guerin, M.D.; controllers, E.P. Lachapelle, M.D., president of the Provincial Board of Health; L.N. Dupuis, merchant; Joseph Ainey, labour candidate; and F.L. Wanklyn, a civil engineer and former manager of the Montreal Street Railway. (The latter resigned in the fall of 1911 and was succeeded by the election in the spring of 1912 of Mr. C.H. Godfrey.) The thirty-one wards were represented as follows:
* English-Speaking.
The consequent dispatch in city business, the improvement in public works, the strengthening of heads of departments in the city hall, hitherto hampered by aldermanic interference, and the abolition of patronage secured universal approbation of the new form of civic government. After awhile the spirit of opposition among a certain number of the aldermen began to jeopardize the early universal acceptance of the board of control system. Again the Citizens’ Association, with its backing, had to seek to strengthen the hands of the Board of Control. The following extracts from the Secretary of the Board of Trade’s annual report (Mr. George Hadrill) will indicate the new phase:
“In 1908, it being evident that the City Council, while comprising some good and capable men, was sadly misgoverning this city, your Council, with representatives of other organizations, endeavoured to secure such amendment of the City Charter as would provide for a reduction in the number of Aldermen and for the election of a Board of Commissioners. This effort resulted successfully in 1909, but unfortunately the amendments to the Charter submitted by the Citizens Committee were so changed in their passage through the Legislature that the Board of Commissioners did not possess the full powers it was intended to give them, and the result has been that, while the Commissioners have done much for the City, many of their plans for its advantage have been frustrated by the City Council and hence the hope for improvement in the condition of the City has been only partially realized. Your Council, therefore, in October last, joined with the following other organizations in an endeavour to secure such further amendments to the City Charter as would give the Board of Commissioners all executive powers, leaving with the City Council the general legislative powers and the making of by-laws: Montreal Trades and Labour Council, Canadian Manufacturers’ Association, La Chambre de Commerce, Montreal Citizens’ Association, Association Immobilière Montréal, Montreal Business Men’s League.
The substance of these amendments was as follows:
“That the Commissioners shall prepare the annual budget and the supplementary budget, and submit each to the City Council, which shall have the power to amend them by a two-thirds majority, or to reject them by a majority.
“That in the event of the budget not being adopted, amended or rejected within a certain period, it would be considered adopted.
“That once the budget is adopted, with or without amendment, the entire control of the expenditure, within the limits prescribed by the budget, would be left to the Board of Commissioners.
“That the Board of Commissioners shall have the appointment, suspension, dismissal and full control in all respects of all employees, including the heads of departments.
“That the initiative as to loans and franchises shall be with the Board of Commissioners, subject to approval by the City Council, who could amend or reject by a two-thirds majority.
“That the general legislative power and the making of by-laws shall be with the City Council, but the Board of Commissioners shall have all executive powers.
“That if any change in the composition of the City Council is decided upon, it would best be obtained by dividing the city into five wards (each to elect three aldermen), such division to be made equitably in proportion to population, assessed value and possible growth.
“Amendments to the City Charter Bill, based upon the foregoing, were presented to the Private Bills Committee at Quebec by the Citizens Association, the Board of Trade and other leading associations resulted in their adoption, with a slight change and thus the Board of Commissioners is now in possession of the powers necessary for the proper discharge of its duties.”
It is to be noted that, by a strange oversight of the framers of the amended charter, the following important clause in the original charter for the Board of Control was omitted: “To make all recommendations involving the expenditure of money. No recommendation involving the expenditure of money, and affecting in any manner whatever the finances of the city shall be adopted by the Council without it having been previously submitted to the Board of Commissioners and approved by them.” There was, however, added the power to conclude without tender, urgent purchase of materials not exceeding the value of $2,500.
The elections of 1912, in which the four controllers, who had completed their term of four years, did not compete, resulted in the election of Mr. L.A. Lavallée, K.C., as the next mayor. Among the new aldermen elected were several of those who had been scored in Judge Cannon’s report, so short-lived is a city’s remembrance. During the next two years the position of the Board of Control was further jeopardized by organized opposition from the part of the council, but the evident value of the system still retained the favour of the people.
