Politics of transportation services in suburban Montreal: sorting out the "mile end muddle," 1893-1909.

Christopher G. Boone

Abstract:

The rapid spread of electric streetcar technology in the 1890s brought not only passengers to the suburbs but streetcar politics too. Beyond Montreal's city limits in the Village of Mile End, the politics of streetcar services was particularly virulent and indeed often comical. The contest between competing streetcar firms, and divisions within the council, culminated in early March 1893 when the Mayor of Mile End tore up a half-mile of the Montreal Street Railway Company's track. Though residents had long clamoured for streetcar service, most applauded the Mayor's heroics. This paper is an attempt to make sense of the `Mile End Muddle,' as the newspapers dubbed the strange sequence of events, and to explain the relative weakness of the council and residents in the contest for streetcar service. I aim to show that the council and residents of Mile End, though vociferous and often violent, were unable to secure any significant degree of control of the actions of the MSRC and the Park & Island Railway Company. Although Mile End had the legal right, as a municipal corporation, to regulate streetcar services in its domain, in practice it and its venal councillors were small players in the battle for a streetcar franchise. Without the tax base to threaten public ownership of streetcar services, the town of Mile End was unable to defy the interests of heavily capitalized streetcar companies. By dividing the territory of greater Montreal between them, the MSRC and Park & Island effectively undermined the negotiating power of suburban councils to regulate a critical urban service.

Early in the morning of 23 March 1893, the mayor and municipal workers of St. Louis du Mile End, (1) a suburban village outside Montreal, pushed aside workers of the Montreal Street Railway Company (MSRC) and tore up streetcar track the company had laid within this municipality. For more than half a year, the village council, merchants and residents had demanded streetcar service, but most applauded the demolition efforts of the mayor, who landed in jail the following day for his actions. Why did the mayor of Mile End tear up the tracks on that early March morning?

The mayor's actions are explained in this detailed story of the contest among two streetcar enterprises to win control over the provision of transportation in Mile End. (2) Armstrong and Nelles have written elsewhere on the strategies of streetcar companies in Montreal as well as Toronto and Vancouver. (3) They demonstrate the heavy economic risks of streetcar line expansion and the failure of most suburban streetcar companies to establish networks in cities already served by streetcar firms dominating the core. This paper introduces a third player in the story of urban and suburban streetcar competition: a small suburban town council. I aim to show that the council and residents of Mile End, though vociferous and often violent, were unable to effect any significant degree of control on the actions of the MSRC and the Park & Island Railway Company. Although Mile End had the legal right, as a municipal corporation, to regulate streetcar services in its domain, in practice it and its venal councillors were small players in the battle for a streetcar franchise. Without the tax base to threaten public ownership of streetcar services, the town of Mile End was unable to defy the interests of heavily capitalized streetcar companies. Rather than beating them, councillors joined one of two streetcar enterprises competing for the franchise. The mayor tore up the MSRC's tracks not because of his pledge to defend the sovereignty of Mile End, but because he supported the Park & Island Railway Company. Despite the theatrics, the mayor and councillors were bit players in the contest for control of streetcar services in Mile End.

The paper is divided into two broad sections. It begins with a summary of the advent of electric streetcars in Montreal and a brief sketch of the social geography of Mile End at this time. The second part outlines and examines the negotiations between the council and the streetcar companies for a transit franchise.

The Electric Streetcar

In the summer of 1892, the first electric streetcars rolled through the streets of Montreal. Although the technology was new, the concept of urban transit on rails was not. For more than thirty years, the Montreal Street Railway Company (which had changed its name from Montreal City Passenger Railway in 1886) carried passengers behind horse-drawn streetcars, except in winter and spring when snowy and muddy conditions required sleds and wagons instead. Although horsecars were popular, their limited speed and pulling capacity restricted the network to the downtown streets. In 1864, the company operated six miles of track and by 1892, the company had added only six and a half miles to its system. (4) It was not until Frank Sprague's successful run of an electric trolley in the hilly streets of Richmond, Virginia in 1887 that the possibility of an extensive transportation network for Montreal and other North American cities was possible. (5)

Sprague's technology spread very quickly. By 1890, there were 914 miles of electric track in the United States; three years there were later more than 12,000. (6)

Resume:

Les tramways electriques, qui ont connu une rapide expansion technologique dans les annees 1890, permirent le transport des passagers jusqu'aux banlieues. Toutefois, leur presence y provoqua egalement l'eclosion des intrigues politiques inherentes aux luttes de pouvoir pour le controle de ce type de service. Par-dela les limites de la ville de Montreal, dans le village de Mile End, ces intrigues prirent un caractere particulierement virulent et, a vrai dire, souvent burlesque. La competition entre les societes de tramways concurrentes et les dissensions au sein du conseil municipal atteignirent leur point culminant au debut de mars 1893 lorsque le maire de Mile End arracha 0,8 km (un demi-mille) de rails installes par la Montreal Street Railway Company. Les residents, qui reclamaient a grands cris depuis fort longtemps l'avenement d'un service de transport en commun, n'en applaudirent pas moins pour la plupart le coup d'eclat de leur maire. Le present article cherche a faire la lumiere sur cette etrange sequence d'evenements qualifee de << Mile End Muddle >> (tumulte de Mile End) par les journaux de l'epoque. Il vise egalement a expliquer la relative faiblesse du conseil municipal et des residents dans cette lutte pour le controle des services de tramways. Mon objectif est de demontrer que le conseil municipal et les residents de Mile End, bien que bruyants et souvent violents, etaient incapables d'exercer un veritable controle sur les actions de la MSRC et de la Park & Island Railway Company. Meme si a titre de municipalite, Mile End avait legalement le droit de reglementer les services de tramways sur son territoire, en pratique, la municipalite et ses conseillers venaux n'etaient que des acteurs de second plan dans la bataille pour l'obtention d'une concession de service de tramways. En se divisant le territoire du Montreal metropolitain, la MSRC et la Park & Island saperent reelement le pouvoir dont disposaient les conseils municipaux des banlieues dans les negociations portant sur la reglementation d'un service urbain essentiel.

Not everyone, however, was convinced of the merits of electric traction. The directors of the board and the president of the Montreal Street Railway Company were not certain the new technology could be used in snowy and hilly Montreal and worried expenditures would be simply too great. The president resigned over the board's decision to electrify the system. (7)

In the spring of 1892, the MSRC, minus its president, pushed ahead for an electric streetcar franchise. In June, the municipal council of Montreal granted the company the franchise for an electric railway within the city limits and by August, the company had received conditional agreements for electric service from the councils of St. Antoine and Cote St. Louis and were negotiating with the council of Maisonneuve (map 1). (8) In July, the company granted the contract of constructing the electric streetcar service to William Mackenzie, the Canadian railway magnate and chairman of the Toronto Street Railway Company, for $30,000 per mile. (9) James Ross, a prominent Montreal businessman, joined Mackenzie in the endeavour in August after resigning from the board of the MSRC. (10)

Unlike the City of Toronto's contract with William Mackenzie's Toronto Street Railway Company, (11) the municipal council of Montreal did not grant the company an exclusive contract for electric streetcar service. Without a monopoly, investment in an electric streetcar network was risky. The threat of competition could drive down fares or force the company to build in potentially unprofitable streets to block the incursion of other companies. Competing franchises would have to be purchased, often for more than they were worth. In order for the MSRC to succeed, it had to secure a de facto monopoly. Within the downtown, the MSRC immediately built lines along the major thoroughfares. With a firm foothold in the city centre, the company turned to outlying municipalities. By securing exclusive contracts with the municipalities surrounding the City of Montreal, the MSRC hoped to create an effective moat to protect the prized possession of the downtown market from invading competitors. Negotiating a contract with the town of Mile End, at considerable cost and risk to the company, was an important part of that strategy.

