Jules Crepeau and daughter Alice, 1916 or so.
I guess I have to go downtown sometimes soon and visit the Webster Library of Concordia in the McConnell Building again and look at the microfilms of the Montreal Star for April, 1927.
How Ironic!
I need to look up the article where the Star accuses Montreal Aldermen of taking bribes from Senator Lorne Webster, to agree to push through, in hasty and secretive fashion, the purchase (or expropriation) of the Montreal Power and Water Company, after 12 years of procrastination on the issue.
It seems, from a Montreal Gazette account, that the City Council suddenly decided the purchase had to be made, a day after Webster had purchased a majority share of the company's stock through a New York based concern, The Family Trust.
A while later, the Council, using one alderman, sued the Montreal Star for slander and won.
And yet, according to the Fong biography of McConnell, Hugh Graham of the Gazette kept up the pressure on the issue from April to August of the next year, probably making Mayor Martin lose the next Municipal election.
Now, I don't understand the stock market business... but it was business as usual, even if a first time MNA from Sainte Marie, a certain Camillien Houde, had called for a royal inquiry into the 'shameful hold-up.'
This young man of the people lost his seat in the National Assembly in May 1927, and while contesting the loss he ran for Mayor of Montreal, with this Montreal Water and Power purchase being the only real issue, and won, big time.
Houde dressed in crumpled suits during the campaign and kept mentioning he was ' a poor man.'
Mederic Martin, also a self-made businessman, but someone who enjoyed the trappings of wealth ( he always dressed dapper, and the hair, oh my!) didn't convince the electors (universal male suffrage) that the Montreal Water and Power had to be purchased right then and there, that evening, so that "poor people wouldn't have their water turned off" by a cruel for-profit monopoly.
Most aldermen were returned in that October 1928 election, however. (Mr. Brodeur, Chairman of the Executive Council since 1921 and the most powerful man in the city, had died of heart attack in November 1927.)
No one disputed the necessity of the purchase. The fact that the purchase was pushed through at a unofficial Council Meeting, on February 14, 1927, a day after Webster got possession of Montreal Water and Power, and that a certain procedural rule was suspended to allow for this to happen, is suspicious, indeed. (All documents were supposed to be filed at the City Clerk's office my 10 am the day of a meeting. In this case, that didn't happen.)
The Gazette article says that there was a precedent for this, "that 24 other bills were passed at that same meeting, suspending the rule." (Excuse me! That isn't saying what it claims to say! That's not an example of a precedent.)
Oddly, my grandfather did not attend this session - and it was part of his job description to attend all Council Meetings.
The alderman won the case for slander: The judge wrote in his ruling, "The functions of a newspaper should be, above all things, to present the news of the day fairly, fearlessly, and without prejudice. It's primary function as the name implies, is to present the news.
When the editor presents an opinion it should be based on facts in order to influence public opinion around right lines. And when the editor of a newspaper indulges, for motives known to himself, in attacks upon individuals, rather than an action, he is not upholding the highest tradition of British (sic) journalism."
(And SIC for so many reasons.)
My grandfather was the man 'who taught aldermen their jobs' according to a 1937 Gazette article, and he knew exactly how City Hall was supposed to run. I imagine he didn't like something about this business...He had worked for a long time as Assistant City Clerk.
Anyway, I've got to figure out what happened to write Milk and Water, my play. I'll have Mr. Wells ask Jules if this rule had been waved before "You should know, you were Assistant City Clerk" and Jules, well, he won't answer...so that will be the answer.
My grandfather was forced to resign, by Council, over his part (or lack of part) in the purchase. Houde claimed he should have advised the Council against the purchase, even though the Chief Engineer of the City, who was also fired, supported it.
As if my grandfather, a civil servant, was supposed to tell aldermen how to vote on issues. Very weird.
It was, however, my grandfather's job to explain to aldermen (and the press, and the public) about the rules of governance. And maybe he did just that -in this case - and maybe that's why he didn't show up at this meeting.
My grandfather did not testify at this hearing into the slander charge, as far as I can see..Hm. And you'd think he'd be just the one to ask about procedure at Council Meetings. Since he was he expert. Curiouser and curiouser.