In preparation for the campaign of 1914 the chief civic bodies of the city called together by the Citizens Association sought to diminish the number of the aldermen further by a redistribution of the city into five districts with three aldermen to each, with the object of the abolition of the small ward system as such. An amendment to the charter was prepared for five districts with three aldermen to each, and presented to the legislative committee of the Provincial Government at Quebec. Its delegation obtained a lukewarm reception as its opponents, within the Council, fearing to be reduced in number in the city hall, had forestalled the deputation by previous action. In addition it was thought that the redistribution demanded was premature. The “status quo” therefore remained, and at the municipal elections of 1914 the organized reaction against the Citizens Association leading the reform party was very clearly marked in the results of the poll. An attempt was made to vilify the Citizens Association for its efforts to provide a harmonious “slate” representative of the different elements in the city; disorganization and want of cohesion reigned among those otherwise interested in good government, and the unwritten law which should have offered the mayoralty this year to an English-speaking citizen was broken.
This election was the most important of recent years, the positions of mayor, four controllers and thirty-two aldermen being vacant. The mayor elected was the Mr. Médéric Martin, the controllers being Mr. Joseph Ainey, E. Napoléon Hébert, Thomas Coté and Duncan McDonald. The personnel of the Council was likewise overwhelmingly French Canadian.
This Government is now under trial. Let us repeat the city’s motto “Concordia Salus.”
There are not wanting signs in forecast that the reduction of the number of wards will take place on the lines above indicated. Montreal civic students of this period, seeing the growth of the Greater Montreal, are groping towards some coherent system, which will eventually embrace the whole island while securing the local government of its various subdistricts or municipality. Another movement of the future connected with the foregoing will be a larger measure of Civic Home Rule, than is at present allowed by the Province of Quebec.
The system of the financial government of the city by the Board of Control is not, however, universally approved of, especially by the aldermen. The fault lies in the manner of election of the mayor, aldermen and the controllers, all being elected by the people on a Democratic basis of public favour; hence there is likelihood of temporary popularity rather than special professional ability being the criterion in the selection of controllers and the mayor, who is, by his office, chairman of their board.
There are, therefore, at present several theories under discussion which will influence a further change of the latest charter amendments.
Among these are the following:
(1) The appointment by the Provincial Legislature of a Board of Control. This militates against the upholders of Civic Home Rule and is a partial recurrence to the old system of Justices of the Peace, appointed by Government before the erection of the municipality.
(2) The removal of the Board of Control and the restitution of the standing committees as hitherto. This has not proved successful in the past.
(3) The aldermen to be elected by the city at large through five or six great divisions.
(4) The election of the councillors by the city at large with the establishment of a permanent “Board of Works” with at least a fair proportion of professional men, such as engineers, who shall be appointed by the people for a long term of usefulness so as to encourage the best men to devote a life service in the city’s employ.
(5) The mayor to be elected by the people but not to sit as chairman of the Board of Control. This Board to be elected only by the votes of the electors entered as “proprietors” on the voters list. Thus, with property qualifications for controllers added perhaps, a more judicious choice could be made. The election of alderman to be as before or by larger divisions.
Of these modifications the last compromise has more weight.