Mile End, c.1892

Mile End was one of the border municipalities and directly in line between downtown and the spearhead of growth to the north (map 1). Immediately north of the city, Mount Royal provided ample protection from invading streetcar lines. But on the eastern flank of the mountain, and the northern edge of the City of Montreal, along the commercial street of St. Laurent Street, lay Mile End. From a strategic viewpoint, it was important for the MSRC to obtain a contract with this municipality. Yet from an economic viewpoint, extension of streetcar tracks into Mile End, like other suburban municipalities, was precarious.

Electric streetcar lines were expensive to construct and operate. To build and equip each mile of track cost the MSRC $30,000. Building lines through extensive municipal territory was a costly proposition. Of even greater concern than construction costs were operating expenses. In sparsely settled regions, the return per car mile, the standard of efficiency in streetcar operations, could be dismally low.

Mile End was both sparsely populated and relatively poor, certainly not an attractive combination for streetcar companies. Established in 1878 from territory of Cote St. Louis, Mile End by 1881 had a population of 1,537 and by 1891 contained 3,537 people, principally French-Canadian.(12) In 1892, most lived in the streets south of St. Louis Street, particularly along St. Dominique, St. Laurent, St. Hypolite and Robin Streets. There was no particular concentration of population by occupation, though merchants tended to reside in houses along Mont Royal Avenue. Mile End was essentially a working class municipality governed by skilled workers and merchants. The mayor, Leonidas Villeneuve, ran a lumber and building materials operation. The members of council included a grocer (Belanger), mason (Collerette), tinsmith (Daze), joiner (Bastien), a bourgeois (Martel) and a dentist (Young). The largest group of employed persons (27 percent) described themselves as labourers. Mile End residents also worked as carters, shoemakers, joiners and milkmen.(13) Merchants and professionals, though relatively few in number, lived in Mile End too.(14)

The largely working class population was unlikely to board streetcars on a regular basis. In this era, labourers, when working, earned a dollar a day. On such a meagre wage, few could afford the ten cents for return passage.(15) Low-paid workers more often walked than took the streetcar.(16) For women, who earned as little as thirty cents a day, streetcar transit was simply out of the question. Even if all 800 of the employed residents of Mile End took the streetcar twice a day, the gross revenue of $80 could not justify more than a mile of track.

Contract Negotiations

In August 1892, after considering the strategic value and risks of extending its lines into Mile End, the MSRC offered the municipal council a transit contract. In exchange for an exclusive contract and exemption from taxes for 30 years, the company promised the council a streetcar service from Mont Royal Avenue (the city limits) to the Canadian Pacific Railway line within the first year and to the Shamrock Club Lacrosse Grounds by the third year (maps 2,3). For the winter of 1892-93, it offered the council a horsedrawn sleigh service between Mont Royal Avenue to St. Louis Street. Once the electric line was built and if sleighs were still necessary during the winter months, the council was obliged by the deal to furnish the horses and the company to provide the sleighs, food and drivers. If the company decided to run along any toll roads (St. Laurent Street was then owned by the Turnpike Trust which charged the Village of St. Louis du Mile End $500 per annum), the village, by the agreement, would pay the toll.(17)

The council waited for other offers. Confirming the fear of the MSRC, other competitors vied for franchises in the outlying municipalities, including two in Mile End. Because of the heavy capital requirements needed for an electric streetcar franchise, the number of entrants into the streetcar market tended to be fewer than for other types of utilities, like telephones or electric light.(18) The electric streetcar industry was far from a `perfectly contestable market' which one could enter for free and exit at no cost.(19) But if entrepreneurs could convince the council they could come up with the money to provide the service, then sell the franchise to the competing streetcar company, `nuisance money' could be made. Of greater concern to the MSRC was that a competing streetcar firm, after establishing itself in the suburbs, could run lines in the central city and undermine the company's de facto monopoly. If the cost was not too great, the MSRC tried, however it could, to stop the establishment of another streetcar company in the city of Montreal and surrounding districts.

One month after the MSRC made its offer to the council of Mile End, Albert J. Corriveau, president and manager of an electrical company, contacted the mayor of St. Louis, Mr. Leonidas Villeneuve, to discuss a proposal for an electric streetcar service.(20) By October, Corriveau submitted a general proposal to the mayor and councillors of Mile End. Similar to the MSRC proposal, Corriveau wanted an exclusive franchise for 30 years and exemption from taxes; but he also asked for an exclusive electric lighting franchise for the same period and with the same tax exemptions. For his part, Corriveau agreed to build an electric streetcar line from Mont Royal Avenue to the CPR tracks and on any other lines mutually agreed upon between himself and the council. He promised to build these lines during the year 1893. The fare schedule would be the same as the MSRC's.(21)

The council of Mile End received one other proposal for electric streetcar service from Mr. R.A. Mainwaring, a real estate and investment broker. Mainwaring was a large property-holder in St. Louis du Mile End through the Consolidated Land & Investment Company, in which he claimed he held a large interest.(22) In November 1892, he offered the council of Mile End, in exchange for an exclusive 30-year franchise, to build a line on St. Laurent Street and Parc Avenue between Mont Royal Avenue and the CPR tracks in the summer of 1893, and on St. Louis Street and Mont Royal Avenue in the summer of 1894. He also offered to pay the Turnpike Trust $4000 per mile on St. Laurent Street to relieve the village of the responsibility of the toll, to charge the same fare as the MSRC, and to carry the passengers into the City of Montreal. He agreed as well to pay for the repair of the portion of the streets that he would use for lines and to pay for part of the snow removal.(23)

The bidding war for the contract briefly favoured the council and Mile End. During the negotiations, the competitors frequently upped the ante to secure the franchise. In a letter that Mainwaring sent to the council, for example, he crossed out the typed-script obliging the council to pay for `one-half' the cost of snow removal and wrote in pencil `one-third.' He also included in a hand-written postscript that "all employees of my company shall be compelled to live within the municipality."(24) Able to negotiate with three bidders, the council was, at this time, in a strong bargaining position.

In December 1892, Corriveau submitted an amended proposal to match the advantages of Mainwaring's offer. Corriveau agreed to construct the line on St. Laurent as early as possible in the Spring of 1893 and to pay the Turnpike Trust $4000 per mile for use of the street. Corriveau also agreed to transport passengers to a location around the central post office in Montreal for a single fare.(25)

The MSRC, in the mean time, continued to press for a streetcar contract with Mile End. The advantage of the MSRC proposal was that passengers would be able to travel within Mile End and in all other parts of the city the company served for

a single fare of 5 cents. The network the MSRC offered was more extensive than what Corriveau could provide. To compensate, Corriveau offered a line to the post office downtown and to transport CPR passengers between the Mile End railway station and Mont Royal Avenue for free.(26) In effect, he proposed to subsidize train passage to the central terminal and elsewhere to compensate for the lack of lines downtown.

In December, the council, for unstated reasons, declined Mainwaring's proposal and the intensive fight between the MSRC and Corriveau propositions began. Mainwaring himself sided with Corriveau and urged the council to accept Corriveau's proposal as "so much better" than anything the MSRC was willing to offer.(27) He did not explain why the Corriveau proposition was better than the MSRC's other than the usual declaration of the benefits of competition. As a landholder in Mile End, he judged presumably that the Corriveau plan would increase the value of his land more than the MSRC proposal.

