Those who favoured the sale of beer on licensed premises in Carleton Place won out by slim majorities in a vote taken on Wednesday of this week. Those entitled to vote were asked on one ballot if they favoured such outlets for men and on another ballot if they favoured such outlets for women. The results favoured the men by three votes over the required 60 per cent and the women by 13 votes. With about 75 per cent of those eligible to cast ballots doing so there were 1477 for men’s beverage rooms and 980 against; 1497 for women’s beverage rooms and 977 against.
If the drys demand a recount they have four days in which to register their intention. They must post a bond of $100 to cover expenses as a judge must preside. The peculiar thing about the vote is that there were more in favour of women’s beverage rooms than for men’s. Apparently the women went out in an “equal rights” attitude and pounded the anvil successfully. A recount might well result in beverage rooms for women only—a situation that was duplicated in Chapleau some years ago.
The anomalous outcome in the Northern Ontario town was overcome in some amicable manner which escapes the memory of the writer. It is said there are bitter recriminations flying around among the “drys” in Carleton Place who feel that a little more effort would have brought success. But a number are consoling themselves with the thought that the “wets’ ‘ had a heavy 60 per cent majority to hurdle and they didn’t have much to boast about. This is the third time a try has been made for licences in Carleton Place.
Memories of Carleton Place– Today it’s hard to believe, but in early and mid 1800s it was possible to walk into a drugstore or even approach a hotel desk like the Queens and buy cocaine or even arsenic as they were medicinal aids. The travelling salesmen that stayed at Queen’s often sold their wares at the front desk to those who needed it. Especially to owner Mrs. Chatterton’s gals that worked in the alleyway.
There use to be a longish narrow building at the back of the Queens at the backside of the parking lot. It was still there in 1984-85. I was told years ago that it use to be a stable back in its day – for the people’s horses when they came by horse to the Queens. Don’t know if that was true or not – but took it as if it was. It had an upper level too. In 1984 or 85 there was an apartment on that upper level as I remember Audrey Wilson living there then.
Amy Chamney sent this photo in that shows a random selection board what they had in the Carleton Place LCBO too.
Marilyn White–My Dad Ken Fournier worked in the liquor store. I remember you had to write down what you wanted and went up to the counter and the wicket and they got it for you. I was told as I wasn’t old enough to go in.
Amy Chamney–This would have been in the early 1970’s until perhaps even as late as 1980? Employees would have been Alvin Timmins, John Chamney, Elmer (?), and occasionally some spares for Christmas rush or vacation time.
I remember that this location had the “menu” of spirits on large boards at a counter, similar to a checking counter at a bank. Then, the patron wrote down on a slip of paper which liquor or wine, etc. they wanted and handed it to an employee who was behind a larger counter, with rows of shelving behind him. My Dad (John A. Chamney) or another employee, would then bring off the shelf the bottle(s) and ring up the customer. It certainly was the days of liquor “control.” Self-service did not arrive to the LCBO until they moved into the newer building on Landsdowne Ave.
Those were also the days that the Police service would pick up an employee of the LCBO and drive them down the block to the bank to do the nightly deposit, and stay with the employee until the deposit was safely made into the large night-deposit slot. I believe the police did this for other large-cash businesses such as the grocery stores
Karen Blackburn Chenier–I was the first female employee at that LCBO. The test to get hired was whether I could lift a case of 40 oz.bottles onto the conveyor belt that travelled from the basement to the main floor. Elmer Johnson was the other full time employee. magine if they had to list all the products that are available now!
Anonymous–I turned legal that day and went into the Carleton Place liquor store. I had been lying about my age for a long time. That day they decided they were going to finally get me for lying. Waving his hands the manager signalled for the store clerk to nab me while he called the cops. He had had enough”.
“The 12th of July” –Photo Carleton Place and Beckwith Heritage Museum- See ‘Liquour Control Board’ on distance
Will you be kind enough to permit a resident of the northeast side of the village to call the attention of the ratepayers to the late action of the council granting a license to John Fay. to sell liquor. I have said “ to sell liquor,” which be the only object, as he has no accommodation for travellers or stabling. This John Fay is living with his father-in-law, Dennis Murphy and there are no more rooms than wanted for both families.
For stables and sheds there is but one small cow house. The house is far from the business part of the village and no one will stop there unless for glass of whiskey. The evil results granting licenses for such purposes have already been observed in drunken rows and men staggering home there from a late hour. There is but one opinion of the matter and that is that the Council have done very wrong in granting a license and should be held responsible all the evil which must undoubtedly result from it.
The facilities for drinking were dear knows, already sufficiently numerous without such an increase. The Inspector, S. Tooley, is, I believe, doing his duty, and will, let us hope, be supported by the action of the authorities as well its the voice of public opinion. Mr. Tooley can put and end to it all by doing his duty.
Mr. Peter McArthur, if I am rightly informed, strongly objected to granting the license in question. Mr. Tooley deserves no credit for straining a point to give John Fay a Certificate. Putting up half a dozen boards in a cow house and calling it a stable—saying that has “ four spare bedrooms” when there are only five bedrooms in the whole house, to two families, is too near a lie to be called honest. The owner of the house, Dennis Murphy, a decent laboring man works in the No 2 mill.
The Hotel keeper,” John Fay,’, is his son in law and lives with him, also a laboring man, but not contented with earning an honest living. By the license of a venal Council duty it is to protect the public, takes to pandering to the miserable appetites of the unfortunates who crave after Whiskey. If John Fay has any shame let him close his business down
I noticed in the last issue of your paper, a letter signed “ Resident,” in which he makes a bitter comment on my Hotel, as well as a disgraceful attack on the council, for granting me a license. Now, sir, I ask permission, through the columns of your paper, to prove to the public-that “ Resident’s ” letter is nothing but a gross fabrication of falsehoods. In the first place, Mr. Tooley, the Inspector, came and inspected the premises, and found everything according to the requirement of the law.
I have four spare bedrooms, as well as two sitting rooms, of which are well furnished. I have not as was stated, a cow house, (but a good stable stalled off too hold eight horses) and a good well in the yard, from which Mr. Resident has been often accommodated. So he ought to blush at his misrepresentations and falsehoods but seems that his mind is nothing but a sink of pollution and that in attacking good and respectable neighbours, he opens up a sewer, to carry off his daily accumulating filth.
l am sorry to have to make those unpleasant remarks, but in justice to myself I cannot help but shut up the – falsehoods of this worthless character – to the public and would future to mind his own business as I know him well.
John Fay
Information Wanted Almonte Gazette–6th March, 1873
Sir,— I understand there exists a bylaw in this village, and very rightly too, making it necessary that proprietors of Minstrel Troops, clog-dancing and other like shows, are obliged to take out a before they are privileged to open such exhibitions.
Since your last issue, two of these parasites have made a drain upon our industrious villagers without adding any quota to our village. It appears to the writer that not only is this by law, but several others are nothing more or less than a dead letter. I would like to know who are the proper parties to put these bylaws in force in the absence of a mayor or enforcer of bylaws. Or would it net be more advisable that the Council should appoint an officer for that purpose, with a reasonable allowance of salary for his trouble, in order that the dignity of the law would be sustained.
lindaseccaspina 