NOTE 1
MAYORS OF MONTREAL
| Term. | Name. | Elected by. |
| 1833-36 | Jacques Viger | The Council |
| (The interval was filled again by the Justices of the Peace.) | ||
| 1840 | Hon. Peter McGill | Governor General |
| 1841-42 | Hon. Peter McGill (2 terms) | The Council |
| 1843-44 | Joseph Bourret (2 terms) | The Council |
| 1845-46 | Hon. James Ferrier | The Council |
| 1847 | John E. Mills (died in November, was replaced by Joseph Bourret) | The Council |
| 1848 | Joseph Bourret | The Council |
| 1849-50 | E.R. Fabre | The Council |
| 1851-52-53 | Hon. Charles Wilson (3 terms) | The People |
| 1854-55 | Wolfred Nelson | The People |
| 1856-57 | Hon. Henry Starnes (2 terms) | The People |
| 1858-59-60-61 | Hon. Charles S. Rodier (4 terms) | The People |
| 1862-63-64-65 | Hon. J.L. Beaudry (4 terms) | The People |
| 1866-67 | Hon. Henry Starnes (2 terms) | The People |
| 1867-68-69 | William Workman (3 terms) | The People |
| 1871-72 | Charles J. Coursol (2 terms) | The People |
| 1873 | Francis Cassidy (died in June, 1873, being replaced by Aldis Bernard) | The People |
| 1874 | Aldis Bernard | The People |
| 1875-76 | Sir William Hingston (2 terms) | The People |
| 1877-78 | Hon. J.L. Beaudry (2 terms) | The People |
| 1879-80 | Hon. Severe Rivard (2 terms) | The People |
| 1881-82-83-84 | Hon. J.L. Beaudry (4 terms) | The People |
| 1885-86 | H. Beaugrand (2 terms) | The People |
| 1887-88 | Sir J.J.C. Abbott (2 terms) | The People |
| 1889-90 | Jacques Grenier (2 terms) | The People |
| 1891-92 | Hon. James McShane (2 terms) | The People |
| 1893 | Alphonse Desjardins | The People |
| 1894-95 | Hon. J.O. Villeneuve (2 terms) | The People |
| 1896-97 | R. Wilson Smith (2 terms) | The People |
| 1898-99-1900-01 * | Hon. Raymond Préfontaine (3 terms) | The People |
| 1902-03 | James Cochrane | The People |
| 1904-05 | H. Laporte | The People |
| 1906-07 | H.A. Ekers | The People |
| 1908-09 | L. Payette | The People |
| 1910-11 | Hon. J.J. Guerin | The People |
| 1912-13 | L.A. Lavallée | The People |
| 1913-14 | Médéric Martin | The People |
* By the new charter to begin with 1900 the term of mayor was now increased to two years.
NOTE II
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF GENERAL REVENUE OF THE CITY OF MONTREAL, FROM 1880 TO 1912
| Assessment on real estate. |
Water rate. |
Business and personal tax. |
||||
| Year | Current year | Arrears | Current year | Arrears | Current year | Arrears |
| 1880 | $ 582,100.31 | $ 190,866.89 | $ 327,104.61 | $ 37,846.38 | $146,148.23 | $14,726.00 |
| 1881 | 612,255.49 | 239,469.45 | 364,797.47 | 33,640.71 | 145,957.06 | 13,690.77 |
| 1882 | 643,687.06 | 190,534.03 | 384,936.51 | 25,820.51 | 147,949.57 | 14,409.82 |
| 1883 | 676,613.03 | 187,408.78 | 395,768.74 | 27,301.43 | 150,578.69 | 15,941.73 |