It took more than Mr. Mainwaring's support for Corriveau to secure the franchise. In a final pitch to council, Corriveau committed himself to build a line on St. Urbain Street between Mont Royal Avenue and St. Louis Street, a line on Parc Avenue from St. Louis Street to the CPR tracks and a line on St. Laurent Street from Mont Royal Avenue to the CPR tracks. He agreed to complete said routes within the year 1893. Failing that, council would have the right to annul the contract. In a post-script, Corriveau promised to build a line to the lacrosse grounds (as the MSRC agreed to do by 1894) as soon as it was opened, and to make citizens of St. Louis du Mile End the preferred employees for the construction of the electric streetcar network.(28)

The most important alteration to the contract was that Corriveau, unlike in earlier proposals, was no longer asking for an exclusive franchise. He added a note to the mayor and councillors that by asking only for rights-of-way on the streets on which he wished to build his lines, that the municipality would avoid the "yoke of a monopoly." (29) This is what the council wanted to hear. Under a monopoly arrangement, the council and residents of Mile End would be forced to accept the exigencies of the streetcar company. If the council could manage to get a non-exclusive contract, as the City of Montreal had managed to do, it could continue to bargain for good service (or bribes) by playing one streetcar company off the other. A monopoly would upset the balance of power in favour of the company over the council. Corriveau's proposal, for this reason, looked increasingly attractive to the town council.

On 19 December 1892, after the first reading, the municipal council passed a resolution to accept Corriveau's proposal. Only one member, Joseph Martel, opposed Corriveau's proposition, claiming the MSRC, as an established company, would give better service than Corriveau could provide. (30) On 26 December 1892, the council met again for the second reading of Corriveau's proposal. Joseph Martel proposed to annul the motion of the previous meeting granting Corriveau the franchise because of the illegality, by the municipal code, of the 30-year exemption from taxes. (31) However, earlier in the day, Corriveau sent a letter to the mayor and councillors of Mile End proclaiming he would accept the 25-year exemption rather than the 30 years. In addition, he stated he would commit himself to the Parc Avenue line over the St. Urbain Street line, if the council wished, and clear the snow between the tracks at his own expense. (32) Given that Corriveau was willing to take the 25-year exemption, the council voted to adopt the new proposal.

Complicity in the Council?

After the second reading of the Corriveau contract, matters began to heat up in the council and larger interests began to assert their influence. Councillors drew their lines in support of the MSRC or Corriveau. By this time, Corriveau was likely negotiating with the MSRC's competitor, the Montreal Park & Island Railway Company. In council over the following months, the MSRC and the Park & Island used their influence to try to defeat the proposals of each other. The ambiguity of the councillors' actions and the unusual and suspect procedures with the council minutes, as I outline below, suggests both sides were lobbying intensely in the council to get what they wanted.

The mayor of Mile End was securely in the MSRC camp. On the same day council adopted Corriveau's modified proposal, the president of the MSRC, Louis Forget, sent a letter to the mayor of Mile End, Leonidas Villeneuve. Regarding an earlier letter the mayor had sent to the president, Forget responded that "I can say to you that you can hope to have all that you need." (33) It is impossible to determine what Villeneuve's "needs" were, but the MSRC was providing him with something in return for his support in the council chambers.

On 3 January 1893, Forget outlined the new proposition of the company to the council. The MSRC vowed to extend a line to the Shamrock Lacrosse Grounds as soon as the club took possession of the land, rather than in three years under the original plan. (34) The council was anxious the streetcar line to the grounds be completed because it would mean increased traffic of Montrealers to the village. Additionally, the MSRC offered to purchase the right-of-way from the Turnpike Trust for $4000 per mile. In a critical departure from the original contract proposal, the MSRC no longer insisted on an exclusive privilege. (35) Corriveau's non-exclusive proposal compelled the company to give up, for the time-being, its monopolistic designs in Mile End.

On 5 January 1893, two councillors, Daze and Collerette, in support of the Corriveau proposition, called a meeting in the Town Hall to encourage voters to re-elect them in the upcoming municipal elections and to voice their opinions about the opposition parties who supported the MSRC. (36) At the meeting, Mayor Villeneuve declared himself a supporter of the MSRC, reportedly in the minority. As he spoke, the Hon. Louis Beaubien, (37) "one of the largest land owners" in Mile End, arrived at the hall and the "deafening cheering" drowned out the mayor's speech. When the cheers subsided, Beaubien announced that he, as one of the largest property holders in the municipality, supported the Corriveau proposition because competition would lead to better service. (38) Beaubien was also the President of the Montreal Park & Island Railway Company, still a paper enterprise but with intentions to build a suburban network in Montreal. Later in May 1893, Beaubien's company purchased Corriveau's Mile End franchise for stock in the company. His support of Corriveau was likely in anticipation of the Park & Island Company's purchase of Corriveau's franchise.

In the January elections, councillors Daze and Collerette were re-elected, Belanger was elected mayor and Villeneuve councillor. As a councillor, Villeneuve could vote on resolutions while as mayor he could vote only to break a tie. When the council met again on 21 February 1893 for the third and final reading of Corriveau's proposal, Councillor Daze, seconded by Collerette, proposed that council accept the proposition. In a blow to Corriveau and his supporters, the motion was defeated 4 to 2 as Councillors Villeneuve, Martel, Bastien and Young voted against it. Councillor Martel subsequently proposed, seconded by Villeneuve, that council annul the Corriveau franchise. This motion passed 4 votes to 2. To finish off the meeting, Villeneuve read the proposal of the MSRC and seconded by Martel, proposed that the council accept the proposal. Villeneuve, Martel, Bastien and Young voted for the motion and Daze and Collerette voted against. (39) Despite the vocal opposition to the MSRC, the council, in the space of an evening, defeated Corriveau's hard-fought contest to provide streetcar services in Mile End.

On hearing of the rescinding of his franchise, Corriveau filed suit against the municipality of Mile End for $50,000 in damages. (40) He had, by this time, a New York capitalist, W.S. Williams, as a partner for the fight ahead. While Corriveau considered his battle in the courts, the MSRC began immediate plans to stake their claim. By 23 February, it had purchased land for the construction of the power house and by the beginning of March was prepared to lay rails on Parc Avenue. (41)

Bribes, Kidnapping, and Lies

Contests for franchises were nothing new, but, as one newspaper reported, the fight for the streetcar franchise in Montreal was "dignified and orderly" compared to the events in Mile End. (42) In the month of March 1893, the "Mile End Muddle" (43) unfolded. Councillors accused each other of taking bribes, one councillor was reported to have been kidnapped, the mayor demolished streetcar line work, and somebody manipulated the council minutes. Lies, accusations, and violence were the order of the day as councillors fought to determine who would get the streetcar franchise and what the winner would deliver to the residents and petitioners of Mile End.

The fight between the Corriveau (Park & Island) and MSRC interests came to head on 10 March, when the council was scheduled to meet for the second reading of the MSRC proposal and to approve the contract. In a bold move, however, the MSRC began to lay streetcar tracks on Parc Avenue in the morning before the council had met. Mayor Belanger promptly sent the company a notice to desist, which the MSRC ignored. The actions of the MSRC and its supporters in council provoked violent opposition. Before the council meeting, some of the councillors in support of the MSRC reportedly "received letters threatening physical violence if they dared to vote to approve the contract;" these convinced Martel and Villeneuve to seek the protection of 14 police constables at the meeting. One newspaper reported "a free-fight being feared at one time." (44) Before the meeting began, a large number of "The People," primarily in support the Corriveau proposition, filled the Town Hall. (45) From newspaper reports and petitions to the council, it seems there was little popular support for the MSRC proposal and plenty of pressure from constituents on the council to deny the MSRC a franchise in Mile End.

Much of the meeting centred around Young's decision to support the MSRC proposal even though he had earlier opposed it. Councillor Daze, a consistent supporter of Corriveau, questioned Young about his decision to support the MSRC plan. Young responded that he objected to an exclusive 30-year contract for electric lighting and was not certain that Corriveau would gain the right to run cars in the streets of Montreal. And, in a particularly provocative statement, one newspaper reported Young as saying that he had "acceded to the solicitations of large property holders in the Mile End" by supporting the MSRC. (46) The presence of Louis Beaubien and his son Charles Beaubien, owners of most undeveloped land in Mile End, at the meeting suggests property holders were likely peddling their influence in council.

"Accusations of Boodling Bandied To and Fro" (47)

During the council meeting, the question of bribes finally came to the floor. Councillor Daze accused Councillors Young and Bastien, both supporters of the MSRC, of taking bribes. Daze stated that "Councillor Young had said that he would vote for the company which would pay best." Daze added that Councillor Bastien voted against Corriveau because Corriveau had given him "a worthless note" and that Bastien said he "wanted money, and he would get it." Both councillors denied accusations the MSRC had bribed them but when Mr. Charles Beaubien, (48) son of Louis Beaubien and a supporter of Corriveau, read a pledge signed by Young and Bastien as well as Daze and Collerette that they would vote first for the Corriveau company, Young was reportedly "at great pains to explain that he had not been false to his pledge in voting as he did." Only when Young proclaimed he was a "friend" of Corriveau, did the crowd applaud. Corriveau, having the chance to speak, denied that Young, contrary to the minutes, had voted for the MSRC at the last council meeting and that the councillor had in fact voted for his company. Daze's attack on Young and chants from the crowd that the contract "shall not be adopted," were ineffective. At 1:30 in the morning, the council voted in favour of the MSRC contract by a margin of 4 to 1. Councillor Daze voted against the motion and Councillor Collerette refused to vote at all. (49)

The MSRC was winning the contest for the streetcar franchise, despite opposition from the mayor and residents of Mile End. People living in Mile End understandably wanted a guarantee that a streetcar service would be built as quickly as possible and that the service would be frequent, extensive and inexpensive. Petitions to the municipality show that electors believed the Corriveau rather than the MSRC proposal would suit their needs best. For example, on 18 March, a group of 201 "municipal electors of Mile End" submitted a petition to the mayor and councillors against the actions of Councillors Villeneuve and Martel and the MSRC and called on the council to regrant the franchise to Corriveau so that "this municipality can surely count on a line of electric tramways during the year 1893." (50) Business interests were also on Corriveau's side. Mainwaring had already pledged his support. The manager of the Exposition Company, situated on the exhibition grounds in Mile End, also wrote to the mayor asking council, in the interests of the municipality and his company, to support Corriveau's proposition. (51)

As a councillor, Mayor Belanger had been a strong supporter of the Corriveau project, and the protest of citizens and letters (such as that from the Expositions Company) convinced him to act on his loyalties. His side was clearly losing the battle for control of the franchise, and perhaps for this reason, he decided to take bold steps against the MSRC. It was on this morning, 23 March, that the mayor and twenty municipal workers marched to Parc Avenue to confront the MSRC workers laying track. Within two hours the mayor and Mile End workers tore up more than two thousand feet of track the MSRC had laid. (52) The MSRC employees did not resist but simply showed the mayor a copy of the minutes indicating the council had granted the company the contract. (53) Belanger insisted the company's actions were illegal since the proposal had not passed the third reading in council. Not only had council not met for the third reading, Belanger stated, but the council minutes of 10 March, which recorded passage of the second reading of the MSRC proposal, he claimed were false. (54) Manipulation of the minutes became the key issue at the following council meeting.

On the evening after the mayor removed the tracks from Parc Avenue, the council was scheduled to sit for the third reading of the MSRC proposal and to pass the by-law granting the company the streetcar franchise. Added to the drama of tearing up tracks, newspapers reported that on the morning of the council meeting, someone had kidnapped Councillor Young. Since Dr. Young had returned to supporting Corriveau, his wife and others claimed the opposition had taken him out of town so he could not vote against the MSRC. (55) Dr. Young's spouse told the press she was "quite sure that he had been drugged by some one interested in keeping him away." (56) At the council meeting that evening, the mayor received a telegram from Young stating he had been called away to Ottawa for pressing business. (57) With Dr. Young gone, and Bastien no longer eligible to vote after selling his property, the vote would be split between Collerette and Daze, and Villeneuve and Martel. On a split vote, Mayor Belanger would be called to break the tie and certainly would have voted in favour of Corriveau. Knowing this, Young may have decided not to make his loyalties public but indirectly, by not showing up to the council meeting, he voted in favour of Corriveau's proposal. But Young's absence made no difference. Villeneuve and Martel did not attend the meeting and without the quorum of four members, the mayor had to adjourn the meeting. (58)

On the advice of company lawyers, the MSRC had Mayor Belanger arrested the following day for removing the tracks. (59) The mayor was later released after Mr. Beaubien posted a $200 bond. (60) The mayor's arrest prompted strong protest from residents of Mile End. The following evening, property owners, merchants and voters met to denounce the "iniquities" and "arbitrary actions" of the MSRC. The group resolved that the MSRC had no right to lay its tracks and "take possession of the domain of the Municipality." It congratulated the mayor for the "energetic manner with which he vindicated the rights of the Municipality" by taking up and confiscating the rails. The group further resolved that the arrest of the mayor and actions of the company were an "odious assault" perpetrated not just against the mayor but all residents of Mile End. (61)

What happened to Dr. Young on the evening of the council meeting and the nature of his business in Ottawa remained a mystery to the newspapers. However, when Dr. Young returned, he declared his loyal support for Corriveau. For fear that opponents would again kidnap Dr. Young, armed guards and residents of Mile End surrounded his house. One of the newspapers reported that two men tried to entice Dr. Young out of the house with the intention of taking him "for a little trip to Quebec by the four o'clock afternoon train." (62) The actions of Corriveau's supporters suggest the MSRC was campaigning hard to pass its proposal in council.

To block the MSRC contract, Corriveau's supporters had to convince the majority that the minutes of 10 March were false. At the council meeting on 27 March, all members, including Young, were present to debate the MSRC and Corriveau proposals. Councillor Collerette began the meeting proclaiming that the minutes of 10 March 1893, granting the MSRC a streetcar franchise, were incorrect. He insisted that Councillor Young did not vote for the by-law. To the relief of Corriveau, Dr. Young confirmed to council that he did not vote in favour of the MSRC proposal. Collerette proposed, seconded by Councillor Young, the minutes be changed to read "there followed a long discussion and finally the assembly adjourned." With the support of Daze, the motion passed by a margin of 3 to 2. (63)

Clearly, someone was lying. The minutes of 10 March recorded that council passed the second reading of the MSRC proposal and contract. (64) Either the secretary-treasurer of the council transcribed the minutes incorrectly, which would be surely more than a simple clerical error, or Dr. Young, under pressure from Corriveau and supporters, lied about his vote on 10 March. The MSRC minutes recorded the proposal had passed, so it likely was more than an oversight by the secretary. (65) However, if Dr. Young did not vote for the MSRC on 10 March, then somebody, presumably in support of the MSRC, manipulated the minutes to pass the MSRC's proposal. Whatever the case, someone was willing to lie on behalf of Corriveau and company or the MSRC.

With Dr. Young now firmly in the Corriveau camp, the council proceeded to grant the franchise to the MSRC's opponent. Villeneuve and Martel, knowing they were outnumbered in council, proposed an amendment granting the MSRC the right to establish electric streetcars on Parc Avenue and St. Laurent Street while leaving all other streets to Corriveau. The council defeated the amendment and accepted the original motion granting Corriveau the streetcar franchise for Mile End. (66) In a final blow to the MSRC, the courts upheld the actions of the mayor in removing the tracks on 23 March and dismissed with costs the company's proceedings. (67) For the time-being, the MSRC had lost the fight in Mile End.

The voice of the people, it seems, was strongly behind Corriveau. After the vote, Corriveau, his lawyer Bisaillon (who later became a shareholder in the Park & Island), and Charles Beaubien made speeches to "the rousing cheers" of the audience and the speakers declared that "the voice of the people was...the voice of God indeed." (68) One older man in the crowd, before the meeting had begun, proclaimed that "the electors desire that the contract be accorded to Corriveau and that settles the question." (69) The residents of Mile End, at the very least, seemed to believe their presence in the council could make a difference.

By granting the streetcar franchise to Corriveau, and his New York backer Williams, the council satisfied the petitions of Mile End residents. No group of citizens filed a petition supporting the MSRC and newspaper reports indicate the majority of residents supported the Corriveau-Williams company. The defeat of the MSRC by the council and citizens of Mile End must have seemed, at the time, a great victory for the small village on the margin of Montreal.

Persistence of the MSRC

On 9 May 1893, Corriveau and Williams transferred their franchises to the Montreal Park & Island Railway Company for 2500 shares or $250,000 in capital stock of the company. Established in 1885 by several prominent politicians and businessmen, the Park & Island had not yet begun to build. (70) Louis Beaubien, who supported the Corriveau-Williams company against the MSRC, was one of the founding directors of the company. Under the agreement, Williams became the general manager of the Park & Island and Corriveau one of its representatives. The purchase of all the Corriveau and Williams franchises gave the Park & Island the right to construct and operate streetcars in St. Louis du Mile End, Sault au Recollet, Notre Dame de Grace and four other outlying areas including St. Leonard Port Maurice, Ste. Genevieve, St. Laurent and Pointe-aux-Trembles. (71)

Despite the Park & Island/Corriveau's victory in the council and courts, the MSRC continued to push for control of suburban streetcar operations. Although the council had changed the minutes of 10 March, annulling the second reading of the MSRC contract, the company's proposal was still on the books. On 8 June 1893, Councillors Collerette and Villeneuve brought an amended proposal to the council. (72) Taken by surprise, the Park & Island's supporters in council could not defeat the proposal. (73) Councillor Young, who after ambivalent behaviour had come out in support of Corriveau, voted in favour of the motion, considering presumably that it would be fine to have two rather than one streetcar companies operating in Mile End.

On hearing the news, Corriveau responded that "the councillors were taken by surprise by the old friends of the Street Railway company, Messrs. Villeneuve and Martel, who burst upon the meeting a by-law to grant the Montreal Street Railway company a franchise." (74) At the following meeting, Martel and Villeneuve read the proposal for the third time. Mayor Belanger, to split the tie, voted against the motion. (75) Once again, the MSRC's proposal did not get past the third reading and the future of the franchise remained in doubt.

Meanwhile, the Park & Island Railway was having difficulty with its new streetcar franchise. In late June, the company began to lay its lines on St. Laurent Street. The Turnpike Trust, which owned the road, claimed that neither the company nor the council of Mile End had made an arrangement with the Trust to lay rails on its road. (76) Consequently, the Trust ordered its inspector to remove the rails on St. Laurent Street. When the inspector went to the scene, he found the Park & Island Company working on the street with about 100 men "armed with pick-axes and pick-handles." (77) The inspector asked Mayor Belanger to intervene, but the mayor refused to assist. When the inspector attempted to take up the rails he was "very roughly handled" by the Park & Island workers. (78) The police arrested the inspector for causing the disturbance but later released him. Later in the day, the courts upheld the rights of the Turn-pike Trust and issued an injunction against the corporation of Mile End, the Park & Island Railway, Corriveau and Williams, or anyone associated with the company from continuing work on the Turnpike Trust's road. (79)

In council that evening, the Corriveau/Park & Island supporters accused the MSRC of collaborating with the Turn-Pike Trust and causing the disturbances. When Councillor Villeneuve stood, the crowd would not let him speak. After several unsuccessful attempts to re-establish order, the mayor adjourned the meeting. (80)

Although there is no evidence to support the accusation, (81) some residents of Mile End were convinced the Turnpike Trust was acting on behalf of the MSRC. In saloons on the corner of Mont Royal Avenue and St. Laurent Street, where the confrontation between the Turnpike Trust and the Park & Island occurred, some residents said they "would kill Councillors Villeneuve and Martel" for supposedly inciting the actions of the Trust against the Park & Island Company. (82) A group of petitioners also voiced its objections against the actions of the MSRC and resolved that if the obstructionist party in the council, meaning Villeneuve and Martel, did not act on behalf of the will of the people, the group would take legal measures against them. (83) The Citizens' Committee of Mile End and merchants and residents of St. Laurent Street also objected to the actions of the MSRC and disapproved of the idea of allowing the MSRC to lay its own lines along the thoroughfare, fearing the crowded street would "hinder commerce considerably." (84) Residents of Mile End used every means, violent or otherwise, to resist the encroachment of the MSRC into their community.

Divide and Conquer

By mid-July, petitions, the Citizens' Committee, merchants and concerns of commerce, the actions of the Turnpike Trust, and even the councillors themselves no longer mattered to the MSRC and the Park & Island. After a series of meetings, the MSRC and Park & Island Railway finally came to an agreement to divide the territory of the Island of Montreal between them, a solution typical at the time for streetcar companies without monopoly privileges. (85) The two companies agreed the MSRC would control the city of Montreal, St. Henri, Ste. Cunegonde, Cote St. Antoine and Maisonneuve; the Park & Island would have St. Louis du Mile End, Outremont, Cote St. Louis, Cote Visitation and other municipalities in the surrounding area (map 1). (86) Most important for the Park & Island was that the MSRC granted the former the right, under certain conditions, to run cars on the latter's tracks in the downtown. (87) For both companies the arrangement effectively eliminated the influence of the local council and constituents on the operation of their streetcar enterprises.

Failure of the Park & Island

Residents of Mile End likely thought twice about their decision to support the Park & Island Railway Company. Just as certain councillors had warned, the Park & Island did not construct the promised streetcar lines in the stated time of the contract, nor did it fulfil other conditions of the franchise, such as free transfers. In August 1894, a motion to cancel the contract nearly won, defeated only by Mayor Belanger splitting the tie. Though the motion was defeated, the council was unanimous in its petition to the Park & Island ordering the company begin immediately its promised line on St. Laurent Street. (88) Some residents were not so forgiving. The council received a number of petitions from the citizens of Mile End insisting, in strong language, that the council strip the company of its franchise. (89) Once staunch supporters of the Park & Island, residents had turned against the company.

The Park & Island was equally unhappy with its streetcar services. The company was not doing well, though its economic performance was not atypical. Electric streetcar enterprises, even the successful ones, never brought the high returns of their less capital intensive horsecar predecessors. In 1890, at the height of the horsecar era in the United States, the industry posted an average annual dividend of 11.1 percent. By 1902, the average annual dividend for electric streetcar enterprises was 6.3 percent. (90) In many cases, streetcar companies, in the interests of attracting new capital, overpaid dividends to shareholders. (91) Electric streetcar shares were not particularly lucrative, in the United States or Canada. (92) Those who profited most from the electric streetcar boom of the 1890s were the buyers and sellers of franchise rights, the sellers of securities, constructors of the electric systems and joint promoters of streetcar lines and real estate. (93) Shares in the Park & Island Company were a poor investment, never paying their holders a dividend. In 1898, after several years of negative returns and heavy borrowing, the company failed. For three years, the MSRC leased the lines before purchasing the company in 1901. (94) When it did so, the company approached the Mile End Council in a position of strength to negotiate a new contract.

In 1901, eight years after the battle with Corriveau and his supporters in the town council, the MSRC managed to get a better contract than it had originally demanded. The town granted the company an exclusive 30-year contract with exemption from municipal taxes. In addition, the town agreed to provide any right-of-way the company required and to pay for the use of any of the Turnpike Trust's roads. (95) The contract was much better than anything the MSRC could have acquired in the winter months of 1892-93.

By 1901, Mile End was a more attractive place for streetcar investment than in 1892. Its population had increased from 3,500 to nearly 11,000 in the preceding ten years, making it the fastest growing suburban municipality in Montreal. (96) By 1901, improved economic conditions meant the nickel fare was not as great a hardship on working people as it was in the early 1890s. The rapid growth of Mile End, along with neighbouring Cote St. Louis, made the old Park & Island franchise not so much of a burden (map 3). By 1905, the net earnings for the Park & Island lines were positive. It was not until 1911, however, that the suburban lines showed, after charges on bond interest, a marginal profit. (97) If company figures are reflective of the true costs of operation then private capital fought for relatively unprofitable territory. The MSRC had to pay a high price for monopoly control.

Conclusion

Once the MSRC and Park & Island divided the territory of Montreal between them, the Mile End Council held little influence over the provision of transit services in its domain. (98) No longer able to bid one company off the other, it lost its power to participate in, and probably profit from, the process. By supporting one company or the other, the councillors had effectively shut the door on future opportunities to negotiate. Councillors praised the virtues of competition, but by granting a `non-exclusive' franchise to the Park & Island only, the council forced the MSRC to come to alternate arrangements which left the council out of the decision-making process.

It is possible councillors saw the division of territory coming and tried to extract as many bribes and favours as they could when they could from the bidding companies. Whatever the case may have been, the actions of the council were likely motivated by the opportunities for personal gain. (99) Although the mayor, certain aldermen and most residents of Mile End seemed to violently oppose the incursion of the MSRC and monopoly capital, it is likely councillors used the rhetoric of competition to further their own fortunes.(100) Residents of Mile End, left with inadequate service, paid the price of streetcar politics.

Finally, the Mile End case demonstrates that small suburban councils were generally ill-equipped to deal with the demands of electric streetcar companies. Unlike the City of Montreal, the Mile End council could not threaten public ownership to counter the bully tactics of streetcar companies. This small village of a few thousand people could not hope to raise the necessary capital or pay the tax burden of a municipally-owned streetcar service. Capital rather than actions of council regulated streetcar services in Mile End.

Acknowledgements

I thank Sherry Olson and the reviewers for their insightful comments and helpful suggestions. The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada supported the research for this paper.

(1) . St. Louis du Mile End, referred to then and now as "Mile End," takes its name from a race track, located south of Mont Royal Avenue between Mentana and Berri Streets. The distance between the race track and the former city limits (Bagg Street) was exactly one mile. The name Mile End was given to the race track and later to the town of St. Louis du Mile End. Montreal City Planning Department, How Our Streets Got Their Names (Montreal, 1961), p. 69.

(2) . Much of the reconstruction of the story depends on newspapers. Council minutes and letters leave out many of the details. Newspapers are the best source for recording the words of individual councillors. Some meetings and certain statements, however, were recorded by only one newspaper. Accordingly, the reader must accept these cases with caution. Some Montreal newspapers affiliated conspicuously with the Liberal and Conservative parties and others declared themselves independent. Of the newspapers I use in this article, The Gazette and La Presse aligned themselves with the Conservative party, though the latter became independent after 1894. The Montreal Star, though independent, was a reform newspaper with a conservative bent. La Patrie was Liberal/radical in orientation. See Jean de Bonville, La Presse Quebecoise de 1884 a 1914: Genese d'un media de masse (Quebec, 1988), especially pp. 48 and 63; Paul Rutherford, "Tomorrow's Metropolis: the Urban Reform Movement in Canada, 1880-1920," in The Canadian City: Essays in Urban and Social History, eds. Gilbert A. Stelter and Alan F.J. Artibise (Ottawa, 1984), 435-455, p.436.

(3) . Christopher Armstrong and H.V. Nelles, "Suburban Street Railway Strategies in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver, 1896-1930," in Power and Place: Canadian Urban Development in the North American Context, eds. Gilbert A. Stelter and Alan F.J. Artibise (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1986), 187-218; For other examples of streetcar strategies, see Sy Alder, "The Transformation of the Pacific Electric Railway: Bradford Snell, Roger Rabbit, and the Politics of Transportation in Los Angeles," Urban Affairs Quarterly 27 (September 1991), 51-86; Glenn Yago, The Decline of Transit: Urban Transportation in German and U.S. Cities, 1900-970 (Cambridge, 1984), esp chapter 6 on Chicago, 131-175; Charles W. Cheape, Moving the Masses: Urban Public Transit in New York, Boston, and Philadelphia, 1880-1912 (Cambridge, Mass., 1980).

(4) . Montreal Street Railway Company Annual Report, 1910. Societe de Transport de la Communaute Urbaine de Montreal (hereafter STCUM) Documents Library.

(5) . John P. McKay, Tramways and Trolleys: the Rise of Urban Mass Transportation in Europe (Princeton, 1976), p.50.

(6) . Ibid.

(7) . Minutes of the Montreal Street Railway Company (hereafter MSRC Minutes), 31 March 1892. STCUM 13-200-234. Many of the street grades, up to 11 percent in places, were "almost a cruelty to animals." MSRC Annual Report, 1910.

(8) . MSRC Minutes, 30 July 1892. STCUM 13-200-234.

(9) . MSRC Minutes, 11 September 1892. STCUM 13-200-234.

(10) . MSRC Minutes, 2 November 1892. STCUM 13-200-234.

(11) . See Michael J. Doucet, "Mass Transit and the Failure of Private Ownership: the Case of Toronto in the Early Twentieth Century," Urban History Review/Revue d'histoire urbaine (February 1977): 3-33; and for an interesting comparative perspective on Toronto's apparent `success' with public transit, see Donald F. Davis, "Mass Transit and Private Ownership: An Alternative Perspective on the Case of Toronto," Urban History Review/Revue d'histoire urbaine (February 1978): 60-98.

(12) . The Census of Canada for 1881 records that 90 percent of the inhabitants of Mile End were French origin, the remainder were Irish, English, Scottish and German. The 1891 census does not record ethnic origin. However, by 1901, the census records that more than 82 percent of the population of Mile End were of French origin. See Census of Canada, 1881, Vol. 1, p.52 and Census of Canada, 1901, Vol. 1, p.112.

(13) . Female residents are conspicuously few in the Lovell's directories. Those that are included are listed as widows and a few are listed as seamstresses.

(14) . Lovell's Directory, 1892-93.

(15) . See Jean de Bonville, Jean Baptiste Gagnepetit: Les Travailleurs Montrealais a la Fin du XIXe Siecle (Montreal: Les Editions de L'Aurore), 87.

(16) . Sherry Olson, "The Evolution of Metropolitan Form," in Canadian Cities in Transition, eds. Trudi Bunting and Pierre Filion, (Toronto, 1991), 240-262, p.248. Theodore Hershberg's study on the journey to work in Philadelphia in the 1880s demonstrates that round trip streetcar fares consuming 9 and 6 percent respectively of unskilled and skilled workers' wages was simply too costly an expenditure and as a result, most of the working-class walked to their place of employment. See p. 147 of Theodore Hershberg et. al., "The `Journey to Work': An Empirical Investigation of Work, Residence and Transportation, Philadelphia, 1850 and 1880," in Philadelphia: Work, Space, Family and Group Experience in the Nineteenth Century, ed. Theodore Hershberg (New York, 1981), 128-173.

(17) . H.A. Everett, Managing Director of the Montreal Street Railway Company, to his Worship the Mayor of St. Louis du Mile End, 30 August 1892. Ville de St. Louis, Dossiers Correspondence, 1838--899, Montreal Municipal Archives (hereafter VLDC).

(18) . Christopher Armstrong and H.V. Nelles, Monopoly's Moment: the Organization and Regulation of Canadian Utilities, 1830-1930 (Philadelphia, 1986), p.85.

(19) . William J. Baumol, "Contestable Markets: An Uprising in the Theory of Industry Structure," American Economic Review 72 (1982), 1-15.

(20) . Albert J. Corriveau, Canadian Electrical Construction, Manufacturing and Supply Company, to L. Villeneuve, Mayor of St. Louis du Mile End, 17 September 1892. VLDC.

(21) . Albert J. Corriveau to the Mayor and Councillor of St. Louis du Mile End, 19 October 1892. VLDC.

(22) . Mr. Mainwaring to the Mayor and Councillors of St. Louis du Mile End, 5 January 1894. VLDC.

(23) . Mainwaring to the Mayor and Councillors of St. Louis du Mile End, 12 November 1892. VLDC.

(24) . Ibid. Outlying municipalities like Maisonneuve and St. Henri required that a certain percentage if not all workers live within the municipal boundaries to attract workers and industry to their territory. See Jean-Pierre Collin, "La Cite sur mesure: Specialisation sociale de l'espace et autonomie municipale dans la banlieue montrealaise, 1875-1920," Urban History Review/Revue d'histoire urbaine 13 (June 1984), 19-34, p.30.

(25) . Albert J. Corriveau to the Mayor and Councillors of St. Louis du Mile End, 5 December 1892. VLDC.

(26) . Ibid.

(27) . Mainwaring to the Mayor and Councillors of St. Louis du Mile End, 9 December 1892. VLDC.

(28) . Albert J. Corriveau to the Mayor and Councillors of St. Louis du Mile End, 19 December 1892. VLDC.

(29) . Ibid.

(30) . Minutes of the Municipality of the Village of St. Louis du Mile End, 19 December 1892. Montreal Municipal Archives (hereafter Mile End Council Minutes).

(31) . Article 943, amended 1882, 45 Vict., ch.35, s.31, Municipal Code of the Province of Quebec, 1887, p.250. Opinion of Bisaillon to the Councillors of St Louis du Mile End, 26 December 1892. VLDC. Mile End Council Minutes, 19 December 1892.

(32) . Albert J. Corriveau to the Mayor and Councillors of the St. Louis du Mile End, 26 December 1892. VLDC.

(33) . L.J. Forget, President of MSRC, to M.L. Villeneuve, Mayor of St. Louis du Mile End, 26 December 1892. VLDC.

(34) . The Shamrock Lacrosse Club was one of three lacrosse associations in Montreal. It served primarily Irish clientele who, for the most part, did not live in Mile End. Paul-Andre Linteau, Histoire de Montreal depuis la Confederation, (Montreal, 1992), 245.

(35) . L.J. Forget, President of MSRC, to L. Villeneuve, Mayor of St. Louis du Mile End, 3 January 1893. VLDC.

(36) . Residents of Mile End took great interest in the streetcar debate and many attended meetings devoted to the issue. "The citizens of St. Louis du Mile End," one newspaper reported, "turned out in such numbers last evening as they have never done before, there being over 1,500 present." The Gazette, 6 January 1893.

(37) . Louis Beaubien (1837-1915), federal commissioner of agriculture from 1892-1897, inherited his father's (Pierre Beaubien) 22 lots of land in St. Louis du Mile End in 1878. He was director of several companies and a prominent politician in Quebec and the federal government. See C.W. Parker, Who's Who and Why (Toronto: International Press, 1914), 59; and Dictionary of Canadian Biography XI (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1982), 57-58.

(38) . The Gazette, 6 January 1893.

(39) . Mile End Council Minutes, 21 February 1893. La Patrie, 23 February 1893.

(40) . The Gazette, 23 February 1893.

(41) . MSRC Minutes, 2 March 1893. STCUM 13-200-234.

(42) . The Gazette, 11 March 1893.

(43) . The Montreal Star, 27 March 1893.

(44) . The Montreal Star, 23 March 1893.

(45) . The Gazette, 11 March 1893.

(46) . Ibid. It is uncertain if the newspaper accurately recorded Young's statement since the council minutes did not transcribe the details of councillors' speeches.

(47) . Story headline, The Gazette, 11 March 1893. `Boodling' is an older term for bribing.

(48) . After Corriveau won the franchise and transferred it to the Park & Island, the Board awarded Charles Beaubien, who campaigned on behalf of Corriveau in the Mile End Council, $5000 in stock of the company. Minutes of the Board of Directors of the Montreal Park & Island Railway Company (hereafter P&I Minutes), 21 July 1893. STCUM 13-200-245.

(49) . The Gazette, 11 March 1893; Mile End Council Minutes, 10 March 1893.

(50) . To His Honour the Mayor and the Councillors of the Village of St. Louis du Mile End, 18 March 1893. VLDC.

(51) . S.C. Stevenson to the Mayor of St. Louis du Mile End, 23 March 1893. VLDC.

(52) . The Montreal Star, 23 March 1893. The Gazette, 24 March 1893. La Presse, 24 March 1893. Minutes of the Board of Directors of the Montreal Street Railway Company, 23 March 1893, STCUM Documents Library. In Toronto in 1915, Mayor Tommy Church resorted to the same tactics, tearing up a 1,320 foot section of track belonging to William Mackenzie and Donald Mann's Toronto and York Radial Railway after the company's franchise had expired. Frustrated by the company's unwillingness to cooperate with city authorities, Church used the event to demonstrate his intent to control the city's streets and transit services. See Michael Doucet, "Politics, Space, and Trolleys: Mass Transit in Early Twentieth-Century Toronto," in Shaping the Urban Landscape: Aspects of the Canadian City-Building Process, eds. Gilbert A. Stelter and Alan F.J. Artibise, (Ottawa, 1982), 356-381, pp.373-4.

(53) . The Gazette, 24 March 1893.

(54) . The Montreal Star, 23 March 1893.

(55) . The Montreal Star, 23 March 1893. The Gazette, 24 March 1893.

(56) . The Gazette, 24 March 1893. The Montreal Star, 24 March 1893.

(57) . The Gazette, 24 March 1893. La Patrie, 25 March 1893.

(58) . Mile End Council Minutes, 23 March 1893.

(59) . MSRC Minutes, 30 March 1893. STCUM 13-200-234.

(60) . La Presse, 25 March 1893.

(61) . Protest of citizens of St. Louis du Mile End against the inquities and arbitrary behaviour of the Montreal Street Railway Company, 25 March 1893. VLDC.

(62) . The Montreal Star, 27 March 1893.

(63) . Mile End Council Minutes, Special Session, 27 March 1893.

(64) . Mile End Council Minutes, 10 March 1893.

(65) . MSRC Minutes, 16 March 1893. STCUM 13-200-234.

(66) . Mile End Council Minutes, Special Session, 27 March 1893. One newspaper found the unusual and bungled episodes in the Mile End council "rather funny." "Enfin! La Comedie est Finie." La Patrie, 28 March 1893.

(67) . MSRC Minutes, 19 May 1893. STCUM 13-200-234.

(68) . The Gazette, 28 March 1893. La Presse, 28 March 1893.

(69) . La Presse, 28 March 1893.

(70) . P&I Minutes, 6 June 1885. The company was incorporated by private bill of the Quebec Legislature, No. 48, 4th session, 5th parliament, 48 Victoria. STCUM 13-200-245.

(71) . P&I Minutes, 9 May 1893. STCUM 13-200-245.

(72) . Mile End Council Minutes, Special Session, 8 June 1893; The Montreal Star, 9 June 1893.

(73) . Mile End Council Minutes, Special Session, 8 June 1893.

(74) . The Gazette, 10 June 1893.

(75) . Mile End Council Minutes, 12 June 1893.

(76) . White, Duclos and O'Halloran (Advocates) to S. Mondou, Secretary, Turnpike Trust, 21 June 1893. National Archives of Canada (NAC), MG 28 III 27, Vol.31.

(77) . White, Duclos and O'Halloran (Advocates) to Richard White, Chairman of the Trustees of the Montreal Turnpike Roads, 23 June 1893. NAC MG 28 III 27, Vol. 31. The Gazette, 22 June 1893.

(78) . Ibid.

(79) . The Gazette, 22 June 1893.

(80) . Mile End Council Minutes, 22 June 1893.

(81) . The lawyer for Mile End sent a notice several days after the council meeting to apologize on behalf of the city for its inappropriate actions againt the Trust. F.J. Bisaillon (Advocate of Mile End) to Richard White, Chairman, Turnpike Trust, 26 June 1893. NAC MG 28 III 27, Vol. 31.

(82) . The Gazette, 22 June 1893.

(83) . Assembly of Property Owners, Merchants, and Voters of Mile End to the Mayor and Members of Council of St. Louis du Mile End, 22 June 1893. VLDC.

(84) . Citizens Committee of St. Louis du Mile End to the Mayor and Councillors, 14 June 1893 and 11 July 1893; Residents of rue St. Laurent to the Mayor and Councillors of Mile End, 17 June 1893. VLDC.

(85) . The Gazette, 15 July 1893; P&I Minutes, 13 July 1893. STCUM 13-200-245; Christine Meisner Rosen, "Infrastructural Improvement in Nineteenth-Century Cities: A Conceptual Framework and Cases," Journal of Urban History 12 (May, 1986) 211-56, p.223, confirms that division of territory was an effective and typical means of eliminating harmful competition and increasing profits for utility companies. The practice of dividing territory was not restricted to North America. For a discussion of the division of territory in South America and globally by electrical companies, see R.S. Newfarmer and S. Topik, "Testing Dependency Theory: a Case Study of Brazil's Electrical Industry," in The Geography of Multinationals: Studies in the Spatial Development and Economic Consequences of Multinational Corporations, eds. Michael Taylor and Nigel Thrift (London, 1982), especially 37-43.

(86) . The Gazette, 15 July 1893.

(87) . P&I Minutes, 13 July 1893. STCUM 12-200-245.

(88) . Mile End Council Minutes, 13 August 1894.

(89) . Petitioners to the Mayor and Councillors of St. Louis du Mile End, 17 September 1894. VLDC.

(90) . David W. Jones, Urban Transit Policy: An Economic and Political History (Englewood Cliffs, 1985), pp.30-1.

(91) . See Edward S. Mason, The Street Railway in Massachusetts: The Rise and Decline of an Industry (Cambridge, Mass., 1932), esp. pp. 29-34; and Delos F. Wilcox, Analysis of the Electrical Railway Problem: Report to the Federal Electric Railways Commission with Summary and Recommendations, (New York City, 1921), pp. 36-42.

(92) . Davis, "Mass Transit and Private Ownership," pp. 83-84.

(93) . D. Jones, Urban Transit Policy, p.32.

(94) . P&I Minutes, 3 June 1898. STCUM 13-200-245. Special Meeting of Shareholders and Bondholders of the Montreal Park & Island Railway Company, 7 June 1898. STCUM 13-200-245. Annual Meeting of the Montreal Park & Island Railway, 15 September 1898. STCUM 13-200-245.

(95) . Contract with the Town of St. Louis (Mile End), 21 October 1901. STCUM 13-200-247.

(96) . Census of Canada 1901, Vol. 1, p. 112.

(97) . Annual Report of the Montreal Tramways Company, 1911. STCUM Documents Library.

(98) . Montreal was served by two other, relatively small companies. The Montreal Island Belt Railway (renamed Montreal Terminal Railway in 1901), began servicing the eastern part of the city with one line in 1896. The MSRC took control of the company in 1907. The Suburban Tramway and Power Company (founded 1904) was a subsidiary of the MSRC and served Longue Pointe on the eastern part of the Island.

(99) . Municipal reform movements across North America, including Montreal, were motivated in part by the graft and boodling associated with municipal contracts. See Yago, The Decline of Transit, Armstrong and Nelles, "Street Railway Strategies" and The Revenge of the Methodist Bicycle Company; Gauvin, "The Reformer and the Machine"; John C. Weaver, "Elitism and the Corporate Ideal: Businessmen and Boosters in Canadian Civic Reform, 1890-1920," in Cities in the West: Proceedings of the Western Canada Urban History Conference, ed. A.R. McCormack and lan MacPherson, (1974), 48-73.

(100) . Bribery in town councils was nothing new and streetcar entrepreneurs were always ready to line the pockets of local politicians. An inquiry into corruption charges surrounding the streetcar contract in Toronto revealed some of the illicit activities that usually go undocumented. William Mackenzie and his syndicate in Toronto (including James Ross, director of the MSRC) routinely bribed municipal aldermen to gain their support in council. H.A. Everett, the managing director of the MSRC, was also implicated for offering "loans" to aldermen with no obligation for repayment. See Armstrong and Nelles, The Revenge of the Methodist Bicycle Company, 43-47 and 121-128. In Montreal, the MSRC provided Mayor Prefontaine, the master of the political machine in the city (1887-1900), with "a lucrative slush fund" for his support. Michel Gauvin, "The Municipal Reform Movement in Montreal, 1886-1914," Unpublished M.A. thesis, (University of Ottawa, 1972), 13 and 56. The newspaper editor and owner of The Montreal Star accused Louis Forget, as president of the Montreal Gas Company, of bribing aldermen. Forget was also president of the MSRC and likely used the same techniques to forward the interests of the streetcar company. His association with Prefontaine was close--in 1898, he sat as the chair of the mayor's election committee! Michel Gauvin, "The Reformer and the Machine: Montreal Civic Politics from Raymond Prefontaine to Mederic Martin," Journal of Canadian Studies 13 (Summer 1978), 16-26, pp. 18,57.