| 1884 | 708,134.15 | 155,180.45 | 424,014.38 | 34,126.87 | 156,552.32 | 23,523.55 |
| 1885 | 748,507.00 | 142,092.33 | 412,660.04 | 27,739.88 | 164,872.65 | 27,181.73 |
| 1886 | 798,041.29 | 192,874.42 | 468,398.72 | 49,712.67 | 167,052.18 | 19,132.84 |
| 1887 | 842,852.25 | 109,218.52 | 502,408.72 | 35,657.91 | 175,320.72 | 26,255.86 |
| 1888 | 895,298.75 | 137,475.38 | 533,614.60 | 48,638.03 | 183,394.44 | 29,968.13 |
| 1889 | 936,528.54 | 139,897.14 | 578,312.19 | 56,617.51 | 188,181.97 | 31,547.90 |
| 1890 | 991,620.11 | 154,769.43 | 539,917.37 | 48,489.27 | 187,383.57 | 43,583.58 |
| 1891 | 1,027,719.09 | 174,498.63 | 610,401.75 | 115,879.28 | 188,398.82 | 44,661.04 |
| 1892 | 1,129,198.38 | 208,519.69 | 532,699.00 | 76,086.76 | 190,375.42 | 49,987.64 |
| 1893 | 1,238,494.32 | 218,969.31 | 559,666.06 | 80,509.28 | 204,052.81 | 51,332.26 |
| 1894 | 1,257,092.01 | 312,836.50 | 544,739.91 | 76,061.81 | 200,414.69 | 48,692.44 |
| 1895 | 1,270,846.41 | 307,656.66 | 524,930.94 | 81,914.08 | 194,972.07 | 55,850.02 |
| 1896 | 1,271,628.00 | 384,043.97 | 539,740.82 | 98,472.93 | 190,191.66 | 63,607.71 |
| 1897 | 1,290,911.32 | 386,608.08 | 546,515.51 | 101,250.89 | 202,234.84 | 66,407.16 |
| 1898 | 1,313,352.17 | 394,688.51 | 589,188.08 | 183,163.07 | 204,464.48 | 56,453.88 |
| 1899 | 1,277,513.19 | 388,715.13 | 596,851.18 | 119,868.04 | 205,471.49 | 63,398.28 |
| 1900 | 1,250,163.18 | 524,900.81 | 565,239.23 | 139,196.59 | 199.447.86 | 64,879.10 |
| 1901 | 1,304,407.26 | 580,162.53 | 663,767.73 | 140,590.76 | 233,329.61 | 71,463.20 |
| 1902 | 1,319,782.89 | 536,518.81 | 662,467.11 | 82,253.19 | 240,932.44 | 49,114.44 |
| 1903 | 1,386,212.56 | 564,227.48 | 706,285.49 | 93,339.97 | 275,618.26 | 57,703.28 |
| 1904 | 1,486,917.48 | 531,599.76 | 737,518.15 | 92,634.46 | 272,081.82 | 42,599.27 |
| 1905 | 1,672,867.93 | 613,298.99 | 792,649.33 | 110,868.30 | 310,909.06 | 46,218.33 |
| 1906 | 1,933,357.09 | 539,999.99 | 849,222.70 | 114,373.15 | 347,924.80 | 42,512.48 |
| 1907 | 1,979,426.63 | 721,218.19 | 885,686.24 | 131,719.63 | 364,117.27 | 48,306.12 |
| 1908 | 2,160,037.12 | 864,946.19 | 786,825.16 | 148,894.53 | 413,888.74 | 59,813.81 |
| 1909 | 2,542,513.68 | 962,555.19 | 860,925.60 | 113,733.26 | 473,248.26 | 64,269.42 |
| 1910 | 2,915,396.10 | 1,026,172.07 | 934,362.14 | 104,250.34 | 538,678.14 | 51,383.66 |
| 1911 | 3,344,172.04 | 1,328,208.87 | 1,037,436.56 | 114,608.06 | 619,855.08 | 58,105.94 |
| 1912 | 4,176,083.47 | 1,547,827.75 | 1,174,773.84 | 132,365.69 | 739,384.95 | 66,028.93 |
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF GENERAL REVENUE OF THE CITY OF MONTREAL, FROM 1880 TO 1912 CONTINUED
| Year | Markets | Licenses | Recorder’s Court | Miscellaneous | Interest | Yearly totals |
| 1880 | $ 30,366.85 | $ 43,635.35 | $ 7,770.57 | $ 40,008.23 | $ 24,956.94 | $1,495,616.39 |
| 1881 | 77,709.42 | 45,001.32 | 12,665.03 | 35,824.04 | 35,706.65 | 1,617,117.41 |
| 1882 | 80,364.50 | 48,275.30 | 14,380.72 | 35,982.90 | 26,940.95 | 1,618,221.87 |
| 1883 | 81,777.71 | 50,968.15 | 11,130.62 | 42,307.44 | 30,474.54 | 1,670,270.91 |
| 1884 | 86,853.04 | 54,077.70 | 12,019.15 | 47,597.39 | 39,541.19 | 1,732,620.69 |
| 1885 | 85,242.01 | 60,006.80 | 11,547.08 | 41,179.60 | 24,991.31 | 1,746,020.43 |
| 1886 | 89,086.77 | 65,579.00 | 18,003.98 | 57,259.56 | 33,717.82 | 1,908,859.25 |
| 1887 | 89,279.69 | 70,264.82 | 25,053.06 | 39,491.95 | 32,589.57 | 1,948,393.07 |
| 1888 | 88,336.37 | 74,269.48 | 26,097.64 | 33,404.47 | 45,913.48 | 2,095,411.27 |
| 1889 | 83,308.64 | 76,475.15 | 22,883.41 | 41,081.31 | 67,263.63 | 2,222,097.39 |
| 1890 | 82,705.63 | 81,365.85 | 26,269.59 | 42,269.33 | 42,557.56 | 2,240,931.29 |
| 1891 | 85,533.93 | 81,370.00 | 23,445.91 | 53,196.77 | 34,971.51 | 2,440,076.73 |
| 1892 | 80,470.91 | 66,627.00 | 22,412.25 | 57,650.17 | 44,925.52 | 2,458,952.74 |
| 1893 | 80,686.81 | 66,654.25 | 16,314.49 | 94,004.66 | 40,471.31 | 2,651,155.56 |
| 1894 | 76,970.59 | 66,823.91 | 17,356.02 | 92,052.64 | 56,295.23 | 2,743,335.75 |
| 1895 | 78,697.98 | 72,755.23 | 14,506.19 | 98,740.43 | 56,790.92 | 2,757,660.93 |
| 1896 | 77,362.82 | 70,767.50 | 14,372.98 | 91,194.69 | 64,678.40 | 2,866,061.48 |
| 1897 | 77,599.25 | 79,555.25 | 17,341.68 | 99,197.85 | 54,303.55 | 2,921,925.38 |
| 1898 | 76,190.41 | 78,546.00 | 13,961.57 | 115,985.25 | 52,845.73 | 3,078,839.15 |
| 1899 | 74,419.99 | 101,009.80 | 20,569.05 | 105,263.48 | 51,649.09 | 3,004,728.72 |
| 1900 | 75,363.96 | 121,348.00 | 31,578.77 | 121,854.76 | 63,642.07 | 3,157,614.33 |
| 1901 | 86,190.48 | 132,064.77 | 26,957.69 | 124,309.24 | 69,992.61 | 3,433,235.88 |
| 1902 | 84,790.51 | 140,955.75 | 26,032.01 | 144,287.28 | 92,085.47 | 3,379,219.90 |
| 1903 | 90,384.42 | 151,957.00 | 25,827.64 | 144,721.60 | 58,150.26 | 3,554,428.96 |
| 1904 | 97,451.78 | 179,706.50 | 33,431.38 | 178,180.65 | 43,135.00 | 3,695,256.25 |
| 1905 | 100,761.59 | 204,688.75 | 43,186.37 | 208,713.78 | 45,399.61 | 4,149,562.04 |
| 1906 | 102,305.08 | 223,008.15 | 38,851.88 | 293,499.54 | 56,001.63 | 4,541,056.49 |
| 1907 | 108,801.41 | 244,618.07 | 38,927.38 | 306,511.29 | 68,943.86 | 4,898,276.09 |
| 1908 | 111,260.20 | 243,418.25 | 47,944.03 | 353,515.93 | 67,700.39 | 5,258,244.35 |
| 1909 | 112,555.26 | 261,789.00 | 37,352.83 | 361,658.19 | 107,393.45 | 5,897,994.14 |
| 1910 | 106,690.76 | 315,447.50 | 57,278.12 | 435,478.08 | 130,564.67 | 6,615,701.58 |
| 1911 | 109,407.42 | 371,252.50 | 68,100.61 | 445,024.90 | 160,661.26 | 7,656,833.24 |
| 1912 | 112,167.43 | 422,013.57 | 80,150.35 | 566,092.70 | 173,767.81 | 9,190,656.49 |
The annexation of the suburban municipalities, begun in 1883, has added partially to the revenue.
FOOTNOTES: